The Iranian nuclear deal is arguably the most significant treaty entered into by the USA in decades. Yet Obama and the Democrats did not think it was of enough significance to actually allow a vote on it in the US Senate. 42 Democratic Senators blocked cloture, which resulted in not allowing a measure on the deal to come to a vote.
Of course, Obama had no interest in ever allowing input from the elected leaders of the people of the United States. He immediately took this deal to the UN for a vote of approval there, the UN being the entity he most relates to - not the Congress. When he wanted the most significant piece of domestic legislation passed - the ACA - he did have to go to Congress, and only succeeded in passing that on a single party vote after having to bribe some Senators in his own party to vote for it.
Perhaps the most cogent comment on this deal came from Senator Ted Cruz, who noted that the deal will free up over $100 billion in frozen Iranian assets, with billions likely going to terrorist groups who will use that money to have the wherewithal to murder Americans, Israelis and Europeans. Cruz: "If it (the deal) goes through the Obama Administration will become, quite literally, the world's leading financier of radical Islamic terrorism." Imagine that.
On the 9/9/15 O'Reilly Factor, they put up poll results from Pew for the period 9/3-9/7/15 regarding the deal. Only 21% of Americans approve of the deal, with 49% disapproving, and 30% saying they don't know. Apparently, a number of Democratic Senators who were holdouts were persuaded to support the deal when China, Russia, Britain, France and Germany said they would not reopen negotiations regardless of what the US does. So I would ask who those Senators just who is it that they believe they represent - the American people, or the Chinese, Russians and Europeans. Clearly, Obama has convinced his party that the world is a better place when other countries make decisions that affect the American people.
In his Talking Points memo of 9/9/15, O'Reilly said this: "Europe's refugee crisis is happening because the United States and Western Europe have retreated from the Middle East. Once President Obama removed all U.S. forces from Iraq, ISIS moved in and chaos broke out. The President doesn't acknowledge that his disengagement policy has led to thousands of deaths and Europe's refugee catastrophe."
But what does the refugee crisis have to do with the Iranian nuke deal? Plenty. Remember, Obama will not only side with Muslims - it is where his gut takes him - but with the most radical and extreme Muslims. He supported the Muslim Brotherhood; he withdrew from Iraq which allowed for the growth of ISIS, and then has engaged in a halfhearted effort to eliminate ISIS; and is releasing over $100 billion to the Mullahs while allowing them to keep their nuclear enrichment capability and obtain ICBMs.
This is Obama's foreign policy. Allow other countries to become more powerful, while weakening the US military. Both approaches have the result of making it more difficult for the US to assert itself anywhere in the world under future presidents. If the Ayatollahs have nukes - and to Obama's mind why shouldn't they if we do - then so be it. If ISIS ends up controlling Iraq, then so be it. His view of the world will always take precedence for him over any negative consequences that are likely to result.
So if hundreds of thousands or millions of Christians are displaced from their centuries old homes throughout the Middle East, and some are even slaughtered, so be it. If hundreds of thousands of Muslims are also displaced, and also killed, so be it. And if Israel should get wiped off the map by Iran, so be it.
After the Democrats successfully blocked any vote in the Senate on the deal, the White House proudly issued this statement: "Today, the Senate took an historic step forward and voted to enable the United States to work with our international partners to enable the implementation of the comprehensive, long-term deal that will prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon." The first lie is the "historic vote." It was only a vote to block cloture. A majority of both the House and Senate oppose the deal. The second lie is that Iran will be blocked from getting a nuke. Obama believes that as much as he believed "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor."
Obama wanted to be a consequential President. There is no doubt that he has been. Now, the rest of us, and the the rest of the world, will have to live with the consequences of his Presidency for many years to come.
Sunday, September 13, 2015
Wednesday, September 2, 2015
More Leftist Thinking
The University of Tennessee has an Office of Diversity and Inclusion. I suspect most/all universities do today. You can tell from the title that no good could come from such a bureaucratic entity. While claiming not to be official university policy, the Office of Diversity and Inclusion is quite concerned about the use of pronouns. Specifically, pronouns that identify one's sex.
In order to not "offend" anyone, they are encouraging the use of gender neutral pronouns, rather than pronouns such as "he" or "she" or "him" or "her." Here are some of their suggestions (no, I am not making this up): ze, hir, zir, xe, xem, xyr. Being from the east coast, I think I prefer dat, dem and dose.
This leftist need to make sure that no one is ever offended by anything is eerily similar to another group - Muslims. Recall the effort by the Organization of Islamic States to get a binding resolution at the UN to ban all offensive and derogatory speech against Islam. (Criticize the other religions all you want.) So, rather than protecting the exercise of free speech, we see an ever growing movement to protect overly sensitive people from speech.
But let's be honest, these people are taught to be overly sensitive, because they are "victims." To the left, everyone is a victim of something or other, except, of course, for white males.
Former star pitcher and then commentator for ESPN, Curt Schilling, found himself on the wrong side of the speech police. Tweeted Schilling: "It's said only 5-10 percent of Muslims are extremists. In 1940, only 7 percent of Germans were Nazis. How'd that go?" I have had discussions with liberals who tell me that only 5-10% of Muslims are radical. I point out that even 10% is 160 million people.
However, I have also pointed out that all Germans did not wake up the same morning and decide it would be a great idea to kill all the Jews. Rather, it was what Hitler and a small number of initial followers were able to get an entire country to do. Which was Schilling's point. But the truth does not prevail against the word police. So Schilling was suspended.
The United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers Union has 37,000 members, and is apparently the first US union to join the BDS movement (Boycott, Divest and Sanction Israel). The anti-Semites who run the union have adopted all the lies and propaganda put forth by the Palestinians. They want the US to cut off all aid to Israel in order to "pressure Israel to end its apartheid over the Palestinians." Not surprisingly, these people have no understanding of what true apartheid is. (See my 5/9/13 post entitled "An Open Letter to Professor Stephen Hawking.")
Said one union delegate: "It's absolutely disgusting what is going on. Free Palestine." I am not sure what is disgusting to that speaker, as Arab residents of Israel have better lives and more freedoms than do Arabs in Arab countries. What is disgusting, however, is the ongoing persecution, displacement and murder of Christians throughout North Africa and the Middle East - in Muslim countries.
Said Ron Lauder, President of the World Jewish Congress: "When hundreds of thousands of Christians - men, women and children - are killed, this isn't a war, this is genocide." But Obama and other Western leaders have little to say about it. I wonder what, if anything, this union has to say about it.
In order to not "offend" anyone, they are encouraging the use of gender neutral pronouns, rather than pronouns such as "he" or "she" or "him" or "her." Here are some of their suggestions (no, I am not making this up): ze, hir, zir, xe, xem, xyr. Being from the east coast, I think I prefer dat, dem and dose.
This leftist need to make sure that no one is ever offended by anything is eerily similar to another group - Muslims. Recall the effort by the Organization of Islamic States to get a binding resolution at the UN to ban all offensive and derogatory speech against Islam. (Criticize the other religions all you want.) So, rather than protecting the exercise of free speech, we see an ever growing movement to protect overly sensitive people from speech.
But let's be honest, these people are taught to be overly sensitive, because they are "victims." To the left, everyone is a victim of something or other, except, of course, for white males.
Former star pitcher and then commentator for ESPN, Curt Schilling, found himself on the wrong side of the speech police. Tweeted Schilling: "It's said only 5-10 percent of Muslims are extremists. In 1940, only 7 percent of Germans were Nazis. How'd that go?" I have had discussions with liberals who tell me that only 5-10% of Muslims are radical. I point out that even 10% is 160 million people.
However, I have also pointed out that all Germans did not wake up the same morning and decide it would be a great idea to kill all the Jews. Rather, it was what Hitler and a small number of initial followers were able to get an entire country to do. Which was Schilling's point. But the truth does not prevail against the word police. So Schilling was suspended.
The United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers Union has 37,000 members, and is apparently the first US union to join the BDS movement (Boycott, Divest and Sanction Israel). The anti-Semites who run the union have adopted all the lies and propaganda put forth by the Palestinians. They want the US to cut off all aid to Israel in order to "pressure Israel to end its apartheid over the Palestinians." Not surprisingly, these people have no understanding of what true apartheid is. (See my 5/9/13 post entitled "An Open Letter to Professor Stephen Hawking.")
Said one union delegate: "It's absolutely disgusting what is going on. Free Palestine." I am not sure what is disgusting to that speaker, as Arab residents of Israel have better lives and more freedoms than do Arabs in Arab countries. What is disgusting, however, is the ongoing persecution, displacement and murder of Christians throughout North Africa and the Middle East - in Muslim countries.
Said Ron Lauder, President of the World Jewish Congress: "When hundreds of thousands of Christians - men, women and children - are killed, this isn't a war, this is genocide." But Obama and other Western leaders have little to say about it. I wonder what, if anything, this union has to say about it.
Equal Justice? We'll See
Kim Davis is the County Clerk of Rowan County, Kentucky. After the US Supreme Court declared gay marriage to be the law of the land in all fifty states, Ms. Davis refused to issue marriage licenses to gay couples. Based on her religious beliefs, Ms. Davis sought a stay, which was denied all the way up to the US Supreme Court. Thereafter, she still refused to issue licenses, citing her religious beliefs.
Now Ms. Davis must appear in Federal District Court Thursday morning, and face contempt charges as well as possible fines and imprisonment. Unlike the left, I respect Ms. Davis' religious beliefs. However, she has made a mistake. She refuses to resign her position, while also refusing to carry out the law. As a public official, it is her duty to execute the law; and as County Clerk she does not get to write the laws.
Resigning would allow her to not have to compromise her religious beliefs, albeit at the cost of losing her job. Adhering to one's beliefs does, at times, have negative consequences. I wonder if she will get off as easily as another public figure who broke the law.
In 2004, then San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom ordered the clerk for the city and county of San Francisco to issue marriage licenses to gay couples. At the time state law defined marriage as being between a man and a woman. State law controls over local or municipal ordinances and mayoral orders; just as federal law generally preempts state law. Mr. Newsom knew very well that he had no legal authority to supersede state law and issue marriage licenses. He did so nonetheless.
Mr. Newsom believed that to deny marriage licenses to gay couples was a denial of equal protection. But as San Francisco Mayor he had no authority to either write or interpret state law. After issuing several thousand licenses, the California Supreme Court ordered the mayor to stop, and declared the previously issued licenses to be void.
Having clearly violated state law, what punishment did Mr. Newsom face? No fines. No imprisonment. Instead, he went on to become Lieutenant Governor of California. When cities across the country declare that they are "sanctuary" cities, in violation of federal immigration laws, do those mayors and city council members in those sanctuary cities face fines and imprisonment? Of course not.
Admittedly, Mr. Newsom did stop issuing the marriage licenses to gay couples when ordered to do so. So he did not face contempt charges. But he knowingly violated state law with no negative consequences. It seems to this writer that one faces less risk when the violation of the law is on behalf of leftist causes. So tomorrow we will see if Ms. Davis gets a slap on the wrist only or is dealt with more harshly.
In declaring a constitutional right to gay marriage, Justice Kennedy wrote: "Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned."
In dissent, Justice Roberts wrote: "The majority graciously suggests that religious believers may continue to "advocate" and "teach" their views of marriage. The First Amendment guarantees, however, the freedom to "exercise" religion. Ominously, that is not a word the majority uses."
Now Ms. Davis must appear in Federal District Court Thursday morning, and face contempt charges as well as possible fines and imprisonment. Unlike the left, I respect Ms. Davis' religious beliefs. However, she has made a mistake. She refuses to resign her position, while also refusing to carry out the law. As a public official, it is her duty to execute the law; and as County Clerk she does not get to write the laws.
Resigning would allow her to not have to compromise her religious beliefs, albeit at the cost of losing her job. Adhering to one's beliefs does, at times, have negative consequences. I wonder if she will get off as easily as another public figure who broke the law.
In 2004, then San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom ordered the clerk for the city and county of San Francisco to issue marriage licenses to gay couples. At the time state law defined marriage as being between a man and a woman. State law controls over local or municipal ordinances and mayoral orders; just as federal law generally preempts state law. Mr. Newsom knew very well that he had no legal authority to supersede state law and issue marriage licenses. He did so nonetheless.
Mr. Newsom believed that to deny marriage licenses to gay couples was a denial of equal protection. But as San Francisco Mayor he had no authority to either write or interpret state law. After issuing several thousand licenses, the California Supreme Court ordered the mayor to stop, and declared the previously issued licenses to be void.
Having clearly violated state law, what punishment did Mr. Newsom face? No fines. No imprisonment. Instead, he went on to become Lieutenant Governor of California. When cities across the country declare that they are "sanctuary" cities, in violation of federal immigration laws, do those mayors and city council members in those sanctuary cities face fines and imprisonment? Of course not.
Admittedly, Mr. Newsom did stop issuing the marriage licenses to gay couples when ordered to do so. So he did not face contempt charges. But he knowingly violated state law with no negative consequences. It seems to this writer that one faces less risk when the violation of the law is on behalf of leftist causes. So tomorrow we will see if Ms. Davis gets a slap on the wrist only or is dealt with more harshly.
In declaring a constitutional right to gay marriage, Justice Kennedy wrote: "Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned."
In dissent, Justice Roberts wrote: "The majority graciously suggests that religious believers may continue to "advocate" and "teach" their views of marriage. The First Amendment guarantees, however, the freedom to "exercise" religion. Ominously, that is not a word the majority uses."
Sunday, August 23, 2015
Who Controls Your Right to Run a Business?
Out of Denver, Colorado, comes one of the more disturbing and dangerous left wing ideas to plague our country. It seems that a committee of the City Council was disturbed over an application by a Chick Fil-A franchise seeking to open a store at the Denver airport. You see, the owner of Chick Fil-A had previously expressed his personal belief that marriage should be defined as being between a man and a woman.
Some council members issued a statement that read in part: "Gay and lesbian families have been fighting for decades for full recognition of their relationships. Denver has been at the forefront of honoring gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender employees and their families..." But the owner of Chick Fil-A believes in the traditional definition of marriage, and has even contributed in the past to groups seeking to keep that definition.
So now, the Democratic members of the Denver City Council want to impose a political litmus test before granting anyone or any entity a license to do business in their town. Unfortunately, this is nothing new for democrats. For those of you new to the blog, I encourage you to go back and read my August 2, 2012 post entitled: "Why I Am No Longer a Democrat." In that post I discuss how the democratic mayors of four of the country's big cities (Chicago, San Francisco, Boston and Washington, D.C.) sought to block Chick Fil-A from opening in their communities.
If anyone is even remotely inclined to think that such a political litmus test is a good idea, here is a question for you. What if a town wanted to know from a Jewish business owner what their position is on the creation of a Palestinian state? Should the business owner have to share the left wing view on that issue before being granted a business license? Think that's far fetched? Hardly.
At the recent Rototom Sunsplash music festival in Spain, American Jewish reggae singer Matisyahu was invited, and then disinvited, to perform there. After some controversy, he was again invited. But the story reflects the dangers of demanding a political litmus test. At times, Matisyahu has expressed support for Israel. However, he declines to debate the issue of a Palestinian state, stating that he is a musician. As a musician he seeks to bring people together.
But the BDS (the goups that seek to Boycott, Divest and Sanction Israel) movement would have none of it. They claimed that Mastisyahu is a Zionist who defends Israel, a state that "practices apartheid and ethnic cleansing." How is that for a political litmus test? If you support Israel you can not perform (work) in our concert. I am a Zionist. Should I be forbidden from making a living? Should I be denied a city business license based upon my political views?
But the Matisyahu story is out of Spain - that could never happen here. Think again. Earlier this year, a Jewish student at UCLA was almost denied a seat on the student government judicial board, based on her being Jewish! How's that for a litmus test? The applicant was asked this question: "Given that you're a Jewish student and very active in the Jewish community, how do you see yourself being able to maintain an unbiased view?"
If you still agree with this evil nonsense, then how about these questions. "Are you now, or have you ever been, a Jew?" "As a Jew, are you loyal to the United States of America or to Israel?" So let me be clear - if you are Jewish and continue to vote Democrat, these issues will be coming to you or your children soon.
Remember when we were all Americans? When you had a right to have your own religious and political beliefs? When conservative ideals were also American ideals - things like freedom of speech and freedom of religion. I believe many of you will come to regret your continued support for a party that seeks to marginalize those who do not adhere to left wing ideology. I just hope that by the time you recognize this danger that it is not too late.
Some council members issued a statement that read in part: "Gay and lesbian families have been fighting for decades for full recognition of their relationships. Denver has been at the forefront of honoring gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender employees and their families..." But the owner of Chick Fil-A believes in the traditional definition of marriage, and has even contributed in the past to groups seeking to keep that definition.
So now, the Democratic members of the Denver City Council want to impose a political litmus test before granting anyone or any entity a license to do business in their town. Unfortunately, this is nothing new for democrats. For those of you new to the blog, I encourage you to go back and read my August 2, 2012 post entitled: "Why I Am No Longer a Democrat." In that post I discuss how the democratic mayors of four of the country's big cities (Chicago, San Francisco, Boston and Washington, D.C.) sought to block Chick Fil-A from opening in their communities.
If anyone is even remotely inclined to think that such a political litmus test is a good idea, here is a question for you. What if a town wanted to know from a Jewish business owner what their position is on the creation of a Palestinian state? Should the business owner have to share the left wing view on that issue before being granted a business license? Think that's far fetched? Hardly.
At the recent Rototom Sunsplash music festival in Spain, American Jewish reggae singer Matisyahu was invited, and then disinvited, to perform there. After some controversy, he was again invited. But the story reflects the dangers of demanding a political litmus test. At times, Matisyahu has expressed support for Israel. However, he declines to debate the issue of a Palestinian state, stating that he is a musician. As a musician he seeks to bring people together.
But the BDS (the goups that seek to Boycott, Divest and Sanction Israel) movement would have none of it. They claimed that Mastisyahu is a Zionist who defends Israel, a state that "practices apartheid and ethnic cleansing." How is that for a political litmus test? If you support Israel you can not perform (work) in our concert. I am a Zionist. Should I be forbidden from making a living? Should I be denied a city business license based upon my political views?
But the Matisyahu story is out of Spain - that could never happen here. Think again. Earlier this year, a Jewish student at UCLA was almost denied a seat on the student government judicial board, based on her being Jewish! How's that for a litmus test? The applicant was asked this question: "Given that you're a Jewish student and very active in the Jewish community, how do you see yourself being able to maintain an unbiased view?"
If you still agree with this evil nonsense, then how about these questions. "Are you now, or have you ever been, a Jew?" "As a Jew, are you loyal to the United States of America or to Israel?" So let me be clear - if you are Jewish and continue to vote Democrat, these issues will be coming to you or your children soon.
Remember when we were all Americans? When you had a right to have your own religious and political beliefs? When conservative ideals were also American ideals - things like freedom of speech and freedom of religion. I believe many of you will come to regret your continued support for a party that seeks to marginalize those who do not adhere to left wing ideology. I just hope that by the time you recognize this danger that it is not too late.
Who Controls Your Language?
Generally speaking, we communicate through language - through words. We express our ideas through words. We think with words. Therefore, the ability to control language can affect how people communicate, and how they think. As I have commented previously, the left has done an outstanding job of controlling and changing the language.
We know "abortion" is "a woman's right to choose." "Gay marriage" became "marriage equality." Phrased as such, only bigots and haters could be opposed to women controlling their bodies, or gays getting married, right? The latest development comes from Tennessee.
Apparently, the Tennessee Administrative Office of the Courts decided to change their court forms, replacing the words "mother" and "father" with "parent 1" and "parent 2." For those of you new to this blog, I would encourage you to go back and read my earlier post of July 20, 2014 entitled "My Ex-Wife." When the words "husband" and "wife" were removed from the California codes, I suggested that "mother" and "father" would be next. Both are based on sex/gender. But we know from the left that those concepts no longer exist.
In that earlier post I had suggested use of the terms "parent unit 1" and "parent unit 2." The State of Tennessee mostly agreed, although they removed the word "unit." After some backlash from actual moms and dads, who resented being called parent 1 or parent 2, the State relented and has gone back to using the old forms - for now. But I assure you that change is coming. After all, the US State Department already removed the words "mother" and "father" from passport applications. So all you moms and dads, enjoy it while you still can.
California tends to lead the nation in left wing crazy ideas. The latest is a bill that removed the word "alien" from the California Labor Code. California already provides driver's licenses to illegal aliens - I mean "California citizens". And, of course, those "citizens" also get the advantage of paying in-state tuition at California colleges and universities. And let's not forget healthcare. You would find it difficult to even locate the use of the expression "illegal alien" in any mainstream news outlet. Control the language - control how people think.
I think the 8/11/15 edition of the Los Angeles Times actually got it right. Said the Times: "The various benefits, rights and protections add up to something experts liken to a kind of California citizenship." Just how long do you think it will be until these "California citizens" are given the right to vote and hold elective office. To deny those rights would be discriminatory, would it not? After all, they are people too. Why should the happenstance of birth determine what rights and privileges we enjoy?
Whether you agree with that last proposition or not is of little import. After all, given Democrat control of California, we will be there soon enough.
We know "abortion" is "a woman's right to choose." "Gay marriage" became "marriage equality." Phrased as such, only bigots and haters could be opposed to women controlling their bodies, or gays getting married, right? The latest development comes from Tennessee.
Apparently, the Tennessee Administrative Office of the Courts decided to change their court forms, replacing the words "mother" and "father" with "parent 1" and "parent 2." For those of you new to this blog, I would encourage you to go back and read my earlier post of July 20, 2014 entitled "My Ex-Wife." When the words "husband" and "wife" were removed from the California codes, I suggested that "mother" and "father" would be next. Both are based on sex/gender. But we know from the left that those concepts no longer exist.
In that earlier post I had suggested use of the terms "parent unit 1" and "parent unit 2." The State of Tennessee mostly agreed, although they removed the word "unit." After some backlash from actual moms and dads, who resented being called parent 1 or parent 2, the State relented and has gone back to using the old forms - for now. But I assure you that change is coming. After all, the US State Department already removed the words "mother" and "father" from passport applications. So all you moms and dads, enjoy it while you still can.
California tends to lead the nation in left wing crazy ideas. The latest is a bill that removed the word "alien" from the California Labor Code. California already provides driver's licenses to illegal aliens - I mean "California citizens". And, of course, those "citizens" also get the advantage of paying in-state tuition at California colleges and universities. And let's not forget healthcare. You would find it difficult to even locate the use of the expression "illegal alien" in any mainstream news outlet. Control the language - control how people think.
I think the 8/11/15 edition of the Los Angeles Times actually got it right. Said the Times: "The various benefits, rights and protections add up to something experts liken to a kind of California citizenship." Just how long do you think it will be until these "California citizens" are given the right to vote and hold elective office. To deny those rights would be discriminatory, would it not? After all, they are people too. Why should the happenstance of birth determine what rights and privileges we enjoy?
Whether you agree with that last proposition or not is of little import. After all, given Democrat control of California, we will be there soon enough.
Sunday, August 9, 2015
What Obama's Iran Deal Speech Tells Us...About Obama
On August 5, Obama spoke at American University, giving a speech encouraging support for his Iran nuclear deal. It is worthwhile to take a look at some of his comments - not for what he tells us about the deal, but for what it tells us about Obama.
After discussing the threat of war President Kennedy faced with the USSR, Obama said: "But the young President offered a different vision...with Kennedy at the helm, the Cuban Missile Crisis was resolved peacefully." After Kennedy was told that the Russians were moving nuclear missiles to Cuba, he ultimately ordered a naval blockade of Cuba. Had Russian ships breached the blockade, we might very well have had war.
But let's be clear - a naval blockade is an act of war. Imagine if Obama was President in 1962. Who believes he would have ordered a blockade? Anyone doubt that he would have come to the American people announcing that he made a deal with Russia in order to avoid war? Anyone doubt that there would have been some agreed number of nuclear armed missiles in Cuba since 1962, with Russia being able to hold that threat over our heads ever since?
Obama: "...as Congress decides whether to support this historic diplomatic breakthrough or instead blocks it over the objection of the vast majority of the world." The last I looked it was Congress that represents the interests of the American people - not the UN, not Russia, not China, not the U.K., not France and not Germany. But Obama has never believed in our system of three co-equal branches of government. He very much believes in the UN, an entity run by dictators, Islamic states, and leftist Western democracies.
Obama: "...many of the same people who argued for the war in Iraq are now making the case against the Iran nuclear deal." Unless you are a complete pacifist and do not believe in war ever, then you understand that Iraq and Iran are two very different issues. But just to remind Obama, Senators voting in favor of the Iraq war resolution included: John Kerry, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Diane Feinstein, Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid. Oops.
Obama: "...because this is such a strong deal, every nation in the world that has commented publicly, with the exception of the Israeli government, has expressed support." Obama could have said: "virtually every country in the world supports this deal." Why did he choose to publicly single out Israel? He did so because from day one he has sought to lessen the support the American people have for Israel. And that approach has substantially worked among rank and file democrats. And just to be clear, the Arab Sunni states have also voiced their displeasure with this deal.
Obama: "Now the final criticism, this is sort of catchall that you may hear, is the notion that there is a better deal to be had...I have repeatedly challenged anyone opposed to this deal to put forward a better, plausible alternative. I have yet to hear one." The purpose of this post is not to rehash all the arguments against this deal, and all the ways it could have been better. See the prior posts for that. Rather, notwithstanding all the alternatives put forth by Republicans in Congress and conservative commentators, Obama has heard nothing. And he says it with a straight face.
Obama: "It's those hardliners (in Iran) chanting "Death to America" who have been most opposed to the deal. They're making common cause with the Republican caucus." Once again, the Divider-in-Chief reveals his true nature. NEVER give any legitimacy to your opponents. In fact, demonize them and equate them with terrorists. It's straight out of the Saul Alinsky handbook.
So, this speech is a reflection of Obama's approach over the last 6 1/2 years: divide, lie, misrepresent, demonize your opposition, and, of course, isolate Israel. Perhaps the 8/7/15 Investor's Business Daily said it best: "Has there ever been a president who so depends on the ignorance of those listening to him?" I would only add: why not? It works so often.
After discussing the threat of war President Kennedy faced with the USSR, Obama said: "But the young President offered a different vision...with Kennedy at the helm, the Cuban Missile Crisis was resolved peacefully." After Kennedy was told that the Russians were moving nuclear missiles to Cuba, he ultimately ordered a naval blockade of Cuba. Had Russian ships breached the blockade, we might very well have had war.
But let's be clear - a naval blockade is an act of war. Imagine if Obama was President in 1962. Who believes he would have ordered a blockade? Anyone doubt that he would have come to the American people announcing that he made a deal with Russia in order to avoid war? Anyone doubt that there would have been some agreed number of nuclear armed missiles in Cuba since 1962, with Russia being able to hold that threat over our heads ever since?
Obama: "...as Congress decides whether to support this historic diplomatic breakthrough or instead blocks it over the objection of the vast majority of the world." The last I looked it was Congress that represents the interests of the American people - not the UN, not Russia, not China, not the U.K., not France and not Germany. But Obama has never believed in our system of three co-equal branches of government. He very much believes in the UN, an entity run by dictators, Islamic states, and leftist Western democracies.
Obama: "...many of the same people who argued for the war in Iraq are now making the case against the Iran nuclear deal." Unless you are a complete pacifist and do not believe in war ever, then you understand that Iraq and Iran are two very different issues. But just to remind Obama, Senators voting in favor of the Iraq war resolution included: John Kerry, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Diane Feinstein, Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid. Oops.
Obama: "...because this is such a strong deal, every nation in the world that has commented publicly, with the exception of the Israeli government, has expressed support." Obama could have said: "virtually every country in the world supports this deal." Why did he choose to publicly single out Israel? He did so because from day one he has sought to lessen the support the American people have for Israel. And that approach has substantially worked among rank and file democrats. And just to be clear, the Arab Sunni states have also voiced their displeasure with this deal.
Obama: "Now the final criticism, this is sort of catchall that you may hear, is the notion that there is a better deal to be had...I have repeatedly challenged anyone opposed to this deal to put forward a better, plausible alternative. I have yet to hear one." The purpose of this post is not to rehash all the arguments against this deal, and all the ways it could have been better. See the prior posts for that. Rather, notwithstanding all the alternatives put forth by Republicans in Congress and conservative commentators, Obama has heard nothing. And he says it with a straight face.
Obama: "It's those hardliners (in Iran) chanting "Death to America" who have been most opposed to the deal. They're making common cause with the Republican caucus." Once again, the Divider-in-Chief reveals his true nature. NEVER give any legitimacy to your opponents. In fact, demonize them and equate them with terrorists. It's straight out of the Saul Alinsky handbook.
So, this speech is a reflection of Obama's approach over the last 6 1/2 years: divide, lie, misrepresent, demonize your opposition, and, of course, isolate Israel. Perhaps the 8/7/15 Investor's Business Daily said it best: "Has there ever been a president who so depends on the ignorance of those listening to him?" I would only add: why not? It works so often.
Sunday, August 2, 2015
More Views on the Iran Deal, Part II
The same Jewish Journal edition referred to in Part I printed the results of a poll of American Jews' opinions on the deal. Not surprisingly, 71% of those who self-identify as "liberal" support the deal. On the other hand, 72% of those who self identify as "conservative" oppose the deal. As Prager often says, for many liberal Jews "Liberalism" has replaced "Judaism" as their religion. While this shift to liberalism has been going on for some time, the problem has been exacerbated by Obama. Just as Obama has done his best to divide the 99% vs. the 1%, blacks vs. whites, the religious vs. the non-religious, and so on, he has also been effective in deepening the divide between liberal and conservative Jews when it comes to Israel.
When the NY Times and other mainstream media make Benjamin Netanyahu the fall guy in all of this, they are simply following Obama's lead. Obama has distanced himself from Israel and Netanyahu from day one. Recall his comment from 2009, his first year in office, that the US needed to put some distance between us and Israel, because when we were closely aligned with Israel (referring to the Bush years) nothing happened to foster peace with the "Palestinians." It was a total lie, of course, as during the Bush years Israel vacated Gaza and offered a state to Abbas.
From day one Obama has cozied up to the Muslim world, regardless of how radical and extremist they might be. In his speech to the Muslim world from Cairo in 2009 he invited the outlawed terrorist group The Muslim Brotherhood. When The Brotherhood won elections in Egypt after Mubarek was deposed, he sided with them against the current military leader Al-Sisi, who opposed radical Islam. Al-Sisi - the sole Arab leader to say that Islam needs a reformation away from the idea of killing non-Muslims - was opposed by Obama.
Obama did not support the "Green Revolution" in Iran. Obama bowed down to the Saudi King. And Obama considers the Islamic leader of Turkey (Erdogan) - a man who wants to take Turkey from being a secular state to an Islamist run state - one of his closest friends and allies in the world. Erdogan, who has made the former ally of his country, Israel, an enemy, is a man who Obama relates to well. Not so for Netanyahu, the leader of the only democratic country in the Middle East.
The Truth-Uncensored: So what is going on here? Obama is not a stupid man. I have said that his two main goals were redistribution of wealth, and reducing America's footprint and power in the world. How he reaches these goals is of no import - he can lie, be deceptive, be duplicitous, without the slightest hesitation. He is, as one friend noted, Machiavellian.
So, we can assume that Obama knows this "deal" is worthless. If he intended to make a serious deal he would not have dropped every single requirement that he originally said was mandatory. Therefore, Obama knows and assumes that Iran will get nuclear bombs, either now or in the not too distant future. Once Iran has nukes, it not only makes it more difficult, if not unlikely that Israel will attack Iran; it also makes it difficult if not impossible for the next President to consider an attack.
Think about this - one of Obama's other goals was a nuclear-free world. So why would he make a deal that even he acknowledges will allow another country - Iran - to get nukes? And Iran is not just any country, it is the leading state sponsor of terrorism in the world.
On the one hand, one can argue that he believes a nuclear Iran will help reduce America's influence in the Middle East. After all, he is actually reducing the size of our Army as the world grows increasingly more dangerous. Clearly, he does not foresee further American involvement in the Middle East regardless of what Iran may do. One can also argue that he actually believes that a strong Iran reduces the chances of war, although I am not sure that he would care one way or the other.
Ernest Christian, a Treasury official during the Ford Administration, wrote this in the 7/31/15 Investor's Business Daily: "The historical imperative that America should always give way to the demands of Second and Third World countries and cultures is what may now become known as the 'Obama Doctrine.'" To which I would add: "especially if it is a Muslim country to which we are giving way." Sadly, this truism from Mr. Christian applies no matter how dictatorial or ruthless these other countries' leaders may be.
When the NY Times and other mainstream media make Benjamin Netanyahu the fall guy in all of this, they are simply following Obama's lead. Obama has distanced himself from Israel and Netanyahu from day one. Recall his comment from 2009, his first year in office, that the US needed to put some distance between us and Israel, because when we were closely aligned with Israel (referring to the Bush years) nothing happened to foster peace with the "Palestinians." It was a total lie, of course, as during the Bush years Israel vacated Gaza and offered a state to Abbas.
From day one Obama has cozied up to the Muslim world, regardless of how radical and extremist they might be. In his speech to the Muslim world from Cairo in 2009 he invited the outlawed terrorist group The Muslim Brotherhood. When The Brotherhood won elections in Egypt after Mubarek was deposed, he sided with them against the current military leader Al-Sisi, who opposed radical Islam. Al-Sisi - the sole Arab leader to say that Islam needs a reformation away from the idea of killing non-Muslims - was opposed by Obama.
Obama did not support the "Green Revolution" in Iran. Obama bowed down to the Saudi King. And Obama considers the Islamic leader of Turkey (Erdogan) - a man who wants to take Turkey from being a secular state to an Islamist run state - one of his closest friends and allies in the world. Erdogan, who has made the former ally of his country, Israel, an enemy, is a man who Obama relates to well. Not so for Netanyahu, the leader of the only democratic country in the Middle East.
The Truth-Uncensored: So what is going on here? Obama is not a stupid man. I have said that his two main goals were redistribution of wealth, and reducing America's footprint and power in the world. How he reaches these goals is of no import - he can lie, be deceptive, be duplicitous, without the slightest hesitation. He is, as one friend noted, Machiavellian.
So, we can assume that Obama knows this "deal" is worthless. If he intended to make a serious deal he would not have dropped every single requirement that he originally said was mandatory. Therefore, Obama knows and assumes that Iran will get nuclear bombs, either now or in the not too distant future. Once Iran has nukes, it not only makes it more difficult, if not unlikely that Israel will attack Iran; it also makes it difficult if not impossible for the next President to consider an attack.
Think about this - one of Obama's other goals was a nuclear-free world. So why would he make a deal that even he acknowledges will allow another country - Iran - to get nukes? And Iran is not just any country, it is the leading state sponsor of terrorism in the world.
On the one hand, one can argue that he believes a nuclear Iran will help reduce America's influence in the Middle East. After all, he is actually reducing the size of our Army as the world grows increasingly more dangerous. Clearly, he does not foresee further American involvement in the Middle East regardless of what Iran may do. One can also argue that he actually believes that a strong Iran reduces the chances of war, although I am not sure that he would care one way or the other.
Ernest Christian, a Treasury official during the Ford Administration, wrote this in the 7/31/15 Investor's Business Daily: "The historical imperative that America should always give way to the demands of Second and Third World countries and cultures is what may now become known as the 'Obama Doctrine.'" To which I would add: "especially if it is a Muslim country to which we are giving way." Sadly, this truism from Mr. Christian applies no matter how dictatorial or ruthless these other countries' leaders may be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)