Chuck Hagel is unqualified and ill-qualified to become America’s Secretary of Defense. Hagel is too cozy with enemies of the U.S. and is openly hostile towards Israel, one of America’s closest allies. According to FOX News, Hagel “appeared to agree with the assertion that America is ‘the world’s bully’” and that he has “complained about the ‘Jewish lobby.’” Yahoo! News noted Hagel’s beliefs about the “‘Jewish lobby’ and its influence on American-Israeli ties.” According to Senator John Cornyn (R), “Hagel voted against a 2007 measure that called for the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) to be designated a terrorist group;” “In July 2008, Hagel recommended that Washington go beyond direct talks and establish a U.S. diplomatic mission in Tehran;” “in his 2008 book, ‘America: Our Next Chapter,’ Hagel appeared to suggest that the United States could live with a nuclear Iran;” and, “Hagel wants us to be softer on the Iranians, he thinks we should be tougher on the Israelis.” Given Hagel’s dubious track-record, the nonprofit organization SecureAmericaNow.org has been lobbying against his confirmation as U.S. defense secretary. SecureAmericaNow has provided a set of resources enabling concerned citizens to help block President Obama’s move to confirm Senator Hagel.
Archive for January, 2013
By Barry Rubin
One of the highlights of the 1961 inauguration of President John F. Kennedy, 52 years ago, was a poem by the beloved Robert Frost. That morning I had watched the new vice-president, Lyndon Johnson, leave his home down the street and a bit later watched Frost read the poem on television that snowy day, looking at the same snow outside my window a few miles away.
The poem was entitled, “The Gift Outright,” and it began:
“The land was ours before we were the land’s.
She was our land more than a hundred years
Before we were her people. She was ours
In Massachusetts, in Virginia,
But we were England’s, still colonials… .”
That poem could not be read today and if it were the result would be attacks, condemnation, and derision.
By David North, CIS.org
Birth tourism — which recently has become a local controversy in Southern California — arises from a confluence of strong factors, illustrated in the diagram below.
Birth tourism is the planned birth of an infant in the United States by a visiting alien mother who seeks at-birth citizenship for the baby; typically she and the baby leave the country after the birth, but the child can return at any time in the future, and years later can set in motion the legal immigration of his or her parents and other family members.
by Michael M. Gunter*
Shortly after the World War II, genocide was legally defined by the U.N. Genocide Convention as “any… acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such.” The key word from the perspective of this article is “intent.” For while nobody can deny the disaster wrought on the Armenians by the 1915 deportations and massacres, the question is whether or not it can be defined as genocide—arguably the most heinous crime imaginable.
Obama’s hypocrisy: Assault weapons OK for government employee ‘personal defense’ but not for civiliansTuesday, January 29th, 2013
While the Obama administration calls for a ban on assault rifles and high-capacity magazines, the Department of Homeland Security is seeking to acquire 7,000 “personal defense weapons” — also known as “assault weapons” when owned by civilians. …
Critics, such as Republican New York state Sen. Greg Ball, are already blasting the DHS request, arguing that the government deems these firearms as suitable for self-defense but want to ban civilians from owning them.
“Now the Department of Homeland Security even agrees that these modern sporting firearms, made illegal by Governor Cuomo, are suitable for self-defense,” Mr Ball said.
- The Washington Times, January 27, 2013
What a surprise. It seems that the hypocrites who govern us want to protect themselves with weapons that they would deny their own constituents. But defenders of the right to bear arms as enshrined in the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment aren’t being complacent. They’re fighting back against anti-gun shills like President Obama (D) and Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA). Not so fast there Diane and Barack. The Associated Press just released an article entitled “Democrats [Ds] may stand in Obama’s way on gun measures.”
In their attempt to gut the Second Amendment, Obama and Feinstein have proposed, among other extreme measures, a “ban on assault rifles and high-capacity magazines,” like the AR-15. But the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is “seeking more than 7,000 AR-15s and matching 30-round clips ‘suitable for personal defense use in close quarters.’” So what does DHS’s desire to purchase 7,000 AR-15s tell us? According to TheBlaze:
by Daniel Pipes*
Three thoughts as the U.S. Senate gears up to consider on Jan 31 the nomination of Chuck Hagel for the position of secretary of defense:
(1) It’s more than a bit curious that Barack Obama should nominate a politician of no distinction, with no significant bills to his name, no administrative accomplishments, and no known ideas, to the hugely important post of secretary of defense. It’s even more curious that Hagel is known for only two foreign policy/defense views: being soft on Iran and hostile to Israel. This certainly sends a strong signal to Israel.
By Barry Rubin
OH! pleasant exercise of hope and joy!
For mighty were the auxiliars which then stood
Upon our side, we who were strong in love!
Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive,
But to be young was very heaven!–Oh! times,
In which the meager, stale, forbidding ways
Of custom, law, and statute, took at once
The attraction of a country in romance!
–William Wordsworth, Poem on the French Revolution, 1789
A decent but very leftist British Middle East expert once described for me his experience in Iran in 1979. As a leftist, he had discounted any idea that Islamists might take over the country before the revolution, dismissing them as insignificant. But then he supported the revolution against the “reactionary, pro-Western” shah.
He had many friends among Iranian leftists. Quickly, he went to Tehran and scheduled meetings at the leftist newspaper established after the revolution. The newspaper was named with the Persian word for dawn, recalling–intentionally or not I have no idea–the words of another revolutionary romantic quoted above.
By Mark Krikorian, CIS.org
Senator Rubio was on Mark Levin’s show Wednesday (view the YouTube video below right to listen), revising and extending his earlier remarks on amnesty to the Journal and the Times. He seems to be walking back some of what he said last week, asserting the need for “triggers” to “certify that, indeed, the workplace security thing is in place, the visa tracking is in place, and there’s some level of significant operational control of the border.” Whatever its superficial appeal, this trigger idea is an old gimmick used to reconcile the “enforcement first” demand with amnesty. A big problem with it is defining a trigger — past versions have involved a target level of appropriations or maybe certification by the four southern border governors that the border is secure. But even if there were a workable trigger, and I’ve never seen one, there would be irresistible political pressure on whoever was responsible to get the certifying over with so the amnesty could get under way.
by Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi*
Recently a video emerged in which pro-Assad militiamen can be seen beating and shooting a prisoner to death. What might seem remarkable is that the militiamen are insulting Islam in the process, mocking the takbir — that is, the cry of “Allahu akbar” — the Islamic conception of paradise for martyrs. In the first half of the video, one of the executioners — disparaging Muhammad — shouts, “F—k you and your prophet.” Later, another of them yells, “Damn your God.”
It may come across as odd that pro-Assad militiamen would disparage the Islamic religion in such a crude manner, but it should be noted that there are many videos like this in which the anti-Islamic sentiment takes a more subtle form.
I’ve made it easy for you to contact your New Mexico legislative representatives and TELL THEM TO OPPOSE a ‘Sweeping Gun Control Measure In Santa Fe.’ Use the following links/resources to: 1) find your New Mexico state senator and house rep and contact them via email, phone, and/or snail-mail; 2) use sample letter text; and, 3) contact every member of the New Mexico House Judiciary Committee because they’re holding a public hearing Monday on the “Sweeping Gun Control Measure”:
I urge you to oppose House Bill 77 introduced by Representative Miguel Garcia (D-ABQ). I believe his legislation is a 1) direct threat to civilian gun rights and ownership as granted New Mexico citizens under ARTICLE II – BILL OF RIGHTS, Sec. 6. of the New Mexico Constitution; and, 2) a direct threat to civilian gun rights and ownership as granted American citizens under the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
As I understand it, HB 77 would require good citizens to register their firearms with the state. When I think of requiring good citizens to be placed on “lists,” I think of what good people endured because of “lists” under Hitler and Stalin. Crazy people and thugs will not register their guns, so what is the purpose of requiring law-abiding citizens to do so? This scares me.
How can HB 77 require gun registration and regulate the private transfer of firearms between family members, friends and co-workers when the U.S. Constitution simply states that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed,” and the New Mexico Constitution simply states that “No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense… No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms?”
Please do all you can to prevent HB 77 from becoming law.
Thanks for your time and consideration.
New Mexico House Judiciary Committee To Hold Public Hearing This Monday On Sweeping Gun Control Measure In Santa Fe!
House Bill 77, state Representative Miguel Garcia’s sweeping gun control bill to regulate all private gun transfers, establish a state registry of lawful firearms owners and tax legal gun purchasers will be heard by the House Judiciary Committee on Monday, January 28, at 1:30 pm or upon adjournment of the House in Room 309 of the State Capitol in Santa Fe.
It is extremely important that as many people as possible attend and speak in opposition to this measure. This committee normally asks for a show of hands in the room for and against bills, and then allows each person to stand up and briefly speak from their seat. Arguments should be clear, concise and not repetitive. Please speak to HB 77, not to other gun control proposals in Washington or other gun-related bills filed in New Mexico.
Click here to view a map of the area around the capitol. You can access a free parking garage behind the capitol — it is bounded by Paseo de Peralta and Manhattan Avenue, Don Gaspar Avenue and South Capitol Street.
Also, continue contacting members of the House Judiciary Committee below in opposition to HB 77.
House Judiciary Committee
Rep. Gail Chasey, Chair (D-ABQ)
Rep. Georgene Louis, Vice-Chair (D-ABQ)
Rep. Eliseo Lee Alcon (D-Milan)
Rep. Cathrynn Brown (R-Carlsbad)
Rep. Zach Cook (R-Ruidoso)
Rep. Brian Egolf (D-Santa Fe)
Rep. Kelly Fajardo (R-Belen)
Rep. Miguel Garcia (D-ABQ *sponsor of the measure*)
Rep. Nate Gentry (R-ABQ)
Rep. Emily Kane (D-ABQ)
Rep. Moe Maestas (D-ABQ)
Rep. Terry McMillan (R-Las Cruces)
Rep. Paul Pacheco (R-ABQ)
Rep. Bill Rehm (R-ABQ)
Rep. Patricia Roybal Caballero (D-ABQ)
Rep. Mimi Stewart (D-ABQ)
Barack Obama, gun ban politicians, and media elitists are willing to say and do whatever it takes to destroy your gun rightsThursday, January 24th, 2013
NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre speaks the truth about why President Obama’s proposed “gun control” measures are hypocritical and will take away Americans’ Second Amendment rights to protect themselves. Here’s a snippet, but read LaPierre’s whole speech here and/or watch it here (below):
We’re told that to stop insane killers, we must accept less freedom — less than the criminal class and political class keep for themselves.
We’re told that limits on magazine capacity or bans on 100-year-old firearms technology — bans that only affect lawful people — will somehow make us safer.
We’re told that wanting the same technology that the criminals and our leaders keep for themselves is a form of “absolutism” and that accepting less freedom and protection for ourselves is the only “principled” way to live.
Think about what that means. Barack Obama is saying that the only “principled” way to make children safe is to make lawful citizens less safe and violent criminals more safe.
Criminals couldn’t care less about Barack Obama’s so-called “principles”! They don’t have principles — that’s why they’re criminals. …
by Hannibal Travis*
It is well known by genocide scholars that in 1939 Adolf Hitler urged his generals to exterminate members of the Polish race. “Who speaks today of the extermination of the Armenians?” Hitler asked, just a week before the September 1, 1939 invasion of Poland. However, while it is generally agreed that Hitler was well aware of the Armenian genocide, some genocide scholars and historians of the Ottoman Empire have questioned whether he actually made the above statement or even intended to exterminate portions of the “Polish race.”
Still, there is evidence that the massacre of the Ottoman Armenians helped persuade the Nazis that national minorities posed a threat to empires dominated by an ethnic group such as the Germans or the Turks. Furthermore, these minorities could be exterminated to the benefit of the perpetrator with little risk. Indeed, it was German officials who had smuggled out of the Ottoman Empire the leaders of the Young Turk regime, culpable for the deaths of over a million Armenians and a million or more other Christian minorities such as the Assyrians and Greeks. Diverse historical evidence suggests that Hitler viewed the Armenians and Poles as analogous; in several ways, his statement about the Armenians was consistent with his other beliefs and writings.
… To be clear, our family has differing views on gun rights and gun control. What we do agree on is that those who wish to score political points should not use a confused, misguided, 15-year old boy to make their case.
We ask those in the media and those who would use the media to make their political case, to not use Nehemiah as a pawn for ratings or to score political points. He is a troubled young man who made a terrible decision that will haunt him and his family forever. …
These are the words of New Mexico State Senator Eric Griego, speaking on behalf of his family. The senator’s nephew, Nehemiah Griego, “is accused of killing his parents Greg and Sarah Griego, along with 9-year-old Zephania, 5-year-old Jael and 2-year-old Angelina. The weapons used in the killings – a .22 rifle and an AR-15 rifle – belonged to his parents and were in the home legally… .” Despite the horrific nature of Nehemiah’s crime, despite the fact that the murders occurred just days ago, and despite the fact that an inaccurately labelled “assault rifle” was used, Senator Griego refuses to take up the panicked and simple-minded cause of “gun control.”
Guns don’t jump into people’s hands. Guns don’t have the power to control people’s minds. Gun control has no effect on reducing crime. For example, “the homicide rate in England and Wales has averaged 52% higher since the outset of the 1968 gun control law and 15% higher since the outset of the 1997 handgun ban.” Disarming citizens, forcing gun owners to get finger-printed and/or be put on lists, and banning semi-automatic weapons won’t do anything to stop violent crime. The crazies and thugs of our society will never register their guns nor will they be deprived from obtaining guns as they will just continue to get their weapons on the black market.
Those who advocate “gun control” are: 1) looking for quick fixes to complex problems, and/or 2) trying to seize/maintain political power by disarming good citizens. TAKE ACTION NOW TO PROTECT GUN RIGHTS.
by Daniel Pipes*
Were Barack Obama re-elected, I predicted two months before the Nov. 2012 presidential vote, “the coldest treatment of Israel ever by a U.S. president will follow.” Well, election’s over and that cold treatment is firmly in place. Obama has signaled in the past two months what lies ahead by:
- Choosing three senior figures – John Kerry for State, John Brennan for the CIA, and Chuck Hagel for Defense – who range from clueless to hostile about Israel.
- Approving a huge gift of advanced weapons – 20 F-16 fighter jets and 200 M1A1 Abrams tanks – to the Islamist government in Egypt despite the fact that its president, Mohamed Morsi, has becoming increasingly despotic and calls Jews “blood-suckers, … warmongers, the descendants of apes and pigs.”
- Reiterating the patronizing 35-year old tactic relied upon by anti-Israel types to condemn Israeli policies while pretending to be concerned for the country’s welfare: “Israel doesn’t know what its own best interests are.”
- Ignoring evidence of Cairo importing Scud missile parts from North Korea.
- Rebuffing the 239 House members who called for closing the PLO office in Washington in response to the PLO’s drive for state-observer status at the United Nations.
By Barry Rubin
As expected, Israel has once again made Benjamin Netanyahu its prime minister. The results were not as positive for him as they might have been but are good enough to reelect him.
While some might find this paradoxical, the results show that Israelis have a basic consensus and yet have very different ways of expressing their political positions. This isn’t surprising given the fact that 32 parties were on the ballot.