Obama Throws Israel to the Dogs

by Robert Spencer

America is on the verge of abandoning its most reliable ally in the Middle East, thanks to Barack Hussein Obama.

He began his betrayal with lip service to Israel’s concerns about defending itself from the relentless jihad that has been waged against it throughout the sixty-three years of its lifetime as a sovereign state: “For the Palestinians, efforts to delegitimize Israel will end in failure. Symbolic actions to isolate Israel at the United Nations in September won’t create an independent state. Palestinian leaders will not achieve peace or prosperity if Hamas insists on a path of terror and rejection. And Palestinians will never realize their independence by denying the right of Israel to exist.”

Yet after saying that “Palestinians will never realize their independence by denying the right of Israel to exist,” Obama called for the establishment of a Palestinian state. Yet neither Hamas nor Fatah have acknowledged Israel’s right to exist, and Obama did not make that acknowledgment a condition of the establishment of a Palestinian state. He was merely making an observation, akin to something like: “You’ll never get a good job by sleeping in the sun all day” – more on the order of a polite request, a mild nag, rather than a firm condition.

Obama also called for “two states,” explaining that “the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.”

It was widely reported Thursday evening that Obama was calling for a return to the 1967 borders, but this is not the case. He actually called for the creation of a “sovereign and contiguous state” for the Palestinian Arabs, and said that “the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines.” Thus he wasn’t calling for a return to the 1967 lines, but new borders “based on the 1967 lines.”

There were, however, no 1967 lines in which Palestinian Arab territory was contiguous. For the territory of Palestine to be contiguous, that of Israel will have to be substantially reduced. Israel’s 1967 borders were indefensible, and Obama is calling for Israel to be reduced even further so that a contiguous Palestinian state can be established.

What’s more, Obama specified that the new Palestinian state should have “borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt,” while Israel should have “borders with Palestine.” The implication was that Israel, in Obama’s vision, will border on neither Jordan nor Egypt — only on “Palestine.” Yet currently Israel has substantial borders with both Jordan and Egypt. Obama was implying that his contiguous Palestine would comprise not just Gaza and Judea and Samaria, but large expanses of Israeli territory bordering on those two states.

That would leave a truncated, reduced Israeli rump state, reminiscent of the reduced and defenseless Czechoslovakia that remained after Neville Chamberlain fed the Nazi beast at Munich. And if Obama did not mean that the diminished Israel he envisioned would have no territory bordering on Jordan or Egypt, the establishment of a contiguous Palestinian state including Gaza and the West Bank would cut Israel in two: Palestine’s contiguous territory would come at the expense of Israel’s.

Whatever Obama meant about Israel’s borders, the establishment of a Palestinian state will come at the expense of Israel’s security. It will not make for peace any more than the withdrawal from Gaza did. In those days the learned analysts were predicting that a withdrawal from Gaza would pacify the Palestinians and normalize their sick society. I said, in contrast, that it would just be another jihad base for more attacks on Israel. That’s what it became. And that’s what a Palestinian state would be also.

The Kuwaiti MP Jama’an Al-Harbash summed it up on Al-Jazeera on March 29, 2010. First he quoted the notorious genocidal hadith in which Muhammad predicts a Muslim genocide of Jews: “Allah willing, a war will be waged between us and them – the war foretold by the Prophet Muhammad: ‘Judgment Day will not come before you fight the Jews – with them on the west bank of the river, and you on the east bank – and the trees and the stones will say: Oh Muslim, oh servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me. Come and kill him.’ This war is drawing near, Allah willing.”

With eerie prescience, al-Harbash then declared of the now-toppled regimes in the Middle East that “the countries of surrender and appeasement, and those who have forsaken the holy places and the land, in their efforts to cling to their seats and pass them on [to their sons] – they will be trampled underfoot by the mujahideen.”

Finally al-Harbash explained the nature of the conflict: “This is a war of religion, not just a war between Arabs and Israelis, or a war between liberators and occupiers. This is an ideological war, an Islamic war, which will end in victory only under the banner of Jihad.”

Those who believe that will not be pacified by the creation of a Palestinian state. They will not lay down their arms and accept Israel’s existence, even its truncated, bisected existence, because the Palestinians have statehood. Not only will they not be pacified; they will be emboldened – emboldened to fight on against their bloodied and weakened adversary. Emboldened to move in for the kill.

Obama’s Thursday address thus amounted to a betrayal of Israel, and an attempt to sign its death warrant. Binyamin Netanyahu immediately issued a statement saying that he was going to seek “a reaffirmation from President Obama of U.S. commitments made to Israel in 2004, which were overwhelmingly supported by both Houses of Congress,” including commitments about Israel “not having to withdraw to the 1967 lines which are both indefensible and which would leave major Israeli population centers in Judea and Samaria beyond those lines.”

Will Obama honor this request? Unlikely. But it is good that it is going to be made. Netanyahu has made clear that Israel will not acquiesce to Obama’s betrayal and go gently into the night.

And so now more than ever, all free people must stand with Israel.

Robert Spencer is a scholar of Islamic history, theology, and law and the director of Jihad Watch. He is the author of ten books, eleven monographs, and hundreds of articles about jihad and Islamic terrorism, including the New York Times Bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad. His latest book is The Complete Infidel’s Guide to the Koran (Regnery), and he is coauthor (with Pamela Geller) of The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America (Simon http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifand Schuster).



Read More:
Front Page Magazine

Arab Democracy - a Fantasy

Social structure of Arab societies, clout of Islamists make true democracy unlikely

by: Dan Calic

With the Arab world boiling in turmoil, Western leaders led by President Obama are throwing their support behind “populist” demonstrations ostensibly calling for “freedom” in the form of democracy, and the overthrow of governments that in all cases are dictatorial.

On the surface, calls for “freedom” and “democracy” get warm reactions from Westerners who live in countries where genuine freedom of expression is allowed and true democratic governments exist. Yet Westerners who are turning their backs on “friendly” dictators and taking up the rallying cries of the protestors do not have a genuine understanding of what the likely outcome will be should the protestors succeed.

The result will not be democracy, and friendly relations with the West will disappear.

The concepts of freedom and democracy, while basic to Western countries, are anything but in the Arab world. In fact, in the entire Middle East not a single true democracy exists among the Arab countries. The region’s only true democracy is Israel.

There are also significant cultural differences between Western countries and the Arab world that present overwhelming obstacles to “freedom” and “democracy.” While obedience to civil law and acceptance of government’s role is fundamental in Western democracies, the social structure in the Arab world is made up of an entirely different order of allegiances, which maker the prospects of implementing true democracy as likely as placing a round peg into a square hole.

Islamist power

In many cases, the most important allegiance in the Arab world is not obedience to civil law and compliance with governmental authority, but rather, to the family unit. Often, a no less important allegiance is to the Imam. Many of these religious leaders ingrain Arab society with adherence to Islam, vilify the enemies of Islam, promote jihad and Sharia law, issue decrees as they see fit and object to Western-style freedom and democracy. Indeed, the very meaning of Islam is “submission.”

A third allegiance is to the tribe or clan. Tribal law and wars between various clans have been ongoing for centuries. A young son is taught to be part of his clan and obey and participate in clan activities, including war against other clans. Disobedience can result in death.

With obedience to one’s father, imam and clan all superseding the law, Western-style freedom and democracy becomes largely impossible.

Moreover, the West should be wary of is who is behind the populist uprisings. Muslims make up 90% of the 22 Arab countries in the region, and while many young people would like to see a change in their government, the fundamentalists exert huge influence in the Arab world. Even if they are not in the majority in raw numbers, they threaten and intimidate non-fundamentalists and hold huge clout.

An excellent example in this respect is the Palestinian theater. In January 2006, elections were held in the PA and fundamentalist terror group Hamas scored a resounding victory over the more secular Fatah. Some 18 months later, after bloody battles with Fatah, Hamas violently took control of the Gaza Strip and has ruled it ever since.

Similarly, elections in other Muslim countries may result in government controlled by hard line Islamists. Once they take over, they are unlikely to give up power.

Hence, President Obama ought to be careful of what he wishes for. He might just discover that his promotion of changes and revolutions in the Arab world may come back to haunt not only him, but all of us.



Ynet News

What's Obama's Agenda?

Op-ed: American President Obama aims to de-legitimatize Israel, until it gives in.

by Moshe Dann

Why would President Obama place American prestige, money and influence on the line for a three-month restriction on Jewish building in areas conquered by Israel in 1967? Another round of negotiations is doomed to fail, since Palestinian leaders have already refused to resume talks unless the freeze applies to eastern Jerusalem. Why is Obama pushing this snowball, knowing that any substantive agreement is unlikely in such a short time, if at all?

Agreeing to Israeli conditions for a written commitment not to demand further construction halts, a squadron of fighter planes, and blocking Palestinian moves toward statehood at the UN for one year might serve Obama as an excuse for vetoing a Palestinian appeal to the Security Council. But that hardly seems worth the concessions to Israel. And then, what happens after a year?

Accepting US "incentives" (bribes) is humiliating for Israel – putting politics and money before principle. PM Netanyahu promised that the initial freeze was "one-time-only." And, accepting Israeli conditions is degrading for America. Both sides are morally compromised; but, Israel is portrayed as venal and conniving, trying to avoid making peace, while extorting rewards – a typical anti-Jewish stereotype.

Elliott Abrams and Michael Singh wisely observe: "the troubling precedents set by this package will serve to dim rather than enhance prospects for a breakthrough in peace negotiations…The most worrying aspect of Obama's package is the linkages it establishes between Israeli concessions on settlements (and apparently on the pace of construction in Jerusalem as well) and other unrelated policy matters…With this latest gambit, the United States is trying to rescue a policy that is not worth rescuing. "

What if, however, Obama's goal has nothing to do with any "peace process," agreements, or concessions? What if, magician-like, he and his administration are distracting from their hidden agenda: delegitimizing Israel?

In April, Obama suggested that the safety of American soldiers fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, and America's "vital national security interests" were linked to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; he blamed Israel for the impasse.

Israel is trapped
Obama's strategy to weaken and isolate Israel by forcing concessions is evident in his focus on Israeli settlements as "illegal" and "unacceptable," his extreme protests against any and all Jewish home-building in Judea and Samaria, even Jerusalem, and his direct challenge to Israel to expose its nuclear capability and join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Demanding another "freeze" for 3 months fits the pattern of maligning Israel.

After the moratorium expires, assuming that nothing changes, Israel will again be blamed and vilified for failing to make "concessions for peace," "stealing Palestinian land," and "oppressing Palestinians." Obama can claim that he tried his best; the Palestinians will be given a pass; and Israel will be further ostracized and condemned. Israel is trapped.

If Israel agrees to American conditions and accepts the bribes, she loses her integrity and the advantage she now has – having unilaterally frozen Jewish construction for more than a year without any positive results. If Israel doesn't agree, she will appear unwise and ungrateful, further undermining her position. Obama can again blame Israel for preventing peace, for American inaction against Iran, and its failures in Afghanistan.

Given Israeli and Palestinian demands, and realities, Obama knows that a three-month deal will achieve nothing; the outcome, however, will denote Israel as a pariah state. This is consistent with the process of de-legitimization that has spread throughout the world.

That explains why the US did not object to condemnations of Israel at the UN and in Europe, Obama's "outreach to the Muslim world," and his enmity towards Israel.

Filled with prejudices and distortions of his spiritual mentor, Jeremiah Wright, and anti-Israel friends, like Rashid Khalidi, Obama's hostility to Israel, like many European politicians, is aggravated by Israel's resistance to his demands; but, punishing Israel for refusing to agree with him has real consequences which threaten Israel's survival.

Unable to defeat her militarily, Israel's enemies condemn her as immoral, illegal, an outlaw among nations, guilty of apartheid, war criminals, anti-human, even Nazi-like.

Obama's policy failures, therefore, are not just naive mistakes, or impractical; they seem intended to ostracize and weaken Israel until she gives in.

Obama's radical change in American foreign policy towards Israel, his over-reaction to apartment-building for Jews in eastern Jerusalem, his deliberate snubs and offensive attitude, serve to demonize Israel, and cripple her standing in the world.

This agenda ignores a simple fact: If this was a territorial dispute, it would have been resolved during the last 63 years. A second/third Arab Palestinian state will not end the conflict, but perpetuate it; and, with the help of Hamas and Hezbollah via Iran, threaten Israel's survival and the stability of the entire region.

Blaming Israel for resisting such a state creates an atmosphere of hatred and contempt. That de-legitimization seems to be exactly what Obama's administration seeks.





Ynet News

Obama’s Iran Failure

Unlike Arab leaders, American president fails to understand scope of Iranian threat

by Shoula Romano Horing

For the last two years President Obama has been obsessing with “engaging” the Muslim world while ignoring the “moderates” in the Islamic countries who have been imploring the US to stop Iran’s development of nuclear weapons.

For two years President Obama and his administration have fabricated a mythical argument that progress on the Israeli–Palestinian issue through the stopping of settlement construction will help get the “moderate” Arab nations in the region like Saudi Arabia, the Persian Gulf State, Egypt and Jordan on board in stopping Iran.

But the confidential documents from US embassies made public on WikiLeaks reveal that those countries have already been on board, by hounding and begging the Obama administration to take military action, including airstrikes and the use of ground forces, against the Iranians

Moreover, while Obama was wasting time and personally orchestrating public confrontations with Israel over the settlement issue and the creation of a Palestinian state, it seems that Arab Sunni leaders, in private communications with US officials, did not even mention the settlements or the Palestinian issue as their main urgent concern. As one Middle East expert from Cairo told the Los Angeles Times, the official stance in the Middle East led by Arab Sunni states has always been” that it is Iran and not Israel that poses the main threat to the region.”

According to WikiLeaks, Saudi Arabian King Abdullah urged the US to attack ”evil” Iran, saying that “it is necessary to cut the head of the snake.” King Hamad of Bahrain was quoted in 2009 as saying ”the Iranian nuclear program must be terminated by whatever means necessary. The danger of letting it go on is greater than the danger of stopping it.” Abu Dhabi Crown Prince Muhammad bin Zayed urged the US not to appease or engage Tehran, referring to it as an “existential threat” and stating that “Ahmadinejad is Hitler.”

Iran is not Soviet Union
It appears that Arab leaders agree with Prime Minster Netanyahu‘s assessment that Iran is the main threat to peace and stability in the Middle East and not the Israel-Palestinian conflict, and that economic sanctions may hurt Iran but military action is the only way to stop it.

It seems that Obama chooses to ignore the concerns about Iran from his friends, and feels compelled to occupy himself with sideshows like the Israeli-Palestinian issue and “settlements” because he does not understand the dangers of a nuclear armed Iran. Obama does not believe in a military solution because he believes it is possible to “contain” Iran as the US contained the Soviet Union. But he does not understand that contrary to the Communist leaders, Iranian leaders are not “rational “adversaries.

To understand Iran’s ambitions it is necessary to understand Iran’s religious ideology. The Iranian regime believes that the right religion for humanity is Islam and the right sect of Islam is Shiite and not Sunni. Iran’s ultimate aim is to establish global Islamic rule, a new Islamic empire, but this time under Shiite leadership.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stated in the past his belief that amidst the chaos of a catastrophic war, the 12th Imam, the Mahdi, would make his prophesied Messianic return and establish new order where the whole world would convert to Shiite Islam. This belief lies at the heart of Iran’s ambition to spread its influence and acquire nuclear weapons and this is the reason such ambition is dangerous not only for Israel but for Sunni Arab countries, Europe and the world. Acquiring nuclear capability would give Iranian leadership even more room for reckless and aggressive foreign policy.

The Sunni Arabs understand the Iranian Shiite ambitions for regional hegemony and the threat to their survival, even though Obama does not. The Israeli government should stop participating in the sideshows of Obama and refuse any requests for a settlement freeze or negotiations over a future Palestinian state until the Iranian threat is eliminated.

Shoula Romano Horing is Israeli-born and raised. She is an attorney in Kansas City, Missouri and a national speaker; Her blog: www.shoularomanohoring.com

Obama, What Color is the Sky?

by Gadi Adelman

You really have to wonder about politicians sometimes. They get asked a simple question by a journalist and they ramble on to get their own agenda or talking points across and sometimes, they spin it so far, they never even answer the question.
I’m used to that. I expect that during a campaign or before an upcoming important vote on the floor. But not during a ‘town hall’ with students asking about “jihad”.

The question that President Obama was asked, and more importantly, the way the question was phrased could have been answered in a infinite amount of ways. But the way Obama chose to answer it scares the heck out of me and once again, makes me ask why?

The President was speaking at a St. Xavier’s College, a 147-year-old Jesuit institution in Mumbai, India.
You know, Mumbai.

It was where on November 26, 2008 Pakistani (can I say it?) terrorists attacked in what was more than 10 coordinated shootings and bombings all across Mumbai, India’s largest city, that lasted 3 days leaving 173 people dead and over 300 wounded.

When Anam Ansari, third-year physics student from Byculla, asked the President about jihad, she wasn’t asking him about the “internal struggle” of a Muslim. I am not in her head, so let’s look at the actual question verbatim.

“Hi, good day, sir. Hi, my name is Anam and I’m from St. Davis College. My question to you is, what is your take or opinion about jihad, or jihadi? Whatever is your opinion, what do you think of them?”

Obviously, there is a language barrier here, but I think that Anam phrased it beautifully. She left no room for error. She said “jihad”, she said “jihadi” and even ended the question with “what do you think of THEM”.

Them. As in plural, as in more than one, as in “jihadists”, as in more than one person that makes war or terror under the flag of Islam.

There really is no questioning what she meant, she is after all at St. Xavier’s College in Mumbai only a few blocks from the Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus, just one of the areas in which hundreds were murdered during the November 26, 2008 attacks.

They just suffered, wait for it Mr. President, I’ll use a term even you can understand, they suffered a “man made casualty” just two years ago that left the city in ruins with people dead, remember?

So, Obama, the great orator, the American Idol of speech givers, stumbled and paused and thought and stumbled some more to answer what truly was a simple question with a simple answer.

Yes, I know, it’s easy for me to sit here and play armchair quarterback , but let’s face it, he could have answered the question in a way that would have satisfied those in India and the rest of the world and yes, even in a politically correct manner as to make his liberal base happy.

But, more importantly, he could have answered it in a way that would put those that Anam was referring to, the jihadists, on notice, that we as America will not stand for acts of terror against anyone, anywhere of any kind. Period.

Would that be so bad? Last time I checked we were still at war with troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan, a war that even though inherited and not initiated by Obama, is being waged due to a terror attack on our nation by jihadists.

When Anam asked her question, Obama answered:
“Well, the phrase jihad has a lot of meanings within Islam and is subject to a lot of different interpretations. But I will say that, first, Islam is one of the world’s great religions. And more than a billion people who practice Islam, the overwhelming majority view their obligations to their religion as ones that reaffirm peace and justice and fairness and tolerance. I think all of us recognize that this great religion in the hands of a few extremists has been distorted to justify violence towards innocent people that is never justified.

And so I think one of the challenges that we face is how do we isolate those who have these distorted notions of religious war and reaffirm those who see faiths of all sorts — whether you are a Hindu or a Muslim or a Christian or a Jew or any other religion, or your don’t practice a religion — that we can all treat each other with respect and mutual dignity, and that some of the universal principles that Gandhi referred to — that those are what we’re living up to, as we live in a nation or nations that have very diverse religious beliefs.

And that’s a major challenge. It’s a major here in India, but it’s a challenge obviously around the world. And young people like yourselves can make a huge impact in reaffirming that you can be a stronger observer of your faith without putting somebody else down or visiting violence on somebody else.

I think a lot of these ideas form very early. And how you respond to each other is going to be probably as important as any speech that a President makes in encouraging the kinds of religious tolerance that I think is so necessary in a world that’s getting smaller and smaller, where more and more people of different backgrounds, different races, different ethnicities are interacting and working and learning from each other.

And those circumstances — I think all of us have to fundamentally reject the notion that violence is a way to mediate our differences.”



Let me read part of his answer again:
“And more than a billion people who practice Islam, the overwhelming majority view their obligations to their religion as ones that reaffirm peace and justice and fairness and tolerance.” Really? Where does this happen? In Paradise after they blow themselves up, because neither peace, justice, fairness or tolerance has been given to the hundreds of thousands of women who have suffered under Islam. You know, the ones that have been and are being subjected to things such as:

• Obligatory female genital castration;
• Stoning to death of adulteresses;
• Compulsory acceptance of polygamy and forced child marriages;
• Beating of disobedient women and girls;
• Requirement of the testimony of four male witnesses to prove rape;
• Requirement of women to obtain permission from husbands for daily freedoms, such as leaving the house unescorted by a male family member.

Yes, there are some really fair and just things to chew on.

The last sentence of his first paragraph is truly questionable :“I think all of us recognize that this great religion in the hands of a few extremists has been distorted to justify violence towards innocent people that is never justified.”

A few extremists? A few? How many exactly is a few?

Daniel Greenfield who has a blog known as “Sultan Knish” answered just this question in his article “Who is Really Distorting Islam?” He wrote about the “few”,
“How many exactly is a “few”? Are we talking about a few dozen, a few thousand, a few million? Naturally Obama and the Islam apologists never really address that question.

Because it is a rather inconvenient question. Since Muslims are defined by religious streams and mosque attendance, it should be easy enough to come up with a realistic figure.

We could start with the population of Saudi Arabia, which ranks at some 25 million. That is quite a “few” extremists right there. Then there’s Pakistan with a population of 166 million. That’s a few more, right there. Of course officially both countries are allies of the United States and have nothing to do with terrorism. Even when it’s funded by their own governments.

So let’s move on to a slightly more definitive figure. In 2006, the Palestinian Arabs held an election. 440,000 of them voted for Hamas. A terrorist organization. In the 2009 Lebanon election, a coalition that included Hezbollah and the Baath Party won over 800,000 votes. So certainly we know that there are more than 1 million “misunderstanders” of Islam out there. And that’s out of a tiny portion of the Muslim world.”

How did the rest of the world look at his answer?

The Dubai-based commentator Aijaz Zaka Syed wrote in the Arab news:
“But it was a studious girl who walked out with the cake when she queried him about jihad and what he thought of it. As if Obama was a Sheikh [from] Al Azhar or Ayatollah from Qom to issue a fatwa on jihad!”

I see, so one has to be a Sheikh to be allowed to speak out against Jihad.
Even the Arab News knew exactly what Anam meant when she said Jihad, otherwise why would they even mention a fatwa against it, unless they want to put an end to their own “internal struggles”?

It’s also interesting that in a country where 80.5% of the population is Hindu while only 13.4 % is Muslim and only 2.3 % Christian, the Telegraph in Calcutta, India, interviewed Anam and she said she is a Muslim.

“I am Muslim but I did not ask him the question because I am Muslim. I just wanted to know. I was nervous when I asked him the question, and surprised that I should be the first to be called upon to question him.”

The Telegraph article also had an extremely valid point:
“Barack Hussein Obama, they call him in Islamic countries in West Asia and the conservatives back home have accused him of being “socialist”, as if that were a bad word.”

Why is it that in the Islamic and West Asian countries they always use his middle name and here in the U.S. anyone who dared utter “Hussein” was accused of being a racist or Islamaphobe?

But what really gets my blood pressure up isn’t the fact that he didn’t answer Anam’s question, it was that he played right into the hands of the jihadists! I am sure Al-Jazeera television loved that clip.

No, I take that back. He didn’t play in to the jihadists hands, he promoted them. By not answering the question as it was posed to him and saying that Islam is a great religion and that those who practice Islam reaffirm peace and justice and fairness and tolerance, he isn’t just praising Islam, he is touting those that are jihadists as well.

What message does this send to those who are jihadists or better yet, those in the early stages of becoming a jihadi, like Samir Khan once was, the American turned traitor whom I wrote about last week?

Another question that a student asked of Obama did not get as much publicity, but his answer was once again questionable and deserves to be clarified. He was asked,
“Sir, my question to you is why is Pakistan so important an ally to America, so far as America has never called it a terrorist state?”

The very first thing Obama said to this question was:
“Well — no, no, it’s a good question. And I must admit I was expecting it.”

Part of Obama’s lengthy answer was as follows:
“There are more Pakistanis who’ve been killed by terrorists inside Pakistan than probably anywhere else.”

If he had been expecting a specific question, he might have researched his answer a little better.

According to the Nation Master website, a site that gathers numerical data extracted from the C.I.A. World Factbook the top three terrorist fatalities by country between 1968 and 2006 are in descending order: Iraq, United States and India. Pakistan was number 4 followed by, you guess it, Israel.

Yes Mr. President, your own country has suffered more terrorist deaths than Pakistan according to the C.I.A.

Why does Obama continue to push the Muslim agenda?
This has been ongoing since he took office.

From his speech in Cairo shortly after becoming President, to his first television interview as President with the Arab network Al-Arabiya. Then removing all words that have anything to do with Islam in any manner within our National Security Strategy, to his Muslim outreach program with NASA , I could continue with example after example for the last 23 months.

Then when someone in this country rightly uses his middle name…
Does it really surprise anyone at this point that he would give such answers after everything he has been doing since he took office to go out of his way to praise Islam?

This does not in any way, shape or form help our national security. Our enemies only see this as a sign of weakness and gives them more reason to continue to attack us and attack us hard.

As we all were told by our mothers as we were growing up “If you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all.” I don’t remember anyone’s mother adding “or make something nice up”.

Maybe the President should heed that advice when it comes to Islam and Jihad and just say no comment. It would be better than praising a theological, political, ideology that murders anyone who disagrees with their agenda, wants world domination and then claims to be a peaceful religion.

Mr. President, for our country’s sake and safety, either start calling it like it is, or don’t say anything at all.

Remember, the next time a child asks you “What color is the sky?” You can say “Well, the phrase color has a lot of meanings and is subject to a lot of different interpretations.” Or, you could just say “blue”.

Gadi Adelman is a freelance writer and lecturer on the history of terrorism and counterterrorism. He grew up in Israel, studying terrorism and Islam for 35 years after surviving a terrorist bomb in Jerusalem in which 7 children were killed. Since returning to the U. S., Gadi teaches and lectures to law enforcement agencies as well as high schools and colleges. He can be heard every Thursday night at 9PM est. on his own radio show “AmericaAkbar” on Windows to Liberty Radio Network. He can be reached through his website Gadi Adelman.Com

Obama's Next Failure

President fails to understand that PA has no desire, ability to secure deal with Israel.

by Moshe Elad

The electoral defeat suffered by US President Barack Obama is not supposed to be connected to events in the Middle East. Seemingly, his downfall was a result of domestic policy failures. However, when examining Obama's relationship with Abbas and Netanyahu, it's hard not to conclude that on this front too, the US president can expect to lick some wounds.

Obama and his advisors fail to understand that that the Middle East crisis cannot be resolved with "Yes we can" slogans. Several previous presidents realized that the issue is complex, problematic, and beyond their abilities, thereby taking a step back. But not Obama. He will continue to exert pressure until he prompts a collapse, which would mean either a new flare-up, or escaping Palestinian Authority leaders.

What is misleading Obama and his people to such extent? Seemingly, the West Bank presents a positive, encouraging façade: Security calm for the most part, hundreds of projects being built on the ground, reduced unemployment, and a growth rate that hasn't been seen in years. However, all these optimistic indications, most of which are economic, are only the storefront.

Behind the Palestinian façade we discover a very grim picture of despair and frustration. On the one hand, the Palestinian Authority has neither the desire nor the ability to reach a historic compromise with Israel. On the other hand, the PA is having trouble withstanding the American and European pressure to implement such compromise.

Obama fails to understand that as long as Hamas breathes down Abbas' neck, the latter would not be able to realize America's objectives.

Why so?

The name of the game in the territories is zeal. To our regret, at this time the zeal is not found among Abbas and his people, but rather, among Hamas members. We saw it already in the June 2007 events in Gaza. The PLO is perceived as satiated, corrupt and anachronistic, while the Palestinian public is eager for hungry, thin leadership with zeal, regardless of the ideology it represents. For example, should Ahmadinejad present a Palestinian alternative, even he could represent the Palestinians.

Obama and his people are pushing Abbas to stop the incitement against Israel. How exactly can this be done? After all, generations of incitement cannot be erased with mere declarations. Abbas himself does not believe in putting an end to incitement, as it would quickly prompt greater support for Hamas.

Israel to pay price
Very few Palestinians believe Abbas when he proposes, with US encouragement, the handover of areas under Israeli security control to the PA. Most Palestinians understand that the moment the IDF leaves any West Bank town, it may fall into the hands of Hamas, which will enlist the help of apolitical gangs.

Obama's gamble on Abbas as the Palestinian leader disregards not only his failure to control the Gaza Strip, but also his inability to fully control the West Bank. There are towns and villages in the West Bank that President Abbas, is afraid to go into – mostly traditional Hamas strongholds or areas controlled by gangs. This isn't a president – it’s an "exiled ruler."

A harsh debate emerged following the 'You have a partner' campaign, where Israeli elements presented PA leaders as friends of Israel. This campaign provoked great displeasure among residents of the territories and further eroded the PA’s status. 'How can you call for ongoing armed conflict against peace partners?' Abbas was asked by those who wanted to highlight the doublespeak custom he adopted, just like his predecessor Arafat.

Meanwhile, the sight of security personnel destroying settlement products prompted ridicule, at most, among many Palestinians. 'After all, there isn't one settlement in the West Bank that was not built by the Palestinians,' say those who object to these ostentatious moves, adding that 'some senior PA officials made their fortunes through 'banned trade with settlers, so who are you trying to fool here?'

The underground current simmering in the territories threatens to turn into a huge wave that would topple Abbas and his people. Some more pressure from Obama would see Abbas declaring 'let me die with Palestine.' And then, the American president will dispatch his spokesman to say: We tried, but it didn't work. We'll have to fix it.

In any case, Israel will be paying the price for it.




Ynew News

What Has Obama Done About Anti-Semitism?

Forget About Israel -What Has Obama Done About Anti-Semitism?

The focus of the Jewish community has naturally been on Obama's Middle East policies and his relationship with and pressure on Netanyahu. Chicago attorney Pejman Yousefzadeh writes about another issue, one that has not received much attention: Obama And Anti-Semitism:

The inability or unwillingness of the Obama Administration to forcefully speak out against instances of anti-Semitism in the Democratic Party should also be a cause for concern. The demagoguery of Democrats like Rep. James Moran, who has stated that an “extraordinarily powerful” pro-Israel lobby—with “the strong support of the Jewish community”—was responsible for causing the United States to go to war with Iraq, is well known, but the Obama Administration has not decided to challenge him, or other Democrats like him, for seeking to profit politically from the popularization of anti-Semitic tropes. Nor has the administration taken on members of the liberal blogosphere for engaging in reflexive anti-Israel hatred and general anti-Semitism and for potentially causing a serious rift between liberals and American Jews, a rift that would harm the president’s political prospects and the Democratic Party’s electoral future.

Some might say that a lone Congressman or a handful of lefty bloggers are beneath the attention of the president of the United States. But while no American president wants to engage in rhetorical overkill, there are disturbing trends developing within the base of the Democratic Party that ought to concern the president and certainly concern the American Jewish community. A shocking 2009 poll revealed that 18.4 percent of Republicans blamed Jews for the recent financial crisis. That’s appalling enough, but even worse, the poll revealed that nearly a third of Democrats also blamed Jews for the near-collapse of the American economy. As the administrators of the poll wrote, this statistically significant difference was surprising “given the presumed higher degree of racial tolerance among liberals and the fact that Jews are a central part of the Democratic Party’s electoral coalition.” It would be in the president’s interests to fight against anti-Semitism in the liberal community, if only to prevent the defection of American Jews from the Democratic Party. But he seems to be unwilling to do so. If American Jews are not alarmed by this lack of action on the president’s part, they should be.

Yousefzadeh concludes that the policies of the Obama administration in general could have a negative affect on Jewish support for the Democratic party. Of course, the threat of Jewish disillusionment with the Democratic party is an idea that is periodically brought out--often by Republicans. This 'threat' has never materialized.

Then again, we are seeing a level of disillusionment with an unusually popular candidate-cum-president the likes of which we have never seen before. Who knows how far those negative feelings may go or the backlash they may cause.

There is no reason for Republicans to get their hopes up, but Democrats would be wise to take a lesson from the anticipated shellacking they will take in the midterm elections and act accordingly.



Daled Amos

Obama - Politics or Ideology?

Following expected elections defeat, Obama will find himself at political crossroads.

by Yitzhak Benhorin

Part 2 of analysis

If all the other troubles are not enough for President Obama, he and the Democrats also lost the support of the business sector. The legislation he initiated in a bid to reinforce the monitoring of Wall Street, and his efforts to impose taxes on the rich and protect the middle class exacted a heavy price on his plan to rehabilitate America’s economy.

Despite the economic crisis, those who think there is no money available in America are gravely mistaken. Immense sums of money are currently frozen in the large banks and major corporations, which are hesitant to invest it and stimulate the economy as long as Obama threatens to impose legislation and taxes that may harm them. The bitter result is that the economy is on hold, while Obama and the Democrats pay the price in the November elections.

The money that is changing hands within the economic elite is meant to deliver a grave blow to the ruling party. The Supreme Court contributed to this situation when it permitted companies and individuals to donate money to campaigns without revealing their identities. The ability to act discreetly and without financial limits enabled America’s wealthy, ranging from the air-conditioned office dwellers in Wall Street to the oil drillers in Texas to dramatically affect the current elections campaign; the same will apparently happen in the next presidential elections.

An astronomical sum of $3 billion had been poured into election ads in recent weeks. A quick glimpse at the TV set shows that the Republicans hold a major advantage over the Democrats. Just to illustrate, a group led by Karl Rove, former President George W. Bush’s senior advisor, easily poured $250 million into the campaign.

Jimmy or Bill?
In the first half of his term in office, Obama did things that many presidents before him did not: He successfully advanced revolutionary laws to stimulate the economy, approved a historical healthcare reform, and reinforced the monitoring of Wall Street’s dark corners.

The voters want to see immediate results, yet the fruits of Obama’s labor will only be evident years from now. Similarly, the healthcare reform is a complex process, whose achievements will only become apparent in the future.

On November 3rd, when America wakes up to a new Congress and new governors, the presidential election campaign shall in fact get underway. The great political question (with the answer to be provided only two years from now) is what kind of Obama will be sitting in the White House 11 days from now. Will he follow in the footsteps of Bill Clinton, who lost the Democratic majority in Congress and realized he has no choice but to shift to the Center? Or will he follow the example of Jimmy Carter, who insisted on promoting a liberal agenda?

Obama has already attempted to provide excuses for the expected November defeat, arguing that he was too busy with policy and abandoned politics. Indeed, this is the dilemma between the Clinton way and the Carter way: The former internalized the lessons of the Congress defeat in 1994, chose politics, and was elected for a second term in office. The latter stuck to his truth, chose to go ahead with his policy, and was kicked out of the White House after four years.


You Might Also Like to Read:
Obama in Trouble



Ynet News

President Obama in Trouble

Great News... As elections loom, US president losing support of once- sympathetic voters

by Yitzhak Benhorin

Part 1 of analysis

After the US president licks the wounds suffered in the Congress elections campaign, he will prepare to head to the Far East. Recently, he called off his plan to visit the Golden Temple in Punjab, India, officially pleading “logistical problems.” However, according to reports (which have been denied,) the president is in fact concerned about donning the white robe customarily worn in the temple. The unofficial reason for calling off the visit is the wish to avoid another photo to be used by Obama’s rivals as proof that he is in fact Muslim.

If these reports are accurate, this story perfectly expresses the turnaround in the president’s status since November 2008. Obama entered the White House with immense confidence, delivering strategic speeches in Turkey and in Egypt where he expressed his wishes to improve ties between the US and the Muslim world. Yet Obama in November 2010 no longer possesses the self-confidence that turned him from a junior senator to the leader of the world’s greatest power. Right now, he is hiding in the bunker.

On top of the smearing on racial on religious grounds, the president is facing genuine distress in the face of the Congress elections. The beaten up president and his party members have known for months now that the battle for a Congress majority is a lost cause. The House majority, as well as the post of House speaker, will fall into the hands of the conservatives. The big question is whether the Democrats will be able to maintain their control in Senate.

Can’t count on young voters
In the last elections campaigns, it was possible to point to a political gender-based gap. While men tended to vote Republican, women tended to vote Democrat. Yet the recent polls show that the female vote is also shifting to the Right. Some 52% of women still support the Democrats, yet this marks a sharp drop in the face of the masculine zeal to topple the Left, and Obama knows it. Hence, his West Coast trip is dedicated to meetings with women and efforts to boost two female Democrats who had been serving in Senate for 18 years now.

Yet it’s not only the women who are abandoning the Democrats. Americans who are 50 years of age and above are concerned that Democratic policies will undermine their future old-age allowances. Young Americans are also making it difficult for Obama. The 30-and-below group that brought him to power two years ago is known as an elusive constituency, and it is doubtful whether young voters will be heading to the polling stations en masse in nine days.

Yet Obama’s greatest problem is the independent voters. These are the people who titled the balance in 2008 and elected Obama, who promised them change. Now, the president is paying the price for that promise, which to begin with created an exaggerated bar, turning him into a leader that is no different than his predecessors; a leader who makes promises but cannot deliver the goods.


You Might Also Like to Read:
Obama - Politics or Ideology?

Ynet News

Obama's Great Betrayal

US president's policy focuses on boosting Israel's international isolation.

by Shoula Romano Horing

It seems that President Obama's confrontational and accusatory attitude toward Israel during the last two years has encouraged the anti-Semites in the international community, who did not dare to reveal themselves during the Bush Administration. Now, they have resurfaced and are making Israel the new scapegoat for all the evils in the world.

Furthermore, the Obama Administration has been an active participant in international bodies with bias against Israel which the Bush Administration refused to join or concur with. In some instances, the current Administration even consented to these bodies' investigations of so-called Israeli "crimes." But more cynically and morally repugnant, Obama has been using the threat of international isolation to pressure Israel into more concessions.

Otherwise, why would one of the assurances reportedly given by the US to Israel, in an effort to get the West Bank settlement freeze extended for 60 days, be an American commitment to use its veto to prevent UN recognition of a unilaterally declared Palestinian state?

Under Presidents Bush and Clinton it was taken for granted that the veto would be used, as it was understood that any peace deal premised on the "two-state solution" would only be decided through negotiations.

Reportedly, Prime Minster Netanyahu also fears that as soon as any new 60-day freeze ends, and with the November US midterm elections over, the Obama Administration - with the help of the international community - will aim to force a permanent agreement on Israel by presenting a "take it or leave it peace plan."

Such initiative would publicly support the Palestinian position that the 1967 borders should be the basis for a future Palestinian state, including a divided Jerusalem.

Breaking 40-year precedent
In the last two years, Israel has been under a new kind of attack on her legitimacy and on her right to exist. A campaign has been conducted where many of Israel's enemies are employing legal tricks, through multinational and international bodies, to present Israel as an illegitimate pariah state that should be isolated like Apartheid South Africa.

Sadly, the Obama Administration was an active participant in these efforts until it recently felt the backlash from Jewish voters and has eased off before the midterm elections.

In May, the Obama Administration broke 40 years of US precedent and shamefully signed a unanimous resolution adopted at a meeting of the 189 signatories of The Nuclear Proliferation Treaty, singling out Israel's atomic program without even mentioning Iran's. The draft urged Israel to sign the NPT and put its nuclear facilities under UN International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards.

During the previous NPT conference in 2005, the Bush Administration refused to accept parts of the draft document that called on Israel to join the NPT and turned down the idea of holding talks in order to create a region free of nuclear weapons.

While President Bush refused to join the UN Human Rights Council and lend it legitimacy, President Obama’s first foreign policy decision was to join the Council, knowing that it has adopted more resolutions and decisions condemning the state of Israel than all others 191 UN members combined.

In August, under heavy Obama Administration pressure, Israel agreed for the first time ever to participate in a UN review panel investigating IDF actions in the Gaza-bound flotilla incident.

It appears that letting Israel feel isolated and alone while relying on the US as her only friend is the Obama Administration's strategy to "deliver" Israel to the Arabs. However, recent polls reveal great support for Israel by the American people.

The American people who care about Israel's survival must stand by Israel in the upcoming November elections and only vote for the Republican Party, to deflect future US pressure by Obama. In the meantime, the Israeli government must wait for the American voter's verdict against Obama and the Democratic Party.

Ynet News

President Obama’s Promises

Are promises made by American presidents carved in stone or written on ice?

by Yoram Ettinger

President Obama stridently disavows President Bush's understandings - with Israel - concerning sustained natural growth construction in Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria, as well as – supposedly - future Israeli sovereignty over "settlement blocs" in Judea and Samaria. What does such a disavowal bode for the credibility and durability of President Obama's promises to – and understandings with – Israel?!

The discussion, in Jerusalem, of Obama's proposed commitments in return for the continued freeze of Jewish construction in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem (while Arab construction is at an all time high!) reflects miscomprehension of the US political system, ignores lessons from past US commitments and guarantees, and accepts a non-existing linkage between the Iranian nuclear threat on one hand, and the Palestinian issue and US-Israel strategic cooperation on the other hand.

An examination of past US commitments, guarantees and treaties highlights three critical attributes: 1. Non-Specificity, vagueness and ambiguity, intended to facilitate non- implementation. 2. Non-Automaticity which is a platform for delay, suspension and non-implementation. 3. Non-Implementation if implementation harms US interests. For instance, the NATO treaty as ratified by the Senate commits the US only to consider steps on behalf of an attacked NATO member, "as it deems necessary," "including the use of armed forces." Also, in 1954, President Eisenhower signed a defense treaty with Taiwan; but in 1979, President Carter annulled the treaty unilaterally with the support of the US Supreme Court and Congress.

The significance of a presidential agreement/commitment is substantially constrained by the US Constitution, which is designed to preclude an omnipotent Executive. It does that by an elaborate system of Checks and Balances and the absolute Separation of Powers, which limits presidential clout on Capitol Hill.

Therefore, a US President is not an all-powerful ruler, but equal-in-power to the Legislature, which possesses the Power of the Purse. Moreover, the president shares policy-making with Congress, including matters relating to the UN, arms sales, peace and war. Thus, a US president cannot commit the US without Congressional consent.

Settlements, Iran not connected
For example, in 1999 President Clinton signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, but the Senate has yet to ratify it. In 1957, President Eisenhower issued an Executive Agreement – in exchange for Israel's full withdrawal from Sinai - committing US troops on behalf of Israel should Egypt violate the ceasefire. But in 1967, Egypt invaded the demilitarized Sinai, expelled the UN troops, blockaded Eilat and established an Arab axis with the self-proclaimed goal of annihilating the Jewish State. President Johnson's response was to declare Eisenhower's Executive Agreement non-binding, thus paving the way for the Six-Day War.

In 1975, President Ford sent a letter to Prime Minister Rabin, stating that the US "will give great weight to Israel's position that any peace agreement with Syria must be predicated on Israel remaining on the Golan Heights." But in 1979, President Carter contended that Ford's letter hardly committed Ford - and certainly none of his successors at the White House - to support Israeli sovereignty on the Golan Heights.

In 1982, the US Congress preconditioned the sale of F-15s to Saudi Arabia upon President Reagan's commitment that the planes would not be stationed in Tabuq, close to the Israeli border. But in 2003, President Bush employed the "changed regional circumstances" argument to justify his acquiescence with the deployment of the planes to Tabuq.

In 1991, President Bush promised Prime Minister Shamir to "positively consider" Israel's request for $10 billion loan guarantees for the absorption of one million Soviet Jews, in exchange for Shamir's restraint in the face of Iraq's Scud missiles hitting Tel Aviv. Shamir fulfilled his commitment, but Bush reneged and even opposed any form of emergency assistance to Israel for damages caused by the Gulf War. However, Israel received the assistance because of Congress and in spite of the Administration.

In 2000, President Clinton promised Prime Minister Barak $800 million for the retreat from Southern Lebanon. Israel retreated, but the $800 million has yet to reach Jerusalem…

An Israeli embrace of commitments, which are – frequently – written on ice, in return for tangible concessions, reflect detachment from the Washington constitutional labyrinth and from significant precedents, at the expense of dire Israeli interests.

Finally, there is no basis for the assumption that Israel's acceptance of Obama's promises – in exchange for an extended freeze of Jewish construction in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem - is ostensibly essential for a joint battle against Iran, for a simple reason: There is no linkage between the Iranian nuclear threat on one hand, and Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem on the other hand.

Iran's nuclear drive aims at advancing a 14 centuries old strategic goal – the domination of the Persian Gulf, the Middle East and the Indian Ocean, irrespective of Israel's policy or Israel's existence. Furthermore, the chief hurdle for Iran is the US and NATO involvement in these regions. Hence, it is the US and NATO that are the chief targets for Iran's nuclear capabilities, independent of Israel and its actions.

The acceptance of the false linkage between the Palestinian issue on one hand, and the Iranian threat and US-Israel strategic cooperation on the other hand, subordinates vital US and Israeli interests to Palestinian terrorism, idiosyncrasy, radicalism and systematic violation of agreements, causing a severe setback to US and Israeli strategic concerns and values.



Ynet News

Israel Guarantees Stability

Given US weakness, IDF serves as strongest guarantee for Mideastern stability.

By Guy Bechor

As the Obama Administration continues to show weakness in the Middle East, the region slips into a state of instability. The recent American flight from Iraq, with the clear knowledge that this miserable state will be facing a maelstrom of ethnic violence, merely weakened the Administration further while boosting the axis comprising Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, Syria, and Erdogan.

Despite the show in Washington, the Israeli-Palestinian track faces a complete impasse and there is no real way of reaching a breakthrough. This time we actually have Israeli desire to progress, as result of Israel’s desire to get rid of the Palestinian problem that weighs it down, yet Abbas and his people do not have a mandate to make any decisions.

The more Iran’s nuclear program advances, the more scared Tehran becomes about being attacked, and this is the reason for the daily missile displays, almost like Nasrallah’s show of speeches – in both cases this is the result of weakness rather than strength. Oddly, they fail to understand that these shows merely serve to undermine their image.

Iran greatly concerns the Persian Gulf states, which continue to ignore Israel even though it’s, potentially, their most important ally. Old hatreds stand in the way of vital interests.

There are other reasons for the growing instability in the region. The international court already knows who murdered late Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri (senior Hezbollah men) and Nasrallah is under pressure to dismiss this grave charge. Few in the Middle East buy the “evidence” he presented against Israel. Meanwhile, he resorts to harsh declarations against Israel and the US, while drawing PM Saad al-Hariri to do the same (thereby revealing himself as a man lacking spine.)

Upside down world
Turkey – a state which in the past stabilized the area yet now sweeps it, and itself, to radical directions – also adds spices to the brew of regional instability. Erdogan’s reforms against the army and the court threaten to further deteriorate this country; there is no wonder that Turkish Jews are already packing their bags, and some of them have moved here already.

Two more destabilizing elements are Hamas, which is trapped in the Gaza Strip while seeking an outlet from the diplomatic chokehold it faces, and Syrian President Bashar Assad who continues to make radical statement against Israel.

Nevertheless, none of the sides has an interest in seeing a war. Iran knows that its army is weak and obsolete and would not be able to contend with the US, Western countries, and Israel. Hezbollah and Hamas already sustained IDF blows in recent years and they will not forget them so quickly. Meanwhile, Assad understands that his minority regime may not survive a war with Israel.

The Palestinian too will not be rushing to repeat their intifada experience, which ruined them, their economy, and their chances of getting a state. As always, intifadas are launched against Israel, yet end up harming the Palestinians themselves.

Had we seen an effective, powerful US Administration in the region, as was the case with George W. Bush, many of these destabilizing elements would have been curbed. Yet nonetheless, the existential interests of all Arab sides will prevent them from prompting war.

Above all, the IDF’s power is the most important guarantee for Mideastern stability. The current-day IDF, after an immense build-up process and demonstrated achievements, is the region’s most powerful army and its strength serves as a deterrent. This is even more conspicuous in the face of the American weakness in the region.

And so, the world is upside down: Once upon a time, American power provided stability for Israel, yet today Israeli power grants stability to American interests in the Middle East.

Ynet News

GUESS WHO I AM...

* I was born inone country, raised in another. My father was born in another country, I was not his only child. He fathered several children with numerous women..

* I became very close to my mother, asmy father showed no interest in me. My mother died at anearly age from cancer.

* Later in life, questions arose over my real name.

* My birth records were sketchy and no one was able to produce a legitimate, reliable birth certificate.

* I grew up practicing one faith but converted to Christianity,as it was widely accepted in my country, but I practiced non-traditional beliefs & didn't follow Christianity, except in the public eye under scrutiny.

* I worked and lived among lower-class people as a young adult, disguising myself as someone who really cared about them..

* That was before I decided it was time to get serious about my life and I embarked on a new career.

* I wrote a book about my struggles growing up. It was clear to those who read my memoirsthat I had difficulties accepting that my father abandoned me as a child.

* I became active in local politics in my 30's then with help behind the scenes, I literally burst on to the scene as a candidate for national office in my 40s. They said I had a golden tongue and could talk anyone into anything. That reinforced my conceit.

* I had a virtually non-existent resume, little work history, and no experience in leading asingle organization. Yet I was a powerful speaker and citizens were drawn to me as though I were a magnet and theywere small roofing tacks.

* I drew incredibly large crowds during my public appearances. This bolstered my ego.

* At first, my political campaign focused on my country's foreign policy. I was very critical of my country in the last war and seized every opportunity to bash my country.

* But what launched my rise to national prominence were my views on the country's economy. I pretended to have a really good plan on how we could do better and every poor person would be fed & housed for free.

* I knew which group was responsible for getting us into this mess. It was the free market, banks & corporations. I decided to start making citizens hate them and if they were envious of others whodid well, the plan was clinched tight.

* I called mine "A People's Campaign" and that sounded good to all people.

* I was the surprise candidate becauseI emerged from outside the traditional path of politics& was able to gain widespread popular support.

* I knew that, if I merely offered the people "hope" , together we could change our country and the world.

* So, I started to make my speeches sound like they were on behalf of the downtrodden, poor, ignorant to include "persecuted minorities". My true views were not widely known & I needed to keep them unknown, until after I became my nation's leader.

* I had to carefully guard reality, as anybody could have easily found out what I really believed, if they had simply read my writings and examined thosepeople I associated with.

* I'm glad they didn't. Then I became the most powerful man in the world. And the world learned the truth.

WHO AM I?



I am ADOLF HITLER. WHO WERE YOU THINKING OF?
Common, don't tell me that you thought about Obama.
Scary, isn't it?

Suspends Trial of Cole Terrorist

By: Arthur Herman

Americans are learning there's one minority group President Obama is never afraid to offend: families of victims of Islamist terror.

First, Attorney General Eric Holder wanted to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, mastermind of the 9/11 attack, in lower Manhattan -- which nearly everyone, even Mayor Bloomberg (eventually), realized would be a standing insult to the memory of KSM's victims.

Then came Obama's "I was for it before I was against it" stance on the Ground Zero mosque -- another slap at 9/11 victims' families.

Now, last Friday, we learned that "no charges are either pending or contemplated" against one of the deadliest and most dangerous al Qaeda operatives, Abd al Rahim al Nashiri, mastermind of the October 12, 2000, bombing of USS Cole that killed 17 sailors and officers and wounded dozens more.

The hope of families that lost loved ones on that terrible day, that after a decade justice would finally be done, has faded to zero.

It's worth remembering how this outrage -- which I predicted in a column back in February 2009 -- came about.

In the wake of the Twin Towers attack and despite howls of protest from the civil liberties left, the Bush administration rounded up leading Islamist terrorists around the world and put them to CIA interrogation. One of them was al Nashiri, a Saudi national who set off the attack on the USS Cole in 2000 as the destroyer was moored peacefully in Aden harbor.

Under President George W. Bush's executive order establishing trials of terrorists by military commission, authorities painstakingly gathered evidence against al Nashiri -- even as groups like ACLU howled that such commissions would violate terrorists' rights and should be shut down.

The gathering of evidence dragged on for nearly six years, until in January 2009 Obama ordered Defense Secretary Gates to suspend all military commission proceedings, including against al Nashiri.

Cole's former skipper, Capt. Kirk Lippold, and the Cole victims' families fought hard to reopen the case against their sons' and daughters' killers -- who in the meantime had been found guilty of terrorism and sentenced to death in a court in Yemen. They even met with President Obama, who promised them he was only waiting for the "right judge" before reopening the case under new rules.

Now, on Friday, we learned the "right judge" meant no judge at all. A Defense Department spokesman insisted that the fact that no charges will be brought before a military commission doesn't mean the case is over. But it will be a long time before this mess is finally sorted out. Yet it's a mess of Obama's own making.

After 9/11 Bush and other Americans understood that we were in a war, not a "Law and Order" episode. They understood that such a war required more effective instruments than our civilian courts and the normal legal process. The time-tested, Supreme Court-approved system of military tribunals for trying enemy combatants was one such instrument.

Obama told his political allies on the left that as president he'd turn Bush's War on Terror upside down. The terrorists would now get constitutional protections; and those who fought against them would go to jail as "war criminals."

Now, Obama's popularity is in a tailspin. Late night comics joke about his being a one-term president. The civil liberties left is furious with him for failing to close Gitmo and to prosecute a single former Bush official -- not to mention for keeping US troops in Afghanistan. If he starts even one military trial of an alleged terrorist, even one who attacked a mili tary installation, he loses whatever shred of credibility he still has with his political base. (The two commissions under way both began under Bush.)

"It seems like nobody really cares," says Gloria Clodfelter, whose 21-year-old son died in the Cole bombing. Like the KSM trial and Obama's stance on the Ground Zero mosque, the decision to suspend the al Nashiri proceedings has nothing to do with justice and a lot to do with politics. The shame is that, once again, those who suffer are the families of those killed by terror, not the terrorists themselves.


NY Post

Obama, We’re Not Suckers

Obama may mortgage America’s future, but we won’t let him do the same to Israel
By: Avi Trengo

This past week, the cat was out of the bag and the American president’s infinite arrogance came bursting forth. Unlike his European colleagues, whose statements made sure to minimize their involvement to “ending the occupation of 1967,” President Obama (via a State Department spokesman) revealed his intention to bring an “end to the conflict.”

Does Obama really know how to “end the conflict?” We got the answer two days later, when a document published in the media revealed the US Administration’s intention to secure a final-status agreement within a year, while implementing it within 10 years. In other words, Obama wishes to win all the glory while mortgaging the future (our future, not his.)

After all, this is Obama’s specialty. The president “saved” the US economy by printing more than $3 trillion, most of which were poured into the American economy via the acquisition of inflated mortgage-backed securities. He’s leaving the bill for his successors.

Americans may be willing to clean after Obama and believe that he saved them from collapse (they will find the fractures and skeletons in a few years,) but the State of Israel cannot take such chances. We live in the present and not in promises for a rosy future; hence, the US president would do well to show a little modesty: Learn about the roots of the conflict, understand why there is no solution for it at this time, and most importantly, premise any proposal for an interim agreement on realities on the ground.

If Obama wishes to use the “implementation in 10 years” card to shove a “deal” premised on the types of dreams he’s selling to his own people down our throats, we have news for him: We’re not your highness’ suckers. If you wish to propose something that would be implemented in 10 years, you’re invited to come back for a visit nine years from now. Any attempt to look even just one year into the future is dangerous in our neighborhood.

The real core issue
The talks Obama organized for us are seemingly supposed to focus on what he (mistakenly) refers to as the core issues – including refugees, borders, and Jerusalem. Yet his preoccupation with all these issues shows that President Obama has no understanding whatsoever of the real core issue.

The only genuine core issue is the ideology that refuses to accept the existence of a national home for the Jewish people in the Middle East (within any borders.) Islamic imperialism seeks to spread in all directions, while the tiny Israel is like a thorn in its side at the heart of its home base, the Middle East.

Israel and the Jewish sovereignty over its territory is the only core issue. All the rest are excuses. Two generations after 1948, the issue of refugees has remained an excuse, just like the “humanitarian supplies” on board the Gaza-bound Turkish ships were merely an excuse.

In order to understand the arrogance inherent in his desire to “end the conflict," Obama would do well to look at two elements expressed aboard the Mavi Marmara: What was the song, “Khaibar, Khaibar,” sang by activists while they prepared the metal rods used to assault IDF soldiers? And how did these activists know that IDF troops – supposedly members of the brutal occupation army – will not use any arms while raiding the ship?

Khaibar is an ancient town on the Arabian Peninsula. In 629, Mohammad’s soldiers attacked the Jews barricaded in the city. A year earlier, Mohammad signed the Treaty of Hudaybiyya with the Jews, promising them to live in peace while telling his followers this was the right path: Sign agreements when the Jewish enemy is strong and bide your time.

When Mohammad conquered Khaibar, he executed all the men, the women (including the girls) were brutally raped, and boys were sold to slavery. This event was deeply etched in Islamic imperialism’s consciousness, and the song “Khaibar, Khaibar, oh Jews, Mohammad’s army shall return” has been used as a battle cry since 629 and until the Mavi Marmara days.

Accepting Jewish sovereignty
This leads us to the next question: How did the activists know it was a good idea to prepare bats in order to counter the region’s most powerful army? The answer is simple: They knew that the de-legitimization campaign against Israel would prompt the IDF to fight with its hands tied behind its back. Israel cannot use the weapons it holds for fear of the international condemnation that follows every new provocation against it.

Palestinian Authority President Abbas is right to say that he should not be asked to characterize the State of Israel as the Jewish people’s state; however, he is wrong when he tells us to “define yourselves any way you want.” We already did it, in line with a UN resolution dating back to 1947 and a League of Nations resolution dating back to 1922. We established the Jewish national home at the heart of the Islamic Middle East.

And this leads us to the real question: Is Abbas, as well as all the leaders and leading clerics in Islamic states, willing to absolutely recognize the Jewish people’s right for sovereignty in its land? Much before we try to draw the borders, we need to ask whether the Muslims are willing to accept our sovereignty here on any plot of land.

This is the first core issue, to be followed by the second core issue: Are all Islamic states willing to accept that any violation of the final-status agreement planned for us by Obama will receive an immediate response on the ground? That is, would the State of Israel have the right to remove any hostile element from any territory used to attack us?

If the answer to those two questions is affirmative, we have something to talk about. However, if the answer is negative, then even presidential pledges to protect Israel under an American nuclear umbrella would not guarantee our existence here. The State of Israel, whose breadth ranges from 12 to 50 kilometers, cannot afford to sustain even one Iranian nuclear bomb.

And so, we do not intend to put out trust in promises, but rather, to defend ourselves – against the Iranian bomb, and against Palestinian demography.


Ynet News