Just Say NO! to Liberals

The Anti-Semitism The Media Does Not Want to See

2011-02-23T08:42:00.001-08:00

Why CBS kept mum for four days about the brutal sexual assault of network correspondent Lara Logan by a Tahrir Square mob on Feb. 11?

The first question that comes to mind is "What is wrong with the so-called main stream media?" but that is a rhetorical question whose answer we all know: the intellectually dishonest "media" has stopped reporting a long time ago. It is now wrapping up its own political agenda in false journalism and dishes it out to an unsuspecting public. It seeks to proselytise its liberal far left message and not to inform.

Concerned that the news of the sexual assault on Logan, which took place almost exactly as Hosni Mubarak was relinquishing all powers, would detract from the "jubilant" crowd's "democracy" drama, CBS (and the other news outlets) buried the story.

Imagine if a star correspondent had been similarly violated by a mob of tea party-goers. Imagine the hypocritical outcry such an incident would have arowsed from the heart of the MSM (mainstream media) against the mob.

Not so in the Logan case. Only after the story was breaking did CBS release a brief description of the incident. We were told of Logan's accidental separation from her crew in the crowd. The prolonged assault by over 200 people "whipped into a frenzy." The rescue by a group of women and 20 soldiers. What CBS conveniently didn't mention was that as the thugs assaulted the 39-year-old journalist and mother of two, they shouted "Jew! Jew!"

This essential piece of the story, this obvious proof of obsessive anti-Semitism of the Islamic world (including Egypt) was broken by the New York Post. It has sparked little comment, which in itself is worth comment.

But Islam and its inherent anti-Semitism has never been considered a factor in the context of reporting the "pro-Democracy" riots on the streets of Cairo. Nor were the anti-American and anti-Israel sentiments of so many in the crowd so blatantly exposed on their protest banners. The hypocritical media has no interest in anything that can dirty the carefully crafted image and illusion that it tries to propagate. In other words, the liberal leftist media cannot be bothered with facts and inconvenient context.

In their politically correct (and blind) eyes, Islamic anti-Semitism might as well not exist.
Islam's teachings on women and particularly Jews are literally hateful: Jews "are the enemies of Allah, descendants of apes and pigs."

When you ignore context and facts, it doesn't even matter that Logan is herself not Jewish. Still, she is a journalist (sort of...) and a woman. I wonder where are the feminist organizations?

"Social Justice" according to Michelle Obama

2010-10-28T06:48:00.003-07:00

Elena Ceausescu will be in agreement with her. Can you spell H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y ?

US Jews Go Right

2010-10-26T10:58:00.002-07:00

Despite the assumption that American Jews traditionally vote for Democrats and not Republicans, there is a shift in the Jewish vote already taking place at the state level.

Politico points out that nationally, Jews make up only about 2 percent of the American population but are heavily represented in big cities and have disproportionately high voter turnout rates. While Democrats do get the lion’s share of the Jewish vote, some Jewish groups such as the Orthodox Jews have shifted to the Republicans, as seen in the 2004 elections, when 70 percent of Orthodox Jews supported George W. Bush.

At the state level, the Republican New Jersey Governor Chris Christie attracted 38 percent of the Jewish vote in 2009. As a result, Republicans who can be competitive in the Jewish community, gain an edge against Democratic opponents, who have been taking the Jewish vote for granted.

With only a week before historical mid-term elections, it is worth paying close attention to the Jewish vote in close Senate races in states with significant Jewish populations.
For example, Politico points to "the complicated Pennsylvania race,” where Republican-turned-Democrat Jewish senator, Arlen Specter was defeated in the primaries. In Philadelphia, Democratic nominee Joe Sestak signed the “Gaza 54 letter,” which called for Washington to pressure Israel to end the Gaza blockade. This fact alone might cause the Jewish voters to vote Republican.

Other examples where Jews might vote for the Republican candidates include Florida, where former Republican-turned-independent Charlie Crist, who is being endorsed by Jewish former Democratic Rep. Robert Wexler, might split the traditionally Democratic Jewish vote with Democratic candidate Kendrick Meek, causing a boost for Republican Marco Rubio.

Closer to my heart, New Jersey’s 12th district is another important area. Scott Sipprelle is challenging Rush Holt, another "Gaza 54" letter signer. While neither candidate is Jewish, a “Rabbis for Sipprelle” group is seeking to raise awareness of Holt’s actions, another move which could help bring the district back to the Republicans.

The 9th Congressional District in Illinois is also an area to watch, as Republican Joel Pollak - who has won the endorsement of Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz - is challenging Democrat Jan Schakowsky, another Jewish candidate. Israel has become a central issue in the campaign, with Pollak claiming that Schakowsky does not do enough for Israel.

One reason for the apparent fluidity of the Jewish vote could be Obama’s perceived tough stance on Israel. The Jewish vote in America is evolving. Instead of it being monolithically Democratic there are signs that at the local and state level Jews can shift their vote enough towards Republican candidates that Democrats are forced to play defense. Jewish voters care about issues such as the economy, the deficit, and health care. “Jewish voters in state elections across the country could significantly change our political landscape in November,” according to Politico.

The Associated Press reported that both Israelis and Palestinians are closely watching the upcoming midterm race in the United States, sensing that its results could affect both the peace talks as well as Obama's ability to coax concessions from Israel.

The report said that the Arabs are hoping that Obama’s mild reaction to Israel’s refusal to continue the construction freeze in Judea and Samaria has been due to political consideration, and that he would be freer to apply pressure on Israel after the vote November 2.
An adviser for Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu told AP that if Congress tilts Republican, it could have what he termed a "positive impact" on Israeli concerns, meaning there would be no pressure on Israel to make concessions.

“Settlements are not an obstacle to peace in the Middle East,” says Rev. Michael Faulkner, ex- New York Jets lineman, an evangelical minister and candidate for Congress. When asked about President Obama's plans to compel the Netanyahu government to extend the freeze on settlement construction in Judea, Samaria and parts of East Jerusalem, Faulkner replied, “I am tired of hearing the words 'occupation' and 'return to 1967 borders' when it comes to defining Israel because that simply is not the case. Israel is not an occupying power and thus anyone who says that Jewish settlement construction is an obstacle to peace in the Middle East is just using that as a smokescreen. The real obstacle to peace in that region are terrorists such as Hamas, Hizbullah and other Iranian proxies."

Expressing anger at the view of the Obama administration as it pertains to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Faulkner stated, "Obama has participated in the delegitimization of Israel through his maltreatment of our best friend and stalwart ally in the region. By doing so he helps to fuel feelings of anti-Semitism."

Rev. Faulkner is fighting to unseat Charles Rangel, a Democrat and a political icon in Manhattan's 15th congressional district, which includes the upper West Side, Harlem and Washington Heights. Rev. Faulkner's candidacy has received endorsements from Fox TV commentator Sean Hannity, National Right to Life parties, Newt Gingrich. the New Era Democrats, the Black Republicans PAC, the Frederick Douglass Foundation and more than a dozen Christian churches, ministries, clerics and community groups.

America Supports Israel, Rejects Obama's Policies

2010-10-13T07:52:00.002-07:00

A recent poll conducted by McLaughlin and Associates has found that the majority of American adults support Israel and oppose Obama's Middle East Policy.

50.9% of Americans said Jerusalem should remain Israel's undivided capital, compared to just 20.4% who disagreed. 77.9% said that Palestinian Authority leaders should recognize Israel as the Jewish state, compared to just 6% who said they should not.

A majority of 57.2% said Arab terrorism and denial of Israel's right to exist is primarily responsible for the Arab-Israeli conflict.

More Americans felt a Palestinian state would increase problems in the Middle East than felt it would be a solution. 25.5% said that if such a state were created, terrorism against Israel would actually increase, with 50.2% saying that the anti-American sentiment in the Arab world would be unchanged.

51.6% agreed that Obama has been less friendly to Israel than previous presidents, while 35.4% disagreed. 54.4% said they disagree with Obama's policy of publicly criticizing Israel while 27% agree with Obama's actions.
46.5% said they believe Obama's attempt to reach out to the Muslim world has left America less secure, while 33.1% said they believe America is now more secure.

The poll also found that a candidate's image as pro-Israel or anti-Israel could affect elections. 52.7% said they were more likely to vote for a candidate they perceive as pro-Israel, while 53.6% said they would not vote for an anti-Israel candidate even if they agreed with them on other issues.

Another finding was a strong concern that America could be the target if Iran obtained nuclear weapons. 49.8% said Iran is at least somewhat likely to attack America if it develops nuclear weapons, while a smaller number, 45.4%, termed such a scenario unlikely.
59.8% expressed support for destroying Iran's nuclear facilities in order to prevent the creation of a nuclear weapon, if sanctions fail.

Based on the findings of this poll, where to do you think the Obama Administration really stands? Judge its standing not according to empty words, but in relation to its deeds and actions. The conclusion, yet again, is that the Obama team is not in tone with the majority of the American people.

Jewish Support for GOP on the Rise

2010-08-25T20:42:00.004-07:00

The plunge in Jewish support for Obama can be traced to plenty of reasons besides his pro-Arab policies and utter incompetence (overwhelmingly demonstrated during the Gulf Oil spill). The American Thinker news editor Ed Lasky writes that the failing Obama economic policies have a disproportionate and negative effect on American Jews.

The alarm bells went off in Democratic circles last week when the Pew Research Center reported that the number of Jews supporting Republican candidates or independents has jumped 50% since Obama was elected nearly three years ago.

A poll conducted last April by McLaughlin & Associates revealed that while 78% of American Jews voted for Barack Obama, only 42% would consider voting for him again.

Claims that Jews are pro-Israel, with the insinuation that they profess dual loyalty, were championed last Saturday in an op-ed by New York Times columnist Charles Blow. The duplicity and dishonesty of the leftist “drive-by” media is appalling, of course, since the same charge is not made against Latino Congressmen, many of whom have made immigration reform (i.e. blanket Amnesty) a top priority. The hidden anti-Semitism of the left is sometimes hard to confine.

As many Jews are owners of small businesses in the US, “Obama Care,” economic policies aimed against small businessmen, proposed higher taxes on high-income owners and capital gains will hit Jews much harder than other sectors in American society.

Small business owners are the unsung heroes in America; they generate most of the private-sector jobs. They also lead generally very stressful lives -- trying to deal with the challenges of competition, labor relations, customer service [and] risks of bankruptcy. Through his anti-capitalist policies, Barack Obama and the Democrats have just loaded onto their shoulders many more problems.

“Obama Care” will negatively affect Jews more than others for two reasons: they are the oldest ethnic group in America and also include a disproportionately high percentage of American doctors.

Older people have often relied on the health of the stock market to cushion their retirement years. That cushion has deflated this year under the multiple blows administered by Barack Obama and the Democrats…. The market started to tank because investors saw a bleak future for free enterprise in the Age of Obama… “Obama Care” will suppress the freedom of doctors, load them up with additional paperwork and patients, and will eventually hit their bottom line.”

“Jews are as American as everyone else,” the article concludes. “When they see their lives being harmed, their interests being ignored, and their dreams being dashed to death by Democrats, they respond just as other Americans do. They express their concerns and seek to protect their future in that most American of places: the voting booth.”

Stimulus Plan for...Kenya

2010-07-22T08:10:00.003-07:00

Everyone knows that the country is rapidly approaching a financial abyss. That however, does not mean that the Obama regime cannot pump money into...Kenya.

In response to recent inquiry started by Reps. Chris Smith (R-NJ), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) and Darrell Issa (R-CA) the U.S. Agency for International Development admitted to spending more than $23 million of U.S. taxpayer money to influence voters in Kenya to pass a highly contentious constitution. The investigation revealed that the Obama regime has secretly funded a "Yes" vote on a constitutional referendum (scheduled for Aug. 4) that would increase access to abortions in Kenya and establish legal status for Islamic law tribunals.

The proposed constitution would water down the existing abortion law and would grant legal status to what are known as "Kadhi Courts," constituting an Islamic judicial structure within the overall structure of the Kenyan legal structure. Codifying the "Kadhi Courts" would constitute a blatant violation of the separation of state and religion by allowing Sharia law to have official legal status.

In the 2007 presidential campaign in Kenya, Raila Odinga – the presidential candidate of the Orange Democratic Party and a Luo tribesman, like Obama's father – signed an undisclosed memorandum of understanding with radical Muslims in Kenya to expand Islamic law within the country in exchange for Muslim support of his candidacy.

Many Kenyans believe the provision in the proposed referendum that would establish Kadhi Courts is a fulfillment of the agreement Odinga made with Sheik Abdullah Abdi, the chairman of the National Muslim Leaders Forum.

US taxpayers funds are used to take sides in what is an internal Kenyan affair which drew criticism from the Kenyan Higher Education Minister William Ruto (who is leading the team opposing the constitutional referendum). He has accused the US Ambassador in Kenya of crossing the "no-go-zone for foreign diplomats."

Obama's links to Odinga

The Obama administration's funding of Kenyan internal politics appears to follow a pattern then-Sen. Obama first set on his 2006 Senate-funded visit to Kenya.

During that trip, Obama campaigned so openly for Odinga that Kenyan government spokesman Alfred Mutua went on Kenyan television to object that Obama was meddling inappropriately in Kenyan politics.

During the December 2007 elections, Odinga called for protests over alleged voter fraud, which resulted in violence leaving an estimated 1,000 members of the dominant Kikuyu tribe in Kenya dead and an estimated 500,000 displaced from their homes.

In a horrifying incident following the election, at least 50 people, including women and children, were killed when an angry mob forced Kikuyu Christians into an Assembly of God church in the village of Eldoret, about 185 miles northwest of Nairobi. The mob set fire to the church, hacking with machetes any of the Christians who attempted to escape the flames.

Obama did not object to Odinga's continued push to share the head of state with President Mwai Kibaki despite Odinga's electoral defeat.

Instead, Obama worked with former U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan to end the violence by creating for Odinga the position of prime minister – a position not defined in the Kenyan constitution – so Odinga could become co–head of state with Kibaki.

The International Criminal Court in The Hague, Netherlands, is currently investigating the possibility of criminal charges against both Kibaki and Odinga for their roles in the postelection violence.

Your tax dollars at work in...Kenya.

Dangerous Naïveté or Hidden Enmity?

2010-05-21T17:56:00.003-07:00

Lets see if you can answer this short quiz:
1. Which organization is most responsible for the wave of kidnappings of Westerners in Lebanon in the '80s?
2. Which organization is responsible for the 1983 bombing of the US Embassy and the Marines barracks in Beirut which killed 241 Americans?
3. Which organization kidnapped and murdered US Marine Col. William Higgins and the CIA Beirut station chief William Buckley?
4. Which organization is responsible for the 1992 bombing of the Israeli Embassy and the Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires which left 85 innocents dead?

If you answered Hezbollah to all of the above, you were right, if not, you were either uniformed or chose to oversee the facts....Much like Obama's "counter-terrorism" chief, John Brennan. Recently, he announced that the Obama administration wants to "try to build up the more moderate elements" within Hezbollah!

In a murderous group officially labeled as a "foreign terrorist organization" by the U.S. State Department, closely tied to Iran, which funds and supplies it and third most responsible for American casualties (after Al Qaeda and Taliban), a deluded Administration wants to “build up (…) more moderate elements”.

Brennan is quoted as saying that Hezbollah has evolved from "purely a terrorist organization" to a militia to an organization that now has members within the parliament and the cabinet. Does that mean that a moderate wing of Hezbollah now exists or does this mean that a terrorist group has infiltrated the government of Lebanon?

When a terrorist group takes on quasi-governmental characteristics, as Hamas has done in Gaza, or forces its way into elected positions in a weak state, as Hezbollah has done in Lebanon, that is not "evolution" - it is another step toward those groups' original goal: bringing down a fledging democracy and replace it with an Islamist government. The Nazis in the 1930’s Germany employed similar tactics and used democratic institutions in order to destroy democracy.

Brennan has a history of controversial judgement to say the least. In a speech last February to the Islamic Center at New York University, Brennan said, "And, in all my travels the city I have come to love most is Al-Quds, Jerusalem, where three great faiths come together." Al-Quds, the Arabic name for Jerusalem, is an Islamist rallying cry. The Ayatollah Khomeini declared the last Friday of Ramadan "Al Quds Day “- "The Day of the Oppressed". Maybe someone should have reminded this rambling idiot that The “Al Quds Brigades” is the name of the "military wing" of a Palestinian Islamist terrorist group and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps has a secret “Al Quds unit”, that coordinates with its terrorist proxies such as Hezbollah. For an American counterterrorism official to use such a weighted phrase to gratify a Muslim audience is not only troubling, it’s either proof of dangerous naïveté or down right stupidity (or both).
In the mean time, his boss, the most anti-Israel President in this country’s history pressures Israel not to build in….Al-Quds.

It is hard to believe that an “expert” in counterterrorism and the Middle East, as Brennan purports himself to be, could be so blind to the reality of Hezbollah, or to the real and growing danger of Iranian power in the region. It so hard to believe that the only other logical conclusion would be that Brennan knows exactly what he is saying and reflects the growing anti-Israel position of his boss, while at the same time, trying to appease the Islamo-Nazis. Reaching out to "build up" imaginary moderates in Hezbollah can only strengthen the Iranian regime, as Obama’s impotent policies toward Iran in the last 17 months have already done, while playing to the far left base of the Democrat Party by showing that the Administration is “building bridges” with the murderers.

Since Brennan is the subject of media speculation as a possible replacement for outgoing Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair, we should all be deeply troubled that a man in whom Obama places such confidence advances such a misguided and out of touch view of our nation's enemies.

Why Didn't Obama Mention Islam?

2010-05-17T10:01:00.005-07:00

Most clearly thinking Americans disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling the US foreign policy in general and the war on Islamic terror in particular, but it seems that in Muslim countries, his "over seas contingency operations" are viewed favorably. 'Al-Sharq Al-Awsat,' a leading international Arab newspaper has hailed Obama for officially removing the description “Muslim terrorist” as part of his campaign “to reach out to the Muslim world.” The op-ed did not note the radical Muslim background of the terrorists and reasoned they are equal to other terrorists whose religion is not connected with their acts.

The Saudi owned newspaper, published in London, ran an op-ed last week under the headline "Why Didn't Obama Mention Islam?." The Obama administration has broken from the Bush government’s policy of using the term “Islamic terrorism” in official documents and "no longer [is] responding to extremist voices" that call for targeting home countries of terrorists, the article explained.

Echoing views in the Muslim worls, the newspaper sees Obama carrying out his pledge in his “reaching out to Muslims speech” at Cairo University in June 2008. Regarding Obama's statements on the botched Times Square bombing, the editor praised him for not once referring to prime suspect Faisal Shahzad’s as being a Muslim and for not “mentioning Islam in discussing the terrorist operation."

The same approach was taken after the failed Christmas Day bombing by Nigerian Muslim Umar Farouk Abdulmuttalib. “Obama spoke about the detained terrorist as a member of the Al-Qaeda organization but he did not speak about him being a Muslim. (...) Even when he spoke about Al-Qaeda, Obama noted that it was not the first time that the network had targeted America, ignoring the links that were made in the past between the organization and Islam or when it was put in the context of 'Islamic extremism.'"

Similarly, after the Fort Hood, Texas attack by a Muslim terrorist who murdered 13 people last November, “President Obama 'cautioned against jumping to conclusions’” and did not refer to the terrorist's Arab origin or religion.

The article did not mention that most, if not all, Arab terrorists are indoctrinated by Muslim extremism. Instead, the editor argued that describing terrorists as Muslims actually provokes more terror. “There is recognition today of the fact that terrorists are benefiting from the creation of an anti-Islamic and anti-Muslim atmosphere after any terrorist operation, and that issuing statements or taking steps that target Muslims employed by extremist groups further spreads hostility against the U.S., the West, and even moderate Islamic states,” he reasoned.

The writer argued that “the identity of the terrorist does not necessarily implicate the country he belongs to, in the same way that other adherents of the religion the terrorist follows should not be condemned."

He accused former President George W. Bush of being “captive to the Big Stick policy and slogans of 'you're either with us or against us,' which caused the popularity of the U.S. to wane, not only in the Islamic world but in numerous countries around the world." In contrast, he continued, “The new president has extended his hand to the Islamic world,… and the tendency to link every terrorist operation to the religion of the perpetrator has disappeared.”

The policy of appeasment towards Islamic fascism, the pre-911 mentality together with a wilful attitude of denying reality and hiding from facts are a dangerous characteristic of this Administration.

US Jews Start to Wake Up

2010-05-10T06:09:00.003-07:00

There are signs that American Jews are (finally) starting to wake up and see the Obama Administration for what it really is: a radical, anti-Israel Administration.

A recent poll by the McLaughlin Group shows that Obama has lost nearly half of his support among American Jews.

The US Jews polled were asked whether they would: (a) vote to re-elect Obama, or (b) consider voting for someone else. 42% said they would vote for Obama and 46%, a plurality, preferred the second answer. 12% said they did not know or refused to answer.

In the Presidential elections of 2008, 78% of Jewish voters, or close to 8 out of 10, chose Obama. The McLaughlin poll held nearly 18 months later, in April 2010, appears to show that support down to around 4 out of 10.

The poll showed that key voter segments including Orthodox/Hassidic voters, Conservative voters, voters who have friends and family in Israel and those who have been to Israel, are all more likely to consider voting for someone other than Obama.

Among Orthodox/Hassidic voters, 69% marked 'someone else' vs. 17% who marked 're-elect.' Among Conservative-affiliated voters the proportion was 50% to 38%. Among Reform Jews, a slim majority of 52% still supported Obama while 36% indicated they would consider someone else. Among Jews with family in Israel and those who had been to Israel, about 50% said they would consider someone else, while 41%-42% supported Obama.

Although 50% of the Jewish voters polled said they approved of the job Obama is doing handling US relations with Israel (!?!), 39% said they disapproved.
For a group of voters that have been traditionally Democratic (only 16% of US Jews are believed to be Republican), this rating is not good news.

A majority of 52% said they disapproved of the idea of the Obama Administration supporting a plan to recognize a Palestinian state within two years. 62% said that if given a state, “the Palestinians would continue their campaign of terror to destroy Israel.” Only 19% thought they would live peacefully with Israel.

As Obama loses support among members of the influential Jewish voter bloc, possible Republican candidate Sarah Palin seems to be doing her best to woo them to her camp. At Time Magazine’s May 4 dinner honoring the ‘100 Most Influential People in the World,’ she was sporting a US/Israel flag pin.

Meanwhile, Barack Obama is widely perceived to be behind the de facto construction freeze in eastern Jerusalem. The construction freeze sought by Obama is discriminatory, as by law, the entire city of Jerusalem is under Israeli sovereignty, and no distinction should be made between various neighborhoods.

Hitler's Children

2010-04-12T11:09:00.010-07:00

65 Years have passed and the world is quiet once again. On this Yom Ha'Shoah (Day of Holocaust Remembrance), we remember the evil so that it can never raise its head again. We pay homage to the victims and teach the young what happens when evil is appeased.
Hitler's Children is a powerful documentary about the children of the monsters and the children of the survivors. For them, the Holocaust never really ended:

CLICK TO PLAY

PM Benyamin Nethanyahu: "The World is silent and putting up with Iran's declarations of genocide against Israel".
Pres. Shimon Peres: "We should not go back to indifference"
Chief of General Staff Gabi Ashkenazi: "We will not stand defenseless once again".

The Week of Hate

2010-03-01T08:19:00.005-08:00

“Apartheid Week” is an annual event organized on college campuses in the United States, Canada and elsewhere by extreme anti-Israel groups.

The week-long event includes lectures and exhibits aimed at convincing students that Israel is a racist, colonial state. Participants are asked to sign a document opposing Zionism while supporting the creation of a state for Palestinian Authority Arabs. Although its organizers would like to paint this event as a legitimate form of political protest, it is nothing more than an orgy of anti-semitic hate, wrapped up in "anti-Zionist activism" meant to de-legitimize the State of Israel.

Bnei Brith Canada called this week to ban “Apartheid Week” events completely: "Today's resolution is an important first step towards what must be an outright ban of 'Israel Apartheid Week' and other similar events on campus whose raison d'etre to promote hatred, and whose activities invariably encourage harassment and intimidation of Jewish students,” Bnei Brith stated in a press release.

The organization Stand With Us took a different approach, urging students to “Use the Apartheid weeks ahead as a wonderful opportunity to teach the campus and local community about apartheid that exists today, in a majority of Middle Eastern countries where human rights abuses are commonplace... Simultaneously, encourage students and community leadership to stand up to misinformation about Israel.”

Stand With Us has produced a booklet titled “Middle East Apartheid Today” to counter Apartheid Week criticism of Israel. The booklet describes the oppression of black citizens of South Africa under apartheid and compares it to the situation of women, homosexuals, religious minorities, and reformists in countries such as Iran and Saudi Arabia.

The booklet is available on the Stand With Us website.

The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA) has also put materials online to assist those interested in countering anti-Israel rhetoric. The site, www.israeliapartheidweek.com, includes information on the radical nature of Apartheid Week, the double standard implicit in criticizing Jewish self-determination and not that of other national groups, and genuine oppression elsewhere in the Middle East.

The legislature of Ontario, Canada’s most populous province, and major Canadian dailies have railed against the use of the term ‘apartheid” and the "Israel Apartheid Week” campaign. However, 500 Montreal artists rallied behind an anti-Zionist call to boycott Israel.

Ontario’s resolution condemned the annual anti-Israel event, which opened this week.

In the predominantly French-speaking city of Montreal, 500 artists, including several left-wing Israelis, promoted a petition supporting "Israel Apartheid Week" and backing the Arab claim of the "right of return” for millions of Arabs claming ancestry to those who fled Israel during the wars in 1948 and 1967. Ample historical evidence has shown that the Arab world encouraged most of them to leave to allow the Arab Legion to complete what it thought would be the annihilation of the Jewish State.

Writing in a column published from Vancouver to Montreal, Leonard Stern wrote that Israel Apartheid Week gives Israel the “assigned the role of Jew among the nations — singled-out, cursed and harassed….The whiff of something medieval hangs over this March ritual. This isn’t about Jews, say the organizers. It’s about Zionists. Problem is, the activist groups behind Israeli Apartheid Week are doing everything to erase the distinction.”

He pointed out that an Ottawa research group in 2008 refused to promote a lecture on African development “because Jewish students at the University of Ottawa happened to be organizing it. The event had zero connection to Israel but [the group] said it wouldn’t partner with the Jewish students’ union due to the latter’s 'relationship to apartheid Israel.'”

Who Are You, Mr. Goldstone?

2010-02-02T19:09:00.003-08:00

The US House of Representatives has rejected as "irredeemably biased" the findings of a UN-sponsored report which says Israel committed "war crimes" during its last military operation in the Gaza Strip (code named "Cast Lead").

The report, also known as "Goldstone Report", named after Richard Goldstone, a South African judge who headed the panel, accused Israel and (to a much lesser extent, the Hamas terrorist group) of war crimes during the 22-day conflict in December and January 2007-2008. It has been characterized as "a distorted picture" by Steny Hoyer, the Democrat House majority leader. Steven Rothman, a Democratic congressman from New Jersey said that the report "was not written to talk about 12,000 rockets intentionally sent by Hamas to slaughter Israeli men, women and children, versus the Israelis trying in many respects to minimize the damage to Palestinian civilians."

Israel refused to collaborate with the biased "investigation" and around the world, many voices were heard in defense of Israel and the IDF ("IDF is the most moral army in the history of warfare"). But many others took the opportunity to lash out against Israel and to use the conclusions of the report in order to further their anti-Israel (and often anti-Semitic) agenda, using charges of "war crimes" against the Jewish State.

Goldstone maintains his objectivity and impartiality. A recent article in the Israeli daily "Israel Ha'Yom", however, uncovers another side of Mr. Goldstone....

It seems that the "impartial" and "objective" judge Goldstone is anything but. According to the "Im Tirtzu" group, Goldstone was a member of the "International Center for Transitional Justice", a far left group masquerading as working "to redress and prevent the most severe violations of human rights", but has a history of accusing Israel of some of the worst abuses of human rights. On its website, the group quotes Goldstone as lamenting that he cannot understand how "Jews can act with racism".

Goldstone served in the Board of Directors of "Human Rights Watch" (although his name was removed from the organization's website after the group "Monitor NGO" publicized the judge's links with HRW). In its March 2009 report, HRW accuses Israel of "war crimes" during its "Cast Lead" operation in Gaza.

Today, Goldstone belongs to "Doctors for Human Rights", another self proclaimed global human rights organization which has a history of accusing Israel in the past of "violations of international human rights".

Impartial and objective? Goldstone's bias and lies are shameful to the very least.

Another Obama Anti-Zionist Jew

2010-01-13T10:32:00.007-08:00

The Czar of Czars (no, it's not the Russian Czar) has gotten himself also an "Anti-Semitism Czar", as if 32 other useless, unelected czars with quasi-dictatorial powers were not enough (for a list of the 32 Obama "czars", go here).

This one is Hannah Rosenthal, a member of the "J Street" advisory panel and an ex-member of the Board of Directors for the left wing "Americans for Peace Now".

"J Street" is a lunatic, far left, anti-Israel organization funded by Arab and other radical sources, masquerading as a concerned supporter of Israel, presenting itself as a counter weight to the powerful pro-Israel lobby AIPAC. "American Thinker" has an excellent article in which it exposes this farce called "J Street" ("Blowing J Street's Cover").

Only a month after her investiture by His Highness the "Czar of Czars", Rosenthal went to attack. Not against the rising Anti-Semitism in Europe or the insane "blood libels" washing the Western and Muslim press...No...Her first target is none other than Michael Oren, Israel's Ambassador to the US, who dared to turn down a "J Street" request to be a key speaker at its first annual conference, refused to attend the event and voice remarks against the far left group.

Rosenthal, in turn, said that Oren "would have learned a lot" had he participated in the conference. Her words prompted a storm of protests, best voiced by Harvey Schwartz, head of American Israeli Action Coalition (AIAC):
"As a high ranking member of the Obama Administration, Rosenthal's criticism of the Israeli Ambassador to the US is beyond bizarre and highly offensive in the extreme. It is a virulent anti-Israel attack which AIAC interprets to be anti-Semitic."
Instead of fighting Anti-Semitism, the ideologue Rosenthal is actually promoting it!

The Israeli Embassy asked for "clarifications" from the US Administration, but it is increasingly clear that the Obama White House is in no way as friendly to the Jewish State as the George W. Bush Administration was. And Rosenthal's remarks are only one of the many slaps Israel has suffered since the "Czar of Czars" has been elected.

To the many voices calling for her resignation, Hannah Rosenthal can only arrogantly say that criticism of her comes from "very few people that blog a lot"....Well, you can add this blogger to those people Hannah. With friends like you and your boss, Israel doesn't need anymore enemies.

Obama: 'take your hands off the Land of Israel!'”

2009-12-11T10:09:00.007-08:00

Americans may still be stuck in the dream world provided by the Obama illusion machine (although they are starting to wake up in record numbers), but Israelis are taking to the streets protesting the American imposed freeze on buildings in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem. These are some of the photos from the Dec. 9th, demonstration in Jerusalem, organized by the Yesha Council and attended by tens of thousands of Israelis:

"Blood Libels" fuel the New Anti-Semitism

2009-12-03T12:41:00.005-08:00

The Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet's August 2009 story accusing the IDF of harvesting Palestinian organs is the latest in the long and dark history of European Antisemitism. Donald Bostrom, the author of the offensive piece, duly demonstrated his utter lack of any basic journalistic standards when he said: "But whether it's true or not - I have no idea, I have no clue." On top of this, the story was further undermined as one of the Palestinian families interviewed said they never told any reporter that their son was missing organs.

With the credibility of the story in tatters one might have expected the outrageous accusations to have a limited shelf life or to disappear altogether. However, the Swedish blood libel is a textbook case study of how what starts as an article published in a language read by few from a country of limited international influence can turn into a poison that spreads much wider.

Perhaps no one can prevent the spread of such poison through the Internet and beyond. But it is still incumbent upon us to act as a bulwark and to ensure that the truth and an antidote to the poison appears online to counter the lies.

Such falsehoods take on a life of their own on Internet message boards. Some media outlets save their comments for perpetuity. For the miss informed, a comment or post on a message board may even become a valid source through a search engine such as Google or Yahoo.

A look at one example of this may be an indicator of the long-term consequences of the Swedish blood libel.

In a November 2008 story on the confirmation of uranium traces at a Syrian site bombed by Israel in September 2007, the discussion on CNN's message board invariably turned to accusations that Israel was responsible for the uranium.

One commenter posts from an article by Robert Fisk in The Independent from October 2006 that claimed that Israel had used uranium bombs during the 2006 Lebanon conflict. He then asks: "Israel used it [uranium] in Lebanon why should any one be surprised that Israel used it in Syria too."

However, the original story by Fisk was thoroughly debunked after a United Nations agency found the uranium charges to be false. The Independent refused to issue a correction or apology and so this libel is regurgitated on forums such as CNN's. The latest Swedish blood libel could be a similar story.

Several Ukrainian Web sites claim Israel has brought around some 25,000 Ukrainian children into the country over the past two years in order to harvest their organs. Vyacheslav Gudin told the estimated 300 attendees of the Kiev conference a detailed story about a Ukrainian man's fruitless search for 15 children who had been adopted in Israel. The children, Gudin said, had clearly been taken by Israeli medical centers, where they were used for "spare parts." Gudin said it was essential that all Ukrainians be made aware of the genocide Israel was perpetrating. In response to a request by the country's Jewish community Ukraine's police force is investigating ZUBR, one of the Web sites that reported the speeches.

The story spread into Canada via Al Ameen Post, a Canadian Muslim newspaper, which published an article repeating the libel that Jews kidnapped "25,000 Ukrainian children (...) over the past 2 years in order to harvest their organs".

The Palestinian Authority libel that Israel deliberately harvests organs from dead Palestinians has caught on in the Arab world. Last month Egyptian authorities temporarily denied Israeli doctors entry into Egypt to participate in a medical conference. The head of the Egyptian Medical Syndicate explained that this was because they "participated in torture" of Palestinians and because they "are also guilty of stealing the organs of Palestinian prisoners."

In response to the Israeli doctors' protest over Egyptian authorities not issuing them permits to enter Egypt for a medical conference, the head of the Egyptian Medical Syndicate, Dr. Hamdi Al-Sayed said: 'We have no regard or respect for the Israeli doctors because the medical community has condemned them due to their participation in the torture of Palestinian prisoners.' He added: 'The Israeli Medical Association has acknowledged having participated in torture, noting that it had done so with the aim of protecting Israeli citizens.' He stated that the Israeli doctors are also guilty of stealing the organs of Palestinian prisoners, and that 'such people will not be permitted to take part in our medical activities." [Al-Ayyam, Nov. 27, 2009]

Saddly, in the 21st Century, the Antisemitism is alive and well.

The Bowing President

2009-11-19T15:32:00.003-08:00

As Obama wraps up yet another futile foreign trip, he finds another leader to bow to, this time to the Emperor of Japan.
After his bowing to the Saudi despot, apologizing for America's "arrogance" and declaring that Americans are just " a bunch of citizens", Obama is the first President in the history of this nation that does not believe in the uniquness of the American experience.No wonder that back home, Obama's approval ratings hit a new low: 46 percent, according to a FOX News poll released Thursday. An equal number -- 46 percent -- disapprove of the job he's doing. By comparison, more than twice as many Americans disapprove (63 percent) as approve (26 percent) of the job that the Democrat-controlled Congress is doing, but it is of little comfort to Obama.
In the mean time, Sarah Palin's approval ratings continue to rise. Americans are much more likely to give Palin a positive rating (47 percent favorable) than another prominent female leader -- Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (28 percent favorable). Moreover, about six in 10 Americans (61 percent) think Palin has been treated unfairly by the press, according to the latest Fox News poll.
While Obama may not be in a hurry to read Palin's new book, among the critical segment of independent voters, they are virtually even (Obama at 50 percent; Palin at 49 percent).

'IDF Most Moral Army in History of Warfare'

2009-10-21T15:45:00.002-07:00

Thank you, Mr. President.

I am the former commander of the British forces in Afghanistan. I served with NATO and the United Nations; commanded troops in Northern Ireland, Bosnia and Macedonia; and participated in the Gulf War. I spent considerable time in Iraq since the 2003 invasion, and worked on international terrorism for the UK Government’s Joint Intelligence Committee.

Mr. President, based on my knowledge and experience, I can say this: During Operation Cast Lead, the Israeli Defence Forces did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other army in the history of warfare.

Israel did so while facing an enemy that deliberately positioned its military capability behind the human shield of the civilian population.

Hamas, like Hizballah, are expert at driving the media agenda. Both will always have people ready to give interviews condemning Israeli forces for war crimes. They are adept at staging and distorting incidents.

The IDF faces a challenge that we British do not have to face to the same extent. It is the automatic, Pavlovian presumption by many in the international media, and international human rights groups, that the IDF are in the wrong, that they are abusing human rights.

The truth is that the IDF took extraordinary measures to give Gaza civilians notice of targeted areas, dropping over 2 million leaflets, and making over 100,000 phone calls. Many missions that could have taken out Hamas military capability were aborted to prevent civilian casualties. During the conflict, the IDF allowed huge amounts of humanitarian aid into Gaza. To deliver aid virtually into your enemy's hands is, to the military tactician, normally quite unthinkable. But the IDF took on those risks.

Despite all of this, of course innocent civilians were killed. War is chaos and full of mistakes. There have been mistakes by the British, American and other forces in Afghanistan and in Iraq, many of which can be put down to human error. But mistakes are not war crimes.

More than anything, the civilian casualties were a consequence of Hamas’ way of fighting. Hamas deliberately tried to sacrifice their own civilians.

Mr. President, Israel had no choice apart from defending its people, to stop Hamas from attacking them with rockets.

And I say this again: the IDF did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other army in the history of warfare.

Thank you, Mr. President.

A Jew Asks Why Are Jews So Liberals?

2009-09-11T17:21:00.006-07:00

Tough question. Norman Podhoretz tries to answer this question in an article recently published in the "Wall Street Journal".

Like many other Jewish intellectuals (Bernie Goldberg, Michael Medved), Podhoretz moved from left to right more than four decades ago. Like many other Jews (your humbled blogger, included), he's been hoping for many years that our fellow Jews would come to see that in contrast to what was in the past, our true friends are now located not among liberals, but among conservatives.

Since 1928, the average Jewish vote for a Democrat in presidential elections has been an amazing 75% (far higher than that of any other ethno-religious group). In 2008, 78% of the Jewish vote when to Obama. Except for blacks, who gave him 95% of their vote, Obama scored better with Jews than with any other ethnic or religious group. What makes this even more unbelievable is that despite McCain's long history of sympathy towards Israel and Obama's atrocious associations with outright haters and anti-Semites like Rev. Wright and Rashid Khalidi, Obama beat McCain among Jewish voters by a staggering 57 points!

Today, the Jewish commitment to the Democratic Party has become an anomaly. While other ethno-religious groups have followed the rule that increasing prosperity generally leads to an increasing identification with the Republican Party, Jews still remain heavily committed to the liberal agenda. On abortion, gay rights, school prayer, increased government spending, expanded benefits to the lower classes, greater regulations on business, and the power of organized labor, gun control and assisted suicide, the survey data show that Jews are by far the most liberal of any group in America.

In the conflict between Judaism and "Jewish values", on one side and liberalism on the other, it is the liberal creed that prevails for most American Jews. Which is to say that for them, liberalism has become more than a political outlook. It has for all practical purposes superseded Judaism and become a religion in its own right.

Many such secular Jews, when asked how they would define "a good Jew," reply that it is equivalent to being a good liberal.

In Podhoretz's view, when they look at America, liberals see injustice and oppression of every kind—economic, social and political. By sharp contrast, conservatives see a nation shaped by a complex of traditions, principles and institutions that has afforded more freedom and more prosperity to more of its citizens than in any society in human history. It follows that what liberals believe needs to be changed or discarded—and apologized for to other nations—is precisely what conservatives are dedicated to preserving, reinvigorating and proudly defending against attack.

As such, the Jewish experience in this country bears testimony to the precious virtues of the traditional American system. Surely, then, Jews ought to be joining with conservatives against those who are blind or indifferent or antagonistic to the moral values and the socioeconomic institutions of the traditional American system.

Obama ran on the premise that the American system is seriously flawed and in desperate need of radical change—not to mention a record indicating that he would pursue policies dangerous to the security of Israel. Because of all this, we hoped that our fellow Jews would finally break free of the liberalism of the past. It didn't happen.

The encouraging signs that more and more Jews are showing signs of "buyer's remorse", is perhaps one of the reasons Podhoretz hopes that the exposure of Obama as a "false messiah" will open the eyes of fellow Jews to the falsity of the political creed to which they have for so long been so misguidedly loyal.

Obama's Anti-Zionist Jew II

2009-07-31T08:28:00.003-07:00

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has denied calling White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and senior Obama advisor David Axelrod “self-hating Jews."

Whether or not the Prime Minister used the term, increasing criticism by American Jews of Obama signals a split in the American Jewish community.

The trigger for the growing crisis between Israel and the U.S., and among American Jews, is the issue of “settlements” (which Obama labeled as “illegitimate” in his speech in Cairo nearly two months ago) in which he included Jewish communities in eastern Jerusalem.

Obama revealed that Rahm Emanuel, whose father was an Israeli and part of the underground resistance movement under the British Mandate, tells him everything he needs to know about Israel.

Emanuel has pushed Obama into a head-on collision with the Netanyahu government out of a strategy to demonstrate that the pro-Israel lobby American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) no longer speaks for American Jewry.

Obama's game is to try and defeat the Israel lobby from within, since he could not defeat the lobby from outside it.

But that strategy has backfired, turning into a wall of opposition, both in Israel, where Obama’s popularity rating is near-zero, in the U.S. where Emanuel has simply ignored opposing views of major Jewish organizations, and even in the liberal anti-Israeli American press.

The liberal "Washington Post" has criticized Obama on his policy towards Israel, and an editorial on Thursday went even further. Under the title “Tough on Israel - Why: President Obama's battle against Jewish settlements could prove self-defeating,” the newspaper’s editors wrote:

“One of the more striking results of the Obama administration's first six months is that only one country has worse relations with the United States than it did in January: Israel. The new administration has pushed a reset button with Russia and sent new ambassadors to Syria and Venezuela; it has offered olive branches to Cuba and Burma. But for nearly three months it has been locked in a public confrontation with Israel over Jewish housing construction in Jerusalem and the West Bank.”

The newspaper criticized Obama for his “absolutist demand” for a freeze on all building for Jews in Judea and Samaria and eastern Jerusalem and observed that Palestinian and Arab leaders hardened their positions, while the Israeli public opinion has rallied behind Netanyahu (quite the opposite result that Obama and Emanuel had hoped for).

The turning point against Obama may have been the meeting in the White House earlier this month with American Jewish leaders. The Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations requested a discussion with Obama, but Emanuel decided who would attend.

He used the opportunity to attempt to create an impression of solid support for Obama and show off the relative new "J Street" lobby. Unlike AIPAC, it is active politically and endorsed and campaigned for Congressional candidates who fit their agenda, which includes Israel’s surrendering all of Judea and Samaria and parts of Jerusalem that were restored to the Jewish State in the 1967 Six-Day War.

At the same time, he excluded National Council of Young Israel (NCYI) and the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA), both of which support a Jewish presence in all of Israel.

The latest confrontation on a new project for Jews in eastern Jerusalem prompted Alan Solow, chairman of the Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, to state this week, "Hundreds of Arab families have moved into Jewish neighborhoods of Jerusalem and the same right should be accorded to Jewish residents to live wherever they choose in Jerusalem. No government of Israel has or can pursue a discriminatory policy that would prevent the legitimate presence of Jews in any area of the capital."

In response, five leftist groups, including Americans for Peace Now and J Street, criticized supporters of Jews’ rights to build in the area.

While Emanuel is trying to strengthen his position, he faces another challenge on the Obama administration’s health plan. Emanuel’s brother Dr. Ezekiel Emmanuel is Obama’s “health czar,” and the plan is being widely panned in American media, leaving the White House Chief of Staff with two potential failures in the making.

Hands off Jerusalem!

2009-07-21T09:49:00.006-07:00

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu issued a sharp response Sunday to Obama's pressure to stop Jews from building in parts of Jerusalem claimed by the Palestinian Authority. Israel's sovereignty in Jerusalem is “not up for debate,” Netanyahu said, and Jews are permitted to build in any part of the capital city, as are Arabs.

Netanyahu implied that the U.S. request was racist, saying before the weekly Cabinet meeting, “Imagine what would happen if Jews were forbidden to live or to buy apartments in certain parts of London, New York, Paris or Rome. There would be an international outcry."

"All the more, we cannot to a decree like this regarding Jerusalem,” he said.

Obama's pressure on Israel is growing and the U.S. State Department summoned Israeli envoy Michael Oren and demanded the halt of construction of Jewish homes in the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood, near the ancient grave of Shimon HaTzaddik (Simon the Just). The property on which the homes are to be built has been owned by Jewish philanthropist Dr. Irving Moskowitz for more than 20 years.

Oren told U.S. officials that Israel would not agree to stop building in the area.

Israel annexed Sheikh Jarrah and other Jerusalem neighborhoods following the Six Day War, in which the city was reunified after 19 years of Jordanian rule in the eastern half of the city. While Israel has maintained sovereignty in the capital city for more than 40 years, the Palestinian Authority continues to demand all areas controlled by Jordan in the 1950s.

Seven Jewish families and an all-day Torah-study program, known as a Kollel, are trying to renew the old Jewish neighborhood of Shimon HaTzaddik (Simon The Just).

The area, where Simon the Just and elders of the Sanhedrin were buried over 2,000 years ago, was a thriving Jewish community from 1895 until 1948, when it was evacuated by the British army during the Arab riots preceding the War of Independence.

In the mean time, former PM, Ehud Olmert is joining the debate. "Obama is making a big mistake by insisting that Israel freeze all building for Jews in Judea and Samaria, former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert wrote Friday in the Washington Post.

In his opinion article, which in effect was an open letter to the president, Olmert reminded the American government that Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East and that its friendship with the United States is one of the country’s “greatest strategic asserts.”

The former Prime Minister wrote that the Annapolis, Maryland Middle East conference in the Middle East in November, 2007 was based on previous agreements with the Bush administration that Jewish population centers in Judea and Samaria would remain part of the State of Israel in any agreement establishing a Palestinian Authority state.

Olmert wrote. "Let me be clear: Without those understandings, the Annapolis process would not have taken on any form. Therefore, the focus on settlement construction now is not useful.”

Olmert noted that a total building freeze is “impossible to completely enforce” and would not help security.

Referring to his own offers for a new PA state, he declared that the U.S. should investigate “why the Palestinian leadership did not accept the far-reaching and unprecedented proposal I offered them. My proposal included a solution to all outstanding issues: territorial compromise, security arrangements, Jerusalem and refugees. It would be worth exploring the reasons that the Palestinians rejected my offer and preferred, instead, to drag their feet, avoiding real decisions.”

Obama's Duplicity: With Iran a Mouse, With Honduras a Lion

2009-07-02T16:17:00.006-07:00

The "Wimp in Chief", Obama, squirmed and weaseled his words with the Iranian Mullahs and their puppet-tyrant, Ahmadinejad. He did not publicly lend support to all those Iranians taking to the streets, risking life and limb for more liberty, supposedly, not wanting to be seen as “meddling in Iran’s internal affairs”. If there is anyone on this planet that is not familiar with the Iranian regime, we’re talking about a tyrannical theocracy, known throughout the world as beneath -contempt oppressors of every human right under the sun. He did use the words, "appalled" and "outraged" once pictures went round the world of Iranians demonstrators beaten and killed in the streets of Tehran.

This week, the Honduran socialist president, seeking to gut his country's constitution in a shameless power-grab, reminiscent of his friend, Hugo Chavez in Venezuela was rightly deposed by the country’s military.
Obama's response to the Honduran military removing a dictator-wannabe from office (at the behest of the country’s Supreme Court and the Honduran Congress), and escorting him to the border, was sure and fast. He declared the military action an "illegal coup", in tone with the region's socialist gang: the Castro brothers, Hugo Chavez and Daniel Ortega.

The OAS has given its full backing to the exiled socialist, especially not now, when has paved the way for Castro's readmission into the organization.

Internally, Obama has the backing of the Communist Party USA which is in full agreement with him and even has some of the same demands of the Honduran people:
•Demands that president Zelaya and other members of his government be returned to power immediately, and that the troops return to their barracks.
•Refusing diplomatic recognition and any military aid to Honduras until President Zelaya is restored to power.
•Calls upon unions and other people's organizations in the United States to actively support “our brothers and sisters in Honduras in resisting this brutal military coup d'etat”.

On this background, it should be reminded of the Iran-Venezuela Axis.

Chavez is a vocal supporter of Iran's nuclear program, which is under United Nations sanctions because of fear among the U.S. and its allies that it may be used to build atomic weapons.
Iran and Venezuela are to sign some 20 agreements in various fields during Chavez's visit to Iran, according to the official news agency IRNA. Chavez's visit to the Islamic republic is the third since Ahmadinejad won the presidency in 2005, Iran's local media reported.

Chavez, the socialist, and Ahmadinejad, the Islamo-Fascist, have become quite friendly. Chavez has threatened military action against the Hondurans to restore his pal, Zelaya, to power. Ahmadinejad has called for Israel’s destructions on numerous occasions.

An unholy alliance is being formed by two disparate forces – Islamo-Fascism and Socialism -- united on a tyrannical bent against freedom, against democracy and human rights, against America. Despite their theoretical differences, these regimes share one glaring, common belief: America is responsible for all the suffering and injustice throughout the world. This overriding disgust with America holds together these disparate, radical regimes.

Whose side does Obama take?

Obama Bows to the Muslim World

2009-06-04T10:37:00.007-07:00

Obama's speech in Cairo Thursday called for a sweeping change in Muslim-American relations, based on the establishment of a Palestinian state. He told 3,000 guests at Cairo University that he will put pressure on Israel to cease a Jewish presence in Judea and Samaria. He did not specifically state whether Jerusalem neighborhoods are part of the “occupation” that he said must end.
Obama opened the speech with the Islamic greeting, “Peace unto you” in Arabic and reminded his listeners of his Muslim background and quoted the Koran several times.
Concerning Israel, he made it clear that he will personally pressure for an end to the "occupation” that he said has caused displacement to the Arab population in Israel for 60 years. His speech specifically defined the Arabs in Judea, Samaria and Gaza as a “Palestinian people,” and he mentioned their “suffering” immediately after referring to the Holocaust. He accused Israel of being responsible for "humiliation” of Arabs and blamed Israel for the lack of opportunity for Arabs under PA rule, despite the local Arab economy having enjoyed unprecedented economic growth following the end of Jordanian and Egyptian occupation in the 1967 Six-Day War.
Concerning Iran, he capitulated by asserting that it can have nuclear power if it abides by international treaties.
Speaking in the police state of Egypt, Obama addressed the issue of democracy, which he said the U.S. cannot impose. He added that the U.S. will work with countries “that recognize the will of the people.”
He then praised Islam as a force of religious tolerance and racial equality (!!!) and stated that “Muslims have enriched the U.S. and have won Nobel prizes,” although in fact less than handful of Muslims have won international Nobel prices.
In Israel, Obama's speech was met with mixed reactions ranging from sharp criticism coming from the right to foolish remarks (such as Ofier Pines' or Zeev Boim's) from the left.

Obama strived to strike a conciliatory tone in his speech to the Muslim world, in a balanced tone. So what is the problem? It is exactly in the "balanced tone". US policy should not be balanced! It should side with those who fight terror, not those who either engage in it or are too weak to prevent it.

Palestinians must be sent the message that they have to put an end to terrorism, violence, and incitement against Israel. US should stand by Israel - a fellow democracy and committed ally - in its efforts to achieve lasting security for its citizens. Israel's good faith efforts have been met by unremitting Palestinian violence and what is in effect an internal Palestinian civil war. Peace and security go hand in hand - Israel has repeatedly reached out her hand in peace only to have it slapped back. Obama's remarks to the world's Muslims today appear to mark the beginning of a worrisome shift in U.S. policy.

Who Stands With Israel?

2009-05-21T17:01:00.004-07:00

The Democratic Party base has changed demographically and with it, the way it views the U.S. relationship with Israel. Democratic voters now have very contrasting views on these matters with those of Republicans, and this gives Obama a potential mandate to change course in U.S. policy.

The latest Zogby Interactive survey conducted from April 1 to April 4, 2009 underlines the increasing difference between the Republican and Democrat views towards Israel. Here are a few of the questions in the survey that found significant differences between self-identified voters for Obama and Republican Sen. John McCain:

U.S. interests and Israel's interests are identical: McCain voters, 78% say YES; Obama voters, 72% say NO.
--Do you believe U.S. support for Israel strengthens or weakens U.S. security? McCain voters: 72% strengthens, Obama voters: 50% weakens.
--If Israel continues to build settlements in the West Bank, the U.S. should get tough on Israel McCain voters, 26% YES; Obama voters, 71% YES.
--The US Administration should lean toward Israel: McCain voters, 60%; Obama voters, 9%.

Support for Israel is extremely high among evangelical Christians, who are the bedrock of the Republican base. That, coupled with broad acceptance of neo-conservative foreign policy among Republicans, accounts for the survey results. Support for Israel among Republicans now ranks as one of the party's defining issues, along with anti-abortion and gun rights.
By comparison, more American Jews believe in "talks" and appeasement as strategies that would benefit Israel and most back Obama's liberal policies on the economy, pro-abortion and gay rights.

So who really stands with Israel? Apart from conservative Jews, the evangelical Christians are Israel's most ardent supporters, not the majority of the American Jews. Those are sadly more concerned with their hypocritical Liberal self-image than with the security and well being of Israel (or the US, for that matter).

How will this emerging political reality affect the Obama administration's policies regarding Israel? Obama will emphasize dialogue and appeasement to the detriment of the basic security interests of the State of Israel.

Pursuing that course, Obama will face opposition from Republicans and U.S. supporters of Netanyahu's hard-line policies toward the Palestinians. However, these are not the voters who elected him. Those that did, want a new, less friendlier U.S. policy towards Israel, and they will demand Obama to implement it.

Obama - A Mistake the Israelis Cannot Afford to Make

2009-05-19T06:24:00.005-07:00

In baseball terms, it's called "taking one for the team". In other words, Obama would like to demand that Israel sacrifices its security to test Iran's willingness to make peace.

Neither Obama nor his minions will put it in those terms but they allude to the "linkage" between the urgent need for Israel to make peace with the Palestinians and Iran's willingness to give up their quest for nuclear weapons.

The "linkage" idea was thrown around by Rahm Emanuel, Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton and it is a foolish idea, real only in the minds of those who refuse to see three fundamental realities of the Mideast.

The first is that Palestinian culture is dominated by a culture of death and bloody "martyrdom", with children programs, music videos and mosque sermons all glorifying death and war against the Jews.

The second reality is that Iran has repeatedly demonstrated that it will not give up its nuclear aspirations voluntarily. Even its so-called "moderate" leaders see the bomb as a ticket to regional dominance and the final victory over Israel. One such "moderate" called Israel "a one bomb country," meaning one would be enough.

The third reality is that there is simply no linkage between the creation of a Palestinian state and Iran's ambition for nukes. To believe otherwise is to believe Iran embarked on the nuclear quest because the Palestinians lacked a state. Nobody in their right mind believes that.

Yet Obama is charging full speed ahead with its vision of a deal, conforming to the liberal Democrats' view that Netanyahu and Israeli conservatives are the problem.

If Israel were to agree to Obama's demand, it likely would get the worst of both worlds: more violence from the Palestinians while Iran merrily moves toward the bomb.

It would be suicidal for Israel to entertain the idea of a nuclear Iran. Even if they assume Iran would not 'nuke' Israel (out of fear that a counterstrike), the Iranian possession of a nuke would wreak havoc do to the morale of its society. The Israelis would be living under threat of a Holocaust every day.

Just because the American people has been fooled into trusting Obama does not mean that the Israelis should make the same mistake.

The Pope Pleases Muslims but Disappoints Christians and Jews

2009-05-15T08:19:00.003-07:00

Pope Benedict XVI wrapped up his week-long “Bridge for Peace” Middle East tour leaving behind disappointed Christians and Jews but satisfied Muslims and Palestinian leaders.

Benedict XVI was not in a great hurry to visit Israel and wanted to make his trip contingent on Israel’s agreeing to turn over valuable property to the Vatican.

Israeli Christians were astonished that the pope did not visit Lake Kinneret (Sea of Galilee), which is a center of Christian tradition. This may have been because of security concerns: police revealed Friday morning that they had specific information of attempts to interrupt the papal entourage. The 3,000 faithful who attended an open-air mass in Jerusalem were outnumbered by security forces.

Media Bias

Yad VaShem Holocaust Museum Director Rabbi Yisrael Meir Lau, former Chief Rabbi of Israel and one of the most widely respected and popular rabbis ever to serve in that position, was openly critical of Benedict XVI. The German-born patriarch’s speech at Yad VaShem was charged with emotion but omitted specific references to Germany or the Nazi movement, of which he was a member in his youth.

The Vatican immediately defended the Pope, saying that he was an involuntary member of a Nazi squad that he left in order to enter the priesthood and the foreign media was quick in replaying this angle over and over.

However, the media, and the pope himself, played down or ignored a tirade by a Muslim cleric in the Pope’s presence, when Sheikh Tayseer al-Tamimi, a senior religious leader in the Palestinian Authority, accused Israel of "murdering women and children and destroying mosques and Palestinian cities."

Rabbi Brad Hirschfield, a popular American journalist and author commented in the Washington Post, “Without debating either the accuracy of his claims or the sincerity with which al-Tami spoke, the Sheikh's behavior points to his lack of desire for peace or even reconciliation. His behavior points only to his desire to enlist the Pope in his own version of events.(...) But more disturbing than the Sheikh's boorish behavior is that this is the man the Palestinian Authority would send to this important meeting. Is this the best that they can do? Is this really the message that they want to send?”

The Pope‘s Pro-Palestinian Speech

The pope rallied behind Palestinian demands for a new Arab state in Judea and Samaria - on the land that Jordan occupied from 1948 to 1967. During that time, Jordan prohibited Christians and Jews from entering holy sites.

He implicitly backed the demand that millions of foreign Arabs be allowed to immigrate to Israel based on their being descendants of approximately 700,000 Arabs who fled the Jewish state while the Arab world fought to annihilate it in 1948.

Pope Benedict also held 'interfaith' talks with Muslims, in a sharp reversal from Vatican statements last year that ruled out theological discussions between Muslims and Christians. He took off his shoes and entered the Al Aqsa mosque on the Temple Mount the morning after Sheikh Tamimi’s harangue.

The pope stated, “One God is the infinite source of justice and mercy.” This was a reference to the Common Word appeal by Muslim scholars for a Christian-Muslim dialogue.

After noticing the echo of the Common Word appeal in Benedict’s address, journalists checked to see whether his Muslim hosts were signatories of the document. It turns out that they weren’t. In fact, the only Palestinian signed is Sheikh Taysir al-Tamimi (!!!), the head of the Islamic courts in the Palestinian territories and the same cleric who railed out against Israel in the Pope's presence.

Obama's Anti-Zionist Jew

2009-05-05T08:44:00.003-07:00

Rahm Emanuel, Chief of Staff to Barack Hussein Obama, told a large group of AIPAC supporters on Sunday that American efforts to stop Iran’s nuclear program depend on progress in Israel’s peace talks with the Palestinian Authority.

MK Yaakov Katz, chairman of the Ichud Leumi (National Union) party, says the veiled threat by Emanuel should be rebuffed and exposed for what it is: “He is basically telling Israel to commit suicide in exchange for American consent to consider dealing with the Iranian threat to the world.”

What Emanuel is saying is that in order for the U.S. to agree to act against the nuclear program that threatens not only Israel, but the entire civilized world, the price is that Israel should agree to a two-state solution that will see Hamas threatening its population centers with its missiles not only from Gaza, but from the very heart of Israel as well, in Judea and Samaria.

“In other words,” Katz is saying, “we have to bring ourselves to the brink of extinction by allowing Hamastan into Judea and Samaria. And this is the idea of a Jew, Rahm Emanuel – a Jew whose father fought in the Etzel (Irgun) against the British for the future of the State of Israel, but whose son, born in America, identifies with the most left-wing opinions, whose significance is the destruction of the State of Israel.”

Unfortunately, Jews like Rahm Emmanuel express the believes of a majority among the US Jewry. Blinded by their far left ideological allegiance, most do not realize the implications of their political actions on the security and the very existence of Israel. An extremist minority subscribe to the credo of the anarchist, universal radical left, which seeks the destruction of the State of Israel.

Katz noted that what is happening in Pakistan right now is proof that Israel cannot even consider “doing business” with its Muslim enemies.

There is a lesson to be learnt from the “Pakistani experiment": the government made many concessions to the Taliban/Al Qaeda, giving them Islamic courts and allowing them control over certain areas, hoping to thus curry favor with them. But the result was that the Taliban is now threatening the Pakistani capital, Islamabad, and the fear is that the terrorists will gain access to Pakistan’s nuclear weapons. The government there finally realized that it has no choice but to fight them.

"We do not want to find ourselves with Tel Aviv and all of Israel’s cities under the same threat," Katz said, "and therefore we cannot entertain the type of solution that Emanuel wishes to force upon us – against the will of the people as democratically expressed in our recent elections.”

European Hypocrisy or Just Plain Spanish Anti-Semitism ?

2009-05-05T07:55:00.006-07:00

The Israel terror victim's association, Almagor, is preparing to petition for a war crimes trial of NATO leaders and nations over the bombing of Serbia in the 1990s. The suit is meant as a counterweight to a Spanish court's investigation targeting Israel.

A Spanish judge decided to proceed with the investigation of Israel over the 2002 assassination of Chief Hamas terrorist Saleh Shehadeh. Sixteen other people were also killed in the IDF airstrike.

Earlier this year, the same court had agreed to hear the case for prosecution of former Israeli Air Force Commander Dan Halutz, former Defense Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer, and five other senior Israeli officials for "war crimes" over their decision to assassinate the terrorist leader while he was in a building in Gaza City. Spanish law gives their domestic courts universal jurisdiction for serious crimes, regardless of the location and identity of the alleged victims.

"This case against Israel is based on an ancient hatred of the Jewish people" Almagor Chairman Meir Indor told the press.

In response to the Spanish case, Almagor is currently preparing a petition to the Spanish court system demanding that it investigate NATO countries and leaders for war crimes during the air campaign against Serbia in the late 1990s. Over 2,000 civilians were killed in the attacks. Almagor is specifically looking into a NATO bombing that destroyed a passenger train on a bridge, killing over 100 people, and airstrikes on Serbian hospitals and two Serbian TV stations.

The suit would force the court to look into wartime actions by several former and current Spanish leaders, as well as those of other NATO member states. Chief among the potential targets of the suit is EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana, who was NATO's Secretary-General during the Serbia bombing campaign and Bill Clinton, the then US President.

The suit is a way to open what Indor called a "Pandora's Box", which is a way to show how ridiculous the Spanish court case is and thus, to close both cases. A similar scenario took place in 2001, when Almagor filed suit against Yasser Arafat after a case was opened against Ariel Sharon in Belgium. The cases were ultimately dropped by the court.

While there is a clear Israeli interest in pursuing the Serbian case in Spain, Indor insisted, "we are a human rights group for all intents and purposes, through which Serbian victims can sue NATO."

The idea of a suit designed to expose Spanish hypocrisy in that government's decision to investigate Israel over the Shehadeh assassination was first floated in February of this year, when Knesset Member Aryeh Eldad called for Israel to put former Spanish officials on trial for their role in the NATO bombings. Eldad petitioned Israel's Attorney General Menachem Mazuz to charge the former Spanish Prime Minister, Defense Minister and Army Chief of Staff in Israeli courts for war crimes against the people of Belgrade and other Serbian areas.

"In those bombings," Eldad's petition said, "hundreds, perhaps thousands, of innocent civilians were killed because NATO pilots dropped their bombs from extremely high altitudes in order not to endanger themselves. They thus caused mass civilian casualties. It is fitting that the State of Israel try the Spanish political and military leaders for war crimes if Spain does not immediately revoke the charges against the Israeli Defense Minister and Chief of Staff."

MK Eldad wrote to the Attorney General that "in the event that Israeli law does not allow charging and trying someone for war crimes not committed within the national jurisdiction, I would appreciate it if you would instruct the State Prosecutor to turn to the International Court in The Hague so that the Spanish leaders will be tried for war crimes by the international court."

Failing to see the hypocrisy in the charges against Israel while NATO carried out worse actions against Serbia, Eldad concluded, "is testimony to hatred for Israel - Israel the people and Israel the state equally - and the State of Israel must fight back against this wave of anti-Semitism."

Obama: The First 100 Days

2009-04-29T16:10:00.007-07:00

With much fanfare, Obama has recently celebrated the mark of the First 100 Days in office. For those who just can’t wait to hear what the president’s teleprompter will say next, here’s a recap of the Obama gaffe machine:

Sacrifice good for others: In his inaugural address, Obama calls on Americans to adopt a spirit of sacrifice, which apparently doesn’t include his own "coronation". The $49 million cost of his swearing-in ceremony is triple the cost of Bush’s first inaugural.

Ooops! Obama stumbles badly over the oath of office, inadvertently led astray by Chief Justice John Roberts. A day later, the duo conduct a do-over, safely removed from TV cameras and press photographers.

Honesty? What Honesty?Obama promised a new era of openness and honesty in government, yet New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson had withdrawn from consideration for Commerce Secretary because of a federal probe of campaign donations, Treasury secretary nominee Tim Geithner failed to pay $34,000 in back taxes and former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (nominated for Health secretary) failed to pay $146,000 in taxes. Nancy Killefer steps down from consideration to become the government’s first chief performance officer, when it is learned her past performance includes failure to pay taxes for her household help. Annette Nazareth, who was nominated for Deputy Treasury Secretary withdraws for undisclosed "personal reasons," following a month-long probe into her taxes and other matters.

No more Lobbyists?. Not so fast! Obama pledges lobbyists won’t work in his White House, then makes 17 exceptions during his first 10 days in office, including Attorney General Eric Holder and Deputy Defense Secretary William Lynn, a former lobbyist for Raytheon.

Who cares about the facts? Obama promises workers at Caterpillar that his stimulus bill will save their jobs. Caterpillar CEO Jim Owens later clarifies. "The truth is we're going to have more layoffs before we start hiring again".

Partisanship you can believe in. The White House manages to politicize the 2010 U.S. Census by announcing it will be directed by the White House under the auspices of Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. The measure will politicize apportionment of House seats, redistricting, and distribution of federal aid.

Transparency? What transparency? Obama’s promise of a 48-hour review period for all legislation is tossed away during debate over the stimulus bill. The 1,100-page document calling for $787 billion spending did not get a review and has not been read by a single member of Congress.

Selling low. Obama likens the stock markets to political “tracking polls,” suggesting they’re unimportant. When Obama speaks, Wall Street listens — and sells. The market hits a seven-year low as the Dow dips below 7,000.

The check’s in the mail. The Chicago Sun-Times reports Obama still hasn’t paid the $1.74 million bill his campaign owes his hometown for his victory celebration in Grant’s Park.

Who cares about the facts? During his first address to a joint session of Congress Obama states: “And I believe the nation that invented the automobile cannot walk away from it.” Someone should have told this genius that a German invented the automobile...

No class. In their first meeting, British PM Gordon Brown gave Obama a carved ornamental penholder from the timbers of the anti-slavery ship HMS Gannet. Obama’s gift in return: 25 DVDs that don't work in Europe. His gift a month later to Queen Elizabeth: It’s an iPod full of his own speeches!

Teleprompter President. Obama carries an oversized teleprompter into the White House East Room for a news conference. He opens the session reading prepared remarks, and the device is visible in some camera shots. In an address to the National Academy of Sciences, Obama introduced members of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. Then he introduced them again, thanks to a teleprompter malfunction.

Friendly questions only, please. The media lavishes Obama with praise for holding an innovative town meeting that includes online questions. A few days later, news leaks that only devout Obama supporters were chosen to ask questions from the live audience, however.

Bowing to the Despot. Obama bows low to Saudi King Abdullah. Later, an Obama aide insists: "It wasn't a bow. He grasped his hand with two hands, and he's taller than King Abdullah." Note: Abdullah presides over a dictatorship that outlaws Christianity, forbids women the right to vote or drive a car, and executes people in public squares.

Waiting for Castro. Obama eases travel and remittance restrictions on Cuba, and considers dropping the embargo on Cuba. Fidel Castro later expresses his exasperation, saying Obama "misinterpreted" what his brother Raul had said. Cuba would not be willing to negotiate about human rights, Castro insists.

Tea parties? What tea parties? When untold thousands rally nationwide to protest excessive taxation, the White House tries to ignore the whole issue, hoping it will go away. ABC News reports the president “is unaware of the tea parties."

Cornered by Chavez. At the Summit of the Americas, Venezuelan Dictator Hugo Chavez grabs Obama’s hand and presents him with the anti-American book “The Open Veins of Latin America.”

Can you spell Hypocrisy? In celebration of Earth Day, Obama takes two flights on Air Force One and four on Marine One to reach his ultimate destination, Iowa. He burns up more than 9,000 gallons of fuel in the process.

Just How Stupid is Biden?

2009-04-17T10:32:00.003-07:00

Joe Biden has been keeping a low profile these days. But that's not his style. Last week he popped into the headlines after claiming to have rebuked Bush in private meetings. Recalling a conversation during an interview with CNN, Biden said he told Bush in the Oval Office: "'Mr. President, turn and around look behind you. No one is following.'"

Karl Rove, Bush's top political adviser in the White House, called the conversational "fictional."

From historical blunders and Internet gaffes to offensive jokes, Vice President Joe Biden constanly proves that there is no lower level than he can stoop to.

Here's a list of 15 "Bidenisms":

-- On March 13, 2009, Biden addressed a former Senate colleague by saying, "An hour late, oh give me a f**king break," after he arrived on Amtrak at Union Station in Washington, D.C. The vice president's expletive was caught on a live microphone.

-- During a Feb. 25, 2009, interview on CBS' "Early Show," Biden encouraged viewers to visit a government-run Web site that tracks stimulus spending. When asked for the site's web address, Biden could not remember the site's "number."

"You know, I'm embarrassed. Do you know the Web site number?" he asked an aide standing out of view.

-- At a Jan. 30, 2009, swearing-in ceremony of senior White House staff, Biden mocked Chief Justice John Roberts for his presidential oath blunder on Inauguration Day:
"Am I doing this again?" Biden said, after Obama asked him to administer the oath. When Biden was told the swearing-in was for senior staff -- and not cabinet members -- the vice president quipped, "My memory is not as good as Justice Roberts," prompting a stern nudge from Obama.

-- On Inauguration Day, Jan. 20 2009, Biden misspoke when he told a cheering crowd of supporters, "Jill and I had the great honor of standing on that stage, looking across at one of the great justices, Justice Stewart." Justice John Paul Stevens -- not Stewart -- swore Biden in as vice president.

-- When criticizing John McCain in Athens, Ohio, on Oct. 15, 2008, Biden said, "Look, John's last-minute economic plan does nothing to tackle the number-one job facing the middle class, and it happens to be, as Barack says, a three-letter word: jobs. J-O-B-S, jobs."

-- In a Sept. 22, 2008, CBS interview, Biden misspoke when he said Franklin D. Roosevelt was president when the stock market crashed in 1929.

"When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television and didn't just talk about the, you know, the princes of greed. He said, 'Look, here's what happened," he said. Herbert Hoover -- not Roosevelt -- was president in 1929, and television had not yet been invented in 1929.

-- During a Sept. 12, 2008, speech in Columbia, Mo., Biden called for Missouri State Sen. Chuck Graham, who is wheelchair-bound, to "stand up."

-- At a Sept. 10, 2008, town hall meeting in Nashua, N.H., Biden said, "Hillary Clinton is as qualified or more qualified than I am to be vice president of the United States of America. Quite frankly, it might have been a better pick than me."

-- Biden mistakenly referred to Alaska governor Sarah Palin as the "lieutenant governor" of her state during a town hall meeting on Sept. 4, 2008 at George Mason University in Manassas, Va.

-- Biden said he was running for president -- not vice president -- during a Sept. 1, 2008, roundtable discussion in Scranton, Pa.

"Today is the moment for me as a United States senator running for president to put aside the national politics and focus on what's happening down there," Biden said.

-- Biden referred to John McCain as "George" during his vice presidential acceptance speech on Aug. 27, 2008, at the Democratic National Convention in Denver, Co.

-- Biden confused army brigades with battalions when speaking about Obama's plan for sending troops to Afghanistan.
"Or should we trust Barack Obama, who more than a year ago called for sending two additional combat brigades to Afghanistan?"

-- During his first campaign rally with Obama as his vice presidential running mate on Aug. 23, 2008, Biden introduced Obama by saying, "A man I'm proud to call my friend. A man who will be the next President of the United States -- Barack America!"

-- On Jan. 31, 2007 -- the day Biden announced his presidential bid -- the Delaware Senator was roundly criticized for calling Obama "the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a storybook, man."

-- On June 1982, at the height of the Lebanon War ("Peace for Galilee" operation), Menachem Begin, the then Israeli PM, had a tough confrontation with Joe Biden. Biden had attacked Israeli settlements in Judea and Samaria and threatened that if Israel did not immediately cease this activity, the US would have to cut economic aid to Israel. When the senator raised his voice and banged twice on the table with his fist, Begin replied to him: ‘This desk is designed for writing, not for fists. Don’t threaten us with slashing aid. Do you think that because the US lends us money it is entitled to impose on us what we must do? We are grateful for the assistance we have received, but we are not to be threatened. I am a proud Jew. Three thousand years of culture are behind me, and you will not frighten me with threats. Take note: we do not want a single soldier of yours to die for us.’”

Obama Bows to the Saudis

2009-04-03T08:32:00.003-07:00

Barack Hussein Obama was caught on camera by journalists on Wednesday bowing in deference to Saudi King Abdullah as he greeted him at the opening of the G20 meeting in London, prior to being photographed with British royalty.

Obama later expressed support for the 2002 Saudi Plan in his meeting Thursday with the Saudi monarch. The two also discussed global economic issues and terrorism, White House staff said.

The meeting between Obama and Abdullah was the first face-to-face talk between the two. The meeting created a storm of debate, when pictures and a video were released that appeared to show Obama bowing to the Saudi monarch at the G20 photo-op.

The video clip shows Obama greeting the Saudi monarch and executing a bow before him.

Obama reportedly expressed support for the 2002 Saudi Initiative and had been quoted as saying of the plan, “The Israelis would be crazy not to support this initiative.”

In January of 2009, Saudi officials warned that the U.S. would need to “drastically revise” its Middle East policy, particularly towards Israel, if it wanted to maintain influence in the region.

The Saudis referred to the Middle East policy of former U.S. President George Bush as “sickening,” and accused America of “contributing to the slaughter of innocents” by supporting Israel.

Bush expressed strong support for the 2003 Road Map initiative over the Saudi Plan. The Road Map plan calls for the Israel-PA negotiations process to take place in stages, with Israel dismantling Jewish towns in Judea and Samaria only after the PA begins to fight terrorism.

The Saudi Plan calls on Israel to cede Gaza and all land east of the 1949 armistice line, including much of Jerusalem and the Temple Mount, to the Palestinian Authority. Israel would also be required to cede the strategic Golan Heights region to Syria.

In addition, the plan requires Israel to release all terrorists currently in its prisons, and to offer citizenship to millions of foreign Arabs who say they are descended from Arabs who fled pre-state Israel during the War of Independence.

In exchange for these suicidal measures, Arab states would "normalize" their ties with the Jewish State.

In Israel, the plan has met with little support. Enacting the plan would force roughly 600,000 Israelis from their homes. In addition, senior defense officials have warned that the plan would compromise Israel's security.

Plagued by a faltering economy, a reluctant Europe, increasing resistance at home to his pseudo-socialist agenda and a growing realizations by more and more Americans that electing Obama to the White House was a huge mistake, Hussein is trying to gain momentum by forcing a peace deal in the Middle East and pressuring Israel into suicidal concessions.

If Obama chooses to bow to the Saudi King, he should not be allow to pressure Israel into doing the same.

Activism masquerading as "journalism"

2009-03-25T12:24:00.001-07:00

Browsing the Israeli press one can get a more informed picture of events in Israel than the slanted international media coverage. As the expression of a vibrant democracy, Israel's press is hardly monolithic, presenting a variety of competing political views. Behind it, however, is hiding a virulent stream of political activism, with a penchant for self-criticism, so much so that many of the most negative stories appearing in the international press are first broken by the Israeli newspapers.
Unfortunately, like their Western counterparts, some Israeli media is pushing a far-left political agenda, while masquerading as legitimate journalists.
Such is the case of a recent Ha'aretz story alleging "war crimes" and serious ethical failures on the part of the IDF in Gaza. It wasn’t long before many international media outlets, such as the New York Times, The Guardian, The Independent, Australian, and Globe & Mail to name but a few, repeated the allegations, presenting them as facts, without bothering to do any rudimentary checks.

The viciously anti-Israel newspaper, The Guardian published its own claims of evidence of alleged Israeli "war crimes". Online videos and accompanying articles accused Israeli forces of using human shields, deliberately firing on Palestinian medical staff and indiscriminate killing of Palestinian civilians with unmanned aerial vehicles, as well as claims that Israel had used a variety of weapons in "illegal ways."
Both Ha'aretz and The Guardian are guilty of shoddy journalism and intellectual dishonesty. When subjected to honest inquiries, their slanderous articles appear more like modern-day Blood Libels than “reporting facts”. Melanie Phillips, writing for The Spectator, examines the Ha'aretz report in her article – The Ha’Aretz Blood Libel:
There are precisely two charges of gratuitous killing of Palestinian civilians under allegedly explicit orders to do so. One is what even Ha'aretz made clear was an accidental killing, when two women misunderstood the evacuation route the Israeli soldiers had given them and walked into a sniper's gun sights as a result. Moreover, the soldier who said this has subsequently admitted he didn’t see this incident - he wasn’t even in Gaza at the time - and had merely reported rumor and hearsay.
The second charge is based on a supposedly real incident in which, when an elderly woman came close to an IDF unit, an officer ordered that they shoot her because she was approaching the line and might have been a suicide bomber. The soldier relating this story did not say whether or not the woman in this story actually was shot. Indeed, since he says 'from the description of what happened' it would appear this was merely hearsay once again.

Writing in The Jerusalem Post, Herb Keinon points out:
It is important to note that none of the testimony was about what the soldiers did themselves, but rather of what they heard or saw other soldiers do. It is also important that what was reported seems to fall within the realm of aberrations by individuals during war against a cruel enemy hiding behind civilians, not a systematic loss by the army of its moral compass.

Numerous testimonies from IDF soldiers debunking those allegations were published by YNet, other Israeli newspapers and even personal blogs of soldiers themselves. Yet these were ignored by the agenda-driven reporting of both Ha'aretz and The Guardian.

THE GUARDIAN: JUDGE AND JUROR
• The allegations are presented as facts even though they are unsupported by any evidence whatsoever.
• The proven unreliability of Palestinian "eyewitnesses".
• The lack of any verifiable information or any mention of the measures taken by the IDF to avoid civilian casualties while Hamas actively used human shields.

As further evidence that The Guardian chose activism over journalism, the newspaper called blog and Web site owners to support its “work” and asked them to link to their "Gaza War Crimes" page. The appeal was sent by Mustafa Khalili, who is one of those credited by The Guardian for the Gaza content.

The Guardian is carrying out a blatant and systematic campaign of demonization against Israel that goes well beyond journalistic norms. Like a good example of the new Liberal Fascism, so pervasive with today’s “new left”, the paper has been selective (to put it mildly) in its willingness to publish responses from supporters of Israel criticizing its extreme lack of balance and proportion.
However, The Guardian's behavior cannot be allowed to go unanswered. Hiding behind the bumper sticker of “to be anti-Israel is not Anti-Semitism”, the far left in Europe and elsewhere is actually guilty of anti-Semitism.
The belief that it's only permissible for the Jews to have a state and an army if that state and its army comply with standards of behavior far higher than that required of other states, including their own is anti-Semitic. Any failure to live up to these standards tends to be taken as evidence of the basic illegitimacy of the Zionist enterprise. Following this logic, Israel’s right to exist is thus questioned.

The media circus surrounding the cases above are yet another example of the lengths to which the international media and Israel's detractors will go to in order to promote the false image of a uniquely unethical or evil IDF.
From media stories such as those above to cartoons portraying the IDF as the new Nazis, it is only a short step to the total delegitimization of Israel itself. The lingering question remains: Why is some of the Israeli media part of this charade?

GAZA: An Arab-Made Misery

2009-03-23T10:28:00.002-07:00

An eloquent analysis of the current situation in Gaza, by a Gaza native, Nonie Darwish, published in the European edition of the "Wall Street Journal".

European Hypocrisy style Norway

2009-02-02T06:45:00.003-08:00

Dear Ms. Trine Lilleng,

You were an unknown Norwegian diplomat till this month.

No longer.

As first secretary in the Norwegian Embassy in Saudi Arabia, you recently sent out an email on your office account in which you declared: "The grandchildren of Holocaust survivors from World War II are doing to the Palestinians exactly what was done to them by Nazi Germany."

Accompanying your text were photos, with an emphasis on children, seeking to juxtapose the Holocaust with the recent Israeli military operation in Gaza.

Clearly, you are miscast in your role as a diplomat, all the more so of a nation that has sought to play a mediating role in the Arab-Israeli conflict.

In fact, you're desperately in need of some education.

Let's begin with your current posting. You've been in Riyadh since 2007.

If you're so anguished by human rights violations, perhaps you could have begun by devoting some of your attention - and email blasts - to what surrounds you.

Or were your eyes diplomatically shut?

Have you failed to notice the many legal executions, including beheadings, going on in your assigned country?

Have you ignored the often abysmal treatment of foreign workers, many from Asia, who also happen to be disproportionately counted among the victims of Saudi capital punishment?

Have you neglected the gender apartheid that surrounds you? Did you ever look out of your car to notice that Saudi women are proscribed from driving, and that's hardly the worst of it?

Have you checked the skyline of Riyadh or Jeddah lately to count the number of church spires or other non-Muslim houses of worship?

Have you bothered to inquire about the fate of homosexuals?

Okay, you were AWOL on those issues. Maybe you just didn't want to offend your hosts by speaking the truth, or maybe you're suffering from that diplomatic disease known as "localitis" or "clientitis."

But surely a woman like you, with such capacity for empathy for those in far-away places, and especially for children in danger, couldn't remain silent about other human rights transgressions, could she?

After all, could an individual so deeply moved by the plight of Palestinians in Gaza remain silent about what a New York Times columnist earlier this month described as "hell on earth" - Zimbabwe? Could a person so anguished by the fate of Palestinian children stay mum about a country where a girl's life expectancy at birth is 34, much less than half that of her Norwegian counterpart, and where the health care sector has vaporized, all thanks to the one-man rule of Robert Mugabe?

Could such a dedicated humanist possibly avert her eyes from the deadliest conflict since the Second World War, which has killed over five million people, many of them children, in the Congo in the past decade - not to mention the documented and widespread use of torture, rape, and arbitrary detention?

An observer of such acute sensitivity could hardly hold her tongue while Afghan girls attempting to go to school have been doused with acid by those who wish to deny young women access to education, reminiscent of the five years of Taliban rule, could she?

In neighboring Pakistan, where you served in the Norwegian embassy for three years, the beleaguered human rights community must have been fortunate to have such an impassioned voice for all that's wrong in this failing state. Or was that voice, perhaps, on mute?

The children of Sderot, the Israeli town near the Gaza border, have been in desperate need of just such a spokesperson as you for the past eight years.

After all, their town has been in the crosshairs of literally thousands of missiles and mortars fired from Gaza. Those Israeli children live with all the signs of trauma, knowing that, with only 15 seconds warning, they could be hit at any time in their schools, their parks, or their beds. Yet, during my visit there last week, for some reason, those children and their parents had yet to hear you speak out for them. What a pity!

And the children of Iran could use your help as well. According to human rights groups, Iran has no compunction about executing children or those who were children when their crimes were allegedly committed.

Oh, and by the way, your compassionate help would also undoubtedly be welcomed by others under the gun in Iran, including women's rights activists, union organizers, student protesters, independent journalists, reformist politicians, and religious minorities. And let's not forget, once again, the children of Israel, who, according to the Iranian president, don't have a right to live.

But wait! A Google search about you reveals nothing, not a single word, regarding your views on Zimbabwe, Congo, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Sderot, or Iran. Or, for that matter, Burma, Darfur, Syria. Shall I go on?

Only Israel, faced with those who wish to destroy it, manages to prompt your impassioned correspondence and righteous indignation. Why?

No less, your stunning lack of education extends beyond the contemporary world to 20th century history, specifically the Holocaust.

Your invocation of the Holocaust to describe what's taken place in Gaza is, frankly, nothing short of obscene.

Your claim that the grandchildren of the survivors are doing to the Palestinians exactly what was done to them goes beyond any norm of decency, much less honesty.

Approve or disapprove of the Israeli military operation, but there is no basis whatsoever for such a comparison.

When Israel entered Gaza in a war of self-defense in 1967, the population was 360,000. After Israel withdrew totally from Gaza in 2005, it was estimated at 1.4 million.

Would that the Jewish population under Nazi rule had quadrupled!

When Israel entered Gaza in 1967, life expectancy for women was 46. When it left Gaza, it was 73.

Shall we even bother to discuss life expectancy for Jews under Nazi occupation?

The Second World War in Europe lasted from September 1, 1939 to May 8, 1945 - 68 months in all. That means an average monthly extermination rate of nearly 90,000 Jews.

Compare that to the total number of victims in Gaza over three weeks - roughly guesstimated at more or less 1,000 - and recall that the majority were armed fighters committed to Israel's destruction, who used civilians, including children, as human shields, mosques as arms depots, and hospitals as sanctuaries.

Believe me, Ms. Lilleng, if the "grandchildren of the Holocaust survivors" had wanted to do exactly what the Nazis did to their grandparents, they would have unleashed their full air, land, and sea power. They would have thrown the Israel Defense Forces' ethical guidelines to the wind, kicked out the UN and Red Cross personnel on the ground, stopped humanitarian transports of food, fuel, and medicine, prevented media reporting, and left absolutely nothing - and no one - standing.

Unless, of course, they needed slave labor, in which case they would have carted off the able-bodied to work in Auschwitz replicas until they dropped. Or material for ghoulish medical experimentation, in which case, in the spirit of Mengele, they would have kept Palestinian twins alive temporarily.

But Israel didn't do any of these things. It's a peace-seeking democracy dedicated to the rule of law - unlike so many of the countries whose horrific sins you blithely choose to overlook.

What are we to make of your selective moral outrage and rank hypocrisy?

You ought to take a look in the mirror and ask yourself why Israel, and only Israel, makes your blood boil and leads you to speak out, even at the risk of grossly distorting both reality and history.

The answer, Ms. Lilleng, should be painfully obvious.
______________
by David A. Harris
Executive Director
American Jewish Committee, January 26, 2009

Hamas

2009-01-28T09:28:00.002-08:00

Al Tira Yisrael - אל תרא ישראל

2009-01-22T18:18:00.003-08:00

Al tira Yisrael אל תרא ישראל
Do not fear, Israel

Ki gur aryeh halo ata כי גור אריה הלא אתה
for you are a lion's cub

V'aryeh ki yishag ואריה כי ישאג
And when a lion roars

Mi lo yira? מי לא יירא
who will not fear?

The Pictures that the Palestinians don't want you to see

2009-01-11T10:30:00.004-08:00

The Hate Education and Death Glorification in the Palestinian territories:

Ask for Death - The Indoctrination of Palestinian Children

The War Against Evil

2009-01-07T18:17:00.006-08:00

Since Israel started its offensive against the terrorist mini-state that Hamas is running in the Gaza strip, a global outcry has swept the world from the Middle East, through Europe all the way to the Far East. The propaganda war against Israel is an integral part of the Islamo-Fascist overall war against the Jewish state and the West. The latest casualty in the war on unbiased media is the popular website YouTube.
The night video shows Hamas terrorists clearly loading Grad-type Katyusha rockets onto pickup trucks. Towards the end of the video, a great explosion and fire is seen as the IDF terminated the terrorist activity. In less than 24 hours, this video has received more than 10,000 hits,until it was removed by YouTube, apparently due to numerous complaints by pro-Arab viewers who reported the video as "inappropriate". The true face of the Hamas terror is "inappropriate" to those that support barbarism and tyranny....The continuous show of dead bodies and injured children on the TV news is somehow "appropriate" in their eyes, since those images are meant to stir up emotions and use the gullible audience as media soldiers against Israel. Like Hezbollah three years ago, Hamas is not only taking cover behind women and children and shooting from houses, mosques, hospitals and schools. It actually hopes to draw fire into civilian population centers in hopes that as many women, children and innocents are killed. Their bodies will populate the TV screens around the world and contribute to its war effort. Lets not get sucked up into being agents for Hamas in its war against civilization.
Watch the video banned by YouTube to see what Hamas is all about:

Farewell to Bush

2008-12-18T16:14:00.005-08:00

As President Bush's term in office is approaching the end, America, Israel and indeed, the world are left facing a resurgent global Islamo-Nazism, Hamas strengthening its rule in the Palestinian territories, the real threat of a nuclear Iran while an inexperienced, naive new President in comes into the White House. To his detractors, Bush will forever be "the devil", no matter that he kept us secure for 7 years (following the 9/11 mass murder), he liberated 30 millions Iraqis from one of history's most despicable maniacs, he increased aid to Africa and committed funds in the fight against AIDS at unprecedented levels and that during his term, 10 millions new jobs have been created and black home ownership was the highest in history...His far left lunatic detractors will always hate the man because he ruled based on his faith and convictions and not based on polls (as his predecessor). But to Jews in general, and Israelis, in particular, Bush epitomized the perfect friend and ally.

When President Bush spoke before Israel’s Knesset on May 15, 2008- the day of the 60^th Anniversary of Israel’s creation as a Jewish State-he gave an inspirational speech reflecting on what Israel meant to him, and what its existence means to the United States as a nation. One can say that it was certainly the most pro-Israel speech ever given by an American President.

George W. Bush’s commitment to Israel and his solidarity with the world’s Jews led me to reflect on the great irony that such a high percentage of American Jews are overwhelmingly Democrats, have blindly opposed the policies of the Bush administration and have foolishly followed on the far left road of hatred towards Bush personally...

Noam Neusner, a communications consultant, speechwriter and Jewish liaison for Bush (between 2002-2005) wrote in a recent Op-Ed that "President Bush was more Zionist than many Israelis, more mindful of Jewish history than many Jews." On December 15, President George W. Bush held the annual Hanukkah party at the White House. Although other Presidents have held Menorah lighting ceremonies, President Bush and his wife were the first to hold a party to celebrate the occasion. At the grandiose ceremony where more than 600 Jewish friends and guests were present, the Menorah was lit up by the grandsons of Harry Truman and David Ben Gurion. Fouad Ajami concludes that when President Bush leaves office, his "Diplomacy of Freedom" (responsible for liberating Afghanistan from the Taliban, Iraq from Saddam Hussein, Lebanon from the Syrian army and Qaddafi renouncing his quest for WMD) will be gone probably for ever. I have no doubt that History will judge Bush much more favorably that his present detractors, but until then, I say "Thank You, Mr. President!"

Hillary leaves the Senate for a post in the Obama Administration -Good Ridance!

2008-11-21T12:39:00.007-08:00

In a clear way to settle some political debts, Hillary Clinton appears to be in line for a promotion.

New Yorkers should rejoice, because it means she will no longer be the steward of the Upstate New York economy.

When Hillary Clinton ran for Senate in 2000, she promised economic revitalization for New Yorkers living north of New York City and its suburbs. She even went so far as to promise 200,000 new jobs for the region. Gullible New Yorkers believed her and gave her a chance.
Eight years later, and Hillary Clinton still hasn’t created 200,000 jobs, because Hillary Clinton cannot create jobs. Neither can Big Government or Liberal bureaucrats.

In fact, Upstate New York has lost 20,000 private sector jobs while manufacturing jobs, once the life-blood of Upstate, have declined by 24%. Obviously, she did not fulfill her pledge to New Yorkers.

If anything, Senator Clinton’s failed promises are emblematic of today’s political culture. Not only do we tolerate falsehoods and failed promises, we expect them! Obama is not even the acting President and he is already working on his "exit strategy" out of the grandiose promises he made during the campaign. He is now alerting people that he “may not get there in one year or even in one term.”

Obama's charisma will no doubt, make it difficult to hold him accountable, and he will be able to continue sailing on the winds of "change" for quite a while before most Americans will wake up and understand that they have believing in a mirage.

As for Hillary, it is difficult to discern exactly what she has done since taking office, other than run for higher office, but it is clear she lacks the competence or the political will to energize the New York economy. New Yorkers should be pleased that Hillary will be kicked upstairs, especially not to any position relating to job creation or economic revitalization.

As far as the foreign leaders are concerned, that's another matter....

Anniversary for a Monster

2008-11-11T07:38:00.002-08:00

Tuesday is the fourth anniversary of the death of Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) founder Yasser Arafat.

The central memorial ceremony for Arafat is being held in Ramallah, and smaller ones are scheduled in other towns and cities. In addition, a "minute of silence" is to be observed at noon throughout the Palestinian Authority in memory of "the fallen leader".

But who is the "leader" that most Palestinians glorify (while most people in the civilized world revile)?

Considered the founder of the modern-day terrorism used so widely by Muslims, Arafat began a wave of murder against Jewish and other targets around the world shortly after taking control of the PLO in 1968-9. Here's a short summary of this Monster's accomplishments:

* the Nahariya/Avivim school bus attack (May 1970). Palestinian terrorists crossed the border from Lebanon, ambushed the bus with a barrage of gunfire, murdered 12 children and 3 adults, and left several others crippled.

* the Lod Airport Massacre (May 1972), carried out by three Japanese Red Army terrorists in an operation planned and supported by PLO faction PFLP-GC, killing 26 and wounding 78.

* the Munich Olympics slaughter (September 1972), in which eleven Israeli athletes were killed.

* the Maalot massacre (May 1974) in which a school building was taken over while children from Tzfat on a school trip were sleeping there. Three teachers and 22 schoolchildren were murdered.

* the Savoy Hotel attack (March 1975) near Tel Aviv, in which seven hostages and two soldiers were killed after Fatah terrorists landed on the beach and seized the hotel.

* the Kiryat Shmonah apartment building attack (April 1974), in which Palestinian terrorists penetrated the northern Israel border town, entered an apartment building on Yehuda HaLevy St. and killed all 18 residents they found there, including 9 children.

* the Coastal Road bus hijacking (March 1978), in which 11 Fatah terrorists ,who infiltrated by sea, killed a photographer and a taxi driver and hijacked a bus filled with adults and many children. The terrorists fired on passing cars from the bus, and when they were finally stopped, they began firing missiles. The massacre left 35 people dead and 100 wounded.

* the brutal murder of three U.S. diplomats held hostage in Khartoum, Sudan (March 1973). The terrorists demanded the release of Sirhan Sirhan, the Palestinian assassin of Robert F. Kennedy. Arafat was recorded as having given the execution orders.

* the Achille Lauro hijacking of a cruise ship (October 1985), in which wheelchair-bound Leon Klinghoffer, 69, was shot and thrown overboard into the ocean.

* Internationally, in 1972 alone, PLO groups blew up a West German electricity plant, a Dutch gas plant and an oil refinery in Trieste, Italy. In 1975, the presence of Arafat and his 15,000-strong army in Lebanon triggered a bloody civil war that raged on for nearly two decades, costing 40,000 lives.

Arafat was banished from Jordan to Lebanon in 1970 in the course of a violent war against the PLO by King Hussein, and from Lebanon to Tunis in 1982 following the Peace for Galilee War. He orchestrated the first "intifada," beginning in 1987, from Tunis, though it had supposedly started spontaneously.

Hamas, which took over control of Gaza from the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority in a violent coup in the summer of 2007, has announced that it will not allow public memorial ceremonies for Arafat. Last year, the Arafat memorial, attended by many tens of thousands, led to Fatah-Hamas violence and several deaths.

In the mean time, following the results of the US elections, Hamas is claiming close and ongoing ties with America's upcoming Obama Administration, according to a report published Tuesday in the Arabic-language newspaper Al-Hayat. The relationship was kept under wraps until after the U.S. elections so as not to harm Obama’s election prospects. The U.S. has classified Hamas a terrorist organization.

Ahmad Yousuf, advisor to Ismail Haniyeh, the head of the Hamas regime in Gaza, declared that Hamas has been in regular contact with President-elect Barack Obama’s advisers for months.

"We were in contact with a number of Obama's aides through the internet, and later met with some of them in Gaza," the Hamas official was quoted as saying, "but they advised us not to come out with any statements, as that may have had a negative effect on his election campaign and be used by Republican candidate John McCain."

After the U.S. elections, President-elect Obama has appointed Robert Malley as a senior foreign policy adviser. Malley, who served as an “informal adviser” to the Obama campaign, was reportedly forced to sever his ties with the campaign six months ago, when The Times of London reported that he was meeting with Hamas representatives on a regular basis.

Jesse Jackson's predicament of a change in US policy towards Israel in particular and the Middle East in general, is starting to take shape....A shape of another monster (?)

The World Loves Obama - With Friends like these....

2008-10-29T18:43:00.002-07:00

A Palestinian Authority newspaper reported that Arab residents of Gaza are randomly calling Americans at home in hopes of persuading them to vote for Democratic candidate Senator Barack Obama in next month's US presidential election.

The article in Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, first noted and translated by Palestinian Media Watch, quotes a young man from the Hamas-controlled Gaza region as saying, "We dial random numbers and try to call people [in the United States] without knowing their identity or their affiliation...." He reportedly uses "Internet sites that allow making free calls... in order to use them for the campaign supporting Obama."

The Al-Hayat Al-Jadida article said, "Most of the Palestinians feel hatred towards USA, whose administrations have always stood by Israel...." The Gaza-based Obama campaigner, Ibrahim Abu Jayyab, "said that a large number of Palestinians dislike their activity..." Those PA residents "do not see any difference between the American politicians [Obama and Republican candidate Sen. John McCain] because of the hostility that they feel towards America," the report explained.

"But [Abu Jayyab's] hope is that their activity will have some impact [in support of Obama]," according to the newspaper report.

Abu Jayyab's freelance phone campaign for Obama in the last weeks of the American presidential race has not been the first time the Illinois senator has gotten such help. An Al-Jazeera TV report during the Democratic primaries featured Abu Jayyab as well, when he was busy organizing calls to American voters to persuade them to vote for Obama over then-candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton.

Other types of assistance have also been forthcoming from Gaza. In July of this year, Pamela Geller of the Atlas Shrugs blog revealed documents purporting to show that the Obama campaign received nearly $30,000 from two brothers living in Rafiah, in Hamas-controlled Gaza, during 2007.

Earlier, during an April 2008 interview with WABC radio and WorldNetDaily, Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh's Gaza-based political advisor Ahmed Yousef said, "Actually, we like Mr. Obama. We hope he will [win] the election and I do believe he is like John Kennedy, great man with great principle."

At the time, McCain commented, "I think it is very clear... why [Hamas] would not want me to be president of the United States, so if Senator Obama is favored by Hamas, I think people can make judgments accordingly."

Honesty hurts Obama

2008-10-14T18:29:00.003-07:00

Outside of stump speeches, carefully scripted responses to reporters, and the endless recitation of talking points, there are a few moments when a politician, even a slick one, speaks from the heart. It is in these moments when true motivations and core beliefs are often revealed.
Such a moment occurred last week at the World Policy Forum in France, when Jesse Jackson said that "Zionists who have controlled American policy for decades" would lose some of their influence with Obama in the White House, and that "decades of putting Israel's interests first" would come to a close.

Embarrassed, the Obama campaign issued a statement saying that "Rev. Jesse Jackson Sr. is not an adviser to the Obama campaign and is therefore in no position to interpret or share Barack Obama's views on Israel and foreign policy."

Jackson reportedly acknowledged that he was not an adviser to Obama, but rather a "supporter." But the words he used to describe their relationship suggest that he thinks he is much closer to Obama than the Obama campaign would like the public to believe. "We helped him start his career," Jackson says. "And then we were always there to help him move ahead."

John McCain's campaign also reacted to Jackson's comments on Tuesday, saying: "Literally, nobody knows what Barack Obama's policies would be if he were elected president, but it's very concerning that people believe he will not be a friend to Israel."

Jesse Jackson's honesty only confirms the Jewish community's long standing distrusts of Obama and his policies towards Israel and with good reason.

"Barack is determined to repair our relations with the world of Islam and Muslims," Jackson said. "Thanks to his background and ecumenical approach, he knows how Muslims feel while remaining committed to his own faith. Bush was so afraid of a snafu and of upsetting Israel that he gave the whole thing a miss. Barack will change that because, as long as the Palestinians haven't seen justice, the Middle East will 'remain a source of danger to us all.'"

Despite Obama's attempts to hide or minimize his pro-Palestinian sympathies and associations with known radical Palestinians, he has surrounded himself with advisers who hold virulent anti-Israel and even anti-Semitic views. No wonder that extremists from Hamas to Ahmadinejad openly hope for his success in November.

Jews heading to the polls this November remember this: What makes Hamas and Iran so comfortable with Obama in the White House?

The Audacity of Lies

2008-09-11T10:17:00.004-07:00

Today, America and the entire free world, commemorate the victims of the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001. A day that will live in infamy, when Arab terrorists hijacked 4 planes and crushed them into the Twin Towers (NYC), the Pentagon (Washington, DC) and on a land field in rural Pennsylvania, killing some 3,000 innocent people. This act of barbarism perpetrated against the US, the civilized world and the Judeo-Christian value system is viewed as the opening salve in the new World War, against the global Islamo-Nazism and their allies.

Seven years after the murders, Academics and the "man on the street" in the Arab world still blame the Jews and Israel for the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks that devastated the US and punctured the American image of being impossible to penetrate. Arab media have widely claimed that Arabs are the biggest victims of the attacks.

Excerpts from an article by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu:"

A New York Times man-on-the-street survey revealed disbelief that Arab terrorists were behind the attacks, and many still outright accuse Israel and the United States of planning the
aerial crashes that leveled the World Trade Center twin towers in New York City.

"Look, I don’t believe what your governments and press say. It just cannot be true," The Times
quoted Ahmed Issab, a Syrian engineer who lives and works in the United Arab Emirates. "I think the US organized this so that they had an excuse to invade Iraq for the oil".

Pakistani native Mohammed Jamil, writing in the Pakistan Observer justified the terrorists' motives, citing American-Israeli collusion.
"There is a widespread perception that the U.S. leadership used 9/11 events to implement its program of controlling the world resource," he wrote. …. On examining the initial statements of Osama bin Laden one could infer that Al Qaeda had twin objectives vis-a-vis the liberation of Palestine and exit of US forces from Saudi Arabia. "Even the date Al Qaeda terrorists chose for their attack showed their true motivation, as September 11 is the anniversary of the League of Nations’ proclaiming in Palestine the British Mandate in 1922. The date represents the first physical step toward the implementation of the Balfour Declaration and establishment of Israel. This fact was never revealed because the world media is under the control of Jews… It was a calculated lie to divert the Americans from associating the disaster with the United States support for Israel."

Jamil added that "any country that bombs another country creates millions of angry enemies against it."

The Times street survey also showed that Arabs blame American foreign policy for the 9/11 attacks. "Maybe people who executed the operation were Arabs, but the brains? No way,” said
Mohammed Ibrahim, a clothing-store owner Cairo told the newspaper. "It was organized by other people, the United States or the Israelis."

Many Arabs still spread the rumor that Jews did not go to work at the World Trade Center the morning of the attack, although there were indeed many Jews who died in the resulting blaze and collapse of the skyscraper.

Another Egyptian claimed that the real reason Americans have not captured Al Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden is that he was not behind the attacks. "What happened in Iraq confirms that it has nothing to do with bin Laden or Qaeda. They went against Arabs and against Islam to serve
Israel, that’s why," he claimed.

Dr. Ahmad Mustafa wrote in GulfNews.com that Arabs are the real victims of 9/11. He said the attacks have intensified a negative image of Muslims, which has reinforced violence.

Dr. Azzam Tamimi, director of the London-based Institute of Islamic Political Thought stated, "9/11 has become the biggest blackmail in modern history after the Holocaust. Zionists continue to blackmail Europeans because of the Holocaust while the Americans now blackmail the Arabs and the Muslims because of what happened on 11 September 2001."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some may object to the term "Islamo-Nazism" and the word does not appear in the dictionaries yet, but a close examination of the two (radical Islam and Nazism), and a critical look at the ways and means by which the Nazis used propaganda, media and the masses to further their goals, point to more similarities than differences.

World War II started when Nazi Germany invaded Poland, under the cover of responding to Polish aggression and even staged a military strike by supposedly Polish soldiers against "peaceful" German border guards. Today, the Arab media is cultivating the same "innocence" of the aggressor. It only depends on us, the sane majority, to get informed and reject this cynical distortion of the truth.

Palin's a Tough, Smart Conservative Woman: Deal With It!

2008-09-09T07:21:00.003-07:00

Liberals excel in blinding themselves to their own biases and hypocrisy and blaming conservatives for their own sins, all of which they are showcasing in their frantic reaction to the Sarah Palin nomination.

Not only are they trying to destroy Palin. They are straight-facedly denying it and accusing Republicans of manufacturing this charge to exhibit phony sympathy for women.

Conservatives, after all, couldn't possibly be supportive of female Palin based on merit; it's just a political ploy to purloin Hillary voters. Liberal captives of identity politics just can't comprehend that neither gender nor race matters to conservatives. It's all about the candidate's political philosophy, approach to governance and qualifications to serve -- not those artificial constructs that liberals have exploited through the years.

Don't get me wrong. Palin's beauty and tough-as-nails femininity are refreshing icing on a delicious cake for conservatives, but if she were not demonstrably conservative, they'd be depressed -- not energized.

But you'll never convince the liberal press, which sees everything through the lens of gender and race consciousness and indiscriminately projects that propensity onto conservatives.

Thus, Newsweek's Anna Quindlen is reduced to grousing about the "hypocrisy" of conservatives in honoring the Palins for bringing a baby with Down syndrome to term rather than scolding them with "pursed-lip accusations of promiscuity."

Conservatives, said Quindlen, have "inveighed against affirmative action" yet celebrate the affirmative action that "undoubtedly played a part in" the Palin selection. And how can conservatives credibly complain about personal attacks against Palin, when "the wingnuts of their own party elevated such attacks to a fine art by accusing Hillary Clinton of fictitious misdeeds from treason to murder"?

Like many liberals, poor Anna can't seem to distinguish between hating the sin and hating the sinner. Nor does she grasp the difference between government-mandated race- or gender-based preferences and the private selection of individuals for public service who happen to be in "minority" categories. She is also confused on the distinction between dozens of legitimate charges against the Clintons and the trumped-up slanders against Sarah Palin. When you've caught Bill Clinton red-handed in multiple felonies and Hillary in gross improprieties on which she got a complete media pass -- such as the cattle futures and missing law firm billing records -- who needs the more sensational allegations of treason and murder?

But despite her best efforts, Quindlen's obtuseness doesn't hold a candle to that of MSNBC's Chris Matthews. On "Hardball," Matthews derisively mocked Pat Buchanan for defending Palin against media attacks, accusing him of "a 1950s version of chivalry," false "sensitivity," "political cross-dressing" and assuming the role of Dr. Phil.

Revealing the narrowly calibrated liberal mind, Matthews wrongly assumes that conservatives are cynically playing the gender card in defending Palin and, in the process, demeaning women and hurting their cause. "This courtesy that you expect people to show her is debasing her potential as a leader of this country."

Nice try, Chris. But conservatives are defending Palin not out of chivalry, but against false charges. Our invocation of gender is solely to point out liberal hypocrisy for engaging in the sexism they pretend to decry. For example, consider their condemnation of Palin as an unfit mother for working a demanding job while having young children at home.

Matthews, saying Palin is ducking press scrutiny, started a bogus altercation with Buchanan over the public's "right" to have candidates submit to "tough questions" from an "objective" journalist.

Matthews needs shock treatments if he thinks the liberal media are objective. (...) Even his own bosses dumped him as convention anchor because of his overt bias. Indeed, a Rasmussen poll indicates that 51 percent believe the press is trying to hurt Palin.

(...) Liberals are accusing Palin of avoiding the media to create the impression she has a reason to hide from them. She was just nominated, for crying out loud. Take a breath. She has already agreed to an interview with ABC's Charlie Gibson, and there will be plenty more.

But while we're on this subject, have the media talked about Obama's incompetence without a teleprompter or his flip-flop on agreeing to unscripted town hall meetings with McCain? Have "objective" journalists asked Joe Biden about his plagiarism or his autocratic plan to divide Iraq into three separate nations whether Iraqis like it or not? (...)

The more liberals mistreat Palin and act like transparent 2-year-olds in projecting onto conservatives their own patronizing proclivities the more their true colors will be apparent. So please keep it up.

---

David Limbaugh is a writer, author and attorney. His book "Bankrupt: The Intellectual and Moral Bankruptcy of Today's Democratic Party" was released recently in paperback. To find out more about David Limbaugh, please visit his Web site at www.davidlimbaugh.com.

Sex, Lies and Videotapes - The Far Left is afraid

2008-09-05T12:53:00.002-07:00

Since she emerged on the national stage as John McCain’s vice presidential pick one week ago, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has been subjected to an intense amount of media and public scrutiny. But while public scrutiny is legitimate, most of the shameless attacks and smears thrown at her, are not. The moment America got a glimpse at the "hockey mom" from Alaska, the far left smear machine started to work. Many of the attacks have come in the form of unconfirmed reports on the Internet. Among them:

1) Palin “Joined a Secessionist Political Party”

The Charge: Unsubstantiated Internet reports insisted Palin was once a member of the Alaska Independence Party, which critics call a secessionist political movement and supporters say is dedicated to seeking greater state control over federal lands across Alaska.

The Facts: Palin has been a registered Republican since 1982. There is no record of her ever being a member of the AIP, or any party but the GOP. Palin’s huband has been a member of the AIP in the past, but since 2002 has been a registered independent.

2) Palin Supported a “Nazi Sympathizer”

The Charge: “Palin was a supporter of Pat Buchanan, a right-winger or, as some Jews call him: a Nazi sympathizer,” Obama Florida spokesman Mark Bubriski was quoted as saying in a Miami Herald article.

The Facts: While mayor of Wasilla, Palin wore a Buchanan button during the sometimes presidential candidate’s 1999 visit. But Palin actually supported Steve Forbes in 2000, and served as a co-chair on his Alaska campaign.
In the weeks after the 1999 report of her wearing the Buchanan button, Palin said: “When presidential candidates visit our community, I am always happy to meet them. I’ll even put on their button when handed one as a polite gesture of respect. … The article may have left
your readers with the perception that I am endorsing this candidate, as opposed to welcoming his visit to Wasilla.”In fact, the Alaska Jewish leadership had only praise for her commitment to the US-Israel relationship and her dealings with the community.

3) Palin “Wants Creationism Taught in School”

The Charge: Palin opposes the teaching of evolution, and would mandate the teaching of creationism in the state’s public schools.

The Facts: Palin said during her 2006 gubernatorial campaign that she would not push the state Board of Education to add creation-based alternatives to the state’s required curriculum, or look for creationism advocates when she appointed board members. She has kept this pledge, according to the Associated Press. Palin has spoken in favor of classroom discussions of creationism, in some cases. “I don’t think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn’t have to be part of the curriculum,” Palin told the Anchorage Daily News in a 2006 interview.

4) Palin “Was Nearly Recalled” While Mayor

The Charge:: Palin was so controversial as mayor of Wasilla that she was almost recalled by a popular voter movement.

The Facts: The Wasilla City Council considered but never took up a recall motion after she fired a longtime police chief, who subsequently brought a lawsuit. A citizen’s group dropped their recall bid, and a judge ruled Palin had the authority to fire the chief.

5) Palin “Opposes Sex Education”

The Charge: Palin opponents say Palin supported the end of all sex education in public schools. In light of her daughter’s presumably unplanned teen pregnancy, this has been a particularly well discussed internet topic.

The Facts: “The explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support,” Palin wrote in a 2006 questionnaire distributed among gubernatorial candidates. Palin favors abstinence-based sex education programs.

6) “This Picture Proves Palin is …”

The Charge: A slew of fake, Photoshopped or misdated photographs on the internet purport to show Palin in any number of embarrassing or compromising poses. One photo claimed to show Palin standing poolside, wearing an American flag-themed bikini, toting a rifle with telescopic sight.

The Facts: The various photos are being discredited and shown to be fake on a number of websites. The original of the so-called bikini shot, probably the best-known of the pictures, was shown to have been taken of another woman, with Palin’s head Photoshopped above the body.

7) Palin is the grandmother, and not the mother, of Trig Palin

The Charge: The most salacious rumor of all, this theory holds that Palin did not give birth to her son Trig in April, and was actually covering up for her daughter, Bristol.

The Facts: There are a number of photographs showing an apparently pregnant Sarah Palin, as well as a number of published eyewitness accounts of her pregnancy. These include First Lady Laura Bush, who says she spoke with a pregnant Palin at a governor’s conference in February. An assignment manager for KTVA news in Anchorage, Cherie Shirey, has also been quoted saying: “We worked with Governor Palin many times in 2008. Our reporters worked her on location and in the studio and I worked with her myself. She was definitely pregnant. You could see it in her belly and her face. The whole idea that Sarah Palin wasn’t pregnant with Trig is completely, absolutely absurd.”
The McCain campaign, in an apparent effort to counteract the rumors, announced last weekend that Bristol Palin is five months pregnant, which indicated she would have become pregnant
before Trig was born.

Why, you may ask, do we need to spend time and energy on fighting this garbage instead of concentrating on real and important issues like - Iran and the global Islamo-Nazi Jihad against the West, drilling for energy, cutting and keeping taxes low, shrinking the size of the Government, etc.?
The answer is simple - lies must be dealt with immediately, otherwise Goebels would have been proven right ("If you tell a lie enough times, eventually, people will end up believing it").
But what these smears prove is that the Democrats and their far left minions are shaking in their boots. Sarah Palin is a classy lady. She is articulate, pleasant, strong willed and determined to fight for her believes. That spells trouble for the liberals, whose icon, in this election, is a guy with a thin resume and questionable background and associations and an angry woman who publicly admited that she has not been proud of her country (until now, that is) and she thinks that America is "a downright mean country in 2008".

The DNC - Democratic National Circus

2008-08-28T14:22:00.003-07:00

As the DNC Convention is approaching its apogee tonight, with Obama's acceptance speech delivered in front of a full stadium, many see a missed opportunity in a convention which offered no coherent message to America and a whole lot of circus-like show.
After all the show that they put up, Democrats are still having a hard time to figure how it was that John McCain had inched further up in the polls during this, of all things, the week
of the Democratic National Convention in Denver. But the only real mystery is why they were so mystified.
Out of touch with middle America, the Democrats opened their Convention with a salute to the party's ultra liberal wing. First came Ted Kennedy, the Democratic icon from Massachussetts, who simbolizes to so many voters the very definition of a "limousine liberal".
Next came Michelle Obama. For all the hype surrounding her appearance, all she needed to do was to look smart and project the impression that she and her husband are not the elitist, angry black radicals that they were perceived by so many Americans.
She largely succeeded, yet her appearance came across as overly staged, and kept alive
lingering doubts among some voters as to her true feelings towards those who don't follow the liberal orthodoxy as her.
After Michelle Obama, Dennis Kucinich put up a show rivaling circus clowns and Brian Schweitzer's appearance wasn't far off.
The tension built up as Hillary Clinton took the stage. She delivered a speech which many characterized as a good way to position herself for a possible run in 2012 (if McCain wins this year) and mentioned Obama's name 3 or 4 times. After Bill Clinton's appearance, it became clear that Joe Biden notwithstanding, he has a third running mate, whether he likes it or not.
Joe Biden closed the show on Wednesday, after launching in a tirade of hypocrisy questioning his "good friend's" judgement on a number of issues, conveniently leaving aside the successful surge in Iraq.
Watching the pathetic show put on by the Democrats, one cannot but recognize the hypocrisy and double talk going on. Hillary Clinton, still bruised by a nasty and lenghty battle in the primaries, made it clear on more than one occasion how she feels about Obama's inexperience and lack of judgement versus McCain, yet on the podium, she was all praises. Bill Clinton, who complained publicly that the Obama campaign "has played the race card against" him and that "they have played it from the bottom of the deck", wanted us to believe him that Obama is fit to be President. How utterly Clintonesque of him....And Joe Biden, whose comments regarding Obama's lack of experience and his praises of John McCain are now part of campaign ads, tried to make up something off of a thin resume which he would like to sell to the American people as "Commander in Chief".
Instead of this despicable show of lies, the Democrats should have been reassuring moderate
voters that they will be safe this November if they abandon their recent past habit of voting for the Republicans and passing on liberal solutions.

The Social Security Quiz

2008-08-12T08:00:00.002-07:00

Regardless of one's party affiliation or political believes, the subject of Social Security seems to affect all of us and the Democrats have been successful in creating an image that presents them as the guardians of this program and the Republicans as the "bad guys".

Their Hollywood techniques notwithstanding, the Democrats are betting on your ignorance of history. But facts are facts and they don't support the Democrats.

Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised:
1) That participation in the Program would be completely voluntary
2) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the Program
3) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible for
income for tax purposes each year
4) That the money the participants put into the independent "Trust Fund" rather than into
the general operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security retirement Program, and nothing else
5) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.

Since many of the retirees who have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social
Security check every month and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money
we paid to the Federal government to "put away", lets try this quick quiz:

Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the independent "Trust Fund" and put it into
the general fund so that Congress could spend it?
A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically controlled House and Senate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA)?
A: The Democratic Party.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?
A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the "tie-breaking" deciding vote while he was Vice President
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?
A: That's right! Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

And after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats have the hutzpah to turn around and tell us that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away! The worst part about
it is that uninformed citizens believe their stories! What do you think Barack Obama will do to your finances if he gets elected?

The best way to combat their rhetoric is to arm yourself with facts and never take for granted the images that the Democrats and their Hollywood friends doctor for you.

To Bomb or Not to Bomb

2008-08-07T11:09:00.002-07:00

This seems to be the key question as Iran has rejected yet another overture from the West, Russia and China. It is obvious by now to all fair minded people that the Islamo-Nazi regime in Tehran is playing games and stall tactics in order to gain time. Deluded lefties prefer to close their eyes (and minds) and call this "Iran's efforts to resolve the crisis by diplomatic means".

As the perception that Washington now prefers diplomacy over confrontation with Tehran sinks in, Israel's options are shrinking. Israel has purchased 90 F-16I fighter jets and will receive 11 more by the end of 2009. These jets are capable to operate in Iran. Israel has also bought 2 more Dolphin submarines - in addition to the 3 it already has - capable of firing nuclear-armed warheads.

The foreign media also likes to speculate that Israel already has intelligence cells actively operating inside Iran (no such reports have been confirmed).

Israel estimates that the mad regime in Tehran can have enough enriched uranium for a nuclear bomb by next year, which prompted Shaul Mofaz (Israeli Deputy Prime Minister and possibly next Prime Minister) to say last week that "if Israeli, U.S., or European intelligence gets proof that Iran has succeeded in developing nuclear weapons technology, then Israel will respond in a manner reflecting the existential threat posed by such a weapon".

A nuclear armed Iran is a threat for the entire civilized world, whether this world realizes it or not. However, for Israel, it would be an existential threat. Israel does not have the "luxury" to ignore such a threat, live with it or dismiss it (like Obama, who said that Iran does not pose a danger because it is a "small country").

Iran, of course, maintains that its uranium enrichment plan is meant for "electricity generation" only, but apart from the "anti-war" lunatics and those who'd actually like to see a terrorist nation posses the Dooms Day Weapon, no one in his right mind can believe that.

Since Fuhrer Ahmadinejad is not going to stop, the question is what to do: To Bomb or Not to Bomb?

After destroing the Iraqi reactor and more recently, the Syrian one, Israel has sent a clear message that it will not tolerate its sworn enemies getting nuclear capabilities and is willing to use force preemptively against any target.

"For Israel, Iran is not a target that cannot be achieved," said Maj. Gen. Aharon Zeevi-Farkash,
former head of Israel's army intelligence. However, Israel will most likely seek and need the US approval for such a move.

Bush administration officials last week assured visiting Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak that the U.S. has not ruled out the possibility of a military strike on Iran.
And the U.S., aware of Israel's high anxiety over Iran's nukes, is also hooking Israel up to an advanced missile detection system known as X-Band to guard against any future attack by Iran.

If Israel attacks, it will face the Russian-made Tor-M1 surface-to-air missiles purchased by Iran only last year.

Military experts say an Israeli strike would require manned aircraft to bombard multiple
targets and heavy precision bombs that can blast through underground bunkers. It is widely assumed that Israel posses bunker buster bombs.

Elite ground troops could also be necessary to penetrate the most difficult sites, though Israeli military planners say they see that option as perhaps too risky.

US has far more superior capabilities to strike at Iran's nuclear facilities. The United States has cruise missiles that can deliver high-explosive bombs to precise locations and B-2 bombers capable of dropping 85 500-pound bombs in a single run.

Besides the "how" and "when", the aftermath of such an attack is also a big question mark.

Iran could halt oil production and shut down tanker traffic in the strategic Strait of Hormuz, which could send the price of crude skyrocketing and wreck Western economies.

It could stir up trouble for the U.S. in Iraq and activate its militant proxies in both Lebanon and the Gaza Strip, from where Israel could come under heavy rocket attack. It could also strike Israel with its arsenal of Shahab-3 long-range missiles — something Israel is hoping to guard against through its Arrow missile defense system.

Whether an attack on Iran would be worth its cost would depend on how long the nuclear program could be delayed, said Chuck Freilich, a former Israeli deputy national security
adviser and now a senior fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School.

"For a five to 10-year delay I would say yes," he said.

Obama's dirty tricks

2008-07-31T12:11:00.005-07:00

Hailed by some (especially in the drive-by media) as the "new hope", "the beacon of change", "beyond race", etc., Obama looks like he actually believes his own delusions. Increasingly, his demeanor and actions are further and further away from the "grass roots" level from where he's supposedly started and more and more like the presumptuous, arrogant elitist that he actually is.Glimpses of his (real) character have popped out sporadically during the Democratic primaries when he spoke against Americans that are bitter and cling to their guns and bible. It continued with displaying a campaign logo which looked very much alike the Presidential logo and peaked during his tour abroad, where he was acting so much as the sitting President, that one reporter even exclaimed "but he's NOT the President!".

Now he calls himself the embodiment of America's hope and his far-left cohorts are already busy laying the ground to the ridiculous statement that if he's not elected President, it'll be because of enduring racism in the American society. In other words, if you don't vote for this empty suit, you're probably a racist.
The New York Times (a paper dedicated to the election of Hussein Obama as President) run an article that was questioning why is Obama still not doing better in the polls, even after 200,000 Germans hailed him as the American Fuhrer. Many of the comments blamed American "racism", proof to the fact that MoveOn.org and the rest of the Obama Jugend storm troops are hard at work trying to distort the truth.

The latest Obamination is his claim that the Republicans are going to play on the racial fears of every day Americans. Obama said: “You know, ‘he’s not patriotic enough, he’s got a funny
name,’ you know, ‘he doesn’t look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills.”‘

McCain campaign manager Rick Davis issued a statement saying that Obama “played the race card, and he played it from the bottom of the deck” when he told voters Wednesday that McCain will try to scare them into rejecting him.
Does anyone remember that those were almost the same words uttered by Slick Willy (that's Bill Clinton, for those of you who still think that the skunk was a good President) during Hillary's failed attempt to gain the nomination?

Davis called Obama’s remarks “divisive, negative, shameful and wrong.”

Obama's remarks are more than that. They are a blatant attempt to inject race and racism (namely his racism) into a race which he fears that he will lose. After all his bombastic speeches for "togetherness", "change", "beyond race", etc. he's nothing but a petty politician, trying to use the scare tactics from the book of Rev. Wright and Jesse Jackson. He's so drunk with his own image that he doesn't realize that this will backfire and when the moment of truth will come, more and more non-blacks will send him the message he deserves on November 4th.
Oh, and some one should remind him that inflating our tires does NOT amount to a real energy policy.....Stupid is as stupid does...

Obama visits Israel

2008-07-22T18:33:00.004-07:00

After following the lead of John McCain, Obama decided to actually visit some of the places he talks about while in Washington or on the campaign trail. His much publicized trip to the Middle East is not a fact finding mission (as his entourage would like you to believe) but a confirmation of his long-held beliefs, combined with a media tour and photo ops.

The fact that 3 major network personalities are accompanying him on this tour while none cared to join John McCain on his (many) previous tours to the Middle East, should come as no surprise by now. The main media has clearly abandoned what little of their integrity they still had and are in the tank for Obama all the way. One of the most shameless, The New York Times, refused to publish an op-ed by McCain in response to one of Obama's published a week before.

So what are we to take from Obama's fact-confirming-believes tour?

First and fore most that he lacks no chutzpah. Although he hasn't been elected President and while in his short time in the Senate, has accomplished close to nothing, Hussein is acting "presidential", talking as if he's been in the White House for years. And the media is only too happy to perpetrate this farce.
When asked about his meetings, Obama Hussein answered that "these are leaders with which I will work for the next 10 years"(!!!) Maybe someone should remind him that first and foremost, he is just the Junior Senator from Illinois, that he is NOT the President and even if he was to get elected....twice....he'd still not be in the White House for 10 years! Oh, and while they're at it, they should also remind him that the US is composed of 50 (that's fifty!) states and not 57.

Second, Obama would like people to forget that he was a staunch opponent to the surge of troops in Iraq, which is widely credited for stabilizing the country and dramatically reducing the number of our casualties, the number of Iraqi casualties and the virtual defeat of Al-Qaeda in Iraq. How? By diverting the attention to Afghanistan where he intends to take political advantage of a recent surge in Taliban activities.

Third, Obama understands that perception is 90% of reality and takes fool advantage of the media. His photo ops with Maliki, Karzai and Peres are meant to account for his thin resume and even thinner foreign policy experience.

Playing to his far left anti-war base, Obama cannot steer too far to the center without alienating those loons. He may talk tough on Iraq and Afghanistan but in fact his planned withdrawal from Iraq is just dust in the eyes of the far left. He intends to move the same troops to Afghanistan before making sure that the job in Iraq has been completed.
He may sound as if Israel's security is important to him, but when in talking to Arab leaders he belittles the same Israeli concerns and tries to draw a moral parallel between Israel's self defense and the Palestinian homicide attacks. He is a hypocrite and all of the ABC, NBC and CBS in the world cannot paint him otherwise. Consider this: when McCain visited Israel, he was accompanied by Joe Liberman, a staunch supporter of Israel. Obama is accompanied by Chuck Hagel, one of the most anti-Israel politicians, the guy who refused to sign a petition branding Hizballah as a terrorist organization. Obama can visit Sderot and Yad Vashem as many times as he wants. His true character he will never be able to hide and people should not be fooled by the images fabricated by ABC, NBC or CBS.

Who is Samir Kuntar?

2008-07-16T18:00:00.003-07:00

True to its tradition of not leaving any soldier behind (dead or alive), Israel has agreed to yet another deal with its Arab enemies: to release 5 murderers and the remains of 199 killed terrorists in return for the bodies of Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev, the 2 soldiers kidnapped by Hezbollah 2 years ago (and presumed dead).
On the other side of the border, in Lebanon, lavish celebrations are planned and even Nasrallah, Hezbollah's chief will appear in public (from his secret bunker) on a giant screen. The main "attraction" is the monster Samir Kuntar, celebrated as a returning hero. But who is SamirKuntar?

These are the monsters that Israel is fighting for the past 60 years. People who cherish death above life and cold blooded murder as "heroism". I believe that President Peres was right when he said that one day Lebanon will look back and be ashamed. For now, the murderers are celebrating.

Another Obamination

2008-07-15T13:38:00.004-07:00

Hounded by charges of flip flop, Barack Hussein Obama finally laid to rest the statement he made at the AIPAC Convention in June, about the need for Jerusalem to remain Israel's undivided capital. Blaming "poor phrasing" and careless syntax, the Obaminator said in an interview with Fareed Zakaria: "You know, the truth is that this was an example where we had some poor phrasing in the speech. And we immediately tried to correct the interpretation that was given."

Unlike others who castigated Obama for his supposed flip flops on issues, I never had any illusions about the man. After all his little speeches, oratory concerts and grandiose shows, he's just a politician trying to lie his way around. Unfortunately, there are still many Jews too deluded or too biased to see through his disguise. Obama is not a friend of Israel. He never was and he never will. 20 years in the company of haters, racists and Palestinian activists shape a man in a way that is not easily changed.

Trying to define himself as being everything to everyone, Obama finds himself at odds with his base (far left "blame America" lunatics), with women (who felt cheated by the Hillary defeat), with Jews (which increasingly are tilting towards McCain) and even with some blacks, for whom is not black enough (the Jesse Jackson episode). Out of this environment appeared the "New Yorker" cartoon, which depicts Obama in Muslim garb and headdress, giving a fist-bumping
handshake to his wife Michelle who is dressed in camouflage clothes with an AK-47 and ammo-belt slung over her shoulder. They are shown standing in the presidential Oval Office beneath a portrait of Osama bin Laden while the American flag burns in the fireplace. Obama's campaign said that while the intention may have been satirical, "most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive."

Although it wasn't the magazine's intention, the cartoon lampoons the Obamas based on their actions and words and I guess that "if it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck"....

Obama Family Album

2008-06-25T09:58:00.033-07:00

He speaks about his heritage and his family but no photos have been publicized. His campaign wants "more white people" in the background photos and rejected 2 head-scarfed Muslim women from appearing behind him. Why? If Obama is so proud of his heritage, family and upbringing, why all the "doctored" image? Unless he wants to appear something that he's not....

Barack Obama's grandmother, Sarah Hussein Onyango Obama

Barack Obama's uncle
Barack Obama's brother - Malik - holding an undated photo of himself and Barack (left)

With Luo Raila Odinga (Kenya opposition leader). Odinga has signed a "Shariah Pact" with the country's Muslims. Claims to be Barack's cousin and his eldest son is named Fidel (as in Fidel Castro).

Barack's father, Muslim, hard-drinker, was married three times, attended Harvard and returned to Kenya . Obama claims he was an atheist but he was raised Muslim and was given a Muslim burial at Barack's family's request.

Barack's mother Stanley Ann Dunham

Photo with his father, when Barack lived in Hawaii

Mother's 2nd husband Lolo Soetoro (Indonesian Muslim), their daughter Maya, and Barack

With his grand parents (Obama calls them "white folks"), the only ones that did not abandon him

Barack stands behind Kezia (stepmother) in a Kenyan family shot. Brother Abongo ' Roy ' Obama who is a Luo activist and a Militant Muslim argues that the black man must 'liberate himself from the poisoning influences of European culture.'

Quite a family, isn't it? Why be ashamed of it? Why try to hide it? Why attempt to fool the American people into thinking that you are something else ("change", "uniter", etc.). Barack Hussein Obama, you should let the American people see you for who you REALLY are....or are you afraid of that?

Obama: Jews Beware!

2008-06-18T19:47:00.005-07:00

Behind all the hype and empty slogans, no one really knows where Barack Hussein Obama stands on many of the critical issues facing the country and the world today.

The mainstream dishonest media is not interested in asking the questions perhaps because they are so invested in his success and definitely because they are afraid of what they might unearth.

Last polls show Obama getting about 61% of the Jewish vote. But this actually points to his problem with the Jewish community. John Kerry got about 75% of the Jewish vote. Since George W. Bush became President, the Jewish vote for the Republican Party doubled and the polls show John McCain receiving 31% and thus continuing the inroads made be the GOP among American Jews.

Why is Obama having problems with the Jews who have historically been in the pocket of the Democratic Party, so much so that in their political blindness, many still refuse to wise up and see the truth?

The reasons are multiple and they range from Obama's associations, his past and his obvious inexperience and lack of understanding of the Middle East in general and the Israeli-Arab conflict in particular.

During his lip-service speech to AIPAC, Obama said: "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided." Twenty-four hours later, following protests from Palestinian and Hamas government officials, Obama reversed his statement telling CNN: "Obviously, it's going to be up to the parties to negotiate a range of these issues. And Jerusalem will be a part of these negotiations." So much for standing up for one's believes.....Unless...those were not really his believes, but a simple lie told to those eager to swallow up anything he has to say at the moment.

Obama does not have the experience to run as a CEO of company (most will ask for at least 7 years experience; all he has to show is 3 years in the Senate) much less to be the leader of the Free World and to run the Greatest Country on Earth (the USA). But he is the classical politician: liar, willing to associate with unsavory characters in order to build a political base and then, if need be, throw them under the bus for the sake of political expediency.

Lets look for a moment at some of his associations:

Rashid Khalidi - a Columbia Univ. professor who worked with WAFA -PLO's news agency. He is one of the co-founders of Arab American Action Network which sponsored anti-Israeli events in Chicago. Obama served on the board of Woods Fund, which made grants to the anti-Israeli Network.

Ali Abunimah - a Palestinian from Chicago who founded the "Electronic Intifada", a rabid anti-Israeli, vicious, website. He attended a fundraiser for Obama's congressional campaign.

Edward Said - another Columbia Univ. professor, long time associate of Obama's. A major-league agitator who was photographed throwing a rock at an Israeli guardhouse from the Lebanese, Said was an advisor to Arafat and now, an opponent of the so-called "peace process" that only a confused impotent like Olmert still pretends to believe in.

Gen. Merrill McPeak -Obama's chief military adviser. In a 2003 interview he blamed the Jews in New York and Miami for the stalled peace process in the Middle East.

Robert Malley - criticized Israel for the failed 2000 Camp David talks (when another confused and deluded Israeli PM almost gave Arafat a Palestinian state). He was later fired from Obama's campaign after it came to light that he was in constant contact with Hamas.

Zbigniew Brzezinski - Jimmy Carter's national security advisor. Has praised the anti-Israeli, subtle anti-Semitic book "The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy". Obama distanced himself somewhat from Brzezinski, but still keeps him as advisor.

Samanta Power - anti-Israeli Pulitzer-Prize winner, thinks that US policy is overly influenced by Jewish interests and that US should slash billions of dollars in aid to Israel and instead, invest in the Palestinian territories. She was fired after calling Hillary a "monster".

Add to this gallery of unsavory characters haters, racists and anti-Semites like Rev. Wright and Farrakhan (he endorsed Obama right from the start) and you have a pretty good (albeit frightening) idea of what an Obama administration look like.

And it doesn't matter if you are a Jew or not, if you care about Israel or not. Ignorance of the complex issues of the Middle East and the Islamo-fascism in general is dangerous for everybody.

Obama must be stopped and the best way to do so is to inform and get informed!

Reason put on Trial

2008-06-04T14:10:00.006-07:00

"A Danish cartoonist and ten newspaper editors have reportedly been summoned by Jordan's public prosecutor on charges of "blasphemy" for reprinting cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad."

Behind the sheer laughable stupidity of this (unfortunately) true news heading, something much more sinister is lurking. Islamo-Nazis want to put reason on trial and to punish free speech.

Western, liberal Islamic appologists will rush in to say that these are "just a few extremist elements who do not reflect all of Islam"....But unless you are willing to lie to yourself, much like they do, you know that this is not some Al-Qaeda Jordanian cell or even the fascist Muslim Brotherhood. We're talking about the public prosecutor of the (supposedly moderate, pro-western) Kingdom of Jordan! There is no more mean stream Islamic authority than that!

The "Copenhagen Post" reports that "eleven Danes have been summoned to appear before the Jordanian pubic prosecutor to answer charges of blasphemy and threatening the national peace."
According to Jordanian law, reproducing images of the Prophet Muhammad inside — or even outside the country — is illegal. In other words, not enough that free speech is illegal in Jordan (as it is in all other Arab and Islamic countries), but in the eyes of Muslims, it is illegal anywhere!
And this is not new. Remember Salman Rushdie? Remember Theo Van Gogh?

Freedom everywhere is under assault by Islam. Not just by the Islamo-Nazis (Jihaddis) but by Islam itself. "Offending" the Prophet is a capital offense in most of the Islamic world. No if, and or but. Converting one's religion from Islam is punishable by death - it's a fact and it is included in most legal codes of Islamic countries (Jordan included).

Liberals and Islamic appologists would like to fool people into thinking that the assault on Western civilization comes only from "a tiny minority of extremists who do not speak on behalf of Islam"....First of all, when is the last time that you heard anyone from the "vast majority" speak out against Islamic barbarism? The inconvenient truth is that the so-called "extremists" are acting on what Islam really stands for - total submission to the Islamic religion, no freedom and no dissent.

Every now and then some nut acts upon the threats that Islamic leaders have issued against what they perceive as "offensive" to Islam and the West gets a glimpse of the "religion of peace".

In this case, the audacity of the Jordanian authorities - to summon Danish journalists to appear in Jordan for legal proceedings, and if they refuse, to inform Interpol and seek their arrest - is not just pure idiocy. It should be seen for what it really is: a full blown attempt to extend the tentacles of the Islamic intolerance into the free world.

I have no doubt that the Danish state, the Danish people and indeed, the entire civilized world, will snub this "request" and treat it with its deserved contempt. But one cannot overlook the danger looming behind these facts and recognize that we are faced with an offensive of barbarism which only starts with the Jews and the intelectuals, but left unchallenged, it can destroy our civilization.

Demagogue in Chief

2008-06-02T13:24:00.007-07:00

Barack Hussein Obama hasn't accomplish much in his political life and his resume is thinner than a tan foil. But one his few "contributions" in the Senate is the The Global Poverty Act (S. 2433) !!!
This monumentally stupid piece of "legislation" is nothing more than committing American resources to a UN-inspired program to the tune of $845 Billion dollars !!!

And you know that any program that comes out of the incompetent, inefficient, impotent UN is guaranteed to do produce nothing and to cost a fortune. As a matter of fact, according to some estimates, Obama's "genius" piece of legislation can end up costing American taxpayers $8,500 in added taxes to accomplish nothing (remember "Food for Oil" corruption scandal?) and stuff the pockets of dictators, strong men, tyrants and speculators all over the Third World.

DON'T LET HIM FOOL YOU! STOP BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA FROM RUINING THIS COUNTRY!

Hillary is the Winner!

2008-05-21T18:30:00.002-07:00

Hillary Clinton likes to presents herself as former first lady and a New York senator ready to be commander-in-chief. But a history of exaggerations, half-truths and downright lies made by Clinton over the last 15 years have undermined her credibility and created an image of a dishonest person. In a recent study, she comes out as the undisputed winner among the other 2 presidential contenders when it comes to tail tales. Here’s the chain of lies:

1. Travelgate, June 23, 2000
An investigation was launched into the firing of seven long-time employees of the White House travel office, all of whom were replaced with friends and relatives of the Clintons.

Lie: In a sworn deposition, Clinton was asked if she had any involvement in the decision to fire the staffers: “No, I did not,” she replied.

Truth: The Office of Independent Counsel investigating it and other matters found "overwhelming evidence that she in fact did have a role in the decision to fire the employees” and that her testimony was “factually false.”

2. Iraq War Vote, Jan. 13, 2008

On NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Clinton was asked about her 2002 vote to authorize the use of force against Iraq. Her vote helped authorize President Bush to use force in Iraq.

Lie: Clinton insisted it was “not a vote for preemptive war. It was a vote to put inspectors back in to determine what threat Saddam Hussein did in fact pose,” Clinton said.

Truth: On Oct. 10, 2002, on the Senate floor, Clinton said, “This is a very difficult vote … any vote that might lead to war should be hard, but I cast it with conviction.

3. Sniper Fire, March 17, 2008

In 1996 Clinton visited Bosnia as first lady.

Lie: She told an audience at the George Washington University that she remembered “landing under sniper fire.” She made similar comments to other audiences.

Truth: Videotape of her arrival at Tuzla Air Base shows Clinton walking off the plane, greeting troops and walking calmly around camp. She is then met by a young girl who reads her a poem.

4. Vince Foster Documents, April 22, 1994

After the suicide of Deputy White House Counsel Vince Foster, Hillary Clinton’s chief of staff Maggie Williams had documents removed from Foster’s office.

Half-truth: During a press conference, Clinton was asked why Williams was involved in removing the documents. Clinton responded: “I don’t know that she did remove any documents.”

Truth: Clinton administrations officials later acknowledged that the first lady requested the documents be removed and turned over to Williams. Williams was told to store the papers in the White House residence, where Clinton’s personal attorney later picked them up.

5. Iraq War Criticism, April 5, 2008

Lie: In Eugene, Ore., Clinton said that she was first to criticize the Iraq war, before Barack Obama, during their time in the Senate. “I started criticizing the war in Iraq before he did,” she said.

Truth: On Jan. 18, 2005, Obama criticized the war to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee while questioning Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. On Jan. 26, eight days later, Clinton said the Bush administration’s Iraq policy was “riddled with errors, misstatements and misjudgments.”

6. Brokering Irish Peace, Jan. 6, 2008

Lie: In Nashua, N.H., Clinton told supporters that when she was first lady she organized a town hall in Belfast, Ireland, to help promote peace talks between Catholics and Protestants.

Truth: There is no record of a meeting at Belfast City Hall between Catholic and Protestant representatives that she supposedly arranged. Hillary held a 50-minute meeting of Catholic and Protestant women at a Belfast café on Nov. 30, 1995, arranged by the U.S. Embassy, and she attended a Christmas tree lighting ceremony with President Clinton at Belfast City Hall. That was all!

7. Chelsea Jogging, Sept. 17, 2001

Lie: Clinton told NBC’s Jane Pauley that her daughter, Chelsea, went jogging on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, and had planned to run near the World Trade Center.

Truth: In a Nov. 9, 2001, article in Talk magazine, Chelsea Clinton never wrote she went jogging on Sept. 11, 2001. Instead, Clinton said she was alone inside a friend’s apartment 12 blocks away when the first plane struck the World Trade Center. She watched the second plane hit the South Tower on her friend’s television.

8. Death of a Mother, March 2008

For about five weeks, Clinton told a story related to her by an Ohio deputy sheriff about a pregnant woman who lost her baby and died two weeks later.

Half-truth: Clinton said the woman was uninsured and was refused medical treatment because she could not come up with a $100 examination fee.

Truth: Trina Bachtel, 35, died last August, two weeks after her son was stillborn. But she did have health insurance and was not denied treatment for her troubled pregnancy when she sought help at a hospital in Athens, Ohio. She had, however, been asked to pay $100 for treatment at a clinic she first visited.

9. Refugee Borders, March 12, 2008

Lie: Clinton said in a cable news interview that she “negotiated open borders” in Macedonia to fleeing Kosovar refugees.

Truth: Macedonia’s ambassador to the U.S. at the time, said during a March 2008 interview with NPR that her government always had a policy to allow refugees’ passage into the country.

10. Origins of the Name, April 2, 1995

Lie: At an airstrip in Nepal, Clinton told Sir Edmund Hillary, the first man to conquer Mount Everest, that she had been named after the renowned mountaineer.

Truth: Clinton was born in 1947, when Sir Edmund was still an obscure beekeeper from New Zealand. He did not climb Everest until 1953, six years later.

11. National Guard Health Insurance, Dec. 20, 2007

Lie: Clinton’s television ad, “Guard,” which ran in New Hampshire, claimed National Guard and Army Reserve personnel had no health insurance until she took action.

Truth: Before Clinton took office, all active-duty Guard and Reserve troops were covered by federal insurance, and four out of five non-active-duty National Guardsmen and Reservists were covered by their civilian employers or other sources.

12. Bill Kennedy Endorsement, April 15, 2008

Clinton scored an endorsement from a Montana politician, Yellowstone County
Commissioner Bill Kennedy.

Lie: A press release from Clinton’s campaign said Kennedy was prompted to go for Clinton because of remarks Barack Obama made to a group of California donors in which he said small-town Americans get bitter and “cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them” as a way to explain their frustrations.

Truth: Kennedy told FOX News a day after the release: “I had been leaning toward Hillary for months. I actually decided to endorse her two weeks ago.” In other words, Kennedy decided to back Clinton on April 1, five days before Obama’s comments.

No wonder that most of the Democrats' politburo, her ex-Hollywood pals and even close allies from the Clinton era (Bill Richardson) are leaving her in droves...

Hamas for Obama, Jews for McCain

2008-05-19T12:42:00.003-07:00

In a recent interview, a Hamas official, Ahmad Yousef stated: "We like Mr. Obama, and we hope that he will win the elections. I hope Mr. Obama and the Democrats will change the political discourse... I do believe [Obama] is like John Kennedy, a great man with a great principle. And he has a vision to change America to make it in a position to lead the world community, but not with humiliation and arrogance."

In view of Obama's albeit unrequested endorsement from Hamas and Hussein's stated intention of meeting with murderous dictators without any preconditions, the Democratic politburo is starting to doubt the victory in November.

One of its main bases of support, the Jews, may slip right through their fingers. Frustrated by Obama's association with anti-Semites such as Rev. Jeremiah Wright or racist Louis Farrakhan, or rabid anti-Israelis such as Carter and Brzezinski, American Jews are taking another look at the Democratic party.

Leading Democrats fear that if their party nominates Obama to run against McCain, the Jewish vote will help contribute to a Democratic loss in November, CBS reported last month.

CBS noted that Sen. Obama lost the Jewish vote in Florida by double-digits. It said that an Obama victory in the primaries would forge an unusual alliance of Hispanics, blue-collar whites and Jews who would help send Sen. McCain to the White House.

History Lessons

2008-05-15T09:39:00.011-07:00

Speaking before the Knesset on the 60th Anniversary of founding of the State of Israel, President Bush took a shot at those who claim that talking with terrorists will result in "peace" and said that they are experiencing a “foolish delusion.”

Feeling the pinch, the Democrats immediately launched a barrage of "outrage and criticism" although Bush never mentioned them or any one by name. Apparently, if the shoe fits....

"Personal and aggressive diplomacy" with Iran is one of Obama's stated mantras so he was one the first to feel personally attacked. The Senator is obviously ignorant of history, which clearly shows the fallacies of such irresponsible policies.

The Left "New Appeasement" theory has its roots in the basic belief that America is "down right a mean country" (Michelle Obama) and as such, we are the cause of all that's evil in the world. American "Imperialism and Capitalism" is what pushes people to blow themselves up and kill innocents who do not agree with them. Since we are the problem, the theory goes, we should blame ourselves and "reach out" to those poor creatures out there ("terrorists have mother and fathers too" - Rosie O'Donnell), understand them, negotiate with them and we will leave like a big happy family.
If there were no history to contradict such rosy-psychedelic-marijuana smoke-filled theory, I'd simply say "Stop smoking the grass and wise up!". But when history provides so much testimony to the dangers of this type of thought, I think that entertaining it is not only delusional, but down right criminally insane.

France and Britain appeased monsters like Hitler and Mussolini because they felt that they were "misunderstood" and that they shared some blame in the conclusion of WW I ("the Treaty of Versailles was too harsh on Germany"). Meeting with Daladier and Chamberlain served only to legitimize Hitler and show him as a world "leader" instead of the murderous thug that he and his Nazi gang were.

Obama meeting with the new Hitler from Tehran will serve the same purpose, since Obama and the Left are completely ignorant of radical Islam's true plans. Obama doesn't know or doesn't care that he will be talking with a genocidal maniac who sees the world in terms of Islam and the rest and whose stated dream is to bring about an Apocalypse which will usher in the Age of Lost Imam.

Just like Chamberlain and his group of deluded politicians thought that what is written in "Mein Kampf" should not be taken seriously, so do Obama, Hillary and their Leftist cohorts ignore the stated goals of today's Islamo-Nazis. This political blindness has the potential to do much more damage than the casual political expediency which we're witnessing from the Democratic Party. Like in the late 1930's, this policy can bring about another world war. And if Iran is allowed to acquire nuclear weapons, it may just cause the Armageddon that the Hitler from Tehran is praying for.

We need a president who is not paranoid about confronting these threats and does not have a problem with hunting down terrorists and killing them. You do not negotiate with Al-Qaeda, Hamas or Hezbollah. You crush them! And this is how you send a message to their masters in Damascus or Tehran that you mean business and they are next.
After seeing the US resolute in the wake of 9/11, Qaddafi thought it is wise to abandon his weapons of mass destruction dreams. Standing firm and resolute with Iran will send the message to its "dogs" - Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas that the US is serious about confronting them and the military option is on the table.

Obama and Hillary are too weak and too dependent on their far left base to confront Islamo-Nazism. Only John McCain can continue the Bush Doctrine of Preemptive strikes against criminal nations.

Those who do not know history are condemned to repeat it.

Memorial Day

2008-05-06T17:36:00.003-07:00

Every year, a week after Holocaust Day (Yom Ha’Shoa) and exactly one day before Independence Day (Yom Atzmaut), Israel commemorates the memory of those who fell in its wars, special operations and terror attacks. This is Memorial Day (Yom Ha’Zikaron) and it started today with a ceremony held at the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem, Judaism’s holiest place.

Yom Ha’Zikaron is widely observed throughout all sectors of Israel. Unlike in America, in which Memorial Day is often used as an excuse for another sale, Israeli shops, restaurants, movie theaters, etc. are shut down. The radio and television stations play programs about Israel's wars, interviews with the families and show programming that convey the somber mood of the day. Perhaps the most widely recognized commemoration, as on Yom Ha’Shoah, an air raid siren is played twice during Yom Ha’Zikaron. All activity, including traffic, immediately ceases. People get out of their cars, even in the middle of otherwise busy highways, and stand in respect for the sacrifice of those who died defending Israel. The first siren marks the beginning of Memorial Day and the second is sounded immediately prior to the public recitation of prayers in military cemeteries. Ending at sundown, the somber, reflective mood of Yom Ha’Zikaron gives way to the celebration of Yom Atzmaut, a transition which emphasizes the lasting tie between the sacrifice of the country’s fallen and the continued existence of a vibrant and dynamic State of Israel.

This year, Israel remembers the 22, 437, dead since 1860 – those who died in the Arab pogroms of 1936 and 1939, the War of Independence (1948), Operation Kadesh (Sinai occupation, 1956), 6 Day War (1967), War of Attrition (against Egypt-USSR-PLO, 1967-1970), Yom Kippur War (1973), Lebanon War (1982), Second Lebanon War (2005), the many special operations and commando actions (known and secret) against Arab states and the terror organizations all over the world and the victims of terror in Israel and throughout the world.

Ha’Shem Inkom et damam.

Remember the past so you can face the future

2008-04-30T12:47:00.006-07:00

Jews around the world, and particularly in Israel, will commemorate the six million Jews murdered in the Holocaust, as well as those who were able to fight back, beginning Wednesday evening, April 30th at 8 PM.
Yom HaShoah, Holocaust Remembrance Day, begins with a public ceremony at Warsaw Ghetto Square in Yad Vashem in Jerusalem.

The date of Yom HaShoah was chosen to mark the anniversary of the Warsaw Ghetto uprising. Although the day became official by an act of Knesset, it has been traditionally commemorated by Jewish communities around the world. Some religious communities prefer not to commemorate the Holocaust on this day, which falls in the generally happy month of Nissan, but rather on Tisha B'Av or on the Tenth of Tevet, which the Chief Rabbinate of Israel fixed as the day for the recital of the Kaddish prayer for those murdered during the Holocaust whose date of death is not known.

Yad Vashem, the world's largest repository of information on the Holocaust, launched two YouTube channels in advance of Holocaust Remembrance Day. The English channel (http://www.youtube.com/user/YadVashem) contains testimonies from Holocaust survivors, as well as archival footage, historians’ lectures on key issues related to the Holocaust, footage from world leaders' visits to Yad Vashem, and human interest stories such as family reunions. The Arabic channel has testimonies and archival footage about the Holocaust with Arabic subtitles.

Roughly 60 years after the end of World War II and the Nurnberg trials which exposed the magnitude of the genocide, Holocaust denial is going "mainstream". No more just the realm of extreme, obscure Neo Nazi groups or other cooks on the fringe of society, Holocaust denial is taking the main stage in some parts of the world. Iran recently organized an international "congress" to discuss the "myth" of the Holocaust, the Arab press is filled with cartoons reminiscent of "Der Sturmer" and politicians from Ahmadinejad to Abu Mazen (so-called "moderate") proclaim publicly their "doubts" about the Holocaust, denying its very existence and trashing the memory of the 6 million (of which 1.5 millions were children!) victims.

Olmert doesn't care that Abu Mazen thinks the Holocaust is a Jewish invention and Carter couldn't care less if Hizballah or Hamas, while denying the Holocaust, dream to end what Hitler had started. For every Holocaust denier there are enough "respectable" politicians that would do business with them, so Holocaust denial became "an acceptable" form of political belief!...Only 65 years since Ghetto Warsaw uprising....35 more years and Jean-Marie Le Penn's words ("the Holocaust was but a minor detail of World War II") will become reality, proving once again, that those who chose not to remember the past cannot face the future.

IDF Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi visited the Warsaw Ghetto and a Jewish cemetery in Poland ahead of Holocaust Remembrance Day. Ashkenazi reportedly stood silent for a few moments and then said: "The answer to what we see here is us, the State of Israel, the IDF and victory."

Guess Who's Coming to the Seder

2008-04-21T19:28:00.005-07:00

For centuries, Jews have gathered around the Seder table to celebrate Pesach (Passover), the deliverance from slavery to freedom. This family holiday is marked not only by the ubiquitous matza, but mainly by the reading of the Hagada, the recounting of the events that led to the freedom of the ancient Israelites. Everyone participates in the reading and especially the singing, which is what makes the Seder such a joyful experience.
As we ask "Ma Nishtana Ha'Layla Ha'Ze" - What's Different This Night from all other nights?, an answer (which is not in the Hagada) is that this Passover in 5768 (2008 AD) falls in an election year in the USA. All three candidates wanted to participate in the political Passover. The Torah mentions "four sons": the wise one, the wicked one, the naive one and the one who doesn't know how to ask. In their trying to appeal to the Jewish vote, you decide who is who:

Barak Obama noted that the Passover Seder ceremony encourages children to ask questions. He interpreted that as meaning that American policy should emphasize dialogue. He previously has said that if he were elected president, he would talk with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who is a Holocaust denier and dreams of "wiping Israel off the map". However, he has rejected the idea of sitting down for discussions with Hamas, which is funded by Iran. I guess his thinking is why talk to the dogs when I can talk directly to their masters?
Obama is clearly naive. He is he also wicked when he tries to appear as a friend of Israel (despite his public support for the Palestinian cause and his refusal to condemn Carter's useless trip to the Middle East) or of the Jews (when his friends, Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakan are racists and anti-Semites)?

Hillary Clinton used the Hagada to make a call "to stand up to oppression, tyranny and discrimination." She also paid a surprise visit to a Jewish federation-sponsored Philadelphia Orchestra concert celebrating Israel's 60th birthday. She made no political comments, but her appearance was part of a last-ditch effort to garner more votes in Tuesday's state primaries. Hillary is not naive and does know how to ask but she is as wicked as they come because her perfidy and dishonesty know no limits. She couldn't care less about Israel, as she proved it when she stood by Suha Arafat which was spewing vicious statements about Israelis poisoning Palestinian children. She does care about Jews, American Jews to be precise, because there are, unfortunately, many foolish enough to donate money to her and because Jews are still overwhelmingly blind to continue following the Democratic Party despite its increasingly leftist and anti-Israeli stance (although the number of Republican Jews has more than doubled since Bush became President in 2000).

Republican candidate John McCain appears to be the most Zionist of the three candidates who commented on the Passover Seder and the reading of the traditional Hagada, according to The New York Times op-ed writer William Kristol. McCain, who was a prisoner of war during the war in Vietnam, was the only one of the three candidates who linked the story of the Exodus from slavery in Egypt with attacks on Jews. He commented that three IDF soldiers who were kidnapped two years ago "will celebrate [Passover] once again, in captivity.”

The older, the wiser....Hag Sameach! (Happy Holiday!)

Michelle Obama - The unrepentant racist behind the candidate

2008-04-12T08:55:00.006-07:00

In her senior thesis at Princeton, Michele Obama, the wife of Barack Obama stated that America was a nation founded on “crime and hatred”. Moreover, she stated that whites in America were “ineradicably racist”. The 1985 thesis, titled 'Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community' was written under her maiden name, Michelle LaVaughn Robinson.

Michelle Obama stated in her thesis that to 'Whites at Princeton , it often seems as if, to them, she will always be Black first...' However, it was reported by a fellow black classmate, “If those 'Whites at Princeton ' really saw Michelle as one who always would 'be Black first,' it seems that she gave them that impression”.

Most alarming is Michele Obama’s use of the terms “separationist” and “integrationist” when describing the views of black people.

Mrs. Obama clearly identifies herself with a “separationist” view of race.
“By actually working with the Black lower class or within their communities as a result of their ideologies, a separationist may better understand the desperation of their situation and feel more hopeless about a resolution as opposed to an integrationist who is ignorant to their plight.”

Obama writes that the path she chose by attending Princeton would likely lead to her 'further integration and/or assimilation into a white cultural and social structure that will only allow me to remain on the periphery of society; never becoming a full participant.'

Not only does she see separate black and white societies in America , but she elevates black over white in her world.

Here is another passage that is uncomfortable and ominous in meaning:
“There was no doubt in my mind that as a member of the black community, I am obligated to this community and will utilize all of my present and future resources to benefit the black community first and foremost. “

What is Michelle Obama planning to do if (G-d forbid!) she becomes first lady?

The following passage is a call to arms for affirmative action policies that could be the hallmark of an Obama administration: “Predominately white universities like Princeton are socially and academically designed to cater to the needs of the white students comprising the bulk of their enrollments.”

Michelle Obama’s poll of black alumni concludes that other black students at Princeton do not share her obsession with blackness. But rather than celebrate, she is horrified that black alumni identify with our common American culture more than they value the color of their skin. “I hoped that these findings would help me conclude that despite the high degree of identification with whites as a result of the educational and occupational path that black Princeton alumni follow, the alumni would still maintain a certain level of identification with the black community. However, these findings do not support this possibility.”

Is it no wonder that most black alumni ignored her racist questionnaire? Only 89 students responded out of 400 who were asked for input.

Michelle Obama does not look into a crowd of Obama supporters and see Americans. She sees black people and white people eternally conflicted with one another.

The thesis provides a snapshot of Michelle Obama's thoughts and world view seen through a race-based prism. This is in essence, racist point of view, one that would do untold damage to race relations in this country in a Barack Obama administration.

Michelle Obama’s intellectually refined racism should give all Americans pause for deep concern, yet no one in the "main stream media" is particularly concerned with exploring or even informing about.

PS: The American people paid for her scholarship.

Charlton Heston (1923-2008)

2008-04-07T17:38:00.009-07:00

Over the weekend, the great Charlton Heston passed away.

Best known as the lead actor in such epic movies like Ben-Hur, El Cid, Planet of the Apes and of course, The Ten Commandments, Charlton Heston was a staunch believer in conservative values.

He was not afraid to come out against affirmative action (liberals' form of anti-white racism) and support Republicans running for President when almost all Hollywood is insanely leftist. He voted for Richard Nixon in 1972 and actively campaigned for Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush.

In an address to students at the Harvard Law School, he said this:

"The Constitution was handed down to guide us by a bunch of wise old dead white guys who invented our country! Now some flinch when I say that. Why! Its true-they were white guys! So were most of the guys that died in Lincoln’s name opposing slavery in the 1860s. So why should I be ashamed of white guys? Why is “Hispanic Pride” or “Black Pride” a good thing, while “White Pride” conjures shaved heads and white hoods? Why was the Million Man March on Washington celebrated by many as progress, while the Promise Keepers March on Washington was greeted with suspicion and ridicule? I’ll tell you why, Cultural warfare!"

A great believer in Americans' right to bear arms, he headed the NRA (National Riffle Association) between 1998-2003 and tirelessly promoted the Second Amendment.

In August 2002, Heston publicly announced he was diagnosed with symptoms consistent with Alzheimer's disease. Almost instantly the left hate machine went into action, with the pathetic George Clooney being one of the first to express satisfaction from another human being's misfortune. Heston responded, by saying Clooney lacked class, and said he felt sorry for Clooney, as Clooney had as much of a chance of developing Alzheimer's as anyone else.

Literally hours after it was announced that Charlton Heston passed away, the disgusting hate websites of the far left (Daily Kos, Huffington Post, etc.) sprung into a vile tirade of celebrating his death.

Just as Charlton Heston answered with class to Clooney's stupidity, so should we now feel sorry for a bunch of God-less hateful little nothings who probably think that death happens only to others and they'll leave for ever....

While pitying those atheists, I can't but remember Dane Cook's line: God will return them as trees...which will be cut down....made to paper and come back as....a Bible....

Rest in Peace Charlton Heston!

The"Obamintion": Truths and Lies

2008-04-03T18:20:00.005-07:00

Barck Hussein Obama would like to fool the American people into thinking that he is something else that what he really is:

- He would like to fool whites into thinking that he is "above" race (whatever that means), but the truth is that with friends such as Rev. Wright and L. Farrakhan is nothing but a closet racist
- He would like to fool Americans into thinking that he is a true patriot, but his wife's stupid remarque shows that he is just a hypocrit
- He would like to fool Americans into thinking that he has an idea about economy and foreign affairs but the truth is that he doesn't have a clue, he flip-flops on issues, talks in elusive, general terms and has no experience whatsoever in any of these areas.
- He would like to fool Jews into thinking that he is a friend of Israel when in fact his (not so distant) past proves otherwise (the picture, from a 1998 pro-Palestinian event, shows the Husseins share the table with Edward Said - PLO activist and adviser to Arafat, may he rot in hell)

How much will Obama succeed in fooling you is only up to you.
Don't be a fool!

What's in a Name?

2008-03-28T11:50:00.002-07:00

Bob Dylan's song – “The times they are a-changin’” is nowhere more actual than in today's Europe.

In 2006, the London Telegraph published this article: “Mohammed overtakes George in list of most popular names”. The famous British say “By George” is changing rapidly to “Ya’ Muhammad”.

The Telegraph went on to say that “Mohammed, and its most common alternative spelling Muhammad, are now more popular babies' names in England and Wales than George, reflecting the diverse ethnic mix of the population.” However, Muhammad (in its multitude of spellings) was only the 22^nd in the list of most popular boys' names. Names such as Jack, Thomas and Joshua still prevailed.

Fast forward to 2007, the BBC and the London Times proclaim: “Muhammad is No 2 in boy's names”. The Times: “Muhammad is now second only to Jack as the most popular name for baby boys in Britain and is likely to rise to No 1 by next year. The name, if all 14 different spellings are included, was shared by 5,991 newborn boys last year, beating Thomas into third place, followed by Joshua and Oliver.”

Europe, the way we know it, is about to disappear and that is a mathematical fact. Even the intellectually dishonest BBC is saying that: “Islam is widely considered Europe's fastest growing religion, with immigration and above average birth rates leading to a rapid increase in the Muslim population.”

The cold facts: it is estimated that in 30 years, there will be close to 65 Million Muslims in Europe, not including Turkey. (equal to France’s population today!). If the present trends of population continue (European negative population growth, coupled with high Muslim birth rates and out of control immigration), by the end of the century, Muslims will be majority in Europe. There is no arguing with this!

Selfish Europeans are dying out and as Christianity falters, Islam is robust, assertive, and ambitious. As Europeans under-reproduce at advanced ages, Muslims do so in large numbers while young. “When that happens, grand cathedrals will appear as vestiges of a prior civilization — at least until a Saudi style regime transforms them into mosques or a Taliban-like regime blows them up. The great national cultures — Italian, French, English, and others — will likely wither, replaced by a new transnational Muslim identity that merges North African, Turkish, subcontinental, and other elements.” (Daniel Pipes).

This prediction is hardly new. In 1968, the British politician Enoch Powell gave his famed "rivers of blood" speech in which he warned that in allowing excessive immigration, the United Kingdom was "heaping up its own funeral pyre."

“Europe has simultaneously reached unprecedented heights of prosperity and peacefulness and shown a unique inability to sustain itself. Is it inevitable that the most brilliantly successful society also will be the first in danger of collapse due to a lack of cultural confidence and offspring? Ironically, creating a hugely desirable place to live would seem also to be a recipe for suicide.” (demographer Wolfgang Lutz)

As most of Europe joins in recognizing the newest Muslim majority state - Kosovo, people from Scandinavia to the Balkans fail to see that they are gradually but surely digging their own cultural grave.

Bye, bye Europe…..

Hillary and Elena

2008-03-25T17:29:00.005-07:00

There once was a vile, horrible woman called Elena Ceausescu. She was married to a dictator, called Nicolae Ceausescu and they lived in a far, far away little country, hidden in the Eastern corner of Europe. Together, the Ceausescus lived a happy life oppressing their subjects and thinking of themselves as King and Queen. Although feared by the people, they were often ridiculed by them in countless jokes and stories, while a "vast right wing conspiracy" was constantly exposing them for what they really were (albeit broadcasting on "Free Europe" from the safety of Germany).
Their incompetent reign did not last happily ever after and came down to a violent end 30 long years after their ascendancy to the throne. THE END! (well, not really, since other incompetent knights fought for the throne which has been passed from a thief to another ever since, but that's another story for another night).

Why am I telling you this story (don't tell it to your kids at night; it may cause them long nightmares)? Watching the news today and hearing about yet another lie from the by now, pathological liar, Hillary Clinton, I realized that she has so much in common with Elena Ceausescu and decided to check the similarities. Lets see:

- Both Elena and Hillary think that they're smarter than their husbands and while Hillary is far more educated and smarter than Elena ever was, their ambitions had no limits.
- Both are ruthless when it comes to dealing with dissent. Elena preferred to destroy her opposition physically; Hillary would love to do that, be she cannot (living in a free country is a bitch...). Instead, she 's a character murderer.
- Both Elena and Hillary are despised by the majority of the population and ridiculed in countless jokes and satire.
- Both Elena and Hillary have a deep sense of entitlement. Presidency is owed to them and any one coming in their way must be crushed.
- Both lie through their teeth to a degree that they can't distinguish any longer between illusion and reality.
- Both would like to think that they've done so much "for the people" but both have a tough time when they have to actually point at some of their record (one thought she was an "eminent" chemistry scientist and the other would like you to believe that she brought peace to Norther Ireland -both ridiculous claims, of course!)
- Both are power hungry to the extreme and both made fortunes in less than honest ways: one by appropriating a country, the other by conducting questionable deals and pandering to special interests (again, the limitations of living in a free country, damn it!).

I'm sure that I could think of more examples, but I think you get the point. Now, to be fair, I certainly don't wish upon Hillary the same end that befell on Elena. I just hope that she will get the response that she deserves from the American people: GO AWAY!....oh,.....and take Slick Willie with you. As if being Senator is not punishment enough to the good people of NY....

Obama - Wrong for America, Dangerous for Israel

2008-03-25T11:54:00.004-07:00

RJC Calls on Sen. Obama to Remove Key Advisor

Washington,D.C. (March 25, 2008) -- The Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC) today called on Sen. Barack Obama to remove Gen. Merrill "Tony" McPeak as his military advisor and national campaign co-chairman.

"By choosing to have a military advisor and national campaign co-chairman like General McPeak, serious questions and doubts are once again being raised about Senator Obama's positions and judgment on Middle East issues," said RJC Executive Director Matt Brooks.

In a 2003 interview with the Oregonian, Gen. McPeak resorted to old stereotypes and unfortunate language by blaming the lack of progress with the Israeli-Palestinian peace process
on the undue political influence of American Jewry. The problem, said McPeak is "New York City. Miami. We have a large vote -- vote, here in favor of Israel. And no politician wants to run against it."

"Rather than putting the blame where it belongs -- on the Palestinian leadership and their continued reliance on terror, General McPeak finds it more convenient to blame American Jewry and their perceived influence," said Brooks. "This is the same dangerous and disturbing
canard being promoted by the likes of Jimmy Carter and authors Mearsheimer and Walt in their book, The Israel Lobby."

In addition, Gen. McPeak has a long history of criticizing Israel for not returning to the 1967 borders or returning the Golan Heights to Syria, as he wrote in Foreign Affairs in April 1976.

"Senator Obama continues to surround himself with advisors holding troubling and
disturbing anti-Israel bias. General McPeak's views are alarming. We call on Senator Obama to immediately remove General McPeak from his campaign leadership role and as a key advisor," said Brooks.

Israeli Left's dangerous delusion

2008-03-23T17:19:00.006-07:00

Two recent polls find a vast majority of Palestinians supporting terror attacks.

A recent Palestinian Authority poll shows that 84 percent of Palestinians approve of the massacre at Merkaz HaRav Yeshiva in Jerusalem, where eight students were gunned down and ten wounded. The poll, carried out by Ramallah-based pollster Khalil Shikaki from the "Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research ", interviewed 1,270. Another interesting, but hardly surprising find was that 64 percent of Palestinians support the rocket attacks on Israeli cities and towns such as Sderot and Ashkelon launched from Hamas-controlled Gaza. Those who oppose the attacks don’t do so on moral grounds, but rather strategic considerations.

In February of last year, a Near East Consulting (NEC) poll found that 75 percent of Palestinians do not think that Israel has a right to exist.

The Left is known for not being particularly keen of cold cut facts and in-your-face data; its main line of "reasoning" has more to do with wishful thinking and "feelings" than with reality. As destructive as this can be anywhere else, in Israel, the Left infatuation with "moderate" Palestinian leaders has a very dangerous aspect which can jeopardize the very existence of the Jewish state. Nowhere else in the world is the Left illusion more dangerous to become a nation's delusion than in the State of Israel at this very moment.

Since its rebirth, 60 years ago, the modern Jewish state had to fight for its very survival, often against overwhelming odds. Faced with physical genocide, most Israeli political factions shared a common view of the perils facing the tiny state: the need for a strong military, the undivided Jerusalem as Israel's eternal capital, the need for defensible borders, rejection of the so-called "right to return" and always keeping an open hand out for Peace with the Arab world.

Reminiscent of other "anti-war", intellectually dishonest and often morally bankrupt Leftists movement from other corners of the world, the Israeli Left has been influencing policy for the past 10-15 years. But if in places such as W Europe, S America or even USA, the Left influence has resulted mostly in quasi-socialist economic blunders, cowardice in face of Islamic terrorism and a general degradation of morals and religious values, in Israel, the Left ideological blindness has resulted in scores of innocent Israelis (Jews and Arabs) murdered, maimed, terrorized and frightened. The fallacies of the Israeli Left get people killed!

The Left mantra is "support the moderates". Their blind, mindless infatuation with "moderates" makes them overlook the intensive culture of hate perpetrated by the media and education establishment in the Palestinian Authority headed by the "moderate" Mahmoud Abbas. The Israeli Left and media also overlook telling people that Abu Mazen is also a Holcaust denier and would not renounce the "right of return", but again, who cares about (inconvenient) facts?

When disastrously weak and incompetent governments such as Ehud Barak's and the current one headed by Olmert take the path of the Left, men, women and children die. They die in the streets, in their homes, riding the bus or having lunch in a restaurant. No amount of after-the-fact, internationally condemned Israeli reaction will bring those innocent people back.

When is a mistake more than a mistake and becomes a CRIME? When a mistake gets people killed. And when a CRIMINAL mistake becomes a matter of policy and is repeated over and over, than the political establishment which perpetuates it is accomplice with the murderers.

Real Democracy demands accountability. There is none now in Israel. The Olmert government shares guilt for the victims of the "second" Lebanon war, the Qasam rockets and the massacre at Merkaz Ha'Rav because of its incompetence, blindness and politics that have made all these possible.

The Left and far-Left, on the other hand, is accomplice in the murders because of its intentional refuse to see the facts, thus giving the murderers its tacit acquiescence.

Every (free) country deserve the government it has. Nowhere is this more accurate than in Israel. But people should not have to pay with their lives for the demented delusions of a clique of pompous, self-important, holier-than-thou, morally bankrupt pinheads. Unlike most places in the world, in Israel, the Left has blood on its hands.

Obama's apologetical speech

2008-03-19T12:26:00.003-07:00

For all the hype surrounding Obama's supposed transcendent understanding of race relations in America, his speech yesterday exposed him for being an apologetic for black racism and hate mongering and not an accountable leader.

Flip-flopping on whether he was present in church at the time crazy Jeremiah's anti-American, anti-Israel, racist rants, Obama finally had to admit that he indeed was there when "controversial" and "occasionally fierce" critics were spewed by an enraged lunatic from the pulpit.

The fact that he did not promptly leave the place upon hearing Wright's poisonous nonsense is either because of poor judgement or acceptance of what was said (or both). In either case, this is not a man who should be entrusted with the highest office in the land. He's proven that he is not the "Great Unifier" his cohorts of groupies would like to portray. He cannot be a President for all Americans when his mentor and spiritual "adviser" is a racist and a promoter of "black liberation theology".

Michelle Malkin eloquently summarized Obama's speech: "Instead of accountability, we got excuses. Instead of disavowal of demagoguery, we got whacked with the moral equivalence card. Instead of rejecting the Blame America mantra of left-wing black nationalism, we
got more Blame Whitey. Same old, same old."

In his quest to distort the truth so it will fit his perception of reality, Obama dares to draw a parallel between the despicable, foul-mouthed pastor of the Trinity United Church of Christ, and "your pastor, priest or rabbi". Without knowing you, me or the vast majority of Americans, he states that you too have been appalled at times by statements made by your clergy....How dare he? What gives him the right to assume that just because his pastor spews invectives at his country - for 20 years - so is your priest or rabbi? Left unanswered, the shamelessness knows no boundaries.

Obama and his racist anti-Semitic supporters

2008-03-17T14:14:00.003-07:00

These are excerpts from a very insightful article wrote by Ronal Kessler on March 16th, 2008 and published on Newsmax.com. It provides information about Obama's real relationship with haters such as Farrakhan and Wright and exposes the Illinois Senator's hypocrisy and attempts to deceite the American public:

The Obama campaign has told members of the press that Senator Obama was not in church on the day cited, July 22, because he had a speech he gave in Miami at 1:30 PM. Our writer, Jim Davis, says he attended several services at Senator Obama's church during the month of July, including July 22. (...) Mr. Davis stands by his story that during one of the services he attended during the month of July, Senator Obama was present and sat through the sermon given by Rev. Wright as described in the story. (...) Mr. Davis' story was first published on Newsmax on August 9, 2007. Shortly before publication, Mr. Davis contacted the press office of Sen. Obama several times for comment about the Senator's attendance and Rev. Wright's comments during his sermon. The Senator's office declined to comment.

Contrary to Senator Barack Obama’s claim that he never heard his pastor Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. preach hatred of America, Obama was in the pews last July 22 when the minister blamed the “white arrogance” of America’s Caucasian majority for the world’s suffering, especially the oppression of blacks.
Senator Obama has sought to separate himself from his pastor’s incendiary remarks, issuing a statement Friday rejecting them as “inflammatory and appalling” but failing to renounce Wright himself for his venomous and paranoid denunciations of America.
In his press release, Obama claimed, “The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity [United Church of Christ] or heard him utter in private conversation.”

(...) If Obama’s claims are true that he was completely unaware that Wright’s trademark preaching style at the Trinity United Church of Christ has targeted “white” America and Israel, he would have been one of the few people in Chicago to be so uninformed. Wright’s reputation for spewing hate is well known.

In his sermon (...), Wright tore into America, referring to the “United States of White America” and lacing his sermon with expletives as Obama listened. Hearing Wright’s attacks on his own country, Obama had the opportunity to walk out, but Davis said the senator sat in his pew and nodded in agreement.
Addressing the Iraq war, Wright thundered, “Young African-American men” were “dying for nothing.” The “illegal war,” he shouted, was “based on Bush’s lies” and is being “fought for oil money.”

Obama’s most famous celebrity backer, Oprah Winfrey began attending Wright’s church in 1984. (...) She soon found herself a target of Wright, who excoriated her for having broken with “traditional faith.”

The Reverend Wright’s anti-white theology that Senator Obama expressed surprise over is evident on the church’s website. The site says the congregation subscribes to what it calls the Black Value System, which is described as a disavowal of “our racist competitive society” and the pursuit of “middle-classness.”

Senator Obama now is attempting to minimize his long and close relationship with the controversial minister.
On Friday, John McCain’s campaign distributed a Wall Street Journal op-ed “Obama and the Minister” written under my byline based on my reporting for Newsmax going back to early January of this year.
The op-ed included details of a sermon Wright gave at Howard University blaming America for starting the AIDS virus, training professional killers, importing drugs, shamelessly supporting Israel, and creating a racist society that would never elect a black man as president.
(...) Obama’s campaign quickly responded to the Wall Street Journal op-ed, posting a statement on the Huffington Post. In his statement, Obama acknowledged that some of Wright’s statements have been “inflammatory and appalling.”

(...) Obama went on to claim that he first learned about Wright’s controversial statements when he began his presidential campaign. But this assertion conflicts with the fact that just before Obama’s nationally televised campaign kickoff rally on Feb. 10, 2007, the candidate disinvited Wright from giving the public invocation.
At the time, Wright explained: “When [Obama’s] enemies find out that in 1984 I went to Tripoli” to visit Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi with Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, “a lot of his Jewish support will dry up quicker than a snowball in hell.”

(...) Apparently Obama never foresaw Wright’s sermons making national television or becoming a sensation on YouTube. But lending graphic detail to the saga, ABC News and other networks began running a 2003 sermon in which Wright said, “The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing ‘God Bless America.’ No, no, no, God damn America, that’s in the Bible, for killing innocent people ... God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme.”

Obama has described Wright as a sounding board and mentor. Wright is one of the first people Obama thanked after his election to the Senate in 2004. Obama consulted Wright before deciding to run for president. The title of Obama’s bestseller “The Audacity of Hope” comes from one of Wright’s sermons. Obama’s “Yes We Can!” slogan is one of Wright’s exhortations.

Apologists for Wright have said that what he says is normal in black churches, and many blacks claim such preaching cannot be understood by whites.
(...) But Juan Williams, a Fox News commentator and author of “Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America,” tells Newsmax that Wright’s sermons reflect “the victim mindset that is so self-defeating in the black community and one that is played on by weak black leadership that chooses to have black people identified as victims rather than inspiring them as people who have overcome. In posing as victims, they say the most prejudiced and vicious things, not only about whites but about America. They call it theology. In fact, it’s nothing but bigotry.”

In failing to condemn Wright himself and claiming that he was unaware of the preacher’s hate-filled speech, Obama is continuing a longstanding pattern.
Obama often refers to Wright as being "like an old uncle, who sometimes says things I don't agree with

(...) Like Wright, Farrakhan has repeatedly made hate-filled statements targeting Jews (calling Judaism a “gutter religion”), whites, and America. He has called whites “blue-eyed devils” and the “anti-Christ.” He has described Jews as “bloodsuckers” who control the government, the media, and some black organizations.
After the Newsmax story, Obama issued a statement purportedly addressing the issue.
"I decry racism and anti-Semitism in every form and strongly condemn the anti-Semitic statements made by Minister Farrakhan," Obama said.
Again, Obama was careful not to condemn Farrakhan himself or Wright who had spoken adoringly of Farrakhan and put their church behind the award to the controversial Nation of Islam leader.

(...) Having gotten away with sidestepping Wright’s adoring comments about Farrakhan, Obama told Jewish leaders flatly in Cleveland on Jan. 24 that the award was because of Farrakhan’s work with ex-offenders. To date, no news outlet has pointed out that Obama’s claim is false.

Obama went on to explain away Wright’s anti-Zionist statements as being rooted in his anger over the Jewish state’s support for South Africa under its previous policy of apartheid. As with his claim that the award to Farrakhan was made because of his work with ex-offenders, Obama made that up. Wright’s statements denouncing Israel have not been qualified in any way.

(...) Having considered Wright a friend and mentor for two decades, Obama now often mentions that his pastor recently retired. Wright suggested to the New York Times last year that he and Obama might have to do something of a distancing act in the run up to the election.
"If Barack gets past the primary, he might have to publicly distance himself from me," Wright was quoted by The New York Times. "I said it to Barack personally, and he said, ‘Yeah, that might have to happen.'"

As Obama is trying more and more to apply tactics and maneuvres best known as Clintonesque in nature, his false image of "a uniter, not a divider" is starting to give way to his true face. It's an ugly and scary face, much like the ones of Farrakhan and Wright. The American people should see him for what he truely is and reject him and his message of "change".

McCain visits Israel, Hillary exposed

2008-03-13T17:59:00.006-07:00

On March 18th, John McCain will visit Israel. He will be accompanied by Senators Joe Lieberman and Lindsay Graham. Matt Brooks of the Republican Jewish Coalition said the trip was "an incredibly important gesture on Senator McCain's part. It reflects his understanding of how important the issue of Israel's security is for him to take the time out in the middle of a
campaign to show his support and solidarity."

I think that I voice the opinion of many others when I say that a McCain-Lieberman ticket would be a great option. When the Democrats seem so excited about a woman and/or a black man as their Presidential nominees, having Lieberman on the VP slot would go a long way.

For starters, it will sway the Jewish vote away from the Democrats (especially if Obama wins the nomination). There have already been reports that should Obama beat Hillary in the Democratic race, there will be a strong move of the Jewish vote to the Republican side. More and more Jews start to realize that the Democratic Party is not as stanch a supporter of Israel as it ones was. Certainly Obama's link to a racist anti-Semite pastor (whom he knows for 20 years!) and his endorsement by the most invective and disgusting American racist, are no reasons to vote Democratic in November.

Second, Lieberman is well liked and admired in his home state of Connecticut, one of the bluest states in the nation. Could Connecticut be in play? I strongly believe that with Lieberman on the GOP ticket, Florida will fall solidly into the Republican camp.

Third, Lieberman brings strong credentials of tough on national security and the war on terror.

Forth, Lieberman was elected in 2006 as an Independent after losing the Democratic primary for re-election in Connecticut to a far left Ned Lamont, which got the support of the Party nomenclature. There is no lost love between Lieberman and the Democrats and the Liberals won't have much to attack the man who, in 2000 was the first Jewish vice presidential candidate and ran with their beloved Al Gore.

I know that Lieberman has repeatedly insisted he is not interested in the Republican vice presidential nomination, despite his endorsement of McCain and persistent campaigning for him.
But photos of McCain in Jerusalem with Lieberman are bound to be a major piece of his outreach to Jewish voters.

On the pinhead category (borrowing a note from the Great Bill O'Reilly), here's Hillary Clinton bragging that her "extensive" foreign policy experience makes her best prepared to meet national security challenges on "Day One".

<<"You know," she said, "helping to support the peace process in Northern Ireland, negotiating to open borders so that (Kosovar) refugees fleeing ethnic cleansing would be safe, going to Beijing and standing up for women's rights as human rights and so much else.">>

But it turns out Hillary exaggerated her list of foreign policy accomplishments, which is really quite pathetic considering how meager they already are.

First, she never played a key role in brokering peace in Northern Ireland, according to former first minister David Trimble, who said she had no direct role in the talks.

Second, Hillary did travel to Macedonia in May 1999, and she did visit refugee camps near the Kosovo border. However, no one knows how she helped the Kosovar refugees when Macedonia reopened its border to them before her visit.

And finally, when she was in Beijing, she carried no official portfolio while speaking on women's rights there.

Hillary did not attend any National Security Council meetings, never sat in the Situation Room during crises, never read in on presidential security briefings and she was not part of the Cabinet.

She did, however, take campaign checks from Chinese bagmen for the People's Liberation Army.

Hillary couldn't even answer MSNBC host Tim Russert's question about Russian President Putin's hand-picked successor:

Russert: Who will it be? Do you know his name?

Hillary: Medved —

Russert: Medvedev.

Hillary: Medvedeva — whatever —

Russert: Yes.

Hillary: Yes. (Giggle.)

Whatever? She runs adds trying to convince us that she is ready "On Day One" and will pick up that telephone at 3:00 AM but can't even say who the President of Russia is? What a fake, phony fraud she is....

One of Obama's foreign policy advisers, Susan Rice, said it best when she confessed that neither he nor Hillary would be ready to pick up the White House red phone at 3 a.m.

If the Democrats win in November

2008-03-13T13:54:00.005-07:00

A lot has been said about the Bush tax cuts. The Democrats and their Liberal cohorts depicted the tax cuts in terms of "class warfare" (tax cuts for the rich, corporate welfare, etc.).

The factual truth is that the Bush tax cuts have provided relief to most American families, of all income levels and kept our economy going strong through years of war spending, natural disasters and rising oil prices.

On Thursday, the Senate voted 52-47 to reject a move by Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-S.C., to extend Bush's tax cuts for middle- and higher-income taxpayers. John McCain, Republican presidential nominee-in-waiting, voted for the full roster of Bush tax cuts. Rivals Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, both voted against them.

The developments came as the Senate began a full day of votes on a $3 trillion Democratic budget blueprint for 2009. The nonbinding plan promises generous increases for many domestic programs, but achieves those goals only by assuming major tax increases when Bush's tax cuts expire. Obama and Clinton both promise to reverse Bush's tax cuts, but the Democratic budget they'll be voting for would allow income tax rates to go up on individuals making as little as $31,850 and couples earning $63,700 or more. Socialism is expensive and if you didn't know that, just ask the Europeans.

"The biggest issue in this campaign is going to be your taxes," Bush said Wednesday night at a GOP fundraiser. "I think the biggest issue in this campaign is which side of the political divide is going to let you keep your money, and which side is going to raise your taxes."

Under the Democratic plans (in the Senate and Congress), tax rates would increase by 3 percentage points for each of the 25 percent, 28 percent and 33 percent brackets. At present, the 25 percent bracket begins at $31,850 for individuals and $63,700 for married couples. The 35 percent bracket on incomes over $349,700 would jump to 39.6 percent. The Democratic plans would provide generous, greater-than-inflation increases for domestic agency budgets.

All those who want to pay more in taxes raise your hands....Now get out of here!

Tell me who your friends are.... part 2

2008-03-12T18:33:00.003-07:00

I started this blog by asking "Tell me who your friends are and I'll tell you who you are" and listed some of Barack Hussein Obama's friends. First on the list, the pastor of his church, a foul-mouth racist - Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr.
Many of Obama's apologists tried to cry "guilt by association" and distance the Illinois Senator from his long time friend. But I guess Wright didn't get that memo, because he barked from the pulpit the following:

"Hillary ain't never been called a nigger. Hillary has never had a people defined as a non-person."

The title of Obama's second book, "The Audacity of Hope," was taken from a sermon by Wright.
Obama issued the usual lip-service of distancing himself from the pastor, but last week, while campaigning in Ohio he said this:

"Jeremiah Wright ... has said some things that are considered controversial because he's considered that part of his social gospel."

Wright preaches a racist Afrocentric theology that interprets the Bible through shared suffering of African Americans. His sermons often address themes of perceived "white supremacy" and "black repression". Obama's campaign may try to paint Wright as a legitimate black leader, but once his remarks were widely publicized last year, Obama backed out of plans for his pastor to speak at his Feb. 10 presidential announcement. He was probably afraid to have his friend say something like this:

"(...) Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run.

We are deeply involved in the importing of drugs, the exporting of guns and the training of professional killers. ... We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God. ... We conducted radiation experiments on our own people. ... We care nothing about human life if the ends justify the means.

(...) And! God! Has got! To be sick! Of this shit!"

Qaddafi is right

2008-03-08T14:51:00.002-08:00

I didn't think that I'll ever say this, but Muammar al-Qaddafi, the Dictator of Libya, is right. Then again, even a broken a clock is right twice a day.

"I've seen that in America, a candidate who wants people to vote for him keeps talking about change," Qaddafi said earlier this week in a televised address on Libyan TV, an obvious reference to Barack Obama.

"They all keep saying 'change, change,' " he continued, adding Hillary Clinton to his reference. "They want to change America and its current political system. They want to make a change in their lives. They say their system is a failure, that their government is a failure, and that their elections are a failure."

He then lost it, rumbling about how all the world should adopt the "Libyan model" of a "Republic for the Masses", etc., etc., etc.....an idea which appeals more to the average European leftist than to the Arab street.

Qaddafi's lunacy notwithstanding, one must admit that he has a point and sees the emptiness of the Democrats' message. Now if he can also advise them on matters of Foreign Policy, I think the Liberals have a "winner" this coming November....