OBAMAS OIL DRILLING MORATORIUM

CAROLINE GLICK - ISRAEL AND IRAN AFTER THE BOMB
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VDNupft_oI&feature=player_embedded
AGENDA 21 - JOHN LOEFFLER ROUND TABLE
http://britanniaradio.blogspot.com/2010/07/alternative-news-radio-steel-on-steel.html#links

ENEMY ARMIES FACING ISRAEL
by David Basch 8.6.10

Did our synagogue membership need to convene for an Israeli government
presentation that echoed the soothing voice of the liberal media urging support
for Obama policies for further surrenders by Israel of its strategic territories
for the sake of peace? Truly, the Israeli speaker sounded like he was campaigning for Obama, the guy that has been stabbing Israel in the back ever since he came into office....Caroline Glick has reported on the new competence of the Arab armies facing Israel,a competence made possible by the US and, ironically, by misplaced trust in the US that leads Israel to wink at the threats these armies pose for the security of Israel,if not to actually abet these anti-Israel military efforts.The picture that emerges is of an Israel that is gradually being surrounded by powerful
Arab armies helped by the US that will face Israel with the choice of surrender and capitulation or going down to destruction in a fruitless war of impossible self-defense. This is hardly a reassuring situation. .Past experience with fighting wars tells that a besieged nation that is having war thrust upon it should respond vigorously in such a way that leads not only to stopping the aggression but decisively defeating it so that it cannot recur. It wouldn't because the conditions that brought it on would be forever changed and the enemy would no longer have the ability to pose the former menace. This is a policy that Israel has not had
for decades. Instead, Israel has each time it nipped an attack had followed it up
by surrendering its victory by allowing the enemy to regroup and recoup. Each
time Israel has expected the enemy to learn a new way of behavior -- as though
a jackal curbed could change its nature and turn vegetarian.

Anyone who has watched Israel over the past decades has note that for all the
concessions, appeasements, and surrenders that Israel has made, this has not led
to promoting peace but always in promoting the strength of the enemy and the
legitimacy of its aggression against Israel. The enemy, thanks to active policies of
Israeli governments, has become freedom fighters for the historic Arab lands
stolen from them by the Jews,the Jews now organized as an oppressing, illegal
Israeli government. Everyone knows this, including the vast majority of Jewish
youth in the US and even large numbers of Jewish youth in Israel itself.Such things don't happen overnight. It took Israeli governments many years to foster such thinking as they sought to show the implacable Arab enemy what good guys Israelis are and how wrong Arabs are to fight such nice Jews just because these nice people are robbing the Arab lands of Palestine.Will the Arab knife menacing the Jewish neck lead Israel's leaders -- the threat has long ago succeeded in alarming normal, average Jews -- to recognize that Israel is in mortal danger and needs expert strategy, strong deployments, and tactics to confront the menace, not the usual ideological approach that imagines away the threat of determined Arab enemies.A recent pitch by an Israel speaker from the New York Israeli Consulate at our
local synagogue sought to paint a rosy picture of Arabs like Abu Abbas that were
working for peace with Israel in order to benefit by their improving economic
condition in the territories. Imagine, our audience was dumbfounded to learn that
because of such progress the Arabs would surrender their cherished Islamic beliefs
that lands once ruled over by Arab authorities should forever maintain such status.

The way the speaker told it, these Arabs were like Israelis, ready to throw away
their religious heritage for refrigerators, Nike sneakers, and other material
comforts and that, when they strengthened themselves sufficiently, they would
forgo the coup de gras of recapturing and absorbing the lands they think stolen
from them.You could hardly tell the Israeli speaker about this side of the problem in the delirium he fostered in his talk of the good economic times current in Israel and how close Israel was to the the thinking of the Obama administration. Truly, the speaker sounded like he was campaigning for Obama, the guy that has been stabbing Israel in the back ever since he came into office, continuing such back-stabbing that had begun in the last years of the Bush administration.Needless to say that there was nary a thought mentioned by the speaker of the inescapable problem that Israel faces concerning the ever-present feeling of humiliation that Arabs feel that a Dhimmi population of Jews had succeeded in reversing an Islamic conquest of the land of Israel; that this was a continuing background threat to the existence
of Israel that needed to be considered in developing defense policies, not wished away in imagining happy Arabs visiting their new shopping malls.Did our synagogue membership need to convene for an Israeli government presentation that echoed the soothing voice of the liberal media urging further surrenders by Israel
of its strategic territories for the sake of peace? Hopefully, reality will intrude into the Leftist ideological realm of the Israeli leadership before it is too late. I long to see signs of this.

Are you aware that HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF TAX-PAYER DOLLARS are going toward training armies that don't hide their goal of destroying Israel?
By Caroline B. Glick AUG 6,10

Posed photo of Obama and Abbas under potrait of Arafat. Was notPhotoshop-ed

What you need to know about Israel's American-made foes
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | It wasn't a US Army sniper who killed IDF Lt. Col. Dov Harari and seriously wounded Capt. Ezra Lakia on Tuesday. But the Lebanese Armed Forces sniper who shot them owes a great deal to the generous support the LAF has received from America.For the past five years, the LAF has been the second largest recipient of US military assistance per capita after Israel. A State Department press release from late 2008 noted that between 2006 and 2008, the LAF received ten million rounds of ammunition, Humvees, spare parts for Lebanese attack helicopters, vehicles for its internal security forces and the same frontline weapons that US military troops are currently using, including assault rifles, automatic grenade launchers, advanced sniper systems, anti-tank weapons, and the most modern urban warfare bunker weapons.Since 2006 the US has provided Lebanon some $500 million in military assistance. And there is no end in sight. After US President Barack Obama's meeting with Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri in June, the White House proclaimed Obama's determination to continue US efforts to support and strengthen Lebanese institutions such as the Lebanese Armed Forces and the Internal Security Forces.And indeed, in late June, US Defense Secretary Robert Gates informed Congress that the Pentagon intends to provide the LAF with 24 120mm mortars, 24 M2 .50 caliber machine guns, one million rounds of ammunition, and 24 humvees and trailers. The latest orders should be delivered by the end of 2011.According to the Los Angeles Times, the administration has already allocated $100 million in foreign military assistance to Lebanon for 2011. According to Lebanon's Al Safir, in written testimony to Congress, last week Obama's nominee to command US Central Command, General James Matthis claimed that relations between US Central Command and the LAF focus on building the LAF's capabilities to preserve internal stability and protect borders.

And how is that border protection going?
Tuesday's unprovoked LAF ambush of Lt. Col. Harari's battalion within Israeli territory showed that the LAF is fully prepared to go to war against the US's closest ally in the region in order to deter IDF forces from crossing the border. Indeed, they are willing to commit unprovoked acts of illegal aggression to harm Israel.As the Jerusalem Post reported on Wednesday, there is no reason to be surprised by what happened. Since 2009, LAF forces have frequently pointed their rifles at IDF forces operating along the border. In recent months they have also cocked their rifles at IDF forces. It was just a matter of time before they started shooting.The same aggressive border protection is completely absent however along Lebanon's border with Syria. Since 2006, the LAF has taken no actions to seal off that border from weapons transfers to Hizbullah. It has taken no steps to protect Lebanese sovereignty from the likes of Syria and Iran that are arming Hizbullah's army with tens of thousands of missiles.Then there's Centcom's internal stability.For the past four years, in open breach of UN Security Council Resolution 1701 which set the terms for the ceasefire that ended the Second Lebanon War, the LAF has done nothing to block Hizbullah from remilitarizing and reasserting control over southern Lebanon.Moreover, the institution that the State Department views as the anchor of a multiethnic, independent Lebanon did not lift a finger against Hizbullah when Hizbullah staged a coup against the Siniora government in 2008. In a sense, by effectively collaborating with Hizbullah, the LAF did ensure internal stability. But it is hard to see how such internal stability advances US interests.
In stark contrast, as the Los Angeles Times reported last week, the US-supported Lebanese Internal Security Forces have used US signals equipment to help Hizbullah ferret out Israeli agents. According to the Times, A strengthening Lebanese government is helping Hizbullah bust alleged spy cells, sometimes using tools and tradecraft acquired from Western nations eager to build up Lebanon's security forces as a counterweight to the Shiite group [Hizbullah].

To date the US has refused to reckon with the consequences of its actions. As the Times reports, last week US Assistant Secretary of Defense Alexander Vershbow visited Beirut and said that continued US aid and training to the LAF would allow the Lebanese army to prevent militias and other nongovernmental organizations from undermining the government.It bears recalling that Hizbullah has been a partner in the Lebanese government since 2005. Since its successful coup in 2008, Hizbullah has held veto power over all the decisions of the Lebanese government.It also bears recalling that during the 2006 war, the LAF provided Hizbullah commanders with targeting data for their missiles and rockets. The LAF also announced on its official website that it would pensions to families of Hizbullah fighters killed in the war.Unfortunately, the LAF is not the only military organization aligned with Israel's enemies that the US is arming and training. There is also the US-trained Palestinian army.As Israel Radio's Arab Affairs commentator Yoni Ben Menachem reported last month, the IDF is deeply concerned about the US-trained Palestinian force. Ben Menachem recalled that since 1996, Palestinians security forces have repeatedly taken leading roles in organizing and carrying out terrorist attacks against Israel. Hundreds of Israelis have been murdered and maimed in these attacks.
The Palestinian force being trained by the US army represents a disturbing, qualitative upgrade in Palestinian military capabilities.OC Central Command Maj. Gen. Avi Mizrachi warned IDF ground forces about the new US-Palestinian threat in May. As Mizrachi put it in a speech at Tze'elim training base cited by Ben Menachem, This is a well trained force, better equipped than its predecessors and trained by the US. The significance of this is that at the start of a new battle [between the Palestinians and the IDF] the price that we will pay will be higher. A force like this one can shut down a built up area with four snipers. This is deadly. These aren't the fighters we faced in Jenin [in 2002]. This is an infantry force that will be fighting us and we need to take this into account. They have offensive capabilities and we aren't expecting them to give up.

The IDF assesses that the US-trained force will be capable of overrunning small IDF outposts and isolated Israeli communities.To date, the US has spent $400 million on the Palestinian army. The Obama administration has allocated an additional $100 million for the next year. And the US is demanding that Israel support its efforts. In a General Accounting Office report issue in May, Israel was excoriated for hampering US efforts to build the Palestinian forces. The GAO railed against Israel's refusal to permit the transfer of a thousand AK-47 assault rifles to the Palestinian forces. It criticized Israel's rejection of US plans to train a Palestinian counter-terror force. It complained that Israel does not give freedom of movement to US military advisors to the Palestinian forces in Judea and Samaria.
The US claims that what it is doing cultivates stability. It argues that the Palestinian and Lebanese failure to date to prevent terror armies from attacking Israel is due to their lack of institutional capacity to rein in terrorism rather than the absence of institutional will to do so. The US claims that pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into these Lebanese and Palestinian armies will enable them to become stabilizing forces in the region that will engender peace. What the administration ignores however is the fact that the members and commanders of these US-trained forces share the terrorists' dedication to Israel's destruction.To its undying shame, Israel has publically supported or, at best failed to oppose these American initiatives. By doing so, Israel has provided political cover for these US initiatives that endanger its security. Although it is crucial to call the US out for its sponsorship of terror-aligned armies, it is also important to understand Israel's role in these nefarious enterprises.

Israel has gone along with these US programs for a variety of reasons. Sometimes it has been due to domestic politics. Sometimes it owed to Israel's desire to be a team player with the US government. But generally the Israeli rationale for not loudly and vociferously objecting to US assistance to enemy armies has been the same as Israel's rationale for embracing Yassir Arafat and the PLO in 1993 and for every other Israeli act of appeasement towards its enemies and allies alike.Successive Israeli governments have claimed that by supporting actions that strengthen Israel's enemies, they gain leverage for Israel or, at a minimum, they mitigate the opprobrium directed against Israel when it takes actions to defend itself. In Lebanon for instance, Israel agreed to the US plan to support the Hizbullah-dominated Siniora government in the hopes that by agreeing to give the Lebanese government immunity from IDF attack, the US would support Israel's moves to defeat Hizbullah.But this did not happen. Indeed, it could not happen. The pro-Western Lebanese government ministers are beholden to Hizbullah. Whether they wish to or not, former prime minister Fuad Siniora and his successor Hariri both act as Hizbullah's defenders to the US. And once the US committed itself to the falsehood that the Sinioras and Hariris of Lebanon are independent actors, it inevitably became Hizbullah's advocate against Israel as well. The logic of appeasement moves in one direction only - towards one's enemies.The same holds for the Palestinians. Israel believed that once it capitulated to international pressure to recognize the PLO the US, the EU and the UN would hold the PLO to account if it turned out that Arafat and his minions had not changed their ways. But when Arafat ordered his lieutenants to wage a terror war against Israel rather than accept statehood, the US, the EU and the UN did not rally to Israel's side. They had become so invested in their delusion of Palestinian peacefulness that they refused to abandon it. Instead, at most, they pinned the full blame on Arafat and demanded that Israel support their efforts to strengthen the moderates. And so, in this demented logic, it made sense for the US to build a Palestinian army after the Palestinians elected Hamas to lead them.And so on and so forth. In every single instance, Israel's willingness to embrace lies about the nature of its enemies has come back to haunt it. Never has Israel gained any ground by turning a blind eye to the hostility of the likes of Salam Fayyad and Sa'ad Hariri.It is true; the US is abetting and aiding the war against Israel by supporting the LAF and the Palestinian military. But it is also true that the US will not stop until Israel demands that it stop. And Israel will not demand that the US stop building armies for its enemies until Israel abandons the notion that by accepting a lie told by a friend, it will gain that friend's loyalty.JWR contributor Caroline B. Glick is the senior Middle East Fellow at the Center for Security Policy in Washington, DC and the deputy managing editor of The Jerusalem Post.

Bloomberg is a Disgrace

Laura: Mayor Bloomberg was on a local radio show and said that those who oppose the ground zero mosque should be ashamed of themselves. He also said that he spoke to families of victims who he claimed said they support the mosque. While there may be some families who feel that way, the overwhelming majority of 9/11 families oppose the mosque. He then said our troops are fighting for religious freedom. But our troops are fighting against the jihadists that imam rauf represents. Rauf has advocated for sharia law which is the antithesis of what America stands for. This proposed mosque does not represent religious freedom, but rather an islamic triumph over America. And most astonishingly of all, Bloomberg said HE DOESN’T CARE WHERE THE MONEY IS COMING FROM! Unbelievable! In other words, it can be coming directly from al qaeda and it wouldn’t matter to Bloomberg apparently. How sickening that we are losing soldiers abroad fighting islamic jihadis while we give the islamic jihadis a victory shrine here at home, near where they attacked us.

[Editor’s note: Alan Dershowitz submitted an article to Frontpagemag.com criticizing the Anti-Defamation League’s opposition to the plans for a mosque to be built at Ground Zero. We decided to run the piece with a rebuttal by Victor Davis Hanson. An extra round between the two follows.]

Anti-Defamation League Should Not Oppose Mosques At Ground Zero
By Alan M. Dershowitz AUG 7,10

The ADL’s decision to oppose the building of a 13 story Muslim center two blocks from Ground Zero is inconsistent with its mission. The ADL has a long and distinguished history of opposing bigotry, supporting multiculturalism and advocating tolerance. Though it began as an organization dedicated to combating anti-Semitism, it has become one of the most potent forces against all forms of religious, ethnic and racial bigotry.Following the mass murders perpetrated on 9/11 by Islamic extremists, the ADL was in the forefront of standing up against those who would use this hateful attack to generalize hatred against all Muslims or all Arabs.

In light of this history, I would have expected the ADL to support the building of this Muslim community center, which would include a mosque, a performing arts center, a pool and a restaurant. At the very least I would have expected it to remain silent and not to lend its powerful and distinguished voice to an opposition that includes many bigots along with many decent people who have expressed legitimate concerns about the structure.Reasonable people can disagree about the merits of building a Muslim center so close to the sight of a horrendous crime committed in the name of Islam by extremists who do not represent their religion. Many Jews were deeply offended when a Roman Catholic covenant was built adjacent to Auschwitz.Supporters argue that the proximity of the mosque to the site of this crime sends a powerful message that there are many Muslims in the world who identify with the victims rather than the perpetrators. The most influential opposition comes from families of many of the victims who were killed at Ground Zero, though some families favor the project while others have remained silent.

Let the debate continue, but let the ADL not lend its imprimatur of tolerance to those who stand in opposition. Inevitably, this has become a political debate with rightwing republicans such as Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich leading the political campaign against it, while Mayor Michael Bloomberg has strongly supported the project on grounds of religious freedom, arguing that government should have no role in dictating where a mosque can be situated. As Bloomberg put it, what is great about America, and particularly New York, is we welcome everybody, and if we are so afraid of something like this, what does that say about us? Democracy is stronger than this…The ADL’s decision to join this debate on the side of those who oppose the mosque was exacerbated by the reason given by Abe Foxman, a friend and a man who I admire, for why the opposition of some families was an important part of why the ADL came down against the project. Mr. Foxman, who himself survived the Holocaust, was quoted in The New York Times saying: ”Survivors of the Holocaust are entitled to feelings that are irrational.Referring to the loved ones of the 9/11 victims, he added, Their anguish entitles them to a position that others would categorize as irrational or bigoted.This is a dangerous argument that has implications totally inconsistent with the mission of the ADL. Bigotry is often a result of victimization, perceived or real. Many Germans felt victimized following World War I, and some blamed the Jews. Although their position was irrational or bigoted, they were not entitled to act on it. Nor are Palestinians who feel victimized by Israel entitled to be bigoted against Jews. There is simply is no excuse for bigotry, and the ADL ought to know that better than any other organization.The ADL was founded as the result of irrational bigotry directed against a Jew named Leo Frank by a Ku Klux Klan type organization calling itself the Knights of Mary Phagan. They lynched Leo Frank in the name of an alleged victim of rape and murder. The fact that Frank was totally innocent didn’t matter to them. Their anguish over her victimization did not entitle them to their irrationality and bigotry. The ADL should know better than to provide an “abuse excuse” to bigots based on perceived victimization.

The vast majority of those who oppose the mosque at Ground Zero are neither bigoted nor irrational. Some are. So are some who favor it. That is not the issue. The issue is whether a great human rights organization should oppose the building of a Muslim center near Ground Zero. I have heard no rational reason from the ADL why it should stand in opposition to this project.I hope that Abe Foxman was misquoted or misspoke and that he will withdraw both his opposition to the mosque and most especially the argument he offered for it. The ADL should continue with its noble mission of siding with the victims of bigotry rather than making excuses for those who engage in bigotry.Alan Dershowitz is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. He is the author of more than 20 works of fiction and non-fiction, including Blasphemy: How the Religious Right is Hijacking the Declaration of Independence (2007) and The Case for Israel (2003).

What the World Isn’t Being Told about the Israeli-Lebanese Border Incident - The worst kind of liar is the one who lies to himself. On a national level that could be catastrophic. Yamit - Israel blames U.S., France for arming Lebanon United States has given Lebanon approximately $400 million over the past year to purchase arms, despite Israel’s objections.By Barak Ravid and Shlomo Shamir

Don’t look to the MSM to give you the truth about this week’s ambush of IDF reservists.by Richard Landes. Pajama Media

Despite the careful he said … she said approach of the mainstream news media about the clash along the Lebanese-Israeli border this week, events are quite clear: Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) were deliberately ambushed by Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF).In an outdoor press conference held at a lookout point above the Lebanese border where the incident occurred, Ilan Diksteyn, the deputy commander of the Israeli brigade, explained what happened. The IDF had notified the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) of its intentions and complied with multiple requests to delay a routine job that should have started early in the morning and didn’t get going till midday.According to Diksteyn, he had personally walked the border with the UNIFIL commander and identified all the trees and shrubs they intended to cut down, all approved of as being located on the Israeli side of the border by the UNIFIL commander. The key tree was some 200 meters from the Blue Line, so there was not the most remote possibility that Israel trespassed on Lebanese territory. The IDF even set out the crane without a man in it, just to demonstrate their intentions beforehand.But no sooner did they put a man in the unit and lift him over the fence than a sniper shot and killed the commanding officer of the unit who was away from the border and observing from a distance. Despite claiming they fired first in the air, and that Israel initiated the hostilities, an LAF spokesman eventually asserted their right to defend Lebanon’s sovereignty.

The Israelis claim this was an ambush by units of the Lebanese Armed Forces. And as such, this was an unprecedented new level of aggression. Even the normally cautious UNIFIL, which the previous day had restricted itself to calling for calm and announcing its intention to investigate, eventually — and exceptionally — sided with Israel’s claim that the tree was on their side of the border. Even the Lebanese admit they carried out an ambush.Of course, for UNIFIL to do so means that Israel had to be unquestionably and irrefutably in the right — 2-300 meters away, the Israeli officer claimed. Otherwise the UN troops, which operate on the Lebanese side of the border and are subject to constant harassment by Hezbollah, would have found some way to equivocate if not prevaricate. After all, in violation of UN Resolution 1701, which the UNIFIL forces have been deployed to enforce, Hezbollah has managed to rearm and reoccupy the southern border. Indeed, pictures of UNIFIL troops standing side by side with heavily armed LAF troops suggest that the efforts to prevent a clash consisted primarily in getting the Israelis not to do what they had a right to do, rather than preventing the Lebanese from doing what they had no right to do.From here on out, however, the story gets fuzzy. While some newspapers acknowledged UNIFIL’s confirmation of the Israeli narrative, few bothered to draw out the implications, and some, like France2, continued to insist the tree was on the Lebanese side. The New York Times, for example, in a remarkably uninformed article, acknowledged the correction, but ended up repeating the he said … she said dance by quoting Lebanese officials rather than questioning them about the problems. The Wall Street Journal emphasized the efforts of UNIFIL to prevent an incident, without even addressing the disturbing evidence that they collaborated in the ambush, and then took a day to state what they knew from the beginning — that Israel was on its own turf.

On the contrary, everyone, including the Israelis, is backing off drawing the disturbing conclusions. The intelligence officer who briefed reporters off-record refused to draw even the most elemental conclusions from the incident, even negating claims by major Israeli public figures that the incident was an ambush. He admitted that the Lebanese army had an increasing number of Shiites rising up to the rank of officer, and that even if they were not Hezbollah, many of them had family in Hezbollah. Israel so wants this arrangement with UNIFIL and the LAF to work that they play down their own case.The intelligence officer even tried to suggest, without dotting the i’s, that this was a rogue incident. He characterized it as an escalation of the spirit of the commander, a belligerence that has grown in the past weeks, especially since a Shiite commander took over the brigade that patrols this section of the south. He alluded to a Levantine attitude (by which I assume he meant macho behavior), leading Lebanese soldiers to make often imaginative hand gestures at the Israelis (do you bite your thumb at me sir?).Of course sniper fire aimed at a commanding officer in the background (first shot) and RPGs (after a lull) hardly seems constant with escalating the kind of chest-thumping described by the Israeli officer. And the most recent remarks from the Lebanese officer present at last night’s parlay with UNIFIL and an Israeli general make it clear that this came from the top. But theories on just what set of interests set in motion the aggression remain speculative.In the end we have a grave incident which illustrates more clearly than anything that the Lebanese, and Hezbollah in particular, can begin a war any time they want. And that one of the main forces intended to hinder Hezbollah’s belligerence has been deeply compromised from below, from above, from both directions.Indeed, the most widespread speculation is that Hezbollah, via sympathetic members of the LAF, provoked the incident to distract from approaching revelations by the Special UN Tribunal for Lebanon — perhaps even arrests — that would reveal major Hezbollah involvement in the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri in 2005.

Nothing better illustrates the cultural differences between Lebanon, the closest thing to a democracy Arab political culture has so far produced, and Israel, the only Western democratic element in the Middle East since the end of World War II. Lebanon, with a thick web of religious, clan, and political solidarities and hostilities, takes war as the norm. Even public statements reflect the kind of tribal us-them rhetoric that fosters conflict. Said the commander of the Lebanese army of the incident: Your brave stand in the face of the treacherous enemy … proved to this enemy that any aggression on our people and land will not pass without a price.He told this to soldiers in the south.So Hezbollah, one of the most religious and most powerful of the factions in Lebanon, risks a war with a more powerful neighbor, in order to distract attention from embarrassing, potentially explosive, revelations about its Machiavellian deeds. They can do so because Israel, rather than explode at the slightest attack, has a high tipping point for violence.This would, on some level, represent a fairly common initial relationship between democracies and strong horse political cultures: they provoke, the democracy shows restraint. What’s so unusual about this conflict is the way the media at best enable and at worst stoke the most bellicose elements by serving as the mouthpiece for their propaganda. It apparently teems with people East and West, for whom journalistic standards are sacrificed in an inexplicable rush to present the warmongers as oppressed underdogs.Richard Landes is a Professor of History at Boston University. He blogs at The Augean Stables, and maintains The Second Draft as an archival site for all matters pertaining to Pallywood and al Durah. The Second Draft has recently been reorganized and relaunched with new features.

OBAMA'S OIL DRILLING MORATORIUM By Joel Turtel
August 7, 2010 NewsWithViews.com

Is His REAL Agenda To Strangle Oil and Gas Producers?

Here's my theory on Obama's REAL agenda for his drilling Moratorium in the Gulf. In a recent video interview (YouTube), Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal can't seem to fathom Obama's utter indifference to wrecking the offshore oil and gas industry in Louisiana with his dictatorial Moratorium. He can't understand Obama's seemingly utter contempt and indifference to the tens of thousands of Louisiana workers who work for or depend on the oil industry in the Gulf, who will lose their jobs if the Moratorium continues. Governor Jindal is a good but, in this case, somewhat naive man who does not understand that this Moratorium could be a deliberate and ruthless act of political calculation by radical socialists in the Obama administration. Mr. Obama and his cohorts do not like to waste a crisis to promote their radical-socialist agenda. I believe the oil spill presented a perfect opportunity for Obama to take control of and/or strangle the oil and gas industry in the Gulf of Mexico, a major source of energy for America. Now why would Obama, President of the United States, want to deliberately strangle oil and gas drilling in the Gulf that would throw thousands of Louisiana oil and gas workers out of a job? Consider this. Obama is a radical socialist. Obama is a student and admirer of the marxist radical community organizer,Saul Alinsky.

As a radical socialist, Obama believes that the end justifies the means. As a radical socialist, he wants to totally control and regulate the American free market. Why? Power. Power to control your life, which is the lust of every elitist radical socialist who believes that HE knows best how we should lead our lives and spend our money. Radical-socialist control of our economy and your life requires having total control over every aspect of our economy (banks, health care, etc.). The oil and gas industry is a crucial sector of our economy.So along comes this oil spill, which, I believe, Obama sees as a perfect opportunity to promote his radical-socialist Agenda by shutting down oil and gas drilling in the Gulf. He hides his secret agenda by claiming that he imposed the Moratorium to prevent other devastating oil spills at other drilling rigs in the Gulf. He needs six months or more to inspect these other drilling rigs for safety. Do we really believe the six months might not turn into a permanent Moratorium to protect the environment? Major oil companies have drilled hundreds of wells in the Gulf over the last 30 years with very few accidents or oil spills, an excellent safety record. When accidents have occurred, the oil companies have paid compensation to the fishermen or other residents who were financially harmed by the spill. End of story.But if your secret agenda is to shut down a major oil-producing sector of our economy, what better cover for your agenda than to pretend that you are concerned about the environment? Then you seem like the good guy who is only trying to protect the pelicans and salt marshes. But it gets worse. Here's another reason Obama might want to deliberately strangle our oil and gas industry. Notice that he is also pushing for cap and trade legislation that would tighten the regulatory noose around our oil and gas industry's neck. What would that accomplish? If oil and gas production in America sharply decreased because of his Moratorium and environmental regulations, then we would have to adopt green energy alternatives that save the environment. Obama promotes the fraudulent notion of global warming to push his radical-left Agenda. If oil and gas production sharply decreased because of his Moratorium and strangling environmental regulations, Obama and his eco-radical cohorts in Congress can then say, See, we don't have enough oil and gas production. We need billions of dollars more in stimulus money to subsidize solar and wind-power systems, which are expensive and inefficient substitutes for oil and gas.

But more important, the oil spill has allowed Obama, through his Moratorium and proposed cap and trade environmental regulations, a perfect excuse to push for total government control over our energy industries, just as he has taken over General Motors, our banking system, our health care system, and more to come. Governor Jindal was rightfully upset and confused about the Moratorium on Gulf oil drilling. His fatal error was in assuming that Obama and his minions have good intentions. But what if they don't? What if their intentions are a deliberate attempt to impose their radical-socialist Agenda on America? Then Obama's actions make perfect sense.