Why top White House adviser Valerie Jarrett truly is ‘Obamas Rasputin’

Redacted from a brilliant 37000 word World Net Daily article that must be read in its entirety

By David Kupelian
Whistleblower Magazine
March, 2014

SUPPOSE you were a committed leftist revolutionary who somehow got elected president of center-right America. Suppose you were great at making speeches, but little else. You masked your socialist agenda in the appealing rhetoric of fairness and justice, but secretly loathed the American system of constitutional government and free-market capitalism.

Suppose you also had developed into a pathological narcissist with an absurdly grandiose view of yourself and almost no tolerance for criticism and disagreement. Suppose your ego was so fragile, your worldview so distorted, your mind so angry beneath your charismatic exterior, and your self-image of being a divinely gifted leader in danger of disintegrating in the light and heat of mounting geopolitical turmoil and your own stunning failures as president.

In short, suppose you were Barack Obama.

As of 2014, a great many people that supported him say they regret their vote. America’s economy is still in shambles and its standing in the world arguably worse. The “Affordable Care Act” has been an unqualified catastrophe with millions losing health insurance and tens of millions more expected this year.

Yet Obama feigns confidence in his programs, lies as easily as breathing, and always seems to be playing golf, vacationing or fund raising. He admits he is lazy. He openly boasts about legislating from the Oval Office, refusing to work with Congress as the Constitution requires. Indeed, he doesn’t even like people, as former aide Neera Tanden, president and CEO of the highly influential progressive Center for American Progress, shockingly revealed. “The truth is,” Tanden said of the increasingly insular president, “Obama doesn’t call anyone, and he’s not close to almost anyone. Its stunning that he’s in politics, because he really doesn’t like people.”

So here’s the question: If you were Obama, how would you be able to continue to lead the country leftward in the face of overwhelming and undeniable evidence it is absolutely the wrong direction?

First of all, you’d need a fierce personal protector from all criticism, as well as a skilled enabler constantly re-assuring and comforting your gigantic but fragile ego not to mention a consigliere whose counsel you unreservedly trusted and followed. Meet Valerie Jarrett, who savvy Beltway insiders regard as the most powerful woman in Washington And yet, most White Americans have never even heard of her, let alone know who she is or what she does


For someone widely considered the most powerful adviser in the White House, a person the former editor-in-chief of the News York Times Magazine describes as “in many ways the de facto president,” Jarrett is virtually invisible.

… Jarrett pushed Obama to ignore the advice of more moderate advisers like Rahm Emanuel and instead to destroy the greatest health care system in world history. For it was she who convinced Obama to “go for broke” with Obamacare, which ultimately was forced down the throats of an unwilling American public and Congress, using bribery, parliamentary tricks and every conceivable tactic, including some of the most infamous political lies
(“You can keep your plan/doctor”) in history.

Jarrett has been responsible for bringing the most bizarre of presidential advisers to the Obama White House, including:

“Green jobs czar” Van Jones, who has described himself as a “rowdy black nationalist” and radical “communist,” having founded the communist group Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement, or STORM. One day after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, Jones led a vigil expressing solidarity with Arab and Muslim Americans and those he called victims of “U.S.Imperialism” around the world.

Federal Communications Commission “chief diversity officer” Mark Lloyd, who once advocated having “white people” step down from positions of power to make room for “more people of color [and] gays,”

Cass Sunstein, the powerful White House “regulatory czar” who has advocated that US taxpayers’ wealth be redistributed to poorer nations and that government infiltrate chat rooms and social network sites to clandestinely undermine citizens’ belief in what he considers “conspiracy theories” — including the belief that global warming is a deliberate fraud.

Journalist-author Richard Miniter, in his book “Leading From Behind: The Reluctant President and the Advisors Who Decide for Him” provides a revealing window into the inner sanctum of the current White House and Jarrett’s role there. The president himself says he talks to Jarrett several times a day, and that he rarely makes a major decision without consulting her.

One of the things that make Jarrett unique in presidential history is that she is also the first lady’s mentor. Indeed, she has guided the careers and lives of both Obamas for twenty years. She was in the room when Obama decided to run for president. Jarrett’s White House role is unprecedented. She meets privately with the president at least twice a day with no one else present. Her influence is enormous and wide-ranging. She wields informal power, like a first lady; scheduling power, like a chief of staff; and power over policy, like a special envoy.

Jarrett’s radicalism has caused major eruptions with top White House personnel. As National Review Online reporter, Andrew Stiles has pointed out, “Former White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, who clashed often with Jarrett, likened her and senior aide Peter Rouse to Saddam Hussein’s maniacal sons, Uday and Qusay.”

Jarrett’s personal friendship with the president and first lady dates back more than two decades, before the couple was married, and before Barack Obama launched his political career in Chicago. The president has said he views her “like a sibling” and trusts her “completely.”

Edward Klein, who previously served as foreign editor of Newsweek and editor-in-chief of the New York Times Magazine, wrote a critical book about the 44th president, titled “The Amateur: Barack Obama in the White House” paints a disturbing portrait of a president utterly dependent on his Rasputin-like adviser, Valerie Jarrett. Klein quotes a longtime Jarrett friend: “She functions as the eyes, ears, and nose of the president and first lady.”

Jarrett is a classic limousine Liberal who believes that Obama was elected president to engineer social change.

… How good is Jarrett’s advice? She approved the $535 million taxpayer-funded loan guarantee to Solyndra, the California solar company that went belly up. Klein writes that Jarrett had “close ties to the George Kaiser Family Foundation, which controlled 35.7 percent of Solyndra.” And it was Jarrett that pushed Obama to personally travel to Copenhagen in an attempt to bring the Olympics to Chicago, only to come home rebuffed, empty handed and humiliated.

Much of Jarrett’s extraordinary influence explains Klein, “stems from the fact that Jarrett is the president’s trusted watchdog.” She protects the vainglorious and thin-skinned Obama from critics and complainers who will deflate his ego. No one gets past Jarrett and sees the president if they have a grievance, or a chip on their shoulder or even an incompatible point of view.

… Historians will no doubt look back and ask how it’s possible that the 44th US president, Barack Hussein Obama, could possibly have been so disastrously out of touch with reality, so wrongheaded in his decisions never course-correcting in any meaningful way despite staggering evidence at every juncture? With the clarity and objectivity that comes with the passage of time they will surely conclude a great deal of credit goes to Valerie Jarrett, Obama’s Rasputin, for enabling the president to stay the course — a course she herself was instrumental setting for him decades earlier.

David Kupelian is an award-winning American journalist vice president and managing editor of World Net Daily and editor of Whistleblower magazine. A widely read online columnist, he is also the bestselling author of “The Marketing of Evil” and “How Evil Works”

The Wondrous Advances of the Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI)


“Space, Surveillance Aircraft, Cyber & Missile Defense Systems”

In a fascinating first interview, Yossi Weiss, CEO of Israel Aerospace Industries, reveals the development trends of the company and the complex challenges the defense industries will face in 2014. An Israel Defense Exclusive!

Redacted from an in-depth interview by Amir Rapaport 27/3/2014

When Yossi Weiss completed 27 years of service with the IDF Navy and joined IAI in 1998, he could not have expected that in 15 years he would find himself heading the defense industry with the country’s highest number of employees: 17,000.

Reality has led him to head a company that has a backlog of orders of more than US$ 10 billion. Now, after nearly a year and a half as CEO, with substantial cuts in defense budgets expected worldwide in 2014, Weiss speaks, in his first interview, about the direction in which he is steering the company: “The challenges are not simple, but we have excellent growth engines.”

Yossi Weiss, 63, is a mechanical engineer, the son of Holocaust survivor parents from Haifa. He has 7 children and 19 grandchildren, the offspring of two wives (he remarried after his first wife had passed away). In the last few positions he had filled in the IDF Navy, he was involved in numerous force build-up weapon system projects, serving as the leader of the “Dolphin” submarine project until his discharge at the rank of Captain (colonel). Among the various positions he had filled in the Navy, he was on loan to the IMOD Weapon System & Technological Infrastructure Research & Development Administration (MAFAT) for four years; there, he was involved in future naval and anti-aircraft technologies.

Yossi Weiss’ career is a significant example of the close connections between the IDF and IMOD on the one hand and the Israeli defense industries on the other hand: immediately following his discharge from the military he “coasted” into the position of Head of the Attack System Administration at IAI’s MABAT Division.

Following that he headed the Naval & Anti-Aircraft Administration at the same division. In 2002 he was appointed as GM of IAI’s HALAL (Space) Division. During his reign as GM of the HALAL Division, the Amos and Ofek surveillance and communication satellites, including a satellite carrying a synthetic aperture radar system, were launched into orbit and work began on Project Venus – the joint French-Israeli satellite project. In April 2006, Weiss was appointed as GM of IAI’s Missile & Space Division and Corporate Vice President of IAI. In July 2012 he was appointed as CEO, following the retirement of IAI’s previous CEO, Yitzhak Nissan.

” … We do not benefit from as much support by the political echelon as industries in other countries, and have to utilize the very best of the Jewish genius so as to make the client understand that operatively, I am giving him something that is superior to what my competitor offers. … According to Yossi Weiss, IAI continues to spot numerous opportunities in Asia (in India, 2014 will be an election year, so sales will be limited, but in other Asian countries, IAI is competing for numerous projects), in South America (particularly in Brazil) and in countries that were once a part of the great Soviet Union.”

Other fields of activity Weiss points out as significant growth engines are UAVs, quite naturally, and the surveillance aircraft IAI supplies, such as the Falcon aircraft sold to India and currently being manufactured for Italy and for other countries that Weiss would not name.

“If until now we had aircraft applications for the benefit of an aerial status picture, like the AWACS, or the Hawkeye electronic warfare aircraft, we added an application associated with the status picture of ground area cells, based on airborne sensors and ground-based sensors,” says Weiss.

IAI intends to compete on the supply of a new self-propelled gun system to the IDF Land Arm, in cooperation with KMW of Germany and Lockheed-Martin of the USA. What about ground robotics? I believe that naval robotic platforms will evolve relatively quickly. As far as ground robotic systems are concerned — it will take a while longer.”

According to Yossi Weiss, “The USA was and has remained, as far as IAI is concerned, a major ‘anchor’ in our operations. Among other things, we are working intimately with both Lockheed-Martin and Boeing.”

“For Boeing, we serve as important sub-contractors, especially in the field of composite materials. We manufacture wing parts, doors and other elements for them. We are currently hard at work finalizing a plan for expanding our operations vis-à-vis Boeing. … According to our estimates, the number of aircraft in the civilian market will double, worldwide, by 2032. If there are about 16,000-17,000 passenger aircraft in the world today, in the future there will be 30,000 aircraft, and consequently this is a very important market for us.”

… “We regard ourselves as a high-tech industry to all intents and purposes. Almost 70% of our operations have high-tech characteristics. Each year, we invest about one billion US Dollars in development. Our present backlog of orders amounts to more than 10 billion US Dollars.”

Please read the article in its entirety: http://www.israeldefense.com/?CategoryID=483&ArticleID=2828
IMRA – Independent Media Review and Analysis
Website: www.imra.org.il

Another Obama Strategy to kill US – Weaken our Special Operations Forces

By Daniel Pipes
Mar 23, 2014
Cross-posted from National Review Online

I just had the opportunity to spend an afternoon with a Council on Foreign Relations group at the United States Special Operations Command at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Florida. Its commander, the famed Admiral William H. McRaven, started the briefing, followed by his staff.

I expected to learn about Navy SEALs, Army Rangers, and their air force and marine counterparts. I thought I would hear about the exploits of this 67,000-strong command operating in 84 countries, maybe even about the taking down of Osama bin Laden. But that was not to be. Instead, he and the other officers talked at length about their new mission, starting with the command’s motto, “You can’t surge trust.”

It took some time for it to sink in because of their turgid language, but here’s a key paragraph from the Operating Concept for special operations forces (SOF) that was handed out to the CFR group:

The Special Operations Forces Operating Concept captures the essence of the SOF heritage as it could be — as it should be in the year 2020 and beyond. The concept moves beyond the first decade of the 21st Century, when SOF primarily supported large-scale contingency operations by conducting counterterrorism operations to find, capture, or kill our adversaries.

Although of great value to the Nation, these operations were never intended to be decisive. Operating through the Global SOF Network in support of our Geographic Combatant Commanders and Chiefs of Mission, SOF now have the opportunity to achieve strategic outcomes by working with and through interagency and foreign partners to understand and influence relevant populations. (Huh! Whatever social engineering, politically correct, lead from behind Obama double talk, transpeak that means) jsk

(Professor Pipes tries to help with his translation)

Translated into English, this says:

Special Operations Forces used to be about capturing or killing America’s adversaries; its new mission is to shape public opinion.

Or, in the words of a bullet point in the Operating Concept, the goal is “Elevating SOF non-lethal skills to the same level of expertise as lethal skills.” As radical a shift as this is, at least I could comprehend it.

Comments: (1) I came away from this briefing unsure if the special operations leadership really believes this stuff or is mouthing it to distract the public from discussing its real mission. (2) If it’s sincere, I worry about our future defense. (March 23, 2014)

Daniel Pipes in brief:

CBS Sunday Morning says Daniel Pipes was “years ahead of the curve in identifying the threat of radical Islam.”

He received his A.B. (1971) and Ph.D. (1978) from Harvard University, both in history, and spent six years studying abroad, including three years in Egypt. Mr. Pipes speaks French, and reads Arabic and German. He has taught at Harvard, Pepperdine, the U.S. Naval War College, and the University of Chicago. He has been affiliated with Princeton and Stanford universities. He served in various capacities in the U.S. government, including two presidentially-appointed positions, vice chairman of the Fulbright Board of Foreign Scholarships and board member of the U.S. Institute of Peace. He was director of the Foreign Policy Research Institute in 1986-93.


II Video – Hypocrisy beyond comprehension at the United Nations

Deliberate contrived Fracking Scare by Obama using his Environmental Protective Agency (EPA) Lackeys

Health links hyped to drive fear of fracking despite studies that fail to back up claims

By Valerie Richardson-The Washington Times
March 3, 2014

DENVER — Environmentalists are still waiting for proof that hydraulic fracturing makes people sick, but that’s not stopping them from whipping up anxiety over public health.

Two high-profile research papers seeking connections between hydraulic fracturing and health issues in Garfield County, Colo., are being trumpeted as evidence that fracking is harmful, even though the studies don’t show that.

In fact, state health officials have criticized the papers — one dealing with birth defects, the other with hormone disruption — for their methodology. Neither study can prove causation, only suggest examples of association between ailments and proximity to oil and gas development.

Even so, environmentalists routinely cite the studies as evidence that those living near fracking sites are at elevated risk of bearing children with birth defects or developing hormonal disorders, including infertility and cancer.

“These findings suggest that fracking causes babies to be deformed — the more we learn about fracking, the worse it gets,” Gary Wockner, Colorado director of the anti-fracking group Clean Water Action, told Ecowatch in a Jan. 30 post. “If you live near a fracking site and you want to have a healthy baby, you should consider moving.”

A Feb. 5 article in the liberal New Republic carried the headline: “Evidence is Mounting that Fracking Causes Birth Defects.” National Geographic carried a Dec. 20 post, “Hormone-Disrupting Chemicals Linked to Fracking Found in Colorado River.”

“These results, which are based on validated cell cultures, demonstrate that public health concerns about fracking are well-founded and extend to our hormone systems,” Concerned Health Professionals of New York said in a statement on the Water Defense website. “The stakes could not be higher.”

The paper about birth defects, released in January by the Colorado School of Public Health, showed that pregnant women living within a 10-mile radius of a fracking site were more likely to give birth to babies with congenital heart defects but less likely to give birth prematurely. Dr. Larry Wolk, executive director of the Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment, warned that “it is difficult to draw conclusions from this study, due to its design and limitations.”

He noted that the study failed to distinguish between active and inactive wells or between horizontal versus vertical drilling, nor did it factor in air and water quality. In the case of rare ailments like neural-tube defects, he said, the study did not control for risk factors such as whether the mother smoked or drank alcohol during pregnancy.

“As Chief Medical Officer, I would tell pregnant women and mothers who live, or who-at-the-time-of-their-pregnancy lived, in proximity to a gas well not to rely on this study as an explanation of why one of their children might have had a birth defect,” Dr. Wolk said in a Jan. 30 statement. “Many factors known to contribute to birth defects were ignored in this study.”

Sean Paige, deputy state director of the free-market group Americans for Prosperity-Colorado, accused the movement of “misusing and distorting science in order to generate headlines or score political points.”

“Because creating public anxiety is the fracktivist’s most potent energy-war weapon, it’s only natural that the most unscrupulous among them would cherry-pick any reports that they can twist or turn into something really alarming,” Mr. Paige said.

The fracas has erupted as activists gear up for another round of attacks on hydraulic fracturing after scoring local ballot wins. Voters in three Colorado towns and one Ohio community — all of which had little to no fossil fuel development — approved fracking moratoriums in November.

Two of those bans have been challenged in court, but activists in Colorado are seeking to place an initiative on the November statewide ballot that would allow communities to supersede state authority by banning oil and gas development.

Central to the anti-fracking argument is the public health argument, and that’s where the studies come into play. A paper released in December by researchers at the University of Missouri at Columbia found greater concentrations of hormone-disrupting chemicals in water near fracking sites in Garfield County, Colo., versus control sites in Boone County, Mo.

“We found more endocrine-disrupting activity in the water close to drilling locations that had experienced spills than at control sites,” MU School of Medicine associate professor Susan Nagel said in a statement. “This could raise the risk of reproductive, metabolic, neurological and other diseases, especially in children who are exposed to endocrine-disrupting chemicals.”

The study has been challenged by state officials and industry advocates, who point out that endocrine disrupters also are found in common household items such as shampoo.

“Authors of the study are unsure of the exact source of the [chemicals] and even acknowledge that the chemicals could come from a host of other sources besides fracking,” the Colorado Oil and Gas Association said in a statement.

Critics also ask whether comparing groundwater in Missouri and Colorado is legitimate, given the differences in geology, rainfall and other environmental factors.

The study’s authors acknowledge, “Both naturally occurring chemicals and synthetic chemicals from other sources could contribute to the activity observed in the water samples collected in this study.”

“Studies like this have appeared from time to time around the country, and they always have the same problem: They find a trace chemical, in this case in the Colorado River, and they just sort of assert that it came from hydraulic fracturing,” said Greg Walcher, former head of the Colorado Department of Natural Resources. “It’s just plain bad science.”

Hydraulic fracturing, which involves shooting a mixture of water, sand and chemicals into underground shale rock layers to extract fossil fuels, typically lasts three to four days in the life of a 30-year well.

(Valerie Richardson covers politics and the West from Denver. She can be reached at vrichardson@washingtontimes.com.)

Estonia awaits drop of Russia’s second boot II Estonian Holocaust Amnesia


Russia’s Long Shadow over Estonia

The Weekly Standard
March 3, 2014

The modern name of Estonia’s capital is thought to come from Tallide-linn, city of stables in the country’s tongue, or Taani-linn, meaning Danish castle-town. The lovely old center, a medieval trading city, is splashed in summer with light and color, I’m told. Cafés bustle. In winter, though, Tallinn is bleak. I’m here in fog, sleet, and rain. The streets are mostly empty by early evening, as everyone seems to be hobbited away with warm fires and ice-cold vodka.

Estonia is a country of glaring contrasts. Try to size it up today and one is reminded of Boris Yeltsin’s assessment of the Russian economy in the 1990s. Asked by a journalist about the state of play, the president answered, “Good.” When pressed for more than a one-word response, Yeltsin replied, “Not good.”

For this tiny country of 1.3 million, things are, from one perspective, excellent indeed. Since independence in 1991, Estonia has welcomed democracy and a market economy, become a member of NATO and the European Union, and adopted the euro. The country exudes modernity, consumerism, and freedom. There’s wireless Internet nearly everywhere—parks, pubs, squares, beaches, forests—and nearly always free. When you walk through Tallinn Airport, you feel like you’re in a trendy version of an Ikea store, with semi-inviting cafés, book alcoves, ready-to-use iPads. Joe Biden might say LaGuardia pales in comparison.

Freedom House gives Estonia highest marks in democratic development, for both political rights and civil liberties. The country ranks higher than the United States in economic freedom in a Heritage Foundation index.

So what’s to worry?

The country struggles mightily with the weight of history and burden of having an exceptionally difficult neighbor. “What’s the first thing that keeps you up at night?” a colleague and I asked a senior official? It turned out to be the same as the second and the third. A young journalist confirmed over drinks later with a laugh: “Of course, Russia remains foremost on everyone’s mind.” That’s for good reason.

Estonia’s ethnic Russian minority comprises nearly a quarter of its population (fellow Baltic nation Lithuania has 5.8 percent; Latvia, nearly 27 percent). As a result, Tallinn has to put up with constant Kremlin complaints—the charges nearly always unsubstantiated by international observers—that Russians in Estonia are treated poorly and subject to discrimination by the Estonian government. Russian president Vladimir Putin is believed to have a personal gripe with the country. Or so Estonian officials think, as we know from diplomatic cables, thanks to WikiLeaks. Putin’s father, who fought with the Red Army during World War II, parachuted on a mission into Estonia, where locals, still angry over the Soviet occupation in 1940—a year before Germany invaded—handed him over to Nazi forces.

What’s clear in any case is this: Moscow loves meddling, provoking, and slapping Estonia around. Three Estonian officials have been arrested as Russian spies in the last five years. Last year, the Estonian government accused Russia of intervening in mayoral elections in Tallinn. Edgar Savisaar of the pro-Russian, left-leaning Center party secured another term after the Kremlin, just two days before the election, had his rival Eerik-Niiles Kross placed on Interpol’s wanted list for trumped-up sea piracy charges. Moscow had reason to dislike Kross, to be sure: He was a Cold War anti-Soviet agitator who later worked for Paul Bremer and the Provisional Coalition Authority in Iraq and advised the Georgian government after Russia’s 2008 invasion.

Most famously, Estonia was subjected to a series of cyberattacks beginning in April 2007 that swamped the websites of banks, news outlets, government ministries, and parliament. The pro-Putin youth group in Russia, Nashy, took credit for the attacks, which coincided with a dispute between Tallinn and Moscow over the relocation of a Soviet-era grave marker known as the Bronze Soldier of Tallinn. Nashy is the Kremlin’s Hitlerjugend, says one Estonian official. Putin is not Hitler. But it’s not much fun having a little Mussolini as your neighbor.

Like the Italian fascist leader, Putin has a coherent and strategic foreign policy. Moscow failed in the 1990s to block NATO and EU accession for most of what once constituted Communist Europe (although Ukraine is still in play and leaning sharply eastward at the moment). Putin will settle now for the Finlandization of Eastern Europe. That’s Cold War-speak for how a large, powerful nation carefully erodes the sovereignty and independence of smaller states.

Part of the strategy, of course, is to use energy as a weapon. Russian energy giant Gazprom serves Kremlin foreign policy goals and can punish, or please, at any given moment. Putin employs trade, including import restrictions, to show pique and apply pressure, recently blocking milk from Lithuania and brandy and wine from Moldova. The Kremlin also knows how to work internal divisions. In Georgia, for example, this means aggravating relations between Abkhazia, Ossetia, and the central Georgian government. As a former KGB hand, Putin must adore every trick of the trade. Note the recent leak of that call between a senior State Department official and the U.S. ambassador in Kiev, designed to embarrass Americans with the EU and show Washington as a meddling force in Ukraine’s internal affairs. Rich, that.

“Tight integration with our neighbors is our absolute priority,” Putin told international Russia experts last fall at a conference in Novgorod. Russia had repeatedly warned Ukrainians to choose carefully. Russian customs began exhaustive checks of imports from Ukraine last year, creating long lines at the border. Kremlin economic adviser Sergei Glazyev said at the time this was Russia “preparing to introduce tougher customs administration in case Ukraine [made] the suicidal move of signing the EU association agreement.”

Back to plucky Estonia. Some might have thought that NATO and EU membership settles everything. Courtesy WikiLeaks, we know that at least some U.S. officials have considered Estonia paranoid about Russia. It seems instead that recent events in Ukraine and Russian policy toward this small Baltic nation well might concentrate our minds on Kremlin strategy toward Eastern Europe—and on the sad fact that we don’t seem to have one.

Jeffrey Gedmin is a senior fellow at Georgetown University and the Institute for Strategic Dialogue in London.

II http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/estonias-severe-case-of-holocaust-amnesia/ (copy and paste to your search engine for a painful reminder and still current!)

Obama, as the epitome of “White Guilt” is killing the US World-Wide. Just ask Vladimir Putin

II Video with Caroline Glick with Reverend Pat Robertson
Do Palestinians Really Want to Live Next to Israel?


If Putin remains anti-American, he need not worry about Barack Obama

By Caroline B. Glick

Her new book, “The Israeli Solution”

Just before Russian President Vladimir Putin orchestrated Russia’s takeover of Crimea, the US’s Broadcasting Board of Governors that controls Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty announced that it will be ending its broadcast to Iraq and the Balkans next year.

And this makes sense. As far as the Obama administration is concerned, Iraq ceased to exist in 2011, when the last US forces got out of the country.

As for the Baltics, well, really who cares about them? Russia, after all, wants the same things America does. Everything will be fine.

As Obama said to Governor Mitt Romney during one of the 2012 presidential debates, “The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because the Cold War’s been over for 20 years.”

During the election, Obama was famously caught on an open microphone promising President Putin’s stand-in Dmitry Medvedev that he would have “more flexibility,” on missile defense after the presidential election.

He asked Medvedev to ask Putin to give him “more space” until after November 2012.

With a five-and-half-year record of selling US allies like Poland, the Czech Republic and even the Syrian opposition out to please Putin, it should be obvious that Obama will do nothing effective to show Putin the error of his ways in Ukraine.

Obama doesn’t have a problem with Putin. And as long as Putin remains anti-American, he will have no reason to be worried about Obama.

Consider Libya. Three years ago this week, NATO forces supported by the US began their campaign to bring down Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi.

As Patrick Coburn noted in The Independent over the weekend, the same Western forces who insisted that their “responsibility to protect” the Libyan people from a possible massacre by Gaddafi’s forces compelled them to bring down Gaddafi and his regime have had nothing to say today about the ongoing bloodbath in post-Gaddafi Libya.

Libya is disintegrating today. There is no central governing authority.

But Gaddafi, the neutered dictator who quit the terrorism and nuclear-proliferation rackets after the US-led invasion of Iraq, is gone. So no one cares.

Coburn mentioned the recent documentary aired on Al Jazeera – America that upended the West’s narrative that the bombing of Pan Am 103 in 1988 over Lockerbie, Scotland, was the work of the Libyan government. According to a credible Iranian defector, the attack was ordered by Iran and carried out by Palestinian terrorists from Ahmed Jibril’s PFLP-GC. He wrote, “the documentary emphasizes the sheer number of important politicians and senior officials over the years who must have looked at intelligence reports revealing the truth about Lockerbie, but still happily lied about it.”

If the Al Jazeerah documentary is correct, there is good reason for the public in the US, Europe and throughout the world to be angry about the cover-up. But there is no reason to be surprised.

Since its inception, the Iranian regime has been at war with the US. It has carried out one act of aggression after another. These have run the gamut from the storming of the US Embassy in Tehran and holding hostage US diplomats for 444 days, to the use of Lebanese and Palestinian proxies to murder US officials, citizens and soldiers in countless attacks over the intervening 35 years, to building a military presence in Latin America, to developing nuclear weapons. And from its earliest days, the same Iranian regime has been courted by one US administration after another seeking to accommodate Tehran.

A similar situation obtains with the Palestinians. Like the Iranians, the PLO has carried out countless acts of terrorism that have killed US officials and citizens.

From the 1970 Fatah execution of the US ambassador and deputy chief of mission in Khartoum to the 2003 bombing of the US embassy convoy in Gaza, the PLO has never abandoned terrorism against the US.

No less importantly, the PLO is the architect of modern terrorism. From airline hijackings, to the massacre of schoolchildren, from bus bombings to the destabilization of nation states, the PLO is the original author of much of the mayhem and global terrorism the US has led the fight against since the 1980s.

And of course, the PLO’s main stated goal is the destruction of Israel, the US’s only dependable ally, and the only liberal democracy in the Middle East.

Yet, as has been the case with the Iranian regime, successive US administrations have courted, protected and upheld the PLO as moderate, reformed or almost reformed militants. In many ways, then the Obama administration is simply a loyal successor of previous administrations. But in one essential way, it is also different.

IN A 2006 op-ed in The Wall Street Journal, civil rights historian Shelby Steele argued that the reason the US has lost every war it has fought since World War II despite the fact that it has had the military might to vanquish all of its enemies is “white guilt.”

(Sounds kind of like “Jewish guilt in the Israelis, who instead of simply wiping out completely the areas of adjacent countries that allow these missile strikes, Israel finds a way to hide under a ridiculous Iron Dome that can only quickly fail as a defensive weapon — kinda like the Maginot Line of France in WWII and French defense against Hitler – non existent) jsk

White guilt, he argued, makes its sufferers in the West believe that they lack the moral authority to act due to the stigma of white supremacy and imperialism.

Writing of the then raging insurgency in Iraq, Steele explained, “When America – the greatest embodiment of Western power — goes to war in Third World Iraq, it must also labor to dissociate that action from the great Western sin of imperialism. Thus in Iraq we are in two wars, one against an insurgency and the other against the past — two fronts, two victories to win, one military, the other a victory of dissociation.”

This neurotic view of America’s moral underpinning is what explains the instinctive American tendency to strike out at those who do not oppose the West – like Gaddafi’s regime in Libya and Hosni Mubarak’s regime in Egypt – while giving a pass to those who do – like the Palestinians and the Iranians.

But whereas white guilt has afflicted the US leadership for the past several generations, past administrations were willing to set it aside when necessary to advance US national security interests.

This cannot happen with Obama.

Obama owes his presidency to white guilt. His promise to American voters was that by voting for him, they would expiate their guilt for the sins of European imperialists and southern racists.

It was the American desire to move beyond the past that enabled a first-term senator with radical connections and the most liberal voting record in the Senate to get elected to the presidency.

But tragically for the US and the free world, Obama’s worldview is informed not by an appreciation for what Steele extolled as America’s “moral transformation,” on issue of race. Rather it is informed by his conviction that the US deserves its guilt.

Obama does not share Bill Clinton’s view that the US is “the indispensable nation,” although he invoked the term on the campaign trail in 2012.

From his behavior toward foe and friend alike, Obama gives the impression that he does not believe the US has the right to stand up for its interests.

Moreover, his actions from Israel to Eastern Europe to Egypt and Libya indicate that he believes there is something wrong with nations that support and believe in the US.

Their pro-Americanism apparently makes them guilty of white guilt by association.

So Iran, the Palestinians and Russia needn’t worry. Obama will not learn from his mistakes, because as far as he is concerned, he hasn’t made any.

Caroline Glick (born 1969) is an American-born Israeli journalist, newspaper editor, and writer. She writes for Makor Rishon and is the deputy managing editor of The Jerusalem Post. She is also the Senior Fellow for Middle East Affairs of the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Security Policy.

Marion Gordon “Pat” Robertson (born March 22, 1930) is an American media mogul, executive chairman, and a former Southern Baptist minister, who generally supports conservative Christian ideals. He presently serves as Chancellor of Regent University and Chairman of the Christian Broadcasting Network.

II Video – Caroline Glick with Reverend Pat Robertson

Airport security performs invasive strip search on very attractive female Indian diplomat!

II Video below – Panel discussion by Indians and Americans of this horrendous diplomatic ongoing insult.



Excerpt from the Palm Beach Post, March 16, 2014
“The Indian government expressed its displeasure with the US Justice Dept. for refiling criminal charges against a diplomat whose arrest in N. Y. Last year on charges of underpaying her domestic help caused a crisis in bilateral 

relations. The US attorney’s office in Manhattan on Friday issued a new indictment against the diplomat, Devyani Khobragade, just two days after a judge dismissed a similar indictment on diplomatic immunity grounds. Khobargade has returned to India and is unlikely ever to answer the charges in New York and she is unlikely to face extradition”

But, what is the background of this obnoxious counterproductive US government action designed only to alienate India, a huge nation with which we have had tenuous relations in the past.

The whole sordid tale began when Mrs. Khobraga was subjected to a complete invasive strip search by security guards for no tenable reason except possibly their own lechery.

Mrs. Khobragade immediately registered a complaint against these “guards” and instead of apologizing and backing off, the US government filed the ridiculous charge that the lady had not paid an adequate amount to her domestic help and had not filed employee benefit papers. By the way, under this charge, it is impossible to even imagine how many thousands of US households would be found guilty (not to imply the practice is legitimate)

The case went to court and the judge realizing how unfair and ridiculous the charges were, simply allowed the lady diplomatic immunity from US government charges — to which she was entitled.

Obama’s anointed head of the Justice Department, Eric Holder was still not satisfied and found another way to hurt US standing further in the world, especially with a very important ally. He two days later, re-instituted the same basic charges against this woman with Obama/Holder finding yet another way to discredit the United States of America on the world scene.

Hopefully we are able to survive 3 more years of these deliberate US destroyers and at least get their enablers Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and a cast of hundreds out of office. We can then attempt to undo the huge amount of damage they have done and try to regain our reputation as an “exceptional nation” — much to the chagrin of Barack Obama, et al.

Jerome S. Kaufman

Not to worry – Only 25% of women are raped following the Muslim invasion of Sweden!

Obama invited 80,000 Muslims into the United States, with a promise of 100,000 per year over the next five years!

Rape, the Whirlwind*
Tabitha Korol
March 12, 2014

Not to worry – Only 25% of women are raped following the Muslim invasion of Sweden!

Sweden is the seventh richest country in the world in terms of GDP per capita and its high standard of living. It is famous for supporting the Norwegian resistance during World War II; for helping to rescue Danish Jews from deportation to concentration camps; and for its native son, Raoul Wallenberg, who rescued up to 100,000 Hungarian Jews during the Holocaust.

We recognize Sweden as the country that gave us the incomparable Ingrid Bergman and Greta Garbo, writers Ingmar Bergman and August Strindberg, IKEA furniture, high-quality steel production, the Volvo, the pop group ABBA, and Pippi Longstocking.

But Sweden’s latest source of prominence, its third largest city, Malmo, founded ca. 1275, is now known as the City to Leave. Its Jewish population is fleeing, as Malmo has become home to Muslim immigrants, anti-Semitism and violence, which has earned for Sweden the dubious distinction of Rape Capital of the World. How is it possible for the Muslims to comprise a mere 6% of Sweden’s population, yet be responsible for 77% of the rapes committed? According to the Counter Jihad report, one in four Swedish women will be raped, some killed, as sexual assaults increase by 500%.

Now, since President Obama invited 80,000 Muslims into the United States, with a promise of 100,000 per year over the next five years, and studies show that Islamic immigration brings a rise in rates of rape and molestation, there can be no doubt that we will see a corresponding increase in rape crime in America accordingly.

Is rape a fundamental part of Muslim culture? Egyptian-born Nonie Darwish, in her book, And Now They Call Me Infidel, explains the Muslim mentality that is formed by their family dynamics and interaction and by constant dissatisfaction.

Youths may not date, fall in love, or even communicate with the opposite sex. Women are severely oppressed from childhood, and not allowed to form friendships. A woman is the source of a man’s pride or shame. She is made to suffer ritual female genital mutilation; her physical appearance must be concealed; she is prohibited from living as freely as men; and she must obey strict Shari’a law — to either suffer in a polygamous marriage that encourages jealousy and diminishes her importance, or to become an Islamic slave in a brief marriage — as brief as a few hours. Divorce is the male’s option, as easy as saying
“I divorce you” Since there is no common property between husband and wife, and his property does not automatically go to the wife after his death, the “one-night stand” is legal under Shari’a law.

There are also a number of taboos and laws that not only undermine a woman’s security and self-respect, but also dominate her relationship to her children and others. The result is an environment that sets women up against each other, poisoned with distrust, grief, isolation, and financial insecurity.

What better way of defining the exploitation of sexual favors, forced labor or services, slavery or similar practices of servitude of one person (an underage female) by her parent to another adult (called a husband), than by human trafficking — particularly when deception and coercion are used by the parent who transfers parental custody to the stranger, and there is an exchange of payment in return.

Men are also impacted by Shari’a law. Because his honor is determined by the female’s behavior, he becomes despotic, and may even kill his wife and children to endorse his dignity. The men are first raised by their unhappy, demoralized mothers in a sexually oppressive society, where he is also economically unable to keep up with the older men who can buy any number of liaisons and support as many as four wives. The first-born son is also needed as protection of his mother against her husband’s unjust treatment. All this leads to interlocking loyalties, fears, and unusual bonding, if any.

Polygamy deprives every one of the intimacy and security found in a monogamous or faithful marriage. Although the man governs his women, in all other circumstances, he endures indignity, humility, and degradation from all who live within a brutal regime. With abuse in every part of his life, including the workplace, he is disaffected, angry, ripe for fundamentalism — even eager to give up his life for the promise of heaven and the elusive sexual satisfaction.

The populace is taught to stay in the tribe, to never befriend the outsiders, and to fervently focus on hating Israel and the West, even if they know nothing about those countries or people. The hate becomes their identity, blaming the West for their culture’s failure. If their military leadership fails, if life is difficult, the economy bad, they feel less victimized if they can place the blame elsewhere. It’s a simple fact that no one takes responsibility for anything in Islam and everyone blames everyone else.

A polygamous society lacks cohesion and fellowship and is based on distrust, with hatred being at the surface, boiling and ready to explode against the most vulnerable. This is nihilism** — the man’s harming the woman, stealing her humanity and security. It is what the jihadist hopes to do to the civilization that he has invaded.

And this all leads to an article that came to my attention — students in a biology class at the University of Iowa are being taught that rape is “human nature.” Regarding criminal sexual assaults as human nature is obviously offensive and dismissive, a way of allowing or even encouraging the behavior to continue. While certain university professors suggested rape “has an evolutionary origin … genetically developed strategy sustained over generations of human life…a successful reproductive strategy,” it is entirely unacceptable in a civilized society, an act for which the perpetrator must be severely punished.

The sanctioning of rape is being insinuated into our culture through our youth as yet another tentacle of Islamization. We will not accept cruelty and criminal behavior as human nature. We have evolved considerably since a code of high morality, ethics, compassion and justice was put into place by the Hebrews during the Bronze/Iron age. We will not sink to the depths of degradation offered by a culture that, centuries later, brought the antithesis of our society to the world.

What the students should be learning is that not all cultures are civilized, that it is important to realize and nurture our own exceptionalism compared to those that are bent on humanity’s destruction, and that an ideal civilization controls, contains, and rejects the elements of human nature that harm and devalue others — women, for example. This is one of many of the proverbial slippery slopes, where the liberal thinker accommodates the Islamist, and rejects morality, the American Constitution, and the future designed for us by our Founding Fathers.

* The title is derived from Hosea’s prophesy, “They have sown the wind and they shall reap the whirlwind.”


Tabitha Korol earned an award from CAMERA (Committee on Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America) “in recognition of outstanding letter-writing in 2009 to promote fair and factual reporting about Israel.” She was cited as one of America’s modern-day, articulate, patriotic women in Frederick William Dame’s Three American Fur Hat Fighters for Freedom. Her essays have appeared on RightTruth, RenewAmerica, NewMediaJournal, JewishIndy, Israel’s Arutz Sheva, and others. She revised a book of Holocaust survivors’ accounts for publication, and proofreads/edits for a monthly city newsletter.

Obama goes amok in power grab. How to stop him before we are ruined economically, energy independence, foreign power with no end in sight!

Obama goes amok in power grab. How to stop him before we are ruined economically, energy independence, foreign power with no end in sight!

Upholding the Law

Redacted from a much more detailed article
The Weekly Standard
May 10, 2014

Many Republicans—and a handful of independent commentators like George Washington University professor Jonathan Turley—have been highly critical of President Obama’s executive branch overreach. The president has arbitrarily delayed, deferred, or ignored provisions of numerous laws — none more so than his signature Obamacare legislation. There is indeed much to criticize; no other president in recent times has usurped congressional lawmaking powers to the extent Barack Obama has.

Administration spokesmen have defended these actions by pointing out that other presidents have also issued executive orders. But President Obama’s actions are less like executive orders in the usual sense of the term than they are like legislation. Nor are they based upon a constitutional argument that the president must act in response to a Congress that has intruded into areas that are properly under his constitutional authority. These actions are the pure assertion of an unconstitutional presidential power to make law. What is needed now, however, is not further criticism, but a careful and sober consideration of what Congress can do to address this burgeoning constitutional crisis.

We should be clear: When we ask what Congress should do about it, we are really asking what congressional Republicans should do. Senate majority leader Democrat Harry Reid has demonstrated that he will not defend the institution of the Senate but will defend whatever President Obama does. Harry Reid was once an opponent of George W. Bush’s recess appointments, calling the Senate into pro forma session every three days to prevent them; Reid turned on a dime to support President Obama’s decision to ignore the very Senate pro forma sessions he had created.

Harry Reid once argued strenuously against Republicans ending the 60-vote threshold for confirmation of presidential appointees. As majority leader, he adopted the very “nuclear option” he had so long opposed. In doing so he eviscerated a long-standing minority party protection merely to facilitate the confirmation of mid-level Obama political appointees.

Harry Reid has all but ended the Senate tradition of open debate. Reid controls not only what bills are considered on the Senate floor—a well-established leadership prerogative—but also what amendments can be offered to those bills. He has done this by foreclosing the amendment process with a parliamentary tactic called “filling the amendment tree,” turning the Senate into a mini-version of the House of Representatives. No other majority leader in recent memory has taken these steps—not Bill Frist, Tom Daschle, Trent Lott, George Mitchell, Bob Dole,


One step available to House Republicans in response to President Obama’s overreach is outlined in Article II of the Constitution: impeachment. Before assuming this option is beyond the pale, we might ask whether it is really so crazy. Is Obama’s usurpation of congressional powers less serious than Bill Clinton’s cover-up of his sexual activities? Moreover, impeachment is politically possible. Impeachment of the president requires only a simple majority of the House, which Republicans hold. It does not require the cooperation of the Senate. There are serious reasons, however, to doubt the wisdom of this course. First, the ground is simply not prepared. The idea of impeachment would strike official Washington—and most Americans—as coming out of the blue and as overkill at that.

Second, impeachment would produce immediate charges of racism, as if something other than the president’s actions had caused Republicans to take this step. Given the usual tongue-tied Republican reaction to charges of racism, Republicans would be well-advised to avoid putting themselves in this position.

Third, in today’s vernacular, what is the “endgame” of this strategy? The House can bring charges against the president, but the Senate would adjudicate them, and there is no chance that the required two-thirds of the Senate would vote to convict. As we saw with Bill Clinton, a failed impeachment is almost an exoneration.


It is by no means clear that the Supreme Court would take a case aiming to invalidate the president’s actions; as a rule the Court tries to avoid disputes between the legislative and executive branches unless there seems no responsible way to avoid it. But the House would improve the odds of the Court taking this case by passing a resolution stating that its powers have been usurped in violation of the Constitution. … The Court probably would not rule quickly on a case like this.


This brings us to a third option, which rests upon the congressional power of the purse. House Republicans have already taken this course, when they voted repeatedly to repeal and/or defund Obama-care. How would one more House vote to defund Obamacare help?

Defunding is the right idea, but there is a better target than Obamacare if the object is to address presidential overreach. What House Republicans should seek to defund, in whole or in part, is the Internal Revenue Service. The IRS is the enforcement arm of Obamacare. Without the IRS there is no enforcement of the individual mandate, no basis for determining individual subsidies, and no enforcement of employer mandates. The central role of the IRS in Obamacare should be clear enough from one perverse fact alone: In order to improve health care delivery in America, Obamacare creates not thousands of new doctors and nurses, but thousands of new IRS employees.

Congress should require the president to appoint an independent investigator to look into the IRS across the board, including its role in Obamacare and its targeting of both conservative public interest groups and individuals. The current internal investigation, headed by Obama major campaign donor Barbara Bosserman, does not inspire confidence. Indeed, the president has already foreordained the outcome of this investigation by announcing there is not “a smidgen of corruption” at the IRS.

These steps would be opposed by the Democratic Senate and the president, but they would be widely supported by the American people. The IRS is not much loved by the public at any time; but a current Fox poll shows that 64 percent of Americans believe there is corruption at the IRS that should be fully and fairly investigated. What Harry Reid and the president would be defending in this instance is not the president’s signature health care legislation, but the Internal Revenue Service, a far more daunting task.

A degree of courage is going to be required at some point to rein in the president’s excesses. It is not enough to defer action to an indeterminate future date. Republican leaders should ask themselves a hard question: What is it they will accomplish with control of the House and Senate that they cannot accomplish now? What are the actual steps and projects they would undertake in 2015 with a Republican-controlled House and Senate? How would they overcome the president’s vetoes, his bully pulpit, and the slavish devotion to him of the mainstream media?

Once again, the IRS lies at the heart of the problem. The administration’s efforts will not abate if Republicans control both houses of Congress; indeed, they are likely to increase. We are heading toward a serious and necessary struggle over presidential overreach. The stakes are high politically and, more important, constitutionally. A measure of courage will be required to address them.

Jeff Bergner, adjunct professor at the University of Virginia and Christopher Newport University, has served in the legislative and executive branches of the federal government. His most recent book is Against Modern Humanism: On the Culture of Ego.

Not all Pro-Israel agendas welcome at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) Conference

Not all Pro-Israel agendas welcome at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) Conference

From Helen Freedman, Executive Director
Americans for a Safe Israel

Judy Kadish, AFSI’s Special Projects Director, and I just returned from the AIPAC Conference in Washington, DC, where we were two of the 14,000 attendees at what is billed as an inclusive gathering of people from all walks of life, and varying ethnicities, but primarily Jews, who come together in support of Israel. Throughout the huge Convention Center there were huge placards picturing the great varieties of people representing AIPAC. However, we discovered that there was an exception to this inclusive attitude.

Judy and I had been outside the Convention Center with our signs in support of the application of Sovereignty to Judea, Samaria and the Jordan Valley. We were surrounded there by anti-Israel demonstrators. After making our statements, we folded up our banners and went into the Convention Center to participate in the Conference. At the end of the day, upon meeting with some of our good Israeli friends, I unfurled one of the banners to show them that we had been supporting them. I was pounced upon by an AIPAC staff member, a young, stern woman, who warned me in no uncertain terms that a banner with that message was NOT to be displayed.

After that confrontation, the same woman attacked Judy and me again, the following evening, when Marc Golub of Shalom TV was interviewing us. In the middle of the interview, she grabbed Rabbi Golub’s arm and demanded to know why he was interviewing “these women who do not speak for AIPAC.” Needless to say, the story has much more detail to it, but the tragedy is that every message, every person, is included in the AIPAC “big tent”, EXCEPT for those who support Judea, Samaria and the Jordan Valley.

Fortunately, we have champions like Caroline Glick, whose new book, THE ISRAELI SOLUTION: A ONE STATE PLAN FOR PEACE IN THE MIDDLE EAST, lays out the message of the application of sovereignty to all the land of Israel. I had the good fortune of lunching with Caroline on Wednesday afternoon. She explained the essence of the book and the importance of reading it and understanding that there is an alternative to the much failed “two-state solution” formula. I intend to go onto Amazon.com to order twenty copies for distribution to friends and family. I encourage everyone to do the same.

Glick’s book, “The Israeli Solution: A One-State Plan for Peace in the Middle East”
(Crown Forum 2014) was released Tuesday, March 4

Netanyahu, Palestinians, Iran, Putin and Obama/Kerry on usual cross purposes. II Michele Bachman comments

II Is the Obama administration condoning sanctions and boycotts against Israel?

Netanyahu, Palestinians, Iran, Putin and Obama/Kerry on usual cross purposes. II Michele Bachman comments

March 5, 2014

The Israeli navy seized a ship in the Red Sea on Wednesday that was carrying dozens of advanced Iranian-supplied rockets made in Syria that were intended for Palestinian militants in Gaza. The Panamanian-flagged cargo vessel, Klos-C, was boarded in international waters without resistance and is being escorted to the Israeli port of Eilat.

Israel Defense Forces (IDF) spokesman Lt-Col Peter Lerner said dozens of M302 rockets were found. “The M302 in its most advanced model can strike over 100 miles, and if they would have reached Gaza, ultimately that would have meant millions of Israelis under threat.” Lerner said the rockets were flown from Syria to Iran, from which they were shipped first to Iraq and then toward Sudan. Iran had orchestrated the shipment, Lerner said, describing the process as months in the making.

The Iranian arms vessel was intercepted about 930 miles from the Israeli coast by special forces from the Flotilla 13 (naval commando) unit. Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon said Wednesday: “It has once again become clear that Iran continues to be the greatest exporter of terror in the world…and its failed effort to transfer the weapons discovered this morning is additional evidence. The Iranian regime continues to deceive the world; while it shows its smiling face it continues to be the biggest threat to world peace.” 

Netanyahu Promotes Efforts Toward a Peace Deal (Huh!)

By Mark Landler and Jodi Rudoren

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel on Tuesday made an enthusiastic pitch for a peace accord with the Palestinians, saying it would enable Israel to tighten ties with its Arab neighbors and “catapult the region forward” on issues like health, energy and education. “We could better the lives of hundreds of millions,” Netanyahu said in a speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). “We all have so much to gain from peace.”
 “I hope that the Palestinian leadership will stand with Israel and the United States on the right side of the moral divide, the side of peace, reconciliation and hope,” Netanyahu said. (New York Times)

II Is the Obama administration condoning sanctions and boycotts against Israel?

The Jerusalem Post
Feb. 12, 2014

When Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu addressed a Joint Session of Congress two years ago, he accurately proclaimed “Israel is not what is wrong with the Middle East. Israel is what is right with the Middle East.” Unfortunately, the Obama administration’s actions have repeatedly contradicted that longstanding belief, which has stood as the cornerstone of our valued 65-year relationship with the Jewish State of Israel.

It is imperative, for our mutual best interests, that America and Israel remain the reliable and solidly staunch allies they have always been. 

Given Congress’ almost unanimously positive bipartisan response to the prime minister’s speech is further proof of that sentiment.

Then why does the Obama administration continue to engage policies that are clearly detrimental to Israel’s best interests? At the recent Munich Conference, Secretary of State John Kerry’s never before heard comments from a US administration regarding Israel shocked the international community, and gave comfort and resolve to Israel’s enemies. 

Secretary Kerry clearly stated that if the status quo is maintained, and peace talks between the Israelis and Palestinians fail, Israel could face further “boycotts” and “de-legitimization.”

It is clearly this administration’s expectation that Israel must submit to the outrageous demands of Hamas, Hezbollah and the mullahs in Tehran.

 Not surprisingly, the swift and thunderous outrage of the Israeli people has put the Israel-American relationship in a most perilous position.

And in a recent interview with CNN, Secretary Kerry had an opportunity to clearly enunciate that the United States will oppose any boycott or de-legitimization efforts against Israel, but failed to affirm that long-held position.

The policy of the United States should and must be to boycott any company that boycotts Israel, and to openly and aggressively counter any country that even infers de-legitimization of Israel. The United States needs to be clear that it will expeditiously and robustly respond accordingly to anyone who maliciously attempts to sabotage Israel.

 It is historically inaccurate and diplomatically deplorable to suggest the peace process has or will fail because of Israel.

Most recently, the Obama administration pressured Israel to release terrorist murderers as a necessary prerequisite to meeting with the Palestinians, for which Israel got nothing else in return. The unreasonable demands continue to mount from the Palestinians, and rather than rebuke these requests to continually move the goalposts, the Obama administration has unconscionably insinuated that there will be further economic consequences if Israel does not acquiesce and surrender land that is most vital to its security interests.

The root of the problem, which dates back 65 years, is that the Palestinians and most of Israel’s neighbors refuse to accept Israel’s right to exist.

 As a result, its neighbors will not assent to the fact that Israel has a right to defend its borders, its way of life, and to protect its Jewish identity.

Given that reality, it stands to reason that it would be irresponsible for any nation to accept such a so-called “peace.”

 IT BECOMES even more reprehensible when one considers the fact that the threats against Israel are today laid in the context of a nuclear Iran, a stronger Hezbollah and an active Muslim Brotherhood that reportedly recently found itself graciously invited to a White House meeting with the president and vice president of the United States.

The only thing worse than Secretary Kerry’s words are his deeds, particularly when it comes to Israel and America’s greatest threat – a nuclear Iran. Recently, without Israel’s involvement and despite Israel’s strong objection, he carelessly and naively negotiated a P5+1 agreement with Iran that does nothing to bring to an end or even temporarily halt their enrichment of uranium. And just when sanctions on the Iranian regime, the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism, were finally beginning to bear fruit, the Obama administration agreed to significantly ease the pressure?

It is the irony of our time that while the US agreed to ease sanctions on Iran, which has continually refused to follow UN resolutions, they reaffirmed the threat of sanctions against Israel, a friend and an ally that has fulfilled the obligations it committed to in all previously negotiated “peace” agreements.

The United States House of Representatives voted to increase sanctions on Iran by the overwhelming vote of 400-20. The Senate companion bill to increase sanctions boasts 58 bipartisan co-sponsors, and would almost certainly pass if it was allowed to have an up or down vote. But the administration’s pressure not to move it forward, and the president’s threat to veto the legislation if passed, has temporarily put the bill “on ice.”

To listen to this president and his secretary of state is proof that the de-legitimization campaign against Israel is underway, and United States policy, which infers prejudice and pressure against Israel, only exacerbates the situation. President Obama should know that words matter, and the actions of his administration have worked to embolden and legitimize our common enemies.

President Obama has dangerously taken a calculated position that Iran can be trusted, the Palestinian Authority and Hamas have reconciliatory intentions, and Israel needs to be pressured into acquiescence.

 Since Israel’s rebirth on May 15, 1948, the one thing that could always be counted on was the loyal and unwavering support of the United States. That unqualified support still exists, with the American people and in the US Congress.

Unfortunately, the Obama administration’s policies sadly do not reflect it.

Why spoil their lunch? The Jews won’t get it anyway!

By Jerome S. Kaufman, Editor/Publisher
Israel Commentary

March 2, 2014

Why spoil their lunch? The Jews won’t get it anyway!

It was time to commemorate the annual day of my Dad’s passing, as is our custom, and the rabbi was kind enough to give me an opportunity to say a few words about my Dad. I told the rabbi that I had instead prepared a commentary on this week’s Haftorah reading and he was happy to give me permission to do that.

But, I chickened out. As soon as I walked into the lunch room I realized that this crowd of 150 plus people was there for the lunch not to hear a lecture from me — especially one with which most of them disagreed mightily. Rather than embarrass the Rabbi and spoil this usual festive occasion, I just excused myself.

But, the message has already been written, is burning a hole in my head and happens to be posted just below.

My Dad was a man with simple tastes and I believe he considered his only role in life was to support his family. As far as himself, he appeared to have no desire to obtain fame and fortune. He took delight in the most simple of pleasures. Give my Dad a firm ripe tomato, a good sweet corn, a slice of ripe water melon and finally his beloved schmaltz herring with a boiled potato.

To finish this elegant meal let him sit and read his Sunday Yiddish newspaper and my Dad appeared perfectly content with his lot in life.

What dawned on me in later years was that I never heard a word of envy or resentment in his mouth. He did not begrudge some one’s else bigger home, shinier car, greater fame and fortune. There was never any denigration of the wealthy or the successful.

Which brings us to this week’s Haftorah portion, Shekalim, that I chanted to the congregation in Hebrew to commemorate My Dad’s passing in the Jewish Leap Year Adar II 1, 5722, one month after his third grandchild was born.

Shekalim refers to the 1/2 Shekel coins that the Israelis were required to donate once per year. Their main purpose was to purchase communal sacrifices to atone for their sins.

What always struck me about this custom was the stipulation that all men, rich or poor, contributed the same 1/2 Shekel. The wealthier man was not punished. He was not asked to put in more money. He was not penalized for his success or good fortune.

Hashem (G-d) seems to have taken a similar approach in the Torah reading four Shabbats ago called Parsha Terumah. He ordered the Israelis to build a Temple to contain his spirit, his holiness. His recommendations for the construction were most exacting and luxurious. But, when it came to asking contributions from the Israelis, he again did not punish anyone because of their riches, their position, their supposed ability to give.

Instead, God spoke to Moshe, saying: “Speak to the children of Israel, and have them dedicate to Me a contribution. Take My offering from every person whose heart inspires him to generosity.” Not from how much he might have in stocks and bonds or cash under his bed but what he wanted to give from his heart.

You may know that I publish a blog called Israel Commentary. Anyone can subscribe to it. Just type the two words “Israel Commentary” into your search engine, whether it be Google, Google Chrome, Yahoo, Firefox, whatever and it is usually the first item found at the top of some 79 million plus articles using those words.

On February 3, 2014, I published an article from the Wall Street Journal by the brilliant Ruth Wisse, professor of Yiddish and comparative literature at Harvard university and an astute political observer.

Professor Wisse called the article, The Dark Side of the War on the 1%.

Professor Wisse commented on the Obama Administration and Democratic Party’s deliberate focus on class warfare, the re-distribution of wealth and the virtual punishment of the wealthy, the successful, the top 1% of the population.

She went on to describe the frequent connection between Class warfare and anti-Semitism. Professor Wisse warned that stoking class envy is a step in a familiar, dangerous and highly incendiary process. The perfect example is of course, Adolph Hitler. She described this political gambit as a very slippery slope that can result in awful consequences. Who should know that better than the Jews?

Who is automatically included in the minds of some non Jews with this War on the 1%? Of course, we the Jews are and, if you remember those sick people in that awful Occupy Wall Street fiasco creating a disgusting blight right in many of your own back yards, Jew hatred was on the tip of many of their tongues but, of course, not reported in the left wing press.

And, now at this very moment, the Jew haters have plenty of evidence in their own sick minds, of the Jews apparently controlling this country. The last three chairmen of the Federal Reserve have been Jews; Alan Greenspan, Ben Bernanke and now Janet Yellen. Also the Treasury Secretary (Jack Lew) is Jewish.

Never mind the fact that American Jews have their share of citizens living well beneath the poverty level. That fact never gets in the way of the mind set of the Jew haters.

Unfortunately, Professor Wisse goes on to say, if and when the economy drops like a lead balloon, it will be the Jews who will be, Hashem forbid, blamed and a very easy target.

The irony is that the majority of Jews still vote for the party and the administration espousing and promoting class warfare and punishing by every means possible the 1% — those people that have always been most responsible for this great country’s success.

Hopefully one day, very soon, the Jews will open their eyes to their own uncanny ability to self destruct and re-think their voting habits.

Jerome S. Kaufman (Yaacov ben Shimon)

The Deliberate creation of Chaos is No. 1 Job for this “Transitional President”

II Video: Neil Cavuto, Fox News, gives Obama What For!


From an in-depth must read article by David Kupelian

Managing Editor of World Net Daily
January 2014

…While health care has dominated center stage, other Obama-era scandals litter the D.C. political landscape like wreckage from a 50-car pile-up.

According to top retired generals and other senior officers, the current commander in chief is waging a war of sorts against the U.S. military. The attack is playing out on multiple battle fronts, including the firing of close to 200 senior officers during Obama’s first five years in office — nine generals in 2013 alone. Some retired generals are openly calling it a “purge.” Add to that the promotion of open homosexuality, women in front-line combat, suicidal rules of engagement, unwinnable counterinsurgency strategies and, to top it off, increasing official antipathy toward God and Christianity, and you have a military in serious crisis. All manufactured in Washington – by Democrats.

There’s much more: America under Obama has no coherent foreign policy, resulting in this nation’s precipitous loss of power, influence and respect worldwide. Likewise, our national economy is being so abused by government borrowing and ill-considered Federal Reserve monetary intervention that the world is close to abandoning the dollar as its reserve currency — a huge loss to America with grave, if yet unseen, ramifications. And of course, many government agencies are drowning in their own Obama-era scandals — from the Justice Department to the Internal Revenue Service to the National Security Agency to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

The good news is that the great illusion is evaporating. Nobody gets a “thrill up their leg” anymore when Obama speaks (except Chris Matthews). Few Obama “true believers” remain. Mistrust is high. Just as in “The Emperor’s New Clothes,” America’s would-be monarch is now widely seen as he really is — a charismatic but immature, narcissistic and shockingly deceitful far-left agitator who somehow ended up in the White House.

The next play?

… To rule like a dictator from his White House inner sanctum, and to succeed in moving the progressive agenda continually forward, one more thing is necessary: Obama needs crises. Otherwise, the spell of deception tends to break and too many people wake up and complain … and vote.

Therefore, 2014 could be called “the year of manufactured crises.”

The No. 1 crisis of the year, at least for now, is Obamacare, which after all is essentially a huge, completely manufactured national disaster. … Obamacare, which was packaged and gift-wrapped as the solution to the flaws in America’s health-care system, is actually a crisis-causing “transition” stage between free-market health care and a socialist state.

David Kupelian is managing editor of WorldNetDaily and editor of WND’s Whistleblower magazine

II Video: Neil Cavuto, Fox News, gives Obama What For!

Global warming right around the corner? Date of Report?

The Washington Post


The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulafft, at Bergen, Norway

Reports from fishermen, seal hunters, and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes.

Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.

Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable.

* * * * * * * * *

I apologize, I neglected to mention that this report was from November 2, 1922, as reported by the Associated Press (AP) and published in The Washington Post – 90+ years ago.