Obamination: Peace: Hillary Clinton Spews Feces

The news stories about Clinton's insane remarks about the 'mid east conflict" center on Obamination's frustration. It becomes obvious that the primary focus of their frustration and rage is Israel's refusal to extend the construction moratorium.  That is all about kicking  & back stabbing Israel while pretending to stroke and support her.

Full text link to the remarks.  Video Link.

The secretary of State spoke at the  seventh annual forum of the Brookings Institution's Saban Center for Middle East Policy. One news article described the speech as "lengthy".  The video indicates a run time of 33:10.  I find the rant to be insane, dishonest & redundant, a target rich environment  I have selected some of the more pungent clumps of feces to kick, for the full context, use the link provided above.

..."we are here discussing tonight – strengthening U.S.-Israeli relations and securing a just and lasting peace in the Middle East."

relationship

    The relationship between America and Israel has been one of treachery & enmity ever since Shrub went back on his wiser word and devised the Road Map to Hell.  We need to tear down that relationship and start over. Two sovereign nations, supposedly allies, should not be attempting to dictate to or dominate each other. There should be mutual respect, not condescension.

just & lasting peace

    Peace imposed by aggressive conquest is not a just peace. Peace resulting from appeasing an aggressor is neither just nor lasting. A just peace can only result from a decision of victory for the victim, not for the aggressor. Lasting peace can only result from breaking the aggressor's will & capacity to launch repeated conquests.  In the case of Islam, lasting peace can only come from extinction.  Now is the time to dig in with our pitch fork, remove the feces, and expose the core of the conflict.

• Allah commanded the Muslims to wage war against Jews.
  
  • 9:29 Make war upon such of those to whom the Scriptures have been given as believe not in God, or in the last day, and who forbid not that which God and His Apostle have forbidden, and who profess not the profession of the truth, until they pay tribute out of hand, and they be humbled.
• Moe confirmed the order.
  
  • Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 196:
    Narrated Abu Huraira:
    Allah 's Apostle said, " I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,' and whoever says, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,' his life and property will be saved by me except for Islamic law, and his accounts will be with Allah, (either to punish him or to forgive him.)" 
• Moe expressed his preference for the conquest of the Levant.
  
  • Sunan Abu Dawud 14.2477
    Narrated Ibn Hawalah:

        The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: It will turn out that you will be armed troops, one is Syria, one in the Yemen and one in Iraq. Ibn Hawalah said: Choose for me, Apostle of Allah, if I reach that time. He replied: Go to Syria, for it is Allah's chosen land, to which his best servants will be gathered but if you are unwilling, go to your Yemen, and draw water from your tanks, for Allah has on my account taken special charge of Syria and its people.

• The gates of Paradise will not swing open for Muslims until they hunt down and kill the last Jew.
  
  • Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177:
        Narrated Abu Huraira:

        Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."

• Allah gave the command, Moe confirmed it, Umar carried it out.
  
  • Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 53, Number 386:
    Narrated Jubair bin Haiya:
    'Umar sent the Muslims to the great countries to fight the pagans. ...
• Allah will always send someone to harass the Jews.
  
  • 7:167. And (remember) when your Lord declared that He would certainly keep on sending against them (i.e. the Jews), till the Day of Resurrection, those who would afflict them with a humiliating torment. Verily, your Lord is Quick in Retribution (for the disobedient, wicked) and certainly He is Oft­Forgiving, Most Merciful (for the obedient and those who beg Allâh's Forgiveness).
• Jesus will return to help them finish the job.
  • Sunan Abu Dawud 37.4310: ...He will fight the people for the cause of Islam. He will break the cross, kill swine, and abolish jizyah. Allah will perish all religions except Islam....
  • Eternal Humiliation placed on the Jews [Tafsir Ibn Kathir] ...In the future, the Jews will support the Dajjal (False Messiah); and the Muslims, along with `Isa, son of Mary, will kill the Jews....
• Allah will give the land to Muslims, through conquests, his decision is irreversible.
  
  • 13:41. See they not that We gradually reduce the land (of disbelievers, by giving it to the believers, in war victories) from its outlying borders. And Allâh judges, there is none to put back His Judgement and He is Swift at reckoning.
• If a reversal occurs, the Muslims must reconquer the land. 
  • 2:191. And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah is worse than killing. And fight not with them at Al-Masjid-al-Harâm (the sanctuary at Makkah), unless they (first) fight you there. But if they attack you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers.
• Allah promised a 2: 1 kill ratio.
  
  • 8:66. Now Allâh has lightened your (task), for He knows that there is weakness in you. So if there are of you a hundred steadfast persons, they shall overcome two hundred, and if there are a thousand of you, they shall overcome two thousand with the Leave of Allâh. And Allâh is with As-Sâbirin (the patient ones, etc.). 
• Allah gave the Muslims "good news" !
  
  • The Good News that Muslims will Dominate the People of the Book  [Tafsir Ibn Kathir]
    "While delivering the good news to His believing servants that victory and dominance will be theirs against the disbelieving, atheistic People of the Scriptures, Allah then said, (They will do you no harm, barring a trifling annoyance; and if they fight against you, they will show you their backs, and they will not be helped.) ﴿3:111

Islam is the "obstacle to peace"!

    The first fact which must be faced is Allah's command, with Moe's confirmation. Then there is his special interest in the Levant, his predictions, his promises and his good news. The restoration of the state of Israel contradicts and disproves Allah's promise & good news. It proves Allah to be an impotent idol, the ultimate blasphemy. Muslims can never tolerate that. 

    There was no peace, there is no peace and there will be no peace while there are Muslims alive on this planet. It ain't possible!  Anyone who tells you otherwise is a fool, a liar or both.  

    The damnable doctrines of Islam, not settlements, not Jerusalem, not "refugees", not "occupation";  Islam is the "obstacle to peace"!  In Islam, peace is what happens when Dar ul-Islam engulfs Dar ul-Harb through conquest. Peace comes with conquest.  Until the conquest is completed, there is "fitna". I do not expect that I will ever hear any politician acknowledge this fatal fact.

I want to focus tonight on the way forward, on America’s continuing engagement in helping the parties achieve a two-state solution that ends the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians once and for all, and on what it will take, finally, to realize that elusive, but essential goal.

two-state solution

    Eliminating Islam is the solution. There is no other just solution.  Creating another terrorist state entity will make the problem worse, not solve it. Muslims do not want a state, they want a single nation of Islam, on a global scale: the caliphate.

ends the conflict permanently

    The conflict is existential: While the nation of Israel exists; while one Jew lives, Believers must wage war, that is their role in life. When Israel and Jews are eliminated, they will concentrate on conquering  us.  Politicians can not acknowledge the fact that Islam is the source of conflict.

The United States will always be there when Israel is threatened.

when Israel is threatened

    Israel is always threatened, that is the constant. It is not possible for Muslims to cease threatening and attacking Israel.

We have also stepped up efforts to block the transfer of dangerous weapons and financing to terrorist groups like Hezbollah and Hamas. But Iran and its proxies are not the only threat to regional stability or to Israel’s long-term security. The conflict between Israel and the Palestinians and between Israel and Arab neighbors is a source of tension and an obstacle to prosperity and opportunity for all the people of the region. It denies the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people and it poses a threat to Israel’s future security. It is at odds also with the interests of the United States.

terrorist groups

    Islam is the terrorist group "terrorist groups" are composed of believers. Only those who wage war are believers, its what Islam is; what Muslims do.

Iran and its proxies

    "Its Islam, stgupid." Iran, Hamas & Hezbollah are Muslims. Terrorism: what Islam is; what Muslims do. Moe is their role model, he was a terrorist.

legitimate aspirations

    Since when are regional & global conquest "legitimate aspirations"?  There is nothing legitimate about genocide & politicide. They do not give a damn about statehood; they need to eliminate Israel as a stepping stone to continued and expanding conquest.

conflict between Israel

and the Palestinians

    That is a code phrase for Israel's resistance to reconquest. If Israel would just surrender, the whole problem would be solved.

I know that improvements in security and growing prosperity have convinced some that this conflict can be waited out or largely ignored. This view is wrong and it is dangerous. The long-term population trends that result from the occupation are endangering the Zionist vision of a Jewish and democratic state in the historic homeland of the Jewish people. Israelis should not have to choose between preserving both elements of their dream. But that day is approaching.

the occupation

    In the seventh century, Umar conquered the Roman Province of Syria. Muslims invaded and occupied Israel. Barack Hussein Obama & Hillary Clinton can't get a clue. The 'occupation' & 'settlements' they bitterly kvetch about are smokescreens that prevent us from perceiving the real  illegal occupation & settlements.

Jewish homeland

    Is there any good reason why Jews should not return to their ancient patrimony?  England conquered it from the Ottoman Empire which was one of the aggressors in the first world war.  She promised to return it to its rightful heirs and reneged, giving 75% of it to the Hashemites  driven from the Hijaz by Saud, as a consolation prize.  In the 1948 war, Egypt & Jordan illegally seized Gaza, Judea & Samaria.  When they renewed their genocidal assault in 1967, Israel won them back.  There is no good reason why Israel should not annex and settle that land There is no good reason  why Israel should surrender it or why it should be judenrein!   

At the same time, the ever-evolving technology of war, especially the expanding reach of the rockets amassed on Israel’s borders means that it will be increasingly difficult to guarantee the security of Israeli families throughout the country without implementing peace agreements that answer these threats.

peace agreements

    Conceited, arrogant fools imagine that peace is made by agreements. Peace is made by victory, not by agreements!  In an existential conflict, there can be no peace while the aggressor exists. Muslims are bound by a religious  obligation to exterminate Israel. They can not get into Paradise until they finish that task. Get a clue!

    Muslims do not make peace agreements, they make hudna, which last no more than ten years, and can be abrogated as soon as the Muslims recover sufficient strength to resume aggression.  They are commanded not to be weak and "ask not for peace" while they have the upper hand.

"Radicalization of the region’s young people and growing support for violent ideologies undermine the stability and prosperity of the Middle East."

Radicalization

    Radicals & extremists are imaginary creatures, they do not exist. Islam consists of believers.  To discover what believers are and what they do, read 9:111 & 49:15.

..."ending this conflict once and for all and achieving a comprehensive regional peace is imperative for safeguarding Israelis’ future."

ending this conflict once and for all

    A single kernel of truth in a massive pile of feces.

"We also look at our friends the Palestinians, and we remember the painful history of a people who have never had a state of their own, and we are renewed in our determination to help them finally realize their legitimate aspirations. The lack of peace and the occupation that began in 1967 continue to deprive the Palestinian people of dignity and self-determination. This is unacceptable, and, ultimately, it too is unsustainable."

our friends

    Israel is our friend, we should be theirs.  Falestinians are our enemies, not our friends.

state of their own

    Some of them had Egypt, others had Jordan,  Iraq or Yemen.    They occupied Israel; they have no right to it..   

..."bring a just, lasting, and comprehensive peace to the Middle East based on two states for two peoples."

two states for two peoples.

    Israel and the Hashemite Kingdom of Trans-Jordan; what did that solve? What will the creation of another Falestinian state solve? What is the difference between the Falestinians and the majority  in Jordan?

...:their respective aspirations; for the Israelis, security and recognition; for the Palestinians, an independent, viable sovereign state of their own."

aspirations

1. Reconquest of Israel.
2. Global conquest. 

"There is no alternative other than reaching mutual agreement."

no alternative

    There is no alternative to victory!

..."they have not yet made the difficult decisions that peace requires."

difficult decisions

1. Abandon  Islam.
2. Abandon Jihad.
3. Recognize Israel's right to exist.

..."moving forward with refocused goals and expectations."

refocused goals and expectations

    Forcing Israel to commit suicide.

"It is time to grapple with the core issues of the conflict on borders and security; settlements, water and refugees; and on Jerusalem itself"

core issues

    Islam, jihad, genocide, terrorism.  There are no other issues.

borders

    Israel's borders with Jordan & Egypt, Lebanon & Syria.

security

    Eliminate Islam from a circle whose center is Jerusalem and whose radius is the longest rocket range.

settlements

    Remove the Muslim settlements from Israel.

refugees

    Resettle them in the Arab countries their ancestors left when they occupied Israel.

..."continue to urge the states of the region to develop the content of the Arab Peace Initiative and to work toward implementing its vision."

Arab Peace Initiative

    Reconquest of Israel followed by the rest of the world. 

"Significantly, both sides decided together to pursue a framework agreement that would establish the fundamental compromises on all permanent status issues and pave the way for a final peace treaty."

decided together

    Abbas never took the first step toward that objective, he dragged his feet all the way.

..."the parties can begin to rebuild confidence, demonstrate their seriousness, and hopefully find enough common ground on which to eventually re-launch direct negotiations and achieve that framework."

rebuild confidence

    That sentence is full of  code phrases  for "surrender first, then we can talk about the terms".

"The Palestinian leaders must be able to show their people that the occupation will be over."

occupation will be over

    The occupation will be over when the Arabs go home. When will they leave Israel?

"Israeli leaders must be able to offer their people internationally recognized borders that protect Israel’s security."

borders

    Borders  do not stop rockets, mortars, artillery shells or homicide bombers, regardless of international recognition.  When Israel built a wall to protect her citizens, the whole world condemned it.

"Second, on refugees. This is a difficult and emotional issue, but there must be a just and permanent solution that meets the needs of both sides."

refugees

    Arab leaders told them to evacuate, clearing the way for their armies to exterminate the Jews. They failed. That's tough. You lost, get over it and go home to Egypt and Jordan, where you belong.

"The position of the United States on settlements has not changed and will not change. Like every American administration for decades, we do not accept the legitimacy of continued settlement activity. We believe their continued expansion is corrosive not only to peace efforts and two-state solution, but to Israel’s future itself."

settlements

    For what good reason should Jews not live where their ancestors lived before Rome expelled them from their homeland?  For what good reason should Jews not live in Hebron, where their ancestors are buried?   Why should any part of the world be judenrein?  

"And finally, on Jerusalem which is profoundly important for Jews, Muslims, and Christians everywhere. There will surely be no peace without an agreement on this, the most sensitive of all the issues. The religious interests of people of all faiths around the world must be respected and protected. We believe that through good faith negotiations, the parties should mutually agree on an outcome that realizes the aspirations for both parties, for Jerusalem, and safeguard its status for people around the world."

Jerusalem

    Why should Jews not live in the city King David built up, where King Solomon built the  Temple?  In 1948, when King Hussein illegally seized half the city, he promised to allow access. He violated that vow, excluding Jews, desecrating synagogues & cemeteries. Why should that  injustice be repeated??

religious interests

    What religious interest?  Moe had a nightmare in which he rode a flying mule with the face of a woman from Medina to Jerusalem and from there to Paradise where he met the Prophets.  The Jews had Jerusalem as their capital city and built their Temple there. Jesus was crucified there. How does Moe's dream match those interests and connections??

..."maintaining pressure on Hamas to end the weapons smuggling and accept the fundamental principles of peacemaking – recognizing Israel, renouncing violence, and abiding by past agreements. This is the only path to achieve Palestinians’ dreams of independence."

pressure on Hamas

    What pressure?  Who ever stopped or even  slowed their rearmament?  Yeah, right, and Res 1701 would prevent Hexbollah from rearming.

recognizing Israel

    What makes any fool think that will ever happen? Hamas is Islam. Islam is Hamas. Islam is a religious obligation to exterminate Jews and conquer the world.  Has Hillary ever considered reading the Charter of Hamas?

renouncing violence

    You might as well demand that they renounce Islam!

past agreements

    Arafat made an agreement, and never implemented any of its provisions.  Hamas never made any agreement with Israel, what fool expects them to abide by the Oslo Accords?

"As the Palestinian security forces continue to become more professional and capable, we look to Israel to facilitate their efforts." ... "And we hope to see a significant curtailment of incursions by Israeli troops into Palestinian areas."

Palestinian security forces

    The grand scheme was that they would stop terror attacks. Instead of stopping  attacks, they participate in them.  Israel has to send troops in to arrest terrorists because the "security forces"  won't do it. They are not professional nor capable, neither are they willing. 

"The legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people will never be satisfied, and Israel will never enjoy secure and recognized borders until there is a two-state solution that ensures dignity, justice, and security for all."

legitimate aspirations

    Hillary has studied from Paul Joseph Goebbels, who said that a lie would be believed if repeated  with sufficient frequency. The sentence is redundant, and full of excrement.

"The United States and the international community cannot impose a solution. Sometimes I think both parties seem to think we can. We cannot. And even if we could, we would not, because it is only a negotiated agreement between the parties that will be sustainable. The parties themselves have to want it."

parties must want peace

    "From the river to the sea."  "A million martyrs marching to Jerusalem!"  Yeah, right, they want peace; give it to them!  How many MOABs would it take?

"Palestinians must appreciate Israel’s legitimate security concerns  And Israelis must accept the legitimate territorial aspirations of the Palestinian people."

legitimate territorial aspirations

    What is legitimate about "from the river to the sea"?  

"They should help build confidence, work to minimize distractions, and focus on the core questions, even in a period when they are not talking directly."

build confidence

    I already dissected that  crap; the sentence is redundant, an attempt to  summarize a manure pile.

"Across the Middle East, moderates and advocates of peace and coexistence will be strengthened, while old arguments will be drained of their venom and the rejectionists and extremists will be exposed and marginalized."

rejectionists and extremists

    What was it the Arab League said? No recognition, no peace, no negotiation?   Islam's deity commanded perpetual warfare; its Profit exemplified it, along with terrorism and genocide. Moe was the founder of Islam, not an extremist.  Genocidal jihad  is the core of Islam, it is not extremism!

    Those arrogant Harvard lawyers are so narcissistic  that they  believe they can simultaneously promise polar opposites to Arabs & Jews without anyone wising up.  Let this be a lesson to you in the 2012 election cycle. Be careful when voting and make no mistakes.

Sphere: Related Content

Iran sanctions: BHO administration says the right thing but...

THIS just in over the BBC:

29 September 2010 Last updated at 14:59 ET

US imposes sanctions on Iranian officials for 'abuses'

US President Barack Obama has ordered for the first time sanctions against senior Iranian officials for "sustained and severe violations of human rights".

The eight men include the head of the Revolutionary Guards, a former interior minister and the prosecutor general.

The treasury department said they would face a travel ban and asset freeze.

The alleged abuses include the killings and beatings of anti-government protesters after the disputed presidential election in June 2009.

Millions of Iranians defied official warnings and participated in mass rallies that drew the largest crowds since the Islamic Revolution in 1979.

The authorities launched a brutal crackdown, during which opposition and human rights groups accused the security forces of extra-judicial killings, rapes and torture. Thousands were held without charge.

Over the subsequent six months, at least 40 protesters were killed, although the opposition says more than 70 died. At least two people have been executed for related offences, and dozens imprisoned.

[...]

In a statement, the White House said: "As the president noted in his recent address to the United Nations General Assembly, human rights are a matter of moral and pragmatic necessity for the United States."

"The United States will always stand with those in Iran who aspire to have their voices heard. We will be a voice for those aspirations that are universal, and we continue to call upon the Iranian government to respect the rights of its people."

All of those named in the US sanctions list served in Iran's military, law enforcement and justice system around the time of the 2009 protests:...

There follows a list of those named in the sanctions, and a video clip of Secretary of State Clinton.

Check it out on the BBC here.

This declaration follows on the most recent symbol of disapproval of Iran, when the US and other nations walked out of the UN as the Iranian despot did his usual anti-Israel, anti-all- things-not-Iranian screed this past week.

My two questions are this: 1) what took you so long? and 2) what is the US actually going to do?



You KNOW I have more to say here.

Sphere: Related Content

Bye-bye Vice President Biden?

By Findalis of Monkey in the Middle

That is the speculation and prediction of Liz Peek.

Joe Biden has been a liability to the Obama Administration Regime since he was put on the ticket in 2008.  It seems the Vice President has Foot-in-Mouth Disease.  He opens his mouth and inserts his foot.  He has become an embarrassment and a political liability to this regime. Therefore he must go!

Ms. Peek predicts that Obama will cut loose Joe Biden in favor of Hillary Clinton.

Here’s a prediction: the Obama administration will bounce Joe Biden off the 2012 ticket, and invite Hillary Clinton to run in his stead.

The move will aim to bolster Obama’s standing and provide some excitement among core Democrats – something that Biden fails to provide. Hillary will agree, because just four years later she will be superbly positioned to run for president – ever the rainbow on her personal horizon.

At present, her polls are high, with 58% of voters viewing her at least somewhat favorably.

Wistful Dems who wonder these days what could have been will tout her hard work and pragmatic diplomacy as she chases one impossible Obama pipe dream after another to all corners of the globe.

Certain wishful Dems are hoping she will challenge Obama in a primary. I don’t think so. As Ted Kennedy found when he tried to pick off Jimmy Carter in 1980, even an unpopular incumbent is still an incumbent.

If the White House political team brings Clinton on board over the next year, they can remove whatever threat exists from that quarter. Meanwhile, Hillary can bide her time and husband her resources, eventually running against Obama’s legacy.

She will have better answers on health care, a subject she has studiously avoided discussing, and could adopt her husband’s centrist approach to trade and taxes to win over independents.

Up until President Eisenhower, the position of Vice President on a political ticket was easily changed.  FDR had 3 different VPs (John Nance Garner, Henry A. Wallace, and Harry S. Truman.).  So it isn't out of the question or against historical precedent.


Joe Biden was originally chosen for his experience in foreign affairs.  A skill it seems, judging from the last 2 years of this regime, neither Joe Biden or Barack Hussein Obama have or ever has aquired.

Nor has Hillary Clinton showed her great skill in foreign policy and foreign affairs in her tenure as Secretary of State.

In fact the trio remind on of the bumbling antics of the 3 Stooges.  It would be funny, but the price to our security is too high for such jokes or jokers.

I have always wondered why Joe Biden was brought onto the ticket.  He brought no electoral votes, no region of the nation to swing towards Obama, he is a bumbler, a fool at times, yet he and not Hillary was chosen to be the VP.  Could it be that the idea of President Biden is so horrible to the nation that the Congress will allow Obama to do anything to prevent that from happening?  Does Joe Biden make Obama safe from impeachment?  If so, why the change of heart?

This is all speculation and will not matter if Obama's polls continue to drop.  Who is going to vote for a President with a 20% or less approval rating?  Pretty much no one.  So regardless of who is on the ticket in 2012, as things look right now, Obama is a one-term President and should be considered a lame duck.

America's Foreign Policy Leaders!

Sphere: Related Content

Much Ado About Jerusalem!

By Findalis of Monkey in the Middle

Or Pardon Me Can I Steal Your Capital?

The Dry Bones Blog

Israel decides to build 1600 new and Joe Biden goes ballistic, Hillary Clinton has a cow, and David Axelrod starts foaming at the mouth.

The White House is raising the stakes with Israel, calling it an "insult" and an "affront" that the Jewish nation would continue plans to build 1,600 new apartments during a construction freeze aimed at re-igniting peace talks with Palestinians.

Palestinians have not sought as part of their capital the area of northeast Jerusalem where the Jewish settlement of Ramat Shlomo resides, but the decision to announce construction plans just as Vice President Joe Biden was visiting the region led to strained meetings that continues past his return.

Biden expressed his displeasure by showing up late to a dinner with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in order to issue a statement of condemnation.

On Sunday, President Obama's chief political adviser David Axelrod told ABC's "This Week" that the move undermines the fragile effort to bring peace to the troubled region and called the timing of the announcement "very destructive."

Axelrod would not say what has been discussed in diplomatic talks but suggested the decision by Israel was "calculated to undermine" peace talks with the Palestinians. He added that because Israel is a special ally to the United States "for just that very reason that was not the right way to behave."

But White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Netanyahu's apology on Sunday was a "good start" to rebuild trust, but more needs to be done.

"I think what would be an even better start is coming to the table with constructive ideas for constructive and trustful dialogue about moving the peace process forward," Gibbs said.

"There's no doubt that events like last week weaken the trust that's needed for both sides to come together and have honest discussions about peace in the Middle East. So there's no doubt that that was not a bright spot for the Israeli government."

The State Department on Friday outlined what was described as a stern 45-minute call by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton to the prime minister. The unusually tough dressing down reportedly took Netanyahu by surprise. On Sunday he announced plans to set up a committee to review processes to ensure an embarrassment like the one with Biden doesn't happen again.

Though Netanyahu had not included East Jerusalem in an earlier decision to halt construction for 10 months, the Jerusalem District Planning and Building committee canceled two meetings scheduled for this week after Clinton's call, Haaretz newspaper reported Sunday.

Now can somebody, anybody tell me when Israel conceded any part, any neighborhood, any square millimeter of Jerusalem?  Do you know who conceded the city of Jerusalem to the Arabs?
Barack Hussein Obama!  In his speech in Cairo!  That is correct.  No Israeli leader will ever surrender the City of David, the Capital of Ancient and Modern Israel willingly and without a fight.

Not after the last time.

For the last year President Obama has been trying to force Israel to put Jerusalem under the control of the UN.  On one hand Obama cries he is a friend of Israel, while on the other hand he sends his lackeys to do his dirty work.  Just like the corrupt Chicago Politician he is.

Only G-d know what is going to happen when both Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton meet at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s (AIPAC) annual policy conference next week.

Yet the people of Jerusalem, in fact of Israel have voiced their desire to keep Jerusalem now and forever!

The Hurva Synagogue, also known as Hurvat Rabbi Yehudah he-Hasid ("Ruin of Rabbi Judah the Pious"), is a historic synagogue located in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem.

Traditions for a synagogue in the area date from the 2nd century. In the early 1700s, followers of Judah he-Hasid founded a synagogue at the site, but it was destroyed a few years later, in 1721. The plot lay in ruins for over 140 years and became known as the Ruin, or Hurva. In 1864, the Perushim built a new synagogue on the site. Although officially named the Beis Yaakov Synagogue, it retained its name as the Hurva and became Jerusalem's main Ashkenazi synagogue until it too was reduced to rubble during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.

After the site came under Israeli control in 1967, a number of plans were submitted for the design of a new building. After years of deliberation and indecision, a commemorative arch was erected instead at the site in 1977, itself becoming a prominent landmark of the Jewish Quarter. The plan to rebuild the synagogue in its 19th century style received approval by the Israeli Government in 2000 and the newly rebuilt synagogue is due to be dedicated on March 15, 2010. The company involved with its reconstruction believe that restoring the synagogue to its former glory will once again make it serve as a center for World Jewry.

Source: Wikipedia

The Jordanians destroyed it fully in 1948, tonight will be the dedication of the rebuilt synagogue 62 years after its destruction.

Hundreds of people took part in a ceremony bringing a new Torah scroll into the restored Hurva Synagogue in the Old City's Jewish Quarter on Sunday. The ceremony in east Jerusalem was held under heavy security after the Palestinian Authority joined the Islamic Movement in its calls for Muslims to flock to the al-Aqsa Mosque in response to extremist Jews' plans to lay a cornerstone at the Temple Mount.

Among the celebrators was Knesset Member Michael Ben-Ari (National Union), who criticized the prime minister, saying, "(Benjamin) Netanyahu, who crushed his own national backbone and is leading to the division of Jerusalem, should have come here to draw strength from Hurva's restoration and display power instead of compromising Jerusalem's unity."

Torah scroll brought to Hurva Synagogue (Photo: Gil Yohanan)

Extreme rightists Itamar Ben-Gvir and Baruch Marzel were also on hand for the ceremony, during which a Torah scroll was placed in the restored synagogue.

The synagogue's dedication took place amid harsh criticism leveled at Israel, mainly by the US, over its decision to approve the construction of 1,600 housing units in east Jerusalem prior to the launching of indirect talks with the Palestinians.

One of the Jewish celebrators told Ynet, "We are here to say to the world that all of Jerusalem will remain ours for eternity. If the dedication of a synagogue in the Jewish Quarter angers the Obama Administration, then Netanyahu should choose another partner."

Yes we will not willingly surrender Jerusalem.  Not this year,not ever.  To quote Eliezer ben Yisrael (Stanley Goldfoot) A Letter to the World from Jerusalem:

For the first time since the year 70 there is now complete religious freedom for all in Jerusalem. For the first time since the Romans put the torch to the Temple everyone has equal rights. (You preferred to have some more equal than others.) We loathe the sword – but it was you who forced us to take it up. We crave peace – but we are not going back to the peace of 1948 as you would like us to.

We are home. It has a lovely sound for a nation you have willed to wander over the face of the globe. We are not leaving. We have redeemed the pledge made to our forefathers: Jerusalem is being rebuilt. “Next year” – and the year after, and after, until the end of time – “in Jerusalem!”

Now and forever this promise, this vow will NOT be forgotten or ignored!

One City Forever!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On a personal note:  I will be trying to cross post here at Miss Beth's Victory Dance until everyone associated with this fine blog is able to post again.  I do hope everyone who posts such fine articles will be able to do so once again.  -- Findalis

Sphere: Related Content

H.R. Clinton: Free Speech

Remarks on the Human Rights Agenda for the 21st Century


Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Georgetown University's Gaston Hall
Washington, DC
December 14, 2009

In our first session, we cosponsored the successful resolution on Freedom of Expression, a forceful declaration of principle at a time when that freedom is jeopardized by new efforts to constrain religious practice, including recently in Switzerland, and by efforts to criminalize the defamation of religion – a false solution which exchanges one wrong for another. And in the United Nations Security Council, I was privileged to chair the September session where we passed a resolution mandating protections against sexual violence in armed conflict.

The Secretary of State packed three lies into the single sentence quoted above.

1. The cited resolution is not a forceful declaration of principle. While it is acclaimed as a rejection of the concept of 'defamation of religion', it embraces 'negative stereotyping' as a grounds for outlawing expression, a distinction without a difference. The clear intention is to make criticism of Islam a criminal offense.
2. The Swiss ban on minaret construction does not impair practice, it outlaws erection of a symbol of supremacism. I find no mention of minarets in the Hilali & Khan Noble Qur'an translation. I find no reference to the construction of minarets in the four top hadith collections & Ibn Kathir's Tafsir except to the rebuilding of one destroyed by fire.
3. There is no wrong to exchange; declaration of the fact that Muhammad, founder of Islam, was a terrorist is not wrong, neither is it an act which should be criminalized. While the Motoons exaggerate, they expose reality. Exposing the violent verses of the Qur'an is not wrong, it is an an exposure of intrinsic evil, as in the case of Geert Wilders' documentary, Fitna. There is no justification for outlawing Fitna and the Motoons. Unlike Islamic scripture, they neither inculcate hatred nor incite violence. The riots which followed publication of the Motoons were incited by incendiary sermons at Juma Salat, not by the Motoons.

Sphere: Related Content

Religious Freedom Report: Suicidal Orwellianism

Remarks on the Release of the 2009 Annual Report on International Religious Freedom
2009 Report on International Religious Freedom.

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
October 26, 2009

The right to profess, practice, and promote one’s religious beliefs is a founding principle of our nation.

It is the first liberty mentioned in our Bill of Rights, and it is a freedom guaranteed to all people in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Our founders made an understandable oversight, relying on the traditional acceptance of institutions popularly considered to be religions, perhaps because they did not anticipate the development of modern transportation with its resultant increase in immigration which brought Islam to the West.

Unfortunately, Islam does not fit the pattern for two reasons. First, it is a war cult, not a legitimate religion, being founded for a mercenary mission. Second, it is intolerant and violent, denying others the tolerance and respect it demands from them.

The practice of Islam involves Jihad, and Jihad involves terrorism & genocide. How can that be tolerated?

We commend Jordan’s role in initiating the common word dialogue...

The Common Word Between Us and You, a missive from the Ulema to Pope Benedict XVI, is a pious fraud. Christianity and Islam have nothing in common except what Islam plagiarized from Judaism & Christianity,

These important efforts build on the shared values and common concerns of faith communities to sow the seeds of lasting peace.

Christianity values life and peace. Islam values war and death. We have no shared values.

Now, some claim that the best way to protect the freedom of religion is to implement so-called anti-defamation policies that would restrict freedom of expression and the freedom of religion. I strongly disagree. The United States will always seek to counter negative stereotypes of individuals based on their religion and will stand against discrimination and persecution.

Anti-defamation policies have nothing to do with protecting freedom of religion. Their purpose is to protect Islam from truthful criticism. The OIC and their allies are complaining of and campaigning for the criminalization of "negative stereotyping of religions", particularly association of terrorism with Islam.

But an individual’s ability to practice his or her religion has no bearing on others’ freedom of speech. The protection of speech about religion is particularly important since persons of different faiths will inevitably hold divergent views on religious questions. These differences should be met with tolerance, not with the suppression of discourse.

The proper practice of Islam involves warfare for the purpose of making it dominant. Islam perceives our freedom of expression as an impairment of their demonic duty to enforce Islamic law, which prescribes the death penalty for any negative expression about Allah, Muhammad and their doctrines & practices.

Based on our own experience, we are convinced that the best antidote to intolerance is not the defamation of religion’s approach of banning and punishing offensive speech, but rather, a combination of robust legal protections against discrimination and hate crimes, proactive government outreach to minority religious groups, and the vigorous defense of both freedom of religion and expression.

In its practical implementation, "proactive government outreach to minority religious groups" means appeasement of Islam.

So it is our hope that the International Religious Freedom Report will encourage existing religious freedom movements around the world and promote dialogue among governments and within societies on how best to accommodate religious communities and protect each individual’s right to believe or not believe, as that individual sees fit.

If the Secretary would read Sahih Bukhari 1.8.387, she might learn that only Muslims have rights. How can we have rights when our blood and property are not sacred to Muslims?


The secretary called on Assistant Secretary Michael Posner to elaborate further on the report

Briefing on the Release of the 2009 Annual Report on International Religious Freedom


Michael H. Posner
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor

QUESTION: Can I ask – the Secretary was quite strong in her comments about the defamation laws that – U.S. opposition to – well, perhaps not defamation laws, but I think this refers to something at the Human Rights Council. Is that – that’s correct? Can you elaborate a little bit more on that? And I thought it was sufficiently watered down or defeated that – and that that met your concerns.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY POSNER: There are really two separate issues that have been raised and sometimes conflated at the United Nations. I was part of the delegation last month at the Human Rights Council, where we actually joined with Egypt in promoting a resolution on freedom of expression that did, in fact, meet our concerns. There was a debate in the context of that about how to deal with issues of defamation, and we agreed after much negotiation, much discussion, that there is a legitimate subject as to whether or not an individual, an individual of any particular faith, can be defamed and whether that kind of harassment or discrimination is to be condemned. It clearly is.

Assistant Secretary Posner wants us to believe that the concept of defamation was excluded from the recently passed Freedom of Opinion and Expression Resolution. Like most politicians, his words are deceptive. The concept is present, slightly disguised. [Emphasis added.]

6. Recognizes the positive contribution that the exercise of the right to freedom of expression, particularly by the media, including through information and communication technologies such as the Internet, and full respect for the freedom to seek, receive and impart information, can make to the fight against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance and to preventing human rights abuses, but expresses regret about the promotion by certain media of false images and negative stereotypes of vulnerable individuals or groups of individuals, and about the use of information and communication technologies such as the Internet for purposes contrary to respect for human rights, in particular the perpetration of violence against and exploitation and abuse of women and children and disseminating racist and xenophobic discourse or content;

"Related intolerance" is a code phrase for "Islamophobia", which is a code word for any negative expression about Islam, which is considered defamation. "false images and negative stereotypes" and "racist" are codes for criticism of Islam. If you have been reading my posts, you know that those codes refer to the Danish Cartoons and Fitna, the short video documentary by Geert Wilders. See You've Been Mooned for the proof.

There’s a second resolution that was promoted – that’s been promoted by the Islamic Conference at the UN, which is a broader defamation of religion resolution. It’s being debated, in fact, in one form right now. And it goes, we think, too far in restricting free speech – the notion that a religion can be defamed and that any comments that are negative about that religion can constitute a violation of human rights, to us, violates the core principle of free speech which is so central to us in our own system.

There is one little detail he does not tell us: that other forum is working on a protocol to ICERD, which will be enforcible international law, not a non-binding resolution. .

When asked about misogyny, whether it was of religious origin:

ASSISTANT SECRETARY POSNER: No, I reject that. I think the major religions of the world are all predicated based on assumptions of humanity and ethical behavior. The fact that people take a kind of extreme view and interpret religions in a way that promotes violence and discrimination, I think, is an aberration. That’s part of the purpose of this report. I think we are all mindful of the fact that people of deep faith throughout the world are driven by and motivated by their religious beliefs. We want to encourage that. And we want to discourage people who misuse that faith in a way that’s going to undermine basic human rights.

He thinks that all major religions are predicated on humanity and ethical behavior. He thinks that extremists interpret Islam in a way that promotes violence and discrimination, which are abberations. Does he actually know anything about Islam? I doubt it. In Islam, women are chatle property, literally fields to be plowed. Muslims have Allah's permission to beat their wives. Women are inferior in intelligence and religion.

Violence and discrimination are also intrinsic and foundational. Mr. Posner would know that if he had read Book O of Reliance of the Traveller.

Introduction

First, religious freedom is the birthright of all people, regardless of their faith or lack thereof. Enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international instruments, the freedom to profess, practice, and propagate one's faith must be respected by all societies and governments. The United States takes this obligation seriously. "America will always stand," the President said in his Ramadan message to Muslims, "for the universal rights of all people to speak their mind, practice their religion, contribute fully to society, and have confidence in the rule of law."

There is an absolute right to profess, practice and propagate, regardless of the substance of the faith; its doctrines and practices. If the doctrines include supremacism & triumphalism and the practices include conquest, genocide & terrorism, that's ok with our Department of State. It ain't ok with me; is it with you? What they did in Beslan and are doing in Darfur is foundational to Islam. It is intrinsic and inseverable; impossible to reform. Who gives a damn? Certainly not our government.

Al-Anfal 39 commands warfare against pagans until resistance ceases and only Allah is worshiped on a global scale. Al Anfal 12 declares that Allah will cast terror and orders Muslims to decapitate their victims and cut off their fingers and toes. Al-Anfal 60 orders Muslims to build armies and stock up on weapons with which to terrify their enemies. Al-Anfal 67 informs us that while Moe wanted ransom money, Allah prefers great slaughter. At-Taubah 29 commands Muslims to make war on Christians & Jews until they are subjugated and extorted. Moe confirmed the order by declaring that he was ordered to fight with men until they became Muslims and that their blood and property were not sacred to Muslims until they did so. Those doctrines are foundational to Islam [3:7], can't be abandoned and can't be changed.

By expressing agreement with the false concept of an absolute right to Jihad, our Federal Government is engaging in civilizational suicide.
Executive Summary

`Multilateral, Global, and Regional Challenges to Religious Freedom

In addition to these country-by-country concerns, the wide spectrum of efforts to undermine the right to religious freedom extends to multilateral, regional, and global fora. For instance, over the past decade, the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), an inter-governmental organization comprising 57 states with majority or significant Muslim populations, has worked through the United Nations (UN) to advance the concept of "defamation of religions" by introducing annual resolutions on this subject at the UN Human Rights Council and UN General Assembly. While the United States deplores actions that exhibit disrespect for particular religious traditions, including Islam, we do not agree with the "defamation of religions" concept because it is inconsistent with the freedoms of religion and expression.

"While the United States deplores actions that exhibit disrespect for particular religious traditions, including Islam"; then the United States deplores this blog post. because it tells the truth about Islam. Since when is truth defamatory? What is wrong; deplorable about naming and shaming the enemy?

The United States understands the primary concern of the resolution to be the negative stereotyping of members of religious groups, particularly minority groups, and the contribution of such stereotypes to disrespect and discrimination. The United States shares concerns about the impact of negative stereotypes and believes that such stereotyping, particularly when promoted by community, religious, or government leaders, contributes to disrespect, discrimination, and in some cases, to violence. The United States, however, believes the best way for governments to address these issues is to develop robust legal regimes to address acts of discrimination and bias-inspired crime; to condemn hateful ideology and proactively reach out to all religious communities, especially minority groups; and to defend vigorously the rights of individuals to practice their religion freely and to exercise their freedom of expression.

"The United States shares concerns about the impact of negative stereotypes and believes that such stereotyping, particularly when promoted by community, religious, or government leaders, contributes to disrespect, discrimination, and in some cases, to violence." Jihad, genocide & terrorism are intrinsic sacraments of Islam. That is a fact, not stereotyping. The terror attacks at Beslan, London, Madrid & Washington D.C. were perpetrated by young Muslim Males who shouted "Allahhu Akbar" as they murdered innocent victims. Only a damn fool can tolerate the continued propagation of the damnable doctrines which motivated those men to murder for the promise of eternity in a celestial bordello.

"To condemn hateful ideology"? Why don't they condemn Islam? Don't they know that it curses us and declares perpetual war against us? Don't they know that it declares genocide as a prerequisite to Judgment Day, when they hope to gain admission to the celestial bordello?

"Proactively reach out to all religious communities, especially minority groups"; those are code words for appeasement. A lot of good that foolishness has done Israel in the last 60 years. Are these fools incapable of learning?

With their lips, our Department of State pays lip service to freedom of speech. With their pen, they co-authored a UNHRC resolution which erodes that freedom, while ignoring the composition of a protocol to ICERD which will criminalize all criticism of Islam, effectively nullifying our First Amendment.

Sphere: Related Content

Puzzled In Gaza

By Findalis

The world has been screaming about the horror that Gaza has become due to Operation Cast Lead. That it is all in shambles, thousands of innocent civilians were wounded, hundreds of innocent civilians were killed. That the Israelis are the worse people on Earth since the Nazis. This sentiment has been echoed from the highest levels of many governments. Voices like Tony Blair, Hillary Clinton and President Obama. Congressmen Ellison and Baird plus that perennial loser John Kerry, have echoed these remarks, shouting that the time has come to cut off all funding from Israel. But they did not see the real picture that is Gaza. Only the Pallywood version that they were allowed to be shown.

What I saw was that there had been precision attacks made on all of Hamas' infrastructure. Does UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon criticize the surgical destruction of the explosives cache in the Imad Akhel Mosque, of the National Forces compound, of the Shi Jaya police station, of the Ministry of Prisoners? The Gazans I met weren't mourning the police state. Neither were they radicalized. As Hamas blackshirts menaced the street corners, I witnessed how passersby ignored them.

THERE WERE empty beds at Shifa Hospital and a threatening atmosphere. Hamas is reduced to wielding its unchallengeable authority from extensive air raid shelters which, together with the hospital, were built by Israel 30 years ago. Terrorized Gazans used doublespeak when they told me most of the alleged 5,500 wounded were being treated in Egypt and Jordan. They want it known that the figure is a lie, and showed me that the wounded weren't in Gaza. No evidence exists of their presence in foreign hospitals, or of how they might have gotten there.

From the mansions of the Abu Ayida family at Jebala Rayes to Tallel Howa (Gaza City's densest residential area), Gazans contradicted allegations that Israel had murderously attacked civilians. They told me again and again that both civilians and Hamas fighters had evacuated safely from areas of Hamas activity in response to Israeli telephone calls, leaflets and megaphone warnings.

Seeing Al-Fakhora made it impossible to understand how UN and press reports could ever have alleged that the UNWRA school had been hit by Israeli shells. The school, like most of Gaza, was visibly intact. I was shown where Hamas had been firing from nearby, and the Israeli missile's marks on the road outside the school were unmistakable. When I met Mona al-Ashkor, one of the 40 people injured running toward Al-Fakhora - rather than inside it as widely and persistently reported - I was told that Israel had warned people not to take shelter in the school because Hamas was operating in the area, and that some people had ignored the warning because UNWRA previously told them that the school would be safe. Press reports that fatalities numbered 40 were denied.

I WAS TOLD stories at Samouni Street which contradicted each other, what I saw and later media accounts. Examples of these inconsistencies are that 24, 31, 34 or more members of the Fatah Samouni family had died. That all the deaths occurred when Israel bombed the safe building it had told 160 family members to shelter in; the safe building was pointed out to me but looked externally intact and washing was still hanging on a line on one of its balconies. That some left the safe building and were shot in another house. That one was shot when outside collecting firewood. That there was no resistance - but the top right hand window of the safe building (which appears in a BBC Panorama film Out of the Ruins" aired February 8) has a black mark above it - a sign I was shown all day of weaponry having been fired from inside. That victims were left bleeding for two or three days.

The media have manufactured and examined allegations that Israel committed a war crime against the Samounis without mentioning that the family are Fatah and that some of its members are still missing. They have not considered what might flow from those facts: that Hamas might have been active not only in the Samouni killings but in the exertion of force on the Samounis to accuse Israel.

THE GAZA I saw was societally intact. There were no homeless, walking wounded, hungry or underdressed people. The streets were busy, shops were hung with embroidered dresses and gigantic cooking pots, the markets were full of fresh meat and beautiful produce - the red radishes were bigger than grapefruits. Mothers accompanied by a 13-year-old boy told me they were bored of leaving home to sit on rubble all day to tell the press how they'd survived. Women graduates I met in Shijaya spoke of education as power as old men watched over them.

No one praised their government as they showed me the sites of tunnels where fighters had melted away. No one declared Hamas victorious for creating a forced civilian front line as they showed me the remains of booby trapped homes and schools.

From what I saw and was told in Gaza, Operation Cast Lead pinpointed a totalitarian regime's power bases and largely neutralized Hamas's plans to make Israel its tool for the sacrifice of civilian life.

What the writer saw and heard was the truth. Not what Hamas wanted the world to see, but the actual truth behind what happened. But the Moonbats in the world will only listen to Hamas' lies and scream out that there was an atrocity committed in Gaza by the Israelis.

And what does the US government do? The allocate $900 million for Gaza reconstruction. Almost a Billion Dollars to flow into the hands of Hamas. A Billion Dollars for weapons, for rockets, for terrorizing innocent Israelis. A Billion Dollars to steal and put in their personal Swiss Bank Accounts. And yet, this same administration cannot find a single dollar to help rebuild the City of New Orleans, especially the lower 9th Ward.

And where does the US get this money from? You guess it. The American Tax Payer. Congratulations America! You have a new partner in the world: Hamas! I am sure you are all very happy with this idea and will take them into your bosom. After all, they will now be your biggest partners in your War against Terror, War against Islamic Fascism, War on Israel. How wonderful for you!

Sphere: Related Content

Is Hillary Clinton Eligible to Serve as Secretary of State?

Is Hillary Clinton Eligible to Serve as Secretary of State?

Not until 2013, says Judicial Watch:

According to the Ineligibility Clause of the United States Constitution, no member of Congress can be appointed to an office that has benefited from a salary increase during the time that Senator or Representative served in Congress. A January 2008 Executive Order signed by President Bush during Hillary Clinton's current Senate term increased the salary for Secretary of State, thereby rendering Senator Clinton ineligible for the position.

Specifically, Article I, section 6 of the U.S. Constitution provides "No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time." The provision is seen by most as designed by our Founding Fathers to protect against corruption...Continue reading on Judicial Watch >>

Sphere: Related Content

Introducing Vice Presidential Candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton...

(Cross Post from Highly Opinionated)

It's coming down to the wire. Obama has states, and Clinton has votes, I read on another analysis about the Democratic contest. Stacking the two candidates up side by side, what's the difference, really, when it comes down to it? They both want to socialize...everything. They both are liberals. They both have basically blown off their senate terms in the race for the White House. Neither of them gives a rat's ass about our troops mission in Iraq, and the damage that would be done if we pulled out our combat forces and left non-combat forces behind. They're both willing to surrender to terrorists by cutting and running. They're both clueless on how to handle the economy. They're both desirous to raise taxes on the American people. And despite claims to the contrary, they're both are really, technically, within range of picking up enough delegates to put either one over the top to be the nominee. Obama is ahead in number of delegates, but Team Clinton has pulled rabbits out of their as...errrr...hats, before.

But realistically, it does look like Obama is going to be the front runner to come out of the nominating process and head into the general election come November to face McCain. Barring, that is, something untoward happening to Obama in June, as Clinton inferred the other day, causing such an uproar, referencing the assassination of Bobby Kennedy in 68. Perhaps she knows Sirhan Sirhan's relatives?

I digress.

Many pundits have referred to an Obama/Clinton ticket as a way to bridge the gap that has been created in the Democratic party this election cycle. Bridging the gap, mending the rift, sewing up the split crotch in the straddle of the pants, whatever analogy you wish to use. Screaming Howard Dean and the other heads of the DNC would love nothing more than for this whole thing to be over and done with so that they can get back to the business at hand for the Democratic Party.

Robbing the American public blind.

Um, I mean, doing the people.

Doing the people's business. That's it, doing the people's business. Doing business to the American People. Or ON the American people. OH WAIT, doing business FOR the American people.

Ok, now we're back on track and are phrasing things correctly in order to mislead people more than we had intended (to paraphrase the late Peter Jennings).

Since there is basically no difference between Obama and Clinton other than that she's a woman and he's a man, and of course that skin issue (referring to thickness, and his lack of it, I'll leave the race issue to the Democrats), why not put the two of them together on the ticket as a team, him for President since he's in the lead, her for VP since she's, well, not in the lead...

Let's look at the pro's list for teaming the two of them up in this capacity, shall we? You'd have a Presidential candidate who's running mate would be totally and completely on board with turning the United States into a socialist regime, you'd have a Presidential candidate and running mate who would be totally and completely on board. They both seem to have a bit of trouble differentiating between fact and fiction, they both have controversial spouses, they are both lawyers (back to that trouble differentiating between fact and fiction again), neither has any executive experience, and both will be willing to hand us over, lock, stock, and barrel, to the United Nations.

Isn't that a fabulous dream ticket? If this was some sort of Science Fiction movie, one could argue that really, Obama and Hillary are the same person. That would work out well for Bill, come to think of it, because then he'd have access to Michelle...hmmmmmmmmmm. Okay, let's not go there, shall we? The thought of Clinton and his willy...anyway. Policy wise Obama and Clinton are virtually indistinguishable.

Let's leave it there.

Then there is the popularity issue. He has roughly half the Democrats sewn up and on his side, so does she. Put the two of them together, and you have almost the entire Democratic party all sewn up and in one giant happy bed together. A veritable orgy of liberal-socialist policy and program planning for the next four years. And since the Democrats are the party who are so very much in favor of gay marriages, civil unions, free love, and all that, yes, I do think that orgy is an appropriate term for the Obama/Clinton years to come.

Why is that? Think about it, very, very carefully. At every orgy, someone is going to get fucked.

Grab your vaseline, America, and get ready. If either or both of these two win in November, you can guess who's gonna get fucked for the next four years...

Just an observation.

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man

.

Sphere: Related Content

Liberals Agree With Conservatives About The Clintons?

Cross posted from Spree at Wake Up America!

(Cartoon by Glenn McCoy at Townhall)
When Bill and Hillary Clinton were bare-knuckle fighting the Conservatives in this country, the liberals all bought in to their "vast right wing conspiracy" theory; now that their tactics, lies and underhanded tricks are being used against the other members of the left, lo and behold, the liberals are starting to notice some thing they don't like about the Clinton Duo.

Poetic justice and greatly amusing at that.

Let me start with Hillary's latest gambit which is causing a little firestorm on the left side of the blogosphere and then I will get into the harshest outright criticisms of Hillary and Bill, about their "character"--again using the words from liberals.

I did a few pieces on the DNC refusing to sit the party delegates in states which broke the rules and moved their primaries forward; I even asked if they were slitting their own throats by making Michigan and Floria feel irrelevant, but they did and they agreed not to campaign there; in Michigan most candidates took their names off the ballot because of those agreements.

Hillary didn't.

Now Hillary wants to change the rules midstream, and you don't have to take my word for how the left is seeing through this gambit--we will show you how liberals are seeing it themselves.

Ezra Klein, a liberal, thinks this little game of Hillary's has the potential to tear the party itself apart:

This is the sort of decision that has the potential to tear the party apart. In an attempt to retain some control over the process and keep the various states from accelerating their primaries into last Summer, the Democratic National Committee warned Michigan and Florida that if they insisted on advancing their primary debates, their delegates wouldn't be seated and the campaigns would be asked not to participate in their primaries. This was agreed to by all parties (save, of course, the states themselves).

[...]

But if this pushes her over the edge, the Obama camp, and their supporters, really will feel that she stole her victory. They didn't contest those states because they weren't going to count, not because they were so committed to the DNC's procedural arguments that they were willing to sacrifice dozens of delegates to support it. It's as hard as hardball gets, and the end could be unimaginably acrimonious. Imagine if African-American voters feel the rules were changed to prevent Obama's victory, if young voters feel the delegate counts were shifted to block their candidate.

This next one shocked even me, because some liberals (as I will show below) might not like the Clintons, Hillary especially, but would be willing to hold their noses and vote for her anyway to keep a Republican out of the White House...not so with shamanic from NewsHoggers. Iff you have ever read NewsHoggers you already know they are so far to the left that they cannot even SEE the center anymore.

This is tough stuff for me to stomach, wanting a politics of aspiration and hope and progress. Call me crazy, but I have this thing that I do where when I agree to something, I do my best to fulfill my obligation to the agreement. I'd like to think it's possible to elect leaders who also do their best to fulfill their obligations.

But I look at Hillary Clinton's campaign and I see people lacking in goodwill, overcome by raw ambition, and devoid of principle. This is exactly what drove my parents and tens of millions of other Republicans crazy during the 90s, and I'm not looking forward to a repeat.

I'm crossing my fingers for John McCain if Clinton wins the nomination. I disagree with him on everything, but I'll take him over four more years of this kind of shady, leave no opponent standing politics.

Take a second to let that sink in. This radical left liberal would not just sit home on election night if Hillary was the nominee, but would actually go vote for McCain!!!!!

Pretty much makes Ezra's point above, wouldn't you say?

Lawyers, Guns and Money, perhaps not as radical as NewsHoggers, but still a liberal blog from the few times I have read it, starts off with "this is pretty appalling":

It's dirty business on the part of the Clinton campaign, no question. And cloaking the nasty little power grab with the language of democratic inclusion irritates me even more. I can't say that I'm completely surprised, but I would have preferred if Hillary had demonstrated more appreciation for party unity than this; it amounts to an effort to steal delegates.

As a side note...click that link and take a look at the comment section. They are even harsher, calling her out on exactly what she is.

You can find more liberals taking Hillary to task for this at Carpetbagger, Talking Points Memo and Rolling Stone.

That is simply but a small sample of the reactions against Hillary on the far left liberal side of the blogosphere and media.

Now for the meat and potatoes of this post, a very surprising article caught my eye from the Los Angeles Times Opinion page, from a liberal writer who seems to have just discovered what and who the Clintons are and finding their character, ethics and morals seriously lacking. (Notice this is written without mention of her latest little sleight of hand about the Michigan and Florida delegates)

The title itself gave me a huge chuckle when it asks "Is the right right on the Clintons?"

The sub header is just as amusing: "Hillary's campaign tactics are causing some liberals to turn against the couple."

Something strange happened the other day. All these different people -- friends, co-workers, relatives, people on a liberal e-mail list I read -- kept saying the same thing: They've suddenly developed a disdain for Bill and Hillary Clinton. Maybe this is just a coincidence, but I think we've reached an irrevocable turning point in liberal opinion of the Clintons.

The sentiment seems to be concentrated among Barack Obama supporters. Going into the campaign, most of us liked Hillary Clinton just fine, but the fact that tens of millions of Americans are seized with irrational loathing for her suggested that she might not be a good Democratic nominee. But now that loathing seems a lot less irrational. We're not frothing Clinton haters like ... well, name pretty much any conservative. We just really wish they'd go away.

It goes on to say the turning point for them was when the Clintons misrepresented what Barack Obama said about Ronald Reagan, they mention Hillary's email tactics against Obama before the New Hampshire primaries and goes straight into the robocalls happening now in South Carolina against Obama...lastly they find "the Clintons' habit of surrounding themselves with the most egregious characters: Dick Morris, Marc Rich and so on." (That was in relation to the Black Entertainment Television founder Robert L. Johnson invoking Obama's youthful drug use.)

The Clinton campaign is trying to make it seem as if the complaint is about negativity, and it is pointing out that Obama has criticized Hillary as well. That's what politicians are supposed to do when they compete for votes. But criticism isn't the same thing as lying and sleaze-mongering.

Am I starting to sound like a Clinton hater? It's a scary thought. Of course, to conservatives, it's a delicious thought.....

I am stopping there because I have no problem admitting that yes, it IS a delicious thought as well as poetic justice; the irony also comes into play.

But the conservatives might have had a point about the Clintons' character. Bill's affair with Monica Lewinsky jeopardized the whole progressive project for momentary pleasure. The Clintons gleefully triangulated the Democrats in Congress to boost his approval rating. They do seem to have a feeling of entitlement to power.

With all that said, they acknowledge that if Hillary ends up the Democratic nominee, with all those negatives they just listed themselves, they would probably hold their collective noses and vote for her again.

Talk about a lack of character...

Pot. Meet. Kettle.

From the right side of the blogosphere is some justified snark at the very fact it has taken members of the left 16 YEARS to FINALLY start seeing Bill and Hillary Clinton for what they are.

Captain Ed titles his piece "Rules? The Clintons Don't Need No Stinkin' Rules!" and PoliGazette asks if "Anyone really up for four years of this deceit?" That piece is appropriately named "Cheater".

Macsmind put the figures out there, a reminder of what happened under Bill Clinton when he held the office of presidency:

- GOP seats gained in House during Clinton: 48
- GOP seats gained in Senate under Clinton: 8
- GOP governorships under Clinton: 11
- GOP state legislative seats gained under Clinton: 1,254
- State legislatures taken over by GOP under Clinton: 9
- Democrat officeholders became Republicans under Clinton: 439

You can keep up with the firestorm of comments, blog posts and discussion about Hillary, Bill and this latest salvo in dirty politics, and left against left, over at memeorandum.

A quick note to the far liberal left here: You knew what they were and you didn't care as long as those tactics were only used against the right, so quit whining, quit bitching...... You are getting exactly what you deserve.

Sphere: Related Content