On Wednesday, February 29, our defense secretary Leon Panetta met with Israel's defense secretary Ehud Barak. This talk does not appear to have involved the derailed peace process with the Palestinians but rather what Israel perceives as a growing threat from Iran. The Israelis apparently want to hear a few things from the US, mainly where are the red lines for Iran in their nuclear program and will the US stand by Israel if they strike Iran. From what us common folk can read in the news is that the US has no red lines and we will not stand by Israel if she should strike Iran.
On the same day, in the early morning hours of the 29th, just after midnight, a series of tornados tore through Missouri and Illinois, inflicting heavy damage in one town in Illinois and causing major damage in the popular tourist town of Branson, MO.
Talks between Barak and Panetta apparently did not yield the hope-for committments, and if the above screen capture is any indication, it looks like Panetta was shaking his finger (or at least strongly pointing) at Barak. Finger pointing is usually an indication of strong emotion or strong irritation and I am surprised that this is the picture of the meeting that was released as it does not show two people engaged in a good conversation.
Within 48 hours, a massive tornado outbreak has occurred. Not unusual considering that in the past, when the US has pressured Israel in the peace process that some kind of nationwide-attention-gathering event has taken place, whether earthquake, weather, financial, and even sometimes scandal related.
But something else happened between Wednesday and Friday -- The Atlantic interview(http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/03/obama-to-iran-and-israel-as-president-of-the-united-states-i-dont-bluff/253875/)
On Wednesday, President Obama gave an interview to Jeffrey Goldberg from the White House about his position on Israel and Iran while Ehud Barak was at the Pentagon meeting with Leon Panetta. The interview was published on Friday, and many news outlets carried the interview almost universally using the title of "President Obama says he's 'not bluffing' on Iran."
Yet there is more to the interview than that statement. It is not just a casual interview - it is a major policy statement released as an interview.
Obama insists in the interview that he (and he alone) has done much to lead the world to unify against Iran and has insisted that he has done much to buff up Israel's security and insinuated that even if the leaders in Israel don't get this, the Israeli people get it. He even bemoaned the fact that the Republicans were misleading the American people about his stance on Israel to create a wedge between Obama and Jewish voters and, thus, lose the Jewish vote come election day. The Canada Free Press addresses this better than me, so here is their take (http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/44999).
If one has not followed the various interchanges between Obama and Netanyahu over the past 3 years it would appear from the interview that Obama is very pro-Israel. But for those of us who have watched the two it is clear they are not. On that observation, the interview that Obama gave to Goldberg appears deceptive to me.
As I was working on this post Drudge posted a link to a video called Daylight which takes Obama’s own words and the comments made by a number of top officials in his administration and shows his true position and feelings about Israel. It is such an important video that I went ahead and posted it by itself at this blog last night in case I was unable to finish my post this morning.
But there is something else going on with Friday's tornado outbreak. It occurred in the same locations as the outbreak of April 27, 2011. Two important things happened on April 27, 2011. First, Obama released his long form birth certificate early that day and then David Wilkerson was killed in a head-on car crash in Palestine, Texas that evening.
On Wednesday, the same day that Obama was giving his interview to Goldberg, Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona, released the findings of his cold case posse, a team of former law enforcement officers and attorneys who had investigated Obama's long form birth certificate and his Selective Service card and came to the conclusion that both documents were forgeries and that there was reasonable cause to believe that fraud had been committed upon the voters of Maricopa County. Both occurred on the same day! Here, in this YouTube, ppsimmons explains some of the implications of the sheriff's findings.
Reporters immediately began attacking Sheriff Arpaio's integrity and motivations. No word yet if they actually looked at the evidence Arpaio's team presented.
The Arpaio findings though beg one very serious question: If Obama is willing to post a fraudulent document on the White House website and attest to it being his own, which is, in essence, lying to the American public, then won't he lie about his true intentions when it comes to Israel and Iran?
As long as Obama is willing to reach into his goodie bag and throw candy to his hard center-left (Obama's description of his government given to Goldberg, not mine) crowd, which includes many big-name reporters and news anchors, I don't think they will care if he lied to get into office.
This is the third time a public official has publicly said that something Obama has said was ‘inaccurate.’ Out of the mouth of two or three witnesses. Joe Wilson said aloud, “You lie.” Justice Samuel Alito mouthed the words, “Not true.” Now Sheriff Joe Arpaio has said that the birth certificate and Selective Service card are forgeries.
Again, the timing of the two events. As Arpaio is releasing to the public that it appears that a lie has been told to the American public, Obama is giving an interview about his warm and fuzzy feelings toward Israel and Ehud Barak is at the Pentagon asking for help and a tornado swarm begins a short time later. The storm system stays present through Thursday and then when Obama’s interview is published on Friday, a severe outbreak of supercell tornados occurs. In fact, the Weather Channel is noting that this could be the worst March tornado outbreak on record.
There are a couple of things about The Atlantic interview I want to note.
1) The interview opens with Goldberg asking Obama what the Israelis want when they get here.
Obama: First of all, it's important to say that I don't know exactly what the prime minister is going to be coming with. We haven't gotten any indication that there is some sharp "ask" that is going to be presented.
I’m not sure this is true. There have been a multitude of high-level officials from the US going to Israel since November to discuss the Iran situation. Are we to believe that those talks yielded no indication of what the president can expect when the Israelis arrive this weekend?
A Debka article just this morning titled ADAMANT OBAMA CONFRONTS NETANYAHU WITH LONE DECISION ON IRAN seems to indicate that Obama knows EXACTLY what Netanyahu is going to ask him when he arrives in Washington, and this article makes clear that sources inside Washington, “that no American president can be expected to tolerate Israel dictating terms, however just and pressing its case may be. Even before hearing what Israel had to say, Obama was resolved to oppose military action on Iran and not be moved on this. Now he is additionally determined to put his Israeli visitor in his place and draw a line on Jerusalem’s influence in Washington - both as a lesson to Jerusalem and an incentive for Tehran.”
Truly God help us if Obama intends to teach Israel “a lesson.”
2) Goldberg asked Obama about his relationship with Netanyahu, was it as ‘dysfunctional’ as it appeared.
Obama: I actually think the relationship is very functional, and the proof of the pudding is in the eating.
Here seems to be irony at its best. One of the first, earliest indications of Obama’s dislike of Netanyahu actually came over an ‘eating’ incident.
The president was so angry with Netanyahu over the building of apartments in Jerusalem that he left Netanyahu in a room by himself while he went to eat in another room with the First Lady and informed Netanyahu to let him know when he had something for him. Many news outlets in Israel (as well as other countries) actually headlined the news event with ‘Humiliated Netanyahu.’
But as recently as early November, Obama was not describing his relationship with Netanyahu as good as this screenshot of the Drudge Report on November 7th shows.
So, yes, the proof is 'in the eating.'
3) Goldberg asked Obama about the perception that Obama isn’t doing enough to protect Israel and Obama responded that he has done more than any other president in US history for Israel and then said, “. . . historically, one of the reasons that the U.S.-Israeli relationship has survived so well and thrived is shared values, shared history, the links between our peoples. But it's also been because it has been a profoundly bipartisan commitment to the state of Israel. And the flip side of it is that, in terms of Israeli politics, there's been a view that regardless of whether it's a Democratic or Republican administration, the working assumption is: we've got Israel's back. And that's something that I constantly try to reinforce and remind people of.
GOLDBERG: Wait, in four words, is that your message to the prime minister -- we've got Israel's back?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: That is not just my message to the prime minister, that's been my message to the Israeli people, and to the pro-Israel community in this country, since I came into office. It's hard for me to be clearer than I was in front of the UN General Assembly, when I made a more full-throated defense of Israel and its legitimate security concerns than any president in history -- not, by the way, in front of an audience that was particularly warm to the message. So that actually won't be my message. My message will be much more specific, about how do we solve this problem.
"WE’VE GOT ISRAEL'S BACK."
This is an unusual statement in one particular way: Obama hasn’t used it before. The relationship between the US and Israel is almost always described as ‘unshakeable,’ or ‘unbreakable,’ but not ‘we’ve got your back.’ When I searched ‘Obama, Israel, got your back” to see if the occurrence came up any other time, it only came up in connection with this Goldberg interview.
What a mixed message. The idea behind ‘we’ve got your back’ is that while someone is busy looking forward, there is this implied promise that you don’t have to look behind you -- ‘we’ will do that for you.
This remark in this interview seems to imply that the Israelis can do what they need to do because even though the US through officials speaking publicly on Obama’s behalf have stated that Obama doesn’t want the Israelis to strike Iran this comment from the very lips of Obama implies otherwise.
In fact, President Obama reiterated this stance as his own at AIPAC when he declared from the podium, "I have Israel's back."
But what if the Israelis do strike Iran, what will Obama say then? What will ‘we’ve got your back’ mean then?
February 5, 2009, only days into the Obama presidency, Daniel at Prayers for the People posted what he believed was a word he had received from the Holy Spirit called, “Collapse, Destruction, and Our Back Against Israel.” (http://www.prayersforthepeople.com/id58.html)
Yet there is more to the interview than that statement. It is not just a casual interview - it is a major policy statement released as an interview.
Obama insists in the interview that he (and he alone) has done much to lead the world to unify against Iran and has insisted that he has done much to buff up Israel's security and insinuated that even if the leaders in Israel don't get this, the Israeli people get it. He even bemoaned the fact that the Republicans were misleading the American people about his stance on Israel to create a wedge between Obama and Jewish voters and, thus, lose the Jewish vote come election day. The Canada Free Press addresses this better than me, so here is their take (http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/44999).
If one has not followed the various interchanges between Obama and Netanyahu over the past 3 years it would appear from the interview that Obama is very pro-Israel. But for those of us who have watched the two it is clear they are not. On that observation, the interview that Obama gave to Goldberg appears deceptive to me.
As I was working on this post Drudge posted a link to a video called Daylight which takes Obama’s own words and the comments made by a number of top officials in his administration and shows his true position and feelings about Israel. It is such an important video that I went ahead and posted it by itself at this blog last night in case I was unable to finish my post this morning.
But there is something else going on with Friday's tornado outbreak. It occurred in the same locations as the outbreak of April 27, 2011. Two important things happened on April 27, 2011. First, Obama released his long form birth certificate early that day and then David Wilkerson was killed in a head-on car crash in Palestine, Texas that evening.
On Wednesday, the same day that Obama was giving his interview to Goldberg, Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona, released the findings of his cold case posse, a team of former law enforcement officers and attorneys who had investigated Obama's long form birth certificate and his Selective Service card and came to the conclusion that both documents were forgeries and that there was reasonable cause to believe that fraud had been committed upon the voters of Maricopa County. Both occurred on the same day! Here, in this YouTube, ppsimmons explains some of the implications of the sheriff's findings.
Reporters immediately began attacking Sheriff Arpaio's integrity and motivations. No word yet if they actually looked at the evidence Arpaio's team presented.
The Arpaio findings though beg one very serious question: If Obama is willing to post a fraudulent document on the White House website and attest to it being his own, which is, in essence, lying to the American public, then won't he lie about his true intentions when it comes to Israel and Iran?
As long as Obama is willing to reach into his goodie bag and throw candy to his hard center-left (Obama's description of his government given to Goldberg, not mine) crowd, which includes many big-name reporters and news anchors, I don't think they will care if he lied to get into office.
This is the third time a public official has publicly said that something Obama has said was ‘inaccurate.’ Out of the mouth of two or three witnesses. Joe Wilson said aloud, “You lie.” Justice Samuel Alito mouthed the words, “Not true.” Now Sheriff Joe Arpaio has said that the birth certificate and Selective Service card are forgeries.
Again, the timing of the two events. As Arpaio is releasing to the public that it appears that a lie has been told to the American public, Obama is giving an interview about his warm and fuzzy feelings toward Israel and Ehud Barak is at the Pentagon asking for help and a tornado swarm begins a short time later. The storm system stays present through Thursday and then when Obama’s interview is published on Friday, a severe outbreak of supercell tornados occurs. In fact, the Weather Channel is noting that this could be the worst March tornado outbreak on record.
There are a couple of things about The Atlantic interview I want to note.
1) The interview opens with Goldberg asking Obama what the Israelis want when they get here.
Obama: First of all, it's important to say that I don't know exactly what the prime minister is going to be coming with. We haven't gotten any indication that there is some sharp "ask" that is going to be presented.
I’m not sure this is true. There have been a multitude of high-level officials from the US going to Israel since November to discuss the Iran situation. Are we to believe that those talks yielded no indication of what the president can expect when the Israelis arrive this weekend?
A Debka article just this morning titled ADAMANT OBAMA CONFRONTS NETANYAHU WITH LONE DECISION ON IRAN seems to indicate that Obama knows EXACTLY what Netanyahu is going to ask him when he arrives in Washington, and this article makes clear that sources inside Washington, “that no American president can be expected to tolerate Israel dictating terms, however just and pressing its case may be. Even before hearing what Israel had to say, Obama was resolved to oppose military action on Iran and not be moved on this. Now he is additionally determined to put his Israeli visitor in his place and draw a line on Jerusalem’s influence in Washington - both as a lesson to Jerusalem and an incentive for Tehran.”
Truly God help us if Obama intends to teach Israel “a lesson.”
2) Goldberg asked Obama about his relationship with Netanyahu, was it as ‘dysfunctional’ as it appeared.
Obama: I actually think the relationship is very functional, and the proof of the pudding is in the eating.
Here seems to be irony at its best. One of the first, earliest indications of Obama’s dislike of Netanyahu actually came over an ‘eating’ incident.
The president was so angry with Netanyahu over the building of apartments in Jerusalem that he left Netanyahu in a room by himself while he went to eat in another room with the First Lady and informed Netanyahu to let him know when he had something for him. Many news outlets in Israel (as well as other countries) actually headlined the news event with ‘Humiliated Netanyahu.’
But as recently as early November, Obama was not describing his relationship with Netanyahu as good as this screenshot of the Drudge Report on November 7th shows.
So, yes, the proof is 'in the eating.'
3) Goldberg asked Obama about the perception that Obama isn’t doing enough to protect Israel and Obama responded that he has done more than any other president in US history for Israel and then said, “. . . historically, one of the reasons that the U.S.-Israeli relationship has survived so well and thrived is shared values, shared history, the links between our peoples. But it's also been because it has been a profoundly bipartisan commitment to the state of Israel. And the flip side of it is that, in terms of Israeli politics, there's been a view that regardless of whether it's a Democratic or Republican administration, the working assumption is: we've got Israel's back. And that's something that I constantly try to reinforce and remind people of.
GOLDBERG: Wait, in four words, is that your message to the prime minister -- we've got Israel's back?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: That is not just my message to the prime minister, that's been my message to the Israeli people, and to the pro-Israel community in this country, since I came into office. It's hard for me to be clearer than I was in front of the UN General Assembly, when I made a more full-throated defense of Israel and its legitimate security concerns than any president in history -- not, by the way, in front of an audience that was particularly warm to the message. So that actually won't be my message. My message will be much more specific, about how do we solve this problem.
"WE’VE GOT ISRAEL'S BACK."
This is an unusual statement in one particular way: Obama hasn’t used it before. The relationship between the US and Israel is almost always described as ‘unshakeable,’ or ‘unbreakable,’ but not ‘we’ve got your back.’ When I searched ‘Obama, Israel, got your back” to see if the occurrence came up any other time, it only came up in connection with this Goldberg interview.
What a mixed message. The idea behind ‘we’ve got your back’ is that while someone is busy looking forward, there is this implied promise that you don’t have to look behind you -- ‘we’ will do that for you.
This remark in this interview seems to imply that the Israelis can do what they need to do because even though the US through officials speaking publicly on Obama’s behalf have stated that Obama doesn’t want the Israelis to strike Iran this comment from the very lips of Obama implies otherwise.
In fact, President Obama reiterated this stance as his own at AIPAC when he declared from the podium, "I have Israel's back."
But what if the Israelis do strike Iran, what will Obama say then? What will ‘we’ve got your back’ mean then?
February 5, 2009, only days into the Obama presidency, Daniel at Prayers for the People posted what he believed was a word he had received from the Holy Spirit called, “Collapse, Destruction, and Our Back Against Israel.” (http://www.prayersforthepeople.com/id58.html)
Our family truly believes that Obama will not have Israel’s back, but indeed will turn his back to Israel. We believe Obama will betray Israel.
Obama spoke this morning at AIPAC. He spoke at AIPAC in 2011, and when he did the incredible Joplin tornado occurred, a tornado that has been reported to be even more powerful than the massive Oklahoma city tornado of May 3, 1999.
I watched Obama speak, and his speech was mainly a repeat of his interview to Goldberg, but I found it interesting that he closed his remarks with a proverb -- A man is judged by his deeds, not by his words -- and that is how he believed he would be judged.
This proverb is not from the Bible but is an old Russian proverb. Interesting as David Wilkerson in his book Set the Trumpet to Thy Mouth, Dumitru Duduman and Henry Gruver all saw judgment from God upon America via an attack from the Russians.
We can only watch and wait at this point. Here is what Daniel posted at his website last night:
Obama spoke this morning at AIPAC. He spoke at AIPAC in 2011, and when he did the incredible Joplin tornado occurred, a tornado that has been reported to be even more powerful than the massive Oklahoma city tornado of May 3, 1999.
I watched Obama speak, and his speech was mainly a repeat of his interview to Goldberg, but I found it interesting that he closed his remarks with a proverb -- A man is judged by his deeds, not by his words -- and that is how he believed he would be judged.
This proverb is not from the Bible but is an old Russian proverb. Interesting as David Wilkerson in his book Set the Trumpet to Thy Mouth, Dumitru Duduman and Henry Gruver all saw judgment from God upon America via an attack from the Russians.
We can only watch and wait at this point. Here is what Daniel posted at his website last night:
I have felt, with a great measure of urgency, to implore all who will listen, to be increasingly vigilant over the next 48-hours. I would be remiss if I didn't warn of what appears to be the perpetually increasing Llikelihood of calamity falling upon the United States of America in the coming days. In light of recent events surrounding the deceptive interview the President of the United States of America gave, with regard to his stance towards Israel, it would give the impression that tomorrow and Monday hold an even higher likelihood of yet further judgments even greater in magnitude than the ones just witnessed in the heart of the USA. Please, seek the eternally protective hand of the ALMIGHTY! Call upon JESUS CHRIST, HE is the only way.
President Obama is sending clear signals to Israel -- Don’t do this. Don’t strike Iran first. Like Pontius Pilate of old, I will wash my hands of you if you do and then where will you be?
Little does President Obama realize that is when God will step in.
Behold, he that keepeth Israel shall neither slumber nor sleep. --Psalm 121: 4
President Obama is sending clear signals to Israel -- Don’t do this. Don’t strike Iran first. Like Pontius Pilate of old, I will wash my hands of you if you do and then where will you be?
Little does President Obama realize that is when God will step in.
Behold, he that keepeth Israel shall neither slumber nor sleep. --Psalm 121: 4
No comments:
Post a Comment