Archive for the ‘Israel’ Category

Transcript And Video Of Benjamin Netanyahu Proving The Case For Preemptive War Against Iran In AIPAC Speech

March 6, 2012

Link: http://ironicsurrealism.com/2012/03/05/transcript-israeli-prime-minister-benjamin-netanyahus-speech-at-aipac-2012/

Thank you for the warm reception. It could be heard as far away as Jerusalem – the eternal and united capital of Israel.

More than two thirds of the Congress is in attendance here tonight.

I deeply appreciate your being here.

Last May when I addressed the Congress, you stood up to applaud the state of Israel. Now I ask the 13,000 friends of IL here to stand up and applaud you,
the representatives of the American people. Democrats and Republicans alike, we applaud your unwavering commitment to Israel.

I want to recognize Yossi Peled who is here tonight. Yossi was born in Belgium. His parents hid him with a Christian family during World War II. His father, and many other members of his family, were murdered at Auschwitz. His mother survived the Holocaust, returned to reclaim Yossi, and brought him to Israel. He became one of Israel’s bravest and greatest generals. And today, Yossi Peled serves as a minister in my government.

Yossi’s life is the story of the Jewish people – the story of a powerless and stateless people who became a strong and proud nation able to defend itself.

And ladies and gentlemen, Israel must always reserve the right to defend itself.

I’d like to talk to you about a subject no one has been talking about recently….Iran.

Every day, I open the papers and read about these redlines and these timelines. I read about what Israel has decided to do or what Israel might do.

Well, I’m not going to talk to you about what Israel will do or will not do. I never talk about that. But I do want to talk to you about the dangers of a nuclear-armed Iran. I want to explain why Iran must never be allowed to develop nuclear weapons.

President Obama has reiterated his commitment to prevent this from happening. He stated clearly that all options remain on the table, and that American policy is not containment.

Well, Israel has the same policy. We are determined to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. We leave all options on the table. Ad containment is definitely not an option.

The Jewish state will not allow those seeking our destruction to possess the means to achieve that goal. A nuclear armed Iran must be stopped.

Amazingly, some people refuse to acknowledge that Iran’s goal is to develop nuclear weapons. You see, Iran claims that it’s enriching uranium to develop medical research. Yeah, right. A country that builds underground nuclear facilities, develops intercontinental ballistic missiles, manufactures thousands of centrifuges, and absorbs crippling sanctions – is doing all that in order to advance…medical research. So you see, when that Iranian ICBM is flying through the air to a location near you, you’ve got nothing to worry about. It’s only carrying medical isotopes.

Ladies and Gentlemen, If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then what is it? That’s right, it’s a duck –but this duck is a nuclear duck. And it’s time the world started calling a duck a duck.

Fortunately, President Obama and most world leaders understand that the idea that Iran’s goal is not to develop nuclear weapons is ridiculous. Yet incredibly, some are prepared to accept an idea only slightly less preposterous: That we should accept a world in which the Ayatollahs have atomic bombs.

Sure, they say, Iran is cruel, but it’s not crazy. It’s detestable but it’s deterrable.

Responsible leaders should not bet the security of their countries on the belief that the world’s most dangerous regime won’t use the world’s most dangerous weapons. And I promise you that as Prime Minister, I will never gamble with the security of Israel.

From the beginning, the Ayatollah regime has broken every international rule and flouted every norm. It has seized embassies, targeted diplomats and sent its own children through mine fields. It hangs gays and stones women. It supports Assad’s brutal slaughter of the Syrian people. Iran is the world’s foremost sponsor of terror. It sponsors Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza and terrorists throughout the Middle East, Africa, and South America. Iran’s proxies have dispatched hundreds of suicide bombers, planted thousands of roadside bombs, and fired over twenty thousand missiles at civilians. Through terror from the skies and terror on the ground, Iran is responsible for the murder of hundreds, if not thousands, of Americans.

In 1983, Iran’s proxy Hezbollah blew up the Marine barracks in Lebanon, killing 240 American servicemen. In the last decade, its been responsible for murdering and maiming American soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq. Just a few months ago, it tried to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador in a restaurant just a few blocks from here. The assassins didn’t care that several Senators and members of Congress would have been murdered in the process.

Iran accuses the American government of orchestrating 9/11, and it denies the Holocaust. Iran brazenly calls for Israel’s destruction, and they work for its destruction – each day, every day. This is how Iran behaves today, without nuclear weapons. Think of how they will behave tomorrow, with nuclear weapons. Iran will be even more reckless and far more dangerous.

There’s been plenty of talk recently about the costs of stopping Iran. I think it’s time to talk about the costs of not stopping Iran.

A nuclear-armed Iran would dramatically increase terrorism by giving terrorists a nuclear umbrella. That means that Iran’s terror proxies like Hezbollah, Hamas will be emboldened to attack America, Israel, and others because they will be backed by a power with atomic weapons.

A nuclear-armed Iran could choke off the world’s oil supply and make real its threat to close the Straits of Hormouz. If you’re worried about the price of oil today, imagine how high oil prices will be when a nuclear-armed Iran starts blackmailing the world.

If Iran gets nuclear weapons, this would set off a mad dash by Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt and others to acquire nuclear weapons of their own. The world’s most volatile region would become a nuclear tinderbox waiting to go off.

And the worst nightmare of all, Iran could threaten all of us with nuclear terrorism. It could put a nuclear device in a ship heading to any port or in a truck parked in any city. Think about what it would mean to have nuclear weapons in the hands of radicals who lead millions in chants of “Death to America” and “Death to Israel.” For the sake of our prosperity, for the sake of our security, for the sake of our children, Iran must not be allowed to get nuclear weapons!

The best outcome would be if Iran abandoned its nuclear weapons program peacefully. No one would be happier than me and the people of Israel if Iran actually dismantled its program. But so far, that hasn’t happened.

For fifteen years, I’ve been warning that a nuclear-armed Iran is a grave danger to my country and to the peace and security of the world. For the last decade, the international community has tried diplomacy. It hasn’t worked. For six years, the international community has applied sanctions. That hasn’t worked either. I appreciate President Obama’s recent efforts to impose even tougher sanctions against Iran. Those sanctions are hurting Iran’s economy. But unfortunately, Iran’s nuclear march goes on.

Israel has waited patiently for the international community to resolve this issue.

We’ve waited for diplomacy to work. We’ve waited for sanctions to work. None of us can afford to wait much longer.

As Prime Minister of Israel, I will never let my people live under the shadow of annihilation.

Some commentators would have you believe that stopping Iran from getting the bomb is more dangerous than letting Iran have the bomb. They say that a military confrontation with Iran would undermine the efforts already underway, that it would be ineffective, and that it would provoke even more vindictive action by Iran.

I’ve heard these arguments before. In fact, I’ve read them before.

In my desk, I have copies of an exchange of letters between the World Jewish Congress and the US War Department. The year was 1944. The World Jewish Congress implored the American government to bomb Auschwitz. The reply came five days later. I want to read it to you.

“Such an operation could be executed only by diverting considerable air support essential to the success of our forces elsewhere…..and in any case would be of such doubtful efficacy that it would not warrant the use of our resources….”

And here’s the most remarkable sentence of all. And I quote:

“Such an effort might provoke even more vindictive action by the Germans.”

Think about that – “even more vindictive action” — than the Holocaust.

My Friends, 2012 is not 1944. The American government today is different. You heard it in President Obama’s speech yesterday.

But here’s my point.

The Jewish people are also different. Today we have a state of our own. The purpose of the Jewish state is to secure the Jewish future.

That is why Israel must always have the ability to defend itself, by itself, against any threat.

We deeply appreciate the great alliance between our two countries.

But when it comes to Israel’s survival, we must always remain the masters of our fate.

Israel’s fate is to continue to be the forward position of freedom in the Middle East. The only place where minorities enjoy full civil rights; The only place where Arabs enjoy full civil rights. The only place where Christians are free to practice their faith; The only place where real judges protect the rule of law; And as Prime Minister of Israel, I will never allow anything to threaten Israel’s democratic way of life. And most especially, I will never tolerate any discrimination against women.

This week, we will read how one woman changed Jewish history. In Synagogues throughout the world, the Jewish people will celebrate the festival of Purim. We will read how some 2,500 years ago, a Persian anti-Semite tried to annihilate the Jewish people. We will read how his plot was foiled by one courageous woman – Esther.

In every generation, there are those who wish to destroy the Jewish people. We are blessed to live in an age when there is a Jewish state capable of defending the Jewish people. And we are doubly blessed to have so many friends like you, Jews and non-Jews alike, who love the State of Israel and support its right to defend itself.

Thank you for your friendship, Thank you for your courage, Thank you for standing up for the one and only Jewish state.

Obama Says He’s Not Bluffing With Iran (Note: His Own Secretary Of State Hillary Clinton Says He’s Bluffing)

March 5, 2012

Obama recently said:

I think that the Israeli government recognizes that, as president of the United States, I don’t bluff. I also don’t, as a matter of sound policy, go around advertising exactly what our intentions are. But I think both the Iranian and the Israeli governments recognize that when the United States says it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, we mean what we say. Let describe very specifically why this is important to us.

But as I have previously pointed out, Obama’s Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had an exchange with a student in Tunisia that very much says otherwise:

A Town Hall featuring Obama’s Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in Tunisia according to the State Department’s own transcript:

QUESTION: My name is Ivan. After the electoral campaign starts in the United States – it started some time ago – we noticed here in Tunisia that most of the candidates from the both sides run towards the Zionist lobbies to get their support in the States. And afterwards, once they are elected, they come to show their support for countries like Tunisia and Egypt for a common Tunisian or a common Arab citizen. How would you reassure and gain his trust again once given the fact that you are supporting his enemy as well at the same time?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, first, let me say you will learn as your democracy develops that a lot of things are said in political campaigns that should not bear a lot of attention. There are comments made that certainly don’t reflect the United States, don’t reflect our foreign policy, don’t reflect who we are as a people. I mean, if you go to the United States, you see mosques everywhere, you see Muslim Americans everywhere. That’s the fact. So I would not pay attention to the rhetoric.

Secondly, I would say watch what President Obama says and does. He’s our President. He represents all of the United States, and he will be reelected President, so I think that that will be a very clear signal to the entire world as to what our values are and what our President believes. So I think it’s a fair question because I know that – I sometimes am a little surprised that people around the world pay more attention to what is said in our political campaigns than most Americans, say, are paying attention. So I think you have to shut out some of the rhetoric and just focus on what we’re doing and what we stand for, and particularly what our President represents.

Hillary most certainly wasn’t speaking on the behalf of the Republican Party, which has always supported Israel and no president of which has EVER so blatantly snubbed an Israeli Prime Minister as did Barack Obama.

When Netanyahu comes to visit Obama today, I hope it is the same Benjamin Netanyahu who sat stunned with shock and outrage that an Israeli Prime Minister could ever be so contemptuously disrespected in an American White House.

And I hope that Netanyahu knows about Hillary Clinton’s words that we shouldn’t really trust a damn word this administration says when it comes to – how was it described again for Hillary Clinton? – “the Zionist lobbies.”

Obama wants to push this crisis back until after he gets re-elected so he can hang Israel out to dry without having to worry about it.  Obama knows that Israel doesn’t have the capabilities that the United States has, and that Israel therefore has a much narrower winder to effectively strike than does the U.S.  He should have dealt with this years ago but – as he has done his entire career – he just kept voting “present.” And he’s going to CONTINUE voting “present” until it’s too late for Israel unless Israel does something about it themselves. 

We can easily go back to 2007 when George Bush was dead right about Iran and Obama and his two senior stooges were dead wrong about Iran.  Obama hasn’t learned a damned thing since then because his worldview insulates him from reality.  All Obama understands is the politics of blame and demonization; and just as he’s spent the last three plus years blaming Bush for all of his failed policies, now he will begin to blame Israel for all the results of his failed policies when Israel is forced to attack Iran because of Obama’s history of “voting present” on Iran as all the fecal matter truly starts hitting the nuclear powered rotary oscillator that Iran has been building during the entire Obama presidency.

So I hope that Benjamin Netanyahu remembers that Israel was forged out of the Holocaust under the principle of “Never again” – meaning the principle that never again would the Jewish people be forced to depend on the failed promises of other nations to ensure their survival.  For Israel to lose control over their military destiny because some posturing fool made a bunch of empty promises would be the nadir of foolishness.

I stand with you, Israel.  I stand with you, Mister Prime Minister Netanyahu.  And I urge you to remember the repeated contempt and hostility that this president has demonstrated toward the only Jewish state in the world as you consider whether he will stand with you now.

Hillary Clinton In Tunisia: Don’t Worry, ‘Zionist’ Haters, Hillary Clinton And The Obama Administration Have Your Jew-Hating Back

March 2, 2012

This would be beyond belief if it wasn’t coming out of the Obama administration.

A Town Hall featuring Obama’s Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in Tunisia according to the State Department’s own transcript:

QUESTION: My name is Ivan. After the electoral campaign starts in the United States – it started some time ago – we noticed here in Tunisia that most of the candidates from the both sides run towards the Zionist lobbies to get their support in the States. And afterwards, once they are elected, they come to show their support for countries like Tunisia and Egypt for a common Tunisian or a common Arab citizen. How would you reassure and gain his trust again once given the fact that you are supporting his enemy as well at the same time?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, first, let me say you will learn as your democracy develops that a lot of things are said in political campaigns that should not bear a lot of attention. There are comments made that certainly don’t reflect the United States, don’t reflect our foreign policy, don’t reflect who we are as a people. I mean, if you go to the United States, you see mosques everywhere, you see Muslim Americans everywhere. That’s the fact. So I would not pay attention to the rhetoric.

Secondly, I would say watch what President Obama says and does. He’s our President. He represents all of the United States, and he will be reelected President, so I think that that will be a very clear signal to the entire world as to what our values are and what our President believes. So I think it’s a fair question because I know that – I sometimes am a little surprised that people around the world pay more attention to what is said in our political campaigns than most Americans, say, are paying attention. So I think you have to shut out some of the rhetoric and just focus on what we’re doing and what we stand for, and particularly what our President represents.

Now you know why Israel would be the greatest collection of fools in the history of the world to trust the Obama administration as their very survival becomes an issue as Iran is on the verge of becoming a nuclear state.

I frankly don’t know what more the Obama regime can do to assure Israel that they don’t dare trust the United States under Obama not to stab them in the back and screw them if Israel trusts them.

Notice: Hillary Clinton doesn’t bat an eyelash at the mention of “Zionists.”  She literally assures the questioner not to worry what (Democrat politicians) say because they are only mouthing what people want to hear with no intention of following through on their promised support of Israel.

So Obama came out and said that “he doesn’t bluff” when it comes to Iran.  But, hey, if you hate Israel and want to see her wiped off the map by nuclear Iran, don’t worry: that’s just a bluff – according to Obama’s own Secretary of State.

Benjamin Netanyahu is coming to visit the White House; let’s not forget how Obama contemptuously disrespected Bibi the last time he came to town.

So maybe now you can understand why Israel announced that when it came time for them to attack Iran, they would most definitely not warn the most dishonest and depraved administration in the history of the United States of what they were about to do.  Especially given the fact that  Obama’s handpicked Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta has already spilled the beans once about Israel’s plans to defend her right to exist.

You can go back to December 5, 2007 when Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and Barack Obama all attacked George Bush for believing that Iran’s nuclear program was a threat:

THE NATION – Democrats rip Bush’s Iran policy
Presidential candidates say a new intelligence report shows that the administration has been talking too tough.
By Scott Martelle and Robin Abcarian
December 05, 2007

Democratic presidential candidates teamed up during a National Public Radio debate here Tuesday to blast the Bush administration over its policy toward Iran, arguing that a new intelligence assessment proves that the administration has needlessly ratcheted up military rhetoric.

While the candidates differed somewhat over the level of threat Iran poses in the Mideast, most of them sought to liken the administration’s approach to Iran with its buildup to the war in Iraq.

“I vehemently disagree with the president that nothing’s changed and therefore nothing in American policy has to change,” said New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. “We do know that pressure on Iran does have an effect. I think that is an important lesson.”

Delaware Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr., chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said the new intelligence report indicated that Iran dropped its program before international pressure came into play.

“It was like watching a rerun of his statements on Iraq five years earlier,” Biden said. “Iran is not a nuclear threat to the United States of America. Iran should be dealt with directly, with the rest of the world at our side. But we’ve made it more difficult now, because who is going to trust us?”

The debate was aired without a studio audience over NPR, live from the Iowa State Historical Museum. It covered Iran, China and immigration, offering the contenders a chance to delve more deeply into subjects that often receive less detailed debate treatment.

Clinton and Biden were joined by Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, Connecticut Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, Ohio Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich, and former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel.

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson missed the debate to attend the funeral of Cpl. Clem Robert Boody in Independence, Iowa. Boody was a Korean War soldier whose remains Richardson had helped retrieve from North Korea earlier this year.

The National Intelligence Assessment report on Iran, released Monday, was the focus of the first third of the two-hour debate.

The assessment concluded that Iran halted its nuclear program in 2003 largely because of international pressure — reversing a conclusion made two years ago that the nation was aggressively pursuing nuclear weapons.

The Democrats used the issue to criticize each other as well as President Bush. Yet their own prescriptions for dealing with Iran are similar — and fairly close to the administration’s approach of increasing diplomatic and economic pressure to force Tehran to suspend enriching uranium that can be used for making nuclear weapons.

The leading Democratic candidates have differed over whether to negotiate directly with Iran. In a July debate, Obama said he would be willing to meet with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a position criticized by Clinton and others. But front-runners Clinton, Obama and Edwards have all said they would not rule out military action against Iran.

For their part, Republican candidates have said that the new intelligence estimate did not change their view of Iran as a major threat to the United States — a view also held by Bush.

[...]

When – not if – Israel attacks Iran and ignites massive tensions and possible global war, nobody will be more to blame than Barack Obama and the other two stooges Biden and Clinton.

These Democrats – who demonized President Bush for trying to do something about Iran’s growing nuclear program before it was  too late – have had three full years to do something to prevent Iran from its pursuit of nuclear weapons.  And they couldn’t have failed more.

I keep saying it: the beast is coming.  And Barack Obama will be the Antichrist’s most useful idiot.

Make Obama, Biden, Clinton And The Democrat Party Wear Nuclear Iran Like An Albatross Of Shame

February 7, 2012

I want you to go back to December 2007 and reflect on documented history:

THE NATION – Democrats rip Bush’s Iran policy
Presidential candidates say a new intelligence report shows that the administration has been talking too tough.
By Scott Martelle and Robin Abcarian
December 05, 2007

Democratic presidential candidates teamed up during a National Public Radio debate here Tuesday to blast the Bush administration over its policy toward Iran, arguing that a new intelligence assessment proves that the administration has needlessly ratcheted up military rhetoric.

While the candidates differed somewhat over the level of threat Iran poses in the Mideast, most of them sought to liken the administration’s approach to Iran with its buildup to the war in Iraq.

“I vehemently disagree with the president that nothing’s changed and therefore nothing in American policy has to change,” said New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. “We do know that pressure on Iran does have an effect. I think that is an important lesson.”

Delaware Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr., chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said the new intelligence report indicated that Iran dropped its program before international pressure came into play.

“It was like watching a rerun of his statements on Iraq five years earlier,” Biden said. “Iran is not a nuclear threat to the United States of America. Iran should be dealt with directly, with the rest of the world at our side. But we’ve made it more difficult now, because who is going to trust us?”

The debate was aired without a studio audience over NPR, live from the Iowa State Historical Museum. It covered Iran, China and immigration, offering the contenders a chance to delve more deeply into subjects that often receive less detailed debate treatment.

Clinton and Biden were joined by Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, Connecticut Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, Ohio Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich, and former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel.

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson missed the debate to attend the funeral of Cpl. Clem Robert Boody in Independence, Iowa. Boody was a Korean War soldier whose remains Richardson had helped retrieve from North Korea earlier this year.

The National Intelligence Assessment report on Iran, released Monday, was the focus of the first third of the two-hour debate.

The assessment concluded that Iran halted its nuclear program in 2003 largely because of international pressure — reversing a conclusion made two years ago that the nation was aggressively pursuing nuclear weapons.

The Democrats used the issue to criticize each other as well as President Bush. Yet their own prescriptions for dealing with Iran are similar — and fairly close to the administration’s approach of increasing diplomatic and economic pressure to force Tehran to suspend enriching uranium that can be used for making nuclear weapons.

The leading Democratic candidates have differed over whether to negotiate directly with Iran. In a July debate, Obama said he would be willing to meet with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a position criticized by Clinton and others. But front-runners Clinton, Obama and Edwards have all said they would not rule out military action against Iran.

For their part, Republican candidates have said that the new intelligence estimate did not change their view of Iran as a major threat to the United States — a view also held by Bush.

In the Democrats’ debate Tuesday, the focus on foreign-policy issues gave Clinton a chance to bring up what many people believe was the high point of her eight years as first lady — her speech at the 1995 U.N. Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing. In it, she castigated China over its treatment of women, arguing that women’s rights could no longer be considered separate from human rights. The Chinese government blocked the speech from being heard within China.

As at the Black & Brown Forum here Saturday night, the debate did not provide any landscape-shifting moments. Exchanges among the candidates were polite — but also at times direct, particularly over the recent bill sponsored by Sens. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) that unofficially declared the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization.

Clinton was the only Democratic candidate to vote for the bill. When asked whether she thought the Revolutionary Guard were “proliferators of mass destruction,” she said “many of us believe that” and suggested that earlier comments by Obama and Edwards about Iran indicated that they did too.

Edwards and Obama responded that they believed Iran was a threat to stability in the Mideast but that the administration was moving toward an unnecessary war.

“What I believe is that this president, who, just a few weeks ago, was talking about World War III, he, the vice president, the neocons have been on a march to possible war with Iran for a long time,” Edwards said. “We know that they’ve prepared contingency plans for a military attack.”

Obama, who missed the Kyl-Lieberman vote in the Senate because he was campaigning in New Hampshire, also drew parallels to the Iraq war buildup.

Who – and which party - turned out to be right?  And who couldn’t have been more wrong???

Secretary of State Leon Panetta – serving as Obama’s attack poodle – spilled the beans on an Israeli attack on Iran:

Panetta believes Israel may strike Iran this spring
United States Defense Secretary Leon Panetta believes there is a growing possibility Israel will attack Iran as early as April to stop Tehran from building a nuclear bomb, according to reports.
7:03AM GMT 03 Feb 2012

The Washington Post first reported that Panetta was concerned about the increased likelihood Israel would launch an attack over the next few months. CNN said it confirmed the report, citing a senior Obama administration official, who declined to be identified.

“Panetta believes there is a strong likelihood that Israel will strike Iran in April, May or June – before Iran enters what Israelis described as a ‘zone of immunity’ to commence building a nuclear bomb,” Washington Post columnist David Ignatius wrote.

“Very soon, the Israelis fear, the Iranians will have stored enough enriched uranium in deep underground facilities to make a weapon – and only the United States could then stop them militarily,” Ignatius wrote.
 
Ignatius did not cite a source. He was writing from Brussels where Panetta was attending a NATO defense ministers’ meeting.
 
Panetta and the Pentagon both declined comment on the Post report.

Israel, widely believed to possess the Middle East’s only nuclear arsenal, views Iran’s uranium enrichment projects as a major threat and has not ruled out the use of military force to prevent Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
 
Iran says its nuclear program is solely for peaceful purposes.

The Post article said the postponement of a joint U.S.-Israeli military exercise that had been scheduled for this spring may have signaled the prospect of an Israeli attack soon.
 
Washington and the European Union imposed tighter sanctions on Iran in recent weeks in a drive to force Tehran to provide more information on its nuclear program.
 
Iran has said repeatedly it could close the vital Strait of Hormuz shipping lane if sanctions succeed in preventing it from exporting crude, a move Washington said it would not tolerate.
 
Israel’s military intelligence chief said on Thursday he estimated that Iran could make four atomic bombs by further enriching uranium it had already stockpiled, and could produce its first bomb within a year of deciding to build one.
 
But in his rare public remarks, Major-General Aviv Kochavi held out the possibility that stronger international sanctions might dissuade Tehran from pursuing a policy he had no doubt was aimed at developing nuclear weapons.
 
Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said separately that “if sanctions don’t achieve the desired goal of stopping (Iran’s) military nuclear program, there will be a need to consider taking action.”

What if Israel had done something similar shortly before our Navy Seals went into Pakistan to kill Osama bin Laden???  We would have rightly blasted such treachery.

That said, Israel has no choice BUT to attack Iran because Barack Obama and the entire Democrat Party are traitors and cowards who put the United States and the state of Israel at grave risk by demanding we stick our heads up our asses and keep them there until it was too late. 

Re-read this sentence: “”Very soon, the Israelis fear, the Iranians will have stored enough enriched uranium in deep underground facilities to make a weapon – and only the United States could then stop them militarily.”  And let me translate it for you.  Israel will attack Iran – and start a war in the Middle East – because it knows it cannot trust a pathological weakling like Barack Obama to stand up to evil.  They know they will have to do what Obama lacks the moral will or courage to do; and Israel’s attack will mark the failure not of Israel but of Barack Obama.

Obama despises Israel in his actions in spite of his devious rhetoric and the thought of that nation having the courage to protect itself in the face of his cowardice fills him with dread.

You can bet that Obama won’t launch an attack on Iran.  Bottom line: he is a pathological weasel.  What he’ll do is sit back like a trembling little coward and wait for Israel to do what any decent nation would do for not only its own survival but for the sake of sanity itself and attack Iran.  And then Obama will tut-tut naughty Israel for its aggression.

This is the most obvious train-wreck in human history.  In early February of 2009 I wrote about America’s enemies seeing a weakling in the White House and smelling blood:

When Iran gets its nuclear weapons, we will start seeing some hard-core “generated international crises.” Right up the wazoo.

I’ve written about Obama’s dilemma in dealing with Iran before (and see also) Given the fact that Obama opposed the war with Iraq due to what he claimed was insufficient evidence of Iraqi WMD, how would he be able to go to war with Iran when the evidence will likely be even more flimsy? I mean, we were IN Iraq for several years; we actually SAW their WMDs in the Gulf War. We know very little about Iran’s weapons programs.

That same month in 2009 I wrote It’s Official: Iran Will Have The Bomb On Obama’s Watch.

In November 2008 shortly after the election I pointed out and asked: President Obama Not Ready For Coming International Crisis. Are You?

And before the election I explained the interesting phenonema as to Why Islamic Extremists Support Democrats and Obama.

Oh, I also pointed out the fact back in 2008 that Biden Reported Stating Israel Must Accept A Nuclear Iran.

In August of 2008 I asked a question: Iran And The Bomb: What Are We Going To Do?

And I can go all the way back to April of 2008 in one of my very first blog articles titled Democratic Debate: Promising Armageddon in which I concluded:

Allow me to guarantee you that a Democratic administration will see a nuclear Iran. Given their policy on Iraq, it becomes an implicit campaign promise. And it will see a nuclearized Middle East. Democrats have spent forty years proving that they are cowards who will not stand by their allies, and their actions will come home to roost.

A Republican president can say to the Iranians, “We went in to Iran when we thought they might attack us, Iran. And I promise that will do the same to you if you continue your weapons program.” And no one can question that. A Republican president can say to Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt, “We stayed with Iraq and defended them even when it was difficult, and we’ll do the same for you.” and no one can question that.

One of the things that I here point out is that even if Obama surprises me and actually attacks Iran, it will also be a shocking surprise to Iran that believes that Obama is a weakling and a coward based on his own words.  They would not have similarly believed that McCain was such.  Which is to say that even if Obama does the right thing and attacks Iran, it will be a war that didn’t have to be fought had we just voted with wisdom and courage in 2008.

Here we are now, on the verge of a nuclear Iran and a regional war involving Israel and Iran that the United States will most assuredly be drawn into at great economic cost (at a minimum) to ourselves.  Entirely due to the fault of Barack Obama and a treasonous Democrat Party.

When we voted for Barack Obama, we voted for a nuclear Iran.  We would accept nothing less.  We voted for the most expensive gasoline in American history.  We voted for an economy that would remain in shambles.

As I close this, I want to point out another FACT that history needs to remember.  I wrote a three part series in May 2008:

Iraq War Justified: Lessons from Saddam’s History (Part 1)

Iraq War Justified: What the Chronology Reveals (Part 2)

Iraq War Justified: Paralysis, Corruption at U.N. Made Truth Impossible (Part 3)

One of the primary points that I documented was that we had no choice to go to war with Iraq because three countries – Russia, China and France – blocked every serious international effort to prevent Iraq from developing WMDs which American foreign policy rightly concluded was unacceptable.  For the record, we are facing basically the same situation now with Iran and with Syria.  And how are we going to gain international cooperation when Russia and China can block any meaningful effort at international cooperation with their respective veto powers?

Three sites provide a list of statements that top Democrats made as they gave their support for the Iraq War before they treasonously turned on a president at war.  You can see that they talked as tough as “Dubya” EVER did about military action against Saddam Hussein; but when it came time for these cowards to put their money where their mouths were, well, that was when they cut and ran:

Truth or Fiction
Freedom Agenda
Snopes

I have repeatedly attacked the Democrat Party for its:

Opposition to the Iraq War (which 60% of Senate Democrats voted for, only to repudiate and claim Bush deceived them); opposition to the Patriot Act; opposition to Domestic Surveillance on calls from international terrorists; opposition to Gitmo, even though it is the only reasonable place to hold these people that no country wants; the demand for full legal representation in civilian courts for terrorists; opposition to even the reasonable use of profiling to weed out terrorists.  And I could go on and on.  It boils down to the fact that the left despise anything that help us win the war on terror or protect us from terrorism.

And to quote Obama’s pastor Jeremiah Wright who demonized America in his “No, no, no!  Not God bless America.  God DAMN America!” sermon, “Our chickens have come home to roost” for voting for this disgrace and this party of disgrace.

There is one person – Barack Obama – and one party – the Democrat Party – that are 100 percent responsible for the crisis we are about to face.

Liberal Rabbi Continues Secular Humanist Hatred For All Things Christian And Tim Tebow

December 21, 2011

Rabbi Joshua Hammerman, in tooting his own horn as loudly as he knows how, boasts that he is the winner of the Rockover Award (which just so happens to be “the highest honor in Jewish journalism,” by the way).  And his columb appears regularly in New York Jewish Week.

Here is his latest and greatest wise musing:

“If Tebow wins the Super Bowl, against all odds, it will buoy his faithful, and emboldened faithful can do insane things, like burning mosques, bashing gays and indiscriminately banishing immigrants. While America has become more inclusive since Jerry Falwell’s first political forays, a Tebow triumph could set those efforts back considerably.”

I mean, you could literally sing those lyrics to the tune, “If Hitler hadn’t killed six million Jews, the world would have been a much worse place.”

Interestingly, our Rabbi is a coward.  He delected those words from his blog, oh, much the way the Daily Kos deleted from its site allegations that Sarah Palin was faking her pregnancy with son Trig because the baby was really Brittany’s by incestuous relationship with her father (and Sarah’s husband).

The hatemongering continued until it was revealed that Bristol was herself pregnant – and that it was therefore biologically impossible that she could have been pregnant with Trig.  At which time the Daily Kos purged their site.  They didn’t apologize, they just slunk away like the despicable and vile cowards that they have always been.

When the going gets tough, you can always trust liberals to change their story.  Unless they can delete it and claim they never said it to begin with.

You would think of ALL people, Jews would have learned the lesson about such hateful demonization.

You would also think that a rabbi who says that Christians are so damn intolerant and hateful would think about how hypocritical he was being when he made such a despicable statement.  He literally singles Tim Tebow out – whom I’m willing to bet has never said a hateful thing about Jews or about burning mosques in his life – and attributes fanatical and deragened hate to him and to those who root for him.

But not this Jew.  And not most liberal Jews for that matter - who continue to vote for Democrats and vote for the most profoundly anti-Israel president in American history.

Understand, this attack against Tim Tebow and the Christianity said Tim Tebow believes in is just another in a long series of leftist attacks.

Now, understand, I am a fierce supporter of Israel.  Which is to say that I am FAR more pro-Israel than most American Jews (for the record, there are all KINDS of American liberal Jews who regard Israel and their fellow Jews who live there with naked contempt).  For too many liberal American Jews, the subject of “the Jewish state” is met with embarassed silence.  And liberal Democrat Jews continue to believe that liberal Jews don’t much care about Israel.  Hopefully that is changing as more American Jews understand that Barack Obama represents an existential threat to Israel that is frankly worse than the threat of Iran (and that because it frankly doesn’t matter who their enemies are if America remains her steadfast friend).

Norman Podhoretz writes a thoroughly-researched book in which we find him ”maintaining that Democratic attitudes toward Israel range from unsympathetic to passionately hostile while the Republicans, with some exceptions, have been solidly to fervently supportive since the end of the 1967 Six-Day War.”

A review of Podhoretz’s book, “Why Jews Are Liberals” has this to say:

Yet, in terms of Israel support, there were reasons to think 2008 would be a good year for the GOP. John McCain’s long history of sympathy with Israel should have given him an advantage over Barack Hussein Obama, whose history consisted of associating with enemies of the Jewish state like the unapologetic bigot Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

Nevertheless, proving Pod’s assertion that Statist “Jews” have not cared about Israel/Judaism for decades, Obama beat Mr. McCain among Jewish voters by roughly a 70-30 ratio. Obama did far better with Jews than with any other ethnic/religious group, sans blacks, and Podhorertz relays some stats:

The Jewish vote for him was 25 points higher than the 53% he scored with the electorate as a whole; 35 points higher than the 43% he scored with whites; 11 points higher than the 67% he scored with Hispanics; 33 points higher than the 45% he scored with Protestants; and 24 points higher than the 54% he scored with Catholics.

In his closing paragraphs, Podhoretz clarifies a final time:

“The social, political and moral system that liberals wish to transform is the very system in and through which Jews found a home such as they had never discovered in all their forced wanderings tyhroughout the centuries over the face of the earth.”

We fundamentalist Christians – unlike liberal Jews - stand strongly besides Israel and we vow to stand WITH Israel.  Even to our own hurt.  And the interesting thing is that this uberliberal rabbi implicitly affirms that.  It’s not Jews that we’re going to target if Tebot wins the Super Bowl; no sir, we’re going to burn down all the mosques and target every single immigrant BUT Jews.

At suppose that’s an improvement from this hypocrite hater; he could have accused us of hating on Jews, too.

I use the term “Judeo-Christian” to understand my faith.  I believe that Messiah Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament and said that every jot and tittle of it would ultimately be fulfilled.  That means that there is a place for Jews and a place for national Israel in God’s kingdom.  And with my fellow evangelical Christians, I eagerly wait to see that day when God brings all of His people together.  And I continue to stand up in vocal support of the state of Israel and call for America to defend God’s chosen people against her mortal enemies until that blessed day the prophets anticipated comes to pass.

That faith is far stronger than Rabbi Joshua Hammerman’s hate and bigotry.  So my attitude toward Israel and toward faithful Jews does not change so much as a single degree.

America’s Enemies Saying, ‘Thanks For Giving Away BILLIONS In Hi-Tech Stealth Technology, Obama!’

December 13, 2011

Barack Obama said something a few days ago that festers like a nasty strain of brain cancer.

When mainstream media “reporters” handed Obama a softball question about Republicans calling him out for appeasement (in a question that failed to mention ANY of the reasons the Republicans had given for accusing Obama of appeasement in the first place), Obama said:

“Ask Osama bin Laden and the 22 out of 30 top al-Qaida leaders who have been taken off the field whether I engage in appeasement. Or whoever is left out there, ask them about that,” the president said during a news conference.

Now, it’s hard to find because our media is so in the pocket of liberalism, but the Republcians’ charge occurred during a Republican Jewish Conference forum.  They put a little content into their charge; for instance, pointing out that - due to Democrats in general and Obama, Biden and Hillary Clinton in particular blocking George Bush from confronting Iran over its growing nuclear program, and due to Obama’s weakness and appeasement since taking office – Iran is now six months away from a nuclear weapon and it is too late to stop them from getting one.  Which of course exalts Islam and directly threatens our ally Israel.

Iran is going to have a nuclear weapon SOON.  That day will be a dark and terrible one, because Iran will ultimately be able to a) shut down the Strait of Hormuz and send oil prices skyrocketing above $14 a gallon; b) launch an international wave of terrorism; or c) even attack Israel with IMPUNITY when they get nuclear weapons and the ballistic missiles to deliver them.  Because if we attack a nuclear – and frankly crazy and truly evil - Iran, we get to kiss a few cities and tens of millions of Americans goodbye.

There were several other reasons the various GOP rivals rightly accused Obama of appeasement.  But let’s just ask ourselves: if those biased leftist hyper-partisan psuedo-journalists had confronted Obama with the disgrace of Iran’s nuclear program in the context of their question about “appeasement,” wouldn’t that have made it just a little bit harder for a biased leftist hyper-partisan pseudo-president to give us such a smash-that-lob response???

In any event, Obama is a great, strong, powerful leader and NOT a timid appeaser because he got Osama bin Laden – and just don’t you mind the rest of the foreign policy disasters he’s presided over.  That’s the Obama line.

Let’s forget about your apology tour (see also here) when you went around the rest of the world damning America.  Let’s forget about how you repeatedly insisted on a timetable for withdrawal in both Iraq and Afghanistan that would make any victory possible.  Let’s forget how you abandoned commitments made to Czechoslovakia and Poland to needlessly appease Russia.  Let’s forget that even Europe has recognized your spinelessness.  Let’s forget how you refused to denounce Iran even as that country was massacring its own people for demonstrating for freedom.  Let’s forget that you are demanding that the U.S. pull out its troops from Iraq after we fought so hard for it to the shock and disgust of our generals.  Let’s forget the many times you have undermined Israel, such as when you demanded Israel return to indefensible 1967 borders after America promised Israel it would NEVER do such a thing.  Let’s forget how you undermined valuable ally Egypt under Mubarak and proceeded to give us a country instead that will be run by terrorists and based on Shariah law.  Let’s forget that Iran initiated an act of war against the United States – and you spinelessly did NOTHING about it.  Let’s forget that you actually are DEMANDING that the defense budget be gutted $600 billion more than the $450 you already gutted it.

Let’s forget that, mainstream media, so we can lob Obama a softball question devoid of any context at all – and allow Obama to say something like, oh, “Ask Osama bin Laden if I’m an appeaser.”

So let’s consider Obama’s answer: does Obama being the brave, brave Sir Robin who happened to be the carbon-based lifeform inhabiting the Oval Office at the time we got Osama bin Laden make up for all of the above appeasement???

Well, first consider the FACT that the waterboarding Obama opposed, demonized and in fact actually tried to criminalize-after-the-fact was ESSENTIAL to finding out where Obama was (see also here).  If Obama had got his way, and Bush had not waterboarded terrorist suspects, we can toss out the only link we had to Obama (courier) and we can toss out the city where he was hiding (Abbottabad):

Oops.  Did I forget to mention that Obama has actually had many more acts of appeasement than what I had above?  Because not only did he denounce the very waterboarding that got us Osama bin Laden, but he also denounced the Gitmo where we got that information.

So why does Obama get all the credit for getting Obama and Bush none?

Please refer to my previous statements regarding the level of bias in American pesudo-journalism.

But then there’s also “the decision” to get Osama bin Laden.  Wasn’t that like really brave?

Well, I’m going to the dentist this week to get some really painful work done.  I’m just as brave as Obama was to get in my car and show up at that dentist office.

Imagine if Obama had REFUSED to get Osama bin Laden (after making a campaign promise that he would do so if he knew where bin Laden was hiding).  What do you think are the odds that that information would never get out?  What are the odds that no so much as one single member of the armed forces or the intelligence community would be outraged by such an act of cowardice and not leak the fact that Obama refused to get the world’s number one terrorist in the world?  And what are the odds that Obama would have been re-elected with Republicans running that ad again and again and again like Bush Sr.’s “Read my lips, no new taxes” line???

It wasn’t “brave” for Obama to approve that mission; it was an act of self-political-survival.

And that mission to get Osama bin Laden had some huge consequences that for some strange reason the media has refused to lay at the door of the guy they gave all the credit for getting him to. 

If Obama deserves the credit, does he not also deserve the blame?

For one thing, U.S. relations with vital partner in the war on terror Pakistan are at an all-time-low because of the thing that Obama claims so much credit for having done.

Imagine if Mexico launched a commando raid into the heart of the United States to kill someone their government was after.  Or imagine if Canada did that to us.  How would we respond to the fact that soldiers with guns flew into our country without our knowledge or consent to start shooting people?

Combine that with the fact that Obama “air raided villages and murdered innocent Pakistani soldiers” – to the tune of 24 dead Pakistani soldiers killed in their own country by Obama - and our relations with Pakistan couldn’t get much lower if we started firing nuclear missiles at each other.

Do you remember when Obama falsely and in fact demonically attacked Bush for bringing down the U.S. image to the rest of the world.  Now the world hates us more than it ever did under Bush.  Even the ARAB WORLD hates us more, because they at least had some respect for Bush.  Versus Obama who is just a simpering – and yes, appeasing – scrawny-necked dumbo-eared little weasel.

But hey, I’m not a “journalist” or a “reporter,” so I can bring facts like that up, can’t I???

There was another casuality to Obama’s grand mission that everyone gave him total credit for: we gave away BILLIONS in stealth technology to our enemies in China and Russia.

Remember that helicopter tail section Obama left behind in Pakistan?

Pakistan Shares US Stealth Technology With China: Did That Bring Down The Chinook With SEALs?
Posted by Jason Bradley Aug 15th 2011 at 9:10 am

Several of us at Big Peace have reported in the past about the noticeable warming relationship between China and Pakistan. This has concerned the US because of the amount of cooperation and assistance – worth billions of dollars — given to Pakistan. It was eventually decided that that we would have to accept Pakistan’s warts if we were to have a regional partner in the War on Terror. It was an uneasy concession from the start and hard pill to swallow. In fact, that pill hasn’t fully worked its way down.

Just recently there were immediate questions over the successful downing of Chinook that did more damage to US forces in an instant in what otherwise could not be accomplished by the Taliban in over ten years of war. Those questions were directed to the highest reaches of the Pakistan government and its intelligence arm, the ISI.

Now comes in what appears to be an open betrayal by our so-called mission partners.

The US employed new stealth technology in the successful raid on Osama bin Laden. Special Forces used a previously unknown capability, and so far as we know, is unduplicated by any other country, when they swooped down on Osama’s compound in stealth-modified Blackhawk helicopters. One of those helicopters had a mechanical malfunction and crashed on site as a result. Despite urgent requests by the CIA and the US government, Pakistan allowed China to view the new machine.

“The US now has information that Pakistan, particularly the ISI, gave access to the Chinese military to the downed helicopter in Abbottabad,” the paper quoted a person “in intelligence circles” as saying.

Pakistan, which enjoys a close relationship with China, allowed Chinese intelligence officials to take pictures of the crashed chopper as well as take samples of its special “skin” that allowed the American raid to evade Pakistani radar, Reuters reported.

No one from the Pakistani army was available for comment, but the Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI), Pakistan’s top spy agency, denied the report. The paper said Pakistan’s top general, chief of army staff Ashfaq Kayani, denied that China had been given access.

Do you know how much it cost to develop that technology that China can now easily reverse-engineer for pennies on the millions of dollars?

You don’t want to know.  Seriously.

Our enemies can not only reverse engineer our stealth technology and make their own stealth helicopters to use against U.S. interests, but it can also now devise better countermeasures against our stuff to leave us weaker in the future.

And Obama isn’t through on that score.  He just left behind a hi-tech radar-evading stealth drone for Iran to find.

Now, again, being a weak, appeasing COWARD Obama isn’t going in and GETTING his damned drone; he’s saying, “Please, pretty, pretty, pretty please, Mr. Ayatollah, can I have my drone back?”

And what did it cost us to develop that thing?  A bunch.  What’s it going to cost Iran – and its allies Russia and China to develop?  Nada.

But, hey.  That kind of thing gets in the way of the mainstream media narrative that anything that we don’t want to credit Obama for we will blame Bush for.

We’re back in the days of the Marxists and the Nazis (fellow socialist travellers) rising to power.  All it would have taken for the ugliest period in the history of the human race to have been averted was a little honest reporting by the medias of those countries.  But the media had become ideological pawns of totalitarian agendas.  It had become an actual ally of those agendas.

Deja vu all over again.

I’m With Newt Gingrich On Palestinians Being An ‘Invented People’

December 12, 2011

As far as I’m concerned, Newt Gingrich nailed this one.

The “Palestinians” exist for everyone who has a spiritual and ideological hatred of Israel, and that is the ONLY reason it/they exist. It NEVER existed prior to the existence of Israel and no Arabs even bothered to TRY to create it/them. The so-called “Palestinians” could have and should have gone to the 99-plus percent of the land that was controlled by Arabs; but the Arabs in their rabid hatred of Israel decided it was better to create a festering sore by leaving people in camps and ghettos as a deceitful way to denounce Israel.

Gingrich Gets It Right
Posted by David Horowitz Bio ↓ on Dec 12th, 2011

In an interviewon Saturday, Newt Gingrich put some reality into the surreal discussion of the Middle East conflict and (as he put it) the delusional nature of the current “peace process.” The Palestinians are indeed an “invented people” — invented by the Nasser dictatorship and KGB by the way — and the Hitlerian lie that Israel occupies one square inch of “Arab” let alone “Palestinian” land needs to be buried for any clarity on what the conflict is about, let alone progress towards peace.

Of course there is no peace in the Middle East and there can be no peace so long as the Muslim Arabs want to kill the Jews and destroy the Jewish state. That is the explicit goal of the enemies of Israel in the terrorist entities of Gaza and the West Bank, and also of Israel’s principal enemy the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Newt Gingrich’s gutsy statements — if he will hold to them — could change the nature of the debate not only about how to deal with the Islamic terrorists of the Middle East but with the Islamic jihad itself. For the campaign to destroy Israel is at bottom a campaign to restore the Muslim (not Arab) ummah — as it was under the Turkish empire and the caliphate.

According to CNN, a Palestinian spokesman called Gingrich’s observation that the Palestinians are “an invented people” quote “the most racist I’ve ever seen.” This just shows what brazen liars Palestinian spokesmen are. Everything that Gingrich said was obvious fact. For nearly 2,000 years “Palestine” referred to region not a people — just as “New England” refers to a region not a people. In 1948 the Arabs of the Palestine region were not talking about a Palestinian state and were not referring to themselves as Palestinians. That came in 1964 with the creation of the PLO, engineered by the KGB and the Jew-hating dictator of Egypt, Gamel Abdel Nasser​. Even then the PLO charter (which is still available on the web) did not call for the liberation of the West Bank or Gaza (annexed by Jordan and Egypt respectively) but for the destruction of the Jewish state. Jew hatred is what has driven the conflict in the Middle East which is more precisely described as a genocidal war against the Jews.

Here’s another article on the subject from another guy I listen to when it comes to this region:

Newt Gingrich and the “Invented” Palestinian People
by Daniel Pipes
December 10, 2011
Cross-posted from National Review Online

The former speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives and current Republican presidential candidate said yesterday that “there was no Palestine as a state. It was part of the Ottoman Empire. We have invented the Palestinian people, who are in fact Arabs and are historically part of the Arab people, and they had the chance to go many places.”

Everyone from the PLO to a Mitt Romney spokesman jumped on Gingrich for this assertion, but he happens to be absolutely correct: no Arabic-speaking Muslims identified themselves as “Palestinian” until 1920, when, in rapid order this appellation and identity was adopted by the Muslim Arabs living in the British mandate of Palestine.

For details, see a long article of mine from 1989 on the topic or a short one from 2000. (December 10, 2011)

I was frankly appalled at the criticism Newt Gingrich received from rival Republicans competing for the GOP nomination.  The only candidate who supported Gingrich’s completely accurate and factual statement was Rick Perry. 

The idea made by Mitt Romney and seconded by most of the candidates that covet Gingrich’s poll numbers that this somehow is “speaking for Israel” is simply asinine.  Newt Gingrich isn’t speaking for anybody; he’s a private citizen and doesn’t even speak for “America,” let alone Israel.  Rather, Newt Gingrich was speaking for “truth.”  And I’m on board with that.

Since Newt said this, I have laughed at the snooty “journalists” who huffed that countries like Iraq, Syria and Lebanon were “invented,” too, as though somehow that means that we can’t oppose allowing “Palestinians” to be similarly invented.  Because as we all know, the world would obviously have been just so much worse off without the many blessings provided by Iraq, Syria and Lebanon to world harmony.  And the more dictator-controlled hellholes, the better, right?

Al Jazeera puts it this way (you know, after citing the “wisdom” of Vladimir Lenin):

The modern Middle East was born in crisis. Remnants of the Ottoman and Safavid Empires of the 19th century, the countries of this realm only took the form of modern nation states after passing through the brutal mill of European colonialism. Whereas state formation in Europe took centuries to develop, countries in the Middle East were created by the veritable stroke of a pen; by a line drawn on a map; by a decision taken in a smoke-filled boardroom.

So what the hell, let’s get back into that smoke-filled boardroom and invent another country.  Because it’s just worked so damn well in the past and all.  And you know how great the United Nations is about getting things right, right?

Most of the countries “created with the stroke of a pen” are hellholes.  So one question worth serious discussion is why do we want to create another hellhole?

It’s almost as if the left is arguing, “We have a chance to repeat the mistakes of history, and let’s not be timid about doing so.”

Fwiw, when Newt Gingrich says (and when I agree with him) that Palestinians are an “invented people,” neither of us is trying to argue that the Arab people living in the West Bank, etc., are not “real people.”  What we are claiming is the FACT that there had never in history existed a people with a “Palestinian” identity, nor had there ever existed a nation-state with that identity.  EVER.  There is no legitimate historical reason to ascribe to them the idenity that the United Nation and liberals and various other enemies of Israel have been attempting to ascribe to them.  And these people – who have genuine needs and are genuinely suffering – should have been absorbed by the many surrounding regions and nations out of which they came from in the first place.  And I further submit that it is not Israel, but those Arab countries, to whom the real blame ought to be directed for ignoring the plight of the “Palestinians” and abandoning them to neglect.  Because these their own people literally WANTED these people to suffer simply so they could point a finger at Jews and say, “See what you did?”

For more than sixty years Arabs have allowed the “Palestinians” to suffer in ghettos and camps because they would not take care of their own people.  Rather than give a damn about their fellow Arabs in need, they preferred to keep hating on Israel and say, “We want nothing to do with these Arabs because we frankly have no respect for human life whatsoever, but YOU ought to care more about our people than we do and provide for them.”

So before you attack me as a “racist” or an anti-Palestinian “bigot” or whatever, realize that I will merely re-direct those charges right back at you and state that in fact YOU are the hater who wants these poor people to suffer just so you can point a finger of blame at the Jews you so rabidly despise.

Obama Deceitfully Says He Has Done More For Israel Than Any Previous US Administration. Reality Screams Otherwise.

December 2, 2011

Barack Obama came out yesterday and said something that flies in the face of any reason or credibility:

“This administration – I try not to pat myself too much on the back – but this administration has done more in terms of the security of the state of Israel than any previous administration,” he added.

Yeah, don’t pat yourself on the back, you wicked liar.  You might pull a muscle and harm your golf swing.

Barack Obama is not unlike a rapist who says of his latest victim, “I loved that woman more than any previous man.”

Just a few short months ago Obama showed us what it looked like to do more for the security of Israel than any previous administration:

Yesterday, President Obama called on Israel to go back to its borders of 1967, which put the Jewish State at just 9 miles wide. Netanyahu immediately rejected that call yesterday and rejected it again in front of the world today.

“Israel cannot go back to 1967 lines,” Netanyahu said. “We can’t go back to the indefensible lines.”

Throughout his remarks, Obama claimed the goal of his administration is for Israel to be a secure state living in peace next to a contiguous Palestine. In order for Palestine to be contiguous, Israel would have to be divided into two.

But that’s what friends are for, right?  Divide them and leave them utterly defenseless while saying you’ve done more for your good buddy than anybody ever ever.

It is incredibly frustrating to deal with a Barry Hussein.  He’s the kind of man who will put his arm around you even as he stabs you in the back.  And then he’ll proceed to either completely deny that he in fact stabbed you in the back, or claim that stabbing you in the back was actually somehow good for you.  And you’ve got a Joseph Goebbels media machine which then does an even better job justifying the Obama rhetoric than Obama did, along with millions of progressives who have successfully inoculated themselves from ever being exposed to actual truth. 

Here is the reason why Obama is making such amazingly outlandish statements: he’s losing the Jewish vote big-time, as a recent election in an overwhelmingly Jewish and Democratic district demonstrates:

But it’s undeniable: a major problem for Weprin is that, despite being a pro-Israel Orthodox Jew running against a non-Jewish Republican in a heavily Jewish and Democratic district, he is being hurt, perhaps fatally, by President Obama’s unpopularity in the district, which is in parts of Brooklyn and Queens, in part due to Israel. A new poll yesterday confirmed one from last week that showed Bob Turner, the Republican, up six points. More specifically, 37 percent of voters said Israel was “very important” to their decision, and of these, 71 percent are supporting Turner; and meanwhile only 30 percent approve of Obama’s handling of Israel—and only 22 percent of Jews. Put these numbers together and a clear picture emerges: to those who care about Israel (and particularly to Jews who care about Israel), Obama is not pro-Israel.

Obama more pro-Israel than Bush?  Not according to Israelis, who presumably have a pretty good idea who is pro-Israel and who isn’t:

Just 9 percent of Jewish Israelis think US President Barack Obama’s administration is more pro-Israel than pro-Palestinian, according to a Smith Research poll taken this week on behalf of The Jerusalem Post.

Forty-eight percent said that the Obama presidency favored the Palestinian side, 30% said his administration was neutral and 13% chose not to express an opinion for the survey, which has a margin of error of 4.5 percentage points.

[...]

The May poll found that Israelis’ views of Obama’s predecessor in the Oval Office, George W. Bush, were nearly the opposite. Some 88% of Israelis considered Bush’s administration pro-Israel, 7% said he was neutral and just 2% labeled him pro-Palestinian.

Add to that the fact that Barack Hussein Obama is the most dishonest and dishonorable rat bastard who has ever inhabited the White House.  The man simply lies without shame, as does the Joseph Goebbels-inspired mainstream media machine:

Obama Administration Apparently Leaks Misleading Story To Seem More Pro-Israel Than Bush
Posted by Matthew Knee    Monday, September 26, 2011 at 10:04am

The News Beast reports that Obama sold Israel bunker buster bombs that the Bush administration had previously blocked in 2005.

The problem: In 2007, the Bush arranged for the bombs to be delivered in the 2009-2010 time period, which they were. Newsweek of course dutifully spun the story to emphasize Bush’s original refusal, rather than the fact that the bombs arrived when Bush had promised they would.

Obama doesn’t deserve points for every agreement with Israel he doesn’t break. He deserves criticism for each one he does break, such as the agreement that promised Israel US support for building in certain parts of East Jerusalem.

But maybe I’m just too cynical. Surely this “leak,” conveniently spun by a friendly publication, has nothing to do with Obama’s “I’m not anti-Israel, now please give me your money so I can have four more years of being even more ‘not anti-Israel’ than I am now ” campaign to shore up his Jewish support. No, that would be crazy talk.

The fact of the matter is that Barack Obama’s policy toward both Israel and the entire Middle East is morally and rationally insane:

A Must-Read Essay By Israeli Physicist Haim Harari on the Arab Spring and Barack Obama’s Incoherent Policy
Posted by Joel B. Pollak Nov 30th 2011 at 12:51 pm

Israeli physicist Dr. Haim Harari, former president of Israel’s world-renowned Weizmann Institute of Science, recently laid forth an analysis of the Arab Spring and its aftermath that is a must-read as Egyptians elect a new government this week.

Harari points out that the only stable and powerful political forces in most Arab countries are the military and the Islamist movements, with some tribal forces playing a role in certain Arab states. The outlook for true liberal democracy–with individual rights, respect for opposition, and checks and balances of power–is therefore grim, Harari concludes.

In addition, Harari offers an analysis of the Obama administration’s foreign policy that summarizes its incoherence (emphasis added):

The American attitude of the Obama regime, during the evolving events in the Arab world, is truly amazing and baffling. One might understand and applaud an idealistic American attitude based on the principles of supporting freedom, justice and democracy everywhere. One could also understand a less honorable, but very pragmatic, American policy of supporting its friends in the Arab world, regardless of their own attitudes towards freedom and democracy. But there is no explanation, either idealistic or pragmatic, for a policy which works against dictatorial friends of America and does not oppose, in any significant way, all dictatorial foes of America.

Harari’s full essay is available here.

And that full essay is very much worth reading.

Egypt was Israel’s most solid ally in the Middle East.  Yes, Hosni Mubarak was a thug, but he was a pro-American and pro-Israel thug. 

A UK Telegraph headline says it all:

Egypt protests: America’s secret backing for rebel leaders behind uprising

For what it’s worth, there is a far more significant reason that Barack Obama is responsible for the incredibly euphamistically-titled “Arab Spring”: it was Obama’s policies and the reckless Obama Federal Reserve that devalued the currencies of Arab oil-producing states.  The evidence is simply undeniable.

And so where is Egypt now, thanks directly to Barack Obama’s moral stupidity in destabilizing a valuable ally?  Another headline says it all:

“Arab Spring… Islamists Make Huge Gains in Egyptian Elections & Slaughter Copts”

Now, understand something specifically about the Arab uprising in Egypt in relation to Israel: even JIMMY CARTER recognized that the “Arab Spring” uprising in Egypt directly threatened Israel’s security.  Under the headline of “Former US President Jimmy Carter viewed that recent Cairo protests threaten “Israel”-Egypt peace treaty,” Jimmy Carter concludes, “I have no doubt that “Israel” has become increasingly isolated…”

Here’s Israel’s current situation under the Obama misrule:

Israeli diplomats have fled Egypt after an attack on their embassy in Cairo and were forced to leave Turkey after a diplomatic row. As Israel appears to lose its Muslim allies, many worry about possible repercussions on the peace process, Israel’s security and the U.S. role in the region.

Egypt and Turkey were allies of Israel before Obama showed up with that knife of his.

The fact of the matter is that NOBODY has done more to ISOLATE Israel from the few Arab allies it had than Barack Obama.

And let’s talk about Iran. 

Remember how Bush tried to confront Iran about its development of nuclear weapons?  Here’s what Obama and his future cabinent had to say to cut that effort down:

THE NATION – Democrats rip Bush’s Iran policy
Presidential candidates say a new intelligence report shows that the administration has been talking too tough.
By Scott Martelle and Robin Abcarian
December 05, 2007

Democratic presidential candidates teamed up during a National Public Radio debate here Tuesday to blast the Bush administration over its policy toward Iran, arguing that a new intelligence assessment proves that the administration has needlessly ratcheted up military rhetoric.

While the candidates differed somewhat over the level of threat Iran poses in the Mideast, most of them sought to liken the administration’s approach to Iran with its buildup to the war in Iraq.

“I vehemently disagree with the president that nothing’s changed and therefore nothing in American policy has to change,” said New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. “We do know that pressure on Iran does have an effect. I think that is an important lesson.”

Delaware Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr., chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said the new intelligence report indicated that Iran dropped its program before international pressure came into play.

“It was like watching a rerun of his statements on Iraq five years earlier,” Biden said. “Iran is not a nuclear threat to the United States of America. Iran should be dealt with directly, with the rest of the world at our side. But we’ve made it more difficult now, because who is going to trust us?”

The debate was aired without a studio audience over NPR, live from the Iowa State Historical Museum. It covered Iran, China and immigration, offering the contenders a chance to delve more deeply into subjects that often receive less detailed debate treatment.

Clinton and Biden were joined by Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, Connecticut Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, Ohio Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich, and former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel.

[...]

The leading Democratic candidates have differed over whether to negotiate directly with Iran. In a July debate, Obama said he would be willing to meet with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a position criticized by Clinton and others. But front-runners Clinton, Obama and Edwards have all said they would not rule out military action against Iran.

For their part, Republican candidates have said that the new intelligence estimate did not change their view of Iran as a major threat to the United States — a view also held by Bush.

Now, as Iran races toward becoming a nuclear-armed military power, who was right?  And who was COMPLETELY FULL OF CRAP???

You can thank the Democrat Party in general, and Barack Obama, Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton in particular, for the upcoming nuclear Armageddon.

The Obama regime has done more than any administration in history to put Israel in mortal danger of a religious nihilistic enemy that has repeatedly threatened to wipe Israel off the map and which believes that it must bathe the world in blood in order to cause the Twelfth Imam (or Mahdi) to be revealed.

And what of the Egyptian uprising that Obama was behind?  Iranian madman Ahmadinejad says the uprising was the work of the Twelfth Imam!

And so the Egyptian uprising that Obama created – along with the nuclear weapons that Obama guaranteed Iran would be able to produce – has emboldened the Iranian regime toward the following scenario:

Islam requires that in order for the 12th Imam to reveal himself, the world must be in global war. Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad reportedly believes that he has the divine mission to “hasten the return” of the 12th Mahdi. Destroying Israel, then America — erupts the world into the chaos needed for the Mahdi’s return.

Thanks for opening the doorway to hell, Barry Hussein!!!

Thanks to Obama, Israel will be put in the untenable position of either attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities – and suffering the harsh consequences of retaliation – or else haplessly sitting by while its mortal enemy develops the means to destroy whatever is left of the tiny nation of Israel that Obama allows the Jews to keep.

And according to this pathetic, demon-possessed fool Obama, this is “doing more in terms of the security of the state of Israel than any previous administration.”

It’s frightening enough that Obama would lie in such a stupendous manner; it’s even more terrifying to consider the fact that he might actually believe his lies.

Barack Obama is the coming Antichrist’s most useful of all idiots.  The Bible records that the coming Tribulation will officially begin when Israel signs a seven-year covenant with Antichrist.  The question is, “Why will Israel sign this treaty?”  And the answer is, “Because under Barack Obama, the United States – Israel’s last ally – abandoned Israel and gave her no choice but to sign.”

The beast is coming.  And hell is coming with him. 

And Barack Obama paved the way for him with his actions and his lies.

According To Hamas, A Muslim Is Worth Less Than One One-Thousandth Of A Jew

October 11, 2011

Hamas is vile and evil. 

But apparently, they at least recognize their own value (very nearly worthless):

Israel, Hamas agree on prisoner swap to free Shalit
By Jeffrey Heller and Nidal al-Mughrabi | Reuters – 2 hrs 9 mins ago.

JERUSALEM/GAZA (Reuters) - Israel and Gaza’s Hamas Islamist rulers agreed on Tuesday to swap more than 1,000 Palestinian prisoners for Israeli captive soldier Gilad Shalit, resolving one of the most emotive and intractable issues between them.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, asking his cabinet to approve the lopsided swap and under constant public pressure to bring Shalit home, said the soldier would be reunited with his family “in the coming days.”

Palestinians in the Gaza Strip greeted the agreement, brokered by Egypt and a German mediator, with celebratory gunfire. Hamas confirmed that it only remained to conclude technical arrangements for the exchange.

The breakthrough pact, after many false dawns in years of secret efforts to free Shalit since he was captured in 2006, has no direct bearing on Middle East peace negotiations.

But it was virtually certain to improve the climate for international efforts to restart peace talks.

Prospects for peacemaking have been clouded by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas’s request for UN recognition of a Palestinian state and Israeli settlement expansion which Abbas has said must stop if negotiations are to begin again.

A source involved in the talks said the long elusive pact had been mediated by Egypt, playing a role which is likely to strengthen Israel’s ties with Cairo, which have suffered since the fall of Egyptian leader Hosni Mubarak in a revolution this year.

Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal said Israel will release 1,027 prisoners in two stages. Within a week, 450 will be swapped for Shalit and the rest will be freed two months later. Twenty-seven women are among those on the release roster.

It was not immediately clear how many of the prisoners were jailed for attacks that caused Israeli casualties. Under Israeli law, opponents of their release have at least 48 hours to appeal to courts to keep them behind bars.

PUBLIC CAMPAIGNS

In tandem with a public campaign waged by Shalit’s parents for his freedom, relatives of Israelis killed in Palestinian attacks have lobbied Netanyahu not to give in to Hamas by releasing prisoners with blood on their hands.

There are about 6,000 Palestinians prisoners in Israeli jails. They are regarded as heroes in what Palestinians call their struggle against Israeli occupation and quest for statehood.

“We are happy with this great achievement and we thank our God for that. But our happiness is mixed with sorrow because we were not able to gain the freedom of all prisoners,” Meshaal said in a televised address from Damascus.

Israeli television quoted Netanyahu as telling Shalit’s parents that ever since he took office three years ago “I’ve been waiting for the chance to make this telephone call” to inform them of the deal.

Shalit’s family, which has maintained a vigil in a protest tent near Netanyahu’s Jerusalem home for months, had accused him of not doing enough to secure his release.

Announcing to his cabinet, and television cameras, that a deal had been signed earlier in the day, Netanyahu said he feared time was running out for Shalit amid political upheaval in the Arab world.

“I believe we have reached the best agreement possible at this time when storms are raging in the Middle East. I don’t know if we could have reached a better agreement, or even achieved one at all, in the near future,” he said.

“It’s possible that this window of opportunity would have closed for good and we never would have brought Gilad home.”

The wife of Marwan Barghouti, a charismatic activist seen as a future Palestinian leader, told Reuters in the West Bank that she was eagerly awaiting word that he will be included in the prisoner swap.

In Gaza the families of men jailed for life by Israel waited to see if their names would be on the list.

Israel has carried out several lopsided prisoner swaps in the past, notably in 1985 when hundreds of Palestinian prisoners were freed in exchange for several soldiers captured by a guerrilla group in Lebanon.

The ordeal of Shalit, a fresh-faced corporal, transfixed Israel after the tank gunner was captured by militants who tunneled their way out of Gaza and then forced him back over the border.

He was 19 at the time and had begun his mandatory three-year army service nearly a year previously.

Shalit, who also holds French citizenship, was last seen in a videotape released by his captors in September 2009 showing him looking pale and thin.

He received no visits from the International Committee of the Red Cross, despite many appeals.

(Reporting by Nidal al Mughrabi, Allyn Fisher-Ilan, Ali Sawafta, Jeffrey Heller and Douglas Hamilton; Writing by Jeffrey Heller and Douglas Hamilton; Editing by Andrew Heavens)

So there you have it.  According to Muslims themselves, a Muslim is worth LESS than 1/1000th of a Jew.  Or, conversly, a garden variety Jew is worth more than one thousand times more than a Muslim.

Even Muslims themselves readily admit that they are very nearly worthless as human beings.

Islam: the religion that makes you worth 1/1,027th of an actual human being.

There’s a nice little statement of ontology for you.

Jews May Vote Against Hitler Because ‘They Feel They Want To Protect Their Wealth’ (Oops, Did I Say Hitler? I Meant To Say Obama)

September 14, 2011

Democrats are racists from the party of racism.

People tend to forget that.  But Democrats fought a vicious war to protect slavery; and then they began the Ku Klux Klan as the terrorist wing of the Democrat Party; and so on.

Well, here we are in late 2011, and the blatant Antisemitism of the Democrat liberal base is in full swing on the evening of a vert humiliating election disaster (well, make that yet another in a series of humiliating election disasters dating back to the first chance voters got to show Democrats just how much they suck when Republicans took Ted Kennedy’s Senate Seat away in liberal Massachusetts):

Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Waxman: Jews May Vote Against Obama Because ‘They Feel They Want to Protect Their Wealth’
Posted by JammieWearingFool at 7:55 AM
 
Republican Bob Turner is poised to win the special election in NY-9 today and loathsome Democrat Henry Waxman offers his unique spin why Jewish voters are fleeing Obama in droves.

“If Turner wins on Tuesday, it will be largely due to the incredible unpopularity of Barack Obama dragging his party down in the district,” wrote Tom Jensen of the Democratic-affiliated Public Policy Polling, one of the firms whose poll had Turner in the lead.

The PPP poll found that Democratic candidate David Weprin has a net positive approval rating, but the president’s job approval rating had slipped to 31 percent in the district, which he won with 55 percent in 2008.

“If Obama’s approval in the district was even 40 percent Weprin would almost definitely be headed to Congress,” Jensen wrote. “He’s getting dragged down by something bigger than himself.”

A Democratic strategist said Obama has become such a problem for down-ticket Democrats that he was wary of encouraging candidates to run next year. “I’m warning my clients — ‘Don’t run in 2012.’ I don’t want to see good candidates lose by 12 to 15 points because of the president,” said the strategist.

National Democrats have parachuted in since the race tightened: The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is spending $500,000 on television ads in the highly expensive media market, while the Democratic outside group House Majority PAC has spent an additional $100,000.

The race might point to another trend: a softening in Obama support from the Jewish community, which strongly backed him in 2008. The district has one of the largest Orthodox Jewish communities in the country.

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), a prominent Jewish congressman, said the Jewish vote is a concern for his party.

“I think Jewish voters will be Democratic and be for Obama in 2012, especially if you get a Republican candidate like [Texas] Gov. [Rick] Perry,” he said. “But there’s no question the Jewish community is much more bipartisan than it has been in previous years. There are Jews who are trending toward the Republican Party, some of it because of their misunderstanding of Obama’s policies in the Middle East, and some of it, quite frankly, for economic reasons. They feel they want to protect their wealth, which is why a lot of well-off voters vote for Republicans.”

What does that say about Obama? Basically, if you want to protect your wealth, be you Jewish or whatever, don’t vote for Obama.

Thanks for that ringing endorsement, Nostrilitus.

Faced with a six-point deficit in the polls (which local TV and radio call “razor thin” and “too close to call”), the desperate Democrats called in aging Lothario Bill Clinton for some robo-calls, where he repeated the typical Democrat lies.

“Hello, this is President Bill Clinton. I’m calling to ask you to support David Weprin in today’s special election for Congress. The New York Times endorsed David. They support him for the same reasons I do: because he’ll stand up for the middle class, he’ll support a good program to put Americans back to work, and he’ll oppose the Tea Party plan to destroy Medicare. Again, it’s President Bill Clinton, I’m proud to support David Weprin for Congress and I hope you will too. Thanks.”

They have nothing to offer but fear itself.

Black conservatives – and now Jews – can readily attest that sacred minorities can become instantly evil villains; all they have to do is vote against Democrats.

You’d better tow the damn Democrat line, minorities.  Because there is a racist and vicious Democrat Party just waiting to pour hate on you if you don’t vote the way they want you to.

Which, interestingly, was EXACTLY how the Democrats were acting in the Civil War days, too.

Look at how liberals “de-blackificated” Clarence Thomas:

What do liberals want to do with Clarence Thomas?  “String him up.”  “Send him back to the fields.”

David Horowitz once called blacks the “human shields of the Democrat Party.”

But it’s funny how quickly the white liberal establishment will throw one of its shields into the fire and burn it.

For the record, Jews haven’t “misunderstood” a damn thing.  Barack Obama – whose spiritual mentor and pastor for 23 years (Jeremiah Wright) was a hard-core anti-Semite himself - has been more anti-Israel than any American president in the entire existence of Israel since its 1948 birth.

Thanks directly to Barack Hussein Obama, Israel is more exposed and is in greater danger than at any time since it was threatened with extermination in 1948.  To argue first that Jews aren’t smart enough to understand that an Antisemitic president has put their nation in direct jeopardy even as he has groveled before Israel’s most dangerous enemies, and then to argue secondly that somehow they are wrong for wanting to vote in their own clear economic interests, takes some incredibly amazing chutzpah.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 100 other followers