Tuesday, January 22, 2013

Demonizing The Opposition We The People Got Wee'd On!

The new, subtle and more sophisticated way of demonizing one's opponents. (See 1 below.)
---
Will/can the real Obama reveal himself? You decide who, what he is! (See 2 below.)

This from a very dear friend and fellow memo reader: "Check out the SMN headlines........the inauguration report.. Titled... Now is the Time toAct.
As far as I know, our president is already doing a great job of acting.
Reminds me of The George burns story... You know it?
A young actor comes to town and goes to GB to ask his advice about how to succeed in the acting business.
George's answer?
He said:" the secret to success is sincerity......"..........If you can fake that,you've got it made".
No more need be said....."---
Israel's defensive strategy.  (See 3 below.)
---
 Fiscal conservatism goes hand in hand with social conservatism. Cannot have one without the other.  (See 4 below.)
---
Since Obama's big government strategy has proven not to work, except in the case of welfare transfers, why not double down and have more? (See 5 below.)
---
For those who like to wallow in political tripe and who do not mind reading about how we the people got wee wee'd on here is Obama's entire Inaugural Speech!  (See 6 below.)
---
China is energized!  (See 7 below.)
---
Dick
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)The Collectivist Mind Game, Part 2: Demonizing the Opposition
By Oleg Atbashian
Part 1: Demonizing the Non-Compliant

Most modern-day leftists in Western countries have abandoned the idea of a violent revolution, having replaced it with "the long march through the institutions" as part of the culture war to transform the society through cultural hegemony.  Instead of commanding firing squads, they play mind games of manipulative illusions, in which the demonization of dissent plays a crucial role.  The basic premise hasn't changed: as much as the statists want you to love them, they want you to hate their opponents even more.
Until a time when political opposition can be eliminated completely, having opponents can still be useful: you can steal their ideas, take advantage of their desire to help the economy, and blame them for any of your own failures.  In the meantime, certain rules must be followed to control the public opinion and, through it, the opposition itself.
Maintain the perception of being constantly under attack.  Don't examine the opponents' beliefs, nor answer their arguments.  Discredit any media channels that offer them a platform.  Enforce the following media template: the opposition is evil, treasonous, unfathomable, and psychotic.  They can't be reasoned with.  They are inspired by fascism and financed by a conspiracy of shady oligarchs.  Defame their donors.  Whatever the mischief you're planning to pull off, accuse them of doing it first; then proceed as planned, describing your actions as a necessary intervention.  And ridicule, ridicule, ridicule!
This is what made it easy for Stalin to purge his opponents: by the time he charged them with treason, the orchestrated media coverage had already made them universally hated.  Having purged all of his enemies, Stalin continued to manufacture the evidence of their presence.  There came a time when even the true believers were being rounded up and forced to confess publicly about one or another fabricated "crime" against the people and the Party.  Some did it to avoid torture, some to save their families, and some even cooperated out of the altruistic desire to support the illusion and keep everyone else's beautiful dream alive.  Unfortunately for them, that beautiful dream required human sacrifice.
At the same time, Stalin used the only remaining high-ranking Jew in his government, Lazar Kaganovich, as a perpetual scapegoat.  Himself a ruthless henchman who organized a number of purges, Kaganovich ended up serving in the capacity of an unpunishable bumbling idiot, a "token Jew," and a darkly comic relief.  Implicitly blamed for one government blunder after another, this Joe Biden of Stalin's regime was moved from ministry to ministry only to be blamed again and reassigned to yet another top-level position.  As expected, the people's reaction was a universal loathing and bewilderment: how can Comrade Stalin be so soft and trusting of this evil Jew? Kaganovich outlived them all; he died in 1991, among friends and family, at the age of 97.
Across the ocean, years later, the same rules still apply.  The perception of a relentless struggle with the opposition must be permanent and persuasive.  Even in the times of calm and prosperity the people must think that the opposition is holding them hostage and only the firm, wise guidance of the People's Leader is saving them from imminent ruin.  When the opponents are too few, too weak, and too disoriented to put up a real fight, their power and influence must be exaggerated.
Ever since "crybaby" John Boehner became the GOP House Speaker, the media grotesquely overstated the effectiveness of his fruitless, anemic leadership.  Among other things, this patent exaggeration allowed Obama to maintain his saintly image while shifting the responsibility for the staggering economy onto "Republican obstructionism."
The following quotes by "citizen journalists" exemplify the public outrage created by the media template of demonizing the opposition.  Unlike the honed professionals who can mask their agenda with superficial objectivity, these amateurs let their emotions run wild without realizing that they are being played.  Like children, they connect the preprinted dots and eagerly tell us what they see:
Opposition is anti-American: The Republican leaders have remained consistent with their agenda of obstructing the President clearly putting their party ahead of the American people. 
Opposition is racist: How far do you think Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner and his cohorts in the House will go in their campaign to defeat America's first black President?
Opposition is grotesquely absurd: The clowns - Boehner and McConnell -  ignored the needs of the nation to do what they thought was best for themselves . . . to solidify their positions of power and secure their own political futures by tearing down President Obama and America in the process.
Opposition is deceitful: In their effort to make President Obama look weak, Republicans played a dangerous game with the debt ceiling and in the process threw away America's triple-A credit rating... Those Republican obstructionists really know how to twist the facts to support the anti-Obama political campaign.
Opposition is undemocratic: They have essentially fought to block anything and everything the Democrats have proposed and offered nothing in the way of alternatives.  So egregious is their barricade of democracy that they have no defense against charges of deliberate sabotage at the expense of American citizens.
Opposition is mind-boggling: Missing from President Obama's acceptance speech in Charlotte last Thursday is one potent argument: An attack on obstructionist Republicans in Congress. ... It's a mystery because a major reason the economy has not done better under Mr. Obama is that Republicans have blocked virtually every initiative he has proposed, even when the president, especially in the early months of his administration, tailored many of his proposals to attract Republican support.
Opposition is guilty of treason: If an enemy declared war on the American economy, the United States would spare no effort to remove that threat to its prosperity and national security.  So it was with Osama Bin Laden... But when the Republican Party threatens ... to sabotage the U.S. economy if its debt ceiling demands are not met, the media instead calls that treason a "debate." ... And that's not politics as usual.  That's treason.
Just like painting by numbers doesn't make one an artist, actors or singers who are good at articulating prepared lines don't automatically become articulate thinkers.  Being in the business of selling emotions rather than rational arguments, they connect the same old media dots as any other amateur -- but do it with extra flair and aplomb.  Extrapolating the lines allows them to see horns on the head of the opposition.  Voilà! They can't shut up about such an amazing insight.
Harry Belafonte even went as far as suggest that Obama should "work like a third world dictator and just put all these guys in jail" -- because, obviously, since the Republicans "are violating the American desire," the "only thing left for Barack Obama to do" is to pull a Stalin: praise Barack and jail the opposition.
Even if he said this in jest, Belafonte's call for political repressions is a logical extension of the ideas shared by many celebrities who have been swayed by and are now promoting the leftist cultural hegemony.  That includes Woody Allen, who said this in an interview to a Spanish-language magazine: "It would be good... if [President Obama] could be dictator for a few years because he could do a lot of good things quickly."
This begs a question: if Obama is not a socialist, why do his supporters interpret his reelection as "the American desire" to establish a totalitarian dictatorship -- and think this would be a good thing? So much for "socialism with a human face."
No wonder the "hegemonized" Hollywood filmmakers (starting with Charlie Chaplin in The Great Dictator), can never truthfully depict either the Soviet or Nazi totalitarian regimes.  Unable to fathom the motives of their fictional villains, they wind up supplanting the collectivist realities of socialism (be it national socialism or international socialism) with grotesque caricatures of improbable monsters, uncultured brutes, neurotic sociopaths, or sadistic, sexually repressed perverts.  It never occurs to them that unspeakable crimes could be committed in the name of "the common good" by very ordinary, altruistic people -- out of an all too familiar desire to "do a lot of good things quickly" through dictatorial powers.  Such a notion would be too terrifying, of course, because they might just recognize their own reflection in the mirror.
Though many of them may have seen this quote by C.S. Lewis, it is doubtful that their conditioned minds are capable of grasping its meaning: "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive... [T]hose who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."      
Their young audiences, deprived of adequate education and learning about history and current events from Hollywood movies and TV shows, will not recognize the symptoms of an encroaching totalitarianism either.  Upon hearing a dissenter who disparages the benevolent guidance of the state, they will immediately recognize a stereotype that is being relentlessly demonized and dehumanized on their screens: the ignorant, close-minded, right-wing nut job.  Chances are they will smugly ridicule him with the jokes they heard from their favorite media personalities.  In another generation, they may as well feel morally obligated to report the dissenter to the authorities -- and be thrilled at the chance to partake in the historic mission of crushing the remnants of the evil reactionaries, even if they happen to be their parents.
Today's American intellectuals are retracing the steps of their Soviet predecessors in the early days of the socialist dictatorship.  Having had hopes to see the workers' paradise in their lifetime, many came to regret their misguided enthusiasm, as they themselves fell victim to the popular illusions they helped to induce, when a mere slip of a tongue, a drunken remark, or an accusation by someone in the new generation of socialist intellectuals who wanted to take their job, wife, or apartment, led them to be lumped with any of the large assortment of the thoroughly demonized and dehumanized "enemies of the people."
There is only one way to redistribute wealth: human sacrifice, with optional variations of manipulative mind games to ease the pain and maintain control over the population.  All those who claimed they can do it differently were doomed, sooner or later, to retrace the same path.

Oleg Atbashian, a writer and graphic artist from the former USSR, is the author of Shakedown Socialism, of which David Horowitz said, "I hope everyone reads this book."  In 1994 he moved to the U.S. with the hope of living in a country ruled by reason and common sense, appreciative of its freedoms and prosperity.  To his dismay, he discovered a nation deeply infected by the leftist disease of "progressivism" that was arresting true societal progress.  American movies, TV, and news media reminded him of his former occupation as a visual propaganda artist for the Communist Party -- a job he reluctantly held, as he knew that no intelligent person would take such art-by-numbers agitprop seriously.  Oleg is the creator of a satirical website ThePeoplesCube.com, which Rush Limbaugh described on his show as "a Stalinist version of The Onion."  

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)Obama: Fox, Lion, or Emperor?
By Cindy Simpson


"The White House may craftily be laying the groundwork for a massive and thoroughly unconstitutional seizure of power from Congress," warned veteran White House reporter Keith Koffler of the upcoming debt ceiling battle.
Considering both the slyness and boldness of Obama's latest power plays, Koffler's observation is reminiscent of a quote attributed to Emperor Napoleon: "I am sometimes a fox and sometimes a lion. The whole secret of government lies in knowing when to be the one or the other."
Besides playing both fox and lion as he skirts the Constitution or arrogantly walks right over it, Obama has also been busy whipping up the populace with his "Thou shalt have fairness" rhetoric. But we wonder if the outcome of the folks affected by his manipulations and exhortations is not what motivates him -- rather it is Napoleon's self-proclaimed title that Obama covets: Emperor.
Apparently a crown has been, if not on Obama's head, at least on his mind during his childhood. According to a former Punahou classmate of Obama's from Hawaii, Obama told friends he was a prince of Indonesia, Kenyan royalty, and that he would be a ruler himself someday. As Daniel Greenfield observed, it is interesting to note that Obama, as a child, saw himself as "a foreigner with delusions of grandeur."
There's even an etching, "KING OBAMA," in a concrete patch on the school grounds. The notably pro-Obama website, "Obama's Neighborhood," captioned the picture with the assertion that Obama was likely the artist, but instructs the reader to "disregard the 'King' scrawling above 'OBAMA.' It appeared after the 'OBAMA' graffiti and is not related." (No support is provided for either claim.)
And recall Obama's joke at the 2011 White House Correspondents Dinner, where he showed his "birth video" -- a clip from Disney's The Lion King where the animals bowed down in reverence to the baby lion, Simba, at his birth.
All amusing and interesting anecdotes -- but it's not difficult to envision a grown-up Obama as caesar, reclining in a royal box overlooking an arena, giving an executive-order thumb up or down as the crowd roars in approval. A caesar who reaps then redistributes the wealth of the people in billion-dollar bread and circuses, and, as Harvard Professor Mary Ann Glendon oncedescribed as a "modern form" of both, promotes a distracting "array of new sexual freedoms to compensate for the loss of the most basic civil right of all -- the right of self-government." A caesar who disarms the people in the guise of protecting them. And the majority of the population in this "neo-feudal landscape" loves Obama for it, and chants "hail" alongside a fawning media.
The Old Testament describes the time when the Israelites demanded a king to replace the judges that God appointed, even though Samuel warned the people that a king would only enslave them. Senator Rand Paul recently said, "I'm against having a king. I think having a monarch is what we fought the American Revolution over, and someone who wants to bypass the Constitution, bypass Congress, that's someone who wants to act like a king or monarch."
At one time, most Americans agreed with Paul, and many of us are still "against having a king." But the trillion-dollar question is whether Obama truly does seek the crown. When he circumvents the Constitution by arguing, "we can't wait" -- does the "we" refer to the people he serves, or the majestic plural? If the majority of the people want a king, will Congress and the courts allow Obama to continue forward in an evolving coronation of himself?
Presidents are sworn in and kings are crowned, but both ceremonies utilize religious symbolism. Author George Neumayr observed that "most revolutionaries" find the "appropriation" useful. "Even Napoleon invited the clergy to his coronation, though he made sure to give them poor seating, as they passively watched the leader crown himself."
Columnist John Hayward, in his article, "Rand Paul vs. King Barack I," wondered: "What makes a 'king'?" While a man may consider himself king of his own castle, a real king requires subjects outside the immediate family, lots of them -- which may explain, simply, why Obama seems to ignore the faltering economy and instead facilitates growth in the number of dependent Americans. A growing number, that, as Professor Glendon further observed, appear unwilling to "undertake the hard work of becoming citizens rather than subjects." Dependent subjects, many empowered by envy disguised as "fairness," who bow down to take their just reward -- find the drop to the knees easier work than a climb up by their own bootstraps. And we can't forget the crony courtiers, the political establishment, and the chattering class who clamor for a seat at the king's table.
History books are replete with accounts of tyrannies led by men who first played the crafty fox, roared as the lion, and then crowned themselves king. America may soon find itself the subject of a similar chapter. Glendon again: "the United States will not be the first republic to slip by small degrees into the form of government that, alas, has been more common than any other in human history: tyranny by a minority."
But there are still citizens who resist the change -- types apparently the subject of a new West Point think tank study warning of "past-oriented," "far-right" groups such as the "anti-federalist" movement. The study describes anti-federalists as those who "espouse strong convictions regarding the federal government, believing it to be corrupt and tyrannical, with a natural tendency to intrude on individuals' civil and constitutional rights," and who support "civil activism, individual freedoms, and self government."
Those terms once favorably portrayed America's heroic founders in their opposition to a monarchy. Now they describe citizens who oppose today's government -- "dangerous" because they simply dare to recognize that Big Government has grown into Big Brother. Tyrants and their cohorts consider such citizens a threat -- because these "bitter clingers" know how to track a fox, are brave enough to confront a lion, and refuse to bow to an earthly king.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)Operation Pillar of Defense (Gaza – November 2012): Objectives and 
Implications
By Michael Herzog


-Both in the 2008-2009 Operation Cast Lead and in the 2012 Operation Pillar
of Defense, Israel’s government focused its objective on enhancing
deterrence – opting for hitting the terrorists hard enough to give them an
interest in a ceasefire for as long as possible – rather than dismantling
Gaza’s terror infrastructure or toppling the Hamas government.
-Already in Cast Lead the IDF told the government that a Defensive
Shield-type operation (as in the West Bank in 2002) to eliminate Gaza’s
terror infrastructure, while possible, would require significant forces and
could take many months. Then the problem would arise: what would be Israel’s
exit strategy?

-The 2012 operation was carried out against the background of dramatic
changes in the region, with Israel facing a potential undermining of the
fragile peace with a different, Islamist Egypt; uncertainties along Israel’s
northern borders with Syria and Lebanon; and an ongoing critical situation
regarding Iran. Given all these considerations, the government was right to
determine more limited objectives, and successful in achieving them without
resorting to a ground operation.

-While fault-lines between Sunnis and Shiites are heating up across the
region, Hamas still draws on both camps. Even though Hamas has replaced its
Iranian political and economic umbrella with a Sunni one provided by Egypt,
Qatar, and Turkey, it still receives weapons from Iran, which now publicly
and proudly takes credit for it; Iran wants it known that it does more than
the Sunni states to aid Hamas’ anti-Israel struggle.

-If it has the requisite political will, Hamas is capable of enforcing the
ceasefire on all factions in Gaza, including jihadi groups that were the
main escalating engine leading to Operation Pillar of Defense. Hamas has
been trying to maneuver between its responsibilities as a government and its
wish to sustain its standing as a resistance movement. Operation Pillar of
Defense compelled Hamas to make a choice.

-Coupled with its Egyptian sponsor’s interest in stability, Hamas now feels
compelled to observe the ceasefire. The result, for the time being, is
unprecedented quiet along the Israel-Gaza border. To sustain that ceasefire,
however, it is essential to get Egypt to effectively stop the smuggling of
weapons through its territory into Gaza.

The objectives and implications of Israel’s Operation Pillar of Defense in
Gaza during November 14-21, 2012, can only be assessed in the wider context
of the new Middle East that has emerged from the earthquake known as the
Arab Spring.

Israel’s Announced Objectives

The objectives defined by Israel’s top political leadership were rather
modest. As articulated by Defense Minister Ehud Barak at the outset of the
operation, they were to enhance Israel’s deterrence vis-à-vis Hamas and
other factions in Gaza; to deny Hamas and these other factions certain
strategic capabilities, especially longer-range rockets; and to restore
normalcy to the life of Israeli citizens, hundreds of thousands of whom had
been driven into shelters by the daily barrage of rockets. Some claim these
objectives were too modest; in actuality, they were well calibrated.
An asymmetric war against an organization such as Hamas, that is at one and
the same time a terror organization, a political party, and a paramilitary
group both nesting in civilian-populated areas and targeting civilians,
constitutes a difficult challenge. Two different kinds of objectives may be
set for such an operation. On the one hand, one can focus the objective on
enhancing deterrence, namely, hit the terrorists hard enough to give them an
interest in a ceasefire for as long as possible, deny them certain
capabilities, and weaken their motivation to employ violence against you. On
the other hand, one can set a more ambitious, maximalist objective of
dismantling their terror capabilities. In this case, that would have
entailed a ground operation in Gaza comparable to Operation Defensive Shield
in the West Bank at the height of the Second Intifada, which would have
required very large-scale forces operating in Gaza for a long period.
Both in the 2008-2009 Operation Cast Lead and in the 2012 Operation Pillar
of Defense, Israel’s government opted for the first objective, not the more
ambitious one of dismantling Gaza’s terror infrastructure or even toppling
the Hamas government. In 2008, the Israeli government debated the same
issue. Although some officials pushed for a broader operation in Gaza,
ultimately the government decided not to go too far, even though it did
order a ground operation. The IDF had told the government that a Defensive
Shield-type operation to eliminate Gaza’s terror infrastructure would take
many months – some even said a year; and subsequently a difficult problem
would arise: to whom would Gaza be handed over, and what would be Israel’s
exit strategy?

The 2012 operation, carried out against the background of a dramatically
transformed Middle East, posed even more complex challenges, including the
possible undermining of the fragile peace with Egypt. Israel also faces
uncertainties along its northern borders with Syria and Lebanon, and an
ongoing critical situation regarding Iran’s nuclear program which may come
to a head in a matter of months. Given all these considerations, the
government was right to determine more limited objectives. It appears that
the basic objective was achieved: Hamas was hit hard militarily, resulting
for the time being in nearly absolute quiet along Israel’s border with Gaza.
Facing a Complex Aftermath

The realities, however, are still more nuanced and complex. What happened in
Gaza is a microcosm of current developments in the Middle East, where new
forces have arisen. The most prominent is political Islam, first and
foremost the new Muslim Brotherhood regime in Egypt that must be taken into
account when dealing with Gaza. When Israel launched Operation Cast Lead in
2008, the Hosni Mubarak-led Egyptian government quietly encouraged Israel to
destroy Hamas, and expressed disappointment when this was not accomplished.
The situation now, of course, is different; Hamas is essentially the
Palestinian wing of the Muslim Brotherhood, and in a sense heralded the rise
of political Islam by winning the 2006 Palestinian Authority parliamentary
elections and then taking over Gaza in a bloody coup in June 2007. Whereas
Mubarak’s government regarded Hamas as a threat to Egypt’s national
security, the government of President Muhammad Morsi provides the Hamas
regime with a political umbrella, and Israel was well aware that it had to
maneuver in a different environment for Operation Pillar of Defense.
Moreover, an alignment of major Sunni powers in the region, including Qatar
and Turkey, now joins Egypt and provides Hamas with an even wider umbrella.
Already before Pillar of Defense, all these actors were helping Hamas break
out of its political isolation and economic hardship. In October, the emir
of Qatar made the first-ever state visit to Hamas in Gaza, pledging $450
million in financial support. Turkey, too, has given Hamas both political
and financial support.

Major Sunni powers have been cooperating with the United States and the West
on important issues and particularly against Iran and global jihadi
elements; at the same time, these Sunni powers support Islamist actors in
the region, including Islamist forces in Syria and Hamas in Gaza. In Egypt’s
parliamentary elections, Qatar extended financial support to the Muslim
Brotherhood and the Saudis funneled aid to the Salafists. Thus the West
faces a serious challenge: major regional forces, that are considered allies
in advancing and safeguarding important Western interests, support
inherently anti-democracy and anti-West Islamists at the expense of more
liberal national forces.

In the case of Hamas, there is a security advantage to this situation,
alongside its very basic disadvantages. As evident during the recent crisis,
Egypt would like to provide Hamas with political achievements. Yet, at the
same time, as long as Cairo – sponsor to the ceasefire – wants to maintain a
quiet border between Israel, Gaza, and Egypt and curb jihadi forces
threatening the status quo there, and with Hamas having an affinity with the
Morsi government contrary to its relations with Mubarak, the chances of
Hamas upholding a ceasefire are greater, at least for the time being. In
other words, a kind of trade-off emerges: Hamas offers quiet, and receives
political and economic assistance from its supporters.

In the broader regional context, increased tensions along the Sunni-Shiite
fault line constitute a major phenomenon in this new Middle East. It is
evident almost everywhere – in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Bahrain, and even in
Saudi Arabia where there is a significant Shiite minority in the oil-rich
Eastern Province. It is all the more evident in the relations between the
major Sunni powers and Iran. In this regard, however, Gaza is a very unique
case. Hamas in Gaza, even though a Sunni movement, was part of the radical,
mostly-Shiite axis led by Iran along with Syria and Hizbullah. But since the
outbreak of the Arab Spring, with Hamas unable to support Bashar al-Assad’s
Alawite regime in Syria, tensions have arisen between Hamas and Iran, with
Hamas declining in favor and losing financial support. When it comes to
fighting Israel, however, Iran continues to back Hamas.

Hence, even though Hamas has replaced its Iranian political and economic
umbrella with a Sunni one provided by Egypt, Qatar, and Turkey, it still
receives weapons from Iran. And even though the Sunni and Shiite camps are
fighting each other, both, in different ways, provide assistance to Hamas in
standing against Israel.

Interestingly, whereas in the past the Iranians would never admit supplying
weapons to Hamas in Gaza, following the recent crisis they have publicly and
proudly taken credit for it, and Hamas leaders have openly acknowledged it
as well. The Iranians’ new candor can be explained by their concern about
the Sunni umbrella. They want the credit for what is perceived across the
Arab world as a successful show of resistance by Hamas during Israel’s
operation in Gaza, including the targeting of Tel Aviv. They want it to be
known that they give Hamas a more important kind of aid; whereas the Sunni
states may have extended some financial support to Hamas, what Hizbullah
leader Hassan Nasrallah mockingly called “a penny and a half,” Iran provides
the real thing – weapons, enabling Hamas to carry out the resistance against
Israel. In other words, it is Iran that does more for Hamas’ anti-Israel
struggle.

Extremist Islamists on the Rise

The events in Gaza highlight another aspect of the Arab Spring: the
unleashing of the energies not only of so-called mainstream Islamic
political movements like the Muslim Brotherhood, but also of more extreme
Salafist and jihadi streams. Such groups are resurgent across the Middle
East; in North Africa (including the killing of the U.S. ambassador in
Libya), in Egypt (whose parliament now includes Salafists for the first
time), in Jordan (which recently thwarted major jihadi terror attacks on its
soil), in Iraq (experiencing a significant spike in the level of terrorism)
and in Syria (where Jabhat Al-Nusra, an off-shoot of Iraqi al-Qaeda, is the
most potent anti-Assad fighting force).

Over the past few years jihadi groups have also mushroomed in Gaza and
Sinai, cooperating with each other in planning and perpetrating attacks
against Israeli targets from both areas. Indeed, these jihadi groups’
provocations were the main cause of the escalation between Israel and Gaza.
Hamas was drawn in so as to maintain its credentials as a resistance
movement, until finally Israel was compelled to launch Operation Pillar of
Defense.

At present the challenge, first and foremost for the Hamas government in
Gaza, is to enforce a ceasefire on all these groups. That was one of the
Israeli conditions when negotiating the ceasefire, and the Egyptian document
announcing and sponsoring the ceasefire made it binding on all factions in
Gaza, with Hamas bearing ultimate responsibility. If it has the requisite
political will, Hamas is capable of guaranteeing the ceasefire. It is such
political will that has been lacking so far, with Hamas trying to maneuver
between its responsibilities as a government and its wish to sustain its
standing as a resistance movement. Operation Pillar of Defense, however,
compelled Hamas to make a choice, and so far the organization has been
enforcing the ceasefire on all the other groups.
The Palestinian Authority in Decline?

Another aspect of the changes underway in the Middle East is the tension
between Islamists and nationalists, and it is well evident in the
Palestinian context. Although Hamas was decisively beaten militarily, in the
political sphere it scored points, mainly because of the above-mentioned
Sunni political and economic umbrella it receives. At the same time, the
Palestinian Authority was totally marginalized during the Gaza crisis. While
Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal was in Cairo meeting with Morsi to work out the
ceasefire terms, PA President Mahmoud Abbas tried to call Morsi – who would
not take his call for five days. When Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
came to Israel and Egypt to help craft the ceasefire, she visited Abbas in
Ramallah for all of thirty minutes. It was also to extricate itself from
this complete marginalization, exacerbated by the events in Gaza, that the
Palestinian Authority went to the United Nations.

It remains to be seen how things will play out in the Palestinian context.
Over the past few years, the West’s and Israel’s approach has been to
highlight the differences between the West Bank-based Palestinian Authority,
on the one hand, and Gaza, on the other. It was to show that the nonviolent
and potential partner for negotiations – the Palestinian Authority in the
West Bank–could become a thriving entity under the stewardship of Prime
Minister Salam Fayyad with his institution building, while violent Gaza
under Hamas, openly calling for the destruction of Israel, was isolated and
declining. The regional transformation, however, has produced almost a
reverse picture. While the entity in Gaza is still far from economic
prosperity, it now enjoys Sunni investments and has emerged from isolation,
whereas the West Bank entity is on the verge of economic collapse. It is as
yet unclear whether these two entities can reconcile with each other.
Iron Dome and Imminent Threats

From a military standpoint, Operation Pillar of Defense was different from
Operation Cast Lead in several significant ways. Since 2008, Hamas and other
Gaza factions have expanded their rocket arsenals to include longer-range
rockets. In 2008, Israeli intelligence estimated that all factions in Gaza
possessed around five thousand rockets; by the outbreak of Pillar of Defense
they were estimated to have ten to twelve thousand, including, for the first
time, rockets that could reach Tel Aviv. Indeed, those rockets were used
during the recent conflict, albeit in a symbolic fashion.

Israel, however, did not sit idly by between these two operations, and the
cardinal development of this conflict was the amazingly successful
performance of the Israeli-manufactured Iron Dome rocket-defense system. The
deterrence achieved by Operation Cast Lead afforded Israel some time, and
Israel used this time to develop Iron Dome with its remarkable 85-percent
success rate achieved during Operation Pillar of Defense, providing both
security and a sense of security to the Israeli population. That, moreover,
was one of the major reasons Israel did not ultimately feel it had to launch
a ground operation into Gaza. In the absence of Iron Dome, the pressure in
Israel – in response to casualties and damage – may well have pushed the
government into such an operation, as occurred during Cast Lead.
Israel also applied lessons about conducting an asymmetric war against a
terror organization and a paramilitary force firing at civilians from
civilian areas. Israel selected its targets very carefully, using
precision-guided munitions. The amount of civilian casualties and collateral
damage on the Palestinian side was notably lower than in previous rounds.
Israel also invested a good deal in preparing the nonmilitary elements of
such asymmetric warfare, including legal, humanitarian, and media aspects.
Such wars involve perceptions, not only military hostilities. In this latest
round, Israel did better in that regard as well; for example, during the
fighting itself, Israel allowed eighty truckloads of humanitarian assistance
into Gaza.

The Challenge from Iran’s Proxy: Hizbullah

What are the implications of this latest round of hostilities on the Iranian
challenge? Assuming there is a strike on Iran, be it Israeli or American,
and the Iranians respond with missiles and rockets, directly and through
proxies such as Hizbullah, have lessons been learned that could be applied
to such a confrontation? If there is a showdown with Iran and it entails
confronting Hizbullah, the situation will be totally different because
Hizbullah now possesses some seventy thousand rockets, including many more
longer-range and heavier rockets than Hamas; as Nasrallah has bragged,
hundreds of them could be launched at Tel Aviv. Iron Dome can only intercept
rockets with a certain range, and Israel still lacks a system that can
intercept longer-range rockets. Such a system, David’s Sling, is under
development, but will only be operational in another two years at the
earliest.

If, then, Israel comes to face such a challenge along its northern border,
it will have to behave differently. It cannot allow itself to be dragged
into a war of attrition where thousands of rockets target Israeli cities
incessantly without an interception system to stop them. In that case, and
also applying lessons from the 2006 Second Lebanon War, Israel may well have
to attack the national Lebanese infrastructure that supports Hizbullah, and
may feel compelled to launch a ground operation at an early stage.
Maintaining the Ceasefire: Egypt’s Key Role

There is now a ceasefire in place, and the parties are talking continuously
via Egypt about a supportive envelope of arrangements. This phase is
critical. The most important element is to stop the smuggling of weapons
through Egypt into Gaza. Those longer-range rockets did not fall from
heaven; they came from somewhere and made their way through Egyptian soil.
After Operation Cast Lead, Israel worked out understandings with the United
States and Egypt about stopping the smuggling, but not much was done. The
present government in Cairo must be persuaded that its own interest entails
preventing this smuggling; the alternative is ongoing, intermittent warfare
along its border. Such clashes also energize jihadi and other groups that
Egypt does not want to be empowered. Thus, a key challenge is to get Egypt
to do a better job in stopping the arms smuggling.

For example, the Fajr-5 rockets, some of which were launched at Tel Aviv,
are each 6.5 meters long. Although these rockets are disassembled on their
way to Gaza, then reassembled there, they are heavy rockets with heavy
launchers; why, then, did no one observe them on their way to the border?
The routes used for such smuggling (mostly coming from Libya and Sudan) are
not that many and there must be a way to stop it.

Although Hamas, for its part, would like to see the lifting of what it calls
the siege, it is not to be expected that the crossings between Israel and
Gaza will turn from normally closed to normally open. After all, Gaza is a
hostile entity. Even before Operation Pillar of Defense, Israel was allowing
an average of over two hundred truckloads of goods and medical supplies to
enter Gaza daily.

Moreover, the Rafah crossing is open to people, and goods can pass through
the Israeli crossing at Kerem Shalom. Indeed, both parties have agreed to
allow the entry of construction materials to Gaza through the Rafah crossing
on an ad hoc basis. At the same time, huge quantities of merchandise
regularly pass through the tunnels along the Gaza-Egypt border, providing
Hamas with a massive source of income. Tunnel owners have to register with
Hamas authorities and pay taxes on anything that goes through. The issue,
then, is not really one of lifting a siege. It is about being able to claim
that Hamas has been victorious in resisting Israel and has gained something
from the conflict. What should concern Israel first and foremost, however,
is the arms smuggling, and that entails getting Egypt to do more.

In sum, Operation Pillar of Defense exemplifies how Israel has to cope with
old, new, and emerging challenges to its national security in a much more
complex environment than in the past, one characterized by dramatic changes
and rising new negative forces.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)'Fiscal' Conservatism Needs 'Social' Conservatism
By Dennis Prager

 For some years now, we have been told about a major division within American conservatism: fiscal conservatives vs. social conservatives.
This division is hurting conservatism and hurting America -- because the survival of American values depends on both fiscal and social conservatism. Furthermore, the division is logically and morally untenable. A conservative conserves all American values, not just economic ones.
By "social conservatism," I am referring to the second and third components of what I call the American Trinity -- liberty, "In God We Trust" and "E Pluribus Unum."
It is worth noting that a similar bifurcation does not exist on the left. One never hears the term "fiscal liberals." Why not? Because those who consider themselves liberals are liberal across the board -- fiscally and socially.
The left understands that values are a package. Apparently, many conservatives -- libertarians, for example -- do not. They think that we can sustain liberty while ignoring God and religion and ignoring American nationalism and exceptionalism.
It is true that small government and liberty are at the heart of the American experiment. But they are dependent on two other values: a God-based religious vigor in the society and the melting pot ideal.
Or, to put it another way, small government and fiscal conservatism will not survive the victory of social leftism.
The Founding Fathers made clear that liberty is dependent upon not only small government but also society's affirming God-based values. Not having imbibed the Enlightenment foolishness that people are basically good, the founders understood that in order for a society to prosper without big government, its citizens have to hold themselves accountable to something other than -- higher than -- the brute force of the state. That something is God and the Judeo-Christian religions that are its vehicle.
Those who believe in a small state -- fiscal conservatives -- need to know that a small state is dependent on a big God and, therefore, on a God-centered population. Look at Europe for confirmation. As secularism expands, so does the state. And that is what is happening in America.
Fiscal conservatives, such as libertarians, don't make this connection. They view small government as an achievable end in and of itself, divorced from the social/religious values the American people hold.
Western and Chinese apologists for the Communist Chinese regime argue the same thing -- that economic freedom is divisible from other values.
I am in no way morally equating American libertarians and other fiscal conservatives to Chinese Communists. Libertarians hate communism. I am only pointing out that they agree on the separation of economic and social values, on the dispensability of God and religion, on the idea that America should not interfere in other nations -- no matter how great the evil -- and more.
Fiscal conservatives who consider themselves conservative need to imagine what type of America they will bequeath to future generations if the only conservative value that survives is fiscal conservatism.
Do you really want to live in an America that is godless, where liberty derives from the state and where moral values derive from each individual's heart? In an America that ignores genocides abroad? In an America that so radically redefines marriage -- the union of anyone who loves anyone -- that it no longer has a moral justification to prohibit polygamy or incest? In an America that has no moral opinion on abortion, even if performed solely, let us say, for reasons of the fetus's gender? In an America that embraces multiculturalism rather than the melting pot ideal?
My goal here is not to expel from the conservative movement those who are conservative only with regard to fiscal matters. May God bless them (even those who do not believe in him), and may they long vote Republican. My goal is to bring them to social conservatism.
Because a conservative conserves. And not just money.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5)Obama's Inaugural Intentions

The president reached out to Democratic interest groups. Republicans? Not so much

By FRED BARNES


President Obama wants more government. In his second inaugural address, he masked the message with phrases like "collective action" and doing "things together." But these were stand-ins—euphemisms, really—for a bigger and more ambitious federal government. That's the unmistakable goal of his second term, and his inaugural address was devoted to his determination to achieve it.

Mr. Obama paid lip service to reducing "the size of our deficit." This was followed by a crucial "but" as he went on to defend a series of programs he is unwilling to cut, including Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. "These things do not sap our initiative," he declared. "They strengthen us."

In effect, Mr. Obama endorsed the entire liberal agenda as the guiding star of his next four years in the White House. He reached out to various interest groups in the Democratic coalition—gays, minorities, feminists, the poor, immigrants. But to Republicans, he offered nothing, not even a vague desire to meet them halfway or reach bipartisan agreements on taxes, spending or anything else.

So there won't be a "grand bargain" in Mr. Obama's second term. As for the looming debt crisis, the president didn't give it so much as an anxious nod. His mind was on growing government.
The speech should debunk two myths about Mr. Obama and his presidency, both trumpeted by liberal commentators and Democratic activists. One is that the president is really a pragmatist and a centrist. Not so. Only an ideologically committed liberal could have delivered the address that Mr. Obama did.

The other myth is that Mr. Obama is eager to compromise with Republicans but has faced unprecedented obstructionism on their part. The speech told a different tale. It showed the president bent on pursuing an agenda with few if any sweeteners for Republicans.

The highly partisan theme was a departure from recent second inaugural addresses. In 2005, George W. Bush talked about spreading freedom and touched on national unity and healing. In 1997, Bill Clinton called for "a government that is smaller, lives within its means, and does more with less." In 1973, Richard Nixon emphasized peace. In 1985, Ronald Reagan advocated "steps to permanently control government's power to tax and spend." (See Notable & Quotable nearby.)
If there is a model for Mr. Obama's speech, it is FDR's famous inaugural address in 1937, when he unabashedly extolled government. "Democratic government has the innate capacity to protect its people against disasters once considered inevitable, to solve problems once considered unsolvable," FDR declared. Mr. Obama was less explicit, but his emphasis was on the virtues of government.

Perhaps we shouldn't have been surprised. For nearly two years, Mr. Obama has been touting government programs (except defense) while criticizing Republicans as morally deficient in their demands for reductions in spending. At a news conference a week ago, he said Republicans "have suspicions about whether government should make sure that kids in poverty are getting enough to eat or whether we should be spending money on medical research."
Indeed, the merits of government and the heartlessness of Republicans were the chief talking points of Mr. Obama's re-election campaign. And while he muffled those themes in his address, he didn't abandon them.
"We reject the belief that America must choose between caring for the generation that built this country and investing in the generation that will build its future," he said. Who might those cruel rejectionists be? Mr. Obama's implication was clear—they're Republicans.

And "some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science" about global warming, the president said, but "none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms." He didn't identify the anti-science "some," but it's an easy guess whom he had in mind.

The day before the inaugural speech, the president's senior political adviser, David Plouffe, laid out Mr. Obama's strategy for defeating Republicans. On CNN, Mr. Plouffe claimed that Republicans in Washington are a "barrier to progress" and "out of the mainstream." He contrasted them with "Republicans in the country who are seeking compromise, seeking balance."
There's no empirical basis for this supposed gap in the GOP ranks. But Mr. Obama and his aides would like to create one by driving a wedge between Republicans. The Democrats will first need a better understanding of the opposition: Republicans in Washington are more attuned to compromise than those outside.

A hardy perennial of Obama speeches is an expression of wariness about government. "We have never relinquished our skepticism of central authority, nor have we succumbed to the fiction that all society's ills can be cured through government alone," he said in his inaugural address. But the speech contradicted this claim, since practically all the solutions it stressed were government ones.

Mr. Obama also likes to refer to obsolete programs—"We understand that outworn programs are inadequate to the needs of our time"—without citing any in particular for extinction.
And there was another bit of misdirection—a classic Obama rhetorical trick—in the address. "Progress does not compel us to settle the centuries-long debate about the role of government for all time," he said, "but it does require us to act in our time." Practically every word of his second inaugural speech said that Mr. Obama knows precisely what the role of government should be: a big one.
Mr. Barnes is the executive editor of the Weekly Standard.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6)As Prepared for Delivery --
Vice President Biden, Mr. Chief Justice, Members of the United States Congress, distinguished guests, and fellow citizens:
Each time we gather to inaugurate a president, we bear witness to the enduring strength of our Constitution. We affirm the promise of our democracy. We recall that what binds this nation together is not the colors of our skin or the tenets of our faith or the origins of our names. What makes us exceptional – what makes us American – is our allegiance to an idea, articulated in a declaration made more than two centuries ago:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Today we continue a never-ending journey, to bridge the meaning of those words with the realities of our time. For history tells us that while these truths may be self-evident, they have never been self-executing; that while freedom is a gift from God, it must be secured by His people here on Earth. The patriots of 1776 did not fight to replace the tyranny of a king with the privileges of a few or the rule of a mob. They gave to us a Republic, a government of, and by, and for the people, entrusting each generation to keep safe our founding creed.
For more than two hundred years, we have.
Through blood drawn by lash and blood drawn by sword, we learned that no union founded on the principles of liberty and equality could survive half-slave and half-free. We made ourselves anew, and vowed to move forward together.
Together, we determined that a modern economy requires railroads and highways to speed travel and commerce; schools and colleges to train our workers.
Together, we discovered that a free market only thrives when there are rules to ensure competition and fair play.
Together, we resolved that a great nation must care for the vulnerable, and protect its people from life’s worst hazards and misfortune.
Through it all, we have never relinquished our skepticism of central authority, nor have we succumbed to the fiction that all society’s ills can be cured through government alone. Our celebration of initiative and enterprise; our insistence on hard work and personal responsibility, are constants in our character.
But we have always understood that when times change, so must we; that fidelity to our founding principles requires new responses to new challenges; that preserving our individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action. For the American people can no more meet the demands of today’s world by acting alone than American soldiers could have met the forces of fascism or communism with muskets and militias. No single person can train all the math and science teachers we’ll need to equip our children for the future, or build the roads and networks and research labs that will bring new jobs and businesses to our shores. Now, more than ever, we must do these things together, as one nation, and one people.
This generation of Americans has been tested by crises that steeled our resolve and proved our resilience. A decade of war is now ending. An economic recovery has begun. America’s possibilities are limitless, for we possess all the qualities that this world without boundaries demands: youth and drive; diversity and openness; an endless capacity for risk and a gift for reinvention. My fellow Americans, we are made for this moment, and we will seize it – so long as we seize it together.
For we, the people, understand that our country cannot succeed when a shrinking few do very well and a growing many barely make it. We believe that America’s prosperity must rest upon the broad shoulders of a rising middle class. We know that America thrives when every person can find independence and pride in their work; when the wages of honest labor liberate families from the brink of hardship. We are true to our creed when a little girl born into the bleakest poverty knows that she has the same chance to succeed as anybody else, because she is an American, she is free, and she is equal, not just in the eyes of God but also in our own.
We understand that outworn programs are inadequate to the needs of our time. We must harness new ideas and technology to remake our government, revamp our tax code, reform our schools, and empower our citizens with the skills they need to work harder, learn more, and reach higher. But while the means will change, our purpose endures: a nation that rewards the effort and determination of every single American. That is what this moment requires. That is what will give real meaning to our creed.
We, the people, still believe that every citizen deserves a basic measure of security and dignity. We must make the hard choices to reduce the cost of health care and the size of our deficit. But we reject the belief that America must choose between caring for the generation that built this country and investing in the generation that will build its future. For we remember the lessons of our past, when twilight years were spent in poverty, and parents of a child with a disability had nowhere to turn. We do not believe that in this country, freedom is reserved for the lucky, or happiness for the few. We recognize that no matter how responsibly we live our lives, any one of us, at any time, may face a job loss, or a sudden illness, or a home swept away in a terrible storm. The commitments we make to each other – through Medicare, and Medicaid, and Social Security – these things do not sap our initiative; they strengthen us. They do not make us a nation of takers; they free us to take the risks that make this country great.

We, the people, still believe that our obligations as Americans are not just to ourselves, but to all posterity. We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations. Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms. The path towards sustainable energy sources will be long and sometimes difficult. But America cannot resist this transition; we must lead it. We cannot cede to other nations the technology that will power new jobs and new industries – we must claim its promise. That is how we will maintain our economic vitality and our national treasure – our forests and waterways; our croplands and snowcapped peaks. That is how we will preserve our planet, commanded to our care by God. That’s what will lend meaning to the creed our fathers once declared.
We, the people, still believe that enduring security and lasting peace do not require perpetual war. Our brave men and women in uniform, tempered by the flames of battle, are unmatched in skill and courage. Our citizens, seared by the memory of those we have lost, know too well the price that is paid for liberty. The knowledge of their sacrifice will keep us forever vigilant against those who would do us harm. But we are also heirs to those who won the peace and not just the war, who turned sworn enemies into the surest of friends, and we must carry those lessons into this time as well.
We will defend our people and uphold our values through strength of arms and rule of law. We will show the courage to try and resolve our differences with other nations peacefully – not because we are naïve about the dangers we face, but because engagement can more durably lift suspicion and fear. America will remain the anchor of strong alliances in every corner of the globe; and we will renew those institutions that extend our capacity to manage crisis abroad, for no one has a greater stake in a peaceful world than its most powerful nation. We will support democracy from Asia to Africa; from the Americas to the Middle East, because our interests and our conscience compel us to act on behalf of those who long for freedom. And we must be a source of hope to the poor, the sick, the marginalized, the victims of prejudice – not out of mere charity, but because peace in our time requires the constant advance of those principles that our common creed describes: tolerance and opportunity; human dignity and justice.
We, the people, declare today that the most evident of truths – that all of us are created equal – is the star that guides us still; just as it guided our forebears through Seneca Falls, and Selma, and Stonewall; just as it guided all those men and women, sung and unsung, who left footprints along this great Mall, to hear a preacher say that we cannot walk alone; to hear a King proclaim that our individual freedom is inextricably bound to the freedom of every soul on Earth.
It is now our generation’s task to carry on what those pioneers began. For our journey is not complete until our wives, our mothers, and daughters can earn a living equal to their efforts. Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law – for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well. Our journey is not complete until no citizen is forced to wait for hours to exercise the right to vote. Our journey is not complete until we find a better way to welcome the striving, hopeful immigrants who still see America as a land of opportunity; until bright young students and engineers are enlisted in our workforce rather than expelled from our country. Our journey is not complete until all our children, from the streets of Detroit to the hills of Appalachia to the quiet lanes of Newtown, know that they are cared for, and cherished, and always safe from harm.

That is our generation’s task – to make these words, these rights, these values – of Life, and Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness – real for every American. Being true to our founding documents does not require us to agree on every contour of life; it does not mean we will all define liberty in exactly the same way, or follow the same precise path to happiness. Progress does not compel us to settle centuries-long debates about the role of government for all time – but it does require us to act in our time.
For now decisions are upon us, and we cannot afford delay. We cannot mistake absolutism for principle, or substitute spectacle for politics, or treat name-calling as reasoned debate. We must act, knowing that our work will be imperfect. We must act, knowing that today’s victories will be only partial, and that it will be up to those who stand here in four years, and forty years, and four hundred years hence to advance the timeless spirit once conferred to us in a spare Philadelphia hall.
My fellow Americans, the oath I have sworn before you today, like the one recited by others who serve in this Capitol, was an oath to God and country, not party or faction – and we must faithfully execute that pledge during the duration of our service. But the words I spoke today are not so different from the oath that is taken each time a soldier signs up for duty, or an immigrant realizes her dream. My oath is not so different from the pledge we all make to the flag that waves above and that fills our hearts with pride.
They are the words of citizens, and they represent our greatest hope.
You and I, as citizens, have the power to set this country’s course.
You and I, as citizens, have the obligation to shape the debates of our time – not only with the votes we cast, but with the voices we lift in defense of our most ancient values and enduring ideals.
Let each of us now embrace, with solemn duty and awesome joy, what is our lasting birthright. With common effort and common purpose, with passion and dedication, let us answer the call of history, and carry into an uncertain future that precious light of freedom.
Thank you, God Bless you, and may He forever bless these United States of America.



Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)