The Writing on the Wall for Barack Obama and Israel

By former governor and Presidential candidate, Mike Huckabee

The Writing on the Wall for Barack Obama and Israel

Huckabee: Americans Would Back Israeli Strike on Iran

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee says the American people would definitely support an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities — but questions whether the Obama administration would back such a strike.

“I’m confident that there would be an overwhelming support from the American people,” the 2008 Republican presidential candidate told CBN News in Jerusalem on Monday.

“Whether the American administration would be as supportive, I don’t know.

“It’s one of those real concerns that many of us have — why the Obama administration hasn’t been stronger in its support for Israel in doing what it has to do.”

A bipartisan group of senators has passed a resolution declaring that it is unacceptable for Iran to obtain a nuclear capability.

“Now it’s been pretty clear, saying it’s unacceptable and all the options are on the table to keep Iran from having a nuclear device,” said Huckabee, who is hosting a tour of about 175 Americans in Israel.

“But it hasn’t been as clear as saying that should Israel [act] as a sovereign nation to protect itself and to preserve its own survival, if it takes the action, we will stand behind her and accept that.”

He added: “They’re not just doing Israel a favor. They’re doing a favor for the United States, but they’re also doing a favor for the Saudis, the Jordanians, the Kuwaitis, the people of Qatar and the [United Arab] Emirates. Everybody in the world is safer for Iran to be disengaged from nuclear capacity.”

Middle East expert Walid Phares said in a Newsmax.TV interview on Tuesday: “If the Iranian regime is very close to putting a weapon on a missile, then no questions asked, [the Israelis] are going to try to take action. They will try to coordinate with us or inform us at the end of the day.

“It has to do with the width of Israel. It has to do with Israel unaccepting the idea that they could absorb one strike.”

Many Israelis and Israel supporters abroad are concerned that if Obama wins re-election, he would no longer be motivated to court the Jewish vote and could turn against Israel, CBN News reported.

Referring to those concerns, Huckabee said that in a second Obama term, when the “political consequences” are behind him, Obama’s “true sentiments” might surface.

“Effective Sanctions” against Iran an Oxymoron

Sanctions against Iran – Not an Option
Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger, “Second Thought”
“Israel Hayom” newsletter, February 21, 2012

“Effective Sanctions” against Iran an Oxymoron

The term “effective sanctions” against Iran on the one hand and global political reality on the other hand, constitute an oxymoron, playing into the hands of Iran.

Effective sanctions require the full cooperation of Russia and China, two strategic rivals of the US, as demonstrated by their UN Security Council double-veto of the October 2011 and February 2012 anti-Assad resolutions.  They do not fully cooperate with sanctions invoked against Iran, and assist the Tehran regime, as do some European countries.  Furthermore, Japan, India and Turkey have subordinated compliance with sanctions to their trade relations with Iran, as have some countries in Latin America and Europe.

Each new sanction against Iran requires several months for effectiveness assessment. Thus, it extends the time available to Iran to develop its nuclear capabilities, as well as to acquire critical technologies and systems from North Korea, Pakistan, Russia or China.

Forty years of US economic sanctions against North Korea – which does not harbor Iran-like megalomaniac aspirations – have failed to topple the regime or prevent its nuclearization. Fifty years of sanctions against Cuba has, also, reaffirmed the constraints of sanctions against rogue regimes, which subject their people to ruthless dictatorships and ideological brainwashing.

Sanctions have, usually, been employed in order to avoid the tougher – and more effective – options, which are required to produce regime-change or dramatic policy-alteration. Sanctions express loudly and clearly disapproval of certain regimes and policies, but generally fail to achieve their goal.

The preoccupation with “effective sanctions” and diplomacy ignores the gravity and immediacy of the clear, present and devastating threat to the US, posed by a nuclear Iran, independent of Israel’s existence and policies.

Just as Bin-Laden, who had ample opportunities to hit Israel, but preferred to hit the US and Western Europe, so does Iran consider the US and NATO (and Saudi Arabia) its top enemies, and most formidable obstacles in the way of assuming domination of the Persian Gulf, and therefore its top targets.

A nuclear Iran would cause a meltdown of pro-US Gulf regimes through a violent regime change, and/or via a dramatic policy change by the currently pro-US Gulf regimes. Iran’s nuclear intimidation of Central Asian (former USSR) countries would tilt them toward Teheran or Moscow and against the US.

A nuclear Iran would accelerate nuclear proliferation in the Mid-East, the role model of instability, unpredictability and violent regime change – a nightmare scenario for global sanity. According to former Vice Chairman of the US Joint-Chiefs-of-Staff Marine Corps General James Cartwright, and such a scenario would be “my number one proliferation concern globally…extremely, extremely dangerous.”  Saudi Arabia is currently registering its Iran-driven panic with US Senators and House Representatives, pleading for military preemption, while expediting its own nuclear initiative.  It could acquire nuclear capabilities from Pakistan, which has been a closely-aligned beneficiary of crucial Saudi financial support for its own nuclear facilities. Hence, Abdul Qadeer Khan, the Founding Father of Pakistan’s nuclear program, has recently visited Saudi Arabia, which has concluded a series of civilian nuclear cooperation agreements with China, France, South Korea and Argentina. Egypt would not lag behind Saudi Arabia, its intra-Arab rival, stepping-up its already advanced nuclear program, as would Turkey, which aspires to hegemony in the Muslim World.

A nuclear Iran would intimidate Saudi Arabia and other oil-producing Gulf States, threatening the normal operations of their oil infrastructure, dramatically influencing oil quota and price, interfering with – and possibly disrupting – the supply of oil, directly impacting the price at the pump and the level of unemployment in the US and the West.

A nuclear Iran would bolster its existing beachheads in Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador and Mexico, which host Hezbollah, Hamas and Iran’s elite extraterritorial Quds Force.  It could transfer some nuclear systems to its Latin American allies, which recently hosted six visits by Ahmadinejad, who is systematically enhancing Iran’s security profile on the American continent.

A nuclear Iran would provide a significant tailwind to scores, or hundreds, of sleeper cells in the US and Canada, as well as to anti-US global Islamic terrorism.

The highly exaggerated cost of military preemption – by the US or by Israel – would be dwarfed by the aforementioned threats of a nuclear Iran, in addition to the nuclear threat which would hover above US soldiers in the Gulf and above the US mainland. A regime which sacrificed 500,000 of its own children in order to clear minefields, during the 1980-1988 war against Iraq, is capable of launching nuclear warheads, irrespective of the cost.

An effective preemption should not be limited to critical nuclear facilities, but should simultaneously devastate Iran’s missile and air defense capabilities, thus minimizing the scope of Iran’s retaliation. An effective preemption would not include the occupation of Iran, thus distinguishing itself from Iraq’s 1980 invasion of Iran, which coalesced all Iranians against the threat to their sovereignty. An effective preemption is a prerequisite to regime-change through domestic opposition, which was disillusioned by the lack of Western support in 2009.

Refraining from preemption would gravely destabilize the Mid-East and beyond. The only effective way to prevent (Iran’s nuclearization and its devastating cost) is to preempt!

Why Muslim Student Group Concerned the NYC Police Department

I  Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) News, February 24, 2012

Steven Emerson, Executive Director

II  Must watch video. Canadian Muslim, born in Pakistani, tries desperately to wake us up.

The Muslim community expressed its outrage this week over a New York Police Department surveillance report from 2006 that the Associated Press reported on Monday. The report disclosed that the NYPD monitored Muslim Students Association (MSA) chapters in the Northeast. The outrage, centered on the perceived violation of privacy, is based on an incorrect presumption that law enforcement had no cause for concern with the MSA.

The organization’s history with radical dogma, convicted terrorists and radicalized alumni tell a different story. NYPD officials say critics are off base when they claim the department did something wrong.

“Some of the most dangerous Western Al Qaeda-linked/inspired terrorists since 9/11 were radicalized and/or recruited at universities in MSAs,” NYPD spokesman Paul Browne said as an explanation for the surveillance. “We were focused on radicalization and/or recruitment, specifically by groups like Al Muhajiroun, Islamic Thinkers Society, Revolution Muslim and others.”

Criticism of the NYPD surveillance has been swift.

“We believe that the NYPD clearly overstepped its boundaries when it began spying on average American Muslim college students who were simply taking whitewater rafting trips or innocently participating in school activities at their college or university campus,” said MSA National President Zahir Latheef.

The NYPD has a duty to protect New York City from terrorist attacks. And MSA leaders and members have been convicted of terrorist activities and plots.

The list is extensive, but among the MSA alumni who went on to terrorist involvement are:

  • Anwar al-Awlaki, an influential American-born al-Qaida cleric who recruited a series of homegrown jihadists before being killed by a U.S. drone strike;
  • Aafia Siddiqui, convicted of attempted murder and assault on U.S. officers and employees in Afghanistan;
  • Zachary Chesser, convicted of attempting to provide material support to the Somali terrorist group al-Shabaab and soliciting attacks on “South Park” producers for an episode in which the prophet Muhammad was shown in a bear suit;
  • Jesse Morton, convicted with Chesser of threatening the South Park producers with murder;
  • Adam Gadahn, an al-Qaida spokesman who is on the FBI’s Most Wanted List for treason and material support to al-Qaida;
  • Waheed Zaman, who was convicted of plotting to blow up transatlantic flights;
  • Adis Medunjanin, who is awaiting trial for plotting to bomb New York subways;
  • Ramy Zamzam, who was convicted in Pakistan of conspiring to carry out terrorist attacks;
  • Omar Hammami, who was indicted on charges of providing material support to al-Shabbab and is designated by the U.S. Treasury Department for his terrorist connections;
  • Muhammad Junaid Babar, who pled guilty to his support to al-Qaida; and
  • Syed Hashmi, who pled guilty to providing material support to al-Qaida.

MSA was founded in the United States in 1963 by members of the Egyptian-based Muslim Brotherhood. The Brotherhood seeks a global Islamic state and has spawned leaders of a series of Sunni terrorist groups, including al-Qaida, Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

The Muslim Brotherhood motto established by founder Hassan al-Banna is, “God is our objective, the Quran is our Constitution, the Prophet is our leader, jihad is our way, and death for the sake of God is the highest of our aspirations.”

MSA’s history and various connections are significant in evaluating the NYPD’s surveillance. Mayor Michael Bloomberg defended the action as an important countermeasure to terrorist activity. “Of course, we’re going to look at anything that’s publicly available, in the public domain. We have an obligation to do so,” he said.

II Must watch video. Canadian Muslim, born in Pakistani, tries desperately to wake us up.

ideacity on Broadcast Live Free

Rudy Giuliani Slams Romney, Praises Gingrich

II A former Israeli/American Mayor discusses Newt vs. Mitt

News Breaking from, January 30, 2012

Speaking on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani recently praised Newt Gingrich and criticized Mitt Romney as a flip-flopper.

Rudy Giuliani Slams Romney, Praises Gingrich

“I’ve never seen a guy change his positions on so many things, so fast, on a dime, on everything,” Giuliani said about the former Massachusetts governor. “Pro-choice, pro-life.  And pro-choice because somebody, a close friend, died, and he became pro-choice because this woman died of an abortion. Then he figures out there are embryos and he changes.

“Then he was pro-gun control,” Giuliani opined. “Fine. Then he becomes a lifetime member of the NRA. Then he was pro cap and trade. Now he’s against cap and trade. He was pro-mandate for the whole country, then he becomes anti-mandate and he takes that page out of his book and republishes the book. I could go on and on.”

Giuliani concluded that Romney is a “man that will say anything to become president of the United States.”

Meanwhile, the 9/11 icon likened Gingrich to Ronald Reagan.

“I kind of go back to 1980 and I remember the Carter White House just dying [to run against] Ronald Reagan,” Giuliani said. “Ronald Reagan was the dumb actor, Ronald Reagan said incendiary things, Ronald Reagan was like Newt — gosh, you never knew what he was going to say and the whole world would go crazy — The New York Times would write editorials. There was Bush, greatest resume of anyone who ever ran for president, solid citizen. They got Reagan and they got trounced.”

Giuliani continued: “I think Newt has a much more consistent position as a conservative, with some real exceptions like Ronald Reagan had. Ronald Reagan signed a bill that made abortion legal in the state of California. Ronald Reagan did in fact raise taxes several times, not just as president, but also as governor of California.”

Giuliani also talked about electibility.

“It may be that Newt is appealing to some that maybe Mitt isn’t appealing to,” Giuliani explained. “There’s something wrong when you’ve been running as long as Mitt has and you’re at 25 percent, and you don’t go much below, and you don’t go much above. Seventy-five percent of the other Republicans are telling you something.”

Breaking News from 


InsiderAdvantage Poll: Gingrich Surging, Race ‘Tighter Than Expected’A new InsiderAdvantage poll conducted Sunday night of likely Republican voters in the state of Florida shows a significant surge for Newt Gingrich.

The poll has Romney leading with 36 percent of voters, followed by Gingrich at 31 percent.

The Sunday results of 646 likely GOP voters are as follows:

• Romney 36 percent
• Gingrich 31 percent
• Santorum 12 percent
• Paul 12 percent
• Other/Undecided 9 percent

“The race will be tighter than expected,” Matt Towery, chief pollster of InsiderAdvantage told Newsmax.

Towery noted that his poll showed a surge for Romney on Wednesday, with him leading Gingrich by 8 points. The InsiderAdvantage poll was among the first to show Romney’s resurgence after his dismal showing in the S. Carolina primary.

The InsiderAdvantage poll was also the first to show Gingrich’s rise in S. Carolina and accurately forecast his win there.

“The trend is favoring Gingrich,” Towery said, noting that while Romney’s lead was still outside the margin of error of 3.8 percent, “It’s not by much.”

Towery said Gingrich is doing “substantially better” with men than Romney, 38 to 28, but the former House Speaker still faces a “gender gap,” as women are still favoring Romney.

“Men are moving in droves to Gingrich and away from Romney,” Towery said.

As for Florida’s important Latino vote, InsiderAdvantage has Gingrich beating Romney by a large margin, leading 42 percent to 29 percent.

© Newsmax. All rights reserved.


Op-Ed: Florida Primaries: Gingrich vs. Romney on Israel


Published: Monday, January 30, 2012 2:37 PM


The writer delineates the difference between the two pro-Israel candidates on Judea and Samaria and the “Palestinian people”

 by David Rubin, former Shiloh Mayor

 For those pro-Israel Americans who are still on the fence about which candidate to support in the Republican primaries, this particular American-Israeli would like to briefly scan some of the nuances on the campaign trail.

With the notable exception of Congressman Ron Paul, who has harshly criticized Israel’s treatment of our Hamas-supporting neighbors in Gaza as being “like a concentration camp”, the contenders for the nomination have been considered to be staunchly pro-Israel. All support a strong stand against Iran, including the potential use of military force to end Iran’s race to develop nuclear weapons, but are the candidates really all on the same page on the main issues that concern Israel?

Let’s examine the record. The differences become clear when they discuss “the Palestinians” and the so-called peace process.

Former Pennsylvania Governor Rick Santorum, whose campaign has been struggling recently, was questioned by a young voter about the Palestinians right to an independent state in the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) and Santorum responded sharply, saying, “There is no Palestinian people” and defending Israel’s right to call as its own land won in a defensive war (The 1967 Six Day War).

Similarly, Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has referred to the Palestinians as “an invented people” that was never a nation, and, elaborating on this at an ABC News debate added, “Somebody ought to have the courage to tell the truth. These people are terrorists. They teach terrorism in theirschools. They have textbooks that say ‘if there are 13 Jews and 9 Jews are killed, how many Jews are left?’ We pay for those textbooks through our aid money. It’s time for somebody to say:  enough lying about the Middle East.”

Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney is on record defending Israel’s right to decide how to negotiate and has said that all disagreements between Israel and the United States should be discussed in private. He also has criticized President Obama for “throwing Israel under the bus” (a nice clich?) and said, “I will stand by our friend Israel” (another nice clich?). In the most recent debate in Florida, Romney criticized Obama for failures in the peace negotiations, but didn’t criticize the so-called Palestinians. In that same debate,

Gingrich blasted the Palestinian leadership for enabling and/or allowing continued rocket attacks and pledged that on his first day in office, he would issue an executive order moving the Israeli Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

The differences between the two leading candidates are actually fairly substantial. Romney has made quite a few positive statements about the importance of the USA-Israel relationship, but has been carefully avoiding taking positions that might change the “land for peace” process (actually – land for a meaningless piece of paper) and the status quo of the “two-state solution” or that might offend the Palestinian Authority. Furthermore, Romney was quite critical of Gingrich for making his “invented people” statement, saying that we shouldn’t “get ahead of our ally Israel.”

After years of American pressure, much of Israel’s leadership is endorsing suicidal positions that would hand over its strategic heartland, in which most of the biblical sites are located, to the Hamas, Fatah, and Islamic Jihadists for an independent state. Is Romney suggesting that a true friend should let its ally commit suicide?

On the other hand, Gingrich has, on several recent occasions, taken bold, right-of-center positions on the Middle East that often defy the status quo, sending the clear message that his actions as president would be based on a historically-correct vision of peace through strength and Israel’s right to its biblical heartland.

The irrational need to adhere to the ridiculous land for “peace” mantra that has never worked should be carefully reexamined by all the presidential candidates. Newt Gingrich has taken a giant step in that direction and he is to be highly commended for it.

“Newt, Newt, Newt. He was absolutely terrific tonight…he might win on Saturday!” – Dick Morris, Political Analyst

Dear Fellow American,

“Newt, Newt, Newt. He was absolutely terrific tonight…he might win on Saturday!” – Dick Morris, Political Analyst

Newt Gingrich won the debate last night and put the campaign on track for success this Saturday. It wasn’t even close.


<a href= watch this video</a>


Here’s what others said:

Frank Luntz: “I’ve never seen it in a debate and I’ve been doing these debates now for 16 years – a standing ovation in the middle of a debate!”

Kathryn Lopez of National Review said, “This will get watched and re-watched.”

Even the Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza said, “This was the former House Speaker’s best debate of the entire race…Gingrich let ‘er rip tonight and had the exuberant crowd…eating out of his hand.”

There’s nobody better to debate Barack Obama and beat him in the election than Newt Gingrich.

Thorsten Wagner – A Problematic Danish/German Speaker with a Problematic Message

By Jerome S. Kaufman

Thorsten Wagner, Professor and lecturer from Copenhagen, Denmark was hosted by Temple Beth El in West Palm Beach Florida, January 14, 2012.  His invitation was evidently based upon the fact that his grandfather was a Nazi sympathizer and Thorsten grew up in a disputed area of Denmark on the German border.  He now speaks as a historian supposedly empathetic to the tribulations of the Jews of Nazi Germany.

Thorsten Wagner – A Problematic Danish/German Speaker with a Problematic Message

Curious with what this gentleman might have to say, I attended his lecture at the Temple and am still not sure the purpose or direction of his talk. The fact that he was a tall, handsome, apparently friendly man and totally effective in charming the receptive Jewish Temple audience was undeniable. What he was doing there, other than the obvious speaking engagement fee? I am not at all sure. Was he there to assuage the guilt of his grandfather, perhaps his inadvertent own or that of the other of Daniel Jonah Goldhagen’s, Hitler’s Willing Executioners? I doubt that.

The synagogue rabbi did present a clue in an incidental aside concerning Wagner’s address Friday night. Wagner had admonished the Jewish audience not to get hung up blaming the Muslims for the rejuvenated anti-Semitism in Europe and Islam’s virtual invasion of European nations and attempt to establish Sharia law in these nations. Did not the Jews remember when they too were labeled and despised as new immigrants?

Huh?  How dare he make such a preposterous comparison and how clever of him to mine the endless caverns of Jewish guilt. Never mind that the Jews have spent generations attempting to meld into American society and at an immense cost to their own religious observance. Is that the case with Muslims?

At the question and answer session I was able to pose this question to Wagner. How could he state that the Muslims were a minor factor in Europe, a very small percentage of the population and just another group of harmless refugees attempting to establish a foothold in a new society, just like everyone else?

Wagner declared that he based his conclusions on the Pew Report. I then went to the Internet and read two articles on the Pew Report and was convinced that there must be two different Pew Reports. Not So! There is only one report – that compiled by the Pew Research Center Forum on Religion and Public Life itself plus several commentaries from other sources.

Professor Wagner evidently read the one by Tom Heneghan on his web site, FaithWorld. The opening remarks of this report are:

One of the most wrong-headed arguments in the debate about Muslims in Europe is the shrill “Eurabia” claim that high birth rates and immigration will make Muslims the majority on the continent within a few decades. Based on  sleight-of-hand statistics, this scaremongering (as The Economist called it back in 2006) paints a picture of a triumphant Islam dominating a Europe that has lost its Christian roots and is blind to its looming cultural demise . The Egyptian-born British writer Bat Ye’or popularized the term with her 2005 book “Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis” and this argument has become the background music to much exaggerated talk about Muslims in Europe. (The article continued in a similar vein.)

Heneghan’s above interpretation of the Pew Report (and consequently Thorston Wagner’s) stands in stark contrast to the Executive Summary coming right off of the pages of the Pew Forum report itself, dated January 27, 2011 and shown below:

The Future of the Global Muslim Population

Projections for 2010-2030, ANALYSIS January 27, 2011

“The world’s Muslim population is expected to increase by about 35% in the next 20 years, rising from 1.6 billion in 2010 to 2.2 billion by 2030, according to new population projections by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life.

Globally, the Muslim population is forecast to grow at about twice the rate of the non-Muslim population over the next two decades – an average annual growth rate of 1.5% for Muslims, compared with 0.7% for non-Muslims. If current trends continue, Muslims will make up 26.4% of the world’s total projected population of 8.3 billion in 2030, up from 23.4% of the estimated 2010 world population of 6.9 billion.

Muslims will remain relatively small minorities in Europe and the Americas but they are expected to constitute a growing share of the total populations of these regions.”

Unfortunately, unlike other immigrants to these countries, Muslims have shown no desire or inclination to become part of the greater cultures. Quite the contrary, there is an outspoken declaration and action to make the greater culture conform to Sharia law via  intimidating school systems, legislatures, the court system and the present administration itself, which already abounds with intrinsic Muslim support, empathy and identification.

But where does all this place American Jews. Despite Wagner’s scholarship of the Holocaust and its virtual annihilation of the Jews of Europe, he admonishes Jewish audiences to not be frightened by the lethal verbiage and action against them by Islamists. Jews are to ignore Islam’s declared intention to annihilate the Jews and Christians and turn the world into a giant Caliphate. ( And … it is painfully obvious, they are doing exactly that all over the world, including the US, at this very moment!).

Do not those actions sound a whole lot like those of Adolph Hitler and now Ahmadinejad? Are Jews then to conform to the recommendations of Thorston Wagner and hide their heads in the sand as they have done on so many other existential occasions? I think not.  Furthermore, I would never allow Wagner to appear before another Jewish audience. I don’t trust him!

Comment from reader, Jan. 27, 2012

Thank you for sending me this alarming article. Unfortunately, most every one is blind to the obvious truth you brought out for me who survived the war and lost 22 members of my family in the death camps….We live today in the same atmosphere as the one I lived trough in 1938….and I am sick with worries. For this reason I work with all my heart for Israel …for Magen David Adom who is “Israel ‘s second line of defense,” to quote Yitzhak Rabin. Indeed MDA is vital to the survival of our Beloved ISRAEL….but I wish the world would start to open its eyes before it becomes too late to stop the evil forces at work against civilization and against the Jews in particular.

With renewed thanks,

Jacqueline Goldman       (French/American citizen)

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”

The beautiful unappreciated, unreported history of Israel in South Sudan

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?

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?