C.A.I.R. Is Nearly Giddy Over Barack Hussein Obama

I grabbed an upchuck bucket and ventured onto C.A.I.R.'s website last night and it's a good thing the bucket was close by...because the islamic terrorists at CAIR are falling all over themselves to laud The One - they have simply fallen in love with our new President. Most of you know that I refuse to link to CAIR's website so I have pasted the two entire articles below but wanted to point out the two headlines from their website here:

CAIR Welcomes Obama’s ‘Encouraging’ Statement to Muslim World in Inaugural Address


Action Alert #565: Thank Obama for Order to Close Guantanamo Prisons

Oh wait! There's a third article over there! Check this headline out:

CAIR Commends Obama’s Choice for Mideast Envoy

Here's what one of the articles says:

The Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) commended President Obama for the overall positive tone of his address, and thanked him particularly for the statement: "To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect."

“We hope this encouraging statement, coupled with a change in America’s previous policies toward the Muslim world, will help improve our nation’s image and promote a safe and prosperous future for all of humanity,” said CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad.
He also welcomed President Obama’s statement, "As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals.” Before being sworn in as president, Mr. Obama pledged to shut down the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba and to end the use of interrogation techniques that many experts say rise to the level of torture.

This asshat, Awad, when he says "promote a safe and prosperous futur for all of humanity"....well, what he means by that is this: We are so pleased to hear that President Obama will back off our clandestine efforts to soften America with jihad and thus allow us as radical islamists to prepare America for the onset of the World Caliphate.

Yep, quite a feather in President Obama's hat - the out and out gushing of appreciation from C.A.I.R. I can remember a time closer to the attacks on 9/11 when that would have been the kiss of death to any politician...and you don't think the dhimmification of America hasn't made any progress?

CAIR Commends Obama’s Choice for Mideast Envoy

(WASHINGTON, D.C., 1/22/09) - The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) today commended President Obama on his choice of former senator George Mitchell as special envoy to the Middle East.

Considered a “diplomatic heavyweight,” Mitchell is perhaps best known for negotiating a cease-fire and power-sharing agreements between warring Catholic and Protestant factions in Northern Ireland in the late 1990s.
Mitchell is also known for authoring a 2001 report on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that was applauded for its balance and became the basis for later peace initiatives.

Action Alert #565: Thank Obama for Order to Close Guantanamo Prisons

(WASHINGTON, D.C., 1/22/09) - CAIR is calling on American Muslims and others concerned with maintaining our nation’s ethical standards to thank President Obama for signing an executive order today to close down the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay within a year.

That order was one of three the President signed today. Another formally bans torture by U.S. interrogators, and the third establishes an interagency task force to set policies for the “apprehension, detention, trial, transfer or release of detainees.”
“We are pleased to see President Obama following through with his promises to end some of the shameful practices that have harmed our nation’s moral authority in the world in recent years,” said CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad. “These executive orders are an important first step to restoring the rule of law and aligning our security policies with traditional American values.”
Awad noted that CAIR has urged for years that the prisons at Guantanamo be shut down.

Huff Po Editorialist: ' Obama Should Quit War on Terror, Talk To Hamas,Taliban'

Oh yeah, the author of this mess is some spineless, dickless momma's boy named Nathan Gardels (big surprise that he works for the LA Times) - apparently, Nathan took time out from participating in a pro-Hamas rally and modeling the latest fashion of the drag queen crowd in San Francisco to write this slop. Here's some of the details of how Nathan Gardels wants America to hunker down onto a islamic prayer mat, from the HuffPo article:

The place to start on a new course is to leave the "war on terror" behind and recognize that Hamas, Hezbollah and the Taliban -- all of which have legitimate nationalist aspirations, but wrapped in Islamist garb -- cannot be lumped into the same category as the cosmic terrorists of Al Qaeda who want to attack the US directly. The former you can negotiate with by addressing their grievances. You can't deal with Al Qaeda because their claims are in another realm beyond this earth.
Dealing with Hamas or the Taliban doesn't mean that if Obama talks to them they will roll over. It means that the use of force alone cannot work. It means that ignoring them won't make them go away.

Above all, it means de-globalizing the jihad. Rather than treating all Islamists as alike, it means identifying the legitimate aspects of their claims (Palestinian statehood, Pashtu power) and separating those into a political process that deligitimizes terror as a counter-productive tactic and marginalizes extremists.

Did you see that? Hamas has a legitimate claim to Palestinian statehood? The Taliban has a legitimate claim to some fucking idiocy called "Pashtu power?" Tell me Nathan, WHO told you that Hamas has a legitimate claim to power? Hamas? Jimmy Carter? You're father the anti-semite?

See, this is what tools like this Nathan "I'm a surrenderist faggot" Gardels get into their pea-sized brains that Hamas just wants a little state to govern - wrong Nathan. Hamas has one goal and in fact Nathan, if you'd bother to pick up something to read other than a gay men's magazine, that Hamas goal is spelled out in Hamas' charter - the destruction of Israel. Hamas doesn't want Israel to give them some land for a state, they want Israel destroyed, gone.

And as for the Taliban...I'd like to ask Nathan what indication he has that the Taliban has EVER said that they demanded ANYTHING other a full return to power in Afghanistan. The LA Times and The Huffington Post are notorious for allowing this kind of flimsy propaganda and lying to grace their pages and websites...this article is perfect proof that they haven't changed a bit.

Obama Should Quit War on Terror, Talk to Hamas and Taliban


Of course, I agree with my passionate friend, Bernard-Henri Levy, who writes elsewhere on this page that Gaza cannot be allowed to become an "advance base for total war against Israel."
But for the current Israeli government to think it can prevent that by blowing up the whole of Gaza is the same old mistake. The shock and awe attack, meant as a "deterrent" against Hamas (and Iran, Hezbollah and the rest of the Islamists who are shifting the power balance in the Middle East) won't work any more than the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld demonstration of America's overwhelming military might in Iraq, which enhanced the very forces it was meant to deter and defeat.
Deterrence works between powers with more or less equal capacities -- for example the US and the Soviet Union. But the use of disproportionate force against an utterly weak -- even though menacing -- enemy does not create deterrence. It saps the legitimacy of Israel's cause among honest human rights icons from Nelson Mandela to Shirin Ebadi and engenders widespread antipathy and hatred among Muslim publics expressed at its most bloody edge by terrorism. If terrorism is the weapon of the weak, suicide bombers are the weapon of the weakest.
Israeli's leaders, the last practitioners of the Bush doctrine, might want to consider another course more in line with a key inaugural theme of President Barack Obama:
"Power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please, " Obama declaimed on the Capitol steps. Instead, "our power grows through its prudent use, our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint."
(That, by the way, is pure Reinhold Niebuhr, the American theologian to whom Obama credits his worldview. His reflections on the use and limits of American power offer a better clue to where Obama is headed than any immediate policy decision which will necessarily be constrained by actions already set in motion by the previous administration.)
The place to start on a new course is to leave the "war on terror" behind and recognize that Hamas, Hezbollah and the Taliban -- all of which have legitimate nationalist aspirations, but wrapped in Islamist garb -- cannot be lumped into the same category as the cosmic terrorists of Al Qaeda who want to attack the US directly. The former you can negotiate with by addressing their grievances. You can't deal with Al Qaeda because their claims are in another realm beyond this earth.
Dealing with Hamas or the Taliban doesn't mean that if Obama talks to them they will roll over. It means that the use of force alone cannot work. It means that ignoring them won't make them go away.
Above all, it means de-globalizing the jihad. Rather than treating all Islamists as alike, it means identifying the legitimate aspects of their claims (Palestinian statehood, Pashtu power) and separating those into a political process that deligitimizes terror as a counter-productive tactic and marginalizes extremists. This, after all, is exactly what the General Petraeus did in the past year in Iraq, separating Sunni fighters who want a stake in Iraq from the foreign intrigues of Al Qaeda, which has no enduring local base. This is what Turkish prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan proposes in dealing with Hamas.
The best thinker on this subject is Olivier Roy, the French expert and author of "Globalized Islam." His recent article, "Memo to Obama: Leave War on Terror Behind and Talk to Hamas, Taliban" can be found here.

The New York Times Sets The Stage For Obama's Withdrawl of Troops From...(wait for it)...Afghanistan

There are some people in America who believe that President Barack Hussein Obama's "tough" talk about our military efforts in Afghanistan were just that...talk...and that he REALLY intends to withdraw the U.S. from the War in Afghanistan. I am one of those people. And now, the New York Times has started the subtle media campaign to help set the stage for Obama doing just that. Here are some excerpts from the New York Times article that point to the hopeless nature of taking on the Taliban:

But even as Mr. Obama’s military planners prepare for the first wave of the new Afghanistan “surge,” there is growing debate, including among those who agree with the plan to send more troops, about whether — or how — the troops can accomplish their mission, and just what the mission is.

Think Iraq was hard? Afghanistan, former Secretary of State Colin Powell argues, will be “much, much harder.”

That last assertion, however, is also open to debate. Some foreign policy experts argue that Mr. Obama’s decision to send additional troops to Afghanistan is simply an extension of Bush administration policy in the region, with the difference being that Mr. Obama could be putting more American lives at risk to pursue a failed policy.
While more American troops can help to stabilize southern Afghanistan, that argument goes, they cannot turn the situation around in the country unless there are major changes in overall policy. Afghanistan’s president, Hamid Karzai, the darling of the Bush administration, has begun to lose his luster; American and European officials now express private frustration over his refusal to arrest drug lords who have been running the opium trade.

As you can see, the seeds are being planted by the NYT - that the War in Afghanistan is hopeless and considering that all of the Afghans are "druglords"....perhaps it isn't worth it?

Which leads back to Obama...let's face it, Obama has an agenda for America and that does NOT include any military initiatives, actions or even maintenance. Obama has been very clear that he intends to feminize America's military but the question is why? Well, let me give you my best guess. I firmly believe that Obama's empire (and yes, I do believe he has designs on a longer reign than just two terms) is based solely on the socialism of America - it has to be subtle and slow moving in order for him to succeed. During that process, he MUST pull America from the center stage of world affairs and conflicts. You see, I believe that Obama's vision for America is that of a country such as France - a country that is in essence a follower of world opinion, one that goes out of its way to stay out of conflicts and bad press.

With Obama's plan to pull American troops out of Afghanistan and to have voided us from Iraq, he will have successfully removed America from any on the the ground police or military actions and he will point to the improved world opinion of America. With this lack of American influence abroad, Obama can turn 100% of his attention on the socialistic programs he wants installed here. Any hint of American "imperialism" or "watch dog status" across the world means Obama cannot fully gather world support of his "American Union" version of the EU.

I hope I'm wrong, folks. But keep your eyes on Afghanistan. If you see Obama starting to change his tune there...well, you heard it here first.

Fearing Another Quagmire in Afghanistan

Can President Obama succeed in that long-lamented “graveyard of empires” — a place that has crushed foreign occupiers for more than 2,000 years?
Ever since the Bush administration diverted its attention — and resources — to the war in Iraq from the war in Afghanistan, military planners and foreign policy experts have bemoaned the dearth of troops to keep that country from sliding back into Taliban control. And in that time, the insurgency blossomed, as Taliban militants took advantage of huge swaths of territory, particularly in the south, that NATO troops weren’t able to fill.
Enter Mr. Obama. During the campaign he promised to send two additional brigades — 7,000 troops — to Afghanistan. During the transition, military planners started talking about adding as many as 30,000 troops. And within days of taking office, Mr. Obama announced the appointment of Richard Holbrooke, architect of the Balkan peace accords, to execute a new Afghanistan policy.
But even as Mr. Obama’s military planners prepare for the first wave of the new Afghanistan “surge,” there is growing debate, including among those who agree with the plan to send more troops, about whether — or how — the troops can accomplish their mission, and just what the mission is.
Afghanistan has, after all, stymied would-be conquerors since Alexander the Great. It’s always the same story; the invaders — British, Soviets — control the cities, but not the countryside. And eventually, the invaders don’t even control the cities, and are sent packing.
Think Iraq was hard? Afghanistan, former Secretary of State Colin Powell argues, will be “much, much harder.”
“Iraq had a middle class,” Mr. Powell pointed out on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” a couple of hours before Mr. Obama was sworn in last Tuesday. “It was a fairly advanced country before Saddam Hussein drove it in the ground.” Afghanistan, on the other hand, “is still basically a tribal society, a lot of corruption; drugs are going to destroy that country if something isn’t done about it.”
For Mr. Obama, Afghanistan is the signal foreign policy crisis that he must address quickly. Some 34,000 American troops are already fighting an insurgency that grows stronger by the month, making this a dynamically deteriorating situation in a region fraught with consequence for American security aims. Coupled with nuclear-armed Pakistan, with which it shares a border zone that has become a haven for Al Qaeda, Afghanistan could quickly come to define the Obama presidency.

Families of 9/11 Victims On Obama's Gitmo Closing: 'The terrorists are going to be cheering'

President Barack Hussein Obama apparently failed to consult any of the families of 9/11 victims when he officially announced the closing of Gitmo this week and those families are NOT happy..not happy one bit. Look at some of their comments from this article at the New York Post:

But families of the 9/11 fallen slammed Obama for going soft on terrorists.
"The terrorists are going to be cheering," said FDNY Fire Lt. Jim McAffrey,
whose brother-in-law, FDNY Battalion Chief Orio Palmer, was killed at Ground
Zero.
"It's the wrong move. It sends a chilling message to people who are
trying to fight the war on terror. These people are trying to kill us. Down the
road, [Obama] may regret doing this."



Retired FDNY Deputy Chief Jim Riches - whose firefighter son, Jimmy, died
in the trade center's north tower - said he had just visited Guantanamo, and the
detainees "get better medical treatment than the veterans."
"The families
are going to suffer more. Justice delayed is justice denied," Riches said.

Now, from the article, let's take a close look at what President Obama said exactly about WHY he is closing Gitmo:

"We think that it is precisely our ideals that give us the strength and the
moral high ground to be able to effectively deal with the unthinking violence
that we see emanating from terrorist organizations around the world," he said.

What the fuck does that mean?!! If that isn't a paragraph of non-sensical jibberish I have never heard one! It appears to me that Obama is saying that we can only deal effectively with terrorists by holding to the same behavior which has CAUSED the terrorists to attack us...am I wrong on that? Is Obama saying that BECAUSE we put the jihadists in Gitmo is the reason they attacked us on 9/11? I'm sorry but I have to get this right in my head - we put hundreds of captured islamic jihadists in Gitmo following 9/11 and we have had NO attacks on the U.S. since...prior to 9/11 we were NOT arresting jihadists and they attacked us. It's making my head hurt.

Barack Obama seems to be portraying that islamic terror is a cause and effect scenario - that BECAUSE of the way the U.S. acts determines what the islamic terrorists do to us and that, my friends, is simply bullshit. If one of your aides is reading this blog President Obama, allow me to enlighten you - the islamic terrorists want to kill us, destroy us BECAUSE WE ARE INFIDELS. Got that? It's not because we support Israel, it's not because we are rich with wealth, it's not because we have a different form of government...it's because we haven't submitted to a pedophile prophet's message written on a camel's discarded afterbirth.

We now have a President who believes that by America taking some sort of "high ground" the islamic jihadists will all of a sudden embrace our infidel ways and sing songs around the campfire with us. I mean really...could be in any more trouble at the moment?

'THE TERRORISTS WILL NOW
CHEER'



President Obama yesterday issued orders to close the controversial
Guantanamo Bay military prison that houses the plotters of the Sept. 11 attacks
- sparking outrage from families of World Trade Center victims.
Obama wants
to shut the prison camp in Cuba within a year and require the closing of any
remaining secret CIA "black site" prisons abroad. He has also banned harsh
interrogation techniques, such as water boarding, that critics claim constitute
torture.



"A new era of American leadership is at hand," the president said.
But
families of the 9/11 fallen slammed Obama for going soft on terrorists.
"The
terrorists are going to be cheering," said FDNY Fire Lt. Jim McAffrey, whose
brother-in-law, FDNY Battalion Chief Orio Palmer, was killed at Ground Zero.
"It's the wrong move. It sends a chilling message to people who are trying
to fight the war on terror. These people are trying to kill us. Down the road,
[Obama] may regret doing this."
Obama said he was certain the nation's
security is strengthened when the United States adheres to "core standards of
conduct."



"We think that it is precisely our ideals that give us the strength and the
moral high ground to be able to effectively deal with the unthinking violence
that we see emanating from terrorist organizations around the world," he said.
Retired FDNY Deputy Chief Jim Riches - whose firefighter son, Jimmy, died in
the trade center's north tower - said he had just visited Guantanamo, and the
detainees "get better medical treatment than the veterans."
"The families
are going to suffer more. Justice delayed is justice denied," Riches said.
Rep. Peter King of Long Island, the ranking Republican on the House Homeland
Security Committee, said Obama's actions embrace a soft-on-terror agenda.

Best News of the Day: Bill Ayers Refused Entry Into Canada

Oh man, sometimes I just wanna love our Canadian neighbors to death! Give 'em a big, huge hoser bear hug! Get this...homegrown U.S. terrorist Bill Ayers, you know...the Weatherman planner who helped kill policemen and judges here in America and then got off on a technicality so he could help mentor the political career of Barack Obama, was scheduled to make a very high profile appearance at the University of Toronto and give a very enlightening speech. Only one thing went horribly wrong for poor Professor Bill....Canadian border security wouldn't allow his skanky criminal ass into the country of Canada! hahahahaha! Damn, I love this. Here's some of the joyous details from Breitbart:

The University of Toronto says William Ayers, a former U.S. radical who featured prominently in Republican efforts to thwart Barack Obama's election campaign, has been denied entry to Canada.
The university's Centre for Urban Schooling issued a statement saying Ayers, who once lived next to Obama in Chicago, was denied entry to Canada on Sunday night.

It says Ayers, who also once sat on the board of a charitable foundation alongside the president-elect, was refused entry because of a 1969 conviction during an anti-war demonstration.
The release also says Ayers was not allowed an opportunity to meet with his lawyer.

On a more sobering note...don't you find it just a bit ironic that the country of Canada deems William Ayers a theat to the security of their homeland to the extent they won't even allow him IN the country, yet Americans in the majority felt his friendship with Barack Hussein Obama was "no big deal"???!!

Good job, Canada! My hat is off to those border officials for having more sense than over 50 million Americans.

Former U.S. radical and Obama neighbour Bill Ayers denied entry to Canada

TORONTO - The University of Toronto says William Ayers, a former U.S. radical who featured prominently in Republican efforts to thwart Barack Obama's election campaign, has been denied entry to Canada.
The university's Centre for Urban Schooling issued a statement saying Ayers, who once lived next to Obama in Chicago, was denied entry to Canada on Sunday night.
Ayers, who was to deliver a speech at the centre, was mentioned often during the campaign, cited by former Republican vice-presidential hopeful Sarah Palin as proof Obama had links to terrorism.
The release says the centre was surprised Ayers, a distinguished professor, community organizer and author, would be deemed a threat by Canadian border security.
It says Ayers, who also once sat on the board of a charitable foundation alongside the president-elect, was refused entry because of a 1969 conviction during an anti-war demonstration.
The release also says Ayers was not allowed an opportunity to meet with his lawyer.

There's A New Sheriff In Town ...And It Ain't Barack Obama

As most of you know, I don't venture into U.S. politics all that much here at Holger Awakens although I have extreme interest in it...but as I reviewed news headlines this morning, I couldn't help but notice two headlines in the same list of breaking type news:

1. " Pelosi wants Bush officials' actions reviewed "

2. " Speaker Pelosi weighs repeal of Bush era tax cuts "

Now, both of those stories are here and here at Breitbart, but what this shows is the power play in Washington, D.C. has been waged and a bit surprisingly, the first salvo has been fired by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. Here's a couple of excerpts from each of the stories that frames up the power struggle:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi wants an investigation into whether the Bush administration broke the law when it fired a group of federal prosecutors.
Barack Obama has been more cautious. He has said he believes there is a need to look forward as opposed to looking backward.

And here, from the second headline:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi wants Congress to consider repealing President George W. Bush's tax cuts well before they expire in 2010, in contrast to what President-elect Barack Obama is proposing.
In an interview aired Sunday, Pelosi said, "I don't want them to wait two years to expire because they have to prove their worth to me."

So, one HAS to ask in all of this, WHY would Pelosi set up this challenge to Obama's power? Why wouldn't Pelosi simply ride on the wave of popularity of Barack Obama and more than likely enjoy smooth sailing in her role as Speaker for at least the first two years? The answer is simple. The answer is short. The answer is ego.

It wasn't all that long ago that Nancy Pelosi was the talk of Washington, D.C. She was on every single Sunday morning and evening news show talking about her "historic" post as the first female speaker of the House and she glowed in that attention. Unfortunately for her, President George Bush had her number and over the next couple of years, Nancy Pelosi's rule in the House was undercut, diminished and quite frankly, made into a laughing stock. Under Pelosi's leadership, Congress' popularity numbers fell to their lowest point in the history of the country.

So at this point, with a brand new President coming into the spotlight, Pelosi is operating on two cylinders - one, she wants her power back in the House and two, she wants payback to the evil George Bush who embarrassed her so.

Thus, the first real test is going to probably come with this idea of Pelosi's that the Bush administration be brought up on charges regarding the firing of the federal prosecutors. I think that idea will sail through committees in the House and with Obama officially in place as of next Tuesday, he will have to either stick to his guns that it isn't productive or flip flop and say it is a viable investigation. And at that point, we will find out exactly who is running the show in Washington, D.C. We will all find out if Barack Obama has a spine or not. And Nancy Pelosi will probably find out if her gamble is going to pay off or not.

Either way, it's gonna be fun to watch.

Pelosi wants Bush officials' actions reviewed

WASHINGTON (AP) - House Speaker Nancy Pelosi wants an investigation into whether the Bush administration broke the law when it fired a group of federal prosecutors.
She says that what she calls the politicizing of the Justice Department cannot go unreviewed.
House Democrats last week recommended a criminal investigation to see if administration officials broke the law in the name of national security. The report cited the interrogation of foreign detainees, warrantless wiretaps, retribution against critics, manipulation of intelligence and the fired prosecutors.
Barack Obama has been more cautious. He has said he believes there is a need to look forward as opposed to looking backward.
Pelosi appeared on "Fox News Sunday."

How Can This Be?!!! Doesn't The WHOLE WORLD Love The One?!!

Apparently, the Iranians haven't read the memo that Barack Hussein Obama is the Annointed One, the Saviour of the world and the true heir to the role of Global Ruler.

Russia: Barack Obama's First Real Test

Sure, there are many hotspots of crisis in this world at the time that B. Hussein Obama takes over as U.S. President next month - Iran nukes, Israel-Hamas ceasefire has ended, Iraq War, War in Afghanistan...but the Russians apparently have decided to dangle a carrot to test the temperatures of the Obama waters. Today, a Russian general basically said that if the U.S. abandons the defensive shield weapons systems in eastern Europe, Russia would cancel its plans for more strategic missile systems. Here's some of the details from Breitbart:

A senior Russian general said Friday the military will cut some weapons programs if the United States drops its missile defense plans, a news agency reported.
The Interfax news agency quoted Col.-Gen. Nikolai Solovtsov as saying that the Russian armed forces wouldn't need some prospective strategic weapons if the new U.S. administration changes its mind about deploying missile defense sites in Europe.
"Several expensive programs will simply become unnecessary for us," said Solovtsov, the chief of Russia's Strategic Missile Forces.
Solovtsov didn't elaborate, but he has said earlier that Russia plans to modernize its intercontinental ballistic missiles to protect them from space-based components of the U.S. missile defense system.
Other Russian officials have previously boasted about prospective new warheads capable of making sharp maneuvers to dodge missile defense systems.
Solovtsov's statement was the latest expression of the Kremlin's hope that President-elect Barack Obama may reverse the Bush administration plan to build missile defense sites in Poland and the Czech Republic.

One thing that Obama is going to find out when he becomes President in January is that he won't have the luxury of ducking his response to gauntlets thrown out like this - in most major foreign policy stand offs in the past year, Obama has consistently been the LAST one to voice an opinion and quite frankly, hasn't even offered up an answer to offers like this. Well, I will be intrigued to see what Obama does with this Russian offer.

Will he throw the Poles and the Czechs under the same bus that his preacher and his terrorist buddy got thrown? Will he give in to the Russians? Or will he show some backbone out of the gates and tell the Russians to take their blackmail efforts and stuff em up their ass? We'll know the answer to this probably before any other situation.

Russia to cut arms if US drops missile defense

MOSCOW (AP) - A senior Russian general said Friday the military will cut some weapons programs if the United States drops its missile defense plans, a news agency reported.
The Interfax news agency quoted Col.-Gen. Nikolai Solovtsov as saying that the Russian armed forces wouldn't need some prospective strategic weapons if the new U.S. administration changes its mind about deploying missile defense sites in Europe.
"Several expensive programs will simply become unnecessary for us," said Solovtsov, the chief of Russia's Strategic Missile Forces.
Solovtsov didn't elaborate, but he has said earlier that Russia plans to modernize its intercontinental ballistic missiles to protect them from space-based components of the U.S. missile defense system.
Other Russian officials have previously boasted about prospective new warheads capable of making sharp maneuvers to dodge missile defense systems.
Solovtsov's statement was the latest expression of the Kremlin's hope that President-elect Barack Obama may reverse the Bush administration plan to build missile defense sites in Poland and the Czech Republic.
Russia has fiercely opposed the plan and promised to deploy missiles next to Poland if the U.S. goes ahead. Russian leaders have dismissed the U.S. claims that the missile shield was aimed to counter a missile threat from Iran, saying it damages Russia's security.

Obama's First At Bat Against Iran: Strike Out

Well, big surprise. Remember all that "hope" the American people had that Barack Obama was gonna fix the world? Remember how Obama promised to "change the world?" Remember how the world would love the U.S. again under an Obama administration? Well, apparently the folks running Iran failed to get the memo. Speaking in baseball terms, Obama on Sunday was in the batter's box with a brand new bat of incentives and tough talk and the Iranians, soon after, dusted him off with a fastball thrown at his head. Here's some of the details from Breitbart:

Iran on Monday rejected a proposal by President-elect Barack Obama that a combination of economic incentives and tighter sanctions might persuade the Iranian government to change its behavior.
Obama said in an interview with NBC's "Meet the Press" that aired Sunday that the international community could develop a set of incentives that would persuade Iran to alter its nuclear program. The U.S. and many of its allies suspect that Iran wants to develop weapons through its nuclear program, but Tehran says it is focused on power generation.
"You know, in terms of carrots, I think that we can provide economic incentives that would be helpful to a country that, despite being a net oil producer, is under enormous strain, huge inflation, a lot of unemployment problems there," said Obama.
But Iran has rejected past offers of economic incentives by the international community in exchange for scaling back its nuclear activities, a sentiment echoed Monday by Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman Hasan Qashqavi.
"The carrot-and-stick policy has no benefit," Qashqavi told reporters during his weekly press briefing. "It is unacceptable and failed."

So there you have it. The American people actually though this guy would fix Iran. Elect Obama and the Iranians would throw their nuclear program into the Indian Ocean and beg forgiveness from The One...wasn't that the scenario that Axelrod laid out for all of us in return for our vote? Oh well, now we will have Iran with nuclear weapons and a President who has no Plan B.

Iran rejects Obama's 'carrot-and-stick' proposal

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran on Monday rejected a proposal by President-elect Barack Obama that a combination of economic incentives and tighter sanctions might persuade the Iranian government to change its behavior.
Obama said in an interview with NBC's "Meet the Press" that aired Sunday that the international community could develop a set of incentives that would persuade Iran to alter its nuclear program. The U.S. and many of its allies suspect that Iran wants to develop weapons through its nuclear program, but Tehran says it is focused on power generation.
"You know, in terms of carrots, I think that we can provide economic incentives that would be helpful to a country that, despite being a net oil producer, is under enormous strain, huge inflation, a lot of unemployment problems there," said Obama.
But Iran has rejected past offers of economic incentives by the international community in exchange for scaling back its nuclear activities, a sentiment echoed Monday by Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman Hasan Qashqavi.
"The carrot-and-stick policy has no benefit," Qashqavi told reporters during his weekly press briefing. "It is unacceptable and failed."
Qashqavi reiterated Iran's refusal to suspend enrichment Monday and said the U.S. must recognize Iran's "nuclear right" before the country would dispel concerns about its program.
Obama also said that the U.S. should ratchet up direct diplomacy as a way to induce Iran to alter course on its nuclear program and cease support for militant groups like Hamas and Hezbollah.
The Iranian government has expressed interest in more direct talks with the U.S. but has consistently refused to alter its nuclear program as a precondition.

McCain: Afghanistan Will Get Tougher Before It Gets Better

Senators McCain, Lieberman and Graham have been traveling through Iraq, India and Pakistan the last few days and are now in Afghanistan where at least John McCain is painting a picture of a tough road ahead for the War in Afghanistan. Here's some of the details from the report at Breitbart:

Sen. John McCain said Sunday that the situation in Afghanistan will get more difficult before it gets easier—"just like the surge in Iraq was."
The former Republican presidential candidate visited the southern province of Helmand, where he said NATO forces are at a stalemate with insurgents. McCain said the U.S. will be paying more attention to that part of the country with an influx of troops.

McCain said it was clear there has been progress in the eastern part of Afghanistan, but that the southern part of the country—the heartland of the Taliban movement and the world's largest opium poppy region—deserves more attention.
"And I want to emphasize again, I think it's going to get harder before it gets easier, just like the surge in Iraq was," McCain said.

None of this is really news but there was one part of the article that stuck WAY out for me. Take a look at this:

President-elect Barack Obama asked McCain to report back to him on what the three learn, Lieberman said.

Okay, my first question is this: Barack Obama was just in Afghanistan in July 2008 - that's four months ago...what the hell does he need these three senators to find out for him? Wasn't Obama paying attention when he was there? Didn't he ask the appropriate questions of commanders in Afghanistan? Was he afraid to confront the military command in Afghanistan for what was really going on? Obama WAS THERE four months ago - yet he needs three senators to gather information for him now and report back like some sort of buearucratic assignment.

The other side of this is whether Obama is even talking with the military minds about Afghanistan or is he going to rely on a two day appraisal from some senators. This guy, Obama, hasn't a clue folks. This guy, Obama, represents the greenest foreign affairs President we will ever have in office. And he is going to make mistakes because of it. Big mistakes.

McCain: Afghanistan situation will get harder

KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) - Sen. John McCain said Sunday that the situation in Afghanistan will get more difficult before it gets easier—"just like the surge in Iraq was."
The former Republican presidential candidate visited the southern province of Helmand, where he said NATO forces are at a stalemate with insurgents. McCain said the U.S. will be paying more attention to that part of the country with an influx of troops.
McCain visited the country with Sen. Joe Lieberman and Sen. Lindsey Graham, all members of the Senate Armed Services Committee. The three have also visited Iraq, India and Pakistan in the last several days.
President-elect Barack Obama asked McCain to report back to him on what the three learn, Lieberman said.
The three senators had dinner Saturday with Afghan President Hamid Karzai and his Cabinet. They also met with U.S. Gen. David McKiernan, the commander of U.S. and NATO troops in the country, and a newly arrived U.S. general in Helmand, where British troops have been stationed.
"It's a tough situation there," McCain said of the country's south. "We're going to have additional troops and additional help. It's a stalemate that exists and we're going to need additional troops."
McCain said it was clear there has been progress in the eastern part of Afghanistan, but that the southern part of the country—the heartland of the Taliban movement and the world's largest opium poppy region—deserves more attention.
"And I want to emphasize again, I think it's going to get harder before it gets easier, just like the surge in Iraq was," McCain said.
McCain, Lieberman and Graham were all proponents of the U.S. "surge" in Iraq, an influx of U.S. troops that has been credited in part with helping to lower violence. Lieberman said Iraq has seen "extraordinary progress."
"Here in Afghanistan and in neighboring Pakistan we're at a tough place, but we have confidence that working with our allies here, working with the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan, with the new effort and the new resources that will be brought in we can conclude these fights as successfully as we're progressing in Iraq," he said.
Violence in Afghanistan has risen steadily over the last two years, and 2008 has been the deadliest year for U.S. troops since the 2001 invasion to oust the Taliban for hosting al-Qaida chief Osama bin Laden.
The U.S. currently has some 32,000 troops in Afghanistan, but U.S. commanders have asked for some 20,000 more.

"Obama Ran, So We Could Fly"

My question..."so we could fly" ....where?

Perhaps you readers can come up with some apt answers to that question. Hell, let's make it an official "Finish the Obama sentence contest".

Finish this sentence: Obama ran, so we could fly _________________.

p.s.

My entry: Obama ran so we could fly straight through the gates of Hell.

Obama To Appoint Anti-Israel Middle East Envoy?

Okay...if this is true, it will signal some harsh reality to the Israelis regarding President-elect Obama's true intentions for Israel and the Middle East - it is being reported that Obama is set to name Daniel Kurtzer as U.S. envoy to the Middle East and Kurtzer's past relations with the Israelis is controversial, to say the least.

Here's some of the details from World Net Daily:

President-elect Barack Obama is considering appointing his top Mideast adviser, Daniel Kurtzer, as U.S. envoy to the Middle East, a senior Israeli diplomatic source told Israel's Haaretz newspaper. Kurtzer, a former U.S. ambassador to Israel, long has been seen in Jerusalem as one of the Jewish state's greatest foes in Washington. He has been identified by Jewish and Israeli leaders, including prime ministers, as biased against Israel and is notorious for urging extreme concessions from the Jewish state.

"We oppose the appointment of Kurtzer, because of his long, documented record of hostility to and severe pressure upon Israel," said Zionist Organization of America National Chairman Morton Klein.

Okay, I have suspected all along that Obama was going to be extremely sympathetic to the disgusting palestinians and I didn't believe one iota of Obama's speech regarding defense of Israel. The point here is there are dozens and dozens of qualified people to be envoy to the Middle East and this bozo, Kurtzer, is going to get the nod?

It will be interesting to see if Obama bends from Israeli heat on this - if Kurtzer is named officially, then I believe we can pretty much write off any support of Israel by a President Obama. And if that doesn't scare the shit out of you, it better.

Report: Obama to appoint anti-Israel adviser

Obama's transition team did not immediately return a WND e-mail and phone message seeking comment on Kurtzer's possible appointment. Haaretz noted Obama's purported decision to appoint a special envoy to the Mideast reporting to him directly, rather than to the secretary of state, indicates the president-elect attaches special importance to the region.
Kurtzer long has been identified by Israeli leaders speaking on the record as one of Israel's greatest foes in Washington, and his appointment as a primary Mideast adviser to Obama first raised some eyebrows in the pro-Israel Jewish community.
"We oppose the appointment of Kurtzer, because of his long, documented record of hostility to and severe pressure upon Israel," said Zionist Organization of America National Chairman Morton Klein.
Kurtzer has been blasted by mainstream Jewish organizations, including the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations.
He has angered Israeli leaders many times for pushing Israel into what they described as extreme concessions to the Palestinians.
"With Jews like Kurtzer, it is impossible to build a healthy relationship between Israel and the United States," Benjamin Nentanyahu was quoted saying in 2001 by Haaretz.
Former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir said Kurtzer "frequently pressured Israel to make one-sided concessions to the Arabs; he constantly blamed Israel for the absence of Mideast peace, and paid little or no attention to the fact that the Palestinians were carrying out terrorist attacks and openly calling for the destruction of Israel."
Morris Amitay, former executive director of the America-Israel Public Affairs Committee, told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency in 2001: "Kurtzer ... will use his Jewishness as a protective cover for his anti-Israel views."
The ZOA points out Israel's leading daily, Yediot Ahronot, editorialized on Kurtzer's negative influence against Israel: "Possibly more than any other U.S. State Department official, Kurtzer has been instrumental in promoting the goals of the Palestinians and in raising their afflictions to the center of the U.S. policymakers' agenda."
Kurtzer first rose to prominence in 1988 when, as a State Department adviser, he counseled the Reagan administration to recognize the Palestine Liberation Organization led by Yasser Arafat. The PLO had carried out scores of anti-Western attacks, but in the late '80s Arafat claimed to have renounced violence.
In 1988, Kurtzer was noted as the principal author of a major policy speech by then-Secretary of State George Shultz in which the U.S. government first recognized the "legitimate rights" of the Palestinians.

Advice To Obama: STAY OFF THE BLOODY PHONE!

President-elect Barack Hussein Obama apparently can't keep his ass off the phone with world leaders until he actually IS President of the United States. For the second time in less than two weeks, Obama has made a fool of himself and has had to rely upon his aides to come to the rescue to downplay his conversations and promises.

The latest gaffe is a call that Obama made to Afghan President Karzai in which Obama is said to have offered more aid to Afghanistan. Look at the article excerpts here from CNN that show what Mr. I'veGotMyFootInMyMouth has done now:

President-elect Barack Obama has assured Afghan President Hamid Karzai the U.S. will send more aid and pay more attention to his war-torn country, according to Karzai's office.
However, Obama aides said the Saturday call did not include specific promises.

But two aides in Obama's transition office downplayed the significance of the call.
Obama told Karzai he "looked forward to working together on Afghan security after January 20," according to one aide, but the incoming president stressed that "until then there is one president, and it is President Bush."

Ridiculous. It was just two weeks ago that Obama's big mouth created the controversy after his conversation with the Polish President. Here's what came from that from the article at the Washington Times:

President-elect Barack Obama's private conversation with Poland's president created an international disagreement Saturday, with President Lech Kaczynski saying Mr. Obama promised to continue a missile-defense system and the transition office saying the Democrat made no such commitment.

And many were worried about the moronic things that Vice President-elect Biden would say? First off, Obama needs to come to grips that HE ISN'T PRESIDENT YET. Secondly, he has to get some schooling that he, as President, isn't in charge of approving further aid to Afghanistan - that is the Congress' role. And finally, someone needs to rope this buffoon in before he pisses off another world leader before he's even in office.

This is the guy that ran on the idea that he would make all of the world love the U.S.A. again and in the span of two weeks, he's already pissed off two major allies of our country.

Karzai: Obama promises Afghanistan more aid

KABUL, Afghanistan (CNN) -- President-elect Barack Obama has assured Afghan President Hamid Karzai the U.S. will send more aid and pay more attention to his war-torn country, according to Karzai's office.

However, Obama aides said the Saturday call did not include specific promises.
Karzai's office said Obama told him the United States was committed to helping the people of Afghanistan and bringing peace and stability to the country.
The Afghan president again congratulated Obama on his election and told him that he hoped his presidency would lead to prosperity for the American people, his office said.
But two aides in Obama's transition office downplayed the significance of the call.
Obama told Karzai he "looked forward to working together on Afghan security after January 20," according to one aide, but the incoming president stressed that "until then there is one president, and it is President Bush."

Obama takes office on January 20.
The incoming administration continues to be careful to show they are not stepping on the White House's toes or making any promises to world leaders.
The transition aide also noted that Obama was returning a congratulatory call from Karazi, so the incoming president did not initiate the call.

In an interview with CNN last July, Obama criticized Karzai's government, saying it "has not gotten out of the bunker and helped organize Afghanistan and (the) government, the judiciary, police forces, in ways that would give people confidence."
A week after that interview, Obama met with Karzai in Kabul.

C.A.I.R. Announces Poll That 89 Percent Of American Muslims Voted For Obama, 2 Percent For McCain

Did you get that? Only 2 percent of all muslims in America voted for John McCain - guess my vote for McCain was just justified once more! This poll is published over at C.A.I.R.'s website, which I refuse to link to here at Holger Awakens, so I will post the entire article at the bottom of this thread. But here's a bit of the data:

The American Muslim Taskforce on Civil Rights and Elections (AMT) today released the results of a poll indicating that almost 90 percent of American Muslim voters picked Barack Obama in Tuesday’s election. That survey of more than 600 American Muslim voters also indicated that just two percent of respondents cast their ballots for Sen. John McCain.

So let's take a look at this. CAIR, the jihadists under the veil of a non-profit community relations organization, has said all along that they denounce terror and that American muslims denounce terror. So, John McCain is against islamic terror in the world and at the same time has stood by the Iraqi muslim population to help free them from the tyranny of al Qaeda in Iraq and that same John McCain got 2 percent of the American muslim vote. Why?

I'll tell you why. Because CAIR and America's muslims DO NOT DENOUNCE ISLAMIC JIHAD! They are all liars. 89 percent of American muslims voted for Obama because they know he will be:

a) Soft on islamic terror

b) Soft on terror groups inside of America

c) Sympathetic to sharia law

d) Cooperative in dhimmifying America

It doesn't hurt I guess when you have a muslim name either. By the way, if you are curious, this poll was commissioned by an umbrella of muslim organizations - one of the members of that umbrella alliance, of course, is CAIR.

So, the trifecta is complete - B. Hussein Obama had the support of Arab terrorists in the Middle East, he had the support of the Asian islamic jihadists and now it is shown that Obama had the full support of America's muslims. In these tough economic times here in the U.S., a billion dollar idea is waiting for one of you - a mosque construction company in America. Under Obama, we'll see more mosques go up than convenience stores.

Poll: 89 Percent of Muslim Voters Picked Obama

(WASHINGTON, D.C., 11/7/2008) - The American Muslim Taskforce on Civil Rights and Elections (AMT) today released the results of a poll indicating that almost 90 percent of American Muslim voters picked Barack Obama in Tuesday’s election. That survey of more than 600 American Muslim voters also indicated that just two percent of respondents cast their ballots for Sen. John McCain.
SEE: American Muslims Overwhelmingly Voted Democratic (Newsweek)
Poll Findings:
Of those who voted, 89 percent cast their ballot for Barack Obama.
Just two percent of respondents said they voted for John McCain.
Most of the respondents (78 percent) reside in ten states: Illinois, New York, Virginia, Michigan, California, Texas, New Jersey, Maryland, Florida, and Pennsylvania.
Ninety-five percent of respondents said they voted in the presidential election, whether at the polls or by absentee ballot. This is the highest American Muslim voter turnout ever reported.
Of those who voted, almost 14 percent said they did so for the first time.
One-fourth of respondents said they volunteered for or donated money to a political campaign in this election.
American Muslim voters are increasingly identifying themselves with the Democratic Party. More than two-thirds said they consider themselves Democrats. Most of the rest, or 29 percent, still consider themselves independent. Only four percent said they are Republicans.
More than two-thirds (63 percent) of respondents said the economy was the most important issue that affected their voting decision. This was followed by 16 percent who said the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were the most important. (In January 2008, a sample of 1000 Muslim voters rated education and civil rights as the top issues.)
For complete poll results, click here.
At a news conference today at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., representatives of AMT and partner organizations shared the results of the poll. Speaking at the news conference were AMT Chairman Dr. Agha Saeed, Mahdi Bray, executive director of the Muslim American Society-Freedom Foundation (MAS-FF), and Nihad Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).
“We are pleased to see such a high turnout by American Muslim voters, particularly in states that helped determine the outcome of the election. This shows that the American Muslim community is fully engaged in civic life,” said CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad.

The poll, conducted by Genesis Research Associates, was commissioned by AMT. Random digit dialing was used to conduct phone interviews with individuals drawn from a large American Muslim voter database. A total of 637 Muslim voters were interviewed November 5 and 6, 2008. The margin of error is 3.87 percent.
AMT is an umbrella organization that includes: American Muslim Alliance (AMA), American Muslims for Palestine (AMP), Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), Muslim Alliance in North America (MANA), Muslim American Society-Freedom Foundation (MAS-FF), Muslim Student Association-National (MSA-N), Muslim Ummah of North America (MUNA), and United Muslims of America (UMA). AMT observer organizations include: Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), and Islamic Educational Center of Orange County (IEC).

Al Qaeda #2, al Zawahiri, Calls Obama A 'house negro'

Whoa boy. All those MSM accusations of the conservative right in America using race in the Presidential election against Barack Hussein Obama pretty much pale in comparison to what Al Qaeda's second in command, al Zawahiri, said about Obama in an audio tape just released. Here's what the pile of shit had to say according to this release from Breitbart:

Al-Qaida No. 2 Ayman al-Zawahri insulted Barack Obama in the terror group's first reaction to his election, calling him a demeaning racial term implying that the president-elect is a black American who does the bidding of whites.

Al-Zawahri also called Obama—along with secretaries of state Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice—"house negroes."
Speaking in Arabic, al-Zawahri uses the term "abeed al-beit," which literally translates as "house slaves." But al-Qaida supplied English subtitles of his speech that included the translation as "house negroes."

"America has put on a new face, but its heart full of hate, mind drowning in greed, and spirit which spreads evil, murder, repression and despotism continue to be the same as always," the deputy of al-Qaida chief Osama bin Laden said.

Now, a couple of observations here. First off, you must realize that there is no group of people more racist in this world than Arabs and Egyptians. And al Zawahiri is a prime example. I'm not sure if you folks have seen some of the cartoons that have been published over the years in places like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Yemen, Egypt and Syria that have depicted Sec. of State Condi Rice but they have all been an amazing racist rendition of blacks. So, for al Zawahiri to make these comments doesn't surprise me at all.

At the same time, al Zawahiri is lashing out for some Obama statements and more than likely trying to test the President-elect's waters. Obama has half-heartedly promised more troops for Afghanistan and perhaps this is al Zawahiri's way of lashing out at those statements and at the same time, he may just be playing Obama for a reaction. We have to remember that Obama is the cut and run candidate - he has promised to surrender our victory away in Iraq and give it back to al Qaeda. That of course makes al Zawahiri happy. Now, al Zawahiri is testing the statement of Obama to put more troops in Afghanistan.

Hopefully, the President-elect will have enough sense to issue no statement to this - that he will ignore this tape like President Bush has done since this clown started opening his yap.

Al-Qaida No. 2 insults Obama in new audio message

CAIRO,Egypt (AP) - Al-Qaida No. 2 Ayman al-Zawahri insulted Barack Obama in the terror group's first reaction to his election, calling him a demeaning racial term implying that the president-elect is a black American who does the bidding of whites.
The message appeared chiefly aimed at persuading Muslims and Arabs that Obama does not represent a change in U.S. policies. Al-Zawahri said in the message, which appeared on militant Web sites Wednesday, that Obama is "the direct opposite of honorable black Americans" like Malcolm X, the 1960s African-American rights leader.
Al-Zawahri also called Obama—along with secretaries of state Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice—"house negroes."
Speaking in Arabic, al-Zawahri uses the term "abeed al-beit," which literally translates as "house slaves." But al-Qaida supplied English subtitles of his speech that included the translation as "house negroes."
The message also includes old footage of speeches by Malcolm X in which he explains the term, saying black slaves who worked in their white masters' house were more servile than those who worked in the fields. Malcolm X used the term to criticize black leaders he accused of not standing up to whites.
The 11-minute 23-second video features the audio message by al-Zawahri, who appears only in a still image, along with other images, including one of Obama wearing a Jewish skullcap as he meets with Jewish leaders. In his speech, al-Zawahri refers to a Nov. 5 U.S. airstrike attack in Afghanistan, meaning the video was made after that date.
Al-Zawahri said Obama's election has not changed American policies he said are aimed at oppressing Muslims and others.
"America has put on a new face, but its heart full of hate, mind drowning in greed, and spirit which spreads evil, murder, repression and despotism continue to be the same as always," the deputy of al-Qaida chief Osama bin Laden said.
He said Obama's plan to shift troops to Afghanistan is doomed to failure, because Afghans will resist.
"Be aware that the dogs of Afghanistan have found the flesh of your soldiers to be delicious, so send thousands after thousands to them," he said.
Al-Zawahri did not threaten specific attacks, but warned Obama that he was "facing a Jihadi (holy war) awakening and renaissance which is shaking the pillars of the entire Islamic world; and this is the fact which you and your government and country refuse to recognize and pretend not to see."
He said Obama's victory showed Americans acknowledged that President George W. Bush's policies were a failure and that the result was an "admission of defeat in Iraq."
But Obama's professions of support for Israel during the election campaign "confirmed to the Ummah (Islamic world) that you have chosen a stance of hostility to Islam and Muslims," al-Zawahri said.

Obama Jumps The Gun, Calls Palestinian President

Okay, a lot of people are going to give me shit for jumping on Barack Hussein Obama for this little phone chat he had with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas about Middle East peace initiatives but I will explain in a little bit here. Here's some details from the brief article at Breitbart:

A Palestinian negotiator says U.S. President-elect Barack Obama has called the Palestinian president and told him that peace is a vital interest for Israelis and Palestinians.
Negotiator Saeb Erekat says the phone call took place Tuesday.
Erekat says Obama told President Mahmoud Abbas that he will spare no effort to facilitate a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians.

Okay, there you have it. Now, for one thing, the Middle East is still probably the most volatile region of the entire world and Obama, who isn't even in office yet, has shown his hand - he sent a message to Abbas that he, Obama, is desperate for a peace agreement. It's my opinion that Abbas hung that phone up, smiled, and thought to himself...."this is a guy I can use to get what we want."

Now, here's the other reason that Obama jumped the gun. The Israelis are going to be putting in place a new prime minister and there are indications that Benjamin Netanyahu just may be that person - and Netanyahu has already stated that he will NOT conduct peace talks with Abbas under the current set of parameters. So, Obama has played his hand and one of the critical players in the scenario is certainly not on the same page.

And finally, look at this from the article:

Also, Abbas faces a new political showdown with rival Hamas in January when the Islamic militants say his term expires.

Think about it. What if Abbas is thrown out of office? That would mean that Obama has called a leader who is a non-player, with Obama showing his hand before he even knows the result. Bottom line here is Barack Hussein Obama made his intentions known to one of two leaders involved in the peace process who might not even hold office and Obama's intentions may conflict with the other leader that may possibly be the other player in a few months.

Rookie mistake by Obama? Yes. But in the Middle East, there is no room for mistakes.

Obama calls Palestinian leader, says peace vital

RAMALLAH, West Bank (AP) - A Palestinian negotiator says U.S. President-elect Barack Obama has called the Palestinian president and told him that peace is a vital interest for Israelis and Palestinians.
Negotiator Saeb Erekat says the phone call took place Tuesday.
Erekat says Obama told President Mahmoud Abbas that he will spare no effort to facilitate a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians.
A year of U.S.-backed talks has not yielded tangible results and the fate of the negotiations is uncertain.
Israel is holding elections in February. Opposition leader Benjamin Netanyahu has said he would not continue peace talks in the current format. Also, Abbas faces a new political showdown with rival Hamas in January when the Islamic militants say his term expires.

Israelis Respond To Hamas Rockets With Air Attacks

Apparently some folks in the media are still saying that Israel and Hamas are engaged in a truce but you wouldn't know it by today's attacks from both sides. Since Hamas continued to barrage southern Israel with rockets, the IAF decided to take out some of those rocket launchers with missiles fired from aircraft. And so it starts all over again. Israel has also stopped the flow of fuel, food and aid into the Gaza Strip. Here's some of the details from Breitbart:

Israeli aircraft fired missiles at militants in the northern Gaza Strip on Friday and Palestinians sent rocket barrages flying into Israel, officials said, as newly resumed violence threatened to bury a five-month-old truce.
The renewed rocket fire from Gaza prompted Israel to seal its crossings with the territory, halting shipments of food aid and fuel.
Israel's military said the airstrike targeted rocket launchers and Dr. Moaiya Hassanain of Gaza's Health Ministry said two gunmen were moderately wounded.
Hamas militants in the northern Gaza Strip unleashed a barrage of rockets at the nearby Israeli town of Sderot, where Israeli rescue services said they were treating one person wounded by shrapnel. Several rockets hit agricultural communities near the Israel-Gaza border, and more rockets hit the coastal city of Ashkelon. No casualties were reported in those strikes.

I will have to admit that the truce did last a great deal longer than I anticipated but I'm convinced that the Hamas leadership purposely didn't order any operations until after the American election. Let's face it, the truce held for a couple of months and the DAY AFTER Obama was elected, we saw the first rockets fire out of Gaza by Hamas. Coincidence? I think not.

Joe Biden claimed that Obama would be tested in the first six months and that doesn't necessarily mean it is going to be a direct attack on the U.S. or U.S. interests in foreign lands. In the case of Hamas, that test could simply mean some increased attacks on Israel to the point that normally a U.S. President would deliberate some sort of response. I believe that is what Hamas and the other world terrorist organizations wish to do - find out what Obama's initial response will be.

Gaza violence continues with airstrike, rockets

GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip (AP) - Israeli aircraft fired missiles at militants in the northern Gaza Strip on Friday and Palestinians sent rocket barrages flying into Israel, officials said, as newly resumed violence threatened to bury a five-month-old truce.
The renewed rocket fire from Gaza prompted Israel to seal its crossings with the territory, halting shipments of food aid and fuel.
Israel's military said the airstrike targeted rocket launchers and Dr. Moaiya Hassanain of Gaza's Health Ministry said two gunmen were moderately wounded.
Hamas militants in the northern Gaza Strip unleashed a barrage of rockets at the nearby Israeli town of Sderot, where Israeli rescue services said they were treating one person wounded by shrapnel. Several rockets hit agricultural communities near the Israel-Gaza border, and more rockets hit the coastal city of Ashkelon. No casualties were reported in those strikes.
Israeli police and rescue services announced they were raising their alert level in preparation for more attacks.
Hamas claimed responsibility for firing the rockets in a text message sent to reporters.
The June cease-fire began disintegrating last week when Israeli forces entered Gaza to try destroy what the military said was a tunnel dug by militants to carry out a planned cross-border raid.
Eleven militants have been killed in more than a week of fighting and some 140 rockets and mortars have been fired from Gaza at Israel. Both sides have said they want to continue the truce but events signal the opposite is happening.
Israel kept the crossings into Gaza sealed for a 10th straight day Friday. The U.N. suspended its food aid distribution to 750,000 Gaza residents because its warehouses have run out of food, said John Ging, head of Gaza operations for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency.
The 20,000 Palestinians due to pick up aid parcels Saturday would be sent home empty-handed, Ging said. The parcels contain flour, oil, sugar, rice and canned meat. "Until we are resupplied, we won't have food," he said.
Swaths of Gaza City suffered blackouts Friday after Gaza's power plant shut down Thursday evening, citing a lack of industrial fuel. Much of Gaza is powered by electricity supplied directly from Israel and Egypt, however, and that flow continued uninterrupted.
Israeli military spokesman Peter Lerner said the crossings would likely remain shut Friday because of the ongoing fire. "It depends on Hamas and whether they stop firing rockets at Israel," Lerner said.

Al Qaeda In Iraq Offers Obama Some Advice

Well, that didn't take long...al Qaeda in Iraq's puppet leader, Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, has issued an audio tape with some words of advice for America's President-elect Obama regarding the Iraq War. Here's some of the excerpts from Counterterrorism Blog:

According to al-Baghdadi, the purpose of the audio recording addressed to the “new rulers in the White House” was “to invite you amicably to change and improve your actions. It is not meant to intimidate or threaten you.”

In concluding, al-Baghdadi offered a proposal of mutual benefit to the incoming Obama White House: “return to your former state of neutrality, withdraw your troops, and return to your homelands, and stop intervening in the affairs of our nations either directly or indirectly. If you do so, on our part, we shall guarantee you free trade, including the trade of petroleum—so long as it is conducted in a fair and equitable way, and not shoddily or without profit.”

These are the chumps that Obama wants to give Iraq back to - now Obama will say that the Iraqi government will be more than capable of holding off al Qaeda in Iraq but is he 100% sure of that? Are you? Hopefully, any planned withdrawl of U.S. troops will be delayed and delayed and delayed until we have a chance to finish this job and wrap a bow on this victory.

There are too many U.S. troops that have performed above and beyond for our mighty country to cow to slime like these al Qaeda in Iraq - our troops kicked their asses all over Iraq and to see this condescending talk from these peons is disgusting.

Abu Omar al-Baghdadi Offers Economic Proposal to “New Rulers in the White House”

The NEFA Foundation has obtained and translated a new audio recording from the Amir al-Mumineen (“Commander of the Faithful”) of Al-Qaida’s Islamic State of Iraq (ISI), Abu Omar al-Baghdadi. According to al-Baghdadi, the purpose of the audio recording addressed to the “new rulers in the White House” was “to invite you amicably to change and improve your actions. It is not meant to intimidate or threaten you.” Al-Baghdadi mocked the inadequacies of the U.S. government, particularly demonstrated in the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Gustav, and characterized the U.S. as “a rather cartoonish civilization, for if the electricity is shut down or computers stop operating, you immediately return to a medieval state.” In concluding, al-Baghdadi offered a proposal of mutual benefit to the incoming Obama White House: “return to your former state of neutrality, withdraw your troops, and return to your homelands, and stop intervening in the affairs of our nations either directly or indirectly. If you do so, on our part, we shall guarantee you free trade, including the trade of petroleum—so long as it is conducted in a fair and equitable way, and not shoddily or without profit.”

Al Qaeda Websites Show Overwhelming Support For Obama

Big surprise, huh? The terrorist web sites that harbor a good deal of al Qaeda operatives are calling for the election of Barack Obama as U.S. President. Here's some of the details from World Net Daily:

A contributor to a major al-Qaida website last week said the terrorist group will "let the Democrats win the presidential elections, and Obama will take it," according to Joseph Shahda, an Arabic translator who monitors radical Islamic websites.
Obama's "goal is to withdraw from Iraq" over a period of time, but "he will be forced to withdraw his forces from Iraq at a much earlier time," said the Oct. 23 post

"Overall there are many more posters on these forums who want McCain defeated, because they want Obama to withdraw the U.S. troops from Iraq so the terrorists will claim victory," Shahda said.
The Oct. 23 post also called for launching a "crushing strike" after the election.

Let's face it, al Qaeda is going to be one of those entities that will test a President Obama, just like Joe Biden predicted. And I am convinced that al Qaeda is more than poised to launch again in Iraq as soon as American troops are withdrawn...in fact, I will go further with this in that the Iraqi government is so arrogant and so inept at times, I will predict that al Qaeda will make serious inroads in taking over Iraq at that point and with Obama as President, the Iraqi government will turn to Iran for protection.

As for a "crushing strike" by al Qaeda - I again agree with this - it will be important for al Qaeda to test the waters of an Obama presidency. I don't think this will be an attack on American soil but a major attack on some U.S. target in the world - it could be an embassy or even a U.S. troop facility. But they will test Obama, make no bones about it.

Al-Qaida sites show support for Obama

He noted that a Q&A session in January with al-Qaida's No. 2 leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri, was based on questions posed by contributors to the four major websites.
In the video released Thursday, an al-Qaida leader believed to be living in Afghanistan or Pakistan, Abu Yahya al-Libi, declared, "O Allah, humiliate Bush and his party, O Lord of the Worlds, degrade and defy him."
Libi also called for the wrath of Allah to be brought against Bush, equating him with past tyrants, according to Reuters.
The title of a Washington Post story Oct. 22 suggested the forums indicated significant al-Qaida support for John McCain.
But the story, "On Al-Qaeda Web Sites, Joy Over U.S. Crisis, Support for McCain," cited only one posting declaring a Republican victory would benefit the terrorist network.
"Al-Qaida will have to support McCain in the coming election," the Post quoted from the website posting, which also stated an attack around the time of the election could help McCain win.
"It will push the Americans deliberately to vote for McCain so that he takes revenge for them against al-Qaida. Al-Qaida will then succeed in exhausting America," it said.
But Shahda said many postings on the Al-Hesbah website mocked the Washington Post article.
"Members were making fun of the Washington Post for not distinguishing between a member's opinion and an al-Qaida official statement," he said.
Shahda said that in addition to the Oct. 23 post stating al-Qaida will let Democrats win, there have been previous comments on al-Qaida-linked Internet forums speaking in favor of Obama that the media has not covered.

The Latest Threat To Israel: Barack Hussein Obama

This really is an excellent, indepth article detailing some individuals that certainly are of a danger to the nation of Israel and its people and how each of these jihadists are connected to a man who wishes to be President of the United States - Barack Hussein Obama. I really encourage you to read the whole article here at Family Security Matters - here's a sample:

Ali Abunimah is the "executive director" of The Electronic Intifada, which is the
principal internet mouthpiece for the Palestinian terrorist movement in the United States. Abunimah writes that he became friendly with Obama in the late 1990s in Chicago when Obama was a frequent guest at Palestinian Arab fundraisers in Chicago. One such fundraiser was for the Deisheh refugee camp near Jerusalem - which was soon to become a base for terrorist attacks on Israelis during the "Al-Aksa Intifada" which began in 2000. At one such fundraising dinner, Obama was seated at the same table as Edward Said, the chief PLO propagandist in the United States and the author of Yasser Arafat's notorious "gun and the olive branch" speech to the United Nations General Assembly in 1974.
But it was at the 2000 fundraiser at the home of Rashid and Mona Khalidi for Obama's failed 2000 run for Congress where Abunimah says he "had a chance to really talk to [Obama]. It was an intimate setting. He convinced me he was very aware of the issues [and] critical of U.S. bias toward Israel and lack of sensitivity to Arabs. ... He was very supportive of U.S. pressure on Israel."

If anyone out there actually believes Obama's statements about defending Israel to the hilt, they are sorely mistaken. There have been many indicators of advisors to Obama who are not just anti-Israel but who literally could be anti-Semite.

At the same time, most everyone by now is familiar with the relationship of Barack Hussein Obama and William Ayers, the terrorist. But what a lot of people don't know is William Ayers' view of Israel. Take a look at what Ayers said:

"In modern times, the founders of Israel used terrorism against the British and the Palestinians; the Palestinians use terrorism against Israel; and Israel currently employs terror in the service of settlement and occupation;"

There's an old saying: If you hang around a barbershop long enough, sooner or later you WILL get a haircut. And with Obama, as he has continued to surround himself with anti Israeli individuals, those views have likely transferred to him.

Israel needs to keep this in mind when they view the threat from Iran and also the threat from Hezbollah. With Obama in the White House, Israel will find it has no friend in peaceful times and no ally in times of conflict.

Barack Obama’s Anti-Israel Alliances

Barack Obama claims to be a supporter of Israel and a friend of the Jewish people. But many of the people who helped him in the course of his rise to political power, or whom he helped during his political ascent, are extremely anti-Israel, or even outright anti-Semitic. Let's examine the views and careers of just a few of Obama's anti-Israel and/or anti-Semitic benefactors and protégés:
Rashid Khalidi was the director of the PLO's press agency WAFA from 1976 to 1982, at a time when the PLO was conducting a massacre of 37 Israeli civilians in a bus on Israel's coastal road, the brutal murder of a four-year-old Israeli girl in Nahariya, and numerous other terrorist killings of Israeli civilians. The PLO was also waging a brutal war against the Lebanese Christian community during this period, and carried out numerous massacres of Lebanese Christians; the worst of these was the killing of about 500 people in the village of Damour. During this same period, Rashid's wife Mona Khalidi was an English translator for WAFA. Rashid Khalidi is now an advocate of a "one state solution" for all of "Palestine" - meaning the destruction of Israel and its replacement by an Arab state. Asaf Romirowsky and Jonathan Calt Harris, in an article in the Washington Times on July 9, 2004, summarized Rashid Khalidi's views about Israel this way: "[His] extremism comes out when he calls Israel an ‘apartheid system in creation' and a ‘racist state' that ‘brainwashed' Americans do not understand. Jerusalem, with its Jewish majority since the 1880s, he deems ‘an Arab city' whose control by Israeli ‘foreigners' is ‘unacceptable.' And so on." Khalidi also accuses Israel of "ethnic cleansing."
In 1995 Rashid and Mona Khalidi co-founded the The Arab-American Action Network, a virulently anti-Israel organization that strongly supports the Palestinian Arab terrorist movement. It regards the creation of the state of Israel as a "naqba" ("catastrophe" in Arabic). Mona Khalidi served as the group's President from its inception until some time this year, although she is now listed only as a member of its board of directors.
Rashid and Mona Khalidi became close friends of Barack and Michelle Obama during the time when both Barack and Rashid taught at the University of Chicago (1992-2003). At a lavish farewell party for Khalidi in Chicago in 2003, when Khalidi left his prestigious position at the University of Chicago for an even more prestigious one at Columbia University in New York, Obama gave Khalidi a glowing eulogy. He said that he and his wife Michelle had been frequent dinner guests of the Khalidis, and that the Khalidis had frequently babysat for the Obama children. According to a Los Angeles Times account based on a video of Obama's speech, he added that "his many talks with the Khalidis, . . .had been ‘consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases. . . . It's for that reason that I'm hoping that, for many years to come, we continue that conversation-a conversation that is necessary not just around Mona and Rashid's dinner table,' but around ‘this entire world.'"
Obama's assistance to the Khalidis, however, went beyond mere kind words at a farewell party. In 2001 and again in 2002, Obama, in his capacity as a member of the board of directors of the Leftist non-profit organization the Woods Fund, voted to give the Arab-American Action Network co-founded by Rashid and Mona, and directed by Mona Khalidi, $75,000 in grants.
Rashid and Mona Khalidi anticipated Obama's generosity to AAAN by holding a fundraiser in their house for Obama's unsuccessful run for Congress in 2000. It would seem that it later proved to be a profitable event for the Khalidis.