A bad deal on Iranian nukes would be so catastrophic to global security that presidential resistance to a related speech – by the leader of an allied democracy, who may be the greatest expert on the issue – should leave everyone speechless.
The Obama administration's outraged accusation that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu violated protocol by accepting House Speaker John Boehner's invitation to address Congress is preposterous: Bibi's speech before Congress in 2011 came about in the exact same way with no similar Obama outrage (predictably, given the upcoming 2012 election). And The New York Times advanced this "violated protocol" narrative all too willingly, only to correct itself as inconspicuously as possible, revealing yet again its own anti-Israel agenda. Ironically, Obama's main, if not only, motivation for visiting Israel in 2008 (and promising policies far from those he eventually adopted) was to gain the support of Jewish voters, back when he needed them to win the presidency.
Now Obama is trying everything in his power to unseat Bibi, including what he accuses Bibi of doing: meddling in another democracy's domestic politics. Whitehouse Spokesperson Josh Earnest's inadvertent slip about hoping that Bibi gets voted out in Israel's next elections was just the appetizer. The Obama administration will boycott Bibi on his next trip and is boosting the profile of his political opponents, as Obama-linked strategists actively support Israeli campaigns to defeat Bibi (after already slighting the democratically elected leader of America's top Mideast ally on countless other occasions). more >>
A pro-Israel group says "shame" should be on any member of Congress who decides to skip next month's address by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Last month, Speaker of the House John Boehner, R-Ohio, invited Netanyahu to address a joint session of Congress regarding the possible removal of economic sanctions against Iran.
"Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu makes the case for renewed Iran sanctions with greater expertise and insight than any other leader on the world stage today," David Brog, executive director of Christians United For Israel, told The Christian Post. more >>
Truth matters. That's why during the lunch hour at a northern Israeli kibbutz, I skipped a group event to set the record straight about the first few days of my headline-making trip in Israel. It seems that those vilifying it are misinformed.
I've been traveling with people who represent many faiths, ethnicities, ages, and even have friends and relatives whose lifestyles and/or political beliefs are quite different than theirs. And we are witnessing first-hand the reality of Israeli daily life that most Americans cannot comprehend.
Imagine the state of New Jersey, approximately the same size in square miles as Israel, under constant threat of attack by all of North America. Next imagine not only being blamed for being attacked but also having no one come to its aid. That is Israel's situation. more >>
As the anniversary of 9/11 has once more been observed with solemnity and promises of eternal remembrance, the question of how the West should understand the religion of the terrorists who then and now swear destruction for America remains a disquieting issue.
What has become the stock response – that Islam is a religion of peace – contains, however, a serious flaw. Even Islamic scholars, like Sahar Aziz of Texas A&M, argue that "these terrorists are not related to religion" and that terrorism is instead "a complex political problem." This is echoed in official foreign policy statements, such as the keystone speech on September 10, when President Obama stated that ISIL is not "Islamic" and that "no religion condones the killing of innocents." Other authors take a slightly more balanced view, calling terrorism a "complex problem" in which religion is a "symptom" rather than a cause.
These various explanations center on a premise that religion is not and even cannot be the motivation behind terrorist attacks. However, these arguments appear far less credible when examined in the light of Islamic history, Quranic scripture, and, perhaps most clearly of all, the statements of the terrorists themselves regarding their own actions. The evidence points not only to a logical association between Islamic religious teaching and terrorist violence, but also to a unique relationship between Islam and violent conquest which is not associated with any other religion (as key differences are present, though usually ignored, between past Islamic wars and the Crusades or the European Wars of Religion). While acknowledging the complexity of the problem of terrorism, it is thus essential to question realistically the premise of peace that is currently guiding our foreign policy and which, if not corrected with a more balanced view, may have long-lasting consequences for the West. History provides us with a "two-eyed" perspective. more >>
Well, that didn't take long. This summer after Barack Obama inexplicably (and illegally) freed five of the Taliban's most deadly terrorists in exchange for army deserter Bowe Bergdahl, I asked a burning question – a question that remains unanswered: "What will it take for our spineless U.S. Congress to impeach this tyrant? This is way beyond partisan politics. This is about justice. This is about the safety of the American people. Barack Hussein Obama is America's biggest threat to national security. He is 'an enemy within.'"
By striking this Faustian bargain with the devil, not only did Obama unilaterally trash the U.S. government's long-standing policy never to negotiate with terrorists, he brazenly violated a 2013 national defense bill that unambiguously requires he give Congress 30-days notice before releasing any Guantanamo Bay prisoners, much less five of its most deadly.
Article III, Section 3, Clause 1, of the U.S. Constitution defines the crime of treason – dare I say the "high crime" of treason – as "levying War against [the United States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." more >>
Good for Michelle Obama! She refused to cover up during a recent snap visit to Saudi Arabia. And our First Lady showed more grit than the entire Obama administration. She is also closer to a correct U.S. posture vis à vis the Mideast.
President Obama has been vigorously pursuing a policy of appeasement in the Mideast for his entire term. He has apparently adopted the view that if we give billions to the "democracy" movements within the Muslim majority lands, and back them up with military force where they happen, however tenuously, to gain control, they will support our efforts to crush the "violent extremists" in their midst. Heaven forbid we call them Islamists or Jihadists. We wouldn't want to offend the overwhelming majority there. White House spokesmen claim, for example, that the Taliban is an armed insurgency, not a terrorist group. (Even though they harbored al Qaeda and are themselves listed as a sponsor of terrorism.)
The Obama administration is not alone in pursuing a wholly erroneous policy toward jihadists. And we do not spare the previous administration from what we hope is justified criticism. It was during the Bush years that Alain Chouet, a former senior member of France's DSGE foreign intelligence service, wrote this: more >>