Terrorist Group Offers To Protect Obama In The West Bank

As reported by World Net Daily, Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade has been called upon by the Palestinean Authority to help in the protection of Barack Obama in his tour of the Middle East. Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade is listed by the U.S. State Department as a terror organization.

Members of the most active West Bank terror organization are set to serve in security forces being deployed to protect Sen. Barack Obama during his trip to the West Bank tomorrow, WND has learned.

Obama is due to visit Israeli officials in Jerusalem and leaders of the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank city of Ramallah as part of a wider Middle Eastern and European tour that includes Jordan, France and Germany.

According to security officials coordinating deployments of forces with the PA for Obama’s Ramallah visit, members of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, Fatah’s declared military wing, have been called upon by the PA to participate in the protection of Obama, particularly in securing the perimeter during a scheduled meeting with PA President Mahmoud Abbas.

The Brigades is listed as a terror organization by the U.S. State Department. The group took credit along with the Islamic Jihad terror organization for every suicide bombing in Israel between 2005 and 2006 and is responsible for thousands of shootings and rocket firings. Statistically, the Al Aqsa Brigades perpetuated more terrorism from the West Bank than Hamas, according to the Israeli Defense Forces.

Does the fact that a terrorist organization is participating in protecting Barack Obama while in the Middle East give anyone some level of discomfort? The Hamas endorsement several weeks ago was pretty blatant, but does there still remain a question in anyone’s mind that anti-Israel terrorist groups want Obama elected as our next president?

Advertisements

Palestinians Campaign For Obama

Sometime next fall, when you get a call from someone with a foreign accent urging you to vote for Barack Obama, you may consider asking where they are calling from. There’s a good chance it may be the Gaza strip and from a member of Hamas.

Palestinians in Gaza have taken it upon themselves to actively campaign for Obama from Gaza. In a world that gets smaller every day through the internet and other forms of communication, this should come as no surprise.

However, when pondering whether or not to vote for Barack Obama in the fall, one should ponder this….why would members of Hamas in the Gaza strip attempt to influence our Presidential election? Why are they so preferential to Obama? What is it about him that makes him so attractive to people who belong to terrorist groups and have pledged themselves to the destruction of Israel? Could it be that they think he’s just pretending to be a supporter of Israel and really isn’t?

That my friends, is exactly what they think. And I think they’re right.

This pro-Obama news video is from Al Jazeera.

Terrorists For Obama

Hamas, the Palestinian Sunni Islamist militant organization (i.e. terrorist group) and political party has come out in support of their favorite U.S. Presidential candidate….Barack Obama. Hamas’ top political adviser in the Gaza Strip, Ahmed Yousef, said in an interview with World Net Daily and ABC radio that Hamas “hopes” Obama will win the presidential elections and “change” America’s foreign policy.

Yousef also went onto say this:

“I hope Mr. Obama and the Democrats will change the political discourse. … I do believe [Obama] is like John Kennedy, a great man with a great principal. And he has a vision to change America to make it in a position to lead the world community, but not with humiliation and arrogance.”

Naturally the Obama campaign ran away from this faster than it did from Rev. Jeremiah Wright a week ago. The only problem for the Obama campaign is the lingering question that will remain in voters’ minds in November. Why would a terrorist organization endorse Barack Obama?

Well, if you put yourself in the shoes of the leader of Hamas, what would you want out of America’s next President?

1. A weaker America with less military presence in the Middle East, thus allowing terrorist organizations to freely recruit, raise money, and grow.

2. A weak U.S. economy thus diminishing America’s presence in the world.

3. A more “tolerant” view of radical Islam.

4. Abandonment of Israel.

I’m not suggesting that these are Obama’s coming policies, but Hamas clearly believes that they will get more of these with Obama than they do with McCain. It is similar to Al Qaeda’s unofficial “endorsement” of John Kerry four years ago, by Al Qaeda leaders using Democratic talking points on an Al Jazeera released videotape. All organizations (labor unions, religious groups, nonprofit organizations) will endorse who they feel will be in their best interest. Terrorists want what is best for them too!

For those of us who aren’t hypnotized by Obama’s empty platitudes of change and hope, this really comes as no surprise. Obama has shown himself to be not only naive, but dangerously naive regarding foreign policy. He has suggested that he would have negotiations with Iran, Cuba, and Venezuela (without preconditions) and has suggested invading one of our allies, Pakistan. He has promised to raise taxes and has promised to immediately start pulling troops out of Iraq. He has promised to levy windfall taxes on American oil companies, which would not only wreck any hope America has of becoming energy independent, but would give foreign oil companies a distinct advantage over American oil companies. Nearly every Obama plan put forth thus far is a potential disaster that could literally take decades to fix once he left office. What better scenario for Hamas and other terrorist organizations to thrive under? A crippled America is in their best interests.

By mine and any other sane person’s calculations, Obama already has the perfect plan to accomplish the first three things on the Hamas wishlist. Raising taxes weakens the economy and pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan weakens our influence in the Middle East. This would allow terrorist organizations to recruit, train, and expand freely. Hamas recognizes that Obama is a member of a church that has remained very vocally anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian for twenty years. Yousef even went so far as to say that Obama is just “kissing up to Jews” because that is “American politics”.

There will be much more of this in the coming months. No one issue will derail the Obama campaign, but a combination of the combined controversies of Jeremiah Wright, Tony Rezko, Bill Ayers, and a Hamas endorsement very well could. It just depends on how hungry Americans are for a change in the wrong direction.

Iran Uses Apology Letters as Propaganda

In an unprecedented event on September 24, 2007, Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad spoke in a public forum at Columbia University. His appearance was both hailed and condemned as it was the first time an openly communist leader was allowed to speak freely on U.S. soil. Interestingly, Lee Bollinger, the Chancellor of Columbia University, not only invited Ahmadinejad to the forum, but introduced him by berating him and his communist policies.

The response by many was rightful condemnation over Iran’s policies towards women, gays, and Israel. Ahmadinejad kept on message during the forum by denying the holocaust and affirming that he felt that the U.S. presence in the Middle East was unwarranted. However, there was a letter-writing contingent in the audience that felt that Ahmadinejad was mistreated and wrongfully criticized by Bollinger. This contingent did what they do best–write apology letters to Iran!

So, now the Iranian Presidential Office has published a book entitled “Dialogue In Iranian Style”, which contains the letters of American Citizens apologizing for the “offensive” behavior of the Chancellor. If this contingent of communist letter-writing sympathizers was consistent in their ideology, shouldn’t letters have be written to all the holocaust survivors in the U.S. for allowing Ahmadinejad to deny the holocaust at a nationally televised forum?

Which is more offensive? Truthfully describing the devastatingly oppressive effects of communism and drawing attention to a culture of human rights violations or denying the reality of the holocaust? Apparently in this day and age, progressives find the truth more offensive than deliberate lies.