text:
Wake up and start connecting the dots - Dr. Mordechai Kedar
by Dr. Mordechai Kedar
This is not the time for an academic discussion of morality and ethics.
An acrimonious argument is going on in Israel over the explosive issue of whether the public is allowed to take the law into its own hands if confronted with a terrorist who has just stabbed a Jew. There is no argument over the permissibility of killing a terrorist before he has attacked anyone if that seems the only way to prevent him from carrying out his plans. The dilemma is over whether it is permissible to kill a terrorist after he has knifed someone. Here, too, there is no argument about killing him if he is capable of continuing on his rampage; in that case, everyone agrees that he must be eliminated forthwith.
The problem arises when a terrorist is neutralized, lying flat on the ground, possibly wounded or handcuffed and unable to rise and continue injuring more people. Can physically attacking him and even causing his death be condoned, or is he entitled, once neutralized, to protection against spontaneous vengeance, to medical care and a fair trial to determine his punishment?
The answer to the question depends on the views held by the person to whom it is addressed. More tellingly, however, does the debate have to be based on deductions reached from the study of Israeli legal and moral systems, reflecting a country ruled by law where even a criminal is entitled to due process – or should the debate be based on the fact that the perpetrators are not part of Israeli normativity, do not accept Israel's moral standards and would like to destroy them along with the entire state, so that there is no logical reason for the system to protect them.
In other words, should the "lynch question" debate be guided by the legal principles that serve Israeli society, or should we look at the question from the point of view of the attacker, his society and the norms by which he lives. And don't forget that while this argument rages on, other, more immediate questions give Israelis no respite – how can the next attack be prevented and how can the next terrorist be deterred from stabbing even 80-year-old Jews in an attempt to murder them?
Many left-leaning Israelis use legal and moral arguments that derive solely from modern, liberal and secular Israeli experience. This is the stand espoused in a Haaretz article (November 3, 2015) by Professor Moshe Negbi, Hebrew University lecturer and legal commentator for Voice of Israel radio.
A glance at the title of the article, The Lynch Culture of the Extremist Right, suffices to ascertain his feelings on the subject. According to his point of view (or that of the editor in charge of writing headlines), inflicting injury on terrorists is not an emotional reaction to an incident in which a terrorist has just stabbed a Jew, but part of a "cultural pattern", an indication of something genetic and ingrained in the makeup of rightist extremists, guiding their every step. In his opinion, rightist extremists are people whose entire culture is one of lynching, people who spend their time looking for someone to lynch.
Negbi calls them "an uncontrolled mob", whose "criminal views" have infiltrated the halls of government and the security establishment, affording "unassailable proof of the increasing bestiality of Israel."
"Palestinian blood is not the only blood allowed to be spilled, so is the blood of anyone who attempts to stop Israel's degeneration from a law-abiding to a lawless lynch state," he claims. Professor Negbi goes on to quote justices and academics who have written scathing criticism of members of the IDF and security forces who acted against the law while carrying out their missions – and who received criminal punishments.
Similar views were expressed by Reshet Bet radio broadcaster Adi Meiri on her regular "It's all talk" program aired on November third. The problem of all these writers and radio broadcasters is that they analyze the stabbing terrorist issue through the rose colored glasses of liberal, modern Israeli culture. This is a culture that insists that every citizen and member of the security forces is obligated to exercise self-control, restraint and proportionality, even if this means protecting himself and others with his own body from a criminal who is intent on inflicting injury. They relate to the terrorist stabber and murderer as though he is a member of civilized society who has, unfortunately, strayed from the proper path, but is entitled to all the protection afforded by law to any criminal from the minute he ceases to be an immediate and palpable danger to others.
What motivates Negbi, Meiri and their friends is the moral ethos that claims that we Jewish Israelis are bound by an ethical code that prohibits our acting violently against someone who does not present a palpable and immediate danger, even if, less than a minute earlier, he stabbed us with intent to murder. This moralistic approach is to be found in Israeli law and in various court decisions. The principle behind it is that we do not act as our enemies do, we do not descend to their level – because we are better than they. Does this approach not smack of supercilious arrogance?
Another "minor" detail that bears noting is that our legal and moral dilemmas do not impress our enemies one bit; they simply take advantage of the fact that we allow them to wander freely and unchecked in our midst, enabling them to draw sharpened knives from their pockets at any given moment and butcher us.
According to our enemies' approach to the situation, Jews have absolutely no right to live in this land, not even in Tel Aviv, because they are conquerors of the Islamic state of Palestine that belongs to Muslims alone. We have no right to independence or sovereignty, because Jews are obligated to live under Sharia, Islamic law, as subservient dhimmis. If we protect ourselves, we are breaking the laws of Islamic protection and deserve to be butchered.
The average stabber knows that if caught, he will be put in prison where he can study for an academic degree, that within a few years he will be exchanged for an Israeli soldier or citizen kidnapped for the very purpose of freeing terrorist murderers, and that while he is imprisoned his family will receive generous sums of money from the Palestinian Authority (the source of which funding is the American taxpayer). This is in addition to the great honor that his family will enjoy, whether he is killed or not. If he is killed, he will have a school named for him, one in which children will study his "heritage", and possibly a street or even an organization that will spread the spirit of anti-Israel jihad in the world.
The stabber is motivated by the same concerns that encouraged Haj Amin al Husseini, Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, to take part in the destruction of European Jewry in the 1940's. A Muslim who sets out to stab Jews knows that a reward awaits him in Paradise whether he is killed before, during or after he does so. Our moral concerns do not interest him in the least, but if worst comes to worst, they will be the reason he will be protected from the anger of those surrounding him at the scene. He relies on Israeli law and Israel's police force to protect him from the crowd's vengeance, and is sure he will survive to stab more Jews after he is freed during a prisoner exchange.
That is how Israeli morality works against Israel and its citizens, paralyzing Israeli deterrence and encouraging terrorists to stab Israelis. The stabbers are in a win-win situation since Israeli law and morals grant them immunity from immediate punishment by bystanders who were witness to their terrorist actions. It turns out that those who constantly spout lessons in morality actually behave immorally by encouraging terror and murder. It is fascinating to see a professor of law blatantly encouraging terror.
This is how Israel ties its own hands, making it more difficult to respond effectively to terror. Israel has lost its ability to deter terrorist murderers because they feel that they have immunity. It should be a given that any terrorist who takes up a knife to stab a Jew knows that he will not return home alive, that he will be killed either by security personnel or the people who witnessed his actions. Isn't the period when Muslims considered Jewish blood cheap a thing of the past? Israel has no choice, it must renew its ability to deter terrorists.
Both the left and right must remember that this is the Middle East. Peace in this region is not the lot of those who unwaveringly follow Western mores, laws and ethics. He who succeeds in convincing his enemies that he is invincible and that they had better leave him alone for their own good, has a chance of achieving peace.
Anyone who does not understand this or who does not want to understand it, is cut off from reality. I suggest that he wake up and connect the dots for his own good, before the butcher's knife separates his head from his body - and I am not engaging in mere fear mongering.
In case that scenario does occur, will his being a moral person be of any help?
Written for Arutz Sheva, translated from Hebrew by Rochel Sylvetsky, Op-ed and Judaism Editor
Source: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/17840#.VjxkA7-zddt
Posted by Sally Zahav at 10:28 AM
Showdown at the OK Corral - Caroline Glick
by Caroline Glick
Why Obama has no intention of letting bygones be bygones in his upcoming meeting with Netanyahu.
Originally published by the Jerusalem Post.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's meeting with US President Barack Obama next week is likely to look less like a rapprochement than a showdown at the OK Corral.
The flurry of spy stories spinning around in recent weeks makes clear that US-Israel relations remain in crisis.
Two weeks ago, The Wall Street Journal published a fairly detailed account of the US's massive spying operations against Israel between 2010 and 2012.
Their purpose was to prevent Israel from attacking Iran's nuclear installations. The Journal report, which was based on US sources, also detailed the evasion tactics the Obama administration employed to try to hide its covert nuclear talks with Iran from Israel. According to the report, the administration was infuriated that through its spy operations against Iran, Israel discovered the talks and the government asked the White House to tell it what was going on.
Over the past several days, the Israeli media have reported the Israeli side of the US spying story.
Friday Makor Rishon's military commentator Amir Rapaport detailed how the US assiduously wooed IDF senior brass on the one hand and harassed more junior Israeli security officials on the other hand.
Former IDF chiefs of General Staff Lt.-Gens. Gabi Ashkenazi and Benny Gantz were given the red carpet treatment in a bid to convince them to oppose Israeli strikes on Iran's nuclear installations. More junior officials, including officers posted officially to the US were denied visas and subjected to lengthy interrogations at US embassies and airports in a bid to convince them to divulge information about potential Israeli strikes against Iran.
Sunday, Channel 2 reported that the IDF's Intelligence Directorate's information security department just issued guidance to all IDF soldiers and officers warning them about efforts by the CIA to recruit them as US agents.
These stories have been interpreted in various ways. Regardless of how they are interpreted, what they show is that on the one hand, the Obama administration has used US intelligence agencies to weaken Israel's capacity to harm Iran and to actively protect Iran from Israel. And on the other hand, Israel is wary of the administration's efforts to weaken it while strengthening its greatest foe.
These stories form the backdrop of next week's meeting between Netanyahu and Obama – the first they will have held in more than a year. They indicate that Obama remains committed to his policy of weakening Israel and downgrading America's alliance with the Jewish state while advancing US ties with Iran. Israel, for its part, remains deeply distrustful of the American leader.
This Israeli distrust of Obama's intentions extends far past Iran. Recent statements by Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry have convinced Israel that during his last 15 months in office, Obama intends to abandon US support for Israel at the UN Security Council, and to ratchet up pressure and coercive measures to force Israel to make irreversible concessions to the Palestinians.
From Netanyahu's perspective, then, the main strategic question is how to prevent Obama from succeeding in his goal of weakening the country.
The implementation of Obama's deal with Iran deal will form a central plank of whatever strategy the government adopts.
As far as Obama and his allies see things, the nuclear accord with Iran is a done deal. On October 21, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi hosted a reception for Democratic congressmen attended by White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough to celebrate its official adoption.
Unfortunately for Pelosi and her colleagues, Iran is a far more formidable obstacle to implementing the deal than congressional Republicans. As Yigal Carmon, president of the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), explained in a report published on his organization's website last week, at no point has any Iranian governing body approved the nuclear deal. Iran's parliament, the Majlis, and its Guardians' Council have used their discussions of the agreement to highlight their refusal to implement it. More importantly, as Carmon explains, contrary to US media reports, in his October 21 letter to Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, Iran's Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei did not give his conditional approval to the deal. He rejected it.
Carmon explained that the nine conditions Khamenei placed on his acceptance of the nuclear deal render it null and void. Among other things, Khamenei insisted that all sanctions against Iran must be permanently canceled. Obama couldn't abide by this condition even if he wanted to because he cannot cancel sanctions laws passed by Congress.
He can only suspend them.
Khamenei also placed new conditions on Iran's agreement to disable its centrifuges and remove large quantities of enriched uranium from its stockpiles.
He rejected inspections of Iran's military nuclear installations. He insisted that Iran's Arak heavy water reactor must remain capable of producing heavy water in contravention of the deal. And he insisted that at the end of the 15-year lifetime of the deal Iran must have sufficient uranium enrichment capability to enable it to develop bombs at will.
As Carmon noted, the US and EU have announced that they will suspend their nuclear sanctions against Iran on December 15 provided that by that date, the UN's International Atomic Energy Commission certifies that Iran has upheld its part of the bargain.
By that date, in conformance with their interpretation of the nuclear deal, the US and the EU expect for Iran to have reduced the number of centrifuges operating at the Natanz facility from 16,000 to 5,060 and lower enrichment levels to 3.67%; reduce the number of centrifuges at Fordow to a thousand; remove nearly all its advanced centrifuges from use; permit the IAEA to store and seal its dismantled centrifuges; reduce its stockpile of enriched uranium to 300kg.; remove the core from the Arak reactor and disable it; and submit to agreed monitoring mechanisms of its nuclear sites.
Carmon noted that Iran has taken no steps to fulfill any of these conditions.
With Khamenei's rejection of the nuclear deal and Iran's refusal to implement it, there are two possible ways the US and the EU can proceed.
First, as Carmon suggests, Obama and the EU may renew nuclear talks with Iran based on Khamenei's new position. These talks can drag out past Obama's departure from office. When they inevitably fail, Obama's successor can be blamed.
The other possibility is that Iran will implement some component of the deal and so allow Obama and the EU to pretend that it is implementing the entire deal. Given the US media's failure to report that Khamenei rejected the nuclear pact, it is a fair bet that Obama will be able to maintain the fiction that Iran is implementing the deal in good faith until the day he leaves office.
So what is Israel to do? And how can Netanyahu use his meeting with Obama next week to Israel's advantage? Israel has two policy options going forward. First, it can highlight the fact that Iran is not implementing the deal, just as Israel took the lead in highlighting the dangers of the nuclear accord with Iran over the past year. This policy can potentially force Obama onto the defensive and so make it harder for him to go on the offensive against Israel at the UN and other venues in relation to the Palestinians.
But then, it is far from clear that Obama will be deterred from adopting anti-Israel positions at the UN even if Israel succeeds making an issue of Iranian noncompliance with the nuclear deal.
Moreover, if Netanyahu leads the discussion of the Iran's bad faith, as he drove the discussion of the nuclear deal itself, he will reinforce the already prevalent false assessment in the US that a nuclear Iran threatens Israel but is not dangerous for the US.
This incorrect assessment has made a lot of Americans believe that by seeking to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, Israel is advancing is own interests at America's expense.
The other policy option is the one that Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon indicated Israel is pursuing in his meeting last week with his counterpart Defense Secretary Ashton Carter. At the Pentagon Ya'alon declared, "The Iran deal is a given. Our disputes are over."
The downside of this position is that it indicates that Israel accepts the legitimacy of a deal that Iran is not implementing and that would imperil Israel's national security even if Iran were implementing it.
Its upside is that it takes Israel out of the US debate regarding the nuclear deal. To the extent that opponents of Obama's Iran policy are willing to lead the fight against the deal themselves, Israel could do worse than to take a step back and plot its own course on Iran, independent of the US policy discussion.
It is hard to know which line of action makes more sense. But as the spy stories demonstrated, one thing is clear enough. Whatever he says before the cameras next week when he meets with Netanyahu, Obama has no intention of letting bygones be bygones.
Caroline Glick is the Director of the David Horowitz Freedom Center's Israel Security Project and the Senior Contributing Editor of The Jerusalem Post. For more information on Ms. Glick's work, visit carolineglick.com.
Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/260686/showdown-ok-corral-caroline-glick
New Report Details Iranian Commander's Involvement in Terrorist Activity and Regional Expansion - IPT News
Despite Iran's commitment to Syria, the Islamic Republic is actively establishing terrorist networks in the Golan Heights – using Hizballah, Druze, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) operatives - to target Israel.
The commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps' (IRGC) Quds Force– Qassem Soleimani – continues to remain actively involved in promoting the Islamic Republic's regional expansion and terrorist networks, according to an extensive report compiled by the Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center.
Click here to see the full report.
As the head of the Quds Force – the most powerful security organization in Iran –Soleimani is directly tasked with maintaining the fundamentalist regime in power and is responsible for exploiting Arab World turmoil in recent years to advance Iran's regional hegemonic objectives. From September 2015, Iran increased its number of troops - mainly IRGC soldiers - in Syria from hundreds to thousands, to support Hizballah terrorists acting at Iran's behest in propping up the Bashaar Assad regime.
In October 2015, Soleimani reportedly landed in northwestern Syria to brief Hizballah operatives and command a Syrian military offensive, indicating that Iran is diverting more resources from its presence in Iraq to Syria.
Emphasizing growing concern over Iranian terror bases on the Jewish state's borders, Israel allegedly conducted an airstrike targeting a convoy of Hizballah and Iranian operatives in January 2015, killing Jihad Mughniyeh – son of slain Hizballah leader Imad Mughinyeh – and a senior IRGC general in the Golan Heights.
In August 2015, PIJ terrorists, reportedly under Iran's direction, fired four rockets at Israeli territory, signalling the first missile attack striking the Upper Galilee from the Syrian Golan Heights since the 1973 Yom Kippur War. In fact, since the 1990s, the Quds Force has invested significant resources in supporting Palestinian terrorist organizations, smuggling weapons into the West Bank and Gaza, and ordering attacks against Israel.
Since the end of 2006 war in Lebanon, the Quds Force also played a vital role in rebuilding Hizballah's terrorist infrastructure, helping the terrorist organization amass an arsenal of over 100,000 rockets, including precision guided missiles that can strike any target in Israel. Iran's continued support to Hezbollah also includes sophisticated air defense systems and anti-ship missiles.
The Israeli report assumes that the Quds Force directly oversees the ongoing transfer of advanced weapons from Iran through Syria to Lebanon, despite the Islamic Republic's overwhelming commitment to ensure Assad's survival amid an intensifying civil war.
Iran has also attempted to infiltrate intelligence agents into Israel. In September 2013, Ali Mansouri – under direction from the Quds Force - was detained at Ben Gurion International Airport and found to be in possession of pictures of important sites in Israel, such as its international airport and the U.S. embassy in Tel Aviv.
In the past, Soleimani's Quds Force was responsible for financing most of the Iraqi Shi'ite militias and providing them with weapons to specifically target American soldiers. With Hizballah's assistance, the Quds Force supplied terrorists with powerful explosive devices that killed numerous American and coalition troops in Iraq.
After Iran and the West signed the nuclear agreement, Soleimani and the Quds Force were featured on a list of Iranian personnel and institutions that may be relieved of previously imposed international sanctions. Despite initial denials, the U.S. administration confirmed that Soleimani's name would be removed from the list of UN Security Council sanctioned individuals, eight years following the nuclear deal's signing. Adding to the confusion, the U.S. Treasury Department insisted that Soleimani will remain sanctioned in light of his ongoing involvement in terrorist activity.
Nevertheless, the Iranian commander's recent trip to Russia to coordinate both countries efforts in Syria emphasizes the difficulty in enforcing personal sanctions.
Critics of the nuclear deal argue that ensuing sanctions relief will encourage Iran to enhance its regional expansion and global state sponsorship of terrorism.
Source: http://www.investigativeproject.org/5018/new-report-details-iranian-commander-involvement
Jordanian Cleric Who Banned Killing Jews Sets Record Straight: Jihad Against Brothers Of Apes And Pigs A Duty - MEMRI
by MEMRI
In the new videos, Sheikh Al-Halabi referred to Jews as "the brothers of apes and pigs" and said that Jihad against them is a duty, but that the Muslims are not up for the task right now, and must prepare first.
In a video from February that has been circulating on social media platforms in recent days, Jordanian cleric Ali Hassan Al-Halabi said that killing Jews is not permissible, adding that the Jews "don't attack you if you don't attack them". On November 3, Sheikh Al-Halabi posted two lengthy videos in which he rebutted criticism by political rivals, especially from the Muslim Brotherhood. In the new videos, Sheikh Al-Halabi referred to Jews as "the brothers of apes and pigs" and said that Jihad against them is a duty, but that the Muslims are not up for the task right now, and must prepare first.
Click here to view this clip on MEMRI TV
Caller: "Dear Sheikh, a few days ago I read on the Internet that you had issued a fatwa, about which there has been a lot of confusion."
Al-Halabi: "Yes."
Caller: "Could you please clarify your fatwa? My question is: When was the Israeli soldier ever not ready [for war]?"
Al-Halabi: "Right. Thank you. Thank you very much... Dear brothers, the Jews are occupiers and plunderers. They are people [prone to] betrayal, fraud, cunning, and deceit. They are the slayers of the prophets and the messengers.
"The conflict with the Jews cannot be won just by those defenseless [Palestinians]. No matter how hard they try, they will not succeed.
"We hope that our brothers and folk in the West Bank will have the ability and strength to uproot that treacherous enemy. The Jihad against the Jews is a mandatory Jihad, incumbent upon any Muslim country, as upon any Muslim who accepts Allah as the Lord and Islam as his religion. But it cannot be done through such an emotional thrust, and with such excitement that only serves to harm us. How can we think that this leads us to victory? The nation must prepare and unite in order to uproot this enemy.
"By Allah, if your brother, the son of your mother and father, were to attack you in your own home, and you have no way to fend him off other than killing him, then we say that he was the aggressor and you were the defender – all the more so when the aggressor is an evil Jew, from among the brothers of apes and pigs.
"But what we should really do is save our strength, and protect our unity, our religion, our men and our youth for the right moment that is bound to come.
"A few days ago, a fatwa that I issued in a meeting began spreading like wildfire. That was two days ago, although the aforementioned meeting took place almost a year ago.
"Unfortunately, tens of thousands of Palestinians work with the Jews, and accept money from the Jews. They need the Jews. Sadly, this is the reality of an occupied people. I am not saying this, as some people mistakenly understood it, as praise for the Jews, who deserve nothing but more and more curses. I am talking about the reality. What will be the outcome of such an asymmetric war, if not, sadly, total defeat?
"Yes, we are happy when the Jews are humiliated and defeated, when they fall, but there is a way of doing things. In the words of the poet, a boat cannot sail on dry land.
"By God, a Muslim's fingernail is worth more to us than the heads of a thousand Jews.
"Jihad against the Jews, fighting them, and liberating the land from them is a binding and mandatory duty, incumbent upon the Islamic countries and upon the Muslim individuals, but it depends on capabilities, because everybody knows that America has Israel's back. Are today's fragmented Muslims up for the task? Let's be honest. Let's not fool ourselves."
View The Clip
Source: http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/5146.htm
Iranian losses in Syria 'triggering mutiny' - Ari Soffer
by Ari Soffer
Source close to Revolutionary Guards tells Arab paper some Iranian officers refusing orders, as casualty count keeps rising.
The steadily-rising casualty count among Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) troops sent to prop up beleaguered dictator Bashar al-Assad in Syria is leading to "mutiny" among officers serving there, according to reports.
The Arabic Asharq al-Awsat claims a source close to the Guards told them some senior officers were refusing orders. Other more junior officers have already been court marshaled on charges of "mutiny and treason," the sources added.
Some 30 IRGC fighters have been killed in combat over the past several weeks, including four senior officers killed last month alone.
The most recently-confirmed casualty was Colonel Ezzatollah Soleimani, who state media said died during an "advisory mission" near the northern Syrian city of Aleppo, where battles are raging between regime forces, rebels and ISIS.
Earlier that month Iran received its harshest blow since intervening on behalf of Assad in Syria, with the death of top-ranking IRGC commander General Hossein Hamedani, who was also killed near Aleppo.
The same source also revealed some of the ethnic fault lines within the Guards, claiming that senior officers from the ethnically-Arab Ahvaz province in Iran had in recent months suddenly "chosen retirement and pursuing business activities" to avoid deployment in Syria alongside their comrades from the Persian majority, where they would be fighting against fellow Arabs.
Tehran has reportedly opened an investigation into many of them for retiring at such a "critical time."
The source further claimed the Revolutionary Guards had resorted to a hasty recruitment drive among other Iranian minority populations - including Sunni Muslims, and ethic Kurds and Balochs - "offering the equivalent of 830 dollars for six weeks' service in Syria following training," to augment the Assad regime's own flagging manpower.
Iran is Damascus's staunchest backer, having provided weapons, training, funds and other extensive aid to regime forces, as well as military "advisers," many of whom - despite Iran's denials - have been involved in front line battles.
Ari Soffer
Source: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/202969#.VjtFUSuzddt
Hizbullah's Al-Manar TV Report On 'Former And Incumbent MPs, As Well As Party Leaders And Cultural Figures From Europe' Meeting With Hizbullah Deputy Sec.-Gen. Naim Qassem - MEMRI
On November 2, 2015, Hizbullah's Al-Manar TV aired a report about a meeting in Lebanon between "former and incumbent MPs as well as party leaders and cultural figures from Europe" and Hizbullah Deputy Secretary-General Sheikh Naim Qassem, in what the channel termed a "show of solidarity with the resistance in its fight against terrorism." In the report, an interpreter translates statements to reporters by former Belgian MP Laurent Louis as follows: "The Western leaders' collaboration with terrorism has been exposed, despite their false claims that they are protecting democracy and human rights."
According to other sources, the group, which was also to visit Damascus,[1] met with former Lebanese president Emile Lahoud,[2] as well as with Gen. Mustafa Hamdan.[3]
Over the past decade, MEMRI TV has released numerous clips of Hizbullah Deputy Secretary-General Qassem; some of these are listed below.
View the clip on MEMRI TV here.
The following is the transcript of the clip:
Narrator: "Former and incumbent MPs, as well as party leaders and cultural figures from Europe, met with Hizbullah Deputy Secretary-General Sheikh Naim Qassem, in a show of solidarity with the resistance in its fight against terrorism."
Former Belgian MP Laurent Louis, via interpreter: "Your fight against terrorism constitutes a comprehensive defense of humanity and of interfaith coexistence. The Western leaders' collaboration with terrorism has been exposed, despite their false claims that they are protecting democracy and human rights."
From The MEMRI TV Archives: Sheikh Naim Qasim
The following are some MEMRI TV clips of Sheikh Naim Qassem from the MEMRI TV archives:
#5044 - Hizbullah Deputy Sec.-Gen. Sheikh Naim Qassem: We Have Pledged Allegiance to Khomeini and Khamenei
Al-Alam TV (Iran) - August 14, 2015 - 01:31
#4942 - Hizbullah Deputy Sec.-Gen. Sheik Naim Qassem: Despite Losses in Syria, We Are Ready for War with Israel
Al-Manar TV (Lebanon) - June 6, 2015 - 02:42
#3853 - Deputy Leader of Hizbullah Naim Qassem: Hizbullah Is Ready to Participate in Fighting in Golan
Mayadeen TV (Lebanon) - May 25, 2013 - 01:53
#1960 - Deputy Secretary-General of Hizbullah, Sheik Naim Qassem, Leads Lebanese Multitudes in "Death to America" Chants
Al-Manar TV (Lebanon) - December 19, 2008 - 03:17
#1474 - Deputy Secretary-General of Hizbullah Sheik Naim Qassem: America Is the Great Satan
#1425 - Deputy Secretary-General of Hizbullah, Sheik Naim Qassem: We Received Jurisprudent Permission to Carry Out "Martyrdom" Operations and to Fire Missiles at Israeli Civilians from Iran
Al-Kawthar TV (Iran) - April 16, 2007 - 06:09
#1337 - Deputy Secretary-General of Hizbullah Naim Qassem Speaking to a Massive Opposition Demonstration in Beirut: Death to America
#1303 - Hizbullah Deputy Secretary-General Naim Qassem: We Will Not Give Up Armed Resistance to Liberate Jerusalem
Al-Manar TV (Lebanon) - October 20, 2006 - 01:35
#1298 - Hizbullah Deputy Secretary-General Sheik Naim Qassem on the Difference between Jews and Zionists
Al-Kawthar TV (Iran) - October 17, 2006 - 03:13
#1242 - Hizbullah Deputy Secretary-General Sheik Naim Qassem: President Bush Is Either "Hitler of the 21st Century or "Number One International Criminal." Lebanese Army and UNIFIL Forces to Protect South Lebanon from Israel
Al-Manar TV (Lebanon) - August 15, 2006 - 06:39
[1] Sana.sy, November 3, 2015.
[2] Nna-leb.gov.lb, Sana.sy, November 3, 2015.
[3] Addiyar.com, November 3, 2015.
Source: www.http://memri.org
Georgetown's John Esposito Shills for Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood - Cinnamon Stillwell
by Cinnamon Stillwell
Esposito -- and other Middle East studies academics were instrumental in whitewashing the Muslim Brotherhood, downplaying its Islamist agenda, and encouraging—with great success—U.S. government cooperation.
John Esposito fetes the Muslim Brotherhood, Georgetown, 2012.
John Esposito, founding director of the Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding (ACMCU) at Georgetown University, has signed an open letter to British Prime Minister David Cameron opposing his invitation to Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi to Britain this week for talks. The letter stipulates that:
While not necessarily supporting deposed President [Mohamed] Morsi or the policies of his Freedom and Justice party, we note that he was democratically elected, and that his removal from office was effected by means of a military coup led by Sisi.
However, in 2012, Esposito happily appeared alongside members of the Peace and Justice Party, the political wing of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, for an ACMCU-hosted panel discussion at Georgetown. At the time, he and other Middle East studies academics were instrumental in whitewashing the Muslim Brotherhood, downplaying its Islamist agenda, and encouraging—with great success—U.S. government cooperation.
This renders Esposito's objections to al-Sisi's visit suspect, much like his sudden antipathy towards "repressive and authoritarian" regimes, given that ACMCU has been bankrolled to the tune of $20 million by a member of the Saudi Royal Family, who rank among the most oppressive rulers on earth.
Esposito had the audacity to complain about "philanthropic support for Islamophobic authors and websites" in a recent interview with OnIslam (read Robert Spencer's response here). He directs the Bridge Initiative, an ACMCU project that, like its UC Berkeley predecessor, the Islamophobia Research & Documentation Project, is dedicated to promulgating the myth of a shadowy "Islamophobic network" fueling the "anti-Islam and anti-Muslim bigotry" that it claims has "increased exponentially in the United States and Europe." Esposito labels his work at the Bridge "protecting pluralism" from the "forces of evil," but, in reality, such apologias serve only to protect the evils of Islamism from legitimate criticism.
Is it any wonder then that Esposito and his ilk condemn al-Sisi, who, while remaining a strongman, has been one of the few Middle Eastern leaders to call for reform within Islam, to reach out to his country's Christian minority, and to fight Islamic terrorism? By Esposito's reckoning, that makes him a certified "Islamophobe."
Cinnamon Stillwell is the West Coast representative for Campus Watch, a project of the Middle East Forum. She can be reached at stillwell@meforum.org.
Source: http://www.campus-watch.org/blog/2015/11/georgetown-john-esposito-shills-for-egypt-muslim
How Peres trashed Rabin's vision - David Singer
by David Singer
Yitzchak Rabin: "We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority."
Former Israeli President Shimon Peres pre-empted the memorial rally held last Saturday evening to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the assassination on 4 November 1995 of Prime Minister Yitzchak Rabin - by writing – quite misleadingly - of Rabin's vision in the Israeli newspapers.
Former US president Bill Clinton, Israel's President Reuven Rivlin and Yitzchak Rabin's daughter - former deputy defence minister Dalia Rabin - participated in the rally – but did not set the record straight.
Peres claimed that Rabin's Government – in which Peres was Foreign Minister:
"sought peace at the price of a historic compromise: two states for two peoples. For, if there shall not be two countries, there shall be one continues [sic] tragedy for both peoples."
Rabin never offered any such two-state compromise.
Peres repeated this disingenuous message again:
"We laid down the foundations for a two-state solution and began building our peace with Jordan."
Rabin made his vision very clear in his last speech to the Knesset on 5 October 1995 when presenting the 300 page "Israeli - Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip" (Oslo Accords) for approval:
"Members of Knesset,
"We are striving for a permanent solution to the unending bloody conflict between us and the Palestinians and the Arab states.
"In the framework of the permanent solution, we aspire to reach, first and foremost, the State of Israel as a Jewish state, at least 80% of whose citizens will be, and are, Jews.
"At the same time, we also promise that the non-Jewish citizens of Israel -- Muslim, Christian, Druze and others -- will enjoy full personal, religious and civil rights, like those of any Israeli citizen. Judaism and racism are diametrically opposed.
"We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.
"We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority. The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.
"And these are the main changes, not all of them, which we envision and want in the permanent solution:
A. First and foremost, united Jerusalem, which will include both Ma'ale Adumim and Givat Ze'ev -- as the capital of Israel, under Israeli sovereignty, while preserving the rights of the members of the other faiths, Christianity and Islam, to freedom of access and freedom of worship in their holy places, according to the customs of their faiths.
B. The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.
C. Changes which will include the addition of Gush Etzion, Efrat, Beitar and other communities, most of which are in the area east of what was the "Green Line," prior to the Six Day War.
D. The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif."
The two-state solution was never entertained by Rabin.
Two separate countries - favoured by Peres - is irretrievably dead and buried. Rabin's legacy should not be coupled with that failed diplomatic initiative.
Rabin's vision should be faithfully preserved – not trashed.
David Singer
Source: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/17826#.Vjs-oyuzdds
Turkey: Where Ice Cream Can Be More Dangerous than Bombs - Burak Bekdil
by Burak Bekdil
Turkey has detained more people for tweeting against the government than for being members of the Islamic State. — Sezgin Tanrikulu, a Kurd, and a leading opposition member of parliament.
"Why did you all go to eat ice cream after prayers?" — Police interrogator in Usak, Turkey.
Sometimes one small incident best tells how countries can go insane. The pro-government Islamist psyche in Turkey has no limits in defying logic and humanity.
Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu's native province, Konya, in central Anatolia, has traditionally been an Islamist stronghold -- before and after Turkey's ruling Islamist party, the Justice and Development Party (AKP), was founded in 2001. In parliamentary elections on June 7, AKP won 65% of the vote in Konya, compared to 40.7% it won on a national scale.
On October 13, three days after a twin suicide bomb attack in Turkey's capital, Ankara, killed more than 100 Kurds and pro-Kurdish, leftist and secular Turks, Konya hosted a Euro 2016 football qualifier between Turkey and Iceland. Before the kick-off, both teams stood in silence for one minute to protest the bomb attack -- a typical gesture to respect the victims. Sadly, the moment of silence was marred by whistles and jeers: apparently the football fans of Konya were protesting the victims, not their jihadist killers. This response was perfectly in line with what the government has been doing since the attack took place.
The police found that the perpetrators belonged to a Turkish jihadist group linked to the Islamic State (IS, ISIS or ISIL). But Davutoglu insists that the bombing was an act of "cocktail terror" bringing together two hostile groups: jihadists and Kurdish militants who fight against each other in Syria. The prime minister cannot admit that jihadists could bring carnage to the heart of Ankara. His government quickly instituted a gag order on the bombing, and told journalists to shut up. "Is it so hard to say it was an ISIL attack," prominent columnist Murat Yetkin asked in his column. It is. Because: a) It would be just too embarrassing for an Islamist government to be hit by jihadists whom it had so generously supported in the past, and b) it would be risky to say publicly that Islamist Turks killed their own people just weeks before a critical election and in a country where Islamist sentiments are strong -- as observed at the kick-off ceremony in Konya.
A little bit of investigative journalism unveiled the Turkish reluctance in confronting IS, although Ankara said it already joined the allied campaign against jihadists in Syria. Tolga Tanis, a Washington-based Turkish journalist for the daily Hurriyet, wrote in his column on Oct. 19:
"And while Turkey was not targeting ISIL, and focusing on other things, names related to ISIL conducted the biggest bombing attack in the history of the Turkish republic ... I talked to two different sources at the Pentagon. The first official said, 'In the beginning they [the Turks] joined the operation, but then for a long time they did not [participate in it].' In other words, during the month of September, while Turkey earmarked its resources to the fight with the [the Kurdish] PKK, it did not even try to hit ISIL. But the first initial trials became unsuccessful. The second official pointed to the political dimension of the issue and said, 'The priority for Turks is the PKK ...' In other words, Turkey on the one hand used in the wrong way its resources by not focusing on ISIL and on the other, was unsuccessful in hitting ISIL targets."
It was not surprising that Turkey has joined half-hearted only three US-led airstrikes against IS.
At the hands of power-greedy Islamists, Turkey continues to be a bad joke, the ridiculous cradle of black humor. Sezgin Tanrikulu, a leading opposition member of parliament (and a Kurd himself) said that Turkey has detained more people for tweeting against the government than for being members of the Islamic State. He forcefully reminded everyone that Turkey did not categorize IS as a terrorist organization until a court order to that effect on July 15. "Without [government] protection this massacre [in Ankara] would not have happened," he said.
In the same way the news of whistles and jeers for the terror victims sounded surreal, the news on a police operation targeting "dangerous terrorists" looked amusing if not utterly ridiculous. The police, who failed to prevent the bombing attack in Ankara, detained 25 businessmen in the western province of Usak on suspicion of terrorism. During their interrogation, the police asked them questions including: "Why did you go to prayers together?," "Why did you all go to eat ice cream after prayers?" and "Why did you go abroad 20 years ago?"
Welcome to Turkey, where ice cream can be more dangerous than bombs.
Burak Bekdil, based in Ankara, is a Turkish columnist for the Hürriyet Daily and a Fellow at the Middle East Forum.
Source: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6820/turkey-ice-cream
NGOs, the EU, and Product Labeling: A First Step in BDS against Israel - NGO Monitor
by NGO Monitor
The influence of NGOs on EU policy in this regard is revealing in light of the harm to Palestinian workers in settlements who will be expected to lose their jobs if they close. It has been reported that a top EU official stated that "we are sorry about that, but we must look at the broader picture".
On November 2, 2015, a number of news sites reported that, on November 11, the EU will issue rules for the labeling of products exported from Israeli communities built over the 1967 ceasefire line (the "Green Line"). Politicized NGOs have been advocating for this move for several years as part of their BDS (boycott, divestment, and sanctions) campaigns.
This EU/NGO policy is a blatant example of double standards made under the facade of human rights and international law. Other areas where the claim of "occupation" is made, such as in Cyprus, Western Sahara, and elsewhere, are not stigmatized by NGO campaigns, nor are they subject to EU labeling requirements.
NGOs that claim to promote human rights cynically exploit the language of universal human rights to further their anti-Israel political agendas, and the product labeling issue is not exception. Accordingly, the rhetoric of "consumer choice" and "consistent policy" regarding settlement products serves to divert the debate from the real objective of BDS groups, which seek to dismantle Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people.
BDS NGOs and activists push product labeling as a first step toward more punitive measures that go far beyond settlement goods (including wholly legal commercial activity that could be linked, no matter how trivially, to settlements). Their ultimate goal is a comprehensive boycott of Israel:
In October 2012, 22 European funded NGOs released "Trading Away Peace: How Europe Helps Sustain Illegal Israeli Settlements," a report repeating the BDS agenda and calling on the EU and national to impose various forms of economic sanctions on Israel. The publication's "Recommended measures (for national governments and the EU as appropriate)" begin with "correct consumer labelling of all settlement products as a minimum measure" (emphasis added) and increase in severity to "ban imports of settlement products," "exclude settlement products and companies from public procurement tenders," and "prevent financial transactions to settlements and related activities."
FIDH and one of its Palestinian members, Al Haq, have been working together towards the goal of "Ensuring EU does not stop at labeling products from the settlements: obtain ban."
FIDH and other groups authored a "legal analysis" of EU policy regarding settlement products. The analysis concludes that labelling is "not sufficient to meet the international obligation of non-assistance" and that "the products made in settlements should be prohibited for sale."
In many cases calls for sanctions are initiated by former European politicians. For instance, in July 2015, the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) a think tank established in 2007 by Martti Ahtisaari (Finland) and Joschka Fischer (Germany), published "EU Differentiation and Israeli settlements," which calls for sanctions against Israeli entities (and certain individuals) that have activities in or apparent financial contacts with Israeli settlements. The report argues that the EU should extend this policy to the business and sports sectors. They argue that these forms of "differentiation" reflect EU policy, whereas, in reality, the issue was specifically negotiated between Israeli and European senior officials (after the release of the EU's "Guidelines" in 2013) and was rejected.
The influence of NGOs on EU policy in this regard is revealing in light of the harm to Palestinian workers in settlements who will be expected to lose their jobs if they close. It has been reported that a top EU official stated that "we are sorry about that, but we must look at the broader picture". Similarly, a campaign led by Oxfam (an NGO funded by the British government) and other groups, led to the relocation of Soda Streams plant from Mishor Adumim (over the Green Line) to Lehavim junction (in the Negev), leading to the firing of most of the Palestinian employees.
Copyright 2014 The Amuta for NGO Responsibility - R.A. 58-0465508. All rights reserved.
NGO Monitor
Source: http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article/ngos_the_eu_and_product_labeling_a_first_step_in_bds_against_israel
Poking the Russian Bear - Russ Vaughn
by Russ Vaughn
Whoever blew up that plane is going to regret it.
With increasing forensic evidence pointing to an in-air explosion as the cause of the crash of the Russian airliner over the Sinai, the taunting claim from ISIS that it is responsible for the disaster is becoming ever more convincing. Coming just weeks after the major Russian escalation of its military role in support of the Assad regime in Syria, it is not difficult to understand the motivation for the terrorist event. But it is a different matter when trying to fathom the wisdom of attacking Russian sun-seekers, vacationers returning to their northern motherland from a tropical vacation, innocent citizens far separated from their nation's geopolitical activities. It is a bloody provocation the instigators well may come to regret.
In the few years that ISIS has been extant, there have been many occasions when its members' behaviors have been brutally bizarre and unnecessarily provocative – symbolic pokes in the eye of Western sensibilities – but they have thus far refrained from such a terrorist attack on American citizens. Whether or not such an attack would bring any sort of meaningful response from the clueless and neutered puppy in our White House, there should be little doubt that poking the Russian bear in such brutal fashion will draw a disproportionate response that will result in the deaths of far more ISIS followers than the number of Russian civilians blown to dust over the Sinai. And it is quite easy to predict that the Russian response will not be limited in any way as a bow to humane Western sensibilities.
It is glaringly obvious to the world, except perhaps to the wildly unpredictable ISIS leadership, that Vladimir Putin is no Barack Obama. It is not a matter of whether but rather when the Russian leader will take his revenge upon ISIS for those innocent vacationers. It is not difficult to assume that the Russian response will be sufficiently disproportionate so as to provide a memorable lesson, not just to ISIS, but to the myriad terrorist organizations that might consider testing Russian mettle.
If I may be so bold as to offer a suggestion to Colonel Putin, why not bring in Russian strategic bombers and carpet-bomb the entire ISIS operational area until nothing remains except smoking sand, a strategy I have long been urging our own ineptly commanded military to pursue? Such a response might make future terrorist planners consider options other than killing innocent Russian civilians. Let them learn the wisdom of neither poking the Bear nor killing her cubs.
Russ Vaughn
Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/11/poking_the_russian_bear.html
Obama's Secret Destruction of Our Immigration System - Arnold Ahlert
Hastening the "fundamental transformation" of our nation while there's still time.
A newly-leaked memo from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) reveals the Obama administration is seeking to sidestep a federal court injunction that suspended portions of the president's amnesty-based initiatives known as Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA) and Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). In short, Obama is determined to impose his transformational agenda on the nation by any means necessary.
According to the Hill, the document outlining the administration's attempt to thumb its nose at the rule of law was prepared at a DHS "Regulations Retreat" last June, four months after a preliminary injunction was initially imposed by Texas Judge Andrew Hanen and subsequently left in place by a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The Fifth Circuit's final ruling on that injunction, either confirming or reversing it, is expected to occur in a matter of days.
Apparently the Obama administration couldn't care less. The retreat was convened to discuss options regarding work permits for illegals, statutorily known as Employment Authorization Documents (EADs). The memo recording those discussions reveals the administration had no intention of waiting while the court determined the constitutionality of Obama's effort to nullify immigration law. Rather, they have been preparing to roll out one or more of four separate plans aimed at providing EADs to millions of illegal aliens.
The memo states that Option 1 would grants EADs to "all individuals living in the United States," a group that includes illegal aliens, visa-overstayers, and H-1B guest-workers. Option 4 provides EADs to individuals on certain unexpired non-immigrant visas, the Hill reports. Both options directly violate the Immigration and Nationality Act that ostensibly protects American wages and job security from excessive immigration, and completely subverts the nation's current visa system.
The number of individuals benefiting from these initiatives is infuriating. Option 1 would "address the needs of some of the intended deferred action population," meaning anyone physically present in the nation who has been prohibited from obtaining an EAD until now. That definition applies to 4.3 million people covered by DAPA and the Expanded DACA programs, despite the reality the benefits accruing from those programs were supposed to have been stopped by the Hanen decision. In addition, the DHS plan would provide EADs to individuals with temporary non-immigrant visas, such as H-1B visas holders whose work authorizations are tied to their employers—along with an additional 5-6 million illegal aliens yet to be included in any part of Obama's deferred action amnesty agenda. The DHS is contending it can unilaterally separate the work authorization requirements contained in the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act from the rest of U.S. visa statutes. And while it can't ignore legal requirements with regard to issuing visas, the Obama administration insists it has discretionary powers that should shock any American who believes in the rule of law.
In short, Obama and his minions contend they have the power to grant anyone currently residing in the United States, regardless of status, a work permit.
Ironically, the authors of the memo concede the beneficiaries of the Obama administration's offensive against the rule of law will still "face difficulties in pursuing permanent residence due to ineligibility or being subject to unlawful presence inadmissibility for which a waiver is required." This is a reference to the reality that an EAD is not the equivalent of a green card, and an EAD holder will ultimately have to apply to "adjust their status," an undertaking that cannot be accomplished absent evidence of lawful status to begin with.
Unsurprisingly, the memo's authors envision a solution for that dilemma, noting the DHS's "macro-level policy goal" is aimed at helping illegals remain in the United States "until they are ready and able to become immigrants." In other words, the DHS envisions itself abetting lawbreaking.
If these initiatives are successful, the impact on American workers would border on catastrophic, especially for college graduates. American universities churn out approximately 800,000 graduates per year with degrees in medicine and business, as well as science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM). These graduates are already having trouble finding jobs in their respective fields, and Obama's agenda would add the insult to injury, forcing them to compete with foreign workers willing to accept lower wages. A scathing column written by a former Disney IT worker recounts the company's despicable effort in that regard. Disney forced their American workers to train their foreign counterparts prior to being laid off as a condition for receiving their severance pay. A number of other companies, including Microsoft, Facebook, Google, Infosys, Tata Consultancy Services, Intel and Qualcomm have all clamored for increased numbers of H-1B visas, even as many of them have laid off American workers.
Ian Smith, a lawyer with the Immigration Reform Law Institute, puts the administration's latest agenda in perspective. "The President's ruthless politicization of our immigration laws seems to be getting more extreme as his final day in office nears," said Smith. "Each of the plans contemplated in this memo would be a complete subversion of our visa system and is 100 percent illegal… [and] will be a direct slap in the face of Congress."
Not exactly. Virtually every Democrat is behind the president's plans, as are many Chamber of Commerce-beholden Republicans who are on board with increasing the number of H-1B visas. They include Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) who, along with co-sponsors Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ), proposed a reincarnation of the 2013 "I-Squared" bill called the "Immigration Innovation Act of 2015." The latest version would increase the number of H-1B visas from the current level of 65,000 a year (plus 20,000 for holders of U.S. graduate degrees), to 115,000, "with the possibility of the cap rising as high as 195,000 depending on economic conditions," Hatch stated last April. This despite the reality that since 2000, the entire net gain in the number of people holding a job went to immigrants, both legal and illegal, according to a 2014 report by the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS).
Furthermore, no one should expect any help from the GOP's newly-elected House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI). Ryan has repeatedly aligned himself with Obama and the pro-amnesty left, insisting in 2013 that any public displeasure with "waves of immigration" arises from "some ignorance…some resistance."
In a searing column for Roll Call, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) and Rep. Dave Brat (R-VA) reveal the utter fraud behind Ryan's assertion, explaining the Census Bureau "projects that the foreign-born share of the U.S. population will soon eclipse the highest levels ever documented, and will continue surging to new record highs each year to come." They further note that "activists and politicians who support unprecedented levels of immigration are never asked to explain how they believe such a policy will affect social stability, community cohesion or political assimilation."
Both men mince no words with regard to the real agenda in play here. "This is not immigration reform," they state. "This is the dissolution of the nation state, of the principle that a government exists to serve its own people."
And make no mistake: the Obama administration is leading the charge, along with the entire Democrat Party and a number of Republicans, whose contempt for national sovereignty is only surpassed by their efforts to label those who resist the fundamental transformation of America as bigoted, nativist and/or xenophobic. It behooves the 26 plaintiff states that have challenged Obama's agenda to make sure the Fifth Circuit court of Appeals is fully informed with regard to the DHS memo and the administration's attempt to subvert the law. Sad to say, either they, or ultimately the Supreme Court, may be the last line of defense against a cabal of politicians and well-connected corporate oligarchs, and their supra-nationalist ambitions. It is not just America, but the concept of the nation-state itself, that hangs in the balance.
Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/260671/obamas-secret-destruction-our-immigration-system-arnold-ahlert
▼ Nov 1 (61)
Wake up and start connecting the dots - Dr. Mordec...
New Report Details Iranian Commander's Involvement...
Jordanian Cleric Who Banned Killing Jews Sets Reco...
Iranian losses in Syria 'triggering mutiny' - Ari ...
Hizbullah's Al-Manar TV Report On 'Former And Incu...
Georgetown's John Esposito Shills for Egypt's Musl...
Turkey: Where Ice Cream Can Be More Dangerous than...
NGOs, the EU, and Product Labeling: A First Step i...
Obama's Secret Destruction of Our Immigration Syst...
Why does he lie? - Brian Schrauger
Muhammad Had 'British Values'? - Robert Spencer
A Joint Israeli-Arab Attack on Iran? - Ehud Eilam
A happy day for history and truth - Nadav Shragai
EU boycott of Israel will harm Palestinians more t...
Will Turks accept the election results? - Daniel P...
Britain's New Racism - Douglas Murray
Merkel's madness knows no bounds - Carol Brown
Will Hassan Undermine Domestic Intelligence? - Joh...
Why Palestinians Do Not Want Cameras on the Temple...
Khamenei Plays Obama - Dr. Majid Rafizadeh
Soros: National Borders Are The Enemy - Matthew Va...
When will our leaders understand that it's Morning...
Death penalty for terrorists 'will return sanity t...
Forecast: 20 million more Muslims in Germany by 20...
Islam in British Prisons - Johanna Markind
Martyrdom and the love of life - Rabbi Menachem Br...
Iran begins blockade of US imports - Ari Yashar
Watch: Ancient Greek fortress solves mystery of Ma...
Abbas' Religious Incitement - Joseph Puder
Expert: No choice for Obama, he will resume talks ...
Muslim migration and our incurious press - Greg Ri...
Jordanian sheikh issues fatwah against killing Jew...
In Iraq, Public Debate Over Russian Involvement, D...
The Wesleyan Controversy - Dr. Richard L. Cravatts...
Natural Selection Among Jews - Ted Belman
Abbas's civil war? Fatah vs PA in Shechem - Dalit ...
Installing Jew-Hatred on America's Campuses - Phyl...
MEMRI: 'The Emperor Has No Clothes' - Yigal Carmon...
Syria's Unraveling Gives Way to New Regional Order...
Latest emails put the lie to Hillary's excuse for ...
An absurd new world order - Omer Dostri
Russian Intervention in Syria Isn't a 'Game Change...
Backgrounder: Hajj Amin al-Husseini - Gary C. Gamb...
How Jerusalem Arabs are fleecing National Insuranc...
Freedom Center Launches 'Stop the Jihad on Campus'...
Israel dismayed by Palestinian celebrations upon r...
A short (but pithy and instructive, I hope) lesson...
Muslim Blood and Al-Aqsa - Bassam Tawil
Rabin's true legacy - Caroline Glick
Fighting the Islamist enemy in the courtroom - Car...
A brief history of the status quo - Nadav Shragai
MI5 chief: Islamic State planning massive attack i...
The Left's Ugly Hatred of Ben Carson - Peter Heck
The Russian Bear has joined the cardgame in the Mi...
College Campuses: Intellectual Diversity-Free Zone...
Rashid Khalidi Heads Pro-PLO Panel in Bashing Isra...
Academic Freedom Opposed by "Who"? - Douglas Murra...


I'm a geek in a house full of geeks. And we are not too proud to admit it. We celebrate our dorkiness and revel in the fact that one day each year we can proudly say "it's our day!" and this year, we are once again celebrating with a Pi day giveaway. That's because our big day is not the anniversary of the first Big Bang Theory or Bill Gate's birthday, it's March 14... or Pi Day (3.14, get it?). It's a legit national holiday folks.
Around the country there are celebrations, such as Einstein look-alike contests, pie-throwing at schools - typically Math teachers after students have memorized a whole lot of Pi, and the mailing of acceptance letters at the holy grail of geekdom, MIT.
The giveaway: we have 2 t-shirts to give away (pictured above) from the super-nice geeks at ThinkGeek. This treasure trove of loveable geek paraphernalia is letting us give away 2 of these adorable navy blue 100% cotton babydoll t-shirts. They are fitted, not baggy like the guys' tees, with a Pi symbol printed on the front in white using the first 4493 digits of Pi used to construct the Pi symbol itself. That's a whole lot of Pi. Enough for everybody to share.
To enter, leave a comment telling us which of the following you've done, along with your email. Each counts as a separate entry, so you get up to 4 entries if you're doing the math. We're giving away 2 shirts so there will be TWO winners!
Entries close 3/13 at midnight EST. Two winners will be chosen by random number generator on 3/14.


text:
Our current howler
Companion site:
Bob Somerby
Marc Cherbonnier
Daily Howler: When Tierney praised Milwaukee's vouchers, an expert pithily answered
ALLEGEDLY, MILWAUKEE'S FINEST! When Tierney praised Milwaukee's vouchers, an expert pithily answered: // link // print // previous // next //
SOMETHING'S MISSING: For those who like to read ahead, this front-page report in this morning's Post is quite remarkable—because of something that's missing. The state of Florida will now give raises to teachers who improve student test scores. But can you spot the amazing omission in this long and detailed report? We'll return to this story later this week. In the meantime, can you see what is missing?
TWO PICTURES—ONE OF THEM ACCURATE: In Washington, Ezra Klein is now simply "The Man." He's known as "The Answer"—and, of course, as "Dr. K." Because Klein's American Prospect cover story represents such a milestone, we'll invite you to ponder what it says one more time. Finally—and only seven years late!—a liberal journal has printed an accurate summary of what occurred during Campaign 2000. As we start, Klein is describing an Al Gore speech from October:
KLEIN (4/06): The address was the keynote for the We Media conference, held at the Associated Press headquarters in New York last October and attended by an audience that included both old media luminaries and new media innovators. In attendance were Tom Curley, president of the AP, Andrew Heyward, president of CBS News, and New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, all leading lights of a media establishment that, five years earlier, had deputized itself judge, jury, and executioner for Gore's 2000 presidential campaign, spinning each day's events to portray the stolid, capable vice president as a wild exaggerator, ideological chameleon, and total, unforgivable bore.
Omigod! With perfect accuracy, Klein notes that the "media establishment"—not the conservative press corps—went after Gore in Campaign 2000. Indeed, they declared themselves his "executioner," Klein quite accurately says. Klein even names the type of news orgs which cast themselves in this role—the Associated Press, CBS News, and the New York Times. (In fairness, CBS played a minor role.) In fact, the Washington Post was plainly the leading player in the two-year War Against Gore—the astounding press corps war which sent George Bush to the White House. But Klein names establishment media orgs—he doesn't try to pin this war on conservative organs. Starting in March 1999, the Washington Post played the leading role in this relentless spin campaign—and the Washington Times was not influential. This remarkable press event changed the course of American history—and it was conducted by the "media establishment," exactly as "The Doctor" says. For reasons only they can explain, your liberal organs—and your liberal pundits—have refused to discuss this major fact until now. All praise, then, to The American Prospect for putting Klein's piece into print.
But omigod! Others cling to inaccurate stories. Yesterday, Digby told the familiar alternate tale—a tale which is simply inaccurate. Why are liberals so in love with this misleading recitation?
DIGBY (3/21/06): I will always have a great fondness for Al Gore. In 2000 I watched him get trashed by a ruthless Right Wing Noise Machine and a sophomoric press corps who were determined to punish him for Clinton's sins (which only they and the very right wing of the Republican party felt required punishment in the first place.) It was one of the most god-awful displays of character assassination we've ever seen—and the way it ended, with the Republicans pulling every lever of brute institutional power they had to seize the office, had to have been a terrible, dispiriting event. I know how bad I felt. I can only imagine the searing disappointment he must have endured.
Digby's fondness is duly noted. But instead of offering this brand of boo-hooing, couldn't we just try telling the truth? Like Klein, Digby starts by understating this story—the War Against Gore to which he refers began in full fury in March 1999, and continued unabated for the next twenty months, right through November 2000. And we hate to tell you, but it wasn't conducted by a "Right Wing Noise Machine" with a sophomoric press corps tagging along. Yes, the RNC played a role at the start—but by the fall of 1999, Chairman Jim Nicholson was running hard just to keep up with the Gore-bashing stories being churned by the big mainstream organs. For unknown reasons, people like Digby—for all their fondness—love to misreport his story. We're tired of seeing young liberal readers fed this pleasing but bogus tale. What makes it so hard to tell the truth about this critical piece of history? "Dr. K" does. See above.
Would it kill us if we just typed the truth? Starting in March 1999, Candidate Gore was assailed by a remarkable slander campaign—a campaign conducted by the mainstream media, not by conservative organs. Clearly, the Washington Post was the leading player, followed by the New York Times—and the Boston Globe saved the day in mid-September 2000, when Gore was pulling away in the polls. (Robert Novak, 9/7/00: "Undeniable panic is gripping partisan Republicans, from rank-and-file voters to seasoned political operatives, with two full months left before the presidential election.") At that point, the Globe's Walter Robinson launched the "doggy-pill" story; one day later, USA Today's Walter Shapiro invented the "union lullaby" scandal—and mainstream pundits feigned High Outrage once again. The polls turned around within a week, leading to the remarkable spinning which followed Bush and Gore's first debate. By the way, this spinning was done by mainstream pundits—not by a Right Wing Machine.
Walter Shapiro and Walter Robinson are not the "Right Wing Noise Machine." They aren't Rush Limbaugh. They aren't Fox News. And they aren't the Washington Times—a paper which never succeeded (although it tried) in getting its GoreSlanders into the mix. (Al Gore is a slumlord went nowhere.) Would it kill us to stick our fondness where the sun doesn't shine and tell young readers who come to our sites the actual truth about their own recent history? To his vast credit, Ezra Klein has now done just that. And only 7 years late!
Klein and Digby recall the same events. Only one of their stories is accurate. This war was run by the "establishment media." With Dr. K now leading the break, what makes it so hard to just say this?
ALL PRAISE TO MIKE TOMASKY TOO: Yes, he's a Morgantown elitist. But all praise to Mike Tomasky! He put Klein's true story into print.
WHAT FINEMAN SAID: Why did pundits turn on Gore in mid-September 2000? Why did they run with the ludicrous doggy pill/union lullaby pseudo-scandals? Uh-oh! On September 21, 2000, Brian Williams actually asked. And Howard Fineman answered:
WILLIAMS (9/21/00): Howard, I don't know of any kind of conspiratorial, Trilateral Commission-like council meetings in the news media, but you bring up an interesting point and boy, it sure does seem true over the years that the news media almost reserve the right to build up and tear down and change their minds and like an underdog. What's that about?
FINEMAN: Well, what it's about is the relentless search for news and the relentless search for friction in the story. I don't think the media was going to allow, just by its nature, the next seven weeks, the last seven or eight weeks of the campaign, to be all about Al Gore's relentless triumphant march to the presidency. We want a race, I suppose. If we have a bias of any kind, it's that we like to see a contest and we like to see it down to the end if we can.
Gore had been pulling away in the polls; Fineman said "the media" just wasn't going to allow it. Of course, since these same media had been trashing Gore for the better part of two years, this explanation was relatively benign. But Brian Williams and Howard Fineman are not the Right Wing Noise Machine. On the other hand, they are the people who conducted the war which Digby recalls. This war—which put George Bush in the White House—was one of the most remarkable press events in our history. Why is it still so g*d-damned hard to tell our readers who waged it?
Special report: Allegedly, Milwaukee's finest!
PART 2—ANRIG ANSWERS: Are John Tierney's allegations correct? As we noted in yesterday's HOWLER, the New York Times scribe is wonderfully certain; vouchers have solved the problem of low-income schools, and the Milwaukee experience has proved it. On March 7, he explained it all in his Times column, announcing that the millennium has arrived—if you are a low-income kid on the near north side of Milwaukee (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 3/21/06). "[I]f you want to see inner-city children getting a good education, it's the most beautiful spot in America," he wrote, describing Milwaukee's long experiment with vouchers. And he quoted an advocate of the city's voucher program. "We've seen what school choice can do," said Gregory Stanford, an editorial writer at the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel. "It's impressive to go around to the voucher schools and see kids learning."
If those claims are true, they're important. In fact, because these claims are so important, they shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. For what it's worth, Milwaukee has not given up on its 16-year-old program, a point Tierney makes in his column. And Stanford isn't the only person who says that the program is working, although some early advocates of Milwaukee vouchers have become a bit chastened over time. Tierney's column bore a tangy headline—"City Schools That Work," it proclaimed. But are Milwaukee's voucher schools really producing impressive results? Tierney says these schools are Milwaukee's finest. But are his allegations correct?
To what extent is Tierney on target? Yesterday, we recorded a few of our own instant reactions to his column. But on the day Tierney's piece appeared, Gregory Anrig (The Century Foundation) critiqued it quite harshly at TPM Café. For those who want to sort the truth about Milwaukee's voucher experience, a few of Anrig's basic critiques should be placed on the record. Anrig's pithy piece can be read in full here; we'll pick and choose from its highlights.
First, a remarkable fact about Milwaukee's program; there is no mandatory testing in the schools which receive voucher students. Anrig explains this quite concisely. Let's defer to his own words:
ANRIG (3/7/06): Nowhere in his column does Tierney mention the rather pertinent detail that when Milwaukee's voucher program was greatly expanded in [1995] to include religious schools, the state stopped testing the students who attended the private schools. That, of course, makes comparisons between their performance and those of the public schools impossible. One of the reasons why the decision was made against subjecting the private schools to the same testing requirements as the public schools is that the results when the program was much smaller were, at best, inconclusive. It was the voucher advocates in state government who decided against measuring whether the idea actually worked or not. So today there's no hard data to go on.
For the record, many Milwaukee schools which enroll voucher students do conduct testing programs on their own. But the state decided against systematic testing—a fact which we find quite remarkable. This makes it hard to gather data about how well voucher students have done.
Second, Anrig discusses one of the studies Tierney cited in his column. Again, he shows true pith:
ANRIG: Tierney mentions an analysis by Harvard's Caroline Hoxby that claims to show that public schools in Milwaukee that were subject to the greatest degree of competition from vouchers performed better—suggesting that market forces have a positive impact on the schools. But Hoxby herself has acknowledged that if the students moving from the public schools to the private schools had lower than average test scores in the first place, that alone would help to elevate the public school test scores. A recent RAND report on charter schools found that the students moving out of public schools were indeed more likely to have lower scores.
Hoxby was working with old and limited data, in part due to factors explained above. Did scores bump up in public schools after the voucher program began? As Anrig notes, that may have happened because the students who left these schools with vouchers had below-average test scores. And as we said yesterday: A bump in public school test scores may have occurred because some schools, feeling pressured by vouchers, began to get a bit "creative" with their own testing programs. Did some of Milwaukee's public schools break a few rules in response to the pressure? We don't have the slightest idea. But we'd say the chances are good—although researchers rarely seem to consider such an obvious fact of nature.
And uh-oh! Anrig challenges Joseph Viteritti, a national voucher advocate who was quoted in Tierney's column. As noted yesterday, Viteritti told Tierney that "all the good research, including the voucher opponents' work, shows that kids who accept vouchers are doing at least as well as their public school peers." Wrong again, says Anrig:
ANRIG: Actually, what the lion's share of studies conducted in other locations by researchers who have not received support from right-wing foundations found is that students receiving vouchers do no better than comparable students who remain in public schools. That means the experiment has failed...Over the years, if a particular liberal school reform initiative didn't improve outcomes, conservatives forcefully pounced on those research findings as evidence of failure. And they were right.
Note Anrig's attention to how voucher kids do as opposed to "comparable students" in public schools. (Viteritti's statement only talks about "peers.") If these groups do equally well, the experiment has failed, Anrig says. To consider the importance of Anrig's distinction, see THE DAILY HOWLER, 1/30/06.
Please note: None of this means that vouchers couldn't be productive or helpful in some situation. But clearly, Anrig's critique undermines the certainty of Tierney's allegations. Because these matters are so important, pundits like Tierney should be required to rein in their flights of high fancy.
Meanwhile, Anrig makes an excellent suggestion—a suggestion we've eagerly taken. "Given the absence of testing results, Tierney might have at least referred to the 7-part series in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel last June," Anrig writes. "The reporters personally visited all but nine of the 115 private voucher schools [in Milwaukee] to try to assess their quality...Much of what they found undercuts Tierney's claim that 'the results so far in Milwaukee and other cities are more than enough to declare vouchers a success.'" Indeed, we think Anrig under-states here; we were shocked by much that we read in this remarkable series. Like Duke Helfand's recent piece in the Los Angeles Times, this was an outstanding report—a report which produced little national buzz. Tomorrow, we'll walk you through some of the Journal-Sentinel's reporting. Are these voucher schools really Milwaukee's finest? Tierney's allegation suffers quite badly in the face of this detailed reports.
THE WAY WE WERE: We made one change in Anrig's report (see above). At TPM, Anrig says the state stopped testing the voucher students in 1998. We're assuming that was a typo; the Journal-Sentinel states, several times, that this happened in 1995. Journal-Sentinel, 6/12/05: "There has been almost no research using fresh data about the performance of students in voucher schools since 1995, when the state Legislature dropped a requirement that there be an annual performance report on the schools." One day later, the paper said it again: "No research has been done using data on student performance in voucher schools since 1995, when a state requirement for an annual research report ended."
TOMORROW—PART 3: Milwaukee's worst.
FRIDAY—PART 4: Why we've never really expected that vouchers would give us The Answer.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Eric Benet - Lost In Time (2010)
Eric Benet
Click on CD cover
to listen or purchase
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0047Z72IC?tag=soultracks-20&camp=0&creative=0&linkCode=as1&creativeASIN=B0047Z72IC&adid=1BM7G51ZFMDTSA990NM3&
Just over five years ago, singer, songwriter and musician Eric Benet found himself at a personal and professional crossroads. In spite of a decade that had began with great promise, thanks to his gold-selling and Grammy-nominated Tamia duet, "Spend My Life With You," his reputation as low-key R&B love man was nearly destroyed thanks to acknowledged infidelity against his then-wife, actress Halle Berry. His third CD, the intensely-emotional Hurricane, finally ended his six year recording hiatus and produced a couple of hits, but he didn't completely restore the groove until 2008's Grammy-nominated follow-up, Love & Life. Now, over a decade into his solo career and nearly a decade removed from Hallegate, Mr.
Just over five years ago, singer, songwriter and musician Eric Benet found himself at a personal and professional crossroads. In spite of a decade that had began with great promise, thanks to his gold-selling and Grammy-nominated Tamia duet, "Spend My Life With You," his reputation as low-key R&B love man was nearly destroyed thanks to acknowledged infidelity against his then-wife, actress Halle Berry. His third CD, the intensely-emotional Hurricane, finally ended his six year recording hiatus and produced a couple of hits, but he didn't completely restore the groove until 2008's Grammy-nominated follow-up, Love & Life. Now, over a decade into his solo career and nearly a decade removed from Hallegate, Mr. Benet's fifth effort, Lost In Time, feels just as well-crafted as its predecessor, giving his faithful following exactly what they expect---lush, love-struck ballads and mid tempos featuring twists of sophistication and sensuality.
When Mr. Benet entered the studio for Love..., he confessed (during an interview to SoulTracks, no less) that he'd sequestered himself in the studio with longtime collaborators George Nash and Demonte, employing old school methods to crank out melodies for the songs rather than the other way around. The process of anchoring lyrics to a strong musical foundation continues to serve him well, evidenced in vintage-sounding tracks like "Always a Reason," which could've been an outtake from a Stylistics album in the way it interpolates "Break Up to Make Up" and employs a tender falsetto to coax his way into a reluctant heart: "There's a lifetime of tears we could both leave behind, cuz' in so many ways, we've been broken inside/All the questions you ask, we'll find answers together in time , all you need is to believe..."
"Never Want to Live Without You" is another blue-light-basement-party special, filled with confessions of a man who's wronged his lady and vows to move faithfully into a brighter future. The exquisite title track describes the heady sensation that new love creates, and vulnerability reaches new heights with the aching slow-burn of a ballad, "Sometimes I Cry," brimming with tear-stained, Prince-worthy pleading for another chance (or at least a fresh box of Kleenex): "There's a smile on my face, yeah, but I'm broken inside/Sometimes I cry, when I'm all alone with this heart of mine. "
Even the most successful performers need to shake things up from time to time, and that's what Mr. Benet accomplishes, surprisingly, on the Gamble-and-Huff-recalling "Paid." What could've been an ill-fitting and self-conscious duet is, instead, a freely funky jam that laments having more month than money and how the lean green is getting harder and harder to come by. Eddie Levert's baritone complements Mr. Benet's tenor as they grumble about getting "paid on the first, paid on the last, and struggle all through the middle/M-O-N-E-Y never seems to multiply for me," a rich experience for the singers and the audience alike.
Still, in spite of its overall excellence, a few songs in the line-up manage to fall short. "Take It," which pairs him with Chrisette Michele, sounds like a tentative I-don't-want-to-outshine-him/her vocal run instead of the fun frolic it was meant to be, and "Good Life," featuring Ledisi, has a great message but needs a more modern backdrop to really drive it home. "Something's Wrong" wants to wrap up the collection with a conscience, but it seems to contradict itself in stating that, yes, the whip is fly and the cash is flowing, yet the evidence of mankind's suffering isn't exactly making his day, thank you very much: "I avert my eyes as I travel them roads, of people begging on the street/Don't mess up my vibe and show another sick child ain't had enough to eat." Huh?
More nuanced than Hurricane, but less exuberant than Love & Life, Lost in Time---even with its missteps---powerfully demonstrates Mr. Benet's artistic assurance and finesse, qualities that will keep the Milwaukee, WI native from becoming, well, just that. Highly Recommended.
By Melody Charles


text:
Q: Fuzzy Match Values from two different tables I am trying to use SQL Server FTS to create a fuzzy match between a name column in two different tables.  I have a FTS index on table A name field and want to find the match quality (Rank) of table b values that match table A on a fuzzy match.
Table A
Name
-------
My Senior High School
My Senior Higher Learning Place

Table B
--------------
My Senior HS
My Senior HS Learning Place

The hope is to take the top match (as close to 100%) as possible out of a the row match set.
I attempted to complete this using a CONTAINSTABLE query but I'm not sure how to parameterize the search in the FTS Indexed table with the values from the second table.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
Q: pandoc: Error producing PDF with R Markdown When doing pandoc mymarkdown.md -o mypdf.pdf I get the following error:
! Undefined control sequence.
l.279 ...e know that the element stored at \(x \lt

pandoc: Error producing PDF

I'm confused, as using pandoc with any other markdown file works for me. l.279 ...e know that the element stored at \(x \lt corresponds to a line in my md file. If I remove that line from the file, the error persists, giving a different line and so on.

A:
Unicode character fi (U+FB01)

It suggests there's a character that is cannot be converted correctly. If you're getting literally that error—with no visible character—then what's probably happening is that you have some sort of invisible or space Unicode character in your document. For instance, option+space on Mac will leave an invisible non-breaking space, which gives an error that looks like that.
What you can do is starting from an empty document, then add one paragraph at a time, until you find the problem, then try to "re-write" the problem part.


Started in 2000 by Fr�d�ric Sofiyana (graphic artist) and St�phane Lef�vre (photographer), the SUBAKT Creative Arts Studio creates, develops and delivers original art works blending design, graphics, photography and sound.
SUBAKT creates and produces high value added Web-based arts, photographic prints, and photo / video sequences for demanding and specialized market customers, requiring finely targeted creative support for their products and services in their market segments.
SUBAKT?s creative works include our R&D lab working in three medias - Web arts, print media and photo / video. Our house team carries out R&D activities along with customer contract work. We showcase certain R&D project work on our SUBAKT Web site, which can be accessed by clicking on 'Lab'.
Our research and development lab is dedicated to creative ends, allowing our creative talent to express itself freely.
The SUBAKT Studio was created for a defined purpose - to provide a place where creative talents originating from different domains under different influences could come together. Each researcher therefore brings along their own specific creative talents and know-how, with a personal slant on the digital arts. This way, we ensure original fusion of ideas, blending complementary inputs from co-workers in a creative environment.
This specific working method based on individual effort but seeking complementary fusion has provided SUBAKT Studio with a wealth and diversity of creative concepts, products and original art works. SUBAKT Studio is therefore a multimedia, interdisciplinary platform, a place of shared visions, innovation and interaction where photography, graphics arts, visual and sound design meet and mix to produce a creative whole.
SUBAKT is part of the digital arts movements, and aims to project its range of experimental and creative activities, including those of its 'Laboratory' outside its physical confines, and to get better reach and understanding of the 'art works' produced by its studios and lab. This will be by way of increasing participation in exhibitions and new arts events.
This objective is backed by the need felt by all members of our Studio on the one hand to present their works in forums and media other than the SUBAKT Internet site, and on the other hand to come closer to the general public, to share and exchange views and feelings.
g11-What is the cause which get to form SUBAKT?
SUBAKT-The beginning of SUBAKT was the meeting between a graphic designer (Fr�d�ric Sofiyana) and a photographer (St�phane Lef�vre). From this point we wanted to set up a team which be able to work on original art works blending design, photography and sound. Outside our contract work for customers,creative activity carried out by us includes a 3-media research and development lab handling Web art, print media, and photo / video.
g11-What is a design/art for you?
I think this question is simple, but the most difficult for all designers/artists.
g11-Can you explain about your current activity?
SUBAKT-Right now we still working on Kenzo Web site, we started a new project of Web site about the very famous French singer artist Barbara (she's dead now but she's deeply a part of the French culture). In September we participated in the performance "l'Affiche vivante" organized by a street theatre company. "L'Affiche vivante" is a street event which offered the inhabitants of a quarter of Paris the possibility to be photographed and integrated into 80m2 monumental posters stuck by bill-posters in abseiling on one of the walls of the quarter. SUBAKT produced 13 posters for 10 days.
g11-Do you have some messages about this work?
g11-What intention does the title "electro sampler" have?
SUBAKT-It's just because it shows samplers of works, and not the whole works. "Electro" is for the web media.
g11-I feel something like an atmosphere of blood from whole works. How do you think about this?
SUBAKT-We're not "blood addicts" at all, but we're very influenced by urban cultures, which is, in a way, violente. Our quest is to conceive and realize powerful and quality works.
g11-I can find some Japanese text "hilagana" in few works.
Are you interested in Japanese text? and What impression do you get from Japan?
SUBAKT-It's true that we like very much Japanese text because of their graphics form. For us they carry a kind of mystic atmosphere.
We are very interested in Japenese design, typography, graphics, and, of course, calligraphy.
You're so precise and rigorous in you're works !!
g11-At SUBAKT's creative activity, What is SUBAKT inspired extremely by?
SUBAKT-We born and grew up in cities. We are directly inspired from our daily life and from what is around us. We are linked to our city in a personal way: we are fascinated by its mysteries hidden behind the walls. Cities are game fields always in movement which excite our creativity. In the mean time, "Mother Earth" is very impressive too but she is unfortunately not a part of our direct daily life.
g11-Finally, Can you explain about the plan for your future?
SUBAKT-Regarding our projects, we're currently preparing a serie of exhibitions. The photographer and each of the 4 graphic designers are developing a personal project which will be presented at the exhibitions. the thematics are as different as the number of projects. In this way videos, Web sites, photographies... will be proposed. The first exhbitions should take place at the beginning of the year 2003.
g11-Do you have any proposal or opinion for graphics11?
SUBAKT-We just have haste to see the works of the other participants!
g11-Thank you for your time.