Thursday, November 20, 2014

FAQs: defamation campaign against Israel 12/28/2010

FAQs: defamation campaign against Israel

12/28/2010

 

Delegitimize Israel is a political campaign, economic and philosophical targeting pull right of the State of Israel to exist and denied the right of the Jewish people to self-determination in their homeland.

Introduction | anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism | Holocaust | delegitimize methods | fallacies

Introduction

Anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism

Holocaust


Delegitimize methods


Fallacies

Introduction

What danger inherent in the delegitimization?

Israel faces several significant threats, including nuclear threat posed by Iran's missile threat posed by both Hamas and Hezbollah. But at least these two Altahedadan disturbing that the threat posed by the campaign to delegitimize Israel, which is in attempts to deny the legitimacy of the Israeli state and its policies and its right to defend itself.

The delegitimization campaign of a political campaign, economic and philosophical aims to withdraw the right of the State of Israel to exist, and to deny the right of the Jewish people to self-determination in their homeland.

The ultimate goal is to delegitimize the elimination of Israel as a Jewish state. According to those who seek to delegitimize Israel, Israel lacks the right to self-defense, but also the right to stay, knowing that they would want to make Israel's collapse by undermining the moral legitimacy and the reduction of military procedures and distortion image and isolate Israel as a pariah state.

There is a difference between acceptable criticism directed at Israeli policies and the criticism that delegitimize Israel as a state and the mere existence, taking away legitimacy beyond the project, which deals with specific Israeli policies discourse, represents a fundamental challenge to its right to exist. Israel is standing ready to deal with than criticizing in good faith, as long as not knocking the three elements of the new anti-Semitism, namely the delegitimization and demonization and double standards.

Although the ultimate goal is to eliminate the Jewish state, but the miners legitimacy for Israel does not speak openly about the demise of Israel, but rather resort to soften their speech with words like "one-state solution", or the equality between Israel and the State of apartheid or Nazism, leaving the listeners task themselves to reach the result that would have it crooked. The resort to comparisons with apartheid and the Nazis is not a coincidence, as it is a way have been selected carefully, in order to address two of the most serious atrocities of the twentieth century, and which were magnets of crimes against humanity and two goals to eliminate them.

Used delegitimization campaign and a wide variety of themes hostile to Israel as well as the comparison Balabartheid described Nazi victims to Nazis, it denies Israel's natural right to security and self-defense, and offered as an international criminal, and depicts the Zionist ideology of racism and denies the historic link between the Jewish people and old homeland, especially in Jerusalem. And supports delegitimize one-state solution and the "right of return" for Palestinian refugees alleged, both of which are Segerdan identity of Israel as a Jewish state.

Delegitimization events in non-governmental organizations and popular movements, universities and the general public have focused campaigns. And harm to delegitimize the use of international institutions in attacking Israel campaign, is also trying to invent new legal principles could be used against Israel, but they tried to prosecute Israeli political and military officials in Western countries under the pretext of alleged to have committed war crimes. The delegitimization campaign cash camouflage activities of the project, through the modification of ethics, human rights and the law to achieve its goals.
The delegitimization campaign is the political, economic, cultural and ideological war on Israel, and characterized by excessive and obsessive focus on Israel, which is also incompatible with freedom of expression and open dialogue, trying to undermine the scientific exchange and business links.

Israel is the only country in the world that hovers questions and Chen just attacks on the legitimacy of its existence, and facing the debate is not about borders, but about its very existence. Other states, even African and Asian ones, which was established along the borders drawn by the colonial powers, no one doubted the legitimacy of national states, as despite the fact that Israel the only country that recognized the right of the United Nations presence and its predecessor the League of Nations alike, and it Vmhoud hypocrisy that runs those Skeptics in the Jewish people's right to self-determination in the State of Israel, often to support the Palestinians' right to self-determination embodied in the Palestinian state.

Nazaao legitimate claims that they are supporting the Palestinian cause, but they are in fact working against peace, some of them accept the "Hamas", which rejects peace talks and seeks to destroy Israel. They usually abandon the concept of coexistence, and reject the only realistic solution to the conflict, a two-state solution, because it means accepting the existence of Israel. They also do not care about the situation of the Palestinians outside Israel, Mngadin their status as second class citizens and the dilemmas they face in most Arab countries.

The delegitimize approach caused direct harm peace efforts, because it deludes the Palestinians can find enough international pressure to force Israel to comply with any Palestinian demand without resorting to real negotiations. It also seriously undermine the confidence of the Israelis supported by the international community for the actions of self-defense that Israel would resort to in the event of assault after the withdrawal of the land within the scope of a peaceful agreement.
Delegitimization campaign is not any service Provides a peaceful settlement of the conflict, and should be denouncing nefarious objectives and exploitation of distorting the principles of human rights and international law, and so forth, it is time to delegitimize delegitimize Israel.

And just as it was in the past eras of Jewish conversion scapegoat in many of the issues and problems, are today trying to transform Israel into a pariah.


Anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism

What is Zionism?

The Zionist movement aimed at restoring self-determination of the Jewish people in his native country and the practice of re-Jewish sovereignty over the Land of Israel. Zionism seeks to achieve a political objective is the establishment of an independent state for the Jewish people, note that the most natural state of this site is Zion, or the Land of Israel, the homeland of the Jewish people.

Despite the fact that the Jewish religion, but that the Jews constitute a people has its own language, culture and literature, and his history of the joint. The Zionist way this people to find a common future as well.

Jews have supported people with different beliefs, whether religious or secular, left-wing or right-wing and, ideals of Zionism and their right to have their national homeland, like other nations in all corners of the globe.

Jews who have been subjected to harsh persecution over the times and ages have realized that their destiny as a people lies in the establishment of their own, because it is not possible to the Jewish people to ensure the security, but within the Jewish state, will not be able to live walk all the customs, traditions, culture and religion, and the feeling of being a nation of Nations However, in the Jewish state, and can not only provide shelter and refuge for Jews fleeing persecution in various parts of the world the Jewish state.

Zionism can be considered from multiple national liberation movement of the people and respects the abandonment of the historic homeland. Zionism differ from many national liberation movements from one perspective, is that the Jews, instead of behind their liberty in the pursuit of a new entity, sought to re-establish the old independent state.

And the Zionist kun crystallize contemporary political movement before the nineteenth century, where not call it by that name only in 1890, but the yearning to re-establish the state of Israel back to ancient times, as the longings of Jews to return to their homeland began before nearly 2,000 years In the year 70 AD oldest Romans to destroy the Temple of Jerusalem and the settlement of the land, which was the religious and administrative capital of the state of the Jewish people. This terrible Demolition spent on Jewish independence, where most of the Jews were displaced during the Israeli state following decades. But few of them remained in place, so that continues to the Jewish presence in the land of Israel without interruption throughout history.

Although displaced, the majority of Jews did not interrupt the hope of returning to their homeland, where their prayers were full of decency and aspirations to return. For example, when the celebratory dinner hosted by Jews all over the world the night of the Passover holiday is finished, repeat every year reign, which says: "Next year in Jerusalem", and that all Jews, wherever they may be, are performing their prayers as they face Jerusalem. And is associated with a lot of aspects of Jewish spirituality closely the physical appearances of the Land of Israel, which relate to a lot of prayers and the statutes, the Land of Israel.

That the Jews link the Land of Israel was not limited to prayers, as in the late nineteenth century, and while the nationalist movements crystallize in Europe, and while it was anti-Semitism in Europe is growing, initiated by an Austrian journalist Jew named Theodor Herzl, to organize a national movement of the Jewish people , the Zionist movement. At the same time, but independently of the Zionist activities in Europe, taking Yemen, Iraq, Turkey and Morocco, Jews are returning to their homeland.

And awarded the League of Nations, the international body that preceded the United Nations, recognition of the goals of Zionism while Mandate established in 1922, and that by announcing that it "supports the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine ...". Jews began to return in increasing numbers, but they are limited, under harsh conditions and then under the restrictions placed on the return of British Jews. Did not open wide the doors to return only when you create the state of Israel in 1948.

Today, Zionism is struggling to Hfaraúal international pariah state.

The dividing line between legitimate criticism and that criticism is marked by the new anti-Semitism, often some find it difficult to identify it. The former minister Natan Sharansky select criteria that draw this dividing line within the foundational article written instrument A7 age-Semitic?
It is important to know that Israel, as a democratic state, to accept any criticism fair project, and may not be any negative analysis considered, but the project, Israeli policies, as anti-Semitic, just as it is not a criticism of another state that is a racist attitude.

But, a lot is happening, but very often, that denounced Israel beyond the limits of legitimate criticism to become a defamatory and libelous can be considered anti-Semitic. The common term to describe this kind of cynicism and recklessness is a "new anti-Semitism". Just as in the past has been to convert the Jews scapegoats for many of the problems, taking place today attempts to make Israel a pariah state internationally.

The dividing line between legitimate criticism and that criticism is marked by the new anti-Semitism, often some find it difficult to identify it. The former minister Natan Sharansky select criteria that draw this dividing line within the foundational article written in 2004 entitled "the three-dimensional anti-Semitism", where he said that the three dimensions of the new anti-Semitism is the demonization and double standards and delegitimization.

Demonization: Just as the Jews are Hitnthm for centuries and centuries through what he described as evil incarnate, Israel unspeakable evil entity. A big part of the criticism of such equality between Israel and the Nazis on the one hand, and between the Palestinians and the victims of the Holocaust of the Jews on the other hand, note that the distortion of the meaning of the Holocaust is not confined to the Arab world, but gaining support in the West as well. This technique of propaganda is outrageous because it does not distort the falsely struggle of Israel to defend itself, but also because they also degrade the indescribable suffering that the words which have been the victims of Nazism, which in itself is a form of Holocaust denial.

Double standards: test of judgment on double standards is the answer to the question of whether Israel was judged different from those governed by the other countries in similar circumstances criteria. It is possible to find double standards in international forums that are unique to Israel for criticism to which standards do not apply to any other country, while being overlooked for the behavior of other countries in similar circumstances even worse. And often can be identified cases of the application of double standards by the vast amount of criticism, as well as quality.

And serve as invitations to the boycott of Israel is an important example of the double standards. If such calls were part of a broader campaign against many systems violate human rights in a terrible, because Israel can not reply that coverage in these countries is the draft list. But, while Israel is unilaterally in such calls for the province, we are in front of a clear manifestation of anti-Semitic activity.

Delegitimization: new anti-Semites trying to legitimize the mere existence of a Jewish state disarmament, and do so either through undermine their right to have founded originally, either by trying to transform Israel today to an international pariah state, for example, through the use of charged phrases such as apartheid, any chapter racial, or violation of human rights. Natan Sharansky wrote: "At a time when it can be criticism of Israeli policy is not an anti-Semitic, the denial of Israel's right to exist is not supreme in all cases, if other people's right to live safely in their own home, the Jewish people really in live safely at home is the other. "

There is another test of the secondary, but many important to distinguish between legitimate criticism and illegal cash, which test the intentions of the owner of the criticism, as the critic of the project accept Israel's right to exist as a nation for the Jewish people, while the anti-Semites refuse this right.
It is clear that not all criticism of Asamya, Israeli society is supporting the firm of democracy is itself a critic of society and all the cruelty and stringent. However, the Allasamyin Israelis do not share their interest in improving their community, Their aim delegitimize the state of Israel in the short term, and destroy them in the long run, there is nothing Israel can do to satisfy such.

Although there is no relationship between criticism of Israel and the project between anti-Semitism, but some of denunciation and condemnation of the unacceptable trace its roots back to the visions of anti-Semitism, which often disappear behind the "anti-Zionism". Israel is dedicated to the principles of a democratic state believes that criticism, whether it comes from the same countries of the world or our people, is a major driving force for positive change. But there is a clear difference between legitimate calls for improvement and attempts to delegitimize Israel through comparisons bring far from common sense and use the demonization of Israel and unilaterally demand the application of technologies or standards are not demanding any other application. These types of criticism ignores the context in which Israel finds itself forced it to seek survival in the face of violent attacks on its citizens, and the mere presence in a lot of cases, but in quite a lot.
Is there a difference between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism?
Anti-Semitism is the expression given to the racism that they are exercised the right of the Jewish people type, although the literal translation of the expression of anti-Semitism or anti-Semitism may seem to refer to the anti-all Semitic peoples, but that is a misconception, as has been the introduction of this expression in Germany in 1879 to describe the anti-Jewish campaigns in Europe in that era, then became a benefit of persecuting Jews or discrimination against them in all parts of the world, therefore the Arabs who claim that they can not be for Asamyin or anti-Semitic, they are Semites themselves, trying to blur the issue, to impart patent racist beliefs, nothing else. Adding to this attempt to rudeness cleared of racism charge universe extremist anti-Semitism is present in many Arab countries these days.

Although the origin of the expression of anti-Semitism due to the relatively short period, but that the phenomenon of the hatred of the Jewish people striking phenomenon in football, where he took on various forms of anti-Semitism, using a variety of topics throughout history. In the modern era, it has raised the flag of the hardline nationalist Alakaúdiat and other Alakaúdiat. The anti-Semitism culminating in the Holocaust, where he was the extermination of six million Jews who were Jews make up a third of the world's population to about a brutal and systematic during World War II.

Contemporary Anti-Semitism has erupted again, and violently adult, in recent years, after restraining them for a couple of decades in the wake of the Holocaust, has a new face overlooked this time, namely the "anti-Zionism" or anti-Israel, and that in spite of the fact that the Zionist national liberation of the Jewish people movement As an expression of their yearning for the project self-determination and national independence. The Zionist movement was founded to provide for the people of old with his own homeland of his ancestors in a sovereign state. Israel represents a contemporary political incarnation of this ancient historic dream. The deprivation of the right of Jews to have a state of their own, means the denial of the right of self-determination which is enjoyed by other nations, and this discrimination is anti-Semitism.

The goal of anti-Zionism to undermine the legitimacy of Israel, and thus deprive the Jewish people of his place in the family of nations. Accordingly, the denial of Zionism represents an assault on the fundamental right of Israel to exist as an equal with all other countries, what constitutes a violation of one of the most basic principles of international law.
Just as anti-Semitism deprive Jews of their rights as individuals in society, attacking anti-Zionism to the Jewish people at the state level and at the international level. As has been the "Jewish" to use a scapegoat for many of the problems of the communities, has been unilaterally denounce Israel's unilateral Allamtanasb and in the international arena.

And often overlooks the face of anti-Zionism as attacks on Israel in the United Nations and other international forums, where he has been over the years, the use of multiple events in the international arena as an opportunity to denounce Israel, whoever was the subject under discussion, and whatever the link between him and the Middle East conflict tiny.

And even more than that, it is not coincidental that the rebuke Israel in international forums and in the international media is often accompanied by a sharp increase in incidents of anti-Semitic violence in many parts of the world.
At a time when considered legitimate criticism of the policies of Israeli particular an integral part of the democratic process, the cash that goes beyond the limits of legality through demonization and practicing double standards or delegitimize Israel, must be regarded as a manifestation of the "new anti-Semitism", noting that anti-Semitism traditional Pencchtaha and new, and in which Israel is treated as a Jew of the international community, deserve the most boos and condemnation phrases.

What is the reason an increasing number of anti-Semitic attacks?
Caused delegitimize Israel campaign a sharp rise in attacks against the backdrop of anti-Israel and anti-Semitism in the world. At the same time taking the fading line between legitimate criticism of Israel and anti-Semitic attacks on Jewish targets.

Since the start of the second intifada in September 2000, and Israel is under an international campaign of delegitimization, which give rise to any military operation carried out by Israel, a new wave of attacks, but at the same time, the more Israel made ​​the biggest concessions for the sake of peace, whenever exposed to attacks verbal. I Israel was attacked in the media and international forums, as exposed to slander and libel by political leaders and thinkers, where they were questioning the mere right to exist and its fundamental role in the defense of its citizens, but the extremists on the right of the political map and its left met the hatred of the Jewish state. It is clear that this attacks beyond the limits of justifiable criticism, which considers Israel, as a democratic state apply in the veins, a part of the letter states the project, but it is not the project of Israel disparaging manner to Amtanasbh privilege and monopoly out and claim to abide by the standards of not demanding ideals any other country, nor is it of the project, the demonization of Israel in any form. Nor can also acceptance of trying to delegitimize the mere presence or existence as a nation for the Jewish people. The underlying reasons behind this growing phenomenon for many, as it is closely linked to the Palestinians the ability to market their image as victims are weak, and I took advantage of this concept is to play on the feelings of the protectors of human rights at a time which provides the leaders of Hamas and the terrorists on the violation of the most basic human rights enjoyed by the Israelis of their victims and innocent victims of their own people themselves. It is as shown by the media of bias factor important contributor to delegitimize Israel factors, it is not surprising that the Western audience who trusts informing usually affected by being exposed to portray the Middle East conflict in a manner characterized by a great deal of one-sided. There is another type of conviction more dependent on ideology often encouraged by those who are willing to overlook all violations of totalitarian regimes, no matter how blatant, but they jeer to any defensive measure taken by democratic countries . There is also a role to play visions of traditional anti-Semitism, which often wears the mantle of anti-Zionist attitudes, is that there are not able or not willing to distinguish between the Jewish state and the Jewish communities in the world and attach moral assault on Israel's legitimacy physical assault on Jewish targets in various parts of the world, including Europe. The attacks included bombings of anti-Semitism and setting fire to synagogues and Jewish schools, vandalism and desecration of Jewish cemeteries and death threats and violence against the Jews and the assault without any justification to the extent of murder. The hatred these against individuals and religious leaders and sectarian institutions crimes by perpetrators often as the work "anti-Zionism". These attacks often increase at the outbreak of armed conflict, the attacks recorded anti-Semitism during the operation, which was carried out in the Gaza Strip during the months of December 2008 January January 2009 a record has not been recorded since the end of World War II. The situation in the Middle East were worse than that, if the speech was poisonous anti-Israel is unusual in eras past, it has worsened over the last decade, so have the myths and legends of anti-Semitic But Israel, which is often enshrined governments have their own agendas, high rates of confidence between the population and the ratification of the region, noting that Torrent supply units for the fictional accusations baseless broadcast by Palestinian spokesmen have contributed greatly to the exciting waves rising anti-Semitism. One of the consequences of this increase in hate attacks on Jews and Jewish targets. The Israel Committee is greatly concerned about the recent increase tangible manifestations of anti-Semitism that target Jewish communities in Europe and elsewhere. It is this growing phenomenon that is deeply troubling, when civilized people, where appeals to Israel's governments of the countries where the epidemic of anti-Semitism is spreading to take all necessary measures to ensure the security of Jewish communities and to prosecute the perpetrators of these legally unfortunate attacks, and should be an interview inciting anti-Semitic, either by individuals or organizations or even from the leaders of some countries, the amount of conviction and every possible occasion. The Holocaust denial, in whatever form, is of moral vices, and the only means to ensure non-recurrence of what the future is unmatched revive his memory and documented.


















The Nazi Holocaust and methodology intended attempt by the Nazis to exterminate the entire Jewish people.The contemporary attempts to deny or even minimize the horror of the tragedy that is not matched by the tragedy, constitute a desecration of the memory of the millions who lost their lives. began Holocaust cheekily Jews. In 1933 Adolf Hitler came to power in Germany and founded the regime racist was regarded Jews as "What sub-humans ", ie they do not belong to the human race. After Germany sparked the Second World War in 1939, Hitler began applying the "Final Solution of the Jewish problem", and is intended to erase the existence of the Jewish people. The troops assemble Jews in ghettos, as established for the work and concentration and extermination camps, Jews were deported to. The slaughter of millions of Jews, while most of the remaining died due to starvation and disease coder. The goal of Hitler erase Jews from the last of them from the world map. During the six years of the war the Nazis extermination of six million Jews, including 1.5 million children, where killed systematic process of genocide carried out by Adolf Hitler against the Jews, which has effectively chilling, two-thirds of the world's population Jews, the extermination of the people, a process unmatched in terms of size, management and implementation. The aim was to erase the existence of an entire people, wherever possible, to find it, for no other reason but for being a Jew. This has necessitated the launch of a unique name for this event, is the Holocaust, or the Holocaust. But now, after sixty-odd years later, deny many Allasamyin Holocaust, or trying to minimize the tragedy, through the claim that the size of the event was much less, but there are some racists who wish to remove the stigma is removable from the brow of the Nazis, while some other mistakenly believed that the state of Israel was created in compensation to the Jews for the Holocaust, to try through the denial of the Holocaust to deny Israel's right to exist, which is the same reason for the great support for the Holocaust deniers from the presence of the Arab countries. In fact, the number of Arab leaders, including the Mufti, Haj Amin al-Husseini, the leader of the Palestinian Arabs, gave active support to Nazi plans to exterminate the Jews. In recent decades, we hear some Arab voices that complain about Hitler because he did not accomplish his mission. I peered Holocaust denial in recent years, particularly new, where frequently haters villains of the State of Israel from the left and right of the political spectrum, both, of the equality of Israelis to Nazis on the one hand and the Palestinians The Jews on the other hand. It's not libel blood such as false accusations of the Jews that they slaughtered Christian children to mix the blood Bjeen soggy Feast of Passover, targeting delegitimize the mere existence of Israel, but not later than about trying to belittle the Holocaust and the marginalized, as through the equality between the two cases figs are not the lowest common denominator between them, The condemnation of Israel without the right at all, and trivializing the torment of the Holocaust and the suffering of the victims. The denial of the Holocaust in all its forms is one of the moral atrocities that can not be overlooked, as it is not a way to ensure that the Jews or other peoples because their solution, is the commemoration of the Holocaust and documented. referred Finally, to delegitimize Israel through the use of legal and judicial frameworks and legal forums exploitation strategy, international and national, have been resorted to in the wake of multiple failures of attempts to destroy the Jewish state by military means.









Is the security fence legitimate self-defense means?
trying to Palestinian propaganda portray the security fence protective of terrorism in the strongest colors darker, Instead of acknowledging that the fence legitimate negative for self-defense tool, the Palestinians and their supporters to tarnish its objectives through renamed racial barrier or wall of Berlin's new (Mngadin that the whole wall almost nothing more than a fence), which is intended to create ghettos.
The Palestinians have tried to attach the term (apartheid) protective fence of terrorism, despite the fact that the apartheid system of racial separation and foremost in order to maintain the status quo and the suppression of the population of South Africa's blacks , who were deprived of any right. But the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not the face of a semi between him and the situation that prevailed in South Africa, with no connection whatsoever between the Israeli fence protective of terrorism and apartheid, but the aim is to prevent terrorism.
The Palestinian propaganda completely Vttgahl the fact that the conflict between Palestinians and Israelis is no dispute racist, but a dispute nationally regionally Some Palestinians tried to give him a religious qualities. Were not fence designed to separate the two peoples on racial or religious background, but was created to separate the perpetrators of terrorist attacks and their victims, where there is on one side are Israeli citizens Jews and Arabs, and on the other side there is the Palestinian population who covers the terrorists among them.
Israel does not seek to isolate Palestinians, but he does not want anything more than a desire to see a flourishing cooperation between them and the Palestinians and the Arab world and its neighbors. The only reason to impose restrictions on the entry of Palestinians into Israel due to the terrorist attacks that culminated during the second intifada, which began in 2000. Moreover, the Palestinians have no legal right to enter the State of Israel, they are not Israeli citizens, but many of them criminal reasons to enter Israeli territory.
At the same time, the Israeli Arabs, who represent about 20% of Israel's population, are citizens with equal rights under Israeli law, and staying on the Israeli side of the fence. Accordingly, it is clear that the wall does not separate between the people on racial or religious grounds, as much as depends on the sexual behavior of terrorist in previous periods.
For similar reasons, the accusations that Operation Defensive Wall of terrorism has created a Berlin Wall new, nothing more than a cheap publicity manipulator factual historical, Fssor Berlin was not a defensive system, but the goal of the establishment by the Communist totalitarian regime of East Germany is devoted to the city split across the detention of East German citizens who did not envisage only freedom and communicate with their brothers in West Germany, and to prevent their exit, which is exactly the opposite of the goal being built by Israel for him to build a defensive wall of terrorism, a sole goal is to prevent the entry of Palestinian terrorists who seek to kill Israeli citizens and injuring them and turn them into two.
It is through false that Defensive Wall of terrorism created ghettos allegations, manipulating the Palestinian propaganda history and reality of all Satire , note that the defensive measures such as a wall, a far cry from the ghettos.
The ill-use of the word "ghetto", shows the Palestinians that they have chosen to manipulate a word related to the darkest periods of Jewish history and the most painful. In this way, the Palestinians have been abusing Jewish suffering to tarnish the image of Israel, which is shining on the new anti-Semitism, which resort to pure fabrication in order to rewrite history and turn the victim to the executioner example. I've been through the Holocaust period forcibly deport Jews into ghettos in order to isolate them and discriminated against and persecuted up to the execution.
But Israel, the Palestinians do not pay into the ghettos, but freedom of the Palestinians living in the West Bank. What Israel is doing is creating a barrier between Palestinian terrorists and Israeli villages and towns. The wall is designed to provide maximum security and minimal interference in the daily lives of Palestinians. Israel does not force the Palestinians to leave their towns and villages, as far as the Palestinian terrorists who Ajbrunha to build a security fence to keep them out of Israeli civilians.
It is Palestinian terrorism that caused the construction of the wall, and that Palestinian terrorism, which should bear the responsibility for any inconvenience caused by the defensive wall. This protective wall of terrorism has actually contributed to the peace, by enabling him to the Israelis and Palestinians to live side by side, and the relative avoidance of the differences caused by terrorism.












Sunday, June 8, 2014

WALL STREET: The Next Financial Crash will be the End of America

Obama Adviser: Rising Sea Levels Threaten Military Bases: ‘Where Will We Move Them?’

Obama Adviser: Rising Sea Levels Threaten Military Bases: ‘Where Will We Move Them?’

June 5, 2014 - 4:17 PM
Alice Hill
Alice Hill, senior advisor for Preparedness and Resilience to the assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, spoke at an American Association for the Advancement of Science conference on June 5, 2014 in Washington, D.C. (CNSNews.com/Penny Starr)
(CNSNews.com) – A top Obama advisor said at an American Association for the Advancement of Science conference on Thursday that climate change threatens our national security, including military bases that could be misplaced by rising sea levels. “It could, for example, affect our military mission,” Alice Hill, senior advisor for Preparedness and Resilience to the assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, said during a panel discussion on “Current Federal Efforts” to fight climate change.
“If our key military bases were severely damaged by extreme weather or if they’re just threatened by sea level rise so that we have to be thinking, ‘Where are we going to move them?’” said Hill, who was a Superior Court judge in Los Angeles before she was appointed as counsel for the Department of Homeland Security by then-Secretary Janet Napolitano in 2009.
Hill quoted Secretary of State John Kerry ahead of her remarks about the military and said climate change will “affect virtually every country on earth.”
“As Secretary Kerry has recently noted, climate change can produce effects similar of those of weapons of mass destruction,” Hill said.
“We know that climate change will affect virtually every country on earth,” Hill said. “It is, after all, global climate warming.
“Other nations around the world are also viewing this as a national security risk,” Hill said citing the American Security Project, which she said found 70 percent of countries around the world have addressed climate change as part of their national security strategy.
“We know, for example, that climate change will affect water security; food security, energy systems and the stability of our infrastructure,” Hill said. “It could, for example, affect our military mission.
“If our key military bases were severely damaged by extreme weather or if they’re just threatened by sea level rise so that we have to be thinking, ‘Where are we going to move them?’” Hill asked.
Hill began her remarks by describing her work at the White House and its connection to climate change.
“My work in particular focuses on the intersection of climate change and national security,” Hill said. “I work on the National Security Council staff, and let me make clear that [climate change] is viewed as an issue of national security,” Hill said.

Joel Osteen Tour Ticket Prices Reach $850: Cost Of Gospel Hits All Time High!

Joel Osteen Tour Ticket Prices Reach $850: Cost Of Gospel Hits All Time High!

image
PimpPreacher.com Houston Bureau 06/06/2014
According to Essence Music Festival - a 3 day pass to see Prince, Lionel Richie, Mary J Blige, Erykah Badu and more on (July 4-6, 2014) in New Orleans is only $249, with 111 tickets remaining. Considering that lineup of Superstar Talent, how much would you pay to hear “Christian Superstar” Joel Osteen preach the Gospel of Jesus? According to StubHub.com, ticket scalpers are selling tickets for The Joel Osteen Tour for as much as $850. SEE COST PER SEAT!
On the StubHub.com site, tickets for this event are being resold by Ticket Scalpers therefore the price is currently ranging from $18 in the Nose Bleed Seats, all the way up to $850 if you desire to look directly up Joel Osteen’s Nose.
Stubhub.com is also reporting that the normal cost of tickets in Delta Suit B without the Scalper mark up is $592.
Since when did scalpers start scalping church tickets you ask? Since 2005, when Joel Osteen proved he could sellout a stadium. Traditionally ticket scalpers are only interested in sold out events. Apparently the scalpers feel this event will sell out, and fans of Joel Osteen are willing to pay their asking premium. Regardless of the Performer on the stage - even if that performer just so happens to be a Preacher, the scalpers somehow seem to know how to make a profit, and they’re planning to profit as Joel profits
For some crazy reason Christians are willing to pay the high cost of these tickets just to get a front row view of Joel Osteen, prices that even tower above “A List” performers like Beyoncé.
Get Breaking News On Pimp Preachers Like our Facebook Fan Page or our Twitter Page!
We did a little research on the cost of concert tickets for Joel Osteen as compared to other performers, and the cost for Pastor Osteen ranks near the top of all tours this summer. For a “Cover Artist” who simply recaps the Greatest Hits of Jesus Christ, Joel Osteen makes Jay-Z look like a one hit wonder.
Listed below are ticket prices for other concert tours of well known artists.
Average Concert Ticket Prices
10. Paul McCartney/The Beatles
Avg. concert ticket cost: $241
 9. Pink
Avg. concert ticket cost: $270
8. Fleetwood Mac
Avg. concert ticket cost: $282
7. Beyonce
Avg. concert ticket cost: $282
Current tour: The Mrs. Carter Show
Most recent album: Beyonce (2013) 
6. Roger Waters
Avg. concert ticket cost: $314
Current tour: The Wall Live (ended in 2013)
Most recent album: Ca Ira (2005) 
5. Justin Timberlake
Avg. concert ticket cost: $339
Current tour: The 20/20 Experience
Most recent album: The 20/20 Experience (2013) 
4. Eagles
Avg. concert ticket cost: $354
Current tour: Unnamed
Most recent album: Long Road Out of Eden (2007) 
3. Maroon 5
Avg. concert ticket cost: $364
Current tour: Unnamed
Most recent album: Overexposed (2012)
2. One Direction
Avg. concert ticket cost: $460
1. The Rolling Stones
Avg. concert ticket cost: $624
On Thursday morning, two seats in the first row of the stadium’s Delta Suit B were for sale on eBay and StubHub for $850 each. Andrea David a spokeswoman for Lakewood Church and Joel Osteen Ministries said “We’ve had this issue since we started doing tours about 10 years ago. We encourage people to get their tickets from the official venues or our website or ticketmaster.”
Jesus Has Left The Building!
Something about this just feels wrong - kind of like Matthew 21:12-13 wrong. It’s true that this event is in Yankee Stadium and not in a traditional church building, but we (The Believers in Christ) make up the True Church. My question for Joel Osteen and his wife is why have this Christian Gathering in Yankee Stadium where there is already fixed cost involved?
No matter how Lakewood Ministries attempt to spin this event - it is 100% about selling the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
What I find totally skanky is how Joel Osteen has made more money of the Bible than Peter, Paul, Timothy, Luke, The Sons of Zebedee, Mary, Malachi, and our Lord Jesus Christ (just to name a few). This Gospel was given Free Of Charge for our guidance,reflection, instruction, and connection with our God. Any gathering of Christians should be Free Of Charge just in case those who desire to convert from Islam or Hinduism are present, and in a same manner as the Great Apostles - we gain the opportunity to participate in The Great Commission.
Yes Joel Osteen is a Rock Star - but not for Christ. This upcoming tour is for the sole purpose of selling his products, and the promotion of his brand, none of which is in the service of our Lord. So to Joel Osteen I say "Rock On" and "Everyday You Hustling" and "Don’t Stop Until You Get Enough"  just as long as you never make the mistake of calling yourself a Christian Pastor. Because you’re not a Christian Pastor, and your ministry is for Christian Entertainment Purposes Only.
To Pastors like Joel Osteen
God has sent us, the followers of Christ who preach the Gospel for Free to deliver a firm Cease & Desist Letter in the name Jesus. Freely you received this Gospel, and Freely you were ordered to distribute it. If you are a fan of Joel Osteen and considering paying $850 just to be close to him  - then Joel is your Jesus. Finally!
How great this event could be if it was free of Charge - like Diana Ross free concert in Central Park in 1983. Just a thought Joel Osteen, just a thought.
This is not the first time we have covered the enormous cost of Joel Osteen’s Gospel - please read Pay Per View Jesus!
Get Breaking News On Pimp Preachers Like our Facebook Fan Page or our Twitter Page!
By TJ: CHURCH FOLK REVOLUTION RADIO

Saturday, June 7, 2014

ran and the Muslim Brotherhood advance their plan to destabilize Egypt and overthrow President el-Sisi and the newly elected government

ran and the Muslim Brotherhood advance their plan to destabilize Egypt and overthrow President el-Sisi and the newly elected government

Iran is planning an offensive against Egypt not only from the west (Libya), but also from the south (Sudan). If previous stories posted here are accurate, Turkey, Qatar, and the U.S. also seem to have a hand in this.

still-enraged-about-the-overthrow-of-mohamed-morsi-barack-hussein-obama-turkey-qatar-the-muslim-brotherhood-are-backing-new-jihadist-army-to-violently-destroy-egypts-government
egypt-update-on-the-move-by-obama-turkey-and-qatar-to-overthrow-the-egyptian-government-and-reinstate-the-muslim-brotherhood
Ousted Muslim Brotherhood president of Egypt, Muhammad Morsi, had close ties with Iran from the beginning
Ousted Muslim Brotherhood president of Egypt, Muhammad Morsi, had close ties with Iran from the beginning

Gatestone  The Iranian regime’s new enemy, it seems, is Egypt’s President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi. Iran’s mullahs apparently fear Sisi’s secular stance against Islamist movements, and see him as an obstacle to Iran’s future influence in the Middle East.

According to the Jordan-based media outlet Al-Bawaba, Iran is determined to put an end to el-Sisi’s rule by training the Libya-based Islamist group known as the Free Egyptian Army [FEA]. The FEA is composed of both Egyptian jihadists who went to fight in Syria during the rule of Egypt’s former President, the Islamist Mohamed Morsi, as well as other Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood militants who fled from Egypt to Libya after Morsi was removed from power.

Arab_League_-_Iran

According to Al Bawaba, personnel of the Quds Force — the special-forces arm of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps [IRGC] — arrived in Libya to train the FEA in Misrata, northwestern Libya. Quds Force officers met with FEA leaders — reportedly Abu Dawud Zouhairi and Karam Amrani. There, Lebanese jihadists coming from Syria and led by Abu Fahed Al-Islam also joined the FEA.

The Egyptian newspaper El-Watan reports that the Iran has also deployed Quds Force personnel to Sudan, to take advantage of the deterioration of the relationship between the Islamist-led Sudanese government and Sisi’s Egypt, and is now training Muslim Brotherhood militants in Sudan. A Jordanian newspaper, Al-Arab Al-Yawm, confirmed the news, and reported in addition that Iran is organizing violent operations to destabilize Egypt from Libya and Sudan.

Although in the Middle East, Sunni and Shia factions usually fight each other, this time an unholy Sunni-Shia alliance has been formed between Shia Iran and the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood to fight their common enemy: el-Sisi.

Iran's Hassan Rohani meets Turkey's Muslim Brotherhood prime minister Recep Erdogan
Iran’s Hassan Rohani has close ties with Turkey’s Muslim Brotherhood prime minister Recep Erdogan

For years, Iran’s regime has dreamt of seeing the Muslim Brotherhood rise in Egypt as part of a plan to Islamize the Middle East. In this vision Iran would take the leadership role — brushing aside that for years, Iran and Saudi Arabia have jockeyed over who would assume the leadership of the Muslim world. As the Muslim Brotherhood has always been opposed to the Saudi Kingdom, it was taken for granted that an Egypt governed by the Muslim Brotherhood would be the natural ally of Iran.

As Iranian author and journalist Amir Taheri describes in the Saudi-owned newspaper, Asharq Al-Awsat, Iran cherished Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood-backed former President, Mohamed Morsi. Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and President Morsi, Taheri writes, were supposed to symbolize the triumph of Islamic fundamentalism. The leadership in Tehran apparently also felt that it had to “profit from its political, propaganda and even financial investment” in ensuring Morsi’s election.

Erdogan Obama Cannes 2011

Khamenei took care to woo the newly-elected Morsi to bring Egypt to Iran’s side. He even started speaking about an “Islamic Awakening” in Egypt, and hinting that what was happening in Egypt was similar to Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution. The Iranian Ministry for Culture and Islamic Guidance, according to Taheri, even decreed that the media should no longer use the phrase “Arab Spring,” but “Islamic Awakening.”

“This is an Islamic awakening inspired by Imam Khomeini’s revolution in Iran,” the Iranian diplomat and Khamenei’s long-serving adviser, Ali Akbar Velayati said, in a presumed attempt to have Iran adopt paternity for the Arab Spring.

The Iranian regime now has long-term plans, and the Muslim Brotherhood needs the help of Iran to fight their common enemy: Egypt’s President el-Sisi. Should they succeed this time, Iran will no doubt demand that the Muslim Brotherhood publicly recognize Iran as the leader of the Muslim world.

sisimuslimb
Share

Barack Obama's choice for CIA chief 'converted to Islam' former FBI agent claims John Guandolo claims John Brennan converted while in Saudi Arabia Former FBI agent says Mr Brennan visited Mecca and Medina during Hajj

Barack Obama's choice for CIA chief 'converted to Islam' former FBI agent claims

  • John Guandolo claims John Brennan converted while in Saudi Arabia
  • Former FBI agent says Mr Brennan visited Mecca and Medina during Hajj
The incoming head of the CIA converted to Islam while working as a station chief in Saudi Arabia in the 1990s, a former FBI agent has claimed.
John Guandolo, who retired from the FBI in 2008, said in a radio interview that John Brennan - who has been nominated by Barack Obama as the new director of the CIA - visited the Islamic holy cities of Mecca and Medina accompanied by Saudi officials who may have persuaded him to convert.
Mr Guandolo's tale echoes elements of the plot of hit show Homeland, in which U.S. Marine Nick Brody converts to Islam while being held prisoner by al-Qaeda, only to begin working for the CIA after his release.
Scroll down for video
Accusations: John Brennan (right) has been nominated as the new Director of the CIA by President Barack Obama
Accusations: John Brennan (right) has been nominated as the new Director of the CIA by President Barack Obama
Mr Guandolo told the Trento Radio Show via Skype that Mr Brennan visited the holy sites during the Hajj season - in sees hundreds of thousands of Muslims converge on the cities to perform a series of rituals - while serving as CIA station chief in Riyadh between 1996 and 1999, a report on Al Arabiya News said.
 
Non-Muslims are prohibited from entering Mecca, and are not permitted to enter the city centre, or sacred core, of Medina.
The ex-FBI agent told the radio station Mr Brennan was 'unfit' to take charge of the CIA, and claimed U.S. government officials based in Saudi Arabia during that period 'were direct witnesses to his growing relationships with individuals who work with the Saudi government and they witnessed his conversion to Islam'.
Homeland: The show sees Marine-turned-terrorist Nick Brody begin working with the CIA
Homeland: The hit show sees Marine-turned-terrorist Nick Brody begin working with the CIA
Converted: Brody, seen preparing to pray in an episode of Homeland, hid his new faith from his family upon his return to the U.S.
Converted: Brody, seen preparing to pray in an episode of Homeland, hid his new faith from his family upon his return to the U.S.
Mr Brennan, 57, has spent more than three decades working in intelligence.
He was nominated as the new head of the CIA on January 7 by President Obama, after predecessor General David Petraeus was forced to resign amid a scandal surrounding an affair with his biographer.
In the critically-acclaimed series Homeland Lieutenant Nick Brody was 'turned' by his captors during an eight year stint as a prisoner of war.
Upon his release he is welcomed back to the U.S. as a war hero and soon attracts the interest of high-level politicians who encourage him to run for Congress. But the newly devout Muslim is secretly working for terrorist Abu Nazir.
The second season of Homeland sees Brody forced to begin covertly helping the CIA in its hunt for Nazir after his cover is blown by agent Carrie Mathison.
The CIA is yet to respond to the MailOnline regarding Mr Guandolo's claims.
VIDEO: Ex-FBI agent John Guandolo on CIA nominee John Brennan

Judge Jeanine: VA 'crimes' are 'impeachable' To Obama: 'Admit this job is just too much for a community organizer'

  • Text smaller
  • Text bigger
Jeanine Pirro, host of the Fox News show “Justice with Judge Jeanine,” is blasting President Obama for his “impeachable” handling of the Veterans Affairs scandal, openly challenging his claims about the crisis and describing his management as “an organized criminal enterprise.”
“Criminally negligent homicide. Involuntary manslaughter. Falsifying records. Obstruction of justice. Tampering with evidence. Obstruction by intimidation,” she ticked off in a commentary.
“Because of the intentional wrongdoing on the part of VA employees, veterans were left to die,” she charged. “Premised on the oldest of motives: greed.”
Obama, she said, has “brought disgrace on our nation and [it] should be an impeachable offense.”
“Mr. President, we are weary of your fake outrage and your claim that bad news just doesn’t get to you. … Why don’t you just admit this job is just too much for a community organizer?”
It wasn’t the first time she’s called for impeachment.
She uncorked a blistering verbal assault on Obama in connection with his handling of the fatal attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11, 2012, and the subsequent cover-up.
“Mr. President, it’s called an abrogation of duty,” Pirro said. “You have not taken your oath to honestly and faithfully execute the duties of your office. As commander in chief, you have NOT protected us. This dereliction of duty as commander in chief demands your impeachment.”
And she’s just one of many who have brought up impeachment.
The definitive case for removing Barack Obama from office is presented in “Impeachable Offenses” by Aaron Klein and Brenda J. Elliott.
The idea recently was broached in response to Obama’s exchange of five Taliban leaders for an Army soldier who has been accused by his former colleagues of desertion.
Former Rep. Allen West, R-Florida, said, “I call upon the leadership of the U.S. House of Representatives; Speaker John Boehner, Majority Leader Eric Cantor, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi to draft articles of impeachment.”
Fox News judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano supported West’s opinion.
“We have a federal statute which makes it a felony to provide material assistance to any terrorist organization. It could be money, maps, professional services, any asset whatsoever, include human assets,” he said.
Earlier, Andrew McCarthy, the former federal prosecutor who brought the evidence that convicted perpetrators of the first Islamic terror bombing of New York’s World Trade Center, said Obama likely broke the federal law against supporting terror.
Retired U.S. Army Lt. Gen. William “Jerry” Boykin, who said it’s clear “high crimes and misdemeanors” were committed in Obama’s deal with terrorists, also talked of impeachment.
“This was about emptying out Guantanamo,” he said. “This was a backdoor deal. The reasons for it, the details of it will probably never come out in its entirety, but this is an ugly story.
“It was really bad form for him not to at least call in the chair and ranking member of the intel or armed services committee and tell them what he was about to do with regard to the release of these prisoners,” he said. “It’s an example of how this president only obeys the laws and follows the policies that he wants to. In our Constitution, it falls under the category of high crimes and misdemeanors, where you just selectively obey certain laws and ignore others.”
Listen to the WND/Radio America interview with Lt. Gen. William “Jerry” Boykin:
“Impeachable Offenses” by Aaron Klein and Brenda J. Elliott, outlines multiple grounds for action that could be taken against Obama.
It has been called a blueprint for impeaching Obama, outlining the high crimes, misdemeanors, bribery and other offenses committed against the U.S. Constitution.
The Daily Mail called “Impeachable Offenses” “explosive,” saying the book contains a “systematic connect-the-dots exercise that the president’s defenders will find troublesome.”
Among the offenses enumerated in the book before the Bergdahl deal erupted:
  • Obamacare not only is unconstitutional but illegally bypasses Congress, infringes on states’ rights and marking an unprecedented and unauthorized expansion of IRS power.
  • Sidestepping Congress, Obama already has granted largely unreported de facto amnesty to millions of illegal aliens using illicit interagency directives and executive orders.
  • The Obama administration recklessly endangered the public by releasing from prison criminal illegal aliens at a rate far beyond what is publicly known.
  • The president’s personal role in the Sept. 11, 2012, Benghazi attack, with new evidence regarding what was transpiring at the U.S. mission prior to the assault – arguably impeachable activities in and of themselves.
  • Illicit edicts on gun control in addition to the deadly “Fast and Furious” gun-running operation intended, the book shows, to collect fraudulent gun data.
  • And more.
Former Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colorado, wrote recently that impeachment is a valid response to Obama’s Benghazi scandal.
“But White House lies about Benghazi are only the tip of what is really a very large impeachment iceberg,” he wrote in a commentary on WND. “We will hear many pundits say that whatever the truth of what happened in Benghazi, it’s ‘only politics’ to lie about foreign events during an election campaign, and so, it’s not a scandal on the scale of Watergate. That argument misses the point that what Benghazi and Watergate have in common: What brought Nixon down was not the crime but the cover-up. And when it comes to cover-ups, Obama and his team make Nixon look like a rank amateur.”
He continued: “There is a pattern here of abuse of power through the deliberate disregard of constitutional norms and standards. And what makes that pattern so egregious and dangerous is the participation of a partisan media that actively supports and condones the ongoing cover-ups of Obama’s arrogant disregard of the Constitution.”
A political blockbuster and guide for Congress to draw up articles of impeachment – Aaron Klein’s “Impeachable Offenses: The Case for Removing Barack Obama from Office”
The list of leaders who have discussed impeaching Obama is growing.

U.S. Senate candidate Mark Callahan, who recently called out a reporter who apparently was disrespectful to another candidate, according to Now Renew America, has signed a “Pledge to Impeach. It calls for members of Congress to agree to “acknowledge that my sworn oath of office, if I am elected, will require me” to “support the initiation of House impeachment proceedings against President Barack Hussein Obama, and his inner circle.”
It was Washington Post commentator Paul Waldman who reported the impeachment drive has gone mainstream.
“Now we have the Benghazi select committee, and a select committee is what you form when there may be crimes and misdemeanors to uncover,” he pointed out.
“It has no other business to distract it, and it will be led by Trey Gowdy, a former prosecutor who excels at channeling conservatives’ outrage,” Waldman wrote. “To be clear, this doesn’t mean that [House Speaker John] Boehner or the party establishment he represents want impeachment, not by any means. They realize what a political disaster it was when they did it in 1998, and they understand that the effects would likely be similar if it happened again.”
But Waldman wrote that “there are multiple Republican members of Congress who have at least toyed with the idea, and the committee’s hearings could build pressure in the Republican base for it.”
Among the people who have raised the prospect of impeachment are Watergate reporter Bob Woodard, actor Steven Seagal, Ambassador Alan Keyes, Code Pink co-founder Medea Benjamin and Oliver North, the former Marine Corps lieutenant colonel first known for his testimony as a National Security Council staff member under President Reagan.
“Tragically, this administration has gotten away with things that any other president would have been impeached for,” North said. “There’s no doubt in my mind.”
Seagal, whose dozens of films feature action and violence but also have an underlying theme of seeking justice, said Obama would be impeached if the truth about the Benghazi attack was revealed.
His charge came Feb. 22 in an appearance at the Western Conservative Conference in Phoenix
“Never in my life did I ever believe that our country would be taken over by people like the people who are running it this day,” said Seagal.
“I think that when we have a leadership that thinks the Constitution of the United States of America is a joke, when we have a president who has almost 1,000 executive orders now, when we have a Department of Justice that thinks that any kind of a judicial system that they make up as they are going along can get by with whatever they decide that they want to do – like Ted Nugent said the Fast and the Furious, what’s happening with the Fast and the Furious? What’s happened with the truth about any of the greatest scandals of American history that have happened right before our eyes?” Seagal said.
“If the truth about Benghazi were to come out now, I don’t think that this man would make it through his term. I think he would be impeached,” he said.
Seagal has company in his worries.
Sign the petition urging Congress to pursue impeachment right away!
As WND reported, Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely said it’s time for millions of Americans to “stand up” to a federal government that is “conducting treason … violating the Constitution, violating our laws.”
He’s calling for marches, a legislative vote of “no confidence” in President Obama and congressional leaders, even citizen arrests, drawing inspiration from the 33 million Egyptians who stood up to their government and removed Muslim Brotherhood officials from office.
The impeachment drive has been fueled by Georgetown professor Jonathan Turley’s congressional testimony.
The liberal professor has represented members of Congress in a lawsuit over the Libyan war, represented workers at the secret Area 51 military base and served as counsel on national security cases. He now says Obama is a danger to the U.S. Constitution.
Read the definitive case for removing Barack Obama from office in “Impeachable Offenses” by Aaron Klein and Brenda J. Elliott.
He was addressing a House Judiciary Committee hearing Dec. 4. Chairman Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., asked him: “Professor Turley, the Constitution, the system of separated powers is not simply about stopping one branch of government from usurping another. It’s about protecting the liberty of Americans from the dangers of concentrated government power. How does the president’s unilateral modification of act[s] of Congress affect both the balance of power between the political branches and the liberty interests of the American people?”
Turley replied: “Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The danger is quite severe. The problem with what the president is doing is that he’s not simply posing a danger to the constitutional system. He’s becoming the very danger the Constitution was designed to avoid. That is the concentration of power.”
Congress already is addressing charges that Obama is violating the Constitution.
WND reported when Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., said Obama’s actions have reached “an unprecedented level, and we’ve got to do something about it.”
“Assume that a statute said you had to provide two forms of ID to vote. Can the president require three forms? Can the president require one form? Can you suspend all requirements? If not, why not?” he said. “If you can turn off certain categories of law, do you not also have the power to turn off all categories of law?”
Gowdy cited Obama’s decisions to ignore certain immigration laws, even though Congress did not approve the changes. He also cited arbitrary changes to the Obamacare law and Obama’s “recess appointments” of judges even though the U.S. Senate was not in recess.
His proposal is for Congress to take the White House to court over the president’s actions, through a resolution proposed by Rep. Tom Rice, R-S.C., that would authorize the House to sue the Obama administration. It has 118 co-sponsors.
Rice said that because of “this disregard of our country’s checks and balances, many of you have asked me to bring legal action against the president.”
“After carefully researching the standing the House of Representatives has and what action we can take, I have introduced a resolution to stop the president’s clear overreach,” he said.
A Fox News interviewer asked Gowdy if Obama could refuse to enforce election laws.
“Why not?” asked Gowdy, “If you can turn off immigration laws, if you can turn off the mandatory minimum in our drug statutes, if you can turn off the so-called Affordable Care Act – why not election laws?”
WND reported that it was at the same hearing that Michael Cannon, director of Health Policy Studies for the Cato Institute, said there is “one last thing to which the people can resort if the government does not respect the restraints that the Constitution places of the government.”
“Abraham Lincoln talked about our right to alter our government or our revolutionary right to overthrow it,” he said.
“That is certainly something that no one wants to contemplate. If the people come to believe that the government is no longer constrained by the laws, then they will conclude that neither are they.”
Cannon said it is “very dangerous” for the president to “wantonly ignore the laws, to try to impose obligations upon people that the legislature did not approve.”
Several members of Congress also contributed their opinions in an interview with talk-show host Sean Hannity.
See the Hannity segment:
Talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh says Obama won’t be impeached. But Limbaugh also is making the case that the Constitution is in crisis, an emergency for which the founders probably created the impeachment process.
“You can’t impeach the first black president,” he said on his radio show recently. “No matter how corrupt or lawless.”
But he said the danger is very high, citing Boehner’s recent comments that the House wouldn’t adopt amnesty legislation this year because the president probably wouldn’t follow it.
“This is the president of the United States effectively nullifying the legislative branch of government,” an outraged Limbaugh said. “He’s basically saying … and he has in practically these words, said this, ‘I got a pen and I got a phone and if they don’t do what I want I’m going to it anyway.’
“That’s not a ho-hummer to me. That is major. If the chartered body in our government that makes the law decides not to because they don’t think it’ll matter, because the executive branch will just ignore it, I mean that’s a breach of serious proportion,” he said.
“That is a constitutional challenge and crisis that is very real that nobody apparently has the courage to do anything about because of the president’s race,” he said.
Ambassador Alan Keyes, however, wrote in a WND column that Limbaugh isn’t right about impeachment.
“When Rush Limbaugh says that ‘efforts to try to have Obama impeached or held personally responsible for these scandals is a bunch of wasted effort,’ he is saying that, on account of the politics of our times, this fundamental aspect of the U.S. Constitution no longer matters. With all due respect to Rush Limbaugh (and my respect for him is sizable and sincere), I beg to differ. The judgment about ‘wasted effort’ depends on what we’re trying to achieve. If politics is just a partisan game, with no goal but to score points for one side or the other, it may be reasonable to conclude that impeachment is a wasted effort. After all, the Democrats who control the U.S. Senate will never allow Obama to be removed from office. Doesn’t this make impeachment impossible? ”
He continued: “Mr. Limbaugh is right to assume that impeachment is inherently political. In this respect his view accords with that of Alexander Hamilton, who wrote (in Federalist No. 65) that ‘… the subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed … from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.’”
But Keyes said: “The difference between Limbaugh and Hamilton, however, is that when Mr. Limbaugh speaks of politics he is referring to the competition of partisan factions. But for Hamilton politics means the business of citizens, i.e., individuals characterized by their concern for the common good of their society as a whole, not just their own personal, factional, partisan interests. From Hamilton’s perspective, the way elected representatives handle such offenses is therefore a test of their concern for the common good. If they act, or refuse to act, based solely on whether by doing so they advance their personal or factional agenda, they show their contempt for the well-being of the nation as a whole. They thereby prove themselves unfit for the offices (duties) they hold, whether or not they are ever called to account for their dereliction.”
Get “Taking America Back,” Joseph Farah’s manifesto for sovereignty, self-reliance and moral renewal
Polls have revealed American support for impeachment is growing, and rock legend and gun-rights defender Ted Nugent said there’s “no question” Obama should be impeached.
Referring to Obama, Nugent says: “There’s no question that this guy’s violations qualify for impeachment. There’s no question.”
He blasted “the criminality of this government, the unprecedented abuse of power, corruption, fraud and deceit by the Chicago gangster-scammer-ACORN-in-chief.”
“It’s so diabolical,” he said.
Nugent made his comments in an interview with radio host Alex Jones.
Even Code Pink co-founder Medea Benjamin called for the impeachment of Obama over his policy of permitting drone strikes on American citizens overseas who are members of terrorist organizations.
On WABC Radio’s “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio,” Benjamin affirmed she believes the drone warfare is an impeachable offense.
A recent comment was from Rep. Paul Broun, a Georgia Republican who was seeking to replace the retiring Sen. Saxby Chambliss.
A video from a forum featuring candidates for Chambliss’ seat shows Broun and two others, Derrick Grayson, an engineer, and Eugene Yu, a businessman, raising their hands when asked whether they would support impeachment.
A forum moderator asked the candidates: “Obama has perjured himself on multiple occasions. Would you support impeachment if presented for a vote?”
Broun, Grayson and Yu raised their hands.
Others who have commented on impeachment:
Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa; Rep. Blake Farenthold, R-Texas; Rep. Steve Stockman, R-Texas; Rep. Bill Flores, R-Texas; Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif.; Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla.; Rep. Kerry Bentivolio, R-Mich.; Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas; Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla.; Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah; Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C.; Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn.; Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas; Rep. Trey Radel, R-Fla.; and Rep. Ted Yoho, R-Fla.
Stockman even handed out in Congress copies of a book that has been described by its authors as the “articles of impeachment” for Barack Obama. Stockman suggested that special investigations and possibly prosecutions are needed in response to Fast and Furious, Benghazi and other Obama scandals.
Rep. Bill Flores, R-Texas, was speaking at a town hall meeting when he considered the idea. A video of his comments was posted at the Western Center for Journalism.
“I’ve looked at the president. I think he’s violated the Constitution. I think he’s violated the Bill of Rights,” he said.
He said at some point a decision must be made.
“I think if the House had an impeachment vote, it would probably impeach the president.”
But he noted there are only 46 members of the GOP in the U.S. Senate, where an impeached president would be put on trial.
To obtain a conviction, the prosecuting team must have 67 votes, and he wasn’t sure even all of the GOP members would vote to convict.
WND previously reported Coburn’s statement that Obama is “perilously close” to qualifying for impeachment.
Speaking at the Muskogee Civic Center in Oklahoma, the senator said, “What you have to do is you have to establish the criteria that would qualify for proceedings against the president, and that’s called impeachment.”
Coburn said it’s “not something you take lightly, and you have to use a historical precedent of what that means.”
Visit WND’s online Impeachment Store to see all the products related to ousting Obama.
Earlier, Bentivolio said it would be a “dream come true” to impeach Obama.
Bentivolio told the Birmingham Bloomfield Republican Club Meeting, “You know, if I could write that bill and submit it, it would be a dream come true.”
He told constituents: “I feel your pain and I know. I stood 12 feet away from that guy and listened to him, and I couldn’t stand being there. But because he is president I have to respect the office. That’s my job as a congressman. I respect the office.”
Bentivolio said his experience with the president caused him to consult with attorneys about what it would take to remove Obama from office.
Cruz responded to a question about impeachment after a speech.
“It’s a good question,” Cruz said. “And I’ll tell you the simplest answer: To successfully impeach a president you need the votes in the U.S. Senate.”
In May, Inhofe suggested Obama could be impeached over a White House cover-up after the attack in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11, 2012.
He told listeners of “The Rusty Humphries Show”: “Of all the great cover-ups in history – the Pentagon papers, Iran-Contra, Watergate, all the rest of them – this … is going to go down as the most egregious cover-up in American history.”
But even with that searing indictment, Inhofe stopped short of calling for impeachment.
Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, has offered tentative support for impeachment.
“I’m not willing to take it off the table, but that’s certainly not what we’re striving for,” he told CNN.
One Republican actually has come out and called for the impeachment of Obama, and he did it more than two years ago, before he became a congressman.
Rep. Ted Yoho, R-Fla., posted on his website in June 2011 a list of reasons for impeachment.
Other figures who have discussed impeachment include Glenn Beck, Watergate investigative reporter Bob Woodward, WND columnist Nat Hentoff and a panel of top constitutional experts.
Woodward said: “If you read through all these emails, you see that everyone in the government is saying, ‘Oh, let’s not tell the public that terrorists were involved, people connected to al Qaida. Let’s not tell the public that there were warnings.’ And I have to go back 40 years to Watergate when Nixon put out his edited transcripts to the conversations, and he personally went through them and said, ‘Oh, let’s not tell this, let’s not show this.’ I would not dismiss Benghazi. It’s a very serious issue.”
Additionally, radio host Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor and one-time presidential candidate, predicted Obama won’t serve out his second term because of his complicity in a cover-up over Benghazi.
See Dennis Kucinich advocate for impeachment over Libya:
Sign the petition right away!

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/06/judge-jeanine-va-crimes-are-impeachable/#g8Udb0vAgfgjpm4i.99