True Friends of Israel

The Emergency Committee for Israel has come out with a new ad that hits President Obama for (what else?) his stand on Israel.

ECI Thanks Israel's True Friends



Hat Tip Israel Matzav

Just A Thought #2

I find it strange that there have been swarms of killer tornados since President Obama tried to throw Israel under the bus.
Someone should remind him of Genesis 12:3
"I will bless thee that blesses thee,
Curse thee that curses thee,
And make you a great nation upon the Earth."

The 3 NOs vs. The 5 Conditions

Heads of state from eight Arab countries attended a summit conference in Khartoum, Sudan held from August 29 to September 1, 1967. The meeting formulated the Arab consensus that formed the basis of the policies of most Arab states participating in the conflict with Israel until the Yom Kippur War of 1973. The resolution adopted September 1, 1967 called for the continued struggle against Israel, the creation of a fund to assist the economics of Egypt and Jordan, the lifting of an Arab oil boycott against the West and a new agreement to end the war in Yemen.

The text of the agreement reads as follows:

1. The conference has affirmed the unity of Arab ranks, the unity of joint action and the need for coordination and for the elimination of all differences. The Kings, Presidents and representatives of the other Arab Heads of State at the conference have affirmed their countries' stand by an implementation of the Arab Solidarity Charter which was signed at the third Arab summit conference in Casablanca.
2. The conference has agreed on the need to consolidate all efforts to eliminate the effects of the aggression on the basis that the occupied lands are Arab lands and that the burden of regaining these lands falls on all the Arab States.
3. The Arab Heads of State have agreed to unite their political efforts at the international and diplomatic level to eliminate the effects of the aggression and to ensure the withdrawal of the aggressive Israeli forces from the Arab lands which have been occupied since the aggression of June 5. This will be done within the framework of the main principles by which the Arab States abide, namely, no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it, and insistence on the rights of the Palestinian people in their own country.
4. \The conference of Arab Ministers of Finance, Economy and Oil recommended that suspension of oil pumping be used as a weapon in the battle. However, after thoroughly studying the matter, the summit conference has come to the conclusion that the oil pumping can itself be used as a positive weapon, since oil is an Arab resource which can be used to strengthen the economy of the Arab States directly affected by the aggression, so that these States will be able to stand firm in the battle. The conference has, therefore, decided to resume the pumping of oil, since oil is a positive Arab resource that can be used in the service of Arab goals. It can contribute to the efforts to enable those Arab States which were exposed to the aggression and thereby lost economic resources to stand firm and eliminate the effects of the aggression. The oil-producing States have, in fact, participated in the efforts to enable the States affected by the aggression to stand firm in the face of any economic pressure.
5. The participants in the conference have approved the plan proposed by Kuwait to set up an Arab Economic and Social Development Fund on the basis of the recommendation of the Baghdad conference of Arab Ministers of Finance, Economy and Oil.
6. The participants have agreed on the need to adopt the necessary measures to strengthen military preparation to face all eventualities.
7. The conference has decided to expedite the elimination of foreign bases in the Arab States.

Source Wikipedia

It is best remembered for the 3 NOs:

NO peace with Israel!
NO recognition of Israel!
NO negotiations with Israel!

At Khartoum, Nasser was promised badly needed economic assistancein exchange for his pledge to stop destabilizing the region and end his propaganda attacks against the Persian Gulf monarchies. This meant that Egypt, along with the other Arab states, would focus on consolidating power at home and on pressing economic problems rather than on revolutionary schemes to unify the Arabs. After 1967 Arab regimes increasingly viewed Israel and the Palestinian Arab problem not as the key to revolutionary change of the Arab state system, but in terms of how they affected their domestic political stability.

Contrast those NOs with the conditions that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has set down to bring peace to the region.

In a speech before the Knesset’s plenum in its special Herzl Day session, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu laid down five conditions for a peace treaty with the Palestinian Authority Arabs. These are:

1. The Palestinians must recognize Israel as the Jewish nation’s state.
2. The treaty must be an end to the conflict.
3. The Arab refugee problem must be solved outside of Israel’s borders.
4. A Palestinian state will have to be demilitarized and a peace treaty must safeguard Israel’s security.
5. The settlement blocs will remain within the state of Israel and Jerusalem will remain its united capital.

Full Story

This has been his position from the beginning of his Administration with the last statement a slap in the face to the EU and President Obama.  There is no way, no condition, no amount of bribery or coercion that could force Israel into giving up any grain of sand of Jerusalem.  It would take an army to force the Jews out of it.



There should be just one more condition:The immediate return of Gilad Shalit, safe, in good health, and unharmed!

Just A Thought

Why did President Obama refuse to release bin Ladin's pictures yet he signed orders releasing the photos of our military men & women being returned home in coffins?

Or the photos of detainees in Gitmo?

And why was Osama bin Ladin given a funeral with FULL MILITARY HONORS?

Makes one wonder where President Obama's loyalty & heart lies!!!

The Top Ten Reason Chicago Didn't Get The Olympics!

Hat tip to Yid With Lid

Click on the picture for a larger view.

The Truth Hurts!

Obama Meets Without the ZOA

by Maggie at Maggie's Notebook

President Barack Obama's Jewish agenda was forced to greet the daylight when he met with American Jewish leaders on July 13th. According to reports, the clamor of diminished American Jewish support for Obama has been loud. Too bad it's eight months too late.

Obama's Jewish Agenda

The meeting was called. The Zionist Organization of America, the largest and oldest pro-Israel group was not invited. Also disallowed was CAMERA (Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting). Morton Klein, the president of ZOA:

Klein’s White House contacts told him flat out that he was shunned because of his strong criticism of Obama. In his June interview with Newsmax, Klein said that Obama may be the “most hostile president to Israel” ever.

Surely American Jews HAVE had some doubts about the President's commitment to Israel lately. If you have not, what is wrong with you? Your president told the meeting attendees:

"there was no light between the US and Israeli positions for the last eight years, and no progress was made."

Do you think that means he plans to PUT some daylight between Israel and the U.S.?

Seventy-seven percent of the Jewish vote went to Barack Obama. American Jews overwhelmingly supported a man whose African-Arab father was a Muslim and a communist, whose grandfather was a Muslim and who himself sat in an anti-semitic Christian church for twenty years.

The J Street lobby got it right:

Surrogates and right-wing political operatives in our community stopped at nothing in their efforts to sway Jewish voters against Obama."

I'm proud to be one of those "right-wing political operatives," and we tried to tell you, even tried to protect you. We sounded the alarm bells, raised the red flags, wrung our hands, and asked you, are you not terrified for the survival of Israel? We asked: Why would you take a chance?

Gallup polls of Jewish voters from June 2008 to the elections:

...showed American Jews growing increasingly comfortable with Obama since July, when the Illinois Senator tied up the Democratic Party nomination.

How did you get comfortable about Barack Hussein Obama?

At the July 13th meeting, Obama told the Jewish leaders that he wants a two-state solution and Israel should "engage in serious self-reflection." Anne Bayefsky had some reflections for the president:

Considering Israel is a democratic country forced to send its children into the armed forces for two to three years and its men into reserve duty for another twenty-five, that isn't the audacity of hope. It's just plain audacity.

The liberal J Street's Ben-Ami:

Ben-Ami said that he believed that President Obama was asserting positions aimed at achieving two states for two peoples, a stance he claimed is supported by the majority of the Jewish community in the United States that voted for Obama.

America's liberal Jews: Is this true? Do you think a two-state solution will bring peace to Israel? How would that happen? Will Hamas recognize Israel? Tell me how you see Israel? Surely you have a vision. Surely you understand the threat of Islam lurking on the doorstep of Israeli schools. Or do you? WHAT WERE YOU THINKING?

Zelaya Removal is Allowed by Honduras Constitution

by Maggie at Maggie’s Notebook

While ousted Honduras president, Manuel Zelaya cools his heels somewhere in Nicaragua and newly installed Honduras president, Roberto Micheletti, tries to keep Zelaya from re-entering the county, while also running the business of government, the conversation continues around the world: Does the Honduras constitution support Zelaya’s removal; was the Zelaya removal constitutional? And if Zelaya remained in office, or if the government is handed back to him, what is the fear? See an excellent video below.

Honduras Capital City, Tegucigalpa

Let’s take the “fear factor” first. Mr. Zelaya was outsted for trying to rewrite the presidential term limits clause, and you’ll see below that even considering that option can be considered treasonous in Honduras. Zelaya has a lot in common with Chavez and his buddies: Bolivia’s Evo Morales won a referendum allowing him to overturn a ban on re-election; Ecuador’s Rafael Correa unconstitutionally changed the constitution and overrode the term limit stipulations; and Chavez, under tremendous protests from the people of Venezuela changed the country’s constitution and says he will stay in office until “2019, 2021 or 2030.” We know the story in Cuba. And in Nicaragua, the American-hating Sandinista Marxist thug Daniel Ortega told Sir David Frost in a March 2009 interview that he would like to change the constitution to allow him to run again for president.

Central and South American dictators have a long history, and since the people of any country do not want to be “ruled,” rather than governed, “dictators” are not popular. You can’t run for office as a dictator and get elected. So it’s all about deceiving the people. In the case of Manuel Zelaya, he was elected as a “centrist” four years ago, and has moved rapidly to the Left. Zelaya took an out-sized stetson hat and cowboy boots as his signature apparel, and grinned and waved his way to the Left and a fast friendship with Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez. In an attempt to appease the poor, of which Honduras has plenty, Zelaya cut a deal with Chavez for cheap oil. Unless oil is cheap around the world, oil is not cheap, and of course there had to be a pay-back to Chavez for his generosity. Zelaya joined-in with Bolivia, Cuba, Ecuador and Nicaragua to participate in Chavez’ “regional trade and political pact.”

Outside of the Chavez pact members:

San Salvador just elected Maurico Funes of the Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front (FMLN)- named for Farabundo Marti, the Communist leader and social activist. His election ended nearly 50-years of conservative control that fought against the FMLN movement seeking a Communist revolution. Funes wants good relations with the U.S., he vowed to restore relations with Cuba and is opening an embassy there. Standby to see how far Left San Salvador leans.

Uruguay’s ruling coalition party proposed reforming the Uruguayan constitution to allow an immediate reelection of the president, Tabare Vazquez. It didn’t happen and sources say it is not likely to happen as the constitution forbids it. Vazquez is considered a conservative.

South of the equator, history demonstrates that it hard to hold on to the very constitutional ideals designed to keep executive branches from becoming absolutists.

So back to Honduras, while I have maintained that from my research the Honduran Supreme Court and the Congress had the authority to remove Zelaya from office, I found an “opinion” from someone said to be “a well noted Honduran Attorney.” I cannot vouch for this information but it is interesting, and it uses Honduran constitutional articles to make the point:

On January 11th of the year 1982, a constituent assembly gave birth to a beautiful Constitution that was vaccinated against the diseases that historically have affected the region. The Honduran Constitution does not allow the reform of articles related to the form of government, the territory, the presidential term, the prohibition on presidential reelection and who can’t become President in the subsequent term. It goes further and states that the alternation of the Presidency is mandatory and its violators incur in high treason.

Our constitution clearly lays out an impeachment process that must be followed to trial and convict a President that has violated the Law. But our Constitution also includes a single exception to this rule in article 239, which states that the President that violates the principle of alternation of the Presidency or simply proposes its reform, will immediately cease in the exercise of office. In other words, the simple act of proposing the reform removes ispo jure (by operation of law) a President from office. This may sound radical to many, but the truth is it’s coherent with the geopolitical reality of Honduras; and on June 28 of 2009 it proved why.

Read the entire article here.

Zerosheep.com offers the translated Honduran constitution and specifically Article 239 mentioned above, along with excellent and extended commentary:

Article 239 The citizen that has been the head of the Execute Branch cannot be President or Vice-President (again).
Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform, as well as those that support such violation directly or indirectly, will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years.

You can read the constitution in the original Spanish here, or a full translation of it here. Article 239 clearly makes it illegal for a public official– such as Zelaya here — to even attempt to amend the constitution to allow multiple terms. And it is not just illegal:

ARTICLE 4 .- The form of government is republican, democratic and representative. Is exercised by three branches: legislative, executive and judicial, and independent and complementary relationship of subordination.

Alternation in the presidency of the Republic is required.

Violation of this rule constitutes the crime of treason.

So was the Supreme Court correct that Zelaya ran afoul of the Honduran constitution? Seems so. Still yet, the Obama administration refuses to address the facts - one being that Micheletti’s government could have charged Zelaya with treason on the spot. The fact that the U.S. suspended military aid to Honduras on July 8th demonstrates a high level of support for the power-grabbing Zelaya. What is going on in Washington, D.C. which boasts the “healthiest brains” in the U.S. The photo above is of Tegucigalpa, the capital of Honduras.

Zelaya Removal Constitutional (video)

Flight 93 Blogburst: False AP report: Obama did NOT say that Iran must respect voters' choice

Obama's comments were mushy, yes, but at least he said the most important thing, according to AP:

He said it's up to Iran to determine its own leaders but that the country must respect voters' choice.

Why then have reputable people continued to pass harsh judgment? And why would AP paraphrase what would have been Obama’s key statement?

Turns out Obama said no such thing. What he actually said is that the VOICES of the Iranian people should be heard and respected, not their votes:

And particularly to the youth of Iran, I want them to know that we in the United States do not want to make any decisions for the Iranians, but we do believe that the Iranian people and their voices should be heard and respected.

This is consistent with the rest of Obama's remarks. He never said a word about respecting votes. Obama did mention "the democratic process," but far from saying anything about this process having to meet any standards of integrity, he instead implied strongly that he will accept whatever result the "process" followed by the Mullahs produces:

I want to start off by being very clear that it is up to Iranians to make decisions about who Iran’s leaders will be; that we respect Iranian sovereignty and want to avoid the United States being the issue inside of Iran, which sometimes the United States can be a handy political football...

Democracy means that Iranian sovereignty lies with the Iranian people and that a regime that rigs an election is NOT sovereign. Yet Obama is explicit that he will continue to treat the mullahs as the Iranian sovereign no matter how they judge the election. He even goes so far as to suggest that the only reason he is bothering to comment on the competing claim to sovereignty at all is because it would be unseemly for him not to:

We will continue to pursue a tough, direct dialogue between our two countries, and we’ll see where it takes us. But even as we do so, I think it would be wrong for me to be silent about what we’ve seen on the television over the last few days.

The only operative concerns that he mentions are for: "free speech, the ability of people to peacefully dissent." When he talks about the "democratic process" going forward, all he urges is that the process be peaceful and that dissent be allowed. He says nothing about the process being honest:

...there appears to be a sense on the part of people who were so hopeful and so engaged and so committed to democracy who now feel betrayed. And I think it’s important that, moving forward, whatever investigations take place are done in a way that is not resulting in bloodshed and is not resulting in people being stifled in expressing their views.

It is no accident that Obama ended with the statement that AP paraphrased so egregiously (equating his call for bloodless suppression with a demand for legitimate elections). This was his theme throughout. He views the honesty of Iran's democratic process as something to be judged by the mullahs, who he clearly accepts to be the sovereign power, regardless of the merits of competing claims.

AP covers its tracks, just like they did with the Flight 93 memorial

AP's fraudulent report about Obama demanding respect for voters' choice was the primary print report on Obama's comments. Now that it has already misled millions of people, AP has covered its tracks by filing an update that overwrites the errant statement. This is what AP does when it gets caught putting out misinformation. To avoid issuing a correction, they flush the misleading story down the memory hole by using the same url for a completely different story. (Google only finds AP's original article still posted at Fox News.)

AP did the same thing last year after it was taken to task for failing to check the most basic facts in a story about the controversy over possible Islamic symbolism in the Flight 93 memorial. Ramesh Santanam reported a number of conflicting factual assertions, like the 44 blocks:

Opponents also claim there is a plan to have 44 glass blocks, for the 40 victims and four hijackers, in the design.

"That's an absolute, unequivocal fabrication that is being portrayed as fact," said Edward Felt's brother, Gordon Felt, president of Families of Flight 93. "It's misleading and helps drive the conspiracy theory."

When it was pointed out that Santanam could have found the four extra blocks just by opening up the design drawings and counting, AP quickly filed a completely different story (about fundraising for the memorial), under the same url.

It's not that there is anything inherently wrong with AP using subject feeds that automatically update with their latest offering. It is that AP is systematically using this system to dodge corrections. This is actually their official policy:

For corrections on live, online stories, we overwrite the previous version. We send separate corrective stories online as warranted.

Except AP virtually never issue corrective stories, for the simple reason that AP has no established correction procedure. They just do the overwrite thing and say "too bad."

Well this time the overwrite thing is not good enough.

Demand a corrective story about AP's false paraphrase of Obama's words

Associated Press obviously understands the importance of Obama saying that Iran must respect voters' choice or they wouldn't have bothered to pretend that he said it when he didn't. They don't just fail to mention Obama's glaring omission on this crucial point, but actually tell the public via false paraphrase that he did say what he glaringly omitted. This cannot stand. Faced with our new president's key statement on a historic crisis, AP reports a photo negative of what Obama actually said.

There may be no established procedure for AP corrections, but anyone can still send a pre-written email to AP CEO Tom Curley, Chairman Burl Osborne, Editor Kathleen Carroll, the reporters who worked on the story (the egregious Jennifer Loven, along with Anne Gearan and Robert Burns), plus a smattering of other AP editors and bureaucrats. Who knows. There may even be a limit to how disingenuous some of these people are willing to be.


To join our blogbursts, just send your blog's url.

Dear President Obama

Dear President Obama:

You are the thirteenth President under whom I have lived and unlike any of the others, you truly scare me.

You scare me because after months of exposure, I know nothing about you.

You scare me because I do not know how you paid for your expensive Ivy League education and your upscale lifestyle and housing with no visible signs of support.

You scare me because you did not spend the formative years of youth growing up in America and culturally you are not an American.

You scare me because you have never run a company or met a payroll.

You scare me because you have never had military experience, thus don't understand it at its core.

You scare me because you lack humility and 'class', always blaming others.

You scare me because for over half your life you have aligned yourself with radical extremists who hate America and you refuse to publicly denounce these radicals who wish to see America fail.

You scare me because you are a cheerleader for the 'blame America' crowd and deliver this message abroad.

You scare me because you want to change America to a European style country where the government sector dominates instead of the private sector.

You scare me because you want to replace our health care system with a government controlled one.

You scare me because you prefer 'wind mills' to responsibly capitalizing on our own vast oil, coal and shale reserves.

You scare me because you want to kill the American capitalist goose that lays the golden egg which provides the highest standard of living in the world.

You scare me because you have begun to use 'extortion' tactics against certain banks and corporations.

You scare me because your own political party shrinks from challenging you on your wild and irresponsible spending proposals.

You scare me because you will not openly listen to or even consider opposing points of view from intelligent people.

You scare me because you falsely believe that you are both omnipotent and omniscient.

You scare me because the media gives you a free pass on everything you do.

You scare me because you demonize and want to silence the Limbaughs, Hannitys, O'Relllys and Becks who offer opposing, conservative points of view.

You scare me because you prefer controlling over governing.

Finally, you scare me because if you serve a second term I will probably not feel safe in writing a similar letter in 8 years.

Lou Pritchett

Lou Pritchet is a former vice president of Procter & Gamble whose career at that company spanned 36 years before his retirement in 1989, and he is the author of the 1995 business book, Stop Paddling & Start Rocking the Boat.

Mr. Pritchett confirmed that he was indeed the author of the much-circulated "open letter." “I did write the 'you scare me' letter. I sent it to the NY Times but they never acknowledged or published it. However, it hit the internet and according to the ‘experts’ has had over 500,000 hits.

Youth in Israel Speak out About Obama's Cairo Speech (Videos)

by Maggie at Maggie's Notebook

The following videos feature young Israelis and American Jews answering the question: What do you think about President Obama's Cairo speech?

Language Warning: Strong use of the "F" word and the "N" word. Don't watch the first video if you are easily offended. The second video is a more measured, but mixed, response.

The videos are produced by an American documentary maker, Blumenthal and are moving around the Internet with the moniker "Feeling the Hate in Jerusalem." I'm not seeing "hate" in these videos. I see deep frustration, dismay, fear and a feeling of gross unfairness with the way Israel is treated by the world. While I do not condone the language, these are young people and their lives lay ahead with great uncertainty. How would you feel if your country was under physical assault from all sides?

The first video begins with a young man in a bandanna speaking. Ignore this - just get past it. His response is not indicative of what is to come. His remarks are clearly racist. The filmmakers have been criticized for using "inebriated teenagers." You'll see the difference in response between those clearly drinking and those not, in the second video. Blumenthal says that absolutely no remarks positive to President Obama were edited out.

Here's a preview:

1) You're all about talking to the Arabs," says one. "You're going to Cairo making a speech to the Muslim world trying to get them to love you, what about the Jews, man? What are we, chopped liver? You don't care about us. Are we nothing to you? Do we matter? Do you care if we get driven into the sea? Do you care if we get nuked? Are we even... ugh... do you care about us?!"

2) My grandmother was in Auschwitz, Obama," he adds. "We're not going to take any Auschwitz bullshit! Listen, Obama, my grandma's number was 1268493, I remember her number on her arm, dude. And listen, never again will we deal with this, never again!"

3) Another member of the group stands up and declares, "I worked for the Obama campaign, but honestly, you f**kin' with Israel, you mother, STOP IT!" He stands and points his finger at the camera lens.

Israeli Youth Video




Youth in Israel Video

George Mitchell: Israel Under Seige from Obama White House

By Maggie at Maggie's Notebook

George Mitchell and his entourage are moving into Jerusalem. Mitchell, President Obama's Special Envoy to the Middle East is in the mood to get serious with Israel. Israel is under seige from the Obama White House, and the push is on to whip Israel into submission. Perhaps there is another way to interpret the following - maybe I'm reading it wrong, but since the media isn't talking about this, how would we know. Let me know what you think.

Jerusalem

Big News being reported nowhere except from The Mideast Peace Pulse blog at the Israel Policy forum (read about them at bottom of article):

Next week the high commissioner, George Mitchell, is to return. But this time he is not coming alone. He will be arriving with a whole organization aimed at executing Barack Obama's policies for the Middle East.

George Mitchell is no longer going solo. He has appointed four deputies. The first, David Hale, from the State Department, will reside regularly in Jerusalem. The second, Mara Rudman, served as chief of staff of the National Security Council under Clinton and was extremely active in the New America Foundation which concerns itself a great deal with providing aid for the Palestinians. She will be stationed in Washington and coordinate the administration's activity with the representative in Jerusalem.

The third is a former military man, Fred Hoff, an expert on Syrian affairs. He has a clear world vision, which states that the US administration must reach a deal with Syria before withdrawing from Iraq.

George Mitchell himself will arrive in Damascus, for the first time, already in the next few weeks. Until now Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Jeffrey Feltman visited there twice. These visits signify an upgrading in talks between the United States and Syria.

The fourth figure is the region's military advisor, US Security Coordinator Lt. Gen. Keith Dayton, who is building the Palestinian Authority's military forces. Just recently he and the defense minister agreed to continue to expand the forces operating in the West Bank.

Mitchell's organization was established in order to channel all of American policy towards Israel and the surrounding countries into one conduit. To unite this into one coordinated voice encompassing all branches of government. The embassy in Tel Aviv will provide services, and the consul in Jerusalem, whose working relations with the Palestinians were not exactly to their satisfaction, has been replaced by one of the State Department's stars, former head of the Israel and Palestinian desk: Daniel Rubinstein.

The days of a shuttle envoy, who waits to have meetings set up with Israel officials, asks questions and waits for answers that often fail to come, have passed. From now on we're talking about a permanent presence, with presidential authority, which executes the White House policy, gets updates from the field, follows implementation of policy from up close and reports directly to the president on an ongoing, daily basis. A front line branch office of the White House.

The IPF (Israel Policy Forum) says their mission is:

...to promote active U.S. Engagement to achieve a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and peace and security for Israel with the Palestinians and the Arab states.

George Mitchell represents the strong arm of the U.S. government, "a permanent presence, with presidential authority." Israel is under seige from the Obama White House and I hope Netanyahu can stand up under the pressure.

Obama Corrupts Jerusalem Embassy Act

by Maggie at Maggie's Notebook

The Jerusalem Embassy Act commitment was deep-sixed on Friday night after Obama et al removed a critical sentence from the agreement. Friday night shenanigans are well-underway, but I must say, the word "shenanigan" has far too frivolous a tone for what is actually happening.

Barack Obama

Our President has rendered a commitment to Israel "gone," as though it never existed. The history is that in 1995 Congress passed the Jerusalem Embassy Act to insure that the U.S. Embassy in Israel would be moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem because Israel considers Jerusalem it's nation's capitol, and Israel has the right to designate their capitol. The U.S. Embassy was mandated to take up its Jerusalem presence by May 31, 1999, but today, our Embassy remains in Tel Aviv.

As bureaucrats are wont to do, for one reason or the other, every six months since May 31, 1999 a "Presidential Determination," in the form of a memo has been sent to the U.S. Secretary of State, titled "Suspension of Limitations Under the Jerusalem Embassy Act." The memo with the hefty title is simply a legal waiver moving the deadline for our Embassy's Jerusalem presence forward another six months. This has been going now, all these long years.

But now, everything has changed, just as so much has changed since January 20, 2009. The memo went out as usual, but with one big change. A sentence has been completely excised from the memo:

My Administration remains committed to beginning the process of moving our embassy to Jerusalem.

So on a Friday evening when not many are paying attention, we find that Barack Obama has undone what Congress did in 1995 with the Senate adopting the Jerusalem Embassy Act by a vote of 95 to 5, and House doing the same with a vote of 374-37.

It appears that Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton believed that Congressional authority through their vote is, in reality, only an "advisory," because it "impermissibly interferes with the President's constitutional authority." If the U.S. Constitution places the conduct of foreign policy in the hands of the President, then any resolutions Congress makes are possibly invalid.

If the above is assumption is correct, the only power Congress has is to deny funding - in this case - for the establishment of a new Embassy in Jerusalem. To date, Congress has not denied funding for a U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem.

The website Palestine Facts says that the Clinton White House:

...refused to move the embassy citing harm to America's national security, believing that it would interfere with peace process negotiations. In fact, the Act gave the U.S. President a "waiver authority" under which he could suspend the [implementation] for a period of six months if he determines and reports to Congress in advance that such suspension is necessary to protect the national security interests of the United States.

Both Presidents Clinton and Bush used this waiver to postpone any change, fearful of the reaction of Palestinian Arabs, even though Bush promised to move the embassy if elected in 2000. The US refusal to act on the embassy move, leaving Israel as the only country in the world where the US embassy is not in the designated capital city, has encouraged Palestinian Arabs to believe they may eventually succeed in driving Israel out of Jerusalem.

Although President G. W. Bush campaigned on the Embassy move, we know that never happened. He began waffling soon after taking office. I think Bush, however, added the sentence:

My Administration remains committed to beginning the process of moving our embassy to Jerusalem.

The Jerusalem Embassy Act commitment has gone to feed the fishes. As of today, the "commitment" sentence is missing and the only option seems to be that we have Barack Obama's non-commitment to establishing a U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem - which he wants to cede to the Palestinians.

Obama Asks Georgetown to Cover Symbol of Christ

by Maggie at Maggie's Notebook

President Obama's "policy" speech at Georgetown University cost the school more than they bargained for. Whether not giving some thought to the President's request, or whether being complicit in the deed, the school covered the Christ symbol above the dais where the President spoke.

Covered Christ Symbol

The dias above, located in Georgetown's Gaston Hall, usually looks like this:

Christ Symbol

One of my favorite hymns:

"Jesus, name above all names,"

... except for Barack Obama's, apparently.

What was Georgetown thinking? Their website says they have a "Catholic and Jesuit identity." The "IHS" symbol you can see in the above photo symbolizes the name of Jesus Christ.

Roman Catholics traditionally use “IHS” as an abbreviation for Jesus’ name. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, “St. Ignatius of Loyola adopted the monogram in his seal as general of the Society of Jesus (1541) and thus became the emblem of his institute.” The Society of Jesus is the formal name for the Jesuits.

In coordinating the logistical arrangements for yesterday’s event, Georgetown honored the White House staff’s request to cover all of the Georgetown University signage and symbols behind Gaston Hall stage,” Julie Green Bataille, associate vice president for communications at Georgetown, told CNSNews.com.

Here's an interesting comment I read while researching this story:

A religious order covering up the name of Jesus for a secular cause! Jesus would roll over in his grave, if HE was still there! I don't think the "shepherds" in the Catholic church quite get it anymore; but the sheep do.

Fifty-four percent of Catholics voted for President Obama. Perhaps the Obama is just taking advantage of his political capital.

Jihad Watch has some insightful comments. Here's a tease. You can read the entire article here.

Georgetown is home to the Prince Alwaleed Bin-Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, which receives millions from Saudi Arabia, and has come under fire for this very fact, and Georgetown's Center of Contemporary Arab Studies is a den of Islamist apologetics. Also, I recall the following anecdote: While attending a class (Politics in the Arab World) taught by one professor Samer Shehata -- who thinks the U.S. should befriend the Muslim Brotherhood , incidentally -- we were discussing how the Muslim world needs to begin separating church (or mosque) and state, Shehata, quite sarcastically pointing to a crucifix on the wall (apparently forgetful of the fact that Georgetown is a private, Jesuit school) made a remark like, "Yeah, but what about that?" One wonders what role all of these factors may have played in covering up the name of Jesus.

Yep, we can't help but wonder about it. That's why many of us asked, for months in our blogs, knowing what we know about Obama's background, his families ties to Islam and to communism, why would we take a chance.

Israel's Demise: US Air Force to Stand Between Israel and Iran?

by Maggie at Maggie's Notebook

Israel will never take out Iran's nuclear facilities. When President George Bush walked out on his promise to never allow a nuclear Iran, it left the most moral of world decisions unhinged. The Bush exit left the decision to Barack Obama. Iran's Achmadinejad and the Mullahs...now they will have their way with Israel, because the most moral of decisions is left to Barack Obama. Barack Hussein Obama will not touch Iran - not with weapons or with sanctions - not even with some strongly couched verbal threats.

Israel

But now we have Benjamin Netanyahu at Israel's head, and he says Iran will never be nuclear. That has been a comforting promise since Bush looked the other way. I believe that promise is what got Netanyahu back into office in Israel, because just think what it must be like to live there.

But can Netanyahu attack Iran? Israel has the weapons. They do not have the resolve of the free world, however, to back them up. But does it make any difference? It seems clear...cut and dried...Israel will take out the Iranian nuclear program. But...but what if...what if the United States Air Force prevents an Israeli attack. What if the Israeli Air Force cannot pass over Barack Obama's Air Force?

At first, I thought this American Thinker article was a bit dramatic, although I am always completely serious anytime I think about Israel - and the danger they live with just heightens every day. I didn't read the beginning of this article with a careless attitude. When I see a title such as Farewell to Zion. Forever., it captures my full attention.

Cliff Thier's article doesn't ask questions. It answers them, even the questions we haven't asked for many, many years.

Since the Obamas came on our horizon, we've heard and learned many things about America, things I surely didn't know before these two got to a microphone: We are not a Christian nation, we are arrogant, dismissive and derisive. "Our souls are broken in this nation." There is no "war on terror," only man-made disasters. The current man-made disaster is battled through the Overseas Contingency Operation, "focusing your life on making a buck shows a certain poverty of ambition," and maybe the most frightening: "we cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as strong, just as well-funded, and "we will defeat the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Pakistan."


We've seen many things: election fraud at stunning levels with the offenders protected by the White House, veterans being asked to provide their own insurance to treat war wounds, American taxpayer dollars paying for abortions overseas and doctor's forced to participate in abortions, our government grabbing up companies and firing executives, the Executive Office taking control of the U.S. census, the Obama administration taking control of cyberspace under very tough rules - and capable of shutting-down "we the people" without notice or cause. The Obama administration accepting tax evaders into the highest offices in the land, the President of the United States telling Turkey that the United States is not a "Christian nation," the Treasury Secretary seeking authorization to seize financial entities that he deems in trouble. And we've seen our President bow to the King of Saudia Arabia in a low bow that is shocking the world. As I said on more than one occasion in comments around the blogs, this was not a etiquette faux paux - the man was having a moment, an emotional moment. No need to mention the distribution of my wealth and yours through the Stimulus.

We've had countless promises broken: "lobbyists "will not find a job in my White House," "very seldom will you hear me simplify a problem," "You will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime.

So why would we discount Cliff Thier's hypothesis, which I think he sees as a very sure bet? I hope you will read this article, then come back here and let me know what you think. Be sure to read to the end.

"Israel" photo credit: National Geographic

Notre Dame: Obama Commencement Speech - Bishop Boycotts

by Maggie Thornton

President Barack Obama is scheduled to deliver the commencement speech for the University of Notre Dame's 2009 graduation class. Notre Dame has not only invited President Obama to speak at the ceremony, they will bestow upon him an honorary doctor of laws degree. Bishop John D'Arcy, whose Diocese includes the University of Notre Dame, says he will boycott the ceremony.

Bishop John D'Arcy

Bishop D'Arcy is known for his efforts to protect parishioners from abusive priests. He had very harsh words for the University's choice of speakers. Speaking of Obama's decision to federally fund embryonic stem cell research, D'Arcy said the President:

...has now placed in public policy ... his long-stated unwillingness to hold human life sacred.

While claiming to separate politics from science, he has in fact separated science from ethics and has brought the American government, for the first time in history, into supporting direct destruction of innocent human life...

A White House spokesperson replied, saying that the President welcomes the "spirit of debate and healthy disagreement on important issues.

National Review Online gathered comments from educational experts and Catholicism. George Weigel, an American Catholic author, founder of The James Madison Foundation and a Distinguished Senior Fellow of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, was especially poignant:

Notre Dame’s decision to make President Obama its 2009 commencement speaker is a very bad thing. It’s bad for Notre Dame, bad for Catholic moral witness in America, and bad for the bishops who are trying to mount a defense against the Obama administration’s assault on the conscience rights of Catholic health-care professionals.

The invitation to deliver a commencement address, especially when coupled with the award of an honorary degree, is not a neutral act. It’s an act by which a Catholic institution of higher learning says, “This is a life worth emulating according to our understanding of the true, the good, and the beautiful.” It is frankly beyond my imagining how Notre Dame can say that of a president who has put the United States back into the business of funding abortion abroad; a president who made a mockery of the very idea of moral argument in his speech announcing federal funding for embryo-destructive stem cell research; a president whose administration and its congressional allies are snatching tuition vouchers out of the hands of desperately poor Washington, D.C., children who just as desperately want to attend Catholic schools.

Visit the National Review Online article. It offers some fine thinking on the matter. It is well-worth reading whether or not you are Catholic.

The Cardinal Newman Society has sponsored an online petition to encourage the University to rescind the invitation. The petition has 115,123 signers. Over 11,000 have signed since I first viewed the petition last evening. You can sign the petition at NotreDameScandal.com.

It is interesting to note that the Catholic vote for Obama was the largest faith vote among the "religions," with 54 percent of Catholics voting for Obama. The accompanying article with the chart below from The Pew Forum says that "Obama performed particularly well among Latino Catholics," - 67 percent voted for Obama.


The President's views on the sanctity of life were widely known during the campaign. As an Illinois state senator, Obama voted to kill a bill that would prevent killing a baby born alive. Nurse Jill Stanek was all over television and radio testifying to what Obama's views on infanticide really meant, and her personal experience with the issue. Really, it cannot get worse than that - but he won anyway. During the campaign, he told us that he would immediately recind a Bush executive order preventing taxpayer money being used overseas for funding abortions - and if you didn't believe him then, it was one of his first acts as President.

Doing The Right Thing.

I do hope that President Obama is learning a bit about true diplomacy. His decision to first attend the Durban II conference in Geneva was the wrong one. It sent the message to the world that the United states does not support its friends and allies.

For whatever reason, his decision to now boycott the Durban II conference is being seen as one of leadership and courage, taken that he has been trying to make amends with the Muslim world. In this case, he may have lost some clout with the Muslim world, but as gain a lot of respect with Europeans.

Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini said Thursday that Italy will not attend the Durban II conference scheduled for April in Geneva because of “aggressive and anti-Semitic statements” in resolutions being prepared for the summit on racism. Israel, Canada and the United States already have said they will not attend.

Foreign Minister Frattini also announced a postponement of a trip to Iran due to anti-Israeli and anti-American remarks by Iranian leaders.

Like the U.S., Frattini said that the decision to boycott Durban II could be reconsidered if the draft resolutions against Israel are changed. Several pre-conference motions have singled out Israel for alleged racism and have accepted Palestinian Authority recommendations supporting its claim that Arab descendants of former Israeli Arabs have the right to immigrate and live in Israel.

The committee preparing resolutions for Durban II also rejected a suggestion for condemnation of anyone denying the Holocaust.

Israel has called on all European Union countries to follow Canada and the U.S. and boycott the conference, a follow-up to the first conference held in Durban, South Africa in 2001. The U.S. walked out of the parley because of harsh anti-Israel resolutions that compared Zionism with racism.

Holland has also put the Durban II planners on notice that it also will join the boycott if the resolutions are not modified.

Italy has now stated that they will not attend. They are in very good company. Three nations are boycotting the Durban II conference. Italy is joining the ranks of Canada, Israel and the United States. Holland will be joining their ranks soon.

Now will France, Germany and Great Britain join in the boycott? Will they have the moral courage to do the right thing? Or will they give in to the pressure from their Muslim communities, and join in the anti-Semitic rhetoric that this conference has become? I hope that they will join the groundswell and boycott the Durban II conference.

Obama's Change

A short video from American Sentinel

Obama's Change



View at YouTube

Visit American Sentinel

What a Difference!

Notice the difference in the way George W. Bush and Barack Hussein Obama have been received by the US Marine Corps.

Hat tip to The Real Revo

Different Presidents, A Different Corps



View at YouTube

What a difference!

Semper Fi!

The Lesson At The Dome

He ascended to the Dome of the Capital, dressed in the holy suit and tie.
Upon arrival the assembled chapter of the Congress, the Holy Justices of the land, the members of the anointed Cabinet and guests from near and far, the Anointed One, Wearer of the Mantle of Power, spoke:

I speak not to the assemblage here, but to the nation as a whole,
I know of your pain, I have heard your cries of anguish,
The child whose college dreams are shattered,
The business that is going under,
The job that is gone.
I will fix that all.

This Recession is not My fault, it was the doing of others,
It was others that destroyed our Health Care, Schools and Jobs.
But I have heard your cries, and I will repair the damage.
We will have less, work more, and struggle harder,
But we will prevail.

I have foreseen all this.
The law that I just created was a start, there will be many more like it.
There will be jobs, I promise you that.
There will be more money in your hand,
This 1st of April, on that.

I will bring to all the blessings of Health with no cost to you,
I will bring to all the blessings of college, that wonderful place, to your children, with no cost to you,
I will bring to you the blessings of Wealth, with no cost to you,

Through Me we will cure all the problems that we face.
I know where the answers lie,
Not in the former wizards of the past,
but in the new wizards of technology that will be green and good.
New wizards that will banish the foreign oil demon back to the gates of Hell,
New wizards who when given the right amount of funds, will solve all of our energy needs and clean the environment too.

But we cannot wait, we must forge ahead,
We must spread the wealth around to all young and old.
I will even balance the budget, by 2015, so it is told.

I will sit with our enemies and listen to them,
Will make the radicals of Islam kneel before all,
I will bring peace to the Israelis, Palestinians too,
Have sent My envoy Mitchell to bring them the truth too.

I have signed the order,
We torture no more,
And the prison of Gitmo will be gone for ever more.
We will deal with the prisoners like the criminals they are,
In Our courts and with juries, and I know they will walk.

For through Me, All things are possible.
For through Me, All things will be made whole.
For through Me, Our economy will recover.
For I am the Hope and the Change.
I will bring us all to the Land of Plenty.

All through the speech, Pelosi the Loud, kept rising in joy like a yo-yo. She guided the assembled in their cheers.

After the speech the media hacks, gushed glowing terms over each word the Anointed One spoke.
They called it brilliant, enlightened and bold.
They clamored over each other, trying to be the first to praise Him.
That is until a small voice said:

Wait just a minute!
He tells you that He will do all these things.
Balancing the budget, Health Care, Education, Jobs and Wealth.
And without tax increases, just spend more He said.
And if that doesn't work, we will just spend more again.

You cannot keep spending like there is no tomorrow.
Sooner or later the money will run out.
You have to raise taxes, to cover your expenses.

This Emperor we have, is telling us lies.
We cannot do all this, yet He will try.
He will spend so much money, that there will be none left,
For the daily running of this nations defense.

The hacks looked around to see who had spoke, in tones that weren't glowing of their Anointed One.
They saw to their horror a brave man in the corner.
It was none other than the Governor of Louisiana, Bobby Jindal the Prophet.

Jindal the prophet, spoke to them of responsibility,
Of how this nation needs to start producing its own goods again.
Of how this nation needs to spend less and save more.
Of how this nation didn't negotiate with our foes.

The hacks just smiled and shooed The Prophet away.
Then they returned to the glow of the Anointed One.

But many in the nation heard the words of Jindal the Prophet.
They looked to each other and nodded in agreement.
Just wait Anointed One, in just 4 years.
This prophet will be singing our praises.

For the Anointed One's star is starting to descend.
From ratings of 80% now to just 59%.
He may not last at this high rate. Especially if the economy tanks.

Hope may come to the land,
Not without hardship.
Change will come, just let it be soon.

Durban II draft document getting worse.

I told you so President Obama. The second Durban Conference on bigotry and racism will be worse than the first.

Not only is Israel the only nation singled out for attack, but the idea of Free Speech will be destroyed too when they meet in April and force the world to accept as International Law that any criticism of Islam is a crime.

The draft document for the United Nations anti-racism conference, dubbed Durban II, is problematic both for Israel and western democracies in general, Ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva Roni Leshno Yaar told The Jerusalem Post on Sunday.

Besides issues relating to Israel, the draft has problematic paragraphs regarding free speech, defamation of religion and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, he said.

"At this stage it is not possible to say what in the text would improve, if at all. In fact I expect the text to get only worse on all issues which are important for western democracy," Leshno Yaar said in a telephone interview from Geneva.

He spoke as representatives from 190 nations have been meeting in Geneva to debate the language for a document in which Israel is alluded to as a "racist" and "apartheid" power.

The final draft will be presented at an April meeting in Geneva, which is the follow-up to the 2001 UN World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, which took place in Durban, South Africa.

Israel and the United States walked out of the 2001 conference to protest its disintegration into an anti-Semitic and anti-Israel hate-fest. Israel and Canada have already announced they do not intend to participate in this April's conference in Geneva.

On Friday, the State Department stated that it had gone to the preparatory meetings in Geneva "to work with countries that want to achieve a successful review conference" and added that the United States had "strong reservations about the direction of the conference, as the draft document singles out Israel for criticism, places unacceptable restrictions on freedom of expression under the guise of defaming religion, and calls for payment of reparations for slavery."

While in Geneva, US representatives met with 30 national delegations to outline their concerns.

The Americans were present but did not appear to have made improvement in the document, which he said "is getting worse every day."

Irwin Cotler, a Canadian MP and former justice minister, told the Post that the conference had been initially designed to speak about global issues relating to racism without singling out any country or group.

Israel was the only country that was alluded to in this way, he said.

Read the full story here.

Sorry followers of the Great Pedophile. But it will come down to which system of government is better. The backward 7th Century ramblings of a lunatic who hated everyone or the enlightened men of Philadelphia who foresaw this and placed the Freedom of Speech as 1st in the American Constitution.

What will the President do? Support those who follow a 7th Century madman, those who reject everything this nation stands for? Or finally listen to reason and reject not only the Durban II Conference, but anything that comes from it?

President Obama swore to uphold and defend the Constitution on Jan. 20th. Will he now do that? Or to please the Muslim world will he ignore our laws and impose the UN's on us?