relationship with Israel and the USA and it is not pretty: From a recent email

I have just received this: from my friend in Israel,who moves in high circles in Israel

Tonight Clive and I heard very disturbing information – we heard itfrom a consultant to the United States who meets once a month with the President in the White house. He is in the know. This is what actually has happened with the relationship with Israel and the USA and it is not pretty:

1. Israel during the Bush and Clinton Administrations – had landing rights in Turkey,and in the USA bases in the middle east and more recently under George Bush, in Iraq. This was in case they were invaded by Iran, or Saudi or any other Arab country. Obama has withdrawn those landing rights. Israel now has nowhere to refuel in the middle east.
2.Netanyahu was instructed to come to the white house for a meeting. He was brought in through a servants entrance – the only head of state ever in US history to be given that disgraceful treatment. He was not offered even a cup of tea – but was lectured to by Obama who told him that he is not permitted to attack Iran and that he has to withdraw all forces from the West bank and may not build any more settlements ( neighborhoods) in East Jerusalem .
3.Israel found out that there were four terrorists meeting in Dubai. As they have done for the past 62 years, they informed the US of that and said that these terrorists had to be dealt with. Obama said under no circumstances. Israel decided to go ahead. They killed the one terrorist who showed up. However the CIA was sent there to film the entire event by Obama – and then a concerted PR campaign was waged by the White house to discredit Israel and what they did – this kind of action has taken place with US support for the past 62 years since we have common enemies.
4.Obama has refused to oppose Syria’s re-arming of Hezbollah and Hamas – Israel now sits in imminent danger from the amounts of missiles that can be sent into her territory.
5.Israel will never tell the US again of its plans – since they cannot trust us.
6.Israel intends to attack Iran – there are over 30 installations of which 4 have underground bunkers that contain nuclear weapons. Israel cannot wait any longer. The US is no longer supporting Israel ’s self defense.
7.This is the same man that gave the White House a full file on the 9.11 attack – his warnings and proof were laughed at.
8.He believes that the next attacks in the USA will be mass transportation – subways and malls – especially the largest malls where the most people can be killed – and that Vegas and wherever there are conventions of employees will be a huge target. We are not prepared and are naïve in our lack thereof.
9.Once Israel attacks Iran, every Jew and Jewish institution will be at risk – temples, religious schools etc. We must be prepared.
10.This kept a room of 200 people spellbound. It is not fiction. It is fact.

What can be done?
It is essential that everyone who doesn’t know yet, now understands that the protection and survival of Israel is not on Obama’s list – and he is now taking ACTUAL steps to move all protections away – no more landing rights, negotiating with Iran and Syria, making nice to the Moslem World in the face of allies of long standing and he is no friend of the Jewish people and Israel.

We must be sure that we elect politicians who protect Israel as well as the USA – our interests are intertwined. Please forward to everyone you know.

Obama’s Proud Muslim Moment

Obama’s Proud Muslim Moment
Allen Hunt
Monday, June 21, 2010

Despite an ever-spewing undersea oil well, another increase in weekly jobless claims, and a nation ablaze with immigration concerns, President Obama has finally received good news. His approval ratings are declining dramatically in the Muslim world. He should trumpet that plummet from sea to shining sea. The last thing America needs is a president that the Muslim world “approves.” Likability and niceness are overrated; a healthy fear and respect are much to be preferred.

Notwithstanding the rhetoric about President Obama’s re-booting our image in the Muslim world, and all the fanfare that accompanied his much bally-hooed Cairo speech, Obama’s biggest decline in popularity over the last year has come in Muslim countries. In the recent Pew Global Attitudes Project, a majority of the population in five of the six Muslim nations surveyed lack confidence in the president. For example, after a year in office, Mr. Obama has just 17 percent of Egyptians approving of his actual policies – a drop of 21 points from last year. In Jordan, just 15 percent approve of the president – down 12 points over the past year. The lone exception is Indonesia, where Obama lived as a child. A majority there approve of Obama, but even there Obama’s popularity has slipped in the past twelve months.

This is great news. Perhaps President Obama, albeit unwittingly, has established respect rather than approval as his dominant image in the Muslim world. This would be a remarkable, and unintentional, achievement for a man whose own team refuses to use the terms “radical Islam,” “jihad,” and “terror.” How the Muslim world has come to approve less of Obama, who prefers playing a game of semantics to having a real national security policy, is beyond me. Nevertheless, it is news worth celebrating.

The reasons for Obama’s decline in popularity in the Muslim world could find their origins in any number of perceptions. Perhaps he lost approbation with his orders for more troops in Afghanistan and the ongoing American military presence in the land of the Taliban.

It is also possible that Obama is seen by Muslims as weak and ineffective, even untrustworthy given his failure to close Guantanamo Bay in spite of his vociferous promises to do so.

Furthermore, given that nothing substantive has changed in America’s dealings with Iran or with Israel, Obama again looks ineffective to those who believed the hype about his providing new relations with the Middle East.

However, a recent news story should give Americans hope that the Muslim world may well have a new reason not to like President Obama. As a regular sentry regarding the threat that the Islamic worldview poses to the core Western values of freedom of religion and freedom of speech, I am grateful.

Tarek Hamdi seeks naturalization as an American citizen after having lived in the U.S. for several decades. He has raised his children and family here. Hamdi has worked as an attorney. And he has also donated money to the Benevolence International Foundation (BIF), a group designated as a financier of terrorism by the U.S. Treasury Department in 2002. Significantly, Hamdi’s application for citizenship has been denied.

Remarkably, the ACLU has filed a lawsuit demanding citizenship for Hamdi. They claim, alongside their client, that the federal government has discriminated against Hamdi because he is Muslim. Too bad. Our immigration and naturalization officials have done exactly what they are supposed to do – deny a place to those who aid and abet our Islamic terror enemies. Freedom does not include the right to commit treason. Sorry, Mr. Hamdi. Naturalized citizenship is a gift not a right. A privilege not a demand. Feed the monster that attacks us, and we will invite you to leave. We will not kill you; neither will we welcome you. Good-bye.

The time has long since come for America to take control of its naturalization process, given the recent terror arrests of naturalized citizens, like Faisal Shahzad and Mohammed Wali Zazi, who hail from Muslim lands. Whether Obama is aware or not, he can continue his decline in Muslim approval ratings by creating a few more of these stories like Tarek Hamdi. And America will be better off. The president might even inch up a point or two in his American approval ratings as word spreads that federal bureaucrats are beginning to take seriously whether it is appropriate to add to the Muslim presence in America.

So, for today, I salute President Obama for a job well done, whether he knows it or not. When the Muslim world ceases to love our president, that news is worth celebrating.

Rep. Mike Pence Has a Question for the President “Mr. President, Whose Side Are You On?”

“Mr. President, Whose Side Are You On?”

By Doug Powers  •  June 10, 2010 04:22 PM

**Written by guest-blogger Doug Powers

In light of the fact that all problems are solved in the United States and our debt and spending are under control, President Obama yesterday pledged $400 million in U.S. aid to the Palestinian territories. The money was pledged during a meeting between Obama and Mahmoud Abbas.

Obama said he would not meet with the CEO of BP because “he’s going to say all the right things to me, I’m not interested in words, I’m interested in actions,” so it’s nice to see him have such confidence in Abbas to be honest and forthright in his ultimately successful attempt to get his hands on hundreds of millions of American taxpayer dollars.

Cassy Fiano calls it a “terrorist stimulus package,” and if it is, the only reason for optimism is the hope that a terrorist stimulus will work as well as the stimulus package. If Sheriff Biden is in charge of making sure the aid works as intended, Abbas is screwed.

But remember, the $400 million is just a “down payment”:

The Obama administration’s promise of aid includes money to increase access to clean drinking water, create jobs and build schools and affordable housing. State Department officials called the projects “a down payment” on the U.S. commitment to improving life in Gaza.

Last year, U.S. officials pledged a total of $900 million for Gaza and the West Bank, but acknowledged the difficulty of distributing the funds, especially because Hamas controls Gaza and is considered a terrorist organization. The aid announced Wednesday may be distributed through organizations performing relief work, State Department officials said.

Sure. This aid will be different… it won’t be handed to the guys in the “Hamas” shirts, but rather to the nice folks wearing the “samaH” shirts (inability to recognize a t-shirt turned inside-out is a time-honored skill that’s been handed down through generations of United Nations aid distributors).

Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana isn’t happy with any of this, and asks Obama what I’d consider the rhetorical question of the week: “Whose side are you on?” (h/t Cubachi):

“Mr. President, Whose Side Are You On?”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c09RyJC0JqI&feature=player_embedded

Here are some things the media doesn’t report about Gaza. It ain’t all misery and Israeli-induced dispair.

According to exit polling on election day 2008, 78% of Jewish voters went for the US presidential candidate with a background that suggested he would empathize with the Muslim point of view (and I’m putting that so mildly that it borders on beyond sarcasm). I’m not Jewish, so if three-quarters of American Jewish folks don’t mind, maybe I shouldn’t be as concerned as I am. We’ll see what the numbers look like after the 2012 election.

**Written by guest-blogger Doug Powers

Twitter @ThePowersThatBe

Funding Hamas

Funding Hamas

Posted By Congresswoman Michele Bachmann On June 15, 2010 @ 12:24 am In FrontPage | 14 Comments

We are $13 trillion in debt. We will be $19.6 trillion in debt come 2015. Yet, the President wants to send $400 million for “humanitarian aid” to the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, an area controlled by the terrorist organization Hamas. As well intentioned as this offer may be, how can we be sure our money will not be used to fund terrorist activities? Well, we can’t.

If the money given to the late PLO chief Yasser Arafat is any indication, our dollars will be used to fund more terrorist activities and line the pockets of those in charge. Moreover, people have been sentenced to prison for funneling money to Hamas under the guise of “humanitarian aid,” so it’s a bit peculiar that our government would send money under the same conditions. Before one dime is handed over to the Palestinians, Congress needs to do its due diligence to ensure there are safeguards in place to prevent money from being used for terrorist activities.

Obama Nominee for Deputy Attorney General Says 9/11 Attacks Not Acts of War

Obama Nominee for Deputy Attorney General Says 9/11 Attacks Not Acts of War

June 15th, 2010

On the heels of Obama comparing the oil spill to 9/11, it appears that Obama’s nominee for the second to the top spot at the Justice Department compared the 9/11 attacks to domestic crimes like murder and rape. It’s beginning to seem like it is the Obama administration’s game plan to denigrate the tragedy of 9/11. 

Obama Nominee says 9/11 attacks weren’t acts or war 

  

By Fred Lucas, CNS News.com 

Despite a resolution by Congress authorizing war against those responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks, President Obama’s nominee to be the number two official at the Justice Department, James Cole, wrote an op-ed in 2002 likening the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon to the domestic crimes of murder, rape and child abuse, while arguing that the attackers ought to be treated like domestic criminals.
“But the attorney general is not a member of the military fighting a war–he is a prosecutor fighting crime,” Cole wrote in a Sept. 9, 2002 article in Legal Times that critiqued the way then-Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft was handling the 9/11 case.
“For all the rhetoric about war, the Sept. 11 attacks were criminal acts of terrorism against a civilian population, much like the terrorist acts of Timothy McVeigh in blowing up the federal building in Oklahoma City, or of Omar Abdel-Rahman in the first effort to blow up the World Trade Center,” said Cole. “The criminals responsible for these horrible acts were successfully tried and convicted under our criminal justice system, without the need for special procedures that altered traditional due process rights. 

Read More 

WH PRESS QUEEN: JEWS GET OUT OF ISRAEL, GO BACK TO POLAND!

Birds of a feather   A Has Been And A Never Was

Helen Thomas Tells Jews — ‘Get the Hell Out of Palestine’ and Go Back to Germany & Poland

See video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQcQdWBqt14&feature=player_embedded

The long, hot Summer of Corruption Updated

Lead Story

The long, hot Summer of Corruption Updated

By Michelle Malkin  •  June 2, 2010 09:40 AM

6/3 Scroll down for updates…Romanoff and Sestak and Blago, oh my!

The resurrection of Rod Blagojevich
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2010

We’ve had the Summer of Love and the Summer of the Shark. Now, are you ready for the Summer of Corruption? On Thursday, jury selection begins in the federal trial of disgraced former Democrat Gov. Rod Blagojevich of Illinois. The timing couldn’t be worse for Blago’s old Chicago pals in the White House. Just as Team Obama tries to bury one job-trading scandal, another one resurfaces.

It’s a useful reminder that Washington didn’t turn Obama into a business-as-usual politician. He was born and bred among the slimiest in their class.

At the center of the Blago trial is the convergence of the Chicago political machine – the corrupt Democratic Party establishment, Big Labor heavies at the Services Employees International Union, and Team Obama.

In December 2008, the political ties that bind them all came under national scrutiny when federal prosecutors publicly released their criminal complaint against Blagojevich. SEIU figured prominently in Blago’s secretly taped musings on how to profit from his power to appoint Obama’s Senate replacement. So did a larger union umbrella federation, Change to Win, led by SEIU secretary-treasurer Anna Burger. Blago hatched a plan to snag a $300,000-a-year job as head of Change to Win in exchange for appointing a union-friendly successor to Obama.

Like Obama, Blago enjoyed massive campaign donations and on-the-ground support from the SEIU’s Purple Army. Like Obama, Blago repaid his Big Labor backers with labor-friendly executive orders and legislative largesse to facilitate union organizing and carve out major portions of the health care industry for them. At the time of his arrest, Blago was preparing another executive order to expand the union power grab over an even larger portion of home health care workers targeted by the SEIU.

Blagojevich did the country an extraordinary unintended favor. As health care analyst David Catron wrote: “He has made it clear to the meanest intelligence that Obama emerged from a hopelessly corrupt political culture. Barack Obama oozed from the same stinking Chicago swamp that produced Blagojevich, and a man whose formative years were spent wallowing in the muck with such creatures isn’t likely to be long in White House before the stench of pay-to-play politics begins to pervade the place.”

Fast-forward. Nearly two years later, Obama’s legal fixers can’t mask the Chicago-esque odor of Sestak-gate. The president’s legal team, led by chief fixer and legal counsel Bob Bauer, orchestrated a Memorial Day weekend document dump intended to squash mounting public criticism of the administration’s alleged government job offer to Pennsylvania Democrat senatorial candidate Joe Sestak. Bauer’s memo acknowledged that “options for Executive Branch service were raised with him” through former President Bill Clinton, whom White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel enlisted to woo Sestak.

Blago knows all about working with Team Obama through intermediaries to explore, ahem, “options.” Blago’s then-chief of staff, John Harris, allegedly mapped out “three-way deal” to give the White House a “buffer” obscuring the obvious quid pro quo. SEIU would assist Obama with Blago’s appointment of a union-friendly candidate; Blago would get his cushy union job; and SEIU would be rewarded down the road with favors from the White House. Team Blago reached out to the SEIU. An unnamed SEIU official agreed to float their plan and “see where it goes.”

The Senate candidate Blago allegedly approached was top Obama adviser and Chicago political godmother Valerie Jarrett, who removed herself from the running when she took a top White House adviser post instead. Who was the “SEIU official” Team Blago spoke with and met? Internal communications in December 2008 fingered President Obama’s longtime Chicago pal, SEIU Local 1 president Tom Balanoff. Balanoff, not coincidentally had been appointed by Blago to the llinois Health Facilities Planning Board.

Two days before Christmas 2008, legal counsel Greg Craig released an official, self-exonerating report outlining contacts between Team Obama and Team Blago. Balanoff, it turns out, had indeed spoken with Jarrett. The Obama defense? Despite her much-touted political brilliance, the legal team argued, Jarrett “did not understand the conversation to suggest that the Governor wanted the cabinet seat as a quid pro quo for selecting any specific candidate to be the President-Elect’s replacement.” The Blago subpoena of the president filed last month begs to differ – and directly implicates Obama:

“…despite President Obama stating that no representatives of his had any part of any deals, labor union president [presumably SEIU’s Andy Stern] told the FBI and the United States Attorneys that he spoke to labor union official on November 3, 2008 who received a phone message from Obama that evening. After labor union official listened to the message labor union official told labor union president “I’m the one”. Labor union president took that to mean that labor union official was to be the one to deliver the message on behalf of Obama that Senate Candidate B was his pick.”

It’s going to be a long, hot summer of Chicago corruption.

***

Update: The Summer of Corruption plot thickens!

Blago subpoenas Rahm Emanuel and Valerie Jarrett…

Andrew Romanoff finally confirms that the White House offered him not one, not two, but three different job proposals to drop his bid against Obama-favored Democratic Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet.

And the heat intensifies in the Sestak scandal.