Since Barrack H. Obama has occupied the Presidential oval office he has pursued a policy that has favored Arabs and Communist. In that same breath I must say he has undermined the security two of the world’s bulwarks against these factions, the U.S. and Israel.
When Barack Obama was campaigning for the Presidency he had remarkable support from two contrasting groups. He had the support of American Jews and international support from the world’s Muslim community.
There were some Jewish prophets that forewarned of Obama’s Arab tenets. The out-going Israeli Ambassador in Washington, Danny Ayalon, said of Barrack Obama in an article published in The Jerusalem Post, that during his two meetings with Obama, he got the impression that the Democratic candidate was “not entirely forthright” regarding Israel.
At the time many in Israel believed that Barack Obama’s recognition and support of Israel, as the state of the Jews, and the non-support of returning Palestinian refugees to Israel as a good sign. In fact the Jewish publication, Haaretz, actually defended him with a self-serving motive when stating, “Racist attacks against a black American candidate could cause Israel and American Jews a great deal of damage – not to mention shame and disgrace. Barack Obama has been forced to defend himself over things such as nonexistent ties with elements hostile to Israel…” Failing to see the writing on the wall, American Jews and those in Israel threw their support behind this Muslim turned Christian.
- Barack Obama having a Muslim father and step-father.
- School records in Indonesia where Obama attended school indicating he was a Muslim.
- Barack Obama studying “Mangaji”, which involves the recitation of the Quran. In Indonesian schools it is much more involved than that of a Christian child attending “Sunday School” class.
- Barack Obama’s Pakistan connection to Muhammadian Mian Soomro, son of a Pakistani politician and himself a politician, who later becomes interim President of Pakistan when Pervez Musharraf resigns in August of 2008.
- Both at Occidental College in California and at Columbia College in New York, Barack Obama’s roommates were foreign Muslims.
- Radical Muslim and vitriolic anti-Semite, Khalid Abdullah Tariq al-Mansour requesting, Malcolm X attorney, Percy Sutton to submit a letter of recommendation to help Barack Obama gain admittance to Harvard Law School. Mansour is also believed to have been the main financial backer and planner for Barack Obama for as long as 25 years, and is a principle advisor to Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, the world’s 19th wealthiest person ($29.5 billion), and nephew of Saudi Arabia’s King Adballah. Alwaleed bin Talal also donated $20 million to Harvard to fund “Islamic Studies.
- Barack Obama’s acquaintance with Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan.
In the Illinois State Senate, Barack Obama introduces Senate Resolution 110, declaring November 1, 1997 “Islamic Community Day.”
In 2004, the “Code Pink” anti-war group delivers $600,000 in cash and supplies to Iraq – not to American soldiers, but to the terrorists who are fighting them in Fallujah. Jodie Evans, co-founder of Code Pink, later donates $2,300 to the Barack Obama Presidential campaign.
Tony Rezko, convicted in 2008 of receiving kickbacks for political favors, asks Barack Obama to help Nadhmi Auchi, a wealthy Iraqi who lives in England, to obtain a visa to travel in the United States in 2005; the State Department refuses – partly because Auchi, a member of Saddam Hussein’s Baath Party and former high-ranking official in his oil Ministry, had been found guilty of corruption charges in France.
The Syrian-born Rezko’s money ties to Iraq may go back decades, and to Saddam Hussein. Nadhmi Auchi, who is apparently Rezko’s main money man, dealt with Hussein as early as 1959 and in a failed assassination attempt on Prime Minister Abdul Karim Qasim.
Hatem El-Hady, the chairman of an Islamic charity called “KindHearts”, which was shutdown in 2006 by the federal government because of its fund-raising for terrorist groups, directs his fund-raising efforts to Barack Obama’s election.
Barack Obama visits Kenya in 2006, and gives support to Raila Odinga, a Muslim socialist candidate for President who has ties to both al Qaeda and Libya’s Muammar Qaddafi, and who hopes to get Sharia Muslim law established. (Odinga is a cousin of Obama; Odinga’s mother is the sister of Obama’s father…)
In 2006 Obama visits Kenya and makes a speech to university students in Nairobi, in which he criticizes the existing pro-American Kenyan government…. This action is seen as an endorsement by Barack Obama of Odinga, the Kenyan President’s opponent. After Odinga loses the election in December of 2007, his followers burn women and children alive - in a Christian church where they had sought refuge. Over 1,500 people are ultimately killed in riots, and Odinga is ultimately given the position of Prime Minister to placate his radical supporters and stop further bloodshed.
In support of Odinga, Barack Obama raises approximately $950,000. The cash for Odinga comes from private meetings in 2006 arranged for Odinga by Mark Lippert, a foreign policy advisor on Barack Obama’s staff. Odinga visits Barack Obama during three separate trips to Washington in 2004, 2005, and 2006. Odinga promises his supporters in Kenya that he will “rewrite the Constitution of Kenya to recognize Shariah as the only true law sanctioned by the Holy Quran for Muslim declared religion.”
The following are pledges of candidate Odinga, who received support from Barack Obama: Re-write the Constitution of Kenya to recognize Muslim Sharia law for Muslim regions; facilitate the establishment of a Sharia court in every Kenyan divisional headquarters; order every primary school to conduct daily Madrassa classes; impose a total ban on open-air Christian gospel crusades; outlaw gospel programs on KBC; impose a total ban on the consumption of alcoholic beverages; and impose an immediate ban on women’s public dressing styles that are considered immoral and offensive to the Muslim faith.
These connections and acts on the part of then Presidential hopeful Barrack H. Obama were not enough indication of his strong Muslim ties for a Jewish community fearful of offending the American politically correct faction. Consequently they’ve had to deal with their gift of impunity and inability to take a hard stand against their enemies. The chickens have come home to roost.
In the Presidential elections of 2008, 78% of Jewish voters, or close to 8 out of 10, chose Barrack Obama. Jewish support is crucial for Democrats in key swing states such as Pennsylvania and Florida.
After almost two years of the Barack Obama Administration policies and more noticeably of Barack Obama himself, that support is waning. Barack Obama’s consistent diplomatic attacks and unbalanced treatment of Israel is causing that Jewish support to plummet. Barack Obama declared in a speech given at the United Nations in 2009, “America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements.” Barack Obama had given this same line in a speech in Cairo a few months earlier. This UN speech prompted John Bolton, George Bush’s Ambassador to the United Nations, to respond, “This is the most radical anti-Israeli speech I can recall any President making.”
Barack Obama has pushed other policies not supportive of Israel. In April, Barack Obama urged Israel to sign the United Nations, Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). The Israeli government had released a statement concerning the treaty that it “not only fails to advance regional security but actually sets it back”.
The Israeli government statement calls the conference's document "deeply flawed and hypocritical" and "ignores the realities of the Middle East and the real threats facing the region and the entire world." The statement also complains that Israel is singled out in the document and Iran, which is a signatory to the NPT, is not mentioned.
"The real problem with Weapons Of Mass Destruction in the Middle East does not relate to Israel but to those countries that have signed the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and brazenly violated it -- Iraq under Sadaam, Libya, Syria and Iran," the statement said. "That is why the resolution adopted by the NPT Review Conference not only fails to advance regional security but actually sets it back."
Israel is not a member of the NPT and has not confirmed or denied that it has a nuclear weapons stockpile. "As a non-signatory state of the NPT, Israel is not obligated by the decisions of this Conference, which has no authority over Israel," the statement said.
As this Administration seeks to reign in the Israeli government and undermine it’s military strength, at the same time it seeks to strengthen their Arab neighbors.
A senior Pentagon official stated that the Obama Administration is “working closely” with members of the U.S. Congress to help restore military aid to Lebanon’s army.
U.S. Defense Undersecretary Michele Flournoy said during a trip to Lebanon that the United States is committed to supporting the country’s military.
There is concern, as there should be, by some in Congress that appropriated weapons for the Lebanese army could be turned on Israel and that Hezbollah may have considerable influence over the Lebanese army. In fact Congress was so concerned that they froze $100 million in military aid to Lebanon. The Obama Administration balked at this freeze and made it clear that it wants the military aid to continue in the interest of America’s national security and Mideast stability. Sounds like the Administration is using reverse psychology.
Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla. and ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee said in a statement that she remained “deeply concerned that U.S. assistance to the (Lebanese army) may be finding its way into the hands of violent militants, including Hezbollah, which murder innocent Israelis.”
“The U.S. must not continue to send security assistance to Lebanon when we cannot be sure that it is not benefiting these dangerous extremists and their state sponsors,” she said.
An article in the Examiner notes that a wave of anti-semitism has spread from Europe and into the White House, in particular the State Department under Hillary Clinton. The Examiner charges that the Barrack Hussein Obama administration has placed an onus upon Israel and the Israeli Defense Forces(IDF), while giving a free pass to the terrorist government of Hamas in Gaza.
The article denotes the difference in the IDF and the terrorist Gaza government of Hamas. The IDF drops leaflets in Arabic telling people to leave before any military strikes occur. The purpose of which is to minimize civilian casualties. Conversely, the government of Gaza, terrorist organization Hamas, does just the opposite: it has launched thousands of missiles and rockets purposefully and willingly at civilian Israeli targets.
Other Arab nations also stand to benefit from Barack Obama’s policies. Saudi Arabia has been targeted for $60 billion in military equipment. The proposed package includes 84 newly manufactured F-15/SA fighter aircraft; 70 upgraded aircraft, 70 Apache helicopters, 72 Black Hawk helicopters, and 36 AH-6 Little Bird helicopters. A number of bombs and missiles also are in the deal, including the Joint Direct Attack Munition, a satellite-guided bomb, as well as a laser-guided Hellfire missile variant and some advanced targeting technology.
An official explained, “This gives them a whole host of defensive and deterrent capabilities.”
While the sale is being touted as providing a modernized capability against Iran, it’s also true that these weapons could just as easily be used on any of Saudi Arabia’s neighbors.
The United Kingdom and Russia have supplied billions more to Persian Gulf states while the United States alone has offered over $30 billion in armaments. Attempting to create a balance of power in the Middle East among unstable regimes and fickle allies is a dangerous prospect and unnecessary. A similar such tactic was used by heavily arming the Shah of Iran, only to see it toppled by a group of Islamic fundamentalists in the mid-1970s. Now we are faced with a heavily armed and hostile Iran. A self created adversary seeking nuclear weapons.
Ironic as it may sound, Barack Obama’s placating to the Arab world has only brought him scorn among Arabs and the level of anti-western hostility has risen.
October 4, 2010, a new poll of the Arab world unveiled Thursday at the Brookings Institute shows support for President Obama among Arabs has dropped significantly in the past year.
Sixty-two percent of Arabs have a negative view of the American president, up from 23% in 2009, according to the 2010 Arab Public Opinion Poll conducted by University of Maryland and Zogby International. The survey polled sample sizes between 500-800 Arabs earlier this summer in Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.
The poll also show that more than three-quarters of those polled believe Iran has the right to a nuclear program — a rise from 53% last year — and that 57% believe that Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons — up from 39% at the end of the Bush presidency in 2008.
The poll pointed to disturbing trends among Arabs towards Israel. Almost 90% see Israel as their biggest threat, with the United States close behind at 77% — a figure that has only dropped slightly since the end of the Bush presidency.
Is there any other explanation for Barack Obama’s unbalanced approach to the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks? While Barack Obama tries to placate the Arab world to gain their approval and loyalty, we see the results as the old adage “biting the hand that feeds”.
When Barack Obama met with Benjamin Netanyahu during a well-publicized meeting at the White House, it was reported that Barack Obama simply walked out of the room with a “call me if you change your mind” type of attitude.
Perhaps the world’s Jewish community has wakened to Barack Obama’s initial acceptance of a separate Jewish state and the non-return of Palestinian refugees to Israel. A position that is not a pro-Israeli position as many Jews believed, but rather a policy devised to separate and isolate the Arabs from the Jews. Making policies more easily focused on beneficial to one and detrimental to the other.
Recent polls indicate that American Jews have awakened from their slumber. In April 2010 a poll by John McLaughlin & Associates indicated that Jewish support for President Obama dropped to 42% - a 35% decline.
When it comes to the American psyche, it is changing. Obama is no longer the savior of the nation, the healer and the orchestrator of change. Obama’s change is not the change that Americans desire.
Change the U.S. from the world’s hedge against communism and inhumane governments, to being compromised. Change instead by contributing to the resurrection of communism thought to have been subdued since the Cold War.
Secretary Clinton admitted that concerning the new START treaty the U.S. made the decision to release the numbers and the figures in our nuclear arsenal.When ask why this Administration decided that making them public was more important than the national security concerns others in the government had, Clinton replied “we think it is in our national security interest to be as transparent as we can be about the nuclear program of the United States. We think that builds confidence.”
Yes it builds confidence, in our adversaries.
In fact Clinton continued in her speech at the Nuclear Security Summit, “we don't believe that revealing the number of nuclear weapons we have in our arsenals, which most experts know already, but sharing it with the public is in any way in opposition to our nuclear security.”
Let’s give all our secrets to the Russians. Be as transparent as they want us to be. Why should the Russians bother sending more spies to the U.S. to get information that the Obama Administration is handing out like chocolate bars at a Willie Wonka Candy Factory? Give them a guided tour. That is in fact what this Administration has done.
Government facilities with security so tight that even a highly trusted U.S. citizen couldn’t enter, has its doors wide open with “Welcome to America” signs waving in the breeze and neon “Enter Here” signs flashing their invitations.
She went on to say,”We had a very long discussion about missile defense and we outlined for the minister and other officials at the meeting the basis of our threat assessment…”
Not only have we given them a guided tour of our missile defenses and revealed our nuclear strategies to them, but Obama wants to give them Reagan’s coveted “Missile Defense System.” A National defense system intended to free the U.S. of certain destruction in case of a nuclear war. This is something that the Russians no longer have the technological ability to duplicate, but Obama is willing to give it to them and share with them our technological advancements. And this benefit comes at no cost. No negotiated benefits from Russia.
As Clinton put it, “The United States believes that it is better to be prepared and defended against possible aggressive offensive action by Iran or others… We have shared this with our Russian colleagues. Our experts are going through all of the details, because we would like to see the United States and Russian collaborate closely on missile defense. We think it is in our mutual interest.”
Is that enough to appease our Russian adversaries? Barack Obama doesn’t think so. In addition to giving Russia all our country’s nuclear secrets, he wants to scrap the Bush missile defense plan in favor of one that Russia will feel more comfortable with. Obama claims the new system will be based on Iran’s ability to hit Europe with missiles. What about other missiles from other countries? The U.S. arm for a “One World Government” the Council on Foreign Relations agrees with Mr. Obama.
Even the Council’s senior Vice President, James Lindsay said, “Poles and Czechs worry that his decision signals a softening U.S. commitment to their security. Both countries saw the system as a way to tie themselves more closely to the United States and thereby deter an increasingly belligerent Russia.”
Lindsay went on to admit, ”Critics will also insist that the Poles and Czechs are right: He axed the Bush program in a foolish and doomed bid to ‘reset’ relations with Russia.” Lindsay further provided insight to the fact that this also was a free gratis for Russia by stating “Here, Moscow isn’t likely to be of much help to the White House. The Kremlin will claim a diplomatic victory and it won’t offer any concessions in return.”
In fact it is Barack Obama’s intention to placate Russia by down grading our missile defense capabilities to defend against Russian missiles. Obama has maintained that Russia had nothing to fear from a U.S. missile defense system, which would be designed to intercept a solitary missile from Iran or North Korea, as opposed to “a mighty Russian arsenal.”
The new START treaty cuts Russian and U.S. nuclear arsenals to 1,550 warheads. Barack Obama’s dream is zero nuclear weapons worldwide.
Barack Obama’s newly released nuclear posture review indicates the U.S. will maintain three legs of our strategic nuclear triad (missiles, bombers, and submarines) for the next 10 years. Some experts such as Frank Gaffney, the president of the Center for Security Policy and Sharon Squassoni, a nuclear weapons expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies believe that once the level of warheads reach 1,000 we could have problems maintaining our nuclear triad. Frank warns, “You will be exposing your forces and your country to the sorts of risks that we decided we didn’t want to entertain….enhancing the prospects for war.”
William Tobey, senior fellow at Harvard University and National Security Council staff member under three presidents, reports for CNN there are other problems with Obama’s Nuclear Posture Review. Toby feels Barack Obama’s willingness to accept limits on employment of U.S. forces in the policy, is ill advised.
Toby points out the new policy statement, “The United States will not develop new nuclear warheads.” Programs to extend the life of existing warheads will be pursued, but that will not include new designs.
Toby reminds us that the U.S. nuclear arsenal is aging. The newest weapon was deployed two decades ago and others are much older. He says that this policy would prevent new technology that could make nuclear weapons safe from accidental detonation and secure from unauthorized use such as terrorist, from being implemented based on new designs.
Toby sums up his critique of Barack Obama’s Nuclear Posture Review by saying, “Refusing even to consider designs that might respond to these developments is breathtakingly Luddite.”
So is Russia and the U.S. going to quietly lay down their arms and the world evolve into a kinder gentler world? I think not. Who is really winning at these new strategies coming from the new START treaty and Obama’s Nuclear Posture Review? Everyone seems to be winning except the U.S.
While Barack Obama pushes the U.S. toward zero nuclear arms the rest of the world are retaining their status quondam or vamping up.
Alexei Arbatov of the Carnegie Endowment said Russia will find it increasingly difficult to reduce its nuclear arsenal further. “Nuclear weapons are seen as the only remaining pillar of Russia’s special status in the world” said Arbatov. Russia considers nuclear weapons to be “the great equalizer” and help make up for “Russian inferiority” in conventional weapons and technology.
If the U.S. were to reduce it’s arsenal to below 1000 warheads other nations might question whether they should participate in arms control talks. They may feel they cannot rely upon the U.S. security umbrella and for good reason. In the case of China, they may feel the window of reduction on the part of the U.S. gives them an opportunity to reach parity in nuclear arms with the U.S. or gain superiority.
The U.S. and Russia currently possess thousands more warheads than any other country.
France, China, Britain, Israel, India, and Pakistan are known to have nuclear weapons, and North Korea is believed to have upwards of a dozen. Iran is believed to be pursuing nuclear arms.
While some support further reductions in the U.S. arsenal based on Barack Obama’s Nuclear Posture Review, others warn that the nation needs to have more weapons than targets. With China and India developing long-range ballistic missiles, the target list could be growing, not shrinking.
Retired Admiral James “Ace” Lyons is most concerned about what he calls the lack of consideration of China’s rapid modernization of its nuclear force structure. “With their double-digit increase for the last several years to their military budget, every weapons system China has developed is targeted against U.S. forces,” he said.
Perhaps China is the only one besides Obama and Russia that likes our new START treaty. A weaker America is simply good business for China, not only on the economic front but a military one too.
Under Barack Obama policies, communism and radical Islamic regimes seems poised for resurgence.
RESOURCES:
http://www.tri-cityherald.com/2010/09/22/1178760/pentagon-official-says-us-supports.html
http://www.tri-cityherald.com/2010/09/24/1181837/clinton-assures-lebanon-of-us.html#storylink=mirelated
http://www.tri-cityherald.com/2010/09/16/1171743/ap-source-renewed-lebanese-military.html#storylink=mirelated
http://www.examiner.com/public-policy-in-casper/obama-changes-us-course-abandoning-israel-to-support-arab-terrorists
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/09/13/us.saudi.arms.deal/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/18/missile.defense.shield/index.html#cnnSTCText
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/08/start.what.next/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/05/29/un.israel.nuclear/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/04/07/tobey.nuclear.policy/index.html
http://www.cfr.org/publication/23019/is_big_saudi_arms_sale_a_good_idea.html
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/obama-and-the-jewish-question-1.238240
http://www.uncoverage.net/2010/04/american-jewish-support-for-obama-tanks/
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/poll-obama-has-lost-half-his-jewish-support-93304679.html
http://matzav.com/oy-vey-obama-prez-losing-jewish-support-finally
http://dailycaller.com/2010/08/06/poll-arab-support-for-obama-drops-dramatically/
No comments:
Post a Comment