http://frontpagemag.com/2010/07/23/2012/

The single most important question for Americans today is as simple as it is inescapable: Is it possible to block and reverse Barack Obama’s fundamental transformation of American society to resemble a soft-power, European socialist state (or worse) before the damage he does to his country is irreparable? Waiting until 2012 when his first term is completed may bring, in a different domain and with certain obvious adjustments, something like the catastrophic results which the film 2012, based on the prognostications of the Mayan Long Count Calendar, lividly portrays. For the smug and incompetent leadership of an enigmatic president is starting “progressively” to look like a bad movie with real-world effects. And 2012, at least according to the dread Calendar, is the year when everything goes to pieces.

Of course, it must be acknowledged that Obama began his political career more as an effect, or the symptom of a malaise, than as a cause or the malaise itself. After all, the American people put him where he is, intuiting in Obama an embodiment of their own regrettably facile and unexamined aspirations and an untutored drive to renovate the past. But the effect has now been transformed into a cause in its own right and the symptom has become the infirmity. Consequently, many of those who ensured Obama’s accession to power are presently experiencing a severe case of elector’s remorse.

For there can be little doubt any longer that the United States is now governed by a rogue administration, founded not on the Constitution but on lies, one broken campaign promise after another and attempts to ignore or scamper around the principles of the Fathers. We are observing an establishment that is unwilling to defend the nation’s borders from drug cartel violence and illegal immigration, forcing unread bills through Congress in the dark of night, embarking on a socialized medicine program it cannot afford and which has not worked wherever else it has been tried, plunging the nation into bankruptcy with misnamed “stimulus spending,” unsustainable entitlements and exponential debt, refusing to drill safely on land to reduce its dependence on foreign oil supplies, utterly incapable of dealing with cataclysms like the Gulf oil spill, touting an impractical, premature and ruinously exorbitant Green Energy policy, considering cap-and-trade legislation when it has become undeniably clear that Global Warming research is a profoundly unsettled and perhaps even a false science, scrubbing all reference to Islamic terror from its official documents and pursuing a foreign policy that might accurately be described as geopolitically suicidal. Quite a list, but unfortunately an accurate one.

This is an administration that could just as well have been put in place by America’s most relentless enemies. It is headed by a president with deep roots in a neo-Marxist social movement and associational ties with a host of disreputable characters. This is a president who has embarked on a diplomatic approach of appeasing the country’s despotic competitors and adversaries, with whom he appears to have more in common than with the majority of his own countrymen.

Accompanied by his friends, officials, cabinet choices and hand-picked adjutants (aka “czars”), he appears intent on circumventing the rule of law on the one hand—whether considering amnesty for illegal aliens or refusing to prosecute electoral violators like the Black Panthers, guilty of voter intimidation—and on the other hand activating civil law where it does not apply, as in moving to grant civil trials to confessed jihadists or according Miranda rights to captured terrorists.

The most significant issue for Americans today, then, or at any rate for those who profess to love their country and who fear for its future, is how to stymie the current president prior to 2012. Obama is plainly a hyperactive president, busy dismantling his country with systematic rigor. Since it is evident that he will persist in implementing his congenial plan of action, it is moot whether a strong, confident and potentially solvent America can survive another two and a half years of his dispensation without serious modification. The Tea Party movement is an impressive beginning, and the likelihood of evacuating many Democratic incumbents in the November 2010 Congressional and Senate elections—essentially to clean up what may be called the House of Misrepresentatives and restore it to a semblance of sanity and rectitude—is a consummation devoutly to be wished.

It is all well and good to complain and lament about what is going on in this administration, the misuse of power, the immorality and intellectual vandalism of its wielders, the momentum of waste and ruin—but at some point concrete measures need to be taken to forestall breakdown and collapse. Nor does one want to contemplate the disaster of an Obama re-election in 2012, which might well realize the mythic predictions of the Mayan Calendar and a sensationalist film, in any event for the U.S. But the calamity need not wait for that red-letter date; it is evolving in increments as we speak. This is why the coming November is so important: it may not only reclaim lost ground but notably weaken Obama’s chances of success in seeking a second term.

Barring Obama and his party’s electoral chastening in 2010, by the time 2012 arrives, what we will very likely see is the following: more socialized, i.e., nationalized industries and bloated entitlement programs; a grinding recession, if not a depression, and traumatic levels of unemployment for which Obama can no longer blame the previous administration and expect to get away with it; twelve to fifteen million enfranchised illegals swelling the welfare and voting rolls; a growing and increasingly bitter racial divide; more terrorist attacks; deep Islamic inroads into the body politic; public resentment reaching critical proportions and more states acting on their own initiative; and former allies moving into the orbit of America’s enemies. We may also see a devastating war in the Middle East which might have been prevented had Obama not skewed the Israeli-Palestinian negotiating process and extended overtures to Syria and Hamas, had he shown himself genuinely sympathetic to Israel and its legitimate concerns, and had he decisively confronted the Iranian regime. Again, quite a list, which may sound like an overly melodramatic prognosis, but it is a grimly plausible one nonetheless and no particular epiphany. Indeed, it would seem a given under the prevailing circumstances. And the United States will suffer in every instance.

A new poll from Public Policy Polling shows President Obama trailing Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee and Newt Gingrich in support for the 2012 presidential election.

Ex-Massachusetts Gov. Romney leads by 46 to 43 percent, ex-Arkansas Gov. Huckabee by 47 to 45 percent and ex-House Speaker Newt Gingrich by 46 to 45 percent.

Obama is tied with ex-Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin at 46 percent. The only potential Republican candidate he leads is lesser-known Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, 44 to 36 percent.

The president’s numbers are the worst ever in Public Policy Polling’s monthly survey.

Republicans enjoy a strong advantage over Obama among independent voters. Those respondents favored Romney over the president by 48 to 35 percent, Gingrich by 50 to 39 percent, Huckabee by 46 to 40 percent, Palin by 47 to 42 percent and even Brewer by 38 to 37 percent.

Normally, we ignore childish hostility from belligerent people and groups. But the NAACP today intends to condemn 20 million tea party activists as racists. The millions of good, decent, and loving Americans who have participated in Tea Party events deserve nothing less than our full condemnation of the NAACP’s hatred and lies.

At midnight, I forwarded this resolution to the Washington Bureau of the NAACP. I have received no response.

St. Louis Tea Party Coalition Resolution
July 12, 2010
Whereas, the National Coalition for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) was founded to
advance the position of minority groups, and

Whereas a hallmark of the NAACP has been to do the important work of identifying and exposing
remaining vestiges of racism and discrimination, and

Whereas the NAACP vocally stands against the discriminatory and harmful practice of labeling people
with a broad brush, and

Whereas the NAACP decided to launch their 101st National Convention with a resolution condemning
the Tea Party movement and labeling millions of their fellow Americans who subscribe to the movement
as “racists”, and

Whereas the “Tea Party movement” is a label applied to patriotic Americans who have expressed their
political free speech in the grand tradition of all that is American, that being the spirited expression of
viewpoints in a 100% peaceful manner, and

Whereas, it is a hallmark of America that we settle our disputes civilly and avoid the gutter tactic of
attempting to silence opponents by inflammatory name-calling, and

Whereas the very term “racist” has diminished meaning due to its overuse by political partisans including
members of the NAACP, and

Whereas, the NAACP had an opportunity to preserve some semblance of legitimacy by standing up
for Ken Gladney, the victim of a vicious racist battery conducted by a black avowed communist, even
labeling him an “Uncle Tom”, but chose instead to use the opportunity to mock the St. Louis Tea Party,
and

Whereas, the NAACP has refused to denounce the New Black Panther’s call to murder white cops and
their babies, and

Whereas, the NAACP does its entire membership a grave disservice by hypocritically engaging in the
very conduct it purports to oppose,

Now therefore be it resolved that the St. Louis Tea Party condemns the NAACP for lowering itself to the
dishonorable position of a partisan political attack dog organization, and,

Be it further resolved that the St. Louis Tea Party calls on similar organizations to join in unanimous
condemnation of this despicable behavior, and

Be it further resolved that we demand that the NAACP withdrawal their bigoted, false and inflammatory
resolution against the tea party for any further consideration, and

Be it further resolved that these organizations call on the Internal Revenue Service to evenly apply their
standards and consider the tax-exempt status of the NAACP considering the degree to which they are
engaging in habitual partisan political behavior.
Adopted unanimously, this day, July 12th, in the year of our Lord, 2010.

I remain amazed and astonished that an organization who’s sole purpose is the advancement of their own race to the exclusion of all others has the nerve and sheer audacity to call someone else racist. Racism is the fuel the NAACP needs to continue to opperate. And like most outdated, so called “movements,” the survival of the organization is actually more important than the cause which first spawned the movement. The only way for the NAACP to continue to exist is to fuel the fires of racism and have “dialogue” which will never end until the there isn’t any other culture with which to fight except its own. The NAACP’s continued rant is disgusting and an assualt on God fearing and country loving Americans. Long live the Tea Party! ~Editor: Today’s Obamanation

In one of his least surprising moves, Ayatollah Obama came out strong against the double suicide bombing of a mosque in Iran, calling it “outrageous” and “intolerable.” I wonder why he’s silent when Christian places of worship are attacked by Muslims, which happens all the time. Like this attack in Pakistan, or the crackdown on Protestants in Iran, or the jailing of Christians in Uzbekistan, or violence against missionaries in India, or the prosecution of Christians in Muslim lands for blasphemy? Plain and simple, Obama is anti-Church and anti-Christ. He’s an enemy of YHWH, the true God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. And he’ll go the way of God’s enemies as he continues to bow to Baal, the inspiration for the Islamic Moon god, allah. Obama is a liar, deceiving the American people at will. The Islamic doctrine of Taqqiya demands and condones lying by muslims to hide the true nature of Islam and its agenda. Obama is employing “Taqqiya” in an effort to fool western civilization that he’s something other than muslim. But I would bet anyone there’s a muslim prayer rug in the family quarters once lived in by George W Bush!

Associated Press, 07.16.10, 12:10 PM EDT

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama is condemning the double suicide bombing against a mosque in Iran as an outrageous terrorist attack.

In a statement Friday, Obama says the deaths of innocent civilians in their place of worship is an “intolerable offense” and says those who carried out the attack must be held accountable. Obama says the U.S. stands with the families of those killed and with the Iranian people.

At least 27 people were killed in the bombing. Iranian authorities say a Sunni insurgent group carried out the bombings against the Shiite mosque to avenge the execution of its leader

It may be that the last people in America who believe that the $862 billion economic stimulus of February 2009 created millions of net new jobs are Vice President Joe Biden and the staff economists in the White House. Yesterday, President Obama’s chief economist announced that the plan had “created or saved” between 2.5 million and 3.6 million jobs and raised GDP by 2.7% to 3.2% through June 30. Don’t you feel better already?

Christina Romer went so far as to claim that the 3.5 million new jobs that she promised while the stimulus was being debated in Congress will arrive “two quarters earlier than anticipated.” Yup, the official White House line is that the plan is working better than even they had hoped.

We almost feel sorry for Ms. Romer having to make this argument given that since February 2009 the U.S. economy has lost a net 2.35 million jobs. Using the White House “created or saved” measure means that even if there were only three million Americans left with jobs today, the White House could claim that every one was saved by the stimulus.

The White House also naturally insists that things would be much worse without the stimulus billions spent on the likes of Medicaid payments, high speed rail projects, unemployment benefits and windmills. Mr. Obama said recently in Racine, Wisconsin that the economy “would have been a lot worse” and the unemployment rate would have gone to “12 or 13, or 15 [percent]” if government hadn’t spent all of that money.

This is called a counterfactual: a what would have happened scenario that can’t be refuted. What we do know is what White House economists at the time said would happen if the stimulus didn’t pass. They said the unemployment rate would peak at 9% without the stimulus (there’s your counterfactual) and that with the stimulus the rate would stay at 8% or below. (See the nearby chart.) In other words, today there are 700,000 fewer jobs than Ms. Romer predicted we would have if we had done nothing at all. If this is a job creation success, what does failure look like?

ANSWER:

All of these White House jobs estimates are based on the increasingly discredited Keynesian spending “multiplier,” which according to White House economist Larry Summers means that every $1 of government spending will yield roughly $1.50 in higher GDP. Ms. Romer thus plugs her spending data into the Keynesian computer models and, presto, out come 2.5 million to 3.6 million jobs, even if the real economy has lost jobs. To adapt Groucho Marx: Who are you going to believe, the White House computer models, or your own eyes?

Or, as Milton Friedman used to say, “there’s no such thing as a free lunch.” The money government spends does create some jobs—the folks working on road projects, say—but that money has to come from somewhere, which means taxing or borrowing it from areas of the private economy that are nearly always more productive. This doesn’t mean that government spending is always a bad idea, but it does mean that government spending as economic stimulus is fanciful.

Harvard economist Robert Barro first blew apart Keynesian assumptions with his famous 1974 essay, “Are Government Bonds Net Wealth?” He and Charles J. Redlick, also of Harvard, recently updated this demolition in a new study for the Mercatus Center examining 50 years of defense spending in various countries. They find a multiplier effect of between 0.4 and 0.7. This means that government spending shrinks the private economy, because it “crowds out other components of GDP, particularly investment.”

This would certainly explain better than Ms. Romer’s computer models why a nearly $1 trillion stimulus has been followed by a mediocre economic recovery, a 9.5% unemployment rate, and almost no net new private job creation.

Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A16

Apparently he’s not the confidence-booster-in-chief.

The majority of Americans — nearly 60 percent — lack faith in President Obama, according to a Washington Post/ABC News poll published on Tuesday.

The results are the exact opposite of what voters said in a similar poll at the beginning of Obama’s presidency 18 months ago. Then, approximately 60 percent said they were confident with his decision making.

And voters, by an 8-point margin, said they hope Republicans take control of Congress. More than 60 percent of voters also said they would probably not support their current representative. Just 26 percent said they would.

The anti-incumbent sentiment could affect the outcome of November’s elections when all 435 seats in the House or Representatives are up for grabs in addition to 36 of the 100 Senate seats.

Still, regard for Obama is higher than it is for members of Congress, both Republicans and Democrats.

The Washington Post said there were a number of factors that may have affected the outcome, including problems in the housing industry, unemployment and the staggering economy.

Only 43 percent said they approve the way Obama is handling the economy, while 54 percent said they disapprove.

The results were based on polling 1,288 adults July 7-11, and the poll has a margin of error plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2010/07/13/2010-07-13_majority_of_americans_losing_faith_in_obama_poll_hope_gop_takes_control_of_congr.html#ixzz0tck7LXxT

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2010/07/13/2010-07-13_majority_of_americans_losing_faith_in_obama_poll_hope_gop_takes_control_of_congr.html

THESE ARE THE SAME ISMAELITES ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER SAW FIT TO PARDON AFTER THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE HAD A SLAM DUNK CONVICTION OF THESE RACE BAITERS FOR INTIMIDATING VOTERS AT A PHILADELPHIA POLLING LOCATION.

IT AMAZES ME THAT RACIST ORGANIZATIONS LIKE THE NAACP, WHO EXIST ENTIRELY FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF THEMSELVES, CAN ACCUSE THE TRUELY AMERICAN TEA PARTY MOVEMENT OF RACISM WHEN IN FACT THEY EXIST TO OPPOSE THE MARXIST COMMUNIST IDEOLOGY OF BARACK OBAMA. ITS TIME TO TAKE THIS “POWER TOOL” AWAY FROM THESE RACE BAITERS AND CALL THEM WHAT THEY ARE…AMERICA HATING RACISTS WHO GAIN THEIR POWER FROM DIVIDING PEOPLE AND SPEWING HATE.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8uMM58a6SE&feature=player_embedded

THESE MASKED EDOMITES ARE THE SAME MORONS ERIC HOLDER PARDONED FROM CLUB GITMO. JUST WHOSE SIDE IS ERIC HOLDER ON? HE ACTS LIKE HE’S ON BIN LADEN’S PAY ROLE. AFTER SEEING WHO HOLDER PARDONED AND WHO THESE PEOPLE SUPPORT, CAN THERE BE ANY DOUBT THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IS HIMSELF A THREAT TO NATIONAL SECURITY?

WHEN ALL THE DOTS ARE CONNECTED, ERIC HOLDER, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, HAS PARDONED DOMESTIC TERRORISTS WHO ARE THREATENING TO KILL WHITE AMERICANS AND THEIR CHILDREN, AND WHO LIKEWISE SUPOORT INTERNATIONAL TERRORIST OSAMA BIN LADEN. ERIC HOLDER IS A DOMESTIC THREAT TO THE SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES AND SHOULD BE PLACED UNDER ARREST ON CHARGES OF AIDING AND GIVING COMFORT TO A TERRORIST ORGANIZATION.

NOT ONLY HAS HOLDER RELEASED DANGEROUS JIHADI’S BACK INTO THE WORLD AS SEEN IN THIS PICTURE ABOVE, YOU CAN ALSO WATCH THE INDIVIDUALS HE PARDONED IN THE YOUTUBE.COM HYPERLINK AT THE TOP OF THE PAGE. TAKE NOTE THE BLACK PANTHER SUPORT FOR BIN LADEN.

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People put forward a resolution yesterday formally accusing the Tea Party movement of racism. That’s ironic coming from an organization whose mission is to promote the fortunes of one particular racial group.
Post-racial America has yet to arrive for many black leaders. President Obama has shown little interest in leading the national dialogue on race he once proposed, and civil rights groups are unwilling or unable to reach beyond their usual tired rhetoric. Saying the Tea Party movement contains “racist elements that are a threat to democracy” is a shameful slap at the millions of Americans untainted by bigotry who oppose Mr. Obama’s radical leftist policies regardless of his color.

The Rev. C.L. Bryant, a black Tea Party activist who used to be an NAACP chapter president in Texas, said charges of racism are lies intended to further a liberal political agenda. ABC News quoted him as saying the NAACP wants to “create a climate where they can say that those on the right are in fact racist and those on the left are their saviors. This is very much what the liberal agenda is about.” Blacks who show any signs of independent thinking do so at their peril. In August, Kenneth Gladney, a black Tea Partier from Missouri, was severely beaten by two thugs from the Service Employees International Union. The NAACP started a campaign to defend Mr. Gladney’s assailants, saying the victim was an “Uncle Tom” who was “not black enough” to protect.

Last week, the Project 21 black leadership network asked Mr. Obama for the second time to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the Justice Department’s failure to prosecute New Black Panther Party members for blatant, race-based voter intimidation in Philadelphia in 2008. Project 21 Chairman Mychal Massie wrote that “the problem has festered to a point where perceptions of racial bias within your Justice Department cannot be ignored.” The perceptions were reinforced July 6 when former Justice Department official J. Christian Adams, who resigned to protest the handling of the case, testified to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights that Justice Department attorneys in the Civil Rights Division were instructed to ignore cases that involved black defendants and white victims. Justice apparently is not colorblind.

Black Panther Minister King Samir Shabazz, otherwise known as Maurice Heath, was one of the people engaging in voter intimidation. He also was featured in a January 2009 video proclaiming to a black audience, “You want freedom? You’re gonna have to kill some crackers! You’re gonna have to kill some of their babies!” Mr. Shabazz added, “I hate white people – all of them! Every last iota of a cracker, I hate ‘em.” The Washington Times’ Kerry Picket reported last summer on Jerry Jackson, another accused Black Panther and an elected member of Philadelphia’s 14th Ward Democratic Party committee. His interests, according to his MySpace page, are: “BLACK POWER, BLACK LOVE, BLACK UNITY, BLACK MINDS, KILLIN CRAKKKAS.” These are the kind of violent black extremists that Attorney General Eric Holder’s Justice Department is coddling.

No such comparable hateful language has come out of the Tea Party movement. The NAACP’s tired racial rhetoric is simply the product of a time long gone. It has been almost half a century since the Civil Rights Act was passed. The United States elected a black president. American society has closed the racial divide. However, those who benefit politically from keeping the racial wound fresh continue to wave the bloody shirt and smear those who disagree with their hard-left political agenda. It will take more than a beer summit to heal the racial wounds these black leaders are inflicting on the country.

HYPERLINK WAS NOT WORKING. TO LINK TO THIS ARTICLE ONLINE, COPY AND PASTE LINK BELOW INTO ADDRESS BAR.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jul/13/kill-the-crackers/

WOULD YOU BUY A SENATE SEAT FROM THESE MEN?

Blagojevich’s “day in court” not looking good for him or for Obama
The Examiner ^ | June 26, 7:02 PM | Joseph O’Day

Posted on Sunday, June 27, 2010 4:32:10 PM by Red Steel
The tapes that have been played so far in the trial of former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich are making it sound more and more like Blagojevich was seeking a quid pro quo deal: the appointment of Valerie Jarrett to Obama’s former Senate seat in exchange for a Cabinet position in Obama’s administration. But it isn’t looking good for Obama either.
According to the Chicago SUN-TIMES, “John Harris, Blagojevich’s former chief of staff, testified Wednesday in the former governor’s corruption trial that three days after the Nov. 4, 2008, presidential election, the ex-governor told Harris he felt confident Obama knew he wanted to swap perks.”

Previously the White House claimed that Obama knew nothing about the quid pro quo discussions. Even if Obama did nothing illegal, though, it appears that he lied about the extent of his knowledge. The tapes also indicated that Blagojevich was interested in an ambassadorship in exchange for Jarrett’s appointment.

According to the Chicago Tribune, prosecutors are using the recordings to depict Blagojevich “as someone so fixated on selling the Senate seat and other allegedly illegal schemes that he talks about them repeatedly and directs underlings to try to make them happen. Over and over again, Blagojevich is heard on tape discussing everything from strategies to get something in exchange for the Senate seat to coming up with ways to get Tribune editorial writers fired for being critical of him.”

Even Huffington Post writer Deanna Bellandi expressed concern about potential problems for Obama and his team as a result of the trial: Rahm Emanuel “is reportedly on FBI wiretaps. Convicted influence peddler Tony Rezko, a fundraiser for both Obama and Blagojevich, may be called to testify. And Blagojevich insists that Obama has ‘direct knowledge’ related to the allegations involving the Senate seat.” Bellandi quotes Paul Green, who teaches politics at Chicago’s Roosevelt University: “Anyone in Illinois politics, especially Illinois Democratic politics, should be nervous if, in fact, Rod Blagojevich goes on the stand because he is the human equivalent of an unguided political missile.”

Whether the “missile” hits anyone on the Obama team hard enough to do significant damage remains to be seen.

Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit said he had a one-on-one meeting with Obama, in which President Obama told him that he was still a Muslim, the son of a Muslim father, the stepson of Muslim stepfather, that his half brothers in Kenya are Muslims, and that he was sympathetic towards the Muslim agenda.

Finally, during the week of 14-18th of January 2010, just on the eve of my winter tour to the US, Rachel picked up a Nile TV broadcast in which Egyptian Foreign Minister Abul Gheit said on the “Round Table Show” that he had had a one on one meeting with Obama who swore to him that he was a Moslem, the son of a Moslem father and step-son of Moslem step-father, that his half-brothers in Kenya were Moslems, and that he was loyal to the Moslem agenda. He asked that the Moslem world show patience. Obama promised that once he overcame some domestic American problems (Healthcare), that he would show the Moslem world what he would do with Israel. (more here)

This is according to Israel Today here. Here is the passage from the May 2010 issue of “Israel Today.” It is on page 3 in an article titled “Obama, a ‘Strategic Catastrophe,’” by Aviel Schneider:

The feeling among the Israeli public is that Obama is appeasing the Muslim world at the expense of Israel. “The American President told me in confidence that he is a Muslim,” said Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit on Nile TV.

That could explain why Obama has instructed that the term “Islamic extremism” no longer be used in official government documents and statements. Furthermore, the US is now accusing Israel of harming American interests in the Middle East. General David Petraeus, the head of US Central Command, said Israel’s intransigence on resolving the conflict with the Palestinians is endangering US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. Even the US Congress considers Obama’s behavior toward Netanyahu humiliating. Three-quarters of the House of Representatives, 337 of 435 members, signed a bipartisan letter to Clinton expressing “deep concern over recent tension” between the two countries, and demanding that it be smoothed over quickly and in private.

“Obama is a real problem for Israel,” a senior official told told Yediot. “He is Israel’s biggest strategic catastrophe.” The newspaper also quoted another official who believes that for the first time Washington has switched sides. “The Obama White House is putting pressure only on Israel but does not expect anything from the Palestinians,” he said. “These American demands are unacceptable.”

Egyptian minister: Obama told me he is a Muslim News that Matters hat tip PV

Obama told me he is still a Muslim, who supports the Muslim agenda.

This was a statement by Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Abul Gheit on Nile-TV. It was made on the «Round table show».
This is the statement recorded:
Adul Gheit said he had a one-on-one meeting with Obama, where the US President told him that He was still a Muslim, the son of a Muslim father, the step son of Muslim stepfather, that his half brothers in Kenya are Muslims, and that he was sympathetic towards the Muslim agenda.
Adul Gheit claimed Obama told the Arabs to show patience. Obama promised that once he overcame some domestic issues, like the Health care reform, he would show the Muslim World how to deal with Israel.
Source: Israeli magazine, Israel today.

This is akin to an SS officer getting elected president during WW II. Every country in the free world must be cognizant of such a catastrophic sea change in the leadership of the free world (as witnessed by events over the past year). This changes everything. He took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, and yet he has gone around the world promoting Islam, the sharia (Islamic law).
The alleged exchange between Obama and Gheit would almost certainly have happened in early January 2010, when Gheit was in Washington, D.C. regarding “Mideast peace talks.”

On Thursday, January 7, 2010, the Associated Press reported that “Clinton and Mitchell [were] scheduled to meet” with Gheit on Friday, January 8, 2010: ABC news here.

On Friday, January 8, 2010, Hillary Clinton and Gheit spoke with each other. The U.S. Department of State has provided video before the meeting: Department of State here.

On Saturday, January 9, 2010, NPR spoke with Gheit about his visit: NPR.org (much thanks to Grant for the links).

This is devastating news, and yet no media is covering it. A stealth jihad on the White House. Remember, during his campaign, I and others were excoriated for using Obama’s middle name. We were accused of implying he was a crypto-Muslim. We could not discuss his background, his Islamic schooling, his ties to Islam. However, I have meticulously documented his Muslim background in my soon-to-be-released book: The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America (buy it now).
It became all too clear after his election how proud he was of his Muslim name, background and family. He made this plain when he gave his very first interview to Muslim media and boasted of these things. But bear in mind, it was verboten to speak of such things during the presidential campaign. That was the level of deceit and obfuscation and taqiya.

Al-Tabari’s (d. 923) famous tafsir (exegesis of the Koran) is a standard and authoritative reference work in the entire Muslim world. Regarding 3:28, he writes: “If you [Muslims] are under their [infidels'] authority, fearing for yourselves, behave loyally to them, with your tongue, while harboring inner animosity for them. … Allah has forbidden believers from being friendly or on intimate terms with the infidels in place of believers — except when infidels are above them [in authority]. In such a scenario, let them act friendly towards them.” Regarding 3:28, Ibn Kathir (d. 1373, second in authority only to Tabari) writes, “Whoever at any time or place fears their [infidels'] evil may protect himself through outward show.” As proof of this, he quotes Muhammad’s close companion, Abu Darda, who said, “Let us smile to the face of some people [non-Muslims] while our hearts curse them”; another companion, al-Hassan, said, “Doing taqiyya is acceptable till the Day of Judgment [i.e., in perpetuity]. Source: “War and Peace – and Deceit – in Islam” by Raymond Ibrahim

Obama is a boldfaced liar. Why? Why lie if you have nothing to hide?
Of course, if Obama believes himself a Muslim, it was taqiya — deception or lies to advance Islam. Which he performed brilliantly during his election: he lied with brazen contempt. And clearly his Islamic Jew-hatred is made painfully clear in his stunning rebuke of Israel.
Is it any wonder that his counter terror adviser speaks arabic, calls Jerusalem al quds and calls jihad a “legitimate tenet of Islam”?

Adul Gheit claimed Obama told the Arabs to show patience. Obama promised that once he overcame some domestic issues, like the Health care reform, he would show the Muslim World how to deal with Israel.

US President Barack Obama welcomes the Egyptian Minister of Foreign Affairs Ahmed Aboul Gheit to the Nuclear Security Summit April 12, 2010,in Washington

We know that Gheit met with Obama in April 2010 in DC — check out White House.gov:

World Leaders and Heads of Delegation Attending the Nuclear Security Summit
Arab Republic of Egypt
His Excellency Ahmed Aboul Gheit
Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Arab Republic of Egypt

They met more than once. Gheit had a private meeting with Obama in May 2009.
Egypt: Obama “The Boy King”

Worse yet, Gheit just last month called Israel “the enemy.” This after Israel gave them the Sinai (which Israel had won in a defensive war and defended through another one) with all its oil in return for “peace.”

Let’s review:

March 2009, Obama declares the “war on terror” is over despite a dramatic increase in jihad war ops.
March 2009, he floats the idea that he will talk to violent, genocidal Hamas.
March 2009, he demands, recruits and insists that more Muslim Americans work in the Obama administration.
April 2009, Obama tells Europe to admit Islamic Turkey into EU, much to the consternation of the Europeans.
April 2009, Obama demands non-Muslims respect Islam (despite our differences) in a speech in Turkey.
April 2009, Obama in a speech from Turkey: “We are not a Christian nation.”

April 2009, Dalia Mogahed, the first hijab-clad senior adviser to Obama on Muslim affairs says in an interview with terrorist- and jihad-supporting Sheik Yusuf Qaradawi’s website, “Many have claimed that terrorists have ‘hijacked Islam’. I disagree. I think Islam is safe and thriving in the lives of Muslims around the world. What the terrorists have been allowed to take over are Muslim grievances.”

In April 2009, Obama lays groundwork for a partnership with Hamas.

May 2009, Obama promises to offer his “personal commitment” to Muslims.
May 2009, Obama calls America “one of the largest Muslim countries on the planet.”

June 2009, Obama invites the Muslim Brotherhood, violent global jihadist group whose sole objective is a universal caliphate, to his speech to the ummah (Muslim community) in Cairo.
June 2009, Obama makes a stunning speech to the Muslim world from Al Azhar University in Cairo. It defies explanation.

July 2009, Obama reaches out to the violent jihadists of Hezb’allah.
July 2009, Obama creates a new office at the State department, Outreach to the Worldwide Muslim community, reporting directly to Hillary Clinton.

July 2009 State Department Welcomes Hamas Mouthpiece, Al-Quds TV, to DC to Film Propaganda.

Obama promises to close GITMO.
Obama is rebuked when plans are revealed for CIA prosecutions for 911 interrogations: Seven Ex-chiefs of CIA Oppose Case Review: ALL Sign letter to Stop CIA Persecutions.
In July, Obama sanctions the brutal crackdown of those marching for freedom in Iran and sides with the mullahcracy. He stands silent about the Iranian regime’s mass executions, mass rape and murder.
July 2009, Obama plans to slash US nuclear arsenal.
September 2009. Bolton on Obama at the UN: “This is the most radical anti-Israel speech I can recall any president making” “I have to say I was very shaken by this speech.”
October 2009, Obama offers millions in Muslim technology fund.
November 2009, Fort Hood Jihad Cover up: Obama Urges Congress To Put Off Fort Hood Probe, Warns Against Turning Tragedy Into “Political Theater.”

November 2009, Obama offers the Taliban control of the Kandahar, Helmand, Oruzgan, Kunar and Nuristan provinces, in return for a halt to the Taliban missile attacks on U.S. bases.
November 2009, Obama Reaches out to bloody Jihadis in the Philippines.

On Thanksgiving eve, Obama issues a special Hajj message to the world’s Muslims.
December 2009, Obama’s “Non-Religious” White House Christmas and No Christmas Gifts for his Kids.
February 2010, Obama names a Hafiz to the Organization of the Islamic Conference. “And as a hafiz of the Koran, [Hussain] is a respected member of the American Muslim community,” Obama said in his message to the Doha meeting, using the term for someone who has mastered and memorized the Muslim holy book.
February 2010, Obama cuts US space program, orders NASA to work with Muslim countries.
February 2010, covering up for jihadists in the White House.
Obama’s counter terrorism adviser, John Brennan, Involved in Obama Passport Breach.
March 2010, Obama Obsession with Islam: Calls ‘entrepreneurship summit’ with Muslims.
April 2010, Libyan Pres Gaddafi Praises Obama: “Barakeh Obama is friend” “He is of Muslim descent, his policy should be supported….”
May 2010, Obama’s Counterterrorism Adviser Calls Jihad “Legitimate Tenet of Islam.”
May 2010, White House Pro-Terrorism John Brennan Speechifies in Arabic, Equates Terrorists with Shoplifters, Lawmakers Call for his Firing.
June 2010, Obama equivocates on the jihad warship convoy (affectionately named a “flotilla” by the media): Obama “Expressed a Deep Regret Over Loss of [Jihadist] Life.”

June 2010, Obama Administration to Support Anti-Israel Resolution at UN.
Press conference earlier this week: First flagless “President.” Ouch. What a disgrace.

The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America

Mr. President,

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Nearly 62 years ago, the United Nations recognized the right of the Jews, an ancient people 3,500 years-old, to a state of their own in their ancestral homeland.

I stand here today as the Prime Minister of Israel, the Jewish state, and I speak to you on behalf of my country and my people.

The United Nations was founded after the carnage of World War II and the horrors of the Holocaust. It was charged with preventing the recurrence of such horrendous events. Nothing has undermined that central mission more than the systematic assault on the truth.

Yesterday the President of Iran stood at this very podium, spewing his latest anti-Semitic rants. Just a few days earlier, he again claimed that the Holocaust is a lie.

Last month, I went to a villa in a suburb of Berlin called Wannsee. There, on January 20, 1942, after a hearty meal, senior Nazi officials met and decided how to exterminate the Jewish people. The detailed minutes of that meeting have been preserved by successive German governments.

Here is a copy of those minutes, in which the Nazis issued precise instructions on how to carry out the extermination of the Jews. Is this a lie?

A day before I was in Wannsee, I was given in Berlin the original construction plans for the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp. Those plans are signed by Hitler’s deputy, Heinrich Himmler himself. Here is a copy of the plans for Auschwitz-Birkenau, where one million Jews were murdered. Is this too a lie?

This June, President Obama visited the Buchenwald concentration camp. Did President Obama pay tribute to a lie? And what of the Auschwitz survivors whose arms still bear the tattooed numbers branded on them by the Nazis? Are those tattoos a lie?

One-third of all Jews perished in the conflagration. Nearly every Jewish family was affected, including my own. My wife’s grandparents, her father’s two sisters and three brothers, and all the aunts, uncles and cousins were all murdered by the Nazis. Is that also a lie?

Yesterday, the man who calls the Holocaust a lie spoke from this podium. To those who refused to come here and to those who left this room in protest, I commend you. You stood up for moral clarity and you brought honor to your countries.

But to those who gave this Holocaust-denier a hearing, I say on behalf of my people, the Jewish people, and decent people everywhere: Have you no shame? Have you no decency?

A mere six decades after the Holocaust, you give legitimacy to a man who denies that the murder of six million Jews took place and pledges to wipe out the Jewish state. What a disgrace! What a mockery of the charter of the United Nations!

Perhaps some of you think that this man and his odious regime threaten only the Jews. You’re wrong. History has shown us time and again that what starts with attacks on the Jews eventually ends up engulfing many others.

This Iranian regime is fueled by an extreme fundamentalism that burst onto the world scene three decades ago after lying dormant for centuries.

In the past thirty years, this fanaticism has swept the globe with a murderous violence and cold-blooded impartiality in its choice of victims. It has callously slaughtered Moslems and Christians, Jews and Hindus, and many others. Though it is comprised of different offshoots, the adherents of this unforgiving creed seek to return humanity to medieval times.

Wherever they can, they impose a backward regimented society where women, minorities, gays or anyone not deemed to be a true believer is brutally subjugated.

The struggle against this fanaticism does not pit faith against faith nor civilization against civilization. It pits civilization against barbarism, the 21st century against the 9th century, those who sanctify life against those who glorify death. The primitivism of the 9th century ought to be no match for the progress of the 21st century. The allure of freedom, the power of technology, the reach of communications should surely win the day.

Ultimately, the past cannot triumph over the future. And the future offers all nations magnificent bounties of hope. The pace of progress is growing exponentially. It took us centuries to get from the printing press to the telephone, decades to get from the telephone to the personal computer, and only a few years to get from the personal computer to the internet.

What seemed impossible a few years ago is already outdated, and we can scarcely fathom the changes that are yet to come.

We will crack the genetic code. We will cure the incurable. We will lengthen our lives. We will find a cheap alternative to fossil fuels and clean up the planet.

I am proud that my country Israel is at the forefront of these advances – by leading innovations in science and technology, medicine and biology, agriculture and water, energy and the environment. These innovations the world over offer humanity a sunlit future of unimagined promise.

But if the most primitive fanaticism can acquire the most deadly weapons, the march of history could be reversed for a time. And like the belated victory over the Nazis, the forces of progress and freedom will prevail only after a horrific toll of blood and fortune has been exacted from mankind.

That is why the greatest threat facing the world today is the marriage between religious fanaticism and the weapons of mass destruction, and the most urgent challenge facing this body is to prevent the tyrants of Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Are the member states of the United Nations up to that challenge? Will the international community confront a despotism that terrorizes its own people as they bravely stand up for freedom?

Will it take action against the dictators who stole an election in broad daylight and gunned down Iranian protesters who died in the streets choking in their own blood?

Will the international community thwart the world’s most pernicious sponsors and practitioners of terrorism?

Above all, will the international community stop the terrorist regime of Iran from developing atomic weapons, thereby endangering the peace of the entire world?

The people of Iran are courageously standing up to this regime. People of goodwill around the world stand with them, as do the thousands who have been protesting outside this hall. Will the United Nations stand by their side?

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The jury is still out on the United Nations, and recent signs are not encouraging.

Rather than condemning the terrorists and their Iranian patrons, some here have condemned their victims. That is exactly what a recent UN report on Gaza did, falsely equating the terrorists with those they targeted.

For eight long years, Hamas fired from Gaza thousands of missiles, mortars and rockets on nearby Israeli cities. Year after year, as these missiles were deliberately hurled at our civilians, not a single UN resolution was passed condemning those criminal attacks.

We heard nothing – absolutely nothing – from the UN Human Rights Council, a misnamed institution if there ever was one.

In 2005, hoping to advance peace, Israel unilaterally withdrew from every inch of Gaza. It dismantled 21 settlements and uprooted over 8,000 Israelis.

We didn’t get peace. Instead we got an Iranian backed terror base fifty miles from Tel Aviv. Life in Israeli towns and cities next to Gaza became a nightmare.

You see, the Hamas rocket attacks not only continued, they increased tenfold. Again, the UN was silent.

Finally, after eight years of this unremitting assault, Israel was finally forced to respond. But how should we have responded?

Well, there is only one example in history of thousands of rockets being fired on a country’s civilian population. It happened when the Nazis rocketed British cities during World War II.

During that war, the allies leveled German cities, causing hundreds of thousands of casualties. Israel chose to respond differently. Faced with an enemy committing a double war crime of firing on civilians while hiding behind civilians – Israel sought to conduct surgical strikes against the rocket launchers.

That was no easy task because the terrorists were firing missiles from homes and schools, using mosques as weapons depots and ferreting explosives in ambulances.

Israel, by contrast, tried to minimize casualties by urging Palestinian civilians to vacate the targeted areas. We dropped countless flyers over their homes, sent thousands of text messages and called thousands of cell phones asking people to leave.

Never has a country gone to such extraordinary lengths to remove the enemy’s civilian population from harm’s way. Yet faced with such a clear case of aggressor and victim, who did the UN Human Rights Council decide to condemn? Israel.

A democracy legitimately defending itself against terror is morally hanged, drawn and quartered, and given an unfair trial to boot.

By these twisted standards, the UN Human Rights Council would have dragged Roosevelt and Churchill to the dock as war criminals. What a perversion of truth! What a perversion of justice!

Delegates of the United Nations, Will you accept this farce? Because if you do, the United Nations would revert to its darkest days, when the worst violators of human rights sat in judgment against the law-abiding democracies, when Zionism was equated with racism and when an automatic majority could declare that the earth is flat.

If this body does not reject this report, it would send a message to terrorists everywhere: Terror pays; if you launch your attacks from densely populated areas, you will win immunity.

And in condemning Israel, this body would also deal a mortal blow to peace. Here’s why. When Israel left Gaza, many hoped that the missile attacks would stop. Others believed that at the very least, Israel would have international legitimacy to exercise its right of self-defense.

(this is when the palestinian chick staged her big walk out performance at about 3:20 in on part 3) What legitimacy? What self-defense?

The same UN that cheered Israel as it left Gaza and promised to back our right of self-defense now accuses us –my people, my country – of war crimes? And for what? For acting responsibly in self-defense. What a travesty!

Israel justly defended itself against terror. This biased and unjust report is a clear-cut test for all governments. Will you stand with Israel or will you stand with the terrorists?

We must know the answer to that question now. Now and not later. Because if Israel is again asked to take more risks for peace, we must know today that you will stand with us tomorrow.

Only if we have the confidence that we can defend ourselves can we take further risks for peace.

Ladies and Gentlemen, All of Israel wants peace. Any time an Arab leader genuinely wanted peace with us, we made peace. We made peace with Egypt led by Anwar Sadat. We made peace with Jordan led by King Hussein.

And if the Palestinians truly want peace, I and my government, and the people of Israel, will make peace. But we want a genuine peace, a defensible peace, a permanent peace.

In 1947, this body voted to establish two states for two peoples – a Jewish state and an Arab state. The Jews accepted that resolution. The Arabs rejected it. We ask the Palestinians to finally do what they have refused to do for 62 years: Say yes to a Jewish state.
Just as we are asked to recognize a nation-state for the Palestinian people, the Palestinians must be asked to recognize the nation state of the Jewish people. The Jewish people are not foreign conquerors in the Land of Israel. This is the land of our forefathers.

Inscribed on the walls outside this building is the great Biblical vision of peace: “Nation shall not lift up sword against nation. They shall learn war no more.” These words were spoken by the Jewish prophet Isaiah 2,800 years ago as he walked in my country, in my city – in the hills of Judea and in the streets of Jerusalem. We are not strangers to this land. It is our homeland.

As deeply connected as we are to this land, we recognize that the Palestinians also live there and want a home of their own. We want to live side by side with them, two free peoples living in peace, prosperity and dignity.

But we must have security. The Palestinians should have all the powers to govern themselves except those handful of powers that could endanger Israel.

That is why a Palestinian state must be effectively demilitarized. We don’t want another Gaza, another Iranian backed terror base abutting Jerusalem and perched on the hills a few kilometers from Tel Aviv.

We want peace.

I believe such a peace can be achieved. But only if we roll back the forces of terror, led by Iran, that seek to destroy peace, eliminate Israel and overthrow the world order.

The question facing the international community is whether it is prepared to confront those forces or accommodate them.

Over seventy years ago, Winston Churchill lamented what he called the “confirmed unteachability of mankind,” the unfortunate habit of civilized societies to sleep until danger nearly overtakes them.

Churchill bemoaned what he called the “want of foresight, the unwillingness to act when action will be simple and effective, the lack of clear thinking, the confusion of counsel until emergency comes, until self-preservation strikes its jarring gong.”

I speak here today in the hope that Churchill’s assessment of the “unteachability of mankind” is for once proven wrong.

I speak here today in the hope that we can learn from history — that we can prevent danger in time.

In the spirit of the timeless words spoken to Joshua over 3,000 years ago, let us be strong and of good courage. Let us confront this peril, secure our future and, God willing, forge an enduring peace for generations to come.

And then in Hebrew, Bibi said: “G-d will Bless His people with peace. G-d will give His people strength, G-d will Bless His people with peace.”