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.
Sunday, August 2, 2015
More Views on the Iran Deal, Part I
The New York Times in their 8/2/15 editorial said: "The unseemly spectacle of lawmakers siding with a foreign leader (referring to Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu) against their own commander in chief has widened an already dangerous breach between two old allies." Obama's false options were make this deal or it's war. For the anti-Semitic NY Times, their straw man is the Israeli leader. Never mind that the Sunni Arab nations also oppose this deal. No, for the Times it's 'let's blame the Jew if this deal fails in Congress.'
Furthermore, the Times clearly thinks as Obama does - Congress is merely to act as a rubber stamp for anything Obama wants. No need for Congress to actually exercise their Constitutional powers. The truth is that there should be no deal unless it is approved by 2/3 of the Senators then present when voted upon, as the Constitution requires for all treaties. But Obama and the Times have no use for the Constitution or Congress, so Obama calls this agreement a "deal" rather than a "treaty."
The Wall Street Journal in their 8/1-8/2/15 editorial was discussing the newly discovered "side deals" being made between Iran and the IAEA - the terms of which Congress and the American people are never to be privy to. Said the Journal: "The Administration claims this is no big deal because Iran and the IAEA are entitled to reach a non-disclosed understanding to resolve their differences." "This is pretty standard," quoting Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz.
The Journal continued: "So much for President Obama's assurances that the deal isn't based on trust but on "unprecedented verification." Quoting U.S. Rep. Mike Pompeo, of the House Intelligence Committee: "Is there an independent penalty for violations of the side deals?" No one knows, and Obama clearly does not care.
The Jewish Journal of Los Angeles, in their 7/31-8/6/15 edition, printed two different open letters from two different sets of Rabbis. The Rabbis against the deal said: "We hope and pray that G-d will assist us in ushering in for the entire world a time promised by Isaiah (2:4) when "nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they engage in war anymore," when peace will prevail. Until then, we simply cannot afford to empower and enrich a regime that continues to lift its sword without mercy towards so many who stand for good, freedom and peace." Some realism by these Rabbis.
The Rabbis in support of the deal said this: "We fear then that only a military response will stop Iran in its march to nuclear capability. We are deeply worried that thousands of Hezbollah rockets will be launched against Tel Aviv, Haifa and everywhere in between, causing death and mayhem to our people and the State of Israel, and sparking regional conflagration." Is Hezbollah more or less likely to use those rockets and missiles when they are backed by a newly empowered and enriched Iran? And what fear do these Rabbis have of the Ayatollahs having nukes?
After all, Ayatollah Khamenei has a new book out entitled "Palestine." On the book's jacket is a picture of a map of "Palestine" - where the State of Israel used to exist. Khamenei explains that Israel should not exist because it is an ally of the "Great Satan," the USA; and because Israel is an "infidel" that has engaged in war against Muslims; and because Israel "occupies" Jerusalem, the third holiest city in Islam. Funny, that is what Obama says about Jerusalem. Anyway, clearly there is nothing for the pro-deal Rabbis to worry about if the Ayatollah controls nukes.
Furthermore, the Times clearly thinks as Obama does - Congress is merely to act as a rubber stamp for anything Obama wants. No need for Congress to actually exercise their Constitutional powers. The truth is that there should be no deal unless it is approved by 2/3 of the Senators then present when voted upon, as the Constitution requires for all treaties. But Obama and the Times have no use for the Constitution or Congress, so Obama calls this agreement a "deal" rather than a "treaty."
The Wall Street Journal in their 8/1-8/2/15 editorial was discussing the newly discovered "side deals" being made between Iran and the IAEA - the terms of which Congress and the American people are never to be privy to. Said the Journal: "The Administration claims this is no big deal because Iran and the IAEA are entitled to reach a non-disclosed understanding to resolve their differences." "This is pretty standard," quoting Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz.
The Journal continued: "So much for President Obama's assurances that the deal isn't based on trust but on "unprecedented verification." Quoting U.S. Rep. Mike Pompeo, of the House Intelligence Committee: "Is there an independent penalty for violations of the side deals?" No one knows, and Obama clearly does not care.
The Jewish Journal of Los Angeles, in their 7/31-8/6/15 edition, printed two different open letters from two different sets of Rabbis. The Rabbis against the deal said: "We hope and pray that G-d will assist us in ushering in for the entire world a time promised by Isaiah (2:4) when "nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they engage in war anymore," when peace will prevail. Until then, we simply cannot afford to empower and enrich a regime that continues to lift its sword without mercy towards so many who stand for good, freedom and peace." Some realism by these Rabbis.
The Rabbis in support of the deal said this: "We fear then that only a military response will stop Iran in its march to nuclear capability. We are deeply worried that thousands of Hezbollah rockets will be launched against Tel Aviv, Haifa and everywhere in between, causing death and mayhem to our people and the State of Israel, and sparking regional conflagration." Is Hezbollah more or less likely to use those rockets and missiles when they are backed by a newly empowered and enriched Iran? And what fear do these Rabbis have of the Ayatollahs having nukes?
After all, Ayatollah Khamenei has a new book out entitled "Palestine." On the book's jacket is a picture of a map of "Palestine" - where the State of Israel used to exist. Khamenei explains that Israel should not exist because it is an ally of the "Great Satan," the USA; and because Israel is an "infidel" that has engaged in war against Muslims; and because Israel "occupies" Jerusalem, the third holiest city in Islam. Funny, that is what Obama says about Jerusalem. Anyway, clearly there is nothing for the pro-deal Rabbis to worry about if the Ayatollah controls nukes.
Sunday, July 26, 2015
Divergent Views on the Iran Deal, Part II
Senator John Risch, Rep., Idaho, accused Kerry of being one of"the most naive people in the history of the earth." Defending Kerry was CA Senator Barbara Boxer, claiming that if Kerry was "bamboozled, the world was bamboozled." First, I think we can agree that Kerry was leading the negotiations with Iran. Second, the rest of the world is not aligned with the interests of the United States; so if Kerry was bamboozled I think we can agree that Russia and China were not, perhaps being quite content to have Iran have the capabilities of threatening America. They don't seem to shout "Death to Russia" or "Death to China" in Iran. I think we need to put Boxer up there among the most naive people on earth.
The New York Times 7/15/15 editorial: The deal "puts strong, verifiable limits on Iran's ability to develop a nuclear weapon for at least the next 10 to 15 years and is potentially one of the most consequential accords in recent diplomatic history, with the ability not just to keep Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon but also to reshape Middle East politics." Well, I do agree on the reshaping of Middle East politics. Perhaps the biggest accomplishment in this deal is the fact that Israel and Saudi Arabia have been working together to denounce this agreement.
Mitt Romney: "...Iran is led by suicidal, apocalypse-seeking, America-hating, Israel-denying theocratic fanatics. If these Ayatollahs have nuclear weapons, they will use them, someday, somewhere. Iran is a major, longtime state sponsor of terrorism; its leaders are entirely bereft of restraint, decency and respect for human life." I still cannot believe that this decent, clear-headed man is not our President.
Dennis Prager: "And whoever believes that the agreement will bring Iran into "the community of nations" betrays a breathtaking ignorance about the Iranian regime." Actually, those believers need only be liberals, people who let their beliefs dictate their reality.
Prager: "The Iranian regime has executed more people than any country except China (and probably North Korea, for which data are unavailable). The Iranian regime has killed more than 6,000 gays for being homosexual. No woman is allowed to leave the country or even to work outside her home without the permission of her husband." The brave folks on the left would rather look the other way than face these unpleasant truths. And the mainstream media would rather talk about the latest comment from Donald Trump.
John Kerry, when questioned about the possibility of Israel attacking Iran: "That'd be an enormous mistake, a huge mistake with grave consequences for Israel and for the region, and I don't think it's necessary." And what if Congress votes down the deal? Kerry: "I fear that what could happen is if Congress were to overturn it, our friends in Israel could actually wind up being more isolated and more blamed."
During last year's Gaza war, it was you Mr. Kerry who isolated and blamed Israel. While Israel had to fight the terrorist group Hamas, which hid among the civilian population in Gaza, while firing their rockets into Israel's civilian population centers, it was you who was caught unawares on an open mic blaming Israel rather than Hamas for the civilian casualties. Remember your comments, Mr. Kerry: "It's a hell of a pinpoint operation; it's a hell of a pinpoint operation." So, yes, Israel will be blamed and isolated, with you and your boss leading the charge.
Philippe Assouline: "The unprecedented wealth and military might of Western democracies were exposed as a Potemkin village...Thrown to the wolves were the West's allies, and the idea of Western resolve itself."
I'll end with a quote from Jackie Mason, that famous Jewish, and conservative, comedian: "Do you know that in the restaurants of New York, they have an inspection system. You can surprise any restaurant without notice, that you can walk in and inspect them...so we are protected in this city from a bad tuna fish. We're not protected from a bomb but we're protected from a bad quality of tuna fish."
The New York Times 7/15/15 editorial: The deal "puts strong, verifiable limits on Iran's ability to develop a nuclear weapon for at least the next 10 to 15 years and is potentially one of the most consequential accords in recent diplomatic history, with the ability not just to keep Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon but also to reshape Middle East politics." Well, I do agree on the reshaping of Middle East politics. Perhaps the biggest accomplishment in this deal is the fact that Israel and Saudi Arabia have been working together to denounce this agreement.
Mitt Romney: "...Iran is led by suicidal, apocalypse-seeking, America-hating, Israel-denying theocratic fanatics. If these Ayatollahs have nuclear weapons, they will use them, someday, somewhere. Iran is a major, longtime state sponsor of terrorism; its leaders are entirely bereft of restraint, decency and respect for human life." I still cannot believe that this decent, clear-headed man is not our President.
Dennis Prager: "And whoever believes that the agreement will bring Iran into "the community of nations" betrays a breathtaking ignorance about the Iranian regime." Actually, those believers need only be liberals, people who let their beliefs dictate their reality.
Prager: "The Iranian regime has executed more people than any country except China (and probably North Korea, for which data are unavailable). The Iranian regime has killed more than 6,000 gays for being homosexual. No woman is allowed to leave the country or even to work outside her home without the permission of her husband." The brave folks on the left would rather look the other way than face these unpleasant truths. And the mainstream media would rather talk about the latest comment from Donald Trump.
John Kerry, when questioned about the possibility of Israel attacking Iran: "That'd be an enormous mistake, a huge mistake with grave consequences for Israel and for the region, and I don't think it's necessary." And what if Congress votes down the deal? Kerry: "I fear that what could happen is if Congress were to overturn it, our friends in Israel could actually wind up being more isolated and more blamed."
During last year's Gaza war, it was you Mr. Kerry who isolated and blamed Israel. While Israel had to fight the terrorist group Hamas, which hid among the civilian population in Gaza, while firing their rockets into Israel's civilian population centers, it was you who was caught unawares on an open mic blaming Israel rather than Hamas for the civilian casualties. Remember your comments, Mr. Kerry: "It's a hell of a pinpoint operation; it's a hell of a pinpoint operation." So, yes, Israel will be blamed and isolated, with you and your boss leading the charge.
Philippe Assouline: "The unprecedented wealth and military might of Western democracies were exposed as a Potemkin village...Thrown to the wolves were the West's allies, and the idea of Western resolve itself."
I'll end with a quote from Jackie Mason, that famous Jewish, and conservative, comedian: "Do you know that in the restaurants of New York, they have an inspection system. You can surprise any restaurant without notice, that you can walk in and inspect them...so we are protected in this city from a bad tuna fish. We're not protected from a bomb but we're protected from a bad quality of tuna fish."
Divergent Views on the Iran Deal, Part I
Barack Obama: "I welcome a robust debate in Congress on this issue, and I welcome scrutiny of the details of this agreement." You mean, as long as Congress does not think that they have any say in the matter, as you also said: "I will veto any legislation that prevents the successful implementation of this deal." Then again, part of your "fundamental change" has been to completely disregard the other two branches of government from the day you took office.
The Wall Street Journal in their 7/21/15 editorial: "This has been Mr. Obama's strategy all along-to present Congress with a political fait accompli. First, he constructed the negotiation as an executive agreement, rather than as a treaty that would have required a two-thirds vote of approval in the Senate...And now the U.N. vote lets him assert that disapproval in Congress will pit America against the rest of the world outside the Middle East."
The New York Times in their 7/19/15 editorial expressed concern that both Israel and Saudi Arabia "have issued alarming denunciations of the United States." What if Iran bordered the US; I wonder how many liberals would also be issuing "alarming" criticisms of this deal. The Times quoted the former Saudi ambassador to the US as saying the deal would "wreak havoc" on the Middle East. Seems like those who live in the neighborhood agree that it is a bad idea to give the Ayatollahs nukes.
Barack Obama: "There really are only two alternatives here. Either the issue of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon is resolved diplomatically through a negotiation or it's resolved through force, through war." Is that what it was, a negotiation? And I thought it was a capitulation. When the other side knows you are desperate for a deal, any deal, then you can be assured they will get what they want. And so they did. And no, those were not the only two options. A much better deal was a much better option.
The WSJ in their 7/15/15 editorial: "Perhaps most dismaying is that this nuclear deal also lifts sanctions on Iran's conventional weapons trade in five years, and ballistic missiles in eight." Hold on. How many times did Obama and Kerry and others tell us that this deal was only about the nukes? That was why they did not insist on Iran changing their terrorist-supporting ways, or ask Iran to release American hostages, or insist Iran stop threatening to wipe Israel off the map, and so on. So how did these other weapons make it into the deal? Simple, Iran insisted and the West caved. You see, Iran acted as the superpower during these negotiations, and the West seemed to agree.
Barack Obama: "We have stopped the spread of nuclear weapons in this region." Except that there is a general consensus that the opposite will occur; starting with Saudi Arabia using their gazillion dollars to purchase nukes from Pakistan. Obama: "...this deal meets every single one of the bottom lines that we established..." Uh, not quite. In fact, none of the bottom lines made it into the final deal. Not the anywhere, anytime inspections. Not forcing Iran to come clean on their past military applications for nukes. Not waiting for the lifting of sanctions. And certainly not the dismantling of their nuclear infrastructure. So, did Obama just lie to the American people yet again?
Michael Ramirez is a well known political cartoonist. In today's Ventura County Star is a six frame cartoon that shows Obama in each frame saying the following: 1. "This will prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons..." 2. "And prevent a nuclear arms race." 3. "And create shovel ready jobs..." 4. And lower your premiums by $2500..." 5. "And if you like your doctor..." 6. "Uh, where was I again?" Where indeed.
The Wall Street Journal in their 7/21/15 editorial: "This has been Mr. Obama's strategy all along-to present Congress with a political fait accompli. First, he constructed the negotiation as an executive agreement, rather than as a treaty that would have required a two-thirds vote of approval in the Senate...And now the U.N. vote lets him assert that disapproval in Congress will pit America against the rest of the world outside the Middle East."
The New York Times in their 7/19/15 editorial expressed concern that both Israel and Saudi Arabia "have issued alarming denunciations of the United States." What if Iran bordered the US; I wonder how many liberals would also be issuing "alarming" criticisms of this deal. The Times quoted the former Saudi ambassador to the US as saying the deal would "wreak havoc" on the Middle East. Seems like those who live in the neighborhood agree that it is a bad idea to give the Ayatollahs nukes.
Barack Obama: "There really are only two alternatives here. Either the issue of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon is resolved diplomatically through a negotiation or it's resolved through force, through war." Is that what it was, a negotiation? And I thought it was a capitulation. When the other side knows you are desperate for a deal, any deal, then you can be assured they will get what they want. And so they did. And no, those were not the only two options. A much better deal was a much better option.
The WSJ in their 7/15/15 editorial: "Perhaps most dismaying is that this nuclear deal also lifts sanctions on Iran's conventional weapons trade in five years, and ballistic missiles in eight." Hold on. How many times did Obama and Kerry and others tell us that this deal was only about the nukes? That was why they did not insist on Iran changing their terrorist-supporting ways, or ask Iran to release American hostages, or insist Iran stop threatening to wipe Israel off the map, and so on. So how did these other weapons make it into the deal? Simple, Iran insisted and the West caved. You see, Iran acted as the superpower during these negotiations, and the West seemed to agree.
Barack Obama: "We have stopped the spread of nuclear weapons in this region." Except that there is a general consensus that the opposite will occur; starting with Saudi Arabia using their gazillion dollars to purchase nukes from Pakistan. Obama: "...this deal meets every single one of the bottom lines that we established..." Uh, not quite. In fact, none of the bottom lines made it into the final deal. Not the anywhere, anytime inspections. Not forcing Iran to come clean on their past military applications for nukes. Not waiting for the lifting of sanctions. And certainly not the dismantling of their nuclear infrastructure. So, did Obama just lie to the American people yet again?
Michael Ramirez is a well known political cartoonist. In today's Ventura County Star is a six frame cartoon that shows Obama in each frame saying the following: 1. "This will prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons..." 2. "And prevent a nuclear arms race." 3. "And create shovel ready jobs..." 4. And lower your premiums by $2500..." 5. "And if you like your doctor..." 6. "Uh, where was I again?" Where indeed.
Tuesday, July 14, 2015
Some Deal
Given that Russia and Syria are speaking very highly of the newly announced nuclear arms deal between the Western powers and Iran, one might think that seeing who supports the deal tells you all you need to know. Never mind that our allies in the region say it's a bad deal.
Iran can continue to enrich uranium - up to a point. Iran can still develop advanced centrifuges. The Arak heavy water reactor stays open, with some modifications. The IAEA does not get complete access to all sites. Sanctions will be ending soon, and Iran will see an infusion of $100-150 billion, all of which can be used to continue their unprecedented sponsorship of terrorism.
That's right. We did not ask any change in Iran's behavior. Just this past weekend, at a rally attended by the Iranian President, the crowd was chanting "Death to America" and "Death to Israel." Iran may continue its support of terrorism, and continue to threaten to wipe Israel off the map. As for the Americans being held hostage by Iran (Pastor Saeed, former Marine Amir Hekmati, Washington Post journalist Jason Rezaian, and retired FBI agent Robert Levinson)? You don't think Obama insisted on their release, do you?
As for the Israelis, there is no separation of opinion from left to right to center of the political spectrum. Isaac Herzog, of the left wing Zionist Union Party (formerly Labor), said: "...with regard to security, I am more extreme than Netanyahu." Conservative Education Minister Naftali Bennett said: "...this day will be remembered as a black day in the history of the free world."
Centrist Yair Lapid of Yesh Atid said it's "a bad day for the Jewish people." Right wing former Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman said "the agreement with Iran will be remembered in history the same way as the Munich Agreement that led to World War II and the agreement with North Korea that led to its nuclearization."
Obama today, in announcing the deal, said the US negotiated from a position of strength. While the US was clearly the stronger power, we acted like the far weaker power. One concession after the next was given to Iran. Virtually none of the original red lines drawn by Obama made it into the final deal.
In 1939, when British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain met with Hitler, the deal then was that Germany would be able to take over part of Czechoslovakia (the Sudetenland). Chamberlain triumphantly returned to Britain famously announcing that he had achieved "peace in our time." Signing off on the deal with Britain were France and the US. Starting to sound familiar? Czechoslovakia was not invited; rather, they were sold out by the other Western powers. Only, history has shown that appeasing a tyrant like Hitler did not lesson the likelihood of war. Those odds were enhanced as Germany perceived the West as being weak. What do you think Iran thinks of the West, after they made one concession after the next?
Guess who was not included in the negotiations with Iran? Israel. Out of a tragic past, and therefore necessity, the Israelis are, if nothing else, students of history. There is no doubt that they see themselves as the Czechoslovakia of the Iranian deal. A nuclear armed Iran constitutes the greatest threat to Israel's very existence.
I could not get two different scenarios out of my mind today. The first: In six months or so, a White House aide goes running into the Oval Office. "Mr. President! Iran secretly developed nukes and has launched them at Israel. Millions of Israelis may be dead." Obama: "This won't delay my golf game I hope. We tee off in 5 minutes." The second: The aide runs into the Oval Office and announces "Mr. President! Israel has launched a major assault on Iran's nuclear facilities." Obama: "That son of a bitch Netanyahu! Send in the 6th Fleet and have them bomb Israel's nuclear facilities. I'll show Netanyahu who the boss is!"
Far fetched? Impossible? What's most scary to me is that I could not imagine ever getting to the point where such things are even imaginable. Yet here we are. What do you think Obama would do if Israel "ruined" his major foreign policy achievement and bombed Iran? Think Obama would stand by Israel then? Who would you stand with - Obama or Israel?
Iran can continue to enrich uranium - up to a point. Iran can still develop advanced centrifuges. The Arak heavy water reactor stays open, with some modifications. The IAEA does not get complete access to all sites. Sanctions will be ending soon, and Iran will see an infusion of $100-150 billion, all of which can be used to continue their unprecedented sponsorship of terrorism.
That's right. We did not ask any change in Iran's behavior. Just this past weekend, at a rally attended by the Iranian President, the crowd was chanting "Death to America" and "Death to Israel." Iran may continue its support of terrorism, and continue to threaten to wipe Israel off the map. As for the Americans being held hostage by Iran (Pastor Saeed, former Marine Amir Hekmati, Washington Post journalist Jason Rezaian, and retired FBI agent Robert Levinson)? You don't think Obama insisted on their release, do you?
As for the Israelis, there is no separation of opinion from left to right to center of the political spectrum. Isaac Herzog, of the left wing Zionist Union Party (formerly Labor), said: "...with regard to security, I am more extreme than Netanyahu." Conservative Education Minister Naftali Bennett said: "...this day will be remembered as a black day in the history of the free world."
Centrist Yair Lapid of Yesh Atid said it's "a bad day for the Jewish people." Right wing former Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman said "the agreement with Iran will be remembered in history the same way as the Munich Agreement that led to World War II and the agreement with North Korea that led to its nuclearization."
Obama today, in announcing the deal, said the US negotiated from a position of strength. While the US was clearly the stronger power, we acted like the far weaker power. One concession after the next was given to Iran. Virtually none of the original red lines drawn by Obama made it into the final deal.
In 1939, when British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain met with Hitler, the deal then was that Germany would be able to take over part of Czechoslovakia (the Sudetenland). Chamberlain triumphantly returned to Britain famously announcing that he had achieved "peace in our time." Signing off on the deal with Britain were France and the US. Starting to sound familiar? Czechoslovakia was not invited; rather, they were sold out by the other Western powers. Only, history has shown that appeasing a tyrant like Hitler did not lesson the likelihood of war. Those odds were enhanced as Germany perceived the West as being weak. What do you think Iran thinks of the West, after they made one concession after the next?
Guess who was not included in the negotiations with Iran? Israel. Out of a tragic past, and therefore necessity, the Israelis are, if nothing else, students of history. There is no doubt that they see themselves as the Czechoslovakia of the Iranian deal. A nuclear armed Iran constitutes the greatest threat to Israel's very existence.
I could not get two different scenarios out of my mind today. The first: In six months or so, a White House aide goes running into the Oval Office. "Mr. President! Iran secretly developed nukes and has launched them at Israel. Millions of Israelis may be dead." Obama: "This won't delay my golf game I hope. We tee off in 5 minutes." The second: The aide runs into the Oval Office and announces "Mr. President! Israel has launched a major assault on Iran's nuclear facilities." Obama: "That son of a bitch Netanyahu! Send in the 6th Fleet and have them bomb Israel's nuclear facilities. I'll show Netanyahu who the boss is!"
Far fetched? Impossible? What's most scary to me is that I could not imagine ever getting to the point where such things are even imaginable. Yet here we are. What do you think Obama would do if Israel "ruined" his major foreign policy achievement and bombed Iran? Think Obama would stand by Israel then? Who would you stand with - Obama or Israel?
Saturday, July 11, 2015
Israel, Anti-Semitism and the Left
As Obama has taken his party and the country further and further to the left, the support for Israel from his party has continued to decline. Frank Luntz conducted a poll of what he referred to as the "opinion elite." Those were defined as people being highly educated, high earners and publicly active. I suspect a number of my readers would qualify.
The poll asked people various questions about Israel. Here is how the "opinion elite" of the 2 parties answered. Does Israel have too much influence on US foreign policy? Dems - 76% say yes, Repubs - 20% agree. Does Israel want peace with its neighbors? Dems - 48% say yes, Repubs - 88% agree. Are settlements an impediment to peace? Dems - 75% say yes, Repubs - only 25% agree. Notice how the Dems answers tend to track with Obama's stated positions on these issues.
Do you support the BDS (Boycott, Divest, Sanction) movement against Israel. 31% of Dems do, while a mere 3% of Repubs do. Curiously, the poll found that 60% were unaware of what BDS was. Asked if Jews were oversensitive and claimed that legitimate criticisms of Israel were anti-Semitic, 50% of Dems agreed. Only 18% of Repubs agreed.
In an interesting pair of related questions, people were asked if the US should support Israel or the Palestinians. 51% of Dems said Israel, while a whopping 90% of Repubs said Israel. But, when asked who they personally supported, only a minority of Dems - 46% - said Israel. But an overwhelming 88% of Repubs personally supported Israel.
As Obama has sought to distance himself and his Administration away from Israel (which he has done since entering office), he has concurrently aligned himself with pro-Palestinian groups. It is not just that the radical Islamist groups, such as CAIR (the Council on American Islamic Relations) and the ISNA (the Islamic Society of North America), are frequent visitors to the White House. No, Obama looks to support his anti-Israel agenda by getting left-wing Jewish groups to side with him.
Whereas AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affairs Council) is a true supporter of Israel, and non-partisan with regards to the 2 parties; Obama prefers to invite groups such as "J Street" to the White House. J Street claims to identify as a pro-Israel organization, yet is a far left group that has adopted virtually all the Palestinian talking points - the same as Obama. Now, there is another allegedly pro-Israel, but actually pro-Palestinian group, called "Breaking the Silence," that also gets White House access.
So let's see. Radical Islamic groups get access to the White House. Far left pro-Palestinian Jewish groups get access to the White House. But hey, Al Sharpton is described as a trusted adviser, so...
Meanwhile, the UN Human Rights Council was at it again. This joke of an organization has passed more anti-Israel measures than against any other member nation, and possibly more against Israel than all the other nations combined. Under Bush, the US was not a member of the Council; but Obama has a far greater affinity for all things international. This time, they adopted a report concerning last year's war between Israel and Hamas. The vote was 47-1, with 5 abstentions. Those abstaining were Kenya, Ethiopia, Paraguay, Macedonia and India. Israel has made an effort to create closer ties with India; and the Palestinians were apoplectic that India this time did not vote how they had hoped.
The 8 European countries on the Council all voted against Israel. No surprise there. They are the UK, France, Germany, Iceland, the Netherlands, Portugal, Latvia and Estonia. Think about that the next time you want to travel to one of these countries. There were reports that Israel asked the UK and Germany to vote for the resolution, fearing that a worse resolution might be enacted if the current one was not. The one no vote - the US. But at the Security Council, where it really counts, Obama has said he would no longer guarantee protection of Israel.
Well, at least those countries voting against Israel all have stellar human rights records themselves. That would be countries like China, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, to name a few.
I'll leave you with this quote from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, regarding the UNHRC resolution. "On a day when Israel is hit by fire from the Sinai (by ISIS), when Islamic State is carrying out cruel terror attacks inside Egypt, in Syria Assad is slaughtering his people, and in Iran the number of arbitrary executions rises on an annual basis, the Council decides to condemn Israel that has committed no sins." But maybe the Dems would say that I'm just oversensitive to legitimate criticisms of Israel.
The poll asked people various questions about Israel. Here is how the "opinion elite" of the 2 parties answered. Does Israel have too much influence on US foreign policy? Dems - 76% say yes, Repubs - 20% agree. Does Israel want peace with its neighbors? Dems - 48% say yes, Repubs - 88% agree. Are settlements an impediment to peace? Dems - 75% say yes, Repubs - only 25% agree. Notice how the Dems answers tend to track with Obama's stated positions on these issues.
Do you support the BDS (Boycott, Divest, Sanction) movement against Israel. 31% of Dems do, while a mere 3% of Repubs do. Curiously, the poll found that 60% were unaware of what BDS was. Asked if Jews were oversensitive and claimed that legitimate criticisms of Israel were anti-Semitic, 50% of Dems agreed. Only 18% of Repubs agreed.
In an interesting pair of related questions, people were asked if the US should support Israel or the Palestinians. 51% of Dems said Israel, while a whopping 90% of Repubs said Israel. But, when asked who they personally supported, only a minority of Dems - 46% - said Israel. But an overwhelming 88% of Repubs personally supported Israel.
As Obama has sought to distance himself and his Administration away from Israel (which he has done since entering office), he has concurrently aligned himself with pro-Palestinian groups. It is not just that the radical Islamist groups, such as CAIR (the Council on American Islamic Relations) and the ISNA (the Islamic Society of North America), are frequent visitors to the White House. No, Obama looks to support his anti-Israel agenda by getting left-wing Jewish groups to side with him.
Whereas AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affairs Council) is a true supporter of Israel, and non-partisan with regards to the 2 parties; Obama prefers to invite groups such as "J Street" to the White House. J Street claims to identify as a pro-Israel organization, yet is a far left group that has adopted virtually all the Palestinian talking points - the same as Obama. Now, there is another allegedly pro-Israel, but actually pro-Palestinian group, called "Breaking the Silence," that also gets White House access.
So let's see. Radical Islamic groups get access to the White House. Far left pro-Palestinian Jewish groups get access to the White House. But hey, Al Sharpton is described as a trusted adviser, so...
Meanwhile, the UN Human Rights Council was at it again. This joke of an organization has passed more anti-Israel measures than against any other member nation, and possibly more against Israel than all the other nations combined. Under Bush, the US was not a member of the Council; but Obama has a far greater affinity for all things international. This time, they adopted a report concerning last year's war between Israel and Hamas. The vote was 47-1, with 5 abstentions. Those abstaining were Kenya, Ethiopia, Paraguay, Macedonia and India. Israel has made an effort to create closer ties with India; and the Palestinians were apoplectic that India this time did not vote how they had hoped.
The 8 European countries on the Council all voted against Israel. No surprise there. They are the UK, France, Germany, Iceland, the Netherlands, Portugal, Latvia and Estonia. Think about that the next time you want to travel to one of these countries. There were reports that Israel asked the UK and Germany to vote for the resolution, fearing that a worse resolution might be enacted if the current one was not. The one no vote - the US. But at the Security Council, where it really counts, Obama has said he would no longer guarantee protection of Israel.
Well, at least those countries voting against Israel all have stellar human rights records themselves. That would be countries like China, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, to name a few.
I'll leave you with this quote from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, regarding the UNHRC resolution. "On a day when Israel is hit by fire from the Sinai (by ISIS), when Islamic State is carrying out cruel terror attacks inside Egypt, in Syria Assad is slaughtering his people, and in Iran the number of arbitrary executions rises on an annual basis, the Council decides to condemn Israel that has committed no sins." But maybe the Dems would say that I'm just oversensitive to legitimate criticisms of Israel.
More Evidence That "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder"
Sometimes, and for some of us, it does not seem possible that certain news stories could possibly have an element of truth to them. Yet, Fox reported that in Seattle girls as young as 11 years old are able to obtain IUDs, without parental consent.
As if that were not bad enough, Fox also reported that 15 year-olds in Oregon may get gender reassignment surgery without parental consent, and paid for by the State's Medicaid program. Fox noted that a 15 year-old in Oregon could not drive, smoke, donate blood, get a tattoo or go to a tanning salon. Snopes took issue with the Fox story. Yet, they did not disprove nor negate the essential elements of the story. Snopes reported that the age of consent for medical treatment in Oregon has been 15 since 1971. (My guess would be that such a measure was enacted to allow for abortions.)
However, Snopes also agreed that in early 2015 Oregon did include "gender dysphoria" as one of the conditions covered by the state's Medicaid program. The real beef that Snopes seemed to have was the way the article was written - the spin. There was no proof that a 15 year-old had yet undergone such a surgery. There was no indication that a doctor would be willing to perform such a surgery without parental consent.
So, accepting the Snopes' version - so what? Who actually believes that a 15 year-old is mature enough, with enough life experience, to make a decision that will affect them for the rest of their lives? Who believes that a 15 year-old should even have the power to make such a decision? This is insanity; or, as Michael Savage says, a "mental disorder."
Reference was made to an article by the "Journal of American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry." That article referred to a 2008 study claiming that "most children with gender dysphoria will not remain gender dysphoric after puberty." Johns Hopkins Medical Center apparently stopped performing gender reassignment surgeries after at least one study revealed that, long term, the suicide rate for transgendered individuals was about 20 times higher than that for a comparable non-transgendered population.
Just a thought. Notice has Obama has no problem linking the deaths of blacks to racism. It does not matter that so many blacks are killed by other blacks. It's racism. So how come Obama is unable to see the connection between the deaths of thousands around the world with radical Islam. I guess racism is rampant, but radical Islam is non-existent. Or, does Obama, as a leftist, let his beliefs dictate his reality? Such a refusal/inability to view the world accurately might just be considered a mental disorder.
Whoever thought that the idea of "sanctuary cities" made any sense? As noted in my 3 part series entitled "The Continuing Slide Into Tyranny," we are no longer a country of laws applied equally. If we were, certain people (Lois Lerner? Hillary Clinton?) might face prosecution. The idea of sanctuary cities merely reinforces the notion that anybody can do what they want. It is outrageous for local governments to claim that they do not need to comply with federal immigration laws. Well, mostly outrageous.
Part of the problem is that the federal government often will not enforce their own immigration laws. Now, an illegal immigrant who was a convicted felon and deported 5 times, was free to roam the streets of San Francisco and murder a 32 year-old woman named Kathryn Steinle. The Feds, specifically ICE, asked SF to keep the perpetrator in custody if they were going to release him. ICE had turned him over to the local authorities for prosecution on a drug charge. But the locals decided not to prosecute and released the soon to be murderer.
The locals decided they had no obligation to hold the man absent a warrant or court order. In fact, based on one federal district judge's decision, the locals felt it was illegal to detain the man. This is all insanity. If someone who is a convicted felon and who has been deported 5 times cannot be held by local authorities until ICE can pick him up, there is something very wrong and laws need to be changed.
The first change should be eliminating all federal aid to cities or states that pass sanctuary laws. The next obvious problem is the porous border. This perpetrator was deported 5 times and made it back in a sixth time, allowing him to commit murder. Deporting him again would have been meaningless. We need to strengthen our border security; and if the only way to do so is to build a wall then let's do it. If our border is that porous, then perhaps we need to institute prison time for violation of our immigration laws.
I would exclude minors from any prison time. And I would not agree with a 5 year sentence for an initial violation, as some have proposed. Rather, if we pursue such a policy, I would give increasing amounts of time for each new violation. Perhaps 6 months initially, then 1 1/2 years, then 3 years, then 5 years. It appears that some deterrent is needed.
But, now you sound like Donald Trump. No. No one has been able to explain to me why those citizens of nearby countries should be allowed to come here illegally, just because they can walk across the border, while citizens of far away countries mostly wait in line for the proper paperwork and opportunity to come. Do you allow your neighbors where you live to sneak into your house anytime they want to do so? I doubt anyone does - not even liberals.
As if that were not bad enough, Fox also reported that 15 year-olds in Oregon may get gender reassignment surgery without parental consent, and paid for by the State's Medicaid program. Fox noted that a 15 year-old in Oregon could not drive, smoke, donate blood, get a tattoo or go to a tanning salon. Snopes took issue with the Fox story. Yet, they did not disprove nor negate the essential elements of the story. Snopes reported that the age of consent for medical treatment in Oregon has been 15 since 1971. (My guess would be that such a measure was enacted to allow for abortions.)
However, Snopes also agreed that in early 2015 Oregon did include "gender dysphoria" as one of the conditions covered by the state's Medicaid program. The real beef that Snopes seemed to have was the way the article was written - the spin. There was no proof that a 15 year-old had yet undergone such a surgery. There was no indication that a doctor would be willing to perform such a surgery without parental consent.
So, accepting the Snopes' version - so what? Who actually believes that a 15 year-old is mature enough, with enough life experience, to make a decision that will affect them for the rest of their lives? Who believes that a 15 year-old should even have the power to make such a decision? This is insanity; or, as Michael Savage says, a "mental disorder."
Reference was made to an article by the "Journal of American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry." That article referred to a 2008 study claiming that "most children with gender dysphoria will not remain gender dysphoric after puberty." Johns Hopkins Medical Center apparently stopped performing gender reassignment surgeries after at least one study revealed that, long term, the suicide rate for transgendered individuals was about 20 times higher than that for a comparable non-transgendered population.
Just a thought. Notice has Obama has no problem linking the deaths of blacks to racism. It does not matter that so many blacks are killed by other blacks. It's racism. So how come Obama is unable to see the connection between the deaths of thousands around the world with radical Islam. I guess racism is rampant, but radical Islam is non-existent. Or, does Obama, as a leftist, let his beliefs dictate his reality? Such a refusal/inability to view the world accurately might just be considered a mental disorder.
Whoever thought that the idea of "sanctuary cities" made any sense? As noted in my 3 part series entitled "The Continuing Slide Into Tyranny," we are no longer a country of laws applied equally. If we were, certain people (Lois Lerner? Hillary Clinton?) might face prosecution. The idea of sanctuary cities merely reinforces the notion that anybody can do what they want. It is outrageous for local governments to claim that they do not need to comply with federal immigration laws. Well, mostly outrageous.
Part of the problem is that the federal government often will not enforce their own immigration laws. Now, an illegal immigrant who was a convicted felon and deported 5 times, was free to roam the streets of San Francisco and murder a 32 year-old woman named Kathryn Steinle. The Feds, specifically ICE, asked SF to keep the perpetrator in custody if they were going to release him. ICE had turned him over to the local authorities for prosecution on a drug charge. But the locals decided not to prosecute and released the soon to be murderer.
The locals decided they had no obligation to hold the man absent a warrant or court order. In fact, based on one federal district judge's decision, the locals felt it was illegal to detain the man. This is all insanity. If someone who is a convicted felon and who has been deported 5 times cannot be held by local authorities until ICE can pick him up, there is something very wrong and laws need to be changed.
The first change should be eliminating all federal aid to cities or states that pass sanctuary laws. The next obvious problem is the porous border. This perpetrator was deported 5 times and made it back in a sixth time, allowing him to commit murder. Deporting him again would have been meaningless. We need to strengthen our border security; and if the only way to do so is to build a wall then let's do it. If our border is that porous, then perhaps we need to institute prison time for violation of our immigration laws.
I would exclude minors from any prison time. And I would not agree with a 5 year sentence for an initial violation, as some have proposed. Rather, if we pursue such a policy, I would give increasing amounts of time for each new violation. Perhaps 6 months initially, then 1 1/2 years, then 3 years, then 5 years. It appears that some deterrent is needed.
But, now you sound like Donald Trump. No. No one has been able to explain to me why those citizens of nearby countries should be allowed to come here illegally, just because they can walk across the border, while citizens of far away countries mostly wait in line for the proper paperwork and opportunity to come. Do you allow your neighbors where you live to sneak into your house anytime they want to do so? I doubt anyone does - not even liberals.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)