Wednesday, September 30, 2009

Time to Assert Jewish Rights

It's an obscenity that Jews are forbidden from praying at Judaism's holiest site for fear that muslims will riot. Instead of punishing the islamic thugs for perpatrating violence, peaceful Jewish worshippers are the ones being punished. Israel needs to stop indulging muslim supremacist attitudes and assert Jewish rights. This is not only a problem in Israel but throughout the west in appeasing muslims at the expense of the rights of non-muslims.

After Israel's victory in the six day war, Moshe Dayan, in a foolish gesture of goodwill towards the muslims who had just tried to drive the Jews into the sea, decided to allow the muslim waqf to administer the Temple Mount. Above all the Israelis should have understood that any such gestures of good will to the muslims will never be reciprocated but instead be seen as a sign of weakness which encourages further aggression from the muslims. There is no good will or friendship to be had with them. Israel should lift the ban on Jewish prayer at the Temple Mount and any attempt on the part of muslims to perpetrate violence against peaceful Jewish worshippers should be met with ruthless suppression by police. This is the only way to deal with islamic supremacism, by violently crushing it and demoralizing them and aggressively asserting our own rights.

Intolerance on the Temple Mount

Last week, our synagogue in Beit Shemesh made its annual High Holy Day week visit to the Temple Mount. We began the tradition six years ago when the site was reopened to non-Muslims. During the first three years following the start of the September 2000 war launched against Israel by the Palestinian Authority, Hamas and Hizbullah, the government decided to reward Arab terror by barring all non-Muslims from even setting foot on the Temple Mount.

Visiting the Temple Mount is a schizophrenic experience. When standing there, it is impossible not to be awestruck by the magnitude of where you are and the enormity of the colossal events that took place there. It is on the Temple Mount that both the First and Second Temple stood for nearly 1,000 years, where millions of Jews from all over the Land of Israel and the Diaspora made the three festival pilgrimages and where, according to Jewish belief, the Third Temple, ushering in the days of the messiah, is destined to be built. Throughout history, whenever and wherever Jews were engaged in prayer, they faced Jerusalem. And when in Jerusalem, they pray in the direction of the Temple Mount.

It boggles the mind to imagine your family tree and to consider when the last time anybody in the family line had been on the Temple Mount. Might that ancestor have been one of the survivors of the fighting that took place there prior to the destruction of the Second Temple by the Romans in 70 CE? Might it have been on Shavuot of that year, the final pilgrimage festival celebrated by the Jewish people prior to the destruction?

But now that I was standing in that holiest of places, which generations of Jews for 2,000 years could only dream of visiting, I was forbidden to pray. Simply moving my lips in whispered prayer could be grounds for removal. Why? Because I am a Jew. And only a Muslim can pray on the holiest site in Judaism. A Jew may not.

DURING THE War of Independence in 1948, the Old City of Jerusalem fell to the Jordanians. Nearly 1,500 Jews, including many women and children, were killed. While it was under Jordanian control, dozens of Jewish synagogues, many centuries old, were destroyed and the cemetery on the Mount of Olives, where Jews have been buried for 2,500 years, was desecrated. For 19 years, no Jew was allowed to set foot in the Old City or pray at the Western Wall, the retaining wall of the Temple Mount closest to where the Temples stood.

In June 1967, when Egypt, Syria and Jordan embarked on a war to annihilate the Jewish state, Israel recaptured Jerusalem's Old City. One of the most stirring announcements in Jewish history was the message transmitted from the front during the Six Day War: "The Temple Mount is in our hands."
Continue reading

Tuesday, September 29, 2009

Arabs Attack Jewish Worshippers in Old City

Israeli riot police tried to contain Arab muslim thugs bent on preventing Jews from praying at Judaism's holiest site, the Temple Mount. The savages threw rocks, chairs and shoes at the Jewish worshippers. I'm sure the liberal media will blame the Jews for doing nothing more than attempting to peacefully pray at their holy site and not the hateful, intolerant Arab miscreants, just as they blamed Ariel Sharon for sparking Arab-muslim riots merely because he walked around the Temple Mount. When will the Arab-muslims ever be held accountable for their actions and the west stop indulging their infantile behavior? I'm glad there are some courageous Jews willing to defy the muslims and assert their religious rights in their own homeland.

Israeli riot police, Palestinians clash at holy site

Palestinian protesters attempt to stop a Jewish prayer event outside the Al Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem's Old City, where such events are normally banned.
By Richard Boudreaux
September 28, 2009

Reporting from Jerusalem - Israeli riot police entered the grounds of Islam's third-holiest shrine Sunday and fired tear gas and stun grenades to disperse rock-throwing Palestinians who had gathered to prevent Jews from praying at the contested site in Jerusalem's Old City.

The 45-minute clash outside the Al Aqsa mosque underscored the volatility of Jerusalem's holy places in the decades-old Middle East conflict. It sparked protests by Jordan, the 22-member Arab League and the Palestinian Authority, which is engaged in U.S.-mediated efforts to revive peace talks with Israel.

Palestinian leaders called the Israeli police action a deliberate provocation. Police officials said Palestinians started the fight.

Seventeen police officers were reported hurt and 11 Palestinians arrested as the violence spilled into the narrow streets of the Old City and beyond. Medics said eight Palestinians were treated at hospitals.

The trouble started after about 200 religious Jews gathered outside the Old City's Dung Gate, intent on entering to pray in the compound revered by Jews as the Temple Mount and by Muslims as the Noble Sanctuary. Waiting near the mosque were about 150 Palestinian protesters who had been summoned by religious and civic leaders to block the Jews.

About 7 a.m., the gate opened and at least 70 police officers in riot gear escorted about 15 civilians inside, and fierce clashes ensued, witnesses said.

Initially police said they were escorting Jewish worshipers; later a police spokesman, Shmuel Ben Ruby, said the group was made up of non-Jewish French tourists.

Dmitri Diliani, a Palestinian Christian among the protesters, said at least two members of the escorted group wore kippahs, the skullcaps of observant Jewish men. Other protesters said they were convinced the police were ushering members of Israel's settler movement, whose communities on West Bank land claimed by the Palestinians are a source of contention.

Whoever they were, they quickly retreated as Palestinians began hurling rocks, chairs and shoes, according to Diliani and other witnesses.

Police pushed the Palestinians across a hilltop esplanade toward the mosque, where some of the protesters took refuge.

As other demonstrators tried to prevent the police from approaching the mosque, Muslim clerics arranged a truce, and the police left.

Religious and nationalist sentiment has made the site a tinderbox. Muslims believe the prophet Muhammad ascended to heaven from the spot, which is also home to the gilded Dome of the Rock shrine. Jews revere the place as the site of their first and second temples.

A visit in 2000 by Ariel Sharon, then Israel's opposition leader and later its prime minister, helped spark a violent Palestinian uprising. But forceful, large-scale Israeli police interventions in the compound are rare; Sunday's was the third in five years.

The site has been under Israeli control since its capture from Jordan in the 1967 Middle East War, but it is administered by a Muslim religious trust.

Under an agreement with the trust, Israelis may enter the compound under police escort but are barred from holding organized prayer sessions like the one planned for Sunday. In the face of such attempts in the past, Israeli police closed off access to the compound to prevent clashes.

By permitting an exception Sunday, said Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat, Israel "is deliberately escalating tensions in Jerusalem," where Palestinians want to locate the capital of a future state.

"The fate of Jerusalem lies in negotiations," he said. "It will not be decided by violence or brutality."

Sunday's violence erupted as Jews prepared for Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, which started at sundown. It did not affect Jewish prayers at the Western Wall, at the foot of the compound.

Monday, September 28, 2009

Revising History to Placate muslims

Political correctness has reached such a point of absurdity that now the history of the islamic alliance with the nazis is being scrubbed in order not to upset muslims in Germany as well as to perpetuate the false narrative of Arab-muslims as victims.

Multi-culturalists distort Nazi past to placate Muslims in Germany

By Robin Sheherd

What happens when multi-culturalist, anti-Israeli pieties clash with a full and rounded rendition of the Nazi past? If recent events in Berlin (of all places) are anything to go by the answer may be as follows: important truths will be denied so that those multi-culturalist, anti-Israeli pieties may be preserved.

In the most important commentary on the subject for quite some time, Daniel Schwammenthal of the Wall Street Journal Europe relates a story about such events which everyone should read and internalise. It is not only shocking in itself, it holds up an image of one of Europe’s possible futures.

Schwammenthal’s piece pegs off an attempt by a German journalist, Karl Rössel, to stage an exhibition at a state funded multi-cultural centre in an Arab and Turkish dominated area of Berlin. The exhibition was entitled “The Third World in the Second World War” and included a small section on the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al Husseini — the Palestinian leader and national hero who was an admirer of Hitler, a prolific propagandist for the Nazi cause and an active recruiter for the SS in wartime Yugoslavia where he participated in genocide.

Such facts, unfortunately, do not fit with the multi-culturalist narrative in which the people of the third world can only be counted as victims. Nor do they fit with important elements of the anti-Israeli narrative in which, as Schwammenthal notes, the notion that the Palestinians are “paying the price for Germany’s sins” as “the second victims” of the Holocaust is deeply rooted. The event was, therefore, cancelled. The Berlin authorities initially supported the decision but then belatedly and reluctantly backed down following accusations they were pandering to historical revisionism.

In Schwammenthal’s words:

“Mr. Rössel [the author of the exhibition] says this episode is typical of how German historians, Arabists and Islam scholars deny or downplay Arab-Nazi collaboration. What Mr. Rössel says about Germany applies to most of the Western world,where it is often claimed that the mufti’s Hitler alliance later discredited him in the region. Nothing could be further from the truth. In the Mideast, Nazis were not only popular during but also after the war—scores of them found refuge in the Arab world, including Eichman’s deputy, Alois Brunner, who escaped to Damascus. The German war criminals became trusted military and security advisers in the region, particularly of Nazi sympathizer Gamal Nasser, then Egypt’s president. The mufti himself escaped to Egypt in 1946. Far from being shunned for his Nazi past, he was elected president of the National Palestinian Council. The mufti was at the forefront of pushing the Arabs to reject the 1948 United Nations partition plan and to wage a “war of destruction” against the fledgling Jewish state. His great admirer, Yasser Arafat, would later succeed him as Palestinian leader.

“The other line of defense is that Arab collaboration with the Nazis supposedly wasn’t ideological but pragmatic, following the old dictum that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” This “excuse” not only fails to consider what would have happened to the Jews and British in the Mideast had the Arabs’ German friends won. It also overlooks the mufti’s and his followers’ virulent anti-Semitism, which continues to poison the minds of many Muslims even today.”

But not, it seems, if you listen to the BBC or read the Guardian or most other bien pensant organs of the media in western Europe. The inconvenient truths about Arab and Muslim anti-Semitism must be denied even if this means providing a distorted picture of the Holocaust and its participants and collaborators.

The other significant part of this story, of course, is that the furore arose in large part because of the location of the planned exhibition in an area dominated by Muslims. But since any discussion of potential problems arising from Europe’s soaring Muslim populations has been a priori designated as “racist” by multi-culturalist ideologues, that issue cannot be properly discussed either.

I’m afraid that this is the way things are going in modern Europe. And, be warned, this is just the start of it.

For a broader discussion of such issues as they relate to Israel, click here to purchase my recently published book, A State Beyond the Pale: Europe’s Problem with Israel:
Also see The Arab/muslim nazi connection.

Sunday, September 27, 2009

Haveil Havalim

This Week's edition of the Jewish blog carnival Haveil Havalim is being hosted by What War Zone.

Saturday, September 26, 2009

Israel Needs to Stop Being on the Defensive

The Sultan Knish explains why Israel is losing the media and military wars. Liberal defeatism, demoralization and being on the defensive since Oslo is the reason why, whereas once Israel acted tough and daring and crushed its enemies such as during the six day war, Entebbe and the bombing of Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor just to give some examples. Instead the priorities of political leaders in Israel these days are to be liked by the international community which will never happen and to avoid condemnation which it receives in spades anyway. If it is to survive, Israel needs to revert back to ruthlessly defeating its enemies, no making deals with terrorists or fighting wars with half measure and pinpoint strikes and then retreating, and land for peace. All of that only displays weakness and causes Israel's enemies to be more aggressive. Power and might are the only things that these people understand and respect, and the only way they can be dealt with. And with regard to the media war, no more public statements pleading to the international community that it is not guilty of the atrocities it is being accused of. Those accusers don't care, they know they are spewing lies, they are motivated by hate. Israel cannot continue to go around proving its not guilty to institutions and media outlets controlled by radical leftists and islamists.

Why Israel is Losing the Military and Media Wars
Every now and then bewildered Israeli politicians and outreach professionals call conferences to wonder why the Hasbara is failing and why Israel can't get its story across. They are given the usual advice of hiring more PR firms, finding innovative ways to get the message through, using the internet in smarter ways and of course that all time favorite, rebranding Israel. Naturally they follow this advice, only to call another conference a year later wondering why nothing has changed.

The answer is simple enough. Defensive PR, like defensive warfare, never works. And Israeli PR and Israeli warfare has been on the defensive for decades now. If you break down Israel's message to a single sentence, it's "We didn't do any of the things we're accused of." That is the kind of message you expect to hear from criminal defendants, and it's a message that impresses no one. The only thing it does is produce a debate about the validity of the accusations themselves, which is to PR what Stalingrad was to the Russian front.

The recent Aftonbladet case represents a classic scenario that demonstrates why Israel's defensive PR is doomed to fail over and over again. The Swedish tabloid Aftonbladet published an article claiming that Israeli soldiers were killing Palestinian Arabs in order to harvest their organs. The Israeli government pointed out that the article presented no evidence whatsoever, that no such thing had ever happened and demanded a retraction from the newspaper and condemnation of it by the Swedish government. The only thing Israel accomplished was to popularize the false allegation thus creating a debate over whether or not Israeli soldiers kill Palestinian Arabs to harvest their organs. Pleased by his newfound fame, the author of the article has only escalated his allegations and gone on to do a tour of the Arab world. Leftist propagandists can only watch the fallout and chuckle, because once again Israel has been suckered into playing the mug's game of defensive PR.

Defensive warfare of any kind is reactive. For the last few decades Israel has run itself ragged because it has been reactive. And by reactive I mean that Israel keeps responding to attacks against it, rather than taking the offensive. In the Six Day War, Israel responded to Nasser's planned assault, by preempting him and taking the offensive. The result was Israel's finest hour. In the Yom Kippur War, Israel waited and watched, and was nearly destroyed.

Few nations can afford to be purely reactive and play defense alone, Israel least of all because it is outnumbered by larger and more numerous enemies who can wear it down through sheer brute force. And that is exactly what has been happening on both the media and the military front. The terrorist campaign, planned, financed and executed first by the USSR, and then by the Arab and Muslim world, has worn out Israel both militarily and politically.

Israel's greatest asset was its innovation, its mobility and brilliance. Qualities that are best employed on the offensive. Instead Israel has been restricted to the defensive, constantly retreating, giving up both physical and ideological territory to its enemies, while wondering how much to give up in order to stem the bleeding. Which is the one reaction certain to put it even further on the defensive.

Israel wants a solution to the conflict. So do its enemies in both Islam and on the left and far right. A final solution. Each attempt by Israel to offer a solution has only brought Israel closer to that final solution. The more Israel has tried to show its goodwill, the more it has gotten stuck on the defensive. The goal of successive Israeli governments is no longer to be a great nation or a strong nation, but to be a nation that everyone likes.
Read the rest

Friday, September 25, 2009

Bibi's UN Speech

Iran's pygmy dictator, this worthless pile of dung who slaughtered his own people on the streets for protesting his stolen election, accused Israel of being inhumane in his pathetic, disgusting UN speech, days after once again denying the holocaust. Bibi countered with an outstanding speech castigating the UN for allowing this travesty to take place along with those degenerates who sat there and listened and he praised those who had the moral clarity to walk out.

PM Netanyahu addresses the UNGA

Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen,

Nearly 62 years ago, the United Nations recognized the right of the Jews, an ancient people 3,500 years-old, to a state of their own in their ancestral homeland.

I stand here today as the Prime Minister of Israel, the Jewish state, and I speak to you on behalf of my country and my people.
The United Nations was founded after the carnage of World War II and the horrors of the Holocaust. It was charged with preventing the recurrence of such horrendous events.

Nothing has undermined that central mission more than the systematic assault on the truth. Yesterday the President of Iran stood at this very podium, spewing his latest anti-Semitic rants. Just a few days earlier, he again claimed that the Holocaust is a lie.
Last month, I went to a villa in a suburb of Berlin called Wannsee. There, on January 20, 1942, after a hearty meal, senior Nazi officials met and decided how to exterminate the Jewish people. The detailed minutes of that meeting have been preserved by successive German governments. Here is a copy of those minutes, in which the Nazis issued precise instructions on how to carry out the extermination of the Jews. Is this a lie?

A day before I was in Wannsee, I was given in Berlin the original construction plans for the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp. Those plans are signed by Hitler’s deputy, Heinrich Himmler himself. Here is a copy of the plans for Auschwitz-Birkenau, where one million Jews were murdered. Is this too a lie?

This June, President Obama visited the Buchenwald concentration camp. Did President Obama pay tribute to a lie?

And what of the Auschwitz survivors whose arms still bear the tattooed numbers branded on them by the Nazis? Are those tattoos a lie? One-third of all Jews perished in the conflagration. Nearly every Jewish family was affected, including my own. My wife’s grandparents, her father’s two sisters and three brothers, and all the aunts, uncles and cousins were all murdered by the Nazis. Is that also a lie?

Yesterday, the man who calls the Holocaust a lie spoke from this podium. To those who refused to come here and to those who left this room in protest, I commend you. You stood up for moral clarity and you brought honor to your countries.

But to those who gave this Holocaust-denier a hearing, I say on behalf of my people, the Jewish people, and decent people everywhere: Have you no shame? Have you no decency?

A mere six decades after the Holocaust, you give legitimacy to a man who denies that the murder of six million Jews took place and pledges to wipe out the Jewish state.

What a disgrace! What a mockery of the charter of the United Nations! Perhaps some of you think that this man and his odious regime threaten only the Jews. You’re wrong.

History has shown us time and again that what starts with attacks on the Jews eventually ends up engulfing many others.

This Iranian regime is fueled by an extreme fundamentalism that burst onto the world scene three decades ago after lying dormant for centuries. In the past thirty years, this fanaticism has swept the globe with a murderous violence and cold-blooded impartiality in its choice of victims. It has callously slaughtered Moslems and Christians, Jews and Hindus, and many others. Though it is comprised of different offshoots, the adherents of this unforgiving creed seek to return humanity to medieval times.

Wherever they can, they impose a backward regimented society where women, minorities, gays or anyone not deemed to be a true believer is brutally subjugated. The struggle against this fanaticism does not pit faith against faith nor civilization against civilization.
It pits civilization against barbarism, the 21st century against the 9th century, those who sanctify life against those who glorify death.
The primitivism of the 9th century ought to be no match for the progress of the 21st century. The allure of freedom, the power of technology, the reach of communications should surely win the day. Ultimately, the past cannot triumph over the future. And the future offers all nations magnificent bounties of hope. The pace of progress is growing exponentially.

It took us centuries to get from the printing press to the telephone, decades to get from the telephone to the personal computer, and only a few years to get from the personal computer to the internet.
What seemed impossible a few years ago is already outdated, and we can scarcely fathom the changes that are yet to come. We will crack the genetic code. We will cure the incurable. We will lengthen our lives. We will find a cheap alternative to fossil fuels and clean up the planet.

I am proud that my country Israel is at the forefront of these advances - by leading innovations in science and technology, medicine and biology, agriculture and water, energy and the environment. These innovations the world over offer humanity a sunlit future of unimagined promise.

But if the most primitive fanaticism can acquire the most deadly weapons, the march of history could be reversed for a time. And like the belated victory over the Nazis, the forces of progress and freedom will prevail only after an horrific toll of blood and fortune has been exacted from mankind. That is why the greatest threat facing the world today is the marriage between religious fanaticism and the weapons of mass destruction.

The most urgent challenge facing this body is to prevent the tyrants of Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Are the member states of the United Nations up to that challenge? Will the international community confront a despotism that terrorizes its own people as they bravely stand up for freedom?

Will it take action against the dictators who stole an election in broad daylight and gunned down Iranian protesters who died in the streets choking in their own blood? Will the international community thwart the world’s most pernicious sponsors and practitioners of terrorism?

Above all, will the international community stop the terrorist regime of Iran from developing atomic weapons, thereby endangering the peace of the entire world?

The people of Iran are courageously standing up to this regime. People of goodwill around the world stand with them, as do the thousands who have been protesting outside this hall. Will the United Nations stand by their side?

Ladies and Gentlemen,
The jury is still out on the United Nations, and recent signs are not encouraging. Rather than condemning the terrorists and their Iranian patrons, some here have condemned their victims. That is exactly what a recent UN report on Gaza did, falsely equating the terrorists with those they targeted.

For eight long years, Hamas fired from Gaza thousands of missiles, mortars and rockets on nearby Israeli cities. Year after year, as these missiles were deliberately hurled at our civilians, not a single UN resolution was passed condemning those criminal attacks. We heard nothing - absolutely nothing - from the UN Human Rights Council, a misnamed institution if there ever was one.

In 2005, hoping to advance peace, Israel unilaterally withdrew from every inch of Gaza. It dismantled 21 settlements and uprooted over 8,000 Israelis. We didn’t get peace. Instead we got an Iranian backed terror base fifty miles from Tel Aviv. Life in Israeli towns and cities next to Gaza became a nightmare. You see, the Hamas rocket attacks not only continued, they increased tenfold. Again, the UN was silent.
Finally, after eight years of this unremitting assault, Israel was finally forced to respond. But how should we have responded? Well, there is only one example in history of thousands of rockets being fired on a country’s civilian population. It happened when the Nazis rocketed British cities during World War II. During that war, the allies leveled German cities, causing hundreds of thousands of casualties. Israel chose to respond differently. Faced with an enemy committing a double war crime of firing on civilians while hiding behind civilians - Israel sought to conduct surgical strikes against the rocket launchers.
That was no easy task because the terrorists were firing missiles from homes and schools, using mosques as weapons depots and ferreting explosives in ambulances. Israel, by contrast, tried to minimize casualties by urging Palestinian civilians to vacate the targeted areas.
We dropped countless flyers over their homes, sent thousands of text messages and called thousands of cell phones asking people to leave. Never has a country gone to such extraordinary lengths to remove the enemy’s civilian population from harm’s way.

Yet faced with such a clear case of aggressor and victim, who did the UN Human Rights Council decide to condemn? Israel. A democracy legitimately defending itself against terror is morally hanged, drawn and quartered, and given an unfair trial to boot.

By these twisted standards, the UN Human Rights Council would have dragged Roosevelt and Churchill to the dock as war criminals. What a perversion of truth. What a perversion of justice.

Delegates of the United Nations,
Will you accept this farce?

Because if you do, the United Nations would revert to its darkest days, when the worst violators of human rights sat in judgment against the law-abiding democracies, when Zionism was equated with racism and when an automatic majority could declare that the earth is flat.

If this body does not reject this report, it would send a message to terrorists everywhere: Terror pays; if you launch your attacks from densely populated areas, you will win immunity. And in condemning Israel, this body would also deal a mortal blow to peace. Here’s why.
When Israel left Gaza, many hoped that the missile attacks would stop. Others believed that at the very least, Israel would have international legitimacy to exercise its right of self-defense. What legitimacy? What self-defense?

The same UN that cheered Israel as it left Gaza and promised to back our right of self-defense now accuses us –my people, my country - of war crimes? And for what? For acting responsibly in self-defense. What a travesty!

Israel justly defended itself against terror. This biased and unjust report is a clear-cut test for all governments. Will you stand with Israel or will you stand with the terrorists?

We must know the answer to that question now. Now and not later. Because if Israel is again asked to take more risks for peace, we must know today that you will stand with us tomorrow. Only if we have the confidence that we can defend ourselves can we take further risks for peace.

Ladies and Gentlemen,
All of Israel wants peace.
Any time an Arab leader genuinely wanted peace with us, we made peace. We made peace with Egypt led by Anwar Sadat. We made peace with Jordan led by King Hussein. And if the Palestinians truly want peace, I and my government, and the people of Israel, will make peace. But we want a genuine peace, a defensible peace, a permanent peace. In 1947, this body voted to establish two states for two peoples - a Jewish state and an Arab state. The Jews accepted that resolution. The Arabs rejected it.

We ask the Palestinians to finally do what they have refused to do for 62 years: Say yes to a Jewish state. Just as we are asked to recognize a nation-state for the Palestinian people, the Palestinians must be asked to recognize the nation state of the Jewish people. The Jewish people are not foreign conquerors in the Land of Israel. This is the land of our forefathers.

Inscribed on the walls outside this building is the great Biblical vision of peace: “Nation shall not lift up sword against nation. They shall learn war no more.” These words were spoken by the Jewish prophet Isaiah 2,800 years ago as he walked in my country, in my city, in the hills of Judea and in the streets of Jerusalem.

We are not strangers to this land. It is our homeland. As deeply connected as we are to this land, we recognize that the Palestinians also live there and want a home of their own. We want to live side by side with them, two free peoples living in peace, prosperity and dignity.

But we must have security. The Palestinians should have all the powers to govern themselves except those handful of powers that could endanger Israel.

That is why a Palestinian state must be effectively demilitarized. We don’t want another Gaza, another Iranian backed terror base abutting Jerusalem and perched on the hills a few kilometers from Tel Aviv.
We want peace.

I believe such a peace can be achieved. But only if we roll back the forces of terror, led by Iran, that seek to destroy peace, eliminate Israel and overthrow the world order. The question facing the international community is whether it is prepared to confront those forces or accommodate them.

Over seventy years ago, Winston Churchill lamented what he called the “confirmed unteachability of mankind,” the unfortunate habit of civilized societies to sleep until danger nearly overtakes them.
Churchill bemoaned what he called the “want of foresight, the unwillingness to act when action will be simple and effective, the lack of clear thinking, the confusion of counsel until emergency comes, until self-preservation strikes its jarring gong.”

I speak here today in the hope that Churchill’s assessment of the “unteachibility of mankind” is for once proven wrong.

I speak here today in the hope that we can learn from history — that we can prevent danger in time.

In the spirit of the timeless words spoken to Joshua over 3,000 years ago, let us be strong and of good courage. Let us confront this peril, secure our future and, God willing, forge an enduring peace for generations to come.

Obama's Anti-American, Anti-Israel UN Speech

The fact that obama receives praise from qadaffi, and chavez and the applause of tyrannical regimes listening to his UN speech tells us all we need to know about hussein obama and what side he represents. He does not represent American values, instead he identifies with the third world, muslims and socialists.

In his speech he referred to what he called the Israeli occupation since 1967, implying that Israel should retreat to the '67 borders while leaving out the part about the war of annihilation the Arabs waged against Israel. He claimed that America does not recognize Jewish "settlements and called for a contiguous palestinian state.

John Bolton appeared on Glenn Beck and Greta Van Susteran calling the speech anti-Israel and I also liked how Beck actually showed a map of Israel and explained that in order to have a contiguous palestinian state would mean that Israel would have to be split in half given that Gaza and Judea and Samaria are on either side of Israel. That is another hypocrisy on the part of the left which insists a palestinian state must be contiguous to be viable yet its ok if Israel is split in two. I also liked that Bolton used the term "so-called occupation". It is not an occupation since there never was a sovereign state on those territories, plus the fact that the arabs started the war in which Israel acquired the territories after defeating the Arab aggressors. There's no question that Israel has a greater claim to the territories and in fact the so-called palestinians have absolutely no rightful claim to them.

The speech also showed that Hussein Obama rejects the concept of American exceptionalism when he said no nation should dominate another and that essentially we are all morally equivalent.

Bolton: ‘A Post-American Speech By Our First Post-American President’ [Robert Costa]

Former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton tells NRO that President Obama’s address to the U.N. was “a post-American speech by our first post-American president. It was a speech high on the personality of Barack Obama and high on multilateralism, but very short in advocating American interests.”

“It was a very naïve, Wilsonian speech, and very revealing of Obama’s foreign policy,” says Bolton. “Overall, it was so apologetic for the actions of prior administrations, in an effort to distance Obama from them, that it became yet another symbol of American weakness in the wake of the president’s decision to abandon missile sites in Poland and the Czech Republic, and his recent manifest hesitation over what to do in Afghanistan.”

“The most significant point of the speech was how the president put Israel on the chopping block in a variety of references, from calling Israeli settlements in the West Bank illegitimate to talking about ending ‘the occupation that began in 1967.’ That implies that he supports going back to 1967 borders,” says Bolton. “Obama has a very tough road ahead. He is frequently taking the side of the Palestinians, who don’t have a competent leader who can make hard decisions and compromises in the future.”

Also noteworthy, Bolton says, was how Obama highlighted “just how much of American foreign policy that he wants to run through the U.N.”

“Usually presidential speeches at the U.N. are ‘state of the world’ addresses. Obama’s speech was filled with talk about U.N. bodies, U.N. treaties, and sending Secretary of State Clinton to a conference on the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, which would be an incredible waste of time for her. The president’s speech showed a fascination with U.N.-centric issues. Obama talked about getting past ‘balance of power’ politics. He talked about the interests that unite us rather than divide us.”

Bolton’s conclusion: “It was all extremely naïve. The president did everything he could to say: ‘Can’t we all just get along?’”

There are absolutely no interests whatsoever that unite us with the muslim world. Bolton was being far too kind to hussein obama. Obama is not naive, he’s treacherous.

Bayefsky's U.N. Update [Robert Costa]

Frequent NRO contributor Anne Bayefsky, a senior fellow with the Hudson Institute and executive director of Human Rights Voices, gave us a call from the United Nations to relay her take on President Obama’s speech. “The president played to his audience, which was largely an undemocratic one,” says Bayefsky. “In that way, he succeeded.”

Bayefsky notes that the president received a big round of applause for suggesting that Israel should return to 1967 borders, “without the slightest concern that Israel cannot return to indefensible borders — at least if there is to be any hope of real peace.” Obama, she says, also made “a unilateral policy statement about what is supposed to be subject to bilateral negotiations, as if Israel were his vassal state. That made a terrific impression with the folks at the U.N., but it has nothing to do with a global agenda that advances international peace and security.”

“President Obama also engaged in another round of moral equivalency,” says Bayefsky, “which he made infamous in his Cairo speech. He compared those who live in terror in Israel with those who are still waiting for clean water and a state of their own in ’Palestine,’ a statement which ignores history and the facts on the ground. The Palestinian people in Gaza, who elected a government sworn to Israel’s destruction, do not have a country of their own because their elected representatives in Gaza have declared their permanent opposition to living side-by-side with any Jewish state. The President’s continuing failure to recognize the difference between the victims of terror and the perpetrators bodes ill for any prospect for peace in the Middle East.”

Bayefsky adds that one interesting feature of Obama’s speech was the number of times that he apologized for America. “He essentially said to the world that ‘I’m embarrassed at America's record’ and that their hostility toward America prior to his ascendance to the country's highest office was correct.”

“He also got a big round of applause when he pledged to stop torturing people,” says Bayefsky. “The president set up a straw man — a false statement disputing this country's constant denunciation of torture — to make himself attractive to the outside world. Such words should diminish his credibility as commander-in-chief, a job which demands him to defend our highest principles unapologetically.”

“President Obama had the audacity to speak at length about his commitment to standing with the oppressed. While he spoke inside the U.N., hundreds of protesters from Iran were outside refuting his words,“ says Bayefsky. “President Obama has offered an outstretched hand to the man who is responsible for the terrible fate of Iranian dissidents. Every Iranian demonstrator in New York today said loud and clear that they believe President Obama’s policy on Iran to be an outrageous abandonment of democratic values.”

President Obama, Bayefsky says, also said that he will no longer tolerate those on the wrong side of history. “It is becoming very plain that the president himself is on the wrong side of history. He stood before a crowd of largely undemocratic leaders and said he was on their side. Instead of leading, the president sounded confused and relativistic, claiming that there is no one form of democracy and that everybody quite reasonably has their own take on what democracy means. Everyone there knew that those words are exactly how the Cubans and Chinese speak in U.N. circles. The president’s deliberate ambiguity on the nature of democracy was well-received at the U.N., but it did nothing to enhance America’s moral stature and leadership capacity in the world today.”

On a final note, Bayefsky says that on Iran, the president said that “if” the country chooses to ignore nuclear standards, then it would have a problem. “If? We already know exactly what Iran has been doing,” she says. “Using the word ‘if’ suggests that President Obama is simply refusing to come to terms with the reality of Iran’s nuclear program and that he has an extraordinary blind spot that isn’t going away any time soon.”

“This speech ought to send shockwaves through the United States and our European allies,” concludes Bayefsky. “We have the weakest president in modern times ensconced in Washington, a man who will run away from saying what has to be said, if it doesn’t appeal to an audience rife with demagogues.”

Thursday, September 24, 2009

Tomorrow's Abomination in DC

With regard to that islamic day of prayer which is to take place in DC tomorrow, if Christian pastors can be arrested for praying during the national day of prayer than why should this monstrosity be allowed to take place? Even the theme of the event, "our day has come" is menacing, a declaration of war as far as I'm concerned. While hussein obama avoided the Christian day of prayer, we will see if he is involved with this one, if so then we will know for sure that he indeed considers himself a muslim.

Also throughout the day in DC tomorrow will be heard the muslim call to prayer over loudspeakers. This disgusts me no end. It is an abomination that an event is allowed to take place by people who's beliefs are diametrically opposed to everything America stands for and we sit passively by. Any real American should be sickened to hear the muslim call to prayer on our own city streets. I'm wondering if even those liberal politicians won't feel disgusted hearing this hideous call to prayer all day but refuse to speak out against it. Do they not care what kind of a country they leave their children and grandchildren? Do they not want America to be the same country they grew up in? Is the only thing that matters to these selfish bastards is maintaining their own positions of power and status even at the expense of America's long term future? Is that so much more important to them that they remain silent as these hostile invaders take over our nation's capital tomorrow and make it resemble Riyad, Cairo, Islamabad or Tehran? Our founding fathers will be turning over in their graves.

To those who would argue that this is a matter of freedom of religion, the fact is that islam is not a personal faith, it is a totalitarian political ideology that seeks to replace our constitution with sharia law. Islam does not belong in America and for those who take offense at that, too damn bad. I will not apologize for objecting to my country being transformed into Saudi Arabia, Iran or Pakistan. I refuse to succumb to political correctness and the trend of multiculturalism. We need to act now to save America. If this event can't be stopped, at least there should be counter demonstrations.

Religion of Hatred and Death

If we are to believe liberals, muslim extremists are a tiny minority who don't represent the real islam and that islam is actually a peaceful religion. And if you dare to question that premise, you are the fascist and bigot.
Punishment by death for apostasy from Islam is firmly rooted in Islam's foundational texts -- both the Koran (verses such as 2:217 , 4:89, and their classical exegesis by renowned Koranic commentators such as Qurtubi, Baydawi, Ibn Kathir, and Suyuti) and the hadith (i.e., collections of the putative words and deeds of the Muslim prophet Muhammad, as compiled by pious Muslim transmitters), as well as the sacred Islamic Law (the Shari'a). For example, Muhammad is reported to have said "Kill him who changes his religion," in hadith collections of both Bukhari and Abu Dawud. There is also a consensus by all four schools of Sunni Islamic jurisprudence (i.e., Maliki, Hanbali, Hanafi, and Shafi'i), as well as Shi'ite jurists, that apostates from Islam must be put to death. Averroes (d. 1198), the renowned philosopher and scholar of the natural sciences, who was also an important Maliki jurist, provided this typical Muslim legal opinion on the punishment for apostasy:

"An to be executed by agreement in the case of a man, because of the words of the Prophet, ‘Slay those who change their din [religion]'...Asking the apostate to repent was stipulated as a condition...prior to his execution."

The contemporary (i.e., 1991) Al-Azhar (Cairo) Islamic Research Academy endorsed manual of Islamic Law, 'Umdat al-Salik (pp. 595-96) states:

"Leaving Islam is the ugliest form of unbelief (kufr) and the worst.... When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostasizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed. In such a case, it is ask him to repent and return to Islam. If he does it is accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is immediately killed."

This doctrinal and historical legitimacy of Shari'a-mandated killing of apostates from Islam is affirmed by Heffening in his scholarly review for the authoritative, mainstream academic reference work, the Encyclopedia of Islam:

"In Fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) , there is unanimity that the male apostate must be put to death...A woman, on the other hand, is imprisoned...until she again adopts Islam, ..[or] she also is put to death." [Heffening, W. "Murtadd." Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition. Edited by: P. Bearman , Th. Bianquis , C.E. Bosworth , E. van Donzel and W.P. Heinrichs.]

As noted by historian David Littman, writing in early 1999, Adama Dieng, then a prominent Muslim Senegalese jurist, alerted the international community to the Cairo Declaration's profoundly dangerous impact. Dieng, speaking for the International Commission of Jurists and the Paris-based International Federation of Human Rights at the Commission on Human Rights in February, 1992, decried the Cairo Declaration, which under the rubric of Shari'a, deliberately restricted certain fundamental freedoms and rights -- most notably, freedom of conscience. He also argued that the Cairo Declaration introduced "in the name of defense of human rights," unacceptable discrimination against non-Muslims and women, while sanctioning the legitimacy of heinous practices -- Shari'a-compliant punishments (from corporal punishments, to mutilation, and stoning) -- "which attack the integrity and dignity of the human being."

Pew Survey data published just this past August 13, 2009 reflect, starkly, the depth and prevalence of popular support among the Muslim masses for these hideous views -- sanctioned by their theo-political Islamic leadership within the OIC -- and antithetical to our foundational Western freedoms. Specifically, the Pew findings reveal that among Pakistani Muslims, there is

"...broad support for harsh punishments: 78% favor death for [apostates] those who leave Islam; 80% favor whippings and cutting off hands for crimes like theft and robbery; and 83% favor stoning adulterers."

Read the whole article

Canada's PM Speaks Out Against Iran's Dictator

Canada's Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper is a great man. If only every western leader had his moral clarity and courage. I wish we had such a president.

There is no Peace Partner

These arab occupiers should be expelled from all parts of Israel, not be provided with another terrorist state. We have enough muslim terrorist states in the world. Here is so-called "moderate" fayad's plans regarding a palestinian state:

Palestinian Prime Minister Belies Moderate Image With Working Policy Paper About Future Palestinian State

By David Bedein, Israel Resource Center

Throughout the month of August, 2009, Palestinian National Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayad met with more than fifty members of the US Senate and US House of Representatives.

In press conferences held by almost all American elected officials after meeting the American educated Fayad, the consistent impression that they conveyed was that Mr. Fayad represented a “moderate voice of leadership” for a future Palestinian state that could live alongside the state of Israel.

However, a group of Israeli peace groups received and distributed an English version of a position paper for a future Palestinian state that Mr. Fayad submitted at the end of August to the Middle Quartet Negotiations Task Force, which includes The UN, The EU, The American government and the Russian government

Fayad’s paper “Ending the Occupation, Establishing the State:Program of the Thirteenth Government - August 2009” would seem to belie Fayad’s image as a “moderate voice of leadership”

The preface to Fayad’s paper introduces a Palestinian state that will strive for “peace, security and stability in our region on the Palestinian territory occupied in 1967, with East Jerusalem as its capital”.

However, Fayad’s 38 page position paper reads like a declaration of war, not of peace.

Fayad asserts that “Jerusalem” will be the Palestinian capital of the Palestinian state - not East Jerusalem.

In case anyone was wondering if Fayad had made a typographical error by not mentioning “east” Jerusalem as the capital of a future Palestinian state, Fayad repeats - ten times - that he means Jerusalem, all of Jerusalem. Fayad leaves nothing to the imagination, and writes that the Palstininian stat will “ Protect Jerusalem as the eternal capital of the Palestinian state”, because Fayad asserts that “Jerusalem is our people’s religious, cultural, economic and political center. It is the Flower of Cities and Capital of Capitals. It cannot be anything but the eternal capital of the future Palestinian state. Jerusalem”
Read the rest

Wednesday, September 23, 2009

The War Against Islam

Another brilliant piece by Sultan Knish. He explains that just fighting militarily against terrorism is a fruitless effort without also fighting the islamic ideology which motivates it. Unfortunately in the multicultural suicidal atmosphere of the west, I do not expect this strategy to be utilized. Our emasculated politicians won't even acknowledge we are at war with islam. They will not utter the word "terrorist", let alone "islamic terrorism".

The Future of the War on Terror, is the War on Islam
George Will's column calling on the US to withdraw forces from Afghanistan and rely on smart strikes using drones, cruise missiles and special forces insertions, reopens a now old debate about the tactics we should be using in the War on Terror. Will's approach would revert the US back to before the days of the Bush Administration when smart strikes were used for a series of attacks that accomplished absolutely nothing. It might be possible to use "offshore" bombing to end the Taliban, but it would not involve smart and limited attacks, but dumb and massive ones that would kill a sizable portion of Afghanistan's non-urban tribal population. That is something not even the Soviet Union was fully prepared to commit to. It is not likely that any US administration would.

While drone strikes can be quite useful within the context of a larger military operation, without that context they're nothing more than a game of "Whack a Mole", while the mole works to execute a large terrorist operation against you. You might take out a few terrorists, if you're lucky and manage to get good intel out of enemy territory, but sooner or later the terrorists will execute a 9/11 or a 7/7 on your own soil. The terrorists lose 3 or 4 people, you lose hundreds or thousands of people.

Drones and precision strikes have not fundamentally altered the nature of war. They allow the US to extend its reach, but that godlike illusion cannot actually accomplish anything useful without being able to know the location of your targets. And having eyes in the sky is nowhere near as good as having boots on the ground. Having flying sniper rifles in the sky will not end or even seriously damage the terrorist threat. The Clinton Administration, which was roughly three times as energized about fighting terrorism as the current administration is, demonstrated that.

Smart strikes are a military variation on smart power. What they have in common is the smug illusion that people sitting in D.C. office buildings can control events thousands of miles away without putting anyone or anything at risk. And neither of them substitute for the blunt ugly reality of an occupation force on the ground.
Read the rest

The Islamification of Britain

Gordon Brown is completely emasculated. If we don’t wise up and stop islam in its tracks here in America, we will face the very same tragic consequences as England. We in the west are facilitating our own demise because of this insane political correctness and because of so many of our own leftist traitors.

Tuesday, September 22, 2009

Brzezinski Suggests Shooting Down Israeli Jets

The fact that the virulently anti-Semitic Zbigniew Brzezinski was foreign policy advisor for the failed Carter administration doesn't stop him from dispensing advise on the Middle East. His latest outrageous suggestion is for the U.S. to shoot down Israeli jets should Israel dare to prevent its own annihilation by taking out Iran's nuclear facilities. He refers to this as "the Liberty in reverse" which of course implies that Israel deliberately targeted The USS Liberty ship during the six day war. This is the bastard who along with Carter is directly responsible for the problems we are facing today with Iran and the global spread of islamo-fascism. On Brzezinski's advise, Carter facilitated the fall of the Shah and his replacement by the ayatollah khomeini, who Carter praised at the time. Now this twisted, morally depraved SOB wants to protect Iran's nuclear bomb factories from Israel. The left which ordinarily opposes U.S. military operations would indeed be in favor of this one. What is it about such people that detests a free democratic nation so much that they would want America to turn against it in favor of an islamic fascist state? I think we know the answer to that.

Brezinski Calls for Obama to Shoot Down Israeli Jets; "A Liberty in Reverse"

In a little noticed interview with the Daily Beast (presumably little noticed because serious people don't read the Daily Beast), Zbigniew Brzezinski suggests that Barack Obama do more than just refuse to support an Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear sites -- the American president must give the order to shoot down Israeli aircraft as they cross Iraqi airspace:

DB: How aggressive can Obama be in insisting to the Israelis that a military strike might be in America’s worst interest?

Brzezinski: We are not exactly impotent little babies. They have to fly over our airspace in Iraq. Are we just going to sit there and watch?

DB: What if they fly over anyway?

Brzezinski: Well, we have to be serious about denying them that right. That means a denial where you aren’t just saying it. If they fly over, you go up and confront them. They have the choice of turning back or not. No one wishes for this but it could be a Liberty in reverse.

Contrary to Brezinski's half-hearted disclaimer that no one wishes for such an outcome, there are plenty on the left who would delight in a pitched battle between the United States and Israel. Democrats in Congress routinely support resolutions affirming Israel's right to take whatever steps it deems necessary to assure its own national defense. And Obama has at least paid lip service to the concept. But hostility to Israel among the rank and file is very real on the left -- and among "realists."

So conjure the image -- the Obama administration sending U.S. aircraft up to protect Iran's airspace and it's nuclear installations from an attack by a democracy that is one of America's closest allies. Unfortunately, this may not be so hard to imagine in Israel, where the number of people who believe Obama is pro-Israel is at just 4 percent -- and falling. And given Obama's (literally) submissive posture to the Saudis, his indulgence of the Iranians, and his simultaneously hard-line approach to Israel, it seems even some of Obama's supporters can savor the possibility of a "reverse Liberty."

Posted by Michael Goldfarb on September 19, 2009 03:38 PM

Monday, September 21, 2009

Haveil Havalim

The latest edition of the Jewish blog carnival Haveil Havalim is hosted this week by Shiloh Musings.

Pastor Observes Ramadan

Christian pastor Ben Ries joined muslims in fasting during ramadan. This infuriates me that some non-muslim clergy think they are being tolerant and progressive when they show solidarity with muslims. They don't realize that they are abetting an evil ideology which seeks the forced conversion, submission or death of their co-religionists and others. Pastor Ries should instead be making a statement of solidarity with fellow Christians who are being persecuted and killed in muslim countries, not observing the holidays of their oppressors.

Is he going to fast on Yom Kippur? Do muslims honor holidays from other religions? In response to his assertion that Christians are becoming increasingly anti-muslim, well they SHOULD be anti-muslim as should Jews and others, because islam is incompatible with our Christian-Judeo values. Actually I should say islam is outright hostile to our values. I am so fed up with leaders, whether religious or political, who continue to be blind to the reality of islam. H/T islam in Action.

Muslims find new Ramadan fast partners: Christians

Like Muslims worldwide, Ben Ries has refrained from food and drink from sunrise to sundown in an act of self-restraint during the Islamic holy month of Ramadan, which ends this weekend.

Each evening, the 31-year-old Ries joins Muslim families in a room above a hardware store in Bellingham, Wash., to find fellowship and break the fast with a handful of dates and a welcome glass of water.

Only Ries is not a Muslim. He is pastor of 70-member Sterling Drive Church of Christ and a self-described committed Christian who just a few weeks ago had to turn to Google to find a Muslim in his community.

Ries is among a small group of Christians who've joined well-known evangelical author and speaker Brian McLaren in observing a Ramadan fast, opening a new chapter in interfaith relations between two traditions often at odds.

To McLaren and his Christian and Muslim fasting partners, it's a neighborly gesture of solidarity that deepens their respective faiths and sends a message about finding peace and common ground.

But the project also has faced fierce criticism.Some evangelicals say that fasting alongside Muslims at Ramadan, however well-intentioned, is a dangerous blurring of the lines and runs contrary to Christianity.

McLaren, 53, is the godfather of the "emerging" or "emergent" church, a loose-knit movement that seeks to recover ancient Christian worship practices and, in some cases, question traditional evangelical theology.

While fasting is part of Christian tradition, it isn't exactly a widespread practice. Some college students from different faiths have started interfaith "Fast-A-Thons" during Ramadan to raise money to fight poverty. But that usually involves fasting for a day, not committing to an entire month.

In announcing his Ramadan fast plans on his blog last month, McLaren wrote, "We are not doing so in order to become Muslims: we are deeply committed Christians. But as Christians, we want to come close to our Muslim neighbors and to share this important part of life with them." The goal is to join Muslims in the observance as "a God-honoring expression of peace, fellowship and neighborliness," he wrote.

McLaren, a former pastor, said his Ramadan fast is also part of his post-9-11 worldview.

"Some Christians in the U.S. are becoming more anti-Muslim," he said in an interview. "They are retrenching in a fearful, angry posture. Other Christians are saying now, in the aftermath of Sept. 11, we have to recommit ourselves to the work of peacemaking like never before. That has been my response."

Before Ramadan,McLaren sought a Muslim fasting partner. He found one in Eboo Patel, executive director of Chicago-based Interfaith Youth Core, which promotes interfaith cooperation.

Patel said there are important differences in his fast and McLaren's. As a Muslim, Patel said he fasts during Ramadan because the Prophet Muhammad fasted then, and because the first revelation of the Quran occurred that month.

"That is not something Brian shares, at least not in the same way," Patel said.
McLaren said he has discovered a handful of fellow Christians fasting during Ramadan. One has quietly been doing it for more than 20 years. Others are new to it — like Ries in Washington state.

Ries considers the idea consistent with his own efforts to reach out to people who are different. Only problem was, he didn't know any Muslims in Bellingham, a college town of 75,000 on the Northwest coast.

An Internet search introduced him to Monem Salam, the subject of the documentary "On a Wing and a Prayer," which followed Salam's journey of learning to fly and obtaining a pilot's license after Sept. 11.

The two had coffee a couple of days before Ramadan, hit it off, and a fast friendship was born.

"When you have a leader of a church or a community go through the experience of fasting an entire month of Ramadan, what happens is not only does he understand a little more about the Muslim or Islamic culture, but he has the podium, or the pulpit, to teach that to other people as well," said Salam, 37, who works for an investment firm that manages a large Sharia-compliant mutual fund.

Ries had fasted before, but not from water. About two weeks in, he said, his body adjusted. Ries also has been reading the Quran, not for spiritual sustenance but to learn something, he said. Joining the Muslim community to break fast each night has opened this eyes to their graciousness and hospitality, he said.

Ries said he faced questions from some in his flock and criticism from others who read about his fast.

"There is no violation of my own faith in this," Ries said. "The concern is that somehow, I'm endorsing this other path. But I tell people I believe Jesus is the son of God. I believe he is the way and the truth and the life. But I believe I don't get to say who goes to hell and who doesn't. That's God's job."

Of the anger he's encountered from some Christians who object, Ries said: "A major factor is fear ... if we move the line here, we'll move it further, and this is the beginning of the end."

Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., said the idea of Christians fasting at Ramadan appears at first to be neighborly solidarity, but it's more than that.

"The logic of Islam is obedience and submission," Mohler said. "It's by following these practices that a Muslim demonstrates his obedience to the rule of the law through the Quran. For a Christian to do the same automatically implies a submission to the same rule. And beyond that, it's an explicit affirmation that this is a good and holy thing. From a New Testament perspective, it is not a good and holy thing."

Christians should have friendships with people of other faith, but engaging in other traditions' worship practices is problematic, said Mark Driscoll, lead preaching pastor at Mars Hill Church in Seattle. Driscoll said that in this case, Christians and Muslims fast for different purposes and do not worship the same God.

Christians observing a Ramadan fast is "insane at best ... Sad, tragic, horrific, misguided, dangerous, wrong," Driscoll said. "If Christians want to pray during Ramadan, they should pray not with Muslims but for Muslims — that Muslims would come to know Jesus. To pray with Muslims absolutely dishonors Jesus."

There is disagreement among evangelicals about whether Christians and Muslims worship the same God; Muslims believe Jesus was a prophet and a teacher, but not the son of God.

Among Muslims, McLaren's Ramadan fast and invitation to other Christians to join him would be widely welcomed, with a "very small minority" wondering whether it's an effort to infiltrate and convert the Muslim community, said Akbar Ahmed, chairman of the Islamic studies department at American University.

"There is a high level of anti-Americanism in the Muslim world," Ahmed said. "Now they are going to say this propaganda that America hates us is not true. Here is a pastor who wants to understand us, who does not want to convert us, and who is even prepared to walk with us, to fast with us. That is a big gesture."

As Ramadan nears it end, McLaren said his fast has made him more sensitive to people who endure hunger every day without the promise of relief at sundown. And he said the commitment and self-discipline the fast requires has increased his respect for Muslims.

"I have felt Muslims don't want me to compromise and say belief doesn't matter," he said. "They want me to be a faithful Christian — a faithful Christian that doesn't want to destroy all Muslims."

Obama 'Fed Up' With Israel?

Apparently hussein obama is "fed up" with Israel according to Aaron Klein of WND. Well me and millions of Americans are fed up with hussein obama. We are fed up with his betrayal of allies and fed up with his socialist domestic agenda. It’s time those Americans who still have their heads in the sand, particularly Jews, come to realize that obama is the same anti-white, anti-Semitic and anti-American bastard as those he has spent a lifetime associating with. Obama IS jeremiah write and he IS bill ayers and van jones. Perhaps those still defending Obama may consider that his appointments of people like jones aren’t a mistake, they aren’t people who’s backgrounds slipped through the vetting process, but rather jones was chosen precisely because he is an anti-American radical. Perhaps obama hasn’t merely by chance wound up surrounded by radicals, but that he actually shares their philosophy and that’s why they are his friends. How's that for a concept?

Getting back to the issue of this article, Bibi needs to tell Mitchell the next time he plans a trip to the Mideast, to fuck off and stay away from Israel. He should tell him we will not listen to a word you say since your administration has shown it betrays allies and cannot be trusted as seen with regards to Honduras, the Czech Republic and Poland.

Obama promised Jewish homes to Palestinians?

Official says American president ‘fed up’ with Israel

By Aaron Klein, WorldNetDaily

JERUSALEM – President Obama is “fed up” with Israel while his administration has given the Palestinians guarantees they will eventually take over Jewish homes and buildings throughout most of the West Bank, a top Palestinian Authority official claimed to WND.

“We heard from the U.S. that no matter what Israel is building in the West Bank, it will not affect a final status agreement to create a Palestinian state,” said the PA official, who spoke on condition his name be withheld.

“The Americans told us (Prime Minister Benjamin) Netanyahu might construct in the West Bank for now but we (Palestinians) can enjoy these houses later. The evacuated homes will not be destroyed like some were when Israel pulled out of Gaza,” the official said.

The official said Obama has adopted the position of PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, who presented a plan to create a Palestinian state within two years based largely on the 1967 borders, meaning Israel would retreat from the West Bank and eastern sections of Jerusalem.

The official said the U.S. would back Israel retaining what are known as main settlement blocs, a reference to certain large Jewish West Bank communities such as Gush Etzion.

The official, however, said the U.S. does not support Israel retaining the E1 area in Jerusalem, referring to Maale Adumim, a Jewish community in eastern Jerusalem.

Sunday, September 20, 2009

More Disgraceful Pandering to muslims

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made this obscene statement at the conclusion of Ramadan: "The values of islam are the values we hold dear as Americans" or something to that effect. This infuriates me. In no way does islam share our values. Why the hell can't these politicians tell the damn truth already? Political correctness is doing us in. Get some backbone and just say what we all know is the truth, that islam is an evil ideology that is incompatible with American values and the American way of life and that sharia is a direct threat to our constitution.

Saturday, September 19, 2009

British Group Stands up to islamists

The English Defense League issues a warning about muslims. Americans, don't think that what is happening in Britain cannot happen here. How long before schoolchildren in this country will be suspended for refusing to kneel to allah? I'm heartened to see that there are some Brits who are waking up. I just hope its not too late. No doubt this group will be portrayed by the media and Britain's elite as "fascist", "racist" and whatever other names they come up with to demonize patriotic Brits just as the American liberal media demonizes American patriots. The irony of it all is that it is the media and elites themselves who are aligned with the fascists, the islamo-fascists. h/t islam in action.

Unfortunately the Manchester city council is trying to get an upcoming anti-muslim protest banned. This is very disturbing indeed. I don't suspect that the Manchester city council would dare to call for a ban on muslim protests even as they call for the killing of British citizens and the implementation of sharia law. The west's greatest enemies are its own emasculated, traitorous leaders. The free world cannot win this war against the muslim jihadists as long as we have so many in high places aiding the enemy. We have come to such a sorry state in the west that people who simply want to preserve their nation's freedom from hateful islamo-fascists, are themselves being regarded as fascists and racists. We are living George Orwell's "1984".

Plea to stop right wing march
David Ottewell

SEPTEMBER 16, 2009

MANCHESTER council is to ask the Home Secretary to block a planned city-centre rally by a right-wing group.

The English Defence League claims only to oppose 'militant Islam' - but previous events have seen skinheads making Nazi salutes, and violent clashes with anti-fascist protestors.


An EDL rally in Birmingham earlier this year ended with 90 people arrested during a busy shopping Saturday.

Gangs hurled bottles at each other and pelted riot police with bricks. Now the EDL are planning to come to Manchester on Saturday, October 10.

And the city council, which is powerless to stop the event, is to appeal to Alan Johnson to intervene.

Town hall bosses are writing to the Home Secretary calling on him to use whatever powers are necessary to block the event. They believe there is a serious risk of violence - and that the event will cause offence to moderate Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

Their calls are being backed by church leaders and city-centre traders.

Jim Battle, deputy council leader, said: "Manchester has a long and rich tradition of protest and radicalism.

"We are incredibly proud of that history and to this day people regularly make their voice heard in demonstrations in the city. But we are also a welcoming and tolerant city.

"Wherever the so-called English Defence League have gone there has been violence and disruption to ordinary people who just want to go about their business.

"These people do not have a legitimate cause - they merely wish to vilify, insult, intimidate and provoke one section of our community. That isn't protest or legitimate democratic debate and it certainly is not welcome in Manchester."

"Manchester does not want the EDL, and we stand united against their poisonous, disruptive and unbritish outlook and actions."

Friday, September 18, 2009

Setback for Rifqa Barry

With their silence and stubborn adherence to political correctness, America’s leaders are guilty of aiding and abetting the islamic jihad being waged against us.

Should she be forced to go back to her parents, the blood of Rifqa Barry and all other “apostates” and women and girls who will be the victims of islamic “honor” killings, will be on the hands of every one of those morally bankrupt cowards in the media, the politicians and judges who were more concerned about avoiding confrontation with the muslim community than the lives of innocents. They will also be guilty of treason against America for violating our constitution by allowing the implementation of sharia law. We are headed down the same tragic path as Europe because of the same type of emasculated leaders.

Death Sentence for a Muslim Girl
By: Jamie Glazov | Wednesday, September 16, 2009

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Dave Gaubatz, the first U.S. civilian (1811) Federal Agent deployed to Iraq in 2003. He is the owner of DG Counter-terrorism Publishing. He is currently conducting a 50 State Counter-terrorism Research Tour (CTRT). He can be contacted at

FP: Dave Gaubatz, welcome to Frontpage Interview.

Although there is some media discussion about the 17-year-old Muslim girl, Fathima Rifqa Bary, who left Islam for Christianity and now faces a death sentence from her family, there is an overall silence throughout our culture about her case, and many cases like hers. What are your thoughts?

Gaubatz: Thank you Jamie.

Apostasy (Riddah) in Islam is a major ‘sin’ and numerous Islamic references call for the mandatory death of the person involved (regardless of where the crime/sin is committed). This Muslim child is in serious danger of losing her life for leaving Islam and bringing dishonor to her father and other relatives. It is imperative authorities begin taking the ‘word’ of Islamic scholars and Imams when they advocate killing innocent people for leaving and dishonoring Islam.

FP: Some apologists for Islam argue that the religion teaches to follow the laws of the country where Muslims live in. Therefore, a child in these circumstances ion our society is supposedly not in jeopardy.

Your thoughts?

Gaubatz: This is a misconception that organizations such as CAIR, ISNA, and their supporters would like naïve Americans, specifically our elected officials and law enforcement, to believe.

Islamic leaders talk out of both sides of their mouth, and when it is convenient or in their best interests they will use deception to mislead you. People need to fully understand that in Islam there is no country, government, or person more important than Allah.

There are no man-made laws that come before Allah. One need only review the video by a popular Islamic scholar in the U.S. (Ahmed Sakr) who informs young children to not follow the laws of the U.S., but to instead follow Sharia Law. Sakr informs the children they will all go to ‘hell’ if they follow laws set by Congressmen. Sakr says the Congressmen will all go to ‘hell’. Allegiance to America or our government does not exist if they contradict the teachings of Islam.

I have visited over 200 Islamic Centers throughout America. The vast majority teach the worshippers ‘Apostates should be killed’ because it is a major sign of disrespect to Allah, the family of the Apostate is dishonored, and it may lead others to leave Islam.
Continue reading
Here is more about Rifqa Barry from Phyllis Chesler

Obama Capitulates to Russia

So now hussein Obama has betrayed yet two more allies, the Czech Republic and Poland in order to appease Russia. This is the essence of the obama doctrine, coddle enemies and stab friends in the back. Just how do you think other tyrants around the world are looking at this? The dictators of Iran and North Korea are certainly salivating that the leader of the free world has shown a complete lack of courage and moral compass and will easily turn his back on allies in order to avoid confrontation with enemies. The world's tyrants have been served notice that they have free reign to develop nuclear weapons, sponsor terrorism and wreak havoc around the world. And America's friends have been served notice that they cannot trust or rely on America under this president. Israel had better heed the warning. By the time Obama's term has ended we will not have any allies left.

PRAGUE – Scuttling a missile defense shield in the Czech Republic and Poland helps smooth relations between the U.S. and Russia. But at what price?

Some of America's staunchest allies are the East Europeans — and on Thursday, they expressed dismay at what many see as a slight after decades of their support for the U.S.

Among them were some famous names, including Lech Walesa, the former Solidarity leader and Polish ex-president. "I can see what kind of policy the Obama administration is pursuing toward this part of Europe," he said ruefully, adding: "The way we are being approached needs to change."

For most of the past decade, cozy relations with Washington were practically a given across the "new Europe." George W. Bush famously courted the region after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and leaned on it for troops to fight alongside U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Barack Obama took office undecided about Bush's plan to base 10 interceptor missiles in Poland and sophisticated radar in the Czech Republic — a system designed to shoot down long-range missiles that might be fired from Iran or elsewhere in the Middle East. Building had not started in either country.
Continue reading

Thursday, September 17, 2009

The Despicable Goldstone Report

Indeed it is a perverse world we live in when the UNHCR, composed of the world's most vicious human rights violators, sits in judgement over the conduct of a democratic country. Out of all the conflicts and massive human rights violations and the slaughter of innocents around the world by various tyrannical regimes, the UN chooses to only investigate Israel's military operations, a free country merely defending itself against terrorists who have waged war against it. The further irony is that Israel has the most humane armed forces in the world. One in which the lives of its own soldiers are risked in order to avoid killing enemies civilians. What other country on earth does that? The Goldstone Report turns reality on its head as it falsely accuses Israel of deliberately killing civilians while denying hamas uses human shields. I've come to the conclusion that Israel is foolish to be humane, it should fight its wars like every other country does, ruthlessly and without regard for the lives of the Arabs of Gaza or anywhere it may be forced to fight. Israel should no longer be deterred by terrorists using human shields and should strike regardless and fight until the enemy is defeated. So long as the Arabs support terrorists, they ought to suffer the consequences of the choice they have made. To hell with sparing these so-called "innocents". Where does it get Israel? Only singled out for international condemnation anyway.

I've said this a number of times that the UN needs to be defunded and shut-down since it is clearly an enemy of freedom and human rights. It is obscene that we and other free countries should be funding this cesspool which has been hijacked by the islamo-fascists and marxists of the world. In the struggle between civilization vs barbarism, the UN is clearly on the side of the barbarians and it is insane that we are financially supporting our enemies.

The Moral Inversion of Richard Goldstone
Wednesday, 16th September 2009

So now we can see how Richard Goldstone thinks he has preserved his judicial reputation while perpetrating a blood libel against Israel. He has produced a report which, as anticipated, finds that Israel committed all the ‘war crimes’ during Operation Cast Lead of which his Mission members had decided it was guilty before even starting their deliberations, along with the NGOs whose unremitting hostility and malice towards Israel and history of peddling Palestinian propaganda as fact did not deter the Mission from uncritically accepting their evidence as the truth, thus finding Hamas guilty of no crimes at all -- except one. That was, by an amazing coincidence, the one set of crimes it committed which the world was forced to acknowledge actually happened – the firing of rockets from Gaza into Israel with the sole intention of killing Israeli civilians. By referring to this en passant, devoting minimal attention to it in the course of his 570- page report the vast majority of which is devoted to allegations against Israel, he engineered the ‘even-handed’ headline he needed to maintain his credibility:
There is evidence that both Israeli and Palestinian forces committed war crimes in the recent Gaza conflict, the official UN report says.
It is, however, only Israel which is required to conduct investigations into such claims -- and thus only Israel which Goldstone recommends should be prosecuted at the International Criminal Court if those investigations aren’t carried out to the satisfaction of the UN. So much for even-handedness.

With this cynical veneer, Goldstone does worse even than establish a moral equivalence between the instigators of genocidal violence and those who were attempting to defend themselves against it. He presents Israel, the victims of such aggression, as war criminals and the Palestinians, the actual instigators of terror, as its victims. This is not moral equivalence but moral inversion.

He acknowledges no such crimes by Hamas within Gaza itself -- not least against other Palestinians -- such as turning the entire population of Gaza into hostages by siting its rockets and terrorist infrastructure amongst that population and additionally using them as human shields. Even worse, he presents the Palestinian aggressors as victims of Israel, requiring Israel to make reparation to those from whose houses and streets it was being attacked. No reparations to Israel are required from any Palestinians, even though Goldstone accepts that Hamas committed war crimes and crimes against humanity by firing thousands of missiles at its civilians.

To cover himself completely against the fact that the degraded aim of the mission he headed was to delegitimise Israel, his report claims at the start that his mandate from the President of the UN Council on Human Rights was:
... to investigate all violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law that might have been committed at any time in the context of the military operations that were conducted in Gaza during the period from 27 December 2008 and 18 January 2009, whether before, during or after.
Now this is curious, since UN Resolution S-9/1 which established the mandate for the Goldstone commission said the Human Rights Council
Decides to dispatch an urgent, independent international fact-finding mission, to be appointed by the President of the Council, to investigate all violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law by the occupying Power, Israel, against the Palestinian people throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory, particularly in the occupied Gaza Strip, due to the current aggression, and calls upon Israel not to obstruct the process of investigation and to fully cooperate with the mission.
So the UNHRC mandate explicitly limited Goldstone to investigating solely Israel, which it deemed guilty of human rights violations during Cast Lead -- a mandate whose terms as set out in the UNHRC resolution cannot be changed; while Goldstone’s report cites a mandate which is quite different from that resolution, which is ascribed not to the Council but to the President, and which encompasses all such violations during Cast Lead. Goldstone himself said he had changed the terms of the mandate in ‘informal discussions’. It looks therefore as if he and the UNHRC President unilaterally tore up both the Council’s mandate and UN regulations to provide Goldstone with the fig-leaf to disguise the moral bankruptcy of the entire process.
Continue reading

Wednesday, September 16, 2009

Political Correctness Infects the NYPD

Political correctness will be our undoing. We are headed down the same path as Europe with regard to islam because we have leaders in law enforcement and political office who's highest priority is to make sure they do not offend muslims even if that means compromising our safety and security. Keep in mind this is certainly not a criticism of the rank and file brave police officers who are not responsible for department policy and who themselves are endangered by this politically correct nonsense. There is simply a refusal on the part of leadership in all public institutions to tell the truth about how evil islam is. Our political “leaders” will not even dare to publically name the islamic jihadist enemy or acknowledge that we are at war with islam. They stand up there with a straight face proclaiming islam is a peaceful religion when it is nothing of the kind and never was. I for one, will not be one of those who pretend islam is anything other than a brutally violent and oppressive ideology. I am not one of those 47% of ignoramuses polled who don't believe islam encourages violence. Do they not follow world events? Do they not hear or read about what is said by imams and is taught in madrassas and preached in mosques? I also don't care if I am considered a bigot for simply believing my own eyes and ears, for having logic and common sense.

NYPD rewords report that some say insulted Muslims

NEW YORK — The New York Police Department has revised a highly touted report on the threat of homegrown terrorism in response to complaints that it was an insult to law-abiding, observant Muslims.

A coalition of Muslim groups on Wednesday applauded the two-page clarification tucked into "Radicalization in the West: The Homegrown Threat" — a study first circulated in law enforcement circles and on the Internet in 2007. The new wording says the NYPD "understands that it is a tiny minority of Muslims who subscribe to al-Qaida's ideology of war and terror."

The clarification also calls the city's Muslim community "our ally," and "as such, the NYPD report should not be read to characterize Muslims as intrinsically dangerous or intrinsically linked to terrorism, and that it cannot be a license for racial, religious, or ethnic profiling."

Despite welcoming the changes, the New York-based Muslim American Civil Liberties Coalition accused the NYPD of not doing enough to publicize them. Also, the study still has passages that "criminalize religious behaviors," said Aliya Latif of the New York office of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a coalition member.

Police officials have denied the report stereotypes Muslims, even in its original form. The changes merely "make explicit what was already implicit" regarding the departments' respect for the community, NYPD spokesman Paul Browne said.

The study was based on an analysis of a series of domestic plots thwarted since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. It was prepared by senior analysts with the NYPD Intelligence Division who traveled to Hamburg, Germany; Madrid and other overseas spots to confer with authorities about similar cases.

The report concluded that homegrown terrorists often were indoctrinated in local "radicalization incubators," including cafes and bookstores, that are "rife with extremist rhetoric."

The report warns that potential terrorists "are not on the law enforcement radar." They "look, act, talk and walk like everyone around them," it adds.

HRW Suspends Garlasco

Finally HRW has suspended Marc Garlasco. Let's just call Marc Garlasco what he truly is, an anti-Semite. That fact is more than obvious when you combine the double standard he applies to the IDF in condemning their military operations compared to his rightful defense of the US military under the same circumstances, and now the revelations about his nazi paraphernalia collection.

Nazi Fetishist Suspended by HRW

Human Rights Watch's weapons "expert" suspended following outcry over bizarre "hobby".

Last week we reported on the outing of Human Rights Watch's Marc Garlasco as a collector of Nazi memorabilia. To recall, Garlasco has appeared regularly in the media, touted as a military "expert". Garlasco played a prominent role in promoting the 2006 Gaza Beach Libel, which wrongly blamed Israel for a "massacre" of Palestinians. (See HonestReporting's interactive Big Lies presentation for more on this story.)

Initially, HRW used every means available to defend Garlasco, including, as revealed by Harry's Place blog, resorting to creating a fake "activist" with a Middle Eastern sounding name to post comments defending Garlasco on various blog sites.

Mark Gardner of the CST blog addresses HRW's response, which involved attacking Jewish and pro-Israel organizations rather than the very legitimate concerns arising from Garlasco's collecting of Nazi memorabilia.

Garlasco himself wrote a piece for The Huffington Post defending his bizarre "hobby". Even associates of HRW, however, such as Helena Cobban, who sits on HRW's Middle East advisory board have been suitably disturbed.

HRW has finally succumbed to pressure by suspending Garlasco (pictured here wearing a Nazi-themed sweatshirt) with pay "pending an investigation," according to HRW's associate director Caroll Bogert. "We have questions about whether we have learned everything we need to know," she said.

Tuesday, September 15, 2009

The Media's Shameless Pandering to muslims

Leave it to the NY Times, CBS and the rest of the mainstream media to make the poor muslims out to be the real victims of 9/11. How sickening. This is shameless pandering, not to mention it is totally false according to FBI hate crimes statistics.

Eight years after the terrorist attacks in New York City and Washington, Americans believe that Muslims face more discrimination than any other religious group in the US.

Fifty-eight percent say Muslims face "a lot" of discrimination, according to an annual survey of religious attitudes by the Pew Forum on Religion in Public Life and the Pew Center for People and the Press, released Wednesday.

Monday, September 14, 2009

The UN Must Go

The United Nations completely ignored the anniversary of 9/11. The UN is a cesspool controlled by the large block of arab and islamic dictatorships. We need to shut it down, cut its funding and kick it the hell out of our country. It's worse than useless in that it protects the world's tyrants and terrorists while condemning free nations. Let them relocate to Tehran or Havana. It's unbelievable that the democrats think such an institution should have veto power over our foreign policy decisions. It does nothing while people are being slaughtered in the Sudan along with numerous other atrocities being perpetrated worldwide, yet spends time on resolutions condemning Israel over fabricated claims of human rights abuses.

U.N. snubs 9/11 remembrances
Body regularly honors Hiroshima dead, but ignores New York City victims
Posted: September 13, 2009
12:57 am Eastern

By Stewart Stogel
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

UNITED NATIONS – In yet another in a series of inexplicable snubs, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon ignored events surrounding the eighth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks last week.

Spending some rare time at home in New York City, the globe-trotting U.N. chief did squeeze in some time to attend a local book party honoring the International Civil Service Commission (a part of the U.N. bureaucracy) and issue a statement hailing ozone preservation.

He did not, however, take time to meet Vice President Joe Biden or Mayor Michael Bloomberg at Ground Zero.

When asked if the U.N. or its secretary-general intended to issue any statement on the 9/11 anniversary, spokeswoman Marie Okabe gave a blunt "no," without explanation.
Continue reading