Thursday, September 24, 2015

Loyal Allies

September 24, 2015

It would not be much of a stretch of the imagination to believe that somewhere along the way the leaders of Russia and Iran told Syrian President, Basher al-Assad, that they have his back. Perhaps they assured him that no options, including military options, were off the table. Now that the world appears to have accepted and moved on from the Iranian nuclear deal, Russia and Iran have proven to be loyal allies to Syria and Assad. President Obama, Secretary of State Kerry, the rest of the deceitful Administration officials, Democrats and liberals should take note of what it means to be a loyal ally.

After the Iranian nuclear deal was agreed to in principle, Obama and Administration officials were hopeful that Russia and Iran would abandon their allies of Syria and Assad. As a slap in the face to the Administration, just the latest of many in the area of foreign policy, Russia and Iran have done the complete opposite by firming up their alliance with Syria, as well as Hezbollah. This includes moving sophisticated weapons and military bases into Syria. Russian and Iranian officials also have met to discuss and coordinate strategic options. They are clearly backing, not abandoning, their ally. We have gone from Obama's highly publicized red line bluff to Assad over the use of chemical weapons, to insisting that Assad must go, to redefining chemical weapons (which Assad continues to use), to now saying Russia and Iran could help the situation in Syria and Assad can stay on for some time. As if Obama, Kerry or the Administration, who have been totally ignored and rebuffed to this point, will have any say with Russia and Iran entrenched on Syrian soil (or sand). They will continue to hide behind the ruse that Russia and Iran can help in the fight against the Islamic State. I would not put it past Obama and the Administration to actually thank them for their help.

Obama and his Administration should learn from, of all countries, Russia and Iran, as to what it means to be a loyal ally. Having an ally's back? Check. Using military options? A big check. But Obama already knows this. Lying to Americans and Israelis, and abandoning Israel, is all part of his plan to fundamentally change the region and the world.

There are people, including liberal American Jews, who disagree with me. They choose to ignore the obvious, such as Obama's harsh treatment of Israel and its Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. Or Obama's empowering the foremost state-sponsor of terrorism, Iran, including forcing through the terrible nuclear deal. It is not accurate to say that the deal was approved by Congress; rather it did not get enough Congressmen and women to reject it as almost all Democrats supported it while all Republicans, the strong majority by numbers, were against it. (Enough has been written on the difference between the voting requirements for treaties vs. presidential agreements and the Democrats' procedural maneuvers to prevent an actual vote in the Senate so I will not go into more detail here. Suffice it to say that Congress did not approve the deal.) The agreement will go into effect despite only having a 21% approval rating from the American public. The Obama and Hillary Clinton Russian "reset" has worked wonders, for Russia that is, consistent with Obama's hot mic comment meant to reassure Putin that he would have his back after the 2012 election was over. That has not worked out quite as well for Crimea or Ukraine.

But liberal Americans, including liberal Jews, will always give Obama the benefit of the doubt. Incredibly though, protecting his character and insisting that his intentions are pure are not enough. They insist that he knows what he is doing and that his policies are effective. I actually agree that he knows what he is doing; we just disagree as to who enjoys the benefits of his "effective" policies.

If Obama is acting in good faith, which is difficult for me to even write, then he is totally incompetent and ignorant. No matter how you slice it, however, his policies are dangerous to America and Israel. They have contributed to the upheaval in the Middle East, which is engulfed in death, destruction and turmoil as there are two competing caliphates, one of which belongs to Iran. Israel, America's true ally in the region no matter what Obama and liberal Democrats say or do, has come under increasing danger as it sits innocently in the midst of the chaos. Violence and death have increasingly encroached on its borders, beyond the threats from its everyday enemies. As if that was not enough, Obama has confirmed that his promises to Israel were false as he rammed through the Iranian nuclear deal, claiming to have the support of such stellar U.S. allies as Russia and China, in addition to the wonderful world body, the UN.

To make matters worse, Israel now has to deal with the alliance of Russia, Iran, Syria and Hezbollah on its border with Syria. This is dangerous on many levels. For one, look at how successful or incompetent (depending on your point of view as to his intent) Obama has been in reversing decades of American foreign policy of limiting Russian influence, not to mention presence, in the Middle East. It is as if the Russian reset of Obama and Clinton is resetting Russia to a period of strength and undoing and undermining the successful accomplishments of President Reagan.

There also are the direct threats from Iran, which has openly vowed to annihilate Israel and wipe it off the map. Those threats will be louder now that they will be coming from an additional border. One can just sense the provocations to come. And what trouble is in store as a result of an honest error? What happens if Israel retaliates to an attack or provocation, but the impact of the response is felt by Russia? Or Iran? This will be a powder keg. Does anyone believe that Obama will have Israel's back? Or that he will use military options? To avoid this, Israel may feel it has to stand down and tolerate yet more Iranian aggression directed its way.

Is the world really a better place as a result of America leading from behind and America demonstrating weakness instead of its superpower might? For it apologizing for its past to the world instead of being a leader and proud of what it stands for? Despite what liberals and Democrats, which are now really synonymous, would have you believe, American weakness and leading from behind are the cause of much of the chaos in the world today. Even worse, we are rapidly going down an even more dangerous path, as the new evil alliance demonstrates.

Leading from behind really means letting other countries take the lead, even if they are the evil ones in the new alliance, and then weakening America even more by trying to clean up the mess. One of the flaws of Obama's ideology is that it hurts Americans. Obama and liberals, as seen in their governing of the United States and their treatment of Israel, do not lead with the best interests of the country they represent. Obama employs an ideology that promotes the interests of his preferred classes. That is why, for example, he is now contributing over $400 million to aid the Syrian refugee crisis. That will result in an overall amount of over $4.5 billion spent on this cause. He also is doing his best to help bring as many refugees as possible to the United States, while admitting that some may be terrorists and the proper vetting process will not be done. This is a far cry from putting the interests of Americans first. $4.5 billion could go along way to help our veterans, who are needlessly suffering, as well as fixing many of our social challenges. Obama's leading from behind ideology has resulted in America carrying the pail and shovel to clean up the world's messes. He has tried to force a pail and shovel into the hands of Israelis in favor of his preferred Palestinian class, but so far, thankfully, that has been unsuccessful overall. I'm afraid that the attempts will continue.

Let's suppose that another global superpower, China, joins the new evil alliance. Then what? This is not all that farfetched and would be disastrous for America and the world. But I would bet it comes as a surprise to Obama and his Administration, or at least that is how they will portray it. Again, if they are really not thinking about that, they are incompetent and will scramble and fall over themselves in trying to react to it, should, G-d forbid, it ever happen.

Hats off to the members of the new evil alliance who seem to understand what it means to be a loyal ally. Sad to say that they have given Obama, his Administration, Democrats and liberals a very public lesson. Whether they truly need it or not is a different story.

Sunday, September 20, 2015

The Country's Amnesia

September 18, 2015

With all of the danger and chaos in the world today, including the recent nuclear deal with Iran, it is worth bearing in mind that it has only been 70 years since the end of the Holocaust. Although to some people, 70 years might seem like a long time, I say "only" in the sense that in humanity's long history, its darkest and most gruesome and evil time was only 70 years ago. Yet, despite the enormity of that horror, the world has all but forgotten it. For Americans, despite losing many fine young men in World War II, the Holocaust was something that occurred overseas. The blood of the Jews was spilled, quite literally, on Russian and European soil. But what excuse do Americans have for forgetting September 11, 2001? The horrific attacks occurred only 14 years ago and soaked U.S. soil with the blood of Americans.

In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, Americans united with a great sense of patriotism. They relished the idea of a strong America that would respond appropriately to the terrorist attacks. American flags flew everywhere. The national anthem was song with pride and enthusiasm. That feeling of unity and strength lasted for a while, but the country's amnesia started way before the 14 year mark. To illustrate how far removed from 9/11 we were by 2008, one need only consider the presidential election. If I went into a coma right after 9/11 and came out of it after the election to learn that Americans had elected a president named Barack Hussein Obama, I would not have believed it. That he was such an enigmatic figure who arrived with such a mysterious and anti-American background would have made it even harder to believe. In fact, if I was told there had been a movie made on it, I would have claimed it had to be too farfetched and refused to go. (The best and most interesting movies are often those that seem too hard to believe, but are actually based on real facts and are true stories. This, unfortunately, would be one of them.) In this case, it was not too difficult for many people, myself included, to predict the misfortune to befall America from Obama's promise to fundamentally transform the country.

How did this happen? How did Americans elect Obama, with his radical left ideology, including his ties to anti-American extremists like his reverend, Jeremiah Wright, and friend and terrorist, Bill Ayers (to name just two of his radical associates), only seven short years after 9/11? Why were Americans so open and gullible to accept a transition of the country from strength and pride to weakness, guilt and having a compelling urge to apologize to the world for what it stands for so shortly after 9/11?

Now, 14 years later, it is still painful to watch the news on 9/11. I told myself I would just watch a little of the coverage this year, but pretty soon I was once again immersed in it. How does one watch without being overwhelmed with emotions? The images of the planes hitting the Towers and the Pentagon. The plane in the field in Shanksville, PA. The people jumping from the higher floors of the Towers. The zombie-like people near the Towers covered with debris. The 911 calls. The desperate cries and pleas for help. The interviews. Suddenly, you are back to that devastating time 14 years ago with your heart feeling like it is being ripped out of your chest. And again I have to ask, how did we transition so quickly from a nation coming together as one, with a great sense of strength, pride and resolve, to electing a radical liberal president who was not proud of America, apologized for its history and current ways, and vowed to change it?

The Holocaust took the historical murder of and pogroms against Jews to a whole new, darker level. After the Holocaust, Jews had a better appreciation and were on notice of the atrocities that humanity was capable of, of extraordinary evil that knows no bounds, and swore "Never Again". After 9/11, Americans vowed to "Never Forget". They were on notice of the evil that radical Islam was capable of. Prior terrorist attacks, as bad as they were, did not have quite the same impact. It was the magnitude of 9/11 and the fact that it showed our vulnerability on our own soil that made it hit home all the more. Yet, somewhere along the way, America and Americans developed amnesia and made their decision in 2008 (and again in 2012).

Perhaps it is the Holocaust that has served to so severely frighten Jews over the nuclear deal with Iran. Many, but not all, Jews that is. Others, particularly American Jews, continue to show their unwavering support and devotion for Obama and everything he does. They either are not very familiar with the Holocaust or have had their own amnesia set in. But what about Americans? True, only 21% of Americans approve of the nuclear deal with Iran according to a recent poll, but Obama and other elected Democratic officials have accomplished what was needed to have it pass and rammed down the throats of the American people. Where is the country's outrage? The fear? The outcry? The promise of "Never Forget"? Americans, like world Jewry, know what it is like to be on the wrong end of terror. Most Israeli Jews know enough to listen and take seriously threats from an evil enemy of "Death to Israel". Too many Jews ignored the threats of a different madman in the 1920s and 1930s and paid the ultimate price. Americans should now understand the threats of "Death to America" from radical Islamic terrorists and know enough to take them at face value. 9/11 was a wake up call, an alarm that should have put and kept the country on notice of what could happen. Imagine 9/11 with nuclear weapons, G-d forbid. But, unfortunately, the country's amnesia seems to have gotten the best of it.

We also are now witnessing a mass of Islamic refugees fleeing from Syria and Iraq. Europe, which one would think would understand the predicament it is in with its large Muslim population, appears to be ready to double down. Germany, of all countries, not historically the beacon of tolerance, has opened its arms wide for the refugees. It remains to be seen whether the German population is as eager to welcome the refugees as is its Chancellor, Angela Merkel. Hungary, however, is an exception. It is staying truer to historical form and has resisted accepting the refugees, which has earned it much politically correct criticism. Already there are reports and images of violence from some of the refugees who are unhappy with the treatment they have received from the host nations. Welcome to Europe, where Muslims are invited and many Jews are being forced to leave or consider leaving.

The United States and, incredibly, Israel also have been criticized for not taking more refugees. But Israel is a tiny country and already has felt the brunt of refugees from Eritrea in Africa. Obama has pledged to take over 10,000 Syrian refugees over the next year and Democrats are recommending that the United States absorb over 100,000 Syrian refugees. Conservative estimates are that easily 1% of the refugees could be terrorists, and the Islamic State has stated its intention to infiltrate countries through the refugees. The White House and Democrats admit that they would not be able to ascertain whether terrorists would be among the refugees that enter the country. One percent of 100,000 is 1,000 terrorists. Applying the same formula to the estimated 1,000,000 refugees that Europe may accept yields 10,000 potential terrorists. Again, these are only conservative estimates. It took only 19 Islamic terrorists to inflict such wide scale damage to the U.S. on 9/11.

For some reason, the focus has been more on the United States, Europe and even Israel to take in the refugees. But what about other Islamic countries? True, Jordan, Turkey and Lebanon have, but are these the only Muslim countries? Why is there no pressure on Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, the UAE, Iran, Pakistan, Egypt, Indonesia...? There are approximately 1.5-1.8 billion Muslims in the world who have more than enough of their own countries and ample room. Are we to believe that they are not capable of absorbing their brethren? As is the case with the Palestinians, who fled from Israel of their own volition, the Islamic nations sit idly by. It is just a matter of time before they show their lack of appreciation and their "concern" for the treatment and living conditions of their dear brothers and sisters who have the great misfortune of being welcomed by Western countries. In the past, Jews have fled from, not to, Muslim countries. There is nothing to suggest that that would change in the future. In fact, Jews are even being driven out of non-Muslim countries because of Muslims. It is an affront to Israel to even suggest that it has a moral obligation to accept the refugees. The political correctness must stop. Israel is the one and only Jewish country and it has to stay a Jewish country. For those who do not like it, too bad.

It is not just refugees from Islamic countries, but also refugees from African countries, who cannot flee their homelands fast enough. And these are the countries that Obama is proud of. He condemns and insults the country that he governs and Israel, to which various refugees have fled  for years and to which today are most desired destinations, but glorifies the countries people cannot leave fast enough.

I saw other emotional images once again this year as I watched the 9/11 coverage. They were the pictures and footage of our heroes in the FDNY and NYPD, and other first responders. How many of those among us would have been capable of going into the Towers as they were engulfed in flames and billowed smoke, while terrified civilians instinctually tried to find safety? How many of us would have stayed in the immediate vicinity directing and instructing horrified, innocent people? It was not only the courageous of the FDNY that suffered losses that day; many police officers were killed as well. At least we felt some relief and pride in those tough days that followed when law enforcement and firefighters from around the country marched into downtown New York to lend a helping hand. How quickly one can go from hero to villain though in a country with amnesia. We have gone from wearing FDNY and NYPD caps to burning and stomping on American flags in an effort to vilify all law enforcement personnel and even white America because of a few isolated incidents involving law enforcement and blacks, regardless of who was at fault.

Next year will mark the 15th anniversary of 9/11. There promises to be much fanfare, news coverage and attention to mark9/11/16. Much of the country will unite and rally together for a single day, as it seems to do on each anniversary of 9/11. It is fairly easy to predict that the country will then suffer from amnesia again and return to its state of schism. But Americans would be wise to carry that day and the feelings of American pride and patriotism forward to help prevent future 9/11s and worse.

More Democratic Division

September 10, 2015

Is it me, or does it feel as though we will never get out from under these two terms of office of President Obama? In his mission to weaken and divide the country and denigrate what it stands for, he has successfully sparked and promoted a war on our law enforcement.

It is apparent that it is open season on our law enforcement. This was a natural result of Obama's words and actions, as well as his silence and inaction, in response to multiple incidents involving black men and law enforcement, regardless of who was culpable. As violent protestors rioted, looted and burned cities, Obama sympathized with the criminals and condemned law enforcement in particular and white America more broadly for their alleged history and ongoing pattern of racism against blacks. As cities were engulfed in flames, and law enforcement was under attack, police officials were made to stand down.

As is typical and very predictable with Obama, it is his silence after ginning up dissension that helps embolden the enemies within. As outspoken as he is on his perceived racism by whites against blacks in this country, he is disgracefully silent on the war against law enforcement. We have seen Obama's heartfelt anger, hurt and respect for blacks involved in incidents with law enforcement, whether they were innocent or guilty. The lack of any outcry from him on the senseless, cold-blooded killings of innocent law enforcement personnel is painfully obvious and sends a loud and clear message to the criminal element of society. Again, this silence is very predictable as Obama himself helped launch this war. Look for Republican candidates to more forcefully pounce on this issue, which, despite Obama's silence and inaction, is a real problem.

Under Obama, Black Lives Matter, a real racist group, has flourished. The radical black group, the New Black Panthers, also has been empowered and emboldened. Both groups have openly threatened to murder cops. Shouldn't all Americans, particularly law enforcement personnel and their families, expect the President of the United States to unequivocally condemn such extremist views and their deadly consequences?

Interestingly, with the recent backlash and criticism of law enforcement, and with police personnel anxious about performing their jobs, there has been a dramatic escalation of violent crimes in many cities that have a large minority population. These cities are led by Democrats, many of whom are minorities themselves. Baltimore, Milwaukee, Chicago, St. Louis, Washington, D.C...apparently black lives do not matter in these cities when it comes to black-on-black violence.

It is not just Obama. Democratic presidential candidate, Bernie Sanders, meekly and cowardly handed over his microphone to menacing members of Black Lives Matter during a recent speech, while trying to defend them. Another Democratic presidential candidate, Martin O'Malley, took what seemed to be a reasonable approach, saying that all lives matter when his forum was hijacked by Black Lives Matter. But he quickly showed his true colors of weakness by apologizing to the group and saying black lives matter. Can you imagine, apologizing for saying that white lives matter and all lives matter in addition to black lives matter? These are pathetic excuses for presidential candidates. And the fact that a radical hate group like Black Lives Matter can feel empowered and emboldened enough to disrupt the campaigns of Democratic presidential candidates and to threaten the Republican Party is deeply disturbing and alarming.

The Democratic National Committee recently tried, for some reason, to extend an olive branch to Black Lives Matter by passing a resolution in support of the group. The group, however, rebuffed the DNC's make nice attempt. Typical failure of DNC Chairwoman, Debbie Wasserman Shultz, who still maintains that she is very proud of the group. But why all this warmth and support for a hate group? What would happen if the Republican Party tried to reach out the same way to the KKK? Like the DNC, the liberal media, instead of condemning and denouncing the vile hate group, Black Lives Matter, has chosen to embrace it. Truly shameful.

Then of course there is Hillary Clinton. She chose to have a ridiculous philosophical debate with members of Black Lives Matter, but still sided with them. As the real war on law enforcement is growing, she refuses to recognize it. Instead, she is only capable of droning on about the war on women. And targeting highly paid CEOs. And raising taxes on the "wealthy" and "rich" in America. Or, in other words, yet more Democratic division of America. It is all the more appalling coming from one of America's biggest liars and hypocrites. At least, thankfully, it seems as though this robotic drone is crashing and burning.

Yet somehow, even with their radical, far-left positions, which directly contradict core values and principles of many Americans, these Democratic presidential contenders are polling well against the Republican presidential candidates. Not only has the Democratic Party changed, but, as is apparent now with two Obama victories and recent poll results, the country has changed as well. But it is precisely because the fundamental values and principles of so many Americans are being violated that the country and the current election campaign are so divided. Conservative Americans will not tolerate an open hunt on our men and women in law enforcement, whether they are black or white. Nor will they tolerate racism, whether white on black, or more accurately today with Black Lives Matter, black on white. In short, conservatives will not be fooled by the attempts, disguised or not, of the contemporary Democratic Party to divide the country.