[VIDEO] Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu: ‘UN Is a Global Moral Farce’




[VIDEO] Giuliani Destroys Obama in Epic Speech: Netanyahu Is ‘A Man Who Fights for His People, Unlike Our President’

Fox Nation

Warning: Beware a Wounded Obama


Obama will be a lame duck president. Voters will have rebuked him and his policies. He’s pissed. How much damage will he do? As much as he can get away with

Philip Klein writes: No matter what the exact outcome of Tuesday’s elections, there is little doubt that President Obama will come out of it wounded.

Whether or not Republicans take over the Senate, they will certainly gain seats. Even if Democrats manage to eke out a victory that maintains narrow control of the chamber, it will only be because their candidates in close races did everything they could to distance themselves from Obama.

“…the relationship between the Obama and Netanyahu administrations ‘is now the worst it’s ever been, and it stands to get significantly worse after the November midterm elections’.” 

Either way, Obama will be a lame duck president. Voters will have rebuked him and his policies. He won’t have the ability to pass major legislation, and the focus of the political world will quickly turn to candidates vying to replace him.

But being a lame duck president isn’t the same as being without power. On issues including healthcare, environmental policy, immigration, and national security, Obama has already displayed a willingness to bypass Congress to pursue his goals.

“Obama has already caved in to the Iranians on uranium enrichment, plutonium development, and its missile program. And the New York Times has reported that if a final agreement with Iran is reached, Obama ‘will do everything in his power to avoid letting Congress vote on it’.” 

If there were anything holding him back up to this point, it was either that he was facing re-election or he was somewhat hesitant to weaken Democratic chances in an election year that would determine the composition of Congress during his last two years in office.


But his name won’t be on the ballot in 2016 and he won’t have to deal with the Congress that gets elected that year, either. This means he has every reason to take more aggressive executive actions.

Read the rest of this entry »

[VIDEO] Netanyahu: The Malignancy of Militant Islam Is Growing and Spreading

“I wrote 20 years ago that you will see domestic international terrorists, because you will see them send people — jihadists — to live in the West to raise jihad against the West, and unfortunately that has come about.”

Said Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Face the NationBut an even greater danger exists, he says:

“…that they will marry their mad ideologies to weapons of mass death. That is a threat not only to my people — the Jewish people and the Jewish state of Israel — but to your people.”

Netanyahu continued… Read the rest of this entry »

Mandela vs. the Iron Lady

A framed portrait of former president Nelson Mandela and flowers are placed outside Mandela's Johannesburg home Friday, December 6, 2013. (photo credit: AP/Denis Farrell)

A framed portrait of former president Nelson Mandela and flowers are placed outside Mandela’s Johannesburg home Friday, December 6, 2013. (photo credit: AP/Denis Farrell)

Netanyahu’s decision to skip Madiba’s memorial is principled but controversial, especially in light of that fact that he attended Margaret Thatcher’s funeral

Joshua Davidovich writes: Israeli papers feature a mishmash of domestic news on their front pages Tuesday morning, with Knesset laws, a coming winter storm, and a shortage of doctors and paramedics trumping reports of US Secretary of State John Kerry’s ninth visit to the region in as many months, and low-level talks over the Iranian nuclear deal in Geneva.

The decisions of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Shimon Peres not to attend a memorial service for Nelson Mandela in Johannesburg also gets some play on A1, with Netanyahu coming in for a not-small amount of criticism, though Peres, with a doctor’s note, gets a pass.

While former Israeli ambassador Alon Liel said Monday that Netanyahu’s decision to skip was the right one, seeing as how his policies are seen as anathema to Mandela’s and his presence might sully the service, Sima Kadmon writes inYedioth Ahronoth that she could die from embarrassment over Netanyahu’s reason for skipping, namely the high cost of such a trip.

“Netanyahu’s reason for not going is an affront to intelligence,” she writes. “And now that every news channel around the globe is citing his reason for not going, it’s an affront to the whole country.”

In Maariv, Michal Aharoni says Netanyahu seemed fine making the funeral of Margaret Thatcher, so why not Mandela’s, (though her scathing prose is somewhat undermined by insisting Netanyahu is skipping a funeral, and not a memorial service — plus she misspells Newseum).

“Oh, you’re not flying to save money? It costs a lot to fly to the memorial? There are security procedures and short notice? Strange. Margaret Thatcher, a former prime minister of Britain, died less than a year ago, and the prime minister and his wife managed fine flying there. And not only did they fly together, the plane was outfitted with a special half-million shekel bed and security arrangements were good and there was enough warning,” she writes. “What values, as a country, do we place higher, values of justice and ethics, or the economic values of Margaret Thatcher, who after her death Brits went out drinking and waved signs condemning her?”

Haim Schein in Israel Hayom, however, writes that the press is being too harsh on the prime minister, who he says would be attacked whether he went or not, seeing as he recently came under fire for spending too much state money on trips abroad, scented candles and other non-essentials.

Read the rest of this entry »

Obama’s September 11 Phone Call

William Kristol

October 28, 2012 10:53 AM

What was President Obama doing Tuesday evening, September 11, while Americans were under assault in Benghazi? Which of his national security team did he meet with, whom did he speak with, what directives did he issue? So far, the White House won’t say.

But we do know one thing the president found time to do that evening: He placed a call to Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu in order to defuse a controversy about President Obama’s refusal to meet with Netanyahu two weeks later at the U.N. General Assembly, and, according to the White House announcement that evening, spent an hour on the phone with him:

Obama, Netanyahu: Hour phone call Tuesday night; White House denies snub

By Lynn Sweet on September 11, 2012 8:18 PM |

President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu discussed Iran and other issues in a hour-long phone call on Tuesday night, the White House announced–along with a statement that Netanyahu, contrary to news reports, never asked for a meeting with the president.

The White House briefed on the call between the two leaders as tensions with Iran are growing–talk of an Israeli pre-emptive strike on Iran nuclear facilities is escalating–and stories about Obama snubbing Netanyahu–now denied–present a political problem to a president who is wooing the Jewish vote. In a statement issued Tuesday evening, the White House said, “President Obama spoke with Prime Minister Netanyahu for an hour tonight as a part of their ongoing consultations. The two leaders discussed the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear program, and our close cooperation on Iran and other security issues…

While Americans were under assault in Benghazi, the president found time for a non-urgent, politically useful, hour-long call to Prime Minister Netanyahu. And his senior national staff had to find time to arrange the call, brief the president for the call, monitor it, and provide an immediate read-out to the media. I suspect Prime Minister Netanyahu, of all people, would have understood the need to postpone or shorten the phone call if he were told that Americans were under attack as the president chatted. But for President Obama, a politically useful telephone call—and the ability to have his aides rush out and tell the media about that phone call—came first.

So here are a few more questions for the White House: While President Obama was on the phone for an hour, did his national security advisor Tom Donilon or any other aide interrupt the call or slip him a piece of paper to inform him about what was happening in Benghazi? Or was President Obama out of the loop for at least an hour as events unfolded and decisions were made? On the other hand, national security staff were obviously with the president during and immediately after the phone call—otherwise how could they have put out their statement right away? Surely his aides told the president about what was happening in Benghazi. Was there then no discussion of what was or what wasn’t being done to help, pursuant to the president’s first directive that everything possible be done?

Weekly Standard

Tweet of the Week

Tweet of the Week