Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gave his speech to a joint session of Congress today. Netanyahu outlined the extent of Iran's support for terror around the world. And, perhaps with some intent to clarify to liberal Jews just how grave the threat of Iranian nukes can be, he said: "...listen to Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, Iran's chief terrorist proxy. (Quoting Nasrallah): If all the Jews gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of chasing them down around the world."
Netanyahu told us what the Supreme Leader of Iran has said about their nuclear program: "Iran plans to have 190,000 centrifuges, not 6,000 or even the 19,000 that Iran has today, but 10 times that amount - 190,000 centrifuges enriching uranium. With this massive capacity, Iran could make the fuel for an entire nuclear arsenal ...in a matter of weeks, once it makes that decision."
After the speech, Obama claimed that Netanyahu offered no new suggestions. Obama's plan is to allow Iran nuclear capability and to ultimately provide for the lifting of economic sanctions. And the entire deal sunsets after ten years, after which time there will be no restrictions on Iran's nuclear activities.
Netanyahu suggested that there should be no easing of restrictions until Iran "stop its aggression against its neighbors in the Middle East." And that Iran "stop supporting terrorism around the world." And that Iran "stop threatening to annihilate my country, Israel, the one and only Jewish state."
Netanyahu also noted that the deal has no requirement that Iran abandon its intercontinental ballistic missile system. Exactly what, if anything, does this "deal" require of Iran? And a huge question remains - just why does Iran need to keep and maintain any of its uranium enriching centrifuges? Iran claims that they only seek peaceful, civilian uses of their uranium. Honestly, I cannot believe that anybody buys that. They have had hidden and underground nuclear facilities. They are developing an ICBM, which has only one purpose - the delivery of a nuclear warhead.
There are quite a few countries in the world which are not nuclear powers, but which do have nuclear reactors for civilian use. And they do not enrich their own uranium - they import it. They import low grade - not weapons grade - uranium, and have no capabilities of enriching the uranium up to weapons grade. They do not have centrifuges.
So for the Democrats who were incensed by Netanyahu's speech, I would ask why are you not incensed by a deal that appears to ask next to nothing of the Iranians. No giving up their centrifuges. No giving up their ICBM program. No commitment to stop supporting terror. No requirement to stop threatening to wipe Israel off the map, along with a commitment not to do so.
Or, are you so tied to party loyalty over the safety and security of the United States and our allies, that you will rejoice when Obama announces that the deal has achieved "peace in our time."
Tuesday, March 3, 2015
The Democrats Take on Netanyahu's Speech
It appears that a total of 58 Representatives and Senators boycotted the speech given today to a joint session of Congress by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. What a nice way to support the BDS (Boycott, Divest and Sanction) movement against the State of Israel. It is also further proof of the difficulty many on the left have of even hearing what may be a different point of view.
Prior to the speech Rep. Charles Rangel said: "I'm offended as an American." Well, Mr. Rangel, I'm offended that you and 57 of your Democrat colleagues did not think it important enough to listen to our closest ally in the Middle East, an ally threatened with annihilation on a near daily basis.
Sen. Patrick Leahy before the speech called it a "tawdry and high-handed stunt." Do you know, Senator, that the deal on the table with Iran does nothing - nothing - to limit or put an end to their Intercontinental Ballistic Missile program. Why do they need such long range delivery systems, when the only purpose for an ICBM is the delivery of a nuclear warhead? Will you call it a "stunt" if a nuclear bomb explodes over the U.S.? Iran does not need an ICBM to reach Israel.
Rep. Earl Blumenauer said before the speech that the Constitution "vests the responsibility for foreign affairs in the president." Obama reiterated that sentiment after the speech: "It's very important for all of us Americans to realize that we have a system of government in which foreign policy runs through the executive branch and the president, not through other channels." So much for Obama being the constitutional scholar.
Yes, the president is the Commander in Chief. Yes, policy is set through the president. But we have a system of checks and balances for a reason. There are limits even on a president's foreign policy initiatives. Only the Congress has the power to declare war, and to raise funds to pay for war. Congress was given the power to "raise and support Armies," and to "provide and maintain a Navy." It is Congress that was given the power to "regulate commerce with foreign nations." I trust that the House and Senate do not have standing committees on foreign affairs just for the fun of it.
And to insure that the president does not enter into any deals that might be considered bad for the United States, the Constitution also provides that the president '...shall have power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur..." By and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate. Except Obama does not believe he needs their approval. You just have to trust him.
What Obama said was this: "And what I can guarantee is that if it's a deal I've signed off on, I will be able to prove that it is the best way for us to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon." He will be able to prove it. Except that the head of the IAEA just announced that "The Agency is not in a position to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran, and therefore to conclude that all nuclear material in Iran is in peaceful activities." So the monitoring Agency for any deal is not confident about Iranian actions and intentions, but we should trust Obama. Would that be like trusting him when he drew the red line over the use of chemical weapons by Syria?
After Netanyahu's speech, we also heard from Rep. John Yarmuth of Kentucky. Yarmuth accused Netanyahu of "fear mongering." The Ayatollahs threaten to wipe Israel off the map on virtually a daily basis. A nuclear weapon will give Iran that capability. I have no doubt that if Yarmuth lived at the time, he would have been one of the Jews (yes, he's Jewish) telling people not to worry about Hitler - don't fear monger. What a disappointment he is.
Of course, some of the best nonsense always comes from Nancy Pelosi. While she attended the speech, she was so upset at times that she was "near tears." She was "saddened by the insult to the intelligence of the United States..." Do countries have their own intelligence? At least the woman who told us about the ACA that "we have to pass the bill to see what's in it" did not tell us it was an insult to her intelligence, of which there is none.
Prior to the speech Rep. Charles Rangel said: "I'm offended as an American." Well, Mr. Rangel, I'm offended that you and 57 of your Democrat colleagues did not think it important enough to listen to our closest ally in the Middle East, an ally threatened with annihilation on a near daily basis.
Sen. Patrick Leahy before the speech called it a "tawdry and high-handed stunt." Do you know, Senator, that the deal on the table with Iran does nothing - nothing - to limit or put an end to their Intercontinental Ballistic Missile program. Why do they need such long range delivery systems, when the only purpose for an ICBM is the delivery of a nuclear warhead? Will you call it a "stunt" if a nuclear bomb explodes over the U.S.? Iran does not need an ICBM to reach Israel.
Rep. Earl Blumenauer said before the speech that the Constitution "vests the responsibility for foreign affairs in the president." Obama reiterated that sentiment after the speech: "It's very important for all of us Americans to realize that we have a system of government in which foreign policy runs through the executive branch and the president, not through other channels." So much for Obama being the constitutional scholar.
Yes, the president is the Commander in Chief. Yes, policy is set through the president. But we have a system of checks and balances for a reason. There are limits even on a president's foreign policy initiatives. Only the Congress has the power to declare war, and to raise funds to pay for war. Congress was given the power to "raise and support Armies," and to "provide and maintain a Navy." It is Congress that was given the power to "regulate commerce with foreign nations." I trust that the House and Senate do not have standing committees on foreign affairs just for the fun of it.
And to insure that the president does not enter into any deals that might be considered bad for the United States, the Constitution also provides that the president '...shall have power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur..." By and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate. Except Obama does not believe he needs their approval. You just have to trust him.
What Obama said was this: "And what I can guarantee is that if it's a deal I've signed off on, I will be able to prove that it is the best way for us to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon." He will be able to prove it. Except that the head of the IAEA just announced that "The Agency is not in a position to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran, and therefore to conclude that all nuclear material in Iran is in peaceful activities." So the monitoring Agency for any deal is not confident about Iranian actions and intentions, but we should trust Obama. Would that be like trusting him when he drew the red line over the use of chemical weapons by Syria?
After Netanyahu's speech, we also heard from Rep. John Yarmuth of Kentucky. Yarmuth accused Netanyahu of "fear mongering." The Ayatollahs threaten to wipe Israel off the map on virtually a daily basis. A nuclear weapon will give Iran that capability. I have no doubt that if Yarmuth lived at the time, he would have been one of the Jews (yes, he's Jewish) telling people not to worry about Hitler - don't fear monger. What a disappointment he is.
Of course, some of the best nonsense always comes from Nancy Pelosi. While she attended the speech, she was so upset at times that she was "near tears." She was "saddened by the insult to the intelligence of the United States..." Do countries have their own intelligence? At least the woman who told us about the ACA that "we have to pass the bill to see what's in it" did not tell us it was an insult to her intelligence, of which there is none.
Thursday, February 26, 2015
Shame on the Democrats
The following Democrats have announced that they will not attend next week's speech in Congress by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. In the House: Earl Blumenauer, Oregon; G.K. Butterfield, N.C.; Andre Carson, Ind.; James Clyburn, S.C.; Steve Cohen, Tenn.; Peter DeFazio, Oregon; Diana DeGette, Colo.; Donna Edwards, Md.; Keith Ellison, Minn.; Raul Grijalva, Ariz., Luis Gutierrez, Ill.; Eleanor Holmes Norton, D.C.; Eddie Bernice Johnson, Tex.; Barbara Lee, Cal.; John Lewis, Ga.; Betty McCollum, Minn.; Jim McDermott, Wash.; Gregory Meeks, N.Y.; Beto O'Rourke, Tex.; Chellie Pingree Maine; Charles Rangel, N.Y.; Cedric Richmond, La.; Jan Schakowsky, Ill.; Bennie Thompson, Miss.; John Yarmuth, Ky.; and Danny Davis, Ill.
That is a total of 26 House members to date who have said they will not attend. Included in the group is the head of the Congressional Black Caucus, Butterfield. Also in the group is Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress, and the head of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. (I doubt many rank and file Dems are even aware of that group or its ties to far left and socialist groups.)
And of the Jewish members not attending, Steve Cohen had this to say: "After deliberation, I have decided I cannot in good conscience attend the Prime Minister's speech." If the interests of the United States conflicted with the interests of Israel, I could understand such a comment. After all, Cohen is a United States Representative, not an official of Israel. But here, the interests of the US and Israel are the same; the only conflict is with a President determined to endanger this country, Israel and the world by allowing Iran nuclear capability.
In addition to the 26 Representatives, 4 Senators have announced they will not attend: Tim Kaine, Va.; Patrick Leahy, Vt.; Bernie Sanders, Vt.; and Brian Schatz, Hw. A total to date of 30 Democrats who refuse to hear the Israeli Prime Minister speak. These people, and undoubtedly many other liberal Democrats in Congress, prefer to side with Obama rather than concern themselves with the terms of the deal Obama is about to enter into with Iran. I hope my fellow Jews who remain loyal to the Democrat party are proud.
National Security Adviser Susan Rice was rather blunt in expressing the Obama Administration's feelings about the Netanyahu speech. She stated that the Israeli Prime Minister's visit "injected a degree of partisanship which is not only unfortunate, I think it's destructive of the fabric of the relationship."
"Destructive of the fabric of the relationship." Obama will meet with the terrorist leaders of Iran, the dictatorial Castro brothers of Cuba, but boy, if you disagree with him - watch out! Adding insult to injury, Obama is giving Cuba and Iran what they want, while he tells Israel to commit suicide by establishing another terrorist state on its borders. There is nothing left that I can say to my fellow Jews who will remain Democrats, other than - I don't want to get on that train with you.
Secretary of State John Kerry, in reference to the war between Ukraine and Russia, recently said this: "Russia is engaged in a rather remarkable period of the most overt and extensive propaganda exercise that I've seen since the very height of the Cold War. And they have been persisting in their misrepresentations - lies- whatever you want to call them about their activities there to my face, to the face of others on many different occasions."
And I thought he might have been referring to the Iranians.
That is a total of 26 House members to date who have said they will not attend. Included in the group is the head of the Congressional Black Caucus, Butterfield. Also in the group is Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress, and the head of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. (I doubt many rank and file Dems are even aware of that group or its ties to far left and socialist groups.)
And of the Jewish members not attending, Steve Cohen had this to say: "After deliberation, I have decided I cannot in good conscience attend the Prime Minister's speech." If the interests of the United States conflicted with the interests of Israel, I could understand such a comment. After all, Cohen is a United States Representative, not an official of Israel. But here, the interests of the US and Israel are the same; the only conflict is with a President determined to endanger this country, Israel and the world by allowing Iran nuclear capability.
In addition to the 26 Representatives, 4 Senators have announced they will not attend: Tim Kaine, Va.; Patrick Leahy, Vt.; Bernie Sanders, Vt.; and Brian Schatz, Hw. A total to date of 30 Democrats who refuse to hear the Israeli Prime Minister speak. These people, and undoubtedly many other liberal Democrats in Congress, prefer to side with Obama rather than concern themselves with the terms of the deal Obama is about to enter into with Iran. I hope my fellow Jews who remain loyal to the Democrat party are proud.
National Security Adviser Susan Rice was rather blunt in expressing the Obama Administration's feelings about the Netanyahu speech. She stated that the Israeli Prime Minister's visit "injected a degree of partisanship which is not only unfortunate, I think it's destructive of the fabric of the relationship."
"Destructive of the fabric of the relationship." Obama will meet with the terrorist leaders of Iran, the dictatorial Castro brothers of Cuba, but boy, if you disagree with him - watch out! Adding insult to injury, Obama is giving Cuba and Iran what they want, while he tells Israel to commit suicide by establishing another terrorist state on its borders. There is nothing left that I can say to my fellow Jews who will remain Democrats, other than - I don't want to get on that train with you.
Secretary of State John Kerry, in reference to the war between Ukraine and Russia, recently said this: "Russia is engaged in a rather remarkable period of the most overt and extensive propaganda exercise that I've seen since the very height of the Cold War. And they have been persisting in their misrepresentations - lies- whatever you want to call them about their activities there to my face, to the face of others on many different occasions."
And I thought he might have been referring to the Iranians.
Letter to the Editor
In a letter to the editor in the 2/13/15 edition of a local newspaper (The Ventura County Star), a writer who identified herself as a Jew expressed her "disgust" in Benjamin Netanyahu's "total disregard for proper etiquette" by accepting Speaker Boehner's invitation to speak to a joint session of Congress. The writer revealed her true colors when she added that Netanyahu's behavior in accepting the invitation was "unfortunately typical of him and his party." Another liberal Jew who puts her party ahead of the survival of Israel.
I then wrote a reply to her letter, which the Star published on 2/19/15. My reply follows; however, I have replaced the writer's name with an "X."
Letter to the Editor:
As a fellow Jew, it was with great disappointment that I read Ms. X's letter expressing her "disgust" for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's alleged disregard for proper etiquette. Does Ms. X believe the White House spin that the Netanyahu speech is about a breach of protocol? President Obama has never cared about protocol.
His first speech was in 2009 from Cairo to the Muslim world. There he was in Egypt, a guest of then President Hosni Mubarek, and Obama invited members of the outlawed terrorist group, the Muslim Botherhood, to come hear him speak. It was such a breach of protocol and slap in the face to Mubarek, that Mubarek was furious and refused to attend the speech. Were you equally "disgusted" by President Obama's actions? I could give more examples if space permitted.
The underlying issue remains that the deal proposed by President Obama will allow Iran to maintain nuclear capability. If Iran chooses to do so, they could violate the terms of the deal and obtain nuclear weapons within a matter of months. Iranian leaders regularly threaten to wipe Israel off the map. While such weapons would be a threat to the U.S., they would constitute an existential threat to the State of Israel. So, I would also ask Ms. X, is she also "disgusted" by the idea of the Ayatollahs possessing nukes?
Netanyahu is acting in the finest tradition of Rabbi Hillel, who famously said: "If I am not for myself, who will be for me...and if not now, when?"
Jews are increasingly under attack around the world. Yesterday in Copenhagen we saw yet another example. I would hope that the words of another famous quote still have meaning to you: "Never Again!"
I then wrote a reply to her letter, which the Star published on 2/19/15. My reply follows; however, I have replaced the writer's name with an "X."
Letter to the Editor:
As a fellow Jew, it was with great disappointment that I read Ms. X's letter expressing her "disgust" for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's alleged disregard for proper etiquette. Does Ms. X believe the White House spin that the Netanyahu speech is about a breach of protocol? President Obama has never cared about protocol.
His first speech was in 2009 from Cairo to the Muslim world. There he was in Egypt, a guest of then President Hosni Mubarek, and Obama invited members of the outlawed terrorist group, the Muslim Botherhood, to come hear him speak. It was such a breach of protocol and slap in the face to Mubarek, that Mubarek was furious and refused to attend the speech. Were you equally "disgusted" by President Obama's actions? I could give more examples if space permitted.
The underlying issue remains that the deal proposed by President Obama will allow Iran to maintain nuclear capability. If Iran chooses to do so, they could violate the terms of the deal and obtain nuclear weapons within a matter of months. Iranian leaders regularly threaten to wipe Israel off the map. While such weapons would be a threat to the U.S., they would constitute an existential threat to the State of Israel. So, I would also ask Ms. X, is she also "disgusted" by the idea of the Ayatollahs possessing nukes?
Netanyahu is acting in the finest tradition of Rabbi Hillel, who famously said: "If I am not for myself, who will be for me...and if not now, when?"
Jews are increasingly under attack around the world. Yesterday in Copenhagen we saw yet another example. I would hope that the words of another famous quote still have meaning to you: "Never Again!"
Sunday, February 22, 2015
Does Obama Love America?
Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani has taken some heat for his comment saying "I do not believe, and I know this is a horrible thing to say, but I do not believe that the President loves America."
Not surprisingly, we had the feigned reactions of shock from the democrats. Josh Earnest, W.H. spokesperson, said he felt "sorry" for Rudy, having tarnished his legacy with such a comment. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, head of the DNC, said "We can disagree on issues, but when GOPers stay silent while one of their own questions the President's patriotism, we have a real problem." These comments are pure political nonsense; much like the feigned shock over Netanyahu accepting Boehner's invitation to speak to Congress.
Giuliani's comments were those of a private citizen. He holds no elected office. But Joe Biden, as Vice President, told a black audience that "He (Romney) is going to put y'all back in chains." And Harry Reid, as Senate Majority leader, said from the Senate floor: "So the word is out that he (Romney) has not paid any taxes for 10 years. Let him prove he has paid taxes, because he has not." So the democrats could accuse a presidential candidate of supporting slavery (a horrific practice) and income tax evasion (a crime) - and just where was the outcry by other democrats when their highest office holders said such things? Please...
Now that we have dispensed with the political nonsense, the underlying issue remains - does Obama love America? We could look at his own words and background to gain some insight on this issue. As a candidate in 2008 he said that he wanted to bring "fundamental change" to this country. Five days before the election he said he would "fundamentally transform" America. So, one could reasonably ask why the need for "fundamental" change/transformation of something that you love, as opposed to "improvement." One might ask why his wife said in 2008 that "for the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country..."
One might question why he stayed at a church where the Reverend said not G-d bless America but "G-d damn America." Or why Obama said people in small towns "get bitter" and "cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment."
However, there is a far larger issue of Obama not respecting our underlying system of limited government, with the supremacy of the individual based upon certain G-d given rights, and with a system of checks and balances in order to prevent any particular branch of government from becoming too powerful. But Obama says when Congress will not write legislation he will, as he recently did with his immigration policy. Only he does not have the power to write legislation, only Congress does.
Our country was also founded on the notion of "free enterprise." Capitalism. But Obama does not believe in that either. He does not believe in individual opportunity and success. In fact, he has constantly criticized those who have succeeded - the millionaires and billionaires. He told us that "if you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."
As for the Constitution's Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments, Obama sees it as defective. Obama in 2001 said that the Constitution "says what the States can't do to you...what the Federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the Federal government must do on your behalf." So much for the concept of "rugged individualism." So much for John Kennedy's idea of "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."
Obama wanted the Constitution to provide for new "economic rights" and complained about the "essential constraints" on doing so by the language in the Constitution. Obama also complained about the Courts being bound by tradition and precedent, interfering with their ability "to bring about significant redistributional change."
So the real question might not be whether or not Obama loves America. The real question is what vision of America might Obama love? Certainly not the one created by our Founders. Which brings us to an even larger issue - how many Americans have the left and Obama persuaded to share their vision of America? We have numerous members of Congress currently who do not believe in the Founders' America. Rather, they share Obama's vision of a different, fundamentally transformed America. As I have said before, many in the democrat party remain completely unaware of how far left Obama and others have taken their party from the days of John Kennedy. These same individuals will continue to vote democrat, often unaware of what policies they are voting for, but believing all the demagogic lies about republicans.
A footnote. I have often addressed the topic of the political divide in this country. For newer readers of the blog who are interested in this topic you might want to take a look at these earlier posts: 8/2/12, "Why I Am No Longer a Democrat;" 8/30/12, "Why the Democrats Hate Republicans, But Feel So Good About Themselves;" 1/18/14, "Republicans Vote Their Values, Democrats Are Driven by Issues;" and 2/23/14, "We Are Going to Fundamentally Change America."
Not surprisingly, we had the feigned reactions of shock from the democrats. Josh Earnest, W.H. spokesperson, said he felt "sorry" for Rudy, having tarnished his legacy with such a comment. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, head of the DNC, said "We can disagree on issues, but when GOPers stay silent while one of their own questions the President's patriotism, we have a real problem." These comments are pure political nonsense; much like the feigned shock over Netanyahu accepting Boehner's invitation to speak to Congress.
Giuliani's comments were those of a private citizen. He holds no elected office. But Joe Biden, as Vice President, told a black audience that "He (Romney) is going to put y'all back in chains." And Harry Reid, as Senate Majority leader, said from the Senate floor: "So the word is out that he (Romney) has not paid any taxes for 10 years. Let him prove he has paid taxes, because he has not." So the democrats could accuse a presidential candidate of supporting slavery (a horrific practice) and income tax evasion (a crime) - and just where was the outcry by other democrats when their highest office holders said such things? Please...
Now that we have dispensed with the political nonsense, the underlying issue remains - does Obama love America? We could look at his own words and background to gain some insight on this issue. As a candidate in 2008 he said that he wanted to bring "fundamental change" to this country. Five days before the election he said he would "fundamentally transform" America. So, one could reasonably ask why the need for "fundamental" change/transformation of something that you love, as opposed to "improvement." One might ask why his wife said in 2008 that "for the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country..."
One might question why he stayed at a church where the Reverend said not G-d bless America but "G-d damn America." Or why Obama said people in small towns "get bitter" and "cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment."
However, there is a far larger issue of Obama not respecting our underlying system of limited government, with the supremacy of the individual based upon certain G-d given rights, and with a system of checks and balances in order to prevent any particular branch of government from becoming too powerful. But Obama says when Congress will not write legislation he will, as he recently did with his immigration policy. Only he does not have the power to write legislation, only Congress does.
Our country was also founded on the notion of "free enterprise." Capitalism. But Obama does not believe in that either. He does not believe in individual opportunity and success. In fact, he has constantly criticized those who have succeeded - the millionaires and billionaires. He told us that "if you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."
As for the Constitution's Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments, Obama sees it as defective. Obama in 2001 said that the Constitution "says what the States can't do to you...what the Federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the Federal government must do on your behalf." So much for the concept of "rugged individualism." So much for John Kennedy's idea of "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."
Obama wanted the Constitution to provide for new "economic rights" and complained about the "essential constraints" on doing so by the language in the Constitution. Obama also complained about the Courts being bound by tradition and precedent, interfering with their ability "to bring about significant redistributional change."
So the real question might not be whether or not Obama loves America. The real question is what vision of America might Obama love? Certainly not the one created by our Founders. Which brings us to an even larger issue - how many Americans have the left and Obama persuaded to share their vision of America? We have numerous members of Congress currently who do not believe in the Founders' America. Rather, they share Obama's vision of a different, fundamentally transformed America. As I have said before, many in the democrat party remain completely unaware of how far left Obama and others have taken their party from the days of John Kennedy. These same individuals will continue to vote democrat, often unaware of what policies they are voting for, but believing all the demagogic lies about republicans.
A footnote. I have often addressed the topic of the political divide in this country. For newer readers of the blog who are interested in this topic you might want to take a look at these earlier posts: 8/2/12, "Why I Am No Longer a Democrat;" 8/30/12, "Why the Democrats Hate Republicans, But Feel So Good About Themselves;" 1/18/14, "Republicans Vote Their Values, Democrats Are Driven by Issues;" and 2/23/14, "We Are Going to Fundamentally Change America."
Tuesday, February 17, 2015
In Their Own Words, Part II
During that same Vox interview referred to in Part I, Obama was asked if the media sometimes overstates the level of alarm people should have about terrorism? Said Obama: "Absolutely." Incredibly, Obama equated the fight with ISIS to "a big city mayor (who has) to cut the crime rate down if he wants that city to thrive." Now I've got it. Yes, just like FDR and General Eisenhower during WWII deciding they needed to "degrade" the Nazis.
I can just imagine Obama being President during WWII telling the media that they are overstating the threat. ISIS controls one-third of Syria and Iraq. Libya is a failed state and is where the Coptic Christians were murdered. Yemen is a failed state, with both Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and ISIS elements. Somalia is a failed state. ISIS and Al-Qaeda are in the Egyptian Sinai. ISIS is now threatening Italy and Rome. What's the problem?
Marie Harf, spokesperson at the State Department, actually said this: "We cannot kill our way out of this war (with ISIS). We need in the medium to longer term to go after the root causes that leads people to join these groups, whether it's lack of opportunity for jobs, whether..." At that point, apparently even Chris Matthews could not take it and said to her: "We're not going to be able to stop that in our lifetime or fifty lifetimes. There's always going to be poor people."
However, in true Marxist fashion, Ms. Harf was attempting to explain that all human behavior flows from economics. Whereas those of us on the right understand that the radical Muslims are driven by ideology, Ms. Harf does not. The Communists and Nazis? Ideology driven. But even if Ms. Harf was right, what has 50 years of fighting the war on poverty with billions of dollars accomplished in this country? More people dependent on government. Besides, as Matthews said, we have always had poor people in the world. We have always had displaced people. But only those who justify their actions with Islam are committing the atrocities today.
When ISIS held a captured Jordanian pilot, they offered an exchange for a convicted terrorist being held in a Jordanian prison. Except that the Jordanian pilot had already been burned alive. When Jordan's King Abdullah found out he immediately had the convicted terrorist executed. And these words came from the Jordanian leadership, promising a "strong, earth-shaking and decisive" response; which indeed was followed by airstrikes on ISIS targets. And this: "The revenge will be as big as the calamity that has hit Jordan." I don't know about you, but I miss having a President who could speak with such passion about evil. Instead, Obama tells us we are overstating the threat.
"Application of an atomic bomb would not leave anything in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world." So said former Iranian President Rafsanjani. Some of the Ayatollahs have made similar comments. Yet Obama is dead set on giving Iran nuclear capability, all in exchange for their promise to help bring stability to the Middle East. That is what I would refer to as insanity.
On February 12, 2015, the New York Times had this headline on the first page above the fold: "Chapel Hill Shooting Leaves 3 Muslims Dead." Sadly, some lunatic killed three young people - Muslims - who lived in the same complex as he did. The police indicated that there was a long running dispute over a parking space. It was a tragic murder. Why do I bring this up? In the 5/27/13 edition of the NY Times, there was a lengthy article about rioting in Sweden and other European cities. The headline failed to mention that the rioters in every city were Muslims. In fact, in the entire lengthy article, you would not find the word "Muslim" or "Islam." (See my 6/6/13 post entitled "Are We At War With Islam?...Part IV.) You see, the NY Times will only mention Muslims as victims, never as perpetrators. Just like Obama.
In explaining why, notwithstanding all the controversy, he is coming to speak to Congress, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said this: "I'm going to Washington because as Prime Minister of Israel, it's my obligation to do everything in my power to prevent the conclusion of a bad deal (with Iran) that could threaten the survival of the State of Israel." And he said this: "The survival of Israel is not a partisan issue." Sadly, it is for Obama and many Democrats who are threatening to boycott the speech. And he said this: "I think the pursuit of nuclear weapons by Iran is the most urgent security challenge facing the world." I wish that our President spoke with such moral clarity.
And for those of you not keeping with what Jewish students on American college campuses have to put up with, here is a small sampling: "With Jews we lose." A refrain heard in student body elections. "Kill the Jews." "Hitler was right." "The best Jew is a dead Jew." In addition to these hateful comments, Jewish students suffer real intimidation and even physical assault. Of course, most of this behavior comes from Muslim students. Again, this occurs on American college campuses. Think the problem is just in Europe and the Middle East?
Arab leaders in Saudi Arabia and the Palestinian Authority and elsewhere are calling for investigation into the killing of the 3 Muslim students as a hate crime. In fact, they are already referring to it as an act of terror. And Obama is obliging them by having his Justice Department start a federal investigation. Ironic, is it not, that these same Arab leaders are silent on the beheadings of the Coptic Christians and the murder of Jews at the kosher Deli in Paris. Curiously, Obama also does not refer to the Jews or Christians. Hmmm.
I can just imagine Obama being President during WWII telling the media that they are overstating the threat. ISIS controls one-third of Syria and Iraq. Libya is a failed state and is where the Coptic Christians were murdered. Yemen is a failed state, with both Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and ISIS elements. Somalia is a failed state. ISIS and Al-Qaeda are in the Egyptian Sinai. ISIS is now threatening Italy and Rome. What's the problem?
Marie Harf, spokesperson at the State Department, actually said this: "We cannot kill our way out of this war (with ISIS). We need in the medium to longer term to go after the root causes that leads people to join these groups, whether it's lack of opportunity for jobs, whether..." At that point, apparently even Chris Matthews could not take it and said to her: "We're not going to be able to stop that in our lifetime or fifty lifetimes. There's always going to be poor people."
However, in true Marxist fashion, Ms. Harf was attempting to explain that all human behavior flows from economics. Whereas those of us on the right understand that the radical Muslims are driven by ideology, Ms. Harf does not. The Communists and Nazis? Ideology driven. But even if Ms. Harf was right, what has 50 years of fighting the war on poverty with billions of dollars accomplished in this country? More people dependent on government. Besides, as Matthews said, we have always had poor people in the world. We have always had displaced people. But only those who justify their actions with Islam are committing the atrocities today.
When ISIS held a captured Jordanian pilot, they offered an exchange for a convicted terrorist being held in a Jordanian prison. Except that the Jordanian pilot had already been burned alive. When Jordan's King Abdullah found out he immediately had the convicted terrorist executed. And these words came from the Jordanian leadership, promising a "strong, earth-shaking and decisive" response; which indeed was followed by airstrikes on ISIS targets. And this: "The revenge will be as big as the calamity that has hit Jordan." I don't know about you, but I miss having a President who could speak with such passion about evil. Instead, Obama tells us we are overstating the threat.
"Application of an atomic bomb would not leave anything in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world." So said former Iranian President Rafsanjani. Some of the Ayatollahs have made similar comments. Yet Obama is dead set on giving Iran nuclear capability, all in exchange for their promise to help bring stability to the Middle East. That is what I would refer to as insanity.
On February 12, 2015, the New York Times had this headline on the first page above the fold: "Chapel Hill Shooting Leaves 3 Muslims Dead." Sadly, some lunatic killed three young people - Muslims - who lived in the same complex as he did. The police indicated that there was a long running dispute over a parking space. It was a tragic murder. Why do I bring this up? In the 5/27/13 edition of the NY Times, there was a lengthy article about rioting in Sweden and other European cities. The headline failed to mention that the rioters in every city were Muslims. In fact, in the entire lengthy article, you would not find the word "Muslim" or "Islam." (See my 6/6/13 post entitled "Are We At War With Islam?...Part IV.) You see, the NY Times will only mention Muslims as victims, never as perpetrators. Just like Obama.
In explaining why, notwithstanding all the controversy, he is coming to speak to Congress, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said this: "I'm going to Washington because as Prime Minister of Israel, it's my obligation to do everything in my power to prevent the conclusion of a bad deal (with Iran) that could threaten the survival of the State of Israel." And he said this: "The survival of Israel is not a partisan issue." Sadly, it is for Obama and many Democrats who are threatening to boycott the speech. And he said this: "I think the pursuit of nuclear weapons by Iran is the most urgent security challenge facing the world." I wish that our President spoke with such moral clarity.
And for those of you not keeping with what Jewish students on American college campuses have to put up with, here is a small sampling: "With Jews we lose." A refrain heard in student body elections. "Kill the Jews." "Hitler was right." "The best Jew is a dead Jew." In addition to these hateful comments, Jewish students suffer real intimidation and even physical assault. Of course, most of this behavior comes from Muslim students. Again, this occurs on American college campuses. Think the problem is just in Europe and the Middle East?
Arab leaders in Saudi Arabia and the Palestinian Authority and elsewhere are calling for investigation into the killing of the 3 Muslim students as a hate crime. In fact, they are already referring to it as an act of terror. And Obama is obliging them by having his Justice Department start a federal investigation. Ironic, is it not, that these same Arab leaders are silent on the beheadings of the Coptic Christians and the murder of Jews at the kosher Deli in Paris. Curiously, Obama also does not refer to the Jews or Christians. Hmmm.
In Their Own Words, Part I
At the National Prayer Breakfast earlier this month President Obama said this: "And lest we get on our high horse and think this (referring to radical Islam, which he calls violent extremism) is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ...So this is not unique to one group or one religion." Now, assuming that a comparison can even be made to the Crusades - that was 800 years ago! Are the Crusades a problem today? This type of moronic comment simply provides a subtle explanation and even justification for the outrageous behavior of ISIS. Obama should be ashamed of himself.
Obama on Vox after the Paris massacre: "It is entirely legitimate for the American people to be deeply concerned when you have a bunch of violent, vicious zealots who behead people or randomly shot a bunch of folks in a Deli in Paris." What? No, nothing random about it. The target was a kosher Jewish Deli - and the four who were murdered were Jews. But Obama has an issue with Jews being the victims of radical Muslims (another phrase he cannot bring himself to utter). We already know that these violent zealots are all "randomly" Muslim. Obama has gotten away with so many lies, it is hard to blame him for thinking that he can get away with even the most absurd ones.
Subsequently, White House Press Secretary/Liar for the President, had this to say: the kosher Deli victims were "killed not because of who they were, but because of where they randomly happened to be." Earnest and the spokesliars at the State Department make me very concerned about the future of this country. If any of them had integrity they would resign before spewing the nonsense that they do. Question for Earnest: Did the murderer "randomly" target a kosher Jewish Deli? Or, as happens many times, was a radical Muslim targeting Jews?
At his January State of the Union address, Obama said: "Will we accept an economy where only a few of us do spectacularly well?" Yes! Why not? If everyone did spectacularly well, then no one is doing so - because everyone would be doing equally well. Which, of course, is the true goal of all socialists. Except with socialism, everyone ends up doing equally poorly.
Also at the State of the Union, Obama said this: "And I commit to every Republican here tonight that I will not only seek out your ideas, I will seek to work with you to make this country stronger." It is truly amazing to me how many people believe this lie. In six years Obama has shown no interest in working with Republicans. He rarely invited the Congressional Republican leadership to the White House. He is not like Reagan, who worked with Democrat Speaker Tip O'Neill to get things done; or like Bill Clinton who worked with Republican Speaker Newt Gingrich. No, Obama is a pure ideologue, and the above quote was all for political show.
David Axelrod, former political adviser and campaign manager for Obama, said in his new book "Believer": If Mr. Obama's views were "evolving" publicly (regarding gay marriage), "they were fully evolved behind closed doors." Spoiler alert: What? Obama lied in 2008 when he claimed that as a Christian he opposed gay marriage? Shocking!
Josh Earnest, following the beheading of 21 Coptic Christians by ISIS, said this: "The United States condemns the despicable and cowardly murder of twenty-one Egyptian citizens in Libya by ISIL-affiliated terrorists." I guess Christians cannot be the victims of these "random" Muslim terrorists either. Then again, Obama has expressed no concern for the one million Christians displaced from Muslim-run Arab countries over the last decade. That would be more than the number of Arabs (now calling themselves "Palestinians") who were displaced from their homes during the Arabs first effort to wipe Israel off the map back in 1948-49. But Obama cares a great deal about those people.
Obama on Vox after the Paris massacre: "It is entirely legitimate for the American people to be deeply concerned when you have a bunch of violent, vicious zealots who behead people or randomly shot a bunch of folks in a Deli in Paris." What? No, nothing random about it. The target was a kosher Jewish Deli - and the four who were murdered were Jews. But Obama has an issue with Jews being the victims of radical Muslims (another phrase he cannot bring himself to utter). We already know that these violent zealots are all "randomly" Muslim. Obama has gotten away with so many lies, it is hard to blame him for thinking that he can get away with even the most absurd ones.
Subsequently, White House Press Secretary/Liar for the President, had this to say: the kosher Deli victims were "killed not because of who they were, but because of where they randomly happened to be." Earnest and the spokesliars at the State Department make me very concerned about the future of this country. If any of them had integrity they would resign before spewing the nonsense that they do. Question for Earnest: Did the murderer "randomly" target a kosher Jewish Deli? Or, as happens many times, was a radical Muslim targeting Jews?
At his January State of the Union address, Obama said: "Will we accept an economy where only a few of us do spectacularly well?" Yes! Why not? If everyone did spectacularly well, then no one is doing so - because everyone would be doing equally well. Which, of course, is the true goal of all socialists. Except with socialism, everyone ends up doing equally poorly.
Also at the State of the Union, Obama said this: "And I commit to every Republican here tonight that I will not only seek out your ideas, I will seek to work with you to make this country stronger." It is truly amazing to me how many people believe this lie. In six years Obama has shown no interest in working with Republicans. He rarely invited the Congressional Republican leadership to the White House. He is not like Reagan, who worked with Democrat Speaker Tip O'Neill to get things done; or like Bill Clinton who worked with Republican Speaker Newt Gingrich. No, Obama is a pure ideologue, and the above quote was all for political show.
David Axelrod, former political adviser and campaign manager for Obama, said in his new book "Believer": If Mr. Obama's views were "evolving" publicly (regarding gay marriage), "they were fully evolved behind closed doors." Spoiler alert: What? Obama lied in 2008 when he claimed that as a Christian he opposed gay marriage? Shocking!
Josh Earnest, following the beheading of 21 Coptic Christians by ISIS, said this: "The United States condemns the despicable and cowardly murder of twenty-one Egyptian citizens in Libya by ISIL-affiliated terrorists." I guess Christians cannot be the victims of these "random" Muslim terrorists either. Then again, Obama has expressed no concern for the one million Christians displaced from Muslim-run Arab countries over the last decade. That would be more than the number of Arabs (now calling themselves "Palestinians") who were displaced from their homes during the Arabs first effort to wipe Israel off the map back in 1948-49. But Obama cares a great deal about those people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)