There comes a time when completion dictates!
+++
Israelis Won’t Stand for Anything Short of Victory in Gaza
Leveraging the fate of the hostages to compel an Israeli surrender to Hamas is a sick, manipulative strategy that is doomed to political failure
From Michael Fenenbock
+++
WAITING FOR GODOT? |
Biden seems totally unaware/oblivious his appeasement pronouncements are highly likely to bring about that, which he professes, he seeks to avoid, ie. an expanding war. Why? Because Iran is the real culprit and cares not what others deliver upon their surrogates. Consequently, Biden tragically is missing the true target.
Biden has a history of mucking up virtually everything he touches that is diplomatically critical. Others, far more prominent and public figures, have espoused no less, among whom is a former respected Secretary of Defense.
Furthermore, it is equally possible, as I suspect, others currently control the actions or inactions of our physically and mentally challenged president.
Until Iran is dealt a serious blow that bloodies their nose and damages them economically, the Ayatollahs will continue to correctly conclude America is a pitiful Gulliver and Biden a rapacious weakling. To make matters worse, Biden's pusillanimity may eventually force Israel to do what Biden fails to and thus, exposes them to an additional dose of anti-Semitic hatred and for having a lethal intent.
Israel has no desire to be forced to defend themselves against further wars, to submit their children to endless rocket attacks, to the constant necessity of defending their homes, to perpetually disrupting their longing for a tranquil life, to undertaking exorbitant costs for defensive military expenditures.
Biden already has much blood on his hands either because of inaction or failed efforts.
What is our meek president waiting for? GODOT?
+++
What Are We Waiting For to Finally Take Out the Iranian Nuclear Threat?
America has had many opportunities to deal with the Iranian threat, but President Biden continues to act like Neville Chamberlain and to appease the mullahs.
World War 2 officially began on September 1, 1939 when Germany invaded Poland. Some might contend that it actually began in March of 1938 when Germany annexed Austria. Others would say it began with the Munich Agreement which was an appeasement pact orchestrated by British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain allowing Germany to annex the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia in September of 1938. Chamberlain has gone down in history as the “ Great Appeaser”. America did not enter the war until the bombing of Pearl Harbor on December 7th, 1941. Many lives could have been saved had the United States entered the war earlier.
The killing by the Iran-backed drone of Sgt. William Rivers, Spc.Brenna Moffett, and Spc.Kennedy Sanders and the wounding of 25 other American troops in Jordan should have triggered a “Pearl Harbor” moment. So far it has not. Will President Biden finally realize that Iran has to be neutralized? Regime change in Iran has not happened. I wish it had. There were opportunities. America is left with one choice. Take out Iran’s nuclear capabilities and watch the regime crumble. There are many benefits to confronting Iran head-on. All of Iran’s proxies will go into hiding. Hamas which unleashed a savage attack against Israel on October 7th will be finished. Hezbollah will be broken and the Houthis will be routed. Rather than acting like Neville Chamberlain if President Biden acted like President Roosevelt and seized the moment the world would be in a better place. So I ask the question “What are we waiting for?” The time has come to act. America has allowed Iran to not only advance its nuclear program to the point of being weeks away from developing a nuclear weapon but also has permitted Iran to develop Ballistic Missiles capable of reaching 1243 miles with a 3300-pound warhead. Iran can now strike Israel and US targets in the region.
Although Israel can do the job, it has its hands full dealing with the war against Hamas. America rightfully as the leader of the free world should finally bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities. After more than 150 strikes by Iranian proxies against American troops since mid-October 2023, the shutting down of Red Sea shipping by Houthi attacks, and the drone strike against American troops in Jordan, America has total justification to take on Iran directly. We are running out of time. Iran has been allowed to plague the world for far too long.
++++++++++++++++++++++++
The Torah commanded Israelites to: "t your swords into plowshares -hooks: let the weak say, I am strong."
Time and again, corrupt leadership of the Palestinian's has been offered olive branches only to reject them or demand the unobtainable as alternative responses . Arafat shook hands and followed this false act with a host of wanton "intifadas."
This is the same persistent Palestinian leadership which has enriched themselves at the expense of peace, educating future generations to love rather than hate and to be rewarded for acts of martyrdom.
What drives demonic hatred of Jews? Is it jealousy? Is it based on anything rational or even remotely justified? How many thousands of years is anti-Semitism sustainable and, if so, show me the benefits it has brought the world and least of all Jews?
America is currently undergoing another challenging period of social indigestion based on a variety of reasons, none of which make sense. We are being enticed to renounce the vast benefits of freedom, our geographical and God given blessings of resources provided our blessed nation versus specious substituted promised rewards? None of these desolate offerings equate. Meanwhile, far too many seem willing to exchange the bird in the hand for proven failures.
Is this due to our current mush brain type education to our previous solid content? I believe it is but there is more to the story. Over 50 years ago Professor Moynihan warned government would do irreparable harm due to welfare. His own party rejected his thesis which ultimately proved prophetic.
As the distance between America's socio economic classes widened, the black segment of our population was particularly harmed. The family structure of our nation has been destroyed. Church connection has diminished, dependence upon government has led to food stamps and other demeaning dependencies, particularly among the black community.
Johnson's "Great Society" and "war on Poverty," did not bring the promises intended while welfare expanded in an uncontrolled manner.
Trump's economic policies began to lift the bottom of our society and this is why he should gain a larger per cent of the black and Hispanic vote which could tip the scales in his favor. The key is, Trump needs a workable plurality in Congress to truly be effective for 2 plausible reasons:
a)Trump has 4 years and becomes a lame duck the day of re-entering office,
and
b) Rabid D.C elites will continue to do everything in their power, as before, to assure themselves Trump fails. They seek the power Marxism provides and thus prefer Communism in preference to that of a free people. Levin was prescient in writing: " Why Democrats Hate America."
Meanwhile, you are politicians not God. Leave our children alone you fascists.
https://youtu.be/wzoPZwa4dWo?
+++
I have always maintained when races mix they often realize they seek the same. and are quite alike in many ways.
+++
When Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. made the above observation in 1965, the Civil Rights Movement had just achieved two monumental victories in the “revolution to get in”: The Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. It had also, however, been forced to reckon with events that suggested these legislative victories might not be enough. The day after the Voting Rights Act was signed into law, the Los Angeles neighborhood of Watts was decimated by riots sparked after a young black man, in the course of resisting arrest for drunk driving, was struck in the face with a police baton and the confrontation with onlookers escalated. Over the following four summers, similar racially-charged riots broke out in virtually every major northern city across the United States. Meanwhile, Dr. King and the other leaders of the Civil Rights Movement were confronted with their first organized challenge for leadership of the movement against racism in America. In 1966, the truly revolutionary (and often violent) Black Power movement burst onto the scene, insisting that the goal of a harmonious and equal relationship between the races in America was a farce. According to them, what the Civil Rights Movement upheld as achievements were in fact trivial and superficial changes that served to maintain an indelibly white supremacist American government. Despite all of this, the majority of black Americans remained convinced that MLK’s message was the right one. A 1968 study of fifteen northern cities showed that 72 percent of black northerners approved of Martin Luther King and just 5 percent disapproved of him. In the same study, the most well-known leader in the Black Power movement, Stokely Carmichael, received only a 14 percent approval rating and a 35 percent disapproval rating; more than a quarter of respondents had never heard of him. Similarly, a 1966 survey of black Americans found that a mere five percent approved of “Black Nationalism,” while 63 percent disapproved. One might assume that the discourse around racial justice in America today, six decades later, would more closely resemble the philosophy of MLK than of Stokely Carmichael. If most black Americans were still supportive of Dr. King’s hopeful message of racial integration even during the tumultuous late 1960s, then surely they—and indeed most Americans of all races—would continue to support Dr. King’s dream today. Unfortunately, that is not the case, as author Coleman Hughes explains in his incisive new book The End of Race Politics: Arguments for a Colorblind America. In fact, in many parts of American society, the socially acceptable opinions on race today are strikingly similar to those of the Black Power movement that Dr. King fought so hard to oppose. The simplest way to describe Hughes’ book is an unfortunately necessary defense of the philosophy and legacy of the Civil Rights movement, and Dr. King in particular. As Hughes points out, today’s self-described “anti-racists”—whom he calls “neoracists”—attempt to trade on the legacy of Dr. King while spurning his philosophy. They will misleadingly claim, without evidence, that Dr. King was a radical, and that his legacy has been, in Hughes’s words, “sanitized, co-opted, and weaponized by conservatives and moderates.” They try to decouple Dr. King’s ideas—which they dismiss outright as mischaracterizations by (white) conservatives and moderates—from Dr. King the historical figure, whose legacy is rightly untouchable in America today. Take for example the concept of racial “colorblindness.” Today, we are hearing the term “colorblind” in the context of race to describe what critics deem the outdated and naive attitude that well-meaning but ignorant white people have toward people of different races—or worse, a smokescreen that racists use to mask their goal of maintaining white supremacy. In his book Racism without Racists: Color-blind Racism and the Persistence of Racial Inequality in America, law professor and critical race theorist Eduardo Bonilla-Silva defines “color-blind racism” as “a new racial ideology” that “explains [and justifies] contemporary racial inequality as the outcome of nonracial dynamics…the product of market dynamics, naturally occurring phenomena, and blacks’ imputed cultural limitations.” The neoracists, like the Black Power activists decades ago—and, Hughes observes, like old-school white supremacists—believe that “race matters in a deep and enduring way.” They argue that the antidote to colorblind racism is “race-consciousness,” which they promote in every facet of life: from school admissions, to hiring practices, down to everyday interpersonal relationships. Failing to focus on race at all times and in every context, they claim, is to fail to recognize the racism that is ubiquitous in American society and baked into the foundation of all our institutions. Yet Hughes reminds us that the colorblind approach to race that has become so controversial today is in truth what the heroes of the Civil Rights movement risked their lives fighting for. It is precisely what Dr. King promoted in his legendary “I Have a Dream” speech. Colorblindness, Hughes states simply, “is the philosophy that we should treat people—both in our private lives and in our public policy—without regard to race.” The colorblind approach is different from “not seeing color,” which Hughes correctly explains is a caricature that critics use to dismiss the idea as superficial and obtuse. Far from ignoring racism where it exists, Hughes aptly notes that the very concept of racism—defined as prejudice based on skin color—is meaningless unless it is measured against a standard of “race neutrality” or colorblindness. The “real problem of racism in America,” Hughes tells us, is that “our society keeps failing to enshrine colorblindness as its guiding ethos.” Starting from the founding of this nation, through the inadequacies of Reconstruction, but also to the systematic restructuring of public policy to take undue account of the race, color, and national origin of individuals that ensued after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964—which expressly prohibited the drawing of such distinctions between individuals—all the way to today, our leaders have consistently chosen to turn away from the ideal of treating individuals as individuals rather than members of racial or ethnic groups. To finally solve this problem, Hughes proposes that we “embrace our common humanity and the colorblind philosophy that follows from it. We need to embody that philosophy in race neutral public policies. And we need to strive to ensure that our personal relationships don’t get infected with toxic race thinking of any sort.” The most illustrative difference between the neoracists and what could be called the “real antiracists” (the advocates of colorblindness) is the type of society they wish to create. We can leave aside for now good-faith disagreements on how big of a problem racism still is in America, or on how close we are to reaching that ideal society. What truly separates the two camps is what each thinks the ideal society should be. For the colorblindness advocates, we wish to live in a society where racial differences have ceased to carry any social or political meaning; a society in which racial differences are treated the same way as we treat differences in hair color today, to borrow a line from Sam Harris. The neoracists, on the other hand, believe that it is either impossible or undesirable for a society to transcend racial differences. According to them, race will always be a central and determinative feature of any society and in the lives of individuals within that society. When the two philosophies are compared in this way, I believe that the vast majority of Americans still instinctively align with the optimistic goals of colorblindness. Like Dr. King and the other liberal Civil Rights leaders, they are eager allies in the “revolution to get in,” to extend the promise of America to all of the people who have historically been excluded from it. The hopeless worldview of the neoracists and traditional racial supremacists alike is bound to fail if people are able to understand and recognize the ideas that comprise it. To bring about the ideal colorblind society will be a challenge, but it’s a challenge worth the effort, and The End of Race Politics provides a compelling blueprint for taking it on. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ |
No comments:
Post a Comment