The Jewish New Year marks 5772 years of history.
---
I have a host of liberal friends who berated GW for seeking from the Justice Department approval for tracking terrorist communications. Now we have the Obama Administration's AttackWatch.Com twitter idea tracking citizens who might consider their ideas flawed at best, loony at worst.
The Fed has announced their own version of 'trickle down economics' called operation twist. One problem with this approach is that by artificially driving down interest rates the Fed would also reduce the value of their own portfolio holdings of $2 trillion in U.S. debt.
What the Fed is doing is buying bonds from the government in order to flood the economy with money in the vague hope it will stimulate consumers to spend as interest rates drop. In other words, The Fed wants Americans to spend and not save. I thought, since we are facing rainy days economically speaking, you are supposed to save for that eventuality.
Again when Conservatives sought approaches that had a trickle down component they were castigated for being heartless and uncaring.
We all know from various authors and books I have cited, when Liberals say it is so that's it. The mere pronouncement falling from their knowledgeable lips is proof enough of the veracity of their ideas - ipso facto!
I have always believed satire is a powerful weapon and PJTV.Com is among the best.
"Watch:TRIFECTA: Attack Watch! Obama's Socialist Agenda Targets Free Speech
Know someone who dares not to support Obama? The Obama campaign wants you to report this person to Attack Watch. Hear what Trifecta thinks about Obama's efforts to have you report anti-Obama speech to a central website. Should you be scared by the Obama campaign's intimidation tactics? Find out."
and, then if you believe Obama's sanctions will bring Iran's nuclear program to its knees watch this interview.
Yes, sanctions have been effective, up to a point, but they fall short of what could be accomplished if made tougher and are only part of a larger and more comprehensive approach which Obama and his advisers seem unwilling to take. Obama, the half measure president!
"Watch: THE IRANIAN TIMEBOMB: Iranian Sanctions: Silver Bullet or Silver Shrapnel?
Mark Dubowitz of DefendDemocracy.org joins Dr. Ledeen to discuss the effects of Iranian sanctions. The Iranian economy is in trouble, and Iran is having difficulty realizing the full wealth of its oil and gas reserves. Can world energy prices withstand a complete sanction on Iranian crude? Find out."
---
Now lets hear from Barry Rubin on Obama's 'Muddle' East foreign policy blunders.
Yesterday I cited a defender of Obama's policies and the more I think about what a disaster Obama has created in The Middle East and for Israel. It reminds me of a guy who attacks a young girl gets her pregnant and then expects to be forgiven if he buys the layette!
In essence Obama considers Israeli settlements are more dangerous to world peace than Iran's nuclear program. God save us from such abject incompetency. (See 1 below.)
---
Lets see what bleeding hearts have to say about Gov. Scott in Florida. (See 2 below.)
---
Kicking the ball down the road. Will the Arab Street now dictate the direction? (See 3 below.)
---
Democrat operatives may wish Obama would depart but I doubt they will be able to remove and/or challenge him because black supporters would desert in droves. Has the slave (black voters) enslaved the master (Democrat Party)? (See 4 and 4a below.)
---
The hypocrisy of Jimmy Carter calling Israel an apartheid nation yet the 'Plains in the ass' approves of Palestinians having their own state.(See 5 below.)
---
He does not have a mustache but Erdogan has all the makings of this generation's Hitler. Why? Because Erdogan seeks to re-establish Turkey's glorious Ottoman Empire days and being the leading king maker in the Middle East. The road to Erdogan's dream runs through Jerusalem
He sees a weak American president as the perfect foil. By standing up to Obama, Erdogan gains credibility with the Arab Street.
Poor old Obama he has become the Rodney Dangerfield of politics. See 6 below.)
---
Finally, a dear friend and fellow memo reader sent me a video of a Representative from Texas discussing how we lump all our foreign aid requests in one bill. It is hilarious and I would e mail it but for some reason I cannot.
The Representative states there are about 192 countries in the world and we send foreign aid to 150 and military aid to the rest. Because the vote is up or down he points out we continue to send aid money to Egypt, Cuba, Venezuela for instance and he asserts these people and their leaders hate us, they burn our flags etc..
He then asks why do we pay them to hate us? He answers his own question by stating we should let them hate us on their own.
The Rep from Texas ends by asking why does The House not vote individually on the aid we give to each nation.
Makes sense to me so that is why it is not likely to happen.
---
Dick.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1)Barry Rubin's Analysis: Obama's Failed Mideast Policies
Think of how outrageous my headline is:
Destroying Western Interests in the Middle East, Helping Destabilize the Region, and Putting Millions of Lives in Jeopardy. Do you think that’s extremist, crazy, can’t be true because you’re not seeing that stuff in the New York Times? You must be a right-wing Republican, you say?
No, just a serious Middle East analyst.
The tenth anniversary of September 11, almost three years after Obama’s election, is a suitable time to confront this issue honestly and fully. So consider fairly and honestly the list of points below.
Egypt: Obama supported a revolution overthrowing a U.S. ally — rather than a smooth transition replacing the dictator and instituting some reform without dropping the entire regime — disregarding State Department advice and not even consulting with Jordan, Israel, or Saudi Arabia! He also unilaterally announced his readiness to see the Muslim Brotherhood in power. His analysts denied that the Brotherhood is a radical, anti-American Islamist organization that supports terrorism. The resulting dangerous crisis, including Egypt becoming a new type of Iran, is now clear to all.
Israeli-Palestinian Peace Process: By distancing himself from Israel, removing all pressure from the Palestinians, unilaterally proposing a freeze of Israeli construction on settlements, and repeatedly messing up the effort to restart negotiations, Obama made the peace process situation worse. His failure to handle properly the Palestinian UN unilateral independence bid has put U.S. policy in a terrible mess, with an American veto leading to large-scale anti-Americanism and probable violence both by Palestinians against Israel and by Muslims against the United States.
Israel: The damage the Obama administration did to Israel was not in bilateral relations or even in the “peace process,” but by its role in the deterioration of the regional situation to a dangerous extent. As a result, the two most powerful regional powers that had decent relations with Israel — Egypt and Turkey — turned around 180 degrees; Hamas’ rule was entrenched in the Gaza Strip; and Hizballah’s rule was entrenched in Lebanon. That’s four of Israel’s “neighbors” that became effectively hostile while the Obama administration didn’t even notice. As the level of threat rose, U.S. political-diplomatic support for Israel declined.
Turkey: As Turkey continued to move toward being a repressive Islamist state allied with revolutionary Islamism, the U.S. government didn’t notice. Farcically, it promoted the ”Turkish model” and made Turkey its mediator over Syria’s future!
Lebanon: As Lebanon fell under Syria-Iran-Hizballah control, the Obama administration did nothing. It failed to support the moderates and so they surrendered.
Syria: The administration pursued the factually ridiculous effort to pull Syria away from Iran and engaged it even as Damascus escalated its support for terrorism, aggression toward Lebanon, killing Americans in Iraq, and then repressing its own people.
Gaza: The administration gave Hamas indirect aid, made no serious effort to overthrow a radical, anti-American, genocidal-oriented regime, and pressed Israel to reduce sanctions to a minimum. This ensured the survival and strengthening of a pro-terrorist revolutionary Islamist state on the Mediterranean.
Saudi Arabia: Repeated slaps in the face and failure to confront advances by revolutionary Islamists — especially Iran and Syria, as well as abandonment of Mubarak — disgusted this ally. Seeing U.S. weakness, it concluded it has to take care of itself
Iran: After wasting a long time in engagement, the administration finally (at the slowest possible speed) did push sanctions. Yet it still has no strategy for opposing Iran’s non-nuclear methods of subverting neighbors and expanding its influence.
Danger: Obama failed to realize it or to define properly friends and enemies.
Leadership: Despite being begged by different allies, the Obama administration failed to demonstrate leadership.
Empowering Islamism: In his Cairo speech and thereafter, Obama emphasized the Muslim identity of Middle Easterners thus undermining Arab identity and nationalism. [RG Note: In his Cairo speech, while Mubarak was still in power, Obama insisted on inviting leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood to attend his presentation]
Endangering the lives of American soldiers and civilians: By refusing to allow a proper analysis of Islamism and terrorism. Consider, for example, the Fort Hood attack in which Americans were killed because military officers feared to do their job lest it hurt their promotions.
Libya: Obama entered a war without any strategy for what would happen after Gaddafi fell or any knowledge of who he was helping to promote as the new leadership.
Rejection of basic diplomatic principles: Supporting friends and punishing enemies; credibility; deterrence; coherent strategy.
What’s important is the result, not whether you think this has been caused by incompetence, arrogance, a thirst for popularity over responsibility, ideology, a personal antipathy toward Israel (it shouldn’t be exaggerated but it’s there), lack of experience, choosing advisors badly, or ignorance among them. I don’t think it’s been deliberate, but what’s shocking is to have a policy so bad that many do.
There is nothing inevitably Democratic or liberal about these failings. No previous president or administration — even that of Jimmy Carter — comes close to having so many dangerous failures. Nor is it inevitably a product of Washington, as the State and Defense Departments gave him some good intelligence and advice which, if followed, would have greatly reduced the extent of the problems.
You can cheer Obama’s continued strategic cooperation with Israel, sanctions on Iran, and engagement in Libya. You can place blame on Obama’s predecessor or chant, “Obama killed Osama” and not tireless American intelligence operatives or courageous Navy SEALs. But after all the rationalizations, won’t you admit that the situation is still truly shocking?
The American people, Middle East allies, US. interests, and the world generally cannot afford another four years of misjudgment and reckless endangerment. Can Obama be trusted to deal with a nuclear-armed Iran, a radical Egypt supporting Hamas, a Turkish regime screaming about fighting Israel, a Palestinian movement that has thrown away any diplomatic alternative?
I leave jobs and the economy, medical care, and such to others. On Middle East issues, however, Obama has failed dangerously and badly. He has ignored chances to learn from experience. American national interests require that he be defeated in the next election.
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are "The Israel-Arab Reader" (seventh edition), "The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East" (Wiley), and "The Truth About Syria" (Palgrave-Macmillan).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) Florida is the first state requiring drug testing to receive welfare!
Hooray for Florida !!!!
In signing the new law, Republican Gov. Rick Scott said, "If Floridians want welfare, they better make sure they are drug-free.
Applicants who test positive for illicit substances won't be eligible for the funds for a year, or until they undergo treatment.
Those who fail a second time would be banned from receiving funds for three years!
Naturally, a few people are crying this is unconstitutional.
How is this unconstitutional ?
It's completely legal that every other working people have to pass drug tests in order to get a J-O-B which supports those on welfare!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3) No big UN showdown on Palestinian state this week. West Bank flare-up close
Accounts of the big diplomatic showdown facing the United Nations when the Palestinian bid for statehood is filed Friday, Sept. 23 have been blown up and overdramatized . Neither the Security Council nor the UN General Assembly will be making any immediate decisions this week and US President Barack Obama will not be called on as yet to veto the Palestinian application. Therefore the dispute over which side can muster the magic majority of nine members is premature.
UN Secretary Ban Ki-moon and the United States, which holds the key to the tussle, have arranged to put the Palestinian application on hold – or more diplomatically, under consideration, a process which could consume weeks if not months - before it is referred to the Security Council.
In the volatile Middle East, a couple of months are a long time; Arab uprisings have demonstrated how much can happen in a short period.
After the Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu deliver their speeches on Friday, the General Assembly is not expected to get right down to debating the Palestinian request. It will most likely be held in abeyance for the next session. A special session might be summoned in the interim, but that is the UN Secretary General's prerogative and he normally makes these decisions in consultation with the White House.
Therefore, the real diplomatic battle over the Palestinian drive for UN acceptance will not take place this week in the GA chamber where the speeches are made, but in Washington. The Obama administration has absurdly been maneuvered, or maneuvered itself, into the lead role for defeating the Palestinian claim for an independent state within the 1967 borders.
The high point of Obama's May 19 address on the Middle East was a call for Israel to accept a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders. He refrained from a demand to demilitarize the prospective state. Five months later, he is bending every ounce of diplomatic leverage to prevent the Security Council from approving a Palestinian state's acceptance by the world body.
O
bama's path to this quandary was littered with missteps. His ultimatum to the Netanyahu government to halt settlement construction on the West Bank was later abandoned but it had meanwhile been hijacked by Abbas as his main pretext for rejecting direct talks with Israel and turning to the UN.
Further US weakness was displayed in the Middle East Quartet's inability to reach a decision this week on how to deal with the diplomatic crisis posed by the Palestinian bid.
Composed of representatives from the US, Russia, the European Union and the UN, the Quartet used to be the supreme body for shaping international consensus on the Israel-Palestinian conflict. This time, Washington's lead was not strong enough to pull the parties together and, moreover, the US and Europe are discovering they are beginning to pay for their involvement through NATO in the Libyan conflict.
Russia is playing hard to get and deliberately slowing the momentum of Middle East diplomacy in protest against what Moscow sees as US and European participation in the conquest of Libya, which has gone well beyond their UN Security Council mandate. The Russians were also obstructive on the Syrian issue. They torpedoed every Security Council resolution penalizing and condemning Bashar Assad for his barbaric methods in suppressing dissent, maintaining they would not allow the West to repeat its Libya scenario in Syria.
Now, Moscow is trying to trap the United States into exercising its Security Council veto power against the Palestinian application for UN membership, in order to support its claim that Washington maintains a double standard on the Middle East - defeating Palestinian independence on the one hand and preaching the Arab peoples' rights to oust their rulers in the name of independence, on the other.
Moscow, partnered actively by Mahmoud Abbas, would thus aim to strip the United States of its last vestiges of credibility in the Arab world.
With no exit from this predicament, Washington and Jerusalem are resorting to the language of threats.
The Palestinians are warned by White House sources that unless they withdraw their application for UN recognition, they will face severe measures. They were given to understand that the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah stood to lose all or part of the half-billion dollars of its annual aid allocation.
Israeli Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz also warned Tuesday, Sept. 20, that Israel would consider halting the transfer of customs revenues to the PA.
Abbas and his party are putting a brave face on these threats. They say loss of income will not deter them from their drive for UN acceptance. The Palestinians say their Arab allies have pledged to make up any shortfall sustained in consequence of their UN initiative.
But they know as well as anyone that no Arab government aside from Saudi Arabia and some of the Arab Gulf emirates will make good on those pledges because they are all wholly preoccupied with the unrest sweeping their streets and have no time or cash to spare for the Palestinians.
Once the Abbas initiative is seen to be hanging fire, the situation on Palestinian home ground could turn nasty.
Ramallah, Wednesday, Sept. 21, saw the first large Palestinian gathering of several marches and rallies scheduled for the coming days to celebrate their approaching independence.
These demonstrations of joy, financed by Abbas and his associates out of the PA's half-empty coffers, are scheduled to climax with his speech Friday and roll on into Saturday.
However, once the penny drops and the Palestinian request is seen to be held up, these rallies may turn to violence against the security forces fielded both by Abbas and Israel to keep them within bounds and out of Israeli locations.
It is more than likely that Hamas, which rules the separate Palestinian Gaza Strip, the Islamic Jihad and Hizballah - both Iranian proxies – will turn the crowded streets into stages for mounting terrorist activity, without even waiting for instructions from Tehran and Damascus.
They would aim not just to punish Israel but to torpedo the Palestinian UN initiative which the rejectionists and extremists regard as a forbidden compromise on their claim to every inch of Palestinian soil and Israel's removal. They would also seek to challenge the credibility and potency of the Palestinian leader and his US-trained security legions.
This outlook will be further exacerbated when the Palestinian Authority, deprived of aid funds, cannot pay wages to civil and security personnel. Without pay, they may well vent their frustrations on the Palestinian Authority heads, especially Abbas, and Israel. No one can tell whether Syria, where Assad is in the last stages of suppressing the uprising against his regime, and Iran - through Hizballah, Hamas and Jihad Islami – will intervene.
With these fraught prospects in mind, it is no wonder that the Israeli Prime Minister delayed his takeoff for New York by 45 minutes Wednesday morning for an urgent conference at the airport with Chief of Staff Lieutenant General Benny Gantz.
Later Wednesday, he has an appointment at UN Center with President Obama.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)Will Scandal Drive Obama Off the 2012 Ticket?
By Monty Pelerin
President Obama will not run in 2012. That prediction seems reasonable in light of the following:
1.His presidency is in shambles, shriveling up before our eyes.
2.His political poll numbers continue to weaken.
3.Unemployment remains stubbornly high for a period of time not seen since the Great Depression.
4.The economy is listless, consumer sentiment is in the sewer, foreclosures are ratcheting up, and the next financial crisis appears near.
5.No economic variable has improved; some continue to worsen.
6.The nation risks sovereign bankruptcy as a result of Obama's out-of-control spending.
7.Obama is out of ideas and obviously well beyond his depth.
Every time Obama speaks, he shows himself as more out of touch with the country, its people, and their needs. He is an obvious embarrassment to many. He has alienated independents and even some liberals. He now appears to have adopted a strategy to appeal to the most radical in his party.
Either he is trying to avoid a shut-out in the coming election by locking up some small number of votes or he is delusional. Seasoned Democrats are dumbfounded by his performance, seeming to believe the delusional possibility. Radicals have already rejected him and threaten to run a candidate in the primaries.
Despite everything above, Obama intends to run in 2012. None of this fazes the Narcissist-In-Chief. He needs the spotlight like most of us need oxygen. The "messiah," or the self-proclaimed "One," does not see these problems. If he does, they are mere details, trivialities, nothing that cannot be silver-tongued away.
The reality is that Obama is spent. His false magic is no longer. He has become a cartoon figure to many Americans and more foreigners. Familiarity has produced contempt. He is a fraud, a man who never was anything other than a carefully scripted and wonderfully executed marketing campaign.
The product, however, doesn't work. Marketing made the first sale, but success is repeated only if the product performs. Snake oil is never purchased a second time. Instead of the brilliant problem-solving uniter much of the nation believed they were buying, they got an incompetent, small, and not likeable mountebank.
Mr. Obama lives in his own world, surrounded by sycophants. They undoubtedly know his run is over and that he no longer fools most of the people. Yet they are afraid to tell him. We are witnessing a modern-day political tragedy, not unlike the one that occurred with Richard Nixon.
Obama sees none of this. It probably has never entered his mind that he is a failure or will not run. His supporters, namely the Democrat Party and the mainstream media, will intervene. Their survival and credibility demands it. There will come a "meeting with Nixon" moment. If that fails, and it is very likely, Obama will be destroyed by one or both of these two groups.
Interests of the Democratic Party
The political environment is horrible for Democrats. Obama's policies, ineptitude, and unpopularity are responsible for much of this. Many elected Democrats are afraid for their political careers. Obama is increasingly seen as an albatross in the coming election.
Previously unthinkable election "upsets" have occurred -- the loss of the "Kennedy Seat" in Massachusetts was the first. The 2010 election was a rout. Subsequent special elections affirmed that the trend continues. Jonah Goldberg commented on the most recent result: the seat that once belonged to Geraldine Ferraro, Chuck Schumer, and Anthony Weiner went to Republican Bob Turner -- the first time it has gone Republican since 1923.
The idea of Obama resigning for the good of the party has been raised. Steve Chapman of the Chicago Tribune said:
Obama might do his party a big favor. In hard times, voters have a powerful urge to punish incumbents. He could slake this thirst by stepping aside and taking the blame. Then someone less reviled could replace him at the top of the ticket.
About a year ago I predicted political cannibalism:
The next two years will be hard on Obama. As much as he is hated by freedom-lovers in the country, it is likely that he will be hated more by his remaining Democrats. The Party is in tatters. It is in danger of disappearing as a political entity as a result of following this false prophet. This Pied Piper, instead of getting the American people to follow, led Democrat politicians to their political death. The survivors will not forget, nor will they continue to march to the tune of this false savior.
We are about to witness politics at its ugliest. It will be Republicans against Democrats of course. But that will be less intriguing than the Democrats against Obama. Political survival trumps loyalty. If Obama is as ineffectual as I believe he will be, he will be devoured by angry Democrats anxious to avenge the political deaths of their comrades.
We have reached this point. Democrats have the motive to get rid of Obama, but do they have the means?
The Solyndra Affair
Solyndra, the "green energy" failure, is an example of how Obama could be leveraged out of office. Chicago-style politics suggests that there may be other "Solyndras" in the closet.
Reuters described Solyndra as follows:
The bankruptcy of solar-panel maker Solyndra neatly encapsulates the economic, political and intellectual bankruptcy of Barack Obama's Big Idea. It was the president's intention back in 2009 to begin centrally reorganizing the U.S. economy around the supposed climate-change crisis.
Even after getting the loan, Solyndra spent $187,000 on lobbying efforts, according to Bloomberg, including trying to get the White House to push government agencies to install its panels on the rooftops of federal buildings and extend "buy American" rules that favor U.S. companies. Instead of revenue-seeking, Solyndra was "rent-seeking," which means trying to make money by manipulating government.
Andrew C. McCarthy described Solyndra as criminal fraud:
The Solyndra debacle is not just Obama-style crony socialism as usual. It is a criminal fraud. That is the theory that would be guiding any competent prosecutor's office in the investigation of a scheme that cost victims - in this case, American taxpayers - a fortune.
The magnitude of the Solyndra loss needs investigation. The mood of the country demands it. Taxpayers are furious about Washington wasting their money and indebting their children. This company represents one half-billion wasted, under questionable circumstances. How many other similar "deals" might be heading for the same fate?
Political chicanery of this magnitude and in these times will not be ignored. The FBI jumped in early. According to Politico other investigations are underway:
There are at least four investigations running on the legal, political and financial ties between the Obama administration and the California solar company that filed for bankruptcy protection last month.
It is likely that Solyndra contains enough incriminating information for Congress to force Obama from office (see Zerohedge, especially the slide show). Potentially there are other Solyndras out there.
Congressional Investigations
Congressional investigations are typically held for little more than Washington tourists. When a president is suspected of extreme stupidity or a crime, it is conventional for his party to do everything possible to thwart the investigation. Bill Clinton was an example of that.
Democrats would like to rid themselves of Albatross Obama. Under normal circumstances it might not be possible without risking the alienation of key constituencies. A criminal investigation, however, provides the opportunity for modern-day regicide.
The Solyndra investigation(s) will be different, because congressional Democrats view their situation as worse if they protect the man than if he is dumped. So Solyndra or a counterpart will be a bipartisan investigative effort. Democrats might have incentives to be even more aggressive in pursuit of the truth than Republicans. None of this will be driven by the pursuit of justice or the Rule of Law. It will be driven by political self-interest.
Appearing tough in the investigation would serve to distance Democrats from their titular head. If there is a smoking gun, Democrats will pursue it. If they see an opportunity to take out the king, they may go for it. If there is a "smoking gun," this will end more like a Richard Nixon than a Bill Clinton.
The Media
Barack Obama won the Democrat nomination because the mainstream media adopted him and went out of their way to ensure that he, rather than Hillary Clinton, won. As expressed by the Rex Murphy:
American journalism will have to look back at the period starting with Barrack Obama's rise, his assumption of the presidency and his conduct in it to the present, and ask itself how it came to cast aside so many of its vital functions. In the main, the establishment American media abandoned its critical faculties during the Obama campaign and it hasn't reclaimed them since.
As a result, the press gave the great American republic an untried, unknown, and, it is becoming more and more frighteningly clear, incompetent figure as president. Under Obama, America's foreign policies are a mixture of confusion and costly impotence. They are increasingly bypassed or derided; the great approach to the Muslim world, symbolized by the Cairo speech, is in tatters. America's debt and deficits are a weight on the entire global economy. And the office of presidency is less and less a symbol of strength.
To the degree the press neglected its function as watchdog and turned cupbearer to a styrofoam demigod, it is a partner in the flaws and failures of what is turning out to be one of the most miserable performances in the modern history of the American presidency.
A tipping point appears to have been reached in the last month or so. The myth of Obama has ended. There is now open talk from the media that Obama cannot win in 2012.
Just as Democrats don't want a pariah at the top of the ticket, many in the media do not want to continue plugging what is obviously a failed candidate. The protective shield that existed is being dismantled. The press is more interested in saving what credibility they have left, rather than justifying an increasingly indefensible and broken presidency.
Investigative reporting, so obviously missing when Obama was The Next Coming, is likely to be cranked up. The media will fully cover any official investigations. Furthermore, entrepreneurs within their ranks and within the internet community are likely to focus on filling in the blanks in Obama's missing past.
The attraction of being the next Woodward or Bernstein is strong. Now that it is acceptable to attack, if not destroy, the fallen hero, look for lots of new information to come out. The chance to "change history" is an overpowering incentive for cub and seasoned reporters.
This is a very dangerous time for the president. Two of his two biggest supporters have incentives to remove him from office.
Any investigations are likely to be real. That does not mean that President Obama is not getting a fair shake. His problem is that justice, for all the wrong reasons, will be getting a fair shake. That is usually fatal for politicians under investigation.
Loyalty in politics starts and stops with personal self-interest. The old saying, "If you want a friend in Washington, get a dog," still holds. Obama has few friends, even in his own party. Fortunately he has a dog. I hope it likes him, because most of the country no longer does.
How does it end? My guess is that investigations go forward and are used to leverage Obama out of office. He will "choose" not to run for reelection. He understands Chicago-style politics, even when he is on the wrong end.
His psyche is such that he must be loved, if not worshiped, and that will never be again, at least not in this country.
4a)Solving the Democrats' Obama Problem
By Hershel M. Chicowitz
The worst-kept secret in Washington, D.C. is that Democrats are desperate to find a way to ease Barack Obama out of running for reelection, so Hillary Clinton can receive the nomination so carelessly denied her in 2008. But how do you convince a failed narcissist to get out of the way so the grown-ups can take back the party? And how do you keep the most loyal and important voting bloc, blacks, within the tent, while shoving aside the first black president?
On Friday, September 16, Rush Limbaugh said that if the Democratic establishment want to get rid of Obama, they must appeal to his ego and convince him to go on his own. Rush has read Obama's ego perfectly, and here is roughly how it could be handled.
Hillary Clinton, loyal Democrat that she is, has remained totally silent in public over her boss's floundering. But behind the scenes, she is or soon will be scrambling from one nation's capital to another, whispering in the ears of world leaders. Late in the winter, her hard work pays off handsomely.
Moon Rescue!
In early March, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon delivers a passionate address focusing on a new problem facing our world: collapsing currencies. In its wake, the traditional problems of poverty, disease, civil strife, unemployment, and social justice have gotten worse. To deal with these massive problems, in coordination with leaders of 30 major countries, he announces the establishment of a worldwide organizing and coordinating institutional body to manage the affairs of the world's leading economies. To the contemporary American liberal mindset, such an organization would have great appeal, as a way of keeping in check the selfish America of which they are so ashamed. To them, it would enjoy legitimacy higher than the U.N., the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and even the National Football League. It would direct programs requiring resources and responses of the world's richest countries. They must pay their fair share. (Sound familiar?)
In the biggest surprise of the century, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon nominates President Barack Obama to lead this organization. He sees Barack Obama as the perfect (and indeed, the only) choice to be the first prime minister of the World Social Order Federation, which will formally begin operation in February 2013.
Shortly after this speech by the U.N. leader, Barack Obama and his Teleprompter announce to the country that solely because of the awesome responsibility thrust upon him, he most regretfully has decided not run for reelection as president of the United States. In the same speech, Barack and his Teleprompter announce his endorsement of...drum roll, please...Hillary Clinton to succeed him as president.
(Vice President Joe Biden, true to his style, responds, "This is a big f'in' deal!")
As the head of this new governing body, Barack Obama will have an unlimited budget, unlimited authority, and no Congress to thwart his plans. His term of office is indefinite. He will have to answer to no one. (And the billion dollars in his campaign chest -- it is all his!)
Whew! Talk about "king of the world"!
For the first time in her life, Michelle Obama is truly proud of her world.
Of course, this is an offer that The Hillary can't refuse. With the endorsement of Barack Obama, she can say she was called back into elective politics. ("I keep trying to get out; they keep pulling me back in.") She runs (and wins) without angering a certain large and loyal voting constituency. And Bill is green with envy -- not at Hillary, but at Barack Obama! "That's the job I wanted!" He can't get over it.
It's a win-win-win for the formerly beleaguered First Lady.
Happy days are here again, indeed!
Everybody wins (on the left).
Hillary Clinton finds a way to jump over Barack Obama without looking like a racist. Barack Obama finds a perfect way to avoid a humiliating loss, and yet get what he could not obtain as president.
And the Democrats, having elected the first two black presidents (Barack Obama and Bill Clinton), elect the first female president, too.
If I had to make a prediction, at this date, I'd still put my chips on Mr. Yes-We-Can to take out the opposition and remain in the White House for four more years. But I think that my scenario is a real possibility...a lot more likely than a comeback by Brett Favre.
Hershel M. Chicowitz is Boomer-in-Charge, Baby Boomer HeadQuarters www.bbhq.com.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------5)The United Nations Should Not Recognize an Apartheid, Judenrein, Islamic Palestine
by Alan M. Dershowitz
The United Nations is being asked to grant the Palestinians the status of a "state," for at least some purposes. The question arises what kind of a state will it be? In an effort to attract Western support, the Palestinian Authority claims that it will become another "secular democratic state." Hamas, which won the last parliamentary election, disagrees. It wants Palestine to be a Muslim state governed by Sharia Law.
We know what the Palestinian leadership is saying to the West. Now let's look at what its saying to its own people, who will, after all, be the ultimate decision makers if Palestine is indeed a democracy.
The draft constitution for the new state of Palestine declares that "Islam is the official religion in Palestine." It also states that Sharia Law will be "the major source of legislation." It is ironic that the same Palestinian leadership which supports these concepts for Palestine refuses to acknowledge that Israel is the nation state of the Jewish people. Israel, in contrast to the proposed Palestinian state, does not have an official state religion. Although it is a Jewish state, that description is not a religious one but rather a national one. It accords equal rights to Islam, Christianity and all other religions, as well as to atheists and agnostics. Indeed, a very high proportion of Israelis describe themselves as secular.
The new Palestinian state would prohibit any Jews from being citizens, from owning land or from even living in the Muslim state of Palestine. The Ambassador of the PLO to the United States was asked during an interview whether "any Jew who is inside the borders of Palestine will have to leave?" His answer: "Absolutely!" After much criticism, the Ambassador tried to spin his statement, saying that it applied only to Jews "who are amid the occupation." Whatever that means, one thing is clear: large numbers of Jews will not be welcome to remain in Islamic Palestine as equal citizens. In contrast, Israel has more than 1 million Arab citizens, most of whom are Muslims. They are equal under the law, except that they need not serve in the Israeli army.
The new Palestine will have the very "law of return" that it demands that Israel should give up. All Palestinians, no matter where they live and regardless of whether they have ever set foot in Palestine, will be welcome to the new state, while a Jew whose family has lived in Hebron for thousands of years will be excluded.
To summarize, the new Palestinian state will be a genuine apartheid state. It will practice religious and ethnic discrimination, it will have one official religion and it will base its laws on the precepts of one religion. Imagine what the status of gays will be under Sharia law!
Palestinian leadership accuses Israel of having roads that are limited only to Jews. This is entirely false: a small number of roads on the West Bank are restricted to Israelis, but they are equally open to Israeli Jews, Muslims and Christians alike. The entire state of Palestine will have a "no Jews allowed" sign on it.
It is noteworthy that the very people who complain most loudly about Israel's law of return and about its character as the nation state of the Jewish people, are silent when it comes to the new Palestinian state. Is it that these people expect more of Jews than they do of Muslims? If so, is that not a form of racism?
What would the borders of a Palestinian state look like if the Palestinians got their way without the need to negotiate with Israel? The Palestinians would get, as a starting point, all of the land previously occupied by Jordan prior to the 1967 War, in which Jordan attacked Israel. This return to the status quo that led to the 6 Day War is inconsistent with the intention of Security Council Resolution 242, which contemplated some territorial changes.
The new boundaries of this Palestinian state would include Judaism's holiest place, the Western Wall. It would also include the access roads to Hebrew University, which Jordan used to close down this great institution of learning founded by the Jews nearly 100 years ago. The new Palestinian state would also incorporate the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem, in which Jews have lived for 3000 years, except for those periods of time during which they were expelled by force.
It is contemplated, of course, that Israel would regain these areas as part of a land swap with the Palestinians. But there is no certainty that the Palestinians would agree to a reasonable land swap. Palestinian leaders have already said that they would hold these important and sacred sites hostage to unreasonable demands. For example, the Western Wall covers only a few acres, but the Palestinian leadership has indicated that these acres are among the most valuable in the world, and in order for Israel to regain them, they would have to surrender thousands of acres. The same might be true of the access road to Hebrew University and the Jewish Quarter.
When Jordan controlled these areas, the Jordanian government made them Judenrein—Jews could not pray at the Western Wall, visit the Jewish Quarter, or have access to Hebrew University. There is no reason to believe that a Palestinian state would treat Jews any differently if they were to maintain control over these areas.
An Apartheid, Islamic, Judenrein Palestine on the 1967 borders is a prescription for disaster. That is why a reasonable Palestinian state must be the outcome of negotiations with Israel, and not the result of a thoughtless vote by the United Nations.
The Palestinians and Israeli leaders are now in New York. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has offered to sit down and negotiate, with no preconditions, a realistic peace based on a two-state solution. President Abbas should accept that offer, which will actually get the Palestinians a viable state rather than a cheap paper victory that will raise expectations but lower the prospects for real peace
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------6)Turkey's Erdogan: Mideast Troublemaker
By Jack Rosen
The prime minister has turned his back on America and demonized Israel.
The decades-long alliance between Turkey and Israel is in shambles, and American diplomats are working overtime to fix what's broken. Conventional wisdom holds that the differences between Ankara and Jerusalem can be repaired, that their shared interests are too important to allow the relationship to wither.
But what if conventional wisdom is wrong? What if Turkey finds its increasingly adversarial stance toward Israel so politically advantageous that Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan actually seeks to stoke the fire?
The event that led to the current conflict was the Turkish flotilla that attempted to break Israel's blockade of Gaza in May 2010. Turkey initially said it would abide by the ruling of a United Nations commission set up to determine what happened. The commission's report, released on Sept. 2, noted that Israel is within its legal rights to impose a blockade against Gaza. Turkey says the report is worthless and continues to demand an apology, even though Israel repeatedly has said it regrets the loss of life as its forces responded in self-defense.
Moreover, Turkey has promised to send more flotillas, accompanied by the Turkish navy, which Mr. Erdogan insists will assume a more aggressive profile throughout the eastern Mediterranean. The military threats from Turkey have extended to preventing Israel from drilling for oil and gas off its own coast. Mr. Erdogan chose Gaza long ago as the hook on which to hang his aggressive policies against Israel. After thousands of rocket attacks, and civilians demanding an end to raising their children in bomb shelters, Israel's military finally responded with military force against the Iran-backed Hamas terrorist organization in late 2008. No leader criticized Israel more harshly than Mr. Erdogan, who created an international incident by insulting and then walking out on Israel's President Shimon Peres at the World Economic Forum in January 2009.
None of this is an accident. Since Mr. Erdogan and his AKP (Justice and Development Party) came to power a decade ago, Turkey has redirected its strategic thinking away from the United States and the West. The notion that Turkey will only go "so far" and will feel compelled, at the end of the day, to return to the West's fold, reflects wishful thinking.
Some are convinced that Turkey remains in the West's orbit, pointing to its willingness to host missile-defense facilities designed to thwart Iran. But engaging in a balancing act that buys Ankara credit in Washington while serving the strategic interest of diminishing its regional Iranian rival shows Turkey knows how to use the West to achieve its goals in the East.
Turkey sees its economic future in the East, having left the issue of European Union membership in its rearview mirror. Since the AKP won re-election handily in June, Mr. Erdogan feels he's in the driver's seat, with an enormous amount of political capital at his disposal. As recently revealed in a WikiLeaks document, Mr. Erdogan's foreign minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, talked about Turks as the "New Ottomans," the dominant player in the region.
Israel is the perfect foil for Turkey's ambitions, allowing Ankara to champion its Muslim credentials. It has made its assessment on the basis of costs versus benefits, and thrown Israel overboard. Leaders in Jerusalem and Washington need to conduct their own reassessment.
The U.S. has reached out to Turkey during the Erdogan era and received very little in return, starting with Ankara forbidding the U.S. Army's Third Infantry Division to enter Iraq overland through Turkey. Had that force worked its way south toward Baghdad in 2003, history might well have played out differently in terms of the strength of the Iraqi insurgency and its capacity to generate years of unrest and kill thousands of U.S. troops.
With no one willing to call Mr. Erdogan to account, his Islamist regime regularly bashes the press, narrows the parameters of civil liberties at home, and defends terrorists such as Hamas abroad. In return, President Obama traveled 5,000 miles to Ankara in 2009 to extol the virtues of the Erdogan regime.
For a change, when Turkey talks about flexing its muscles in the Mediterranean, the U.S. should remind Ankara that the U.S. has interests in the region, and that the Sixth Fleet is still in business. And Congress once and for all should remind Turkey that there is no statute of limitations on genocide. With Ankara so keen on seeking apologies, it's time we heard Turkey offer one for the massacres of a million or more Armenians during and after World War I, as well as an offer of reparations payments for Armenian families.
Turkey seems to think the U.S. no longer matters, that its own destiny as regional superpower is assured, and that no one can challenge its moralistic stance as it sits grandly in judgment of all its neighbors. Whether the U.S. can succeed in influencing Turkish behavior remains to be seen. But the days of going to the diplomatic table with a basket of carrots and no sticks must end.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment