Israeli Leadership Is Foolish

Every time we read about the Israeli leadership, they seem more incompetent. They are being pushed by  world leaders to negotiate with groups who have no intention to resolve the issue. From what we read,  these groups believe that time is on their hands. So yes, if we were the Palestinians, we would never reach an agreement and hope that sometime in the future, Israel would be isolated militarily, financially and diplomatically.

Friends, that time will come unless Israel tells these foreign entities (Obama, UN etal) that they will not negotiate until the following  two conditions are met. First, Israel's right to exist, as a Jewish state, must be guaranteed by the participants through changes in Hamas and PLO charters. Secondly, Jerusalem must remain Jewish.  Without these two conditions, no talks should be conducted.  When someone tries to push for another round of discussion, the question must be asked--what about our two pre-conditions.  If the answer is that these have not been met, then the Obama's of the world must be told to come back when those conditions are done. 

However, it appears as if Israel is negotiating with itself, continuing to cede territory and issues without any response from the other side. It sort of reminds me of the bully on the school yard continuing to demand money for protection for which you pay and then every afternoon you are beaten up. The next day you ask for protection and the bully tells you that it won't happen again if you pay more. You do and you continue to get the bloody H--- kicked out of you. Until you take on the bully and those beating you, it won't stop.  Israel must bring this to an end.

Until the time Israel (and more important, its leadership) is willing to take the insults, threats and demands of those pushing it to make concessions, and tell them to shove their rhetoric where the sun does not shine, this little sliver of land will be pushed around by the 600 pound guerrillas. Buck up Israel and tell these bums that you are not going to take it any longer!

In the following article, Caroline Glick, backs up our ideas.

Conservative Tom

Fool Me Twice

• 
 
• Caroline Glick

 

Feb 03, 2012

Former US congressman Robert Wexler is a man worth listening to. Wexler served as then-senator Barack Obama's chief booster in the American Jewish community during the 2008 presidential campaign. He appeared everywhere and said anything to convince the American Jewish community that the same man who sat in the church pews listening to Rev. Jeremiah Wright's anti-Semitic vitriol for two decades, and listed among his closest friends and associates a host of Israel-haters as well as former terrorists, was the greatest friend Israel could ever have.

Once Obama was elected, Wexler continued to serve as his Jewish shill. Wexler traveled to Israel multiple times in the early months of Obama's presidency, to pressure Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to submit to Obama's demand and embrace the cause of Palestinian statehood. After Netanyahu finally announced his support for Palestinian statehood at his speech at Bar-Ilan University in September 2009, Wexler returned with a new demand - that Netanyahu enact a moratorium on Jewish property rights in Judea and Samaria.

In an interview with The Jerusalem Post at the time, Wexler promised that Israel would be richly rewarded if it took the unprecedented step of denying Jews the right to their property in Judea and Samaria simply because they were Jewish. Even if the moratorium were temporary, Obama would view the discriminatory measure as proof of Israel's good intentions.

Moreover, Obama would expect the Palestinians and the wider Arab world to respond to Israel's move by taking steps to normalize their relations with Israel.

For instance, Wexler claimed that Obama had demanded that the Arabs respond to an Israeli moratorium on Jewish property rights by among other things opening trade offices and direct economic ties; conducting cultural and economic exchanges; and permitting Israeli airplanes to overfly their territory.

And in the event that the Arabs refused to rise to the occasion, Wexler proclaimed, "You can rightly say that all bets are off."

Wexler continued, "I want to call their bluff. I want to see, if Israel makes substantial movement toward a credible peace process, whether they are willing to do it. And if they are not, better that we should find out five or six months into the process, before Israel is actually asked to compromise any significant position."

In the event, Netanyahu bowed to Obama's demand and enacted a temporary ban on the exercise of Jewish property rights in Judea and Samaria. And in the aftermath of his stunning move, the Arab world did nothing.

Amazingly, far from calling their bluff, Obama doubled down on his pressure on Israel.

Among other things, since squeezing the first temporary ban on Jewish property rights out of Netanyahu, Obama has demanded that the moratorium be made permanent and be extended to Jerusalem.

As for his vision of the "peace process," Obama has demanded that Israel accept the 1949 armistice lines as the basis for negotiations.

He has used the US veto at the UN Security Council as a means of pressuring Israel to make further unreciprocated concessions to the Palestinians.

And the "pro-Israel" US president has demanded no similar concessions from the Palestinians.

THIS WEEK, Wexler, now the head of the far-left S. Daniel Abraham Center for Middle East Peace, was back in town. Speaking at the Herzliya Conference, he said that Israel should consider extending the ban on Jewish property rights to within the 1949 armistice lines. Wexler based his claim on then-prime minister Ehud Olmert's

Olmert's offer, which Abbas rejected, involved a "land swap," in which in the framework of a comprehensive peace deal, Israel would give the Palestinians land from within its 1949 boundaries in exchange for land in Judea and Samaria that Israel would permanently retain. According to media reports, Olmert offered Abbas 4.5 percent of Israeli territory in exchange for a similar amount of land in Judea and Samaria.

While Wexler appeared at the Herzliya Conference as the president of a nonpartisan nonprofit organization, his continued intimate relationship with Obama is well known. Last fall, Commentary's Omri Ceren documented that Zvika Krieger, Wexler's vice president at the Daniel Abraham Center, authored documents for Obama's reelection campaign. Among other things, those documents cited articles authored by Krieger and Wexler in which they championed Obama's record on Israel from their nonpartisan perch at the Daniel Abraham Center.

Given Wexler's close ties to Obama, it is reasonable to assume that his suggestion that Israel cease exerting its national sovereignty over its sovereign territory in the interests of the peace process is not simply his personal view.

There is much to criticize about Wexler's suggestion. But more important than its arrogant, insulting absurdity, and more disconcerting than Wexler's own hypocrisy, is what his suggestion tells us about the dangers inherent in Netanyahu's current negotiations with the Palestinians.

To understand the connection we need to recall the nature of Olmert's offer to Abbas.

Olmert's negotiations with Abbas were based upon the proposition - repeated ad nauseam to the Israeli public - that "nothing is agreed to until everything is agreed to."

The idea was clear. True, on the one hand, the prime minister was conducting negotiations far from the spotlight, and refusing to tell the public what was on offer. But on the other hand, we could rest assured that that nothing he offered would have any significance whatsoever unless the Palestinians agreed to a final-peace deal with Israel. If they rejected peace, then everything Olmert said would become null and void, and be tossed down the memory hole.

In accordance with this basic proposition, when Abbas rejected Olmert's offer, and made no counteroffer, it was naturally assumed that Olmert's proposal was rendered null and void.

Yet four years later, here is Wexler, Obama's surrogate, advocating a policy of unilateral abrogation of Israeli sovereignty over 4.5% of its national territory in order to enable the eventual implementation of an offer that was predicated on the notion that "nothing is agreed to until everything is agreed to" and as such is null and void.

THIS BRINGS us to the current negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. For the past month, under the aegis of the Middle East Quartet, Netanyahu's representative attorney Yitzhak Molcho has been conducting negotiations with Abbas's representatives in Amman, Jordan. Last week, Molcho reportedly outlined the government's general positions on lands it is willing to cede to the Palestinians.

Without presenting any maps, Molcho reportedly said that a permanent agreement would involve most of the Israelis living in Judea and Samaria remaining in Israeli territory. The media interpreted this to mean that like Olmert, Netanyahu expects for Israel to retain perpetual control over large blocks of Israeli communities that take up less than 10% of the overall landmass in Judea and Samaria.

For his part, Netanyahu this week reiterated his position that Israel must maintain a long-term military presence in the Jordan Valley. This has been interpreted to mean that Netanyahu is willing to cede sovereign rights to the area to the Palestinians.

Taken together, what Molcho's statement and Netanyahu's statement indicate is that at a minimum, in exchange for peace, the Netanyahu government is willing to expel some portion of the 350,000 Jews living in Judea and Samaria from their homes and to transfer sovereignty over a significant portion of the territory to a Palestinian state.

From the vagueness of what has been reported, it is apparent that Netanyahu has been far less specific about the scope of the territorial concessions he is willing to undertake than his predecessor was. But then again, Olmert made his offer after conducting negotiations with Abbas for over a year. Netanyahu only entered these talks a month ago.

And while no one in or out of government believes that these negotiations have any chance of leading to a peace deal, the fact is that Netanyahu is feverishly working to ensure that the talks continue. He spent a good part of his day on Wednesday speaking on the phone to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and meeting with Quartet envoy Tony Blair and UN Secretary- General Ban Ki-moon, begging the foreign leaders to convince the Palestinians not to abandon the negotiations.

As he put it in his joint press conference with Ban, "You cannot complete the peace process unless you begin it. If you begin it, you have to be consistent and stick to it."

For his part, Abbas is doing everything in his power to make clear that he does not wish to negotiate, and that even if negotiations continue, he will never cut a deal with Israel. To underscore his bad faith, next week Abbas will travel to Egypt to meet with Hamas terror chief Khaled Mashaal. The two men are set to discuss the means of implementing the unity government deal they signed last May.

Netanyahu is obviously under great pressure to continue with these talks. A day doesn't go by without some US official or European leader talking about the need for talks, or a leftist politician or political activist at home blaming Netanyahu for the absence of peace. But none of this pressure can justify the damage that is done to Israel's position by continuing to engage in these negotiations.

As Netanyahu's own experience with Obama (and Wexler) shows, concessions never bring a respite from the US leader's pressure. They only form the baseline for demands for further concessions.

Beyond the narrow confines of Obama's personal hostility towards Israel, Netanyahu's current engagement in negotiations with the Palestinians is devastating to Israel's position in two ways.

First, it makes it impossible for Israel to extricate itself from the lie of PLO moderation and to start telling the truth about its Palestinian "partner."

Quite simply, as Abbas's continued courtship of Hamas and his open embrace and glorification of mass murderers such as the murderers of the Fogel family make clear, the PLO has returned to its roots as a terrorist organization. It is no longer credible to claim that the PLO has abandoned terror in favor of peace.

By engaging in peace talks with the PLO, Netanyahu renders it impossible to make this critical claim. Consequently, he damns Israel to a situation in which we continue to empower and politically legitimize a terrorist organization committed to our destruction.

The second way continued negotiations devastates Israel's position is by eroding our ability to claim our rights to Judea and Samaria and so extricate ourselves from this fake peace process with terrorists. As Wexler made clear, from the international community's perspective, everything that Israel offers at the negotiating table is catalogued. Regardless of Palestinian bad faith, irrespective of actual prospects for peace, every theoretical Israeli concession becomes the new baseline for further negotiations.

American "friends" like Wexler and Obama play Israel for a fool again and again.

In truth, we should thank Wexler for coming here this week and reminding us of his bad faith, and the bad faith of the president he serves. But it is up to Netanyahu to draw the appropriate lessons.

Tags: Israel , Hillary Clinton , Palestine , Barack Obama , jewish voters , UN

Caroline Glick

Caroline B. Glick is the senior Middle East fellow at the Center for Security Policy in Washington, D.C., and the deputy managing editor of The Jerusalem Post, where this article first appeared.

Is This Figures Don't Lie But Liars Figure?

We have watched with awe as the unemployment numbers which had been stuck in the 9%+ range for years, now that the election is months away are starting to decline.  Is this a coincidence or is there someone tinkering with the numbers?

We have no inside information, however, the irony of the timing  cannot be dismissed. Is the economy really improving or as a friend of mine asked us this morning, "If jobs are improving how come my neighbor doesn't have a job yet?"   

How do we get the lowest rate in three years now that we are 9 months out from the election?  It is too ironic to be true.

We believe that the Commerce Department is fudging the data. It is our contention that by election day we will see unemployment near 5 %!  The glide path will be a slow 3 tenth of a percent one month and a half percent the next but glory be all, by election day down to a very respectable percentage. We also believe there might be a month or two that will jump up a small amount but not enough to derail the President's election.

In this election, it will all be about the economy and if the President can say "we cut the unemployment in half this year, happy days are hear again!" , there will be those who believe this baloney and happily pull the handle for him.  It will all be a smoke screen. If there is any integrity left at the Commerce Department, someone will blow the whistle (probably after the election) and disclose that the Administration had directed the Department to make sure the numbers were good.

There will be demands for an investigation by the Republicans which will go nowhere as they will again be the minority in both houses after being swamped by the President and his miraculous recovery.  Welcome back Nancy to her beloved Speakership!


Ok, so that is not the uplifting message you wanted, it is where we see the election going. Scare you? We hope so. Get out and do something about it.  We can't let these people stay there for another four years.  If we do, what will the country look like? We don't think you want to even try to envision it!


Conservative Tom

Unemployment rate hits 8.3 pct. after hiring burst

Employers added 243,000 jobs in January, pushing unemployment rate down to 8.3 percent

By Christopher s. Rugaber, AP Economics Reporter | Associated Press – 9 minutes ago

• 15
• Email
• Print

RELATED CONTENT

• 
  An auto worker assembles parts on the 2013 Dodge Dart at the Chrysler Plant in Belvidere, Ill., Thursday, Feb. 2, 2012. Sergio Marchionne, Chairman and CEO Chrysler Group, announced that Chrysler will add a third shift at the Belvidere Plant to begin production of the Dart. The unemployment rate fell for the fifth straight month after a surge of January hiring, a promising shift in the nation's outlook for job growth. (AP Photo/Charles Rex Arbogast)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Employers went on a hiring spree in January and drove down the unemployment rate for a fifth straight month to 8.3 percent, its lowest point in nearly three years.

The result pointed to a resurgent job market, and it sent stock futures surging. The Dow Jones industrial average futures, which were flat before the report, jumped more than 100 points.

The economy created 243,000 net jobs in January, the most in nine months, and the unemployment rate fell two ticks.

Employers have added an average of 201,000 jobs a month in the past three months. That's 50,000 more jobs per month than the economy averaged in each month last year.

The Labor Department's January jobs report was filled with other encouraging data and revisions. Hiring was widespread across many high-paying industries. Pay increased. And the economy added 200,000 more jobs in 2011 than first thought.

The unemployment rate is nearly a percentage point lower than over the summer, when many feared a recession was imminent. The last time the unemployment rate has dropped for five straight months was in late 1994.

Impressively, the job gains last month were spread across the economy.

Manufacturers added 50,000 jobs, the most in a year. Even the beleaguered construction sector added 21,000 jobs, its second month of strong gains. That has likely been aided by unseasonably warm weather this winter.

Leisure and hospitality, which includes restaurants and hotels, added 44,000 jobs. Retailers added nearly 11,000. And professional and business services, which encompasses higher paying jobs in accounting, architecture and engineering, gained 70,000, the most in 10 months.

Lower unemployment is a positive a sign for President Barack Obama's reelection hopes. Still, he's likely to face voters with the highest unemployment rate of any post-war president.

The unemployment rate fell even as more people began looking for work. But a much larger number said they found work.

More jobs and higher incomes should help consumers boost spending and increase economic growth.

Job gains in November and December were revised upward to show that an additional 60,000 jobs were created in those two months.

The government also issued its annual revisions to jobs data going back five years. They showed that hiring was stronger over the past two years than previously thought. The economy added about 1.82 million jobs last year, nearly twice as many as in 2010.

Even with the gains, the job market faces a long way back to full health. The nation has about 5.6 million fewer jobs than it did when the recession began in late 2007.

There are still 12.8 million people out of work, though that is the fewest since the recession ended. An additional 11 million are either working part-time but would prefer full-time work, or have stopped searching for jobs.

When all those groups are combined, nearly 24 million are considered "underemployed. The so-called "underemployment" rate ticked down in January to 15.1 percent, from 15.2 percent.

Several reports signaled this week that the economy is improving gradually. Manufacturers expanded at the fastest pace in seven months in January, a private survey showed.

And fewer people sought unemployment benefits last week, the Labor Department said. The four-week average of applications fell to its second-lowest level since June 2008. The drop shows that companies are cutting fewer jobs, which usually leads to more hiring.

Americans spent more at big chain retail stores last month compared with a year earlier. And automakers began 2012 with a strong sales gain in January. Healthier auto sales can boost a range of companies, from steel makers to parts suppliers to shippers.

The economy expanded at a 2.8 percent annual pace in the October-December quarter, a full percentage point higher than in the previous quarter.

Even so, economists expect slower growth this year. Much of the fourth quarter's expansion was due to companies ordering more goods to restock their warehouses. Restocking is likely to slow in the first three months of this year. That would drag on growth.

Europe's financial crisis could also slow demand for U.S. goods. And average wages failed to keep up with inflation last year. That leaves consumers with less spending power, which can hamper growth.

Federal Mandate of Breathalyzers

In a Transportation bill recently introduced into Congress, it contains a provision that all first time drunk drivers must have a breathalyzer placed in their car. We agree with the argument that people who drink too much should not be driving a car, that is a non starter (get the double meaning?) However, isn't that the responsibility of the judge who hears the case?  Why is Big Brother Federal government sticking its nose in this issue? Shouldn't this be the responsibility of local officials or the State, at very worst?


Another point, when the Feds give a state money, it comes with strings. If they give dollars, there will be reporting requirements and equipment "recommendations" which all means there will have to be more people hired to carry out the dictates. Isn't it time we say no to our Federal sugar daddy?  


And finally, isn't it time government goes back to its original purpose, to protect the people?  We do not need a parent nor do we need a partner. We need and want to be left alone to run our lives and when the government gets involved with us in such an intimate way, it is like sending a bulldozer to move an ant.


Tell Washington that we don't need their generosity, our judges can make the decision much better than any bureaucrat!


Tell us what you think?


Conservative Tom

Political Correctness In New York

From time to time we come across articles that point out the suicide mission that our leaders seem to be on. The following story is from New York and how Mayor Bloomberg has condemned a film about Muslims without seeing it and who declared the Times Square bomber as a person dissatisfied with his health insurance rather than the terrorist he really is. Can the pols be so out of touch or politically correct that they cannot see what is really occurring?  We believe it is the latter.

CAIR and its supporters are doing a brilliant job of negating any negative information regarding Muslims in this country. They have politicians on the run and when they show up, you know that our elected officials will bow down to them. It does not matter if the information is accurate or fallacious, it will be attacked in the same manner and the pols will have the same reaction.

Our President not calling the Ft. Hood killer, a Muslim terrorist, has lead the way to not call "a spade, a spade."  If someone calls out Alla Akbar, as he shoots down his fellow soldiers, he is a terrorist. The New York bomber calls himself a Muslim soldier. He is a terrorist. The Christmas bomber is a terrorist.  Why is it so hard to call them what they are?

The answer is that the politicians are weak minded, want to be re-elected and do not want to get into a fight with CAIR.  They are chickens, have not guts and definitely are not leaders. 

We need to start electing people who will stand up to be counted. Who will not be cowed by terrorist groups. Who will not be afraid to tell their constituents what we are facing.

Where are these leaders?  Are you one? If so, stand up and be counted.

Conservative Tom

CAIR attack: Cultural Jihad in Action

Wayne Kopping - Stop Radical Islam.org,  January 13th, 2012

In May 2010, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg posited that the individual who packed a Nissan Pathfinder full of explosives and parked it in Times Square, was likely a homegrown American “with a political agenda who doesn't like the health care bill or something.”

Fortunately, the car bomb did not detonate.

The terrorist turned out to be Faisal Shahzad, a Pakistan-born U.S. citizen. And, not surprisingly, Shahzad wasn't upset about the health care bill. After pleading guilty in court he said, “I consider myself a Mujahid, a Muslim-soldier.” He was upset, as he put it, over “American occupation of Muslim Lands.”

Shortly after the attack, Bloomberg prematurely asserted that there was no evidence suggesting the bomber was part of any recognized terror network.  Shahzad later told the court he trained with the Pakistani Taliban to learn bomb-making and other related skills.  

Could it be that Bloomberg has underestimated the threat of Islamist terror, or is there another agenda?

The issue has again become relevant in recent days. The New York Times ran a series of articles and editorials blaming the NYPD for using the film The Third Jihad: Radical Islam’s Vision for America as part of their counter-terrorism training.

The articles calling the film, “a Dark Film on U.S. Muslims” and a “Hateful Film,” are riddled with inaccuracies and omissions.

Following publication of the articles, Mayor Bloomberg stated that NYPD used “terrible judgment” in showing the film, despite admitting that he had never seen it.

We were not aware that the NYPD was using the film, but when we learned of it some months ago, we were pleased that the officers would have an opportunity to learn about the indoctrination taking place in certain segments of Muslim society in America. The film reveals what viewers are unlikely to see on the evening news: What terrorists, radical preachers and Islamists are saying in their own words, in their own mosques and media, to their followers.

The film exposes how radicals employ the dual strategies of “violent Jihad,” along with a “cultural Jihad,” through which Islamist groups use coercion and non-violent means to gradually expand their influence over Western society.

Now, Mayor Bloomberg, The New York Times and others want to bar law enforcement officers from seeing the film.  The question is, why?

We reject, outright, the charge that our film is anti-Muslim or that it casts a shadow over the entire Muslim community. In fact, we go to great lengths throughout the film to differentiate the radical Islamists from peaceful Muslims.  The film is narrated by, Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, a devout Muslim-American, who has dedicated his life to exposing the threat of radical Islam.

Our critics have failed to mention these points and have chosen not to challenge the film on the merits of its thesis or content.

Perhaps the reason Mayor Bloomberg wants The Third Jihad banned is the same reason he insinuated the Times Square bomber was a health care terrorist — namely, CAIR.

CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations) is one of many Muslim interest groups that purport to represent the Islamic community in America, but in reality have well established ties to Hamas and other terror groups.

CAIR was designated by the U.S. Justice Department for its role in terror financing during the nation’s largest-ever trial on the subject.  As a result, the FBI has officially severed all ties with the “advocacy organization.”

Outside of its support for terror organizations, CAIR works to quickly and effectively to silence any discussions about radical Islam by playing the racism card and accusing critics of Islamophobia. CAIR’s devices are effective.

As soon as the current story broke, CAIR immediately branded the film “anti-Muslim propaganda” in a press release. This was followed by a CAIR-led protest on the steps of City Hall calling for the resignation of the NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly.

The entire episode could have been a chapter in The Third Jihad.  We are now seeing “cultural Jihad” in action.  In order to avoid agitating Muslim constituents, Mayor Bloomberg  and Commissioner Kelly are backing away from the film, regardless of its merits.

The net result is that CAIR, a designated Muslim interest group with ties to terror financing, is now telling the NYPD how it should go about fighting terror. If that's not the ultimate act of subversion, I don't know what is.

Wayne Kopping is the director and editor of The Third Jihad

Obama Ain't What He Promised

Is there a difference between what Obama promised and what he delivered? We think it is significant.  As we did not believe what he said, we are not surprised. However, for those who thought he would be different, the reality must be daunting.

In the following article, Charles Hurt points out some of those differences and how it has effected the US. It is a good article. Please let us know what you think.

Conservative Tom

HURT: 'Islamist Firster' president not what he claimed

Charles Hurt - The Washington Times,  January 31st, 2012

GOLAN HEIGHTS — Surveying the live minefields, cratered roads and mortar-pocked concrete buildings along the border here between Syria and Israel, it is hard not to be reminded of the historic and monumental disappointment President Obama has been.

When he was campaigning to become the most powerful man in the last standing superpower on Earth, he spoke passionately about changing the world, restoring America’s greatness and bringing more peace and fairness to everyone.

In both foreign and domestic matters, Mr. Obama had unique credibility to change things as few presidents ever had.

Despite his background as a liberal street organizer, he campaigned on tax cuts and personal responsibility and preached that the government simply cannot be the answer to every problem. Republicans would have no choice but to go along with an agenda to shrink the tax burden and get the federal government out of our everyday lives.

Instead, Mr. Obama has devoted his administration to raising taxes, adding to the byzantine structure of the federal government, and has created a whole new massive bureaucracy he claims really will cure our every little boo-boo.

As for the rest of the world, Mr. Obama promised to devote himself to healing the grave injustices and halting the atrocities that have afflicted the world since the rise of radical, violent jihadism. With his Muslim roots, Mr. Obama was positioned better than any leader on the global stage to speak with authority to radical Islamists and finally bring about permanent peace.

Instead, Mr. Obama chose to unilaterally alienate perhaps our most strategically important ally in the world and do all he can to cozy up to the very people who are dedicated to destroying not only Israel, but America as well.

Leading Democrats have been in the news lately sliming Americans who stick up for Israel as being “Israel Firsters.” Well, Mr. Obama has become an “Islamist Firster.”

Since becoming president, he has not once visited our greatest ally in the region. Rather, he has gone to places like Cairo to tell the Muslim world how much he likes it. He also stunningly trashed the oath of office he took by saying it is “part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.”

And, of course, he apologized for the “sexuality” and “mindless violence” from the West permeating the Internet. But Internet porn and creepy videos are little match for virginity tests, stoning women and beheading Jews — all for the fun of it.

When Mr. Obama finally addressed Israel, he shockingly said the tiny country should further retrench so its well-armed enemies can retake high ground from which to fire rockets at Israelis and move closer so they can hit major population centers such as Tel Aviv.

Such a twisted and half-baked view of justice is bad enough in a president. But things are about to get much more terrifying when Iran finally gets its hands on a nuclear warhead, which appears likely to happen in a matter of months.

It will be a very complicated situation because the most powerful man in the last remaining superpower on the planet is an Islamist Firster.