DEA agents under investigation for hiring prostitutes

(Credit: AP GraphicsBank)

CBS News has learned that three Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents are under investigation for hiring prostitutes in Cartagena, Colombia.

The alleged incident happened at the same time as the Secret Service agents were in Colombia for President Obama's visit in mid April, but is separate from the ongoing Secret Service investigation.

Sources tell CBS News that the DEA agents under investigation have been removed from the country.

Two sources briefed on the investigation told CBS News that the allegations against the DEA came from a Secret Service agent who was being questioned by investigators as part of the Secret Service Colombia investigation.

The investigation is being conducted by the Department of Justice Inspector General, who provided a statement to CBS News from spokesman Jay Lerner: "The Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General (DOJ-OIG) is investigating allegations about potential misconduct by Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) personnel in Colombia, unrelated to the Cartagena hotel Secret Service incident." The DOJ IG said they are working in coordination with the DEA, the U.S. Secret Service, the inspector general for the Department of Homeland Security and the State Department's Diplomatic Security Service on the investigation.

Unlike the Secret Service, the DEA has agents permanently stationed in Colombia, with offices in both Bogota and Cartagena.

DEA spokesperson Dawn Dearden sent a statement to CBS News indicating they made the agents immediately available to DOJ IG investigators. "DEA takes allegations of misconduct very seriously and will take appropriate personnel action, if warranted, upon the conclusion of the OIG investigation," it said.

Secret Service Director Mark Sullivan will be on Capitol Hill on Wednesday morning to testify before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

via cbsnews.com

"PROJECTIONISM" - Palestinian group: "Israel planting thousands of ‘fake’ Jewish graves around Aqsa Mosque."

"PROJECTIONISM" - Palestinian group: "Israel planting thousands of ‘fake’ Jewish graves around Aqsa Mosque."(AA).Israel is implanting “thousands of fake” Jewish graves in the land surrounding al-Aqsa Mosque “at the pretext of carrying out repair and maintenance works and new excavations” in a bid to lay hand on Palestinian and Islamic endowment lands, Al-Aqsa Foundation for Endowment and Heritage said in a report on Monday.“The Israeli occupation of Jerusalem is committing a very ugly crime on Palestinian lands, on Muslim endowment lands, and that is the implanting of thousands of fake Jewish graves in this site,” Abdel Majeed Mohammad, of the Aqsa Foundation was quoted in report as saying.
“What we learned from the people of Silwan is that there is limited number of Jewish graves (around Aqsa Mosque). The Israeli occupation is trying to impose a fait accomplice to control Palestinian endowment lands through implanting 3,000 graves.” “This is the greatest paradox; on the one hand Israel bulldozes Muslim graves in Jerusalem, on the other hands it implants thousands of fake Jewish graves,” Mohammad said. He added that thousands of Jewish tombstones were planted around the mosque to indicate graves, but underneath, there are no bodies, nor skeletons. In January 2012, the Palestinian Information Center (PIC) reported that Israel “implanted 50 unreal graves in the northern part of Silwan district so as to control and seize about 20 dunums of Palestinian land there.”“This Israeli move is aimed at separating the area from the walls of the Aqsa Mosque, where the IOA [Israeli Occupation Authority] also intends to establish a chain of Talmudic gardens and a large Jewish museum in the area connected with the Jewish cemetery in Ras al-Amud and Attour neighborhoods and the settlements, Maale Hazeetim and Maale David,” PIC reported. In 2010 Israel said it had destroyed about 300 Muslim gravestones in a Jerusalem cemetery because they were “fake” and set up in a bid to snatch government land, according to AFP. But the Islamic Movement completely denied the graves were fake, saying all of them contained bodies. The demolition of the graves took place near the site of a planned Museum of Tolerance to be built by the Simon Wiesenthal Center, a U.S.-based Jewish human rights group.Hmmmmm........REALITY : "Israel Lands Administration accuses Sheik Raed Salah's Islamic Movement of planting 500 fake tombstones in Jerusalem's Mamilla cemetery, with goal of taking over the land."Read the full story here.

via mfs-theothernews.com

wow... and Europe will believe this shit

Penn Jillette Drug Rant Against Obama

(The Blaze)During a recent episode of “Penn’s Sunday School” (posted on YouTube on Saturday), the popular entertainer and Libertarian unloaded on the Obama administration over its drug policy.
“Now, he has not left this to states’ rights,” Jillette said. “As you know, medical marijuana you can get in California, and the feds are coming in to try to stop this. States‘ rights don’t mean jack s**t to the Obama administration on anything except gay marriage.”
He then posited that Obama’s recent appearance on Jimmy Fallon — where Obama addressed legalizing drugs — was an attempt to make himself look cool and appeal to college kids. He also noted that Obama would not be president if he had been caught and charged for his admitted drug use:

What troubles me about this… I think it’s beyond hypocrisy. I think it’s something to do with class. A lot of people have accused Obama of class warfare, but in the wrong direction. I believe this is Obama chortling with Jimmy Fallon about lower class people. Do we believe, even for a second, that if Obama had been busted for marijuana — under the laws that he condones — would his life have been better? If Obama had been caught with the marijuana that he says he uses, and ‘maybe a little blow’… . This casual attitude towards drugs … that makes him really cool on Jimmy Fallon. Makes him the hip president. … And if he had been busted under his laws, he would have done hard f*cking time. And if he had done time in prison, time in federal prison, time for his ‘weed’ and ‘a little blow,’ he would not be president of the United States of America. And he would not have gone to his fancy-a** college; he would not have sold books that sold millions and millions of copies and made millions and millions of dollars; he would not have a beautiful, smart wife; he would not have a great job! He would have been in f*cking prison, and it’s not a god damn joke! People who smoke marijuana must be set free! It is insane to lock people up.

Jillette went on to say that he’s never done any drugs or even had any alcohol, but that doesn’t stop him from being an advocate for legalizing marijuana.
You can watch the epic, but profanity-laced, rant below (content warning):
(H/T: Fox Nation)

Superman To Go Gay? DC Comics Says One Of Its Most Known Characters To Come Out Of The Closet Thanks To Obama’s Gay Marriage Backing…

Captain Fabulous.

(Weasel Via Fox News:) Could Superman be gay?
Honchos at Superman’s comic book home, DC Comics, said this weekend that one of their most identifiable (but as of yet unnamed) straight characters will soon be coming out of the closet, according to a report.
At the Kapow Comic Convention held last weekend in London, DC co-publisher Dan DiDio said the publisher would be reintroducing a previously existing character who would now be “one of our most prominent gay characters,” the website BleedingCool.com reports.
Didio said DC’s position had shifted on the subject since he said in an interview last year that any homosexual characters would be new introductions, and that none of their existing characters’ sexual orientations would shift.
DC vice president Bob Wayne likened DC’s change in tune to President Obama’s shift on gay marriage, explaining that DC’s policy “has evolved,” the report says.

I curse the day Time Warner bought DC

Fired for being "too hot," New Jersey woman claims

(Reuters) - A New Jersey woman said on Monday that she was dismissed from a temporary job at a New York lingerie warehouse because her male employers felt she was too busty and dressed too provocatively for the workplace.

Wearing a form-fitting sequined black dress and black leather, sequin-studded boots, Lauren Odes, 29, said her Orthodox Jewish employers at Native Intimates told her that outfit and others like it were "too hot" for the warehouse.
"We should not be judged by the size of our breasts or the shape of our body," Odes said.
Odes's attorney, celebrity lawyer Gloria Allred, said she filed a gender and religious discrimination complaint with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in New York.
Odes said she felt her wardrobe was appropriate for a business that sells "thongs with hearts placed in the female genital area and boy shorts for women that say 'hot' in the buttocks area."
Media photographers climbed on chairs and crashed into each other as Odes held a pose and Allred held up a series of purple, black and brown outfits she said also led to the woman's dismissal.
Odes said that on successive days during her week-long employment in late April she was warned that her attire was too alluring, that her breasts should be taped down to make them look smaller, and that she was asked to wear a red bathrobe to cover one outfit.
"This whole experience has been horrifying to me," she told reporters. "I love fashion and I always will, but I don't believe any woman should be treated as I was."
Odes, whose said her duties included data entry and coordinating the shipping of samples to customers, said she eventually agreed to purchase a sweater to wear over her dress, but was dismissed anyway.
"I understand that there are Orthodox Jewish men who may have their views about how a woman should dress ... but I do not feel that any employer has the right to impose their religious beliefs on me," she said.
An employee at the company had no immediate comment on Odes' claims.

She doesn't have a case if her job was data entry. She's not a model in a showroom. If she is a distraction to other people then it is within her employers right to ask her to modify her appearance or feel that she wasn't right for the job.

Facebook shares sink as reality overtakes hype

(Reuters) - Facebook shares sank in the first day of trading without the full support of the company's underwriters, leaving some investors down almost 25 percent from where they were Friday and driving others to switch back to more established stocks.Facebook's debut was beset by problems, so much so that Nasdaq said on Monday it was changing its IPO procedures. That may comfort companies considering a listing, but does it little for Facebook, whose lead underwriter, Morgan Stanley, had to step in and defend the $38 offering price on the open market.
Even so, one source said Morgan Stanley's own brokers were at one point "ranting and raving" about glitches that left unclear what trades had actually been executed.
Without a fresh round of defense, Facebook shares fell $3.79 to $34.34 in afternoon trading. That represented a decline of 10 percent from Friday's close and 24 percent from Friday's intra-day high of $45 a share.
"At the moment it's not living up to the hype," said Frank Lesh, a futures analyst and broker at FuturePath Trading LLC in Chicago, adding that some people may have decided to hang back and buy the stock on the decline.
"Look at the valuation on it. It might have said 'buy' to a few people, but boy it was awfully rich," he said.
The drop in Facebook's share price wiped some $10 billion off of the company's market capitalization -- it became a sufficiently interesting pop culture story that even gossip website TMZ did a brief item Monday morning.(MORE)

Buy facebook shares on Friday. It's a no brainer

Number of the Week: Student Loan Bubble - Real Time Economics - WSJ

368%: The jump since 2007 in the measure of consumer credit held by the government comprised primarily of student loans.
If a student loan bubble were to pop, the government, not private banks, would be the one standing around with gum in its hair.

Issuance of student loans has soared in recent years, hitting $867 billion at the end of 2011, according to an analysis from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, more than credit cards or auto loans. The jump has led some to classify the student-lending market as a bubble, comparing it with the housing mess that nearly brought down the banking system in 2008.
But there are some big differences between student loans and housing. For starters, mortgage credit absolutely dwarfs lending for higher education — by nearly a 10-to-1 ratio. Troubles in an $8 trillion market pose a much higher systemic risk.
The other big difference is who holds the loans. Commercial banks and investment firms held the bulk of the mortgages that were going sour when the housing bubble burst. But that’s not the case with student loans. Despite some recent signals of banks getting back into the student-loan business, private lending has been pretty much stagnant since the recession hit. Since December 2007 nonrevolving consumer lending by commercial banks — a measure tracked by the Federal Reserve that includes student loans as well as auto and other personal credit — is up less than 11%. Over the same period, total consumer loans owned by the federal government — a measure that includes loans originated by the Department of Education under the Federal Direct Loan Program — has more than quadrupled.
The good news in all of this is that if a student loan bubble pops, there’s little chance of a systemic crisis similar to the one that hit in 2008. But there’s still a lot of bad news to go around.
For one, though banks likely wouldn’t take a big hit, the government — meaning the taxpayer — would. That’s not great news for the deficit, but the numbers aren’t large enough to be a huge concern. At the same time, it’s much harder for the borrower to discharge a student loan than a mortgage. You can’t get rid of student loans in bankruptcy, for example. So there’s a much higher chance that the government would get its money back eventually.
The bulk of any burden from a student-loan debt bubble bursting is likely to fall on the borrowers themselves. While that means the broader economy can avoid a systemic crisis, it will struggle with a younger generation whose spending power is constrained limiting growth for years.

via blogs.wsj.com

I'm fucked

40 Years After Munich Massacre, Palestinian Says Israel Should Be Kicked Out Of Olympics

(Daled Amos)At a time that Israel wants this years Olympics in London to commemorate the murder of Israeli athletes at the Munich Massacre in 1972, a Palestinian wants Israel to be banned from the Olympics altogether:

Jibril Rajoub, chairman of the Palestinian Football Association, on Thursday called for Israel to be expelled from all international Olympic unions and committees until it “honors international agreements.”

Rajoub said that he was personally prepared to lead the anti-Israel campaign, but only if he received help from the Arab countries.

Putting aside that Israel's rights to the West Bank are guaranteed by International Law, Rajoub's interest in law seems to be somewhat limited:

Rajoub, who spent 17 years in Israeli prison, founded and headed the much-feared Preventive Security Service in the West Bank immediately after the establishment of the Palestinian Authority in 1994.

Actually, Rajoub was in and out of Israeli prison for various terrorist attacks, but since any Palestinian Arab statement can be made with impunity--without fear of challenge by the media or anyone else--Rajoub's claim comes across as almost mild.
Since the Olympic Committee is clearly not going to do anything about to commemorate the Munich Massacre, Rajoub has nothing to lose--and who knows what the Olympic Committee might be cajoled into doing down the line.
Just look at UNESCO.

Really... I don't know why Israel has to go either. The Jews should no longer give legitimacy to international forums. Not even a sporting event

Barack Obama's biographical brief edited repeatedly over 17 years, but Kenyan birthplace changed just weeks after his presidential run announced

The biography provided by Barack Obama to his literary agent specified his birthplace as "Kenya". And, over the course of 17 years, despite multiple revisions by Obama, the Kenyan birthplace remained a fundamental part of the bio on the agent's website.
I've used the Wayback Archive to explore the exact transformations of Obama's biography on his agent's site (click on any of the thumbnails to zoom to a readable size).

On June 27, 1998, the website read: "BARACK OBAMA was the first black president of the Harvard Law Review. He was born in Kenya to an American anthropologist and a Kenyan finance minister, and was raised in Indonesia, Hawaii, and Chicago. His first book is DREAMS FROM MY FATHER: A STORY OF RACE AND INHERITANCE."
The Obama entry remained unmodified (e.g., June 6, 2002) until sometime around December 9, 2004, when it was modified to read: "BARACK OBAMA is the junior Democratic senator from Illinois, and was the dynamic keynote speaker at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. He was also the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review. He was born in Kenya to an American anthropologist and a Kenyan finance minister, and was raised in Indonesia, Hawaii, and Chicago. His first book, DREAMS FROM MY FATHER: A STORY OF RACE AND INHERITANCE, is a New York Times bestseller."
On February 10, 2007, Senator Barack Obama formally announced his candidacy for the Presidency.

On April 3, 2007, the website read: "BARACK OBAMA is the junior Democratic senator from Illinois and was the dynamic keynote speaker at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. He was also the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review. He was born in Kenya to an American anthropologist and a Kenyan finance minister and was raised in Indonesia, Hawaii, and Chicago. His first book, DREAMS FROM MY FATHER: A STORY OF RACE AND INHERITANCE, has been a long time New York Times bestseller."
Sometime between April 3rd and April 21st, a member of the Obama campaign staff (or Obama himself) noticed the discrepancy in birthplace that would presumably disqualify the Senator from office.
On April 21, 2007, the website read: "BARACK OBAMA is the junior Democratic senator from Illinois and was the dynamic keynote speaker at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. He was also the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review. He was born in Hawaii to an American anthropologist and a Kenyan finance minister and was raised in Indonesia, Hawaii, and Chicago. His first book, DREAMS FROM MY FATHER: A STORY OF RACE AND INHERITANCE, has been a long time New York Times bestseller."

On June 14, 2007, the website read: "BARACK OBAMA, the junior Democratic senator from Illinois, is currently campaigning to become the 2008 Democratic presidential nominee. He was born in Hawaii to a father who was raised in a small village in Kenya and a mother who grew up in small-town Kansas. Barack's father eventually returned to Kenya, and Barack grew up with his mother in Hawaii, and for a few years in Indonesia. Later, he moved to New York, where he graduated from Columbia University before moving to Chicago, where he became a community organizer. He went on to earn his law degree from Harvard, where he became the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review. His first book, DREAMS FROM MY FATHER: A STORY OF RACE AND INHERITANCE, has been a long-time New York Times bestseller."
Old media's feeble handling of this issue -- parroting the laughable assertion that clerical errors caused Obama's birthplace to be incorrectly listed, when former clients and the agency's policy itself states that authors provide the biographical briefs -- is pathetic.
As I've demonstrated here, Obama's bio was carefully edited over the course of 17 years to reflect his various accomplishments.
It was only a few months after his presidential candidacy was announced that his Kenyan "birthplace" became Hawaiian to confirm his eligibility for office. Obama remains a client to this day, which helps explain the literary agent's willingness to instantly offer an explanation for the discrepancy.
Only a Kool-aid-swilling hack or a Democrat-media drone -- but I repeat myself -- would buy into the literary agent's lame excuse.

via directorblue.blogspot.com

ok... is this enough evidence to force Obama to show his papers in person?

NYT’s Tom Friedman Bombs on ‘Jeopardy!’

Despite winning three Pulitzer Prizes, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman bombed on Jeopardy! Friday.
By the end of the show, he had amassed a pitiful $1,000 placing him third behind CNN’s Anderson Cooper and NBC’s Kelly O’Donnell (video follows with transcribed highlights and commentary):

---

Friedman must have been nervous for he missed his first two attempts.
With the category “21st Century Lingo,” the answer was, “In 2011, BusinessWeek said European government bonds were this ‘poisonous’ kind of debt.”
Friedman responded, “Sub-prime.” I guess he missed the clue in quotation marks “poisonous.”
The correct response of course was “toxic.”
In the same category moments later, the answer was, “It’s the ‘tiny’ term for a person who writes short posts about one’s personal life on Tumblr or Twitter.”
Once again, the word in quotations marks was the clue, and once again Friedman missed it.
“What is a tweeter?” he replied.
Of course, the answer was “micro-blogger.”
At the end of Double Jeopardy!, Cooper was in first with $15,600, Friedman in second with $8,400, and O’Donnell in third with $2,000.
The Final Jeopardy! category was Inventors, and the answer was, “The National Inventors Hall of Fame said his work ‘brought the south prosperity,’ but he was out of business within 5 years.”
Unfortunately, no one got the correct response of Eli Whitney, but as Friedman wagered $7,400, O’Donnell $500, and Cooper $1,201, the three time Pulitzer Prize winner came in last with only $1,000.
Nice job, Tom.

via newsbusters.org

NYTimes foreign correspondent Tom Friedman on Jeopardy. No this is not SNL. This is real...

Sultan Knish - Liberating Our Jerusalem

Daniel Greenfield..
Sultan Knish..
20 May '12..
When Jordan's Arab Legion seized half of Jerusalem, ethnically cleansed its Jewish population and annexed the city-- the only entity to recognize the annexation was the United Kingdom which had provided the officers and the training that made the conquest possible. Officers like Colonel Bill Newman, Major Geoffrey Lockett and Major Bob Slade, under Glubb Pasha, better known as General John Bagot Glubb, whose son later converted to Islam, invaded Jerusalem and used the Muslim forces under their command to make the partition and ethnic cleansing of Jerusalem possible.
Since then the annexation and ethnic cleansing has become an international mandate. It would be absolutely inconceivable for the international community to denounce an ethnically cleansed group which survived attempted genocide for moving back into a city where they had lived. It is however standard policy at the State Department and the Foreign Office to denounce Jews living in those parts of Jerusalem that had been ethnically cleansed by Muslims, as "settlers" living in "settlements", and describe them as an "obstruction to peace." Peace being the state of affairs that sets in when an ethnic cleansing goes unchallenged.
Describing Jewish homes in Jerusalem, one of the world's oldest cities, a city that all three religions in the region associate with Jews and Jewish history, as "settlements" is a triumph of distorted language that Orwell would have to dip his hat to. How does one have "settlements" in a city older than London or Washington D.C.? To understand that you would have to ask London and Washington D.C. where the diplomats insist that one more round of Israeli compromises will bring peace to the region.

They say that there are three religions in Jerusalem, but there are actually four. The fourth religion is the true Religion of Peace, the one that demands constant blood sacrifices to make peace possible, that insists that there will be peace when the Jews have been expelled from Judea and Samaria, driven out of their homes in Jerusalem, and made into wanderers and beggars once again. Oddly enough this religion's name isn't even Islam-- it's diplomacy.
Diplomacy says that the 1948 borders set by Arab countries invading Israel should be the final borders and that when Israel reunified a sundered city in 1967, it was an act of aggression, while when seven Arab armies invaded Israel in 1948, it was a legitimate way to set boundaries. When Jordan ethnically cleansed East Jerusalem, it set a standard that Israelis are obligated to follow to this day by staying out of East Jerusalem.
Vice-President Biden was so upset that the Jerusalem municipality had partially approved some buildings in the city during his visit that he threw a legendary hissy fit. Hillary Clinton stopped by MSNBC to tell Andrea Mitchell that, "It was insulting. And it was insulting not just to the Vice-President who didn't deserve that." David Axelrod browsed through his thesaurus and emerged on the morning shows calling it an "affront" and an "insult". Two for the price of one.
Editorials in newspapers denounced the Israeli government for this grave insult to the Obama Administration."Israel's Provocation", the Chicago Tribune shrieked in bold type, describing it as a "diplomatic bomb" that went off in Biden's face. The Atlantic, eager to get in on the action metaphors, described Israel slapping Biden in the face. A horde of other columnists jumped in to depict the Israelis kicking and bashing the poor Vice-President, while holding his head in the toilet.
Whether Joe Biden was the victim of the Jews or the Jews were the victims of Joe Biden is all a matter of perspective. The Hitler Administration was quite upset to find that Jewish athletes would be competing in the 1936 Munich Olympics. When you ethnically cleanse people, they are supposed to stay ethnically cleansed. It's in poor taste for them to show up and win gold medals at the Olympics or rebuild their demolished synagogues. It's insulting to the ethnic cleansers and their accomplices.
That sounds like a harsh accusation, but it's completely and undeniably true.
When Muslims move into a Jewish town, poor Joe doesn't come crying that he's been bombed with a diplomatic affront and slapped with a Menorah. When Muslim countries fund Muslim housing in Israel, there are no angry statements from Clinton and no thesaurus bashing from David Axelrod. Muslim housing in Jerusalem or anywhere in Israel is not a problem. Only Jewish housing is. The issue is not Israel. If it were then Arabs with Israeli citizenship would get Biden to howl as loudly. It's only the Jews who are the problem.
The entire Peace Process is really a prolonged solution to the latest phase of the Jewish Problem. The problem, as stated by so many diplomats, is that there are Jews living in places that Muslims want. There were Jews living in Gaza before 1948, but they were driven out, they came back, and then they were driven out again by their own government in compliance with international demands. Now only Hamas lives in Gaza and it's as peaceful and pleasant without the Jews as Nazi Germany.
But there are still Jews in the West Bank and they have to be gotten rid of. Once enough Jews have been expelled, there will be peace. That's not a paragraph from Mein Kampf, it's not some lunatic sermon from Palestinian Authority television-- it is the consensus of the international community. This consensus states that the only reason there still isn't peace is because enough Jews haven't been expelled from their homes. The ethnic cleansing for peace hasn't gone far enough.
There will be peace when all the Jews are gone. That much is certainly undeniable. Just look at Gaza or Egypt or Iraq or Afghanistan, which has a grand total of two Jews, both of them in their seventies. Or Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Syria where peace reigns now that the Jews are gone. Some might say that violence seems to increase proportionally with the number of Muslims, but we all know that would be a racist thing to say. On the other hand suggesting that violence increases with the number of Jews living on land that Muslims want, that's just diplomacy. A common sense fact that everyone who is anyone in foreign policy knows to be true.
How will we know when the Muslims have gotten all the land that they want? When the violence stops. Everyone knows that agreements mean nothing. No matter how many pieces of paper are signed, the bombs and rockets still keep bursting, real ones that kill people, not fake ones that upset vice-presidents. The only way to reach an agreement is by groping blindly in the dark, handing over parcel after parcel of land, until the explosions stops or the Muslims fulfill their original goal of pushing the Jews into the sea.
That's the wonderful thing about diplomacy if you're a diplomat and the terrible thing about it if you are anyone else without a secure way out of the country when diplomacy fails. And diplomacy in the region always fails. Camp David and every single agreement Israel has signed with Muslim countries isn't worth the paper it's written on. The only peace treaty that counts is the one made by tanks and rifles. It's the one made by Israeli planes in Egyptian skies and Israeli soldiers walking the border. It's the one made by Jewish farmers and ranchers, tending their sheep and their fields, with rifles strung over their backs. The only peace that's worth anything is the peace of the soldiers and settlers.
In 1966 Jerusalem was a city sundered in two, divided by barbed wire and the bullets of Muslim snipers. Diplomacy did not reunite it. Israel pursued diplomacy nearly to its bitter end until it understood that it had no choice at all but to fight. Israel did not swoop into the fight, its leaders did their best to avoid the conflict, asking the international community to intervene and stop Egypt from going to war. Read back the headlines for the last five years on Israel and Iran, and you will get a sense of the courage and determination of the Israeli leaders of the day.
When Israel went to war, its leaders did not want to liberate Jerusalem, they wanted Jordan to stay out of the war. Even when Jordan entered the war, they did not want to liberate the city. Divine providence and Muslim hostility forced them to liberate Jerusalem and forced them to keep it. Now some of them would like to give it back, another sacrifice to the bloody deity of diplomacy whose altar flows with blood and burnt sacrifices.
As we remember Yom Yerushalayim, Jerusalem Day, it is important to remember that the city is united and free because diplomacy failed. The greatest triumph of the modern state happened only because diplomacy proved hopeless and useless in deterring Muslim genocidal ambitions. Had Israel succumbed to international pressure and had Nasser been as subtle as Sadat, then the Six Day War would have looked like the Yom Kippur War with 1948 borders-- and Israel very likely would not exist today.

Even as Jews remember the great triumph of Jerusalem Day, the ethnic cleansers and their accomplices are busy searching for ways to drive Jews out of Jerusalem, out of towns, villages and cities. This isn't about the Arab residents of Jerusalem, who have repeatedly asserted that they want to remain part of Israel. It's not about peace, which did not come from any previous round of concessions, and will not come from this one either. It's about solving the Jewish problem.
As long as Jews allow themselves to be defined as the problem, there will be plenty of those offering solutions. And the solutions invariably involve doing something about the Jews. It only stands to reason that if Jews are the problem, then moving them or getting rid of them is the solution. The bloody god of diplomacy always assumes that are the problem. There is less friction in defining Jews as the problem, than in defining Muslims as the problem. The numbers alone mean that is so.
Jerusalem Day is a reminder of what the real problem is and what the real solution is. Muslim occupation of Israel is the problem. The Islamization of Jerusalem is the problem. Muslim violence in support of the Muslim occupation of Israel and of everywhere else is the problem. Israel is the solution. Only when we liberate ourselves from the lies, when we stop believing that we are the problem and recognize that we are the solution. Only then will we be free of the Joe Bidens and the Peter Beinarts, the Jimmy Carters and Barack Obamas, the Gilad Atzmons and Jeremy Ben Amis. Only then will the liberation that began in 1967 be complete.
Only then will we have liberated our Jerusalem. The Jerusalem of the soul. It is incumbent on all of us to liberate that little Jerusalem within. The holy city that lives in all of us. To clean the dross off its golden gates, wash the filth from its stones and expel the invaders gnawing away at our hearts until we look proudly upon a shining city. Then to help others liberate their own Jerusalems. Only then will we truly be free.
Link: http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2012/05/liberating-our-jerusalem.html

via calevbenyefuneh.blogspot.com