Wednesday, February 13, 2013


Morning Bell: Obama’s Bogus State of the Union Promises


Amy Payne and Alyssa Badolato

February 12, 2013 at 8:32 am

Tonight, the American people will be watching President Obama’s fifth State of the Union address. How has he done on his promises over the past four years?

Take a look at some of the promises Obama made back in 2009 during his first State of the Union.

http://blog.heritage.org/2013/02/12/morning-bell-obamas-state-of-the-union-promises-four-years-ago/

“I pledged to cut the deficit in half by the end of my first term in office.”

During his first State of the Union, newly inaugurated President Obama vowed to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term. Instead, Obama has averaged deficits nearly three times that of his predecessor.

For those who were concerned with President George W. Bush’s $4 trillion national debt, this pledge may have seemed like the “hope and change” the American people voted for in 2008. However, the reality of America’s additional debt over the past four years under the Obama Administration is staggering—almost $6 trillion in four years, on track to triple the amount Bush accumulated over his eight years as President. Now that Obama is heading into his second term, we’ve seen quite a change from the Barack Obama who thought $4 trillion in debt was “irresponsible” and “unpatriotic.”

Hidden Hagel 2008 Speech Surfaces: No Attack on Iran Even if Israel Threatened 542 9 1219 Email Article Print Article Send a Tip by Joel B. Pollak 10 Feb 2013 201 post a comment New footage of a speech by Chuck Hagel in 2008 has surfaced, in which the former Senator mocked the idea of continuing the U.S. policy of confronting Iran and supporting Israel. "When I hear the talk about--well you can’t talk with Iran, you can’t talk with Syria and we’re, we should stay where we are and support Israel, and so on, well you miss the point," he told the laughing audience at an event for his book, America: Our Next Chapter. Hagel added that the U.S. "shouldn't even be thinking about the options of bombing Iran," even in the event of a nuclear attack on Israel, and suggested Israel would be the first to attack Iran with a nuclear weapon. Hagel told the Senate on Jan. 31 that he could not provide records or video for more than four of the "hundreds" of speeches he had given over the previous five years because they had not been transcribed or recorded: We have given the committee every copy of every speech that I have that's out there, every video that I have that's out there. On paid speeches, most every one of those paid speeches--in the contract it says that they are private and not videotaped. That wasn't my decision. That was the contract of the group I spoke to. I believe every paid speech I gave I didn't have a prepared text. I gave it extemporaneously, which is something I've been doing for long before I left the Senate. However, records and recordings of many of those speeches do exist, suggesting the administration either did not perform the due diligence necessary to comply with the Senate's request, or that Hagel misled the Senate. In the new footage, which was uploaded to YouTube and is apparently from a question-and-answer session after his formal remarks, Hagel fields a question about whether the U.S. would attack Iran to help defend Israel from an attack by Iran or one of its proxies that threatened Israel's existence. He says that the U.S. should not attack Iran, and that the U.S. should "engage" Iran instead--even in those circumstances: Q: [I]f Israel is attacked by Iran or an Iranian proxy like Hezbollah in a way that existentially threatens Israel, almost to the extent that Israel was attacked in ’73 and it’s existentially threatened, would you support an American airstrike using U.S. forces, B2s, whatever on Iran?” A: I’ll answer the question as honestly as I can. That’s a hypothetical question that somehow frames up the simplicity of the hypothetical question. The complications in the Middle East, and I’m certainly not an expert there, I have a chapter on the Middle East, I do know [laughter], I know a little something about the Middle East. I spent a lot of time there. And I spent a lot of time in Israel with the prime minister and others. You, who are well informed on this issue know the complexities starting with--go back to the Bible, go back to ancient times, thousands of years. I mean that, if you really want to start trying to understand the Middle East, Paul, or David Aaron Miller, who you may know, has a new book out on this, The Not So Promised Land, [sic]. And if you want to read something that is very, very enlightening, this guy, he’s getting tremendous reviews on it. He’s Jewish. He worked in the State Department , worked for Baker, worked for Albright, I think he’s worked for four Secretaries of State, different Democrats, Republicans. But it’s a great, great book. But your question, I mean the complication of what’s going on there, Hamas is already attacking Israel. Iran supports Hamas. Iran supports Hezbollah. What I would much rather see is this administration, or hopefully the next administration, engage Iran, engage Syria. When I hear the talk about--well you can’t talk with Iran, you can’t talk with Syria and we’re, we should stay where we are and support Israel, and so on, well you miss the point. Our policy has been so successful I believe, hasn’t it [laughter], that the Middle East is far better off today than it's ever been, isn’t it? [Laughter.] I mean all those countries, Lebanon is in great shape, Gaza is in great shape, Israel is in good shape, Iran, Iraq, things have never looked better, because we won’t talk to anybody. We are not going to have peace, stability, security or anything that even hints of it in the Middle East until Iran and Syria and all the players are part of it. Now that doesn't apologize for, or doesn't close our eyes to what Iran has been doing, what Iran does do. But unless they are engaged in some way, then I don't see this getting any better. And where this could go, where this could eventually go--somebody was asking me the other day about a nuclear exchange in the world, where that would come from? And I said, well, I'll give you a scenario that's very real. If Israel gets backed up enough into a corner, and Israel uses a tactical theater nuclear weapon--you want to talk about seeing some things unravel in the world. The United States shouldn't even be thinking about the options of bombing Iran or anybody else. I mean, we got our hands full right now... [Applause] Last week, Iranian "Supreme Leader" Ayatollah Ali Khamenei bluntly rejected the suggestion by Vice President Joe Biden that the U.S. and Iran should meet for direct, bilateral talks on Iran's nuclear program.

Hidden Hagel 2008 Speech Surfaces: No Attack on Iran Even if Israel Threatened

 542
 9
 1219
 

Print Article Send a Tip

New footage of a speech by Chuck Hagel in 2008 has surfaced, in which the former Senator mocked the idea of continuing the U.S. policy of confronting Iran and supporting Israel. "When I hear the talk about--well you can’t talk with Iran, you can’t talk with Syria and we’re, we should stay where we are and support Israel, and so on, well you miss the point," he told the laughing audience at an event for his book, America: Our Next Chapter.

Hagel added that the U.S. "shouldn't even be thinking about the options of bombing Iran," even in the event of a nuclear attack on Israel, and suggested Israel would be the first to attack Iran with a nuclear weapon.
Hagel told the Senate on Jan. 31 that he could not provide records or video for more than four of the "hundreds" of speeches he had given over the previous five years because they had not been transcribed or recorded:
We have given the committee every copy of every speech that I have that's out there, every video that I have that's out there. On paid speeches, most every one of those paid speeches--in the contract it says that they are private and not videotaped. That wasn't my decision. That was the contract of the group I spoke to. I believe every paid speech I gave I didn't have a prepared text. I gave it extemporaneously, which is something I've been doing for long before I left the Senate.
However, records and recordings of many of those speeches do exist, suggesting the administration either did not perform the due diligence necessary to comply with the Senate's request, or that Hagel misled the Senate.
In the new footage, which was uploaded to YouTube and is apparently from a question-and-answer session after his formal remarks, Hagel fields a question about whether the U.S. would attack Iran to help defend Israel from an attack by Iran or one of its proxies that threatened Israel's existence. He says that the U.S. should not attack Iran, and that the U.S. should "engage" Iran instead--even in those circumstances:
Q: [I]f Israel is attacked by Iran or an Iranian proxy like Hezbollah in a way that existentially threatens Israel, almost to the extent that Israel was attacked in ’73 and it’s existentially threatened, would you support an American airstrike using U.S. forces, B2s, whatever on Iran?”
A: I’ll answer the question as honestly as I can. That’s a hypothetical question that somehow frames up the simplicity of the hypothetical question. The complications in the Middle East, and I’m certainly not an expert there, I have a chapter on the Middle East, I do know [laughter], I know a little something about the Middle East. I spent a lot of time there. And I spent a lot of time in Israel with the prime minister and others. You, who are well informed on this issue know the complexities starting with--go back to the Bible, go back to ancient times, thousands of years. I mean that, if you really want to start trying to understand the Middle East, Paul, or David Aaron Miller, who you may know, has a new book out on this, The Not So Promised Land, [sic]. And if you want to read something that is very, very enlightening, this guy, he’s getting tremendous reviews on it. He’s Jewish. He worked in the State Department , worked for Baker, worked for Albright, I think he’s worked for four Secretaries of State, different Democrats, Republicans. But it’s a great, great book.
But your question, I mean the complication of what’s going on there, Hamas is already attacking Israel. Iran supports Hamas. Iran supports Hezbollah. What I would much rather see is this administration, or hopefully the next administration, engage Iran, engage Syria. When I hear the talk about--well you can’t talk with Iran, you can’t talk with Syria and we’re, we should stay where we are and support Israel, and so on, well you miss the point.
Our policy has been so successful I believe, hasn’t it [laughter], that the Middle East is far better off today than it's ever been, isn’t it? [Laughter.] I mean all those countries, Lebanon is in great shape, Gaza is in great shape, Israel is in good shape, Iran, Iraq, things have never looked better, because we won’t talk to anybody. We are not going to have peace, stability, security or anything that even hints of it in the Middle East until Iran and Syria and all the players are part of it.
Now that doesn't apologize for, or doesn't close our eyes to what Iran has been doing, what Iran does do. But unless they are engaged in some way, then I don't see this getting any better. And where this could go, where this could eventually go--somebody was asking me the other day about a nuclear exchange in the world, where that would come from? And I said, well, I'll give you a scenario that's very real. If Israel gets backed up enough into a corner, and Israel uses a tactical theater nuclear weapon--you want to talk about seeing some things unravel in the world. The United States shouldn't even be thinking about the options of bombing Iran or anybody else. I mean, we got our hands full right now... [Applause]
Last week, Iranian "Supreme Leader" Ayatollah Ali Khamenei bluntly rejected the suggestion by Vice President Joe Biden that the U.S. and Iran should meet for direct, bilateral talks on Iran's nuclear program.

Other speeches uncovered by IPT include an address to the Arab American Institute in Washington, DC in 2007. A transcript of that speech does not exist, but IPT found a description

27.4.07

Kahlil Gibran "Spirit of Excommunicated Libertarian Conservatism" Awards

I returned late last night after an amazing 2 days in Washington, DC for the annual "Kahlil Gibran Spirit of Humanity Awards", sponsored by the Arab American Institute. For starters, I was quoted, along with my Arab-American Republican colleagues Sherine el-Abd and Hesham Mahmoud as well as Democrat Samer Khalaf, in the Record in a piece by Herb Jackson.
Arab-Americans marked what one North Jerseyan called the "feel-good day of the year" (that was me) and another called their version of the Oscars with a black-tie awards gala in Washington on Wednesday, honoring leaders and groups who promote the common good...Attendees from North Jersey said the dinner highlights the diversity of Arab-Americans, who come from many countries, span the political spectrum and are as likely to be Christian as Muslim.

"It's like a pilgrimage for me," said Sherine El-Abd of Clifton, a member of the Arab American Institute's board of directors who has been attending the dinners since they started in 1999. "It's a time when you get really energized, and emphasizes the pride we have in our heritage." Hesham Mahmoud of Rutherford was most excited about the chance to hear a speech from [Nebraska Senator Chuck] Hagel, a conservative and critic of the war in Iraq.
...Mahmoud and El-Abd are active in Republican politics, and Samer Khalaf of Paramus is co-chairman of the Arab American Democratic Caucus. He said he has seen a change in political attitudes toward Arab-Americans in the past eight years.

George Ajjan of Clifton, a Republican who ran unsuccessfully for Congress in 2004 against Democratic Rep. Bill Pascrell of Paterson, agreed. "Issues that are important to Arab-Americans are important to all Americans," Ajjan said. "Just because Arab-Americans have emotional feelings about the Middle East, it does not mean we're not as concerned about tax cuts, health care, civil rights and other things."
That quote encapsulates one of the best lessons I've learned from AAI President and co-founder Jim Zogby who, along with AAI Chairman George Salem and many others, is largely responsible for putting Arab-Americans on the map politically. Four years ago, when a number of the Presidential candidates came to Michigan for the AAI's Leadership Conference, Jim corrected one of the Democrat candidates' campaigns, who told him "first we're going to talk about our issues, and then we're going to talk about your issues (meaning Patriot Act, Middle East Peace Process, etc)." Jim bluntly responded, "Your issues are our issues, and our issues are your issues." (continued...)

Without a doubt, the remarks made by Hagel, whose status as a favorite in the Arab-American community cuts across partisan lines, were the highlight. He began by joking that he "always savor(s) the opportunity to be with George Salem's rich and influential friends. For those of you who are not rich and influential, I am sorry you are here."

He described Arab-American input into the political process as "part of the arc of wise counsel that American leaders listen to" and then made one of his very few characteristic references to the Iraq War during the evening by saying, "it will matter little how many US marines or paratroopers we put in any country." Endorsing an expansion of regional dialog to include "Iran and Syria" (yawn), he said, "I've never found a situation in which things get better if you don't deal with them."

Hagel scored a very big hit with the audience by recounting his run-ins with the so-called "Israeli lobby" (that term has about as much finesse as the word "neoconservative"), in particular with one journalist who suggested that his support for Israel was not strong enough. Hagel asked rhetorically, "How do you measure my support?" He then mentioned signing lobbying letters, casting votes, or things he said publicly. The response was that the concerned parties "Can't count on [Hagel] as an 'automatic'". He asserted:
"I am a supporter of Israel, but first I am an American Senator. No relationship should ever be founded on holding hostage other relationships. Why can't I have a relationship with Israel not at the expense of my friends in the Arab world or the Muslim world. Why must it be a choice? It is not a choice."
The rest of Hagel's talk, which was delivered in a very personal way and not from notes, was more anecdotal and philosophical in nature:
"The history of man is clear on one point – the human condition has always driven events – bondage, poverty, despair. When man is without dignity, little else matters...God didn't put us on this Earth to hurt each other, that was our choice...It is man made in its challenge, and it will be man-made in its answer...We are making a better world...every human being on the face of the Earth should have the opportunity to do more than just exist."
He then surprised everyone with a personal anecdote that has to rank as one of the greatest moments in the history of the Gibran Awards. After joking that his mother only allowed "one lawyer per family, one politician per family", he talked about how his younger brother Jim was killed in car accident 6 months after he and his brother Tom had returned from Vietnam. On his brother Jim's tombstone is a quote from Gibran himself, from A Tear and a Smile. Hagel then suggested that it was a bit bizarre that they picked an Arab for their brother's tombstone. Since the family was Catholic, it would be more expected to pick something from St. Francis or a Pope.

Perhaps Hagel did not recognize the fact that Gibran was a Catholic himself [insert standard argument here about how not all Muslims are Arab, not all Arabs are Muslim], but this was corrected by one of the evening's other award recipients, Theodore Cardinal McCarrick, who pointed it out.

However, technically speaking Hagel was correct, because as very few people know, Khalil Gibran was excommunicated from the Catholic Church after the publication of Spirits Rebellious. The Maronite authorities later rescinded his excommunication and he was given an elaborate funeral.

Why would such a great man be excommunicated from the Church? Well, the quote selected by another star of the Arab-American community, Washington Post Middle East correspondent Anthony Shadid, illustrates Gibran's controversial views rather well.
"I love you when you bow in your mosque, kneel in your temple, pray in your church. For you and I are sons of one religion, and it is the spirit."
Not exactly Catholic dogma. Gibran was a classic Syrian nationalist, and a secular hero in the mold of Antoun Saadeh, founder of the Syrian Social Nationalist Party (SSNP) or Abraham Mitrie Rihbany, who wrote The Syrian Christ and was chosen by various Syrian-American organizations to represent them at the Paris Peace Conference following WW I. How interesting that 3 of the most prominent Syrian nationalists were all "Lebanese"...

Gibran wrote extensively on his political ideas, as the following quote may sound familiar:
"Are you a politician asking what your country can do for you or a zealous one asking what you can do for your country?"
He was a conservative...
"I believe that even as your fathers came to this land to produce riches, you were born here to produce riches by intelligence, by labor...to be a good citizen is to produce wealth by labor and only by labor, and to spend less than you have produced that your children may not be dependent on the state for support when you are no more,"
a libertarian...
"And what is it to be a good citizen? It is to acknowledge the other person's rights before asserting your own, but always to be conscious of your own. It is to be free in thought and deed, but it is to know that your freedom is subject to the other person's freedom,"
and, as I mentioned last year as I quoted Gibran's piece To Young Americans of Syrian Origin, an inspiration to Arab-Americans:
"...stand before the towers of New York, Washington, Chicago and San Francisco saying in your heart, 'I am the descendant of a people that built Damascus, and Biblus, and Tyre and Sidon, and Antioch, and now I am here to build with you, and with a will.'

It is to be proud of being an American, but it is also to be proud that your fathers and mothers came from a land upon which God laid His gracious hand and raised His messengers.
As for the event itself, there are several other individuals who graced the stage that I should mention. First is New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson. He spoke first and basically pandered, mentioning bluntly that he would close down Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib prisons. He also said he would "look into" problems with the Patriot Act. Look into? Excuse me, but are Sections 213, 215, 216, and 505 buried under 50 feet of solid rock? Richardson spoke a bit of Spanish for good measure and then apologized for his last name.

Although, in his defense, I have to say I respect Richardson's diplomatic credentials and familiarity with international affairs, even if I don't necessarily agree with his actions or positions. He's a Democrat President I could probably live with.

Then came California Senator Dianne Feinstein, who I must admit, was quite good, at least as far as liberal windbags go. She was way better than Princess Pelosi was in 2004, for example. Feinstein won over the audience by speaking forcefully against cluster bombs:
"I'm not here to talk to you about cluster bombs, we will lose that fight, but I will be back next year, and the year after that, and the year after that…we will ban cluster munitions!!!"
Feinstein prasied Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice for making repeated trips to the region, and for expressing her willingness to meet with Iranian diplomats at the ministerial level. She distanced herself about 8 picometers from the status quo in Washington by stating that she supports the diplomatic engagement of "Iran and Syria" (surprise, surprise), saying, "I really believe in this kind of diplomacy – sitting down at the table with someone with whom you disagree."

Feinstein endorsed the Arab Peace Initiative, and spoke about the briefing given to the Senate by General Petraeus. Feinstein said it was the largest attendance of any confidential briefing she's ever seen, and that virtually every Senator was there.

Finally, she said that she hopes the US "learns from preemptive war – it's the wrong thing to do." Hopefully Ms. Feinstein herself will learn that voting to authorize preemptive war, as she did back in 2002, and then pandering with criticism when it's politically safe to do so years later after thousands have died, is also the wrong thing to do.

AAI Chairman George Salem spoke about his work with the Aspen Institute, and mentioned that the organization was involved with the granting of $300 million of microloans in the West Bank and Gaza. He then introduced Assistant Secretary of State for Educational and Cultural Affairs Dina Habib Powell, who led a business delegation to Lebanon, bringing executives from Cisco (CEO John Chambers) and Intel (which has extensive operations in Israel), as well as Occidental Petroleum CEO Ray Irani and Yousif Ghafari, a successful businessman from Michigan who now serves the United States as a diplomat to the UN (and whose family supported my campaign in 2004). Powell boasted that she met with Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora and "the entire cabinet" (and by "the entire cabinet" she means, the members of the cabinet that we like, not the Hezbollah ministers who were democratically chosen.)

A contrasting view of Lebanon was given by Anthony Shadid, as he spoke about his coverage of the Summer War of 2006, particularly the attacks on Qana, which he described as "supported by the US and tacitly accepted and encouraged by some in Lebanon itself." Shadid is terrifically humble, he referred to his role as journalist by citing the proverb: A donkey that carries Jesus on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem still comes back a donkey.

Shadid mentioned 2 bad predictions he made: one was just before 911, when he told a colleague that the bin Laden threat was overrated, and another earlier last summer when he told his ex-wife that Beirut was the safest it had been in 30 years. The Pulitzer Prize winning journalist then launched a discussion of the destruction he'd witnessed in the region, saying, "I've covered the repercussions of those mis-predictions...we've lost sight of the humanity of the Middle East."

With that, I strongly agree. But despite the turmoil overseas, the Kahlil Gibran Spirit of Humanity Awards remains, for proud and fortunate Arab-Americans, "the feel-good day of the year."

ps
Dina Habib Powell wants everyone to know that she used to bring leftover mloukhia to school for lunch and that she is a good friend of Hillary Clinton's aide Huma Abedin.

pps
I know, خليل should be spelled Khalil, but Gibran himself spelled it Kahlil.

Is Obama Setting US Up for Military Takeover?

Is Obama Setting US Up for Military Takeover?


obama weak militarySince taking office four years ago, President Barack Obama has been steadily eviscerating the power of the US military, one slice at a time.  Is it really about budget or setting the US for a military takeover by another power?
First he pushed to allow gays to openly serve, which saw the evacuation of a number of good and morally sound military leaders and troops.
Next, he started attacking Christians in the military, stripping them of the symbols of their faith (while not stripping Muslims of the symbols of their faith).  He also pushed new regulations that tried to force military chaplains to go against their faith by performing same-sex marriages and opening up their chapels for those ceremonies.  Chaplains were threatened with court martial for failing to comply.
Then Obama started apologizing for everything our military did against other nations, instead of backing them up.  A growing number of military personnel do not feel that Obama has their back nor does he support them in their duties.
In the name of economics, he orders Defense Secretary Leon Panetta to slice the Pentagon budget by over 20%.  The result is a reduction of troops in all branches of the military.  It also means a reduction of weapons, aircraft and warships.
To add further disharmony among members of the military, the Obama administration is about to extend costly benefits to the unmarried homosexual partners of active military personnel.  The same benefits will not be extended to the unmarried heterosexual partners of active military personnel.  The cost of the extended benefits will cost the Pentagon millions of dollars, but they are cutting everywhere else because of budget constraints.
The Navy has had to put the refueling and reconditioning of one, and possibly two air craft carriers on hold because of funding constraints.  One aircraft carrier was scheduled to deploy to the Middle East, but that has also been cancelled because of the budget issues.
In the latest slicing and dicing of our military power, Obama is planning on making another major reduction in our nuclear arsenal.  In 2010, the US had around 2,468 nuclear weapons deployed in underground silos, on submarines and bombers.  He has already reduced that amount to 1,700 and now wants to cut it down to 1000.  That’s a total reduction of 60% in just the last 2 and half years.
I’ve always been taught that the best defense is a strong offense and that America’s strong offense has stopped most countries from attacking our nation since World War 2.  Under Obama’s direction, our strong offense is being reduced to a just a plain offense.  He has been gutting much of our strength and defensive powers.  Before long, other nations will take a second look at our military incapability and decide it’s time to strike.  When they do, I truly wonder whose side Barack Hussein Obama will be on?  I don’t think it will be ours!

Read more: http://godfatherpolitics.com/9431/is-obama-setting-us-up-for-military-takeover/#ixzz2KqJrOWQd

Iran’s bid to buy banned magnets stokes fears about major expansion of nuclear capacity

Iran’s bid to buy banned magnets stokes fears about major expansion of nuclear capacity

By , Wednesday, February 13, 10:05 PM

Iran recently sought to acquire tens of thousands of highly specialized magnets used in centrifuge machines, according to experts and diplomats, a sign that the country may be planning a major expansion of its nuclear program that could shorten the path to an atomic weapons capability.
Purchase orders obtained by nuclear researchers show an attempt by Iranian agents to buy 100,000 of the ring-shaped magnets — which are banned from export to Iran under U.N. resolutions — from China about a year ago, those familiar with the effort said. It is unclear whether the attempt succeeded.
Although Iran has frequently sought to purchase banned items from foreign vendors, this case is considered unusual because of the order’s specificity and sheer size — enough magnets in theory to outfit 50,000 new centrifuges, or nearly five times the number that Iran currently operates.
The revelation of the new orders for nuclear-sensitive parts coincides with Iran’s announcement that it plans to add thousands of more-advanced, second-generation centrifuges that would allow it to ramp up its production of enriched uranium even further, analysts said.
Iran insists that its nuclear program is peaceful and that its enrichment efforts are directed toward medical research and energy production. The disclosure of the purchase attempt comes at a time when the country is seeking to gain diplomatic leverage ahead of negotiations on proposed limits to its nuclear program.
The attempt, nonetheless, has fueled Western concerns that Iran is planning a major expansion in its nuclear capacity that would allow it to make atomic weapons quickly if it chooses to do so.
“They are positioning themselves to make a lot of nuclear progress quickly,” said a European diplomat with access to sensitive intelligence on Iran’s nuclear facilities, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter. “Each step forward makes the situation potentially more dangerous.”
A shrinking of Iran’s timeline for obtaining a weapons capability could increase pressure on Israel, which in recent months has appeared to ease off from threats of a preemptive strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. In a speech Monday to American Jewish leaders, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Iran had not crossed the “red line” that would warrant a military strike, but he said the country’ s recent nuclear advances “shorten the time it will take them to cross that line.”
Complicating Israel’s calculus, Iran has simultaneously taken steps to ease Western anxiety over its nuclear program, chiefly by converting a portion of its uranium stockpile into a metal form that cannot be easily used to make nuclear weapons. A Foreign Ministry spokesman confirmed Tuesday that the conversion of some of Iran’s uranium stockpile was underway. “This work is being done,” the spokesman, Ramin Mehmanparast, told reporters in Tehran.
A report by the U.N. nuclear watchdog, due for release this week, is expected to document Iran’s seemingly contradictory moves, portraying the country as carefully avoiding provocative behavior even as it quietly prepares to increase production at its two uranium-enrichment plants.
Engineers recently installed more than 1,000 new IR-1 centrifuge machines at Iran’s largest uranium plant, near the city of Natanz, adding to the roughly 9,000 IR-1 machines currently in operation, according to officials of the International Atomic Energy Agency. An additional 2,800 IR-1s have been installed near the city of Qom at a small enrichment plant built beneath a mountain to shield it against airstrikes. But most of the machines are not operational.
Iran has sought to acquire a long list of sensitive materials in recent months, U.S. officials say. In October, federal prosectors secured a guilty plea from a Texas-based Taiwanese national who was charged with helping Iran obtain more than 100,000 parts from U.S. companies over a five-year period, including electronics used in nuclear installations and in missile guidance systems.
The purchase order for the magnets — copies of which were obtained by the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security and shown to The Washington Post — suggests that a vastly larger expansion could be just over the horizon.
The specific dimensions spelled out in the order form match precisely — to a fraction of a millimeter — those of the powerful magnets used in the IR-1, a machine that spins at supersonic speeds to purify uranium gas into an enriched form that can be used in nuclear power plants. With further processing, the same machines can produce highly enriched uranium for nuclear weapons.
With two magnets needed per machine, the order technically could supply Iran with enough material for 50,000 new gas centrifuges, although some of the magnets would probably have been reserved for repairs and spare parts, said David Albright, ISIS president and a former IAEA inspector.
“It implies that they want to build a lot more centrifuges,” he said.
The magnets are made of an unusual alloy known as barium strontium ferrite and were ordered from a Chinese vendor in late 2011. The order was placed by an Iranian businessman, who said the magnets were needed for a “great factory” engaged in a “new project” inside Iran, according to the online order.
U.S. intelligence officials declined to comment on the specifics of the magnets case. One official who closely tracks Iranian procurement efforts said Iran still actively seeks banned technology from a variety of foreign vendors, often using front companies and cover stories to conceal the intended use of the materials it purchases.
According to the ISIS investigation, the company that placed the order had been previously linked to Iranian efforts to acquire sensitive technology. The Canadian government placed the firm under sanctions late last year because of unspecified proliferation concerns.
Independent nuclear experts who reviewed the magnets case generally backed the ISIS conclusions. Olli Heinonen, who led IAEA nuclear inspections inside Iran before his retirement in 2010, said the type of magnet sought by Iran was highly specific to the IR-1 centrifuge and could not, for example, be used in the advanced IR-2M centrifuges that Iran has recently tested.
“The numbers in the order make sense, because Iran originally told us it wanted to build more than 50,000 of the IR-1s,” Heinonen said. “The failure rate on these machines is 10 percent a year, so you need a surplus.”
Heinonen said IAEA officials also have documented Iranian efforts to obtain critical parts for the IR-2M machines, which represent a significant technical advance from the clunky, unreliable IR-1.
Nonetheless, Iran has avoided what many experts consider Israel’s new “red line”: a stockpile of medium-enriched uranium greater than 530 pounds, roughly the amount needed to build a weapon if further purified. At the current pace, Iran could reach that theoretical threshold by the middle of next year, said a Western diplomat privy to internal IAEA reports on Iran’s nuclear progress.
“Adding new machines just means you get there a lot faster,” the diplomat said.
I just called Sen. Lindsey Graham (202) 224-5972; and Sen. Jim DeMint (202) 224-6121 my SC Senators in ref MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD infiltration

Senators Lindsey Graham and John McCain fall for the Muslim Brotherhood after just one meeting

Senators Lindsey Graham and John McCain fall for the Muslim Brotherhood after just one meeting

Senator John McCain (R-A.Z.) and Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) don’t get it.
The two traveled to Egypt recently to discuss the prosecution of American NGO workers. And they left thanking and complimenting the Muslim Brotherhood for (supposedly) helping secure their release and opposing the law used to prosecute them.
Graham used to be a critic of the Brotherhood, as the Wall Street Journal report on their remarks points out. Now, after meeting with the Brotherhood, he says:
“After talking with the Muslim Brotherhood, I was struck by their commitment to change the law because they believe it’s unfair.”
“I was very apprehensive when I heard the [Egyptian] election results. But after visiting and talking with the Muslim Brotherhood I am hopeful that…we can have a relationship with Egypt where the Muslim Brotherhood is a strong political voice.”
McCain likewise said, “We are encouraged by the constructive role played over the past week by the Muslim Brotherhood and its political party, the Freedom and Justice Party. Their statement of February 20 was important in helping to resolve the recent crisis.”
At this point, you’re probably expecting me to list reasons why the Brotherhood is an extremist, terrorism-supporting group. But, there’s a whole other reason to ridicule the opinions of Graham and McCain.
The Muslim Brotherhood supported the prosecution of the American NGOs!
The Brotherhood accuses them of plotting to “destroy Egypt and ruin its society.” The Brotherhood even encouraged the Egyptian government to stand up to U.S. pressure over the matter. The Islamist group is furious at McCain for thanking them.
Ignorance about Islamism is a bi-partisan problem.
Editor’s Note: Last Thursday, Eygpt lifted the travel ban of seven American Non-Govermental Organization (NGO) workers that had been prevented from leaving the country since December. Nine other workers had left earlier. A total “bail” of close to five million dollars was paid, $300,000 for each worker. The workers will be expected to return to Egypt to stand trial unless Eygpt decides to drop all charges against them.
The workers were charged with operating without a license and using illegal foreign funds to foment unrest. However, Prosecutor Khaled Suleiman told Reuters news service that the individuals and their organizations are accused of espionage and being in contact with the CIA as well as providing reports on Egypt to the U.S. State Department.
Fearing arrest, the workers sought refuge in the U.S. Embassy. The travel ban had created an acute crisis in U.S.-Egyptian relations and had put in jeopary the $1.3 billion annual aid the U.S. provides to Egypt.
Click here to read the rest of my RadicalIslam.org blog.
By Ryan Mauro
With thanks to World Threats
Senator John McCain (R-A.Z.) and Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) don’t get it.
The two traveled to Egypt recently to discuss the prosecution of American NGO workers. And they left thanking and complimenting the Muslim Brotherhood for (supposedly) helping secure their release and opposing the law used to prosecute them.
Graham used to be a critic of the Brotherhood, as the Wall Street Journal report on their remarks points out. Now, after meeting with the Brotherhood, he says:
“After talking with the Muslim Brotherhood, I was struck by their commitment to change the law because they believe it’s unfair.”
“I was very apprehensive when I heard the [Egyptian] election results. But after visiting and talking with the Muslim Brotherhood I am hopeful that…we can have a relationship with Egypt where the Muslim Brotherhood is a strong political voice.”
McCain likewise said, “We are encouraged by the constructive role played over the past week by the Muslim Brotherhood and its political party, the Freedom and Justice Party. Their statement of February 20 was important in helping to resolve the recent crisis.”
At this point, you’re probably expecting me to list reasons why the Brotherhood is an extremist, terrorism-supporting group. But, there’s a whole other reason to ridicule the opinions of Graham and McCain.
The Muslim Brotherhood supported the prosecution of the American NGOs!
The Brotherhood accuses them of plotting to “destroy Egypt and ruin its society.” The Brotherhood even encouraged the Egyptian government to stand up to U.S. pressure over the matter. The Islamist group is furious at McCain for thanking them.
Ignorance about Islamism is a bi-partisan problem.
Editor’s Note: Last Thursday, Eygpt lifted the travel ban of seven American Non-Govermental Organization (NGO) workers that had been prevented from leaving the country since December. Nine other workers had left earlier. A total “bail” of close to five million dollars was paid, $300,000 for each worker. The workers will be expected to return to Egypt to stand trial unless Eygpt decides to drop all charges against them.
The workers were charged with operating without a license and using illegal foreign funds to foment unrest. However, Prosecutor Khaled Suleiman told Reuters news service that the individuals and their organizations are accused of espionage and being in contact with the CIA as well as providing reports on Egypt to the U.S. State Department.
Fearing arrest, the workers sought refuge in the U.S. Embassy. The travel ban had created an acute crisis in U.S.-Egyptian relations and had put in jeopary the $1.3 billion annual aid the U.S. provides to Egypt.
Click here to read the rest of my RadicalIslam.org blog.
By Ryan Mauro
With thanks to World Threats

U.S. Declares Haqqani Network a Terrorist Organisation

U.S. Declares Haqqani Network a Terrorist Organisation

Reprint |   | Print |
WASHINGTON, Sep 8 2012 (IPS) - The U.S. State Department on Friday declared the Haqqani network, a militant group based in Pakistan, a “terrorist organisation”.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton signed the order while in Brunei and also sent a formal report to Congress, two days before a congressional deadline.
Clinton’s statement minces no words in its characterisation of the Haqqani network, a group that has been responsible for deaths and kidnappings of U.S. soldiers, as well as an onslaught of suicide bombings. And while the statement touches on the subject of offering aid to the group – and its consequences – it barely mentions Pakistan.
Such a designation, formally known as a “foreign terrorist organisation”, brings with it a “prohibition against knowingly providing material support or resources to, or engaging in other transactions with, the Haqqani Network, and the freezing of all property and interests in property of the organization that are in the United States.”
Pakistan doesn’t fall into the category, but its exclusion from the statement may have been by design.
“The Pakistani government seems to have signalled that they can live with this decision,” Marvin Weinbaum, a former analyst on Pakistan and Afghanistan in the U.S. Department of State’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research, told IPS.
If Pakistan were to be called out for letting the Haqqani network operate on its territory, a string of events would automatically ensue, thus souring a relationship that, even now, is only barely recovering after a year of significant disagreements.
“The U.S. government is not going to directly involve Pakistan, because then it would imply that the Pakistani government is aiding and abetting the Haqqani network,” Weinbaum said. “That would have to lead to the U.S. putting sanctions on Pakistan.”
In a briefing on Friday, two senior officials from the State Department echoed such analysis, saying they didn’t see Pakistan creating any problems regarding the decision. As one official put it, reconciliation efforts between the two countries would neither be put on hold nor be affected by the new decision.
“Obviously, the last year, year and a half, have been a very difficult time for our bilateral relationship,” the official said. “(Secretary Clinton) has said frequently that it is a challenging and complex but critical relationship … over the coming weeks, we are expecting a series of other important bilateral senior meetings … and this is one issue which we’ve raised many, many times with the Pakistanis and are committed to working with them on.”
The Haqqani network is one of the strongest elements of a tangle of politics, espionage and terrorism, a group allegedly backed by Pakistan’s intelligence agency, Inter Services Intelligence (ISI). Further confusing the equation is the fact that the network’s fighters are fighting with the Pakistani Taliban against the Pakistan Army, offering a complex web of loyalties.
Known for running automobile and construction businesses as fronts for its militant activities, the Haqqani network is thought to have two staunch allies, the ISI and Saudi funders. But Weinbaum doesn’t think that the new U.S. listing will make much of a difference to these ties – or any resulting militant activity.
“Now that the decision has been passed, it will make it difficult for the Haqqani network to get support and funding from open channels,” he says. “It will definitely make it harder, but it won’t stop.”
Weinbaum believes that Clinton’s move was being heavily pushed by the Congress, members of which have become increasingly frustrated at the ease of ability with which the Haqqani fighters and leadership have been operating. Such frustrations have undoubtedly been further stoked given how little the United States has been able to do to slow the group, with close ties to Al-Qaeda.
“The decision doesn’t change anything fundamentally,” Weinbaum says. “But Congress will definitely feel less frustrated now. It’s election year, and as such this is a good move by the State Department.”

The Blind Sheik and Our Mute President

The Blind Sheik and Our Mute President

By Michelle Malkin - January 9, 2013
Egypt's terror-coddling President Mohamed Morsi has repeated his arrogant demand that America free convicted 1993 World Trade Center mastermind Omar Abdel-Rahman. I'd like to report that President Obama repeated his unequivocal rejection of the Muslim Brotherhood leader's entreaties. But as of this writing, no such public statement or restatement yet exists.
That's right. Obama has kept mum about Morsi's vociferous lobbying on behalf of Abdel-Rahman, the "blind sheik," who is serving a life sentence at a maximum-security prison in North Carolina for seditious jihad conspiracy. The commander in chief's silence speaks volumes.
Morsi started publicly haranguing the U.S. to have mercy on the ol' blind sheik back in September. Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., confirmed to the New York Post at the time that the Egyptian government had "asked for his release" and that the request was being considered by the Obama administration.
Underlings denied any talks were underway, but pressure on the White House had been building since at least last June, when the State Department granted a visa to a member of the radical Egyptian terrorist group Gamaa Islamiyya (the very group the blind sheik is alleged to lead). The Gamaa Islamiyya representative joined an entire delegation of Egyptian lawmakers who met with top State Department and White House officials. They reportedly discussed the possible release of the blind sheik with at least one Obama national security official.
In late August, Gamaa Islamiyya went on to schedule and organize a protest at the Cairo embassy to further ratchet up public pressure to free the blind sheik. Not coincidentally, a terror mob attacked the Cairo embassy on 9/11/12. While Obama minions were busy blaming an obscure YouTube video, the Department of Homeland Security had warned two days before the Cairo attack that jihadists were inciting the "sons of Egypt" to attack the embassy over Abdel-Rahman. "Let your slogan be: No to the American Embassy in Egypt until our detained sheikh is released," the incitement thundered.
Morsi has now amended his plea to include an array of "humane" benefits and visitation privileges for the murderous Islamic cleric "(b)ecause he is a man, an old man, and he deserves full care."
Lest you need reminding, the wily blind sheik has used his visitation privileges to wreak more terror from behind bars. His radical left-wing lawyer Lynne Stewart was convicted in 2005 of helping her client smuggle coded messages of Islamic violence from the imprisoned sheik to outside followers in violation of an explicit pledge to abide by her client's court-ordered isolation.
This "old man" is a virulent anti-American propagandist who condemned Americans as "descendants of apes and pigs who have been feeding from the dining tables of the Zionists, Communists and colonialists," called on Muslims to "destroy" the West, "burn their companies, eliminate their interests, sink their ships, shoot down their planes, kill them on the sea, air or land," and issued bloody fatwas against U.S. "infidels" that inspired the 1993 WTC bombing, the 1997 massacre of Western tourists in Luxor, Egypt, and the 9/11 attacks.
As Republican watchdogs call for Obama to keep the blind sheik locked up, we will no doubt hear more slick protestations that the White House has "no plans" to release the terror preacher. But I'm with Andrew McCarthy, the former assistant U.S. attorney who prosecuted Abdel-Rahman, who warned last fall, "There's no way to believe anything they say."
This is the administration, after all, that endorsed the release of convicted Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, whose terrorist act resulted in the murder of 189 Americans. The Obama White House feigned "surprise" over the release, but documents obtained by The Sunday Times of London in 2010 revealed that the administration "secretly advised Scottish ministers that it would be 'far preferable' to free the Lockerbie bomber than jail him in Libya."
This is the administration whose attorney general was a senior law partner for Gitmo detainee cheerleaders Covington and Burling.
This is the administration that tried to shove Cirque du Jihad civilian trials in NYC down America's throat over objections from 9/11 families and national security experts.
This is the administration that has rolled out the red carpet for scores of visitors belonging to groups serving as fronts for the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas and other militant Islamic outfits.
This is the administration that lied and blamed pretextual Internet movies for its own dereliction of duty at our consulate in Benghazi, Libya.
This is the administration that suffers from chronic and deadly apologitis when it comes to dealing with the demands of the Religion of Perpetual Outrage.
This is the administration that continues to deny plans to shut down Guantanamo Bay and transfer inmates to the U.S., while it quietly moved forward to purchase the Thomson Correctional Center in western Illinois "to provide humane and secure confinement of individuals held under authority of any Act of Congress," i.e., Gitmo detainees.
Denial is a river that runs through 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., but the Obama administration's tone-deaf acts of jihad-appeasement speak for themselves. Concern is more than warranted. It's de rigueur. 
Copyright 2013, Creators Syndicate Inc.

Civilization Jihad: The Islamization of YOUR Kids in America’s Schools Read more: http://janmorganmedia.com/2013/02/civilization-jihad-the-islamization-of-your-kids-in-americas-schools/#ixzz2KpBD2oBV

In light of the attacks on and after 9/11, you would think the current administration would use a little prudence if they were sincerely concerned about a radical Muslim threat.
When Obama took his oath of office, he instead defied America in numerous ways. He has given $1.5 billion to Muslim-led Egypt in foreign aid, shortly after the Muslim Brotherhood declared war on the United States. He has now offered them sixteen F-16s and 200 military tanks.
This is the same man that said America is “no longer a Christian nation” (though it is), followed by a reference that America may be described as a Muslim nation.
Muslim Indoctrination in Public Schools
Interestingly enough, in recent years American public schools have been indoctrinated with the Muslim religion. Studies have shown over 500 historical errors in public school textbooks, giving an Islamic slant to our youth.
As a result, our youth are subject to the following teachings and practices:
* Learning to become a Muslim
* Fasting for Ramadan
* Learning the five pillars of Islam
* Memorizing verses of the Quran
* Adopting a Muslim name
* Staging a Jihad (war against non-Muslims)
How did this happen? The ACLU, the American Muslim Council, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and the Clinton administration joined together to create an environment that opened the door to Muslim teaching, while attacking anyone who speaks of the Christian religion in public schools.
Hence, you see some courts backing the Muslim agenda when, for example, a school in California is teaching their students a three-week course that essentially requires them to become a Muslim for that period of time!
To prove my point, a representative from the American Muslim Council, Abdul Rahman Al-Amoudi, today serves a 23-year prison sentence for being one of the top fundraisers of al-Qaida in the U.S.
In addition, there are over 225 Muslim schools in the U.S. and around 50,000 children who are being taught to, and I quote Brigitte Gabriel with ACT! For America, “foster an environment of hate, loathing, and resentment toward Western culture, Christians, Jews, Shiites, secular Muslims, and non-Muslims.”
Muslim Infiltration in Universities
Saudis have taken advantage of the Title VI program that our government implemented after World War II for the education of young Americans about foreign cultures and languages.
How? They are using their riches from oil to pump millions of dollars into our universities to appoint Arab professors in departments such as political science, Middle East studies, etc. who are brainwashing American students with an anti-American point of view. They teach that Americans are the problem; that America’s foreign policy is the problem; that America’s wealth, enlightenment, and success are oppressing the rest of the world.
This explains why Obama is apologizing to other nations. This is why this anti-American curriculum has sneaked its way into our schools. This is also why the ACLU quickly represents Muslims while refusing to defend Christians who practice their faith … in public schools.
Read more from Bradlee Dean at Patriot Update

The War Scroll

The War Scroll

Click to examine the scroll.
The War of the Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness Scroll (1QM)  •  Qumran, Cave 1  •  1st century BCE - 1st century CE  •  Parchment  •  H: 15-16; L: 279 cm  •  The Hebrew University of Jerusalem   •  Accession number: 96.84/210
The War Scroll (1QM), popularly known as "The War of the Sons of Light Against the Sons of Darkness," is one of the seven original Dead Sea Scrolls discovered in Qumran in 1947. It contains 19 columns (originally there were at least twenty), of which the first 14–19 lines (out of at least 21–22) are preserved. The work is written in Hebrew in a square Herodian script and is dated to the late first century BCE or early first century CE. Seven additional fragments (4Q491-497) with similar contents have also been found, but the relationship between these texts to 1QM is not entirely clear; they may represent an earlier version of the War Scroll, or source materials on which the War Scroll was based.
Against the backdrop of a long biblical tradition concerning a final war at the End of Days (Ezekiel 38–39; Daniel 7–12), this scroll describes a seven stage, dualistic confrontation between the "Sons of Light" (the term used by Community members to refer to themselves), under the leadership of the "Prince of Light" (also called Michael, the Archangel) – and the "Sons of Darkness" (a nickname for the enemies of the Community, Jews and non-Jews alike), aided by a nation called the Kittim (Romans?), headed by Belial. The confrontation would last 49 years, terminating in the victory of the "Sons of Light" and the restoration of the Temple service and sacrifices. The War Scroll describes battle arrays, weaponry, the ages of the participants, and military maneuvers, recalling Hellenistic and Roman military manuals.
This work is not, strictly speaking, an apocalypse (namely, a heavenly revelation), and it lacks a "messianic" figure. Certain details, such as the advanced age of the combatants and the leadership of the priests, point to the idealistic nature of the war described in the work and impart a fictional quality to the treatise. Nonetheless, the War Scroll may indeed reflect genuine political tension in Judea between Romans and Jews, which would culminate in the outbreak of revolt in 66 CE. The scroll also sheds light on the New Testament Book of Revelation, in which a final war is also described between earthly and heavenly forces.

War of the Sons of Light Against the Sons of Darkness

War of the Sons of Light Against the Sons of Darkness

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The War Scroll, found in Qumran Cave 1.
The War of the Sons of Light Against the Sons of Darkness, also known as "War Rule", "Rule of War", and the "War Scroll", is a manual for military organization and strategy that was discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls. The manuscript was among the scrolls found in Qumran Cave 1 acquired by the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and first published by Eleazar Sukenik in 1955.[1] The document is made up of various scrolls and fragments including 1QM, and 4Q491-497.[2] It is possible that The War of the Messiah is the conclusion to this document.[3] The 4Q491-497 fragments were published by Baillet in Discoveries in the Judean Desert, 7 and comprise a shorter recension of the War Scroll.[4]

Contents

About the scroll

Date, genre, and authorship

Two time periods have been put forward and defended as the most probable time of composition: the Seleucid period and the Roman period.[5] The Seleucid period proposals include the very beginning of the Maccabean Revolt (165 or 164 BCE), the height of Jonathan’s military power (143 BCE), and the reign of John Hyrcanus (135-104 BCE).[6] The scholars that believe that the date of composition occurred during the Roman period put forward a date from the middle of the first century BCE to the first decade of the first century CE.[7] The War Scroll’s description of the weaponry and tactics led Yigael Yadin to assign the composition of the scroll to a date between the capture of Jerusalem by Pompey (65 BCE) and the death of Herod (4 BCE).[8] More recently, author Russell Gmirkin in The War Scroll and Roman Weaponry Reconsidered disagrees with Yadin's analysis and assigns the weaponry described in the War Scroll to the second century BCE. Lt. Col. Peter Fromm (US Army Ret.) sides with Gmirkin also assigning the army and weaponry described in the War Scroll to the second century BCE.[9]
Scholars have been unable to determine the exact author of the text. The unity and cohesiveness of the manuscript, however, leads some, such as Jean Carmignac and Yigael Yadin, to believe that it was written or compiled by a single writer.[10]
In modern times, the genre of 1QM has been described as apocalyptic literature, though some translators and interpreters contend that it actually a part of sectarian liturgy. Jean Duhaime believes that it was probably classified as a part of the serek (rule) texts developed by the Qumranites.[11]

Contents

The Shrine of the Book, a wing of the Israel Museum in Jerusalem, is built to symbolize the scroll - The shrine is built as a white dome symbolizing the Sons of Light, and a black basalt wall - symbolizing the Sons of Darkness.
These scrolls contain an apocalyptic prophecy of a war between the Sons of Light and the Sons of Darkness. The war is first described as an attack by the Sons of Light, consisting of the sons of Levi, the sons of Judah, and the sons of Benjamin, and the exiled of the desert, against Edom, Moab, the sons of Ammon, the Amalekites, Philistia, and the Kittim of Asshur (referred to as the army of Belial), and [those who assist them from among the wicked] who "violate the covenant."[12] In the end, all of Darkness is to be destroyed and Light will live in peace for all eternity. The war is then described again as a conflict between the congregation of God and the congregation of men. The rest of the document is a detailed description of the events of the war and the ways in which it should be conducted. Yigael Yadin and Géza Vermes have argued that the descriptions of the armament, equipment, and formation of the Sons of Light suggest a basis in Roman methods of warfare.[13]

Structure

1QM consists of 19 columns, of which the first 14-19 lines of each have been preserved.[14]
i. Summarizes the war between the “Sons of Light” and “Sons of Darkness.”
ii-ix. Deals with the battles between the tribes in greater detail, telling of a total forty years of combat. Columns iii-iv deal almost exclusively with the inscriptions meant to be displays on banners, trumpets, darts, etc.
x-xiv. A number of liturgical pieces.
xv-xix. Describes the seven-stage battle, led by the priests, between Light and Darkness. The battle is finally won by divine intervention.[15]
Because xv-xix is believed to describe the war which took place in the first seven years of the forty year war, many scholars feel that, at one time, more columns existed.[16]

Links with other scrolls

Scholars have been disappointed to find very few connections between 1QM and the other war-related texts and the rest of the Dead Sea Scrolls. There were, however, a number of notable links that can be made. In the Community Rule (1QS), for example, the theme of a binary opposition between Light and Dark can be seen. Both include dualistic blessing and cursing liturgies. The “congregation of Israel” in its organization within 1QM can be compared to the Rule of the Congregation (1QSa), as it is described as being broken into thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens, with age limits listed for specific types of service within ranks.[17]

Further reading

  • Collins, John Joseph. 1998. The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature. Grand Rapids, Mich: William B. Eerdmans.
  • Duhaime, Jean. 2004. The War Texts: 1QM and Related Manuscripts. T & T Clark International, London.
  • Schultz, Brian. Conquering the World: the War Scroll (1QM) Reconsidered. Leiden & Boston: Brill, 2009
  • Segal, Alan F. 1986. Rebecca's Children: Judaism and Christianity in the Roman World. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
  • Wise, Michael, Martin Abegg Jr., & Edward Cook. 1996. The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation. Harper. San Francisco.
  • Yadin, Yigael. “The Scroll of the War of the Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness.” Translated by B. and C. Rabin. Oxford, 1962.

References

  1. ^ Schiffman, Lawrence H., and James C. VanderKam. 2000. Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea scrolls. New York, N.Y.: Oxford University Press.
  2. ^ Schiffman, Lawrence H., and James C. VanderKam. 2000. Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea scrolls. New York, N.Y.: Oxford University Press.
  3. ^ ISBN 0-06-076662-X pp. 368-371
  4. ^ Schiffman, Lawrence H., and James C. VanderKam. 2000. Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea scrolls. New York, N.Y.: Oxford University Press.
  5. ^ Rost, Leonhard. 1976. Judaism outside the Hebrew canon: an introduction to the documents. Nashville: Abingdon.
  6. ^ Wenthe, Dean O. “The Use of the Hebrew Scriptures in 1QM.” Dead Sea Discoveries Vol. 5, No. 3 (Nov., 1998), pp. 290-319
  7. ^ Wenthe, Dean O. “The Use of the Hebrew Scriptures in 1QM.” Dead Sea Discoveries Vol. 5, No. 3 (Nov., 1998), pp. 290-319
  8. ^ Schiffman, Lawrence H., and James C. VanderKam. 2000. Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea scrolls. New York, N.Y.: Oxford University Press.
  9. ^ Dating the Army of the War Scroll (May, 2012).
  10. ^ Schiffman, Lawrence H., and James C. VanderKam. 2000. Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea scrolls. New York, N.Y.: Oxford University Press.
  11. ^ Duhaime, Jean. 2007. “The War Texts: 1QM and Related Manuscripts.” Continuum International Publishing Group. London, p. 53
  12. ^ Lawrence H. Schiffman. 1998. "Texts and Traditions: A Source Reader for the Study of Second Temple and Rabbinic Judaism." Ktav. Hoboken, NJ, p. 359
  13. ^ Vermes, Géza. The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English. Penguin, 2004. ISBN 978-0-14-044952-5. p 164-165
  14. ^ Schiffman, Lawrence H., and James C. VanderKam. 2000. Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea scrolls. New York, N.Y.: Oxford University Press.
  15. ^ Schiffman, Lawrence H., and James C. VanderKam. 2000. Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea scrolls. New York, N.Y.: Oxford University Press.
  16. ^ Schiffman, Lawrence H., and James C. VanderKam. 2000. Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea scrolls. New York, N.Y.: Oxford University Press.
  17. ^ Schiffman, Lawrence H., and James C. VanderKam. 2000. Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea scrolls. New York, N.Y.: Oxford University Press.

External links