HOMELESS IN AMERICA
Thirty years ago, at the end of 1978 and beginning of 1979, US President Jimmy Carter’s blind approach and his obsessive concern for human rights everywhere, and particularly in the Shah-ruled Iran, prompted Khomeini’s rise and brought Khomeinism to power. Carter did not permit the Shah to handle the protests against him, that is, to disperse them with gunfire. The result was the ayatollah takeover of Iran and the murder of thousands of Shah supporters. Everything the world suffered, is suffering, and will suffer because of Iran is the direct result of the short-sightedness of an American president who understood nothing in the ways of the Middle East.
NEW FOLDING BICYCLE
FOX NEWS FREEDOM WATCH
PETER SCHIFF - MAY 12, 2009 - ECONOMICS
OBAMA VS. CHRYSLER - COMPLETE PUBLIC AUDIO
MARK LEVIN - OBAMA
THE MANNING REPORT - PUBLIC VIDEO
THE MANNING REPORT - PUBLIC VIDEO
DR. JAMES D. MANNING
DR. JAMES D. MANNING
2nd congressman: Prove eligibility
Virginia representative signs onto plan to demand evidence
11:00 pm Eastern
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va.
Now there are two.
A Virginia congressman, very quietly, has signed onto a measure in Congress that would require presidential candidates to verify their eligibility to hold the highest elected office in the United States.
WND earlier reported when freshman Rep. Bill Posey, R-Fla., filed H.R. 1503, an amendment to the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971.
According to the Library of Congress' bill-tracking website, H.R. 1503 would "require the principal campaign committee of a candidate for election to the office of president to include with the committee's statement of organization a copy of the candidate's birth certificate, together with such other documentation as may be necessary to establish that the candidate meets the qualifications for eligibility to the Office of President under the Constitution."*************************************************************************************************
CIA chief visits Israel, mixed Washington assessments on Iran
DEBKAfile Special Report
May 14, 2009, 10:12 AM (GMT+02:00)
CIA Director Leon Panetta - a quiet visitor
Director of the US Central Intelligence Agency Leon Panetta visited Israel two weeks ago to explore Israel's intentions with regard to a raid on Iran's nuclear facilities and its alignment with Egypt and Saudi Arabia for this shared objective.
On the one hand, Panetta showed Israeli leaders with a new US report which estimates first, that Iran lacks adequate military resources to shield its nuclear sites from attack and, second, would pull its punches in responding to an Israeli strike. On the other, it is feared in Washington that by linking up with Egypt and Saudi Arabia, Israel would be free to send its warplanes against Iran through the skies of its two Arab partners, without deferring to the United States.
(This potential partnership was first disclosed in detail by DEBKA-Net-Weekly 395 of May 8).
This report was also presented by defense secretary Robert Gates on May 5-6 to Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak in Cairo and Saudi King Abdullah in Riyadh.
None of the three Middle East leaders took the report seriously because -
1. They could not make out if it was meant to encourage or deter an Israeli attack? Surely, the best time to strike would be before Iran acquires adequate defenses for its nuclear sites. Is that what the Obama administration is after?
2. Israel does not believe that Iran would emulate Iraq's Saddam Hussein who refrained from hitting back after Israel demolished his nuclear reactor in 1981. Iran's rulers are committed to massive retaliation or else face a degree of popular contempt that would test the regime's survival.
Panetta and Gates alike returned home convinced that Israel, Egypt and Saudi Arabia and other Gulf emirates are far more fearful of a nuclear-armed Iran than of clashing with the Obama administration over its policy of engaging Iran.
This understanding prompted a policy review in Washington, which is still going on.
One outward symptom of a possible reversal was the sudden announcement on May 8 that President Obama had decided to again address the Muslim world from Egypt on June 4, ten days after Mubarak visits Washington. On the same day, he also renewed sanctions against Syria, which, after weeks of diplomatic pursuit, he accused of sponsoring terror and seeking weapons of mass destruction.
Washington's dawning appreciation that the rise of a nuclear-armed, terror-sponsoring Iran is the burning preoccupation of Middle East rulers, leaving the Palestinian issue for another day, will certainly make Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu's talks in the White House next Monday, May 18, a lot smoother. The clash which otherwise would have been unavoidable may now be averted.
The State of Israel was born 61 years ago today. Israel’s delivery was not without complication and drama. For months, the life of the newborn state hung in the balance, under constant threat from and at a significant strategic disadvantage to the Arab armies that surrounded it on three sides. Miraculously, Israel survived. Victorious and worn out, yet still independent, Israel remained imperiled and strategically disadvantaged for the next 19 years.
Until June 1967.
It’s hard to exaggerate the extent to which the Six Day War assured Israel’s future existence as an independent state. The war only lasted 130 hours and 50 minutes—during which Israel beat back the advancing armies of Arab states, decimated the air forces of Egypt and Syria, wrested the Golan Heights from Syria and gained control over the entire Sinai Peninsula. But it had a defining impact on Israel’s sovereignty.
How? On June 5, not long after Israel had begun its preemptive defensive strike on Egypt, it was forced into confrontation with Jordan. Seeing opportunity, the Jordanian military had started firing on Jerusalem, moved forces into Jerusalem (where it overran the United Nations headquarters) and begun firing on Jewish cities on the coastal plain from its position in the hills of what it termed the West Bank. Finally, after Jordan rejected a UN ceasefire agreement, Israel pursued its only remaining option.
On June 5, the Israeli military annihilated the Jordanian Air Force. By the 8th, Israel’s military had pushed the Jordanian military out of the West Bank and back over the Jordan River. Israel’s only option had been to retake Judea and Samaria!
The ramifications of this event were far-reaching. Speaking before students at Herbert W. Armstrong College recently, former Israeli Ambassador Yoram Ettinger explained the significance of Judea and Samaria to Israel’s independence and national security. Judea and Samaria are the “crux of the cradle of Jewish history,” Ettinger explained. Israel does not exist on the eastern flank of the Mediterranean because of Tel Aviv or any of the coastal cities. Instead, Ettinger said, the essential reason Israel exists today is because of the “territorial stretch between Hebron in the south, the first Jewish capital before Jerusalem, and Nabulus in the north, the first stop of the Israelites when they reentered the Promised Land.”
Judea and Samaria is the heartland of the Jewish people, Ettinger said, and a strategic necessity for preserving the independence of a Jewish state!
The Jewish people have been tethered to Judea and Samaria for more than 3,000 years. Genesis shows that Abraham entered Israel through Shechem, and that the hills of Judea and Samaria were the stomping grounds for his descendants through Isaac and Jacob. The Bible records that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were buried in Hebron, a bustling city in the Judean hills. Even Joseph, although he lived and died in Egypt, was buried in Shechem, in the hills of Samaria (Joshua 24:32). Scripture says Bethel, known today as Beit El, was where Jacob slept on the pillar stone and had his famous dream. The book of Exodus shows that the ark of the covenant, before being placed in the temple in Jerusalem, rested in the Samarian city of Shilo.
The Jews’ fingerprints are literally all over the hills of Judea and Samaria. “Ninety-two percent of the Bible place names are in the mountains of Israel in what the Bible calls Judea and Samaria and the world calls the West Bank,” says Billye Brim, a Bible scholar at Elon Moreh. In the book of Joshua, God maps out the borders of the Promised Land as a whole, as well as the internal borders separating the 12 tribes of Israel. In Joshua 15, God specifically outlines the territory assigned to the tribe of Judah, of which the Jews today are descendants. (You can easily prove this by reading The United States and Britain in Prophecy.)
Notice, God placed the tribe of Judah at the heart of the Promised Land, on the northwest side of the Dead Sea, and primarily in the hills of what even today is still called Judea!
As the biblical heartland of the ancient Israelites (of whom the Jews are descendants today), the territory of Judea and Samaria—not the Golan, not the coastal plain—is the pulse of Jewish sovereignty. This history definitely complicates land-for-peace deals and the two-state “solution.” But as Ettinger asked: “Can any nation survive whilst negotiating away the cradle of its history? … If you don’t have your roots, how can you have peace?” Trees will not blossom without strong roots, and will more than likely be uprooted by the lightest wind.
The same applies to Jewish national sovereignty, which is rooted in Judea and Samaria.
territory is largely comprised of a mountainous ridge, known as the spine of Israel,
that stretches from below Hebron in the south to the valley of Jezreel in the north. These hills, ranging from 2,000 to 3,000 feet high—the “mountains of Israel” as they are referred to in the Bible—provide an ideal strategic vantage point for either engaging with enemies or simply standing guard over the towns and cities peppered across the lower plains. The scraggy hills, marked by steep inclines, gaping gorges and deep valleys, are also an ideal natural barrier for slowing invading armies, and provide a measure of protection for civilians and homeland armies as well as military hardware and facilities.
Many are aware that the Golan Heights provide Israel with a great strategic advantage in the north, helping Israel control the Sea of Galilee and the towns and cities on the northern plains of Israel. But as Ettinger explained, few recognize that the mountainous ridge on which Judea and Samaria sit is infinitely more important to Israel than the Golan. It is so important, in fact, that it took less than a month for the Israeli government, after gaining Judea and Samaria in June 1967, to start rebuilding its national security platform around Israel’s control of Judea and Samaria.
Today, the hill country of Judea and Samaria are to Jerusalem, the Dead Sea and the coastal plain, what the Golan is to the Sea of Galilee and Israel’s northern plains. Strategically, the territory of Judea and Samaria is the pivot on which the national security of the Jewish state depends. It is critical not only to the security and stability of Jerusalem and the other towns and cities in the Judean and Samarian hills, but also essential to the security of towns and cities on the coastal plain, on which 80 percent of Israel’s population lives and the bulk of Israel’s finance, economy and transportation arteries and industry exists.
To those who understand the centrality of Judea and Samaria to Israel’s existence as an independent and secure state, the notion of ceding this territory to the Palestinians—a people incapable of forging peace among themselves, let alone with their sworn enemy—in return for peace, is illogical and immoral. Yet that is the basic premise of the two-state solution, a peace plan outlined in the Oslo accords in 1993, which has been embraced by most of the international community, including Britain, the European Union, the Palestinian Authority, and even the Arab League (with preconditions).
Pope Benedict xvi, while touring Israel this week, also called on Israel’s leadership to embrace the two-state solution for peace with the Palestinians. “I plead with all those responsible to explore every possible avenue in the search for a just resolution of the outstanding difficulties, so that both peoples may live in peace in a homeland of their own, within secure and internationally recognized borders,” Benedict said Monday.
The Obama administation is pushing Israel toward the same end. Speaking to reporters at a UN Security Council meeting this week, America’s ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice stated that the “United States is fully and unequivocally committed to working for a two-state solution,” telling the international media that the Obama administration shares a “sense of urgency” in solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. “This is a moment that should not be lost,” she said.
Analysts expect President Obama’s urgency to be apparent next week when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu flies to Washington, where he will more than likely be pressured to cede Judea and Samaria in the creation of a Palestinian state. Speaking before the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee in Washington last week, Vice President Joseph Biden said that “Israel’s security is non-negotiable. Period. But Israel has to work toward a two-state solution.” America and the rest of the world simply refuse to recognize that these are mutually exclusive realities.
For Israel, the creation of what would assuredly be a Hamas-controlled, Iranian-influenced Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria—the heartland of the Jewish people and key to Jewish national security—would amount to national suicide. This is why we do not expect Netanyahu to give in to demands for a two-state solution.
To learn more about the future of the Jewish state, particularly in light of its weakening relationship with America, read Jerusalem in Prophecy. •........................................................................................................................................
Schumer on torture: 'Do what you have to do'
New York Democrat made case in 2004 in favor of harsh interrogation
Jewish advocacy of gun confiscation in the United States causes tremendous anti-Semitism - Senator Charles Schumer hypocritically enjoys the armed protection from crime which he denies "ordinary" Americans. (During a 1990s Congressional investigation into gun confiscation, Schumer joined black Congressman Mel Reynolds (D-IL), later convicted of pedophilia, in verbally attacking a young woman, the survivor of a Texas restaurant massacre, who testified that, had she been armed, her parents might still be alive.)
Posted: May 13, 2009
8:23 pm Eastern
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
The issue of harsh interrogation techniques to fight the war on terror has some lawmakers running for political cover these days.
But at least one U.S. senator, New York Democrat Charles Schumer, made the case in favor of possible use of torture five years ago, explaining "most Americans and most senators, maybe all, would say, 'Do what you have to do'" if there were an imminent nuclear threat against the nation.
Speaking before the Senate Judiciary Committee on June 8, 2004, Schumer stated:
"And I'd like to interject a note of balance here. There are times when we all get in high dudgeon. We ought to be reasonable about this. I think there are probably very few people in this room or in America who would say that torture should never, ever be used, particularly if thousands of lives are at stake.