Farfour Dies at Hand of Greedy Zionist

.

Farfour Mouse Dies in Last Episode

Hamas TV on Friday broadcast what it said was the last episode of a weekly children's show featuring "Farfour," a Mickey Mouse look-alike who had made worldwide headlines for preaching Islamic domination and armed struggle to youngsters.

In the final skit, Farfour was beaten to death by an actor posing as an Israeli official trying to buy Farfour's land. At one point, Farfour called the Israeli a "terrorist."

"Farfour was martyred while defending his land," said Sara, the teen presenter. He was killed "by the killers of children," she added.

The weekly show, featuring a giant black-and-white rodent with a high-pitched voice, had attracted worldwide attention because the character urged Palestinian children to fight Israel. It was broadcast on Hamas-affiliated Al-Aksa TV.

Station officials said Friday that Farfour was taken off the air to make room for new programs.

Station manager Mohammed Bilal said he didn't know yet what would be shown instead.

Israeli officials have denounced the program, "Tomorrow's Pioneers," as incendiary and outrageous. The program was also opposed by the state-run Palestinian Broadcasting Corporation, which is controlled by Fatah.

---

Its a world of violence
a world of blood
its a world of death
without any love


All the Jooos
we will kill
Zionists, they will shrill
it's hamastan afterall

Madison Rolling in the Grave

PM: Full Kassam protection impossible

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said Thursday that he had no intention of providing maximal protection to all residents of Gaza periphery communities. "A country cannot protect itself ad infinitum, because there would be no end to it."

Olmert was addressing the Caesarea Conference.

The prime minister added that stepping up protection would be "just as [ineffective] as the demand to solve Sderot's Kassam problem by wiping Beit Hanun and other towns in Gaza off the face of the earth.

The prime minister appealed to the residents of the Gaza periphery: "In the short term we cannot supply you with all of the personal security that we would like to provide, because such protection would draw from expensive resources that are needed for other critical security needs."

Olmert also addressed the media, asking that they "not encourage, even mutely, demands of citizens that no normal government could accept." He added that "life in Israel entails a certain security risk, and anyone who chooses to live in the Jewish state is accepting this risk." And yet, "the risk in Israel is lower than the risk threatening Jews in other parts of the world."

The prime minister addressed the issue of the three soldiers still being held by Israel's enemies. "We will balance the wish to return Gilad, Udi and Eldad with the need to protect Israel's crucial interests." Regarding the recording of Gilad Schalit released by Hamas, Olmert said that "terrorism tries to subdue Israel by attacking the innocent, while taking advantage of its sensitivity to the lives of its citizens."

A group of social activists held a demonstration in front of the hotel hosting the conference. There were a number of confrontations between demonstrators and police.

---

Somebody, anybody, please buy Olmert a retirement condo. This is the most outrageous statement that any leader of any free country could ever say. Israel, as a modern, democratic state is finished if Olmert is not forced to step down after refusing to fulfill his primary responsibility as head of government to defend the citizenry. If Olmert's words are allowed to stand, then calls to secede from the state must also stand. Israel must, as it's primary obligation, defend her population or get out of the nation business.

A comment on the Jpost.com blog to this report reads:

38. Provide for the common defense
Evan Stone
06/29/2007 10:31
Olmert is a bumbling fool. His statement that he cannot defend Sderot is a complete travesty - and he couches it in terms that his tolerance of this attacks are the actions of a "normal" govt? What US President would tolerate an attack on remote "Hawaii"? This is a day that will live in infamy. The first job of a govt is to provide for the common defense. Olmert fails at this and is incompetent to be the PM. He must go.

Thanks Evan, you are quite correct.

Evan is an American and understands that while the US Constitution is a legal document and contract for the government of the US, it is also a great work of political philosophy.

“ We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. ”

With great regret as a Jew, I must conclude that in the yesodos and interpretation of the philosophy of 18th century liberal political thought, Israel has failed as a state. Those responsibilities assigned to the federal government by the people, penned most likely by Madison, are not priorities of the government of Israel. The final straw is Olmert's refusal to exercise military power to secure border authority for those people who live in rocket range of Gaza. Not only is his policy an abrogation of the social contract obligating a duly appointed leader to provide "common defense" but it is most immoral to continue taxing these very same citizens and obligating them in other burdensome regulation when their live's are not considered a national priority. No taxation without representation.

Compared of course to their fellow citizens uprooted from Gush Katif, I suppose their being "permitted" to remain in S'derot for instance is the better alternative. The best alternative of course, would be providing for their own defense. I suppose Jews can make home made rockets too. If the government will not step in and order the military to defend sovereign Israeli territory, morality dictates the people must not be prevented from and indeed are obligated to) establish their own balance of power and defend their right to live without threat of rocket attack from over the border. Technically speaking, the government should foot the bill for their doing so.

Now, you must realize that this is far-fetched by now. However, nation-states which are established as "free" countries have two-way obligations; the federal government to the people and the people to the federal government. Olmert was not elected to look pretty and give speeches. It is his obligation as head of government to defend Israel. While I understand it is not fair to judge Israel based upon American standards, I am drawn to the Oath of Office of the Presidency of the United States:

(Article II, Section 1, Clause 8)
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. (so help me G-d).

Preserve, protect, defend.... This is the essence of leadership. This is what makes and keeps free nations, free. The American founding fathers understood the obligation that free people and free nations share. Olmert does not. Israel may not, but had better learn very quickly.

Rabbis and Cults

Modern Orthodoxy’s ‘Cultic’ Influence
Retiring Rabbi Marc Angel charges movement’s growing reliance on yeshiva deans is danger sign.

Debra Nussbaum Cohen and Stewart Ain - Staff Writers

Rabbi Marc Angel of Manhattan is going out with a bang.

As he prepares to retire from the pulpit this fall, the prominent Modern Orthodox rabbi and former president of the Rabbinical Council of America, has fired a salvo at his own movement, saying it is “slipping over the line to a cultic superstitious kind of religion.”

“In the early part of my rabbinate, Orthodoxy was free, open to dialogue and discussion, and had a message for other Jews and for the world,” he said.

But during his 38 years as spiritual leader of the Upper West Side’s Congregation Shearith Israel, known as the Spanish and Portuguese Synagogue, Rabbi Angel said he has seen a growing insular perspective that shuns innovative thought and relies instead on the opinions of so-called authorities.

“There’s been an increasing tendency to defer to certain authorities and of the individual rabbi or individual Jew to back off on personal responsibilities,” he told The Jewish Week.

Thus, instead of answering a congregant’s question about halacha or Jewish law, many Modern Orthodox rabbis are turning to a rosh yeshiva (the head of a yeshiva) for the answer.

“If the rabbi doesn’t know the answer, he should try to find out” and can consult a rosh yeshiva as part of his research, Rabbi Angel, 62, suggested.

“The answer should come from the rabbi of that congregation. He shouldn’t say, ‘I’m not capable of answering; that kind of question has to go to a rosh yeshiva.’

“And in general, this is what is happening. ... The Modern Orthodox have surrendered in almost every area of responsibility to the more right-wing group.”

The result, Rabbi Angel said, is that “people with independent opinions get shut out. When people stop thinking and expressing creatively, then there’s no more intellectual dynamism.

“Once that intellectual dynamism is gone that’s the beginning of stultification, of cultism. There’s a very fine line between true religion and cultism. Orthodoxy to a certain extent is slipping over the line to a cultic, superstitious kind of religion,” he said. “It bothers me endlessly.”

Samuel Heilman, a sociology professor at Queens College who has written extensively about Orthodox Judaism in America, agreed, saying that there are younger rabbis today who were educated by “more haredi [fervently Orthodox] and less modernist” Jews.

“Many went through a yeshiva system that is further to the right or were ordained in Israel in yeshivas where you always defer to the rosh yeshiva and seldom take a position on your own,” he said.

Such reliance on roshei yeshiva has pulled Modern Orthodoxy to the right, Heilman observed, because these halachic authorities “tend to be more right- wing.”

To counter this trend, Rabbi Angel is creating the Institute for Jewish Ideas and Ideals, an organization whose goal is “to foster an appreciation of legitimate diversity within Orthodoxy.”

It is similar to Edah, the organization that folded last year after nine years working to bring Modern Orthodox Jews together through conferences and programs. The difference, Rabbi Angel said, is that he intends to focus more on ideas than action and to develop religious responses to questions that have not been adequately addressed in the existing Orthodox legal literature.

Among them is whether it is permissible to go to the opera, which appears to be a violation of the prohibition against men hearing women sing.

“I know there are plenty of good Orthodox Jews who go to the opera,” Rabbi Angel said. “How do we understand kol isha [a woman’s voice]? What are its parameters, what does it include and not include?”

Rabbi Haskel Lookstein, principal of Ramaz, a Modern Orthodox Jewish day school in Manhattan, said he agreed that “in general there is a tendency towards hesitancy in rabbis making halachic decisions.

“But on the whole I think most rabbis make them except where there is a major community issue or an issue of marriage or divorce where the seriousness requires the expertise of an outstanding posek [Jewish law expert],” Rabbi Lookstein said.

Rabbi Angel said the situation has now reached the point where rabbinic candidates for pulpits are asked by congregational screening committees, “Who are your gedolim, who do you turn to when faced with hard questions?”

Rabbi Fabian Schonfeld, spiritual leader of the Young Israel of Kew Gardens Hills in Queens, who has been in the rabbinate for 56 years, acknowledged that such a question has been asked.

“It depends on the nature of the congregation,” he said. “He is not wrong, but he is exaggerating it. Balabatim [lay leaders] do ask.”

Rabbi Schonfeld said there have been occasions when he was asked by congregants to consult with another rabbi on particular questions.

“It happens, but he [Rabbi Angel] exaggerates. And in some cases, one is duty-bound to consult,” he said.

Rabbi Basil Herring, executive vice president of the RCA, said that although there has “certainly been a trend in recent decades towards specialization in dealing with questions of Jewish law ... congregational rabbis do not necessarily simply echo or consistently give carte blanche to such opinions.”

“They are able to filter that very specific knowledge through the prism of their communal realities and through the prism of the world around us, which requires a certain exposure to these realities,” he insisted.

But Rabbi Angel said he has found that roshei yeshiva have “become surrogate authorities” for a rabbi’s own judgment “instead of coming to conclusions based on [their] own reasoning. ... Of course we consult with other people who are experts in certain areas, but we’re not just blind sheep, and we have to think for ourselves.”

When he was president of the RCA and tried to implement new ideas, “there was more resistance than I anticipated.”

He recalled that he organized five regional conferences for RCA members to discuss intermarriage and conversion. “My hope was that people would say that ‘we should open our doors and people have a place to come and talk, so they know the Orthodox are open to them.’”

But instead, he said, “I was attacked tremendously, mostly from the right. Several of the roshei yeshiva [rabbinic deans of Yeshiva University] called me on the carpet and said, ‘The people who marry out are wicked, they are traitors and by having conferences on the subject we imply that Orthodoxy is soft on the issue.’”

“Why should we pretend that people don’t exist?” he asked, adding that “today Orthodoxy has become much narrower than it was in 1990” when he was president of the RCA.

Rabbi Angel, whose 600-family synagogue was the first established in North America, will be succeeded by his son, Rabbi Hayyim Angel, the current assistant rabbi.

Reflecting on the changes in Modern Orthodoxy, the elder Rabbi Angel said those who dare to offer a different opinion “are cut down and isolated, which is something that is not healthy for Orthodoxy and Judaism in general.

“There is a sort of intimidation out there and if one takes a stand that is different, that person is isolated. People are afraid to be isolated; that fear is palpable.”

---

“Once that intellectual dynamism is gone that’s the beginning of stultification, of cultism. There’s a very fine line between true religion and cultism. Orthodoxy to a certain extent is slipping over the line to a cultic, superstitious kind of religion,” he said. “It bothers me endlessly.”

This rabbi gives a bad name to all those cults we know and love to hate. What part of cultic behavior does Rabbi Angel see? Is it fair to say that communal pressure to follow a particular minhag is close enough or the same as the social and behaviorial controls practiced by cults in order to preach this chillul HaShem? Evaluating Your Cult Involvement


What Rabbi Angel is missing is the idea that his belief is not universal nor does he have a right to re-define modern orthodox in a way that makes his retiring conscience feel better since these trends he criticizes have occurred during the prime of his career. There will always be actions we regret for doing and for not doing but we cannot change the past. In retirement, Rabbi Angel will seek to re-write his past. It will not be successful and his retirement a bitter one.

Edah, the leftist orthodox organization mentioned in the article died not because of funding but because it lacked a true purpose (this is why it could not raise money). Rabbi Angel will seek thousands and millions of dollars to pay for not very popular Rabbis or Rabbis who may be well known but ignored to create old/new ideas which will muddy the waters of halachic observance. If Orthodox Jews are not happy as Orthodox Jews, they will merely not ask shailas and draw their own conclusions. It is that simple. If Rabbi Angel wants orthodoxy to follow conservatism by creating a system where minority vaiations are as acceptable as those held by the majority, the rabbinic system will break down and the Jewish people will further crack on sectarian lines.




Rabbinic authority is often discussed in terms of the words of the Torah in Deuteronomy 17:10,11:

17:10 Since this decision comes from the place that God shall choose, you must do as they tell you, carefully following their every decision.
17:11 [Besides this, in general,] you must keep the Torah as they interpret it for you, and follow the laws that they legislate for you. Do not stray to the right or left from the word that they declare to you.

From a very basic interpretation of the above, one wonders whether or not Rabbi Angel has actually ever looked in D'varim? What sort of options does he wish to provide Jews and how many different and opposing Rabbinic sources does he wish to create and further why does he seek to create so many divisions within the Jewish people? Is he doing this because his own congregants go else where with their shailas?

A few years ago I had questions as to the medical treatment my dying Grandmother was receiving at a convalescent home. I went to the Rabbi of my congregation with my questions and observations? After asking me a few questions, he called his posek to confer with him although I believe he already knew the answer. I had the greatest respect for him for doing so. I could have guessed the answer but wanted to be certain that what I considered the logic of the halacha to be was accurate. The psak halacha coming from a recognized authority was a lesson for me in the effectiveness of the rabbinic system. The ability of this Rabbi to reach his posek so quickly and answer my question is to me evidence that something else is going on in Rabbi Angel's conscience. My experience may not echo that of everyone else however, for me it was proof conclusive.

Oh, the Moderate Palis....

PA Children Learn That Death is Preferable to Life


"O heroes, Allah has promised you victory.... Do not talk yourselves into flight.... Your enemies seek life while you seek death. They seek spoils to fill their empty stomachs while you seek a Garden [Paradise] as wide as are the heavens and the earth..."

11 Tammuz 5767, 27 June 07 06:12
by Nissan Ratzlav-Katz(IsraelNN.com)

In a bulletin released on Tuesday, Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook of the Palestinian Media Watch organization, report on a Palestinian Authority journalist who wrote about the "death culture" in Gaza. Contrary to the implication of the PA journalist's article, however, the PMW analysts point out that the yearning for death is not limited to Hamas and has been inculcated primarily by PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas's ruling Fatah organization.

The PA journalist, Ghassan Zaqtan, wrote in the June 18 edition of the PA's Al-Ayyam newspaper:

"We knew that they would do it, especially in Gaza, where a mother brushes her young son's hair at 7:00, so that he will be killed at 7:30, and where the children learn that death is preferable to life! We knew that they would do this, it was clear to us: with language overflowing with the rhetoric of death and the norms of killing, in the religious rulings [fatwas] and in Friday and holiday sermons."

"The journalist's critical mistake," Marcus and Crook write, "is that he seems to attribute the death culture only to Hamas, whereas it has been the Fatah leadership and its educational initiatives that still actively teach that death is preferable to life."

The PMW directors go on to quote a 2002 PA schoolbook written under Fatah auspices:

"O heroes, Allah has promised you victory.... Do not talk yourselves into flight.... Your enemies seek life while you seek death. They seek spoils to fill their empty stomachs while you seek a Garden [Paradise] as wide as are the heavens and the earth. Do not be anxious to meet them [enemies], for death is not bitter in the mouth of the believers. These drops of blood that gush from your bodies will be transformed tomorrow into blazing red meteors that will fall down upon the heads of your enemies." (Reading and Texts Part II, Grade 8 (2002), p. 16)

PMW also notes a statement made by the Director of the Palestinian Children's Aid Association, Firial Hillis, on PA television in May 2003, in which she admits that PA schools indoctrinate to love self-immolation in order "to meet... God." Hillis said:

"The concept of shahada for him [the child] means belonging to the homeland, from a religious point of view. Sacrifice for his homeland. Achieving shahada in order to reach Paradise and to meet his God. This is the best. We also teach our children to protect the homeland, belonging and to reach shahada."


Watch the video

Another tool used by the Fatah-controlled PA media over the years to influence children to see death as an ideal has been music videos. Marcus and Crook note some examples:

"In a video broadcast on Fatah-controlled Palestinian Authority TV hundreds of times from 2001 to 2004, a young boy leaves a farewell letter to his parents and goes off to seek shahada, describing the death he achieves as 'sweet.' This PA clip is designed to offset a child's natural fear of death by depicting shahada as heroic and tranquil," the PMW directors explain.

Watch the video

"From 2000 to 2003," Marcus and Crook continue, "PA TV broadcast a music video depicting the delightful shahid paradise of Muhammad Al-Dura, who died in a crossfire. The child actor is shown flying a kite, frolicking on the beach and even at an amusement park. The clip opens with an invitation to other children from Al-Dura to aspire to death: 'I am waving to you not in parting, but to say "follow me."' This video directing children to follow Al-Dura to paradise as martyrs was suddenly broadcast again in June 2006, after Israeli troops had gathered at the border of the Gaza Strip after the kidnapping of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit."

Watch the video

"The result of such virulent PA indoctrination is apparent," Marcus and Crook conclude, "when listening to the interview on PA TV with two 11-year-old Palestinian girls talking about shahada and describing it as a primary ideal and personal goal. They explain that 'all Palestinian children' view shahada as more worthwhile than living, because of its promised grand Afterlife."

Watch the video

---

Here we have yet additional evidence of pervaisve and persistent child abuse by the official organs of the PA. This is, we are told, the moderate terrorist wing, those who will negotiate during hudnas. The world is set on "saving" Abu Mazen by providing him more guns and money. The immorality of extending the pali civil war has not been discussed anywhere. The pali conflict will carry over into Yosh, leaving shootings, hackings, and blood letting of all sorts in it's wake. If the PA died a natural death, Israel will be left to contend with and ultimately crush Hamas and it's supporters. The conflict will be over and arabians left in the territories will be have the option of leaving or remaining as un-enfranchised arabians living in Israel, without citizenship but guaranteed basic human rights and probably a right to work. Had indoctrination from cradle to grave not have been a goal of the PLO and successor PA, maybe this arrangement could have been different. The truth, however is that as long as there are arabians, there will be bombings, shootings and rock throwing. It is best for the arabians who live in Gaza and Yosh to consider their own well-being and seek residence in any one of the 21 arabian countries of the middle east. This would be the most moral situation for them and for Israel.

The Reagan Diary

Ronald Reagan Reconstructed

by: Matt Hadro, June 15, 2007

Ronald Reagan’s religious faith and virtuous character were, in fact, influential during his days as President. The recently uncovered diaries of Ronald Reagan unveil much of his personality while he served in office, according to Douglas Brinkley, editor of the newly-published The Reagan Diaries. Reagan’s outstanding moral character and positive motivation, which formed the foundation for his much-celebrated presidency, shone forth in his daily thoughts and reflections. The Heritage Foundation hosted a briefing and discussion for the diaries this past week, and Brinkley was present to introduce the work and answer questions from the audience. He had been a close contact of the Reagan family in the past, and was therefore chosen to edit the diaries.

Brinkley desired the collection of entries to be “a book you could dip into” but also one that would fully unveil the life of such a famous American figure when read cover-to-cover. Reagan was a disciplined person in his dedication to daily notation of his thoughts. The Reagan Diaries contains much of his own reflections on foreign policy during his days in office, but also brings to life his inner personality and especially his relationship with his wife, Nancy Reagan.

Brinkley remarked that first and foremost, Reagan was not a mysterious man. He was God-fearing, humorous, and led a well-balanced life.

His faith in God could be shown in his writings when he awoke after being shot with a bullet in 1981. He prayed, and immediately knew that from then on he was to serve God in his work. “He was in prayer a lot,” remarked Brinkley, Professor of History at Tulane University. Reagan was also light-hearted. Though frustrated at times by a negative press, he never held grudges. Reagan was an American, a man who represented all parties. Whether one was conservative or liberal at the time, he gave an example for all to follow as a fighter for true American ideals and beliefs, to make the country the best place possible. It is even noted (humorously) in the diaries that he tried to recruit Democrats to his cause.

As President, Reagan still showed ability to retain a well-balanced personality, a man who could walk with kings and keep the common touch. He did not forget old friends. In his later years, he was able to stay physically fit, especially through his work in the upkeep of the Reagan Ranch in California. Nevertheless, he was an intellectual man as well, as found within his writings.

A charismatic leader, Reagan also possessed a deeply sensitive side to his personality. He wrote in his diaries of a stark fear of nuclear annihilation, the foundation for his Presidential policies to whittle down the world’s nuclear arsenal. He steered Americans past the bitter Vietnam War memories, and back to the country’s heroism in World War II, granting the elder generation profound gratitude and honor that they had little received until that time. Whenever an American soldier died during Reagan’s term, he personally contacted their families out of condolence.

Ronald Reagan had a deep love affair with his wife Nancy Reagan. He wrote in his diaries of his displeasure whenever they were separated during his busy term as President. Though he did have problems with his children in his later years, his reflections tell of his great love for them, and his constant remembrance of them.

The Reagan Diaries offers a keen insight into the person of one of America’s most celebrated Presidents. Reagan’s wit and humor, combined with his sympathetic persona, were the foundations of an admirable man who was able to sympathize with the American people and use his charisma to lead the country past the darker years of the previous era.

Matt Hadro is an intern at the American Journalism Center, a training program run by Accuracy in Media and Accuracy in Academia.


Reagan was not a mysterious man. He was God-fearing, humorous, and led a well-balanced life.

Why is it that politicians listen to "professional" political advisors to explain how to connect to the American people? Imagery means more than substance. Reaching out and connecting does not require flash, fancy hair styles and rehersed sound bites. Humor, honesty, well-balanced living, these are the attributes with which ordinary people relate. That is, ordinary people doing extraordinary things. This was Ronald Reagan. Reagan could blossom as President because he believed in his core principles and translated these into policy ideas. Reagan was not as all to often observed these days, a bag of polices searching for problems. He was not, as we learned in school, solutions chasing problems. For Reagan, America's problems were not political machinations meant for electoral posturing but his core values under attack by alien forces. America's values were Reagan's values. America's challenges were Reagan's personal challenges.

Reagan was a doctor for the national body and never veered from his genuine belief that America had to succeed and would succeed because America was destined by G-d to be the fortress of freedom in the world. That meant America had to be strong internally and externally. Reagan was never about one-issue or a case study in academic politics. He was president because, in a tradition of great Americans he stood up to lead the nation he loved and believed in, to rally it, capture it's imagination and inspire it to the greatness that he envisioned it could reach.

Sheer Insanity

Netanyahu Surprise: Bring Jordanian Troops into Yesha

by Hillel Fendel

(IsraelNN.com) Opposition leader Binyamin Netanyahu has expanded on his general call for Egyptian and Jordanian intervention in the PA, and says Jordan should send over its PLO brigade.
Bring a foreign army into the borders of Eretz Yisrael? The beginning of the end... learn your history BIBI!!!

Speaking with Israeli reporters in Washington on Thursday, the former Prime Minister said that Fatah chief Abu Mazen cannot be expected to maintain law and order in Judea and Samaria on his own. He said that Jordan should dispatch its Palestinian force, known as the Badr Brigade. "The Badr Brigade, which is Jordanian-Palestinian, can create law and order," Netanyahu said.
no arabians will bring law and order unless it is Sharia. they know of no such thing as "law and order". the law and order talk must have been inspired by his meeting with FDT.

Jordan is ruled by the Hashemite family, though much of its population is considered "Palestinian."
yes, because Jordan is palestine.

Ariel and Feiglin Respond
MK Uri Ariel (National Union) said, "We have already made the mistake of thinking there is a substitute for the IDF's presence. Wherever the IDF is, things are relatively quiet; and wherever the IDF has left, they shoot at us from there."

Moshe Feiglin, chairman of the Likud Party's Manhigut Yehudit (Jewish Leadership) faction, responded, "It is very sad that Netanyahu is reviving, via the back door, the Oslo illusion that Palestinian terrorists should protect the State of Israel against other Palestinian terrorists."

Instead of standing firm for the Likud's principles, and for those of the nationalist camp, Netanyahu remains a captive to the conceptions of Beilin and Peres," Feiglin said.
I doubt it helps Feiglin too much but just maybe this is the thing that steers people away from BIBI's tired out Oslo-lite ideas towards the NU.

Netanyahu also said that Egypt must be more forceful in manning its border with Gaza, where tons of arms and explosives have been smuggled in during the past two years. Shortly after Israel quit Gaza in the summer of 2005, it also left the Philadelphi Route on the southern Gaza border in the hands of Egyptian and European Union monitors.
this is like asking Mexico to be more forceful in controlling their side of the border to prevent illegal entry into the US. The Egyptians would much rather let the Jews deal with their mishugenas then having to deal with them, themselves.

Netanyahu Explains
Netanyahu, who met in Washington with presidential candidates Hilary Clinton and Fred Thompson, earlier explained to CNN his position: "Palestinian society is not functional. On the one hand, it is ruled by extremist Islam and is supported by Iran, and on the other hand, it is led by a moderate but weak regime. The moderate elements must be strengthened... I think that [PA Chairman] Abu Mazen has good intentions. The fact that he called Hamas 'terrorists and murderers' is important... I hope that his recent statements indicate that he plans to fight terrorists wherever they are. Therefore, until he does this, we see that his leadership is too weak to take the Palestinians along a new path."
the path to hell is paved with good intentions so goes the saying. Abu Mazen's intentions are to continue saving for his retirement plan from the humanitarian donations of the US and Europe. Abu Mazen is a career terrorist who still thinks like a terrorist and prays everyday for Arafat. In his eyes, Hamas is "terrorists and murderers" because they terrorized and murdered his gang of thugs in Gaza. They aren't terrorists though for killing Jews, something that Abu Mazen has been encouraging all along.

Netanyahu said that in both Lebanon and Gaza, Israel had created Iranian bases on its border by withdrawing unilaterally. "What's clear to me is that we must not make the same mistake in [Judea and Samaria]. We must isolate Hamas and strengthen the moderates with the help of our neighbors.... It is clear to all that in the Middle East there are extremists supported by Iran and Al-Qaeda, and, on the other side, moderates. The Arab nations can already say clearly that extremist Islam is a common enemy to both themselves and Israel."
no BIBI we must kill Hamas, drive out the sympathizers and finish of the PA too. BIBI you are dreaming if you think that in the arabian world they have as much fear of extremist islam as Israel. the stakes are very very different. BIBI you are proving the point that you have not changed and are merely Peres-lite.

Shalom: They're Too Old
Netanyahu's party colleague MK Silvan Shalom, who does not hide his plans to challenge Netanyahu for leadership of the Likud, was quick to criticize the proposal. He opposes the idea not on ideological or strategic grounds, but rather because of the age of the Badr force members.

"The members of the Badr Brigade have been there for many years," Shalom said, "and they are not the ones to bring order, chase after Palestinians, confiscate weapons and arrest them. Expecting Palestinians to do the job against Palestinians is silly."

indulge please the begged question...so younger more dangerous Jordanian palis would then be okay I presume? no arab can defend Israel against other arabians unless they are in the IDF. The force of mediocrity has surely taken its toll on these poor Jews.


Olmert and Livni
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is scheduled to hold a four-way summit next week with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, King Abdullah of Jordan, and Abbas (Abu Mazen).

Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni said this week that Israel refuses to calmly accept a situation of Hamas rule in Gaza, "and we are therefore continuing to act militarily and diplomatically there."

Shabbos and the Jews

noted from FR

From WSJ Opinion Journal
HOUSES OF WORSHIP -The Decline of the Sabbath
Less praying, more working and playing.

BY MOLLIE ZIEGLER HEMINGWAY Friday, June 15, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT For many Americans, Sunday is unlike any other day of the week. They spend its luxurious hours curled up in bed with the paper, meeting friends for brunch, working off hangovers, watching golf, running errands and preparing themselves for the workweek ahead. But Sunday is also, for many, the Sabbath--a special day for religious reasons. Not that you would notice. "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy," we are told in Exodus. Of all the gifts Jews gave the world, that of a weekly day of rest is certainly one to be cherished. And yet the Sabbath is now marked more by its neglect than its keeping. Or so says Christopher Ringwald in his new book "A Day Apart." Mr. Ringwald notes that in the late 18th century, states banned entertainment, hunting or unnecessary travel on Sundays. The Second Great Awakening in the early 1800s spread Sabbath-keeping to the frontiers. Church membership doubled, Sunday schools proliferated and long sermons dominated the morning. It was unthinkable that the general store would remain open on the Sabbath. "Nothing strikes a foreigner on his arrival in America more forcibly than the regard paid to the Sabbath," Alexis de Tocqueville wrote in 1840. "Not only have all ceased to work, but they appear to have ceased to exist." The so-called blue laws that were a part of American culture--closing down bars and preventing the sale of liquor on Sunday--were commonplace well into the 20th century. But the Sabbath today is at odds with commercial culture. To generalize shamelessly from personal experience: My brother-in-law, who manages a national retail store in Colorado, works on Sundays, following church. He was shocked recently to find out he is now required to open the store on Easter Sunday. Easter used to be the one Sunday each year when retail stores closed. No longer. Of course, debates over the proper observance of the Sabbath date back to ancient times. One early conflict between Jesus and his fellow Jews was over what it meant to keep the Sabbath. Jesus' failure to hew to ever-expanding rules--he healed the sick on the Sabbath--angered the Pharisees. Not that Christians later fell into easy agreement about Sabbath conduct. In another new book, "Sunday: A History of the First Day From Babylonia to the Super Bowl," Craig Harline shows how all sorts of complicated rules governing work, travel, sex and leisure grew up around the Sabbath in medieval Europe, creating a tangle of proscriptions that had overwhelmed the day by the 14th century. One genre of church mural at the time, known as the "Sunday Christ," showed Jesus surrounded by tools of the fishing, carpentry and farming trades. Each ax, rake and fishing hook inflicted a fresh wound on the crucified Christ. The message was not lost on worshipers: Work on the Sabbath only added to Jesus' suffering. Reformation leader Martin Luther resisted such Sabbath guilt, saying that the commandment was kept by daily worship and high regard for God's Word, not strict rules governing behavior. Discussing the Sabbath, he highlighted Paul's relief at being free from the demands of Jewish law. And yet from the 16th century to the modern era, a Sabbath consensus emerged. Christians were to keep Sunday as a day of rest and worship, and their governments supported this pious notion. The day of rest did not become secularized until very recently. What happened? It is hard to say. Both Mr. Ringwald and Mr. Harline note that our religious practices are more and more isolated from the habits of the broader culture. Think only of the coarseness of the Internet, gossip rags and Hollywood fare in a country that claims 45% church attendance every Sunday: We live now on two tracks, a secular and a religious one, shuttling between them all too easily. This Sabbath dissonance was evident even in the 1950s, Mr. Harline notes. More than 90% of American homes had a television, and some 37% were tuned to Sunday football. "Sundays changed when the world changed," he writes. Stopping farming in the Middle Ages was easy. But to close restaurants, shut up amusement parks or clear the airwaves when Americans with money were trying to spend it that day was impossible. The flip side to the prosperity we enjoy is that we have lost our day of rest for another day of consumption. The pace of commerce and technology provide unheard of options for ignoring family, religion and rest--not just on the Sabbath but every day of the week. Ultimately, Mr. Ringwald would like to see the Sabbath restored to one track--if not a strictly religious one, then one not actively secular. Taking a day of rest protects us from ourselves, he writes, from "our urge to always be doing, improving, earning, getting, spending, having, consuming--all the ways we hurry on toward death." Ms. Hemingway is a writer in Washington.

Why am I not surprised at the dread in the voice of the writer? The first thing that must be accepted to understand a discussion about the differences between Shabbos Kodesh and l'havdil the Xtian Sabbath is that the Jews were commanded by HaShem directly, openly, and during His one time only mass revelation at Har Sinai to "remember" the Shabbos, "l'kadsho" to keep it holy.

ORT Navigating the Bible II
Zachor et-yom haShabat lekadsho.
Sheshet yamim ta'avod ve'asita chol-melachtecha.
Veyom hashvi'i Shabat l'Adonay Eloheycha lo ta'aseh chol-melachah atah uvincha-uvitecha avdecha va'amatcha uvehemtecha vegercha asher bish'areycha.
Ki sheshet-yamim asah Adonay et-hashamayim ve'et-ha'arets et-hayam ve'et-kol-asher-bam vayanach bayom hashvi'i al-ken berach Adonay et-yom haShabat vayekadeshehu.

Except above where the text begins the 5th Commandment (Kabed es Avicha), what we have is the best definition of Sabbath available to date. It comes directly out of the Sefer Shmos, (Book of Exodus) and is Hashem's command to the JEWS.

Shabbos is neither an option for the interested nor a burden for the less connected, dreaded for its coming and gleeful as it passes. Shabbos is the ultimate Jewish holiday. And even though many people call Shabbos the Jews gift to the world, this is clearly mis-understood. Gentiles are not now nor have ever been obligated in Shabbos which is why in classical Xtian text you find references to burdensome laws of Rabbis, or as the article calls it "ever-expanding rules". It isn't the rules that "expand" but life that expands. It is the job of the Rabbonim to understand the changing world and apply this knowledge to a new set of parameters meaning for the Jewish people, new or different practices based upon those changes. This is so that Shabbos is not maligned in the march of progress. The laws, however are basically the same.

And as for healing, this is an NT mis-read. If as Xtians believe Yushka (l'havdil) and G-d are the same, there is not any conflict. 1) Xtians are not obligated in Shabbos (oh yea there weren't any then, whoops) 2) G-d does what G-d chooses. For Jews who believe that HaShem has no form and doesn't need a body to accomplish anything (l'havdil) there is a problem with "unnecessary" medical procedures on Shabbos performed by Jews on Jews or non-Jews. All Jews should understand that Torah forbids a Jew to REFRAIN FROM saving a life on Shabbos, no matter what law must be broken in order to do so. These NT stories essentially are meaningless.

"...berach Adonay et-yom haShabat vayekadeshehu"

HaShem sanctified the 7th day after completing His work. You, Mr. or Ms. Jew are obligated in what G-d commanded you. You were brought out of Egypt. You were made holy and therefore subject to sanctification. The Xtians, on the other hand adopted a Sabbath/Sunday. This is an entirely different thing. It is not a "sanctification" but a "day or rest". Rest? This is done on the couch. Truthfully, since Sunday is Yom Rishon, it does of course according to Torah and in a spiritual sense retain the original essence of the first yom rishon, a strong work day.

Sanctification? This is done by prayer, ritual, learning, teaching, seuda, singing, and being fully Jewish, mein olam haba. Okay, shluffing too, but just a little. The main difference is a physical resting vs. a spiritual elevation and rejuvenation. Taking time out of the schedule without a blackberry to spend with your Creator/parent to be together and demonstrate an unyielding commitment (a word requiring 2 forces or entities) is what Shabbos is about. Yes, it is said HaShem is pleased by Jewish observance of Shabbos as is true with all mitzvos. How does G-d interpret Sabbath on Sunday? If Xtian's were to bind themselves to Torah/bible, then is this not an affront to G-d? Did he not specify what he meant by Shabbos, i.e., 7th day, no melacha, menucha, stopping creative efforts? At least the Jews who do not observe Shabbos yet in the best possible way at least acknowledge that Shabbos is Shabbos. They may argue about what that means, but as far as I know, no Jew has ever tried to define Shabbos as Wednesday?

So, where does this leave honest Xtian Sabbath followers? I am not sure. Shabbos cannot be removed from Yom Shvi'i and Sunday can't be turned into Yom Shvi'i. Where, I suppose it leaves us back at the beginning. Only the Jews are obligated in Shabbos. Xtianity seeking to create a day of rest is probably a good thing. But expecting followers, who have a choice to observe or not observe (unless Xtian churches or congregations can strengthen the non-observance penalty) to fall inline and understand what it is they are supposed to be resting for and from, then I certainly would not be waiting in the lobby for the mass rush of people. Only Xtianity can define what it is and what a good Xtian is. But I am not sure that sabbath observance is a good measure.

Help from Rabbi Moshe Bogomilsky

As I was struggling on Friday afternoon to explain why a Shomer Mitzvahs and Shomer Torah Jew should be Prime Minister of Israel, on Shabbos I found this commentary in sefer Vedibarta Bam. This sefer is made available online at Sichos In English.

"G-d said to Moshe, 'Bring back the staff of Aharon before the holy Ark as a safekeeping.' " (17:25)


QUESTION: Aharon's staff that bloomed was placed in front of the holy Ark together with a flask of manna (Shemot 16:33). When the Ark was hidden, so was the jar of manna and Aharon's staff (Yoma 52b). What is the connection between the Ark, the staff, and the manna?

ANSWER: The Ark represents Torah. In it were the Tablets and the sefer Torah written by Moshe (Bava Batra 14a). Aharon's staff symbolizes the human craving for peace. Aharon was the ultimate peace lover, and through his staff Korach's rebellion was put to rest. Manna, which was the source of sufficient nourishment for all, on the other hand, represents economic security. Thus, the storing of manna and the staff near the Ark conveys the message that the staff of Aharon and the jar of manna go together with the Ark of Hashem; there can be no economic security or enduring peace in the world without the moral and ethical standards of the Torah.
When the Ark is "lost" — when its sacred influence is eliminated from the arena of life — the staff of Aharon and the jar of manna and all that they represent, disappear. All deliberations and plans for economic security and enduring peace come to naught because they are neither enshrined in the Ark, representing Torah, nor guided by the teachings of the Tablets contained therein.

As we can see the Torah teaches us that there can be "no economic security or enduring peace" without the Torah's ethics. There can never be a "morality" without the word of G-d.

Hashem Yirachem.....

The PM of Israel, Ehud Olmert and the "president" of the "palestinian authority" Abu Mazen

The New President of Israel, Shimon Peres and the former "president" of the "palestinian authority", the scumbag arafat

The "new" head of the Labor party, Ehud Barak, "President" of the "palestinian authority" Abu Mazen, and former "president" of the "palestinian authority", the scumbag arafat

The head of the Likud, Bibi Netanyahu and the former "president" of the "palestinian authority" the scum bag arafat.

Will things change in Israel?
Within the last week, Israel was graced with the former vice-president and honorary president of the Socialist International, Shimon Peres becoming the President of Israel and his ally, Ehud Barak returning to the head of the Labor party after making millions in "private" business since he left politics in disgrace, crushed by the bulldozer Ariel Sharon. These two will likely have to contend with (if all things remain the same) Bibi Netanyahu, head of Likud as the next PM. Bibi, you may recall lost to Barak under the shadow of a number of allegations of fraud.

Where is the new leadership? Why doesn't Israel have a healthy "farm" system of new political leaders? As of the time of this writing, it appears that Ehud Barak will become the next Minister of Defense, replacing the Stalin look alike Amir Peretz, unabashed Commie sympathizer. Peretz, the former head of the Histadrut (the national labor union) was Israel's version of new leadership. While Labor was not in a position to form a government while he was at it's head, imagine what would have happened had Labor garnered enough seats in the last election to have been on top of the coalition instead of a coalition partner. Peretz, the commie would have been PM. This is a seriously warped system where only the corrupt and famous can ever really win. Israel needs a Torah observant PM and a revolution in thought. The system is broken. Israel is desperately in need of their version of Ronald Reagan.

Hamas Publishes Fatah Hit-List, Confiscates US-Supplied Weapons

Hamastan's War of Independence

(IsraelNN.com) The civil war between Hamas and Fatah terrorists raged on in Gaza Wednesday, with Hamas on the verge of victory. Hamas seized thousands of weapons and vehicles granted to Fatah by the Oslo Accords.

A Hamas spokesman said that a decision had been taken to kill all of Fatah’s leading officials, who he referred to as “dogs beholden to their Israeli masters.”

Hamas has distributed a list of at least 30 Fatah officials it seeks to have killed for complicity, they say, in a US-backed plan to topple Hamas. The first name is senior Fatah terrorist Mohammed Dahlan, who holds the position of National Security Adviser in the Fatah-Hamas PA unity government. He has been hiding out in Egypt for the past two months. Many of the other Fatah men on the list have fled Gaza.

Hamas took over nearly all Fatah positions in Gaza and confiscated thousands of rifles, tons of ammunition and armored jeeps and APCs supplied by the US, Egypt and Israel over the years.

Eight Fatah men were killed Wednesday morning defending the home of senior Fatah official Mahr Mekhdad – who escaped the fighting. About 200 Hamas terrorists surrounded the home of Yassir Arafat confidant Nabil Shaath – shooting one of his body guards.

PA reports say 15 were injured in Wednesday’s clashes – five civilians. More than 25 people were killed in Tuesday’s clashes totaling more than 66 in recent days.

Tuesday night, senior Fatah commander Jamal Abu Jadian tried to escape a Hamas siege on his northern Gaza home, dressed as a Muslim woman, in full hijab. He took refuge in a nearby hospital, but was spotted by Hamas terrorists, who pumped more than 40 bullets into his head with automatic rifles. He died from the assault.

A close ally of Dahlan’s, Abu Jadian is the third senior Fatah commander to be gunned down in recent clashes.

Hamas has completely taken control of northern Gaza, declaring it closed to members of the Fatah-loyal PA forces. In central Gaza, Hamas took over Fatah Presidential Guard positions with hardly any resistance. A Fatah position controlling Gaza’s main road was also seized and destroyed. The only Fatah presence remaining in Gaza is a few positions in Gaza City.

Fatah terrorists fired an RPG (rocket-propelled grenade) at the home of Hamas’s deputy Information Minister Tuesday, setting it on fire.

PA Foreign Minister Ziad Abu Amr said that the clashes between Fatah and Hamas could be expected to spread to Judea and Samaria as well. Shooting between Fatah and Hamas terrorists has already been reported in Shechem.

Both Fatah’s Mahmoud Abbas and Hamas’s Ismail Haniyeh called for an end to fighting Tuesday. Both had their homes and offices targeted by rival terrorists and the calls of both have been ignored. Abbas called Hamas’s attacks a “bloody coup.”

Fatah has decided to “suspend its participation in the national unity government until the fighting stops,” said a statement following a Fatah session in Ramallah Tuesday.

{Hamas took over nearly all Fatah positions in Gaza and confiscated thousands of rifles, tons of ammunition and armored jeeps and APCs supplied by the US, Egypt and Israel over the years. }

Thanks George. In your memoirs, please include the following:

I have discovered the hard way that giving weapons to terrorists under the assumption that the terrorists will protect the very same populations that the terrorists seek to attack is not realistic (or as dad says "wouldn't be prudent"). Assigning the task of promoting responsible and peaceful co-existence, to violent gang thugs who shake down the citizenry, take their salaries and buy weapons off the top of humanitarian "donations" given by the Jew hating nations of the world, and use armed para-military acting as civil police who seek out "collaborators" with the "Zionist entity", is not a productive use of expensive American foreign policy credibility and treasure.

Think about it George. Maybe you can save some of your legacy by showing you have grown with experience. Don't follow Jimmah Cahr'ter and Emperor Clintonious down the hell hole of historical memory. I know, you didn't begin the process of, not arms for hostages but arms for terrorist thugs. But, it did continue on your watch. While the collapse of Fatah (at least in Gaza) is probably a good thing in a strategic sense for Israel,(after an initial tactical loss) this was not your goal. Maybe history will cut you some slack on that point. But after January 2006 (see Barbarians at the Gates) and your continuing to seek ways of supporting Fatah, all the while knowing that at least in Gaza the Fatah gang was on borrowed time may have appeared in your eyes as an act of loyalty, it was, in reality counter-productive and lacking in reason. The thoughtful thing to do was to cut your losses, concentrate on Yosh and give lip service to Gaza. But you were convinced by arabians who live to avoid humiliation that Gaza was salvagable. This was not true.

I guess one could argue that today's split between Gaza and Yosh was predictable. Maybe this was the reason why Foggy Bottom was opposed to the unilateral Israeli withdrawal from Gaza. The Gaza war would have occurred whether or not Jews were living in a small bloc in ancient Israeli soil. But the withdrawal opened the door for the conflict to begin in earnest. Was this Sharon's goal? Maybe. Was it worth the cost? no, not really because the barbarians would have fought over the money and guns anyhow.

The biggest news of the day has been the claims by Hamas that files, pictures and data that was captured from Fatah "prove" the support given by the US from the CIA and Israel. Well, duh. Since the US support for Abu Mazen has been stated policy, why does this surprise anyone? But for the barbarians all this means is more fun; new collaborators to kill and maim.

Barbarians at the Gates

Hamas Seizes Control of Main Gaza Road as Civil War Breaks Out

Fierce battles over key security positions spread to central Gaza early Wednesday, with Hamas fighters wresting control of the coastal strip's main north-south road — and putting themselves in position to cut off reinforcements to beleaguered Fatah forces.(snip)

The violence in Gaza has rapidly spiraled toward all-out civil war, with more than 50 reported killed since Monday. Hamas has systematically taken control of security positions in the north and south, apparently leaving the main battle for the strip's security and political nerve center in Gaza City for last.(snip)

An announcer on a Hamas radio station said the offensive would proceed to the presidential compound and the national security headquarters in Gaza City. (snip)

Hamas leaders blamed the Gaza fighting on Abbas, saying his security forces were corrupt and riddled with criminals. Abbas called the fighting "madness" and appealed to Hamas' exiled leader, Khaled Mashaal, to end the violence. (snip)

Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri, said the clashes could have been avoided if Abbas had given the Hamas-led Cabinet control over the security forces, which he blamed for a wave of kidnappings, torture and violence in Gaza. (snip)

Several hundred tribal leaders, women, children and Islamic Jihad militants turned out in Gaza City for a protest initiated by Egyptian mediators. Some demonstrators scattered after masked Hamas gunmen fired in the air, but others pushed on, carrying Palestinian flags and shouting, "Do not shoot" and "national unity" over a loudspeaker.

Witnesses said Hamas gunmen shot at the protesters as they approached the house of the Bakr family — Fatah loyalists — in Gaza City, trapping the demonstrators. (snip)

"Key security positions"? They must mean terrorist gang hangouts and weapons deposits. How convenient it is that Fatah's most visable Gaza man, Dahlan is in Egypt being treated for a medical condition. Gaza has always been a Hamas stronghold and for the PA gang(aka Fatah) to move into the Hamas gang territory was always a tenuous proposal and obviously a set up for failure.

Hamas "The Islamic Resistance Movement" (Harakat al-Muqawamah al-Islamiyya), is an heir to the Muslim Brotherhood and as much as they offer humanitarian (read: protection)services to arabians, they use their influence to recruit human bombs and other types of killers in support of their perverted goal to annihilate the Jews living in the Holy Land. The Jewish Virtual Library has a collection of articles regarding Hamas.

Relations between the two gangs took a turn for the worse in the PA Legislative Council elections in January 2006. Hamas won a significant majority in these elections. The election also gave George W. Bush the opportunity to express one of his most incomprehensible and memorable quotes of his Presidency:

"And so it was an interesting day yesterday," he said, adding, "as we're watching liberty begin to spread across the Middle East." Liberty? Ring the bells from coast to coast, proclaim liberty in the land. More hamas style liberty and we can close all of our embassies.

In all fairness, Bush did say that ...But he warned that Hamas will not be a "partner in peace" as long as it is a proponent of violence and denies Israel's right to exist. Some consolation. These are the reasons, of course, (and all sane people know this) that Hamas exists and for these barbarians to give up everything they believe in, you might as well ask them to stop being arabians.

Secretary of State Rice was even more laughable:
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice also put on a brave face, saying "we still have every reason for hope and for optimism" because voter turnout was high and free from violence. She said the Palestinian people were "expressing their desire for change," because they "have endured governance that was, by all accounts, not meeting their needs." Collective, Ahhhhh... which needs? ammo prices too high Dr.Rice? bomb making materials too centralized under one gang's control? High voter turn outs always solve these problems.
Hamas owns Gaza. That is, until Israel executes a hostile takeover.

One does have to wonder if it isn't Washington's hands behind the arabian gang violence, urging on Fatah. My guess is right up until noon, January 20, 2009, this administration will still be attempting to turn gazan chicken c--- into legacy chicken salad. If it takes, thousands of dead arabians in gang violence until that time, all the better for Israel. While the conflicts (both hamas vs. fatah and all the barbarians vs. the Jews) would end if the barbarians were transferred to another area, no one seems to support this as a goal. When the world's moral compass points in the right direction, and enough people realize that US foreign policy, UN foreign policy, and arabian policy is a death sentence for the barbarians residing in Gaza, maybe things will change. What is for certain is that the barbarians will never give up their demand to liberate the land through blood and fire and that there will never be a stop to the gang war to determine who has the right to liberate the land through blood and fire.

As G. Gordon Liddy Would Say ...."Suckers"

From Wired Blog Network:
LifeLock Founder Resigns Amid Controversy

By Kim Zetter June 11, 2007 | 1:24:28 PMCategories: Identification

LifeLock co-founder Robert Maynard, Jr.


has resigned from his position with the identity theft protection company following a story published in the Phoenix New Times about his past, which I wrote about last week. CEO Todd Davis left me a voicemail message this morning saying, "Even though we found no merit to any of the claims made by the New Times article . . . Robert Maynard has chosen to step down from the company so we don't allow any distractions or anyone have the ability to question the integrity of LifeLock and our service offering. . . . He is now no longer an executive or officer of the company as of this time."

The New Times article disclosed information about Maynard's past bankruptcies and a federal investigation into a previous company he owned, based on public records, and also revealed an incident involving Maynard's father, which suggested that Maynard, Jr., may have stolen the identity of his father to obtain an American Express card. Davis, in a follow-up call, did not dispute the information about the bankruptcies or the FTC investigation into Maynard's previous company (which he says he knew about before the New Times story came out) but said that LifeLock's lawyers found no merit to the claim that Maynard stole his father's identity. He wouldn't elaborate, however, on what his investigators found to reach that conclusion.

"I'm not going to get into it," Davis said. "That's now an issue for Robert (to handle). It's not a company issue. He's going to spend the time to clear his name."

Davis acknowledged that Maynard, Jr., still owns 10 percent equity in LifeLock and that he is launching a marketing company. When asked if Maynard will work as a contractor for LifeLock doing the same marketing work he was until now doing as a staff member, Davis said yes.

On a separate note, CEO Davis has himself been a victim of identity theft recently. According to spokesman Mike Prusinski, someone used the CEO's Social Security number -- which is prominently displayed in advertisements for LifeLock's identity theft protection commercials and on its web site-- at a Ft. Worth check cashing operation to obtain a $500 loan.

"They had Todd's Social Security number, name, and his wife's cell phone number," Prusinski said last week.

Davis discovered the identity theft crime only after the check-cashing company called his wife about the unpaid loan. Davis couldn't offer any details about the crime this morning (including the name of the check-cashing company) but Prusinski said last week that the thief was able to obtain the loan because the check-cashing operation didn't run a credit-report check on the Social Security number before giving out the loan (which would have revealed a fraud alert on the reports) and that, as a result, there was no way that LifeLock could have prevented the theft. LifeLock helps customers place fraud alerts with the three credit-reporting agencies to prevent thieves from opening new accounts in its customers' names. It also helps customers fix credit problems if they do become victims of identity theft. But Prusinski says there's no way to prevent all identity theft -- especially in cases in which a business (such as the check-cashing operation) doesn't run a credit report before providing someone with a loan or new credit card.

"It's a loophole," Prusinksi said. "We tell people that you can't stop every form of identity theft."

qoute from Lifelock's homepage...

My name is Todd Davis
This is my social security number 457-55-5462

"I'm Todd Davis, CEO of LifeLock. Yes, that really is my social security number. No I'm not crazy. I'm just sure our system works. Just like we have with mine, LifeLock will make your personal information useless to a criminal. And it's GUARANTEED."
Here at LifeLock, We Guarantee Your Good Name.
No one else does because no one else can.

Posted by: anonymous | Jun 11, 2007 1:24:09 PM

Israel Surfing

Near the end of last week, Fred Thompson announced an upcoming trip to Israel. This was welcome news for supporters of Israel but at the same time, some in the other candidates camps (who claim strong Israel support themselves) snickered that FDT's first campaign trip after the I'm With Fred website was unveiled (the theoretical beginning of the official run for the nomination) was to Israel, not New Hampshire. (a New Hampshire trip was announced this week).

Interestingly, I received in my email a paid advertisement from "Join Rudy 2008.com" coming from the Jerusalem Post. Here is the text:

Dear Friend,
As a longtime friend and staunch supporter of Israel during my entire public life, I want to share with you my deep concern for the Jewish state and ask for your support as I campaign to become the next President of the United States.

We are at a crucial moment in history. We are once again at a point where the free world's resolve in fighting evil is being tested.

In the 1990's, we had the blinders on with regard to Islamic terrorism. Coddling terrorists-even applauding for winning the Nobel Peace prize as was done with Yasser Arafat-is a policy we cannot return to.

Yet, these blinders are still worn by some people who wish to lead our country.

In neither of their debates did the Democrats mention Islamic fundamentalist terrorists and the threat they pose to our country. One candidate has even said that the global war on terror is nothing but a bumper sticker slogan. It makes the point that I've been making over and over again - that the Democrats, or at least some of them, are in denial.

I promise you that if elected President, I will make sure this country remains on offense against terrorism. But I need your help and support to get there. Will you consider giving $1,000, $500, $250, $100 or $50 to my campaign?

Israel and the United States share common values. We cherish freedom, democracy, and human life. Our shared values have attracted common enemies. The terrorists Israel is fighting are the same terrorists America is fighting, and we must continue to fight them together.

Last week Iran's President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, announced that the world would soon witness the destruction of Israel. This 2008 presidential campaign will determine how we deal with statements like these and the madmen who make them.

I stand by Israel and I'll never embrace a terrorist like Arafat, a tyrant like Ahmadinejad, or a party like Hamas.

Will you join me and support my campaign for President so we can continue to work together? Your contribution of $1,000, $500, $250, $100 or $50 will go a long way in helping us to ensure victory.

Please consider signing up for my email list as well. Doing so will keep you up to date on the latest news from my campaign.

A Giuliani administration won't accept business as usual. We will stay strong amidst the threats of tyrants and we will stay on offense against the terrorists.

Sincerely,

Rudy Giuliani

Overall, a pretty good statement. Not quite on the level of Fred's article posted at the end of May but strong enough to justify and verify the support Rudy has received from the concerned for Israel crowd.

For the sake of fairness, Duncan Hunter has chimed in demonstrating his support for Israel. IsraelForum.com reported a statement of support for Israel that Rep. Hunter posted on LGF the very same May 31 that FDT's article appeared. Wonder who tipped off Hunter that FDT was publishing a pro-Israel piece at the same time?

Hunter's comments are very good but I question why he felt the need to couch his comments in politicianese. For instance, "So, until the Palestinians renounce terrorism and stop their attacks on the Israeli people, peace will be out of reach." Are we to presume that if the so-called "palestinians" would meet Hunter's demands than there would be peace? Hunter certainly knows that these demands are unrealistic and will never be met. Is he looking for political cover to continue the status quo or does he want an end to the conflict? Would he support transfer? And, what if the so-called "palis" met his demands but retained their own demands of half or all of Jerusalem, full right of return and full withdrawal from the Yosh? Would Hunter support a "peace" process under those circumstances?

Compare Hunter's words above to FDT. Thompson's remarks clearly demonstrate a different level of understanding. FDT's comments rely upon Hamas as a whipping boy, but this allows him to carve out a stronger statement.

• "Israel is at war"


• "...repeats its official promise to destroy Israel entirely and replace it with an Islamic state"


• "The Palestinian strategy is to purposely target and kill Israeli civilians"


• "Palestinians claim to be the victims."


• "sympathy and support from a gullible or anti-Semitic media"


• "Islamic extremists are using their own populations as human shields"


• "Israel has the military might to easily win the war"


• "{Israel's} compassion for Palestinian civilians"


• "That balance of power is about to change, though. If Iran develops nuclear weapons the very existence of this tiny nation of Israel will be threatened. The Iranian regime has left little doubt that it intends to see Israel “wiped off the map.” Hamas is using the same language, not coincidentally, and has announced it will begin launching missiles into Israel from the West Bank too.".

Rudy's strongest points are:

• "In neither of their debates did the Democrats mention Islamic fundamentalist terrorists and the threat they pose to our country. One candidate has even said that the global war on terror is nothing but a bumper sticker slogan. It makes the point that I've been making over and over again - that the Democrats, or at least some of them, are in denial. "



• "Israel and the United States share common values. We cherish freedom, democracy, and human life. Our shared values have attracted common enemies. The terrorists Israel is fighting are the same terrorists America is fighting, and we must continue to fight them together. "



• "Last week Iran's President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, announced that the world would soon witness the destruction of Israel. This 2008 presidential campaign will determine how we deal with statements like these and the madmen who make them. "



• "I stand by Israel and I'll never embrace a terrorist like Arafat, a tyrant like Ahmadinejad, or a party like Hamas."

Good for Rudy to bash the democrat party candidates. Rudy calls the democrat weakness "denial". He's being nice. It is not denial but a calculated decision to not lead in the world and to not provoke the barbarian enemy. It demonstrates a cowardice and mind of failure, {for convoluted reasons} to recognize there is a multi-generational conflict underway for world-wide domination actively being fought by one side and passively, if not nonchalantly by the other side. FDT has left no doubt what he believes.

Rudy correctly points out that the world-wide islamo-facist terror effort is indeed one larger movement. As for sharing common values, it is nice words which are more true probably than not provided that he truly doesn't believe that Israel and the US have identical visions. Israel will one day, indeed remove, some how the arabian populations from her midst. Will Rudy support that initiative? It is not "American" not to believe in the power of secularization and acculturation.

Finally, it is not "statements" made by the Iranian madman Mahmoud which must be dealt with but the madman himself who must be dealt with. With all fairness, Rudy probably meant this, but sometimes when you are a fast talking yankee, you make word mistakes. Words, of course have meaning but we will excuse Rudy this time for an otherwise strong statement of support for Israel.

Gavi's Upshernish - 2nd attempt

Gavi's upshernish has been re-scheduled for June 24, 11 AM at Sherith Israel

Dry Bones - Syria and Fatah al Islam

FDT Interview Hannity and Colmes June 5, 2007

Fred and Sean Talk About the Presidency, Politics, and The War on Terror

Exclusive! Former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson on Possible White House Bid
Wednesday, June 06, 2007

This is a partial transcript from "Hannity & Colmes," June 5, 2007, that has been edited for clarity.

SEAN HANNITY, CO-HOST: And welcome to "Hannity & Colmes." Thank you for being with us. I'm Sean Hannity, reporting tonight from Washington, D.C.

Now, just minutes ago, Republican candidates for president debated in Manchester, New Hampshire, but there was one person missing, and tonight you will only see him right here. And joining us now on a "Hannity & Colmes" exclusive, former Senator Fred Thompson from Tennessee. Senator, how are you?

FMR. SEN. FRED THOMPSON (R), TENNESSEE: Thank you. Good.

HANNITY: All right, so do you wish you were at this debate tonight?

THOMPSON: Yes, do you think they missed me?

HANNITY: I think so.

THOMPSON: No, I'd rather be here with you.

HANNITY: Well, I appreciate it. You know what was interesting? I did a lot of research on you today. One of the things you said that really struck me is you said you had never desired the office of president. It's not something you ever thought you wanted for yourself.

THOMPSON: Yes, that's right, but more and more I wish that I had the opportunity to do the things that only a president can do. You know, I think we're coming to a time of crossroads in our country in many respects. I think there are great opportunities out there. I think there are great perils out there. I think there are great opportunities for leadership. I think we're going to have to do things better and more together than we've ever done before. And you have to think seriously about that.

HANNITY: You said once that, you know, voters may want someone who has lusted for the job since they were student body president. You said, "If a person craves power for the sake of power, if he craves the office for the sake of holding the office, they've got their priorities mixed up." Do you see that in some of the other candidates?

THOMPSON: Well, I don't want to talk about other candidates. I'm really thinking about running for the presidency and not against them. I'm sure that they're good guys. I even caught part of the debate while I was getting ready a while ago.

HANNITY: What did you think?

THOMPSON: Well, they did all right, from what I saw. I think it's kind of counterintuitive for most people to think someone would be ambitious enough, for example, to be senator, but not be ambitious enough to run for the presidency. Most people think that every senator sees the president every morning when he combs his hair. Of course, it didn't take me as long as some, but I never did. I never thought that the price was worth paying.

At the time, we were living in good times. People thought that they would last forever, that the peril would not be out there that we face today, that the economy would rock right along. And, you know, we were in the era of compassionate conservatism and that sort of thing. It was a good time.

I think things are different. I think the times are different. I think the challenges are different. I think I'm different as a person. And, you know, the times have to fit the man; the man has to fit the times. And that's what we're looking at right now.

HANNITY: You are clearing identifying, though, in this thought process, in other words, you're identifying differences in positions that you have with the other candidates. What are some of those differences? And, you know, I guess it's the basic question: Why do you, Fred Thompson, want to consider being the next president of the United States?

THOMPSON: Well, I look at things like the threat that our country faces. Everybody is focused on Iraq now. We ought to be thinking about the day after Iraq. We have a threat out there like we've never faced before. And I don't think the American people are being apprised of it; I don't think they realize that this has been something that's been going on for a few hundred years, and our enemies have another 100-year plan. We have a plan basically to get us through the next election.

And we've got a military that's still in the works, as far as transformation is concerned, to deal with that kind of a threat. We're spending much less than we need to, to face that threat.

I look at things like globalization, the new millions of employees that are coming online in places like India and China that are going to be competing with our people. And some people want to raise the specter of protectionism. We have a tax code that's hopelessly out of date and out of step for our times now, punishes the things that we say that we want more of and makes us less competitive in the world.

We're an aging society, a good thing. We're living longer. Best medical care in the world. But it's going to bankrupt us, our entitlement programs, unless we do things differently. We're going to lose Social Security and Medicare as we know it.

So you can't sit back, and see people, you know, talking their sound bites and going over their list of things to get applause lines and so forth, and see where your country is headed, and knowing what you've got to do for the next generation in order to make it the same way that it was when we inherited from the prior generation, without thinking serious thoughts about what you ought to do about it.

HANNITY: Let's talk about where you stand now. You've created a testing the waters committee. It allows you to raise money, hire staff, gauge support. There's been talk you may announce the Fourth of July, the week of the Fourth of July. Where are you now?

THOMPSON: ImwithFred.com.

HANNITY: Wait a minute. Is this a big announcement?

THOMPSON: Kind of get that out of the way.

HANNITY: Every candidate has a Web site. It's ImwithFred.com?

THOMPSON: That's right. We just put it up. And we want to hear from the folks and check it out.

HANNITY: But that's one step closer?

THOMPSON: Yes, yes. It's a thing that the law allows you to do, test the waters, raise some money in order to get a staff together, and really see what's going on out there, and see whether or not your notion of what's going on in the country is really what, in fact, is going on in the country. And I think that there's something going on that's a little different.

HANNITY: Well, we had heard at one point you may announce on the Fourth of July. You sort of said no in one interview. Are you thinking about that still?

THOMPSON: We haven't decided on a date. The Fourth of July is just as plausible as any other, but it doesn't mean it's going to be the Fourth of July.

HANNITY: All right, let me ask you this. The biggest issue is the war, obviously, in Iraq. It is the defining issue of our time. These are consequential times, transformative times. You have said it's a war between civilization and evil. We just thwarted potential terror attacks at JFK...

THOMPSON: Yes.

HANNITY: ... and at Fort Dix. Explain what you mean, “the battle between forces of civilization and evil.” What do you mean by that?

THOMPSON: Well, it has to do with the need for all of the civilized countries, as I would call them — that is, most all of them that are not terrorist countries or terrorist havens — to realize we have to come together. I mean, that's one of the big failures that we have right now, because a lot of people in other parts of the world just don't see it yet. They see us as the number-one threat and really, in some cases, the only threat. We're going to have to bond together and face this thing together against these forces, because it's going to pick us off one by one.

We've seen our country attacked time and time again over the last decades. Now you see it, whether it's Madrid, whether it's London, whether it's places that most people have never heard of, they're methodically going around trying to undermine our allies and attack people in conventional ways. Meanwhile they try to develop non-conventional ways, and get their hands on a nuclear capability, and ultimately to see a mushroom cloud over an American city. No country can do that alone, and by themselves, when you face the global threat that we're facing.

HANNITY: Let me then take it a step further, because the big question that came up in the debate tonight with the Republicans, "Knowing what we know now, was Iraq the right move, was it the right thing for us to go into Iraq, in your estimation?"

THOMPSON: Yes. Sean, what people don't think enough about is what — if we had not gone into Iraq. You know, after defying the United Nations 17 times, after corrupting the oil-for-food program and the United Nations itself, Saddam would have been there — and defying the United States, of course — Saddam would have been there. The new king of the hill in that part of the world, with his murderous sons still putting people in human shredders, still a threat to his neighbors, still developing his plans for a nuclear capability.

I mean, he had those plans. He had the technical expertise. Whether he had them on one particular day or not is almost irrelevant. Especially today, looking at what Iran is doing, he certainly would have had his hands on, or been working assiduously toward, getting the capability of nuclear weapons. And that's what we would have been faced with had we not done that. Going in there and deposing him was a good thing.

HANNITY: You said, essentially, you agree with what the president is doing now. You said — one comment you made is, “Wars are full of mistakes, all wars are full of mistakes.”

THOMPSON: Yes.

HANNITY: You said, "We went too light later, and the rules of engagement were wrong, and the strategy was wrong." Where do we go from here based on what you just said?

THOMPSON: I think we've got to take the next step, and that is wait and see what General Petraeus says in September. I listen to him. I think he's a man of honor. I think he may be one of the best people we've got in the entire military, and I think he'll tell us the truth.

I also listen to the parents of young people who are over there. Jeri and I have some friends who have kids — two different families who have kids who have gone over there and re-upped more than once. And they come back, and they communicate back a totally different story than what we hear now. They're full of optimism; they're full of hope; they think they're doing something positive for their country and something positive for the people of Iraq. And as long as they have hope and optimism, I have hope and optimism.

HANNITY: Harry Reid is wrong?

THOMPSON: Harry Reid's flat wrong. He's already declared defeat. You know, that's one of the things that the American people have got to be disgusted over, I think. We're only arguing now over the date of our surrender.

HANNITY: And Hillary Clinton is wrong saying this is George Bush's war?

THOMPSON: Well, of course it is. I mean, which way did she vote when the time came?

HANNITY: She voted for it, and then she just voted to cut off funds.

THOMPSON: Yes. Of course, you know, it's a public opinion poll deal for most of them, and not looking at the long...

HANNITY: What does that mean to you? You vote to send them to war, and then you vote to cut off funds, and now the guys is saying they sent them to war, and then they said...

(CROSSTALK)

THOMPSON: That means you want to be president worse than anything in the world. And they know how to read public opinion polls.

HANNITY: We're going to take a break. More with Senator Fred Thompson coming up in just a minute.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HANNITY: And welcome back to "Hannity & Colmes." I'm Sean Hannity. We continue now our exclusive interview with former Tennessee senator, potential presidential candidate, Fred Thompson. I was trying to get a date out of you; I didn't get one.

I want to talk about Iran. There was an estimate that came out; they could have nuclear capability within three to eight years. As president, how do you stop that from happening?

THOMPSON: Well, that's almost an impossible one to answer, Sean. The president has access to information that I don't have. Let me tell you what I think about Iran, and it might lead you to some ideas about the approach I would take.

I think, first of all, Iran might fall of its own weight if we give it a little help. We're not doing nearly enough to get communications in there and let those people communicate with one another. You know, if everybody in Iran had a computer, it'd be a free country today. There are riots and shootings of Iranian Guard that are seldom reported, but they're taking place all over the country nowadays. Their inflation is up; unemployment is up. You know, they have to import a lot of their basic staples. Apparently...

HANNITY: One refinery.

THOMPSON: Yes, 40 percent of their oil, or gasoline. And, you know, they're apparently trying to follow the North Korean economic model there. And, you know, the radical religious approach to everything trumps, you know, sound economics. Eventually, that's going to catch up with them. So we've got to encourage that and use our intelligence resources and use our intelligence capabilities, if they're sufficient, to do everything we can to help bring that about, I think.

HANNITY: If it's clear that they're getting close to getting the weapon, would it be your policy to support preemption as a means of taking out or wiping out those facilities, considering they've, you know, repeatedly threatened to wipe Israel off the map?

THOMPSON: Yes. Yes.

HANNITY: It would be?

THOMPSON: Yes.

HANNITY: All right, let me ask you about this. We had news today about Scooter Libby, 30-month prison sentence. You called it a shocking injustice. Why?

THOMPSON: Yes, well, it has been all along, for a long time. I've never seen a case where so many government offices, and officials, and entities fell down on the job, and helped perpetuate an injustice for their own ends. I mean, it's tragic, and it's below the radar screen with most people, except around here. I've been a prosecutor and a defense lawyer, and I followed it closely. I didn't know Scooter, but I called him up when I saw what was happening. And I said, "I'll help you if you need help," a long time before I thought about presidential politics.

But you got a situation here where they knew shortly after they started this fiasco that no crime had been committed. What they were looking at didn't constitute a crime, because of the status of Valerie Plame. She wasn't a covered person under the statute. Then they found out that Scooter Libby didn't leak her name. Richard Armitage over at the State Department did that, but they still kept digging and digging, because the press expected the special prosecutor to come up with somebody in the Bush administration.

The Justice Department never should have appointed special counsel. They were taking criticism and heat from the press and Capitol Hill. And they had to do something, they felt like, so they caved, appointed a special counsel. And he spent a year and a half digging and digging, and he came up with a process crime allegation.

Scooter Libby was here looking at national security estimates, and working like two full-time jobs, and his doctor said, you know, working himself to exhaustion, trying to protect his country, and they found some inconsistent statements that he made, allegedly. So they put a case against him, and it was rife with inconsistent statements from the government witnesses.

HANNITY: Right.

THOMPSON: And yet they picked him out to bring the burden of this entire political witch-hunt on him, this single individual, and prosecuted him. And now the judge saw fit to go way beyond what his own probation officer recommended was a suitable sentence.

HANNITY: Statutory guidelines, yes.

THOMPSON: Yes, yes, and this sentencing is just the last...

HANNITY: I only have a second in this segment. If you were president, would you pardon him? And do you think the president would pardon him? And would you pardon him now?

THOMPSON: I would, absolutely.

HANNITY: Do you think the president should?

THOMPSON: It's a gross injustice perpetuated in large part by this CIA, and this Justice Department, and this special counsel, who they appointed, and it ought to be rectified.

HANNITY: All right, we've got a lot more with Fred Thompson, coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HANNITY: And welcome back to "Hannity & Colmes." I'm Sean Hannity. We continue our exclusive interview with "Law and Order" star, former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson.

All right, we don't have a lot of time. I need quick answers here. The Democratic debate the other night, I sum it real quick: End the global war on terror phrase; raise taxes; nationalize health care; retreat in Iraq. Sum up the major Democratic candidates?

THOMPSON: I think that's a pretty good summary.

HANNITY: What does it mean to you, if you become the nominee?

THOMPSON: It means that they're wrong. It baffles me that we're facing the bankruptcy of the nation and a global threat that we're not really prepared to deal with, and they're talking about some the things that they're talking about, with the clichés that they've been using now for 15 years.

They think, by not being George Bush, that they can win this next election. They think that, because the pendulum swings as it does politically, and the Iraq war is unpopular, that all they've got to do is do this sort of thing, and it will fall in their lap. And if we don't do things better and smarter, it will fall in their lap.

HANNITY: Yes, let me ask you this. There are three issues that have come up, because I've examined your record thoroughly now, knowing this interview is coming up. There are three issues come up where people question your conservatism.

One is when you checked a box in 1994 when you were running for Senate, where you — the box said, "Abortion should be legal in all circumstances for the first three months." That wasn't your voting record, interestingly. Did you make a mistake checking the box?

THOMPSON: I don't remember that box. You know, it was a long time ago, and I don't know if I filled it out or my staff — based on what they thought my position was — filled it out.

But here's what the deal is on that. I've always thought that Roe v. Wade was a wrong decision, that they usurped what had been the law in this country for 200 years, that it was a matter that should go back to the states. When you get back to the states, I think the states should have some leeway.

I might vote against one approach, but I think the state ought to have it. And I would not be and never have been for a law that says, on the state level, if I were back in Tennessee voting on this, for example, that if they chose to criminalize a young woman, and...

HANNITY: So states' rights for you?

THOMPSON: Essentially, federalism. It's in the Constitution.

HANNITY: Federalism. All right, the other issue: you were one of 11 Republicans who supported McCain-Feingold. A lot of conservatives are angry at that. Do you still support it? Was it the right decision, in retrospect?

THOMPSON: Part of it was, and part of it wasn't. The part that I came to town to change was the increasing amounts of money being given to politicians. The Clintons showed us how to use soft money in ways that people up until recently thought was against the law. And more and more large donations flowed into the parties and to the candidates.

I said, "Let's raise the hard money legitimate limits that we've always had from $1,000" — it was my amendment, really, that got it from $1,000 to $2,000, plus indexed for inflation, do away with the soft money. I still think that's a good idea. I support that. Coming to a politician and giving him a bunch of money and having business before him is not a good idea.

HANNITY: But 60 days before a general, 30 days before a primary...

THOMPSON: That's not working.

HANNITY: That's not working?

THOMPSON: It shouldn't work.

HANNITY: You would repeal that?

THOMPSON: Yes.

HANNITY: Let me ask you the one issue — you split your decision on Clinton impeachment. You voted to convict on the obstruction, but not the perjury. You still stand by that? Was that the right decision?

THOMPSON: Absolutely. It didn't have anything to do with how I felt about him. It had to do with what I considered my role to be. I considered my role to be a judge, and I had to be dispassionate toward the individual. I went back to the founding fathers and what they thought constituted impeachable offenses and was quite surprised, in some respects, that some misbehavior did not constitute impeachable offenses in their views. So I followed that, and that caused me to split my vote.

HANNITY: Let me ask you this. Your family has already come under attack. Are you ready for that aspect of a presidential run, where your family members, your wife, your kids come under fire?

THOMPSON: Well, you're never ready for that. And your reaction to that initially is very visceral. But when I have a wife who's as strong, and sweet, and as good a mother as I have. Who puts it all into perspective, gives me courage to keep my eye on the ball — and my eye is on the ball, and I'm not going to be dissuaded by all of this. It's another disconnect between the professional politicians, and the press and Washington and all of that, from the American people, who are sick and tired of all that. So it's a badge of honor to get attacked by some of these bozos.

HANNITY: That's a good thing. All right, we have a minute left. You become president, first 100 days, top five priorities, off the top of your head, you'd like to accomplish?

THOMPSON: I'd go to the American people, first of all, and explain to them the significance of this global war in the war on terror and what we need to do. I would tell them that we need to reform a tax code.

HANNITY: Change the tax code?

THOMPSON: Yes.

HANNITY: Alter it?

THOMPSON: I think it needs a total overhaul. I would explain to them, in order to keep our economy going, we would need to keep taxes low. I would explain to them that we cannot continue down the same road that we're traveling as far as Social Security, and Medicare and entitlements are concerned, that we're bankrupting the programs and pitting one generation against another.

And we're better than that. We need to come together, the way our country has done time and time again over the last 200 years, and exercise a little common sense, and get back to the basics that were in the Constitution.

HANNITY: Senator, we're out of time. Good to see you again. Thank you for being with us.

Watch "Hannity & Colmes" weeknights at 9 p.m. ET!

---

Well, lets take a look at some of FDT's remarks and apply some analysis:

HANNITY: All right, so do you wish you were at this debate tonight?

THOMPSON: Yes, do you think they missed me?
HANNITY: I think so.

THOMPSON: No, I'd rather be here with you.


A polite waive off. Who wants to be involved with these blah panels when you can raise $220,000 in 18 hours of I'm With Fred? FDT won the night being on H&C and announcing his new website. BTW, the ratings support my point.

HANNITY: Well, I appreciate it. You know what was interesting? I did a lot of research on you today. One of the things you said that really struck me is you said you had never desired the office of president. It's not something you ever thought you wanted for yourself.

Uh Oh, the "fire in the belly thing" ;)

THOMPSON: Yes, that's right, but more and more I wish that I had the opportunity to do the things that only a president can do. You know, I think we're coming to a time of crossroads in our country in many respects. I think there are great opportunities out there. I think there are great perils out there. I think there are great opportunities for leadership. I think we're going to have to do things better and more together than we've ever done before. And you have to think seriously about that.

Nice intro Fred, good rally the troops stuff, but it is fair to ask about the details (they appear later)

HANNITY: You said once that, you know, voters may want someone who has lusted for the job since they were student body president. You said, "If a person craves power for the sake of power, if he craves the office for the sake of holding the office, they've got their priorities mixed up." Do you see that in some of the other candidates?

THOMPSON: Well, I don't want to talk about other candidates. I'm really thinking about running for the presidency and not against them. I'm sure that they're good guys. I even caught part of the debate while I was getting ready a while ago.

Again a very nice opportunity offered up by Sean to explain why Rudy is running for President. The basic answer being, he can. And remember, FDT is only exploring a possible run /sarc.

in response to the same question...I think things are different. I think the times are different. I think the challenges are different. I think I'm different as a person. And, you know, the times have to fit the man; the man has to fit the times. And that's what we're looking at right now.

Nicely crafted answer as to his evolved interest in running for President. The times are different, Fred is saying and that I am the man for the times. The voters though, will decide.

HANNITY: You are clearing identifying, though, in this thought process, in other words, you're identifying differences in positions that you have with the other candidates. What are some of those differences? And, you know, I guess it's the basic question: Why do you, Fred Thompson, want to consider being the next president of the United States?

THOMPSON: Well, I look at things like the threat that our country faces. Everybody is focused on Iraq now. We ought to be thinking about the day after Iraq. We have a threat out there like we've never faced before. And I don't think the American people are being apprised of it; I don't think they realize that this has been something that's been going on for a few hundred years, and our enemies have another 100-year plan. We have a plan basically to get us through the next election.

And we've got a military that's still in the works, as far as transformation is concerned, to deal with that kind of a threat. We're spending much less than we need to, to face that threat.

I look at things like globalization, the new millions of employees that are coming online in places like India and China that are going to be competing with our people. And some people want to raise the specter of protectionism. We have a tax code that's hopelessly out of date and out of step for our times now, punishes the things that we say that we want more of and makes us less competitive in the world.

We're an aging society, a good thing. We're living longer. Best medical care in the world. But it's going to bankrupt us, our entitlement programs, unless we do things differently. We're going to lose Social Security and Medicare as we know it.

So you can't sit back, and see people, you know, talking their sound bites and going over their list of things to get applause lines and so forth, and see where your country is headed, and knowing what you've got to do for the next generation in order to make it the same way that it was when we inherited from the prior generation, without thinking serious thoughts about what you ought to do about it.


"We have a threat out there like we've never faced before. And I don't think the American people are being apprised of it; I don't think they realize that this has been something that's been going on for a few hundred years, and our enemies have another 100-year plan. We have a plan basically to get us through the next election."

These are possibly the most important words said in the campaign to date by anyone. FDT is right on the money. The conflict is a clash of civilizations and FDT isn't afraid of saying so even at risk of losing in Detroit. Nonetheless, this needed to be said. The day after Iraq is the most crucial day of the war. Walking away from Iraq without a specific accomplishment (other than ridding the world of Saddam a very worthy accomplishment indeed)in the area of driving a stake into the middle of the arabian world would have been viewed as failure. Not a true failure mind you, but in the minds of the bad guys, a sign of weakness. This is the same argument Moshe makes with HaShem at the time of the M'raglim when HaShem suggests that the Jews should be, well, removed from history and a new nation made for Moshe to lead. Moshe responds that the nations of the world will say, the G-d of Israel was able to redeem the people from Egypt but unable to bring them to the land. Both are examples of perceived weakness where the truth is that the mission was re-defined.

We're spending much less than we need to, to face that threat.
Yep, but you better bring a Republican Congress in with you or the party of the leftists will force you into tax increases and corresponding pork for each dollar needed for real national interests. Democrats playing politics with national interests? never..... :)

I look at things like globalization, the new millions of employees that are coming online in places like India and China that are going to be competing with our people. And some people want to raise the specter of protectionism. We have a tax code that's hopelessly out of date and out of step for our times now, punishes the things that we say that we want more of and makes us less competitive in the world.

We're an aging society, a good thing. We're living longer. Best medical care in the world. But it's going to bankrupt us, our entitlement programs, unless we do things differently. We're going to lose Social Security and Medicare as we know it.

Good strategy, tying the competition argument with tax reform, government and social program reforms. Yes FDT, American competitiveness must not be held hostage to government tax code, regulation and endowment programs. The beneficiaries of these programs, who have been taught to rely upon the government for generations must be given a better alternative, a humane alternative which improves upon what is available now but must be more efficient. Big government running these programs is a sure way not to deliver.

---

Hannity then gets to the big questions, the ones which demonstrate that FDT is in the big leagues. The Iraq war is not a hard issue for which to have an opinion. It is a politically touchy issue with strong opposition and supporters who are loosing faith with the post-war arabian violence. This struggle was not unpredictable any more than the military victory was not unpredictable. What was unpredicatable is that George W. Bush would surround himself with idealogues who would project their "feelings" and "dream states" to post-war Iraq, forgetting that arabian dual weaknesses (arab culture and islam)would be close to insurmountable obstacles to hurdle. Western governmental philosophy, checks and balances, protection of minority rights, free speech, etc., while we want to believe are universal values or at least are universally desired, achieving a political shift on the ground where these values can be grown domestically is a huge multi-generational task. W. was told otherwise. arabia is not post war Japan or Germany. for reference see Get Saddam Then Get Out

HANNITY: All right, let me ask you this. The biggest issue is the war, obviously, in Iraq. It is the defining issue of our time. These are consequential times, transformative times. You have said it's a war between civilization and evil. We just thwarted potential terror attacks at JFK...

THOMPSON: Yes.

HANNITY: ... and at Fort Dix. Explain what you mean, “the battle between forces of civilization and evil.” What do you mean by that?

THOMPSON: Well, it has to do with the need for all of the civilized countries, as I would call them — that is, most all of them that are not terrorist countries or terrorist havens — to realize we have to come together. I mean, that's one of the big failures that we have right now, because a lot of people in other parts of the world just don't see it yet. They see us as the number-one threat and really, in some cases, the only threat. We're going to have to bond together and face this thing together against these forces, because it's going to pick us off one by one.


This is a tall order. The islamo-facists have infiltrated into much of Europe and FDT is asking the Euros to stand up to them. But in the "...battle between forces of civilization and evil.”, the free world cannot sit on the sideline. There aren't many choices that fall between civilization and evil. As it relates to Israel and the Jews, some of the advice and policy choices coming from the civilized side have merely been 'evil-lite'. The Euros need to get over their visions of free and democratic palestine and see these barbarians for who they really are. Even this week, the Euros were looking into a "work-around" to send money to the "PA" and trying to pretend that these funds would not be taken by Hamas and that while in the hands of Abu Mazen they would be used to support the infrastructure not the war on Israel. I'm not sure that a proponent of such a fantasy doesn't belong in the evil camp. Are you listening W?


We've seen our country attacked time and time again over the last decades. Now you see it, whether it's Madrid, whether it's London, whether it's places that most people have never heard of, they're methodically going around trying to undermine our allies and attack people in conventional ways. Meanwhile they try to develop non-conventional ways, and get their hands on a nuclear capability, and ultimately to see a mushroom cloud over an American city. No country can do that alone, and by themselves, when you face the global threat that we're facing.

{paraphrase of Ronald Reagan}I don't care if we are liked, but we will be respected.

HANNITY: Let me then take it a step further, because the big question that came up in the debate tonight with the Republicans, "Knowing what we know now, was Iraq the right move, was it the right thing for us to go into Iraq, in your estimation?"

THOMPSON: Yes. Sean, what people don't think enough about is what — if we had not gone into Iraq. You know, after defying the United Nations 17 times, after corrupting the oil-for-food program and the United Nations itself, Saddam would have been there — and defying the United States, of course — Saddam would have been there. The new king of the hill in that part of the world, with his murderous sons still putting people in human shredders, still a threat to his neighbors, still developing his plans for a nuclear capability.

I mean, he had those plans. He had the technical expertise. Whether he had them on one particular day or not is almost irrelevant. Especially today, looking at what Iran is doing, he certainly would have had his hands on, or been working assiduously toward, getting the capability of nuclear weapons. And that's what we would have been faced with had we not done that. Going in there and deposing him was a good thing.

FDT, next time please ask rhetorically if Pelosi and Reid are concerned about the abuse of human rights, the brutal torture and murder of civilians and how history would have judged the US if Saddam was left alone. This is the first time, at least the only memorable time when I heard a significant voice say, "it just didn't matter whether Saddam had nukes or WMD at the time of the invasion"

HANNITY: You said, essentially, you agree with what the president is doing now. You said — one comment you made is, “Wars are full of mistakes, all wars are full of mistakes.”

THOMPSON: Yes.

HANNITY: You said, "We went too light later, and the rules of engagement were wrong, and the strategy was wrong." Where do we go from here based on what you just said?

THOMPSON: I think we've got to take the next step, and that is wait and see what General Petraeus says in September. I listen to him. I think he's a man of honor. I think he may be one of the best people we've got in the entire military, and I think he'll tell us the truth.

I also listen to the parents of young people who are over there. Jeri and I have some friends who have kids — two different families who have kids who have gone over there and re-upped more than once. And they come back, and they communicate back a totally different story than what we hear now. They're full of optimism; they're full of hope; they think they're doing something positive for their country and something positive for the people of Iraq. And as long as they have hope and optimism, I have hope and optimism.

A very careful and pragmatic answer, leaving the door open but sticking to the policy. Support the troops, they deserve it.

HANNITY: Harry Reid is wrong? Sean, Dingy Harry is always wrong

THOMPSON: Harry Reid's flat wrong. He's already declared defeat. You know, that's one of the things that the American people have got to be disgusted over, I think. We're only arguing now over the date of our surrender.

HANNITY: And Hillary Clinton is wrong saying this is George Bush's war?

THOMPSON: Well, of course it is. I mean, which way did she vote when the time came?

HANNITY: She voted for it, and then she just voted to cut off funds. Calling John Baal Kerry

THOMPSON: Yes. Of course, you know, it's a public opinion poll deal for most of them, and not looking at the long...

HANNITY: What does that mean to you? You vote to send them to war, and then you vote to cut off funds, and now the guys is saying they sent them to war, and then they said...

(CROSSTALK)

THOMPSON: That means you want to be president worse than anything in the world. And they know how to read public opinion polls. Please see above the reference to fire in the belly.

---

(Hannity)...I want to talk about Iran. There was an estimate that came out; they could have nuclear capability within three to eight years. As president, how do you stop that from happening?

THOMPSON: Well, that's almost an impossible one to answer, Sean. The president has access to information that I don't have. Let me tell you what I think about Iran, and it might lead you to some ideas about the approach I would take.

I think, first of all, Iran might fall of its own weight if we give it a little help. We're not doing nearly enough to get communications in there and let those people communicate with one another. You know, if everybody in Iran had a computer, it'd be a free country today. There are riots and shootings of Iranian Guard that are seldom reported, but they're taking place all over the country nowadays. Their inflation is up; unemployment is up. You know, they have to import a lot of their basic staples. Apparently...

HANNITY: One refinery.

THOMPSON: Yes, 40 percent of their oil, or gasoline. And, you know, they're apparently trying to follow the North Korean economic model there. And, you know, the radical religious approach to everything trumps, you know, sound economics. Eventually, that's going to catch up with them. So we've got to encourage that and use our intelligence resources and use our intelligence capabilities, if they're sufficient, to do everything we can to help bring that about, I think.

This is a logical but not an enlightened answer. Bush 41 kept saying this about Iraq. The US has a tendancy not to push too hard too fast prefering to wait for events to play themselves out. So FDT's statement here is consistent with US policy making. But the ability to shift gears, and take decisive action, breaking away from conventional wisdom and precident, when necessary is the difference between leaders and observers.

HANNITY: If it's clear that they're getting close to getting the weapon, would it be your policy to support preemption as a means of taking out or wiping out those facilities, considering they've, you know, repeatedly threatened to wipe Israel off the map?

THOMPSON: Yes. Yes.

HANNITY: It would be?

THOMPSON: Yes.

FDT is on record here supporting an attack on Iran to prevent Persian hegemony in the region and a possible nuclear exchange between Israel and Iran.

On Scooter Libby
THOMPSON: And yet they picked him out to bring the burden of this entire political witch-hunt on him, this single individual, and prosecuted him. And now the judge saw fit to go way beyond what his own probation officer recommended was a suitable sentence.

HANNITY: Statutory guidelines, yes.

THOMPSON: Yes, yes, and this sentencing is just the last...

HANNITY: I only have a second in this segment. If you were president, would you pardon him? And do you think the president would pardon him? And would you pardon him now?

THOMPSON: I would, absolutely.

HANNITY: Do you think the president should?

THOMPSON: It's a gross injustice perpetuated in large part by this CIA, and this Justice Department, and this special counsel, who they appointed, and it ought to be rectified.

FDT is not making friends with the careerists in the Justice Department and the CIA. Libby took the hit and FDT says it won't happen on his watch. FDT is on very comfortable territory here.

THOMPSON: Yes, well, it has been all along, for a long time. I've never seen a case where so many government offices, and officials, and entities fell down on the job, and helped perpetuate an injustice for their own ends. I mean, it's tragic, and it's below the radar screen with most people, except around here. I've been a prosecutor and a defense lawyer, and I followed it closely. I didn't know Scooter, but I called him up when I saw what was happening. And I said, "I'll help you if you need help," a long time before I thought about presidential politics.

But you got a situation here where they knew shortly after they started this fiasco that no crime had been committed. What they were looking at didn't constitute a crime, because of the status of Valerie Plame. She wasn't a covered person under the statute. Then they found out that Scooter Libby didn't leak her name. Richard Armitage over at the State Department did that, but they still kept digging and digging, because the press expected the special prosecutor to come up with somebody in the Bush administration.


For FDT, veteran of two Presidential Senatoral prosecutions (Nixon and Clinton. yes I know Nixon's technically wasn't a prosecution but was headed that way), his opinion carries weight.

But here's what the deal is on that. I've always thought that Roe v. Wade was a wrong decision, that they usurped what had been the law in this country for 200 years, that it was a matter that should go back to the states. When you get back to the states, I think the states should have some leeway.

I might vote against one approach, but I think the state ought to have it. And I would not be and never have been for a law that says, on the state level, if I were back in Tennessee voting on this, for example, that if they chose to criminalize a young woman, and...


Sean, why did you interrupt Fred? I wanted to hear the end of the last sentence. FDT has been questioned about the abortion issue time and time again. For the record, he voted perfectly in the Senate on the abortion votes that came up and was endorsed by National Right to Life, unlike another candidate and former mayor.



HANNITY: Federalism. All right, the other issue: you were one of 11 Republicans who supported McCain-Feingold. A lot of conservatives are angry at that. Do you still support it? Was it the right decision, in retrospect?

THOMPSON: Part of it was, and part of it wasn't. The part that I came to town to change was the increasing amounts of money being given to politicians. The Clintons showed us how to use soft money in ways that people up until recently thought was against the law. And more and more large donations flowed into the parties and to the candidates.

I said, "Let's raise the hard money legitimate limits that we've always had from $1,000" — it was my amendment, really, that got it from $1,000 to $2,000, plus indexed for inflation, do away with the soft money. I still think that's a good idea. I support that. Coming to a politician and giving him a bunch of money and having business before him is not a good idea.


FDT doesn't say here if he still believes in the $2,000 limit. Fred, please comment on unlimited donations with full public disclosure.

HANNITY: That's a good thing. All right, we have a minute left. You become president, first 100 days, top five priorities, off the top of your head, you'd like to accomplish?

THOMPSON: I'd go to the American people, first of all, and explain to them the significance of this global war in the war on terror and what we need to do. I would tell them that we need to reform a tax code.

HANNITY: Change the tax code?

THOMPSON: Yes.

HANNITY: Alter it?

THOMPSON: I think it needs a total overhaul. I would explain to them, in order to keep our economy going, we would need to keep taxes low. I would explain to them that we cannot continue down the same road that we're traveling as far as Social Security, and Medicare and entitlements are concerned, that we're bankrupting the programs and pitting one generation against another.

And we're better than that. We need to come together, the way our country has done time and time again over the last 200 years, and exercise a little common sense, and get back to the basics that were in the Constitution.



FDT states that the war on terror is his number 1 issue and the tax code revision is number 2; lower taxes, reform entitlements, use common sense. Federalism, that is the campaign message. Federalism is the Constitutional mandate and is the choice for America by the Founding Fathers. The campaign will require illustrated examples at the micro level to define to the American people what this means. Who better to spin a tale than FDT?