The Cost of Gilad Schalit's Release

The deal reached by Israel to ensure the release of Gilad Schalit, the soldier captured by Hamas in 2006 seems rather lopsided, with nearly 500 terrorists being released in exchange for Schalit. Does this mean that Israel values the life of its people hundreds of times more than do the Palestinians? Perhaps, but in addition to the sheer numbers, the atrocities committed by those who are being released almost defy comprehension.

Via IPT:

Public-opinion polls show considerable popular support for the Schalit deal, with 79 percent of respondents to a Yediot Ahronot poll backing it. Even so, Israelis could have second thoughts as they see some of the names on the list of militants scheduled to be released.

They include Musab Hashlemon, a Hamas operative from Hebron, who received 17 life sentences for his role in facilitating a 2004 double suicide attack in Hebron. Sixteen civilians were murdered when suicide bombers dispatched by Hashlemon detonated themselves on two city buses.

In January 2004, Hashlemon – at the time a minor Hamas operative –was released in a prisoner exchange between Israel and Hizballah. He will be deported to Hamas-ruled Gaza.

Also on the list is Nasser Yataima, involved in planning the March 2002 suicide attack on a Seder at the Park Hotel in Netanya, in which 30 people were killed and 140 wounded.

Another is Abd al-Aziz Salaha, who participated in the October 2000 lynching of two IDF reservists who mistakenly drove into a mob of Palestinians in Ramallah. Salaha was photographed holding his blood-soaked hands out of the window.

The image of Salaha is notoriously iconic in light of the animalistic barbarism it represents.

More on the heinous acts of Salaha HERE.

Video: CNN's John King Rejects his own Rare Journalistic Moment

Want proof the White House controls the mainstream media? Look no further than a segment done by CNN's John King last week in which he rightfully asked how Obama knew about Fast and Furious six weeks before Eric Holder told the House Judiciary committee he's only heard about it 'a few weeks' earlier. It raised legitimate questions about the difference between 'a few' and 'several.' Well, those looking for real journalism out of CNN should only enjoy this one instance while it lasted because John King is now on record as having backtracked on the one moment he should be proud of. Here, he takes up for Holder and twists himself into a pretzel while implying that Holder simply misspoke.

Via Breitbart:



Here is the original CNN segment with John King in which the latter actually fleetingly did his job.

It wasn't just CNN where Obama said that either. Remember when he told Jorge Ramos of Univision the same thing on March 22nd?

Is Jim DeMint going to Torpedo his Tea Party Creds by Endorsing Romney?

It's inexplicable enough to see Ann Coulter endorse Romney but Jim DeMint? Such an endorsement would be a betrayal of the Tea Party. Senator Tea Party would risk becoming Senator Benedict Arnold. The only reason any conservative would get behind Romney is that said conservative has bought the premise which says Romney is the only candidate who can beat Obama. That is the extent to which any grace should be extended to DeMint for doing so. And it's a lame reason.

Via Roll Call:

Mitt Romney is the favorite to receive Sen. Jim DeMint's (R-S.C.) much-sought-after endorsement in the race for the Republican presidential nomination, according to knowledgeable GOP sources.

DeMint, who endorsed the former Massachusetts governor in 2008, made clear in an interview late last week that he has made no decisions on whom he will support in the 2012 primary. But Republican operatives familiar with the DeMint-Romney relationship and privy to the conservative Senator's private assessment of the GOP field believe Romney is the most likely candidate to receive the backing of the tea party favorite.

"Jim is far more likely to endorse Mitt than anyone else currently in the race," a Republican with South Carolina ties said. "Jim is a business guy and that's his background. He's not really the good ol' boy conservative type. So Mitt in a lot of ways is a more comfortable fit for him."

The first sign that endorsing Romney is a bad idea is that the mainstream media wants him to get the nod, just like it wanted John McCain to get the 2008 GOP nomination. Until McCain won the nomination, the liberal media defended him and touted him up as the best choice because he could get the independent voters.

Once McCain got the nomination, what happened? The answer is that the liberal media turned on him, and quickly. The New York Times tried to push a story that said McCain had an affair with a staffer; the media in general pushed the narrative that said four years of McCain would be like four more years of Bush; he was too old to be president and he didn't know how to operate a computer. Remember?

McCain was thrown under the bus by the media only after he won the nomination. Why, on earth, would the same liberal media not do the same to Romney? The answer is that it would. But how will they do it? They could surreptitiously attack his Mormonism by keeping it alive as an issue to debate by pitting evangelical Christians against moderates.

Last week, there was talk - though quickly denied by camp Rubio - that the chief of staff for the Tea Party favorite from Florida worked hard behind the scenes to move up Florida's primary to help Romney. Whether true or not, there is a school of thought which says the longer voters are exposed to Romney, the more support he will lose.

There's the issue of Romneycare and now it's been learned that Team Romney reached out to Obama Science czar John Holdren in 2005 for the purpose of reducing CO2 emissions in Massachusetts.

The decision to support Romney is one based in fear, a fear that says no one else can beat Obama. The fact that the liberal media is pushing Romney should cause all conservatives to check themselves before they wreck themselves (h/t Ice Cube).

h/t Hot Air