The Front Page Cover
"I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened"
Featuring:
Netanyahu's true electoral rival
Caroline B. Glick
"Rise up together as one voice"
"Be careful where you stand"
~~~lll~~~
Before Roe v. Wade, There Was Jack Willke
 |
Dr. Jack Willke, who is considered the father of the modern, pro-life movement, died unexpectedly at his home in Cincinnati, Ohio. He was 89. Even before the Supreme Court's fiat in 1973 struck down most state abortion laws, Willke stopped delivering babies in the '60s to lobby and protest against the practice. The former president of both the International Right to Life Federation and the National Right to Life Committee, Willke was a thought leader in the pro-life movement because he authored such work as "Abortion Questions & Answers" and a recently published history of the fight against abortion. Later in his life, Willkes headed the educational organization Life Issues Institute. Executive Director of Life Issues Institute Bradley Mattes told Life Site News, "Jack has been my mentor and colleague for over 23 years and was a second father to me." He continued, "I can only imagine the greeting Jack received in heaven -- millions of babies who he tirelessly worked to saved, joyfully welcoming him home." R.I.P. More... -The Patriot Post
Fruit According to the Seeds
The Leftmedia have been asking a lot of questions of Republicans who have the audacity to confront the words and deeds of Barack nObama. Prompted by former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani's remarks about nObama's conspicuous lack of love for the country, Scott Walker, Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal have all been pressed to answer the question of the week: "Does Barack nObama love America?" First, let's state the obvious: The Leftmedia is an extension of the Democratic National Committee. Most mainstream journalists ascribe to the philosophy of the Left and serve to camouflage reality -- earning, for the purpose of this text, the distinction "presstitutes." Once upon a time, professional journalists reported news and conveyed facts. Today's crop, however, is invested in protecting the incompetence and lies of Barack nObama. In part, that's due to their own failure to do the job exposing the anti-American and racially divisive orchard in which America's 44th president was grown. Does Barack nObama love America?
-The Patriot Post
2016 POWER INDEX: UNSTEADY WALKER STILL JEB’S TOP RIVAL, BUT PRESS PILE ON CONTINUES
Oddly, the cardinal attribute now sought in a presidential candidate is the ability to successfully evade horrid questions. And Scott Walker is learning that the hard way. The Wisconsin governor’s most recent error was complaining aloud about a puerile question posed by the WaPo about what Walker believed President nObama believes about Jesus Christ. In so doing, Walker gave the kind of response his questioners were hoping for, because the words “I don’t know” were part of a soliloquy on media bias. A question like this is the rhetorical equivalent of throwing a wolverine at a man’s face and then writing the headline: “Candidate struggles with wolverine attack.” Well, yeah... But the wolverines will keep coming, and so will the honey badgers, ferrets, otters and the rest of the family Mustelidae. And if you want to be president, you’d better find a way to deal with it.
This is Walker’s second such error. On a trip to London earlier this month, Walker let his internal monologue slip out when he said he was going to “punt” a crummy question about evolution. When being treated like a native shipped back to England by Captain Cook, it would be tempting to say much worse than that. But even announcing the “punt” was bad enough. What Walker said subsequently was just fine. But his blurted intention to evade was all that anyone will remember. If you want to dodge, just look to the president, who has punted for more yards in Washington than anyone since Sammy Baugh. The president just boots that sucker down to the other end zone, the ball carried aloft on great gusts of windy words.
In order to fulfill the media narrative in which Jeb Bush is the sensible candidate trying to tame an insane Republican Party, Scott Walker must be made into an insane person. He is trying hard not to oblige the press, but if he wants to win, he will have to stop telegraphing his evasions and do what every other successful politician does and just dropkick his answers.
Oddly, the cardinal attribute now sought in a presidential candidate is the ability to successfully evade horrid questions. And Scott Walker is learning that the hard way. The Wisconsin governor’s most recent error was complaining aloud about a puerile question posed by the WaPo about what Walker believed President nObama believes about Jesus Christ. In so doing, Walker gave the kind of response his questioners were hoping for, because the words “I don’t know” were part of a soliloquy on media bias. A question like this is the rhetorical equivalent of throwing a wolverine at a man’s face and then writing the headline: “Candidate struggles with wolverine attack.” Well, yeah... But the wolverines will keep coming, and so will the honey badgers, ferrets, otters and the rest of the family Mustelidae. And if you want to be president, you’d better find a way to deal with it.
This is Walker’s second such error. On a trip to London earlier this month, Walker let his internal monologue slip out when he said he was going to “punt” a crummy question about evolution. When being treated like a native shipped back to England by Captain Cook, it would be tempting to say much worse than that. But even announcing the “punt” was bad enough. What Walker said subsequently was just fine. But his blurted intention to evade was all that anyone will remember. If you want to dodge, just look to the president, who has punted for more yards in Washington than anyone since Sammy Baugh. The president just boots that sucker down to the other end zone, the ball carried aloft on great gusts of windy words.
In order to fulfill the media narrative in which Jeb Bush is the sensible candidate trying to tame an insane Republican Party, Scott Walker must be made into an insane person. He is trying hard not to oblige the press, but if he wants to win, he will have to stop telegraphing his evasions and do what every other successful politician does and just dropkick his answers.
-Fox News
Government worker unions reeling under Walker rules - WaPo: “The anti-union law passed here four years ago, which made Gov. Scott Walker a national Republican star and a possible presidential candidate, has turned out to be even more transformative than many had predicted. Walker had vowed that union power would shrink, workers would be judged on their merits, and local governments would save money. Unions had warned that workers would lose benefits and be forced to take on second jobs or find new careers. Many of those changes came to pass, but the once-thriving public-sector unions were not just shrunken, they were crippled. Unions representing teachers, professors, trash collectors and other government employees are struggling to stem plummeting membership rolls and retain relevance in the state where they got their start.” -Fox News
Government worker unions reeling under Walker rules - WaPo: “The anti-union law passed here four years ago, which made Gov. Scott Walker a national Republican star and a possible presidential candidate, has turned out to be even more transformative than many had predicted. Walker had vowed that union power would shrink, workers would be judged on their merits, and local governments would save money. Unions had warned that workers would lose benefits and be forced to take on second jobs or find new careers. Many of those changes came to pass, but the once-thriving public-sector unions were not just shrunken, they were crippled. Unions representing teachers, professors, trash collectors and other government employees are struggling to stem plummeting membership rolls and retain relevance in the state where they got their start.” -Fox News
Poll: Cruz, Walker all tied up in Texas - Texas Tribune: “Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker has erased U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz’s strong lead among Texas Republicans in the volatile and still-developing race for the party’s 2016 presidential nomination, according to the latest University of Texas/Texas Tribune Poll. Cruz’s 25 percentage-point lead over Walker in October has vanished: The Texan won the support of 20 percent of the state’s registered voters to Walker’s 19 percent — a statistical tie. Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and author Ben Carson were tied at 9 percent, and former Texas Gov. Rick Perry was next at 8 percent.” -Fox News
1.
President’s Boot Lickers Still Pretend nObama is a Christian
(Erick Erickson) - They routinely lament on twitter that there surely must be more important things than conservatives focused on Benghazi, Fast and Furious, the IRS scandal, the Libyan disaster, the Syrian disaster, the growth of ISIS, the resurgence of Al Quaeda, etc., etc., etc...They lament that we are a frivolous society easily distracted from important things. They give awards to deep thinkers who write 20,000 word pieces on subjects no one cares about outside of the Circle of Jerks who make up the political press. Then Rudy Giuliani, the former mayor of New York and failed Presidential candidate who will never serve in public office again, suggests President nObama does not love America (he doesn’t, by the way). The very same Circle of Jerks who lament a lack of seriousness in American discourse, immediately swing into action to protect their precious. These are Barack nObama’s boot lickers. http://www.redstate.com/2015/02/23/all-the-presidents-boot-lickers-still-pretend-obama-is-a-christian/
2.
The Islamic ‘Ghosts on the Roof’
(Francis P. Sempa) - Seventy years ago, Winston Churchill, Franklin Roosevelt, and Joseph Stalin met at Yalta to lay the foundations of the post-World War II world order. Less than one month after their historic meeting, TIME magazine on March 5, 1945, published an unsigned article entitled “Ghosts on the Roof.”...The article was written by Whittaker Chambers, then TIME’s foreign news editor and formerly a member of a Washington, D.C.-based Soviet espionage ring. Chambers broke with communism in the late 1930s and in doing so remarked to his wife that they were joining the “losing side” in the great world struggle between communism and the West. http://www.frontpagemag.com/2015/francis-p-sempa/the-islamic-ghosts-on-the-roof/?utm_source=FrontPage+Magazine&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=1881c66feb-Mailchimp_FrontPageMag&utm_term=0_57e32c1dad-1881c66feb-156509103
3.
Rep. Keith Ellison: Apologist for Jihad
(Matthew Vadum) - America is the root cause of violent extremism, Congress’s foremost apologist for Islamic terrorism told a White House conference last week...In rambling remarks Feb. 18 at President Obama’s so-called Summit on Countering Violent Extremism, U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) used the opportunity to smear America, downplay Muslim violence, and urge law enforcement to go easy on suspected Muslim terrorists. How do we allow this Muslim Rep to be elected. What is wrong with Minnesota? http://www.frontpagemag.com/2015/matthew-vadum/rep-keith-ellison-apologist-for-jihad/?utm_source=FrontPage+Magazine&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=1881c66feb-Mailchimp_FrontPageMag&utm_term=0_57e32c1dad-1881c66feb-156509103
4.
When Saudi-backed Terrorists Come Home to Roost
(Raymond Ibrahim) - In a move reminiscent of ancient history, Saudi Arabia is building a 600-mile-long "Great Wall"—a combined fence and ditch—to separate itself from the Islamic State to the north in Iraq...The irony here is that those Muslims that Saudi Arabia is trying to keep out are the very same Muslims most nurtured and influenced by a Saudi — or "Wahhabi," or "Salafi" — worldview. Put differently, Saudi Arabia is again appreciating how jihad is a volatile instrument of war that can easily backfire on those who support it. "Holy war" is hardly limited to fighting and subjugating "infidels" — whether the West in general, Israel in particular, or the millions of non-Muslim minorities under Islam — but also justifies fighting "apostates," that is, Muslims accused of not being Islamic enough. The USA couldn't build a 600 mile fence in the last 8 years, let alone now. http://www.meforum.org/5047/when-saudi-backed-terrorists-come-home-to-roost
5.
‘Islamic state fighters, disorganized and high on drugs
(Julian Robinson) - A British soldier who left to fight alongside Kurdish militants has described ISIS as little more than ‘office workers and villagers’ who are high on drugs because they are so terrified...Jamie Read from Lanarkshire, Scotland, served in the British Army for four years before travelling to Syria in 2014 to join the battle against Islamic State extremists. Having returned home he has revealed he would be prepared to rejoin the fight – despite the fact that he and his family have been targeted by militants. https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2015/02/23/fighting-isis-islamic-state-fighters-are-scared-disorganized-and-high-on-drugs-to-stay-courageous/
6.
Tough Questions That Are Impossible To Refute nObama’s Policies
(Walid Shoebat) - Years ago, hints on questioning nObama’s loyalty to the U.S. was considered conspiracy theory. Today Americans are becoming increasingly more suspicious struggling to find rhyme or reason for nObama’s latest Middle East policies...Rudy Giuliani seems to attribute nObama’s policies to be influenced through his affiliations with radical socialists like Frank Marshall Davis. But serious questions will prove that nObama’s policies are not different than a Muslim who supports the revival of the Muslim grand caliphate. Was nObama influenced only by a Marxist-Leninist agenda or did he also not grow up Muslim, having learned how to recite the Muslim call to prayer in the classical Arabic tongue as he clearly admits? Can anyone even deny that nObama’s Middle East policies mimics Erdogan’s, especially when it comes to the two most powerful secular Arab states, Syria and Egypt? http://shoebat.com/2015/02/21/tough-questions-impossible-refute-proves-obamas-policies-part-master-plan-revive-grand-muslim-caliphate/
7.
Jury Finds Palestinian Authority Liable for Intifada Terror
(investigativeproject.org) - Palestinian Authority (PA) policies, including direct financial support to employees convicted by on terrorism charges, and payments to families of those killed waging terrorist attacks, make it liable for damages in attacks which killed wounded Americans, a New York jury decided Monday...Jurors awarded $218.5 million in damages to the victims and their families. Provisions in the U.S. Anti-Terrorism Act triple that to $655.5 million. The jury's award "will not bring back these families' loved ones, nor heal the physical and psychological wounds inflicted upon them, but it truly is an important measure of justice and closure for them after their long years of tragic suffering and pain," said Nitsana Darshan-Leitner of Israel's Shurat HaDin law center, said after the jury award was announced. Darshan-Leitner has helped bring numerous civil cases against sponsors of terrorist attacks, saying the aim here, as in the other cases is "making the defendants pay for their terrorist crimes against innocent civilians and letting them know that there will eventually be a price to be paid for sending suicide bombers onto our buses and into our cafes." http://www.investigativeproject.org/4784/jury-finds-palestinian-authority-liable-for
8.
Putin’s Long Arm
(TED R. BROMUND) - In Chechnya, Georgia, and Ukraine, Russia works through bribery, fear, and force to destroy its opponents. In the West, it works through Interpol and the U.S. Treasury...If Moscow decides to target you, being in the United States won’t protect you from Russian harassment. In fact, it makes you a better victim.
Contrary to what you see in the movies, Interpol isn’t an international police force. It doesn’t arrest anyone. It’s more like a global bulletin board for national law enforcement agencies. Every country is a member except North Korea. And one of the privileges of membership is that you can request that Interpol issue a “Red Notice,” which asks other members to detain and extradite a wanted individual. By the terms of its 1956 constitution, adopted in large part to assure Washington that the organization would not pursue asylum-seekers from behind the Iron Curtain, Interpol is not supposed to engage in activities of “a political, military, religious, or racial character.” In other words, it’s supposed to pursue only ordinary crimes. But in 2013, Interpol issued 8,857 Red Notices—about one every hour. At that rate, it’s impossible for Interpol to be sure that it’s only pursuing murderers, child molesters, rapists, and the like. It has to trust its member nations. http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/putin-s-long-arm_859638.html?utm_campaign=Weekly%20Standard%3A%20Daily%20Digest&utm_source=Weekly%20Standard%3A%20Daily%20Digest%20-%2002%2F23%2F15&utm_medium=email
9.
The State Backlash Against Obamacare Is On!
(Tea Party) - A breaking story from Reuters announced that Five Republican governors say they will not rescue a crucial part of nObamacare if the Supreme Court strikes down the highly unpopular law...The Republican governors of Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, South Carolina and Wisconsin say that they will not create state exchanges to support the subsidies of the failing program. These local insurance exchanges constitute the core of this legal controversy. http://www.tpnn.com/2015/02/23/breaking-news-the-state-backlash-against-obamacare-is-on/
10.
Phased Iran-US nuclear deal taking shape
(BRADLEY KLAPPER and GEORGE JAHN) - The Associated Press is outlining the construct of the final negotiations between the U.S. and Iran. In essence, the short version is that Iran is going to be able to produce nuclear weapons, period...
Despite the incredible ramifications, and the very predictable arms race now virtually certain in the region, this should not come as a surprise. Iran had to work swiftly, while President nObama was still in office and the U.S. is in a weakened state, due to the specifically intentional policies of the nObama administration. There have been many indicators of this outcome over the past several months and years.
Against this now evident reality the visit by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu takes on an even more controversial dynamic. Netanyahu is widely anticipated to make the case of why Iran should not be allowed to possess nuclear weapons, and outline the ramifications therein. Hence, the White House held a strategy meeting to generate ideas of how they could destroy Netanyahu using “Alinsky Tactics” last week.
Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it….
Netanyahu's true electoral rival
Caroline B. Glick
(jewishworldreview.com) - Officially, the election on March 17 is among Israelis. Depending on how we vote, either Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu will remain in office and form the next government led by his Likud party, or Isaac Herzog and Tzipi Livni will form a government.
But unofficially, a far greater electoral drama is unfolding. The choice is not between Netanyahu and Herzog/Livni. It is between Netanyahu and US President Barack nObama.
As the White House sees it, if Herzog/Livni form the next government, then Jerusalem will dance to nObama’s tune. If Netanyahu is reelected, then the entire edifice of nObama’s Middle East policy may topple and fall.
Secretary of State Hanoi John Kerry made clear the administration’s desire to topple Netanyahu last spring during his remarks before the Trilateral Commission. It was during that memorable speech that Hanoi Kerry libeled Israel, claiming that we would automatically and naturally become an apartheid state if we didn’t give Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria to the PLO, Jew free, as quickly as possible.
Despite Israel’s venality, Hanoi Kerry held out hope. In his words, “if there is a change of government in Israel, or a change of heart, something will happen.”
Shortly after Hanoi Kerry gave his Israel apartheid speech, his Middle East mediator Martin Indyk attacked Israel and the character of the Israeli people in an astounding interview to Yediot Aharonot.
Among other things, Indyk hinted that to force Israel to make concessions demanded by the PLO, the Palestinians may need to launch another terror war.
Indyk also threatened that the Palestinians will get their state whether Israel agrees to their terms of not. In his words, “They will get their state in the end – whether through violence or by turning to international organizations.”
Indyk made his statements as an unnamed US official. When his identity was exposed, he was forced to resign his position. Following his departure from government service he returned to his previous position as vice president and director of the Brookings Institution and the director of its foreign policy program. Last September, The New York Times reported that the Brookings Institute received a $14.8 million, four-year donation from Qatar, the chief financier of Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.
This week, Indyk was back in Israel to speak at the annual conference of the Institute for National Security Studies. There he provided us with a picture of what we can expect from the nObama administration in its remaining two years in office if Netanyahu forms the next government.
On the Palestinian front, Indyk warned that Israel shouldn’t be worried about the Palestinians getting an anti-Israel resolution passed in the UN Security Council. Rather, it can expect that the US will join with the other permanent members of the UN Security Council to pass a resolution “against Israel’s will” that will “lay out the principle of a two-state solution.”
As Indyk intimated, Israel can avoid this fate if it elects a Herzog/Livni government. Such a government, he indicated, will preemptively give in to all of the Palestinians demands and so avoid a confrontation with the US and its colleagues at the Security Council.
Indyk explained, “If there is a government in Israel after these elections that decides to pursue a two-state solution, then there is a way forward. It begins with coordinating an initiative with the United States. And then, together with the US, looking to Egypt and Jordan and the resurrection of the Arab Peace Initiative.”
As for Iran, Indyk shrugged at Israel’s concerns over the agreement that nObama is now seeking to conclude with the Iranian regime regarding its nuclear weapons program. That agreement will leave Iran as a threshold nuclear state. Indyk suggested that the US could assuage Israel’s concerns by signing a bilateral treaty with Israel that would commit the US to do something if Iran passes some nuclear threshold.
There are only three problems with such a deal.
But unofficially, a far greater electoral drama is unfolding. The choice is not between Netanyahu and Herzog/Livni. It is between Netanyahu and US President Barack nObama.
As the White House sees it, if Herzog/Livni form the next government, then Jerusalem will dance to nObama’s tune. If Netanyahu is reelected, then the entire edifice of nObama’s Middle East policy may topple and fall.
Secretary of State Hanoi John Kerry made clear the administration’s desire to topple Netanyahu last spring during his remarks before the Trilateral Commission. It was during that memorable speech that Hanoi Kerry libeled Israel, claiming that we would automatically and naturally become an apartheid state if we didn’t give Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria to the PLO, Jew free, as quickly as possible.
Despite Israel’s venality, Hanoi Kerry held out hope. In his words, “if there is a change of government in Israel, or a change of heart, something will happen.”
Shortly after Hanoi Kerry gave his Israel apartheid speech, his Middle East mediator Martin Indyk attacked Israel and the character of the Israeli people in an astounding interview to Yediot Aharonot.
Among other things, Indyk hinted that to force Israel to make concessions demanded by the PLO, the Palestinians may need to launch another terror war.
Indyk also threatened that the Palestinians will get their state whether Israel agrees to their terms of not. In his words, “They will get their state in the end – whether through violence or by turning to international organizations.”
Indyk made his statements as an unnamed US official. When his identity was exposed, he was forced to resign his position. Following his departure from government service he returned to his previous position as vice president and director of the Brookings Institution and the director of its foreign policy program. Last September, The New York Times reported that the Brookings Institute received a $14.8 million, four-year donation from Qatar, the chief financier of Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.
This week, Indyk was back in Israel to speak at the annual conference of the Institute for National Security Studies. There he provided us with a picture of what we can expect from the nObama administration in its remaining two years in office if Netanyahu forms the next government.
On the Palestinian front, Indyk warned that Israel shouldn’t be worried about the Palestinians getting an anti-Israel resolution passed in the UN Security Council. Rather, it can expect that the US will join with the other permanent members of the UN Security Council to pass a resolution “against Israel’s will” that will “lay out the principle of a two-state solution.”
As Indyk intimated, Israel can avoid this fate if it elects a Herzog/Livni government. Such a government, he indicated, will preemptively give in to all of the Palestinians demands and so avoid a confrontation with the US and its colleagues at the Security Council.
Indyk explained, “If there is a government in Israel after these elections that decides to pursue a two-state solution, then there is a way forward. It begins with coordinating an initiative with the United States. And then, together with the US, looking to Egypt and Jordan and the resurrection of the Arab Peace Initiative.”
As for Iran, Indyk shrugged at Israel’s concerns over the agreement that nObama is now seeking to conclude with the Iranian regime regarding its nuclear weapons program. That agreement will leave Iran as a threshold nuclear state. Indyk suggested that the US could assuage Israel’s concerns by signing a bilateral treaty with Israel that would commit the US to do something if Iran passes some nuclear threshold.
There are only three problems with such a deal.
First, as former ambassador to the US Itamar Rabinovich noted, such a treaty would likely render Israel unable to take independent action against Iranian nuclear sites.
Second, the US has a perfect track record of missing every major nuclear advance by every country. US intelligence agencies were taken by surprise when India, Pakistan and North Korea joined the nuclear club. They have always underestimated Iranian nuclear activities and were taken by surprise, repeatedly, by Syria’s nuclear proliferation activities. In other words, it would be insane for Israel to trust that the US would act in a timely manner to prevent Iran from crossing the nuclear threshold.
Third of course is the demonstrated lack of US will – particularly under the nObama administration – to take any action that could prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. So Israel has no reason whatsoever to believe that the US would honor its commitment.
But then, since the nObama administration believes that Herzog and Livni will be compliant with its policies, the White House may expect the two will agree to forgo Israel’s right to self-defense and place Israel’s national security in relation to Iran in nObama’s hands.
And this brings us to the real contest unfolding in the lead-up to March 17.
When Speaker of the House of Representatives backstabber John Boehner announced last month that he had invited Netanyahu to address the joint houses of Congress on the threat emanating from Iran’s nuclear program and from radical Islam, he unintentionally transformed the Israeli elections from a local affair to a contest between nObama and Netanyahu.
nObama’s response to Netanyahu’s speech has been astounding. His ad hominem attacks against Netanyahu, his open moves to coerce Democratic lawmakers to boycott Netanyahu’s speech, and the administration’s aggressive attempts to damage Israel’s reputation in the US have been without precedent. More than anything, they expose a deep-seated fear that Netanyahu will be successful in exposing the grave danger that nObama’s policies toward Iran and toward the Islamic world in general pose to the global security.
Those fears are reasonable for two reasons.
First due to a significant degree to the administration’s unhinged response to the news of Netanyahu’s speech, backstabber Boehner’s invitation to Netanyahu sparked a long-belated public debate in the US regarding nObama’s strategy of appeasing the Iranian regime. Generally consistent nObama supporters like The Washington Post editorial board have published stinging indictments of this policy in recent weeks.
These analyses have noted for the first time that in pursuing Iran, nObama is alienating and weakening America’s allies, enabling Iran to expand its nuclear program, and empowering Iran regionally as the US does nothing to prevent Iran’s take of Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen.
Second, it is possible that in his remarks about Iran and radical Islam, Netanyahu will manage to discredit nObama’s approach to both issues. This is possible because nObama’s approach is difficult to understand.
Last week, following the decapitation of 21 Egyptian Coptic Christians by Islamic State, the nObama administration stood alone in its refusal to note that the victims were murdered because they were Christians. When Egypt retaliated for the massacre with air strikes against Islamic State training camps and other facilities in Libya, the nObama administration refused to support it ally. Instead it criticized Egypt for acting on its own and called for a political solution in Libya, which is now governed by two rival governments and has become a breeding ground for Islamic State terrorists who transit Libya to Sinai.
Following Islamic State’s massacre of the Christians, the group’s leaders threatened to invade neighboring Italy. Italy’s Prime Minister Matteo Renzi promised a strong response, and then called on the UN Security Council to do something. The nObama administration responded with coolness to a similar Egyptian call last week.
Hamas (which is supposedly much more moderate than Islamic State despite its intense cooperation with Libya-trained Islamic State forces in Sinai) warned Italy not to attack Islamic State in Libya, lest it be viewed in the words of Salah Bardawil as beginning “a new crusade against Arab and Muslim countries.”
While all of this has been going on, nObama presided over his much-touted international conference on Confronting Violent Extremism. Reportedly attended by representatives from 60 countries, and featuring many leaders of Muslim Brotherhood- linked groups like the Council on American- Islamic Relations, nObama’s conference’s apparent goal was to deemphasize and deny the link between terrorism and radical Islam.
In his remarks on Wednesday, nObama gave a lengthy defense of his refusal to acknowledge the link between Islam and Islamic State, al-Qaida and other Islamic terrorist groups. He insisted that these groups “have perverted Islam.”
nObama indirectly argued that the West is to blame for their behavior because of its supposed historical mistreatment of Muslims. In his words, the “reality... is that there’s a strain of thought that doesn’t embrace ISIL’s tactics, doesn’t embrace violence, but does buy into the notion that the Muslim world has suffered historic grievances, sometimes that’s accurate.”
nObama’s insistence that Islamic State and its ilk attack because of perceived Western misbehavior is completely at odds with observed reality. As The Atlantic’s Graeme Wood demonstrated this week in his in-depth report on Islamic State’s ideology and goals, Islam is central to the group. Islamic State is an apocalyptic movement rooted entirely in Islam.
Most of the coverage of Netanyahu’s scheduled speech before Congress has centered on his opposition to the deal nObama seeks to conclude with Iran. But it may be that the second half of his speech – which will be devoted to the threat posed by radical Islam – will be no less devastating to nObama. nObama’s stubborn refusal to acknowledge the fact that the greatest looming threats to global security today, including US national security, stem from radical Islam indicates that he is unable to contend with any evidence that jihadist Islam constitutes a unique threat unlike the threat posed by Western chauvinism and racism.
It is hard to understand either Israel’s election or nObama’s hysterical response to Netanyahu’s scheduled speech without recognizing that nObama clearly feels threatened by the message he will deliver. Surrounded by sycophantic aides and advisers, and until recently insulated from criticism by a supportive media, while free to ignore Congress due to his veto power, nObama has never had to seriously explain his policies regarding Iran and Islamic terrorists more generally. He has never endured a direct challenge to those policies.
Today nObama believes that he is in a to-the-death struggle with Netanyahu. If Netanyahu’s speech is a success, nObama’s foreign policy will be indefensible. If nObama is able to delegitimize Netanyahu ahead of his arrival, and bring about his electoral defeat, then with a compliant Israeli government, he will face no obstacles to his plan to appease Iran and blame Islamic terrorism on the West for the remainder of his tenure in office.
Second, the US has a perfect track record of missing every major nuclear advance by every country. US intelligence agencies were taken by surprise when India, Pakistan and North Korea joined the nuclear club. They have always underestimated Iranian nuclear activities and were taken by surprise, repeatedly, by Syria’s nuclear proliferation activities. In other words, it would be insane for Israel to trust that the US would act in a timely manner to prevent Iran from crossing the nuclear threshold.
Third of course is the demonstrated lack of US will – particularly under the nObama administration – to take any action that could prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. So Israel has no reason whatsoever to believe that the US would honor its commitment.
But then, since the nObama administration believes that Herzog and Livni will be compliant with its policies, the White House may expect the two will agree to forgo Israel’s right to self-defense and place Israel’s national security in relation to Iran in nObama’s hands.
And this brings us to the real contest unfolding in the lead-up to March 17.
When Speaker of the House of Representatives backstabber John Boehner announced last month that he had invited Netanyahu to address the joint houses of Congress on the threat emanating from Iran’s nuclear program and from radical Islam, he unintentionally transformed the Israeli elections from a local affair to a contest between nObama and Netanyahu.
nObama’s response to Netanyahu’s speech has been astounding. His ad hominem attacks against Netanyahu, his open moves to coerce Democratic lawmakers to boycott Netanyahu’s speech, and the administration’s aggressive attempts to damage Israel’s reputation in the US have been without precedent. More than anything, they expose a deep-seated fear that Netanyahu will be successful in exposing the grave danger that nObama’s policies toward Iran and toward the Islamic world in general pose to the global security.
Those fears are reasonable for two reasons.
First due to a significant degree to the administration’s unhinged response to the news of Netanyahu’s speech, backstabber Boehner’s invitation to Netanyahu sparked a long-belated public debate in the US regarding nObama’s strategy of appeasing the Iranian regime. Generally consistent nObama supporters like The Washington Post editorial board have published stinging indictments of this policy in recent weeks.
These analyses have noted for the first time that in pursuing Iran, nObama is alienating and weakening America’s allies, enabling Iran to expand its nuclear program, and empowering Iran regionally as the US does nothing to prevent Iran’s take of Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen.
Second, it is possible that in his remarks about Iran and radical Islam, Netanyahu will manage to discredit nObama’s approach to both issues. This is possible because nObama’s approach is difficult to understand.
Last week, following the decapitation of 21 Egyptian Coptic Christians by Islamic State, the nObama administration stood alone in its refusal to note that the victims were murdered because they were Christians. When Egypt retaliated for the massacre with air strikes against Islamic State training camps and other facilities in Libya, the nObama administration refused to support it ally. Instead it criticized Egypt for acting on its own and called for a political solution in Libya, which is now governed by two rival governments and has become a breeding ground for Islamic State terrorists who transit Libya to Sinai.
Following Islamic State’s massacre of the Christians, the group’s leaders threatened to invade neighboring Italy. Italy’s Prime Minister Matteo Renzi promised a strong response, and then called on the UN Security Council to do something. The nObama administration responded with coolness to a similar Egyptian call last week.
Hamas (which is supposedly much more moderate than Islamic State despite its intense cooperation with Libya-trained Islamic State forces in Sinai) warned Italy not to attack Islamic State in Libya, lest it be viewed in the words of Salah Bardawil as beginning “a new crusade against Arab and Muslim countries.”
While all of this has been going on, nObama presided over his much-touted international conference on Confronting Violent Extremism. Reportedly attended by representatives from 60 countries, and featuring many leaders of Muslim Brotherhood- linked groups like the Council on American- Islamic Relations, nObama’s conference’s apparent goal was to deemphasize and deny the link between terrorism and radical Islam.
In his remarks on Wednesday, nObama gave a lengthy defense of his refusal to acknowledge the link between Islam and Islamic State, al-Qaida and other Islamic terrorist groups. He insisted that these groups “have perverted Islam.”
nObama indirectly argued that the West is to blame for their behavior because of its supposed historical mistreatment of Muslims. In his words, the “reality... is that there’s a strain of thought that doesn’t embrace ISIL’s tactics, doesn’t embrace violence, but does buy into the notion that the Muslim world has suffered historic grievances, sometimes that’s accurate.”
nObama’s insistence that Islamic State and its ilk attack because of perceived Western misbehavior is completely at odds with observed reality. As The Atlantic’s Graeme Wood demonstrated this week in his in-depth report on Islamic State’s ideology and goals, Islam is central to the group. Islamic State is an apocalyptic movement rooted entirely in Islam.
Most of the coverage of Netanyahu’s scheduled speech before Congress has centered on his opposition to the deal nObama seeks to conclude with Iran. But it may be that the second half of his speech – which will be devoted to the threat posed by radical Islam – will be no less devastating to nObama. nObama’s stubborn refusal to acknowledge the fact that the greatest looming threats to global security today, including US national security, stem from radical Islam indicates that he is unable to contend with any evidence that jihadist Islam constitutes a unique threat unlike the threat posed by Western chauvinism and racism.
It is hard to understand either Israel’s election or nObama’s hysterical response to Netanyahu’s scheduled speech without recognizing that nObama clearly feels threatened by the message he will deliver. Surrounded by sycophantic aides and advisers, and until recently insulated from criticism by a supportive media, while free to ignore Congress due to his veto power, nObama has never had to seriously explain his policies regarding Iran and Islamic terrorists more generally. He has never endured a direct challenge to those policies.
Today nObama believes that he is in a to-the-death struggle with Netanyahu. If Netanyahu’s speech is a success, nObama’s foreign policy will be indefensible. If nObama is able to delegitimize Netanyahu ahead of his arrival, and bring about his electoral defeat, then with a compliant Israeli government, he will face no obstacles to his plan to appease Iran and blame Islamic terrorism on the West for the remainder of his tenure in office.
Comments