.jpg)
Hitler in the bunker video.
===
By seeking to even the racial playing field does it send the right message of tolerance and are we doing society a favor ? See 1 below.)
===
Instead of a war on women what about one on Obama? (See 2 below.)
There continues to be a real war against Israelis as six were killed this morning while praying in a synagogue. (See 2a below.)
His post assassination comment of rationalizing equivalency was so amorally typical and such a mockery
===
Wherever Obama goes he seems to insult allies while pandering to our adversaries. (See 3 below.)
===
Obama has two more years to complete his self destruction and ours. (See 4 below.)
===
Just returned from board meeting committee at GMOA of which I am the chair and while driving to Athens and back had these four thoughts or musings:
a) Georgia Bubba's are criticized for allowing guns in churches. Perhaps after the Israeli synagogue killings the Bubba's are right smack on!
b) I read where American Enterprise's Alex Pollack published a survey which revealed since 1980, one person households had increased from 23 to 27%, illegitimate births were on the rise as were single parent families and its negative impact on getting an education was more evident and thus job opportunities were also diminished.
c) As our nation's standards and traditional values are mocked it is little wonder we are experiencing so many social ills.
These trends support my belief that progressive government policies have contributed to wrecking the American family and are incapable of helping restore a strong family's role in our society.
d) Finally, the office of the president is an executive one and electing a person without an
executive resume flies in the face of logic and good sense.
I rest my case by citing the tragedy of the Obama years.
===
Daniel Pipes laments the fact that Americans are asleep. (See 5 below.)
===
Dick
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)-
Racial Quota Punishment
By Thomas SowellIf anyone still has any doubt about the utter cynicism of the Obama administration, a recent agreement between the federal government and the Minneapolis Public Schools should open their eyes.
Under the Obama administration, both the Department of Education and the Department of Justice have been leaning on public schools around the country to reduce what they call the "disproportionate" numbers of black male students who are punished for various offenses in schools.
Under an implicit threat of losing their federal subsidies, the Minneapolis Public Schools have agreed to reduce the disparity in punishment of black students by 25 percent by the end of this school year, and then by 50 percent, 75 percent and finally 100 percent in each of the following years. In other words, there are now racial quota limits for punishment in the Minneapolis schools.
If we stop and think -- as old-fashioned as that may seem -- there is not the slightest reason to expect black males to commit the same number of offenses as Asian females or any other set of students.
When different groups of human beings have behaved differently in all sorts of ways, in countries around the world, for thousands of years of recorded history, why would we accept as dogma that the only reason one set of students gets punished more than others is because the people who are doing the punishing are picking on them?
Politically -- which is the way the Obama administration looks at everything -- any time they can depict blacks as victims, and depict themselves as their rescuers, that means an opportunity to get out the black vote for Democrats.
On the surface, this may look like a favor to blacks. But only on the surface.
Anyone with common sense knows that letting a kid get away with bad behavior is an open invitation to worse behavior in the future. Punishing a kid for misbehavior in school when he is 10 years old may reduce the chances that he will have to be sent to prison when he is 20 years old.
Other schools in other cities, which have also caved under pressure from the federal government, and agreed to lighten up on black kids who misbehave, have reported an increase in misbehavior, including violence. Who would have thought otherwise?
Letting kids who are behavior problems in schools grow up to become hoodlums and then criminals is no favor to them or to the black community. Moreover, it takes no more than a small fraction of troublemakers in a class to make it impossible to give that class a decent education. And for many poor people, whether black or white, education is their one big chance to escape poverty.
The people in the Obama administration who are pushing this counterproductive policy are not stupid. They are political, which is worse. They know what they are doing and they are willing to sacrifice young blacks to do it.
This punishment issue made me think back to the 8th grade, when I was punished by being kept after school, more often than any other kid in the class -- black, white, Hispanic or whatever. I was bored in school and did various pranks to liven things up.
One day, after school, as I sat alone among the empty chairs in the classroom, the teacher said, sarcastically: "Well, here we are again, Sowell, just the two of us!"
"Good grief, Miss Sharoff," I said. "If we keep staying in after school together all the time, people will begin to talk."
"We will just have to live with the scandal," she said, without even looking up from the papers she was correcting.
Thank heaven there was no Obama administration to exempt me from punishment. Who knows how I might have ended up?
Years ago, there was a study of a working class community where there were black, Hispanic and Italian kids, and where many of the cops were Italian. When a black or Hispanic kid broke the law, the police took him down to the station and booked him. But, if an Italian kid did the same thing, they reacted differently.
The Italian cop would take the Italian kid out into an alley and rough him up. Then he would take him home to his family, tell them what had happened and leave him there -- where the kid could expect another beating, instead of the wrist-slap punishment of the law. Those cops understood the realities of life that politicians ignore. And they were doing a favor to their own.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)Time for Congress to Declare War on Obama
Article I, Section 8, Clause II of the U.S. Constitution states the following: “The Congress shall have Power to ...declare war.” Currently, America is at war -- not only with the ISIS types, but also with a president whose flagrant actions against our nation’s interests indicate that he is, in essence, at war with us.
Historically, when it comes to declaring war, presidents tend to defer to Congress. A declaration of war affects legalities and duties related to acts of aggression against America. Regrettably, right now we have a president who defers to absolutely no one and he’s the one guilty of committing those aggressive acts.
America’s Styrofoam-cup-saluting leader is supposed to be “repelling sudden attacks,” not coordinating them. That’s why, however unconventional it may sound, Congress should consider this illegal raid against our sovereign nation, regardless of who the alien army’s leader is, an act of war.
During the Constitutional Convention, framer James Madison wrote that Congress should be given the power not to “make war” but to “declare war.” If promoters of congressional power are correct, doesn’t Congress -- whether they like it or not -- then have a moral responsibility to “declare war” on any force that initiates hostilities against the United States?
In 1863, the Supreme Court argued the Prize Cases. At the time, the court determined that the president “has no power to initiate or declare a war,” and yet 150-plus years later it’s President Obama who has initiated and declared war. Unfortunately the war he’s declared is against America.
That’s right -- the U.S. is grappling with a leader whose greatest achievement thus far is ruining the world’s finest healthcare system. Next on his agenda of destruction is to outdo himself by completely rejecting the clear midterm election message conveyed to him by the American people concerning immigration.
America has a Commander in Chief who’s gutting our armed forces, and although one aspect of the president’s stated powers is to repel invasions, this president is aiding and abetting an all-out invasion against our homeland. As a matter of fact, as each minute passes Barack Obama is adding numbers and manpower to an apostate force.
Barack Obama, “who is [Constitutionally] bound to resist by force” an invasion by land, sea, and air, has plans to ignore the will of the people and instead favors the desires of trespassers who continue to disrespect the laws of the land they’re in the process of illegally claiming as their own.
In other words, the very person with the “executive power” and the express commission to protect this nation from outside incursion is helping to incite what he was elected to prevent.
Maybe someone should remind the Enemy Within the Oval Office that the 2014 election resoundingly declared that the direction in which America is being pushed is not the path the people of this Constitutional republic want to take.
Meanwhile, a new Congress has been voted in whose unspoken charge is to thwart an army of invaders being guided by a renegade president planning to unilaterally grant amnesty to untold millions of illegal aliens, a formidable number of whom Americans know harbor ill will and/or carry with them infectious diseases.
Constitutionally, to prevent unbridled actions that veer dangerously close to treason, there are orthodox means for Congress to deal with loose-cannon presidents who refuse to submit to the balance of powers instituted by our Forefathers.
But in this case, the self-appointed Commander of Illegal Immigrant Forces has made it quite clear that as far as he’s concerned, for his purposes, America’s founding document has a “fundamental flaw” and is irrelevant. Therefore, although Congress declaring war on a president is not possible, based on Obama’s disregard for the fidelity of the Constitution, doing so seems like an acceptable option, however far-fetched.
Why? Because never in the history of the republic have we witnessed a leader who has commenced hostilities against his own nation with such vigor, determination, and pigheadedness. Moreover, right under our noses the person responsible for repelling invasions is exploiting one to create eclectic armies of individuals, some of whom have threatened to one day subjugate our nation’s citizens physically, economically, spiritually, and culturally.
Based on his subversive actions, by definition Barack Obama is indeed making war against America, and it’s high time Congress responded by declaring their own war on a man who became a domestic enemy the day he violated his oath by refusing to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
Under different circumstances, Barack Obama’s contempt for the very document that protects him would make him subject to a separate set of rules. As tempting a fantasy as it might be, we do know that Congress cannot literally declare war on a sitting president. But then again, Obama’s uncompromising refusal to defer to the U.S. Constitution does warrant a historic rebuke.
Either way, it is incumbent upon the new U.S. Congress to rise to the occasion and save this Republic. That’s why congressional consent is now needed for an entirely new purpose: to stop the one exercising the use of force against America from within. Congress must do whatever is necessary to deprive Barack Obama of the power to continue his ongoing attack against the nation he was elected to protect.
2a)
| Seven minutes of terror: Indiscriminate fire at point blank range
By Omri Efraim
 The aftermath of the attack at Kehilat Yaakov (Photo: Reuters) Eyewitness Yaakov Amos was praying in the synagogue at the time of the attack. "During the prayers, I heard shots and saw a worshiper wearing tefillin lying on the floor. The bastard passed me from the right while shouting "Allahu Akbar" and firing indiscriminately. Three people fell immediately, and I saw him keep on massacring people." Amos said that, "one of the terrorists did not waste bullets and aimed directly at people. He fired and then looked at me, and chose people closer to him, shooting them at point blank range."  A bloodstained prayer book at the synagogue (Photo: GPO) The police at the scene and the terrorists exchanged fire, during which two policemen were wounded, one seriously and one moderately. Another officer heard shouts on his radio and rushed to the scene. He shot and neutralized both terrorists.  Security forces at the scene of the attack (Photo: AFP) Yossi Barzani, one of the worshipers in the synagogue, said: In the middle of prayers two terrorists entered shouting "Allahu akbar'. The synagogue was in panic, and I tried to flee. At a certain stage, one the terrorists approached me with a knife, and there was a chair and table between us. "I drew back and ran from him and fled outside. In those moments, I asked God to save me. My prayer shawl got caught. I left it there and escaped. On the way out, I saw terrible sights and bodies."  Removing a body from the scene of the attack. (Photo: AFP) Ofer, whose brother was wounded in the attack, said his brother had been struck in the head by an axe and was undergoing surgery. He said that he had received a message that there had been a terror attack and rushed to the scene as he had lived there in the past and his brother was still a resident. "I didn’t think he would be there," said Ofer, "but regretfully he was apparently the first to be stabbed and shot." "We all love him," said Ofer. "He is an outstanding person; he loves to help people and would never take a shekel from anyone. We hope that my brother will come out of this and keep on teaching and being a righteous family man. My brother was in the wrong place at the wrong time." Superintendent A., the forensics officer who rushed to the scene and shot the terrorists, described what he saw as he arrived. "I fired at them until they were neutralized and then I and other officers searched the yeshiva. This attack reminds me of the attack at Mercaz Harav yeshiva six |
PM Netanyahu to Hold Security Consultation This Afternoon |
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will, this afternoon (Tuesday, 18 November 2014), at his Jerusalem office, hold a security consultation. "This is the direct result of the incitement being led by Hamas and Abu Mazen, incitement which the international community is irresponsibly ignoring. We will respond with a heavy hand to the brutal murder of Jews who came to pray and were met by reprehensible murderers," the Prime Minister said. |
3) A Mystifying Obama Climate Slap at a U.S. Ally
In Brisbane, the president went out of his way to undermine Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott. Why?
President Obama over the weekend made a bizarre decision to attack and damage his closest ally in Asia, and one of the most committed supporters of U.S. foreign policy.
The president was in Australia for the G-20 Summit in Brisbane. Unlike Britain’s David Cameron , China’s Xi Jinping and India’s Narendra Modi, he apparently had no interest in speaking to the Australian Parliament or making a formal, bilateral visit to Australia while in town.
Instead, Mr. Obama made a speech to an Australian version of his political core audience back home—undergraduates at a metropolitan university. Much of the speech at the University of Queensland in Brisbane was boilerplate. It lacked a plot but hit a few reliable notes, such as the U.S. commitment to Asia, defense of gay rights and the like.
But the longest passage was an extraordinary riff on climate change that contained astonishing criticism—implied, but unmistakable—of the government led by Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott. Mr. Obama lavished himself with praise for signing, a few days earlier, a climate-change agreement with China that imposes no obligations on Beijing until 2030, when the Chinese will notionally reach a peak in their carbon emissions. The U.S., on the other hand, under this deal will greatly reduce its emissions by 2025, though Mr. Obama won’t be in office then and Congress may be inclined not to authorize such cuts.
Mr. Abbott is a sensible conservative, along the lines of Canada’s Stephen Harper . He accepts that climate change is a problem and that greenhouse-gas emissions should be reduced. He is skeptical of climate alarmism and does not believe that the solution lies in onerous carbon taxes or trading schemes in carbon permits, which are notoriously open to corruption and inherently ineffective.
The prime minister won a big mandate in last year’s parliamentary elections to repeal the former Labor government’s carbon tax, which he did. But Mr. Abbott’s government has maintained the previous commitment to cut Australia’s carbon emissions by 5% from 2000 levels. Given the high growth rates of Australia’s population and its economy, this equates to a huge 19% cut from business as usual. In measuring countries’ responses to carbon emissions, it makes a big difference what year you use as the base. According to the Australian government, if 1990 is the base year, then by 2020 Australia will have cut its emissions by 4%, the U.S. by 5%.
So Australia’s performance on carbon-emission reductions is comparable with America’s, and perfectly respectable. But Mr. Abbott doesn’t go in for climate-as-salvation, revival-meeting rhetoric. What he does do, unstintingly, is support U.S. interests and objectives.
In June, when Mr. Abbott first visited Washington as prime minister, he offered Washington tangible support in the Middle East—special forces, advanced fighter jets and much else—even before the president had decided to take action against the Islamic State terrorist group. Mr. Abbott did this not because he was charmed by Mr. Obama but because he believes that the world benefits from U.S. leadership. He wanted the U.S. to know that in difficult places it doesn’t walk alone.
Mr. Abbott has also done more than any regional leader to support the U.S. in Asia, and to support key U.S. strategic goals. He hosts U.S. troops and joint facilities. He publicly backs Japan’s reinterpretation of its constitution to allow it to participate in collective security and a properly mutual alliance with the U.S. Mr. Abbott’s government sternly criticized Beijing for declaring an Air Defense Identification Zone around the disputed Senkaku/Diaoyou Islands in the East China Sea. This is not without risk for Mr. Abbott. China is by far Australia’s biggest trading partner.
In short there is no more reliable U.S. ally than Mr. Abbott. So as a reward the president in his speech roped Australia to the U.S., saying “one of the things we have in common is we produce a lot of carbon” and “we have not been the most energy-efficient of nations, which means we’ve got to step up.” Mr. Obama demanded that Australia follow, in a general way, the example he set with his carbon deal with China.
He also repeatedly referred to the dangers that global warming poses to Queensland’s Great Barrier Reef. Australia’s carbon emissions are so low that any variation will make absolutely no difference to the fate of the Great Barrier Reef. But Mr. Obama, or his speech writers, knew that the reef has been a totemic issue in the debate on climate-change policy in Australia, used entirely by Mr. Abbott’s opponents to symbolize his supposed wickedness.
Similarly, without scientific evidence, the president said that global warming “means longer droughts, more wildfires” in Australia. He then urged his young audience—“keep raising your voices”—to make sure that their political demands on climate change are met.
How on earth could the White House think that blindsiding Mr. Abbott is a good idea? If the Obama White House cannot be bothered to manage the relationship with a close ally like Australia, how can it deal with the world’s real difficulties? As some congressional Democrats recently learned, the only thing fraught with more danger than being Mr. Obama’s enemy is being his friend.
Mr. Sheridan is the foreign editor of the Australian.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)On immigration, Obama is flirting with tyranny
The president is right that our immigration system is broken. But that doesn't justify a move that would directly contravene the will of Congress.
By Damon Linker
A democracy dies by a thousand cuts. A particularly deep one may come later this week, administered by none other than Barack Obama.
As has been widely reported for months, the president plans to make "changes to the immigration enforcement system" that "could offer legal documents to as many as five million immigrants in the country illegally." And as New York Times columnist Ross Douthat has provocatively andpersuasively explained — often in painstaking and illuminating exchanges with Obama's defenders — those changes would constitute an unprecedented and quite likely unconstitutional power grab, in which the head of the executive branch claims "prosecutorial discretion" to ignore and even actively contravene laws passed by Congress.
Now let me be completely clear: I'm all in favor of immigration reform that includes a path to citizenship for immigrants already living in the United States. I think the refusal of the House Republican majority to pass an immigration reform bill — or, really, to do much of anything at all — over the past two years is a disgrace. I fear that with the GOP now in control of the Senate as well, Washington may well grind to a standstill — and that this heightened level of dysfunction in the nation's capital may well redound to the benefit of Republicans, who use disgust at Washington as fuel for their anti-government furies.
That's bad.
But what Obama is proposing is worse. Much worse.
The rule of law is far more about how things are done than about what is done. If Obama does what he appears poised to do, I won't be the least bit troubled about the government breaking up fewer families and deporting fewer immigrants. But I will be deeply troubled about how the president went about achieving this goal — by violating the letter and the spirit of federal law.
To grasp precisely what's so galling about Obama's proposed actions, it's necessary to reflect on the nature of executive power and its permanent potential to become despotic.
Executive power can be reined in, as the U.S. Constitution attempts to do. But there are always limits to how much a president can be restrained, and not just because, or not simply because, executives are prone to maximize their own power. As political thinkers from Aristotle to John Locke and the American constitutional framers have recognized, there will be situations in which the common good demands and requires that the executive go beyond the letter and even the spirit of the law. In these extreme or emergency situations — situations in which an existential threat poses a grave danger, with the survival of the political community itself at stake — the executive's extralegal decisions effectively become the community's higher law.
Probably the clearest example from American history is Abraham Lincoln's 1861 suspension of habeas corpus, defiance of the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court (who denounced Lincoln's actions as unconstitutional), and subsequent arrest (without charge) of pro-secessionist Maryland state legislators who appeared poised to condemn the suspension and vote to join the Confederacy.
Was Lincoln acting like a tyrant, as Maryland native John Wilkes Booth and many other critics of the time contended? You bet he was. And it's a good thing, too. Had Maryland seceded, Washington would have been surrounded by enemy armies and the South almost certainly would have won the Civil War quickly and decisively. Extralegal action was required to keep that from happening.
The willingness to break the law in order to preserve the common good is a mark of statesmanship at its peak. But it is also perilous for everyone involved — not least the statesman himself, who relies on his own judgment alone to determine whether the circumstances are grave enough to justify his transgressions.
Was the judgment correct? Or might the crisis have been averted without it? Those crucial questions are often unanswerable until the emergency has ended and executive law-abidingness has been restored. At that point, the statesman will either be judged a hero for his temporary embrace of despotic tactics — or he will be condemned as an enemy of ordinary decency who used the crisis as a pretext to aggrandize his own power. There is often no way to reach a final judgment while the crisis is still underway.
That's what makes it so hard to judge the extralegal actions of George W. Bush and other senior members of his administration. After the Sept. 11 attacks, the administration claimed that the nation faced potentially mortal threats to its national security from sub-state actors who might seek to detonate weapons of mass destruction in American cities. That threat — a perpetual ticking-time-bomb scenario — was then used to justify extralegal actions (including torture of terrorism subjects) to thwart those potential attacks.
Critics have demanded that senior Bush administration officials be brought up on war crimes charges for authorizing torture. But such judgments can only be fairly rendered once the state of emergency has come to an end. Only then will we be capable of judging if the threat to the common good was sufficiently grave to justify breaking the law.
But what if the war or terror — and the state of emergency that goes along with it — never ends? That prospect should send a chill down the spines of civil libertarians everywhere, because it suggests that we may have entered an era in which circumstances demand that the executive be granted extralegal authority on a semi-permanent basis.
It is within this ominous context that President Obama's proposed actions on immigration need to be evaluated. Compared with torture, rendition, and the extrajudicial use of surveillance and even deadly force against American citizens, Obama's efforts to help illegal immigrants can seem benign and even trivial. But that's precisely the point. No matter how you feel about Bush's actions, up until now, executive transgressions of the law have been made in the name of protecting the common good from a grave threat in a time of emergency.
What is so galling about the president's pending circumvention of federal immigration law is that the White House hasn't even attempted to justify it on grounds of necessity — no doubt because any effort to do so would be risible. The nation obviously faces no immigration emergency that could possibly justify the kind of extralegal action that Obama is contemplating. Cultivating a new constituency for the Democratic Party certainly doesn't rise to that level, but neither does a big-hearted attempt to stop often cruel deportations of individuals and families residing in this country illegally.
Have we really gotten to the point where the executive can ignore and even violate, on the absurdly open-ended basis of "discretion," the express intent of a federal law he is constitutionally empowered to execute — not because of an emergency, not because of a national threat, but merely because he wants to be a nice guy?
As Douthat notes, such discretion could easily be used by a future Republican president to rewrite the federal tax code by fiat. But really, it could be used by any president of either party to do anything at all.
Maybe that's not a problem. Maybe the rule of law is passé. Maybe democracy's more trouble than it's worth. Maybe we'd be happier with an elected monarchy in which the legislature merely played an advisory role in making and execution of laws.
I just wish that we'd be honest about the fact that our system appears to be evolving in that direction — and that liberals, in particular, would admit that Barack Obama appears prepared to make an important contribution to bringing it about.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5) THE WORLD WITHOUT THE BENIGN POWER OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Author(s): Address by Dr. Daniel Pipes, Commentary by Jerome S. Kaufman
We were fortunate to have Dr. Daniel Pipes political analyst, writer, founder and editor of the Middle East Forum address our synagogue Wednesday evening. He spoke on world-wide events. Faced with this formidable task, Dr. Pipes elected to try and give us a snap shot view of those countries in which we were likely to have the most interest.
5) THE WORLD WITHOUT THE BENIGN POWER OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Author(s): Address by Dr. Daniel Pipes, Commentary by Jerome S. Kaufman
We were fortunate to have Dr. Daniel Pipes political analyst, writer, founder and editor of the Middle East Forum address our synagogue Wednesday evening. He spoke on world-wide events. Faced with this formidable task, Dr. Pipes elected to try and give us a snap shot view of those countries in which we were likely to have the most interest.
Dr. Pipes was concerned with Turkey, putting aside, just for the moment, the terrifying threat of Iran’s nuclear weapon. Unfortunately, Iran’s development of the bomb appears to be a foregone conclusion, especially with the ineptitude of John Kerry and the questionable political allegiance and motivation of Barack Obama.
Dr. Pipe’s concern was based upon the genuine strength of Turkey — its size, population — apx. 75 million — relatively advanced culture, education, military capability, vital geographical location and most important, its leader, Recep Erdogan, a dedicated enemy of the West. Not unlike Vladimir Putin, who is obviously working toward the reformation of the USSR, Erdogan is equally ambitious in his recidivism dedicated to the return of a Grand Caliphate over the Middle East and much of Europe.
Pipes then spoke of Iraq and Syria, almost in the past tense, as completely failed states whose flimsy fabric, artificially created after WWI, was easily destroyed by the initial thrust of the very successful Sunni Moslem extremist group, ISIS/ISIL, now attracting dissident Muslims of all stripes and nuance.
Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of ISIS, has issued a defiant call for followers to “erupt volcanoes of jihad everywhere”. He specifically called on Isis fighters to launch attacks in Saudi Arabia, particularly on its rulers, and in Yemen. He proclaims himself as the initiator and founder of the reborn Grand Caliphate. By the way, within the last few days, written and video reports have been presented claiming Baghdadi has been killed.
Unfortunately, assassinations of this sort never seem to mean very much with a new leader quickly taking the place of the guy eliminated. Obama’s much self-heralded and only supposed foreign achievement, the assassination of Osama bin Laden, is a perfect example of this much ado about something that quickly becomes very little.
Dr. Pipes was dismissive of ISIS, what with their crude beheadings, their return to the ugliest aspects of sharia law and, in the process, creating enemies of the major Arab powers: Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Yemen and Iran, when their own destructive ambitions do not conflict. Al-Baghdadi even woke up the naive, slumbering, totally ineffective, underarmed, pacifist and cowardly European Union unified only in their mindless denunciation of their real ally in the area, the state of Israel.
Dr. Pipes then addressed the Israeli/Arab conflict. There was no equivocation in his remarks. The “Peace Process” is a complete failure — no matter how many trips back and forth made by John Kerry. The process itself is based upon an ancient lie perpetrated by Yasir Arafat signing the Oslo Accords in 1993 wherein the Arabs were to accept the existence of Israel as a separate Jewish State. Two different peoples were to live side by side in peace.
Pipes recommends Israel finally disregard the useless, fictitious Oslo Accords, defeat its sworn relentless enemy and not stop until complete victory with abject surrender is achieved. Nothing else has worked for 50 years and nothing else will.
Pipes then briefly discussed the Egyptian nation and declared it also a failed state. Egypt has long been in desperate straits. Once considered the bread basket of the Middle East as a result of the agricultural munificence of the Nile River, it is now unable to feed its own gargantuan, ever growing population. There is no promise in sight except as an insatiable welfare state totally dependent upon the kind support of its Arab neighbors and Israel.
Finally, Dr. Pipes got to current American Foreign Policy. He considered it an unmitigated disaster. Obama has alienated allies that have been with us for decades. The first thing he did taking office was to insult the British with the return of the sculpture of Winston Churchill held in a place of well deserved honor in the White House.
He left the Czechs and Poles hanging by stopping the development of sophisticated United Nations air defense systems on their territory to ward off the Russians who quickly have taken full advantage of this destructive action. He has allowed Russia to grab huge swaths of territory under false pretenses in Georgia and now Ukraine. As a result the Baltic States and Poland live in understandable dread and have no faith in the US defending them. Nor does anyone else.
Obama has also alienated our long time Arab allies: Saudi Arabic, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain and seems to have a personal vendetta against Israel. And, is now, obsequiously attempting to placate Iran, not unlike the way we have placated North Korea with disastrous consequences.
Obama continued to destroy us by deliberately killing our space program leaving us completely dependent upon the Russians, of all people, for our existence in space. In addition, he has drastically cut the size of our army and recently stopped the building of new submarines badly needed against Russian and Chinese incursions into the farthest reaches of the South China Sea and vital American interests in the Pacific.
And, that is just the tip of the iceberg of the list. Never mind going into the domestic disasters and destruction he has wrought with his personal toys — the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and his buddy, Eric Holder’s Justice Dept.
The meeting was then opened for questions. The first question was why was it that the media and the Congress and the Supreme Court have refused to Call out Obama for what he obviously is – A destroyer of the once great United States of America!
Dr. Pipes gave a politically correct answer. He described Obama as basically a Left winger who indeed resented the power and grandeur and strength of the US and, like his father and mother, considers the US an exploiting colonial power taking advantage of the “poor folks” of the world.
Pipes went on excusing Obama’s behavior as that of a confused man. In his heart of hearts Obama despises this country but, at the same time, he knows he has the role of the President of the US and is supposed to defend us and leave an exemplary legacy. Dr. Pipes explained Obama by saying it seems he assumes the role of colonial destroyer of the US on Mon and Wed but assumes the supposed usual defender of the US role on Tuesday and Thursday.
And, that is where Dr. Pipes and I parted company. Obama’s Tuesday/Thursday role is a farce wherein he cleverly pretends to help this great country but in fact continues to destroy it in every way he and his carefully assembled staff of misfits, malcontents and revolutionaries can devise.
Unfortunately, a huge percentage of Americans have no idea what is happening, are sound asleep and understandably pre-occupied worrying about the source of their next pay check!
Without any doubt, we will soon pay the dire consequences of all of the above and May the good Lord please take the time to defend us. No one else will.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment