All They Need Is Jobs! The FBI"s Most Wanted List Is Missing A Picture! Revealing Statistics!

Now you know there is nothing to fear from radical Islamists because all they need are  jobs and then they will put away their weapons.

Obama cannot bring himself to face reality because he is pathologically disturbed. Check out this video: http://sendvid.com/17rm25rj  (See 1 below.)

Will Libya become a launching pad for ISIS? (See 1a below.)
===
Many years ago I posted a public article by the CIA discussing demographics.  Now an update by Stratfor's Friedman. (See 2 below.)
===
Netanyahu explains why he is coming to D.C. (See 3 below.)

Sowell on Obama "Happy Talk." (See 3a below.)

Obama worse than Manchurian Candidate. (See 3b below.)

Obama has a pathetic guest list of invitees coming to  The White House. He invites this nut and Al but does not have time for Netanyahu. . (See 3c below.)
===
Current facts regarding Israel. See 4 below.)
===
There has been so much written of late about Obama, his apologists in The State Department and Pentagon and his Attorney General.

I have little else I can add. except it is increasingly evident the president of the United States, in my humble opinion, is an enemy of the United States. Though Obama offers explanations why he does what he does or fails to do what he should, I am unwilling to buy them.

I prefer to judge him by his deeds or misdeeds. Obama's picture should be on The FBI's Most Wanted List!
===
Some statistics that are revealing and explain a lot about the current administration.  (See 5 below.)
===
Dick
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1)

The 'Jobs for Jihad Delinquents' program

By Michelle Malkin 

At The White House Summit on Extremism That Shall Remain Unspecified Because Violent Followers Belonging To Unnamed Extremist Movement Might Take Extreme Offense And Act Extremely, the feds are touting a groundbreaking new strategy to fight terrorists.

Just kidding. It's actually the same old futile strategy that big-government liberals use to cure everything: mo' money, mo' money, mo' money.

Instead of killing jihadists, keeping them off of our soil, locking up their poisonous spiritual agitators and shutting off their terror-funding pipelines, President Obama called on America and the world to "invest" in unnamed immigrant "communities" vulnerable to unnamed extremism.

Some of the most generous welfare states on the planet have suffered horrific jihad attacks this year. Liberal Denmark's soft-on-jihad rehab program has been a disaster. But that hasn't stopped State Department spokes-babbler Marie Harf from mewling incessantly about "combating poverty" to combat ISIS.

Vice President Joe Biden opened the convention of jihad-coddlers on Tuesday by emphasizing the need for "respect" (cha-ching) and "a sense of community." White House senior aides spoke generically about terrorists of "all shapes and sizes," as they studiously avoided the precise nature and identity of the perpetrators of evil that precipitated the meeting.

Screw that.

Muslim jihadists chopped off the heads of 21 Egyptian Coptic Christians in Libya this weekend.

Muslim jihadists launched deadly shooting sprees in Copenhagen at a cartoonists free-speech event and a synagogue.

Muslim jihadists murdered Jews at a kosher deli in Paris and slaughtered the entire staff of Charlie Hebdo over their 

drawings.

Muslim jihadists caged and burned alive Jordanian pilot Moaz al-Kasasbeh.

Muslim jihadists threw gays off of buildings in Iraq.

Muslim jihadists beheaded journalists James Foley and Steven Sotloff, humanitarian workers Alan Henning and Peter Kassig, and Japanese nationals Haruna Yukawa and Kenji Goto Jogo.

Muslim jihadists have kidnapped and slaughtered thousands of innocent men, women and children in Nigeria.

The solution, the Obama administration wants 60 nations to D.C. to learn, is a super-sized community organizing campaign. It's Jobs for Jihad Delinquents!

No, this is not a "Saturday Night Live" anniversary skit.

Politically correct public officials from L.A., Boston and Minnesota are holding seminars on their "outreach" efforts to disaffected yoots as shining counterterrorism models. In Minneapolis, where al-Shabaab recruiters have metastasized, the U.S. attorney has bought into Muslim grievance-mongers' complaints that "immigrant youngsters remain marginalized, without access to adequate education, employment and other opportunities."

Social justice warriors are united: Less "marginalization." More midnight basketball.

What a bloody crock. States like Minnesota and Maine have bent over backward to resettle thousands upon thousands of Somali refugees -- putting their demands for halal food freebies, taxpayer-funded footbaths and "cultural sensitivity" over the safety and well-being of native-born citizens and taxpayers struggling to make ends meet.

While grandmothers and disabled soldiers and breast-feeding moms must submit to invasive TSA screening, Muslim leaders in Minneapolis have the feds groveling in apology over increased scrutiny of some Somalis. I mean, it's not like dozens of young male members of their "community" are flying off to the Horn of Africa and the Middle East to take up arms for jihad after benefiting from America's blind generosity. Oh, wait. They are.

The persistent leftwing myth of the poor, oppressed jihadist is absolute madness. How many times do we have to remind the clueless kumbaya crowd that al-Qaida mastermind Ayman al-Zawahiri had a medical degree, as did Hamas bigwig Abdel al-Rantisi and the seven upper-crust doctors who helped plan the 2007 London/Glasgow bombings?

Or that al-Qaida scientist Aafia Siddiqui studied microbiology at MIT and did graduate work in neurology at Brandeis. Terror architect Khalid Sheikh Mohammed earned a mechanical engineering degree at North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University. 9/11 lead hijacker Mohamed Atta majored in urban planning at a German technical university.

Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh attended the London School of Economics before abducting and murdering American journalist Daniel Pearl. And Osama bin Laden and Sayyid Qutb (Colorado State Teachers College) had plenty of exposure to wealth and Western studies.

The "root cause" of their evildoing is not a lack of employment, education, community centers, iftar dinners at the White House or publicly funded "opportunities." When will these fools in high office learn that you can't bribe these adherents of Stone Age ideology to behave? They don't want jobs. They want blood. Revenge. Islamist dominance. Ruthless extermination of Jews, gays, Coptic Christians, Christian aid workers, cartoonists, journalists, apostates and infidels of all shapes and sizes.

The M****m j*******s are not victims of Islamophobic intolerance and Western callousness. We are the victims of our own leaders' bleeding-heart overindulgence and reckless refusal to deal with reality.

---

Michelle Malkin is the author of "Culture of Corruption: Obama and his Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks and Cronies" (Regnery 2010). Her e-mail address is malknblog@gmail.com.

1a)

'ISIS sets sights on Libya as gateway to eventual invasion of Europe' By JPOST.COM STAFF According to the Telegraph, ISIS jihadists plan to “flood Libya with militiamen from Syria and Iraq, who will then sail across the Mediterranean posing as migrants on people-trafficking vessels.”

Islamic State has set its sights on taking over Libya as a bridgehead to eventually waging war all across southern Europe, the British Telegraph is reporting on Wednesday. The newspaper cited letters written by ISIS supporters. According to the report, ISIS jihadists plan to “flood Libya with militiamen from Syria and Iraq, who will then sail across the Mediterranean posing as migrants on people-trafficking vessels.” ISIS “would then run amok in southern European cities and also try to attack maritime shipping,” the Telegraph reported. Earlier this week, Egypt conducted air strikes on ISIS targets in Libya as retaliation for the beheading of 21 Egyptian Copts taken captive. Libya is a mere 300 miles from the tip of southern Italy. The instability in the North African country has European officials concerned that the tumult could spill over into the Continent. Italian security chiefs on Tuesday approved a plan to put 4,800 soldiers on the streets throughout the country to help guard against potential militant attacks, the Interior Ministry said. A statement after a meeting of military and security officials said they would guard sensitive sites and targets until at least June. Italian media said about 500 would be deployed in Rome, where army troops already help guard diplomatic missions and residences, the capital's synagogue and Jewish schools.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2)Population Decline and the Great Economic Reversal

By George Friedman

In recent weeks, we have been focusing on Greece,Germany, Ukraine andRussia. All are still burning issues. But in every case, readers have called my attention to what they see as an underlying and even defining dimension of all these issues — if not right now, then soon. That dimension is declining population and the impact it will have on all of these countries. The argument was made that declining populations will generate crises in these and other countries, undermining their economies and national power. Sometimes we need to pause and move away from immediate crises to broader issues. Let me start with some thoughts from my book The Next 100 Years.

Reasons for the Population Decline

There is no question but that the populations of most European countries will decline in the next generation, and in the cases of Germany and Russia, the decline will be dramatic. In fact, the entire global population explosion is ending. In virtually all societies, from the poorest to the wealthiest, the birthrate among women has been declining. In order to maintain population stability, the birthrate must remain at 2.1 births per woman. Above that, and the population rises; below that, it falls. In the advanced industrial world, the birthrate is already substantially below 2.1. In middle-tier countries such as Mexico or Turkey, the birthrate is falling but will not reach 2.1 until between 2040 and 2050. In the poorest countries, such as Bangladesh or Bolivia, the birthrate is also falling, but it will take most of this century to reach 2.1.

The process is essentially irreversible. It is primarily a matter of urbanization. In agricultural and low-level industrial societies, children are a productive asset. Children can be put to work at the age of 6 doing agricultural work or simple workshop labor. Children become a source of income, and the more you have the better. Just as important, since there is no retirement plan other than family in such societies, a large family can more easily support parents in old age.

In a mature urban society, the economic value of children declines. In fact, children turn from instruments of production into objects of massive consumption. In urban industrial society, not only are the opportunities for employment at an early age diminished, but the educational requirements also expand dramatically. Children need to be supported much longer, sometimes into their mid-20s. Children cost a tremendous amount of money with limited return, if any, for parents. Thus, people have fewer children. Birth control merely provided the means for what was an economic necessity. For most people, a family of eight children would be a financial catastrophe. Therefore, women have two children or fewer, on average. As a result, the population contracts. Of course, there are other reasons for this decline, but urban industrialism is at the heart of it.

There are those who foresee economic disaster in this process. As someone who was raised in a world that saw the population explosion as leading to economic disaster, I would think that the end of the population boom would be greeted with celebration. But the argument is that the contraction of the population, particularly during the transitional period before the older generations die off, will leave a relatively small number of workers supporting a very large group of retirees, particularly as life expectancy in advanced industrial countries increases. In addition, the debts incurred by the older generation would be left to the smaller, younger generation to pay off. Given this, the expectation is major economic dislocation. In addition, there is the view that a country's political power will contract with the population, based on the assumption that the military force that could be deployed — and paid for — with a smaller population would contract.

The most obvious solution to this problem is immigration. The problem is that Japan and most European countries have severe cultural problems integrating immigrants. The Japanese don't try, for the most part, and the Europeans who have tried — particularly with migrants from the Islamic world — have found it difficult. The United States also has a birthrate for white women at about 1.9, meaning that the Caucasian population is contracting, but the African-American and Hispanic populations compensate for that. In addition, the United States is an efficient manager of immigration, despite current controversies.

Two points must be made on immigration. First, the American solution of relying on immigration will mean a substantial change in what has been the historical sore point in American culture: race. The United States can maintain its population only if the white population becomes a minority in the long run. The second point is that some of the historical sources of immigration to the United States, particularly Mexico, are exporting fewer immigrants. As Mexico moves up the economic scale, emigration to the United States will decline. Therefore, the third tier of countries where there is still surplus population will have to be the source for immigrants. Europe and Japan have no viable model for integrating migrants.

The Effects of Population on GDP

But the real question is whether a declining population matters. Assume that there is a smooth downward curve of population, with it decreasing by 20 percent. If the downward curve in gross domestic product matched the downward curve in population, per capita GDP would be unchanged. By this simplest measure, the only way there would be a problem is if GDP fell more than population, or fell completely out of sync with the population, creating negative and positive bubbles. That would be destabilizing.

But there is no reason to think that GDP would fall along with population. The capital base of society, its productive plant as broadly understood, will not dissolve as population declines. Moreover, assume that population fell but GDP fell less — or even grew. Per capita GDP would rise and, by that measure, the population would be more prosperous than before.

One of the key variables mitigating the problem of decreasing population would be continuing advances in technology to increase productivity. We can call this automation or robotics, but growths in individual working productivity have been occurring in all productive environments from the beginning of industrialization, and the rate of growth has been intensifying. Given the smooth and predictable decline in population, there is no reason to believe, at the very least, that GDP would not fall less than population. In other words, with a declining population in advanced industrial societies, even leaving immigration out as a factor, per capita GDP would be expected to grow.

Changes in the Relationship Between Labor and Capital

A declining population would have another and more radical impact. World population was steady until the middle of the 16th century. The rate of growth increased in about 1750 and moved up steadily until the beginning of the 20th century, when it surged. Put another way, beginning with European imperialism and culminating in the 20th century, the population has always been growing. For the past 500 years or so, the population has grown at an increasing rate. That means that throughout the history of modern industrialism and capitalism, there has always been a surplus of labor. There has also been a shortage of capital in the sense that capital was more expensive than labor by equivalent quanta, and given the constant production of more humans, supply tended to depress the price of labor.

For the first time in 500 years, this situation is reversing itself. First, fewer humans are being born, which means the labor force will contract and the price of all sorts of labor will increase. This has never happened before in the history of industrial man. In the past, the scarce essential element has been capital. But now capital, understood in its precise meaning as the means of production, will be in surplus, while labor will be at a premium. The economic plant in place now and created over the next generation will not evaporate. At most, it is underutilized, and that means a decline in the return on capital. Put in terms of the analog, money, it means that we will be entering a period where money will be cheap and labor increasingly expensive.

The only circumstance in which this would not be the case would be a growth in productivity so vast that it would leave labor in surplus. Of course if that happened, then we would be entering a revolutionary situation in which the relationship between labor and income would have to shift. Assuming a more incremental, if intensifying, improvement in productivity, it would still leave surplus on the capital side and a shortage in labor, sufficient to force the price of money down and the price of labor up.

That would mean that in addition to rising per capita GDP, the actual distribution of wealth would shift. We are currently in a period where the accumulation of wealth has shifted dramatically into fewer hands, and the gap between the upper-middle class and the middle class has also widened. If the cost of money declined and the price of labor increased, the wide disparities would shift, and the historical logic of industrial capitalism would be, if not turned on its head, certainly reformulated.

We should also remember that the three inputs into production are land, labor and capital. The value of land, understood in the broader sense of real estate, has been moving in some relationship to population. With a decline in population, the demand for land would contract, lowering the cost of housing and further increasing the value of per capita GDP.

The path to rough equilibrium will be rocky and fraught with financial crisis. For example, the decline in the value of housing will put the net worth of the middle and upper classes at risk, while adjusting to a world where interest rates are perpetually lower than they were in the first era of capitalism would run counter to expectations and therefore lead financial markets down dark alleys. The mitigating element to this is that the decline in population is transparent and highly predictable. There is time for homeowners, investors and everyone else to adjust their expectations.

This will not be the case in all countries. The middle- and third-tier countries will be experiencing their declines after the advanced countries will have adjusted — a further cause of disequilibrium in the system. And countries such as Russia, where population is declining outside the context of a robust capital infrastructure, will see per capita GDP decline depending on the price of commodities like oil. Populations are falling even where advanced industrialism is not in place, and in areas where only urbanization and a decline of preindustrial agriculture are in place the consequences are severe. There are places with no safety net, and Russia is one of those places.

The argument I am making here is that population decline will significantly transform the functioning of economies, but in the advanced industrial world it will not represent a catastrophe — quite the contrary. Perhaps the most important change will be that where for the past 500 years bankers and financiers have held the upper hand, in a labor-scarce society having pools of labor to broker will be the key. I have no idea what that business model will look like, but I have no doubt that others will figure that out.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3)Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's Remarks Before the Conference 

My Friends,

Tonight I want to address some important questions that have undoubtedly been on your minds. First, why am I going to Washington? I'm going to Washington because as Prime Minister of Israel, it's my obligation to do everything in my power to prevent the conclusion of a bad deal that could threaten the survival of the State of Israel. The current proposal to Iran would endanger Israel. It would enable Iran to breakout to its first nuclear device within an unacceptably short time. And it would allow Iran to build an industrial capability to enrich uranium that could provide the fuel for many bombs in the coming years.

A regime that openly calls for Israel's destruction would thus have finally the means to realize its genocidal aims. Now mind you, I'm not opposed to any deal with Iran. I'm opposed to a bad deal with Iran. And I believe this is a very bad deal. I'm certainly not opposed to negotiations. On the contrary – no country has a greater interest, a greater stake, in the peaceful resolution of the Iranian nuclear question than does Israel. But the current proposal will not solve the problem. It will perpetuate and aggravate the problem. It would provide a path for Iran to become a nuclear power. And therefore it's very important that I speak about this in Washington.

Second question: Why am I going to Congress? Because Israel has been offered the opportunity to make its case on this crucial issue before the world's most important parliament; because a speech before Congress allows Israel to present its position to the elected representatives of the American people and to a worldwide audience; because Congress has played a critical role in applying pressure to the Iranian regime – the very pressure that has brought the ayatollahs to the negotiating table in the first place; and because Congress may very well have a say on the parameters of any final deal with Iran. That's why I'm going to Congress.

I think the real question that should be asked is how could any responsible Israeli prime minister refuse to speak to Congress on a matter so important to Israel's survival? How could anyone refuse an invitation to speak on a matter that could affect our very existence when such an invitation is offered?

Why go now? The deadline for reaching an agreement with Iran is March 24th. That's the date that drives the speech. Now is the time for Israel to make its case – now before it's too late. Would it be better to complain about a deal that threatens the security of Israel after it's signed? I believe it's more responsible to speak out now to try to influence the negotiations while they're still ongoing. 

I think the whole point of Zionism is that the Jewish people would no longer be spectators to the decision-making that determines our fate. Remember, we were once powerless. We were once voiceless. We couldn't even speak on our own behalf. Well, we can and we do now.

The answer to all three questions are the same. Why Congress? Why Washington? Why now? Because of the grave dangers posed by the deal that is on the table right now.

I don't see this issue in partisan terms. The survival of Israel is not a partisan issue. It concerns everyone, all the supporters of Israel from every political stripe. The fight against militant Islamic terrorism is not a partisan issue. The battle against the Islamic State, which just beheaded 21 Christians, is not a partisan issue. And the effort to prevent the Islamic Republic from building nuclear weapons, that's not a partisan issue either. I think the pursuit of nuclear weapons by Iran is the most urgent security challenge facing the world. I think the greatest danger facing humanity is the possibility that any movement or any regime of militant Islam will arm itself with the weapons of mass destruction. Everything that we see in our region now will pale by comparison. Everything that we see in Europe will pale by comparison.

When a militant Islamic regime that is rampaging through the region right now – that's what Iran is doing, it's conducting a rampage through the region – when such a regime has nuclear weapons, the whole world will be in peril. Look at what Iran is doing now without nuclear weapons. States are collapsing. And Iran is plunging forward. It's already controlling four capitals. It's controlling now through its Houthi proxies the Bab-el-Mandeb Straits. It's trying to envelope Israel with three terrorist tentacles – Lebanon, Hezbollah, Hamas in Gaza and now it's trying to build with its Hezbollah proxies a third front in the Golan. Such a regime with nuclear weapons would be infinitely more dangerous to everyone, not only to Israel.

Now can I guarantee that my speech in Congress will prevent a dangerous deal with Iran from being signed? Honestly, I don't know. No one knows.

But I do know this – it's my sacred duty as Prime Minister of Israel to make Israel's case. On March 3rd, I'll fulfil that duty, representing all the citizens of Israel before the two houses of Congress. And I will make the best case for Israel that I can, knowing that our case is just, that our case is sound, and that our case offers the best hope to resolve this issue peacefully.

Thank you.

3a) Glib 'happy talk'

By Thomas Sowell

We will be lucky to get through the remainder of President Obama's term in office without a major catastrophe. Leading up to World War II, the Western democracies followed feckless policies remarkably similar to those we are following today.

---

When Alfred E. Neuman said "What me worry?" on the cover of Mad magazine, it was funny. But this message was not nearly as funny coming from President Barack Obama and his National Security Advisor, Susan Rice.

In a musical comedy, it would be hilarious to have the president send out his "happy talk" message by someone whose credibility was already thoroughly discredited by her serial lies on television about the Benghazi terrorist attack in 2012.

Unfortunately -- indeed, tragically -- the world today is about as far from a musical comedy as you can get, with terrorists rampaging across the Middle East, leaving a trail of unspeakable atrocities in their wake, and with Iran moving closer to producing a nuclear bomb, with an intercontinental missile on the horizon.

We will be lucky to get through the remainder of President Obama's term in office without a major catastrophe, from which we may or may not recover.

Iran has announced repeatedly that it plans to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. But you don't need an intercontinental missile to reach Israel from Iran. Teheran is less than a thousand miles from Jerusalem. As was said long ago, "Send not to know for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for thee."

It was painfully ironic to hear Ms. Rice tell us that the danger we face today is not as serious as the dangers we faced in World War II.

Anyone who has actually studied the period that led up to World War II knows that the Western democracies followed feckless policies remarkably similar to those that we are following today. And anyone who studies that war itself knows that the West came dangerously close to losing it before finally getting their act together and turning things around.

In a nuclear age, we may not have time to let reality finally sink in on our leaders and wake up the public to the dangers.

There was lots of "happy talk" in the West while Hitler was building up his Nazi war machine during the 1930s, as the Western intelligentsia were urging the democracies to disarm.

The dangers of Hitler's sudden rise to power in Germany during the early 1930s were played down, and even ridiculed, by politicians, journalists and the intelligentsia in both Britain and France.

A temporary political setback for the Nazis in 1933 was hailed by a French newspaper as "the piteous end of Hitlerism" and a British newspaper said even earlier that Hitler was "done for." Prominent British intellectual Harold Laski opined that Hitler was "a cheap conspirator rather than an inspired revolutionary, the creature of circumstances rather than the maker of destiny."

In other words, Hitler and the Nazis were the "junior varsity" of their day, in the eyes of the know-it-alls.

Even after Hitler consolidated his political power in Germany, imposed a dictatorship and began building up a massive war machine, the Western democracies continued to believe that they could reach a peaceful understanding with him.

There was euphoria in the West when British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain returned from a conference in Munich, waving an agreement signed by Hitler, and declaring that it meant "peace for our time." Our time turned out to be less than one year before the biggest and most ghastly war in history broke out in 1939.

Today, when people can graduate from even our most prestigious colleges and universities utterly ignorant of history, many people -- even in high places -- have no idea how close the Western democracies came to losing World War II.

For the first three years of that war, the West lost battle after battle in both Europe and Asia. France collapsed and surrendered after just six weeks of fighting, and few expected the British to survive the blitzkrieg Hitler unleashed on them from the air. Americans were defeated by the Japanese in the Philippines and, as prisoners of war, faced the horrors of the infamous Bataan death march.

When the British finally won the battle of El Alamein in North Africa in November 1942, this was their first victory, more than three years after Britain entered the war.

A nuclear war is not likely to last three years, so there is unlikely to be time enough to recover from years of glib, foolish words and catastrophic decisions.

3b) Is Obama a Manchurian Candidate?

By Roger L. Simon

I can’t believe I’m actually asking if Obama is a Manchurian candidate. I am so NOT into conspiracy theories.  For me, it was always  Oswald with the Mannlicher-Carcano in the Texas School Book Depository.  The only conspiracy I ever believed in was the Black Sox Scandal.  And yet… and yet….

No, I still don’t believe it. It’s simply not true.  Barack Obama is not the Manchurian candidate. That’s just an excuse. The only problem is…

He’s worse.  He’s far worse.  Barack Obama doesn’t have to be a Manchurian candidate.  He can and is doing more damage without being one.  A Manchurian candidate could be exposed (yes, and possibly could not).  Barack Obama doesn’t need that.  He and the media and the brainwashed public that elected him are destroying our country (and the West) all by themselves.  They don’t need any secret conspirators in the back room.  They’re all there in public view. And how.

Obamacare and the sabotaging of the immigration system were bad enough, but they are absolutely trivial compared to what is going on now.  We have the next thing to a jihadist in the White House.  From the inability to name Islamic terrorists as Islamic, to the failure to name Jews as the objects of homicidal anti-Semitism at a kosher market, to the complete omission of the word Christian when 21 Christians have their heads cut off (simultaneously!) for being Christian, we have in the Oval Office not only the worst president in the history of our country, we have the worst person to be president.

And now he is opening the door to a huge number of Syrian refugees, who knows how many of whom may be members of ISIS, al Qaeda or some group we haven’t even heard of yet. If I were a Christian or a Jew or even some sort of wishy-washy Muslim, I’d make sure your door was locked at night and you had exercised your Second Amendment rights.

And if this weren’t enough, Obama is colluding with the Iranian ayatollahs as if he were an Shiite imam, not only to help them get nuclear weapons, but to form a permanent alliance with the United States against the Sunni world.  How insane is that! (As a side issue, answer this question: What is more important  – whether Iran gets the bomb or whether Bibi Netanyahu speaks in front of Congress? Absolutely stupid question, isn’t it? Only our administration thinks it’s the latter.)

I have to say I’m flabbergasted.  I never thought I’d be living in times like this, even though as a boy I saw the Auschwitz tattoos on the arms of the nurses in my father’s medical office. But what we’re seeing on the news now is just as horrifying.

I wish I knew what to do, because convincing Obama to act is a double-edged sword.  He is a horrible person to be a commander-in-chief and to put our troops in his hands is an awful thing to do to them. He will undoubtedly pull the rug out from under them just at the wrong moment.  And they certainly know it.  How could they not?

So what do we do?  Maybe hunker down and hope we make it through to 2016 with the right result.  It’ll be a long slog, and a miserable one, but if we’re lucky, maybe Bill Clinton, of all people, will save us.

3c) MUSLIM LEADER WHO CALLED ISRAEL A 'SUSPECT' AFTER 9/11 ATTENDS WHITE HOUSE SUMMIT

Author: Adam Kredo

A controversial U.S. Muslim leader who has been highly critical of Israel and said that the Jewish state should be on the “suspect list” in the wake of the 9/11 terror attacks participated on Tuesday in a White House summit on Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) that featured Vice President Joe Biden.

Salam Al-Marayati, founder of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), tweeted out a photo of himself at the White House with Biden and bragged, “We joined VP @JoeBiden for a discussion at the @WhiteHouse #CVESummit which kicked off today.”

Al-Marayati has been viewed as a controversial figure due to past statements characterized by his critics as anti-Israel and soft on terrorism. 

The White House CVE Summit, a three-day forum focused on countering radical extremism, comes in the wake of multiple anti-Semitic attacks across the globe and pressure for an increased military campaign against the Islamic State (IS) terror group.

The Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) released a detailed fact sheet that contained scores of controversial statements attributed to al-Marayati. One of his more controversial proclamations came in the wake of 9/11, when al-Marayati pointed a finger at Israel.

“If we're going to look at suspects [for 9/11], we should look to the groups that benefit the most from these kinds of incidents, and I think we should put the state of Israel on the suspect list because I think this diverts attention from what's happening in the Palestinian territories so that they can go on with their aggression and occupation and apartheid policies,” he said in a radio interview shortly after the attacks in 2001, according to the Los Angeles Times.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4) 29 AWESOME FACTS ABOUT ISRAEL YOU PROBABLY DIDN'T KNOW

1.  Israel is the only country in the world that entered the 21st century with a net gain in its number of trees.

2.  Israel has the third highest rate of entrepreneurship among women and people over 55 in the entire world.

3.  Israel is only 1/6 of 1% of the landmass of the Middle East.

4.  Israel invented the Anti-date rape straw to detect date rate drugs in a beverage.

5.  With more than 3,000 high-tech companies and start-ups, Israel has the highest concentration of hi-tech companies in the world (apart from the Silicon Valley).

6.  USB disk was invented by Israel.

7.  When Golda Meir became prime minister of Israel in 1969, she was only the third woman elected to lead a country in the modern world.

8.  The Sea of Galilee — located .212 km below sea level — is the lowest freshwater lake in the world (and the largest in Israel).

9.  The Dead Sea is the lowest on Earth. Period.

10.  Israel is one of only three democracies in the world without a codified constitution.

11.  The glue on Israeli stamps is kosher.

12.  Israel is the only country to revive an unspoken language and establish it as its national tongue!

13.  Jerusalem’s Mount of Olives is the world’s oldest continuously used cemetery.

14.  El Al, Israel’s national airline, set the world record for the most passengers on a commercial flight.

15.  The world’s largest pepper was grown in Israel’s Moshav Ein Yahav, as recorded by The Guinness Book of World Records in 2013.

16.  Life expectancy at birth in Israel is at 82 years (two years more than the OECD average).

17.  Israel’s national bird is the hoopoe!

18.  Heart tissue regeneration is possible in the U.S. thanks to Israeli stem-cell technology.

19.  An Israeli company has developed the world’s first jellyfish repellent.

20.  Israel is one of only nine countries in the world that can launch its own satellites into space.

21.  Israeli scientists have discovered the cause of chronic bad breath and an easy way to fix it!

22.  More than 44% of all lawyers registered in Israel are women!

23.  Israel has the world’s second highest per capita of new books.

24.  Israel’s national flower is the Cyclamen persicum.

25.  An Israeli inventor has developed the world’s first cardboard bicycle from recycled materials.

26.  Israeli engineers and agriculturalists developed a revolutionary drip irrigation system to minimize the amount of water used to grow crops.

27.  Israel has the highest average living standards in the Middle East. The per capita income in 2000 was over $17,500, exceeding that of the UK.

28.  Relative to its population, Israel is the largest immigrant-absorbing nation on earth. Immigrants come in search of democracy, religious freedom, and economic opportunity.

29.  Israel is the only liberal democracy in the Middle East!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5) 11 States now have More People on Welfare than they do Employed! Last month, the Senate Budget Committee reports that in fiscal year 2012, between food stamps, housing support, child care, Medicaid and other benefits, the average U.S. Household below the poverty line received $168.00 a day in government support.  What's the problem with that much support?  Well, the median household income in America is just over $50,000,which averages  $137.13 a day.

To put it another way, being on welfare now pays the equivalent of $30.00 an hour for a 40-hour week, while the average job pays $20.00 an hour.

*************************************

Furthermore:
There are actually two messages here.  The first is very interesting, but the second is absolutely astounding - and explains a lot.   A recent "Investor's Business Daily" article provided very interesting statistics from a survey by the United Nations International Health Organization.

Percentage of men and women who survived a cancer five years after diagnosis:
U.S. 65%
England 46%
Canada 42%

Percentage of patients diagnosed with diabetes who received treatment within six months:
U.S. 93%
England 15%
Canada 43%

Percentage of seniors needing hip replacement who received it within six months:
U.S. 90%
England 15%
Canada 43%

Percentage referred to a medical specialist who see one within one month:
U.S. 77%
England 40%
Canada 43%


Number of MRI scanners (a prime diagnostic tool) per million people:
U.S. 71
England 14
Canada 18

Percentage of seniors (65+), with low income, who say they are in "excellent health":
U.S. 12%
England 2%
Canada 6%

*************************************
And now..for the last statistic:

National Health Insurance?
U.S. NO
England YES
Canada YES

*************************************
Check the last set of statistics!!

The percentage of each past president's cabinet who had worked in the private business sector prior to their appointment to the cabinet.  You know what the private business sector is; a real-life business...not a government job.

Here are the percentages.
T. Roosevelt.................  38%
Taft............................. .40%

Wilson  ........................-52%
Harding........................-.49%
Coolidge..................... ..48%
Hoover......................... .42%
F. Roosevelt................. .50%
Truman........................ .50%
Eisenhower...................  57%
Kennedy .......................30%
Johnson.........................47%
Nixon ............................53%
Ford ..............................42%
Carter............................32%
Reagan..........................56%
GH Bush .......................51%
Clinton  .........................39%
GW Bush ......................55%
Obama..............------------- 8%

This helps explain the incompetence of this administration:  ONLY 8% of them... worked in private business!

That's right!  Only eight percent---the least, by far of the last 19 presidents!  And these people are trying to tell big corporations how to run their business?  How can the president of a major nation and society...the one with the most successful economic system in world history, stand and talk about business...when he's never worked for one? Or about jobs...when he has never really had one? And, when it's the same for 92% of his senior staff and closest advisers?

They've spent most of their time in academia, government, and/or non-profit jobs. Or...as "community organizers."  They should have been in an employment line.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------