.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
===
You may or may not agree with what he expresses. Nevertheless, click on: this video by a 12-year-old kid.
===
Meanwhile, I continue to read Bret Stephens' "America in Retreat" and on pp 100 he refers to Richard Hofstadter who fathered, what has come to be known as, the paranoid style in American politics.
Bret contends that style proposes "... Barack Obama is Kenyan by birth, Marxist by persuasion, Muslim by affinity, anti-American by intention...."
Though the title is about "America in Defeat," Bret goes into a lengthy discussion of why America defies all "declinist" predictions and cites our demographic position betters all major nations, our laws favor entrepreneurial spirit, capital is abundant and on and on. Bret also acknowledges Obama has put a dent in many things that most favor America's ability to overcome the direst of predictions.
He lists a number of the world's renown whose predictions lasted not much longer than the last breath it took to pronounce them - at the top of the list is Tom Friedman.
It should be evident, trends neither persist in straight lines nor last forever. Something always seems to intervene and reorient their direction. I have always embraced the concept of physics and one force begets a countervailing force.
At the present time ISIS , Iran's pursuit of nuclear bombs , Russia's rebirth through invasion, China's regional expansionary vision and N Korea's loose cannon leadership are the main concerns. One can speculate how they may be thwarted or caused to be checked but, if history provides insight, they will.
Tyrants overplay their hand and though resistance always responds far too late somehow there has always been one.
In the case of ISIS, I suspect continual beheadings will so disgust civilized society forces will come forward and ISIS will be reduced to rubble.
Russia is basically bankrupt but an inept and reticent NATO can breathe life into an otherwise self-defeating effort on the part of Putin to rebuild his nation's former empire.
As for China, it is a fact that emerging nations must avail themselves of technology and information. A society that restricts the free flow of information is akin to one that eventually shoots itself in the foot.
N Korea is likely to fall on its sword as its leader continues to starve his people and though this imposed condition can extend beyond the time logic would suggest, it cannot survive.
The fly in the ointment, in my humble opinion, remains Iran and Obama's desire to strike a deal that appears a victory but, in reality, is so infected by self-deception and an inability to adequately enforce and /or monitor, that dire consequences can be the outcome. Iran's leadership is clever, their negotiating tactics are sound, considering they have taken Obama's measure and found him to be the equivalent of "president pushover putty."
The Middle East emains a cauldron of tyrannical personalities and long smoldering contentious tribal societies that breed hatred and thrive on resultant discord. Obama may not , for reasons one can conjecture and speculate, be able to bring himself to pin the tail on radical Islamists and that makes the effort to stem the tide more difficult and prolonged. We also have two more years before Obama is no longer in control and even after he has left office the consequences of his actions and avoidance will linger, shape our destiny and cannot be ignored.
That said, even Obama's incompetence and/or purposeful actions will fade. However, ISIS poses a threat different than any we have faced and it will take time to adjust and strategize. Succeeding presidents will be confronted by ISIS for decades to come and the question of American reaction can, in the absence of enlightened leadership, become a restrictive burden if isolation and withdrawal is allowed to dictate policy.
On the other hand, enlightened leadership can rally America's spirit and shape the attitude of other nations resulting in an overwhelming and effective response leading to ISIS' ultimate defeat .
I tend to be pessimistic but I also know Americans always rally to the call when properly led and motivated.
Time will tell!
===
No matter how obstructionist Democrats are or contentious Obama is, when it comes to adhering to The Constitution, Republicans are always the victims of a biased press and media that must protect their own, anointed. (See 1 below.)
===
Naive Philadelphia council woman gets fleeced and recants . (See 2 below.)
Abbas remains frustrated by his inability to create a Palestinian State which means offer Israel its own security from Palestinians. (See 2a below.)
===
Outdated! (See 3 below.)
===
Bibi maneuvers Herzog into a corner? (See 4 below.)
===
Humor:
"Dogs Welcome"
A man wrote a letter to a small hotel in a Midwest
town he planned to visit on his vacation.
He wrote: I would very much like to bring my dog
with me. He is well-groomed and very well behaved.
Would you be willing to permit me to keep him in my
room with me at night?"
An immediate reply came from the hotel owner, who wrote:
SIR: "I've been operating this hotel for many years.
In all that time, I've never had a dog steal towels,
bed clothes, silverware or steal pictures off the walls
or use them as a coloring book.
I've never had to evict a dog in the middle of the night
for being drunk and disorderly..
And I've never had a dog run out on a hotel bill.
Yes, indeed, your dog is welcome at my hotel.
And, if your dog will vouch for you, you're welcome to
stay here, too."
===
As Bruce Jenner changes it is rumored he is donating his former manhood to Obama!
===
Dick
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)Mitch McConnell, the Senate Yoda, bows to lawless Obama
By Charles Hurt
“Elections matter. I think votes matter.”
So said President Obama. At least that’s what he said before his policies and his party were thoroughly denounced in the midterm elections last year.
Routing Mr. Obama and his agenda, Republicans seized control of the U.S. Senate and made historic gains in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Voters clearly empowered the newly minted Republican Congress to halt the left-wing lunacy that even Democratic lightning rods House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada refused to attempt when they clearly had the power to get it done.
Instead of respecting the election and listening to voters, Mr. Obama doubled down. He went from merely left wing to utter lawlessness.
The most glaring example of his autocratic extremism is the executive amnesty he has unilaterally bestowed upon millions of illegal aliens living illegally in the U.S. Many of these illegals are also illegally working illegal jobs here, too.
One branch of government — the federal courts — has already castigated the president and halted the amnesty program that even the president himself had repeatedly argued fell beyond his constitutional authority. But that was before Mr. Obama realized the trouble his party was in and made his illegal gambit to rope in millions of indentured voters to keep the Democratic Party afloat with illegal votes from illegal aliens.
Thank goodness voters settled this dispute by sending a strong GOP majority to Congress to thwart this lawless agenda.
Now comes the great statesman and wise parliamentarian from the great state of Kentucky, Senate Majority “Leader” Mitch McConnell. The Zen master of Senate denizens, we have been told more times than we can count, has spent all the decades of his political career in preparation for “leading” the world’s most deliberative body, whatever the hell that means.
Mr. McConnell has spent centuries studying under the great Jedi, Yoda, learning all the black arts and swampy jujitsu of quietly, magically getting amazing stuff done in the United States Senate.
So the House whipped up a bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security — minus the illegal parts granting amnesty to millions of illegals living in the United States illegally. The bill passed the House and went to the Senate.
In the Senate, Democrats filibustered the bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security.
Somehow, magically, this was blamed entirely on Republicans. Every media outlet and pundit in town declared that Republicans wanted to shut down the Department of Homeland Security even though House Republicans passed legislation to fund the department and it was SenateDemocrats who were blocking that funding bill with a filibuster.
To the rescue comes Senator Yoda, wearing his hooded cloak and wielding his magic wand. He checked his sorcery guide and stirred his bubbling pot. He produced a magical strategy for dealing with these forces of evil.
Surrender.
Blink.
Graceful capitulation.
Run the white flag up the Senate flagpole and then use said flagpole to shaft the American people. Or, at least, the North American people living legally in the United States of America.
I mean, what is it with all this surrendering and blinking? These Republicans blink so much around here they make Chief Inspector Charles Dreyfus look like a stalwart poker player whenever Inspector Jacques Clouseau enters the scene in search of The Pink Panther.
Here is the Senate’s great parliamentarian Yoda up against a man whose entire legislative career can be summed up in one word. “Present.” Because that is how Mr. Obama always voted whenever faced with the slightest political turbulence.
Now, in the most important political battle of the past five years, Yoda gets completely outmaneuvered and outmatched by Senator Present.
There he is in his silly cloak playing checkers with his little black and red plastic pieces getting utterly schooled by Senator Present turned President Garry Kasparov down Pennsylvania Avenue playing some advanced game of three-dimensional chess.
And, once again, the American people are left with no choice but to close their eyes and accept the treachery
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)Ramallah governor reiterates her esteem for terrorists
after her American "Citation of Honor" was withdrawn
due to PMW's exposure of her terror glorification
by Itamar Marcus and Nan Jacques Zilberdik
Philadelphia Councilwoman Maria Sánchez has withdrawn the Citation of Honor that she awarded to Palestinian Governor of Ramallah Laila Ghannam last month. Sánchez's action came afterPalestinian Media Watch informed her and released a report documenting that Ghannam has along record of glorifying Palestinian terrorists, including terrorists responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Israelis. Sánchez had been unaware of Ghannam's terror glorification at the time of the award, but immediately denounced Ghannam's statements praising terrorists.
Now Sánchez has also withdrawn the Citation of Honor itself. Palestinian Authority Governor Ghannam explained that "according to Sánchez's statements, the citation had been withdrawn from her because of her 'support of terror.'" Ghannam responded to the cancellation reiterating her support for terror and glorification of terrorists:
"We are not interested in citations of honor that require us to slander our fighters and our supporting pillars as terrorists."
[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Feb. 23, 2015]
Ghannam also stated that the withdrawal of the award "emphasizes the US administration's alienation from the Palestinian struggle," and that Councilwoman Sánchez had "yielded to the terror of the occupier and the Zionist lobby."
The terrorists Ghannam has honored, causing her to lose the award, include Abdallah Barghouti, who built bombs for suicide terrorists and is currently serving 67 life sentences for complicity in murder of 67 civilians, and the founder of Hamas, Ahmed Yassin, who was responsible for the deaths of hundreds in suicide bombings in Israel. Ghannam rejects calling them and dozens of others "terrorists" and says they are "pillars" of Palestinian society.
View more examples of Ghannam's support for terror here.
The following is the full report on Ghannam's response to the withdrawal of the Citation of Honor:
Headline: "Ghannam: The citations of honor we value most are those we see in the eyes of the mothers of the Martyrs and the prisoners"
"District Governor of Ramallah and El-Bireh Dr. Laila Ghannam stressed that the citations of honor which are dearest and most significant are those we see in the eyes of the mothers of the Martyrs and the prisoners, in particular because they express our nation's heartbeat and uncompromising will.
She clarified that the fact that Councilwoman Maria Sánchez, the representative of the city of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, had apologized for awarding her a Citation of Honor - which was being awarded for the first time to an Arab leader - emphasizes the US administration's alienation from the Palestinian struggle. [Ghannam] noted that, according to Sánchez's statements, the citation had been withdrawn from her because of her 'support of terror.' The American Councilwoman wrote in a letter that the Palestinian and Arab community had deceived her when it claimed that Ghannam supported human rights and women's rights, whereas she was revealed to support terror with her actions and statements.
She [Sánchez] also apologized to the occupation for having honored her and met with her. Ghannam described to the Councilwoman the attacks the occupation carries out against our defenseless people, the Judaization of Jerusalem and the attack on all that is Palestinian through killing, oppression and imprisonment. She also mentioned our male and female prisoners, stating that the harassment they are subjected to is the result of the world's silence in face of the occupation's arrogance and tyranny.
In addition, the District Governor told the Councilwoman about the suffering of our people caused by the racist separation fence, which is consuming Palestinian land, and by the settler herds, and demanded immediate intervention to put an end to the tragedy the occupation has brought upon our people.
Ghannam noted that these declarations did not motivate the Councilwoman to supporthuman rights; on the contrary, she yielded to the terror of the occupier and the Zionistlobby.
She [Ghannam] also emphasized that she would not apologize for having given the Councilwoman a memento representing the Palestinian heritage, which would continue to remind her of the injustice done to the Palestinians' rights and the fact that she had yielded to the occupier's terror, racism, tyranny and its persecution of all Palestinians, wherever they are.
Ghannam said: 'We are not interested in citations of honor that require us to slander our fighters and the supporting pillars of our struggle as terrorists,' emphasizing that it is the occupation's actions against our defenseless people, and not [our people's] defense of itsdignity and land, that is terror."
[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Feb. 23, 2015]
2a)
| Does Mahmoud Abbas want his legacy to be the third intifada? | ||
| ||
| ‘America is the land of solutions. In the Middle East, sometimes there are no solutions.” A headline in The Jerusalem Post last week read, “Abbas may halt security cooperation with Israel unless Palestine is created.” Conventional wisdom says Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’ threat to end security cooperation with the IDF is simply empty rhetoric, because Abbas knows very well that without an Israel’s military presence in the West Bank, his PA security forces would be overthrown in short order. He knows that they would likely follow the infamous path of their comrades in Gaza in 2005 after the Israeli disengagement, and be thrown off 10-story buildings by their “unity partner” Hamas. Both Israel and the PA know that the West Bank would likely become “Hamastan on the Jordan,” a security nightmare for Israel. Keep up to date on the latest opinion pieces on our new Opinion & Blogs Facebook page President Abbas knows that within a few weeks, or at most a few months, this would become a reality. But what if – this time – something is truly different, and President Abbas really is contemplating ending the security cooperation? Could Abbas have concluded that he needs to start thinking about his legacy and his place in Palestinian folklore? He decided years ago that he cannot, or will not, accept any realistic two-state parameters that could offer Israel reasonable security, an end to the “Right of Return,” or any shared status on the Temple Mount. We know this because he never responded to prime minister Ehud Olmert’s 2007 offer of 96-98% of the West Bank, land swaps, east Jerusalem and control of the Temple Mount. Yet America and the West, which continually pressure Israel and claim that the conflict is all about the settlements and borders, pretend that this offer never occurred. Unfortunately, not even the most critical analysis sees Abbas – or any Palestinian leader – as giving up the right of return, acquiescing to Israel’s minimum security concerns in the Jordan River Valley, or signing any end-of-conflict agreement. So what options does Abbas really have? In America today, we debate the foreign policy legacy of President Barack Obama. Why? The president wants to be remembered for some foreign policy achievement. President Abbas also wants a legacy. His dream is not to be remembered as the man who gave up Muslim land (dar al-Islam) to the Jews, i.e. any of the land of Israel within the 1949 armistice line. Perhaps his dream is to emulate his mentor, Yasser Arafat, and be remembered by the Palestinian people as a “freedom fighter.” He may feel he can rewrite history before his time passes, and be remembered as a hero, not as the man who presided over the failed Oslo accords and led a corrupt government that stole hundreds of millions of shekels from his own people. Perhaps Abbas has come to the realization that even though he is in the 10th year of his four-year term, he is also entering the ninth decade of his life, and will not remain the Palestinian president forever. Perhaps he would like to be revered in the Mukata in Ramallah, where Arafat lies. To the American Progressive organizations, and President Obama, Abbas is “moderate” and the best peacemaker Israel will ever have. As President Obama said in March of 2013: “Of course, Israel cannot be expected to negotiate with anyone who is dedicated to its destruction. But while I know you have had differences with the Palestinian Authority, I believe that you do have a true partner in President Abbas.” It is inconceivable to these progressives that if the right deal were offered with enough territorial concessions, Abbas would not accept it. (Of course, this ignores the 2007 Olmert offer.) They say it is all about the settlements, not the destruction of Israel. They are convinced that there must be a Western- style “solution,” and it simply means removing all the settlements and ending the “oppressive occupation.” This reveals the schizophrenia of American foreign policy. On one hand, they see the Palestinians as part of the Arab world, where Islamism is on the rise, pushing the West’s “moderate” PA to join a unity government with the Hamas terrorists. On the other hand, America expects Israel to treat the Palestinians as if they were negotiating with Canada, and to trust a Palestinian culture that sees compromise with the West as weakness, or, at best, a strategic choice. Unfortunately, Abbas lives not in North America, but in the Muslim world, and his predisposition clearly reflects that he is not prepared to accept a Jewish presence in any part of the Levant. The West refuses to acknowledge that in 2015, “secular” Arab leaders like Abbas never will accept the concept of compromise. A good part of the reason why American foreign policy is such a disaster in the Middle East is because it fails to acknowledge that most modern Islamic analysis cannot be reconciled with our Western perspective. American is the land of solutions. In the Middle East sometimes there are no solutions, or no solutions right now. It is Israel that pays the price because only Israel can be pressured by the United States and the West, i.e. the threat of cutting off diplomatic protection in the international arena. This is a lethal threat for a tiny nation. Could it be that America’s foreign policy analysts are the ones who are getting it wrong? Do they fail to acknowledge that the motivation of the Palestinians and Arab peoples may be based more on their Islamic religious outlook, and not on resolving centuries- old conflicts between clans and tribes, where nation-states identity is secondary? Despite Abbas wearing a western suit and tie, his words and his people’s actions are more aligned with the unyielding Islamist demands, than with the idea of Western compromise. We are blind to the fact that over the last 20 years Muslim religiosity has replaced a more moderate secular perspective. The result is that American and many Israeli leaders can’t explain the longevity of the conflict because they are married to the idea of compromise, a value embedded in the Western world order. If you were President Abbas and you knew that you couldn’t bring peace to your people, would you want to be remembered as the impotent corrupt leader of the PA, or would you erase your past and become known as the leader of the glorious third intifada? All of this may be moot as the Palestinian Authority may not be able to dictate events. As the Jerusalem Post reported: “The army has told the government that at any given moment the Palestinian Authority can collapse... In one of the scenarios that the IDF presented, a small localized security incident, like an altercation between settlers and Palestinians, or the throwing of a Molotov cocktail could quickly escalate to rioting in the Galilee and the Triangle area. With the weakened Palestinian Authority a situation like this is liable to lead to terrorist organizations taking control of the West Bank.” What should America do? Understand that the chaos of the Middle East and the weakness of the PA make this an inopportune time for final status negotiations. America’s goal should be to convince Abbas not to start a third intifada and to help the Palestinians build the foundations of a future democracy, with rule of law, tolerance, freedom of the press, and freedom of speech. In short, America should lead conflict management, not impose solutions where none exist. The author is the director of MEPIN (Middle East Political and Information Network), a Middle East research analysis read by members of Congress, their foreign policy advisors, members of the Knesset, journalists and organizational leaders. |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)The Washington Post.....
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulafft, at Bergen, Norway.Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm.Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds. Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable.* * * * * * * * *I must apologize, I neglected to mention that this report was from November 2, 1922, as reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post - 93 years ago.
4)Obama’s Uncomfortable Israeli Ally
By Jonathan S. Tobin
Labor Party leader Isaac Herzog stated the obvious when he noted today that both the Israeli government and its opposition agreed on the nuclear threat from Iran. But as much as he shares Prime Minister Netanyahu’s conviction that Israel cannot tolerate an Iranian nuclear weapon, he wants no part of a joint trip to Washington with his rival. Herzog rejected the invitation from the Likud to join the prime minister when he goes to Congress in early March. But while there are good reasons for both Israelis and American supporters of the Jewish state to question the wisdom of Netanyahu’s decision to accept the invitation to address a joint session of Congress, Herzog’s unwillingness to play along with Netanyahu’s gambit demonstrates that a move that has actually worsened the chances of Congress passing more sanctions may be helping the prime minister politically at home more than it is hurting him. By forcing Herzog to declare himself ready to trust the Obama administration to do the right thing on Iran—just at a time when it appears to be making even more concessions that endanger the security of the West and Israel—Netanyahu could be ensuring his reelection next month.
With only three weeks to go before Israeli voters head to the polls, the race between Netanyahu’s Likud and the Zionist Union bloc led by Herzog is still too close to call in terms of which party will get the most Knesset seats. But the coalition math in which either party must negotiate deals with several smaller parties in order to get to a 61-seat majority and the right to govern still favors Netanyahu. In order to become the next prime minister, Herzog is going to have to finish first by a healthy margin and then put together a tenuous coalition including the religious and centrist parties but excluding the anti-Zionist Arabs.
Pulling off such a feat is possible but not likely. And the more Netanyahu is able to position himself as the sole figure standing up to American pressure on the Palestinians and fighting against appeasement of Iran, the worse Herzog’s chances look. Thus, it might have made sense to make some gesture of national unity that would have enabled him to steal at least some of Netanyahu’s thunder in Washington. But Herzog can’t do it. Why? Because the rationale underlying his candidacy is a critique of the way Netanyahu has messed up the alliance with the United States.
Herzog rightly understood that the invitation to join Netanyahu was a political stunt and that the Likud was hoping he would say no. The opposition leader isn’t wrong to view the speech as now having a lot more to do with Israeli domestic politics than an effective effort to stop an administration determined to cut a deal with Iran on any terms, even if its provisions virtually concede its status as a threshold nuclear power and will eventually allow the regime to build a weapon with impunity. But the problem for Herzog is not in diagnosing the futility of Netanyahu’s speech or the fact that it has helped President Obama pick off wavering Democrats and therefore prevent the creation of a veto-proof majority for increased sanctions on Iran. Rather, it is in being put in the position of being Obama’s man in Jerusalem just at a time when the president seems to be betraying Israel’s interests in the Iran talks rather than just engaging in another pointless spat with Netanyahu.
There’s no question that the White House will be holding its breath on March 17 and the days following the Israeli vote hoping that somehow Herzog and his ally Tzipi Livni can prevail. Herzog seems to appreciate this and is saying nothing to indicate that he will make trouble for Obama on Iran or any other issue.
But Herzog has to be worried about two things happening that would make Netanyahu’s congressional speech more than a campaign speech.
One is the very real possibility that the U.S. will cut a deal with Iran in the next couple of weeks that will give the Islamist regime the right to hold onto to its nuclear toys and give it a chance—whether by a breakout or waiting out a freeze period such as the one suggested by the U.S. this week—that will give it a nuclear weapon. If the president who is already deeply unpopular in Israel agrees to a deal that is widely seen as undermining Israeli security, Herzog will be hard-put to continue to claim that he can defend Israel’s interests more effectively than Netanyahu by warming up the relationship with Obama. At that point, he will be forced into a stance that will be a faint echo of Netanyahu’s full-throated opposition to an Iran deal and irrelevance.
But even if a deal isn’t struck before the speech or the election, Herzog still has to be concerned about the administration’s push for Iran détente becoming more overt. Indeed, the closer we get to a deal, whether or not it is signed, the steady stream of U.S. concessions to the Islamist regime makes Herzog’s position as Obama’s favorite in the elections more untenable than ever. Though Obama would like to help Herzog, the irony is that the harder he tries to achieve his main second-term foreign-policy goal—an entente with Iran—the worse Herzog’s chances may be. While Herzog is right to say that, if elected, he would, at least initially, be able to warm up relations with Obama, being cozy with someone who is getting cozy with Iran is a very uncomfortable place to be for a man who wants to be elected prime minister of Israel.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment