Wednesday, July 30, 2014

US 2014 elections must be canceled to force US political class 'out of the shadows.' A country with no southern border isn't a country. Elections in a non-existent country are meaningless

7/29/14, "Jeff Sessions: John Boehner 'Surrenders to a Lawless President'," Breitbart, Matthew Boyle

"Senate Budget Committee ranking member Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) said in a statement Tuesday that House Speaker John Boehner’s border crisis working group’s legislation is a “surrender” to a “lawless president.”

“The Obama Administration has openly declared its plan to implement a unilateral executive amnesty for 5–6 million more illegal immigrants,” Sessions said. He went on:

"This unlawful amnesty—urged on by congressional Democrats—would include work permits, taking jobs directly from millions of struggling American citizens. Any action Congress might consider to address the current border crisis would be futile should the President go forward with these lawless actions. Congress must speak out and fight against them. It must use its spending power to stop the President’s executive amnesty. That the House leaders’ border package includes no language on executive actions is surrender to a lawless President. And it is a submission to the subordination of congressional power."

At issue is the House GOP bill to address the border issue, which does not include language sought by Sessions and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) to attempt to stop Obama from expanding his “deferred” deportation of certain illegal aliens to as many as six million people.

The bill includes $659 million for the border crisis and makes a few minor policy changes intended to facilitate the speedy return of tens of thousands of children who have streamed across the border this year.

Sessions said the omission of language addressing Obama's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program is infuriating.

After years of falling wages and rising joblessness, American workers are pleading for someone to hear them,” Sessions said. “How can it be that our President is brazenly advertising that he will nullify and strip away American workers’ immigration protections, and their own elected leaders will not rise to their defense? Or to the defense of our laws and our Constitutional order?”

Sessions also argued that Boehner’s plan expedites asylum requests for illegal aliens who seek it, rather than expediting their removal from the United States:

"There are other grave concerns with the Granger package as well. Because it does not fix our asylum rules and loopholes, the end result of the additional judges and hearings will be more illegal immigrants gaining asylum and access to U.S. welfare. It is a plan for expedited asylum, not expedited removal. Nor will this package make our rogue President actively enforce anything, coming nowhere close to the kinds of reasonable enforcement activities needed to restore the interior application of our immigration laws."

Sessions cited how Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid may try to include the entire Gang of Eight bill in any conference committee with the Boehner-Granger package. Sessions called on all lawmakers to refuse to support the legislation.

“And finally, a package that is silent on blocking amnesty creates an opportunity for Senate Democrats to add elements of their party’s open borders and mass immigration agenda,” Sessions said.This legislation is unworthy of support.

In response to the conference committee concerns, whereby Senate Democrats would try to include the entire comprehensive Gang of Eight bill in this package, Boehner issued a statement promising he would not let that happen."...


Comment: Obama's 2012 re-election saved John Boehner's life. Boehner immediately told elected House GOP members that they lost badly, Obama won, the nation spoke, elected GOP must act like losers and ignore voters who elected them. In Jan. 2013 House GOP Majority "Leader" Boehner continued to publicly work for the executive branch, voiding the US Constitution's separation of powers and nullifying all elections in which a Republican was elected.


Obama's 2012 victory gave new life to John Boehner:
12/8/12, “Once Boxed-In, Boehner May Finally Be Master Of The House,” NPR, Frank James


The day after Obama's 2012 re-election GOP House Speaker Boehner told elected House GOP members that despite holding a majority in the House they "lost badly:"

11/10/12, "Boehner Tells House G.O.P. to Fall in Line," NY Times, Jonathan Wiseman, Jennifer Steinhauer

"On a conference call with House Republicans a day after the party’s electoral battering last week, Speaker John A. Boehner dished out some bitter medicine, and for the first time in the 112th Congress, most members took their dose.

Their party lost, badly, Mr. Boehner said, Mr. Boehner said, and while Republicans would still control the House and would continue to staunchly oppose tax rate increases as Congress grapples with the impending fiscal battle, they had to avoid the nasty showdowns that marked so much of the last two years.

Members on the call, subdued and dark, murmured words of support — even a few who had been a thorn in the speaker’s side for much of this Congress.

It was a striking contrast to a similar call last year, when Mr. Boehner tried to persuade members to compromise with Democrats on a deal to extend a temporary cut in payroll taxes, only to have them loudly revolt. 

With President Obama re-elected and Democrats cementing control of the Senate, Mr. Boehner will need to capitalize on the chastened faction of the House G.O.P. that wants to cut a deal to avert sudden tax increases and across-the-board spending cuts in January that could send the economy back into recession. After spending two years marooned between the will of his loud and fractious members and the Democratic Senate majority, the speaker is trying to assert control and many members seem to be offering support.

[Ed. note: The US once had a two party system. A large country with only one functioning political party is a dictatorship. ]

(continuing): “To have a voice at the bargaining table, John Boehner has to be strong,” said Representative Tom Cole of Oklahoma, one of the speaker’s lieutenants. Most members were just taught a lesson that you’re not going to get everything that you want. It was that kind of election.”"...


In 2013 GOP House Majority "Leader" Boehner continues to publicly nullify all elections in which a Republican won, silence voices of voters who successfully elected their representatives, void separation of powers granted by the US Constitution, and command subservience to the executive branch:

1/19/13, "A minority posture for House GOP," The Hill, by Hooper, Berman  

"House Republicans appeared to be coming to grips with a stark realization as they returned to Washington from a three-day retreat here — they have a majority in name only.

The party begins the 113th Congress with reduced numbers and confronting a popular president and an increased Democratic majority in the Senate. "...


7/17/14, "Boehner: House Has No Plans to Defund Unconstitutional Acts by Obama,", Brittany M. Hughes

"House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) indicated today that if President Barack Obama takes actions that exceed his constitutional authority, the House of Representatives has no plans to use its own constitutional authority to withhold funding from those actions."...


12/15/13, "Breaking The UniParty," Angelo Codevilla,
 "So long as the Uniparty exists, mere voters will have no way of affecting what the government does."  


John Boehner and his band have opted not "to use the constitutional power they have to refuse to appropriate money for Obamacare":

9/17/13, "The Obama-Boehner Project," Angelo M. Codevilla,

"The Republican Party owes its majority in the House of Representatives – and John Boehner his speakership thereof – to the American people’s dislike of Obamacare. Because the US Constitution is explicit that the US government may expend only funds appropriated by Congress, Obamacare has existed strictly at the sufferance of the House leadership since that majority took office in January 2011. But John Boehner and his chosen band have thwarted the majority of Republican congressmen’s desire to use the constitutional power they have to refuse to appropriate money for Obamacare."...

"Angelo M. Codevilla: Angelo M. Codevilla is professor emeritus of international relations at Boston University. He served as a U.S. Senate Staff member dealing with oversight of the intelligence services. His book Peace Among Ourselves and With All Nations is forthcoming from Hoover Institution Press." 


GOP has merged with Democrats:

2/20/13, As Country Club Republicans Link Up With The Democratic Ruling Class, Millions Of Voters Are Orphaned,” Angelo Codevilla, Forbes
“Increasingly the top people in government, corporations, and the media collude and demand submission as did the royal courts of old.”… 


Comment: It's fine if Republicans find their ideology compatible with Democrats'. They simply need to file paperwork making their Democrat status official.  


Tuesday, July 29, 2014

Thanks to both political parties, US southern border has been erased, therefore US no longer exists. American people must address this reality by demanding cancellation of 2014 US elections

One US Senator speaks on behalf of the former United States. GOP E won't join him because they're thrilled about open borders:

7/29/14, "Jeff Sessions Can't Believe What He Sees," Rush Limbaugh transcript

"Jeff Sessions yesterday afternoon on the floor of the Senate spoke about President Obama and "immigration reform," and we have...sound bites.

SESSIONS: The president is preparing to assume for himself the absolute power to set immigration law in America....The absolute power to determine who may enter and who may work, no matter what the law says, by the millions. Our response now is of great import.  It will define the scope of executive and congressional powers for years to come.

RUSH:  Sessions then said that if Obama is allowed to do this, the moral authority for any border enforcement will forever be eviscerated.

SESSIONS:  If President Obama is not stopped in this action and he exceeds his powers by attempting to execute such a massive amnesty contrary to law, the moral authority for any immigration enforcement henceforth will be eviscerated. Anyone the world over will get the message: "Get into America by any method you can, and you will never have to leave." We're almost there, but it's not too late.

RUSH:  And then he issued a warning...

SESSIONS:  Let me state a warning. The American people are being roused to action -- and once activated, their power will be felt.  They will not be mocked. They have begged and pleaded for our nation's immigration laws to be enforced for 30 or 40 years.  The politicians have refused, refused, refused. There's one thing the powers in Washington fear; that is being voted out of office.  Before a member of Congress acquiesces to any action of this kind, they should consider their responsibility to their constituents.

RUSH:  And then he did something that few in Washington have the courage to do.

SESSIONS:  Mr. President, you work for the American people, they don't work for you, and they will not accept nullification of their law passed by their elected representatives. I'm calling on all members of Congress today to stand up to these lawless actions and sponsor legislation that will block them. I'm calling on every person in this body and in this house and in the House of Representatives to stand and be counted at this perilous hour.

RUSH:  Folks, I have to tell you: It's both appalling and astonishing that it has really come down to this. A United States Senator has to practically beg his fellow congressmen and countrymen to do something to stop these upcoming extra-constitutional executive orders. And he's right. They will effectively overturn what is left of our immigration law.  Now, the Drive-By Media ignored the speech totally. 

They don't want the American public to get riled up and kill amnesty like they've done so many other times in the past. But they're not gonna be able to stop it because Sessions also asked for the phone lines in Washington to be melted. Now, granted, it's near congressional recess time, and they're all gonna be leaving town. But not quite yet. 

The phones in Washington did indeed melt yesterday, despite the fact the Drive-Bys did not cover this. There's so much going on that it's hard for anybody to focus on any one single thing. The chaos, the deterioration, the disasters are numerous.  But here you have a United States senator, the only one standing up in opposition to this -- the erasure of the Southern border, for all intents and purposes. 

When is this gonna stop?  With a stroke of his pen he authorizes five or six million with amnesty.

Meanwhile, the trains keep coming from Central America, and there's no end in sight to that. None!

And nobody's talking about ending it. Some are obsessed with immigration reform, comprehensive or otherwise. But, I mean, it's just astounding. Here's the story on this from the Associated Press:

"Obama Mulls Large-Scale Move on Immigration." He's gonna expand the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals to include adults, which we predicted, by the way....It's been obvious from day one. "You can't have these kids arriving here unaccompanied! Well, you can't have them arriving without their parents! At some point, we're gonna have to track down their parents and bring them here. 

"That's the only humane thing to do. We must unite these children with their parents." So we'll find them and we'll fly them up here. It's a Democrat voter-registration effort. It'll further pressure on the welfare or whatever it is. None of it's any good. I don't care how cloaked in compassion you claim to be. We could be as compassionate as you want, but compassion does not require us to commit suicide as a nation.

How many of you remember that we shut down immigration from 1924 or '25 to 1965?  There was none.  Zip, zero, nada!  Every time I mention that, people are stunned. They think immigration is something that happens all year, every year, throughout the year. From 1925 to 1960, 35 years we suspended legal immigration. You know why?  So that the people who came here post-Civil War up to post-World War I could assimilate and become Americans.

They could learn our holidays, learn English, and become part of the American fabric and culture -- which, by the way, they wanted to do. That's not even a component anymore. Talk about assimilation and you get laughed out of the room. "Who are we to make people want to live like us?" Well, it's our country! 

"Well, what gives us the right to tell people they have to live like we do?" That's the catcall from the left. "These people have their own culture. Why can't they set it up here? Who are we to tell them how?" That's the justification for this, and running throughout all of it is: America has been to blame and must pay the price for all of our aggressive transgressions over all of these decades."



6/2/2007, "Too bad," Wall St. Journal column by Peggy Noonan
"What political conservatives and on-the-ground Republicans must understand at this point is that they are not breaking with the White House on immigration. They are not resisting, fighting and thereby setting down a historical marker -- "At this point the break became final." That's not what's happening. What conservatives and Republicans must recognize is that the White House has broken with them. What President Bush is doing, and has been doing for some time, is sundering a great political coalition. This is sad, and it holds implications not only for one political party but for the American future.
The White House doesn't need its traditional supporters anymore, because its problems are way beyond being solved by the base. And the people in the administration don't even much like the base. Desperate straits have left them liberated, and they are acting out their disdain. Leading Democrats often think their base is slightly mad but at least their heart is in the right place. This White House thinks its base is stupid and that its heart is in the wrong place.
For almost three years, arguably longer, conservative Bush supporters have felt like sufferers of battered wife syndrome. You don't like endless gushing spending, the kind that assumes a high and unstoppable affluence will always exist, and the tax receipts will always flow in? Too bad! You don't like expanding governmental authority and power? Too bad. You think the war was wrong or is wrong? Too bad.
But on immigration it has changed from "Too bad" to "You're bad."
The president has taken to suggesting that opponents of his immigration bill are unpatriotic -- they "don't want to do what's right for America." His ally Sen. Lindsey Graham has said, "We're gonna tell the bigots to shut up." On Fox last weekend he vowed to "push back." 
Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff suggested opponents would prefer illegal immigrants be killed; Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez said those who oppose the bill want "mass deportation." Former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson said those who oppose the bill are "anti-immigrant" and suggested they suffer from "rage" and "national chauvinism."
Why would they speak so insultingly, with such hostility, of opponents who are concerned citizens? And often, though not exclusively, concerned conservatives? It is odd, but it is of a piece with, or a variation on, the "Too bad" governing style. And it is one that has, day by day for at least the past three years, been tearing apart the conservative movement.
I suspect the White House and its allies have turned to name calling because they're defensive, and they're defensive because they know they have produced a big and indecipherable mess of a bill -- one that is literally bigger than the Bible, though as someone noted last week, at least we actually had a few years to read the Bible. The White House and its supporters seem to be marshalling not facts but only sentiments, and self-aggrandizing ones at that. They make a call to emotions -- this is, always and on every issue, the administration's default position -- but not, I think, to seriously influence the debate....
If they'd really wanted to help, as opposed to braying about their own wonderfulness, they would have created not one big bill but a series of smaller bills, each of which would do one big clear thing, the first being to close the border. Once that was done -- actually and believably done -- the country could relax in the knowledge that the situation was finally not day by day getting worse. They could feel some confidence. And in that confidence real progress could begin.
The beginning of my own sense of separation from the Bush administration came in January 2005, when the president declared that it is now the policy of the United States to eradicate tyranny in the world, and that the survival of American liberty is dependent on the liberty of every other nation. This was at once so utopian and so aggressive that it shocked me. For others the beginning of distance might have been Katrina and the incompetence it revealed, or the depth of the mishandling and misjudgments of Iraq.
What I came in time to believe is that the great shortcoming of this White House, the great thing it is missing, is simple wisdom. Just wisdom -- a sense that they did not invent history, that this moment is not all there is, that man has lived a long time and there are things that are true of him, that maturity is not the same thing as cowardice, that personal loyalty is not a good enough reason to put anyone in charge of anything, that the way it works in politics is a friend becomes a loyalist becomes a hack, and actually at this point in history we don't need hacks.
One of the things I have come to think the past few years is that the Bushes, father and son, though different in many ways, are great wasters of political inheritance. 
They throw it away as if they'd earned it and could do with it what they liked. Bush senior inherited a vibrant country and a party at peace with itself. He won the leadership of a party that had finally, at great cost, by 1980, fought itself through to unity and come together on shared principles. Mr. Bush won in 1988 by saying he would govern as Reagan had. Yet he did not understand he'd been elected to Reagan's third term. He thought he'd been elected because they liked him. And so he raised taxes, sundered a hard-won coalition, and found himself shocked to lose the presidency, and for eight long and consequential years. He had many virtues, but he wasted his inheritance.
Bush the younger came forward, presented himself as a conservative, garnered all the frustrated hopes of his party, turned them into victory, and not nine months later was handed a historical trauma that left his country rallied around him, lifting him, and his party bonded to him. He was disciplined and often daring, but in time he sundered the party that rallied to him, and broke his coalition into pieces. He threw away his inheritance. I do not understand such squandering.
Now conservatives and Republicans are going to have to win back their party. They are going to have to break from those who have already broken from them. This will require courage, serious thinking and an ability to do what psychologists used to call letting go. This will be painful, but it's time. It's more than time." via bizzyblog


GOP has merged with Democrats:

2/20/13, As Country Club Republicans Link Up With The Democratic Ruling Class, Millions Of Voters Are Orphaned,” Angelo Codevilla, Forbes
“Increasingly the top people in government, corporations, and the media collude and demand submission as did the royal courts of old.”… 


Comment: It's fine if Republicans find their ideology compatible with Democrats'. They simply need to file paperwork making their Democrat status official. 



Hamas global jihadists have strong support of US government and media while Egypt, Saudis, Emiratis, Jordanians, and Palestinian Authority all side with Israel in Gaza War

7/29/14, "‘A Hell of a Foray’," "Secretary of State Kerry overestimates American influence in the Gaza conflict." NRO, Rich Lowry 


7/28/14, "A Letter of Thanks from Hamas to the Media," MediaIte, Noah Beck. Editor’s note: This article originally appeared at the Algemeiner.

"Dear Members of the Mainstream Media,

You’ve been awesome! Everyone knows that we start unwinnable wars with Israel because the real victory happens when you predictably side with us each time. And you’ve been so supportive of our strategy that we really want to acknowledge your helpfulness. In particular, we thank you for:

  - Focusing so much more on our suffering than anyone else’s. Nigerians must die in far greater numbers before you take notice, so we’re glad that you value our lives so much more.

- Minimizing your coverage, if any, of our attacks that led up to Israel’s military response and generally providing so little context that outsiders think that Israelis kill Palestinians just for fun. We’re especially grateful to the French media for this. Their distortions of the conflict are so one-sided that they incite Muslims across France to attack Jews and synagogues, and that is welcomed by our anti-Semitic worldview (although, unfortunately, such attacks remind everyone why Jews need a state).

- Emphasizing our civilian death toll without explaining that (1) our casualty reports are hasty and inflated, and (2) we maximize that total by using Palestinians to shield our weapons and by urging them to stay in the very areas that the IDF – in its annoying effort to minimize our civilian deaths – warns Gazans to evacuate.

- Never mentioning the fact that if we could kill millions of Israelis, we would (after all, our charter calls for Israel’s destruction). Just as the 9/11 hijackers made the most of what they had but would have liked to kill far more Americans (for example, with the help of WMD), we too would love to kill far more Israelis. Indeed, we have purposely targeted Israel’s nuclear reactor on several occasions, with that very goal in mind. Fortunately, you never highlight the genocidal intent behind our attacks when mentioning Israel’s “disproportionate” response.

- Never calling us jihadists even though we persecute Christians (like the ISIS, which just compelled Mosul’s Christians to convert to Islam). The forced conversion, expulsion, or murder of Christians and other religious minorities by Islamists has been happening for millennia, as assiduously documented in Crucified Again, but such historical context is thankfully absent from your reporting on our conflict with Israel.

- Downplaying how bad we are for Gazans by not reporting on, for example, our attack on the very Israeli power station that provides electricity to 70,000 Gazans. Thankfully, you also ignored how the Israelis — in their stupid display of goodwill — exposed their workers to the perils of our rockets so that they could restore power to Gaza.
- Minimally reporting on our corruption, unfair wealth, or vast expenditures on tunnels to attack Israel while ordinary Palestinians grew poorer.

- Overlooking how –- to maximize Palestinian deaths –- we store our missiles in an UNWRA-run school and how, when UNWRA finds out, they just hand us back our missiles.

- Disregarding Arabs who have the courage to critique us — like Dr. Tawfik Hamid, an Islamist-turned-reformer who blames Palestinian suffering entirely on us.

- Ignoring Israelis’ humanitarian folly in providing medical aid to the very terrorists trying to kill them.

- Failing to acknowledge Israel’s immense restraint. Had we been fighting Syria’s Assad regime, by now Gaza would have been flattened – devastated by barrel bombs, poison gas, and other attacks that are far more indiscriminate than Israel’s intelligence-directed strikes. And of course, if Syria were killing us, you’d hardly care. But luckily, we’re dealing with Israel –- that country that everyone loves to hate –- so we can count on your helpful coverage here.

- Omitting how Israel chose to sacrifice dozens of IDF soldiers when destroying our tunnels and weapons in densely populated areas like Shejaiya because doing so with airstrikes (which risks no soldiers) would have killed many thousands of Palestinians. Your friendly omission of such crucial facts reminds us of how wonderfully you covered Jenin in 2002, when (again) –- rather than praise Israel’s humane but costly decision to use ground troops rather than airstrikes – you very helpfully and falsely accused Israel of a massacre during another IDF operation to stop Palestinian terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians.

- Not sharing with your English readers what we openly say in Arabic: that we view any truce as just an opportunity to rearm for our next war against Israel (as our spokesman, Musheer Al Masri, recently declared on TV).

- Not underscoring that Israel can do nothing to make peace with us (after all, Israelis ended their occupation of Gaza in 2005 and we’ve been rocketing them ever since). It’s a bit nervy of Israel to use its border controls to limit our ability to rearm and rebuild cross-border attack tunnels, but – with your help – maybe the next cease-fire will remove Israel’s blockade so that we can more easily replenish our weapons and restore our tunnels for our next attack. And yes, we’re embarrassed that our fellow Arab Muslims in Egypt also choose to blockade us because of the problems that we’ve caused them.

- Not reminding readers, when you mention potential truce arrangements, that world powers are no more capable of ensuring a demilitarized Gaza than they were capable of disarming Hezbollah in south Lebanon.

Seriously, you’ve been AMAZING. Please keep it up!



P.S. — Many thanks also to the countless protesters around the world who follow your lead, embolden us, and make us look legit!"
 – –
>> "Noah Beck is a columnist for the Algemeiner and the author of The Last Israelis, an apocalyptic novel about Iranian nukes and other geopolitical issues in the Middle East." via Mark Levin twitter

Monday, July 28, 2014

John Kerry is merely a messenger boy so isn't the issue but if he were the issue he's a proven joke, buffoon, and pathological liar. He deserves to be laughed at as does AP for taking him seriously

7/28/14, "US fuming over Israeli criticism of Kerry," AP, Matthew Lee, Julie Pace, via Yahoo News

7/5/2013, "State Department retracts denial that John Kerry was yachting off Nantucket during Egypt coup," Boston Globe, Bryan Bender

"With the Egyptian military ousting President Morsi and violent deaths being reported in the country, many people in Nantucket were surprised to see Mr Kerry at his holiday home rather than in Washington."...

7/4/13, Sec. of State John Kerry offloads from a 1-person kyack near Nantucket Island, photo  Boston Herald, 7/5/13

7/4/13, Sec. of State John Kerry paddles on a kyack near Nantucket Island, 7/5/13, Boston Herald, Hutton

Kerry the pathological liar:

2/17/14, "John Kerry: Climate change as big a threat as terrorism, poverty, WMDs," CNN, Steve Almasy


7/28/14, "The Obama administration pushed back strongly Monday at a torrent of Israeli criticism over Secretary of State John Kerry's latest bid to secure a cease-fire with Hamas, accusing some in Israel of launching a "misinformation campaign" against the top American diplomat.

"It's simply not the way partners and allies treat each other," State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said.
Deranged Kerry in 1971 on global tv
Her comments were echoed by the White House, where National Security Adviser Susan Rice said the U.S. was "dismayed" by mischaracterizations of Kerry's efforts. Israeli media reports have cast Kerry as seeking a cease-fire that is more favorable to Hamas and being dismissive of key Israeli concerns.

Kerry himself, in a speech to the Center for American Progress, noted the criticism but did not give ground.

"Make no mistake, when the people of Israel are rushing to bomb shelters, when innocent Israeli and Palestinian teenagers are abducted and murdered, when hundreds of innocent civilians have lost their lives, I will and we will make no apologies for our engagement," he said.

The coordinated pushback in Washington came amid growing U.S. frustration with Israel as Palestinian civilian casualties mount amid a sustained Israeli air and ground war in the Gaza Strip. In recent days, U.S. officials have been using subtle yet noticeably tougher language in pressing Israel to accept an immediate and unconditional humanitarian cease-fire.

The U.S. has made little progress in achieving that objective. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in a televised speech Monday that his country must be ready for "a prolonged campaign" against Hamas in Gaza.

As Kerry returned from the region over the weekend, Israeli media commentators leveled almost nonstop criticism of his attempts to bring Qatar and Turkey — two countries viewed by Israel as strong Hamas supporters — into the cease-fire negotiations. Kerry was also accused of abandoning some of Israel's key demands during the negotiations, including demilitarizing Gaza.

In trying to implement the cease-fire over the weekend, "U.S. Secretary of State of State John Kerry ruined everything," wrote columnist Ari Shavit in Monday's Haaretz, Israel's leading liberal newspaper. "Very senior officials in Jerusalem described the proposal that Kerry put on the table as a 'strategic terrorist attack.'"

Israeli Ambassador to the United States Ron Dermer sought to distance his government from that view, saying, "The criticism of Secretary Kerry for his good faith efforts to advance a sustainable cease-fire is unwarranted."

"There is broad understanding between Israel and the United States about the principles for a sustainable cease-fire, and we look forward to continuing to work closely with the United States to advance that goal and a durable solution to the problems in Gaza," Dermer said Monday.

U.S. officials disputed the notion that Kerry had formally presented Israel a cease-fire proposal and cast the document in question as a draft given to the Israelis as part of an effort to gain their input in seeking a weeklong cessation of hostilities. Officials said the draft was based on an earlier Egyptian cease-fire proposal that Israel had accepted but Hamas had rejected.

Psaki said the U.S. was "surprised and obviously disappointed" to see the draft proposal made public. She also argued that there was a difference between the characterization of Kerry's handling of the negotiations by Israeli media and what government officials were telling the U.S. privately.

"No one is calling to complain about the secretary's handling of the situation," Psaki said.

Earlier, Kerry had sought to debunk the notion that the U.S. had backed away from its support for the demilitarization of Gaza, which has been a top priority for Israel.

"Any process to resolve the crisis in Gaza in a lasting and meaningful way must lead to the disarmament of Hamas and all terrorist groups," Kerry said.

While the Obama administration maintains that it supports Israel's right to defend itself against Hamas, officials are increasingly worried about the civilian casualties in Gaza. The White House has also taken a sharper tone in its characterization of President Barack Obama's calls with Netanyahu, noting in the readout of a conversation on Sunday that the U.S. has a "serious and growing concern" about the worsening humanitarian situation in Gaza.

More than 1,000 Palestinians have been killed over the past three weeks, Palestinian health officials say. According to the United Nations, about three-fourths of them were civilians. Israel has lost 43 soldiers and two civilians, as well as a Thai worker."


April 22, 1971, "LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS RELATING TO THE WAR IN SOUTHEAST ASIA," United States Senate, Committee on Foreign Relations, Senator J. W. Fulbright, Chmn. Excerpt from John Kerry testimony"

"We veterans can only look with amazement on the fact that this country (the US) has been unable to see there is absolutely no difference between ground troops and a helicopter crew, and yet people have accepted a differentiation fed them by the administration."... 


Even the Washington Post Editorial Board tells the truth about Hamas:

"Why would Hamas insist on continuing the fight when it is faring so poorly? The only plausible answer is stomach-turning: The Islamic movement calculates that it can win the concessions it has yet to obtain from Israel and Egypt not by striking Israel but by perpetuating the killing of its own people in Israeli counterattacks. More than 200 people, including a number of children, have already died in Gaza; Hamas probably calculates that more deaths will prompt Western governments to pressure Israel to grant Hamas’s demands....To its credit, Israel has used sophisticated technology, including targeted text messages and dummy warning missiles, to minimize civilian casualties."...
7/15/14, "Hamas is playing a dangerous game with Gazan lives," Washington Post Editorial Board

"So far Hamas’s military campaign against Israel has been a dismal failure. Thanks in part to Israel’s Iron Dome anti-missile system, some 1,200 rockets fired at Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and other cities have caused only one Israeli death and a few other casualties. Attempted commando attacks via the sea and a tunnel were stopped short, and a drone that ventured into Israel was quickly shot down. 
Yet Hamas on Tuesday rejected an Egyptian cease-fire proposal that was supported by Western governments and the Arab League and had been accepted by Israel.

Why would Hamas insist on continuing the fight when it is faring so poorly? The only plausible answer is stomach-turning: The Islamic movement calculates that it can win the concessions it has yet to obtain from Israel and Egypt not by striking Israel but by perpetuating the killing of its own people in Israeli counterattacks. More than 200 people, including a number of children, have already died in Gaza; Hamas probably calculates that more deaths will prompt Western governments to pressure Israel to grant Hamas’s demands.
So far, the tactic is not working. Secretary of State John F. Kerry on Tuesday condemned Hamas for rejecting the cease-fire and “us[ing] the innocent lives of civilians . . . as shields.” But Hamas’s commanders, who have burrowed into underground bunkers, appear to be doubling down. They are urging civilians who have left their homes to return, including some 15,000 who evacuated the northern part of Gaza in response to Israeli warnings. The cease-fire proposal was answered with a new barrage of missiles aimed at central Israel.

To be sure, the Israeli government of Benjamin Netanyahu has more incentive than Hamas to agree to a cease-fire, even though a majority of the Israeli public probably opposes it. Israel has little to gain from a prolonged conflict; a threatened ground invasion of Gaza would cause heavy casualties on both sides and, if it destroyed Hamas, leave Israel with the problem of finding a new government for the territory. 

Mr. Netanyahu is seeking the renewal of the truce that ended the last Israel-Hamas mini-war, in 2012. That would end attacks on both sides while allowing for a gradual opening of Gaza’s border for civilian trade.
Hamas’s rejection reflects its weakened position compared with two years ago. Egypt’s military government has shut down most of the cross-border tunnels that Hamas depended on for weapons as well as revenue, making it impossible for the Gaza administration to pay its workforce. The Islamists sought relief by forming a unity government with the secular, West Bank-based Fatah movement, but that did not lead to the payment of salaries or the reopening of the border with Egypt. Following the kidnapping and murder of three Israeli teenagers last month, Israel arrested dozens of Hamas’s operatives in the West Bank, making their release another objective of the missile attacks.
To its credit, Israel has used sophisticated technology, including targeted text messages and dummy warning missiles, to minimize civilian casualties. But innocent people will inevitably be killed in attacks on launchers and missile factories that are purposely placed in densely populated areas. The right response of the international community is not to surrender to Hamas’s despicable tactics but to continue insisting that it unconditionally accept the cease-fire proposed by Egypt."


US continues to withhold military aid to Egypt while engaging in talks with radical Islamists in Qatar and Turkey and agreeing to all Hamas terror demands. Egypt doesn't share US support of radical Islam and Hamas in the Middle East-Mazel

7/28/14, "US and Egypt find themselves at odds once again," Jerusalem Post, Zvi Mazel

"Hamas, which poses a strategic threat to Egypt, is attacking Israel, and the United States cannot or will not understand that simple fact.

US Secretary of State John Kerry is ignoring Egypt while he is talking to Qatar and Turkey, its enemies and determined supporters of the Muslim Brothers. He is in fact favoring radical Islam. This is unacceptable for Egypt – and for Israel. Worse, it threatens the whole Middle East at a time when the area is going through a dangerous political and military crisis.

Gaza has been the main source of Islamic terror against Egypt even in the Mubarak era, and that terror has grown more menacing in the last three years because internal strife had weakened the central power.

During that time that very same Islamic terror has wreaked havoc in other parts of the region.

Former Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak tried to engage the Muslim Brotherhood – while considering that Hamas, the Gaza offshoot of the Brotherhood, was Israel’s problem only. Toward the end of his long rule he had begun to see the danger and tried vainly to destroy the smuggling tunnels.

President Abdel Fatah al-Sisi, who toppled the Brotherhood, quickly understood that Hamas was a direct threat to Egypt since it is part of the radical Islam terror onslaught.

The Islamist onslaught, aided and abetted by Hamas terror attacks, have expanded beyond Sinai to reach the center of the country and hamper the regime’s efforts to tackle economic problems and stimulate much needed growth.

This is why the conflict in Gaza matters to Egypt as it matters to Israel.

A lengthy conflict on its border would increase regional instability and might be exploited by terrorist elements to further threaten the country.

However, there could be a positive result: should Israel significantly weaken Hamas and its jihadi allies, it would reduce the threat level on Egypt.

From the first al-Sisi has said that he would focus on the economy, a much needed move. Failure would lead to growing despair, discontent, violence and resurgence of radical Islam.

Therefore it is expected Egypt will act according to its own needs only, not according to Palestinian interests.

Egypt has been dragged into five wars for the sake of those interests, and it goes a long way to explain why the economy is in such disarray. Former Egyptian president Anwar Sadat had reached the same conclusion, and made peace with Israel. He wanted to ally his country to the West, but was murdered by a fringe branch of the Brotherhood in 1981.

Mubarak had made no effort to develop the economy and paid the price. In his speech on the occasion of the national day of Egypt – July 23 – al-Sisi replied to those accusing Egypt of ignoring the Palestinian issue by saying in the strongest tone that no one could blame Egypt, which had sacrificed hundreds of thousands of its sons for the Palestinian cause – though he did add that a Palestinian state with east Jerusalem as its capital should arise. He then went on to talk about his plans for the economy.

Hamas has been pronounced an illegal movement by the courts in Egypt and its activities are being investigated. It is accused of fomenting terror against Egypt directly or through Jihadi groups and having tried to interfere illegally in the country’s internal affairs.

Though it claims to be a national Palestinian liberation movement, its main purpose, as plainly stated in its charter, is to destroy Israel and set up on its ruins an Islamic state that would progressively take over the whole Middle East. The people of Gaza are expendable in the pursuit of this goal.

Egypt, fighting radical Islamic terror, is in fact the last hope of the Middle East.

ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) and its Islamic state is gaining ground in Syria and in Iraq, two countries that with Egypt used to be the leaders of the Middle East.

Should radical Islam triumph in Egypt or embroil it in a violent conflict it would spell disaster for the region – Israel included – but also for the West.

Repercussions may include millions of refugees, the closure of the Suez Canal, the flow of petrol halted and the world trade endangered, as well a local uprising of Muslim minorities in the West.

And what is Kerry doing? Instead of siding with Israel and Egypt, his natural allies, and furthering the Egyptian initiative for a cease-fire with the help of the Palestinian authority, he is talking with Turkey and with Qatar, where the former leaders of the Brotherhood in Egypt have fled and where they are working together with Khaled Mashaal.

These leaders are determined to prevent the Egyptian initiative from succeeding and do not care how many Palestinians are killed in the process.

Somehow the secretary of state let himself be convinced and is pushing a totally unrealistic approach to the resolution of the present conflict, going as far as accepting all Hamas demands, including a sea port and an airport.

This approach was met with incredulity by Israel and Egypt, which feel betrayed and insulted by America. Washington has yet to rescind its embargo on much needed military assistance to Cairo. It does not make for an easy dialogue. Cairo failed to understand why the US are being such ardent supporters of the Muslim Brothers while significantly failing to curb Iran’s atomic program.

"The writer, a fellow of The Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, is a former ambassador to Romania, Egypt and Sweden.
" via Free Rep.


The Republican Establishment loves the Muslim Brotherhood too. George Bush and Condoleezza Rice worked hard to enable Muslim Brotherhood takeover in Egypt. In 2005 as a result of their efforts and threats, Brotherhood candidates were permitted on Egypt's ballot. However, the candidates were so successful that Mubarak had to change the rules again to make it more difficult for MB candidates:

"[In 2010] The Egyptians also wanted to knock the Islamists down a peg or two, compared to 2005 when the Muslim Brotherhood did very well.""
When US politicians say they want "free" elections in Egypt it means they want the Muslim Brotherhood in power:

11/25/2010, "Mubarak snubs U.S. call for election monitors," Eli Lake, Washington Times

"The 2005 (Egypt) elections followed a push from the Bush administration to open authoritarian societies in the Middle East. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice spoke on June 20, 2005, at the American University in Cairo, urging Mr. Mubarak to allow for free and competitive elections.

Two years earlier, Miss Rice threatened to cut U.S. military aid to Egypt if it did not release from prison Saad Eddin Ibrahim, a pro-reform sociologist who was imprisoned for accepting Western funding. Over time, however, the Bush administration stopped pressuring Mr. Mubarak.

Mr. Obama's approach has been less public and more subtle. The U.S. Embassy in Cairo, for example, supported a letter sent in July by former Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright, who is also the chairwoman of the National Democratic Institute, and Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican and chairman of the International Republican Institute, urging Mr. Mubarak to allow international observers for the parliamentary contest.

On Sept. 1, Mr. Obama personally asked Mr. Mubarak to allow the monitors in his bilateral meeting at the White House before the launch of the current peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. The press statement that followed the meeting said, "President Obama reaffirmed the importance of a vibrant civil society, open political competition, and credible and transparent elections in Egypt."

The State Department went public with a call for monitors this month from spokesman P.J. Crowley. In response to the statement from the Foreign Ministry, Mr. Crowley said, "This is not interfering in Egyptian affairs. This is encouraging a very close friend of the United States that its elections are vitally important and that its people want to see and have opportunities for greater participation in Egypt's political system and have a government that is more representative of all segments of Egyptian society."

David Schenker, director of the program for Arab politics at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said Egypt's resistance to international monitors reflects in some ways how Mr. Mubarak is nervous about who will succeed him. Mr. Mubarak, 82, is said by Western intelligence services to be suffering from a form of stomach cancer.

"How come we succeeded in Jordan, but failed in Egypt?" Mr. Schenker said. "We pushed hard for monitors in Jordan, but it failed in Egypt. In Egypt, we had no success...."The Egyptians also wanted to knock the Islamists down a peg or two, compared to 2005 when the Muslim Brotherhood did very well.""


Sunday, July 27, 2014

Egypt's army destroys 13 more Palestinian Hamas tunnels connecting Sinai to Gaza Strip.

7/25/14, "Egypt army destroys 13 more Gaza tunnels, AFP, Cairo

"Egypt's army said Sunday it has destroyed 13 more tunnels connecting the Sinai Peninsula to the Gaza Strip, taking to 1,639 the overall number it has laid waste to...

Cairo has poured troops into the peninsula to counter a rising insurgency since the ouster of Islamist president Mohamed Morsi last year, and its security operation involves the destruction of these tunnels.

The Palestinian militant group Hamas, which is the main power in Gaza, reportedly uses the tunnels to smuggle arms, food and money into the blockaded coastal enclave.

Israel has been waging a military offensive on Gaza since July 8 to halt rocket fire, and it launched a ground assault on July 17 aimed at destroying the network of tunnels.

It accuses Hamas of using the tunnels to attacks on Israel.

Ties between Hamas and Cairo have deteriorated since the Egyptian army deposed Morsi on July 3, 2013. Hamas is an affiliate of Morsi's Muslim Brotherhood.

Cairo also accuses of Hamas of being involved in militant attacks inside Egypt, which have multiplied since Morsi was toppled.

Militant groups say their attacks are in retaliation for a police crackdown on Morsi's supporters. The crackdown has seen more than 1,400 people killed in street clashes."


Related Stories