The Disgraceful Compromise of the State of Israel and Magen David Adom

I  Magen David Adom and the Red Cross. By Yehudit Tayar

II “What Magen David Adom Victory? By Jerome S.  Kaufman

(Written June 30, 2006 after this disgraceful compromise was allowed by the Israelis)

I Magen David Adom and the Red Cross

By Yehudit Tayar

January 9,  2012

The Red Star of David, or as we know it here in Israel, Magen David Adom signed an agreement in 2005 with the Red Cross that MDA will work only within the ” internationally recognized borders of Israel” and thereby will cease the medical assistance in the Old City of Jerusalem, Gilo, Pisgat Ze’ev, Ramat Eshkol, French Hill, Ramot,  (to name a few neighborhoods of Jerusalem that are affected by this agreement ), Judea, Samaria, the Jordan Valley, and the Dead Sea Region.  In other words MDA agreed to cease rescue services outside of the pre-1967 borders.

Already the first implementation of this agreement has been the removal of the symbol of MDA from our ambulances in Judea and Samaria. 

We, the volunteers on the ambulance are still called out by MDA to try and save lives.  We get the calls from MDA with the old number that was removed from the ambulance and not the new one that was placed recently as a part of the signed agreement with the Red Cross.  We are on call 24/7 and yet MDA never even told us volunteers that they basically agreed that we are no longer an accepted part of our own country.

We, the heads of Yesha along with MK Uri Ariel and MK Arieh Eldad are planning to push forward in the Knesset a bill demanding the MDA to cancel this agreement, and as the official medical organization of Israel to protect Israeli interests, citizens and Land no matter where they live. The Minister of Internal Security has already passed a new resolution in the Knesset that MDA will no longer be the exclusive rescue organization of the State of Israel.

Not a word was said to any of us – hundreds of volunteers – regarding this vile agreement that MDA signed until the word leaked out.  When I asked the heads of MDA what this meant, I was told that the symbols would be removed from the ambulances and then after the inspection we could replace them.  Talk about duplicity….

These ambulances were leased for the immediate medical response to emergencies in Israel, and the donors who gave their money in order to save lives now rightfully, as we volunteers do, feel betrayed.

Any organization representing Israel must respect the lives of all the citizens of Israel and not draw their own new borders because of monetary greed.  MDA surreptitiously signed an agreement, never mentioned the implications of this agreement with the Red Cross, and thus betrayed not only the Israeli citizens, the volunteers in our ambulances but also the donors who gave their money with the understanding that MDA also serviced our communities.

MDA must retract this agreement immediately and if not it is not acceptable that they remain the medical organization for the State of Israel.

Yehudit Tayar was on the steering committee of the Yesha Council to bring MDA ambulances into Yesha (since previously it was MDA policy not to have ambulances in Judea, Samaria and Gaza), and serves as a volunteer emergency medic, as well as one of the veteran spokespeople for the Jewish pioneers who live in Yesha. 

II From Israel Commentary:

June 30, 2006

What Magen David Adom “Victory?”

By Jerome S. Kaufman

Once again Jews, especially Israelis, are advised that the Emperor is fully clothed when in fact he has no clothes, except for those viewers who prefer to live in their own self-delusion. The latest fiasco is the heralding as a great “Victory” the fact that the International Red Cross has finally condescended to allow one of the finest humanitarian emergency units in the world – Magen David Adom of Israel – to become a  part of the organization. The news is trumpeted by reporter Rachel Silverman in her Jewish Telegraphic Agency article as a “Magen David Adom Victory” which “reflects 58 years of aggressive sustained lobbying and a last-minute push.

But at what cost and what was the “last minute push (now six months in the making) dependent upon? Not much –  just that the Jewish organization hide its identity by changing its insignia – no more Jewish star on their ambulances in locations where the nation receiving Jewish aid and Jewish blood objected!  Evidently having the Jewish star on the ambulances would be too embarrassing and give the Jews and particularly the Israelis, too much credit. How could the sight of Jews and Israelis in such a favorable light be explained to the masses of population that had been taught so diligently to hate Jews?

Of course, these restrictions do not apply to the nations of the rest of the world. They will continue proudly to exhibit their Red Cross, the Muslims their Red Crescent and by the way, the Palestinian Authority will also be admitted, although no such nation yet exists, and will, of course, have a Red Crescent – no unidentifiable red square like the Jews!

So the “Jewish Problem” was again solved.  The Jews simply re-assumed their shtetl mentality, that they have never, in fact, lost – speak quietly, hide in your cellars at the time of another pogrom and try, at all costs, to not irritate your non-Jewish assailants.

The JTA article concludes:  “After the ruling, Rabbi Danny Allen of the American Friends of Magen David Adom called it a “vote for humanitarian over sectarian politics.” How noble, how very Jewish! Only in this case,  the very existence of Jews and the State of Israel, are the “sectarian politics’ at stake.

Once more, as Jews, as Israelis,  we take no pride in our own existence, our glorious history, our remarkable G-d-given achievements, and his return to us, after 2000 years, of our nationhood.  How then can we possibly expect more from those that surround us?


The beautiful unappreciated, unreported history of Israel in South Sudan

South Sudan, Israel’s New Ally

“Without you, we would not have arisen”

By Daniel Pipes
The Washington Times
January 3, 2012

It’s not every day that the leader of a brand-new country makes his maiden foreign voyage to Jerusalem, capital of the most besieged country in the world, but Salva Kiir, president of South Sudan, accompanied by his foreign and defense ministers, did just that in late December. Israel’s President Shimon Peres hailed his visit as a “moving and historic moment.” The visit spurred talk of South Sudan locating its embassy in Jerusalem, making it the only government anywhere in the world to do so.

This unusual development results from an unusual story.

Today’s Sudan took shape in the nineteenth century when the Ottoman Empire controlled its northern regions and tried to conquer the southern ones. The British, ruling out of Cairo, established the outlines of the modern state in 1898 and for the next fifty years ruled separately the Muslim north and Christian-animist south. In 1948, however, succumbing to northern pressure, the British merged the two administrations in Khartoum under northern control, making Muslims dominant in Sudan and Arabic its official language.

Accordingly, independence in 1956 brought civil war, as southerners battled to fend off Muslim hegemony. Fortunately for them, Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion’s “periphery strategy” translated into Israeli support for non-Arabs in the Middle East, including the southern Sudanese. The government of Israel served through the first Sudanese civil war, lasting until 1972, as their primary source of moral backing, diplomatic help, and armaments.

Mr. Kiir acknowledged this contribution in Jerusalem, noting that “Israel has always supported the South Sudanese people. Without you, we would not have arisen. You struggled alongside us in order to allow the establishment of South Sudan.” In reply, Mr.Peres recalled his presence in the early 1960s in Paris, when then-Prime Minister Levi Eshkol and he initiated Israel’s first-ever link with southern Sudanese leaders.

Sudan’s civil war continued intermittently from 1956 until 2005. Over time, Muslim northerners became increasingly vicious toward their southern co-nationals, culminating in the 1980-90s with massacreschattel slavery, and genocide. Given Africa’s many tragedies, such problems might not have made an impression on compassion-weary Westerners except for an extraordinary effort led by two modern-day American abolitionists.

Starting in the mid-1990s, John Eibner of Christian Solidarity International redeemed tens of thousands of slaves in Sudan while Charles Jacobs of the American Anti-Slavery Group led a “Sudan Campaign” in the United States that brought together a wide coalition of organizations. As all Americans abhor slavery, the abolitionists formed a unique alliance of Left and Right, including Barney Frank and Sam Brownback, the Congressional Black Caucus and Pat Robertson, black pastors and white Evangelicals. In contrast, Louis Farrakhan was exposed and embarrassed by his attempts to deny slavery’s existence in Sudan.

Israel’s long-term investment has paid off. South Sudan fits into a renewed periphery strategy that includes Cyprus, Kurds, Berbers, and, perhaps one day, a post-Islamist Iran. South Sudan offers access to natural resources, especially oil. Its role inNile River water negotiations offers leverage vis-à-vis Egypt. Beyond practical benefits, the new republic represents an inspiring example of a non-Muslim population resisting Islamic imperialism through its integrity, persistence, and dedication. In this sense, the birth of South Sudan echoes that of Israel.The abolitionist effort culminated in 2005 when the George W. Bush administration pressured Khartoum in 2005 to sign the Comprehensive Peace Agreement that ended the war and gave southerners a chance to vote for independence. They enthusiastically did so in January 2011, when 98 percent voted for secession from Sudan, leading to the formation of the Republic of South Sudan six months later, an event hailed by Mr. Peres as “a milestone in the history of the Middle East.”.

If Kiir’s Jerusalem visit is truly to mark a milestone, South Sudan must travel the long path from dirt-poor, international protectorate with feeble institutions to modernity and genuine independence. This path requires the leadership not to exploit the new state’s resources nor dream of creating a “New Sudan” by conquering Khartoum, but to lay the foundations for successful statehood.

For the Israelis and other Westerners, this means both helping with agriculture, health, and education and urging Juba to stay focused on defense and development while avoiding wars of choice. A successful South Sudan could eventually become a regional power and a stalwart ally not just of Israel but of the West.

Mr. Pipes is president of the Middle East Forum and Taube distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University.


Dear Dr. Kaufman:  Thank you, Israel and Dr. Pipes for remembering those of us in South Sudan.  The struggle in 1972 prevented my wife and I leaving Uganda to go down(south) the Nile to Egypt and Israel. Today you have cleared that ancient river from the baneful governance of Islam and opened it in part to black south Sudanese Africans.  Neither Elijah Muhammad nor Louis Farrakhan would understand but Malcom ‘X’ might. Best, Dan Corbett

Obama is outclassed and outsmarted by retiring Gen. Petraeus

The Washington Times Editorial

EDITORIAL: An old soldier who wont fade away

Obama is outclassed and outsmarted by retiring Gen. Petraeus

Gen. David H. Petraeus closed his phenomenal 37-year Army career this week with a joint review at Fort Myer in Arlington . Service members from every branch were present, and flags of all 50 states fluttered in the breeze. A substantial crowd had come to hear the general’s farewell address. Many were classmates from the West Point Class of 1974, smartly attired but enthusiastic and occasionally whooping like they were cadets. Others were people with whom he had served over his storied career, whom he recognized from the dais during his speech. The morning was sunny and clear, and the general was his usual affable, ebullient self.

In his remarks, Gen. Petraeus recalled the days when he entered the military, when the Vietnam War was winding down and the armed services were being pared down to the “hollow forces” of the 1970s. “The Army I joined as a second lieutenant had suffered enormously,” he said. “In the wake of our involvement in Vietnam , our Army and much of our military were grappling with a host of very serious challenges.” The senior leaders who first wore the uniform in those dark days were not discouraged. They began their careers with a sense of mission. “I know I speak for many when I say that we came away from that period vowing to never let our forces get to such a point ever again.” Through his efforts, and those of countless other visionaries in and out of uniform, the hollow forces were transformed once again into the finest fighting force in the world. Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, presided over the ceremony with William J. Lynn, deputy secretary of defense. Notably absent were Secretary of Defense Leon E. Panetta, whose former position as CIA director is Gen. Petraeus’ next assignment, and President Obama. Their non-appearance did not sit well with some. “Obama should have been here,” a warrior who served under Gen. Petraeus told The Washington Times. “And he should have invited [former President George W.] Bush. The general saved their bacon. Twice.

“Everyone has forgotten that in 2007 we as a nation had said, ‘OK, we are going to lose Iraq .’ And President Bush said, ‘Well what if we win?’ Petraeus rode into town and assembled an extraordinary team. His personal drive, his charisma, his optimism, his can-do spirit, all of that is what gave us hope that we could in fact turn Iraq around,” our source explained. “And by September of ’07, the progress had been dramatic enough that it became common knowledge to the American people that things were turning around in Iraq . Eight months earlier, a lot of people, including Obama, wanted to tuck tail and have another Vietnam .”

That’s not all. “Here is the guy who saved our reputation as a nation. Seriously, who’s missing this? And then he went to [Central Command] and was doing great things. And Obama asked him to take a functional demotion and go back to Afghanistan and save our bacon again,” we were told. “To leave his family, to step down from a regional command, to take on that burden. And he said yes, and he did it. Petraeus was the right guy at the right time, he answered the call, and now he’s being yanked out before we’re ready, just like the troops are being yanked out before Afghanistan is ready.”

So what’s the reason for the White House about-face? “They are sending him to the CIA to keep him quiet during the 2012 election. It shows how small and scared they are. He is an honorable man, he has never expressed political ambition. But they saw him as a threat. He is an independent thinker, the finest military mind of his generation,” our source posits. “What he suffers from is that he is more excellent than almost anyone he meets, to include the president. The troops love him. Strong people surround themselves with the most excellent people they can find, even those brighter and more capable than themselves. Weak people don’t.”

There is a shameful indignity in how this hero was treated. “The president couldn’t find the time in his schedule, nor could the [defense secretary] find the time to look him in the eye and say thank you in person,” this warrior told The Washington Times. “It’s one thing to say ‘we support the troops’ and trot out your first lady to do that, but this is where it counts. It would have been an appropriate gesture to come here to recognize the professional and personal sacrifice of this extraordinary man. It would have been the dignified thing to do.”

The hero remained above it all. The cannons boomed and the crowd cheered and Gen. Petraeus stood smiling in the sun.

Copyright 2011 The Washington Times, LLC.






Obama embraces Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood!

Muslim Brotherhood Realities New and Old

Redacted from article by Steven Emerson

Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) News
January 5, 2012

The votes still aren’t fully counted in Egypt, but the Obama administration has seen enough to reverse long-standing and well-rooted policies to shun the theocratic, global Caliphate-minded Muslim Brotherhood, whose philosophy spawned terrorist movements from Hamas to al-Qaida.

High level meetings between American and Brotherhood officials reflect a “new political reality here [in Egypt], and indeed around the region,” the New York Times reported in a front page article Wednesday, “as Islamist groups come to power.”

What is astounding and dangerous about the new U.S. recognition is the fact that Brotherhood leaders became more openly radical and militant once Mubarak was thrown out, issuing incendiary speeches calling for “martyrdom” operations against Israel and aligning with Hamas and other terrorist groups. Yet as the New York Times wrote, the Obama administration accepts as truthful “the Brotherhood’s repeated assurances that its lawmakers want to build a modern democracy that will respect individual freedoms, free markets and international commitments, including Egypt’s treaty with Israel,” the Times reported.

But there’s another reality that seems overlooked. And that’s the Brotherhood’s history of deception and duplicity, policies that reflect its modus operandi in gaining legitimacy in Egypt and around the world but still promoting a militant agenda. While some MB officials may tell American officials they will respect individual liberties and honor Egypt’s peace treaty with Israel, it’s not hard to find massive evidence that paints a different and more disturbing picture.

As we reported last week, the Brotherhood is poised to dominate the next Egyptian government after vowing last spring that it sought no such power. The group’s deputy chief says the Brotherhood “will not recognize Israel under any circumstances” and may place the peace treaty before voters in a referendum.

Brotherhood members must see their electoral success as a huge step in the direction of creating “the rightly guided caliphate.” The United States would be foolish to differ. It also would be foolish to overlook the Brotherhood’s record.

After American commandos killed Osama bin Laden, the Brotherhood told English language audiences “one of the reasons for which violence has been practiced in the world has been removed,” Reuters reported. In Arabic, however, they referred to the mass-murdering al-Qaida founder with the honorary term of Sheikh and called him a shaheed, or martyr. The statement also criticized the American attack as an assassination.

Despite their reputations among some in the West as supposed moderates, Brotherhood officials routinely endorse terrorism. Hamas, the Palestinian terrorist group in control of Gaza, declares itself to be the Brotherhood’s Palestinian branch. Its peaceful intent includes recent re-iterations of its commitment to violent jihad and its vow never to accept the state of Israel’s right to exist.

But the Brotherhood’s threat of violence is not limited to actions against Israel. Influential Brotherhood theologian Yusuf al Qaradawi endorsed kidnapping and killing American civilians in Iraq in 2004 as an “obligation so as to cause them to leave Iraq immediately.”

More recently, Qaradawi has called on Muslims to acquire nuclear weapons “to terrorize their enemies” and sanctioned killing Israeli women because they serve in the army. He has prayed to be martyred while killing a Jew.

Incredibly, there has been no American confirmation or denial of an Indian newspaper report last week which indicated Qaradawi is helping broker peace talks between the United States and the Taliban, which itself is scandalous.

But this is the same administration whose Director of National Intelligence called the Brotherhood “a very heterogeneous group, largely secular, which has eschewed violence,” during a February congressional hearing. James Clapper tried to walk this back in subsequent statements, but his assessment flew in the face of all the Brotherhood has said about itself since its founding in 1928, beginning with its motto:

“God is our goal, the Quran is our Constitution, the Prophet is our leader, jihad is our way, and death in the service of God is the loftiest of our wishes.”

Deception is part of the Brotherhood’s modus operandi in America as well. Evidence in the largest terror-financing trial in U.S. history shows the Muslim Brotherhood created a network of Hamas-support organizations here, operating as the “Palestine Committee.”

Unfortunately, the Obama administration’s embrace of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt parallels its embrace of Muslim Brotherhood American branches and front groups whose officials say nice things on American television, yet continue to covertly spread the ideology of, and in many cases funded, Islamic militancy and terrorism. Throughout its history, Brotherhood groups and leaders around the world starting with al-Banna, its founder, in Egypt, have spread the incendiary conspiratorial doctrine that the West, Christians, Jews and infidels have secretly conspired to suppress Islam since 1095, the year of the first Crusade.  Brotherhood leaders blamed Israel, Jews and the United States for the 9/11 attacks. Nearly every Islamic terrorist arrest in the United States has been described by Islamist leaders as evidence of a “war against Islam.”

The Muslim Brotherhood, where ever it is around the world, from Cairo to Chicago, seeks to gain legitimacy thru a campaign of deception and penetration of western regimes and institutions. It defies common sense to grant unilateral legitimacy to the Brotherhood without demanding concrete actions to openly disavow its support for Islamic terrorist groups or stopping the spread of its mass incendiary message that there is a war against Islam.

Wittingly or unwittingly, the United States has now become a de facto enabler of a militant ideology that ultimately seeks the destruction of our own way of life.

The Proven Cost of Weakening American Military Defenses

Lessons never learned

Today’s defense cuts are recreating conditions that led to Pearl Harbor

By Adm. James A. Lyons

The Washington Times

December 12, 2011

As we mark the 70th anniversary of Imperial Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor of Dec. 7, 1941, America is on the verge of committing the same mistakes that helped plunge our nation into its most grievous war. The first mistake then was to impose the strategic restraints of “political correctness” on our Hawaiian military commanders. Adm. Husband E. Kimmel, commander in chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, was ordered by Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Harold R. Stark to prepare the fleet for deployment but not do anything provocative that might offend the super-sensibilities of the Japanese. Lt. Gen. Walter G. Short, commanding general of the U.S. Army Force in Hawaii, who was responsible for the air defense of the Hawaiian Island including Pearl Harbor, was ordered not to take any offensive action until the Japanese had committed an “act of war.”

Does it sound familiar? The political correctness imposed on our commanders leading up to the attack on Pearl Harbor, regretfully, resonates in today’s military, including the war on terrorism and our efforts to defend ourselves from China.

A second mistake then – about to be committed again – is the gutting of our military readiness, which, at the time of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, was a national disgrace. It was so bad that Gen. George C. Marshall, chief of staff of the Army, and Adm. Stark wrote a joint letter to President Franklin D. Roosevelt, asking him not to issue any “ultimatum” to the Japanese because they knew the U.S. Pacific Fleet was numerically inferior to the Imperial Japanese Navy. Compounding the problem, Gen. Short was not provided with basic resources, including adequate surveillance and fighter aircraft. He was given only three mobile radar stations with coverage out to 120 miles that could only be operated between 4 a.m. and 7 a.m. each day due to lack of personnel and power.

Fortunately, over the years we have learned the hard lesson that unpreparedness invites aggression. President Reagan’s “Peace through Strength” is as valid today as it was 30 years ago. The Cold War was won based on that strategy. Today, however, with fighting two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, our military as well as our resources have been severely strained. While we still have the resources to protect our national security and achieve our objectives, political correctness has imposed restricted “rules of engagement” on our warfighters, resulting in many unnecessary fatalities.

No enemy has been able to defeat our military. Our forces represent the best of America and guarantee not only our national security but provide the recognized military underpinnings to support our friends and allies against aggression.

The threats we face today cannot be ignored. We are being challenged by China not only in the western Pacific but globally. Their spread of nuclear weapons technology to North Korea, Pakistan and Iran has been destabilizing. Nor can their transfer of weapons and missiles to Iran be swept under the rug. A resurgent Russia, plus an unstable Middle East with a nuclear-equipped Iran, must be factored into any threat equation. Since we have not displayed political will when directly confronted by Iran, a nuclear Islamic Republic will be uncontrollable in the Middle East and possibly elsewhere.

While our military has always had the conventional resources to eliminate Iran’s nuclear weapon infrastructure, that capability will be severely constrained in the future as a result of the supercommittee’s budget stalemate. This failure in deficit reduction will now trigger debt “sequestration.” The military is currently struggling to manage $450 billion in mandated cuts. Sequestration, if enacted, will cut another $600 billion for a total reduction of more than $1 trillion to support our military forces. Secretary of Defense Leon E. Panetta has stated that such severe cuts will “gut the military.” With the threats we now know exist, our national security will be in danger.

There are some members of Congress who have suggested that the mandatory cuts to defense should be modified. In a recent Politico-Battleground poll, the American people by an overwhelming 82 percent reject further cuts to our national defense. However, that sentiment does not appear to resonate with President Obama, who has categorically stated that he will veto any change to the mandated defense cuts. Clearly, such draconian cuts place our national security in jeopardy. One of the president’s key duties under our Constitution is “to provide for the common defense.” A presidential veto would raise the question: What is the real objective? What lesson do we have to learn over again?

Retired Adm. James A. Lyons was commander in chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet and senior U.S. military representative to the United Nations.

The Residuum of Joe Stalin’s Plant on American Soil?

The Residuum of Joe Stalin’s Plant on American Soil?

The Mindless and Self – Destructive Collusion of the American Media

Isn’t it amazing that, within only one week of Tiger Woods crashing his Escalade, the press found every woman with whom Tiger has had an affair during the last few years? And, they even uncovered photos, text messages, recorded phone calls,  etc.! Furthermore, they not only know the cause of the family fight, but they even know it was a wedge from his golf bag that his wife used to break out the windows in the Escalade. Not only that, they know which wedge! And, each & every day, they were able to continue to provide America with updates on Tiger’s sex rehab stay, his wife’s plans for divorce, as well as the dates & tournaments in which he will play.

Now, Barack Hussein Obama has been in office for two years, yet this very same press cannot find any of his childhood friends or neighbors;  Or find any of Obama’s high school or college classmates, Or locate any of his college papers or grades;  Or determine how he paid for both a Columbia & a Harvard education; Or  discover which country issued his visa to travel to Pakistan in the 1980′s;  Or even find Michelle Obama’s Princeton thesis on racism. They just can’t seem to uncover any of this. Yet, the public still trusts that same press to give them the whole truth! I find that totally amazing, don’t you?

Are you curious about our president’s background? Or is it insignificant, in your judgement? For your information, some of these have been answered. WHERE ARE THE GIRL FRIENDS of OBAMA? I hadn’t thought about this – but where are O’s past girlfriends  –  surely he had at least one? No past girl friends popping up anywhere? Strange – strange to the point of being downright weird!

OK, this is just plain old common sense, no political agendas for either side. Just common knowledge for citizens of a country, especially American citizens, who know every little tidbit about every other president (and their wives) that even know that Andrew Jackson’s wife smoked a corn cob pipe and was accused of adultery, or that Lincoln never went to school or Kennedy wore a back brace or Truman played the piano.

We are Americans! Our Media vets these things out! We are known for our humanitarian interests and caring for our ’fellow man.’ We care, but none of us knows one single humanizing fact about the history of our own president. Honestly, and this is a personal thing … but it’s bugged me for years that no one who ever dated him ever showed up. Taken his charisma, which caused the women to be drawn to him so obviously during his campaign, looks like some lady would not have missed the opportunity….

We all know about JFK’s magnetism, McCain was no monk, Palin’s courtship and even her athletic prowess were probed. Biden’s aneurisms are no secret. Look at Cheney and Clinton – we all know about their heart problems. How could I have left out Wild Bill before or during the White House? Nope… not one lady has stepped up and said, “He was soooo shy,” or “What a great dancer!

Now look at the rest of what we know…  no classmates, not even the recorder for the Columbia class notes ever heard of him. Who was the best man at his wedding? Start there. Check for groomsmen. Then get the footage of the graduation ceremony. Has anyone talked to the professors? Isn’t it odd that no one is bragging that they knew him or taught him or lived with him. When did he meet Michele and how? Are there photos? Every president provides the public with all their photos, etc. for their library. What has he released? Nada – other than what was in this so-called biography! And experts who study writing styles, etc. claim it was not O’s own words or typical of his speech patterns, etc.

Does this make any of you wonder? Ever wonder why no one ever came forward from Obama’s past, saying they knew him, attended school with him, was his friend, etc. ? Not one person has ever come forward from his past. This should really be a cause for great concern. Did you see the movie titled, The Manchurian Candidate?

Let’s face it. As insignificant as we all are… someone whom we went to school with remembers our name or face… someone remembers we were the clown or the dork or the brain or the quiet one or the bully or something about us.  George Stephanopoulos, ABC News, said he same thing during the 2008 campaign. Even George questions why no one has acknowledged that the president was in their classroom or ate in the same cafeteria or made impromptu speeches on campus.  Stephanopoulos was a classmate of Obama at Columbia – class of 1984. He says he never had a single class with him. Since he is such a great orator, why doesn’t anyone in Obama’s college class remember him? And, why won’t he allow Columbia to release his records? Do you, like millions of others, simply assume all this is explainable – even though no one can? NOBODY REMEMBERS OBAMA AT COLUMBIA

Looking for evidence of Obama’s past, Fox News contacted 400 Columbia University students from the period when Obama claims to have been there, but not one remembers him. For example,Wayne Allyn Root was (like Obama) a political science major at Columbia, who graduated in 1983. In 2008, Root says of Obama, “I don’t know a single person at Columbia that knew him, and they all know me. I don’t have a single classmate who ever knew Barack Obama at Columbia … EVER! Nobody recalls him.

Root adds that he was, “Class of  ’83 political science, pre-law” and says, ”You don’t get more exact or closer than that. Never met him in my life,  don’t know anyone who ever met him.”At our 20th class reunion five years ago, who was asked to be the speaker of the class? Me. No one ever heard of Barack! And five years ago, nobody even knew who he was. The guy who writes the class notes, who’s kind of the, as we say in New York, ‘the macha’ who knows everybody, has yet to find a person, a human who ever met him.”

Obama’s photograph does not appear in the school’s yearbook, and Obama consistently declines requests to talk about his years at Columbia, provide school records, or provide the name of any former classmates or friends while at Columbia. How can this be? Wayne Allyn Root can easily be verified. He graduated valedictorian from his high school, Thornton-Donovan School , then graduated from Columbia University in 1983 as a Political Science major in the same ’83 class in which Barack Hussein Obama states he was.

Some other interesting questions. Why was Obama’s law license inactivated in 2002? Why was Michelle’s law license inactivated by court order? According to the U.S. Census, there is only one Barack Obama – but 27 Social Security numbers and over 80 aliases. WHAT!  The Social Security number he uses now originated in Connecticut, where he is never reported to have lived. No wonder all his records are sealed!

Please continue sending this out to everyone. Somewhere, someone had to know him in school…  before he  “reorganized” Chicago and burst upon the scene at the 2004 Democratic Convention and made us swoon with his charm, poise, and speaking pizzazz. One of the biggest CONS this country has ever seen, and getting away with it. Go watch the movie The Manchurian Candidate, with Lawrence Harvey ! Good movie!


From now thru November 2012 this should be required weekly or at least monthly, reading – BY ALL WHO VOTE! Did you notice who Obama threatened when he wasn’t getting his way on raising the debt ceiling? He threatened to not pay Social Security Retirees, Military Retirees, Social Security disability and Federal Retirees.

Now, Let this sink in and really register in your head. He did not threaten to stop payments to illegal aliens? He did not threaten to take frivolous benefits such as Internet access away from violent inmates. He did not offer to fire some of the thousands of unnecessary federal employees that he hired He did not offer to cut down or his or his wife’s frivolous gallivanting around wasting uncounted millions of American taxpayer dollars. He did not threaten to not pay the senators and representatives or any of their staff. He did not  threaten to take benefits away from welfare recipients. He did not threaten the food stamp programs He did not threaten to not pay foreign aid. He did not threaten to cut back on anything that involves his base voters.He considers these to be ’economically critical entitlements.’

The list could go on and on. He is in full political re-election mode!  Why are we allowing this person to destroy this wonderful country with his selfishness his lies and his countless cover-ups?  His type of change is killing our country. He needs to be stopped and only our votes can stop him. Do not forget about his tactics when it’s election time. Vote Obama out of the Presidency in 2012.


So … Whose got a better chance against the incumbent – Romney, Gingrich or Moshe Feiglin?

Yes, I guess I am trying to be funny in a desperate, tragic, resigned kind of way.  That mood was generated right after reading the following Gallup Poll result and then the Moshe Feiglin wishful thinking article. (jsk)

I “From the Tea Party to Occupy Wall Street, Americans raised their fists this year to express frustration towards their elected officials and “the system.” Nonetheless, President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have topped the 2011 USA Today/Gallup poll for Most Admired Woman and Most Admired Man living today in any part of the world. Clinton wins the award for a record 16th time and Obama has now been named the Most Admired Man four years in a row.” (Can you not gag?)

Their heros! A sad commentary on the judging ability  of the American people –  How the hell are we going to get him out of office and save our country from his deliberate, well planned  destruction of it if this is the prevailing opinion? OMG!

II Moshe Feiglin Looks Forward to Crucial Head-to-Head Election versus Benjamin Netanyahu on January 31, 2012

December 28, 2011

On January 31, 2012, the Likud Party will be holding its election for Party Chairman. The winner of this primary will be the candidate who will run for Prime Minister of Israel from the Likud at the next general election. If the challenger – Moshe Feiglin – defeats current Prime Minister Netanyahu, the government coalition will most likely fall and the general election will be held within a few months.

As all current polls show overwhelmingly that the Likud will win the next election, in essence, this vote is to determine who will be the next Prime Minister of the State of Israel. There are only two candidates vying for this position – Moshe Feiglin and Benjamin Netanyahu, and they have wildly differing viewpoints.

Mr. Feiglin, President of Manhigut Yehudit – the largest faction of the Likud party – wishes to create a strong, proud Jewish State by ending the fraudulent Oslo Process, ending the taking of all foreign aid, and re-attaching Israelis to their Jewish roots.

Feiglin, who won 24% of the vote at the last election, and about whom former Knesset Speaker Avraham Burg said last week is the ‘most important man today in Israeli political discourse, wishes for Israel to be a Light Unto the Nations, as opposed to Mr. Netanyahu’s stated desire to find Israel’s Place Among the Nations. Mr. Feiglin feels that when Israel’s decisions are made taking into account that Israel should be run according to Jewish values – as opposed to being run according to secular, socialist or globalist values – then Israel will make better decisions and will be on course toward a brighter future.

On the other hand, Mr. Netanyahu is actively trying to create a Jew-free state of ‘palestine’ inside the biblical heartland of Israel. He pursues this policy even though earlier in his career he stated that the ‘palestinians’ already had a state called Jordan and that they had no right to have another one at Israel’s expense. At that time, Mr. Netanyahu also agreed with Newt Gingrich’s recent comments about the ‘palestinians’ being a modern invention created solely to oppose the state of Israel.

The false peace of Oslo has brought nothing but death, destruction and the loss of belief in our own cause to Israel and to Jews worldwide. Israeli withdrawals and statements like the recent one from Mr. Netanyahu that he will “be creative when it comes to [dividing] Jerusalem” only serve to raise the confidence of anti-Semites and terrorists around the globe. It is time for Israel to reverse course before it fades away.

In little more than a month, on January 31, nothing less than the fate of the state of Israel may be decided. (And, less than one year after that, so will the fate of the once great United States of America) jsk

Moshe Feiglin is the president of Manhigut Yehudit and a candidate for Chairman of the Likud party. He led the Zo Artzeinu  non-violent civil disobedience struggle against the Oslo Accords.  Moshe graduated from Or Etzion yeshiva, served as a captain in an IDF combat unit,  and is the author of the books Where There Are No Men and War of Dreams. Moshe and his family live in Karnei Shomron, Israel. 

Moshe Feiglin Campaign headquarters 1 Manhigut Blvd., Ginot Shomron 44853



















This week’s Torah Portion – Immediate World take note

This week’s Torah Portion – Immediate World take note

This Shabbat’s Haftorah for the Torah Portion VAYIGASH

(Ezekiel 37:15-28)

37.15 Then God’s word came to me, saying:

16 “And And you, son of man, take a (piece of) wood and write on it, For Yehudah and his fellow Israelites,’ and take another stick and write on it, ‘For Yosef—a stick for (his son) Efrayim and (the other tribes) the whole house of Israel with him.”

17 “Bring them close to one another, so they (resemble) one stick and they will (miraculously) join in your hands to be one.”

18 “When your people say to you, ‘Tell us what these mean to you.”

19 “Say to them, ‘Almighty God says, “Observe! I am taking the stick of Yosef which is in Efrayim’s hand, and the tribes of Israel with him; and I am placing the stick of Yehudah on it. I will make them one stick, and they will join in My hand.”

20 “The sticks on which you have written should be (in your hands) before their eyes.”

21 “(While you are holding the sticks) tell them, ‘This is what Almighty God said: “I will take the Jews from  among the nations where they have gone. I will gather them from (all) around and bring them to their Land.”

22 “I will make them one nation in the Land, in the hills of Israel, and. all of them will have one king. They will no longer be two nations (of Yehudah and the other tribes), and they will no longer be divided into two kingdoms.”

23 They will no longer be defiled by their idols, their abominations and all their sins. I will save them (from where they are lost) in all the communities where they sinned, and I will purify them (from their sins). They will be My people (who believe in Me and observe My mitzvos), and I will be their God (to save them and help them).”

24 “My servant (Mashiach, a descendant of) David, will be  king over them and they will all have one shepherd. They will follow My laws and guard My statutes (in their hearts), and fulfill them.”

25 “They will settle in the Land that I gave to My servant Ya’akov, the Land where their ancestors lived. They and their children and their grandchildren will live there forever, and David my servant will be their leader forever.”

26 “I will make a covenant of peace with them, and it will be an eternal covenant with them. I will establish them (there forever) and cause them to multiply, and I will place My Sanctuary among them (so it stands) forever.”

27 “My Divine Presence will be among them. I will be their God (to help them and save them), and they will be My people (to believe in Me and keep My mitzvos).”

 28 “The nations will know that I am God, Who sanctifies Israel, since My Sanctuary will be among them forever.”


Obama’s Self-Proclaimed Foreign Policy Successes

The Wages of Appeasement


Read More About: Czech, Georgia, Iran, Osama bin Laden, Poland, Russia, START Treaty

The Wages of Appeasement

By Charles Krauthammer

The Palm Beach Post, December 18, 2011

Obama, “Ask Osama Bin Laden whether I engage in appeasement”

Fair enough. Barack Obama didn’t appease Osama bin Laden. He killed him. And for ordering the raid and taking the risk, Obama deserves credit. Credit for decisiveness and political courage. However, the bin Laden case was no test of policy. No serious person of either party ever suggested negotiation or concession. Obama demonstrated decisiveness, but forgoing a non-option says nothing about the soundness of one’s foreign policy. 

That comes into play when there are choices to be made. And here the story is different. Take Obama’s two major foreign policy initiatives — toward Russia and Iran.The administration came into office determined to warm relations with Russia. It was called “reset,” an antidote to the “dangerous drift” (Vice President Biden’s phrase) in relations during the Bush years. In fact, Bush’s increasing coolness toward Russia was grounded in certain unpleasant realities: growing Kremlin authoritarianism that was systematically dismantling a fledgling democracy; naked aggression against a small, vulnerable, pro-American state (Georgia); the drive to reestablish a Russian sphere of influence in the near-abroad and; support, from Syria to Venezuela, of the world’s more ostentatiously anti-American regimes.

Unmoored from such inconvenient realities, Obama went about his reset. The signature decision was the abrupt cancellation of a Polish- and Czech-based U.S. missile defense system bitterly opposed by Moscow.

The cancellation deeply undercut two very pro-American allies who had aligned themselves with Washington in the face of both Russian threats and popular unease. Obama not only left them twisting in the wind, he showed the world that the Central Europeans’ hard-won independence was only partial and tentative. With American acquiescence, their ostensibly sovereign decisions were subject to a Russian veto.

This major concession, together with a New START treaty far more needed by Russia than America, was supposed to ease U.S.-Russia relations, assuage Russian opposition to missile defense and enlist its assistance in stopping Iran’s nuclear program.

Three years in, how is that reset working out? The Russians are back on the warpath about missile defense. They’re denouncing the watered-down Obama substitute. They threaten not only to target any Europe-based U.S. missile defenses but also to install offensive missiles in Kaliningrad. They threaten additionally to withdraw from START, which the administration had touted as a great foreign policy achievement.

As for assistance on Iran, Moscow has thwarted us at every turn, weakening or blocking resolution after resolution. And now, when even the International Atomic Energy Agency has testified to Iran’s nuclear ambitions, Russia declares that it will oppose any new sanctions.

Finally, adding contempt to mere injury, Vladimir Putin responded to recent anti-government demonstrations by unleashing a crude Soviet-style attack on America as the secret power behind the protests. Putin personally accused Secretary of State Hillary Clinton of sending “a signal” that activated internal spies and other agents of imperial America.

Such are the wages of appeasement. Makes one pine for mere “drift.”

Even worse has been Obama’s vaunted “engagement” with Iran. He began his presidency apologetically acknowledging U.S. involvement in a coup that happened more than 50 years ago. He then offered bilateral negotiations that, predictably, failed miserably. Most egregiously, he adopted a studied and scandalous neutrality during the popular revolution of 2009, a near-miraculous opportunity — now lost — for regime change.


Obama imagined that his silver tongue and exquisite sensitivity to Islam would persuade the mullahs to give up their weapons program. Amazingly, they resisted his charms, choosing instead to become a nuclear power. The negotiations did nothing but confer legitimacy on the regime at its point of maximum vulnerability (and savagery), as well as give it time for further uranium enrichment and bomb development.


For his exertions, Obama earned (a) continued lethal Iranian assistance to guerrillas killing Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan, (b) a plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador by blowing up a Washington restaurant, (c) the announcement just this week by a member of parliament of Iranian naval exercises to shut down the Strait of Hormuz, and (d) undoubted Chinese and Russian access to a captured U.S. drone for the copying and countering of its high-tech secrets.

How did Obama answer that one?

 On Monday, he politely asked for the drone back!

On Tuesday, with Putin-like contempt, Iran demanded that Obama apologize instead. “Obama begs Iran to give him back his toy plane,” reveled the semiofficial Fars News Agency.


Just a few hours earlier, Secretary Clinton asserted yet again that, “we want to see the Iranians engage. . . . We are not giving up on it.”

Blessed are the cheek-turners. But do these people have no limit?

Thomas Sowell, highly respected columnist makes my life difficult.

Who to pick? What is the only question that matters at this point – who is most likely to defeat that awful anti-American destroyer now in the White House? I wish I knew but I sure like the fire in Newt’s belly and I have an idea the fire elsewhere has pretty well burned itself out. Merde happens. (jsk) 

Thomas Sowell: Knocks on Newt have little to do with his work as elected official

December 19, 2011

By Thomas Sowell

If Newt Gingrich were being nominated for sainthood, many of us would vote very differently from the way we would vote if he were being nominated for a political office.

What the media call Gingrich’s “baggage” concerns largely his personal life and the fact that he made a lot of money running a consulting firm after he left Congress. This kind of stuff makes lots of talking points that we will no doubt hear, again and again, over the next weeks and months.

But how much weight should we give to this stuff when we are talking about the future of a nation?

This is not just another election and Barack Obama is not just another president whose policies we may not like. With all of President Obama’s broken promises, glib demagoguery and cynical political moves, one promise he has kept all too well. That was his boast on the eve of the 2008 election: “We are going to change the United States of America.”

Many Americans are already saying that they can hardly recognize the country they grew up in. We have already started down the path that has led Western European nations to the brink of financial disaster.

Internationally, it is worse. A president who has pulled the rug out from under our allies, whether in Eastern Europe or the Middle East, tried to cozy up to our enemies, and has bowed low from the waist to foreign leaders certainly has not represented either the values or the interests of America. If he continues to do nothing that is likely to stop terrorist-sponsoring Iran from getting nuclear weapons, the consequences can be beyond our worst imagining.

Against this background, how much does Newt Gingrich’s personal life matter, whether we accept his claim that he has now matured or his critics’ claim that he has not? Nor should we sell the public short by saying that they are going to vote on the basis of tabloid stuff or media talking points, when the fate of this nation hangs in the balance.

Even back in the 19th century, when the scandal came out that Grover Cleveland had fathered a child out of wedlock — and he publicly admitted it — the voters nevertheless sent him to the White House, where he became one of the better presidents.

Do we wish we had another Ronald Reagan? We could certainly use one. But we have to play the hand we were dealt. And the Reagan card is not in the deck.

While the televised debates are what gave Newt Gingrich’s candidacy a big boost, concrete accomplishments when in office are the real test. Gingrich engineered the first Republican takeover of the House of Representatives in 40 years — followed by the first balanced budget in 40 years. The media called it “the Clinton surplus,” but all spending bills start in the House of Representatives, and Gingrich was speaker of the House.

Speaker Gingrich also produced some long overdue welfare reforms, despite howls from liberals that the poor would be devastated. But nobody makes that claim any more.

Did Gingrich ruffle some feathers when he was speaker of the House? Yes, enough for it to cost him that position. But he also showed that he could produce results.

In a world where we can make our choices only among the alternatives actually available, the question is whether Newt Gingrich is better than Barack Obama — and better than Mitt Romney.

Romney is a smooth talker, but what did he actually accomplish as governor of Massachusetts, compared to what Gingrich accomplished as Speaker of the House? When you don’t accomplish much, you don’t ruffle many feathers. But is that what we want?

Can you name one important positive thing that Romney accomplished as governor of Massachusetts? Can anyone? Does a candidate who represents the bland leading the bland increase the chances of victory in November 2012? A lot of candidates like that have lost, from Thomas E. Dewey to John McCain.

Those who want to concentrate on the baggage in Newt Gingrich’s past, rather than on the nation’s future, should remember what Winston Churchill said: “If the past sits in judgment on the present, the future will be lost.” If that means a second term for Barack Obama, then it means lost big-time.

Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University and syndicated columnist

Yes, The Israelis are out of their minds.

Yes, The Israelis are out of their minds.

Can you imagine any other nation on earth, at any time in history, doing this?

377 of 550 of Palestinians slated for release involved in shooting, bombing, trying to kill

Dr. Aaron Lerner – IMRA  14 December 2011

“If you first don’t succeed try and try again”   (Motto of Israeli released terrorists)

A review of the crimes carried out by the 550 Palestinian prisoners slated for release in the second round of releases in exchange for the release of Gilad Shalit finds that 377 are serving time for shooting, planting and/or throwing bombs, attempting to kill or attempting to murder or being involved in an attempt to murder.

The median sentence for the 377  was 4 years and 4 months!!

For list in English

For list in Hebrew

The English list does not include details of the crimes of the prisoners.
The Hebrew version includes details of the crimes.  The prisoners being released in the exchange includes prisoners serving time for attempted murder and for trying to kill.

(Communicated by the Israel Prison Service<> Spokeswoman)

The list of prisoners designated for release in the second stage of the Gilad Shalit deal
has, this evening (Wednesday), 14.12.11, been uploaded to the Israel Prison Service (IPS) website.  From the time it was posted, there are 48 hours in which motions may be filed.

Following are the IPS’ preparations for the second stage:

As of tomorrow morning (Thursday), 15.12.11, prisoners will be notified of their pending release.  The preliminary identification and medical checks stage will begin. Afterwards, IPS personnel will escort the prisoners to either the Ayalon or Ofer prisons, where they will be concentrated.  This is due to be completed by tomorrow night.

The release is expected to take place on Sunday, 18.12.11, tentatively in the evening hours, when prisoners at the Ofer and Ayalon prisons will leave for the Beituniya crossing and Gaza, respectively.

Additional information will be issued separately.

For additional details, please contact IPS Spokeswoman Sivan Weizman  at 050-4062688.
IMRA – Independent Media Review and Analysis

(No, as far as I know, neither an AK47 rifle or packets of hand grenades will be issued to each prisoner at time of release nor will  Eric Holder, Attorney General of the  US Dept. of Justice, be consulted — although, he may have been already. Not sure) jsk


More from Islam – Religion of peace and tolerance

Collective Punishment Under Islam

By Raymond Ibrahim

From: Middle East Forum

Hudson New York
December 8, 2011

During a recent altercation in Egypt, a Christian inadvertently killed a Muslim. This incident, according to an AINA report, “turned into collective punishment of all Copts in the majority Christian village.” Two Christians “not party to the altercation” were killed; others were stabbed and critically wounded. As usual, “after killing the Copts, Muslims went on a rampage, looting and burning Christian owned homes and businesses.” Despite all this, “Muslims insist they have not yet avenged” the death of their slain co-religionist; there are fears of “a wholesale massacre of Copts.” Many Christians have fled their homes or are in hiding.

Collectively punishing dhimmis—non-Muslims who refused to convert after their lands were seized by Muslims, and who are treated as “second-class” infidels—for the crimes of the individual is standard under Islam. In this instance, dhimmis are forbidden from striking—let alone killing—Muslims, even if the latter perpetrate the conflict. Prior to the fight that killed him, the Muslim in question had, through the help of radical Salafis, burned down the Christian’s home and was threatening him over a property dispute. Still, non-Muslims are forbidden to raise their hands to Muslims, even in self defense.

Collectively punishing Egypt’s Christians is common. Earlier this year, when a Christian was accused of dating a Muslim woman, 22 Christian homes were set ablaze to cries of “Allahu Akbar”; when Muslims made false accusations against another Christian, one was killed, ten hospitalized, an old woman thrown out of her second floor balcony, and homes and properties were plundered and torched, as documented in a report aptly titled “Collective Punishment of Egyptian Christians.”

Nor are such examples limited to Egypt: when Muhammad cartoons deemed blasphemous by Muslims were published in Europe, Christians in faraway Muslim countries like Nigeria were killed; when Pope Benedict quoted history deemed unflattering by Muslims,anti-Christian riots around the Muslim world ensued, churches were burned, and a nun was murdered in Somalia. Months ago, when an American pastor from a fringe group burned a Koran, dozens of U.N. aid workers were killed by Muslims in Afghanistan; some were beheaded.

This practice of attacking one set of Christians as retribution for the acts of another set has roots in Islamic law. The Pact of Omar, a foundational text for Islam’s treatment of dhimmis, makes clear the consequences of breaking any of the debilitating and humiliating conditions non-Muslims are made to accept to be granted a degree of surety by the Muslim state: “If we in any way violate these undertakings … we forfeit our covenant, and we become liable to the penalties for contumacy and sedition”—penalties that include enslavement, rape, and death.

As Mark Durie points out in The Third Choice, a book on dhimmitude,

Even a breach by a single individual dhimmi could result in jihad being enacted against the whole community. Muslim jurists have made this principle explicit, for example, the Yemeni jurist al-Murtada wrote that “The agreement will be canceled if all or some of them break it” and the Moroccan al-Maghili taught “The fact that one individual (or one group) among them has broken the statute is enough to invalidate it for all of them.”

It should be noted that this approach applies to all non-Muslim groups —Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, etc.—living amidst Muslim majorities. Yet, because Christians are the most visible infidel minority in the Islamic world, most examples relate to them. The Copts, for instance, are especially targeted because they comprise the largest Christian bloc in the Middle East. (Centuries before the Muslim conquests, Egypt was a major center of Christianity, and Alexandria arguably equal to Rome in theological authority. The result is, after centuries of persecution, there is still a viable Christian presence in Egypt.)

Today, however, as the world shrinks—and as Muslims conflate the West with “Christianity”—the reasons to persecute Islam’s Christians grow: ethnicity and geography no longer matter; shared religion, even if nominal, makes all “Christians” liable for one another.

Consider Iraq: its persecuted Christians are being targeted in part “over their religious tieswith the West.” Last year’s Baghdad church attack, when over fifty Christians were butchered, was initiated in “retaliation” to absurd accusations against the Egyptian Coptic Church. Yet, nearly a millennium ago, it was the Copts who were massacred when their western coreligionists—the Crusaders—made inroads into Islam’s domains. Again, the logic was clear: we will punish these Christians (Copts), because we can, in response to those Christians (Crusaders).

It is in this context that one can understand the rationale of the jihadists behind the Baghdad church attack, when they went so far as to threaten all Christians around the world as “legitimate targets for the mujahedeen [holy warriors], wherever they can reach them.”Bold as that seems, “wherever they can reach them” simply means that it is the Islamic world’s accessible, vulnerable non-Muslims—Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus—not their Western counterparts, who will continue to be targeted, even as the West looks the other way


Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and an Associate Fellow at the Middle East Forum.

Israel Commentary The Rantings of Leon Panetta, Surrogate for Barack Obama

By Jerome S. Kaufman

Barack Obama,  via his mouthpiece,  Leon Panetta, demands Israel commit suicide to please Obama’s Islamic friends and pursue his own anti-American foreign policy.

I could not believe my eyes and my ears as I watched TV and listened to Obama’s mouthpiece, US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta hysterically chastise  and threaten Israel, our only real ally and fellow democracy in the Middle East. He shrieked at Israel as if this exemplary, hugely successful  sovereign nation were an 8 year old boy that Panetta was about to take to the wood shed.

In remarks at a Brookings Institution conference, Panetta, in the most undiplomatic and disrepectful tones, called upon Israel to again start negotiations with the Palestinians. “Just get to the damn table” Panetta said during the event in Washington. “The problem right now is we can’t get them to the damn table to at least sit down and begin to discuss their differences.” He says Israel is becoming increasingly isolated and needs to ‘reach out and mend fences’ It’s not enough, he said, for Israel to rely on a strong military for security, diplomacy is also needed. Panetta said Israel could “reach out and mend fences” with countries such as Turkey, Egypt and Jordan, countries he said share an interest in stability in the Middle East.

Obviously, Panetta knows nothing about the history of the conflict, dating back well over a 100 years wherein the Arabs have never accepted the concept of a Jewish State or even one Jew in what they have deluded themselves into thinking is holy Islamic land.  Instead they have done everything to make war on the Jews since the middle of the 19th  century to prevent them from returning to their biblical homeland.

He and his mentor Obama obviously know nothing or more likely choose to ignore the fact that there have been severe regime changes in Turkey. Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the man now in power, is a dedicated Islamist who despises the West, particularly Israel.  Furthermore, the secular military that ran the country in favor of the west,  has now been forced out of power.

In Egypt, Panetta and Obama have chosen to ignore the fact that the former Egyptian leader, Hosni Mubarak who was favorable to the US and Israel for the last 30 years is now on trial for his life and most likely will lose his head when the Moslem Brotherhood formally takes over, if not sooner. They also ignore the fact that a recent Pew Poll shows only 20% of Egyptians have a favorable view of America, 64% have no confidence in Obama (I’m with them) and 54% want to annul the peace treaty with Israel. (What a great time for Israel to give away more land!).

As to Jordan, you can bet your life that King Abdullah II prays for the ongoing support and strength of the Israelis. They have saved his life, his throne and that of his father, on several occasions. Without the Israelis backing him up, there is no doubt militant Islam with their huge resident belligerent Palestinian Arab population in Jordan behind them, will quickly take over his throne and place Abdullah’s head along side Hosni Mubarak’s on the chopping block.

At the end of his outburst, Panetta sugar coated his wood shed speech with the usual perfunctory lip-service remarks, which, at least in the past, have been sincerely spoken by previous American presidents. He emphasized that Israel will “always have the unshakeable backing of the United States.” Let us hope Israelis don’t hold their breath waiting for this backing to happen while Barack Obama is in the White House.

Obama’s true colors, lies and hypocrisy thus burst forth through the inane well planned destructive remarks of his obvious surrogate. By coincidence, In his usual narcissistic fog, Obama had just patted himself on the back as the “best Administration Israel ever had.” Most Iraelis, especially, after this unveiling will take great exception to this self-evaluation. Unfortunately, the useful idiot American Jews that attended Obama’s fund raiser in the heart of New York the previous evening, appeared to believe him and continue to pour big bucks into his overflowing never-ending political campaign coffers.

But, the crucial decisions and actions always remain in the hands of the Israelis, not in the hands of the ranting Leon Panetta or in the obvious hatred, disdain and duplicity of Barack Obama. Let us pray that a far greater power guides the Israelis to ignore this self-destructive advice and steers them to a position of strength, action and self-reliance – the only condition the Arabs, the Islamists and the rest of the world understand.

2002 – Newly elected Senator Barack Obama given $126,349 payola from Fannie Mae

Wifey enthusiastically applauds (I don’t blame her)

See video below:

2008 – Barney Frank and Chuck Schumer defend and promote FNMA-FMAC

See second video below:

How did Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac get into this awful position where it is bleeding taxpayer dollars and is a huge factor in our financial demise. We seem to have completely forgotten the outspoken supporters of this fiasco. Fortunately, in this modern era of intense media coverage, we have videos at that time of exactly what happened in the US Congress – the primary culprit.

In the meantime, the financial carnage continues with no end in sight and no assumption of guilt by the Congressional perpetrators. They remain in power with no end in sight for their reign, either. Incidentally – prima facie evidence of why we desperately need term limits. How about two 2 year terms in the House, one 6 year term in the Senate?

And just now, the news item below appeared in the newspaper:  $112.6 Billion Fannie Mae loss charged to the American taxpayer.

Fannie Mae seeks additional billions  Nov 13, 2011

7.8 Billion aid for the third quarter July-Sept 2011. It lost 7.6 billion. Low mortgages rates reduced profits and declining home prices caused more defaults on loans it had guaranteed. Fannie has received 112.6 billion so far!

Then to really add salt to the wide-open wound:

Fannie, Freddie executives score $100 million payday bonus!!

Redacted from article by Chris Isidore @CNNMoney

November 15, 2011

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) — Mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac received the biggest federal bailout of the financial crisis. And nearly $100 million of those tax dollars went to lucrative pay packages for top executives, filings show.

The top five executives at Fannie Mae received $33.3 million in 2009 and 2010, while the top five at Freddie Mac received $28.1 million.  And each company has set pay targets of as much as $17 million for its top managers for 2011.

That’s a total of $95.4 million, which will essentially be coming from taxpayers, who have been keeping the mortgage finance giants alive with regular quarterly cash infusions since the Federal Home Finance Agency (FHFA) took control of the companies in September 2008.

Video – Newly elected Senator Barack Obama:

Video – Congressmen Barney Frank, Senator Chas. Schumer, Alan Greenspan, Pres. GW Bush

(Compiled by Jerome S. Kaufman)

As we fall perilously behind in the nuclear race …

Nuclear Modernization – A  fading commitment

The Weekly Standard
OCT 10, 2011
The Obama administration’s 2010 Nuclear Posture Review adopted the goals of reduced reliance on nuclear weapons, continued nuclear weapons reductions, and the ultimate, if controversial, goal of “nuclear zero”—the elimination of those weapons altogether. At the same time, it pledged to maintain a safe, secure, and effective nuclear deterrent as long as other nations have nuclear arms. These goals are difficult to achieve simultaneously, and the Obama administration has stated explicitly that its priority “atop the U.S. nuclear agenda” is movement toward nuclear zero.

The commitment of the administration to sustaining an effective nuclear deterrent force became a contentious issue in 2010 during Senate debate on ratification of the New START Treaty. Senate critics of the treaty were concerned that it effectively demanded only U.S. force reductions and that the Obama administration lacked commitment to maintaining the U.S. nuclear triad (bombers, ICBMs, and missile submarines). Each element of the triad has attributes that support deterrence: ICBMs are the most secure, alert, and responsive, bombers the most flexible, and missile submarines the most likely to survive an attack.

The Obama administration argued that it would maintain a “robust” deterrent, claiming that it planned to “invest well over $100 billion to sustain existing strategic delivery systems capabilities,” modernize these aging U.S. systems, and replace decrepit facilities to fabricate uranium and plutonium parts with modern plants.

Under congressional pressure, in May 2010, the administration outlined its modernization plans in a report to Congress, the so-called Section 1251 report. In November 2010, an update to the report provided additional detail, presumably to calm critics of the administration’s New START Treaty. The November 2010 report promised “modernization” of “America’s nuclear arsenal,” but options were constrained by the administration’s simultaneous policy of no “new” U.S. nuclear weapons or weapon capabilities. The November report promised pursuit of a new heavy bomber and a new cruise missile to assure the continued effectiveness of the bomber part of the triad. The report also pointed towards a replacement ICBM by 2030.

These administration commitments succeeded in gaining Senate approval of the New START Treaty. Skeptics warned, however, that this commitment to modernizing the U.S. nuclear deterrent would prove temporary, given the Obama administration’s higher priority of movement toward nuclear zero. Unfortunately, the skeptics appear to have been correct.

The administration’s pledges to sustain and modernize U.S. nuclear forces now look short on substance and long on rhetoric. There has been minimal progress on the commitments to a new bomber, a replacement air-launched nuclear cruise missile, and possibly a new ICBM. Instead, budgetary pressures and further U.S. force reductions appear to threaten one or more of these programs.

The Obama administration has funded a replacement for the Trident missile submarine in 2029. But the number of submarines will be reduced as will the number of missiles per submarine, and a replacement for the Trident II missile is not scheduled until 2042. And judging by recent administration statements, the capabilities of the replacement submarine may be downgraded to reduce costs.

The administration’s approach to fixing problems with nuclear warheads and facilities for nuclear materials, which initially appeared to be robust, also may be flagging. The administration did submit the promised funding request for FY2012 to fix parts of our broken nuclear weapons complex. However, to date it has made no effort to sustain that funding in Congress. Both House and Senate appropriations committees have made cuts that will delay critical nuclear weapons life extension programs.

The House Appropriations Energy and Water Development Subcommittee has cut $500 million from the $7.1 billion budget request for nuclear weapon activities. The comparable Senate committee has cut $440 million. These cuts, if they stand, will put in jeopardy life extension programs for W78 warheads for ICBMs, B61 nuclear bombs deployed to Europe in support of NATO, and for completing the life extension of W76 warheads on our ballistic missile submarines.

In addition, cuts eliminate over $200 million for nuclear warhead infrastructure and over $130 million from science and technology at our national labs. Of specific concern is a cut of $100 million from funds to build the Chemistry and Metallurgy Replacement Facility, the nation’s only plutonium research and engineering facility, to support the nuclear stockpile and nonproliferation programs.

One reason the Obama administration came under pressure to modernize U.S. nuclear deterrent capabilities for the long term is the obvious fact that Russia, China, and others are engaged in extensive nuclear modernization programs. For example, Russian press reports state that Russia will triple its strategic missile production over the period 2011-2015. Russia is deploying new silo-based and mobile ICBMs and new ballistic missile submarines, which will carry a new type of ballistic missile. By 2018, Russia plans to deploy a new “heavy” ICBM, which reportedly can carry 10-15 nuclear warheads.

Russian plans call for developing a stealthy bomber and deploying a new nuclear cruise missile. New advanced nuclear warheads are being deployed, including low-yield warheads to make nuclear threats more credible. Additionally, Russia enjoys a 10-to-1 advantage over the United States in tactical nuclear weapons.

The Chinese nuclear buildup is slower but steady. China is deploying two new mobile ICBMs. Reportedly, China is developing multiple warhead ICBMs and submarine-launched ballistic missiles. It is also building new missile submarines to carry these latter missiles. North Korea, Iran, and possibly India are also developing ICBMs. Apparently these nations have not been inspired by the “nuclear zero” slogan.

Recently, administration officials have made explicit statements revealing lukewarm support for their earlier commitment to nuclear modernization. For example, in early 2011, White House arms control coordinator Gary Samore said the U.S. government was considering further unilateral nuclear weapons cuts and eliminating a leg of the nuclear triad. When asked about this, then-Secretary of Defense Robert Gates would not rule it out. In September, Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that a decision will have to be made” in the future “of whether we keep the triad or drop it down to a dyad.

Reporting in the Washington Times, Bill Gertz wrote that the Obama White House is determined to “make deeper cuts on strategic nuclear forces.” In July 2011, according to AOL Defense, General James Cartwright, then-vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, opined that “America does not need a stealthy long-range bomber able to penetrate deep into remote, well-defended places.”

The $400 billion cut in defense spending announced by President Obama in April 2011 probably means that the prospect for the new bomber or a replacement ICBM is poor unless Congress takes the initiative. As the Pentagon is forced to consider huge budget cuts, the ICBM force may be on the chopping block or subject to large unilateral reductions. Either move would be a mistake. So much for the Obama administration’s expressed resolve to modernize the U.S. nuclear deterrent.

In 2009, the bipartisan U.S. Strategic Commission recommended “retention of the current Triad.” The large defense budget cuts being considered today are very risky. At a minimum, the long-term commitment to the U.S. nuclear deterrent as outlined in the administration’s November 2010 report needs to be protected. If the Obama administration does not give sustained attention to these issues, further erosion and atrophy of U.S. capabilities are inevitable along with serious risks of a weakened U.S. nuclear deterrent.

Mark Schneider was special assistant in the Office of the Secretary of Defense during the New START Treaty negotiations. He now serves as a senior analyst at the National Institute for Public Policy.