WHAT'S NEW WITH CONSERVATIVE MUSINGS

Hi Everybody,

The Conservative Musings team has decided to experiment with some new features on our site. We have listened to our followers and are open to what you, the general visitor to our site would like to see in the future.

We present a "rough cut" as they say in the industry of 2 Conservative Musings Live videos. We know some adjustments are needed and they will appear in the next week or so.

Drop us a quick e-mail to share your reaction to this new feature. Send it to: tom@vorenbergassociates.com.

Thanks for visiting.

Friday, March 27, 2015

Will Obama Administration Try To Repair The Split Between Them And Israel Or Will They Left The Rift Grow Deeper. We Believe The Latter Will Be The Outcome!

5 Points of Tension in the Obama-Netanyahu Relationship

“Whoever hates disguises himself with his lips and harbors deceit in his heart; when he speaks graciously, believe him not, for there are seven abominations in his heart; though his hatred be covered with deception, his wickedness will be exposed in the assembly.” (Proverbs 26:24-26)
By: Jacob Kamaras
When the champion of the U.S.-Israel alliance sounds the alarm, something about the steadfast allies’ relationship is more contentious than usual.
Last week, the staunchly bipartisan American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)—which does not frequently issue public statements, let alone criticize a sitting American president—urged the Obama administration to “recommit to improving” U.S.-Israel ties. AIPAC’s March 19 statement came after White House and State Department spokespeople dismissed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s reaffirmation of his support for a demilitarized Palestinian state that recognizes Israel as a Jewish state.
“Unfortunately, administration spokespersons rebuffed the prime minister’s efforts to improve the understandings between Israel and the U.S.,” AIPAC said. “In contrast to their comments, we urge the administration to further strengthen ties with America’s most reliable and only truly democratic ally in the Middle East.”
Josh Block, CEO & president of The Israel Project and a former AIPAC spokesman, told The Washington Post’s Right Turn blog, “It is quite rare for AIPAC to directly and publicly criticize the White House, and clearly there is a feeling that the president’s staff is acting in an irresponsible way that undermines America’s interests and vital relationship with our only reliable democratic ally in the region.”
Tension between Netanyahu and President Barack Obama is nothing new, but seems to have escalated to an even higher level. Here are five current sources of bitterness in the leaders’ relationship:
Iran
Much of the debate surrounding Netanyahu’s March 3 speech to Congress about the Iranian nuclear threat centered on “protocol,” with the White House opposing the speech—and Vice President Joe Biden, who serves as president of the U.S. Senate, skipping the address—on the grounds that House Speaker John Boehner did not consult Obama about inviting Netanyahu. But the broader disagreement is about the emerging deal between Iran and the P5+1 powers, a group that includes the U.S., ahead of a March 31 deadline for a “political framework agreement” in the nuclear negotiations.
“This deal has two major concessions: one, leaving Iran with a vast nuclear program, and two, lifting the restrictions on that program in about a decade. … That’s why this deal is so bad. It doesn’t block Iran’s path to the bomb, it paves Iran’s path to the bomb,” Netanyahu told Congress.
Given Iran’s repeated threats to annihilate Israel and sponsorship of anti-Jewish terrorism around the world, Netanyahu considers the outcome of the nuclear negotiations a matter of survival for the Jewish state. But the Islamic Republic doesn’t limit its genocidal rhetoric to Israel. On Saturday, Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei affirmed a Tehran crowd’s chants of “death to America.”
“Of course yes, death to America, because America is the original source of this pressure,” Khamenei said, referring to economic sanctions against Iran.
The two-state solution
A day before the March 17 Israeli election, Netanyahu said that a Palestinian state would not be established on his watch. But on March 19, the prime minister told NBC News that he supports “a sustainable, peaceful two-state solution.”
“I haven’t changed my policy,” Netanyahu said. “I never retracted my speech at Bar-Ilan University six years ago calling for a demilitarized Palestinian state that recognizes a Jewish state.”
Obama, however, wasn’t sold.
“We take [Netanyahu] at his word when he said that [a Palestinian state] wouldn’t happen during his prime ministership, and so that’s why we’ve got to evaluate what other options are available to make sure that we don’t see a chaotic situation in the region,” Obama told The Huffington Post in an interview published Saturday.
The U.N.
Reports citing anonymous U.S. sources have indicated that the Obama administration, within the context of its “reassessment” of relations with Israel, might break from longstanding American policy to defend Israel against United Nations resolutions that single out the Jewish state for criticism or promote the unilateral establishment of a Palestinian state. The U.S. has veto power in the U.N. Security Council.
Israeli Arabs
On election day, Netanyahu—whose Likud party had been trailing the Zionist Union party in the polls before Likud’s eventual decisive victory—warned, “The right-wing government is in danger. Arab voters are going en masse to the polls. Left-wing NGOs are bringing them on buses.”
After White House spokesman Josh Earnest said the U.S. “is deeply concerned about rhetoric that seeks to marginalize Arab-Israeli citizens,” Obama followed suit by issuing his own criticism of Netanyahu’s election-day remarks on Arab voters.
“We indicated that that kind of rhetoric was contrary to what is the best of Israel’s traditions,” Obama told The Huffington Post. “That although Israel was founded based on the historic Jewish homeland and the need to have a Jewish homeland, Israeli democracy has been premised on everybody in the country being treated equally and fairly. And I think that that is what’s best about Israeli democracy. If that is lost, then I think that not only does it give ammunition to folks who don’t believe in a Jewish state, but it also I think starts to erode the meaning of democracy in the country.”
Alleged U.S. funding of anti-Netanyahu campaign efforts
One specter that hung over the Israeli election was alleged U.S. State Department funding of efforts to unseat Netanyahu—and although the election has passed and Netanyahu will remain in power, an ongoing U.S. Senate probe means the issue is not going away.
The Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations recently launched a bipartisan probe into the Washington, DC-based OneVoice Movement’s funding of efforts to defeat Netanyahu, Fox News reported. According to the report, OneVoice received $350,000 in recent tax-payer funded grants from the State Department. Ahead of the election, a subsidiary of OneVoice, the V15 group, campaigned in Israel against Netanyahu with a message of “simply replace the government.”
A source familiar with the matter told Fox News, “It’s confirmed that there is a bipartisan Permanent Subcommittee inquiry into OneVoice’s funding of V15.” The probe is looking into whether OneVoice, a registered non-profit in the U.S., violated its tax-exempt status by financing V15’s electioneering activities in Israel. Jeremy Bird, who was Obama’s national field director in the 2012 presidential election, has assisted V15 through his consulting firm, 270 Strategies. Among the 45 staffers at 270 Strategies, 16 have worked directly for Obama’s campaigns.

Read more at http://www.breakingisraelnews.com/34242/5-points-tension-obama-netanyahu-relationship-jerusalem/#QdKscGQ6HOhzk7iE.99

Bergdahl Will Not Be Put To Death. We Believe That He Will Get An Honorable Discharge! Remember, He Is Obama's Friend!

Ex-Navy SEAL: Death Should Be Option for 'Traitor' Bergdahl

Thursday, 26 Mar 2015 05:37 PM
By Sean Piccoli
Alleged Army deserter Bowe Bergdahl should be put to death if a military court finds him guilty of abandoning his post in Afghanistan in 2009 and concludes that U.S. service members died searching for him after his disappearance, says former Navy SEAL and war on terror veteran Carl Higbie.

"As far as I'm concerned, he is a deserter and he's a traitor," Higbie, a co-author of"Battle on the Home Front: A Navy SEAL's Mission to Save the American Dream," 
told "MidPoint" host Ed Berliner on Newsmax TV on Thursday.

Story continues below video.



Likewise, if a military courts-martial affirms the story that is already told by Bergdahl's platoon mates in Afghanistan, and by others connected to the case, Bergdahl "should be treated as an enemy combatant" and punished accordingly, said Higbie.


"I know there have been six killed in association [with] operations looking for him or … in some sort of correlation to his disappearance," said Higbie. "They should take that into serious consideration as well. I would look towards the death penalty if that is in fact the case."

Then-Private First Class Bergdahl was captured by Afghan militants after walking away from a remote patrol base in Afghanistan in June 2009, and was held captive for five years.

Now a sergeant, he was freed in May in a controversial U.S. deal with the Taliban, who got five of their own released from Guantanamo Bay.

The administration's happy-homecoming narrative for a soldier who served "with honor and distinction" immediately clashed with the accounts of his platoon mates, who called Berghdal a deserter and said he voiced doubts about the war in Afghanistan just before he disappeared.

The Army formally charged him on Wednesday with desertion with intent to shirk important or hazardous duty, and with misbehavior before the enemy. The next step is a preliminary hearing, comparable to a civilian grand jury, ahead of a possible military court-martial.

Desertion is punishable by life in prison, and misbehavior before the enemy carries the possibility of the death penalty. But news reports citing unnamed defense officials have suggested that Bergdahl is unlikely to be put to death if convicted, and that his five years in harsh captivity might be a mitigating factor in any sentence.
Higbie said he has "zero sympathy" for Berghdal either as somebody who wrestled with doubts about the mission or who endured years of Taliban brutality. If he left his post under the circumstances given so far, "then he in fact does not deserve any sympathy," said Higbie. "He's an enemy of the United States of America and he should be treated as such."

Higbie also said "it is notable that during the time of his desertion, attacks on coalition forces did go up.

"Are they correlated?" he said. "I can't be the judge of that; it's above my pay grade. But they did go up. Also, you have to look at the guys who got killed looking for him: What impact did him leaving have? And what intel did he give [to his captors] that led to the potential harming of American troops?"

Higbie called the Obama administration's portrayal of Berghdal as one of the good guys "horrible."

"It's just a reflection of how disconnected the current administration is," he said. "And the president spoke at the Rose Garden with his arm around Bowe Bergdahl's parents."

Higbie said some foresight and interviewing of Berghdal's platoon mates could have prevented the fiasco, but the possibility of desertion seems not to have occurred to anybody in the White House.

"And they didn't interview anybody," even though it was clear that "all the people that [Bergdahl] served with said that he was turd," said Higbie.

Asked why the administration didn't vet Bergdahl more thoroughly before making him the centerpiece of a prisoner swap, Higbie said, "You got me."

"But this is a characteristic of the Obama administration," he said. "They don't care what the actual reality is; they care what looks good for them on paper. The president was so anxious to get us out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and he thought that tying up this loose end would make him look like a hero."

"But it really didn't," he said. "It backfired on him and I'm glad — unfortunately, at the expense of turning over five terrorists that are now going to go back to trying to harm America."

Related Stories:
© 2015 Newsmax. All rights reserved.


It Is Becoming Clear To Anyone Watching, These Very Possibly Could Be The End Days!



image: http://www.wnd.com/files/2014/08/rush-limbaugh-no-glasses-hand-600.jpg
Rush Limbaugh
Rush Limbaugh
Rush Limbaugh has shocked listeners by warning the Iranian government’s hoped-for “12th Imam” is “equivalent to the Antichrist,” the prophesied end times figure believed by many to be the personification of evil.
The bold declaration from the talk radio titan is drawing new attention to Joel Richardson, whose bestselling “The Islamic Antichrist: The Shocking Truth About the Real Nature of the Beast” developed the theory that the Islamic “Mahdi” is none other than the Antichrist of Revelation.
Limbaugh made the comments in a discussion about the prospect of Iran using a nuclear weapon against other Muslims. A caller protested an Iranian nuclear attack would likely kill “just as many Arabs as Israelis.”
However, as Limbaugh noted, the Iranian government doesn’t have any solidarity with Saudi Arabia, the Palestinians or Sunni Muslims except as a tool to use against Israel.
In Limbaugh’s words: “This is Shiite versus Sunni. It’s an argument within Islam.”
He believes the Iranian government is being driven by its Shiite Islamic beliefs about the end times and argues the mullahs are not rational actors who can negotiate in good faith.
“People have also said, ‘Don’t they realize if they nuke Israel, that they’ll be nuking themselves because there will be a retaliation?’ Well, if you go read about the 12th Imam, courtesy of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, you find out that all of this is about the apocalypse. And they believe it.
“This is religious truth to them. The 12th Imam can only surface after Israel is done away with, and the 12th Imam is the equivalent to Antichrist and so forth.”

He continued: “Look, don’t anybody argue with me here because I’m not being specifically literal, but there are commonalities here. The 12th Imam signals the end of everything in a good sense, in a good apocalyptic sense, not a treacherous or a bad one. But if they believe that then the whole notion of retaliation doesn’t matter and the whole idea of killing other Arabs doesn’t matter.”
Richardson, who first popularized and explained the concept of the Antichrist as an Islamic figure in his bestselling book “The Islamic Antichrist” and followed with “The Mideast Beast,” welcomed Limbaugh’s comments as both recognition of his own work and a valuable contribution to interpreting contemporary Middle Eastern politics.
“I have listened to Rush Limbaugh for almost 25 years. So it is very nice to know that he is also being impacted by my own work. As the author of “The Islamic Antichrist,” the first book to have popularized Islamic eschatology, I’ve heard many prominent voices discussing the content of my book, and it’s always gratifying.”
Richardson recalled other notable figures who have drawn on “The Islamic Antichrist,” including Mark Steyn, Glenn Beck, Hal Lindsey and Joel C. Rosenberg.
Here’s the conversation with Beck about “The Mideast Beast”:
“Some cite me specifically, while others simply use the various citations that I have mined out of numerous works written by Muslim scholars on Islamic apocalyptic belief. And while any author would find a certain measure of satisfaction in knowing that his books are being read, to me this is simply a testimony to the importance of the material that I’ve written about,” he said.
And Richardson says the exposure given to “The Islamic Antichrist” is only natural, because Islamist policymakers are thinking in apocalyptic terms, even if most Westerners are not.
“Whether someone is a believing Christian or not, anyone who desires to better understand the ideas that are driving world events should know the truly critical information in ’The Islamic Antichrist.’”
As Rush Limbaugh put it: “If the [Iranian] belief is there isn’t gonna be a Syria at the end, if there isn’t gonna be a Hezbollah, if there isn’t going to be a Hamas, if that’s the price for there is no Israel, we’ll take it and rebuild … we make a grave error when we project our own civilized sophisticated and religious beliefs onto them, ’cause there’s not a whole lot that we have in common with them, particularly in any of this.”
Richardson maintains the entire Middle East is being driven by an ”apocalyptic fervor,” and both Sunni and Shiite Muslims are acting to fulfill their own version of the end times.
ISIS is mostly composed of Sunni Muslims who believe the re-establishment of a caliphate is a demand of their religion. Meanwhile, Iran is pursuing its own imperial vision, which includes expanding its influence over the Middle East in preparation for the arrival of the prophesied 12th Imam.
Limbaugh noted Iran is finding itself in increasing conflict with Sunni Muslim powers like Saudi Arabia as it pursues nuclear-weapon capability and regional hegemony.
Richardson says Islamic theology is driving the Muslim powers of the world. And he warns Christians need to be educated if they are to properly interpret the otherwise irrational foreign policy of nations like Iran.
As events play out as Richardson predicted, “The Islamic Antichrist?” is finding its way to new readers. The book is now the No. 1 bestseller in “Islamic Theology” on Amazon.com, a position it has occupied for several days. The book also enjoys an average rating of 4.5 stars over nearly 350 separate reviews.
Readers are especially captivated by Richardson’s penetrating analysis of Muslim eschatology and how closely it aligns with Christianity’s teachings on the figure of the Antichrist. As some reviewers put it:
  • Joel Richardson… has produced a book which uses extensive (and fully in-context) quotations from both Islamic and Christian eschatology to show the disturbing parallels, and differences, between the two versions of “end-times prophecy” held by these two Abrahamic religions.
  • Having been among the totally ignorant myself (the role of the Islamic Jesus NEVER gets discussed in western media), I felt both silly and enlightened after reading this book. I don’t think it’s possible to have an intelligent discussion on the subject without it.
  • Muslims believe that when Jesus returns, He will return as a radical Muslim. They believe He will return by descending from heaven somewhere near Damascus after the Mahdi is already on the scene. Jesus will be inferior in rank to the Mahdi. Jesus will make a pilgrimage to Mecca. He will convert many people to Islam and abolish Christianity. It would behoove everyone to learn about Islam from original sources. Richardson’s book is a good start.
As Limbaugh’s comments indicate, end times beliefs are guiding the conduct of nations and are part of the political conversation. Richardson believes his book provides the guide for those seeking to understand what is happening to a world that otherwise seems totally irrational.
“Today many people ask me what does ISIS mean with regard to Bible prophecy? What does the rise of Iran or other Islamic nations mean for our future? This book answers all of these questions and more.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/03/rush-limbaugh-12th-imam-like-antichrist/#XY7JgmB7vmk0reXJ.99