Monday, April 27, 2015

Biden's Bait of Bull

April 26, 2015

President Obama, having heard an earful from Democratic leaders, who had received complaints from their Jewish constituents over his treatment of both Israel and its prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has embarked on a let's secure the Jewish vote campaign. I am not sure that there is a real threat that America's liberal Jews would defect to what they view as the evil Republican Party, but the campaign is underway regardless. Of course, now that the campaign has begun, I, like many of my Jewish brethren, question the efficacy of appealing to anti-Israel Jewish groups, like J Street. But, as I already said, there is no need for a real campaign and it allows Obama to show that he made an effort, one that actually promotes his interests. Although he should be called out for making matters worse by going to J Street, he will not be. Obama's latest move was to parade Vice President Biden out in front of a group of Jewish leaders at the Israeli Embassy in Washington DC on Israel's Independence Day. What followed was more of the same Obama rhetoric, or what I will refer to as Biden's bait of bull.

To be fair to Biden, he did sound sincere for much of his speech. But, unfortunately, he lost credibility when he resorted to casting out the old familiar line baited with bull to see how great his catch would be. Are Jewish leaders still gullible enough to believe Biden when he said that Obama has Israel's back, as Obama and his Administration have consistently claimed? Or will they wisely let Obama's actions and true beliefs speak for themselves? As a word of caution, trusting Obama and disregarding his actions also would mean ignoring the crystal clear message emanating from Israeli officials, including Mr. Netanyahu.

Biden also boldly claimed that no American President has ever done more to protect Israel than Obama. He then cited some weak examples, one of which was nonsensical. Biden stated that during Israel's war with Hamas this past summer, Obama repeatedly stood up to the world and proclaimed Israel's right to defend itself. Maybe Biden was referring to a different Israeli war with Hamas last summer than the one I am aware of. In the war I followed, I repeatedly heard Obama and his Administration reprimand Israel for causing too many Palestinian casualties. In fact, I heard Secretary of State Kerry make some not so nice comments about Mr. Netanyahu and Israel. Sure, I did hear some half-hearted statements about Israel having the right to defend itself. But those statements did not end there. Instead, they were always followed up by emotional and derogatory remarks and demands for Israel to curtail its military response. The word response also is telling because it was perfectly clear and indisputable that Israel (yet again) was fighting a defensive war. Additionally, for some reason, which Biden and the rest of Obama's Administration have never explained, instead of insisting that Hamas cease its offensive war and aggression against Israel, that it stop targeting innocent Israeli civilians with rocket, missile and mortar fire, and that it stop using Palestinians in Gaza as human shields, Obama and his Administration chose to condemn Israel for defending itself. We also only heard crickets when it came to Hamas using hospitals, schools, mosques, U.N. facilities and the rest of the civilian infrastructure in Gaza to launch its terrorist attacks. It would have been fair and reasonable to expect Obama to harshly criticize Hamas' terror tunnels, but that was not the case. Already, as international aid goes to Hamas, it shamefully has restarted the process of digging these tunnels of death.

Israel has received more support and cooperation from Egyptian leader Al-Sisi than from Obama in combating Hamas, which also threatens the safety and security of Egyptians. Perhaps, Biden should have reserved his praise for the Egyptian leader. Biden also conveniently forgot to mention that Obama cut off weapons' supplies to Israel during the war and that he stopped flights into Tel Aviv Airport. A leader who really has Israel's back would not have taken these malicious actions. I wonder if the Jewish leaders in the audience had the same recollection. Or will they be reeled in on Biden's line of baited bull?

Biden also referenced the Iran nuclear deal, both the framework and the quest for a final agreement. Here too, his comments were striking. He said that an agreement that does not cut off Iran's path to the bomb will not be entered into. Or "no deal" as he kept repeating. But this statement is disturbing. Any agreement that is signed based on the framework will have sunset provisions. Not only will Iran's path to the bomb not be blocked, but Iran will be welcomed into the world community with open arms while being able to legitimately pursue a nuclear weapons program over time.

Biden said that any sanctions relief would be phased in over time and, if not, "no deal". Obama and his Administration also previously stated this to be the case. The supreme leader of Iran and other Iranian officials, however, are demanding immediate relief from sanctions. There are now discussions of a possible $50 billion signing bonus if Iran agrees to the deal. If a signing bonus is paid to Iran, how would Biden square that with his comments? Deal or no deal?

Biden stated that a terrific inspection policy would be put in place so that Iran's compliance with the terms of the agreement could be verified. If not, "no deal". Iranian officials have made clear, however, that the type of inspections the Obama Administration expects to occur is not based on reality. They also have emphatically denied that inspectors will be permitted to have any access to their military facilities. This sounds like a very big disconnect.

Biden discussed the fact that the framework calls for fewer centrifuges and enriched uranium. But he left out the apparent capitulation to allow Iran to maintain approximately 6,000 centrifuges and some of its enriched uranium. He also overstated the reduction and limitations on Iran's nuclear infrastructure. He did, however, manage to blame Bush at one point, keeping consistent with the Obama doctrine.

Biden also applauded Obama for being the only American president to adopt an official policy preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. So what happened? As it turns out, it will be Obama who guides Iran down the path of getting the bomb. So much for official Obama policy. Biden also matter-of-factly pointed to the two-to-three month break out period for Iran to build the bomb, but emphatically noted that the deal would push that back to one year. But he did not explain when this break out period was reduced to two-to-three months. In fact, not too long ago Obama claimed that Mr. Netanyahu's estimation of an Iranian break out of several months was an exaggeration and that it would be significantly longer. So what caused the change?

To be clear, the framework of the deal allows Iran to legitimately adopt a nuclear weapons program over time. That is not even being debated. So then what did Biden mean when he said all options would be on the table, including military action, if Iran does not comply with the agreement? Is one to suppose that if Iran gradually drifts off course and achieves its real goals earlier than permitted under the agreement, the United States would take military action against a nuclear-armed Iran? Or maybe he just meant that they would or could if Iran violates the agreement sooner rather than later. That suggests that Obama might do so if the violation happens while he is still in office, as it would make more sense for Biden to be speaking on behalf of an administration that he is part of. But does anyone really believe that? Or maybe Biden meant that one of the other P5+1 countries could take military action, like Russia, which already has lifted its ban on shipping sophisticated surface-to-air missiles to Iran, or China. It does not seem logical that Russia would take military action against Iran after supplying it with arms that would complicate such military action. Would France or the U.K. take such action? Highly unlikely. So what did he mean? Perhaps just more of Biden's bait of bull.

Biden also referred to the growth of global Anti-Semitism and the need to constantly fight it, a notion he claimed is supported by Obama. Again, nice words, but one needs to ask, what do they mean? So far, these words are meaningless. What exactly has Obama done to combat rising global Anti-Semitism? He has uttered empty, emotionless words at best. He will not even acknowledge acts of Anti-Semitism when committed by Muslims. And there are plenty of those to go around. Instead, Obama is worried about non-existent Islamophobia. Biden certainly would have had more credibility singing Obama's praises to a group of Muslim leaders.

Finally, Biden pressed for a two-state solution. A few points on this topic. His words did not strike a demanding tone. He seemed to be deferential to Israel. But here he was inconsistent with Obama and particularly Obama's recent rants on the subject. Noticeably absent, consistent with Obama's position, was any recognition that Israel does not have a partner for peace and, even if it did, it could not rationally promote a two-state solution now with all of the radical Islamic terrorists that would encamp on its newer, more restrictive borders. Biden's failure to discuss the the threats posed by radical Islam to a two-state solution and Iran's belligerence in the region, spreading of terror and calls for Israel's annihilation is chilling. Then again, what could he honestly say about the latter point, that Obama's policies are strengthening Iran?

Biden's speech sounded good and was delivered well. But that, as we know all too well, is not the best way to judge a speech. The best test is to analyze the contents of a speech and to try to determine what is being said expressly and implicitly. Measured this way, I hope Jewish leaders will see Biden's speech as more of the same bait of bull.

Am Yisrael Chai.

Sunset, Sanctions, Snap-Back, Signing Bonuses, Supreme Leader and Suckers

April 25, 2015

How is it that so many Americans still naively believe whatever President Obama tells them? The fact that they can be deferential to him on an issue like the Iranian nuclear talks, with so much to lose, is astonishing to me. That so many Jews can continue to support this master manipulator and deceiver is even more incredible to me.

It should be obvious to all, based on Obama's own words and actions, that there really are dangerous changes occurring in America and around the rest of the world. Frequent and widespread radical Islamic terrorist threats and atrocities have become acceptable. If we are lucky enough to thwart such terrorist plots, they are quickly forgotten. If the radical Islamic terrorists are successful, it is sufficient to address such violence with meaningless words of pity just as long as it happens somewhere else to someone else. Even in the U.S., more and more terrorist attacks are being prevented. I am afraid that we may not continue to be so successful and, in fact, we have been on the receiving end of quite enough terrorist attacks. Yet Obama, who is the master at addressing the violence of radical Islamic terrorists with unemotional and meaningless words of pity, is having his way with the American people. He refuses to acknowledge that the terrorists are radical Islamists and, instead, condemns Christians and Jews, and Israel in particular.  Obama's historical ties to radical Islamists also have been ignored. Shouldn't alarm bells be going off everywhere? Isn't it troubling that he continues to cozy up to Muslim extremists while slamming Christians and Jews and that he refuses to recognize that Christians and Jews are being targeted by militant Islam? He failed to acknowledge that terrorist attacks in a kosher deli were targeted against Jews, despite clear statements from the perpetrator that they were (as if that was needed in an attack on a kosher deli). He has ignored the frightening and rapid rise of global Anti-Semitism. He has looked the other way as Christians have repeatedly been slaughtered by radical Islamic terrorists solely because they were not Muslim. Now perhaps he will deny that Christians were the target in the recently reported 2010 plot by radical Islamic terrorists aimed at the Vatican. Maybe it would have just involved terrorists who "randomly shoot some folks" like he claimed of the shootings at the kosher deli. This time, folks who would have just happened to be in the Vatican.  

The stakes are much higher with the ongoing nuclear talks with Iran. There is no room on this dangerous issue to take Obama at his word. Indeed, history shows that he is not to be trusted. He promised to dismantle Iran's nuclear program, but that is not happening. In fact, the framework of the deal, with its sunset provisions, legitimizes the program over time. This is unconscionable. How many times did we hear from Obama's Administration that there would be no sunset provisions? And, how did we go from Obama declaring that Iran would never get the bomb and that all options, including military action, were on the table to capitulating that this is the best deal we can get and Iran is two to three months away from the bomb? We went from never to over a year to two or three months in very short order. 

Iran will be permitted to keep its nuclear infrastructure intact, including its illicit underground facility that previously went under the radar and may be impenetrable. Iran also will now be able to maintain many of its existing centrifuges and at least some of its enriched uranium (despite the Administration's previous position that Iran ship out its enriched uranium). Inspections, which have had their shortcomings in the past, also are a source of contention with the supreme leader and other Iranian officials slapping down Obama's claims that they will be unfettered and rigorous. Iranian officials have specifically stated that inspectors will not have access to Iranian military sites. Iran's ballistic missile program is outside the scope of the agreement, posing a direct threat not only to Israel, but also to the United States. Obama also has refused to tie Iran's belligerent behavior in the region, its wide scope of terrorist activities and its open hostilities against Israel to any agreement. Yet, he insists that this is a good deal and that everyone trust him. But we have seen this movie before. 

Iran already is stronger as a result of Obama's decision to ease sanctions on the rogue nation just to get it to the negotiating table. This no doubt was a sign of weakness to Iran at a time when we had all of the leverage and should have been negotiating from a position of strength as it was obvious that Iran had become desperate as a result of the sanctions. This should have been an ominous sign for the U.S., Israel and the rest of the free world. Predictably, Obama and his Administration have given the Iranians one concession after another. Yet, since the framework for the deal was announced at the end of March, the supreme leader of Iran has accused the Obama Administration of being deceitful. He joins the large club of people who feel the same way. One of the supreme leader's claims was that the framework calls for the immediate lifting of sanctions, to which Obama and his Administration vehemently disagreed. Now, in typical Obama fashion, comes word that Iran may receive a signing bonus of $50 billion if it enters into a final deal. 

The release of any money upfront to Iran should be a non-starter. Iran should have to earn any further sanctions relief (which it will not do). This would just be a gift to Iran, which once again unconditionally rewards it despite its regional aggression and global terrorist activities. There is not even a condition prohibiting Iran from using the inflow of money to fund such activities. Obama simply refuses to make such a common sense connection. Iran has been successfully infiltrating other countries and sponsoring terrorism and this would only embolden it. Iran would immediately be able to take any upfront payments and use them to further its belligerent and terrorist goals. It is resupplying Hezbollah and Hamas with more sophisticated weapons and reports indicate that Hamas already is rebuilding its terrorist infrastructure in Gaza. To this too, Obama turns a blind eye. Iran could simply take the money from a signing bonus and run, or it could wait patiently for all the finances (well over $100 billion) to roll in and then restart (if it ever stops) its nuclear program from a much stronger and more secure position. 

We should not be delusional enough to fall for Obama's claim that the agreement will contain strong snap-back provisions. This claim, which asserts that Iran's violations of the agreement would be met with the quick re-imposition of sanctions, is not based on reality and insults the intelligence of Americans. Already, Putin has promised to supply Iran with sophisticated surface-to-air missiles that would help secure its nuclear facilities. This comes even before there is any final agreement. The French foreign minister criticized Putin for agreeing to take this action, but not Obama. Despite undercutting the ability of the United States and Israel to act militarily against Iran's nuclear facilities, his reaction was only to question why Russia did not do this sooner. Simply incredible. Yet, somehow with a straight face he tells the world not to worry, that snap-back provisions will be in place. What could anyone point to that would support the notion that Obama could have any influence over Russia or China, which would have to agree to the so-called snap-back provisions? This would be further complicated because the violations would have to be uncovered by inspectors in the first place and would then have to go through a lengthy U.N. process just to get to the point where they are shot down by Russia and/or China. This also presumes, likely incorrectly, that Obama and the Europeans would come to the point of favoring the re-imposition of sanctions on Iran. In short, once relinquished, sanctions will not trickle back let alone snap back. 

Obama's unbridled adulation for the supreme leader of Iran also is unsettling. The supreme leader receives the praise and respect of Obama even while he chants death to America and death to Israel. Obama is silent on Iran's belligerence and terrorist activities. It seems as though Obama is in such awe of the supreme leader that Obama will cave on any of Iran's demands so as to please and placate him. This is entirely consistent with Obama's pro-Muslim beliefs. It also helps explain his Anti-Semitic and anti-Israel actions. 

All of this leads to the conclusion that those who fall for Obama's deception, particularly Jews, are suckers. Obama's radical history warrants support of those who oppose him and his march to madness, including the U.S. Congress. Obama's pro-Muslim, anti-Israel track record have to be challenged now. The risk of trusting Obama on the Iranian nuclear deal is just too great. What the deal would actually achieve would be to finance and legitimize Iran's nuclear program, global aggression and expansion, and terrorist activities. Iran may or may not take the full time until the agreement sunsets, but, either way, it will be in a much better financial position and, if it has the patience to wait, will be able to flaunt its evil with the blessing of the international community. 

All major Jewish groups and denominations should immediately unite to address this issue. The leaders of these groups and denominations need to gather and stand together. Differences need to be put aside. Jewish organizations acting on their own are not having a meaningful impact. United we can accomplish more. The Rabbinate should be having these discussions in their synagogues. There is nothing too controversial about Iran obtaining nuclear weapons to prevent that from occurring. Congregants should be encouraged to flood the offices of their Congressmen and women now with calls urging them not to approve any bad final agreement. Sunset provisions, the unconditional easing of sanctions, signing bonuses, snap-back provisions and other unsettling terms of the framework should be, and actually have to be, enough to unite us and prevent us from being suckers. 

Am Yisrael Chai. 

Monday, April 20, 2015

While Liberal Jews Slept...Actually, Aided and Abetted

April 19, 2015

You may be familiar with the 2006 book of a similar title written by Bruce Bawer warning of the rise of and threat posed by radical Islam in Europe. Despite being panned by liberal critics at the time, the book and its message have proven to be spot on, as is readily apparent from the current state of affairs in Europe. And yet, as the threat dramatically escalates in Europe and all around the world, there are still many people who refuse to acknowledge that radical Islam poses a grave danger to civilization. This is the predominant view of liberals, including liberal Jews.

Like other non-liberals (whether Jewish or not), I am at a loss over this denial. Three things make it even worse for me. For starters, many liberal Jews claim to identity closely with their Jewish roots and Israel. Yet, many (although not all) of these liberal Jews do nothing to support Jewish causes or Israel. It is not exactly like they sit quietly on the sidelines with their hands folded in their laps either. They are quite outspoken on issues they deem important, but, unfortunately, neither world Jewry nor Israel makes the cut. These liberal Jews can be categorized as sleeping through the current crisis facing Israel, global Jewry and the rest of the free world. Second, of the liberal Jews who are outspoken on Israel, far too many of them are critical of Israel and do not act in its best interests. Finally, liberal Jews are way too deferential to Obama and his Administration. Jews falling in these second and third groups can be categorized as aiding and abetting the current problem as they are adding fuel to the flames that are burning globally in the name of radical Islam.

Current events are so frightening that many people simply cannot identify with liberals and their points of view. That has helped create a deep divide in America. To the non-liberal, the malignant growth of radical Islam could not be any clearer. One need only turn on the daily news channel or read the national or international news reports to learn of the latest terrorist acts committed or attempted in the name of radical Islam. These gruesome acts spare no one and Jews and Christians are among the "infidels" being butchered solely because of their religion. To be perfectly clear, innocent people are being deliberately targeted for slaughter just because of their religious views. We are talking about intentional, cold-blooded murder committed by radical Islamists with no method of execution considered cruel and unusual punishment. Just because someone may choose not to acknowledge this for what it is, does not make it so. I believe that this is so clear-cut and beyond reproach that I will consider it established and indisputable fact and move on. There simply is no logical or rational way to argue otherwise.

How liberal Jews, or any liberals frankly, are able to filter this into something other than radical Islamic terrorism that poses an unjustified threat to freedom and innocent people is beyond my understanding. They do not voice any objections to innocent people, children among them, being targeted for death. Instead, despite statistics to the contrary, they are visibly and vocally concerned about Islamophobia. Yet, they are silent on terrorist acts in Israel and the rapid growth of global Anti-Semitism, both of which are supported by the evidence. They are strong advocates for rights of minorities, women and gays, abandon these groups to radical Muslim oppression and abuse. Nor do they object to radical Muslims specifically targeting Jews and Christians for murder. Liberal Jews who are active on a wide variety of issues, but choose to ignore the dangers posed to their Jewish brethren in Israel and globally, share responsibility for the fate of Israel and world Jewry. Those who choose to worry about phantom Islamophobia and naively fear insulting all Muslims by condemning radical Islam are even more complicit. Ignored is the fact that many innocent Muslims also are being killed by radical Islamic terrorists. These are the Jews who put the meaning in "While the Jews Slept".

But even worse are those liberal Jews who feel compelled to speak out against Israel. I do not know what motivates these Jews to act the way they do. What possesses a person, especially a Jew, to attack and denigrate a free and democratic country that, because it is surrounded by countries and people who do not want it to exist, has to struggle for its survival every single day? These same Jews are silent when one of Israel's terrorist enemies, such as Hamas and Hezbollah, launch rocket and missile attacks at Israeli civilians. It does not matter to these Jews that these unprovoked terrorist attacks are designed to inflict as many civilian casualties as possible. Liberal Jews are silent over the rash of Palestinian terrorist attacks targeting Jews in Jerusalem. They are not phased to learn of the major terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians being thwarted. They are not concerned that Israeli security forces need to be stationed by the Western Wall to prevent, not always successfully, aggression by arabs against Jews who are trying to pray there peacefully. They ignore all the benefits, freedom and rights offered by Israel even in these perilous and unsustainable times not only to Jews but to Christians, Muslims, Druze and others. They refuse to acknowledge that these people, even Muslims and arabs, have far more rights in Israel than in any Muslim country, especially when it comes to women and gays. Liberals Jews refuse to recognize or acknowledge the excessive and egregious human rights violations committed everywhere in the name of radical Islam. Instead, they jump on the United Nations' bandwagon and choose to censure Israel over many contrived allegations. I have a simple question. Why do they do it? They are irrational and delusional. And to be perfectly clear, they are the Jews who "Actually Aid and Abet" the enemy and also share responsibility for the fate of Israel and world Jewry.

To Diaspora Jews who are bold and brave enough to preach their sense of morals, ethics and values to Israeli Jews who face an existential risk and cannot let their guard down on any day of their lives, your behavior is dangerous and reprehensible. If you believe that there is room for improvement in Israel you should move to Sderot or another border town with Gaza or to Israel's northern border with Lebanon. Let's see how much you enjoy your new neighbors. Of course, as the Iranian supply of rockets and missiles to Hamas and Hezbollah become more and more sophisticated, you may not be able to find safety anywhere in Israel. It certainly will be more credible for you to promote Palestinian rights when you are living in Israel. So you can move to an area that borders the West Bank and push for a two-state solution from there. You might even want to advertise that you are a Jew and carry that message in Palestinian towns and villages where I have no doubt that you will be warmly accepted and welcomed. To those Israeli Jews who want to steer Israel to the far left, take it from an American Jew who has witnessed his own country make that journey, you are better off not fundamentally transforming your country. Radical views are bad, whether on the far left or far right.

Worst of all are the liberal Jews who denigrate Israel and are obsequious to Obama. These liberal Jewish aiders and abettors endanger Israel and world Jewry with their far-left views and play right into the hands of Obama and his radical and insidious views and policies. As if the world is not dangerous enough right now, we have an American president who sympathizes with militant Islamic terrorists, while disparaging Jews and Christians. The only way Obama could make this any more obvious would be for him to come out and say as much. Then again, he has previously stated that he would side with Muslims, but his rather clear statements were explained away by his supporters. Even if he was to make such statements today, based on the refusal of many liberals, Jews among them, to see or want to see what Obama is doing, it is apparent that they would once again dismiss his statements. Regardless, one hardly needs any outright admissions. Obama's actions and statements are alarmingly clear enough for any objective person. With the United States being Israel's only real ally, this is extremely worrisome.

Obama does not condemn radical Islamic terrorism. He even claims that the perpetrators of the violence are not Islamic, which is a blatant lie. The terrorists themselves will tell you as much. When he does say something negative about such terrorism, he lacks any emotion. It is as though he is doing us a favor by saying something about the horrific events and does not believe what he is saying. When Jews build houses in Israel, however, Obama passionately expresses his displeasure. Israel defending its civilians against Hamas terrorist attacks last summer also drew his ire. Obama and his Administration ridiculously tried to equate Israel's actions with those of Hamas. Instead of insisting that Hamas immediately cease its terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians, he held Israel in contempt for defending its citizens even though it showed more restraint than was warranted or recommended under the circumstances. Obama's actions and statements towards Israel during its war with Hamas were shameful and blatant Anti-Semitism. Anyone who believes otherwise should explain the failure of Obama and his Administration to curb or condemn the civilian casualties in Yemen resulting from Saudi Arabia's bombing of the Houthi rebels in that country. Where is all of Obama's outrage? He must have exhausted it on Israel. Keep in mind that the Houthis are not targeting civilians in Saudi Arabia. I support the Saudis' objective of trying to combat radical Islamic terrorists on their doorstep, but it just makes Obama's anti-Israel position that much more apparent.

Is Obama someone to trust now when it comes to a potential deal with Iran over nuclear weapons? Absolutely not. Now, of all times, he is making it a priority to try to squeeze Israel into tighter borders. If the increasingly sophisticated rockets and missiles from Hamas and Hezbollah are not enough of a threat, it will be that much easier for a country with nuclear weapons to accomplish the stated goal of various Muslim countries of wiping Israel off the map. The reasonable position would be to support Israel in these times of peril. It does not have a partner for peace. Islamic terrorist groups are encroaching from all sides. There is unrest in the country from Palestinians. And Iran is on its way to ultimately obtaining nuclear weapons while threatening to annihilate Israel. Iranians chant death to America and Israel and its leader calls Obama and his Administration liars. But how does Obama react? He defends the "Supreme Leader" and fawns all over him. It is readily apparent that Iran knows it has a true partner in Obama who will continue to cave in to its demands, that is if he is allowed to get away with it. Fortunately, the U.S. Congress is trying to prevent Obama from being able to act unilaterally as it senses the same danger. Whether or not it is successful remains to be seen.

At the same time that Obama flatters Iran and its leaders, he continues to humiliate Israel and its Prime Minister. He once tried to mask these actions, but now he no longer bothers. It is quite disturbing. Yet, many liberal Jews, again including Jews who claim to identify with their Jewish roots and to care about Israel, continue to support Obama. The threats facing Israel and world Jewry today are too grave to condone this. It is not a coincidence that in trying to gain Jewish support, Obama and his Administration chose a group like J Street to appeal to and align with. Groups like this claim that Prime Minister Netanyahu does not speak for all Jews. But they act as if, with their extreme minority position and anti-Israel diatribes, they somehow do. They have no qualms, even knowing they have little support, of sucking up to Obama and pretending to represent American Jewry. They are prime Jewish "Aiders and Abettors".

Liberal Jews, like J Street and its ilk, are putting Israel and world Jewry in even greater danger than they otherwise finds themselves in now. It would be preferable if these Jews, who are aiding and abetting the strengthening of radical Islam at the expense of Israel and world Jewry, "slept" through these frightening times. For liberal Jews who currently are active in social issues, but are sleeping through the nightmare faced by Israel and world Jewry, please consider putting your passion, time, effort and resources toward Israel and other Jewish causes. With everything that stands against us, it would be nice to welcome these Jews to help fight for this righteous cause. We should be flooding the offices of our Congressmen and women asking, begging and demanding that they stand with Israel, which happens to be consistent with standing with the United States. We should be cognizant of the fact that it is the Republican Congressmen and women who today stand more united with Israel. We should thank them for their support. Times change and so do political parties. Today's far-left Democratic Party is not your grandfather's Democratic Party. Let's recognize them, J Street and the other anti-Israel, pro-Muslim and pro-Obama liberal Jews for the aiders and abettors they are.

Am Yisrael Chai.

Sunday, April 12, 2015

Give the Devil His Due

April 12, 2015

As I watch events unfold in this country and around the world, I become more and more convinced that President Obama is far too underestimated and underrated. Of course, my saying this is not in any way meant as an expression of admiration or praise, but rather is intended more as giving the devil his due.

I believe Obama deserves a lot of credit. He promised to fundamentally transform the country and, unfortunately, he has kept his word. But why think small when he can do much more damage by fundamentally transforming the world. And, for this too, he seems to be on a clear path to success.

How has he done it, you may ask? Well, I am afraid, his ingenuity has been very effective. He started off by dividing America. Instead of building on the momentum we had in becoming an even more united "United States", he exploited our differences. He successfully flipped us upside down. Hard work and resulting success are now frowned upon. The more successful a person is, the more they are to be stigmatized. How hard a person has to work or the sacrifices they have to make to become successful has become irrelevant. At the same time, shifting to a sense of entitlement has replaced hard work. Equal opportunity has been transformed into equal results. It no longer matters whether a person works 70 hours a week, week after week, year after year to become successful. The person who is capable but who does not work should be entitled to all of the same benefits. In fact, the hard-working people have been told that they need to step up their game so that those who do not work or do not want to work hard can have equal results. To summarize, Obama has redefined the American dream from working hard and supporting your family to having others do it for you.

Building on his socialist momentum, and benefitting from Democratic control of both houses of Congress, it was not hard for Obama to impose Obamacare on the land. He abrasively told hard-working people that it is only fair and the right thing for them to pay for the birth control of everyone else. It did not matter that providing health care to some meant that many others who had it would lose it and that everyone else would pay more. Lies had become so common that they became expected and were accepted. "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Period", "If you like your health care plan you can keep your health care plan" and "Your health insurance rates will go down" were just some of the many lies made to the people.

Religious rights, once held sacred in this country, have come under increasing attack. While once appreciated as separating us from tyrannical countries that suppressed religious rights, the freedom to pursue religious beliefs has been demonized. Freedom of religion has been transformed into freedom from religion. The push for diversity and inclusion has come to exclude religiously-observant people. Constitutional gun ownership rights have been fought continuously. But the fight has been aimed at innocent people, not gangs, drug lords, criminals or the mentally-challenged. Advocates for abortion have pushed for those rights to be permitted at later and later stages. The cries for tolerance have become demands by the most intolerant people. Today in America, it is acceptable, even honorable, to say vote for me for president because I am black. Vote for me for president because I am a woman. But do not dare to say vote for me because I believe in the American dream of old, for I am a hard-worker and am successful.

Inevitably, it is no longer sufficient for the hard-workers to simply support the rest of the country. They have been asked (actually required) to spread the wealth beyond our borders and those outside the borders have been welcomed to come here to partake of the wealth. Of course, they could come here legally or illegally, it does not matter, and anyone thinking otherwise is labeled as a racist. In fact, for adhering to certain fundamental American principles, the Tea Party has been branded as terrorists. Even though Obama has repeatedly promised to secure the border problem, his only real actions have been to encourage illegal immigration and to try to single-handedly legalize illegals. Although in the past he admitted he could not take the latter step unilaterally, he has become brazen enough to act without Congress. Acting unconstitutionally by bypassing Congress using a pen and phone certainly qualifies as transforming the country. Give the devil his due, he has openly declared his intentions to use his pen and phone to bypass Congress on a host of issues.

Obama also always openly sides with certain racial and ethnic minorities. This too has helped divide the country as he has consistently taken their side regardless of the facts and circumstances. The law enforcement community is now frowned upon. The hard and dangerous work of law enforcement personnel is ignored. Ignored at least until there is an incident involving a dispute as to whether law enforcement acted properly. Then they are no longer ignored, but instead have to overcome the presumption of guilt to prove they acted properly. There are no tears shed, nor are there words of anguish spoken, when the victims are members of law enforcement. That is quite understandable as such tears and words do not have a place in dividing or fundamentally transforming the country.

The treatment of law enforcement is entirely consistent with the treatment of our military. Our terrific military, once a source of tremendous pride, has become an object of scorn. Obama has successfully reduced the levels of readiness of our branches of the military to alarmingly low levels. Levels that are causing great consternation among top military brass. The pride once felt for our military patriots has been redirected to certain minority groups in our country and to certain foreign countries. As charitable as he has been with funding for illegal immigrants and lower income communities, Obama refuses to show any generosity to our servicemen and women. In the fundamentally transformed America, it is the soldier who is a deserter that "serves with honor and distinction". It is for such a soldier that Obama is willing to negotiate with the enemy and free five radical Islamic terrorists. But military personnel who truly served with honor and distinction and are being held captive against their will are forgotten and discarded. He was silent on a jailed marine in Mexico. As expected, that marine was eventually freed without the expense of having to release any terrorists. And Obama drools over Iran while a marine languishes in one of its worst prisons. He certainly has delivered on his promise of change, so give the devil his due.

Obama has repeatedly expressed disdain and disgust for interrogation methods that were previously in effect and has even threatened prosecutions. This is far too ignored. The audacity of threatening such action against Americans who were trying to keep our country safe after 9/11. Those involved should have taken that threat seriously as the independent DOJ has proven to be not so independent. The DOJ has been quite predictable as to where it stands and whether or not it would take action in a particular case. One only needs to look at where Obama stands on a particular issue. Scandals can be ignored. It is now acceptable to use independent agencies to target political opponents. This is certainly a country that has fundamentally been transformed.

Lies, scandals, turmoil. I believe the American people are shell shocked. As if they are not reeling enough from all of the domestic agitation, they now have to embrace Obama's aggressive international offensive. Interestingly, he is following the same pattern. Everything is being flipped upside down.

Obama recently extended warm and sincere new year greetings to Iran, our biggest enemy and the largest state-sponsor of terrorism. Of course, he does not acknowledge such terrorism so there should be nothing wrong with serenading them with Auld Lang Syne. Maybe it is because he removed Iran and Hezbollah from the list of terrorists that he is putting out the red carpet to welcome them to the world community. Obama says only the warmest and nicest things about Islam and refuses to acknowledge, much less condemn, radical Islamic terrorism. Instead, he views global climate change as the biggest threat to civilization. Another effective distraction.

Obama is vocal about expressing his discontent with Christians and Jews, especially our close ally, Israel. And he has done so repeatedly. Obama recently condemned the prime minister of Israel for making statements that are innocuous to America in appealing to his constituents before an election. Statements that pale in comparison to the egregious statements made by Obama and his Administration in connection with elections in our country. Incredibly, Obama chooses to defend the venomous calls of "death to America" and other hostile threats from the "Supreme Leader" of Iran as simply coming from a leader who is appealing to his constituents. He condemns Israel for being skeptical of a peaceful two-state solution even though it does not have a partner for peace, but is not troubled by IS and other radical Islamic terrorists threatening Americans on U.S. soil. He blatantly lied to Jews and Israel when he claimed Jerusalem would always be the undivided capital of Israel, but now looks to impose its division with the Palestinians. He claims to be insisting on protecting the rights of all religions. The only rights that need to be protected in Jerusalem are those of Jews and Christians. It is appalling that in Israel, today, Muslims have authority over the Temple Mount, the holiest site in Judaism, and use that authority to restrict the rights of Jews. But this is only part of Obama's larger lie of imposing a false peace on Israel and jeopardizing its future. Somehow, while making these false claims about Jerusalem, Obama stays silent as IS destroys religious sites at will. The devil has chutzpah, so give him his due.

Middle East experts keep pointing to the map to show the expanding dominating influence of Shia Iran on one side of the terrorist spectrum and Sunni IS on the other. Now, admittedly against what would be expected, suppose that those two terrorist groups unite to speed up the process of establishing the Islamic caliphate. This would be just temporary; they will reckon with each other when the time comes. Take a fresh look at the map. How much more frightening does it become? Now add nuclear weapons to the picture. Ultimately, it comes down to this. Instead of having a president who acknowledges this grave threat and is doing everything in his power to fight it, he is actually emboldening and empowering both Iran and IS, which is no small feat. While he is doing that, he also is trying to eliminate the obstacle that Israel poses to the caliphate. For someone that genuinely protects the rights of some, and pretends to protect the rights of many, he is blatantly casting Israel and the region's Christians to the slaughter.

Obama cannot be as bad at negotiating a deal as he is trying to lead everyone to believe. Again, people believing this would be both underestimating and underrating him. It would mean the sitting President of the United States does not understand the concept of leverage in negotiating an agreement. Or of negotiating from a position of strength instead of a position of weakness. One should not be fooled for a split second. In proving that Obama understands full well when he is negotiating with leverage and from a position of strength, one need look no farther than his interactions with Israel. To get the Israelis and Palestinians to sit together at the negotiating table, he unconscionably insists that Israel free convicted Palestinian terrorists and murderers. Yet, he has the gall to acknowledge that there are innocent incarcerated civilians in Iran and Cuba, but demands nothing from those countries, countries who are obviously dealing (or were dealing) from a position of weakness, and is prepared to cave to their demands. To Cuba, which I not so boldly predict the President will remove from his fantasy list of terrorist groups, Obama makes a ludicrous statement about not wanting to pay any more attention to history. Here I will be bold and say that one of the main reasons Obama has so easily transformed our great country and the entire world is because we are ignorant or chose to turn a blind eye to history. But the Jewish people have a history that is too long and painful for us to make that mistake. We know it all too well and cannot and will not ignore it, whether the devil likes it or not.

In public, Obama has deliberately surrounded himself with stooges to help further his cause. It is amateur hour at the State Department. John Kerry found himself as Secretary of State for a reason. Criticizing your fellow American soldiers in war also will earn you many points with Obama. Harf, Psaki (before her new role). Where do these people come from? White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest has one problem. He is not a good speaker. That could be a slight problem given his role. In his defense, it is almost like he is trying to convince himself first, before he comes out with his statements. You get the feeling he is thinking to himself, do I really have to say this, as the words are leaving his mouth. But this is what Obama wants the public to see. He tries to mislead the people into thinking and claiming he is incompetent. But that, at least on his level, is hardly the case. He is supported by closer, more competent and, therefore, more dangerous administration officials on a more private basis.

Fundamentally transforming the country, at the current time, means taking more aggressive unilateral action. It means acting by pen and phone more frequently and more drastically while bypassing Congress. I am tempted to say more desperately too since he only has a couple of years left in office. But fundamentally transforming the country also could mean staying in office for more than two terms. Lying or creating a ruse to stay in office would not be at all surprising. Of course, this also would give him more time to finish fundamentally transforming the world. He is doing quite the job at that so far. Let's give the devil his due.

Right Down the Middle

April 9, 2015

If you are like me, you are probably very tired of people saying that anyone who does not support  or agree with President Obama is a racist. In fact, you know that the one thing that has absolutely nothing to do with it is his race. Here is a very simple way to prove it. Take a piece of paper and list the government policies that are important to you right down the middle of the page. Put Obama's name on the left side of the page (only fitting) and your name to the right of the policies included in the middle. Then fill in where you and Obama stand on each policy. This will help you determine if he is someone who has common interests with you on the policies you believe are most critical. I will take the test myself below based on government policies that are important to me. 

     Obama                                           Government Policies                                           Me

      Yes                                   Favors big government                                                              No

       No                                   Believes in capitalism and the free markets                              Yes 

       Yes                                  Favors socialist policies                                                            No

      Yes                                   Believes that taxes should be raised                                        No

       Yes                                  Believes that the half of the population                                      No
                                               that pays taxes does not pay their fair 

       Yes                                  Believes that raising taxes and                                                  No
                                               continuous government spending 
                                               will help the economy 

       Yes                                  Supports continuous high budget deficits                                  No
                                               and rising national debt 

       Yes                                   Favors the redistribution of wealth                                           No

       Yes                                   Favors an inheritance (or estate) tax                                        No 

       Yes                                   Supports continually increasing social welfare                         No 

       Yes                                   Believes in continually spending money to solve                     No
                                                problems with our educational system 

        No                                   Supports Second Amendment rights                                       Yes 
                                                allowing Americans to own guns 

        Yes                                   Favors illegal immigration                                                       No 

         Yes                                  Favors bypassing Congress to grant                                      No 
                                                 amnesty to illegal immigrants 

         Yes                                   Believes in providing social security and tax                         No 
                                                  breaks to illegal immigrants 

         No                                     Wants to secure the border                                                  Yes 

          Yes                                   Believes America should lead from behind                           No

          No                                    Believes that America is the greatest                                    Yes
                                                   world superpower and should lead accordingly 

          No                                    Believes in supporting America's allies                                 Yes
          Yes                                    Believes in appeasing and placating                                   No 
                                                    America's enemies 

          No                                    Would cut financial aid to countries that hate                        Yes 

          No                                    Believes America and the rest of the free                             Yes 
                                                   world are at war with radical Islam 

          Yes                                    Wants to close Guantanamo Bay Naval Base                     No

           No                                   Believes in certain strong interrogation                                Yes  

           Yes                                   Believes that allowing Iran to obtain nuclear                       No
                                                    weapons is acceptable 

             No                                   Is pro-Israel                                                                         Yes 

            Yes                                   Is pro-abortion even at late stages                                     No                       

            No                                    Believes that America's veterans are its true                      Yes 
                                                     heroes and should be treated and honored 

             No                                   Supports the Constitution and believes in                           Yes 
                                                     governing accordingly 
             No                                   Believes in America's three equal branches                      Yes 
                                                     of government, which do include the UN

              Yes                                 Supports the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare)               No 

              No                                  Advocates for fighting wasteful government                     Yes 
                                                     spending and all forms of fraud 

               No                                  Strong proponent of religious rights                                  Yes 

               No                                  Advocates for a strong military                                         Yes 

               No                                  Wants America to be energy independent                       Yes
                                                      from reliable sources of energy 

                No                                  Supports the Keystone Pipeline                                      Yes

               Yes                                  Believes that America should be held to                        No
                                                        stringent standards and regulations relating to 
                                                        global warming but other countries, like China, 
                                                        should be given flexibility 

             Yes                                  Supports affordable housing for the poor in any            No       

That's all, my test is finished. Of course, when you take the test, you may believe that different government policies are more of a priority for you. You also may find yourself in agreement with the President on more issues than you expect. Incredibly, in my case, for the policies that I believe are most critical, I do not agree with Obama on a single one. That is stunning. But it hammers home my point that his race is irrelevant. 

The premise that race is the issue holds that because Obama is black and I am white, I will not support him because of the color of his skin. No doubt, prejudice and discrimination exist in this country just as they do in all other countries. That will never change because it is the nature of some bigoted people, but it does not necessarily reflect the attitude and beliefs of the overall population of the country they live in. And in this case, the overwhelming majority of Americans who are opposed to Obama feel the way they do because of his policies and not his skin color. Still not convinced? Let's destroy the argument, once and for all, that if you disagree with Obama, you must be a racist.

I am a white Jewish American male. In my test above, replace Obama with Jon Stewart, who also is a white Jewish American male. I know he is not a politician, but he has no problem sharing his political views on what is supposed to be a comedy show. So let's assume he decided to run for political office. I would take my test again, but only with Jon Stewart filled in instead of Obama. I suspect that, based on what I know of Stewart (I am repulsed by him and cannot stomach watching his show), that many, if not all, of the answers on the left side of the page would stay the same. Now, substitute a black non-Jewish female for me. Again, let's assume that the answers stay the same. I would absolutely vote for the latter candidate. Does that somehow prove that I am prejudice against white Jewish American males? It certainly does not. As another example, my priority of supporting our veterans--men and women, of any race, nationality or religion--with our precious tax dollars over illegal immigrants obviously does not make be a racist. As a caveat, you may end up with a test that has tight or even wide results (like above), but because you give more weight to a particular issue, you could support the candidate that you agree with less of the time. For example, it would be difficult for me to vote for a candidate who, even though I agree with him or her most of the time, has proven to be against Israel. I have chosen this example specifically as again it is based on policy and not on race or religion. 

For the vast majority of Americans, it is our disagreement with Obama on the government policies that we believe form the foundation of this great country that make us oppose him. Despite the allegations from liberals, race has nothing to do with it. Take this test and prove them wrong.  

Wednesday, April 8, 2015

The Crystal Ball of the Past

April 8, 2015

We do not have a crystal ball that allows us to see into the future. But we certainly have a crystal ball that allows us to clearly see the past and it is called history. While the facts and circumstances may change, there is much to be learned from the past as history often repeats itself. Unfortunately, this includes the evil perpetrated by man. For Jews, I am afraid, there are ominous signs that evil is once again in our midst. Now is a good time to look into the crystal ball of the past to help us see and understand the danger we face today.

European Jews in the 1930s and 1940s could not see into the future. Looking back on history, they were able to see the blood libels, expulsions and pogroms their forefathers had endured, but that could not have prepared them for the apocalypse that was to follow. Jews today do not have that excuse. Gazing into the crystal ball of the past, we should learn from the painful lessons of the Holocaust.

Studying the events of World War II and the Holocaust, scholars, historians and theologians have many common observations and questions. One of the more puzzling questions is how someone with such an insignificant and rebellious background as adolf hitler was able to so quickly rise to power, completely transform the country he ruled and lead it on the path to ultimate devastation and destruction. He was a poor student, failed artist and corporal in the German army in World War I. He was not even German, but was Austrian. He was unsuccessful, unemployed and poor and began his political career by rabble rousing with Nazi thugs. He had no meaningful accomplishments and some failures, yet was able to rise to rise to power and ultimately serve as dictator of a civilized and highly-cultured and educated country.

How was hitler able to obtain such political heights? He is credited with possessing very strong oratory skills. He used those skills to captivate and electrify the German people and exploit the masses based on prevailing conditions. Germany was suffering from wounded pride because of the Treaty of Versailles, which it entered into in defeat after World War I. That treaty, among other things, stripped Germany of some of its territories, held it responsible for monetary reparations for the war and restricted its military forces. Germany also was going through an economic depression, high unemployment and hyper-inflation. Its currency was all but worthless. The Fuhrer (leader) also played on Germany's Anti-Semitic past and successfully and deceptively portrayed the Jews as the cause of all of Germany's problems. The Nazi Party staged the Reichstag (German Parliament) fire and falsely blamed the Communist Party. They stoked the fear of a communist rebellion, which led to the passage of the Reichstag Fire Decree. That decree allowed hitler and the Nazis to eliminate the civil rights of the German people and to arrest their political opponents and incarcerate them in concentration camps created for that purpose. Very shortly after this, hitler was successful in passing the Enabling Act, which allowed him to enact legislation while bypassing the Reichstag and the German Constitution.

The Nazis believed in big government, which they used over time to ratchet up their intrusiveness into the daily lives of the German people. They relied on large amounts of government spending and an assortment of government programs to further their cause. Lies and propaganda were perfectly acceptable. No lie was too big as the ends always justified the means. Religion was shunned and mocked. The Fuhrer was the one to be revered by the German people.

Although hitler was the ruler and the mastermind, he was not alone. He surrounded himself with high-ranking leaders of the Nazi Party who shared his radical ideology and swore their allegiance to him. The power, while always remaining primarily with hitler, cascaded down from the Nazi elite to lower political and administration officials and military and police forces. The Nazis controlled the media and made effective use of propaganda. The result, as we all too well know, was that a highly-cultured and educated people was somehow led down the road of depravity and wickedness. As if it is not unfathomable enough that the German people could commit such atrocious acts against their Jewish friends and neighbors, soon such evil encapsulated all of Europe.

Many Jews and Jewish leaders of the time thought they could outlast hitler. They hoped and prayed that his time in office would be short and they could wait out what they believed to be a temporary danger. They held steadfast to these beliefs notwithstanding the fact that hitler made his radical ideology and intentions clear in his manifesto, Mein Kampf, and in speeches he delivered to the German people. They simply could not accept that such a highly-cultured and educated people living in a civilized and assimilated country would tolerate such violence and aggression against fellow citizens, whether or not they were Jews. Even so, many Jews fled or attempted to flee from Germany after hitler imposed increasingly hostile and oppressive Anti-Semitic laws throughout the 1930s. After Kristallnacht in November 1938, almost all of Germany's Jews knew there was no hope. Unfortunately, by that time, leaving Germany was harder to do. Jews who had previously fled Germany did not necessarily escape the inferno as the Nazis were embarking on their quest to conquer Europe. Building off of their prior success of the 1933 Reichstag fire, the Germans staged certain other fabricated events to help achieve their goals. In the Gleiwitz incident on August 31, 1939, the Nazis dressed some concentration camp inmates in Polish uniforms and made it appear as though they (Poles) attacked a German broadcasting station.  Naturally, these inmates were killed by the Nazis, who used the ruse as the pretext to invade Poland the next day. This was the start of World War II and, as we all too well know, led to the Shoah and the destruction of the vast majority of European Jewry. Ironically, in the end, hitler's promise to fundamentally transform his country came to fruition, but not how he or the German people envisioned it.

The foregoing discussion is only a very short synopsis of some of the facts and circumstances that led up to the Shoah and serves as a reminder of a part of our history that is most horrific. As part of our history, however, it has a place in the crystal ball of the past and should serve to educate us and help us live out the words "Never Again". I am afraid, though, that as history is threatening to repeat itself, many, if not most, Jews seem to prefer to not learn from our past. Instead, they seem oblivious to any danger the future may bring. They fail to see that although different antagonists, geography and facts are involved, the victims, Jews, could, G-d forbid, be the same.

Studying the crystal ball of the past, it is not hard to see potential cataclysmic events, even as they appear to be in their gestational phase. This time around, the villains, or rather some of them, are radical Islamic terrorists. The world community, much to its discredit, is growing accustomed to the daily atrocities committed by and in the name of radical Islam. All across the globe, barbarism and savagery are making a dramatic return. The Middle East and Africa, in particular, are in turmoil. But radical Islamic terrorism is not limited to these areas and one should not have a false sense of security anywhere. Islamic terrorists are rapidly branching out and infiltrating additional countries. Many experts fear for the future of Europe. Even in the United States now, there are frequent news reports of terrorists who were, thankfully, thwarted before they could act. As we have learned from 9/11 and other terrorist attacks on our soil, we will not always be so lucky. These terrorists openly threaten the existence of Israel and world Jewry. The threat posed by radical Islamic terrorists could not be more obvious. And yet, there is another related threat to Israel and world Jewry that is obvious, but is either not seen, ignored or denied by many Jews.

Future historians, scholars and theologians may one day ask how the United States changed so abruptly and woefully. They also may ask, who was Barrack Hussein Obama? How did a person with such an enigmatic and unaccomplished background rise to such complete power? Why was his shady past of associating with radicals and rabble rousers who spewed nothing but venom and hate for America totally ignored? And why did the highly-cultured and educated people of such a free, proud and wonderful country so badly desire that it undergo a total makeover?

To start, they will see that Obama was widely hailed for his oratory skills. Obama, using these skills to tout his anti-capitalism agenda, benefitted tremendously when he first ran for executive office in 2008, which was a time when the United States and Europe were experiencing a "financial crisis". He had select scapegoats for the country's problems, Wall Street, capitalism and the "wealthy", the last of which was subsequently modified to include the "top one percent". He shamelessly appealed to part of the population, while falsely blaming all of the country's problems on the rest of the population. He made many of his liberal intentions known, such as his plans to "redistribute the wealth" and raise taxes on the "wealthy" so that they would finally "pay their fair share". But he did not propose to restrict his radical liberal ideology to economic matters and made his other social, racial and foreign policy beliefs known as well. In fact, he promised to "fundamentally transform America".

Students of history will see that after Obama came to power, he acted consistently and aggressively to accomplish his mission of imposing his far-left ideological beliefs on the country. They will learn of a country that had been making much social progress, but that was successfully divided by Obama. Big government through unlimited spending and programs was constantly promoted while the government increased its intrusiveness into the lives of the population. Lies, even blatant lies, were acceptable and the norm. Religion was ridiculed and trumped by social progressive issues.

These students of history will see that Obama surrounded himself with high-ranking officials he could depend on. Officials who, as scandals and reports will demonstrate, prosecuted those opposed to the regime and gave a pass to its supporters. These Administration officials either shared Obama's ideological beliefs, were not smart enough to do anything differently or were indifferent. All, however, were complicit. These future students of history will see from their crystal ball of the past how Obama and his Administration exploited a media largely devoted to his propaganda. They will pause when they arrive at the point in time when Obama professed that his pen and phone would replace the country's constitution. They will derive conclusions when they see how Obama skirted Congress and no longer considered it to be an equal branch of government. They will acknowledge that this was a ruler of a country who really was determined to act quickly and decisively to transform it. They will then be expecting to arrive at the point in time when Obama was no longer content on only fundamentally transforming America, but expanded his message to fundamentally transform the world. And they will not be disappointed as he has said as much.

In studying Obama, these students of history will see that his true pro-Muslim and Anti-Semitic beliefs and actions eventually became blatant, to the point where he could no longer control them. His hostilities toward Israel finally erupted after Israeli elections in March of 2015. Statements made by the incumbent prime minister leading up to the election were used as the pretext for threatening to take actions against Israel that could cause its demise. The students will see that this was not the first ruse Obama used against Israel or its Prime Minister. Acting to placate and reach a deal with Iran, the largest state-sponsor of terrorism, that would sooner or later allow it to obtain nuclear weapons while treating Israel as a long-time enemy, threatening to force indefensible borders and a one-sided two-state solution on Israel, and equating terrorism with self-defense were all part of Obama's radical ideological agenda. He ignored radical Islamic terrorist atrocities. He even refused to acknowledge that radical Islamic terrorists were the ones committing the acts of terrorism. Instead, he condemned Israel, which was the only real ally of America and the only real democracy in the Middle East. Looking into the crystal ball of the past, these students of history will be surprised to see just how obvious and blatant Obama was.

I believe that this is where we are with history in the making. There will be plenty of people who say I am off base, to put it politely. I hope they prove to be correct and current events take a sharp turn for the better. But, just in case those people are wrong, we should not ignore eerie similarities to the past. Additionally, with the current world crisis that we are in, keep in mind that the threat is not limited to Jews. Instead, any "non-believers", as characterized by radical Muslims, are in danger. As we continue to make strides with technology, threats to annihilate nations and to wipe them off of the map are easier to accomplish and need to be taken seriously. Allowing Iran to obtain nuclear weapons could spark an arms race in the Middle East, which could make it more likely that there will not be too many historians, scholars and theologians left to reflect on the next disaster to Jewry and the world, which, G-d willing, never occurs. It would be wise to study the crystal ball of the past to help prevent such a calamity from occurring.