This all began decades ago with Muslim's financing obama's poltical rise
http://strongandresolute.blogspot.com/2015/03/how-valarie-jaretts-father-explains.html
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/032615-745366-was-release-of-nuke-report-meant-to-aid-terrorist-iran-.htm
Obama Release Of Secret Report On Israel Nukes Betrays Ally
1147 Comments
03/26/2015 06:55 PM ET
Traffic passes by a sign showing the direction to Israel's Sorek nuclear reactor, near the central Israeli town of Yavne. Israel’s nuclear... View Enlarged Image
Mideast: Quietly, the Obama administration has released details of Israel's nuclear program through the Defense Department. It was no accident, and could have a devastating impact on the balance of power in the region.
The same administration that refused to divulge what's in its soon-to-be-concluded nuclear "deal" with Iran, last month stealthily released a top-secret 1987 report on Israel's nuclear program — information that might be used by Israel's enemies.
The 386-page report "describes in detail the march of Israeli military and technological advancement in the 1970s and '80s," wrote journalist Michael Karpin on the Jewish Daily Forward's blog site.
Karpin, author of the "The Bomb in the Basement — How Israel Went Nuclear and What That Means for the World," says the U.S. report pays "particular attention to the development and progression of Israel's nuclear infrastructure and research labs."
The 27-year-old classified report further hints that Israel was developing a hydrogen bomb, with power a thousand times greater than a regular atomic bomb.
"It should be emphasized that in the history of the relations between the two countries," wrote Karpin, "there is no other published official American document that mentions in any way the Israelis' development of hydrogen bombs." That's how unusual this is.
Of course, Israel's nuclear prowess is an open secret. But the details have heretofore been largely unknown — something that's called "constructive ambiguity" in nuclear diplomacy. Keep your enemy guessing.
As such, Obama's petulant move is clearly intended to weaken Israel and make it vulnerable. There is no other rational basis for doing this.
And, by the way, it's only the latest in a series of childish attacks by Obama on Israel, America's one true ally in the Mideast and the only country in the region to give all of its citizens full democratic and legal rights.
Ratcheting up the rhetoric, the administration just this week absurdly accused Israel of spying on talks with Iran so that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu could better argue against the talks' likely outcome — which is that Iran will eventually get a nuclear bomb.
Funny, we always thought that gathering information about what your enemy is up to isn't called spying, but intelligence gathering. That's what our own embassies do, routinely. Are they guilty of espionage too?
More seriously, by undercutting an ally that's threatened with extermination by the far-larger Iran, Obama betrays not just Israel, but America's own interests too.
Obama's recent actions, sadly, confirm the great Mideast scholar Bernard Lewis' dictum: "America is harmless as an enemy, (but) treacherous as a friend."
Simply put, who will trust us after such behavior?
As for the president, we have to wonder: Is this mere incompetence or intentional?
Read More At Investor's Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/032615-745366-was-release-of-nuke-report-meant-to-aid-terrorist-iran-.htm#ixzz3VapOqVym
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook
 |    |
Sol Hettena has sent you the following:
Obama Declares War on Israel
  Be the first of your friends to like this.
Many Arabs and Muslims are rubbing their hands in joy as they watch U.S. President Barack Obama declare war on Israel after the victory of Benjamin Netanyahu's Likud Party in last week's general election.
They do not see the rising tensions between Obama and Netanyahu as the result of a personal dispute between two leaders. Instead, the dispute is seen by many Arabs and Muslims as part of the Obama Administration's strategy to undermine Israel and force it to make territorial concessions that would pose an existential threat to Israel.
At the beginning of his first term in office, he raised high hopes in the Arab and Islamic countries when he rushed to deliver an apologetic speech at the Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated Al-Azhar University in Cairo. His speech left many Arabs and Muslims with the impression that here, finally, is an American president who is prepared to sacrifice Israel for the sake of appeasing its enemies.
Muslims have long considered Obama to be on their side in the conflict with Israel. They were expecting him to become the first U.S. president to abandon Israel in favor of Arabs and Muslims. But since the 2009 speech in Cairo, there has been great disappointment with Obama in the Arab and Islamic countries for failing to "do something" about Israel.
Now, at long last, the Obama Administration's increased hostility toward Israel is being welcomed in many Arab and Islamic capitals. They are overjoyed to see that after failing the Arabs and Muslims for the past six years, Obama seems finally to be moving in the "right" direction.
Terrorist groups such as Hamas, Hizbullah, Al-Qaeda and Islamic Jihad are also expressing satisfaction with what they see as Obama's "declaration of war" against Israel. Palestinian Authority officials in the West Bank are also celebrating over the fact that Israel has become the number one enemy of the Obama Administration.
This week, a Palestinian Authority official was quoted as saying that the Palestinians would not be surprised if President Obama himself joined their campaign to file war crimes charges against Israel before the International Criminal Court. The official was reported to have told a Ramallah-based Western diplomat that Obama hates Israel and this was good news for the Palestinians.
Israel's enemies have been sitting on its borders and waiting for an opportunity to attack. One of the reasons they have been reluctant until now to wage an all-out war to destroy Israel was their fear that the U.S. would come to Israel's rescue. But now, Hizbullah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Islamic State and other terror groups are hopeful that Obama has finally decided to abandon Israel.
The terrorists also have been following with great enthusiasm reports that the Obama Administration is considering reassessing its policy in the Middle East in the wake of Netanyahu's electoral victory. This is exactly the kind of news they have been waiting to hear for so many years -- that the U.S. no longer considers Israel its main strategic ally in the Middle East.
Reports that the Obama Administration will no longer support Israel in international forums and agencies, especially in the UN General Assembly and Security Council, are seen by a growing number of Arabs and Muslims as the beginning of the end of the partnership between the U.S. and Israel. This partnership has worried Israel's enemies for decades because it stands in the way of achieving their goal of wiping Israel off the face of the earth.
In short, Obama's anti-Israel stance is the best gift the Americans could have given to Islamist terrorists and radical Arabs. For the first time ever, the Obama Administration has created hope among Israel's enemies that the U.S. will at last give them his wholehearted support, just as he has been doing with Iran.
The sharp crisis between the Obama Administration and Israel has been taking place at a time when the U.S. is losing most of its Arab and Muslim friends, especially in Egypt, Jordan, Yemen, as well as other countries. It is also taking place at a time when Iran is capturing one Arab country after the other, and has now surrounded all the oilfields in the Persian Gulf, as well as having quietly for years infiltrated South America.
Thanks to Obama's policies, the Iranians and their friends are now in control of Iraq, Yemen, Syria and Lebanon, and much of Bahrain, and have surrounded the oilfields of the Persian Gulf. Meanwhile, the U.S. has been forced to close down its embassies in three Arab countries -- Syria, Libya and Yemen.
Instead of facing the dangers of the Iranian drive to export the Islamic revolution to as many Arab and Islamic countries as possible -- with the help of an accelerating operation to acquire nuclear weapons -- Obama has turned Israel in general, and Netanyahu in particular, into the main threat to world peace and stability.
And instead of congratulating the Israeli people for being one of the few countries in the Middle East to hold real free and democratic elections, Obama has decided to inflict collective punishment not on Netanyahu, but on all Israelis, even its Muslim and Christian citizens, for having an election that came out not the way he wanted it to.
What Obama does seem to want is to force Israel to accept a Palestinian state that would pose an existential threat to it and become the source of instability and tensions in the region. Obama also seems not to want to face the fact that because of his withdrawals and neglect, the situation in the Middle East today, with the rise of Islamic State and other terror groups, is not the same as it was even five years ago.
Even Palestinians and Arabs are aware of the fact that under the current circumstances a Palestinian state would sooner or later be controlled by jihadists and Islamic terrorists, whose dream is the destruction of Israel, Europe and the U.S.
If Obama is interested in reconsidering his Middle East policy, he should start by examining the repercussions of the establishment of an independent Palestinian state on regional and international security. The last thing Americans and Europeans need is another Islamic extremist country that exports terrorism -- most probably with nuclear weapons -- to all parts of the earth.
Obama needs to wake up. The real enemy is not Netanyahu. The real enemy is Iran, Hizbullah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Islamic State. Unfortunately, Obama -- as he continues undermining moderate Muslims and Arabs in the free world -- has decided to side with the wrong side.
Obama’s Mideast RealignmentHis new doctrine: Downgrade ties to Israel and the Saudis while letting Iran fill the vacuum left by U.S. retreat.
Meeting the press at the White House, March 24. PHOTO: OLIVIER DOULIERY/ZUMA PRESS
Let’s connect the dots.
Data point No. 1: President Obama withdrew U.S. forces from Iraq in 2011 and is preparing to leave Afghanistan by the end of 2016, even while keeping a few more troops there this year and next than originally planned.
Point No. 2: The Obama administration keeps largely silent about Iran’s power grab in Iraq, Syria and Yemen, even going so far now as to assist Iranian forces in Tikrit, while attempting to negotiate a nuclear deal with Tehran that would allow it to maintain thousands of centrifuges.
Point No. 3: Mr. Obama berates Benjamin Netanyahu for allegedly “racist” campaign rhetoric, refuses to accept his apologies, and says the U.S. may now “re-assess options,” code words for allowing the United Nations to recognize a Palestinian state over Israeli objections.
Taken together, these facts suggest that Mr. Obama is attempting to pull off the most fundamental realignment of U.S. foreign policy in a generation. The president is pulling America back from the leading military role it has played in the Middle East since 1979, the year the Iranian hostage crisis began and the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. He is trying to transform Iran from an enemy to a friend. He is diminishing the alliance with Israel, to lows not seen since the 1960s.
Call it the Obama Doctrine: The U.S. puts down the burden, and Iran picks up the slack.
Perhaps the least disputed of these points is the notion that Mr. Obama is stepping back from the Middle East. He has repeatedly said as much, promising to “rebalance” our commitments by shifting forces to the Pacific. The U.S. still maintains substantial forces in the Persian Gulf, as it has done since the early 1980s. But the number of troops in Iraq has fallen from 142,000 when Mr. Obama took power to fewer than 3,000 today, after an interregnum of zero between 2011 and 2014. The number of troops in Afghanistan tripled to 100,000 in 2010 but has since fallen to 10,000 and is supposed to hit zero before the president leaves office. This will be disastrous and destabilizing, but it will allow Mr. Obama to claim that he “ended” the war. In reality, pulling out U.S. troops will only fuel the conflict.
A corollary to Mr. Obama’s vow to make the “tide of war” recede is his determination, if forced to fight, to employ air power alone. The U.S. took part in the NATO air campaign to depose Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, but afterward Mr. Obama refused to send a peacekeeping force, a decision that has consigned the country to anarchy. Now Mr. Obama is launching airstrikes against Islamic State while refusing to commit to any ground troops—even though they are essential to ensuring the success of airstrikes.
This brings us to the second part of the Obama Doctrine. The U.S. has regarded Iran as its enemy since our embassy in Tehran was stormed and our diplomats taken captive. The Iranians have sponsored numerous terrorist attacks on American targets, in Lebanon in the 1980s and Iraq in the 2000s.
In response, successive U.S. presidents have backed Israel and Sunni allies, notably Saudi Arabia. Mr. Obama is bucking this foreign-policy consensus. He is offering Iran extraordinarily generous terms in the current negotiations, suggesting that he will lift sanctions if Iran merely slows down its nuclear-weapons program for a decade.
Mr. Obama is also doing little to contest Iran’s growing imperium in the Middle East, symbolized by the ubiquitous presence of Gen. Qasem Soleimani, commander of the Quds Force, which is charged with exporting Iran’s revolution. Tehran backs proxy militias such as Hezbollah, which has moved from its Lebanese base to support Iranian clientBashar Assad in Syria; the Badr Organization, which is leading the charge against Islamic State in Tikrit; and the Houthi militia that has taken over San’a, the capital of Yemen, and is now at the gates of Aden, a strategically vital port near the entrance to the Red Sea.
All U.S. officials will say in response is that Iran’s actions are “helpful” as long as they are not too “sectarian”—akin to praising Al Capone for providing liquor to the thirsty masses while piously expressing the hope that his conduct isn’t too criminal. Now the U.S. is even supporting the Iranian-directed offensive against Tikrit by providing surveillance flights and airstrikes for attacking forces.
The flip side of this shift toward Iran is a move away from longtime allies, most notably Israel, which views the Iranian nuclear program as an existential threat. The president vowed to put some “daylight” between Washington and Jerusalem, and boy has he delivered. His aides deride the Israeli prime minister as a “chickens—” and a “coward,” and Mr. Obama has exhibited more visceral anger at Mr. Netanyahu than he has atVladimir Putin or Ayatollah Khamenei.
Mr. Netanyahu has sometimes played into Mr. Obama’s hands—for example, by agreeing to address Congress without first running it by the White House and then vowing, in the closing days of his campaign, that there will be no Palestinian state while he is prime minister. What Mr. Netanyahu meant, as he later explained, was that the Palestinians have not shown a commitment to peace that would make him comfortable giving up further land in the West Bank at the moment. But by appearing to flip-flop on his pledge to seek a two-state solution—a bedrock of U.S. policy under Mr. Obama and George W. Bush—Mr. Netanyahu has provided ammunition for those in the White House who maliciously insist on painting him as a crazed warmonger and ethnic cleanser.
Will Mr. Obama succeed in pulling off his sweeping diplomatic realignment? He still has almost two years in office and considerable presidential prerogative to reorient foreign policy as he sees fit. Ironically, the biggest obstacle in his path may be the Iranian mullahs. If they reject his extraordinarily generous offer for fear of doing any deal with the Great Satan, the folly of his foreign-policy revolution will be brutally exposed.
Mr. Boot is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and author of “Invisible Armies: An Epic History of Guerrilla Warfare from Ancient Times to the Present” (W.W. Norton, 2013).
|
