Don’t Let Terror Victims’ Blood Ruin Nobel Prizes

By Findalis of Monkey in the Middle

On Friday I posted this weeks Latma TV.  The song:  Children Of Oslo '93 has gone viral.

“The Children of Oslo ’93” is the latest video song from “Latma,” with bitter advice to Nobel Peace winners to make sure terror victims’ blood doesn’t stain their prizes.



The lyrics of the “Oslo Ballad” are an ironic take-off on a 1995 song, "We are the children of winter 1973," referring to the Yom Kippur War and bemoaning having to grow up and serve in the army after being promised peace.

The writers at Latma, a group with nationalist views that produces satirical newscasts, wrote “The Children of Oslo ‘93” to show the folly of the Oslo Accords, noting that Western leaders “sold us out on the White House lawn for promises; you were weary men who dreamed of Nobel Peace prizes.”

The singers admonish the prize winners, "Watch out for your Nobel so it doesn’t get stained by shrapnel, tears or blood.”

The song continues,

“You promised an olive branch, a dove;
we got missiles, oh such love;
you promised joy and calm,
we got expulsions and bombs;
you promised a dove;
we are the children of Oslo, September ’93.”


Source

The Oslo Accords have cause the deaths of 1,500 Israeli, terror and horror instead of the peace it promised.  It has also made Israelis weary of signing any accords with Fakistinians.  In fact, it was Oslo and the terror it produced that showed the Israelis the need for good fences on its borders.

Israel And Iran Nearing Point Of No Return

Israel And Iran Nearing Point Of No Return

A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet

When US military forces leave Iraq next month, Israel’s door to Iran will swing wide open.  Iraqi airspace will be available for Israel’s air force for the first time since US troops invaded Iraq.

Tensions have been ramping up between the two government’s for the past year, or so, especially since Obama’s announcement that US forces would leave Iraq next month.

As a police officer many, many, decades ago, I learned, first hand, that some people just don’t know when to shut up.  Many times a police officer will find that he has to separate two people shouting threats at each other.  While one calms down the other continues, even after being warned multiple times to be quiet, shouting epithets, curses, and threats at his former antagonist.  More often that not, the loud-mouth finds him/herself face down on the ground, with his hands cuffed behind him, and on his way to jail.  As we indicated, some people just cannot grasp that there is a time to shut one’s mouth -- and keep it shut.

Such, it would seem, is Mr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President of Iran.  He continues yammering when he should simmer down.  One must consider the possibility that he is attempting to convince himself (more than anyone else) that Iran can destroy Israel. Ahmadinejad is on the brink of a rude awakening. He is about to talk himself into a thrashing of biblical proportions.

On the other hand Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of Israel, has had more than enough of Mr. Ahmadinejad’s threats and posturing as well as Iran’s arming of proxy troops in nations surrounding Israel.  For Netanyahu -- it is put up or shut up time for Iran.

There is an extremely thin line of resistance to a preemptive attack on Iran in the Israeli government.  That resistance can dissipate at a moment’s notice, however.

I find it extremely difficult to believe that Iran has any idea of the strength and lethality of the Israeli Defense Forces. 

When the attack begins, it will not be simply an air attack.  It will be a three-pronged attack by the air, land, and sea forces of Israel.  It will rival America’s “shock and awe” attack on Iraq. 

This projection is based on Israel going it alone -- without US assistance. However, I expect US naval assets will guarantee the Straits of Hormuz will remain open, when the attack begins, and be joined in that effort by Israeli naval forces immediately after the opening few hours of battle.

Should the US Navy elect to stand down during Israel’s attack, the Israeli navy and IDF Special Forces are quite capable of removing Iranian missile emplacements that would certainly be used to fire on oil tankers and naval vessels in an attempt to close the Straits to out bound oil bearing ships.  An air attack on the Straits will be met by US aircraft -- defending the waterway -- and quickly smashed.

Netanyahu is former member of the IDF Special Forces.  He is no novice when it comes to matters of war.  Netanyahu’s brother was killed in the Israeli raid on the Entebbe airport in which many hostages from a highjacked airliner were being held.  The hostages were freed but the Netanyahu family, like so many Israeli families, felt the loss of a loved one to military conflict.  There can be no doubt that Netanyahu knows the pain of war.  He also understands that if Israel is to survive, it will be called upon, once again, to sacrifice it’s young on the bloody alter of war.

Delaying the inevitable is only going to intensify the conflict when it comes and probably extend it, as well. The IDF has been training for this war for years now.  Israel’s troops are keen, sharp, and leaning forward.  A number of its assets are; no doubt, already forward deployed and awaiting orders.

Even as US forces are leaving Iraq, the US is already building up its forces “in the area.”  It is said, publicly, to be a back up in case the experiment in nation building in Iraq begins to crumble – or -- Iran starts trouble in Iraq. 

The fact is, that once hostilities commence between Iran and Israel, Iran will most certainly make every effort it possibly can to kill American troops in the area they consider their sphere of influence. Therefore, it will be nigh on to impossible for the US to remain on the sidelines.

Americans must face the fact that America is at war and will remain in a state of war for as far as the eye can see into the future.  The US government should understand this and immediately cease all talk of cutting funding for the only thing that stands between Americans and their freedom:  The US Military.

J. D. Longstreet

Idiocy often reigns in pursuit of non-discrimination and tolerance

Commentary by James H. Shott


The United States has been under assault for years by the Political Correctness nannies, who regularly complain about what they see as intolerance and discrimination. And good Americans, being the fair-minded souls that they are, have given in to this onslaught to a far more than reasonable degree, accepting “solutions” that are themselves intolerant and discriminatory in response. And as a result, the country is awash in senseless policies and practices that frequently trample on common sense and individual freedoms in order to make a relative few people feel better.

Case-in-point number 1: Vanderbilt University has notified four Christian student groups that they are on “provisional status” and are in danger of being thrown off campus. What horrible wrong have these young Christians committed? Fighting or drunkenness? No. Cheating on tests? No. What, then?

Vanderbilt charges the groups are out of compliance with the school’s nondiscrimination policy. Those organizations logically want leaders that share the group’s beliefs, goals and values, but the university says that is intolerant and discriminatory.

Presumably, the school’s administration thinks that a Christian group should be led by a Jew, Buddhist, Muslim or atheist, or that a women’s group should be led by a man, or a Democrat group should be led by a Republican, or a Muslim group should be led by a Christian or a Jew.

The idiocy of such a policy ought to be self-evident, but in today’s upside-down world, apparently it is not.

Case-in-point number 2: Muslim students at Catholic University of America (CU) claim that their human rights have been violated by the school because it did not provide them rooms without Christian symbols for their daily prayers, and this allegation is now being investigated by the Office of Human Rights.

The complaint alleges that Muslim students “must perform their prayers surrounded by symbols of Catholicism … which many Muslim students find inappropriate.” How could a Catholic institution be so intolerant of others and so arrogant as to fill its campus with Catholic symbols?

The attorney who filed the complaint said not providing special prayer rooms “may not be illegal, but it suggests they are acting improperly and probably with malice.” Muslims “do have to pray five times a day, they have to look around for empty classrooms and to be sitting there trying to do Muslim prayers with a big cross looking down or a picture of Jesus or a picture of the Pope is not very conducive to their religion.”

But isn’t religion about one’s relationship to a supreme entity and religious beliefs? Isn’t the prayer itself more important than the surroundings in which it is offered?

The president of an organization that promotes Catholic identity responded that “one wouldn’t expect a Jewish institution to be responsible for providing liturgical opportunities for other faiths and I wouldn’t expect a Catholic institution to do that,” he said.

That sounds sensible, doesn’t it?

The attorney’s admission that CU is not breaking the law tells us something about his motives. We may presume that the Muslim students want to attend a university based in Catholicism, a religion about as different from theirs as one could be, because of its high educational quality. But they apparently expect the institution to accede to their desires to change it to their liking.

More pertinent is why the federal government should have anything to say about how a successful and respected private institution adorns its rooms, and why it should potentially be able to alter how it operates.

Another complaint filed by this attorney charges that “eliminating all mixed-gender dormitories on campus, and henceforth forcing students who live on campus to reside in single-sex segregated residences, constitutes discrimination on the basis of sex against female students, since students will be assigned to dormitories solely on the basis of their sex, and many will be denied their residence of choice solely because of, and on the basis of, their sex." Does the attorney believe this policy discriminates only against female students? Is that position itself also discriminatory, and should that attorney therefore be sanctioned?

Case-in-point number 3: An Illinois middle school math lab instructor in her first year on the job asked for a three-week unpaid leave to take a religious trip just before exam time. The school district denied the request because the teacher was the department’s only instructor, and also stated that the contract under which she was employed did not provide for such leave. The instructor, a Muslim, filed a complaint against her employer claiming religious discrimination for refusing her time off for a trip to Mecca.

The Justice Department has forced the school district to pay the teacher $75,000 and implement a sensitivity training course throughout the district.

These examples illustrate that the inmates have taken over the asylum. Government and other nannies labor mightily to alter the realities of life to assuage the easily offended who expect everything to suit them, always. People must learn that despite the efforts of the nannies, life isn’t perfect and no one can make it so. They need to adjust to reality and figure out how to succeed despite the occasional bumps in the road.

Cross-posted from Observations

The President Who Would Be King

The President Who Would Be King

A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet

Obama’s past is so vague and so little is known about the man before he won a seat in the Senate that it is extremely difficult to refer to times and places in his past.  But I do seem to recall that he was said to have been a constitutional expert and even TAUGHT the US Constitution at some college or other.  If so, it is more than a little interesting.

See. Here’s the thing:  IF Obama taught the US Constitution then he knows that America opted for a bicameral constitutional, representative, government with a president as the chief executive.  Nowhere in the US Constitution is a King of the United States proved for.  NOWHERE.

Apparently someone else taught Obama’s class they day they covered presidents vs kings in America.  Obviously, he was absent. Else he would have known that America has no king. 

After hearing King Oba … uh … President Obama making proclamations on the campaign trail as to what he intends to do without the approval of the people’s legislature, methinks the King, er, the President is in dire need of psychiatric help.   He gives every indication that he is delusional. 

We are, of course, referring to Mr. Obama’s abuse of the Presidential Executive Order authority.   Even now, Mr. Obama is preparing to issue a host of presidential executive orders.  He is making no secret that he intends to rule by executive order and regulations issued by HIS czars and the heads of the various government agencies under his command.  In fact, he openly boasts about it before crowds, which have been especially screened by the Democratic Party, and the DNC, before they are allowed to bask in Mr. Obama’s dimly lit glory.

In the event that Mr. Obama DID, in fact, miss the class on presidents vs kings, then we shall endeavor to enlighten him and all others stricken with the same malady – lack of constitutional knowledge.

Article I, Section 1 of the United States Constitution is concise in its language, "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."

 

Got it?  No king mentioned there, right?

 

The last thing the founders of the United States wanted was the establishment of a strong central government and a strong political leader at the center of that government. They had just fought a long grueling war to gain their freedom from a King and they no longer wanted kings, potentates, or czars.  What they DID want was a loose association of States in which the power emanated from the States and not from the central government.  (Bet THAT wasn’t taught in Professor Obama’s class!)

It is important to remember that before the constitution there were the Articles of Confederation.  “The President” was the President of the United States in Congress Assembled.  The powers of the office were extremely limited and the President served for only one year.  The Constitution, in contrast to the Articles of Confederation, established a strong four-year Presidency, but still only provided extremely limited powers to the office.

 

“Today, the executive branch of the government is immensely powerful, much more powerful than the founding fathers had envisioned or wanted. Congressional legislative powers have been usurped. There is no greater example of that usurpation than in the form of the Presidential Executive Order. The process totally bypasses Congressional legislative authority and places in the hands of the President almost unilateral power. The Executive Order governs everything from the Flag Code of the United States to the ability to single-handedly declare Martial Law. Presidents have used the Executive Order in times of emergencies to override the Constitution of the United States and the Congress.” (SOURCE)

 

“President Abraham Lincoln suspended many fundamental rights guaranteed in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. He closed down newspapers opposed to his wartime policies and imprisoned what many historians now call political prisoners. He suspended the right of trial and the right to be confronted by accusers. Lincoln's justification for such drastic actions was the preservation of the Union above all things. After the war and Lincoln's death, Constitutional law was restored.” (SOURCE)

 

Here are just a few Executive Orders that would suspend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. These Executive Orders have been on record for nearly 30 years and could be enacted by the stroke of a Presidential pen:

·         EXECUTIVE ORDER 10990 allows the government to take over all modes of transportation and control of highways and seaports.

·         EXECUTIVE ORDER 10995 allows the government to seize and control the communication media.

·         EXECUTIVE ORDER 10997 allows the government to take over all electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels, and minerals.

·         EXECUTIVE ORDER 10998 allows the government to take over all food resources and farms.

·         EXECUTIVE ORDER 11000 allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision.

·         EXECUTIVE ORDER 11001 allows the government to take over all health, education, and welfare functions.

·         EXECUTIVE ORDER 11002 designates the Postmaster General to operate a national registration of all persons.

·         EXECUTIVE ORDER 11003 allows the government to take over all airports and aircraft, including commercial aircraft.

·         EXECUTIVE ORDER 11004 allows the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate communities, build new housing with public funds, and designate areas to be abandoned, and establish new locations for populations.

·         EXECUTIVE ORDER 11005 allows the government to take over railroads, inland waterways, and public storage facilities.

·         EXECUTIVE ORDER 11051 specifies the responsibility of the Office of Emergency Planning and gives authorization to put all Executive Orders into effect in times of increased international tensions and economic or financial crisis.

·         EXECUTIVE ORDER 11310 grants authority to the Department of Justice to enforce the plans set out in Executive Orders, to institute industrial support, to establish judicial and legislative liaison, to control all aliens, to operate penal and correctional institutions, and to advise and assist the President.

If it sounds like George Orwell’s “1984” well, yeah, that’s exactly what it would be – if the executive orders above were enacted.  To become US Law they do not need to be run by Congress.  No.  All that is necessary is that they be PUBLISHED in the FEDERAL REGISTER.  THAT’S ALL!

There is one more executive order I want to make you aware of – and this one ought to scare every American out of their wits.  For with this one E.O. we will lose our freedom -- completely.  Here it is:

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11049 assigns emergency preparedness function to federal departments and agencies, consolidating 21 operative Executive Orders issued over a fifteen-year period.

Just like that, we are no longer a free people.

Conservative activist Howard J. Ruff said:  "Since the enactment of Executive Order 11490, the only thing standing between us and dictatorship is the good character of the President, and the lack of a crisis severe enough that the public would stand still for it."

“Executive Orders are, indeed, controversial because they allow the President to make major decisions, even law, without the consent of Congress. This, of course, runs against the general logic of the Constitution -- that no one should have power to act unilaterally.” (SOURCE)

 

“If Congress does not like what the executive branch is doing, it has two main options. First, it may rewrite or amend a previous law, or spell it out in greater detail how the Executive Branch must act. Of course, the President has the right to veto the bill if he disagrees with it, so, in practice; a 2/3 majority is often required to override an Executive Order.

 

In addition to congressional recourse, Executive Orders can be challenged in court, usually on the grounds that the Order deviates from "congressional intent" or exceeds the President's constitutional powers.” (SOURCE)

 

As we have now seen, Mr. Obama COULD, indeed, make himself dictator with the stroke of a pen. Granted, it would be a very brief dictatorship, but we now know just how easily it can be done.

 

This is WRONG and needs to be corrected by a constitutional amendment as quickly as the US has a Congress with the level of testosterone necessary for brave action in the name of FREEDOM.

Obama is openly threatening to push his socialist agenda into US Law by using his authority to proclaim law with the power of the executive order.

 

Does America want a dictator, or a President answerable to the people?  Vote for one or the other at the ballot box in November of 2012.

 

J. D. Longstreet