Well That's a Relief!

I have to say I feel a lot better now. President Obama just told us that "ISIL is not Islamic." He added: "No religion condones the killing of innocents." And this: "ISIL is a terrorist organization, pure and simple. It has no vision other than the slaughter of all who stand in its way."

Boy, was I wrong. I thought ISIS (ISIL, IS) was named the ISLAMIC State. I thought Islam today had a problem with large numbers of radical terrorist groups, all committing their acts in the name of Islam. Groups like Al Qaeda, Boko Harem, Hamas (which just summarily executed a whole bunch of people without any trial based on an allegation of providing intelligence to Israel in the recent Gaza war), Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Al Aksa Martyrs Brigade, ISIS, Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, and many others.

Is every single Muslim a radical who wants to see non-Muslims killed? Of course not. But what good does it do to not admit the truth and acknowledge that Islam today has a very serious problem? How can Obama say "ISIL is not Islamic"? How can Obama say ISIL has no vision "other than the slaughter of all who stand in its way," when it tells the world it wants to establish an ISLAMIC Caliphate under Shariah law?

Obama also said this: "At this moment the greatest threats come from the Middle East and North Africa where radical groups exploit grievances for their own gain. And one of those groups is ISIL." Yes, and what do we have throughout the Middle East and North Africa - all Muslim countries! (With the exception of Israel which fights some of these same Islamic terrorist groups.) No religion condones the killing of innocents? So why do so many Imams do that? Perhaps they define "innocents" differently.

It was extremely disappointing to hear Republican Senator Rand Paul on Fox after Obama's speech. Said Paul: "...this is not a true form of Islam. This is an aberrant form that should not represent most of the civilized Islamic world."

So what is the "true form" of Islam today? We are told it's not the numerous Islamic terrorist groups, such as ISIS. And it's not all those Muslim countries who have in place one form of Shariah law or another; countries where free speech and freedom of religion don't exist. And it's not in countries where Christians and Jews are persecuted or killed. And it's not in countries where gays are persecuted or killed. And it's not in countries where women are less than second class citizens, and are subject to "honor killings."

Hopefully politicians like Obama and Paul will get back to us soon on where to find "true" Islam.

Wait...What?!

Out of Rotherham, England comes a report regarding the sexual abuse (rape) of children and teenagers, mostly girls. 1400 young people between 1997 and 2013 were apparently trafficked around the country. While the victims were described as working class white, the perpetrators were described as Pakistani Muslims. (As reported by Brendan O'Neill in the 9/3/14 Wall Street Journal, referencing a report by Alexis Jay, public policy professor and former social worker.) So why didn't the authorities act quicker to put a stop to this sex trade of minors? According to Mr. Jay, Rotherdam officials did not want to appear racist. Wait...What?! We need to let these bastards rape our young girls so we don't appear racist? It would be difficult to find a better example of Michael Savage's maxim: "Liberalism is a mental disorder."

In the city of Wuppertal, Germany, the police have been patrolling the nightlife area of town. They seek to discourage people from the use of alcohol and drugs, and from gambling and attending concerts. What?! Oh, these are not the regular police, these are radical Salafist Muslims. Notwithstanding their lack of actual authority, they have not been deterred, and even wear brightly colored orange vests with the words "Shariah Police" on the back. And there are reports of Salafists doing the same in Bonn. (As reported in the 9/7/14 Jewish Press online.) Think it's a good idea to not control the number of Muslims entering this country?

Our Secretary of State recently spoke at a ceremony appointing a Muslim attorney to serve as a special representative to Muslim communities. What?! In any event, Kerry said "our faiths are inextricably linked on any number of things that we must confront and deal with in policy concepts today. Our faiths are inextricably linked on the environment." Kerry went on: "Confronting climate change is, in the long run, one of the greatest challenges that we face, and you can see this duty or responsibility laid out in scriptures early, beginning in Genesis. And Muslim-majority countries are the most vulnerable." What?! Kerry believes his biggest issue is climate change? Don't we have more immediate threats - radical Islam, Russia, China, Iran, North Korea? And we have to take care of the Muslim-majority countries? Is that like the head of NASA previously saying NASA needed to reach out to the Muslim world? Did NASA's then Director and Kerry have the same boss? Hmmm. And just what are the oil rich Muslim countries doing to help the environment? (Quotes from the Washington Free Beacon.)

Obama has a plan for dealing with ISIS (or as he calls them, ISIL). At first, he did not have a plan: "We don't have a strategy yet." Then, he said: "The bottom line is this - our objective is clear and that is to degrade and destroy ISIL..." But then: "...if we are joined by the international community, we can continue to shrink ISIL's sphere of influence, its effectiveness, its military capability to the point where it is a manageable problem." What?! People not being exactly clear on his message, Obama said today: "The next phase is us going on the offensive." I guess - as long as he doesn't draw any red lines.

Bill O'Reilly had the audacity to go after State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki. Said he: "With all due respect - that woman looked way out of her depth over there. Just the way she delivers...it just doesn't look like she has the gravitas for that job." (That's been my feeling about Ms. Psaki.) However, another spokesperson, Marie Harf, just could not take it, O'Reilly attacking her colleague like that. Said Harf: "When the anchor of a leading cable news show uses, quite frankly sexist, personally offensive language, I have an obligation and I think it's important to step up and say that's not okay." Wait...What?! Sexist? How? O'Reilly has gone after both male press secretaries to the President; and pretty much everybody on both sides of the fence.

But let's be honest. Those democrats cannot tolerate criticism. Because they engage in personal attacks, they have to equate all comments by conservatives to be personal attacks on them. (Criticize Obama and you are a racist.) Notice some similarity between Harf's comments and the fear of officials in Rotherham? Act against rapists who are Muslim and you are a racist. Speak against a woman in high office and you are a sexist. Still, the democrats just love dishing it out - even though they cannot take it.

And let's not forget this comment: "Mr. Obama's coterie of foreign policy advisers does not command anything like the international respect that is needed." Oh, that wasn't O'Reilly; that was the 9/3/14 editorial in the Financial Times, a paper that twice supported Obama for President. What?! Are they sexist too? I guess they're racist too, in light of this comment about Obama: "...Mr. Obama has been curiously passive. Fixing the strongest coalitions, and the best strategies, to push back Mr. Putin, ISIS and others will require the sustained engagement of America's friends and allies. But it will first require genuine leadership."

Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the head of the Democratic National Committee, is trying to get Scott Walker's democrat opponent in the Wisconsin governor's race elected to that office. Said Schultz of Walker: "Scott Walker has given women the back of his hand." She then equated Republicans like Walker with "grabbing us by the hair and pulling us back." What?! But this is the way it works for Democrats - ignore the issues and engage in demagoguery. So what if it's intellectually dishonest - it works. Ms. Schultz got a little feed back on those comments, equating Walker's policies with domestic abuse. But in her subsequent non-apology, she simply said she should not have used the words - but Walker is still bad for women.

Remember those poor Palestinians, the ones Israel beat up so badly in Gaza? Well, a poll by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research just found that 79% of Palestinians think they won that war, and 72% think the West Bank Palestinians should engage in similar attacks on Israel. Wait...What?! Weren't those people in Gaza just innocent civilians who wanted nothing to do with Hamas and the war? 61% in the West Bank and Gaza said they would vote for the Hamas leader over PA leader Abbas for President, if the election were held now. (Stats from the 9/3/14 Investor's Business Daily.)

We can't end this post without mention of former President Jimmy Carter. Carter recently spoke to the convention of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA, the largest Muslim advocacy group in the US). ISNA has alternately been linked with the Wahabi brand of radical Islam sponsored by Saudi Arabia, as well as the Muslim Brotherhood. Said Carter: "I look forward to continued cooperation between ISNA and the Carter Center because we share so many things in common. We're all Americans, wanting to insist upon basic human rights, peace, freedom, justice, and the treatment of each other as equals." Wait...What?! Whom are we talking about, exactly? Carter went on: "I hope that all of you will use the principles of Allah and our G-d to bring peace and justice to all." You know what, Jimmy? Let them direct the principles of Allah at you. I'll pass.

A Failure of Leadership, Part II

On 8/20/14, President Obama managed to break away for a few minutes from his golf game while on vacation in Martha's Vineyard, in order to speak about the beheading of US citizen and reporter James Foley. If you did not have an opportunity to see this short speech I will tell you it was passionless - and in stark contrast to Obama's smiling and having good time on the golf course only minutes later. I have often noted, however, that Obama has no class.

Said Obama: "So ISIL (aka ISIS & IS) speaks for no religion...their victims are overwhelmingly Muslim, and no faith teaches people to massacre innocents." You see, it is just a coincidence that there are dozens (hundreds?) of Islamic terror groups around the world who just happen to all say they are killing in the name of Islam. So how can Obama actually make such a naively absurd comment?

Part of the answer, no doubt, is his affinity for - and reluctance to criticize - anything Islamic. The words "Islamic terrorism" were banned from use in his Administration. Recall "overseas contingency operations" in its place. Recall the murderer Major Nidal Hassan who acknowledged his Islamic motivation in murdering fellow soldiers - but the White House calling his actions an act of "workplace violence." Obama's affinity for Islam and the Muslim world has been apparent from day one - overstating the contributions of Muslims to the United States and to the world. He constantly mentions the shared values that Islam has with the West - omitting the overwhelming lack of freedom and democracy in almost every Muslim state.

However, one cannot fully understand Obama's naivete without also noting his fundamental belief in leftism and even Marxism. At the end of July, Obama (Fundraisers R Us) spoke to contributors and said this: "Part of people's concern is just the sense that around the world the old order isn't holding and we're not quite yet to where we need to be in terms of a new order that's based on a different set of principles, that's based on a sense of common humanity, that's based on economies that work for all people." His leftism tells him that we all share the same values - a "common humanity." But tens (if not hundreds) of millions Muslims believe in being governed by Shariah law. There is nothing in Shariah law that reflects common values with Western style democracies.

Obama's leftism also tells him that American power has been primarily a source of harm in the world - hence the need for a "new set of principles." But his Marxism tells him that economics ("economies that work for all people") is what motivates people, a Marxist idea lacking in its ability to explain radical Islam. These Muslims are, in fact, motivated by their understanding of Islam. They do not say they are poor people seeking a redistribution of wealth. (Neither was economics motivating the killing fields of Cambodia, Rwanda, Sudan or many other murderous operators.)

Obama is proud of the fact that he "ended" the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He says he was not elected to start another war; and will not rush into another war - comparing himself to Bush. The problem is (even if one disagrees with the Iraq war) Obama acknowledged in 2011 that "...we're leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq with a representative government that was elected by its people." That does not mean that it was wise on Obama's part to not insist on a status-of-forces agreement, and not leave 10,000 - 15,000 troops in Iraq. 62 years later we still have troops in Korea. 69 years later we have troops still in Japan and Germany. Given the complete turmoil in the Middle East, would it not have been a good idea to leave a stabilizing force?

So now we have ISIS having taken over parts of Iraq and Syria. As noted by the USA Today (8/22-8/24/14), ISIS is better funded, better at the use of social media and propaganda, more experienced, and in control of far more land than Al Qaeda. Obama also said on 8/20/14: "People like this (ISIL) ultimately fail. They fail because the future is won by those who build and not destroy." Not exactly. As is frequently said - all that is required for evil to prevail is for good people to do nothing. When Afghanistan was a failed state run by the Taliban, Al Qaeda was allowed to operate their bases and plan attacks on the US and others. ISIS controls large areas of land that will allow them and other terrorists to plan future attacks. Yet, only days ago Obama acknowledged a lack of US strategy for dealing with ISIS.

CIA Director John Brennan recently told Congress that he believes ISIS is a real threat to the United States of America. According to the latest Pew Research Poll (8/20-8/24/14), 54% of Americans believe Obama is not tough enough when it comes to foreign policy and national security. It appears that British Prime Minister David Cameron has a different approach. Said Cameron: "...the ambition to create an extremist Caliphate in the heart of Iraq and Syria is a threat to our own security here in the U.K...We can't appease this ideology. We have to confront it at home and abroad." And we in the US have to first elect a President willing to acknowledge the worldwide threat of radical Islam; a threat by not only those who engage in violence, but the tens of millions (or more) who support them. For the next 2 years and 5 months we will have to suffer a leader unwilling and/or unable to recognize the nature and seriousness of that threat.

A Failure of Leadership, Part I

With regards to the shooting of Michael Brown by Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson, Missouri Governor Jay Nixon had this to say: "a vigorous prosecution must now be pursued." Such a comment is completely contrary to the way our legal system works. An investigation into the facts must be done before any decision is even made as to whether or not to prosecute. Does the Governor not know this? Of course he does - he was the Attorney General of Missouri for 16 years before becoming Governor. So what is going on here?

The Governor made some other equally ridiculous comments, such as the fact that the shooting occurred in "broad daylight." The relevance of that is what exactly? Police officers may only fear for their lives after the sun sets? The Governor added: "We have a responsibility to come together, and do everything we can to achieve justice for (Brown's) family." No justice is anticipated for the police officer - he has already been tried and convicted by the Democrat politicians and the mainstream media. What the Governor should have said: NOTHING!

These comments reflect the worst type of pandering - not just to the Democrats' black base (Nixon is a democrat), but to a mob. Obama was not to be outdone as he sent the US Attorney General Eric Holder to Ferguson. Holder added to the race baiting by saying he did not come to Ferguson just as the Attorney General, but as "a black man." He should have stayed in DC. It was entirely premature for the feds to be involved; yet Holder said he brought the most experienced team of investigators and prosecutors with him. These comments by these democrat politicians serve only to enhance the notion of 'victimhood' in the black community.

As it turns out blacks are victims, but mostly of other blacks. As reported in the 8/22/14 IBD (article by Brent Bozell and Tim Graham) blacks are only 13% of the population but are 50% of the homicide victims. That is a disturbing number. But it's not white police officers who are responsible for most of those deaths - 90% of those homicide victims are killed by other blacks.

The City of Chicago has been experiencing a terrible jump in violent crimes. The same IBD article notes 89 homicides in Chicago so far this summer. It is reprehensible that Holder did not go to Chicago with his best investigators and prosecutors. But I guess the life of a single black man killed by a white cop is worth far more than the many blacks killed by other blacks.

The black family in America has been hurting ever since the Democrats decided that blacks needed the government's help - with welfare. The 8/20/14 IBD reported that in 1950 only 9% of black families were headed by a single parent. But today, 72% of black births are outside of marriage. Jason Riley, a black man, has a book out entitled "Please Stop Helping Us!". In an interview with Forbes, a Mr. Peter Greer (described by Wikipedia as a Christian advocate for the poor, and who said that Church foreign aid programs make things worse) referenced a Bob Lupton, who said something to this effect: when you give something the first time there is gratitude, the second time there is anticipation, the third time there is expectation, the fourth time there is entitlement, and the fifth time there is dependency.

I am not going to say that no police officer has negative racial attitudes. But which problems are affecting the most blacks? A culture of dependency that has negatively impacted the black family? An extremely high rate of homicide by blacks on blacks? Or the white police officer?

The media has been despicable in this matter, with the likes of CNN actually showing the home and street address of Officer Wilson. Are they trying to take over where Charles Manson left off - trying to start a race war? All for the purpose of ratings and selling papers? You see, the evidence is not as cut and dry as Governor Nixon and the media would have you believe. The autopsy suggests that Mr. Brown was not shot in the back while running away, as originally suggested. The video from the local market taken prior to the shooting showed Mr. Brown and his friend stealing. Because force was then used (Brown was seen grabbing and then pushing the store clerk) it became a felony. While Officer Wilson may have been unaware of that, Mr. Brown was very much aware of what he had done, and may have thought he was being stopped for that reason.

While one media outlet was reporting that Officer Wilson's eye socket was fractured in the altercation with Brown, others are reporting no fracture, but apparent swelling of the face resulting in the officer going to the hospital. It is unclear as to why the Ferguson Police Department was so slow in releasing accurate information. The withholding of important information may be important for the investigation; unfortunately, it also gives those predisposed to thinking the worst about the police an opportunity to do so. I have little doubt that many blacks cringed at the site of looting and destruction by other blacks. Others (Al Sharpton?) tried to justify it.

So what now? What if there is no indictment coming from the grand jury? What if there is, and the officer is found not guilty at trial? What if Obama, Holder, Nixon and the mainstream media stop the race baiting and start advocating for the criminal justice system - it's not a perfect system, but it's what we've got. And you are not likely to find a better one.

Did You Hear That...

Dr. Mustafa Barghouti, of the Palestinian National Initiative, said: "We are ready even to be completely demilitarized if Israel also accepts to be demilitarized, and we will all live in peace and coexistence. What's the problem?" ("We are the world, we are the children..." Does this guy actually believe the BS he's peddling? I know the UN does. Does Obama?) (Quote from Fox News, 8/9/14.)

At a special session of the UN General Assembly, the EU's representative said: "We condemn the terrible loss of almost 2000 lives," referring to the war between Israel and Hamas. (So, their representative condemns the loss of even the Hamas terrorists who started the war? Who, exactly, was Israel allowed to target in this war? Oh, no one.)

The US representative, Rosemary DiCarlo, said: the Obama Administration was "horrified at the strikes that hit UNRWA schools..." (How about standing up for Israel and acknowledging Hamas hides their weapons and terrorist fighters in and around schools, mosques, homes, etc.?)

The Canadian representative to this special session said: "The responsibility for the death and destruction that we have witnessed in recent weeks are attributable solely to Hamas." (Thank you Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who personally dressed down other Western leaders, including Obama, with this: "Failure by the international community to condemn these reprehensible actions (of Hamas) will encourage these terrorists to continue their appalling actions...solidarity with Israel is the best way of stopping the conflict." "O Canada..."!) (Last 4 quotes from the 8/9/14 JPost online.)

California Democratic Senator Diane Feinstein actually said this: "It takes an army to defeat an army, and I believe that we either confront (ISIS) now or we will be forced to deal with an even stronger enemy in the future. Inaction is no longer an option." (So take that, Obama! Obama sounds like Kerry - remember his "unbelievably small" response to Syria; which turned out to be no response. Feinstein sounds like an earlier democrat who said: "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty." RIP JFK; hopefully we will have a stronger President in 2 1/2 years.)

Bill O'Reilly made this astute observation: "I don't think President Obama looks at the world in terms of good and evil. For the President, there is always a political solution, a consensus, a discussion." (Yes, because for Obama everybody is the same, sharing the same values. Recall Obama's speech to the Muslim world from Cairo, when he said: "...America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles - principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings." Um, somebody did not get that memo. "Hey, who's in charge of memo distribution?")

The Foreign Press Association in Israel and Palestine was not too happy with Hamas. They issued this statement, "protest(ing) in the strongest terms the blatant, incessant, forceful and unorthodox methods employed by the Hamas authorities and their representatives against visiting international journalists in GAZA over the past month." (They mean like threatening reporters for telling the truth about from where rockets and missiles are actually fired at Israel? The US mainstream media seems to be a pretty reliable partner for Hamas' propaganda, even accepting their count of civilian casualties. Would Hamas lie?)

Today's Wall Street Journal reported that Obama held back a shipment of air-to-surface missiles from Israel during the recent war with Hamas. The transfer was apparently going to be made by the Pentagon in a routine transaction, when the White House stepped in. An official was quoted as saying that the Administration became "increasingly disturbed by what they saw as heavy-handed battlefield tactics that they believed risked a humanitarian catastrophe." (As the Truth-Uncensored has indicated previously, Obama gives lip service to Israel's right to defend itself, but does not really mean it. As for "humanitarian catastrophes," Obama does not seem all that interested in Syria, Iraq, and Nigeria. But those places have Muslims killing people; Jews killing people when defending themselves - we gotta stop that! Now!)

The British newspaper, The Guardian, wrote an editorial about rising anti-Semitism in Europe. Said the editorial: "...during the course of a single July week, eight synagogues in France were attacked, one of them firebombed by a 400-strong crowd, whose chants, and banners included 'Death to Jews' and 'Slit Jews Throats'." They went on to say that molotov cocktails were thrown at synagogues in Germany, with people shouting such slogans as 'Hamas, Hamas Jews to the gas.' (Run that by me again President Obama - something about "shared principles", was it not? Principles like "tolerance and the dignity of all human beings." Let's be honest; when the real world conflicts with Obama's leftist and naive view of the world - well, there's always golf.)

In today's Jerusalem Post online Natan Sharansky, head of the Jewish Agency, wrote in the British paper the Jewish Chronicle, that "we are seeing the beginning of the end of Jewish history in Europe." (My friends, we are living through times of historic population shifts. Very few Christians are left in the Middle Eastern Arab and Muslim countries. Now, with increasing emigration of European Jews to Israel, referred to as Aliyah (going up), will this other major population shift result in Europe being 'judenrein' - free of Jews? I do not think the secular, leftist, anti-Semitic Europeans will be too happy living under Sharia law. But they just might get the opportunity to find out. Maybe then they will regret displacing Jews in favor of Muslims.)

You Claim You Support Israel?

I am often told how much smarter the Democrats are in comparison with the Republicans. Obama, Hillary, Kerry and Pelosi vs. Bush, Romney, Reagan and, of course, Palin. So let's take a look at these brilliant democrats.

Nancy Pelosi was recently being interviewed on CNN by Candy Crowley. Said Pelosi: "...we have to confer with the Qataris who have told me over and over again that Hamas is a humanitarian organization, maybe they could use their influence..." At this point Pelosi was interrupted by Crowley, asking if she knew that the US thinks Hamas is a terrorist organization. With a blank stare on her face Pelosi was only able to get out "hmm hmm." This woman was Speaker of the House, and was next in line to the Presidency after Joe Biden. The Qataris are funding Hamas's terrorist activities; activities that kill Jews. And Pelosi does not know that. And why is she speaking "over and over again" with the Qataris?

Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State. This is what she recently said: "The problem is, this is something - I'm not a military planner - but Hamas puts its missiles, its rockets in civilian areas, part of it is that Gaza's pretty small and it's very densely populated; they put their command and control of Hamas military leaders in those civilian areas..." Why does everyone but Clinton (and probably Pelosi) know that Hamas intentionally puts their weapons in civilian areas, using their people as human shields, hoping that Israel will not then attack those areas. If Israel does attack, Hamas has the "bonus" of displaying their civilian casualties to a world lacking moral clarity. As for the size of Gaza, it is over 6 times larger than Manhattan, which has a comparable number of people.

John Kerry is the current Secretary of State. He is very busy in the Middle East and elsewhere - trying to accomplish all the wrong things. Egypt had early on proposed an unconditional cease fire, which Israel agreed to. Hamas did not. So Kerry decided it would be a good idea to meet with Qatar and Turkey to work out the terms of a different cease fire. Qatar and Turkey are the two regional players supporting Hamas. So, of course, the plan is to give Hamas everything they want - resulting in victory for them and defeat for Israel. On top of that, Kerry does not invite Egypt or the PA (Abbas) to those discussions, insulting both. Brilliant!

Given Hamas's aggression, given their terrorism, given their dictatorial rule over Gaza, one might think that the proper approach here would be to insist on a surrender and laying down of arms by Hamas - regardless of what Hamas might want. Instead, the plan was to reward Hamas for attacking Israel.

Said retired Lt. Col. Ralph Peters of Kerry: "The real problem we have on a practical level is that Secretary Kerry just doesn't seem to have the sort of supple dynamic incisive intelligence you have to have to play in the Middle East..." And, I might add, he is too easily swayed by Palestinian propaganda.

Recall Obama's speech to the Muslim world from Cairo? Mubarek was then President of Egypt and as a slap in the face to Mubarek Obama invited the Muslim Brotherhood to hear his speech. Mubarek had outlawed the Brotherhood. Hamas is simply an offshoot of the Brotherhood. After Mubarek was deposed, the Muslim Botherhood took over, and immediately started talking about ending the peace agreement with Israel.

Meanwhile, Obama recently offered $47 million to Hamas for "humanitarian" purposes. When Israel was persuaded to allow large amounts of concrete into Gaza for the humanitarian purpose of allowing the Gazans to build infrastructure, that never happened. Now, however, we know where the concrete went - into very deep and sophisticated tunnels leading from Gaza into Israel, all for the purpose of killing and kidnapping Jews. So I wonder what Hamas will do with that $47 million that Obama wishes to reward them with.

Another UN facility was bombed by Israel. It is already known that Hamas hides rockets and missiles in UN complexes. Nevertheless, children were killed. Kerry's spokesperson (Jen Psaki) said the bombing was "disgraceful," and that "the United States is appalled." While the Obama Administration gives lip service to Israeli's right to defend themselves, they really don't mean it. Said Psaki: "The suspicion that militants are operating nearby does not justify strikes that put at risk the lives of so many innocent civilians." But, as noted, that is what Hamas does - they operate in and near civilian areas. Using the Obama Administration's logic then, Israel would never be allowed to defend itself and fight back.

Around the world, and throughout the USA, there have been anti-Israel demonstrations. These demonstrations, often attended by Muslims, quickly turn into anti-Semitic attacks. Said one in Miami: "We are all jihad." And this: "I'm going to kill you m.....f....., you and all the Israelis." Synagogues had swastikas put on them. In one Belgian town a store owner put up a sign "Dogs are allowed in this establishment, but Jews are not under any circumstances." (Quotes from the 7/29/14 and 7/30/14 Investor's Business Daily. I could give more quotes, but you get the point.)

On the CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations) website they urged US Muslims to "tell the president and Congress to demand Israel immediately halt its brutal campaign of collective punishment in Gaza and seek justice for the killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians." Actually, less than 2000 were killed, but why let truth be an issue. (Quote from the 7/30/14 IBD.) Guess how Muslims tend to vote? 89% voted for Obama in 2008 (per Wikipedia). In other words, liberal Jews vote in a similar manner to those who either would like to see Israel destroyed and Jews killed, or support those who would.

So, if you are a liberal Jew and you voted for Obama and will continue to vote Democrat (because of gay marriage or abortion or some government benefit) then please do not tell me you support Israel. Unless, of course, you believe that any of the above demonstrates support for Israel. What would a President Romney be doing and saying with regards to this war between Israel and Hamas? We cannot know for sure, of course, but recall what Romney said in the 2012 debates about Russia - that Russia was our "number one geopolitical foe." Obama mocked him, saying Romney was taking us back decades to the Cold War. Since then, Hillary had her "reset button" with Russia; and Obama told Medvedev to "tell Vladimir (Putin) I'll have more flexibility after the election." Well, that worked out well.

As a reminder, and as noted in my 7/20/14 post (The Moral Compass), conservative Republicans sympathize with Israel over the Palestinians, with 77% favoring Israel. Liberal Democrats - only 39% favored Israel. My fellow Jews have a decision to make - do you support Democrats or do you support Israel?

What They Should Have Said

Incredibly (I guess not for any of the following quotes), Obama's Deputy National Security Adviser, Ben Rhodes, said this to CNN's Wolf Blitzer on 7/23/14: "We've been heartbroken at the loss of Palestinian life, the loss of children, so we do believe that Israel has to take greater care to avoid those types of civilian casualties." What he should have said: "The United States condemns Hamas for intentionally placing their own people, including children, in harms way during this war. Israel places phone calls, sends text messages, drops leaflets and sends warning shots - all with the hope of avoiding civilian casualties. The Hamas leaders should be captured and tried for war crimes."

Ban Ki-moon, UN Secretary General, said this on 7/20/14: "...dozens more civilians, including children, have been killed in Israeli military strikes in the Shuja'iyya neighborhood in Gaza. I condemn this atrocious action. Israel must exercise maximum restraint and do more to protect civilians." What he should have said: "The UN Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs found that Israel sent text messages to about 600,000 people in Ash Shuja'iyya and Gaza City warning them to leave; and Israel also placed phone calls and dropped leaflets. However, the Palestinian Ministry of the Interior told people not to leave - so most stayed. We condemn Hamas and the Palestinian leadership for targeting civilians in Israeli cities with missiles fired from Gaza; and we condemn the Palestinians for putting their civilians in harms way by telling them to stay in a war zone." (Information on Shuja'iyya from JPost article of 7/22/14 by Anne Bayefsky.)

The New York Times, in their lead editorial of 7/25/14, noted the death of 750 Gazans, and then opined: "What really matters now is that some way be found to stop this carnage." Then: "It is fair to ask whether Israel is doing enough to prevent that." As an afterthought they threw in: "Hamas also deserves scrutiny..." What they should have said: "Hamas and the Palestinians in Gaza have launched well over 10,000 rockets, mortars and missiles into Israel - all aimed at Israeli cities - since Israel vacated Gaza in 2005. When the Israelis finally retaliate, Hamas has no shelters built for the protection of their civilians. They have expended great sums of money on tunnels for their terrorist groups to use in attacks on Israelis. Israel has no choice but to attack in an effort to stop the onslaught of missiles into their cities, with 5 million people having to run for bomb shelters at various times. It is intolerable, and the world must condemn and punish Hamas and the other terrorist perpetrators."

On the first page of the 7/21/14 New York Times was an article about the propaganda war between Hamas and Israel. The Times notes how propaganda has been a part of wars for generations. They give examples of various propaganda tools used by both sides. What they should have said: "The real problem is that even in times of relative peace, the Palestinians and larger Arab world relentlessly fill their media and inculcate their children with their hate filled propaganda against Israel and the Jews. Jews and Israel are described in the most vile terms. Until this stops, and until they finally acknowledge Israel's right to exist as the Jewish state, this war will never end. And the responsibility for any future deaths will lie squarely with the Palestinians."

Secretary of State John Kerry was unaware that he was speaking into an open microphone, when he sarcastically criticized Israel's military operation with this: "It's a hell of a pinpoint operation. It's a hell of a pinpoint operation." What he should have said: "The Israelis have enough firepower to flatten Gaza, which some countries might have been tempted to do after suffering from thousands of rocket and missile attacks. Yet, the Israelis send their own troops in on the ground, knowing some will be killed, in order to limit the number of civilian casualties on the other side. Rarely, if ever, in the history of warfare, has any country acted with such restraint and in such a manner."

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said this: "It is not in the interest of either side for this violence to continue and even to escalate." What he should have said: "Hamas has chosen to use violence against Israel ever since the people of Gaza made the mistake of electing them as the leaders of Gaza. Hamas and the other Palestinian groups in Gaza launch terrorist attacks, send suicide bombers, engage in kidnapping and non-stop rocket and missile attacks - all against Israel. Israel needs to destroy Gaza's existing military infrastructure, and then the world needs to see to it that Gaza permanently becomes a demilitarized zone."

On 7/27/14, President Barack Hussain Obama placed a telephone call to the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. In that call, Obama called for an immediate and unconditional ceasefire; a ceasefire "...that both allows Palestinians in Gaza to lead normal lives and addresses Gaza's long-term development and economic needs, while strengthening the PA."

What Obama should have said - not in a phone call to Netanyahu - but in a speech to the world: "The Arabs have been fighting Israel's right to exist as the Jewish State ever since modern day Israel's founding in 1948. Surrounded on all sides by enemies who want them dead, and having had to cope with numerous wars and intifadas in their short history, Israel has nevertheless thrived, and is one of the truly great success stories of the 20th and 21st centuries. Israel has been a world leader in technology and medicine. Now, let me be clear. The United States wants to see peace. The Israelis yearn for peace. It is past time for the Arabs and Palestinians to recognize Israel as the Jewish State."

"Hamas and the other terror groups in Gaza have used millions of dollars in aid in order to turn Gaza into a permanent military base. This stops now. Hamas and all terror groups in Gaza are on notice - you have one month to turn over all your rockets, missiles and other weapons to the United States. We will then destroy those weapons. In addition, Gaza will hold new elections, with only those interested in running a civil society being qualified to run. Once you have done this, you can expect complete cooperation and assistance from the United States in building the institutions and infrastructure required to run a civil society. I have no doubt that the Israelis will help you as well - once you have accepted the above terms."

"But make no mistake. If you choose to subject your people to another century of war, then Israel will have our full support - and you will have none. We will provide Israel with all means necessary to protect their country. Let other actors in the region know this - an all- out assault on Israel will treated as an all-out on the United States of America. The United States will use its military might to protect Israel's existence. Do not think for one minute you will be able to use the UN against Israel. We will block all actions against Israel in the Security Council. As for other UN agencies over which the US has no veto, any sanctions placed against Israel for defending themselves from you will be treated as an action against the United States."

"Now, let the peace begin, and let's start building a civil society for the Palestinian people."