by Jim Lagnese, The Right Guy

What has become apparent in these last few days if not confirmed is that Israel (and the United States) are judge by a different standard than the rest of the world.

We have found out the the peace protesters attacked the Israeli commandos. We then found out they were armed. They we find out that they had stun grenades. Then we find out they were funded by the Turks. Yet the onus is on the Israelis. Somehow they should have given the peace terrorists a bouquet of flowers and kissed them on the lips. Is there something wrong here?

When we look to the rest of the world, North Korea sinks a South Korean Naval vessel in South Korean waters and nothing happens. Everyone is more afraid of China than they are of us or anyone else. This is just a continuation of the Obama Obsequiousness World Tour. No bad deed will be punished, unless of course it's allegedly perpetrated by the US or Israel. It fits Obama's narrative that the US has been the purveyor of evil in the world.

And what about evil? Ahmedinejad calls for the destruction of Israel, not on one occasion but continually over the years, while he now has enough material to create 2 nuclear weapons. Hamas' mantra is what? The destruction of Israel.

Pat Buchanan and rest of the anti-Israel malcontents will say, what does the destruction of Israel have to do with the US?

He predictably chimed in:

That bloody debacle in the Eastern Mediterranean last Sunday was an inevitable result of Israel doing what it always seems to do: going beyond what is essential to her security, to impose collective punishment upon any and all it regards as hostile to Israel.

Take a few steps back and look at the proponents behind this. It's islam, it's global jihadists. It's not about the fact we are the best or the richest, or the freest. It's about a world view that sees the end game as a global caliphate. In spite of the assertion that Israelis forced out palestinians, whatever that is, the jews were forced out by muslims over 1000 years ago, continuing the diaspora. So who forced who out first?

Look at the muslim invasion of Europe, now in its third iteration. Sharia law is allowed in the UK, and Rowan Williams sees Sharia and Islam dominance in England and Europe as inevitable. They are giving up without a fight (and people in this country worry about Mexicans. In time we will want them with open arms compared to the coming muslim problem).

So while the destruction of Israel doesn't raise a few hackles, who's next after them? Us of course. The problem is, we have no Charles Martel in our time. By the time the west recognizes there is a problem, it won't matter. We want to be so open minded as to let bad things in and accept them. Aristotle said that "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." A wise man whose ideas have been forgotten by most. The rational mind has been supplanted by the feeling one.

While I am not an interventionist, I think we need to recognize threats when they arise. It's the rational thing to do. Criticizing Israel is just an attempt by those who would enjoy her destruction to foment that in an incremental fashion because of the accurately perceived weakness that our enemies and other countries who interests are not the same as our own see in Obama and his regime. They know this stranger lover will throw his own under the bus in order to be loved by those that hate him. He's a deranged narcissist and cannot help himself. The result is that those outside out circle have grown hungry in their appetite for our destruction and the destruction of of allies. It's a case of malignant and pro-active schadenfreude on their part.

So some will ask, why not bring these people into our inner circle? I will ask, will that change their intentions, and if you believe so, show me an example where that was true. I believe it is good to have talks that build common ground if possible, but sooner or later the white elephant in the room will have to be dealt with, whatever that is. Diplomacy has mixed results here at best. It's a poker game where every tool in the toolbox must be brought to the game. Obama & Co. think they can get it done with just one tool. The problem is that these problems are out of the scope of community leaders and their normal solution of spreading around walking around money. Talk is cheap, especially with those that are resolute.

So where does this leave us? In the case of Israel with the Jihadist Flotilla, They have a few choices. All have their consequences. When the commandoes boarded the boat, they actually didn't expect the resistance they received and actually wished to pursue more peaceful methods of interdicting. It didn't go well and it will not be repeated, I assure you. it was a one shot deal. The Israelis have a legitimate concern about these "humanitarian" boats bringing weapons to Gaza. What was found on the boats justifies their concern, yet we have the mess.

Ultimately, Israel will do what they have to do to protect their interests. Obama should be supportive and the truth supports that position. The problem is he is breaking his back trying to get our enemies to love him, or at least not hate him. The time has come for tough talk. All tools need to be put on the table and shown to these despots and other half rate and third world idiots of what their options are. The problem is, what are our options? Frankly, we are over extended. What could we do?

The bottom line is that in a dangerous world where certain countries are becoming more dangerous. While we should avoid posturing and also becoming over extended, we need to send a message that cuts through all the noise.

The United States will defend itself against all enemies foreign and domestic with extreme prejudice.

The United States will support our allies in the face of aggression. We will defend them if asked.

The United States will use all tools available in diplomacy. Nothing is off the table.

The United States will judge it's relationships not by words, but by actions, and their will be accountability.

The United States will no longer support countries financially or otherwise that "Take the piss" on us.

After these statements of facts are made, then our actions must match them. The model for this was created by Ronald Reagan and modified by me. I would be slightly more hard ass. Again, actions must match words, or it's meaningless. It is like the guy that says, you better not cross this line, then the other guy crosses it, and he draws another one and makes the same demand again. It's a recipe for being playing and being feckless. It done by the Farm Animals® in Europe, but obviously it has not served them well.

The real bottom line is that the rest of the world is behaving like a petulant, obstinate child whose behavior has been reinforced by doing nothing. It's time for some tough love. If we want this double standard to stop, we must be willing to stand up and say enough is enough. Neville Chamberlain has been dead a long time and unfortunately was reanimated in November of 2008. It's time to send him back. We know where his pusillanimity lead, and it's no different this time around.

From Eric Dondero:

Sarah Palin blasted the liberal media for siding with Islamists and the Turkish government in reporting on the Israeli flotilla attacks. Excerpts from her Facebook page, Tuesday:

As far too many in the media, and in various governments, rush to condemn Israel, we must put the recent events off Israel’s coast into the right perspective. This “relief” convoy was not about humanitarian aid, as the liberal mainstream media keeps reporting. The whole operation was designed to provoke Israel, not to provide supplies to Palestinians held hostage by Hamas terrorists in Gaza. Anyone who sees the video of Israeli commandos being attacked as they land on that ship knows the people aboard were vicious thugs, not “peace activists.” The media insults our intelligence with their outright mischaracterization of who these enemies are.

Israel has a right to prevent arms shipments to Gaza that will be used to target innocent Israelis...

As one expert points out: “Three ships of that six-ship pro-terror convoy flew Turkish flags and were crowded with Turkish citizens. The Ankara government – led by Islamists these days – sponsored the ‘aid’ operation in a move to position itself as the new champion of the Palestinians. And Turkish decision-makers knew Israel would have to react – and were waiting to exploit the inevitable clash. The provocation was as cynical as it was carefully orchestrated.”

We can only hope the Obama Administration does not join the anti-Israel chorus in the aftermath of this staged confrontation.

Note - Palin has endorsed a slew of Pro-Israel Republicans in the 2010 primaries, including Carly Fiorina for US Senate in California, Nikki Haley for SC Governor, Texas Gov. Rick Perry, Allen West for Congress - Florida, and Rand Paul for US Senate in Kentucky.

From Cliff Thies:

The following is a link to 3 video clips of the boarding of the ship that attempted to break the Isaeli/Egyptian blockade of Gaza:

See other two videos at Cypress Times.

From the clips, it is clear that some of those aboard the ship were anxious for, and planned a confrontation. Others may have spontaneously joined in, due to the emotion.

That is, the clips show that a variety of weapons were on board, either smuggled or fashioned on board, such as wooden and metal clubs and "home-made" bombs, but also including some stun grenades and long knives.

The clips also showed that persons on board the ship initiated violence against the IDF forces boarding or attempting to board the ship by small boat or by rappelling off a helicopter.

The first couple commandoes alighting the ship from the helicopter were overwhelmed by those on the boat, and, it can be surmised, only after several others also alighted the ship were they able, with the use of deadly force, able to defend themselves and take charge of the ship.

Obviously, the purpose of the confrontation was to radlicalize Muslims and to appeal to mush-brained liberals throughout the world. '60s radical like Bill Ayers, who is reported to have supported the effort, would know all about such things.

Geert Wilders looks more and more certain to be a member of the ruling coalition of the Netherlands after next week's election.

Ed West of the London Telegraph reports, "Geert Wilders may be in government next week," June 3:

Anyone wishing to glance at the future of British politics, were the public to vote for PR, would do well to look across the pond to the Netherlands, where a general election is taking place next Wednesday.

If opinion polls are to believed the next government will be formed by the two major centre-Right parties, the People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD) and the Christian Democrats.

Like in Britain, the 43-year-old centre-Right leader, Mark Rutte of the classically liberal VVD, needs to make the budget deficit the major priority. Like in Britain, he cannot form an overall majority, even with the Christian Democrats.

So he either tries to form an alliance with Labour, which – like its British namesake – refuses to face up to economic reality, or he can form a government with the most famous blond in Europe. That will certainly shake things up...

“Israel and the United States have a special relationship. With our shared history and common values, the American and Israeli people have formed a bond that unites us across the many thousands of miles between our countries and calls us to work together towards peace and prosperity for our countries.” -- Rand Paul, Republican US Senate nominee, Kentucky

by Eric Dondero

With the Israeli attacks on the Muslim Terrorist Flotilla front and center in the news, some interesting political dynamics have opened up. Leftists who may have been attracted to Ron Paul in past campaigns, are now openly distancing themselves from the campaign of his libertarian-conservative son Rand Paul for US Senate. And they appear to be doing so primarly over his views on Defense matters, particularly the younger Paul's steadfast support for Israel.

Kelly Vlahos is a freelance reporter in Washington D.C. She is a former reporter for the Socialist Workers News and currently rights for the Pat Buchanan supporting, paleo American Conservative magazine. She's a frequent guest on Pacifica Radio, Democracy Now!, and Al Jazeera.

She recently penned an editorial at AntiWar.com, "Rand Paul Drinks Tea, Turns Into Hawk?"

Vlahos leads off:

Today, Paul’s son Rand is one step closer to becoming a U.S. senator, giving him a platform exceeding that of his libertarian father’s on Capitol Hill. This development should be a major boon for antiwar activists and civil libertarians who have long relied on the elder Paul and his “revolution” as a reasonable voice for non-intervention...

But after months of a grueling primary, it is not yet clear where the younger Paul’s savvy campaigning ends and his true ideological impulses begin, particularly on national security and foreign policy.

Vlahos then goes on to criticize Paul's strong defense of Israel, and even accuses him of being too much like the staunchly Pro-Israel George W. Bush:

More recently, he publicly chose sides with Israel on the politically explosive issue of Middle East peace. This seems so oddly forced and out of place that it might only be explained as more pandering to the right wing:

“I would never vote to place trade restrictions on Israel, and I would filibuster any attempts to place sanctions on Israel or tariffs on any Israeli goods.

“The issue of Palestine is incredibly difficult and complex. The entire world wishes for peace in the region, but any arrangement or treaty must come from Israel, when she is ready and when her conditions have been met.

“I strongly object to the arrogant approach of Obama administration, itself a continuation of the failures of past U.S. administrations, as they push Israel to make security concessions behind thinly veiled threats.

“Only Israel can decide what is in her security interest, not America and certainly not the United Nations. Friends do not coerce friends to trade land for peace, or to give up the vital security interests of their people.”

It all sounds too much like the last administration for some of his early supporters to bear.

Christine Smith of Colorado, who has an AntiWar blog cites some Pro-Defense positions of Rand Paul, including "Supports military tribunals for Guantanamo detainees" rather than given the same constitutional rights of American citizens.

the last thing we need is to become identified with another right wing conservative with stances so anti-freedom. The positions above I consider to be antithetic to limited government and respect for individual liberty

I will never support someone who is just another conservative... This is why I do not support Rand Paul...

Meanwhile, another prominent AntiWar activist aligned with groups such as Code Pink is Justin Raimondo (AntiWar.com). He says of the younger Paul:

I wouldn’t give Rand Paul the time of day.

Raimondo in a recent editorial criticized Paul for his comments in favor of defending Israel from a nuclear attack by Iran in the Middle East.

Raimondo is of course, a prime 9/11 Truther who suggests in his soon-to-be-released book "The Terror Enigma: Israel and the 911 Connection" that Israel itself was behind the attacks.

Carol Moore, a longtime Leftist Libertarian activists acknowledges on her blog CarolMoore.net that Raimondo is known to harbor "alleged anti-Semitism." She describes Raimondo, Managing Editor for AntiWar.com as "The most vehement and unceasing libertarian critic of Israel."

Attacks from fringe types such as Raimondo, Vlahos and Smith, can only help Paul to win election in the Fall among traditionalist fiercely pro-military/pro-defense Kentucky voters.