U.S. Jewish Voting Bloc Being Duped by Obama? Is Obama Using Taqiyya Against the Democratic Jewish Voters?


Enlightenment and Education FIRST:

Understanding Taqiyya ― Islamic Principle of Lying for the Sake of Allah

by Warner MacKenzie

Lying and cheating in the Arab world is not really a moral matter but a method of safeguarding honor and status, avoiding shame, and at all times exploiting possibilities, for those with the wits for it, deftly and expeditiously to convert shame into honor on their own account and vice versa for their opponents. If honor so demands, lies and cheating may become absolute imperatives.” [David Pryce-Jones, “The Closed Circle” An interpretation of the Arabs, p4]

“No dishonor attaches to such primary transactions as selling short weight, deceiving anyone about quality, quantity or kind of goods, cheating at gambling, and bearing false witness. The doer of these things is merely quicker off the mark than the next fellow; owing him nothing, he is not to be blamed for taking what he can.” [David Pryce-Jones, “The Closed Circle”, p38]

The word “Taqiyya” literally means: “Concealing, precaution, guarding.” It is employed in disguising one’s beliefs, intentions, convictions, ideas, feelings, opinions or strategies.


Islamic spokesmen commonly use taqiyya as a form of ‘outwitting’. The skilled taqiyya-tactician doesn’t want the matter at hand to be debated or discussed; so his opponent must be outwitted or preemptively outflanked by the use of taqiyya. The objective is to divert attention away from the subject through duplicity and obfuscation.

The claim is often made that difficulties in translating from Arabic to English makes the meaning of what they say or write difficult or impossible to convey….this is simply another subterfuge. Keysar Trad has repeatedly claimed that Sheikh Hilali’s obnoxious, inflammatory and misogynistic comments have been “mistranslated”, misquoted or “taken out of context”. The aim of this ploy is to dilute or neutralise public opprobrium. The use of independent translators has, in the past, disproved his assertions. The Sheikh states what he believes to be correct according to Islamic precepts and his “interpreter” reconfigures the statement to make it palatable to the unwitting listener.

Role playing as the victim:

When placed under scrutiny or criminal investigation, (even when there is overwhelming, irrefutable evidence of guilt or complicity), the taqiyya-tactician will quickly attempt to counter the allegation by resorting to the claim that it is, in fact, the accused who are the ‘the victims’. Victims of Islamophobia, racism, religious discrimination and intolerance. Currently, this is the most commonly encountered form of distraction and ‘outwitting’….. Defence by offence.

More here………


From Israel National News:

US, Egypt Conducting Joint Military Exercises

U.S. planes landed in Egypt Tuesday for a joint exercise, the first since the fall of Hosni Mubarak.

by David Lev

September 5, 2012

Just days after a report that the U.S. was sharply cutting its participation in a military exercise scheduled with Israel, U.S. planes landed in Egypt Tuesday for a joint exercise, the first since the fall of Hosni Mubarak. Code-named “Eagle Arena 2012,” the exercise will include air and naval forays by US and Egyptian planes and boats, over the country, Sinai, and the Red Sea.

According to Egyptian media reports, the purpose of the exercise is to enable Egyptian forces to practice both defensive and offensive tactics. The specific number of American troops and planes participating in the exercise.

The exercise is one of a series of steps the U.S. has undertaken in recent weeks to build ties with the regime of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Mohammed Morsi, the new President of Egypt. According to U.S. reports, Washington is set to forgive a billion dollars of Egyptian debt as part of its international assistance program for Egypt. The debt will be dumped in the laps of U.S. taxpayers. Egypt currently owes the U.S. some $3 billion.

Over the weekend, reports in foreign media said that the U.S. was drastically scaling down its participation in a military exercise scheduled for October. Time Magazine said that the U.S. was cutting as many as two thirds of the 1,200-some soldiers that had been scheduled to participated in the exercise, called Austere Challenge 12, and was sharply limiting the amount of U.S. equipment that will be used in the exercise.



So…..the U.S. cuts back on military exercise with Israel, yet NOW have planes landing in Egypt.  The exercise is one of a series of steps the U.S. has undertaken in recent weeks to build ties with the regime of the Muslim Brotherhood‘s Mohammed Morsi, the new President of Egypt.

Did YOU notice the names given by the US to the excercises?

Egypt: Eagle Arena

Israel: Austere Challenge 12


IS Obama really Pro-Israel?

From The Blaze:

Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved


September 3, 2012

The Israeli newspaper Yediot Ahronot published a startling report Monday detailing a message it says was conveyed by the Obama administration – via two European countries – to Iranian officials. The request: if Israel decides to strike Iranian nuclear facilities, the U.S. will not support it and the Islamic Republic should refrain from retaliating on U.S. military installations in the Persian Gulf.

From the report by the well-connected diplomatic correspondent Shimon Schiffer [translated via hard copy by TheBlaze in Israel]:

The message that the U.S. conveyed to Iran via the most sensitive secret channels is unequivocal: if Israel attacks, we won’t stand behind her and we won’t be drawn into war.

In recent days, senior American administration officials turned to their Iranian counterparts via two countries in Europe which act as a back-channel during times of crisis. They made clear to the Iranians that the U.S. does not intend to be sucked into a campaign if Israel decides to strike unilaterally and without advance coordination [with the U.S.], and they said that they expect from Iran that it will not attack strategic American targets in the Persian Gulf. That means, among other things, Army bases, Navy ships and aircraft carriers sailing in the region.


Report: Obama Administration Passed Secret Message to Iran: U.S. Wont Support Strike Against Iran

Israeli outlet Yediot Ahronot shows strategic U.S. military installments in the Middle East.

Accompanying the article, the newspaper created a graphic map (pictured above) of various U.S. assets in the region including troops in Afghanistan, Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia as well as U.S. vessels in the Gulf.

The secret contacts with the Iranians combined with a public statement last week by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey that he won’t be “complicit” in an Israeli attack is being interpreted in Israel as a message from the U.S. that the Jewish state is on its own in stopping Iran from obtaining a doomsday weapon with which to threaten the very existence of Israel. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and other Iranian leaders have articulated a desire to wipe Israel off the map. Schiffer writes:

Israeli sources point to the unprecedented low-point in relations between the U.S. and Israeli defense establishments. It appears that the Obama administration decided to warn decision-makers in Israel of the destructive results of an attack without coordinating with the U.S. […]

If true, the report begs the question: If he truly wants to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapons capability, why is President Obama investing in secret contacts with Iran about an Israeli strike aimed at destroying – or at least setting back – the nuclear program? Wouldn’t his efforts be better focused on warning Ahmadinejad of the dire consequences of his apparently accelerated efforts at one day possessing a military nuclear capability?

The Wall Street Journal may have an answer in an editorial this weekend. Though President Obama likes to say he has Israel’s “back,” “his Administration tries to sell to the public a make-believe world in which Iran’s nuclear intentions are potentially peaceful, sanctions are working and diplomacy hasn’t failed after three and half years.”

More here……..



“I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.” — Barack Obama



From Obama Stating in Cairo Speech about Muslims,”I Am One of Them” to This….Obama: “Islam Is Part Of Our National Story”…


Obama and the ADC: President Participates in Confab of Anti-Israel Activists. AIPAC and Jewish Voting Bloc: Are YOU paying Attention?


The Muslim Brotherhood “Project” for Israel and America










February 16, 2011

By Meredith Jessup

On Friday, the United States informed Arab governments that it intends to support a U.N. Security Council resolution stating that it “does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity,” a move that U.S. diplomats hoped would help bypass a veto dispute over a stronger Palestinian resolution which would condemn the settlements as illegal.

But according to a report from the Turtle Bay UN blog at Foreign Policy, the Palestinians rejected the American offer late Wednesday and insisted they would press for a vote on their own resolution Friday. “The decision to reject the American offer raised the prospects that the Obama administration may cast its first ever veto in the U.N. Security Council,” the report stated.

Perhaps more significant, however, the U.S. offer signaled a willingness to break with its key ally and join others in the council in condemning construction of new Israeli settlements.

The Palestinian delegation, along with the council’s Arab member Lebanon, have asked the council’s president this evening to schedule a meeting on Friday. But it remained unclear whether the Palestinian move today is simply a negotiating tactic aimed at extracting a better deal from the United States.

Susan E. Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, outlined the new U.S. offer in a closed door meeting on Tuesday with the Arab Group, a bloc of Arab countries from North Africa and the Middle East. In exchange for scuttling the Palestinian resolution, the United States would support the council statement, consider supporting a U.N. Security Council visit to the Middle East, the first since 1979, and commit to supporting strong language criticizing Israel’s settlement policies in a future statement by the Middle East Quartet.

The U.S.-backed draft statement — which was first reported by Al Hurra — was obtained by Turtle Bay. In it, the Security Council “expresses its strong opposition to any unilateral actions by any party, which cannot prejudge the outcome of negotiations and will not be recognized by the international community, and reaffirms, that it does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity, which is a serious obstacle to the peace process.“ The statement also condemns ”all forms of violence, including rocket fire from Gaza, and stresses the need for calm and security for both peoples.”

U.S. officials were not available for comment, but two Security Council diplomats confirmed the proposal. The Arab Group was scheduled to meet this afternoon to formulate a formal response to the American offer. Council diplomats said that the discussions were fluid and that there was still the possibility that the U.S. draft would be subject to further negotiations. They said it was also not yet certain that the U.S. offer would satisfy the Arab Group, and that the U.S. may be forced to veto the Palestinian resolution.

Turtle Bay notes that Obama administration officials insist the only way to resolve the Middle East conflict is through direct negotiations with both Israel and the Palestinians.  The Obama administration has previously refused to negotiate with the Palestinians on resolution condemning the settlements, but the group’s current proposal would have to voted on on the bases of consensus in the 15-nation council.



From June 2010…..Read at link below

Sources: Obama Administration to Support Anti-Israel Resolution at UN Next Week


Susan Rice, the United States Ambassador to the United Nations is married to Ian Campbell, an ABC producer that used to produce George Stephanopoulos’  “This Week with George Stephanopoulos”



Susan Rice used to be a director the the National Democratic Institute; is still on a “friend” basis with Madeline Albright (Chairman of NDI).

Read at link below:

What is the National Democratic Institute? Do they have a Role In the Middle East Uprising?


Did Obama mislead AIPAC?

Is this a pay-back for Rashid Khalidi who is Pro-Palestine and anti-Israel. Michelle and Barack used to have dinner with Rashid and Mona Khalidi. Do they continue to have contact?

Is this a pay-back To Al-Mansour for his letter for Obama to Harvard Law School and Saudi Prince Al-Aweed?

Obama can deny all he wants…………..BUT………..Has Obama EVERdenounced the muslim faith bestowed on him by his father/stepfather?







THIS Will Make You Sicker: Obama’s Dr. Berwick carries Animus Toward Israel


Another anti-Israel appointee? Are the Jewish voters waking up yet?


August 02, 2010

This Will Make You Sicker

By Eileen F. Toplansky

In addition to the grave medical concerns pertaining to the appointment of Dr. Donald Berwick to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) is another issue that speaks to his political perspectives. Berwick has been actively involved with the international advocacy group Physicians for Human Rights (PHR), which was established with funding from the Ford Foundation.

In 2000, Berwick “began donating thousands of dollars [to PHR] when PHR was focusing most, if not all, of its investigations on Israel’s treatment of terrorists during the Intifada.” The PHR engaged in the false claim that the Israel Defense Force (IDF) massacred the (Palestinian) population during the Jenin episode.

PHR has a disproportionate concern with Israel; equally alarming is the fact that the PHR gave an award to Eyad Sarraj, an activist in Gaza who justified homicide bombings. Yet Berwick steadily increased his contributions to PHR. Furthermore, a PHR press release all but accuses Israel of deliberately targeting wounded civilians and medical facilities during Operation Cast Lead. In addition, Physicians for Human Rights has played “a pivotal role in the campaign to prosecute American officials for alleged acts of torture committed at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp.” PHR uses standards derived from the so-called “Istanbul Protocol” for investigating torture charges. These are standards promoted by the European Union.

Why would Berwick financially support and be a board member of an organization that singles out Israel for human rights abuses and mistreatment of civilians? Why does Berwick consider international law above American law? It is but another example of the anti-Israel, leftist-leaning people whom Obama chooses. There is an anti-Israel and anti-American venom that courses through Obama and the people he surrounds himself with.

So in what is becoming his standard operating dictatorial approach, Obama has pushed through another appointee, with the result that Berwick now has enormous power over Americans’ health care. In essence, Berwick will head the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and control a budget larger than the Pentagon’s.

Obama snuck Berwick in on Independence Day weekend with a recess appointment. That alone should have gotten everyone’s radar up. Berwick thus bypassed any Senate questioning of him. The reason given for this action was that the White House did not want the Republicans to stall since “the agency [faced] new responsibilities to protect seniors’ care under the Affordable Care Act” and they did not wish to waste time with “Washington game-playing.” Yet again, the American people have deliberately been kept in the dark by this president. So much for the most transparent presidency ever!

According to Sally C. Pipes of Investors Business Daily, “Berwick’s task under the new health reform law will be to take from Medicare, the program for seniors, and give to Medicaid, the program for low-income Americans.” Berwick is a fan of the United Kingdom’s NHS, which routinely rations care and medicines. In a New York Times article of 2008, a British man was refused medication to treat his kidney cancer.”If [he] lived in the United States … [he] would most likely get the drug, although he might have to pay part of the cost.” In a 2010 article from the British Telegraph, reports of bureaucratic red tape indicate that patients cannot get information about lifesaving drugs. Yet the (British) National Health Service is the system that Berwick “is romantic about.” In 2009, Berwick said that “the decision is not whether or not we will ration care; the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open.In 2005, he said that he doesn’t “care so much what doctors say.” Other comments of Berwick’s should put everyone on notice. They include:

  • “I would place a commitment to excellence-standardization to the best-known method-above clinician autonomy as a rule for care.”
  • “Young doctors and nurses should emerge from training understanding the values of standardization and the risks of too great an emphasis on individual autonomy.”
  • “Political leaders in the Labour Government have become more enamored of the use of market forces and choice as an engine for change, rather than planned, centrally coordinated technical support.”

Clearly, Berwick falls in line with the ideas of central planning, socialism, and loss of personal autonomy, in addition to his Israel and American animus — precisely those core beliefs that clearly define Obama and his circle of appointees.

To add salt to the wound, “at the same time that Berwick was waxing enthusiastically about Britain’s National Health Service, he was, according to Robert M. Goldberg, pocketing millions in compensation and free lifetime health benefits courtesy of the corporations and health interests he will now both regulate and reward.”

So the boomer generation is going to be in for a rude awakening as Obama’s lies keep piling up.

Read the rest here……..

**Emboldened areas mine for focal point**


“Don Berwick’s expertise, innovation and vision have helped keep PHR on the cutting edge of health and human rights research and advocacy. Those qualities will serve President Obama and the nation well as we work together to ensure that healthcare is accessible and equitable for all,” said PHR CEO Frank Donaghue. “Whether he’s developing new ways to improve patient care or helping PHR train medical leaders in Zimbabwe, Don recognizes that healthcare is a basic human right and not a privilege for a select few. While PHR will lose a valued member of our board the nation gains an immensely talented health care expert.”



More radical politics from Physicians for Human Rights-Israel (PHR-I)

On July 11, 2009Physicians for Human Rights-Israel (PHR-I) activists provided first aid training to violent protesters at the security barrier near Bil’in. According to PHR-I member Ron Yaron, the motivation was expressly political: “The aim of the training is first an act of solidarity with the people who fight against the occupation and the building of the wall.” PHR-I was criticized by Dr. Yoram Blachar, president of the World Medical Association, as “a radical political group disguised as a medical organization.”

PHR-I has engaged in many overtly political campaigns, in contrast to universal human rights activities. These campaigns include attacks against Israel’s Law of Return and the publishing of an article equating Israeli “settlers” to “self-exploding terrorists.”

Yaron also spoke at the July 2009 UN conference of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, called “to discuss questions related to Israeli violations of international humanitarian law during the recent hostilities in the Gaza Strip.” He condemned IDF investigations as a “whitewash” and unreliable. Yaron did acknowledge that “Hamas had systematically used medical facilities and ambulances as a cover for its military operations,” but he summarily and without evidence dismissed what he termed the “justif[ications]” of the Israeli army.



2005 Major Supporters of PHR

President’s Circle ($100,000+)

Anonymous (2)

Argosy Foundation

Morton K. and Jane Blaustein Foundation

Ford Foundation

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

JEHT Foundation

John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation

John Merck Fund

Oak Foundation USA, Inc.

Open Society Institute<<<GEORGE SOROS

Rockefeller Foundation

Tides Foundation



WHO told Obama to appoint Berwick?  George Soros? Joel Rogers, John Podesta, or Jeff Jones through the Apollo Alliance?

HOW can David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel even approve of this pick?

HOW can the AIPAC even believe Obama’s word about supporting Israel?


America:  “Had Enough” of the Obama agenda/policies?

The only thing the Progressives FEAR is the BALLOT BOX.





Sources: Obama Administration to Support Anti-Israel Resolution at UN Next Week


BY William Kristol

June 11, 2010  10:41 A.M.

THE WEEKLY STANDARD has learned that senior Obama administration officials have been telling foreign governments that the administration intends to support an effort next week at the United Nations to set up an independent commission, under UN auspices, to investigate Israel’s behavior in the Gaza flotilla incident. The White House has apparently shrugged off concerns from elsewhere in the U.S. government that a) this is an extraordinary singling out of Israel, since all kinds of much worse incidents happen around the world without spurring UN investigations; b) that the investigation will be one-sided, focusing entirely on Israeli behavior and not on Turkey or on Hamas; and c) that this sets a terrible precedent for outside investigations of incidents involving U.S. troops or intelligence operatives as we conduct our own war on terror.

While UN Ambassador Susan Rice is reported to have played an important role in pushing for U.S. support of a UN investigation, the decision is, one official stressed, of course the president’s.

Continue reading here….



White House backs investigation into Israeli raid

Associated Press

June 1, 2010

WASHINGTON – The White House says it supports a U.N. Security Council resolution calling for an investigation into Israel’s deadly raid on ships taking humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs, however, wouldn’t say whether President Barack Obama condemns the actions of the Israeli forces.

Gibbs stood by the president’s earlier statement expressing “deep regret” for the loss of at least nine lives in the attack. Palestinians, Arabs and Turkey have called for a stronger condemnation.



***Within TWO Hours of Kristol’s article, the White House responds:


White House denies Bill Kristol U.N. claims

By Ami Eden · June 11, 2010 

William Kristol reported on The Weekly Standard website that the White House “intends to support an effort next week at the United Nations to set up an independent commission, under UN auspices, to investigate Israel’s behavior in the Gaza flotilla incident.” 

Kristol threw in his two (well, technically three) cents: 

The White House has apparently shrugged off concerns from elsewhere in the U.S. government that a) this is an extraordinary singling out of Israel, since all kinds of much worse incidents happen around the world without spurring UN investigations; b) that the investigation will be one-sided, focusing entirely on Israeli behavior and not on Turkey or on Hamas; and c) that this sets a terrible precedent for outside investigations of incidents involving U.S. troops or intelligence operatives as we conduct our own war on terror. 

And, he added, while it was U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice pushing this position, ultimately the final decision belongs to the president

The thing is… the president’s spokespeople say Kristol’s report is rubbish, according to Politico: 

“We have no idea what Bill Kristol is talking about, and would surmise that neither does he,” said spokesman Tommy Vietor…. 

A White House official said the administration continues to support “an Israeli-led investigation into the flotilla incident that is prompt, credible, impartial, and transparent.” 

“We are open to different ways of ensuring the credibility of this Israeli-led investigation, including international participation, and have been in intensive talks with our Israeli partners in the past few days on how to move forward,” said the official. “We know of no resolution that will be debated at the UN on the flotilla investigation next week.” 

Is this denial legit? Time will tell when it comes to Obama.


**Blog comment at 12:22 P.M.at above link***


From the United Nations:

Israel Faces Future ‘Catastrophic Outcome’ unless It Changes Aggressive Stance,Former Envoy Tells Palestinian Rights Committee after High Seas Raid

 June 9, 2010

Chairman Outlines Recent Activities, Developments

As Permanent Observer of Palestine Declares His Side Ready for Proximity Talks

Israel needed to change its aggressive stance towards the Palestinians or face the possibility of a catastrophic outcome in the future, Edward Peck, a former United States ambassador to Mauritania and Iraq, told the Palestinian Rights Committee today.

At the invitation of the United Nations body formally known as the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, Mr. Peck, President of the civil society organization Foreign Services International, gave a first-hand account of the recent raid by Israeli commandos on the Free Gaza flotilla, saying eight heavily armed men wearing balaclavas had boarded his vessel at around 4 a.m. carrying submachine guns, stun grenades and tasers.


Recalling that two of the raiders had fastened paintball guns to the tops of their submachine guns, he said they had been used to strike a man, whom he described as a survivor of the 1967 Israeli sinking of the USS Liberty, in which 200 United States sailors had been killed or wounded.  The attackers had set off a stun grenade to break through a human chain formed by shipmates seeking to protect the wheelhouse, he added.

After overtaking the ship, the raiders had forced it to dock at the port of Ashdod, where the captured crew had been told to sign a Hebrew-language document under threat of jail, he said.  Members of the flotilla had then been deported after being told they had entered Israel illegally, despite having been brought in from the high seas against their will.  “If the assault had taken place off the coast of Somalia, it would have been called piracy,” he said.

Pressed by several delegates to comment on the proper role of the United States, Mr. Peck said that even if that country’s Government were to end its support for Israel “tomorrow” that would not prevent it from continuing to act in its perceived best interest, an indication that the international community needed to act persuasively.


Many delegates echoed Mr. Peck’s opinion and expressed support for an independent, international investigation into the 31 May attack, as proposed by the Security Council. 

Briefing the Committee on recent developments, Paul Badji (Senegal), its Chairperson, recalled that Turkey’s Minister for Foreign Affairs had characterized Israel’s actions as a grave breach of international law, when he had presided over the emergency Security Council meeting called on 31 May to discuss the naval raid, in which nine Turkish nationals had been killed.  (See Press Release SC/9940)

Mr. Badji further recalled that the Council had gone on to issue a presidential statement condemning Israel’s attack, and had also called for an impartial investigation.  In Geneva, the Human Rights Council had adopted a resolution the following day, deciding to dispatch an independent international fact-finding mission to investigate violations of international law resulting from the attack.

As several speakers took the floor, Turkey’s representative commented that the impartial, credible and transparent investigation called for by the Security Council must be international, warning that if it was led by one nation, it should not be Israel, but Turkey, since the attack had been carried out against a Turkish ship on the high seas, and Turkish nationals had been killed or wounded.  A post mortem examination had shown that 30 bullets had been fired, some at close range.  One of the dead had five bullets in the head, he added.

Continuing with his address to the Committee, Mr. Peck — a self-described patriot who had served in the Second World War and the Korean War — said he had made numerous trips to help facilitate a solution to the Middle East conflict, but had come to believe that, as long as Israel was certain of unhesitating security and financial support from the United States, it would not see the need to change tack.

The former ambassador also expressed discomfort with commonly-used descriptions of events in the region, which did not reflect reality.  While the question of Palestine and Israel was one of occupation, and a relationship between occupier and occupied, talk of a “peace process” or “ending the conflict”, coloured the way in which people saw the issue, he said, adding that, as a secular Jew, he feared that “very bad things” would continue unless Israel could be convinced that its current course would lead to catastrophe, a sentiment already expressed by such Israeli leaders as President Shimon Peres, former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Defence Minister Ehud Barak.  As for the proposed proximity talks, he said Israel would use them to continue its present policy.

Offering the Palestinian view, Riyad Mansour, Permanent Observer of Palestine to the United Nations, said his side would continue to maximize efforts for the success of the proximity talks.  The Palestinians and other Arabs had agreed to proceed with the talks mainly because of “positive signals” from the current United States Administration, which would broker them.  A major goal for the Palestinian side was to reach an understanding on borders, in four months, that would reflect the June 1967 borders.  Such an understanding would pave the way for the continuation of negotiations on other permanent status issues, such as Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, water and security, he added.

Mr. Mansour went on to say that discussions involving important stakeholders — including today’s meeting in Washington, D.C., between the Palestinian Authority and the United States Government — would focus on ways to encourage the lifting of the blockade on Gaza once and for all.  Existing Security Council resolutions and presidential statements contained the language and other elements necessary for the lifting of the siege, he said, expressing hope that the United States would demonstrate leadership in articulating that vision.

Arab nations would stand behind the United Nations Secretary-General in carrying out the will of an independent investigation, he stressed, pointing out that the members of the League of Arab States and the Non-Aligned Movement were meeting with all members of the Security Council as well as the Secretary-General to convey that support.  So far, “many important parties” were intensifying efforts to reach agreement on steps towards lifting the blockade, including by guaranteeing that assistance reached the people of Gaza, he said.

Committee Chairperson Badji (Senegal) explained that the idea of holding proximity talks had been accepted by Palestinian Chief Negotiator Saeb Erakat, after a 9 May meeting between President Mahmoud Abbas and George Mitchell, United States Special Envoy for Middle East Peace.  Arab Foreign Ministers had already given their support for the talks at a meeting of the Arab Peace Initiative Follow-up Committee in Cairo on 1 May, he said, adding that the Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) had also endorsed the proposal for indirect talks between PLO and the Israeli Government.

Joining the discussion were the representatives of Mali, Algeria, Venezuela, Nicaragua, South Africa, Cuba and Indonesia, who expressed solidarity with supporters of Palestine, calling for the prompt release of victims of the flotilla attack, and for an end to the Israeli occupation.  They also offered their condolences to the Government of Turkey for the loss of life.

The Committee also heard from a representative of the Organization of the Islamic Conference.


Continue reading here…..



 Amb. Ed Peck – 10 June 2007 End Israeli Occupation Rally WDC

” Inhumane, Illegal,actions taken by Israel.” “on an hourly basis…..”~~Edward Peck





Did Obama mislead AIPAC?

Is this a pay-back for Rashid Khalidi who is Pro-Palestine and anti-Israel. Michelle and Barack used to have dinner with Rashid and Mona Khalidi. Do they continue to have contact?

Is this a pay-back To Al-Mansour for his letter for Obama to Harvard Law School and Saudi Prince Al-Aweed?

Are Obama’s Paternal parental conveyance of Muslim religion coming through the mask? To say you are Christian or attended a church doesn’t mean anything.  Obama’s father was an Islamo-Socialist. His stepfater, Lolo Sortero was an Indonesian muslim.

Obama can deny all he wants…………..BUT………..Has Obama EVER denounced the muslim faith bestowed on him by his father/stepfather?



How can Israel get a FAIR investigation when the United Nations already has exhibited pro-Palestinian support?


















Obama and His Pal Palestinian Firebrand Rashid Khalidi + Activist Samantha Power as Advisor

First this:

Rashid Khalidi, Obama’s Palestinian pal

By Martin Kramer

Rashid Khalidi, the Edward Said Professor at Columbia University, is much in the news these days, for his connection with Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama. The Los Angeles Times did some digging around the story last spring, and most of the facts are there. I don’t know anything about the connection that I haven’t read elsewhere, so I have nothing original to say about it.

But this seems like an opportune moment to flag my own writings on Khalidi, going back a number of years.

• “Dr. Rashid and Mr. Khalidi.” On how Khalidi has varied his pitch according to audience—and, when interviewed on Al Jazeera, turns into a firebrand.• “The Day the Rabbi Rescued Rashid.” Khalidi has always taken care to cultivate a few Jewish supporters, and the late Arthur Hertzberg was one of them. Shows how they haven’t a clue about what he really believes—and says.

• “Rashid Khalidi: Gaza blame-thrower.” Hamas took over Gaza, so who’s fault is that? Guess.

• “Unreal Rashid.” Dissects Khalidi’s 2005 interview with the Radical History Journal. “They are political,” he says of the right, “and we’re not political”—he tells his fellow radical historians.

• “Radical Rashid.” Khalidi finds the University of Chicago Law School faculty “extremely conservative”—even though the ratio of Democrats to Republicans there is 7 to 1.

• “Philistine at Columbia.” Considers a speech in which Khalidi indicted America’s universities—including disciplines he knows nothing about, such as medicine and agriculture—for failing to “challenge the reigning orthodoxies in their fields.”

The rise and fall of the third-rate.” Khalidi complains about “Uncle Toms” in Middle Eastern studies.





Khalidi and Obama: kindred spirits

October 20, 2008

“He has family literally all over the world. I feel a kindred spirit from that.” —Rashid Khalidi on Barack Obama

The link between Palestinian-American agitprof Rashid Khalidi and Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has finally been picked up by the mainstream media. It’s something they should have looked at long ago, and even now, they aren’t really digging. They’re simply reporting the demand of the McCain campaign that the Los Angeles Times release the video of Obama’s praise of Khalidi, at a farewell gathering for Khalidi in 2003. Obama and Khalidi (and their wives) became friends in the 1990s, when Obama began to teach at the University of Chicago, where Khalidi also taught. In 2003, Khalidi accepted the Edward Said Professorship of Arab Studies at Columbia; the videotaped event was his Chicago farewell party. The Los Angeles Times, which refuses to release the tape (and which endorsed Obama on October 19) reported last spring that Obama praised Khalidi’s “consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases.” Other speakers reportedly said incendiary things against Israel. Whether or how Obama reacted, only the videotape might tell.

That Obama spoke on this important occasion suggests that his attachment to Khalidi wasn’t a superficial acquaintance. As Obama admits, the two had many “conversations” over dinner at the Khalidis’ home, and these may well have constituted Obama’s primer on the Middle East. Yet Obama has given no account of these conversations, even as he has repeatedly emphasized other ones which would seem far less significant.

For example, Obama, in an interview and in his spring AIPAC speech, recalled conversations with a Jewish-American camp counselor he encountered—when he was all of eleven years old. “During the course of this two-week camp he shared with me the idea of returning to a homeland and what that meant for people who had suffered from the Holocaust, and he talked about the idea of preserving a culture when a people had been uprooted with the view of eventually returning home. There was something so powerful and compelling for me, maybe because I was a kid who never entirely felt like he was rooted.” (In the same interview, Obama said Israel “speaks to my history of being uprooted, it speaks to the African-American story of exodus.”)

Of course, the story of someone like Khalidi could just as readily have spoken to Obama’s history of uprootedness, exodus, preserving a culture, and longing to return home. (So too would the story of the late Edward Said, who was photographed seated at a dinner with Obama in 1998, and who entitled his memoir Out of Place. Obama has never said anything about the impact, if any, of that conversation.) And indeed, it stretches credulity to believe that a two-week childhood encounter at a summer camp was more significant to Obama that his decade-long association, as a mature adult, with his senior university colleague, Khalidi.

Nor does it seem far-fetched that the sense of “kindred spirit” felt by Khalidi toward Obama was mutual. One particularly striking parallel deserves mention. Obama, it will be recalled, was born to a nominally Muslim father (a Kenyan bureaucat) and an American Christian mother, which has created some confusion as to the religious tradition in which he was raised. Khalidi’s father, a nominally Muslim Palestinian (and a bureaucrat who worked for the United Nations) married his mother, a Lebanese-American Christian, in a Unitarian Church in Brooklyn, where Khalidi would later attend Sunday school. For such people caught between traditions, Third Worldist sympathies often serve as ecumenical substitutes for religion. (Obama himself allows that as an undergraduate, “in the dorms, we discussed neocolonialism, Franz Fanon, Eurocentrism and patriarchy.” One wonders how Israel fared in those conversations.)

Were we to see the videotape, it might give us some sense of how far down the road Obama went in that direction—and not all that long ago. It would be interesting to know, for example, if there was reference to Iraq. In 2003, when Khalidi’s friends gave him his goodbye party, he was deep into propagandizing against the Iraq war. Among his arguments, he included this one:

This war will be fought because these neoconservatives desire to make the Middle East safe not for democracy, but for Israeli hegemony. They are convinced that the Middle East is irremediably hostile to both the United States and Israel; and they firmly hold the racist view that Middle Easterners understand only force. For these American Likudniks and their Israeli counterparts, sad to say, the tragedy of September 11 was a godsend: It enabled them to draft the United States to help fight Israel’s enemies.

This argument against the war was not at all unusual on the faculty of the University of Chicago at the time. Another professor of Middle East history, Fred Donner, gave it blatant expression on the pages of the Chicago Tribune, calling the Iraq war “a vision deriving from Likud-oriented members of the president’s team—particularly Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith.” So perhaps it is not surprising that Obama, in his October 2002 antiwar speech, declared: “What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.” No mention of Cheney or Rumsfeld—and no need to mention them, to a constituency that knew who was really behind the push for war, and why. (Later, the same argument would figure prominently in The Israel Lobby, co-authored by another Chicago professor, John Mearsheimer.)




“The Woods Fund In 2001 Gave A $40,000 Grant To The Arab American Action Network (AAAN), A Group Co-Founded By Anti-Israel Columbia University Professor Rhashid Khalidi. The Fund Gave AAAN A Second Grant Of $35,000 In 2002.” (Editorial, “Obama’s Terror Ties,” Investor’s Business Daily, 4/15/08)

  • At The Time Of The Grants, Khalidi’s Wife, Mona Khalidi, Directed The Arab American Action Network. (Christopher Wills, “People Who Might Complicate Obama’s Campaign,” The Associated Press, 6/5/08)



Obama Served On Board That Funded Pro-Palestinian Group

By Aaron Klein

Speakers at AAAN dinners and events routinely have taken an anti-Israel line. The group co-sponsored a Palestinian art exhibit, titled “The Subject of Palestine,” that featured works related to what Palestinians call the “nakba” or “catastrophe” of Israel’s founding in 1948.

The theme of AAAN’s Nakba art exhibit, held at DePaul University in 2005, was “the compelling and continuing tragedy of Palestinian life … under [Israeli] occupation … home demolition … statelessness … bereavement … martyrdom, and … the heroic struggle for life, for safety, and for freedom.”

Another AAAN initiative, “Al Nakba 1948 As Experienced by Chicago Palestinians,” seeks documents related to the “catastrophe” of Israel’s founding.

Although AAAN co-founder Rashid Khalidi has at times denied working directly for the PLO, he reportedly served as director of the official PLO press agency WAFA in Beirut from 1976 to 1982, a period during which the PLO committed scores of anti-Western attacks and was labeled by the U.S. as a terror group. Khalidi’s wife, Mona Khalidi, reportedly was WAFA’s English translator during that period.

Khalidi also advised the Palestinian delegation to the Madrid Conference in 1991. During documented speeches and public events, Khalidi has called Israel an “apartheid system in creation” and a “racist” state. Critics have accused him of excusing Palestinian terrorism, a charge he denies.

He dedicated his 1986 book, Under Siege, to “those who gave their lives … in defense of the cause of Palestine and independence of Lebanon.”

While the Woods Fund’s contribution to Khalidi’s AAAN might be perceived as a one-time contact with Obama, there is evidence of a deeper relationship between the presidential hopeful and Khalidi.

According to a professor at the University of Chicago who said he has known Obama for 12 years, the senator first befriended Khalidi when the two worked together at the university. The professor spoke on condition of anonymity. Khalidi lectured at the University of Chicago until 2003; Obama taught law there from 1993 until his election to the Senate in 2004.

Asked during a radio interview with this reporter on WABC’s John Batchelor program about his 2000 fundraiser for Obama, Khalidi said he “was just doing my duties as a Chicago resident to help my local politician.”

Khalidi said he supports Obama for president “because he is the only candidate who has expressed sympathy for the Palestinian cause.”

Khalidi also lauded Obama for “saying he supports talks with Iran. If the U.S. can talk with the Soviet Union during the Cold War, there is no reason it can’t talk with the Iranians.”

Concerning Obama’s role in funding AAAN, Khalidi claimed he “never heard of the Woods Fund until it popped up on a bunch of blogs a few months ago.” He terminated the interview when pressed further about his links with Obama.

Contacted by phone, Mona Khalidi refused to answer questions about AAAN’s involvement with Obama.

(Read entire article HERE)


“For It”

Anti Islamic terrorism campaigner David Horowitz, speaking at the University of California – San Diego.

A young woman from the Muslim Students Association confronts Horowitz.

When pressed by Horowitz to reveal her true sympathies she does.

Chilling.**Watch the ENTIRE VIDEO****


Hat tip to Trevor Loudon: http://www.newzeal.blogspot.com


Remember Samantha Power; a foreign policy advisor that was let go for calling Hillary Clinton

“a monster”?

SHE’s BAAACCCKKKK………… After rejoining the Obama State Department transition team in late November 2008, she has been named to a position on the National Security Council.

In January 2009 President Obama appointed Power to the National Security Council staff, where she serves as Director for Multilateral Affairs

And to top it all off, Samantha Power is MARRIED to Cass Sunstein, Obama’s Regulatory CZAR.  The one that wrote the book Nudge.

In January 2008, Power began dating the prominent law professor Cass Sunstein whom she met while working on the Obama campaign.  On July 4, 2008, they married.   On April 24, 2009, Sunstein and Power welcomed their first child, Declan Power-Sunstein


Samantha Power’s views of Palestinians and ANTI-Israel:

Link to video


Mary Robinson and Samantha Powers:

James Besser has brought this high concept to the discussion of Obama’s nomination of Mary Robinson for the Presidential Medal of Honor. Besser ponders the “correct response” for Jewish leaders who think honoring Robinson legitimizes her anti-Israel views and the anti-Semitic Durban conference in which she was a key player.

Ed Lasky has marshaled a lot of evidence indicating that the person responsible for selecting and/or vetting Robinson was the president’s close friend and White House adviser Samantha Power, who would likely have been familiar with Robinson’s background.

Robinson’s record at Durban did not, in any event, need a background check; it was in the foreground of her public record (see Tom Lantos’s lengthy Durban report). It was not a hidden tax problem but a known quality deemed not disqualifying given the larger problem to be solved by the nomination.

What was that problem? In an important 7,345-word post (with a 1,700-word follow-up), Catherine Fitzpatrick—who was at Durban I and watched Robinson’s performance there, and who is both her defender and her critic—says the nomination was “an effort to deflect criticism of the United States coming furiously from some leftist groups for the U.S. decision not to participate in the follow-up conference in Durban in April.” She concludes that “at the end of the day, the Obama Administration chose Mary Robinson because they felt she was one of their own.”

Read entire article HERE….


Barack Obama served in a board that gave a $75,000 grant to Rashid Khalidi, Yasser Arafat’s toady in the PLO.  This is the same Barack Obama who had Robert Malley as another of his advisers on the region — and who conducted meetings with Hamas.  Obama’s church used its bulletins to give voice to Palestinian activists.

How much more clear can this get?

Yet, Obama proclaims he is Pro-Israel?





Israeli Settlers Warned about Obama Spies

From Israel Today:

Headline News
Sunday, November 29, 2009 Israel Today Staff

Israeli settlers warned about Obama spies

The Obama Administration has sent representatives, some open and some covert, to monitor construction in Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria, according to a report in Israel National News, an agency based out of the settler town of Beit El.

Shaul Goldstein, regional council head for the Eztion Bloc of settlements south of Bethlehem, said that he had met recently with an American diplomat who asked for updates on all building projects in the area. Goldstein said that he simply told the representative the truth, and added that “we have come home to build and to remain on our land.”

But long-time settler and former Knesset Member Elyakim Haetzni warned in a letter to settler leaders not to cooperate with Obama’s representatives, since any information given to them will be used to further pressure Israel.

Haetzni also blasted the American government for thinking it has the right to keep tabs on an ally in such a manner.

“It’s great chutzpah of a foreign government to openly collect information and supervise a country on that country’s own territory. We must not cooperate with this brazenness.”

News of the “Obama spies” came just as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, under tremendous US pressure, announced a 10-month settlement freeze.

End note:

We now have a president that sends “spies” into Israel to dig up dirt on settlements?  Kind of in the fashion of the lawyers parachuted into Alaska to try to dig up dirt on Sarah Palin?

What chutzpah!

Obama is proving he is pro-Palestine day after day and with the company he keeps including Rashid Khalidi; and giving Mary Robinson the Presidential medal (Durban I conference).

Samantha Powers (Pro-Palestine)  is married to Czar Cass Sunstein and a friend of Mary Robinson. 

WORSE YET:  Obama recently appointed an anti-Semite Czar, Hannah Rosenthal who is tied to radicals and progressives:


AND THEN has the gaul to have his website, Organizing for America post Anti-Israel messages!

Atlas Shrugs brings this to light:

Obama’s Terrorism Against Jews: He Uses His Website to Incite Violence Against the Jews




Our biggest ALLY in the Middle East and Obama tries to undermine our relationship with this country?

To all the Jewish bloc voters: How’s that “Hope” and “Change” working for you?



Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 374 other followers