Recently in Obama the Shameful Category

THE BIG PICTURE FROM A RETIRED AMERICAN ADMIRAL: OBAMA IS PRO-ISLAM, ANTI-AMERICA

This is a video that must be seen. The message: The enemy is Islam, not radical Islam. As the president of Turkey Erdogan says, There is only Islam. No moderate Islam, no radical Islam. "Islam is Islam."

|

FIGURING OUT OBAMA'S TRUE AIMS -- HINT: THEY'RE NOT AMERICA'S.

The President’s Successful Foreign Policy
Far from being a muddle, Obama’s choices are distressingly consistent.


By WILLIAM MCGURN, WALL STREET JOURNAL OPINION
Aug. 4, 2015

One year ago this month, newsman James Foley was forced to his knees somewhere in the desert hills of Syria and beheaded. Within a month, Barack Obama had vowed to “degrade and ultimately destroy” Islamic State, which had carried out and filmed the murder. Islamic State has since moved on to even more spectacular barbarities—throwing gay men to their death from tall buildings, burning prisoners alive, drowning other imprisoned men in cages—that barely get a mention.

Two Augusts earlier, President Obama had made a similar promise when he laid down a “red line” with Syria’s Bashar Assad over chemical weapons. President Obama’s threat notwithstanding, Mr. Assad would shortly turn these weapons on women and children. He remains in power still.

Meanwhile, the last American combat troops pulled out of Iraq in 2011; we started withdrawing our troops from Afghanistan at about the same time; and we are about to become partners with Iran over nuclear weapons. We are less liked in the region than when Mr. Obama took office; we have managed to unite the Saudis and the Israelis against us; and we behold a Middle East as menacing and volatile as it’s ever been.

Republicans conclude from all these developments that President Obama’s foreign policy has been a colossal flop. They are not wrong about the terrible human and strategic consequences. But they make a mistake by measuring the president’s policies by their priorities and not by his.

The truth is, Mr. Obama has largely succeeded in what he set out to do. His priority was never about winning in Afghanistan or standing up a strong government in Iraq or any of the other tough-sounding things he has thought he needed to say to make his foreign policy sound less dovish than it is. The reality is that the Obama foreign policy has been dominated by one overarching goal: getting America the heck out of Iraq and Afghanistan no matter what.

Give the president his due here. From his first foreign-policy address in 2007 in Chicago, to his repeated vows not to send in U.S. “combat troops”—a regular feature of his speeches these days—Mr. Obama has never defined his presidency by victory anywhere. To the contrary, this is a man who sees his presidency as getting America out of conflicts, not into them.

So it’s also no coincidence that when the president has issued some hawkish declaration of resolve (the red line in Syria, the promise to defeat and degrade Islamic State, etc.), it’s typically been about promising decisive action tomorrow as a way of not doing anything today.

Indeed, far from being the incomprehensible muddle his critics see, Mr. Obama’s foreign policy choices betray a disconcerting consistency. Take his 2008 campaign war promises, which could be summed up in two parts—pulling out of Iraq and winning what he called the “necessary war” in Afghanistan. Ask yourself this: of these two pieces, which was the part that animated his foreign policy?

Ditto for his December 2009 speech at West Point, where he announced a surge of American forces into Afghanistan only to set a deadline for troop withdrawal in the next breath. In retrospect, it is perfectly clear that Mr. Obama’s priority in Afghanistan was not winning but bugging out.

Certainly these priorities had political appeal when Mr. Obama first ran for president. Back in April 2007, when he delivered his maiden foreign policy address before the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll showed a clear majority of Americans believed the Iraq war was hopeless—and a majority also favored a deadline for American withdrawal. The irony is that at precisely the moment Mr. Obama was writing off Iraq as a failed intervention, the surge there was starting to deliver results.

Only a few months later, during a Democratic debate in Charleston, S.C., Mr. Obama was asked whether he was willing to meet, “without preconditions,” leaders from Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea. Mr. Obama said he was. In this light, can anyone claim to be surprised with the way he reached his nuclear deal with Tehran or re-established ties with Havana?

In memoirs published last year, Robert Gates, the man who served as defense secretary in both the Bush and Obama administrations, recounts a conversation in which Hillary Clinton admitted she’d opposed the Iraq surge because she was trying to outflank Mr. Obama in the Democratic primaries for president. Mr. Obama “conceded vaguely” that opposition to the surge had been “political.”

Still, it’s never been difficult to divine Mr. Obama’s foreign policy priorities. At a dinner in New York just last month, he put it this way to a group of donors: “We’ve ended two wars.”

Say what you will about elevating domestic politics over strategic vision, Mr. Obama sees himself as having made good on his big promise. And on his own squalid terms, who’s to call him a failure?

As posted in the WSJ.


|

MR. PRESIDENT, STOP PUSSYFOOTING, SPEAK THE TRUTH -- RADICAL ISLAM IS WAGING WAR AGAINST US AND WE MUST DEFEAT IT.

Lots of people are upset that President Obama seems more concerned about the feelings of Muslims than the safety of our American military men and women. It is preposterous that he never utters the phrase "radical Islam" in obvious cases or terrorism.

One conservative news anchor has had enough. Tomi Lahren tells President Obama to shape up in no uncertain terms.

Click on the logo YouTube in lower right corner, then click on the picture for full screen. Hit Escape to return to small view.

|

RABBI: WHY OBAMA HATES ISRAEL - AND IS NOT TOO KEEN ON AMERICA.

Mostly, those who think ill of Obama policies dance around talking about the reasons why his policies aren't what one would expect from a president who loves his country.

This rabbi is remarkably blunt in describing why Obama is and his policies are the way he and they are.


NETANYAHU NOT THE ISSUE; OBAMA HATES JEWS AND ISRAEL, PERIOD!!!
AND HE’S NOT TOO KEEN ON AMERICA, EITHER.
AMERICAN THINKER
April 16, 2015

Netanyahu Not the Cause of Obama’s Dislike of Israel
By Rabbi Aryeh Spero, AMERICAN THINKER

Much has been said about the strange behavior of Barack Obama, who can’t let a day go without maligning Israel and Mr. Netanyahu. In contrast, he displays friendship to a thug and anti-Semite like Recip Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey, palled around with the deceased communist Hugo Chavez, and keeps standing up for the Iranian mullahs who want to kill us all or make us slaves to Islam. Those in the media who see politics simply as a stand-off between personalities ascribe all this to a clash of personalities: Obama doesn’t like PM Netanyahu and Netanyahu returns the dislike.

No doubt the dislike is there, but what underlies the animosity of Obama toward PM Netanyahu goes beyond schmoozability to seismic differences in outlook and policy. In fact, at Mr. Netanyahu’s very first White House meeting, before they really knew each other, Obama purposely mistreated PM Netanyahu by forcing him to enter through a side entrance and, then, abruptly left the meeting and went upstairs by himself for dinner while leaving PM Netanyahu and his staff without hospitality or even a piece of bread. This was a deliberate, unheard of disparagement, directed more at Israel, the state represented by Netanyahu, than it was at Mr. Netanyahu per se.

Just last month, Barack Obama published classified information showing the world photographs of Israel’s hidden nuclear site, and its inner workings. It was his gift to Iran, Hamas, and ISIS. This puts Israel and her citizens, not just Mr. Netanyahu, at great risk. But, Obama had his people darken out all the information on that page regarding the nuclear sites of other countries.

At a meeting at the White House in 2009, Obama stated early-on that “it’s time to put daylight between Israel and America”. This was done before Obama had even met Benjamin Netanyahu.

Last month, Obama again singled out Israel by crudely questioning Israel as a democracy, though it’s Israel that has an Arab Supreme Court Justice, provides medical for all, and has four Arab political parties that just won 14 seats. Obama is throwing out these malicious daily barbs so as to brainwash Americans into believing Israel and America do not share the same values. He wants to break the historic bonds between America and Israel, between Israelis and Americans. His intent is to permanently tarnish Israel, not just hurt its present prime minister. In that vein, Obama has denied visas to Israelis more than any other group, all the while zealously providing visas to those from Arabic/Muslim countries.

Our president has no condemnation for Arab countries where Jews and Christians are forbidden their own political parties nor allowed to sit as judges judging Muslims. Obama accepts the shariah that forbids this.

Further proof of Obama’s scheme: he had his young underlings call Israel a “racist” state, something he never says about Islamic countries which, in principle under shariah, actually do consider non-Muslims as infidels and second class, that their churches and synagogues be destroyed, where Christian and Jewish women are treated as fodder and permissible meat, and our bibles banned and thrown in the garbage. Yet, we hear no condemnation from Obama. It is reserved for Israel. When a person singles out Jews or the Jewish state for things he finds acceptable in others… that’s anti-Semitism.

Recently, he let Israel’s enemies know that he, Obama, will not support Israel, which encourages and provides a Green Light. The physical attacks will be against Israel, not just Netanyahu… and Obama knows it. To that end, he has taken Hizb’allah and Iran off our list of terror organizations. Instead, he has the State Dept. deny Israeli generals visas. His heart is darkened against Israel.

He prohibited flights to Israel for almost two days during her recent defensive war against Hamas missiles being shot from Gaza. He has not done this in other war zones. He even stopped the routine supply of needed ammunition to Israel during the war. He is deaf to Israel’s concern over ISIS, Hamas, and Iran pitched at Israel’s borders, and he insists that Israel relinquish these lands to make a Palestinian state that he knows will be a launching pad for these terrorist groups against Israel and her children.

The Netanyahu story is a cover, a convenient excuse and ruse to weaken and stigmatize Israel. Unfortunately, many are falling for it. Obama’s everyday bullying is exclusive to Israel. So, let the truth be said: Obama doesn’t like Israel. There is something in his ethnic background that teaches, as part of its outlook, the need to not only vanquish but also humiliate the Jew, the Christian. More than a clash of personalities, it centers on Obama’s dislike of a truly sovereign and independent Israel living proudly in its biblical homeland, and his intense dislike for Israeli nationalism.

Similarly, he dislikes American patriotism, demonizing those affectionate about America as people who cling to flag, religion, and guns. He dismisses those unwilling to renounce America’s Judeo-Christian underpinning, as well as those not gullible enough to buy into the foolish and false narrative of America being, as he says, the “largest Muslim country in the world, where Muslims have contributed to its development since America’s founding”.

Mr. Obama seems irritated and indifferent to non-Islamic, non-black narratives. He expects others to feel guilty and burdened by their own history, making themselves, in repentance, secondary and in service to the aspirations of groups he prefers.

Obama doesn’t like an Israel proud of itself as a Jewish state, nor does he like an America loyal to its heritage and unique values, be it free enterprise, taking responsibility for one’s fate, or the make-up of its historic middle class. He wishes to transform both countries, denude them of their historic identity. He wants to do to Israel what he has been doing to America: change its demographics by bringing in those who, when offered freebies, will vote for left-wing parties, who think little of a nation’s specific history and unique ethos. He does so here by flooding our country with illegal immigrants, and in Israel, by insisting that Israel allow into its borders millions of Arabs who will vote to make Israel’s Jewishness a thing of the past, something illegal. Mr. Netanyahu stands in his way!

What Mr. Obama wants above all else is to strip Israel of David’s city, its eternal capital, Jerusalem, and hand the ancient, historic city to Islam. Obama knows that whoever controls and manages historic Jerusalem can lay claim to the Land’s entirety. Jerusalem is the heart and pride of Israel. He wants to snatch the pride Israelis have in Jerusalem as surely as he tries to take from us our pride in American Exceptionalism, something he denies and derides. Toward this end, he is fervently trying to decouple liberal American Jews from Israel. By constantly accusing Israel of "racism, extremism, colonialism, lack of compassion and soul” -- the effective buzz phrases -- he hopes liberal Jews will be embarrassed to support Israel. He is succeeding, similar to how he is turning the Democrat Party away from Israel.

Talking heads, who make their living jawboning in conventional, boiler-plate paradigms, think of Obama as they would other presidents, instead of seeing him the way he must be seen. He is not like other presidents, nor is he simply more to the Left than previous presidents. He is an ideologue through and through, and his ideology is rooted in Marxism and certain forms of Islamism. We need to see in Obama’ actions not the political maneuverings we suspect in others, but direct, unalloyed, reflections of his dogmas and goals.

He wants the treaty with Iran not because it’s a feather in his cap. Let’s be more direct. He wants it because he wants it. He wants Iran to have the bomb. Not to use it, necessarily, but for the power and leverage it will give Iran over Israel, and the pride and strength it will furnish the Ummah. He wants a stronger Iran, not a weaker or checked Iran.

He dislikes Netanyahu because he dislikes an Israeli leader who wants to keep Israel Jewish, who stands for Jerusalem, and won’t have his people bandied about to satisfy Obama’s’ lust for Islamic hegemony. Obama is used to Jews, the Hyde Park Chicago Jews and other liberal Jews, who see Jewish needs as secondary and sacrificial to the demands of other minorities; liberal Jews who subsume Jewish aspirations and needs for whatever is considered the “civil rights” fashion of the day. To them, ironically,

Jewishness is authentic only when Jewishness becomes a vehicle for a cause outside of any specific Jewish need and identity. They have redefined Jewishness to be political universalism. Obama is uncomfortable with a Jewish-Jew like Netanyahu who does not define nor limit the existence of Jews to self-nullification in behalf of the latest leftwing Cause. He has Jews in his administration and among the liberal fraternity who are all too willing to do his destructive bidding… in the name of “Judaism”, of course.

Obama’s inner identity is tied to Islam. We all identify with the ethos of our formative years. His father and stepfather were Islamic, as is his family back in Kenya and Indonesia. His brothers are active Islamists. He was raised on the Koran in Islamic countries, and attended Islamic madrassa and grew up with its attitudes, sights and sounds, aspirations and narrative, likes and dislikes. As I grew up to favor Israel, he grew up to dislike it. Simple as that. Most of my Christian friends, Bible believers, were also raised with the biblical narrative, which admires Israel’s place in our theology and in the cosmos.

The Marxism Obama was fed, from very early on, made him viscerally dislike successful Western countries, such as America, Israel, and Britain. He was taught they were colonizers and imperialist. Yet, he finds nothing imperialistic or colonial about Islam’s takeover, throughout the centuries, of northern and central Africa, Lebanon, Babylon and Persia, the Balkans, the Mediterranean areas, Malaysia and Indonesia, and other parts of Asia, vast tracts of what was India, and countless Christian and Hindu neighborhoods and cities. Not to see colonialism and imperialism in these conquests tells us a lot about Obama’s perspective. Love is blind. We don’t see flaws in that and those we love. But, we sure see them, always, in that which we dislike. Obama’s dislike for a strong, independent, proud Jewish renaissance in the Holy Land predates Netanyahu.

As with America, the next two years will be difficult, for Obama has set his antagonistic sights on America and Israel… as well as its citizens. Obama has spent the last 50 years waiting for these next two.

Rabbi Aryeh Spero is president of Caucus for America and author of Push Back, and Why Israel Matters to You.

|

OBAMA DEFYING CONSTITUTION AND CONGRESS TO LET IRAN GET NUCLEAR WEAPONS. WHY? CAN HE BE STOPPED?

Does anyone think America will be safer if Iran gets nuclear weapons? Why is Obama enabling that?

Andy McCarthy makes this chilling observation:

It is otherworldly to find an American administration conspiring against the Constitution and the Congress in cahoots with a terror-sponsoring enemy regime, with which we do not even have formal diplomatic relations, in order to pave the enemy’s way to nuclear weapons, of all things.

That is exactly what is going on.

Read the whole report from National Review.

Obama Can’t Force His Iran Deal on the Country without Congress’s Consent
by Andrew C. McCarthy March 14, 2015 4:00 AM

Having the U.N. Security Council bless a deal wouldn’t make it binding under our
Constitution.

So, as we warned earlier this week, the international-law game it is. It is no secret that Barack Obama does not have much use for the United States Constitution.

It is a governing plan for a free, self-determining people. Hence, it is littered with roadblocks against schemes to rule the people against their will. When it comes to our imperious president’s scheme to enable our enemy, Iran, to become a nuclear-weapons power — a scheme that falls somewhere between delusional and despicable, depending on your sense of Obama’s good faith — the salient barrier is that only Congress can make real law.

Most lawmakers think it would be a catastrophe to forge a clear path to the world’s most destructive weapons for the world’s worst regime — a regime that brays “Death to America” as its motto; that has killed thousands of Americans since 1979; that remains the world’s leading state sponsor of jihadist terrorism; that pledges to wipe our ally Israel off the map; and that just three weeks ago, in the midst of negotiations with Obama, conducted a drill in which its armed forces fired ballistic missiles at a replica U.S. aircraft carrier.

This week, 47 perspicuous Republican senators suspected that the subject of congressional power just might have gotten short shrift in Team Obama’s negotiations with the mullahs. So they penned a letter on the subject to the regime in Tehran.

The effort was led by Senator Tom Cotton (R., Ark.), who, after Harvard Law School, passed up community organizing for the life of a Bronze Star–awarded combat commander. As one might imagine, Cotton and Obama don’t see this Iran thing quite the same way.

There followed, as night does day, risible howls from top Democrats and their media that these 47 patriots were “traitors” for undermining the president’s empowerment of our enemies.

Evidently, writing the letter was not as noble as, say, Ted Kennedy’s canoodling with the Soviets, Nancy Pelosi’s dalliance with Assad, the Democratic party’s Bush-deranged jihad against the war in Iraq, or Senator Barack Obama’s own back-channel outreach to Iran during the 2008 campaign. Gone, like a deleted e-mail, were the good old days when dissent was patriotic.

Yet, as John Yoo observes, the Cotton letter was more akin to mailing Ayatollah Khamenei a copy of the Constitution. The senators explained that our Constitution requires congressional assent for international agreements to be legally binding.

Thus, any “executive agreement” on nukes that they manage to strike with the appeaser-in-chief is unenforceable and likely to be revoked when he leaves office in 22 months.

For Obama and other global-governance grandees, this is quaint thinking, elevating outmoded notions like national interest over “sustainable” international “stability” — like the way Hitler stabilized the Sudetenland.

These “international community” devotees see the Tea Party as the rogue and the mullahs as rational actors. So, you see, lasting peace — like they have, for example, in Ukraine — is achieved when the world’s sole superpower exhibits endless restraint and forfeits some sovereignty to the United Nations Security Council, where the enlightened altruists from Moscow, Beijing, and Brussels will figure out what’s best for Senator Cotton’s constituents in Arkansas.

This will set a luminous example of refinement that Iran will find irresistible when it grows up ten years from now — the time when Obama, who came to office promising the mullahs would not be permitted to acquire nuclear weapons, would have Iran stamped with the international community seal of approval as a nuclear-weapons state.

Down here on Planet Earth, though, most Americans think this is a bad idea. That, along with an injection of grit from the Arkansas freshman, emboldened the normally supine Senate GOP caucus to read Tehran in on the constitutional fact that the president is powerless to bind the United States unless the people’s representatives cement the arrangement.

Obama, naturally, reacted with his trusty weapon against opposition, demagoguery: hilariously suggesting that while the Alinskyite-in-chief had our country’s best interests at heart, the American war hero and his 46 allies were in league with Iran’s “hardliners.”

(Yes, having found Muslim Brotherhood secularists, al-Qaeda moderates, and Hezbollah moderates, rest assured that Obama is courting only the evolved ayatollahs.) When that went about as you’d expect, the administration shifted to a strategy with which it is equally comfortable, lying.

Obama’s minions claimed that, of course, the president understands that any agreement he makes with Iran would merely be his “political commitment,” not “legally binding” on the nation.

It’s just that Obama figures it would be nice to have the Security Council “endorse” the deal in a resolution because, well, that would “encourage its full implementation.” Uh-huh.

Inconveniently, the administration’s negotiating counterpart is the chattiest of academics, Iranian foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif. Afflicted by the Western-educated Islamist’s incorrigible need to prove he’s the smartest kid in the class — especially a class full of American politicians — Zarif let the cat out of the bag. The senators, he smarmed, “may not fully understand . . . international law.”

According to Zarif, the deal under negotiation “will not be a bilateral agreement between Iran and the U.S., but rather one that will be concluded with the participation of five other countries, including all permanent members of the Security Council, and will also be endorsed by a Security Council resolution.”

He hoped it would “enrich the knowledge” of the 47 senators to learn that “according to international law, Congress may not modify the terms of the agreement.” To do so would be “a material breach of U.S. obligations,” rendering America a global outlaw.

This, mind you, from the lead representative of a terrorist regime that is currently, and brazenly, in violation of Security Council resolutions that prohibit its enrichment of uranium.

Clearly, Obama and the mullahs figure they can run the following stunt: We do not need another treaty approved by Congress because the United States has already ratified the U.N. charter and thus agreed to honor Security Council resolutions. We do not need new statutes because the Congress, in enacting Iran-sanctions legislation, explicitly gave the president the power to waive those sanctions. All we need is to have the Security Council issue a resolution that codifies Congress’s existing sanctions laws with Obama’s waiver.

Other countries involved in the negotiations — including Germany, Russia, and China, which have increasingly lucrative trade with Iran — will then very publicly rely on the completed deal. The U.N. and its army of transnational-progressive bureaucrats and lawyers will deduce from this reliance a level of global consensus that incorporates the agreement into the hocus-pocus corpus of customary law. Maybe they’ll even get Justice Ginsburg to cite it glowingly in a Supreme Court ruling. Voila, we have a binding agreement — without any congressional input — that the United States is powerless to alter under international law.

Well, it makes for good theater . . . because that is what international law is. It is a game more of lawyers than of thrones. In essence, it is politics masquerading as a system governed by rules rather than power, as if hanging a sign that says “law” on that system makes it so.

At most, international law creates understandings between and among states. Those understandings, however, are only relevant as diplomatic debating points. When, in defiance of international law, Obama decides to overthrow the Qaddafi regime, Clinton decides to bomb Kosovo, or the ayatollahs decide to enrich uranium, the debating points end up not counting for much.

Even when international understandings are validly created by treaty (which requires approval by two-thirds of the Senate), they are not “self-executing,” as the legal lexicon puts it — meaning they are not judicially enforceable and carry no domestic weight.

Whether bilateral or multilateral, treaties do not supersede existing federal law unless implemented by new congressional statutes. And they are powerless to amend the Constitution. The Supreme Court reaffirmed these principles in its 2008 Medellin decision (a case I described here, leading to a ruling Ed Whelan outlined here). The justices held that the president cannot usurp the constitutional authority of other government components under the guise of his power to conduct foreign affairs.

Moreover, even a properly ratified treaty can be converted into domestic law only by congressional lawmaking, not by unilateral presidential action. Obama, therefore, has no power to impose an international agreement by fiat — he has to come to Congress. He can make whatever deal he wants to make with Iran, but the Constitution still gives Congress exclusive authority over foreign commerce.

Lawmakers can enact sanctions legislation that does not permit a presidential waiver. Obama would not sign it, but the next president will — especially if the Republicans raise it into a major 2016 campaign issue. Will the Security Council howl? Sure . . . but so what?

It has been said that Senator Cotton should have CC’d the Obama administration on his letter since it, too, seems unfamiliar with the Constitution’s division of authority. A less useless exercise might have been to CC the five other countries involved in the talks (the remaining Security Council members, plus Germany). Even better, as I argued earlier this week, would be a sense-of-the-Senate resolution: Any nation that relies on an executive agreement that is not approved by the United States Congress under the procedures outlined in the Constitution does so at its peril because this agreement is likely to lapse as early as January 20, 2017.

International law is a game that two can play, and there is no point in allowing Germany, Russia, and China to pretend that they relied in good faith on Obama’s word being America’s word.

It is otherworldly to find an American administration conspiring against the Constitution and the Congress in cahoots with a terror-sponsoring enemy regime, with which we do not even have formal diplomatic relations, in order to pave the enemy’s way to nuclear weapons, of all things.

Nevertheless, Republicans and all Americans who want to preserve our constitutional order, must stop telling themselves that we have hit a bottom beneath which Obama will not go. This week, 47 senators seemed ready, finally, to fight back. It’s a start.

— Andrew C. McCarthy is a policy fellow at the National Review Institute. His latest book is Faithless Execution: Building the Political Case for Obama’s Impeachment.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/415401/obama-cant-force-his-iran-deal-country-without-congresss-consent-andrew-c-mccarthy

|

OBAMA: THE SELFIE PRESIDENCY

Obama has earned the title Narcissist-in-Chief honestly. On his recent trip to India, in his departure speech, which should have been all about India-U.S. relations, it was all about Obama: In 33 minutes he uttered "I' or "we" 118 times. That's 3.5 Obama references per minute.

Wall Street Journal Global View Columnist Bret Stephens tracks the degradation of the office of the President, from the Clinton era to the new bottom, the Obama White House.

Global View
President BuzzFeed

'You do you’ is the ultimate slogan for the ultimate self-referential presidency.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/bret-stephens-president-buzzfeed-1424132816

Obama youdoyou.jpg

Here’s me looking at me, kid: President Obama’s BuzzFeed video.
Photo: BuzzFeed

By Bret Stephens The Wall Street Journal
Feb. 16, 2015 7:26 p.m. ET


George Washington did not shake hands as president and would grip the hilt of his sword to avoid having his flesh pressed. The founding father understood that leadership in a republic demanded a careful balance between low populism and aristocratic lordliness. Personal comportment, the choice of clothes and carriage, modes of address: these things mattered. And so we have “Mr. President” as opposed to “His Highness.” Or “George.”

With Barack Obama —you won’t mind, Señor Presidente, if we call you Barry?—it’s another story. Dignity of office? How quaint. In this most self-infatuated of presidencies, the D-word is at best an accessory and more often an impediment to everything Barry has ever wanted to be: Cool. Chill. Connected.

So it was that, hours after the U.S. confirmed the murder of Kayla Jean Mueller at the hands of Islamic State, Mr. Obama filmed a short video for BuzzFeed, striking poses in a mirror, donning aviator shades, filming himself with a selfie stick and otherwise inhabiting a role that a chaster version of Miley Cyrus might have played had Hannah Montana been stuck in the White House after a sleepover with the Obama girls.

Ostensibly, the point of the video was to alert BuzzFeed’s audience to the Feb. 15 deadline for ObamaCare enrollment. If communicating with 20-somethings as if they are 11-year-olds is a way to get them to behave like grown-ups, then maybe the White House has at last found a way to make good on its make-believe enrollment numbers.

But that’s not what the BuzzFeed clip is chiefly about. What it’s about is showing just how totally relatable and adorably authentic and marvelously self-aware is this president of ours. “Can I live?” the president says when caught shooting imaginary hoops in his study by a young visitor. “You do you,” the visitor gamely replies before walking off.

Yes, you do you, Barry: It’s what your political career has always been about, from your myth-memoir “Dreams From My Father” to your well-nurtured cult of personality to the coterie of flatterers with whom you have surrounded yourself in office to the supine and occasionally complicit news media that have seen you through six years of crisis, failure and scandal.

“You do you” is the ultimate self-referential slogan for the ultimate self-referential presidency. It’s the “be yourself” piety of our age turned into a political license by Mr. Obama to do as he pleases. It’s what drives his political choices: the immigration amnesty; arbitrary rewrites of the Affordable Care Act; the Environmental Protection Agency’s coal rules; the $128 billion in settlements the administration extorted from six banks convicted of no wrongdoing.

It is also what seems to explain the president’s insistently passive foreign policy. In its 2015 National Security Strategy, unveiled earlier this month, the administration underscored the importance of what it called “strategic patience,” a high-toned euphemism for doing as little as decently possible in response to crisis. Invade Ukraine: You do you, Vladimir Putin. Build a robust nuclear infrastructure: You do you, Ali Khamenei. Continue gassing your own people: You do you, Bashar Assad.

In other words, let 1,000 you-do-yous bloom. In the end, the president and his advisers seem to believe, events will take their course and history will provide its verdict. Kremlin adventurism will fall afoul of Russia’s economic limits, Iran will evolve from evil theocracy to responsible regional player, and Syria will continue to bleed until it sorts itself out.

As for Islamic State, the president told CNN’s Fareed Zakaria that “it has no governing strategy,” that it cannot “sustain or feed people or educate people or organize a society that would work,” and therefore that it is not “an existential threat to the United States or the world order.”

You do you, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi! But if you can’t provide your people with high-quality affordable health care, world-class educational opportunities and a decent minimum wage, it will all come to naught.

***

There’s a sense in which the president’s foreign policy reminds me of Francis Fukuyama ’s “End of History” thesis, though it is typically associated with American neoconservatives. Following the publication of Mr. Fukuyama’s book in the early 1990s, the argument was attacked for ignoring all the history—the breakup of Yugoslavia, genocide in Rwanda, and so on—that continued to take place after he had declared it over.

Mr. Fukuyama’s rebuttal was that none of that really counted, at least in the dialectical, Hegelian, capital-H sense of “History.” History had ended because there was no plausible ideological competitor to liberal, democratic capitalism, and sooner or later everyone would get the point.

Maybe that’s even true. Yet in the words “sooner or later” lie the great political questions of our day, matters of life or death for the Ukrainian soldiers encircled by Russian troops, or Western hostages held by Islamic State, or everyone threatened by Iran’s slow and steady march toward regional hegemony.

President You Do You has all the time he wants to film BuzzFeed clips while surfing the arc of history. Not everyone is so fortunate.

|

DO WE HAVE A BORDER PROBLEM?



What did the mid-term elections tell us about American attitudes towards immigration?

Victor Davis Hanson observes:

It would seem that Americans appreciate the vibrancy, energy, and new ideas that immigrants bring. But a great many Americans also insist that immigrants come legally, in manageable numbers, in ethnically diverse fashion, and that they be eager to learn English and assimilate quickly.

Read it all.

|

OBAMA'S FAILURES TO PROTECT AMERICA THREATEN US ALL.

Do you feel safe with Obama in charge?


|

OBAMA CONDEMNED: HE'S BETRAYING WORKING AMERICANS.

Although the American public overwhelmingly are opposed to the President taken unilateral action on immigration, that is just what Obama plans to do after the mid-term elections.

The U.S. senator who has been fighting hardest and longest against Obama's plans that would do great damage to working Americans is Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama. He accuses the president and Senate Democrats working for global CEOs and special interests rather than their own people.

"The world has turned upside down. Instead of serving the interests of the American people, the policies of President Obama and every Senate Democrat serve the needs of special interests and global CEOs who fail to understand the duty a nation owes to its own people.

Read the whole thing.

"The Wall Street Journal confirmed today that the President is planning to issue a massive unilateral executive amnesty after the election.

"In its report, the WSJ certifies that this executive amnesty would provide work permits for illegal immigrants—taking jobs directly from struggling Americans.

"Based on the USCIS contract bid and statements from USCIS employees, we know this executive immigration order is likely to be broader in scope than anyone has imagined.
"Earlier this week, President Obama’s former head of Homeland Security revealed that she overrode resistance from administration lawyers and law enforcement agents in implementing the President’s earlier unlawful amnesty and work authorization program for illegal immigrants 30 and under. This was an open admission by one of the most senior people in government of violating one’s oath of office in order to accomplish a nakedly political aim.

"The President is assuming for himself the sole and absolute power to decide who can enter, work, live, and claim benefits in the United States. He has exempted virtually every group in the world from America’s immigration laws: people who enter before a certain age, people related to people who enter before a certain age, adults traveling with minors, minors traveling with adults, illegal immigrants who are not convicted of serious crimes, illegal workers who are convicted of serious crimes but not enough serious crimes, almost anyone who shows up the border and demands asylum, the millions who overstay their visas, and, as was recently exposed, illegal immigrants with serious criminal histories. The list continues to grow.

"A nation creates borders and laws to protect its own citizens. What about their needs?

"The President is systemically stripping away the immigration protections to which every single American worker and their family is entitled. He doesn’t care how this impacts Americans’ jobs, wages, schools, tax bills, hospitals, police departments, or communities.

"But it gets worse still. The WSJ reports that the President is ‘expected to benefit businesses that use large numbers of legal immigrants, such as technology companies.’ Those changes include measures to massively expand the number of foreign workers for IT companies—measures aggressively lobbied for by IT giants like Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates. Yet we have more than 11 million Americans with STEM degrees who don’t have jobs in these fields. Rutgers professor Hal Salzman documented that two-thirds of all new IT jobs are being filled by foreign workers. From 2000 through today, a period of record legal immigration, all net gains in employment among the working-age have gone entirely to immigrant workers.

"And now, in order to help open borders billionaires, President Obama is going to deny millions of Americans their shot at entering the middle class and a better life.

"The world has turned upside down. Instead of serving the interests of the American people, the policies of President Obama and every Senate Democrat serve the needs of special interests and global CEOs who fail to understand the duty a nation owes to its own people. But the citizens of this country still hold the power, and through their voice, they can turn the country right-side again."

|

AN UNVARNISHED VIEW FROM AN ISRAELI UNDER ROCKET ATTACK

Professor Haim Harai is a brilliant Israeli scientist who wrote an eye-opening account of Israel's situation years ago entitled "A View from the Eye of the Storm." Now retired from his post as president of the Weizmann Institute, he still has vital views to share.

Read every word.

A View From the "Emergency Routine" Under the Iron Dome
Prof. Haim Harai

"These lines are written ten days after the beginning of the latest Gaza conflict and thirteen years since the Hamas started launching thousands of rockets from Gaza exclusively into Israeli civilian targets. It has also been nine years since Israel completely left the Gaza strip, and a few hours since the Hamas rejected two Egyptian cease fire proposals, and Israel launched a ground operation aimed at destroying Hamas offensive facilities.

In Israeli towns, near the Gaza border, 13 year old children celebrated their Bar Mitzvah without experiencing, since their birth, even one day free of fear of rockets, always having 15 seconds to reach for an improvised cover. High school graduates, the class of 2014, never went to school or returned from school, since kindergarten, without a real threat of a Hamas rocket hitting them on the way. It is debatable whether the children's stress or their parents' anxiety has more damaging long term effects. It is a hard competition.

The Hamas, which is the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brothers, is openly committed to the annihilation of the State of Israel and to the extermination of all Jews, wherever they are. The United States, The European Union, Egypt and Israel consider the Hamas a terrorist organization. The Palestinian authority and most Arab countries treat the Hamas with suspicion, if not with animosity. They would be delighted if Hamas were destroyed, although they would not say so publicly.

The amazing fact is that the only solid support of the Hamas comes, in recent years, from two countries: Qatar, an alleged staunch ally of the United States, home of the American Forces in the Gulf, and Turkey, a member of NATO, whose mask of moderation was lifted when the hot-headed Mr. Erdogan recently started making openly anti-Semitic statements, in the best traditions of Nazi Germany and the Muslim Brothers. The most disturbing factor of this unusual alliance is the mind boggling attitude of the United States and its President Barack Obama.

The United States, "leading from behind", as its current policy dictates, has consistently avoided helping the Egyptian negotiators, who tried to broker a cease fire between Israel and the terrorists. The Egyptians openly stated that President Obama has joined forces, in an unholy partnership, with Qatar and Turkey, supporting the Muslim Brothers, under the faint excuse of "they won the democratic election in Egypt". They won? So did Hitler, after all.

Life in much of Israel is progressing on the basis of an unusual oxymoron: The Emergency Routine. This means going about your normal business, and getting, from time to time, into a barely protected area, not a real shelter, within 15 or 60 or 90 seconds, depending on the distance the rocket has to travel from Gaza in order to reach your area. Parents bring their children to their place of work, if possible; grandparents are drafted as babysitters; little children are taught to lie face down on the floor when an alarm catches them outdoors, and they are more than a few seconds away from cover. A few minutes later, explosions are heard. Perhaps a rocket falling in an empty area; Often the protective "Iron Dome" defensive missile intercepts the intruder from the sky; sometimes a rocket falling in a built area, causing damage and bodily harm. And then life goes on till the next siren sounds.

The success of the "Iron Dome" is a milestone in the history of armed conflicts, comparable to the first appearance of tanks, submarines, missiles, and military airplanes. It allowed Israel to absorb more than a thousand rockets, solely intended for murdering civilian population, without one fatality. An incredible achievement, based on technological excellence, but also on pure luck.

The Hamas rockets are sufficiently inaccurate to miss entire towns. This is a clear proof that their single goal is murdering civilians. You cannot pretend that a rocket, which misses an entire town, has been aimed at some strategic or military target, and the Hamas is not even trying to make such a claim. By any definition, this is a continuous, methodical and persistent pursuit of war crimes, by a murderous terrorist organization. The terrorists and their allies accuse Israel of deliberately harming civilians. No one, in the entire global history of wars, made a greater effort to avoid civilian casualties, by giving advance warnings and by avoiding clear military targets protected by human shields of women and children. If Israel would have been interested in harming civilians, nothing could stop it from killing hundreds or thousands per day. There is no evidence whatsoever of one deliberate case of harming civilians.

The percentage of non-combatants accidentally hurt in Gaza is far smaller than anything ever seen in the American operations in Iraq or Afghanistan, or in the allied operations in Kosovo or Belgrade. That does not stop the entire world from accusing, preaching and pontificating to Israel. On the same day ninety(!) civilians die in a suicide murder in Afghanistan and one child is accidentally hit, together with an arch-terrorist, by Israel in Gaza. The ninety dead civilians get a small corner in the world media, while the Gaza casualties get major headlines. It is not who died and how many of them did, that the world cares about. It is who hit them, and who can be conveniently accused by finger pointing, says the smart money.

An interesting symmetry or, perhaps, asymmetry: the Hamas is shooting only at civilians, mostly children, women, elderly people and all others, and protects itself mainly by using civilians as human shields, almost exclusively children, women and elderly people. The young male terrorists, and their leaders, are well hidden in tunnels and bunkers under hospitals, schools and mosques. Israel is attacking only military terrorist targets, even if it regretfully and accidentally also hits civilians, and defends itself militarily with the successful Iron Dome anti-missile defense. A telling caricature in the Israeli press shows a dialogue between an Israeli wearing a helmet and a masked Hamas terrorist, "wearing" a little child over his head. The Israeli says: "Why don't you stop these stupid rockets? We have an Iron Dome". The Hamas guy responds, pointing to the little child: "We too". And the Hamas fire continues, unabated.

The behavior of the Hamas is neither surprising nor is it hidden behind claims of "objectivity". They are publicly and openly committed to murdering Jews (not only Israeli Jews, and not at all Israeli non-Jews; just Jews, plain and simple). But the "objectivity" of some of the global media is amazing. A BBC interviewer angrily asks the Israeli Ambassador to London: "How many Palestinians were killed? More than a hundred! And no Israelis were killed". The Ambassador is supposed to apologize for the success in intercepting thousands of rockets, a success which somehow turns Israel into a violent aggressor. Flashback seventy years to the first half of 1945, with British forces advancing on all fronts inside Nazi Germany and relentlessly bombing one German city after another. How many German civilians and how many British civilians died in the first few months of 1945? Apparently Hitler was right! Shouldn't he deserve our support, due to the huge number of dead German civilians in those days?

An "objective journalism" report by Steven Erlanger of the New York Times "explains" that 80% of the people in Gaza are refugees of the 1948 war, and that "the rockets that they launch are aimed at their own former towns and villages". Many miracles happened in the holy land, but the Erlanger miracle is a real masterpiece. 80% are refugees? Anyone who was born in 1948 is at least 66 years old now. Anyone who was an 18 year old adult in 1948 is at least 84 years old. And these people, who may have indeed been refugees, 66 years ago, left places which were 15 minute (!!!) drive from Gaza, and are still persistently maintained and fed by the United Nations as refugees, rejecting any attempts to resettle them. But we are now told by the enlightened New York Times that 80% of the people in Gaza are refugees! For the average 25 year old Hamas terrorist, 1948 is something that happened 40 years before he was born, a similar time relation as World War I for a 60 year old European. Except that the European is not told, 24 hours a day, since his childhood, that all Jews must be slaughtered (The standard battle cry is: "Itbah Al Yahood", meaning "Slaughter the Jews", not even "Kill the Jews").

In the same 1948 war, an equal number of Arabs and Jews became refugees. The Jews left behind their enormous property in Iraq, Egypt, Morocco, Lebanon and other Arab countries. They moved to a newly born, very poor distant country with a different language, had absolutely no support from the UN and created an impressive miracle in the desert. The Palestinians moved by a fifteen minute drive to their own brothers in Gaza, and have been kept by them as hostages for 66 years, fed by the United Nations. Mr. Erlanger of the New York Times knows all of these facts but chooses to quote only the Hamas lies. Why? Perhaps because facts that he has known for decades are not news. Or is there some other reason?

For years Israel has been clearly stating that the Hamas, as well as its subcontracting terror organizations in Gaza, are using private homes, schools, mosques, kindergartens and hospitals as cover for ammunition supplies, bunkers hiding their leaders, and launching pads of rockets. Israel avoids hitting these locations, except if it has clear intelligence that the place has no civilians. Numerous videos proved the point, both in the present operation and in the previous two rounds, by showing huge secondary explosions, after an Israeli missile destroyed the hiding place: A first explosion of the Israeli missile itself and a secondary, much more impressive, blast, of the stored rockets (or, perhaps, of the incendiary school textbooks, or the explosive oriental carpets in the mosque). But now, on July 17, 2014, UNRWA, the United Nations Agency which feeds the Palestinians for 66 years, at Western taxpayer expense, admitted publicly that they have discovered 20 ready-to launch rockets inside one of their schools. The UN statement refers to it as "for the first time". Indeed, for the first time it was publicly confirmed by UN sources, but they obviously knew all along that this was a standard practice.

Did this discovery make headlines in the Western press? That evening, CNN did not even mention it, but reported events which were less significant and which happened later. The New York Times website published a 500 word report on Gaza, with the "rockets in the school" story buried two lines from the bottom of the report. In a way, they are right: This is not news. It has been known for years. But these are the same media sources that pretended that no such things have ever happened. So perhaps it is news?

There is also a war of pictures and video clips. The International New York Times, following an old tradition of its predecessor, the Herald Tribune, has a headline about Israel being hit by rockets, but the large photo is of the usual crying poor Arab woman. How many people read the article and how many see the photo? Pictures of smashed bodies of children, from the Syrian civil war, appear in Hamas propaganda as being murdered by Israel, copied by the international press. But here there is real news: The BBC notices it and complains! It seems that someone must have developed a new app for smartphones: Choose a picture of an old crying Arab woman, choose a photo of a big tank, arrange the woman of your choice in front of the threatening tank of your choice and publish in your newspaper or website. Endless such photos appear repeatedly in the Western press. Where do you find so many different old Arab women posing in front of tanks?

In the 2006 Lebanon war, the same body of the same child was photographed, carried by several different Hizbullah operatives, all claimed by the figure captions to be his father. Many photos of the rubble of a destroyed terrorist position include another miracle: a dust-free bright-color clean teddy bear or other toy, miraculously surviving the destruction without a stain or a speck of dust. But a new record is broken in the current conflict: In 2011, in broad daylight, a Hamas squad, near the Israel-Gaza border, spotted a clearly marked school bus. It deliberately launched an anti-tank missile into the school bus, which had luckily just returned from depositing the children. There was one boy in the bus. He wanted to go for a ride with the bus driver. The boy was killed. Now, in July 2014, the Hamas, eager to boast about some of its "victories", proudly replayed everywhere the three year old video of the great military triumph of hitting a school bus.

Flashback to September 12, 2001, the morning after the Al Qaida attack on the World Trade Center. Imagine the Prime minister of Britain or Canada or Germany, calling a press conference, and making only the following statement: "We support the right of the United States to self-defense, and we call upon both sides to exercise restraint". Do we need to add one word?

Yet, following thousands of Hamas rockets, aimed exclusively into Israeli civilian targets, the spokesperson of the White House announced at the beginning of the Israeli operation: "We support the right of Israel to self-defense, and we call upon both sides to exercise restraint". Does President Obama endorse this statement? May we assume that it reflects his views? Is his consistent support of the Egyptian Muslim Brothers, against President Al-Sisi of Egypt, now extends also to the Hamas niece, a daughter of the (Muslim) Brothers?

In contrast, Germany's Angela Merkel is loud and clear, condemning the Hamas, standing by Israel and supporting its actions. A brave lady. About people like her, it was said: "Being a leader is like being a lady. If you need to prove it, you are not."

When Israel declared the beginning of its ground attack, Secretary Kerry, a proven successful Middle East expert, warned Israel to go exclusively after the Hamas tunnels. Presumably, if the Israeli forces encounter rocket launchers or terrorist leaders outside of tunnels (e.g. in schools and mosques) they should not touch them. The entire Middle East and much of the Muslim world are burning. Iraq is in flames. Syria is destroyed. Libya and Yemen are in civil wars. Lebanon is occupied by a terrorist organization. Sudan and Somali are non-governments hosting freely roaming terrorist entities. Nuclear Pakistan is endangered by the Taliban. Qatar and Turkey support the Hamas. Hamas is trying to infiltrate the Egyptian Sinai. Bahrain is encroached by Iran. Afghanistan is in deadly chaos. Iran is developing nuclear weapons. But Israel, absorbing thousands of rockets, should only go after the tunnels, nothing else, and exercise restraint! Indeed, leading from behind.

Prime Minister Erdogan of Turkey has now stated: "Since its founding in 1948, Israel has been performing genocide every day". He is also openly threatening the Jewish community of Turkey and his followers attack the Israeli Embassy, with the Turkish police closing one and a half eyes. But the total combined number of Arabs and Israelis, military and civilians, killed in one hundred years of conflict, since 1920, with endless terrorism, and more than ten rounds of vicious fighting, is still less than 10% of the number of Armenians butchered by Turkey in a very short time.

This is the same Mr. Erdogan, who is openly and consistently supporting the Hamas murderers, and who is also supporting the Muslim Brothers everywhere in the Arab world, yet is a leading member of NATO, and is allegedly a military ally of all Western European nations, as well as of the United States and Canada. This is also Mr. Erdogan who has been declared to be "my very close friend" by President Obama. How can the US and all EU nations explain the fact that their military ally, whom they must defend, if attacked, is openly supporting an organization (Hamas) which all of them define as a terrorist organization? Isn't it time to reconsider Turkey's membership in NATO, in view of its open support of terror? Did we hear one negative comment about the explicit anti-Semitism of Erdogan, from one of Turkey's allies?

The European and American radical Left marches together with the Islamist Jihadists in the streets of the Western World, condemning Israel. A very interesting coalition: "Human rights advocates" support dictatorships which stone criminals and amputate their hands and using children as human shields; "Peace loving activists" support suicide bombing, rockets on civilians and numerous other atrocities; Feminists endorse those who treat women like low animals and murder them "to save the honor of the family" when they are raped; Gay rights organizations collaborate with those who execute gays, just because of their sexual preference. There is not one attribute of Fascism that does not apply to the Muslim Brothers and their associates, including, of course, the Hamas, the Palestinian Branch of the Muslim Brothers. The green flags of Islamic Fascism mix well with the Red flags of a deranged Radical Left, making a mockery of every good thing for which socialism used to stand. May I suggest an appropriate name for the city square in which these people march, shoulder to shoulder? Call it "Piazza Ribbentrop-Molotov". It all happened before, and the one joint target of their hatred, the single common item on their political platform, was always the Jews. The regretful fact that some of the most virulent demagogues are self-hating Jews, does not change this conclusion. "Nothing new under the sun" said the wise biblical King Solomon.

Even under the barrage of rockets, Israel continues to send trucks with food and medicines to Gaza, providing Gaza with much of the electricity needed for producing new rockets, and accepting ailing Palestinians into its good hospitals. Perhaps someone should inform Erdogan? Or tell the hateful and blind radical left allies of the Jihadists? We might even face a malpractice suit for treating a sick Palestinian, coming from the creative brain of a blind agitated radical demonstrator somewhere. Israel has also been treating numerous wounded civilians from the horrible Syrian civil war, which produced in one year more refugees than 100 years of Israeli-Palestinian confrontation. Has anyone heard of these refugees?

A Hamas rocket hits the high voltage line leading electricity from Israel to Gaza. Hamas and the objective United Nations demand that Israeli workers will risk their lives, providing immediate repairs, as befits a loyal and good friendly customer. If the line is not repaired, two major difficulties might arise: Israel will cause a major humanitarian crisis and the next Hamas rocket will not be able to hit again the power line. It seems that the second of these is the one that really bothers Hamas, because nothing would suit their propaganda more than a self-inflicted humanitarian crisis.

In the past, before Egypt closed the tunnels connecting Gaza and Egypt, the Hamas was routinely attacking the food trucks coming from Israel. After all, Hamas operatives received fat commissions on anything transported through the tunnels, and the Israeli trucks were not part of this lucrative business. Just watch the big mansions that the Hamas leaders built for themselves in Gaza. It was a flourishing organized crime scene, complete with "protection fees", known to all, but mentioned nowhere in the global media. The new Egyptian regime, declaring Hamas a terrorist organization, blocked the tunnels, putting an end to the bonanza. Hamas cannot pay salaries to its thousands of employees. Hence the urgent need for an exciting war.

Sigmund Freud, the great Viennese father of psychoanalysis, was a great expert on dreams. When the Hamas barrage of rockets into the center of Israel started, we happened to host a Viennese Psychiatrist, as our guest at the Weizmann institute. He had an amazing dream, worth reporting here. On the day preceding his dream, the Hamas aimed rockets, for the first time, in the direction of Jerusalem. They were intercepted, like most rockets aimed at populated areas, by the successful Iron Dome defensive system. The remarkable dream of our Viennese guest went like this: A Hamas rocket from Gaza, aimed at Jewish Jerusalem, hit the Al Aqsa mosque. The United Nations Human Rights Council immediately called for an emergency session, and severely condemned Israel for the war crime of not intercepting the rocket with the Iron Dome.

July 18, 2014


* Professor Harari is Chair of the Board of the Davidson Institute of Science Education at the Weizmann Institute and Chair of the Management Committee of the Weizmann Global Endowment Management Trust in New York. He served as the President of the Weizmann Institute of Science from 1988-2001.

|

THE TRUE STORY OF "AMERICA" IS A GREAT ONE

The most important of the wars against America is the one being fought within America.

Elements of the left -- which now dominate the Democratic Party -- have for decades been arguing that we as Americans should be ashamed of our country, that it has been a force for evil in the world and needs to be changed, or, in Obama's words, "transformed."

Dinesh D'Souza in a book "America" and a motion picture of the same name, exposes their collective efforts to make Americans ashamed of their history and their rich, superpower status while much of the world, from which we have stolen their wealth, suffers. It is only justice that we now share our wealth and step down from our mighty perch in the name of "justice."

If you are in Chatham, stop by the bookstore "Where the Sidewalk Ends" and order or pick up a copy.

To round out the "lesson," why not also ask for a copy of Howard Zinn's "The People's History of the United States" which has educated millions of American schoolchildren on how evil American history has been. This brainwashing is in evidence on American university campuses and in government functionaries today. America must pay.

Both books are available on Amazon in print and Kindle as well.

Also, the movie "America" is currently playing at the Regal Cinemas at the Cape Cod Mall. This week the showings are in the evening: 7:05 and 9:35.

Here's a good review of the movie. It really is a "must see."


Dinesh D’Souza Tells the True Story of America
Posted By Arnold Ahlert On July 17, 2014 FrontPage Magazine

Dinesh D’Souza’s latest film, “America, Imagine a World Without Her,” which earned a rare A+ rating from CinemaScore, is apparently such a threat to progressive ideology that Costco initially ordered the book on which the movie is based removed from its shelves. One can understand why: the film is a devastating takedown of those who see America as the primary source of evil in the world.

The picture opens with a what-if scenario that includes the assassination of George Washington by a British sniper, and the subsequent disintegration of Mount Rushmore, the Lincoln Memorial, the Iwo Jima Memorial, and the Statue of Liberty, as D’Souza asks, “What would the work look like if America did not exist?”

The question is used as a vehicle to set up—and subsequently knock down–the left’s grievance agenda and its victims. Those grievances include theft of land, labor and the American Dream, as well as genocide, segregation and racism. The victims include Native Americans, black Americans, Hispanics and ultimately all Americans. “These indictments developed separately, and each has been around for a long time,” D’Souza explains. “But now they’ve come together in a single narrative of American shame.”

The main driver of that narrative is historian Howard Zinn, whose polemic, “A People’s History of the United States,” has been required reading in thousands of American public schools and universities for years. “When I hear young people on the campus repeat the narrative of American shame, I know they haven’t been told the whole story,” D’Souza notes.

Continue reading...


|

OBAMA SWINGS THE WRECKING BALL

What Obama has done, is doing and is planning to do is pushing America into chaos, danger and fear.

There can be conclusion other than that he is doing all this deliberately to punish this great country for the wrongs he claims we have done to the oppressed peoples of the world. In their name with the power of the chief executive of the United States, he is sticking a dagger into the country's heart.

When President Lincoln said the nation would never be defeated except from within, he could not have imagined that a successor of his would be the cause of such intentional destruction.

The Constitution? An old piece of paper to be ignored. Congress' authority to make laws? Nonsense, I have a pen and a phone, so "sue me." Enforce the laws? They oppress, let's let the oppressed in to take back what you've stolen from them.

Victor Davis Hanson writes at National Review Online and all too accurately captures the horror of the Obama wrecking rampage. And no one is stopping him.

Our Roost, Obama’s Chickens
From the Middle East to Russia to our own southern border, Obama’s bills are coming due.

By Victor Davis Hanson

Often, crazy things seem normal for a time because logical catastrophes do not immediately follow.

A deeply suspicious Richard Nixon systematically and without pushback for years undermined and politicized almost every institution of the federal government, from the CIA and the FBI to the IRS and the attorney general’s office. Nixon seemed to get away with it — until his second term. Once the public woke up, however, the eventual accounting proved devastating: resignation of a sitting president, prison sentences for his top aides, collapse of the Republican party, government stasis, a ruined economy, the destruction of the Vietnam peace accords that had led to a viable South Vietnam, the end of Henry Kissinger’s diplomatic breakthroughs, and a generation of abject cynicism about government. Did Nixon ever grasp that such destruction was the natural wage of his own paranoia?

In the post-Watergate climate of reform, for nearly three years a naïve Jimmy Carter gave utopian speeches about how American forbearance would end the Cold War and create a new world order based on human rights — until America’s abdication started to erode the preexisting global order. Scary things followed, such as the fall of the shah of Iran, the rise of Iranian theocracy, the taking of American hostages in Tehran, revolutions and insurrection throughout Central America, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, radical Islamists taking over Mecca, more gas lines, continued stagflation, and China invading Vietnam. Did the puritanical Carter ever understand what might be the consequences of his own self-righteousness in an imperfect world?

Barack Obama likewise has done some crazy things that seemed for years to have no ramifications. Unfortunately, typical of the ways of Nemesis (a bitter goddess who waits until the opportune moment to demand payment for past hubris), suddenly the bills for Obama’s six years of folly are coming due for the American people.
When a president occasionally fails to tell the truth, you get a scandal like the monitoring of the Associated Press reporters. When a president serially fails to tell the truth, you get that plus the scandals involving the IRS, the NSA, the VA, Benghazi, and too many others to mention.

The same is true abroad. The American public hardly noticed when Obama recklessly withdrew every peacekeeper from Iraq. Did he not boast of “ending the Iraq War”? It did not mind when the U.S. posted dates for withdrawal from Afghanistan. Trashing all the Bush–Cheney anti-terrorism protocols, from Guantanamo to renditions, did not make much sense, when such policies had worked and, in fact, were of use to Obama himself. But again, most Americans took no note. Apparently the terrorists did, however, and they regrouped even as the president declared them “on the run.”

Lecturing Israel while praising Islamist Turkey was likewise ignored. America snoozed as its president insidiously redefined its role in the Middle East as secondary to the supposed pivot to Asia. Each new correction in and of itself was comparatively minor; but in aggregate they began to unravel the U.S.-inspired postwar global order.

At first, who cared whether Iran serially violated every Obama deadline on halting nuclear enrichment? Did we worry that Libya, where Obama was proud of having led from behind, was descending into Somalia? Few Americans were all that bothered over Obama’s empty order to Syrian president Bashar Assad to step down, or over Obama’s later vacuous red-line threats that bombs would follow any use by Assad of chemical weapons.

Few noted that Obama lied to the nation that a video had caused the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi, that Obama had known who the real terrorist perpetrators were but had ordered no immediate action to kill or capture them, and that Americans had been engaged in mysterious and still unexplained covert activities in Benghazi. After all that, we still shrugged when the president traded five top terrorist leaders for an alleged American deserter.

Trashing George W. Bush’s policy toward Vladimir Putin while promising a new reset approach (illustrated with a plastic red button) to an aggressive dictator raised few eyebrows at the time. Nor did many Americans worry that our Pacific allies were upset over Chinese and North Korean aggression that seemed to ignore traditional U.S. deterrence.

We were told that only Obama-haters at home had catalogued the president’s apologies abroad, his weird multicultural bowing to authoritarians, his ahistorical speeches about mythical Islamic achievements, his surreal euphemisms for radical Islam, terrorism, and jihadism, his shrill insistence about civilian trials for terrorists and closing Guantanamo, or the radical cutbacks at the Pentagon, coupled with the vast increase in entitlement spending.

But after six years of all that, our allies have got the message that they are on their own, our enemies that there are few consequences to aggression, and neutrals that joining with America does not mean ending up on the winning side. The result is that the Middle East we have known since the end of World War II has now vanished.

Supposedly crackpot fantasies about a worldwide “caliphate” are becoming reified. What were once dismissed as conspiracy theories about an “Iranian arc” — from a nuclear Tehran through Syria to Hezbollah in Lebanon to the borders of Israel to the Shiite minorities in the Gulf kingdoms — do not seem so crazy.

The idea of visiting the Egyptian pyramids or hoping to reengage with a reforming Libya is absurd. The best of the Middle East — Israel, Jordan, Kurdistan — no longer count on us. The worst — ISIS, Iran, Syria — count on us to remain irrelevant or worse. Old allies in the Gulf would probably trust Israel or Russia more than the Obama administration. In the next two years, if Obama continues on his present course, we are going to see things that we could not have imagined six years ago in the Middle East, as it reverts to premodern Islamic tribalism.

The same trajectory has been followed on the home front. Americans at first were amused that the great conciliator — and greatest political recipient on record of Wall Street cash — went after the rich with an array of hokey epithets and slurs (fat cats, corporate-jet owners, Vegas junketeers, limb-lopping and tonsil-pulling doctors, business owners who should not profit, or should know when they have made enough money, or should admit they didn’t build their own businesses). Few connected the dots when the polarizing attorney general — the John Mitchell of our time — referred to African-Americans as “my people” and all the rest of the nation as “cowards.” Did we worry that the craziest things seem to come out of the president’s own mouth — the Trayvon-like son he never had, the stereotyping police, the absence of a “smidgen” of corruption in the Lois Lerner IRS scandal, or the mean Republicans who “messed” with him?

The president before the 2012 elections lamented to Latino groups that he did not have dictatorial powers to grant amnesty but urged them in the meantime to “punish our enemies” — a sort of follow-up to his 2008 “typical white person” incitement. Who was bothered that with “a pen and a phone” Obama for the first time in American history emasculated the U.S. Border Patrol, as part of a larger agenda of picking and choosing which federal laws the executive branch would enforce?

Those choices seemed to be predicated on two extralegal criteria: Did a law contribute to Obama’s concept of social justice, and did it further the progressive political cause? If the answer was no to either, the statute was largely unenforced. No president since World War II has done more to harm the U.S. Constitution — by ordering the executive branch not to enforce particular laws, by creating by fiat laws never enacted by Congress, by monitoring the communications of journalists and average Americans, by making appointments contrary to law — to the apparent yawns of the people.

Too few also seemed to care that almost everything the president had promised about Obamacare — keep your health plan, retain your doctor, save money on your premiums, sign up easily online, while we were lowering the annual deficit and reducing medical expenditures — was an abject lie. In such a climate, Obama felt no need to issue accurate data about how many Americans had lost their health plans, how many had simply transferred to Obamacare from Medicaid, how many had actually paid their premiums, or how many were still uninsured. The media ignored the serial $1 trillion deficits, the chronic high unemployment and low growth, the nonexistence of the long-promised “summer of recovery,” and the nonappearance of “millions of shovel-ready and green jobs.” The fact that electrical-power rates, gasoline prices, and food costs have soared under Obama as wages have stagnated has never really been noticed. Nor have the record numbers of Americans on food stamps and disability insurance.

Meanwhile, as Obama has refused to enforce immigration law, the result is chaos. Tens of thousands of children are flooding across our border illegally, on the scent of Obama’s executive-order amnesties. Advocates of open borders, such as progressive grandees Mark Zuckerberg and Nancy Pelosi, assume that these impoverished Third World children will not enroll in the private academies attended by their children or grandchildren, or need housing in one of their vacation estates, or crowd their specialists’ waiting rooms. They do not worry about the effects of illegal immigration on the wages of low-income Americans. Dealing first-hand with the ramifications of open borders is for unenlightened, illiberal little people.

Obama’s economic legacy is rarely appreciated. He has institutionalized the idea that unemployment between 6 and 7 percent is normal, that annual deficits over $500 billion reflect frugality, that soaring power, food, and fuel costs are not proof of inflation, that zero interest rates are the reward for thrift, that higher taxes are always a beginning, never an end, and that there is no contradiction when elite progressives — the Obamas, the Clintons, the Warrens — trash the 1-percenters, while doing everything in their power to live just like them.

We are the roost and, to paraphrase the president’s former spiritual adviser, Obama’s chickens are now coming home to us.

— NRO contributor Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and the author, most recently, of The Savior Generals.

|

WHY IS AMERICA LOOKING LIKE A FOOL IN EVERYTHING IT IS DOING?

Is Obama grossly incompetent? Or is he creating these messes intentionally? What is he trying to do?

Denesh D'Souza maintains that Obama is intentionally cutting back America's power and position in the world. He believes that Obama, like many left Democrats from Jane Fonda on raised in the 1960s, believes most of the world's problems are to be blamed on America, that America is a bully, an oppressor, a thief who has stolen riches from the colored people of the world. The bully needs to be reined in, it's payback time and he's the one to make it happen.

So whether it's creating a major threat to America in Iraq and Syria, or obliterating our border, Obama is "leveling" the field, bringing America down towards the third world conditions that he believes America has plunged much of the world into.

D'Souza's book "America" is out in Kindle and print and his movie "America" opens July 2nd.

So, is Obama grossly incompetent or is he pursuing a plan do harm to America and Americans, to punish us for our past behavior, to chop us down in size?

Megyn Kelly was startled, but rushed away from the comparison of America to an evil father that could still be loved by his child.

|

OBAMA HAS DONE MORE DAMAGE TO AMERICA THAN ANY OTHER PRESIDENT. IS IT BY INCOMPETENCE OR INTENTION?

Dennis Prager wrote this column back in October, 2013. He would be more horrified today than he was when he wrote this all too accurate piece.

THE PRESIDENT WHO HAS DONE THE MOST DAMAGE TO AMERICA
By Dennis Prager

I have been broadcasting for 31 years and writing for longer than that. I do not recall ever saying on radio or in print that a president is doing lasting damage to our country. I did not like the presidencies of Jimmy Carter (the last Democrat I voted for) or Bill Clinton. Nor did I care for the “compassionate conservatism” of George W. Bush. In modern political parlance “compassionate” is a euphemism for ever-expanding government. But I have never written or broadcast that our country was being seriously damaged by a president.

So it is with great sadness that I write that President Barack Obama has done and continues to do major damage to America . The only question is whether this can ever be undone.

This is equally true domestically and internationally.

Domestically, his policies have had a grave impact on the American economy.
He has overseen the weakest recovery from a recession in modern American history.

He has mired the country in unprecedented levels of debt: about $6.5 trillion — that is 6,500 billion — in five years (this after calling his predecessor “unpatriotic” for adding nearly $5 trillion in eight years).

He has fashioned a country in which more Americans now receive government aid — means-tested, let alone non-means-tested — than work full-time.

He has no method of paying for this debt other than printing more money — thereby surreptitiously taxing everyone through inflation, including the poor he claims to be helping, and cheapening the dollar to the point that some countries are talking about another reserve currency — and saddling the next generations with enormous debts.

With his 2,500-page Affordable Care Act he has made it impossible for hundreds of thousands, soon millions, of Americans to keep their individual or employer-sponsored group health insurance; he has stymied American medical innovation with an utterly destructive tax on medical devices; and he has caused hundreds of thousands of workers to lose full-time jobs because of the health-care costs imposed by Obamacare on employers.

His Internal Revenue Service used its unparalleled power to stymie political dissent. No one has been held accountable.

His ambassador to Libya and three other Americans were murdered by terrorists in Benghazi , Libya . No one has been blamed. The only blame the Obama administration has leveled was on a videomaker in California who had nothing to do with the assault.

In this president’s White House the buck stops nowhere.

Among presidents in modern American history, he has also been a uniquely divisive force. It began with his forcing Obamacare through Congress —the only major legislation in American history to be passed with no votes from the opposition party.

Though he has had a unique opportunity to do so, he has not only not helped heal racial tensions, he has exacerbated them. His intrusions into the Trayvon Martin affair (“If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon”) and into the confrontation between a white police officer and a black Harvard professor (the police “acted stupidly”) were unwarranted, irresponsible, demagogic, and, most of all, divisive.

He should have been reassuring black Americans that America is in fact the least racist country in the world — something he should know as well as anybody, having been raised only by whites and being the first black elected the leader of a white-majority nation.

Instead, he echoed the inflammatory speech of professional race-baiters such as Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.

He has also divided the country by economic class, using classic Marxist language against “the rich” and “corporate profits.”

Regarding America in the world, he has been, if possible, even more damaging. The United States is at its weakest, has fewer allies, and has less military and diplomatic influence than at any time since before World War II.

One wonders if there is a remaining ally nation that trusts him. And worse, no American enemy fears him. If you are a free movement (the democratic Iranian and Syrian oppositions) or a free country ( Israel ), you have little or no reason to believe that you have a steadfast ally in the United States .

Even non-democratic allies no longer trust America . Barack Obama has alienated our most important and longest standing Arab allies, Egypt and Saudi Arabia . Both the anti–Muslim Brotherhood and the anti-Iran Arab states have lost respect for him.

And his complete withdrawal of American troops from Iraq has left that country with weekly bloodbaths.

Virtually nothing Barack Obama has done has left America or the world better since he became president. Nearly everything he has touched has been made worse.

He did, however, promise before the 2008 election that “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America .” That is the one promise he has kept.

|

OBAMA'S FOREIGN POLICY FAILURES (?) EMBARRASS AND ENDANGER THE U.S.

Middle East: Three nations, one conflict
By Borzou Daragahi
The crises in Syria, Iraq and Lebanon are merging into a single sectarian war, says the Financial Times. (Article behind paywall) http://tinyurl.com/n8ajgqc

Another Obama foreign policy failure. By not negotiating a status of forces agreement, he abandoned Iraq and created a vaccum. By failing to act early on in Syria, he has left the U.S. in a no-win situation where the sectarian Islamic war is enveloping three countries in which already almost 200,000 civilians have died.

President Obama continues his retreat from Afghanistan
By Editorial Board, Washington Post http://tinyurl.com/pbemz2m

YOU CAN’T fault President Obama for inconsistency. After winning election in 2008, he reduced the U.S. military presence in Iraq to zero. After helping to topple Libyan dictator Moammar Gaddafi in 2011, he made sure no U.S. forces would remain. He has steadfastly stayed aloof, except rhetorically, from the conflict in Syria. And on Tuesday he promised to withdraw all U.S. forces from Afghanistan by the end of 2016.
The Afghan decision would be understandable had Mr. Obama’s previous choices proved out. But what’s remarkable is that the results also have been consistent — consistently bad.

From the ultra-left Washington Post, a scorching denunciation of Obama’s foreign policy. The question never goes away: Is this sheer incompetence or part of a plan to reduce the United States to an unreliable weakling? Allies are worried and China, Russia and Islamic terrorists everywhere are rising up with little or no fear of reprisals from the United States.

|
WE ARE THE PARTY OF LINCOLN.
WE STAND FOR FREEDOM AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL.



Contact: Diane Bronsdon 508 945 9218
C R Facebook
GREATEST THREATS TO THE U.S.
ISLAMIC SUPREMACISM
ISLAMIC TERRORISM
RADICAL ISLAMIC IMMIGRATION
ISLAMIC HATRED OF CHRISTIANS AND JEWS
Watch
To help us do our part to keep America strong and well informed, just click below. Donate Now!

News
Syndication
rdf
rss2
atom

Links
Michael O'Keffe District Attorney
Leo Cakounes Barn.Cty Commish
Sheriff Cummings
Hot Air
Legal Insurrection
National Review
Power Line
Pajamas Media

Causes:

Semper Fi Fund
Cape Cod Cares for Our Troops
Wounded Warrior Family Support
New England Center and Home for Veterans
Search
Chatham Info
Archives
Monthly Archive

Category Yearly Archives
Archives

Categories