"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.

Trying to Solve the Wrong Problem

June 22, 2015

Today, many people who do not accept the politically correct positions on race in America feel the need to state the obvious when discussing the issue to help defend against unfounded accusations of being a racist. So, let me start with my disclaimer. The white murderer in Charleston, South Carolina is the scum of the earth. The lowest of the low. The black victims were innocent people who, at the time of their murder, were engaged in peaceful Bible study in their church. One cannot help but to feel the pain and mourn their loss along with their families and friends and the Charleston community. People of all races and ethnicities should acknowledge and support the black community in this case. People of all religions should acknowledge and support members of the Christian faith. There should be nothing controversial here. Any decent person should feel the same way. I recognize that not everyone will agree with the last part of my disclaimer, which is that South Carolina has the death penalty and I believe it should be used in summary fashion. There is no chance of killing an innocent person with the death penalty in this case. Arguments about too many layers of appeals in death penalty cases only show the deficiencies in our legal system. None of the standard arguments against the death penalty should be used to prevent the white, racist murderer from being erased from the face of the earth.

In response to this atrocity, people have commended the way the members of the Charleston community, blacks and whites, have united and conducted themselves. They have contrasted the peaceful behavior of the people of Charleston to the violent reactions witnessed in other controversial events that centered, or were made to center, on race in other American cities, such as Baltimore and Ferguson. But truth be told, while the Charleston model is no doubt the better model, what will come of it? What will change in this country as a result of this latest round of senseless killings?

The sad answer is that nothing will change and that is because we are trying to solve the wrong problem. For there to be a change, the country needs to address the real problem and to do so honestly. But nothing good can happen given the dishonest climate we are in. Instead of focusing on the traditional perspectives of good vs. evil and right vs. wrong, we are focusing on black vs. white. We are consumed by the false narrative of "Black Lives Matter". False not because black lives don't matter (they absolutely do), but rather because all black lives matter, not just those black lives lost with blood on white hands. Equally important, all lives, not just black lives, matter. For there to be change in this country, change considered proper based on Biblical, historical, civilized and jurisprudence standards, we need to try to solve the right problem and protect all innocent people, regardless of their color, from all violent criminals, again regardless of their color.

President Obama was visibly upset in reacting to the terrible news of the murders in Charleston. He was emotional. He was angry. You want that type of reaction from the leader of our country. But, as usual, as he continued talking he went on to politicize and preach on certain issues. He used the murders to once again lecture on gun control. I think most Americans would support new, sensible gun control regulations. Obama, however, has done nothing but politicize the issue. This problem will not be solved easily. Guns cannot be outlawed in this country. You cannot take away the rights of innocent Americans to legally obtain guns. The obvious reason is that there are just too many guns in our communities. If a bad guy really wants to do harm to innocent people, he can readily obtain guns and other weapons to do so. He would just do so illicitly. Does anyone really believe that gang members, drug lords and violent criminals all fill out the necessary paperwork to legally obtain their weapons? Does anyone even acknowledge the use of weapons by criminals? No. Instead, the left, as is typical, looks to overreach and punish all innocent people to address a problem caused by a disproportionate minority, while at the same time ignoring the real problem of weapons in the hands of criminals. One only needs to look at Obama's reflexive response to try to federally restrict the weapons used by law enforcement. The left also dodges the fact that if innocent people were armed perhaps the criminal could be stopped sooner in any given situation. There is always that "what if" that gets asked in these terrible cases.

There was something even more troubling for me though in Obama's response. As mentioned above, Obama gave a heartfelt, emotional response to the Charleston murders. This was the typical Obama response involving real anger whenever a black person is killed by a white person, whether or not justifiably. Obama also portrayed the tragic events as being emblematic of white racism against blacks in America today. He linked the Charleston murders to the haunted history of America's past when black people truly were oppressed by white people. Such statements from a sitting black president are both foolish and ignorant.

One should not question or doubt the sincerity of Obama's emotion in addressing the Charleston tragedy, or Baltimore or Ferguson for that matter. His anger is both real and palpable. We also have seen Obama's passion on display when he addresses matters pertaining to Muslims. His Cairo speech, bowing to the King of Saudi Arabia, warm outreach wishing Iranians a happy new year and continuous lambasting of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Israel while openly siding with the Palestinians are but several examples. But these real displays of emotion by Obama help to prove who he really is and what he really is about. Because in contrast, it is hard to get him to say anything about attacks or violence on people who are not black or Muslim. When he does, it is clear that he is mouthing empty words. When viewed in comparison to when he addresses an issue he is passionate about, the difference could not be more stark.

Robotic Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton immediately latched onto the continuing white racist problems of America. Apparently she too does not believe that America has progressed on the issue of race. The New York City Mayor with a one-track mind, Bill DeBlasio, spoke of racial terrorism. Interesting, as liberals cannot seem to acknowledge terrorism when committed in the name of Islam.

Listening to these leaders, as well as the leaders of the overall black community, a person who does not know better would get the impression that whites are severely oppressing blacks in America. One also would be led to believe that white violence against blacks is the only violence suffered by blacks. It is as if there is no such thing as black on black violence and blacks do not commit any violent crimes against whites. But we do know better. These notions are utterly false and belong only in the realm of fantasyland. Just over the last few days, a black man killed a police officer in New Orleans. Another black man killed a police officer in Cincinnati. There were two mass shootings at block parties in Detroit and Philadelphia resulting in deaths and injuries to many people, including children. Following the Michael Gray incident in Baltimore, the murder rate there has skyrocketed. Murders in Chicago are out of control, as they are in other black communities in America. Violent crimes committed by blacks are disproportionately high. These are facts.

Leaders like Obama are dreadfully and deceitfully silent as to these facts. They do not address black on black or black on white violence. The most you get is the typical mouthing of a few empty words, but rarely even that. Passion and emotion are nonexistent. Instead, speaking out only against violence committed by whites on blacks fits much better into his and their overall narrative that America has been and still is a racist country. On this issue, Obama is passionate and he makes it very easy to feel his anger. He also is very successful in dividing and inciting the country and setting back race relations to where he claims them to be.

But this distorts the real problem. Leaders like Obama lack all credibility when they compare American society today to how it was decades ago. In a country with well over 300 million people, they latch onto isolated incidents, some like Charleston which show nothing but pure evil, to make the claim that all of America is racist. They also pretend there is no such thing as violence or racism by blacks against whites. The problem is that Americans know better, on both fronts.

The real problem in America, as in any democratic country, is violent crime, and how to prevent it and punish it when it does happen. It is not and should not be made into an issue exclusively about race, or, more specifically, only white on black violence. Especially not when violent crimes in this country are committed disproportionately by blacks. Nothing will be achieved focusing only on part of the problem because, unfortunately, in a country of this size, there will always be crazy and racist people. You cannot stretch the vile acts of some people, an extremely small minority, to apply to an entire country. We still struggle with a high rate of violent crime in this country. The entirety of the problem should and needs to be addressed. All evil needs to be fought. All good people need to be protected. Right must triumph over wrong. All lives matter. Race is irrelevant. Only when we accept this can something be achieved. I am not optimistic with the dishonest leaders we have. But this too can change.

May G-d bless the souls of the innocent victims of Charleston and may G-d bless America.

The Audible

June 12, 2015

Apparently, the radical, far-left, politically correct, anti-Israel team has realized that it lacks credibility when it continues to spew certain age-old lies about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. How can anyone with any common sense believe that if only there was a resolution to that conflict there would be peace in the Middle East and the world would be full of sunshine and roses? Don't get me wrong, you still hear many of these same old lies, but the global PC team has called an audible and appears to be touting a new line of propaganda. 

President Obama, the quarterback of the PC team, and leaders of the the many European countries on that team have deftly switched the narrative to the all too familiar page from the broader radical liberal playbook of "we are better than that". Only in this case, the "we" they are imposing their far-left ideology on is Israel. It is Israel that they, now admittedly, expect more of and that they hold to much higher standards. Only Israel, not its neighbors, must live by a higher set of moral values. People can debate all they wish as to whether the PC team is motivated by Anti-Semitism. I believe that it quite obviously is, but regardless, the bottom line is that the radical liberal playbook continues to jeopardize Israel's existence.

Let's unravel this latest bogus narrative. To begin with, the savagery and barbarism being committed by Israel's neighbors, the Palestinians included, should make it impossible for the leaders of the PC team to use this page of the radical liberal playbook. But that has not stopped them from starting to call the audible and running this play, somehow with a straight face. They may believe that they are fooling everyone, but here too they have a real credibility problem. Anyone possessing an ounce of common sense understands that Israelis are not targeting innocent Palestinians or any other people for death. They are not beheading anyone or putting people in cages and setting them on fire. They are not committing acts of terrorism anywhere. Palestinians are not being attacked by Jews in Jerusalem; Palestinians are committing terrorist acts against Jews in the Holy City. Arabs govern the Temple Mount, the holiest site in Judaism. Jews, incredibly, are forbidden to pray there. Israel grants freedom to all religions to pray at its holy sites while Islamic militants are destroying such sites all across the Middle East. Israelis are not invading other countries and they are not threatening to annihilate or to wipe any countries off the map. Israel's neighbors cannot make the same claims.

Israelis are not firing rockets and missiles into any neighboring countries, other than as a matter of self-preservation. They are not trying to deliberately kill innocent Muslims. While Hamas' goal was to kill as many innocent Israeli civilians as it could during the war it provoked with Israel last summer, Israel took extreme measures to protect Palestinian civilians in Gaza, endangering the well-being of its young military personnel. While Hamas used its own people as human shields, including women and children, Israel warned those same Palestinians of impending military strikes targeted against Hamas terrorists. Hamas sacrificed young Palestinian children to build its tunnels of death, and Palestinians indoctrinate their children with violence and a hatred of Israel and Jews. Israel, by contrast, promotes peace, education and well-being for all of its children. Jews mourn the deaths of their children and the deaths of their fellow Jews. Unlike with the Palestinians, they do not promote senseless acts of terrorism so that they can glorify their children as martyrs. 

It is amazing how Obama and the PC team want to impose "Jewish values" and "Western values", as they define them, on Israel. As if Jews in the Holy Land need a lesson on Jewish values from the PC team. Newsflash to Obama and the leaders of the European countries--Jewish values, real Jewish values, do not require Israel to sacrifice the lives of its citizens to fundamental Islam. Nor do true Western values, which are the Judeo-Christian values the United States was founded upon. To require a free country to sacrifice the safety and security of its citizens so as not to insult the terrorist enemies determined to kill them is nothing more than an ideology. A far-left, radical, politically correct ideology that Obama and other liberals are trying to twist into Western values. 

Obama and the rest of the PC team are doing enough damage to their own countries. Fundamental Islam has spread so aggressively in Europe that many experts fear for the future of the continent. More and more terrorist attacks are being carried out successfully or are thankfully being thwarted in both of the United States and Europe. Anti-Semitism is dramatically escalating around the globe. It is particularly on the rise in Europe. Jews in universities, even in America, are under siege from Muslims and Palestinians. The deceitful Palestinian Boycott Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement resorts to violence and intimidation. Obama and the rest of the PC team should be more concerned with protecting their own Jewish citizens. But perhaps their understanding of Jewish and Western values requires innocent Jews around the world to just accept the violence and hostility directed their way. Another newsflash to Obama and the leaders of the European countries--look up the Jewish value of "Never Again". 

A clear and unequivocal message to Obama and the rest of the PC team--Jews are better than radical Muslims. They prove that each and every day. That could not be any more obvious. The contrast between good and evil, right and wrong, civilized and humane behavior versus savagery and barbarism, could not be any more stark. The newest page from the radical liberal playbook is as deceptive as the other pages. This will hopefully be a very short lived theme as it is incredibly arrogant, obnoxious and dangerous. Of course, the PC team could burn the radical liberal playbook, eliminate Anti-Semitism and develop a sincere moral conscience. Knowing better, I will await the next deceitful audible from the PC team. 

Hindsight and the Present--Both 20/20

June 11, 2015

Unlike with certain prior world calamities, we will not have to wait for historians and scholars to explain how we missed the current threat to humanity--radical Islam. There are plenty of experts on the Middle East, politicians, journalists, bloggers, talk show hosts-the list goes on and on-who  see the obvious and warn each and every day of this clear and present danger. Yet we continue to proceed on our very ominous path.

The world today is faced with many related challenges that threaten its future. There is not one, but several severe threats posed by radical Islam. Chief among these are a nuclear-armed Iran and IS, each of which is striving to establish an Islamic caliphate. These threats are being allowed to metastasize by President Obama and his far-left, pro-Muslim policies. The international community also is suffering from liberal dementia. In short, political correctness has run amok globally. At the very time that the international community should have an intense urgency to combat radical Islam, it is instead obsessed with righting the many perceived wrongs of Israel. I am afraid that this unfortunate confluence of factors will have tragic consequences.

So with a June 30th deadline on reaching an agreement with Iran on its nuclear capabilities right around the corner, what is brewing with the negotiations? Why so quiet? Are we waiting for a big July 4th announcement? There is no bigger story in the world today (no, not even Bruce Jenner), yet the media coverage is shamefully non-existent. There are exceptions, such as when the leaders of Iran claim that the framework of the agreement is built on the lies of the United States or that Iran has no intention of complying with its terms. Of course, these statements from Iran come in between its chants of death to America and death to Israel. And even if the deal lives up to the best of expectations, Iran stands to legitimately obtain nuclear weapons over time and cash in on an estimated $150 billion. This windfall will allow Iran to really let loose with its global terrorism and aggression, its favorite pastimes. Iran has been the best in the world in these vile activities even with a poor economy. Just think of the pain, suffering and misery it will be capable of causing once the world begins funding its terrorism and belligerence. But aside from that, what's the problem?

Then there is IS. Obama just announced that he still has no strategy to combat that savage terrorist group. Actually, he also said that he is waiting for a strategy from the Pentagon. Military officials were reportedly outraged the last time Obama threw them under the bus with the same statement despite the fact that they had sent him more than one strategy for his consideration. Just the fact that he can tell the American people that he does not have a strategy at this point in time, regardless of the reason, is unjustifiable.

But what people fail to realize is that Obama has more pressing concerns for world order. Putting the imminent threat of global climate change aside, Obama has made his priority, more like his obsession, Israel and all of the harm it is causing the world. For Obama and many far-left liberals the world over, it is not Iran obtaining nuclear weapons and threatening to destroy civilization or IS beheading innocent civilians in the name of Islam that has to be stopped first and foremost. Rather, it is Israel trying to survive on a daily basis that tops the charts of egregious and immoral  behavior.

Obama has stated outright that he has to rethink his strategy with Israel based on the fact that Israel's Prime Minister voiced his concern and doubt over the likelihood of a two-state solution with the Palestinians in the near future given their lack of commitment to peace and the current turmoil in the Middle East. To Obama, it is irrelevant, despite his few empty words to the contrary, that forcing Israel into a two-state solution jeopardizes its existence. For him, developing a new harsher and one-sided strategy against Israel appears to take precedence over formulating a strategy to combat IS. Just because Obama says the Palestinians are a good peace partner does not make it so. The harsh reality, also ignored by Obama, is that even if Israel had a real partner for peace in the Palestinian Authority, led by Mahmoud Abbas, that government would be toppled in a flash as part of any "peace" deal. (That may happen at any time no matter what.)

Radical Islamic terrorist groups are multiplying at a rapid pace. One needs a scorecard just to keep track. Anyone who does not believe that the PA would be ousted need look no further than Gaza, where there are reports that IS is now in a struggle with the terrorist group Hamas. According to IS, Hamas is not violent and aggressive enough against Israel. Can you imagine?There should be no doubt that if Israel was to leave certain parts of Judea and Samaria, the void would be filled with radical Islamic terrorists, whether Palestinians or others. That poses an existential threat to Israel and puts at risk the lives of innocent Israelis. Yet Obama has the audacity to claim that Israel has a credibility problem in not wanting to achieve peace with the Palestinians. The lack of credibility is something that Obama should know all about, but instead of deceitfully discrediting Israel, he should look in the mirror and at the Palestinians. One has to wonder why Obama gives the Palestinians a free pass while leveling all of his criticism against Israel.

Obama and the international community have done nothing about the escalation of global Anti-Semitism. There has been a dramatic rise in reported abuse and intimidation, physical and verbal, by Muslims against Jews on college campuses across America. But there has not been any condemnation by Obama or his Administration on this. In Obama's constitution, Muslims are a protected class, Jews are not. The BDS (boycott, divestment and sanctions) movement, built on propaganda and lies, is spreading at a fast pace globally. The growing worldwide hatred of Jews is being fanned by radical Islam and the political correctness and far-left policies of Obama and the international community. Puzzling too is that Christians in the international community are allowing their innocent brethren to be slaughtered by radical Islamists and direct their animosity against Jews and Israel. We are living in dangerous and disgraceful times.

Hindsight is 20/20, but on the threat posed by radical Islam, so is the present. In fact, I am not sure how much clearer it could be.