“We must realize Iranian leadership refuses to acknowledge Israel’s
right to exist, and, in fact is hell-bent on Israel’s, and ultimately
our, annihilation,” Palin wrote on her Facebook page.
“The
only thing standing between a president who’d jeopardize our country by
ignoring our Constitution, and foes capitalizing on lopsided
international treaties that weaken our allies, is Congress,” she said.
“Congress
must not sit back and watch our own president flirting with the devil,”
Palin, a GOP vice presidential candidate in 2008, added.
Palin
also argued Obama’s tentative framework with Tehran had severely
damaged U.S. relations with Israel. She called on Republican lawmakers
to repair the frayed bonds between the two nations in Congress.
“Our
president and his anti-peace foreign policy supporters have not acted
in the interest of our ally, Israel, resulting in dangerously
compromised American interests,” Palin said.
“The
GOP majority must stop giving lip service to halting liberals’
fundamental transformation of our relationships with friendly nations
and finally take a stand by exercising its constitutional right and
responsibility to approve international treaties,” she wrote.
“Certainly they must with such grave consequences involved.”
Former Governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin joins Fox News' Sean Hannity to
define the vast differences of leadership between Barack Obama and
Vladimir Putin.
Let's go to the videotape.
And Israel is going to accept 'guarantees' from Obama? Surely you jest.
Sarah Palin is a prophet, Barack Obama is a weakling
They laughed at Sarah Palin in the 2008 Presidential campaign. They're not laughing anymore. Sarah Palin said that if Barack Hussein Obama was elected President of the United States, Russia would invade the Ukraine.
For those comments, she was mocked by the high-brow Foreign Policy magazine and its editor Blake Hounshell, who now is one of the editors of Politico magazine.
In light of recent events in Ukraine and concerns that Russia is
getting its troops ready to cross the border into the neighboring
nation, nobody seems to be laughing at or dismissing those comments now.
Hounshell wrote then that Palin's comments were "strange" and "this is an extremely far-fetched scenario."
"And given how Russia has been able to unsettle Ukraine's pro-Western
government without firing a shot, I don't see why violence would be
necessary to bring Kiev to heel," Hounshell dismissively wrote.
Palin made her remarks on the stump after Obama's running mate Joe
Biden warned Obama supporters to "gird your loins" if Obama is elected
because international leaders may test or try to take advantage of him.
Charles Krauthammer blasted President Obama's 'flaccid' reaction to the invasion.
“The Ukrainians — and I think everybody — are shocked by the weakness
of Obama’s statements,” Krauthammer began. “I find it rather staggering
. . . What he’s saying is we’re not going to really do anything, and
we’re telling the world.”
Jonah Goldberg said that Obama’s reluctance to take a hard line
against Putin’s actions in Ukraine unsurprising. “When you listen to
Barack Obama talk about this stuff, you get the sense that he as no —
I’m sure he knows these things, but you get no sense that he very much
cares . . . all of his foreign policy has been through the prism of
domestic politics.”
Krauthammer agreed, claiming the international community is now
unlikely to strongly condemn Russian aggression. “The world always waits
for the signal,” he explained. “You could not have issued a more
flaccid statement than what Obama did. Why did he issue it at all? He
should’ve just stayed at the White House and gone off and had his happy
hour with the Democrats.”
“The world sees this and it knows — as we just heard, they can tell
if a president cares,” he concluded. “And if he doesn’t, they won’t
care. Because unless you’re led by the superpower, you will not go.”
Let's go to the videotape.
What do you think he'll do when - God forbid - Iran goes nuclear?
Palin: 'Elitists running McCain campaign kept me silent on Obama'
I don't think RINO McCain is going to care about this anymore, but Sarah Palin Destroys Obama and his "Phony Scandals" on Fox New -
7/26/2013 - Tonight Greta Van Susteren explores why the president is
calling the D.C. scandals "phony." In this sneak peek clip of the
special, Greta talks to Sarah Palin who exposes that in her 2008 vice
presidential run, she was forbidden from talking about Obama's
relationships with both Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers, as well as his
job experience.
Pew: More Americans than ever oppose arming Syrian rebels, 'let Allah sort it out'
It's not that the American people love Bashar al-Assad or even want to see him stay in power. It's that they - like many Israelis are not convinced that the Syrian rebels are going to be any better.
A newly released Pew poll shows that 70% of Americans oppose arming the Syrian rebels (Hat Tip: Memeorandum). That's up from 65% in December 2012 and 63% in March 2012. While most Americans agree that the US should help people who are opposing an authoritarian regime, an overwhelming majority (60-25) don't believe that the rebels would be any better than Bashar al-Assad, while only a bare plurality (49-46) believes that the US has a moral obligation to do what it can to 'stop the violence.' And there's very little partisan divide here - this is not a 'wedge issue.'
There is very little partisan divide in attitudes about the conflict
in Syria. Majorities of independents (74%), Republicans (71%) and
Democrats (66%) oppose the U.S. and its allies sending arms and military
supplies to anti-government groups in Syria.
Nearly identical majorities of Democrats (69%), independents (69%) and Republicans (68%) also believe that U.S. military forces are too overcommitted to get involved in another conflict.
Independents (66%) and Republicans (64%) are most concerned that the
opposition groups in Syria may be no better than the current government,
but 52% of Democrats also agree with this statement.
By a 58%-38% margin, more Democrats agree than disagree that the U.S.
has a moral obligation to do what it can to stop the violence in Syria.
Republicans are split with 49% saying the U.S. has a moral obligation
to do what it can to stop the violence, and 48% saying it does not have
this responsibility. Most independents (53%) disagree that the U.S. has a
moral obligation to stop the violence in Syria.
The survey, conducted from Wednesday, June 12 through Sunday, June
16, found no significant trend in opinion about Syria over the course of
the five nights of fieldwork. In the first two nights of interviewing
69% opposed arming Syrian rebels, in the final three nights of fieldwork
71% were opposed.
In fact, most Americans don't seem to care a whole lot about what's going on in Syria. Perhaps Sarah Palin got it rightand best reflects how Americans feel about what's going on in Syria.
She doesn't talk about Israel (although note what she's wearing around her neck), but Sarah Palin's keynote speech to Right Online 2012 is well worth your time.
McCain's campaign manager says he's frightened by thought of Palin as President
You have to wonder why John McCain chose this guy as his campaign manager. Steve Schmidt tells Morning Joe that he believes that Sarah Palin was manifestly unqualified to be President. (I disagree). I don't see any explanation for the real issue: Why didn't McCain aggressively go after Obama for his anti-Semitism, his racism and his subservience to Islam? Palin said last week that was Schmidt's decision.
Obama must be thanking God every day she's not a candidate
Barack Hussein Obama ought to be getting down on his knees every day and thanking God that Sarah Palin isn't a candidate. If she were a candidate, she would destroy him (Hat Tip: Memeorandum and Jack W via Weasel Zippers).
Exhibit A in these diversionary tactics is an absurd new attack ad President Obama has released taking my comments out of context. I’m not running for any office, but I’m more than happy to accept the dubious honor of being Barack Obama’s “enemy of the week” if that includes the opportunity to debate him on the issues Americans are actually concerned about. (Remember when I said you don’t need a title to make a difference?)
Just off the top of my head, a few of these concerning issues include: a debt crisis that has us hurtling towards a Greek-style collapse, entitlement programs going bankrupt, a credit downgrade for the first time in our history, a government takeover of the health care industry that makes care more expensive and puts a rationing panel of faceless bureaucrats between you and your doctor (aka a “death panel”), $4 and $5 gas at the pump exacerbated by an anti-drilling agenda that rejects good paying energy sector jobs and makes us more dependent on dangerous foreign regimes, a war in Afghanistan that seems unfocused and unending, a global presidential apology tour that’s made us look feeble and ridiculous, a housing market in the tank, the longest streak of high unemployment since World War II, private-sector job creators and industry strangled by burdensome regulations and an out-of-control Obama EPA, an attack on the Constitutional protection of religious liberty, an attack on private industry in right-to-work states, crony capitalism run amok in an administration in bed with their favored cronies to the detriment of genuine free market capitalism, green energy pay-to-play kickbacks to Obama campaign donors, and a Justice Department still stonewalling on a bungled operation that armed violent Mexican drug lords and led to the deaths of hundreds of innocent people.
I’m sure I missed a few things, but the list is just for starters. Along with millions of others, I’m willing and free to discuss these issues with the President anywhere, anytime; and I’m sure any of the four patriots currently running for the GOP nomination would also welcome the opportunity to talk about the problems everyday Americans face due to the abject failure of our current administration’s policies. The President will dismiss all of these problems by saying, “Well, uh, ‘change isn’t easy.’” But considering that candidate Obama promised to turn back the waters and heal the planet, the American people had at least a reasonable expectation that, at the bare minimum, he wouldn’t bankrupt our country.
She missed Obama's allowing Iran to be on the cusp of going nuclear and his misplaced emphasis on the 'Palestinians,' but we know she's on our side when it comes to that stuff.
Here's the ad. Let's go to the videotape.
Can we draft Sarah Palin to run for President? Will she at least accept the second spot on someone else's ticket?
Sarah Palin on why McCain-Palin didn't go after Obama's radical connections
Here's a fascinating interview with Sarah Palin on the Sean Hannity show in which, among other things, toward the end, she talks about why the McCain-Palin campaign did not attack Barack Hussein Obama's radical connections in 2008 - something that has bothered me immensely ever since.
Let's go to the videotape (Hat Tip: Jack W via Jews for Sarah).
Note what Sarah Palin is wearing around her neck.
I find it interesting that Palin says that both she and McCain were shackled by their campaign manager - at the time, those of us who wanted the truth about Obama to come out were told that McCain insisted on being 'civil.' I wonder why Steve Schmidt (whom she names) behaved that way. Was he afraid that McCain and Palin would be castigated by the media if they attacked Obama? Was he treated with kid gloves because of his race? Or was there something even more sinister? Hmmm.
Here's a video that was posted this past week to the website SarahPac.com. I want you to watch this video and think about why this video is being posted now.
Let's go to the videotape.
I don't know if Sarah Palin is directly responsible for Sarahpac.com, but let's assume that this would not be posted without her consent. Is Sarah Palin running for President? I believe that she is, but not necessarily in 2012.
I think she is trying to establish herself as a power broker in the Republican party, and that she wants that to become her calling card rather than 'resigned as Governor of Alaska.' And I hope she succeeds, because she's one of the very few straight shooting politicians out there, and because she loves Israel.
While I believe that the upcoming election in the US is crucial, I also believe that regardless of what happens, the future of the Republican party in the US, with young leaders like Palin, Allen West and Marco Rubio, is bright.
In answering a recent attack by Max Blumenthal, formerly of Media Matters for America (MMfA), Prof. Dershowitz said, “Let me tell you, Max Blumenthal and Media Matters will be singlehandedly responsible for (Obama) losing this election. They (the Democrats) cannot win the election and keep this affiliation with them.”
I agree with Prof. Dershowitz, though obviously I think there are many, many more reasons why President Obama should lose this election (trillions, if you consider his latest budget proposal).
This just shows that Americans of all political stripes are awakened to the dangers of unethical journalists and media organizations that deceive their audiences and use bullying tactics to unfairly target political opponents.
I sure hope Palin's right, because I don't see Obama throwing them under the bus so quickly.
Daniel Greenfield has a lengthy analysis of Texas Governor Rick Perry's record on dealing with Islam and Muslims in his home state. He raises some valid concerns, but he also raises some concerns which I found irrelevant.
For instance, he worries that under Texas' Halal law (see signing above), which he admits is similar to Kosher laws in many states, militant Islamists may get to decide... whether meat is Halal or not.
Then there's the Texas Halal Law, which makes it a criminal offense to sell Halal and non-Halal meat in the same store, without specifically labeling the two, and of misrepresenting non-Halal meat as being Halal. In theory that's not such a big deal. Similar laws are on the books for Kosher meat. But the problem comes with the definition of what Halal is.
"Halal," as applied to food, means food prepared and served in conformity with Islamic religious requirements according to a recognized Islamic authority.
That comes from the bill's definition. And it raises the question of who is recognized as an Islamic authority. HB 470 leaves that question open. But in a dispute over which Islamic definition of Halal to use, the State of Texas would be forced to rule on a question of Islamic law. And to enforce that law. Texas would become an enforcer of Sharia.
Not really. Is he suggesting that the statute should have named an organization? That would violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the US Constitution, which is precisely why it's not done that way. Besides, the law is a consumer protection law, designed to make sure that there is some minimum standard. It doesn't preclude more than one authority and it doesn't mean that everyone has to accept one particular authority. There are plenty of 'rabbinic authorities' who have the right to advertise themselves as Kosher in New York and New Jersey (and Israel for that matter) whose Kashruth I would not trust.
On the other hand, this point raised by Greenfield bothers me more.
As some have pointed out, Perry is pro-Israel. So was Bush. It didn't stop him from toadying to Saudi Arabia and Abbas, or from pressuring Israel to make concessions to terrorists during his second term. It's possible to be pro-Israel and pro-Islam. And when the scales are weighed, then Islam comes first. If you doubt that, go look at what happened when Bush was pressured by the Saudis.
Well, yes. And unless we can elect someone like a Marco Rubio or Allen West - whose pro-Israel credentials are solid and long predate their running for President - we're going to see Presidents in the US who will come under pressure from the Arab world and who mayalmost certainly will cave in to it. The question is to what extent and how strongly they will pressure Israel as a result. Ronald Reagan is remembered as a solidly pro-Israel President and yet if you recall how he pressured Israel during and after Operation Peace for Galilee (the 1982 First Lebanon War), you might think otherwise.
At the end of the day, Greenfield has this right:
Whatever we say and do, he may be the inevitable candidate. The man who merges the strongest points of Huckabee and Romney into one populist friendly package. Who sells a pro-business compassionate conservatism that comes off as a low pain alternative to Obama. But before that it might not be such a bad thing to pore over the details of his record in office.
Perry is certainly an improvement on Obama. But in a race where Bachmann, Cain, Santorum, Palin and Gingrich have spoken out about the dangers of Islam-- everyone is gathering to cheer a man who celebrates it. Is this what the struggle of the last 3 years comes down to? Did we go through all this just to put Bush era policies back into office?
Well, yes. But Palin's not running yet, and Gingrich and Cain have no chance (I guess Daniel did a quick edit to take Pawlenty out). Are Bachmann and Santorum electable? Because much as I like them, I'd rather have Perry (or Romney for that matter) than four more years of Obama (something from which - in my view - neither the US nor Israel is likely to recover in our lifetimes).
You will recall that during the 2008 US Presidential campaign, the Los Angeles Times had, but would not release, a tape of former PLO spokesman Rashid Khalidi's going away party when he left Chicago for Bir Zeit on the Hudson. It is alleged that at said party, much hostility toward Israel was expressed, and that one Barack Hussein Obama - then a State Senator from Illinois - was present and a part of the festivities.
The tape came up again recently when it was contrasted with the Times' release of thousands of private emails written by former Alaska governor Sarah Palin.
But don't expect the Times to suddenly have pangs of conscience and release the video says Roger Simon. There is no way this uber-Liberal newspaper is going to do anything that could harm the re-election chances of Barack Hussein Obama.
Perhaps because I live in L.A. and know the LAT well, have written for it on occasion, I am far less optimistic than Stanley that such a revelation would occur. Though better written than the lefty blog, the L.A. Times is barely three degrees to the right of the Daily Kos and many times more stodgy. The Times admits mistakes less often than Markos Moulitsas. And I suspect their editorial board would rather see the return of the McNamara Brothers, who dynamited the Times building in 1910, than do anything that might possibly harm the reelection of Barack Obama.
This is true even though the L.A. Times seems to have had little problem with Wikileaks or in disseminating their leaked information. It’s not just the Palin emails. Blabbing is fine as long as it’s on the proper side.
Meanwhile, Peter Wallsten, the man who received the clandestine tape from a mysterious donor and wrote the original attenuated LAT article on the Khalidi party (“Allies of Palestinians see a friend in Obama“), has moved on from the Los Angeles Times to the Wall Street Journal and, now, the Washington Post and he isn’t talking. (At least to me. I called him some time back, but the moment I broached the subject he essentially hung up.) These days he’s cheerleading for Obama at the WaPo with “daring” articles like “White House seeks to connect with young voters” with smiling photos of you-know-who.
No, in all probability, the only way we will ever see the tape or read even a redacted version of the transcript is courtesy of one of the better second story men on the West Coast or a retired KGB agent. (The Mossad need not apply. They will be blamed anyway.)
This is a shame because events are conspiring to make the production of this tape increasingly important, if only to clear the air. Among the soi-disant activists backing the second flotilla currently revving up to bring supposedly needed supplies to allegedly impoverished Gaza is one Rashid Khalidi. He has been raising money in support of one of the vessels with a familiar name:
This year’s American vessel, named The Audacity of Hope after US President Barack Obama’s best-selling book, is being organized by an American group called “US Boat to Gaza.”
Obama links to the Audacity do not end there, however. Prof. Rashid Khalidi, director of the Middle East Institute at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs, and a friend from Obama’s time in Chicago, is among the supporters of an appeal launched by the group last week.
“We must raise at least $370,000 in the next month,” a statement on US Boat to Gaza’s Web site read indicating it doesn’t have the money needed to sail yet.
You will recall that in October 2008, the Los Angeles Timessuppressed a tape it has in its possession of former PLO spokesman Rashid Khalidi's departure party from Chicago. Among those present at the party were Billy Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn and Barack Hussein Obama. According to an article in the Los Angeles Times, what went on at that dinner would have taught us a lot about the current President of the United States.
A special tribute came from Khalidi's friend and frequent dinner companion, the young state Sen. Barack Obama. Speaking to the crowd, Obama reminisced about meals prepared by Khalidi's wife, Mona, and conversations that had challenged his thinking.
His many talks with the Khalidis, Obama said, had been "consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases. . . . It's for that reason that I'm hoping that, for many years to come, we continue that conversation -- a conversation that is necessary not just around Mona and Rashid's dinner table," but around "this entire world."
Today, five years later, Obama is a U.S. senator from Illinois who expresses a firmly pro-Israel view of Middle East politics, pleasing many of the Jewish leaders and advocates for Israel whom he is courting in his presidential campaign. The dinner conversations he had envisioned with his Palestinian American friend have ended. He and Khalidi have seen each other only fleetingly in recent years.
And yet the warm embrace Obama gave to Khalidi, and words like those at the professor's going-away party, have left some Palestinian American leaders believing that Obama is more receptive to their viewpoint than he is willing to say.
Their belief is not drawn from Obama's speeches or campaign literature, but from comments that some say Obama made in private and from his association with the Palestinian American community in his hometown of Chicago, including his presence at events where anger at Israeli and U.S. Middle East policy was freely expressed.
At Khalidi's 2003 farewell party, for example, a young Palestinian American recited a poem accusing the Israeli government of terrorism in its treatment of Palestinians and sharply criticizing U.S. support of Israel. If Palestinians cannot secure their own land, she said, "then you will never see a day of peace."
One speaker likened "Zionist settlers on the West Bank" to Osama bin Laden, saying both had been "blinded by ideology."
...
At Khalidi's going-away party in 2003, the scholar lavished praise on Obama, telling the mostly Palestinian American crowd that the state senator deserved their help in winning a U.S. Senate seat. "You will not have a better senator under any circumstances," Khalidi said.
The event was videotaped, and a copy of the tape was obtained by The Times.
But the Times refused to release the videotape in the run-up to the 2008 Presidential election. Could that videotape have influenced the 2008 election? We'll never know for sure.
Fast forward two and a half years. The Times still hasn't released the video, but this week it released 24,000 private emails belonging to Sarah Palin (Hat Tip: Memeorandum).
Would those emails have been released if they belonged to Barack Hussein Obama or Hillary Clinton? Would the video have been released if it were a video of Sarah Palin with the head of the John Birch Society? (I doubt any such video exists).
I am an Orthodox Jew - some would even call me 'ultra-Orthodox.' Born in Boston, I was a corporate and securities attorney in New York City for seven years before making aliya to Israel in 1991 (I don't look it but I really am that old :-). I have been happily married to the same woman for thirty-five years, and we have eight children (bli ayin hara) ranging in age from 13 to 33 years and nine grandchildren. Four of our children are married! Before I started blogging I was a heavy contributor on a number of email lists and ran an email list called the Matzav from 2000-2004. You can contact me at: IsraelMatzav at gmail dot com
