RUTHFULLY YOURS

At least 10 people were killed in a mass shooting at a newspaper in Paris, the Charlie Hebdo, known for taking satirical potshots at Muslim leaders, Reuters reported.

One of the dead was a journalist; three police were also wounded, The Associated Press reported.

Reuters reported it’s the same newspaper that’s been bombed in the past for publishing cartoons about Muslim leaders.

France’s Info radio said police at the scene said another five have been injured.

“About a half an hour ago, two black-hooded men entered the building with Klashnikovs,” Benoit Bringer, a witness to the incident, told the French station. “A few minutes later, we heard lots of shots.”

The attackers escaped and an alert has been sent through the community, said Luc Poignant, an official with the SBP police union, AP reported.

A few pages into “Napoleon: A Life,” historian Andrew Roberts notes that the great general regarded himself as “of the race that founds empires.”

How odd that sounds to modern ears. Of course, in the past, people viewed the world differently. Most of us get that. In the present, not everyone sees the world the same way, but many of us don’t get that.

Secretary of State John F. Kerry responds to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s seizure of Ukrainian territory by exclaiming, “You just don’t in the 21st century behave in 19th-century fashion by invading another country on completely trumped up pretext.

Within the foreign policy establishment it is widely assumed that those who send suicide bombers to kill us must harbor “legitimate grievances,” and that they, like us, would prefer peace to war, and are eager, as we are, to resolve conflicts diplomatically, with both sides accepting compromises.

These are dangerous illusions. Throughout most of history, war has been the norm, peace the exception. Pursuing victory and conquest, founding empires — these were seen as noble pursuits.

The Republican caravan finally arrives, with a flutter of banners, the banging of pots and pans and dogs barking in the dust at everyone’s feet. Those long-faced spectators relegated to the side of the road are Democrats, unable to hide their surly resentment and disappointment. They’re packing heat disguised as eggs and tomatoes for throwing.

Anticipation, expectation, hope and maybe even a little prospect of change is the order of the day. Disappointment will follow soon enough. Many’s the heart that will be broken, after the gall and venom of debate, insult, argument and eventually even a little compromise. It’s how Congress is supposed to work. The men who designed it wore no lace on their drawers.

The Republican leaders, beginning with Mitch McConnell in the Senate and John Boehner in the House, are determined to show everybody that “the Republicans are not as bad as you think,” that the leaders of the conservatives are not as bad as the newspapers and purveyors of television palaver make them out to be.

2014 was known as the year of the cyber breach. Forty-three percent of companies experienced a breach last year, including highly visible and damaging hacks to Sony, Home Depot, Target, and JP Morgan Chase. Unfortunately, the cyber breaches of 2014 were not an aberration, but a likely trend. Both the public and private sectors received wakeup calls from these breaches and are beginning to respond accordingly by working together.
As for the private sector, investment by the government in cybersecurity is now a high priority. According to federal government budget projections, over $65 billion will be spent in the next five years on cybersecurity. Also, federal CIOs say by a wide margin in polls that cybersecurity is their primary IT spending focus.
An additional factor for government budget planners is that spending now correlates to policy enactments. At the end of the last legislative session, Congress passed four significant pieces of cybersecurity legislation, including The National Cybersecurity Protection Act of 2014 (S. 2519). That legislation, according to the House Homeland Security Committee, “will codify the existing cybersecurity and communications operations center at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), known as the National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center. The new law will authorize the center’s current activities to share cybersecurity information and analysis with the private sector, provide incident response and technical assistance to companies and federal agencies, and recommend security measures to enhance cybersecurity.”

Gay, Christian-convert son of a Palestinian militant family tells Times of Israel he found compassion where he least expected it, and most needed it.

A Palestinian teenager was arrested in Tel Aviv in late 2006 for illegally entering Israel. It was the third time the 15-year-old from Nablus had crossed into Israel, fleeing his abusive father. Now 24 years old, openly gay, and a convert to Christianity, he is fighting for his life to remain a refugee in Canada.

The boy belonged to an aristocratic family, in Palestinian Islamist terms. His maternal grandfather, Said Bilal, was the head of the Muslim Brotherhood in Nablus, who oversaw the activities of its Palestinian branch, Hamas. His uncle, Muaz Bilal, was condemned in 2002 by an Israeli court to 26 life sentences for dispatching suicide bombers into downtown Jerusalem in the late 1990s, killing 21 Israelis and injuring 300 in two separate attacks. Two other uncles, Bakr and Obada Bilal, a military Hamas field commander and an explosives expert, respectively, were released from Israeli prison as part of the Gilad Shalit prisoner swap in October 2011.

The ruling Hamas regime in Gaza has angrily denied Israeli claims that Khaled Mashaal, the head of the terror organization’s political bureau, has been expelled from his base in Qatar, at the same time leaving open the question of whether Mashaal will now move to NATO member Turkey, as some reports have suggested.

The Israeli government responded to reports that Mashaal had been thrown out of Qatar – where he has been living in a luxury hotel in the capital, Doha – by saying that it “welcomes Qatar’s decision.”

“We expect the Turkish government to act responsibly in a similar way,” the Israeli statement added.

However, Izzat Rishq, a top aide to Mashaal, flatly contradicted the Israeli claim, telling the Associated Press: “There is no basis of truth about brother Khaled Mashaal leaving Doha. We are in Doha now.”

AP also reported that the Turkish Foreign Ministry said it had no information on a Qatari decision or plans by Mashaal to relocate to Turkey.

One pro-Hamas commentator in Gaza did shed some light on the mystery. In a posting on Facebook in Arabic, columnist Ibrahim al Madhoun said that Mashaal might well leave Qatar, but not “for the reasons reported.”

Those reasons, explained Jonathan Schanzer, vice president for research at the Foundation For Defense of Democracies in Washington, DC, are rooted in Qatar’s currently rocky relationship with Egypt. The two countries have been at loggerheads for the last eighteen months over Qatar’s continued financial backing of the Muslim Brotherhood, whose rule in Egypt was overthrown by the current President, Abdel Fattah el Sisi, in July 2013. Egyptian and Qatari intelligence officials met in Cairo last month in an attempt to resolve the dispute.

“There is this reset between Qatar and Egypt, and one condition is for Qatar to dial back on support for the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas (the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood,)” Schanzer told The Algemeiner. Other Arab Gulf countries have also been supportive of Cairo’s demands, Schanzer said.

Schanzer pointed out that “Hamas has been wandering since 2012,” when the organization departed from Syria, its main headquarters, because of the brutal civil war raging there. Many Hamas officials traveled onto Egypt and Qatar; with the removal from power of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Qatar stood out as a country that would still, Schanzer said, provide “finance and a welcoming environment.”

If Hamas is compelled to shift its operations from Qatar, Schanzer said, Turkey would be the group’s obvious next destination. “Turkey is right now a stronger location than even Qatar for Hamas headquarters,” Schanzer said. “There are two senior leaders already there, as well as around a dozen mid-level operatives and at least two financiers.”

Schanzer named the two leaders as Imad Al Alami, a longstanding Hamas envoy to Iran, and Salah al Arouri, the head of the West Bank branch of the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, the so-called military wing of Hamas. Al Arouri is widely regarded as being responsible for the abduction and murder of three Israeli teenagers who were hiking in the West Bank in June 2014.

“Mashaal’s arrival would cement the notion that Turkey is the top headquarters for Hamas,” Schanzer observed. “Whether he goes their voluntarily or because Qatar deports him, it would be undeniable that a NATO member state has become the leading sponsor of Hamas.”

Asked whether Turkey is in violation of the NATO Charter by hosting Hamas, Schanzer said there was a clear breach of the “spirit” of the western alliance, if not its rules.

“Technically, Turkey is operating within the legal boundaries of NATO and the UN, because Hamas is not designated terrorist group at the UN,” Schanzer said. “But NATO was designed to uphold the western fight against various threats, and I would think that terror organizations like Hamas would squarely fall within those parameters.”

Schanzer emphasized that support for Hamas was not the only problematic issue with regard to Turkish foreign policy. “Turkey has a huge Islamic State problem, as it’s the main jurisdiction for IS funding, weapons transfers and personnel transfers,” he said. “Turkey also helps Iran evade sanctions. When you look at the totality of Turkey’s foreign policy over the last few years, many serious questions are raised, including whether it’s a state sponsor of terrorism.”

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA

JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2,
Petitioners,

vs.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.

_______________________________________________/

DECLARATION OF ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ

1. My name is Alan M. Dershowitz. I make this declaration on personal knowledge and pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1746, and in response to a pleading in which the lawyers for Jane Doe #3, without benefit of an affidavit, leveled totally false and outrageous charges against me that have been reported around the world and threaten to damage my reputation irrevocably.

2. Never under any circumstance have I ever had any sexual contact of any kind, which includes massages or any physical contact whatsoever, with Jane Doe #3, whose identity has been referenced by the BBC. (Her identity was disclosed because she “waived her anonymity in an interview with The Mail on Sunday in 2011.”)

3. Specifically, Jane Doe #3 has alleged that she had sex with me on Mr. Epstein’s Carribean island. That is a deliberate lie. I was on that island only once in my life, for approximately one day. I was with my wife and daughter during the entire day. My wife, daughter and I slept overnight in the same room. We had dinner with Mr. Epstein and a distinguished professor from the Harvard Business School, his wife, her sister, brother-in-law, their kids, and an older woman. During our entire stay on the island, we never saw any young woman that fit the description of Jane Doe #3. Indeed we do not recall seeing any young women during our entire visit to the island. The older woman showed us around the island. There is no conceivable possibility that I could have had any sexual encounter with Jane Doe #3 during that period. Her lawyers could have easily learned this by simply calling and asking me for the specifics. I would have then provided them with the names of unimpeachable witnesses who would have contradicted Jane Doe #3’s false account.

4. Second, Jane Doe #3 has alleged that she had sex with me in Mr. Epstein’s house in New Mexico. That is a deliberate lie. I was in that house only once while it was under construction. My wife, daughter and I were driven there by a New Mexico businessman and his wife, whom we were visiting. Mr. Epstein was not there. Nor were there any young girls visible at any time. We were shown around the house for about an hour and then drove back with our friends. Jane Doe #3’s lawyers could have easily learned this by simply calling and asking me for the specifics. I would have then provided them with the names of unimpeachable witnesses who would have contradicted Jane Doe #3’s false account.

5. Third, Jane Doe #3 has accused me of having sex with her on Jeffrey Epstein’s plane. That is a deliberate lie. I was on that plane on several occasions as the manifests will show, but never under circumstances where it would have been possible to have sex with Jane Doe #3. On a couple of occasions I was on his plane with my wife and daughter. On another occasion, I was on the plane with my nephew and several older people going to see a launch at Cape Kennedy. On several other occasions, after the alleged events at issue, I was on the plane with members of Mr. Epstein’s legal team flying down to perform legal services. Had his lawyers called me, I would have provided them this information and told them to check the manifests. There were never any young girls on the plane during any of my trips.

6. As to Mr. Epstein’s homes in New York City and Palm Beach, I categorically state that I never had any sexual contact with Jane Doe #3.

7. In a statement issued to the press, Jane Doe #3’s lawyers, Brad Edwards and Paul Cassell, have falsely stated that “they tried to depose Mr. Dershowitz on these subjects, although he has avoided those deposition requests.” By using the term “these subjects” in a statement about the sexual abuse charges recently made against me, these lawyers have falsely implied that they sought to depose me on allegations regarding my own conduct. That is a total and categorical lie. Several years ago they wrote, asking to depose me on Jeffrey Epstein’s activities and whether I ever witnessed any of his alleged crimes. I recall responding that I could not testify as to any privileged information and that I was not a witness to any alleged crimes. They did not follow up with a subpoena. Any suggestion that I refused to respond to questions about any allegations regarding my own alleged sexual conduct is totally and categorically false. The lawyers know this and yet continue to perpetuate the false impression that I was somehow given an opportunity to respond to these false and salacious charges against me and refused to do so. The written record will bear out the truth of what I am declaring and demonstrate the deliberate falsity of what they have suggested.

8. Jane Doe #3 knows that the charges she has leveled against me are totally false and she has alleged them with complete knowledge of their falsity. I believe and allege that her lawyers, Brad Edwards and Paul Cassell, also knew or could have easily learned, that I could not have done and did not do any of the heinous things they allege I did in the pleading. If they had done any reasonable investigation of their client’s false allegations, they would have found absolute proof that I did not. They claim in a written statement that they “investigate” before filing. But they did not specifically state that they investigated this claim against me before filing this false and scurrilous charge. They could not have, because even the most minimal of investigation would have proven conclusively that I could not have had sex with their client on Mr. Epstein’s island, in New Mexico or on the airplanes; and that I did not have sex with her in his New York or Palm Beach homes. They would also have learned, if they did not already know, that Jane Doe #3 is a serial liar, whose uncorroborated word should never be credited. She has claimed to have been with former President Clinton on Mr. Epstein’s island. She has provided specific and detailed information about Mr. Clinton’s activities on the island. Yet, on information and belief, I have been advised that Secret Service records would confirm that President Clinton has never set foot on that island. It has also been reported that she told her father that she met Queen Elizabeth. On information and belief, a check of the records of Buckingham Palace would disclose that Jane Doe #3 lied to her father about such a visit. On information and belief, she has also told lies about many world leaders. Finally, on information and belief, the State Attorney in Palm Beach County dropped a case that she sought to bring based on an assessment by the investigating detective regarding the “victim’s lack of credibility.” A copy of the letter reflecting this decision was forwarded to central records. Her lawyers knew or should have known about her history of lying and her utter lack of credibility before filing an allegedly privileged legal statement that asserts false and defamatory information about a fellow lawyer based on her word alone.

9. I believe and allege that Jane Doe #3’s lawyers deliberately inserted this false and defamatory charge, which they knew or should have known to be false and defamatory, in a legal pleading that does not seek an evidentiary hearing or provide for any other opportunity for me to respond to, rebut or disprove their knowingly false charge. They placed it in a legal proceeding, in a public filing, in bad faith in an effort to have the media report it, while they attempt to hide behind claims of litigation and journalistic privilege. I believe and allege that their bad faith purpose was to have this false charge made public, while attempting to deny me any legal recourse. There is no realistic possibility that this pre-New Year’s filing would have been picked up by the media had they or someone on their behalf not deliberately alerted the media to its existence.

10. These lawyers have now repeatedly spoken to the media about their false allegations against me, asserting that what they alleged against me had a “factual” basis and providing the BBC with a list of questions they should ask me. I answered all of their questions. These lawyers have studiously tried to avoid repeating the specific false charges publically, in an attempt to shield themselves from a defamation claim.

11. Again, let me assert categorically, without reservation and with full awareness of the risks of perjury, that I did not ever, under any circumstances, have any sexual contact of any kind with Jane Doe #3.

12. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed this 5th day of January, 2015, in Miami Beach, Florida.

_______________________

The deaths of Michael Brown and Eric Garner at the hands of police last year have reignited the war liberals have waged against our cops. It’s “our cops” — not “the cops” — because no matter what our race, religion, economic circumstance, we all rely on the police for our families’ safety.

This is a political war that liberals have waged for decades in protests, newspapers and even in song. According to the Progressives Today website, protesters in Portland, Oregon, sang “Deck the halls with rows of dead cops,” on Dec. 28. The “brave protesters,” according to the report, did so while blocking streets in supposed demonstration against the death of Michael Brown.

These are the same sorts of people who have — at least three times — invited Wesley Cook to speak at college commencements. The latest, held at Goddard College in Vermont, was announced in September by interim college President Bob Kenny. He said, “Choosing [Cook] as their commencement speaker, to me, shows how this newest group of Goddard graduates expresses their freedom to engage and think radically and critically in a world that often sets up barriers to do just that.”

That announcement drew condemnation from Maureen Faulkner. Who is she to object? She is the widow of Philadelphia cop Daniel Faulkner, whom Cook — now known as Mumia Abu-Jamal — murdered in 1981. First condemned to death for the brutal killing, Abu-Jamal is serving a life sentence without parole. He delivered his address by video recorded in his jail cell to satisfy the Goddard students’ hunger for “thinking radically and critically.”

But for the success of this political war on police, people such as New York Mayor Bill de Blasio would probably not be in office, men such as Al Sharpton wouldn’t be prominent in a liberal parody of the civil rights movement (and as an adviser to President Obama) and newspapers such as The New York Times wouldn’t be waging the war on their editorial pages. And cop killers such as Mumia — as he is popularly known — wouldn’t be lionized.

At his Blackjay blog, physicist John Reid finds both the unexpected and the entirely predictable in the first batch of numbers from NASA’s long-delayed and newly launched CO2-monitoring satellite. The surprise is that carbon dioxide concentrations are to be found, for the most part, nowhere near where those who blame modern life and industry for ruining the planet would expect to find them. The mundane is enshrined in the space agency’s press release, which evidences that standard warmist trait of overlooking the troublesome and obvious.

After ten years in the planning and numerous technical setbacks and glitches (which included a rocket failure) NASA’s Orbiting Carbon Observatory – 2 (OCO-2) is finally sending high quality data back to earth. The satellite makes continuous, precise measurements of atmospheric CO2 concentrations over most of the planet by means of absorption spectroscopy. The diagram is a compilation of mean atmospheric CO2 concentrations for the 6 week period period commencing 1st October 2014.

Hopefully this satellite is likely to be returning similar data for many years into the future so these results are only a tentative “sneak preview” of what is to come. They were obtained during northern fall and southern spring. Since CO2 concentrations are most likely influenced by biological processing in plants, animals and fungi, future measurements in other seasons will be of prime importance in understanding the earth’s carbon cycle.

Prognosticators from the London Times to Democratic pundit James Carville are predicting that President Obama this year will finish a deal with Iran regarding its nuclear program. With a record of foreign policy failure, Obama is eager for a seeming success, even if the agreement leaves the mullahs with the capacity to quickly build some nuclear bombs at a time of their choosing. Such an outcome would obviously be a strategic disaster, leaving this country and its regional allies vulnerable to an inveterate enemy driven by an apocalyptic ideology.

Obama and his foreign policy team will bear the brunt of responsibility for this failure, as they should. In addition to displaying sheer incompetence and ignorance in his foreign policy, the president has serially sacrificed our security and interests to political needs. Time and again he has made decisions based on partisan calculations that tried to reconcile the ideological dogma of his left-wing base with the demands that something should be done about global threats.