Why is the Obama Administration Betraying Israel?


By Frank de Varona

A senior Obama administration official in the White House told reporter Jeffrey Goldberg that the foreign that leader who frustrates the White House and the State Department the most is Benjamin Netanyahu. The anonymous White House official called the Israeli prime minister a “chickenshit.” Another anonymous senior official agreed that Netanyahu is a “chickenshit” on matters related to the peace process, but added that he is also a “coward” on the issue of Iran’s nuclear threat.

It is truly outrageous and extremely alarming that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the leader of Israel, our closest ally in the Middle East, is the foreign leader who frustrates the White House and the State Department the most. It is not Russian dictator Vladimir Putin. It is not Chinese dictator Xi Jinping. It is not the Castro brothers in Cuba. It is not dictator Nicolas Maduro of Venezuela. It is not Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, leader of ISIL, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.

White House senior officials called Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a “chickenshit” and a coward, but they have never used these insults against the leaders of enemy nations. Let us look at the history of the foreign leader who Barack Obama and  his White House senior staff despises the most.

The information below on the life of Netanyahu was taken mainly from Wikipedia.

BenjaminBibiNetanyahu

Benjamin Netanyahu was born on October 21,1949 in Tel Aviv. He is the current Prime Minister of Israel. From 1956 to 1958 and again from 1963 to 1967, his family lived in the United States in a suburb of Philadelphia where Netanyahu graduated from high school. Netanyahu speaks English with a Philadelphia accent.

After graduating from high school, Netanyahu returned to his native country and  served with the Israel Defense Forces during the Six-Day War in 1967. He later became a team leader in the Sayeret Matkal Special Forces unit. He took part in many missions, including Operation Inferno (1968), Operation Gift (1968), and Operation Isotope (1972), during which he was shot in the shoulder. He fought in the front lines in the War of Attrition and the Yom Kippur War in 1973.

Benjamin Netanyahu participated  in special forces raids along the Suez Canal. He led a commando assault deep into Syrian territory. Netanyahu was wounded in combat twice. He was promoted to the rank of captain before being discharged. In 1976 Netanyahu lost his older brother, who was killed in action during the hostage-rescue mission in which his unit rescued more than 100 Israeli hostages who had been hijacked by terrorists and flown to the Entebbe Airport in Uganda.

Benjamin Netanyahu graduated from Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) near the top of his class.  From 1976 to 1978 he worked with the Boston Consulting Group together with Mitt Romney. Netanyahu was appointed Israel ambassador to the United Nations in 1984 and served for two years.

First Premiership: 1996–1999

In 1996, Netanyahu was elected Prime Minister, becoming the youngest person and the first Israeli Prime Minister to be born in the State of Israel. After being defeated in his reelection as Prime Minister by Ehud Barak in 1999, Netanyahu temporarily retired from politics.

With the fall of the Barak government in late 2000, Netanyahu expressed his desire to return to politics. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon appointed Netanyahu as Foreign Minister  and he served in that position from 2002 to 2003 and later as Finance Minister from 2003 to 2005.

Second Premiership: 2009–2013

In 2009, Netanyahu was elected Prime Minister at the same time that Barack Obama became president. Netanyahu said to Obama that any continuation of negotiations with the Palestinians would be conditioned on the Palestinians recognizing Israel as a Jewish state. President Obama told Netanyahu that a two state solution was a priority for the United States and called for settlement growth to be frozen.

Netanyahu refused to support the creation of a Palestinian nation unless Jerusalem remained the capital of Israel, the Palestinians would have no army, and would give up their demand for a right of return. He stated that Israel has the right to continue building settlements. On June 4, 2009, President Obama gave a speech in Cairo  addressed the Muslim world. He stated that “The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements.”

On September 24, 2009, in an address to the United Nations General Assembly in New York City, Netanyahu stated that Iran presents a threat to the peace of the world. He urged the United Nations to prevent the Islamic Republic of Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. Recalling the memory of his own family members murdered by the Nazis, Netanyahu delivered a passionate speech asking the Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who had questioned  the Holocaust, “Have you no shame?”

Third Premiership: 2013–present

Secretary of State John Kerry and Netanyahu in Jerusalem in July 2014.

In the 2013 election Netanyahu returned to power. In April 2014, Netanyahu voiced major concern when Hamas joined the Palestinian Authority to form a unity government, but Obama paid no attention.

Netanyahu served with distinction with  the Israel Defense Forces and fought bravely in various wars. Does this story sounds like Benjamin Netanyahu is a coward and a “chickenshit?” Has Barack Obama served one day in our military? Have the two officials, who are really the ones who are cowards and “chickenshit,” for attacking the Prime Minister of Israel anonymously, ever served on any branch of our Armed Forces? Have any member of the White House staff or the president ever been wounded twice in combat? Has the White House ever called the leaders of our enemy nations cowards and “chickenshit?” Of course not! On the contrary, President Barack Obama has demonstrated extreme weakness and cowardice in dealing with our enemies. Instead of the president standing firm against all of our nation’s enemies, he asked Vladimir Putin for “flexibility” and “space” until after his reelection. Barack Obama look yourself in the mirror and you will see a coward and a “chickenshit” staring at you!

Jeffrey Goldberg wrote an article titled “The Crisis in U.S.-Israel Relations is Officially Here” which was published in Atlantic magazine on October 28, 2014. The reporter pointed out that the Obama administration is upset over Israel’s settlement policies and Netanyahu’s government openly stating contempt for Obama’s understanding of the Middle East. Goldberg believes that there will be deep changes in the relationship between the two countries.

Goldberg pointed out that these comments are yet another sign that relations between the Obama and Netanyahu governments have moved toward a full-blown crisis. The relationship between these two allies is now the worst it has ever been and would probably get even worse after the November 2014 midterm elections. The reporter explained that by next year, the Obama administration may actually withdraw diplomatic cover for Israel at the United Nations. Additionally, Israel and the United States will have a major disagreement over Iran and its nuclear program.

If there is a foreign leader who is deeply frustrated with President Barack Obama that is Benjamin Netanyahu. He knows well that he cannot trust the president to protect his nation which is facing an existential threat from Iran. As Goldberg indicated, “Netanyahu has told several people I’ve spoken to in recent days that he has “written off” the Obama administration, and plans to speak directly to Congress and to the American people should an Iran nuclear deal be reached.”

Jeffrey Goldberg wrote that over the years, Obama administration officials have described Netanyahu to me as “recalcitrant, myopic, reactionary, obtuse, blustering, pompous, and Aspergery”. The senior White House official told Goldberg the following: “The good thing about Netanyahu is that he’s scared to launch wars. The bad thing about him is that he won’t do anything to reach an accommodation with the Palestinians or with the Sunni Arab states. The only thing he’s interested in is protecting himself from political defeat. He’s got no guts.”

Goldberg explained that the White House in 2010 and 2012 was convinced that Netanyahu and his then defense minister, Ehud Barak, were readying a strike on Iran. Today, there are few such fears. The feeling now is that Netanyahu is bluffing. The White House consensus is that Netanyahu’s threat to strike is now an empty one. This is why the White House continues to negotiate endlessly with Iran while that nation continues to enrich uranium with the intention of creating nuclear weapons. Iran’s leaders do not fear our weak and indecisive commander-in-chief.

Prime Minister Netanyahu has criticized those who condemn Israeli expansion plans in East Jerusalem as “disconnected from reality.” President Barack Obama nor Secretary of State John Kerry understand that the creation of a Palestinian state would be dominated by Hamas and that is not in the best interest of Israel or the United States.

Goldberg said that he does not remember Israel and the U.S. having such a period of sustained and mutual contempt. The reporter stated the following: “Much of the anger felt by Obama administration officials is rooted in the Netanyahu government’s periodic explosions of anti-American condescension. The Israeli defense minister, Moshe Ya’alon, in particular, has openly denounced the Obama administration as naive, or worse, on matters related to U.S. policy in the Middle East.” In retaliation, President Obama, Secretary of State Kerry (who was labeled as “obsessive” and “messianic” by Ya’alon), and Susan Rice, the national security advisor, refused to meet with Ya’alon on his trip to Washington.

Goldberg concluded his article in Atlantic magazine by stating: “It would also be unsurprising, post-November, to see the Obama administration take a step Netanyahu is loath to see it take: a public, full lay-down of the administration’s vision for a two-state solution, including maps delineating Israel’s borders. These borders, to Netanyahu’s horror, would be based on 1967 lines, with significant West Bank settlement blocs attached to Israel in exchange for swapped land elsewhere. Such a lay-down would make explicit to Israel what the U.S. expects of it.”  This, of course, will never be accepted by Israel for this would mean the end of the Jewish state.

An issue not discussed by Jeffrey Goldberg is the fact that President Barack Obama is funding the Palestinian Authority, which now has created a unity government including Hamas in violation of federal law. He did not mentioned either  how Barack Obama has allowed the Muslim Brotherhood to infiltrate his government. Goldberg has not explained that Barack Obama is a hidden radical Muslim. He has not discussed that the  president’s brother Malik Obama is helping terrorists in the Middle East.

The Washington Examiner wrote an opinion article on the criticism of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu by White House senior staffers. The article explained that during the 2008 presidential election, as some people questioned Obama’s support for Israel, the established media allies pursued an aggressive counteroffensive. Weeks before the election, Jeffrey Goldberg wrote an article in Atlantic titled, “Dear Jews: Stop the Obama Paranoia.” Goldberg stated the following: “All you rumor-mongering, fever-headed Jewish conspiracists: Support McCain, if you want, and there are credible reasons for doing so, but stop smearing Obama in the face of overwhelming evidence that the man is a great friend of Jews and of Israel. After a point, it becomes obvious that what you fear is not Israel’s destruction, but the presence of an African-American in the White House. And that’s disgusting.”

The Washington Examiner  pointed out that the critics of President Obama have been vindicated. For six years, the Obama administration has taken an increasingly hostile position towards Israel while bending over backwards to make concessions to Iran. Supporters of Obama want to draw a distinction between being anti-Israel and simply disliking Netanyahu, whom they regard as obstinate. The Obama administration may now withdraw diplomatic cover for Israel at the United Nations. Obama is now taking a more belligerent attitude toward Israel. Obama immediately denounced Israel for building homes around Israel’s capital city of Jerusalem, focusing on the issue as if it were the biggest obstacle to Middle East peace. Obama and top administration officials have blamed  the housing construction whenever the peace process has stalled.

The Washington Examiner explained the following: “Obama have held up Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas as a real peace partner, despite his history of Holocaust denial and support for terrorism, his rejection of the key tenets of the administration’s proposed peace framework, and the fact that he has no real authority to implement any significant concessions even if he actually agreed to them, because of the dominance of the terrorist group Hamas. Despite his campaign promises to the contrary, the Obama administration has pursued talks with Hamas, even as the terrorists launch rockets and dig terror tunnels for murderous raids against civilians — and the group clings to its goal of exterminating Israel. Meanwhile, Netanyahu has been excoriated for refusing to agree to demands by the Obama administration that would put Israeli security at risk in the face of these threats. Netanyahu was portrayed as “a chickenshit” by the administration not only for lacking the political courage to side with Obama and Abbas over the Israeli public that elected him, but also for actually trusting the administration’s reassurances about Iran’s nuclear program.”

Malik Obama and his Terrorist Connections

Walid Shoebat, a former member of the Muslim Brotherhood and author of books, wrote an article in his Blog entitled “Confirmed: Obama’s Brother in Bed with Terrorists” on May 28, 2013. Shoebat reported that Malik Obama, President Barack Obama’s half-brother, is the Executive Secretary of the Islamic Da´wa Organization (IDO) of Sudan as reported by all major Saudi Arabia media. The IDO was created by the government of Sudan, a nation which is considered by the State Department as a terrorist nation. It is incredible that the president’s brother, Malik Obama, is working as an official of an organization in the worst terrorist Muslim Brotherhood-controlled country in the world!

The Muslim Brotherhood bloody dictator of Sudan, Omar al-Bashir, is wanted by the International Criminal Court (ICC) on seven counts relating to crimes against humanity. The government of Sudan has been committing genocide and crimes against humanity for a number of years against the Christian population in the southern part of that country. Tens of thousands of Christians in Sudan have been assassinated, Christian women are being raped and Christian children are being kidnapped and forced to live with Muslim families in the Islamic part of the country. This is exactly the same thing that the Islamic State Caliphate is doing today in Iraq and Syria.

In October 2005, al-Bashir’s regime negotiated an end to the Second Sudanese Civil War by giving limited autonomy to Southern Sudan. Later on, a referendum took place in the South and resulted in the separation of the south into the separate country of South Sudan. In the Darfur region, the Muslim Brotherhood government of Sudan has assassinated up to 400,000 Christians. Thousands of Christian women were raped and kidnapped and given to Muslim men in the north of the country as well as their Christian children. All of them were forced to become Muslims. The civil war has displaced over 2.5 million people out of a total population of 6.2 million in Darfur.

Shoebat included in his article several pictures of Malik Obama attending and speaking at Islamic Da´wa Organization (IDO) conference in Khartoum, the capital of Sudan in 2010. These pictures will be shown later on.

One of the major objectives of the IDO is to spread Saudi Arabia´s radical Wahhabist Islam across the African continent, the Middle East, the United States and the rest of the world. Al-Qaeda terrorists, including its founder Osama bin Laden, as well as most of the 9/11 terrorists who attacked our nation, were and are followers of the Wahhabist version of Islam. The dictator of Sudan Omar al-Bashir, according to Shoebat, supervised the IDO conference that Malik Obama attended and spoke in 2010.

World Net Daily (WND) senior staff reporter Dr. Jerome R. Corsi, a Harvard Ph.D. and author of many bestseller books, including, The Obama Nation, wrote an article entitled “Obama’s Brother Linked to Muslim Brotherhood” for the electronic magazine World Net Daily (WND) on August 20, 2013. Corsi pointed out that new evidence links Malik Obama to Egypt´s Muslim Brotherhood and to the establishment of a controversial foundation in which IRS supervisor Lois Lerner signed the approval letter.

Corsi explained that the Vice President of the Supreme Constitutional Court of Egypt, Tehani al-Gebali, in an interview on Egyptian television stated the following: “We would like to inform the American people that the President’s brother is one of the architects of the major investments of the Muslim Brotherhood. We will carry out the law, and the Americans will not stop us. We need to open the files and begin court sessions. The Obama administration cannot stop us; they know that they supported terrorism, we will open the file so that these nations are exposed, to show how they collaborated with terrorists. It is for this reason that the American administration fights us.”

Raymond Ibrahim, author of two books, Crucified Again: Exposing Islam New War on Christians (2013) and The Al Qaeda Reader (2007) and a television channel news contributor, wrote an article entitled “Obama’s Brother: Muslim Brotherhood Leader?” for FrontPage Magazine on August 22, 2013. He also stated that the Vice President of the Supreme Constitutional Court in Egypt, Tehani al-Gebali, spoke on Bitna al-Kibir, a live television show, and said that “the time was nearing when all the conspiracies against Egypt would be exposed, conspiracies explaining why the Obama administration is so vehemently supportive of the Muslim Brotherhood, whose terrorism has, among other atrocities, caused the destruction of some 80 Christian churches in less than one week.”

Ibrahim reported that Al-Gebali referred to “documents and proofs” which Egypt´s intelligence agencies possess and how these documents record massive financial exchanges between international bodies and the Muslim Brotherhood. She added the following: “Obama’s brother is one of the architects of investment for the international organization of the Muslim Brotherhood”.

Walid Shoebat indicated that the relationship between President Barack Obama’s half-brother, Malik Obama, and Sudan’s President, Omar al-Bashir, is very close. How significant is this? Very significant. The IDO has been created by the Sudanese government. Sudan and it is considered by the U.S. State Department as a terrorist nation since 1993. Shoebat wrote the following: “This places Malik Obama in bed with terrorists and working as an official with a terrorist state. We have the evidence to prove it in meetings, photos, etc. In 2010, Malik Obama attended the IDO conference in Khartoum, the capital of Sudan. One of the objectives of the IDO is to spread Wahhabist Islam across the African continent. President Al-Bashir supervised the IDO conference.

Malik Obama at the podium during the IDO Conference in Sudan. One of the objectives of the IDO is to spread Wahhabist Islam across the African continent. President Al-Bashir supervised the IDO conference. Malik and Barack Obama are very close. Each was the best man at the other’s wedding and Malik has made multiple visits to the White House.

Malik Obama provides funds for Hamas

Walid Shoebat wrote an article titled “Obama’s Brother Funds Hamas” which was published in the Shoebat Blog on January 30, 2014. Shoebat pointed out the following: “If you think that Malik Obama, president Obama’s brother, dons a Hamas scarf for sentimental reasons only, think again. Malik Obama supports Hamas financially and he needs to be investigated investigated for his terror ties.

Shoebat explained that as Executive Secretary of the Islamic Da’wa Organization (IDO), Malik Obama helps to lead an organization that collects funds and sends them directly to Hamas. This information can be found on several Islamic websites.

Shoebat wrote the following:

“Malik Obama is a fundraiser for the Islamic Da’wa Organization (IDO). While IDO is supposed to be for “Da’wa” which strictly means, “to proselytize”, or “spreading the good news of Islam,” it does much more. IDO also has raised funds for Gaza relief. These are unmonitored funds that use a bank known for its links to al-Qaeda. The funds are then distributed through Hamas to whichever way they like to spend them. For example, one fund to aid Hamas links to IDO and is advertized by the Muslim Brotherhood as “Aiding Our Brothers in Gaza,” which is set up in the Al Shamal Bank, an al-Qaeda bank that was founded by Osama bin Laden. The Al Shamal Bank, as explained in a 1996 State department report: Bin Laden co-founded the Al Shamal bank with a group of wealthy Sudanese and capitalized it with $50 million of his inherited fortune… The Al Shamal bank was also identified as one of bin Laden’s principal financial entities during the trial earlier this year of four al-Qaeda operatives convicted in the 1998 bombings of the two U.S. embassies in Africa. In fact, the banking of Malik Obama’s IDO through Al Shamal is ironclad and is advertised on their own websites.”

President Barack Obama is funding the unity government of the Palestinian Authority and Hamas with $400 annually

An article posted in the Inquisitr Blog explained that there are reports coming and showing that President Barack Obama is on the side of the Hamas by funding by $400 million in U.S. taxpayer dollars. According to the initial article by The Wall Street Journal, the U.S. taxpayer may soon become an indirect party to the enterprise of supporting the terrorist group Hamas. U.S. law forbids taxpayer support of any group heavily influenced by Hamas. How is it possible for the Obama administration to be funding Hamas?

The article explained that Palestinian President, Mahmoud Abbas, said on television: “Today, we declare the end of the split and regaining the unity of the homeland.” The split Abbas was talking about was between his Fatah faction and Hamas. The Palestinian Authority is uniting with the terrorist group Hamas. U.S. prohibits supporting “foreign terrorist organizations.” However, the U.S. does support the Palestinian Authority with $400 million per year. Part of that money might be going to the Hamas. President Barack Obama has refused to cut off funding to the Palestinians, even though Hamas has merged with the Palestinian Authority.

The article also stated that Barack Obama has no intention of recognizing the Palestinian Authority as a terrorist-supporting organization because it would be in violation of the statute passed in 1997. Now the only obstacle in the way of this becoming a reality is Congress. They are the only ones who can block funding for the Palestinians until they are capable of governing themselves as something other than a terrorist enterprise.

Patrick Goodenough wrote an article entitled “Israel ‘Deeply Disappointed’ U.S. Will Fund Palestinian-Hamas Unity Government” which was published by CNSNews.org on June 2, 2014. After weeks of unity talks, Abbas swore in a Hamas-backed cabinet of technocrats on June 2, 2014. The reporter explained that the difficult relationship between the Obama administration and the Israeli government would get worse after the State Department confirm that the United States will work with and fund a newly-created Palestinian “unity” government backed by the terrorist group Hamas. Senior officials cited in Israeli media said the government of Israel was “deeply disappointed” with the decision of United States.

An Israeli official stated the following: “If the U.S. administration wants to advance peace, it should be calling on Palestinian Authority chairman Mahmoud Abbas to end his pact with Hamas and return to peace talks with Israel. Instead, it is enabling Abbas to believe that it is acceptable to form a government with a terrorist organization.”

The reporter wrote that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appealed to “responsible elements within the international community not to hurry to recognize” it. The 2006 Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act makes assistance to the Palestinian Authority conditional on its compliance with obligations to renounce and combat violence, recognize Israel’s right to exist, and abide by existing agreements. Hamas, a U.S.-designated foreign terrorist organization since 1997, has consistently refused to meet the conditions set on this law.

Goodenough pointed out that just a month ago the State Department’s Assistant Secretary for the Near East, Anne Patterson, assured the House Foreign Affairs subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa on April 29, 2014 that unless Hamas – not Abbas or any other Palestinian Authority official – declares support for this law, no U.S. funds will go to any government that includes Hamas. Congress placed restrictions in appropriation legislation which prohibits funding for “any entity effectively controlled by Hamas, any power sharing government of which Hamas is a member, or that results from an agreement with Hamas and over which Hamas exercises undue influence.”

Goodenough explained that “Abbas is attempting to get around those hurdles by not having Hamas officials directly involved in the cabinet – even though the government was spawned by a unity agreement between his Fatah organization and Hamas. The two rivals have been at odds since Hamas violently seized control of the Gaza Strip from Fatah in 2007.”

Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Republican from South Florida stated the following: “Whether it’s a government comprised of Hamas technocrats or an interim government that includes more active members of Hamas, the administration must not fall for this latest scheme by Abu Mazen Abbas and Hamas. The Palestinian leaders know that a unity government would trigger U.S. law to cut off funding, so now they are trying to find loopholes in order to say that they are still abiding by the conditions our laws mandate.” She urged the administration not to fall for Abbas “latest ploy and instead enforce U.S. law and cut off funding.”

Goodenough wrote that Republican Senators Mark Kirk from Illinois and Marco Rubio from Florida also called on the administration to “enforce the law” and suspend funding, arguing in a joint statement that “U.S. credibility as well as Israel’s security are at stake.”

Conclusion

It is an outrage that White House officials have criticized and insulted Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and that the United States relations with Israel is the worst it has ever been. Netanyahu knows who Barack Obama really is and how his own brother, Malik Obama, is supporting Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. Additionally, Obama’s eldest half-brother worked with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and a terrorist organization in Sudan. Congress should investigate Malik Obama’s terror ties.

Both President Barack Obama and his brother Malik Obama are financially supporting Hamas in violation of a 1997 U.S. law which prohibits supporting foreign terrorist organizations. Why are all members of Congress not denouncing this outrageous violation and stopping all funding to the Palestinian Authority and Hamas?

It must be remembered that Barack Obama supported Morsi´s Muslim Brotherhood government of Egypt until its final day in power. The president has a close relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood connected Iman Mohamed Magid from Sudan. Obama has made the Sudanese-born Iman Mohamed Magid an advisor to the White House, FBI, CIA, and the Department of Homeland Security and has given him access to all of these agencies, which are involved in national security. Iman Magid is president of the largest Muslim Brotherhood front in the nation, the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). This large organization was identified as an unindicted co-conspirator during the prosecution of the Holy Land Foundation in 2008. In spite of this decision, Iman Magid has helped change the training manuals of the FBI to purge documents offensive to Islam. Attorney General Eric Holder has met with him, even though his predecessor, President George W. Bush’s Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, refused to meet with Magid after the designation of ISNA as an unindicted co-conspirator.

Obama invited Magid to the White House the day before he delivered a major speech at the State Department on May 19, 2011. Magid applauded Obama when, for the first time, a U.S. president demanded that Israel withdraw to the indefensible pre-1967 borders. The Secretary of Homeland Security appointed Magid, Dalia Mogahed, and other Islamists to its Countering Violent Extremism Working Group. How completely inappropriate is to invite individuals who have connections with the Muslim Brotherhood to such a committee!

It is becoming more clear each day that Barack Obama has allowed the Muslim Brotherhood to infiltrate his government. The involvement of his own half-brother with the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas is an indication of the president’s support for terrorist organizations. The media must bring this information to the attention of the American people. Republicans in Congress must not only denounced it, but file impeachment articles against Obama. The American people deserve justice and to learn the truth of what is going on in the White House.

 

What Mexico Has Planned for Americans Should Lead to a Complete Boycott


This is more the norm for a country than what we have here which is really nothing more than George Soros’ Open Border policy

deacon303's avatarWhiskey Tango Foxtrot

You would think that, after the massive gift of amnesty from President Barack Obama, Mexico would be pretty happy with the United States.

Think again.

Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto has been known to stick his nose into American immigration policy over the years, at least as it pertains to Mexico.

For instance, he’s been on record as praising California’s laissez faire attitude towards illegals, while criticizing Texas and Gov. Rick Perry for having the unmitigated gall to enforce the law.

Now, according to TPNNPresident Nieto’s own immigration department is levying a tax on Americans crossing the border.

The new fee applies to any American crossing the border by foot who stays in Mexico for seven days or longer or is going on work-related purposes.

The fee is so far only applicable at the border crossings of Otay, San Ysidro/El Chaparral and Puerta Mexico Este.

If you’re eating…

View original post 172 more words

Nearly 100 Indian women die after being ‘forced’ into government-run sterilization camps


All part of the UN/Globalists depopulation program!

Egypt court dismisses charges against Muslim Brotherhood jailed Mubarak


Very interesting as this goes against everything that Obama was doing — I bet Putin has something to do with this!

NATO To Deploy Tanks In Eastern Europe Shortly After VP Of Europarliament Says Ukraine-Russia War Imminent


Deploring armor is not a good sign!

More Nails In U.S. Dollar’s Coffin: Russian Ruble Exchanges With Turkey & India.


The destruction of the dollar is all most complete

Volubrjotr's avatarPolitical Vel Craft

Russian Rubel With New Federated Flag Following The Removal Of The Last Rothschild Soviet ~ Mikhail Gorbachev In 1991. Russian Rubel With New Federated Flag Following The Removal Of The Last Rothschild Soviet ~ Mikhail Gorbachev In 1991.

Russia and Turkey are set to work on increasing payments between the countries in their national currencies, the Russian-Turkish Intergovernmental Commission said Wednesday.

“The working group on financial and banking cooperation, taking into account information about detected barriers, is to continue its work to eliminate them and increase the volume of payments in the national currencies of Turkey and Russia,” the commission said.

Both sides noted the absence of legal and infrastructural constraints for conducting payments in their national currencies and agreed to work alongside representatives of the business communities to identify possible obstacles. Russia Insider

View original post 425 more words

Russian battleships in the English Channel, say they’re training


A show of force from Russia. The news got some of this wrong — that is not a battle ship but appears to be more a Cruise. Other sources claim its a large antisubmarine ship “North Sea” sailing out of the closed Naval) port of Severomorsk..

No, Australia’s ABC Media Isn’t Biased. Aren’t The Greens Just Preaching Revolution And Racial Division As The New Normal?


When you are ignorant stupid or a politicians the truth doesn’t matter!

PA Pundits - International's avatarPA Pundits International

Bolt New 01By Andrew Bolt ~

Australian Broadcasting Corporation Logo Australian Broadcasting Corporation Logo

Australia’s ABC Media biased? Of course not.

ABC presenter Fran Kelly this morning interviews a US academic, Rosa Clemente, about the Ferguson riots, in which violent black mobs are destroying shops and cars because a jury cleared an innocent white policeman of having a case to answer of murdering a black thief.

In her unbiased way, Kelly allows the academic to make the following comments unchallenged.

– “the destruction of property to me is not a violent act”

– police are “an occupying force”

– black Americans have “grown up under occupation” by police

– blacks are “slaughtered in the streets” by police

– the riots in Ferguson, in which the mobs are looting, burning and shooting, are actually “organised struggle”.

Not once does Kelly question this defence of mindless mob violence, this race-based narrative, this vilification of police, this baseless…

View original post 854 more words

America in Retreat: The New Isolationism and the Coming Global Disorder


This is vintage Bret Stephens: wise, comprehensive, and penetrating.

Forwarded by Prof. Paul Eidelberg

Pulitzer Prize-winning Wall Street Journal columnist Bret Stephens’s new book, America in Retreat: The New Isolationism and the Coming Global Disorder, presents the dangers of an isolationist foreign policy and prescribes a solution for bringing America back to the forefront of the international community.

Speaking to Breitbart News, Stephens expands on his notions of decline and retreat, why America should be the world’s policeman and not its priest, and how a robust foreign policy benefits Main Street America.

In your book, you note that there are two strains of thought in American foreign policy that call for limiting defense spending and international influence– one on the left and one on the right. Do you see the civil libertarian wing of the Republican Party as an equal, lesser, or greater threat to our national security than similarly-minded Democrats?

I don’t know, that’s hard to say. Error of opinion should be combated wherever it is found. I think that it is worrisome that the party that has most consistently stood on the right side of all great national security issues of our day, going back many decades, now finds itself infected with the same kind of “come home, America” mentality that has typified the McGovernite Left for more than 40 years.

What I hope Republicans take away from my book is that the call for reducing our commitments overseas for the sake of shrinking the size of government is a siren call. Any conservative should know that the countries that have the smallest militaries in the West are also the countries that have the biggest debts. Look at Europe; look at Japan. And that is because money that is supposed to be saved by cutting the defense budget never goes back to the taxpayers, it never goes to the productive side of the economy. It goes to further funding of the welfare state. So conservatives who foolishly think we can scrimp and save on defense in order to reduce our deficit are telling themselves a fable. Not to mention all the dangers of minimizing or reducing America’s strategic footprint at just the moment when Russia is on the march, ISIS is on the march, China is approaching on the South China Sea, and Iran is on the cusp of nuclear capability.

Do you predict that we will see more of this “McGovernite” attitude among Republican contenders in 2016?

Well, hopefully my book will have some effect by persuading some leading Republican contenders for the nomination that the Rand Paul recipe for foreign policy is crazy, at least as I’ve previously heard Paul define it. I shouldn’t say crazy—really misguided. And I want conservative readers—and this book is really written largely with conservative readers in mind—to understand that it is wrong to suggest that foreign policy and domestic policy are in a zero-sum game. That what we invest in our security or invest in our alliances is somehow taken away from Main Street America. Main Street America walks around with Samsung phones in their pockets, built in a country that we’ve defended for the past 60 years that went from being one of the most backwards countries in the world to being one of our greatest trading partners. That’s part of American prosperity, so we have to understand that we will never be prosperous at home unless we are also secure and also securing friends from Estonia to Israel to Taiwan.

Are there places in the world where we should be establishing more of a presence, perhaps unlikely contenders for American military aid outside of the nations already heavily associated with U.S. presence?

We need to be careful about where our priorities lie, not only strategically, but geographically. We need to be particularly mindful of helping the defense of those countries that stand on the border of the free and the unfree world. That’s Estonia—between the European Union and Russia. That’s Ukraine. That’s South Korea. That’s Israel. So the idea of the pivot, which was such a big deal in the Obama administration, is fundamentally misguided, because our strategy cannot just be based on geography, it also has to be based on political realities.

For Republicans who may want to agree with you but see Republican intervention abroad in the last decade or so as problematic, what can they learn from the mistakes of the Bush administration in Iraq and what actions that weren’t mistakes can they use as guidance?

We’ve had many misadventures in the past decade in the Middle East, but one of the points that I try to make in the book is to explain what was right about the Iraq war and what was wrong about it. And if I had to sum it up in a couple of sentences, it would be this: we went into Iraq to make an example of Saddam Hussein, and that was the right thing to do. We stayed in Iraq to try to make Iraq exemplary as an Arab democracy, and that was the wrong thing to do.

Making examples for the sake of enforcing global norms, liberal order, and punishing evil violators of that order—that’s the right way to connect with foreign policy, as a policeman. But attempting to heal crippled societies as if we were the world’s priest or doctor, changing hearts and saving souls, that’s the wrong foreign policy. It’s wrong not just because of the cultural realities of the Middle East itself and the absence of traditional liberal democratic values, it’s also wrong for the political realities of the United States, which are not interested in ten-year-long wars.

Can you elaborate on the difference between “decline,” and “retreat,” and how American can be in retreat without being in decline?

I really do not believe for one second that America is in decline, although I do notice that a lot of people like to say that it is in decline because they favor a policy of retreat. The difference between decline and retreat, I would say, is this: decline is a product of broad cultural and even civilizational forces that are beyond the reach of ordinary politics. For example: How would a Russian leader, even Putin with all his power, get Russians to have more babies? Very hard to do. Russia has this massive demographic problem because Russian couples aren’t having children.

How do you get the Japanese to accept that, given their demographic realities, they have to start taking in many more immigrants, bringing into question the whole concept, ethnically, of “Japanese-ness”?

So these are countries that are in decline on account of these large, supra-political forces. On the other hand, retreat is just a policy choice. Retreat is what happens when you get Barack Obama in office talking about nation-building at home and acting defensively, or indifferently, or reactively to foreign policy crises. Its’ a choice that he made, and it’s a choice that we can undo. American retreat is about choices that were made and what we can do about them.

If there is no decline, what is the appeal of a policy of retreat?

There are always signs of decline. Adam Smith famously said “there’s a lot of ruin in the nation.” The question is whether you look at those pieces of ruin and you think it’s a sign of decline, or you think it’s a sign of rebuilding, or a reality of everyday life. Look back on what was being said in the 1950s about the state of American education and how we were falling behind the Russians and how we weren’t teaching Johnny and Jane to compete when it came to math skills and all the rest of it. Now I think most of us would look back at the high schools of the 1950s and say they were a golden era in terms of the quality of public education.

So there is always this idea that you are in decline. The question is: are you really in decline, or are you just looking at everyday evidence of something that isn’t meeting your expectations and calling it a sign of decline? So Americans looked at what happened in Iraq—by historical standards, a relatively small, if very long, war—and said “well, you see, we can’t win wars anymore.”

And they looked at the recession of 2008, which by historical standards is actually not the deepest recession, and they said “we’re never going to be able to get back to high levels of growth and real, full employment.” So they took these pieces and treated them as proof positive of a proposition that the country is in decline, so we therefore have to scale back our military commitments.

I don’t see a recession or an inconclusive and difficult war as sending the country with the largest economy on earth into decline. When you think about Britain, Britain lost a quarter of its national wealth fighting the Second World War, and this was just twenty years after it also lost much of its wealth and many of its citizens fighting the First World War. It takes a heck of a lot to send a country into decline.

Many of us probably have moments of hypochondria where we think some pimple is cancer. That doesn’t mean it’s cancer. And we run the risk of misdiagnosing the state of the nation, and as a result prescribing the wrong medicine, and having the wrong medicine do us more damage that what had been ailing us at the start.

Russia and China: What is Happening Beneath the Propaganda Curtain?


This is a re-post from NEO link at the end and posted there on 25.11.2014 by: Caleb Maupin

20140422130636!Russkij-medved-9PNQTguKyJ1EAs Russia announces a new gas deal with China, the voices in the US and European media are anything but delighted. The idea that Russia and China are constructing a natural gas pipeline that will transport millions of dollars worth of resources – and from which no Wall Street or London-based corporations will make any profits — is a sign of the changing nature of the global markets.

The reports of negotiations between US President Barack Obama and Chinese Premier Xi Jinping are causing some to be a little less nervous. The establishment of protocols for military exercises can give some relief to those who fear a possible military confrontation in the near future. 

The tension, caused by the changing global economic landscape, has not faded one bit. African countries are growing closer to China. Various Latin American governments have welcomed Russian President Vladimir Putin and expanded economic relations with Russia. The circles of western economic power are losing their grip.

The rise of these two new players on the global markets is being met with violence. As Ukraine grew friendlier to Russia, the elected government was overthrown and fascist violence was unleashed on the population. Conflict and suffering continues in East Ukraine. 

Syria, an ally of Russia and China, has been ripped apart by a US-backed terrorist insurgency. Bombs now fall within its borders in violation of international law.

Iran, which is very close to China and growing closer to Russia, has been subjected to harsh economic sanctions and attempts to destroy its peaceful nuclear energy program.

Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, and Cuba are facing Washington efforts to overthrow their popular governments. High-ranking Venezuelan official Robert Serra was assassinated, and the isolated, US-backed “Venezuelan opposition” is growing more desperate and vicious.

In every corner of the world, the battle is raging between the section of the world economy controlled by Wall Street and London on the one hand, and the rising opposition to it on the other – in which Russia and China are major players.

Current events don’t fit into Cold War narratives about communism and capitalism. While the western media would have us believe that US opposition to all these various regimes is based on “human rights” concerns, this is obviously not the case.

To understand what is happening in the eastern parts of the world, and why our government is growing dangerously hostile to Russia, China, and the many countries aligning with them, one must understand a certain period of US history.

The Populist Upsurge

Following the US Civil War, there was a mass uprising of people in the United States against big business. The coalition of “Free Soilers” and abolitionists that Lincoln had utilized to defeat the southern slave plantation owners did not dissolve after the war, but continued for several decades into a mass movement that thundered with hatred for bankers and the ultra-rich.

Unlike the “left” of current times, the majority of this movement did not have a Marxist worldview, and did not identify with the industrial working class. The majority in the movement were small farmers, who were in debt to banks and persecuted by big landowners. The movement also contained small business owners and shopkeepers who feared being crushed by the big “trusts.”  Recently freed African Americans saw this movement as a potential ally. Though the early labor movement and socialists identified with these mass movements, they were not its leading force, and struggled for what little influence they had in it.

This alliance pushed for the abolition of the gold standard, and wanted an end to government protections for big business.  Its leaders called for certain big economic pillars of society, such as railroads, to be taken under public ownership. This movement was also opposed to war and militarism, and formed a huge peace organization called the “Anti-Imperialist League.”

The millions who made up this massive coalition saw US intervention in Cuba and the Philippines, as well as other parts of the world, as a scheme to make money for Wall Street. Years before the powerful words of US Marine Corps General Smedley Butler, these forces had already discovered that “War is a Racket.”

The movement was very religious, and one of its principal leaders, William Jennings Bryan, was known for his opposition to Darwin’s theory of evolution. Many of the leaders of the movement were protestant Christian ministers.

This movement, which arose in the 1870s and declined in the early 1900s, was known as the “populist” movement. It seethed with hatred for the billionaires and bankers, but did not denounce “capitalism.” Instead, the target of the movement was “monopolists” and “trusts.” It wanted an “anti-monopoly government” that served “people, not money.”

Much of the rhetoric of the populist movement was hijacked by racists and fascists in the following decades, but the origins of the populist movement were anti-racist. The movement had its roots in the struggle to abolish slavery, and was the sworn enemy of the Ku Klux Klan and other neo-confederate groupings. In many instances, populists went out to fight Klansmen and racists. Many populist newspapers proclaimed racism to be tool of the big monopolies in their robbery of the people.

The “People’s Front” that the US Communist Party created during the 1930s was very inspired by this movement, and drew its rhetoric from it. William Z. Foster, the leader of the US Communist Party during the 1930s, first campaigned for William Jennings Bryan, before being won to Marxism-Leninism decades later after the Russian Revolution.

The Rise of Anti-Monopoly Governments

What do the governments of Iran, Syria, Zimbabwe, the People’s Republic of China, Venezuela, Belarus, and Russia all have in common?

On the surface, these governments are very different. Iran is an Islamic Republic based on very clear religious principles. Venezuela is a “Bolivarian Socialist Republic” that seeks to construct “21st Century Socialism.” Zimbabwe is led by African nationalist Robert Mugabe. China is led by the Communist Party, but has a vast capitalist market, and upholds “Deng Xiaoping Theory” as an alternative to planned economies that were once synonymous with communist-led states. Syria is led by the Arab Nationalist Baath Party. Belarus is led by Alexander Lukashenko, who preaches a kind of patriotic anti-capitalism. Russia is led by Vladimir Putin, who is largely considered to be a Russian nationalist.

None of these governments are ideologically identical. They all have a unique heritage, and different historical, religious, and ideological backgrounds.

But there are certain things they have in common.

All of these governments voice loud opposition to the financial monopolies of Wall Street and London, and the military aggression waged to keep their profits rolling in. All of these governments preside over a huge network of state-owned enterprises that make up a large bulk of their national economies. All of these governments face opposition from the wealthiest sectors of their respective countries, who have aligned with the United States and want “regime change.” All of these governments also enjoy massive popularity among low-income sectors of society, and have taken big measures to improve the living standards of the people.

In Venezuela, Bolivia, and Iran, state ownership of oil resources funds the social programs that benefit the population. In most of these societies, certain services like healthcare and education are provided free of charge by the state.

These governments all came into power as a result of explosions of mass outrage, revolutions, and the political involvement of millions of people.

The Iranian revolution overthrew a western-backed dictator who was a puppet of western oil corporations. The Bolivarian revolution of Venezuela can trace its roots to the “Caracazo” uprising against Neo-Liberal privatizations. Putin’s strength is loved for combatting the oligarchs who looted the country in the aftermath of the USSR’s demise. The Syrian Baath has its roots in the uprisings against French colonialism. Zimbabwe arose from an anticolonial struggle against the white settlers of “Rhodesia.”

If the late-1800s populist movement that railed against war, corruption, criminal bankers and railroad tycoons had taken power in the United States, the result would have been an economic setup much like Iran, Venezuela, Russia, or Syria. Key industries would have been nationalized. A capitalist market would have remained, but under constant fear and regulation by the state. A populist government would depend on support from a politically involved populace, as Wall Street would fight each day to overturn it.

A populist anti-monopoly government would have taken its actions in the name of morality and humanity. Populist leaders often expressed in religious terms why the power of capitalists and bankers had to be restricted and “the people” had to take priority.

The New Anti-Imperialists

Once the primary opposition to the US internationally was made up of forces that called themselves “Marxist-Leninist.” In the current period, it is a different kind of politics that is on the rise.

It’s worth noting that even the rhetoric through which the Communist Parties took power often sounded very populist, and was not the Marxist language of “surplus value” and “alienation.”

The Chinese Communist Party did not come to power on a program calling for “worker’s power” or “dictatorship of the proletariat.” The political line of the Chinese Communist Party in 1949 was for a “New Democratic Revolution,” led by a “bloc of four classes” including business owners, peasants, and intellectuals, as well as industrial workers.

The 1959 Cuban revolution was not fought in response to a call for worker’s power. Fidel Castro did not proclaim the goal of socialism until 1962, and the official Soviet-aligned Communist Party in Cuba had not originally been part of the July 26th Movement.

While Marxism-Leninism tends to be highly secular, and in some cases blatantly hostile to religion, the rising bloc of global resistance to the US contains many deeply religious tendencies.

The Islamic Republic of Iran was founded by Imam Khomeini, a man who lived a devout and humble life, and rallied his people against the evils of usury and moral decay. The Bolivarian movement of Latin America is led primarily by leaders who consider themselves to be Christians, and invoke the name of Jesus Christ and his “driving the money changers out of the temple.” The Syrian government is secular, but has become increasingly religious and pro-Islamic in the last decade. Though President Bashar Assad is Alawite, he has attended prayer in mosques, and worked to build ties with the country’s Sunni population.

However, as much as the new anti-imperialist current sweeping the globe is not Marxist-Leninist, communism has without question left its mark.

The Soviet Union no longer exists, having collapsed in the catastrophic events of 1991, but Russia would not be what it is today without it. It was the USSR’s Five-Year Plans of the 1930s that created the steel mills, oil refineries, mines, and other economic infrastructure that now strengthens the Russian economy. Prior to the Bolshevik Revolution, Russia was an impoverished agrarian society. Much of the “means of production” constructed by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and to be held in common by the workers are largely still state-owned.

The strength of the Chinese economy is also the huge state sector, forged in the aftermath of the 1949 revolution. The 2008-2009 financial crisis did not have the devastating impact on the Chinese economy that it had on capitalist economies, because a huge state apparatus was mobilized to keep people in China employed. Chinese capitalists have no “economic rights.” The multi-million-member Communist Party has the final say in all matters of politics and economy. Xi’s anti-corruption campaign serves as the most recent reminder of this fact.

The Resistance Forces in the West

The communists, social democrats and anarchists who make up the western “left” have always declared the Wall Street and London monopolists their enemies. However, in modern times, all but a small minority of leftists has refused to build links with the new anti-imperialists forces emerging around the globe.

Most leftists do not cheer for the Chinese Communist Party, as it pushes around corporations like McDonald’s on behalf of the public and builds hospitals and trains in Africa. Instead, too many leftists echo the New York Times and cheer for the minority of wealthy university students in Hong Kong who “Occupy Central” with Wall Street NGOs funding them.

Likewise, leftists do not support the Syrian Arab Republic, born out of an anticolonial struggle, as its government battles Wall Street-backed takfiris. Many leftists have been cheering for the terrorists, and repeat the Pentagon line that “Assad must go.”

With the exception of Latin America, the bulk of the western left has declared almost absolute, unapologetic opposition to the emerging anti-imperialist bloc.

Just like the western left failed to build alliances internationally, it has also failed to capture the energy of rising political movements within western countries. Occupy Wall Street and the explosions of resistance to austerity throughout the world from 2008-2012 caught the leftists who traditionally lead “activism” in western countries by complete surprise. Much of the left had no idea how to relate to it, and arguably grew weaker in its aftermath.

Many leftists seem not to realize that history is not made by ideas, but by existing social forces.

In the 1860s, Karl Marx was not neutral in the US Civil War. Lincoln was no anti-capitalist, but that was not the struggle at hand. Marx and his followers like August Willich, who led union soldiers into battle, understood that the abolitionist movement and the Union Army stood for social progress. By smashing the slavocracy, history was moving forward.

The forces of resistance to Wall Street and monopoly power cannot function as they did in 1980, 1968, 1935, or 1914. In a new world, new tactics and alliances must be made.

A global explosion against Wall Street is continuing. It takes place in the Middle East, in Africa, in Asia, and is gradually finding its way into Europe and the United States. The Ferguson uprising is seen by many as a sign of things to come, and events are still unfolding in Missouri. Not since the age of the populists have states like Missouri, Kansas, Iowa, and Nebraska been battlegrounds of social conflict. De-industrialization, the rising police state, and the economic crisis seem to have forced them back into the center stage of US history.

The many changes in the East are forcing changes in the West, and many more are to be expected. History is marching forward at a rapid pace, and new battlefields are opening up. What ultimately results is unlikely to fulfill anyone’s preconceived notions or predictions.

Caleb Maupin is a political analyst and activist based in New York. He studied political science at Baldwin-Wallace College and was inspired and involved in the Occupy Wall Street movement, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
First appeared: http://journal-neo.org/2014/11/25/russia-and-china-what-is-happening-beneath-the-propaganda-curtain/