Tuesday, March 31, 2015

ERASING ISRAEL OFF THE MAP IS NONNEGOTIABLE

The commander of the Basij militia of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards said that “erasing Israel off the map” is “nonnegotiable,” according to an Israel Radio report Tuesday.

Militia chief Mohammad Reza Naqdi also threatened Saudi Arabia, saying that the offensive it is leading in Yemen “will have a fate like the fate of Saddam Hussein.”

Naqdi’s comments were made public as Iran and six world powers prepared Tuesday to issue a general statement agreeing to continue nuclear negotiations in a new phase aimed at reaching a comprehensive accord by the end of June.

In 2014, Naqdi said Iran was stepping up efforts to arm West Bank Palestinians for battle against Israel, adding the move would lead to Israel’s annihilation, Iran’s Fars news agency reported.

“Arming the West Bank has started and weapons will be supplied to the people of this region,” Naqdi said.


“The Zionists should know that the next war won’t be confined to the present borders and the Mujahedeen will push them back,” he added. Naqdi claimed that much of Hamas’s arsenal, training and technical knowhow in the summer conflict with Israel was supplied by Iran.
The Basij is a religious volunteer force established in 1979 by the country’s revolutionary leaders, and has served as a moral police and to suppress dissent.

In January, a draft law that would give greater powers to the Basij to enforce women’s compulsory wearing of the veil was ruled unconstitutional.

The force holds annual maneuvers, sometimes with regular Iran units.

Read more: Iran militia chief: Destroying Israel is 'nonnegotiable' | The Times of Israel http://www.timesofisrael.com/iran-militia-chief-destroying-israel-nonnegotiable/#ixzz3W0Y77a4X

IN THAT AND THOSE WE LOVE WE DON'T SEE FLAWS, LOVE IS BLIND!

Netanyahu Stands in the Way of Obama’s Love-Laden,  Islamic Agenda
OBAMA'S AMERICA
Obama has spent his life-time waiting for these next two years.

Obama’s inner identity is tied to Islam. We all identify with the ethos of our formative years. His father and step-father were Islamic, as is his family back in Kenya and Indonesia. His brothers are active Islamists. He was raised on the Koran in Islamic countries, he attended Islamic madrassa, and he grew up with its attitudes, sights and sounds, aspirations and narrative, likes and dislikes.

Much has been said about the strange behavior of Barack Obama, who can’t let a day go without maligning Israel and Mr. Netanyahu. In contrast, he displays friendship to a thug and anti-Semite like Erdogan of Turkey, palled around with the deceased communist Hugo Chavez and keeps standing-up for the Iranian mullahs who want to kill us all or make us slaves to Islam. Those in the media ascribe all of this to a clash of personalities: Obama doesn’t like PM Netanyahu and Netanyahu returns the dislike.
No doubt the dislike is there, but what underlies the animosity of Obama toward PM Netanyahu goes beyond shmoozability to seismic differences in outlook and policy. In fact, at Mr. Netanyahu’s very first White House meeting, before they really knew each other, Obama purposely mistreated PM Netanyahu by forcing him to enter through a side entrance, and then he abruptly left the meeting, went upstairs by himself for dinner and left PM Netanyahu and his staff without hospitality or even a piece of bread. This was a deliberate and unheard-of disparagement directed more at Israel, the state represented by Netanyahu, than it was at Mr. Netanyahu per se.
This last week, Barack Obama published classified information showing the world photographs of Israel’s hidden nuclear site, and its inner workings. It was his gift to Iran, Hamas and ISIS. This puts Israel and her citizens, not just Mr. Netanyahu, at great risk. But, Obama had his people darken out all the information on that page regarding the nuclear sites of other countries.

During a meeting at the White House in 2009, Obama stated early-on that “it’s time to put day-light between Israel and America.” This was done before Obama had even met Benjamin Netanyahu.

Last week, Obama again singled-out Israel by crudely questioning Israel as a democracy, though it’s Israel that has an Arab Supreme Court Justice, provides medical for all, and has four Arab political parties that just won 14 seats. Obama is throwing out these malicious barbs daily, so as to brainwash Americans into believing Israel and America do not share the same values. He wants to break the historic bonds between America and Israel, between Israelis and Americans. His intent is to permanently tarnish Israel, not just hurt its present Prime Minister. In that vein, Obama has denied visas to Israelis more than any other group, all the while zealously providing visas to those from Arabic/Muslim countries.

Our president has no condemnation for Arab countries where Jews and Christians are forbidden their own political parties nor allowed to sit as judges judging Muslims, and Obama accepts the sharia that forbids this.

Further proof of Obama’s scheme: He had his young underlings call Israel a “racist” state, something he never says about Islamic countries. In principle, under sharia, some Islamic countries actually do consider non-Muslims infidels and second class. They allow their churches and synagogues to be destroyed, the Christian and Jewish women to be treated as fodder and permissible meat, and our Bibles banned and thrown in the garbage. Yet, we hear no condemnation from Obama. It is reserved for Israel. When a person singles out Jews or the Jewish state for things he finds acceptable in others … that’s anti-Semitism.

Recently, he let Israel’s enemies know that he, Obama, will not support Israel, which encourages and provides a green light. The physical attacks will be against Israel, not just Netanyahu … and Obama knows it. To that end, he has taken Hezbollah and Iran off our list of terror organizations. Instead, he has the State Dept. deny Israeli generals visas. His heart is darkened against Israel.

He prohibited flights to Israel for almost two days during her recent defensive war against Hamas missiles being shot from Gaza. He has not done this in other war zones. He even stopped the routine supply of needed ammunition to Israel during the war. He is deaf to Israel’s concern over ISIS, Hamas, and Iran pitched at Israel’s borders, and he insists that Israel relinquish these lands to make a Palestinian state that he knows will be a launching pad for these terrorist groups against Israel and her children.

The Netanyahu story is a cover, a convenient excuse and ruse to weaken and stigmatize Israel. Unfortunately, many are falling for it. Obama’s everyday bullying is exclusive to Israel. So, let the truth be said: Obama doesn’t like Israel. There is something in his ethnic background that teaches, as part of its outlook, the need to not only vanquish but also humiliate the Jew, the Christian. More than a clash of personalities, it centers on Obama’s dislike of a truly sovereign and independent Israel, living proudly in its biblical homeland, and his intense dislike for Israeli nationalism.

Similarly, he dislikes American patriotism, demonizing those affectionate about America as people who cling to their flag, religion and guns. He dismisses those unwilling to renounce the Judeo-Christian underpinnings of America, as well as those not gullible enough to buy into the foolish and false narrative that America is, as he says, the “largest Muslim country in the world, where Muslims have contributed to its development since America’s founding.”

Mr. Obama seems irritated and indifferent to non-Islamic, non-Black narratives. He expects others to feel guilty and burdened by their own history, making themselves, in repentance, secondary and in service to the aspirations of the groups he prefers.

Obama doesn’t like an Israel proud of itself as a Jewish state, nor does he like an America loyal to its heritage and unique values, be it free enterprise, taking responsibility for one’s fate, or the make-up of its historic middle class. He wishes to transform both countries, denude them of their historic identity. He wants to do to Israel what he has been doing to America: change its demographics by bringing in those who, if offered freebies, will vote for leftwing parties who think little of a nation’s specific history and unique ethos. He does so here by flooding our country with illegal immigrants, and he does so in Israel by insisting that Israel allow into its borders millions of Arabs, who will vote to make Israel’s Jewishness a thing of the past – something that is illegal. Mr. Netanyahu stands in his way!

What Mr. Obama wants, above all else, is to strip Israel of David’s city, its eternal capital, Jerusalem, and hand the ancient, historic city to Islam. Obama knows that whoever controls and manages historic Jerusalem can lay claim to the Land’s entirety. Jerusalem is the heart and pride of Israel. He wants to snatch the pride Israelis have in Jerusalem, as surely as he tries to take from us our pride in American exceptionalism, something he denies and derides.

Talking-heads, who make their living jaw-boning in conventional, boiler-plate paradigms, think of Obama as they would other Presidents, instead of seeing him the way he must be seen. He is not like other presidents, nor is he simply more to the left than previous presidents. He is an ideologue through and through, and his ideology is rooted in Marxism and certain forms of Islamism. We need to see in Obama’s actions, not the political maneuverings we suspect in others, but direct, unalloyed, reflections of his dogmas and goals.

He wants the treaty with Iran, not because it’s a feather in his cap. Let’s be more direct. He wants it because he wants it. He wants Iran to have the bomb, not to use it necessarily, but for the power and leverage it will give Iran over Israel, and the pride and strength it will furnish the Ummah. He wants a stronger Iran, not a weaker or checked Iran.
He dislikes Netanyahu because he dislikes an Israeli leader who wants to keep Israel Jewish, who stands for Jerusalem, and won’t have his people bandied about to satisfy Obama’s’ lust for Islamic hegemony. Obama is used to Jews, the Hyde Park Chicago Jews and other liberal Jews, who see Jewish needs secondary and sacrificial to the demands of other minorities – liberal Jews who subsume Jewish aspirations and needs for whatever is considered the “civil rights” fashion of the day. To them, ironically, Jewishness is authentic only when Jewishness becomes a vehicle for a cause outside of any specific Jewish need and identity. They have redefined Jewishness to be political universalism. Obama is uncomfortable with a Jewish-Jew like Netanyahu who does not define nor limit the existence of Jews to self-nullification on behalf of the latest leftwing cause.

Obama’s inner identity is tied to Islam. We all identify with the ethos of our formative years. His father and step-father were Islamic, as is his family back in Kenya and Indonesia. His brothers are active Islamists. He was raised on the Koran in Islamic countries, he attended Islamic madrassa, and he grew up with its attitudes, sights and sounds, aspirations and narrative, likes and dislikes. As I grew-up to favor Israel, he grew-up to dislike it. Simple as that. Most of my Christian friends, Bible believers, were also raised with the biblical narrative, which admires Israel’s place in our theology and in the cosmos.

The Marxism Obama was fed, from very early-on, made him viscerally dislike successful western countries, such as America, Israel, and Britain. He was taught they were colonizers and imperialist. Yet, he finds nothing imperialistic or colonizing about Islam’s takeover, throughout the centuries, of northern and central Africa, Lebanon, Babylon and Persian, the Balkans, the Mediterranean areas, Malaysia, Indonesia and other parts of Asia, vast tracks of what was India, and countless Christian and Hindu neighborhoods and cities. Not to see colonialism and imperialism in these conquests, tells us a lot about Obama’s perspective. Love is blind. We don’t see flaws in that and those we love. But, we sure see them, always, in that which we dislike. Obama’s dislike for a strong, independent, proud Jewish renaissance in the Holy Land predates Netanyahu. As with America, the next two years will be difficult, for Obama has set his antagonistic sights on America and Israel … as well as its citizens. Obama has spent the last 50 years waiting for these next two.

Rabbi Aryeh Spero is president of Caucus for America and author of "Push Back and Why Israel Matters to You."

Monday, March 30, 2015

MUSLIM WAR COUNCIL … GAZA, HAMAS, … NOTHING HAS CHANGED!


NOW WATCH WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING ON PRESENTLY IN THE GAZA … NOTHING HAS CHANGED!!!

KERRY … ALLAH WILLING … THEY WILL GET THE BIG BOOM

John Kerry told reporter this weekend that a nuclear deal with Iran is possible, “Inshallah.”




Sunday, March 29, 2015

THE POT CALLING THE KETTLE BLACK … SORRY FOR THE OFF COLOR JOKE!

UN says Israel, not Iran, North Korea or Syria worst violator of human rights
March 12, 2014: Ben Emmerson, UN Special Rapporteur on Counter Terrorism and Human Rights speaks during a press conference about his annual report to the Human Rights Council on the use of remotely piloted aircraft, or drones, in extraterritorial lethal counter-terrorism operations, at the European headquarters of the United Nations, in Geneva, Switzerland.
MUST BE HALLOWEEN AT THE UN

What country deserves more condemnation for violating human rights than any other nation on earth? According to the U.N.’s top human rights body, that would be Israel.
Last week, Israel was the U.N.’s number one women’s rights violator. This week it is the U.N.’s all-round human rights villain.

The U.N. Human Rights Council wrapped up its latest session in Geneva on Friday, March 27 by adopting four resolutions condemning Israel. That’s four times more than any of the other 192 UN member states.
Playing at caring about human rights is the U.N. game. And no state does it better than Iran.

There were four resolutions on Israel. And one on North Korea -- a country that is home to government policies of torture, starvation, enslavement, rape, disappearances, and murder – to name just some of its crimes against humanity.

Four resolutions on Israel. And one on Syria. Where the death toll of four years of war is 100,000 civilians, ten million people are displaced, and barrel bombs containing chemical agents like chlorine gas are back in action.

Four resolutions on Israel. And one on Iran. Where there is no rule of law, no free elections, no freedom of speech, corruption is endemic, protestors are jailed and tortured, religious minorities are persecuted, and pedophilia is state-run. At last count, in 2012 Iranian courts ordered more than 30,000 girls ages 14 and under to be “married.”

And what did that one resolution on Iran say? Co-sponsored by the United States, it was labelled a “short procedural text,” consisting of just three operative paragraphs that contained not a single condemnation of Iran.

The Israel resolutions, on the other hand, were full of “demands,” “condemns,” “expresses grave concern,” and “deplores” – along with orders to “cease immediately” a long list of alleged human rights violations.

Ninety percent of states – inhabited by 6.6 billion people – got no mention at all. Countries like China, Qatar, Russia, and Saudi Arabia. For the UN, there was not one human rights violation worthy of mention by any of these human rights horror shows.
Why not? For starters, China, Qatar, Russia and Saudi Arabia are all members of the UN Human Rights Council. Actually protecting human rights is not a condition of being elected to the Council, and thereby transforming into a UN authority on what counts as a human rights violation.

As a result, what counts fast becomes unrecognizable. Subverting human rights principles for all turns out to be the other side of the coin from subverting human rights for Jews.
 

Thus at this session, “death to America” Iran sponsored a Council resolution called “Enhancement of international cooperation in the field of human rights.” It was adopted by consensus – with U.S. blessing.

The Cubans successfully engineered a Council resolution on protecting “cultural rights” – minus free expression.

The Palestinians – whose unity government includes the terrorist group Hamas – co-sponsored the resolution “effects of terrorism on the enjoyment of human rights.”

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation – representing states where converting to Christianity is subject to the death penalty – sponsored a resolution called “combating intolerance of persons based on religion or belief.”

Playing at caring about human rights is the U.N. game. And no state does it better than Iran.

Iran’s human rights record happened to come up at the March session in the context of what the Council calls a “universal periodic review” (UPR). Touted as its leading human rights innovation, the same process is applied to every state every four years.

That means Iran and Syria get treated the same way as, say, the United States and Canada. At the end of the UPR, a report is summarily adopted containing a bunch of recommendations that the former cast of characters summarily dismiss.

It was suggested to Iran, for instance, that it stop peddling little girls as sex slaves for old men. The recommendation received this reply: “in light of Islamic teachings, a person that has reached the age of maturity and is of sound mind has the possibility of marrying.”

The Council created a human rights investigator on Iran, but Iran has never let him into the country. Recommendations made to Iran during the UPR that it cooperate, were simply ignored.

On March 19, 2014, the U.S. representative mustered all her courage and countered with this: “we note with disappointment that Iran has not addressed the issue of allowing the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Iran to visit the country…”

There is an alternative conclusion. We note with disappointment that the United States legitimizes this travesty and empowers the real enemies of human rights.

Saturday, March 28, 2015

WOW … A HIGH LEVEL IRANIAN DEFECTOR … SPEAKS UP!!!

Iranian Defector: 'U.S. Negotiating Team Mainly There to Speak on Iran’s Behalf'
An Iranian journalist writing about the nuclear negotiations between the United States and Iran has defected. In an interview Amir Hossein Motaghi, has some harsh words for his native Iran. He also has a damning indictment of America's role in the nuclear negotiations.

“The U.S. negotiating team are mainly there to speak on Iran’s behalf with other members of the 5+1 countries and convince them of a deal,"
Motaghi told a TV station after just defecting from the Iranian delegation while abroad for the nuclear talks. The P 5 + 1 is made up of United States, United Kingdom, Russia, China, France, plus Germany.

The British Telegraph has details of Motaghi's defection:

A close media aide to Hassan Rouhani, the Iranian president, has sought political asylum in Switzerland after travelling to Lausanne to cover the nuclear talks between Tehran and the West.

“My conscience would not allow me to carry out my profession in this manner any more.” Mr Mottaghi was a journalist and commentator who went on to use social media successfully to promote Mr Rouhani to a youthful audience that overwhelmingly elected him to power.
Amir Hossein Motaghi, who managed public relations for Mr Rouhani during his 2013 election campaign, was said by Iranian news agencies to have quit his job at the Iran Student Correspondents Association (ISCA).

He then appeared on an opposition television channel based in London to say he no longer saw any “sense” in his profession as a journalist as he could only write what he was told.

“There are a number of people attending on the Iranian side at the negotiations who are said to be journalists reporting on the negotiations,” he told Irane Farda television. “But they are not journalists and their main job is to make sure that all the news fed back to Iran goes through their channels.

OBAMA'S HUNT FOR RED OCTOBER …

Friday, March 27, 2015

YOU CHOSE DISHONOR AND YOU WILL HAVE WAR … WINSTON CHURCHILL TO NEVILLE CHAMERLAIN

Prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu father’s work with the great Zionist leader Ze’ev Jabotinsky in the last year of Jabotinsky’s life, and his father’s subsequent efforts to rally support in the United States during World War II for European Jewry and for the creation of the state of Israel. His failure on the first front and his success in the second is a useful reminder of the extent to which, in politics, tragedy and triumph are not alternatives but cousins.

MIDDLE EAST BECOMING NUCLEAR
What alarms the prime minister is the Obama administration policy toward Iran. The progress of the Iranian regime toward nuclear weapons is the threat, to the well-being of Israel, the overall success of American foreign policy, and any hopes for peace and stability in the Middle East. The nuclear arms deal the Obama administration seeks with Iran would secure Iran’s path to nuclear weapons capability and would strengthen a regime that not only proclaims death to Israel and death to America but shows by its behavior that it means both statements. And this is to say nothing of the likelihood of a nuclear arms race in the Middle East to follow.

The prime minister has tried to make his points without hyperbole or bravado. None of them was new, as he himself stressed. After all, he has been as clear and outspoken as anyone could be about the threat of a bad deal, including in his remarks earlier this month to the United States Congress. His private arguments very much reflected his public ones, and the arguments other critics of the deal have been making. Indeed, on a couple of occasions the prime minister interrupted himself to say, “but of course you understand this point, you’ve published these arguments.” And so we and others have. It’s not as if scholars at the American Enterprise Institute and the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and the Council on Foreign Relations and the Hudson Institute—to say nothing of senators and congressmen and former secretaries of state—haven’t explained that we are heading towards a bad deal with a bad regime.

It’s a bad deal for all the reasons experts have pointed out. It won’t disassemble Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, while it does disassemble the sanctions regime that finally had started to bite and that holds the best hope of peacefully stopping Iran’s nuclear program. It doesn’t deal with Iran’s weapons programs or force Iran to come clean about its military agenda. It has limits on inspections and verification, and a time limit on the restrictions on Iran’s capabilities to boot. It demands no promise of any change in Iranian behavior. So it’s a bad deal with a bad regime, one that is a leading sponsor of terror, an aggressor in the region, an enemy of the United States, and committed to the destruction of Israel. And it’s a bad deal that will strengthen a bad regime, that will encourage bad regimes elsewhere in the world to redouble their murderous pursuits, and thus will make war — no, wars — more likely.

DEJA VU 
… 
But counting on prominent and wealthy Jewish liberals to speak up against their friends in the face of existential threats to the Jewish people has never been a good bet. Benzion Netanyahu saw this up close in June 1940, when mainstream American Jewish leaders boycotted his mentor Ze’ev Jabotinsky’s speech in New York when Jabotinsky sounded the alarm about what was happening in Europe.

Now his son, Benjamin Netanyahu, is sounding the alarm about what is happening today. He has made the 
irrefutably case, that no friend of Israel can support the forthcoming deal with the Iranian regime. Nor is such a deal in any way in the broader American national interest. Yet the misguided Obama administration is on a path to choosing dishonor and setting the stage for future wars. It is up to American leaders in both parties and all walks of life to do their best to avert this outcome. And if it is left to Israel to act, the least Americans can do is support our democratic ally, just as the least Americans could honorably do in 1940 was support Britain as, in her finest hour, she stood and fought alone.

Thursday, March 26, 2015

OBAMA STALKING ISRAEL … MIDDLE EAST IS NO LONGER NUCLEAR ARMS FREE


Obama declassifies Top Secret Document Revealing Israel is a Nuclear Power  … The U.S. can not be trusted any longer!!! Obama's disclosure now prohibits the U.S. from providing $2 billion USD in foreign aid to Israel.
First Publish: 3/25/2015, 8:00 PM


… WITH THIS DISCLOSURE THE GLOVES ARE OFF … ISRAEL IS NOW A CERTIFIED NUCLEAR POWER WITHOUT TREATY!  DOES THIS MEAN ISRAEL NOW HAS DE FACTO MEMBERSHIP IN INTERNATIONAL NUCLEAR REGULATORS ASSOCIATION (INRA) … OR IS ISRAEL  NOW A ROGUE STATE?


  • Israel is widely assumed to have nuclear weapons but has never acknowledged it and is not a signatory to the landmark Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).
  • The Jewish state is a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency but is not subject to IAEA inspections except for at a small research facility.
  • Another highly suspicious aspect of the Obama Top Secret release is that while Obama's Pentagon saw fit to declassify sections on Israel’s sensitive nuclear program, it kept sections on Italy, France, West Germany and other NATO countries classified, with those sections blocked out in the document.
  • Israel has long declined to confirm or deny having the bomb as part of a "strategic ambiguity" policy that it says fends off numerically superior Arab enemies. But Arabs and Iran see a double standard in US policy in the region. 
  • "The Symington Amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 prohibits most U.S. foreign aid to any country found trafficking in nuclear enrichment equipment or technology outside international safeguards,”
  • By not declaring itself to be nuclear-armed, Israel gets round a US ban on funding countries that proliferate weapons of mass destruction. It can thus enjoy more than $2bn (£1.02bn) a year in military and other aid from Washington.
OBAMA & MAIN STREAM MEDIA SLEEPWALKING TOWARD THE INEVITABLE … 


OBAMA'S WRECK LESS AND IRRESPONSIBLE DISCLOSURE … PUTS THE MIDDLE EAST IN JEOPARDY … 
In a development that has largely been missed by mainstream media, the Pentagon early last month quietly declassified a Department of Defense top-secret document detailing Israel's nuclear program, a highly covert topic that Israel has never formally announced to avoid a regional nuclear arms race, and which the US until now has respected by remaining silent.

WHAT'S NEXT THE DISCLOSURE OF ALIENS AMONGST US!!!
But by publishing the declassified 28 year old document from 1987, the Obama has breached the silent agreement to keep quiet on Israel's nuclear powers for the first time ever, detailing the nuclear program in great depth.

The timing of the revelation is highly suspect, given that it came as tensions spiraled out of control between Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and US President Barack Obama ahead of Netanyahu's March 3 address in Congress, in which he warned against the dangers of Iran's nuclear program and how the deal being formed on that program leaves the Islamic regime with nuclear breakout capabilities.

Another highly suspicious aspect of the document is that while the Pentagon saw fit to declassify sections on Israel's sensitive nuclear program, it kept sections on Italy, France, West Germany and other NATO countries classified, with those sections blocked out in the document.
A 28 YEAR OLD REPORT … 
The 386-page report entitled "Critical Technological Assessment in Israel and NATO Nations" gives a detailed description of how Israel advanced its military technology and developed its nuclear infrastructure and research in the 1970s and 1980s.
Israel is "developing the kind of codes which will enable them to make hydrogen bombs. That is, codes which detail fission and fusion processes on a microscopic and macroscopic level," reveals the report, stating that in the 1980s Israelis were reaching the ability to create bombs considered a thousand times more powerful than atombombs.
The revelation marks a first in which the US published in a document a description of how Israel attained hydrogen bombs.

The report also notes research laboratories in Israel "are equivalent to our Los Alamos, Lawrence Livermore and Oak Ridge National Laboratories," the key labs in developing America's nuclear arsenal.

Israel's nuclear infrastructure is "an almost exact parallel of the capability currently existing at our National Laboratories," it adds.

"As far as nuclear technology is concerned the Israelis are roughly where the U.S. was in the fission weapon field in about 1955 to 1960," the report reveals, noting a time frame just after America tested its first hydrogen bomb."
Institute for Defense Analysis, a federally funded agency operating under the Pentagon, penned the report back in 1987.

Aside from nuclear capabilities, the report revealed Israel at the time had "a totally integrated effort in systems development throughout the nation," with electronic combat all in one "integrated system, not separated systems for the Army, Navy and Air Force." It even acknowledged that in some cases, Israeli military technology "is more advanced than in the U.S."

Declassifying the report comes at a sensitive timing as noted above, and given that the process to have it published was started three years ago, that timing is seen as having been the choice of the American government.


US journalist Grant Smith petitioned to have the report published based on the Freedom of Information Act. Initially the Pentagon took its time answering, leading Smith to sue, and a District Court judge to order the Pentagon to respond to the request.

Smith, who heads the Institute for Research: Middle East Policy, reportedly said he thinks this is the first time the US government has officially confirmed that Israel is a nuclear power, a status that Israel has long been widely known to have despite being undeclared.

Wednesday, March 25, 2015

WHAT WORDS REALLY MEAN … WTF

Khamenei calls ‘Death to America’ as Kerry hails progress on nuke deal … 

Iran’s Supreme leader Ali Khamenei called for “Death to America” on Saturday, a day after President Barack Obama appealed to Iran to seize a “historic opportunity” for a nuclear deal and a better future, and as US Secretary of State John Kerry claimed substantial progress toward an accord.



Khamenei told a crowd in Tehran that Iran would not capitulate to Western demands. When the crowd started shouting, “Death to America,” the ayatollah responded: “Of course yes, death to America, because America is the original source of this pressure.

“They insist on putting pressure on our dear people’s economy,” he said, referring to economic sanctions aimed at halting Iran’s nuclear program. “What is their goal? Their goal is to put the people against the system,” he said. “The politics of America is to create insecurity,” he added, referring both to US pressure on Iran and elsewhere in the region.

Khamenei’s comments contrasted with those of Iranian President Hassan Rohani, who said “achieving a deal is possible” by the March 31 target date for a preliminary accord.

Kerry was more circumspect, as he spoke to reporters after six days of negotiations in the Swiss city of Lausanne. The talks, made “substantial progress,” he said, but “important gaps remain.

“We have an opportunity to get this right,” Kerry said, as he urged Iran to make “fundamental decisions” that prove to the world it has no interest in atomic weapons.

But Khamenei warned against expectations that even a done deal would mend the more than three-decade freeze between the two nations in place since the Iranian revolution and siege of the American Embassy, proclaiming that Washington and Tehran remained on opposite sides on most issues.

“Negotiations with America are solely on the nuclear issue and nothing else. Everyone has to know that,” Khamenei said.

In a reflection of the delicate state of negotiations, other officials differed on how close the sides were to a deal.

Top Russian negotiator Sergey Ryabkov and Iran’s atomic energy chief Ali Akbar Salehi said in recent days that technical work was nearly done. But French officials insisted the sides were far from any agreement.

Kerry was departing later Saturday to meet with European allies in London, in part to ensure unity, before returning to Washington. Kerry said the U.S. and its five negotiating partners — Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia — are “united in our goal, our approach, our resolve and our determination.”

But France, which raised last minute objections to an interim agreement reached with Iran in 2013, could threaten a deal again. It is particularly opposed to providing Iran with quick relief from international sanctions and wants a longer timeframe for restrictions on Iran’s nuclear activity.

“France wants an agreement, but a robust agreement,” French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius told French radio. “That is to say, an accord that really guarantees that Iran can obviously have access to the civil nuclear (program).”

“But to the atomic bomb? No.”

France indicated Saturday that it would push for an agreement with Iran that guarantees Tehran cannot build a nuclear bomb in the future, and that it opposed a phased easing of sanctions before an accord is reached.

On Twitter on Friday, France’s ambassador to the U.S. called talk about needing a deal by March 31 a “bad tactic” that is “counterproductive and dangerous.” Gerard Araud called it an “artificial deadline” and said negotiators should focus instead on the next phase — reaching a complete agreement by the end of June.

In the round of talks in Switzerland this weekend, cut short Friday because of the death of Rouhani’s mother, Fabius called the French delegation to make sure no more concessions were made, according to Reuters.

French diplomats have been pressing their counterparts not to give in on key elements, such as the easing of sanctions before serious progress is made, and arguing that the upcoming deadline was an “artificial” date, the Wall Street Journal reported. The P5+1, France argues, should be willing to press Tehran for a better deal and wait, if necessary.

Kerry said the U.S. wasn’t rushing into a pact, stressing that the latest stab at a diplomatic settlement with Iran has gone on for 2 ½ years. “We don’t want just any deal,” he said. “If we had, we could have announced something a long time ago.”

But, he added, decisions “don’t get any easier as time goes by.”

“It’s time to make hard decisions,” Kerry said. “We want the right deal that would make the world, including the United States and our closest allies and partners, safer and more secure. And that is our test.”

One encouraging sign is the apparent narrowing of differences on Iran’s uranium enrichment program. Tehran insists it wants to enrich only for energy, medical and research purposes, but much of the world fears it could turn the process toward making the fissile core of a nuclear warhead.

As the current round wound down this week, officials told The Associated Press that the United States and Iran are drafting elements of a deal that commits the Iranians to a 40 percent cut in the number of machines they use to enrich. The Obama administration is seeking a deal that stretches the time Tehran would need to make a nuclear weapon from the present two to three months to at least a year.

For Washington, the stakes are high if the talks miss the March deadline. The Obama administration has warned that a diplomatic failure could lead to an ever tougher dilemma: Whether to launch a military attack on Iran or allow it to reach nuclear weapons capacity.

A more immediate challenge may be intervention from Congress. If American lawmakers pass new economic sanctions on Iran, the Islamic Republic could respond by busting through the interim limits on its nuclear program it agreed to 16 months ago. Thus far, it has stuck to that agreement.

The negotiations are to resume on Wednesday, leaving the two sides with just one week to meet the March 31 deadline for agreeing on the outlines of a nuclear deal they hope will end a 12-year deadlock.

MAD IS NOT A DETERRENT … BUT AN INDUCEMENT FOR THE IRANIAN ISLAMIC REPUBLIC

THE VEILED LANGUAGE AND CIRCUMLOCUTION IS NO DIFFERENT THAN THE EVIL OF COWARDLY SILENCE …


NETANYAHU IS LIVING IN OBAMA MIND RENT FREE …

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama's chief of staff rejected Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's attempts to distance himself from his comments rejecting Palestinian statehood, telling an Israel advocacy group Monday that the U.S. can't just overlook what Netanyahu said on the eve of his re-election.
In a speech to J Street, an Israel advocacy group that is sharply critical of Netanyahu, White House chief of staff Denis McDonough also warned Israel against annexing the West Bank, where Palestinians hope to establish their future state. He said Netanyahu's prediction that a Palestinian state wouldn't come about on his watch was "so very troubling" and called into question Netanyahu's broader commitment to the two-state solution the U.S. and Israel have officially supported for years.

"We cannot simply pretend that these comments were never made," McDonough said.

McDonough's critique of the Israeli leader came as both Israelis and Palestinians are closely watching to see how U.S. policy will change in practical terms after Netanyahu's success in the elections. Obama has said the U.S. must reevaluate its approach to pursuing Mideast peace because of Netanyahu's comments, and has entertained speculation the U.S. will be less willing to come to Israel's defense in the United Nations. The U.S. has voted against U.N. resolutions supporting the establishment of a Palestinian state, insisting the matter should be negotiated directly with Israel.

On Monday, Netanyahu apologized to Israel's Arab citizens for another set of remarks that offended members of the community and drew additional U.S. criticism. Netanyahu said he never intended to offend the country's Arab-Israeli minority, but it wasn't immediately clear whether that apology would placate those in Israel and elsewhere who took offense.

"We just don't know what to believe at this point," said State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf. She said people were rightfully confused about which to believe: pre-election Netanyahu or post-election Netanyahu. "Who knows? We can't read his mind."

Obama's decision to dispatch his chief of staff to speak to J Street, just days after the election, was perceived as another sign that Obama intends to take a tougher tack toward Netanyahu despite his insistence that the U.S.-Israeli relationship is still strong. Although the group considers itself pro-Israel, it often advocates against the Israeli government's positions toward Palestinians.

McDonough received a standing ovation when he called out Israel's government for ongoing construction of settlements in the West Bank. He said Israel cannot control another people forever, warning that such a move would be illegal and would contribute to Israel's "total isolation" from the international community.

"An occupation that has lasted more than 50 years must end," McDonough said.

Such tough talk about a U.S. ally drew condemnation from Obama critics like Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., a potential 2016 presidential contender, who called it "a new low." Graham took to the Senate floor to accuse McDonough of using "language that has been reserved for terrorist organizations up until now" — even though U.S. leaders of both parties, including former President George W. Bush, have used the word "occupation" to describe Israel's presence in the West Bank.

LIBERALISM, THE MSM AND WILL OBAMACARE COVER IT?

LIBERALISM IS NOTHING MORE THAN A CONTINUAL AND DESPERATE URGE TO VOMIT.  FOR THIS SORT OF PETULANT INDIVIDUAL THERE IS BUT ONLY A SINGLE REMEDY A FRONTAL LOBOTOMY.  OH, …  BUT WAIT THEIR ALREADY POLITICAL ZOMBIES!

On Monday evening, mainstream media reporters reportedly gave Hillary Clinton a standing ovation after she joked about her private email scandal and took no questions from the press–at an event honoring excellence in journalism.
According to a National Journal report, Clinton took no questions after her 20-minute speech in Washington, D.C., which prompted the Washington Post‘s Dan Balz, who won this year’s Robin Toner award for excellence in political reporting, to reportedly make Clinton an offer: “I am happy to yield my time back to you if you want to take some questions.” Time reported that “Clinton received a standing ovation” anyway “from the journalist-heavy crowd.”
In her speech, Clinton reportedly cracked jokes about her email scandal, saying she was “all about new beginnings. A new grandchild. A new hairstyle. A new email account. A new relationship with the press. No more secrecy, no more zone of privacy… After all what good did that do for me?”
“Before I go any further, if you look under your chairs, you’ll find a simple non-disclosure agreement. My attorneys drew it up,” she reportedly quipped.

After claiming her “relationship with the press has been at times, shall we say, complicated,” Clinton, according to CBS News, “challenged the journalists in the room to be thorough and measured.
“We need more than ever smart, fair-minded journalists to challenge our assumptions, push us towards new solutions, and hold all of us accountable,” she reportedly told mainstream media reporters who notoriously protect Democrats like Clinton.



















Monday, March 23, 2015

PENN & TELLER, 20-20 AND YOUR VISION

WHO AMONG US GROWING UP HAS IGNORED OUR MOTHER'S WARNING, "DON'T TOUCH THE STOVE, IT'S HOT!" WELL … THOSE WHO VOTED FOR OBAMA BY NOW ARE SUFFERING "THE STOCKHOLM SYNDROME" AND ACTING LIKE A BATTERED HOUSEWIFE COMING BACK FOR ANOTHER BEATING WHILE WAVING THEIR OBAMACARE POLICY. 
First he comes for the banks and health care, uses the IRS to go after critics, politicizes the Justice Department, spies on journalists, tries to curb religious freedom, slashes the military, throws open the borders, doubles the debt and nationalizes the Internet.

He lies to the public, ignores the Constitution, inflames race relations and urges Latinos to punish Republican “enemies.” He abandons our ­allies, appeases tyrants, coddles ­adversaries and uses the Crusades as an excuse for inaction as Islamist terrorists slaughter their way across the Mideast.
 

Obama has stated that Israel is on it's own, the U.S. will not come to their defense … of course Obama coached the statement in UN speak.  Should Israel be forced to a decisive weapon … How much blame will be on Obama?

Barack Obama’s promise to transform America was too modest. He is transforming the whole world before our eyes. Do you see it yet?  
  • MAILIA, SASHA SMILE, MICHELLE AND MAMA ROBINSON SAY ALLAH AKBAR …
Against the backdrop of the tsunami of trouble he has unleashed, Obama’s pledge to “reassess” America’s relationship with Israel cannot be taken lightly. Already paving the way for an Iranian nuke, he is hinting he’ll also let the other anti-Semites at Turtle Bay have their way. That could mean American support for punitive Security Council resolutions or for Palestinian statehood initiatives. It could mean both, or something worse.

REMEMBER MASADA … 


Whatever form the punishment takes, it will aim to teach Bibi Netanyahu never again to upstage him. And to teach Israeli voters never again to elect somebody Obama doesn’t like.

Apologists and wishful thinkers, including some Jews, insist Obama real­izes that the special relationship between Israel and the United States must prevail and that allowing too much daylight between friends will encourage enemies.

Those people are slow learners, or, more dangerously, deny-ists.

If Obama’s six years in office teach us anything, it is that he is impervious to appeals to good sense. Quite the contrary. Even respectful suggestions from supporters that he behave in the traditions of American presidents fill him with angry determination to do it his way.

For Israel, the consequences will be intended. Those who make excuses for Obama’s policy failures — naive, bad advice, bad luck — have not come to grips with his dark impulses and deep-seated rage.
His visceral dislike for Netanyahu is genuine, but also serves as a convenient fig leaf for his visceral dislike of Israel. The fact that it’s personal with Netanyahu doesn’t explain six years of trying to bully Israelis into signing a suicide pact with Muslims bent on destroying them. Netanyahu’s only sin is that he puts his nation’s security first and refuses to knuckle ­under to Obama’s endless demands for unilateral concessions.

That refusal is now the excuse to act against Israel. Consider that, for all the upheaval around the world, the president rarely has a cross word for, let alone an open dispute with, any other foreign leader. He calls Great Britain’s David Cameron “bro” and praised Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood president, Mohammed Morsi, who had called Zionists, “the descendants of apes and pigs.”

Obama asked Vladimir Putin for patience, promising “more flexibility” after the 2012 election, a genuflection that earned him Russian aggression. His Asian pivot was a head fake, and China is exploiting the vacuum. None of those leaders has gotten the Netanyahu treatment, which included his being forced to use the White House back door on one trip, and the cold shoulder on another.

It is a clear and glaring double standard.

Most troubling is Obama’s bended-knee deference to Iran’s Supreme Leader, which has been repaid with “Death to America” and “Death to Israel” demonstrations in Tehran and expanded Iranian military action in other countries.

The courtship reached the height of absurdity last week, when Obama wished Iranians a happy Persian new year by equating Republican critics of his nuclear deal with the resistance of theocratic hard-liners, saying both “oppose a diplomatic solution.” That is a damnable slur given that a top American military official estimates that Iranian weapons, proxies and trainers killed 1,500 US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. Who in their right mind would trust such an evil regime with a nuke?

OBAMA'S V15 ATTEMPT AT DISPLACING BIBI … FAILED!


Yet Netanyahu, the leader of our only reliable ally in the region, is ­repeatedly singled out for abuse. He alone is the target of an orchestrated attempt to defeat him at the polls, with Obama political operatives, funded in part by American taxpayers, working to elect his opponent.

They failed and Netanyahu prevailed because Israelis see him as their best bet to protect them. Their choice was wise, but they better buckle up because it’s Israel’s turn to face the wrath of Obama.


Sunday, March 22, 2015

OBAMA ROLE IN ISRAEL POLITICS LARGER THAN REPORTED

Netanyahu pollster: Obama role in election larger than reported

I TRIED TO STICK IT TO YOU … WITH THE V15 CAMPAIGN … BUT YOU WON!

President Obama's role during the Israeli elections was larger than reported, according to a pollster for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's Likud party.

"What was not well reported in the American media is that President Obama and his allies were playing in the election to defeat Prime Minister Netanyahu," John McLaughlin, a Republican strategist, said in an interview on John Catsimatidis's "The Cats Roundtable" radio show broadcast Sunday on AM 970 in New York.

"There was money moving that included taxpayer U.S. dollars, through non-profit organizations. And there were various liberal groups in the United States that were raising millions to fund a campaign called V15 against Prime Minister Netanyahu," McLaughlin said.

He noted that the effort to oust Netanyahu was guided by former Obama political operative Jeremy Bird, who “set up an Obama for America-like organization in Israel called V15 that was running extremely negative ads against the prime minister.”

The ads hurt Netanyahu in the polls, said McLaughlin, who added the Israeli leader rebounded after delivering a speech to Congress early this month, prompting more critical V15 ads.

V15, or Victory 15, was viewed as part of a broader campaign to oust Netanyahu. The group was linked to Washington-based nonprofit OneVoice Movement, which reportedly received $350,000 in State Department grants. The money stopped flowing in November, officials said, before the Israeli elections.

McLaughlin also cited an effort "to organize the [Israeli] Arabs into one party and teach them about voter turnout."

"The State Department people in the end of January, early February, expedited visas for [Israeli] Arab leaders to come to the United States to learn how to vote," McLaughlin said.

"There were people in the United States that were organizing them to vote in one party so they would help the left-of-center candidate, Herzog, that the Obama administration favored," he added.

Already tense relations between Obama and Netanyahu escalated this week after Netanyahu's pre-election promise to not allow a Palestinian state. He later backed down after White House criticism, though Obama suggested in an interview released Saturday he wouldn't brush off the comments.

"They were running an ACORN, Obama Organizing for America-type campaign over there with the digital ads, the billboards, the phones. They were targeting Israeli voters," Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-N.Y.) said Saturday on Fox News's "Justice with Judge Jeanine."

"I think the president, Tuesday night, felt like he lost," said Zeldin, who along with Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) has questioned the Obama administration over OneVoice's funding and nonprofit status.

Friday, March 20, 2015

"CLINTON" A NAME OF THE PAST LOCKED IN A BUBBLE FOR 25 YEARS … THEY'RE COMPLETELY OUT OF TOUCH!!!

A POLITICAL RE-TREAD UNDER-INFLATED NOT READY FOR THE STARTING LINE UNLESS SHE TEAMS UP WITH ANOTHER NAME FROM THE PAST … BUSH!

“He’s not a conservative.” That’s Rush Limbaugh talking about Jeb Bush. “The ideal, the perfect ticket, for the 2016 election: Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush. Now, they can figure out who’s on top of the ticket on their own, but when you compare their positions, Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush, on the key, important issues, they are two peas in the same pod.” That, too.

“You know what Jeb Bush is? He’s an old-time liberal Republican.” That’s Mark Levin.

“If I had to bet right now, he’d be the nominee; and if I had to bet right now, he’ll lose.” And that’s Laura Ingraham.

This is what people mean when they say the man who would be the third Bush president has a talk radio problem. He has a talk radio problem, conservative activist and writer Brent Bozell said, because he has “a conservative problem.” He has a talk radio problem, Ingraham said, because he has an “electability” problem. “To me,” Ingraham told POLITICO, “Jeb is the easiest candidate for Hillary to beat by far because he divides the GOP at a time when we need a candidate who unifies the party. … He’s made it fairly clear that he believes he can win without conservatives.” The way Glenn Beck has put it: “I think Jeb Bush … despises people like us.”

Bush, who’s all but officially announced he’s running for president, has said he would want to run a “joyful” campaign. He’s said he would want to have “adult conversations.” It’s phrasing that hints at his general distaste for conservative talk radio. Some Bush allies privately refer to some of the medium’s leaders as “warlords”—a description meant to convey the unreasonable, unrealistic and pugilistic agenda of those who thrive off of conflict. Bush, on the other hand, believes a winning Republican campaign a decade and a half into the 21st century must promote inclusion and optimism, not discontent and fear. People think he’s too moderate in part because Limbaugh and the Limbaugh-like are saying he is. So here, almost a year before the 2016 Iowa caucuses, the primaries have started already—the fundraising and positioning of the so-called invisible primary, but a visible one, too, or at least an audible one. Call it the Rush primary.

Every Republican politician of a certain consequence over the last quarter-century has had to make a decision about how to engage with Limbaugh and the many others who populate America’s most redward airwaves. Bush right now isn’t talking about this because (1) it’s so early in the campaign the campaign can’t even technically be called a campaign and (2) that would be unwise. Limbaugh and his imitative competitors don’t need additional oxygen. But based on conversations with strategists and advisers connected to Bush, consultants, show hosts and industry watchers—and what he’s done over the past month—Bush won’t ignore talk radio.

If there is in fact a Rush primary, Bush, headstrong and self-assured, thinks he can win that one, too.

“While not a folksy storyteller, you want to listen to him not because he’s a preacher, but because he’s a teacher,” said David Aufhauser, a former senior Treasury official and Bush backer who co-hosted a fundraiser for him last month in McLean, Virginia. On talk radio, Aufhauser said, “in the long run, his scholar’s passion and personal will will win over even the most doubting of Thomases.”

“Jeb is a guy who knows what he’s talking about,” said Ed Rogers, the chairman of the lobbying and communications firm called the BGR Group. “He won’t shirk his critics or his opponents.”

***
“Talk radio is a lot more than Rush Limbaugh,” Bozell said. “Talk radio is several Rush Limbaughs, but in every media market, virtually every media market in America, there is what we call mini-Limbaughs—the local host who dominates.”

Limbaugh, though, is the host who’s been doing this the loudest and the longest.

He has the most history with the Bushes, too.

His first national show was August 1, 1988, too late in that year’s presidential election cycle to have any say or sway. But the next time around was different. And Limbaugh wasn’t sold on Jeb Bush’s father. George H.W. Bush, he thought, was an unrugged Ivy League elite, and one who ran against Ronald Reagan in the primaries in 1980 and decried Reagan’s trickle-down economic philosophy as “voodoo economics.” Limbaugh idolizes Reagan. He calls him Ronaldus Magnus. Early in 1992, Limbaugh took aim at a sitting Republican president, making it clear to his 13.5 million listeners that he preferred Pat Buchanan, Bush’s ultraconservative challenger in the primaries who said AIDS was “retribution for violating the laws of nature” and that he wanted Limbaugh to be his communications director.
The president’s response to this assault from his right flank was to make nice. He invited Limbaugh to the White House. Roger Ailes, a Bush adviser and a Limbaugh adviser, too, and now, of course, the boss of Fox News, played matchmaker. One night that June, Bush showed Limbaugh to the Lincoln Bedroom. He even toted his luggage.
“It was a thrill,” Limbaugh said the following week in an interview with The Associated Press. “The Lincoln Bedroom—that’s for people like Winston Churchill.”

Limbaugh insisted the visit wasn’t an effort to curry favor—“he never once asked about going on my show,” he said—but the courting of Limbaugh continued. He sat in the president’s box at the Astrodome in Houston at the Republican National Convention in August.

Limbaugh’s anti-Bush stance softened.

Bush lost, of course, and into the White House moved Bill and Hillary Clinton, whose power and shortcomings fueled Limbaugh’s ascent.

***
Russell from Memphis had a question. The caller had read a story in Newsweek—this was February 2008, and the headline was “Why the Right Hates McCain”—and the story likened the 2008 John McCain campaign to the 1992 George H.W. Bush campaign. Russell wanted to know why.

“Because early on in 1992 in those primaries,” Limbaugh said, “I endorsed the wild-card candidacy of Pat Buchanan.”

“Oh, did you really?”

“I did, and I did this knowing full well Buchanan had no chance of winning the nomination. I was trying to infuse conservative debate in the primaries, because I figured if Bush was going to win again in ’92, he had to go back and do what he did in ’88 and start espousing conservatism, and I was right. And it all happened on Bush’s side too late.”

Now Russell from Memphis made the jump from Bush 41 to Bush 43. “Right,” the caller said, “and he obviously lost that reelection, but would you say that his son now, he was elected twice because he had more sound conservative principles?”

“George W. Bush?” Limbaugh said.

Michael Kruse is a senior staff writer for Politico.