There Arose a New President over America, Who Knew Not Joseph

chefdennis

Veteran Expediter
"Give him a chance!" Yea a chance to turn our countries back on israel...

January 18, 2009
American Thinker Blog: There Arose a New President over America, Who Knew Not Joseph

There Arose a New President over America, Who Knew Not Joseph

Sammy Benoit

Yesterday, the last Jewish Sabbath immediately before the inauguration of Barack Obama, Jews all across the world read the first Chapters of the book of Exodus. That is the section contains these ominous words, 'there arose a new king over Egypt, who knew not Joseph" That verse signaled a changing relationship between Egypt, the most powerful nation on earth and the Jewish nation.


Tuesday the United States of America, the most powerful nation in the world, will have a new leader. The inauguration will signal a changing relationship between the US and the Jewish Nation.


At best the Barack Obama administration will not be as favorable to Israel as the past two administrations. More likely, based on his past record and the people connected to his administration, he will be the most anti-Israel President since Jim Baker told George HW Bush, "F**K the Jews, They won't vote for us anyway."


The President-elect signaled his intentions about Israel when spoke about Richard Lugar the most anti-Israel Senator in congress as his foreign policy teacher, and included in his transition team Samantha Power who called for an invasion of Israel to enforce a cease-fire, and Robert Malley a second-generation terrorist supporter.


Hillary Clinton, the first person EVER in any administration to call for a Palestinian State, gave us a preview of Obama's foreign policy during her confirmations hearings, "appeasement of terror".


"The president-elect and I understand and are deeply sympathetic to Israel's desire to defend itself under the current conditions, and to be free of shelling by Hamas rockets," Clinton said.



"However, we have also been reminded of the tragic humanitarian costs of conflict in the Middle East and pained by the suffering of Palestinian and Israeli civilians."



First Clinton missed the opportunity to hold Hamas responsible for war crimes leading to civilian deaths in hostilities with Israel. Then she went on to repeat the Bush administration's opposition to negotiations with it, unless it recognizes Israel, renounces violence and abides by past peace deals saying, "That is just for me an absolute." (Lachlan Carmichael, 'Obama team takes new tack on Iran amid Mid east peace push,' Yahoo News, January 13, 2009).


Clinton's benchmarks should only a starting point. She is saying that if Hamas, without dismantling its terror squads or its apparatus of indoctrinating children into hatred and murder of Jews, simply said the right words about recognizing Israel, renouncing terror and recognizing the past Oslo agreements, then she would forthwith deal with this terrorist organization that possesses a genocidal Charter.


Formal recognition, statements about renouncing terror or accepting signed agreements are inadequate. What is needed is actual recognition – and thus the ending of propaganda, and indoctrination that demonizes Israel; verifiable action to arrest and jail terrorists and decommission illegal weaponry; and fulfillment of agreements, not mere 'acceptance' of agreements. Only if Hamas were to do these things would there be scope for diplomatic engagement with it.

Folks, when President-elect Obama brings his "change" to our Mid East policy, it will more of a "return" than a change. A return to the days of George HW Bush, Jimmy Carter, and that Pharaoh "who knew not Joseph" when the most powerful nation on earth did its best to force Israel to accept policies that were against its best interests.
 

spudhead911

Seasoned Expediter
I wouldn't believe anything you posted to begin with, for this reason. YOU CHOOSE TO DESECRATE THE AMERICAN FLAG. The reasons you gave for doing so in another post doesn't hold water with me. It might be your right to do so as an american, but it doesn't make it right, at least not to me. JMO.
 

chefdennis

Veteran Expediter
spudhead wrote:

I wouldn't believe anything you posted to begin with,

Thats all well and good and you certainly can feel that way, but while i do apprecite that you give me credit for this post, the fact is i didn't write it, so i guess the author is also worthy of your rath too huh..... LOL! :D
 

spudhead911

Seasoned Expediter
spudhead wrote:



Thats all well and good and you certainly can feel that way, but while i do apprecite that you give me credit for this post, the fact is i didn't write it, so i guess the author is also worthy of your rath too huh..... LOL! :D


That is correct.
 

chefdennis

Veteran Expediter
LOL, ok then.......and for a guy that diesn't believe anything i post, you sure are soending enough time reading it!! :D
 

spudhead911

Seasoned Expediter
LOL, ok then.......and for a guy that diesn't believe anything i post, you sure are soending enough time reading it!! :D

I just came accross the post and read it. I don't believe fiction novels either, but I read them. I'm just doing what is my constitutional right to do.
 

chefdennis

Veteran Expediter
spudhead wrote:

I just came accross the post and read it. I don't believe fiction novels either, but I read them. I'm just doing what is my constitutional right to do.

I am not sure the Constitution gives us the right to read, well maybe that falls under the right to the "pursuit of happiness! Me I'd thank a teacher!! :D

But keep reading and responding..:rolleyes:
 

spudhead911

Seasoned Expediter
spudhead wrote:



I am not sure the Constitution gives us the right to read, well maybe that falls under the right to the "pursuit of happiness! Me I'd thank a teacher!! :D

But keep reading and responding..:rolleyes:

The Constitution gives us the right to read what we want, books, magazines, tabloids, etc., so you would be wrong. A teacher only taught you how to read.
 

chefdennis

Veteran Expediter
spudhead wrote:

The Constitution gives us the right to read what we want, books, magazines, tabloids, etc., so you would be wrong.

Well it certainly wouldn't be the 1st time i have been wrong and i am also pretty sure it won't be the last, heck I screwup 3-4 time by noon each day. But that being said, if you could be so kind as to provide the article in the Constitution that gives us the right to read what we want, it would be greatly appreciated as it would further my understanding of the Constitution... Thanks in advance....
 

spudhead911

Seasoned Expediter
spudhead wrote:



Well it certainly wouldn't be the 1st time i have been wrong and i am also pretty sure it won't be the last, heck I screwup 3-4 time by noon each day. But that being said, if you could be so kind as to provide the article in the Constitution that gives us the right to read what we want, it would be greatly appreciated as it would further my understanding of the Constitution... Thanks in advance....

I believe it's covered under the 1st amendment, along with freedom of speach, but hey I could be wrong also.
 

chefdennis

Veteran Expediter
The 1st states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievance.

So while I would take the part about "not prohibiting the free excerise thereof ; or abridging the freedom of press" to mean that the government couldn't dicate what the press coild report, I guess you could take ot out to an extension to say that you can also read book, magazines, leaflets and anything else....
 
Top