2016 – The Election of the First Female President of the United States?

By: Marion Alger
Ask Marion

Before the Electoral College Electors could even cast their votes to certify the presidential election of 2012, which many are trying to stop through recounts, investigations of suspected pre-set electronic voting machines or by the somewhat skewed use of the 12th Amendment if some states’ electors withhold their votes, suspecting a rigged election… progressive newspapers, liberal pundits and the uninformed were already writing and speculating about another Hillary Clinton presidential run in 2016.

The New York Times, in their Sunday, 11.11.12, Review Section ran Hillary’s Next Move and the Daily Kos wrote Why Hillary Clinton Should Run for President. Really? Is this the same Hillary… that cannot make it back to testify before Congress on Benghazi because of her previous plans to visit and go wine tasting with friends in Australia?

Every day, people approach Hillary Clinton and tell her she has an obligation to run and give America its first woman president. “Yes, they do!” she laughs, with the trademark H.C. chortle. Being asked to run for president is a kind of side career all by itself.

Clinton gives many variations on the theme of don’t-think-so. (“Oh, I’ve ruled it out, but you know me. Everybody keeps asking me. So I keep ruling it out and being asked.”) Also a thousand different forms of beats-me. (“I have no idea what I’m going to do next.”) What she does not do is offer the kind of Shermanesque if-nominated-I-will-not-run language that would end the conversation.

Instead, she veers off into a discussion of all the things she’ll do when she’s no longer secretary of state, and there’s time. That led to a mention of her favorite television shows, which are all about house buying and home improvement. Read in Full HERE.


On 04.26.12 the Examiner ran Sarah Palin’s next move? and earlier in the year: Why Sarah Palin Should Be President (part 1) and Why Sarah Could Win.

Sarah has not become famous by being shy. Throughout the primary race, she has cleverly heaped praise upon whichever candidate needed to surge in order to split-up the vote and keep the contest moving toward a possible brokered convention. She has even admitted that she would entertain the idea of having her own name appear in the running at a brokered convention. Her interviews along the way have shown that she was sticking to that plan.

When it was wise, she heaped praise on Santorum. Other times, Sarah told people to go out and vote for Newt. She has consistently said good things about Ron Paul while maintaining a neutral stance regarding Mitt Romney. Read in Full HERE.


The difference between the two articles and attitude behind them is that when the primarily ‘liberal’ members of the press talk about Sarah, even in a positive way, it is about what she can do for the tea party, the Republican party or other candidates, not their encouragement or speculation about her running for president in 2016 and what she can do for the country in that position. When the media talk about Hillary, as they salivate, it is about the county’s need for her to run for president, when in reality if they had reported the news and events of Benghazi impartially and truthfully, instead of being part of the cover-up, Hillary’s aspirations of being President would have been shattered… but there is always Karma. Many feel that Hillary and Obama should have resigned over Benghazi as their foreign policy unravels. On the flipside, when they talk about Sarah the media keeps the Palin Derangement Syndrome they created going.

These two women could end up facing each other in 2016, whether it is running as the Republican and Democrat candidates for president or the Democrat and a new third party candidate.

These two women, Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin, without a doubt are two of the most (if not the most) charismatic, influential, powerful, loved and hated women in U.S. politics. And both are qualified to be president of the United States. The difference is that the media (and Hollywood) hate one of them and love the other and their politics and belief systems are polar opposites.

Both women have experience. Palin has been the Mayor of Wasilla, the Governor of Alaska, the GOP Vice Presidential Candidate in 2008 and a major leader in and speaker for the tea party and candidates with tea party, fiscal conservative, Constitutional and family values. Palin is also widely credited with reviving a long-stalled effort to build a natural-gas pipeline from Alaska’s Prudhoe Bay energy fields to the Lower 48 states and relatedly recently participated in a special: Paying at the Pump, with Eric Bolling. Hillary Clinton has been a First Lady where she promoted her own version of ObamaCare (HillaryCare) and the Progressive Project: It Takes A Village, the Senator from New York, a Democratic Presidential Primary Candidate in 2008 and Secretary of State.

Other than the contrived scandals and exaggerated slipups created by the media, that have all been proved to be lies and set-ups, Sarah Palin has a flawless record, without scandal, whereas both Hillary Clinton’s personal and political lives are filled with it!


Photo: Hillary with her Chief of Staff, Huma Abudin Weiner (Mrs. Anthony Weiner)

Alert: Hillary Clinton Deputy Chief of Staff Tied to Muslim Brotherhood and Al-Qaeda

Colonel: Hillary Made Decision Not to Post Marines at Benghazi

Manifesto Puts Hillary’s Deputy Chief In Middle Of Muslim Plot

Final UN Arms Trade Treaty Disarms America With Clinton’s Signature

Clinton aide Huma Abedin tied directly to Muslim Brotherhood and the “Godfather” of Al Qaeda… post-9/11

Breaking Hillaryland News: New Evidence Shows Hillary a Mastermind Behind Gunwalker as Her Welcome in Egypt Not So Good

Global gun control law pushed by Clinton – Updated

What did Hillary know and when did she know it and why has she flown under the radar on “Operation Gun Walker?


Photo: Sarah Palin with fellow speaker Dr. Alveda King at Glenn Beck’s Restoring Honor Event

Long Lost Sarah Palin Emerges From Released Emails Victoriously…

Politico Palin Alert: Vast Left Wing Conspiracy’s Mission: Sarah Palin Must Be Destroyed Uncovered!

Journolists… The Truth of Media Fraud Confirmed

The Hate for Sarah Palin

Sarah Palin Mythology Debunked

The Quayling of Sarah

Sarah Palin, Combat Veteran

Sarah Palin can mesmerize a crowd; Hillary not so much. Tens of thousands regularly turned out for Palin’s 2008 appearances. It was at her first rally in Cali in October 2008 that this writer first saw Sarah Palin speak to a crowd of 23,000 in Carson, CA. I have been a supporter ever since and so are most who hear her speak, especially live, and actually listen!

Oh, just in case anyone’s memory needs refreshing on the magnificence of her 2008 RNC speech…

And for those who forgot the reaction to her speech, check out: Flashback: Media Reviews of Governor Palin’s 2008 RNC Speech. Greta Van Susteren just recently pulled out the old 2008 polls. And Sarah showed she had what it took and did what she needed to do in the VP debate as well!

And being between their ages, myself, I feel I can say that Sarah Palin is younger, prettier and more energetic; all positive assets when you are running for office or holding office as a women. But the liberal biased media loves and will promote Hillary to all our detriment and have already begun their campaign. And they collectively hate and fear Sarah with the same vengeance that they love Hillary. Even many in her own party fear Sarah’s popularity with the people. They fear if they give her a fair shot and more people get to hear her and see her political instincts in action that they will like her and she will upset the establishment apple cart, enough so not to include her or let her speak, like at the 2012 RNC Convention.

In the end the question will be whether ‘we the people’ do our homework, go with our gut and share with the oblivious around us or whether we will allow the powers that be (the Progressives and globalists) and the liberal lamestream media (MSM) and their Hollywood buds to decide another election for us using lies, slight of hand, diversions, omissions and down right cheating like in 2008 and in 2012.

America is ready for a female president and these two women, Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton are ready to be president. The only obstacle in their way could be a Marco Rubio and a dumbed down populace led by a bias media.

It may seem too early for most people to think about the presidential election of 2016, but as we all know, the Clintons have been thinking about it since 2008 and Bubba worked relentlessly for political foe Obama in 2012 to keep them in the limelight… and Team Obama never left some of the battle ground states like Ohio between 2008 and 2012. As for Sarah, one never knows what is next except that you can expect her to do it her way…


The Issues Being Publicized In Benghazigate Completely Miss The Point

By: Col. Tom Snodgrass (Ret.)
Right Side News

The Republicans Either Don’t “Get It,” Or They Are Paralyzed By Political Correctness

The Wrong Issues Are Being Questioned

There were so many blunders related to ‘Obama’s fiasco’ in Benghazi that the Obama regime has had a wide range of issues to obfuscate their foreign affairs-national security incompetence. The blunders that contributed to the fiasco in Benghazi included:

1) the unrealistic ‘Arab Spring’ foreign affairs delusions Obama foisted on the American public,

2) not recognizing and preparing for the increasingly dangerous situation in Benghazi building up to the al-Qaeda affiliates’ terrorist attack,

3) the shameful national security debacle of deserting Americans while they were enduring seven hours of terrorist attack,

4) stonewalling the American people about the Obama national security team’s failures in the attack’s aftermath. Obama’s and his regime’s failures are so numerous as to be overwhelming, and they have enabled Obama and his accomplices to divert public attention from the real issue they are desperately attempting to hide.

That issue? It is the fact that we are in a worldwide war with Islamic terrorists who are carrying out their jihadist mandate as instructed in the Qur’an and Shari’a!

Obama’s ineffective, Arab Spring-Middle East policy, as well as the catastrophic mistakes before, during, and after the Islamic terror attack by ‘Team Obama’ are very important in that they indisputably demonstrate the utter governing incompetence of this regime; however, the over-arching issue is ‘why’ Obama and his minions manufactured the fiction blaming the anti-Muhammad video as the cause of the deaths of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and the other three U.S. government employees? Neither the Republicans nor the media correctly perceive the critical answer to that definitive question.

The red herring issues that have emerged as the media’s obsessions are twofold. First, there is the issue — who changed the original CIA talking points that identified al-Qaeda-affiliated jihadists as perpetrators of the planned Benghazi terrorist attack to the false narrative that the anti-Islam Internet video caused a spontaneous, flash mob demonstration that spiraled out of control? Second, there is the issue – why was the ‘talking points change’ made?

The Obama regime and Democrat handmaidens are circulating a preposterous story in response to the ‘why’ question that the al-Qaeda-affiliated groups were removed from the intelligence talking pointswhich were used by U.S. UN Ambassador Susan Rice to mislead the American public in her massive propaganda blitz on Sep. 16. She ostensively presented the falsified information to protect classified information, and that ‘classified information’ was that we knew al-Qaeda was involved! This alibi is ludicrous on its face because the al-Qaeda-affiliated groups identified themselves as the perpetrators on Facebook and Twitter immediately after the attack! Furthermore, after the U.S. killed Osama bin Laden and Abu Yahya al-Libi, a jihadist leader in the al-Qaeda-affiliated Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, does Obama want us to believe that, by not mentioning ‘al-Qaeda,’ he was going to fool them into thinking that the U.S. isn’t targeting them?!

But it is at this point in the inquiry that the Republicans and media begin to go astray because they are attributing the ‘talking points change’ to a domestic political motive of not wanting to discredit Obama’s claim at the Democrat National Convention that ‘ al-Qaeda is on the path to defeat, and Osama bin Laden is dead.’ Since the presidential election was just a month and half away at the time of Susan Rice’s five Sunday morning talk show appearances, the Obama operatives undoubtedly came to the conclusion that admitting al-Qaeda was still very much involved in terrorist attacks could harm Obama’s reelection campaign, which it was a possibility. So, Republicans and the media are not completely wrong in accepting this political logic, but the domestic political motive was just a superficial reason – the outer layer of the onion. It is much more complicated than that.

There is a larger nefarious motivation that has been a constant during the Obama regime’s time in power, and that is, Obama’s desire to completely mislead the American people about the fact that Muslim jihadists allegiant to the Islamic Shari’a are engaged in a full blown war against us. Obama and his national security apparatus refuse to acknowledge that the Islamic Qur’an (“holy book”) and Shari’a (book of immutable religious and secular political laws) clearly state that it is the duty of Muslims to make war (jihad) on non-believers. The Islamic purpose of this jihadist warfare is to impose Islamic Shari’a law on the non-believers. Instead of accepting that the Qur’anic and Shari’a warfare injunctions are universally applicable to all Muslims, the Obama regime has deceivingly cast the residual al-Qaeda organization of bin Laden as our only “terrorist enemy”:

…Obama’s national security policy and strategy documents, directives, and public statements erased every mention of Islam, Qur’an, Shari’a, and jihad! The Obama national security team eliminated all-things-Islamic as causes of jihadist terrorism, and narrowed the focus down to ‘al-Qaeda’ as the sole enemy to be fought! The elimination of Islam as a cause of terrorism and as a national security threat is a cynically transparent political move to define a potential worldwide threat pool of millions of Shari’a-motivated Islamic jihadists down to a few hundred shadowy al-Qaeda terrorists hiding in caves and deserts. According to Obama’s version of the threat facing the U.S., al-Qaeda fanatical terrorists are motivated to kill Americans by some unnamed, undefined, intangible “radicalism,” but not Islamic Shari’a.

Obama’s fundamental motive in denying the existence and threat of Qur’anic and Shari’a warfare injunctions is open to question, but his motivation is not greater vigilance in defense of U.S. national security, that much is obvious.

The Conclusion

Even after the Obama political operative who made the ‘talking points change’ is finally identified (assuming that the Republicans have the internal fortitude), and the ‘why’ question is addressed, that part of the American public still concerned about U.S. national security must not accept the superficial explanation that the deletion of ‘al-Qaeda’ from Ambassador Rice’s talking points was only due the political desire to avoid discrediting Obama’s ‘al-Qaeda is defeated’ campaign bluster.

Now is the time use this opportunity to expose Obama’s inadequate national security policy and posture toward Islamic terrorists who are carrying out their jihadist mandate as instructed in the Qur’an and Shari’a!

The Islamic threat to the U.S. far transcends the few remnants of bin Laden’s al-Qaeda that Obama has misleadingly identified. We are being attacked by a fanatical enemy that is waging a global religious war against us.

Col. Thomas Snodgrass, USAF (retired), was an Intelligence Officer and an International Politico-Military Affairs Officer serving in seven foreign countries during a thirty-year military career.


Will the Post Expose Petraeus and Benghazigate?

By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media

The decline of The Washington Post can be seen in the silly Sunday story about how the lavish amenities afforded to today’s military leaders may have been responsible for David Petraeus cheating on his wife.

The paper said, “The commanders who lead the nation’s military services and those who oversee troops around the world enjoy an array of perquisites befitting a billionaire, including executive jets, palatial homes, drivers, security guards and aides to carry their bags, press their uniforms and track their schedules in 10-minute increments. Their food is prepared by gourmet chefs. If they want music with their dinner parties, their staff can summon a string quartet or a choir. “

All of this may be true and a case can be made that these amenities should be cut back. But what any of this has to do with Petraeus, a former Army general and CIA director, having sex with Paula Broadwell “under a desk,” as one of their e-mails stated, is not explained.

The story by Rajiv Chandrasekaran and Greg Jaffe appears to be an attempt to get the paper off the hook for failing to uncover Petraeus’s history of lies and deceptions. Post local editor Vernon Loeb had collaborated with Broadwell on the Petraeus biography, All In: The Education of General David Petraeus. Loeb worked with Broadwell on the book for 16 months.

Loeb stayed silent for a few days after the affair came to light, but then wrote a November 13 Post “Style” section story, “Questions that never got asked,” which included this claim, “I always thought that Broadwell’s motives were pure, and I always wondered why Petraeus was granting her the access that he did.” But he didn’t pursue the matter.

The headline over the Internet version of the Post story calls Loeb “clueless,” which is a strange description of somebody in the news business with access to the key players. The term is taken from Loeb’s own account of what he did not know. “My wife says I’m the most clueless person in America.”

“I never thought they were having an affair—and I still have no idea when the affair actually began,” he said. He explained that he had sent Broadwell an e-mail, “letting her know that I was writing this piece and welcoming any comment she chose to make. I have yet to hear back from her.”

This is apparently the end of Loeb’s investigation into the scandal.

Explaining why he was so clueless, he says, “I assumed, given how public their semi-official relationship was, that he would never engage in any risky behavior. He’d always preached to his protégés that character was what you did when no one was watching. And he would always hasten to add, from his most public of perches, that ‘someone is always watching.’”

This, then, is the answer to the question of why Petraeus had the affair: he lacked moral character and was a hypocrite. It has nothing to do with homes, drivers, and security guards. The real issue is why a Post editor ignored the clues in the case and failed to question or confront Broadwell about her close relationship to the general.

In retrospect, one of the favorable reviews about the Broadwell-Loeb book is almost amusing. Thomas E. Ricks wrote, “All In feels at times like we are sitting at his side in Afghanistan, reading his e-mails over his shoulder.”

The Petraeus-Broadwell e-mails were disguised and hidden in a special account, in the form of draft messages that each person could read. It took the resources of the FBI to obtain them and an FBI whistleblower unwilling to countenance the affair or the cover-up who then went to Republican Representatives Eric Cantor and Dave Reichert more than a week before the election with the revelations. They sent the information back to the FBI and stayed silent.

Even though the affair was disclosed, after the election, questions persist about whether Petraeus has been telling the truth about important military and intelligence matters. As the Post and other media acknowledge, Petraeus has now contradicted himself about the growing controversy over what the Obama Administration knew and said about the murder of four Americans in Benghazi, Libya on September 11.

The scandal has been dubbed Benghazigate.

Last Friday, Petraeus testified in closed session before members of the House and Senate intelligence committees and said that the September 11 attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, was terrorism. “That appeared to conflict with testimony he gave them three days after the attack, when he said it appeared to have begun as a ‘spontaneous’ assault that was overtaken by ‘extremists,’” the Post noted.

Rep. Peter King confirmed that Petraeus changed his testimony. Referring to his version of his testimony on September 13, King said, “He was saying there are many strings of intelligence but he also stated that he thought all along he made it clear that there was significant terrorist involvement. And that is not my recollection of what he told us on September 14th.” (emphasis added)

It should be noted that most of the media, and even Rep. King, keep wrongly saying that Petraeus’s previous testimony on Libya was on September 14. But in fact it was on September 13. On that day, on CNN’s The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, was even clearer about what she had just heard, and not heard, from Petraeus. She started out telling Blitzer, “What I can tell you is that our entire committee, all 15 of us, eight Democrats, seven Republicans, were present for a briefing by Director Petraeus that lasted a couple of hours. And it was a very good briefing.”

Blitzer then asked her, “Does it look like this was a carefully planned operation that was in the works for a while? What’s the latest assessment on that?”

Sen. Feinstein replied, “I can say that I’ve seen no evidence or no assessment that indicates it was. I can certainly say that. There was a protest. And it could well be that quickly some two dozen people took that as an opportunity to attack.”

The problem is that Petraeus, a man with obvious character flaws and a deceptive nature, was not put under oath this time or last time.

Fox News host Greta Van Susteren was astonished by this failure. “It is routine that witnesses take an oath,” she pointed out. Fox News had previously reported that the testimony was supposed to be provided under oath.

The bottom line is that Petraeus lied about Benghazigate at some point during the process of giving his testimony.

Radio host John Batchelor reports that he was told that Petraeus “did not want to return to the Hill under oath” because he would be forced to “confront the inconsistencies in his remarks about the CIA’s part in the fiasco” over what really happened on September 11 and what the Obama Administration said publicly about it.

It appears that the Congress wants to remain clueless but The Washington Post should not accept the lies. It can redeem itself by pursuing Benghazigate.

Cliff Kincaid is the Director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism and can be contacted at [email protected].


Another Update From Tommy

From: English Defence League

He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it.

Martin Luther King Jnr

An Update From Tommy The Political Prisoner

Tommy has put pen to paper again to give us further updates on his situation whilst being incarcerated for his politically incorrect views on Islam and certain sections of the Muslim community, views that are too “troublesome” for British authorities to admit to and deal with. So troublesome are these politically incorrect issues the powers that be have only just started to take the subject of Muslim rape gangs seriously, which will no doubt be due to the pressures that we as a movement have placed upon them.

We are over the target as they say!

Perhaps it’s better they try to silence and intimidate us rather than deal with the real and genuine issues we face on a daily basis?

That’s just the cowardly way out, either that or the powers that be are too scared of the Islamist menace? We certainly do not pose the same threat to national security as the backward 7th century mindset of certain sections of the Muslim community (in fact we pose no threat to national security at all), but then again we are living within a two tier system that places the rights of muslim rapists and jihadis above their victims!

What an absolutely disgraceful, diabolical and disgusting world we live in, it’s time for change, that time is now!

Tommy touches on our so called religious leaders and their inherent cowardice to stand up to the backward and violent ways of Islam, his ever increasing passion and determination for our cause, and the need to face adversity head on no matter what obstacles our spineless authorities try to deter us with. He is resolute, he will not be deterred and neither should we!

So on the 24th get out to Wandsworth prison, make your voices and your numbers count, make sure you do your bit to save our democratic rights, it’s the duty of all likeminded patriots to fight for our worthy, legitimate cause.

Do not surrender to the left, do not surrender to the Islamists who are in bed with the left, and do not surrender your rights or your children’s futures!

We have so much more to do, so many more battles to fight, we have so much to lose if we do nothing!

So Again without further ado…..


Demonstrators Amass at Israeli Consulate

By: Fern Sidman

As the war between Hamas terrorist forces in Gaza and the sovereign state of Israel escalated last week, the tensions of the Middle East conflict exploded in the streets New York City on Thursday evening, November 15th as demonstrators assembled to express their antipathy towards the Jewish state and to support Israel’s right to self defense.

Chanting, “Netanyahu you will learn, refugees will return” and “Not another nickel, not another dime, no more money for Israel’s crimes,” about 600 people representing a panoply of pro-Hamas organizations including Adalah-NY, Al-Awda NY, American Muslims for Palestine and Students for Justice in Palestine gathered outside the Israeli Consulate on New York’s east side in a rancorous demonstration directed at Israel.

“The criminal and racist Zionist regime must stop their airstrikes on innocent Palestinian civilians,” said Hussein Yacub, a junior at Columbia University and a member of Students for Justice in Palestine. “I am here today, just like these hundreds of supporters of Palestine, to tell the world that the illegitimate Zionist occupying force is to blame for these hostilities. If the Zionist aggressors would lift the blockade from Gaza and allow basic essentials to be brought to the Palestinian residents of Gaza, we all wouldn’t be here today. They are intentionally starving our people, denying them basic healthcare, education and other services.”

Holding aloft signs saying, “Stop Israeli Genocide in Gaza” and “End All US Aid to the Racist State of Israel,” the demonstrators called for the United Nations Security Council to issue resolutions condemning Israel for launching air strikes in Gaza and the end of “the constant endorsements and support of the United States and its Western allies for Israeli war crimes and aggression.”

In response to incessant Hamas rocket strikes on Israel’s southern region that began on November 9th, which sent close to 1 million citizens into bomb shelters, the Israeli government sent a strong signal of defiance to Hamas on Wednesday, November 14th, when they conducted a pinpoint airstrike on a Gaza street that killed Ahmed al-Jabari, a top ranking and highly influential Hamas military commander. Following the targeted assassination of al-Jabari, Gabi Siboni, a colonel in the reserves who leads the military and strategic affairs program at the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv said, “Deterrence has to be maintained. It was only a question of time until this moment arrived.”

Clearly provoked by al-Jabari’s assassination, Hamas’ military wing then issued a veiled threat saying that Israel “had opened the gates of hell” and promised fierce retribution.

“Ahmed al-Jabari was a hero to the Palestinian people; a righteous fighter for justice and freedom, and his blood will be revenged,” said Sarah Ibrahimi, a member of American Muslims for Palestine. Organizers of the demonstration led their followers in the chant, “There is only one solution; Revolution, Revolution” and “From the River to the Sea, Palestine Will Be Free.”

Several Jewish supporters of Hamas also joined the demonstration including Maya Wind, an Israeli who refused to serve in the military and spent a few weeks in detention and forty days in military prison for her refusal. She held a sign saying, “Israelis Against the Gaza Massacre” and called for Jewish character of the State of Israel to be replaced with a bi-national democracy in which “Palestinians have equal rights.” Joining her were members of the notoriously anti-Zionist Chareidi movement, Neturei Karta who claim the concept of a modern independent Jewish state was prohibited by Torah law.

Across the street from the anti-Israel contingent, over 100 pro-Israel counter protestors staged a passionate demonstration of support for “Israel’s right to defend herself.” Led by renowned Jewish activist, Rabbi Avi Weiss of the Hebrew Institute of Riverdale, protestors displayed huge Israeli flags and carried posters saying, “Israel Wants Peace, Hamas Wants Terror” and “Am Yisroel Chai” (the people of Israel live). “The most fundamental obligation of any country is to protect its citizens and that’s exactly what Israel is doing,’ declared Rabbi Weiss. He added that, “We, the Jewish people, do not celebrate when our enemies are defeated. The Israel Defense Forces are the most moral army in the world and we are exceptionally proud of each and every one of them.”

Hoping that a ceasefire agreement can be reached between Hamas and Israel, Rabbi Weiss said that he would not like to see an Israeli ground offensive because of “the heavy casualties that could be incurred.” Referencing his grandchildren who live in Israel, Rabbi Weiss said, “each time I speak with them, I end the call by saying, “Hashem Yishmoor” (G-d should guard you) and let me tell you, chevra, that it is only through the power of Hashem that we have survived the persecutions throughout the ages and it will only be through Hashem that we will survive this onslaught of Hamas rockets as well.”

Dr. Marvin Belsky, a retired physician from the Upper West Side and spokesperson for the Human Rights Coalition Against Radical Islam (HRCARI) said, “America is being defended on the front line by Israel. When Israel defeats such pernicious organizations such as Hamas who represent an existential threat not only to themselves but to America as well, then Israel is thusly defending the cherished American values of peace, liberty, justice, democracy and freedom and should have unanimous international support.”

“Global Jihad must be defeated” intoned Manhattan resident Linda Rivera, a non-Jewish supporter of Israel. “I am here as a defender of freedom and human rights and the State of Israel that champions these concepts,” she said. Speaking of a possible Israel ground assault in Gaza, Ms. Rivera said, “I wish that the Israeli army would just go into Gaza without any apologies and cut the electrical grid and water supply and clean out these terrorist miscreants once and for all. If the Israeli army shows weakness or any kind of hesitation at this juncture, then they are emboldening our enemies. They will come back again like a malignant cancer if we don’t cut them out permanently.”

Prior to the conclusion of the demonstration, the pro-Israel demonstrators sang songs of peace and were led in the recitation of Psalm 121 which speaks of King David’s complete faith and trust in the G-d of Israel. “I raise my eyes to the mountains, from whence will come my help? My help is from Hashem (G-d), maker of heaven and earth.”