I know. He is hiding behind the statement that says, "there can only be one presidential administration at a time." I know. It is said that there can only be "one foreign policy" at a time.
So, what does this tell us?
Take the economic situation and policy decisions being made (and currently being planned by the new administration.) It's out in the open. In fact, Obama supposedly is having (or, may have already had) a news conference on the subject. Why is it OK for discussion of this but not the other? [Update: Just as has always been suspected of Obama's candidacy - he's into "spreading the wealth around." Of course, he is scaring people to death while encouraging it! The news conference showed this tactic - up front and center in Obama's remarks! Michael Reagan was ahead of Obama's game from the start:
Stimulating Bankruptcy And Chaos]
The answer is two-fold.
1. The economy subject of "bailouts" are mostly agreed upon by both parties - with only a small segment of conservatives (who don't have ANY influential voice in Congress anymore) who would rather wait and see if the first bailouts work.
2. The foreign policy of the future Obama administration disagrees with the current Bush administration and will most likely drastically change direction. The nomination of a pansy, inexperienced candidate for the CIA chief position - Leon Panetta - is an indication of the 180 degree turn that Obama will take on intelligence gathering and foreign policy management. [Update: Jeremiah Films has links to several articles concerned about this appointment, too!]
Therefore, Obama does not want to show the public "his hand" yet.
I think that Israel already knows that her security will mostly fall upon Her own shoulders once Obama is in office. The steadfast loyalty, security, unconditional stance and friendship of the United States government (of the past) with Israel might (tragically) be severely at risk.
I know. I sound like an alarmist. I sincerely hope that I AM WRONG about this. However, the indications so far don't look good regarding the Obama foreign policy inferences that we are currently getting.
I realize that my assumptions are coming from an "argument from silence." However, I can't shake the feeling and belief that if Obama was truly, in fact, ready to defend Israel against all enemies - like past administrations have - then he would have stated much more emphatically that he agrees with the Bush administration that Israel has the right to defend herself in the current battle with Hamas terrorists.
This morning, I was reading a back issue of Newsmax magazine. There was an ad in it from an organization called "FLAME" which stands for Facts and Logic About the Middle East. I have heard of this organization in the past and have read some of their ads. However, I have not had the time to read much at the website. If you click on the link above and scroll down, you will see several links to various ads that they have shared in magazine publications to help educate people about the truth regarding the conflicts going on in the Middle East. Their goal is to separate fact from fiction, truth from myths, and logic from propaganda regarding Israel and the Arab nations that hate her, despise her, surround her and outrightly have declared their wish to destroy her.
Went back to the link (above) and found a few ads that I think are very important to read:
The “Root Cause” of the Middle East Turmoil
Would peace descend if the Arab-Israeli conflict were resolved?
Turmoil in Gaza
What can the world, what can Israel do to restore order?
Rockets Over Sderot
What should Israel do to stop this outrage?
[This one shares the fact that Israel needed to retaliate against Hamas because of the constant barrage of missiles being shot into her land!]
Note this portion:
Israel’s attempt to stop the shelling of Sderot has so far been a failure. But what should Israel do? The answer is obvious: Israel should openly declare to Gaza and to the world at large that every rocket that falls on Sderot or on any place in Israel will immediately be responded to by a rocket aimed at where it came from. Since Gaza is packed with humanity, it is clear that such a tit-for-tat approach would cause many civilian casualties. That would be a tragedy, of course. But, it is pretty clear that the rockets would stop in short order. Sure, “the world” would object. But a country’s first duty is to protect its citizens from attack. That is what we would do. That is the very least any country would do.
That paragraph was practically prophetic in its declaration that "the world would object." We have seen the pro-Palestinian protests going on in several parts of the world - including - unfortunately, the United States.
There are over one hundred ads to view at that link. I plan to take my time and read through most of them.
It is a well known fact that our news media is run by the far-left. Most, unfortunately, may think that they can hide their true positions on the Israeli/Arab conflicts. However, the truth is that many are secretly, if not openly anti-Zionist. Many far left Democrats are, too.
Case in point.
Several posts ago, I put up a link to Mike Rucker's blog post called "Wars With No Victors." Mike shared a letter he had received from a man named "Bill Burton." In the comment thread, I asked Mike if this was the same "Bill Burton" (recall, he often did commentary on the Fox News Channel) who worked on Obama's campaign. Mike seemed to think that it probably wasn't the same man. Maybe so. But if it was, then perhaps we could draw some inkling about where Obama might stand regarding "Zionism." Here is a copy of the "Bill Burton" letter:
There will be a (probably) huge demonstration in front of the C N N center this Saturday begiinning at 2 p.m. and going for a couple of hours. The sponsors are some local Palestinian-rights groups who don’t have a website up and running. I heard about it this Tuesday at a prior demo for the same cause.(italics and red bold mine)
The demonstration to call for the Israeli’s to stop their bombing, armored attack, naval attacks, and blockade of Gaza. No food or medical supplies get into Gaza except for a trickle through tunnels to Egypt, which the Israelis are bombing. Similar demonstrations are going on around the U.S. and around the world. The Zionists are like mad dogs. They killed two Hamas fighters to provoke the missile attack from Hamas, and then they launched the massive attacks they’d planned for almost 6 months.
Current news on Gaza can be found at:
And click to play this (very knowledgeable and thorough report) by Shoenman and Shone:
Sorry I forgot to get the word out earlier.
Is that statement fact or fiction? Is this man spreading propaganda? I will let each reader decide.
Back to the FLAME website.
I found the following question quite intriguing. The question was asked, Christians and Israel
Are Christians Israel’s supporters or its detractors? and when I clicked on the essay answer it revealed what I have often suspected about many, if not most of America's "religious left's" feelings and opinions about Israel:
Is “divestment” the new anti-Semitism? In contrast to the Evangelicals’ solid support of Israel stand certain “mainline” leftists-oriented churches. On the forefront are the mainline Presbyterians. In 2000, they launched a campaign to divest from five U.S. companies (Caterpillar, Motorola, United Technologies, ITT, and CitiGroup), which they claim are complicit in Israel’s mistreatment and suppression of the Arabs under their administration.
The United Church of Christ (UCC) took similar action and it seems that the Episcopalian hierarchy is also contemplating such a course. The Anglicans, the British equivalent of the Episcopalians, passed a similar resolution last year. Gratifyingly, most of the rank and file of these churches entirely disagrees with their leaders. It provokes their outrage and has also caused bipartisan condemnation in Congress.
As far as the robust Israeli economy is concerned, any possible divestment by those churches would not be much more than a pinprick. But what is significant and important is that, in hypocritical self-righteousness, those church leaders have cloaked their antipathy toward the Jews in the socially more acceptable mantle of anti-Zionism or anti-Israelism. Would those elders recommend that their church divest from Spain for their “suppression of the Basques,” from China for the “subjugation of the Tibetans,” or from the Arab countries for their ruthless exclusion and worse of their fellow Christian citizens, the genocide of their blacks, and for the mistreatment of women? Of course not – it is Israel, the only democratic country in the entire Middle East, that merits the condemnation of the leaders of those mainline churches. It makes one wonder, doesn’t it!
Contrast that with what is known about the steadfast support of Evangelical Christians for Israel and Her people:
One solid friend of Israel came to the fore. Today, American Evangelicals are the staunchest supporters of Israel. This support is largely based on the faith shared with the Jews that the land of Israel was willed by God to the children of Israel. It is a primary reason for America's friendship and solidarity with Israel. The Evangelicals believe that their end-of-time scenario will be hastened by the establishment of a Jewish state in that land.
Jews fully reciprocate the love that the Evangelicals feel for Israel. Christian institutions in Israel thrive and have the support and full protection of the government. Christian schools, Christian churches and other Christian institutions prosper. A large Christian pilgrimage center is to be built in cooperation with American Evangelicals. A Christian embassy in Jerusalem represents the interests of Christians in Israel and serves as messenger about Israel throughout the world.
[J]ews and the State of Israel can rejoice in the solid friendship and the sturdy support of American Evangelical Christians. Also, the Roman Catholic Church, under the wise guidance of the saintly late John Paul II, has recognized its crimes against the Jews over the centuries and has asked for forgiveness and understanding. It is only the hypocritical leaders of certain mainline Protestant churches who, against the will and belief of their rank and file, derogate the State of Israel and promote the phony issue of divestment of companies that supposedly support its alleged mistreatment of the Arabs under its administration and the violation of their human rights.
What type of "Christian" church did Obama hail from?
I rest my case.
FLAME: Facts and Logic About the Middle East
Mike Rucker's blog
Oh great...now Hezbollah from Lebanon is attacking Israel!
Joel Rosenberg's blog: ROCKETS FIRED FROM LEBANON AT ISRAEL: Fears of a second front
End times prophecy tells us that there will be a "ganging up" of haters of the nation of Israel. Is this just a preview? Or, is the prophecy already starting and coming to fruition?
Another great article to read over at Culture Watch:
Israel, Hamas and Moral Equivalence
Prophecy Continually Being Fulfilled
We Are Witnessing Biblical Prophecy
David's Incredible Prophecy of Israel's Enemies Today
Zechariah's Warning to Bush and Condi
Discerning Signs of the Times