love of israel

mardi 17 mars 2015

PM Netanyahu declares victory


Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu celebrated what he called a “major victory” in Tuesday’s elections.

“Against all odds: a great victory for the Likud. A major victory for the people of Israel!” he wrote on his official Twitter account.
Soon after the election exit polls were announced at 10:00 p.m. Tuesday,Jewish Home Chairman Naftali Bennett called Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and congratulated him. “They agreed to begin accelerated negotiations for establishing a national government and working in cooperation for the security of the state of Israel and the nation of Israel.”
In an interview with Arutz Sheva earlier in the day, Bennett urged supporters not to fall into the complacency trap – and not to give their votes to Netanyahu, as anxious as they might be to ensure that he, and not Yitzhak Herzog, is chosen by President Reuven Rivlin to form the next government.
Although the polls showed Jewish Home losing support over the past several weeks, Bennett was optimistic that the party could beat the polls, which showed Jewish Home receiving

Federal Government lists Evangelical Christianity as a top terrorist threat.

Ron Trowbridge, undersheriff of Prowers County Colorado, attended a training session in La Junta, Colorado which was hosted by the Colorado State Patrol (CSP) and funded by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The training was on sovereign citizens and Outlaw Motorcycle Gangs, but also on the agenda was the subject of Christians who believe the U.S. was founded on Godly principles and who interpret the Bible literally. This describes many in the sovereign citizen movement but it is also indicative of many mainstream right-of-center Americans.
Trooper Joe Kluczynski, who conducted the training, said he got his training materials from the DHS. Many will recall back in 2011, the DHS released the controversial publications, “Domestic Terrorism and Homegrown Violent Extremism Lexicon” and “Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) Training Guidance and Best Practices.” Both documents provided the impetus for the type of training tools government agencies across the country are using.
Todd Starnes, writing for Fox News, reports that during a U.S. Army training event, an Army instructor cited Evangelical Christianity and Catholicism as examples of religious extremism—along with Al Qaeda and Hamas.
Not only was it implied that Evangelical Christianity is as dangerous as a terrorist organization, but it was at the top of the list of threats. And, here is that list:
Evangelical Christianity
Muslim Brotherhood
Ultra-Orthodox Jews
Christian Identity
Al Qaeda
Hamas
Abu Sayyam
Ku Klux Klan
Sri Ram Sene
Catholicism
Kamane Movement / Kach
Army of God
Sunni Muslims
Nation of Islam
Jewish Defense League
Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
Hutaree
Islamophobia” was also listed as a form of religious extremism.
“We find this offensive to have Evangelical Christians and the Catholic Church to be listed among known terrorist groups,” Ron Crews, executive director of the Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty, said. “It is dishonorable for any U.S. military entity to allow this type of wrongheaded characterization.”
Army spokesman George Wright told Fox News that the presentation of the extremist threats list was an “isolated incident not condoned by the Dept. of the Army.” Wright said that the, “slide was not produced by the Army and certainly does not reflect our policy or doctrine.” He added that, “it was produced by an individual without anyone in the chain of command’s knowledge or permission.”
But, the incident was made public by a soldier who had attended the briefing. He requested copies of the presentation which he subsequently sent to the Chaplain Alliance. “He considers himself an evangelical Christian and did not appreciate being classified with terrorists,” Crews explained to Fox News. “There was a pervasive attitude in the presentation that anything associated with religion is an extremist.”
The Archdiocese for the Military Services was stunned upon learning that the Army considers Catholicism to be an example of extremism: “The Archdiocese is astounded that Catholics were listed alongside groups that are, by their very mission and nature, violent and extremist.”
Wright had the opportunity to speak with the officer who did the presentation and she told him that she got her information from the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). To this Crews responded with: “Why is there such dependence upon the work of the SPLC to determine hate groups and extremist groups.” He added that, “it appears that some military entities are using definitions of ‘hate’ and ‘extreme’ from the lists of anti-Christian political organizations. That violates the apolitical stance appropriate for the military.”
According to Mark Potok, Senior Fellow & Editor-in-Chief at the SPLC, the SPLC has never labeled Evangelical Christianity or Catholicism as extremist groups. But, they have labeled a number of conservative Christian organizations as “hate groups” due to the organizations’ stance on homosexuality.
A handful of domestic Muslim hate groups, such as the As-Sabiqun movement were not tallied by the SPLC, even though disapproval of homosexuals is prevalent among Muslims. Jonathan Brown, an Assistant Professor of Arabic and Islamic Studies at the University of Washington in Seattle, writing for Patheos reports that while a group of liberal Muslims in the West argue that homosexuality is in fact allowed in Sharia law, almost all traditional Muslim scholars reject this argument. But, the SPLC chose to zero in on Christians instead of Muslims.
The SPLC does have a ‘General Hate’ category into which people like Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller are placed. Accusing Spencer and Geller of ‘anti-Muslim’ sentiment would be inaccurate because much of the material produced by the two is in defense of Muslims (i.e. women and children) who are oppressed by other Muslims. In as much as the SPLC claims to be monitoring hate, there are no ‘Muslim Fundamentalist’, ‘Jihadist’, or ‘Anti-Christian’ hate groups listed.
Both the SPLC & federal government agencies such as the DHS and FBI harbor an interest bordering on obsession with Christians and “right wing extremists” while ignoring the following findings from a U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee report titled “Terrorist Arrests and Plots Stopped in the United States 2009-2012″:
Ninety-eight terror suspects/defendants from the 2009-2012 time period revealed 17 who were not Muslim and not connected to Islamic terror plots.
Nearly 83% of the terror suspects involved in U.S. terror plots from 2009-2012 were Muslim
A report issued by the Department of Justice in 2011 relating to “National Security Division Statistics on Unsealed International Terrorism and Terrorism – Related Convictions 9/11/01 – 3/ 18/10″ identified, after analysis, more than 80% of all such convictions tied to international terrorist groups and homegrown terrorism involved defendants driven by a radical Islamist agenda.
The Senate Intelligence Committee report, that overlaps by 2009 and early 2010 with the noted DOJ statistical conviction report, clearly validates and continues the 80+% finding related to the post-9/11 case conviction analysis.
These reports confirm that while the vast majority of Muslims in America are not terrorists, the clear and significant majority of terrorist plots and cases identified within the United States involve radicalize Muslims.
(Via The Investigative Project on Terrorism)
To be sure, government agencies need to be vigilant in regard to all terrorist threats. But, as is the case with the politically motivated SPLC, the DHS and FBI appears to be not as focused on the groups representing 83% of domestic terrorist plots as they are on groups far less likely to present a threat. In both the case of the law enforcement training in Colorado and the Army training, uneasiness with viewpoints deemed to be outside of the mainstream was evident. Entire groups of people are being singled out for having ideologies that some find offensive. It would behoove those offended to read the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Note from Mario:

Once again a well-meaning but uninformed believer asks why I am speaking out in these blogs.  I believe Obama is deliberately trying to dismantle America and pull our nation under the thumb of government.  I believe he also has Islamist sympathies that reveal themselves in incidents such as the one that I have posted above.   It would be sin for me not to pray for him.  I bear no malice toward him as a person but I recognize that right now, he is an instrument for destruction.
It is the height of naivete to ignore the signs of a national take over.  The steps have been clearly outlined for years by experts and Obama is going by the book. Here are the official rules:
1. Seize control of healthcare and you will control the economy.
2. Bring division, distraction and demonize your opposition by creating false crisis and the people will blindly give you more power.
3. Undermine core values and discredit constitutional laws that block your takeover.
4. Disarm law abiding citizens.
There are of course many more steps but these are the 4 that are the most glaring.
Should a man of God involve himself in these matters?  Hebrews 13:17 says, “Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive, for they watch out for your souls, as those who must give account. Let them do so with joy and not with grief, for that would be unprofitable for you.
As a man of God I must warn those entrusted to me about anything that will harm them or bring disaster.  I must do this especially if I see that there is still hope to avert the danger. However, my greatest motivation is that I will stand before God to answer for what I did in this moment in history.
I would that my brethren who remain silent would see that last part.  To be sure there is a short term benefit to silence.  The masses may still like you, your tithers may not leave you but in the end you will be listed among those who abandoned their post in America’s darkest hour.  You will stand before God and He will ask you why you buried your prophetic gift when it was so desperately needed.
It is possible to tell the truth without love but it is impossible to love without telling the truth.

samedi 14 mars 2015

Senate panel probing possible Obama administration funding of effort to unseat Netanyahu

A US Senate investigatory committee has launched a probe into an American nonprofit’s funding of efforts to oust Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu after the State Department of US President Barack Obama gave the nonprofit taxpayer-funded grants, Fox News reported on Saturday. 

According to the news outlet, a source with knowledge of the panel's activities told it that the probe was underway and was  bipartisan in nature.

According to the source, the probe is looking into “funding” by the OneVoice Movement – a Washington-based group that has received $350,000 in recent State Department grants, Fox News reported.

A spokesperson for Sen. Rob Portman, (R-Ohio), the chair of the committee, refused comment on the report to Fox. 

“The Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations does not comment on ongoing investigations,” Caitlin Conant, spokeswoman for Portman, told Fox.

Earlier this week, Netanyahu suggested to a meeting of Likud activists in Kiryat Gat that there is an international effort to remove him from power.

In a recording of the meeting obtained by Army Radio, Netanyahu is heard saying of the current election campaign, "This is a very close battle. Nothing is ensured because there is a great, worldwide effort to topple Likud rule."

According to Fox, the Israel-based Victory 15 campaign which seeks to “replace the government” in Israel is a "subsidiary" of OneVoice.

OneVoice defines itself  as an "international grassroots movement that amplifies the voice of mainstream Israelis and Palestinians, empowering them to propel their elected representatives toward the two-state solution."

One expert told Fox earlier this month that the State Department grants constituted "indirect Obama administration funding of the anti-Netanyahu campaign by providing OneVoice with the $350,000 – even though State Department officials said the funding stopped in November, ahead of the announcement of the Israeli election."

OneVoice is barred from directly targeting Netanyahu by US law regulating its tax-exempt status, and doing so would threaten that status, Fox News wrote in the report. 

Last month, Central Elections Committee chairman Justice Salim Joubran ruled that the Likud was unable to prove a connection between V15 and other organizations to the Zionist Union and Meretz. 

Joubran rejected the Likud’s petition to block activity by organizations V15, One Voice and Molad and by strategist Eyal Arad on grounds that they are indirectly campaigning for the Zionist Union and Meretz, and required the party to pay NIS 48,000 in legal fees.

The Likud accused the Zionist Union and Meretz of illegally accepting donations from non-Israeli citizens and organizations with foreign funding via V15, which seeks Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s defeat in the election, and other left-wing organizations. V15 is partly funded by S. Daniel Abraham and Daniel Lubetzky, who are not Israeli citizens.

Joubran also said that the party would have to prove that V15 was campaigning for a specific party for it to be illegal, and not the organization’s stated purpose of changing the country’s leadership, or even support for the Center-Left.

Likud bigwig rules out Netanyahu-Herzog power-sharing arrangement

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will not agree to share the premiership with Zionist Union leader Isaac Herzog in a "rotation government" following the election, Communications Minister Gilad Erdan (Likud) told a town hall meeting in Tel Aviv on Saturday.

The latest polls show Zionist Union with a four-seat lead over Likud, prompting speculation that if the results are borne out in this week's election, Netanyahu will have no choice but to invite Herzog into a unity government in which both men will share power.

"[Netanyahu] will not be prime minister in a rotation arrangement," Erdan said.

The minister said that he doesn't believe Herzog and his running mate, Tzipi Livni, will accept the Likud's governing guidelines in the event that Netanyahu is tasked with forming the next coalition.

Erdan said that the Likud would first seek to invite its natural ally, the religious Zionist Bayit Yehudi party, into the coalition before negotiating with other parties.

The minister repeated a Likud accusation that foreign donors are bypassing Israeli election laws and funding campaigns aimed at toppling the ruling party. The specific reference was to the V15 movement, whose wealthy backers are known to support liberal causes in Israel.

"Non-profits spring up right before elections, and a lot of foreign money flows into the country in order to bypass campaign finance laws with the intention of removing the Likud from power," Erdan said.

The veteran Likud power broker said that the ruling party is on track to form the next coalition.

"There is no significant drop-off in the number of Knesset seats the Likud will win, and that's natural because we are the ruling party," he said. "We've led the State of Israel in the proper fashion. We've been responsible and careful, and while it is clear there are problems, when you examine life here in the face of our neighbors, and when you look at the economy compared to that of other Western countries, then you will see that good work has been done here."

Erdan said he was concerned over the possibility that Likud could lose power in a last-minute development.

"We are in danger of seeing the Likud and the nationalist camp lose the ability to form the next government," he said. "That would mean Bouji (Herzog's nickname) and Tzipi will do it with the support of Ahmed Tibi, who apparently will be a member of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee."

"Assuming that Netanyahu forms the next government, I prefer [Bayit Yehudi's] Naftali Bennett, the ultra-Orthodox, [Moshe] Kahlon, and [Avigdor] Liberman in the coalition. I'm not ruling anyone out on condition that they accept the government guidelines as spelled out by Likud."

obama and israel

The Obama administration stands by its rejection of claims that it has worked to influence the outcome of Israel's March 17 election.

Since January, the State Department has questioned the veracity of reporting on a connection between its funding of OneVoice, an organization committed to the two-state solution, and the work of its subsidiary known as Victory 15, which has campaigned against the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu since December.

In November 2014, the same month Netanyahu called for new elections, payments to OneVoice from the State Department ended as scheduled.

Roughly $350,000 in funds were transferred between September 2013 and November 2014 from the US embassy in Tel Aviv " to promote dialogue and support for peace negotiations and a two-state solution," State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said on January 28. The embassy approved an implementation plan for the funds by OneVoice, and monitored its performance, "before the advent of V15," she said.

"As is routine for such a grant, final payments are disbursed after the grantee provides documentation showing completion of the grant terms," Psaki continued, noting that reports to the contrary stem from "inaccurate reporting – and a lack of reporting, perhaps I should say."

Nevertheless, Republican Senator Ted Cruz of Texas sent a letter to US President Barack Obama at the end of January asking for an explanation of the reported connection. And on Saturday, Fox News reported that the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations has opened a formal investigation into OneVoice's funding of V15. The inquiry has support from Democrats and Republicans, according to anonymous sourcing to Fox News.

No committee member has confirmed the authenticity of report, but Fox notes that the office of the committee chairman, Senator Rob Portman of Ohio, did not deny the opening of a probe.

“The Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations does not comment on ongoing investigations,” Portman spokeswoman Caitlin Conant told Fox

mardi 10 mars 2015

Attentats islamistes en Europe

Je ne crois pas du tout aux larmes de crocodiles et aux mines contrites des leaders européens sur l’antisémitisme alors qu’ils financent par milliards – avec l’argent de leurs contribuables – les ONG de la haine contre Israël et contre le peuple juif qu’ils tentent de détruire de l’intérieur en corrompant des Israéliens et des juifs. Ils s’indignent de l’émigration de leurs concitoyens juifs quand ils ont tout fait pour créer la culture antisémite/antisioniste actuelle. En fait ils veulent les empêcher d’aller en Israël pour ne pas irriter leurs alliés arabes.
Pour pallier les déficiences des analyses géopolitiques et à l’indigence du débat d’idée des grands médias, nous avons demandé à notre amie Bat Ye’or, historienne et spécialiste de l’histoire de la dhimmitude des chrétiens et des juifs dans le Moyen Orient islamique, de porter son regard sur les récents attentats qui ont déchiré la France et le Danemark.
Pour rappel, et selon l’analyse de Bat Ye’or, la dhimmitude ne peut se comprendre que dans le cadre du djihad – Jean-Patrick Grumberg
Les accords Eurabia ont-ils été rompus unilatéralement par les musulmans ?
Qu’est-ce que vous entendez par « accords Eurabia » ? Si ce sont des documents officiels ponctuels signés entre chefs d’Etat, ces accords n’existent que partiellement et sont relatifs à Israël. Pour simplifier, Eurabia représente deux stratégies connexes et inséparables conçues par l’Europe avec ses partenaires de la Ligue arabe: 1) la création de la Palestine qui remplacera Israël, et 2) le projet méditerranéen de fusion euro-arabe, projet fondateur d’une civilisation commune méditerranéenne. Les deux stratégies sont liées.
Ces accords euro-arabes concernant Israël cités dans mon livre Eurabia*, sont :
Bruxelles 6 novembre 1973 résolution conjointe de la CEE.
Copenhague 15 décembre 1973, sommet de la CEE entérinant son alignement sur les conditions énoncées par le VIe Sommet arabe tenu à Alger le 26-28 novembre 1973 soit : recul d’Israël sur les lignes de 1949, reconnaissance de la Palestine avec Jérusalem comme capitale arabe, reconnaissance d’Arafat comme seul représentant de la Palestine, arrêt du soutien militaire et économique de l’Europe à Israël.
New York, Assemblée générale de l’ONU 26 septembre 1977, déclaration d’Henri Simonet, ministre belge des Affaires étrangères et président du Conseil de la CEE énonçant la position des Neufs conforme à celle de la Ligue Arabe.
Venise, 13 juin 1980, Déclaration du Conseil européen sur le Moyen-Orient qui entérine toutes les exigences arabes et impliquent l’Europe dans un processus pro-palestinien et anti-israélien.
Des sanctions contre Israël pour l’obliger à remplir les promesses faîtes par les Européens aux peuples arabes
Ces accords sont les premiers et postulent la position de l’Europe, d’autres suivirent. Or une lettre du 10/12 2010 adressée par d’anciens leaders, ambassadeurs et fonctionnaires de l’UE exhorte leurs remplaçants actuels à contraindre Israël par tous les moyens pour qu’il exécute les obligations pris par les Européens envers les Arabes relatives au territoire israélien, à sa population et à sa capitale. Ceci indique que l’UE, non seulement a adopté une position anti-israélienne dans un conflit qui ne la concernait pas, mais s’est engagée directement auprès de ses partenaires arabes à obliger Israël à s’exécuter. (usmep.us/2010-12-10-EFLG-letter-to-EU.pdf). Ces réclamations des pays arabes envers l’Europe ressortent de nombreux documents que j’ai examinés.
La stratégie du projet méditerranéen relève d’une autre structure. Il n’y a pas « d’accords» stricto sensu.
Elle consiste en un ensemble de lobbies et de réseaux officieux regroupant des parlementaires représentant tous les partis européens de la gauche à la droite, et leurs collègues arabes délégués par les parlements arabes. Ces parlementaires arabes et européens travaillaient ensemble dans divers comités spécifiques sous la double présidence de la Commission européenne et de la Ligue arabe. Michel Jobert, ministre français des Affaires étrangères nomma cette structure en 1974 le Dialogue euro-arabe. Saleh A. al-Mani, professeur saoudien à l’université King Saoud, la définit comme « une diplomatie associative » titre de son livre édifiant : The Euro-Arab Dialogue: A Study in Associative Diplomacy* (1983).
Ces réseaux établirent les fondations de la civilisation euro-arabe basée sur l’immigration, le multiculturalisme et l’antisionisme
Dès 1974 ces réseaux établirent au niveau européen et dans tous les secteurs d’activités les fondations idéologiques, politiques, culturelles, économiques, médiatiques, universitaires de la civilisation euro-arabe méditerranéenne basée sur l’immigration, le multiculturalisme et l’antisionisme. Une profusion de documents attestent l’existence et les activités de ces réseaux efficaces jusqu’à aujourd’hui. Le Dialogue euro-arabe, le Processus de Barcelone (1995), la Fondation Anna Lindh (2003), le Parlement euro-méditerranéen, l’Union méditerranéenne, Medea et bien d’autres instruments financiers, culturels et stratégiques démontrent l’existence de cette politique. Eurabia est tout cet ensemble qui repose sur un nombre très variés de documents.
Un projet antisémite sorti des cartons du nazisme
Cette politique fut conçue par la France dans les années 60. Après plusieurs années d’efforts infructueux pour y associer les pays de la Communauté Européenne rebutés par ce projet antisémite sorti des cartons du nazisme, la France obtint l’adhésion à son projet en 1973. Sous les coups de boutoir du terrorisme international palestinien et du terrorisme économique de la Ligue arabe qui menaçait de boycott tout pays ami d’Israël, les neuf pays de la Communauté européenne adhérèrent à la politique française.
Un nouveau facteur est apparu : l’Etat islamique qui s’inscrit dans la pérennité théologique et juridique du jihad
Pour répondre à votre question, si « les musulmans ont rompu les accords », mot confus dans ce contexte, je ne le crois pas. Un nouveau facteur est apparu : l’Etat islamique qui s’inscrit dans la pérennité théologique et juridique du jihad et de la guerre contre les mécréants.
Compte tenu qu’il n’y a jamais eu un aggiornamento théologique de l’islam et que les pays musulmans ont reconnu dans la charte de l’OCI (2008) s’enraciner dans les principes de l’islam, on doit pour comprendre la situation de l’Europe, l’interpréter selon le cadre juridique et idéologique dans lequel la situe le jihad qui n’a jamais été abrogé. On pourrait dire qu’Eurabia instaurait un état de trêve conditionnelle qui n’excluait pas le terrorisme pour obliger l’Europe à exécuter à la fois ses obligations contre Israël, et sur le plan intérieur la promotion de l’immigration musulmane, clé de voûte du projet méditerranéen.
Maintenant, l’Europe et l’Amérique ont donné un coup de pied dans la fourmilière, prodigué des armes aux islamistes qu’elles ont poussé à la rébellion contre les anciens dictateurs. L’Ummah a éclaté en tribus et clans hostiles les uns aux autres et manipulés par les financiers de la guerre.
La présence en Europe de millions d’immigrants qui refusent de s’intégrer et affiliés à leur pays d’origine importera en Europe les conflits et les divisions de ces pays
Dans certaines régions, il n’y a plus d’Etats, les frontières héritées de la colonisation après la Ier Guerre mondiale n’existent plus. L’Etat islamique qui règnent sur ces régions agit conformément aux règles du jihad, il se considère en guerre contre les Etats occidentaux qui combattent les mouvements islamistes en Afrique et au Levant. Il a donc ordonné à ses cellules dormantes en Europe de tuer ses citoyens et de les terroriser. Cela n’a rien à voir avec une soi-disant discrimination sociale de racistes blancs. Il est clair que la présence en Europe de millions d’immigrants qui refusent de s’intégrer et affiliés à leur pays d’origine importera en Europe les conflits et les divisions de ces pays.
Ont-ils perdu le contrôle de leurs éléments les plus radicaux qui déclenchent des attentats « spontanés » ?
Ces éléments obéissent à l’Etat islamique.
Mais on ne peut s’empêcher de penser que peut-être d’autres pressions utilisent le terrorisme pour obtenir de l’Europe les atouts qui ont toujours été exigés par la terreur depuis les années 1960 :
la reconnaissance de la Palestine obtenue de plusieurs états européens sous une très forte menace terroriste ;
l’aggravation des sanctions en Europe contre l’islamophobie et un renforcement de la censure culturelle contre la liberté d’opinion ;
une plus grande représentativité musulmane à des postes politiques importants et dans les médias. Cet argument d’ailleurs a été repris par la presse et des politiciens pour exonérer les coupables, culpabiliser la société européenne et promouvoir une plus forte influence islamique à tous les niveaux sociaux. Ce sont des demandes constantes formulées par l’Organisation de la Coopération Islamique.
Est-ce l’effet de la division entre l’Etat islamiste et les pays du « statut quo » qui rejailli sur des musulmans incontrôlés nés en Europe, et dans ce cas l’avenir proche promet d’être cauchemardesque ?
Les musulmans d’Europe ne sont pas incontrôlés. Les terroristes sont organisés et agissent rationnellement dans la logique du jihad et du dar al-Harb. Ce sont les Européens et leurs leaders qui sont fautifs d’ignorer leurs principes et leurs croyances.
La division est devenue un chaos de guerres et de barbarie qui n’épargnent personne. Mais les musulmans d’Europe ne sont pas incontrôlés. Les terroristes sont organisés et agissent rationnellement dans la logique du jihad et du dar al-Harb. Ce sont les Européens et leurs leaders qui sont fautifs d’ignorer leurs principes et leurs croyances. Ces leaders ont fait preuve de leur incroyable incompétence pour n’avoir pas prévu ce désastre en s’étant installés dans le déni depuis quarante ans alors qu’ils ont l’obligation d’assurer la sécurité de leurs concitoyens.
S’agit-il d’un prélude pour exiger de l’Europe plus de soumission, plus d’acceptation de l’Islam, et un rejet plus offensif d’Israël ?
Oui c’est exactement cela, et les concessions ont déjà commencé.
En fait ils veulent empêcher les juifs d’aller en Israël pour ne pas irriter leurs alliés arabes
Je ne crois pas du tout aux larmes de crocodiles et aux mines contrites des leaders européens sur l’antisémitisme alors qu’ils financent par milliards – avec l’argent de leurs contribuables – les ONG de la haine contre Israël et contre le peuple juif qu’ils tentent de détruire de l’intérieur en corrompant des Israéliens et des juifs. Ils s’indignent de l’émigration de leurs concitoyens juifs quand ils ont tout fait pour créer la culture antisémite/antisioniste actuelle. En fait ils veulent les empêcher d’aller en Israël pour ne pas irriter leurs alliés arabes.
Comment analysez-vous le futur ?
Catastrophique pour tout le monde. L’UE ne changera pas de politique, elle s’est trop engagée pour reculer. Elle a menée trois politiques parallèles et connexes :
l’affaiblissement d’Israël pour lui substituer la Palestine qu’elle a soutenue, financée et formée dans ce but
la destruction des nations européennes pour construire l’UE
la construction de la civilisation euro-méditerranéenne, c’est-à-dire euro-arabe par l’immigration, la mixité des populations, la suppression du judéo-christianisme afin de rendre les populations européennes islamo-compatibles.
Eventuellement l’UE pourrait mener des actions militaires contre Israël si la campagne BDS qu’elle préconise et soutient en sous-main s’avérait insuffisante.
Et avec cela, comme si ce n’était pas assez, Obama pousse à la confrontation avec la Russie, rêvant de recréer la guerre en Europe et le chaos qu’il a semé dans les pays musulmans.

TREASON: BREAKING News :Obama gave $500 MILLION For Weapons To Al-Qaeda Terrorist Used On Our Four Dead Americans In Benghazi.

Benghazi attack could have been prevented if US hadn’t ‘switched sides in the War on Terror’ and allowed $500 MILLION of weapons to reach al-Qaeda militants, reveals damning report.
Citizens Committee on Benghazi claims the US government allowed arms to flow to al-Qaeda-linked militants who opposed Muammar Gaddafi
Their rise to power, the group says, led to the Benghazi attack in 2012
The group claims the strongman Gaddafi offered to abdicate his presidency, but the US refused to broker his peaceful exit
The commission, part of the center-right Accuracy In Media group, concluded that the Benghazi attack was a failed kidnapping plot
US Ambassador Chris Stevens was to be captured and traded for ‘blind sheikh’ Omar Abdel-Rahman, who hatched the 1993 WTC bombing plot
The Citizens Commission on Benghazi, a self-selected group of former top military officers, CIA insiders and think-tankers, declared Tuesday in Washington that a seven-month review of the deadly 2012 terrorist attack has determined that it could have been prevented – if the U.S. hadn’t been helping to arm al-Qaeda militias throughout Libya a year earlier.
‘The United States switched sides in the war on terror with what we did in Libya, knowingly facilitating the provision of weapons to known al-Qaeda militias and figures,’ Clare Lopez, a member of the commission and a former CIA officer, told MailOnline.
She blamed the Obama administration for failing to stop half of a $1 billion United Arab Emirates arms shipment from reaching al-Qaeda-linked militants.
‘Remember, these weapons that came into Benghazi were permitted to enter by our armed forces who were blockading the approaches from air and sea,’ Lopez claimed. ‘They were permitted to come in. … [They] knew these weapons were coming in, and that was allowed..
‘The intelligence community was part of that, the Department of State was part of that, and certainly that means that the top leadership of the United States, our national security leadership, and potentially Congress – if they were briefed on this – also knew about this.’
The weapons were intended for Gaddafi but allowed by the U.S. to flow to his Islamist opposition.
The White House and senior Congressional members,’ the group wrote in an interim report released Tuesday, ‘deliberately and knowingly pursued a policy that provided material support to terrorist organizations in order to topple a ruler [Muammar Gaddafi] who had been working closely with the West actively to suppress al-Qaeda.’
‘Some look at it as treason,’ said Wayne Simmons, a former CIA officer who participated in the commission’s research.
Retired Rear Admiral Chuck Kubic, another commission member, told reporters Tuesday that those weapons are now ‘all in Syria.’
‘Gaddafi wasn’t a good guy, but he was being marginalized,’ Kubic recalled. ‘Gaddafi actually offered to abdicate’ shortly after the beginning of a 2011 rebellion.
‘But the U.S. ignored his calls for a truce,’ the commission wrote, ultimately backing the horse that would later help kill a U.S. ambassador.
Kubic said that the effort at truce talks fell apart when the White House declined to let the Pentagon pursue it seriously.
‘We had a leader who had won the Nobel Peace Prize,’ Kubic said, ‘but who was unwilling to give peace a chance for 72 hours.’
In March 2011, Kubic said, U.S. Army Africa Commander General Carter told NBC News that the U.S. military was not actively targeting Muammar Gaddafi. That, Kubic revealed, was a signal to the Libyan dictator that there was a chance for a deal.
Gaddafi responded by ‘verifiably … pull[ing] his forces back from key rebel-held cities such as Benghazi and Misrata.’
Gaddafi wanted only two conditions to step down: permission to keeo fighting al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), and the lifting of sactions against him, his family, and those loyal to him.
The Obama administration’s unwillingness to help broker a peaceful exit for the Libyan strongman, ‘led to extensive loss of life (including four Americans)’ when al-Qaeda-linked militants attacked U.S. diplomatic facilities in the city of Benghazi,’ the commission told reporters.
The White House and the National Security Staff did not immediately respond to questions about the group’s findings.
‘We don’t claim to have all the answers here,’ said Roger Aronoff, whose center-right group Accuracy in Media sponsored the group and its work.
‘We hope you will, please, pursue this,’ he told reporters. ‘Check it out. Challenge us.’

vendredi 6 mars 2015

Quds force leader, commanding Iraqi forces against ISIS, alarms Washington



Twice designated a terrorist by the United States government, considered responsible for up to 20 percent of American casualties in the Iraq war, Major General Qasem Suleimani, the legendary Iranian spymaster and leader of the Quds Force – the elite special operations wing of the hardline Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) – is now stirring alarm in Washington for doing something the Obama administration would ordinarily cheer: taking the fight to ISIS in Iraq.
Photographs circulating on social media show Suleimani operating alongside senior Iraqi officials in the theater in and around Tikrit, the Sunni ancestral home of Saddam Hussein that is located almost equidistant between Mosul, the ISIS-controlled city 120 miles to the north, and Baghdad, the capital of the Iraqi government 100 miles to the south.
The presence of Suleimani at the forefront of Iraqi forces’efforts to reclaim Tikrit from ISIS control underscores both the expanding influence of Iran on the central Iraqi government and the increasingly critical role that Shi’ite militiamen, thought to be operating under Quds command, are playing in the Iraqi fight against ISIS. Neither development brings pleasure to senior U.S. officials or lawmakers in Congress.
Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen, R-N.J., raised the issue of the Iranians with President Obama’s new defense secretary during a House Appropriations defense subcommittee hearing on Wednesday. “I know we're keeping our distance physically from them in Baghdad,” Frelinghuysen said. “Have we ceded most of the governance of Iraq to Iranians?...And will the military operations that are undergoing, which we are watching, divide the country and require us in some ways to spend more of our resources?”
“I absolutely share your concern about the role of Iran in Iraq and the wider region,” Defense Secretary Ashton Carter told the panel.
Among those concerns is a fear about what may happen if and when ISIS fighters surrender or flee Tikrit, which is presently said to be encircled and witnessing combat. Of the advancing forces, two-thirds are believed to be Shi’ite militiamen loyal to Iran, with the remainder belonging to Iraqi security forces, and officials worry that the Shi’ite troops may seek to avenge ISIS’ massacre of 1,700 Iraqi troops, almost all Shi’ites from nearby Camp Speicher, last June.
“The killings that were perpetrated in the time after we left Iraq would never be forgotten,” Frelinghuysen said.
“I completely agree with you,” Carter replied. “And sectarianism is one of the things that concerns me very much. And of course, it's the root of the Iranian presence in Iraq.”
“We're watching carefully,” added U.S. Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who appeared alongside Carter at the hearing. “If this becomes an excuse to ethnic cleanse, then our campaign has a problem and we're going to have to make a campaign adjustment.”
An additional reason the battle for Tikrit bears close watching at the Pentagon is because it may serve as an indicator of how well the Iraqi forces and their Shi’ite comrades can perform when the larger contest for Mosul is engaged. Analysts who have examined recent Iranian casualty reports said the data show the Islamic regime deploying more rank-and-file troops to Syria, but higher-level commanders to Iraq, to oversee the Shi’ite militia groups.
Ali Alfoneh, an Iranian-born scholar at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, cast the involvement of the Quds Force in the ISIS conflict as reflecting a larger trend in Iranian society: its slow transformation from a radical Islamic theocracy to a military dictatorship, with the IRGC assuming ever greater powers.
“This is an organization which has engaged in spreading sectarian terror in Iraq. And now, this is the force that the Iraqi government has turned to for help in order to liberate Tikrit from Islamic State terrorists,” Alfoneh told Fox News. “In other words, we have one terrorist organization which is helping the Iraqi government get rid of another terrorist organization.”
Such tangled lines of authority and influence are exactly what Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had in mind on Tuesday, when he told a joint meeting of Congress: “When it comes to Iran and ISIS, the enemy of your enemy is your enemy.”

mardi 3 mars 2015

Obama Leaks Info On Israel’s Nuke Program To Iran




Obama-Netanyahu
Officials from the Islamic Republic of Iran claim they have documents that prove the United States assisted Israel in its development of a hydrogen bomb, which they claim is a crime according to international laws, according to the Iranian news media. And there is suspicion that President Barack Obama declassified the documents and released them to a left-wing think-tank to hurt Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The Iranians published a copy of a 129-page memorandum they claim is one of about 100 copies distributed by the Institute for Defense Analysis (IDA) while under contract with the Pentagon in 1987. The Iranian press reported that Israeli nuclear facilities that were built independently were similar in structure to U.S. nuclear facilities such as Los Alamos and Oak Ridge National Laboratories which are key facilities for creating and testing nuclear weaponry, Iranian-controlled news agencies reported.
But according to Veterans Today, there are rumors in the Pentagon that President Barack Obama was the person who ordered his minions to release the documents claiming the United States had allowed Israel to conduct not only nuclear espionage and openly sell nuclear weapons technology, but they received illegal American financial aid to build the nuclear weapon. VT claims that Obama’s release of the documents was in reaction to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to the U.S. Congress in March. Not surprising is the fact that few, if any, American news media outlets covered the story.
“What we see here is a possibility that Obama and the Iranians conspired to hurt Netanyahu and Israel since they oppose a U.S.-Iran nuclear agreement. It’s a possible conspiracy and the right hand, the U.S., doesn’t have to know what the left hand, Iran, is doing and vice versa for there to be a conspiracy,” Lyle Kaplan a former counterterrorism unit operative and a prosecutor. “It’s a mysterious paradox that most American Jews hold Ronald Reagan in low-regard after he, right or wrong, helped to make Israel a safer nation in a sea of enemies, while they appear to love Barack Obama who has disrespected Israel and favors the Jewish State’s enemies,” Kaplan noted.
The report titled, “Critical Technology Assessment in Israel and NATO Nations,” claims that Israel’s nuclear facilities were advanced enough for them to formulate, design and build nuclear weapons. The Israelis were “developing the kind of codes which will enable them to make hydrogen bombs. That is, codes which detail fission and fusion processes on a microscopic and macroscopic level,” the report states.

dimanche 1 mars 2015

US Senator Feinstein


Diane Feinstein, the Democratic senator from California, told CNN on Sunday that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s contention that he is speaking for all Jews in lobbying against an agreement between the US and Iran is “arrogant.”

Netanyahu, upon boarding a plane to Washington for what his office says will be a historic address to Congress, said Sunday that he is going as an "emissary of all the citizens of Israel, even those who don't agree with me, and the entire Jewish people."

Netanyahu, whose speech has triggered a great deal of friction with the White House said, "I am greatly concerned about the security of the citizens of Israel and I will do what is necessary in order to ensure our future."

“He doesn’t speak for me on this," Feinstein told CNN's State of the Union. "I think it’s a rather arrogant statement. I think the Jewish community is like any other community. There are different points of view. I think that arrogance does not befit, Israel, candidly."

The senator said that she will attend Netanyahu's speech, even though some of her Democratic colleagues plan to stay away in protest to what they feel is the Israeli premier's overt undermining of President Barack Obama and his administration.

"I intend to go, and I’ll listen respectfully," she said. "I don’t intend to jump up and down."

US Secretary of State John Kerry pressed the case on Sunday for completing nuclear diplomacy with Iran despite Israeli opposition, saying the United States deserves the benefit of the doubt on getting a deal that would prevent any need for military action to curb Tehran's atomic ambitions.

Two days before Netanyahu is due to address the US Congress to warn against an Iran deal, Kerry delivered a stout defense of talks that are entering a critical phase with a key March 31 deadline looming.

Kerry said he hoped Netanyahu's speech does not turn into "some great political football" but said the Israeli leader is "welcome to speak in the United States, obviously."

Six powers - the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany - are negotiating with Iran toward an agreement to restrain Tehran's nuclear program in exchange for easing economic sanctions. Netanyahu has spoken scathingly about a possible deal and says a nuclear-armed Iran would pose an existential threat to the Jewish state.

Netanyahu was invited to speak by Republican congressional leaders, but they did not inform President Barack Obama's administration about the speech in advance. Signs are growing that the speech could damage Israel's country's broad alliance with the United States.

In an interview with the ABC program "This Week," Kerry said of the Iran negotiations: "It is better to do this by diplomacy than to have to do a strategy militarily which you would have to repeat over and over again and which everybody believes ought to be after you have exhausted all the diplomatic remedies."

Kerry said he could not promise that a deal can be reached, but said that "we are going to test whether or not diplomacy can prevent this weapon from being created."

"We have said again and again, no deal is better than a bad deal. We're not going to make a bad deal," Kerry said.

Kerry, who said he spoke with Netanyahu on Saturday, is heading to Switzerland and is due to meet with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif this week just as the Israeli leader comes to Washington.

"Our hope is diplomacy can work," Kerry added. "... Given our success on the interim agreement, I believe we deserve the benefit of the doubt to find out whether or not we can get a similarly good agreement with respect to the future."