Obama Ignores Law, Shovels Our Money at Palestinian Terrorists, Then Lies

Obama lies again! .....

MOONBATTERY

The Obama Regime always releases the most interesting information late on Fridays, so that it will fall into a media black hole and be forgotten. For example:

President Barack Obama has signed a waiver to remove curbs on funding to the Palestinian Authority, declaring the aid to be “important to the security interests of the United States.”

A $192 million aid package was frozen by the US Congress after the Palestinians moved to gain statehood at the United Nations last September.

But in a memo sent to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, published by the White House, the president said it was appropriate to release funds to the authority, which administers the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Hot Air explains why this approaches treason:

Congress deliberately froze those funds, and not just because of the statehood demand through UNESCO. Hamas, a terrorist organization,reconciled with Fatah and has rejoined the PA, which means we’re putting almost $200 million into the hands of a terrorist organization. The language of the Palestinian Accountability Act could not be clearer: “[N]o funds available to any United States Government department or agency … may be obligated or expended with respect to providing funds to the Palestinian Authority.” Obama literally waived that statutory language off…

Bizarrely, the Obama Regime justifies borrowing money in our name and giving it to Islamic terrorists by claiming they have recognized Israel’s right to exist and have renounced violence. These are brazen lies.

On tips from Shawn, J, Bob Roberts, Fiberal, and G. Fox.

By Dave Blount

"Al-Qaeda is Alive and Well" - by MEMRI

Bee's Note:  Before going to MEMRI's report, directly from one of Saudi's newspapers, I want to remind everyone that just last week the Obama administration announced that "the war on terror is over".  Apparently, according to Obama and his league of followers, since bin Laden is dead, Al-Qaeda is no longer a terrorist concern for the world (or the USA)- everyone can come home from the fields of battle! If that were true, why are our troops in South Africa, hunting down Islamic terrorists?  Why are our drones floating across the skies of Yemen? What the heck are we still doing in Afghanistan and Pakistan and why are we reading of more bombings in Iraq? Islamic terrorists come in all shapes and sizes, and have tagged themselves with assorted names i.e. Hamas, Hezibollah, Muslim Brotherhood, etc.  However, the name they love to hear most is "moderate" - call them all "moderates" and tell the world that the "war on terror is over" - ah, those quotes, directly from Obama's lips to the terrorists ears - so sweet (almost like hearing someone shout Alah Akbar!).   One question to this administration:  Does anyone think that the following report is meant to contradict Obama's latest comments about the war on terror being "over"?  It's almost like the Muslims are saying, "Hey, President Obama, look - we're over here!"  Who you going to believe, Obama's lying lips, or the damn terrorists?  I believe the terrorists every time, because they do not lie about their intentions to cause terror!  Take a good look at where the USA troops are based throughout the world, ask yourself who they are fighting, and the answer every time is Islamic terrorists - period. MEMRI  APRIL 30, 2012 Leading Saudi Daily's Opinion Page Editor and Expert on Islamic Movements: The Arab Spring Is Not the End of Islamist Extremism; Al-Qaeda Is Alive and Well

In his April 29, 2012 column in Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, titled "Al-Qaeda Is Still Alive," opinion page editor Mashari Al-Zaydi, who according to the paper is a veteran Saudi journalist and expert on Islamic movements and Islamic fundamentalism as well as Saudi affairs, argued that in the world of the Arab Spring, "religious extremism" remained a problem. Recalling "the arguments put forward by multiple Arab and non-Arab writers and politicians... that the Arab Spring... mark[ed] the end of an era for Al-Qaeda and those like it," he enumerated recent instances of Al-Qaeda activity. He went on to state, "The claim that Al-Qaeda has disappeared by virtue of the Arab Spring is nothing more than a fanciful wish and a dream." Following is the article, in the original English:[1] "The Bloated and Corrupt Nature of the Mubarak Regime... Does Not Mean That the Diagnosis Of Egypt's Problems During Mubarak's Rule Was Incorrect... [Including the Problem Of] Religious Extremism" "The 'Arab Spring' has transformed into Al-Mahdi Al-Muntazar,[2] Christ the Redeemer, and the Land of Dreams all in one, for those who devoutly worship its shrine. "For those who have come to rely on the magical solution of the Arab Spring, everything that was said about problems before the collapse of the regimes in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen and Libya has become a pack of lies propagated by the media of those regimes. "I remember having a discussion with an Arab television anchor who was singing the praises of the magical Arab Spring in Egypt. He argued that once Mubarak fell or was overthrown, the celebrations and festivities would set in. I countered by arguing that despite the bloated and corrupt nature of the Mubarak regime, particularly over the last five years; this does not mean that the diagnosis of Egypt's problems during Mubarak's rule was incorrect. For example, the issue of overpopulation existed well before Mubarak's departure and shall remain a problem in the future. It may even be further aggravated by the unstable situation in Egypt is now experiencing. The same can be said for shortages in bread and fuel supplies, the overwhelming lack of security… and religious extremism." "Do You Remember the Arguments Put Forward... That the Arab Spring Was A Sign Marking the End Of An Era For Al-Qaeda and Those Like It[?]" "With regard to religious extremism, do you remember the arguments put forward by multiple Arab and non-Arab writers and politicians, stressing that the Arab Spring was proof that the 'fundamentalist scarecrow' was a lie, and that the Arab Spring was a sign marking the end of an era for Al-Qaeda and those like it, and that Arab rulers previously exaggerated the problem to extort their people and remain in power? "Right now I do not know how to explain the eruption of Al-Qaeda activity in Yemen. Recently, the organization has abducted a Saudi diplomat and is currently trying to negotiate with the Saudi state to release him in return for some of its demands. Prior to this, Al-Qaeda displayed a clear show of strength in the governorate of Abyan, where it killed many Yemeni security officers and declared the establishment of an 'Islamic Emirate' there. "Largely due to the state of disorder and pressures caused by the Arab Spring in particular, Al-Qaeda has also displayed several shows of force in the African Sahel. "Here I am trying to point out that the automatic link between the agenda of armed extremist currents and the Arab Spring does not make sense. What do the young men and theorists of Al-Qaeda have to do with the Arab Spring?  Why would the Arab Spring be a reason for the decline of these groups? I can't understand this arbitrary link." "Al-Qaeda and All Those Representing Its Ideology Have Other Inclinations and Dreams Which Have Nothing To Do With Freedom And Democracy" "Al-Qaeda and all those representing its ideology have other inclinations and dreams which have nothing to do with freedom and democracy. Al-Qaeda is still proceeding with its plan and course and will try and exploit all existing variables in its favor. With this in mind, there is nothing better than when a regime – any regime – loses its grip on power. "Does this mean that it would have been better if those bygone regimes had survived? Of course not, but it means that the problem of Al-Qaeda, just like the problems of poverty, unemployment and overpopulation, are problems which exist on their own and have their own survival engines. The solution to such problems comes through a cultural, social, economic and political confrontation, and more importantly, a critical one through our minds." "The Claim That Al-Qaeda Has Disappeared By Virtue Of the Arab Spring Is Nothing More Than A Fanciful Wish and A Dream" "We are yet to come into direct confrontation with all the aforementioned issues. The overthrow of Mubarak, the fleeing of Ben 'Ali, the murder of Qadhafi and the elimination of Saleh will not directly solve these problems. "The claim that Al-Qaeda has disappeared by virtue of the Arab Spring is nothing more than a fanciful wish and a dream." Endnotes: [1] The original English has been lightly edited for clarity. [2] The Hidden Imam according to Twelver Shi'a.

EDITORIAL: Obama embraces Islam

If Islamism is OK for Egypt, why not America?

THE WASHINGTON TIMES

The Obama administration is doing its utmost to promote the fortunes of the Islamist parties inEgypt. A State Department official declared that with the rise of these radical groups after the Arab Spring, “people who once might have gone into al Qaeda see an opportunity for a legitimate Islamism.” They see this as a victory. The problem is, so do the terrorists.

Last year, the White House began peddling the line that the uprisings in the Middle East were a repudiation of the al Qaeda model of seeking change through terrorism. The argument was that while America opposed violent extremism, the rise of nonviolent radical movements was just fine, and even commendable. Al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahri quickly dismissed this claim, saying that from the terrorists’ point of view, it didn’t matter whether an Islamist victory came through violence or not. The means were unimportant except as they related to the end state: the imposition of hard-line Shariah-based laws and policies.

From Zawahri’s point of view, it makes no difference whether the caliphate is born of the ballot, bomb or bullet. The important thing is the victory of Islamism, which the White House also seems to endorse.

The notion that there is a legitimate form of Islamism reflects a serious intellectual failing on the part of the Obama administration. President Obama seems to believe the Islamists are legitimized simply by participating in the political process. Some argue that the demands of electoral politics will moderate the Islamist parties, whose members will evolve from stern-eyed theocrats into social reformers. Others believe the only path to modernity is through embracing the Muslim Brotherhood’s barbarous values.

No matter what the source of the delusion, no political movement that exalts the Koran can peaceably coexist with the concept of freedom at the root of Western governance. Islamist notions of democracy are constrained by the strictures of their religion. Radical Muslims reject the humanistic values that gave birth to modern Western government; the self-evident truths regarding everyone’s inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are just so much infidel heresy to the Islamists. There are no inalienable rights under political Islam, only submission to the will of Allah.

The Islamist parties in Egypt and elsewhere are promoting democracy simply as a means of consolidating their power. They see the process as a ratchet effect, with every gain they make as one more step toward erecting a Shariah-based theocracy. Increased power will not lead - and in fact, never has led - to moderation, but to further demands to implement their blueprint for Koranic rule. The model is the Iranian Revolution, in which a brief period of openness was followed by the ascent of Islamic hard-liners who snuffed out any hint of liberty and executed those who had the nerve to differ.

To anyone who believes in the Western concept of freedom, Islamism by its nature cannot be legitimate. The White House needs to answer the question: If Islamism is a legitimate political movement, should it come to America, and if so, how soon?

The Washington Times

Our Marie Antoinette President

Posted by Arnold Ahlert Bio ↓ on Apr 30th, 2012

FRONT PAGE MAGAZINE

On Friday, in yet another report tagged with the word “unexpected,” economic growth in the United States slowed to a 2.2 percent annual rate, well below economists’ predictions of 2.5 percent. This anemic trend represents part of the weakest economic recovery since the Great Depression. Most Americans understand that such a reality requires a certain amount of belt-tightening on their part. President Obama and the First Family? Not so much. A series of upscale vacations, substantial portions of which are underwritten by taxpayers, continue to be an integral part of the Obamas’ lifestyle.

Few reasonable Americans begrudge “down time” for the president or his family. Yet at a time when the word “staycation” has become an increasingly familiar part of the American lexicon, one might think a president who both vilifies the rich and reminds Americans that he wasn’t born ”with a silver spoon in my mouth” might be a bit more sensitive to the kind of vacations taken by the president and his family.

In a rather odd way, he is. When the president’s 13-year-old daughter, Malia, took a Spring Break trip to Mexico with 12 of her friends and 25 Secret Service agents–one that reportedly cost taxpayers $2.5 million–it was covered by the mainstream media. AFP filed the initial report, and the story was subsequently picked up by Yahoo, the Huffington Post, and theInternational Business Times, as well as foreign publications, such as Daily Mail, the Telegraphand The Australian.

Yet by the same evening, all of the stories had been removed from each of those sites. The updated links either directed one to a site’s home page or 404 error pages, reading “page not found.” What happened? The White House got a compliant media to scrub the story. Kristina Schake, Communications Director to the First Lady, confirmed this to Politico: “From the beginning of the administration, the White House has asked news outlets not to report on or photograph the Obama children when they are not with their parents and there is no vital news interest. We have reminded outlets of this request in order to protect the privacy and security of these girls.”

Again, such concerns for the safety of First Family members are entirely legitimate. Yet some questions remain unanswered. Why would the president allow his daughter to travel to Mexico despite a Texas Department of Public Safety warning not to go there because “cartel violence and other criminal activity represent a significant safety threat, even in some resort areas”? Why was it necessary to include a dozen friends, making the trip more expensive and security far more complicated? Why are members of the mainstream media taking marching orders from the White House? Why did the trip cost taxpayers $2.5 million?

Perhaps, as the saying goes, the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree. Last week, Judicial Watch released a report revealing that First Lady Michelle Obama’s trip to Costa Del Sol, Spain in 2010 cost taxpayers $467,585. Again, no reasonable person begrudges a woman in the public spotlight some rest and relaxation. But as the New York Times reports, part of that R&R included a stay at the “five-star Hotel Villa Padierna near Marbella, where at least 30 rooms were reserved for the entourage, including those for security. The hotel is one of Spain’s more luxurious establishments, with rooms ranging from $500-a-night to a $6,600 suite with 24-hour butler service.”

Furthermore, Mrs. Obama is hardly reticent when it comes to taking vacations. Her February 2012 trip to upscale Aspen, Colorado, for a President’s Day ski weekend with daughters Sasha and Malia, marked the 16th vacation (the updated number is now 17) taken by Obama family members in just over three years, not including visits to the Camp David compound, or short trips like a New York City “date night” taken in May 2009. Nor is the First Lady or the president seemingly concerned saddling taxpayers with the cost of flying separately to the same vacation sites. It cost taxpayers $100,000 when the First Lady jetted to a 2010 Hawaii vacation ahead of her husband, and several thousands more when the First Lady traveled to a Martha’s Vineyard vacation on a separate government jet only four hours prior to the president’s trip there. While at Martha’s Vineyard, the First Family stayed at Blue Heron Farm, a property that reportedly rents for approximately $50,000 per week. And on a trip to Maine in July of 2010, the President’s dog, Bo, and his handler traveled on a separate plane to that destination.

Such a penchant for extravagance has added up to some pretty daunting numbers. The UK’s Daily Mail, citing White House sources who referred to the First Lady as “a vacation junkie,” claimed Michelle Obama had “has spent $10 million of U.S. taxpayers’ money on vacations alone in the past year”–as of August 2011. The unnamed source further notes that Mrs. Obama also enjoys “drinking expensive booze during her trips. She favors martinis with top-shelf vodka and has a taste for rich sparking wines.”

Unsurprisingly, a member of the mainstream media defended the Obamas. Mark Knoller of CBS News contended that former president George W. Bush’s vacation “day count” was more than double the Obama totals during the same period of time. Yet Bush went to his own ranch in Crawford, Texas, and the costs associated with such trips hardly compare with, for example, the Obama’s 2011 Christmas vacation in Hawaii, exceeding $1.5 million, according to the Hawaii Reporter.

And the same media that ridiculed George Bush for his golfing is remarkably silent regarding president Obama’s numerous golf outings, despite the fact that the current president has played more times in his first term than Bush did in two. One of those rounds was played in lieu of attending the funeral of Polish President Lech Kaczynski.

The First Family’s extravagance is starting to wear thin, including on Democrats. Pollster John McLaughlin and other Republican pollsters traveled to 11 battleground states to talk to swing voters, “mostly Democrats” who voted for Obama in 2008, but are currently undecided. While there was overall depression among those they spoke with regarding the economy, as well as resentment directed at both the rich and government workers “sucking up” their tax dollars, many of the respondents “volunteered criticism of the presidential vacations as something that should be cut.” McLaughlin illuminated their reasoning. “They view everything through their own personal situation and if they can’t afford to do it, they can’t enjoy it, they don’t like Obama using their tax dollars to benefit himself,” he said. “In this case, they see him as out of touch. While they are struggling, he’s not sharing in that struggle, and he’s basically doing what they can’t do on their tax dollars.”

Rightly or wrongly, what determines the outcome of an election is as much about perception as it is about facts. There is no question the president is seeking to paint wealth in general, and Mitt Romney’s success in particular, as something to be vilified and/or envied. Such a message undoubtedly resonates with a substantial number of Americans. Yet some Americans are beginning to notice that one wealthy individual (the president’s current net worth is approximately $5 million) vilifying another wealthier individual, demonstrates a certain level of disingenuousness at best, and outright hypocrisy at worst. That unseemliness is exacerbated by a publicly lavish lifestyle at least partially underwritten by taxpayers, even as the president has called for “shared sacrifice” among his fellow Americans.

Mr. Obama has a potential tiger by the tail. It would be more than a little ironic if the man committed to stoking class resentment was undone next November by that resentment being turned towards himself and his family. Yet when measured against running on his record, it would seem that the president and his campaign handlers consider it the more viable of the two options. Whether is it or not will be revealed in the coming months.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

Baruch Dayan Emet: Benzion Netanyahu at 102

ANNE'S OPINIONS
Posted on 30 April 2012 

Netanyahu, father and son

Benzion Netanyahu, the father of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, passed away last night at the age of 102, and was laid to rest today in Jerusalem.

The prime minister eulogized his father as a man who knew “how to identify danger in time” — a quality, his father told him, “that our people lost while in exile.” Benzion also taught him to “face reality head on” and “draw the necessary conclusions.”

Benzion, said his son, “could decipher the past and understand the future.” After all, the prime minister said his father had told him, “If you cannot understand the past, then you cannot understand the present. And those who cannot understand the present cannot hope to decode the future.”

Those politically poignant reminiscences came at the end of a eulogy that was largely more personal — in which the prime minister spoke adoringly of his father, family life, his and his two brothers’ upbringing, the strength with which Benzion and his late wife Tzila bore the death of their eldest son Yoni (the IDF commander who was the sole Israeli fatality of the legendary Israeli rescue raid at Entebbe in 1976), and of Benzion’s extraordinary academic scholarship.

A historian who was considered one of the world’s foremost experts on Jewish life in Spain in the Middle Ages, Benzion was also editor of the Encyclopedia Hebraica.

The prime minister recounted the trauma of Yoni’s death, recalling how he had traveled “seven hellish hours” from Boston, where he was studying, to New York, to tell his parents the terrible news. “I saw him through the glass, in typical pose with his hands clasped behind his back.” His father saw him, and asked, “with surprise, ‘What are you doing here, Bibi?’” And then in an instant, Benzion realized why he had come, “and he let out a cry of such anguish… that I will remember for as long as I live.”

Binyamin Netanyahu at his father's funeral

Ynet has more from the Prime Minister’s eulogy:

The PM said his father had shown him what commitment was, both to the state and to family, and also contributed to the establishment of the Jewish state. The PM mentioned that his father traveled to London to persuade Jabotinsky to relocate to the United States and from there mobilize support for the Jewish state.

“Jabotinsky died shortly after you arrived in the US, but you did not lose hope and approached dozens of senators, congressman and American leaders such as (Dwight D.) Eisenhower. You told them that the Jewish state would be established and that it would not be defeated by the Arabs,” the PM said.

Prime Minister Netanyahu then addressed his late father, saying: “Years before Herzl’s predictions were realized you understood that he was right. When you were 27 you wrote that Herzl saw the catastrophe and the looming destruction of the nation. You wrote that a few years before the Second World War and the Holocaust.

Not only did you agree with Herzl over the dangers in store, you worked to keep it at bay and contributed to the foundation of the State of Israel.

Benjamin Netanyahu also mentioned the hardships his parents faced after his brother Yoni was killed in Entebbe. “Your foresight led you, 35 years ago, after Yoni was killed, to focus an international intellectual effort against global terror. You said that the thing standing behind terror was policy and then terror could be vanquished.

“Father, those attributes, of foresight, and others, I could not understand as a little boy growing up in the 50s. Slowly, slowly, things became clear to me and to Iddo as we grew older.”

Netanyahu expressed the admiration he had for his parents and the way they lived their lives after his brother’s death. “You carried, both of you, your grief with grace. I don’t know where you found the strength to go on living with your sorrow.”

The prime minister then said: “Father, on this day that I say goodbye to you, I wish to tell you the same words that Yoni wrote to you 46 years ago: I have never told you how proud I am that you are the person you are and that I am your son.”

President Shimon Peres said during the funeral: “We have lost a great teacher who left behind a leader for his people.”

Peres then turned to the prime minister and said: “Bibi, your father wrote about history and you are making it with the same perception and heritage. I know that your heart is broken but your spirit is strong.”

The Times of Israel has an obituary which is worth reading.

Prof. Benzion Netanyahu z”l was one of the generation of giants that founded the modern state of Israel. Where are our giants of today? May his son and colleagues continue his life’s work and vision.

May his memory be for a blessing for his family and for all of Am Yisrael.

יהי זכרו ברוך