Doc's Talk: A Speech Too Far

Sunday, October 25, 2009

A Speech Too Far

Paul's Blog: www.paulschnee.com

http://paulschnee.blogspot.com/2009/09/speech-too-far.html

I heard a leader today. I heard the leader of an embattled outpost of western values and the staunch guardian of Judeo/Christian ethics, draw a line in the sand contrasting the harsh differences between those who would destroy the only democracy in the Middle East and those who would preserve it intact.I should have been listening to Barack Obama but it was Benjamin Netanyahu who brandished the torch of truth, justice and freedom. As he did so, he held the leaders of Iran accountable for their continual lies, hatred, and unremitting violence, and condemned those who seek to bestow any kind of legitimacy upon the genocidal Ahmedinejad and his determined, murdering, collaborators and proxies throughout the Middle East and the world.

Yesteray in stark contrast, Barack Obama, the supposed leader of the free world and commander-in-chief of the greatest military power the world has ever seen, gave a speech that showed it is more dangerous to be a friend of the United States than it is to be her enemy. As he betrayed Israel and acted as the legal counsel for the so-called Palestinians by promoting his plan that encourages them not to make any concessions and by using his talent of expanding the least amount of thought into the greatest number of words he demonstrated the truth of Gerald Warner's observation in the London Daily Telegraph that if Osama bin Laden and Al Queda still wish to destroy America they had better hurry up before Barack Obama does it first.

Addressing the United Nations, an increasingly corrupt and spineless group of beggar nations that continually vote against the United States with the one hand while the other is always outstretched for more American aid, Obama displayed why he is the greatest security risk we have to which our entire history affords no parallel. His speech was virtually a reprise of the miserable one he gave in Cairo a few months ago but it contained even more historical inaccuracies and dangerous nonsense from which the inevitable wrong conclusions and decisions flow like the cascading waters of Niagra Falls.

Clearly Obama has not had the good sense to fire his speech writer otherwise one assumes, not altogether with confidence, that he would not have lectured us with these preposterous notions: "In an era when our destiny is shared, power is no longer a zero-sum game. No one nation can or should try to dominate another nation. No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed. No balance of power among nations will hold. The traditional division between nations of the south and north makes no sense in an interconnected world nor do alignments rooted in the cleavages of a long "Cold War." Obama and his speech writer inhabit the same alternate universe where history is denied, truth is replaced with distortion, wishful thinking is preferred to reality, and where activity is confused with achievement.

As a devotee of "soft power", except where Israel is concerned, of course, Obama displayed his belief that the United States is no longer the world's pre-eminent force, that he no longer intends to maintain our dominance, and has deliberately set us on a course of decline making us just one country among many. As this speech and his speech in Cairo so plainly show, Obama thinks that all the world's problems are the fault of America and the West and that ammends must now be made and that he has been ordained and duly dispatched to make them. The downright evil represented by Islamic terrorists, Iran, and North Korea is all America's fault. His faith is placed in the entirely corrupt United Nations and farcical international courts, whose goal of a one-world government with a flag nobody salutes and an anthem nobody sings is much closer to his heart than American exceptionalism which, in fact, is anathema to him and his retinue of camp-followers. Unfortunately for Obama's vision the founding principles and ideals on which the United Nations was built have been crushed by the realities that Obama maintains do not or should not exist.

As for "No balance of power among nations will hold", where on earth did he come up with that penetrating insight? For over three hundred years England maintained the balance of power in Europe by forming alliances with its weaker states against the most powerful one. This helped her frustrate the ambitions of Phillip II of Spain, Louis XIV of France, and Napoleon Bonaparte. It allowed her build an empire and together with her mastery of steam, coal, and iron, gave her manufacturing pre-eminence accounting for over 50% of the world's industrial production by 1870!

The absurdity of "No one nation can or should try to dominate another nation..." is so apparent that it turns history and current reality on its head. He ignores the ambitions of Iran, North Korea, Russia, and China but he does so because it is America to whom he really refers. In Berlin, in Cairo, and in front of the United Nations he indulged in an orgy of self-abasement producing a litany of indictments against the United States setting forth his belief that our sins are so enormous that we lack the moral authority to justify our power and dominance. The only way, he has convinced himself, to regain this moral high ground, and coincidentally help his domestic agenda, is by unilateral strategic retreat. This is why our missile deployments promised to Poland and Czechoslovakia have been cancelled; it is why our own missile defenses have been reduced and it is why he is unwilling to do what our military commanders in Afghanistan have advised is required for victory; it is why he does not support regime change for Iran but only for Israel; it is why his policies are a triumph of one-way multicultarlism over diplomacy that, so far, have produced nothing in the way of concessions from our enemies or help from our friends. It is why he is the arch appeaser of our time. It is why he is a disaster.

He flatters and panders to the Islamic serpent; our financial aid is sent to our enemies in Gaza and elsewhere in the Middle East; favors are dispensed to anti-Americans in South America and all over the world, but for our own citizens there are crippling debts, higher taxes, lax immigration policies, prosecution of CIA officers charged with the interrogation of those who killed three thousand of our people; reckless endangerment of our security by transferring terrorist prisoners to our soil; the attempted abridgement of free speech; the deliberate and willful destruction of a free market economy and the middle class; the exportation of talent and entrprenneurship; the importation of Mexican poverty and for our allies, who would stand on either hand with us, the cold shoulder of indifference and neglect.

None of this is inevitable. As it has been done much of it can be undone. In order to do so the American voter will have to come to the sinking realisation that Barack Obama is a charming liar at odds with American exceptionalism; that he has abandoned the idea that America has a special role to play or that our values and institutions should be adopted by those countries that do not yet have them and that his utopian notions imply that democracies should seek no kinship against dictators. They need to understand Obama is the victim of an ideology where everyone is equal; where there are no leaders; where there is no good or bad thus ensuring that when the conflict comes America, thanks to his ideology and his policies, will not be the nation to emerge victorious. In the meantime Obama knows it is not possible to keep the balloon rising without the usual infusion of hot air but the rest of us should recall the lines from Hamlet "...that one may smile and smile and be a villain."

Guest Comment: Really worthwhile reading...great line: Obama's talent is expanding the least amount of thought into the greatest number of words... much damage had been done and much of it can be undone...this if the American voter will come to the sinking realization that Barack Obama is a charming liar at odds with American exceptionalism, who abandoned the idea that America has a special role to play and that our values and institutions should be adopted by those countries that do not yet have them and that his utopian notions imply that democracies should seek no kinship against dictators...Obama is the victim of an ideology where everyone is equal and there are no leaders...that he is a cowardice and thanks to his ideology and his policies out nation will not emerge victorious...in order for to keep the balloon rising Obama need to continue infusion hot air but those among us who have seen through the Obamanization cloud should recall the lines from Hamlet "...that one may smile and smile and be a villain..."
-------
Shalom,
Nurit

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk