Yesterday, Netanyahu met for the first time face to face with Barack Obama. The prime minister made it clear that he was willing to begin negotiations for peace with the Palestinians as soon as they were willing to acknowledge and honor Israel’s right to exist. He also would not commit to a two state solution, one he does not want and one that Obama has indicated he wants to see.

On the other side, Obama has a problem both at home and in Israel. More than likely Obama does not have the support at home to promote his agenda with Iran, Israel, Hamas, Palestine and basically the entire Middle East. Just as disturbing is the fact that it now appears Israelis overwhelmingly see Barack Obama as anti-Israel. According to the results of a recent poll printed in the Jerusalem Post, only 31% of Israelis view Obama as pro-Israel.

Besides the 31% who labeled Obama pro-Israel, 14% considered him pro-Palestinian and 40% felt he was neutral. The other 15% declined to provide an opinion for the poll

If you are wondering how that compares to former President Bush’s approval of the Israelis, his rating was 88%. It may be that the longer Obama stalls in taking a definitive position, the lower that number may fall.

Even though Barack Obama says he hasn’t taken any options off the table, he appears weak in any attempts he has made to negotiate with Iran and the Arab world in general. Now with Israel not viewing Obama as a friend and the president still clinging to hope that he can negotiate with terrorists, does Obama have any leverage at all?

Pat Buchanan says Netanyahu and Israel really only have three options and none of them look very encouraging.

One option is to annex the West Bank, which Buchanan says would ultimately end up with Israel absorbing a population of Palestinians that in time would outnumber Jews. A second option is basically ethnic cleansing, which I would have to agree with Buchanan, this is something the U.S. could not support.

The third plan is one that seems to be Netanyahu’s option – no Palestinian state and to retain control over the West Bank to make sure that what happened with Hamas in Gaza doesn’t happen there. This plan of course has it’s problems, the biggest being that this would essentially isolate the Palestinians.

Netanyahu understands that Israel is always a target and that as many times as they have tried to negotiate peace and give up territory and yield to the demands of Hamas, Hezbollah, the Palestinians and pressures from the West, they continue to be shot at, grenades launched into settlements, car bombed and rockets fired at them.

When you have never spent everyday of your existence wondering who will be killed by a terrorist today, it is easy to suggest concessions for peace. I suggest that Netanyahu and the Israeli people have a much better understanding of reality than Barack Obama who believes in negotiating with those who want to kill Jews and Americans.

So we are still left with the big question. Where will the United States come down on the issue of protecting Israel from those bent on her destruction? It is believed that Barack Obama will announce to the world those plans in a speech scheduled for June 4, 2009 in Cairo, Egypt. Mark that day on your calendar. It could be one of the biggest days in world history.

Tom Remington

Yes, millions of people could die under the rule of Barack Obama! This morning I read a headline in a lefty newspaper that read, “As many as 1,000 wolves could be killed!” This all because it was decided to remove federal protection of the wolf.

This morning, I’m claiming that millions of people, worldwide, could die while Barack Obama is in office. My reasoning is that he is a fascist dictator and like Hitler, millions of people died.

And speaking of Hitler. I have been reading Jonah Goldberg’s book, Liberal Fascism. I highly recommend it but unfortunately too few will read it because they will automatically reach conclusions just by the title. While the title grabs your attention, the book isn’t quite what you might think it is. It is very historical. In it you will discover America’s birth of fascism, the journey of the metamorphosis of fascism through the years and what role it plays in our lives today.

Toward the end of the book I was reading about how Hitler transformed Germany into what it became. Here’s what Goldberg said.

“Under the progressives, the Christian God had been transformed into the God of lower food prices. Under the Nazis, the Christian God would be transformed into an Aryan SS officer with Hitler his right hand. The so-called German Christian pastors preached that “just as Jesus liberated mankind from sin and hell, so Hitler saves the German Volk from decay.” In April 1933 the Nazi Congress of German Christians pronounced that all churches should catechize that “God has created me a German; Germanism is a gift of God. God wills that I fight for Germany. War service in no way injures the Christian conscience, but is obedience to God.”

“In 1935 mandatory prayer in school was abolished, and in 1938 carols and Nativity plays were banned entirely. By 1941 religious instruction for children fourteen years and up had been abolished altogether, and Jacobinism reigned supreme. A Hitler Youth song rang out from the campfires”

What I opted to do with the Hitler Youth song was to replace two names that appear in it. You’ll catch on.

We are the happy Obama Youth;
We have no need for Christian virtue;
For Barack Obama is our intercessor
And our redeemer.
No priest, no evil one
Can keep us
From feeling like Obama’s children.
No Christ do we follow, but Rahm Emanuel!
Away with the incense and holy water pots.

The orphans in Germany were given a song to sing at Christmas time, a song once familiar here in America but with each passing year, as our society continues it’s bent on ridding this country of any reference to God, this carol too will be banned. Hitler changed the lyrics to the song as I will change them again to fit the moment.

Silent night! Holy night! All is calm, all is bright,
Only Obama steadfast in fight,
Watches o’er America by day and night,
Always caring for us.

Before you call me a wing nut, or one of Napolitano’s feared right wing extremists, review your history and then be honest with yourself and compare this all to the direction this country is headed. Some of us don’t like it and fear for our future. On the other hand, you might just like it. Many Germans did.

Tom Remington

Yesterday we learned that Obama’s Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, told the world that Israel needed to begin serious negotiations directed at a two-state solution with the Palestinians. Only a day later, V.P. Joe Biden told a pro-Israel lobby at AIPAC meetings, that Israel had to work toward a two-state solution.

The idea of Israel and Palestine living side by side in two separate states isn’t a new idea. As a matter of fact, President George Bush conceded that that might be the solution to the years of war and needless killings. The problem often in these negotiations is how to divide the land.

So far Obama’s warmth toward Israel hasn’t come shining through in any fashion and today, we read in the Washington Times that some, as well as perhaps even the new Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, are wondering if Obama is going to place demands on Israel to give up its nuclear weapons along with Iran.

President Obama’s efforts to curb the spread of nuclear weapons threaten to expose and derail a 40-year-old secret U.S. agreement to shield Israel’s nuclear weapons from international scrutiny, former and current U.S. and Israeli officials and nuclear specialists say.

The issue will likely come to a head when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu meets with Mr. Obama on May 18 in Washington. Mr. Netanyahu is expected to seek assurances from Mr. Obama that he will uphold the U.S. commitment and will not trade Israeli nuclear concessions for Iranian ones.

Assistant Secretary of State Rose Gottemoeller said at a meeting of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty at the UN that Israel should join the treaty. The treaty states that only 5 nations will be allowed to have nuclear weapons – U.S., France, Britain, China and Russia.

For that to happen, it would mean that the U.S. would no longer avoid acknowledging that Israel has nuclear arms. If the U.S. were able to force Israel into giving up nukes, this would leave a tiny island of maybe 5 million people surrounded by hundreds of millions who vow to wipe her off the face of the earth.

History has shown us that Israel, should they agree to any treaty, will honor that treaty. Other nations have an abysmal record of upholding treaties with Israel.

Is President Obama radically changing the relationship the United States has had with Israel for many years? Ed Morrissey of Hot Air says that he believes the reason Obama hired on Rose Gottemoeller as Assistant Secretary of State was because of her stance on Israel and that Obama fully understood her comments made about Israel signing on to the NPT. This being their policy on Israel.

The Obama administration appointed Gottemoeller, fully cognizant of her thinking on this issue. One has to assume that her appointment to the senior position at State constitutes an endorsement of those positions. It wouldn’t be the most radical thinking about Israel from this administration; Samantha Powers, who works between Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and UN Ambassador Susan Rice, once called for a Western occupation of Israel and forced disarmament of their entire army.

From this perspective it becomes disturbingly frightening that Obama seems to have a position on Israel that is more like that of just another country. I can understand why Israelis are wondering if this new administration will support Israel in real time of need.

We have to once again ask the question, are we leaving Israel to fend for itself?

Tom Remington

Recently, Rahm Emanuel, President Obama’s Chief of Staff, said that if Israel expects the United States to do anything about Iran’s nuclear weapons program, Israel first must work toward creating a two-state solution to end troubles in that region.

And then again today, Vice President Joe Biden told a pro-Israel lobby at AIPAC in Washington, that Israel had to work toward a two-state solution.

“You’re not going to like my saying this, but not build more settlements, dismantle existing outposts and allow Palestinians freedom of movement.”

Even though Biden reiterated the U.S.’s continued support for Israel, many bring into question Obama’s current policies of trying to negotiate with Iran without any pre-conditions.

If the Obama administration pushes for Israel to divide up its land and give up strategic areas used for national security, as well as pander to the Iranians and other Arab nations who have public announced their intentions to destroy Israel, where does this leave them? If push comes to shove, will the U.S. unconditionally support Israel?

Tom Remington

Obama is tossing his weight around and putting demands on Israel never before seen. While Israel remains deeply troubled by Iran’s bent on nuclear weapons, Obama has decided to use this as leverage against the Israelis, telling them that if they want help with Iran, they need to start giving up land and handing it over to the Palestinians.

Coming up is the American Israel Public Affairs Committee conference in Washington, a time when, under past administrations, the head of Israel would be invited to pay a visit to the White House and meet with the president. Not Obama. He chose to inform Israel he would not be “in town” and that the past open door policy would no longer be in effect for Israeli prime ministers.

In return, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu canceled his trip to Washington and made an announcement that an upcoming purchase of 75 US-made F-35 Joint Strike Fighter jets would be put on hold while Israel takes a closer look at the deal pending.

According to “TheAge.com”, the Israelis are talking about their relationship with President Obama and the end of warm relations.

According to prominent Israeli political commentator Maya Bengal, who writes for the country’s second-largest selling newspaper Maariv, the holiday is over.

“As Passover comes to an end, so comes to an end, it seems, the days of grace granted to the Netanyahu Government by the American Administration,” says the commentator.

Tel Aviv barman Meir Avraham, 30, says he can feel on the street the tensions being played out between the US and Israel.

“This is one of the the main things that the people are talking about at the moment,” says Mr Avraham, who recently returned to Israel after several months in Townsville.

Where does this leave Israel? Netanyahu has made it clear that they cannot tolerate Iran obtaining nuclear weapons – Iran being a country that promised to use them on the “Little Satan” and the “Great Satan”. If the new policies of the U.S are toward strengthening relations with the Arab countries at the expense of Israel, then Israel will be left all alone.

Tom Remington

According to Michelle Malkin, there have been reports from DHS on leftwing extremism.

I have covered DHS for many years and am quite familiar with past assessments they and the FBI have done on animal rights terrorists and environmental terrorists. But those past reports have always been very specific in identifying the exact groups, causes, and targets of domestic terrorism, i.e., the ALF, ELF, and Stop Huntingdon wackos who have engaged in physical harassment, arson, vandalism, and worse against pharmaceutical companies, farms, labs, and university researchers.

I tend to agree with Malkin but it certainly depends on who you talk to as to whether this report, being called a direct attack on conservatives and military veterans, is all that unusual.

Robert Schlesinger of U.S. News and World Report doesn’t think this report is anything that should upset conservatives. He actually asks why conservatives would put themselves in the same company of those being pointed out in the report.

Here’s my question: Why are prominent conservatives so quick to lump themselves in with genuine nuts and terrorists? Seriously.

Schlesinger also points out from a footnote in the report what he wants to use as a definition of who the report is targeting.

Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.

It is disingenuous to try to convince anybody that this is a definitive representation of what rightwing extremism is and is talked about in this report. It is all subjective and left up to the judgment of who? Janet Napolitano? Barack Obama? Or maybe the CNN reporter who yesterday, covering the Tea Party event in Chicago, called the event anti government, anti CNN and not fit for family viewing.

It needs also to be pointed out that nothing in this report addresses radical Islamic terrorists or any other terror organizations outside the U.S.

And this report follows in the footsteps of the Missouri Information and Analysis Center’s Strategic Report, “Modern Militia Movement“. Almost immediately after that report was made public a member of the Campaign for Liberty group was detained at length at a Missouri airport because he was carrying cash and brochures about his organization.

Yesterday on a local talk radio station here in the Tampa Bay area, I heard one host say that the DHS report on rightwing extremism wasn’t targeted at Tea Parties or conservatives because these reports were sanctioned under the Bush administration. Well, of course they were. It was under the Bush administration that the Department of Homeland Security was founded. The problem with that argument is that George Bush and his Secretary of Homeland Security didn’t write this report dated April 7, 2009. It was Janet Napolitano under the direction of her boss, Barack Obama. These two either knew exactly what they were doing or they need some remedial work on writing reports on national security.

We can argue forever on whether or not this report was directed at conservatives and any or all conservative movements. What we can agree on is that the document is a piece of poorly crafted bunk. It is non specific, it is written such that it will incite anger and does not define what they deem to be “extremism”. To read the report any honest person will come away believing that those who don’t espouse to the principles of abortion, bailouts, socialism, gun control, essentially all of Obama’s programs, you are a rightwing extremist. Not only that, about the only specific group pointed out is from our own military personnel. Shouldn’t we expect our military personnel to be angry and hurt?

This report went out to law enforcement agencies as an alert. It is so poorly crafted that it appears as an obvious target of anyone not in agreement with the president and his policies.

I don’t consider myself an extremist but after reading this report and being witness to the events taking place in this country today, I am left thinking I am on the DHS watch list.

Tom Remington

Not long after Obama took office, he crafted a video plea to the Iranian leadership to be a good boy and come play with the rest of the world fair. The message in return was clear – mind your own business. But this hasn’t seemingly deterred President Obama. He now seems willing to cave in to his own preconditions, displaying his weakness at the expense of national and international security by allowing Iran to continue to enrich uranium all in hopes that he can sit down with Iran and resolve differences.

According to the New York Times, Obama has convinced other European leaders that the rest of the world needs to look at things differently and appease Iran.

A review of Iran policy that Mr. Obama ordered after taking office is still under way, and aides say it is not clear how long he would be willing to allow Iran to continue its fuel production, and at what pace. But European officials said there was general agreement that Iran would not accept the kind of immediate shutdown of its facilities that the Bush administration had demanded.

“We have all agreed that is simply not going to work — experience tells us the Iranians are not going to buy it,” said a senior European official involved in the strategy sessions with the Obama administration. “So we are going to start with some interim steps, to build a little trust.”

Earlier this week, Israeli President Shimon Peres told the world that Iran is only interested in complete control over the Middle East and not just the state of Israel.

Where will this leave Israel and the United States as Obama continues to show real weakness in dealing with known terrorists such as Iran? Obama has already waffled in his support for Israel leaving them wondering if push came to shove, who he would support.