blog.Tribulationperiod.com

Believing the so called Axis of Evil wants Peace is Madness,

Far left liberals believe it is possible to have peace with Dialog,

There’s not a snowballs chance in Hades it could possibly be True,

The Evil Axis is Only interested in Dominating non-nuclear Neighbors,

Nothing is going to stop them from making the effort except 2nd Advent,

And It Won’t Prevent Islam Attack On Israel But Will End It at Armageddon!

The only type of peace that can come to the Middle East would is a false One!

June 9, 2009

http://www.tribulationperiod.com/

The three excerpts which follow make it crystal clear that nothing will stop the war in the Middle Age, which I believe is likely to start between 2010 and 2015. Dialog and Diplomacy or Force will not prevent it – It is coming! For Israel’s sake I hope they will defend rather than give up part of the land God gave to Jacob by promise.

They will be driven into the Negev regardless of what they do, but they shouldn’t profane their land inheritance by giving it up.

Hebrews 12:16,17 – Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright.

[17] For ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears.

WAKE UP AMERICA – LET ISRAEL DO HER THING!

TO BELIEVE THE EVIL AXIS WILL RESPOND TO DIPLOMATIC DIALOG IS INSANE – THEY WILL ONLY RESPOND TO A THREAT OF DESTRUCTION IF THEY ATTACK ISRAEL, AND IT MUST BE ONE WHICH THEY BELIEVE IS GENUINE!

DIALOG MIGHT PRODUCE A FALSE PEACE, BUT ONLY IF THEY THINK IT WILL GIVE THEM MORE TIME TO DEVELOP WMD FOR THE DESTRUCTION OF ISRAEL AND AMERICA.

Begin Excerpt from DEBKAfile

IAEA: Iran amasses enough low-grade uranium for a single nuclear bomb

June 5, 2009, 11:03 PM (GMT+02:00)

A report prepared by the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna estimates Iran has accumulated low-enriched uranium (1,339 kilos produced since November 2008 plus 839 kilos in stock) enough to convert into the quantity of high-enriched uranium needed for making a single nuclear bomb.

More than 7,000 uranium-enriching centrifuges were now installed at Natanz, 2,000 more than reported in February, the watchdog said.

DEBKAfile: Iran can be assumed to have amassed more fissile material than the agency has discovered.

Its officials admit that their investigations are stymied both in Iran and Syria, where the IAEA reported Friday, June 5 that its inspectors had found new traces of man-made uranium.

The particles were found at a nuclear site in Syria, but the inspectors say their composition does not match the k ind

of uranium associated with that site and is therefore suspicious.

The nuclear watchdog confirms that Iran continues to expand uranium enrichment despite three UN Security Council resolutions banning the process and imposing sanctions.

Begin Excerpt from Washington Post via Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs/Daily Alert

Supreme Leader of Iran: Muslim Nations “Hate America”

Thomas Erdbrink and William Branigin

Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei dismissed President Obama’s speech at Cairo University Thursday, saying that “beautiful speeches” could not remove the hatred felt in the Muslim world against America. “People of the Middle East, the Muslim region and North Africa…hate America from the bottom of their heart,” he said. “Even if [Obama] delivers hundreds of speeches and talks very sweetly, there will not be a change in how the Islamic countries perceive the United States.” Khamenei also denounced Israel as a “cancerous tumor in the heart” of the Islamic world. (Washington Post)

Begin Excerpt from YNet News

June 5, 2009

More undeclared uranium discovered in Syria

International Atomic Energy Agency finds traces of processed uranium at second site in Syria, leading to fears

of covert nuclear activity

Reuters

The UN nuclear watchdog has discovered traces of processed uranium at a second site in Syria, the agency said on Friday, heightening concern about possible undeclared atomic activity in the Arab state.

The International Atomic Energy Agency has been examining U.S. intelligence reports that Syria almost built a North Korean-designed nuclear reactor meant to yield weapons-grade plutonium before Israel bombed it to rubble in 2007.

Inspectors who found uranium particles at the remote desert site a year ago also found similar traces at a small research reactor in the capital Damascus which the IAEA knew about and checks once a year, a IAEA report said. These traces were different from Syria’s declared nuclear material inventory.

The IAEA said in February that inspectors had found enough traces of uranium in soil samples taken from the bombed site a year ago to constitute a significant find.

Friday’s report said “anthropogenic natural uranium particles” had also turned up in environmental swipe samples taken from hot cells of the Miniature Neutron Source Reactor (MNSR) facility in Damascus.

Syria, told of the IAEA’s discovery last month, sent a written response to the IAEA on Monday. But this did not not address the presence and origin of the particles and the UN watchdog was investigating a possible connection with the uranium particles found at the bombed site, the report said.

The IAEA said previously satellite pictures taken before the Israeli bombing revealed a building resembling a reactor.

Syria still withholding evidence
But the new report said Syria, citing national security, was still ignoring IAEA requests for wider access and documentation to back up its assertion that Israel’s target at Dair Alzour was a conventional military building.

The IAEA again urged Syria to provide additional data and trips to Dair Alzour and other, allegedly related locations to allow test-sampling of destroyed or salvaged equipment and debris removed before investigators were let into the country.

“It is clearly in Syria’s interest

to render to the agency the necessary cooperation and transparency if it wishes the agency to be able to corroborate its assertion about the nature of the Dair Alzour site,” the report said.

Syria’s only declared nuclear site is the old research reactor and it has no k

nown nuclear energy-generating capacity.

The report said Syria was also refusing to discuss satellite pictures the IAEA had offer to share with it. Syria had provided information regarding procurement of certain equipment and materials including a large quantity of graphite and large quantities of barium sulphate”, a compound sometimes used as a radiation shield in nuclear structures.

Syria had indicated the procurement efforts were civilian and non-nuclear, relating to water purification, the steel industry and shielding material for radiation therapy centers. It has claimed that the uranium particles retrieved from samples taken at Dair Alzour came from depleted uranium used in Israeli munitions, an assertion dismissed by the IAEA.

Syria has also suggested IAEA analyses were faulty and that satellite imagery Washington gave to the IAEA was fabricated.

Vienna diplomats said in March that Syria had told the IAEA it had built a missile facility on the desert tract hit by Israel, a disclosure apparently meant to reinforce the Syrian refusal to grant more IAEA access on national security grounds.

TO BELIEVE THE EVIL AXIS WILL RESPOND TO DIPLOMATIC DIALOG IS INSANE – THEY WILL ONLY RESPOND TO A THREAT OF DESTRUCTION IF THEY ATTACK ISRAEL, AND IT MUST BE ONE WHICH THEY BELIEVE IS GENUINE! DIALOG MIGHT PRODUCE A FALSE PEACE, BUT ONLY IF THEY THINK IT WILL GIVE THEM MORE TIME TO DEVELOP WMD FOR THE DESTRUCTION OF ISRAEL AND AMERICA.

Related News Stories VIA World News

IAEA finds undeclared uranium at second Syria site

The Star

VIENNA (Reuters) – The U.N. nuclear watchdog has discovered traces of processed uranium at a second site in Syria, the agency said on Friday, heightening concern about possible undeclared atomic activity in the…

Uranium found at second Syria site – IAEA

BBC News

The UN nuclear watchdog, the IAEA, says traces of undeclared man-made uranium have been found at a second site in Syria, at a reactor in Damascus. The IAEA is investigating US claims that a Syrian site…

New uranium traces found in Syria

Canoe

By George Jahn, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS VIENNA – The UN nuclear agency on Friday reported its second unexplained find of uranium particles at a Syrian nuclear site, in a probe sparked by suspicions that a remote…

UN: New Uranium Traces Found In Syria

CBS News

Nuclear Agency Reports New Uranium Find In Syria, No Progress In Syria, Iran Probes Comment On This Post VIENNA, Jun.

5, 2009 E-Mail Story Print Story Sphere Share Text Size: A A A (AP) The U.N nuclear agency…

Nuclear agency reports new uranium find in Syria, no progress in Syria, Iran probes

Star Tribune

VIENNA – The U.N nuclear agency on Friday reported its second unexplained find of uranium particles at a Syrian nuclear site, in a probe launched by suspicions that a remote desert site hit by Israeli warplanes…

Inspectors also report suspicious findings in Syria.

Austin American Statesman

TEHRAN, Iran — Iran has boosted its supply and output of reactor-grade nuclear material significantly, according to a U.N. report issued Friday. Meanwhile, in Syria, international inspectors reported…

Iran ‘steps up’ nuclear programme

Al Jazeera

Iran has significantly increased its production of enriched uranium, with almost 5,000 centrifuges now operating, according to a report by the the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The IAEA report,…

U.N. Nuke Watchdog Finds ‘Manmade’ Uranium in Syria

Fox News

The U.N. nuclear watchdog has discovered traces of “manmade” uranium at a second site in Syria, FOX News has confirmed, causing fresh concern about possible undeclared atomic activity in the Arab state. The…

IAEA says Iran, Syria are stalling

The News & Observer

VIENNA — The U.N. nuclear agency on Friday reported its second unexplained find of uranium particles at a Syrian nuclear site in a probe launched by suspicions that a remote desert site hit by Israeli…

Iran stepping up nuclear effort

Seattle Times

Iran has expanded its uranium-enrichment program and is impeding United Nations monitoring of the program, a report said Friday.

Inspectors said the country has sped up its production of nuclear fuel and…

Iran expands uranium efforts despite Obama’s offer of talks

The Miami Herald

WASHINGTON — Iran has expanded its uranium enrichment program and is impeding United Nations monitoring of its enrichment program, a confidential U.N. report said Friday. The actions suggest that Iran is…

Iran steps up pace of nuclear work

Denver Post

A week before Iran’s presidential election, atomic inspectors reported Friday that the country has sped up its production of nuclear fuel and increased its number of installed centrifuges to 7,200 — more…

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107

of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more detailed information go to:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.

You may use material originated by this site. However, if you wish to use any quoted copyrighted material from this site, which did not originate at this site, for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner from which we extracted it.

So Will The REAL Hillary Clinton Please Stand Up?

On 2nd thought – Mrs. Hyde has already stood Up!

Now Obama Werewolf Is Exposed In Full Moon Light!

Israel Is BEING Betrayed By Obama, Clinton, And Kerry,

And I am waiting to see what new horror comes on Israel,

But prophetically I have read the book and know the Ending,

There will be massive Death & Suffering before the story Ends!

The dramatic changes in U.S. policy coming out of the Obama Administration are occurring so rapidly it is difficult to keep up with them. The true personalities are now surfacing in many politicians that conservatives suspected were buried in guile in their inner beings. Today’s situation is very much like it was before Israel was driven into Babylonian captivity, and I believe these politicians will be responsible for Israel being driven into the Negev at some point in time between 2010 and 2015.

Jeremiah 5:30 to 6:1 – A wonderful and horrible thing is committed in the land; [31] The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule by their means; and my people love to have it so: and what will ye do in the end thereof

? [1] O ye children of Benjamin, gather yourselves to flee out of the midst of Jerusalem,

and blow the trumpet in Tekoa, and set up a sign of fire in Beth-haccerem: for evil appeareth out of the north, and great destruction.

The spiritual condition of Israel described in verses 30 & 31, before the Babylonians attacked from the north in verse 1, is much like it is today. Now, this prophecy in Jeremi ah, which w

as fulfilled almost 1600 years ago, is about to see a similar event, with Israel being attacked from the north and driven into the Negev Wilderness.

Revelation 12:6 – And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.

Zechariah 13:8 – And it shall come to pass, that in all the land, saith the Lord, two parts therein shall be cut off and die; but the third shall be left therein.

Begin Excerpt from Jerusalem Post

Hillary Clinton’s troubling transformation on Israel

June 7, 2009

MORTON A. KLEIN , THE JERUSALEM POST

When Hillary Clinton was New York’s junior US senator from 2001 to 2009, she was a vocal supporter of Israel. She was especially strong on Jerusalem, stating in a September 2007 position paper that she believed “Israel’s right to exist in safety as a Jewish state, with defensible borders and an undivided Jerusalem as its capital, must never be questioned.” Her spokesman even said “this paper is a reflection of her consistent policy… that hasn’t changed.” In June 2004, Clinton voted for the Senate resolution endorsing president George W. Bush’s letter to prime minister Ariel Sharon that envisaged Israel retaining “major Israeli population centers” in Judea and Samaria and “defensible borders” in any final peace agreement.

Clinton also repeatedly warned of the monumental dangers of Palestinian incitement to hatred and murder of Jews in their schools, media and mosques as having “dire consequences for peace for generations to come.” Clinton even said, “It is clear that the Palestinian Authority, as we see on PA TV, is complicit” in terrorist attacks and that we should condition US aid to the PA on a “cessation of Palestinian propaganda and hateful rhetoric.” It has taken only a matter of months to confirm that Secretary of State Clinton bears little resemblance to Senator Clinton on Israel issues.

NOW, SHE enthusiastically supports an unconditional increase in US aid to the PA and Gaza, of $900 million annually, a significant increase.

She also demands a total freeze on all Jewish building in Judea and Samaria and eastern Jerusalem. Interviewed on Al-Jazeera TV on May 19, Clinton said, “We want to see a stop to settlement construction, additions, natural growth – any kind of settlement activity. We made that very clear. I reinforced that last night at a dinner with Prime Minister Netanyahu.” She reiterated this even more strongly on May 27 in Egypt: “not some settlements, not outposts, not natural growth exceptions… And we intend to press that point.”

She also states publicly that the Obama administration will condition at least some of its efforts to prevent Iran becoming a nuclear power on Israel’s willingness to bow to pressure to make concessions to the same PA she once described as “complicit” in terrorism and

incitement. Speaking in April before the House Appropriations Committee, Clinton said that “for Israel to get the kind of strong support it’s looking for vis-a-vis Iran it can’t stay on the sideline with respect to the Palestinian and the peace efforts, that they go hand-in-hand.

Also, already in March, Clinton demanded Israel allow illegally built Palestinian Arab homes in eastern Jerusalem and prohibit legal building of Israeli/Jewish homes in eastern Jerusalem. Such Jewish construction, she said, was “unhelpful.” Suddenly, parts of an “undivided Jerusalem” are places where Jews may not move or build, even though Jews were a majority in eastern Jerusalem from the mid-1800s until 1948, when Jordan forced Jewish residents to flee, and are now a majority once again.

Jerusalem has always been the religious, historical and political capital of the Jewish people.

Clinton justifies her criticism of Jewish building by reference to the 2003 road map peace plan, which she claims Israel is not fulfilling.

Yet she doesn’t mention unfulfilled Palestinian road map obligations that were supposed to occur simultaneously, including an end

to the incitement, confiscating illegal weapons, cutting off all funding to terror groups and an immediate call for an end to all violence.

THESE VIOLATIONS were once taken seriously by Clinton – especially incitement. As she put it in an October 2003 Senate committee hearing at which I testified, “How can you think about building a better future, no matter what your political views, if you indoctrinate your children to a culture of death?” And again, in February 2007: “We must stop the propaganda… in idealizing for children a world without Israel, children are taught never to accept the reality of the State of Israel… We cannot build a peaceful, stable, safe future on such a hate-filled violent and radical foundation.

In the years since… there has still not been an adequate repudiation of this by the Palestinian Authority.”

Today, however, Clinton says nothing about incitement to hatred and murder. Thus, when interviewed this month on a PA-TV teen show and asked, “What would you do if your daughter was unfortunate enough to have been born under occupation, born deprived of freedom and liberty?” Clinton legitimized the question’s false premise and actually helped incite hatred against Israel by not refuting it while also ignoring the fact that 98 percent of Palestinians actually live under the PA or Hamas, not Israeli control.

She merely responded that she would give her the “best education I could for her… I would never give up on the dream of a Palestinian state.” That an alarming number of Palestinian parents have encouraged their children to become suicide bombers was somehow lost from Clinton’s response.

In short, Secretary of State Clinton is deaf to the words that US Senator

Clinton once passionately uttered. It is notable that her recent criticisms of Israel impelled New York Assemblyman Dov Hikind to observe, “I liked her a lot more as a senator from New York… Now, I wonder… who the real Hillary Clinton is.”

The writer is president of the Zionist Organization

of America.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.

We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more detailed information go to:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.

You may use material originated by this site. However, if you wish to use any quoted copyrighted material from this site, which did not originate at this site, for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner from which we extracted it.

Dhimmi Is The Submissive Surrender To Islamic Rule!

Europe is feeling future finger BY Islamic Immigration!

THE ONLY Transparency In The Obama Administration

Is represented by the Transparency OF ITS MANY Lies!

He says Christian leaders use Religion for Political Gain,

But he is a fine example of a pot calling the kettle Black!

Tommy DeSeno makes some Good Points about Dhimmi,

As It Could be Correlated with an Obama Administration,

Would You Like Existing As a “Humbled” Jew or Christian?

June 8, 2008

http://www.tribulationperiod.com/

The Koranic verse which dictates this fundamental character for dhimmitude is Sura 9:29:

“Fight against those who do not believe in Allah nor in the Last Day, and do not make forbidden what Allah and His Messenger have made forbidden, and do not practice the religion of truth, of those who have been given the Book [i.e. Jews and Christians], until they pay the jizya [head tax] readily and are humbled.”

The following excerpts are from an article by Mark Durie in August 2002, titled “The Dhimmitude of the West,” which appeared in the Newsletter for the Center for Islamic Studies, London Bible College.

Begin Excerpts

Dhimmitude is an Islamic phenomenon.

It defines the condition of submissive surrender to Islamic rule, yet without conversion to the Islamic faith. Under classical theological formulations developed in the first centuries of Islam, the region where Islam rules is known as Dar al-Islam ‘the House of Islam’.

From the very beginning the Dar al-Islam included many non-Muslims, indeed they were normally in the majority after initial conquest.

Based on the example of Muhammad’s dealings with the conquered Jewish farmers of Khaybar, Fadak, Tayma and Wadi-l Qura, the institution of the dhimma or ‘pact of protection’ was developed to provide for those who refused to convert to Islam. The dhimma was granted by the conquerors as one possible outcome of military jihad.

It assured the vanquished an institutional legal framework which guaranteed their religious freedom, and determined their social and economic place in the Islamic state. In return the people of the pact, or dhimmis, were required to pay tribute in perpetuity to the Muslim Community (Umma), and to adopt a position of humble servitude to the Umma.

Within the Islamic state, all non-Muslims who are not objects of war are considered to be dhimmis – communities who are allowed to exist within the Dar al-Islam by virtue of surrender under the conditions of a dhimmi pact. These are the permanently conquered peoples of Islam.

The historian Bat Ye’or has documented the social, political, economic and religious conditions of dhimmi communities – Jews and Christians – in the Middle East.

It is a sad history of dispossession and decline. Legal provisions applying to dhimmis ensured their humiliation and inferiority, and to this was added the often crippling taxes which were allocated to support the Muslim community. Under conditions of dhimmitude there was also a constant risk of jihad conditions being reinvoked – of massacre and dispossession – if the dhimmi community is considered to have failed

to live up to the conditions of their pact. History records many examples where dhimmis were attacked by their fellow Muslim citizens on such grounds, for example the massacres of the Jews of Granada in 1066, and of the Christians of Damascus in 1860.

Like sexism and racism, dhimmitude is not only manifested in legal and social structures, but in a psychology of inferiority, a will to serve, which the dominated community adopts in self-preservation.

“The law required from dhimmis a humble demeanor, eyes lowered, a hurried pace. They had to give way to Muslims in the street, remain standing in their presence and keep silent, only speaking to them when given permission. They were forbidden to defend themselves if attacked, or to raise a hand against a Muslim on pain of having it amputated. Any criticism of the Koran or Islamic law annuled the protection pact. In addition the dhimmi was duty-bound to be grateful, since it was Islamic law that spared his life.

The whole corpus of these practices … formed an unchanging behavior pattern which was perpetuated from generation to generation for centuries. It was so deeply internalised that it escaped critical evaluation and invaded the realm of self-image, which was henceforth dominated by a conditioning in self-devaluation. … This situation, determined by a corpus of precise legislation and social behaviour patterns based on prejudice and religious traditions, induced the same type of mentality in all dhimmi groups. It has four major characteristics: vulnerability, humiliation, gratitude and alienation.

As one Iranian convert to Christianity put it ‘Christianity is still viewed as the religion of an inferior class

of people. Islam is the religion of masters and rulers, Christianity is the religion of slaves’. Often dhimmi Christians can be seen to collude to conceal their own condition, finding themselves psychologically unable to critique or oppose it.

Although many of the laws of dhimmitude were dismantled during European colonization, today they are making a comeback.

Islam is exerting an increasingly important influence in the destiny of Western cultures. Through immigration, oil economics, cultural exchange and even terrorism, the remnants of what was once Christendom now find themselves having to attend to Islam and its distinctive ‘take’ on the world. We increasingly hear that we have an ‘Abrahamic’ civilization – an Islamic perspective – not a Judeo-Christian one.

Within the Islamic self-consciousness, there are limited options for the roles that non-Muslims communities can play. The only real alternative to ‘enemies of Allah’ is dhimmitude.

The requirement that dhimmis affirm and serve Islam greatly limits the repertoire of responses that dhimmified Christians can have towards it.

Where there are grounds for confrontation, the only way of struggling permitted to the dhimmi is by saying soft things. Such political correctness is itself an injustice that needs to be exposed and challenged. This dynamic, when combined with the meanings of ‘struggle’ (jihad) that Islam claims as its divine right without apology of any kind, can intimidate and debilitate Christians who are free and do not live under Islam

End Excerpt

Begin Excerpt from FOX News Blogs » FOX Forum » Tommy De Seno

June 5th, 2009 8:13 AM Eastern

Obama’s Christian-Muslim Double Standard: Our First Dhimmi President

By Tommy DeSeno

With every speech he gives, President Obama goes further and further in diminishing Christianity in America while inflating Muslims here and around the world.

For Americans this appears to be at best an incredibly bad choice of rhetoric or at worst the manifestation of a prejudice hidden in Obama, finally making its way out.

To Muslims though, it has a much deeper meaning tied to the concept of “Dhimmi,” the subjugation of other religions to Islam.

I’ll define that in more detail at the end of this column, but first let’s examine the proof that Obama is diminishing Christians while inflating Muslims.

It started in a speech he gave in 2007 when he stated, “Whatever we once were, we’re no longer a Christian nation.” At that same speech he criticized Christian leaders, claiming they have used their religion for political purposes.

I guess he thinks “Jihad” is a Christian word.

He repeated again that “America is not a Christian nation” a few weeks later. Little was made of it during the Presidential campaign because the media protected Obama from controversy at all costs. Either that or they just didn’t grasp for themselves the “Dhimmi” implications Obama’s words had for Muslims around the world.

One of his campaign promises was to give a speech “in a major Muslim capital” in his first 100 days in office.

The only such speech he made was in Turkey. At a press conference before his speech, Obama said, “[O]ne of the great strengths of the United States is — although as I mentioned, we have a very large Christian population, we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation…”

He went on to say that America is also not a Muslim or Jewish nation, but no one has ever assumed that. His point therefore was to once again make sure the world knew he doesn’t consider America, comprised of 78.5% Christians, a “Christian nation.”

Three times in two years is enough, Mr. President. I fully understand you don’t consider America a “Christian nation.”

Perhaps what the President is referring to is that America has a secular government.

We do, after all, have a secular Constitutional Republic that explicitly allows no state religion while allowing the practice of any religion.

The question then becomes does he see nations that are majority Muslim the same way? Has he made it a point to tell them three times they are not “Muslim nations?” In hypocritical fashion, no he hasn’t.

If Turkey was his first speech in a “Muslim capital,” why does he call it that

? Like America, Turkey is a secular Constitutional Republic that explicitly allows no state religion while allowing the practice of any religion. See the double standard? According to Obama, Turkey is Muslim but America is not Christian.

In his speech in Turkey, as with his speech today in Egypt, President Obama told of his being from a “Majority-Muslim” nation – Indonesia. “Majority-Muslim” is Obama double speak that allows him to point out the Muslim aesthetic of a country without saying “Muslim Nation.” Again, note the double standard. Like America and Turkey, Indonesia is a secular Constitutional Republic with no state religion while allowing religious freedom.

To further diminish American Christianity and inflate Muslim presence here, on June 1st President Obama told French television, “If you actually took the number of Muslim Americans, we’d be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world.” In his speech in Cairo today, he put the number of Muslims in America at 7 million.

According to the CIA World Factbook, there are only 1.8 million Muslims here. President Einstein miscalculated by almost 400%.

He isn’t even right about the USA Muslim population being “one of the largest Muslim countries in the world.” Assuming his overinflated number, there are between 30 and 35 countries with more Muslims than we have, and if we stop him from lying and use the real number, the American Muslim community ranks about 50th in size.

Certainly not one of the largest.

Once again we see an attempt by Obama to inflate Muslims by overstating their size and saying America would be “one of the largest Muslim countries,” but three times he has insisted America is “not a Christian country,” despite that we are ranked #1 in the world in Christian population and the birthday of Christ is an American national holiday.

The significance of Obama’s attempts to raise the Muslim status into something bigger than it is, while diminishing Christianity, is tied to the concept of what in the Muslim world is termed “Dhimmi.”

“Dhimmi” is a status historically given to Christians and Jews in Muslim countries. It is a lesser legal status with lesser rights. Political rights are curtailed. The practice of Christianity and Judaism is allowed only by accepting the subjugation of those religions to Islam, and Christians and Jews pay a tax to the Muslims. The entire concept revolves around the idea of accepting that Christians and Jews are lesser people, while Muslims are greater people.

Obama has made no bones about his wanting to get on the good side of Muslim nations.

He clearly has no reservations about diminishing Christians, consistent with Muslim “Dhimmi” tradition, to do so. Sadly, it’s a racist gesture.

Read more Tommy De Seno at www.JustifiedRight.com

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more detailed information go to:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.

You may use material originated by this site. However, if you wish to use any quoted copyrighted material from this site, which did not originate at this site, for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner from which we extracted it.

Obama’s words building up Arabs,

Speeches destroy Islamic fear of U.S.

Islamic RADICALS fear Great U.S. Satan,

Much MORE THAN the LITTLE Satan Israel!

So If radicals come to believe U.S. President

Is Neutral in his policy toward Israel and Islam,

Guess who is more likely to attack nation of Israel,

Since they believe U.S. will not come to their Rescue?

The excerpt comes from http://www.actforamerica.org/

June 7, 2009

http://www.tribulationperiod.com/

The United States protective nuclear umbrella over Israel has created, in the minds of Israel’s enemies, the belief that America might use them if they attacked Israel. It seems apparent to me, at this point in time, that the speeches of Obama during his campaign, and since he took office, give the enemies of Israel a reason to believe he would not use American nuclear weapons to defend Israel, nor will he commit any American air or ground forces to defend her, unless non-Islamic forces, such as Russia and China, should attack her. I have believed for some 40 years that the last war of this age would be a vicious knock down, drag out, conventional war between Israel and the forces of Islam, with America, Russia, China, and the rest of the non-Islamic nations monitoring it, but not actively participating in it, that is, until the final battle in it, which is the battle of Armageddon.

Begin Excerpt from “Act for America” via Ron Whittlemore

Dear Ronald,

Our friend Frank Gaffney, President of the Center for Security Policy, recently penned an insightful column regarding the implications of the messages

President Obama is sending Israel and the Muslim world.

For those tempted to think Israel’s security is solely Israel’s problem, let us remember that Islamists in the Middle East frequently refer to America as “the Great Satan.” In other words, a greater “Satan” than Israel!

Anything we do that emboldens Islamists in their hatred of and actions toward Israel will ultimately embolden them in their hatred of and actions toward us.

Obama sows a Mideast whirlwind

Center for Security Policy | Jun 01, 2009

By Frank Gaffney, Jr.

(Jerusalem): From this vantage point, two events this week appear to be ominous straws in the wind, warnings of a “man-caused” maelstrom that may inexorably plunge the Middle East into another, potentially cataclysmic war.

The first is the fact that Israel feels obliged to undertake an unprecedented, country-wide civil defense exercise this week.

At one point in its course, every man, woman and child in the Jewish State is supposed to seek shelter from a simulated attack of the kind Iran may shortly be able to execute against it.

The second is President Obama’s latest effort to reach out to the Muslim world, this time on June 4 from one of its most important capitals, Cairo. There, he is expected to make an address that will reiterate his previous statements on the subject – pronouncements that, unfortunately, can only have been interpreted by his intended audience as acts of submission.

If past is prelude, the President of the United States will: apologize yet again for purported offenses against Muslims by his country; promise to be respectful of Islam, including those who adhere to its authoritative, if virulent, theo-political-legal program known as Shariah; and enunciate diplomatic priorities and initiatives designed to reach out to America’s enemies in the region, while putting excruciating pressure on its most reliable ally there, Israel.

This pressure has become more palpable by the day.

It has taken various forms, including: U.S. stances adopted at the United Nations that will serve to isolate Israel; blank political and even financial checks for Palestinian thugs like Mahmoud Abbas; diminishing U.S.-Israeli cooperation on intelligence and military matters; and the withholding from Israel of helicopters (and perhaps other weaponry) being provided to Arab states.

Perhaps the most chilling example of this coercive pressure so far, however, was originally reported in the Israeli paper Yediot Aharonot and given international prominence by my esteemed colleague and Jerusalem Post columnist, Caroline Glick.

According to these accounts, in a recent lecture in Washington, U.S. Army Lieutenant General Keith Dayton, the American officer charged with training Palestinian military forces in Jordan, made a shocking declaration.

In Ms. Glick’s words, “[Gen. Dayton] indicated that if Israel does not surrender Judea and Samaria within two years, the Palestinian forces he and his fellow American officers are now training at a cost of more than 300 million could begin killing Israelis.” She went on to note that neither the general nor the Obama administration seemed to find this prospect grounds for rethinking the wisdom of such a training-and-arming program.

In fact, her column observed that Defense Secretary Gates “just extended Dayton’s tour of duty for an additional two years and gave him the added responsibility of serving as Obama’s Middle East mediator George Mitchell’s deputy.”

Taken together with the U.S. administration’s refusal to come to grips with what truly is the most serious threat to peace in the Middle East – Iran’s rising power and growing aggressiveness, reflecting in part its incipient nuclear weapons capabilities – the stage is being inexorably set for the next, and perhaps most devastating, regional conflict.

Whether the signals Mr.

Obama is sending are intended to communicate such a message or not, they are going to be read by Israel’s enemies as evidence of a profound rift between the United States and the Jewish State. In this part of the world, that amounts to an invitation to an open season on Israel.

It is hard to believe that the Obama Middle East agenda enjoys the support of the American people or their elected representatives in Congress.

Historically, the public and strong bipartisan majorities on Capitol Hill have appreciated that an Israel that shares our values, that is governed democratically and that is in the cross-hairs of the same people who seek our destruction is an important ally. Quite apart from a sense of moral and religious affinity for the Jewish people’s struggle to survive in their ancient homeland, most of us recognize that it is in the United States’ strategic interest to stand with Israel.

It is worrisome in the extreme that Mr. Obama does not appear to share this appreciation. To those who worried about his affinity for the Saudi king and Islam more generally and his longstanding ties to virulent critics of Israel like Columbia University professor Rashid Khalidi and former Harvard professor-turned-National Security Council staffer Samantha Power, the President’s attitude is not exactly a surprise. His administration’s posture may have been further reinforced by Arab-American pollster John Zogby’s recent Forbes Magazine article arguing that friends of Israel made up John McCain’s constituency, not Obama’s. (This raises an interesting question about the sentiments towards Israel of the 78% of American Jews who voted for the latter in 2008.)

My guess, however, is that, as the implications of President Obama’s Mideast policies – for the United States as well as Israel – become clearer, he is going to find himself facing the sort of popular and congressional revolt that has confronted him in recent weeks on Guantanamo Bay. The question is: Will such a reaffirmation of American solidarity with and support for Israel come in time to prevent the winds of war being whipped up by Mr. Obama’s posturing and rhetoric – and driving Israelis into bomb shelters – from wreaking havoc in the Middle East, and perhaps far beyond

?

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.

We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

For more detailed information go to:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.

You may use material originated by this site. However, if you wish to use any quoted copyrighted material from this site, which did not originate at this site, for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner from which we extracted it.

U.S. DECEIVED by a proud TONGUE & flattering LIPS!

Obama always CRIES for TRANSPARENCY in Government

As a MAJOR ingredient MISSING in previous Administrations,

But both he and his Administration are transparent as Cement!

However, One Israeli

who can see through cement is Caroline Glick,

In all the years I’ve read her material, I don’t recall disagreeing with It!

Trying to prevail over nations by proud speeches with a tongue is not Wise!

Obama’s TONGUE can Charm the Coats off Freezing Men in an Arctic White Out!

Psalm 12:1-4 – Help, Lord; for the godly man ceaseth; for the faithful fail from among the children of men. [2] They speak vanity every one with his neighbour: with flattering lips and with a double heart do they speak. [3] The Lord shall cut off all flattering lips, and the tongue that speaketh proud things: [4] Who have said, With our tongue will we prevail; our lips are our own: who is lord over us?

Psalm 12:8 – The wicked walk on every side, when the vilest men are exalted.

June 7, 2009

http://www.tribulationperiod.com/

Begin Excerpt from Jerusalem Post

Column One: Obama’s Arabian dreams

June 5, 2009

Caroline Glick , THE JERUSALEM POST

US President Barack Obama claims to be a big fan of telling the truth.

In media interviews ahead of his trip to Saudi Arabia and Egypt and during his big speech in Cairo on Thursday, he claimed that the centerpiece of his Middle East policy is his willingness to tell people hard truths.

Indeed, Obama made three references to the need to tell the truth in his so-called address to the Muslim world.

Unfortunately, for a speech billed as an exercise in truth telling, Obama’s address fell short. Far from reflecting hard truths, Obama’s speech reflected political convenience.

Obama’s so-called hard truths for the Islamic world included statements about the need to fight so-called extremists; give equal rights to women; provide freedom of religion; and foster democracy. Unfortunately, all of his statements on these issues were nothing more than abstract, theoretical declarations devoid of policy prescriptions.

He spoke of the need to fight Islamic terrorists without mentioning that

their intellectual, political and monetary foundations and support come from the very mosques, politicians and regimes in Saudi Arabia and Egypt that Obama extols as moderate and responsible.

He spoke of the need to grant equality to women without making mention of common Islamic practices like so-called honor killings, and female genital mutilation. He ignored the fact that throughout the lands of Islam women are denied basic legal and human rights. And then he qualified his statement by mendaciously claiming that women in the US similarly suffer from an equality deficit.

In so discussing this issue, Obama sent the message that he couldn’t care less about the plight of women in the Islamic world.

So, too, Obama spoke about the need for religious freedom but ignored Saudi Arabian religious apartheid. He talked about the blessings of democracy but ignored the problems of tyranny.

In short, Obama’s “straight talk” to the Arab world, which began with his disingenuous claim that like America, Islam is committed to “justice and progress, tolerance and the dignity of all human beings,” was consciously and fundamentally fraudulent. And this fraud was advanced to facilitate his goal of placing the Islamic world on equal moral footing with the free world.

In a like manner, Obama’s tough “truths” about Israel were marked by factual and moral dishonesty in the service of political ends.

On the surface, Obama seemed to scold the Muslim world for its all-pervasive Holocaust denial and craven Jew hatred. By asserting that Holocaust denial and anti-Semitism are wrong, he seemed to be upholding his earlier claim that America’s ties to Israel are “unbreakable.”

Unfortunately, a careful study of his statements shows that Obama was actually accepting the Arab view that Israel is a foreign – and therefore unjustifiable – intruder in the Arab world.

Indeed, far from attacking their rejection of Israel, Obama legitimized it.

The basic Arab argument against Israel is that the only reason Israel was established was to sooth the guilty consciences of Europeans who were embarrassed about the Holocaust. By their telling, the Jews have no legal, historic or moral rights to the Land of Israel.

This argument is completely false. The international community recognized the legal, historic and moral rights of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel long before anyone had ever heard of Adolf Hitler. In 1922, the League of Nations mandated the “reconstitution” – not the creation – of the Jewish commonwealth in the Land of Israel in its historic borders on both sides of the Jordan River.

But in his self-described exercise in truth telling, Obama ignored this basic truth in favor of the Arab lie. He gave credence to this lie by stating wrongly that “the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history.”

He then explicitly tied Israel’s establishment to the Holocaust by moving to a self-serving history lesson about the genocide of European Jewry.

Even worse than his willful blindness to the historic, legal and moral justifications for Israel’s rebirth, was Obama’s characterization of Israel itself. Obama blithely, falsely and obnoxiously compared Israel’s treatment of Palestinians to white American slave owners’ treatment of their black slaves.

He similarly cast Palestinian terrorists in the same morally pure category as slaves. Perhaps most repulsively, Obama elevated Palestinian terrorism to the moral heights of slave rebellions and the US civil rights movement by referring to it by its Arab euphemism, “resistance.”

BUT AS disappointing and frankly obscene as Obama’s rhetoric was, the policies he outlined were much worse. While prattling about how Islam and America are two sides of the same coin, Obama managed to spell out two clear policies.

First, he announced that he will compel Israel to completely end all building for Jews in Judea, Samaria, and eastern, northern and southern Jerusalem. Second, he said that he will strive to convince Iran to substitute its nuclear weapons program with a nuclear energy program.

Obama argued that the first policy will facilitate peace and the second policy will prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Upon reflection, however, it is clear that neither of his policies can possibly achieve his stated aims. Indeed, their inability to accomplish the ends he claims he has adopted them to advance is so obvious, that it is worth considering what his actual rationale for adopting them may be.

The administration’s policy toward Jewish building in Israel’s heartland and capital city expose a massive level of hostility toward Israel. Not only does it fly in the face of explicit US commitments to Israel undertaken by the Bush administration, it contradicts a longstanding agreement between successive Israeli and American governments

not to embarrass each other.

Moreover, the fact that the administration cannot stop attacking Israel about Jewish construction in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, but has nothing to say about Hizbullah’s projected democratic takeover of Lebanon next week, Hamas’s genocidal political platform, Fatah’s involvement

in terrorism, or North Korean ties to Iran and Syria, has egregious consequences for the prospects for peace in the region.

As Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas made clear in his interview last week with The Washington Post, in light of the administration’s hostility toward Israel, the Palestinian Authority no longer feels it is necessary to make any concessions whatsoever to Israel. It needn’t accept Israel’s identity as a Jewish state. It needn’t minimize in any way its demand that Israel commit demographic suicide by accepting millions of foreign, hostile Arabs as full citizens. And it needn’t curtail its territorial demand that Israel contract to within indefensible borders.

In short, by attacking Israel and claiming that Israel is responsible for the absence of peace, the administration is encouraging the Palestinians and the Arab world as a whole to continue to reject Israel and to refuse to make peace with the Jewish state.

The Netanyahu government reportedly fears that Obama and his advisers have made such an issue of settlements because they seek to overthrow Israel’s government and replace it with the more pliable Kadima party.

Government sources note that White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel played a central role in destabilizing Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s first government in 1999, when he served as an adviser to then president Bill Clinton. They also note that Emmanuel is currently working with leftist Israelis and American Jews associated with Kadima and the Democratic Party to discredit the government.

While there is little reason to doubt that the Obama administration would prefer a leftist government in Jerusalem, it is unlikely that the White House is attacking Israel primarily to advance this aim. This is first of all the case because today there is little danger that Netanyahu’s coalition partners will abandon him.

Moreover, the Americans have no reason to believe that prospects for a peace deal would improve with a leftist government at the helm in Jerusalem. After all, despite its best efforts, the Kadima government was unable to make peace with the Palestinians, as was the Labor government before it. What the Palestinians have shown consistently since the failed 2000 Camp David summit is that there is no deal that Israel can offer them that they are willing to accept.

So if the aim of the administration in attacking Israel is neither to foster peace nor to bring down the Netanyahu government, what can explain its behavior?

The only reasonable explanation is that the administration is baiting Israel because it wishes to abandon the Jewish state as an ally in favor of warmer ties with the Arabs. It has chosen to attack Israel on the issue of Jewish construction because it believes that by concentrating on this issue, it will minimize the political price it will be forced to pay at home for jettisoning America’s alliance with Israel. By claiming that he is only pressuring Israel to enable a peaceful “two-state solution,” Obama assumes that he will be able to maintain his support base among American Jews who will overlook the underlying hostility his “pro-peace” stance papers over.

OBAMA’S POLICY toward Iran is a logical complement of his policy toward Israel. Just as there is no chance that he will bring Middle East peace closer by attacking Israel, so he will not prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons by offering the mullahs

nuclear energy. The deal Obama is now proposing has been on the table since 2003, when Iran’s nuclear program was first exposed. Over the past six years, the Iranians have repeatedly rejected it. Indeed, just last week they again announced that they reject it.

Here, too, to understand the president’s actual goal it is necessary to search for the answers closer to home. Since Obama’s policy has no chance of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, it is apparent that he has come to terms with the prospect of a nuclear armed Iran. In light of this, the most rational explanation for his policy of engagement is that he wishes to avoid being blamed when Iran emerges as a nuclear power in the coming months.

In reckoning with the Obama administration, it is imperative that the Netanyahu government and the public alike understand the true goals of its current policies. Happily, consistent polling data show that the overwhelming majority of Israelis realize that the White House is deeply hostile toward Israel. The data also show that the public approves of Netanyahu’s handling of our relations with Washington.

Moving forward, the government must sustain this public awareness and support.

By his words as well as by his deeds, not only has Obama shown that he is not a friend of Israel. He has shown that there is nothing that Israel can do to make him change his mind.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest

in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more detailed information go to:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.

You may use material originated by this site. However, if you wish to use any quoted copyrighted material from this site, which did not originate at this site, for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner from which we extracted it.