Israel’s Return of The Right

netanyahu2

“Israel is the one country in which everyone is pro-American, opposition and coalition alike. And I represent the entire people of Israel who say, ‘Thank you, America.’ And we’re friends of America, and we’re the only reliable allies of America in the Middle East.”

-Benjamin Netanyahu

Life is granted upon birth.  Survival is not.

For early man survival was THE constant focus that required rigorous effort.  Food, clothing, water and shelter were not given tools upon self-realization.  They had to be scrounged and forged within a world full of hostile forces seeking their own ends.  Any human misstep could cost not only one life, but had the potential to extinguish an entire species, not two steps away from its nascence.

And so it goes with Israel.

Here is a video, that is also up on the site under MEDIA, that presents an overview of the problem in the middle-east:

The problem in the middle-east in a nutshell: one side wants the other side dead.  And the side that is to be dead doesn’t want to be dead. So, regardless of rhetoric, rigid ideology, criticism of foreign policy or accusations of unsubstantiated responses to “minimal” attacks, Israelis have once again seen fit to elect a prime minister of the “extreme right” persuasion. (I have yet to find an establishment mass media piece that refers to the Likud party in any other way.  Just like American conservatives, they are always described as “extreme” by the dominant liberal establishment mass media*)

Israel only exists because of its ability to defend itself against the foreign invaders who have, since its inception, sworn to wipe it off the map:

Iran making a plan to destroy Israel

A list of Arab threats leading up to the Six-Day War

A student at UC San Diego (Must Watch!!!)

Info on the 1948 War

Unlike the current administration in the United States, Israel does not have the luxury, time or inclination to assuage the feelings of CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) when it cries about faux-Islamophobia, or psycho-analyze the motives of ISIL or Major Nidal Hasan.  Israel has rockets at the ready, to be used in counter-strikes in the name of national defense.  Bombs may explode, children will be kidnapped and synagogues are brutally assaulted.  That nation faces a daily existential threat, not from sociopathic headhunting pyromaniacs an ocean and a half away who ostensibly don’t know the true meaning of Islam, but right next door and just across a stretch of desert.  Benjamin Netanyahu understands this threat and is not afraid to confront its true nature.  That is why he was re-elected.

Bibi (nickname for Netanyahu) has been called out for his pre-election cry that Arabs were voting in droves, and he has since publicly stated his regret for making this statement.  He has been criticized for alienating his allies and for his violent opposition to a two-state solution.  (Ironically, the misnomered Palestinians aren’t too keen on the idea either)  And he has developed a tumultuous relationship with the current President of the United States.

But, to paraphrase infamy, what difference at this point does it make?  Israel wants to survive.  President Obama is a FINO (friend in name only) to Israel and has openly spurned the best interests of his “ally” in order to woo the charlatans in Tehran.  If the USA truly supports Israel, then support Israel.  Dismantle Tehran, the Muslim Brotherhood, ISIL et al.  Stop positing a Palestinian state when the very people who would receive such a state are not interested in COEXIST-ing. (my apologies for the dose of reality to the bumper sticker crowd)

There is every justification for forming an alliance with and defending a people who wish to live and survive a peaceful existence.  Especially when their enemies are our enemies.  Sadly, Israel has known aggression for its entire life  A nation formed from the ashes of the Holocaust, was present not one year before it was attacked.  Yet, it remains.  When it is attacked, it fights back and has long caught on to the cowardly manner by which its enemies fight: storing arms and military outposts among children, in schools and hospitals.  With Bibi at its head, Israel will continue to fight.  Because it must.  Against any manner of foe, with or without its tenuous allies.  The Israeli people, at least enough for re-election, know that this is the man for the job.  That is why they left Israel’s Right of Return to the (extreme) Right.

*The D.L.E.M.M. (dominant, liberal, establishment, mass media) was coined by Mike Rosen as an acronym of essential parts describing the media in the United States.

Advertisements

To Iran It May Concern

imagesIf I thought you weren’t my friend…I just don’t think I could bare it.

– Val Kilmer as Doc Holiday, ‘’Tombstone’’

So, the GOP don’t wanna play with Tehran and President Obama?  (In other news, the sun was out, my dog ran in circles and my cats took naps.  Long naps.  Then ate kibble.)

U.S. Senator Tom Cotton (R., Ark.) led the charge in drafting an informative letter to Iran, which was subsequently signed by most of the GOP members of the senate.  On the surface, this letter (which can be found in its original PDF form here) serves to inform the Islamic Leaders of Iran about the Constitution of the United States and, more specifically, the process behind treaties, term years and limits.  Also included is the not so veiled threat that any agreement made with the current administration that excludes the current congress, will be deemed temporary and set to expire upon the long awaited departure of the current president.

While not in any way treason, as stated here, here and here.  Or mutiny (here and here), the antiquated correspondence does have the nice warm stench of political rebellion, grandstanding and gamesmanship.  But it also demonstrated a bit of gumption.  While it is overtly (lower-case ‘O’) condescending, Cotton and his brethren took this minimal action (being that it is just a letter, after all) in a situation where the sitting president had once again dismissed the congress and acted unilaterally in his “I do what I want” manner.  I figure, it beats just complaining about it.

What the presidential loyalists have been missing, or simply dismissing, lo these many years, is that the great ideological divide in this country does not feed on rampant, superficial hate.  It may snack on it from time to time.  Double dip the chip of personal attack, so to speak.  But the true sustenance of any conflict of visions is the genuine loathing of dangerous ideology.

When one group is in power it will predictably seek to enact public policy that aligns with said group’s ideology.  On the other hand, those members of the minority party will seek to prevent such action as it directly contradicts the principles for which they, in the minority party, were elected.  This second group is known as the loyal opposition.

Tens of millions of people voted for Mitt Romney and John McCain.  They lost in their respective elections.  Nevertheless, those voters are not resigned to a defeatist fate.  There are still officials who did win elected office and are obliged to serve those interests that may conflict with the agenda of the majority party.

Congressional republicans have served during the presidency of a man who fundamentally opposes their principles, and vice versa.  It is not through blind rage or poor-sportsmanship that they act.  It is their duty.  Hence this letter, signed by 47 republican members of the senate, the loyal opposition.

The letter is an action of a group of frustrated politicians who feel they must “do something.”  Look bold in the face of Iran and the estranged president.  Is it hostile? Could be.  Threatening? I’d say so.  Intimidating? you betchya!  And it is meant to be.

Opiners opining over this ostensibly ostentatious occurrence and its treasonous or mutinous nature are acting out as well.  We have a Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces.  He is the ultimate head of the military and disobedience by those in uniform is not tolerated. But, these senators are not in the military and are sworn to uphold the Constitution, not Barack Obama’s personally problematic naive foreign policy agenda.  (See free speech rights, loyal opposition, ideological divide, etc., etc.)

Inasmuch as the president views his cause and election as a mandate for his policies, his opposition feels the same warm and fuzzy support for its agenda.  Any election comes with a mandate to do something.  That’s why elections are held.  Get elected, then govern.  Here we have two groups, two agendas, two approaches to governing.  One conflict of visions.  The frustratingly beautiful two-party system at work.

***This story has given the public a dynamic look at the modern media system.  Below are some stories from both perspectives of this issue.  Regardless of ideology, you can see the stretch to make this story more than it is.  On both sides.

The Inconvenient Truth (good piece recognizing that no one is doubting the accuracy of the letter)

From Rolling Stone (makes some good points but overall, snide, sarcastic and demonstrates the manner in which the left attempts to discredit: make cartoonish claims of your opponents in order to make them sound crazy.  This magazine has lost me entirely over the past couple years.  Kinda sad.  Sniff…sniff)

The Letter Wasn’t Actually Sent vs. The Letter Wasn’t Actually Sent

Four Reasons The Left Loathes the Letter vs. Why Republicans Love the Letter

Unconstitutional!

Cause He’s Black

453492520-1024x681And the hits just keep on coming.

Turns out the Ferguson police have a real problem being, you know, upstanding police. Their jackassery inadvertently serves up any defense of Darren Wilson, the officer involved in the shooting of Michael Brown, with a nice side of taint.

Thus far, the police chief and the city manager have both resigned following a report by the Department of Justice exposing flagrant institutional incompetence, prejudice and overall mismanagement by the leaders of Ferguson, MO.  And now, two police officers have been shot during a protest demonstration.  (See Marine Sgt. Thomas Highway’s colorful reply to his commander describing the situation)

There have been racially disproportionate traffic stops, fines and incriminating emails that do serve to demonstrate a cloud of prejudice within the system.  And these findings also lend credence to the unsettled disposition of the protesters in this town.  But… if only it were that simple. (you probably saw that coming)

With most issues regarding current events, politics and how many licks does it take, the answer lies somewhere in the middle.  As expressed by the New York Post, “racism is serious, and those engaging in it should be shamed — but we should have real evidence before accusing others of it. And every one of the Justice report’s main claims of evidence of discrimination falls short.”

Ferguson is a town with a population made of mostly black residents at the lower end of the economic ladder.  Thanks to another government overreaction, the pet projects failures of the Great Society, this particular subset of the American populace has been in a circular pattern that has served to exacerbate their economic ills.  And the current administration is only seeking to further exploit these citizens.

As implied by another post of mine, I am no fan of Eric Holder.  I see a man with a clear cut agenda to prove what he already believes at the expense of seeking out the truth.  He has opened federal investigations, utilizing government resources (aka taxpayer dollars) on both Darren Wilson and George Zimmerman.  Both men had been cleared by investigations, Zimmerman by a jury, and yet Holder persisted.  He has also blamed criticism of the president, and himself, on racist motivations instead of ideological differences.  Again, such accusations come with no specific charges and, just like his investigations, lead nowhere.  But the vitriolic words remain.  And isn’t that the point?

Exercise: imagine that you are a republican (please stick with me) and as impossible as it might sound, you don’t agree with the president on a particular idea.  Furthermore, you can articulate specifically why you disagree.  Instead of engaging in conversation or debate, your ideological opponents call you a racist due to your criticism.  What you are left with is defending your non-racist but ostensibly racist disposition, meanwhile, the conversation has been changed, leaving the dubious policies to play out, uncriticized for fear of further baseless smear.  It is a ruse to discredit the opposition without actually discrediting the opposition.

Just google criticisms of Obamacare, executive action on immigration, foreign policy in regards to Iran, and you will find a plethora of sources with substantial claims as to why the actions of the administration are found wanting.  What you won’t find are criticisms that state, “cause he’s black.”

Now I know, real racists aren’t just gonna come right out and say it like that right?  But when these “racists” are hiding behind sound reasoning, and moreover, their arguments are only refuted by logical fallacies of relevance rather that honest rebuttals, any thinking person should question the claims of racism, just as they would question questionable policies.

The police of Ferguson have had metaphorical targets on their backs for months courtesy of the Department of Justice.  They now have literal targets as a result of the fallout.  Al Sharpton, Eric Holder and the other purveyors of race baiting are at fault for these circumstances.  And so too, to state the obvious that is sometimes not so obvious, are the shooters.  They will be found, tried, and properly prosecuted in an indifferent (to race) court of law.  If the facts prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they are guilty, they will be sentenced to prison for a long, long time.  Not because the police are racists, not because Michael Brown was shot.  And certainly, not cause their black.

He Loves Me, He Loves Me Not

iStock_000016111996Small

The one who loves another has fulfilled the law- Romans 13:8

“Dissent is the highest form of patriotism”- often attributed to Thomas Jefferson or Howard Zinn (most likely neither, as evidenced here)

During the tumultuous turmoil that was the domestic, foreign and all other policy under the Bush administration, there was a gargantuan amount of insults, criticisms and flat out baseless claims against the president and his underlings.  (for a recap on the most egregious ones look into the Michael Moore film “Farenheit 9/11”) Some were hilarious.  “Strategery.”  And some were well founded and justified.  Just a day, or presidential-term, in the life of a democratic-republic with protections on free speech.

But did anyone ever ask if he loves this country?

Throughout the past week or two, or more, regarding all of the rigamarole on the predilections of the infatuation status of President Obama, the one most ridiculous criticism on the subject is that it is disrespectful to justifiably question the president on the subject of his love for the United States.  Or the most ridiculous criticism is to posit the notion that a man who would be president could feel anything but love for this country.  Depends on who you ask.  And while I will not ride the fence on this issue (or really any other), it does exist as yet another example of the two sides talking past each other.  Two ships in the night, as it were.

The pro-love defenders of the president indignantly claim that, well, he IS the President of the United States.  It is perfectly absurd that anyone, especially a washed up former mayor with the stars of political ambition in his eyes, should suggest that he feels anything BUT love for his country, and compassion for its citizens (and prospective citizens).  They point to his record as proof.

The pro-ambivalence (a bit of a stretch, I will admit) critics indignantly look at the same man and view him with the same skepticism as the competent law-and-order former mayor does.  There is not love but disdain for this country in the heart of our president.  And they point to his record as proof.

He loves me?  He loves me not??

Looking at the political realm in the United States leaves one pondering: how can so many people in power be so wrong so much of the time and yet remain in power?  How can a congress with such low approval ratings keep getting elected?  How can anyone support this president?  How could anyone oppose him?

The repeated circumstances are the inevitable result of a lacking definitive terminology when discussions like the love triangle of the president, the people and the country appear at the forefront of debate.  Verily, the abortion debate centers around one side fighting for the rights of women while the other focuses on the unborn.  Same-sex marriage advocates invoke human rights while their opponents invoke a legal definition of marriage.  Two sides advocating different ideas and when they meet in the middle, chaos ensues and the issues remain settled.  In fact, people actually become more entrenched in their opinions the longer debate persists.

And so it is.  We apparently have a president who deeply loves this nation while doing everything he can to undermine its foundational principles.

Personally, I do not see a love of the United States in Barack Obama.  That is, a love of this country as it was founded and of its constitutional principles.  I see a man who values social justice above all else and pursues a Marxist “from each, to each” agenda to level the playing field.  Equality of outcome.  Prejudice and discrimination exist as a subterraneous current driving our legal system and the myriad racial/sexual/socioeconomic-al/immigration-al injustices need to be paid for, literally, by the successful members of society.  Government is the means to this end, but only insofar as it does not impede his goals.  The Constitution is a valuable guide but antiquated, and needs to evolve through enlightened action.  If congress won’t act, the president will, regardless of any legal authority.

He must not offend the misunderstood freedom fighters in the middle east with disparaging remarks identifying the religious source of their ambition for global dominion.  He is fighting a battle to win hearts and minds amidst beheadings and immolation.  And as of this writing, he is opposed to the leader of Israel speaking out against negotiations with Iran.

But, Barack Obama does love his vision of the United States.  A country where those who have for so long taken advantage of the downtrodden masses have paid for these sins.  The historical victims have received their reparations.  Elite enlightened persuasion has led us all to understand, and therefore agree with, the vision of the United States as an egalitarian utopia.  Our “enemies” have acquiesced to our requests for compromise due to the well-funded economic buildup of their nations.  The middle east has found peace.  Israel and/or a Palestinian state may or may not exist.  Regardless, I see a president who loves this country as he sees it in his own heart and mind.

A love of country is a profoundly personal sentiment.  While it is perfectly reasonable, with justification, to ask if our leader loves this nation, it is not a question that can be answered objectively with any satisfaction  The defenders will say “of course he does”, the critics “no he does not.”  And round and round we go.

Barack Obama, just like George W. Bush before him, became president for a reason.  Obama stated his goal of fundamental transformation which still creates a substantial divide as to its meaning.  How can one seek to fundamentally transform that which one loves?  Perhaps fundamental transformation is his way of showing love.

America: “So…um…do you think he likes me?”