Monday, August 31, 2015

Obama denies being an anti-Semite. "not a smidgeon of evidence" Total BS as usual

Obama If you aren't an anti semite, why do you dine with those who want to destroy Israel? Pictured on left President Barack Obama hosted two radical anti-Israel activists, Riham Osman and Batoul Abuharb of Houston, Texas, on Tuesday night. They both had the honor of sitting at Mr. Obama’s exclusive “President’s Table” at the annual White House Iftar dinner.

 Both have publicly stated that they consider Israel and its leadership to be sponsors of terroristic acts.  on right, 20 years ago he and michelle ate with Rashid Khalidi and Edward Said.

More diplomatic jihad when he denies being an anti-Semite
Obama, in an interview with the Jewish newspaper "Forward," was asked whether it hurt him personally when people say he's anti-Semitic."Oh, of course," Obama said. "And there's not a smidgeon of evidence for it, other than the fact that there have been times when I've disagreed with a particular Israeli government's position on a particular issue."

Dr. Ben Carson said Obama is an anti-Semite. Some Democrats
say this is just Republican propaganda.
Is he right?

Follow the evidence.
1. Obama attends church of anti Semite reverend for 26 years (1).
2. Obama uses anti-Semitic rhetoric in battle over Iran deal(2)

3. Obama tries to have Moslem Brotherhood terrorist
anti-Semite Morsi lead Egypt and financed hi with $1.5 billion and f16s (3)
4. Obama does nothing to weaken Isis in one year as they spew
anti-Semitism in new treatise compared to Mein kampf. (4)
5. Iran, worst terrorist nation on earth, already responsible for 5000 dead Jews, daily calls for "death to israel" and Obama just promised $150 billion which they will use to spread more terror vs israel and Obama provides legitimacy for their nuclear enriched uranium (5)

6. Obama long anti-Israel timeline of activities (6)
7. Obama loves to dine with Israel haters 20 years ago this

and last month this


see evidence
1. Jeremiah Wright: Messenger of Intolerance .Jeremiah Wright, the pastor emeritus at Trinity United Church of Christ (TUCC) in Chicago, is once again at the center of a controversy after making inflammatory statements about Jews and Zionists. Wright blamed Jews for the fact that he has been out of touch with President Barack Obama in an interview with the Daily Press, a Newport News, Virginia-based newspaper, on June 9. Wright noted that "them Jews aren't going to let him talk to me."In the same interview, Wright asserted that Israel is committing ethnic cleansing in Gaza, which he described as "a sin and a crime against humanity," and expressed his belief that the Obama Administration would have sent a U.S. delegation to the 2009 Durban Review Conference in April if not for fear of losing "the Jewish vote, the A-I-P-A-C vote, that's controlling him."Wright later stated that he misspoke and that he did not mean to refer to Jews, but rather Zionists. "I'm not talking about all Jews, all people of the Jewish faith, I'm talking about Zionists," Wright said. Wright's initial comments and subsequent effort to distinguish between Jews and Zionists is reminiscent of his past inflammatory comments, which propelled him into the spotlight during Obama's primary run, and which he maintained had been taken out of context by the media and others.

(2) Gutter Politics'Simon Weisenthal Center accuses
White House of legitimizing hate and antisemitism
8:39 AM on Thursday, August 13, 2015 - Av 28, 5775 In an unusually strongly worded statement, the Simon Wiesenthal Center denounced White House attacks on opponents of the Iran deal as legitiming antisemitism and hate.In particular, the Jewish group singled out against Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, who announced last week that he opposes the deal.
“The spectacle of labeling Senator Schumer and other opponents of the controversial Iran nuclear deal as ‘warmongers’ who are more loyal to Israel than America is the lowest form of gutter politics seen in our country since Joe McCarthy.” “Instead of passionate and reasoned debates based on objective analysis of facts, we are increasingly witness to eblasts, political cartoons, and sound bites that outrageously call into question people’s loyalty to our nation. "We fear that such hateful rhetoric between now and next month’s historic vote will legitimize mainstream hate and anti-Semitism and falsely reduce an important policy decision that impacts on international terrorism, our Arab allies and the future of the Middle East, to a disagreement between the US and Israel.”The center's statement comes on the heels of a Tablet editorial that strongly condemned the White House's tactics as "bigotry," as well as an ADL statement condemning hate speech.

Of course, Obama himself griped about pressure from “lobbyists” — i.e., Jewish and pro-Israel activists — spending “tens of million of dollars” to stop the deal. He reportedly blamed “the pro-Israel community” for stirring up a fight.

Iran Deal: Jewish Mag Calls out Obama’s Anti-Semitic Rhetoric
AUGUST 7, 2015 7:23 PM
(Breitbart) – Tablet Magazine, an online Jewish publication, published an editorial Friday calling out President Barack Obama and the Democratic Party for their use of anti-Jewish rhetoric in an effort to whip up public support for the Iran deal.
The editorial was published a day after Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY)announced that he would oppose the deal, and was immediately greeted by a wave of vitriol–including political threats from former White House aides.
Tablet pointed out the president’s repeated use of terms associated with anti-Semitic accusations of nefarious Jewish wealth, influence and control, which Obama has used throughout the debate. It concluded (original links):
What we increasingly can’t stomach—and feel obliged to speak out about right now—is the use of Jew-baiting and other blatant and retrograde forms of racial and ethnic prejudice as tools to sell a political deal, or to smear those who oppose it. Accusing Senator Schumer of loyalty to a foreign government is bigotry, pure and simple. Accusing Senators and Congressmen whose misgivings about the Iran deal are shared by a majority of the U.S. electorate of being agents of a foreign power, or of selling their votes to shadowy lobbyists, or of acting contrary to the best interests of the United States, is the kind of naked appeal to bigotry and prejudice that would be familiar in the politics of the pre-Civil Rights Era South.
This use of anti-Jewish incitement as a political tool is a sickening new development in American political discourse, and we have heard too much of it lately—some coming, ominously, from our own White House and its representatives. Let’s not mince words: Murmuring about “money” and “lobbying” and “foreign interests” who seek to drag America into war is a direct attempt to play the dual-loyalty card. It’s the kind of dark, nasty stuff we might expect to hear at a white power rally, not from the President of the United States—and it’s gotten so blatant that even many of us who are generally sympathetic to the administration, and even this deal, have been shaken by it.
We do not accept the idea that Senator Schumer or anyone else is a fair target for racist incitement, anymore than we accept the idea that the basic norms of political discourse in this country do not apply to Jews. Whatever one feels about the merits of the Iran deal, sales techniques that call into question the patriotism of American Jews are examples of bigotry—no matter who does it. On this question, we should all stand in defense of Senator Schumer.
- Obama met with Jewish community leaders at the White House for two and a half hours to explain the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Agreement. “He spent 45 minutes, laying out deal, speaking without notes,” said one participant in attendance. “He argued why the deal is better than the alternatives, even as he acknowledged that Iran is not a good actor. The meeting was very emotional, everything was out on the table.”
The participant told me that some Jewish leaders in the meeting objected to how the administration characterized the JCPOA’s critics. “Words have consequences, and when they come from official sources, they can be even more dangerous,” he said the president was told. “The community worked hard to keep it from getting personal and didn’t make it specific to him. The president complained about the lobbying, and said some of the same people who brought you Iraq are opposing the Iran deal. He was told those characterizations are not accurate. Jewish lobbyists didn’t support the Iraq war.”
Another participant who also asked to remain anonymous told me that some people expressed discomfort with  “how the debate is being framed—framed as, ‘if you are a critic of the deal, you’re for war.’ The implication is that if it looks like the Jewish community is responsible for Congress voting down the deal, it will look like the Jewish community is leading us off to another war in the Middle East.”
Apparently, President Obama wasn’t paying attention because the one point he made sure to drive home in his speech the next day at American University in Washington, D.C. is that there are only two choices: the JCPOA or war. And the only nation in the world that does not think this is “such a strong deal” and “has expressed support” is the Israeli government. In short, if you don’t like the agreement, then you want war and you’re aligned not with the United States and the rest of the civilized world, but with a Jewish pariah state.
A senior official at a Washington, D.C.-based Jewish organization involved in the Iran fight told me: “The President told concerned Jewish Americans that he would turn down the constant refrain of anti-Semitic insinuations from the White House. Then he went out and gave a speech implying that Jews are dragging American boys and girls into war.”
It’s unfortunate that the president of the United States seems to really believe that Israel and the American Jewish community was responsible for taking America to war in Iraq. But Obama is not an anti-Semite and it seems he doesn’t even really want to use anti-Jewish dog whistles, like he did last month on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. But the JCPOA is the cornerstone of his foreign policy legacy and he’s determined to win. AIPAC is leading the countercharge with a multi-million dollar campaign managed by a group called Citizens for a Nuclear Free Iran. According to The Washington Post, “The president suggested to AIPAC that ‘if you guys would back down, I would back down from some of the things I’m doing.’’’
Or, as one of the participants told me Obama said, “If you don’t like the claims that are being made, don’t run the advertisements.” In other words, lay off criticizing the Iran deal and I’ll lay off the Jew-baiting.
“Fifty-two years ago,” said Obama, “President Kennedy, at the height of the Cold War, addressed this same university on the subject of peace.” Obama’s political tactics however point not to Kennedy’s Cold War but Nixon’s Southern strategy, which played on the racist fears of white southerners. If the purpose of the Obama Administration’s Jew-baiting is to silence potential critics of the JCPOA, it may also stoke a deeply ugly hatred that is no less dangerous to American society than racism.
Even if the JCPOA turns out to be worse than its critics charge—a deeply flawed inspection and verification regime, billions of immediate sanctions relief that could fuel Iran’s imperial terror throughout the Middle East, etc.—America will survive it, as will Israel. America’s center of gravity is not its position in the Persian Gulf. Rather, it’s our social cohesion. For all of our many flaws, our petty hatreds, our violence against one another: America works because of the fundamental trust Americans have in their neighbors—black and white and brown and yellow, Christian, Jewish and Muslim—throughout the fifty states. Why is the president putting that at risk? For the sake of comity with an anti-American, anti-Semitic obscurantist regime.


4. Intelligence officials are comparing a newly discovered secret Islamic State document to Hitler’s “Mein Kampf,” as it blames Israel for the rise of the Islamic State and crowns U.S. President Barack Obama as the “Mule of the Jews.”Found in Pakistan’s remote tribal region by American Media Institute (AMI), the 32-page Urdu language document promotes an “end of the world” battle as a final solution. It argues that the Islamic leader should be recognized as the sole ruler of the world’s 1 billion Muslims, under a religious empire called a “caliphate.”“It reads like the caliphate’s own Mein Kampf,” said a U.S. intelligence official, who reviewed the document. “While the world is watching videos of beheadings and crucifixions in Iraq and Syria the Islamic State is moving into North Africa the Middle East, and now we see it has a strategy in South Asia. It’s a magician’s trick, watch this hand and you’ll never see what the other is doing.”

+Obama just pretending to fight isis

+stronger than one year ago



An Amazing Shofar Ram's Horn sounded

You can be a good Jew and good American, or a Democrat, but not both..

Stunning betrayal for evil by most Congressional Democrats to support this evil Obama and Iran deal
Who is against the Iran deal? 36 retired general FOR the deal, 214 retired US generals and admirals OPPOSED , (…/generals-admirals-warn-iran-dea…/) Every Republican in Congress, Every Republican running for President, more than a dozen Dems have brave Obama's wrath to sign opposed (…/now-more-than-a-do…/2015/08/27/,)
US citizens 60% opposed, Israel 7-1 opposed, 1000 rabbis USA opposed so far, Jews in USA 2-1, all Gulf states + Egypt, many national security professionals, all EU Foreign Ministers privately (per Malcolm Hoenline exec Dir National Conference of presidents of major Jewish organizations.) Obama calls all these people "crazies"
Who is for this catastrophic deal? Obama, Kerry, Hillary, most Dems in Congress afraid of Obama (some who took Bribes from iran, as did Obama, Kerry, Biden and Hillary.…/congressman-who-too…), anti Israel zealot Samantha Powers etc
Why are so many opposed? Because this is by far the worst policy ever advocated by the United States.…/10-new-reasons-to-w…
What do we do? Rubio, who has best favorable/unfavorable rate of any candidate, says day 1 of his presidency, invoke national security clause of deal to reimpose all tough sanctions as long as they spin, lifts ban on exporting our oil to hurt them, and makes it clear that if they start to weaponized, we destroy their program.
Iran has already stepped up its war vs israel Thanks to Obama…/iran-is-already-waging-war-agai…
What is really behind the deal? Obama’s commitment to further radical Islamic jihad…/obama-told-us-he-wa…
Here is what World Jewish Digest lead story said about it: "When the partisans of the Democratic party disapproved by voice vote a measure of support for Israel at their last party convention, it was clear the tide was changing.
Democrats are now close to giving President Barack Obama the votes necessary to approving a historic capitulation.
Reuters reports that 31 Democratic Senators now back Obama's Iran deal, an agreement that lets Iran build nuclear weapons after 15 years and is based on the insane notion that Iran -- and its theocratic leaders -- are interested in "change."
The Iranians have been quite clear that they are not, announcing regularly even after the deal was signed that they still want to destroy Israel and the United States. But not to worry, argue the Democrats, this lay-away plan for Iranian nukes is the best deal we can muster.
Aipac supporters worry that bipartisan support for Israel will suffer over opposition to the Iran deal. What they don't realize is that the Democratic party has already made its choice, and it's not in Israel's interests."
You can be a good Jew and good American, or a Democrat, but not both.

Selichote penitential prayer service prior to Rosh Hashanah is this Saturday night

Sunday, August 30, 2015

Dennis Prager how could anyone who cares about America, not to mention Israel, support it?

Iran Deal. Virtually every claim made for it is either not true or insignificant.
  • There are no “anytime, anywhere” inspections, as Americans were promised during the negotiations.
  • No American or Canadian inspectors will be allowed into Iran.
  • The agreement obligates all the parties, including the United States, to help Iran protect its nuclear facilities against an attack, whether physical or cyber.
  • Any area of Iran that the Iranian regime designates “military” cannot be inspected.
  • Iran can object to any inspection and delay it at least 24 days, and, according to the Wall Street Journal, up to three months.
  • The deal will free a hundred billion dollars and eventually much more for the Iranian regime to use to bolster Iran’s economy and to supply terror groups around the world.
In light of these weaknesses, any one of which renders the deal fraudulent, how could anyone who cares about America, not to mention Israel, support it?

And it gets worse: There are two secret side deals to the agreement made between Iran and the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). They are not just kept secret from you and me. They are kept secret from the president, the secretary of state (who admitted to Congress that he has not seen them), and the Congress of the United States.

How then could any member of Congress vote to affirm an agreement with Iran, crucial parts of which they cannot even know about? Why do those secrets between Iran and the United Nations simply not invalidate this agreement?

But I wish to focus on American Jews. How is it, in light of the above and in light of Iran’s stated aim of annihilating Israel, that so many American Jews — despite the opposition of so many national Jewish groups and even of the Jewish Federations of liberal cities such Boston and Los Angeles — support this deal?

The question is legitimate for four reasons:

First, and most obvious, Israel is the one Jewish state, and one would assume that American Jews have a moral and emotional commitment to Israel’s welfare, not to mention survival.

Second, according to various polls, American Jews may be the ethnic or religious group most supportive of the deal. How is that possible?

Third, the vast majority of Israeli Jews oppose the deal. According to Israel’s major left-wing newspaper, Haaretz, only one in ten Israelis support the deal. Yet, at least 50 percent of American Jews support it. Why the five-to-one discrepancy?

Fourth, even most left-wing Israelis oppose the deal. As Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic reported: “The Iran deal represents one of those rare issues that has unified Israelis of most political parties.” That includes the opposition leader, the head of the Labor Party, Isaac Herzog. Goldberg writes: “‘Iran,’ Herzog told me, has Israelis — of the ‘left, center, and right,’ he said — ‘frightened.’”

So, then, in light of the deal’s terrible defects, in light of the specific concerns of Jews, and in light of the nearly universal opposition to the deal among Israeli Jews, why do half of America’s Jews support it?

One answer, given by many American Jewish supporters of the deal, is that they back the deal precisely because they do care about Israel. And when American Jews with a record of strong support of Israel say this, I believe them.

But I do have a question: If the deal is good for Israel, why do only one in ten Israelis support it? How can Jews living in Los Angeles or New York tell 90 percent of Israelis that they know better what’s good for Israel? That’s what Jews call chutzpah.

As for American Jews who don’t have a strong record of support of Israel, I do not believe them when they say that they believe the deal is good for Israel.

Here’s why: If a Republican president had negotiated this deal, Democrats would now be strongly opposing it — along with most Republicans. But a Republican president would never have negotiated a deal that so weakens America’s position in the Middle East and puts Israel in such peril. Also, both Republicans and Democrats would have — correctly — opposed a president of the United States negotiating what is in fact a treaty without Congress’s approval.

So why do so many American Jews support the deal? Because they 1) are loyal to President Obama 2) have an intense dislike of Israeli prime-minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and 3) have an intense dislike of Republicans.

In addition, both Jews and non-Jews often forget that Israel is no longer important to an increasing number of American Jews. Jews are the most left-wing ethnic and religious group in America — in part because Jews are more secular than others and attend college in greater numbers — and the more that people embrace a left-wing view of the world, the more hostile to Israel they are likely to become.

There are, therefore, quite a number of American Jews who support the Iran deal for reasons having nothing to do with Israel. They only care about America, they say, and the deal is good for America. One presumes that most of these people also believe that pulling all our troops out of Iraq was good for America. It wasn’t. These Jews and non-Jews believe that the answer to evil is negotiation, not confrontation. That there is no historical basis for that belief does not disturb them. These people are still singing, “Give Peace a Chance.”

So, why do many American Jews — including some supporters of Israel — back the Iran deal? For the same reason the minority of American non-Jews who support the deal do: their outlook on life has been shaped by the Left.

Palestinians have no basis for another terrorist state

The entire Palestinian narrative is a LIE.

Israel is only country in Middle East Arabs, Muslims, Christians, Jews, women, gays can live safely. Jews have always lived there, even after Rome killed 1 million in 70 CE. Palestine was the name ROME gave the land 2000 years ago and the Palestinians were always Jews. there was no such thing a Palestinians people in history until manufactured by the 21 Arab nations to weaken Israel. Israel has been viciously attacked in many wars starting from its birth in 1948 and faced constant terrorism from the Arab neighbors who call themselves Palestinians, but who mostly came to the region after Israel was created because of Israel's economy. they are well funded by Iran and other terrorist nations and send thousands of bombs at Israeli civilians regularly. No nation on earth, including the USA, does more to try and spare the terrorist civilians when they Israel has to try and stop the bombs. A Palestinians state would just be another vicious terrorist nation. 
Terrrorist Palestinans just want all of Israel and Jews dead and they have ZERO claim to anything
BDS proponents are organized and funded by terrorists. The Jewish left is fighting this pathetically and delusionallyv
Facts about Israel that the haters of Israel don’t like:
1. Israel became a state in 1312 B.C.E., two millennia before Islam.
2.Arab refugees from Israel began calling themselves “Palestinians” in 1967, two decades after (modern) Israeli statehood in 1948.
3.After conquering the land in 1272 B.C.E., Jews ruled it for a thousand years and maintained a continuous presence there for 3,300 years.
4. The only Arab rule following conquest in 633 B.C.E. lasted just 22 years.
5.For over 3,300 years, Jerusalem was the Jewish capital. It was never the capital of any Arab or Muslim entity. Even under Jordanian rule,(East) Jerusalem was not made the capital, and no Arab leader came to visit it.
6. Jerusalem is mentioned over 700 times in the bible, but not once is it mentioned in the Qur’an.
7. King David founded Jerusalem; Mohammed never set foot in it.
8.Jews pray facing Jerusalem; Muslims face Mecca. If they are between the two cities, Muslims pray facing Mecca, with their backs to Jerusalem.
9.In 1948, Arab leaders urged their people to leave, promising to cleanse the land of Jewish presence. 68% of them fled without ever setting eyes on an Israeli soldier.
10. Virtually the entire Jewish population of Muslim countries had to flee as the result of violence and pogroms.
11. Some 630,000 Arabs left Israel in 1948, while close to a million Jews were forced to leave the Muslim countries.
12.In spite of the vast territories at their disposal, Arab refugees were deliberately prevented from assimilating into their host countries. Of 100 million refugees following World War 2, they are the only group tohave never integrated with their co-religionists. Most of the Jewish refugees from Europe and Arab lands were settled in Israel,a country no larger than New Jersey, USA.
13. There are 22 Muslim countries, not counting Palestine. There is only one Jewish state.
14. Fatah and Hamas constitutions still call for the destruction of Israel.
Israel ceded most of the west bank and all of Gaza to the Palestinian authority, and even provided it with arms.
15.During the Jordanian occupation, Jewish holy sites were vandalized and were off limits to Jews. Under Israeli rule, all Muslim and Christian holy sites are accessible to all faiths.
16. Out of 175 United Nations Security Council resolutions up to1990, 97 were against Israel; out of 690 general assembly resolutions,429 were against Israel.
17. The U.N. was silent when the Jordanians destroyed 58 synagogues in the old city of Jerusalem. It remained silent while Jordan systematically desecrated the ancient Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives, and it remained silent when Jordan enforced apartheid laws preventing Jews from accessing the temple mount and western wall.
18. Arabs started all five wars against Israel, and lost every one of them. 

soon-to-be flush Iran already spurring new attacks on Israel

Evidence mounts that soon-to-be flush Iran already spurring new attacks on Israel

Eric Shawn reports: The Iran deal and Israel
An unsettling surge in terrorism by Iranian proxies has many Israelis convinced the release to Tehran of tens of billions of dollars in frozen funds is already putting the Jewish state in danger.
In recent days, rockets have rained down on Israel from Gaza in the south and the Golan Heights to the north, Israeli forces foiled a bomb plot at the tomb of biblical patriarch Joseph, and Gaza-based terrorist groups that also have a presence in the West Bank have openly appealed for aid on Iranian television. Israeli officials fear the terrorist activity is spiking as groups audition for funding from Tehran, which is set to receive the long-frozen funds as part of its deal to allow limited nuclear inspections. They say the international focus on Iran's nuclear ambitions has left its more conventional methods of attacking regional adversaries unaddressed.
"The nuclear context is just one aspect of the negative Iranian activities in the region," Emmanuel Nahshon, senior Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman, told "We can see the demonstration of this on a daily basis in Syria, in Yemen, and in Iraq. We see it also when we see the [Iranian] support of Hezbollah and other groups who operate against Israel."
Last month, National Security Adviser Susan Rice admitted that some of the money due to be released as part of the deal negotiated by the U.S. led P5+1 “would go to the Iranian military and could potentially be used for the kinds of bad behavior that we have seen in the region.”
“The amount that Iran gives Hezbollah is not very much - around $200 million - not even 1 percent of Iran’s budget last year.”
- Meir Javedanfar, an Iranian-born Israeli expert

Aside from the soon-to-be-released billions, Iran’s finances will also be strengthened by the easing of trade embargoes that have seen a horde of major international business - many from P5+1 countries – rushing to sign lucrative deals with the ayatollahs. Earlier this week, British Foreign Minister Philip Hammond scoffed at the fears of Israel and many Arab countries in the Middle East, saying the deal would “slowly rebuild their sense that Iran is not a threat to them.” Less than 24 hours later, the spokesman for Iran's top parliament member said, “Our positions against [Israel] have not changed at all; Israel should be annihilated.”
If that remains Iran's intention, terror groups Hezbollah, Hamas, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad are showing a renewed eagerness to continue as its proxies. Four rockets apparently fired by the PIJ from Syria into northern Israel last week – two into the Golan Heights and two more into the Upper Galilee – were the first such attacks since the start of Syria’s bloody civil war more than four years ago. Israel responded with targeted missile strikes, including one which hit a car killing “five or six PIJ terrorists.”

On Aug. 18, Iranian state TV broadcast images of a new, 2.5-mile tunnel leading from Gaza into Israel. Dug by the Fatah-linked terror group the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, and seemingly competing with arch-rivals Hamas for a share of the imminently unfrozen Iranian funds, the terrorists made an unabashed appeal for more cash. In a segment translated by Palestinian Media Watch, the terror group's representatives said, "This is why we are asking [for money]… especially [from] Iran, which is a known long-time supporter of the resistance and the Palestinian cause."
On Tuesday, Israeli officials revealed that a joint Israeli internal security and military operation thwarted a potentially lethal bomb attack planned by the Islamic Jihad on visitors to Joseph’s Tomb in Shechem in the Palestinian-controlled West Bank, the resting place of the biblical figure revered by Jews, Christians and Muslims alike.
The pace of attacks, as well as the diversity of their perpetrators, has prompted speculation that terrorist groups are competing for Iranian funding, and trying to show they are capable of giving Tehran bang for its buck. The terrorist groups however operate on budgets that are tiny given the scale of Iran's financing capability.
“The amount that Iran gives Hezbollah is not very much - around $200 million - not even 1 percent of Iran’s budget last year,” Meir Javedanfar, an Iranian-born Israeli expert on the region who writes at, told “If you want to stop Iranian support of Hezbollah you would need to have inspectors on the ground in Syria and Lebanon, the most dangerous of places, checking Hezbollah’s arsenal, bank accounts, bases, and Syrian bases which Hezbollah uses. I don’t see any UN force, or anyone else volunteering to do that.”
Paul Alster is an Israel-based journalist. Follow him on Twitter @paul_alster and visit his website:

Stupidity and poor judgement in the anti-iran deal fight

Stupidity and poor judgement in the anti-iran deal fight
Aipac has a fly in Sept 7-8 to lobby Congress on the Iran deal. 3 organizations have announced a rally on Sept 9 in DC to fight the deal. Ted Cruz is the keynoter. He invited Trump to speak too. I saw an email from a  professional head of a major pro Israel/anti Iran deal group who had planned to attend the rally and was bringing others, now is BOYCOTTING the rally because they this person does not like Cruz or Trump. That is the dumbest thing I have seen in a long time. We will lose this battle on the iran deal because of lack of democratic support, but hopefully trump or Cruz will be in the White House in Jan 2016 to limit the damage. (there are other republican candidates who would also be great on thuis)
I could give dozens of examples out of history but 2 will suffice.
1.      In 70 Titus destroyed the temple.  Josephus, that there were as many as 1,100,000 slain in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, along with 97,000 who were sold as slaves. Read and weep how the Jews killed each other over who was most “kosher” in the fight vs Rome. The rabbis declared Jerusalem fell because of the Jewish civil war and causeless hatred.
2.     As the Beilski broithers fought to save 1000 Jews in the forests of Belarus during the Holocaust, the Bielskis found themselves fighting on four fronts and they were never safe: Germans and the local police, local peasants, many of them collaborators, the Russian partisans, most of all, they had to guard against internal dissension.”
Boycotting the anti-iran rally because you don’t like Trump or Cruz is beyond stupid for these reasons
1.      We need all the friends we can get in this fight
2.      Israel has no better friends at the moment in US politics than Trump and Cruz
3.      Like them or not, they bring millions and millions of people’s energy and attention to the battle, including large swaths of America that otherwise might be unengaged. Quinnipiac has them together at 35% of Republican electorate now and last poll had Trump down only 6% to Hillary. No one brings attention to an issue now like Trump and he mentions this nearly every day.

Thursday, August 27, 2015

This deal requires leap of faith on Iran’s self-inspections with world's worst nation

Kerry’s Invisible Bridge

The Secretary takes a leap of faith on Iran’s self-inspections.

U.S. Secretary of State John KerryENLARGE
Maybe we’ve been unduly harsh with John Kerry when it comes to the Iran deal. We’ve tried to judge the agreement according to the likelihood that it will thwart Tehran’s bid to get nuclear weapons. The Secretary of State, for his part, seems to be acting out the leap-of-faith scene from “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade.”
You know the one: Indy, standing at the edge of a bottomless abyss, sticks out his leg to discover an invisible bridge that will get him to the other side. On the other edge of the abyss lies—what else?—the Holy Grail.
In the Administration’s version of the scene, that invisible bridge is the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is supposed to provide the “unprecedented verification” that Mr. Kerry and President Obama insist is the key to the deal’s reliability. So total is the Secretary’s faith in the agency that he agreed to let it reach its own side deals with Iran over how to inspect the regime’s military sites, without him knowing the particulars of the arrangements.
Last week the Associated Press got hold of a near-final draft of one of the side deals, which revealed that the agency would allow Iran to do its own inspections—with its own personnel and equipment—of the military site at Parchin, where the regime is suspected to have previously carried out illicit work on weaponizing a nuclear device.
That includes providing the agency with a total of nine environmental samples. The closest IAEA personnel will get to Parchin is a courtesy visit to the site by the IAEA’s director general, followed by a “one-day technical roundtable.”

Opinion Journal Video

Touro Institute Professor Anne Bayefsky explains the White House’s dealings with the U.N.’s nuclear watchdog, and its side deal with Tehran. Photo: Getty Images
Defenders of the deal initially tried to claim the AP’s reporting was misleading, until the AP released the text of the agreement. Now the company line is that this is all no big deal. The issues “in some cases date back more than a decade,” says National Security Council spokesman Ned Price, as if it’s merely a matter of balancing some old books.
But knowing what Iran might have done at Parchin is crucial to determining how much time Iran would need to build a bomb. That’s a point on which Mr. Kerry was once unequivocal, as in the following April 2014 exchange with the PBS News Hour’s Judy Woodruff.
Ms. Woodruff: “Still, another issue: the International Atomic Energy Agency has said for a long time that it wants Iran to disclose past military-related nuclear activities. Iran is increasingly looking like it’s not going to do this. Is the U.S. prepared to accept that?”
Mr. Kerry: “No. They have to do it. It will be done. If there’s going to be a deal, it will be done. . . . It will be part of a final agreement. It has to be.”
So much for that. As for the IAEA, Director General Yukiya Amano insists the arrangements “are technically sound and consistent with our-long established practices.” We’re not sure what practices he has in mind; Olli Heinonen, a former senior agency official, told AP he “could think of no similar concession with any other country.” Weaponization work also does not necessarily involve radioactive substances, so soil-sampling won’t be of much use to finding out exactly what Iran has done at Parchin.
We’ll cut Mr. Amano some slack since his agency must accept whatever mandate it is given by the countries that negotiated the overall deal. Nor does it have any power to enforce the side agreements deals it has reached with Iran, other than to issue periodic reports. Tehran is already warning the agency that it will “not accept” any leaks of its agreements. That shows how dependent the agency will be on the mullahs’ acquiescence to get anything done, insofar as the IAEA doesn’t have the backing of the United States and other Western powers to demand full access to the regime’s sites.
The Obama Administration is required by the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, passed with overwhelming majorities in May, to provide Congress with a complete accounting of all of the terms of the deal, including “annexes, appendices, codicils, side agreements, implementing materials, documents, and guidance, technical or other understandings, and any related agreements.”
A bipartisan Congress fought hard last spring to require President Obama to sign that law. Now Congress should insist that the President abide by the law and release the other side deal—or deals. If the Administration is so proud of the agreement it struck with Iran, it should be willing to disclose its full terms.

Support this deal? CRAZY, a JIHADIST or so enslaved to Obamaism they can’t think straight.

Iran deal is OPPOSED by 1. 200 retired generals and admirals 2. All Gulf states+Egypt 3. Big majority of Congress 4. USA 2-1 5. Israel 7-1 6. Many national security experts

This deal permits 1. Iran to inspect its own parchin site where it tests weaponization in secret side deal Obama would not tell Congress and very poor verification 2. Legitimization of unlimited centrifuges (0 needed or peaceful nuclear energy) 3. Deal with worst state sponsor terrorism on earth 4. Who daily chants death to USA, death to Israel and have already killed many US marines and Jews around the world 5. Whose leaders have openly said willing to lose their country for glory of destroying Israel 6. Threatens USA 5 ways: a. ICBMS, b.40,000 agents in S America and Canada who can us dirty bombs, c. buy N. Korean nuclear useful submarines 7. Pushed by US President determined to make Iran nuclear power and who advocates for Islamic jihad 8. Iran paying off some Democrats in Congress 9. 3 separate paths to nuclear bomb, a. cheat and make them now with such poor verification b. wait out deal and make them within 2 days then 3. Buy them from N Korea now 10. Gives them %150 billion cash plus hundreds billions $ in new business  and Obama claims there is no better deal. A third grader could have done better. We must do better. Much better alternatives have ben advanced. Anyone who votes for this Obama Iran deal  is either CRAZY, a JIHADIST or so enslaved to Obamaism they can’t think straight.

Obama says opponents are crazies. Obama not crazy. Just a radical Islamic jihadist. That is what is motivating this Iran deal.

 Obama has twin “radical transformation goals”: weaken America and empower Islamaic jihadism

Pro Iranian Congresspeople who took bribes from Iran
Iran deal has secret side agreement where Iran can inspect themselves
200 retired generals OPPOSE the deal
+ ALL majority of USA, majority of Congress, US Jews 2-1, only 6% Rabbis signed letter for deal, 7-1 Israelis, + foreign policy experts, all Gulf states,  oppose deal
Obama hates Israel and is an anti-Semite
Every argument Obama says for the deal is a lie
2 reasons why Iran will use nuclear weapons