Obama to announce the end of Israel

According to published reports, when President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt met with HRH Obama this past week, one item of discussion was the would be dictators' planned speech at the opening of the United Nations General Assembly in September.

Mubarak gave strong indications that Obama would make a major policy announcenment essentially buying the so called Palestinians full basket of demands

and supporting the so called Saudi plan fully. That plan, of course, calls for "the right of return" which all observers understands means the end of Israel as a Jewish state.

In addition, it requires the handing over of Jerusalem to the Palestinians, which, as was witnessed during the 1948-1967 period under Jordan, and more directly, currently with the Temple Mount under Islamic control, there is total disregard for antiquities and a TOTAL denial of any Jewish history there.

There were clear indications that this was coming. As I have blogged here, the awarding of the Presidential medal of Freedom, and articles in "The Atlantic" and more specifically in the New York Times, by Obama's confidant and advisor Robert Malley, both of which essentially declared the two state solution dead, were obvious road signs that this was coming.

 

 

Willing suspension of disbelief, .... or too good to be true?

If you've never heard of the first expression, it is what movie/TV folk talk about needing to engender in an audience.

i.e. you know that the killer didn't REALLY chop off their heads with that chain saw, but you willingly stop thinking about all the special effects and just jump out of your seat.

Well, it happens in sports too.

Perhaps you heard that the "amazing" Usain Bolt broke the world record in the 100 meter dash this weekend at the world championships in Germany.

He ran a 9.58.

His previous world record was 9.69.

However, he had lowered the last record to not be held by him, from 9.74.

So, in about a year, he has lowered the world record by .16 of a second.

Why the willing suspension of disbelief?

Well, he lowered the world record by a greater amount than had ever been achieved since the advent of electronic timing in 1977.

Even more unbelievable was the fact that since that 1977 change in the rule, the record had gone from 9.93 to 9.74. A total of .19 seconds. However that was done by 13 different races. A total of 6 different runners. Calvin Smith, Carl Lewis, Leroy Burrell, Donavan Bailey, Maurice Greene, and Asafa Powell.

Each and every one of these runners has been somehow linked to drug use, whether through associations, disallowed tests, etc.

Is it humanly possible that ONE man could be such a genetic freak, such an awesome improvement on the human species that he could do more in one day than has been done in 30 years?

Unlikely.

It brings to mind an article I wrote here before the Olympics in which a Chinese company was advertising that for $20K they would engage in genetic alterations to improve athletic performance.

Have we seen the first truly "bionic" man.

I have no doubt. Whatever he is using, and remember, there is currently an investigation of the Jamaican Olympic team with several suspensions already handed down, is so advanced, that there is no test for it yet.

This is truly frightening stuff.

Some facts about the health care debate...

Some of you may be quite surprised by this, but I have come to accept the need for some kind of public health care. Public health care IN ADDITION to what we already have, i.e. Medicaid/Medicare.

The problem is, like most, including the President, I am not well versed enough in the various bills floating around, to decide what is best.

But here in NY we have a unique situation and one that creates great fear on my part.

You see, most of the top doctors in NY now no longer accept Insurance of ANY KIND.

They have decided it is just too troublesome and too expensive, to deal with insurance companies.

The irony is that these physicians in many instances, charge LESS. Of course it does not seem so since it is paid out of pocket, but because they have reduced office expenses, they can pass that on.

So, the one thing that I am sure of, is that there needs to be some type of mandatory acceptance of any government plan by ALL physicians, and ALL hospitals. WIthout that, we will end up with a tiered system with those on the government program getting FAR inferior care.

But here's the rub. One of the things that is simply OUTRAGEOUS that the administration has been saying, is that ANY PLAN THEY PASS WILL BE DEFICIT NEUTRAL.

i.e., it will not add to the deficit.

On it's face, you know this is a lie of epic proportions.

So, like the nerd that I am, I went to the Congressional Budget Office site, and found the letter that was sent to Charles Rangel, Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. They deal with all matters financial and are totally non partisan.

Simply stated, the current plan will add more than 1 TRILLION dollars to the debt in the next 10 years.

What appears below is the excerpt of the letter sent to Rangle, from the CBO director dealing with the impact on the deficit.

If you would like to see the whole letter, I have it in PDF form and can forward it to you.

"Collectively, those provisions would yield a significant increase in the number of Americans with health insurance. By 2019, CBO and the staff of JCT estimate, the number of nonelderly people without health insurance would be reduced by about 37 million, leaving about 17 million nonelderly residents uninsured (nearly half of whom would be unauthorized immigrants). In total, CBO estimates that enacting those provisions would raise deficits by $1,042 billion over the 2010-2019 period.2"

Clearly the increase in the number covered is positive, although I do not understand why "universal" does not mean everyone. But my point is why tell such a stupid, ignorant lie about it's cost?

Drip....drip....drip....drip..... SPLASH!!!!

Those who follow me know that for many months, since long before the election I have been discussing three essential elements to the Obama foreign policy that even the Republican idealogues seem unable to recognize.

My belief as to why no one else has pieced this together is simply because of willful disbelief.

What I mean by that, is that even those who identify Obama and his minions as foreign policy "realists" (a horrible misnomer if ever there was one) miss the point about the ultimate driver of the policy and it's aims.

1) Since the election of 1968, the left wing of the Democratic Party has become the post modern isolationists. This was a radical change from pre WWII when it was the Republican party. But as McGovern and Humphrey tried to leap frog each other to the left in their opposition to Vietnam, at some point the focus on that conflict broadened to reflect an overriding sense that the United States had become an imperialistic, hegemonious, colonialist power.

That our actions, far from serving the world's good, were evil. That we operated from nefarious motives.

This has been expressed by Obama almost constantly, most notably in his world "apology" tour.

It was also reflected in the infamous Michelle Obama statement about never being proud of her country before now. Even then, the meaning, and larger implications, of that statement was missed. That was the reflection of that attitude, NOT some non specific racial motive as was ascribed to her at the time.

2) Israel, and zionism, are historic mistakes born out of the Holocaust. That Israel is by it's very nature, a racist, rogue regime.

This has been seen clearly in everything from the complaints about building an apartment building, to the misdirection about so called settlements. Even more so, in his Presidential Memorandum of June, declaring that the Jerusalem Embassy Act cannot be acted upon because of National Security Interests, specifically repudiating the 13 years of Clinton and Bush memoranda on the issue, he has demonstrated that he believes Jerusalem will ultimately not lay in Israeli hands.

Most clearly, this was reflected in his choosing Mary Robinson to receive the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Those Jews on the left, want to, like with all of Obama's other outrages against Jews and Israel, believe that it was some sort of staff oversight. An unfortunate error.

Please. The one thing Obama has made clear is that he is a micromanager. He did not miss this.

He has clearly announced with this decision his support of Robinson's "Zionism is racism" statement from Durban I.

3) Obama supports the concept of a regional nuclear power in Iran.

He foolishly believes that his sheer force of personality can contain Iranian desires to be a global nuclear power and reign them in, keeping them a regional player only.

The writings of Ken Pollack, makes this clear, but more importantly, Obama's words themselves do.

His reiteration of "we don't get involved in the internal affairs of other countries (except of course Israel)" repeatedly, and his specific line in the Cairo speech that the United States cannot dictate to other nations whether or not they have nuclear weapons.

How this plays out, is that Obama believes he can create, or allow, a theater nuclear power in Shia Iran, to control another theater nuclear power, in Sunni Pakistan.

How does he get the Iranians on his side? By sacrificing Israel to them. He has heard the words coming from Tehran, and actually believes that this is something of critical importance to the Mullahs and the administration of Ahmadinejad.

The title of the post refers to the fact that this information has been coming in individual bits and pieces over the last year.

Everything from Robert Malley's discussions with Hamas during the campaign, to the elevation of Susan Rice to a cabinet position at the UN, to the appointments of Gen Jones, Samantha Power, et al, and the removal of Dennis Ross from his area of expertise, to the dalliance with Durban II, and the accession of the US to the UN Human Rights Commission, the non specific "timetable" with regard to Iranian ambitions, etc.

But in the last week and a half we have finally seen this played out clearly in two articles written by administration insiders.

First, in the Atlantic, Robert Kaplan, the ultimate "ends justify the means" realist, discusses the necessity of ending the "special relationship" between the US and Israel. Even more he gives specific voice to the idea of the acceptability of a nuclear Iran limited to being a regional power.

Next, Malley himself penned an op ed piece in the NY Times yesterday in which he declares the two state solution to be pointless, and effectively dead. Worse, he once again equates the "right of return" an issue of land, with the recognition of Jewish right to exist, or the right not to be murdered.

If American Jews, or those concerned with the dangers of a nuclear Iran had kept their heads in the sand until now, it is time to remove them, and look at the skyline that has been wrought by our election for "change". Change is what we got.

3 No's redux...

Famously, the Arab world in 1967 at the Khartoum conference, issued their three "No's"
1) No peace with Israel
2) No negotiations with Israel
3) No recognition of Israel

Of course, with his apologies to the Arab world, and throwing Israel under the bus, Obama was supposed to get "yes" from this part of the world.

Instead, the "no's" keep ringing in, more strongly than ever.

Three came in quick succession:

Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal met with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton last Friday, then told the media that "incrementalism and a step-by-step approach has not and - we believe - will not achieve peace. Temporary security, confidence-building measures will also not bring peace."

Jordanian Foreign Minister Nasser Judeh met with Secretary Clinton this week and also rejected appeals for specific actions toward Israel, saying: "In the Middle East, there has been in the past an over-investment, perhaps, by the parties in pursuing confidence-building measures, conflict-management techniques, including transitional arrangements, and an overemphasis on gestures, perhaps at the expense of reaching the actual end game."

The Emir of Kuwait, Al-Ahmad Al-Jaber Al Sabah met with President Obama. While his words were more positive, he did not make a specific commitment to confidence building measures.
Noah Pollak at the Commentary blog remarks that the current tension between Israel and the U.S. will not advance Obama's Mideast agenda:

When the U.S. distances itself from Israel and curries favor with the Arabs, the Arab reaction is not to jump on board with the Americans and present a united front against Israel, the better to extract concessions. Instead, the Arabs respond by increasing their demands and redoubling their intransigence — because the Arab states really have little to gain from a Palestinian state, and actually a lot to lose. The Palestinians and the peace process have always been a tool to be used for beating up on Israel, and nothing else. This has been the cruel Arab game since the 1940s. The president still doesn't get it.

But these were just the precursor. After Israel provided security and access for the Fatah party meeting in Bethlehem, Fatah made pronouncements far more violent and radical than seen in 15 years.

Worst among these perhaps, was the announcement that despite claims that it had been disbanded and did NOT represent the party, Al Aqsa Martyr's Brigade was in fact, the armed wing of the party and it's actions represented the party's position.

Of course, they also affirmed the validity of attacks anywhere in Israel.

Appeasement? Yeah, that works.

Inconceivable

The White House yesterday revealed a list of 16 people that are to receive the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest award this country can award to a civilian.

 

While the list is generally somewhat questionable, there is one striking name that continues the Obama direction of all things anti semitic and anti Israel is former President of Ireland Mary Robinson.

 

Robinson is widely known for the high-profile role she played in leading the deeply flawed U.N. Human Rights Commission and for presiding over the U.N.'s Durban Conference on Racism, which the Untied States boycotted for its unprecedented hostility to Israel and its final outcome document that equated Zionism with racism.

 

In a BBC interview following the passage of the "Zionism = Racism" Durban text, Robinson described the outcome as "remarkably good, including on the issues of the Middle East." As one of America's greatest statesman, the late Tom Lantos – a former Congressman, Holocaust survivor, global champion of human rights and chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee – observed, "Much of the responsibility for the debacle [at Durban] rests on the shoulders of U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson."

 

In his extensive report about the Durban Conference, and about the years of effort on the part of Congress and both Clinton and Bush administrations to support the Conference and its goal of promoting human rights and ending racism and intolerance, Congressman Lantos continues:

 

Mrs. Robinson's conduct "left our delegation deeply shocked and saddened. In her remarks, she advocated precisely the opposite course to the one Secretary Powell and I had urged her to take. Namely, she refused to reject the twisted notion that the wrong done to the Jews in the Holocaust was equivalent to the pain suffered by the Palestinians in the Middle East. . . . Instead of condemning the attempt to usurp the conference, she legitimized it."

 

In addition to Robinson's dishonorable role in the Durban debacle, her tenure on the UNHRC was deeply flawed, and her conduct marred by extreme, one-sided anti-Israel sentiment. Among the many outrages was a 2002 vote by the commission under her leadership that sought to condone Palestinian suicide bombings and terrorism as a legitimate means to establish Palestinian statehood. Explaining his nation's vote against the measure, the German ambassador to the commission noted, "The text contains formulations that might be interpreted as an endorsement of violence [and] no condemnation whatsoever of terrorism."

Follow up...

In addition to the previous post, Obama has made another change to US policy.

Since 1995 passage of the Jerusalem Embassy Act, Clinton and Bush would semi annually sign a Presidential memorandum suspending the move of the embassy but ALWAYS including the following "[the] Administration remains committed to beginning the process of moving our embassy to Jerusalem".

Obama has signed a new memorandum, the text of which is below, and which is shown in it's original form here:



Pursuant to the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, including section 7(a) of the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-45) (the "Act"), I hereby determine that it is necessary, in order to protect the national security interests of the United States, to suspend for a period of 6 months the limitations set forth in sections 3(b) and 7(b) of the Act.

You are hereby authorized and directed to transmit this determination to the Congress, accompanied by a report in accordance with section 7(a) of the Act, and to publish the determination in the Federal Register.

This suspension shall take effect after transmission of this determination and report to the Congress

Even now, can there be any doubts?

I was perusing the State Department's website today.

According to the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995, passed by Congress and signed by then President Clinton, making it US Law,

"Jerusalem should be recognized as the capital of the State of Israel; and the United States Embassy in Israel should be established in Jerusalem no later than May 31, 1999"

Interesting to note that under HRH Obama the Jerusalem homepage of the State Department is now devoid of even a SINGLE REFERENCE TO ISRAEL or JEWS.

What does it contain? Only references to Palestinians, Palestine, Palestinian summer camps for Palestinian children, etc.

Here is a snapshot of the top half of the page (the page is too large to take a full image. Which I have if you wish to see the rest):



You might note 2 other interesting things. In the upper right corner you will see an option to READ THE PAGE IN ARABIC.

What is missing? The Hebrew option.

There is also a link at the same place on the page. A link for the US CONSULATE IN GAZA!!!!!

While the sentiments that this demonstrates come as no surprise to me, I am SHOCKED that Obama now feels so unfettered by even the most basic need to bow to history and can be so blatant in his disregard for our single most ardent ally.

Let's have a beer...

Yes, I just had to weigh in.

OK, let's make it simple.

Who the f*** is stupid enough to scream at a cop who is investigating a b and e, or breaking and entering?

And what cop is so power mad that he arrests a homeowner, particularly one using a cane, AFTER they produce the id showing that they are the homeowner?

There, you see, as with most things, equal opportunity stupidity.

BUT, who is the stupidest, most pandering of them all?

HRH of course.

Raise your hands, all of you, if you think that Barack Obama has EVER had a beer at the end of the day?

Why beer? Well, because the image makers have to show that he is a man of the common folks.

Even worse, he is pandering to the union and particularly the law enforcement vote.

Why couldn't Officer Crowley and Professor Gates be invited for a glass of wine? or coffee?

Did anyone even think to ask that?

Was this a teaching moment, as he said, or a "let's clean up the mess I made with my absurdly stupid and offensive remark moment"?