Thread: On Eve of Election, Obama Rallies Base with Jew Hatred

On Eve of Election, Obama Rallies Base with Jew Hatred



by Pamela Geller 3 Nov 2014 653 post a comment

Obama made a very deliberate decision to make tomorrow’s election about the Jews. Dropping the chickensh*t bomb a week before the midterm election was no accident. Oh no. Obama wanted to get out the Jew-haters’ vote.

Just as the disenfranchised and the America-haters had delivered for him before, he now believes that the Jew-haters (and he believes that there are many more of them than not) will deliver the Senate. Now he’s playing a card he has not played before, but has been leading up to for some time.
It was no accident that Jeffrey Goldberg dropped the “chickensh*t” bomb. Goldberg is a notoriously anti-Israel uber-left reporter popular with the Obama White House. Goldberg has been trusted to break important stories on the Middle East for the White House. He has been interviewing Obama on the subject of Israel for seven years. This makes it clear that whoever made the “chickesh*t” comment was not a C-lister. This was a senior level official: Goldberg wouldn’t quote anyone in a lesser position.
And there was more than just the profane insults. Goldberg said that he understood Obama’s recent comments on Israel as a “veiled threat.” Goldberg is the messenger here. According to Algemeiner:

Goldberg paraphrased Obama as saying, “Israel is growing more isolated and we can’t defend it in the same way.”

“I took it to be a little bit of a veiled threat, to be honest,” Goldberg said. “It’s almost up there with, you know, nice little Jewish state you got there, I’d hate to see something happen to it.”

The response by the White House to this “leak” was a big yawn. This from the Obama White House that is notorious for punitively punishing leaks and going after reporters who print them, such as James Rosen of Fox News (they went through his phone records) and James Risen of the New York Times (they threatened him with jail), just to name two. They had no interest in pursuing this leak.
The White House knows who said it and has no issue with it. Obama and/or his administration never called Qaddafi or Putin or Assad or Mashaal or Sisi or Morsi or the leader of the Islamic State a “chickensh*t,” but the Jew in charge of the Jewish state – he’s a chickensh*t.
Obama has always been diabolical, sowing the seeds of hate and division. Demagoguery was key in both of his election wins. In my book, The Post American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America, I warned of his closeted antisemitism. It goes back years. In March 2007, the pro-Palestinian blogger Ali Abunimah at the website The Electronic Intifadah alleged that Obama adopted a pro-Israel position as a matter of political expediency as his national aspirations developed. “The last time I spoke to Obama,” Abunimah recalled, “was in the winter of 2004 at a gathering in Chicago’s Hyde Park neighborhood. He was in the midst of a primary campaign to secure the Democratic nomination for the United States Senate seat he now occupies. But at that time polls showed him trailing.”
When Abunimah greeted him, Obama “responded warmly,” and volunteered an apology for not being more outspoken against Israel: “Hey,” said the candidate to Abunimah, “I’m sorry I haven’t said more about Palestine right now, but we are in a tough primary race. I’m hoping when things calm down I can be more up front.”
He certainly has been since he became President. And throughout his life Barack Obama has been close friends with numerous virulent anti-Semites: Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, Khalid al-Mansour, Rashid Khalidi and others.
During the 2008 campaign, when unwelcome attention began to focus on Wright and his anti-American statements at the Trinity United Church of Christ, a church Obama faithfully attended for twenty years, less attention was given to Wright’s antisemitic statements.
On one occasion Wright was railing against Israel and then stopped himself, saying: “I said that dirty word again, Israel.” Wright demonstrated his antisemitism anew when he complained in June 2009 that “them Jews ain’t going to let [Obama] talk to me.” In the same interview, Wright echoed jihadist propaganda regarding Israel: “Ethnic cleansing is going on in Gaza. Ethnic cleansing of the Zionist is a sin and a crime against humanity, and they don’t want Barack talking like that because that’s anti-Israel.”
In fact, it was Obama’s new rigid and strident policies toward restricting Jews from living in parts of Israel that mandated ethnic cleansing: the ethnic cleansing of Jews from parts of the Jewish homeland. Five years later, he continues to press Israel to freeze construction of settlements on land that belongs rightly to Israel.
It may be an old cliché, but it’s true: show me your friends, and I’ll show you who and what you are. And now he is out of the closet with a vengeance.
This election cycle, he has made clear to the Jew-haters that now it’s their turn. Obama has made the world safe for Jew-haters again. Inshallah.

Pamela Geller is the President of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), publisher of PamelaGeller.com and author of The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America and Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance. Follow her on Twitter here. Like her on Facebook here.


http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...th-Jew-Hatred/

Mark Levin

This is appalling



Solicitor General: Israel Has No Claim to Jerusalem, Just as Russia Has No Claim to Crimea
Lawyers for the Obama administration compared Israel’s control of Jerusalem to Russian claims over the Ukrainian territory of Crimea during oral arguments this...
freebeacon.com

Solicitor General: Israel Has No Claim to Jerusalem, Just as Russia Has No Claim to Crimea



Menachem Zivotofsky, center, stands with his father Ari Zivotofsky, right, and their attorney Alyza Lewin, outside the Supreme Court in Washington, Monday, Nov. 3 / AP

BY: Adam Kredo
November 4, 2014 3:10 pm

Lawyers for the Obama administration compared Israel’s control of Jerusalem to Russian claims over the Ukrainian territory of Crimea during oral arguments this week before the Supreme Court in a case concerning the rights of U.S. citizens to list Jerusalem as part of Israel on their passports.
U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, who is rumored to be in the running to replace outgoing Attorney General Eric Holder, drew the comparison on Monday while he attempted to convince the Supreme Court that Jerusalem is not officially part of Israel.
The controversial case hinges around Menachem Zivotofsky, who was born in Jerusalem in 2002. Zivotofsky’s parents requested that Menachem’s U.S. passport bear “Jerusalem, Israel” as his place of birth, a request that was denied by the Obama administration on the basis of its longstanding policy to not recognize the holy city as part of Israel.
The Zivotofsky family sued following the decision and the case has been stuck in judicial limbo since. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case and initial arguments by both sides were presented this week.
Obama administration lawyers argue that the case infringes on the president’s executive right to conduct foreign policy. By acknowledging Jerusalem as Israeli territory, the White House would lose its credibility in the peace process, as well as its jurisdiction to manage foreign affairs, the government maintains.
Lawyers for the Zivotofsky family disagree.
They argue that a portion of a 2002 law permitting U.S. citizens born in Jerusalem to have “Israel” listed as their birthplace supersedes the Obama administration’s policy position on Jerusalem. While the law was signed by former President George W. Bush, he and President Barack Obama have both issued signing statements to avoid implementing the measure.
During Monday’s arguments before the court, Solicitor General Verrilli maintained that a formal acknowledgment of Jerusalem being part of Israel would be tantamount to the United States putting “Crimea, Russia” on a citizen’s passport.
Verrilli was referring to the Ukrainian region of Crimea, which Russia forcefully seized earlier this year.
“The position of the executive [Obama] is that we recognize, as a practical matter, the authority of Israel over West Jerusalem,” Verrilli argued, according to court transcripts. “With respect to the rest of Jerusalem, the issue is far more complicated.”
“I do think, for example, Your Honor,” Verrilli said to Justice Samuel Alito, “if [we] were to start issuing passports to people born in Crimea tomorrow that identified Russia as the country of birth, that would carry obvious implications for our foreign policy position, and it would contradict the foreign policy position in a way that could be quite deleterious.”
As with the disputes over Crimea’s status, stating that Jerusalem is part of Israel also would interfere with the White House’s policy positions, Verrilli argued.
As arguments proceeded in the case, the justices appeared to split along the justices’ traditional conservative and liberal lines.
At multiple points, Justice Sonia Sotamayor appeared to argue that it would be a “lie” for the U.S. government to acknowledge on a passport that Jerusalem is in Israel.
Putting “Jerusalem, Israel” on a U.S. passport is a lie since the executive branch does not believe it to be true as a matter of policy, Sotamayor said.
“What they’re asking you [the Zivotofskys] to do is to look—they’re asking the government to lie,” Sotamayor said.
She repeated this argument again later in the arguments.
“How could you tell me it’s not a lie?” Sotamayor asked Alyza Lewin, the lawyer representing the Zivotofsky family. “You, the United States, are being asked to put on the passport that you believe the place of birth of this individual is Israel, and the government—and the executive has said, no, we don’t think it was Israel, we think it was Jerusalem.
Lewin maintains that the addition of “Israel” to the passport in question does not constitute official U.S. government “recognition” of Jerusalem as belonging to Israel, and, therefore, does not breach foreign policy pronouncements.
The Obama administration has countered that such a declaration would harm President Obama’s “credibility” in global affairs.
“Foreign governments, foreign peoples will not be able to have complete confidence that the position that the president announces on behalf of the United States is, in fact, the position of the United States,” Verrilli argued.
Justice Anthony Kennedy wondered why the administration would not just submit to the request with an added clarifier stating that it does not reflect official U.S. policy.
Justice Alito also was skeptical that there could be any reasonable “misunderstanding” of the executive branch’s position.
“So why will there be any effect on foreign policy except by people who will misunderstand the situation, either because they really don’t understand it or they will exploit it in some way?” he asked.
Court observers have paid particular attention to the case since it focuses on one of the world’s most intractable and hot button problems.
“This case manages to combine two of the things that this administration dislikes the most: Congress and Israel,” Adam J. White, a D.C.-based lawyer and writer, told the Washington Free Beacon.
“The administration’s fundamental position is that if the State Department is required to comply with the statute, then there may be confusion about what President Obama’s position is on the state of Israel,” White explained.
However, “that argument could be politely classified as a ‘legal fiction,’ because no one really questions what President Obama’s policy is toward Israel,” he said. “His administration has made that painfully obvious, and no matter what the Supreme Court decides in this case, President Obama’s position will continue to be obvious throughout the Middle East.”

http://freebeacon.com/national-secur...aim-to-crimea/