John R. Houk
© May 18, 2013
Huma Abedin sneaked away from being Hillary Clinton’s Deputy Chief of Staff about the same time Rep. Michele Bachman along with Reps. Trent Franks, R-AZ, Louie Gohmert, R-TX, Thomas Rooney, R-FL, and Lynn Westmoreland, R-GA sent a letter to the Inspector General demanding an investigation of Abedin as a Fifth Columnist for the Muslim Brotherhood around July 12 or 13, 2012.
Why is Abedin’s stealth resignation important? After leaving Hillary’s political employ she became employed as a consultant for the State Department which according to the Shoebat Foundation means she no longer needed to make her tax returns public.
Hmm … Apparently Huma Abedin continued her role with Hillary just as a consultant to the State Department. Let’s see possible Muslim Brotherhood collaborator, Benghazigate cover-up, Ambassador Stevens negotiating with Libyan Islamists to deliver arms to Syrian rebel Islamists BUT maybe a MB arms diversion to Egypt to deliver the arms to Hamas. Yeah I know that is a lot of “ifs”.
Here is another “if”. What if Huma Abedin embroiled Hillary Clinton into the negotiations to transfer Libyan arms to either the Syrian Islamist Rebels or to Hamas or to both? Such a scheme would have to be signed off on by President Barack Hussein Obama. Therein would lay the reason for a cover-up: to save Obama from impeachment and to try to keep Hillary’s name sacrosanct for a run for the Dem nomination for President in 2016.
Did Huma Abedin ‘quietly’ step down as Deputy Chief of Staff in same month Bachmann letter sent to IG?
By Shoebat Foundation
May 17, 2013
The title of a New York Times article by Raymond Hernandez reads, “Weiner’s Wife Didn’t Disclose Consulting Work She Did While Serving in State Dept.”. However, the headline for another story pops up in the eighth paragraph when a potentially very interesting claim is made. Take note of when Abedin allegedly stepped down as Deputy Chief of Staff for Hillary.
Ms. Abedin reached her new working arrangement in June 2012, when she returned from maternity leave, quietly leaving her position as deputy chief of staff and becoming a special government employee, which is essentially a consultant. A State Department official said that change freed her from the requirement that she disclose her private earnings for the rest of the year on her financial disclosure forms. Still, during that period, she continued to be identified publicly in news reports as Mrs. Clinton’s deputy chief of staff.
Officials in the State Department and Clinton circles seem especially sensitive about the arrangement, and no one would speak about it on the record. Earlier this month, Mr. Weiner released a copy of the couple’s 2012 tax return showing that they had income of more than $490,000.
According to the Times’ sources, Abedin stepped down as Deputy Chief of Staff for Hillary in June of 2012 but continued to be identified as Hillary’s Deputy Chief of Staff – without any announcement by the State Department to the contrary – before Hillary stepped down as Secretary of State seven months later.
Something else happened in June of 2012 as well, the 13th to be exact. That is the date of a letter sent by Reps. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), Louie Gohmert (R-TX), Trent Franks (R-AZ), Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA), and Tom Rooney (R-FL) to the State Department’s Deputy Inspector General. That letter specifically named Huma Abedin and her familial connections to the Muslim Brotherhood:
“…the Department’s Deputy Chief of Staff, Huma Abedin, has three family members – her late father, her mother and her brother – connected to Muslim Brotherhood operatives and/or organizations. Her position affords her routine access to the Secretary and to policy-making.”
It is not clear if the letter had anything to do with Abedin ‘quietly’ stepping down at around the same time the letter was sent, largely because of the State Department’s secrecy.
The letter to the State Department’s IG office was one of five sent to various IG’s. Several individuals were named but by far, Abedin’s name caused the most controversy; her ties to the Brotherhood through her mother and brother – as well as her work at the IMMA – are indisputable.
Had an announcement been made in June of 2012 that Abedin was stepping down as Deputy, it clearly would have fueled the controversy. Nonetheless, two questions need to be answered:
1.) Why did Abedin step down as Deputy Chief of Staff when she allegedly did?
2.) Why was it kept secret for nearly a year?
As to the issue of secrecy, the subject of the New York Times article is Abedin’s refusal to disclose her consulting work while she was still at the State Department.
It is also, indeed interesting that the news of Abedin’s ‘quiet’ departure comes at a time when the State Department is under quite a big microscope over Benghazi. Again, we have expressed – as have others – interest in knowing to what extent Abedin was involved in Benghazi-gate.
Then again, how silly of us. That was before we knew – as well as everyone else – that she stepped down in June of 2012.
Perhaps Anthony Weiner’s decision to run for mayor of New York City might start bringing some interesting things to light after all.
Huma Abedin, Muslim Brotherhood and Benghazigate?
John R. Houk
© May 18, 2013
Did Huma Abedin ‘quietly’ step down as Deputy Chief of Staff in same month Bachmann letter sent to IG?
© 2013 Walid Shoebat. All Rights Reserved.
About Shoebat Foundation
Born in Bethlehem of Judea, Walid’s grandfather was the Muslim Mukhtar (chieftain) of Beit Sahour-Bethlehem (The Shepherd’s Fields) and a friend of Haj-Ameen Al-Husseni, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and notorious friend of Adolf Hitler. Walid’s great grandfather, Abdullah Ali Awad-Allah, was also a fighter and close associate of both Abdul Qader and Haj Amin Al-Husseini, who led the Palestinians against Israel. Walid lived through and witnessed Israel’s Six Day War while living in Jericho. As a young man, he became a member of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, and participated in acts of terror and violence against Israel, and was later imprisoned in the Russian Compound, Jerusalem’s central prison for incitement and violence against Israel. After his release, he continued his life of violence and rioting in Bethlehem and the Temple Mount. After entering the U.S, he worked as a counselor for the Arab Student Organization at Loop College in Chicago and continued his anti-Israel activities. In 1993, Walid studied the Tanach (Jewish Bible) in a challenge to convert his wife to Islam. Six months later, after intense study, Walid realized that everything he had been taught about Jews was a lie. Convinced he was on the side of evil, he became an advocate for his former enemy. Driven by a deep passion to heal his own soul, and to bring the truth about the Jews and Israel to the world, Walid shed his former life and his work as a software engineer and set out to tirelessly bring the cause of Israel to tens of thousands of people throughout the world: churches and synagogues, civic groups, government leaders and media.
Any assertion that Islamic terrorists Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev were not a part of a terrorist organization foreign or domestic sounds like load of bull manure to me. Let’s pray that political correctness does not impede a thorough investigation of the probable network of Islamists that pushed buttons to activate Bostom Marathon Bombers.
I am on the email list of Americans for Peace and Tolerance (APT). Below is the email I received on April 24. That email includes an USA Today article that highlights the radical Muslim connections of the Tsarnaev brothers. As more and more information is becoming available it is quite evident that yet again the Obama Administration is attempting to manage the media to present a story to the American people which are quite different from the actual conclusions that can be drawn about Muslim terrorists the Tsarnaev brothers.
The email dates the USA Today story as April 23; however if you click the source link it seems the story was updated because the date I see is April 25. I am cross posting directly from the link rather than from the email.
Major media coverage of APT’s findings about mosque connected to Boston marathon terrorists
Sent: 24 Apr 2013 10:52 AM
Americans for Peace & Tolerance
USA Today has just published a major story that includes some of our research on the radical nature of the Islamic Society of Boston (ISB), including its Cambridge mosque, which has been connected to the Boston Marathon terrorists.
Fox News also interviewed APT President Charles Jacobs about the ISB.
Fox News VIDEO: Motivated by extremism? Feds explore suspects’ Islamist ties
These are the first major media stories on the radical leadership and teachings of the ISB in almost ten years.
We expect that the ISB will now launch an effort to attack us because we exposed them. Certain members of the media will likely join this effort.
This is an important story. Please share it with your friends and contacts.
Mosque that Boston suspects attended has radical ties
By Oren Dorell
8:47 a.m. EDT April 25, 2013
Terror suspects, fugitives and radical speakers have passed through the Cambridge mosque that the Tsarnaev brothers are known to have visited.
BOSTON — The mosque attended by the two brothers accused in the Boston Marathon double bombing has been associated with other terrorism suspects, has invited radical speakers to a sister mosque in Boston and is affiliated with a Muslim group that critics say nurses grievances that can lead to extremism.
Several people who attended the Islamic Society of Boston mosque in Cambridge, Mass., have been investigated for Islamic terrorism, including a conviction of the mosque’s first president, Abdulrahman Alamoudi, in connection with an assassination plot against a Saudi prince.
Its sister mosque in Boston, known as the Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center, has invited guests who have defended terrorism suspects. A former trustee appears in a series of videos in which he advocates treating gays as criminals, says husbands should sometimes beat their wives and calls on Allah (God) to kill Zionists and Jews, according to Americans for Peace and Tolerance, an interfaith group that has investigated the mosques.
The head of the group is among critics who say the two mosques teach a brand of Islamic thought that encourages grievances against the West, distrust of law enforcement and opposition to Western forms of government, dress and social values.
“We don’t know where these boys were radicalized, but this mosque has a curriculum that radicalizes people. Other people have been radicalized there,” said the head of the group, Charles Jacobs.
Yusufi Vali, executive director at the Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center, insists his mosque does not spread radical ideology and cannot be blamed for the acts of a few worshipers.
“If there were really any worry about us being extreme,” Vali said, U.S. law enforcement agencies such as the FBI and Departments of Justice and Homeland Security would not partner with the Muslim American Society and the Boston mosque in conducting monthly meetings that have been ongoing for four years, he said, in an apparent reference to U.S. government outreach programs in the Muslim community.
The Cambridge and Boston mosques, separated by the Charles River, are owned by the same entity but managed individually. The imam of the Cambridge mosque, Sheik Basyouny Nehela, is on the board of directors of the Boston mosque.
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and his brother, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, attended the Cambridge mosque for services and are accused of setting two bombs that killed three people and injured at least 264 others at the April 15 Boston Marathon.
The FBI has not indicated that either mosque was involved in any criminal activity, but mosque attendees and officials have been implicated in terrorist activity:
• Alamoudi, who signed the articles of incorporation as the Cambridge mosque’s president, was sentenced to 23 years in federal court in Alexandria, Va., in 2004 for his role as a facilitator in what federal prosecutors called a Libyan assassination plot against then-crown prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. Abdullah is now the Saudi king.
Aafia Siddiqui is shown after her graduation from Massachusetts Institute of Technology. (Photo: AP)
• Aafia Siddiqui, who occasionally prayed at the Cambridge mosque, was arrested in Afghanistan in 2008 while in possession of cyanide canisters and plans for a chemical attack in New York City. She tried to grab a rifle while in detention and shot at military officers and FBI agents, for which she was convicted in New York in 2010 and is serving an 86-year sentence.
The 2009 booking photo of Tarek Mehanna, of Sudbury, Mass. (Photo: Sudbury Police Department via AP)
• Tarek Mehanna, who worshiped at the Cambridge mosque, was sentenced in 2012 to 17 years in prison for conspiring to aid al-Qaeda. Mehanna had traveled to Yemen to seek terrorist training and plotted to use automatic weapons to shoot up a mall in the Boston suburbs, federal investigators in Boston alleged.
• Ahmad Abousamra, the son of a former vice president of the Muslim American Society Boston Abdul-Badi Abousamra, was identified by the FBI as Mehanna’s co-conspirator. He fled to Syria and is wanted by the FBI on charges of providing support to terrorists and conspiracy to kill Americans in a foreign country.
• Jamal Badawi of Canada, a former trustee of the Islamic Society of Boston Trust, which owns both mosques, was named as a non-indicted co-conspirator in the 2007 Holy Land Foundation terrorism trial in Texas over the funneling of money to Hamas, which is the Palestinian wing of the Muslim Brotherhood.
What both mosques have in common is an affiliation with the Muslim American Society, an organization founded in 1993 that describes itself as an American Islamic revival movement. It has also been described by federal prosecutors in court as the “overt arm” of the Muslim Brotherhood, which calls for Islamic law and is the parent organization of Hamas, a U.S.-designated terrorist group.
Critics say the Muslim American Society promotes a fraught relationship with the United States, expressed in part by the pattern discussed by Americans for Progress and Tolerance in which adherents are made to feel cut off from their home country and to identify with a global Islamist political community rather than with America.
Zuhdi Jasser, president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, said the radical teachings often follow a theme of recitation of grievances that Islam has with the West, advocacy against U.S. foreign policy and terrorism prosecutions, and efforts “to evangelize Islam in order to improve Western society that is secularized,” he says.
Jasser, a veteran of the U.S. Navy and author of the 2012 book A Battle for the Soul of Islam: An American Muslim Patriot Fights to Save His Faith, says the teachings make some followers feel “like their national identity is completely absent and hollow, and that vacuum can be filled by (radical) Islamic ideology, which is supremacist and looks upon the West as evil.”
The Cambridge mosque was founded in 1982 by students at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Harvard and several other Boston-area schools, according to a profile by the Pluralism Project at Harvard University. Its members founded the sister mosque in Boston in 2009.
The leadership of the two mosques is intertwined, and the ideology they teach is the same, Jacobs said. Ilya Feoktistov, director of research at Americans for Peace and Tolerance, said much of the money to create the Boston mosque came not from local Muslims but from foreign sources.
More than half of the $15.5 million used to found the Boston mosque came from Saudi sources, Feoktistov said, who cites financial documents that Jacobs’ group obtained when the mosque sued it for defamation. The lawsuit was later dropped.
Vali said that the vast majority of total donors were in the United States and that “no donations were accepted if the donor wanted to have any decision-making influence (even if benign).”
Vali characterized Americans for Peace and Tolerance and its founder, Jacobs, as anti-Muslim activists who spread “lies and half-truths in order to attack and marginalize much of the local Muslim community and many of its institutions.”
“It’s the new McCarthyism in full swing,” he said.
Sheik Basyouny Nehela, the imam of the Cambridge mosque, which is located across the Charles River from Boston, is on the board of directors for the Muslim American Society of Boston, which runs the Boston mosque. The Tsarnaevs attended the Cambridge mosque.
A statement issued by the Cambridge mosque said the Tsarnaev brothers were “occasional visitors.” The mosque’s office manager, Nichole Mossalam, said neither brother expressed radical views. “They never exhibited any violent sentiments or behaviors. Otherwise, they would have been reported,” Mossalam said.
The Cambridge mosque said Tsarnaev, 26, who died Thursday night in a shootout with police, “disagreed with the moderate American-Islamic theology” of the mosque. Tsarnaev challenged an imam who said in his sermon that it was appropriate to celebrate U.S. national holidays and was told to stop such outbursts, the mosque said in a statement.
Talal Eid, a Muslim chaplain at Brandeis University, said focusing on individual radicals that prayed in a building is unfair.
“In 2011, the two brothers were right under the nose of the FBI and they didn’t find anything,” Eid said, who never met the Tsarnaevs. “How do you want me as an imam to know enough to tell them they are not welcome here? How can I figure out those people have that kind of criminal intent?”
The Muslim American Society says on its website that it is independent of the Muslim Brotherhood. However, early Brotherhood literature is considered “the foundational texts for the intellectual component for Islamic work in America,” the website states.
Jacobs says claims of moderate Islam do not square with the mosque’s classic jihadi texts in its library and its hosting of radical speakers.
Jacobs said Ahmed Mansour, his co-director at Americans for Peace and Tolerance, found writings by Syed Qutb, the former leader of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and other jihadi texts at the Cambridge mosque’s library when Mansour went there in 2003. Qutb pioneered the radical violent ideology espoused by al-Qaeda.
Yusuf al Qaradawi, the Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader who espouses radical views in videos collected by Jacobs’ group, was listed as a trustee on the Cambridge mosque’s IRS filings until 2000, and on the mosque’s website until 2003, when he addressed congregants via recorded video message to raise money for the Boston mosque, according to a screenshot of the announcement that Feoktistov provided.
Vali said Qaradawi was listed as an honorary trustee years ago only because his scholarship and high esteem in Muslim circles would help with fundraising.
Yasir Qadhi, who lectured at the Boston mosque in April 2009, has advocated replacing U.S. democracy with Islamic rule and called Christians “filthy” polytheists whose “life and prosperity … holds no value in the state of Jihad,” according to a video obtained by Jacobs’ group.
Vali said Qadhi was a guest of a non-profit organization that was renting space at the Boston mosque and has changed his views since that video was made.
Jacobs and others say it is not only renters who express sympathetic views for terrorists. Leaders of the Boston and Cambridge mosques, and invited guests, have advocated on behalf of convicted terrorists, urging followers to seek their release or lenient sentences.
Imam Abdullah Faaruuq, sometimes a spokesman for the Boston mosque, used Siddiqui’s case to speak against the USA Patriot Act, the anti-terrorism law passed under the George W. Bush administration. “After they’re done with (Siddiqui), they are going to come to your door if they feel like it,” he said, according to a video obtained by Americans for Peace and Tolerance.
Anwar Kazmi, a member of the Cambridge mosque’s board of trustees, called for leniency for Mehanna and Siddiqui at a Boston rally in February 2012, in a video posted to YouTube. He characterized Siddiqui’s 86-year sentence as excessive.
In an interview with USA TODAY, Kazmi insisted that the Cambridge mosque is moderate and condemns the marathon bombings. On Monday, the mosque e-mailed members to caution them that the FBI may question them and that they may want to seek representation.
[NCCR Editor: USA Today used Bing map below is Google map]
“This kind of violence, terrorism, it’s just completely contrary to the spirit of Islam,” Kasmi said. “The words in the Quran say if anybody kills even a single human being without just cause, it’s as if you’ve killed all of humanity.”
Contributing: Yamiche Alcindor
Major media coverage of APT’s findings about mosque connected to Boston marathon terrorists
APT About Page:
Americans for Peace and Tolerance is a Boston-based 501(c)(3) non-profit organization dedicated to promoting peaceful coexistence in an ethnically diverse America by educating the American public about the need for a moderate political leadership that supports tolerance and core American values in communities across the nation.
Americans for Peace and Tolerance is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization composed of concerned citizens, academics, and community activists. As Christians, Moslems, and Jews, we are united by the need to keep America hate-free. We believe peaceful coexistence among diverse ethnic populations is only possible if we promote a climate of tolerance and civil society.
Americans for Peace and Tolerance is headed by Dr. Charles Jacobs, named by the Forward as one of America’s top 50 Jewish leaders. Jacobs has founded and … READ THE REST
Mosque that Boston suspects attended has radical ties
Oren Dorell covers breaking news and foreign affairs. He’s been to almost all the Lower 48 and a dozen countries, covering disasters, crime and revolution. He loves the outdoors and prefers good local food.
Caroline Glick tackles the campaigning of President Barack Hussein Obama by criticizing one of his ads. The essence of the ad is a young gal that relates voting for Obama is like having sex for the first time with a great guy. So you ladies you can get that first orgasmic memory back by voting for Obama.
Obama is trying to be pro-woman but in reality is showing a sex-object misogynistic attitude toward women.
Then Glick shows what it is really like voting for Obama. A vote for Obama is like voting for one of the most popular movements in the Muslim world known as the Muslim Brotherhood (MB). The MB is a classic example of the misogynistic demonizing of women. And you can add to this misogynism with Jew-hatred, Christian-hatred and America-hatred. Obama’s appeasement of Radical Islam under the delusion that this will bring world peace is one of the biggest deceptions being thrown at American voters.
So you can vote for Obama and make believe that first orgasm occurs as you place the ballot in the receptacle or you can use your head and dump Obama on November 6, 2012.
VIDEO: Lena Dunham: Your First Time
Obama and the politics of contempt
By Caroline Glick
November 2, 2012, 10:37 AM
“Your first time shouldn’t be with just anybody. You want to do it with a great guy.”
So begins the now famous official Barack Obama for President campaign ad that was released last week. The ad depicts a young woman named Lena Dunham, who is apparently a celebrity among Americans in their teens and 20s.
After that opening line, Ms. Dunham continues on for another minute and a half discussing how having sex for the first time and voting for Barack Obama for president are really the same thing, and how young women don’t want to be accused of either being virgins or of having passed up on their chance to cast their votes for Obama next Tuesday.
I’ve never been particularly interested in so-called “women’s issues.” It never seemed to me that any party or politician was particularly good or bad for me due to the way they thought of women. That all changed with the Dunham ad for Obama.
With this ad, Obama convinced me he is a misogynist.
The Obama campaign’s use of a double entendre to compare sex – the most personal, intimate act we engage in as human beings, with voting – the most public act we engage in as human beings – is a scandal.
It is demeaning and contemptuous of women. It reduces us to sexual objects. When called on to vote, as far as Obama is concerned, as slaves to our passions, we make our decisions not based on our capacity for rational choice. Rather we choose our leaders solely on the basis of our sexual desires.
Beyond the ad’s bald attempt to impersonalize, generalize and cheapen the most personal act human beings engage in, the ad is repulsive because it takes for granted that what happens in our private lives is the government’s business.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but this is a totalitarian position.
THE WHOLE point of liberal democracy is to put a barrier between a person’s personal life and his or her government. A liberal democracy is founded on the notion of limited government. It assumes there are a lot of places where government has no role to play. And first and foremost among those places is the bedroom.
The theory behind limited government is that if the government is permitted in our private space then we are no longer free. When – as in the case of the Dunham ad – a political campaign conveys the message that there is something personally wrong with not actively supporting its candidate, it communicates the message that it sees no distinction between personal and public life, and therefore rejects the basic notion of freedom from government. And this is repugnant, not just for women, but for everyone who values freedom.
One of the oddest aspects of the Obama sex ad is that to believe that this sort of message can be effective, the campaign had to ignore mountains of data about the demographic group the ad targets – young college-educated women.
According to just about every piece of survey data collected over the past 20 years, young women in America today are more accomplished, more professionally driven, and more intellectually successful than their male counterparts. That the Obama campaign believes the votes of this successful, smart group of women can be won by appealing to their basest urges rather than their capacity to reason is demeaning and perverse and, one would think, counterproductive.
But it isn’t surprising.
The fact is that the Obama campaign – and indeed, the Obama presidency – has treated the American people with unprecedented arrogance and contempt. On issue after issue, Obama and his minions have eschewed intellectual argumentation.
On issue after issue they have preferred instead to attack Obama’s detractors as stupid, backwards, bigoted, bellicose and evil.
For instance, however one feels about current events in the Middle East, there is a legitimate – indeed critical – argument to be had about the nature of the Islamist forces the Obama administration is supporting from Cairo, Egypt, to Alexandria, Virginia.
The Muslim Brotherhood is the most popular movement in the Islamic world. It is also a totalitarian, misogynist, anti-Jewish, anti-Christian and anti-American movement. It seeks Islamic global supremacy, the genocide of Jewry, the subjugation of Christianity and the destruction of the United States.
There is an intellectual case to be made for appeasing these popular, popularly elected forces.
There is a (stronger) intellectual case to be made for opposing them. But rather than make any of the hard arguments for appeasing the Muslim Brotherhood, the Obama administration has deflected the issue by castigating everyone who opposes its appeasement policies as racist, McCarthyite warmongers.
If women who don’t support Obama are prudish geeks, Americans who oppose his appeasement policies are bloodthirsty bigots.
Then there was the attack in Benghazi on September 11 and the general Islamic assaults on US embassies throughout the Muslim world that day.
The acts of aggression that Muslims carried out against several US embassies on September 11 and since have all been acts of war against America.
The rioters who stormed the US embassies in Egypt, Tunis and Yemen and replaced the American flag with the flag of al-Qaida all violated sovereign US territory and carried out acts of war. The US had the right, under international law, to repel and respond with military force against the rioters as well as against their governments. Instead the White House blamed the acts of war on a US citizen who posted a video on YouTube.
Then there was Benghazi. In Benghazi, jihadists took this collective aggression a step further. They attacked the US Consulate and a US government safe house with mortars and rocket-propelled grenades. Their goal was to murder all the US citizens inside the compounds. In the event, they successfully murdered four Americans, including the US ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens.
In the six weeks that have passed since the attack in Benghazi, despite administration attempts to stonewall, and despite the US’s media’s inexcusable lack of interest in the story, information has continuously dribbled out indicating that Obama and his senior advisers knew in real time what was happening on the ground. It has also come out that they rejected multiple requests from multiple sources to employ military power readily available to save the lives of the Americans on the ground.
There may be good reasons that Obama and his top aides denied those repeated requests for assistance and allowed the American citizens pinned down in Benghazi to die. But Obama and his aides have not provided any.
Rather than defend their actions, Obama and his advisers first sought to cover up what happened by blaming the acts of war on that YouTube video.
When that line of argument collapsed of its own absurdity, Obama shifted to blaming the messenger.
His campaign accused everyone asking for facts and truthful explanations about what happened in Benghazi of trying to politicize the attack.
Obama himself has twice struck the Captain Renault pose and declared himself “Shocked, shocked!” that anyone would dare to insinuate that he did not do everything in his power to save the lives of the Americans whose lives he failed to save.
The reason specific sectors of a society usually feel compelled to vote on the basis of their sectoral interests rather than their general interests as citizens of their country is that they feel that one candidate or party specifically endangers their sectoral interests. Hence, the Lena Dunham ad, which insults women specifically, compels women to vote as women against Obama.
In the case of Obama’s appeasement of the Muslim world, there is no specific group that is hurt more than any other group by his policies.
As we saw in Libya, Egypt, Tunis, Yemen and beyond, his appeasement policies endanger all Americans equally.
This is not the case with Obama’s treatment of Israel and Jews. Obama’s supporters always highlight statements he has made and actions he has taken in relation to Israel and Jews that are relatively supportive of both.
To be sure, like every other US president, Obama has made some statements, and taken some actions, that have been supportive of Jews and of Israel. But unlike most other US presidents, he has made far more statements and taken far more actions that have been contemptuous and hostile to Israel and Jews. And this is inexcusable.
It is inexcusable that Obama uses coded anti- Semitic language to blame America’s economic woes on “fat cat bankers.” It is inexcusable that his secretary of state and his senior advisers have repeatedly made references to the so-called Israel Lobby to explain why America is supposedly hamstrung in its ability to sell Israel to the wolves.
It is inexcusable that Obama sends his surrogates before the cameras to refer to Israel’s prime minister as “ungrateful,” or to castigate Israel for permitting Jews to build homes in Jerusalem on land they own and for permitting Jews to exercise their legal rights to their property – simply because they are Jews.
Israel is the US’s most important ally in the Middle East. As such, it deserves to be treated well by the US – all the time. Any move to treat Israel with contempt is an unprovoked hostile act and therefore inexcusable.
So, too, US Jews have a right to make an honest living doing anything they wish – including working on Wall Street or owning a casino in Las Vegas. Jews have a right to be treated with respect by the US government. They should not have to be concerned about having their reputations maligned by politicians who use anti-Semitic tropes to gain political advantage.
Obama’s contemptuous vilification of Israel and successful American Jews make him bad for Jews specifically. Just as the Dunham ad exposes his underlying hostility towards women and so makes clear that women’s interests are imperiled by his presidency, so Obama’s repeated hostile treatment of Israel and American Jews make him a specific danger to Jewish interests.
MANY WOULD-BE deep thinkers have proclaimed that the presidential election is a choice between two competing narratives. But that isn’t an accurate description of the race.
Only Republican nominee Mitt Romney is presenting a narrative. In his narrative, the US faces very difficult problems in domestic and foreign policy alike. Romney has laid out his priorities for which problems he wishes to contend with, and has presented policies he will adopt to do so if he is elected next Tuesday.
On the other hand, by Obama’s telling, the real problems America faces are all the result of the empowerment of his political opponents and America’s allies.
Benghazi wouldn’t be a problem if his political opponents weren’t talking about it. Jihadists aren’t a problem. The problem is the people who say they are a problem. The national debt isn’t a problem. The problem is the “fat cat bankers.”
Women will vote for him because we are dimwitted sex objects. And Jews will vote for him because we are taken in by his occasional Borscht Belt schmaltz platitudes about Hanukka.
God help us all if his contemptuous assessment of his countrymen is borne out next Tuesday.
Originally published in The Jerusalem Post.
© 2012 Caroline Glick
John R. Houk
© October 3, 2012
Recently WorldNetDaily posted a two part audio interview with Nonie Darwish. Darwish is an ex-Muslim turned Counterjihad writer and speaker. It is quite fascinating that Muslim Apologists and Leftist pundit are all about spewing junk about former Muslims that have turned to exposing the darker nature of Islam. These guys twist and/or fabricate facts to give themselves the soapbox to call ex-Muslims liars. Muslims of the purist fashion and Leftists lack credibility. Muslims are instructed in taqiyya and Leftists lie to fool people to believe their utopia ends without notifying the means usually require a total transformation of society by a combination of slow sucker changes and/or deadly violence.
Nonie Darwish is one of those people loathed by Leftists and Muslim Apologists alike. There is never any proof about falsehood about any ex-Muslim Counterjihad writer, rather the accusation of faker or hoax is surmised by people that have a reason to lie or facts are so twisted as to be unrecognized as valid.
LoonWatch.com is no friend of Conservatives or Counterjihad writers. Here is an example of trash talking about Darwish which is obviously a stretch in drawing conclusions of liar:
We are going to have an explosive breakdown of the clownish Nonie Darwish, another charlatan akin to Wafa Sultan [SlantRight Editor: undoubtedly same unsubstantiated drivel that is here about Nonie Darwish] who is milking the Islamophobic cash cow for all it’s worth. Jim Holstun, a professor at SUNY Buffalo wrote this great piece in 2008 that lays bear (sic) Nonie’s excessive Islamophobia, as well as her contradictions and lies.
… Darwish interweaves stories of her Egyptian girlhood with potted accounts of female genital mutilation, arranged marriages, polygamy, veiling, domestic abuse, honor killings, sharia law, jihad, censorship, hate-oriented education, the rejection of modernity, the cult of martyrdom, Islamic imperialism, and the pathological, groundless hatred of Israel. [SlantRight Editor: Holstun is insinuating that the Egypt of the 1950’s did not have the described degenerate thinking. History and current events proves this was the truth then as much as now]
In her interviews and in her book, she insists that she is not anti-Arab or anti-Islamic, and even suggests from time to time that she is still a Muslim. Then she pivots nimbly and attacks “the Arab mind,” “the seething Arab street,” and “the Muslim world,” with its “culture of jihad,” “culture of death,” and “culture of envy.” [SlantRight Editor: Holstun confuses lack of animosity to former fellow Egyptians and criticism of Arab-Islamic culture as one and the same thing. This is pure manipulative propaganda by Holstun because criticism and a lack of grudge can be two separate things] There are “no real distinctions between moderate or radical Muslims,” and no significant differences within or among Arab or Muslim cultures: for Darwish, Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser’s secular Arab nationalism was essentially jihadist. Darwish is allergic to social history: “I realized that the Arab-Israeli conflict is not a crisis over land, but a crisis of hate, lack of compassion, ingratitude, and insecurity.” Instead of history, scholarship, and footnotes, she gives us a watered-down version of Raphael Patai’s The Arab Mind: a dictionary of Islamophobic [SlantRight Editor: Typical of Muslim Apologists and Leftists if one presents facts that are critical of Islam the conclusion that person is ‘Islamophobic’]commonplaces underwritten by the authority of an ex-Muslim native informant: I was there — I know.
Darwish’s portraits of Israel and of the US, to which she emigrated in 1978, are diametrically opposite but equally fatuous: Israeli Jews are tolerant, pragmatic, and peace-loving. From 1967 to 1982, they made the Sinai bloom. Americans are honest, charitable, industrious, self-sufficient, intellectually curious, and benevolent toward the foreign nations to whom they bring liberty. They err only in their excess of credulous goodness: because of “the simplicity of American values such as truthfulness,” they risk falling prey to duplicitous jihadist immigrants and dangerous professors, who “indoctrinate American young people with the radical Muslim agenda.” [SlantRight Editor: I see that sarcasm and raise the truth to Holstun: Compare the lifestyle of an Arab-Muslim living inside Israel or America with the lifestyle of a Jew or Christian living in Egypt. What a putz]
Her outsider’s view of America complements her insider’s view of the Arab and Muslim world, for imperial states want not only other people’s land and labor, but their love. Here, we may compare Now They Call Me Infidel not only to recent anti-Islamic conversion narratives like Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s Infidel (her conversion was to neoconservative atheism and the American Enterprise Institute), but to earlier works in the genre. In her 1964 Editions Gallimard autobiography, O mes soeurs musulmanes, pleurez! (O My Muslim Sisters, Weep!), Zoubeida Bittari recounts her escape from Algerian Muslim patriarchy to French Christian bliss as a domestic servant to a Pied-Noir family; Nonie Darwish finds friends, family, and faith in southern California, including a Republican women’s group, an American husband, and Christian fellowship in Pastor Dudley Rutherford’s Shepherd of the Hills Church. As Bittari helped French colons feel better about their ungratefully rebuffed civilizing mission in Algeria, so Darwish helps Americans feel better about the long and bumpy road to global democratization. [SlantRight Editor: She may have become a Neocon – I don’t have a problem with that – it is a pure lie that she became an atheist. Although I longer believe Western representative democratic values will take in a land dominated by Islam, take not that Holstun writes of ‘global democratization’ as if it was a bad thing. When you get to the end of this quote you will understand why.]
There are occasional flashes of something more individual and authentic in Darwish’s book. For instance, her reiterated heartfelt attack on Nasser’s rent control laws (her mother lived partly off of her Cairo rentals) helps us understand why she feels so much more at home in southern California, where she arrived with enough money to buy a house with a swimming pool. But as a whole, the book is tedious, predictable, and badly edited — born to be bought, scanned and displayed, not actually read. But this will not diminish the demand for Darwish as a lecturer, which derives not from her writing but from her parentage: her father was Colonel Mustafa Hafez, head of Egyptian army intelligence in the Gaza Strip in the early ’50s, who was killed by an Israeli letter bomb in July 1956. Every lecture notice, every interview, even the title page of her book announces her as “a Muslim Shahid’s Daughter.” [SlantRight Editor: Note Holstun’s cynicism toward the gains of Capitalism. Also note the hubris of I’m better than Darwish because of I have a Left Wing college education – Leftist elitism.]
Throughout her book, Darwish struggles to maintain love and loyalty both to the father she lost at age eight and to the Israeli state that killed him. In a parting flourish, she says that “My father — and potentially my whole family — was sent to his death in Gaza by Nasser, who was consumed by his desire to destroy Israel,” and she fondly imagines him surviving and flying with assassinated Egyptian president Anwar Sadat to Israel. But this argument sometimes requires a torturous chronology: “When, on January 16, 1956, Nasser vowed a renewed offensive to destroy Israel, the pressure on my father to step up operations increased. More fedayeen groups were organized, and their training expanded to other areas of the Gaza Strip. Often my father was gone for days at a time. In an attempt to end the terror, Israel sent its commandos one night to our heavily guarded home.”
The problem here is that this early, failed assassination attempt occurred in 1953, when Hafez was struggling to prevent destabilizing Palestinian infiltration from Gaza into Israel. Things changed dramatically in February 1955, when then military commander Ariel Sharon’s Gaza raid killed 37 Egyptian soldiers and wounded 31. This raid brought shocked international condemnation, the end of Israeli Prime Minister Moshe Sharett’s ongoing negotiations with Nasser, mass demonstrations of Palestinian refugees in the Gaza Strip, and Nasser’s decision to have Hafez organize and arm Palestinian fedayeen for cross-border forays. Israeli historians Avi Shlaim and Benny Morris see the raid as a turning point in Israeli-Arab relations. Darwish never mentions it. [SlantRight Editor: Holstun would have you believe Sharon’s commando raid was an unprovoked slaughter of Arab-Muslim men, women and children:
The year 1955 heralded a significant increase in border tension and bloodshed. On February 28 1955, in an operation named Black Arrow, the IDF killed thirty-six Egyptian troops (plus two civilians) and wounded thirty others during a raid on an Egyptian military barracks in Gaza in direct response to the murder of an Israeli cyclist, not far from Rehovot. Identity papers accidentally dropped by the Arab intruders indicated that they were in the service of Egyptian intelligence.
Regardless of the criticism to which Israel was subject, there is no gainsaying the fact that it was the murder of a Jewish cyclist near Rehovot, by Egyptian intelligence agents illicitly reconnoitring in Israeli territory, that finally sparked the Gaza confrontation. As the historian David Tal remarked, “it is probably safe to say that without the murderous attack that preceded it, the Gaza raid would not have eventuated.” The killing of the cyclist was not an isolated occurrence. Since May 1954, the Egyptian army had been sending its men into Israel with malicious intent. Just over a month before the Gaza raid, that is on January 21, an IDF soldier was killed by a twelve-man Egyptian army unit and a few days later two Israeli tractor drivers were fired upon, leading to the death of one of them and the wounding of the other. Benny Morris, a scholar well known for exposing negative aspects of the IDF, viewed the Egyptian raids as demonstrating “a growing belligerency and adventurousness among Egyptian officials.” Morris’ version is in keeping with Glubb’s summation that from 1954 onwards, “incidents in the Gaza strip became far more numerous than those on the Jordan front.” This was because “the Egyptian revolutionary government were desirous of incidents, for they were posing as the great military power which was about to defeat Israel.”
Kennet Love, a confidant of Nasser insisted that the Gaza raid “transformed a stable level of minor incidents between the two countries (Israel and Egypt) into a dialogue of mounting fear and violence.” What he did not explain was why Israel ought to have tolerated the continuation of “a stable level of minor incidents,” when the Egyptian-Israeli Armistice Agreement committed both sides to a total cessation of hostilities. In any case, it would seem that the Egyptians had every intention of ultimately escalating the border conflict into a full-scale war. Confirmation for this was forthcoming from Major Saleah Saleh a member of the Egyptian Government. On January 9, 1955, nearly two months before the Gaza raid, he declared that “Egypt will strive to erase the shame of the Palestine War even if Israel should fulfil all UN resolutions. It will not sign a peace with her. Even if Israel should consist only of Tel Aviv, we should never put up with that.” (The Source of Arab Infiltration; by Leslie A. Stein; Think Israel, 2009)]
Continuing with her discussion of the earlier undated raid on her family’s home (it actually occurred on 28-29 August 1953), she says, “My father was not at home that night, and the Israelis found only women and children — my mother, two maids, and five small children. The commandos left us unharmed. I personally did not even wake up or know of the incident until later in life, when I read a book written about my father. After I read it, I called my mother immediately, and she confirmed the story. The Israelis chose not [to] kill us even though the Egyptian-organized fedayeen did kill Israeli civilians, women and children.”
Young Nonie must have been a very sound sleeper, since one squad blew the gate off her house, injuring several civilians, and, by one account, proceeded to demolish the house. Grown-up Nonie seems not to know that the Israeli commandos were part of Ariel Sharon’s newly-organized Unit 101. While the one squad attacked her house, Sharon’s was cornered nearby in al-Bureij refugee camp. He decided they would bomb and shoot their way through the camp rather than retreat from it. General Vagn Bennike, the Danish UN Truce Chief, reported to the Security Council on the ensuing massacre: “Bombs were thrown through the windows of huts in which the refugees were sleeping and, as they fled, they were attacked by small arms and automatic weapons. The casualties were 20 killed, 27 seriously wounded, and 35 less seriously wounded.” Other sources estimate from 15 to 50 fatalities.
The Israeli army blamed the raid on rogue kibbutzniks, and Ariel Sharon tried to reassure his men, telling them that all the dead women were camp whores or murderous Palestinian infiltrators. But some of them remained shocked at what they had done. Participant Meir Barbut said they felt as if they were slaughtering the pathetic inhabitants of a Jewish transit camp: “The boys threw Molotov cocktails at [innocent] people, not at the saboteurs we had come to punish. It was shameful for the 101 and the IDF [Israel army].” Another asked, “Is this screaming, whimpering multitude … the enemy? … How did these fellahin sin against us?” In 2006, Palestinian journalist Laila El-Haddad interviewed a survivor for Al Jazeera English:
“Mohammad Nabahini, 55, was two at the time and lived in the camp. He survived the attack in the arms of his slain mother. ‘My father decided to stay behind when they attacked. He hid in a pile of firewood and pleaded with my mother to stay with him. She was too afraid, and fled with hundreds of others, only to return to take me and a few of her belongings with her,’ he said. ‘As she was escaping, her dress got caught in a fence around the camp, just over there,’ he gestured, near a field now covered with olive trees. ‘And then they threw a bomb at her, Sharon and his men. She tossed me on the ground behind her before she died.’”
Though Darwish never mentions it, the al-Bureij Massacre hasn’t exactly been a secret — both Zionist and anti-Zionist historians have described it clearly, with little disagreement save the number of fatalities, with the high-end estimate coming from an Israeli history. If it tends not to loom large in Palestinian historical memory, that’s because it was overshadowed just two months later by the Qibya Massacre, during which Sharon’s Unit 101 killed 67, women and children, demolishing buildings over their heads and shooting them down when they tried to flee — the tactic pioneered at al-Bureij. Given its propensity for civilian soft targets, this daredevil elite unit might be better described as a death squad. [SlantRight Editor: Holstun demonstrate just how ignorant on how the Middle East uses deterrents to influence families, tribal affiliations and governments. If harm is perpetrated vengeance is required on a scale to influence the perpetrators to refrain from harm because of the consequences.
Honour in feuding societies, thus, became a kind of heritage that passes from generation to generation and if any damage is caused, it may authorize family or community members to retaliate against an offender pending the restoration of the initial ‘balance of honour’ that preceded the perceived injury. This cycle of honor traverses its margins and brings at first family members and then the entire community into the brand-new cycle of revenge that may pervade generations.
Unlike Western countries, the Middle East ‘cultivates a collective existence,’ 34 and thus any affront leads to a collective responsibility that is shared by all the members of the community. Collective revenge may be implemented against nations or groups, blaming them for the perceived damage and ignoring the personal responsibility of each member individually. Revenge of this type can be an instrument in leaders’ hands that may use it as an excuse to act in accordance with their own interests. (Revenge-the Volcano of Despair: The Story of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict; by Helena Yakovlev Golani; Excerpts; Academia © 2012)
We contend that three main factors may induce a dynamic link between violent incidents on the two sides of the con!ict (sic). First, violence by one side can have an incapacitation effect, if it limits the other side’s capability to react. For example, Israeli targeted killings of key Palestinian leaders might reduce Palestinians’ ability to carry out further attacks against Israel; this is the stated Israeli rationale for such actions. Second, violence can have a deterrent effect, when one side refrains from using violence in fear of the other side’s reaction. Finally, violence by one side can lead to a reaction by the other side through a vengeance effect, to the extent that one side wishes to dispense retribution in response to the fatal casualties it suffers. (The Cycle of Violence? An Empirical Analysis of Fatalities in the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict; II. Theoretical and Empirical Framework; By David A. Jaeger & M. Daniele Paserman; American Economic Review 2008, 98:4, 1591–1604)]
We probably shouldn’t expect Nonie Darwish to alter her campus presentations anytime soon. The bookings by StandWithUs might dry up if she were to start supplementing her cautionary tales about sharia law, jihadi immigrants, and female genital mutilation with a serious discussion of Israeli massacres at Deir Yassin, Tantura, al-Bureij, Qibya, Kfar Qasim, Sabra and Shatila, and Beit Hanoun. [SlantRight Editor: As I said before Israeli attacks are responses to Islamic Terrorism with the intention to show that Israel has the ability to smack Jew-haters with extreme prejudice if Jew-haters continue in acts of terrorism. This sounds harsh by Western standards but it is the way of life in the Middle East especially by a society constructed by Islamic Supremacism over the old Christian Culture replaced by conquest.] In any case, Darwish prefers simple cultural generalities and intimate personal reflection to historical analysis. But since that’s the case, someone at her next lecture might ask if she remembers playing with any of the refugee children murdered at al-Bureij, and why the kindly Israeli commandos who spared her family decided to blow up Mohammad Nabahini’s mother.
Jim Holstun teaches world literature and Marxism at SUNY Buffalo and can be reached at jamesholstun A T hotmail D O T com. [SlantRight Editor: Take note that Jim Holstun teaches Marxism and I suspect Holstun’s teaching of world literature is through the eyes of Marxism as well.]
LoonWatch.com is just one example of how Leftist and Islamic Apologists warp the truth about Conservative and Counterjihad writers and speakers.
Here is a Nonie Darwish bio found on the Directors’ page of Former Muslims United (Just scroll down a bit and Darwish is the first bio).
I had to go through all this justification to get to the WorldNetDaily article that has two audios of an interview with Nonie Darwish. Here at SlantRight 2.0 I am posting the WND text followed by two audio links. WND has one audio at the top and part two on the bottom.
I received an email that talks about Radical Islam on the campus of Northeastern University in Massachusetts. The email is from Charles Jacobs of Americans for Peace and Tolerance (APT).
This kind Radical Muslim infiltration in American government and American Universities is becoming more common in America, yet the Mainstream Media and police authorities on levels – Federal, State and Local – are largely ignoring the homegrown radicalization of Islam while looking primarily for Islamic terrorist plots from abroad.
The writer at WalidShoebat.com known as Administrator writes a good exposé about one of the defenders of Huma Abedin. He (or she) examines Amina Chaudary as an author that may be one of those Huma associations that bring questions to her ability to remain loyal to the U.S. government due to the hatred of Radical Islam for the American Constitution. Too many defenders of Huma Abedin are trying to defend her by raising the issue of bigotry and hatred of Islam when the case is a too close association with those who hate America enough to persuade Huma Abedin to divulge classified information that will be used against the USA.
Would Huma Abedin sell-out America for Allah and Mohammed? I have no idea; however because of her associations I am convinced the potential exists and if the potential exists an investigation must be required to see if Huma Abedin passes classified information to a host of Radical Islamists including Huma’s mother Saleha Mahmood Abedin.
John R. Houk
© August 20, 2012
The WalidShoebat.com Administrator wonders why the MSM has totally ignored the story of Huma Abedin to Radical Islam. Here are a few examples of the evidence via SlantRight2 posts:
Key Establishment Republicans like Senator McCain and Speaker of the House John Boehner have the National Security Five of which the primary target of criticism is Rep. Michele Bachmann. Bachmann is the focus of undeserving heat because it was from her Office that a query was sent out to various Inspectors of Inspector General Office asking for reasons that there are Muslims in government connected to Radical Islam yet have Security Clearance to access of sensitive CLASSIFIED material.
That which particularly rubbed Establishment Republicans, Democrats and Muslim Apologists raw was that one of those Muslims that have access to CLASSIFIED material is long time advisor and Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. These Huma supporters were rubbed raw by Bachmann.
I haven’t heard specifically but I am guessing Hillary raised a stink directly with some powerful people in Congress and the Obama Administration. Since Hillary is linked to a power machine thanks to her skirt chasing husband and former President Slick Willy Clinton.
So here’s the scenario: For me there appears to be the exercise of Dem power to protect a close advisor and people are falling in line behind Hillary’s complaints. I suspect there is a vast ignoring to the potential harm Huma presents to National Security is because Hillary is still very much in the hunt for the Office of President of the United States. This means politicians and government bureaucrats are very hesitant to sow conflict with a potential most powerful person in the world.
It is unlikely that the Department of Justice will do anything as long as Eric Holder is the Attorney General. Holder’s cover-up with Fast and Furious that includes Obama compliance in not pushing for Holder cooperation leads me to think Huma Abedin is being protected.
So the question is: Why would a powerful Democrat like Hillary double deal against American citizens with the Muslim Brotherhood? I am convinced Hillary is a Leftist ideologue with no love for religion whether it Christianity, Judaism or Islam. So would Hillary be complicit with the enemies of American culture to protect a potential Muslim Brotherhood advocate in Huma Abedin?
Of course it is all speculation; however there is something fishy why no one seems to be on Michele Bachmann’s side when there is such a huge amount of evidence that Huma Abedin is connected to the Muslim Brother.
John R. Houk
© August 17, 2012
Caroline Glick has written an essay that begins with the U.S. Foreign Policy debacle of doing nothing to keep Mao Zedong (Mao Tse Dung) from his Communist conquest of China. Mao wrested control of the Chinese government from the Nationalist government of Chiang Kai-Chek who ended up fleeing to Formosa (Today’s Taiwan).
Glick compares Mao’s usurpation of power in China to allowing the Muslim Brotherhood Islamist President Mohamed Morsi of winning a close Egyptian election. Glick reports that Egyptian military authorities and generals have been fired and replaced with Muslim Brotherhood loyalists. Also Morsi has not called the Egyptian Parliament back (disbanded originally by Egyptian military) which Glick believes gives Morsi the power to write Egypt’s new Constitution. If Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood write the next Egyptian Constitution, this will probably instill dictatorial powers on the new Egyptian President. Glick believes these dictatorial powers will be on a larger scale than the Obama abandoned and deposed Hosni Mubarak’s power.
Glick then properly goes on to criticize Obama’s Foreign Policy of joining Turkey in supporting the Islamist rebels fighting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Now I realize there will be really no difference in Israel-hate and American-hate from which ever Syrian broker eventually stabilizes control of Syria; however deposing Assad would throw a monkey wrench into the Iranian-Syrian military alliance at least for awhile. That actually would be to America’s benefit. Anything that sets Iran back with only a little resource involvement by the US is a plus for America.
If the Sunni-Islamists succeed in taking over Syria the animosity with Iran would only be temporary in my opinion. The one thing that unites and smoothes over the hatred between Sunni and Shia Muslims (Iran is a Shia Theocracy) is a mutual hatred for Jews and Israel.
I suspect if Israel attacks Iranian nuke sites the Sunni regimes of Turkey (Islamist government) and now Egypt (Muslim Brotherhood Islamist government) might begin to offer at the very least clandestine military aid to Iranian client Hezbollah and the Sunni-Islamist terrorists Hamas. Undoubtedly Hamas would join a Hezbollah attack from the north by making a southern military front against Israel. The Saudi Royal Family hates and fears the militant Shia Iran regime in becoming a regional hegemon. I believe it is a pretty good guess that the Wahhabi Clerics in Saudi Arabia would fully support the elimination of Israel’s existence. If the Saudi Royal Family does not want its own civil war it would probably support yet another invasion of Israel while working clandestinely with the USA to help thwart Iranian influence.
Israel’s existence is in volatile times. A nuclear armed Iran would be suicide for Israel. Israel must take the risk of regional war to stop the formation of nuclear warheads that can be placed on Iranian missiles that can easily reach Israel. If a regional war breaks out Israel would have to be harsh on the Arabs that call themselves Palestinians just to survive. I sense a President like Obama would condemn Israel for such self-preservation harshness against Palestinian Authority Arabs and Hamas governed Gaza Arabs. An Obama-like President might even desire to punish Israel by not helping the Jewish State to survive.
YOU DO KNOW what would happen to Jews in a defeated Israel, right? There would be a SECOND Holocaust that would either rival the Hitler-Nazi Holocaust or even exceed those dimensions of butchery.
American voters need to vote for a President that is Pro-Israel and willing to stand with Israel even if doing so is not Politically Correct to the rest of the Western World. Currently that man is GOP Nominee Mitt Romney. Standing with Israel will bring the blessings of God Almighty for blessing God’s Chosen People.
I am not Jewish; nonetheless I and other Biblical Christians support Israel because the Jewish State’s existence is prophetic. Eventually Jesus Himself will Return and the Jews will comprehend He is their Messiah as much as He is the Christian Messiah (i.e. the Christ) of Christian Believers looking for the fulfillment of God’s plans for His Creation. Salvation is of the Jews.
Yup, you pegged me: I am a Christian Zionist (SA Jewish Virtual Library). The kind of person Leftists, Muslims and erstwhile so-called Progressive Christians dislike immensely. Unfortunately many Liberal and Observant Jews distrust the motivation of Christian Zionists.
[SlantRight Editor Side Note: The distrust is in the Christian Zionist motivation to be a friend of Israel. Jews are not real hip to Christian proselytizing because of the unscriptural and horrid treatment Jews received at the hands of Christians taught to hate Jews as Christ-killers. The accusation was unfair in Christian history and it is unfair now.
For one thing polytheistic Romans were goaded into Crucifying Christ at the behest of power-station minded Jewish leadership (viz. the Sanhedrin monopolized by Pharisees but dominated by Greek mindset Sadducees).]
Well that is my two-cents. The analysis of Israel’s predicament and U.S. Foreign Policy is much more eloquently provided by Caroline Glick. You should READ IT.