This was emailed to me

This is very interesting reading, so let's keep it going if you agree. It only takes a few days on the Internet and this will have reached 75% of the public in the USA. Seniors need to stand up for what is right, not what the politicians want or special interest groups want.

This letter was sent to Mr. Rand who is the Executive Director of AARP.

THIS LADY NOT ONLY HAS A GRASP OF 'THE SITUATION' BUT AN INCREDIBLE COMMAND OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE!

____________________________________________

Dear Mr. Rand,

Recently you sent us a letter encouraging us to renew our lapsed membership in AARP by the requested date. I know it is not what you were looking for, but this is the most honest response I can give you. Our gap in coverage is merely a microscopic symptom of the real problem, a deepening lack of faith.

While we have proudly maintained our membership for several years and have long admired the AARP goals and principles, regrettably, we can no longer endorse its abdication of our values. Your letter specifically stated that we can count on AARP to speak up for our rights, yet the voice we hear is not ours. Your offer of being kept up to date on important issues through DIVIDED WE FAIL presents neither an impartial view nor the one we have come to embrace.. We do believe that when two parties agree all the time on everything presented to them, one is probably not necessary. But, when the opinions and long term goals are diametrically opposed, the divorce is imminent. This is the philosophy which spawned our 200 years of government.

Once upon a time, we looked forward to being part of the senior demographic. We also looked to AARP to provide certain benefits and give our voice a power we could not possibly hope to achieve on our own.. AARP gave us a sense of belonging which we no longer enjoy. The Socialist politics practiced by the Obama Regime and empowered by AARP serves only to raise the blood pressure my medical insurance strives to contain. Clearly a conflict of interest there!

We do not understand the AARP posture, feel greatly betrayed by the guiding forces that we expected to map out our senior years and leave your ranks with a great sense of regret. We mitigate that disappointment with the relief of knowing that we are not contributing to the problem anymore by renewing our membership. There are numerous other organizations which offer discounts without threatening our way of life or offending our sensibilities.

This Obama Regime scares the living daylights out of us. Not just for ourselves, but for our proud and bloodstained heritage. But even more importantly for our children and grandchildren. Washington has rendered Soylent Green a prophetic cautionary tale rather than a nonfiction scare tactic. I have never in my life endorsed any militant or radical groups, yet now I find myself listening to them. I don't have to agree with them to appreciate the fear which birthed their existence. Their borderline insanity presents little more than a balance to the voice of the Socialist mindset in power. Perhaps I became American by a great stroke of luck in some cosmic uterine lottery, but in my adulthood I CHOOSE to embrace it and nurture the freedoms it represents as well as the responsibilities it requires .

Your website generously offers us the opportunity to receive all communication in Spanish. ARE YOU KIDDING??? The illegal perpetrators have broken into our 'house', invaded our home without our invitation or consent. The President has insisted we keep these illegal perpetrators in comfort and learn the perpetrator's language so we can communicate our reluctant welcome to them.

I DON'T choose to welcome them.

I DON'T choose to support them.

I DON'T choose to educate them.

I DON'T choose to medicate them, pay for their food or clothing.

American home invaders get arrested.

Please explain to me why foreign lawbreakers can enjoy privileges on American soil that Americans do not get?

Why do some immigrants have to play the game to be welcomed and others only have to break & enter to be welcomed?

We travel for a living. Walt hauls horses all over this great country, averaging over 10,000 miles a month when he is out there. He meets more people than a politician on caffeine overdose. Of all the many good folks he enjoyed on this last 10,000 miles, this trip yielded only ONE supporter of the current Regime. One of us is out of touch with mainstream America . Since our poll is conducted without funding, I have more faith in it than ones that are driven by a need to yield AMNESTY. (aka - make voters out of the foreign lawbreakers so they can vote to continue the government's free handouts). This addition of 10 to 20 Million voters who then will vote to continue Socialism will OVERWHELM our votes to control the government's free handouts. It is a "slippery slope" we must not embark on!

As Margret Thatcher (former Prime Minister of Great Britain) once said " Socialism is GREAT - UNTIL you run out of other people's money".

We have decided to forward this to everyone on our mailing list, and will encourage them to do the same... With several hundred in my address book, I have every faith that the eventual exponential factor will make a credible statement to you.

I am disappointed as all get out ! ! ! !

I am more scared than I have ever been in my entire life ! !

I am ANGRY ! !

I am 'MAD' as hell, and I'm NOT gonna take it anymore !

SENIORS: PLEASE KEEP THIS MOVING FORWARD.

(In internet lingo: If enough people pass this on it will go viral

From Townhall

Lately, President Obama has been bragging about the drop in America’s dependence on foreign oil—now less than fifty percent. Earlier this week, he introduced a new chart to show how oil imports have declined under his leadership. The chart does not show the drop in America’s oil consumption, due to the bad economy. Nor does it give any indication of the trend for the future based on his policies—which will likely lead to increased use of foreign oil.
President Obama’s energy policy is largely set by his environmental base that favors “alternatives” and eschews fossil fuels—especially drilling for oil. His policy mirrors that of California where the resistance to tapping the resources under the residents’ feet has resulted in increased imported oil from the Middle East. Once the largest oil producer in the world, California is now importing nearly 50% of its oil—with about 21% coming through the Strait of Hormuz. California’s gas prices are routinely the highest in the country. If Iran closes the Strait, as they’ve been threatening, California will be in dire straits.
While less dependent on Middle Eastern oil than California, the United States is like California, in that we have vast resources that are locked up due to regulation, blocked access, and delayed permitting. President Obama touts the reduction of imported oil, but his bragging rights may be short-lived, if he continues on the same anti-drilling track California has been on.
Gasoline prices are driven largely by the headlines. They are full of talk about Middle East unrest and devoid of American drilling announcements. Hence, fear over future supplies keeps bumping the price up and up.
Add to that the President’s planned punishment of the companies that do produce oil in America.
The high gas prices are pushing the President to deflect blame. The oil companies are his favorite target. He points to their profits and wants to single them out for tax increases—which will only add to gas prices.
If you only hear part of the picture, the numbers do sound like the oil companies are stealing. But, perspective is needed. Take ExxonMobil. As one of the biggest publically traded oil companies in the world, it is an easy target. While the company’s oil reserves only account for 1% of the world’s total, it is an American company, whose $9.6 billion in earnings sound astronomical—until they are put into perspective. And, that perspective includes looking at what would happen to the struggling American economy, if ExxonMobil succumbs to the pressure and, like a whipped puppy, it crawls away to a more welcoming country.
ExxonMobil’s overall contribution to the economy through taxes, salaries, investment returns and business expenditures is more than seven times its earnings: $72 billion that governments can use to fund vital services, companies can use to hire workers, and investors can use to save for, or fund retirement.
According to the data, ExxonMobil’s economic contribution breaks down this way:

· $29 billion to investors in the form of dividends and share buybacks. Investors of oil and gas companies include teachers, government workers and other public-pension holders, as well as the millions of Americans who invest in IRAs or mutual funds.

· $19 billion in goods and services related to running U.S. production, manufacturing and office facilities, including payroll to more than 30,000 U.S. employees.

· $12 billion in capital spending, which goes to contractors, construction companies, raw materials and other spending on goods and services related to its U.S. oil, natural gas and chemicals activities.

· $12 billion to local, state and federal governments in the form of taxes and duties.

And these numbers are from just one company. While it is the largest American oil company, ExxonMobil only accounts for about 5 percent of US oil and gas production. Other major contributors include Chevron and ConocoPhillips. Imagine what the numbers could look like if American resources were opened up.

Looking at the complete picture, it is clear that the oil and gas industry is a major contributor to the US economy. Making “decreasing our dependency on oil” the goal of the Administration’s energy policy is bad for the economy.

do not dial Area Code's 809, 284, or 876

New Area Code - PLEASE READ - Be sure you read this and pass it on.

809 Area Code

We actually received a call last week from the 809 area code. The woman
said 'Hey, this is Karen. Sorry I missed you- get back to us quickly. I
have something important to tell you.' Then she repeated a phone number
beginning with809. We did not respond. Then this week, we received the
following e-mail:


Do Not DIAL AREA CODE 809, 284, AND 876

THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT INFORMATION PROVIDED TO US BY AT&T. DON'T EVER DIAL
AREA CODE 809


This one is being distributed all over the US ... This is pretty scary,
especially given the way they try to get you to call.

Be sure you read this and pass it on.

They get you to call by telling you that it is information about a family
member who has been ill or to tell you someone has been arrested, died, or
to let you know you have won a wonderful prize, etc..

In each case, you are told to call the 809 number right away. Since there
are so many new area codes these days, people unknowingly return these
calls.

If you call from the U.S.
you will apparently be charged
$2425 per-minute.

Or, you'll get a long recorded message. The point is, they will try to
keep you on the phone as long as possible to increase the charges.


WHY IT WORKS:

The 809 area code is located in the Dominican Republic ..

The charges afterward can become a real nightmare. That's because you did
actually make the call. If you complain, both your local phone company and
your long distance carrier will not want to get involved and will most
likely tell you that they are simply providing the billing for the foreign
company. You'll end up dealing with a foreign company that argues they
have done nothing wrong.

Please forward this entire message to your friends, family and colleagues
to help them become aware of this scam.

AT&T VERIFIES IT'S TRUE :http://www.att.com/Gen/press-room?pid=6045

SNOPES VERIFIES IT'S TRUE:

1. Snopes.com: 809 Area Code Scam

Are callers lured into placing calls to the 809 area code charged large
long-distance fees?.....809 Area Code Scam Scam: Unsuspecting phone
customers are gulled into placing calls to area codes in the Caribbean
that result in hefty charges.......DON'T EVER DIAL AREA CODE 809 This one
is being distributed all over the US .. This is pretty scary especially
given the way they try to get you to call........Don't respond to Emails,
phone calls, or web pages which tell you to call an "809" Phone Number.
This is a very important issue of Scam Busters! Because...

WHAT DOES THIS WORD MEAN?? DHIMMITUDE

Not sure if this is true, sounds scary!!!

INTERESTING - AMERICAN LAW!!!!! PLEASE READ !!!!!!!!!! It seems very important to pursue the exact definition of this word, which is employed in the controversial health care bill on page 107, but not easily found in any English or American dictionaries. Check Snopes and Google , but don't stop there, take the time to visit your Library. Dhimmitude -- What does it mean? Obama used it in the health care bill. Now isn't this interesting? It is used in the health care law. Dhimmitude -- I had never heard the word until now. Type it into Google and start reading. Pretty interesting. It's on page 107 of the healthcare bill. I looked this up on Google and yep, it exists.. It is a REAL word. Word of the Day: Dhimmitude Dhimmitude is the Muslim system of controlling non-Muslim populations conquered through jihad. Specifically, it is the TAXING of non-Muslims in exchange for tolerating their presence AND as a coercive means of converting conquered remnants to Islam. ObamaCare allows the establishment of Dhimmitude and Sharia Muslim diktat in the United States . Muslims are specifically exempted from the government mandate to purchase insurance, and also from the penalty tax for being uninsured. Islam considers insurance to be "gambling", "risk-taking", and "usury" and is thus banned. Muslims are specifically granted exemption based on this. How convenient. So I, as a Christian, will have crippling IRS liens placed against all of my assets, including real estate, cattle, and even accounts receivables, and will face hard prison time because I refuse to buy insurance or pay the penalty tax. Meanwhile, Louis Farrakhan will have no such penalty and will have 100% of his health needs paid for by the de facto government insurance. Non-Muslims will be paying a tax to subsidize Muslims. This is Dhimmitude. http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/exemptions.asp I recommend sending this onto your contacts. American citizens need to know about it --

From Prophecy News

Japan Invents Speech-Jamming Gun That Silences People Mid-Sentence

http://www.foxnews.com/

---

Japanese researchers have invented a speech-jamming gadget that painlessly forces people into silence.

Kazutaka Kurihara of the National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology, and Koji Tsukada of Ochanomizu University, developed a portable "SpeechJammer" gun that can silence people more than 30 meters away.

The device works by recording its target's speech then firing their words back at them with a 0.2-second delay, which affects the brain's cognitive processes and causes speakers to stutter before silencing them completely.

Describing the device in their research paper, Kurihara and Tsukada wrote, "In general, human speech is jammed by giving back to the speakers their own utterances at a delay of a few hundred milliseconds. This effect can disturb people without any physical discomfort, and disappears immediately by stopping speaking."

They found that the device works better on people who were reading aloud than engaged in "spontaneous speech" and it cannot stop people making meaningless sounds, such as "ahhh," that are uttered over a long time period.

Kurihara and Tsukada suggested the speech-jamming gun could be used to hush noisy speakers in public libraries or to silence people in group discussions who interrupt other people's speeches.

"There are still many cases in which the negative aspects of speech become a barrier to the peaceful resolution of conflicts," the authors said.

From Prophecy News

Court Rules Warrantless Cellphone Searches OK…But How Far Can They Go?

http://www.theblaze.com

---

The U.S. Court of Appeal for the 7th Circuit has ruled that some warrantless searches of cellphones, for example to obtain phone numbers, is allowable and does not violate a person’s Fourth Amendment rights.

Reuters reports that Abel Flores-Lopez was given 10 years in prison for involvement in a drug case after police identified him from a cellphone they found on the scene of a drug bust. They had to enter the cellphone to obtain the number. Flores-Lopez argued the police did not have the right to search the contents of the phone without a warrant.

He appealed his sentencing but it was rejected by the court. Reuters reports that the court said the invasion of privacy was “so slight” that it was not considered an unreasonable search.

Issues with search warrants and electronic devices have been growing as the technology becomes increasingly attractive to authorities. Earlier this year, it went as high as the Supreme Court to decide that GPS tracking of a vehicle does in fact require a warrant. This is also not the first case regarding cellphones. We reported last year how Michigan State Police could download your cellphone’s information while at a traffic stop.

Right now, laws differ by state. We reported that in California, for example cellphone searches without a warrant are allowed, and in Florida cellphones are considered “containers” and are therefore not subject to needing a warrant. Ohio, on the other hand, has banned warrantless cellphone searches.

But, the ruling gave some judges the opportunity to discuss the doors that could be opened with this ruling regarding searches of cellphones. Reuters has more:

“Lurking behind this issue is the question whether and when a laptop or desktop computer, tablet, or other type of computer (whether called a ‘computer’ or not) can be searched without a warrant,” Judge Richard Posner wrote for the three-judge panel.

He raised the example of the iCam, which allows someone to use a phone to connect to a home-computer web camera, enabling someone to search a house interior remotely.

“At the touch of a button, a cell phone search becomes a house search,” he wrote.

Posner compared the cell phone to a diary. Just as police are entitled to open a pocket diary to copy an owner’s address, they should be able to turn on a cell phone to learn its number, he wrote. But just as they’re forbidden from examining love letters tucked between the pages of an address book, so are they forbidden from exploring letters in the files of a phone.

Reuters reports that while the judges have not made a ruling on just how deep searches on cellphones can go, at least for now finding numbers seems to be non-intrusive enough to bypass a warrant.

From Prophecy News

U.S. Sees Iran Attacks as Likely if Israel Strikes

http://www.nytimes.com

---

American officials who have assessed the likely Iranian responses to any attack by Israel on its nuclear program believe that Iran would retaliate by launching missiles on Israel and terrorist-style attacks on United States civilian and military personnel overseas.

While a missile retaliation against Israel would be virtually certain, according to these assessments, Iran would also be likely to try to calibrate its response against American targets so as not to give the United States a rationale for taking military action that could permanently cripple Tehran’s nuclear program.

“The Iranians have been pretty good masters of escalation control,” said Gen. James E. Cartwright, now retired, who as the top officer at Strategic Command and as vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff participated in war games involving both deterrence and retaliation on potential adversaries like Iran.

The Iranian targets, General Cartwright and other American analysts believe, would include petroleum infrastructure in the Persian Gulf, and American troops in Afghanistan, where Iran has been accused of shipping explosives to local insurgent forces.

Both American and Israeli officials who discussed current thinking on the potential ramifications of an Israeli attack believe that the last thing Iran would want is a full-scale war on its territory. Their analysis, however, also includes the broad caveat that it is impossible to know the internal thinking of the senior leadership in Tehran, and is informed by the awareness that even the most detailed war games cannot predict how nations and their leaders will react in the heat of conflict.

Yet such assessments are not just intellectual exercises. Any conclusions on how the Iranians will react to an attack will help determine whether the Israelis launch a strike — and what the American position will be if they do.

While evidence suggests that Iran continues to make progress toward a nuclear weapons program, American intelligence officials believe that there is no hard evidence that Iran has decided to build a nuclear bomb. But the possibility that Israel will launch a pre-emptive strike has become a focus of American policy makers and is expected to be a primary topic when Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel meets with President Obama at the White House on Monday.

In November, Israel’s defense minister, Ehud Barak, said any Iranian retaliation for an Israeli attack would be “bearable,” and his government’s estimate that Iran is engaging in a bluff has been a key element in the heightened expectations that Israel is considering a strike.

But Iran’s highly compartmentalized security services, analysts caution, may operate in semi-rogue fashion, following goals that seem irrational to planners in Washington. American experts, for example, are still puzzled by a suspected Iranian plot last year to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Washington.

“Once military strikes and counterstrikes begin, you are on the tiger’s back,” said Ray Takeyh, a former Obama administration national security official who is now at the Council on Foreign Relations. “And when on the tiger’s back, you cannot always pick the place to dismount.”

If Israel did attack, officials said, Iran would be foolhardy, even suicidal, to invite an overpowering retaliation by directly attacking United States military targets — by, for example, unleashing its missiles at American bases on the territory of Persian Gulf allies.

“The balance the Iranians will try to strike is doing damage that is sufficiently significant, but just short of what it would take for America to invade,” said General Cartwright, now at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

A former Israeli official said the best way to think about retaliation against Israel was through a formula he called “1991 plus 2006 plus Buenos Aires times 3 or 5.”

The reference was to three instances in the last two decades when Israel came under attack: the Scud missiles sent by Saddam Hussein into Israel in 1991 during the first gulf war; the 3,000 rockets fired at Israel by Hezbollah during their 2006 war; and the attacks on the Israeli Embassy and a Jewish center in Argentina in the early 1990s.

Those attacks each killed 100 to 200 people, wounded scores more and caused several billion dollars of property damage. Hundreds of thousands of Israelis in the north had to be evacuated from their homes to bomb shelters or further south during the 2006 war.

But there is a broad Israeli assessment that Iran’s response to an attack would be limited.

From Prophecy News

Netanyahu Will Ask Obama To Threaten Iran Strike

http://www.haaretz.com

---

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is expected to publicly harden his line against Iran during a meeting with U.S. President Barack Obama in Washington on March 5, according to a senior Israeli official.

Israel wants Obama to make further-reaching declarations than the vague assertion that "all options are on the table," the official said. In particular, Netanyahu wants Obama to state unequivocally that the United States is preparing for a military operation in the event that Iran crosses certain "red lines," said the official; Israel feels this will increase pressure on Iran by making clear that there exists a real U.S. threat.

Officials in both Jerusalem and Washington acknowledge a serious lack of trust between Israel and the United States with regard to the issue of a possible strike on Iran's nuclear facilities.

A senior U.S. official who is involved in preparing Netanyahu's visit to the United States - and who asked to remain anonymous - said intensive preparations are underway to guarantee the success of the meeting between Netanyahu and Obama and to bridge this lack of trust.

The White House proposed to the Prime Minister's Office on Tuesday that the two release a joint statement following the meeting between Obama and Netanyahu. The goal of the announcement would be to bridge apparent disagreements between the United States and Israel, and to present a single U.S.-Israeli front in order to leverage pressure on Iran. To date, the United States still has not proposed a text for such an announcement.

According to sources, the lack of trust between Israeli and U.S. officials appears to stem from, among other things, a mutual feeling that the other country is interfering in its own internal political affairs. Netanyahu suspects that the U.S. administration is attempting to turn Israeli public opinion against an attack on Iran, say sources.

Meanwhile, they say, the Obama administration suspects Netanyahu is using Congress and the Republican candidates in the presidential race to put pressure on Obama to support such a strike.

Billionaire casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, a close ally of Netanyahu's, has contributed tens of millions of dollars to Republican candidate Newt Gingrich's presidential campaign - and this certainly has not helped to increase the trust between Obama and Netanyahu.

Gingrich is expected to speak at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference two days after Obama, and one day after Netanyahu. Like the rest of the Republican presidential candidates, Gingrich is expected to attack Obama and claim he is "weak on Iran."

The issue of strengthening U.S. rhetoric against Iran was raised last week by Israeli officials who met with Tom Donilon, the U.S. national security adviser who visited Israel last week. It was also raised by Defense Minister Ehud Barak during his Washington visit, which included a meeting with Vice President Joe Biden yesterday.

Other senior Israeli officials - such as Vice Prime Minister Moshe Ya'alon (Likud ) and Deputy Prime Minister Dan Meridor (Likud) - have made similar comments to senior U.S. officials recently.

The problem is not with the number of meetings between Israelis and Americans on the issue, but with the results of those meetings, according to a senior Israeli official who is heavily involved in the dialogue with Americans, but who asked to remain unnamed. "The talks with the Americans are like porcupines having sex: slowly and carefully," he said.

"A lot of general statements that they think we want to hear, but we are constantly asking them what's the bottom line? How can the Iranians understand that if they do not stop they will attack in the end?"

The Obama administration's suspicions concerning Netanyahu were further fueled after Netanyahu and his advisers briefed a group of senators and senior congressmen during the past two weeks on the Iranian issue, and asked them to pressure Obama on the matter.

Last week, Netanyahu met a group of five senior senators over lunch, headed by Sen. John McCain, who ran four years ago against Obama for president. Netanyahu reportedly told the senators he was not interfering in U.S. politics and expected U.S. officials not to interfere in Israeli politics either.

The topic quickly turned to Iran, according to reports. Netanyahu apparently complained bitterly about certain officials in the Obama administration who spoke out against an Israeli strike on Iran.

But between the lines, some suggest that Netanyahu was speaking about Obama himself, as well as the other very senior officials in the administration. He reportedly told the senators that this kind of public discourse serves the Iranians.

Donilon, who was in Israel at the same time as the senators, received the same criticism from Netanyahu and Barak. Donilon reportedly told Netanyahu and Barak that the comments made by Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, did not represent Obama's opinions, and that Obama was unhappy with Dempsey's statements, according to a senior U.S. official involved in the talks.

Dempsey reportedly said, "I don't think a wise thing at this moment is for Israel to launch a military attack on Iran," and added that a strike "would be destabilizing" and "not prudent." But Dempsey changed his tone in statements yesterday during a Senate hearing. He said he had not told Israel not to attack Iran, and that the United States has not taken any options off the table.

Netanyahu does not appear to be convinced by Dempsey's backtracking, and considers such reports to be part of a coordinated campaign against an Israeli strike, according to sources. In Netanyahu's view, this is all part of a goal to enlist both Israeli and U.S. public support against such a strike, sources say, and is part of what he considers to be U.S. interference in internal Israeli affairs.

The White House was furious after McCain spoke out after the meeting with Netanyahu, said one source. McCain said, "There should be no daylight between America and Israel in our assessment of the [Iranian] threat. Unfortunately there clearly is some." The Obama administration viewed this as Israeli intervention in U.S. internal political affairs, with Netanyahu briefing McCain and McCain repeating his statements like a parrot, according to a senior U.S. official.

Netanyahu also believes that Obama's scheduled meeting with President Shimon Peres during the upcoming AIPAC conference constitutes an attempt by the United States to interfere in Israel's internal affairs, say sources. Netanyahu's suspicions were apparently heightened by last week's report in Haaretz that Peres will tell Obama that he objects to an Israeli attack on Iran.

Since then, the relations between Netanyahu and Peres have been tense. Peres denied the reports, but Netanyahu and his staff do not seem to completely believe his denials. Peres and Netanyahu met on Friday and again yesterday, just as Peres was set to leave for the United States. The two worked hard to show an atmosphere of "business as usual," according to a source.

Peres reportedly updated Netanyahu about what he should say at the AIPAC conference, and it seems that the speech will be much more general and moderate than the original version Peres had planned. Netanyahu is also believed to have asked Peres to emphasize a number of matters in his meeting with Obama in an attempt to maintain a unified front. Whether Peres will do so remains to be seen.

From Prophecy News

Obama Cautions Against “A Premature Attack” On Iran, Rejects Red Lines

http://www.debka.com/

---

In a widely reported interview to The Atlantic Friday, March 2, US President Barack Obama held to the line which he claimed “the Israelis share” that “Iran does not yet have a nuclear weapon and is not yet in a position to obtain a nuclear weapon without us having a pretty long lead time…” debkafile: This assessment is certainly not shared by the Israelis.

In a New York Times article published Thursday, former Israel Military Intelligence Chief Amos Yadlin wrote:

“Asking Israel's leaders to abide by America's timetable, and hence allowing Israel's window of opportunity to be closed, is to make Washington a de facto proxy for Israel's security - a tremendous leap of faith for Israelis faced with a looming Iranian bomb.”

The two views represent the crux of the fundamental disagreement between US President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu three days before they meet at the White House on how and when to stop Iran going nuclear.
When Obama stressed: “I don’t bluff …When the United States says it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, we mean what we say,” he was stating that his policy on Iran remain unchanged ahead of that meeting.

He went on to reiterate the effectiveness of diplomatic pressure and economic sanctions on Iran’s regime.

In recent days, senior US officers and Pentagon sources were enlisted to aim tough talk at Iranian ears and tell Israelis the administration was committed to their security and making available the military means for demolishing the Iranian nuclear threat. This was an exercise to soften up Israeli and Jewish opinion ahead of the president’s Atlantic interview and his negation of the Israeli government’s positions.

The interview told Israel and the 14,000 delegates attending the AIPAC convention opening in Washington Sunday, March 4, not to expect President Obama’s speech to augur any shift in America’s Iran policy.

When Obama said “I think the Israeli people understand it,” in reference to the refrain “all options are on the table,” he ignored the widening gap between his take on the state of Iran’s nuclear program and the conclusions reached by Israel’s political, military and intelligence leaders and experts.

The Israeli view was laid out clearly by Yadlin when he wrote, “That moment of decision will occur when Iran is on the verge of shielding its nuclear facilities from a successful attack – what Israel’s leaders have called the zone of immunity.”

debkafile’s military and intelligence sources note that not only Israel, but US intelligence and the UN International Atomic Energy Agency, are convinced that Iran is already in the second stage and possibly the third of its operation to shielding its nuclear facilities in one or more zones of immunity.

This ominous development is ignored in the US president’s interview.

Israel knows that the US had the means to destroy Iranian nuclear facilities even when they are buried in “zones of immunity.” Israel lacks those means.

When he declared, “The Israeli people understand that the United States isn’t bluffing when it says ‘all options are on the table,’” Obama no doubt recalled the disagreement with Netanyahu going back six months when the Israeli prime minister asked him privately on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly to lay down a US-Israeli consensus on red lines for Iran’s nuclear program, beyond which the US President would be committed to strike Iran.

In return, Israel would promise to refrain from attacking Iran and follow America’s lead on the issue.

The US president turned him down.

Israel has not relinquished its position, which Yadlin put very clearly: “What is needed is an ironclad American assurance that if Israel refrains from acting in its own window of opportunity - and all other options have failed to halt Tehran's nuclear quest - Washington will act to prevent a nuclear Iran while it is still within its power to do so.”

The absence of that American assurance is keeping Israel from a commitment to refrain from attacking Iran notwithstanding all the verbal ammunition thrown at its government from Washington.

From Prophecy News

U.S. Forces at Risk Due to Syrian Chemical Weapons

http://www.usnews.com

---

Several senators are raising concerns that unrest in Syria could allow that nation's chemical and other weapons to be used against U.S. forces and allies in the region.

"The growing breakdown of order and security in Syria could place its significant stockpiles of poison gases and operational chemical weapons at risk," Maine Republican Susan Collins, New York Democrat Kirsten Gillibrand, and New Hampshire Democrat Jeanne Shaheen wrote in a February 17 letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

The senators want the Obama administration to spell out the planning it has done to prepare for and "address" the potential that the Assad regime's stockpiles of chemical weapons might go missing. "In the event of a regime collapse, it is difficult to overstate the danger these weapons could pose to allies and U.S. forces in the region if they fall into the wrong hands," the letter states.

The senators pointed to the apparent seizure of Libyan shoulder-fired missiles during that nation's internal conflict. Those missing weapons show "that non-state terrorist groups will seek to secure these weapons in the midst of chaos and an apparent lack of security or custody of these weapons," the senators wrote.

The trio also sounded alarms about the State Department's view that Iran and Russia are supplying weapons to Syrian forces.

Asked about the administration's reluctance to intervene in the Syrian conflict, Clinton told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that officials see it as a complicated matter that requires ample caution by Washington