Contaminated Milk – Milk from Hawaii is showing very high levels of radiation

May 25, 2011

Big Island Dairy Farmers fight radiation with Boron
May 10, 2011 / Community
All Islands, Big Island, Oahu
Britton & Shekinah; Milk and Honey Farm

An open letter from dairy farmers on the Big Island of Hawaii shares some solutions for working with radiation problems in milk.

Dear Milk Share Members,
Our goal to offer high quality safe food to our community has recently been challenged in the reality of the radioactivity being released into our environment. In the past weeks radioactive levels have increased in Hawaii, with high spikes and a more current leveling off of radiation levels. Milk from the large dairies in Hamakua and Hawi has shown elevated levels of radiation, from 400 to 2400 times the recognized safe levels.

Why is milk contamination significant in the world of agriculture? Because milk represents the overall condition of the entire food chain, since cows consume grass and are exposed to the same elements as crops. So, when milk tests positive for radiation, it indicates the entire food chain is contaminated since cows eat grass. When grass is contaminated everything grown in the same soil is contaminated. This has proposed a serious concern to us farmers, with us asking what can we do? After much consideration, research, and conversations with much appreciated experts in the field of biological farming and human & animal health, we have found some things which we are able to do to protect our soil, animals, and bodies.

Aside from the much recognized supplement potassium iodine as a protection against radioactive iodine, there are a number of ways we can help. We have remembered our friend, elemental boron and the position it plays on the earth. Boron is the only mineral capable of accepting and ionizing radiation that never changes the innards or the nucleus of the cell. Spoken simply, boron can take radiation and release it without upsetting its own very delicate balance.

Boron is used extensively in the nuclear industry. Sodium borate is regularly used for standby liquid control systems, in case of emergencies. It was used in Cheronbyl in 1986 mixed with sand to prevent further radiation leakage. It was also used in 1999 in Tokaimura, Japan, to absorb the massive amounts of radiation after an accident at a plant. Currently it is being dumped on fuel rods and in surrounding waters of the Fukushima plant. Boron is widely recognized as extremely safe and can be used to capture radioactivity on our soils, gardens, orchards, etc. It also can be safely ingested by humans and animals. Boron will accept radiation and ionize it within our bodies, after which our bodies will safely excrement the boron and radioactivity.

We have begun feeding our cows and goats sodium borate at milking times, as well as adding it to free choice kelp and water troughs. In the past years we have monitored boron and other minerals in the soil and have added as necessary to bring levels up to recognized healthy levels. As a safety measure we are planning to implement a boron dosage to all of our pastures, as well as neighboring pastures. For humans, boron can safely ingested at a dosage of 4-10 mg per day. Borax, 11% boron, can be used as a tea and sprayed on your gardens, or land surrounding your home, at a rate of 10# of Borax per acre, 1#, if using elemental boron. Borax can also be ingested at 1/8 tsp to 1 litre water for women, ¼ tsp to 1 litre water for men. Fortunately, red wine and coffee are significant sources of boron, as well as non-citrus fruits, red grapes, plums, pears, apples, avocados, legumes and nuts! Boron is known to be non-carcinogenic, non-mutagenic and has been used internally to protect the astronauts in space as they leave the earth’s protective magnetic field.

Other things we can do to protect our bodies are to consume zeolites, use potassium iodine, receive plenty of glutathione, the best source of which is whey!, eat plenty of supergreens, such as kale, but including chlorella and spirulina, maintain healthy mineral levels, and eat lots of good healthy fats, including raw butter, and coconuts, which offer a fantastic layer of protection for our cells. Baking soda has been known to diminish the severity of change produced by uranium to the kidneys, which are the first to show radiation damages of uranium. Dosage is 1 tsp to 8 oz water for adults and ¼ tsp in 4 oz water for children.

According to Cheryl McCoy, Aboutclay.com, Calcium Bentonite Clay acts as a magnet absorbing anything with a positive charge, ie radiation and toxicity. She suggests washing all produce which may be considered radioactive in 1 part clay to 8 parts water in a non-metallic bowl, soaking for 10 minutes, then rinse and dry as usual. Bentonite clay can be added to catchment tanks, drinking water or raw milk to isolate radioactivity, which will not be released once captured by clay. Also, the body cannot digest clay, but will rather release clay through excrement. Clay can be added to milk or drinking water at a dosage of 1 oz liquid calcium bentonite to 1 gallon raw milk or drinking water. Either allow to settle and pour off or mix and consume clay and liquid. 1-2 oz liquid bentonite clay can be safely consumed per day by an adult, with significant detox abilities.

In these tenuous times it is all we can do to be honestly informed of the situation at hand and act accordingly. We are doing our best to protect our soil, animals and bodies from the elevated levels of radioactivity, and hope that you will also. Our prayers and blessings are with the farmers and families closer to the source of radioactive pollution. We send them our love and hopes for a green, safe future for all on this earth.

Blessings,
Britton & Shekinah
Milk and Honey Farm
Pahoa, Big Island Hawaii


Obama’s solution – Israel should give up land for peace. Obama’s knowledge of history is stunted as is his logic.

May 23, 2011

Obama’s False Choice

By Jonathan Tobin

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | In his address to AIPAC Sunday morning, President Obama doubled down on the points he made in his speech on Thursday. After a lengthy, and not entirely unjustified defense of his administration’s record of support for Israel’s security, he continued talking down to the Jewish state and its government as if he knew better than they about the situation in the Middle East.

Following the talking points that the administration has been furiously spinning since Thursday, Obama attempted to explain that there was nothing original or new in his attempt to lay down the 1967 lines as the starting point for future talks. It is true, as he asserted that his line bout “mutually agreed upon swaps” of territory means that the “borders will be different.” But contrary to his claim that this is what past administrations also support, the Bush 2004 letter let it be known that the United States supported Israel’s claims on Jerusalem and the major settlement blocs. Obama is neutral about Israel’s borders. That is why the Palestinians view his support of the 1967 borders as a green light for them to refuse to talk unless Israel agrees to surrender every inch of territory.

Even worse, Obama’s lecture about why Israel must make further concessions in spite of Arab intransigence was condescending and somewhat misleading. Obama said that demographics and technology mean the status quo can’t be sustained and implicitly accused Israel of “procrastination.” But Israel has already offered the Palestinians a state in virtually all of the West Bank, part of Jerusalem and Gaza and been turned down twice. Even the supposedly right-wing government of Benjamin Netanyahu has made its commitment to a two-state solution clear. Obama says Israel can’t wait “another decade or two or three decades” to make peace. But Israel has been trying to make peace for 63 years. The world may be “moving too fast” to wait for peace but why must he lecture the Israelis when it is the Palestinians who refuse to talk, let alone recognize the legitimacy of a Jewish state no matter where its borders are drawn?

 Road Map to Peace


Although Obama rightly declared that the United States would oppose attempts to bypass the peace process via the United Nations, his mention of the 1967 borders will be used, as it has already by the Palestinians, to buttress their attempt to get recognition for an independent state inside those lines with no recognition of Israel.

Like all Obama speeches, the president presented a false choice in which he said the “easy thing” would be to say nothing about the peace process rather than to confront it as he has done. Democratic Party donors will have the final word on how foolish his attempt to ambush Netanyahu this past week. But the real false choice is the notion that it is somehow in Israel’s power to magically create peace. That decision has always been in the hands of the Palestinians and the Arab world. So long as they ally themselves with terrorists and refuse to negotiate and to demand a “right of return” which would destroy Israel (and which Obama again failed to condemn) there will be no peace.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0511/tobin052311.php3


Obama should not be President – Obama is setting Israel up for a WAR and the same logic would lead to a WAR in the US – He is setting a DANGEROUS precedent

May 21, 2011

This President is dangerous to the US.  The logic that started the war in Libya has nothing to do with Gadhafi, per se.  It has to do with setting the stage.  This president is not a leader.  He IS an actor.  The stage is being prepared by others.  He is only the lead role at the moment.  And this is WHY he is dangerous.  Nothing is REAL.  It’s all staged.  No one that is a REAL player gets hurt, according to the globalists.

I’m convinced that there is a fracturing in the Globalists clique.  Some of them are Global Capitalists and others are Global Communists.  There is an ideological strife a foot. The reason I believe that is because there are leaks of information surfacing that would otherwise NOT be there.

Be that as it may, the other agents in play are the Muslims.  They are outmaneuvering the Globalists on some fronts and the Globalists are making hasty errors in judgement.  They are forced to move more quickly, but some have already made deals with the other side.  Those, I believe, are the Capitalists, because they have only one goal, money, but not money in that they have paper or stuff like that, but money in terms of true wealth and that is Control driven.  They have to get CONTROL of the commonly accepted currency, because in the end, that is their only truest commodity.

So, how does that correlate to Gadhafi and how does that set the stage for a war that the US be subjected to?

It’s the Logic.  The UN is the Global GUN.  The reason that Gadhafi was attacked is to begin to set the precedent and NO other reason.  The next casualty will be potentially Syria, in my opinion.  The following, and this may not occur until AFTER the election, is Israel.  And the reasoning is nice outlined below, in Gaffeney’s article.  However, I would take it a step farther.  The same situation is setting itself up here too, in the US.  The next casualty, may indeed be, the US.  Hezbollah and Hamas have set up shop in South America and Mexico.  They are taking over the cartels.  They got their FEET in the door by selling weapons and training the Cartels.  Now, they are tenured within those “armies.”  The same situation is setting itself up.  What difference is there in logic?  It is the same.  The Palestinian’s cry that they were removed from their land.  The Mexicans cry the same.  US children are being taught toward sedition and outright treason of their own country by “teachers” whose agenda is to overthrow the state that they teach.  Even the methods are the same between the Palestinians and what they are doing to Israel and what the “Mexican’s”  are doing to the US.   The similarities should not go unnoticed.  The fish ALWAYS stinks from the HEAD.

<thanks to Mandy for the Gaffney article.>

I would also like to mention that Obama sitting as the head of the UN security council is a direct violation of the nobility clause in Article 9 of the US CONSTITUTION.

The Senate Armed Services Committee should convene immediately to prevent Obama from using our people in his and the NWO’s war. The military should stand down.

The ATF who’s under the Homeland security, which the CIA is also under, is headed by a CZAR.  This agency is NOT steered by an elected official.  This is an appointment by the PRESIDENT.  These CZAR headed agencies have taken control of legitimate agencies and are run by executive fiat.  This is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  How is it that they have been allowed these POWERS?  These agencies have seized control of America.  They overrule the Constitutional limitations of power.

Communist China may be bad, but America is going to be much worse, if this continues unchecked.

The Gadhafi precedent: Could attack on Libya set the stage for action against Israel?

By Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | There are many reasons to be worried about the bridge-leap the Obama administration has just undertaken in its war with Col. Moammar Gadhafi. How it will all end is just one of them.

Particularly concerning is the prospect that what we might call the Gadhafi precedent will be used in the not-too-distant future to justify and threaten the use of U.S. military forces against an American ally: Israel.

Here’s how such a seemingly impossible scenario might eventuate:

It begins with the Palestinian Authority seeking a United Nations Security Council resolution that would recognize its unilateral declaration of statehood. Three top female officials in the Obama administration reprise roles they played in the council’s recent action on Libya: U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice, a vehement critic of Israel, urges that the United States support (or at least not veto) the Palestinians’ gambit. She is supported by the senior director for multilateral affairs at the National Security Council, Samantha Power, who in the past argued for landing a “mammoth force” of American troops to protect the Palestinians from Israel. Ditto Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, whose unalloyed sympathy for the Palestinian cause dates back at least to her days as first lady.

This resolution enjoys the support of the other four veto-wielding Security Council members – Russia, China, Britain and France – as well as all of the other nonpermanent members except India, which joins the United States in abstaining. As a result, it is adopted with overwhelming support from what is known as the “international community.”

With a stroke of the U.N.’s collective pen, substantial numbers of Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and Israeli citizens find themselves on the wrong side of internationally recognized borders. The Palestinian Authority (PA) insists on its long-standing position: The sovereign territory of Palestine must be rid of all Jews.

The Israeli government refuses to evacuate the oft-condemned “settlements” now on Palestinian land or to remove the IDF personnel, checkpoints and facilities rightly seen as vital to protecting their inhabitants and, for that matter, the Jewish state itself.

Hamas and Fatah bury the hatchet (temporarily), forging a united front and promising democratic elections in the new Palestine. There, as in Gaza – and probably elsewhere in the wake of the so-called “Arab awakening” – the winner likely will be the Muslim Brotherhood, whose Palestinian franchise is Hamas.


The unified Palestinian proto-government then seeks international help to “liberate” its land. As with the Gadhafi precedent, the first to act is the Arab League. Its members unanimously endorse the use of force to protect the “Palestinian people” and end the occupation of the West Bank by the Israelis.

Turkey, which is still a NATO ally despite its ever-more-aggressive embrace of Islamism, is joined by Britain and France – two European nations increasingly hostile to Israel – in applauding this initiative in the interest of promoting “peace.” They call on the U.N. Security Council to authorize such steps as might be necessary to enforce the Arab League’s bidding.

Once again, Team Obama’s leading ladies – Mrs. Clinton, Ms. Power and Ms. Rice – align to support the “will of the international community.” They exemplify and are prepared to enforce the president’s willingness to subordinate U.S. sovereignty to the dictates of transnationalism and his personal hostility toward Israel. The concerns of Mr. Obama’s political advisers about alienating Jewish voters on the eve of the 2012 election are trumped by presidential sympathy for the Palestinian right to a homeland.

Accordingly, hard as it may be to believe given the United States’ long-standing role as Israel’s principal ally and protector, Mr. Obama acts in accordance with the Gadhafi precedent. He warns Israel that it must take steps immediately to dismantle its unwanted presence inside the internationally recognized state of Palestine lest it face the sort of U.S.- enabled “coalition” military measures now under way in Libya. In this case, they would be aimed at neutralizing IDF forces on the West Bank – and beyond, if necessary – in order to fulfill the “will of the international community.”

Of course, such steps would not result in the ostensibly desired endgame, namely “two states living side by side in peace and security.” If the current attack on Libya entails the distinct possibility of unintended (or at least unforeseen) consequences, application of the Gadhafi precedent to Israel seems certain to produce a very different outcome from the two-state “solution”: Under present and foreseeable circumstances, it will unleash a new regional war, with possible worldwide repercussions.

At the moment, it seems unlikely that the first application in Libya of the Gadhafi precedent will have results consistent with U.S. interests. Even if a positive outcome somehow is forthcoming there, should Mr. Obama and his anti-Israel troika of female advisers be allowed, based on that precedent, to realize the foregoing hypothetical scenario, they surely would precipitate a new international conflagration, one fraught with truly horrific repercussions – for Israel, the United States and freedom-loving people elsewhere.

A Congress that was effectively sidelined by Team Obama in the current crisis had better engage fully, decisively and quickly if it is to head off such a disastrous reprise.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/gaffney032211.php3

– Here’s another article as food for thought –

WHY THE FRAMERS INCLUDED THE “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN” CLAUSE

by Tom Deacon


The greatest defeat of the American Revolution was the fall of Charleston, SC to the British in 1780

(May 16, 2010) — Section 1 ofArticle II of the United States Constitution sets forth the eligibility requirements for serving as President of the United States:

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Try to understand this: At the time of the adoption of the Constitution there were no “natural born Citizens” (no country yet = no citizens, period?), so yes, the Founders wrote in a “grandfather” clause to allow those present (already born) at the time the Constitution was signed to qualify to be president.  However, if you weren’t born yet when the Constitution was adopted (that includes Obama), then you had to be a “natural born Citizen,” meaning both parents must be U.S. citizens. It is amazing how tough this is for some people to understand. The reason Congress “investigated” McCain was because he was not born in the USA. They concluded in their report that that was OK, because his “parents” (notice the plural form of “parents”) were both U.S. Citizens.  This is not true for Obama, and he clearly was not held to the same standard.

The Constitution says you must be a natural born Citizen, or a citizen at the time the Constitution was adopted. The Founders wanted the president to be a natural born Citizen, but they recognized that there were NO natural born Citizens until after the Constitution was adopted. They didn’t know that 200+ years from the signing, the education system would have dumbed down the USA’s population to the point that understanding it was an endangered ability.

Some may believe the natural born Citizen clause isn’t fair. The Founders of our nation believed it was the right thing to do because they had just fought a war with those who had allegiance to a country other than the one they were fighting to create….that country was the one they left to come to America, namely, England.  The Founders did not want to elect a newborn to the office of the president, nor did they want to wait 35 years for a natural born Citizen to meet the age requirement to be president. So they grandfathered themselves in with the statement “or a Citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.” No doubt they trusted themselves and their children who were born prior to the signing of the Constitution to be loyal only to the USA, fighting a war with England would have had that effect on them.

Obama is the “poster child’ who proves once again that the wisdom of America’s Founders was impeccable.

You can make up excuses till the earth fries from global warming, but you can’t change the truth.

http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/05/16/note-to-obama-supporters-even-a-birth-in-hawaii-is-not-enough/


Middle East – the “Democratic” uprising is really a CIVIL WAR between Sunni and Shiite

May 7, 2011

No only is the uprising in the ME NOT Democratic, it’s a sort of CIVIL WAR.

I say civil war, because if one looks at the entire area as PERSIA and Muslim, then the area and issue becomes VERY clear.

Iran is not the head.  There is no HEAD.  The HEAD is ISLAM.

The wars are over control of the region.  The issue is who will be the leader of the coming LARGER fight.  Who wins here is who will take the baton of ISLAM to carry it forward in to the NEW MILLENNIAL.

2011 is 1432 H in Islam.

Bahrain Sees Hezbollah Plot in Protest

 BahrainBahrain

In Report to U.N., Government Says Lebanese Militant Group Has Been Working to Overthrow Ruling Khalifa Family

by Jay Solomon

Bahrain At Night

Bahrain At Night

Bahrain has accused the Iranian-backed militia Hezbollah with seeking to overthrow the island-state’s ruling family, in a report to the United Nations, escalating the growing cold war between Sunni Arab states and Shiite-dominated Iran.

The confidential report, sent to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon last week, alleges that Hezbollah has been training Bahraini opposition figures at camps in Lebanon and Iran. Bahrain’s government also accuses Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah and other senior members of the Islamist Lebanese organization of directly plotting with Bahrain’s largely Shiite opposition on how to challenge the ruling Khalifa family.

Iran, Hezbollah and Bahrain’s opposition movement deny …

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703907004576279121469543918.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Below is a good understanding of the ME.  Look at each countries -“Constitution and the Rule of Law .”  This will give a good feel for each.

Analysis: How will the Mideast dominoes fall now?

Hizballah to pull its heavy missiles from Syrian safekeeping
DEBKAfile Exclusive Report May 1, 2011, 9:30 PM (GMT+02:00)

Tags:  Bashar Assad   Hizballah   Israel   missiles   Syrian uprising 
Syrian army tank in Daraa

The Lebanese Shiite Hizballah has obviously decided the Assad regime is sinking.DEBKAfile’s military sources report the organization is preparing to pull its heavy, long-range weapons out of storage in Syrian military facilities – no longer sure they are safe there – and risk transporting them to Lebanon.

Last year, Syrian President Bashar Assad agreed to store Hizballah’s incoming Iran-made Fatah-110 surface missiles and its Syrian equivalent the M-600 and the mobile SA-8 (Gecko) anti-air battery which holds 18 warheads with a maximum range of 12 kilometers. Tehran paid for the upkeep of the Hizballah hardware on Syrian side of the border after Israel threatened to bomb these potential game-changers if they crossed over.

Deployed at Hizballah bases in Lebanon, the Fatah-110 and M-600 would place almost every corner of Israel within range of bombardment, while the SA-8 would seriously restrict Israeli Air Force operations over southern Lebanon and Galilee.
However, as the uprising against Assad rolls ever closer to Damascus, Hizballah see a very real threat of it infecting the Syrian army and has decided that now might be its last chance to get hold of the core arsenal it has standing by for war with Israel before events get out of hand in Syria.

Hizballah’s headquarters in Dahya, Beirut, became alarmed when they heard about strong resentment building up in the Syrian 11th Division over the Assad crackdown against the dissidents – among officers as well as other ranks.
The 11th Division, which is camped outside Aleppo, is the best trained and organized of all Syrian army units, equipped as its strategic reserve with the most advanced weaponry. If the unrest has reached this elite unit, Hizballah reckons there is no time to losing for pulling its missiles out of Syrian military safekeeping.

Meanwhile, top Hizballah and Iranian offices in Tehran are working on the best way to transport the missiles into Lebanon without exposing them to Israeli attack, DEBKAfile’s Iranian sources report. Some of them calculate that Israel would not venture to strike them while still on Syrian soil because it would lay itself open to interfering, or even getting in the way of, the revolt against President Assad and playing into his hands.

A security emergency might well take the wind out of protest movement’s sails.
But already, Tehran’s Lebanese surrogate is beginning to distance itself from Bashar Assad, its longtime strategic partner and arms supplier, having decided he has his back to the wall.  April 28, the Hizballah-controlled Lebanese Al Akhbar newspaper started criticizing the Assad regime on its op-ed pages.

http://debka.com/article/20891/


Palestine – FATAH and HAMAS united

May 5, 2011

The implications are minimal to the US, but Israel is in the cross hairs.

Obama seems to love to do EVERYTHING to set it things up in the worst way for Israel.

FATAH and HAMAS are two very different type of organizations with both guns pointed at Israel.  And for what?

Everytime Israel gave them anything they destroyed it.  Israel gave up some very nicely developed areas, which had parks and schools and water aquifers

The hate is their enemy.  Israel and the Jews (real Jews) will survive.

Palestinians Celebrate Fatah-Hamas Reconciliation Ceremony In Cairo

Posted by John J. Xenakis May 5th 2011 at 11:01 am in

Palestinians in Gaza, the West Bank and refugee camps celebrated on Wednesday. In Gaza’s Square of the Unknown Soldier, a demonstration turned into a raucous party of thousands cheering, chanting and waving flags, according to the Guardian.

Palestinians celebratePalestinians celebrate

The occasion was a ceremony in Cairo, attended by representatives from the U.N., the EU, and the Arab League, for the signing of a reconciliation agreement between Fatah and Hamas. The two factions have been bitter rivals since a 2007 war, when Hamas defeated Fatah for control of Gaza. Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the Palestinian Authority (PA), the governing body associated with Fatah, and Khaled Meshaal, leader of the Hamas, identified by the U.S. as a terrorist group, met for the first time in five years to sign the agreement.

The reconciliation agreement is an important step on the way to getting the United Nations General Assembly to unilaterally create a Palestinian state in September by international mandate. A reconciliation is an important prerequisite.

_______________________________________________

Vodpod videos no longer available.

PA TV defines Palestine – Tel Aviv, Haifa, Gali…, posted with vodpod

PA TV defines Palestine: Tel Aviv, Haifa, Negev, Galilee and all of Israel
Short film shown beginning with the words:
“Palestine – one day we will return to our home and bask in the warmth of our hopes”
[the line is from a song by Lebanese singer Fairouz, about longing for Palestine]

Afterwards there are scenes of various places, labeled with their names: Jerusalem, Tel Aviv – labeled ‘Tel Al-Rabi’a’, Haifa, the Dead Sea, the Negev, the Galilee, Caesarea, Masada – labeled ‘Jericho mountains’, and Acre.

At the end the following appears:
“For your sake, Palestine, the youth have been demonstrating for 25 days to end the [Fatah-Hamas] rift.”

http://www.palwatch.com

_______________________________________________

Abbas said that they had forever turned “the black page of divisions.” Meshall spelled out Hamas’s goal:

“Our aim is to establish a free and completely sovereign Palestinian state on the West Bank and Gaza Strip, whose capital is Jerusalem, without any settlers and without giving up a single inch of land and without giving up on the right of return [of Palestinian refugees].”

In fact, several years ago, the Middle East Quartet (United Nations, Russian Federation, United States, European Union) set three conditions for Hamas: recognize the state of Israel; renounce violence; and honor past Israeli-Palestinian agreements. Hamas has said that it will not agree to any of these conditions.

Furthermore, Hamas officials have been openly criticial of the U.S. military action that led to Osama bin Laden’s death, according to the Jerusalem Post. On Monday, Hamas Gaza prime minister Ismail Haniyeh, said:

“We condemn the assassination and the killing of an Arab holy warrior. … We regard this, as a continuation of the American policy based on oppression and the shedding of Muslim and Arab blood.”


Benjamin Netanyahu in London with David Cameron
Benjamin Netanyahu in London with David Cameron

Thus, Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu was extremely critical of the agreement:

“What happened today in Cairo is a tremendous blow to peace and a great victory for terrorism. I think the fate of the Middle East and the fate of peace hangs in the balance.”

Netanyahu made this statement while visiting British prime minister David Cameron. Cameron’s office had issued a statement critical of Netanyahu that said:

“This is a time to pursue not ignore the Middle East peace process. That will be his main message to Mr Netanyahu today. We need to study the detail of the agreement but, as the prime minister was making clear in the House of Commons yesterday, we hope that Palestinian unity between Fatah and Hamas will be a step forward.”

However, after the meeting, Cameron was more conciliatory:

“The leaders discussed today’s announcement on Palestinian unity. Prime Minister Cameron said that any new Palestinian government must reject violence, recognise Israel’s right to exist and engage in the peace process, and that Britain would judge it by its actions.”

It’s always interesting to watch politicians dance like this, waiting until they have a chance to conduct a public opinion poll, so they’ll know what to believe.

On the one hand, it almost seems that a Palestinian state in September has become an unstoppable train. On the other hand, there are many serious issues standing in the way.

http://bigpeace.com/jxenakis/2011/05/05/palestinians-celebrate-fatah-hamas-reconciliation-ceremony-in-cairo/

Netanyahu: Fatah-Hamas unity a blow to peace process

By TOVAH LAZAROFF
05/04/2011 15:58

“3 days ago, terrorism was dealt a resounding defeat with the elimination of bin Laden. Today, in Cairo, it had a victory,’ says PM.

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu

LONDON – The signing of the Hamas-Fatah unity deal in Cairo is a setback for peace – and an advancement for terrorism – Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu told reporters in London on Wednesday.

“What happened today in Cairo is a tremendous blow to peace and a great victory for terrorism,” he said. “Three days ago, terrorism was dealt a resounding defeat with the elimination of Osama bin Laden. Today, in Cairo, it had a victory.”

In signing this deal, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas had “embraced” an organization that had condemned the American operation against the al-Qaida leader and called him a “great martyr,” the prime minister said.

“When he embraces this organization, which is committed to Israel’s destruction and fires rockets on our cities, this is a tremendous setback for peace and a great advancement for terror,” Netanyahu said.

“What we hope will happen is that we find peace, and the only way we can make peace is with our neighbors who want peace. Those who want to eliminate us, those who practice terror, are not partners for peace.”

He spoke before a meeting set for late Wednesday night with British Prime MinisterDavid Cameron.

Israeli officials said Netanyahu hoped to persuade Cameron to promise that the UK would not support the deal unless Hamas accepted the three principles set out by the Quartet for international recognition of the Islamist movement: that Hamas recognizeIsrael, renounce terrorism and abide by the PLO’s agreements with Israel.

Hamas refused to do so.

On Thursday, Netanyahu is expected to make the same request when he meets with French President Nicolas Sarkozy.

A spokesman for UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said on Wednesday that Ban had always supported efforts for Palestinian unity, but wanted them to play out within the framework of the Quartet’s principles – and urged all Palestinian factions to adhere to them.

Still, he sent Robert Serry, the UN special coordinator for the Middle East peace process, to Cairo for Wednesday’s ceremony.

The European Union was even more cautious about supporting the Fatah-Hamasagreement and sent only a councilor from its embassy in Cairo.

The US did not have any formal representative at the ceremony.

Speaking on Channel 2 on Wednesday evening, Middle East Quartet envoy Tony Blair gave a plug for Palestinian unity, but only with certain conditions attached.

He said he was “in favor of Palestinian unity. It is essential for peace, but it must be unity on the right terms; it must be genuine unity.”

Blair added, however, that the contrasting Palestinian reactions to the killing by US forces of Osama bin Laden earlier this week “expresses what the issue is” regarding the worrying aspects of the Fatah-Hamas reconciliation agreement.

“[PA Prime Minister Salam] Fayyad said the death was good news and [Hamas Prime Minister Ismail] Haniyeh said he [bin Laden] was a ‘warrior.’” “If Hamas was changing… in peaceful means… this would be positive… but you just need to look at Haniyeh’s comments” to understand this has not been the case, Blair said.

As for Netanyahu’s comments that the agreement was “a victory for terror,” Blair said, “I think the reaction of the Israeli government is justified. For us in the international community, the door is open to come into this [peace] process – but only if conditions are made.”

He criticized Israel’s decision to stop transferring tax funds to the PA, now that Hamas is joining the PA government.

“In respect to the [tax] revenue made on behalf of the Palestinians, it should be given to them,” Blair said.

He also reiterated his objection to a unilateral Palestinian declaration of statehood.

“The only way you will get a Palestinian state is by negotiation,” Blair said.

But Netanyahu’s largest coalition partner, Israel Beiteinu, said on Wednesday that the time for negotiations had passed. It announced that in light of the agreement between Fatah and Hamas, it would demand that the government cease all contact between Israel and the PA. The party called to stop various inter-ministerial initiatives with the PA, as well as the transfer of money to its government.

“It is impossible to expect the State of Israel to transfer money to Hamas – and in doing so, to fund terrorism activities against Israel’s citizens,” Beiteinu said.

“Those who declared bin Laden to be a Muslim freedom fighter, as Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh did, and those who refuse to allow the Red Cross to visit Gilad Schalit cannot be partners in negotiations, either directly or indirectly.”

Separately, Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon (Israel Beiteinu), who is in Eastern Europe, called on the European Union to threaten the Palestinians with financial consequences, should they fail to follow the Quartet’s principles.

“As the largest funders of the Palestinian Authority, you have a heavy responsibility to make it clear to the Palestinians that failure to comply with the Quartet’s conditions will be met with sanctions,” Ayalon said.

He spoke after meeting with Estonian Foreign Minister Urmas Paet.

Rebecca Anna Stoil contributed to this report.

http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=219170


Security – TSA is using the same POLITICALLY CORRECT logic to trap you in to compliantly doing whatever they want to do to you and yours.

April 19, 2011

The same LIE and LOGIC is being used to get you to be the persecuted terrorist and not the actual terrorist.  They are doing this to get YOU scared.

The terrorists know that they CAN be arrogant and the methods of “detection” can be manipulated to make the innocent traveler LOOK suspicious while the real terrorist goes unnoticed.

The fact that these people are not being profiled is illogical.  The passenger public should demand that each person has a cursory background check done before they are allowed to board a plane.

This would keep all of US safer.  This would eliminate any RACE or Ethnic cards being played, because all would have to be vetted.

TSA: Complaining about Airport Screening Means You’re a Terrorist

Share: Email Story Twitter Facebook Stumbleupon Add to Any

by Jordan Yerman | April 18, 2011 at 07:40 am

211 views | 0 Recommendations | add comment

TSA Wants to Scare You into Submission

The TSA is finally sick of travelers complaining about gate rape and porno scanners. To that end, the TSA has deployed its ultimate weapon: circular logic. CNN reports that the TSA is saying that displaying contempt for overly-aggressive security screenings is an indicator that you may be a terrorist. Note this is backed up neither by specific example nor common sense. Just another example of the TSA bleating “terrorism!” at the top of its lungs, and hoping for no follow-up questions.

We have to call bullshit on this right away, before the silliness spreads any further. No, TSA, if I’m giving you grief in the security queue, its because one of your agents has his hands on my nuts. He’d best expect some degree of familiarity. Remember, Americans: if you are complaining that the TSA is groping your six-year-old child, it means that you’re a sensible adult, not a terrorist.

Or maybe the TSA is onto something, and Donna D’errico is the most dangerous person in America.

Vodpod videos no longer available.
TSA security looks at people who complain about…, posted with vodpod

TSA: Complaining about Airport Screening Means You’re a Terrorist | NowPublic News Coverage http://www.nowpublic.com/world/tsa-complaining-about-airport-screening-means-youre-terrorist-2778437.html#ixzz1JzMqzEPy


Obama should not be president – POTUS Obama is the Mahdi – His position fashioned the Axis of Jihad

April 13, 2011

Article 1 section 9 of the US Constitution –

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present,Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.

Obama is illegally sitting as head of the UN (not US– UN) Security Council.

In Violation of the Constitution: Obama Takes On Chairmanship of UN Security Council
This is directly relevant to the article :

Under the UN Charter, the functions and powers of the Security Council are:

* to maintain international peace and security in accordance with the principles and purposes of the United Nations;

* to investigate any dispute or situation which might lead to international friction;

* to recommend methods of adjusting such disputes or the terms of settlement;

* to formulate plans for the establishment of a system to regulate armaments;

* to determine the existence of a threat to the peace or act of aggression and to recommend what action should be taken;

* to call on Members to apply economic sanctions and other measures not involving the use of force to prevent or stop aggression;

* to take military action against an aggressor;

* to recommend the admission of new Members;

* to exercise the trusteeship functions of the United Nations in “strategic areas”;

* to recommend to the General Assembly the appointment of the Secretary-General and, together with the Assembly, to elect the Judges of the International Court of Justice.

 

 

One might say that the UN is not a STATE.

Well, then the US can be viewed similarly as the UN, because we are a bunch of states that come together under the Constitution.  The UN has a similar charter that the Nations that are part of it also adhere to.  This however, is a title that is ABSOLUTELY illegal for a US PRESIDENT TO HOLD.

 

 

 

 

April 13, 2011

The New Axis of Jihad

Peter Huessy

 

 

US security policy in North Africa and the Middle East faces a dramatic test: will we be able to weave a strong tapestry of help for our allies and take down our enemies or will a new stronger coalition or “Axis of Jihad” banner arise from Iran to Tunisia?
This coalition is now intent upon establishing its hegemonic control over the Islamic world, including a significant portion of the oil and gas resources of the world, from which to finance a war against the West and most particularly against the United States. It has been a war off and on for fourteen centuries.
This one is different, however. It involves nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles and has the financial clout of sovereign funds primarily supported by petro-dollars, but also infused with cash from widespread criminal enterprises including piracy and drug trafficking.
Of immediate attention is our campaign in Libya, to the extent we know what it is, although as Judith Miller explains, events in Egypt are of far more importance. According to the US chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, there appears to be two missions in Libya: (1) a military mission run by NATO in which the US is a key participant to protect the civilians of the country from Qadhafi and (2) a political mission we hope as a result of these moves results in the removal of the Qadhafi regime from Tripoli either voluntarily or by force.
The military missions of establishing no fly zones have had mixed success. We also do not fully know the opposition we are helping and arming.
<they absolutely DO – they are any and all the thugs that are willing to pick up arms.  Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, and all the Palestinians in the area. >
From the air alone, said the chairman, it would be most difficult to achieve the latter political objective. Even though he sympathizes with Senator Graham’s call for taking out Qadhafi now and “moving on”, ruling out “boots on the ground” makes achieving such an objective ever more remote.
The chairman understands that a key objective of the administration was to protect civilians. He also explained that a key part of this was again according to administration briefings “How the rest of the world would look at us if we did not protect the civilians”.
Expanding on this idea was David Sanger of the New York Times who wrote that the actions of the US in and over Libya—as well as throughout North Africa and the Middle East—have been designed to focus on the key objective of stopping the nuclear weapons program of the Mullahs in Iran.
<and this is going to do what? / sarc >

It is here that the test to which I referred earlier comes into focus. For many American analysts, terrorism is simply a matter of “grievances”. One expert said of the terrorists:
“Their narrative has been utterly disrupted. The dictators they sought to replace have been ousted, and not by them or their violence.”
Another story tells us that a “senior New York Police Department intelligence analyst pointed to at least one short-term benefit of the upheavals: Home-grown Islamic radicals in America, too, had been stunned and shaken by the protests and the loss of what he called their ‘narrative of oppression’”.
One fact of the “revolt in the desert” which started in Tunisia and has spread to Iran, Syria and Yemen, is the virtual absence of protests against either the United States or Israel. No trampling of our flag or the burning of our political leaders in effigy. In one rebel held Libyan city one soldier waved a huge American flag. No call for Jews and Christians alike to be killed. As National Review’s Rich Lowry explained in “The Death of an Illusion”: “In the great Middle East whodunit, the verdict is in: The Jews are innocent. They aren’t responsible for the violence, extremism, backwardness, discontent, or predatory government of their Arab neighbors”.
<Thats right now.  Wait.  It’s coming.  Once the Jihadi’s come in there.  The poor Middle Easterners will cry out against the WEST again.  This time, they will be in unison and MUCH stronger than the US.   >
In fact, the universe of revolt and protest has been a call for both economic freedom and opportunity <for sharia finance> for the hundreds of millions who are unemployed and shacked to economic failure in country after country in the Arab and Islamic world. And for the political freedom needed to achieve such dreams.
<For the ISLAMIC CALIPHATE, which is what is considered FREEDOM over there.  Not real Democracy, but the childish understanding of democracy.  The way that a child would believe that it means the ability to do whatever one wants as long as those who want it are in the majority.  No principles, no standards, and no morality. >
One would hope therefore that this character of the revolt would finally drive a stake through the “grievance theory of terrorism” which has too often been at the heart of American security policy, especially among our intelligence community and its friends in the media, Hollywood and academia.
<American security policy is guided by the President.  The President is sitting as head of another Security council that has no particular allegiance to the US.  >
For example, former President William Clinton said only a few weeks ago that granting the Palestinians a homeland would end most terrorism directed at the United States. Former President Carter has said much the same thing.
<How many times do both of these former Presidents have to be proven wrong?  How many ways can they show their allegiance to the GLOBAL world and NOT the US? >
Contrary to their assertions, the terrorism we face is primarily state-directed. It is not grievance directed. It is nothing more in large part than simple war and revenge directed against us but by means often difficult to attribute.
Thus the outcome of the desert revolts is not without consequence. The bad guys should not gain ground. In particular, the current Iranian regime constitutes a threat because of its very identity as a jihadist state – the nukes, other WMD, especially biological weapons, its state directed terrorism, the massive human rights abuses–these are merely the manifestations to be expected of a jihadist state.
And Iran is but a leading part of a coalition of terror states and their terror group affiliates. Tehran provides weapons, financing and training for thugs in both Iraq and Afghanistan who kill Americans and our allies. Hezbollah and Hamas are wholly owned subsidiaries of the Mullahs, as they seek to complete the plan to turn Lebanon into a proxy of Iranian terror. Iran also allies itself with Chavez in Venezuela who in turn works with the drug cartel and terror group FARC and Hezbollah to plan terror attacks against Columbia, Mexico and the United States. An Iranian Shahab launched from off-shore Venezuela can hit down-town Miami.
North Korea, China and Russia help provide missile and nuclear technology to Iran. The attorney for the city of New York indicted one Chinese company on 104 counts of helping Iran with such technologies. Is the drive-by media in this country asleep?
<YES.  Because they MISSED the fact that Clinton was in on the DEAL.  This was about 2004 – Clinton Administration Gave China Top Nuclear Secrets (Flashback) also, Clinton Gave China Chips for Nuclear War>
Similarly, rocket engines from the BM-25, a missile originally produced by Russia, made their way from Pyongyang to Tehran. This gives Iran a missile with a range near 4000 kilometers which puts all of Europe under its shadow, says Uzi Rubin of Israel.
In Libya, the areas controlled by the rebels have become an arms bazaar for Al Qaeda in North Africa. According to Jonathan Shanzer of the Washington Institute, Al-Qaeda of the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) is reportedly amassing surface-to-air missiles, anti-tank weapons, rocket-propelled grenades, explosives, heavy machine-guns and other small arms and smuggling them to lawless areas in Mali.
Some of our allies are not helping either. Recently, Senators Kyl and Lieberman and Congressman Berman, all expressed serious concern over our failure to take seriously the Iranian threat. It is not only that this administration (and its two successors) was not utilizing the sanctions power it has under legislation passed by Congress (originally passed in 1996 but since strengthened). It was that a German located bank—the European-Iranian Trade Bank AG—had become a major conduit for Iranian companies involved in weapons proliferation.
This brings us back to Libya. According to recent reports, “During the weekend, Qadhafi forces sustained pressure on Misrata and drove the rebels from Ajdabiya, for a time. Timely NATO air attacks disrupted the attack on Ajdabiya and rebel fighters reportedly pushed Qadhafi forces out of Ajdabiya. At last report rebels still hold Misrata and Ajdabiya.
But “Misrata is under siege. Except for the increasing casualties that situation has not changed significantly in two weeks. The situation at Ajdabiya is more serious because a collapse there leaves Benghazi as the next target for ground forces. Qatari’s forces face no effective ground opposition. The effectiveness of NATO air forces has been inconsistent. Qatari’s forces have the capability to reach Benghazi by the end of this week. NATO air strikes can slow but not stop Qatari’s forces.”
While the African Union has said Gadaffi has accepted their proposed cease fire, the former is but a wholly-owned subsidiary of the latter. Such a cease fire is a sham.
We have to understand Gadaffi was and could again become a key state sponsor of terrorism. Note that only when Saddam was pulled from his spider hole in 2004 did Libya give up its nuclear weapons program and its other weapons of mass destruction efforts.
The moral of this story? The ability of the US to project and exercise force is important. Maybe we could call it “smart power”! As former Senator Wallop once noted, “Diplomacy without the threat of force is simply prayer”.
For too many, however, US force when used is considered largely illegitimate. “Experts” such as Lawrence Wright in his “Looming Tower” associated the attacks of 9/11 with Al Qaeda grievances, especially about US military forces “in the land of the shrines”, (otherwise known as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia).
But what is never commented on were the other grievances by Osama Bin Laden—that the US had kicked Saddam out of Kuwait; that we maintained “no-fly zones” over Iraq; that we had established sanctions against Baghdad; and that our restrictions on the sale of oil had supposedly resulted in millions of Iraqi children failing to get “health care”. Sound familiar?
Few if any analysts have explained Osama coming to the defense of Saddam! Given the strong Iraqi connection to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, (occurring as it did precisely on the second anniversary of Saddam’s surrender in Gulf War 1991), one would have thought someone would ask a simple question: who are these people working for and is it possible such terror organizations can be used by state intelligence services for their own ends? And as such, how convenient the “narrative of oppression” is for states such as Iran, Iraq, Syria Libya and others to hide their terrorist means and their empire ends!
We know from numerous pleas from the Iraq government to the US government that Syria has not stopped providing sanctuary for the “rat lines” into Iraq. Thousands of recruits traveling from the mosques and madrassas of Northern Africa fly to Damascus and from there enter Iraq and carry out attacks against US and Iraqi and coalition soldiers, police and civilians, including working with Saddam’s trained terror masters in widespread torture and bombings.
Did we really do the right thing to help oust Mubarak, simply because the youth and professionals and shop keepers of Cairo “have grievances”? As Judith Miller explains, “Cairo has been a staunch ally in America’s Arab-supported campaign to contain Iranian influence in the region and prevent Tehran from developing atomic bombs.
“Iran’s growing regional clout and aid to terrorist groups abroad threaten not only Israel, but also such Sunni Arab states as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan and, yes, Egypt. The post-Mubarak government’s sudden interest in enhanced relations with the mullahs sends a signal of weakness that can only encourage them.”
But Syria, a bona fide member of the Axis of Jihad, somehow gets the good housekeeping seal of “reform approval” by our US Department of State, leaving Syria as a place for terrorist hiding, where they can recruit, train and organize terrorists. That we too often refer to Syria as a potential “peace partner”– when all Damascus does is facilitate a war of terror against its enemies—certainly makes the American people perplexed.
The “Axis of Jihad” is on the march, just as the Soviets and their terror master friends were in the late 1970s. The liberation of Iraq and Afghanistan were designed to take down two “terror masters”, which we successfully did. Unless we finish the job, as well as pay attention to the new jobs at hand, we could hand our enemies more real estate (and more oil) from which to plan, train, and finance, operate and recruit their armies of jihadis intent upon our destruction. State sponsors of terrorism are alive and well. US policy should not be in the business of adding to their ranks.
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Peter Huessy is on the Board of the Maryland Taxpayers Association and is President of Geostrategic Analysis of Potomac, Maryland, a national security firm.

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.9232/pub_detail.asp


%d bloggers like this: