LIVE HEADLINE NEWS FEEDS

THERE IS NO DIPLOMATIC SOLUTION

Support Israpundit

USD

ILS

CND


January 16, 2013

There’s no reason to ban ‘assault’ rifles

By Andrew L. Jaffee, netwmd.com

… For the purpose of this article, we’ll focus on AR-15s since it is what CBS calls “the most popular rifle in America” and one often designated an “assault” rifle. An AR-15 is the civilian equivalent to the military’s M-16. So what’s the difference?

Kelly Alwood, a firearms trainer and consultant, told TheBlaze the only difference is that one [the military AR-15] is fully automatic and the other is semi-automatic [the civilian AR-15]. It’s a small yet simultaneously big distinction. Firearms for use by the military are able to shoot continuously with one pull of the trigger, machine-gun style. Civilian firearms, on the other hand, only allow one shot per trigger pull.

[Calling the civilian AR-15 an "assault rifle" is] “a way to demonize something for a political agenda and misconstrue [the guns] and the public on the Second Amendment,” Alwood said.

TheBlaze, Jan. 11, 2013 (emphasis added)

There’s really no difference between the hyperbolic-named “assault rifle” and a hunting rifle, so all this talk of banning “assault weapons” is just another ruse and scare-tactic meant to disarm Americans — to destroy the Second Amendment to our hallowed Constitution. The current gun control push will punish law-abiding Americans the most, as street thugs, Mexican cartels, and crazies will always be able to find automatic or other deadly weapons on the black market. Our Founding Fathers knew all about what it meant to be the underdog trying to fight off tyranny, that of King George, leader of Britain, whose “forces were the best trained, most well equipped military in the world.” According to the New York Times (yes, the NYT):

… While semiautomatic rifles were used in several recent mass shootings, including those in Newtown and in Aurora, Colo., where 12 people were killed at a movie theater in July, a vast majority of gun murders in the United States are committed with handguns.

In 2011, 6,220 people were killed by handguns, and 323 by rifles, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. …

[TAKE ACTION NOW TO PROTECT GUN RIGHTS]

It is a fact that law-abiding civilians don’t go on shooting rampages. It is a fact that shooting rampages, while sensational, are just a tiny fraction of the causes of deaths in American society. Criminals mostly use handguns when using guns, and domestic disputes often involve things like crowbars, baseball bats, knives — almost anything can be made into a deadly weapon. Semi-automatic weapons do have a place in a free society, and ownership thereof is protected by the Second Amendment:

Why “Tens of Millions?” Tens of millions of Americans—perhaps many tens of millions—own firearms that gun control supporters call “assault weapons” and ammunition magazines that gun control supporters call “large,” for self-defense, hunting, sports and other traditional purposes.

Right about the Second Amendment. In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment protects a pre-existing, fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms, the view held by the Framers of the Bill of Rights, the most universally respected legal scholars of the 19th century, the vast majority of Second Amendment scholars today, most Americans throughout our nation’s history, and the Supreme Court in earlier decisions. The Court rejected the two mutually-exclusive theories of the amendment that gun control supporters had advocated for the previous few decades.

Right about the Second Amendment protecting the right to keep and bear so-called “assault weapons” and “large” ammunition magazines. The Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense and common defense purposes, purposes for which “assault weapons” and “large” magazines are well-suited.

Right about gun control supporters trying to get more categories of guns banned as “assault weapons”. First it was semi-automatics that have detachable magazines and external attachments. Now it’s those firearms, plus semi-automatics that don’t have detachable magazines, plus those that don’t have external attachments, plus pump-action firearms. Gun control supporters keep expanding their lists of guns to be banned, hoping people who don’t know one gun from another will go along with banning them, so long as they’re called “assault weapons.”

For practical purposes, civilian AK-47s and AR-15s are used by gun enthusiasts for hunting, target shooting, collecting, and for self-protection. For philosophical reasons, “the Founding Fathers drafted the Second Amendment with protection of the citizens and their freedoms in mind.” Again, TheBlaze:

… “We need these rifles because the government has them,” Alwood explained.

He stopped there to say he realizes this is where gun enthusiasts and riflemen are made out to seem like anti-government “whack jobs” by the media, but that’s just not true.

“I don’t want people to think of me as anti-government. Most gun owners are not anti-government,” Alwood said. …

“[Without the Second Amendment] there is no way to resist the government, voiding all other amendments,” Alwood said. “Why should [the government] continue to give you your freedom of speech if there is no one to stop them[?] It’s the only safeguard we have to protect us from a tyrannical government. … Look at all countries in trouble with dictators, they have absolute gun bans.”

The conservative publication Townhall recently called out two countries with a similar sentiment to this in mind:

Neither the Venezuelan nor Chinese governments have particularly good track records when it comes to human rights. By maintaining a government monopoly on guns, both can ensure that further abuses are carried out with less protests from the citizenry. Overall, it is sad to see two dictatorial governments making it easier to abuse their citizens as they please while also squelching the possibility for resistance.

Are Obama and all his anti-gun buddies saying that Founding Fathers like Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, Samuel Adams, James Madison, Noah Webster, and Patrick Henry didn’t know what they were doing when they all supported the right to bear arms? Looking at Obama’s proposals, one can only conclude that he disdains these great mens’ beliefs.

Finally, let’s turn to the U.S. government itself to dispel the myth that “assault weapons” have anything to do with “assault” or military use:

… As the United States Defense Department’s Defense Intelligence Agency book Small Arms Identification and Operation Guide explains, “assault rifles” are “short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachine gun and rifle cartridges.”[21] In other words, assault rifles are battlefield rifles which can fire automatically.[22]

Weapons capable of fully automatic fire, including assault rifles, have been regulated heavily in the United States since the National Firearms Act of 1934.[23] Taking possession of such weapons requires paying a $200 federal transfer tax and submitting to an FBI background check, including ten-print fingerprints.[24]

Many civilians have purchased semiautomatic-only rifles that look like military assault rifles. These civilian rifles are, unlike actual assault rifles, incapable of automatic fire….

There’s one last piece of disinformation to clear up: that you can make a semi-automatic into an automatic by snapping your fingers (or clicking your heels twice):

… modifying a semi-automatic weapon into an automatic one is not only highly illegal with extreme penalties but also no easy feat. …

[TAKE ACTION NOW TO PROTECT GUN RIGHTS]

Posted by Andrew Jaffee @ 6:04 pm | 63 Comments »



63 Responses to There’s no reason to ban ‘assault’ rifles

  1. yamit82 says:

    dweller Said:

    Well, it isn’t as if your deportment was very persuasive in that dept.

    But the answer is actually quite uncomplicated & straightforward: B’reisheet.

    If a man is created b’tselem elohim, then he has a conscience. It’s just that simple.

    Not quite so simple. “you are called ‘man’ and the nations of the world are not called ‘man’. ”

    Kabbalist Jews whose world?view had been formed by the teachings of the Jewish mystical tradition known as Kabbala, argued that it was not merely Rabbi Simeon bar Yohai, but Rabbi Akiva himself who reserved the title of “man” only for Israelites. According to some kabbalists, Rabbi Akiva’s statement, “beloved is man for he was created in the [divine] image” referred not to humanity in general, but only to Adam, the first man, of whom alone the Torah specifies that he was created in God’s image. This kabbalistic thesis was meant to emphasize the singularity of the Jewish people. Thus the sixteenth?century kabbalist, Samuel De Uceda (b. 1540), stressed in his book, Midrash Shemuel:

    The [divine] image of holiness belongs only to the people of the children of Israel…Thus “man” refers to the first man [Adam]…of him [Rabbi Akiva] said, “Beloved is man for he was created in the [divine] image”…It is so [also] for the righteous and, indeed, all the people of the children of Israel.

    Note: their is no concept of Humanity in the modern sense in Hebrew. We speak only of the nations of the world (Umot Ha’olam)

  2. yamit82 says:

    Continued from 47

    Kabbalist Jews whose world?view had been formed by the teachings of the Jewish mystical tradition known as Kabbala, argued that it was not merely Rabbi Simeon bar Yohai, but Rabbi Akiva himself who reserved the title of “man” only for Israelites. According to some kabbalists, Rabbi Akiva’s statement, “beloved is man for he was created in the [divine] image” referred not to humanity in general, but only to Adam, the first man, of whom alone the Torah specifies that he was created in God’s image. This kabbalistic thesis was meant to emphasize the singularity of the Jewish people. Thus the sixteenth?century kabbalist, Samuel De Uceda (b. 1540), stressed in his book, Midrash Shemuel:

    The [divine] image of holiness belongs only to the people of the children of Israel…Thus “man” refers to the first man [Adam]…of him [Rabbi Akiva] said, “Beloved is man for he was created in the [divine] image”…It is so [also] for the righteous and, indeed, all the people of the children of Israel.

  3. dweller says:

    @ yamit82:

    “The way you emote on this issue [i.e., elective abortion], I believe you would [personally kill abortionists].”

    “Perhaps what you really mean is that you’re disconcerted by the certainty & force with which I say what I think — especially in matters where you carry a troubled conscience.”

    “What makes you believe I have a conscience?”

    “Well, it isn’t as if your deportment was very persuasive in that dept. But the answer is actually quite uncomplicated & straightforward: B’reisheet. If a man is created b’tselem elohim ["in the image of God"], then he has a conscience. It’s just that simple.”

    “Not quite so simple. ‘you are called “man” and the nations of the world are not called ‘man’… etc… ”

    Off-point & irrelevant.

    Re-read the pertinent part of the thread [see above].

    You had asked me what makes me think you have a conscience.

    I answered that if YOU, Yamit — not the nations, not the Jews, but Yamit specifically — are created in the image of God, then you have a conscience.

    Everything else in your post is window-dressing — germane perhaps to some discussion

    — but not this one.

    Unless, of course, you mean to suggest that YOU are NOT created b’tselem elohim. . . .

  4. yamit82 says:

    dweller Said:

    @ yamit82:
    “The way you emote on this issue [i.e., elective abortion], I believe you would [personally kill abortionists].”
    “Perhaps what you really mean is that you’re disconcerted by the certainty & force with which I say what I think — especially in matters where you carry a troubled conscience.”
    “What makes you believe I have a conscience?”
    “Well, it isn’t as if your deportment was very persuasive in that dept. But the answer is actually quite uncomplicated & straightforward: B’reisheet. If a man is created b’tselem elohim ["in the image of God"], then he has a conscience. It’s just that simple.”
    “Not quite so simple. ‘you are called “man” and the nations of the world are not called ‘man’… etc… ”
    Off-point & irrelevant.
    Re-read the pertinent part of the thread [see above].
    You had asked me what makes me think you have a conscience.
    I answered that if YOU, Yamit — not the nations, not the Jews, but Yamit specifically — are created in the image of God, then you have a conscience.
    Everything else in your post is window-dressing — germane perhaps to some discussion
    — but not this one.

    My comment was truncatred as my complete original was even more specific to my point. I tried sneaking around the spammer by recuuting it and postingand was not successful. Ted has not retrieved and posted and I’m not sure intentionally or not but it’s not here.

    Unless, of course, you mean to suggest that YOU are NOT created b’tselem elohim. . . .


    That was my point.
    There was only a single creation. (The First) and there was only one man created in G-d’s image (the first Adam)

    The rest are determined by the Laws of nature introduced in the initial creation. If you knew Hebrew you might understand the nuances, grammatical niceties and quirks of the Hebrew Language. You always depend on your christian sources for definition of terms and thought. They are mostly incorrect as you.

    Jews whose world?view had been formed by the teachings of the Jewish mystical tradition known as Kabbala, argued that it was not merely Rabbi Simeon bar Yohai, but Rabbi Akiva himself who reserved the title of “man” only for Israelites.

    According to some kabbalists, Rabbi Akiva’s statement, “beloved is man for he was created in the [divine] image” referred not to humanity in general, but only to Adam, the first man, of whom alone the Torah specifies that he was created in G-d’s image. This kabbalistic thesis was meant to emphasize the singularity of the Jewish people. (Samuel De Uceda (b. 1540), stressed in his book, Midrash Shemuel:)

    The [divine] image of holiness belongs only to the people of the children of Israel…Thus “man” refers to the first man [Adam]…of him [Rabbi Akiva] said, “Beloved is man for he was created in the [divine] image”…It is so [also] for the righteous and, indeed, all the people of the children of Israel.

    When the Tanach speaks of humanity it speaks of Umot ha’Olam, The nations of the world. There is NO concept of humanity in Biblical thought or a word for humanity in the Hebrew Language.

  5. dweller says:

    @ yamit82:

    “You had asked me what makes me think you have a conscience. I answered that if YOU, Yamit — not the nations, not the Jews, but Yamit specifically — are created in the image of God, then you have a conscience…

    “… Unless, of course, you mean to suggest that YOU are NOT created b’tselem elohim. . . .

    “There was only a single creation. (The First) and there was only one man created in G-d’s image (the first Adam)…”

    Not even Eve, eh?

    “… The rest are determined by the Laws of nature introduced in the initial creation…”

    “Beloved is man for he was created in the [divine] image”…It is so [also] for the righteous and, indeed, all the people of the children of Israel..”

    Oh, really? — And where did the children of Israel acquire “the [divine] image” — to say nothing of the ‘righteousness’ asserted thereby?

    If it wasn’t conferred thru Adam, then how (and when) WAS it conferred?

    This claim is a serpent which bites its own tail

    — but such is the nature of self-serving argumentation. . . .

    In any case, though, even by that self-serving standard, if you ARE in fact part of the children of Israel, then you are “created in the [divine] image” — and thus you DO have a conscience.

  6. dweller says:

    @ yamit82:

    “Jews whose world-view had been formed by the teachings of the Jewish mystical tradition known as Kabbala, argued that it was not merely Rabbi Simeon bar Yohai, but Rabbi Akiva himself who reserved the title of ‘man’ only for Israelites.”

    Sorry, but whether that claim arrived by way of Luzzato or Luria OR Rashbi OR Akiva, the concept strikes me as shallow & self-congratulatory as onion-skin.

    Used to have an interest in Kabbalah during the 70′s.

    Eventually rejected it, however, as being every bit as much an intellectualization as the heterodoxy to which it presumes to offer an alternative. Here & there, an interesting concept occasionally appears — but the idea of STUDY as a means of apprehending it is clearly offbase.

    Study — of anything — simply has no potential for making somebody a better man

    — because his intellect, and all the learning he can cram into his avaricious keppelleh, are merely possessions — like an ipod, an Armani suit, the pink slip for a Corvette, the title deed to a villa on the riviera, a Renoir original, an exquisite singing voice, or a great [name the body part, or pair]. . . .

    Since when does who a man IS

    — consist of his possessions — material, aesthetic, OR intellectual?

    What’s more, the fact that Kabbalah is frequently characterized as a “mystical” tradition was an early clue to me that the WORD mystical has (effectively) been destroyed for purposes of rational discourse.

    If the highly intellectualized structure & practice of Kabbalah is about ‘mysticism,’ then it’s abundantly clear that the word mysticism has about as much relationship to the original meaning of the word as the contemporary usage of the word awesome has to the original meaning of “eliciting awe

    — or as the contemporary usage of the word gay has to the original meaning of “cheerful, carefree, etc.”

    Stick a fork in it; it’s done.

  7. dweller says:

    @ yamit82:

    “You always depend on your christian sources for definition of terms and thought.”

    It’s amazing to know you are so well acquainted with the ‘christian’ sources as to think you can be making such blanket statements about ME in that regard.

    — But you’re dead WRONG. Then too, however, you’re still clueless about ME anyway.

    The truth is, I RARELY (if ever) even CONSULT ‘christian sources’ for much of anything.

    The only real value I’ve found in them (thus far, anyway) is in tracing the HISTORY of where they went off the deep end.

    — Those sources don’t give me ANYTHING; never have, and that’s a fact. (You may find that inconceivable, but that’s your OWN problem, not mine.)

    If I end up agreeing with them about something, it’s because I came by it on my own — as indeed, perhaps THEY too came by it on THEIR own.

    Told you, DOZENS of times over the years, Yamit — this stuff isn’t about scholarship & study.

    — Shocking as it may sound to hear it, the God of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob isn’t into pedantry.

  8. Max says:

    dweller Said:

    You’re all hate-fascism all the time, 24/7, Max.

    A man who lets himself fixate on such things will, in time, come to reflect them

    — a perfect photo-negative of them burned into his own consciousness.

    No, you model me on your own consciousness. I absolutely oppose and wage war, not ‘hate’ on fascism 24/7 and in doing so I uphold democracy and freedom unlike your model which is to stay at the same level.
    I rise above.
    There is a difference between waging war and waging hate. Waging hate is very shallow, waging war also involves waging peace and it is over when victory is achieved. Waging hate never finishes.
    .
    dweller Said:

    If from this, Max, we are to infer that there is no formulaic quality to your OWN posting

    I have new paradigms to share and promote that will destroy the old formulas simply by existing – that is what upsets you and others so much. I don’t practice cartoon politics nor parrot the ideas of the elite that are replicated by their political parties, their religious groups and their MSM organs. Those there are the carton formulas.

    dweller Said:

    “No wonder Ted found out this was listed as a hate site in the Israeli hospital.”

    You’d LOVE to have this site so regarded, Max

    Why should I care about that? You have no audience except yourselves because you have absolutely no room for any other peoples being at war with everyone innocent or not ..and you don’t even identify with others who like the Libyans or Syrians or North Koreans or everyday Chinese or everyday Americans who are exactly in the same situation as you are ie oppressed by fascists.

    I do not wage war or hate on this site . You wage hate – that is your model – you can’t see anything else. I wage peace and change – change yourselves- you are on the wrong track the track of self-destruction.
    In a nutshell – Fight the true enemy – fight fascism everywhere, don’t embrace it – and learn to wage peace as well as war.

    I have come to realize that this is a hate site whether or not it was intended to be such – it is or has become so..

    And all this propaganda about guns and babies (totally irrelevant to the Israeli situation)e – that’s pure ideological propagnda based on political and religious hatred.

  9. dweller says:

    @ Max:

    “You’re all hate-fascism all the time, 24/7, Max. A man who lets himself fixate on such things will, in time, come to reflect them — a perfect photo-negative of them burned into his own consciousness.”

    “I absolutely oppose and wage war, not ‘hate’… “

    You are absolutely seething with hostility, boyo.

    “I absolutely oppose and wage war…on fascism 24/7 and in doing so I uphold democracy and freedom…”

    This is sheer rhetoric, Max, and nothing but.

    Who (and what) is the ‘wager of your war,’ Max, if not your own tortured ego?

    YOUR war is strictly within and it’s shredding you from the inside out.

    You merely latch on to ‘fascism’ as an external ‘enemy’ because conceptually it’s such an easy rhetorical target.

    — (Who in the present day-&-age ever says, ‘Oh, yes, I’m a proud, card-carrying fascist’?)

    “I have new paradigms to share and promote that will destroy the old formulas simply by existing – that is what upsets you and others so much.”

    “Upsets”? — hardly.

    “I don’t practice cartoon politics…”

    Right, Max. You’d never limit yourself to the few frames of a cartoon.

    — Nothing less than a whole comic book for you, dude. ROFLMAO.

    “…you don’t even identify with others who like the Libyans or Syrians or North Koreans or everyday Chinese or everyday Americans who are exactly in the same situation as you are ie oppressed by fascists.”

    Everybody is oppressed by his own angst, Max; his own daemons.

    His own internal ‘fascist.’

    But you are clueless as to how to fight.

    “Fight the true enemy – fight fascism everywhere, don’t embrace it – and learn to wage peace as well as war.”

    You cannot wage peace, Max, if there is no peace inside you.

    — That’s where it starts.

    “I have come to realize that this is a hate site…”

    So THAT’s what drew you to it. . . .

    “And all this propaganda about guns and babies (totally irrelevant to the Israeli situation)e…”

    You say that only because you’re on the other side of one or more of those debates, or because that stuff dredges up things you try to keep down.

    If the direction of thread happened to sync up with you, you wouldn’t have said squat; at most, you’d have just passed.

    The truth is that there is scarcely any topic that doesn’t ultimately have its bearing on the Jewish state.

    — The reasons for that constitute a discussion all unto itself, but not here or now.

    “… that’s pure ideological propagnda based on political and religious hatred.”

    If you genuinely see ‘hate’ in what’s there in print, Max, then that speaks volumes.

  10. Max says:

    @ dweller:

    Just cut and paste diarrhea. You bark so much nothing gets through.
    You are only able to see the world in the limited way you have modeled it.
    One day when you hopefully you stop barking you’ll have to let the light in and you will become aware here are other ways to exist.
    Hopefully..

    dweller Said:

    Who in the present day-&-age ever says, ‘Oh, yes, I’m a proud, card-carrying fascist’?

    Most of you here do you just use another word for it, you just don’t know or won’t admit what you are.

  11. dweller says:

    @ Max:

    “You’re all hate-fascism all the time, 24/7, Max. A man who lets himself fixate on such things will, in time, come to reflect them — a perfect photo-negative of them burned into his own consciousness.”

    “I absolutely oppose and wage war, not ‘hate’… “

    “You are absolutely seething with hostility, boyo.”

    “Just cut and paste diarrhea.”

    So then, for the record, you’re saying you don’t have a great reservoir of hostility?

    “You bark so much nothing gets through. You are only able to see the world in the limited way you have modeled it. One day when you hopefully you stop barking you’ll have to let the light in and you will become aware [t]here are other ways to exist.”

    Lots of things get thru, Max.

    In fact, lots of things have gotten thru for a long time concerning you — but I’ve held off discussing them, as I’m not into embarrassing you.

    What you’ve written here [above], though, is sheer projection — in every particular.

    It is your OWN barking that renders you impervious to anything that challenges your OWN ‘modeling’ of reality — from within OR without.

    I would suggest you get professional attention

    — but I’m afraid that society’s authorized & certified ‘providers’ of such assistance are (at BEST) useless for much more than offering practiced manipulation of SYMPTOMS — nothing more.

    More often than not, they gravitate toward the trade because they sense (correctly) that they THEMSELVES need the help and their patients exist as something they can (privately) look down upon as worse-off than they.

    That being said, Sir, you still DO need relief from what’s eating you.

    “You merely latch on to ‘fascism’ as an external ‘enemy’ because conceptually it’s such an easy rhetorical target. (Who in the present day-&-age ever says, ‘Oh, yes, I’m a proud, card-carrying fascist’?)”

    “Most of you here do you just use another word for it, you just don’t know or won’t admit what you are.”

    What “other word for it”? — Surely you can provide examples to support your charge.

  12. yamit82 says:

    dweller Said:

    Who in the present day-&-age ever says, ‘Oh, yes, I’m a proud, card-carrying fascist’?</blockquote

    I do

  13. yamit82 says:

    dweller Said:

    — Those sources don’t give me ANYTHING; never have, and that’s a fact. (You may find that inconceivable, but that’s your OWN problem, not mine.)

    If I end up agreeing with them about something, it’s because I came by it on my own — as indeed, perhaps THEY too came by it on THEIR own.



    Could this be you with another picture?

Israpundit Digest

Support Israpundit


USD

ILS

CAD

Syndication

Blog Traffic

Pages|Hits |Unique

  • Last 24 hours: 22,207
  • Last 7 days: 141,189
  • Last 30 days: 350,537
  • Online now: 74
Los Angeles SEO
Current Entries

Recent Comments

  • European Jewry is Doing What Hitler Couldn’t (2)
  • Donetsk leaflet: Jews must register or face deportation (3)

    • Buzz of the Orient: Are they going to be required to wear a yellow star as...

    • CuriousAmerican: There is a debate if this is really a pro-Russian group, or...

    • CuriousAmerican: Jews should leave the Ukraine now. Leave Russia. Apparently,...

  • Can Israel be both Jewish and democratic (207)

    • dweller: @ yamit82: “No wonder there are so many sexual problems within...

    • dweller: @ honeybee: “May I suggest Sweetie, that you read Thomas...

    • dweller: @ honeybee: “You’re still making mistakes, Twinkie”...

    • dweller: @ AbbaGuutuu: You will encounter several here with pronounced axes...

    • dweller: @ honeybee: “…that no man — not even the King himself —...

  • Steve Goldberg: The Only Viable Option (24)

    • CuriousAmerican: @ Ted Belman: Israel only blockades military significant...

    • Ted Belman: @ CuriousAmerican:Neither Goldberg nor I recommended...

    • CuriousAmerican: @ Ted Belman: Goldberg says they will go to Arab countries....

    • Ted Belman: A number of you have raised the question of...

    • CuriousAmerican: It seems, he believes that many Arabs could leave without...

  • Palestinians must come to the table for peace (3)

    • dove: Oh Dersch….you have been a Defense Lawyer for the wicked for far...

  • Obama Plans to Return Looted Jewish Artifacts To Iraq (43)
  • There is No Authentic Right in Israel (41)

    • dweller: @ yamit82: “The most revealing aspect of his character was his...

    • dweller: @ honeybee: ”…’You doth protest to loudly’,...

  • In the Middle East, Time to Move On (4)

    • CuriousAmerican: Among those principles should be: a Palestinian state in the...

Sponsor

Fair Use

This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of political, human rights, economic, democracy, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research, educational, or satirical purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Site Membership



Google Site Search

Editor

    Ted Belman

    tbelman3-at-gmail.com

Mission

    News and Views on Israel, the Middle East, the war on terror and the clash of civilizations.

Polls

Will Israel attack Iran

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

RECOMMENDED BOOKS




Tolerism2

Iran islam

Sharing

mandate4

Daily Archives

April 2014
S M T W T F S
« Mar    
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930  

Selected Israpundit Articles

Sponsors

Miscellaneous Info

    All Politic Sites