‘Netanyahu’s speech at Congress — a historic act

After running an ad in The N.Y. Times and Washington Post supporting Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s upcoming speech, Elie Wiesel tells Israel Hayom that Israel’s government is “doing everything in its power to prevent an Iranian nuclear bomb.”

Boaz Bismuth

“The Iranian nuclear threat is a grave and tangible threat, not just to Israel but to the entire world,” says Nobel Peace Prize laureate Elie Wiesel | Photo credit: AP

Nobel Peace Prize laureate Elie Wiesel, 86, is known as one of the clearest voices advocating for the victims of the Holocaust. Wiesel, a Holocaust survivor himself, has devoted his life not only to the commemoration of Holocaust victims but also to the various peoples of the world who at different times in history also faced extermination attempts. It happened in Rwanda, Darfur and Bosnia. It happened to the Armenians. It is happening today in Iraq, in Syria and to the Kurdish people.

Together with his longtime friend Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, Wiesel recently decided to enlist for a cause no less important: preventing future catastrophes. Wiesel has been warning against the future catastrophe known as a nuclear Iran for many years. It is precisely for this reason that Wiesel, at Boteach’s urging, ran full-page ads in The New York Times and The Washington Post, warning his friend Barack Obama, the president of the United States, not to sign a dangerous agreement with Iran and allow it to become a nuclear threshold state.

In an interview with Israel Hayom, Wiesel strongly sided with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s decision to address the U.S. Congress on the issue, despite controversy and White House disapproval. Wiesel declared in the ad that he would be attending the speech, scheduled for March 3, and urged Obama to join him.

This was a rare call, made by one Nobel Peace Prize laureate to another, to change direction, put politics aside, and realize that the real danger is Iran and not Netanyahu’s address.

Q: Elie Wiesel, do you see parallels between the dark times the Jews faced in Europe in the first part of the last century and what is happening today?

“Yes and no, though I must confess that I do not like these kinds of comparisons. I don’t like it because it was a different time. What happened in Europe was unique — it had never happened before and will not happen again. But I can certainly see how a situation could develop that would be reminiscent of certain times. But like I said, today we are in a different era — we have the Israel Defense Forces. We have an army and I believe in its strength. Are the Jews facing an existential threat? Is there any nation that seeks to exterminate the Jews? I think there isn’t. But there are enormous threats, and it is the Jewish people’s duty to defend themselves.”

Q: Is the Iranian nuclear threat one of these enormous threats?

“Absolutely. The Iranian nuclear threat is a grave and tangible threat, not just to Israel but to the entire world. I don’t want them to have a nuclear bomb.”

Q: Do you not trust Western powers to strike a sound nuclear deal with Iran? Do you not believe the Iranians?

“No. I do not believe the Iranians. There may have been a big leadership shift there, perhaps a new president will rise to power, but I do not believe the Iranians.”

Q: Is that why you are so wary of a bad deal?

“I am no nuclear expert. I have never seen an atom bomb and I have never even been in the vicinity of a nuclear facility. But I do know that we must never allow this dangerous eventuality to occur. The Iranian regime is not clean. It is not pure. Perhaps if Iran had a different regime I would be less concerned, but that is not the case.”

Q: Is that why you supported imposing harsher sanctions on Iran, and asserted that it was only the sanctions that brought Iran to the negotiating table?

“True. I said that the sanctions were what prompted the Iranians to enter negotiations, but it is not enough.”

Q: You travel the world and meet with countless people. Do you get the impression that the world is all but indifferent to Iran’s nuclear ambitions?

“There is no doubt that there is less interest [in Iran] in the world than there is in Israel. At times things come up, a conference is held on the topic, but the initiative always comes from Israel. It must be noted that the Israeli government is doing everything in its power to prevent an Iranian bomb.”

Q: Why do you think it is important for Netanyahu to address Congress?

“I think that Netanyahu raises public awareness, and that is very important at this time. I am not the only one who thinks that the Iranians must not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons, but some people need to hear more and get a better understanding of the situation. Netanyahu is the prime minister of Israel, and as such there is no one more suited to go to Congress and speak about this issue.”

Q: Do you think you might give Obama a personal call?

“I do not live in Israel, but I am bound to it. I will do anything Israel asks me to.”

Q: How do you explain the fact that instead of talking about the important issue — Iran’s nuclear aspirations — the U.S. is focusing on political protocols and relations between Netanyahu and Obama?

“I am convinced that Netanyahu and Obama talk about the important issues when they meet. I am convinced that when they talk about important issues, they talk about Iran.”

Q: In conclusion, you don’t tend to make such heartfelt pleas very often. What prompted you to cooperate with Rabbi Shmuley Boteach’s initiative?

“I think that an Iranian nuclear bomb would pose an existential threat to Israel, and I have been combating it for years. This is not new.”

Q: But note how the Iranian nuclear issue suddenly became a political issue.

“Netanyahu is the prime minister of Israel, and as such he has a historic role. Many, like me, view his upcoming speech at Congress as a historic act.”

http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=23527

Back to home page

|

Newsletters from:

Heads Up: The FCC’s Net Neutrality Rule is Coming

February is going to be a big month for Net Neutrality. Following a public request by the president, Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Tom Wheeler announced that he will circulate a new rule on February 5th among the five FCC chairmen. The Commission will then hold a vote on whether to release the rule on February 26th.

We won’t know the precise details of the rule until it is released, but Wheeler has made it clear that he intends to reclassify internet service providers as public utilities under Title II of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. This would give the FCC the authority to enact internet regulations that have repeatedly been struck down by courts as being outside the agency’s purview. Among other things, Title II regulation would allow the government to dictate the terms of internet service, and require providers to pay into a universal service fund, increasing costs to consumers in the process. For an in-depth analysis of the effects of Title II reclassification, see FreedomWorks’ Issue Analysis on the subject.

Meanwhile, Republicans in Congress are attempting to preempt the FCC by drafting legislation to officially classify internet service providers as exempt from the FCC’s authority over utilities. This sounds nice, but in order to gain political support, the proposal makes a number of unacceptable concessions to the FCC’s demands for Net Neutrality enforcement—the very thing Republicans have always opposed.

We are now left in the uncomfortable position of having a Republican compromise that is almost as bad as the FCC’s original proposal. By ratcheting up the stakes and threatening Title II regulation, Wheeler has gotten Congress to agree to Net Neutrality as a politically feasible lesser of two evils.

Since its inception, the internet has been largely unregulated, and the resulting freedom has allowed new business models—even whole new industries—to flourish in a way never before seen. Not only are Net Neutrality regulations unnecessary, but they are actively harmful to internet freedom and the economic possibilities of the future.

Preserving the freedom and flexibility of internet providers is vital to maintain the kind of creativity and innovation we have seen in just the last twenty years. The Republican compromise isn’t a compromise at all, but rather a cave in to the special interests who want to be able to dictate the business models of private companies to serve their own ends.

This February, everyone concerned about internet freedom should be ready to keep a close eye on both the FCC and Congress, and be ready to send a loud and clear message that internet regulation is not the answer.

http://www.freedomworks.org/content/heads-fcc%E2%80%99s-net-neutrality-rule-coming

If this isn’t totalitarinism I don’t know what is.

Personal Freedom and Prosperity 110: The Rule of Law

A government with moral and legal authority promulgates written rules and universally, impartially and uniformly enforces the rules, which provides a predictable and stable legal order on which to base economic and personal decisions. The law prevails, not the proclamation or arbitrary decision of a ruler, government bureaucrat, the enforcer (e.g., policeman) or judge.

The Internet: 5 People to Decide It’s Future!

Our Constitution delegates to Congress the power to make the laws. Our President has the power to veto a law passed by the Senate and the House. Once a law is enacted, it is the duty of the President and his administration to faithfully implement the law. For years, the big debate has been over what laws should govern the Internet. What laws would control companies like Google, Verizon, Facebook, Comcast as well as individual users…if any?

Appointed by President Obama, Tom Wheeler is the chair of the Federal Communications Commission, and is one of the five, FCC voting members. In November, Mr. Obama publicly prodded the FCC to declare the Internet a public utility and to impose regulations. In accord with the President’s request, Mr. Wheeler reversed his previous decision to not regulate the Internet. Presently, Wheeler and two other members of the FCC intend to make rules impacting every American.

“.. almost all websites and apps would be subject to regulation,”

opines L. Gordon Crovitz of the Wall Street Journal after reviewing previous Supreme Court decisions dealing with public utilities.

Absolutely un-American! Violating the legislative process of the Constitution, the proposed FCC rules will be voted on before they are fully revealed to the American people, which is typical for this administration. Mr. Wheeler arrogantly told The Verge, “You’ll notice that I have not addressed any of the specifics.” Wheeler continued to temper his remarks by saying, “You have to wait until February to see the specifics.”

The FCC is leaking some of provisions, however. According to the Washington Post, these are some of the gigantic power grabs of the FCC:

• Broadband providers would be explicitly banned from blocking content or creating fast lanes for Web services that can pay for preferential treatment into American homes.

• In addition to covering fixed broadband providers such as Comcast and Time Warner Cable, the draft rules would cover wireless providers such as T-Mobile and Sprint.

• The rules would also make speeding up or slowing down Web traffic — a tactic known as prioritization — illegal. And it would ban the blocking of Web traffic outright.

• The draft rules seek to impose a modified version of Title II, which was originally written to regulate telephone companies. It will waive a number of provisions, including parts of the law that empower the FCC to set retail prices — something Internet providers fear above all.

• … the draft rules will also keep other parts of Title II that allow the FCC to enforce consumer privacy rules, extract funds from Internet providers to help subsidize services for rural Americans, educators and the poor.

• … make sure services such as Google Fiber can build new broadband pipes more easily, according to people familiar with the plan.

• Internet providers won’t be asked to contribute to the subsidy fund, known as Universal Service, right away. The draft rules merely open the door to that obligation down the road should the FCC determine that step is necessary.

These enormous and complicated decisions are for Congress – not three political appointees. Americans must be made aware of the issues and the potential consequences of three people’s decisions. It is crucial we have an open debate, which allows our citizens to communicate with their Senators and Members of Congress. Three, politically selected members of the FCC should never replace the due process of the Constitution.

Less than a year ago, Wheeler claimed the FCC did not have the authority from Congress to make these decisions. Then, President Obama asked him to change his mind. Thus, on February 26, without revealing the proposed rules, five members will say yay or nay to very important, complex and competing issues concerning the Internet. If a majority vote in favor of the proposed rules happens, years of court battles will follow as will uncertainty – ala ObamaCare. This would be a terrible violation of our constitutional delegation of powers and the Rule of Law.

http://www.freedomworks.org/content/internet-5-people-decide-its-future

What is Patriotism?

Websters defines it like this:

PATRIOTISM

:  love for or devotion to one’s country

     Most citizens of every country are patriots using this definition. But is that all there is to it? No! One must be very careful when using the designation of patriot.

Using this very broad definition given by Websters, it can be easily said that the members of the Nazi Party in WWII Germany were patriots. But in actuality they were National Socialists. Did they love their country? I think all would respond yes they did. But did they have the best interest of their country in mind? Again they would no doubt say yes, and we are all familiar with the results of their “patriotism”.

     National Socialism attempted to reconcile conservative, nationalist ideology with a socially radical doctrine. In so doing, it became a profoundly revolutionary movement—albeit a largely negative one. Rejecting rationalism, liberalism, democracy, the rule of law, human rights, and all movements of international cooperation and peace, it stressed  the subordination of the individual to the state, and the necessity of blind and unswerving obedience to leaders appointed from above. It also emphasized the inequality of men and races and the right of the strong to rule the weak. This is what I call BLIND patriotism. The Communists of the cold war era and present day China who were and are  faithful to the death to their various countries and politburos are little different, and there are many, many, examples of “patriotism” to be found that have turned the world upside down in very bad ways. The problem with using the broad definition of patriotism is that it is usually very blind to the actions of ones own government and can make the patriot complicit in the horrors and atrocities governments and nations commit upon millions of people.

     Then we have  Islam. A very unique belief system of 1.7 billion people encompassing about 47 countries. In some cases Islam is a government, in others it is a belief system within a country. Most people think Islam is a religion, and it is. But it is also much more than that. Islam includes religion, government, strict guidelines for how to live, a cultural  ideology, a war machine, and much more. The leadership of Islam are zealots, and force their precepts on the masses of followers with ferocity. Their stated goal is take over the entire world and force everyone into submission. We have had zealots in the past such as Hitler and his Nazi party, Stalin and the other communists, Pol Pot, Chairman Mao and other assorted powerful men who have sought to dominate people, but civilization has never faced such a serious threat as Islam.

       As soon as any man says of the affairs of the State ‘What does it matter to me?’ the State may be given up for lost.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract

      “People deserve the government they get, and they deserve to get it good and hard.” H.L. Mencken

     I believe what Rousseau and Mencken  are saying is that if you as a citizen do not involve yourself in the governance of your country, you government will do as it pleases. In the Untied States voter turn out is usually very low and most people know little to nothing of the way the government works or how it should work. Most people are not familiar with  the contents of the Bill of Rights or  Declaration of Independence. They do not know who the Vice President is, the Secretary of State, the Speaker of the House, or who their elected representatives are from their state.

     Love and support of one’s country without knowing what your country is doing and what your country is doing to you is not patriotism, it is wearing rose colored glasses and is stupid.  In my mind you can not call yourself a “Patriot” unless you are informed, active to the best of your ability, and call your government to task when they step out of line. Without this attitude, our country will slip into totalitarianism so fast it will make your head spin. Which is EXACTLY what is happening each and every day.

     “A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever”.   John Adams

Ammo to be banned by the Obama adminstration.

If you can’t ban guns for fear of an uprising, just ban the ammo. Problem solved. Now the jack booted thugs wearing blue uniforms won’t have anything to fear when they kick down doors.

From the NRA:

BATF To Ban Common AR-15 Ammo

Friday, February 13, 2015

More

In a move clearly intended by the Obama Administration to suppress the acquisition, ownership and use of AR-15s and other .223 caliber general purpose rifles, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives unexpectedly announced today that it intends to ban commonplace M855 ball ammunition as “armor piercing ammunition.” The decision continues Obama’s use of his executive authority to impose gun control restrictions and bypass Congress.

It isn’t even the third week of February, and the BATFE has already taken three major executive actions on gun control. First, it was a major change to what activities constitute regulated “manufacturing” of firearms. Next, BATFE reversed a less than year old position on firing a shouldered “pistol.” Now, BATFE has released a “Framework for Determining Whether Certain Projectiles are ‘Primarily Intended for Sporting Purposes’ Within the Meaning of 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(c)”, which would eliminate M855’s exemption to the armor piercing ammunition prohibition and make future exemptions nearly impossible.

By way of background, federal law imposed in 1986 prohibits the manufacture, importation, and sale by licensed manufacturers or importers, but not possession, of “a projectile or projectile core which may be used in a handgun and which is constructed entirely . . . from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium.” Because there are handguns capable of firing M855, it “may be used in a handgun.” It does not, however, have a core made of the metals listed in the law; rather, it has a traditional lead core with a steel tip, and therefore should never have been considered “armor piercing.” Nonetheless, BATFE previously declared M855 to be “armor piercing ammunition,” but granted it an exemption as a projectile “primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes.”

Now, however, BATFE says that it will henceforth grant the “sporting purposes” exception to only two categories of projectiles:

Category I: .22 Caliber Projectiles

A .22 caliber projectile that otherwise would be classified as armor piercing ammunition under 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(B) will be considered to be “primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes” under section 921(a)(17)(C) if the projectile weighs 40 grains or less AND is loaded into a rimfire cartridge.

Category II: All Other Caliber Projectiles

Except as provided in Category I (.22 caliber rimfire), projectiles that otherwise would be classified as armor piercing ammunition will be presumed to be “primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes” under section 921(a)(17)(C) if the projectile is loaded into a cartridge for which the only handgun that is readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade is a single shot handgun. ATF nevertheless retains the discretion to deny any application for a “sporting purposes” exemption if substantial evidence exists that the ammunition is not primarily intended for such purposes.

BATFE is accepting comments until March 16, 2015 on this indefensible attempt to disrupt ammunition for the most popular rifle in America. Check back early next week for a more in-depth analysis of this “framework” and details on how you can submit comments.

How to comment – from the BATFE

ATF will carefully consider all comments, as appropriate, received on or before March 16, 2015, and will give comments received after that date the same consideration if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given except as to comments received on or before March 16, 2015. ATF will not acknowledge receipt of comments. Submit comments in any of three ways (but do not submit the same comments multiple times or by more than one method):

ATF email: APAComments@atf.gov

Fax: (202) 648-9741.

Mail: Denise Brown, Mailstop 6N-602, Office of Regulatory Affairs, Enforcement Programs and Services, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, 99 New York Avenue, NE, Washington, DC 20226: ATTN: AP Ammo Comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Denise Brown, Enforcement Programs and Services, Office of Regulatory Affairs, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, U.S. Department of Justice, 99 New York Avenue, NE, Washington, DC 20226; telephone: (202) 648-7070.

Our New Fort Sumter

On the early morning of April 12, 1861, the newly formed Confederate army under the command of  General P. G. T. Beauregard, attacked the Union Garrison of Fort Sumter, South Carolina. This was the first crisis the recently elected Abraham Lincoln had to confront in his effort to stabilize the United States of America due to the secession of 7 southern states over State’s Rights.

The battle raged until mid-day of April 14th when the Union soldiers surrendered to Confederate troops. No life was lost during the battle. Following the battle, there was widespread support from both North and South for further military action. Lincoln’s immediate call for 75,000 volunteers to suppress the rebellion resulted in an additional four southern slave states also declaring their secession and joining the Confederacy. The Civil War had begun. This war between brothers and countrymen raged until 1865 and resulted in the death or wounding of between 620,000 to 700,000 men. The total of U.S. deaths for all other wars combined is only about 200,000.

Let us look at something here, the “rebellion” of the southern states. Most of us  were taught in public school that the “Civil War”, as northerners like to call it, was about slavery. In a way it was, but only marginally. We in the South still correctly refer to the War Between the States as the War of Northern Aggression. This very famous war in our country was about State’s Rights. And that is State’s Rights as laid out in our Constitution wherein all powers not specifically delighted to the Congress, Executive branch, and Judicial branch, are reserved to the various states to be carried out in the way that is deemed correct by the citizens of that state. The people of the South correctly thought that the centralized Federal Government was over-stepping it’s Enumerated Powers as laid out in the `Constitution and they were willing to take action and die if necessary to hold the Federal Government accountable for it’s over zealous seizure of power.

In a word it can be said that they ‘believed’ in the founding principals of the the United States. So much so that they elected to disengage from the path the Federal government was taking in putting limits on freedom and ignoring the Constitutional principals upon which this country was founded and seeking to impose it’s “will” on people through the use of force. Remember that Robert E. Lee was a colonel in the Union Army and President Lincoln called him back from the field to Washington to offer him command of the Union Army for the purpose of invading the South, to put down the rebellion. Lee responded “Save in the defense of my native State, I never desire again to draw my sword.” Upon which he resigned his commission, returned to Virginia, and started the formation of the Army of Northern Virginia.

The War of Northern Aggression was a pivotal point in the history of our country, and a pivotal point in the history of freedom. In my mind, true Freedom died on April 9, 1865 at Appomattox, Virginia,  when Confederate General Robert E. Lee surrenders his 28,000 troops to Union General Ulysses S. Grant, effectively ending the American Civil War and setting in stone the ability of the United States Federal government to do as it wishes with our freedom. Every since then the freedom of our citizens has steadily declined to a point where there is none. At least none as laid out by our Founding Fathers.

150 years later, we have unlimited spying on citizens by the government, a gestapo like IRS who at a whim confiscates property, forced participation in health care with prison time if you don’t, a militarized police state that is wholly unaccountably for the daily murders that they commit, the suppression of free speech, the White House importing Muslims by the thousands and actually sending arms and money to Muslim jihadists, and the list goes on and on and on. Where are the people on this?  They are for the most part only concerned with who did what to whom in Hollywood, what sports idiot is famous today, who said what on Facebook, and how much beer is in the fridge. It’s disgusting to me to see and hear such apathy when it comes to our freedom and liberty. Where is the spirit that enabled half a nation to try and stop the advance of a fascist like, totalitarian government? I only see that spirit in a very few individuals.

It’s time to find that spirit again, stand up, and do something significant and drastic because we have almost no time left to make a difference.

RUTH BADER GINSBURG ADMITS SHE WAS DRUNK AT SOTU

In a lighthearted moment before an audience at George Washington University in Washington, D.C., Thursday night, the 81-year-old Ginsburg cracked up telling the story that she “wasn’t 100 percent sober” before going to the State of the Union.

“The audience – for the most part – is awake because they’re bobbing up and down all the time and we sit there stone-faced, sober judges,” Ginsburg said. “At least I wasn’t 100 percent sober…”

Well, I’ll admit that if had to listen to Obama drone on about himself (which I didn’t) I suppose I’d need to be “medicated” too.

Of course, I’m not a whackjob Leftard admirerer of Obama’s policies like she is, so it speaks volumes that she decided to get plastered beforehand.

In some ways I have to admire her tenacity. The Democrats would like nothing more than for her to retire so that Obama can appoint another, younger Leftist to the Supreme Court.

By hanging on, it’s possible that the next President may be a Republican who appoints a Conservative, thus giving the Rightwing a solid majority on the high court.

Let’s hope she doesn’t croak in the meantime.

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2015/02/13/ginsburg-i-wasnt-100-

OBAMA’S 322 PAGE PLAN TO TAX AND REGULATE THE INTERNET IS CATASTROPHIC

February 14, 2015 · by blazingnash · Bookmark the permalink. ·

Obama’s 322 Page Plan To Tax And Regulate The Internet Will Slow Innovation, Decrease Speed And Increase What You Pay For It..

It’s obamacare for the internet. Except worse.

In any of these 322 pages are the Feds building the Web Service every small Internet business will need to keep track of every one of the bazillion tax jurisdiction sales tax laws? Didn’t think so.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/02/06/republican-fcc-commissioner-slams-obamas-332-page-plan-to-regulate-the-internet/