9-11 Do More Than Never Forget- Stop Islam's Assault

9-11 Do More Than Never Forget- Stop Islam's Assault
News about Islamic violence world-wide and the Islamic threat , driven by the Quran and its followers. Politics and the issues of our Allies Globally - will greatly effect whether we will be able to stop the spread of Islam and the violence that is backbone of this sick ideology. Islam is United Globally and so must all people who value Freedom be United to Stop Islam!

Sunday, March 31, 2013

Obama attends Easter service; minister criticizes ‘captains of the religious right’

President Obama and the first family walked from the White House across Lafayette Square to attend Easter worship at St. John’s Church, their most frequent religious venue while in Washington.

The Obamas worshipped at St. John’s on Easter 2009, and they have visited the Episcopal congregation, which is led by the Rev. Luis Leon, numerous times.

Video: President Obama and his family attended Easter services at an Episcopal church near the White House where past presidents frequently have worshipped.

With Obama in the pews, Leon took a shot at political conservatives, arguing from the pulpit that some conservative positions are holding people back.

Quoting from John 20:1-18, Leon said in the same way that Jesus told Mary Magdalene not to hold on to him, it is time for conservatives to stop holding on to what he considers outdated stances in matters of race, gender equality, homosexuals and immigrants.

“It drives me crazy when the captains of the religious right are always calling us back . . . for blacks to be back in the back of the bus . . . for women to be back in the kitchen . . . for immigrants to be back on their side of the border,” Leon said.

Leon said that people instead should use “Easter vision” to allow them to see the world in a different, more “wonderful” way.

After the sermon, Leon told The Washington Post that he was speaking about Mary realizing that she shouldn’t hold on, accepting it and changing from that point on.

“That is the invitation for all of us,” Leon said. When asked to discuss his criticism of political conservatives, he said: “I will keep my thoughts there.”

Obama has visited the church, which is steps from the White House, several times during his presidency. Like most of his previous visits to churches in the District, Obama did not make a speech. He sat on the end of a pew near the middle of the sanctuary, smiling and greeting members of the congregation with “Happy Easter.”

Since taking office, Obama also has visited a number of African American churches, where he has almost always chosen to worship quietly, speaking only once.

The Obamas have not become members of a congregation in the District, but they have started to develop a spiritual tradition, largely visiting churches close to the White House.

On the Sunday that he was sworn in for a second term, Obama and his family attendedMetropolitan AME — which is only blocks from the presidential residence — where they also worshipped during the previous year’s Martin Luther King holiday weekend.

The Rev. Ronald Braxton, Metropolitan AME’s pastor, turned to politics on Good Friday, as he and scores of church members and community leaders marched with small wooden crosses to Freedom Plaza, calling for an end to gun violence and a way to stop the tide of young people going to prison.

The “Stop the Pipeline to Prison and End Gun Violence” rally included a number of speakers who talked about the recent rash of gun violence in the District, which has happened just as members of Congress have been debating gun control legislation.

The speakers urged Obama and members of Congress not to forget the plight of African Americans in the inner cities.

“With gun control, we want to have some rational policies not only when it happens in Newtown, not only in Aurora, in rural America, but in black America as well,” said Georgetown University professor Michael Eric Dyson, who was the keynote speaker for the event. He noted the hundreds of young people dying as a result of gun violence in cities such as Chicago, Detroit and Washington.

Braxton echoed Dyson’s remarks: “We are out here today because Christ was crucified on this day for our sins and we symbolically bear his cross today for the redemption of our community. Gun violence is destroying our community.”

D.C. Council member Vincent Orange (D-At large), who took part in the event at Freedom Plaza, said in terms of gun violence, “All of the churches have to come together because this is a tragedy.”



Video - HAPPY EASTER! Nostalgic Davie and Goliath Easter Special

Davie and Goliath a bit old - a bit corny- but the message still rings true -
Happy Easter!

(Though I still get teary when Gram dies- )

Saturday, March 30, 2013

Video worth the Re Share: Senator Ted Cruz not only Swept the floor on the Gun Control Hearings

Logic  Wins

Video: Allen West: Dr. Benjamin Carson Violated Unwritten Rule of Being a Black Male and Criticizing Obama

Video: Frank Gaffney and Allen West on North Africa jihad

Allen West for President in 2016. He would be the President that would actually win the War on Terror, crush Islamism, and end the threat. Anyone else (following Obama's soft apprach) will only continue to imperil the West and prolong the war and cost of rectifying the situation.
I'm not a US citizen but even I can see that only someone with the determination like Col. West or Australia's Julia Gillard can end the war by *winning it*.
The ideology of Islam is the problem!

Friday, March 29, 2013

300,000+ children abused by Islam in africa- media calles them rebels

Note the Video Commentator is speaking like we are slow - LOL - because it  is made for those learning English. Personally I think they would be more Helpful to humanity if THEY SAID IT WAS ISLAM and ID'd the real ISSUE THE REAL AGGRESSOR - so westerners were warned.
From VOA Learning English, we bring you health news in Special English. UNICEF says the recent conflict in the Central African Republic has affected 1.8 million people. The United Nations Children's Fund says children make up half of the 800,000 people in urgent need of humanitarian aid. Rebel groups rose up against President Francois Bozize in December. The Seleka rebel coalition signed a peace deal with the president in January. A UNICEF spokeswoman says some of the hardest-hit towns remain under rebel control. She says major risks for children include sexual violence and being recruited into armed groups. UNICEF says eight percent of young children in the Central African Republic suffer from moderate acute malnutrition. Two percent suffer from severe cases of hunger. Yet, basic services are hard to find. The agency says that in areas affected by conflict, fewer than half of the children attend school. UNICEF says the rebels and pro-government militias are recruiting children as soldiers. The group says it aims to bring aid to more communities to help families displaced by the crisis in Central African Republic. Globally, UNICEF is appealing for $1.4 billion this year to meet the urgent needs of tens of millions of children in 45 countries and regions. The children are threatened by conflict, natural disasters and other emergencies. In two areas of increasing conflict, the situation is especially threatening for children. In Syria, about 2.5 million people need assistance, and UNICEF says more than half of them are children. And a UNICEF official says that in Mali, children in the north are displaced, out of school, and at risk of being drawn into armed groups. For VOA Learning English, I'm Laurel Bowman.(Adapted from a radio program broadcast 06Feb2013)

The Iraq War changed the way the U.S. Army trains

Columbus Ledger-Enquirer-
As America was sending its sons and daughters into battle a decade ago, the U.S. Army’s expertise was based largely on the conventional philosophy of tank versus tank, foot soldier against foot soldier.
That changed in a flash. The invasion of Iraq’s capital of Baghdad, led by Fort Benning’s 3rd Brigade Heavy Combat Team, would give way to years of war fought often in smaller towns and cities.
Shadowy terrorist figures — mixing in at times with locals — replaced the uniformed Warsaw Pact adversaries the military had long trained to fight against in a major conflict. Improvised explosive devices (IEDs), or homemade bombs planted on roadways or worn by suicidal individuals, quickly became a deadly threat aimed at not only killing U.S. soldiers, but keeping them on edge and wounding morale.
The Army knew it had to adapt — and fast — with its ranks swelling with civilians-turned-soldiers, many of whom were deploying within 90 days of completing their basic and advanced combat training.
Naturally, those changes rippled swiftly to the Home of the Infantry at Fort Benning, changes that are entrenched in the way recruits are taught today.
Staff Sgt. Jesse Murray, who entered the military just before the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, knows the lessons learned from Iraq — and subsequently from Afghanistan — as well as anyone. The Fort Benning Drill Sergeant of the Year deployed to Iraq three times and today is among those training troops how to survive in harm’s way.
“When I was a private, a lot of my squad leaders and leadership did not have any combat experience. And I remember during my first deployment to Iraq, there was a certain kind of anxiety,” said Murray, who was with the 2nd Infantry Division at Fort Lewis, Wash., when the Stryker — a speedy armored vehicle and troop carrier — made its appearance in Iraq.
Contrast that to today, when virtually all of the drill sergeants Murray works with have seen action in either Iraq and Afghanistan and have their combat infantryman’s badge.
Specifically, Murray said, one station unit training — which combines basic and advanced combat training into one continuous stream of instruction — shifted away from trench warfare and firing rifles from foxholes to using various shooting positions from barriers and around building corners.
Less emphasis was placed on the use of nuclear, biological and chemical masks, with more time spent using night-vision goggles and devices. The term “weapons immersion” also entered the Army’s terminology.
“When I went through originally, the only time we touched our weapons is when we went out to the range,” the drill sergeant said. “Now it’s a constant thing. Privates have their weapons on them all the time, and that reflects what they’re going to see in Iraq ... A lot of times they try to overrun the bases and we don’t have time to run back to our rooms, grab all of our ammo, get suited up, and run back out to wherever we need to be.”
Training on improvised explosion devices also ramped up and easily grabbed the attention of recruits, particularly with news stories from the warfront detailing how a mundane foot patrol or drive from one area to another ended up with soldiers losing an arm or a leg, and for some, their lives.
“Whenever we talk about IEDs, that’s generally when I’ll talk about the real-life effects where soldiers that I know have gotten hurt or injured permanently,” Murray said. “When we talk about (rocket-propelled grenades), I have a story that specifically relates to that. What I think it does is help make it real to them ... They do soak that up because it’s something that they know absolutely nothing about.”
The U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command projects the service will put nearly 85,000 recruits through basic combat training this fiscal year. That number will rise slightly in fiscal year 2014.
One station unit training, which includes both infantry and armor recruits at Fort Benning, will slow from just under 36,000 this year to slightly more than 30,000 in 2014, TRADOC projects.
Just as the infantry has altered its instruction, so has the U.S. Army Armor School, which relocated from Fort Knox, Ky., to Fort Benning in 2011 to create the Maneuver Center of Excellence and combine its heavier power with that of the ground troops.
First Sgt. Anthony Bell deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, and did a stint as a drill sergeant just prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom. Today, he is a 316th Cavalry Bigade operations noncommissioned officer with a basic officer’s course for armor lieutenants at Fort Benning.
“When I was a drill sergeant, it was more about developing the soldier for the conventional Army,” he said. “There was an emphasis on identifying all the foreign enemy tanks for that conventional environment, that woodland environment, and maintaining your vehicles.”
Just as with the infantry, the armor’s training has expanded to include moving through an urban area, clearing buildings, and being able to connect with people in small towns to nurture relations and, hopefully, gather critical intelligence.
“I’m from the scout side of the armor branch, and that was a large part of our job, entering and securing buildings, which is an infantry task,” Bell said of the similarities between the two service rivals who now have been brought together at Fort Benning.
Bell said the integration of the armor with the infantry is beginning to gel, with each planning more and more training time together on their schedules. The goal is to create a more efficient, nimble and fighting force beyond the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Just as the U.S. Army did prior to those conflicts, it will continue to study what has worked and what hasn’t on the battlefield, then make necessary changes to training that will yield even better warriors, said Col. David Wilcox, chief of staff of the U.S. Army Initial Military Training Center of Excellence at Fort Eustis, Va. The center falls under TRADOC.
“We’re cosntantly looking at what we train and how we train it, based upon those tech-savvy young folks coming in,” he said. “I might add, though, they’re a little bit out of shape than those of us who came in 15 or 20 years ago. So we’re having to get them in shape.”
Wilcox commanded a training brigade at Fort Leonard Wood in Missouri from 2009-2011, with engineers, military police officers, chemical specialists and medical personnel receiving basic and advanced training there. He also deployed both to Afghanistan and Iraq, and was in the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001, when a commercial jet crashed into the building three corridors over from his office.
The need for changes in training became apparent early in the invasion of Iraq, Wilcox said, with the quick turnaround of recruits to the battle front. Aside from the necessity of preparing them for entering a city or dark buildings, the Army’s physical fitness program was revamped.
“It is geared more to conditions in a combat environment than it is to going out and running a 10k or a marathon,” he said, using the word “agility” to describe the desired goal of determining: “What are the conditions if I had to carry a buddy 50 or 60 meters to safety? Could I do that with a basic combat load on me?”
Wilcox said the Army now is in the middle of a six-month major review of its training program as it moves from an Army at war to a force working to be prepared for a possible new threat or conflict. The review could be complete by September, he said, although there is no concrete timeframe for rolling out any changes and the numbers of troops needed in the coming years.
“It’s a balancing act as we draw down the (soldier) numbers,” he said. “But I think the quality will get even better as we get stricter on standards coming in, and maintaining the standards throughout your career. With the drawdown in Iraq and Afghanistan, we will be more selective in our recruiting efforts.”
The strategy of training agile soldiers who can think fast on their feet and solve complex problems in combat — or during natural disasters — is a major positive change that came out of the dual wars on terrorism, said Lt. Gen. Robert Brown, commander of I Corps at Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Wash.
“We hadn’t anticipated our soldiers would have to do that because of the complexity of the world and the environment,” said Brown, who commanded Fort Benning as it was blending the infantry and armor together into the Maneuver Center of Excellence.
“It’s the same thing businesses face, we all face,” he said. “The clerk at a company just can’t be the clerk anymore. They’ve got to be empowered or you’re not going to do well in today’s world. You’re going to be too slow and you can’t react fast enough to beat the enemy or anything we’re facing.”
Brown, whose career included a tour of duty in Bosnia prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operating Enduring Freedom, recalled a brigade commander in the European nation who became extremely frustrated because of the enormous amounts of information flowing into his headquarters.
“He was used to looking out into the desert and saying: Go left, go right, do this, do that. Well, he couldn’t do that anymore. We were all over the place, and we had to be independent or you couldn’t act fast enough. That picked up speed even more in Iraq and will forever, by the way, in warfare. We’re never going back. We have overwhelming amounts of information.”
That stream of information from various military and U.S. government sources trumps the days of taking a few scraps of intelligence, feeding it up the command chain, and then waiting for a decision for a battalion or brigade’s next move on the battlefield.
“So you retrain completely different with that,” the general said. “Instead of telling a soldier: Do these 10 steps. We’d say, here’s what we want you to accomplish. You figure it out, and back-brief us. Use your agility, you’re empowered, and finish the job. We started training that long before we deployed.”
Looking ahead, with federal budget cuts guaranteed, Brown said the good news is the U.S. has the most experienced Army it’s ever had. But the challenge will be maintaining that sharp edge amid a downsizing military that’s been at such a high tempo for more than a decade. He said it still must remain on guard for other threats in the Asian-Pacific region, such as North Korea, which maintains a belligerent world stance.
“Of course, you’ve got to cut,” he said. “But where’s the fine line where you get to the point where you go from the best in the world to — all of a sudden — you’re not anymore, because you can’t maintain.”
With his I Corps units, Brown said he’s already having to prioritize training. And it’s not an easy thing to do.
“My number one priority are those units heading to Afghanistan, of course,” he said. “But that means I have some units that will go from a highly trained level to a not-ready level. How long does it take to get them back? What if they’re called upon tomorrow? How much time do we have? That’s tough.”


Obama’s Mirage in Israel

Before clicking Like of President Barack Hussein Obama, who seeks a public relations benefit on the eve of Holy Week and Passover, Israel and its supporters might consider how much Obama has UnLiked them to date.
Obama’s background, worldview, and policies make him no friend of the Jewish state.
Obama’s boyhood in Indonesia brought him to Islam, the religion of his controversial father, step-father, and half-brothers in Kenya, and he retains warm feelings toward the Muslim faith. Obama has fantasized wrongly that the American Founding Fathers read the Koran in sympathy, rather than for clues, during our military wars against the Mohammedian Barbary Pirates, who rejected peace entreaties from the infidel.
Americans proudly affirm religious pluralism, and admire Muslim reformers and moderates, but most insist on truth telling about the third Jihad, violent assaults on Americans at Benghazi, Al Qaeda’s resurgence, and homegrown Islamic terrorism at Fort Hood and elsewhere.
Obama has been in denial about all of this, and about the brutality of Sharia governance, the Islamic culture of oppression of women through honor killings and female genital mutilation, and the continuing Muslim assaults on Christians throughout the Middle East and Northern Africa.
Mr. Obama has not led on human rights, failing to act against Arab torture and slavery, or against the use of child soldiers. Dissidents desperate for moral clarity from the White House, in 2009, chanted in Tehran: “Obama, Obama, are you with us our our dictators?” Neda died, Obama denied.
So, while most Americans cherish Israel as a free, pluralistic, dynamic, and noble moral and strategic ally, Obama asserts a neutrality between the threatened Jewish state and those who reject the “Judaization” of Israel, and who fight an unrelenting war of terrorism, economic sanctions, and public abuse against the “Zionist”/“Apartheid” state.
From where does this mindset arise?
Obama received ideological training as a youth in Hawaii from radical communist, Frank Marshall Davis, who detested Western colonialism. Obama inhaled a virulent anti-Americanism that led him to attend Socialist conferences as a college student, and to seek out academic mentors like the late Orientalist Edward Said and the radical Rashid Khalidi, two impassioned Middle East specialists hostile to the Jewish state.
As a community organizer, Obama served on the Board of the Woods Fund of Chicago, which made large grants to Khalidi’s anti-Israel Arab American Action Network.
Absorbing years of anti-Israel hate speech from his spiritual mentor, Pastor Jeremiah Wright, Obama deepened his family involvement with Wright’s Church, and donated personal financial support. For over 20 years, Obama was close to one of the leading anti-Semites in the United States, naming him to the African American Religious Leadership Committee, before public outcry caused Obama to cut him loose from his Presidential campaign.
Earlier in his political career, Obama was close to another radical friend, Ali Abunimah, co-founder of the Electronic Intifidah, with whom Obama castigated Israel’s successful anti-terror security fence as “a wall dividing the peoples.”
Although Palestinian leadership for years encouraged and rewarded terrorists who butchered families, and blew up buses full of old women, discos full of young people, and Passover Seders that included American tourists, candidate for President Barack Obama counseled pro-Palestinian Abunimah that “I haven’t said more about Palestine right now, but we are in a tough primary race. I’m hoping when things calm down I can be more up front.”
During his campaign for President, in 2008, Obama publicly picked a fight with Israel’s center-right Likud political party, then out of power, but known for making past painful territorial compromises such as withdrawal of Israeli authority over the Sinai and Gaza.
Rarely do American politicians pick sides in the internal party politics of allies, but President Obama has been regularly hostile to and dismissive of Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu, a leader robustly applauded across the American political spectrum by both the U.S. Congress and citizenry.
Agreeing with French President Sarkozy’s nastiness towards the Israeli leader, President Obama famously said: “I have to deal with him every day.”
Initial Obama foreign policy made the classic mistake of linking the Palestinian-Israeli dispute to larger U.S. foreign policy interests in the Middle East. By focusing on Israeli “settlements,” including second story apartment building in areas of Jerusalem that even many Palestinians never claimed as disputed territory, Obama essentially doomed possible peace negotiations. Vice President Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton then famously dressed down our ally over its own housing policies.
Once the Palestinians saw the Obama Administration beating up on Israel, they dismissed Netanyahu and re-continued educating their children toward hate, violence and traditional Palestinian irredentism.
Early in his first term, Obama visited Egypt, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia, offering effusive praise and bows. The downgrading of U.S. special alliances and friendships with England, Poland, the Czech Republic, and the people of Honduras, who opposed a would be dictator; the clamoring for engagement with U.S. enemies; the unreciprocated re-setting of relations with Russia; all sent signals of an end to the long tradition of American resolve in standing with close allies.
Islamists, authoritarian allies, and friendly monarchies in the Middle East all noticed Obama’s weak foreign policy. So did revolutionaries plotting their day in an Arab Spring.
In Cairo, Obama went so far as to draw parallels between Palestinian suffering and the genocide of the Jews of Europe. Obama abandoned centuries of American support for a restored Jewish sovereignty in their ancient homeland by adopting the Islamist narrative that the only reason for a modern Jewish state was recompense for the 20th century European Holocaust.
Note to Obama: Arab regimes were complicit in the Holocaust, and some state-run Arab media, madrassas, and mosques continue the Nazi campaign to this day.
Obama’s policy advisers have been a disaster for regional peace, security, and human rights. They encouraged the overthrow of U.S. ally Muburak, resulting in instability on Israel’s border and the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood, who have moved Egypt from peace partner to enemy of Israel, destroyed the Egyptian economy, oppressed Coptic Christians, and challenged over 30 years of U.S. – Egyptian political-military alliance.
Obama officials have argued in favor of the burka, for bringing terrorists to trial in New York, and for a Grand Mosque to be built near Ground Zero, site of the 9/11 destruction of the World Trade Center.
The recently confirmed CIA director calls Jerusalem, Al Quds. The new U.S. Defense Secretary opposed naming Hezbollah and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Council as terrorist groups, and claims U.S. foreign policy is dominated by the Jewish lobby. And the new Secretary of State continued a long history of foreign policy blunders by seeking engagement with Syria’s Assad, who has murdered tens of thousands of his own citizens.
The Obama Administration consistently shows respect for the United Nations, dominated by the Arab League and its third world allies, featuring selective demonization of Israel while ignoring human rights abuses by nations such as Sudan, Iran, North Korea, et al. The Obama Administration pressured Israel to answer to the kangaroo court that is the U.N. Human Rights Council, and did not act to support Israel’s admission to an international conference on counter-terrorism.
All of this only encouraged Palestinian efforts toward seeking unilateral declaration of statehood, violating previous agreements with Israel.
Obama’s Middle East policy has been to lead from behind, or simply watch stability collapse in the region. And, against Congressional will, to send unconditional monies to the Palestinians, massive amounts of monies and F-16s and Abrams tanks to the anti-American and anti-Israeli Morsi government in Egypt, and to sign off on the largest U.S. weapons sale ever to the Saudis.
The revolutionary Republic of Iran, the sworn enemy of the United States, funder of Hezbollah, and supporter of Hamas, combines eliminationist rhetoric toward Israel with a previously clandestine nuclear weapons programs. Yet, Mr. Obama has repeatedly sought engagement and negotiation with this regime, and watered down and waived Congressional sanctions.
Responding to Israeli hopes for allied unity, Obama advisers have kept Israel at arms length and leaked Israeli cooperation with Azerbaijan, on Iran’s border. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff publicly announced that the U.S. would not be complicit in any Israeli pre-emptive strike on Iranian weapons of mass destruction facilities.
Iran therefore fears neither a credible threat of military force, nor U.S. support for Israeli decision-making, making a military confrontation more likely as red lines are approached.
Israel is a nation surrounded by 1.4 billion Muslims in 57 countries, and some 400 million Arabs in 22 states. Israel is so small that it comprises half of one percent the land mass of the Middle East, with a mere 1% of global population.
But Israel has 8 borders to defend: Syria, collapsing into chaos and with potentially loose chemical weapons; Lebanon, home to Hezbollah which has a massive arsenal of delivery systems capable of reaching all of Israel’s homefront; Jordan, nervously eyeing Arab revolution and Syrian refugees; the West Bank, source of terror; the Gaza strip, source of terror; the Red Sea; the long Sinai Peninsula border with Egypt; and now Israel’s extended Mediterranean coastal energy assets off shore.
Israel has repeatedly made wildly imbalanced trades of committed terrorists for IDF soldiers, or even the dry bones of its dead warriors. Yet Obama publicly criticized Israel as not taking bold measures for peace, and insisted that Israel negotiate without any preconditions, such as Palestinian renunciation of terrorism and recognition of Israel’s very right to exist as a Jewish state. The Obama administration has encouraged Palestinian radicalism by advocating that Israel return to indefensible pre-1967 (1949 Armistice) borders.
Insulting American supporters of Israel, Obama declared, “For eight years [i.e., during the Bush administration], there was no light between the United States and Israel, and nothing got accomplished.” Obama suggested Israelis engage in serious self-reflection.
This lecture to a nation which has been repeatedly attacked, by multiple enemies who do not exactly follow humane rules of engagement, from a man with no executive experience, and no military background, and who called U.S. troops CORPSEMEN. How about some serious humility of your own, Mr. President?
Obama’s political team oversaw a 2012 Democratic Party convention whose platform removed previous language in support of Jerusalem as Israel’s undivided capital, against Hamas as a terror organization, and against Palestinian refugees right to return to Israel proper.
Obama’s Democratic Party has firmly abandoned the tradition of JFK, “Scoop” Jackson, and former Vice Presidential candidate Joe Lieberman.
In Israel, Obama will not speak at the Knesset (Parliament), for fear of being challenged by articulate Israelis who know their own history, and who seek to defend a population that is stunned and bruised by Obama’s leftism.
Instead, Obama will visit a gathering of university students, and receive an award from his ideological comrade, Israeli President Peres, who is reciprocating his own recent honoring at the White House. This is a cleverly orchestrated dance for those who applaud the Nobel Prizes won, without peace, by Shimon Peres, Barack Obama, and Yasir Arafat.
Obama doesn’t like the real Israel or its real, re-elected leadership. So he completely avoided visiting Israel during his first term. His visit now invites honesty about the mirage of friendship he will proclaim.

Thursday, March 28, 2013

Afghan president accuses Washington of working with Taliban

Kerry and Karzai strike upbeat note

Kerry visited Afghanistan as the United States ceded to a key long-standing demand of Karzai by delivering full control of Bagram prison, where Taliban and al-Qaeda suspects are held north of Kabul, to Afghan forces.
Kerry and KarzaiKarzai had turned the fate of Bagram and its hundreds of detainees into a rallying cry for his push to take back sovereignty as the bulk of US-led combat troops prepare to leave by the end of 2014 after more than a decade of war.
The militant threat facing Afghanistan was on Tuesday again underlined when seven suicide bombers targeted a police base in the eastern city of Jalalabad.
All the attackers and five officers died in the assault, for which the Taliban claimed responsibility.
After a series of fiery anti-US outbursts from Karzai in recent weeks, both he and Kerry were keen to make a public display of friendship and stress that relations were back on track.
"Bagram prison was handed over to the Afghan government ... Finally after many years of effort we have reached a deal," Karzai told reporters at a joint press conference late Monday.
Kerry said: "The US is committed to an enduring partnership ... The US supports a strong and united Afghanistan.
"We are committed to Afghanistan's sovereignty and we will not let al-Qaeda or the Taliban shake this commitment."
Earlier this month, Karzai accused Washington of working in concert with the Taliban and his spokesman described the NATO coalition's war effort as "aimless and unwise", triggering fury from Afghanistan's foreign backers.


Eight Taliban suicide bombers have reportedly struck in Jalalabad, Afghanistan's biggest city, in a three-hour attack that coincided with a visit by Secretary of State John Kerry.
The pre-dawn attack on a police compound killed at least officers, Voice of America reported, with one of the attackers setting off a car bomb.
Reuters quoted provincial police chief Amin Sharif as saying:
"Three suicide bombers triggered their explosive vests and five were shot dead."
The car bomb was detonated at the entrance of the Afghan National Police compound to allow the other attackers to storm inside.
The attackers were armed with rocket-propelled grenades and light machineguns, Amin said, forcing Afghan security forces into a gun battle.
The London Telegraph cited Taliban militants as claiming responsibility for the attack but claiming that it had targeted "foreigners and Israeli teachers" training Afghan police.
According to the Los Angeles Times, Kerry has flown to Afghanistan despite Afghan President Hamid Karzai infuriating Washington earlier this month by accusing the US of colluding with the Taliban.
Kerry has already met with Karzai twice since arriving in Afghanistan on Monday and is also expected to meet with Afghan leaders to discuss the US disengagement from the country over the coming months.
Most foreign troops are due to leave Afghanistan by the end of 2014.

Muslim Cleric Calls U.S. Aid to Egypt ‘Jizya’

It is !
As earlier suggested, the wonderful thing about Salafis—those extra “radical” Muslims who seek to emulate as literally as possible prophet Muhammad’s teachings and habits—is that they are so unabashed and frank about what they believe. Such is the degree of brainwashing that they have undergone. Unlike the Muslim Brotherhood, which was founded much earlier, doublespeak is not second nature to the Salafis.
The most recent example comes from Al Hafiz TV, an Egyptian Islamic station. During a roundtable discussion on the U.S. and foreign aid to Egypt, an Islamic cleric, clearly of the Salafi bent—he had their trademark mustache-less-beard—insisted that the U.S. must be treated contemptuously, like a downtrodden dhimmi, or conquered infidel; that Egypt must make the U.S. conform to its own demands; and that, then, all the money the U.S. offers to Egypt in foreign aid can be taken as rightfully earned jizya.
Historically, the jizya was money, or tribute, that conquered non-Muslims had to pay to their Muslim overlords to safeguard their existence, as indicated in Koran 9:29. As the spirit of Islam continues making a comeback, Muslims around the world continue calling for non-Muslims, especially Christian minorities under Islam, to resume paying the jizya, which was abolished in the 19th century thanks to European intervention.
According to the sheikh, Egypt must be less cooperative with the U.S. and at the same time insist for more monetary aid. If so, the sheikh believes that “America will accept; it will kiss our hands; and it will also increase its aid. And we will consider its aid as jizya, not as aid. But first we must make impositions on it.”
When the host asked the sheikh “Do the Americans owe us jizya?” he responded, “Yes,” adding that it is the price Americans have to pay “so we can leave them alone!” When the host asked the sheikh if he was proclaiming a fatwa, the latter exclaimed, “By Allah of course!” The sheikh added that, to become a truly Islamic state, Egypt must “impose on America to pay aid as jizya, before we allow it to realize its own interests, the ones which we agree to.”
While the Egyptian cleric was focused on “international jizya”—that is, money paid by one non-Muslim nation to a Muslim nation, U.S money to Egypt—other Muslims have been receiving and enjoying individual “jizya” from Western, infidel governments, in the form of welfare aid.
Just last February, for example, Anjem Choudary, an Islamic cleric and popular preacher in the United Kingdom, was secretly taped telling a Muslim audience to follow his example and get “Jihad Seeker’s Allowance” from the government—a pun on “Job Seeker’s Allowance.” The father of four, who receives more than 25,000 pounds annually in welfare benefits, referred to British taxpayers as “slaves,” adding, “We take the jizya, which is our haq [Arabic for “right”], anyway. The normal situation by the way is to take money from the kafir [infidel], isn’t it? So this is the normal situation. They give us the money—you work, give us the money, Allahu Akhbar [“Allah is Great”]. We take the money. Hopefully there’s no one from the DSS [Department of Social Security] listening to this.”
Thus, the non-Muslim world should be grateful to the Salafis for always and ever exposing Islam’s teachings and beliefs. Immensely proud of and indoctrinated in their Islamic heritage, and like the earliest Muslim conquerors drunk with power and pride, convinced that Allah is on their side and they can do no wrong, today’s Salafis are unabashed when it comes to the things of Islam, from evoking them to upholding them.
But of course, all this honesty is for naught for those many in the West who, having eyes and ears, do not see or hear reality.

Wednesday, March 27, 2013

The Facts of the Pollard Case- Points 1-55

  1. Jonathan Pollard was a civilian American Naval intelligence analyst. In the mid 1980's (circa 1983-1984), Pollard discovered that information vital to Israel's security was being deliberately withheld by certain elements within the U.S. national security establishment.
  2. Israel was legally entitled to this vital security information according to a 1983 Memorandum of Understanding between the two countries.
  3. The information being withheld from Israel included Syrian, Iraqi, Libyan and Iranian nuclear, chemical, and biological warfare capabilities - being developed for use against Israel. It also included information on ballistic missile development by these countries and information on planned terrorist attacks against Israeli civilian targets.
  4. When Pollard discovered this suppression of information and asked his superiors about it, he was told to "mind his own business", and that "Jews get nervous talking about poison gas; they don't need to know."He also learned that the objective of cutting off the flow of information to Israel was to severely curtail Israel's ability to act independently in defense of her own interests.
  5. Pollard was painfully aware that Israeli lives were being put in jeopardy as a result of this undeclared intelligence embargo. He did everything he possibly could to stop this covert policy and to have the legal flow of information to Israel restored. When his efforts met no success, he began to give the information to Israel directly.
  6. Jonathan Pollard was an ideologue, not a mercenary. The FBI concluded after nine months of polygraphing that Pollard acted for ideological reasons only, not for profit. This fact was recognized by the sentencing judge who declined to fine Pollard. (See theaddendum for further details.)Furthermore, on May 11, 1998, Israel formally acknowledged Jonathan Pollard had been a bona fide Israeli agent. This fact wiped out any remaining doubt about Jonathan Pollard's motives. Being an official agent is, by definition, the polar opposite of being a mercenary.
  7. In 1985, his actions were discovered by the U.S. government. His instructions from Israel were to seek refuge in the Israeli embassy in Washington. When Pollard and his former wife sought refuge there, they were at first received and then summarily thrown out into the waiting arms of the FBI.
  8. Jonathan Pollard never had a trial. At the request of both the U.S. and Israeli governments, he entered into a plea agreement, which spared both governments a long, difficult, expensive and potentially embarrassing trial.
  9. Jonathan Pollard fulfilled his end of the plea agreement, cooperating fully with the prosecution.
  10. Nevertheless, Pollard received a life sentence and a recommendation that he never be paroled - in complete violation of the plea agreement he had reached with the government.
  11. Jonathan Pollard was never indicted for harming the United States.
  12. Jonathan Pollard was never indicted for compromising codes, agents, or war plans.
  13. Jonathan Pollard was never charged with treason. [Legally, treason is a charge that is only applicable when one spies for an enemy state in time of war.]
  14. Jonathan Pollard was indicted on only one charge: one count of passing classified information to an ally, without intent to harm the United States.
  15. Prior to sentencing, then-Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger delivered a 46-page classified memorandum to the sentencing judge. Since then, neither Pollard nor any of his cleared attorneys have ever been allowed to access the memorandum to challenge the false charges it contains-a clear violation of Pollard's constitutional rights.
    The day before sentencing, Weinberger delivered a four-page supplemental memorandum to the sentencing judge. In it, he falsely accused Pollard of treason. Also in the supplemental memorandum, Weinberger advocated a life sentence in clear violation of Pollard's plea agreement. The implication that follows from Weinberger's false characterization of Pollard's offense as "treason" is that the country Pollard served, Israel, is an enemy state.
  16. Pollard was shown the supplemental Weinberger memorandum only once, just moments before sentencing - hardly adequate time to prepare an appropriate defense to rebut the false accusations in it.
  17. No one else in the history of the United States has ever received a life sentence for passing classified information to an ally - only Jonathan Pollard. The median sentence for this offense is two to four years. Even agents who have committed far more serious offenses on behalf of hostile nations have not received such a harsh sentence.
  18. Pollard's attorney never appealed from the life sentence. The time to file for such an appeal was within ten days of sentencing. Years later, with a different attorney, Pollard filed a habeas corpus challenge to the sentence.The Court of Appeals, in a two-to-one decision, rejected the challenge, largely on procedural grounds.
    The majority placed heavy emphasis on the failure to appeal from the life sentence in a timely manner, and on the resulting far heavier burden faced by Pollard in seeking to challenge the sentence via habeas corpus. [Note: "Habeas corpus" is a procedure by which an incarcerated person may bring a court challenge to the legality of his or her incarceration - often long after the underlying case has been concluded.]
    In a dissenting opinion, Court of Appeals Judge Stephen Williams called the case "a fundamental miscarriage of justice," and wrote that he would have ordered that Pollard's sentence be vacated.
  19. In November 1995, Israel granted Jonathan Pollard Israeli citizenship. The official presentation took place in January of 1996. This publicly signaled to the U.S. Israel's willingness to accept full responsibility for Pollard.
  20. U.S. government sources falsely accuse Pollard in the media of passing "rooms full of classified information" and "hundreds of thousands of documents" to Israel. This volume of information is an absurdity! Pollard would have needed to make numerous "drops" using a moving van to have transferred such a large volume of information. In actual fact, Jonathan Pollard made a grand total of eleven "drops" to the Israelis, using only a small briefcase to hold the documents.
  21. The government used an insidious formula to exaggerate the volume of information that Jonathan Pollard passed to Israel. The formula was: if only one page or a single sentence of a document was passed to the Israelis, it was counted as if the whole document had been transmitted. Even referenced documents and sources were counted as having been transmitted in toto. Using this calculation, a single page could be counted as 50 hard-bound 500 page volumes!
  22. There is no Mr. "X".
The CIA claim that another highly-placed spy in the U.S. had to exist in order to give Jonathan Pollard his highly specific tasking orders is a complete fabrication. To understand how Pollard was tasked by Israel to secure specific documents, see: Was there another U.S. spy tasking Pollard? - Mr. ‘X' Exposed.

  • On May 12, 1998 , in the same statement in which the Government of Israel publicly acknowledged Jonathan Pollard as an Israeli agent, it accepted full responsibility for him, and indicated its commitment to securing his release and repatriation to Israel.
  • Jonathan Pollard has repeatedly expressed his remorse publicly and in private letters to the President and others. He regrets having broken the law, and is sorry he did not find a legal means to act upon his concerns for Israel. (See Remorse Page.)
  • Jonathan Pollard has been openly linked to the Middle East Peace Process since 1995.The Israeli government recognized long ago that Jonathan's sentence was unjust, that the documents he delivered to Israel did not remotely cause the damage that the prosecution claimed but never proved. As a result of this recognition, various Israeli administrations have negotiated, as a matter of basic fairness, to secure Jonathan's release.
    Since 1995, within the context of the peace process, the US has repeatedly exploited the plight of Jonathan Pollard to extract heavy concessions from Israel.
    However despite express promises made by the United States to Israel, Jonathan Pollard remains in jail.
  • It was the late Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin who, in 1995, first began openly to negotiate for Jonathan's release as part of the peace process.Although President Clinton promised Prime Minister Rabin that he would release Jonathan as part of a Middle East peace settlement, the President refused to honor his promise after Rabin was assassinated.
  • Rabin's successor, Prime Minister Shimon Peres, continued to link Jonathan to the peace process, and even went so far as to include a spy swap proposal as part of the deal for Pollard's release.
  • The Wye Plantation summit is a prime example of U.S. exploitation of Jonathan Pollard.Both before and again during the Wye summit negotiations in the fall of 1998, President Clinton promised to release Jonathan Pollard. Pollard was the deal-maker at Wye which enabled the accords to be completed.
  • At the last minute, with the eyes of the world focused on the Wye Accords signing ceremony which was about to take place in Washington, Clinton reneged on Pollard's release, creating a storm of negative publicity for Israel.
  • How the Wye fiasco came about:In September, 1998, just before the mid-term Congressional elections, President Clinton (who at the time was facing impeachment hearings and in need of a foreign policy PR victory) asked Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to attend a three-way summit with the Palestinians at Wye River, Maryland.
    Clinton knew that a successful summit at Wye just before the Congressional elections would be good not only for his image, but would also reap great political benefits for the Democrats in their bid to regain control of Congress. As an inducement to Netanyahu, Clinton promised to release Jonathan Pollard within the context of the summit.
    Understanding the value of Jonathan Pollard for his own re-election bid, and needing him as a sweetener to sell any kind of "peace" deal to the Israeli people, Netanyahu ignored the entreaties of Republican friends like Newt Gingrich and agreed to attend the summit. (Gingrich would later repay Netanyahu by leading the Republican charge of slander and lies against Jonathan Pollard.)
  • Once the Wye summit was underway, Clinton quickly "forgot" his promise to free Jonathan Pollard and there was little Netanyahu could do.
  • Talks at Wye broke down over the release of Palestinian murderers with Jewish blood on their hands and over Israel's request for the extradition of Ghazi Jabali, the chief of Police in Gaza who was wanted for his role in planning and executing terrorist attacks in Israel.
  • To break the stalemate, the Palestinians suggested Jonathan Pollard as the solution. They proposed that Pollard be sold to Netanyahu once again: the US would give Jonathan to Israel in return for Israel's freeing of hundreds of Palestinian terrorists and immunity for Ghazi Jabali.
  • The US and Israel agreed to the Palestinian plan to swap Pollard for terrorists and murderers.President Clinton personally worked out the details of the deal in a late-night private session with a Palestinian and an Israeli representative.
  • According to the deal, Prime Minister Netanyahu was to receive a side letter from President Clinton the next morning (one of approximately 30 side letters the Americans had promised) guaranteeing Pollard's release for November 11, 1998, one week after the US House elections.The Pollard negotiation was the deal-maker at Wye which allowed the summit to be successfully wrapped up and a signing ceremony to be planned for the next morning in Washington, on Friday October 23, 1998.
  • Only hours before the signing ceremony, P.M. Netanyahu received all of the American side-letters that had been promised to him, except one - the one guaranteeing the release of Jonathan Pollard.Netanyahu threatened not to attend the signing ceremony unless he got the Pollard side letter. Clinton said, "Trust me." Netanyahu, knowing he was about to be double-crossed by Clinton over Pollard for the second time, refused.
    Netanyahu demanded that in the absence of a side letter of guarantee, Pollard should be freed into his custody immediately, or no signing ceremony. Arik Sharon supported Netanyahu and they threatened to leave Wye without signing the accords.
  • In order to take the pressure off of President Clinton, CIA chief George Tenet quickly leaked the news of Pollard's imminent release to the media in a deliberate - and ultimately successful - attempt to torpedo the deal.He sent emissaries to Capitol Hill to hold emergency meetings with leading Senators and Congressmen to enlist their support in publicly denouncing Pollard's release. Many lies were told by the CIA emissaries about Jonathan Pollard to convince the legislators to act swiftly and in unison. Believing the lies, the legislators complied and began an unprecedented series of public actions to prevent the release of Jonathan Pollard.
  • Meanwhile at Wye, under heavy pressure and still fearful that Netanyahu would not back down, Clinton quickly negotiated a private fall-back position with Netanyahu: Clinton would publicly promise to do a "speedy review"of the Pollard Case and he would use that review to free Pollard a few months later, parallel to the release of the 750 Palestinian terrorists who were part of the price Israel had agreed to pay for Pollard.Under heavy public pressure and betrayed by his own Minister of Defense, Yitzhak Mordecai*, who closed ranks with Clinton, Netanyahu folded and accepted this private deal. The signing ceremony was held in Washington as scheduled. *(Mordecai himself is now on trial in Israel in 2001 for sexual assault.)
  • Netanyahu's capitulation at Wye, the public spectacle of his being brought to heel by the Americans, and the lopsided deal he brought home from Wye now that Pollard was no longer perceived to be a part of it, would shortly cost him his premiership.
  • After Wye, the White House falsely accused Netanyahu of having injected Pollard into the Wye summit at the last moment.However, eye witnesses to the Pollard deal at Wye, including the Israeli and the Palestinian who had negotiated the deal with Clinton and the former Israeli Cabinet Secretary, all later contradicted the White House version of events and affirmed that President Clinton had committed himself to the release of Jonathan Pollard as an integral part of the Wye Accords.
    Note: Prime Minister Netanyahu was the first prime minster of Israel to agree to free Palestinian terrorists with Jewish blood on their hands. That is the price the Americans demanded for Pollard at Wye. To this day, this represents a keen embarrassment for Netanyahu and his party, even more so since he did not receive Pollard but the Palestinian murders were released nonetheless. That is why no official source from the Netanyahu government ever wants to publicly admit to it. They keep the details to a minimum, but all concur that Pollard's freedom was bought and paid for by "concessions"at Wye.
  • When Netanyahu returned to Israel after Wye, he created a firestorm of publicity by releasing 200 Palestinian common criminals from Israeli prisons.The Palestinians were outraged, and insisted that these common criminals were not the prisoners that they had bargained for at Wye. The Americans angrily protested. Netanyahu reminded the Americans that the Wye Accords do not specify exactly which prisoners Israel must release. Critics wondered if the Prime Minister had lost his mind to antagonize the Americans this way.
    Only those close to Prime Minister Netanyahu understood that this was Netanyahu's private, pointed reminder to Bill Clinton that if he was thinking of double-crossing him yet a third time over Pollard, he should think again. No Pollard, no release for the Palestinian murderers and terrorists.
    Unfortunately for Jonathan Pollard, Netanyahu's government fell before he was able to act on this.
  • In a meeting with Netanyahu right after his electoral defeat in the Spring of 1999, Jonathan Pollard's wife, Esther, received assurances from the former prime minister that the new prime minister, Ehud Barak, had been fully briefed about what had been agreed to at Wye and about the fall-back position; that is to say, Israel had yet to free the 750 terrorists with blood on their hands and was still supposed to receive Pollard home in a "parallel gesture" from President Clinton.
  • Not long after Barak took office, the 750 Palestinian murderers and terrorists walked out of prison as free men. Jonathan Pollard remained in his American jail cell.
  • In an attempt to justify Clinton's reneging at Wye, a story was leaked to the press that George Tenet, a Clinton appointee, had threatened to resign as head of the CIA if Pollard were released.The story, though not logical, sounded plausible and it became popular to cite the opposition of the American Intelligence community as the reason Clinton did not honor his commitment at Wye to free Pollard.
    This was soon exposed as the lame excuse it was when Clinton freed a group of unrepentant FALN terrorists in the fall of 1999, in an attempt to improve his wife's popularity with New York State's Hispanic community in her election bid for the Senate. (SeeSenate Race Page.)
    To this day, the same lame excuse continues to be used to justify the unjustifiable failure of Clinton to honor his commitment.
  • In September of 1999, despite strenuous opposition from all of his government advisors and agencies, President Clinton freed 14 unrepentant Puerto Rican terrorists, members of the FALN, charged with bank robbery and various acts of terrorism, including over 130 bombings in the US, and the deaths of American police officers.Clinton ignored a solid wall of opposition from the Justice, Intelligence and Defense departments and Congress, invoked his powers of executive clemency and set the FALN terrorists free. In doing so, he unequivocally put the lie to the notion that any government agency might tie his hands or influence his decision in matters of clemency. (See FALN Page and Clemency Page.)
  • More than two years elapsed after Wye. President Clinton did no review. Jonathan Pollard remained in prison while the US continued to extract Israeli concessions for his release.
  • Those who still believed the myth that it was the American Intelligence Community that was tying the hands of President Clinton, also clung to the belief he would finally honor his many promises to release Jonathan Pollard - including the commitment he had made at Wye - at the end of his term, when he could do so without fear of political reprisal.
  • Beginning in 1991 Rabbi Mordecai Eliyahu, the former Chief Rabbi of Israel, and Jonathan's rabbi, offered himself to the U.S. Justice Department as Jonathan's guarantor. The offer was ignored.Rabbi Eliyahu repeated the same offer every year after that in private letters to President Clinton.
    Every offer went unacknowledged until the fall of 2000, when Esther Pollard received a letter from the White House indicating that the President was aware of the former chief Rabbi's offer and that it would be part of the President's consideration in reaching a final decision on her husband's case.
  • President Clinton never kept his promises.When he left office in January 2001, Jonathan Pollard was not included among those that to whom Clinton granted clemency:
    • in spite of his repeated express commitments to Israel to free Pollard in return for numerous heavy concessions
    • in spite of his commitment to free Pollard as an integral part if the Wye Accords
    • in spite of the appeals of the Jewish community, and
    • in spite of the gross injustices of the Pollard case which include:
      • a grossly disproportionate sentence
      • a broken plea agreement
      • use of secret evidence
      • a false charge of treason
      • ineffective assistance of counsel
      • ex parte communication between prosecutors and judge
      • a lack of due process
      • a sentencing procedure infected by false allegations and lies
    On his last day in office, Clinton granted clemency to 140 people. Many who received executive clemency had been convicted of very serious offenses, including murder, robbery and drug dealing. Some of those pardoned had served no prison time at all before being pardoned. Among those pardoned were Clinton's brother, and a former head of the CIA. (See Clemency Page.)
  • In September of 2000, Jonathan Pollard's attorneys, Eliot Lauer and Jacques Semmelman, filed a motion in the US District Court of Columbia to vacate his sentence.The motion, supported by documentation, presents a compelling and very disturbing picture of serious government misconduct that went unchecked by Mr. Pollard's then-counsel. As a result of that misconduct, and as a result of his attorney's ineffectiveness Jonathan Pollard was sentenced to life in prison on the basis of false allegations, and under circumstances that violated his plea agreement. (See Legal Doc: Declaration of Jonathan Jay Pollard In Support of Motion for Resentencing. See also Legal Doc: Memorandum of Law in Support of Jonathan Jay Pollard's § 2255 Motion for Resentencing.)
  • Since he was sentenced in 1987, none of Jonathan Pollard's security-cleared attorneys have been able to see the classified portions of the docket in order to challenge them in a court of law or to defend him in a clemency proceeding.In September of 2000, Jonathan Pollard's attorneys filed a separate motion requesting that attorney Eliot Lauer be allowed access to the secret portions of the Pollard court docket. (See Legal Doc: Motion to Unseal the Pollard Record.)
  • On January 12, 2001, Chief Judge Norma Holloway Johnson denied the attorneys' request to allow Eliot Lauer access to the complete Pollard docket, upholding the government's claim that Lauer's seeing the secret portion of the record poses a risk to American national security.Both Lauer and Semmelman hold TOP SECRET level security clearances, which they obtained from the Justice Department in order to be eligible to see their client's full record.
    A motion for reconsideration was filed January 18, 2001. (See Legal Doc: Motion for Reconsideration of Court Order.)
  • Amicus briefs supporting Jonathan's new legal cases have been filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, as well as by top American legal authorities. (See Amici Briefs on the Court Case Page.)
  • Five Prime Ministers of Israel and three Presidents of Israel have requested Jonathan Pollard's release from the United States. Israel has pledged to be responsible for its agent who has served many years in prison under harsh conditions, and who has fully and repeatedly expressed his remorse. (See Remorse Page.)Between close friends and strong allies, that ought to be enough.

  • On November 21, 2012, Jonathan Pollard entered the 28th year of his life sentence, with no end in sight.

  • See Also:


    Sub Pages (collections of related articles and information)