Video: Muslims Threat to Geert Wilders

EDITORIAL: ISRAEL IS OUR ONLY FRIEND

Every American who is concerned about the threatening world around us knows that Israel is the only real friend that we have in the world. So ,when Mohammed ElBaradei unleashed his International Atomic Energy Agency’s diatribe against Israel –  Nuclear “watch dog” ElBaradei – demonized Israel for keeping it’s military capabilities quiet – we should pay attention.

When Mohammed announces to the world that “Israel is the number one threat to the Middle East because Israel has nuclear weapons – we should pay careful attention.

The only reason that Israel exists in the world today – and remains free, is because of those carefully protected weapons.  With the entire Muslim world constantly threatening Israel’s very existence we should pray that Israel doesn’t waiver for a moment.

We should wish that America had a Benjamin Netanyahu leading our foreign policy.  And, we should listen to his recent words describing his country as – “a democracy legitimately defending itself against terror is morally hanged, drawn and quartered, and given an unfair trial to boot.”  At least he pays attention – something all Americans should do when concerned about our “government”.
Just listen to the condemnation of U.N. Human Rights Council constantly condemning Israel.  This coming from a list of members who should all look in a mirror.  (When you read the list you will ask the same question that I do.  What are these nations doing on any list of people concerned with human “rights”?)

Americans should hope that Israel remains strong and will absolutely refuse to be intimidated.  Israel should never disclose anything to this disgusting “Rights Council” and it’s even more disgusting member States.

Israel’s amazing restraint toward its enemies should be recognized and rewarded.

America needs Israel.  Israel is our only friend and Israel is our only shield in the Middle East.

Don

The Real ElBaradei Unleashed

IBD: 6 Oct. 2009

Nuclear Proliferation: Watchdogs often bark loudest at those who pose no threat at all, such as the mailman. Mohamed ElBaradei, self-styled “nuclear watchdog,” is now barking at Israel.

The world will soon be seeing and hearing less from International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Mohamed ElBaradei. Those seeking to spare Western cities from nuclear terrorism won’t miss the Egyptian career bureaucrat.

As former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton noted in his book, “Surrender Is Not An Option,” ElBaradei “made excuses for Iran,” as it progressed toward building nuclear weapons “the entire time I was in the Bush administration.”

According to Bolton, Nobel Peace Prize-winner ElBaradei “was constantly hunting for ‘moderates’ in Iran’s leadership who did not want to pursue nuclear weapons, a nonexistent group, in our judgment, and more interested in trying to cut a deal than in faithfully reporting what IAEA inspectors were telling him.”

As early as mid-April 2003, as Bolton pointed out, ElBaradei’s IAEA knew that the centrifuges at Iran’s Natanz enrichment facility contained uranium hexafluoride, a compound used to make nuclear weapons fuel.

In less than two months, ElBaradei will be replaced as IAEA director general by Japanese diplomat Yukiya Amano. But as he packs up his office, is he giving the world a glimpse of the real motivations behind his softness toward Iran?

The Islamofascist regime in Tehran, with its illegitimately re-elected President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad repeatedly denying the Nazi genocide of the Jews and calling for the destruction of Israel, is one of the last governments on the globe that should be allowed to have weapons of mass destruction.

Yet speaking on Sunday in Tehran, the setting for talks with Iranian officials regarding their atomic program, ElBaradei said, “Israel is the No. 1 threat to the Middle East, given the nuclear arms it possesses.” In a joint press conference with Ali Akbar Salehi, the chief of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization, ElBaradei complained about Israel’s 30-year refusal to allow nuclear inspections.

Of at least equal note, ElBaradei also remarked that President Obama “has done some positive measures for the inspections to happen” on Israel’s nuclear plants.

What are we to take from that? Has the president asked Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to allow IAEA inspectors into his country, or is he pressing him to admit that Israel has nuclear weapons? Is the argument that by doing either Israel would be advancing the Mideast peace process?

Contrary to ElBaradei’s outrageous accusation and the president’s increasingly intimidating policy toward the Netanyahu government, the most effective catalyst for Mideast peace has, in fact, been the nuclear arming of Israel.

The routine wars between Israel and Arab states have stopped since Israel reached nuclear capability in 1967. And Egypt’s frequent tit-for-tat threats to build its own nukes, made under both Presidents Gamal Abdel Nasser and Anwar Sadat, fizzled out once the Jewish state actually possessed the bomb. Indeed, would the Camp David accords between Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin have been possible without a nuclear Israel?

Looking back on the past four decades, the Jewish state’s policy of refusing to confirm or deny its nuclear arsenal is, as the Old Testament proverb goes, a wisdom “more precious than rubies.” The only fully free, Westernized country in the Middle East has been able to let its surrounding enemies know that it will defend itself with the deadliest of force if its existence comes under direct threat.

And yet, despite its regional nuclear monopoly, Israel has refrained from using it on adversaries seeking its destruction.

In return for its restraint, as Netanyahu pointed out in his speech to the U.N. last month, “a democracy legitimately defending itself against terror is morally hanged, drawn and quartered, and given an unfair trial to boot” — a reference to the condemnation of his country by another U.N. agency, the Human Rights Council.

The London Times reports that a secret section of the IAEA’s account on Iran warns that Tehran “may already have tested a detonation system small enough to fit into the warhead of a medium-range missile.” Is there much doubt that what ElBaradei really wants is a Muslim member of the nuclear weapons club to offset the Jewish one? As he departs, and not a moment too soon, it’s an outrage to hear the nuclear “watchdog” bark in the wrong direction.

I Called Lifeline

I was depressed last night so I called Lifeline…

Got a freakin’ call center in Pakistan.

I told them I was suicidal.

They got all excited and asked if I could drive a truck.

Could The Feds Seize The Internet?

Does anyone trust Obama with “The power to define and declare” anything?

Could The Feds Seize The Internet?

IBD: 3 Sept. 2009

Security: A Senate bill lets the president “declare a cybersecurity emergency” relating to “nongovernmental” computer networks and do what’s needed to respond to the threat. Didn’t they just collect our e-mail addresses?

We wish this was just a piece of the fictional “Dr. Strangelove” that fell to the cutting-room floor, but it’s not. It is a real piece of disturbingly vague legislation sponsored by Sens. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., Bill Nelson, D-Fla., and Olympia Snowe, R-Maine.

Senate Bill 773 would grant the administration emergency powers (where have we heard that before?) in the event of a cyberemergency that the president would have the power to define and declare.

Wait a minute. Didn’t the left recently weep and gnash its teeth over President George W. Bush’s wireless surveillance of communications between real, live terrorists who want to kill us and their American contacts? Would Congress have given Bush such a sweeping power?

Have we already forgotten the administration wanting Americans to spy on their neighbors and report “fishy” communications opposing health care to flag@whitehouse.gov? Didn’t oodles of our e-mail addresses wind up in the White House from which then came unsolicited e-mails supporting ObamaCare?

A working draft of the legislation, which is in its second incarnation, obtained by an Internet privacy group, would grant the secretary of commerce access to all privately owned information networks deemed critical to the nation’s infrastructure “without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule or policy restricting such access.” Where’s the ACLU?

Sen. Rockefeller says he wants to prevent a “digital Pearl Harbor,” and so do we. We have written extensively about the threat posed by foreign hackers and governments such as Russia and China to our power grids and the like. Chinese hackers have even penetrated Pentagon computer networks. We are also mindful of sacrificing a little liberty in the name of security and winding up with neither.

“The cybersecurity threat is real,” said Leslie Harris, president of the Center for Democracy and Technology, which obtained the draft of S. 773, “but such a drastic federal intervention in private communications technology and networks could harm both security and privacy.”

Jennifer Granick, civil liberties director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, told Mother Jones the bill was “contrary to what the Constitution promises us.” According to Granick, granting the Commerce Department oversight of “critical” networks such as banking systems would grant the government access to potentially incriminating information without cause or warrant, a violation of the Constitution’s prohibition against unlawful search and seizure.

Like the health care bill, there are several versions of S. 773; what people have seen is vaguely written. The bill does not clearly define what a cyberemergency or critical network is. Nor does it explicitly define the powers of the president in such an emergency or what he is prevented from doing. That is left up to the administration in power.

Section 201 of the bill permits the president to “direct the national response to the cyber threat” for “the national defense and security.” The White House is supposed to engage in “periodic mapping” of private networks, and these companies “shall share” requested information with the federal government.

The federal government would be empowered to access any information on the Internet and find “choke points” where hackers and governments, including our own, might be able to control, or stop, the flow of data and information. Your Internet service provider would be required by law to supply federal bureaucrats with whatever network, account, usage and history information they deem appropriate.

To further keep an eye on things, the bill establishes a federal training and certification program for cybersecurity professionals and requires that certain computer systems and networks in the private sector be managed by people who have been properly trained by the government and awarded that government license. The private sector can’t be trusted to do the job.

But don’t be afraid. It’s for your own good. Big Brother will watch over you.