===
Eventually, Obamacare will resurface and determine the outcome of the election. (See 2 below.)
===
Are we about to find out a 300 pound kid, who felt 'entitled' to stealing what he wanted, attacked a policeman and that is what the Brown Affair is all about?
That said, explain all the rioting, stealing and destruction? Is this the dividend we have earned from 'affirmative action,' disrespect for law, an education system that does not teach a damn thing about what being responsible and a good citizen is all about etc.?
In believing we should not subject our children to rigorous personal standards and an education that teaches them to reason and to know something about this great nation we have cheated them and ourselves.
Now we have Obama sending Holder, our lying but unbiased Attorney general, prior to hard evidence a crime was even committed and while an investigation is ongoing, to the riot scene and Obama says he will not pre-judge.
More flim flam from Obamaland!
I suspect before this is over we will find the deceased was not an angel, stole, probably thought he was being confronted by the policeman and then got in the policeman's face and everything went down hill from there but of course I am just speculating.
However, I also have learned from past experience after the news , media, hustlers and pre-judgers have their say the truth and facts are generally far from what I have been told and/or led to believe.
At least, President Obama learned not to tell us if he had a son he would look like Mr. Brown! (See 3, 3a and 3b below.)
The Government is not arresting any LOOTERS in Ferguson because Eric Holder's Justice Department reclassified them.
They are not LOOTERS anymore
They are UNDOCUMENTED SHOPPERS
Shooting the bird has taken on a new meaning in California. (See 4 below.)
===
'Hahvahd' and currently its most famous graduate. (See 5 below.)
===
What to do about Gaza? (See 6 below.)
===
Dick
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Op-Ed: The President's True Colors Finally Revealed
Author: Steven Emerson
When I first glanced at the headline on today's Jerusalem Online and reports in the Jerusalem Post and other Israeli newspapers, I thought they must have been a satire: “Washington officials have told Egypt that the US will guarantee Israel's commitment to any agreement signed.” But it was not a satire. This was deadly serious, confirmed by other Israeli newspapers and sources in Cairo.
The US offering to Hamas to “guarantee” Israeli commitments to any agreement signed? As if anyone needed proof of the Obama administration's antipathy to Israel, here it was in black and white. If any party needed a commitment to enforce its agreements in any deal, it would have been Hamas, which has been known to break every commitment it ever made. To pick just a few at random:
Hamas recently violated 9 cease fire agreements, including two of its own.
Hamas illegally siphoned thousands of tons of cement and steel shipments it received from international donors and Israel that it had committed to use to build the civilian infrastructure in Gaza for hospitals, schools and apartment buildings; instead it spent upwards of $500 million of these humanitarian shipments to covertly build numerous tunnels buried deep underground into Israel in order to carry out murderous raids on Israeli civilian communities intended to kill tens of thousands of Israelis.
Hamas violated the terms of the 2012 ceasefire negotiated by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton together with Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood President Mohammed Morsi. Under the terms of that agreement, Hamas committed to stop firing missiles into Israel from Gaza. But in fact, Hamas never honored its commitment and continued to fire hundreds of missiles from Gaza into southern Israel during the entire year of 2013 and the first half of 2014. But then in July, Hamas initiated a full scale war against Israel in which it launched 4,000 missiles into 80 percent of Israel's population centers.
Hamas violated the commitment to the Palestinian Authority that it would never launch a coup d'état against the PA after Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005. But in 2007, Hamas did exactly that in a bloody takeover of Gaza, kicking out and killing PA officials.
Hamas violated a solemn commitment to its own civilians that it would uphold the rule of law (yea, right) when it took over Gaza only to subsequently execute hundreds of dissident Gazans, torture and imprison thousands of political opponents, violently persecute the minority of Christians still living in Gaza and imprison and prosecute suspected gay Gazans.
It violated a commitment it made in the Clinton-negotiated 2012 truce that it would cease its missile attacks on Israel.
And at the same time, it should be noted that President Obama personally signed an official letter at the time of the 2012 negotiated ceasefire to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that the US would provide Israel with the technology to defeat and stop Hamas smuggling of weapons. But subsequent to that promise, Hamas soon received in massive quantities from Iran, Sudan, and North Korea. That promise was never carried out.
Israel, on the other hand, meticulously fulfilled its part of the bargain by significantly relaxing the blockade on Gaza, allowing tons of previously restricted cement and steel into Gaza, increasing the number of daily truckloads of food, medical stuff and building equipment through the two Israeli checkpoints into Gaza by more than 250 truckloads (a commitment that continued during the Hamas war against Israel, a fact mostly ignored by the mainstream media blindly committed to the Hamas narrative that Israel was the aggressor).
Remember when Obama spoke to the annual AIPAC conference a few years back and ceremoniously declared, “I got your back”? This is the same president who, as the Wall Street Journal disclosed last week, personally held up the Israeli request for additional Hellfire missiles that it had depleted in its war with Hamas.
As far back as 1967, the United States made a firm promise to Israel that it would never allow the Egyptians to blockade the Straits of Tiran, considered the lifeline of Israel. But when the Egyptians blockaded the Straits of Tiran in May 1967, what did the US do? Nothing.
And in the current round of negotiations being held in Cairo now, according to leaked details in Egyptian newspapers reported by today's Jerusalem Online Israel agreed to make the following astonishing concessions:
“Israel will stop its attacks in Gaza – in land, sea and air. No ground operations will be conducted.”
Israel has agreed to the “opening of crossings between Israel and Gaza [in which] Movement of people and merchandise will be allowed, to rebuild Gaza.”
“Eliminating the buffer zone in the North and East of Gaza and deployment of Palestinian military forces starting from January 1, 2015.”
“Freedom of fishing and action in the territorial waters of the Palestinians in Gaza to a range of 6 miles. The range will gradually be increased, to no less than 12 miles…”
“Israeli authorities will assist the Palestinian Authority to restore the foundations in Gaza, as well as help provide the necessary living needs for those who were forced to leave their homes due to the battles. Also, Israel will provide emergency medical attention to the wounded and will supply humanitarian assistance and food to Gaza as soon as possible.”
It should be noted that even during the recent murderous war waged by Gaza, Israel opened up its borders to treat wounded Gaza civilians in Israeli hospitals and continued to supply more than 500 tons daily of humanitarian assistance and food to Gaza daily, even as Hamas launched thousands of rockets and attempted mass murder of Israeli civilians, fortunately thwarted by Israel, to infiltrate dozens of fully armed Hamas terrorists into Israel via the tunnels dug by Hamas.
And what did the Hamas commit to?
“All Palestinian factions in Gaza will stop the attacks against Israel, in the land, the sea and the air; also, building tunnels from Gaza to Israeli territory will be stopped.”
That was it. Virtually the identical commitments it agreed to in December 2012. Quite interestingly, Hamas insisted—which Israel did not agree to—to the immediate opening of a Gaza seaport and airport. But the party that suggested to Hamas that they insist on these demands was none other than the Qataris, the country—the top financial patron to Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood and many of its terrorist offshoots—curiously selected personally by Obama to be the official diplomatic interlocutor in the Cairo talks. The role that Qatar was supposed to play was to convince Hamas to make concessions. But the opposite happened. Qatar, the country to which that the US just sold $11 billion worth of military weapons, actually sabotaged the negotiations. So far, the president has been silent on this betrayal.
In light of the fact that Hamas has never upheld any of its past commitments, the salient question that has to be asked is why did Obama feel compelled to assuage Hamas with an assurance that the US would “guarantee” that Israeli upheld its commitments? The word “guarantee” has a rather expansive and vague latitude for definition. The most recent demonstration of an American guarantee that Israel would halt its defensive war against Hamas was the suspension of critical military deliveries to Israel during the height of the conflagration instigated by Hamas.
Indeed, for all the public affirmations made last week—after the WSJ expose– by the Obama administration that the U.S. was “totally committed to the security of Israel,” Obama suddenly decides to make a promise to Hamas—whose covenant differs not one bit from the fascist radical Islamic doctrine adopted by ISIL—that it would enforce the commitments made by Israel, which in fact have historically been studiously upheld by Israel.
If Obama was truly sincere in his now obviously contrived promises to “watch [Israel's] back,” he would have offered to guarantee Hamas commitments, a terrorist group that has repeatedly violated its commitments in previous agreements. But with his statement that he would “guarantee” Israeli commitments and not those made by Hamas, the president has revealed his true colors for everyone to see.
Steven Emerson is executive director of the Investigative Project on Terrorism
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Author: Liz Peek
(File Image)
A blowout fracture is a fracture of one or more of the bones surrounding the eye and is commonly referred to as an orbital floor fracture. (AAPOS)
First, American justice is slow, usually painstakingly slow and this is especially true in high-profile murder cases under close public scrutiny. After all, punishment is not to be decided by ill-informed hot heads. Recall that the O.J. Simpson trial began in June 1994 before ending in October 1995. Between the alleged crime and the verdict, months will pass so as to collect evidence, secure a grand jury indictment, find and interview witnesses, employ lawyers and prepare the defense and prosecution, impanel a jury, hire experts and then, finally, conduct a trial. Even then, matters can easily slow to a crawl as lawyers are fired and new ones hired or motions and counter-motions are filed. Then there are equally time-consuming retrials if juries are unable to reach a verdict. Further add appeals that may entail even more legal preparation and arguments. It is no wonder, then, that convicted criminals are sometimes released immediately after the guilty verdict since their post arrest jail time equals or even exceeds their sentence.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The source of global warming has been found. It is in the desert of California. An electric company (NRG Energy) has installed 140,000 solar panels pointing directly into the sun. It creates heat of over 900 degrees into the atmosphere and now is killing birds by the thousands....they are being disintegrated in flight. All kinds of birds who are attracted to the area by insects who are attracted by the light coming from the reflection off the mirror solar panels. 900 degrees heating up the atmosphere and hitting the jet stream and voila.....we are having storms supposedly like never before in the Mid west and east coast.....and a lot of hot air from California is the culprit.
Harvard's currently most famous alumnus, Barack Obama, takes anti-American dogma one step further into an idée fixe. He suffers a delusion within the illusion of American perfidy, a fixed, fervent ideological system against an imaginary evil white patriarchy. And the face of his “singular fixation of the intellect” has been George W. Bush. On the level of the heart, Obama has no country. Not only does he not identify with the people who died on 9/11, but to a degree beyond most left-wing elites, he is sympathetic to the Islamists who killed them.
Deborah C. Tyler, PhD.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------6) What Is to Be Done About Gaza?
Hamas' refusal to accept a ceasefire indicates that the Protective Edge operation has so far failed to attain its modest goal of calm on Israel's border with Gaza. Jerusalem is not expecting peace or integration with its neighbors – it wants just to be left alone.
The sooner this happens the better. Various proposals to involve international actors and UN forces are being aired. Israel's experience with such experiments is terrible. All international mechanisms and peacekeeping troops in the Arab-Israeli arena have proven again and again to be ineffective. The last UN force stationed in Southern Lebanon to prevent rockets reaching Hizballah (2006) was a total failure. In Gaza, just a year after they arrived, European observers at the Rafah crossing ran away at the first sign of trouble. Israel cannot rely on others to be responsible for its security.
What ever happened to Obamacare — the unpopular healthcare bill that was to be the Republicans big weapon as they battled for control of the Senate this fall? For sure, the Affordable Care Act has been pushed to the sidelines by the chaos in Iraq, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the surge in Central American minors across our border, the Veterans Administration scandal, the pestilential virus rampaging across the computers of the federal government, and so much more…
Now, the GOP should circle back. There are nine Senate seats described as “toss-ups” by Real Clear Politics, and Obamacare could move the needle in some of those races. The ACA is still a political stink bomb, with Kaiser Family Foundation polling showing only 37 percent of the country views the law favorably – one of its lowest ratings since it passed in 2010. Some 53 percent of Americans have an unfavorable opinion of the ACA – up a shocking 8 points since June.
Democrats understandably have neglected to highlight Obamacare on their campaign sites. Instead, for example, North Carolina’s Kay Hagan implores visitors to “Take a Stand Against the Koch Brothers,” which must confuse the uninitiated. Bruce Braley, running in Iowa, focuses on veterans’ issues and the farm bill. Nary a word on Mr. Obama’s legacy issue.
Several GOP campaign sites go light on Obamacare too. Thom Tillis in North Carolina broadcasts Kay Hagan’s close ties to President Obama, while David Perdue in Georgia emphasizes his business background. Joni Ernst, running neck in neck for the Iowa seat, brags on her front page, “I grew up castrating hogs on an Iowa farm, so in Washington I’ll know how to cut pork.” Some local color.
Other Republicans are following the expected playbook. Scott Brown, campaigning for the New Hampshire seat held by Jeanne Shaheen, goes all in against Obamacare. Ditto Republican Cory Gardner, running an uphill battle against Mark Udall in Colorado, who notes that 335,000 Coloradans lost their policies because of the ACA.
Bill Cassidy, with a light lead against Mary Landrieu in Louisiana, charges that Obamacare is causing that state’s premiums to rise. But Cassidy lists it fifth of five issues, after amnesty, purportedly “illegal” travel expenditures and other missteps by the incumbent.
While local issues vary, Republicans should double down, and remind voters how much they dislike the ACA. Why?
1. Big premium hikes are slated for 2015. Because the country erupted in outrage over the millions of policies cancelled under Obamacare, which made a lie of the president’s vow, “If you like your insurance you can keep it,” the White House reversed course and allowed people to maintain existing coverage. As a result, the Obamacare exchanges were starved of the healthier people needed to pay for the sick and poor previously without insurance. Insurers are now planning to raise premiums.
According to PwC Health Research Institute, the average premium increase request for 2105 in North Carolina is 10.8 percent; in Iowa the hike is 11.5 percent. Many in Louisiana are looking at almost a 20 percent increase, and in Arkansas nearly 12 percent. That’s big, unpleasant news for Democrats.
2. Critics claim the Obama administration is fudging the ACA enrollment numbers. The White House trumpeted that 8 million Americans had signed up for Obamacare, but that total has been shrinking. Aetna, one of the program’s biggest players, reports that of their 720,000 enrollees, only about 600,000 are paying for their coverage, a number they expect will drop to about 500,000 by year-end. Other insurers indicate fall-off as well.
3. People are angry about the narrower choices of doctors and hospitals available to them. In New Hampshire, Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield was the sole insurer participating in the marketplace; it eliminated 10 of the state’s 26 hospitals from its network. According to Politico, such is the uproar about shrinking choices that “since the beginning of 2013, more than 70 bills have been introduced in 22 states to clarify the network rules, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.” In California, more than one group has sued Anthem Blue Cross, charging that the insurer misrepresented the scope of its doctor network.
4. The ACA was constructed incompetently. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit recently ruled illegal the federal subsidies paid to Obamacare enrollees in states that have not set up their own exchanges — a stark reminder of how badly the healthcare bill was implemented. This and other unintended consequences are excellent arguments for significantly overhauling the ACA – an undertaking that might be possible under a Republican Senate but that has little or no hope otherwise.
5. Obamacare highlights the president’s imperial tendencies. Mr. Obama has single-handedly changed the ACA some 24 times, delaying important provisions such as the employer and individual mandates. The president has rigged the rollout of the ACA to political advantage, putting off the most painful aspects of the bill and front-loading the goodies. Republicans should remind voters we have yet to encounter, for instance, the 40 percent Cadillac tax, which has been pushed back until 2018, but which is expected to raise as much as $214 billion by 2023.
6. Obamacare undermines job creation. The ACA has been the most important of a number of White House policies that have discouraged job creation at a time when the country is struggling to put people back to work. At last tally, there were 92 million adult Americans who are not working (like stay-at-home moms), are unemployed, retired or disabled. The workforce participation rate is at a decades-long low. This is unsustainable, and Obamacare is not helping. Companies have limited their hiring and also the number of hours their employers work because of the bill and have faced increased uncertainty. Meanwhile, because of the ACA, Americans no longer need to work to get health benefits – maybe a good thing for individuals, but not for a country whose safety net must be funded by an ever-greater workforce.
In short, there’s still meat on the bones of the Obamacare carcass; Republicans running for office should get out their knives and forks.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3) BREAKING REPORT: Officer Darren Wilson Suffered “Orbital Blowout Fracture to Eye Socket” During Mike Brown Attack
Posted by Jim Hoft on Tuesday, August 19, 2014, 10:00 AM
The Gateway Pundit can now confirm from two local St. Louis sources that police Officer Darren Wilson suffered facial fractures during his confrontation with deceased 18 year-old Michael Brown. Officer Wilson clearly feared for his life during the incident that led to the shooting death of Brown. This was after Michael Brown and his accomplice Dorian Johnson robbed a local Ferguson convenience store.
Local St. Louis sources said Wilson suffered an “orbital blowout fracture to the eye socket.” This comes from a source within the Prosecuting Attorney’s office and confirmed by the St. Louis County Police.
(File Image)
A blowout fracture is a fracture of one or more of the bones surrounding the eye and is commonly referred to as an orbital floor fracture. (AAPOS)
This comes after St. Louis Post-Dispatch reporter tweeted out last night that a dozen local witnesses confirmed Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson’s version of the Brown shooting story.
3a) The evolution in teaching math since the 1950s:
1. Teaching Math In 1950s A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100.
His cost of production is 4/5 of the price. What is his profit?
2. Teaching Math In 1960s A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100.
His cost of production is 4/5 of the price, or $80. What is his profit?
3. Teaching Math In 1970s
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $80. Did he make a profit?
4. Teaching Math In 1980s
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $80 and his profit is $20. Your assignment: Underline the number 20.
5. Teaching Math In 1990s
A logger cuts down a beautiful forest because he is selfish and inconsiderate and cares nothing for the habitat of animals or the preservation of our woodlands. He does this so he can make a profit of $20. What do you think of this way of making a living? Topic for class participation after answering the question: How did the birds and squirrels feel as the logger cut down their homes? (There are no wrong answers, and if you feel like crying, it's ok.)
6. Teaching Math In 2000s
If you have special needs or just feel you need assistance because of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, age, childhood memories, criminal background, then don't answer and the correct answer will be provided for you. There are no wrong answers.
7. Teaching Math In 2014
Un hachero vende una carrtada de maderapara 100 pesos. El costo de la producciones es 80 pesos. Cuanto dinero ha hecho?
3b) Do the Ferguson Protestors Really Want Justice?
African Americans in Ferguson, MO are demanding justice over the shooting of Michael Brown. But, a clear-eyed observer might conclude differently: what they really want is vengeance, a public lynching, hauling out Officer Darren Wilson in chains, watching as he pleads for mercy, then asking the crowd to shout out its judgment and guilty verdict announced, dispatching him as gruesomely as possible while the crowd roars its approval. This is hardly a new idea -- recall the festive public guillotining during the French Reign of Terror or mob chants of “to the Wall” in Castro’s Cuba. And, truth be told, I suspect that many non-protestors might be willing to sacrifice Officer Wilson to end the violence.
But, let’s assume that cooler heads prevail and American style justice -- not vengeance -- does triumph. Would this satisfy the Ferguson demonstrators?
As Yogi Berra once said, making predictions is hard, especially about the future, but let me suggest that dozens of “No justice no Peace” placards aside, the Fergusons rioters do not want American-style justice. Indeed, if American “justice” showed up as per demands, it might precipitate even more rioting and inflammatory rhetoric.
Libraries are filled with treatises on “justice American style” but let me note certain core features and, sad to say, these elements bear scant resemblance to what Ferguson protestors demand.
Justice in America can also be far more complicated than, say, the crowd roaring “kill him for murdering Michael.” Arcane but necessary legal distinctions often baffle non-experts. How many Ferguson protestors could explain the difference if Officer Wilson were charged with voluntary manslaughter, defined as intentional killing in which “the offender had no prior intent to kill, such as a killing that occurs in the ‘heat of passion.’ The circumstances leading to the killing must be the kind that would cause a reasonable person to become emotionally or mentally disturbed” versus second degree murder -- an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable "heat of passion"; or 2) a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life? And these are only two of many potential charges.
This is hardly a distinction without a difference and may require hours of boring testimony and splitting legal hairs but it can critically determine the final outcome and punishment. Similar complexities surround the admissibility of evidence, witness credibility, the relevance of past court decisions and sundry other matters whose meaning can baffle ordinary citizens. No doubt, for some, following the path to “justice” may be as bewildering as watching a Chinese opera.
There is also an occasional disjuncture between obvious guilt and a “not guilty” verdict and, of the utmost importance, it is justice given our prized principle of better to free the guilty than punish innocents. The apparent “injustice” might result from inadmissible evidence (e.g., an illegal wiretap), witnesses suddenly refusing to testify (no snitching), lack of a properly drawn search warrant, police failure to apply the Miranda rules, statute of limitations, improperly impaneled juries (e.g., systematic exclusion of blacks), judges giving the jury misleading instructions among countless other flaws, all well-known get-out-of-jail-cards to experienced defense attorneys. How do you explain to angry protestors that Officer Wilson walks because the jury was so deadlocked that the judge and the prosecution doubted that a fair trial in the St. Louis area was impossible and a retrial would be pointless? But that would be justice.
Finally, American justice is only about legal violations and while some bad behavior is illegal, much bad behavior, no matter how noxious or offensive, is not a crime. Donald Sterling’s racist rants may outrage millions, but his utterances were not criminal behavior. Thus understood it is a mistake to conflate achieving “justice” with eliminating heavy-handed police tactics, releasing a tape showing Michael Brown stealing a box of cigars, being followed around by suspicious store clerks or, as pontificators such as the New York Times’ Charles Blow, would allege, a whole slew of race-related inequalities (also see here). Absent a specific statute, achieving justice is not bringing about some egalitarian Utopia.
Clearly, street protestors cannot be expected to grasp these complexities. Nor is this necessarily a race-related deficiency -- southerners lynched thousands of blacks rather than wait until all the evidence was collected, lawyers appointed, and witnesses called to testify. Mob “justice” is probably the default form of justice throughout history.
Two points. Despite hours spent watching Ferguson on TV and following it in major newspapers, I saw zero about how American justice actually works. Nobody explained that vengeance is not justice and rioting has nothing to do with sifting the evidence to prove innocence or guilt. Some prominent figure could have said, “Listen folks, justice will be done, but not here and months will pass, so we’ll need patience, not more agitation.” A great teaching opportunity was lost and replaced with rhetoric that tacitly conflated disorderly demonstrations with calls for due process. Those in Ferguson should keep in mind that until recently, justice via “race riot” was almost always involved out-of-control whites lynching blacks. If this behavior were to define “American justice” blacks would lose. Upholding rule of law is in the best interest of minorities and perhaps the legal scholar President Obama should give this lecture.
Second, since the protestor’s version of “justice” (i.e., a lynching) is unlikely to occur, calls for revenge disguised as “justice” will continue to smolder and, if Officer Wilson is not indicted or walks after a long trial, life in Ferguson (and elsewhere) will return to the “burn baby, burn” era of the 1960s, an economic disaster for blacks. And after a half century and trillions in failed efforts, do we now finally know how to solve the “root causes” of what angers the demonstrators? Events in Ferguson puts on display a fundamental divide on the very meaning of “justice” and it is unlikely to vanish.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4) Subj: Global warming source ? Found ??
The idiots in California already are keeping water from the most fertile land mass valley in the world to protect a one inch long smelt fish, creature or what ever you call the damn thing. There is suppose to be less than a thousand of them but there are estimates of over 300,000 jobs lost from the non-cultivating of food in these fields. The unemployment rate in the area near Fresno, Ca. in the agricultural business is over 40%.
So, these tree hugging', clean aired, water suffocating, bird killing, dirty (never killed no bird) coal hating, paper thin vehicle driving, corn hogging food into ethanol motor killing smug go green bastards are trying to tell us how to live??
Well, shooting the bird has taken on an entire new meaning in California!!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5)-- Obama's Rage
In September 2001 my daughter was a graduate student at Harvard. On the 11thday of that month, she spent some time sitting on a bench on campus, holding hands with one of her professors, while the two of them wept. Like many of her professors, this man was a renowned scholar. But unlike most, he came from a tough neighborhood in the Bronx. When phone service was restored to the West Coast, my daughter called. She said, “Mom, I'm so glad I was with my professor, because the people here at Harvard, they don't get it.
It's like it wasn't their country that was attacked.”
It wasn't. Decades ago, the self-amazed, academic staccato-talkers at places like Harvard constructed an edifice of convenient untruths about the United States. America was reframed as an intolerant, aggressive, and morally backward nation. This dogma enabled the elites to claim the advantages of being American while exempting themselves from any form of military service, or gratitude for the military, which provides their national security. Most of such types at Harvard consider themselves American, but special, enlightened ones; it was the greedy, intolerant, patriotic folks who were attacked on 9/11.
Harvard's currently most famous alumnus, Barack Obama, takes anti-American dogma one step further into an idée fixe. He suffers a delusion within the illusion of American perfidy, a fixed, fervent ideological system against an imaginary evil white patriarchy. And the face of his “singular fixation of the intellect” has been George W. Bush. On the level of the heart, Obama has no country. Not only does he not identify with the people who died on 9/11, but to a degree beyond most left-wing elites, he is sympathetic to the Islamists who killed them.
Imagine if during World War II American soldiers had fought and died in order to capture five ace Luftwaffe pilots. Then President Roosevelt ordered the pilots to be sent back to the Nazis so they could resume dropping bombs. That is exactly what Obama did against America in the Bergdahl “swap.” It was a treasonous act expressing the rage he carries, which he focuses against Bush's war on terrorism.
Charles Krauthammer explains Obama as the President who wants to end war. But the organizing principle of Obama's military policy is to end the Iraq war in defeat for America. Obama is driven by an obsessive resentment, conscious and unconscious, against a delusional evil white patriarchy, which causes him to help America's enemies. Above all, Obama was driven to lose the war in Iraq to claim victory over Bush, the ideal foil for his idée fixe.
The concept of the idée fixe was the forerunner of the condition called obsession. An idée fixe can form when the vulnerable ego of a child or adult is shocked and humiliated by mistreatment or abuse. The ego experiences rage and powerlessness, and is unable to make sense of and reintegrate beyond the abuse.
Psychological energy can reorient around an idée fixe, in this case a transference of rage away from the actual abuser(s), onto a safer psychological object. Also, unlike obsession where there may be some insight and motivation to break free, the fixedly prejudiced mind does not question itself, but devotes energy and resources to the delusion. Relationships and responsibilities apart from the idée fixe are neglected in the self-deception that when the enemy is conquered, every problem will be solved. The pathological aspects of the President’s idée fixe involve anti-white racism and anti-father psychology, both typified by Bush.
The greatest threat to American-style socialism is a Godful father in the home. The last two Democratic Presidents had no such fathers. There is strong evidence that both Presidents Clinton and Obama suffered childhood abuse resulting from unstable, toxic parenting. These kinds of childhoods are being inflicted on more and more American children as socialist progressivism moves authority and responsibility from parents, especially fathers, to government. Of all the sequelae of child abuse, the most intense is the rage formed in the mind of a boy who has been sexually mistreated. Clinton took out his rage against women. But as reckless and cruel as his behavior was, it did not influence his foreign or domestic policy. Obama's rage is cathected against an irrational stereotype of white patriarchy, personified by Bush. Obama's idée fixe strongly influences his policies, especially his role as Commander in Chief.
Wealth corrupts and corruption spawns self-justifying ideology. The princes of the world held aloft by divine rights were not known for their moral rectitude or selfless service. The American baby boom generation has been decried as the me generation, the generation of narcissists. That is primarily because scientific and technological advances, actualized by free enterprise and victory in war, enabled the first generation in human history to emulate princes: overthrow their fathers, place themselves above patriotism and military service, pursue their own passions, and find their own psyches to be very important. Like many analysands who enter analysis to explore grievances against their parents, the post-war intellectual elites developed a severe case of false memory syndrome regarding American history, which fueled progressive ideology.
Obama’s childhood set the stage for transference of rage against the parents and parent figures who abandoned, rejected and abused him to anti-white, anti-father ideology. Obama’s poppa, Barack Sr., was a rolling stone. Wherever he laid his hat he left an abandoned son. And when he died all he left them was drunken, racist, Communism.
Obama was literally conceived in racist ideology. His unwed, teenage mother represented the avant-garde of the racism that says it is liberation for white girls to have sex with older black men. According to Dinesh D’Souza, Obama’s “swinger” mother was so strongly anti-American and sympathetic to communism, she sent her son back to Hawaii rather than have him influenced by his step-father who worked for American oil interests.
Then there is the creepy commie, Frank Marshall Davis, who some believe is the President’s actual father. Regarding the psychogenesis of rage, Davis’s pornography work, sex obsession, and barely fictionalized erotic writings about underagers like Obama’s mother were more harmful to the boy than Davis’s activist communism.
The worst impediments to the realization of legal rights in American history have been variations of racism. In the 1800s, “one drop” of Negro blood tainted a person. Today at Harvard, one drop of non-white blood is an advantage. Elizabeth Warren gained special recognition there based on her claim of Native American ancestry. This wave of anti-white favoritism reached its zenith at America’s most influential university -- and set Obama on course to the presidency.
The anti-father bias of progressivism is a subtler element of Obama’s idée fixe. It is a psychopathologic development of late 20th-century progressivism. For example, if John Kennedy, Jr. had lived to seek political office, his paternal background would have been idealized and his family’s wealth would never have been criticized. George W. Bush, on the other hand, was the idiot child with a legacy education bought by wealthy carpetbaggers. That’s how the left wing rolls.
A person suffering an idée fixe such as Obama’s tends to associate with surrogate rage enactors. Obama’s years of dependence on Bill Ayers and his family was at its deepest level a symbiosis of exhilarating, smug anti-American rage. Of the millions of young people protesting the war in Vietnam, Bill Ayers was the leader of a handful of extreme, conscienceless murderers. That is why Obama dug him. Ayers concocted the myth of Obama by ghostwriting Dreams from My Father. Ayers admits he spun the tales about a plucky, brilliant lad who overcomes racism to work for unity and freedom for all.
There is a direct line between Ayers and the ISIS fighters who won Obama’s victory over George W. Bush. Obama feels safe, energized, and vindicated by radically violent men, as he plays Kumbaya golfer. President Obama declared victory in Iraq because he has indeed won his war against George W. Bush. After the declaration he made a triumphal march to Martha’s Vineyard in his ideological home state of Massachusetts. Genocidal campaigns, rapes, and children’s heads on stakes will not dampen his satisfaction in winning the only military victory he has really sought.
I am grateful for the education my daughter received at Harvard. I pray that the most brilliant people wake up from their illusions and support the military to which they owe their freedom. I pray they cleanse their hearts of unjust blame and that they imagine what will happen to the world if the light of American courage goes dark.
Deborah C. Tyler, PhD.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------6) What Is to Be Done About Gaza?
by Efraim Inbar
Hamas' refusal to accept a ceasefire indicates that the Protective Edge operation has so far failed to attain its modest goal of calm on Israel's border with Gaza. Jerusalem is not expecting peace or integration with its neighbors – it wants just to be left alone.
It is clear that Hamas does not feel weakened or threatened enough to accept a ceasefire. If most of their conditions are met, they might agree to a fragile ceasefire that can be violated at will, which will amount to a Hamas victory. Such an outcome will be disastrous for Israel, with negative political and strategic implications.
Therefore, Israel has no choice but to continue to attack Hamas targets in order to exact a higher cost from the organization. So far the Israeli government has shown commendable caution and reluctance to use massive force. The media reports of the disproportionate use of force are a result of Hamas manipulations and show little understanding of the realities of war. Moreover, air attacks, with the exception of targeted killings, have limited impact. Most destroyed targets are renewable. The limited ground incursion also did not force Hamas to accept a permanent cease-fire, despite the destruction of many tunnels. Therefore an escalation of the military effort is necessary.
Many Israelis advocate reconquering Gaza and cleaning it of its terrorist infrastructure by hunting down all members of the terrorist organizations, primarily Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Such an objective is not beyond the IDF's capabilities and it commands much support in Israel. A re-conquest may need many weeks and even months and it will be costly in terms of casualties.
It is not clear that Israel can garner the support of the international community, particularly the US, for a prolonged operation. Nevertheless, in the absence of Hamas willingness to stop rocket fire for a prolonged period, there may be no choice but to revisit this option; the conquest of all Gaza will be needed to eradicate Hamas military capabilities and secure calm for Israel. However, staying there will be problematic, as democratic societies are increasingly reluctant to be enlightened conquerors.
In the meantime, less drastic military options are available. In the past, the IDF has established corridors to the sea, cutting the Gaza strip into several parts, leaving Hamas to guess where the IDF is headed next. Israel's government must demonstrate that it is not afraid to have the IDF enter urban areas, even if it takes heavy casualties. Israeli society is prepared for it. Moreover, casualties now could save even more casualties in the future.
The IDF may need to launch a ground attack to make Hamas fear that its rule over Gaza might be at stake. It is true that Hamas has no clear center of gravity that if pushed past would assure victory, but Hamas political and military leaders value their power and even more so their lives. Without going deeper into Gaza such a threat cannot develop.
The sooner this happens the better. Various proposals to involve international actors and UN forces are being aired. Israel's experience with such experiments is terrible. All international mechanisms and peacekeeping troops in the Arab-Israeli arena have proven again and again to be ineffective. The last UN force stationed in Southern Lebanon to prevent rockets reaching Hizballah (2006) was a total failure. In Gaza, just a year after they arrived, European observers at the Rafah crossing ran away at the first sign of trouble. Israel cannot rely on others to be responsible for its security.
There is much talk about reassessing Israel's approach toward the rule of Hamas in Gaza. Some advocate ending its rule and bringing back Mahmud Abbas into the Gaza Strip on Israeli bayonets, which might revive the discredited two-state paradigm. It is not clear at all whether Abbas is ready and able to take control of Gaza. This proposal also displays Israeli arrogance and scant memory of Israel's attempts at political engineering in Lebanon (the 1982 War) and among the Palestinians (The "Villages Leagues" of the late 1970s). Israel's involvement in deciding on who is the ruler among our Arab neighbors has brought little benefits. It is beyond Israel's power to affect the political dynamics within the Arab societies around us. Moreover, favoring one contender for power immediately boomerangs because it undermines the legitimacy of the contender. Pragmatic cooperation with Israel does not earn popularity points in the Arab world.
Furthermore, uprooting Hamas is not in the cards. It is a popular movement that draws support amongst over thirty percent of the Palestinians. It has a civilian wing that delivers many services to the Gazans. Hamas also won the elections in 2006, which indicates even larger support among the Palestinians. The violent struggle against Israel is popular, despite the heavy price paid by Gazan civilians.
Unfortunately, Palestinians are educated not to seek peace, but to make sacrifices and be martyrs in a holy war against the Jewish state. As long as the Palestinians do not change their education system, there will be no end to the conflict; Israel can only manage it. It will continue to live by its sword and "mow the grass" when it deems it necessary. Israel has no power to mold its strategic environment, only the power to debilitate the capabilities of its enemies to harm it. In the case of Hamas more of this is needed.
Efraim Inbar, director of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, is a professor of political studies at Bar-Ilan University, and a Shillman/Ginsburg fellow at the Middle East Forum.
No comments:
Post a Comment