As of now, I am in control here, in the White House

Tag Archives: Obama

The Dangerous, Erroneous Assumption Guiding Obama’s Mideast Policy

President Obama, like most liberals, is under the unfortunate and rather self-indulgent misimpression that the rest of the world is just like us.

That’s why Obama and his friends have a hard time being American exceptionalists. That’s why they trust, but aren’t really serious about verify, and to the extent they are, they blithely assume that someone’s going to let them in to verify in the first place. That’s why they don’t see anything wrong with subsuming the country within horde after horde of illegal immigration. Because ultimately, we’re all the same deep down inside, aren’t we?

But are populations that seek to murder other populations the same as us, even, ya know, underneath it all? I sure hope not.

During his press conference this week with Afghan President Ghani, Obama offered his latest glimpse into the attitude the underlies his hope for partnership with the Iranians and the moral equivalence he attaches to the two sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict:

But I am required to evaluate honestly how we manage Israeli-Palestinian relations over the next several years.  Because up until this point, the premise has been, both under Republican and Democratic administrations, that as different as it was, as challenging as it was, the possibility of two states living side by side in peace and security could marginalize more extreme elements, bring together folks at the center and with some common sense, and we could resolve what has been a vexing issue and one that is ultimately a threat to Israel as well.

The presupposes that “folks at the center” among the Palestinians have goodwill and “some common sense.” But in reality, these folks have some very disconcerting views.

According to a just-released poll of Palestinians by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research, sixty eight percent support the launching of rockets from the Gaza Strip at Israel if the current security blockade imposed by Israel is not lifted. The blockade was established as a protective measure after the Palestinians voted Hamas, a terrorist organization devoted to the destruction of Israel, into the government and then Hamas seized full control of Gaza.

Launching rockets. On the heads of children.

Obama abbas
Obama and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas

Half of Palestinians polled support resumption of an armed Intifada, which mainly involves targeting and killing Israeli civilians.

Seventy four percent favor the “Hamas way” of resisting occupation, and 56 percent favor the transfer of Hamas’ armed approach to the West Bank.

Only half of Palestinians polled support a two-state solution, with the other half presumably hoping to drive Israelis into the sea and reclaim the whole place for the Arabs. AND JUST BECAUSE ONE SUPPORTS A TWO-STATE SOLUTION IN THE SHORT RUN DOESN’T MEAN THE ULTIMATE GOAL ISN’T A SINGLE STATE. It is. Talk to almost any Muslim Arab.

Only 39 percent support recognition of Israel as the state for the Jewish people in return for an Israeli recognition of Palestine as the state for the Palestinian people.

Most Palestinians do not support negotiations with Israel. Thirty seven percent believe that armed confrontation is the most effective route to statehood, 30 percent support “non-violent resistance,” and just 29 percent back negotiation.

Obama exists in his own world of presumptuous fantasies. The Israelis actually have to live in Israel, surrounded by Palestinians and other hostile Arabs, which is why they elected Netanyahu, despite Obama’s objections.

“Can You Pick Me Up? I’m Flying Into Obama”

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel floated the idea Wednesday of naming one of Chicago’s airports after President Obama.

According to Politico:

When asked at a candidate forum at Chicago State University why he was no longer supporting his own proposal to name two high schools after Obama and influential religious and community leader Arthur Brazier, Emanuel said that he was still looking for ways to “acknowledge people who have done significant things.”

“We have an airport, two of them, you know, Midway Airport, O’Hare Airport,” Emanuel said. “[Obama and Brazier] are people who have been transformative in the city of Chicago. But we have airports named after battleships.”

Don’t smirk. Eventually, something named after Obama could be coming to a place near you.

Dressing Up Spending as Something Else

I have some great news for you. The government has stopped spending your money! Instead, it’s investing your money for you.

And it’s all just middle class economics. Not welfare. Please.

I share with you the White House statement from Wednesday night on the budget that passed the House earlier in the day. I’ve highlighted for you all the PR buzzwords and phrases designed to draw your attention away from what the White House actually wants, which is more spending and fewer tax cuts.

Budgets are about priorities. This evening the House Republicans made clear that once again their priority is to cut taxes for millionaires and billionaires and return our economy to the same top-down economics that has failed the American people before. House Republicans voted in favor of locking in draconian sequestration cuts to investments in the middle class like education, job training and manufacturing. House Republicans also failed to responsibly fund our national security, opting instead for budget gimmicks.

The Republican priorities stand in stark contrast to the President’s plan to reverse sequestration and bring middle class economics into the 21st Century. Through critical investments needed to accelerate and sustain economic growth in the long run, including in research, education, training, and infrastructure, the President’s Budget shows what we can do if we invest in America’s future and commit to an economy that rewards hard work, generates rising incomes, and allows everyone to share in the prosperity of a growing America.

The President has been clear that he will not accept a budget that locks in sequestration or one that increases funding for our national security without providing matching increases in funding for our economic security. The Administration will continue to abide by these principles moving forward.

About this “middle class economics” stuff. If you’ve made it to the middle class, why do you need government assistance? I’m not saying the middle class is necessarily a constant blowout party. But if you’re making enough cash to more than get by, why do you still have a claim on someone else’s money?

I really enjoy the last one – it’s the newest addition to the lexicon of fakery going on here – “economic security.” This is a sleight of hand designed to place welfare spending on a par with spending on actual national security when it comes to keeping the country safe.

It’s truly egregious, likening handouts to the sacrifices of our men and women in uniform. But there you go.

Obama Ignores Congress Because He Thinks It Lacks Legitimacy

It occurred to me, after President Obama’s pronouncement last week in favor of forced, universal suffrage, that behind his contempt for Congress and his many end-runs around it is most probably the determination that Congress lacks legitimacy.

Now, where would more votes appear were there universal suffrage? Among Obama voters, of course, as he said:

If everybody voted, then it would completely change the political map in this country, because the people who tend not to vote are young; they’re lower income; they’re skewed more heavily towards immigrant groups and minority groups; and they’re often the folks who are — they’re scratching and climbing to get into the middle class.

So that’s his sentiment. More voters – no matter that they have less than low-information and can’t be bothered to vote except at gunpoint – make for a better democracy.

Now think about how he was elected and reelected president. By drilling down into his base. That is, making the electorate more representative of “the people.”

And when Republicans seized all of Congress in 2014, Obama wasn’t the least bit in awe of the event. Rather, he noted, only a third of voters went to the polls, and the views of those who didn’t show up were important too.

“To everyone who voted, I want you to know that I hear you,” he said at news conference the day after voters handed the Senate  to the GOP. “To the two-thirds of voters who chose not to participate in the process yesterday, I hear you, too,” he added.

Ah yes, non-voters made a principled stand! Assuming they weren’t supine and asleep.

boehner Obama

Many more people vote during presidential election years than during the off years, and in Obama’s case, the electorate, in his view, looked more like America.

Add in the influence in Congress of all those filthy lobbyists headed round the “revolving door” between K Street and Capitol Hill, and you have a much purer representation of democracy at the White House, in the mind of Obama.

So why listen to Congress?

Obama Signals He Will Confront Netanyahu

It was difficult to ascertain exactly what President Obama was trying to say today during his press conference when he addressed the issue of Israeli-Palestinian relations. But as far as I can tell, what’s going on is that the U.S. stance toward Israel is going to become confrontational, and the United States will join other countries in steps that provide some kind of recognition of a Palestinian state, whether the Israelis like it or not.

What gives me this impression is, first of all, Obama’s repeated “assurances” of the U.S. commitment to protect Israel. Such assurances aren’t needed unless something that suggests less U.S. commitment to Israel is about to happen.

But more to the point, Obama said that even Netanyahu’s walk-back of his campaign statement against a Palestinian state – Netanyahu subsequently said a two-state solution could occur if conditions like Palestinian recognition of Israel are met – shows that Netanyahu is not committed to a Palestinian state, and further peace talks are useless.

Obama said:

(Netanyahu’s) conditions were such that they would be impossible to meet anytime soon.  So even if you accepted, I think, the corrective of Prime Minister Netanyahu in subsequent days, there still does not appear to be a prospect of a meaningful framework established that would lead to a Palestinian state even if there were a whole range of conditions and security requirements that might be phased in over a long period of time — which was always the presumption . . .

What we can’t do is pretend that there’s a possibility of something that’s not there.  And we can’t continue to premise our public diplomacy based on something that everybody knows is not going to happen at least in the next several years . . .

We believe that two states is the best path forward for Israel’s security, for Palestinian aspirations, and for regional stability.  That’s our view, and that continues to be our view.  And Prime Minister Netanyahu has a different approach.  And so this can’t be reduced to a matter of somehow let’s all hold hands and sing “Kumbaya.”

So, fine, suspend negotiations. But here’s the new Obama twist: Instead of a policy of benign neglect and support for Israel’s right to makes its own policies, Obama is about to do what no president has done, namely, start taking the side of the Arabs.

Since talking is finished, he will begin pressuring Israel. And then, if the Palestinians resort to violence to augment the pressure, he will, in typical Obama fashion, blame others for the consequences of his policies. He’ll say the Israelis have been intransigent, even though Netanyahu has reiterated his commitment to a Palestinian state.

He’s going to start turning the screws. And Israel will be administered a brutal dose of hope and change.

Obama Calls to Give Bibi Hell

Well, President Obama finally called Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu Thursday evening to “congratulate” him on his election victory, but it wasn’t your typical congratulatory call. It was congratulations, Obama style.

It’s a little like congratulating someone on their wedding by saying, I hope you get divorced soon.

During the call, according to the New York Times, Obama threatened to change – presumably not in a good way – the U.S. relationship with Israel:

In a striking indication of how bitter tensions remain between the two, Mr. Obama told Mr. Netanyahu directly that the United States would have to “re-assess our options” after the prime minister’s “new positions and comments” on the two-state solution, according to a White House official who spoke without authorization to detail the private conversation.

According to reports, Obama also brought up Netanyahu’s election day warning that left wing organizations were busing Arab voters to the polls, employing the same rhetoric Obama aides have used suggesting the statement was “cynical” – i.e., racist.

Oh, and then there was the congratulations.

What Netanyahu said about Arab voters being bused to the polls is a fact. No one argues with it. What they criticize is his motivation for saying it.

Of course, statements of uncomfortable facts these days are often adjudged by the liberal elite as racist, intolerant, sexist, whatever. No matter that they are facts.

Here’s what Netanyahu said:

The right-wing government is in danger. Arab voters are going en masse to the polls. Left-wing NGOs are bringing them on buses.

What I don’t understand is, how are we to know that Netanyahu intended this to energize his – by implication of the criticism – racist voters? Everyone knows that Arabs were voting against him. Could Netanyahu’s statement not also have been an attempt to clearly delineate the threat to Likud?

It was the left that was actually targeting the Arabs.

If tens of thousands of Israeli Jewish delicatessen owners opposed Likud, and the Left was offering them free, quality pastrami if they go to the polls, wouldn’t it be natural for Netanyahu to warn Likud voters that delicatessen owners were being induced to vote?

What is never mentioned is that Netanyahu actually did soon try to clarify his message. He said:

What’s wrong is not that Arab citizens are voting, but that massive funds from abroad from left-wing NGOs and foreign governments are bringing them en masse to the polls in an organized way, thus twisting the true will of all Israeli citizens who are voting, for the good of the Left.

But there was no deterring the thought police at this point, who not only want to dictate your thoughts, but who think they can deduce them as well.

One of the policemen gave Netanyahu a call last night. And he’ll be writing tickets for the next two years.


Obama: Vote, or Else

President Obama Wednesday suggested that he supports mandatory voting, saying it would counteract the effect of too much money in politics.

Obama spoke in answer to a question at an event in Cleveland:

I think that — now, I don’t think I’ve ever said this publicly, but I’m going to go ahead and say it now. We shouldn’t be making it harder to vote. We should be making it easier to vote. (Applause.)

And what I haven’t said — I’ve said that publicly before. (Laughter.) . . .

In Australia, and some other countries, there’s mandatory voting. It would be transformative if everybody voted. That would counteract money more than anything.

Is there nothing that the Left won’t try to compel you to do?

Obama noted that mandatory voting would “completely change the political map,” obviously ensuring that more Democrats are elected:

If everybody voted, then it would completely change the political map in this country, because the people who tend not to vote are young; they’re lower income; they’re skewed more heavily towards immigrant groups and minority groups; and they’re often the folks who are — they’re scratching and climbing to get into the middle class. And they’re working hard, and there’s a reason why some folks try to keep them away from the polls. We should want to get them into the polls. So that may end up being a better strategy in the short term.

Meantime, the Justice Department will be battling all those racists and bigots who are trying to deny people their right to vote by requiring a simple ID card at the voting booth:

So my Justice Department is going to be vigorous in terms of trying to enforce voting rights. I gave a speech down in Selma at the 50th anniversary that was incredibly moving for me and my daughters, and the notion that this day and age we would be deliberately trying to restrict the franchise makes no sense.

The Founders, of course, permitted only landowners to vote. So there was a sense that some amount of judiciousness, thought, and responsibility should accompany the right to vote.

The suggestion on the table is that today’s bare standard that you have enough initiative on your own to get out of bed and make it to the polls – or at least fill out an absentee ballot – is too great.

Does Obama not see the ironies in this?

That by forcing the most ignorant and least attentive to vote, his Party would gain?

Or that he would actually coerce you to exercise your freedom?

Why Israel Should be Very Worried

Let me tell you three things about President Obama that auger very poorly for Israel. 1. Obama is, at heart, an internationalist. It pains him to make the United States the stumbling block in front of international opinion. Now he feels he is free to join with the consensus of the other internationalists at organizations such asContinue Reading

Obama Aides Won’t Rule Out Lessening Support for Israel

Top Obama administration officials refused Wednesday to rule out a reduction in long-time U.S. support for Israel, including refusing to fend off resolutions at the United Nations hostile toward Israel, according to Politico. The possible – I’d say all-but-certain – change in stance comes in the wake of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s reelection and his vowContinue Reading

U.S. To “Reevaluate” Approach to Israeli-Palestian Question

In the wake of an election that saw Israelis return President Obama’s detested foe – Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu – to power, the White House today said it would “reevaluate” its approach to the Israeli-Palestinian problem. Sounds menacing to me. Earnest, who spoke aboard Air Force One as Obama headed to Cleveland, noted that in theContinue Reading

Netanyahu Gets a Congratulatory Call . . . From India’s PM

Now this will be very interesting, to see how the White House handles Netanyahu’s win. It’s their worst nightmare, of course. Not only did the hated Netanyahu cruise to victory, but he did it opposing President Obama’s key Middle East policies: a nuclear deal favorable to Iran and a two-state solution for Israel and the Palestinians. WhoContinue Reading

How Obama Lost Iraq and Allowed ISIS to Bloom

President Obama is playing his customary Blame Bush card, trying to heave the Iraq catastrophe, featuring the ISIS caliphate, onto his predecessor. “ISIL is a direct outgrowth of al Qaeda in Iraq that grew out of our invasion,” Obama said in an interview with VICE News released Monday. “Which is an example of unintended consequences. Which isContinue Reading