Israel Military Forum

Welcome to the Israel Military Forum. You are currently viewing our Israel Forum as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions, Image Forum and access our other features. By joining our Israel Military Forum you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so
Join Our Israel Community Today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Go Back   Israel Military Forum > Social > World News > North America
Register FAQ Pictures Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-29-2016, 05:54 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Thumbs down The Obama Apologists Tour

The Obama Apologists Tour
The real crisis in this country is Obama’s presidency itself, both in terms of the real scandals during his term and his foreign and domestic policies
By Jonathan F. Keiler

As President Obama winds down his final term, his defenders are in a goal line stand defending his accomplishments to an increasingly critical audience. Obama failed to fundamentally transform the nation, resuscitate the economy, improve American standing abroad, slow the rise of the oceans (, heal the planet, or even establish a convincing moral justification for trying. What’s left? One old standby, less in use now than a couple of years ago, is Obama’s ability to hand over to his successor a supposedly scandal-free administration. The other, more newly minted, is Obama’s supposedly similar ability to hand over a crisis-free America. If these claims are illegitimate, then Obama’s meaningful legacy will be reduced to his glibness and complexion.

In April 2015 Slate’s chief political correspondent, a fellow named Jamelle Bouie, penned “Obama’s Gift to Hillary Clinton (,” a howler of an article that anticipated the president handing off a remarkably scandal-free administration to his chosen successor. Bouie completely ignored the then just festering State Department email scandal and rationalized away Obama’s other problems, from Fast and Furious to the IRS to Benghazi. From there Bouie opined

“Put simply, there’s nothing Clinton can do to escape Obama’s legacy. But she doesn’t need to. Unlike with McCain and Bush or Gore and Bill Clinton, there is no Obama scandal fatigue or general exhaustion with the Democrats.”

Everybody makes mistakes now and again, and at least the first sentence was correct. Almost a year later, the New York Times' David Brooks, with the State Department email scandal in full bloom, made a similar claim.

“…The Obama administration has been remarkably scandal-free. Think of the way Iran-contra or the Lewinsky scandals swallowed years from Reagan and Clinton.

We’ve had very little of that from Obama. He and his staff have generally behaved with basic rectitude. Hillary Clinton is constantly having to hold these defensive press conferences when she’s trying to explain away some vaguely shady shortcut she’s taken, or decision she has made, but Obama has not had to do that.”

That Clinton worked for Obama while she took these shady shortcuts, with his connivance, evidently mattered not to Brooks.

Why, in Brooks’ words has Obama “not had to” defend himself from scandal? The answer is that Brooks and his colleagues in the dominant mainstream media never required it of him.

Crimes or moral indiscretions themselves are not scandals. That’s why prominent people who commit wrongs try to hide them, lest they become scandals. Obama’s alleged “scandal free” administration is purely a creature of the media, which by and large has simply refused to scandalize him, regardless of the fact that his administration’s crimes and indiscretions dwarf those of his predecessors of the past half-century, including Richard Nixon’s.

Brooks and Bouie made their “scandal-free” claims some time ago, and you don’t see quite so much of it now. That’s not to say that the media by and large continue to ignore the scandalous nature of Obama’s governance, including his intimate involvement with Hillary’s email criminality, which if pursued properly would have directly implicated ( the president in serious national security violations. History should not treat Obama so kindly, but given the ideological makeup ( of university history departments that is not a great bet.

A second last-ditch defense recently appeared in the Atlantic, proposing that Obama will leave office relatively “crisis-free.” In “Leaving a Clean Desk” (“What Obama Got Right” online) Jonathan Rauch favorably compares ( Obama with such presidents as Eisenhower, Kennedy, Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and Bill Clinton for leaving his successor no crisis. Of course, this depends, as the last member of this presidential list might say, on the meaning of “is” as in “what is a crisis?”

Here again, the fix is easily put in, since crises, like scandals, are mostly creations of the media. Is climate change a crisis? Usually for those on left it very much is, and Rauch must say so, thus admitting however subtly, that Obama has not stopped the ocean’s rise. But Rauch concludes that it is not for most Americans a political crisis, and so Obama has no crisis to pass on. The circular reasoning is remarkable. Obama himself says climate change is a crisis (, and flails about attempting to bind the country to useless treaties while savaging valuable American energy industries. But because the American people mostly ignore him on the issue, it’s not really a crisis at all, and so Obama gets credit for leaving Trump a “clean desk” on that issue.

It’s the same illogic with Obama’s other “non-crises.” Rauch reports that “After years of slow recovery, the economy is chugging along…” whatever that means. Tell that to an unemployed factory worker in Ohio, or reconcile it with the exploded national debt. We learn that “…the security situation is astonishingly non-critical…” though America finds itself internationally weaker both diplomatically and militarily than at any time since the 1930s. And “…that there have been zero major [terror] attacks within the United States…” during Obama’s presidency. This, of course, would be news to the victims of Islamist terror in Massachusetts, Fort Hood, San Bernardino, and Orlando. But again, depends on what is a major attack.

Rauch’s theory would benefit from an independent variable, other than his own opinion as to what constitutes a crisis-free turnover of power. For example, a crisis-free president like Reagan might turn over the presidency to his vice-president, which happened. Except that it didn’t happen with Eisenhower and Clinton. Or vice-versa, that the country free of crisis is more willing to change parties, except that Rauch’s own theory -- that Reagan and Kennedy had crisis-free presidencies -- eliminates this standard. So we just have to rely on Rauch’s say so, and that of other Obama apologists, that he is handing Donald Trump an uncluttered desk.

And that points up really what’s really wrong here, in that Obama’s apologists are missing the forest for the trees. The real crisis in this country is Obama’s presidency itself, both in terms of the real -- if largely ignored -- scandals during his term (which threatened the heart of republican democracy) and his foreign and domestic policies which promised utter disaster if continued under a second Clinton presidency.

That theory was proven pretty conclusively on November 8. Obama himself made the election a referendum on his supposedly scandal-free, crisis-free presidency. As Mr. Bouie put it, Clinton had no choice but to run on Obama’s legacy, including his scandals and crises, however unreported or under-reported in the mainstream media. The people answered.

Last edited by Paparock; 11-29-2016 at 06:31 PM..
Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2016, 04:39 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation The Obama legacy

The Obama legacy
A Footnote To History.
By Monty Pelerin

Nothing sums up the Obama legacy better than this quote from Edward Luce ( of the Financial Times:

"It will be as if Mr Obama was never here."

Can there be a more concise judgment?

History will remember Barack Obama as the first black president. Beyond that, what else? His attempt to transform the nation worsened economic and social conditions. He transformed his own party to the point where it may not survive.

Mr. Luce explained what will occur domestically:

The Obama erasure will go far deeper than undoing domestic laws, or foreign deals. Mr Trump will repeal Obamacare, or alter it beyond recognition. He will “keep an open mind” about whether to pull the US out of the Paris agreement on climate change and quite probably blow up the US-Iran nuclear deal.

The American people demanded the destruction of Obamaism. In order to survive, the Democrat Party will disown their Pied Piper, eventually abhorring his policies more than conservatives.

Despite his overall judgment Mr. Luce's assessment of Barack Obama is more positive and gracious than mine:

Here was a highly intelligent leader, and a fundamentally decent one, who strived to make the case for international co-operation to a world that was not really listening.

… But the world’s attention has wandered. People are highly fearful — and rightly so.

Such an assessment is flattering and fawning in these respects:

The "highly intelligent leader" might be described as painfully ignorant of how the world works or a committed ideologue to a system that always fails. Given Obama's educational opportunities, stupidity rather than ignorance seems more appropriate.

The "fundamentally decent one" routinely lied to the American people in order to pass harmful policies. He illegally utilized the Justice Department and the Internal Revenue Service for political purposes and engaged in cover-ups (gun-running to Mexico, Benghazi, etc.) to protect himself.

Obama's approach to governance was dictatorial. He went around Congress with Executive Orders, many of which were overturned by the courts. He famously terminated at least one discussion with: "I won, you lost."

If Obama is to be more than a William Henry Harrison footnote in history, it will be as a result of future events.

Foreign Policy

Mr Luce states:

The global role that Mr Obama inherited — and tried, to some degree, to uphold — is now in tatters.

If legacies can be achieved via future disasters, Mr. Obama still has a chance. His feckless, "lead from behind" foreign policy leaves the world vulnerable to conflict. Like his domestic policies, most international agreements were made without Congressional approval.

If the world unravels, Mr. Obama has the potential to become history’s next Sir Edward Grey (


Obama is young for an ex-president. What he does with this time will influence history’s assessment. That may not be a positive.

Obama's narcissism and need for attention will make it difficult to leave the stage. As a media favorite he will always have a platform. As an ex-president, even a failed one, he may make positive contributions. These should be welcomed.

If Obama’s need for the stage outweighs his positive contributions, he will become a public nuisance. Past behavior suggests this should be expected. Obama is likely to try and become the Community Organizer of The World. History is unlikely to look kindly on such an effort.

Last edited by Paparock; 11-30-2016 at 04:49 PM..
Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2016, 05:00 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Default White House warns Americans not to blame Islam for Ohio State Attack

White House warns Americans not to blame Islam for the latest Islamic terrorist attack at Ohio State

“Our response to this situation matters,” White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest explained to reporters during the press briefing. “If we respond to this situation by casting aspersions on millions of people that adhere to a particular religion or if we increase our suspicion of people who practice a particular religion, we are more likely going to contribute to acts of violence than we are to prevent them.”

Earnest said that although there was evidence that the attacker might have been inspired by extremism, his motives were still under investigation.

Law enforcement investigators have pinpointed the attacker as “likely inspired by ISIS” according to a CNN report release after the White House press briefing.

The attacker posted a message on Facebook that law enforcement officials have released to the public.

“By Allah, we will not let you sleep unless you give peace to the Muslims. You will not celebrate or enjoy any holiday,” he wrote before the attack. “Btw, every single Muslim who disapproves of my actions is a sleeper cell, waiting for a signal. I am warning you Oh America.”

On Tuesday, the ISIS news agency Amaq claimed the attacker was “a soldier of God,” according to the New Yorker, and might have been inspired by the Islamic State’s terrorist manual.

Earnest praised law enforcement officials for stopping the attack just one minute after it began, preventing the deaths of unarmed victims.

“We owe a deep debt of gratitude to the first responders who reacted so heroically with the situation there,” he said, praising their “bravery and professional skill.”

When Breitbart News asked if the president had contacted heroic Ohio State police Officer Alan Horujko who shot and killed the attacker, Earnest demurred.

“I don’t know that they’ve had a chance to talk at this point, but if a conversation like that occurs I will let you know,” Earnest said.

Last edited by Paparock; 11-30-2016 at 06:02 PM..
Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2016, 12:23 AM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Angry Obama Administration Back Stabs Israel

Obama Administration Back Stabs Israel


Kerry Rebukes Israel, Calling Settlements a Threat to Peace -

Kerry's speech biased against Israel: Netanyahu -

John Kerry's Final, Harmful Insult to Israel -

Time For A New Treaty With Israel -

Last edited by Paparock; 12-29-2016 at 01:05 AM..
Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2016, 12:33 AM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Obama Drives a Nail into the Coffin of our International Legal Order

Obama Drives a Nail into the Coffin of our International Legal Order
Eight years of Obama’s foreign policy has left the world on fire. Now, with his final foray into geopolitics at the Security Council, he has attacked the last remaining vestiges of a rules-based order.
By Jordan Blashek

President Obama is clearly not yet finished destroying what remains of the U.S.-led international order. By allowing a harmful UN Security Council resolution to pass declaring Israeli settlements to be “a flagrant violation under International Law,” he reverses ( decades of U.S. policy towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and makes a future negotiated settlement even more difficult for the parties to achieve. More importantly, the move strikes a devastating blow to the credibility of the UN and international law.

Eight years of Obama’s foreign policy have left the world on fire. Now, with his final foray into geopolitics, he has attacked the last remaining vestiges of a rules-based order.

For a president who prides himself on the long-game (, this was an incredibly short-sighted and selfish move.

While the bi-partisan backlash ( has so far focused on the damage to Israel and the peace process, the longer-term casualty will be the international legal order itself. Why? Because going forward, the three major global powers – the U.S., Russia, and China – will concurrently disregard international law as they pursue their own interests. While we expect this from Russia and China, President Obama just all but guaranteed that the Trump Administration will follow suit.

International law only functions properly and effectively when the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council – the U.S., Russia, China, France and the U.K – unanimously agree to uphold its sanctity. Since World War II, international law progressed slowly and unevenly because the U.S., the Soviet Union, and China each exercised their veto powers in pursuit of geopolitical interests. Nevertheless, the United States unswervingly lent its power and legitimacy to the United Nations because we believed that it enshrined our values. We accepted the short-term limitations imposed by international law because of the long-term benefits offered by a rules-based liberal order.

Today, however, the international order is neither rules-based nor liberal.

Russia and China are revisionist powers who seek to reshape the global order in their image. They have consistently violated international law to promote their own interests, while using their Security Council vetoes to hamstring the United States from taking actions that would uphold the global order. In just the past 4 years, Russia has annexed ( Crimea, sold ( advanced missiles to Iran, and bombed civilians ( in Syria on behalf of Bashir al-Assad. China has similarly waged ( covert cyber war against the U.S., constructed ( fake islands to claim new exclusive economic zone rights, and continued ( their ethnic cleansing of Tibet. At the same time, the two countries have systematically prevented the U.N. from taking any action regarding Syria, including the referral of Bashir al-Assad to the ICC for his use of chemical weapons against civilians.

For his part, President Obama has fecklessly used the UN Security Council to circumvent our own system of checks-and-balances. In 2011, President Obama justified ( his military intervention in Libya through the U.N. Security Council without seeking approval from Congress. In 2015, he again used the Security Council to ratify ( the Iran Nuclear Deal without submitting the treaty for approval to the Senate. Now, President Obama has used the Security Council to punish Israel, despite the protests of the incoming president and both parties in Congress. Never before has a lame-duck ( president attempted to tie the hands of his successor in such a dramatic fashion.

The American people will have to decide going forward whether the UN is still an institution that enshrines our values. This latest vote suggests otherwise. The resolution was sponsored by Venezuela, a failed socialist state in the midst of an economic crisis. Votes in favor were cast by Egypt, which has had two coups ( in five years and ethnically cleansed ( its Coptic populations; Russia which recently annexed Crimea and continues its covert war against Ukraine; and China, which currently occupies Tibet and has ethnically cleansed its population. Lastly, the resolution targets Israel, the only liberal democracy in the Middle East and among the U.S.’ most loyal friends.

President-elect Trump has already made clear where he stands. After slamming the vote, he tweeted ( “As to the U.N., things will be different after Jan. 20th.” Members of Congress ( and leaders from both parties immediately started calling for reprisals against the international body. At least on this issue, Mr. Trump will almost certainly disregard the recent U.N. resolution by working with Israel to negate its consequences. Mr. Trump lobbied fiercely against the resolution, calling it an obstacle to peace. David Friedman (, his newly selected Ambassador to Israel, is also an unabashed supporter of settlements.

The question is – will a President Trump ignore the U.N. more broadly? He has excoriated ( the U.N. in the past for not being a “friend of freedom.” His “America First” doctrine also places him at odds with many UN members and institutions. But it has been an open question whether a President Trump would try to work with the U.N. in the future. With this vindictive last act, President Obama has all but guaranteed that Mr. Trump will be at odds with the organization from the beginning.

The international legal order cannot survive without U.S. support, since U.S. military power and moral authority undergird its legitimacy. It also cannot function if the three global powers – the U.S., China, and Russia – each ignore its structures in pursuit of their own world views and geopolitical interests. Obama’s foreign policy has left us with a world in which Russia and China already do so.

Now, with this act, President Obama has driven a knife into the heart of the international legal order by poisoning the well for the incoming Trump Administration. This is a tragedy for the U.S., for Israel, and most importantly, for people all over the world longing for liberty and security.

It’s deeply ironic that a man who came into office so committed to the integrity of international law has now caused its downfall.

Last edited by Paparock; 12-29-2016 at 12:55 AM..
Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2016, 01:47 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Thumbs down Obama Decides What's Best For Israel

Obama Decides What's Best For Israel
Obama decides unilaterally. He does not need or listen to Congress or Israel.
By J. Marsolo

Obama has decided what is best for Israel. Israel must stop settlements on the land that the U.N. and Obama view as "occupied land" to save the two-state solution. Obama abstained on the U.N. resolution to put pressure on Israel to stop the settlements because Obama believes that it is in the best interest of Israel to agree to two-state deal, and the settlements may make the two- state deal more difficult. Obama did not consult with the elected representatives of Israel, and specifically not with Prime Minister Netanyahu. He did not consult with the U.S. Congress, nor with the president-elect, Donald Trump.

Obama did this after the November election so it would not alienate Jewish voters and contributors, especially in battleground states like Florida and Pennsylvania. If he really believed that ending the settlements is in the best interest of Israel, and that a U.N. resolution would spur Israel, he would have orchestrated the resolution in 2009. But he was more concerned about his re-election in 2012, and Hillary's election in 2016, so he did it now.

The Washington Post reported ( on December 28, 2016:

Secretary of State John F. Kerry on Wednesday offered a harsh and detailed assessment of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, saying their growth threatens to destroy the viability of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and that the United States was obliged to allow passage of a U.N. resolution condemning the activity in order to preserve the possibility of peace.

Whether the settlements pose a threat to a genuine peace between Israel and the Palestinians is an issue for Israel to decide, not Obama. We are not an imperial power dictating policy to a subservient state. Israel is the only democratic state in the Middle East. Its citizens can vote for representatives to carry out what they believe is best for Israel. If the Israelis disagree with the settlement policy and agree with Obama, they can elect representatives to end the settlement policy.

Israel fought major wars in 1948, 1967, and 1973, and has fought terrorists from 1948 to the present, to protect itself. It does not need lectures from John Kerry, whose primary legacy is that he compared the U.S. military in Vietnam to Genghis Khan and the U.S. military in Iraq to terrorists. It does not need lectures from Obama, whose foreign policy record consists of Benghazi, a nuclear deal allowing Iran to have nuclear weapon, and withdrawal from Iraq, which led to ISIS.

Obama should have stated his views privately with the Israeli leaders, vetoed the resolution, and allowed President Trump to deal with the matter based on Trump's discussions with the Israelis. Instead, Obama decides and has Kerry lecture ( in his speech:

[W]e have to be clear about what is happening in the West Bank. The Israeli prime minister publicly supports a two-state solution. But his current coalition is the most right-wing in Israel history with an agenda driven by the most extreme elements. The result is that policies of this government, which the prime minister himself just described, as more committed to settlements than any in Israel's history are leading in the opposite direction. They are leading towards one state.

Obama has Kerry use the same language Obama uses to attack Republicans who disagree with him: "right-wing ... extreme elements." If you disagree with Obama, then it is because you are "right-wing," which is wrong and bad.

Obama's unilateral decision to abstain on the U.N. vote, allowing the resolution to condemn Israel, is similar to how he has governed by agency regulations and executive orders. He decides and ignores Congress. On the settlement policy, he decides and ignores Israel.

Obama decides unilaterally. He does not need or listen to Congress or Israel.

Last edited by Paparock; 12-29-2016 at 01:50 PM..
Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2016, 02:35 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Ending the confusion of the obama years

Terrorism isn't an existential threat?
By Howard Rotberg

I have been writing about terrorism now for 13 years. Like many other writers, the tragic events of 9/11 in September, 2001 were one impetus for my inquiry into the goals and methods of terrorism. The other impetus is a growing recognition that terrorism often seems to work exactly as it is planned to do: it so strikes fear into the minds of otherwise good people that they begin to submit to the moral framework of the terrorists and begin to adopt the cause of the terrorists.

Unfortunately, during the Obama Presidency, both politicians and left-leaning journalists have scoffed at the proposition that terrorism poses any existential threat. That is because they define “existential” narrowly to mean anything that could defeat, destroy or wipe out America. They do not, as I do, define existential to include not just living but living “free” and having individual human rights, a fair Justice System and the other Constitutional protections. For me, submission to the ideology of Islamists destroys bit by bit what I see as “free” existence. To the extent that we give in, submit to, respect, tolerate or empathize with the cause of the terrorists, we have lost our freedom and have gone down the road to submission, whether or not our militaries are defeated in “conventional war.” We can look at opinions in the media and the universities to see this empathy, or look at how the Democratic Party is considering a Muslim with contacts among Islamist terror supporting organizations to be the Chair of the DNC.

"Live Free or Die" is the official motto of the U.S. state of New Hampshire (, adopted by the state in 1945. How things have changed in American political culture since 1945.

The Left and the Obama administration see an existential threat as one only coming from major nuclear powers. They ignore that Obama’s Iran “deal” will allow Iran to give nuclear weapons to its terrorist proxies.

The Left seems to be mostly concerned that the government will in response to terrorism pass tough security laws that will inhibit the “rights” of Islamists and their supporters or at least be offensive to them. Some naively think that the purpose of terrorism is only to wage an asymmetrical type of warfare against more military strong foes and hence to eventually defeat them, and anything short of that is not an existential threat.

Simonsen and Spindlove, in their textbook on terrorism, entitled Terrorism Today: The Past, the Players, the Future, say that terrorism, by its violence against civilians, brings awareness of the alleged grievance, uses the media to spread knowledge of the cause, and provokes fear, all of which attempt to secure policy changes and weaken government’s resolve. Attaining these policy changes occurs as a fearful people seek to feed the wild animal in their midst, hoping that its appetite for more random violence will be sated.

Terrorism is the modus operandi of Islamists – the overtly violent jihadists seeking to spread Sharia Law and a restoration of an Islamic Caliphate. Obscene acts of violence, often involving suicide bombing are then followed inevitably by apologists and propagandists alleging that Islam is a “religion of peace” and that terrorism can best be fought by more understanding, tolerance, compassion and acceptance of political Islam’s goals.

If the goals of terrorism are meant to support a submission to its radical ideology and Sharia Law and induce tolerance for its illiberal policies and separatist illiberal communities within the liberal democracies, and eventually to bring Islam to the world, then tolerance, empathy, compassion, and acceptance are a delusional response to the problem. The successful way to stop terrorism is to convince the proponents of terrorism (including the passive supporters in much of mainstream Islam who fail to stand up in opposition to the jihadists) that the goals above-mentioned will not be achieved by their terrorist acts, and they will in fact be met with a strong resolve within Western nations to reject this attempt to diminish our fundamental human rights, individual freedoms and liberties and the hard-won rights of women, gays, children and ethnic and religious minorities.

The Americans, by allowing a UN Security Council resolution saying Israel illegally occupies the older part of the historical capital of Israel in Jerusalem, have shown terrorists the way to success.

In my book, Tolerism: The Ideology Revealed, I explore the ways in which our political culture has moved to change its policies as a reaction to the fear caused by catastrophic terrorism. It is my belief that the fear has caused us to become irrationally accepting and tolerant of many actions that are contrary to our most basic traditional values.

I discuss:

Our cultural Stockholm Syndrome, based on the reaction of hostages who instead of hating their abductors, begin to not only sympathize with the grievances of their abusers but begin to advocate for them or even fall in love with them. Some readers will remember the Patty Hearst story and some will remember the bank hostages in Stockholm two of whom married their captors when they were released from prison. Others will remember journalists who were held hostage by Hamas, face down on the floor in cells and were forced to convert to Islam, but who nevertheless upon release praised their captors and their cause. I believe that Islamist terrorism with the relentless march of the Islamic demographic across Europe and now the rest of the West, is causing those who should be putting up red flags to curtail the immigration of those who might be at war with our values, to submit to the inevitable and use their energies to curry favours through their tolerism.
The culture of denial that has arisen, where the West denies that the perpetrators are in fact seeking these very goals. Obama’s negation of the phrase “Islamic terrorism” in favour of confused terminology like “workplace violence” or “man-made disasters” is meant to obfuscate the issue. When “diversity” becomes a higher goal than individual liberty, you start to include in your diverse society a number of people who oppose your traditional values and might even hate the very concept of freedom and individual rights.
Our culture of tolerism hides the very definition of “tolerance” which is “a sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one’s own”. “Sympathy” is one thing, but how about “indulgence”? “Indulgence is defined as “giving free reign, or taking unrestrained pleasure in, or treating with excessive leniency” some ideology or group or individual. Tolerance of course only relates to negative acts – we say that we tolerate pain, not pleasure. So tolerance as a value implies that we are taking some pleasure from, or giving some lenience to, groups of peoples and illiberal ideas that are threatening us.

The indulgence inherent in “tolerism” relates to another little understood cultural reaction to jihadist Islamism, and that is the self-defeating concept of masochism. Through unresolved feelings of guilt or inadequacy, large groups of people take actions or adopt policies that they know will cause pain to them or their children. To what extent did Germany’s remaining guilt of the Nazi era atrocities influence Merkel and her ilk to allow a million unvetted Islamic migrants into the country including those who perpetrated mass sexual assaults in public places like in Cologne, and another who drove a truck into a Christmas market, yet who had already been ordered deported but for procedural reasons had been allowed to walk the streets and kill people when he should have been in jail?

On March 26th, after the attack in Belgium, Gwynne Dyer, who is a London-based commentator carried in 45 different countries, published an article which my local newspaper headlined and subtitled as follows: “Belgium and the true risk of deadly attack: Terrorists are not an existential threat, they are a lethal nuisance, no more than that”.

Dyer took exception to a Belgian politician stating the terrorist attacks in Belgium meant that Belgium was now living through the darkest days since the end of the Second World War.

Most of us would have thought that statement to be unremarkable, but Dyer minimized these tragic events, (and their symbolic effects) by sarcastically stating, “Can any country be so lucky that the worst thing that has happened to it in the last 75 years is a couple of bombs that killed 34?”

Dyer minimizes terrorism by saying it is a “statistically insignificant risk – (people) are in much greater danger of dying from a fall in the bath than of dying in a terrorist attack.” This of course misses the very essential nature of terrorism: bathtubs have no agenda and we can have hundreds of people slip and fall without any danger to our political culture and commitment to freedom. However, every major terrorist attack is followed by renewed calls for acceptance and tolerance of Muslims, including the radical ones who create “no-go” areas and seek to reverse the separation of church and state, or mosque and schools.

While the political and media “elites” dismiss the terrorism as insignificant, regular folks understand what is actually happening to their societies. According to a leaked government report carried last February by Britain’s The Express, some 20% of the migrants have already been charged with some crime. The people sense this change, and sense the betrayal of the elites.

By July 30, 2016, Dyer argued that combating terrorism at home implied a war with Europe’s own Muslim citizens. This, he then says is exactly what ISIS wants. Says Dyer: “they want to stimulate anti-Muslim hatred, turn the majority against this underprivileged minority and ensure the victory of ... neo-fascist, anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant” parties.

“Why does Islamic State want an anti-Muslim backlash in European countries?” he asks. “Because it will radicalize many more European Muslims ... Islamic State’s ideology claims that the whole Muslim world is under attack by the evil West, and that only ISIL can defend it successfully.”

I instead argue that terrorism is meant to result in terror, which in an overly tolerant, submissive West, losing its loyalty to Judeo-Christian ethics, eases submission to the Islamist message - that the Caliphate will be revived, that Europe will be taken back again as in the 12th century, as the rest of the world chooses between the embrace of Islam or dhimmi status, subject to Sharia Law. Dyer’s approach is meant to disarm the West from its resolve to stop the march of Islamism by falsely asserting it is just an attempt by one organization to gain power in the Arab world, rather than a world-wide problem..

With the election of Trump, it is now time to challenge that agenda of minimizing the real effects of terrorism, and using words from an alternate leftist universe, such as calling Major Dr. Hassan’s attack on the soldiers of Fort Hood “workplace violence” or calling terrorists “lone wolves” if the direct chain of command cannot be discovered. We hope to see a resurgent West understand the nature of this War and make a better effort to win this War. Writing from his home in England where separatist enclaves of intolerant Islamists are resulting in separatist “no go” areas and terrorist attacks, Dyer’s approach does nothing to encourage Muslim immigrants who might be inclined to assimilate to British, Canadian, or American values; instead he parrots a rather discouraging anti-Western message that Islamism is partly the West’s fault, that it must learn to live with it as it is not an existential threat to our culture of freedom and human rights, but a mere nuisance.

In the new era of a Trump presidency, I am hoping to see Americans join hands with Israel which has dealt with terrorism since the founding of the State. In Israel, of course, there is a existential physical threat, where tiny Israel is surrounded by hostile states and pseudo-states that make it clear they want to destroy the country and kill or deport most of its citizens. Hopefully, with an understanding of just how terrorism creates an existential ideological threat to America by its Islamist enemies, America will move forward as a strong, free, and proud nation.

Last edited by Paparock; 12-29-2016 at 02:38 PM..
Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2016, 02:41 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Obama’s “shameful betrayal” of israel

Netanyahu calls it right.
By Bruce Thornton

If any doubts remained about Obama’s malignant narcissism, historical ignorance, and geopolitical cretinism, the lame-duck-in-chief dispelled them with his abstention at the Security Council vote on a resolution slandering Israeli “settlements” as the foremost obstacle to peace. Undoing this despicable abandonment of a crucial ally should shoot to the top of incoming president Donald Trump’s to-do list.

Israeli intelligence has demonstrated that this diplomatic drive-by was orchestrated by Obama himself. “From the information that we have, we have no doubt that the Obama administration initiated it, stood behind it, coordinated on the wording and demanded that it be passed,” said Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of what he rightly called a “shameful betrayal.” On the one hand, such back-door machinations are par for the course in the corrupt U.N. When the Bush administration in 2002 was trying to get a U.N. resolution authorizing the Iraq War, Germany lobbied non-permanent Security Council members Mexico, Chile, Cameroon, and Angola to vote against the resolution, which ultimately failed.

But German Chancellor Gerhard Schröeder had grubby political reasons for his meddling. He was running for reelection on a dismal economic record, and found a useful distraction by tapping into German anti-Americanism and reflexive pacifism. So too with France’s machinations and opposition to the war, which were aimed at ending the sanctions on Iraq so that France could get back to doing profitable business with Saddam Hussein, who in 1983 was buying half of all French arms exports.

These actions are bad enough, and are evidence that the U.N. exists to serve the interests of member countries, usually at the expense of other member countries. But Obama has no such utilitarian motives. He’s done with running for office. His reasons for betraying Israel comprise petty spite at Netanyahu for stoutly and publicly resisting Obama’s policies and actions that endanger his beleaguered country; and obeisance to left-wing historical fantasies about “colonialism,” the “two-state solution,” and Palestinian Arab “national aspirations.” In other words, the clichés one would expect from a badly educated university adjunct professor for whom left-wing bromides function as fashion statements and status assertion.

History, of course, tells a different story. There is no “Palestinian” people or “homeland.” There are Arabs whose historical homeland is the Arabian Peninsula. Any Arab living elsewhere is the descendant of invaders, colonizers, occupiers, and immigrants. There are no “occupied territories” or “borders,” but rather contested territories which are bounded by the 1967 armistice line, and the disposition of which will be decided through a negotiated settlement. The “West Bank” is a euphemism for the historical Jewish districts of Judea and Samaria. Jerusalem is not an Arab city, but for three thousand years has been the capital of the Jewish people, who have inhabited it continuously. The “settlements” are not colonial outposts created at the expense of their rightful owners, but towns and cities in the ancient Jewish homeland, most of them on land purchased from Arab landowners happy to make a profit on such barren tracts.

Nor is Israel an “illegitimate” country. Its existence is the result of international law as created by treaties, conferences, the League of Nations, and the U.N. resolution which established an Arab and a Jewish state, the latter comprising one-quarter of the territory mandated for Israel in the postwar settlement. Israel is as legitimate, and in fact even more legitimate, than the other states created in the region like Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq, or the states like Hungary, Austria, the Kingdom of Serbs and Croats, and Czechoslovakia created after the dismemberment of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

Moreover, Israel has had to fight off three armed attacks against it on the part of Arab countries that disregarded the U.N. resolution, Article 39 of the U.N. Charter, and numerous international treaties. Instead they tried to win by force land given to the despised dhimmi Jews they had oppressed and dominated for over a thousand years. They tried and lost, and and in 1967 suffered the eternal wages of failed aggressors––loss of territory. Only in this case, the territory the Arabs lost was theirs only by dint of conquest, not legitimacy, and its loss was no different from the Muslim loss of Spain to the Reconquista, or from Greece’s liberation from the Ottomans in 1832. But the land won by the Israelis in the defensive war had been Jewish since the 13th century B.C.

So why this bizarre animus against Israel on the part of the West, this disdain if not hatred of what one French minister called a “****ty little country”? Short-sighted American “realists” don’t believe that defending the region’s only liberal democracy and respecter of human rights is worth antagonizing countries comprising five of the top ten global oil producers. Equally short-sighted European realists, faced with unassimilated Muslim immigrants who hate the West, think they can buy some peace (and access to Middle Eastern labor and business opportunities) by appeasing the Arabs through bullying and slandering Israel.

Leftists hate Israel because they think it is a stooge of neo-colonialist America, an outpost of imperialism oppressing the “natives,” and like America it is a graphic repudiation of leftism’s utopian delusions. Sentimental Third-Worldism prefers the exotic, quaint “other of color” and their more “authentic and vibrant” cultures over a go-getting, brash, innovative people wildly succeeding by adopting the modern Western paradigm of political freedom and open markets. Juvenile idealizers of romantic revolutionary violence are turned on by the “freedom-fighters” and a “resistance” that use action to achieve their aims, even if that violence is indiscriminate terrorism against innocents. The global diplomatic establishment sees Israel as the impediment to some grand diplomatic triumph that will validate their magical thinking about the superiority of talk over action. And don’t forget that post-Holocaust anti-Semitism has found a respectable camouflage in hating the idea of Zionism while ignoring the near-century of terrorist violence and aggression directed at flesh-and-blood Jewish people.

Whether cold calculations of interest or irrational ideological compulsions and prejudices, none of these reasons for demonizing Israel is founded on coherent principle, consistent standards of judgment, or even historical fact. The conflict is not about “settlements” or “check-points” or “national aspirations.” It’s about Islamic-sanctioned Jew hatred, and Arab humiliation and resentment of a handful of refugee Jews who developed lands bare of resources into a nation more militarily powerful and economically successful than their Arab neighbors. No “two-state solution” is going to change these ancient and deep-seated religious beliefs and psychological wounds.

But what can Trump do about it? In the long-run, he must in word and deed tell the world that the U.S. will defend Israel and ensure its security no matter what the “international community” says or does. One place to start is by punishing the U.N. for this despicable resolution by stopping the $8 billion a year we taxpayers contribute to that corrupt country club for international thugs, dictators, autocrats, and their European useful idiots. I don’t mean a token reduction like the $60 million withheld for a while from UNESCO for admitting the Palestinian Authority as a member. Cut it all off.

More importantly, this latest outrage is an opportunity to rethink this country’s participation in an organization that works against our interests and those of our allies, justifies terrorism as legitimate “resistance,” and demonizes Israel while ignoring the millions of people slaughtered in the Balkans, Rwanda, Sudan, and today in Syria. We need to repudiate the delusional belief undergirding our participation in the U.N.: that unelected, unaccountable functionaries of pygmy states and thug regimes can more justly determine the legitimacy of the United States’ foreign policy and behavior than the American people.

In reality, the legitimacy of American actions is conferred by the democratic process: the free, open debate on the part of citizens who can hold their leaders accountable and have a sense of the ideals and principles that animate our foreign policy and provide its goals. Subjecting those decisions to the corrupt deliberations of the U.N. often compromises our own interests and endangers our national security.

So punish the U.N. for damaging our ally, then start the process of getting out by withholding our dues. That will get the world’s attention and, like the thought of being hanged in a fortnight, concentrate their minds wonderfully.
Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2016, 04:01 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation White House Thought Bible Verse Was 'Typo'

White House Thought Bible Verse Was 'Typo'

Democrats Have a Religion Problem
A conversation with Michael Wear, a former Obama White House staffer, about the party’s illiteracy on and hostility toward faith

There aren’t many people like Michael Wear in today’s Democratic Party. The former director of Barack Obama’s 2012 faith-outreach efforts is a theologically conservative evangelical Christian. He is opposed to both abortion and same-sex marriage, although he would argue that those are primarily theological positions, and other issues, including poverty and immigration, are also important to his faith.

During his time working for Obama, Wear was often alone in many of his views, he writes in his new book, Reclaiming Hope. He helped with faith-outreach strategies for Obama’s 2008 campaign, but was surprised when some state-level officials decided not to pursue this kind of engagement: “Sometimes—as I came to understand the more I worked in politics—a person’s reaction to religious ideas is not ideological at all, but personal,” he writes.

Several years later, he watched battles over abortion funding and contraception requirements in the Affordable Care Act with chagrin: The administration was unnecessarily antagonistic toward religious conservatives in both of those fights, Wear argues, and it eventually lost, anyway. When Louie Giglio, an evangelical pastor, was pressured to withdraw from giving the 2012 inaugural benediction because of his teachings on homosexuality, Wear almost quit.

Some of his colleagues also didn’t understand his work, he writes. He once drafted a faith-outreach fact sheet describing Obama’s views on poverty, titling it “Economic Fairness and the Least of These,” a reference to a famous teaching from Jesus in the Bible. Another staffer repeatedly deleted “the least of these,” commenting, “Is this a typo? It doesn’t make any sense to me. Who/what are ‘these’?”

I spoke with Wear about how the Democratic Party is and isn’t reaching people of faith—and what that will mean for its future. Our conversation has been edited for clarity and length.

Emma Green: Many people have noted that 81 percent of white evangelicals voted for Donald Trump in this election. Why do you think that was?

Michael Wear: It shows not just ineptitude, but the ignorance of Democrats in not even pretending to give these voters a reason to vote for them. We also need to have a robust conversation about the support or allowance for racism, misogyny, and Islamophobia in the evangelical tradition.

Many of those 81 percent are accommodating cultural changes in America that are deeply problematic. Liberals have been trying to convince Americans, and evangelicals in particular, that America is not a Christian nation. The 2016 election was evangelicals saying, “Yeah, you’re right! We can’t expect to have someone who is Christian like us. We can’t expect to have someone with a perfect family life. What we can expect is someone who can look out for us, just like every other group in this country is looking for a candidate who will look out for them.”

There’s a lot of conversation in Christian circles about Jeremiah 29, which is Jeremiah’s letter to the exiles in Babylon. The message Jeremiah had, and that the Lord had, for the exiles is that they should seek the peace and prosperity of the city where they’ve been planted, and multiply—they should maintain their convictions for the flourishing of others. The concern I have, and that many others have, is that in this time of cultural transformation in America, you’re going to have many evangelicals who just become Babylonians.

“It’s much easier to make people scared of evangelicals than trying to make an appeal to them.”

Green: Why is it, do you think, that some liberals—and specifically the Democratic Party—have been unwilling to do outreach to people who hold particular kinds of theological points of view?

Wear: They think, in some ways wrongly, but in other ways rightly, that it would put constraints around their policy agenda. So, for instance: You could make a case to evangelicals while trying to repeal the Hyde Amendment, [which prohibits federal funding for abortion in most circumstances,] but that’s really difficult. Reaching out to evangelicals doesn’t mean you have to become pro-life. It just means you have to not be so in love with how pro-choice you are, and so opposed to how pro-life we are.

The second thing is that there’s a religious illiteracy problem in the Democratic Party. It’s tied to the demographics of the country: More 20- and 30-year-olds are taking positions of power in the Democratic Party. They grew up in parts of the country where navigating religion was not important socially and not important to their political careers. This is very different from, like, James Carville in Louisiana in the ’80s. James Carville is not the most religious guy, but he gets religious people—if you didn’t get religious people running Democratic campaigns in the South in the ’80s, you wouldn’t win.

Another reason why they haven’t reached out to evangelicals in 2016 is that, no matter Clinton’s slogan of “Stronger Together,” we have a politics right now that is based on making enemies, and making people afraid. I think we’re seeing this with the Betsy DeVos nomination: It’s much easier to make people scared of evangelicals, and to make evangelicals the enemy, than trying to make an appeal to them.

“The Democratic Party used to welcome people who didn’t support abortion into the party. We are now so far from that, it’s insane.”

Green: I’ve written before about the rare breed that is the pro-life Democrat. Some portion of voters would likely identify as both pro-life and Democrat, but from a party point of view, it’s basically impossible to be a pro-life Democrat. Why do you think it is that the party has moved in that direction, and what, if anything, do you think it should do differently?

Wear: The spending that women’s groups have done is profound. 2012 was a year of historic investment from Planned Parenthood, and the campaign in 2016 topped it.

Number two, we’re seeing party disaffiliation as a way of signaling moral discomfort. A lot of pro-life Democrats were formerly saying, “My presence here doesn’t mean I agree with everything—I’m going to be an internal force that acts as a constraint or a voice of opposition on abortion.” Those people have mostly left the party.

Third, I think Democrats felt like their outreach wouldn’t be rewarded. For example: The president went to Notre Dame in May of 2009 and gave a speech about reducing the number of women seeking abortions. It was literally met by protests from the pro-life community. Now, there are reasons for this—I don’t mean to say that Obama gave a great speech and the pro-life community should have [acknowledged that]. But I think there was an expectation by Obama and the White House team that there would be more eagerness to find common ground.

Green: One could argue that among most Democratic leaders, there’s a lack of willingness to engage with the question of abortion on moral terms. Even Tim Kaine, for example—a guy who, by all accounts, deeply cares about his Catholic faith, and has talked about his personal discomfort with abortion—fell into line.

How would you characterize Democrats’ willingness to engage with the moral question of abortion, and why is it that way?

Wear: There were a lot of things that were surprising about Hillary’s answer [to a question about abortion] in the third debate. She didn’t advance moral reservations she had in the past about abortion. She also made the exact kind of positive moral argument for abortion that women’s groups—who have been calling on people to tell their abortion stories—had been demanding.

The Democratic Party used to welcome people who didn’t support abortion into the party. We are now so far from that, it’s insane. This debate, for both sides, is not just about the abortion rate; it’s not just about the legality of it. It’s a symbolic debate. It’s symbolic on the pro-choice side about the autonomy of women and their freedom to do what they want with their bodies. On the pro-life side, they care not just about the regulations around abortion, but whether there’s a cultural affirmation of life.

Even the symbolic olive branches have become less acceptable.

“We’ve allowed politics to take up emotional space in our lives that it’s not meant to take up.”

Green: If you were talking to a secular Democrat who is skeptical about the need to do outreach to conservative evangelicals or make a compromise on language surrounding social issues like abortion, same-sex marriage, etc., what would you say?

Wear: It’s sad that this is a throwaway response, but it’s the duty of statesmanship. It’s the duty of living in a pluralistic society to make a case to all folks.

The second would be that America is still a profoundly religious nation. There are reports that high-level Democratic leadership was not interested in reaching out to white Catholics. And they sure didn’t have a lot of interest in white evangelicals. That’s a huge portion of the electorate to throw out. So if the civic motivation doesn’t get you, let me make the practical argument: It doesn’t help you win elections if you’re openly disdainful toward the driving force in many Americans’ lives.

The Democratic Party is effectively broken up into three even thirds right now: religiously unaffiliated people, white Christians who are cultural Christians, and then people of color who are religious.

Green: And religious minorities.

Wear: Well, right, but because of their numbers—I’m speaking in general terms.

Barack Obama was the perfect transitional president from the old party to the new. He could speak in religious terms in a way that most white, secular liberals were not willing to confront him on. He “got away with” religious language and outreach that would get other Democratic politicians more robust critiques from the left. He was able to paper over a lot of the religious tensions in the party that other, less skilled politicians will not be able to paper over.

Green: You’re a little bit of a man in the wilderness. You have worked for the Democratic Party, but you have conservative views on social issues, and you are conservative in terms of theology. There just aren’t a lot of people like you. Does it feel lonely?

Wear: It’s not as lonely as it might appear on the outside.

One of the things I found at the White House and since I left is this class of people who aren’t driving the political decisions right now, and have significant forces against them, but who are not satisfied with the political tribalism that we have right now. I think we’re actually in a time of intense political isolation across the board. I’ve been speaking across the country for the year leading up to the election, and I would be doing these events, and without fail, the last questioner or second-to-last questioner would cry. I’ve been doing political events for a long time, and I’ve never seen that kind of raw emotion. And out of that, I came to the conclusion that politics was causing a deep spiritual harm in our country. We’ve allowed politics to take up emotional space in our lives that it’s not meant to take up.

Certainly, it would be a lot more comfortable for me professionally if I held the party line on everything. Politically, I definitely feel isolated. But a lot of people feel isolated right now. And personally, I don’t feel lonely because I find my community in the church. That has been a great bond.
Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2016, 05:23 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Obama and israel, strike and counter-strike

The next stage in Obama's all-out assault on Israel.
By Caroline Glick

Originally published by the Jerusalem Post.

UN Security Council Resolution 2334 was the first prong of outgoing President Barack Obama’s lame duck campaign against Israel.

US Secretary of State John Kerry’s speech on Wednesday was the second.

On January 15, stage 3 will commence in Paris.

At France’s lame duck President François Hollande’s international conference, the foreign ministers of some 50 states are expected to adopt as their own Kerry’s anti-Israel principles.

The next day it will be Obama’s turn. Obama can be expected to use the occasion of Martin Luther King Jr. Day to present the Palestinian war to annihilate Israel as a natural progression from the American Civil Rights movement that King led 50 years ago.

Finally, sometime between January 17 and 19, Obama intends for the Security Council to reconvene and follow the gang at the Paris conference by adopting Kerry’s positions as a Security Council resolution. That follow-on resolution may also recognize “Palestine” and grant it full membership in the UN.

True, Kerry said the administration will not put forward another Security Council resolution.

But as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu explained in his response to Kerry’s address, there is ample reason to suspect that France or Sweden, or both, will put forth such a resolution. Since the draft will simply be a restatement of Kerry’s speech, Obama will not veto it.

Whether or not Obama gets his second Security Council resolution remains to be seen. But whether he succeeds or fails, he’s already caused most of the damage. A follow-on resolution will only amplify the blow Israel absorbed with 2334.

Resolution 2334 harms Israel in two ways. First, it effectively abrogates Resolution 242 from 1967 which formed the basis of Israeli policy-making for the past 49 years. Second, 2334 gives a strategic boost to the international campaign to boycott the Jewish state.

Resolution 242 anchored the cease-fire between Israel and its neighbors at the end of the Six Day War. It stipulated that in exchange for Arab recognition of Israel’s right to exist in secure and defensible borders, Israel would cede some of the territories it took control over during the war.

Resolution 242 assumed that Israel has a right to hold these areas and that an Israeli decision to cede some of them to its neighbors in exchange for peace would constitute a major concession.

Resolution 242 is deliberately phrased to ensure that Israel would not be expected to cede all of the lands it took control over in the Six Day War. The resolution speaks of “territories,” rather than “the territories” or “all the territories” that Israel took control over during the war.

Resolution 2334 rejects 242’s founding assumptions.

Resolution 2334 asserts that Israel has no right to any of the lands it took control over during the war. From the Western Wall to Shiloh, from Hebron to Ariel, 2334 says all Israeli presence in the areas beyond the 1949 armistice lines is crime.

Given that Israel has no right to hold territory under 2334, it naturally follows that the Palestinians have no incentive to give Israel peace. So they won’t. The peace process, like the two-state solution, ended last Friday night to the raucous applause of all Security Council members.

As for the boycott campaign, contrary to what has been widely argued, 2334 does not strengthen the boycott of “settlements.” It gives a strategic boost to the boycott of Israel as a whole.

It calls on states “to distinguish in their relevant dealings, between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967.”

Since no Israeli firm makes that distinction, all Israeli economic activity is now threatened with boycott. Tnuva is an “occupation” dairy because it supplies communities beyond the 1949 lines.

Bank Hapoalim is an “occupation” bank because it operates ATM machines in post-1967 neighborhoods in Jerusalem. The Fox clothing chain is an “occupation” chain because it has a store in Gush Etzion. And so on and so forth.

Resolution 2334 gives Europe and its NGOs a green light to wage a complete trade and cultural boycott against all of Israel.

Obama is not using his final weeks in office to wage war on Israel because he hates Netanyahu.

He is not deliberately denying 3,500 years of Jewish history in the Land of Israel because the Knesset is set to pass the Regulations Law that will make it marginally easier for Jews to exercise property rights in Judea and Samaria, as Kerry and UN Ambassador Samantha Power claimed.

Obama’s onslaught against Israel is the natural endpoint of a policy he has followed since he first entered the White House. In June 2009, Obama denied the Jews’ 3,500 years of history in the Land of Israel in his speech in Cairo before an audience packed with members of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Instead of the truth, Obama adopted the Islamist propaganda lie that Israel was established because Europe felt guilty about the Holocaust.

Throughout his presidency, Obama has rejected the guiding principle of Resolution 242. His antisemitic demand that Israel deny its Jewish citizens their civil and property rights in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria simply because they are Jews is just as antithetical to 242 as is Resolution 2334.

In his speech, Kerry repeatedly castigated the government while flattering the Israeli Left in yet another attempt to divide and polarize Israeli society. Kerry’s professed support for the Israeli Left is deeply ironic because Israeli leftists are the primary casualties of Obama’s anti-Israel assault.

In the post-242 world that Obama initiated, the UN makes no distinction between Jerusalem and Nablus, between Gush Etzion and Jenin, or between Ma’aleh Adumim and Ramallah. In this world, Labor Party leader Isaac Herzog’s plan to retain a mere 2-3% of Judea and Samaria is no more acceptable than Bayit Yehudi leader Naftali Bennett’s plan to apply Israeli law to 60% of the area or to other plans calling for Israeli law to be applied to all of Judea and Samaria. All are equally unlawful. All are equally unacceptable.

For the next three weeks, the government’s focus must be centered on Obama and minimizing the damage he is able to cause Israel. Since Israel cannot convince Hollande to cancel his conference or Obama not to give his speech, Israeli efforts must be concentrated on scuttling Obama’s plan to enact a follow-on resolution.

To scuttle another resolution, Israel needs to convince seven members of the Security Council not to support it. Only measures that secure the support of nine out of 15 Security Council members are permitted to come to a vote. The states that are most susceptible to Israeli lobbying are Italy, Ethiopia, Japan, Egypt, Uruguay, Kazakhstan, Ukraine and Russia.

Netanyahu’s furious response to 2334 advance the goal of blocking a vote on a follow-on resolution in two ways. First, they create Israeli leverage in seeking to convince member states to oppose voting on an additional resolution before January 20.

Second, Netanyahu’s seemingly unrestrained response to the Obama administration’s onslaught enables Donald Trump to join him in pressuring Security Council members to oppose bringing a new resolution for a vote.

By taking an extreme position of total rejection of Obama’s actions, Netanyahu is enabling Trump to block a vote while striking a moderate tone.

In three weeks, Obama’s war with Israel will end. His final legacy – the destruction of the landfor- peace paradigm and the two-state policy-making model – obligate Israel, for the first time in 50 years, to determine by itself its long-term goals in relation to the international community, the Palestinians and Judea and Samaria.

Regarding the international community, the Security Council opened the door for its members to boycott Israel. As a result, Israel should show the UN and its factotums the door. Israel should work to de-internationalize the Palestinian conflict by expelling UN personnel from its territory.

The same is the case with the EU. Once Britain exits the EU, Israel should end the EU’s illegal operations in Judea and Samaria and declare EU personnel acting illegally persona non grata.

As for the Palestinians, Resolution 2334 obligates Israel to reconsider its recognition of the PLO. Since 1993, Israel has recognized the PLO despite its deep and continuous engagement in terrorism. Israel legitimized the PLO because the terrorist group was ostensibly its partner in peace. Now, after the PLO successfully killed the peace process by getting the Security Council to abrogate 242, Israel’s continued recognition of the PLO makes little sense. Neither PLO chief Mahmoud Abbas nor his deputies in Fatah – convicted, imprisoned mass murderer and terrorism master Marwan Barghouti, and Jibril Rajoub who said he wishes he had a nuclear bomb so he could drop it on Israel and who tried to get Israel expelled from FIFA – has any interest in recognizing Israel, let alone making peace with it. The same of course can be said for the PLO’s coalition partner Hamas.

An Israeli decision to stop recognizing the PLO will also have implications for the Trump administration.

In the aftermath of 2334, calls are steadily mounting in Congress for the US cancel its recognition of the PLO and end US financial support for the Palestinian Authority. If Israel has already ended its recognition of the PLO, chances will rise that the US will follow suit. Such a US move will have positive strategic implications for Israel.

There is also the question of the Palestinian militias that are deployed to Judea and Samaria as part of the peace process that Obama and the PLO officially ended last Friday. In the coming months, Israel will need to decide what to do about these hostile militias that take their orders from leaders who reject peaceful coexistence with Israel.

Finally, there are the territories themselves. For 50 years, Israel has used the land-for-peace paradigm as a way not to decide what to do with Judea and Samaria. Now that 242 has been effectively abrogated, Israel has to decide what it wants.

The no-brainer is to allow Jews to build wherever they have the legal right to build. If the UN says Israel has no rights to Jerusalem, then Israel has no reason to distinguish between Jerusalem and Elon Moreh.

More broadly, given that for the foreseeable future, there will be no Palestinian Authority interested in making peace with Israel, Israel needs to think about the best way to administer Judea and Samaria going forward. The obvious step of applying Israeli law to Area C now becomes almost inarguable.

Shortly before Obama took office eight years ago, he promised to “fundamentally transform” America. Trump’s election scuttled any chance he had of doing so.

But by enabling Resolution 2334 to pass in the Security Council, Obama has succeeded in fundamentally transforming the nature of the Palestinian conflict with Israel. Israel’s actions in the coming weeks will determine whether it is fundamentally transformed for better or for worse.
Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2016, 06:18 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Our World: Obama’s war against America

Our World: Obama’s war against America
Obama’s strategic campaign against his country can only be defeated by a counter campaign by his successor.
By Caroline Glick

In 1989, following her tenure as President Ronald Reagan’s ambassador to the United Nations, Jeane Kirkpatrick described how the Palestinians have used the UN to destroy Israel.

Following outgoing US President Barack Obama’s assault on Israel at the UN Security Council last Friday, longtime UN observer Claudia Rossett wrote an important article at PJMedia where she recalled Kirkpatrick’s words.

In “How the PLO was legitimized,” published in Commentary, Kirkpatrick said that Yasser Arafat and the PLO worked “to come to power through international diplomacy – reinforced by murder.”

Kirkpatrick explained, “The long march through the UN has produced many benefits for the PLO. It has created a people where there was none; a claim where there was none. Now the PLO is seeking to create a state where there already is one. That will take more than resolutions and more than an ‘international peace conference.’ But having succeeded so well over the years in its campaign to delegitimize Israel, the PLO might yet also succeed in bringing the campaign to a triumphant conclusion, with consequences for the Jewish state that would be nothing short of catastrophic.”

As Rossett noted, in falsely arguing that Obama’s support for Friday’s UN Security Council Resolution 2334 is in line with Reagan’s policies, Obama’s UN Ambassador Samantha Power deliberately distorted the historical record of US policy toward Israel and the PLO-led UN onslaught against the Jewish state.

As Rosett noted, in stark contrast to Power’s self-serving lie, neither Reagan nor George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton nor George W. Bush would have ever countenanced a resolution like 2334.

Obama’s predecessors’ opposition to the war against Israel at the UN was not merely an expression of their support for Israel. They acted also out of a fealty to US power, which is directly targeted by that war.

It is critical that we understand how this is the case, and why the implications of Resolution 2334 are disastrous to the US itself.

Resolution 2334 is being presented as an “anti-settlement” resolution. But it is not an anti-settlement resolution.

Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria and neighborhoods in Jerusalem are being used – as they always have been used – as a means of delegitimizing the Jewish state as a whole, and legitimizing Palestinian terrorists and Islamic terrorists more generally. Resolution 2334 serves to criminalize Israel and its people and to undermine Israel’s right to exist, while embracing Palestinian terrorists and empowering them in their war to annihilate Israel.

America’s historic refusal to countenance such actions at the UN Security was never a purely altruistic position. It was also a stand for American power and the inherent justice of American superpower status and global leadership.

Throughout most of its history, the UN has served as a proxy battlefield first of the Cold War, and since the destruction of the Soviet Union, for the war against the US-led free world. Beginning in the early 1960s, the Soviets viewed the political war against Israel at the UN as a means to undermine the moral basis for the US-led West. If Israel, the only human rights defending state in the Middle East, and the US’s only stable ally in the region could be delegitimized, then the very coherence of the US-led Western claim to moral superiority against the totalitarian Soviet empire would be undone.

Hence, the first Soviet attempt at the UN to castigate Zionism, the Jewish national liberation movement, as a form of racism was made in 1965, two years before Israel took control of Judea and Samaria and united Jerusalem in the Six Day War.

That attempt failed. But nine years later the wording first raised in 1965 was adopted by the UN General Assembly which passed resolution 3379 slandering libeled Zionism as “a form of racism.”

With their automatic majority in the General Assembly and all other UN organs, the Soviets used the Palestinian war against Israel as a proxy for their war against America. After the demise of the Soviet Union, the Islamic bloc, backed by members of the former Soviet bloc, the non-aligned bloc and the Europeans continued their campaign. The only thing that kept them from winning was the US and its Security Council veto.

When Obama chose to lead the anti-Israel lynch mob at the Security Council last week, he did more than deliver the PLO terrorist organization its greatest victory to date against Israel. He delivered a strategic victory to the anti-American forces that seek to destroy the coherence of American superpower status. That is, he carried out a strategic strike on American power.

By leading the gang rape of Israel on Friday, Obama undermined the rationale for American power. Why should the US assert a sovereign right to stand against the radical forces that control the UN? If US agrees that Israel is committing a crime by respecting the civil and human rights of its citizens to live in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, then how can America claim that it has the right to defend its own rights and interests, when those clash with the views of the vast majority of state members of the UN? Following Obama’s assault on Israel Friday, Senators Lindsay Graham and Ted Cruz called for the US to end its financial support for the UN at least until the Security Council abrogates Resolution 2334. They are correct.

But it isn’t anger at how Obama has and is expected to continue to use the Security Council to imperil Israel that should inform the incoming Trump administration’s actions. Rather a determination to maintain US power and secure its national security requires that the UN be permanently defunded and defanged.

For eight years, through his embrace and empowerment of US enemies, betrayal and weakening of US allies, emaciation of the US armed forces and repeated apologies for America’s past assertions of global leadership, Obama has waged a determined war against US superpower status. The last vestige of the strategic and moral rationale for US power was the protection America afforded Israel at the Security Council.

Now with that gone, it has become a strategic imperative for the US to render the UN irrelevant. This can only be undertaken by permanently defunding this corrupt institution and using the US’s Security Council veto to end the UN’s role as the arbiter of international peace and security, by among other things, ending the deployment of UN forces to battle zones.

Only by stripping the UN of its financial wherewithal to assault US allies and American interests and by denying it the institutional and operational capacity to serve as an arbiter of disputes morally and legally superior to the US can America protect its sovereignty and advance its interests.

Only by denying those associated with the UN the prestige that confers to an institution legitimized by democrat and autocrat alike can the incoming Trump administration rebuild America’s reputation and power.

It is not surprising that Obama is carrying out the final act of his presidency at the UN. Obama has made no attempt to hide his desire to eliminate America’s independence of action. By elevating the post of UN ambassador to a cabinet level position at the outset of his presidency, Obama signaled his conviction that this corrupt institution is the equal of the US government.

This early signal was transformed into an open policy when Obama used the Security Council as a means to bypass the US Senate in implementing his nuclear deal with Iran.

Now, by ignoring the near consensus position of both parties that the US should block anti-Israel resolutions from being adopted at the Security Council and plotting further action against Israel at the Security Council in his final weeks in office, Obama has made clear his position and his aim.

Obama is not leading the war against Israel at the Security Council simply to advance the PLO’s war for the annihilation of Israel. He is acting in this manner to undermine the legitimacy of American power.

Obama’s strategic campaign against his country can only be defeated by a counter campaign by his successor.

Luckily, by eschewing multilateral entanglements in favor of bilateral partnerships during his presidential campaign, President-elect Donald Trump has demonstrated that he understands the threat and will adopt the only possible means of countering it. To reassert and rebuild the rationale for American power, the Trump administration must permanently defund the UN and reject its legitimacy as an institution of global governance.
Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2017, 04:11 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Obama's Disastrous Legacy

Obama's Disastrous Legacy
A handy list of the failures that best define our outgoing 44th president.
By James Arlandson

Obama is proud of himself. He and his devoted followers believe he has left America in better shape than when he found it.


To avoid the accusation of bias and (fake) "fake news," let's use the mainstream news media and government websites, in almost every case, to prove that Obama and his core followers are misjudging their own country and the world.

Foreign Affairs

1. His Benghazi policy was deadly for four Americans.

These deaths happened in September 2012, before his re-election, so the DNC had to adopt a false narrative about a video because terrorist groups were supposedly in retreat.

Politico: Final Benghazi report details administration failures-

2. Obama withdrew the troops from Iraq prematurely.

We should have kept a military base there for as long as we have in Germany, Japan, and Korea. But Obama believes the standard leftist lie that America around the globe causes problems, not solves them.

CBS News: Leon Panetta Criticizes Obama for Iraq Withdrawal-

3. The rise of ISIS "took me by surprise."

It did not surprise all of U.S. intelligence. The generals told him trouble was brewing.

CNN: ISIS rise surprised Obama, US intelligence -

4. Syria and northern Iraq are disaster zones.

Refugees are streaming out of the area.

NPR: As East Aleppo Falls, Accounts Of Carnage – Then A Cease-Fire:

5. ISIS has gone global.

CNN: ISIS goes global: 143 attacks in 29 countries have killed 2043 -

6. U.S.-Israel relations has deteriorated under Obama.

L.A. Times: Obama's tense relationship with Netanyahu colors Obama's legacy on Israel -

His recent refusal to vote against the U.N. resolution that restricted Israel's right to build where it thinks best in Jerusalem indicates the deterioration.

WaPo: U.S. declines to veto U.N. Security Council resolution for Israel to stop Jewish settlement activity -

7. Russia did provocative flybys near our ships.

The Hill: Russia rattles nerves by buzzing US ship -

8. Obama said on a live mic to Medvedev that he'd be more "flexible" after the 2012 election.

N.Y. Times: Microphone catches a candid Obama -

9. The Iran deal is a betrayal without getting anything in return except promises.

We will one day wake up to hear the news that Iran can weaponize nuclear power.

N.Y. Times: Iran tests long-range missile, possibly violating nuclear accord -

10. About 400 million dollars for hostage payment.

We should have gotten the hostages out from the very beginning – without begging or paying.

CNN: US sent plane with $400 million in cash to Iran -

11. American ships captured by Iran showed weakness to a second-rate terrorist nation.

CNN: Navy report: Failure at every level for US ships captured by Iran -

12. The Cuba deal got nothing in return.

Dissidents are still in prison; the economy shows no sign that it will come out from under communist oppression.

PBS: What does the U.S. get out of the Cuba deal? -

13. China's expansion in South Pacific will cause conflict.

Like Russia, China took the measure of the leftist president and concluded he is weak.

ABC (Australia): China extends its influence in the South Pacific -

14. He shows no caution in his immigration philosophy – both from south of the border and from Syrian war zones.

CNN: Deadlocked Supreme Court deals big blow to Obama immigration plan -

The Hill: Obama vows to 'speed up' efforts to admit Syrian refugees -

These suffering humans need safe zones closer to home.

15. He is all in for climate change.

One question: Did the climate change before humans got here? Of course. So there are many factors to its changes beyond a prosperous economy that the left wants to put in shackles.

White House: FACT SHEET: Obama Administration Highlights Opportunities for Building Community Climate Resilience across the Nation -

16. Gitmo prisoners have been released and gone back to fight for terrorist groups.

WaPo: Obama administration approves its largest single release of Guantanamo detainees ever -

National Economy

17. The corporate tax rate is higher than it is in other industrialized nations and third highest in the world.

"The United States has the third highest general top marginal corporate income tax rate in the world, at 38.92 percent."

Tax Foundation: Corporate Income Tax Rates around the World, 2016 -

18. Median household incomes have dropped over the past seven years.

It has dropped from about 57K (2007-2008) to about 52K (2014). Thankfully, however, the incomes have recently risen, but rising from the basement is a small step.

Real Clear Markets: The Obvious for the Decline in Median Income - (The obvious is that people are working fewer hours.)

19. Obamacare is still a disaster.

In 2016, the overall premium increase across the fifty states is 25%. In many states, the rise is much higher. It means that businesses won't hire full time, and they reduce the number of hours their current employees can work.

Fiscal Times: Here's How Much Obamacare Premiums Are Rising in All Fifty States -

20. We're broke: The national operating debt has reached gargantuan proportions.

The debt is almost $20 trillion, about $3-4 trillion over the yearly GDP.

Federal Debt Clock -

21. The stimulus didn't stimulate, but put us deeper in debt.

Investor Politics: 7 Ugly Truths about Obama's $787B Stimulus -

22. As of November 2016, the U-6 unemployment number is 9.3%.

This measurement, not the U-3 line, reveals the true unemployment number.

Bureau of Labor Statistics: Economic News Release -

23. Economic growth is slow.

It hasn't broken through 3% – a historic record. "On Friday, the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) reported that 2015 U.S. real GDP (RGDP) growth was 2.38%. No matter what revisions are subsequently made, 2015 will have been the tenth year in a row that RGDP growth came in at under 3.0%. The longest previous such run in U.S. economic history was only four years, and the last time that this happened was during the Great Depression (1930 - 1933)."

Real Clear Markets: Obama's Sad Record on Economic Growth -

24. The federal government has grown more than it did under Bush and Clinton.

CNNMoney: Did Obama really make government bigger? -

The article's answer: "By many measures, the federal government has indeed grown during Obama's tenure."

The bigger the public sector, the smaller and slower the private sector.

Domestic and Social Issues

25. The IRS harassed conservative groups.

"The IRS admitted ( that it targeted nonprofit political advocacy groups with the terms 'tea party' or 'patriot' in their names."

WaPo: Everything you need to know about the IRS scandal in one FAQ -

26. As of December 2016, there have been five terror attacks on U.S. soil since Obama took office.

That number doesn't count the ones that have failed.

Free Beacon: There Have Been Six Successful Acts of Islamic Terrorism on American Soil Since 9/11: Five happened after 2008 -

For another report in September 2016, see the New Observer Online: ISIS Terror Attacks Sweep US. -

27. Racial division is worse.

N.Y. Times: Race Relations Are at Lowest Point in Obama Presidency, Poll Finds -

28. Black people are doing worse economically.

Atlantic: How Barack Obama Failed Black Americans -

29. The murder rate has gone up.

Chicago leads the way with a 41.8% increase over last year, but there 14 other troubled cities.

N.Y. Times: A Handful of Cities Are Driving 2016's Rise in Murders -

USA Today: Chicago hits grim milestone of 700 murders for 2016 and the year's not over -

30. Heroin smuggling into the U.S. from Mexico has increased.

USA Today: Why heroin is Mexican drugcartels' new product of choice
Open borders – based on a refusal to tighten them up – allows for the surge.

31. P.C. culture has become more intense.

WaPo: Liberal intolerance is on the rise on America's college campuses -

Obama never said "Merry Christmas" on White House greeting cards. Trump says he intends to change that P.C. policy.

Atlantic: Merry Christmas vs. Happy Holidays, Round 2,016: The perennial debate gets a new coat of cheer from Donald Trump. -

32. The rise of the radical left has led to less religious freedom.

Bakers and florists have lost their businesses because they refused to share in a same-sex commitment ceremony.

PBS Newshour: Why some wedding businesses say 'I don't' to gay couples -

33. His SCOTUS appointments have not respected the Constitution.

The left loves it because they need to lead stupid sheep, also known as the Average Common Sense American, toward their enlightenment.

But Article Three is slapping around Article One. It's rule by judges, a kritocracy (

34. He spent $85 million for vacation expenses over eight years, paid by our taxes.

The Blaze: Here's how much the Obama family has spent on vacations over the last eight years -

35. Executive orders were abused.

They were a reaction to GOP congressional victories in 2010 and 2014. It's not so much the sheer number of orders (though that's bad enough), but the scope of them.

Federal Register: 2016 Barack Obama Executive Orders -

USA Today: Obama's executive orders you never hear about -

36. The only good news: The Democrat Party has been decimated.

"His legacy regrettably includes the more than 1,000 Democrats who lost their elections during his two terms. Republicans now have total control in half of America's states."

N.Y. Times: Was Barack Obama Bad For Democrats? -

Obama has been an eight-year mistake for this wonderful country. It's soon to be a happy day when he is gone.

Last edited by Paparock; 01-05-2017 at 05:05 PM..
Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2017, 05:13 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Default A Psychoanalysis of Obama-Kerry Postmodern Jew-Hating

A Psychoanalysis of Obama-Kerry Postmodern Jew-Hating
How narcissists become anti-Semites.
By Deborah C. Tyler

In the last gasps of their spurned administration, Barack Obama and John Kerry have been frantically plotting to damage the Jewish people. Their lashing out is like the writhing of an animal after it has been killed. Obama's scheming to have the U.N. declare the Jews interlopers at the holiest sites in their own land approaches psychotic levels of anti-Judaism. Kerry's statement that Israel cannot be Jewish and also a democracy is unbalanced raving, in view of the fact that Israel has been a Jewish state and an exemplary democracy for almost 70 years.

For decades, the proclamations of the trans-national left have echoed with the ancient theme of Jew-hating. Obama and Kerry are not Nazis. But their words and deeds have a familiar odor: that the real threat to the world is still those Jews. Their attack on Jews is not genocidal racism arising from authoritarian national fascism. The bigotry of Obama and Kerry arises in an era characterized not by national fascism, but by post-national narcissism. Their statements are designed to distract from the fact that their administration has accommodated terrorism, genocide, war, and persecution in places as far flung as Syria and Illinois.

Projective psychopathology is eternal; political opportunism is ever-changing. This psychoanalysis updates the understanding of postmodern Jew-hating and why Obama and Kerry exemplify the malady. It explains why Jews still serve as scapegoats in the narcissistic age as they did in the authoritarian one, answering not "why?," but "why again?"

After World War II, a generation of shocked and reeling intellectuals devoted themselves to understanding fascism, Nazism, and the Holocaust. Psychologists wanted to understand how, with so little resistance, one crazed man was able to incite the German people into unspeakable crimes against a non-aggressive, law-abiding minority. Most of the psychoanalysts had a special need to understand because they were Jews themselves, many of whom had suffered horribly at the hands of the Nazis. They concluded that mass, rationalized hatred arises to fend off unconscious shame, which threatens the ego, and is projected against a safe, non-threatening displacement object – in this case, the Jew. The individual psychodynamics of projecting shame accumulate into collective bigotry and persecution against a blamed minority. Anti-Semitism of the Reich was the projective recourse for the wounded national ego of the German people after the First World War.

This same projective psychopathology can be seen in Obama and Kerry, although the content of what they cannot face in themselves is very different. They cannot face their hypocrisy, faithlessness, and cowardice in their leadership of the United States. They will not recognize the real dangers facing the nation they claim to serve. They displace their failures against those least likely to send a terrorist into an American club, a plane into an American building, or a bomb into an American street – namely, the Jews.

The German commanders didn't intentionally lose World War I. Barack Obama campaigned to be the most powerful military commander on Earth, yet he is intentionally losing the war on terrorism. He has torn America's borders to shreds and stealthily imported thousands of aliens who have no wish to assimilate into a free society, many of whom have a criminal mindset. He has given aid to America's enemies and hosted terrorists at the White House. His favorite military family is that of a deserter.

What better strategy for the Neville Chamberlain of Islamic terrorism than to blame the Jews?

John Kerry enlisted for military service in a time of war with a plan to get in and out and nominate himself for unearned medals. His service is one of legendary disloyalty. His betrayal of fellow servicemen was so memorable that it cost him the presidency and provided the gerund "Swift-boating." Although appointed to serve only one nation and sworn to defend only one Constitution, he intoned: "We are living in a borderless world." Here's Kerry's attitude towards risking one's life to serve one's nation: "[i]f you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."

Obama and Kerry cannot face the narcissistic injury of their disloyalty and shirking. Though of different generations in blaming America first – Obama's anti-Americanism is more racially oriented and Kerry's more elitist disdain – they pulled together in undermining their nation and projecting their failures, not against America's enemies, but against the Jews.

In the mid-twentieth century, psychologists also theorized a personality type – the authoritarian personality – to explain fascism and the Holocaust. The authoritarian personality is prone to obedience and submission when told by an authority figure to harm a fellow human. From the 1940s, this personality was ascribed to individuals and groups complicit in racist or anti-Semitic violence. However, the concept is obsolete and an impediment to understanding contemporary left-wing Jew-hating. American society is not authoritarian; it is narcissistic. The narcissists' foremost need is to feel good about themselves, not to serve a national purpose. Obama, Kerry, and fellow Democrats need to feel like high-toned peacemakers while accommodating terrorism, mass murder, and genocide, such as against the Middle Eastern Christians communities. And they do feel very good about themselves. In neutering the U.S. military and focusing attention on Israel and the Jews, they feel great about themselves.

Nazism arose in what is called the modern era. In that era, understood to have ended in the mid-twentieth century, the power and importance of the nation-state reached its apex. That context of over-heated nationalism scapegoated Jews and others to energize German military conquest.

The modern era is over. (So far, it's been baby and bathwater, because wealthy nation-states seem to be decomposing into lawless territories under the pressure of mass immigration.) In the postmodern era, Western democratic nationalism is in rapid decline, being replaced here by the anti-American narcissistic personality. Just as the authoritarians of the Reich imagined they could exterminate the Jews and conquer the world, and everything would work out just fine, today's narcissistic left, who feel so good about not being racist, insist that mass immigration, preferably of non-Christians, can continue to overrun their nation and everything is going to be fine.

Focusing on the Jewish problem works to stabilize this insanity once again. But this time, Jew-hating is not psychologically tasked with ridding the unconscious mind of nationalist weakness; it is to rid the mind of guilt over failure to protect one's nation. Jew-hating serves a narcissistic purpose of unearned moral superiority. When I am brave enough to blame the Jews, I feel good about myself.

Academic and cultural elites find it convenient to focus on the past bigotries of the mythic authoritarian, hoping to spot a white hood somewhere. So much pleasanter than facing reality. Incidentally, theories of social conformity and authoritarianism have been so influential that they established in the even minimally educated mind an equivalency between patriotism and fascism. If you love America, you must be a fascist. A stadium of people chanting USA! USA! are not patriots; they are Nazis. The lingering effects of an obsolete theory is why shallow-thinking, emotionally overwrought people like certain Rockettes, Mormon sopranos, and Glenn Beck succumb to calling Donald Trump a Nazi.

Hannah Arendt wrote of the resentment that fueled the Holocaust: "The social resentment of the lower middle classes against the Jews turned into a highly explosive political element[.]" Today, the social class structure of Jew-hating has reversed. In postmodern society, it is not the lower middle classes who resent the Jews; it is the elites. The lower classes are not seeking a fuhrer; they are not authoritarian, nor do they have unconscious shame about shirking and disloyalty. On the contrary, the lower middle and working classes tend to love America and are bearing the burden of defending her. They have no need of a scapegoat. It is the upper classes, including much of a complicit American Jewry, who have a need to defend against narcissistic injury and to blame the Jews.
Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2017, 02:25 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Thumbs down Scorched israel

Obama sets a diplomatic fire to the Jewish State as he departs the Oval Office.
By Deborah Weiss

Literally weeks prior to Obama’s departure from the Oval office, his Administration makes a series of moves that light a diplomatic fire to Israel on his way out the door.

Last week, UN Security Council Resolution 2334 passed, condemning all settlement activity on what the resolution referred to as "occupied territory" in Israel, asserting that such activity is a “flagrant violation of international law.” The Obama Administration abstained from the vote, parting from a long historical precedent of the U.S. opposing anti-Israel resolutions. America’s refusal to protect Israel through its veto power, paved the way for an anti-settlement resolution to pass for the first time in decades.

This resolution has all kinds of ramifications including but not limited to the following: 1) the territory in Judea and Samaria can now be referred to as "occupied territory" rather than its proper legal status which is “territory of undetermined permanent status”; 2) it can potentially lead to Israel being called to the International Criminal Court and prosecuted for settlement building; 3) Israel can potentially now be sanctioned for its settlement activity; 4) it sets the stage for rampant boycotts against Israel by the UN (more on this later) and 5) makes it acceptable for EU countries to mark on their products where the products were made so people can boycott companies in the West bank. 6) Most importantly, this resolution takes off the negotiating table, the possible transfer of land for peace in potential discussions between the so-called "Palestinians" and the Israelis. Instead, it pressures the Israelis to capitulate to Palestinian demands while getting nothing in return. It leaves no incentive for the Palestinians to put a halt to their terrorist activity or for Hamas leadership to recognize Israel as a Jewish State.

In keeping with the spirit of former agreements, the UN should refrain from trying to create a state of Palestine absent face to face negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Though UNSCR 2334 focuses on condemnation of Israel, it is the Palestinians, and not the Israelis who refuse to engage in bilateral discussions and instead are trying to make an end run around face to face negotiations.

In recent days, UK officials claim credit (or blame, depending on one’s viewpoint), for negotiating the language of the resolution and influencing its passage, but Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Israeli Ambassador Ron Dermer assert that they have indisputable evidence that it was the U.S. who worked behind the scenes directly with the Palestinians to orchestrate this diplomatic attack on Israel. Either way, the U.S. cannot claim to be merely a disinterested observer, given its power on the UN Security Council, and in light of Secretary Kerry’s staunch criticism of Israel, delivered in his speech following passage of the resolution.

I hope all the "pro-Israel" Democrats, especially if Jewish, are happy that they voted for Obama based on delusional claims by the New York Times and the MSM that Obama was “pro-Israel”. The rest of us knew that Obama was not a friend of Israel’s from the onset. He is in fact, the most anti-Israel president we've had since Jimmy Carter, with exactly the mindset that should be expected from someone who was schooled in Kenyan Madrassas and whose half-brother is a leadership member of the Islamic Da’wa organization in Sudan, a radical pro-Sharia organization in Africa.

On the same day that UNSC Resolution 2334 passed, the UN got busy to work to creating a blacklist of companies that do business with any Jews in Judea, Samaria as well as East Jerusalem. And though the Obama Administration opposed the creation of this list, once the list was a fait de complete, the Obama Administration voted for the resolution that passed the proposed budget in the UN General Assembly which included funding to maintain a data base of the blacklisted companies. There is also a small budget for a staffer to maintain the data base.

Subsequent to passage of UNSCR 2234, State Secretary Kerry made a speech condemning Israel and defending the U.S.’ official position. But the damage isn’t done yet. On January 15, 2017, there will be an international gathering of 70 countries, supposedly to discuss the way forward to a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. Though the conference is called the “Paris Peace Conference”, ironically, neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians will be present. It’s unclear whether Kerry will be in attendance personally, but the U.S. will undoubtedly have official representation.

Three “working groups” within the conference will be addressing issues that are purportedly designed to enable the international community to take actions that will induce the relevant parties toward a peace plan down the road. Each country can determine which group it wants to join. The three working areas are: 1) civil society and institution building (which focuses on perceptions on the ground of both sides and the facilitation of dialogue) 2) capacity building (which Palestinians have suggested should constitute recommendations for “border crossing and infrastructure” and 3) economic aid which is going to be directed to Palestinians.

Statements by Netanyahu and other pro-Israel proponents express anxiety that the results of the conference will lead to more harm to Israel. Subsequent to the conference, many fear that the Middle East Quartet which includes the U.S., Russia, the UN and the EU will draft another UN resolution for the US Security Council, which will lock in the proposals suggested at the Paris conference. There is great concern that if this happens, the outcome will be detrimental to the State of Israel and difficult for the next Administration to undo. Security Council resolutions, unlike General Assembly resolutions are legally binding and therefore potentially have more dire ramifications.

It can be no coincidence that all of this is occurring just days prior to the commencement of the incoming Trump Administration. Obama himself waited until the last weeks of his presidency to reveal his true anti-Israel colors. He needed to wait until after he was re-elected, his two terms were almost complete and the next presidential election was over so his faux pro-Israel stance was no longer necessary. Expressing his true anti-Israel sentiments earlier simply wouldn’t have been expedient or politically feasible. Though the Obama Administration claims that its position on UNSC Resolution 2334 was consistent with prior Democrat and Republican positions in the past, apparently Congress disagrees, and is working on a bi-partisan congressional resolution condemning the UNSC resolution’s passage.

Obama is wrecking the house on his way out of office. He no longer needs his pro-Israel political chips. During the last days of his presidency, he is proving to do a lot of damage to Israel (and other foreign policy fronts) and there’s still time for him to do more. In my view, he is sticking it to Israel for two reasons: first, the views expressed now are what he always believed and he no longer has to hide it. His true colors are coming out. Second, he is doing everything he can on foreign policy matters to make things as difficult as possible for Trump when he becomes President.

Despite all this, it is worth noting that Trump --- you know, the guy the Left is calling Hitler, is the only one standing up for Israel, and indeed portends to be one of the most pro-Israel presidents that the US has ever seen.
Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2017, 02:35 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation How the democrats became the anti-israel party

The Left can’t stop hating and killing Jews.
By Daniel Greenfield

Democrats have come down with a wicked virus. Somewhere along the way they caught Nazi fever.

It’s not the Nazi fever of the fevered headlines in which Trump is the new Fuhrer and Republicans are the new Third Reich.

The truth is that there’s only one major political party in this country that supports the murder of Jews.

The Democrats demand the ethnic cleansing of Jews from Jerusalem. They fund the mass murder of Jews by nuclear fire, rocket, bullet, bomb and bloody knife. And they collaborate and defend that terror.

President Clinton was the first to openly fund Islamic terrorists killing Jews. Men, women and children across Israel were shot and blown up by terrorists funded by his administration. And when terror victims sought justice, instead of protecting them from Iran, he protected Iran’s dirty money from them.

And he was not the last.

Secretary of State John Kerry and National Security Adviser Susan Rice collaborated with the leaders of a terrorist organization, with American and Israeli blood on its hands, on a UN attack on Israel that demands that Jews be banned from moving into neighborhoods and areas claimed by Islamic terrorists.

A leaked transcript showed Kerry conspiring with Saeb Erekat, who has praised the mass murderers of Jews and spewed anti-Semitism. Erekat is called a “negotiator”, a strange term considering that the PLO and its various front groups, including the Palestinian Authority, refuse to negotiate with Israel.

Erekat has made his position on the Jewish State quite clear. “We cannot accept the Jewish state – Israel as a Jewish state – not today, not tomorrow and not in a hundred years.”

Instead of reproving Erekat, Susan Rice warned him about Trump. Rice, like the rest of Obama’s team, was not only closer to the terrorists than to Israel, but was closer to the terrorists than to Trump.

Obama praised PLO boss Abbas despite the terrorist leader’s own admission, “There is no difference between our policies and those of Hamas.” The terror organization headed by Obama’s pal had honored a monster ( who butchered a 13-year-old Jewish girl ( in her own bedroom as a “martyr”.

The White House backed the Muslim Brotherhood whose “spiritual” witch doctor had praised Hitler and expressed a wish that Muslims would be able to finish the Holocaust.

Sheikh Rashid Ghannouchi, another beneficiary of Obama's Jihadist Spring, endorsed genocide. "There are no civilians in Israel. The population—males, females and children... can be killed.”

When this monster, who had called for the extermination of the Jews, visited the United States, he was honored at a dinner whose ( speakers included Obama’s Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State.

If the left really wants to find Hitler and Nazism, it ought to look in the mirror. The Democrats have become a political movement that aids and celebrates the mass murderers of Jews.

And they keep playing the victim.

Imitating the tactics of the Muslim terrorists that Israel was at war with, Obama would pick a fight with one of the world’s smallest countries and then pretend that it had assaulted him for no reason at all.

Israel was always snubbing, insulting and humiliating him by doing such outrageous things as living in houses, addressing Congress or complaining about the aid he was providing to Iran’s nuclear weapons program. Now he leaves office, and just like Jimmy Carter, he is still whining about the Jews.

When the Dems backed Obama, they pulled an “Ellison”. They took a bigot with an ugly background and made him king. Some wanted to believe that his views were more moderate than associates like Jeremiah Wright (“Them Jews ain’t going to let him talk to me") and Ali Abuminah (“Making Yom Kippur a UN holiday to honor the genocidal ‘state’ of Israel would be sure way to increase global anti-Jewish sentiment.”) Others knew exactly what they were getting with Barack Hussein Obama.

Now Obama has taken off his mask. You can see Jeremiah Wright and Ali Abuminah leering through.

Any genuinely pro-Israel supporters must admit the truth. Those who refuse aren’t in denial anymore. They are playing the same game of feigned moderation that Obama was all along.

Obama’s unmasking also tears off the Dem disguise.

Democrats wanted to have their cake and eat it too. They wanted to be able to pretend that they were pro-Israel and hit up Jewish donors for cash while advocating policies that were killing Jews. They wanted to send billions of dollars to terrorists in the West Bank and Iran to kill Jews before stopping by AIPAC to deliver meaningless speeches about how much Israel means to them.

And those Jews who put the values of the left ahead of Jewish values wanted to pretend that there was no contradiction. Now that Great Big Lie is coming apart. And Obama’s war on Israel helped kill it.

Obama’s attack and the rise of Keith Ellison mark the end of all illusions about Israel. The booing of Jerusalem, the Democrat boycott of Netanyahu’s speech and the Iran nuke sellout were all signposts on the road. This is the end of the road. The lame jackass has drifted all the way to the left side.

And the left had been in the business of oppressing and killing Jews for a long time. As the Democrats moved to the left, they also went into the business of financing the murder of Jews.

President Clinton was the first to openly fund Islamic terrorists killing Jews. Obama took that money and doubled, tripled and quadrupled it. That terror funding has been justified by the pursuit of a phantom “two-state solution” and “nuclear deal” that were nothing more than Islamic terrorist plots to destroy Israel.

But as the Democrats have become the radical left, they are abandoning the pretense that they kill Jews because they like them and that they fund Islamic terror only to help Israel.

They are becoming an anti-Israel party in name as well as in fact.

In the warm spring of his final year, President George W. Bush arrived in Israel. In a marked contrast with his successor who refused to speak in Israel’s parliament in Jerusalem, he addressed the Knesset.

"Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals," President Bush told the audience, which included veterans of the fight against Islamic terror.

To thunderous applause, he denounced the "false comfort of appeasement".

“America stands with you in breaking up terrorist networks and denying the extremists sanctuary. And America stands with you in firmly opposing Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions,” he declared.

"Some people suggest that if the United States would just break ties with Israel, all our problems in the Middle East would go away. This is a tired argument that buys into the propaganda of our enemies, and America rejects it utterly.”

America may reject it. But the Democrats do not.

After Kerry’s attack, Trump tweeted, “Stay strong Israel, January 20th is fast approaching!” The period between January 20, 2009 and January 20, 2017 marked a dark time in American and Israeli history.

The darkness is lifting. It’s morning in America. It’s morning in Jerusalem.
Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2017, 03:14 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation ASSANGE: Obama administration destroying public records ‘now’

ASSANGE: Obama administration destroying public records ‘now’

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange says the Obama administration is destroying public records in the final days in office.

Just days ago, Assange offered a $30,000 reward to any administration employee who would publicly expose any official disposing of information.

During a Periscope press conference on Monday, Assange said the most important thing for Americans to do is to ensure Obama is not destroying those records.

“Past administrations of both Republican and Democratic players have engaged in mass destruction of records as they left office,” Assange said in response to a question.

“We are told that destruction of records is occurring now in different parts of the Obama administration in different departments or agencies.

“That’s what happens when an administration leaves office,” Assange said.

“Our philosophy is that such information is a part of history. It belongs, legally and philosophically, to the American people and more broadly, insofar as the United States interacts with the world, it belongs to the people of the world.

“It is part of human history and the destruction of major archives of human history, frankly, should be formally listed as a crime against humanity because those archives belong to humanity,” he said.

He said those records are what we use to understand the world around us and to form new observations.

“To destroy them is absolutely and egregious act. One understands the political motivation for it,” Assange contended, adding it is done to “eliminate small political risks by destroying major elements of history.”

Reminding listeners of the $30,000 reward, Assange said, “Our request to system administrators in the Obama administration goes for other administrations around the world as well, is take the data now.

“Just take it now. Keep it under your bed, or with your mother and then you can give that to Wikileaks or other journalists at your leisure,” he said.

“Get hold of that history and protect it,” Assange said, “because that is something that belongs to humanity and does not belong to a political party.”
Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2017, 04:40 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Obama Should Be Tried and Hung For Treason!

Obama Should Be Tried and Hung For Treason! Paparock

Can the Iran deal get any worse?
By Ari Lieberman

“The worst agreement in U.S. diplomatic history,” that was the way Charles Krauthammer characterized the Iran deal back in July 2015. Of course, when Krauthammer made that very accurate assessment, he had no way of knowing that the deal was even worse than originally envisioned.

The Iran deal’s ancillary aspects, which the administration tried to keep secret from Congress, included ransom payments ( totaling $1.7 billion to Iran and secret side agreements negotiated ( between the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the Islamic Republic. One of the most absurd provisions of that secretive side agreement enables the mullahs to collect their own soil samples at their highly opaque Parchin facility, in lieu of on-site inspections. The Obama administration even conducted lobbying efforts ( on behalf of the Islamic Republic, in a failed attempt to convince banking institutions to conduct business with the world’s premier state-sponsor of international terrorism.

The notion that the Obama administration would trust the Iranians to collect their own samples to establish compliance demonstrates with utmost clarity just how far divorced from reality Obama has become. The notion that Obama would place national security interests in the hands of a non-U.S. body demonstrates just how utterly reckless he is. The notion that the U.S. would actively lobby on behalf on an entity responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths in Syria, Yemen and Iraq and responsible for supplying anti-U.S. insurgents with sophisticated Explosively Formed Penetrators ( (EFP) that killed and maimed hundreds of U.S. soldiers, demonstrates how morally depraved the Obama administration has become.

Since the signing of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), Iran has been testing the resolve of the U.S. in enforcing the agreement. Twice since the JCPOA went into effect, Iran exceeded ( its 130 metric ton limit for heavy water, which is used to cool reactors that produce plutonium. The cumbersome JCPOA mechanism put in place to abrogate the agreement in the event of breach means that all but the most serious Iranian transgressions will likely go unpunished. In the meantime, Iran continues to push the envelope while receiving all the benefits including sanctions relief and lump sum cash payments, including nearly $12 billion ( received in the past three years.

The Obama administration’s dealings with the Islamic Republic borders on sycophantic. The AP reported ( today that the Obama administration, in its twilight weeks, issued its consent to allow the Iranians to receive 116 metric tons of natural uranium from Russia as compensation for its export of tons of reactor coolant. The move requires U.N. Security Council approval but is expected to easily pass.

Administration officials have issued assurances that Iran’s usage of the uranium shipment will be carefully monitored but those familiar with the administration’s “assurances” have ample reason to be wary. The administration’s track record on transparency, especially in its dealings with the Islamic Republic, is abysmal (

Adding to the worry is the assessment of David Albright of the Institute of Science and International Security (ISIS), a monitoring group that keeps tabs on Iran’s nuclear program and consults with congressional officials. According to Albright, the uranium could be enriched to weapons-grade sufficient for the production of at least 10 nuclear bombs. Albright adds that the quantity of bombs depends on “the efficiency of the enrichment process and the design of the nuclear weapon.”

The scheduling of the shipment ironically comes at a time when Iran is ramping up regional tensions, defying UNSC resolutions and causing mayhem in the Arabian Gulf. Iran continues to brazenly develop and test-fire ballistic missiles in defiance of UNSC resolution 2231 and on Sunday, the guided-missile destroyer USS Mahan was forced to fire three warning shots ( at four Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) speed boats near the Strait of Hormuz. The fast-approaching and menacing IRGC craft disregarded numerous warnings to alter course and veered away only after the warning shots were fired.

The action comes on the heels of numerous ( other Iranian transgressions in the Arabian Gulf. According to U.S. defense officials, U.S. and Iranian naval vessels interacted on at least 600 occasions in the past two years. Many of the encounters were relatively benign but some were provoked by egregious Iranian actions, the most outrageous of which occurred on January 12, 2016 when Iran committed an act of piracy on the high seas by kidnapping ( 10 American sailors whose Riverine Command Boat (RCB) encountered mechanical problems.

The sailors were forced to endure taunts and humiliation by their Iranian captors and a female sailor was forced into Sharia compliance by being made to wear an Islamic style head covering. The Iranians also stole or copied sensitive U.S. equipment on board the RCBs.

Instead of outrage, a groveling John Kerry, who will go down in history as the nation’s most ineffective secretary of state, disgracefully thanked the Iranians. It was a reprehensible display of weakness typical of Obama’s pusillanimous approach to foreign diplomacy.

Donald Trump has voiced disdain for the JCPOA and rightfully termed the agreement as a “terrible deal,” a view shared by the majority of Congress, military and intelligence analysts and many foreign leaders. Given the complexity of the JCPOA and its international dimensions, it would be difficult to simply “tear it up” the day Trump assumes office as some have advocated. A more reasoned approach would be for Trump to renegotiate the most egregious aspects of the deal and hold Iran accountable for any transgression, however slight. When Iran then violates the accord – and judging by their past actions they most certainly will – the inevitable breach will convey international legitimacy to whatever action the U.S., acting in concert with its allies, including Israel, wish to pursue.

Last edited by Paparock; 01-10-2017 at 04:52 PM..
Reply With Quote
Old 01-20-2017, 09:45 AM
New Ron's Avatar
New Ron New Ron is online now
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Israel Military Forum
Posts: 8,411
New Ron is on a distinguished road

The Worst Perversion by Kevin D. Williamson January 17, 2017 4:00 AM @kevinNR
Yes, there were Obama-administration scandals. Many, in fact.

The Obama administration was full of scandal, though we have a lazy and partisan news media that is determined to see no scandal in it. The lame-duck columns have been nearly unanimous on the point: Barack Obama is remarkable among recent presidents for having been utterly untouched by scandal, personal or political. The personal can be conceded: There is no serious allegation that President Obama suffered from the liberated appetites of a Bill Clinton, and the White House interns have by all accounts gone unmolested. But this is hardly remarkable: There were no such allegations about George W. Bush, either, or about George H. W. Bush, or about Ronald Reagan, or Jimmy Carter. Richard Nixon’s name is a byword for scandal, but not scandal of that sort.

Nixon’s shocking personal perversion was his taste for cottage cheese with ketchup. So, three cheers for Barack Obama’s manful efforts to live up to the standard of Gerald Ford. Well done. The political issue is a different question entirely. Not only was the Obama administration marked by scandal of the most serious sort — perverting the machinery of the state for political ends — it was on that front, which is the most important one, the most scandal-scarred administration in modern presidential history.

For your consideration: Under the Obama administration’s watch, the Internal Revenue Service and other federal agencies from the BATF to the NLRB were illegally used to target and harass the president’s political enemies. The IRS targeting scandal was the most high-profile of these, but others are just as worrisome. Federal investigations and congressional oversight were obstructed, and investigators were lied to outright — a serious crime. The administration protected the wrongdoers and saw to it that they retired with generous federal pensions rather than serving federal sentences for their crimes.

The Obama administration oversaw the illegal sale of arms to Mexican traffickers for purposes that to this date have not been adequately explained, and those guns have been used to murder American law-enforcement officers. President Obama’s secretary of state was involved in a high-profile case in which she improperly set up a private e-mail system to evade ordinary governmental oversight; she and her associates routinely misled investigators, obstructed investigations, and hid or destroyed evidence.

These are all serious crimes.

The Obama administration made ransom payments to the Iranian government and lied about having done so. Under the Obama administration, the Secret Service has been a one-agency scandal factory, from drunk agents driving their cars into White House barriers to getting mixed up with hookers in Cartagena. Under the guise of developing “green” energy projects, the Obama administration shunted money to politically connected cronies at Solyndra and elsewhere. Obama’s men at the Veterans Administration oversaw a system in which our servicemen lost their lives to bureaucratic incompetence and medical neglect, and then falsified records to cover it up. Under the flimsiest of national-security pretexts, the Obama administration used the Department of Justice to spy on Fox News reporter James Rosen. It also spied on the Associated Press. The Obama administration’s attorney general, Eric Holder, left office while being held in contempt of Congress for inhibiting the investigation of other Obama administration scandals. But, no: No embarrassing stain on a blue dress. Without minimizing the authentic personal degeneracy of Bill Clinton, sexual scandals are minor concerns. They become large public scandals because the numbskulls understand sex and can relate to sexual infidelity. If you’ve ever tried explaining to someone how futures trading works and watched his expression turn to that of a taxidermied mule deer, then you know why it is Bill Clinton, and not Hillary Clinton, who is the face of scandal. It is one thing to have a degenerate president. It is something else — something far worse — to have a degenerate government. Barack Obama may have spent the past eight years as sober as a Sunday morning (his main vice, we are told, is sneaking cigarettes) and straight as a No. 2 pencil, but he leaves behind a government that is perverted. The BATF harassment of True the Vote and other Obama-administration enemies is the stuff of which banana republics are made. A liberal society with decent government requires that the pursuit of political power be insulated from the exercise of political power. That is why we have a Hatch Act and why the various dreams of the would-be campaign-finance police — who would have congressmen and presidents write the rules under which congressmen and presidents may be criticized and challenged — are in reality nightmares. (Here, let us say a word of thanks for the First Amendment and Citizens United.) Having an IRS that sorts nonprofits by their political stances in order to facilitate the harassment of political rivals is in real terms far worse than anything Bill Clinton got up to with Monica Lewinsky, and far worse than the shenanigans that Gordon Liddy and the rest of the Nixon henchmen got up to in the Watergate. The BATF harassment of True the Vote and other Obama-administration enemies is the stuff of which banana republics are made. Using the machinery of the state to seek political power and to aggrandize the political power one holds is the most destructive form of political corruption there is.

A sane society would prosecute it the way we prosecute murder or armed robbery. It is a scandal and more than that: It is an assault on the foundations of a free society. The fact that the same people at CNN who were colluding with the Clinton campaign cannot see a scandal in the Obama administration does not mean that no scandal was there. For the Democrats and their media partisans, scandals — like homelessness and war casualties — are something that happens to other people. — Kevin D. Williamson is National Review’s roving correspondent.

Read more at:
Shalom to everyone!
No extreme is good. Neither in religion, nor in science.

"If the Arabs put down their weapons today, there would be no more violence.. If the Jews put down their weapons today, there would be no more Israel."
~ Golda Meir~

Reply With Quote
Israel Forum

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT. The time now is 08:39 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Israel Military Forum