Friday, July 31, 2015

Where Do We Go From Here?

July 29, 2015

The purpose of this article is not to convince the reader that the Iranian nuclear agreement is a bad deal. It assumes that the reader is familiar with the terms of the agreement and has reached such a conclusion on his or her own. Rather, the purpose of this article is to assess where we go from here given the predicament we are in. Unavoidably, I will discuss bad points of the deal below. In addition, while this article is meant more for American Jews and Israel, their best interests in this case are aligned with those of all Americans.

Any ideas intended to prevent this deal from becoming the reality are welcome. I do not profess to have a definitive solution and am not in any way being critical of any such efforts. In fact, as I discuss below, I believe Jewish groups should unite and encourage and evaluate any and all ideas, plans of action and potential solutions.

I do believe that the immediate focus should be on the upcoming Congressional action on the deal. Congress will vote to either approve or reject the deal by September. Despite some claims to the contrary, all is not lost, at least not yet. Congress must repudiate the deal and, as a separate branch of government, can be quite effective in curbing many of the benefits Iran stands to gain from the deal. As such, Congressmen and women must be urged and persuaded to vote against the deal. And they must be urged and action needs to be taken now.

A rally was held in Times Square on July 22nd for just that purpose. The rally drew over 10,000 people and had many effective speakers. But how far did it reach? Did it reach the non-Jewish audience? Did it have lasting effects? Where do we go from here?

What if we build off that event and have a rally that appeals to a far larger audience? The idea is to use Madison Square Garden, "The World's Most Famous Arena", to stage a rally. This would not be the first time Jews will have used that venue in a time of crisis. American Jews staged protests against Nazi Germany from the old Madison Square Garden in the 1930's. This time, we must demand that we be heard. I would like to believe that the pro-Israel news network, Fox News, would broadcast a rally live nationally (and internationally), which would allow for an extraordinary reach. Think of the powerful and influential speakers this would draw--religious leaders of all faiths, experts on the deal, presidential candidates, Congressmen and women, holocaust survivors, journalists and businessmen, among others. The message would be addressed to all Americans, not only American Jews.

Importantly, the rally would educate the entire country on the deal, with all of its flaws, and the nature of the Iranian regime and its fanatical religious beliefs, including those related to the End of Days. The American people should decide if they want a deal that sets the terrorist regime in Iran on a path to legitimately obtain nuclear weapons in a decade while being funded with over $150 billion well before then. And that is the best case scenario. It assumes, rather naively, that Iran will not cheat and break the deal. The myths about snap inspections and snap-back sanctions would be obliterated. The dangers, including to the United States, of removing sanctions on conventional arms and intercontinental ballistic weapons would be explained. The united front of the P5+1, consisting of such wonderful U.S. allies of Russia and China, would be exposed for the farce that it is. Speakers will explain how and why President Obama chose to have the deal approved in the U.N. before going to the U.S. Congress and how European countries are already lining up to do business in Iran, prior to Congressional action. The speakers would remind Americans that in America we care what Congress has to say, not the U.N. The rally would need to spotlight influential speakers from states with Congressmen and women who are undecided on their vote or who have indicated that they support the deal.

Perhaps most compelling would be a short but very revealing video which demonstrates the extent of the capitulation by Obama, Kerry and the rest of the Administration. The best and most effective part of this video would be the lies, inconsistencies and deception demonstrated by the actions and words of these very people, particularly Obama. This most of all could stir Americans to pressure their Congressmen and women.

Irrespective of whether the rally takes place, Americans should be flooding the phone and email lines of their Congressmen and women urging them to kill the deal, with organized groups applying pressure to those Congressmen and women who have indicated that their vote is at all in doubt or that they support the deal. American Jews need to start the great migration away from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party. Today's Democrats are subservient to Obama and the Party is far-left. Any party on the far end of the political spectrum is dangerous. It is time Jews came to terms with this and recognize the overwhelming support Israel receives today from Republicans. This is true of most of the current Republican presidential candidates. American Jews will have to determine whether the safety and security of Israel, and even of themselves and their families in America, outweighs their social agenda. Now is the time for such introspection and reflection. Even if Congress does approve the agreement with Iran, the next president will have leeway, as the Congress does now, to kill the deal.

Much has been made over the last few days regarding presidential candidate Mike Huckabee's comments about the deal and it potentially leading to the next holocaust. This is an accurate assessment of the potential risk. It is Mr. Huckabee's belief and is shared by many. He has long supported Israel. American Jews should understand this for what it is--a nuclear-armed Iran presents an existential threat to Israel and this agreement with Iran assures that it will be able to obtain nuclear weapons over time, while being funded to do so by the international community. One need only listen to the words and threats of Iran's supreme leader. Mr. Huckabee's candor is preferable to the deceit of the Jewish Chair of the Democratic National Committee and Florida Representative, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who tries to convince others to ignore the potential disaster. If Ms. Schultz and other liberals feigning outrage over Mr. Huckabee's holocaust comments, made on behalf of Israel and Jews, cannot really see the potential for another holocaust, G-d forbid, they are in need of some serious education on the subject. It is interesting that they choose to take issue with Mr. Huckabee's comments made on behalf of Israel and Jews, but ignore the death threats made by Iranian leaders against America and Israel. If Mr. Huckabee is wrong, then he may have used words that some people did not appreciate. But if Obama, Kerry and Wasserman-Shultz are wrong, heaven help not just Israel, but America as well.

If none of these measures are effective, Israel still has a military option. Do not be fooled by the rhetoric that it does not. It just has to be willing to use any means necessary to defend itself. And faced with another holocaust, it will have no choice but to do so. The question will be when will it feel it necessary to have to do so. If it is forced into making this decision, Israel will need to have an American president who truly has its back, not to mention the united support of its fellow Jews.

American and world Jewish groups should be coming together now in an effort to have Congress kill the deal and to support Israel. Obama and his Administration are all too quick to point to radical liberal American Jewish groups as the voice of all Jews. AIPAC is not the only American Jewish organization that wants to kill the deal and it should not have to go it alone. Jews need to vanquish the liberal American Jewish groups and unite now in a powerful front. A think tank should be formed from this united structure to come up with the best ideas, plans and potential solutions. And if the effort to kill the deal fails, we need to be prepared to support Israel in taking any actions necessary to protect itself. Any such actions by Israel will make America safer in the long run too. The American public needs to be educated on this and needs to understand what a deal with the radical Islamic clerics in Iran really means to America, Israel and the entire world. 

Friday, July 24, 2015

"Fearless" and Fear--Part II --- Domestic

July 21, 2015

President Obama's recent characterization of himself as "fearless" at this stage of his term in office should be taken as a dire warning to the American people and world Jewry. His definition of fearless really means that he will be relentless in pursuing his radical liberal, pro-Muslim ideology to fundamentally transform the United States and the world. In Part I of this article, I focused on his international agenda. In this Part II, I will focus on matters closer to home. In both cases, he is moving very quickly and successfully, and his characterization of himself as fearless is one of the few things that he says that should be taken at face value. In short, all Americans and all Jews need to wake up now.

A good segue from Part I to this Part II is to stay on the topic of radical Islamic terrorism. Only whereas Part I focused on radical Islamic terrorism around the globe, Part II will focus on its rapid rise and escalating threat in the United States. This past week, we witnessed the latest radical Islamic terrorist attack in the United States, which claimed the lives of four marines and one sailor in Chattanooga, Tennessee. The carnage could have been a lot worse than it was. Yet, just as Obama refuses to name terrorism committed by radical Islamists internationally for what it is, so too does he refuse to do so in our own country. A "lone gunman" was the best that Obama could muster when describing the most recent terrorist attack committed by a radical Muslim in America. And just as he is not addressing radical Islamic terrorism overseas, he is deliberately not combating the problem at home either.

Compare Obama's reaction to the massacre in Chattanooga to the recent horrific murder of nine black Americans by one lone, white gunman in Charleston, South Carolina. In that terrible event, Obama had no problem placing black and white labels on the victims and the cold-blooded murderer, respectively. To further distinguish his reaction to the two incidents, Obama took an isolated case of a true lone, crazy gunman and portrayed it as just one of countless examples of white racism, hatred and violence against blacks in this country, equating America's past with its present. Obama is clearly using this white on black travesty to sow the seeds of division and discord in America, ginning up controversy by building off of America's past while ignoring the obvious positive strides it has made in the last few decades. He has shamefully done the same thing before--Ferguson, Baltimore, Trayvon Martin, and others--and will do so again if and when the opportunity arises. At the same time, he promotes his pro-Muslim ideology and shields radical Islamic terrorists by deliberately ignoring a rising trend in this country and characterizing the latest of many radical Islamic terrorist attacks or thwarted attacks as just another incident involving a lone gunman.

Even more disturbing is Obama's demeanor and attitude when addressing these topics. His outrage and emotion were palpable when discussing the Charleston massacre. He has done this consistently in cases where a black person has been the subject of a violent act committed by a white person, even if it proved to be justified and involved law enforcement. The actual facts and circumstances have not mattered. How many times have we seen him do this even, as he admits and in his own words, before all of the facts are known? Yet in the case of the Chattanooga massacre (as he typically does when he prefers not to comment), he was quick to caution that he could not say too much as not all of the facts were known, but did say that it appeared to be committed by a lone gunman. Now that we know the facts, and the crime was committed by a radical Muslim, has he said anything else? No. Will he? No. Did he express any outrage or emotion as Commander and Chief over the violent, cold-blooded murders of our innocent military men? Again no. Instead, he disrespects and dishonors the victims, their families and all Americans by refusing to lower flags on federal buildings to half-staff. Americans ask why is he not ordering the lowering of the flag to half-staff? Why doesn't he show any emotion or passion over the Chattanooga massacre? They wonder why he doesn't really say anything at all about it. Why doesn't he come out and say the words "radical Islamic terrorism"? I could go on and on. Why, why, why? The answers are obvious for anyone who really wants them.

It is very simple to show how Obama is trying to manipulate facts to divide America and protect Muslims. When you hear of terrorist acts or killings around the globe, which are occurring all too frequently, what is the first thing you think of? For most people, the honest and common sense answer is radical Islamic terrorism. Now ask the same question regarding the increasing trend in America. When you hear of a terrorist act or threat, who instinctually do you think of as the perpetrators? The answer should be the same. Now let's assume there are only two choices given as the possible perpetrators, whites and Muslims. Even if the victims were all or predominantly black, who would you instinctually select as the perpetrators? I suspect most people would pick Muslims. Despite claims by Obama and far-left groups that this would somehow make you a racist and support their propagandist claims of Islamophobia, the truth is the truth and common sense is common sense. How and when did it become acceptable to have such fears be instinctual in this country?

This though is part of Obama's larger plan of dividing and weakening America. Look at his condemnation of our law enforcement personnel. Again, he has used isolated events to try to falsely portray a larger pattern. In doing so, he has supported the anarchy that he has helped cause in the wake of incidents in Ferguson and Baltimore. He has weakened law enforcement and the results are obvious as violent crime has spiked in many minority cities across the country. Ironically, this has resulted in far more black deaths, from black on black violence, than a few isolated and questionable incidents involving law enforcement, justified or unjustified, against blacks.

At a time when radical Islamic terrorism is running rampant across the globe, Obama continues to severely cut America's military. This has had many senior military officials on edge for some time with many (mainly retired) officials issuing stern warnings. With the threat of radical Islamic terrorism escalating in America, Obama is fixated on preventing innocent Americans and America's military personnel from arming themselves. With the radical Islamic terrorists issuing direct threats to our military personnel in this country, Obama needs to immediately take action to help arm them. Pulling down blinds on windows and not wearing their uniforms in military facilities in our own country is a cowardly, shameful and frightening response from our government.

Common decency would have dictated that Obama reach out to the family of the victim very recently killed in a senseless murder in San Francisco by an illegal immigrant who had been deported numerous times. Obama instead chose this past week to grant clemency to 46 convicted felons and separately tour a federal penitentiary in Oklahoma vowing to change America's criminal justice system. Not a word of sympathy to the family of the victim in San Francisco from Obama or his Administration. To make matters worse, Obama's inept spokesman, Josh Earnest, had nothing to say except to refer any questions to the Department of Homeland Security and blame Republicans. The Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Jeh Johnson, did not even recognize the victim's name when asked about it in a Congressional hearing. When the matter was clearly described to him, he had no comment. He seemed clueless, but it is hard to be clueless when part of a master plan, unless he is just a stooge or puppet in the plan. And only members of this Administration could be such blatant liars as to try to pin this murder on Republicans. As if sanctuary cities, Obama's refusal to enforce federal laws and securing the border, and his preventing states from taking their own protective measures against illegal immigration are causes championed by Republicans. That this took place in San Francisco with its local far-left Democratic politicians tells you all you need to know.

Under Obama's view of the country, the victims are not the Americans killed or injured by illegal immigrants, gang members, drug lords or just average criminals. To him, the real victims are all illegal immigrants and the criminals themselves who are incarcerated. For Obama, this is part of the biggest problems facing America today, along with the continuation of its racist history, and he will fearlessly pursue remedying these "problems". Obama's evil twisting of who are victims and who are criminals is exactly why he has to be stopped on his efforts on gun control.

Obama's fearlessness has made him very predictable. A reasonable American would expect his or her president to be taking aim at the growing problems of cybersecurity attacks, computer hacking, identity theft, medicare and medicaid fraud, and the various other forms of fraud plaguing and robbing America and Americans. But we have not gotten nor will we get that from Obama. Where is his outrage over the recent cybersecurity attack that resulted in the identity theft of as many as 30 million past and present government workers? Of course, this number was originally reported to be much lower and has only been increased in stages. The IRS also is getting pulverized by identity theft crimes. Millions of Americans are the victims of identity theft and credit card fraud. Many different types of fraud, committed by real criminals, cost this country billions of dollars each year. But not a word from Obama. Instead, he gives the criminals a pass and criminalizes Americans that he considers to be wealthy and successful. Here too he has been effective in dividing the country; in this instance, along economic and financial backgrounds. As part of this plan, Obama has chosen to go to war against American capitalism and society. He has targeted America's financial/banking, energy and healthcare sectors and now is probing the airline industry.

Given Obama's divisiveness, consider the ramifications of an attack on America's power grid. This would shut down our banking, telecommunications and transportation, among other basic survival systems, and crush our overall infrastructure. How will Americans react? No doubt, Obama's polarization will make for dangerous conditions. There will be people who will feel emboldened and entitled to act lawlessly. Will law enforcement be supported or second guessed? Will honest, law-abiding citizens have guns to protect themselves or will just the criminals? Is Obama combatting domestic radical Islamic terrorism to try to prevent this?

Just how vulnerable is the United States? Look at the recent systems' problems suffered on the same day by the New York Stock Exchange, the Wall Street Journal and United Airlines. Was your first thought that this was a coordinated cyber attack? Something as small as this had quite an unsettling feeling and impact. Imagine multiplying that exponentially. How and when did it become acceptable to have such fears be instinctual in this country?

I would like to tie this all together for world Jewry. Obama's pro-Muslim and pro-Palestinian policies have fostered global Anti-Semitism and I am afraid that it will only escalate while he is in office. His nuclear deal with Iran has the potential, G-d forbid, to spark the next holocaust. Yet there is more. I expect Obama will next proceed to ramp up the pressure on Israel by trying to force it into a sham "peace" deal with the Palestinians. Already, the seeds have been planted and France's proposed U.N. Security Council resolution calling for a Palestinian state based on 1967 borders has likely only been delayed until the nuclear deal with Iran is fully secured. But my guess is that it is coming. And it is very frightening.

To conclude, Obama is fearless because he will strive to forcefully blend his radical liberal, pro-Muslim ideology from an international perspective with his domestic agenda to fundamentally transform the United States and the world. Look at his actions and omissions and listen to his own words. Consider his pen and phone comments (or threats) and you will see that he is making good on them. Fearless means he is becoming more and more blatant and forceful in his words and actions. Why doesn't he comment on the violent deaths of real victims? Why doesn't he order the flag lowered to half-staff? Why, as reported, will he address the issue of predatory lending later today as a major problem in this country? Why does he view global climate change as the biggest threat to the world today when radical Islamists are terrorizing and killing people worldwide and are making their presence painfully felt in America? Is global climate change really a bigger immediate threat than Iran being on a clear path to develop and obtain nuclear weapons over time while it expands its reach and terror around the world, particularly in the Middle East and Latin America? We should expect the onslaught to continue.

Do I have Obama's description of his own fearlessness correct? Do I describe the resulting fear accurately? The reader should make his or her own decision. But they should do so with an open mind and with open eyes and ears. What does the reader suppose Obama meant when he characterized himself as fearless?

I will leave the reader with this to ponder as part of the overall analysis. Obama excoriated Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, in March toward the end of the election process because Mr. Netanyahu encouraged his constituents of conservative Israeli Jews to get out and vote because foreign organizations were busing Israeli arabs to the polls and doing everything they could to get them to vote and defeat Mr. Netanyahu. Leftist foreign and Israeli organizations all were encouraging liberal voters to vote against Mr. Netanyahu and his policies. Obama, who is exceptional at using all of these methods, was somehow outraged at Mr. Netanyahu and Israel. Choosing to ignore the fact that Israel is a great friend, ally and fellow democracy, Obama immediately announced that he would reassess American policy toward Israel because of Mr. Netanyahu's words. (Consider France's resolution above and whether or not Obama would veto it.) By contrast, in the immediate aftermath of the announcement of the nuclear deal with Iran last week, Iran's supreme leader continued his chants of "Death to America" and "Death to Israel" and declared that nothing would change between his country and America and once again threatened Israel. This Obama dismissed as nothing more than a politician appealing to his constituents. Let the reader decide.

"Fearless" and Fear--Part I --- International

July 9, 2015

President Obama described himself as "fearless" at this stage of his presidency in a recent interview. I do not believe most of what he says, but I have learned when to pay attention and take him at his word. His claim of being fearless is one such example. Not that I believe that he is really fearless, but, more importantly, he believes he is fearless. I would describe him more as hell-bent on fundamentally changing America and the world no matter who or what stands in his way. And that should put fear into Americans and world Jewry. In this article, I will explain why this is the case from an international perspective. Part II will address Obama's domestic agenda. In both cases, I'm afraid, his radical ideology and "fearlessness" will dangerously coalesce.

I have discussed, debated and written about my belief that Obama is going full throttle to pursue his pro-Muslim, Anti-Semitic and anti-American ideology, which includes the establishment of an Islamic caliphate. I have repeatedly been told that I cannot prove my claim. Fair enough. But neither can anyone else prove any other theory that aims to explain the dangerous, odd and irrational behavior of this American president. And based on Obama's own words and actions, plain facts and the utter chaos in the world, I believe that my theory holds up better than the others.

Take for example Obama's obsession to reach a nuclear deal with Iran at any cost. All you hear from experts, analysts, politicians, journalists, etc. is that Obama is pursuing this deal with Iran for his own legacy. But does that really add up? The deal all but assures that Iran will get a nuclear arsenal as it would be permitted to do so legally--by the terms of the deal--over time. Most of the proponents of the legacy theory also believe that Iran would use or threaten to use any nuclear weapons that it is able to procure. Even if Iran does not use the weapons, putting it on the path to legitimately obtain them dramatically shifts the balance of power and will ignite a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. What American president would really want that as his or her legacy? Even Obama recently said as much. Advocates of the legacy theory must believe that if the world goes to hell, a legacy won't matter, or if hell means something more benign, the blame will be placed on the then-sitting president. The truth, however, will still be the truth.

It also is inexplicable why Iran has been allowed to negotiate from a position of strength when it is in a position of weakness. Why were economic sanctions, which were working at the time, eased just to get Iran to the negotiating table? Why are we allowing Iran to dictate the terms it wants, continually changing existing terms and adding new terms in the process? Why do we continuously allow for postponement? In other words, Obama could have secured both a good deal and a good legacy.

That, unfortunately, is not where we find ourselves. We are on the clear path to disaster with Iran. A reasonable person would have to expect that a sitting U.S. president would know when to walk away from a bad deal and not let so-called legacy issues interfere. But no matter how bad or preposterous the terms that we hear of are, you just get the sense that, despite his assurances to the contrary, Obama is not going to walk away from this deal. Helping Iran actually build nuclear reactors, as was recently reported as an option, was likely said sarcastically numerous times by outside parties during the course of negotiations. One wonders if our negotiators heard this and took it seriously thinking it would silence their critics. In any event, just how egregious do the terms of the deal have to be before more people conclude that ideology--or fearlessness--drive Obama and legacy does not? At least not the type of legacy that they are contemplating.

The legacy theory also is flawed because it is too narrow. It mistakenly looks at the Iranian nuclear talks in a vacuum. It ignores Iran's other actions and other developments in the Middle East. Looking at the whole picture, again one sees ideology, not legacy.

Fearless to Obama means redefining the landscape of the Middle East. It means ending economic sanctions against Iran, likely very shortly after a deal is reached. Who would want a legacy that is based on funding the largest state-sponsor of terrorism and most belligerent country in the world while giving it the ability to obtain nuclear weapons? Why would we, negotiating from a position of leverage, not attempt to get Iran to stop its terrorist activities and aggression in the Middle East? Instead, we will be supplying it with billions and billions of dollars, which would promote its uncivilized and savage behavior and all but ensure that it will continue. Why would we not pressure Iran to free American prisoners? To curb its human rights violations? The legacy theory just does not add up.

To Obama, being fearless means getting in front of the American people at this stage of the advancement of IS and boldly saying that he has no strategy to combat that terrorist group. It means blatantly lying and telling Americans that he is still waiting for a strategy from the Pentagon. He spreads propaganda that we cannot defeat the terrorists militarily, but instead have to address underlying and root causes. The only mention he makes of Muslims is to claim that what is happening is a distortion of Islam and that most of the victims are Muslim. Just think about how twisted this really is. He refuses to say that the terrorists are Muslims, but portrays the victims as Muslims. He also refuses to acknowledge that Christians and Jews are targets of radical Islamic terrorism despite clear and convincing evidence that they are. So even in these extraordinary circumstances of rampant radical Muslim terrorism, with members of many religions as the true victims, Obama repeatedly singles out Muslims not as the perpetrators but as the victims. He builds off of this to make exaggerated claims about Islamophobia. To deflect away from the dangers of radical Islam, he makes ridiculous comparisons to the Crusades to vilify Christians. Instead of admitting when members of other religions are targeted by radical Islamic terrorists, he makes idiotic statements like the random shooting of some folks in a kosher deli. This too is ideology, not legacy.

Similar to the legacy theory, many people are now saying that Obama just wants to run out the clock on the IS problem and hand it off to the next president. And like the legacy theory, this too does not make any sense. The IS problem has been serious for over a year now and Obama is not leaving office for well over a year. The IS threat, like the overall threat of radical Islam, is rapidly expanding in the U.S. and abroad. It is one thing to ignore the savage acts of IS overseas, but how could an American president ignore such a severe threat to the American people? Why is there an assumption that nothing will happen in America and that it is acceptable for this problem to wait for the next president to address? This line of reasoning is irresponsible and dangerous. Again, facts are facts, and IS has risen and prospered on Obama's watch.

Fearless to Obama also means attacking the one real democracy and America's best ally in the Middle East even though it goes against this country's own interests and the opinion of the majority of its citizens. Slandering Israel with one-sided criticism while choosing to ignore Palestinian and overall Islamic terrorism in an effort to promote a phony peace may be fearless to Obama, but would mean suicide for Israel. This too, however, fits squarely with his ideological beliefs. And it is easy to see the passion and emotion with which he condemns Israel and its Prime Minister, and the lack thereof and empty words he mouths when there is a savage terrorist strike. Of course, when terrorists strike in Israel, there is silence from Obama unless Israel defends itself and then he typically condemns Israel using ridiculous moral equivalency arguments.

If people want to talk about a real Obama legacy, they should focus on the Arab Spring and the resulting escalation of Islamic terrorism and global chaos. Obama supported radical Islamic terrorist groups, like the Muslim Brotherhood, and the ousting of more moderate and secular leaders like Mubarak and Gaddafi. He has shunned the current moderate leader of Egypt, El-Sisi, who himself is trying to combat radical Islamic extremism. He also let the moderate Iranian Green Movement twist in the wind without even a word of encouragement in 2009. The result to date has been Iran and IS competing for the establishment of an Islamic caliphate and causing as much bloodshed, death and destruction as they can in the process. This has all happened on Obama's watch. These are facts, not theories, and it remains to be seen how his full, true legacy plays out.

Critics can try to discredit my beliefs all they want. In the end I believe they do not collapse like a house of cards when scrutinized. To me, Obama's pro-Muslim words and actions are quite clear. The global turmoil being caused by radical Islamists makes them all the more obvious. In fact, it would be too hard to believe except that it is really happening. The legacy Obama wants is the one that he is fearlessly pursuing, the one that promotes his pro-Muslim, Anti-Semitic and anti-American ideology. Obama's meaning of fearless should be causing fear and sending a chill up the spines of Americans and Jews.