It just never stops with this administration. First, it was the United Nations Human Rights Council (formerly Human Rights Commission). That title couldn't be farther from the truth. Just take a look at the nations that are part of it. Nations with some of the worst human rights records on Earth: Cuba, China, Pakistan, Nigeria, and Iran (Women's Rights Committee). Yeah, Iran. They're all about women's rights for sure. The whole world certainly knows about that one. Within the first year of its inception, there were forty condemnations issued against various countries for alleged human rights abuses by the Human Rights Council. Thirty-three of them have been against Israel. Click HERE for an article by Joel Brinkley of the Global Post for more information.
Now, President Obama has announced that the United States will be joining still another anti-Israel organization, the ALLIANCE OF CIVILIZATIONS. In an opinion ARTICLE on Fox News, eighteen of the representatives throws the organization very much towards the Islamic nations. When formed in 2005, the representatives were from nations such as Egypt, Qatar, Tunisia, Morocco, Pakistan, and the former president of Iran. The U.S. had two representatives on the panel, but none from Israel. Membership has since grown considerably. Click HERE to see the list. You will quickly see some of the biggest human rights violators and pro-Muslim countries in the world on this list including Sudan where people are being slaughtered by the government for being Christians who refuse to convert to Islam. It sure doesn't sound much like the UNAOC's MISSION STATEMENTat all.
"The United Nations Alliance of Civilizations (UNAOC) is an initiative of the UN Secretary-General which aims to improve understanding and cooperative relations among nations and peoples across cultures and religions, and to help counter the forces that fuel polarization and extremism."
Only a basic understanding of Islam is needed to know that the Islamic countries are not the least bit interested in "cooperative relations among nations and peoples across cultures and religions." Here is some INFORMATION from THE RELIGION OF PEACEwebsite about Islamic beliefs concerning non-Muslims. Sudan is one of the most active examples of this in practice today.
The Obama administration has announced the United States will join the United Nations Alliance of Civilizations, another openly anti-Israel organization.
The group was created in 2006 to find ways to bridge the growing divide between Muslim and Western societies – a goal wholeheartedly embraced by President Barack Obama, who has redirected American foreign policy in pursuit of the same goal.
The U.S. decision is also meant to support the Alliance goal of “improved understanding and cooperative relations among nations and peoples,” the statement said.The White House announcement stated that the move is intended to realize Obama's “vision of active U.S. engagement with other nations and international organizations,” a goal sometimes pursued, noted National Review Online columnist Brett D. Schaefer last Thursday, “even when there is little or no chance that doing so will advance U.S. interests.”
However, the Alliance has been anything but cooperative when it comes to improving understanding of issues relating to the security of Israel's and United States' civilians.
The group claimed in its first report in 2006 that global tensions were driven primarily by the conflict between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. The same report referred to “a perception among Muslim societies of unjust aggression stemming from the West” in a discussion relating to the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States by the international Al Qaeda terrorist group.
US Feared it Would be Anti-Israel - in 2006 At the time, the U.S. boycotted the group, expressing concerns that it would become a forum for bashing both Israel and the United States, in a manner similar to that of the U.N. Human Rights Council.
However, Obama administration officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said those concerns have since been addressed.
Since Obama took office a year ago, he has worked hard to reach out to the Islamic community of nations in a series of gestures that make it clear he is bending over backwards to strengthen ties with the Muslim world.
Since his speech from Cairo last June, Obama has reached out to Iran and Syria, restoring full diplomatic relations with Damascus and returning an ambassador to the Syrian capital. The U.S. has also joined the anti-Israel U.N. Human Rights Commission. Both these moves are reversals of prior Bush administration decisions. (IsraelNationalNews.com)
This isn't surprising coming from an overtly anti-Israel administration, from President Obama's poor treatment of Benjamin Netanyahu to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's reversal of her position concerning Jerusalem (she now supports a divided Jerusalem when she supposedly was against it in the past).
There is too much pandering to terrorist nations and organizations by this administration. Terrorists do not negotiate and see those who do as weak. Becoming a part of such organizations only serves to further weaken America's position with its allies and the world.
"We wring our hands . . . as the Jewish state continues to seize ever more Arab land for its colonists." Charles Freeman
I got another newsfeed from ARUTZ SHEVA, The Israel National News, about President Obama's upcoming appointment of Charles Freeman, Jr. to head the NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL. Here it is:
Obama Appoints Anti-Israel Aide
by David Lev
A flurry of reports over the weekend said that the former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia, considered a sharp critic of Israel, is to be named to a top intelligence post in the administration of U.S. President Barack Obama.
Chas W. Freeman Jr., who was U.S. ambassador in Riyadh from 1989-1992, is set to be named chairman of the National Intelligence Council, which has a strong influence on the content of the intelligence briefings presented to the President (and puts together the National Intelligence Estimate, or NIE, which in 2007 dissuaded the Bush regime from attacking Iran). The Council chairman is also often called on to give direct briefings to the President.
Typical of Freeman's viewpoints is a statement he made in a speech before the Washington Institute of Foreign Affairs in 2007, in which he more or less blames international terrorist acts on Israel: "American identification with Israeli policy has also become total. Those in the region and beyond it who detest Israeli behavior, which is to say almost everyone, now naturally extend their loathing to Americans. This has had the effect of universalizing anti-Americanism, legitimizing radical Islamism, and gaining Iran a foothold among Sunni as well as Shiite Arabs. For its part, Israel no longer even pretends to seek peace with the Palestinians; it strives instead to pacify them. Palestinian retaliation against this policy is as likely to be directed against Israel’s American backers as against Israel itself. Under the circumstances, such retaliation – whatever form it takes – will have the support or at least the sympathy of most people in the region and many outside it. This makes the long-term escalation of terrorism against the United States a certainty, not a matter of conjecture."
Freeman also is a strong advocate of talking to Hamas, which he says "is the only democratically-elected government in the Arab world." In his speech, Freeman said that "Hamas is showing that if we offer it nothing but unreasoning hostility and condemnation, it will only stiffen its position and seek allies among our enemies. In both cases, we forfeit our influence for no gain."
Freeman says that Israel must be pressured to accept the American point of view, which does not coincide with its own. "We must talk with all parties, whatever we think of them or their means of struggle. Refusal to reason with those whose actions threaten injury to oneself, one's friends, and one's interests is foolish, feckless, and self-defeating. That is why it is past time for an active and honest discussion with both Israel and the government Palestinians have elected, which – in an irony that escapes few abroad – is the only democratically-elected government in the Arab world."
In another speech Freeman said: "We destroyed the Iraqi state and catalyzed anarchy, sectarian violence, terrorism, and civil war in that country... Meanwhile, we embraced Israel’s enemies as our own; they responded by equating Americans with Israelis as their enemies. We abandoned the role of Middle East peacemaker to back Israel’s efforts to pacify its captive and increasingly ghettoized Arab populations. We wring our hands while sitting on them as the Jewish state continues to seize ever more Arab land for its colonists. This has convinced most Palestinians that Israel cannot be appeased and is persuading increasing numbers of them that a two-state solution is infeasible. It threatens Israelis with an unwelcome choice between a democratic society and a Jewish identity for their state. Now the United States has brought the Palestinian experience – of humiliation, dislocation, and death – to millions more in Afghanistan and Iraq. Israel and the United States each have our reasons for what we are doing, but no amount of public diplomacy can persuade the victims of our policies that their suffering is justified, or spin away their anger, or assuage their desire for reprisal and revenge.”
OK, there is something that the Washington set does not seem to understand, so I'll put it simply: THE PALESTINIANS DO NOT WANT A TWO-STATE SOLUTION. They want a ONE-STATE SOLUTION: the TOTAL and COMPLETE DESTRUCTION OF ISRAEL. This is a very simple concept that Mr. Freeman doesn't get either. Another simple concept he apparently hasn't comprehended is: TERRORISTS DO NOT NEGOTIATE ANYTHING. One would think that after all these years, this would not longer be a problem. The Palestinian Liberation Organization (Palestinian Authority, whatever) turned down an offer from Israel years ago for 100% of the land they wanted. This made their real agenda quite clear, and that hasn't changed one bit.
Judging from the quotes in this article, Mr. Freeman is apparently very much a part of the Washington spin machine. There are so many lies in just these couple of quotes it's unbelievable, especially about Iraq. Just another indication that things in Washington change very little from year to year and decade to decade, especially selling out Israel. This won't be an Obama thing. It's a U.S. presidential thing. Every administration sooner or later totally and completely walks out on Israel at least once. As I've said many times before on various issues, when will Washington EVER learn?
Here's an urgent news item that maybe you don't know about. Carolyn, NO APOLOGIES ROUND 2, sent me this. Click on the title to visit. Her journal is an excellent and well-written read.
This really surprised me, as I have never seen anything like this even proposed in the U.S. ever before. The article below appeared in the WORLDNET DAILY recently.
Emanuel volunteers Americans to do 'a lot'
'If you're worried about having to do 50 jumping jacks the answer is yes'
A video of a 2006 interview with now-Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel for president-elect Barack Obama reveals plans for mandatory induction for all young adults into a civilian "force."
"If you're worried about, are you going to have to do 50 jumping jacks, the answer is yes," Emanuel told the interviewer, a reporter who was podcasting for the New York Daily News at the time.
WND reported last weekend when the official website for Obama, Change.gov, announced he would "require" all middle school through college students to participate in community service programs.
However, after a flurry of blogs protested children being drafted into Obama's proposed youth corps, officials softened the website's wording.
Originally, under the tab "America Serves," Change.gov read, "President-Elect Obama will expand national service programs like AmeriCorps and Peace Corps and will create a new Classroom Corps to help teachers in under served schools, as well as a new Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, and Veterans Corps.
"Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year," the site announced. WND previously reported on a video of a marching squad of Obama youth and Obama's "civilian national security force," which he said in July would be just as powerful and well-funded as the U.S. military. Now comes the Emanuel video, which has been embedded here:
In the interview, Emanuel was questioned whether participants in the proposed force would live in barracks.
"Somewhere between the age of 18 to 25 you will do three months of training. You can do it at some point in your college time," he said. "There can be nothing wrong with all Americans having a joint, similar experience of what we call civil defense training or civil service."
Emanuel said the planned requiring service "will give people a sense of what it means to be an American."
He said, of course, the plan at that point was flexible.
"We propose three months [but] at the end of the day [if] someone says it should be four … I'm not going sit here and hold up [plans]," Emanuel said.
When the reporter questioned the commitment, Emanuel responded, "Guess what. We have a lot more challenges. We are going to need a lot to do it. If you're worried about are you going to have to do 50 jumping jacks the answer is yes."
He chuckled at the reporters concerns.
"Rather than figure out if whether you take a train ride or a barrack. … Think of it this way, it will be a common experience.
"There will be a body of citizens who are ready, capable and trained," he said.
But the plan, especially its demand that Americans participate in a domestic "force," has been raising questions.
The blogger Gateway Pundit called Obama's plan the "creation of his Marxist youth corps," and DBKP commented, "'Choosing' to serve should be approved by parents – not required by the government. No amount of good intentions can sugar-coat words like 'mandatory,' 'compulsory' or 'required.'"
Emanuel uses his book, "The Plan: Big Ideas for America," to specify that he would propose, for all Americans ages 18 to 25, that they "serve their country by going through three months of basic training, civil defense preparation and community service."
Obama, meanwhile, also has yet to clarify what he meant during his July "Call to Service" speech in Colorado Springs in which he insisted the U.S. "cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set" and needs a "civilian national security force."
A video of his comments is here:
Joseph Farah, founder and editor of WND, used his daily column first to raise the issue and then to elevate it with a call to all reporters to start asking questions about it.
"If we're going to create some kind of national police force as big, powerful and well-funded as our combined U.S. military forces, isn't this rather a big deal?" Farah wrote. "I thought Democrats generally believed the U.S. spent too much on the military. How is it possible their candidate is seeking to create some kind of massive but secret national police force that will be even bigger than the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force put together?
"Is Obama serious about creating some kind of domestic security force bigger and more expensive than that? If not, why did he say it? What did he mean?" Farah wrote.
The Obama campaign has declined to respond to WND questions on the issue.
But Farah's call generated intense Internet discussions.
The Blue Collar Muse blog commented, "The questions are legion and the implications of such an organization are staggering! What would it do? According to the title, it's a civilian force so how would it go about discharging 'national security' issues? What are the Constitutional implications for such a group? How is this to be paid. … The statement was made in the context of youth service. Is this an organization for just the youth or are adults going to participate? How does one get away from the specter of other such 'youth' organizations from Nazi Germany and the former Soviet Union when talking about it?"
There are many valid concerns about this. Why do we need now a "civilian national security force" operating outside the National Guard and the U.S. Military? I don't think one has to go very far to see where this could go. Keep in mind that anytime the government wants to do something they don't think people will approve of or will be wary of, the government ALWAYS tries its old line of reassurance that it will ONLY BE USED FOR or IN CASE OF, and nothing else. The old limited context line. But as time goes on, as we all know, it always expands and grows. For me, this is way too much like the beginnings of Hitler's Youth Corps of Nazi Germany. It could very easily be used to keep an American population under control and in line with government policies. The months of "training" could very easily be indoctrination into the Government's way of thinking.
And speaking of Mr. Emanuel . . . for those of you who think that he is pro-Israel: not so much. According to an article in ARUTZ SHEVA, the Israel National News Service, entitled JEWS AROUND THE NEXT PRESIDENT (click to read the entire article), Mr. Emanuel certainly is not. The article, authored by Tamar Yonah, started off by saying that Jews in America or in Israel should be reassured by the appointment of Jews to Obama's administration.
"The recent appointments of Jews by United States President–Elect Barack Obama to his new administration should not be reassuring to the Jewish community in America or in Israel, says David Bedein, Bureau Chief of the Israel Resource News Agency.
During the elections, Bedein covered the Obama campaign in Pennsylvania, working on behalf of the Philadelphia Bulletin. Speaking on Israel National Radio's Weekend Edition, Bedein said that the Jewish appointees are not pro-Israel.
Most of the rumors spread about Obama, Bedein stated, were "more or less concocted by the Hillary campaign.” However he did express concern over Obama's closeness to Jewish policy makers who have pushed for Israel to give up land in the past. In particular, is Rahm Emanuel, the newly appointed White House Chief of Staff. Emanuel's parents are Israeli.
Obama's first appointment in the White House, Rahm Emanuel, was the key person in the Clinton administration to make the Oslo Accords happen in 1993. We are facing a situation of Jews around the next president who are very, very antagonistic to any of Israel's settlement policies in Judea and Samaria. But much more serious than that of course, is that the implication to the rest of Israel. If any of that territory is handed over, we'll see missiles on the center of Israel."
As we have seen before, anytime we pressure Israel into giving up land given to them through their covenant with God, some type of disaster always happens to the U.S. There have been no exceptions to this, nor will there ever be.
and 
.
