RUTHFULLY YOURS

“I believe that adulterers should be stoned to death. I believe that we should cut the hands off of thieves. I believe the Sharia should be implemented in Denmark. Maybe we should change the Christiansborg Palace [the Danish Parliament building] to Muslimsborg to have the flag of Islam flying over the parliament in Denmark. I think this would be very nice.” — Anjem Choudary, while in Denmark to establish Islam4dk in June 2014.

“[Choudary’s network] has now been proscribed as a terrorist organization operating under 11 different names, but neither he nor any one of his associates has so far been prosecuted for membership of an illegal group.” — Times of London.

“The cure for depression is jihad.” — Abdul Raqib Amin (aka Abu Bara al-Hindi), Scottish jihadist.

The British government has banned three groups linked to Anjem Choudary, a Muslim hate preacher who wants to turn the United Kingdom into an Islamic state.

The move comes after the groups were found to have organized jihadist recruitment meetings in which two Muslim youths from Cardiff were persuaded to fight with Islamic insurgents in Syria.

The Home Office said on June 26 that the groups Need4Khilafah, The Shariah Project and The Islamic Dawah Association are all aliases of al-Muhajiroun, a Salafi-Wahhabi extremist group that was banned in 2006 but has continued to operate ever since then by using different names.

Al-Muhajiroun (Arabic for “The Emigrants”) has also operated under a host of other names, including al-Ghurabaa (Arabic for “The Strangers”), The Saved Sect (aka The Savior Sect), Muslims Against Crusades, Muslim Prisoners, Islamic Path, Islam4UK, Women4Sharia and Islamic Emergency Defence, which is still operational.

Al-Ghurabaa and The Saved Sect were both banned in July 2006, after they organized a march through downtown London to protest the publication of cartoons depicting Mohammed. Demonstrators linked to the groups waved placards reading, “Butcher those who mock Islam,” “Kill those who insult Islam,” and “Europe you will pay, your 9/11 is on the way.”

Islam4UK was banned in January 2010. At the time, the group described itself as having been “established by sincere Muslims as a platform to propagate the supreme Islamic ideology within the United Kingdom as a divine alternative to man-made law” to “convince the British public about the superiority of Islam, thereby changing public opinion in favor of Islam in order to transfer the authority and power to the Muslims in order to implement the Sharia [in Britain].”

Muslims Against Crusades was banned in November 2011, after the group launched a campaign to turn twelve British cities into independent Islamic states. The so-called Islamic Emirates were to function as autonomous enclaves ruled by Sharia law and operate entirely outside British jurisprudence.

All of the bans have been based on the Terrorism Act 2000, which states that a group can be proscribed if it “commits or participates in acts of terrorism, prepares for, promotes or encourages terrorism or is otherwise concerned in terrorism.”

Section 1.1 of the Act defines terrorism as the “use or threat of action designed to influence the government or an international governmental organization or to intimidate the public or a section of the public…for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.”

Announcing the latest ban, Britain’s Minister for Security and Immigration, James Brokenshire, said, “Terrorist organisations should not be allowed to escape proscription simply by acting under a different name.” He continued:

The irrevocable Islamic and Koranic injunction upon all Muslims is to wage relentless war against any non-Muslim nation state that exists within what Islam decrees as the Dar al-Islam (the House of Islam). Wherever the Muslim foot has trod triumphal in the name of Allah, that territory is considered eternally Islamic land. If it is lost, then it enters the Dar al-Harb (the House of War) and must be retaken and the population either forcibly converted to Islam, forced into dhimmi degradation, or exterminated.

According to Abraham I. Katsh, who wrote the following as far back as 1954 in his book, Judaism and the Koran:

“The duty of Jihad, the waging of Holy War, has been raised to the dignity of a sixth canonical obligation … To the Moslem, the world is divided into regions under Islamic control, the dar al-Islam, and regions not subjected as yet, the dar al-harb.

“Between this area of warfare and the Muslim dominated part of the world there can be no peace. Practical considerations may induce the Muslim leaders to conclude an armistice, but the obligation to conquer and, if possible, convert never lapses. Nor can territory once under Muslim rule be lawfully yielded to the unbeliever. Legal theory has gone so far as to define as dar al-Islam any area where at least one Muslim custom is observed.

“Thanks to this concept, the Moslem is required to subdue the infidel, and he who dies in the path of Allah is considered a martyr and assured of Paradise and of unique privileges there.”

It is not only Israel, the Jewish state, that is to be warred and aggressed against by the followers of the “religion of peace” but all lands that have been lost to erstwhile Muslim invasion and occupation: They include Spain, Portugal, Sicily, parts of France and Italy, Hungary, Austria, the Balkans, Greece, southern Russia, India—all lands considered to be in the Dar al Harb. And the Islamic war is against not only Christians and Jews, but Hindus, Buddhists, Bahai, and all non-Muslim faiths or those who have no faith.

As a veteran, and as a governor who has supported Texas National Guard deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan, I can understand the emotions behind isolationism. Many people are tired of war, and the urge to pull back is a natural, human reaction. Unfortunately, we live in a world where isolationist policies would only endanger our national security even further.
That’s why it’s disheartening to hear fellow Republicans, such as Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.), suggest that our nation should ignore what’s happening in Iraq. The main problem with this argument is that it means ignoring the profound threat that the group now calling itself the Islamic State poses to the United States and the world.
In the Islamic State, which came to prominence in Syria and now controls ample territory, weapons and cash in both that country and Iraq, the world is confronting an even more radicalized version of Islamic extremism than al-Qaeda. This group is well-trained, technologically sophisticated and adept at recruitment, with thousands of people with European passports fighting on its side, as well as some Americans.
This represents a real threat to our national security — to which Paul seems curiously blind — because any of these passport carriers can simply buy a plane ticket and show up in the United States without even a visa. It’s particularly chilling when you consider that one American has alreadycarried out a suicide bombing and a terrorist-trained European allegedlykilled four at the Jewish Museum in Brussels.
Yet Paul still advocates inaction, going so far as to claim in an op-ed last month in the Wall Street Journal that President Ronald Reagan’s own doctrines would lead him to same conclusion.
But his analysis is wrong. Paul conveniently omitted Reagan’s long internationalist record of leading the world with moral and strategic clarity.
Unlike the noninterventionists of today, Reagan believed that our security and economic prosperity require persistent engagement and leadership abroad. He, like Eisenhower before him, refused to heed “the false prophets of living alone.”
Reagan identified Soviet communism as an existential threat to our national security and Western values, and he confronted this threat in every theater. Today, we count his many actions as critical to the ultimate defeat of the Soviet Union and the freeing of hundreds of millions from tyranny.

http://micahedmond.com/about/

Micah’s life is a testament to the American dream, proving that anyone can succeed in America regardless of race, religion, or socio-economic status. From humble beginnings in Columbia, South Carolina Micah was adopted by a Jewish family at the end of high school and converted to Judaism.

Understanding the value of education, Micah put himself through Williams College serving in the local Massachusetts Air National Guard and working campus jobs like washing dishes.

Upon graduation Micah started a career on Wall Street, but felt a deeper call to public service. He joined the Marine Corps, was commissioned at Quantico, Virginia and after two overseas tours returned to Alexandria, Virginia to serve his last tour at the Pentagon. During his eight years in the Marine Corps, Micah served as aid-de-camp for two senior generals and speechwriter for the Commandant of the Marine Corps.

After leaving the Marine Corps, Micah continued his public service as a senior staffer for multiple members of the House Armed Services Committee. As a congressional staffer he also served as President of the Congressional Jewish Staff Association.

Micah returned to the private sector by launching his own consulting firm to advise businesses on the impact of federal spending and regulations in the national security sector.

While in private practice, Micah was called back into public service as the senior defense advisor for President Obama’s Simpson Bowles Commission and the U.S. Congress’ Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction where he produced bi-partisan solutions to solve our federal budget deficit and national debt problems.

Once again returning to the private sector at the Aerospace Industries Association, Micah was a key advocate for the U.S. Industrial Base, which supports thousands of local jobs, small businesses and new careers in the science, technology, engineering and math fields.

Micah’s eighteen years of work experience in the public and private sector provide him a broad understanding of the array of issues facing constituents in the 8th District; including small businesses owners, those serving in the military, employed by the federal government or large federal contractors.

Micah attended Williams College for his BA and Johns Hopkins for his MA and MBA. He is a Term Member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Why does America convey neutrality between a nation that is indisputably free and a government that is not?

On June 2, the Palestinians announced a new unity government, which included Hamas, an organization designated by the U.S. State Department as a terrorist group.

American aid to the Palestinians since the mid-1990’s, according to a Congressional Research Service report, has exceeded $5 billion. In recent years it has averaged $500 million per year.

The report notes three major U.S. objectives of these funds: preventing terrorism against Israel from Hamas; fostering “stability, prosperity, and self-governance on the West Bank”; humanitarian aid.

When Hamas joined the Palestinian government on June 2, the United States recognized the new government and there was no indication that the substantial funding Palestinians get from American taxpayers would be impacted. Business as usual would continue.

It shouldn’t surprise that U.S acceptance was seen as a green light for terror. Shortly thereafter, missiles started flying again from the Hamas-governed Gaza strip into Israel, and shortly after that, three teenage Israeli boys, one with dual American-Israeli citizenship, were kidnapped and murdered.

The response from America’s president to the kidnapping/murders was to convey American neutrality to an act of terror and to “urge all parties to refrain from steps that would further destabilize the situation.”

It should be clear to all that the world is spinning out of control and becoming an increasingly dangerous place because where there is supposed to be leadership from the leader of the free world there is now a vacuum.

Even independent of the inclusion of a designated terrorist organization in the Palestinian government, the neutral posture of the current American government toward the Palestinian Authority vis- a- vis Israel is quite incredible.

Freedom House is a non-partisan organization in Washington that rates nations around the world regarding freedom. Nations are rated either “free, partially free, or not free.”

Israel is rated “free” and on a scale of 1 – 7, where “1” is the highest rating, Israel is graded 1 on “political rights” and 2 on “civil liberties.”

Attorney General Eric Holder can hardly contain his tears when explaining his program titled “Justice AmeriCorps,” to provide emergency legal representation for the tens of thousands of Central American minors crashing our southern border.

“How we treat those in need, particularly young people who must appear in immigration proceedings, many of whom are fleeing violence, persecution, abuse or trafficking – goes to the core of who we are as a nation,” Holder said while detailing his program to provide 100 lawyers and paralegals for the minors.

And yet it was (then) Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder who concocted the “legal” cover for the INS to mace, kick, stomp, and gun-butt their way into the home of Elian Gonzalez’s legal custodians (legal U.S. citizens and residents all) on the morning of April 22, 2000, wrench a bawling 6-year-old child from his family at machine-gun point and bundle him off to Castro’s terror-sponsoring fiefdom, leaving 102 people (legal U.S. citizens and residents all) injured, some seriously.

Even as the mace dispersed and Elian’s custodians sought medical help for their injuries, FoxNews Andrew Napolitano already had Eric Holder’s number:

“Tell me, Mr. Holder,” Judge Napolitano asked on April 23, 2000, “why did you not get a court order authorizing you to go in and get the boy [Elian Gonzalez]?”

Holder: Because we didn’t need a court order. INS can do this on its own.

Napolitano: You know that a court order would have given you the cloak of respectability to have seized the boy.

Holder: We didn’t need an order.

Napolitano: Then why did you ask the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals for such an order if you didn’t need one?

Holder: [Silence]

Napolitano: The fact is, for the first time in history you have taken a child from his residence at gunpoint to enforce your custody position, even though you did not have an order authorizing it. When is the last time a boy, a child, was taken at the point of a gun without an order of a judge…Unprecedented in American history.”

Holder: “He was not taken at the point of a gun.”

After a light-hearted exchange about the chance of reaching our destination without getting hit by a missile barrage, my taxi driver’s tone darkened.

“Tell me the truth,” he said. “How do feel when the siren goes off?”

“Startled,” I answered. “But getting used to it.” (Thanks to Iron Dome, I thought, otherwise I would probably be as terrified as the residents of Sderot and other southern towns, who have been under this blitz for years.)

Stopping at a red light, the driver leaned over to me and lowered his voice.

“It scares me to death,” he admitted, in what struck me as a feat of extraordinary bravery for an Israeli male.

He then explained that he has been suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder since being seriously wounded 12 years ago in a suicide bombing. Though he has learned to keep it under some degree of control, he said he relives the horror “every time there’s a flare-up in the situation.”

Little wonder.

It happened on a Friday afternoon, on April 12, 2002, at the Mahane Yehuda outdoor market in Jerusalem, when a 17-year-old girl belonging to the Hebron branch of the Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades detonated an explosive device strapped to her body. Four people were killed that day, including two foreign workers from China, and more than 100 were wounded, among them my taxi driver, all because they were out shopping for food for Shabbat.

It was one of many such grotesque attacks on innocent civilians carried out by Palestinian terrorists from Gaza and Judea and Samaria. The aim to annihilate the Jewish state is one thing these assaults had in common. Another is that each was the result of peace talks.

Indeed, the bombing in question was part of the Second Intifada, waged against Israel following the so-called “failure” of the 2000 Camp David Summit. In fact, it was the inevitable outcome of Israeli peace overtures and concessions to Palestinian Liberation Organization chief Yasser Arafat. An arch-terrorist with genocidal goals and behavior, the Nobel Peace prize he won for signing the Oslo Accords became his most lethal weapon. And he used it with a vengeance.

“War is peace,” entered our cultural vocabulary some sixty-four years ago. Around the same time that Orwell’s masterpiece was being printed up, an armistice was being negotiated between Israel and the Arab invading armies. That armistice began the long peaceful war or the warring peace.
The entire charade did not properly enter the realm of the Orwellian until the peace process began. The peace process between Israel and the terrorist militias funded by the countries of those invading armies has gone on for longer than most actual wars. It has also taken more lives than most actual wars.

War has an endpoint. Peace does not. A peace in which you are constantly at war can go on forever because while the enthusiasts of war eventually exhaust their patriotism, the enthusiasts of peace never give up on their peacemaking.

Warmongers may stop after a few thousand dead, but Peacemongers will pirouette over a million corpses.

Two decades later the peace process has failed in every way imaginable and cemeteries on both sides are full of the casualties of peace. Two decades which have created two abortive Palestinian states at war with one another and with Israel.

Two decades later, it’s still time for peace.

Peace time means that it’s time to ring up some more Israeli concessions in the hopes of getting the terrorists and their quarreling states back to the negotiating table for another photo op in the glorious album of peacemakers.

And if the photos are properly posed, perhaps there will even be another Nobel Peace Prize in it for all the participants.

It would be nice to think that the peace disease was one of those viruses carried only in the bloodstream of liberals. But it’s not.

What is Hamas doing? Hamas isn’t going to defeat Israel.

It isn’t going to gain any territory. Israel isn’t going to withdraw from Ashkelon or Sderot under a hail of rockets.

So if Hamas can’t win, why is it fighting? Why rain down destruction and misery on millions of Israelis with your Iranian missiles and your Syrian rockets and invite a counter-assault on your headquarters and weapons warehouses, which you have conveniently placed in the middle of the Palestinian people on whose behalf you are allegedly fighting? Hamas is in a precarious position. When the terror group took over Gaza seven years ago, things were different.

It had a relatively friendly regime in Cairo that was willing to turn a blind eye to all the missiles Iran, Syria and Hezbollah were sending over to Gaza through Sinai.

Hamas’s leaders were comfortably ensconced in Damascus and enjoyed warm relations with Saudi Arabia and Iran.

International funds flowed freely into Hamas bank accounts from Fatah’s donor-financed Palestinian Authority budget, through the Arab Bank, headquartered in Jordan, through the UN, and when necessary through suitcases of cash transferred to Gaza by couriers from Egypt.

Hamas used these conditions to build up the arsenal of a terror state, and to keep the trains running on time. Schools were open. Government employees were paid. Israel was bombed. All was good.

Today, Hamas, the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, faces an Egyptian regime that is locked into a life-and-death struggle with the Brotherhood. To harm Hamas, for the past year the Egyptians have been blocking Hamas’s land-based weapons shipments and destroying its smuggling-dependent economy by sealing off the cross-border tunnels.

Syria and Hamas parted ways at the outset of the Syrian civil war when Hamas, a Sunni jihadist group, was unable to openly support Bashar Assad’s massacre of Sunnis.

Terrorism is a game. The rules are simple. You have three choices. 1. Destroy the terrorists. 2. Live with terrorism. 3. Give in to the terrorists.

There are no other choices.

The first choice comes from the right. The third choice comes from the left. The second choice is what politicians choose when they don’t want to make a decision that will change the status quo.

Despite all the explosions in Gaza, Israel is still stuck on the second choice. The air strikes aren’t meant to destroy Hamas. They are being carried out to degrade its military capabilities which will buy a year or two of relative peace. And that will be followed by more of the same in the summer of 2016 when Hamas will have deadlier Iranian and Syrian weapons that will terrorize more of the country.

That doesn’t sound like much of a deal, but these kinds of wars have bought more peace than the peace process ever did. The peace process led to wars. The wars lead to a temporary peace.

This status quo became the mainstream choice ever since Israelis figured out that the peace process wasn’t going to work and that their leaders weren’t about to defy the UN, the US, the UK and all the other U’s by actually destroying the terrorists.

When Netanyahu first ran against Peres, the difference between the center-right and the center-left was that he campaigned on security first and appeasement second, while Peres campaigned on appeasement first and security second. The center-right has dominated Israeli politics because most Israelis accepted Likud’s security first as a more reasonable position than Labor’s appeasement first.

Living with terrorism was a viable choice in the 80s. It stopped being a viable choice after Israel allowed terrorist states to be set up under the peace process. It’s one thing to manage terrorism in territories that you control. It’s another thing to deal with entire terrorist states inside your borders. Even physical separation isn’t enough. Not when terrorist groups can shell all your major cities.

Israel responds to that threat with light air strikes which damage Hamas’ military capabilities. Hamas loses a few commanders, fighters and rockets, but scores a PR victory. Israel buys two years of peace while encouraging its enemies to attack it as a bunch of racist baby killers. Then Hamas replaces the rockets and fighters and launches a new operation and the whole thing begins again.