.jpg)
===
Stop and think, except for constant attacks on police and the tragic assassination of two in New York, with Obama vacationing in Hawaii, the news has really been benign.Now that Obama is back, I would expect matters to heat up because he will be doing everything he can to make things unpleasant either because he will continue spewing lies, will be contentious as he implements his ideology, and will soon be giving his SOTU Address.
President 'go it alone' has already begun by threatening he will use his pen to veto what he does not like. The man is always seeking to pick a fight so he will appear besieged, citing his blackness, in order to gain support from the unwashed and so he can grease his political tracks!Obama may be thin skinned and resent his lack of popularity but frankly I do not believe he gives a damn because he is ideologically driven.
Obama needs an enemy, an adversary to blame Having attacked Wall Street, the wealthy, police, Netanyahu, GW, white bible thumpers and gun toters etc. I wait with bated breath to see what/who will be his next pinata.
So what is in store for America as his two years wind down?
I suspect we will see continuing governance through Presidential Fiat and constant challenges to the intent of the Framer's Constitutional Process.
In a pre Christmas interview, Obama declared the Afghanistan war is over. I hope he is right but I doubt ISIS and The Taliban got the word. Did Obama not mock G.W for saying pretty much the same when he was campaigning the first time?
We still have 11,000 troops exposed in Afghanistan and I fear they will continue to sustain casualties.
Granted Americans are disgusted with Congress and that is understandable considering the way Congress dysfunctions. However, some of the blame has to do with the way Harry Reid conducted the Senate preventing any bills to pass so he could protect the flanks of Democrats and save Obama from vetoing contentious bills.
Voters expressed their dissatisfaction in November but Obama, seemingly/purposefully, did not get the message .
Republicans have choices as to how they respond. They can fight among themselves, they can freeze like deer staring at headlights, they can act responsibly passing needed legislation that is rational and challenge the president to veto til the cows come home . (See 1 below.)
With Jeb Bush's announcement he most likely will run the 2016, Presidential Campaign has begun because the press and media need a story with long tails. This too can shape how Republicans respond in choosing their legislative agenda.
One thing seems certain. Obama continues to have contempt for those who stand in his way and challenge his reforming our nation and well they should. To most objective observers Obama is a lousy negotiator who plays his entire hand first. The most recent evidence is his decision regarding Cuba and now seemingly to be followed by our establishing an Embassy in Iran if the Ayatollah will just be nice and give up his nuclear ambitions.
Happy New Year America, Obama's term in office has only two more years.
==
The decline in oil prices could last longer than assumed and have an earthquake political effect. Could Iran and Russia's leaders be overthrown. I doubt it but with mounting economic stress strange things can happen.. (See 2 below.)===
Two articles by Tom Sowell - Random Thoughts and What Happened to Facts?. (See 3 and 3a below.)
===
The case for Israel is being lost because tired and worn past strategies, which worked when Israel was the 'victim,' are failing. When Israel was the underdog the world embraced it and felt empathy for the little besiege nation. Once Israel began consistently defeating its enemies world opinion shifted and began to support Israel's 'victims.' The world loves the victim!
As the collective West is hard pressed, no longer as strong as it once was and their Muslim populations are growing and it is being effectively challenged by committed Jihadists, it is tired and seeks to place external blame. Israel has become the whipping boy. That is not to say everything Israel does is right. However,when you do not have a legitimate and trustworthy negotiating partner and that partner has learned intransigence wins, the problem for Israel mounts. Furthermore, when Israel has been willing to give in to demands it has had its hand bitten and had to deal with escalating terrorist attacks.
Finally,Obama has proven a reluctant and often unreliable friend of Israel. Obama was naive and premature in his quest to bring about a two state solution. When circumstances proved this to be the case Obama became petulant and sought to blame Israel, citing Netanyahu and settlements as the culprit(s.)
Finally, the Arab World has become more adept at twisting world opinion. They have manipulated youth on American campuses, been expert at deceiving the press and media by refusing them access unless they were sympathetic in their reporting and the list and positive effect of Arab propaganda is endless.
When supporters of Israel do not cower in the face of the above and meet the attacks head on and learn to present Israel's legitimate case of having to deal with world hypocrisy, it proves the right course of action. This is why I continue to present the other side and will continue to do so because I fervently believe the unwarranted attacks on Israel are symptomatic of a greater threat - the survival of the West and America and the freedoms we enjoy. (See 4 below.)
===
Dick
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) GOP Congress Should Tell Obama: Bring It On
By Greg Richter
The newly elected Republican Congress should use its power to differentiate itself from President Barack Obama, conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer told Fox News Channel on Monday.
Obama told National Public Radio recently that he's pretty likely to bring out his veto pen during his last two years in office as Republicans send him bills he doesn't like.
"I think the Republicans ought to say bring it on, Mr. President," Krauthammer told "On the Record with Greta Van Susteren."
The party can best position itself for the 2016 presidential election by showing that it controls the House and Senate now that Democrat Sen. Harry Reid will no longer be acting as "blocking guard" for Obama, Krauthamer said. Reid's refusal to take up controversial legislation kept Obama from having to use his veto pen until now, he said.
With Republican Mitch McConnell running the Senate, the GOP will be able to enact its agenda, Krauthammer said, "And they should be willing to pass whatever they can and to dare the president to go ahead and to veto."
He suggested first passing legislation they know Obama will sign, such as trade negotiating authority, which both Obama and Republicans favor.
"But then they should begin to work on stuff and challenge the president," Krauthammer said, pointing specifically to the Keystone XL pipeline, tax reform and repealing the medical device tax and the employer and individual mandates of Obamacare.
"Let the president show where the party stands, and let the country know that with a new president — a Republican president — this stuff, which is very popular, will be able to get through," he said.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) This Era of Low Cost Oil Is Different
By Mohamed El-Erian
Having seen numerous fluctuations in the energy markets over the years, many analysts and policy makers have a natural tendency to “look through” the latest drop in oil prices — that is, to treat the impact as transient rather than as signaling long-term changes.
I suspect that view would be a mistake this time around. The world is experiencing much more than a temporary dip in oil prices. Because of a change in the supply model, this is a fundamental shift that will likely have long-lasting effects.
Through the years, markets have been conditioned to expect OPEC members to cut their production in response to a sharp drop in prices. Saudi Arabia played the role of the “swing producer.” As the biggest producer, it was willing and able to absorb a disproportionately large part of the output cut in order to stabilize prices and provide the basis for a rebound.
It did so directly by adhering to its lowered individual output ceiling, and indirectly by turning a blind eye when other OPEC members cheated by exceeding their ceilings to generate higher earnings. In the few periods when Saudi Arabia didn't initially play this role, such as in the late 1990s, oil prices collapsed to levels that threatened the commercial viability of even the lower-cost OPEC producers.
Yet in serving as the swing producer through the years, Saudi Arabia learned an important lesson: It isn’t easy to regain market share. This difficulty is greatly amplified now that significant non-traditional energy supplies, including shale, are hitting the market.
That simple calculation is behind Saudi Arabia’s insistence on not reducing production this time. Without such action by the No. 1 producer, and with no one else either able or willing to be the swing producer, OPEC is no longer in a position to lower its production even though oil prices have collapsed by about 50 percent since June.
This change in the production model means it is up to natural market forces to restore pricing power to the oil markets. Low prices will lead to the gradual shutdown of what are now unprofitable oil fields and alternative energy supplies, and they will discourage investment in new capacity. At the same time, they will encourage higher demand for oil.
This will all happen, but it will take a while. In the meantime, as oil prices settle at significantly lower levels, economic behavior will change beyond the “one-off” impact.
As costs fall for manufacturing and a wide range of other activities affected by energy costs, and as consumers spend less on gas and more on other things, many oil-importing nations will see a rise in gross domestic product. And this higher economic activity is likely to boost investment in new plants, equipment and labor, financed by corporate cash sitting on the sidelines.
The likelihood of longer-lasting changes is intensified when we include the geopolitical ripple effects. In addition to creating huge domestic problems for some producers such as Russia and Venezuela, the lower prices reduce these nations’ real and perceived influence on other countries.
Some believe Cuba, for example, agreed to the recent deal with the U.S. because its leaders worried they would be getting less support from Russia and Venezuela. And for countries such as Iraq and Nigeria, low oil prices can fuel more unrest and fragmentation, and increase the domestic and regional disruptive impact of extremist groups.
Few expected oil prices to fall so far, especially in such a short time. The surprises won’t stop here.
A prolonged period of low oil prices is also likely to result in durable economic, political and geopolitical changes that, not so long ago, would have been considered remote, if not unthinkable.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)Random thoughts on the passing scene:
By Tom Sowell
Now that Barack Obama is ruling by decree, he seems more like a king than a president. Maybe it is time we change the way we address him. "Your Majesty" may be a little too much, but perhaps "Your Royal Glibness" might be appropriate.
It tells us a lot about academia that the president of Smith College quickly apologized for saying, "All lives matter," after being criticized by those who are pushing the slogan, "Black lives matter." If science could cross breed a jellyfish with a parrot, it could create academic administrators.
Mitt Romney seems to be ready to try again to run for president in 2016. But most defeated presidential candidates who ran again lost again. There are much stronger Republican candidates available now than there were in 2012, including governors Scott Walker of Wisconsin and Bobby Jindal of Louisiana. At this crucial juncture in the nation's history, why run a retreaded candidate?
Explaining differences in achievements between groups often pits those who attribute these differences to ability against those who attribute differences to barriers. Neither seems to pay much attention to differences in what people want to do. Few guys from my old neighborhood were likely to end up as violinists or ballet dancers, simply because that was not what they were interested in.
When Professor Jonathan Gruber of M.I.T. boasted of fooling the "stupid" American public, that was not just a personal quirk of his. It epitomized a smug and arrogant attitude that is widespread among academics at elite institutions. There should be an annual "Jonathan Gruber award" for the most smug and arrogant statement by an academic. There would be thousands eligible every year.
Every society has some people who don't respect the law. But, when it is the people in charge of the law -- like the President of the United States and his Attorney General -- who don't respect it, that is when we are in big trouble.
Has anyone asked the question, "How could so many people across the country spend so much time at night marching, rioting and looting, if they had to get up and go to work the next morning?"
Hillary Clinton's idea that we have to see the world from our adversaries' point of view -- and even "empathize" with it -- is not new. Back in 1938, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain said, "I have realized vividly how Herr Hitler feels." Ronald Reagan, however, made sure our adversaries understood how we felt. Reagan's approach turned out a lot better than Chamberlain's.
Our schools and colleges are laying a guilt trip on those young people whose parents are productive, and who are raising them to become productive. What is amazing is how easily this has been done, largely just by replacing the word "achievement" with the word "privilege."
There are few modest talents so richly rewarded -- especially in politics and the media -- as the ability to portray parasites as victims, and portray demands for preferential treatment as struggles for equal rights.
Republicans complain when Democrats call them racists. But when have you ever heard a Republican counterattack? You don't win by protesting your innocence or whining about the unfairness of the charge. Yet when have you heard a Republican reply by saying, "You're a lying demagogue without a speck of evidence. Put up or shut up!"
President Obama's establishing diplomatic relations with Cuba was not due to what the American public wanted or even what his own party wanted. It was a decision in defiance of both, just as his decisions about military matters ignore what generals say and his decisions about medical matters ignore what doctors have said. Yet pundits continue to depict him as a helpless lame duck president.
When the political left wants to help the black community, they usually want to help the worst elements in that community -- thugs they portray as martyrs, for example -- without the slightest regard for the negative effect this can have on the lives of the majority of decent black people.
If anyone in the mainstream media is at a loss for what New Year's resolution to make, try this: Stop "spinning" or censoring stories about race, and try telling the plain truth, if only for the novelty of it.
2a) Are Facts Obsolete
By Thomas Sowell
Some of us, who are old enough to remember the old television police series "Dragnet," may remember Sgt. Joe Friday saying, "Just the facts, ma'am." But that would be completely out of place today. Facts are becoming obsolete, as recent events have demonstrated.
What matters today is how well you can concoct a story that fits people's preconceptions and arouses their emotions. Politicians like New York mayor Bill de Blasio, professional demagogues like Al Sharpton and innumerable irresponsible people in the media have shown that they have great talent in promoting a lynch mob atmosphere toward the police.
Grand juries that examine hard facts live in a different world from mobs who listen to rhetoric and politicians who cater to the mobs.
During the controversy over the death of Trayvon Martin, for example, a member of the Congressional Black Caucus said that George Zimmerman had tracked Trayvon Martin down and shot him like a dog. The fact is that Zimmerman did not have to track down Trayvon Martin, who was sitting right on top of him, punching him till his face was bloody.
After the death of Michael Brown, members of the Congressional Black Caucus stood up in Congress, with their hands held up, saying "don't shoot." Although there were some who claimed that this is what Michael Brown said and did, there were other witnesses -- all black, by the way -- who said that Brown was charging toward the policeman when he was shot.
What was decisive was not what either set of witnesses said, but what the autopsy revealed, an autopsy involving three sets of forensic experts, including one representing Michael Brown's family. Witnesses can lie but the physical facts don't lie, even if politicians, mobs and the media prefer to take lies seriously.
The death of Eric Garner has likewise spawned stories having little relationship to facts. The story is that Garner died because a chokehold stopped his breathing. But Garner did not die with a policeman choking him.
He died later, in an ambulance where his heart stopped. He had a long medical history of various diseases, as well as a long criminal history. No doubt the stress of his capture did not do him any good, and he might well still be alive if he had not resisted arrest. But that was his choice.
Despite people who say blithely that the police need more "training," there is no "kinder and gentler" way to capture a 350-pound man, who is capable of inflicting grievous harm, and perhaps even death, on any of his would-be captors. The magic word "unarmed" means nothing in practice, however much the word may hype emotions.
If you are killed by an unarmed man, you are just as dead as if you had been annihilated by a nuclear bomb. But you don't even know who is armed or unarmed until after it is all over, and you can search him.
Incidentally, did you know that, during this same period when riots, looting and arson have been raging, a black policeman in Alabama shot and killed an unarmed white teenager -- and was cleared by a grand jury? Probably not, if you depend on the mainstream media for your news.
The media do not merely ignore facts, they suppress facts. Millions of people saw the videotape of the beating of Rodney King. But they saw only a fraction of that tape because the media left out the rest, which showed Rodney King -- another huge man -- resisting arrest and refusing to be handcuffed, so that he could be searched.
Television viewers did not get to see the other black men in the same vehicle that Rodney King was driving recklessly. Those other black men were not beaten. And the grand jury got to see the whole video, after which they acquitted the police -- and the media then published the jurors' home addresses.
Such media retribution against people they don't like is part of a growing lynch mob mentality. The black witnesses in Missouri, whose testimony confirmed what the police officer said, expressed fears for their own safety for telling what the physical evidence showed was the truth.
Is this what we want? Grand juries responding to mobs and the media, instead of to the facts?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4) While American Jewish organizations fiddle
In late 2004, as I was nearing the end of my tenure as President of the World Affairs Council of Boston, a foreign policy forum, we invited Nabil Fahmi, the then-Ambassador of Egypt to the United States, to speak to a group of Boston’s civic leaders about the Mideast. Fahmi delivered the predictable fare, blaming Israel not only for the Arab-Israeli conflict but for the region’s problems more generally. Straying somewhat from my proper role as host, I questioned him directly, and sharply, about his version of events, and insisted that he address the recently-released United Nations Arab Human Development Report written by Arab social scientists that placed blame for the Arab countries’ woes on the Arabs.
When it was time for him to leave, Fahmi made a special point of coming to see me to say goodbye, and asked me to come see him the next time I was in Washington, D.C. This was a gracious act on his part, particularly given my critical questioning of him in a public setting, and I did go see him at the fortress-like building that is Egypt’s Embassy to the United States. The meeting took place on November 22, 2004 in Ambassador Fahmi’s office, with only the two of us and his note-taker present. For an hour, Fahmi leaned back in his chair and explained to me that “the plan” as far as the Arabs were concerned was to “peel” American Jews away from the major American Jewish organizations, and in that way dilute American support for Israel.
I was struck by this in large part because, to put matters mildly, I had given him little reason up in Boston to regard me as sympathetic to Arab claims about the conflict, let alone to treat me as a confidant. Indeed, I have never understood why Fahmi wanted to meet with the likes of me to outline the Arabs’ strategy for driving a wedge between Israel and the United States.
I have thought about Fahmi’s “plan” often while following J Street, founded in 2008 as a challenge to the Jewish organizations that he was talking about. It is difficult not to regard J Street’s branding itself as “the political home for pro-Israel, pro-peace Americans” as brilliant gimmickry of the first order, casting those who are unable to accept its particular analysis of the conflict as “anti-peace” while J Street alone favors it. This bit of marketing razzmatazz might be eye-rolling had it not proved so successful.
J Street has dined out on the amusing conceit, which it has promoted with some skill, that it requires “courage” to criticize Israel when, quite to the contrary, criticizing Israel is the most comfortable fashion of them all, on campuses, on op-ed pages and, for that matter, in synagogues. And it has deftly portrayed itself as the victim of incivility even as it levels caustic attacks on Jewish organizations and leaders who happen to simply disagree with it.
Still, the Jewish organizations that J Street sustains itself by treating as bogeymen have in some ways done their best to undermine their own appeal. They have sometimes made themselves easy targets for the impatience, or downright exasperation, of American Jews waiting for them to show signs of life in the face of the challenges before us.
These organizations — ones with which I have been, and remain, very proud to be associated – too often present as tired, wedded to the same-old same-old, and as determined to remain as uninspiring to young people and to people without large bank accounts as possible. Their raison d’etre sometimes appears to be soliciting funds rather than providing energized leadership. Instead of organizing responses to the attacks on Israel in America’s public square – attacks that are taking a very serious toll – they devote themselves to planning the formulaic, all-too-familiar fundraising dinners, centered on honorees whose principal accomplishments have been accumulating vendors who can be counted upon to purchase tables and ads in a tribute book. The dinners are attended by almost no one under the age of 35, and those few young people who do attend can be observed mentally calculating how long it will be before they ever attend another one.
The organizations’ use of social media is woeful, and the positive consequences were it otherwise are incalculable. Organizations like the Anti-Defamation League, the American Jewish Committee, AIPAC and the Jewish federations have thousands of supporters who would like to help make Israel’s case, if they were only enlisted to do so – on social media, in the mainstream media, or in the general community at large. The organizations do not merely fail to harness this desire; they pour cold water on it, confining themselves, as in days of old, to asking these individuals to write them a check.
The big Jewish organizations have too long and too often seemed to be invitation-only affairs, with invitations limited to the wealthy, generally meaning those over 50. Their penchant for being of the altacockers, for the altacockers and by the altacockers has not only been off-putting for young people. It has also contributed to their own heartbreaking slowness in comprehending that Israel’s adversaries are waging an assault on American support for Israel, and that effectively confronting this assault demands political skill and genuine energy, not the traditional donor-centricism of the past.
During this summer’s war with Hamas, for instance, both Gallup and CNN released polls showing that by very substantial margins, Americans under the age of 30 blamed Israel for the conflict. These potentially lethal findings, widely reported in the American media, appeared to barely penetrate the consciousness of the major organizations, whose efforts on Israel’s behalf during the summer appeared confined to issuing pronouncements to which no one paid attention, and arranging conference calls for large contributors. This was donor-maintenance, intended to offer to big givers the impression of actual activity. But without vigorous, creative, street-smart advocacy aimed at young people – Jews and non-Jews alike – it called Nero to mind, playing his lyre while Rome burned.
The truth is that Israel’s supporters in the United States are being outhustled by its adversaries, and have been for some time. The organizations’ lack of urgency is matched by their lack of organizing and political skills necessary to effectively take Israel’s case to Americans under the age of 40. Precious little attention is paid to outreach to young people, let alone people of color, who are among the dominant constituencies in the Democratic Party and en route in short order to becoming the American majority.
The fresh energy of Obama volunteers dropped into seemingly inhospitable caucus states in 2007 and 2008 ought to be the model for the kinds of efforts mounted by the pro-Israel community to meet the challenges it faces. Instead, the organizations are slow, encumbered by bureaucrats and ennui, and frequently hapless. They are often staffed by decent and well-meaning people who lack the organizing skills demanded as a matter of course in political campaigns, who work under leadership oblivious to the urgent need to bring such skills on board and rapidly deploy them.
The challenge is not merely overcoming the torpor of the organizations, but increasing the knowledge and self-confidence on matters related to Israel of American Jews – a community so self-confident when it comes to almost everything else. It does not help in explaining the wars of self-defense against Hamas rockets that Israel has been obliged to fight three times since 2008, for example, that many Americans do not know the difference between the Gaza Strip and the Louisiana Purchase. But this lack of knowledge, and engagement in a just cause, is a failure of American Jewish leaders, national and local. It is one to be remedied — and fast — not
merely bemoaned.
The good news is that there are plenty of American supporters of Israel who are hungry for leadership that enlists them in making the case for Israel based on its progressive values – values that are shared with the vast majority of Americans – and in doing so with energy. The question is: will American Jewish leaders provide that leadership at this critical historic moment, or will they revert to dysfunction and tired mediocrity?
Better news still is the evidence that when Israel’s supporters are actually robust in making her case, their arguments resonate. During this summer’s conflict in Gaza, Jewish organizations in Massachusetts, did, after some stumbling, ultimately mount a vigorous campaign to explain the facts, utilizing social and traditional media, op-eds, rallies, email lists and young people to articulate Israel’s predicament and its fundamental need to defend itself. Despite an impassioned, fairly strident effort by Israel’s detractors, the data showed that Israel came out decisively on top.
A poll taken by veteran Democratic pollster John Martilla showed that, in dramatic contrast with national polls, Massachusetts residents under the age of 30 supported Israel’s actions in Gaza by a margin of approximately 3 to 1, even in the bluest of Blue States. Even more promising, Martilla’s polling revealed that young people in Massachusetts believed by margins of 5 or 6 to 1 that Israel represented young Americans’ values on the issues most important to them: women’s rights, LGBT rights and individual freedom.
The lesson for the American Jewish organizations ought to be that tired strategies aimed at the rich and the over-50 crowd, in the face of the threats faced by Jews everywhere, are not merely outdated. They are disastrous. On the other hand, vigor, concentration on young Americans and people of color, and a laser-like focus on educating people who know little about Israel can make a difference to both Jews and non-Jews alike.
The progressive case for Israel, one grounded in liberal values, is a flawed one. It is also an extremely strong one, and neither listlessness nor a predilection for hand-wringing and chin-stroking should be permitted to get in the way of making it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment