Archive for Barack Hussein Obama

What a Difference Two Days Make!

Obama, January 25th: “We have a profound interest, as I believe every country does, in promoting a core principle, which is: Large countries don’t bully smaller countries.”

Obama today:

A top appointee in President Barack Obama’s 2012 election campaign is now working to defeat Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the upcoming March election.

Jeremy Bird was the national field director for Obama’s 2012 campaign, and he’s now working for an Israel-based group, dubbed V15, an anti-Netanyahu group that is backed by a U.S. -U.K. group titled “One Voice.”

“We are working with OneVoice,” confirmed Lynda Tran, who co-founded Bird’s campaign firm, 270 Strategies.

There’s little or no chance that Bird would work against Netanyahu if Obama didn’t want Netanyahu defeated in the March election.

Spread the word. Let’s make it backfire. Is Israel going to let itself be bullied by a “large country”?

Comments (1)

Thoughts and Prayers

Aggie and I would like to extend our condolences to the people of Araby on the loss of a great leader, a man of perspicacity, sagacity, and atrocity. While some may think of the Saudi monarch as a cruel, prejudiced, backward, inbred pile of scum, we prefer to remember the better angels of his nature:

One of the big ironies here is that President Obama in his statement said how close he was to King Abdullah.

King Abdullah did not like President Obama. In fact, a lot of people I know who are quite close to the late King Abdullah said that the King could not stand President Obama because the president was supportive of the Arab Spring, and because the president did not support Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, in fact turned his back on Hosni Mubarak in Egypt.

So this close personal bond between the president and the Saudi leader is just people being polite at a time of sadness.

Actually, it’s hard to say who comes out better in this telling. We, too, cannot stand President Obama; but anyone so hated by the Wahhabi whackjobs in Riyadh can’t be all bad. Just 99.99%.

Comments

Waiting for Dumbo

Boy, this story about Obama blowing off the rally against Muslim terrorism in France is getting a lot of play. Let’s look at some of the takes.

Josh Earnest (by name and nature):

Some have asked whether or not the United States should have sent someone with a higher profile than the ambassador to France. I think it is fair to say we should have sent someone with a higher profile to be there.

Eric Holder was in town, but he had tickets to the Folies Bergère.

A little more Earnest:

ACOSTA: Does the president believe that the White House made a mistake?

EARNEST: I have not spoken to the president about this specific matter.

ACOSTA: And you said that this decision did not reach his level. Doesn’t the buck stop with the president?

EARNEST: It always does. He would be the first person to tell you that.

ACOSTA: So why wasn’t this decision brought to him?

EARNEST: Well, Jim, I’m not going to sort of unpack the planning and logistics that go into these kind of decisions.

ACOSTA: Why not?

Sometimes the best questions when asking truth of power are the simplest. Why? Why not? And then just wait:

EARNEST: Well, just because they’d be pretty complicated.

Netanyahu solved the “complications”.

Andrea Mitchell, considering the usual suspects:

Look at the pictures of the unity march Sunday, world leaders representing all of Europe, even Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu along with his adversary Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, but not President Obama, Joe Biden, or anyone else from the cabinet.

President Obama was at the White House, the Vice President was at his home in Delaware. This comes after a noticeable absence of really strong reaction after those horrors in France last week.

Some comments that he made in the Oval Office, at a photo opportunity, and a line or two added to a community college event in Nashville.

Attorney General Eric Holder was in Paris for a counter-terror meeting, but he didn’t march. At the time he was actually doing interviews with Meet The Press, by satellite and other TV networks.

Secretary of State John Kerry seems to be the only top official with a real explanation. He was keynoting a climate summit in India, he will now travel to Paris Thursday, he was planning to be nearby in Geneva for nuclear talks with Iran.

A “climate summit” in India trumps a multi-million person march against terrorism and mass murder? Obama chose rather to meet with the San Antonio Spurs basketball team, and he had a better excuse.

Jake Tapper:

This president has acknowledged in the past that he doesn’t have the same prediliction for optics, as he refers to it. Images as previous presidents said. He has said it was not his strength. I think it was more than just optics. If you look at the reality of the march, world leaders were not actually marching all the way, but be that as it may, this is being referred to here in France as France’s 9/11.

This is being referred to as a demarcation, a moment where this country is changing.

17 innocent people killed here in France is horrific but can’t compare to 3,000. You also have to look at the fact of, who was the first world leader to come to the United States after the trauma in 2001 who was it?

The president of France. Jacques Chirac came to Washington D.C. and New York right after 9/11, within a week and a half or so.

How far has the Messiah tumbled when he prompts unfavorable comparisons to Jacques-[bleepin’]-Chirac?

But enough with the lap dogs of the press. Jonah Goldberg:

I mean, look, first of all, the guy with the Greek columns, the guy who campaigned in Berlin that somehow he doesn’t like the the theater of politics strikes me as a little ridiculous. The pattern here is that whenever they blow it with their communication shop, the pattern is to then say, ‘well, we’re just too good for the optics,’ but other times they’re perfectly happy to exploit optics and do theater, just sometimes they’re bad at it and say — It’s like when you trip and you say I meant to do that.

Look, everyone agrees that this was a mistake. The question is why this is a mistake.

Goldberg has his theory. And Rush Limbaugh has his:

He’s not gonna subject himself. He’s not going to put himself in a group where he is seen as one of many, many equals.

The other thing is, what was being condemned here? Militant Islam was on the plate here for being condemned. Now let’s face it. This is the president, who at the United Nations, said that we must never allow the word of the prophet to be smeared. I’m paraphrasing. This is the president who wrote that one of the most beautiful sounds he’s ever heard is the morning call to prayer at a mosque in a city where Islam is being practiced. The White House is saying, nah, Obama couldn’t go because this wasn’t about Obama. That’s exactly right, by the way. They may be trying compliment or stave things off, it wasn’t about Obama, so why should he be there? He wasn’t gonna go out and be about, you know, one of 40 people doing the same thing.

There are many other comments and opinions. This is just a sample.

Comments

#bringbackourcartoonists

Mark Steyn beheads the preening, narcissistic media over the Charlie Hebdo murders:

Yes, the media feels the wrath of his tongue-lashing, but it’s the shots at John Kerry and Barack Obama that have me shouting “Steynu Akbar!”

He quotes Kerry’s stony-faced reaction: “John Kerry today said that this was a battle between civilization and, pregnant pause, the forces that are opposed to civilization,” he said. Alas, Kerry never named those forces. Our leaders may be as sensitive and politically correct as they like, but if they do not recognize that public enemy number one wears a beard and a turban (though he hates to have his picture taken), they are doing us more harm than good.

And if that ain’t clear enough for you: “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam,” President Obama said, most improbably.

Steyn’s reaction (and I paraphrase): technically, you can’t slander someone who died in the 7th century.

To which I add, also technically, Charlie Hebdo libeled—if they even did that, as truth is an absolute defense—not slandered, the prophet of Islam.

Slander and libel are offenses dealt with in court. The Charlie Hebdo killers, and Theo van Gogh’s killer, those who tried to hunt down Salman Rushdie, those whom Ayaan Hirsi Ali fears to this day—and countless legions of other murderers in the name of Muhammad—do not pursue legal remedies. Their grievances are not judicial in nature. Those who slander, libel, insult, slight, look cross-eyed at the prophet of Islam, are dealt by another form of justice, via the knife, the gun, the RPG, the 747.

I have no quarrel with the prophet of Islam. Seriously, I don’t. And I write that not out of fear, but out of ignorance. There are well over a billion Muslims—and a fair number of others—who know him better than I. Let them debate. Some of the more lurid stories (pick your own) I put down to local customs of the times. Child brides and slavery were once more common than they are now. Feigning shock at their existence over a millennium ago bores me, as long as we agree there’s no place for them today.

Just as there’s no place for smiting the infidel today. It is those who smite with whom I/we have a problem. Stop smiting and no one gets hurt. But as I write yesterday, the smiting comes last. There’s usually a long line of offenses, most criminal, that come before, and give us a good indication of where this is going. The earliest—the first wing pulled off the fly, the first tormented puppy—is often pure, distilled Jew-hatred. You may think it’s a long way from “descendant of apes and pigs” to “Allahu Akbar” and a hail of bullets, but there are those who know a shortcut. Charlie Hebdo might well still be an unappreciated satirical magazine (the best kind of satirical magazine), Private Eye with accents graves, rather than lying in their graves, if lesser offenses had been more greatly punished.

As I also wrote yesterday, these guys probably had a record (check), were probably home grown (check), and we’d soon learn how they did it (check, one is already under arrest). That’s hardly the Amazing Kreskin at work. We have all too much history with this sort of thing. Do we have the will to relegate it to history, that is the question.

Comments

Random Thoughts While Waiting for Obama to Bring Down the Hebrew Hammer on Israel

So, The US is considering sanctions against Israel.

I think. Sort of.

ED HENRY, FOX NEWS: There were reports that the administration is considering sanctioning Israel over the settlements issue. I wonder if you could say true or false.

JOSH EARNEST, WHITE HOUSE: Well, uh, I’ve been informed of some of these reports. What I can tell you is that I’m not going to talk about any sort of internal deliberations inside the administration and certainly not inside the White House. But I will say something that I have said many times before, which is that Israel is a close and strategic partner of the United States. And I don’t need to remind you…zzzzzzz

What? Huh? Sorry, where was he?

That being said, we have also been crystal clear about our view of settlement activity. That view has not changed. We believe that settlements are illegitimate, and we have deep concerns about highly contentious planning and construction activities that the Israeli government is…

And if you order now, you’ll get a second Swiffer at no extra cost!

Again, sorry. Just wanted to see what else was on.

HENRY: So very clearly you are not denying that sanctions are on the table against even an ally?

EARNEST: I am very clearly not denying we have strong concerns about that settlement activity that’s underway in Israel. But it has not and will not affect the…

Rondo to Olynik for three…got it!

Just checking the Celtics. Where were we?

HENRY: But how can you be telling Congress don’t issue more sanctions against Iran at the same time you’re considering sanctions against an ally in Israel?

EARNEST: Again, I’m not going to comment on those reports about our discussions as it relates to Israel.

HENRY: But you are talking about sanctions. You’re leaving that door wide open here.

EARNEST: I’m not saying I’m not willing to talk about those conversations.

HENRY: So you’re not considering sanctions?

EARNEST: I’m not saying I’m not willing to talk about those kinds of conversations. But what I am saying is that we have been clear about what our strategy is against Iran….

Oy. Can we just bail now?

Anyway, while we’re talking about illegitimate activities in Middle Eastern countries, perhaps we can start here:

Two Saudi women activists have been detained for nearly a week for defying the kingdom’s ban on women driving, family members and an activist said Sunday.

The kingdom’s hard-line interpretation of Islam, known as Wahabbism, holds that allowing women to drive encourages licentiousness. No such ban exists in the rest of the Muslim world, including Saudi Arabia’s conservative Gulf neighbors.

That sure sounds like a War on Women to me. What are we, Switzerland?

How about another country that has Obama’s ear (for which they need both hands!):

In March, King Abdullah II reappointed Abdullah Ensour as prime minister. Authorities stepped up attacks on independent media, censoring over 260 websites that refused to comply with new government registration requirements.

Freedom of Expression and Belief

Jordanian law criminalizes speech deemed critical of the king, government officials, and institutions, as well as Islam and speech considered defamatory of others. In 2013, the authorities failed to amend the penal code to bring it into compliance with constitutional free speech guarantees strengthened in 2011, and continued to prosecute individuals on charges such as “insulting an official body,” using vaguely worded penal code articles that place impermissible restrictions on free expression.

On September 17, police arrested Nidhal al-Fara`nah and Amjad Mu`ala, respectively publisher and editor of the Jafra News website, after it posted a third-party YouTube video that authorities deemed insulting to the brother of Qatar’s ruler. Prosecutors charged both men with “disturbing relations with a foreign state” before the State Security Court, whose judges include serving military officers.

Jordan, a Palestinian state in all but name, is significantly more repressive than Israel. But do we hear about sanctions?

Oh yeah, what about Qatar?

Migrants continue to experience serious rights violations, including forced labor and arbitrary restrictions on the right to leave Qatar, which expose them to exploitation and abuse by employers.

Forced labor: does that mean slavery?

Workers typically pay exorbitant recruitment fees and employers regularly take control of their passports when they arrive in Qatar. The kafala (sponsorship) system ties a migrant worker’s legal residence to his or her employer, or sponsor. Migrant workers commonly complain that employers fail to pay their wages on time if at all, but are barred from changing jobs without their sponsoring employer’s consent other than in exceptional cases and with express permission of the Interior Ministry. Adding to their vulnerability, they must obtain an exit visa from their sponsor in order to leave Qatar. Migrant workers are prohibited from unionizing or engaging in strikes, although they make up 99 percent of the private sector workforce.

Sounds like it.

In February, an appeal court reduced to 15 years the life imprisonment sentence imposed on poet Mohammed Ibn al-Dheeb al-Ajami, a Qatari national, in November 2012, by a court in Doha. The court convicted him of incitement to overthrow the regime after he recited poems critical of Qatar’s then-emir, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani. In June 2013, the emir abdicated, handing power to his son, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani.

Who’s a hell of a guy, I hear. Speaking of guys:

Provisions of Law No. 22 of 2006, Qatar’s first codified law to address issues of family and personal status law, discriminate against women. Article 36 states that two men must witness marital contracts, which are concluded by male matrimonial guardians. Article 57 prevents husbands from hurting their wives physically or morally, but article 58 states that it is a wife’s responsibility to look after the household and to obey her husband. Marital rape is not a crime.

So far, we’re not sanctioning Iran for trying to build an A-bomb; we’re not sanctioning Jordan for rampant censorship and repression; and we’re not sanctioning Qatar for slavery and the decriminalization of marital rape.

But we are sanctioning Israel.

This is fun!

The United Arab Emirates (UAE) continues to crack down on freedom of expression and association. The authorities are arbitrarily detaining scores of individuals they suspect of links to domestic and international Islamist groups. A court convicted 69 dissidents in July after a manifestly unfair trial, in which evidence emerged of systematic torture at state security facilities. The UAE made no reforms to a system that facilitates the forced labor of migrant workers.

More slavery!

Saud Kulaib, an Emirati national, spent five months in incommunicado detention between December 29 and May 27. In addition to enduring solitary confinement, extremes of temperature, and sleep deprivation, he told family members and other inmates that officers beat him, sliced his hand open with a razor blade, threatened to pull out his fingernails, and told him that his wife was in detention and on hunger strike.

Who else has been a bad boy?

Borders controlled by Iraq’s central government remained closed to Syrians fleeing civil war, while as of November, nearly 206,600 Syrians fled to the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG)-controlled area.

In December 2012, thousands of Iraqis took part in demonstrations in mostly Sunni areas, demanding reform of the Anti-Terrorism Law and the release of illegally held detainees. Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki announced in January 2013 that he had created special committees to oversee reforms, including freeing prisoners and limiting courts’ use of secret informant testimony. At time of writing, there was little indication that the government had implemented reforms. Security forces instead used violence against protesters, culminating in an attack on a demonstration in Hawija in April, which killed 51 protesters. Authorities failed to hold anyone accountable.

I’d like to see Israel get away with that! Not really, just a figure of speech.

Are we done? Not hardly:

Kuwait continues to exclude thousands of stateless people, known as Bidun, from full citizenship, despite their longstanding roots in Kuwaiti territory.

The government has aggressively cracked down on free speech, often resorting to a law forbidding any offense to the ruler (emir).

Kuwait has no laws prohibiting domestic violence, sexual harassment, or marital rape. In addition, Kuwaiti women married to non-Kuwaiti men cannot give their spouses or children Kuwaiti citizenship. Kuwaiti law does not let women marry a partner of their choice if their father will not grant permission.

In May, the Kuwaiti authorities announced that Saudi Arabian women would not be provided with drivers’ licenses while in Kuwait without the permission of their male guardians.

The United States, in its 2013 US State Department’s annual Trafficking in Persons report, classified Kuwait as Tier 3—among the most problematic countries—for the seventh year in a row. The report cited Kuwait’s failure to report any arrests, prosecutions, convictions, or sentences of traffickers for either forced labor or sex trafficking, and weak victim protection measures.

Even more slavery—and sex trafficking! Do Kuwaitis know how to party, or what? No wonder Saddam wanted a piece of the…action. (What did you think I was going to write?)

We haven’t exhausted the region, but it’s doubtful we’ll be able to top that. And I’m sure we’ll get around to tsk-tsking them as soon as we ding Israel for putting a spare bedroom over the garage.

Comments (1)

BTL: Trend Setter

Teal is the new puce, pico de gallo is the new tabouleh, and hemlines are going up (they’d better)—all aboard the Eretz Israel Express:

A new US poll found that a full 34% of Americans support a one-state solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, by which all of Israel’s territory would become a single state with equal rights for all citizens.

The poll, held by the Saban Forum, noted a 10% increase in support for the one-state solution from the previous year, reports Yedioth Aharonoth. By contrast, 39% supported the two-state solution in a figure that stayed constant from previous years.

It remains unclear from the poll question if the plan respondents supported would offer Arab residents of Judea, Samaria and Gaza citizenship, although it would appear to be a clear show of support for Israeli annexation of the areas.

I’ve been calling for this for years now. It’s the least we can do for peace. And people are listening:

As far as which side to support, the poll results left no doubts: 31% would like the US to favor Israel in the conflict, whereas only 4% thought it should favor the Palestinian Arabs.

That position of support was echoed by the US Congress, which on Wednesday voted unanimously to pass legislation making Israel a “major strategic partner” of America, which would greatly expand cooperation in a bevy of fields. The bill now is waiting for US President Barack Obama’s signature.

But we’re not completely heartless:

Another plan that has been gaining momentum in Israel is to create a Palestinian state in Jordan, with Jordanian-Palestinian activist Mudar Zahran saying such a development is inevitable.

If the point were to bring peace to the region and let everyone get on with their lives, this result would have evolved years ago. Instead the point has been to remove Jews from the region. Which ain’t gonna happen, despite this:

Obama has not shown as friendly position on Israel, blocking a routine transfer of Hellfire missiles during Operation Protective Edge and ordering more stringent supervision of future shipments.

Likewise, reports indicate the US is weighing sanctions against Israel as a punitive measure on Jewish construction in Israel’s Biblical heartland, namely eastern Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria.

Next year in East Jerusalem!

Comments

Who Says Obama Never Gets Tough With Our Enemies? [UPDATED]

Russia laughs at us; Iran couldn’t be more contemptuous.

But Israel, boy, they’ll regret the day they crossed Barack Hussein Obama.

The United States is considering taking “harsher action” against Israeli construction efforts in Jerusalem and in Judea and Samaria, reports Thursday said.

According to the report in Ha’aretz, the White House has been discussing taking “active measures” to discourage Israeli construction, instead of just issuing condemnations, as it has done until now.

But commentators on Israel’s right dismissed the story as “political scare tactics” in the wake of upcoming elections in Israel.

The report said that senior American officials asked about the report “did not deny this, but refused to disclose more details.” According to the report, “a discussion on such a sensitive and politically-loaded issue in the White House is extremely irregular and shows to what extent relations between the Obama administration and Netanyahu government have deteriorated.”

According to the report, the White House decided on this new policy after the recent meeting between US President Barack H. Obama and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. The meeting occurred as Peace Now announced that Israel had approved the construction of 1,600 homes in Jerusalem’s Givat Hamatos neighborhood, and activists moved into homes in the City of David neighborhood.

The report said that American actions could include abstaining in votes condemning Israel at the UN Security Council, instead of vetoing them, or banning funding of projects in Judea and Samaria.

Consider the timing:

Political commentators on the right in Israel dismissed the Ha’aretz report as “election propaganda.”

The fact the report emerged a day after the Knesset decided on new elections “is more than just mere coincidence,” said one commentator.

“Whether it was the idea of Ha’aretz or a White House functionary, it’s clear that the message here is that Israel will be better off with someone other than Netanyahu leading it. These kinds of stories always ‘happen’ to surface before elections, and nothing ever comes of them.”

May it backfire. May Israelis know that America has their back, even if Obama wants to kick them in the nuts. Proverbial nuts.

UPDATE
As I was saying:

With Israeli elections now scheduled for March 2015, there’s no doubt who the Obama Administration is rooting for: Mr. or Ms. A.B.B.—Anybody But Bibi. But the president and secretary need to be very careful here. We don’t read Israeli politics very well; and we haven’t proven very effective in predicting, let alone orchestrating outcomes. The best advice to an administration that has proven anything but sure footed in the Middle East, particularly in dealing with Israel, is to keep out of Israeli politics.

Like that’s gonna happen:

Like Bush 41 and Shamir, Bill Clinton and Benjamin Netanyahu were not exactly soul mates. In June 1996, after their first meeting, Clinton, frustrated by Bibi’s brashness, exploded: “Who’s the fucking superpower here?”

You can see why relations were tense. For the preceding two months, Clinton had done everything he could to tip the election to Shimon Peres, a caretaker prime minister, in the wake of Rabin’s assassination by an Israeli radical in November 1995.

Clinton had persuaded Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak to convene a Summit of the Peacemakers in Egypt in an effort to save the peace process and Peres, too, after a series of Hamas terror attacks. When Peres visited Washington, Clinton went out of his way to praise Peres’s leadership and insisted on referring to the upcoming election in a reference that all but said “vote for Peres if you’re serious about peace.”

….

And, still, Netanyahu won.

[I]n December 2000, a month before his term ran out, the president was prepared to fly to Israel to broker an agreement between Prime Minister Ehud Barak and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, not least in order to help Barak defeat Ariel Sharon in elections scheduled for February 2001. But the deal foundered and Barak lost.

Now, as the clock ticks down on Israeli elections scheduled for March 2015, will the Obama Administration play internal Israeli politics to try to tip the election against Netanyahu?

Resist the temptation, Barack:

It’s an inconvenient but important reality to acknowledge that of the three U.S.-orchestrated breakthroughs in the Middle East peace process, two of them—the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty and the Madrid peace conference—came from hardline Likud prime ministers. The third—the three disengagement agreements following the 1973 war —came courtesy of a very tough Labor prime minister, Yitzhak Rabin.

Comments (1)

Dear Ayatollah

Hi! This is Barack Hussein Obama, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize. How are you? Oh yeah, I’m President of the USA too, LOL. For now! ;)

Listen, lemme tell me why I’m writing:

The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday that, according to people briefed on the letter, Obama wrote to Khamenei in the middle of last month and stressed that any cooperation on dealing with the Islamic State, or ISIS, was tied to Iran striking a deal over its nuclear program. The U.S., Iran and other negotiators are facing a Nov. 24 deadline for such a deal.

A senior congressional source told Fox News that there is not anything definitive as to whether the letter even exists. But the source indicated they don’t doubt that it’s true because “we’ve seen [the president] do it before, so there is [a] precedent.”

According to the Journal, Obama has written to Khamenei four times now since taking office.

The congressional source told Fox News that the letter would upset the inroads they’ve tried to make with “the Sunni league,” noting that the president should have informed Congress of this back-channel if it was in fact going on.

“This f***s up everything,” the source said.

That’s how you know this story is true. Obama f***s up everything.

What does Obama write about? Sasha and Malia? The dogs? Hanging queers? Stoning women? And does he sign them “The Great Satan”?

I don’t think you have to kill everybody with whom you share absolutely no values. But you don’t have to write to them either.

Comments

Barack Obama Explains “My Muslim Faith”

Hey, he said it, not me:

Just a slip of the tongue.

And this was a slip of a disk.

I’m just funnin’ with you. Of course Obama is Christian. He goes to church every third Easter. (Church just isn’t the same since Jeremiah Wright hung up his vestments.)

But that doesn’t mean he’s not an expert on Islam. Why, he’s practically Bernard Lewis on steroids!

In his speech on September 11 announcing that the US would commence limited operations against Islamic State, US President Barack Obama insisted, “ISIL, [i.e. Islamic State] is not Islamic. No religion condones the killing of innocents, and the vast majority of ISIL’s victims have been Muslim.”

To be sure, it is hard to see how any human faith can countenance IS’s actions. For the past several months, on a daily basis, new videos appear of IS fighters proudly, openly and wantonly committing crimes against humanity. This week for instance, a video emerged of an IS slave market in Raqqah, Syria, where women and girls are sold as sex slaves to IS fighters.

Indeed. North Korea and East Germany have (had) “Democratic” in their names. Didn’t make them so.

This is a little different, however:

Despite the glaring contradiction between divinity and monstrosity, the fact is that IS justifies every single one of its atrocities with verses from the Koran.

IS referred to its sex slave market in Raqqah for instance as the “Booty Market… for what your right hands possess.”

The phrase “what your right hands possess” is a Koranic verse (4:3) that permits the sexual enslavement of women and girls by Muslim men.

Whether it is mainstream Islamic jurisprudence or not to embrace the enslavement of women and girls as concubines is not a question that Obama – or any US leader for that matter – is equipped to answer. And yet, Obama spoke with absolute certainty when he claimed that IS is not Islamic.

You could substitute Al Qaeda, Hamass, Hezbollah, Boko Haram, and probably fifty other Islamic terror organizations. Not Islamic, says Obama.

But he knows what is:

Obama speaks with similar conviction whenever he refers to Iran as “The Islamic Republic of Iran.”

Obama’s consistent deference to the Iranian regime, exposed by his studious use of the regime’s name for itself whenever he discusses Iran indicates that at a minimum, he is willing to accept the regime’s claim that it is an Islamic regime. In other words, he is willing to accept that everything about the Iranian regime is authentic Islam. Similarly, if he is right that “no religion condones the killing of innocents,” then that means that the “Islamic Republic” similarly does not condone the killing of innocents.

Of course, there is a problem here. In fact, there are two problems here.

First, in its treatment of its own people, the Iranian regime condones and actively engages in the killing of innocents, the vast majority of whom are Muslims. The Islamic regime of the Islamic Republic of Iran invokes the Koran to justify its killing.

Likewise, the political imprisonment, torture and general repression of Iranians from all faiths are justified in the name of Islam.

Obama is negotiating with the mullahs over nuclear weapons. Not their abuse of women, not their treatment of gays, not their virulent antisemitism, not their medieval mindset. Those are all okay. And given that they are okay, he wants only to limit the nuclear weaponization of the mullahs who impose those actions and beliefs.

Do you see the problem here? Whether we’re good and they’re bad, or the other way around, we could not be more dissimilar. What is there to talk about? Is it our position that they can have one a-bomb, two if they’re small? Or just promise not to aim them at Israel?

It’s okay to talk, I guess, but what do we have to talk about? The Patriots? (What do you want to bet that those a-hole ayatollahs like Manning over Brady. I’d bomb them just for that.) At a certain point, you have to stand up and leave. You and I might say “You’ll hear from my lawyer.” A president—a real president—would say “You’ll hear from my Air Force.” Or rather not hear.

Comments

Don’t Make Me Get Glick on You

I don’t do it often, but sometimes I have to bring out the big guns.

Here’s the JDAM of journalists, Caroline Glick:

Yehudah Glick has spent the better part of the last 20 years championing the right of Jews to pray on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem – Judaism’s holiest site. On Wednesday night, the Palestinians sent a hit man to Jerusalem to kill him.

And today Glick lays in a coma at Shaare Zedek Medical Center.

Two people bear direct responsibility for this terrorist attack: the gunman, and Palestinian Authority President and PLO chief Mahmoud Abbas. The gunman shot Glick, and Abbas told him to shoot Glick.

Abbas routinely glorifies terrorist murder of Jews, and funds terrorism with the PA’s US- and European-funded budget.

But it isn’t often that he directly incites the murder of Jews.

Two weeks ago, Abbas did just that. Speaking to Fatah members, he referred to Jews who wish to pray at Judaism’s holiest site as “settlers.” He then told his audience that they must remain on the Temple Mount at all times to block Jews from entering.

“We must prevent them from entering [the Temple Mount] in any way…. They have no right to enter and desecrate [it]. We must confront them and defend our holy sites,” he said.

As Palestinian Media Watch reported Thursday, in the three days leading up to the assassination attempt on Glick, the PA’s television station broadcast Abbas’s call for attacks on Jews who seek to enter the Temple Mount 19 times.

While Abbas himself is responsible for the hit on Glick, he has had one major enabler – the Obama administration. Since Abbas first issued the order for Palestinians to attack Jews, there have been two terrorist attacks in Jerusalem. Both have claimed American citizens among their victims. Yet the Obama administration has refused to condemn Abbas’s call to murder Jews either before it led to the first terrorist attack or since Glick was shot Wednesday night.

Oh, but the Obama regime has something to say:

“The Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount must be re-opened to Muslim worshipers and I support the long-standing practices regarding non-Muslim visitors to the site, consistent with respect for the status quo arrangements governing religious observance there,” said Kerry.

What the [bleep] does that even mean? Does anyone with half a brain in his head think it’s smart to allow these marauders to have the run of the place after Friday prayers? You think Halloween here can get out of hand…

Back to Glick:

Not only have the White House and the State Department refused to condemn Abbas for soliciting the murder of Jews. They have praised him and attacked Israel and its elected leader. In other words, they are not merely doing nothing, they are actively rewarding Abbas’s aggression, and so abetting it.

Since Abbas called for Palestinians to kill Jews, the White House and State Department have accused Israel of diminishing the prospect of peace by refusing to make massive concessions to Abbas. The concessions the Americans are demanding include accepting the ethnic cleansing of all Jews from land they foresee becoming part of a future Palestinian state; denying Jews the rights to their lawfully held properties in predominantly Arab neighborhoods; and abrogating urban planning procedures in Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem built within the areas of the city that Israel took control over from Jordan in 1967.

The most distressing aspect of Goldberg’s [“chickensh*t”] quotes is that in and of themselves, these profane, schoolyard bully personal attacks against Israel’s elected leader were the mildest part of the story.

The most disturbing thing about the gutter talk is what they tell us about Israel’s role in Obama’s assessments of his political cards as they relate to his nuclear negotiations with Iran.

The senior administration officials called Netanyahu a coward because, among other reasons, he has not bombed Iran’s nuclear installations.

And now, they crowed, it’s too late for Israel to do anything to stop Iran.

They are happy about this claimed state of affairs, because now Obama is free to make a deal with the Iranians that will allow them to develop nuclear weapons at will.

The obscene rhetoric they adopted in their characterization of Netanyahu didn’t come from “red hot anger.” It was a calculated move. Obama knows that he has caved in on every significant redline that he claimed he would defend in the nuclear talks with Iran.

Obama has chosen to demonize Netanyahu and castigate Israel now as a means to transform the debate about Iran into a debate about Israel. The fact that the trash talk about Netanyahu was a premeditated bid to capture the discourse on Iran is further exposed by the fact that Obama has refused to take any action against the officials who made the statements.

He isn’t going to punish them for carrying out his policies.

She’s not getting older. She’s getting better:

No Israel leader has done more to appease a US administration than Netanyahu has done to appease Obama. Against the opposition of his party and the general public, Netanyahu in 2009 bowed to Obama’s demand to embrace the goal of establishing a Palestinian state.

Against the opposition of his party and the general public, in 2010 Netanyahu bowed to Obama’s demand and enacted an official 10-month moratorium on Jewish property rights in lands beyond the 1949 armistice lines, and later enacted an unofficial moratorium on those rights.

And Netanyahu bowed to Obama’s pressure, released murderers from prison and conducted negotiations with Abbas that only empowered Abbas and his political war to delegitimize and isolate Israel.

And for all his efforts to appease Obama, today the administration abets Palestinian terrorism and political warfare.

As to Iran, Netanyahu agreed to play along with Obama’s phony sanctions policy, and bowed to Obama’s demand not to attack Iran’s nuclear installations. All of this caused suffering to the Iranian people while giving the regime four-and-a-half years of more or less unfettered work on its nuclear program.

Netanyahu only cut bait after Obama signed the interim nuclear deal with Iran last November where he effectively gave up the store.

Before formulating a strategy for dealing with Obama over the next two years, Israelis need to first take a deep breath and recognize that as bad as things are going to get, nothing that Obama will do to us over the next two years is as dangerous as what he has already done. No anti-Israel Security Council resolution, no Obama map of Israel’s borders will endanger Israel as much as his facilitation of Iran’s nuclear program.

As unpleasant as anti-Israel Security Council resolutions will be, and as unpleasant as an Obama framework for Israel’s final borders will be, given the brevity of his remaining time in power, it is highly unlikely that any of the measures will have lasting impact.

At any rate, no matter how upsetting such resolutions may be, Goldberg’s article made clear that Israel should make no concessions to Obama in exchange for a reversal of his plans. Concessions to Obama merely escalate his contempt for us.

Bearing this in mind, Israel’s required actions in the wake of Goldberg’s sources’ warnings are fairly straightforward.

First, to the extent that Israel does have the capacity to damage Iran’s nuclear installations, Israel should act right away. Its capacity should not be saved for a more propitious political moment.

The only clock Israel should care about is Iran’s nuclear clock.

I did try to cut, believe me. It’s just that good. But two points in particular stand out. One, the worst damage has already been done. Who would ever imagine that the state of affairs between the two allies would be in such a shambles? How could it be any worse?

Even more important, the Obamaguppenfuhrers practically called out Israel. Not just about being chicken (who cares?), but by declaring their intentions to let Iran win. Israel’s move. As the old joke goes, in a breakfast of bacon and eggs, the hen was involved, but the pig was committed. America can barely bother to be involved. And Obama needs to be committed.

See you after prayers.

Comments

Hating on the Hebrew PM

If you want a closer look inside the toxic relationship between Obama and Netanyahu than that provided by Jeffrey Goldberg, you’ll need a colonoscope.

Either way, it’s FOS:

The other day I was talking to a senior Obama administration official about the foreign leader who seems to frustrate the White House and the State Department the most. “The thing about Bibi is, he’s a chickenshit.”

A great word, one I use whenever I can, but not enlightening here. To my understanding (and Urban Dictionary’s), it has two distinct meanings: nonsense, but nonsense more trivial than its bovine cousin; and just plain chicken, as in cowardly.

The Obamagruppenfuhrers mean both:

The relationship between these two administrations— dual guarantors of the putatively “unbreakable” bond between the U.S. and Israel—is now the worst it’s ever been, and it stands to get significantly worse after the November midterm elections. By next year, the Obama administration may actually withdraw diplomatic cover for Israel at the United Nations, but even before that, both sides are expecting a showdown over Iran, should an agreement be reached about the future of its nuclear program.

Netanyahu has told several people I’ve spoken to in recent days that he has “written off” the Obama administration, and plans to speak directly to Congress and to the American people should an Iran nuclear deal be reached. For their part, Obama administration officials express, in the words of one official, a “red-hot anger” at Netanyahu for pursuing settlement policies on the West Bank, and building policies in Jerusalem, that they believe have fatally undermined Secretary of State John Kerry’s peace process.

Over the years, Obama administration officials have described Netanyahu to me as recalcitrant, myopic, reactionary, obtuse, blustering, pompous, and “Aspergery.” (These are verbatim descriptions; I keep a running list.) But I had not previously heard Netanyahu described as a “chickenshit.”

“The good thing about Netanyahu is that he’s scared to launch wars,” the official said, expanding the definition of what a chickenshit Israeli prime minister looks like. “The bad thing about him is that he won’t do anything to reach an accommodation with the Palestinians or with the Sunni Arab states. The only thing he’s interested in is protecting himself from political defeat. He’s not [Yitzhak] Rabin, he’s not [Ariel] Sharon, he’s certainly no [Menachem] Begin. He’s got no guts.”

Okay, they’ve made their case; now I’ll make mine.

Sharon would have regretted giving Gaza to Hamass terrorists if he had not had an all-but-fatal stroke shortly after he did so. He certainly would not have allowed their massive militarization to take place unchecked, leading to two wars with Hamass, and their countless rockets and missiles, in less than a decade. His fellow hawk, Yitzak Rabin, would also likely have considered his Oslo accords an abject failure. Begin had Sadat, an Egyptian president, not a Palestinian terrorist. And Sadat got a hell of a deal from Begin, one no other Israeli PM could ever hope to match: Sinai (all 23,500 square miles). Just for promising not to launch another war he would certainly lose (again).

Oh yes, and two of these four characters, Sadat and Rabin, were assassinated for their efforts. Try to keep your wishful thinking out of it, Barack.

I am a serial admirer of Prime Minister Netanyahu—I would swap our nations’ leaders faster than you could say “hand me a five iron”. But I am also open about his faults. Most of those have to do with asking how high when Obama says jump.

Which the Obamagruppenfuhrers acknowledge even as they poke needles into his effigy:

I ran this notion by another senior official who deals with the Israel file regularly. This official agreed that Netanyahu is a “chickenshit” on matters related to the comatose peace process, but added that he’s also a “coward” on the issue of Iran’s nuclear threat. The official said the Obama administration no longer believes that Netanyahu would launch a preemptive strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities in order to keep the regime in Tehran from building an atomic arsenal. “It’s too late for him to do anything. Two, three years ago, this was a possibility. But ultimately he couldn’t bring himself to pull the trigger. It was a combination of our pressure and his own unwillingness to do anything dramatic. Now it’s too late.”

So, when he doesn’t do what you want, he’s a chicken[bleep]; and when he does do what you want (as above), he’s also a chicken[bleep].

Doesn’t that qualify as unadulterated bull[bleep]? It has to.

But then, this is their point of view, not mine. Certainly not Netanyahu’s.

Theirs and the author’s:

It is the Netanyahu government that appears to be disconnected from reality. Jerusalem is on the verge of exploding into a third Palestinian uprising. It is true that Jews have a moral right to live anywhere they want in Jerusalem, their holiest city. It is also true that a mature government understands that not all rights have to be exercised simultaneously.

Kind of Goldberg, presumably Jewish, to grant Jews the liberty to live (or not) in Jerusalem. Thousands of years late, but better late than never.

There’s so much more I could say, but the point is clear. This means war.

Comments

Jews Out of Jerusalem—American Foreign Policy

I’m no ingenue, but I can barely believe the words I’m reading:

The United States Monday blasted Israel for pledging to build 1,000 more Jewish homes in Jerusalem, saying any such move would be “incompatible” with peace efforts, according to AFP.

State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said Washington was “deeply concerned” by the reports and American embassy officials were having high-level talks with Israeli leaders to seek more information.

“We continue to make our position absolutely clear that we view settlement activity as illegitimate and unequivocally oppose unilateral steps that prejudge the future of Jerusalem,” Psaki told reporters.

“Israel’s leaders have said they would support a pathway to a two-state solution, but moving forward with this type of action would be incompatible with the pursuit of peace,” she added.

Jews living in Jerusalem: “incompatible with the pursuit of peace”. If that’s how you define peace, you can shove it up your “illegitimate and unequivocal” ass.

Imagine this administration condemning black families buying buildings in white neighborhoods and moving in. Imagine them saying this sort of thing after the black families were threatened with violence and then met it face to face. Imagine them saying it after two Jewish people (or black in this scenario, one a baby) were murdered by a Hamass operative (white supremacist) who ran them over with his car.

Yet they don’t hesitate saying it about Jews.

Speaking of Israeli apartheid:

Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon was denied meetings with top American officials during his visit to the United States this week, The Associated Press (AP) reported on Friday, citing officials in Washington.

While Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon did see Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power, the officials said the White House and State Department rejected Israeli proposals for meetings with Vice President Joe Biden, national security adviser Susan Rice and Secretary of State John Kerry.

The officials also revealed that the Obama administration had sought to stop Ya’alon from seeing Power, but the objections were made too late to cancel the meeting.

I don’t dispute a single thing Ya’alon said—indeed, I’d go further—but you can’t expect them to be happy you said it. No one, not least me, said pettiness and thin-skin were not an integral part of politics.

Comments

« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »