Monday, August 24, 2015

Joel Rosenberg Discusses Preemptive Strike On Iran, MOTB Update, Planned Parenthood And The U.S. Loss Of Moral Authority

Is now “go time” for a preemptive strike on Iran, or should Israel wait? Here’s my interview on Fox News. | Joel C. Rosenberg's Blog

One thing that has broken over the past couple of days is a report out of Israel that Ehud Barak, the former Defense Minister, told his biographer, among others, that Prime Minister Netanyahu on three separate occasions wanted to attack Iran and did not. Is this really as big as a deal as it seems on paper, and what is the reaction in Israel to this news?

JOEL C. ROSENBERG: Well, it’s very interesting, Leland, because you’ve got a situation in which a former Israeli Defense Minister, in my view, shouldn’t have been talking about this at all, to his biographer now, or later. I mean, this is a very, very sensitive issue. But by Barak’s own admission, he was supportive of these attacks, but the Cabinet didn’t feel that the time was right. What this shows is how serious both Netanyahu and Barak and most of the Cabinet — but not all — believe this issue is.

Remember, we’re dealing in Iran not with a moderate regime that is trying to find its way into the international community. We’re dealing with an apocalyptic, genocidal death cult. This is a group of leaders led by Ayatollah Khamenei who believe the End of Days has come, and that their messiah — the “Mahdi” or the “Twelfth Imam” — is coming to reign over the world at any moment, and that they need nuclear weapons to destroy not just one country, Israel, which they call “the Little Satan,” but also the United States, which they call “the Great Satan.” So the threat to Israel and the United States is enormous.

VITTER: I get that the threat is there. There is no argument there. But the issue of whether or not Israel would launch unilateral military action has been one that Prime Minister Netanyahu has been incredibly coy about over and over and over again, and it’s been one card that he’s used to press the Obama administration hard in terms of trying to have some kind of leverage on Capitol Hill. And what I’m wondering is that now that this news is out that three times he has said “let’s go” and his Cabinet said “no” and there wasn’t an attack, doesn’t that all of a sudden really weaken the Israelis’ position internationally and make the threat of unilateral military action irrelevant?

ROSENBERG: No, I think quite the contrary — what it shows is intent. What you’ve got is a very difficult situation, right? But for the Prime Minister and much of his Cabinet, the question was, “Can we build up more capacity to strike Iran when the time is right?” It’s capacity, and timing. Part of the timing issue, Leland, was asking, “Would the United States, under President Obama, keep its word in which they said the goal of the negotiations was to “end” — not legalize and extend, but end — Iran’s nuclear program?” So you wanted to wait to see, okay, maybe the President will, you know, keep his word on this. That has not been the case. And now, eight-in-ten Israelis believe this deal threatens the very security not only of Israel but obviously of our ally, the United States. More than half of Israelis believe that the Prime Minister should be doing everything possible to neutralize the threat. And almost half of Israelis are ready for a war, if needed. That’s how serious this is.

Well, the only person who can decide if it’s go time — or the only people who can decide — is the Cabinet because they have the intelligence right in front of them to show them do they have to go, is there no other option, or are there other ways to slow down or neutralize the threat? 

Nobody here wants to go to war if it’s not necessary. But everyone is ready to go to war if it is necessary. One of the questions now is, “Could Israel hold on until the next election in the United States to see if a President who is more sympathetic to its most favored and faithful ally in the Middle East, Israel — as well as our Arab allies — will have a change of policy from President Obama. And look, you also have Democrats emerging right now — Senator Menendez, Senator Schumer — who are putting national security ahead of their own political fortunes. So I don’t think this is the moment to strike. It’s the moment to try to get Congress to go against the deal.

Finland may be moving quickly to require microchip implants for some of their citizens under the guise that money will not flow to Islamic State Muslims. A Finnish Party politician says welfare recipients should have identification microchips implanted so that the money cannot go to terrorists.
“We don’t know in what situations people go abroad. It is possible that our social benefits are used to provide for a lavish lifestyle in a country with lower cost of living. I hope for a change to this,”Pasi Mäenranta of the nationalist Finns party wrote on his Facebook page.
When pressed, Pasi Mäenranta added that implantation would be voluntary, but that payments should be suspended to those opting out of it. The chip would also help identify missing persons, he added.
Mäenranta later commented for YLE broadcaster that an electronic bracelet could serve the same purpose and that he didn’t see such move as compromising privacy.
“We are already being tracked through our mobile phones, Google and Facebook posts. I don’t think microchipping would be such a serious issue,” he said.

The USDA had worked with other government agencies back in 2013 to review if welfare, food stamp and other recipients in the US could get microchipped.

“Two separate reports quietly issued by the USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service program back in 1999 reveal that the agency’s ultimate goal is to develop new tracking protocols that will supposedly improve the integrity of the food stamp program, also known as the Supplemental Assistance Nutrition Program (SNAP). In both of these reports, the USDA explains how novel biometric identification technologies can help better verify the identities of food stamp recipients, and thus decrease fraud and ‘double-dipping.’ Natural Law reported.

“Biometric identification technology provides automated methods to identify a person based on physical characteristics — such as fingerprints, hand shape, and characteristics of the eyes and face — as well as behavioral characteristics — including signatures and voice patterns,” reads the executive summary of one of the reports, entitled Introduction to Biometric Identification Technology: Capabilities and Applications to the Food Stamp Program.

Even thought the Book of Revelation warns of the “Mark of the Beast,” in 2015 the discoveries include the new “password tattoo,” which could easily become a vehicle to regulate commerce or access to merchandise.
Back in 2012, at the D11 Tech conference, Motorola rolled out the “electronic tattoo” developed by the University of Illinois.
“It may be true that ten to twenty year-olds don’t want to wear a watch on their wrist,” Regina Dugan said at the time. “But you can be sure that they’ll be far more interested in wearing an electronic tattoo, if only to piss off their parents.”
“Using NFC technology, digital tattoos make it faster to safely unlock your phone anywhere without having to enter a password,” said the Motorola blog post.

The tech also offers a “password pill” and a consumable “vitamin authentication.” More here.
With hackers becoming more and more skilled at accessing your personal data, how long until this method of security becomes more widespread or a requirement?
When questioned whether Google would know everything the user was doing, Dugan noted that the company will only know if the pill is turned on or off — so, the answer is YES, because you need to have it ON in order to use it.
Conspiracy theory?
The real question should be: How long until someone uses the tech for evil purposes?

Remember the waterboarding scandal of 2013 that so outraged progressives? 
After learning about post-9/11 tactics against mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and others, progressives went crazy with condemnation of CIA methods to obtain information about the attack.

Even the clergy got in on the act. 
The Rev. Richard L. Killmer, who appears to have a permanent bully pulpit installed at the Huffington Post, is described by that publication as "a Presbyterian minister and the Founding Executive Director of the National Religion Campaign Against Torture, an organization representing more than 320 religious organizations and tens of thousands of Americans of faith committed to ending U.S.-sponsored torture forever."  (Italics mine.)  The reverend wrote an emotional plea for the release of the torture report.  
Even Vice President Joe Biden was cited as agreeing that to "excise the demons" required knowing the truth about post-9/11 torture.

But there are worse tortures being perpetrated right here on U.S. soil – tortures that make the heart sick, tortures still unknown to the majority of Americans because of media inattentiveness and the lack of outrage from well-known progressive leaders.

When it comes to the recent exposure of the torture of babies and the sale of their body parts by Planned Parenthood, search as one might, words of fiery anger from progressives, especially from those who have been so quick to question the methods of the CIA toward terrorists, are difficult if not impossible to find.  As far as one can discern, Reverend Killmer, Vice President Joe Biden, and former president Jimmy Carter, who also has spoken about the erosion of America's moral authority when it comes to human rights issues, have remained pretty quiet.  For instance, did anyone hear Carter speak out about the atrocities of Planned Parenthood in his latest press interview?

But what the Planned Parenthood videos have revealed has done more by far to weaken America's moral authority than the CIA's waterboarding of terrorists.  The revelations mean we in the USA have no moral standing from which we can say anything about human rights.  Until we get our own house in order and stop the sickening actions of America's top abortion mill, which is committed to selling harvested organs of babies, we don't have much to say about other countries' human rights violations.

Peter Worthington, writing in 2012 for the aforementioned Huffington Post, railed against China's one child policy.  He also mentions the open secret that Falun Gong members are being jailed and then used for organ harvesting.
Mr. Worthington cites USA Today's in-depth report on China's one-child enforcement measures, actions that include kidnapping and forced abortions.  He writes (italics mine), "These are beyond the imagination of western cultures, but are in accordance with China's view of reality[.] ... [O]ne-child families are a cornerstone to the country's ambitions. International awareness has forced discretion on some of China's actions."
Think about this: the series of undercover Planned Parenthood videos has exposed mind-numbing atrocities – brutalities worthy of ISIS or the Nazis.  American citizens are using the equivalent of poultry shears to cut through a living baby's face to harvest its brain.  They are discussing over wine and salad the price of baby body parts.  They are advocating ways to deliver aborted babies intact, the better to harvest their thymuses, kidneys, spines, and brains.

Just what right do progressives, including those high in our country's administration, have to rebuke China for their actions, actions similar to Planned Parenthood's?  What moral authority does the left invoke in order to persuade China to stop harvesting organs from Falun Gong, Christians, and other political and religious dissidents?  What belief system can be invoked in order that China is pressured to stop doing forced abortions as late as eight months into a pregnancy?

The answer to those questions is this: progressives have no moral grounds for rebuking China for its human rights policies, because they essentially advocate the same policies right here in our own country.  Planned Parenthood is the latest case example.
In sum, under progressivism, America has lost its moral authority where advocacy of human rights, including the right to life, is concerned.  What authority is the ground for rebuke when any given morality is equal to another?  Who is going to be morally outraged when everyone is a god or goddess who is infallibly right in his or her own eyes?  What progressive can rail against China's human rights policies when he/she does not believe that the unborn child is a human being? 
Progressives suffer from moral paralysis.  They can't and won't rebuke Planned Parenthood, at least not effectively.

If there is to be rebuke, it must come from people who are committed to views that are the opposite of progressivism.  Moral rebuke will never come from the left, which is now completely committed to the eradication of what it truly means to be a moral human being.  It must come from people of faith – Christians, orthodox Jews and Catholics, and other conservative denominations.  It would be a positive development, for instance, if the current pope were to speak out against the barbarities of Planned Parenthood.  
But exposure and rebuke in every way possible must continue, else the barbarians will multiply, and their atrocities will accelerate exponentially and inexorably.

No comments: