America cannot serve two masters, she cannot keep downgrading Israel from a nation of freedom-loving people into a bargaining chip in order to satisfy any part of a political agenda that green lights the destruction of Israel.
By Stanley Zir, Never Again is Now
Although he has painted himself as a hero of freedom, in reality Obama’s foreign policy has enabled tyranny and terrorism to flourish. Perhaps he does not understand the following statements:
Fascism is the ultimate expression of absolute power; deception and the absence of accountability are its greatest allies. Since lies are the tools that fascists use to complete their circuitry of deceit, any statements issued from the leaders of these governments or their supporters can be never be believed or validated. The only thing that can be substantiated is the total absence of people’s inalienable rights.
Wake up America, the Muslim Brotherhood, a criminal enterprise that supports Hamas and the overthrow of Israel, is now your primary partner to broker peace in the Middle East. What happens when you do not challenge Obama’s foreign policy? You wave the white flag of surrender to Islam!
While Obama was traveling in Southeast Asia, half way around the globe, America‘s closest ally, Israel, was defending itself by launching an attack on Hamas.
Again‚ Obama waited before throwing Israel the proverbial crumb, “We support you all the way, ” all the way that is, until Israel launches a ground war, to finally vanquish an enemy that is determined to destroy the Jewish state.
Then Hilary Clinton flew in to broker a peace with Hamas and Israel through Mohammed Morsi.
Not one news agency at that time questioned the sanity of the Secretary of State promoting a peace agreement brokered with Mohammed Morsi, an enabler of Iran’s terrorist exploits against Israel and a champion of Hamas. On the contrary, the mainstream media praised Mrs. Clinton for achieving a cease fire agreement. “What agreement were the mainstream media so enamored with? One that would give Gaza open ports so terrorists can get more missiles in their quest to destroy Israel and provide Iran an advantage in her psychological war against the Jewish state. That, and the promise that Israel will not kill any more of their terrorist leaders. This equals suicide for Israel .
Lacking a historical overview, the Administration along with Congress, has long ignored a crucial fact concerning the reality of the enemy we face in our war on terrorism. The Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas, both terrorist organizations, are Sunni, while the Iranian population is 92 percent Shi’ite. The Sunni and Shi‘ites constantly war against each other in the name of the superiority of their God, a God who they both worship through acts of treachery and murder.
Yet, they are able to unite, despite their religious fanatical differences, when it comes to the destruction Israel, a point that Washington refuses to concede.
Tragically, they have lost sight of the fact that it is Iran that is the proverbial Alpha male of the Islamic world. Iran not only continues to hold America hostage with a threat of an economic meltdown (a manufactured threat) if it doesn’t agree to the creation of a nuclear armed Iran, but many of Iran’s immediate neighbors in the Arab League are also petrified at the thought of Iran becoming a nuclear armed terrorist state.
Iran and Iran alone is the epicenter of the ideology of Islamic supremacism and Israel eradication, not the Muslim Brotherhood, Syria, not Afghanistan, Yemen, nor Al- Quaida and the rest.
Iran is the standard bearer for global sharia law advocacy. Her terrorist tentacles reach far beyond the Islamic world to South America, South Africa China, Korea, Russia, Europe, Africa, and the UN; all are now part and parcel of their war on America, Israel, and the West.
The fact is that Iran’s Revolutionary Guard and their terrorist surrogates actively attack and kill American and Israeli citizens and soldiers around the world.
The bad news for Obama (and also for Israel and America), is that Egyptian President Morsi, who shares Iran’s determination to destroy Israel, has seized absolute power, dismissed the judiciary, and established a fascist Islamic constitution whose approval will be sought in a nationwide referendum. Unfortunately for the people of Egypt, the outcome has already been pre-determined by Morsi.
Where is Barack Hussein Obama, the hero who stood for freedom in Egypt and the Islamic World?
He said that Americans must respect the rights of the Islamic people and that their voices must be heard. Why is Obama hesitating? Why is he not asking Morsi, like Mubarak before him, to to step down? Isn’t there more than enough proof that Morsi is a dictator, or does Obama believe that the Muslim Brotherhood and their partner in crime, Ahmadinejad, can be honest brokers for peace in the Middle East?
But a larger question looms, where is the GOP, why are they not launching a national campaign to demand why Obama does not make his intentions known to the American people concerning Mohammed Morsi’s status.
If the leader of the free world does not emphatically declare what America stands against in all circumstances, then for what do we stand, and with whom? Certainly not those Egyptian people who are now again claiming they want to be a tyranny-free nation, not one that was hijacked by the Muslim Brotherhood though free elections.
Obama’s foreign policy follows a distinct pattern of behavior when dealing with the uprisings in the Islamic world. His commitment to giving support to those who are leading the charge, changes in direct proportion to those who are guaranteed to win.
In Egypt, it was only after Obama knew that Mubarak would fall, that Obama announced to the world he was calling upon the people of Egypt to overthrow their oppressor. In this case he was not willing to support the perceived victim until the outcome appeared guaranteed.
What he never committed to in the Arab Spring was a foreign policy that insists that a constitutional government be implemented that opposes tyranny, if they wish to continue to receive financial support even if it is not the will of the victors in a free election.
Obama manages to shuck his responsibility as the leader of the free world when it suits his purpose, proclaiming America will not interfere in the internal affairs of any nation, especially in the Islamic world. Ironically, now the people of Egypt are demanding that Morsi step down after free elections, but will Obama get involved as he did with Mubarak?
The protesters who have now taken to the streets against the Muslim Brotherhood may provide the ultimate solution against Islamic fascism, for they might be the first generation of Muslims to accept a guaranteed separation from a mosque/state tyrannical enclave through a democratic constitutional state mandate.
Will Egypt finally adopt the political ideology that America ‘s Founders designed that can end sectarian slaughter, by redirecting the people’s allegiance from religious fanaticism to one that protects everyone’s inalienable rights? This is the front line of defense that the Islamic world must adopt if they are to be free from tyranny’s hateful grip, and America ‘s Constitution fits the bill.
This is a chance that we must not squander and the GOP must take the lead, this is the opportunity for them to reestablish American’s identity as to why she is the nation among all nations that was created to bring about a peaceful co-existence among mankind.
The question becomes, how can the GOP support an American president who champions a foreign policy that aligns America with nations and political movements that are determined to eliminate our precious rights in Allah’s name?
Simply put, Obama paints America , the defender of freedom, as though she is the greatest offender. He treats Iran, the Muslim Brotherhood and the rest of these renegades as if they were the victims of America ’s aggression, as if they need some special consideration, as if invasion, conquest, and nation building with the global jihad are somehow a defensive posture, an appropriate response to America ‘s foreign policy.
And the Obama Doctrine, “Terrorists are R’ U.S. ” completely exemplifies this erroneous position. For it is a foreign policy that contends that America ’s greed, racism, and exploitation of the Islamic nations is responsible for their hatred against us, not Islam’s addiction to tyranny’s hateful edicts and the murder of millions of innocent people over the last 1300 years.
America cannot serve two masters, she cannot keep downgrading Israel from a nation of freedom-loving people into a bargaining chip in order to satisfy any part of a political agenda that green lights the destruction of Israel- in the hope of establishing a peaceful co-existence with the oil-rich tyrannical nations of the Arabian Peninsula. Yet, that is exactly what is being done. This is a policy that not only dooms Israel to extinction, but will lead to the destruction of the moral fiber that binds America to its own humanity.
The GOP must emphatically declare its independence from the dictates of Obama‘s foreign policies which now bind our nation to tyranny’s diabolical edicts. They must commit to defending our nation from enemies both foreign and domestic, but it seems they cannot walk and chew gum at the same time.
If Americans are joined at the hip with the Muslim Brotherhood, how can we stop Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who must not be given the opportunity to accomplish his unequivocally-announced and pursued goal: a nuclear armed terrorist state.
America needs a new guideline; she needs a new point of departure, one that once again honors her nation’s eternal stance against the advancement of global tyranny. She must immediately embark on this new path, for it guarantees America ’s victory over those who have compromised our core beliefs at home and abroad.
America needs a Victorious America party.
Charlie Savage of the New York Times reports that the Obama Administration is arguing that the Constitution does not require congressional authorization for the Libya intervention because it is not a “war,” but merely some smaller scale of military action:
“The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,” Mr. Obama told The Boston Globe in December 2007.
The administration’s legal team appears to be distinguishing between a full war and a more limited military operation, on the theory that the Libyan intervention falls short of what would prompt any Congressional authority to control decisions about whether to initiate hostilities.Asked about Mr. Obama’s 2007 statement, Tom Donilon, Mr. Obama’s national security adviser, said Monday that the administration “welcomes the support of Congress in whatever form that they want to express that support.” But, Mr. Donilon added, Mr. Obama could authorize the operation on his own.
“This is a limited — in terms of scope, duration and task — operation, which does fall in the president’s authorities,” he said.
As I have pointed out here and here, this may be a reasonable argument if the Libya operation remains short and very limited in scale. But if it drags on or the fighting escalates, the administration’s legal position will become increasingly tenuous. Moreover, as Jack Goldsmith points out, the administration may be relying on Clinton-era arguments justifying the 1994 Haiti and 1995 Bosnia interventions. But those arguments relied heavily on the notion that the interventions in question were “consensual” (US forces had been invited by the governments of those countries). By contrast, the Libyan government certainly hasn’t invited us to bomb its forces, and the administration has not recognized the rebels as as the “true” government in Gaddafi’s place.
Some might say that none of this really matters. After all, no court is likely to enjoin military operations against Libya, even if a lawsuit were filed. But the president and Congress have an independent duty to uphold the Constitution even if courts cannot or will not force them to do so. We should strive to establish a political culture where all three branches of government take their constitutional obligations seriously. I am not naive enough to believe that politicians will ever do so fully. But we can certainly do better than the present situation where most of our elected leaders give the Constitution no more than lip service unless forced to do by defeat in Court.
Constitutional considerations also matter in so far as they might sway public opinion. While people who strongly support or strongly oppose the Libya intervention are unlikely to change their minds on the basis of constitutional concerns alone, many observers are on the fence. I am one such fence-sitter myself, since I see some strong arguments on both sides of the policy issue. The Libya action has split both the right and the left in interesting ways. In such a fluid situation, constitutional arguments might have a greater impact than in a case where partisan divisions are tightly drawn and most people have strong commitments to one side or the other.
(The Hill) Anti-war filmmaker Michael Moore tore into President Obama for taking military action in Libya on Saturday.
Moore, a frequent critic of President Bush for launching the Iraq War, unleashed a string on tweets comparing the U.S. military’s mission in Libya to Iraq and Afghanistan, using a mantra coined by Charlie Sheen:
It’s only cause we’re defending the Libyan people from a tyrant! That’s why we bombed the Saudis last wk! Hahaha. Pentagon=comedy
And we always follow the French’s lead! Next thing you know, we’ll have free health care & free college! Yay war!
We’ve had a “no-fly zone” over Afghanistan for over 9 yrs. How’s that going? #WINNING !
Khadaffy must’ve planned 9/11! #excuses
Khadaffy must’ve had WMD! #excusesthatwork
Khadaffy must’ve threatened to kill somebody’s daddy! #daddywantedjeb
May I suggest a 50-mile evacuation zone around Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize? #returnspolicy
Moore’s comments came after the U.S. launched 110 Tomahawk missiles at military targets in Libya as part of an allied effort to prevent forces loyal to Libyan leader Col. Moammar Gadhafi from overtaking the rebel-held city of Benghazi.
This summer promises events that will thoroughly eclipse the diplomatic flurry over the recent Gaza flotilla. What few would have expected is the maritime character of the drama to which we have to look forward. And in a manner reminiscent of some seemingly minor operational decisions during the Cold War, Obama’s response to the challenge will be the most important security signal sent by his administration to date.
The distant drumbeat of the impending climax has been sounding for some time; Iran and Hezbollah have repeatedly threatened shipping in, respectively, the Strait of Hormuz and the waters off Lebanon and Israel, near the northern approach to the Suez Canal. Hezbollah’s most recent threat was issued in May, shortly before the deadly flotilla incident. Both Iran and Hezbollah are actively preparing to make good on their threats. This is not a theoretical menace. A complacent dismissal of their activities would be very dangerous.
Moreover, they are about to get help from — and take direct advantage of — the chaotic maritime situation brewing with the follow-on flotillas now in planning. Avram Rimon at Examiner.com had a good summary of them this weekend: they include a Gaza flotilla sponsored by German Jews; a counter-flotilla of Israelis hoping to bring aid to Cyprus, the Turkish Kurds, and Armenia (the latter under a Turkish blockade for more than 16 years); the Turkish flotilla for which Tayyip Erdogan has promised his own presence and a naval escort; and the flotilla being mounted by Iran, which is scheduled to leave Iran for Gaza on June 18.
The U.S. can do one of two things about these proliferating flotillas. We can organize NATO overtly to monitor and control eruptions in the Eastern Mediterranean, or we can simply leave it all for Israel to handle. Doing the latter will guarantee the early involvement of Hezbollah and Hamas in enlarging the scope of this maritime challenge. A hands-off approach by the Western nations makes it more likely that the terrorists, along with Iran and Turkey, will seek to precipitate crises — which may involve innocent commercial shipping — and press situational advantages. On the other hand, a declaration that the U.S. and NATO will prevent destabilizing eruptions, accompanied by obvious readiness to impose order if necessary, would be a salutary and effective signal. None of this need be done in a bellicose manner: quiet but unyielding is the appropriate demeanor.
Turkey’s involvement in the recent flotilla should already have resulted in a moment of reckoning with its NATO allies, if only behind closed doors. The West’s lackadaisical approach to its core alliance is on borrowed time. If the impending parade of flotillas produces only disorganized posturing from NATO, while allowing Israel’s enemies to create havoc at sea and score propaganda points against Israel, the next challenge is likely to emerge almost automatically in the Persian Gulf. Iran has threatened to begin stopping ships in the Strait of Hormuz if the inspection clause of the June 9 UN sanctions is actually applied against Iran-bound cargo. Tehran’s willingness to carry through on this will depend on the U.S. posture, which governs what the Iranians think they can get away with.
A strong stance in the Eastern Mediterranean is the lowest-cost, highest-payoff method of deterring Iran from the outset. Maintaining stability at sea and control of the world’s key chokepoints is an American naval task so basic we rarely think about it, but the impact from breaches of that order is immediate and far-reaching. Doing nothing is courting crisis; we should be working to head this one off at the pass. That approach would be far less costly than reacting to a series of crises.