“Will Obama’s Legacy will be World War III”

Untitled-1

 

 

Obama made, yet, another speech yesterday. but what made this one different from the rest? This one will go down in history as the United States’ surrender to terrorism. If we have not been destroyed by nuclear bombs, there is no doubt future generations will be studying this speech and drawing parallels to the Munich Agreement, which is regarded as a failed act of appeasement by Britain and France to Germany and Adolph Hitler, a mistake  which led to the beginning of World War II.

Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, who surrendered the agreement with Hitler claimed,

“My objective is peace in Europe,  this trip is the way to that peace.”

At this meeting, Adolph Hitler deceived, lied and manipulated the British leader into believing that bending to his will would spare Britain and France from a war that were not prepared to fight. During these negotiations, Hitler promised Chamberlain that he would refrain from military action, yet secretly he continued to plan his attack militarily. The sacrifice in this agreement? Czechoslovakia, an ally of Britain and France, abandoned by them to appease Hitler. As Chamberlain proclaimed he had secured “peace in our time,” World War II began.

Is this story beginning to sound familiar? Let’s look at the players in this charade.

Adolph Hitler played by Ali Khamenei, supreme leader of Iran

Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain played by Barack Obama

Czechoslovakia played by Israel.

In his speech yesterday, Obama did make one statement of truth,

“Among U.S. policymakers, there’s never been disagreement on the danger posed by an Iranian nuclear bomb. Democrats and Republicans alike have recognized that it would spark an arms race in the world’s most unstable region and turn every crisis into a potential nuclear showdown. It would embolden terrorist groups like Hezbollah and pose an unacceptable risk to Israel, which Iranian leaders have repeatedly threatened to destroy. More broadly, it could unravel the global commitment to nonproliferation that the world has done so much to defend.”

What about this statement?

“Iran will not enrich uranium…..for at least 15 years.”

There is that 15 year limit again. What happens after 15 years?

“Before Congress even read it, a majority of Republicans declared their virulent opposition. Lobbyists and pundits were suddenly transformed into armchair nuclear scientists…”

This a statement from the community organizer who graduated from Harvard with a degree in Constitutional law but has absolutely no understanding of the Constitution he has continually disregarded. But, he and John Kerry are indeed nuclear scientists.

President Obama further stated that if Republicans were to “repeat these arguments long enough, they would get some traction.”

This is obviously a theory he understands and uses daily…..say it enough and it will become truth. (If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor).

“If there is a reason for inspecting a suspicious undeclared site anywhere in Iran, inspectors can get access with as little as 24 hours”

Now wait for it……wait…..then he says,

“And while the process for resolving a dispute about access can take up to 24 days…we will be watching….”

So there goes the 24 hour claim.

“It is true that some of the limitations regarding Iran’s peaceful program last only 15 years, but that’s how arms control agreements work….”

“It is true that IF Iran lives up to its commitments, it WILL gain access to roughly $56 BILLION of its own money….”

“Our best analysts expect the bulk of this revenue to go into spending that improves the economy and benefits the lives of the Iranian people.”

And I have some swamp land in Florida for sale.

“Now this is not to say that sanctions relief will provide no benefit to Iran’s military. Let’s stipulate that some of that money will flow to activities that we object to.”

“…Iran supports terrorist organizations like Hezbollah. It supports proxy groups that threaten our interests and the interests of our allies, including proxy groups who killed our troops in Iraq.” 

and while Obama strongly pushes this deal he says,

“The truth is that Iran has always found a way to fund these efforts, and whatever benefit Iran my claim from sanctions relief pales in comparison to the danger it could pose with a nuclear weapon.”

If Iran has always found a way to fund its terrorist efforts, why would anyone believe they will agree to stop their pursuit of Nuclear weapons?

“And by the way, such a strategy also helps us effectively confront the immediate and lethal threat posed by ISIL.”

Really? I am confused as to what this has to do with our non strategy on ISIL.

And then the real kicker…

“It’s those hardliners chanting “Death to America” who have been most opposed to the deal. They’re making common cause with the Republican Caucus.”

Did he really just compare Republicans to the Iranians chanting “Death to America?” Is this really the decorum of a sitting President of the Free World? Although we have all become accustomed to his nonstop demonization of one American group or another in every one of his speeches, this takes the cake.

Then the best lie yet….

“….and a more understandable motivation behind the opposition of this deal….a sincere affinity for our friend and ally Israel. An affinity that , as someone who has been a stalwart friend to Israel throughout my career, I deeply share.”

What?  From the man who has racked up a large list of offensive comments and behaviors towards Benjamin Netanyahu, here are just a few.

  • Benjamin Netanyahu was left to stew in a White House meeting room for over an hour after President Barack Obama abruptly walked out of tense talks to have supper with his family.
  • He has taken almost every opportunity to appease Tehran since it came to office, and has been extremely slow to respond to massive human rights violations by the Iranian regime, including the beating, rape and murder of pro-democracy protesters.
  • President Obama condemned Holocaust denial in the Middle East, but compared the murder of six million Jews during World War Two to the “occupation” of the Palestinian territories, in a disturbing example of moral equivalence:
  • In a speech to the UN General Assembly, Obama stated, “America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements.” He also lambasted the Israeli “occupation”, and drew a connection between rocket attacks on Israeli civilians with living conditions in Gaza.
  • In an interview, a White House official calls Netanyahu a “chickenshit.”

I would not call this a stalwart friendship with Israel. It has become painfully obvious to most Americans that President Obama no longer supports Israel, our one democratic ally in the middle east, yet has chosen to cuddle up with and appease our enemies.

Can we talk about what Obama did not say in his speech? How about the fact that the United States, with taxpayer dollars, will be offering Iran a $150 BILLION signing bonus? Exactly where is that money coming from? Yes…the U.S. taxpayer.

Back in April of this year, President Obama finally relented, after intense pressure by both Republicans and Democrats alike, to give Congress a voice on the proposed nuclear deal with Iran. The bill, passed in the Senate, requires the President to give Congress 60 days to review the deal and take a vote.

However, Secretary of State John Kerry claims the deal with Iran is NOT a treaty because he feels  getting consent from the U.S. Senate would “become physically impossible.”

When asked by Democrat Brad Sherman (CA), if the White House would comply with the law if the Senate were to override a veto on the deal with Iran, John Kerry replied,

“I will need to consult with President Obama before answering such a question.”

As we have all seen during Obama’s tenure as President, he has refused to follow the rule of law and decided which laws to enforce based on his personal feelings and how it supports his agenda to fundamentally change the United States.

In a step that has become typically Obama style, the president immediately went to the United Nations for a vote on the Iran deal realizing he did not have support from either Democrats or Republicans.  Again, a President who refuses to listen to the will of the people or their representatives in making major decisions that will affect the United States and generations to come. The standard reply? Yes I will follow the rule of law and listen to the representatives of the people as our Constitution demands, unless of course they don’t vote my way.

President Obama has become so determined to define his legacy that he is willing to sacrifice the American people, their children and their grandchildren, regardless of the outcome.

Like Prime Minister Chamberlain in his so-called deal with Hitler, the world suffered the consequences and no doubt, if this deal is forced through by the Obama regime, his legacy will not doubt, be World War III.

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

Taxpayer Dollars Allegedly Misused by Obama Administration to Oust Netanyahu!

shutterstock_230786908 (1)We all know that the Obama Administration has never been a cheerleader for Benjamin Netanyahu or Israel.  However, when the majority of the United States population support Israel and its Prime Minister, and we want Senate approval of the Iran Nuclear deal, shouldn’t the White House follow the wishes of the people? Are we still a government of the people, by the people and for the people, or have we become a country of Obama, by Obama and for Obama?

It was recently discovered that the Obama Administration allegedly used $350,000 taxpayer dollars to help oust Netanyahu from office in the current election.  Is this the action of  a leader that is following the wishes of the people, or the action of a President who is fulfilling a high school level payback to a real leader, Netanyahu, who the American people love and support? As reported by Fox News,

“A powerful U.S. Senate investigatory committee has launched a bipartisan probe into an American nonprofit’s funding of efforts to oust Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu after the Obama administration’s State Department gave the nonprofit taxpayer-funded grants, a source with knowledge of the panel’s activities told FoxNews.com . . .

According to the source, the probe is looking into “funding” by OneVoice Movement – a Washington-based group that has received $350,000 in recent State Department grants, and until last November was headed by a veteran diplomat from the Clinton administrations.”

Jeremy Bird, who served as Obama’s campaign National field director in 2012,  is one of four U.S. consultants working with Tele Aviv based Victory 2015 or V15, to oust Benjamin Netanyahu from office. He has been described by Israeli newspapers as V15’s “secret campaign weapon.”  V15 says it supports no particular candidate, but want to replace Netanyahu. V15 is funded by an organization called OneVoice. Bird told Haaretz,

“Israel is ideal for door-to-door campaigning due to the small size of the country. Because of the large number of political parties and high voter turnout, he believes it’s possible to talk with enough people to change the government.”

The United States citizens are painfully aware of the current administration’s feelings about Benjamin Netanyahu.  Back in 2011, President Obama was caught on a hot mike along with French President Nicolas Sarkozy, complaining about Netanyahu. As reported in ABC News,

“Obama began by reproaching Sarkozy for not warning him in advance that France would vote in favor of Palestinian membership of  UNESCO,” “The conversation turned to Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, with Sarkozy saying ,’I don’t want to see him anymore, he’s a liar.’ “To which President Obama replied: ‘You’ve had enough of him, but I have to deal with him every day!’ Obama then asked Sarkozy to try  to convince the Palestinians to slow down with their UN membership drive.

In October of 2014, 

“A senior Obama administration official recently described the Israeli prime minister as “chickenshit,” according to Jeffrey Goldberg of  The Atlantic. The list also includes descriptions such as “recalcitrant, myopic, reactionary, obtuse, blustering, pompous, and ‘Aspergery,’ ” according to Goldberg.”

In an article by Randy Hall at Newsbusters, John Nolte, editor-at-large of the breitbart.com website, stated,

“Despite months of relentless attacks coming from president Obama, his White House and his sycophants in the mainstream media, here in America, Benjamin Netanyahu has seen a boost in his favorability rating.”

“Netanyahu’s jump in approval is a massive failure for a mainstream media that has red-lined in its attempts to derail Netanyahu’s much-anticipated Tuesday speech.”

“The very same media that champions Obama’s lawless crusades around Congress is now comically furious over a breach of diplomatic protocol that saw House Speaker John Boehner invite Netanyahu to speak without first alerting  … a president who his currently writing the laws he wants and violating his Constitutional oath by refusing to enforce those he doesn’t.”

The reason for all the hate coming from the White House?  President Obama has continued to go around Congress in working a deal with Iran, that will supposedly prevent them from obtaining nuclear weapons.  Although the White House denied in October that  it planned to go around Congress on a nuclear arms deal with Iran,  it will not dismiss the idea that Obama possesses the authority to unilaterally suspend sanctions without the approval of Congress.  The Washington Examiner reported that Senator Bob Corker (R) Tennessee and Senator Bob Menedez (D) New Jersey are pushing a bill that requires Senate approval for a deal with Iran. President Obama has said he will veto the bill, however, the Senate is quickly approaching a veto proof majority.

Interestingly enough, BizPac Review recently wrote about an article written in a newspaper in Saudi Arabia, praising Netanyahu and criticizing President Obama.

“This isn’t like a columnist or a blogger writing in the United States. Saudi Arabia doesn’t have a First Amendment – if opinions like this are making it into the “mainstream” press, it’s because they reflect the views of the government.”

“Israel and Saudi Arabia are mortal enemies, but a columnist at a pro-government newspaper in Saudi Arabia this week praised Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as a friend to peace in the Middle East and branded President Obama “one of the worst American presidents” over his negotiations with Iran.”

“The Obama administration does not suffice with condemning Netanyahu’s visit. Obama has announced that he will not meet with Netanyahu on the grounds that he does not meet with state leaders a short while before elections take place in their countries, [though] elections in Israel will take place weeks after the visit!! Likewise, American Vice President Joseph Biden, whose presence at Netanyahu’s speech in Congress is expected by virtue of his constitutional role as Senate president, announced that he would be on a trip abroad [on the day of] Netanyahu’s speech!! U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry also said he would be in Switzerland meeting with the Iranians on the nuclear dossier and therefore would not be able to attend Netanyahu’s speech!!”

“Since Obama is the godfather of the prefabricated revolutions in the Arab world, and since he is the ally of political Islam, [which is] the caring mother of [all] the terrorist organizations, and since he is working to sign an agreement with Iran that will come at the expense of the U.S.’s longtime allies in the Gulf, I am very glad of Netanyahu’s firm stance and [his decision] to speak against the nuclear agreement at the American Congress despite the Obama administration’s anger and fury. I believe that Netanyahu’s conduct will serve our interests, the people of the Gulf, much more than the foolish behavior of one of the worst American presidents. Do you agree with me?”

A recent article in the Wall Street Journal reported,

” 71 percent of voters believe negotiations between the Obama administration and the Iranian regime will not halt the Islamic theocracy’s pursuit of nuclear weapons. Just 24 percent believe it will have an impact on the mullahs’s moves toward the bomb.” 

Is President Obama fulfilling the wishes of the people?  If he has funded an “anti-Netanyahu” voting machine with American taxpayer dollars against our wishes, then he should be held accountable for the damage that could permanently effect the relationship that has existed between Israel and the United States for decades. If the President decides to go forward with a nuclear deal with Iran without support of the Senate, it will become painfully obvious that he does not listen to the people or follow the rule of law regarding the governance of this Nation!

 

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

Finally a Real Leader Speaks! Thank You Netanyahu!

Unknown-1

Prime Minister Netanyahu delivered a speech to the Congress and the American people this morning! Wow! So this is what a real leader looks like and sounds like? I have forgotten how nice it is to actually feel pride during a speech to the country. It felt really good to finally have a real leader stand up and not only speak the truth, but show his love and appreciation for the United States.

Finally a leader who has no problem calling out Islamic terrorists and Iran for their support of terrorism around the world. Finally the history of Iran and their continued assaults on the United States and its people is remembered. Netanyahu said,

“I’m standing her in Washington D.C and the difference is so stark. America’s founding documents promises life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Iran’s founding document pledges death, tyranny and the pursuit of jihad….Just last week, Iran carried out a military exercise blowing up a mock U.S. aircraft carrier. That’s just last week, while they’re having  nuclear talks with the United States.  But unfortunately, for the last 36 years, Iran’s attacks against the United States have been anything but mock. Iran took dozens of Americans hostage in Tehran, murdered hundreds of American soldiers, Marines, in Beirut, and was responsible for killing and maiming thousands of American service men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan. “

“Beyond the Middle East, Iran attacks America and its allies through its global terror network. It blew up the Jewish community center and the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires. It helped Al Qaeda bomb U.S. embassies in Africa. It even attempted to assassinate the Saudi ambassador, right here in Washington, D.C. In the Middle East, Iran now dominates four Arab capitals, Baghdad, Damascus, Beirut and Sanaa. And if Iran’s aggression is left unchecked, more will surely follow. So, at a time when many hope that Iran will join the community of nations, Iran is busy gobbling up the nations.”

“We must all stand together to stop Iran’s march of conquest, subjugation and terror.”

Netanyahu further explained,

“Iran and ISIS are competing for the crown of militant Islam. One calls itself the Islamic Republic. The other calls itself the Islamic State. Both want to impose a militant Islamic empire first on the region and then on the entire world. They just disagree among themselves who will be the ruler of that empire. In this deadly game of thrones, there’s no place for America or for Israel, no peace for Christians, Jews or Muslims who don’t share the Islamist medieval creed, no rights for women, no freedom for anyone. So when it comes to Iran and ISIS, the enemy of your enemy is your enemy.”

“The greatest danger facing our world is the marriage of militant Islam with nuclear weapons. To defeat ISIS and let Iran get nuclear weapons would be to win the battle, but lose the war. We can’t let that happen.”

 Netanyahu went on the explain that the current deal in the works with Iran would not require then to destroy any nuclear facilities and the centrifuges used to enrich uranium, necessary to produce nuclear weapons, would be allowed to continue production. He also shined the light on the fat that inspectors have been fooled in the past, and that they are only able to “document violations, not stop them.”  “Inspectors knew when North Korea broke to the bomb, but that didn’t stop anything. North Korea turned off the camera, kicked out the inspectors. Within a few years it got the bomb. Now we ‘re warned that within five years North Korea could have an arsenal of 100 nuclear bombs.”

Ed Royce, Republican from California,  claimed that he had supported passage of legislation to give the Ayatollah a choice between economic collapse for his system or compromise on his nuclear program. It passed in  the house 400 -20 in favor, yet Harry Reid refused to let the bill come to the Senate floor.  Royce feels the current deal paves the way for Iran to get a Nuclear bomb. He further said,

 “What is incredible is that we would take off the table, in the last session, the types of sanctions that really could have imploded the regime in Iran.”

Although the majority of the House came together to support Netanyahu, there were dozens of  Democratic representatives who refused to welcome the Prime Minister.  President Obama called Netanyahu’s visit a “mistake” that would be “permanently destructive” to the U.S. Israeli relationship. After the Prime Minister’s speech, Democrats responded,

“I want to congratulate Speaker Boehner and PM Netanyahu on their very impressive bit of political theatre. The speech validated all the reasons I said I would not attend. I think Netanyahu got it all wrong…..he can now go home to his campaign and say he lectured Congress and the American people on things that apparently we didn’t know.”

“I did not appreciate the condescending tone…that basically says he doesn’t think Congress understands the threat that they pose…. I resent that he was telling us how to negotiate…. This was fear mongering….he said the deal has to be perfect…that’s like a child who says I want to go to disney land every day, eat ice cream every day, have coca cola, everyday, and not go to school…” 

Netanyahu further said,

“Because Iran’s nuclear program would be left largely intact, Iran’s break-out time would be very short — about a year by U.S. assessment, even shorter by Israel’s.”

Meanwhile, Obama said negotiators are working toward ensuring, “there’s at least a year between us seeing them try to get a nuclear weapon and them actually being able to obtain one.”

According to a report by the Institute for Science and International Security in September 2013, Iran had come within two to three months of a bomb when negotiations began.

 

Netanyahu further explained the downside of the current deal on the table with Iran.

“So you see, my friends, this deal has two major concessions: one, leaving Iran with a vast nuclear program and two, lifting the restrictions on that program in about a decade. That’s why this deal is so bad. It doesn’t block Iran’s path to the bomb; it paves Iran’s path to the bomb.”

The Prime Minister suggested that before lifting any restrictions against Iran, the world should demand three things,

  1. Stop the aggression against its neighbors in the Middle East.
  2. Stop supporting terrorism around the world.
  3. Stop threatening to annihilate my country, Israel, the one and only Jewish state.

Meanwhile Obama, in his usual narcissistic manner, responded to the speech by saying,

 “Netanyahu,  didn’t offer any viable alternatives. This is the best possible deal to keep Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.”

Trust me…..?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

“Trickle Down Hatred and Contempt”

COMIC white house _edited-1 copy copy

Trickle down hatred and contempt. Is it real? Is it being used to control us?  Where does the buck stop on this issue, or more importantly, where does it begin?

We have all heard of trickle down economics, but what about trickle down hatred and contempt?  Can a leader set the stage and simply, imply by their action or non action, that they will tolerate hatred and contempt of a specific group in order to further their own agenda? Can negative comments by a leader regarding specific groups of people influence how those people will be treated or seen by others? Should the president of the United States be  representing only the portion of the public that believes as he does? How do our leader’s comments and actions influence the level of tolerance or acceptance exhibited by the American people?

The International Journal of Leadership Studies released a study by Diane J. Chandler from the Regent University School of Divinity, United States titled, “The Perfect Storm of Leaders’ Unethical Behavior: A Conceptual Framework,

“We can and do condemn the actions of leaders who decide to lie, belittle followers, and enrich themselves at the expense of the less fortunate.”  Unethical leadership behavior is, therefore, defined  as the organizational process of leaders acting in a manner inconsistent with agreed upon standards of character, decency, and integrity, which blurs or violates clear, measurable and legal standards, fostering constituent distrust because of personal interest.”

“Unethical behavior and its persistence must have a catalyzing starting place, a tipping point moment that prompts all subsequent unethical behavior, similar to the vortex of a tornado drawing everything into its fury.”

“Unethical charismatic leaders select or produce obedient, dependent, and compliant followers. Consequently when leaders deviate from ethical norms, compliant followers tend not to critique leaders’ decisions, since leaders are considered to be the standard bearers for moral conduct. The downside of charisma concerns possible negative consequences, including abuse of personalized power, the nurture of blind loyalties, and the inhibition of any criticism.”

Since the beginning of the Obama presidency, many of his speeches have resulted in great condescension towards Americans who disagree with his policies.  Obama has claimed that Americans who don’t agree with his administration on climate change are “a fairly serious threat to everybody’s future,” and “we don’t have time for a meeting of the flat earth society.” In another speech,  “You go in to small towns in Pennsylvania and it’s not surprising that they get bitter, they cling to their guns and their religion.”  In another, “Ideological extremism and maximalist position is much more prominent in the Republican party.”   Obama has made negative inferences regarding Fox News on more than one occasion, and a top official in his cabinet called Netanyahu a “Chickens**t.” In a ‘hot mic’ moment, Obama was caught calling tea party members, “dangerous extremists.” Is calling out those who disagree with his policies the proper behavior for the President of the United States? Are those who disagree, really a threat to society, racists, naysayers, flat-earthers, terrorists and extortionists?

When the president demonizes groups that disagree with him is he encouraging the mistreatment and exploitation of these groups? Do his comments influence and encourage the press and his public supporters to treat members of the tea party as extremists,  small town Americans as crazy and christians as religious fanatics? Is it right for the President of the United States to single out members of American society for disdain, ridicule or potential retaliation?

In June of 2013, according to a Rasmussen report, one in four voters who supported Obama reported believing that the tea party was the biggest terror threat to the United States. The most surprising aspect of this poll was that one in four believed that tea party members were not only the biggest threat to the United States, but a bigger threat than terrorists.

What about the race card?  Has the president and his team, used race as a tool to garner support for their policies, elicit votes or basically stir up opposition and in turn create more racial divide?

In October, in the Review and Outlook section of the Wall Street Journal, it was said,

“All this brings to mind a young presidential candidate named Barack Obama, who warned in 2008 that Republicans would play the race card. “They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. ‘He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?’” he told a rally. Mr. Obama won, and won again, but that hasn’t stopped Democrats from rolling out that same racism charge at any opportunity, using it in particular as a tool to drive minority turnout in elections….But Democrats do themselves no credit and the country no good by playing up racial divisions for partisan ends. Alas, they’ll keep doing it until voters stop rewarding them with votes.”

Are there still racial issues currently in the United States? As long as there are people in the world, there will always be differing opinions and therefore discrimination against many races and religions.   However, in the United States, we have made giant steps towards resolving these issues since Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement. In 2008, we elected a black president.  According to exit polls, President Obama did better with white voters than the past 2 democratic nominees, John Kerry and Al Gore. However, even with such great support from whites, Democrats still blame racism for the downward spiral of support for Obama.  Did every white person who voted for Obama suddenly turn racist? Or could it possibly be attributed to a failure in his policies and the continued stagnation of the economy and job creation among other heated issues?

In his recent speech to the UN, Obama compared the Michael Brown shooting in Ferguson to the situation the world faces with ISIS. Does this place mis-founded ideas about racism over and above the threats by ISIS? Do his comments supporting Michael Brown over the police, prior to the completion of an investigation, cause distrust of our police by other communities, therefore encouraging unnecessary protests and dissension?

Does Obama’s silence on the slaughter of Christians around the world, represent a trickle down condemnation, and therefore, without words, send a message that Christians are no longer a group that we, as Americans, should support?

Ben Carson a pediatric neurosurgeon, and current candidate for the 2016 presidential election said,

“We need to understand that we are not each others’ enemies in this country. And it is only the political class that derives its power by creating friction. It is only the media that derives its importance by creating friction…that uses every little thing to create this chasm between people. This is not who we are……I think one of the keys to leadership is recognizing that everybody has gifts and talents. A good leader will learn how to harness those gifts toward the same goal.”

Martin Luther King said,

“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but the content of their character.”

As Americans we must not allow our leaders to use polarization for their own political ends. We must work towards a common goal and find solutions to make the country stronger.  Having an open mind and listening to all sides is a true sign of maturity, broad mindedness and tolerance. If we can all learn to co-exist and attempt to understand the position of others, instead of demonizing those who think differently, the country will be able to heal itself.   If you preach tolerance, and expect other to be tolerant, then you must be tolerant yourself. If you preach divisiveness, then you must expect divisiveness from others, therefore prohibiting the very tolerance we all so desperately  want.
 We must recognize, that when we support leaders who use polarization to their own political ends, then it will, one day,  be our own beliefs that will be at the receiving end of the trickle down hatred and contempt.
Links: (http://www.regent.edu/acad/global/publications/ijls/new/vol5iss1/IJLS_Vol5Is1_Chandler%20(2).pdf)
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/307655-obama-we-dont-have-time-for-a-meeting-of-the-flat-earth-society
http://redalertpolitics.com/2014/08/09/obama-calls-democrat-position-common-sense-trashes-republican-view-wacky-nonsense-new-york-times-interview/

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

Against the Rule of Law, Terrorists Still Funded by U.S!

shutterstock_141927565

 

Since 1990, the United States Government has committed $5 billion in bi-lateral assistance to the Palestinian Authority (PA) who continue to be the largest per capita recipients of international foreign aid.

In 2006, Hamas, a terrorist organization,  participated and won a majority in the Palestinian parliament, and as a result, the Palestinian Authority (PA) formed a coalition government with Hamas.  Mahmoud Abbas claimed the presidency and Ismail Haniya, a member of Hamas, became the prime minister. However, there was fighting between the two factions over a failed deal to share government power, and over 600 Palestinians were killed. As a result, the government coalition split leaving Haniya, (Hamas) in control of the Gaza Strip, and Abbas (PA) the West Bank.

Who is Hamas? They were established in 1987 and their origins begin in Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood. What do they stand for? In 2006, The New York Times reported on the Hamas Charter which includes, but is not limited to the following items,

  • Hamas’ goal is Jihad and the death of Jews.
  • All Muslims are duty bound to commit jihad against Israel
  • Peace is not an option
  • Women must train their children to become Jihad fighters
  • Hamas cares about human right and religious toleration provided all other religions live in the shadow of Islam.
  • (http://lawofnations.blogspot.com/2006/01/hamas-party-platform.html)

In 2014, the two groups, again, decided to join forces which resulted in the halting of peace talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Because of the creation of this new coalition government between Hamas and the Palestinians,  Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of Israel, responded by saying,

“So instead of moving into peace with Israel, he (Abbas) is moving into peace with Hamas. He has to choose. Does he want peace with Hamas or peace with Israel. You can have one but not the other. I hope he chooses peace; so far he hasn’t done so.”

Should the United States continue its financial support of the Palestinian Authority? More importantly, is it in line with the letter of United States law?

In a report for the Congressional Research Service, prepared by Jim Sanotti, Specialist in Middle Eastern affairs, there are three U.S. policies that dictate the reason for the financial support to the Palestinians from the United States: 

  • Preventing terrorism against Israel from Hamas and other militant organizations.
  • Fostering stability, prosperity and self-governance in the West Bank that inclines Palestinians- including those in the Hamas controlled Gaza Strip- toward peaceful coexistence with Israel and a “two-state solution.”
  • Meeting humanitarian needs

Additionally, the Congressional Research Service states there are restrictions on the United States offering aid to Palestinians, which includes, but it not limited to the following:

  • No aid is permitted for Hamas or Hamas controlled entities.
  • No aid is permitted for a power-sharing PA government that includes Hamas as a member or that results from an agreement over which Hamas exercises “undue influence” unless they have accepted the following 2 principles.  1. recognition of the “Jewish state of Israel’s right to exist” and 2. acceptance of previous Israeli-Palestinian agreements.

The United States has identified Hamas as a “Designated Foreign Terrorist Organization” in October of 1997.  At the website for the U.S. Department of State, there is a list of the current foreign organizations that have been classified as “terrorists.”  In order for the State Department to classify a group as terrorist, they must meet the Legal Criteria for Designation:

  • It must be a foreign organization
  •  It must engage in terrorist activity  or retain the capability and intent to engage in terrorist activity or terrorism.
  • The organization’s terrorist activity must threaten the security of U.S. nationals or the national security of the United States.

Congress and members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee have raised concerns about  continued U.S. financial support to the Palestinian Authority.  However, even with the restrictions and definitions required by the rule of law, President Obama has stated that he will continue offering U.S. financial assistance to the Palestinian Authority, even though they have formed a coalition government with Hamas, which clearly is in direct conflict with the rule of law. Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee made the following statements:

“The administration is not demanding that [Abbas] return to the negotiation table with Israel without preconditions nor that he stops his unilateral statehood scheme at the U.N.”

“If the PA refuses to go back to the negotiation table with Israel and will not recognize a two state solution, why does the United States continue to offer financial aid to the Palestinians/Hamas?”

“The administration also says we need to help rebuild the Palestinian economy at a time when our economy is facing serious challenges and Americans are suffering.”

How much does the United States currently give in financial assistance to the Palestinian Authority?  In 2014, the United States offered approximately $440 million in assistance to the Palestinians and an additional $200 million annually through the U.N Relief and Works Agency, (UNRWA). Congress has raised concerns in regards to the UNRWA noting that funds might be used to support terrorists. UNRWA claims it screens staff and contractors every 6 months for terrorist ties to Al Qaeda and the Taliban, however, their screening does not include Hamas, Hezbollah or other terrorist groups in the area.

Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netenyahu spoke out in a speech made to the UN in 2014,

 “Last week, many of the countries represented here rightly applauded President Obama for leading the effort to confront ISIS. And yet weeks before, some of these same countries, the same countries that now support confronting ISIS, opposed Israel for confronting Hamas. They evidently don’t understand that ISIS and Hamas are branches of the same poisonous tree.”

“…… they all share a fanatic ideology. They all seek to create ever-expanding enclaves of militant Islam where there is no freedom and no tolerance – Where women are treated as chattel, Christians are decimated, and minorities are subjugated, sometimes given the stark choice: convert or die. For them, anyone can be an infidel, including fellow Muslims.” 

Meanwhile, the Obama administration is deep in negotiations with Iran and their president, Haassan Rouhani,  in assisting in the fight with ISIS. However, what will we need to concede in order to obtain their support, and do we really want to make a deal with the devil?  Iran is a supporter of terrorism and is currently helping Syria’s Assad in the slaughter of rebels, gays, and Christians and has also threatened to wipe Israel and Jews off the map.  Are these really the people we want to climb into bed beside?

President Obama wants to loosen sanctions against Iran in exchange for their promise not to develop Nuclear weapons. A November 24 deadline is looming for Iran and the P5+1 group (U.S. , France, China, Britain, Russia and Germany) to discuss whether Iran will be allowed to continue to enrich uranium in defiance of U.N Security Council resolutions. President Rouhani has said that Iran will not “surrender” on the question of enrichment. In response to Obama, over 30 Republican senators sent a letter to John Kerry, Secretary of State saying,

“We have learned that the United States and its P5+1 negotiating partners may now be offering troubling nuclear concessions to Iran in the hopes of rapidly concluding negotiations for a ‘deal.’ Given that a nuclear Iran poses the greatest long-term threat to the security of the United States, Israel and other allies, we are gravely concerned about the possibility of any new agreement that, in return for further relief of U.S. led international sanctions, would allow Iran to produce explosive nuclear material.”

In August of this year, Iran’s president Hassan Rouhani said,

Iran supports the brave resistance of great and patient Palestinians and Gazan people.” Muslims in Gaza stood firm in the face of blood thirsty Zionists’ bombs and missiles and emerged victorious. Iran always stands by Palestine, Iraq and Syria. The Iranian nation will take the next steps with more power. The world knows that threats and sanctions against this great nation will have no effect.”

In his speech to the UN, Netanyahu further said,

“To defeat ISIS and leave Iran as a threshold nuclear power is to win the battle and lose the war.”

President Obama could learn something from him!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather