Obama & Israel, "The hand that held the dagger . . . "

Another date that will live in infamy, December 23.

On that date, to borrow and update a phrase from FDR's famous June 10, 1940 speech on Mussolini's declaration of war on France, "The hand that held the dagger has stuck it into the back of" Israel.

Our execrable Ambassador to the UN, Samantha Power, abstained on the UN Security Council Resolution condemning Israeli settlements in the "occupied" territories (text.) This is not just another UN anti-Israeli resolution joining the ranks of thousands of previous ones.

Security Council resolutions are tantamount to international law. This one states,

Condemning all measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, including, inter alia, the construction and expansion of settlements, transfer of Israeli settlers, confiscation of land, demolition of homes and displacement of Palestinian civilians, in violation of international humanitarian law and relevant resolutions, 

Expressing grave concern that continuing Israeli settlement activities are dangerously imperilling the viability of the two-State solution based on the 1967 lines . . .

The Western countries that voted for this resolution should be deeply ashamed of what they have done. They will be seen as cowards by the Muslim world. This will not prevent any jihadi attacks in Europe, and, probably, will encourage them. They should also remember that there already is a two state solution: Israel and Jordan.

For decades, the US has used its veto power in the Security Council to stop these sorts of resolutions. We have, in private, expressed concern to the Israelis about overly "aggressively" establishing settlements  outside of the 1967 lines, but have never really pushed too hard. Previous administrations realized that the settlements were not holding up a "comprehensive peace treaty" between Israel and those sworn to destroy it, and by the way, western civilization, too.

We will see Israelis, private individuals and public officials, haled before courts in PC EU Europe and the ICC for living in "occupied territories." Those territories include, of course, eastern Jerusalem, or what used to be called the Jewish Quarter until 1948 when the Jews living there were expelled by Jordan's Army, and Jewish access to the Wailing Wall prevented. Israel, furthermore, continues as the only country not allowed to pick its own capital, and forced to consider a large portion of it off-limits to its own citizens.

Obama allowed this resolution to pass out of cowardly spite--notice he didn't even have the guts to vote for it, just to vote the equivalent of "present," much as he has done for most of his political career.

President Obama detests PM Netanyahu, and clearly has bought into the leftist view of Israel as a Western imperialist outpost, and, in essence, the cause of the current global jihadi explosion. This resolution will do nothing to further peace and, in fact, will make it harder as the so-called Palestinians will now see that they do not have to talk to Israel, they just have to come running to New York.

A reading of the resolution also shows that Obama has sought to throw a land mine in the path of incoming President Trump who had vowed to move our embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. In theory, by recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel then the US would be in violation of the Security Council resolution as we would have helped alter the "status of the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967."

What can Trump do?

He has a ranges of options. First, of course, join Israel in saying we do not recognize the validity of the Resolution; since we "ONLY" abstained, we don't feel bound by its strictures. Second, we should move our embassy to Jerusalem. Third, we should make it very clear that we are ready to defund the UN if this is not repealed.

Readers of this blog know my long-standing position that we should get out of the UN. As Britain has left the EU, so should we leave the UN.

Pearl Clutching Amidst a "New Arms Race"

Russian leader Vladimir Putin declared that Russia would seek to boost its military potential including its nuclear weapons. Not long after President-elect Trump announced that the US should do so, too, and that, furthermore, if Russia or anybody else wants to get into an arms race with us, so be it (N.B.: pun on "Soviet," I know, I know). We can outlast anybody in such a race.

As those of you who bother to dip into the progressive swimming pool can attest, the mainstream media and the chatterers are getting the vapors over the thought of a Third World War! Trump has really done it now! His finger is on the button!

All this reminds me of the 1984 election when every morning I would leave my house in northern Virginia, and see my neighbor's car plastered with stickers that read, "Reagan '84, World War 85." I guess I missed the nuclear holocaust that befell us because I spent most of the 1980's overseas.

Once again, the progs demonstrate either their deep hatred for America or their incredible naiveté when it comes to global affairs. They do not understand, apparently, the concept of peace through strength.

You know who does? Putin does.

A few hours after Trump's announcements, Putin was downplaying the issue, saying he looked forward to visiting Washington. He even sent Trump a Christmas card.

Putin knows, as did his Soviet predecessors, that it does no good for his country to get into that sort of a confrontation with the United States (and the West) when the US is presided over by a determined patriot who understands power and negotiations.

I am going to go out on a limb here and make a bold prediction: there will be no war with Russia in 2017. In fact, we have an opportunity, unless it's ruined by US domestic politics, to get Russian cooperation in the war against terror. As a Jewish former US diplomat, I would love to see the world's two most powerful Christian countries work together to defeat the jihadis and counterbalance China's global pretensions.

Merry Christmas to one and all.

Is There No End to the Progressive Insanity?

As we denizens of the northern hemisphere head into the darkest days of the year (Curse you sunny Australia!), we find that the progressive insanity intensifies: It goes on and on. Not since the heyday of the communists and their soul mates, the nazis, have we seen such a concerted assault on democracy and the free expression of opinions and will.

Here in our now very bedraggled and beleaguered US of A, the electoral results of November 8 have launched the progressive elites into far outer space; blood and brain deprived of oxygen in the vacuum, they writhe, thrash and smash. I have written several pieces about this progressive phenomenon, but allow me to dwell just a little more on the subject. I find it fascinating.

The progs whom I know, and, of course, the prog-run media and the hordes of prog politicos, entertainers, pundits, and other members of the prog-dominated chattering class, had assumed, nay, incorporated into their very being the belief that Donald Trump would never get elected President. He was just a humoruos buffoon who had nothing to say to America, not anything of any value, that is. The American electorate would follow the lead and exhortations of their betters and reject the "orange monster."

Hillary Clinton, the progs anointed champion in this go-round, therefore, ran an arrogant, aloof, lazy, almost lackadaisical campaign, that ignored certain realities, e.g., the electoral college, the growing anger in the country, and just assumed that the same crowd who voted in Obama would do so again--and this time, extra bonus points, the progressive candidate had a vagina! The progs tried to laugh off and ignore Clinton's serious crimes, lack of ethics, and long track record of producing nothing except wealth for herself. Her lack of a message to the voters was ignored as irrelevant since "everybody knew" what Hillary stood for, and besides, look at whom she was running against (snort, chuckle). She trotted out the tired prog cliches, showing no particular enthusiasm for them, and made only the bare minimum of public appearances before markedly unenthusiastic gatherings. She seemed to show enthusiasm and energy only when appearing before elite gatherings of wealthy Hollywood donors where she spoke of Trump's supporters as "deplorables" and "irredeemables." Then the night of November 8 rolled around. The cocky arrogance, the DNC directed violence at Trump rallies, the dominance of the media, the expenditure of over $1.2 billion, the slick adverts, and the massive popular vote electoral fraud could not produce a win. Trump was elected, and elected the old fashioned way: hard work, targeting the areas most affected by the insanity of the Obama years, and--horrors!--by actually listening to the concerns of voters.

For many of us, the images of Hillary supporters melting down in tears and wails proved priceless. Then the fury began anew. First, the demands for recounts in three states critical for Trump's win. That quickly fell apart as the recounts showed Trump GAINING votes and began to reveal the extent of the Democrats electoral fraud in places such as Detroit, calling into question one of Hillary's proud claims that, at least, she had won the popular vote. Then, suddenly, the Democrats became interested in the Constitution, Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, and the electoral college. With the complicity of a compliant mainstream media, they launched an absurd campaign to get 37 electors of the electoral college (out of Trump's 306 electors) to "vote their conscience," deny Trump the needed 270 votes, and, therefore, reject Trump as president. We had paraded before us an elector from Texas who gained fifteen minutes of fame by claiming that he knew of "at least" 20 other Republican electors ready to dump Trump and throw the election to Congress. The progs tried to sway the electors with violence, appeals to their patriotism and deep devotion to the Constitution. They wheeled out the usual tired Hollywood celebrities and "passionate" activists, whom the voters on November 8 already had rejected. These new patriots suddenly became incensed over alleged Russian efforts to influence our election! Mexico's efforts? Not so much . . . In the end, the "at least" 20 ready to reject Trump turned out to be two, and--Oh, endless joy!--FIVE electors previously pledged to Clinton jumped ship and voted for Colin Powell, Bernie Sanders, and--my favorite--Faith Spotted Eagle. It seems another two or three would have joined the defection from Hillary except that their state laws did not allow them. Not yet resigned to defeat, progs in Congress now talk about drafting legislation to ensure Trump's impeachment on day one if he doesn't divest himself of all his business interests . . . yawn.

I am sure on January 20 they will seek to disrupt the inauguration with their usual crowd of flag-burning, white-male-hating misfits. Our battle against our progs will be a long one.

Overseas, we see, yet again, another disaster produced by progressivism and its Molotov-Ribbentrop pact with Islam.

In Germany, governed by Angela Merkel, who competes with Obama and Trudeau for the gold medal as the stupidest Western politician, we have seen another slaughter of innocents by--ready for it?--a Muslim asylum seeker, this time apparently from Tunisia. He, it seems, murdered a Polish truck driver, seized his truck, headed into Germany, and for a Berlin open-air Christmas market packed with happy shoppers. He slammed the truck into the crowd killing about a dozen people, adding yet another dozen names to the list of Westerners killed by Islam and its useful idiot enablers in the West. I hope the Germans get furious and put an end to Merkel's destructive political career before she and her like put an end to what is left of Europe.

In Turkey, of course, we have seen the assassination of the Russian ambassador. For some reason I doubt that either Putin or Lavrov will shrug and say, "What difference does it make?" I am sure Putin will find time from "faking" Podesta and Brazile emails to ensure that somebody is going to feel a world of hurt. The PC culture does not survive in Moscow.

Yes, the days up north are getting shorter, but soon that will change, and I can only hope that Trump is as bad as the progressives make him out to be and our political darkness also begins to lift.

This might be our last chance.

Intel Agencies and Russian Intent: Ain't Buying it

Quick one.

There's all sorts of press reporting out there that now--surprise!--our myriad intelligence agencies, the same ones that refused to brief Congress, have reached a unified conclusion that not only did the Russians hack into the DNC, they did it with the INTENT of making Donald Trump president.

Yes, about that bridge you want to buy, please sign right here and have the money wired to my account . .  .

We saw our fearless president in one of his rambling, seemingly endless press conferences, continue to try to stick the shiv into Trump's ribs. All sorts of nonsense of how he stood up to Putin on Russian hacking some months ago and told him to "cut it out." Right. And that after those blood-curdling words from the American president, we saw a decline and maybe even a stop to Russian hacking efforts . . . right. Obama, of course, told us that the intel agencies had concluded that the Russian goal was to make Trump president . . . right.

Don't buy it.

I have been around intel agencies and intel briefings almost my entire adult life. Most intel is garbage. Some of it is very good but that usually is very narrowly focussed and has to do with hard facts: e.g., "Army divisions X and Y have been put on alert and all leaves cancelled." The intent? Ah, well, that's a matter for conjecture and speculation unless--extremely rare--you have a reliable source right inside the other guy's highest and most inner circle who can tell you what is being said and planned for those divisions. As I said, very rare.

Just days ago, as noted, the heads of our intel agencies declined to send briefers to Congress to provide the intel on Russian hacking of the elections. Leaked reports indicated that the FBI and CIA were at logger-heads over the issue of Russian hacking. Now, suddenly, unanimity. Right.

Now, suddenly, we know the Russians, under direct orders from Putin, hacked with the intent of turning the election over to Trump.

Fake news.

Don't forget that this odious misadministration has a long track record of fiddling with intel. Political pressure was brought, for example, to declare us as winning against ISIS, when the intel showed we were not. The CIA and others were forced to find that climate change is a greater threat than terror.

Look, the Russians and Chinese and others have been running intel and misinformation operations against us and our allies for decades. This Obama administration has taken a very soft stance on all of this, up until Hillary Clinton lost the election on November 8. Suddenly, the administration, Hollywood, the media, and, of course, the Democratic political class are in a patriotic uproar over foreign intervention in our elections. Prior to those elections we were assured by Obama and minions that our system was solid as a rock and that it could not be tampered with.

What happened to change things? Clinton lost. That was not supposed to happen! Now, suddenly, our election system is highly vulnerable AND our whole election, it is more than implied, has been thrown to Trump by these foreign actors.

Take it from me: this is bogus. The intel agencies know nothing of the kind. They might be able to say we have been subjected to hacking, I am sure we have, but the intel lads and lassies have no idea beyond speculation, much of it politically motivated, as to what the Russians or others intended. In addition, is there any evidence that shows that blue collar workers in Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Ohio, etc., voted for Trump based on the information "provided" by the Russians?

We have a situation today wherein the media and Obama seek to get us to forget what the "hacks," be they Russian or otherwise, revealed. I would note that the Russians did not make Hillary put an illegal unsecure private server in her bathroom closet and stuff it with highly sensitive information. The Russians did not make DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz try to rig the primaries against Bernie Sanders. The Russians did not have CNN personnel passing presidential debate questions to the Hillary camp, and on and on.

Is there foreign interference in our elections? You bet.

The biggest offender? Not Russia, but Mexico. Mexican officials publicly called on Mexicans in the US to oppose Trump; Mexico's over fifty--yes, fifty--consulates in the US (here) are hot beds of political activity and activism. Millions of illegal and legal aliens largely from Mexico and Central America vote, yes vote. We need to have an in-depth investigation into Mexico's interference in our elections, an interference that goes well beyond revealing embarrassing DNC texts.

There. That's an investigation the GOP should endorse, and the new SecState should take up the issue of Mexican interference in our elections.

A Few Words on The Cabinet

I was going to write about the progressives completely losing their minds and their masks as they carry on a mad onslaught to undo the results of November 8. I was going to write about how progressivism has revealed itself, yet again, as nothing but an "ideology" that demands power, power over individuals and their choices. I may yet write that piece but for now, let's take a quick look at President-elect Trump's main choices for his cabinet.

I like the cabinet he has picked and hope they all get confirmed quickly and without too much fuss.

I am full of hope that his SecState Tillerson, SecEnergy Perry, and EPA Administrator Pruitt will work together to spearhead achievement of what I consider one of the very top priorities for our country: US energy independence. These three are no-nonsense guys with a deep understanding of the energy business and an appreciation for how unleashing the tremendous energy potential that exists in the US--oil, gas, coal, nuclear--would give a tremendous boost not only to our economy across virtually all fields of endeavor, but also to our ability to act on the international scene.

One of the most amazing and not very remarked upon developments in recent years has been the almost total collapse of OPEC thanks largely to the American fracking revolution. As I have noted in prior postings (e.g., here, here, here, and here) DESPITE Obama misadministration opposition to US energy development, the US, thanks to its innovative private sector, stands on the verge of energy independence, something not seen for at least the past sixty or so years. The new administration, one in which adults are finally in charge, must ensure that we have government policies that allow that very welcome development to continue. Let me repeat, nothing could have a bigger, more positive, and more immediate impact on our economy and global standing than finally turning the US from being an energy importer into an energy exporter. No other single step, short of nuclear war, I guess, would have a more dramatic impact upon our foes and rivals in the world than have US oil and gas production become and remain a major player in the world oil and gas market. The impact would be felt in the ability of certain states to finance terrorism, e.g., Saudi Arabia, Iran, and in other states to finance dangerous international adventures, e.g., Russia, Venezuela. With the threat of energy blackmail removed, the US would have its international options dramatically increased.

I also like the choice of General Mattis for SecDef and General Kelly for Homeland Security.

The morale of my military friends has jumped northward quite significantly since Trump announced his choice for Defense. Mattis a man with a deep philosophical understanding of warfare, and, of course, a deep personal and practical experience with conducting modern warfare. He knows how to use military power, and the limits of that power.

Kelly will have his hands full trying to restore some semblance of sanity and sound operating principles to the Department of Homeland Security. DHS is a poorly cobbled together mishmash of disparate agencies with no clear guidance form the top as to what exactly they are supposed to do. Along with Defense, State, and so many other agencies, DHS needs a major reduction in size and refocussing of its mission on core issues.

OK. That's enough for now. I am feeling just a little TOO optimistic--and optimism is not my natural state--so I have to go to the gun range and embarrass myself.

Russia Throws the Election to Trump?

The Democrats continue to seek the cause of their November 8, 2016 defeat.

It reminds me of when we have an attack by a self-avowed Islamist terrorist, screaming Islamist slogans, possessing a computer full of ISIS propaganda AND enjoying the endorsement of ISIS. Such attacks are inevitably followed by anguished PC law enforcement authorities telling us how they are seeking a motive for the attack . . . some times a cigar IS a cigar. So we now see that the Democrats live in a land with no mirrors and must busily search for the culprit of their otherwise inexplicable electoral loss.

We've heard a variety of explanations. Let's start with Hillary did not really lose since the majority of "Americans" voted for her. The first thing to note, of course, is that almost half of Americans did not vote. Second, we should note that the Dems obviously do not live where the US Constitution holds sway since the presidential election is won or lost in the electoral college not by racking up popular vote totals  . . . that same Constitution, by the way, does not mention separation of church and state nor the right to abortion, but does rather explicitly recognize the right of the people to keep and bear arms . . . Moving on from that, we have, of course, millions of fraudulent votes; one day I hope we have a thorough investigation of that and a revamping of our insanely lax voting laws so that we can stop counting votes by foreigners, deceased people, and those who cast multiple ballots. We saw a glimpse of the fraud in the "recount" launched in Michigan when many thousands of votes in Detroit could not be recounted. Ah, yes, Detroit that hub of Republicanism . . .

Then, of course, we have heard from Clinton campaign gurus that they lost because of the FBI, then because Trump played the race card by appealing to white voters. Yes, of course! How blind of me not to see that race was critical in determining whether white voters went for the Democratic 70-year-old white candidate or they went for the Republican 70-year-old white candidate . . . race explains it all.  Misogyny? Yes, that explains why no women voted for Trump. Oh, wait. They did. And on and on . . .

Now they have latched onto an ol' standby, Moscow did it! The party that spent decades telling us to chill it on the anti-Red posturing--the same party, after all, that put Stalinist tool, Henry Wallace into the vice-presidency--and telling us that the USSR posed no threat, that we should seek detente with the Kremlin, that, we should note, the USSR had free medical care and education . . . Well, those folks are now obsessed with Putin. Yes, Putin, who heads up a country some 1.6 million square miles smaller than the old USSR, with a population of less than half the size of the old USSR, and a GDP less than one-tenth that of the USA . . well, he is the threat. In fact, we now have a whole media chorus claiming that Putin threw the US election to Donald Trump, and citing vague unnamed CIA sources as evidence.

I have written before about Putin and made clear I don't like his style of rule--authoritarian gangster--and I don't think we should blindly trust Moscow. That said, I have noted that Putin is a much more effective leader than Obama and has played his much poorer hand masterfully and at a level far above that of Obama-Kerry-Clinton. Putin has re-established Moscow as a major world power thanks, in large part, to the ineptness of Washington, London, Paris, Berlin, Ottawa, etc., in furthering and protecting Western interests. Obama has gutted our military, helped neuter NATO, opposed US energy independence, and prevented the USA from leading the fight against Islamist terror. Obama and company have made the world a much better place for Moscow and Beijing to pursue their interests at the expense of ours.

I have no doubt that Moscow and Beijing have no problem fiddling with our computer systems, stealing information, and trying to create as much havoc as possible. They've done that for decades and we need to be much more energetic in stopping them. But did Putin want Trump to win? Why? Not clear to me. Yes, Trump has made favorable nosies about seeking an alliance with Russia against Islamist terror, but he also has promised--and I believe he will keep that promise--to revitalize our military and industry and promote American energy independence, including, of course, fracking and other fossil fuel development in the USA--a devastating prospect for Russia's oil-based economy. The power balance will swing back to the US in a way it would not had Hillary and her cohorts taken power.

In conclusion, did Putin throw the election? I very much doubt it. I doubt those blue collar workers in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Ohio, etc., were marching to the beat laid down by Moscow. Hillary and her cohorts engaged in unethical and illegal activities which came to light and the people did not like those activities. Hillary was promising those voters a continuation of the Obama economy and of the Obama brand of soul-crushing progressivism. The Russians did not create the shady Clinton Foundation, although they gave generously to it and got access to US uranium in exchange, the Russians did not have Hillary put highly sensitive material on her private server, they did not have the DNC pass debate questions to Hillary, they did not . . . . well, you can fill in the blanks.

Fake News and Buggy Whip Makers

Fake news! Wow!

This is very serious. Don't laugh. The progs are atwitter, gasping, and clutching their pearls over the scourge of "fake news"!

Go ahead, type in the words "fake news" in your search bar and you will get a flood of stories about "fake news," its pernicious influence on the 2016 elections, on your brain's ability to function, and, of course, lots of advice on how to avoid "fake news" which basically comes down to read only the establishment media.

Somewhere, George Orwell is laughing.

Let's start with the obvious.

"Fake news" has been round since history began. "Fake news," you know, what your grandmother used to call lies . . . not a recent invention. And, I am not just referring to governmental or other avowedly political propaganda--we are not just talking about Hitler, Stalin, and Kim Jung-Un. Much of history, of course, is routinely denounced as "fake," or one-sided, or "the victor's account." We have a whole university-intellectual-media complex devoted to deconstructing historical accounts and rewriting them. So this is nothing new. Every generation rewrites the past. The heroes of yesterday are the villains of today, and vice-versa. Nothing new.

While this is nothing new, the progressives and their media acolytes have got what they think is a way of explaining progressivism's string of defeats in recent months, including, of course, the election of Donald Trump. So the progs do what they always do: lie, insult, berate, and, above all, try to silence the voices of dissent, all in the name of truth. If you disagree with the progressives you are a racist, a misogynist, an Islamophobic nutcase, and, now, you are a promoter of "fake news."

I have written before about how progressives try to redefine words and make them tools of progressivism. I have also written before about how progressive "journalists"feel compelled to lie and distort in their pursuit of "truth." The clamor about "fake news" is another manifestation of the totalitarian impulse in progressive thought and action, and, of course, another manifestation of the willful blindness they practice when confronted by an otherwise inexplicable narrative. As we see, "fake news" is defined as that which does not comply with the progressive narrative; "fake news" is a depiction of events that does not support the prefabricated progressive vision of the world.

Look at what the mainstream media terms as the purveyors of "fake news" and you will almost inevitably see a list of conservative commentators. I would be honored to be on that list.

As I wrote before when discussing the progressive fabulist Brian Williams,

he is a hero and a product of the Hollywood-University-Media complex which has done so much irreparable damage to our nation and Western civilization. 

Williams joins the ranks of other progressive "journalists" such as, 

Dan Rather, who tried to throw an American election by pushing a patently false story about George W. Bush; 

Janet Cook, who concocted a much-awarded narrative of an eight-year-old heroin addict; 

Jayson Blair, who fabricated a number of much-commented on stories for the New York Times; 

Sabrina Erdely of Rolling Stone who spread the UVA fake rape story; 

and, of course, who could forget, The Lord of Them All, Commissar in Chief Walter Duranty, New York Times apologist extraordinaire for Joseph Stalin and his mass murders in Ukraine. 

Now, of course, we have many more recent additions to that list. Should we not name as "fake news" the lachrymose Ferguson tale of "Hands up! Don't shoot!" How about the lurid accounts of the Zimmerman shooting? How about the Baltimore killer cops? How about . . . well, you get it.

The progressive overlords of the dying traditional media outlets strike me as akin to the owners of the last buggy whip factory railing against the flood of Model T's pouring from the assembly lines of Henry Ford. As happened with buggy whips, which became nothing more than an ornament on some car owner's wall, so it is with the old progressive media destined to serve as liner for the bottom of our bird cages.

Oh, and by the way, just to end on an even happier note, I bought a 1911 Colt Commander today. It, apparently, will be among the very last Colt 1911s sent by Colt to California. Beautiful gun; got to wait ten days, however, and must pick it up before the new year. The gun store, I would note, was a hive of optimism as customers and employees commented on the victory of Donald Trump.