Obama’s war against America

https://i1.wp.com/9502-presscdn-0-95.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/isis-obama-shhhhhh.jpg

Image via pamelageller.com

 

Family Security Matters

CAROLINE GLICK

In 1989, following her tenure as President Ronald Reagan’s ambassador to the UN Jeane Kirkpatrick described how the Palestinians have used the UN to destroy Israel.

Following outgoing US President Barack Obama’s assault on Israel at the UN Security Council last Friday, longtime UN observer Claudia Rossett wrote an important article at PJMedia where she recalled Kirkpatrick’s words.

In “How the PLO was legitimized,” published in Commentary, Kirkpatrick said that Yassir Arafat and the PLO worked “to come to power through international diplomacy – reinforced by murder.”

Kirkpatrick explained, “The long march through the UN has produced many benefits for the PLO. It has created a people where there was none; a claim where there was none. Now the PLO is seeking to create a state where there already is one. That will take more than resolutions and more than an ‘international peace conference.’ But having succeeded so well over the years in its campaign to delegitimize Israel, the PLO might yet also succeed in bringing the campaign to a triumphant conclusion, with consequences for the Jewish state that would be nothing short of catastrophic.”

Continue reading

Rush Limbaugh: Obama Says “ISIL” (Not “ISIS”) to Insult and Threaten Israel

Gateway Pundit

Obama calls the Islamic State “ISIL” to threaten and insult Israel.
isil obama
It’s all about Israel.

Rush Limbaugh explained the difference between ISIS and ISIL – it’s all about Israel.
Via the Rush Limbaugh Show:

I think most people are wondering, “What is this ISIL? Why does he keep calling it ISIL? It’s ISIS.” They’re not saying, “Well, that’s because ISIS he can pin to Bush, but ISIL he can’t, so he doesn’t want to –” I just don’t think that anybody in the Regime even thinks that people are going to think in these terms. I think there’s a totally different reason for this. And I don’t know how to say it. (laughing) (interruption) Well, it does. Snerdley is asking me, “Doesn’t it have something to do with Israel?” Yes, because the Levant is the entire region.

ISIS stands for the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq, or Iraq and Syria, that’s the I-S, and ISIL, the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant includes more than Iraq and Syria. It would include Israel, which, to these people, Israel is a fraud. Israel doesn’t deserve to be there. That’s all Palestine and that’s what I think is behind the pronunciation, this insistence that it be called ISIL. He’s the only one that does it. I mean, others in the Regime do. Even the media calls it ISIS, but he sticks with ISIL.

I think he’s got a different audience for the term. I don’t think he’s talking to the American people. I think he’s talking to Iran. We just heard Walid Phares say that Obama’s linkage here is not to oppose ISIL because Iran supports ISIL, and it’s all to do with the sectarian violence between the Sunnis and the Shi’ites and the fact that Iran capitalizes on the sectarian violence, does not want it solved because they hope to end up controlling the entire Levant — uh, sorry — region. Didn’t mean to say that.

So your explanation makes total sense if people were attuned, the American people domestically were attuned to when ISIS began, when it didn’t began. See, I don’t think — I could be wrong about this. Very rare that I would be wrong, but it’s possible. I think the American people are so far beyond “Bush did it” and this and that. I mean, Bush is eight years ago now, seven-years. They know Bush had nothing to do with San Bernardino. He had nothing to do with Fort Hood. People know that when Bush was president, this stuff didn’t happen. People know that when Bush was president, there wasn’t an ISIS. ISIS and all of this happens to coincide with the election of Barack Hussein O. But the use of the word “Levant” has an audience in the Middle East. He’s not talking to us.

Source:

ISIS or ISIL?

Here is an explanation of the difference between the terms ISIS and ISIL.

 

I have been curious about the term ISIL and exactly what it means.

 

ISIS = Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. Iraq is to the east of Jordan (shaped like the hatchet) and Syria is to the north. 

 

ISIL = Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Iraq is still to the east of Jordan, and “the Levant” is a term that comes from “the rising (of the sun, i.e., to the east)” – and is basically the land along the Mediterranean – that includes Lebanon, Israel, and those countries along there.

 

By saying ISIL, you “negate” Israel as its own country and lump it in with the rest of the countries along the Mediterranean – and Israel sort of disappears (loses its sovereignty) and becomes part of “the Levant ” – which is therefore part of ISIL. 

 

If you’ve wondered, as I have, why all government agencies and especially Obama calls it ISIL and even spells it out every time it’s used, instead of ISIS as the rest of the world here’s the answer. 

 

Decoding Obama’s speech reveals some startling revelations. 

In one press conference after another, when referring to the Muslim terror super-group ISIS, United States President Barack Obama will use the term ISIL, instead of their former name ISIS, or current name Islamic State. 

 

Have you ever wondered about that? Here is the difference: 

What makes up the near exact center of  the Muslim Levant ?  Israel. 

ISIL stands for the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant. 

 

Now, to us Westerners we don’t really make much of a distinction, do we? 

 

No, honestly from our perspective it’s all about the same. But how would a Muslim living in the Middle East view it? 

Just what is the Levant anyway? Let’s take a look. 

 

The geographical term LEVANT refers to amulti-nation region in the Middle East. It’s a land bridge between Turkey to the north and Egypt to the south. 

If you look on a map, however, in the near exact middle of the nations that comprise the Levant, guess what you see? Come on, guess! 

 

It’s Israel. 

****When Barack Obama refers over and over to the Islamic State as ISIL, he is sending a message to Muslims all over the Middle East, that he personally does not recognize Israel as a sovereign nation, but as territory belonging to the Islamic State. 

 

Now you know why Obama says that he has no plan, no goal, and no stated aim for dealing with ISIS.

 

 

Listen as Obama and his press secretary and the spokesperson for the State Department and his Joint Chiefs of Staff painstakingly spells out the letters I-S-I-L so there is no doubt in your mind.

 

And it’s working.

 

The Islamic State has garnered millions of dollars, a vast cache of weapons, and in their latest foray have captured Syrian fighter jets and now 12 commercial passenger planes. 

With each passing day that Obama fulfills his stated aim of doing nothing, the Islamic State grows by leaps and bounds. The ultimate goal, of course, has not changed and will never change. 

The ultimate goal is the destruction of Israel.

 

Now you know a little bit more about why Obama chooses his words so carefully. 

 

“A Jew who votes for Obama is like a chicken who votes for Col. Sanders.”

Obama’s Enemies List

 

Family Security Matters

In President Barack Obama’s  nuclear deal with Iran Wednesday, he said there are only two types of people who will oppose his deal – Republican partisans and Israel- firsters – that is, traitors.

At American University, Obama castigated Republican lawmakers as the moral equivalent of Iranian jihadists saying, “Those [Iranian] hard-liners chanting ‘Death to America’ who have been most opposed to the deal… are making common cause with the Republican Caucus.”

He then turned his attention to Israel.

Obama explained that whether or not you believe the deal endangers Israel boils down to whom you trust more – him or Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. And, he explained, he can be trusted to protect Israel better than Netanyahu can because “[I] have been a stalwart friend of Israel throughout my career.”

The truth is that it shouldn’t much matter to US lawmakers whether Obama or Netanyahu has it right about Israel. Israel isn’t a party to the deal and isn’t bound by it. If Israel decides it needs to act on its own, it will.

The US, on the other side, will be bound by the deal if Congress fails to kill it next month.

Continue reading

The Iran Nuclear Agreement …… A Ticking Time-Bomb

iran nuclear deal obama ticking time bomb

Family Security Matters

The countdown to Iran becoming a threshold nuclear state has begun and the world now stands at the abyss. In addition to facilitating Iranian control over Syria, Lebanon, Yemen and Iraq, handing the keys to the Persian Gulf to the Iranian mullahs, and ultimately blocking the Bab el-Mandeb Strait in the Red Sea thereby threatening global trade and the Suez Canal – Egypt’s lifeline, the recently concluded P5+1 Agreement signed in Vienna on July 14th grants Iran not one, but two paths to the bomb. Iran can get the bomb either by cheating on the Agreement or lying (as did North Korea), or it can get the bomb by keeping the deal for ten years, and then assembling it immediately afterwards.

Overall, it allows for Iran’s continuing research and development on its advanced centrifuges; sanctions relief (including the release of up to $150 billion in frozen assets with no automatic “snapback” mechanism); an end to the arms embargo against it; and no anytime, anywhere inspections.

In short, the deal does not prevent a nuclear Iran. At best, it only delays it a few years. The signatories to the Agreement walked away from virtually every key position demanding the reduction or dismantlement of Iran’s military nuclear infrastructure including its fortified Fordo facility buried under a mountain on a military base where Iran will be permitted to continue enriching uranium and developing its ability to spin faster and more advanced centrifuges. It has also backed away from UN Security Council Resolution 1696 of July 2006, which demanded that Iran suspend research and enrichment of radioisotopes, as well as U.S. demands for the dismantlement of the nuclear facilities.

Continue reading

OBAMA DEAL=> US to Protect Iranian Nuclear Sites from Israeli Attack

obama nukes

Gateway Pundit

The Obama administration is going to help Iran protect their nuclear sites and systems from an Israeli attack.
And they are also giving the Iranian regime over $100 billion.
The Jewish Press reported:

The agreement states: Co-operation…to strengthen Iran’s ability to prevent, protect and respond to nuclear security threats to nuclear facilities and to protect against… sabotage.

“ObamaDeal” explicitly states that the United States and the other P5+1 powers can help Iran deflect and even “respond” to sabotage and nuclear threats to its nuclear sites.

The damming evidence that ObamaDeal directly allows Western powers to help Iran to protect its nuclear sites, and possibly even to stage a counter-attack on the source of the threat, is stated in Annex III of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Congress is reviewing the agreement and has the option to cancel America’s commitments under the deal.

You have to reach page 142 of the JCPOA until you reach “Annex III: Civil Nuclear Cooperation,” where Section “D 10 states that the P5+1 “and possibly other states are prepared to cooperate with Iran on the implementation of nuclear security guidelines and best practices. Cooperation in the following areas can be envisaged.
Sure enough.

Page 142 of the Obama nuclear agreement reads:

Co-operation in the form of training courses and workshops to strengthen Iran’s ability to prevent, protect and respond to nuclear security threats to nuclear facilities and systems as well as to enable effective and sustainable nuclear security and physical protection systems [boldface added];

Co-operation through training and workshops to strengthen Iran’s ability to protect against, and respond to nuclear security threats, including sabotage, as well as to enable effective and sustainable nuclear security and physical protection systems.

sabotage iran pact

More…

An impeachable offense

Free Republic

This is serious business. What no one seems to want to talk about in public is the fact that the negotiations between Iran, the United States and its allies have the potential to lead to a world war. If Iran is seen by Israel to be close to developing a nuclear warhead to go with its ready missiles, the odds are that Israel will launch a pre-emptive strike on Iran’s nuclear sites. However, Iran has managed to diversify its nuclear laboratories all over the country, thus vastly complicating the targeting for such a strike and also making its capabilities much more likely to survive such attacks and then to retaliate. If that happens, the United States will have to support Israel, and there is a good chance that Russia will side with Iran. Like the Sarajevo assassination of the Archduke Ferdinand in an obscure country which led to World War I, this confrontation could lead to another world war. The stakes thus are very high. What should we do? The Obama administration has decided to try to negotiate away this threat. The carrot the West holds is the sanctions which were in place before this negotiation began, and a significant portion of which were cancelled as a condition for the talks to begin. These and more stringent sanctions are also the stick held by the West. The goal of the West is to eliminate or at least delay Iran’s progress toward possession of a nuclear capability. At issue is the likelihood for enforcement of whatever commitments Iran might make regarding its nuclear program. The West is insisting on “intrusive inspections” by Western authorities to certify Iran’s

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com