August 28, 2015
My family vacation this summer was my favorite one ever. Two wonderful weeks in Israel. For my wife and me, it was our first trip to the Holy Land. Our older son had been to Israel before on Birthright. Our younger son also had been there before on Birthright and then studied for almost two months at a Yeshiva in Jerusalem. Importantly, I was not the only one who enjoyed the trip; my wife and sons also had a fantastic time.
Having been raised in a big city, I always appreciate long drives in rural settings. When my kids were younger, and our summer vacations entailed driving through various parts of the American landscape, I would instinctually point out horses, cows and various other animals whenever I would spot them. After a certain point (which usually did not take too long), my three fellow passengers would politely and then not so politely tell me to stop.
Our trip to Israel was different. My family knew I was "crazed" to go and excited to explore and see everything we could cram into our pre-planned itinerary, which involved driving through much of the country. That partly helps explain their patience. They totally tolerated my constant shouts of black hats (said then and now with the utmost respect and admiration) and IDF (soldiers). They even tolerated my camel alerts, which were pretty frequent in the desert. It was heartwarming for me to know that my family was tolerant not only for my sake, but also because they were enjoying the same things I was. In large part, that focused on being around our fellow Jews. All Jews. For once, we were not the minority and that was a spiritually uplifting feeling.
There was another reason this trip was important to me. I have said and written a lot about Israel, always from a pro-Israel perspective. People I know, including Israelis, had been surprised about my passion for the country, particularly since I had never been there. At the same time, they assured me that, even though I had never visited, I really had a good understanding and was not missing anything that would change my views. Still, I knew that I had to go, and go with an open mind. It was not just for my own sense of credibility, I just had to see for myself. After spending a couple of weeks in Israel, and traveling through much of the country, I came home with a deeper and more informed love and appreciation of the Homeland and its people.
Our trip officially started under the blistering sun in the Dead Sea Region of Ein Bokek. We stayed at a resort hotel that seemed to cater mainly to native Israeli and Russian Jews, although we met Jews of other backgrounds as well. There were, however, a good amount of arabs, many dressed in their traditional garb. A rough, non-scientific estimate would be around 5%-10%. Whether at the Sea, or in the spa or at breakfast and dinner buffets at the hotel, everyone in this eclectic mix appeared to be getting along just fine. We also saw an assortment of people, including arabs, as we hiked in Ein Gedi. Here too, there was nothing unusual to report.
We spent a good amount of our time at different beautiful beaches in Israel, including in Tel Aviv, Netanya and Haifa. It was in the clean, warm waters of some of these beaches that we encountered the only thing that gave us concern on the entire trip. It was a small fish that nipped, mostly at the ankles of swimmers. My younger son dubbed the fish El Chapo the Shark. I have no idea why. But the nickname caught on, especially when we would see swimmers scampering out of the water clutching their ankles.
We were the minority on a mostly arab beach in Haifa. Jews and arabs both frolicked in the water and on the sand while enjoying this wonderful beach. There also were many arabs in the section of Haifa where we stayed. There was a whole strip of restaurants, bars and cafes filled with younger arabs who definitely seemed to be carefree and enjoying themselves.
Pretty much wherever we went we came across arabs. In Tiberias, at the Jordan River and, obviously, in Jerusalem. In fact, we saw arabs in most of the places where we went in the Old City of Jerusalem. What was notable to me were the warnings that we, as Jews in Israel, received about steering clear of certain arab sections, gates and quarters of the Old City, but the routes we were told to use were full of arabs. One place where we did not see any arabs was in Yad Vashem, Israel's holocaust museum and memorial. There we saw only Jews.
In the vast amount of driving we did, we were able to see a lot of Israel. I was impressed with how much Israelis have accomplished in such a short period of time since the establishment of the country in 1948. They have done a truly amazing job of building up the country. At the same time, I was struck by how much land was still undeveloped and how much more room there appeared to be for growth. We would drive on roads (well-paved I might add) for long stretches of time and not see anything except the beautiful scenery until we came upon a city or town, sometimes elevated and off to one or both sides of the road. Interestingly, we would often observe the gold dome of a mosque in these places. As we would drive through arab towns or view these mosques, I could not help but to again think of the hypocrisy of the international community, which condemns Israel for being a racist country, but supports Palestinian demands that there not be a single Jew in their territories or in any future Palestinian state. Taking a detour into Gaza to spend some more quality time with arabs was not part of our itinerary. No, any interaction between Jews and arabs had to be done in Israel.
To be clear, we knew that the danger was not limited to Gaza. We also were aware of the increased terrorist attacks by Palestinians in East Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria and did not venture there on this trip. We decided not to go to Hebron to see the Cave of the Patriarchs, after considering going with an armed presence and in a vehicle with bulletproof glass. We also heard about the danger and political nonsense occurring there from a rabbi who we spoke to who had been there earlier the same day.
Regarding the areas we were in or very close to, a Jewish couple we met told us about their trip to Nazareth, which consists mostly of arabs. They drove there, arrived at their destination, and had to quickly scamper away after encountering a young man and his machine gun there. We heard stories, but fortunately Jerusalem was quiet while we were there.
Throughout our trip, I could not help thinking, particularly as I was enjoying the rest and relaxation at the beaches, just how much the Palestinians were squandering their opportunity. If they only would want peace, their population could live in prosperity. Their people could enjoy freedom and have malls, restaurants, cafes and bars. In Gaza, they too could have a coast of resorts for their people to enjoy. It is to everyone's great misfortune that they instead choose to embrace terrorism, murder and brutality.
I cannot wait to return to Eretz Yisrael and be with my fellow Jews. I wish all Israelis peace and the coming of a time very soon when their biggest concern will be El Chapo the Shark.
Am Yisrael Chai.
Monday, August 31, 2015
Tuesday, August 25, 2015
The Dramatic Rise of Donald Trump
August 25, 2015
Donald Trump is, to date, defying all of his critics and detractors with his big lead over the other Republican presidential candidates. There is a simple reason for his dominance that many so-called political experts and analysts did not see coming and are still overlooking. What is that reason? In one word--Obama.
Obama has successfully divided the country and the division he has created is deep and severe. His radical liberal policies and over the top political correctness, both at home and abroad, have infuriated, disgusted and embarrassed a significant number of Americans. These Americans now all too painfully understand the meaning of Obama's promise to fundamentally change the country and they do not like the result. They now see his agenda more clearly and resent his thrusting his leftist ideologies upon the country. They have witnessed Obama's weakening and degrading of America and they do not like it one bit. They are angry and want a strong and unapologetic Republican candidate who will make America great again. Enter Mr. Trump who has taken center stage with that exact message. He is vowing to return the country to its greatness by taking positions that are diametrically opposed to Obama's.
I refer the reader back to my April 9, 2015 article entitled "Right Down the Middle". In that article, I set forth matters that are important to Americans and major issues facing America today, and how I pretty much disagree with Obama's position on all of them. Trump is systematically championing the opposite side of Obama's liberal positions on these matters and issues as well. And he is doing so in a blatant way. For Americans who are tired of Obama weakening and degrading this great country, Trump is saying everything they long to hear. They yearn for American success and greatness again and Trump is promising to deliver that in the strong and unapologetic terms they now crave.
Many of the other Republican candidates have substantially similar messages as Trump. And they deliver their messages without Trump's bravado, bragging and lack of humility. Looking back on the past, it is hard to see a candidate like Trump having so much appeal to the American GOP electorate. But Obama has made that possible. Obama's attack on core American values has facilitated someone riding in on a white horse and defending America. Obama's arrogance and consistent insults and humiliation of much of the population and the country have fostered the ability of someone like a Donald Trump to come out swinging and appeal to Americans in the process.
The result is a continuing divide of the country. Obama's radical left ideologies have made it very easy for conservatives to disagree with him on all or almost all major issues. Trump has done just that and will continue to do so. Supporters of Obama, including most of the media, will dig in and defend their liberal positions and will fight Trump all the way. At the same time, Trump will continue to have amazing appeal to Americans who believe in a strong America and want their country back. America will continue to lack a middle ground. Bipartisanship will likely continue to be non-existent.
Take illegal immigration as just one example. Many Americans strongly oppose Obama's far-left views and policies. They want the problem addressed and a common sense solution (at least in part) is to secure the country's southern border. Trump's promise to build a wall and to have Mexico pay for it has obvious appeal to these Americans. But have they fully thought through how Trump will execute on his promise to deport illegals? Whether or not they consider this measure to be extreme, they may be reacting out of frustration. To illustrate the division in this country on just this one issue, consider that while his backers applaud Trump even when he talks of deportations, liberals support illegals receiving more government benefits than America's military personnel. Liberals also are offended by and scoff at conservatives over terminology on the subject like "illegals", "illegal immigrants" and "anchor babies" even though there is nothing inaccurate about these terms.
Conservatives also see the current Democratic presidential candidates promising more of the same of what Obama is delivering, and that frightens them. That is understandable given the liberal messages being espoused by the leading Democratic candidates, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. In Clinton, they also see someone they clearly cannot trust, as each day there are new troubling allegations against her, even as reported in the liberal media outlets. This likely helps explain, in part, the surprising surge of Sanders. Sanders deserves credit in that he at least admits to being a socialist, but that honesty does not make him any more appealing to conservatives. Faced with these liberal choices, and now in the second term of a president with radical left ideologies and policies, conservatives do not want to leave anything to chance. They want the strongest candidate possible and so far they like what they are hearing from Trump and believe that he is their best bet.
It is not clear whether Trump can continue on his current successful path. He may be his own worst enemy. For now, however, he has galvanized the GOP base. His supporters have embraced him notwithstanding his insults of fellow Republican candidates, even so much as claiming John McCain is not a war hero. In the past, his brashness likely would have made him crash and burn as a candidate. In today's America though, he is instead viewed positively by conservatives as someone who speaks his mind and who is desperately needed to restore the country to its greatness. He can thank Obama for that.
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.
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.
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.
Sunday, June 28, 2015
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)