Home Page About Us Previous News Coming Events Special Items Links Photos
Commentary Buy Israeli

Surely the Lord Jehovah will do nothing,
except he reveal his secret
unto his servants the prophets.

                                                                                     Amos 3:7

"and I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great;
and be thou a blessing;
(3) and I will bless them that bless thee,
and him that curseth thee will I curse:
and in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed.      
Gen 12:2-3

 This group of articles is from front page magazine and is outstanding concerning the current state of corruption occurring in this this country. "To be sure your sins shall seek thee out." The rightous judge is the ultimate mediator of vengeance but there will be a payment for these wicked deeds. 


Obama's Betrayals: Willfully Supporting Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood

Dare anyone call it treason?

August 12, 2015

Robert Spencer

Editor's note: The following is the first article in the FrontPage series "Obama's Betrayals," which will explore the president's record of perfidy, malfeasance and crimes against the American people. As the Obama presidency enters its final stages, examples of this treachery are only becoming more numerous and brazen. "Obama's Betrayals" will shine the spotlight on these attacks on the American polity, the incredible damage they are inflicting on the nation, and the dangerous agenda the president intends to complete before leaving office. 

It doesn’t get any more explosive than this: a high-ranking former Obama administration official charging that the administration made a conscious decision to support al-Qaeda – so where is the mainstream media?

Brad Hoff reported in Foreign Policy Journal last Friday that “in Al Jazeera’s latest Head to Head episode, former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency Michael Flynn confirms to Mehdi Hasan that not only had he studied the DIA memo predicting the West’s backing of an Islamic State in Syria when it came across his desk in 2012, but even asserts that the White House’s sponsoring of radical jihadists (that would emerge as ISIL and Nusra) against the Syrian regime was ‘a willful decision.’”

When Hasan asked Flynn if “the administration turned a blind eye” to analyses explaining how the Syrian “rebels” against the Assad regime were actually Islamic jihadists who wanted to establish a hardline Sharia state in Syria, Flynn responded: “I don’t know that they turned a blind eye, I think it was a decision. I think it was a willful decision.”

“A willful decision to support an insurgency that had Salafists, Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood?,” asked Hasan.

Flynn responded: “It was a willful decision to do what they’re doing.” That is, arm those Salafist, al-Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood elements, and do all they could to enable them to succeed.

One has to pause and consider the source for all this. Mehdi Hasan is a highly suspect analyst and Foreign Policy Journal appears to be a pro-jihad paleocon publication, and Al Jazeera is certainly a pro-jihad propaganda outlet. All that is noted, but if this transcript is accurate, former DIA director Michael Flynn is confirming that the Obama Administration knowingly decided to support al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria, and directly enabled the rise of the Islamic State.

And given the Obama Administration’s general stance toward the global jihad and Islamic supremacism, what would be unbelievable about that? It has been well known for years that Obama has energetically supported the Muslim Brotherhood – so well known that Egyptians protesting against the corrupt and tyrannical Muslim Brotherhood regime of Mohamed Morsi in 2013 held up signs calling on Obama to “stop supporting terrorism.”

But al-Qaeda? The former head of the DIA revealing that the Obama administration made a conscious decision to aid the organization that murdered 3,000 Americans on September 11, 2001 and has been waging global warfare against the United States ever since? That is something else again.

It would, however, be consistent with so many odd aspects of Obama’s behavior. The President has aroused controversy over his affinity with Islam throughout his presidency, with his extravagant praise of the non-existent Islamic role in the founding and growth of the American republic, his exaggeration of Muslim achievements, his refusal to name the global jihad threat in any accurate manner, and so much more – even small incidents such as his notorious 2008 “slip of the tongue” in which he referred to “my Muslim faith,” right up to the one that broke in February 2015, when a photo surfaced from the U.S.-African Leaders’ Summit in August 2014, showing Obama passing by a group of African delegates with his right index finger raised in a gesture strongly reminiscent of the Islamic State’s now notorious one-finger salute.

That Islamic State, of course, was the direct beneficiary of Obama’s Syria policies, and now Michael Flynn has revealed that that was essentially the plan all along. So why isn’t the honking gaggle of Republican presidential candidates saying anything about this – demanding an investigation, asking Flynn for more information, imploring Obama to come clean about his Syria strategy – anything at all? In a sane political atmosphere, this would be enough to bring down the Obama presidency. Instead, it will get little notice and no action whatsoever.

Why that is so remains a mystery. Can it be that Flynn’s allegations are simply too hot to handle for everyone, and that, if taken seriously, they would bring down many more people than just Barack Obama? That seems to be the only remotely plausible explanation. But it is a deeply disquieting one.

Obama's Betrayals: The President's Secret Offer to Iran Before Negotiations

The White House conceded everything years before talks.

August 14, 2015

Ari Lieberman

Editor's note: The following is the second article in the FrontPage series "Obama's Betrayals." To read Part I, click here.

Anyone wishing to assess the true intentions of those pulling the strings in the Islamic Republic of Iran needs to understand first and foremost that there are no moderates in the Iranian echelons of power, only extremists. To assume otherwise is both naïve and dangerous. Some of the more polished regime elements may express themselves in a more moderate fashion when addressing Western audiences, but readily ratchet up the anti-Western rhetoric when behind closed doors.

In 2013, Hassan Rouhani was, for lack of a better word, “elected” president of Iran replacing the noxious Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Rouhani, a grandfatherly-like figure with an affable smile, appeared to be, at least outwardly, more moderate than his predecessor, but in reality expressed the same rancid, xenophobic views. He was quoted as saying that “the beautiful cry of 'Death to America' unites our nation,” and referred to Israel as a “wound,” “a festering tumor” and the “great Zionist Satan," among numerous other reprehensible pejoratives. 

Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in an address to the United Nations, dryly noted that while Ahmadinejad was a wolf in wolf’s clothing, Rouhani was a wolf in sheep’s clothing, but both were wolves nonetheless. What’s more, real power in Iran vests not with the nation’s president, but with its Supreme Leader, Ali Hosseini Khamenei, a pernicious man who seems incapable of addressing crowds without inserting at least one “death to America” reference somewhere in the speech. Indeed, just four days after signing the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) he addressed a large crowd and repeated the tired banalities of “death to America” and “death to Israel.” Khamenei is also solely responsible for vetting and approving presidential candidates which means that he found Rouhani to be an acceptable contender and that speaks volumes about what kind of character Rouhani is. 

Despite the given realities about the Islamic Republic and its malevolent nature, Obama attempted to sell the American public on the nonsensical notion that the election of Rouhani ushered in a new period of Iranian enlightenment and moderation and afforded the U.S. an opportunity for meaningful engagement with the mullahs on their nuclear program. On that premise, he led the American public to believe that it was only after the election of the “moderate” Rouhani that the U.S. chose to engage Iran. Recent disclosures by high-level Iranian officials however, suggest otherwise.

According to documents obtained by the Middle East Media Research Institute, the Obama administration began its preliminary nuclear negotiations with Iran while Ahmadinejad was still president, putting the lie to administration’s claim that it was the transition of power from radical to “moderate” that triggered the American policy of engagement. The shocking disclosure also blatantly contradicts Obama’s August 5th assertion that negotiations began just two years ago.

But perhaps even more astonishingly, in a sweeping concession, the administration acknowledged Iran’s right to enrich uranium, contravening long established U.S. policy as well as several prior UN Security Council resolutions affirming that Iran had no such right.

That shocking concession came in the form of a letter penned by none other than John Kerry who was at the time a senator and head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Despite the fact the Hillary Clinton was then Secretary of State, Obama chose Kerry to be his point man on the Iranian nuclear track. This might have been due to Kerry’s known past links to the regime.

According to Iranian officials, the letter was delivered via Omani intermediaries in 2011 and explicitly recognized Iran’s enrichment rights while calling for an end to international sanctions within six months. It was followed up by direct meetings between U.S. and Iranian officials in Oman the following year where U.S. officials reportedly adopted a very conciliatory approach.

While the Islamic fanatic Ahmadinejad was calling for Israel to be “wiped off the map,” and spewing repugnant views on Holocaust denial the administration was in direct contact with Iran, promising the mullahs sanctions relief while at the same time making broad sweeping concessions to Iran concerning its secretive nuclear program.

These surreptitious contacts with a pariah regime sworn to America’s destruction, amount to nothing short of outright deceitful conduct and represent the zenith of betrayal. While the Iranians were killing American soldiers with explosively formed projectiles (as many as 500 American deaths were linked to Iran as a result of EFPs) and calling for genocide against the Jewish state, the administration was fundamentally altering U.S. policy by conducting business as usual with the Iranians and making sweeping concessions to boot.

Lawmakers who’ve thus far opposed the JCPOA or expressed reservations have done so on substantive grounds, addressing the agreement’s obvious flaws concerning inspections, sanctions, ICBM proliferation and the billions that would instantly be placed in Iran’s coffers. But the new revelations concerning the administration’s perfidious conduct should give lawmakers additional pause for thought. Can this administration, so eager for détente with Iran and so deceitful in its diplomatic undertakings, be entrusted to take the necessary enforcement action in case of the inevitable Iranian breach? The answer is quite obviously, no.

Obama’s illegality and malfeasance in office- Part III

Constitution shredding — over and over again.

By Joseph Klein, FPM

Editor’s note: Below is the third article in the Frontpage series, “Obama’s Betrayals.” Click the following to read Part I and Part II

President Barack Obama is guilty of multiple counts of illegality and malfeasance in office.  He has both willfully abused his executive powers and willfully neglected to perform his executive duties under the Constitution to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”

More than any president in the history of the United States, Obama’s motive for his shredding of the Constitution is the pursuit of absolute power for the purpose of, in his words, “fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”
      Richard Nixon is often mentioned when one talks about abuse of presidential power. From his enemies list to Watergate and its cover-up, Nixon set the bar in his time for illegality and malfeasance in office. But he was an amateur compared to Obama, who has taken illegality and malfeasance in office to a whole new level.

Nixon, for example, tried to use the Internal Revenue Service to go after his political enemies, but did not have enough loyalists in the IRS to do his full bidding. Obama created a climate that encouraged IRS targeting of nonprofit tea party organizations. The purpose was to keep them from raising enough tax-deductible funds to play any significant role in connection with issues relevant to the 2012 presidential election. When the IRS scandal first broke, Obama feigned surprise and dismay. But after months of stonewalling by members of his administration of congressional investigations, Obama said during a 2014 interview with Bill O’Reilly of Fox News that there was “not even a smidgeon of corruption.”

Nixon despised the press. So does Obama. But Obama’s Justice Department became an instrument to suppress freedom of the press at a level that Nixon could only dream about. It surreptitiously seized Associated Press phone records against the Justice Department’s own guidelines and in violation of the Associated Press’s First Amendment rights. It also persecuted a reporter from Fox News, against which Obama has a personal vendetta. The Justice Department went after Fox News’ chief Washington correspondent, James Rosen, obtaining a subpoena to search his private communications. It did so on the bogus pretext that Rosen himself may have allegedly committed a crime in his exchange of information with a government employee, “at the very least, either as an aider, abettor and/or co-conspirator.”

It is not illegal for the press to publish classified information which a journalist obtains from a government employee. And the information that Rosen obtained did not appear to involve any secret information regarding such highly sensitive matters as current U.S. military plans, weapons systems, or operations. Nevertheless, the Obama administration chose to try and intimidate one of its severest critics in the press, Fox News, by attempting to criminalize the legitimate investigatory work of its chief Washington correspondent.

As former New York Times general counsel James Goodale, who represented the newspaper during its Pentagon Papers fight with the Nixon administration, said back in 2013:

“The search warrant filed to investigate the Fox News reporter James Rosen proved as many had suspected: President Obama wants to make it a crime for a reporter to talk to a leaker. It is a further example of how President Obama will surely pass President Richard Nixon as the worst president ever on issues of national security and press freedom.”

Nixon might have relished the opportunity to throw scapegoats into jail. Obama and his Secretary of State at the time, Hillary Clinton, did just that. They blamed the September 11, 2012 Benghazi terrorist attack that resulted in the loss of four American lives, including the ambassador to Libya, on an obscure anti-Islam video. Their purpose was to deflect attention from the repeated failing of the Obama administration to heed requests for more security. To please Muslims upset with the video and continue their diversionary scapegoating tactic, the Obama administration managed to trump up a technical probation violation against the producer of the video and have him thrown into jail. Never mind about the producer’s First Amendment rights.  Never mind that the pre-mediated terrorist attack in Benghazi had nothing to do with the video. Obama was busy transforming America into a country that honored Islamic defamation of religion laws over freedom of speech.

Richard Nixon had his Southern strategy to gain more political support for the Republican Party from historically Democratic voters in the South. However, this was small potatoes compared to Obama’s illegal alien amnesty strategy. Obama issued an executive order late last year that granted what amounts to amnesty for to up to 5 million immigrants who are in this country illegally, and to grant them work authorizations. In doing so, Obama blatantly usurped the authority of the legislative branch, which on multiple previous occasions he had acknowledged he did not have the constitutional power to do.

Fortunately, U.S. District Court Judge Andrew Hanen, who actually believes in the Constitution, issued a preliminary injunction last February against the implementation of Obama’s orders to change the nation’s immigration laws by executive fiat. His injunction has been upheld on appeal. However, the Obama administration has as little respect for the judicial branch as it has for the legislative branch if they oppose Obama’s progressive agenda. The administration violated the court order. Judge Hanen said last month that he was “shocked and surprised at the cavalier attitude the government has taken” in failing to recover work permits that had been issued to at least 2,000 illegal immigrants after he issued his preliminary injunction to suspend the program. The judge even threatened potential contempt charges against U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson unless the administration in timely fashion can demonstrate with “very compelling evidence” its full compliance with the judge’s order.

Obama did not set about to flout the Constitution’s separation of powers provisions out of compassion for the illegal immigrants’ plight. Rather, he saw his executive actions as a shortcut to fundamentally transform the demographic profiles in key states and potentially tilt the outcome of future elections. His executive actions will cement the loyalties of the millions of beneficiaries of Obama’s amnesty program to the Democratic Party. By also working to block states from taking measures to ensure that people are actually citizens when they register to vote, the Obama administration hopes to use the grateful illegal immigrants to secure Democratic Party majorities in elections at the national and state levels for years to come.

For the same reason, Obama does not want to enforce the nation’s immigration laws against “sanctuary cities.” He evidently believes that the “rights” of illegal immigrants – and their eventual votes – are more important than the lives of victims such as Kate Steinle, who was allegedly murdered in the sanctuary city of San Francisco by a five time deportee who had multiple felony convictions to his name. Obama did not even have the decency to pick up the phone and express his personal condolences to Kate Steinle’s family. And his press secretary Josh Earnest mocked proposals to deny certain federal grants to sanctuary cities that will not enforce immigration laws.

The Obama administration has directly contributed to the increase of illegal aliens with criminal records roaming the streets. In 2013 alone, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) released 36,007 convicted illegal aliens who were being detained pending deportation, including 193 convicted for homicide and 426 for sexual assault. Some of the released illegal aliens have gone on to commit more crimes against innocent American citizens.

“When aliens released onto the streets go on to commit additional crimes, yet could have been placed in ICE custody, this administration is responsible,” said Ira Mehlman of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, as quoted by National Review.

In short, Barack Obama has not only exceeded the constitutional authority of his office with his power-grabbing amnesty executive actions. By not enforcing the nation’s current immigration laws, he is helping illegal aliens with criminal convictions, who should have been deported, remain in the country, free to commit more crimes.

While illegal aliens from Mexico are finding refuge in the United States thanks to President Obama, his administration presided over the shipping of guns into Mexico in a failed sting operation known as Fast and Furious. This operation reportedly allowed U.S. weapons to cross the border into Mexico in order to track where they ended up. It was badly botched, resulting in a U.S. border patrol agent, Brian Terry, being killed by one of these guns, which had ended up in the hands of a Mexican drug cartel. Obama and his former Attorney General Eric Holder then set about to obstruct the search for the truth as to what had actually happened and who was responsible.

Obama asserted a spurious claim of executive privilege to withhold information from Congress on efforts within the Justice Department to hide the truth about the Fast and Furious gun-running operation. President Obama was protecting his crony Eric Holder and trying to keep embarrassing facts from the public. He thereby facilitated an obstruction of justice.

The parents of Brian Terry, the border patrol agent who was killed by members of a Mexican drug cartel armed with weapons from the failed Justice Department gun trafficking operation, said “it is very disappointing that we are now faced with an administration that seems more concerned with protecting themselves rather than revealing the truth behind Operation Fast and Furious.”

For Barack Obama, the Constitution is an archaic document that, in his words uttered more than a decade ago and which he still believes, “reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day.” He said that the Constitution dealt only with what he characterized as “negative liberties,” not “redistribution of wealth.”

Obama explained what he viewed as the Constitution’s limitations this way, in terms of what it did and did not say: “Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.”

On repeated occasions since taking office, President Obama has cavalierly dismissed the Constitution, which he swore upon taking office to “preserve, protect, and defend.” The Constitution’s focus on limiting the power of government to protect individual liberties means nothing to Obama. If religious liberties and freedom of speech get in the way of his agenda to fundamentally transform America, then they are expendable. He subordinates individual rights to collective, group identity rights. Thus, for example, in combatting the so-called “war on women,” millions of helpless aborted babies are collateral damage and any investigation of Planned Parenthood’s illegal sale of baby body parts is out of the question.

The Founding Fathers’ carefully crafted system of checks and balances, intended to prevent the exertion of run-away executive power, also means nothing to Obama. If Congress tries to stand in his way, then Obama will pretend that Congress does not exist and legislate on his own.

The truth, like the Constitution, is expendable in Obama’s presidency. He lied repeatedly to sell Obamacare to the American people. And he is lying repeatedly now to defend his disastrous nuclear deal with the fanatical jihadist rulers in Iran.

Obama’s time in office is thankfully winding down towards its conclusion. However, his transformational progressive agenda and ‘ends justify the means’ attitude live on. Hillary Clinton, the front-runner for the Democratic Party nomination, pledged at a Cinco de Mayo event with illegal immigrants last May to go even further than Obama in the use of executive orders to push forward an amnesty agenda. In a direct attack on faith and the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion, Hillary said last April that “deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed” in order to accommodate abortion. Evidently, continuing tax-payer subsidies for Planned Parenthood to harvest and sell baby parts would be justified in part by her mandated change to religious beliefs.

In 2007, Hillary Clinton said that “secret White House email accounts” were among the reasons she believed at the time that “Our Constitution is being shredded.”  By her own standard, Hillary has shredded the Constitution with her private email account and private server she used as Secretary of State, compounded by her obstruction of justice in unilaterally destroying half of the emails and cleansing her server. If she or another like-minded progressive is elected president, expect a third Obama term of more Constitution shredding, illegality and malfeasance in office.



Current Issue

Website Builder