Netanyahu Could Resist the ... Dismantling of Israel

Netanyahu Could Resist the Bush/Olmert/Kadima Dismantling of Israel

Binyamin Netanyahu has the correct vision for a viable State of Israel. Netanyahu is the current leader of the Likud Party. Likud is in opposition to ex-Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s Party founded by now incapacitated Ariel Sharon – Kadima. Thank God Almighty that Olmert has been forced out of Office due to links of criminal activity.

Olmert has made it his mission to pander to the Bush Administration to give away all that is holy to Judaism (and ergo Christianity) to a group of Arabs that usurped the name Palestinian who wish to form a hostile Arab/Islamic sovereign State next door to Israel.

Just before leaving Office Olmert has been quoted as saying:

"The notion of a Greater Israel no longer exists, and anyone who still believes in it is deluding himself... I've come to realize that we have to share this land with the people who dwell here, if we don’t want to be a binational state."(Israel National News)

The “Greater Israel” includes land won in the heat of battle from invading Muslim armies in 1967. Israel’s victory gave military control of one time Arab occupied East Jerusalem in which the Temple Mount is located. Israel had access to holy burial sites of the Jewish Patriarchs and people of Biblical importance (from a Christian and Jewish perspective).

The greatest error of 1967 was allowing the Mohammedan Waqf near absolute control of the Temple Mount because to the two Mosques conquering Muslims built there. The very Arab nations who refused to matriculate their fellow Arabs into their own population in order to create a wedge to continuously be able to have an excuse to end Israel’s existence.

There have been indications that the new Kadima Party leader Prime Minister Tzipi Livni is a puppet to continue the dismantling of Israel.

Netanyahu wants elections sooner than later to know the will of the people on giving up Jewish land to Muslim supremacist Arabs who have no right to a sovereign State that was originally designed to part of Jordan (Transjordan in 1947).

Let us pray Netanyahu will succeed in moving Israel into their Parliamentary style elections and that Livni’s Kadima Party will be set aside by a Likud ruling coalition with Netanyahu as Prime Minister.

JRH 9/30/08

Commenter: The Dalai Lama is False

Commenter Vajra has this to say pertaining to the post “THE DHIMMI DALAI LAMA:”

You can read more about this false Dalai Lama and where he comes from.

http://www.westernshugdensociety.org/en/reports/false-dalai-lama

This was kind of an enigmatic comment since the post was about the Dalai Lama publicly proclaiming that Islam (or Mohammedanism) is a religion of peace (not).

So I checked out the link and discovered a Buddhist conspiracy theory that person known to the world as the Dalai Lama is false and the result of selfish Tibetan government power struggles.

You can the link; however the point that caught my eye is this: The Conspiracy Theory suggests that the boy known as Tenzin Gyatso was really a Muslim boy from a Muslim village on the outskirts of Tibet. That boy’s name is Lhamo Dhondup.

Evidently most of the Tibetan monks felt they had found a good Buddhist candidate to the reincarnation of the 13th Dalai Lama. However the guy who ran the Tibetan government was afraid he would lose his job with Tibetan monk choice.

The implication of the Conspiracy Theory is that the current Dalai Lama is a closet Muslim or at least reminiscent of his childhood Muslim past.

Is it true? I don’t know. It fits though.

JRH 9/30/08

Black America's hope for a president -- at what price?

If you are a Christian (Democrat, Republican or Independent) you will find this article by Clenard Childress of immense value.

A Barack Hussein Obama victory will mean the political persecution of Biblical and traditional Christian morality. Secular Humanist and moral relativist progressive Leftist Christianity will eventually make it a crime to practice our faith in Christ.

JRH 9/29/08

How democrats lied to America, …

Before you believe Leftist lies about who is responsible for the housing crisis that has led to bank failures threatening the American economy, you need to watch this YouTube vid by arkadyka.

HERE IS THE LINK: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9juJr8CSY4

I usually embed these good anti-Leftist videos however arkadyka uses the “WTF” obscenity and I didn’t feel good about that being on my blog. Nonetheless, if you can get over that one time use, arkadyka’s sources seem to be very credible.

MO Governor Blunt: BHO Truth Squad “Police State Tactics”

Here is a WorldNetDaily Update on Barack Hussein Obama’s Missouri Truth Squad. Missouri Governor Matt Blunt calls the Obama campaign and the Democrats adhering to BHO’s censorship strategy as “police state tactics.”

JRH 9/28/08

Obama: Censor Them into Submission

Barack Hussein Obama is attempting force feed censorship AGAIN (and AGAIN and AGAIN and probably more). Before it was pressure on big media not to run an anti-BHO ad, now BHO is enlisting Democratic Party cadres in law enforcement (Prosecutors and elected police, i.e. Sheriffs) to persecute anti-BHO ads. The State of choice this time is Missouri.

The premise for the public is to make sure the ads are truthful; however isn’t it curious that elected law enforcement isn’t examining both anti-BHO and anti-McCain ads? Barack Hussein Obama has ordered his cadres to give special scrutiny to ads critical of his campaign or record or past.

It is fascinating that these KKK tactics of the Left is supposed to be very civil rights violations that the Democratic Party stood tall with anger in the ‘60’s. Yet here is the Democratic Party and/or Barack Hussein Obama using the intimidation of elected officials to block pro-McCain ads and to allow unhindered pro-BHO ads which have already been stained with Leftist lies or twisting of the truth.

Here is another fascinating implication: Obama’s enlistment of Democratic Party law enforcement in Missouri to investigate truth in political ads means Barack Hussein Obama and Democratic Party law enforcement determines the litmus test of what is a lie or a truth in political free speech. Is this even Constitutional to utilize government resources in a matter that seems should be handled in civil litigation?

JRH 9/27/08

What Is An “Islamophobe?”

Brigitte Gabriel rebuffs the New York Times by explaining that Islamophobia practiced in integrity is not racism or hate speech, rather Islamophobia is a tool to expose to an unsuspecting West the true nature of Islamic holy writings.

JRH 9/26/08 (Hat tip Act for America)

Will BHO Stumble Like This?

Roughly in a little less than two hours Barack Hussein Obama and John McCain will engage in a debate originally designed around national security. More than likely that topic will be superseded by America’s economic crisis that is beginning to have the appearance of the beginnings of 1929 depression.

Personally I am hoping BHO’s performance is like this Our Country Deserves Better PAC advertisement on YouTube.

Appease Iran?

If repetition has any value in learning, then yet another essay on Western Appeasement is valuable. Here is a Daniel Pipes essay about the striking similarity between NAZI Germany and Mullocracy Iran as well as some differences to consider not totally vilifying England’s Prime Minister Chamberlain.

Chamberlain is often portrayed as a dupe who believed that he talked Adolf (Final Solution) Hitler into a negotiated “Peace in our time.”

Pipes implies it is understandable that Chamberlain made appeasement mistakes with Hitler. Chamberlain was a product of the political milieu of his time; however President G.W. Bush is a product of today’s political milieu and thus has become a huge appeaser to Iran.

My guess is the boldness of President Bush’s First Term in Office is tempered in the end of his Second Term by not wanting to start fires that the next President will have to put out.

I find that “appeasement” inexcusable and irresponsible for the future of American interests.

JRH 9/26/08

Ahmadinejad and the Mahdi

Mohebat Ahdiyyih writing for the Middle East Forum examines Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Mahdism and Ahmadinejad political rivalry within Iran. Ahdiyyah article is entitled, “Ahmadinejad and the Mahdi.” READ IT for there is an understanding of the Twelver expression radical Islam.

JRH 9/25/08

Chase Terrorists Wherever Harbored?

I want to be clear about something. I am a card carrying member of a shrinking minority which believes that a Palestinian State SHOULD NOT EXIST. Morally and ethically the Arabs that lost their homes or properties as a result of the urged fleeing of Arab invading armies in 1948. Those Arabs that fled via invader warnings should have been taken care of by those losing Arab nations. Instead those Arab nations colluded to make those Arabs refugees to perpetuate a reason to war with in the future.

Fatah is a terrorist organization which has gained Western political acceptance by going through visual motions of propping up the Palestine Authority (PA) into a democracy. The truth is the PA is a thugocracy using both Islamist ideology and Leftist ideology to manipulate its own people while robbing those Arabs blind and feeding them hate propaganda.

Then thug-in-chief Yasser Arafat died under dubious circumstances.

This is when Islamist Hamas began to woo the Gaza Arabs with actual aid instead of robbing them as did Arafat.

Thugocratic elections placed Hamas in political control of Gaza and forced Mahmoud Abbas to accept Hamas into political process of the PA. Thus Hamas and Fatah became radical Islamic rivals among their Arab constituents. Since the PA is a Thugocracy rather than a Democracy, Hamas and Fatah have engaged in a minor civil war of terrorist thugs in which Hamas expelled Fatah from Gaza.

Now here’s thing: America is involved in a Global War on Terror (GWOT). The principal terrorists the American military is trying to eliminate is al Qaeda and the Taliban (and more recently the Revolutionary Guard segments of Iran infiltrating Iraq).

Check this out: Islamist Hamas allowed al Qaeda openly aligned Arabs in Gaza to be part of their paradigm of rule.

Why is the Bush Administration so hot to establish a Palestinian State which has terrorists that openly call military jihad against America and Americans?

If Abbas wants to establish a Palestinian State and views Hamas as a threat to Arab unity, why has he not repudiated Hamas to the extent that he asks either Israel and/or America for help in dislodging the disunity minded Hamas from Gaza?

Why is the Bush administration not actively searching out the al Qaeda terrorists in Gaza and make an impact on whole missile launching murdering Islamic terrorists in Gaza?

I will tell you why. OIL!

The Bush Administration has found itself in the European position of having to cater to Islamist controlled oil so America’s economy is not more adversely affected than it is now.

Also America has become dependent on the political intermediation of Saudi Arabia there is less trouble with Arab nations as America fights in Iraq and Afghanistan.

So it sucks! We are forced into a friendship with Saudi Arabia who is the world’s primary exporter of Wahhabi radical Islam in Europe and America: The same ideology of al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood.

It is time to start drilling for oil in America even if a few non-sentient animals may be affected.

JRH 9/25/08

Islam is a Violent “Faith”

Act for America sent an email yesterday with a September 7 link to a reformist minded Muslim by the name of Dr. Sami Alrabaa. The link is to Europe News and the article is entitled “Islam is a Violent ‘Faith’”.

Dr. Alrabaa appears to be a Muslim devoted to his faith yet embarrassed about the violent nature of Islam as represented in the Quran and the Hadith.

Check out what he has to say!

JRH 9/24/08

Liberals' Warnings About Obama Loss May Prove Self-Fulfilling

Based on interviews and conversations Dennis Prager writes of the potential that Leftists will stir anger and hatred by calling the American voters RACISTS if Barack Hussein Obama loses the election. Someone even told Prager there is a belief race riots may occur.

Ooh! Maybe American voters should vote for BHO to avoid a violent national crisis. NOT!

JRH 9/23/08

The Islamic Practice of Lying

Here are some ex-Mohammedans and/or anti-Islamist experts commenting on the Mohammedan practice of taqiyya which is deception (or really just plain lying). The expert testimony is interspersed with a couple of examples of Islamic lying with the sole purpose of deceiving.

THE UNTOLD STORIES The Sgt. Freedom Campaign

Every Dummicrat (entertainer or politician) should be forced to sit down with their eyes and ears forced open to listen to Sgt Freedom. As I type this Rep. Jack (sell out the Marines) Murtha and Barack Hussein Obama come to mind. But isn't that torture? Dummicrats need this kind of torture!

Communists, Islamists, Spies and America

Barack Hussein Obama is the Democratic Party nominee for President in the November 4, 2008 election.

At best BHO’s past is an enigmatic history. Documentation and past associations are blurry enough for BHO to enter into the realm of plausible deniability.

McCain’s past is fairly well documented with only Leftist detractors’ vain attempts to spin a hero into a liar. Most of those detractors utilize hear say and ad hominem conclusions that are typically baseless of Leftists trying to lie to the public. You can take a stroll through the website Vietnam Veterans Against John McCain and tell it is a spin Left site rather than eyewitness accounts.

Compare VVAJM to John Kerry’s nemesis the Swift Vets (and now) and POW’s for Truth. You will note the Swift Vets have terminated adding new material for their cause against Kerry; however they are leaving the website up as an archive. You will notice most of the anti-Kerry stuff (though Leftists and some Conservatives say are error) is basically eyewitness accounts v. Official (and questionable) documents supporting John Kerry’s view of his action in Vietnam. Unfortunately documents carry more weight than eyewitness evaluation; however note that even to this day John Kerry has never sued the Swift Vets for defamation.

I found that rather strange since the Swift Vets were a huge factor in Kerry losing to President Bush in 2004. Voters received a perception that John Kerry was a person that lacked character to lead.

I doubt that McCain will sue (win or loose) the VVAJM because only gullible Leftists would even come close to believing this obvious valueless smear.

BHO's past is difficult to pin down because documentation is sketchy and eyewitnesses are from foreign lands (Kenya and Indonesia) and radical associations in the USA (Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan, Michael Pfleger, American terrorists Bill Ayers And obviously honoring of other Marxists.)

BHO’s unverifiable denials of his suspicious past is a huge enigma that voters are delusionally looking past due promises of political change in Washington, DC. Most of America’s media is in BHO’s pocket (I am not suggesting money but rather admiration) to aid in backing the denials. If independent information slips through the cracks the BHO campaign and supporters are quick to accuse of racism to place the brakes on any tainting information.

This tactic of denial and lying to the public is standard fair for Marxist loving Leftists in America.



Recently there have been a number of scholarly works that exonerate Joseph McCarthy as being correct about Soviet spies in our midst. Most recently a comrade of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg confessed that he and they were in fact Soviet spies contrary to America’s Left portraying the Rosenberg’s as victims of governmental Red Scare despotism.

Ninety-one year old Morton Sobell did not confess to some right wing extremist who goaded the old boy for the information. Sobell’s confession was made in a New York Times interview shortly after the National Security Archive historians filed a civil suit for the release of Grand Jury testimony related to the Rosenbergs.

So here is the point.



Barack Hussein Obama from early childhood was exposed to both Islamist and Marxist thinking in combinations of living in Kenya. A nation in which people tend to have more tribal loyalties than national loyalties and Barack Hussein Obama SR. was a Muslim with part time Marxist designs for Kenya. The same family tribe is the backbone of Islamist murderer Odinga who claims to be a cousin.

I cannot write about the Indonesia associations for the part of BHO’s life is fuzzy enough that the actual truth cannot be grasped.

BHO’s political career was backed by Marxist American terrorist turned professor Bill Ayers including the Marxist underpinnings of Black Liberation Theology and Farrakhan’s Islamic Supremacist Nation Islam.

I heard BHO on an O’Reilly interview that one cannot judge him by his associations.

Huh?

Dear God in Heaven, I am going to judge him by his past associations. The man is a Leftist Marxist Progressive Christian (Progressive means only accepting the parts of the Bible that can be exploited by Leftist thinking).

It all boils down to this: Leftists lie. Leftist history shows that statement to be true.

JRH 9/22/08

What about Walid Shoebat?

Walid Shoebat testifies that he is a former Islamic Palestinian terrorist that found the error of his ways and found Christ Jesus as his Lord and Savior.

Shoebat writes frequently on anti-Islamist and anti-jihad websites and columns. He even has his own website to promote his message that Islam is evil and Islamic terrorists are racist murderers: http://www.shoebat.com/.

Shoebat has been travelling to universities and speaking engagements to deliver his message as a form of education about Islamist terrorism to a strikingly misled America.

Needless to say I have been a huge follower of Shoebat because of his message and his conversion to Christianity.

I have found out recently that some journalism at the Jerusalem Post and by a pro-Arab journalist by the name of Eileen Fleming have uncovered some data that may indicate that Walid Shoebat has been lying about his past. The lying accusation extends to be a fraud in that allegedly Shoebat has been his dime from his false story of his past.

The Jerusalem Post story is measured giving the appearance of reporting facts which need explanation yet is not directly saying Shoebat is a hoaxster; however there is the leading implication.

Eileen Fleming however is just plain scathing based on interviews of the Shoebat’s Muslim family and Muslim acquaintances from his Muslim life as a Palestinian.

Shoebat convincingly answers nearly every accusation on a Jerusalem Post Right of Reply section and on his own website.

Unfortunately Shoebat failed to give an explanation about donations given via his website.

Visitors to Shoebat's Internet site are encouraged to make a donation to his foundation to enable him to disseminate his message. However, a notice on the page states that for "security reasons," the money will not be debited to his foundation, but rather to a company called Top Executive Media. The name Top Executive Media is used by a greetings card firm from Pennsylvania called Top Executive Greetings, a company with an annual turnover of $500,000. When one makes a donation through the Shoebat Internet site, the Web address changes to topexecutivegreetings.com/shoebat.

This seems to be the only active page for the company; its homepage is blank.

Asked by the Post whether the Walid Shoebat Foundation is a registered charity, Shoebat replied that it is registered in Pennsylvania.

The Pennsylvania State Attorney's office said it had no record of a charity registered under this name. (Jerusalem Post)

I am telling you Shoebat effectively answered everything to the point an appearance of a smear campaign by Leftists, Muslims and pro-Arabs. Then this Jerusalem Post bit of information shows up. Without a clear explanation Shoebat looks shady and like a scammer.

Shoebat only answer is mystifying rather than a response of clarity.

Questioned further, Shoebat said it was registered under a different name, but that he was not aware of the details, which are handled by his manager.

"I remain separate to the running of the charity so that I am not constrained by church rules," he explained, adding that the organization's connection to certain churches meant it would be difficult for him to speak to secular audiences if he became too involved in running it.

This is a flimsy answer that makes Shoebat look like a moron for the key accusation is that money is being sent without accountability to a non-existent dummy organization.

I am telling you I still wanting to believe Shoebat being a good Islamophobe then I read Debbie Schlussel.

Schlussel says she was suspicious of Walid Shoebat but sat on some information until she read the Jerusalem Post story. Schlussel goes on to write about an email exchange that began as a discussion with a commenter. Later via some simple investigation discovered the emails were coming from a Walid Shoebat email address. She confronted the writer and Shoebat (or someone claiming to be Shoebat) says you got me.

Schlussel’s gripe with Shoebat is that he plagiarized some writing of hers and implying Shoebat wrote the information. Schlussel asked for a mere accreditation of her work and she would be happy. According to the email exchange Shoebat originally sad he would give Schlussel credit. That never happened and the email exchange roughly ended with Shoebat using nasty verbiage and daring Schlussel to sue.

Schlussel copy and pasted the email exchange on her post about Shoebat.

You decide if Walid Shoebat was the person in the email exchange. Schlussel convincingly demonstrates that it is; however the reality is that Schlussel can only say Shoebat’s email was used. Thus if Shoebat denied he sent such an email, the only thing that can be proved is where the email originated but NOT who sent them. An educated guess could be made that Shoebat sent them; however an educated guess could also suggest that someone who knows Shoebat could have sent them as well. Without a verbal confession or video of sending email Schlussel cannot actually prove Shoebat sent those emails.

On the other hand if I was Schlussel I certainly would believe it was Shoebat. That is why I said, “You decide.”

Here is another thing. I am a Schlussel fan of her investigative blogging. Yet Schlussel has problems with other anti-Islamist writers other than just Shoebat.

In the post she talks about Shoebat it is entitled, “Enough, Walid Shoebat: Why is Sean Hannity's Fake Terrorist Harassing Me?” She spends a couple of sentences accusing Sean Hannity as a plagiarist. A couple of paragraphs down Schlussel devotes a couple of sentences to World Net Daily writer Aaron Klein as a plagiarist. A few sentences after the email demonstration Schlussel attacks the credibility of Steven Emerson as a terrorist expert I suspect because he vouched for Shoebat. Indeed Muslims and Leftists hate Emerson because of his exposés. The fact remains though that Emerson predicted the affect of global Islamism before 9/11 transformed the way nations do business (e.g. airlines).

I am probably guilty of wanting to believe Walid Shoebat. I have to reiterate that I would have been completely on Shoebat’s side except for the weak answer on where donations go after they disappear to what appears to be a dummy company or charity.

So since I want to believe in Shoebat, I am taking a wait and see what else turns up that is positive or negative. If there is darkness in Shoebat the light will expose it. If there is a smear campaign the light will eventually expose that as well.

GWOT is more than Criminal Investigation and Conventional War

Islamic terrorism on a global scale is in effect a war of global circumstances; thus the moniker "Global War on Terrorism" (GWOT).

In war there is a necessity in democratic nations to limit certain civil rights because a war with a nation or a transnational Islamist requires the ability to engage in a military style rather than a civil style.

Otherwise spies or terrorists will utilize civil liberty laws as a weapon to reach their desired goal, which is the defeat of their foe.

In the case of Australia, a measured limitation of civil rights enabled the Australian government to catch home grown terrorists following transnational Islamic ideological terrorism.

Kudos to Australia!

Leftists should the success to understand the GWOT and not whine about giving rights to agents of murder based on international ideology.

Indeed Daniel Pipes writing for The Australian contradicts the Leftist attitude that transnational terrorism is an unwinnable war. Pipes focuses on military tactician retired Israeli Major General Yaakov Amidror.

Amidror appears to believe that using tactics different than conventional war yet with the same persistence of acquiring victory is the path to defeating transnational terrorism. Victory may not be a moment as when a nation signs surrender and terminating the war. Transnational terrorists are not nations and usually do not abide by international conventions.

Tactics must change to squelching transnational terrorists and their resources to render them ineffective. This would be a limited or transitory victory in which vigilance needs to be used to continue the experience of peace after the crushing of transnational resources is complete.

Read Pipes! It is a paradigm shift to the typical Leftist hide your head in the sand and hope the problem mysteriously disappears of its own accord.


JRH 9/19/08 (Hat tip to ICJS)

Obama: Lucifer Is My Homeboy

Ann Coulter is at one her wittiest best in frying Democrats, Leftists and the Obama campaign relating to religion, Governor Palin and lies.

As you read Obama: Lucifer is my Homeboy keep this in mind. Lucifer equals Satan who is also the devil. Jesus said the devil is the father of lies.

Man that fits the Democratic Party and Leftist smear operatives to a tee.

JRH 9/18/o8

BHO Accuses Taheri of Distortion, Taheri Rebuts with Facts

John R. Houk
© September 18, 2008

Yesterday I posted Barrack Hussein Obama Skullduggery based on Amir Taheri exposé that BHO demanded the Iraqi government cease negotiations with the Bush Administration to send American Troops home.

Since then Move America Forward Freedom PAC produced a brief political ad utilizing the Taheri information to get the word out on Barack Hussein Obama hypocrisy.

The Barack Hussein Obama campaign has repudiated Taheri claiming his article was full of distortions.

Taheri came back with another article displaying BHO duplicity in a vain attempt to spin the facts. Taheri busts him pretty good with reality. If there were any distortions, it is on the part of Barack Hussein Obama.

In an email sent out to MAF Freedom PAC supporters, the obvious was stated about BHO:

…

Obama's campaign is now trying to cover-up his abhorrent anti-military position he took with the Iraqi foreign minister, but never thought would be revealed to the American people. He has shamelessly tried to claim that people are mixing up two different documents being negotiated -- the Status of Forces Agreement and the Strategic Framework Agreement, which sets the terms for U.S. military involvement in Iraq.

But the New York Post columnist ripped apart this phony explanation. He cited an NBC report that proved Obama is either forgetful or plain lying. Taheri uses specific examples of why Obama's defense is flawed.

…

It is beginning to become evident that the one time Leftist Messiah is a liar and is attempting to deflect his lying status by accusing others of lying.

Check Melanie Morgan’s list of prominent blogs writing on this subject: MelanieMorgan.com.

JRH 9/18/08
*********************************
OBAMA OBJECTS
BUT THE EVIDENCE SAYS I'M RIGHT

By Amir Taheri
Last updated: 12:36 pm
September 17, 2008 Posted: 3:55 am
September 17, 2008
New York Post

IN Monday's Post, I discussed how Barack Obama, during his July trip, had asked Iraqi leaders not to finalize an agreement vital to the future of US forces in Iraq - and how the effect of such a delay would be to postpone the departure of the US from Iraq beyond the time Obama himself calls for.

The Obama campaign has objected. While its statement says my article was "filled with distortions," the rebuttal actually centers on a technical point: the differences between two Iraqi-US accords under negotiation - the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA, to set rules governing US military personnel in Iraq) and the Strategic Framework Agreement (SFA, to settle the legal basis for the US military presence in Iraq in the months and years ahead).

The Obama camp says I confused the two. It continues: "On the Status of Forces Agreement, Sen. Obama has always said he hoped that the US and Iraq would complete it - but if they did not, the option of extending the UN mandate should be considered.

"As to the Strategic Framework Agreement, Sen. Obama has consistently said that any security arrangements that outlast this administration should have the backing of the US Congress - especially given the fact that the Iraqi parliament will have the opportunity to vote on it."

If there is any confusion, it's in Obama's position - for the two agreements are interlinked: You can't have any US military presence under one agreement without having settled the other accord. (Thus, in US-Iraqi talks, the aim is a comprehensive agreement that covers both SOFA and SFA.)

And the claim that Obama only wanted the Strategic Framework Agreement delayed until a new administration takes office, and had no objection to a speedy conclusion of a Status of Forces Agreement, is simply untrue.

Here is how NBC reported Obama's position on June 16, after his conversation in the US with Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari: "Obama also told Zebari, he said, that Congress should be involved in any negotiations regarding a Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq. He suggested it may be better to wait until the next administration to negotiate such an agreement."

In other words, Obama wanted a delay on the Status of Forces Agreement, not on the Strategic Framework Agreement - as his rebuttal now claims.

The NBC report continues: "Asked by NBC's Lee Cowan if a timetable for the Status of Forces Agreement was discussed, Obama said, 'Well he, the foreign minister, had presented a letter requesting an extension of the UN resolution until the end of this year. So that' s a six-month extension.'"

That Obama was aware that the two accords couldn' t be separated is clear in his words to NBC:

"Obviously, we can't have US forces operating on the ground in Iraq without some sort of agreement, either a further extension of the UN resolution or some sort of Status of Forces agreement, some strategic framework agreement. As I said before, my concern is that the Bush administration -- in a weakened state politically -- ends up trying to rush an agreement that in some ways might be binding to the next administration, whether it was my administration or Sen. McCain' s administration." (Emphasis added.)

Obama also told NBC: "The foreign minister agreed that the next administration should not be bound by an agreement that's currently made, but I think the only way to assure that is to make sure that there is strong bipartisan support, that Congress is involved, that the American people know the outlines of this agreement.

"And my concern is that if the Bush administration negotiates, as it currently has, and given that we're entering into the heat of political season, that we're probably better off not trying to complete a hard-and-fast agreement before the next administration takes office, but I think obviously these conversations have to continue.

"As I said, my No. 1 priority is making sure that we don't have a situation in which US troops on the ground are somehow vulnerable to, are made more vulnerable, because there is a lack of a clear mandate."

This confirms precisely what I suggested in my article: Obama preferred to have no agreement on US troop withdrawals until a new administration took office in Washington.

Obama has changed position on another key issue. In the NBC report, he pretends that US troops in Iraq do not have a "clear mandate." Now, however, he admits that there is a clear mandate from the UN Security Council and that he'd have no objection to extending it pending a bilateral Iraq-US agreement.

The campaign's rebuttal adds other confusions to the mix. It notes that Obama (along with two other senators who accompanied him) also stated in July: "We raised a number of other issues with the Iraqi leadership, including our deep concern about Iranian financial and material assistance to militia engaged in violent acts against American and Iraqi forces; the need to secure public support through our respective legislatures for any long term security agreements our countries negotiate; the importance of doing more to help the more than 4 million Iraqis who are refugees or internally displaced persons; and the need to give our troops immunity from Iraqi prosecution so long as they are in Iraq."

Note that in this part of the statement, the term "security agreements" is used instead of SOFA and SFA - another sign that the two can' t be separated.

In any case, I never said Obama didn't raise other issues with the Iraqis. Yet all those issues have been the subject of US-Iraqi talks between the US and Iraq (and of conferences attended by Iraq's neighbors) for the last five years. Simply repeating them isn' t enough to hide the fact that Obama' s policy on Iraq consists of little more than a few contradictory slogans.

My account of Obama's message to the Iraqis was based on a series of conversations with Iraqi officials, as well as reports and analyses in the Iraqi media (including the official newspaper, Al Sabah) on the senator's trip to Baghdad. It is also confirmed by Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari.

In a long interview with the pan-Arab daily Asharq al-Awsat, Zebari says: "Obama asked me why, in view of the closeness of a change of administration, we were hurrying the signing of this special agreement, and why we did not wait until the coming of the new administation next year and agree on some issues and matters."

Again, note that Zebari mentions a single set of agreements, encompassing both SFA and SOFA.

Zebari continues: "I told Obama that, as an Iraqi, I believe that even if there is a Democratic administration in the White House it had better continue the present policy instead of wasting a lot of time thinking what to do."

In other words, Obama was trying to derail current US policy, while Zebari was urging him not to "waste time."

Zebari then says: "I pointed out to him [Obama] that the agreement being negotiated [with the US] was not to be necessarily binding on the future administration unless it wanted to cooperate with the people of Iraq instead of [causing] crises and problems from its very start."

According to Zebari, Obama said "some media reports that I want all [American] forces withdrawn are wrong. I want to keep American forces [in Iraq] to train [the Iraqi army] and fight terrorism." This is precisely what US troops have been doing in Iraq for the last five years.

Zebari then says that he had the impression that US policy in Iraq wouldn't change: "The US has permanent strategic interests in our region. A change in the administration would not change realities and priorities and would not mean a change of policy as a whole." (Full text of the Zebari interview is available on Asharqalawsat.com)

Contrary to what Obama and his campaign have said, Iraqi officials insist that at no point in his talks in Washington and Baghdad did Obama make a distinction between SOFA and SFA when he advised them to wait for the next American administration.

The real news I see in the Obama statement is that there may be an encouraging evolution in his position on Iraq: The "rebuttal" shows that the senator no longer shares his party leadership's belief that the United States has lost the war in Iraq.

He now talks of "the prospect of lasting success," perhaps hoping that his own administration would inherit the kudos. And he makes no mention of his running mate Joe Biden's pet project for carving Iraq into three separate states. He has even abandoned his earlier claim that toppling Saddam Hussein was "illegal" and admits that the US-led coalition's presence in Iraq has a legal framework in the shape of the UN mandate.

In his statement on my Post article, Obama no longer talks of "withdrawal" but of "redeployment" and "drawdown" - which is exactly what is happening in Iraq now.

While I am encouraged by the senator's evolution, I must also appeal to him to issue a "cease and desist" plea to the battalions of his sympathizers - who have been threatening me with death and worse in the days since my article appeared.
________________________________________

BHO Accuses Taheri of Distortion, Taheri Rebuts with Facts
John R. Houk
© September 18, 2008
________________________________________

OBAMA OBJECTS
Copyright 2008 NYP Holdings, Inc. All rights reserved.

Barack Hussein Obama Skullduggery

John R. Houk
September 17, 2008

Let us see: Barack Hussein Obama stance to his voting base is to leave Iraq ASAP. BHO claims he was against removing genocidal tyrant Saddam Hussein. BHO says he was against the Surge implying it was a waste in a nation he believes to be a quagmire of American defeat.

Oops! President Bush (which Senator McCain fully supported) went ahead with the Surge to Left America’s horror. This is even more horrific for Left America: the Surge has been an amazing success even beyond President Bush’s expectations.

Understandably BHO being a good Leftist denied the success of the Surge for some time. Only when it became evident that BHO would look like a Foreign Policy fool to refute the success of the Surge did a Leftist spin begin.

That spin was something like this: BHO believed we had no idea the Surge would have been successful; ergo he would have still been against it on principle. I am guessing that principle is defeat rather than victory.

Now the even more hypocrisy for the Leftie who says CHANGE will be the theme of an Administration he would operate.

The New York Post reports that BHO on his only visit to Iraq demanded the Iraqi government to cease negotiations with the Bush Administration over a time frame for U.S. Troops to leave Iraq. Why? I believe reason incorporated something like the Bush Administration was an ineffective weak Presidency.

Hmm … Weak I guess even though after many bad decisions in a post Saddam regime to bring democracy to a much divided nation, President Bush made a good decision with the Surge. This is very Surge that has nearly decimated al Qaeda’s existence in Iraq. So the only real problem in Iraq is rogue Islamofascist Iran attempting to stir up trouble among the Iraqi Shi’ites.

BHO wants no credit to go to President Bush, Senator McCain and the Republicans for being correct about the Surge and how that success could actually bring Americans home earlier than anticipated. BHO wants to continue to paint a bad picture (with the help of his crony media supporters) about Iraq in order to grab the messianic hero adulation for bringing Americans home ALONE. Thus BHO’s idea of CHANGE is still NOT bi-partisan. It is fringe Leftist Democratic Party partisanship in an effort to work Americans at home into giving the Democrats more political power via the vote. Such political power will be an increase in taxes, government interference, restrictions on real Christianity (as opposed to fake Progressive Christianity), and the culmination of a Secular Humanistic transformation in America that will make deviants appear normal and Biblical morality to look deviant.

Here are some excerpts from a Move America Forward Freedom PAC email I received on September 16.

It is almost impossible to believe Barack Obama can be this arrogant. But sometimes the worst about politicians is true. It looks like Barack Obama told the Iraqi government to halt negotiations on troop withdrawals until after the election.

Obama is putting his own political objectives ahead of the safety of U.S. troops in Iraq. Apparently this all happened during his celebrated trip to Iraq - yes, the same trip where he refused to meet with American military personnel in the hospital in Germany because they wouldn't let news camera crews turn the visit into a circus and political stunt.

Iraqi government sources have revealed to the New York Post that Presidential candidate Barack Obama demanded that Iraqi officials stop negotiations with the Bush Administration to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq. …

Fearful that the success in Iraq would harm his political aspirations, Obama sought to keep U.S. troops in Iraq so he can continue attacking the Bush Administration for not imposing a timetable for withdrawal. If these allegations prove to be true, it should be the end of the Obama campaign. The report says this was a demand Obama made to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari.

…

Obama should have the decency to recognize that he lacks the moral character to serve as Commander-in-Chief, and he should withdraw from the ticket. I have never heard of any candidate deliberately trying to get Americans killed to prove their point.

According to the New York Post story, not only did Obama seek to get the Iraqi to stop negotiating with Americans on the troop drawdown, he also tried to bully General David Petraeus to agree to a hard withdrawal date.

The hypocrisy of Barack Obama - to say, in the United States, that he wants a speedier troop withdrawal date - while telling the Iraqis to stop negotiating is appalling. Even supporters of a quicker U.S. withdrawal must be sickened by his conduct in Iraq. If there were ever a candidate who has demonstrated the lack of character and leadership to represent the United States in foreign affairs, it is Barack Obama.

…

It is very apparent to me that Barack Hussein Obama is NOT an agent of CHANGE. Rather BHO is an agent of political skullduggery.

JRH 9/17/08
***************************************
OBAMA TRIED TO STALL GIS' IRAQ WITHDRAWAL

By Amir Taheri
Last updated: 2:34 pm
September 16, 2008
Posted: 4:02 am
September 15, 2008
New York Post

WHILE campaigning in public for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence.

According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama made his demand for delay a key theme of his discussions with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July.

"He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington," Zebari said in an interview.

Obama insisted that Congress should be involved in negotiations on the status of US troops - and that it was in the interests of both sides not to have an agreement negotiated by the Bush administration in its "state of weakness and political confusion."

"However, as an Iraqi, I prefer to have a security agreement that regulates the activities of foreign troops, rather than keeping the matter open." Zebari says.

Though Obama claims the US presence is "illegal," he suddenly remembered that Americans troops were in Iraq within the legal framework of a UN mandate. His advice was that, rather than reach an accord with the "weakened Bush administration," Iraq should seek an extension of the UN mandate.

While in Iraq, Obama also tried to persuade the US commanders, including Gen. David Petraeus, to suggest a "realistic withdrawal date." They declined.

Obama has made many contradictory statements with regard to Iraq. His latest position is that US combat troops should be out by 2010. Yet his effort to delay an agreement would make that withdrawal deadline impossible to meet.

Supposing he wins, Obama's administration wouldn't be fully operational before February - and naming a new ambassador to Baghdad and forming a new negotiation team might take longer still.

By then, Iraq will be in the throes of its own campaign season. Judging by the past two elections, forming a new coalition government may then take three months. So the Iraqi negotiating team might not be in place until next June.

Then, judging by how long the current talks have taken, restarting the process from scratch would leave the two sides needing at least six months to come up with a draft accord. That puts us at May 2010 for when the draft might be submitted to the Iraqi parliament - which might well need another six months to pass it into law.

Thus, the 2010 deadline fixed by Obama is a meaningless concept, thrown in as a sop to his anti-war base.

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and the Bush administration have a more flexible timetable in mind.

According to Zebari, the envisaged time span is two or three years - departure in 2011 or 2012. That would let Iraq hold its next general election, the third since liberation, and resolve a number of domestic political issues.

Even then, the dates mentioned are only "notional," making the timing and the cadence of withdrawal conditional on realities on the ground as appreciated by both sides.

Iraqi leaders are divided over the US election. Iraqi President Jalal Talabani (whose party is a member of the Socialist International) sees Obama as "a man of the Left" - who, once elected, might change his opposition to Iraq's liberation. Indeed, say Talabani's advisers, a President Obama might be tempted to appropriate the victory that America has already won in Iraq by claiming that his intervention transformed failure into success.

Maliki's advisers have persuaded him that Obama will win - but the prime minister worries about the senator's "political debt to the anti-war lobby" - which is determined to transform Iraq into a disaster to prove that toppling Saddam Hussein was "the biggest strategic blunder in US history."

Other prominent Iraqi leaders, such as Vice President Adel Abdul-Mahdi and Kurdish regional President Massoud Barzani, believe that Sen. John McCain would show "a more realistic approach to Iraqi issues."

Obama has given Iraqis the impression that he doesn't want Iraq to appear anything like a success, let alone a victory, for America. The reason? He fears that the perception of US victory there might revive the Bush Doctrine of "pre-emptive" war - that is, removing a threat before it strikes at America.

Despite some usual equivocations on the subject, Obama rejects pre-emption as a legitimate form of self -defense. To be credible, his foreign-policy philosophy requires Iraq to be seen as a failure, a disaster, a quagmire, a pig with lipstick or any of the other apocalyptic adjectives used by the American defeat industry in the past five years.

Yet Iraq is doing much better than its friends hoped and its enemies feared. The UN mandate will be extended in December, and we may yet get an agreement on the status of forces before President Bush leaves the White House in January.

UPDATE 9/17/08 12:38 PM ET: BHO accuses author Amir Taheri of distortions which is code for you caught me and I have to lie my way out of it.
________________________________

Barack Hussein Obama Skullduggery
John R. Houk
September 17, 2008
_________________________________

Move America Forward Freedom PAC donation

______________________________

OBAMA TRIED TO STALL GIS' IRAQ WITHDRAWAL
Copyright 2008 NYP Holdings, Inc. All rights reserved.

Olmert, Abbas to Meet on Jerusalem

Prime Minister Olmert is as lame as a lame duck can be and yet Olmert and the Kadima led government coalition seems determined to make decisions that will end the existence of Israel and Judaism of its God ordained Biblical land.

Europe and President Bush are pushing hard for the creation of a Palestinian sovereign State. The Bush Administration, the Obama camp and the McCain camp have all expressed that America will do whatever it takes to protect the existence of Israel.

As the nation Georgia found out, this kind of promise can be as empty as a drought stricken well that is as dry as a bone.

Even Israel’s recent history has proven the lack of stomach for America to protect Israel. When Hamas from the south and Hezbollah from the north committed acts of aggression on Israel of the missile kind, the only physical help from America was to arm Israel followed by a caveat: Now don’t be hurtin’ those poor suffering A-rabs.

In other words don’t take aggressive action even though the murdering terrorists constantly attack you followed by rhetoric that Israel will be wiped off the map.

JRH 9/16/08

Randi Rhodes is a Leftist Liar

Ann Coulter is right: Leftists LIE.

Randi Rhodes an ex-host for the now bankrupt Air America is doing her Leftist best to lie about both Senator McCain and Governor Palin.

According to Rhodes McCain had a cushy time at Hanoi Hilton and Sarah Palin is a pedophile of teenage boys.

You would think that if Rhodes was going to successfully Swift Boat the McCain campaign she could get a significant amount of fellows that would corroborate her lies. I mean the original Swift Boat Vets against Kerry were significant whether their version corroborated John Kerry or not.

If Rhodes has a bunch of eye witnesses corroborating her lies she is not sharing the validity of her sources. It is an example of fishing for lies to tell them as fact. I believe that is called deception.

On September 8, 2008 Rhodes claimed McCain was called “the Prince” by his captors because he was given preferential treatment.



She is a moron. McCain was called “the Prince” because he was the son of an Admiral and grandson of another Admiral. When the North Vietnamese found out whom McCain was I am guessing the only preferential treatment he received was being patched up from his Fighter Jet crash and the abuse of his original captors. After McCain miraculously survived the neglectful medical patch work he was thrown for dead among two other POW’s who nursed to life. Ironically the website Vietnam Veterans against John McCain provides a US News & World Report article of McCain telling his story. The website uses the article as if it is an indictment against John McCain because McCain said things like give me medical attention and I will tell you military information. Of course neither the article nor McCain relates if he actually gave information; however it does relate they weren’t going to give medical attention until they found out who the father of McCain was. Also the article talks about the horrendous torture McCain received. How all this is an indictment on Kerry is beyond me, it corroborates that McCain is a hero. The VVAJM is a Leftist joke full of innuendo and twisted words about McCain’s POW experience which is so far away from the truth that only a Leftist or an idiot would believe it.

If you want first hand witnesses talk to people like Bud Day. Day was a fellow POW and paints a different picture than the Leftists are trying to paint.



Then on September 12, 2008 Rhodes implied Governor Palin was a stalker of teenage boys.



My God if there were time for a civil suit to nail this egregious lie by Rhodes I would think Palin would follow through with it. As it is now, there are so many lies being told about Palin that it is entering the realm of the ridiculous.

Can America afford this kind of mentality running America for four years? Dear God American voters wake-up and realize what Obama represents.

JRH 9/16/08

Will Saudi Justice find its Way into American Justice?

The cradle of Islam is Mecca. Mecca is governed and protected by the House of Saud. The House of Saud is the royal family that reigns and rules Saudi Arabia. The House of Saud is entwined with a movement founded by Muhammad ibn Abd al Wahhab; thus the influence of violence in Islam.

The House of Saud is committed in spreading Wahhabi teaching through the entire globe using oil wealth to facilitate Wahhabi education and the building of Mosques both in the Mohammedan Middle East and in the West. Wahhabism is the foundation of the murdering Islamic terrorists such as al Qaeda, the Taliban, Hamas and related Islamic/Islamist violent groups. You can guess that Wahhabism is very influential among Mohammedans due to the oil money of the Saudis used to propagate the death cult globally. Reliable sources put at 80% of Mosques in America are Wahhabi supported or funded. Check out this quote from testimony given before the U.S. Senate in 2003:

At the present time, Shia and other non-Wahhabi Muslim community leaders estimate that 80 percent of American mosques are under Wahhabi control. This does not mean 80 percent of American Muslims support Wahhabism, although the main Wahhabi ideological agency in America, the so-called Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) has claimed that some 70 percent of American Muslims want Wahhabi teaching in their mosques.1This is a claim we consider unfounded. (Steven Schwartz)

If this was so in 2003, consider or imagine the teaching of Mohammedanism in America today. This would mean organizations such as and similar to CAIR that claim they represent the majority of Muslim/Americans are not as moderate and peaceful as they would have you believe.

The House of Saud, the ruling family of Saudi Arabia is of the Sunnis. Sunnis represent roughly 90% (Let’s say 85% to 90% depending who you read) of those that call themselves Muslims (Mohammedans). The Shia sect represents roughly the other 10% (and of the Shias the West could view that as splintered as well). Of the Shia sects the largest appears to be the Twelvers or Jaafaris (same sect different names). The Twelvers can be seen in the Ayatollahs of Iran. The Ayatollahs appear to me to be as repressive and violent as the Wahhabi Sunnis.

I pray OIL is the only reason that the American government has cultivated a friendly alliance with Saudi Arabia. Even though the Saudi government may express American appreciation to the West publically, its political infrastructure continuously denounces American democracy and society.

Transnational politics regardless of culture or dominant faith is as Machiavellian (Long thoughts and short definition) today as it ever has been. The Machiavellianism may be more sophisticated; however politics is still the means justify the ends as a methodology to plan the ends.

Now that you read this far let me go out on a limb to summarize Saudi Arabia:

The Saudi nation/Monarchy is a repressive despotic government which uses violent Wahhabi Sharia Law as the essence of its rule of law.

Saudi adjudicated crimes may be judged as capital or maiming decisions. Saudi considered crimes in America may not even be a crime or if it is the punishment would probably be minimal especially for first time offenders.

Check this out from Dhimmi Watch:

… it's permissible to kill broadcasters of "immoral" television, but a judge must order it

… An update on this story. "Only courts can order death for ‘depraved' TV bosses," from Agence France-Presse, September 14:

RIYADH - A top Saudi cleric and judge sought Sunday to tone down a controversial religious edict sanctioning the killing of owners of television stations that air "debauchery," saying they could only be put to death after a judicial process.

If the owners of television networks that air "depravation and debauchery" are not deterred by lesser punishments, they would be referred to justice which issues its rulings in keeping with the laws in force in the kingdom, Sheikh Saleh al-Luhaidan told state-run Saudi television.

"They may be killed through a judicial (ruling)," he added.

Luhaidan, who heads the Supreme Judicial Council, the highest judicial body in ultra-conservative Muslim Saudi Arabia, sparked controversy by saying on the radio that the owners of television networks broadcasting "immoral" programmes may be killed.

But: Define "immoral." I Love Lucy? Little House on the Prairie? CBS Evening News with Katie Couric?

It is lawful to kill... the apostles of depravation... if their evil cannot be easily removed through simple sanctions," Luhaidan said, according to excerpts of the remarks broadcast on Saudi-owned Al-Arabiya satellite television on Friday.

Luhaidan acknowledged on Sunday that his remarks had caused an outcry, but put that down to what he said was a wrong interpretation of his views, insisting he had said that death would be through a judicial process.

Saudi Arabia applies a rigorous doctrine of Sunni Islam known as Wahhabism, and its Islamic courts hand down death sentences for a series of offences including murder, rape and drug trafficking.

The oil-rich kingdom's grand mufti recently issued a fatwa, or religious edict, describing a highly popular television soap as "un-Islamic," but Luhaidan's remarks went further than any made by hardline clerics against entertainment programmes seen as immoral.

This is the kind of teaching that is being financed by oil rich Saudi Wahhabists in Muslim-American Mosques.

Does Freedom of Religion mean that Americans look the other way while such violent laws are promoted in 70% of Muslim-American Mosques?

Wahhabism may not be the dominant form of Mohammedanism globally but it has the money and the influence.