The Times of Israel reports - quoting a British newspaper, the Sunday Times:
Israel could destroy Iran’s electric network with a specially designed electromagnetic bomb in the event of a military conflict between the countries …
[It] would be detonated above the ground, creating an electromagnetic pulse that would “disrupt all the technological devices working on the ground,” an American expert was quoted as saying to the London paper.
The use of the new technology by Israel was brought up in discussions regarding a possible attack on Tehran’s nuclear facilities …
Such a move would send Iran “back to the stone age,” the British paper said.
Such a bomb would not kill people, or destroy buildings. It would wreck communications systems.
This kind of bomb would operate based on the nonlethal technology of gamma rays… The outburst of energy would “fry” electric devicesand currents around the source of the explosion.
Will Israel use this powerful weapon?
In his speech to the United Nations last Thursday (September 27, 2012), Prime Minister Netanyahu said:
The relevant question is not when Iran will get the bomb. The relevant question is at what stage can we no longer stop Iran from getting the bomb. The red line must be drawn on Iran’s nuclear enrichment program because these enrichment facilities are the only nuclear installations that we can definitely see and credibly target.
But he did not go on to say that if Iran crossed that red line, Israel would destroy those nuclear installation by whatever weapons it deems most effective. Having sounded strong and determined up to that point, the Israeli Prime Minister suddenly sounded weak.
I believe that faced with a clear red line, Iran will back down. This will give more time for sanctions and diplomacy to convince Iran to dismantle its nuclear weapons program altogether.
Sanctions and diplomacy, tried for years now, have spectacularly failed.
As long as Barack Obama is president of the US, no red line will be drawn. He won’t even consider it.
Will Israel yet save the world from a nuclear-armed Iran? Will it even act to save itself? If it will, and if not now, when?
“The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU),”, to quote Wikipedia, “is a nonpartisan non-profit organization whose stated mission is to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States.”
But “not in the case of the Muhammad movie”, Investor’s Business Daily reports, referring to the video film titled “Innocence of Muslims”, which has been absurdly blamed by the Obama administration for Muslim protests and uprisings across the globe, violent attacks on US embassies, and the torture, sodomizing, and murder of US Ambassador Stevens in Libya.
The silly little film had been on YouTube for months without being taken notice of. Then it was found, pounced on and used by Arab media men, politicians, al-Qaeda leaders, and imams to boost an Islamic campaign to put an end to freedom of speech in the West, particularly in the US. And the Obama administration, ever sympathetic if not passionately devoted to Islam, is doing its best to help them achieve their aim.
And they’re not being opposed in this by the ACLU which exists to defend rights and liberties in America.
Here is more from the IBD report:
The ACLU’s executive director failed to release an official statement condemning the outrageous efforts of the White House to deep-six the film including pressuring YouTube to remove its trailer from the Web. …
Not until The Daily Caller contacted the ACLU did it speak out, and only meekly so. It said it was “concerned” about the White House request to censor the “repellant film.”
The ACLU’s strangely muted response contrasts sharply with its militant reaction to post-9/11 measures to crack down on Islamic terrorists.
“The government has gone to extraordinary lengths to squelch dissent (in the Muslim community) — from censorship and surveillance to detention,” it says on its website, complaining it was “encroaching” on the “free speech rights” of Muslims. …
Where is this bias coming from? Muslims. The ACLU now counts at least eight on its national executive staff alone. In fact, a Muslim runs the ACLU’s Center for Democracy, while another heads its National Security Project.
The irony is not lost on Steve Emerson, director of the Investigative Project on Terrorism. “The ACLU was founded on the basis that there shouldn’t be any blasphemy laws,” said Emerson … “Yet in the last 10 years, they’ve appointed (to their boards) members of the Muslim Brotherhood who believe in blasphemy laws.”
The top Muslim lawyer in ACLU’s stable is [a Canadian named] Jameel Jaffer, … [who] successfully sued the U.S. to reveal CIA secrets for interrogating terror suspects. …
[Jaffer is] a Muslim activist closely tied to major Muslim Brotherhood figures and front groups. [He] now heads the ACLU’s Center for Democracy after heading its National Security Project.
[He is] pals with Tariq Ramadan, the grandson of the Egyptian founder of the radical Muslim Brotherhood .. [who] was denied a visa in 2004. … Jaffer successfully sued the U.S. to get Ramadan’s visa restored. … Secretary of State Hillary Clinton lifted the six-year ban in 2009. …
Jaffer has lobbied the Justice Department to remove CAIR and other Brotherhood and Hamas front groups from its blacklist of groups complicit in a criminal conspiracy to raise money for terrorists.
He’s also pressured the FBI to purge names of Muslim terrorist suspects from the no-fly list.
What’s more, Jaffer wants to deny the feds one of its most effective weapons in the war on terror — freezing the assets of terrorist front groups.
He’s also sued to kill the government’s drone program, perhaps its most effective weapon of all.
This is who’s controlling the agenda at the ACLU these days. It was bad enough when the group was run by leftists. Now it’s also run by Islamists.
The purposes of Islam could not be more different from the purposes for which the ACLU was created. Plainly the ACLU no longer exists to protect liberty. It is now run by adherents of a movement which opposes liberty.
Is there an American institution of any importance which has not been infiltrated and corrupted by Islam?
… and get an unwelcome answer.
Do Muslims “have a right to be offended?” Right or no right, human beings take offense. But which is more offensive to a rational mind: a bad video, or acts of atrocious cruelty?
Ayaan Hirsi Ali, self-emancipated from Islam, superbly intelligent, superbly lucid, speaks truth to a morally deaf TV interviewer, and is sharply cut off when she makes an inarguable point.
(Video clip via Creeping Sharia)
According to a February 2012 report, 27% of prisoners released from custody at Guantanamo Bay return to their vocation of terrorism.
We wonder, why only 27%? What do the rest do? And why are any released while the jihad is still being waged against us?
One of those who graduated from Guantanamo, and was put in the care of that trustworthy fellow Colonel Qaddafi who promised to keep him from doing any more jihad fighting, was – it now transpires – leader of the terrorist attack on the US consulate in Benghazi in which US Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans were killed on the eleventh of this month.
This is from RedState:
As the administration’s false narrative about the events leading up to the sacking of our consulate in Benghazi and the killing of our ambassador continues to unravel, a sordid detail has come to light.
The leader of the the attack is believed to be an alumnus of Guantanamo Bay who was released from custody via an anti-American left wing group headed by an Obama donor….
Abu Sufian bin Qumu, according to his Guantanamo file, was picked up in Pakistan in early 2002 after being identified by the Libyan government (that would be the same government we helped jihadists overthrow) as an al Qaeda operative. He arrived at Guantanamo in May 2002. He had extensive links to a wide variety of Islamist terrorist groups, including the men directly responsible for 9/11. …
Even though the US military recommended he remain in custody, the far left and wildly misnamed Center For Constitutional Rights (CCR) took on bin Qumu as a client and worked to get him released. They were successful and in 2007 he was returned to Libyan custody. He was released from prison as Libyan president Muammar Gaddafi tried to mend fences with radical islamists in 2008. …
The head of the CCR when bin Qumu was released was Michael Ratner [who] endorsed Barack Obama for president in 2008 and contributed $2,300 to Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign. [He] remains “President Emeritus” of the CCR.
Read how Ratner boasts of getting jihadists released from Guantanamo here.
It now transpires that Innocence of Muslims, the anti-Muhammad video trailer that Obama blames for the murder of Ambassador Stevens in Libya and for setting the Islamic world on fire, was made by Muslims in order to incite anger against the US and inculpate Jews and Coptic Christians.
Walid Shoebat reveals this. A first cousin of his was closely associated in felonious schemes with the maker of the film, Nikoula Basseley Nikoula, who is not a Copt from Egypt but in all probability a Palestinian Muslim and terrorist supporter. Read Walid Shoebat’s story in detail here.
He also writes about it at Front Page:
When it comes to the film Innocence of Muslims, our government and the media use a narrative mired in contradictions and false statements provided by the filmmaker, who himself is an untrustworthy source.
If we stick to what can be proven we might obtain the possibility that terror supporters produced the film. …
So lets examine facts …
Court documents reveal that Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, the producer of the movie Innocence of Muslims, partnered in a scheme with Eiad Salameh, my first cousin.
Eiad is a Muslim terror supporter and is not an Egyptian Copt.
He comes from Beit Sahour, Bethlehem and is well known by the FBI and the Arab community as a conduit for Middle Easterners who can obtain authentic, legitimate identifications, from passports to credit cards including many nationalities. He then places these identifications in the hands of dubious characters to use for fraudulent purposes.
In fact, I revealed Eiad Salameh way before this whole fiasco erupted — in 2008, and the first knowledge of Eiad and Nakoula was revealed on September 14, 2012 … [by] court documents that prove these two connected in 2009 in a major financial scheme. …
Was the man arrested by the FBI actually Bakoula Basseley Nakoula?
No one … can confirm for certain that whoever holds an identity by the name of Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, is even that man. He, after all, held several identifications … He could have easily presented a valid I.D. when he was arrested, yet he was likely not the man in that I.D.
Such a claim isn’t easily dismissed; if an Egyptian by the name of Nakoula Basseley Nakoula is blamed for angering over a billion Muslims, it would not be that difficult to find the entire family in Egypt, including brothers, cousins, aunts, siblings, wife, wives, ex-wives, mistresses, pet names and all. Especially since Egypt sparked all the riots that spanned over 30 some nations.
In the Middle East you are known by your clan, yet Egypt cannot produce this man’s family and background?
Besides this, why would Nakoula, who claims to be a religious Coptic activist, have extensive connections with Eiad, a man who I know hates Copts and is well-known to be the best schemer the Middle East has produced and has contacts with terror networks? …
The Daily Beast reported regarding Nakoula’s arrest:
“The bust came around the time the feds were launching Operation Mountain Express, which would become a huge investigation into pseudoephedrine-dealing involving numerous people of a Middle Eastern background. The authorities initially insisted there were no links to terrorism, but suddenly switched and decided that a chunk of the money was going to Hizbullah.” …
Nakoula first presented himself as an Israeli Jew, a thing Eiad also did for years. He fraudulently holds an authentic Israeli passport. …
Both my cousin Eiad and Nakoula had multiple fraudulent identifications … [and they] were linked for at least a decade from the year 2000 …
Nakoula had used “P.J. Tobacco” and Eiad was linked to a tobacco smuggling operation into Syria in 2001 by using a fictitious name A&M Trading, as revealed in the U.S. Trustee report in 2001. Nakoula used M&A Trading in 2009 with his pseudoephedrine dealings. He simply switched letters; A&M became M&A. Nakoula used Eiad’s last name “Erwin Salameh” portraying himself as Eiad’s brother. … Eiad was also involved with someone with a last name “Tanas” and Nakoula had used the name “Thomas J. Tanas.”
Both clans “Nakoula” and “Tanas” exist in Eiad’s village in Beit Sahour, Bethlehem. …
[Nikoula] embezzled millions with Eiad. The money [for the film] must have come from these scandalous operations, which our government finally admitted is linked to terrorist activity. …
Nikoula was brought to trial on fraud charges.
Now to prove beyond a shadow of doubt that the feds were complicit: the Justice Department lawyers and federal agents, despite Nakoula’s two previous offenses, defended Nakoula and gave several excuses to Judge Snyder and pushed for leniency, all because he supposedly promised to help them catch Eiad … [for whom] warrants were issued, [but] no arrests made … in thirty some years. …
Eiad was … finally caught and locked up in Canada in January 2011. … The Canadians wanted to keep Eiad in custody as long as it took to extradite him to the United States, yet the U.S. refused for seven months to take him and preferred to fly him to Palestine.*
More will emerge about these men and the making of the film.
If it is confirmed that Muslims made it in order to rouse fury against the US and Jews, and to bring bloody revenge down on Copts in Egypt, what will President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Ambassador Susan Rice, and UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon have to say, we wonder. Nothing, we guess.
Though they should eat crow. Raw.
* “Palestine” does not exist, but we know what he means.
Jesse Jones, the writer of the movie The Boy Who Cried Warming, sends us this message:
There is a new force in the world of Global Warming, and unlike proposed Cap and Trade Legislation, this one is FREE! A documentary film encompassing all the public misinformation on Climate Change (hence the one and a half hour running time), The Boy Who Cried Warming is now available online for audiences to enjoy at this website … Support our grassroots campaign through word of mouth. Help spread the word!
We strongly recommend the film. It is riveting. The arguments against the hypothesis – or rather the apodictic declaration – that earth’s warming is because of human activity are very clearly explained. And the conclusion is that the reasons why the environmentalist ideologues make their false claim are: to raise revenue with the sale of indulgences for carbon output, and to extend government control over our lives.
Fascinating snippets we particularly noted:
Carbon dioxode rises do not drive rises in temperature. On the contrary, they follow temperature rises by some 300 to 8oo years. The temperature drops suddenly, but the carbon dioxide (always a very small part of the atmosphere) remains at the same level for some 30,ooo years.
In ancient times people tried to prevent destructive weather by propitiating supernatural powers with human sacrifice, and that is what the Manmade Global Warming priests are doing again now, trying to make us sacrifice our advanced way of life to “save the planet”.
Here’ s the trailer. We hope it whets your appetite to watch the whole film.
Listen to these radio interviews about the presidential candidates. A daringly mischievous interviewer and know-nothing interviewees may make your laughter rise even as your heart sinks.
Obama, a pro-life and anti-gay marriage Mormon, whose running mate is Paul Ryan, is favored for the November 2012 election by most of these voters over his opponent, John McCain. One exception will vote for Romney, who is black. Most of them would like Osama bin Laden to be killed, though one woman wants him only to be tortured because she doesn’t believe in killing.