YouTube - Videos from this email===
Verba non actum! Bad foreign policy. The West entraps itself time and again because adversaries understand force and commitment and talk, to them, is generally meaningless and provides an opportunity for further gain
If the West does not have the stomach to prevail should it avoid involvement? (See 1 below.)
===
Star will be our key note speaker at the SIRC President's Dinner, Feb 17, 1014 at The Plantation Club.
Who is she? "
Star Parker
(See 2 and 2a below.)===
Obama's Attorney General extracts a pound of flesh from a bank which, apparently, did a favor for the federal government. That's gratitude Obama style.
I am not suggesting J.P Morgan may not have committed some wrong but the extraction does not fit the alleged crime which largely involved rescuing our government. (See 3 below.)
Netanyahu, take heed! (See 3a below.)
===
This from a dear friend!
Contrast Reagan's thinking, expressions and his actions with Obama's! (See 4 below.)
===
Dick
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)We're Talking (While They're Acting)
by Shoshana Bryen
Churchill's dictum, "Jaw-jaw is better than war-war," is a concept without application in much of the world. Western-style negotiations seek common ground and compromise, while others seek only to "jaw" while the work of war goes on. The West vests the process itself with value, providing our adversaries with instant leverage when they value only their own strategic interests. The result is that the U.S. finds itself compromising or changing its goals unilaterally in an effort to maintain processes that are increasingly disconnected from American interests.
The mother of all processes is the Arab-Israeli "peace process," originally intended to rescind Arab rejection of Israel and provide Israel the "secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force" promised by U.N. Resolution 242 in 1967. It didn't work. To try a different angle, the United States decided to "solve" the "Palestinian problem" first and thus "encourage" the Arab states.
That didn't work, either, but twenty years of Palestinian-Israeli jawing since the 1993 Oslo Accord changed the goal from Arab recognition of Israel to the creation of a Palestinian state. Since Oslo, Israel has fought a bloody war orchestrated by Yasser Arafat from the West Bank and a missile war by Hamas from Gaza. It has been subject to official Palestinian incitement and raw anti-Semitism. Yet, under U.S. pressure, the Israeli government has signed an array of new agreements, each designed to cover up the failure of its predecessor, and the "peace process" remains a priority for American presidents. The Palestinians, both Hamas and Fatah, retain their strategic position that they not agree to the legitimacy of the State of Israel.
Now, President Obama is talking to Russian President Putin and Iranian President Rouhani. Putin is talking to Bashar Assad; Secretary of State Kerry is talking glowingly about Assad, and to Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov and Afghan President Karzai. Karzai is talking to the Afghan Taliban, and so are we. The P5+1 is talking about Iran and to it. The Security Council was talking about Syria, but it has stopped for now.
In each case, the markers for the success of international diplomacy have slid away from long-term U.S. goals.
Bashar Assad's strategic goal is to remain in power -- preferably in Damascus, but if necessary in the Alawite heartland. To that end, more than 100,000 people have been killed, including thousands of children, some by chemical weapons. The original American position, articulated both by President Obama and then-Secretary of State Clinton, was that Assad had lost his legitimacy as a leader. The second, articulated by the president, was that Syrian chemical weapons not be moved or used. Under the threat of a Russian veto, the U.N. Security Council was unable to articulate a unified position on the conventional civilian casualties or condemn the Syrian government, finally voting on eliminating Syria's chemical arsenal.
This changed everything. Assad is no longer an "illegitimate" mass murderer; he is a partner to and guarantor of the UNSCR resolution and OPCW inspectors. He got American credit for the speed with which the experts were permitted access and for cooperation with their mission. The conventional killing, on the other hand -- including bombing and artillery shelling of civilian areas -- continues apace, and without comment from the West.
Because Assad is cooperating, he no longer fears a U.S. military strike, pressure to resign, or additional condemnation. But that has made already remote plans for a peace conference in Geneva more remote, because the National Coalition opposition is opposed to talks while Assad rules. His departure -- the original American goal -- is farther away than ever. But talk about talking continues.
Iran's strategic goal is to continue uranium enrichment with the intention of achieving nuclear weapons. Under serious economic pressure right now, Iran's government wants international sanctions lightened and the next round of sanctions delayed indefinitely. Hassan Rouhani was elected to achieve the first by jawing with the West about the second. He toned down the rhetoric of his predecessor and canceled an annual conference on anti-Zionism. The State Department responded by seeking a delay in new sanctions, and a day later, the U.S. Senate agreed.
The U.S. strategic goal had been to prevent Iran uranium enrichment. Having lost that battle as Iran installed centrifuges while we were jawing in the 1990s, the goal became denying Iran nuclear weapons capability; now it is to deny it nuclear weapons. Delaying sanctions for the sake of negotiations is not the same as agreeing to Iranian demands, but it will change the trajectory of the talks from Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons to a deal on sanctions. Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov muddied the water (deliberately) by announcing that Iran doesn't have to give up its nuclear program, but only "absolutely prove" that the program is civilian and cooperate "fully" with the IAEA. This, he said, would require "significant reciprocal steps" from the West. Lavrov undermined the P5+1 by ignoring the fact that Iran is already required to do those things without reciprocity.
But that's a different conversation.
Russia's strategic goal is restoration of the superpower status lost with the collapse of the Soviet Union. The U.S. appears to have no strategic goal, but the unilateral "reset" has benefited Russia in several ways. The administration came into office canceling the deployment of anti-missile radars in Poland and the Czech Republic hoping for Russian support with Iran and reciprocal missile reductions that never materialized. Earlier this year, the administration canceled long-range interceptors that were to have been deployed in Europe in 2018, a key Russian demand. A look at the U.S. nuclear modernization budget finds little plan for actual modernization, while the Russians have announced plans for nuclear modernization and embarked on their first major military buildup since the collapse. Two other U.S.-Russian "agreements" are for Russia to permit the U.S. to use Russian territory to supply coalition forces in Afghanistan and for the Russians to ferry American astronauts to the International Space Station. Both give Putin bragging rights about American dependence on Russia to attain its national goals.
Finally, the U.S. strategic goal in Afghanistan is to leave, and it is in conversation with both the Karzai government and the Taliban for the terms of its departure. The Taliban's goal is to rule Afghanistan, and Karzai's is likely to remain alive to spend the money he's hidden elsewhere. Talking, in this case, while we withdraw and the Taliban advances, may work for them and us, though perhaps not for Karzai.
The inescapable conclusion is that the United States has jaw-jawed its way to a world of Palestinian intransigence, an unmitigated Syrian bloodbath, increased Iranian progress toward nuclear weapons, a resurgent Russia, and a Taliban-led Afghanistan.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)
A number of years ago I was between flights on a business trip and was sitting in an airport restaurant having lunch. It was right after the 2008 presidential election and I knew that the election of America’s first black president, a man of the hard left, would make my job bringing a conservative message to black communities much more challenging and difficult.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Each stop of this trip is important, but among them all, this moment occupies a special place in my heart and in the hearts of my countrymen -- a moment of kinship and homecoming in these hallowed halls.
It has been said that an institution is the lengthening shadow of a man. This institution is the lengthening shadow of all the men and women who have sat here and all those who have voted to send representatives here.
This is my second visit to Great Britain as President of the United States. My first opportunity to stand on British soil occurred almost a year and a half ago when your Prime Minister graciously hosted a diplomatic dinner at the British Embassy in Washington. Mrs. Thatcher said then that she hoped I was not distressed to find staring down at me from the grand staircase a portrait of His Royal Majesty King George III. She suggested it was best to let bygones be bygones, and in view of our two countries' remarkable friendship in succeeding years, she added that most Englishmen today would agree with Thomas Jefferson that "a little rebellion now and then is a very good thing." [Laughter]
Poland's struggle to be Poland and to secure the basic rights we often take for granted demonstrates why we dare not take those rights for granted. Gladstone, defending the Reform Bill of 1866, declared, "You cannot fight against the future. Time is on our side." It was easier to believe in the march of democracy in Gladstone's day -- in that high noon of Victorian optimism.
We're approaching the end of a bloody century plagued by a terrible political invention -- totalitarianism. Optimism comes less easily today, not because democracy is less vigorous, but because democracy's enemies have refined their instruments of repression. Yet optimism is in order, because day-by-day democracy is proving itself to be a not-at-all-fragile flower. From Stettin on the Baltic to Varna on the Black Sea, the regimes planted by totalitarianism have had more than 30 years to establish their legitimacy. But none -- not one regime -- has yet been able to risk free elections. Regimes planted by bayonets do not take root.
2)
We’re Not Retreating – We’re Advancing in a Different Direction
By Star ParkerA number of years ago I was between flights on a business trip and was sitting in an airport restaurant having lunch. It was right after the 2008 presidential election and I knew that the election of America’s first black president, a man of the hard left, would make my job bringing a conservative message to black communities much more challenging and difficult.
As I ate my sandwich I glanced at the wall and saw a sign with a quote from General Douglas MacArthur. It said, “We are not retreating – we are advancing in another direction.”
I was immediately energized by this quote from the old general. It was exactly what I needed at the moment. It totally captured my state of mind. Perhaps my mission needed a change in tactics but certainly there was no change in commitment and objectives.
There is no smooth sailing in any tough mission. Setbacks are always part of the game. But if you are committed and right, setbacks are opportunities to re-group and improve.
Those who think that the current deal to temporarily fund the government and open the door to yet even more government borrowing amounts to some kind of defeat for Tea Party Republicans need to think again.
The Tea Party is in for the long haul. One skirmish may be lost but the war continues.
A recent Gallup poll shows 18 percent of Americans satisfied with the way the country is being governed. For a little perspective, this stood at 26 percent in mid- 1973 in the midst of the Watergate scandal that wound up in the resignation of the president of the United States.
Early in 2009, shortly after President Obama was elected, 56 percent expressed satisfaction with our government. It’s just been downhill since then.
According to a new Economist/YouGov poll, 15 percent say the country is going in the right direction and 74 percent say it is on the wrong track.
Americans may have different opinions about what is wrong with the country. But there is plenty of agreement that the patient is sick.
Broad opposition to the health care law continues.
Per a new Associated Press/GFK poll, 28 percent favor the health care law and 38 percent oppose. Sixteen percent strongly support and 29 percent strongly oppose.
And regarding our debt, here’s the Congressional Budget Office from its most recent outlook report:
“Federal debt held by the general public is now about 73 percent of the economy’s annual output….That percentage is higher than at any point in U.S. history, except a brief period around World War II, and it is twice the percentage at the end of 2007.”
Why is it a national disaster when some 400,000 non-essential government workers get furloughed for a couple weeks, with pay, paid with our tax dollars, when the vast mismanagement in government and of our national budget has sidelined millions in the private sector?
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, as of August, there were 4.3 million long-term unemployed – those unemployed more than 27 weeks. This constituted almost 38 percent of all unemployed Americans.
Let’s also not overlook the warning in this year’s trustees report of Social Security and Medicare: “Neither Medicare nor Social Security can sustain projected long-run programs in full under currently scheduled financing, and legislative changes are necessary to avoid disruptive consequences for taxpayers and beneficiaries.”
The country is sick, folks.
Per Congressman Paul Ryan regarding this latest deal: “Today’s legislation won’t help us reduce our fast-growing debt --- we’re kicking the can down the road.”
The Tea Party is not going away. Fortunately we have brave patriots who care more about our country’s future than they care about the chitchat on editorial pages and talk shows.
2a)Egypt 40 Years Later
By Yisrael Ne'eman
For the Arab World the 1973 October (or Yom Kippur) War is the Ramadan War. Today in parallel Israelis and Egyptians are looking back four decades and asking themselves what truly changed in their societies as a result of such a major event. In Israel the issues of overconfidence, complacency, the fall of Labor and the Left, the rise of the Likud, the Land of Israel settlement movement led by Gush Emmunim and the peace with Egypt (and later Jordan) are all discussed. Today's society is much more religious, capitalist, technologically driven and individualist as opposed to yesteryear.
But what of Egypt 40 years after the Ramadan War? The war is remembered as a great victory whether one is blinded to the final military outcome or not. For those who only see the first week or so of the conflict, there was a full military victory in the crossing of the Suez Canal with the vanquishing of the Israeli defensive Bar Lev line. The subsequent failure to break out by the Egyptian Army towards Israel's Negev is not discussed nor is the Israeli counterattack led by Ariel Sharon's crossing of the Canal to the west, the encirclement of the Egyptian Third Army and the eventual threat to Cairo itself. For those more in the know the acknowledgement of the Israeli upper hand after almost three weeks of battle is insignificant. Seeing the whole picture these Egyptians (usually the more secular intellectual types) view the ensuing diplomatic process, the 1979 Peace Agreement and the Israeli withdrawal from Sinai as the true consequences of the conflict. Where Israeli forces stood when the cease-fire ensued is considered to be a temporary technical issue. They have a point. The Egyptian Army became the great celebrated heroes and unifying factor throughout the society.
But Israel gained a peace agreement. "Yes," they will answer, "but a cold peace, one between governments." Egyptians, including many of the secular, western educated will note that no real peace exists between Jewish nationalism and the Arab people. Here the Palestinian issue is invoked and the underlying hostile attitudes of the 1970s remain. But of course Egyptians are conditioned to peace on their eastern front and the influx of Israeli tourists.
The real issues relate to what transpires inside of Egypt. In 1966 President Gamal Abdul Nasser, the greatest Arab nationalist of the 20th century had the leading Islamist intellectual Sayyed Qutb, executed. Where was Egypt in the 1970s when Sadat succeeded Nasser upon his death? Today there are clashes between the military dominated state authority and the deposed Muslim Brotherhood. In those days the Brotherhood was a repressed group attempting to take advantage of the power vacuum when Sadat stepped into Nasser's shoes in Sept. 1970. Simultaneously the communist leaning Arab Socialist Union challenged from the left and Sadat crushed both before embarking on his campaign against Israel. Whereas the ASU never recovered the Brotherhood enjoyed great support, even if they faced repression.
Sadat ditched the Soviets and shifted to the Western camp but did not adopt democracy. He allowed for more Islamic expression but for the still outlawed Brotherhood this was far from enough. They issued a fatwa demanding Sadat's death for signing a peace with Israel in 1979. Assassination was duly implemented in Oct. 1981, exactly eight years from the outbreak of the Yom Kippur War. Egypt remained a pro-American praetorian state. Under Mubarak there was economic development whereby the per capita GDP quintupled over a 30 year period to some $6,500. The population grew to 85 million as did the social gap. Mubarak by 2005 granted some Islamist expression, allowing the Brotherhood to run as "independents" for the People's Assembly where they took 20% of the vote (88 seats). Fearing popular support for the Islamists in 2010 the government rigged the elections reducing the MB to one seat. A spark was lit and revolution was on the way. The January 25, 2011 demonstrations initially led by the more secular left leaning younger generation gave way to the rise of the well organized Muslim Brotherhood.
This summer Egypt became a militarily dominated state once again. Throughout 2011-13 the three way tensions between military, secularism and the Islamism of the Muslim Brotherhood exploded. Mubarak was thrown out and although the military was poised to rule, general elections in 2012 swept the Muslim Brotherhood to power in a parliamentary landslide victory and a close presidential contest. Mohammed Morsi now led the nation. Legal decrees by the military prevented parliament from convening but the Egyptian people's voice was clear giving the Islamist parties over 75% of the vote. Any sort of liberal secular agenda was barely noticed. Supporters of the former regime found themselves in hopeless opposition. But 40 years later the military were still heroes and continued to be a major player behind the scenes.
Morsi's economic failures and attempts at imposing Islamic (Sharia) law on Egypt destined him for failure. He further challenged the military by forcibly retiring Chief of Staff Gen. Tantawi, the real power in the Land of the Nile. Secular Egyptians and the military waited for more discontent to set in and struck on June 30 when millions took to the streets demanding Morsi's ouster. In early July the freely elected Muslim Brotherhood president was arrested by the military in what many consider a coup, yet an "illegal" move supported by much of the people. Gen. A-Sisi took power installing an interim government. Clashes with and persecution by the army continued against the Brotherhood leaving hundreds killed and thousands arrested in ensuing clashes. Forty years after the October War Egypt is embroiled in what may evolve from a civil conflict to an outright war as there are increasing terror attacks against state, military and police targets. In particular the Sinai Peninsula is a haven for Al Qaeda and other terrorists.
Egypt must be seen in the context of the greater Middle East. The border with Israel is no longer secure, the Arab World is in turmoil, especially Syria and Iraq, and there appear to be no solutions in sight. Yet the Egyptian military enjoys a fair amount of support even if they may have moved too quickly against Morsi and the MB in early summer.
The military as the secular catalyst in Egypt began 200 years ago. Modernization can be traced back to the Albanian ruler Muhammed Ali and the enlightenment influences he brought into Egypt in the early 1800s. Some accredit him as being the first to introduce an Egyptian nationalism, but this is an overstatement. He did push for a more rationalist approach and equality, having himself learned from the Europeans and especially the French. He invested heavily in the Egyptian army, was sent by the Turkish sultan to vanquish the great Wahhabist uprising emanating in Arabia after the sacking of cities and Shiite holy shrines in Iraq. Eventually his son rebelled against the Sultan himself but failed to achieve final victory due to European intervention. However by the mid 19th century it was clear that the military, secularism and modernity were intertwined to build the force necessary for Egypt to make its mark as a local power. Secular nationalism and full independence were expressed politically in the aftermath of WWI but many looked to the military as enforcers. It was not until 1956 and the end of the Suez Crisis that Egyptians finally shook off direct British influence (they had a presence in Egypt since the 1880s due to a default). By then Nasser was at the helm in his war with Israel (who enjoyed British and especially French support. The Egyptian Army lost militarily but solidified a full diplomatic victory over all three by 1957. This was Israel's first withdrawal from Sinai.
The Muslim Brotherhood led by Hassan al-Banna organized against any secular regime to be, was involved in terror attacks and assassinations before Nasser took power in the 1950s. Not long after Nasser and the Free Officers overthrew King Faruk in 1952 the Islamists saw the newly installed military turned civilian leadership as tainted by Western secularism and continued their agitation against the new rulers. In response the Brotherhood was purged.
The difference between today and 40 years ago is two-fold. The MB is much stronger despite suffering recent setbacks. The Islamists passed the test at the polls, this including the al-Qaeda leaning Salafists who garnered 25% of the popular vote for parliament and accuse the Brotherhood (who gained 49%) of being far too liberal in their understanding of Islam. Moderates or the less ideological may have shifted back towards supporting the military but one can estimate hard core Islamist support at some 40% if not more. Having tasted political victory and rule, Brotherhood surrender is not an option.
Egyptian dilemmas reflect those of the entire Arab Muslim world. There is no agreed upon definition of identity. How is society ruled? Does one adhere to Sharia Law or to secular legislation made by the leaders of the nation state, whether freely elected or not? There is no unity of mission and purpose, so much so that civil strife, regime repression and acts of terrorism continue unabated. The Islamists and particularly the Brotherhood may be seen as having lost the last round, but they are certainly not knocked out and one can be assured we will continue hearing from them. The secular leaning military are still viewed as heroes but their Islamist opposition is far from defeated. Far from the 1970s, today's Brotherhood and Salafists are better organized, have tested their appeal at the polls, and at least in the case of the former, consider themselves the rightful rulers of Egypt.
The battle will continue well into the future, reflecting overall Middle Eastern trends. A long drawn out clash can be expected. No one should count out a Muslim Brotherhood victory at some future date.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)The Morgan Shakedown
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)The Morgan Shakedown
A landmark that shows how much politicians now control U.S. finance.
The tentative $13 billion settlement that the Justice Department appears to be extracting from J.P. Morgan Chase JPM -0.15% needs to be understood as a watershed moment in American capitalism. Federal law enforcers are confiscating roughly half of a company's annual earnings for no other reason than because they can and because they want to appease their left-wing populist allies.
The settlement isn't final and many details weren't available on the weekend, but we know enough for Americans to be dismayed. The bulk of the settlement is related to mortgage-backed securities issued before the 2008 financial panic. But those securities weren't simply a Morgan product. They were largely issued by Bear Stearns and Washington Mutual, both of which the federal government asked J.P. Morgan to take over to help ease the crisis.
So first the feds asked the bank to do the country a favor without giving it a chance for proper due diligence. The Treasury needed quick decisions, and Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon made them in good faith. But five years later the feds are punishing the bank for having done them the favor. As Richard Parsons notes nearby, this is not going to make another CEO eager to help the Treasury in the next crisis. But more pointedly, where is the justice in such ex post facto punishment?
Then there's the fact that $4 billion of the settlement is earmarked to settle charges against the bank by Fannie Mae FNMA +4.55% and Freddie Mac. We are supposed to believe that the bank misled the two mortgage giants about the quality of the mortgage securities they were issuing. But everyone knows that Fan and Fred had as their explicit policy the purchase of securities for liar loans and subprime mortgages to further their affordable-housing goals. Those goals went far to create the crisis, but now these wards of the state are portraying themselves as victims.
The news reports add that another $4 billion in the settlement will go for consumer relief, and that it is up to the feds how this will be distributed. But remember that most of the charges being settled relate to Morgan's sale of mortgage securities. Even if you believe those charges, which we don't, the victims would be the institutional buyers of those securities.
To make the victims whole, the government would have to distribute the settlement proceeds to those buyers, who aren't mom and pop. If instead the feds pass out the money to consumers or their favorite advocacy groups, the fact that this is a political shakedown and wealth-redistribution scheme becomes even clearer. Perhaps the Administration will have the checks arrive in swing Congressional districts right before the 2014 election.
The tentative settlement doesn't even include the criminal probe the feds are still conducting against the bank or even how much wrongdoing Morgan will admit. You would think $13 billion, the largest such settlement against a U.S. company, would be enough. But the political left isn't satisfied these days with cash, though it will take what it can get.
But like medieval justice, the left wants perp walks, if not heads on pikes. The assumption is that if there aren't indictments, then prosecutors must be going easy on the bankers. Poor Lanny Breuer, the former head of the Justice Department Criminal Division, was vilified for not indicting enough bankers, as if he didn't try.
The truth is that he didn't indict bankers because the 2008 crisis wasn't the result of bank fraud, despite liberal mythologizing. It was a classic credit panic caused by bad government policy coinciding with the rational exuberance of bankers who were responding to the incentives for excessive risk-taking that government created.
We'd like to see Mr. Dimon fight the charges, but the political reality is that he and his bank don't have much choice. His board is eager to move on, and the government will only turn the screws harder if he resists. In a post Dodd-Frank world, banks are public utilities and no CEO can afford to resist the government's demands.
The real lesson of the Morgan settlement isn't that justice has finally been done to the perpetrators of the crisis. That would require arresting Barney Frank and those in Congress who blocked the reform of Fannie and Freddie, plus the Federal Reserve governors who created so much easy credit.
The lesson is how government has used the crisis to exert political control over even the most powerful private financial companies. The real lords of American finance are Attorney General Eric Holder, Treasury chief Jack Lew and their boss in the White House.
3a)
3b)
Op-Ed: Obama is Sacrificing Israel on an Iranian Deal Altar
Giulio Meotti - Israel National News, October 2nd, 2013
It is now on the table: Obama prefers implementing his policy towards the Arab world to ensuring Israel's existence.
Barack Obama is sacrificing Israel on the altar of the deal he wishes to broker with Iran.
The Jewish State should unilaterally act against the Iranian nuclear program, as Prime Minister Netanyahu warned in his speech at the United Nations on Tuesday, October 1, but it is currently more probable that Ayatollah Khamenei will arm himself with nuclear bombs.
Because Obama's damage to Israel's deterrence has already been immense.
Under the possible deal with Washington, Teheran will preserve the 20 per cent level of uranium enrichment that will turn Iran into a “nuclear threshold state”.
Obama will accept that. Obama's record against Israeli Jews is long and abundant. He is the most anti-Semitic US president ever.
The Obama Administrations fomented a war on Jerusalem and treated Israel like a banana republic. Israeli-American relations are the worst they have been in memory.
Obama said in front of an Israeli parterre in Jerusalem: “See the world through the eyes of Palestinians”. And “peace must not be made through occupation”. Obama not only backs the Muslims; he identifies with them and asks the Jews to commit suicide.
Obama sees the Israeli Jews as “disturbers of the peace.” He wants to see them so disheartened that in the end they will choose not to fight, but to surrender.
Obama has become very dangerous for the Judeo-Christian civilizations and values. He backed Egypt's Islamist president Mohammed Morsi, who called Jews “apes” and “pigs”, and appeased Iran's leaders, who want to incinerate the Jewish State and its people.
Like the cowardly British diplomats who flew to Munich to sign the Sudetenland over to Hitler, Obama has forsaken the Jewish State. And as Arthur Chamberlain sold out the brave Czech democracy to “Herr Hitler,”- as Winston Churchill called him – Obama bowed to Iran’s Supreme Guide, Ayatollah Khamenei.
Under the Obama Administrations, a malignant growth has raised its head: anti-Jewish legislation in Judea and Samaria, “the occupied territories”. By imposing a freeze on “settlement”, Obama's Trojan horse against the Jews, the White House sent Islamists the message that this is a right which the Israelis are willing to waive under threat (his) and force.
To demand that Jews pull out from anywhere in Judea and Samaria is a bid to make the first “Jew-free zone” since Nazi Third Reich. This will be Obama's legacy in the Middle East. Obama also threatened Israel many times with “total isolation”.
Obama called for the implementation of UN Resolution 181 – Israel's withdrawal to the 1947 borders (evacuation from Nahariya, Nazareth, Jaffa, Ashdod, Ashkelon, Kiryat Gat and Be'er Sheva!).
He would also let political Islam to destroy everything Jewish in Jerusalem's “holy basin”, which Obama already has said he would give to the Arabs.
By seeking to force Israel to cease building in Jewish neighborhoods of Jerusalem, Obama legitimized the Islamist zeal for the eviction of 300,000 Jews who live in parts of Jerusalem that were illegally occupied by Jordan between 1948 and 1967. Obama’s de-legitimization of post-1967 Jerusalem is nothing less than a renewed “Judenrein” policy.
First Obama served the Jews to their Arab enemies on a silver platter through his terrible Cairo speech. Then he strangled the Jewish “settlers”. Now he is wants to force Israel to offer her throat to Iran's knife.
Obama casts a sinister and malevolent glance at the history of the Jewish people.
Giulio Meotti isan Italian journalist with Il Foglio and writes a twice-weekly column for Arutz Sheva. He is the author of the book “A New Shoah, ” that researched the personal stories of Israel's terror victims, published by Encounter. His writing has appeared in publications, such as the Wall Street Journal, Frontpage and Commentary. He is at work on a book about the Vatican and Israel.
4)Richard: " I’m in the process of reading Peggy Noonan’s book on Reagan “When Character was King”. She makes the point that Reagan believed in telling the truth…..telling the world what we all knew about the Soviets but all his predecessors wouldn’t say. As you know, he didn’t believe in détente…..which reminds me so much of how our lecturer as President is handling/bungling this Iran situation. She includes much of this speech in the book…one of his best. Compare this to how the U.S. is posturing with Iran….CB"
ADDRESS TO MEMBERS OF THE BRITISH PARLIMENT
June 8, 1982
My Lord Chancellor, Mr. Speaker:
The journey of which this visit forms a part is a long one. Already it has taken me to two great cities of the West, Rome and Paris, and to the economic summit at Versailles. And there, once again, our sister democracies have proved that even in a time of severe economic strain, free peoples can work together freely and voluntarily to address problems as serious as inflation, unemployment, trade, and economic development in a spirit of cooperation and solidarity.
Other milestones lie ahead. Later this week, in Germany, we and our NATO allies will discuss measures for our joint defense and America's latest initiatives for a more peaceful, secure world through arms reductions.
Each stop of this trip is important, but among them all, this moment occupies a special place in my heart and in the hearts of my countrymen -- a moment of kinship and homecoming in these hallowed halls.
Speaking for all Americans, I want to say how very much at home we feel in your house. Every American would, because this is, as we have been so eloquently told, one of democracy's shrines. Here the rights of free people and the processes of representation have been debated and refined.
It has been said that an institution is the lengthening shadow of a man. This institution is the lengthening shadow of all the men and women who have sat here and all those who have voted to send representatives here.
Well, from here I will go to Bonn and then Berlin, where there stands a grim symbol of power untamed. The Berlin Wall, that dreadful gray gash across the city, is in its third decade. It is the fitting signature of the regime that built it.
And a few hundred kilometers behind the Berlin Wall, there is another symbol. In the center of Warsaw, there is a sign that notes the distances to two capitals. In one direction it points toward Moscow. In the other it points toward Brussels, headquarters of Western Europe's tangible unity. The marker says that the distances from Warsaw to Moscow and Warsaw to Brussels are equal. The sign makes this point: Poland is not East or West. Poland is at the center of European civilization. It has contributed mightily to that civilization. It is doing so today by being magnificently unreconciled to oppression.
Poland's struggle to be Poland and to secure the basic rights we often take for granted demonstrates why we dare not take those rights for granted. Gladstone, defending the Reform Bill of 1866, declared, "You cannot fight against the future. Time is on our side." It was easier to believe in the march of democracy in Gladstone's day -- in that high noon of Victorian optimism.
The strength of the Solidarity movement in Poland demonstrates the truth told in an underground joke in the Soviet Union. It is that the Soviet Union would remain a one-party nation even if an opposition party were permitted, because everyone would join the opposition party. [Laughter]
America's time as a player on the stage of world history has been brief. I think understanding this fact has always made you patient with your younger cousins -- well, not always patient. I do recall that on one occasion, Sir Winston Churchill said in exasperation about one of our most distinguished diplomats: "He is the only case I know of a bull who carries his china shop with him." [Laughter]
But witty as Sir Winston was, he also had that special attribute of great statesmen -- the gift of vision, the willingness to see the future based on the experience of the past. It is this sense of history, this understanding of the past that I want to talk with you about today, for it is in remembering what we share of the past that our two nations can make common cause for the future.
We have not inherited an easy world. If developments like the Industrial Revolution, which began here in England, and the gifts of science and technology have made life much easier for us, they have also made it more dangerous. There are threats now to our freedom, indeed to our very existence, that other generations could never even have imagined.
There is first the threat of global war. No President, no Congress, no Prime Minister, no Parliament can spend a day entirely free of this threat. And I don't have to tell you that in today's world the existence of nuclear weapons could mean, if not the extinction of mankind, then surely the end of civilization as we know it. That's why negotiations on intermediate-range nuclear forces now underway in Europe and the START talks -- Strategic Arms Reduction Talks -- which will begin later this month, are not just critical to American or Western policy; they are critical to mankind. Our commitment to early success in these negotiations is firm and unshakable, and our purpose is clear: reducing the risk of war by reducing the means of waging war on both sides.
At the same time there is a threat posed to human freedom by the enormous power of the modern state. History teaches the dangers of government that overreaches -- political control taking precedence over free economic growth, secret police, mindless bureaucracy, all combining to stifle individual excellence and personal freedom.
Now, I'm aware that among us here and throughout Europe there is legitimate disagreement over the extent to which the public sector should play a role in a nation's economy and life. But on one point all of us are united -- our abhorrence of dictatorship in all its forms, but most particularly totalitarianism and the terrible inhumanities it has caused in our time -- the great purge, Auschwitz and Dachau, the Gulag, and Cambodia.
Historians looking back at our time will note the consistent restraint and peaceful intentions of the West. They will note that it was the democracies who refused to use the threat of their nuclear monopoly in the forties and early fifties for territorial or imperial gain. Had that nuclear monopoly been in the hands of the Communist world, the map of Europe -- indeed, the world -- would look very different today. And certainly they will note it was not the democracies that invaded Afghanistan or suppressed Polish Solidarity or used chemical and toxin warfare in Afghanistan and Southeast Asia.
If history teaches anything, it teaches self-delusion in the face of unpleasant facts is folly. We see around us today the marks of our terrible dilemma -- predictions of doomsday, antinuclear demonstrations, an arms race in which the West must, for its own protection, be an unwilling participant. At the same time we see totalitarian forces in the world who seek subversion and conflict around the globe to further their barbarous assault on the human spirit. What, then, is our course? Must civilization perish in a hail of fiery atoms? Must freedom wither in a quiet, deadening accommodation with totalitarian evil?
Sir Winston Churchill refused to accept the inevitability of war or even that it was imminent. He said, "I do not believe that Soviet Russia desires war. What they desire is the fruits of war and the indefinite expansion of their power and doctrines. But what we have to consider here today while time remains is the permanent prevention of war and the establishment of conditions of freedom and democracy as rapidly as possible in all countries."
Well, this is precisely our mission today: to preserve freedom as well as peace. It may not be easy to see; but I believe we live now at a turning point.
In an ironic sense Karl Marx was right. We are witnessing today a great revolutionary crisis, a crisis where the demands of the economic order are conflicting directly with those of the political order. But the crisis is happening not in the free, non-Marxist West, but in the home of Marxist-Leninism, the Soviet Union. It is the Soviet Union that runs against the tide of history by denying human freedom and human dignity to its citizens. It also is in deep economic difficulty. The rate of growth in the national product has been steadily declining since the fifties and is less than half of what it was then.
The dimensions of this failure are astounding: A country which employs one-fifth of its population in agriculture is unable to feed its own people. Were it not for the private sector, the tiny private sector tolerated in Soviet agriculture, the country might be on the brink of famine. These private plots occupy a bare 3 percent of the arable land but account for nearly one-quarter of Soviet farm output and nearly one-third of meat products and vegetables. Over-centralized, with little or no incentives, year after year the Soviet system pours its best resource into the making of instruments of destruction. The constant shrinkage of economic growth combined with the growth of military production is putting a heavy strain on the Soviet people. What we see here is a political structure that no longer corresponds to its economic base, a society where productive forces are hampered by political ones.
The decay of the Soviet experiment should come as no surprise to us. Wherever the comparisons have been made between free and closed societies -- West Germany and East Germany, Austria and Czechoslovakia, Malaysia and Vietnam -- it is the democratic countries that are prosperous and responsive to the needs of their people. And one of the simple but overwhelming facts of our time is this: Of all the millions of refugees we've seen in the modern world, their flight is always away from, not toward the Communist world. Today on the NATO line, our military forces face east to prevent a possible invasion. On the other side of the line, the Soviet forces also face east to prevent their people from leaving.
The hard evidence of totalitarian rule has caused in mankind an uprising of the intellect and will. Whether it is the growth of the new schools of economics in America or England or the appearance of the so-called new philosophers in France, there is one unifying thread running through the intellectual work of these groups -- rejection of the arbitrary power of the state, the refusal to subordinate the rights of the individual to the superstate, the realization that collectivism stifles all the best human impulses.
Since the exodus from Egypt, historians have written of those who sacrificed and struggled for freedom -- the stand at Thermopylae, the revolt of Spartacus, the storming of the Bastille, the Warsaw uprising in World War II. More recently we've seen evidence of this same human impulse in one of the developing nations in Central America. For months and months the world news media covered the fighting in El Salvador. Day after day we were treated to stories and film slanted toward the brave freedom fighters battling oppressive government forces in behalf of the silent, suffering people of that tortured country.
And then one day those silent, suffering people were offered a chance to vote, to choose the kind of government they wanted. Suddenly the freedom fighters in the hills were exposed for what they really are -- Cuban-backed guerrillas who want power for themselves, and their backers, not democracy for the people. They threatened death to any who voted, and destroyed hundreds of buses and trucks to keep the people from getting to the polling places. But on election day, the people of El Salvador, an unprecedented 1.4 million of them, braved ambush and gunfire, and trudged for miles to vote for freedom.
They stood for hours in the hot sun waiting for their turn to vote. Members of our Congress who went there as observers told me of a woman who was wounded by rifle fire on the way to the polls, who refused to leave the line to have her wound treated until after she had voted. A grandmother, who had been told by the guerrillas she would be killed when she returned from the polls, and she told the guerrillas, "You can kill me, you can kill my family, kill my neighbors, but you can't kill us all." The real freedom fighters of El Salvador turned out to be the people of that country -- the young, the old, the in-between.
Strange, but in my own country there's been little if any news coverage of that war since the election. Now, perhaps they'll say it's -- well, because there are newer struggles now.
On distant islands in the South Atlantic young men are fighting for Britain. And, yes, voices have been raised protesting their sacrifice for lumps of rock and earth so far away. But those young men aren't fighting for mere real estate. They fight for a cause -- for the belief that armed aggression must not be allowed to succeed, and the people must participate in the decisions of government -- [applause] -- the decisions of government under the rule of law. If there had been firmer support for that principle some 45 years ago, perhaps our generation wouldn't have suffered the bloodletting of World War II.
In the Middle East now the guns sound once more, this time in Lebanon, a country that for too long has had to endure the tragedy of civil war, terrorism, and foreign intervention and occupation. The fighting in Lebanon on the part of all parties must stop, and Israel should bring its forces home. But this is not enough. We must all work to stamp out the scourge of terrorism that in the Middle East makes war an ever-present threat.
But beyond the trouble spots lies a deeper, more positive pattern. Around the world today, the democratic revolution is gathering new strength. In India a critical test has been passed with the peaceful change of governing political parties. In Africa, Nigeria is moving into remarkable and unmistakable ways to build and strengthen its democratic institutions. In the Caribbean and Central America, 16 of 24 countries have freely elected governments. And in the United Nations, eight of the 10 developing nations which have joined that body in the past five years are democracies.
In the Communist world as well, man's instinctive desire for freedom and self-determination surfaces again and again. To be sure, there are grim reminders of how brutally the police state attempts to snuff out this quest for self-rule -- 1953 in East Germany, 1956 in Hungary, 1968 in Czechoslovakia, 1981 in Poland. But the struggle continues in Poland. And we know that there are even those who strive and suffer for freedom within the confines of the Soviet Union itself. How we conduct ourselves here in the Western democracies will determine whether this trend continues.
No, democracy is not a fragile flower. Still it needs cultivating. If the rest of this century is to witness the gradual growth of freedom and democratic ideals, we must take actions to assist the campaign for democracy.
Some argue that we should encourage democratic change in right-wing dictatorships, but not in Communist regimes. Well, to accept this preposterous notion -- as some well-meaning people have -- is to invite the argument that once countries achieve a nuclear capability, they should be allowed an undisturbed reign of terror over their own citizens. We reject this course.
As for the Soviet view, Chairman Brezhnev repeatedly has stressed that the competition of ideas and systems must continue and that this is entirely consistent with relaxation of tensions and peace.
Well, we ask only that these systems begin by living up to their own constitutions, abiding by their own laws, and complying with the international obligations they have undertaken. We ask only for a process, a direction, a basic code of decency, not for an instant transformation.
We cannot ignore the fact that even without our encouragement there has been and will continue to be repeated explosions against repression and dictatorships. The Soviet Union itself is not immune to this reality. Any system is inherently unstable that has no peaceful means to legitimize its leaders. In such cases, the very repressiveness of the state ultimately drives people to resist it, if necessary, by force.
While we must be cautious about forcing the pace of change, we must not hesitate to declare our ultimate objectives and to take concrete actions to move toward them. We must be staunch in our conviction that freedom is not the sole prerogative of a lucky few, but the inalienable and universal right of all human beings. So states the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which, among other things, guarantees free elections.
The objective I propose is quite simple to state: to foster the infrastructure of democracy, the system of a free press, unions, political parties, universities, which allows a people to choose their own way to develop their own culture, to reconcile their own differences through peaceful means.
This is not cultural imperialism, it is providing the means for genuine self-determination and protection for diversity. Democracy already flourishes in countries with very different cultures and historical experiences. It would be cultural condescension, or worse, to say that any people prefer dictatorship to democracy. Who would voluntarily choose not to have the right to vote, decide to purchase government propaganda handouts instead of independent newspapers, prefer government to worker-controlled unions, opt for land to be owned by the state instead of those who till it, want government repression of religious liberty, a single political party instead of a free choice, a rigid cultural orthodoxy instead of democratic tolerance and diversity?
Since 1917 the Soviet Union has given covert political training and assistance to Marxist-Leninists in many countries. Of course, it also has promoted the use of violence and subversion by these same forces. Over the past several decades, West European and other Social Democrats, Christian Democrats, and leaders have offered open assistance to fraternal, political, and social institutions to bring about peaceful and democratic progress. Appropriately, for a vigorous new democracy, the Federal Republic of Germany's political foundations have become a major force in this effort.
We in America now intend to take additional steps, as many of our allies have already done, toward realizing this same goal. The chairmen and other leaders of the national Republican and Democratic Party organizations are initiating a study with the bipartisan American political foundation to determine how the United States can best contribute as a nation to the global campaign for democracy now gathering force. They will have the cooperation of congressional leaders of both parties, along with representatives of business, labor, and other major institutions in our society. I look forward to receiving their recommendations and to working with these institutions and the Congress in the common task of strengthening democracy throughout the world.
It is time that we committed ourselves as a nation -- in both the pubic and private sectors -- to assisting democratic development.
We plan to consult with leaders of other nations as well. There is a proposal before the Council of Europe to invite parliamentarians from democratic countries to a meeting next year in Strasbourg. That prestigious gathering could consider ways to help democratic political movements.
This November in Washington there will take place an international meeting on free elections. And next spring there will be a conference of world authorities on constitutionalism and self-government hosted by the Chief Justice of the United States. Authorities from a number of developing and developed countries -- judges, philosophers, and politicians with practical experience -- have agreed to explore how to turn principle into practice and further the rule of law.
At the same time, we invite the Soviet Union to consider with us how the competition of ideas and values -- which it is committed to support -- can be conducted on a peaceful and reciprocal basis. For example, I am prepared to offer President Brezhnev an opportunity to speak to the American people on our television if he will allow me the same opportunity with the Soviet people. We also suggest that panels of our newsmen periodically appear on each other's television to discuss major events.
Now, I don't wish to sound overly optimistic, yet the Soviet Union is not immune from the reality of what is going on in the world. It has happened in the past -- a small ruling elite either mistakenly attempts to ease domestic unrest through greater repression and foreign adventure, or it chooses a wiser course. It begins to allow its people a voice in their own destiny. Even if this latter process is not realized soon, I believe the renewed strength of the democratic movement, complemented by a global campaign for freedom, will strengthen the prospects for arms control and a world at peace.
I have discussed on other occasions, including my address on May 9, the elements of Western policies toward the Soviet Union to safeguard our interests and protect the peace. What I am describing now is a plan and a hope for the long term -- the march of freedom and democracy which will leave Marxism-Leninism on the ash-heap of history, as it has left other tyrannies which stifle the freedom and muzzle the self-expression of the people. And that's why we must continue our efforts to strengthen NATO even as we move forward with our Zero-Option initiative in the negotiations on intermediate-range forces and our proposal for a one-third reduction in strategic ballistic missile warheads.
Our military strength is a prerequisite to peace, but let it be clear we maintain this strength in the hope it will never be used, for the ultimate determinant in the struggle that's now going on in the world will not be bombs and rockets, but a test of wills and ideas, a trial of spiritual resolve, the values we hold, the beliefs we cherish, the ideals to which we are dedicated.
The British people know that, given strong leadership, time and a little bit of hope, the forces of good ultimately rally and triumph over evil. Here among you is the cradle of self-government, the Mother of Parliaments. Here is the enduring greatness of the British contribution to mankind, the great civilized ideas: individual liberty, representative government, and the rule of law under God.
I've often wondered about the shyness of some of us in the West about standing for these ideals that have done so much to ease the plight of man and the hardships of our imperfect world. This reluctance to use those vast resources at our command reminds me of the elderly lady whose home was bombed in the Blitz. As the rescuers moved about, they found a bottle of brandy she'd stored behind the staircase, which was all that was left standing. And since she was barely conscious, one of the workers pulled the cork to give her a taste of it. She came around immediately and said, "Here now -- there now, put it back. That's for emergencies." [Laughter
Well, the emergency is upon us. Let us be shy no longer. Let us go to our strength. Let us offer hope. Let us tell the world that a new age is not only possible but probable.
During the dark days of the Second World War, when this island was incandescent with courage, Winston Churchill exclaimed about Britain's adversaries, "What kind of a people do they think we are?'' Well, Britain's adversaries found out what extraordinary people the British are. But all the democracies paid a terrible price for allowing the dictators to underestimate us. We dare not make that mistake again. So, let us ask ourselves, "What kind of people do we think we are?" And let us answer, "Free people, worthy of freedom and determined not only to remain so but to help others gain their freedom as well."
Sir Winston led his people to great victory in war and then lost an election just as the fruits of victory were about to be enjoyed. But he left office honorably, and, as it turned out, temporarily, knowing that the liberty of his people was more important than the fate of any single leader. History recalls his greatness in ways no dictator will ever know. And he left us a message of hope for the future, as timely now as when he first uttered it, as opposition leader in the Commons nearly 27 years ago, when he said, "When we look back on all the perils through which we have passed and at the mighty foes that we have laid low and all the dark and deadly designs that we have frustrated, why should we fear for our future? We have," he said, "come safely through the worst."
Well, the task I've set forth will long outlive our own generation. But together, we too have come through the worst. Let us now begin a major effort to secure the best -- a crusade for freedom that will engage the faith and fortitude of the next generation. For the sake of peace and justice, let us move toward a world in which all people are at last free to determine their own destiny.
Thank you.
-----
No comments:
Post a Comment