Howard Galganov.com

 

There are about 1.5 BILLION Moslems worldwide. And there’s less than 14 MILLION Jews worldwide with fewer than half of them living in Israel.

 

Yet, to hear it from the Moslems, the Arabs AND Barack Obama, the problems with Islam is Israel. It seems to be if Israel ceased to exist so would all of the problems plaguing the Moslem world.

 

I woke up at 5:00 o’clock in the morning (June 4, 2009) to hear the media pre-spin of Obama’s speech to Islam from Cairo. As scheduled, the speech commenced just after 6 AM with an opening statement to set the tone with Barack Obama saying Salem Alechem.

 

From there it was all platitudes, revisionism, exaggerations, distortions and a not so covert warning to Israel.

 

I best liked his line that extolled America’s undying loyalty to Israel, like the girlfriend who tells her boyfriend just how much she loves him before he gets the old heave-ho.

 

Remember the other people Barack Obama numbered as his closest friends? The racist America/Jew-hating Reverend Wright. Tony Rezko the indicted Egyptian born slumlord. And bill Ayers, America’s homegrown 60’s TERRORIST.

 

Where are they now that Obama no longer has any need for them? And we can’t forget the “Typical” White Grandmother who raised him. He didn’t even have time to go to her funeral after he was elected President. Read article.

 

Ken Blackwell, Fox Forum.Blogs.com

 

The Washington Post last year admitted that it had “leaned” toward Barack Obama in the presidential race. That’s ridiculous. The Leaning Tower of Pisa leans, but it still stands. The Post and the rest of the liberal media fell over flat for him. Chris Matthews admitted to feeling a tingling going up and down his leg. The rest just wrote like that.

 

President Obama’s Mideast trip has been hailed as a “new beginning.” Indeed it is. Obama very pointedly did not visit Jerusalem on this his first trip to the region.

 

Liberal Democrat Harry Truman dared to recognize Israel in 1948 — minutes after the struggling Jewish state was born — and minutes before Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the rest of the Arab world tried to strangle the infant in its crib. Republican Richard Nixon — despised by the liberal media — saved Israel’s life by re-supplying her with arms during the Yom Kippur War in 1973.

 

The U.S. commitment to Israel has been a constant of both parties — until now. By demanding a halt to the natural growth of Jewish settlements on the West Bank, Obama is applying a tourniquet to Israel’s throat. If she cannot grow, she will die. Which is what Obama’s new-found friends have wanted since 1948. Read article.

Jay Ambrose, Examiner.com

 

The essential promise is that Obama and friends will fix things with $50 billion, a new board, new managers, vast environmental ambitions, bankruptcy proceedings returning 10 cents on the dollar to bondholders, the elimination of 21,000 union jobs, the closing of 2,400 dealerships and the further closing of factories hither and yon. Soon enough, we are further told, the government will get out of Detroit.

 

 But that's a long shot because the government won't be able to resist still more interventions and still more subsidies as unwanted cars sit in the hybrid hell of remaining dealerships, gradually rusting away. GM will be smaller, but it will still be too big to fail without posing reelection difficulties for the bosses in D.C.

 

The better bet would have been to let the market do its work. Either General Motors and the rest of Detroit would find ways to survive through renegotiated union contracts, bankruptcy proceedings as necessary, belt-tightening and refurbished product lines, or they would pay the price.

 

We would still have a foreign-owned auto industry making cars in this country and expanding to take up the slack, and we would have new businesses developing to give us more growth and jobs than Detroit could deliver.

 

It's one thing for Russians with little background in the workings of free enterprise to cling to disproven ways, but something far less understandable for this country to engage in a socialist experiment that will likely be damaging to the whole nation in the long run. Read article.

 

Thomas Sowell, JR.com

 

In Washington, the clearer a statement is, the more certain it is to be followed by a "clarification" when people realize what was said. The clearly racist comments made by Judge Sonia Sotomayor on the Berkeley campus in 2001 have forced the spinmasters to resort to their last-ditch excuse, that it was "taken out of context."

 

If that line is used during Judge Sotomayor's Senate confirmation hearings, someone should ask her to explain just what those words mean when taken in context.

 

What could such statements possibly mean — in any context — other than the new and fashionable racism of our time, rather than the old-fashioned racism of earlier times? Racism has never done this country any good, and it needs to be fought against, not put under new management for different groups.

 

Looked at in the context of Judge Sotomayor's voting to dismiss the appeal of white firefighters who were denied the promotions they had earned by passing an exam, because not enough minorities passed that exam to create "diversity," her words in Berkeley seem to match her actions on the judicial bench in the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals all too well. Read article.

 

 

Sultan Knish.blogspot.com

 

In only six months, the Obama Administration has already become the most Anti-Israel administration since the reign of "Apartheid" Jimmy Carter. In an NPR interview Obama described his administration's Anti-Israel trajectory as "Being Honest", which apparently makes Israel-Bashing, the New Honesty.

 

Obama expects Netanyahu to rush forward and begin the ethnic cleansing of 475,000 Jews from the West Bank and East Jerusalem, all to create a Palestinian state out of the Fatah and Hamas terrorist gangs. Now why exactly wouldn't Israel want to do that? Especially when Hamas and Fatah's main goals remain the destruction of Israel, and that most of their budgets go to training terrorists and trying to kill Israelis with bombs, shelling and rocket attacks.

 

Sure let's create a Palestinian state out of two mini-states that have no economy of their own, are entirely funded by foreign money, and over 17 years have shown no sign that they can A.) Run their own affairs B.) Stop the terrorism.

 

"Palestine" is nothing more than an instrument for destroying Israel. It's what the PLO was created for. It's what Iran keeps funding Hamas for. The mythical Palestinian nationalism has as much to do with it, as Afghani nationalism has to do with the Taliban. They are both projections of a much larger Islamist agenda. Read article.

 

Barry Rubin, Gloria-Center.org

 

Back in 1993, when the “peace process” began, President Bill Clinton told a press conference that Israel was ready to take risks for peace and he told Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, "If you do that, my role is to minimize those risks."

 

Pay attention please: the problem is not a "hard-line" or "hawkish" Netanyahu but a naive (or cynical), one-sided, and unreliable Western policy.

 

Israelis are not frightened or angry about President Barack Obama because the great majority are confident that he will at least basically learn these lessons over time. The Iranian and Syrian regimes, Hamas and Hizballah, and the PA itself will be his teachers. They also believe that much of the emphasis on solving the conflict as the key to all regional issues is purely for show as has been so often true before.

 

This is what the overwhelming majority of Israelis think about when they hear the words of Obama and Western media coverage on such matters.

 

But anyone who claims to be serious about advancing any peace process better consider these factors also and prove their seriousness on giving Israel strong support, pushing the PA into fulfilling commitments, and helping bring down Hamas’s rule in the Gaza Strip. Read article.

 

Richart Baehr, American Thinker.com

 

President Obama has in the past few days indicated that Iran certainly has reason to develop nuclear energy. After all, they are the world's second largest oil exporter. And he will not set any artificial time frames, by the end of which he seeks an Iranian response to his outreach efforts and attempt to dialogue with them. He has said he would like to see "progress" by the end of the year. That makes sense, I guess, since current estimates are that Iran will have completed all the steps to have a nuclear bomb by the end of the year.

 

The latest outreach effort is a notice sent to all our foreign embassies and consulate offices to invite Iranian officials to their hot dogs and hamburgers party on July 4th. So carrots and sticks for Iran: carrots in the form of pork hot dogs, sticks: well, none yet.

 

And then there is Israel: Obama and Clinton have laid down their markers: no settlement growth of any kind in the West Bank, and maybe in Jerusalem as well (the Obama administration has been a bit vaguer on this one), though it has stated that Jerusalem must become the capital of a Palestinian state. 

 

Prime Minister Netanyahu, recently chosen as Israel's Prime Minister after a free election in the only democracy in the region, has said that Israel will continue to allow natural growth in existing settlements. Bibi has letters exchanged by former President Bush and former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, suggesting that natural growth of settlements should not be a problem, since the US accepts in these letters that the 1949 armistice lines will not be the permanent boundaries of Israel if a peace settlement with the Palestinians, were to be achieved .

 

Of course Chrysler bondholders can tell Netanyahu how much respect the Obama administration has for such legalisms. Read article.

 

Dick Morris, Vote.com

 

The Rasmussen poll conducted over the weekend of May 30-31 asked a key question designed to give us perspective on Obama's current popularity. The question was whether the current problems "are due to the recession that began under the Bush administration or to the policies Obama has put in place since taking office." In other words, who's to blame, Bush or Obama?

 

By 62-27, voters say Bush is still the culprit.

 

As long as this opinion remains prevalent, Obama will continue to enjoy high popularity. But when it changes, as it inevitably must, we will see him begin a long, long fall.

 

And this is the key measurement to watch.

 

The real recession -- dating from the stock market collapse -- began four months before Bush left office. And it is now four months since Obama was inaugurated. From this vantage, it still looks to voters like Bush's recession.

 

But it will become increasingly obvious that the large deficit Obama has incurred while pursuing his cure for the recession is, on its own, causing more problems than it solves. As high interest rates and, most likely, inflation, begin to set in -- with no relief in unemployment -- it will be obvious that Obamanomics isn't working and is, in fact, aggravating the economic trouble.

 

Obama, recognizing the danger, has recently begun to speak out -- without even cracking a guilty smile -- against the huge budget deficit he created. He is trying to blame the deficit, too, on Bush. But voters will not overlook the huge spending sprees of January and February, when Obama quadrupled the 2009 deficit. They will come to see that spending as a huge mistake and will shift their blame to the new president who proposed it.

 

Obama now faces a choice of poisons. Read article.

 

Ryan Mauro, Pajamas Media.com

 

If you’re looking for proof that the terrorists have perfected the practice of taqiyya, the calculated manipulation of an enemy, look no further than Mullah Zakir. Once a top commander for Taliban forces, he was captured in 2001 and released in 2007. Today, he is a high-level enemy official, a commander of Taliban forces in southern Afghanistan believed to have helped manage the relationship between the Afghani and Pakistani Taliban.

 

Keenly aware of the West’s inclination to give people the benefit of the doubt, he followed a carefully written script before his release, speaking supportively of U.S. efforts in Afghanistan because “they are building my country.” He claimed he was forced into being a commander for the Taliban, saying that “I have never been America’s enemy and I never intend to be.”

 

One of the options that has been used by the Bush administration and will be used by the Obama administration as it decides what to do with the Gitmo prisoners is sending them to the “rehabilitation program” of Saudi Arabia. While many officials seem to believe this program has been successful, the cost of when it fails will be exceedingly high.

 

At the same time, we need to remember that a lot of the information about the “success” of the program comes from the Saudis themselves, who have a vested interest in trying to portray themselves as a full-fledged partner in the war on terror. While Saudi officials bragged that not a single graduate of their “rehabilitation” program had relapsed, it was later found out that this was untrue, when the Saudis released a list of their most-wanted terrorists. Read article.

 

SultanKnish.Blogspot.com

 

The stream of bailouts reintroduced us to the phrase, "Too big to fail", an excuse meaning that America must deny the essential logic of the free market in favor of spending taxpayer money to bail out companies, whose failure is "unacceptable."

 

However what the phrase "Too big to fail" really meant, was that even politicians who believed in the free market, were unable to risk testing their beliefs when the stakes were too big.

 

If some major companies have been too big to fail, Islam has been considered the enemy that is too big to fight. That was the point George W. Bush made to some Conservative Christian broadcasters who pressed him over the war on terror. It's the same message I receive from some of my readers from time to time, when I talk about the myth that Islam is generally moderate and state that terrorists represent the true face of Islam. Their argument is the same, "Why alienate all Muslims when all of Islam is too big to fight?"

 

This essentially presumes that speaking clearly against Islam risks alienating a moderate Muslim demographic. That position is itself Dhimmist or Neo-Dhimmist at best, because it believes that not offending Muslims can win their tolerance or cooperation. Aside from the indignity of tiptoeing around Muslim sensitivities, it equates to ceding your key point in exchange for nothing at all.

 

Knowing who your enemy is, is key to any struggle. If you can't openly state who or what the enemy is, then you've already lost. We do not have to fight 1 Billion plus Muslims to do that. No more than we had to fight 1 Billion plus Communists. It means drawing a line that defines what is true and what is false, what is right and what is wrong, and what we will accept and what we will not accept. And if we can't do that, then all hope really is lost. Because there is no such thing as an evil too big to stop, only an evil too big in the minds of men to be stopped. Read article.

Print This E-mail This

Share It: