As a governing authority, the Palestinian Authority was able to claim, once, and once again, that it does not control acts against Israel that come from its borders. The PA kept stating that acts by fringe groups such as Hamas and other Jihadies, are out of its control.
As a sovereign state, the Government of such state, will be responsible for all acts from within its border, and may be faced with a formal state of war which Israel.
If such situation develops, Israel may just welcome a formal war to use as a vehicle for “adjusting it borders,” something that it would dearly, and for good reasons, like to do.
The Palestinian authorities may wish to thing long and hard before declaring statehood, because with statehood comes responsibility, and risks, that they may well not be ready to assume.

President Obama requested Congress to put off any inquiry into the Fort Hood massacre; he stated that he would like the military to conduct its own inquiry, and that Congress has “more important work.”

On the surface President Obama’s request may have some merit if not for a number of facts. The most obvious fact has to do with the military not wanting to expose its flaws in allowing the situation to occur in the first place.

But, moving on. The Congress has no more important work than fighting terror, and there are enough reason to classify the Fort Hood massacre as a terrorist act. Adding to that, getting out 100 shots from two handguns in the short time that major Hasan did his dastardly deed, would require a magician; was the Major that good, and if he was, how did a medical doctor become so proficient in the use of handguns?

There are many other reasons to suggest that an inquiry independent of the military is in order. The question that President Obama’ request raises, however, has to do with the fact that he seems to protect anything Muslim; is that his actual motive?

Ahmadinejad, at an Islamic Conference in Turkey, informed Obama that any additional association of the United States with Israel will rule out any discussions between his regime and the United States. The Iranian leader did not speak of support, but rather of any association (“clasping of the hands”,) with the State of Israel.

Will Obama further his actions of dissociation the United States from Israel and attempt to deal with Iran? Or, will Obama stay on track of historical American friendship with Israel and take “non diplomatic” steps in dealing with the Islamic Republic of Iran?

Rham Emanuel, the son of a Jewish-Israeli father, is no friend of Israel! Only 4% of Israeli Jews consider President Obama a friend of Israel, and Rham Emanuel, the Presidents’s chief of staff, simply parrots his boss. Much of the bidding Rham Emanuel does on behalf of his boss, is done at the expense of Israel’s interests.

When President Obama was speaking at the Fort Hood memorial service trying to be conciliatory to Muslims, his chief of staff was substituting for him and addressing a Jewish group in Washington DC, Emanuel was simply trying to push the Obama’s agenda particularly Obama’s anti-Israel policies.

Emanuel was introduced to the Jewish audience as “one of us,” when in reality he should have been called a turn-coat on Israel and on Judaism. Emanuel called tor the immediate freeze on settlements, even though, with his upbringing, he should have realized that he was asking the Jewish people to act in a manner contrary to what their god instructed them to do. Does Rhambo Emanuel expect Israel, the Jewish people, and the Israeli leadership, to accept directives from his boss over orders from God?

A chasm between Israel and the United States grows. This wide chasm that was created by Barak Hussein Obama and his Administration in the few short months, since taking office, is becoming so wide, that regardless of how sympathetic to Israel future Administrations may be, the chasm may never be closed, and the United States may lose its most, or perhaps, only, dependable ally that it has in the Middle East.

Mahmoud Ahamdinejad just called President Obama’s bluff! The Iranian leader suggested that if President Obama wishes to engage Iran diplomatically, as he claims, the American President will have to essentially “divorce” the United States from Israel.

Barak Hussein Obama’s actions in the next few weeks will reveal his true colors; will he still insist on negotiation with Iran and tacitly accept Ahmadinejad notion that the US disassociate itself from Israel? Or, will Obama finally dispel the notion that he is anti-Jewish, and anti-Israel, and deal forcibly with the Iran’s regime?

Should President Obama capitulate to Ahmadinejad and others of his ilk, and insist on continuing diplomacy with Iran, will the Administration’s “Jewish contingency” of Emanuel, Axelrod, etc., stand behind Israel, or will these
people remain Obama’s “lap-dogs,” and support his every move, as irrational as it may be?

There was a time that to publish a book in the United States one needed to have credible content, and the ability to write; things changed!

For publishers to expose the American public to Sarah Palin, an irresponsible politician, and to Carrie Prejean, a young lady who appears to do almost anything in order to get publicity, borders on the ridiculous. This is especially unreasonable since neither lady is writing her book, professional writer do the job.

Palin, the inexperienced ex Vice Presidential candidate who quit her job as governor of Alaska (letting down Alaska’s votes,) in order to “feather her own nest,” and Prejean, whose words do not reflect her actions, now have book deals, and will become wealthy at the expense of the gullible American public.

Adding insult to injury is the fact that these two ladies were embraced by many GOP conservatives who are looking for voices, especially since Rush Limbaugh the major conservative spokesperson, and the party, are now at odds. Having these two ladies appear to represent the GOP makes that party look like even a larger loser than it is!

One can only hope that the American public will become outraged enough not to buy a large number of books by these two leeches.

The President of the United States of America, Barak Hussein Obama, is a bright, and articulate young man, but a person who seems to lose his objectivity when dealing with his Muslim brethren. Though Barak Obama is a practicing Christian, there is no doubt that his Muslim-birth, and the Islamic environment of his formative years, caused lasting sympathies towards the Muslim people. Being sympathetic to muslims may be a good thing, but doing so with a blind eye to the violent nature of its religious teaching, is dangerous.

In his speech at the memorial to those Americans who were fallen by the American Army Muslim Major Hasan, in Fort Hood, the American President took the occasion to be conciliatory towards Muslims rather than to concentrate on the magnitude of the event, and to admit that Muslims represent more violence than do most other Americans. This is not to say that all non-Muslim American people are violent-free, but it is to say, that in today’s world, based on statistics, Muslims cause more terror acts than all other groups combined.

It is time that the Muslim-born President of the United States, a person who formally adopted Christianity, stood up and admitted to the fact that Islam is a violent religion. It is time that the President, in order to protect the American public (the President’s most important function,) accept the fact that Muslims should, within reasonable bounds, be scrutinized more closely by law-enforcement, than non-Muslims.

The Fort Hood massacre by an American army officer of the Muslim faith, a man who killed in the name of Allah, should have woken President Barak Hussein Obama to the fact that Islam preaches, and in a large way encourages, violence. The American President should, for the moment, forget his Islamic heritage, his Islamic sympathies, Islamic instincts, and Islamic influences, and rise about his emotional ties to admit that Muslims are statistically more dangerous to Americans than non-Muslims.

Unless Barak Obama decides to pull American troops out of Afghanistan for political reasons, and leave the country to El Qaeda and the Taliban, or listen to his military commanders and commit 40,000+ more troops to the country; he would make a fool of himself.

With no military experience, nor sound judgement on matters of war, for President Obama to commit less troops to Afghanistan than his military commanders on the ground requested, would be an irresponsible and arrogant act that should create a ground-swell of opposition to the young President and his shaky policies.

Withdrawal will be painful, admitting, as the Russians did, that superpowers cannot match religious convictions. On the other hand, tampering with requests from military commanders would simply demonstrate poor judgement, arrogance, and the inexperience that Hillary Clinton spoke of during the primaries, and that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad attributed to President Obama.

Muslims are no different from other God’s creatures, but yet those who subscribe to Islam and accept the Koran as the FINAL word from the Divine, represent a “clear and present danger,” to all infidels, including all non-Muslim Americans.

As was recently made clear by the action of United States Major Hasan, Muslims who accept the Koran as the final word of god (Allah in the case of Islam,) are bound to convert infidels to Islam or punish them for failing to do so. Many of those people who knew that Major Hasan was a Muslim activist, but who decided to be politically correct and not report it, might have well contributed to the death of thirteen people in Fort Hood, and will have to live with their conscience for the rest of their lives.

If the United State had a clear policy that calls for bringing to the attention of the powers-to-be any suspicious Muslim activist, the Fort Hood Massacre might have well been avoided; it is time to put political correctness aside and protect the American public from the threat of Islam.

Muslims who are routinely profiled and undergo severe scrutiny at Israeli airports do not seem disturbed by the process; they understand, as should Muslims in America, that the safety of the many, justifies the infringement of some individual rights.

It is time for the United States to realize that many Muslims, even some of whom may appear harmless, as did Major Hasan to many people who met him, represent danger to the general American public, and take appropriate action.

It is time for the United States, under tight controls that will not cause undue indignities to Muslims, to establish a process of profiling Muslims and putting in place a system to reduce, and hopefully eliminate, the danger many Muslims represent to American society.

President Barak Hussein Obama push of Netanyahu to give more concession is beyond the Israeli Prime Minister authority, and may result in America causing Israel’s government to be removed, and only be replaced by a more militant body.

Obama’s lack of understanding of Israeli sensitivities, and his pro-Islam stance are widening the chasm he built between the United States ans Israel in the few months since he took office.

For sometime now, the fact that President Obama has Islamic sympathies, was obvious. Following is an article a copy of which came from a friend earlier today. Since many Muslim states are still on record as desiring to destroy Israel, the Jewish State should refrain from any further negotiations until that situation is remedies, and Barak Hussein Obama must lead that charge.

Obama must act soon especially since the perception of his anti-Israel posture is strong, a perception that in large part is coming from within the African-American community.

The article as received from a friend; what an insight!

THE SOURCE OF OBAMA’S ANTI-ISRAEL POLICY

This is a Black man who understands the anti-Semitism of BHO and how it’s gotten him to this point.

July 28, 2009

THE SOURCE OF OBAMA’S ANTI-ISRAEL POLICY

by Bishop E W Jackson Sr (United States), Jun 29, 2009 at 11:25

Like Obama, I am a graduate of Harvard Law School. I too have Muslims in my family. I am black, and I was once a leftist Democrat. Since our backgrounds are somewhat similar, I perceive something in Obama’s policy toward Israel which people without that background may not see. All my life I have witnessed a strain of anti-Semitism in the black community. It has been fueled by the rise of the Nation of Islam and Louis Farrakhan, but it predates that organization.

We heard it in Jesse Jackson’s “HYMIE town” remark years ago during his presidential campaign. We heard it most recently in Jeremiah Wright’s remark about “them Jews” not allowing Obama to speak with him. I hear it from my own Muslim family members who see the problem in the Middle East as a “Jew” problem.

Growing up in a small, predominantly black urban community in Pennsylvania, I heard the comments about Jewish shop owners. They were “greedy cheaters” who could not be trusted, according to my family and others in the neighborhood. I was too young to understand what it means to be Jewish, or know that I was hearing anti-Semitism. These people seemed nice enough to me, but others said they were “evil”. Sadly, this bigotry has yet to be eradicated from the black community.

In Chicago, the anti-Jewish sentiment among black people is even more pronounced because of the direct influence of Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam. Most African Americans are not followers of “The Nation”, but many have a quiet respect for its leader because, they say, “he speaks the truth” and “stands up for the black man”. What they mean of course is that he viciously attacks the perceived “enemies” of the black community white people and Jews. Even some self-described Christians buy into his demagoguery.

The question is whether Obama, given his Muslim roots and experience in Farrakhan’s Chicago, shares this antipathy for Israel and Jewish people. Is there any evidence that he does. First, the President was taught for twenty years by a virulent anti-Semite, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. In the black community it is called “sitting under”. You don’t merely attend a church, you “sit under” a Pastor to be taught and mentored by him. Obama “sat under” Wright for a very long time. He was comfortable enough with Farrakhan Wright’s friend to attend and help organize his “Million Man March”. I was on C-Span the morning of the march arguing that we must never legitimize a racist and anti-Semite, no matter what “good” he claims to be doing. Yet a future President was in the crowd giving Farrakhan his enthusiastic support.

The classic left wing view is that Israel is the oppressive occupier, and the Palestinians are Israel’s victims. Obama is clearly sympathetic to this view. In speaking to the “Muslim World,” he did not address the widespread Islamic hatred of Jews. Instead he attacked Israel over the growth of West Bank settlements. Surely he knows that settlements are not the crux of the problem. The absolute refusal of the Palestinians to accept Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state is the insurmountable obstacle. That’s where the pressure needs to be placed, but this President sees it differently. He also made the preposterous comparison of the Holocaust to Palestinian “dislocation”.

Obama clearly has Muslim sensibilities. He sees the world and Israel from a Muslim perspective. His construct of “The Muslim World” is unique in modern diplomacy. It is said that only The Muslim Brotherhood and other radical elements of the religion use that concept. It is a call to unify Muslims around the world. It is rather odd to hear an American President use it. In doing so he reveals more about his thinking than he intends. The dramatic policy reversal of joining the unrelentingly ant-Semitic, anti-Israel and pro-Islamic UN Human Rights Council is in keeping with the President’s truest albeit undeclared sensibilities.

Those who are paying attention and thinking about these issues do not find it unreasonable to consider that President Obama is influenced by a strain of anti-Semitism picked up from the black community, his leftist friends and colleagues, his Muslim associations and his long period of mentorship under Jeremiah Wright. If this conclusion is accurate, Israel has some dark days ahead. For the first time in her history, she may find the President of the United States siding with her enemies. Those who believe as I do that Israel must be protected had better be ready for the fight. We are.

NEVER AGAIN!
E.W. Jackson is Bishop of Exodus Faith Ministries, an author and retired attorney.
Email: bshpjksn@gmail.com

=