<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>FrontPage Magazine &#187; resolution</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/tag/resolution/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 31 Dec 2014 07:56:08 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>Judeophobia on Full Display at UCLA</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/ari-lieberman/judeophobia-on-full-display-at-ucla/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=judeophobia-on-full-display-at-ucla</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/ari-lieberman/judeophobia-on-full-display-at-ucla/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Nov 2014 05:19:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ari Lieberman]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Anti-Semitism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[BDS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divestment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[resolution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UCLA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Vote]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=245770</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Students vote for economic warfare against the Jewish State. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/la-me-ln-ucla-divestment-israel-20141119-001.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-245771" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/la-me-ln-ucla-divestment-israel-20141119-001.jpg" alt="la-me-ln-ucla-divestment-israel-20141119-001" width="331" height="260" /></a>Anti-Semitism on college campuses is nothing new and, partly as a result of the growing influence of groups like the Muslim Students Association (<a href="http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/MSA%20and%20Jihad%20Network%20v5b-1.pdf"><span style="color: #0433ff;">an affiliate of the Muslim Brotherhood</span></a>) and Students for Justice in Palestine, has witnessed a sharp rise in recent years. In fact, some of today’s institutions of higher learning are among the greatest purveyors of Judeophoboia and anti-Israel sentiment.</p>
<p>At San Francisco State University for example, an institution subsidized by the taxpayer, <a href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/ari-lieberman/taxpayers-fund-radical-profs-overseas-meeting-with-terrorists/"><span style="color: #0433ff;">Rabab Ibrahim Abdulhadi</span></a>, a pseudo professor of “Race and Resistance Studies,” was allowed (under false pretenses) to meet and collaborate with known terrorists on a university-funded excursion. And at Northeastern University, professors have been <a href="http://www.algemeiner.com/2012/09/28/video-shows-professors-teaching-anti-semitism-anti-israelism/"><span style="color: #0433ff;">videotaped</span></a> openly expressing Jew-hatred in the classroom with one professor stating quite candidly that he wears the label of anti-Semite as a badge of honor.  But when it comes to base anti-Semitic vitriol, the University of California, Los Angeles has the dubious distinction of being among the worst of the lot.</p>
<p>On November 18, at around the same time when Jewish worshipers were being hacked and shot to death in a Jerusalem synagogue, UCLA’s student government, by a vote of 8 to 2 with 2 abstentions, <a href="http://www.jta.org/2014/11/19/news-opinion/united-states/ucla-student-government-passes-israel-divestment-resolution"><span style="color: #0433ff;">passed a resolution</span></a> urging the university to divest from Israel and from American companies doing business with Israel.  Despite the fact that some 2,000 students signed a petition opposed to the pernicious measure, the student government, stacked with Judeophopes and their mindless partners in crime, acted as anti-Semites normally do and voted to target the Jews.</p>
<p>Last February, a similar resolution sponsored by the SJP <a href="http://www.jta.org/2014/02/26/news-opinion/united-states/ucla-student-council-rejects-divestment-resolution"><span style="color: #0433ff;">failed</span></a> by a vote of 7 to 5 provoking an embarrassing and memorable <a href="http://legalinsurrection.com/2014/02/video-ucla-student-melts-down-after-anti-israel-resolution-defeated/"><span style="color: #0433ff;">meltdown</span></a> by a BDS-supporting, student note-taker. It is ironic that the instant resolution was co-sponsored by groups like Queer Alliance and Bruin Feminists for Equality. Someone should remind these useful idiots that Palestinians <a href="http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/04/20/pinkwashing-difference-between-israel-palestinians-gay-rights/"><span style="color: #0433ff;">don’t take kindly to gays</span></a> and areas governed by Hamas and the Palestinian Authority are rife with so-called “<a href="http://www.palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&amp;doc_id=10767"><span style="color: #0433ff;">honor killings</span></a>” where women are often tortured and brutalized. This strange alliance merely demonstrates that when it comes to targeting Jews, radical leftists and their Islamist allies generally find common ground and put their difference aside.</p>
<p>What is also ironic is that the vote comes at a time when the Muslim Middle East is imploding. While dysfunctional countries like Iran, Syria, Iraq and Egypt are devoid of any semblance of democracy and brutally subjugate their people, Israel stands as a beacon of democratic values where minorities enjoy full civil rights and where tolerance is the norm rather than an aberration. Yet the student government saw fit to disregard the facts and instead painted a broad bull’s-eye over the Jewish State.</p>
<p>The vote also comes on the heels of a <a href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/ari-lieberman/from-gaza-to-ucla-israel-faces-multi-front-war/"><span style="color: #0433ff;">vindictive campaign</span></a> by UCLA’s honorary Brown Shirts to prevent Avi Oved, a Jewish undergraduate and economics major and former vice president of the UCLA student government, from serving as a UC Board of Regents student representative. The campaign failed, but is testament to the broad effort that the SJP is conducting to intimidate Jewish students. UCLA’s SJP’s chapter also tried to invalidate last February’s student government vote of two student government members who allegedly took sponsored trips to Israel that were allegedly subsidized by organizations affiliated with pro-Israel causes. That drive fell flat as well, but the students had to devote much time and effort defending themselves against spurious allegations laced with anti-Semitism.</p>
<p>Though the instant anti-Israel drive was boycotted by Jewish and pro-Israel groups, and the sad but predictable result amounts to nothing more than a publicity stunt with more bark than bite, the malevolent vote represents a black stain and a mark of shame on UCLA. Already, <a href="http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/major-ucla-donor-pledges-pull-funds-if-administration-backs-bds"><span style="color: #0433ff;">prominent</span></a> UC alumni and donors have voiced <a href="http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/second-ucla-donor-pledges-funding-cut-if-administration-doesnt-condemn-bds"><span style="color: #0433ff;">staunch opposition</span></a> to the BDS resolution and have made clear that they will cease donations to the university until it issues an unequivocal rejection and condemnation of the student government’s action.</p>
<p>It does appear that the pressure is having the desired effect. Just a day following the passage of the anti-Semitic resolution, Chancellor Gene Block <a href="http://newsroom.ucla.edu/stories/ucla-chancellor-gene-block-statement-on-student-vote-on-israel-divestment"><span style="color: #0433ff;">released a statement</span></a> plainly rejecting the BDS outrage, noting that it unfairly held Israel to a different standard. This axiom is of course ignored by the SJP and other Islamist and radical student groups whose platforms are ensconced in Jew-hatred and xenophobia.</p>
<p>While the Chancellor’s statement represents a step in the right direction, stronger action is clearly needed to stem the growing cancer of anti-Semitism that is so pervasive at UCLA. Until it is seriously addressed, we can expect more abominations from UCLA.</p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>. </b></p>
<p><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf" target="_blank"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> it on </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>Facebook.</b></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/ari-lieberman/judeophobia-on-full-display-at-ucla/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>11</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>United Nations Ignores Al-Qaeda Link to Syrian Rebels</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/joseph-klein/united-nations-ignores-al-qaeda-link-to-syrian-rebels/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=united-nations-ignores-al-qaeda-link-to-syrian-rebels</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/joseph-klein/united-nations-ignores-al-qaeda-link-to-syrian-rebels/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Aug 2012 04:35:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Joseph Klein]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[al Qaeda]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[China]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[resolution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Russia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Syria]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[United Nations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[veto]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=139612</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The U.S. rapidly entangles itself in an unsavory proxy war. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/AleppoIslamists_31072012.gif"><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-139616" title="AleppoIslamists_31072012" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/AleppoIslamists_31072012.gif" alt="" width="375" height="246" /></a>A day after Kofi Annan, the Joint Special Envoy for the UN and the League of Arab States for the Syrian Crisis, announced his decision to resign in frustration over the failure of the United Nations Security Council to pass a strong resolution that would enforce compliance with his six-point Syrian peace plan, Arab League members led by Saudi Arabia and Qatar went to the UN General Assembly for a symbolic vote on a resolution strongly condemning the Assad regime. The resolution said nothing about al Qaeda and other Islamist jihadists who are hijacking the armed opposition and committing their own atrocities.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/66/L.57">final draft resolution</a> passed on August 3rd, with 133 in favor, 31 abstaining and 12 against. In order to secure more votes in favor of the resolution, the measure&#8217;s Arab League sponsors had to water down its text.  They agreed to remove a demand that President Assad resign. They also agreed to water down a call for other nations to impose sanctions on Syria. Without such dilution, the resolution would most likely have failed to gain a supporting majority.</p>
<p>Nevertheless, the final resolution text retained its focus of condemnation on the Syrian regime. It called out the “the increasing use by the Syrian authorities of heavy weapons, including indiscriminate shelling from tanks and helicopters, in population centres and the failure to withdraw its troops and the heavy weapons to their barracks…”</p>
<p>After reciting a long litany of &#8220;widespread and systematic gross violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms by the Syrian authorities and pro-government militias,&#8221; the resolution made only a glancing reference to possible &#8220;human rights abuses by armed opposition groups.&#8221; While condemning all violence, &#8220;irrespective of where it comes from,&#8221; the resolution said that it was up to the Syrian regime to take the &#8220;first step in the cessation of violence.&#8221;</p>
<p>The General Assembly resolution also took a swipe at the Security Council &#8211; and, by implication, the two permanent members Russia and China that had used their veto power in that chamber to block a Security Council resolution calling for sanctions. The General Assembly resolution deplored &#8220;the failure of the Security Council to agree on measures to ensure the compliance of Syrian authorities with its decisions.&#8221;</p>
<p>Unlike the Security Council, which under the UN Charter has enforcement powers to back up its resolutions, General Assembly resolutions are unenforceable. The General Assembly resolution does not change a thing on the ground in Syria. Kofi Annan&#8217;s peace plan remains dead in the water. The UN observer mission in Syria has been unable to conduct any significant monitoring, has shrunk to about half of its original size and may well be removed altogether when its mandate runs out later this month. The violence continues unabated.  Arms are being sent by Russia and Iran to the Assad regime. Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey are arming the opposition.  Atrocities committed by the Assad regime are being increasingly mirrored by atrocities committed by the armed opposition, particularly as al Qaeda and other outside jihadist groups continue to increase their presence in Syria.</p>
<p>Nevertheless, the spin machine was on full display after the General Assembly vote as if some kind of game-changing event had taken place.</p>
<p>The Saudi Arabian UN Ambassador Abdallah Y. al-Mouallimi hailed the vote as a major diplomatic victory against the Assad regime. He said that he hopes &#8220;the message will be heard in Moscow and Bejing,&#8221; in an obvious reference to the double veto of the last Security Council resolution by Russia and China. His hopes were quickly dashed when Russia and China supported Syria in voting against the resolution, along with the likes of Iran, Cuba, Venezuela and North Korea. While Russia and China could not veto the General Assembly resolution, as they had in the Security Council, there was no sign of any softening of their position. Indeed, Russia&#8217;s UN Ambassador Vitaly Churkin charged that the resolution was very one-sided, evidencing &#8220;blatant support for the armed opposition.&#8221;</p>
<p>France, as usual, took the lead for the West in expressing vehement public support for anything that could be done to humiliate and help bring down the Assad regime.</p>
<p>French UN Ambassador Gérard Araud, who is also the president of the Security Council this month, praised the &#8220;colossal majority&#8221; that voted in favor of the General Assembly resolution. He said:</p>
<blockquote><p>I think it is obvious that there is a wide consensus in the international community to say to the government of Syria: &#8216;You have to cease the indiscriminate violence against the civilians, the violations of the Human Rights, the violations of the Humanitarian law when you shell civilian neighbourhoods and you have to enter into a political dialogue.&#8217;</p></blockquote>
<p>British UN Ambassador Mark Lyall Grant said his country was pleased that &#8220;an overwhelming majority&#8221; of the General Assembly had voted for &#8220;a tough resolution on Syria which condemns the brutality, the human rights abuses perpetrated by the Syrian regime.&#8221;</p>
<p>When I asked Ambassador Grant what he would say to critics of the resolution who complained that it was not balanced, and specifically that it did not take note of the role of al Qaeda and other Islamist jihadist groups as part of the armed opposition, he declared that the resolution was not meant to be balanced.  He painted a benign picture of the opposition, insisting that it &#8220;had to take up arms to defend itself and to defend its civilian neighbourhoods.&#8221;</p>
<p>Not to be outdone, however, Syrian UN Ambassador Bashar Ja&#8217;afari accused the resolution&#8217;s main sponsors, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Bahrain, of being hypocritical &#8220;despotic oligarchies.&#8221; The Syrian ambassador said of the Gulf countries providing arms to the opposition, “You cannot be a fireman and arsonist at the same time.”</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/joseph-klein/united-nations-ignores-al-qaeda-link-to-syrian-rebels/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>8</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Religious Left Opposes Pressure Against Iranian Nukes</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/mark-d-tooley/religious-left-opposes-pressure-against-iranian-nukes/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=religious-left-opposes-pressure-against-iranian-nukes</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/mark-d-tooley/religious-left-opposes-pressure-against-iranian-nukes/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 May 2012 04:10:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mark D. Tooley]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iran]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[presbyterian church usa]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[religious left]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[resolution]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=132126</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Even a bipartisan symbolic resolution is too much for the saints of social justice. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/pcusa.gif"><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-132127" title="pcusa" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/pcusa.gif" alt="" width="375" height="257" /></a>Bipartisan resolutions proposed in the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives, equally backed by Republicans and Democrats, are urging the “President to reaffirm the unacceptability of an Iran with nuclear-weapons capability and oppose any policy that would rely on containment as an option in response to the Iranian nuclear threat.”</p>
<p>So naturally the Religious Left is opposing these mostly symbolic statements, because largely pacifist prelates do not believe any situation, no matter how dire, ever merits even the implied contemplation of force.  They also are more concerned about military force from the U.S. or Israel than they are about nuclear weapons in the hands of apocalyptic Iranian mullahs.</p>
<p>Complaining that the congressional resolutions would “undermine diplomatic efforts,” the leftist churchmen warn the statements would set a “dangerously low threshold for war” by “ruling out containment,” possibly even, by some interpretations endorsing “military force against Iran now.”</p>
<p>The ecumenical complaint to members of Congress was organized by the Presbyterian Church (USA) chief Capitol Hill lobbyist. It was signed by Quaker and Mennonite officials, a left-wing Catholic order, and the lobby offices of the United Church of Christ and the United Methodist Church.</p>
<p>Noting that Iran’s theocracy since at least the late 1980s has “engaged in a sustained and well-documented pattern of illicit and deceptive activities to acquire nuclear capability,” the congressional resolutions cite Iran as the “most active state sponsor of terrorism,” according to the U.S. State Department.  They also recalled the U.S. Treasury Department’s finding last year that Iran had a “secret deal” to help al Qaeda. Of course they mentioned Iran’s genocidal threats against Israel.  And they pointed at the Islamic Republic’s “serious human rights abuses,” according to the United Nations, including “torture, cruel and degrading treatment in detention, the targeting of human rights defenders, violence against women, and ‘the systematic and serious restrictions on freedom of peaceful assembly’ as well as severe restrictions on the rights to ‘freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief.’”</p>
<p>The Congressional resolutions, noting Iran’s continued failure to comply with international non-proliferation standards, urge continued diplomatic and economic pressure on Iran until it ends its nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs. It also commends the “universal rights and democratic aspirations of the Iranian people.”</p>
<p>Leftist prelates in the U.S. of course are not particularly interested in disarming or democratizing Iran.  Instead, they complain the congressional resolutions are “undercutting” diplomacy, which “heightens the potential war.” They quote various critics claiming the resolutions resemble pre-2003 justifications for the U.S. overthrow of Saddam Hussein Iraq. They insist Iran has not yet decided for nuclear weapons. And they reiterate: “Direct, sustained diplomacy remains the single most effective way to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran and avert war. And they implore:  “We urge you to support diplomacy, not war, with Iran, and to oppose” the congressional resolutions.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/mark-d-tooley/religious-left-opposes-pressure-against-iranian-nukes/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>6</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Why the Palestinians Must Pay a Price</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/alan-m-dershowitz/why-the-palestinians-must-pay-a-price/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=why-the-palestinians-must-pay-a-price</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/alan-m-dershowitz/why-the-palestinians-must-pay-a-price/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Oct 2011 04:04:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Alan M. Dershowitz]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[armistice lines]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barak]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ehud barak]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mass casualties]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[offer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[resolution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[second intifada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[security council resolution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[state]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[violence]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=107084</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Rewarding violence will only produce more violence.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/pal-children1.jpg"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-107145" title="pal-children" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/pal-children1.jpg" alt="" width="378" height="284" /></a></p>
<p>The Palestinians are in the process of seeking sovereignty from the United Nations, but in doing so, they are asking for more than what was offered them in any prior negotiation with Israel—including during the talks involving President Clinton and Ehud Barak in 2000 and 2001. Rather than more, it is imperative that the Palestinians get less.</p>
<p>It is imperative to world peace that the Palestinians pay a price—even if it’s only a symbolic price—for rejecting the generous Clinton/Barak offer and responding to it with a second intifada in which 4,000 people were killed. It is also important that Israel not return to the precise armistice lines that existed prior to the 1967 war. If the Palestinians were to achieve a return to the status quo prior to Jordan’s attack on Israel in June of 1967, then military aggression will not have been punished, it will have been rewarded. That’s why Security Council Resolution 242—which was essentially the peace treaty that resulted from the end of the Six Day War—intended for Israel to retain territory necessary to give it secure boundaries (Indeed, in the formal application submitted by Abbas, he sought membership based on UN General Assembly Resolution 1810-11 of November 29, 1947, which would put the borders where they were before the Arab armies invaded the new Jewish state in 1948. This would reward multiple aggressions.)</p>
<p>Yet, however important it is that aggressive and unjustified violence not be rewarded, the international community seems bent on doing just that. If the end result of Jordan’s 1967 attack on Israel—an attack supported by the Palestinian leadership and participated in by Palestinian soldiers—is that the Palestinians get back everything Jordan lost, there will be no disincentive to comparable military attacks around the world. If the Palestinians get more than, or even as much as, they rejected in 2000 and 2001 (and did not accept in 2007), then further intifadas with mass casualties will be encouraged. A price must be paid for violence. That’s how the laws of war are supposed to work and there is no reason to make an exception in the case of the Palestinians.</p>
<p>I support a two-state solution based on negotiation and mutual compromise. But the negotiations must not begin where previous offers, which were not accepted, left off. They must take into account how we got to the present situation: The Arab rejection of the UN partition plan and the attack on the new Jewish state that resulted in the death of one percent of Israel’s population; the attack by Jordan and its Palestinian soldiers against Israel in 1967, which resulted in Israel’s capture of the West Bank; Israel’s offer to trade captured land for peace that was rejected at Khartoum with the three infamous &#8220;no’s&#8221;—no peace, no recognition, no negotiation; Israel’s generous offer of statehood in 2000-2001 that was answered by violence; and Olmert’s subsequent, even more generous, offer that was not accepted by President Abbas.</p>
<p>Efforts to achieve peace must look forward but they must not forget the past. A balance must be struck between not rewarding past violence and not creating unreasonable barriers to a future peace. But the Palestinians made it clear last week that they reject such balance.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/alan-m-dershowitz/why-the-palestinians-must-pay-a-price/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>21</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>UN Prolongs Palestinian Problem</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/moshe-dann/un-prolongs-palestinian-problem/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=un-prolongs-palestinian-problem</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/moshe-dann/un-prolongs-palestinian-problem/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Sep 2011 04:20:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Moshe Dann]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Afternoon Edition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gaza]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ministry of foreign affairs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[palestinian refugees]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Palestinian Statehood]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[region]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[resolution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sixty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[support]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[universal declaration of human rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[universal declaration of human rights 1948]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=106798</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[How a UN body fuels the fire of terror. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Unrwa.jpg"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-106934" title="Unrwa" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Unrwa.jpg" alt="" width="375" height="395" /></a></p>
<p>Supporters of Palestinian statehood prominently display &#8220;194&#8243; next to their flag. That number refers not only to its proposed place in the UN next-in-line, but their goal.</p>
<p>Citing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) as guarantor of the right to leave and return to one&#8217;s country, they use that to justify the &#8220;Palestinian right of return.&#8221;</p>
<p>But there is no such “right.” UNGA Resolution 194 (1948) refers to all refugees, Jewish as well as Arab, and does not confer automatic rights to return. Repatriation (or return) was suggested as one option, but this is based on conditions that Arabs have never fulfilled. Resettlement was also recommended in this and subsequent resolutions. All were rejected by the Arabs.</p>
<p>What to do with millions of Arab &#8220;refugees,&#8221; most of whom are cared for by UNRWA, is one of the most difficult and contentious issues that snarls any resolution of the dispute between Israel and the Arabs. UNRWA is at the core of the problem.</p>
<p>For sixty years, this agency has promoted an anti-Israel agenda that supports the &#8220;Palestinian right of return,&#8221; holds Israel alone as responsible for the plight of Arab refugees, and refuses to resettle them anywhere except in Israel.</p>
<p>Why, then, does Israel&#8217;s Ministry of Foreign Affairs support it?</p>
<p>Citing agreements, the MFA acknowledges that it cooperates with UNRWA&#8217;s humanitarian efforts, albeit with &#8220;reservations about [its] political aspects.&#8221; But making this distinction practically is impossible.</p>
<p>UNRWA&#8217;s humanitarian work can be assumed by the UN High Commission on Refugees (UNHCR), which assists all other refugees. Why continue to support a separate organization only for those who claim to be Palestinian refugees and their descendants?</p>
<p>Israel&#8217;s support for UNRWA, moreover, prevents donor countries from insisting on change and reducing or restricting funds, thus enabling one of the most anti-Israel organizations to flourish.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/moshe-dann/un-prolongs-palestinian-problem/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>22</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Miracle That Is Israel</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/joseph-puder/the-miracle-that-is-israel/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-miracle-that-is-israel</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/joseph-puder/the-miracle-that-is-israel/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Jun 2011 04:00:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Joseph Puder]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[aggressor nations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[british historian paul johnson]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[determination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jewish]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mandatory palestine]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[miracle]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[occupation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[resolution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[western democracies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[worst catastrophes]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=95512</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Established and defended against all odds.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/israelm.jpg"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-95562" title="israelm" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/israelm.jpg" alt="" width="464" height="323" /></a></p>
<p>At 63, the Jewish State is a relative newcomer to the family of nations, yet in just over two generations it has been able to catch up and exceed the accomplishments of the majority of the older Western democracies in practically every category of human endeavor, not to mention the newer states in Asia and Africa and the Middle East.  The eminent British historian Paul Johnson wrote of the Jewish State: “In the last half-century, over 100 completely new independent states have come into existence. Israel is the only one whose creation can fairly be called a <a href="http://calevbenyefuneh.blogspot.com/2011/05/israel-miracle.html">miracle</a>.”</p>
<p>Israel is a miracle because the Jewish state was established against all odds.  The Jewish people, having just suffered one of the worst catastrophes in its 4000-year history &#8212; the Nazi-engineered Holocaust &#8212; found the courage to withstand the genocidal onslaught of the well-equipped and numerically superior Arab armies. The aggressor nations included Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon, as well as contingents from Saudi Arabia, North Africa, and naturally the Palestinian-Arabs.</p>
<p>It was the determination of the Israeli-Jews to fight to the death rather than go like “sheep to the slaughter” that enabled the Yishuv &#8211; the term used for the Jewish community in Mandatory Palestine &#8211; to triumph over regular armies such as Egypt’s, which used aircraft, tanks, and heavy artillery against the Israelis who lacked such arms. Western allies, including the U.S., embargoed weapon sales to the region, but Egypt and Jordan were already well equipped by the British.</p>
<p>Ironically, had the Palestinian-Arabs accepted the 1947 UN Partition Plan, the Jewish State might have withered away in time, or remained a tiny enclave dependent on the good will of the Arabs.  Paul Johnson put it like this, “It was the<a href="http://www.jewishideasdaily.com/content/module/2011/5/10/main-feature/1/israel-the-miracle"> Arab leadership</a>, by its obduracy and its ready resort to force, that was responsible for the somewhat enlarged Israel that emerged after the 1949 armistice, and the same mind-set would create the more greatly enlarged Israel that emerged after the Six-Day War of 1967. In another of the paradoxes of history, the frontiers of the state, as they exist today, were as much the doing of the Arabs as of the Jews. If it had been left to the UN, tiny Zion probably could not have survived.”</p>
<p>Arab enemies of Israel and its western detractors, motivated by envy and residual anti-Semitism, harp on Israeli “occupation” and Palestinian rights of “self-determination.”  The Arab-Palestinians, unlike the Kurds or the Tibetans, have had numerous opportunities to assert their self determination. They rejected the 1947 UN Partition because they objected to the idea of sharing mandatory Palestine with the Jews and in so doing lost their opportunity for statehood.  Their intent was to destroy the nascent Jewish State rather than live side-by-side with it.  Unfortunately, not much has changed since 1947, especially when it comes to the mindset of Arab leaders.</p>
<p>The Palestinians, as has been said, never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity. In 1937 they rejected the British Peel Commission Partition plan, which would have given them sovereignty and a large percentage of the land.  Ben Gurion, Israel’s first Prime Minister, lamented in 1957 that had the Peel Commission recommendations been carried out, “the history of our people would have been different and six million Jews in Europe would not have been killed &#8211; most of them would be in Israel”</p>
<p>In the absence of peace, Israel has the legal right to administer the territories of Judea Samaria sanctified by the 1967 UN Resolution 242, which called for “territories for peace.” The UN Resolution called moreover for “territories” and not “all” the territories to be exchanged for peace.  By withdrawing from the Sinai and Gaza, Israel fulfilled its part of the Resolution, and it remains for the Arabs (Syria and the Palestinians) to negotiate peace with Israel without pre-conditions while forswearing terrorism, and recognizing Israel as a Jewish state</p>
<p>As part of the 1993 Oslo Accords signed at the White House lawn ceremony, Israel agreed to the establishment of a Palestinian state.  The Palestinians were, however, obligated to end incitement and violence against Israel, and eliminate the terrorist infrastructure. These obligations have never been met. Yasser Arafat rejected the proposed “end of conflict” at the Camp David Summit in July 2000 submitted by President Clinton and Prime Minister Barak.  Arafat did not want to end the “occupation” or create a functioning Palestinian state, and like his predecessors in 1947, he preferred to believe in the “weakness of the Jews” thinking he would able to destroy Israel with the Intifada he initiated in September 2000.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/joseph-puder/the-miracle-that-is-israel/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>48</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Munich Three Find Their Target: Israel</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/kenneth-levin/the-munich-three-find-their-target-israel/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-munich-three-find-their-target-israel</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/kenneth-levin/the-munich-three-find-their-target-israel/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Apr 2011 04:00:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Kenneth Levin]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[arab israeli war]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[armistice lines]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[arthur goldberg]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[control]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Council]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Defense]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[resolution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[return]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[security council resolution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[un security council resolution 242]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=91310</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[How the moral bankruptcy of today’s betrayal of Israel exceeds that of the betrayal of Czechoslovakia in 1938. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/israel23.jpg"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-91314" title="israel23" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/israel23.jpg" alt="" width="504" height="358" /></a></p>
<p>In 1938, the leaders of Britain, France and Germany met in Munich  to decide the fate of Czechoslovakia. Czechoslovakia was not invited.  The three conferees agreed to strip the targeted nation of the  Sudetenland, whose population consisted largely of ethnic Germans, and  transfer that territory to German control. This deprived the victim  state not simply of land but of those areas &#8211; mountainous, fortifiable -  necessary for Czechoslovakia to be able to defend itself.</p>
<p>Today, the same three nations are doing the same vis-a-vis Israel.  They are discarding UN Security Council Resolution 242, passed  unanimously in the wake of the 1967 Arab-Israeli war and since then the  cornerstone for all Middle East negotiations. They are ignoring the  language of the resolution and the explicit declarations of its authors  that Israel should not be forced to return to the pre-1967 armistice  lines; that those lines left defense of the country too precarious and  should be replaced by &#8220;secure and recognized boundaries&#8221; to be  negotiated by Israel and its neighbors.</p>
<p>Lord Caradon, Britain’s ambassador to the UN at the time and the  person who introduced Resolution 242 in the Security Council, told a  Lebanese newspaper in 1974: &#8220;It would have been wrong to demand that  Israel return to its positions of June 4, 1967, because those positions  were undesirable and artificial. After all, they were just the places  where the soldiers of each side happened to be on the day the fighting  stopped in 1948. They were just armistice lines. That’s why we didn’t  demand that the Israelis return to them, and I think we were right not  to&#8230;&#8221;</p>
<p>Arthur Goldberg, the American UN ambassador, made much the same  point, stating that the reference to &#8220;secure and recognized boundaries&#8221;  intentionally pointed to the parties negotiating new lines entailing a  less than complete Israeli withdrawal and that &#8220;Israel’s prior frontiers  had proved notably insecure.&#8221; Lyndon Johnson, then President, declared  Israel’s retreat to its former lines  would be &#8220;not a prescription for peace but for renewed hostilities.&#8221; He  advocated new &#8220;recognized boundaries&#8221; that would provide &#8220;security  against terror, destruction, and war.&#8221;</p>
<p>Subsequent American presidents have reiterated Israel’s right to defensible borders.</p>
<p>The dangers for Israel of a return to the pre-1967 cease-fire lines  are evident from even minimal consideration of the region’s topography.  Such a withdrawal would not only reduce the nation to a width of nine  miles at its center but would entail Israel’s handing over to people who  continue to call for her ultimate dissolution control of hill country  entirely dominating the coastal plane that is home to some 70% of  Israel’s population.</p>
<p>It would also give potential hostile forces beyond the Jordan River untrammeled access to those heights.</p>
<p>This was what the drafters of Security Council Resolution 242  sought to preclude. And this is what the Munich Three now choose to  ignore by calling upon the Quartet or the UN to abandon the emphasis on  negotiations between the parties and to present a plan of its own based  on Israeli retreat to the pre-1967 lines.</p>
<p>In the wake of the 1938 Munich agreement, British Prime Minister  Neville Chamberlain declared, of course, that the parties had achieved  &#8220;peace in our time.&#8221; But Britain and France also offered solemn promises  that, should Germany unexpectedly violate the agreement and move  against what remained of Czechoslovakia, they would come to the rump  nation’s defense.</p>
<p>Less than six months after Munich, Hitler conquered the rest of Czechoslovakia. Britain and France did nothing.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/kenneth-levin/the-munich-three-find-their-target-israel/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>16</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Libya: Another UN Disaster in the Making</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/stephenbrown/libya-another-un-disaster-in-the-making/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=libya-another-un-disaster-in-the-making</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/stephenbrown/libya-another-un-disaster-in-the-making/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Apr 2011 04:03:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Stephen Brown]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[battlefield]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[disaster]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ground]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[leadership]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[muammar gaddafi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nato allies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[resolution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[security council resolution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[urgent plea]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=90887</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[NATO finds itself in a mind-boggling catch-22. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/110304_libya_rebels.gif"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-90888" title="110304_libya_rebels" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/110304_libya_rebels.gif" alt="" width="375" height="290" /></a></p>
<p>Facing defeat and a possible massacre at the hands of a vengeful Muammar Gaddafi, Libyan rebel forces in the besieged city of Misrata have for the first time <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703789104576272281537022142.html?mod=WSJ_hp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsForth">called for</a> NATO or UN ground forces to intervene in the two-month old conflict. Up until now, the anti-Gaddafi insurgents have said it was important they alone depose the Libyan leader without the help of foreign troops. But the pounding the rebels are taking in Misrata from the Gaddafi forces’ heavy shelling, rockets and possibly cluster bombs, which NATO admits it is <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110419/ap_on_bi_ge/ml_libya">unable to stop</a>, is causing the city’s battlefield and humanitarian situation to deteriorate daily.</p>
<p>“We are calling for foreign forces to protect our citizens immediately,” said a member of Misrata’s leadership committee on Tuesday. “We want the UN or NATO on the ground. This is not a Western occupation or colonialism. This is needed to protect our people.”</p>
<p>The Misrata leadership committee’s urgent plea, however, flies in the face of UN Security Council Resolution 1973, which only allows NATO to set up a no-fly zone over Libya for saving civilian lives. It forbids intervention by foreign ground forces. President Barack Obama has stated on more than one occasion American soldiers will not land in Libya.</p>
<p>But the fact is, ground troops are now necessary if the civilian lives the UN said it wants to save are to be rescued. And if a reluctant NATO does acquiesce to the rebels’ urgent plea for help and send in “boots on the ground,” the Libyan ordeal shows the folly of attempting to wage war through UN mandates. Their rigid positions simply do not match a battlefield’s requirements and can lead to disaster, as may yet occur in Misrata.</p>
<p>Even before the Libyan rebels’ request, the United States and her NATO allies appeared to be preparing to circumvent Resolution 1973 and readying themselves for a ground force deployment. NATO labelled Misrata its “number one priority,” while Barack Obama, David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy, in a <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/16/libya-muammar-gaddafi/print">joint release</a> last week, called Gaddafi’s assault on Misrata a “medieval siege…to strangle its population into submission.” The three leaders said it would be “an unconscionable betrayal” to leave Gaddafi in power to wreak “a fearful vengeance” on Misrata’s “brave citizens.” Such “an unconscionable betrayal,” as these three leaders well know, can now only be avoided by NATO arms.</p>
<p>Britain is taking the first steps towards sending in ground forces. While NATO and other countries already have Special Forces operatives in Libya, the British government was the first to announce it was sending a contingent of <a href="http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3535492/Brits-take-ground-fight-to-Gaddafi.html">“experienced” officers</a> to Benghazi as a military liaison team. The British were reported to have put a brigade of <a href="http://www.thisissomerset.co.uk/news/Marines-placed-standby/article-3356176-detail/article.html">Royal Marines</a> on standby a month ago for possible intervention in Libya, and these officers probably constitute an advance team. Naturally, the British government contends the officers&#8217; presence in Libya is in accordance with UN Resolution 1973.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/stephenbrown/libya-another-un-disaster-in-the-making/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>8</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A Budget Is Born</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/arnold-ahlert/a-budget-is-born/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=a-budget-is-born</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/arnold-ahlert/a-budget-is-born/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Apr 2011 04:50:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Arnold Ahlert]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[congressional budget office]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Deficit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[John Boehner]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[political infighting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[resolution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[senate majority leader]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[senate majority leader harry reid]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Vote]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=90445</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[But how much is actually a fraud? ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/83011-u-s-president-barack-obama-right-and-house-speaker-john-boehner1.gif"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-90447" title="83011-u-s-president-barack-obama-right-and-house-speaker-john-boehner" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/83011-u-s-president-barack-obama-right-and-house-speaker-john-boehner1.gif" alt="" width="375" height="294" /></a></p>
<p>Despite all the rancor and political infighting on both sides of the aisle, the final Continuing Resolution (CR) for fiscal year 2011 was passed by comfortable margins in both chambers of Congress.  In the House, the vote was 260-167, with 59 Republicans and 108 Democrats rejecting the deal.  In the Senate, the final vote was 81-19 with 14 Republicans and 5 Democrats dissenting.  It will head to the president&#8217;s desk where Mr. Obama is expected to sign it.  Thus, the latest threat of a government shutdown has been averted.  But much like the president&#8217;s 2012 budget plan just unveiled Wednesday, the remainder of the 2011 budget is an exercise in fuzzy numbers deception. And probably as many Republicans as Democrats are hoping that the public won&#8217;t take notice of the ruse.</p>
<p>First, the compromise itself.  Republicans, under pressure from their freshman class in Congress, many of whom were the beneficiaries of Tea Party politics, started out with the intention of lopping $100 billion from the 2011 budget. $100 billion became $61 billion in fairly short order, already upsetting many of the new members who expressed their displeasure when 54 of them voted against the last continuous resolution designed to prevent the government from shutting down.  When an 11th hour compromise among the president, House Speaker John Boehner, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was reached, the number had been whittled down to $38 billion, with Boehner calling it the &#8220;best deal [Republicans] could get,&#8221; and president Obama touting it as the &#8220;biggest annual spending cut in history.&#8221;</p>
<p>Both men were apparently wrong.  According to a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimate, the &#8220;make-or-break&#8221; deal funding the federal government through the remainder of the fiscal year saves only $352 million.  Much of this is due to the kind of sleight-of-hand accounting in federal budgeting that makes hard numbers elusive, to say the least.  For example, $8 billion in cuts to domestic programs and foreign aid are offset by nearly equal increases in defense spending.  Other &#8220;cuts&#8221; come from projected spending that may never occur, and still others from seemingly arcane budget rules which allow them to be declared as such if they take away spending from one program, even if the money is used to fund increases in other parts of the legislation.  Such &#8220;savings&#8221; amount to $17.8 billion, yet virtually none of it is used to actually reduce the deficit.  Another factor is timing:  since the current fiscal year is more than half over, cuts in new spending authority, along with slower spending grants used for infrastructure projects, won&#8217;t be immediately registered on deficit summaries.</p>
<p>Some Republicans expressed their disdain.  First-year Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-KS) characterized the deal as &#8220;phantom savings&#8221; and promised to vote against it.  “It’s worse because of the expectations,” said an aide to another conservative House member. “We knew that not all of the $39 billion would be real cuts, but to find out that almost none of it was real was very disappointing.” An aid for the GOP senator questioned the deal as well.  “We were getting $2 billion a week,” he offered. “Then we end up with $350 million for six months?”</p>
<p>Yet Republican leadership successfully endeavored to keep yesterday&#8217;s vote in context, saying that it was the result of &#8220;cleaning up the Democrats&#8217; mess from last year,&#8221; a reference to the fact that the Democratically-controlled 111th Congress punted on their obligation to enact a budget for 2011.  This was the first time since modern standards were adopted in 1974 that Congress failed to enact an annual budget, which is why a series of continuing CRs&#8211;including this one&#8211;became necessary.  GOP leaders further reminded their members that this budget had to be resolved before the far more important work on the 2012 budget could begin.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/arnold-ahlert/a-budget-is-born/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>18</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Iran Unbowed</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/joseph-klein/iran-unbowed/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=iran-unbowed</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/joseph-klein/iran-unbowed/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Jun 2010 04:00:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Joseph Klein]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ambassador Rice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[arms embargo]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Brazil]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cargo]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cargo ships]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[China]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Council]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[enrichment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[financial restrictions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[France]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Great Britain]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iran]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iraq]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IRGC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Israel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lebanese government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lebanon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[North Korea]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nuclear enrichment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[passage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[proliferation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[resolution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[response]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Russia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[russian ambassador]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[s pass]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[security council resolutions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[seeking passage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Susan Rice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[turkey]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[united-states]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[verbal support]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Vote]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=62590</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[More sanctions on the Mullahs, but they don't seem to care. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/iran.jpg"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-62619" title="iran" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/iran.jpg" alt="" width="375" height="331" /></a></p>
<p>The UN Security Council approved a resolution yesterday (Wednesday, June 9th) imposing a fourth round of sanctions on Iran in response to its continued nuclear enrichment program, which is in violation of prior Security Council resolutions.  The vote was 12 in favor, 2 against (Brazil and Turkey) and 1 abstention (Lebanon).  The new resolution imposes new financial restrictions on Iran, expands an existing arms embargo, and authorizes a greater capacity to stop and search Iranian cargo ships. Targeted sanctions on specific individuals and entities were expanded. The resolution also includes measures directed against Iran&#8217;s Revolutionary Guard.</p>
<p>While the United States, Great Britain, and France were the resolution&#8217;s strongest sponsors, China and Russia also expressed their verbal support along with their votes &#8212; although the Russian ambassador added a major caveat in his response to a reporter&#8217;s question about Russia&#8217;s prospective sale of a sophisticated anti-aircraft system to Iran.</p>
<p>Lebanon&#8217;s decision to abstain was a pleasant surprise, considering the influence of Iran-backed Hezbollah in the Lebanese government. Brazil and Turkey, as expected, opposed the new resolution on the grounds that it could undermine a proposed nuclear fuel swap between Iran and the two countries. They seemed to forget that the European Union has been trying to negotiate with Iran since 2005 and the Obama administration waited 18 months while trying to engage Iran before seeking passage of this resolution.  Only when new sanctions became a real possibility did Iran come around to the fuel swap concept that it had first agreed upon and then promptly reneged on last fall.</p>
<p>U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice told reporters after the vote that the &#8220;resolution is strong, it’s tough and it’s comprehensive. And it is something that Iran fought very hard to prevent passage today. The effort, the time, the money, and the poise that they employed to try to prevent this resolution’s passage only underscores their understanding, that this is a major blow.&#8221;</p>
<p>Despite the ineffectiveness of the three prior resolutions, Ambassador Rice expressed confidence that the cumulative effect on Iran of all the resolutions is &#8220;harmful and hurtful.&#8221;</p>
<p>Iran remains unbowed. Its representative told the Security Council after the vote that it had no intention of changing its present course. He accused the United States and Great Britain in particular of continuing a long pattern of interference in Iran&#8217;s affairs and displaying a double standard vis-a-vis Israel. Ambassador Rice told reporters that these comments were &#8220;reprehensible, offensive, and inaccurate.&#8221;</p>
<p>On paper at least, the new resolution does appear to represent a significant move forward from the prior three. More specifically, the resolution prohibits Iran from investing in sensitive nuclear activities abroad, like uranium enrichment and reprocessing activities, as well as activities involving ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons. The ban also applies to investment in uranium mining.</p>
<p>States are prohibited from selling or in any way transferring to Iran various categories of heavy weapons (battle tanks, armored combat vehicles, large caliber artillery systems, combat aircraft, attack helicopters, warships, and certain missiles or missile systems). States are similarly prohibited from providing technical or financial assistance for such systems, or spare parts.</p>
<p>The resolution also sets up a new cargo inspection framework. States are expected to inspect any vessel on their territory suspected of carrying prohibited cargo, including banned conventional arms or sensitive nuclear or missile items. States are also expected to cooperate in such inspections on the high seas.</p>
<p>States are called upon to prevent any financial service and to freeze any asset that could contribute to Iran&#8217;s proliferation.</p>
<p>Most significantly, the resolution targets the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) for its role in proliferation and requires states to mandate that businesses exercise vigilance over all transactions involving the IRGC. Fifteen IRGC-related companies linked to proliferation will have their assets frozen. The IRGC is the major power center in Iran&#8217;s economic and military spheres as well as one of the government&#8217;s primary instruments for suppressing political dissent. Impairing the IRGC&#8217;s freedom of operations will be a significant accomplishment, if successful.</p>
<p>UN Security Council sanctions resolutions against pre-liberation Iraq, North Korea, and Iran have had a bad track record in actual practice. The resolutions have been easy for the sanctioned countries to evade through the use of multiple front entities, money laundering and trading partners unwilling to give up short term advantage for longer term peace and security.</p>
<p>Also, enforcement of the cargo inspection at sea will be a challenge if Iran, as expected, refuses to cooperate. When the French UN ambassador, for example, was asked what measures France would be willing to take in such a scenario, he refused to answer what he called a &#8220;hypothetical question.&#8221;</p>
<p>Most ominously, the Russian UN ambassador told reporters that Russia did not consider the sale of its sophisticated S-300 anti-aircraft system to Iran to be within the resolution&#8217;s scope. The S-300 missile defense system would no doubt be used by Iran to shield its nuclear sites against a potential air strike, should military force become necessary to stop Iran from producing nuclear bombs. The Russian ambassador is technically correct because the resolution&#8217;s ban on the transfer to Iran of certain missile systems is written in such a way that it creates a big loophole for Russia to walk through in delivering to Iran its ground-to-air missiles, including its S-300 anti-aircraft missiles and anti-missile interceptors.</p>
<p>The Obama administration will spin the latest sanctions resolution against Iran as a major diplomatic triumph and a significant obstacle in the way of Iran&#8217;s progress towards achieving nuclear arms capability.  But  until the S-300 loophole is closed, until the U.S. and its allies figure out a way to effectively stop evasions of the sanctions, and until enough countries show that they are willing to enforce the cargo inspections, the Obama administration might want to wait before it celebrates.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/joseph-klein/iran-unbowed/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>16</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Being Palestinian Means Never Having to Say You’re Sorry</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/asaf-romirowsky/being-palestinian-means-never-having-to-say-you%e2%80%99re-sorry/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=being-palestinian-means-never-having-to-say-you%25e2%2580%2599re-sorry</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/asaf-romirowsky/being-palestinian-means-never-having-to-say-you%e2%80%99re-sorry/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Jun 2010 04:01:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Asaf Romirowsky]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[acts of terrorism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[basis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Benjamin Netanyahu]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[country]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[democratic country]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[exchange]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[flotilla]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gaza]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[halo effect]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iran]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Israel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[kangaroo courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[land]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[minister benjamin netanyahu]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nuclear bomb]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nuclear bombs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Peace]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[peace activists]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[prime minister benjamin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[resolution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[right]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[un resolution 242]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[World]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=62278</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[When will the international community demand an apology from Hamas?]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/hamas1.jpg"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-62365" title="hamas" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/hamas1.jpg" alt="" width="400" height="507" /></a></p>
<p>It is predominately understood that Israel was in the right in her actions during the latest operation against the Gaza flotilla. Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was on the mark when he unequivocally stated that Israel “will never apologize for defending itself.”  The problem is not always being right but also being strategic which is Israel’s biggest challenge.</p>
<p>Consequently, the world was “outraged” the UN was “shocked” and once again we can see how Israel is held to a double standard that no other country in the world is held to. Israel is expected to <em>always </em>behave morally and treat the Palestinians with silk gloves in order not to hurt or offend them in any shape or form. The Palestinians, meanwhile, can do no wrong even when they openly engage in acts of terrorism.</p>
<p>Moreover, it is the hyper-sensitive focus on Israel by the global media outlets that draws attention to every flaw Israel has. Israel by no means is perfect but it is the only democratic country in the region which actually abides by a rule of law. The same freedoms we hold dear as Americans <em>can only be found in Israel</em>. Yet it is Israel that brings the U.N. Security Council together for more commissions and inquires than any other nation and holds anti-Israel kangaroo courts on a regular basis.  The stark contrast relates of course to the real threat – a nuclear Iran, which just a few days ago announced that it now has enough uranium for two nuclear bombs. And yet, somehow it is much easier for the world to focus on the “peace activists” of the flotilla.</p>
<p>The halo effect generated by Israel’s actions against Palestinians spawns the sympathy Palestinians want and yearn for as it depicts them “helpless” and illustrates how Israel is the true obstacle for peace. In fact, this is why the Palestinians and the Arab world at large love to quote UN resolution 242 whenever they have an opportunity. 242 has become the foundation for the land for peace formula drafted after the Six Day War, and a superficial reading seemingly places Palestinian/Arab brokers of peace in a position of strength. For Arabs, this “legal” prerequisite emphasizes the give and take aspect: if Israel valued peace, it would return land; if Arabs wanted land, they would give peace.</p>
<p>The reason Arabs love to quote 242 is that it is a deceptively simple equation; on the one hand it talks about the exchange of land-for-peace with Israel, meaning that there is room to negotiate peace. On the other hand, although we naively believe that it also calls for recognition of Israel as the Jewish state, that is not the case.</p>
<p>In theory they can say they really want peace but in practice it is very far from the truth. The resolution calls for “Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict.” It deliberately does not call for withdrawal from “all” or “any” because the resolution’s authors knew that such demands were unreasonable. As far as “peace” goes the resolution lays on the bureaucratic boilerplate and calls for “Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.”</p>
<p>The UN Resolution demands that Israel gives up some land in exchange for some, still unspecified, peace. Israel is still waiting. In the context of when the resolution was passed (November 1967) the Arab response was clear. 242 remains the best smokescreen for Palestinians and Arabs, since they say they want peace based on 242 but in the same breath, usually in Arabic, they reassure one another that they are committed to the “3 no’s of Khartum.” And indeed this position has not changed much over the past forty plus years: no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, and no negotiations with Israel is still what motivates many Palestinians in their yearning for Israel’s death.</p>
<p>Today, under the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority, “land-for-peace” automatically translates into “land-for-talk” because to most generous Americans and Europeans, talk – not peace – is all that Israel should expect, and possibly deserve, in exchange for territorial concessions. This is the motivation which drove Hizbullah to attack Israel in 2006 and Israel to act against Hamas in Gaza in 2009.</p>
<p>Talk is cheap. Land and lives are expensive. If the Palestinians really want to talk about Resolution 242 as the basis for anything, they should first get their own territories under control, stop firing rockets at Israeli towns, and start creating a decent civil society. Until then Israelis have learned a hard lesson that until the other side stops wanting to wipe Israel off the map, resolutions like 242 really aren’t worth the paper they’re written on and Israel will need to continue combating “peace activists” who work towards violence rather than true peace.</p>
<p><em> </em></p>
<p><em><a href="http://www.romirowsky.com/">Asaf Romirowsky</a> is a Senior Fellow at <a href="http://www.emetonline.org/about.html">EMET</a> and an associate fellow at the </em><em>Middle East</em><em> Forum.</em></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/asaf-romirowsky/being-palestinian-means-never-having-to-say-you%e2%80%99re-sorry/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>16</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Treason of the Academics</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/isi-leibler/treason-of-the-academics/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=treason-of-the-academics</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/isi-leibler/treason-of-the-academics/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 May 2010 04:01:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Isi Leibler]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Academic Freedom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[academic titles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Alan Dershowitz]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Anat]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Berkeley]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[board of governors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[boycott]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Col]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[country]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Department]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Freedom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Israel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[israeli universities]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[launching pads]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[London]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marc Tanenbaum]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[moslem nations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[political lexicon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[professor joseph]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Professor Joseph Klaffter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rachel Giora]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[resolution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[school]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[TAU]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tel Aviv]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tel aviv university]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[University]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[university senate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[US]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=60597</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Degenerate Israeli professors on the rampage.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/academic.jpg"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-60599" title="academic" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/academic.jpg" alt="" width="375" height="375" /></a><strong></strong></p>
<p><strong>This article is reprinted from <a href="http://wordfromjerusalem.com/">WordFromJerusalem.com</a>.</strong></p>
<p>In the politically correct world of infantile leftism, words like sedition and disloyalty have effectively been erased from the political lexicon. Indeed, those daring to employ such terms are automatically smeared as “McCarthyite” or fascist.</p>
<p>But despite Israel being surrounded by Moslem nations whose primary objective is to eliminate Jewish sovereignty from the region, a growing minority of Israeli academics, funded by Israeli taxpayers and Diaspora Zionist philanthropists, exploit their universities as launching pads to undermine and delegitimize their own country. Some even promote global boycott, divestment and sanctions of the very institutions which provide their salaries. They teach their students that the state in which they live was born in sin, that Israelis behave like Nazis and morally justify the campaigns by our enemies to demonize and delegitimize us.</p>
<p>What magnifies this obscenity is that university administrators feel obliged to maintain the continued tenure of such immoral and anti-social degenerates on the grounds of academic freedom. Can one conceivably visualize any other institution providing salaries to employees actively working towards its destruction?</p>
<p>The issue came to a head at the recent meeting of the Board of Governors of Tel Aviv University when Marc Tanenbaum, a long-standing American donor and supporter, submitted a resolution calling on the University Senate to review conditions governing the status of academics indulging in “inappropriate behavior” such as promoting academic boycotts of Israeli universities, and recommending that academics be prohibited from listing their affiliation or academic titles whilst engaged in domestic or international forums of a political nature.</p>
<p>The president, Professor Joseph Klaffter, intervened. Grasping the microphone from Tannenbaum, he railed against the resolution and proclaimed that under his watch such a resolution would never be carried and demanded that it be withdrawn. When the initiators called for a vote, he refused to submit the resolution and adjourned the meeting &#8211; ironically, on the spurious grounds of academic freedom. Tannenbaum resigned and pledged to mount a campaign to highlight the undemocratic manner in which the university authorities were protecting those who were actively undermining the university and the State.</p>
<p>Regrettably, the TAU scenario represents a microcosm of how the loony left have imposed a regime of madness in this country. It is noteworthy that Anat Kam, who exulted in stealing classified IDF military information in the name of freedom of expression and attempted to present herself as a heroic figure, was educated at TAU, in a  philosophy department in which professors called for a global boycott against Israel.</p>
<p>Examples of unacceptable behavior abound: the Chair of the Philosophy Department, Professor Anat Biletzki, is a close supporter of Asmi Bishari ,the Arab MK calling for the dismantling of Israel; Biletzki also gathered signatures for a high school student petition justifying  the right to refuse to serve in the army; Anat Matar, another lecturer at the philosophy department, initiated an (unsuccessful) campaign to deny the right of Col. Pnina Sharvit-Baruch, who headed the international IDF law division during the Gaza war, to lecture at its law school on the grounds that she would “justify the killing of civilians, including hundreds of children”; the Law School convened a conference on the subject of the alleged mistreatment of “political prisoners” at which one of the principal speakers was a former terrorist who had been sentenced to 27 years for throwing a bomb at Jews on a bus; Professor Adi Ophir campaigned to lobby   embassies in Tel Aviv to impose sanctions against Israel to prevent atrocities in Gaza; TAU academics were prominent signatories in a petition backing the US Berkeley  boycott against Israel; two professors, Anat Matar (who earlier participated in a London conference promoting a general and academic boycott of Israel) and Rachel Giora recently signed a petition denouncing The Boston Museum of Art for sponsoring an exhibit of Israeli medical and high tech achievements; etc etc.</p>
<p>Freedom of expression is a treasured feature of democracy but the dividing line must be drawn between academic freedom and breaching the law or indulging in subversive activity. Some liberals like Alan Dershowitz believe that students have “the right not to be propagandized by the classroom by teachers who seek to impose their ideology” and oppose the exploitation of universities by academics as anti-Israeli launching pads, but still insist that lecturers should never be limited even if they promote false narratives which poison the minds of the students and encourage them to hate their own country. Dershowitz believes that the danger of limiting such activity exceeds the damage that can be inflicted and is confident that ultimately truth will prevail.</p>
<p>But that does not justify those who delegitimize and demonize their country being provided tenure of employment. Setting aside the fact that in most societies under siege such behavior would be defined as subversive, I question whether for example such an approach would apply to an academic telling his students that Arabs are racially inferior or that Hitler’s genocidal policies were justified. Or for that matter would academics insisting that the world is flat still be assured tenure in the name of academic freedom? I vouch that such people would soon be out of their jobs and justifiably so.</p>
<p>But in this crazy environment it is only the mad left which claims to be victimized when their unconscionable behavior is exposed. For example, in a petition signed by over 80 TAU faculty members, Alan Dershowitz was denounced for indulging in “incitement” for having described as “hypocritical Stalinists”, academics like Rachel Giora and Anat Matar who support boycotts of Israel. Professor Hannah Wirth-Nesher went so far as to accuse Dershowitz of seeking to impose Teheran standards on Tel Aviv. Hebrew University Professor Shlomo Avineri observed that “the attempt to ‘protect’ those who belong to the left whilst employing McCarthy like methods against those associated with the right is nothing but hypocrisy, which has no place in academia”.</p>
<p>Regrettably the State has failed to act in this area because it has become intimidated by the term academic freedom. Likewise out of fear of being labeled McCarthyites or fascists, the Knesset has also been loath to do anything.</p>
<p>I have no doubt that opinion polls would confirm that the overwhelming majority of Israelis would vehemently agree that there are red lines beyond which academic freedom should not be permitted to justify antisocial or subversive behavior such as calling for the boycott of the state.</p>
<p>Universities are the incubators in which future leaders of society are nurtured. It is surely elementary common sense to ensure that such institutions lead the way for constructive participation in civil life. Academics should not be above the law or permitted to engage in anti-social activities on the grounds of academic freedom.</p>
<p>It is a disgrace that we have reached such a deplorable state of affairs under successive governments. Such activities would never have been tolerated under the social democratic Mapai hegemony and I have no doubt that our founding Prime Minister David Ben Gurion, a genuine Labor Zionist, would have turned the country upside down to bring an end to such outrageous behavior.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/isi-leibler/treason-of-the-academics/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>16</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Betraying Iranian Women</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/faith-j-h-mcdonnell/betraying-iranian-women/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=betraying-iranian-women</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/faith-j-h-mcdonnell/betraying-iranian-women/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 May 2010 04:06:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Faith J. H. McDonnell]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ali]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[America]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[american delegation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Anne Applebaum]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commission]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[day]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[democratic presidential nomination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[diana west]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Election]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Equality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Human]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[human rights commission]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[human rights leaders]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iran]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[iran iran]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[islamic republic of iran]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jennifer Rubin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Kirsten Gillibrand]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[letter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Michigan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[moral equivalency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NY]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[open vote]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[President Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[republic of iran]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[resolution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Secretary Clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Shariah]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sudan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tehran]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Thaddeus McCotter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S.






Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[united-states]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wafa Sultan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Women]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[women human rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[World]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=60265</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[U.N Commission on the Status of Women looks to Iran for advice on women's rights.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/iran.jpg"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-60348" title="iran" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/iran.jpg" alt="" width="375" height="375" /></a></p>
<p>On April 28, 2010, the Islamic Republic of Iran was elected to the United Nation’s Commission on the Status of Women (CSW). Possibly the world’s worst abuser of women, the <em>Shariah-</em>ruled country in which the fate of women and girls is left in the lecherous hands of misogynistic mullahs had been given membership on a commission founded to protect women’s rights and promote their equality. There was little media coverage of the announcement. And there has been little effort to prevent or denounce this obscene situation. But a few voices in Congress, some women human rights leaders, and, most poignantly, Iranian women themselves, have challenged the moral equivalency and cowardly silence of those that have failed to support women’s rights in Iran.</p>
<p>Iran’s CSW election was not surprising for the United Nations, whose moral vacuity remains proudly unmolested on First Avenue and the Palais des Nations. After all, Libya has chaired the Commission on Human Rights and Sudan has graced the Human Rights Commission with its presence during the most ferocious years of the genocide it has perpetrated in Darfur. But for the United States, it was a new low to remain silent in the face of such an outrage.</p>
<p>Iran was elected by acclamation. (Remember vote by acclamation? That was how Barack Obama got the Democratic presidential nomination, when between clenched teeth Hillary suspended the roll call.) In the case of Iran, it meant that none of the UN member states, including the U.S., asked for an open vote on Iran’s election to the women’s commission. Some say that this was a <em>quid pro quo </em>for Iran withdrawing its bid for a seat on the UN Human Rights Council. So human rights abuser Iran will only make UN policy on <em>women’s</em> human rights, not <em>human </em>human rights. The women of Iran are not greatly relieved by this devil’s bargain.</p>
<p>In past years, the U.S. worked to prevent abusers of women, genocidairres, and other assorted miscreants from achieving such positions of authority on UN commissions. American delegations to the UN encouraged the delegations of other countries to take a stand and to work together to present alternatives to objectionable candidates and to objectionable text in resolutions.</p>
<p>This was not an easy task. Dr. Mark Lagon described the challenges faced by the Bush Administration at the UN in an April 19, 2005</p>
<p><a href="http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/intlrel/hfa20782.000/hfa20782_0.HTM" target="_blank">testimony</a> at a subcommittee hearing of the House International Relations Committee (now House Committee on Foreign Affairs). Then Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs, Lagon explained that “some of the most egregious violators of human rights work through their regional blocs to gain nomination and election” to UN commissions “in order to protect themselves and their ilk from criticism.” The UN Commission on Human Rights (CHR) was being “increasingly confronted with bloc voting. . . shifting the CHR’s focus away from bedrock civil and political rights, and toward economic, social, and cultural rights.&#8221;</p>
<p>If</p>
<p>the United States could not prevent such elections or resolutions, it could at least be counted on to speak out about such injustices, even when criticized for acting “unilaterally.” For example, in the spring of 2004, in the midst of horrific genocide in Darfur, the UN Commission on Human Rights passed an insultingly weak resolution on Sudan. As Lagon later <a href="http://blogs.georgetown.edu/?id=11639" target="_blank">told students</a> at Georgetown University’s Institute of International Law and Politics, the U.S. tried to revise and/or replace text to more accurately respond to the atrocities taking place. When this failed, the U.S. opposed the resolution. A few days later, when Sudan was reelected to the Commission on Human Rights, Lagon said “the U.S. delegation reproached the body by walking out of the meeting and issuing a public, very critical, statement.”</p>
<p>Under the Obama Administration the U.S. delegation has twice</p>
<p><a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5g3_pRt7XUWThaEmE4cpP7XEgWeyw" target="_blank">walked out</a> of speeches by Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The most recent walkout occurred on <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1y5JRO7iPo&amp;feature=player_embedded" target="_blank">May 3, 2010</a>, at the UN Conference on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. But walking out on the Iranian dictator’s sound and fury about “the Zionist regime,” aimed, in part, at America, is less difficult than a public reproach of the UN body for approving Iran’s CSW election.</p>
<p>Writing in <em>Commentary </em>the day after the election, Jennifer Rubin</p>
<p><a href="http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/rubin/286911" target="_blank">raged</a>, “The U.S. couldn’t muster a word of opposition — not even call for a vote&#8230; why? Because our policy is not to confront and challenge the brutal regime for which rape and discrimination are institutionalized policies. No, rather, we are in the business of trying to ingratiate ourselves, and making the U.S. as inoffensive as possible to the world’s thugocracies. …It is what this administration does and how they envision raising <em>our</em> status in the world.”</p>
<p>Thankfully, “making the U.S. as inoffensive as possible to the world’s thugocracies” is not the approach of some members of the U.S. Congress. U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) released a</p>
<p><a href="http://wucr.wordpress.com/statements/sen-kirsten-gillibrands-statement/" target="_blank">statement</a> the day after the election in which she said, &#8220;Allowing Iran to sit on the commission, a nation where gender equality is only a dream and where women are subject to inequality in all aspects of their daily lives, makes a mockery of the commission’s work.&#8221;</p>
<p>Thaddeus McCotter, a Republican member of the House of Representatives from Michigan, also vehemently</p>
<p><a href="http://mccotter.house.gov/HoR/MI11/Home/The+UN+Salts+Iranian+Womens+Wounds+McCotter+Denounces+Irans+Election+to+the+UN+Commission+on+the+Sta.htm" target="_blank">denounced</a> Iran’s election the same day. McCotter declared, “By electing the Tehran butchers to its Commission on the Status of Women, a morally rancid United Nations has salted the wounds of the Iranian freedom movement’s regime-murdered martyrs.” The congressman went on to blast this outrage in an <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koUcgQurv_Y" target="_blank">interview</a> on Fox News in which he said that the moral relativism of the UN had allowed Iran to “get elected to sit as a predator monitoring the prey.” McCotter will also introduce a congressional resolution condemning Iran’s election. Hopefully, many other members of congress will join on the resolution as co-sponsors.</p>
<p>No corresponding calls denouncing Iran have been issued by the major feminist organizations, however. The National Organization of Women (NOW) is too busy gloating over the Wal-Mart lawsuit, cheering Democratic congressional delegates, and experiencing ecstasy over President Obama’s U.S. Supreme Court nominee to go about the messy and thankless job of defending the rights of women under Islam. On the other hand, the women’s rights group Equality Now does fight against the evils that affect women under <em>Shariah </em>in Iran and elsewhere, such as</p>
<p><a href="http://equalitynow.org/english/takeaction/newsalert/urgentalert_us_20100429_en.html" target="_blank">female genital mutilation</a> (FGM), rape, sex trafficking, and child marriage. But perhaps because they work too closely with the disease-ridden United Nations, Equality Now focuses on the symptoms rather than the disease.</p>
<p>Women’s ministries and commissions of left-leaning and “progressive” evangelical churches have also let down the women and girls of Iran by not protesting Iran’s farcical election. The feminists of</p>
<p><a href="http://www.episcopalwomenscaucus.org/" target="_blank">such groups</a> make careers of attempting to shatter every stained glass ceiling that they encounter. But given the opportunity to respond to the life-long suffocation of women under <em>Shariah</em>’s oppressive ceiling, they are silent. Officers and staff of these ministries spend their days issuing statements against gender inequality, sexual violence, and the perceived iniquities of misogynistic patriarchal Christianity, but <a href="http://www.episcopalchurch.org/documents/Hannas_UN_Thank_You.pdf" target="_blank">the UN is their friend</a>! And the progressive evangelicals of trendy organizations like <em>Sojourners</em> blog and twitter in their usual self-important, <a href="http://blog.sojo.net/" target="_blank">self-righteous</a> way about America’s greed, evil, and injustice. But there is neither a tweet nor a blog post expressing outrage over Iran’s ascendency to the UN commission.</p>
<p>Other than the resolution pending in Congress, there have not been many efforts to support the women of Iran. But on May 5, 2010, a group of women leaders sent an</p>
<p><a href="http://wucr.wordpress.com/endorsers-of-open-letter-to-hillary-clinton/" target="_blank">open letter</a> to Secretary Clinton protesting U.S. silence over the election of Iran to the women&#8217;s rights commission. The letter called on Clinton to &#8220;denounce Iran’s election. . . as an appointment that shocks the conscience of civilized societies&#8221; and demanded to know why the United States failed to request an open vote. &#8220;We await your public and clear condemnation of this outrageously sexist and insensitive decision by the U.N.,&#8221; the letter concluded.</p>
<p>Letter signers range from Ayaan Hirsi Ali to Wafa Sultan, Anne Applebaum to Diana West. They are international human rights and women&#8217;s rights specialists, attorneys, scholars, columnists, media figures, women in the arts, and activists of all sorts. Experience for experience they match and surpass the leftist feminists. But unlike their counterparts in liberal land, the letter signers &#8220;get it&#8221; and their integrity requires them to enter the realm of the so-called politically incorrect and intolerant on behalf of women living under <em>Shariah</em>.</p>
<p>The most courageous effort to prevent Iran’s CSW election came from Iranians themselves. On April 27, 2010, 214 Iranian women’s rights activists inside and outside Iran sent an</p>
<p><a href="http://www.iranhumanrights.org/2010/04/letter-economic-social-council/" target="_blank">open letter</a> to the United Nations urging that Iran not be allowed CSW membership. Supported by “the global sisterhood network” and endorsed by over a dozen other organizations, the Iranian activists told the UN that “for the sake of women‘s rights globally, an empty seat for the Asia group on CSW is much preferable to Iran‘s membership.” They reminded the UN that “discrimination against women is codified in [Iran’s] laws, as well as in executive and cultural institutions, and Iran has consistently sought to preserve gender inequality in all places, from the family unit to the highest governmental bodies.” Iran will certainly use the opportunity afforded to it on CSW “to curtail progress and the advancement of women,” they warned.</p>
<p>Not long after the UN failed to heed this warning and elected Iran to the CSW, the official Iranian news agency (IRNA) demonstrated the accuracy of the Iranian activists’ prediction when it stated that “Iran’s membership in the Commission on the Status of Women is important because “Iran’s views about the position of women,” through this podium, “can help reflect Islamic views about family and women.” The International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran also</p>
<p><a href="http://www.iranhumanrights.org/2010/05/islamic-republic-of-iran-elected-to-commission-on-the-status-of-women/" target="_blank">reported</a> IRNA’s claim that efforts against their candidacy were by “hostile groups and western media” trying to prevent Iran’s membership in the CSW through “poisonous propagation.” IRNA then boasted “their efforts were ignored by members of ECOSOC.” A sad indictment of all of the member nations of the UN.</p>
<p>The U.S. and other nations of the free world let down the Iranian people when they stood by and did nothing as the regime crushed the election protesters last year. Some brave Iranian freedom fighters are still</p>
<p><a href="http://www.iranhumanrights.org/2010/05/iran-political-executions-indication-of-governments-insecurity/" target="_blank">paying the cost</a> for that defiance. Five political prisoners were hanged in secret on May 9, and twenty-seven others are awaiting execution. Now by remaining silent about the election of Iran to the CSW the U.S. has failed to support the people of Iran again.</p>
<p>But this will not deter courageous Iranians. They will find encouragement from those who have decried the UN’s outrageous election. And it’s not too late for the U.S. to help. By supporting legislative efforts like Mr. McCotter’s resolution, the U.S. could, as that resolution’s last sentence says, “reaffirm its solidarity with the Iranian people in their continuing struggle for freedom and human rights, including equal rights for women in Iran.”</p>
<p><em>Faith J. H. McDonnell directs <a href="http://www.theird.org/Page.aspx?pid=183&amp;srcid=-2" target="_blank">The Institute on Religion and Democracy’s</a></em><em> Religious Liberty Program and Church Alliance for a New Sudan, and is the author of Girl Soldier: A Story of Hope for Northern Uganda’s Children (Chosen Books, 2007).</em></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/faith-j-h-mcdonnell/betraying-iranian-women/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>28</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Selective Outrage</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/joseph-klein/selective-outrage-2/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=selective-outrage-2</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/joseph-klein/selective-outrage-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Apr 2010 04:04:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Joseph Klein]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Abkhazia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Action]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Council]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[East Jerusalem]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Foreign]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[General Assembly]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Geneva]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Georgia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[georgian republic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Georgians]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[H.E. Mr]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Human]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[illegal evictions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[illegal occupation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[islamic extremist]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Israel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[jewish section]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Minister Vashadze]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[occupation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[order]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[President Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[resolution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Russia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[russian invasion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[russian secret police]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Secretary of State Hillary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[South Ossetia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[United]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[united nations human rights council]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=58494</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Silence on the brutal occupation of Georgia reveals global double standard toward Israel.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Georgian-Refugees.jpg"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-58495" title="Georgian-Refugees" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Georgian-Refugees.jpg" alt="" width="375" height="242" /></a></p>
<p>While the United Nations Human Rights Council continues to trump up charges against Israel for defending itself against Islamic extremist terrorists seeking its destruction, the Council continues to ignore real illegal occupation of territory within the democratic nation of Georgia by the Russian Federation.  The Obama administration is also guilty of sternly condemning Israel for planning to build additional housing in the Jewish section of East Jerusalem, while remaining largely silent in the face of continuing illegal evictions of Georgians from their homes in the Russian occupied territories.</p>
<p>By way of background, after a series of Russian and separatist provocations in the summer 2008, Georgian action to restore order in South Ossetia in early August of that year led to a Russian military crack-down that occupied the breakaway areas of both South Ossetia and Abkhazia, and other portions of Georgia as well. More than 200 Georgian civilians were killed during five days of the Russian invasion.</p>
<p>Russian troops and secret police remain in the breakaway areas which, in late August 2008, Russia unilaterally declared to be independent states. This action, in violation of international law, was strongly condemned by most of the world’s nations and international organizations.</p>
<p>H.E. Mr. Grigol Vashadze, Foreign Minister of Georgia, briefed United Nations correspondents on April 19, 2010 concerning the “deplorable” living conditions that still exist in these territories.  Ten thousand Russian soldiers and additional Russian secret police (successors to the dreaded KGB) continue to occupy approximately 20% of what was once an integrated Georgian republic before the Russian invasion. Five additional military bases are being opened.</p>
<p>The Georgian Foreign Minister accused the Russian occupiers of engaging in “ethnic cleansing.”  At least 400,000 Georgians are currently categorized as refugees or internally displaced persons.  Georgian civilians have been raped, abducted and evicted from their homes.  The evictions continue to this day.</p>
<p>Priests and nuns have been expelled from the occupied territories, making it practically impossible for Catholic Georgians still remaining there to practice their religion. There is a ban on the teaching of the Georgian language in the schools.  Georgian agricultural exports are under Russian embargo.</p>
<p>The International Court of Justice, in a case between two states where it had actual jurisdiction to issue a binding ruling, has ordered Russia to “refrain from any act of racial discrimination” against ethnic Georgians, including “sponsoring, defending or supporting” discriminatory acts in areas occupied by Russian military forces.  Russia has disobeyed the order.  Yet all we hear about from so-called human rights activists is Israel’s disregard of a non-binding advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice regarding the separation fence that has saved Israeli civilians from Palestinian suicide bombers.</p>
<p>Russia used its veto in the UN Security Council to block the continuation of the United Nations ground presence in Georgia.  However, over Russian objections, the UN General Assembly did support a Georgian-proposed draft resolution concerning people who had fled the occupied territories.  The resolution, passed last September, condemned the “forced displacement” of the population from Georgia’s Abkhazia and South Ossetia territories, strongly upheld the displaced populations’ right to return there, and defined these territories as parts of Georgia. It stressed the need to work out a schedule of voluntary, secure and unhindered return of all displaced persons and refugees.  Russia has disregarded the resolution and refuses to allow any refugees or displaced persons to return to their homes.</p>
<p>The General Assembly resolution called on Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to submit to the General Assembly a comprehensive report on the resolution’s implementation.  The report is due next month.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, the Georgian people continue to suffer at the hands of the Russian occupying forces.  The UN Human Rights Council does nothing about the daily violations of Georgian civilians’ human rights.  The Security Council is paralyzed.  Russia refuses to deal directly with the Georgian government, using its puppet regimes installed in Abkhazia and South Ossetia to communicate in the Geneva talks that were supposed to help resolve the outstanding issues.</p>
<p>Foreign Minister Vashadze praised President Obama for taking the time to meet personally with Georgia’s president and for continuing the positive strategic relationship between the two countries.  Fair enough. But we are still waiting for President Obama or Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to issue a stern public rebuke of Russia’s occupation of Georgian territories and of the eviction of Georgians from their homes at the same decibel level they directed towards Israel.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/joseph-klein/selective-outrage-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>15</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Democrats’ Putsch Against the Constitution</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/tony-blankley/the-democrats%e2%80%99-putsch-against-the-constitution/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-democrats%25e2%2580%2599-putsch-against-the-constitution</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/tony-blankley/the-democrats%e2%80%99-putsch-against-the-constitution/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Mar 2010 04:00:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Tony Blankley]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bill]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[congressional leadership]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[democratic speaker]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[health care bill]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[house]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[house nancy pelosi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[James Madison]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Justice Stevens]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[louise slaughter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nancy Pelosi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New York City]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[presidential signature]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[resolution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rule]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Senate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[senate bill]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[speaker of the house nancy pelosi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[support]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[system]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[text]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. Constitution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[united-states]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=54977</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[How far will Pelosi and Co. go to pass ObamaCare?]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/pelosi_lg2.jpg"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-54988" title="pelosi_lg" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/pelosi_lg2.jpg" alt="" width="375" height="261" /></a></p>
<p>The president and the Democratic congressional leadership are fighting furiously to pass, with no Republican votes, the ever-less-popular health bill. An Associated Press poll last week shows that four in five Americans don&#8217;t want the Democrats to pass a health care bill without bipartisan support, while almost all polls are showing support for the current bill to be at only 25 percent to 35 percent. And all polls show high negative intensity.</p>
<p>The resistance of our governing system to passing so unpopular a bill is so <a href="http://www.creators.com/conservative/tony-blankley/constitutional-law-101.html#" target="_blank">powerful</a> that it has driven Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Democratic Chairwoman of the Rules Committee Louise Slaughter — at least for the moment — to actually publicly consider violating the constitutional process for enacting laws.</p>
<p>Under their announced scheme, instead of following the constitutional voting process — i.e., 1) The House first votes for the despised Senate bill, then 2) after that is signed into law by the president and 3) the Senate passes the popular amendments that the House wants, 4) the House votes for that second Senate bill of amendments, which, 5) the President then signs into law — under the proposed scheme, the Senate bill would be &#8220;deemed&#8221; to have passed the House and become law without a presidential signature. Then the Senate would pass the House-demanded amendments, and the House members would then cast only one vote — for the amendments they like, rather than the underlying Senate bill they hate. Thus (so Pelosi&#8217;s theory holds) politically protecting House members, who could say they never actually voted for the publicly despised Senate bill.</p>
<p>But, as has been pointed out in several venues in the last few days, Article 1 Section 7 of the U.S. <a href="http://www.creators.com/conservative/tony-blankley/constitutional-law-101.html#" target="_blank">Constitution</a> requires that before a bill becomes law, (1) &#8220;Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it&#8221;; and, (2) &#8220;in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively.&#8221;</p>
<p>It is those two provisions of the Constitution that would be evaded: 1) the House vote, with the names and votes of the individual members publicly published, and 2) the president&#8217;s signature. That is James Madison&#8217;s precise 18th century version of transparency and accountability.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court has only recently emphasized that those procedures must be followed precisely.</p>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="15" align="right">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>In Clinton v. New York City, 1998, (In which the court found the line-item veto as passed by Congress unconstitutional), Justice Stevens wrote the majority opinion:</p>
<p>&#8220;The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 is a 500-page document that became &#8216;Public Law 105-33&#8242; after three procedural steps were taken:</p>
<p>(1) a bill containing its exact text was approved by a majority of the Members of <a href="http://www.creators.com/conservative/tony-blankley/constitutional-law-101.html#" target="_blank">the House of Representatives</a>;</p>
<p>(2) the Senate approved precisely the same text; and (3) that text was signed into law by the President. The Constitution explicitly requires that each of those three steps be taken before a bill may &#8216;become a law.&#8217;&#8221; Article I, Section 7.</p>
<p>And:</p>
<blockquote><p>&#8220;The procedures governing the enactment of statutes set forth in the text of Article I were the product of the great debates and compromises that produced the Constitution itself. Familiar historical materials provide abundant support for the conclusion that the <a href="http://www.creators.com/conservative/tony-blankley/constitutional-law-101.html#" target="_blank">power</a> to enact statutes may only &#8216;be exercised in accord with a single, finely wrought and exhaustively considered, procedure.&#8217; Chadha, 462 U.S., at 951.&#8221;</p></blockquote>
<p>Some have argued that the &#8220;Gephardt Rule&#8221; (House Rule XXVII) — in which a similar &#8220;self-executing rule&#8221; &#8220;deemed&#8221; the House to have voted on a new debt ceiling, is valid precedent. Wrong. That rule was for a joint resolution — not a bill. A joint resolution is a guide to the House. It is not a bill under the Constitution and has no force of law. Because a president has nothing to do with a resolution, a self-executing rule is valid for a resolution, but not for a bill.</p>
<p>It speaks to the sturdiness of the <a href="http://www.creators.com/conservative/tony-blankley/constitutional-law-101.html#" target="_blank">system</a> our founders installed that it is, as intended, so resistant to passing major legal and cultural changes against the overwhelming will of the public. So resistant that, in frustration, the Democratic speaker of the House has been driven to consider breaking her oath of office and violate the Constitution in order to get her way. Presumably, when she is better counseled, she will dismiss this wayward idea.</p>
<p>Should she follow through on her threat, however, the product would not be a law, but a nullity — an aborted, inert thing.</p>
<p>It would be, in essence, an attempted congressional putsch against the Constitution.</p>
<p>But still our governing system would not be broken as long as the president would do his constitutional duty — as assuredly he would — and neither sign nor veto it, but rather, publicly declare it a nullity, tear it up and burn it, as one would a piece of trash.</p>
<p>I refuse to conjecture on any alternative action by the president.</p>
<p>In other news, the White House spokesman last week engaged in an indecorous public exchange with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.</p>
<p><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden" /> <input id="jsProxy" onclick="jsCall();" type="hidden" /> <input id="gwProxy" type="hidden" /> <input id="jsProxy" onclick="jsCall();" type="hidden" /> <input id="gwProxy" type="hidden" /> <input id="jsProxy" onclick="jsCall();" type="hidden" /> <input id="gwProxy" type="hidden" /> <input id="jsProxy" onclick="jsCall();" type="hidden" /> <input id="gwProxy" type="hidden" /> <input id="jsProxy" onclick="jsCall();" type="hidden" /> <input id="gwProxy" type="hidden" /> <input id="jsProxy" onclick="jsCall();" type="hidden" /></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/tony-blankley/the-democrats%e2%80%99-putsch-against-the-constitution/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>18</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Nancy Pelosi&#8217;s Deficient Cleaning Service</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/michellemalkin/nancy-pelosis-deficient-cleaning-service/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=nancy-pelosis-deficient-cleaning-service</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/michellemalkin/nancy-pelosis-deficient-cleaning-service/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Mar 2010 04:04:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Michelle Malkin]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2006 midterm elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Capitol Hill]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[chaka fattah]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Charlie]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chief of Staff Joe Racalto]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Committee]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Democratic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Don]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[eric massa]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ethics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ethics panel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[evil]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Frank]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[house]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[house nancy pelosi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[house speaker pelosi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mark Foley]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[merry maid]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mr. Foley]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mr. Massa]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nancy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nancy Pelosi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New York]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Office]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[public ridicule]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rep. Barney Frank]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rep. Massa]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rep. Patrick Kennedy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[republican leadership]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[resolution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[scandal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sordid]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Speaker Pelosi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Steven Gobie]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trust]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[xx chromosomes]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=54667</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The House Speaker has done nothing to drain Washington's scandal-filled swamp.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/large_080325_nancy_pelosi_quell_infighting.jpg"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-54669" title="Pelosi Convention" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/large_080325_nancy_pelosi_quell_infighting.jpg" alt="" width="453" height="321" /></a></p>
<p>&#8220;Maybe it will take a woman to clean up the House,&#8221; Nancy Pelosi boasted before the 2006 midterm elections. Looks like those XX chromosomes didn&#8217;t give her much advantage over the old cleaning crew. The swamp she was supposed to drain is overflowing. And fewer than four years after a sordid sexual predation scandal involving a creepy congressman rocked the Republican Party, a sordid sexual predation scandal involving a creepy congressman is now rocking the Democratic Party.</p>
<p>The same questions that dogged House leaders then are dogging House Speaker Pelosi now: What did she and her staff know, and when did they know it?</p>
<p>On Thursday afternoon, by a vote of 402-1, the House overwhelmingly passed a privileged resolution offered by the Republican leadership demanding a formal House Ethics Committee investigation of Pelosi and her (mis)handling of harassment allegations concerning disgraced former New York Rep. Eric Massa. The soft-on-corruption ethics panel (see under &#8220;Rangel, Charlie&#8221;) had decided to shut down its investigation after Massa abruptly resigned on Monday.</p>
<p>But with reports piling up on how Massa kept a Capitol Hill playhouse filled with young, low-paid male staffers, and how Pelosi&#8217;s office had fielded complaints of his bizarre and inappropriate behavior back in October, the House decided to pry the lid back open and put a stop to what the resolution calls the &#8220;public ridicule&#8221; the seeming cover-up has invited.</p>
<p>Housecleaner Pelosi cannot be pleased by the second-guessing of her handiwork. Color her an un-merry maid. Even Democratic Rep. Patrick Kennedy, fresh from his raving House floor meltdown over media coverage of the Massa mess, voted for the GOP-initiated House resolution. Finally: Bipartisanship we can believe in!</p>
<p>With the exception of lone Democratic Rep. Chaka Fattah who voted &#8220;no&#8221; and 27 members (including those who sit on the House Ethics Committee) who voted &#8220;present&#8221; or &#8220;not voting,&#8221; every other member of Pelosi&#8217;s House supported the petition to direct the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to investigate fully &#8220;which House Democratic leaders and members of their respective staffs had knowledge prior to March 3, 2010 of the aforementioned allegations concerning Mr. Massa, and what actions each leader and staffer having any such knowledge took after learning of the allegations.&#8221;</p>
<p>The resolution stipulates that &#8220;numerous confusing and conflicting media reports that House Democratic leaders knew about, and may have failed to handle appropriately, allegations that Rep. Massa was sexually harassing his own employees have raised serious and legitimate questions about what Speaker Pelosi as well as other Democratic leaders and their respective staffs were told, and what those individuals did with the information in their possession.&#8221;</p>
<p>Democratic Rep. Barney Frank, who earned a House Ethics Committee slap on the wrist in 1990 after using his congressional office to fix parking tickets for male prostitute Steven Gobie, was one of those leaders in the know. After voting for the resolution, he disclosed for the first time that Massa had invited one of his young staffers to dinner. &#8220;Although this was not an ethical violation,&#8221; Frank said in a published statement, one of his senior staffers was informed of the dinner and alerted Massa&#8217;s Chief of Staff Joe Racalto.</p>
<p>In other words: Frank&#8217;s office knew it smelled illicit. And Frank would know.</p>
<p>Racalto went on to contact Pelosi&#8217;s office directly in October. Tick, tick, tick. Five months later, in the wake of Massa&#8217;s own self-professed proclivity for tickle parties and victim/witness accounts of Massa&#8217;s alleged sexual assaults on his Navy underlings, Pelosi is pooh-poohing the scandal: &#8220;I have a job to do and not to be the receiver of rumors.&#8221; Translation: Don&#8217;t bother me with concerns about my members&#8217; indiscretions. I&#8217;m busy. How quickly we&#8217;ve accelerated from the &#8220;most ethical&#8221; House ever to &#8220;see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.&#8221;</p>
<p>There was a time when Pelosi the protector held House leaders to the highest standards and expectations in guarding young people working on Capitol Hill. During the GOP Mark Foley scandal, she inveighed: &#8220;The children who work as Pages in the Congress are Members&#8217; special trust. Statements by the Republican Leadership indicate that they violated this trust when they were made aware of the Internet stalking of an underage Page by Mr. Foley and covered it up for six months to a year.&#8221;</p>
<p>Yet, she remains silent on the plight of the 20-somethings with whom Massa was keeping house under circumstances that rate an Ick Factor of 10-plus. Massa&#8217;s alleged targets are someone&#8217;s children, too.</p>
<p>Deflecting accountability for her own office&#8217;s violations of trust, Pelosi feigned sympathy for Massa and attributed his impaired ethical judgment to his medical condition (he has cancer). &#8220;Poor baby,&#8221; she said through gritted teeth. He&#8217;s &#8220;a very sick person.&#8221; So, what&#8217;s Pelosi&#8217;s excuse?</p>
<p><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden" /> <input id="jsProxy" onclick="jsCall();" type="hidden" /> <input id="gwProxy" type="hidden" /> <input id="jsProxy" onclick="jsCall();" type="hidden" /></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/michellemalkin/nancy-pelosis-deficient-cleaning-service/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>9</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Iran and the Threat of the Revolutionary Guard</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/paul-e-vallely-and-fred-gedrich/iran-and-the-threat-of-the-revolutionary-guard/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=iran-and-the-threat-of-the-revolutionary-guard</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/paul-e-vallely-and-fred-gedrich/iran-and-the-threat-of-the-revolutionary-guard/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Feb 2010 05:05:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Paul E. Vallely and Fred Gedrich]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Administration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Afghanistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ali Larijani]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ali Training]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[America]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[american embassy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ayatollah ali khamenei]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bush Administration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[capability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Corps]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Council]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[country]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[death to america]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dictatorship]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[driving force]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[economic sanctions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Embassy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[engagement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[force]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[garrison]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[George W. Bush]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Guard]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hasn]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hezbollah]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hillary Clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intelligence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iran]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[iranian regime]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iraq]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IRGC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Isfahan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Islamic  Republic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ite]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jerusalem]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Khuzestan Province]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lavizan District]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Leader Khamenei]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[leadership]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lebanon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lt. Col. William Higgins]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marine Barracks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[military dictatorship]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Newsflash]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nuclear warhead]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nuclear Weapons]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[overtures]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Parliament]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[political leadership]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[President Ahmadinejad]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[private engagement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[public]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Quds]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[range missiles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reagan administration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[regime]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[remedy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[resolution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Revolution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Revolutionary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[roadside]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[roadside bombs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Saudi Arabia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Secretary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Secretary Clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[security council resolution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Shi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[state]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tact]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[team]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tehran]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Terrorism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[terrorist state]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[theocratic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tour]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[united-states]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Venezuela]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[William Buckley]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[william higgins]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[year]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[year one]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=51715</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[And what the Obama administration has to do to get the Mullahs’ attention.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/rev.jpg"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-51722" title="rev" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/rev.jpg" alt="" width="450" height="294" /></a></p>
<p>Team Obama, clearly exasperated that Iran’s terrorist state hasn’t reciprocated to its public and private engagement overtures, took a new tact during U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s recent Mideast tour.  The secretary declared that the Islamic Republic’s Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) is supplanting the country’s clerical and political leadership and moving the nation toward a “military dictatorship.”  And the administration is now seeking yet another U.N. Security Council resolution as a remedy.</p>
<p>Newsflash to Team Obama:  Iran’s theocratic rulers, president, and their IRGC protectors share the same nuclear weapons and terrorism goals and are the driving force behind the regime’s 31-year one-sided “Death to America” war. They have collectively and successfully thwarted all previous economic sanctions imposed by the United States and the United Nations.</p>
<p>There are plenty of reasons why the Iranian regime (dating back to the time of the Reagan administration) and the IRGC (during the George W. Bush administration) have been labeled as terrorists by the United   States. With the consent of the Iranian regime, IRGC members participated in seizing the American embassy in 1979 and holding 52 hostages for 444 days – in violation of international law and millennia of diplomatic protocols.  Its Quds Force used Hezbollah proxies to target and bomb the U.S. embassy and the Marine Barracks in Lebanon, bomb U.S. residences in Saudi Arabia, and kidnap and murder American captives (such as William Buckley and USMC  Lt. Col. William Higgins). The Quds Force now manufactures and supplies lethal roadside bombs (IEDs) to Shi’ite militias in Iraq and the Taliban in Pakistan and Afghanistan that kill and maim American troops.</p>
<p>If that isn’t bad enough, the U.N.’s nuclear watchdog (IAEA) recently said the regime, with the IRGC leading the way, may be on the verge of producing a nuclear warhead to go along with their long-range missiles, which many believe will further threaten regional and global peace and security. Others believe Iran already possesses a nuclear capability and is in the process of achieving the capability of matching warheads to missiles. Surprisingly, many Americans know little about the IRGC, which wields considerable security, political and economic clout in Iran.  Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini created the IRGC in 1979 primarily to safeguard the ideal of his Shi’ite Islamic Revolution, protect his regime from domestic and foreign enemies, and export his brutal brand of Islamic fundamentalism to neighboring states.</p>
<p>The IRGC operates independently from Iran’s regular military, reporting directly to Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.  It currently has about 200,000 members assigned to special army, air force, navy and intelligence units – in all 30 Iranian provinces.   At the behest of the Supreme Leader during the past year, the IRGC cracked down on innocent Iranians protesting the questionable reelection of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Islamic Republic’s 31st anniversary celebration. The IRGC exports the revolution through their notorious Quds (Jerusalem) Force.  This force has about 20,000 highly trained personnel specializing in international terrorism, armed conflict and support of proxies in Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, the West Bank and Gaza.</p>
<p>Former and current IRGC members occupy 14 of 21 cabinet positions, about 90 of 290 parliament seats, and a host of local mayorships and council seats.  Past and present IRGC members include President Ahmadinejad, ambassador to Iraq Hassan Kazemi-Qomi and parliament speaker Ali Larijani. The IRGC is also a business conglomerate controlling some 500 companies active in a wide range of industries including nuclear power, banking, insurance, and recreation.</p>
<p>The IRGC and Quds Force headquarters are located in Tehran, the latter in the former U.S. embassy.  The IRGC oversees at least seven nuclear facilities, including those at Isfahan, Natanz, and Qom.  And the IRGC/Quds Force operates at least 20 terrorist training centers including the Imam Ali Training Garrison, Tehran; Bahonar Garrison near Karaj Dam; and the Abouzar Garrison, Ahwaz, Khuzestan Province.   Lethal roadside bombs are produced by Sattari Industries in Tehran’s Lavizan District.</p>
<p>The IRGC and Quds Force are currently led by Maj. Gen. Mohammed Ali Jafari.  He was appointed by Supreme Leader Khamenei in 2007.  His portfolio includes command of Iran’s nuclear weapons and missile programs, relations with countries like Venezuela and terror proxies like Hezbollah and Hamas, and liaison with intelligence organ Ministry of Intelligence and Security.</p>
<p>One cannot fault Secretary Clinton for putting the well-deserved spotlight on the IRGC.  However, her declaration about it becoming an emerging “military dictatorship” misses the mark.  In reality, it doesn’t matter whether Iran is ruled by clerics or a card-carrying IRGC member as president. The IRGC will still continue developing nuclear weapons, engaging in terrorism, oppressing millions of freedom-seeking Iranians, ignoring Team Obama’s rapprochement overtures and economic sanction threats, and dismissing another worthless U.N. Security Council resolution watered down by Iran’s security council veto-wielding friends in Russia and China.</p>
<p>The time has come for Team Obama to shelve its idealistic, naïve and dangerous “open-hand” diplomacy in favor of “bold and aggressive” action against Iran. The administration must support the Iranian Opposition organizations.  The best way to get the Iranian regime’s attention would be to inform them that President Obama will:</p>
<p>(1) Ask Congress to pass a resolution making Iranian “regime change” a strong U.S. policy (similar to what Congress and President Clinton did for Iraq in 1998);</p>
<p>(2) Direct, under executive authority or with congressional permission, precise military strikes on Iranian nuclear development sites as well as regime targets like terrorist training facilities, IRGC and Quds Force headquarters. This will be done if Iran doesn’t cease its nuclear weapons program and supporting radical Islamic/global caliphate activities;</p>
<p>and</p>
<p>(3) Overtly and covertly encourage and support all Iranian opposition and freedom seeking groups to foster regime change.</p>
<p>Let’s “hope” President Obama makes these policy “changes” before it’s too late. Global peace and security depend on it.</p>
<p><strong>Army Maj. Gen. Paul E. Vallely, retired, is chairman of <em>Stand Up America</em>, a member of the Iran Policy Committee and co-author of <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Endgame-Blueprint-Victory-War-Terror/dp/0895260662/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1266990395&amp;sr=1-3"><em>Endgame</em></a>.  Fred Gedrich is a foreign policy and national security analyst who served in the Departments of State and Defense.</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/paul-e-vallely-and-fred-gedrich/iran-and-the-threat-of-the-revolutionary-guard/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>18</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Dead-End Diplomacy</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/william-r-hawkins/dead-end-diplomacy/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=dead-end-diplomacy</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/william-r-hawkins/dead-end-diplomacy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Jan 2010 05:02:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[William R. Hawkins]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Action]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Administration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[amp]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[atomic energy agency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Beijing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[board resolution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[business]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[China]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[china cooperation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chinese]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cooperation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[David Loevinger]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Deficit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[definition of diplomacy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Department]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dialogue]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[diplomatic efforts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[economic dialogue]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[economic sanctions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[enduring power]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Energy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[enrichment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[enrichment facility]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Executive Secretary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[form]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Geithner]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Henry Paulson]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hillary Clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[international atomic energy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[international atomic energy agency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iran]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[meaningful action]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mention]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[model]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New York]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[North Korea]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nuclear enrichment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nuclear Weapons]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[OIL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[power]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[President Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[program]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[resolution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rogue]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sanctions on iran]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Secretary of State Hillary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Secretary Timothy Geithner]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Strategic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tehran]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[TIME]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Timothy Geithner]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trade]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Treasury]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[treasury secretary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[united-states]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[uranium enrichment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wall Street]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wall Street Journal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Washington]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[year]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=46139</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Obama administration allows China to block sanctions on Iran.  ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-46140" title="CHINA_Sco_1" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/CHINA_Sco_1.jpg" alt="CHINA_Sco_1" width="400" height="315" /></p>
<p>As Iran assumes an increasingly despotic form at home while expanding its pursuit of nuclear weapons, which the regime feels will be its ultimate guarantee of enduring power, the United States’ response is hampered both by the support Tehran receives from China, and by the conflicted views on U.S. policy toward China within the Obama administration.</p>
<p>On January 6, China <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6045E720100105">blocked a U.S. initiative to impose additional economic sanctions</a> on Iran through the UN Security Council. In New York, Chinese UN ambassador Zhang Yesui <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/05/AR2010010503427.html">announced</a> that “This is not the right time or right moment for sanctions because the diplomatic efforts are still going on.” The Chinese Foreign Ministry repeated this argument in Beijing this week. In fact, several different negotiating tracks have been going on since 2003. During that time, Iran has made steady progress in its weapons research.</p>
<p>Most recently, Tehran had missed the end of the year deadline set by President Obama to respond to his offer of carrots in exchange for halting its nuclear enrichment program. The Obama administration thought it had won a pledge from China to adopt a firmer stance on Iran after Beijing endorsed an International Atomic Energy Agency governing board resolution denouncing Tehran&#8217;s recently disclosed Qom uranium enrichment facility. But the November IAEA resolution did not provide for any meaningful action, and indeed it is such action against Iran that China wants to avoid. Beijing knows that words are cheap and can be uttered without meaning. That is its definition of diplomacy.</p>
<p>Thus, the New Year brought to naught the notion of U.S.-China cooperation on strategic issues that the Obama administration had launched during the summer. This is not how things were supposed to be. In a joint July <a href="http://treasury.gov/press/releases/tg234.htm">op-ed</a> in <em>The Wall Street Journal</em>, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner described the “New Strategic and Economic Dialogue” with China that would take place later that month. The S&amp;ED was an expansion of the Strategic Economic Dialogue (SED) started by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson during the Bush administration. It was designed to put control of China policy in his department’s hands. As CEO of Goldman Sachs, Paulson had been deeply involved in financial deals with China and did not want to rock the boat.</p>
<p>The new Obama arrangement brought the State Department (but not the Pentagon) into the diplomatic process. In theory, the S&amp;ED would balance the business interests that had dominated China policy with a true strategic element that could look at what Beijing was doing with the capital, technology and production capacity that the business model had given it. The core concept remained, however, to forge “a positive, cooperative and comprehensive relationship with Beijing” as it expanded into a global power. As Clinton and Geithner wrote:</p>
<blockquote><p>“Simply put, few global problems can be solved by the U.S. or China alone. And few can be solved without the U.S. and China together…..the solution to nonproliferation challenges turn in large measure on cooperation between the U.S. and China.”</p></blockquote>
<p>There was no mention of North Korea or Iran by name in regard to nuclear proliferation, but it has been clear for many years that Washington is reluctant to press Beijing on issues like the trade deficit because it wants Chinese help controlling the rogue states that Beijing supports. At the same time, though, the U.S. is afraid to press China too hard on the rogue states out of fear of retaliation against American business interests.</p>
<p>In his testimony to the Senate and House foreign relations committees last October, David Loevinger, the Treasury’s Executive Secretary and Senior Coordinator for China Affairs &amp; the Strategic and Economic Dialogue, <a href="http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/tg292.htm">said</a>, “We will continue to encourage the Chinese to strengthen efforts to counter the threat of North Korea and Iran&#8217;s nuclear weapons program.” But that was his only mention of non-proliferation efforts in his long, prepared statement that concentrated on the Chinese business model of recycling the U.S. trade deficit into purchases of mounting Treasury debt.</p>
<p>While Beijing has been blocking actions by others against Iran, its aid to Tehran have been increasing. China-Iran trade reached $29 billion 2008, a nearly 40 percent increase over 2007. China imports oil from Iran and pays for it with exports of manufactured goods and equipment. Over 100 state-owned Chinese corporations operate in Iran, with investments concentrated on energy development (both oil and natural gas) and infrastructure construction, including dams, airfields, shipyards, and ports. China is mining titanium and planning new rail lines. Beijing is undermining UN and U.S. sanctions rather than being held accountable. China is being allowed to profit from its policy rather than being made to pay a price for supporting Tehran.</p>
<p>This seems unlikely to change. The Treasury, with its business model of foreign relations, still seems in charge of China policy. The Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control is responsible for enforcing the sanctions on Iran and on those who do business with the Tehran regime, yet current economic sanctions on Iran are not even being enforced when it comes to Chinese firms trading in the United States. According to a recent <em>Wall Street Journal </em><a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126256626983914249.html?mod=googlenews_wsj">report</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p>“Chinese companies banned from doing business in the U.S. for allegedly selling missile technology to Iran continue to do a brisk trade with American companies, according to an analysis of shipping records.”</p></blockquote>
<p>Of particular note was state-owned China Precision Machinery Import-Export Corp., which made nearly 300 illegal shipments to U.S. firms since a ban was imposed on CPMIEC and its affiliates in mid-2006. The <em>WSJ</em> reported:</p>
<blockquote><p>“The CPMIEC shipments, worth millions of dollars, include everything from anchors and drilling equipment to automobile parts and toys. In many cases, CPMIEC acted as a shipping intermediary &#8212; activity also banned under a 2006 presidential order.”</p></blockquote>
<p>President Obama continues to say that it would be unacceptable for Iran to develop a nuclear weapons capability. But the policy of relying on China to constrain Tehran is as much a failure today as it was during the Bush Administration. A large factor in that failure over the last seven years has been to trust the Treasury Department to get the job done. The Iran threat and its Chinese sponsor are national security issues and should be entrusted to departments that have national security as their prime function. In the end, it will likely be the Pentagon that will have to settle the score.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/william-r-hawkins/dead-end-diplomacy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>As standoff with Iran continues, U.S. prepares targeted sanctions &#8211; washingtonpost.com</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2009/jlaksin/as-standoff-with-iran-continues-u-s-prepares-targeted-sanctions-washingtonpost-com/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=as-standoff-with-iran-continues-u-s-prepares-targeted-sanctions-washingtonpost-com</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2009/jlaksin/as-standoff-with-iran-continues-u-s-prepares-targeted-sanctions-washingtonpost-com/#respond</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Dec 2009 19:41:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jacob Laksin]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Administration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[AIM]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ajar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[anonymity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[apparent interest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[balancing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[balancing act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Crackdown]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[deadline]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[discrete elements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[door]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fall]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gesture]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intention]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iran]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iran Sanctions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[iranian government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[iranian protesters]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[iranian public]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[islamic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Islamic  Republic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[isolation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[kind]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nuclear program]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nuclear weapon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[official]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[petroleum]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[posture]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[President Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[program]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[public]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Push]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[republic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[resolution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[shift]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[standoff]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[struggle]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[table]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tehran]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tehran government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[World]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[year end]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=44216</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Obama administration is readying sanctions against discrete elements of the Iranian government, including those involved in the deadly crackdown on Iranian protesters, marking a shift to a more aggressive U.S. posture toward the Islamic republic, U.S. officials said. Ten months after President Obama set a year-end deadline for Iran to engage with world powers [&#8230;]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Obama administration is readying sanctions against discrete elements of the Iranian government, including those involved in the deadly crackdown on Iranian protesters, marking a shift to a more aggressive U.S. posture toward the Islamic republic, U.S. officials said.</p>
<p>Ten months after President Obama set a year-end deadline for Iran to engage with world powers on its nuclear program, the government in Tehran has failed to respond in kind, other than an abortive gesture in the fall.</p>
<p>Now, in what may be a difficult balancing act, officials say the administration wants to carefully target sanctions to avoid alienating the Iranian public &#8212; while keeping the door ajar to a resolution of the struggle over Iran&#8217;s nuclear program. The aim of any sanctions is to force the Tehran government to the negotiating table, rather than to punish it for either its apparent push to develop a nuclear weapon or its treatment of its people.</p>
<p>&#8220;We have never been attracted to the idea of trying to get the whole world to cordon off their economy,&#8221; said a senior U.S. official, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue. &#8220;We have to be deft at this, because it matters how the Iranian people interpret their isolation &#8212; whether they fault the regime or are fooled into thinking we are to blame.&#8221;</p>
<p>As a result, top officials show little apparent interest in legislation racing through Congress that would punish companies that sell refined petroleum to Iran. &#8220;Sanctions would not be an alternative to engagement,&#8221; another senior official said. &#8220;Our intention is to keep the door open.&#8221;</p>
<p>via <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/29/AR2009122903415.html?hpid=topnews">As standoff with Iran continues, U.S. prepares targeted sanctions &#8211; washingtonpost.com</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2009/jlaksin/as-standoff-with-iran-continues-u-s-prepares-targeted-sanctions-washingtonpost-com/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>William McGurn: Obama Puts the Dis in Dissident &#8211; WSJ.com</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2009/jlaksin/william-mcgurn-obama-puts-the-dis-in-dissident-wsj-com/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=william-mcgurn-obama-puts-the-dis-in-dissident-wsj-com</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2009/jlaksin/william-mcgurn-obama-puts-the-dis-in-dissident-wsj-com/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Dec 2009 17:04:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jacob Laksin]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[11 years]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[arsenal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[brutalize]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bullies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[China]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Council]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cuba]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[December]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dissidents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fire]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[group]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[house]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iran]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[letter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Liu Xiaobo]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[marching in the streets]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[National]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[national security council]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[new year]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[political reforms]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president of the united states]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[President Raul Castro]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[price]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[prison]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[raul castro]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[regimes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[resolution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Revolution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[security forces]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sentences]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[shortage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[united-states]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[weapon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[White]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[White House]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[William McGurn]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[writing a letter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wsj]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[year]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=44011</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Here&#8217;s a timely New Year&#8217;s resolution the president might do well to deliver to his National Security Council: &#8220;When it comes to nasty regimes that brutalize their people, we will never again forget that the most powerful weapon in a president&#8217;s arsenal is a White House photo-op.&#8221;The December headlines remind us that we have no [&#8230;]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Here&#8217;s a timely New Year&#8217;s resolution the president might do well to deliver to his National Security Council: &#8220;When it comes to nasty regimes that brutalize their people, we will never again forget that the most powerful weapon in a president&#8217;s arsenal is a White House photo-op.&#8221;The December headlines remind us that we have no shortage of these nasty regimes. In China, the government sentences Liu Xiaobo to 11 years in prison for writing a letter calling for legal and political reforms. In Iran, security forces fire on citizens marching in the streets. In Cuba, pro-government goons intimidate a group of wives, mothers and sisters of jailed dissidents—with President Raul Castro characterizing these bullies as &#8220;people willing to protect, at any price, the conquests of the revolution.&#8221;In all these cases, the cry goes up: Where is the president of the United States?</p>
<p>via <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703278604574624551416209452.html">William McGurn: Obama Puts the Dis in Dissident &#8211; WSJ.com</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2009/jlaksin/william-mcgurn-obama-puts-the-dis-in-dissident-wsj-com/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Object Caching 2229/2264 objects using disk
Content Delivery Network via cdn.frontpagemag.com

 Served from: www.frontpagemag.com @ 2014-12-31 03:16:32 by W3 Total Cache -->