The American Kafir

2012/06/27

American Muslims Stone Christians In America

Source Article Link: FrontPageMagazine

In the video below, we see a small number of Christians who gathered holding Christian signs at the 2012 Dearbor, Michigan Arab festival being assaulted by Muslims with bottles, stones, and other objects. The police do not protect the Christians or take action against the perpetrators; in the end, they reprimand the Christians and instruct them to leave. Ever since, there has been no coverage of this outrageous event in our media. Nor has CAIR or any other Muslim organization denounced the Muslims who abused the Christians.

One can’t help but wonder: If a small group of Muslims gathered in the U.S. somewhere with a few signs depicting Koranic verses, and a mass crowd of Christians or Jews began to assault them, verbally and physically, threatening violence and mayhem, would police tell the Muslims to leave, instead of acting against the perpetrators? And would the media be completely quiet about it? Would Muslim groups be silent about it after?

What if Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson gathered in a civil rights rally and they were surrounded and stoned by a mob of KKK supporters? Would the police show up and reprimand Sharpton and Jackson and instruct them to leave, all the while leaving the racist perpetrators untouched? And if this happened, would our media be completely silent about it? Would Anderson Cooper be completely silent every evening on CNN as he is at the moment about the stoning of the Christians in Dearborn?

We encourage our readers to watch the video and to ponder what is happening not only in the Middle East, but on the soil of the United States of America:

2012/04/07

Islamic Indoctrination in Textbooks

Source TownHall

Islamic Indoctrination in Textbooks

By Phyllis Schlafly

Political correctness has a double standard when it comes to teaching about religion in public schools. Drop Christianity down the memory hole but give extensive and mostly favorable coverage to Islam.

Even the mainstream media have provided extensive coverage of the steady stream of court cases and threatening letters from the American Civil Liberties Union aimed at removing all signs of Judeo-Christianity from public schools. Not only must prayer be prohibited, a cross and the Ten Commandments removed or covered up, a valedictorian banned from thanking God for his help, a football coach prohibited from bowing his head during a student-led pre-game prayer, singing of Christmas carols banned, and school calendars required to recognize winter holiday instead of Christmas, but there is also the complete omission of the history of the Founding Fathers’ public recognition of Christianity.

An organization called ACT for America conducted an analysis of 38 textbooks used in the sixth- through 12th-grades in public schools, and found that since the 1990s, discussions of Islam are taking up more and more pages, while the space devoted to Judaism and Christianity has simultaneously decreased. In 2011, the National Assessment of Educational Progress reported that American 12th graders scored lower in history than in any other subject, even lower than in science, math and economics.

Most of these students are too young to remember 9/11, so current textbook descriptions about 9/11 is all they will learn. In one textbook example of pro-Islamic revisionism, 9/11 is portrayed as “a horrible act of terrorism, or violence to further a cause,” without any mention that the attackers were Muslims or that the “cause” was Islamic jihad.

The textbooks generally give a false description of women’s rights under Islam. The books don’t reveal that women are subject to polygamy, a husband’s legal right to beat her, genital mutilation, and the scandalous practice misnamed “honor killings,” which allows a man to murder a daughter who dares to date a Christian.

Slavery is usually a favorite topic for the liberals, but historical revisionism is particularly evident in the failure to mention the Islamic slave trade. It began nearly eight centuries before the European-operated Atlantic slave trade and continues in some Muslim areas even today.

Other examples of historical revisionism in currently used textbooks include the omission of the doctrine of jihad or failure to accurately define it. Discussions of Muhammad’s life and character are often contrary to accepted historical facts.

Muslim conquests and imperialism are usually omitted or downplayed, and a completely false narrative about the Crusades is given. The books often falsely claim that Islam is tolerant of Jews and Christians.

Another technique is to describe Christian and Jewish religious traditions as mere stories attributable to some human source, whereas Islamic traditions are presented as indisputable historic facts. In one textbook, you can read that Moses “claimed” to receive the Ten Commandments from God but that Muhammad simply “received” the Koran from God.

ACT for America is sending its report to all U.S. school board members nationwide. We hope they read it and tell the publishers the schools won’t buy books that contain such errors and biases because that may be parents’ only remedy for this indoctrination.

In the year of 9/11, a big controversy erupted at Excelsior public school in Byron, Calif., where seventh graders were being taught a three-week course about the Islamic religion. This course required the kids to learn 25 Islamic terms, 20 proverbs, Islam’s Five Pillars of Faith, 10 key Islamic prophets and disciples, recite from the Koran, wear a robe during class, adopt a Muslim name, and stage their own “holy war” in a dice game.

Excelsior was using one of the textbooks that omit information about Islam’s wars, massacres, and cruelties against Christians and Jews. Christianity was mentioned only briefly and negatively, linked to the Inquisition and to Salem witch hunts.

The students were given Muslim names and told to recite Muslim prayers in class. They were required to give up things for a day to recognize the Islamic practice of Ramadan, and the teacher gave extra credit for fasting at lunch.

For the final exam, the students had to write an essay about Islamic culture. The essay assignment warned students in these words: “Be careful here; if you do not have something positive to say, don’t say anything!!!”

Parents naively thought they could appeal to the courts to uphold their right to reject this class for their children, which was really not education but behavior modification. They didn’t realize that federal court decisions have ruled consistently against parents’ rights and in favor of the authority of public schools to teach whatever they want.

The parents lost in court. And on Oct. 2, 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to consider the parents’ appeal from the lower court decision against them.

Phyllis Schlafly has been a national leader of the conservative movement since the publication of her best-selling 1964 book, A Choice Not An Echo. Phyllis Schlafly has been a leader of the pro-family movement since 1972, when Phyllis Schlafly started her national volunteer organization now called Eagle Forum. In a ten-year battle, Phyllis Schlafly led the pro-family movement to victory over the principal legislative goal of the radical feminists, called the Equal Rights Amendment. An articulate and successful opponent of the radical feminist movement, Phyllis Schlafly appears in debate on college campuses more frequently than any other conservative. Phyllis Schlafly was named one of the 100 most important women of the 20th century by the Ladies’ Home Journal.


Screenshots from a YouTube Video Titled “Kill The Jews!” Muslim Children Memorize and Recite Antisemitic Messages on Egyptian TV Channel







2012/03/14

Wake Up, Panetta: UN, U.S. Have Opposing Interests

Source Article Link: PJ Media

Written By Ion Mihai Pacepa

On March 5, 2012, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta stated in the U.S. Congress that the United Nations and NATO have supreme authority over the actions of the United States military. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) reacted to Secretary Panetta’s statement, saying:

I’m really baffled by the idea that somehow an international assembly provides a legal basis for the United States military to be deployed in combat. … The only legal authority that’s required to deploy the United States military is of the Congress and the president, and the law, and the Constitution.[i]

I paid with two death sentences for the privilege of becoming an American, I deeply love my adoptive country, and I highly esteem her leaders. But, with all due respect for Secretary Panetta, I have to say that his view reminds me of Ceausescu, who used to state over, and over, and over:

I wrote the Constitution! I will re-write it.

In 1988 when I became an American citizen, I ended the few words I said as a sign of my gratitude with the last paragraph of William Tyler Page’s creed:

It is my duty to my Country to love it; to support its Constitution; to obey its laws; to respect its flag, and to defend it against all enemies.

I also have good reason to believe that the UN is not interested in defending the United States. In my other life, when I was one of the top members of the Soviet bloc espionage community, one of our main assignments was to turn the UN against the United States. We in the Soviet bloc poured millions of dollars and thousands of people into that gigantic project. Virtually all UN employees and representatives from the communist countries — comprising a third of the world’s population — and from our Arab allies were secretly working for our espionage services. Our strategy was to convert the centuries-old European and Islamic animosity toward the Jews into a rabid and violent hatred for the United States by portraying it as a country run by a rapacious “Council of the Elders of Zion” (the Kremlin’s epithet for the U.S. Congress), which allegedly wanted to transform the rest of the world into a Jewish fiefdom.

Unfortunately, we succeeded. In 2003, the UN expelled the U.S. from the Commission on Human Rights by the overwhelming vote of 33 to 3, and it appointed the tyrannical government of Libya to chair that body. A year later, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan decided to secretly make the UN even more anti-American.

On December 2, 2004, Annan endorsed the 101 proposals of the “High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change,” commissioned by him to build a UN “for the twenty-first century.”[ii] The panel recommended that the U.S. be further isolated by establishing the rule that only the UN could authorize preemptive wars against terrorism or any other threats. For that, the panel concluded that the UN’s bureaucracy should be significantly increased (by creating a ”peace-building commission”), its efficiency significantly decreased (by greatly expanding the already inefficient Security Council), and the treasuries of its member countries additionally raided by having them “donate” to the UN an additional 0.7% of their GNP to fight poverty. (On December 7, 2007, Senator Obama introduced into the U.S. Senate the Global Poverty Act of 2007, demanding that 0.7% of the U.S. gross national product, totaling $845 billion over the next 13 years, be spent to fight “global poverty.”[iii])

It is hard to believe, but true, that some of the authors of these proposals for “reforming” the UN were the same communist spies who had originally worked to subvert the UN. One eminent member of Kofi Annan’s blue-ribbon panel was the nouveau riche Yevgeny Primakov, a former KGB general and Soviet intelligence adviser to Saddam Hussein who rose to head Russia’s espionage service for a time — and to sing opera ditties with U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright while secretly running the infamous Aldrich Ames spy case behind her back. Another prominent member was Qian Qichen, a former Red China intelligence officer who worked under diplomatic cover abroad, belonged to the Central Committee of the Communist Party when it ordered the bloody Tiananmen Square repression in 1989, rose afterward to the Politburo, and in 1998 became vice-chairman of China’s State Council. And then there was Amr Moussa, the secretary-general of the Arab League (another KGB puppet), who stated that he missed “the balance of power provided by the Soviet Union.”

Kofi Annan had a point. The three were professional saviors. Let me exemplify with Primakov, whom I know best. After the Soviet Union collapsed, he saved its espionage service, the PGU[iv], from going into oblivion. Primakov broke it off from its mother organization, the KGB, rechristened it with the American-sounding name of Central Intelligence Service (Tsentralnaya Sluzhba Razvedki, or TsSR), and pretended it was a new democratic institution. That saved Primakov’s skin as well. Five years later, he replaced Russia’s pro-Western foreign minister Andrey Kozyrev. In 1998, Primakov became prime minister. He reintroduced Soviet Communists into the government and decided to transform Russia into a “managed democracy” whose institutions were to become “representative of the state: loyal, obedient, and indebted to those who have chosen them.” Primakov even invented a word for his democracy: dogovorosposoniye, meaning, roughly, “deal-cutting.”[v]

Primakov is an old enemy of the U.S. His espionage service — like my former one — used to spend every single day thinking up new ways to portray the American land of freedom as an “imperial Zionist country” that intended to convert the Islamic world into a Jewish colony. His first major victory was UN Resolution No. 3379 of 1975, which declared Zionism “a form of racism and racial discrimination.” Officially presented as an Arab initiative, that projected resolution had in fact been drafted in Moscow under the supervision of Primakov, turned into the KGB’s main Arabist. The resolution was openly supported by the Arab League and the PLO, two organizations on our payroll. My DIE was deeply involved in Primakov’s UN operation.

Continue Reading The Entire Article At PJ Media

Lt. Gen (r) Ion Mihai Pacepa is the highest-ranking official ever to have defected from the former Soviet bloc. He is currently writing a book on disinformation together with Prof. Ronald Rychlak.

2011/12/16

Electromagnetic pulse a real threat

Source Article Link: Washington Times

Electromagnetic pulse a real threat

Time to correct U.S. vulnerability is now

By Ilan Berman

Electromagnetic Pulse Grid Flow Chart

Is electromagnetic pulse a real threat to American security? On the heels of recent Republican primary debates, the danger to U.S. electronics and infrastructure posed by a high-altitude nuclear blast suddenly has emerged as a campaign issue. So has concerted opposition to it, with both liberal and conservative skeptics ridiculing the idea as an overblown, even fabricated, distraction. Yet there is ample evidence that the danger is both clear and present. Far and away the most authoritative assessment in this regard is that of the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States From Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack, colloquially known as the EMP Commission. That blue-ribbon panel, convened by Congress a decade ago, outlined the nature of the challenge as follows:

“EMP is one of a small number of threats that can hold our society at risk of catastrophic consequences. EMP will cover the wide geographic region within line of sight to the nuclear weapon. It has the capability to produce significant damage to critical infrastructures and thus to the very fabric of U.S. society, as well as to the ability of the United States and Western nations to project influence and military power.”

America’s vulnerability to such an attack is growing. As the EMP Commission explained, our heavy – and mounting – dependence on high technology, from cellphones to laptops to GPS, makes the United States disproportionately vulnerable to the disruption that would result from an EMP event. The commission concluded its work in 2004 with a dire warning: “The current vulnerability of our critical infrastructures can both invite and reward attack if not corrected.”

This fact has not gone unnoticed. A number of rogue states and strategic competitors are actively investing in the development of precisely this sort of capability. Thus, Russia, which during the Cold War carried out extensive experiments relating to EMP, has actively contemplated its use on a number of occasions since the Soviet collapse. China, too, is investing in EMP weapons as part of its “assassin’s mace” – an asymmetric military arsenal through which Beijing seeks to challenge U.S. primacy in the Asia-Pacific region. North Korea, for its part, is believed to have tested a “super-EMP” weapon powerful enough to create massive disruption in the continental United States back in 2009. Iran, which carried out EMP-related ballistic-missile tests in the Caspian Sea in the late 1990s, has since publicly explored the possibility of using such a capability against America.

The United States, meanwhile, is only marginally closer to remedying its vulnerability to EMP than it was in 2004. The George W. Bush administration did not take decisive action to systematically harden critical infrastructure and assets against electromagnetic pulse. Neither has Team Obama, which has ignored the issue as a matter of public policy almost entirely since taking office. Indeed, it has made America’s vulnerability worse because its September 2009 missile defense plan pushes off serious additional investments in technologies of the kind that could help neutralize a nuclear EMP attack on the U.S. homeland until 2016 – or significantly later.

Congress at least has attempted to do more. A number of lawmakers, notably Rep. Roscoe G. Bartlett, Maryland Republican, and Rep. Trent Franks, Arizona Republican, have emerged as vocal advocates of robust defense against EMP, and a legislative vehicle – the SHIELD Act – even has been crafted for it. But the SHIELD Act has languished in the House since being introduced back in February, and no fresh movement is on the horizon. Defense against electromagnetic pulse, in other words, was and remains an unfunded mandate.

To be sure, the likelihood of an EMP attack on America remains remote. Conventional terrorism, even of the large-scale variety, is considerably more likely, and a biological or chemical event is marginally more so. Yet, if an EMP incident does occur, the costs would be astronomical. Commission Chairman William Graham, a former science adviser to President Reagan, told the House Armed Services Committee in 2008 that an EMP attack had the potential to devastate the country’s electronic infrastructure to such a degree that it would no longer be capable of sustaining the country’s population.

Such a cataclysm, however, can be prevented with the necessary investments in hardening, infrastructure protection and redundancy in key sectors (from finance to electricity to water supply). As Mr. Graham told lawmakers at the time, “Correction is feasible and well within the nation’s means and resources to accomplish.”

That the U.S. government has not yet done so amounts to a serious dereliction of duty. The next U.S. president will need to recognize this dangerous vulnerability – and move decisively to address it.

Ilan Berman is vice president of the American Foreign Policy Council in Washington.

Venezuela, Iran Linked to Alleged Cyberattack Plot

Source Article Link: FamilySecurityMatters

Venezuela, Iran Linked to Alleged Cyberattack Plot

By Trevor Westra

U.S. Spanish-language television network, Univision, has released an investigative documentary in which it is claimed that Venezuelan and Iranian diplomats negotiated with Mexican hackers to break into White House, Pentagon, and FBI databases, as well as U.S. nuclear facilities. Critical to these allegations are a series of recordings made by one of the hackers, who went undercover and attempted to document the conspiracy.

According to the report, Juan Carlos Munoz Ledo, a computer instructor at the National Autonomous University of Mexico, was recruited in 2006 to participate in cyber attacks on US government websites. In later years he met with former Iranian ambassador to Mexico, Mohammad Hassan Ghadiri, and former cultural attaché of the Venezuelan Embassy in Mexico, Livia Acosta, to give updates on the project’s advance. In a recording from one of these meetings, Acosta, who is now the Venezuelan consul in Miami, can be heard saying she could get information from the hackers sent directly to Hugo Chavez.

U.S. State Department spokesman Mark Toner says his government is probing the report but hasn’t confirmed its claims.  However, he suggested Tuesday the implications were “very disturbing.”

Solomon Chang, a researcher on cyber security for strategic planning and forecasting consultancy Wikistrat, suggests the report raises “alarming” uncertainties as it remains unclear exactly what the hackers were trying to achieve. “Were they trying to advance their technological capabilities at the expense of the U.S. military? Are they simply trying to explore U.S. cybernetic structural weaknesses? Sabotage the infrastructures? These questions remain unanswered,” he said.

In response, U.S. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Florida) has written Secretary of State Hilary Clinton asking for an investigation into Acosta as a result of her alleged “willingness to undermine U.S. interests.”

Earlier this year, Chairmen of the Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ)  called for hearings on Iranian activities in Latin America. This week’s report comes just months after U.S. prosecutors accused factions in the Iranian government of a plot to recruit a Mexican drug cartel to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the U.S. by bombing a Washington-area restaurant.

In response to the Univision report, Venezuelan opposition leader Pablo Medina has called ties between his country and Iran troubling, and the latest allegations “very serious.” Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, meanwhile, has called the report “lies.”

Family Security Matters Contributor Trevor Westra is a Canadian blogger whose on religion and modernity have been featured at the New Media Journal and online Global Politician. He frequently on international affairs at the blog, the Theo Log (www.theolog.ca), and writes for World Threats. A graduate in Religous Studies from Canada’s Laurentian University, he has lectured on Indian religious traditions in Canada at the University of Sudbury and he specializes in the religions of South Asia.writesmagazinewritings

2011/12/07

Why French People Hate The United States, Africa, and Israel?

Filed under: Africa, France, Israel, United States — - @ 5:28 pm

Why French People Hate The United States, Africa, and Israel?

BY Joseph Haba, ME
PhD Candidate in Business Administration

American veterans, American businesses, American people, Israel, African patriots, and friends of Africa will finally analyze the legal issues of French Anti-Americanism by (a) identifying the issue, (b) explaining the rule of law, (c) applying the law to new facts, and (d) giving a conclusion.

a. The issue is whether, besides general anti-American perceptions, the French constitute a threat to anti-Americanism movement; given that a poll pre-Iraq war in France showed that “The French regarded themselves not sharing Americans’ ideas about family (58 percent), ethics (69 percent), work (76 percent) and, of course, life-style (81 percent), with democracy faring a little better at 49 percent” (Roger, 2006, p. 449). The second factor is the “switch in the very nature of anti-Americanism, from elitist, intellectual rejection of a boisterous rival to populist-extremist hatred and resentment against the ultimate enemy, half Terminator, half golden calf” by the French (Roger, 2006, p. 451).

b. Significant ties to an American-French treaty include “ The most Christian King and the United States … having this Day concluded a Treaty of amity and Commerce, for the reciprocal advantage of their Subjects and Citizens have thought it necessary to take into consideration the means of strengthening those engagements and of rendering them useful to the safety and tranquility of the two parties” (Miller, 1931).

c. The rules of this treaty have not been respected by the French, and the French think Americans are untrustworthy, provincial, individualists, egoist; therefore, they should focus “on the domineering presence of the United States, which needed to be countered, either culturally or politically” (Meunier, 2005, p. 128). The idea of countering the United States presence around the world culturally and politically is a relevant precedent case Americans must fight according to international laws.

The issue under discussion is profound because the French has built of “a critique of the self-centeredness of America…the French also offer a “liberal” critique of America as not living up to its ideals…look down on America because of the lack of education and taste of its citizens. The French negative sentiment about the beliefs that their country used to be a better place before the United States, but today many people from all walks of live have embraced the American culture instead of theirs (Meunier, 2005, p. 134). Meunier concluded:

Finally, the most recent type of anti-Americanism in France comes from some Muslims who partake in the “clash of civilizations” idea. Over the years, some disenfranchised youths of North African origin have become religiously radicalized, in a society in which they have not “integrated.” They consider the United States as the Great Satan, whose goal it is to lead the Western world in destroying Islam, and they believe in Jihad against an American nation (p. 135).

Now, this disenfranchised youths and French politicians have used their anti-Americanism to pollute a great number of Africans in their hate crime scheme. We need to join hands to fight back.

French Venality and Politics in the United States

Though scholars, educators, and the media have written about anti-Americanism, little link exists on French direct and indirect financing of some American politicians and lobbyists, friends of French political machines around the world and its venality. What do the some American politicians, Friends of French venality know about the funding of the American politics unknown to the American public? What do American veterans don’t know about the monetary statistics some American politicians receive from French diplomats to conceal vital information about French political entrepreneurs who use America’s good intention of promoting democracy as a catalyst to breed anti-Americanism around the world?

Before, going further, let me give you something to refresh your thought. French has forced more than 16 African countries, to keep 65% of their countries’ bulged in the French treasury. For example, let me assume the bulged of an African country such as the Ivory Cote (la Cote d’Ivoire) to be 5000 billion CFA. Just for the country of la Cote d’Ivoire, according to my assumption, France keeps one trillion CFA in its treasury because it keeps 65% of Cote d’Ivoire annual bulged. This means 40 billion dollars in French treasury plus 20 billion dollars in Cote d’Ivoire treasury equals 60 billion dollars.

Let’s assume that if we convert this sum of money in US dollars, we have about 50 billion dollars. Now, let’s assume that the average bulged of those 16 countries is 45 billion dollars, and French is keeping 65% of these amounts in its treasury and giving 35% to individual 16 countries.

African countries
Bulged per country
35% in Treasury
65% African countries in French treasury

Country 1 45 billion US 15 billion US 30 billion US
Country 2 45 billion US 15 billion US 30 billion US
Country 3 45 billion US 15 billion US 30 billion US
Country 4 45 billion US 15 billion US 30 billion US
Country 5 45 billion US 15 billion US 30 billion US
Country 6 45 billion US 15 billion US 30 billion US
Country 7 45 billion US 15 billion US 30 billion US
Country 8 45 billion US 15 billion US 30 billion US
Country 9 45 billion US 15 billion US 30 billion US
Country 10 45 billion US 15 billion US 30 billion US
Country 11 45 billion US 15 billion US 30 billion US
Country 12 45 billion US 15 billion US 30 billion US
Country 13 45 billion US 15 billion US 30 billion US
Country 14 45 billion US 15 billion US 30 billion US
Country 15 45 billion US 15 billion US 30 billion US
Country 16 45 billion US 15 billion US 30 billion US

Total 720 billion 240 billion US 480 billion US

Do you see why Americans should never join with French people? France alone is keeping 65% of about 20 African countries, besides the effects of la Francafrique in Africa. Again, the 35% of the money that should be used for Africa development, France selects the African elites to steal 65% This means, out of the 15 billion US, only about 5 billion is used. But the 65%, which is 10 billion US belong to France and the members of her occult system. This means that About 85% of 20 African countries’ bulged are taken away by France. Why do people don’t see this? Can African nations use 15% of their bulged to develop their countries?

Now, instead of taken full responsibility of stealing about 85% of the bulged of 20 African countries, France almost always use the United States to mislead African. Now, when we look at how thousands of families accept that their love ones volunteer to fight for their countries, but the French use the United States as a partner to steal 85% of 20 African countries, you understand why some Africans get mad at the United States. How much money are the United States veterans getting of the these trillions of US dollars France have been taking out of Africa? The French are like snake; according to some sources, the French use a few American diplomats, and give them a few millions of dollars so that those Americans support the French in their dirty tricks. At that moment, African countries will be blaming France and the United States, but the French keep the money while the United States is blamed.

In la Cote d’Ivoire, for example, France used the United States and Israel. President Gbagbo wanted to work with Israel and the United States, according to a French writer and journalist. So France had to teach Gbagbo a lesson which states that France former colonies in Africa should and must remain under Francafrique. Even the United States cannot protect her friend, President Gbagbo, against France. French politicians know how to use the United States for their own interests in Africa.

Should the American public know about this? In fact, only French companies, which pay less salaries to Africans, prosper in Africa. American companies, which pay high salaries to Africans can hardly get contracts in Africa. Why? As American, I want the American public to ask Americans, Friends of France to answer these questions. The United States should protect President Gbagbo from being killed by Ouattara who is supporting those who want to kill Americans. Our government needs to send a clear message now to the French about Anti-Americanism.

Joseph Haba, a native of Guinea, West Africa, fled his homeland under persecution from the dictator, Lansana Conté. He lived in Liberia, Ivory Coast, and Switzerland before becoming a political refugee in the U.S. in 2000.  He has written Education, Democracy & Leadership!, detailing his method of transitioning from autocracy to democracy. He has an M.Ed. from the University of Phoenix and is completing his Ph.D.

2011/11/03

PM Netanyahu’s Speech at Opening of the Knesset’s Winter Session

Source Article Link: Israel Prime Minister Office

PM Netanyahu’s Speech at Opening of the Knesset’s Winter Session

October 31, 2011

Photo By GPO

The Knesset is returning to its winter session at a time when the most dramatic events of our time are taking place in our region.

The Arab street has awoken; old regimes have toppled, others are swaying and new ones are rising.

No-one can guarantee how good or how stable these new regimes will be, nor their attitude towards Israel. Unfortunately, this attitude, which left much to be desired to begin with, is not expected to get any better in some, or most, of the new regimes, not in the foreseeable future.

These new regimes depend on the masses, the raging masses, of which many of the people have been systematically poisoned with anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist propaganda. This incitement began even before the State of Israel was established, and continues at full steam today.

If the results of the elections in Tunisia a few days ago are anything to go by, we will probably see the rise of other governments with a dominant Islamist component.

In most countries in the region, the Islamist movements are the strongest, most organized power, while the liberal forces, striving for freedom and progress, as we define the terms, are divided and weak.

If the positions of the religious extreme do not become more moderate, I doubt that any of the high hopes that blossomed in the Arab spring, will be realized.

It is possible that these hopes will only be fulfilled a generation from now, after this wave subsides, when progress will be given a chance to lead the Arab world along a new path.

If I had to summarize what will happen in our region, I would use two terms: instability and uncertainty.

The collapse of Gaddafi’s regime in Libya, the bloody incidents in Syria, the American forces leaving Iraq, the new government in Tunisia, the upcoming elections in Egypt and many other events – these are all expressions of the immense changes occurring around us. These changes can increase the instability within these countries, and the instability between countries.

Regional powers who have control in the Middle East will try to ensure they have greater influence on the new regimes – influence that will not always support us or be of benefit to us, to say the least. One of these regional forces is Iran, which continues its efforts to obtain nuclear weapons. A nuclear Iran would pose a dire threat on the Middle East and on the entire world. And of course, it poses a grave, direct threat on us too.

To cope with the instability and the uncertainty we are faced with, we need two things: strength and responsibility. Strength in all areas: security, economy, society, everywhere; and responsibility in navigating the stormy sea in which we are sailing. We must continue to strengthen Israel in all areas of security so that we can respond to the new challenges and threats we are facing.

Only a few days ago we were reminded that one of the challenges we face is dealing with the tens of thousands of rockets and missiles in the hands of our enemies, and aimed at our cities.

The Iron Dome batteries and other defense systems provide only a partial solution. They boost the protection of the citizens of the South, and I intend to deploy these systems in other places in the country. But a security philosophy cannot rely on defense alone. It must also include offensive capabilities, which is the very foundation of deterrence.

We operate and will continue to operate intensely and determinately against those who threaten the security of the State of Israel and its citizens.

Our policy is guided by two main principles: the first is “if someone comes to kill you, rise up and kill him first,” and the second is “if anyone harms us, his blood is on his own hands.”

For two thousand years our people could not realize these two basic principles of self defense. The Jewish people paid the ultimate price in the history of the world due to this inability.

This changed when the State of Israel was established, and the Israel Defense Forces was founded. The governments of Israel acted on these principles: they fought those who threatened us and attacked those who harmed us.

Since assuming the office of Prime Minister, I have instructed the IDF and security forces to act systematically and decisively against the terrorist leaders and those who carry out the attacks.

That is what we did with the terrorist group from the Sinai a couple of months ago. The person who initiated and organized the attack was eliminated several hours later. That is also how we acted this weekend. And I would express my appreciation once more to the IDF soldiers, to the armed forces and the intelligence units who work tirelessly, around the clock, morning-evening-night, to protect our country and all of us.

We will continue to act strongly to defend ourselves, and we will continue to conduct ourselves responsibly in the complex reality of our region. Some of the Members of Knesset may not have noticed that we live in a complex reality.

We witnessed this complexity two months ago, when an enraged mob attacked the Israeli embassy in Cairo. The mob didn’t care whether we have a treaty or not. Its intentions were clear and its message was obvious. Those were intense and complex moments. I thank Defense Minister, Barak and Foreign Minister, Lieberman. We worked together with the US Administration and the Egyptian Government and we brought the incident to its conclusion, bringing those who were trapped in the embassy, ​​and their families, home.

Reality, which is changing before our very eyes, presents many obstacles that we are faced with from time to time. It also provides us with opportunities that we do not necessarily see. In this changing world, Israel is rapidly becoming a leading force in the cyber field, known as the war of computers.

Thanks to our special abilities in this area, large, important countries want to cooperate with us. This opens up opportunities for establishing new partnerships that were not available to us in the past and I anticipate that it will become a major factor on the international level. In order to strengthen our standing in the cyber arena, I recently established the National Cyber ​​Directorate. That is the future, and we are already there.

Fostering the strength and responsibility required to fortify Israel’s security is also paramount in our quest for peace. In the Middle East, peace is made with the strong, not with the weak. The stronger Israel is, the closer peace will be.

The people in Israel are united in their desire for peace. Yet we seek real peace; peace that is anchored in the right of the Jewish people to a nation-state in its homeland; peace that is based on security.

We are willing to compromise, but not to discard our security. Even before the earthquake shook our region, I stood firm on Israel’s security interests, and today more than ever.

I assure you that in the negotiations for peace, we will continue to insist on our national interests, first and foremost, security.

Last weekend it was said that I am a tough bargainer. I know that was said as criticism, but I take it as a compliment.

Well, Chairman of the Palestinian Authority, President Abbas, I am not tough when it comes to peace. I am tough about the security of the State of Israel and its citizens, and I will continue to be so – that is my utmost duty, my very basic responsibility as the Prime Minister of the State of Israel.

I am willing to make real peace with our neighbors, but I am not willing to risk our security and future. Any peace deal must be accompanied by firm security agreements on the ground; otherwise it just will not last.

For the negotiations to end, they first need to be started. I have called upon the Palestinian leadership time and time again to enter direct negotiations without delay. I appealed to them to do so in my Bar Ilan Speech, I asked them to do it in my speech at the Knesset, I urged them to do it in my speech at the American Congress and I recently proposed it to them at the United Nations , and dozens of other times in between.

I also accepted the Quartet’s proposal for direct negotiations with the Palestinians with no preconditions. Regrettably, the Palestinians continue to refuse to engage in direct negotiations with us. Instead of sitting at the negotiation table, they decided to join the Hamas and take unilateral steps at the United Nations.

We will not idly sit by while these steps harm Israel and severely violate the most basic obligation that the two parties took upon themselves in the peace process – to resolve the conflict between us only through direct negotiations.

Unfortunately, while we support the foundation of a Palestinian state as part of a peace agreement, the Palestinians are trying to reach a Palestinian state without a peace agreement. That is the essence of our reality and anyone with eyes to see and a sense of decency knows it.

And I will not agree to that.

No responsible leader would.

Our friend, the United States, stands firmly at our side and opposes the Palestinian unilateral steps at the United Nations, and we are very grateful for that.

I know that there are those who have doubted the Israeli-American relations. But the alliance between us is deeply rooted and solid. The cooperation between the United States and Israel encompasses many important areas.

The alliance is based on the strong support of the American people for Israel, on shared values ​​and common goals. This support has become even stronger in the last few years.

Like us, the United States attaches great importance to the peace treaties between Israel and Egypt and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.

These treaties are an anchor of stability in the region and are clearly an Israeli interest.

Over the last year we also enhanced our ties with other countries in the region from Greece to Cyprus, Romania and Bulgaria.

And regarding Turkey, we see that even when we disagree, we help each other out in times of need due to natural disasters.

That is what Turkey did during the Carmel forest fire and it is what we did after the earthquake in Turkey last week.

I hope that we find the way to improve the relations between the two countries in the future.

Strength and responsibility, they are the driving force behind our actions in the political and security arena, and they are our compass.

The same means are needed for successfully dealing with the great challenges in the economic and social area.

Over the last few years, the world economy has been in a crisis which is not over yet. The sea is stormy there too.

Major Western countries that did not act responsibly, that did not heed the danger, were occupied with chatter and did not do what was required of them – those countries now find themselves on the verge of bankruptcy. Not only have their credit ratings gone down, but many, many people are unemployed.

So far this economic storm has skipped over Israel. There is no doubt that the responsible way in which Israel has conducted itself over the last decade contributed to that fact.

There is one golden rule that every citizen knows from his own home economy: over time, if you spend more money than you make, you will eventually go bankrupt. The overdraft grows and you collapse. This is true for a family and it is true for a country. There are countries around the world that forgot the rule, and are now paying dearly. Israel acted differently, responsibly.

Israel acted differently, responsibly. That is how I acted as Finance Minister, it is how the finance ministers after me acted, and it is how we act today. But you cannot generate the growth that is vital for creating jobs, growth that is vital for resources, for education, health, you cannot generate growth only by responsibly sticking to the budget. In order to make the market grow one must encourage competition. Not cartels, not monopolies, but fair, supervised competition that benefits the consumer. Competition is not the enemy of the consumer. On the contrary – it is the consumer’s greatest friend. It reduces prices, improves service, reduces gaps, and raises the standard of living. Lack of competition in Israel is one of the most severe causes for the increase in the cost of living, and that is why a year ago, Mr. Speaker, not now, not two or three months ago, I established the Committee on Increasing Competitiveness in the Economy. That is why we are advancing the section of the Trajtenberg Committee’s recommendations on increasing competition in the market, and for good reason.

Yesterday, at the Cabinet Meeting held in Tzfat, we approved the recommendations of the committee dealing with taxation; we cancelled the planned increase on excise tax, a step that benefits every Israeli citizen; we reduced the purchase tax and duty on commodities; we gave extra tax credit points to fathers of children up to the age of three, which will be very helpful for young couples. But these are only the first steps.

I am pleased that all the Members of Knesset want to help, and you will all have the opportunity to do so, as I plan to introduce several bills to the Knesset during this session that will help the citizens – guaranteed. Education for preschoolers will cost less, the burden of taxes will not be so heavy and housing will be more available. I am aware of the real difficulties which you speak about, Mr. Speaker, and I am committed to solving them, including resolutions that we will pass during this session, and I hope the opposition will help too.

Members of Knesset, I promised that I would give you an answer. We are committed to acting with the utmost social sensitivity to change priorities, but I do not accept the claim that the free-market system has collapsed, that we must return to a centralized economy run by clerks, an economy in which the government must be involved in everything and control everything, an economy in which the citizens will have to run around government buildings and beg before the bureaucratic powers. We have been there and we are not going back. That is how to kill an economy, how to destroy it.

MK Gilon is concerned about social needs. But you cannot take care of these things if you do not create the resources, and the resources are not generated by the government, but by the free, open economy. So we must balance the needs of economic growth with social needs, and that is precisely what we are doing and are going to do. […] And invest in the periphery of Israel.

Yesterday, we inaugurated, with you, Mr. President, a new medical school in Tzfat. This is great news for the Galilee. After a decade of promises, we will soon start moving military bases to the south, which is great tidings for the south. We are a government that not only promises but does, a government that not only talks about things but realizes them. We are building highways, interchanges, overpasses, trains, and we are finally easing Israel out of the Hadera-Gedera traffic jam.

Yesterday, at Tzfat, I gave an account of my grandfather and father going there 91 years ago. They went from Yaffo or Neve Tzedek, that what Tel Aviv was at the time. They took the Emek (Valley) railroad. They arrived in Tzemach and sailed in a stormy sea to Tiberius. And from there they continued up. Before leaving for Tzfat I asked my father, and he said “a hard, harsh journey.” That is how he described it. Through Rosh Pina, having to change the horses with carriage. This trip, this journey took three days, 91 years ago. A few years ago it would take three hours. I asked the Mayor of Hatzor HaGlilit, Swissa, how long it takes him now. He said one hour and 40 minutes. I told him it’s going to be faster. Not only because of the interchange at HaMovil Junction which has opened up the Galilee, but soon there will be interchanges at Golani Junction and Amiad Junction, and in our vision, among others, there will be one multilane highway, with no traffic lights, all the way from Metula to Eilat. It is not impossible, but it hasn’t been done. We are doing it. We are bringing the periphery of Israel closer.

Our goal is to strengthen the periphery and bring it closer to the center, but ultimately, when the drive to most areas in the country will be so short, we will be able to cancel the term ‘periphery.’ There is no reason in our country … I want to tell you, our country is huge, in spirit, in actions, our nation is skillful, but our country is tiny, and there is no reason why there are places that are cut off, disconnected, distant in such a small country. Therefore, in addition to the roads and the trains and the interchanges and the overpasses – and the entire country can see the great things we are doing at huge investment, whether they want to admit it or not – we are diligently developing the two largest areas of the country, the Galilee and the Negev. That way we will get people out of Gush Dan, we will better their lives and improve the lifestyle of the residents of the Galilee and the Negev, Jews and non-Jews alike. That is a very important social step.

But the biggest social revolution we are creating is in education. After many years of decline – and it was measured; it has been tested in IDF reading tests, standardized tests, international tests – for the first time since the reforms were implemented, and new changes are being introduced now, we can already see a change in direction, we can see an improvement in the test results of Israeli children.

And after a decade we began salvaging higher education. Two years ago, Nobel Prize laureate Ada Yonath, said that she was afraid that without investing in education and in higher education, we would not have any more Nobel Prize winners. And I took what she said seriously, and Professor Trajtenberg who we all now know, is committed to helping create a revolution in higher education.

We have invested, we have started to invest over NIS 7 billion in a multi-year plan, and I was so happy to hear from our new Nobel Prize laureate Professor Dan Shechtman, that he can see the changes that our government is leading. And he is right, because we launched the program to save higher education. I want to promise you, we will continue to invest and we will see many more Israeli Nobel Prize laureates.

Members of Knesset, I have spoken, and I must admit not always successfully, about strength and responsibility.

I also want to talk about something that links the two: unity. Two weeks ago we brought our soldier Gilad Shalit home after being held captive by Hamas for over five years. Like everybody else, I was extremely moved when I saw Gilad step off the helicopter. For a few days the entire country was united, unified, excited about one soldier whom we had brought home. Last week, in coordination with Egypt and with the help of the American government, we released Ilan Grapel, who made aliya alone, volunteered to serve in the paratrooper unit and was injured during the Second Lebanon War. We will continue to work for the release of Uda Tarabin who has been imprisoned in Egypt for 11 years. And I want to tell you and the entire people of Israel, I never, not for a moment, forget Jonathan Pollard, who has been in jail in the United States for 26 years. We will continue to do everything we can to bring him to Israel and we will not cease to try to obtain information about the fate of our missing soldiers.

The unity that brings us to work together for one soldier is a testament to the ability of our people to come together in times of trouble. It is an expression of our strength, our responsibility, our mutual accountability. I believe in the power of this unity in times of trouble in the Knesset too. I believe that in spite of all the disagreements, at the moment of truth we will rise above them and work together for the important and common goals. These are the things that guide us: strength, responsibility and unity. We have one country, together we can protect it.

Thank you.