More fascism (i.e. “public-private partnership”) with your cloud?
More fascism (i.e. “public-private partnership”) with your cloud?
I don’t blame ‘em.
Via The Times of Israel:
A group of 30 IDF reserve soldiers notified their commanders that they would refuse to enter the Gaza Strip in M-113 armored personnel carriers, military vehicles designed by the US Army in the 1960s and first used during the Vietnam War.
On Saturday, during heavy clashes in the Gaza neighborhood of Shejaiya, Hamas fighters fired a missile at an M-113 carrier, resulting in the deaths of six of the seven IDF soldiers who were on board, with the seventh MIA but presumed killed.
The M113 armored personnel carrier (APC), which are called “Bardelas” in the IDF, first came into service with the U.S. military in 1960 and is considered obsolete and outdated now. It has an aluminum hull that is very vulnerable to numerous modern anti-tank (AT) threats.
As a stop-gap measure, reactive armor has been added to some Israeli M113′s. But with the lethal threat of tandem charge warheads available for many anti-tank weapons, reactive armor only adds limited protection.
The U.S. military has replaced the M113 as the primary APC with the M2/M3 Bradley Fighting Vehicle APC, which provides much better protection and armament. But variants of the M113 are still in service.
Allah u’ FUBAR !!
This is just unbelievable. While the “religious cleansing” of Christians continues unabated in Iraq and Syria, with nary a word from the administration in condemnation of it, Obama’s IRS doubles-down in pure Alinsky-esque fashion by colluding with an atheist group, Freedom from Religion Foundation (FRFF), to “investigate [the] political activity of churches.”
Via TPNN, my emphasis:
The Obama IRS is teaming up with an atheist legal group, the Freedom from Religion Foundation (FRFF), to monitor and investigate political activity of churches. The two groups entered into an agreement as a settlement to a 2012 lawsuit, FRFF vs. Koskinen.
According to Christianity Today, in the suite, FRFF “alleged that the IRS failed to have a policy in place for investigating political activity at tax-exempt churches and religious organizations, nor did the agency enforce its 501(c)(3) codes against electioneering.” At the heart of the atheists complaint and demand for investigations and sanctions is ‘Pulpit Freedom Sunday,’ an event organized by the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF). On this day, which is set to occur next on October 5, pastors endorse political candidates from the pulpit. In 2008, 1600 churches participated in the event.
In a press release, FFRF co-president Annie Laurie Gaylor said, “This is a victory, and we’re pleased with this development in which the IRS has proved to our satisfaction that it now has in place a protocol to enforce its own anti-electioneering provisions.
Well, the White House and FRFF might want to check the Constitution a little bit closer, whereby they will discover we have freedom of religion, not freedom from religion, codified in the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof … .”
Every week on Monday morning, the Council and our invited guests weigh in at the Watcher’s Forum with short takes on a major issue of the day, the culture or daily living. This week’s question: What Should Israel Do About Gaza?
The Independent Sentinel: Israel should finish the job now while Hamas has few supporters in the Arab world. They need to obliterate the tunnels and the missiles. Then they should go back home but monitor any shipments going into Gaza.
It’s a blessing that Morsi is gone.
Simply Jews: What happens the day after Hamas is destroyed?
Unfortunately, we may not see that day anytime soon. Our government is not up to sacrifice lives of hundreds of soldiers required to smoke out the terrorists from under the center of the Gaza City, which will be the price once the fighting in the confines of the city really starts.
Or should Hamas be destroyed or just disarmed, if that’s possible?
In the ideal world Hamas should be destroyed, in a less ideal – disarmed. In our world, neither will happen, due to (see above). It will be helpful as well to read this;
I am sorry to say that it is all true.
What should Israel’s strategy towards Hamas/Fatah be?
Trying to bolster the latter in every situation that will harm the former. For example, if freeing prisoners: leave the Hamas ones in prison. Any relief of restrictions goes to the latter – leaving the former in the mud. But all of this – publicly, with lots of coverage. Encourage good behavior so that all can see it.
What strategy should America support?
The one agreed in the privacy between the two sides and not the one blurted via “accidentally” operating mikes to the media, totally not agreed by the other side. As it more and more frequently happens lately.
What is most likely to occur there?
Nothing essentially new. Same old. Another year or two of relative calm, followed by a new round of strife.
Sorry for being so pessimistic.
JoshuaPundit: There are two things you hear said a lot about this situation, usually by genuinely stupid politicians or equally stupid think tank inhabitants. The first is the trophe that ‘there is no military solution.’ The second is to say there is a major difference between Hamas and Fatah.
Actually, a military solution would be the only one that would work. And the dime’s worth of difference between Hamas and Fatah,the difference between ‘acceptable’ terrorists and ‘unacceptable’ terrorists has faded to nothingness because of the unity agreement between the two and their coordinated strategy in the Third Intifada.
It should be apparent by now that anything Israel does to defend itself is now going to be subject to criticism by the usual suspects, which now unfortunately includes the Obama regime. That should be apparent to anyone following the news of President Obama’s trying to rescue Hamas by demanding Israel abide by an unconditional ceasefire…while he and Qatar and the EU fund them.
Israel is in the same position with Obama as they were with France’s DeGaulle on the eve of the Six Day War.Since anything they do short of committing suicide is going to get the same reaction, they have little to lose.
There is a solution to Gaza. It involves Israel (1) destroying Hamas utterly by whatever means necessary (2) Annexing Gaza (3) removing most of the Arab population either to Area A, the reichlet of Fatah and Mahmoud Abbas or to UNRWA refugee camps outside Israeli territory and (4) Gradually repopulating Gaza with Jews and watching it become Singapore or Hong Kong instead of an Islamo-fascist swamp.
Every poll indicates that Israel’s population overwhelmingly supports defeating Hamas once and for all.There really is no choice.
At the same time, the behavior of Abbas and Fatah have shown that a similar solution has to be coordinated with them. Israel needs to delineate its borders unilateral and enforce them. Annex Area C and the Jordan Valley where the populations are overwhelmingly Jewish as well as whatever strategic areas of Areas A and B Israel determines it wishes to control. Cede the rest of Area A to Abbas as his little reichlet, and move all Jews outside the new borders to Israeli territory and all Arab non-Israeli citizens to ‘Palestine’. Endgame, and as the divorce becomes final, a warning: let Abbas and Fatah know that any aggressive action, including lawfare will involve severe consequences. And follow through on it.
Peace comes from victory. And after all of the ‘sacrifices for peace’ written in Jewish blood forced on Israel since the Oslo debacle, I think the Israeli people would support this over these constant wars of attrition that grow more costly each time. Enough of the balagan gadol.
The Razor: Unfortunately Israelis don’t have the stomach for permanently fixing the problem in Gaza and the West Bank: Ethnically cleansing the Palestinians from both areas and forcing them into refugee camps in Jordan or Egypt or wherever else the locals will put up with them. It’s not that Israel couldn’t survive the heat from the outside world; I believe the average Israeli doesn’t have the conscience to do it. Contrary to what the Europeans and many on the Left here in the US believe, the Jews are a moral people. It would be difficult for them to accept the morality of a campaign of trucking the Palestinians out of their homes in Gaza and the West Bank to the border crossings in Egypt and Jordan. But morality and political stability are two mutually exclusive domains.
Barring such a moral turn, the only viable solution I’ve seen is the “Shock the Casbah” strategy described here: http://www.the-american-interest.com/garfinkle/2014/07/24/why-is-this-gaza-war-different-from-all-other-gaza-wars/. In a nutshell, it means negotiating a final settlement with the PA, but it’s a longshot as Garfinkle notes, “because it requires a boldness of vision and leadership in Israel, among the Palestinians, and in the United States, Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia that is simply not available.” I believe Netanyahu is bold, but he has no counterpart on the PA side, and definitely lacks a bold leader here in the United States. So I doubt that will happen.
At this point I don’t see an end to the violence in Gaza, just a lot more muddling through. If Hamas can be destroyed the Israelis should do it. It’s on the ropes with an unfriendly Egypt behind it and it’s Iranian patron too busy in Syria and Iraq to give them much notice. Of course there can always be worse in Gaza. Look at Isis in Northern Iraq…
Ask Marion: There really is no Palestinian State. They have continually failed to lay the groundwork for a viable homeland and the continual jockeying over the two state solution exists to placate International opinion.
It would be nice to say, just disarm Hamas and everything will be fine, but in reality the only way to peace is for Israel to destroy them. Even after years for war in the Middle East, Americans are generally clueless about what is going on there, where the borders are or even where most of the countries in the Middle East are and they certainly have no clue as to the minutia.
Operation Protective Edge continues to move toward its goals while the Hamas system of complex and advanced military infrastructure tunnels is being realized beneath them. Israel can and I believe has the ability to reach their immediate goal of destroying this tunnel system that has been constructed, subduing rocket fire and leave Gaza… establishing a couple of years of calm and normalcy. But if Hamas is not destroyed, this is a temporary solution… until the next round. As Netanyahu has pointed out, Hamas breaks all cease fires and agreements.
But why wait for a next time? Israel should eliminate the Hamas threat completely right now during Operation Protective Edge, including reoccupying Gaza and destroying every rocket, gun, bullet, armament, as well as their factories. Israel has already mobilized into Gaza and Hamas has been weakened by these first few weeks of fighting. Plus, maybe the most important difference is the Sinai factor which has not presented itself before and could disappear again in the future. There has been a military rapprochement with the Egyptians since al-Sisi overthrew the Muslim Brotherhood. Currently, Egypt is completely in Israel’s court. Having their backs up against the wall Hamas leaders and fighters will not be able to escape into the Sinai, the only place they could go in the past in a final Israeli assault scenario. The Egyptians will cut them down if they try to enter their territory. They will be forced to shoot it out with the IDF. So now is the time. Israel certainly is not going to get any help from the U.S. while Obama is our president and who knows what the future will bring?!? Funny how that border word seems to vary from situation to situation in President Obama’s mind… and actions!!
Well, there you have it.
Make sure to tune in every Monday for the Watcher’s Forum. And remember, every Wednesday, the Council has its weekly contest with the members nominating two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council. The votes are cast by the Council and the results are posted on Friday morning.
It’s a weekly magazine of some of the best stuff written in the blogosphere and you won’t want to miss it.
By: Jennifer Burke
“Obama is going to take care of us.” These six words are being said repeatedly by illegals crossing the border, according to Chris Cabrera, a vice president in the National Border Patrol Council Local 3307. Border patrol agents here those words from not only illegals who are children, he says they are also uttered by adults.
Cabrera remarked, “I don’t usually get into the political part of it, but I find it odd that their whole thing is, ‘We are going to get amnesty when we get here. Where is my permiso? Where is my permission to go north so I can get my medical care and my schooling and all that? President Obama is going to take care of us and make sure we’re all OK.’”
There have been numerous allegations that these illegals have been coached on what to say once they cross the border, and Cabrera confirmed that. “The ‘magic words’ are something along the lines of ‘asylum,’ or ‘political asylum’ or to say ‘fighting in my home country.’ They know these words…because we can’t send them home because it’s too dangerous,” he said.
By: Philip Sherwell, New York
The US Congress is already held in low esteem by the American public for its often immature bickering.
Now political staffers in the House of Representatives have been banned from making anonymous page edits to Wikipedia, the online encyclopaedia, following a spate of flippant changes emerging from its computers.
Wikipedia administrators announced the 10-day ban in response to “persistent disruptive editing” to entries in the user-edited site about politicians and historical events.
Among the changes was a revision to the biographical page of former Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld to call him an “alien lizard who eats Mexican babies”.
The entry for the Moon landing conspiracy theories was tweaked to say they were “promoted by the Cuban government” while Lee Harvey Oswald, the assassin of President John Kennedy, was noted to be acting “on behalf of the regime of Fidel Castro”.
Other tongue-in-cheek edits ranged from changes to pages about a fictional race of alien reptiles to the ice cream brand Choco Taco.
The online mischief-making was traced back to computers at the second chamber of Congress, although there was no indication that they were the work of elected officials.
By: Dennis Behreandt
Jul 11, 2005
The United Nations has been portrayed as the world’s most important humanitarian organization. The propaganda supporting this view has been continuous for so long that few doubt the depiction. When disasters such as the devastating Asian tsunami occur, the UN and its pundits are quick to position the world body in the limelight with pronouncements depicting the organization as the leading supplier and coordinator of relief and aid.
Such a picture of the UN as merely a helpful relief and humanitarian agency is dangerously deceptive and inaccurate. It is true that the world body does participate in relief efforts when disasters occur, but this is only the public face of the organization. A clear-eyed survey of the makeup of the UN, though, finds that the world body is much more than a relief organization. It has, for instance, a clearly delineated executive branch in the office of the secretary-general. It has a similarly delineated legislative branch in the General Assembly and Security Council. And it has subsidiaries and affiliates, like the World Court, the nascent International Criminal Court, and certain tribunals, that function as a judiciary branch.
Those familiar with the composition of governing bodies will recognize in this structure the basic framework of government. And this is precisely what the United Nations is and always has been. In fact, from the very moment of its birth during and immediately following the great upheaval of World War II, the true purp6se of the United Nations has been obscured. Born in secrecy while the world convulsed in the violence of war, the founders of the world body, primarily found in the subversive and internationalist ranks of the Council on Foreign Relations, labored to lay the groundwork for world government. The United Nations was designed from the beginning to be the instrument through which they would achieve this dangerous goal.
By: Grigg, William Norman
Mar 7, 2005
Conservative Americans who consider George W. Bush a champion of national sovereignty have been shocked to learn that the president seeks Senate ratification of the UN’s Convention on the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST). Despite the Senate’s refusal thus far to ratify the treaty, it went into effect in 1995, and elements of the vast regulatory apparatus it outlines are already in operation.
When fully implemented, LOST would consummate the largest act of territorial conquest in history, turning seven-tenths of the Earth’s surface over to the jurisdiction of the United Nations. It would create a mammoth bureaucracy to regulate exploration of the ocean depths and commercial development of the seabed’s riches. The UN would also be empowered to collect royalties on seabed mining, thereby providing the world body with a potentially enormous independent source of revenue to fund its agenda for “global governance.”
None of this seems compatible with the Bush administration’s reputation for flinty-eyed defense of our national independence. Yet during her Senate confirmation hearings in January, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice stated that the Bush administration “would certainly like to see [LOST] pass as soon as possible…. And we very much want to see it go into force.”
“Joining the convention will advance the interests of the United States military,” Rice claimed on January 18. “The United States, as the country with the largest coastline and the largest exclusive economic zone, will gain economic and resource benefits from the convention…. And the United Nations has no decision-making role under the convention in regulating uses of the oceans by any state party to the convention.”
Rice’s unqualified endorsement of LOST lets several important questions go begging. For instance: why is it necessary to sign a UN treaty in order to enjoy “economic and resource benefits” from ocean territory we already own and control? If the UN would have no role in regulating the use of oceans within our sphere of influence, how would it be in a position to grant us the “economic and resource benefits” referred to by Rice?
But nobody present at Secretary Rice’s confirmation hearings was inclined to ask such pointed questions. Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), a noted Republican internationalist who supports ratifying LOST, was delighted by Rice’s rapturous endorsement of the pact.
“I particularly appreciate your response on the Law of the Sea Convention,” commented Lugar, making specific reference to Rice’s assertion that the treaty was compatible with U.S. national security interests. “That’s clearing up an issue sometimes raised by opponents of the convention,” continued the senator, referring to widespread criticism of the pact as an infringement on U.S. sovereignty. He also cited Rice’s statement that LOST “does not provide for or authorize taxation of individuals or corporations” and concluded: “I cannot think of a stronger administration statement in support of the Law of the Sea Convention.”