Tuesday, November 12, 2013

It's Bowe Tuesday yet again...
and he's still NOT home...

British and American aid subsidizes "Palestinian" jihad terrorism

From Jihad Watch / Posted by Robert Spencer

Unconscionable, but not in the least surprising. "How British and American aid subsidises Palestinian terrorism," by Edwin Black in the Guardian, November 11 (thanks to Kenneth):
On both sides of the pond, in London and Washington, policymakers are struggling to weather their budget crises. Therefore, it may astound American and British taxpayers that the precious dollars and pounds they deploy in Israel and the Occupied Territories fungibly funds terrorism.
The instrument of this funding is US and UK programs of aid paid to the Palestinian Authority. This astonishing financial dynamic is known to most Israeli leaders and western journalists in Israel. But it is still a shock to most in Congress and many in Britain's Parliament, who are unaware that money going to the Palestinian Authority is regularly diverted to a program that systematically rewards convicted prisoners with generous salaries. These transactions in fact violate American and British laws that prohibit US funding from benefiting terrorists. More than that, they could be seen as incentivizing murder and terror against innocent civilians.
Here's how the system works. When a Palestinian is convicted of an act of terror against the Israeli government or innocent civilians, such as a bombing or a murder, that convicted terrorist automatically receives a generous salary from the Palestinian Authority. The salary is specified by the Palestinian "law of the prisoner" and administered by the PA's Ministry of Prisoner Affairs. A Palestinian watchdog group, the Prisoners Club, ensures the PA's compliance with the law and pushes for payments as a prioritized expenditure. This means that even during frequent budget shortfalls and financial crisis, the PA PA pays the prisoners' salaries first and foremost – before other fiscal obligations.
The law of the prisoner narrowly delineates just who is entitled to receive an official salary. In a recent interview, Ministry of Prisoners spokesman Amr Nasser read aloud that definition: 
A detainee is each and every person who is in an Occupation prison based on his or her participation in the resistance to Occupation.
This means crimes against Israel or Israelis. Nasser was careful to explain:
It does not include common-law thieves and burglars. They are not included and are not part of the mandate of the ministry.
Under a sliding scale, carefully articulated in the law of the prisoner, the more serious the act of terrorism, the longer the prison sentence, and consequently, the higher the salary.
Incarceration for up to three years fetches a salary of almost $400 per month. Prisoners behind bars for between three and five years will be paid about $560 monthly – a compensation level already higher than that for many ordinary West Bank jobs.
Sentences of ten to 15 years fetch salaries of about $1,690 per month. Still worse acts of terrorism against civilians, punished with sentences between 15 and 20 years, earn almost $2,000 per month.
These are the best salaries in the Palestinian territories. The Arabic word ratib, meaning "salary", is the official term for this compensation. The law ensures the greatest financial reward for the most egregious acts of terrorism.
In the Palestinian community, the salaries are no secret; they are publicly hailed in public speeches and special TV reports. The New York Times and the Times of Israel have both mentioned the mechanism in passing. Only British and American legislators seem to be uninformed about the payments.
From time to time, the salaries are augmented with special additional financial incentives. For example, in 2009, a $150-per-prisoner bonus was approved to mark the religious holiday of Eid al-Adha. President Mahmoud Abbas also directed that an extra $190 "be added to the stipends given to Palestinians affiliated with PLO factions in Israeli prisons this month"....
Third parties have had an unbroken record of failure in American presidential politics. So it was refreshing to see in the Tea Party an insurgent movement, mainly of people who were not professional politicians, but who nevertheless had the good sense to see that their only chance of getting their ideals enacted into public policies was within one of the two major parties.

More important, the Tea Party was an insurgent movement that was not trying to impose some untried Utopia, but to restore the lost heritage of America that had been eroded, undermined or just plain sold out by professional politicians.

What the Tea Party was attempting was conservative, but it was also insurgent -- if not radical -- in the sense of opposing the root assumptions behind the dominant political trends of our times. Since those trends have included the erosion, if not the dismantling, of the Constitutional safeguards of American freedom, what the Tea Party was attempting was long overdue.

ObamaCare epitomized those trends, since its fundamental premise was that the federal government had the right to order individual Americans to buy what the government wanted them to buy, whether they wanted to or not, based on the assumption that Washington elites know what is good for us better than we know ourselves.

The Tea Party's principles were clear. But their tactics can only be judged by the consequences.

Since the Tea Party sees itself as the conservative wing of the Republican Party, its supporters might want to consider what was said by an iconic conservative figure of the past, Edmund Burke: "Preserving my principles unshaken, I reserve my activity for rational endeavours."

Fundamentally, "rational" means the ability to make a ratio -- that is, to weigh one thing against another. Burke makes a key distinction between believing in a principle and weighing the likely consequences of taking a particular action to advance that principle.

There is no question that the principles of anyone who believes in the freedom of American citizens from arbitrary government dictates like ObamaCare -- unauthorized by anything in the Constitution and forbidden by the 10th Amendment -- must oppose this quantum leap forward in the expansion of the power of government.

There is nothing ambiguous about the principle. The only question is about the tactics, the Tea Party's attempt to defund ObamaCare. The principle would justify repealing ObamaCare. So the only reason for the Tea Partyers' limiting themselves to trying to defund this year was a recognition that repealing it was not within their power.

The only question then is: was defunding ObamaCare within their power? Most people outside the Tea Party recognized that defunding ObamaCare was also beyond their power -- and events confirmed that.

It was virtually inconceivable from the outset that the Tea Party could force the Democrats who controlled the Senate to pass the defunding bill, even if the Tea Party had the complete support of all Republican Senators -- much less pass it with a majority large enough to override President Obama's certain veto.

Therefore was the Tea Party-led attempt to defund ObamaCare something that met Burke's standard of a "rational endeavour"?

With the chances of making a dent in ObamaCare by trying to defund it being virtually zero, and the Republican Party's chances of gaining power in either the 2014 or 2016 elections being reduced by the public's backlash against that futile attempt, there was virtually nothing to gain politically and much to lose.

However difficult it might be to repeal ObamaCare after it gets up and running, the odds against repeal, after the 2014 and 2016 elections, are certainly no worse than the odds against defunding it in 2013. Winning those elections would improve the odds.

If the Tea Party made a tactical mistake, that is not necessarily fatal in politics. People can even learn from their mistakes -- but only if they admit to themselves that they were mistaken. Whether the Tea Party can do that may determine not only its fate but the fate of an America that still needs the principles that brought Tea Party members together in the first place.

The Continuing Obamacare Disaster

By Daniel J. Mitchell / Townhall Columnist

You know things are going poorly for the Obama White House when even theNew York Times is writing about the “third world experience” of Obamacare.

Heck, it’s almost gotten to the point where I feel sorry for the President.

But I guess I must be a mean-spirited anti-government ideologue, because I can’t stop myself from mocking the President’s ill-fated healthcare scheme. Whether I’m sharing funny cartoons or sarcastic videos, I can’t resist the temptation to kick Obamacare while it’s down
In this spirit of love and togetherness, let’s take a look at some recent news about the law.
McClatchy News has a big expose that reveals the magnitude of the President’s if-you-like-your-insurance-you-can-keep-it prevarication. Let’s review a couple of excerpts from the story, beginning with a comparison of the President’s promise and the staggering revelation that as many as 52 million Americans may have the rugged pulled out from under them.
Even as President Barack Obama sold a new health care law in part by assuring Americans they would be able to keep their insurance plans, his administration knew that tens of millions of people actually could lose those their policies. …report in 2010 said that as many as 69 percent of certain employer-based insurance plans would lose that protection, meaning as many as 41 million people could lose their plans even if they wanted to keep them and would be forced into other plans. Another 11 million who bought their own insurance also could lose their plans. Combined, as many as 52 million Americans could lose or have lost old insurance plans.
Amazingly, the President continues to be truth-challenged.
Obama insisted anew Thursday that the problem is limited to people who buy their own insurance. “We’re talking about 5 percent of the population who are in what’s called the individual market. They’re out there buying health insurance on their own,” he told NBC. But a closer examination finds that the number of people who have plans changing, or have already changed, could be between 34 million to 52 million. That’s because many employer-provided insurance plans also could change, not just individually purchased insurance plans.
Now let’s examine an example of what this means. The Weekly Standard reportson what has happened to some citizens from flyover country.
McDonald's Obamacare CartoonIn North Dakota, only 30 people have so far signed up for Obamacare. Meanwhile, 35,000 people have already or will be losing their existing health insurance plans in that state alone.
But that’s not the only bad news for the President’s statist healthcare scheme.
It seems that Obamacare is a gold mine for crooks and con artists. Let’s look atparts of a New York Times story.
Obamacare Identity Theft Cartoon
To the list of problems plaguing President Obama’s health care law, add one more — fraud. …State and federal authorities report a rising number of consumer complaints, ranging from deceptive sales practices to identity theft, linked to the Affordable Care Act. …Some level of fraud or abuse is predictable with any big government program… But now, the technical failures troubling the HealthCare.gov website, as well as the law’s complexity, threaten to make matters worse.
…Authorities warn that in some cases the come-ons are merely a ruse to get people to divulge sensitive Medicare and banking information. …Medicare has also long been a magnet for swindlers, thanks to its sheer scale and complexity. The troubled rollout of the new health care law has amplified the problem.
By the way, this story doesn’t even mention the possibility and risk of hackers and identity thieves breaking into the massive government databases that will be created as a result of Obamacare.

And if you’ll allow me to briefly digress, the same danger exists if politicians create the huge tracking-and-monitoring database that would be necessary if state politicians get the authority to tax out-of-state Internet sales.

Returning to the topic of Obamacare, it’s also worth noting that the growing burden of taxes and spending isn’t part of the aforementioned stories. Yet can there be any doubt that the program’s failures will lead to even more spending?

Not that any of us should be surprised. That’s almost always been the case when politicians create new entitlement programs. Indeed, I would pat myself on the back for making exactly this predication about Obamacare, but anybody with a room-temperature IQ knew this would happen, so I can’t claim any special insight.

But this does give me a reason to share this new Lisa Benson cartoon.
Obamacare Cost Cartoon
Needless to say, I’m enjoying the ongoing Obamacare disaster. But not just for reasons of Schadenfreude. The cluster-you-know-what of Obamacare is good news because it increases our chances of repealing the law in a few years (just as I predicted back in April).

But not just our chance to repeal Obamacare. We may actually have a chance to deal with the larger government-caused problems in our healthcare system, all of which lead to third-party payer and undermine the efficiency and low costs that exist when there is a genuine free market.

The Senate’s 2014 National Defense Authorization Debate Looms

by / Personal Liberty Digest

The United States Senate is slated to take up the 2014 iteration of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the annual bill loaded with hundreds of controversial amendments which sets major policy directives for the Pentagon’s coming year.

Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), a ranking member on the Armed Services Committee, told Defense News that the upper legislative chamber will likely begin discussing NDAA prior to Nov. 18.

“We’ve been talking about it. There’s been some talk about the 18th is when it would start,” Inhofe said.

“Sooner is better,” he continued. “It’s going to take a full week. So it would seem to me that we should get started sooner than the 18th.”

NDAA bills in recent years have received a great deal of public attention — especially the 2012 NDAA bill — because of the inclusion of a provision which uses broad, ill-defined language to grant the government the authority to indefinitely detain and use military force against any American citizen deemed a terrorist by bureaucrats.

The American Civil Liberties Union notes:
In December 2011, President Obama signed the 2012 NDAA, codifying indefinite military detention without charge or trial into law for the first time in American history.
The NDAA’s dangerous detention provisions would authorize the president — and all future presidents — to order the military to pick up and indefinitely imprison people captured anywhere in the world, far from any battlefield. The ACLU will fight worldwide detention authority wherever we can, be it in court, in Congress, or internationally.
Under the Bush administration, similar claims of worldwide detention authority were used to hold even a U.S. citizen detained on U.S. soil in military custody, and many in Congress now assert that the NDAA should be used in the same way again. The ACLU believes that any military detention of American citizens or others within the United States is unconstitutional and illegal, including under the NDAA. In addition, the breadth of the NDAA’s detention authority violates international law because it is not limited to people captured in the context of an actual armed conflict as required by the laws of war.
In an attempt to quiet public concern with the signing of last year’s NDAA bill Congress added a provision, Sec. 1029, asserting that “any person inside the United States” is allowed his Constitutional rights, including habeas corpus as a fix for the indefinite detention provision. But critics of the government’s broad detention powers remained unimpressed.

“Saying that new language somehow ensures the right to habeas corpus — the right to be presented before a judge — is both questionable and not enough. Citizens must not only be formally charged but also receive jury trials and the other protections our Constitution guarantees. Habeas corpus is simply the beginning of due process. It is by no means the whole,” Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said last January.

Voting on this year’s NDAA bill is expected to bring about debate on a number of contentious issues, not the least of which is the National Security Agency’s (NSA) sweeping surveillance on the American public.

In July, when the defense appropriations bill was under House consideration, an amendment to stop the NSA’s spying was narrowly defeated. Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) said last week that he hopes a repeat of the House NSA debate doesn’t occur as the Senate considers the appropriations bill, telling The Hill that the bill is already too big.

Senators may opt to focus less on NSA-related quarreling in debating the 2014 NDAA, as Senators Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) have already offered up competing NSA bills which would, respectively, quell or strengthen the spy agency’s powers.

Also slated to come under consideration in upcoming NDAA talks is a proposal offered by Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), which has been billed as an effort to quell military sexual assaults.

Gillibrand’s proposal would remove the military chain of command from the process of prosecuting sexual assault and other major crimes among the ranks.

The bill could also give Senators a way to push a bevy of new sanctions against Iran following a recent White House offer to lessen sanctions on the nation in return for a temporary halt to the production of highly enriched uranium.

While NDAA doesn’t address sequestration spending caps, some legislators are expected to propose amendments that would give the Pentagon broader flexibility in applying mandatory spending cuts following much talk from top brass about the dangers of sequestration in recent months.

The Senate version of the NDAA grants the Obama Administration’s request for $526.6 billion for the Pentagon’s base budget and $79.4 billion to fund ongoing overseas conflicts.
pree release

Nashville, TN (November 11, 2013)
- Laurie Cardoza Moore, President & Founder of the International Christian, pro-Israel organization, Proclaiming Justice to The Nations (PJTN), is calling on Congress to demand the resignation of Secretary of State John Kerry for his recent inflammatory statement's inciting a third intifada by the Palestinians against the Jews in Israel and his comments delegitimizing Israel's rights to her ancient homeland.

"It is time for Jews, Christians and all people of conscience to contact their elected officials and demand that Congress hold this Administration accountable for the repeated efforts to violate International and Federal laws," notes Cardoza-Moore. "If we do not stand with Israel and defend her rights to her ancient homeland, we will be unable to defend ours."

Ms. Cardoza Moore, who also serves as an ECOSOC Special Envoy to the United Nations for the World Council of Independent Christian Churches (WCICC), condemned the statements by the Secretary of State, noting that less than 24 hours after Secretary Kerry made the inflammatory remarks, a Jewish family's car was targeted for a terrorist attack.

"The Obama Administration's policies continue to violate Federal and International Law, dating as far back as 1922," continued Ms. Cardoza Moore. 

As PJTN makes preparations for the global release of its next feature length documentary, Israel Indivisible: The Case For The Ancient Homeland in the biblical heartland of Israel, Ms. Cardoza Moore called on Congress to take action against Secretary Kerry. To suggest, by implication, that Israel will be guilty of inciting a third intifada is absolutely outrageous and unacceptable," stated Ms. Cardoza Moore. "Secretary Kerry's comments open the door for the attackers to use the age-old tactic of blaming their aggression on the victims.

"This administration is solely to blame for the destabilization of the region. From its failure to protect the lives of four Americans in Benghazi to the slaughter of Christians in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt and Syria, the only stabilizing force in the region is Israel." 

Israel Indivisible: The Case For The Ancient Homeland will make its global premiere Thursday night, November 14th, at Ariel University at 7pm in Ariel, Israel. The film will shine the light on the historical, archaeological, legal and biblical evidence to prove Israel's rights to her ancient homeland.

For Secretary Kerry to suggest the Jewish settlements in the West Bank are illegitimate is a violation of international law, as well as American law.

* For example, The Lodge-Fish Resolution of September 21, 1922, was a Joint Resolution passed by both houses of the U.S. Congress and signed by President Warren Harding, endorsing the Balfour Declaration with slight variations. This made the text of the Joint Resolution part of the law of the United States until this very day.

"Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that the United States of America favors the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people..." confirming the irrevocable right of Jews to settle in the area of Palestine - anywhere between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.

Under American Law when a joint resolution is passed by both the Senate and the House of Representatives in an identical form and then signed by the President, it becomes the Law of the U.S.

Therefore reconstituting Palestine as a National Homeland for the Jewish People worldwide and recognizing their historical connection to the land became part of US LAW. Any attempt to negate the Jewish people's right to Palestine and to deny them access and control in the area designated for the Jewish people by the League of Nations is an actionable infringement of both international law and the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, paragraph 2 of the United States Constitution), which dictates that Treaties "shall be the supreme Law of the Land".

Israel Indivisible: The Case For The Ancient Homeland was produced to educate and mobilize Jews, Christians and all people of conscience to stand in defense of Israel's legitimate right to her ancient homeland. 

Media Contact:
Jackie Monaghan
Laurie Cardoza Moore

* Source cited - Think - Israel by Ted Belman
The talks collapsed…and the world takes a deep breath…for now 
By: Diane Sori

He betrayed us with ObamaCare…now he wants to betray our country itself…betray our safety and hence our freedom by negotiating with the enemy…yet again.

Cleverly and calculatingly pocketing phony gestures of wanting peace through ‘supposed’ nuclear disarmament…gestures that they have NO intention of keeping…Iran will soon get its way if Obama gets his…and will become a defacto military power in the Middle East.  And it’s all because Barack HUSSEIN Obama is more than willing to accept an Iranian dictated, limited, and temporary halt of their nuclear program in exchange for the lifting of sanctions against them.

I think this sums it up quite well…our president (gag) is actually willing to jeopardize America’s (and Israel’s) safety to try and salvage his legacy of failure because he keeps pushing to accept whatever Iran…our enemy…wants.

Thankfully France…socialist France of all countries…had the good sense and backbone to stand strong by objecting to the draft agreement…a ‘sucker agreement’ French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius called it…saying in NO way did it go far enough to contain Iran’s nuclear ambitions…did NOT go far enough on the disarmament end. In fact, France wants Iran to only have uranium enriched to five per cent…which is still considered reactor grade fuel…meaning upgrading it to weapons-level would take much longer than for the 20 per cent enriched uranium which is what Iran wants.  And so they did what Obama…via John Kerry did NOT…for France implied in NO uncertain terms, ‘Iran must give up ALL its nuclear ambitions or it gets NOTHING’.

And of course Iranian spokespeople then called France “Israel’s representatives at the talks,” while Iran’s IRNA news agency bloviated that Iranian President Hassan Rouhani “urged” world powers to reach a deal.

Gee…Iran wants to deal…are the sanctions working perhaps (sarcastically said).

Remember, the whole point of these talks was to stop the Iranian-led nuclear arms race in the Middle East, and it’s doing just the opposite as Saudi Arabia has already placed orders with Pakistan for nukes.

So once again Barack HUSSEIN Obama built another standoff and completely owns what’s now a very possible doomsday scenario for the mere fact of his proposing negotiations…of his accepting a compromise of any sort…all shows his acceptance of Iran as a nuclear power.

And that is NOT good NOT good at all, because as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently said, “Iran gives practically nothing and gets a hell of a lot in return.”  And the man whose country has the most to lose if Iran is successful in its quest for nuclear weapons is absolutely right…as he usually is…for if Iran is successful in manipulating Obama and his mouthpiece John Kerry into doing their bidding they will soon be in possession of a nuclear bomb that will be pointed directly at Israel.

And while the talks have collapsed with NO deal being reached…as in the sanctions for now stay in place…they are scheduled to begin anew on November 20th between the six world powers* and Iran…as in if you don’t succeed at first try…try...again.  And I’m talking about Iran trying again NOT the United States standing strong against them.

And even with the collapse of the talks, Secretary of State John ‘Swiftboat’ Kerry had to get the last words in…the last words of a pandering sniveling coward…and say that “significant progress” had been made on the remaining differences.

Fact…NO real significant progress was made in the eyes of France…nor in the heart and soul of Israel…as France would NOT back down on their concerns over Iran’s plutonium project and the level of their uranium enrichment program…a program where, like I said above, they wanted to limit Iran’s uranium enrichment capabilities to levels that would require substantial further enriching before it could be used as the core of a nuclear weapon…and in their wanting tougher constraints on the Arak reactor that could produce enough plutonium for several nuclear weapons within a year of it going online.

And you can guess why Iran said NO to either of France’s demands…in a word…Israel.

But Kerry…as anti-Israel as is Obama…was NOT concerned about these important issues and was more than willing to cower in appreciation to Iran’s throwing of a tidbit of a ‘temporary halt’ in their nuclear ambitions and with NO mention of dismantling any of its reactors or toning down its anti-Israel rhetoric.

And while Iran still bloviates over and over that it’s nuclear wants are strictly for medical and energy needs, we know that Iran could turn the material it has on hand into the core of nuclear warheads. Remember, they currently run more than 10,000 centrifuges that have created tons of fuel-grade material that can be further enriched to arm nuclear warheads, including the 440 lbs of higher-enriched uranium they already have that’s in a form that can be turned into weapons even more quickly.

So the bottom line is this…while last week in Iran the lunatic clerics had thousands marching in lock-step spewing the usual rhetoric of “Death to America” and “Death to Israel,” Secretary of State John ‘Swiftboat’ Kerry…doing Barack HUSSEIN Obama’s bidding of course…was trying to negotiate a deal with our enemy Iran to allow for the easing of crippling but successful international sanctions against them in return for Iran agreeing to temporarily halt its aspirations of being a nuclear power…agreeing with their fingers crossed behind their back that is.

And while the negotiations failed right now thanks to the French having common sense to realize that Iran was playing the West for fools…John Kerry was bloviating that a deal was close and that he and the Iranians would be meeting again on November 20th.

And to that I say ‘Heaven help us all’ for if a deal of any sorts is reached the doomsday clock gets set…and does so with Iran setting the timer.

* United States, France, China, Russia, Germany, and Britain