Unless you been living in another dimension, you are quite aware that the rogue nation of Iran would like to wipe off the face of the Earth both our country and our ally, Israel.

Sure. You’re aware.  However, one of the Candidates for the Republican Presidential Nomination seems to think that if we just left them alone, the Iranians would forget about how badly they despise us, and we could sit on a hilltop and have a Coke and a smile together.

Perhaps this individual needs a history lesson.  Sherman, start up the Wayback Machine:

In 1953, the CIA staged “Operation Ajax,” which unseated a duly elected prime minister, Mohammed Mossadegh, and reinstated Mohammed Reza Pahlavi as Iran’s traditional and ancestral shah (monarch). The agreement stipulated that, in exchange for military and economic aid to Iran, there would a continuous supply of oil to the U.S.

Pahlavi, however, made some bad decisions. In the early 1960s, he promised his people increased personal freedoms and other social reforms. That didn’t happen.

The shah’s wealth grew, and he succumbed to the temptations of a luxurious western lifestyle, which angered the Iranian people, especially the religious right wing. The clergy began to preach long and loud against the shah and his queen, which stirred the masses to revolt. The shah was forced to abdicate the throne again and leave the country in January 1979.

The new ruler, Ayatollah Khomeini (pronounced Ko-MAY-nee), railed against the American government, denouncing it as the “Great Satan” and “Enemy of Islam.”

When the shah was diagnosed with lymphoma, he requested to be treated by U.S. doctors. His request was granted. That was the proverbial “straw that broke the camel’s back,” and so enraged Iranians that a rabble stormed the American Embassy in Teheran.

On November 4, 1979, an angry mob of some 300 to 500 “students” who called themselves “Imam’s Disciples,” laid siege to the American Embassy in Teheran, Iran, to capture and hold hostage 66 U.S. citizens and diplomats. Although women and African-Americans were released a short time later, 51 hostages remained imprisoned for 444 days with another individual released because of illness midway through the ordeal.

After months of failed negotiations and a failed rescue attempt by the Carter Administration, the hostages were released the very day that Ronald Reagan became the President of the United States.

You’re probably saying, “Certainly the present leadership in Iran has gotten better than it was back then?”

Nope.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the sixth and current President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and the main political leader of the Alliance of Builders of Islamic Iran, a coalition of conservative political groups in the country. An engineer and teacher from a poor background, Ahmadinejad joined the Office for Strengthening Unity after the Islamic Revolution. Appointed a provincial governor, he was removed after the election of President Mohammad Khatami and returned to teaching. Tehran’s council elected him mayor in 2003. He took a religious hard line, reversing reforms of previous moderate mayors. His 2005 presidential campaign, supported by the Alliance of Builders of Islamic Iran, garnered 62% of the runoff election votes, and he became President on 3 August 2005.

Ahmadinejad is a controversial figure both within Iran and internationally. He has been criticized domestically for his economic lapses and disregard for human rights. He launched a gas rationing plan in 2007 to reduce the country’s fuel consumption, and cut the interest rates that private and public banking facilities could charge. He supports Iran’s nuclear energy program. His election to a second term in 2009 was widely disputed and caused widespread protests domestically and drew significant international criticism. In 2011 the presence of a so-called “deviant current” among his aides and supporters led to the arrest of several of them.

Last night, at the Republican Debate in Sioux City, Iowa, Ron Paul caused a lot of jaws to drop in incredulity:

Paul said there was “no U.N. evidence” that Iran is developing a nuclear weapons program, calling claims to the contrary “war propaganda.”

“To me the greatest danger is that we will have a president that will overreact, and we will soon bomb Iran,” he said. “We ought to really sit back and think, not jump the gun and believe that we are going to be attacked. That’s how we got into that useless war in Iraq and lost so much.”

Paul said it “makes more sense” to directly engage with Iran diplomatically. And he even praised President Obama for “wisely backing off on sanctions” against Iran, which he called overreaching.

“We have 12,000 diplomats in our services. We ought to use a little bit of diplomacy once in a while.”

Rick Santorum and then Michele Bachmann rebutted Paul. Santorum equated the leadership of Iran to Al Qaeda and said that the U.S. should be ready to strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities.

“We know without a shadow of a doubt that Iran will take a nuclear weapon, they will use it to wipe our ally, Israel, off the face fo the map,” Bachmann said. “And they’ve stated they will use it against the United States of America. We would be fools and knaves to ignore their purpose and their plan.”

Or Ron Paul and his devout followers.

I wonder how much tin foil hats cost the days?

I know what the price of naivety in Foreign Affairs is:  Nuclear Annihilation.

I can remember sitting in the lecture hall of the (then) Memphis State University Journalism Building, listening to Dr. Williams, whom we all swore did the first newscast of KDKA, America’s first radio station, in 1920.  The class was “Introduction to Journalism” and Dr. Van Williams was telling us that the ” key to being a good journalist was objectivity”.

Yesterday, some 35 years later, MSNBC traveled as far away from objectivity as Janeane Garafalo is from being a runway model.  In an act of blatant Obama sycophancy:

MSNBC daytime anchor Thomas Roberts seizes on Mitt Romney’s use of the phrase “Keep America America.” The network claims the phrase plays homage to the Ku Klux Klan slogan of “Keep America American.” According to left-leaning news outlets, the “Keep America American” expression was apparently used by the KKK in the early 1900s.

Somehow the folks at MSNBC believe Mitt Romney is acknowledging his Klan roots by using a similar phrase in his 2012 campaign for the presidency.

The Ku Klux Klan of the era that the nincompoops at MSNBC were trying to link Mittens to is known as

The second Ku Klux Klan [which] was founded in 1915 by William J. Simmons, an ex-minister and promoter of fraternal orders; its first meeting was held on Stone Mt., Ga. The new Klan had a wider program than its forerunner, for it added to “white supremacy” an intense nativism and anti-Catholicism (it was also anti-Semitic) closely related to that of the Know-Nothing movement of the middle 19th cent. Consequently its appeal was not sectional, and, aided after 1920 by the activities of professional promoters Elizabeth Tyler and Edward Y. Clarke, it spread rapidly throughout the North as well as the South. It furnished an outlet for the militant patriotism aroused by World War I, and it stressed fundamentalism in religion.

Professing itself nonpolitical, the Klan nevertheless controlled politics in many communities and in 1922, 1924, and 1926 elected many state officials and a number of Congressmen. Texas, Oklahoma, Indiana, Oregon, and Maine were particularly under its influence. Its power in the Midwest was broken during the late 1920s when David C. Stephenson, a major Klan leader there, was convicted of second-degree murder, and evidence of corruption came out that led to the indictment of the governor of Indiana and the mayor of Indianapolis, both supporters of the Klan. The Klan frequently took extralegal measures, especially against those whom it considered its enemies. As was the case with the earlier Klan, some of these measures, whether authorized by the central organization or not, were extreme.

At its peak in the mid-1920s its membership was estimated at 4 million to 5 million. Although the actual figures were probably much smaller, the Klan nevertheless declined with amazing rapidity to an estimated 30,000 by 1930.

The phrase used earlier, “according to left-leaning news outlets”, refers to americablog.com, which, in turn, is quoting two books on the subject of the Second Klan, which refer to the  use of that phrase in the Klan’s literature that it distributed.  Although, I see no copies of that literature presented on the blog, just authors’ opinions.

The closest phrase to the one causing all the consternation which I found in my research is the following:

In an attempt to gain a foothold in education, the Klan in 1921 bought Lanier University, a struggling Baptist university in Atlanta. Nathan Bedford Forrest, grandson of the confederate general by the same name, was appointed business manager, and the school would teach “pure, 100 percent Americanism”. Enrollment was dismal and the school closed after its first year of Klan ownership. Ironically the complex would later be used as a synagogue.

To use a current popular phrase, MSNBC definitely jumped the shark and by yesterday afternoon, they were backing off as quickly as they could:

UPDATE: On tonight’s edition of MSNBC’s “Hardball,” host Chris Matthews apologized for the “irresponsible” and “incendiary” attack on Mitt Romney.

UPDATE: Al Sharpton, on his show tonight, gave his seal of approval for MSNBC to apologize. Sharpton says he believes Romney deserved the apology because he has also been a “victim” of half-truths.

By trying to link Mitt Romney to a racist organization’s past, an organization which remains active even today, MSNBC has made Josef Goebbels proud.

No longer will they be able to falsely claim objectivity in this upcoming Presidential Election.  They might as well release all of the Republican pundits they have on retainer and change “Morning Joe” over to “Morning Mika”.

Any self-respecting Republican, no matter how squishy they are, needs to refuse any interview with any NBC Channel, and that includes Mittens, himself.

Let this be a lesson to you “Moderate” Republicans who have been so eager to “reach across the aisle”.  The hand behind the back of the Lib’s hand that you are shaking is holding a rhetorical knife.

And, by using a Progressive blog as their source for news, MSNBC has joined the Emperor in parading around in their birthday suit.  Their true nature has been exposed for all of America to see.

MSNBC has leaned forward…and stepped in it…Big Time.

Wherever I go, whoever I talk to, I’m getting asked the same question over and over again:

How did we end up with having to choose between Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich as the Republican Nominee for President?

Well, the ever-so-exciting Tim Pawlenty dropped out.  So did the toast (according to his Democrat buddies) of last year’s annual Gridiron Dinner, Mitch Daniels.

Then, Former Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin headed for more sane and lucrative pastures as she withdrew to simply be a pundit for the next 5 years.

That left us with a cranky old isolationist (Ron Paul), a Conservative woman labelled Crazy Eyes by the Main Street Media (Michele Bachmann), a Pennsylvania Conservative (Rick Santorum), who is about as exciting as dry white toast, and a wealthy Mormon heir who worked for, and still speaks highly of, President Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm).

Now, what do Romney and Gingrich have to look forward to, in their quest to secure their party’s nomination?

Well, after they get through eviscerating each other down to their skivvies, the pack of piranhas known as the Main Street Media are going to give them both a thorough and quite public examination that their proctologists will be envious of.

We have no clue as to a lot of the details of the life of the present Leader of the Free World, but you can be darn sure that the American public will know how many zits Newt popped as a teenager and when the first time was that Mitt used Brylcreem on that luxurious hair of his.

And that’s just the above-board research.

Obama’s Hatchet Man, David Axlerod, is sure to get the nod to finish the job.  I would bet you (not $10,000, because I’m as broke as the rest of hard-working Americans in the Heartland, thanks to Obamanomics) that he’s been a busy little henchman already.

Sherman, start up the Wayback Machine:

In 2004, Illinois State Senator Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm) decided to run for The United States Senate.

In order to have a successful Senatorial campaign, Scooter had to secure tremendous financial backing and be the recipient of astute political mentoring. No problem.

It is now very well-known that George Soros, evil genius, major Democratic Party donor and anti-Israel crusader, has been a generous contributor to Barack Obama. However, not too many people know that a loophole in McCain-Feingold allowed Soros and his family members to be extremely generous in their support of Obama’s 2004 Senatorial campaign.

Obama had to run against Blair Hull in the primary and then Jack Ryan in the general (both multi-millionaires). Obama received huge donations from individuals, to so-called “millionaires exception.” Usually, individuals are limited to giving $2300 to candidates in federal elections, but if the candidates are running against millionaires, these limits do not apply and candidates are allowed to receive up to $12,000 from a single individual. Soros and his family gave Barack Obama $60,000. This does not count the money that Soros was funneled to so-called 527 groups (Moveon.org, for example) that have also been politically active; nor does it include money that Soros raised from tapping a network of friends, business associates, and employees.

Besides garnering unlimited campaign funds, as the campaigns entered their closing rounds, the news ”happened to be” leaked to media outlets that both Hull and Ryan had “personal scandals” in their past. The timely release of this news wiped out both of their campaigns, leading to an easy victory for Obama in the primary and then in the general election.

The New York Times Magazine revealed that David Axelrod, Obama’s chief political and media adviser, may well have been behind the leak of the story that doomed the Hull candidacy as the primary reached its home stretch.

I’m shocked.

As he has shown over the years, Axelrod was right at home operating in this gray area, part idealist, part hired muscle. One can not bring up Axelrod’s name in certain circles in Chicago without the matter of the Blair Hull divorce papers coming up. Approaching the 2004 Senate primary, it was clear that it was a two-man race: the millionaire liberal, Hull, leading in the polls, and Obama, who was the figurehead of an impressive grass-roots campaign. One month before the vote, The Chicago Tribune “just happened” to reveal, at the end of a long profile of Hull, that during a divorce proceeding, Hull’s second wife filed for an order of protection. This revelation proceeded to erupt into a full-fledged scandal. This scandal destroyed Hull’s campaign and handed Obama an easy primary victory.

The Tribune reporter who wrote the story later admitted in print that the Obama camp had “worked aggressively behind the scenes” to push the story. However, a lot of folks in Chicago believe that Axelrod leaked the initial story. They will tell you that before signing on with Obama, Axelrod interviewed with Hull. They also point out that Obama’s TV ad campaign just happened to start at almost the same time. Axelrod swears up and down that “we had nothing to do with it” and that the campaign’s television ad schedule was in the works for a long time.

Axlerod’s explanation?

An aura grows up around you, and people assume everything emanates from you.

Translation:  Maybe I did it, maybe I didn’t.  [Wink, wink.  Nod, nod.  Knowing glance.]

Keep you eyes peeled, Americans.  We may be living a sequel.

Mercurial Conservative Talk Radio Host Michael Savage has made an offer to Republican Presidential  Nominee Candidate, Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, who happens to be the current front runner for his party’s nomination:

Newt Gingrich is unelectable. Mitt Romney is the only candidate with a chance of defeating Barack Obama, and there is nothing more important than that for the future heath, safety, and security of the United States of America. Therefore, I am offering Newt Gingrich one million dollars to drop out of the presidential race for the sake of the nation.

If Newt Gingrich really loves this country as much as he says he does, if he really wants what is best for America, he will set his ego aside, call me, and accept my offer. His continued candidacy spells nothing but ruin for conservatives, Republicans, and all true American patriots, One million dollars in exchange for preserving the nation, Newt. I say take the money … and don’t run.

Also jumping on the “Get Rid of Newt” Bandwagon is Conservative/Libertarian Talk Show Host Glenn Beck, who laid this unexpected little “turncoat moment” on us:

Over the weekend Beck followed up last week’s headline-making interview with Newt Gingrich with an appearance on Judge Andrew Napolitano’s Fox Business show.

Beck, who is no fan of what he terms Gingrich’s “progressive” politics, declared that Gingrich is the “only candidate I cannot vote for” before taking a rather brutal (if totally true to form)swipe at Tea Party supporters.

If you have a big government progressive, or a big government progressive in Obama… ask yourself this, Tea Party: Is it about Obama’s race? Because that’s what it appears to be to me. If you’re against him but you’re for this guy, it must be about race. I mean, what else is it? It’s the policies that matter.

The plot sickens…errr….thickens:

On a podcast this weekend hosted by Steve Bannon (who Dave Weigel notes is the director of the Sarah Palin documentary “The Undefeated” and lives in a D.C. house rented by Andrew Breitbart) Breitbart pushed back.

“Beck is a coward and won’t defend himself when he makes a mistakes…the self-appointed historian of the conservative movement, an autodidact who’s read a lot of books over the last few years….This guy is a huckster. He’s always been a huckster. It was only a few years ago that he was a shock jock, that he was a morning zoo guy. And he’s been taking people’s content for years and not crediting it.”

It’s worth noting the first time Breitbart and Beck tangled — though “tangled” is somewhat misleading since normally what happens is that in an attempt to generate some attention for himself Breitbart complains loudly about Beck and Beck ignores him — was over the Shirley Sherrod video.

In 2010 Breitbart, heady with the success of the James O’Keefe’s ACORN takedown, posted an edited video of USDA official Shirley Sherrod‘s speech at a March 27 speech at an NAACP banquet telling the audience she had denied a white farmer funding and claimed it was ““video evidence of racism coming from a federal appointee and NAACP award recipient.” Sherrod was promptly denounced and fired before anyone thought to check the full address which decided un-racist.

The next night Beck railed against the video on his Fox News show (though notably not against Breitbart), something the White House, among others, was not anticipating.

Cut to a year and a half later and Beck is sweepingly accusing the Tea Party of racist inclinations and Andrew Breitbart is angry about it.

In addition to all this, Beck said Monday morning on his radio show that if Newt Gingrich is the nominee and Ron Paul runs third party, he’d consider voting for Ron Paul over Newt Gingrich, even though he hates Ron Paul’s policies on the Middle East.

(I don my Peter Falk as Lt. Columbo rumpled raincoat and interrupt.)

Uhhh….excuse me…excuse me… Mr. Beck, sir.  May I ask you a question, please, sir?

HAVE YOU LOST YOUR EVER-LOVING COTTON-PICKING MIND?

I realize that Newt has had his less-than-Conservative moments.  However, so have you, sir.  You tend to lean more toward the Libertarian side on a bunch of issues.

So, are you jumping ship, now that the candidates you have been pushing Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum, both good Conservatives, have faded into the sunset?

I have another question, sir.  Please forgive me if this is politically incorrect, but it needs to be asked:  What are your feelings toward your fellow Mormons, Huntsman and Romney?  I know that Huntsman’s Father, a great humanitarian, is a close confidant of yours.  You’ve spoken of his several times over the years.

Does loyalty to the LDS hold any sway with your thought process?

No offense meant, sir.  Just asking.

(Hangs Columbo raincoat up)

I’ve listened to Glenn Beck for years. His words and actions of the last few days have me shaking my head.  Does he or doesn’t he want to evict Obama from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue?

Has his zeal in labeling Progressives of both political parties just alienated him from the very people who have supported him all of these years and made him as rich as Midas?

Dr. Savage, I’ve listened to you over the years, also.  Try decaf.  Romney’s going to be lucky to win New Hampshire.

No.  Newt is not an ideal candidate.  But, he is the best of what’s left.

You’re a candidate for your party’s Presidential Nomination.  You were once the leader of the entire pack of hopefuls, despite maintaining only 25% of the vote in your own party.

Now, from seemingly out of nowhere, a Former Speaker of the House, a historian no less, is leading you by almost double your percentage of the votes.

This  is positively blowing your mind.  You are a Second Generation Governor, fergoshsakes.  You’re a financial genius (just ask you).

By golly, this nomination is owed you by your party’s Elite.  It’s your legacy!

What are you going to do?

Well, evidently, if you’re Willard Mitt Romney, you and your minions are going to take a page out of President Barack Hussein Obama’s Playbook of Chicago Politics and resort to a blistering, low-road, ad hominem attack.

ABC reports:

Mitt Romney today [Saturday] said he believes that Newt Gingrich, with “no question in my mind,” would be the easier candidate for President Obama to beat in the general election, hinting that he and the former House speaker would bump heads at Saturday night’s debate to define their differences.

In an exclusive sit-down interview with ABC News anchor David Muir this afternoon in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, Romney shied away from attacking Gingrich outright but suggested that a more pointed exchange between him and Gingrich will happen as soon as the next debate.

“Well, we’ll be talking about issues, of course, and we have differing views on some issues and we’ll be talking about those differences,” he said. “That’s, after all, the nature of a debate.”

Pressed on whether he’d be willing to mix it up with Gingrich on stage, Romney didn’t explicitly rule it out.

“I’d expect Newt Gingrich and I will have some differences and we’ll be able to discuss those as well,” Romney said.

After 24 hours of scathing attacks directed at Gingrich from Romney surrogates, with several people associated with the campaign using words such as “untrustworthy” and “unreliable” to describe Gingrich, Romney was asked whether he, too, believes Gingrich is untrustworthy.

“Well [there are] a lot of people that worked with Speaker Gingrich in the past and they’re going to say whatever they will,” Romney said. “Heaven knows I can’t write a script for all the people that support me.”

Questioned specifically about the television ad, “Leader,” which touts Romney’s family values, the candidate told ABC News that the ad was not intended to be a veiled swipe at Gingrich.

“Actually, in each of my campaigns, I’ve begun advertising season with an ad about me and my family and my values,” he said.

“There was no attempt to in any way to implicate anybody else in that,” he said. “I’m just trying to let people know who I am.”

As for whether Gingrich’s personal life – specifically his three marriages – should be considered a liability, Romney said he would “not give advice to the American people as to what they should look when they decide who should be their nominee or their president.”

“I’m not going to tell them which things they’re allowed to consider,” Romney said, ”and which things they’re not.”

Meanwhile, the object of this onslaught, Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich took the high road:

Newt Gingrich vowed this afternoon [Saturday] to stay “relentlessly positive” as Fight Night looms in Iowa, as he talked to the roughly 200 people crammed into his recently-opened Urbandale headquarters for a kick-off event.

But Gingrich also drew a distinction between “attack ads” that are distortive of records, and contrasts about differences, which he said are different, and acceptable.

“We should focus on solutions,” Gingrich said, adding that the discussion has to be “positive” or the nominee will never be strong enough to take on President Obama.

“We have a very, very good chance to do very well on Jan. 3. we will only do well if each of you helps us,” he said, drifting into a bit of process saying: “Historically over a third of the people who go to caucus are not quite sure when they walk in the door.”

“My campaign will be relentlessly positive,” he said. “There’s not a problem (when people) compare records…there’s a big difference…between negative attack ads that are destructive, and legitimate comparisons.”

“We’re not going to be tearing people down,” Gingrich said, adding he would “attack” any super PAC supporting him that runs ads slamming another candidate, a day after the pro-Mitt Romney super PAC started airing attack ads agains the former House Speaker.

Remember the “Highlights” magazines that we all used to read in the doctor’s office as children?  There was a cartoon in the magazine titled “Goofus and Gallant”.  Goofus was a youngster who always made poor decisions.  Gallant was a young man who always tried to do the right thing.

At this moment, December 11, 2011, guess which candidate is Goofus and which candidate is Gallant?

Awww…you guessed.

Note From KJ:  I’ve read where Mitt Romney challenged Gov. Perry to accept a $10,000 bet last night.  Considering the economic plight of average Americans, that was a wee bit gauche, don’t you think?

President Barack Hussein Obama and First Lady Michelle hosted a traditional ceremony at the White House yesterday, and, as we say down in Dixie:

Y’all ain’t gonna believe this mess.

The less-than-objective Associated Press reported that

Obama, first lady Michelle Obama and Vice President Joe Biden convened a Hanukkah celebration at the White House Thursday in an early celebration of the Jewish Festival of Lights.

Obama said the Hanukkah story was about “right over might, faith over doubt.” In the Hanukkah story, a small band of Jews rededicating a Jerusalem temple found that a one-day supply of oil kindled a flame instead for eight.

The president noted “our unshakeable support and commitment to the security of the nation of Israel.”

Hanukkah begins at sunset on Dec. 20. Obama joked that everyone needs to be “careful that your kids don’t start thinking Hanukkah lasts 20 nights instead of eight.”

This is just wrong on sooo many levels.

First, Scooter, you don’t light all the candles at the same time.

On the first night of Hanukkah and on all other nights during the holiday, the middle candle (called a shamash) is lit first. The shamash does not count as one of the Hanukkah candles, but is used to light all the other candles.

Families usually light their Hanukkah menorah directly or soon after nightfall. If Hanukkah begins on Shabbat, the Hanukkiyah should be lit just before sundown.

Secondly, and most importantly, since when has this Administration been a friend of Israel and the Jewish people, except when it’s time to cozy up to the Democratic Jewish Elite for campaign contributions?

Yesterday, Neil Snyder, writing for americanthinker.com, posted an article, “You Can’t be Pro-Obama and Pro-Israel”.  Here are some excerpts:

Barack Obama is no Friend of Israel.

Since the day he took office, President Obama has been anti-Israel. He has taken advantage of every opportunity to snub Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu; he has created false hope among so-called “Palestinians”; and he has fomented problems in the Middle East that Israel is being forced to suffer through.

“Dithering” is an apt word for describing the president’s policies regarding Israel. In a nutshell, it means that the president doesn’t have an Israel policy.  He makes it up as he goes along, and nothing is certain except that he has created a colossal mess in the entire Middle East for us and for Israel.

For example, what were the president’s policies regarding freedom-seeking Arabs who wanted changes in their political systems during the Arab Spring? Hosni Mubarak, Egypt’s president, had to go and so did Muammar Gaddafi, Libya’s president. But what about Syrian President Bashar al-Assad? President Obama wasn’t sure about him. As of December 1, 2011, the death toll in Syria was more than 4000 and rising, but the Obama administration has done precious little to quell the senseless violence.

…This is the bottom line. Israel has no friends in the Middle East, and her enemies are growing stronger by the day. One of the most incendiary political questions today is whether Israel is preparing to strike Iran, but the fact is that with help from Iran, Israel’s enemies are preparing to deliver what they think will be a death blow to Israel. Repeatedly over the years, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has boldly asserted that Iran intends to “wipe Israel off the map.” The day has finally arrived when the Iranians think they are ready to launch a coordinated attack, and political instability in Syria may have prevented an attack in September.

Now more than ever before Israel needs a friend in the White House, and Barack Obama is not that person. After examining the facts, I am forced to conclude that you can’t be pro-Obama and pro-Israel.

 No kiddin’.

Do you remember what happened back in May, when Obama got “schooled” by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin “Bibi” Netanyahu?

The day after Obama spoke to the American people from the State Department, with an audience of 12 sycophants, including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, commanding the nation of Israel to give up half of their nation to the Palestinions, including a number of Christian holy places, he had a scheduled face-to-face meeting with Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin “Bibi” Netanyahu.

To say that it did not go well for Obama, is like saying that General Custer had a minor disagreement with the Indians.

In a magnificent display of leadership, Prime Minister Netanyahu told Obama what he could do with his command that Israel return to its 1967 boundaries.

Their meeting ran over by two hours, cancelling their luncheon plans.

While the two leaders agreed that there must be ironclad Israeli security alongside a Palestinian nation, no progress whatsoever was made on the issue of where the borders should be.

In response to Thursday’s speech by Obama, Netanyahu said:

While Israel is prepared to make generous compromises for peace, it cannot go back to the 1967 lines. These lines are indefensible.

As they sat together on a couch in front of the cameras after their private meeting, an uncomfortable looking Obama tried his best to spin their meeting into a positive thing. The president said:

Obviously there are some differences between us in the precise formulatons and language. That’s going to happen between friends.

Looking toward Netanyahu, he added:

What we are in complete accord about is that a true peace can only occur if the ultimate resolution allows Israel to defend itself against threats, and that Israel’s security will remain paramount in U.S. evaluation of any prospective deal.

And that’s when the President of the United States was taken to school.

While Obama acted like he was listening intently, he squirmed around on the couch as if his bloomers were riding up.  He knew that he was being humbled.

The animated, passionate Prime Minister of Israel gave Obama a lesson in leadership, saying:

Remember that, before 1967, Israel was all of nine miles wide.  It was half the width of the Washington Beltway. And these were not the boundaries of peace; they were the boundaries of repeated wars, because the attack on Israel was so attractive.

It’s not going to happen. Everybody knows it’s not going to happen.  And I think it’s time to tell the Palestinians forthrightly it’s not going to happen.

If that was “unshakeable support and commitment to the security of the nation of Israel”, Mr. President, I’m a blonde Dallas Cowboy Cheerleader named Buffy.

Next year, Mr. President, skip the Menorah lighting, and let Joe do it.  At least he might be more believable.  You will be a Lame Duck, anyway.  There will be no need for any Hanukkah hypocrisy then.