Obama Falling Short on Israel

Morning Bell: Obama Falling Short on Israel

Posted By Mike Brownfield On September 22, 2011 @ 11:02 am In Ongoing Priorities | No Comments

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas is taking his people’s bid for statehood to the United Nations this week with a speech set for Friday, followed by a formal application for membership to the U.N. shortly thereafter. If Palestine succeeds in its unilateral efforts, it would be detrimental to U.S. interests in the region, isolate Israel, and deal a major setback to Israeli–Palestinian peace prospects.

Palestine’s move comes despite intense U.S. diplomatic efforts and words [1] from President Barack Obama warning that “efforts to delegitimize Israel will end in failure.” The President has vowed [2] to veto any such attempt in the U.N. Security Council and, in a speech yesterday [3] to the U.N., he reaffirmed his support for Israel and a peace process that ensures its security. Heritage’s Brett Schaefer, though, writes [4] that the President’s words were marred by a soft-pedaling stance toward Palestine.

President Obama proffered a more robust defense of Israel than has been his want, perhaps driven by a desire to bolster waning support among American Jewish voters. Even so, he still maintained a false moral equivalence between the Palestinians and Israel, stating, “That truth – that each side has legitimate aspirations – is what makes peace so hard. And the deadlock will only be broken when each side learns to stand in each other’s shoes.

The President’s words yesterday come after nearly three years of being weak on Israel, failing to condemn those who threaten the country’s existence, and failing to draw a distinction between a freedom-loving nation and those who seek to wipe it off the map. Here in America, the President’s weakness on Israel drew a strong rebuke in the recent special election in New York’s 9th Congressional District where a Republican upset a Democrat in a heavily Jewish, Democratic stronghold. Though any words in support of the United States’ friend and ally are welcome, the President has far to go in offering the support that Israel needs and deserves.

Heritage expert James Carafano explains [5]:

Mr. Obama’s approach [to the peace process] has achieved nothing. Instead, the Palestinians are repaying his efforts with a U.N. campaign that seems designed to embarrass the White House. Like Jimmy Carter before him, Mr. Obama is finding that when American presidents present a face of international accommodation and ambivalence, they get taken advantage of. Weakness invites aggression.

Palestine’s move, not surprisingly, has drawn stiff opposition from Israel, which sees Palestine’s effort as an end-run around the peace process. Last week, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reacted to the news of Abbas’ effort with a stiff condemnation [6], saying that peace can only be achieved through negotiations:

The leadership of the Palestinian authority has consistently evaded peace negotiations with Israel. When the Palestinian authority abandons these futile and unilateral measures at the UN, it will find Israel to be a genuine partner for direct peace negotiations.

If Palestine fails in its effort to force a vote for statehood in the Security Council, which will occur if the U.S. exercises its veto, it will likely follow up with a General Assembly resolution recognizing its statehood and elevating its status at the U.N. from an observer entity to a non-member state observer. Schaefer explains [7] the ramifications of such a move:

Success in either effort would be detrimental to U.S. and Israeli interests and illustrate the need for a more hard-nosed policy, in coordination with Congress, to use America’s financial leverage to protect and advance U.S. interests at the U.N.

Palestine’s efforts this week will prove a test of President Obama’s strategy to engage at the U.N., rather than to exercise U.S. muscle in order to advance its interests. But should Palestine succeed and the U.S. fail, Schaefer explains that “it would raise serious questions about the depth of goodwill garnered by its ‘engagement’ strategy and whether the U.S. should assume a tougher approach at the U.N.”

There are other tools at the President’s disposal in dealing with the U.N.–namely, Congress. Washington can take a hard-nosed approach and use U.S. financial leverage to advance its policy priorities. And that means withholding contributions to the U.N., as well as foreign aid to countries who vote against U.S. interests.

Palestine itself is one of the largest per capita recipients of foreign aid in the world. As Heritage’s James Phillips explained in recent Congressional testimony [8]:

U.S. aid to the Palestinians is aimed at supporting Israeli–Palestinian peace negotiations; strengthening and reforming the Palestinian Authority, which was created through those negotiations; and improving the living standards of Palestinians to demonstrate the benefits of peaceful coexistence with Israel. These are laudable goals, but unfortunately, peace negotiations have bogged down. Even worse, the Palestinian Authority has reached a rapprochement with Hamas, the Islamist extremist organization with a long record of terrorism, which not only is opposed to peace negotiations with Israel, but remains implacably committed to Israel’s destruction.

Now is not the time for President Obama to turn his back on the region’s strongest democracy. Instead, the United States should reaffirm its commitment to strengthening its alliance with Israel and remain strong in the face of U.N. action designed to embarrass the U.S. and weaken the peace process.

Quick Hits:

  • The House yesterday rejected a temporary spending bill [9] that would have funded the government through November. Four dozen conservatives voted against the measure because it left spending higher than the cap set in the House GOP budget.
  • The Federal Reserve took steps yesterday to stimulate the economy by buying long-term Treasury bonds in order to lower interest rates on mortgages, but the market responded negatively [10] with the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index dropping 3 percent.
  • President Obama’s “Buffett Rule” — a plan to raise tax rates on wealthy Americans — is bad news for technology startups [11], and a similar policy in California [12] has been a plague on the state’s finances.
  • NATO has agreed to extend its mission in Libya another 90 days [13], and today the commanding general said isolated groups of pro-Qadhafi forces continue to threaten local people.
  • Former Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean says Obamacare will boost small-business job growth, but he couldn’t be more wrong. Read the story on Foundry.org. [

Obama’s Employment Plan for Illegal Immigrants

Jan Ting,FloydReports.com

On August 18,President Obama’s Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano
sent a letter to members of Congress announcing the administration’s new immigration policy. The U.S. government
will exercise “prosecutorial discretion”to end deportation proceedings against
illegal immigrants who do not pose a threat to public safety or national
security,which describes the overwhelming majority of illegal immigrants.

According to the Wall Street Journal,“Administration officials said
low-priority cases likely to be shelved include individuals brought to the U.S.
as children by their parents,undocumented spouses of U.S. military personnel,and
immigrants who have no criminal record.”Thus,the administration conflates the
two most sympathetic subsets of illegals with the vast majority of illegal
immigrants who have not been convicted of any serious crime.

The administration has made clear that minor criminal convictions,such as for
motor
vehicle violations
,won’t trigger deportation. The government will not
initiate proceedings against illegal aliens without criminal records who pose no
threat to national security. And the New York Times quotes
administration officials as saying that,“Those who qualify for relief can apply
for permission to work in the United States and will probably receive it.”

The administration is implementing
by executive order
a policy it could
not get Congress to adopt
or even consider:amnesty for the millions of
foreigners who entered the U.S. illegally or who overstayed their temporary
visitor visas in order to work illegally in the U.S.

It is also sending a clear message to people all over the world who would
like to try their luck in the U.S.,though ineligible to do so because of U.S.
immigration law:U.S. immigration law won’t be enforced if all you want to do is
work. Just get yourself into the U.S. by any means,don’t commit serious crimes
or threaten national security,and you will be able to compete with U.S. citizens for jobs. And since you’re willing
to work for lower wages and under worse conditions than U.S. citizens,you can
probably beat them out for a job. So come on in!

Why is President Obama doing this in the midst of an historic recession with
record numbers of American workers unemployed and….

Read
more
.

Obama: Birth Certificate A VERY, VERY INTERESTING. READ.

Obama: Birth
Certificate

 

A VERY, VERY
INTERESTING. READ.

 

I have never felt
this idiot was ever born here & he never should have been elected.

He should not be
President since he never grew up in the United States.

What follows should
be considered since they are inconsistent with the “Birth
Certificate”…..

It was brought to
light that back in 1961 people of color were called ‘Negroes.’ So how can

this ‘birth
certificate’ state he is ‘African-American’ when the term wasn’t even used back
then??

This isn’t over! This
is interesting!

.

.

Here is a comment
from a reader to George Ure at UrbanSurvival.com : “As you all know,
Donald

Trump made a big deal
about Obama’s birth certificate.

.

.

Recently, the White House released Obama’s birth certificate. I will tell you
right now that I had never

given this
“birther” issue any credit. I watched the hype and the
“crazies” come out. I completely dismissed

the entire ordeal
altogether.

.

.

In fact, it was not until the White House released the birth certificate that
it had gained my attention. I am

the studious sort of
guy, and I have plenty of time on my hands. So, I took a close look at this
document.

.

.

While I would have thought that this issue would have been closed for good
(and, got the crazies to

crawl back into their
holes), I found two extremely strange inconsistencies that merit some
attention.

.

.

First of all, the birth certificate that the White House released lists Obama’s
birth as August 4, 1961.

It also lists Barack
Hussein Obama as his father. No big deal, right? At the time of Obama’s birth,
it

also shows that his
father is aged 25 years old, and that Obama’s father was born in ” Kenya ,
East Africa “.

.

.

This wouldn’t seem like anything of concern, except the fact that Kenya did not
even exist until 1963,

two whole years after
Obama’s birth, and 27 years after his father’s birth. How could Obama’s father

have been born in a
country that did not yet exist?

.

.

Up and until Kenya was formed in 1963, it was known as the “British East
Africa Protectorate”.

But, this is not the
only thing that I found that just does not jive. The other item that I looked
into was the

hospital that Obama
was born in. On the birth certificate released by the White House, the listed

place of birth is
“Kapi’olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital”.

.

.

This cannot be,
because the hospital(s) in question in 1961 were called “Kaui Keolani
Children’s Hospital”

and “Kapi’olani
Maternity Home,” respectively.

.

.

The name did not change to Kapi’olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital
until 1978, when these two

hospitals merged. How
can this particular name of the hospital be on a birth certificate dated 1961
if this

name had not yet been
applied to it until 1978?

.

.

Go ahead, look it up. I am not talking crazy talk, these are the facts. Like I
said, I thought that this

was a non-issue until
the actual certificate was released.

.

.

Now that it has been released, of course I had to look into it. I have found
these issues, now I know that

something is up. If
you doubt me, just look at the following resources:

.

.

Sure as hell, the hospital part is true, as you can read about the 1978 merger
here.

http://www.kapiolani.org/women-and-children/about-us/default.aspx

Post-colonial history (from Wikipedia)

.

.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Kenya

.

.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenya

.

.

The first direct elections for Africans to the Legislative Council took place
in 1957.

Despite British hopes of handing power to “moderate” African rivals,
it was the Kenya African National

 

Union (KANU) of Jomo
Kenyatta that formed a government shortly before Kenya became independent

on 12 December 1963,
on the same day forming the first Constitution of Kenya.

 



Did Feds Allow a Mexican Drug Cartel to Sell Cocaine in the U.S.?

Diana Washington Valdez,El Paso Times

U.S. federal agents allegedly allowed the Sinaloa drug cartel to traffic
several tons of cocaine into the United States in exchange for information about
rival cartels,according to court documents filed in a U.S. federal court.

The allegations are part of the defense of Vicente Zambada-Niebla,who was
extradited to the United States to face drug-trafficking charges in Chicago. He
is also a top lieutenant of drug kingpin Joaquin “Chapo”Guzman and the son of
Ismael “Mayo”Zambada-Garcia,believed to be the brains behind the Sinaloa
cartel.

The case could prove to be a bombshell on par with the U.S. Bureau of
Alcohol,Tobacco,Firearms and Explosives’“Operation Fast and Furious,”except that
instead of U.S. guns being allowed to walk across the border,the Sinaloa cartel
was allowed to bring drugs into the United States. Zambada-Niebla claims he was
permitted to smuggle drugs from 2004 until his arrest in 2009.

Randall Samborn,assistant U.S. attorney and spokesman for the Justice
Department in Chicago,declined comment.

The court in Chicago had a status hearing on Wednesday and ordered the
government to respond to allegations in Zambada-Niebla’s motion by Sept. 11.

According to the court documents,Mexican lawyer Humberto Loya-Castro,another
high-level Sinaloa cartel leader,had his 1995 U.S. drug-trafficking case
dismissed in 2008 after serving as an informant for 10 years for the U.S.
government.

Guzman and the Zambadas allegedly provided agents of the Drug Enforcement
Administration,FBI and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement with information
about other Mexican drug traffickers through Loya-Castro.

“Loya himself continued his drug trafficking activities with the knowledge of
the United States government without being arrested or prosecuted,”the court
documents state.

Zambada-Niebla met voluntarily with U.S. federal agents on March 17,2009,at
the Sheraton Hotel in Mexico City,which is near the U.S. Embassy,“for the
purpose of his continuing to provide information to the DEA and the U.S.
government personally,rather than through Loya,”court records allege.

Read more.

Obama to Pledge New Mideast Aid

Obama to Pledge New Mideast Aid

By CAROL E. LEE                And JAY SOLOMON

WASHINGTON—President Barack Obama will announce this week a new aid plan for the Middle East and North Africa that U.S. officials say will be far bolder than previous American economic assistance to the region.

Mr. Obama will outline the plan, which could include debt cancellation and a reprogramming of financial aid the U.S. already provides to countries like Egypt, in a speech he is scheduled to deliver Thursday at the State Department.

[obama0519]European Pressphoto AgencyPresident Obama

Whatever aid he announces, though, is unlikely to assuage Arab governments, which had been hoping the White House would push forcibly for a resumption of Palestinian-Israeli peace talks. The president’s aides say his speech will focus only briefly on the issue.

“At the end of the day, the Palestinian cause remains a dominant issue,” said a senior Arab official. “A speech by the president without addressing the conflict is unlikely to generate much enthusiasm.”

Mr. Obama met Tuesday with King Abdullah II of Jordan, who has been pressing U.S. officials to take a more aggressive role in the peace process, according to Arab diplomats.

After the meeting, Mr. Obama said the U.S. will provide Jordan with hundreds of millions of dollars through the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, the government institution that finances and insures private business to promote economic growth. The result, according to the U.S., will be roughly $1 billion for economic activity in Jordan. The president also pledged 50,000 metric tons of wheat.

“All of this will help to stabilize the cost of living and day-to-day situation of Jordanians and will provide a foundation so that these economic reforms can move forward and long-term development can take place,” Mr. Obama said.

The president’s goal, officials said, is to give a financial boost to the political change sweeping the Mideast and North Africa, where dashed economic aspirations have fed unrest.

Senior U.S. officials are particularly alarmed by the deterioration in Cairo’s finances since the street revolt that ousted President Hosni Mubarak in February. The Egyptian government has been forced to spend between $3 billion and $3.5 billion of its foreign-exchange reserves a month to pay for food and other commodities as tourism has plunged and overseas remittances have dried up.

Egypt’s government has been seeking relief on around $1 billion in debts tied to wheat purchases in the 1970s, according to officials involved in the talks. Cairo has paid off the principal on these loans, but continues to service interest payments.

The administration is looking at a mixture of direct aid, debt relief, and export credits to help stabilize Egypt’s finances. “There are a whole range of tools we could use,” said a U.S. official. “We’ve been looking for the right mix.”

Mr. Obama’s speech will come ahead of action on economic and trade initiatives that the Group of Eight economic powers are poised to take during their summit in France next week. Leaders are working on a short-term stabilization package, particularly for Egypt and Tunisia, that would involve international financial institutions and perhaps some of the Persian Gulf states, according to a G-8 diplomat.

The diplomat said G-8 member countries may also change trade policies to help boost regional exports to Europe and the U.S., perhaps using the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, which was set up after the Cold War to help former East Bloc nations.

Mr. Obama may struggle to win over skeptics in Congress. The U.S. already provides Egypt with roughly $1.3 billion a year, and lawmakers are pushing the White House for deep spending cuts.

Additionally, a number of lawmakers have raised concerns in recent weeks about Egypt’s post-Mubarak foreign policy, particularly its warming relations with Iran and militant Palestinian group Hamas, which the U.S. and the European Union designate as a terrorist entity.

Mr. Obama’s speech comes a day before the president is set to meet with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Washington. After meeting with King Abdullah, Mr. Obama said “it’s more vital than ever that both Israelis and Palestinians find a way to get back to the table.”

In the speech, Mr. Obama will seek to connect the death of Osama bin Laden with the popular uprisings across the Middle East and North Africa.

“The Arab Spring represents a real and organic repudiation of the things bin Laden stood for in the region and among the people he claimed to represent,” a senior administration official said Tuesday, previewing one of the speech’s themes.

There will be no new policy on the Mideast peace process in the speech, but Mr. Obama is likely to address the union of the Palestinian Fatah and Hamas factions, the official said, and to say Hamas must reject terrorism and recognize Israel’s right to exist if it wants to be part of the Palestinian government.

The president is also expected to refer to the pending effort to have the United Nations recognize a Palestinian state. He plans to restate U.S. policy that the conflict should be settled through negotiations, not by a declaration.

—Laura Meckler contributed to this article.Write to                 Jay Solomon at jay.solomon@wsj.com

EXCLUSIVE: Border Community Organizing Petition to Protest Obama’s Immigration Speech

EXCLUSIVE: Border Community Organizing Petition to Protest Obama’s  Immigration Speech

By Jana Winter

Published May 13, 2011 | FoxNews.com


advertisement

The residents of the Chiricahua-Peloncillo drug and human smuggling corridor  that runs from the Mexican border north through eastern Arizona and western New  Mexico are circulating a petition to send to the White  House in response to President  Obama‘s recent immigration speech.

“It is with great wonderment and sadness that we listened to your May 10  speech on immigration issues.  All of the joking about moats and alligators  cut residents of Portal, AZ, to the core as we sheltered with friends or at a Red  Cross evacuation site, to survive a terrible fire that still threatens our  lives and property, as well as our ecotourism-based economy,” the letter  reads.

On Sunday, a massive fire broke out in Horseshoe Canyon, about 50 miles north  of the Mexican border, which residents and law enforcement say they believe was  started by criminal illegal aliens. Last year, a fire in the same location  caused more than $10 million in damages.

“During its first 24-hrs, the fire consumed a greater area than did last  year’s fire over a 6-week period. Local residents were roused after  midnight, and some slept fitfully in cars after fleeing with family photos and  any valuables that could be quickly assembled. Elderly retirees left with  medical supplies, including oxygen tanks on which some depend,” the letter  reads.

The petition comes just days after Obama appeared in El Paso, Texas, to plead the case for immigration reform that has been bottled up in Congress for years. During his remarks, the president argued that the border is as safe as it has ever been but Republican opportunists are using the issue to score political points and prevent legal reforms to address illegal immigration.

“We have gone above and beyond what was requested by the very Republicans who  said they supported broader reform as long as we got serious about enforcement.  All the stuff they asked for, we’ve done,” the president said.

“But even though we’ve answered these concerns, I’ve got to say I suspect  there are still going to be some who are trying to move the goal posts on us one  more time. You know, they said we needed to triple the Border Patrol. Or now  they’re going to say we need to quadruple the Border Patrol. Or they’ll want a  higher fence. Maybe they’ll need a moat. Maybe they want alligators in the moat.  They’ll never be satisfied,” he continued.

Jeff Gee, one of the organizers behind the petition and a firefighter  battling the still-burning fire in Horseshoe Canyon, says he was insulted by  Obama’s speech.

“I’m really disappointed at current border security, I’m really disappointed  at the president’s speech saying that people like me wants moats with  alligators, but moats with alligators might work, nothing else,” he told  FoxNews.com.

“We’re doing everything we can to get the word out that this is serious  problem, it’s not just a border issue, the drugs and crime are moving through  the corridor and they keep going to major cities. I don’t know if this letter  will help, but nothing else is.”

Cochise County, Ariz., Sheriff Larry Dever, who penned an op-ed in The New  York Times Friday describing the plight of border residents, told FoxNews.com  that the petition is a plea for the administration to take a closer look at the  hardships they are suffering.

“These people are not overreacting. What they suggest in letter is very deep  part of their belief system based on their experience and their experience has  been horrific — they see human smuggling and drug trafficking, they sit on  their porch and watch people walk through, they’ve had their homes burglarized,”  Dever said.

“It’s a beautiful landscape and for those that moved out there for a sense of  tranquility and peace, that’s been destroyed,” he added.

The letter has been posted at post offices in the border towns of Portal,  Ariz. and Rodeo, New Mexico, for signatures to be added.

Copies of the letter will also be sent to Rep. Gabrielle  Giffords, D-Ariz., Arizona Republican Sens. John McCain and Jon Kyl, Homeland  Security Secretary Janet  Napolitano, Agriculture Secretary Tom  Vilsack, Secretary of State Hillary  Clinton, Arizona Gov. Jan  Brewer, and National Public Radio.

In the letter, petitioners say that despite the president’s protestations,  “neither the border nor daily life” is secure.

“Seizure of record quantities of drugs may pad the statistics of Homeland  Security, but it does nothing to ease the burdens we have been forced to  bear. Over the years, as our homes have been burgled or invaded, our  fences, water lines and windows repeatedly broken, our businesses driven toward  bankruptcy, our natural surroundings desecrated by trash and fire, and our lives  even obliterated (neighbor Rob Krentz, murdered by a drug scout), it has amazed  us how little note is taken of these tragedies by our government and the press,”  the letter reads.

“Is it enough, now that we have suffered back-to-back fires that threaten to  erase our very reasons for living here? What must we say or do to garner  your attention and help?  How is it that, on the same day we took Osama  bin Laden in Pakistan,  we could not prevent illegals – 50 miles within our borders (!) – from setting a  fire along a known smuggling route in an extremely dry year? Why were  federal agents (BP, ICE, National Guard, or Special Forces) not posted along  this route in anticipation of a repeat of last year’s calamity?  Better  still, why were the illegals not captured before they had traveled 50 miles  north of the border?! Or, in the eyes of our government, do we just reside in a  ‘sacrifice zone’?”

The letter also describes the devastation the fires have caused to the areas  unique biodiversity, which attracts bird-watchers and naturalists from around  the world.

The petitioners then asks the president to outline how he plans to fulfill  his obligation to protect their constitutional right to defense from foreign  invasions “especially as this regards fires set by Mexican drug and human  smugglers.

“We thank you in advance for your anticipated response,” it concludes.

Dever said the residents of the area are generally self-sufficient and do  their part, “but they also expect government agencies to take some  responsibility. They’re not, and these people are suffering the consequences,”  Dever said.

The residents will “come together and unite in this front,” he added.  “They’re not going to give up. They’re not going to roll over.”

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/13/exclusive-border-community-organizing-petition-protest-obamas-immigration/#ixzz1MMcsiING

White House: Libya fight is not war, it’s ‘kinetic military action’

White House: Libya fight is not war, it’s ‘kinetic military action’

In the last few days, Obama administration officials have frequently faced the question: Is the fighting in Libya a war?  From military officers to White House spokesmen up to the president himself, the answer is no.  But that leaves the question: What is it?

In a briefing on board Air Force One Wednesday, deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes took a crack at an answer.  “I think what we are doing is enforcing a resolution that has a very clear set of goals, which is protecting the Libyan people, averting a humanitarian crisis, and setting up a no-fly zone,” Rhodes said.  “Obviously that involves kinetic military action, particularly on the front end.”

Rhodes’ words echoed a description by national security adviser Tom Donilon in a briefing with reporters two weeks ago as the administration contemplated action in Libya.  “Military steps — and they can be kinetic and non-kinetic, obviously the full range — are not the only method by which we and the international community are pressuring Gadhafi,” Donilon said.

Rhodes and Donilon are by no means alone.  “Kinetic” is heard in a lot of descriptions of what’s going on in Libya. “As we are successful in suppressing the [Libyan] air defenses, the level of kinetic activity should decline,” Defense Secretary Robert Gates said in a meeting with reporters in Moscow Tuesday.  In a briefing with reporters the same day from on board the USS Mount Whitney, Admiral Samuel Locklear, commander of Joint Task Force Odyssey Dawn, said, “The coalition brings together a wide array of capabilities that allow us to minimize the collateral damage when we have to take kinetic operations.”  On Monday, General Carter Ham, head of U.S. Africa Command, said of the coalition forces, “We possess certainly a very significant kinetic capability.”  And unnamed sources use it too. “In terms of the heavy kinetic portion of this military action, the president envisions it as lasting days, not weeks,” an unnamed senior official told CNN Saturday.

“Kinetic” is a word that’s been used around the Pentagon for many years to distinguish between actions like dropping bombs, launching cruise missiles or shooting people and newer forms of non-violent fighting like cyber-warfare.  At times, it also appears to mean just taking action. In a 2002 article in Slate, Timothy Noah noted a passage from Bob Woodward’s book, Bush at War:

For many days the war cabinet had been dancing around the basic question: how long could they wait after September 11 before the U.S. started going “kinetic,” as they often termed it, against al Qaeda in a visible way?

Now, White House officials are referring to the war in Libya not as a war but as a “kinetic military action.” As common as “kinetic” might be among those in government, it still seems likely to strike members of the public as a euphemism that allows the Obama administration to describe a war as something other than a war.

Ecclesiastes 10:2

New International
Version
(©1984)

The heart of the
wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.
New Living
Translation
(©2007)

A wise person
chooses the right road; a fool takes the wrong one.

English Standard
Version
(©2001)

A wise man’s
heart inclines him to the right, but a fool’s heart to the left.

New American Standard
Bible
(©1995)

A wise man’s
heart directs him toward the right, but the foolish man’s heart directs him
toward the left.

GOD’S WORD®
Translation
(©1995)

A wise
person’s heart leads the right way. The heart of a fool leads the wrong way.

King James
Bible

A wise man’s heart [is] at his right hand; but a fool’s
heart at his left.

American
King James Version

A wise man’s heart is at his right hand; but a
fool’s heart at his left.

American Standard
Version

A wise man’s heart is at his right hand; but a fool’s
heart at his left.

Bible in Basic
English

The heart of the wise man goes in the right direction; but
the heart of a foolish man in the wrong.

Congressman blasts $212 million plan to spot terror suspects

TSA ‘not capable’ of detecting airport threats

Congressman blasts $212 million plan to spot terror suspects


Posted: February 14, 2011
8:43 pm Eastern

© 2011 WorldNetDaily

The chairman of the House Transportation Committee has warned that the
Transportation Security Administration is not capable of detecting an attack
similar to the one that happened last month at Moscow’s main airport, according
to a report from Joseph Farah’s G2 Bulletin.
Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., said that the TSA’s $212 million program which is
supposed to spot suspected terrorists at U.S. airports is “not capable of
detecting what took place in Moscow.”
The Screening of Passengers by Observation Techniques, or SPOT, which has
been existence since 2006 has some 3,000 “behavior detection” officers at 161
airports.
Critics, including the congressional Government Accountability Office, say
the technique is unproven behavioral science and hasn’t helped remove
vulnerabilities at the airports.
(Story continues below)
“I see the classified results and it gives me great concern,” Mica said. “I
saw what happened in Moscow and I have even more concern.”
The suicide bombing which took place at the Moscow airport occurred in an
area where security doesn’t exist at most airports – near where incoming
passengers pick up their luggage after disembarking from the aircraft.
“Every airport in the world, including every airport in the United States,
has virtually no security until you get to the security checkpoint,” said former
White House counter-terrorism official Richard Clarke. “Very large parts of all
airports are inherently insecure.”
TSA counters, however, that its SPOT program is a “vital layer that enhances
security at the nation’s airports.”

Read more: TSA ‘not capable’ of
detecting airport threats
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=263769#ixzz1E2fNyKG6

Appeasing the Muslim Brotherhood — Obama’s Rubicon Moment

Appeasing the Muslim Brotherhood — Obama’s Rubicon
Moment

By Eileen F.
Toplansky

Signed on September 17, 1978, the Camp David Accords ushered in a peace
between Egypt and Israel.  This peace is clearly in jeopardy now that Obama has
shown that America can no longer be trusted to aid its allies, let alone its own
interests.  In 2010, Homeland Security Secretary Janet
Napolitano
secretly met with the Muslim Brotherhood, “a movement that uses a

religious identity to mask
its political agenda
.”  Also in 2010, the U.N. Security Council “quietly
dropped Youssef Nada
, a prominent financial and diplomatic representative of

the Muslim Brotherhood from an international sanctions list directed at curbing
the activities of alleged terrorist financiers.”  At the time, Victor Comras, a
former adviser on financial sanctions believed that “the Obama administration
would have had to signal that it was willing to go along with this
decision.”
The Muslim Brotherhood, long a supporter of Hamas and Hezb’allah,
deliberately works to “foster confusion” in order to obfuscate its real
message.  Thus, conflicting
messages
come from the Brotherhood leaders, yet it is patently apparent that
they are committed to the destruction of Israel.  During the Holy Land
Foundation case, one of the most interesting
exhibits
was a “Muslim Brotherhood memorandum by Mohamed Akram, dated May
22, 1991, where he outlines the Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood] vision of the
future.”  Thus, “the Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind
of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from
within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the
believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over
all other religions.”
The Brotherhood’s slogan
depicting a Koran
and swords reinforces the group’s commitment to jihad and
worldwide Islamification.   On October 27, 2009, the Muslim Brotherhood Sheik Mahdi Akef claimed that the
“Arab rulers are more despicable than the Zionists” and urged his listeners “to
wage jihad.”  In 2007, Akef said that the “Brotherhood
has not recognized
Camp David from the very first day it was signed.”  In
2004, Akef declared “his complete faith that Islam will invade Europe and
America.”
More recently, in his February 4, 2011 Friday sermon, Iranian Supreme Leader
Al-Khamenei
exhorted his listeners as he described the events in Egypt as an
“Islamic liberation movement.”  He reminded his followers of the Iranian
Revolution, also known as the Islamic revolution or 1979 Revolution, and
reflected on certain parallels with the current Egyptian uprising.  Khamenei
called the Camp David peace treaty signed by Egypt and Israel the “Treaty of
Shame.”  Syria was praised by Khamenei, while Egypt’s Mubarak is cited as a
traitor to the Islamic movement.  Moreover, Khamenei told his worshipers “not
[to] trust the role played by the West and America. … “
Ominously, Khamenei explained that “the religious scholars, and Al-Azhar
… [would] play a much more significant role [in the new Islamic revolution].”
Thus, “when the people embark on its revolution from the mosques and the Friday
sermons, and raise the slogan of ‘Allah Akbar,’ the Islamic scholars are
expected to play a more prominent role.  This expectation is in
place.”
From his pulpit, Khamenei avowed that “the Zionist enemy, not the Egyptian
people, should tremble in fear of the Egyptian army,” as he believes the
Egyptian army will [eventually] join the masses.”
In November 2007, Lt. Col. (ret.) Jonathan
D. Halevi
wrote for the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs that the Muslim
Brotherhood’s “top priority is constructing a Muslim infrastructure in the West
which will slowly but surely enable it to rule during the 21st
century.  As far as the final goal is concerned, there are no policy differences
between al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood.  The two organizations have the
same objective: to place the entire world under an Islamic caliphate.”
More recently, Dore
Gold
asks if “the Obama administration’s policy toward Egypt [is] based on
a perception that the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood would be extremely
dangerous — Or have they taken the position…that the Brotherhood has become
moderate and can be talked to?”
In September of 2010, Muslim
leaders were brought to the White House
in order to provide the groups
“funding, government assistance and resources.”  That is, “the workshop
apparently provided special access for these Muslim Brotherhood organizers.”
Thus, “the White House initiated a taxpayer-funded government stimulus program
for the attending Muslim Brotherhood-associated groups.”  In fact, “the
sponsoring organization (CCMO) or Coordinating Council of Muslim Organizations
has a long history of associations with the Muslim Brotherhood.”
Repeatedly, expert testimony has been given by people who have lived under
sharia law and/or have devoted their lives to investigating the terror
perpetuated by the Muslim Brotherhood.  In fact, Nonie
Darwish
described “a former Muslim critic of Islam [who has stated] that he
is no longer confident that the US government will protect his civil rights as
long as there are people in [the American] government such as Dalia Mogahed, the
first White House Muslim advisor who is a firm defender of the Council on
American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Islamic Society of North America
(ISNA), both groups that are tied to the Muslim Brotherhood.”
In his 2009 report entitled “The
Muslim Brotherhood in the United States
,” author Steven Merley lists the
Muslim Brotherhood Organizations in the United States.  They include the more
well-known ISNA (Islamic Society of North America) and the MSA (Muslim Students
Association) as well as others such as the Muslim Communities Association, the
Association of Muslim Social Scientists, the Islamic Medical Association, the
Muslim Youth of North America, the ISNA Political Awareness Committee, the OLF
(Occupied Land Fund), the MIA (Mercy International Association), the IIC
(Islamic Information Center), to name only a few.
It is now time to test Obama’s moral compass.  He needs to be directly
asked if he believes the Muslim Brotherhood is a threat to the United States.
If he affirms that it is, then he needs to be forcefully questioned as to why he
has not taken more concerted steps to thwart their growth in the United States.
If, on the other hand, the 44th president states that the Muslim
Brotherhood is not a threat, then it is quite clear where his true allegiance
rests.  American vulnerability would be publicly exposed putting us at grave
risk.
If Obama cannot or will not answer this simple question, then his neutral
stance also speaks volumes and will embolden the terrorism of the Muslim
Brotherhood.
It is the Rubicon moment for this man.  It is the wake-up call for the rest
of us.
Eileen can be reached at middlemarch18@gmail.com.

Page
Printed from:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/02/appeasing_the_muslim_brotherho.html

at February 07, 2011 – 03:45:16 PM CST

// <![CDATA[//