Deciphering the Obama Doctrine. If Israel's concerns are simply 'noise' then Obama's appeasing words reach the level of cacophony.
For Obama to blithely dismiss Israel's concerns and describe them as noise tells a great deal about our president and his character. (See , 1a and 1b below.)
---
PJTV.COM discusses that entitlement thing: "
| WHAT'S NEW ON PJTV | |
|
Mitt Romney is getting hammered by the media for calling attention to America's growing handout culture. Will his off-the-cuff comments be catastrophic for his campaign, or is the GOP presidential candidate telling an important truth about entitlements in America? Terry Jones of Investors Business Daily and Elan Journo of the Ayn Rand Center join Allen Barton to discuss Romney’s comments and the nation’s entitlement problem."
---
CIO of Merk Investments does not believe The Fed can orchestrate a soft landing either. (See 2 below.)
---
My friend Stella Paul's feelings have been hurt. (See 3 below.)
Meanwhile, Obama has callously and crassly referred to recent radical Islamist pillaging and assassinations as a bump in the road. Those bumps number four and are the graves of men who tried to serve our country only to be left out to dry by the very agency and government they worked for and served admirably.
In one day our president has gone from irrelevant noise to bumps in the road. How elegant!
---
My friend Robbie Friedman has posed the $64,000 question. (See 4 below.)
---
Obama's Justice Department singles out Adelson. Why? Because he has been so generous with the opposition. More dirty tricks by Obama's Justice Department. (See 5 below.)
----
Fed up with Obama. Long time Democrat switching allegiance and vote. Read why. (See 6 below.)
---
Dick
|
The "brilliant" Hilary Clinton addressed the World by effectively taking the first slash at free speech. She did to the glee of, if not on behalf of the Islamists who want to kill American liberty. To even dignify the idiotically wrong intelligence that a video played any role was a fundamental betrayal of the American way. Her over the top rhetorical assault on speech that she referenced as "however hateful," was akin to blaming the victim for the rape. She was 100% wrong in reporting that the video was to blame. It is horrifying, and raises serious questions.1)Marxists and Muslims, United? Searching for ONE Good Liberal
- Gina Loudon
What IS the Obama doctrine? Is there a stated goal at all? How can he be against "nation-building" and our “policing the world,” and then justify turning around and creating no fly zones and launching missiles into sovereign nations?
I have long been troubled by the parallel tactics between the radical Islamists and Marxist-Leninists. Several factors in common begin with the basic demand (actually faithful belief) that the world will ultimately go their way and that the US is the only thing standing in their way. When you add that the "dog-eating" President holds the similar third world view--that the US is in the way of progress for "developing nations"--it is easy to see why he is sympathetic with these revolutions. That obtuse notion that one can gain only by repressing others was popularized by Marx and is taught in all of our Universities. That it is wrong, and is of no consequence to the liars who operate on it. Nevertheless, it is chilling to see an American President evidently uniting in purpose with Marxists and radical Islamists against the interests of our nation.
United in being our enemy, there is little doubt that both Marxists and Islamists love the tactic of creating conflict. This is a Leninist tactic based on the Marxian belief that nature moves toward order and that any chaos will set the stage for a result that will be better than what preceded it. So stir up enough useful idiots and you can set the stage for a crisis that you can "use". This is what we are seeing today all over North Africa and what is now spreading to Pakistan and beyond.
It is truly stunning to see this administration embarrass themselves with their mind-boggling displays of tone deafness, utter incompetence and subsequent deadpan delivery of corrections devoid of any apologies.
Obama is buffered by the mainstream media that protects him by refusing to question him on his failures. They prefer to viciously attack Romney on his words and not his policies. More troubling, is that while Obama's polices signal disaster for America, where is the liberal defense of the things true "liberals" used to care about like free speech, or free religious expression?
Are we to assume that Clinton, Obama and American intelligence rely on Libyan news reports about why an Embassy is attacked? Do we not have any intelligence on the ground? How about the beneficiaries of our military aid in support of their coups? Can these geniuses not get any intelligence from the leaders of these North African nations? How about some defense of our embassies? Obama’s failure to extract any dividends from his unilateral investment of American military resources into that much nation-building is either a stunning showing of utter incompetence, or a stunning revelation of his sinister goals.
Despite Obama's apparently concerted effort to relieve Jimmy Carter from his record as the most pathetically incompetent President in all aspects of policy foreign and domestic, the "47%" appear to be ready to re-elect him. That is possibly the reason to most be afraid. Could we actually have reached the tipping point of Senator Phil Gramm's metaphor in that those "riding in the wagon" outnumber those "pulling the wagon"?
What about the right of a Coptic Christian whose homeland has been stolen by 7th Century religious zealots to create a cheesy video about his view of the man the radicals are following? Whatever happened to their "willingness to defend to the death" the right of people to speak their minds?
Are there no honest liberals who will lead the criticism on this administration's witting or unwitting aid in the expansion of religious zealotry and destruction of free speech?
Not one?
1a) RJC: Israeli Concerns Over Iran Are Not "Noise"
Washington, D.C. (September 24, 2012) -- The Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC) commented today on remarks by Pres. Barack Obama in a "60 Minutes" interview that aired last night.
When asked about Israel's concerns about the very real threat of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons, Pres. Obama dismissed them as "noise."
RJC Executive Director Matt Brooks responded:
"The urgent and well-founded concerns of Israel about the continuing Iranian nuclear arms program are not 'noise.' In this area, as in so many others, American national security interests and Israeli security interests are aligned: we cannot allow Iran to develop the capacity to create and deploy nuclear weapons.
"Diplomacy and sanctions have not impeded the Iranians' progress toward their goal, and recent reports from the IAEA and the Iranian regime corroborate the Israelis' long-held view that Iran has lied to international inspectors and gotten much farther along the path to nuclear weapons than has previously been acknowledged.
"By dismissing Israel's and the international community's legitimate concerns about Iran as mere 'noise,' Pres. Obama yet again displays his Jimmy Carter-like naiveté when it comes to U.S. foreign policy. In these dangerous times, that puts the United States and our friends and allies around the world in jeopardy."
1b) LTE:
Obama finally came clean and instead of having Israel's back he is now prepared to remain in constant consultation with Netanyahu, the Israeli noise maker.
It is as if Obama took a page out of the musical "Fiddler on The Roof."
Obama's response to Israel's legitimate concerns about Iran's nuclear progress, his own failed attempt to deter Iran through sanctions that leak like a sieve goes a long way towards affording me additional insight into our president's character.
I see the ghosts of Chamberlain and Jimmy Carter stalking the White House on a nightly basis and Netanyahu can consult all he wants but eventually it is Israel that will be left to 'bell the cat.'
After Egypt, Libya, Syria and current rioting and assassinations by radical Islamists and apologetic ads, if I am missing something, I am sure my liberal friends and the press and media will inform me as they circle the wagons around their anointed one.Tom Friedman will be riding the buckboard
Meanwhile, Ahmadinejad , who may not play Monopoly, has been given a 'Pass Go' card by our Horatio!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2)Axel Merk: Fed Is 'Breaking the Link' Between Inflation and Monetary Policy
By Forrest Jones
The Federal Reserve’s decision to roll out a third round of bond purchases from banks to jolt the economy reveals the U.S. central bank will do whatever it takes to fuel job demand, even if it means pumping inflation rates up, said Axel Merk, president and CIO of Merk Investments and a Moneynews contributor.
The Fed recently announced plans to stimulate the U.S. economy by buying $40 billion in mortgage-backed securities from banks every month on an open-ended basis until the economy improves and more Americans find jobs.
The move, known as quantitative easing, functions by pumping liquidity into the financial system in a way that pushes down interest rates across the economy to encourage investing and hiring.
The Fed bases such decisions on a dual mandate to control prices and to keep employment rates at optimal levels, and considering the Fed has juiced the economy with quantitative easing twice in the last four years before this latest round, the inflation mandate has clearly taken a back seat to jobs and growth.
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke "is breaking the link between monetary policy and inflation,” Merk told Yahoo.
“He is tying monetary policy to the unemployment rate, which means that he is going to do anything he can to push up growth, which means he is going to disregard inflation.”
Quantitative easing weakens the dollar and sends stock prices and commodities rising as side effects.
A weaker dollar can help steer the economy away from deflationary decline and boost exports, though it also can pump up inflation rates.
Bernanke has said that monetary policy is not a panacea and has added that Congress must make fiscal reforms to get the economy going.
At the end of this year, the Bush-era tax cuts and other tax breaks are scheduled to expire at the same time preprogrammed cuts to government spending kick in, a combination known as a fiscal cliff that could send the country sliding into recession next year if left unchecked by Congress.
Businesses have put off expanding and hiring due to uncertainty surround the fiscal cliff, especially when it comes to not knowing how much taxes they will be paying.
Many argue a lack of political will among lawmakers to address the fiscal cliff in an election year is forcing the Fed to stimulate the economy with monetary policy.
“It would be the right thing to tell Congress to get their act together,” Merk said.
Bernanke has told Congress to deal with the fiscal cliff, though according to Merk, Bernanke hasn’t been emphatic enough.
“What he should do is say ‘look at the Soviet Union, look at Cuba, look at North Korea: would monetary policy have fixed the mess that they are in?’ No,” Merk noted.
“It does require Congress to get rid of the uncertainty on the tax side, on the regulatory side. They need to be the ones getting their act together,” he added.
Not all Fed officials agreed with the recent decision to stimulate the economy anew, including Dallas Fed President Richard Fisher, a noted inflation hawk.
Monetary policy cannot battle ongoing uncertainty, he explained.
“The truth, however, is that nobody on the committee, nor on our staffs at the Board of Governors and the 12 Banks, really knows what is holding back the economy. Nobody really knows what will work to get the economy back on course,” Fisher told the Harvard Club recently, according to prepared remarks of his speech.
“And nobody — in fact, no central bank anywhere on the planet — has the experience of successfully navigating a return home from the place in which we now find ourselves. No central bank — not, at least, the Federal Reserve — has ever been on this cruise before.”
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)Obama Hurt My Feelings When He Destroyed the Constitution
By Stella Paul
No, you weren't dreaming when you read the statement of the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, as homicidal mobs raged outside its doors on 9/11. "The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims - as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions."
Apparently, the world's only superpower is now in the business of kissing the boo-boos of murderous Muslims aggrieved by our Constitution. And, of course, handing out $2-billion hankies of foreign aid to wipe away their precious little tears of America-induced rage.
Well, homicidal Muslims aren't the only ones with hurt feelings around here. It hurt my feelings to see the reportedly raped corpse of the American ambassador dragged through the streets of Benghazi by triumphant mobs. (Attention, Obama-worshipers: sodomizing the the shamefully unguarded American ambassador, whether he is alive or dead, is the very definition of "unprotected sex.")
It hurt my feelings to hear Secretary of State Hillary Clinton preposterously lie to the American people, when she assured us that the "Libyans carried Chris's body to the hospital[.]" It wasn't just her brazen mendacity that galled; it was that insultingly casual "Chris." Will somebody please tell the secretary of state that it wasn't "Chris" being tortured in Libya, as if he were some stoned surfer dude from California who accidentally wandered into a terrorist horde? It was "Ambassador Stevens," the representative of the American people, whom she so carelessly sent to his humiliating slaughter.
And it hurt my feelings -- deeply, utterly, and unforgivably -- to watch the alleged president of the United States and his minions attack our right to free speech with all the tenderness of a Libyan mob. Generations of Americans have died defending our First Amendment right to offend anyone we feel like offending, including Muslims and their pathetic presidential protector.
But what's the First Amendment to Obama, except an impediment? With haughty contempt, Obama has labored to force America into sharia-compliance, championing a U.N. resolution that forbids the denigration of Islam.
And in the long, degrading days since four Americans were murdered in Libya, Obama and Hillary have performed a nonstop grovel-palooza to the Muslim rioters baying for more American blood. They've used our taxpayer money tobroadcast apologies on Palestinian television for America's free speech; pressured Google to remove an anti-Mohammed video from YouTube, and inspired the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to phone a private American citizen and ask him to stop using his First Amendment rights.
And, in a date that should live in infamy, on September 15 in Cerritos, California, Obama's federal enforcers staged a midnight raid on an anti-Islamic filmmaker whom Obama had selected to blame for the Muslim riots. The iconic photo of the filmmaker being led away by brown-shirted government agents should chill the blood of every American who still respects liberty.
As it happens, September 15, the day the California filmmaker was hauled in for "questioning," has been circled on my calendar for six months, as a date I wanted to write about free speech. On September 15, 2010, Seattle cartoonist Molly Norris "went ghost" after her cartoon creating "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" attracted the usual Muslim rage. Her paper, the Seattle Weekly, announced her disappearance in these weirdly unruffled words: "You may have noticed thatMolly Norris' comic is not in the paper this week. That's because there is no more Molly."
In the two years since Molly Norris has vanished, she's been utterly forgotten. Is she still alive? Who knows? The Seattle Weekly told us that the FBI had advised her to disappear, after an "appalling fatwa" was placed on her head. "She is, in effect, being put into a witness-protection program -- except, as she notes, without the government picking up the tab," the paper reported.
Ah well...you wouldn't expect Obama to lead from in front and pick up that tab, would you? Of course, Margaret Thatcher did just that for novelist Salman Rushdie, when the Iranian ayatollahs debuted the fine art of making inconvenient Western artists disappear. But "The Rushdie Affair" took place almost a quarter of a century ago, when freedom still had some fans in the West. Now, we live in Obama's world, in which he parties with Beyoncé and rhapsodizes about the Republican War on Women while a real American woman, a winsome Seattle cartoonist, flees for her life from blood-crazed jihadis, and nobody cares.
And so two years from the day that Obama ignored the disappearance of a Muslim-offending cartoonist, his goons rounded up a Muslim-offending filmmaker with a midnight knock. Now the filmmaker's family has gone into hiding, and another filmmaker, Eric Allen Bell, who exposed the extremist ties of the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro in Tennessee, has received so many death threats that he's fled into hiding, too.
Perhaps Obama and Hillary might consider finding Molly Norris and offering her up to their honored guest, the Muslim Brotherhood leader and new Egyptian president Mohammad Morsi. Hillary and her intimate top aide, the luscious Huma Abedin, who's been factually established as a Muslim Brotherhood asset, can don burqas and set the mood by stoning Molly for defaming "a great religion." For the surprise after-dinner treat, Obama can present President Morsi with the Blind Sheik, the convicted terrorist behind the first World Trade Center bombing, whose release Obama is reportedly negotiating.
Yes, my feelings are hurt by Obama's never-ending desecration of our constitutional rights. If your feelings are hurt, too, please do your best to hurt Obama's feelings good and hard on November 6.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------4)
To bomb or not to bomb — is that the question?
In the last three years there has been ample discussion whether to bomb (Iranian nuclear sites) or not to bomb. More specifically, the debate is whether Israel should go at it alone. Is it much ado about nothing? To a large extent it is, because very few experts really understand what is at stake and the consumers of the debate can do very little about it. Namely, they can do little about an Israeli attack and even less so about a pending Iranian attack. This is perhaps the wrong debate, at the wrong time, by the wrong people. A far more serious effort – not a debate – is missing, yet needed in the public arena: the focus on the intent and purpose of Iranian nuclear ambitions and objectives, along with the rhetoric that serves as its backdrop; namely their genocidal theme.
Iranian nuclear aims
The Iranian nuclear efforts started in 1957 under the US initiative of Atoms for Peace which had research for peaceful use of atomic energy as its official goal. In the aftermath of the 1979 Iranian revolution, international nuclear cooperation and support was cut off. In 1981 Iran officially decided to continue its nuclear efforts and the vacuum was filled by Argentina providing assistance and uranium. Then the IAEA and China added their support which was later stopped apparently due to US pressure. German intelligence reported, as early as 1984, that Iran was two years away from developing nuclear weapons with uranium supplied by Pakistan. During the Iran-Iraq war (1980-1988) the two Iranian reactors in Bushehr were bombed and damaged by Iraqi airborne attacks. In the 1990s Iran renewed its agreement with France (no uranium was supplied) and Russia became the key partner for Iran’s nuclear ambitions. IAEA inspections in 1992 found Iran “in compliance” with peaceful use of atomic energy.
The existence of two nuclear sites which apparently were known to intelligence agencies, but until then remained classified information, were reported twenty years ago by an Iranian dissident group. Open and backdoor negotiations between European governments (the EU-3: U.K., France and Germany) and Iran were not successful. International inspections in 2005 “cleared” Iran. However, it did not stop enrichment and in 2006 its president, Ahmadinejad, announced that Iran had “successfully enriched Uranium,” that it will not back away from its plans, and for those who are “angry” about it he offered to “be angry with us and die of this anger.” In December 2006 the UN Security Council imposed sanctions (Resolution 1737) on Iran for its non-compliance. Since then the UN Security Council has passed seven resolutions reaffirming these sanctions. In a series of at least 21 IAEA reports between 2007 and 2012 the agency has essentially given Iran a reprieve from the intention to develop nuclear weapons even though it is clear from the May 2012 report that a 27% enrichment level enables Iran to develop bomb-grade material. Finally in August, the IAEA declared that Iran continued its refusal to comply with international agreements and warned there was no evidence to show that Iran has stopped its work on nuclear weapons. While trying to verify Iran’s compliance, the IAEA “was unable to conclude that all nuclear material in Iran was in peaceful activities.” The report repeated the damning conclusion that “analysis indicates that Iran has carried out activities relevant to the development of a ‘nuclear explosive device’” and that “some activities may still be ongoing.”
The debate in Israel and beyond
For twenty years Israel has warned of Iranian hostile intentions of developing and using nuclear weapons (including their delivery systems) of mass destruction. The threat is not only to Israel but also to Iran’s Arab neighbors, Europe, the US and the rest of the world. For Israel the threat is existential. Even a survival of a first strike still means a devastating blow to life and property. In the last few months an air parade of senior US official that included the Secretary of State (Clinton), The Secretary of Defense (Panetta), the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (Dempsey) and the National Security Advisor (Donilon) visited Israel in an attempt to prove to Israel that the US stands by its ally but much more so to dissuade Israel from attacking Iran. Lately representatives of the European Union (Germany’s Merkel and France’s Fabius) have added their statements opposing an Israeli attack. In August terse exchanges between Israel and the administration became very public when Secretary of State Clinton refused to draw “red lines” and the President “did not find time in his schedule” to meet with the Israeli Prime Minister.
In Israel “to bomb or not to bomb” has become a fierce public debate with the Prime Minister (Netanyahu) and Defense Minister (Barak) being portrayed as pro-attack while prominent current and former security officials as well as the current and a former president being in favor of “do not attack now.” The situation is further entangled with the US pending elections with most opinions suggesting the US will not attack prior to the elections (or not even after it irrespective of who will be elected as president). Some in the US are even in favor of Iran having a nuclear weapon as a “stabilizing deterrent” (Kenneth Walt, Foreign Affairs, July / August).
These debates actually featured diplomats and appointed officials publically discussing their – sometime blunt and sometime nuanced – differences in key media outlets that show that the Israeli clock and the American clock indicate different time tables and hence a different sense of urgency and course of action. One of the best illustrations is the American position on preventing Iran from having a nuclear bomb and the Israeli position desiring to prevent Iran from having the capability of developing one (or more). Both positions assume Iran is intent on developing this weapon but the US wants to prevent the actual bomb from being manufactured while Israel wants to prevent the capability to manufacture it. The difference between the two positions is that within a few months a development capability can manufacture a bomb and the time and intelligence to stop it may not be there. The US (and many Israelis) continues to publically argue that the diplomatic avenue and the economic sanctions have not been exhausted and that there is still a window of time to let them work. The Israeli decision makers and diplomats believe that window is fast closing and the discussion on a pending attack is now within weeks or very few months. Short of the actual attack plans and flight pattern everything else has been discussed publically (with some claiming to know the attack plans as well).
Missing in this debate is the likelihood that Iran actually already has the bomb. Given gross intelligence errors in the past and the difficulty of gleaning information on nuclear development progress, that is not an unlikely possibility. The 2007 US intelligence assessment concluded that Iran has halted or even “abandoned” its nuclear program. An August 2012 intelligence report purports that “Iran has made surprising, significant progress toward military nuclear capability” but US officials refused to confirm it. Thus, for even a reasonably educated person to sift through all the statements, positions, declarations, interviews, publications, reports, visits, speculations and “learned” opinions can only lead to one certain conclusion: there is a tremendous fog of war and good luck to those who really understand what is going on or will be going on.
Most people, including professionals and policy makers alike understand very little about nuclear technology or about military strategies and most in the west are naturally against military intervention and even when it is done the guiding principle is “last resort” and “all options are on the table” provided that there is a “smoking gun” (pun not intended) of complete indisputable proof. Even when governments decide on military intervention, the longer they are the less popular they become and the less support they receive. That is true for the US, the UK, and Israel, among others.
The wrong focus
Yet there is something awfully amiss in the focus on nuclear technology, the search for proof on compliance or non-compliance, the diplomatic negotiations or intelligence assessments. The excessive focus on technology has overshadowed the need to focus discussion on intent. In terrorism and war there are two important components: intent and capability. Being capable of carrying out an attack does not mean one will take place absent the intent. Yet, intending to carry out an attack does not mean it will be operational absent the capability. However, If the intent is there it might well lead to developing the capability. We have seen it with terrorist groups high on intent developing the capability to carry out mass atrocities with fairly little investment. The public debate questions the capability, with some arguing that Iran is far from acquiring it; a few even suggest that the intent is not more than rhetoric.
The dilemma for the west is whether a barking dog will bite. There is a common disconnect between talk and action. In the west one can virtually (if not legally) say anything they want with fairly little punitive measures. Recently (the newly elected) Egyptian president Morsy made the first state visit, since the Iranian revolution, to Iran and the Iraqi government has been assisting Iran to avoid the economic sanctions. Morsy took advantage of the 16th Summit of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) gathered in Teheran at the end of August. Iran now begins a three-year period as chair of the NAM which consists of 120 member countries and 21 observer countries yielding key influence on NAM’s policies and positions.
The election of Iran to chair the NAM block, the visit by the Egyptian president and by the UN Secretary General as well as the Iraqi support of Iran are only recent examples of the growing influence and support that Iran has in the world. In addition to potential nuclear weaponry capability, and its intent to use it – Iran also enjoys support from key nations such as Russia and China and tacit support and business ties with and from many others (including in the west). This is anything but the picture of isolation and effective sanctions that the US, the UN, and the Europeans are trying to portray. It is against this backdrop that the nexus of talk-deed becomes so important.
The rhetoric and the action
Since the Iranian revolution in 1979 the vitriolic rhetoric against the US and Israel were evident in recurrent well-orchestrated public demonstrations by throngs of hundreds of thousands of people shouting ecstatically “Death to America” (the ‘Big Satan’) and “death to Israel” (the ‘Small Satan’). The Iranian president repeatedly and frequently is expressing his desire to eliminate Israel, Zionism, and Jews off the map and so does the Iranian spiritual leader; irrespective of who that current Ayatollah is. A series of post-NAM Iranian cartoons displayed virulent anti US and anti-Israel themes arrogantly suggesting that the NAM was crushing the “stranglehold” that they perceive both to have (on Iran and on NAM).
Ahmadinejad has questioned the existence of the Holocaust, called to “eliminate the Zionist regime,” and “Israel must be wiped off the map,” took part in a protest called “World Without Zionism” and has derided Israel on numerous occasions. He has urged regional powers to cut ties with Israel and halt oil sales. While some question the translation of the Iranian original and argue that he actually refers only to the elimination of a “regime” this is nothing but hypocritical diplo-speak hair-splitting: After all when hundreds of thousands of people burn Israeli symbols and shout “death to Israel,” people who live in that “regime” do tend to take it a bit personally. Exact rhetoric like that served the Nazis as the ideology that lead to and resulted in the holocaust. The US does not fare much better. Marking the 32nd anniversary of the revolution, throngs of Iranians burned flags chanting “Death to America.”
When rhetoric like that is reported in the west it is often accompanied by interpretation that this is for “internal consumption” with the implication that they do not really mean it. Such vile rhetoric coming from Arabs/Muslims has been ignored for years despite the vitriolic nature that has been institutionalized into religious edicts, articles, literature, newspaper reports, films, propaganda, and textbooks, not to say political statements.
So Americans and westerners tend to simply ignore such rhetoric because it does not appear – yet – to pose an existential or even economic threat against the US and therefore is tolerated as nothing more than annoying barking dogs – if at that.
Missing the point
And here is exactly the point where all those who raise hell against an attack on Iran have been missing. The possible attack against Iran is not because of belligerent intentions but because of self-defense against an existential threat. Israel has been there before. More precisely the Jews as a people were massacred in WWII and very little help was offered before, during, or even after. The two prime examples were the refusal to allow US entry to the St. Louis and the refusal of the Allied Forces to bomb the railroad to Auschwitz. When help was given it was mostly individual and not institutional; as is illustrated by the example of Raoul Wallenberg.
So suggesting that they were not translated correctly when the Iranians scream in a hysterical chorus to wipe Israel and America off the map may certainly fool some but not all. First, this is how the Iranian official translators provided the original text. But more important: assume magnanimity for the sake of discussion. Namely, that indeed it is not the people they want to wipe out but the “regime.” So what is this regime? It is the country of Israel which is the incarnation of the political aspirations and rights of the Jews not only to peoplehood but to nationhood. In other words: it is the right of the Jews to have a state of their own. Therefore, wiping the Israeli (Zionist) regime means denying the Jews the right for their own state which is the epitome of their political aspirations. This is nothing less than anti-Semitic, insidious and a bullying call for annihilation. In short, this is incitement for genocide. The fact that some ultra-orthodox Jews wish that fate on the modern state of Israel and even collaborate with Iran for that purpose does not make it less so.
What should the focus be on? Incitement to genocide!
So, if someone does not claim to be an expert on military strategy nor on nuclear weapons, what else remains to be said? Plenty. The question at hand should not be to bomb or not to bomb – leave that to those who were elected, appointed and are paid to make that decision. It certainly should not be about Israel doing so alone (and it should not go at it alone). Opinion polls can come to play at a later time, not now. The question we can and should be able to deal with is incitement. In other words, if we deem that incitement to genocide is unacceptable under any circumstances what is it that we should do to stop it? On this issue there need be no debate and nothing less than decisive exemplary action is expected.
Almost 115 years ago, Émile Zola has openly challenged the French establishment and the entire French society when in 1898 he published his famous J’accuse (I accuse) where in a letter to the president of the republic (published in L’Aurore) he accused the French leadership of obstruction of justice and anti-Semitism following the (framed) conviction for treason of Captain Alfred Dreyfus.
Israel and the world no longer have the luxury of passively waiting for post-trial results in order to accuse anyone. Elevating genocidal inciting speech to levels of the Nazi regime less than 70 years following the greatest atrocity against humanity (targeting the Jewish people and millions of non-Jews) is simply unacceptable. And who will say “I accuse” after Iran rains nuclear bombs against the US? Certainly not the 120 NAM countries (they might shed crocodile tears while enjoying the news). To date conspicuously absent are the condemnations usually issued by various human rights groups. But not on Iran.
The question of “to bomb or not to bomb” should be replaced with to attack (incitement) or not to attack? Economic and other sanctions should not only be activated (and they are not yet fully implemented and clearly ineffective to date) against a nuclear threat. Any member state/group of the civilized world cannot be considered in good standing if it emits Hitlerian genocidal threats against another member nation of the UN. The personal attendance of the UN Secretary General in Teheran served to legitimize the strength of the Iranian regime and his carefully phrased objections to Iranian rhetoric against Israel not only fell on deaf ears but in his presence the Iranians openly and harshly vilified Israel with genocidal rhetoric. The attack on incitement should be proactive, concerted, public, vocal, decisive, and relentless. No debate on this is necessary. It is the duty of heads of state, diplomats, heads of NGOs, representatives of civic associations, professional associations, universities, corporations, human rights groups, writers, poets, and anyone who could and should make a difference (including the intelligentsia if it can lift its head and see reality). Personalities of the caliber of Zola are rare these days and too many actually take the side of the bully (Günter Grass for example).
When the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs sheds any interest in (“being complicit in”) attacking Iran the Iranians understand very well the lack of willingness of the US to attack. When the US president does not repudiate this political statement it means that he has the back of Dempsey not that of US allies. When the White House sends secret messages to Iran that in exchange of not hurting US interests in the region – should Israel attack Iran – the US will not support such an attack it means the US has abandoned its key ally. The persistent reports make the White House denial less than credible.
Iran needs to be sent a clear message that there is a red line for its nuclear ambitions but even more so that its entitlement to genocidal rhetoric has expired. The message to Iran needs to be loud and clear: Your rhetoric and your intent are unacceptable in a civilized world that cares about human rights. Any duplicity in this effort will not only hurt Israel. The Iranian bark will prove to turn into a lethal bite for the rest of the world.
On September 7 the Canadian government announced that it severed the tiers with Iran, recalled its ambassador and staff from Teheran and requested the Iranian legation to leave Ottawa. In July 2010, the first-ever charge was laid for promoting genocide by the OPP. Canada clearly deserves commendations for showing the way and other countries should follow suit and heed its exemplary inspiring move.
Such a concerted effort to isolate Iran culturally, morally, and spiritually might be a far more effective tool in de-legitimizing its perceived entitlement to bully other nations and should therefore significantly weaken its position. Whether there is sufficient time to do this or even more important, whether there is a will, that is an entirely different question. It is not likely to stop Iran’s nuclear ambitions but at the very least it will help draw the lines between good and evil.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5)
Adelson: Obama Wanted Me 'Toxic,' Leaked Smears
By Jim Meyers
Casino magnate and Republican mega-donor Sheldon Adelson says the Obama administration launched a smear campaign against him after he began contributing heavily to Republican candidates.
He charged that the administration leaked information about federal inquiries into old events involving him and his Las Vegas Sands Corp.
The aim, he told Politico, is “making me toxic so that they can make the argument to the Republicans, ‘This guy is toxic. Don’t do business with him. Don’t take his money.’ Not all government employees are leakers, but most of the leakers are government employees.
“When I see what’s happening to me and this company, about accusations that are unfounded, that kind of behavior has to stop.”
The Las Vegas Sands Corp. is being probed by federal investigators looking into possible money-laundering in Vegas, and possible violations of bribery laws by the company’s ventures in China, including four casinos in the gambling mecca of Macau.
Some of the actions probed date back to the mid-2000s.
Articles about the investigations appeared last month on the front pages of The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times. The Journal did state that there were no indications the probe included actions by Adelson himself.
Adelson and his family gave more than $15 million during the primary season to support Newt Gingrich’s presidential bid. He is the first person to spend $70 million to sway a presidential election, and is on track to spend as much as $100 million by Election Day.
The record amount he has already donated is about three times as much as the previous record-holder, George Soros, who spent $24 million in an effort to defeat President George W. Bush in 2004.
Adelson told Politico he will continue to contribute “whatever it takes” to defeat President Barack Obama.
He went on, “I suppose you could say that I live on Vince Lombardi’s belief: ‘Winning isn’t everything, it’s the only thing.’ So, I do whatever it takes, as long as it’s moral, ethical, principled, legal.”
One Republican official who has spoken with Adelson many times told Politico, “He’s the man of the hour. Everyone’s trying to get in to see him – every candidate, every PAC director, every campaign committee, every super PAC guy. When you’re giving out money the way he is, everyone wants a piece of the pie.”
Adelson also told Politico he loathes Obama. He said he recently read “The Amateur,” the anti-Obama bestseller by Edward Klein, and complained about Obama’s “czars," who were set up early in the administration to supervise regulatory efforts.
Adelson said he worries about “any man that sets up a shadow government, not accountable to anybody.
“What are the czars, if they’re not a substitute for the secretaries of Commerce, of State, of Interior? They’re not under any rules, they’re just consultants to him in his office. And then he’ll come along and say, ‘Well, Bush did it.’ But that’s not the way the government is supposed to be run.”
He said a second Obama term would bring government “vilification of people that were against him,” citing the scrutiny of his company’s ventures by federal investigators.
Adelson wasn’t always a supporter of solely Republicans. He told Politico he attended the 1988 Democratic convention in Atlanta.
“It wasn’t really a lot of fun because everywhere I went — in the coffee shop, walking down the hallway, going into an elevator — everybody was talking about what kind of job they’re going to get when Michael Dukakis became president,” he said. “It disgusted me.”
Then he attended the 1992 Republican convention in Houston.
“I didn’t hear a single word about what people were going to get,” he told Politico. “They were dignified, well-behaved. I said to myself, ‘I don’t belong in that rowdy crowd down in Atlanta, the Democrats.’ I said, ‘That’s not really me.’ So, I guess I converted.
“After I had given the Democrats $100,000, to fix the error of my ways I gave the Republicans $100,00.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6)
6)
EX-DEM TALKER FED UP WITH OBAMA, WILL VOTE FOR ROMNEY
By CRAIG SILVERMAN
I support Mitt Romney for President and Paul Ryan for Vice President. For
most of my life, I have been a Democrat, and I very publicly voted (C-Span, live
radio, The New York Times) for Obama-Biden in 2008.
As I studied Obama’s performance as President, I could no longer support him.
That was not ideal for the longevity of our eight year old, award-winning drive time radio show "Caplis and Silverman" which ended in June. Our show was somewhat premised as a left vs. right dialogue. So be it. I have another career.
I am a small business owner (Silverman and Olivas, P.C.), and a Denver trial lawyer who is a proud member of the Colorado Trial Lawyers Association. My social policies are libertarian. I am a fourth generation Denver Jew who graduated from Denver George Washington H.S., Colorado College and then CU Law School.
Some of my fellow members of the above groups may be displeased with my endorsement, but so be that, too. This is not a close choice if you are actually paying attention. An objective person should be enormously disappointed in President Obama and his administration. The economy remains bad. The debt bomb keeps growing. Iran is on the verge of having nukes. The power of the Muslim Brotherhood and Islamism is expanding rapidly. Our Justice Department is full of politics and political correctness. Fast and Furious is a disgrace. Attorney General Eric Holder needs to go.
I want leadership in the White House. I want a government with a budget that makes sense. I do not want problems perpetually kicked down the road. I want major legislation to be debated in the public, and not rammed down our throats without even being read by anyone other than the special interests who wrote it.
I want a leader to stand up against sharia law and jihad – and to articulate to the world how antithetical these concepts are to the American way. I thought Obama was ideally situated to speak some necessary truths to the Islamic world. But this President has not, and he will not in a second term.
The world is teetering on the brink as a result. We need some Reagan-like truth telling about repressive systems of government and ideologies that are evil. I liked the way Romney spoke up strong for free speech, and was disgusted when Team Obama conspired to shut him up and tear him down.
How sad and revealing is President Obama’s crazy claim that some obscure, buffoonish anti-Islam video was the spontaneous source of Muslim mayhem and murder. It is part of his world view – these protesters are victims and have legitimate grievances against the USA – and against Israel too.
Where is the outrage when an Ambassador is slaughtered in Libya, and an Al Queda flag is raised over our Embassy in Cairo? Where the hell are the Dems, Hollywood and the media in this fight for free speech?Islamic blasphemy laws are antithetical to America. Please Mr. President and Mrs. Hillary Clinton, no more apologies for free speech. No more lies about Libya. Or Egypt.
The Muslim Brotherhood is biding its time, cashing our checks, and hoping for Obama's re-election. What is next with this Obama administration? Reparations, retributions, extortions, special laws or taxes so religious feelings don’t get hurt?
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. I feel deceived and let down by Obama. His autobiography turns out to contain a lot of fiction. What does it tell you about a man and his campaign when truth is repeatedly distorted around an issue as solemn as cancer?
Obama ran as a positive, bipartisan person. Now, when he is not on "Entertainment Tonight" or "The Late Show with David Letterman," he is so negative and partisan. Obama claimed he could work with the other side, but he is way too far over to the left.
This President is a super big spender and we cannot afford that. If we re-elect Obama, we get the same big spending, dysfunctional government. This is no time for that.
Romney worked well with Democrats in Massachusetts. Some people put down Romney as a Massachusetts moderate, but that works for me. I expect it will work better for America.
I disagree with Romney and Ryan on many social issues, but there are other, more pressing problems and priorities for America and the free world right now. If Romney wins, abortion rights are not going away. Neither are gay rights. But Israel might go away if certain events unfold.
I urge other people who voted for Obama in 2008 to make a change in 2012.
* * * *
Craig Silverman is a partner in the downtown Denver law firm of Silverman & Olivas, P.C. The firm specializes in personal injury law, criminal matters and problem solving. Craig served for 16 years at the Denver District Attorney's Office where he was a Chief Deputy District Attorney. Craig has appeared hundreds of times on local and national media. Subjects have included the death penalty, serial rapists, the JonBenet Ramsey case, Columbine, the Oklahoma City Bombing trials, the Kobe Bryant case and the Aurora movie theater massacre. Craig was co-host of the award winning "Caplis and Silverman" afternoon drive time radio show on 630 KHOW (2004-2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment