A Simple Question for Hillary Clinton on Israel

Posted on June 16, 2015 by First.One.Through

In June 2015, Hillary Clinton claimed to have been a strong ally for Israel. Without getting into the history of her tenure as Secretary of State, (when she could claim she was following the orders of US President Barack Obama), here is a simple question for Hillary on her presedential run: will she reintroduce the pro-Israel Democratic platform that was present in 2008, but abolished under Obama in 2012?

Hillary Clinton speaks at her first campaign rally in New York City
June 13th, 2015. Photograph: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg

Specifically, will she reintroduce the pre-Obama Democratic platform that called for:

The isolation of Hamas until it renounced terrorism. As declared in the 2008 Democratic platform: “The United States and its Quartet partners should continue to isolate Hamas until it renounces terrorism, recognizes Israel’s right to exist, and abides by past agreements.”
The settlement of the descendants of Palestinian refugees in a new Palestinian State, not Israel. “The creation of a Palestinian state through final status negotiations, together with an international compensation mechanism, should resolve the issue of Palestinian refugees by allowing them to settle there, rather than in Israel.”
Dismissing the concept that borders should be based on the 1949 Armistice Lines. “All understand that it is unrealistic to expect the outcome of final status negotiations to be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949.”
Recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. “Jerusalem is and will remain the capital of Israel.” The party removed the statement, and then reinstated it after a bitter fight on the convention floor.

Obama made his pivot away from Israel very clear in his 2012 presidential run. What are Hillary Clinton’s intentions?

Related First.One.Through articles:

International-Domestic Abuse: Obama and Netanyahu

America’s Closed Doors

Posted on May 12, 2015 by First.One.Through

The spring of 2015 has been a tumultuous time for Americans.

Politics and debate are not new and neither are riots and war. However, it is typically the former that resides on America’s shores while the latter remains a foreign phenomenon.

Closed Doors at Home

Historically, when riots broke out in the United States, they were over isolated incidents such as after a sports game, a concert or visit of foreign diplomats. When protests had “a theme,” such as “Occupy Wall Street,” they carried on for a long time, but remained mostly non-violent. Today’s multi-city violent protests over a common cause is unusual.

The black community has had a mixed relationship with police for a long period of time. People on all sides of the political spectrum debate the reasons for the tension between law enforcement and the citizens they are there to protect. No one denies that there is a problem that is capturing more American cities, whether Ferguson, MO, Berkeley, CA or Baltimore, MD.

Liberal arguments have followed two general themes – racism and economic opportunity – which are actually one: Black unrest stems from the fact that a predominantly white populace holds positions of power. The power may be law enforcement (including the police force and lawyers), municipal government, banks or business. They argue that white people’s biases (whether overt or veiled) discriminate against black people.

The racism argument stems from the large number of arrested and incarcerated black people which is disproportionate to their population figures. The Department of Justice report on Ferguson, MO stated that “Ferguson’s police and municipal court practices both reflect and exacerbate existing racial bias, including racial stereotypes…. Evidence shows discriminatory intent.”

Counter-arguments point to the situation in Baltimore, MD where the mayor, the majority of the city council, the head of police and the majority of the police force are black. Yet, an unarmed black youth still died while in police custody and black violence took to the streets.

Regardless of the reason, doors appear closed.

Liberals argue that metaphorical doors to economic opportunity are closed to blacks which create economic hardship and frustration. Conservatives argue that doors are naturally closed to everyone; people need to open the doors on their own. The conservatives do not agree that metaphorical doors of progress are locked because of white bigotry.

Conservatives are focused on physical doors that are closed. Stores which were looted and burned to the ground may never reopen. Both the businessmen and community suffer from the destruction. For their part, liberals use such conservative arguments to claim that conservatives care more about business than about the lives of black people.

But more physical doors continue to close.

The city of Baltimore imposed a curfew. It barred people from attending a professional baseball game, the first time in history that a game had no fans in the stands. What will be next?

Closed Doors Abroad

America’s doors are closing due to violence and political snafus in other parts of the world as well.

In Yemen, the United States closed its embassy doors due to unrest in the country. The Obama administration had been using drones to attack rebel forces for many years, yet the rebels overtook the capital. It would appear that despite America’s outreach to Iran, the Iranians continue to back rebels in Yemen who fight against American allies.

America’s allies in the Middle East are not happy with Obama. While Obama invited the leaders of several Gulf countries to visit the White House to sell them on his Iranian nuclear deal, Saudi Arabia and other countries declined the invitation.

Just months before, it was Obama who snubbed the Israeli Prime Minister on his visit to the US, who similarly disagreed with Obama’s Iranian policy.

Regarding physical doors, both in the US and abroad, people are locked out of public places and embassies because the government cannot protect them. Metaphorically, America seems to be failing its citizens and allies as well.

At least Obama is focused on opening the door with Iran…. to get nuclear weapons while it chants “Death to America.”

US. Secretary of State Kerry and Iranian FM Zarif shake hands as Omani FM Alawi and EU envoy Ashton watch in Muscat.. (photo credit:REUTERS)

Look for Mom on Mother’s Day

Posted on May 8, 2015 by First.One.Through

Summary: Society’s ongoing demands for special recognition is making seeing one’s mother on Mother’s Day the equivalent of “Where’s Waldo”.

Just 101 years ago, on the brink of World War I, US President Woodrow Wilson declared Mother’s Day.

In its original format, it seemed like a nice, sweet, uncontroversial idea. Each person would make time to thank and honor their own mother for the love and effort they expended in bringing them into and up in this world.

Within a few months, many of those American mothers would be mothers-no-more, as over 100,000 American men died in combat. Americans reached out to those bereaved parents, and implicitly changed the singular “Mother’s Day” to “Mothers’ Day” in plural (as preferred by President Wilson over the wishes of the holiday’s creator, Anna Jarvis).

It did not take long for other societal changes to creep into this Sunday in May.

The first foxes in the henhouses were commercial opportunists. Merchants of flowers, candy and greeting cards convinced us that buying-was-caring, and that their wares were welcome with women, while warm wishes were watered down gifts.

They exploited the public “MotherS’ Day” and advocated that every mother you ever knew was important to recognize. Gone was the one-to-one heartfelt communication from child to mother. On came mass media and mega merchandizing.

This was much better for businesses, as now husbands were expected to buy more significant gifts for their spouses. Before long, jewelry and fashion accessories became the normal gift from a spouse, while the flowers remained a welcome gift from children. Meanwhile, terms of endearment became shorter than Twitter, as the space for sentiments was just the accompanying notecard.

As society expanded the definition of MotherS’ Day, many people came forward to demand their own recognition. The LGBT community called for more coverage of people who would not have historically been considered mothers. Others called on society to account for recognizing women with every conceivable iteration of motherhood or non-motherhood. It is now commonplace for a person grabbing a quick bite to be told by the cashier to call their mother.

How did all of this societal noise get introduced when the day was intended to be a direct communication between child and parent? Can American society soon expect extreme feminists will assault Mothers’ Day and try to replace it with a single gender-neutral Parents’ Day, the way they are destroying urinals and gender distinct bathrooms?

Hillary Clinton wrote a New York Times bestseller book in 1996 called “It Takes a Village” in which she argued that all of society is needed to raise a child. It would appear that our society is now demanding its acknowledgment in return. Perhaps you can simply use a megaphone and thank your mother in the crowd.

It is perhaps not surprising that the by-product of declaring a public day to have a private communication would eventually destroy that private moment and insist on the public’s inclusion.

However, I do hope that people can move past the cacophony of societal demands and advertising blitz to carve out time for personal expressions of thanks directly with their moms.

Source:

Wilson declares Mother’s Day

International-Domestic Abuse: Obama and Netanyahu

Posted on April 30, 2015 by First.One.Through

Summary: The relationship between Israel and the United States is not one between peers. While the United States is a super-power that protects Israel in many ways, Obama’s use of its dominant position has led to an abusive relationship based on control.

In an ideal relationship, parties treat each other with mutual respect and care. Close and special relationships, such as marriage, are especially intimate due to their exclusive nature. When such a relationship turns, and one party chooses to assert control over the other, that physical or psychological trauma is referred to as “domestic abuse.”

DOMESTIC ABUSE

Domestic abuse is a phenomenon that has a long sad history. It typically happens when a husband/boyfriend uses his power (money or physical size) to intimidate and harm his partner. As described in a blog:

“Domestic violence and abuse are used for one purpose and one purpose only: to gain and maintain total control over you. An abuser doesn’t “play fair.” Abusers use fear, guilt, shame, and intimidation to wear you down and keep you under his or her thumb. Your abuser may also threaten you, hurt you, or hurt those around you.”

The aspect of control through intimidation is a key component of domestic abuse. One party is effectively threatened to comply with the wishes of the dominant party. The independent will is crushed with the threats of or actual violence (active or passive) or from withholding a needed or cherished item. The abused partner has nowhere to turn, as it is reliant on the abuser.

The dynamic can be seen between countries as well. The historic special relationship between the United States and Israel, has devolved into such an abusive relationship.

Intimacy

The bond between the US and Israel is unique in many respects.

The United States of America was the first country to recognize the state of Israel
No other country has addressed the Israeli Knesset as many times as US leaders
No other country has addressed the US joint Congress as often as Israeli leaders
Israel has more companies listed on US stock exchanges than any other country, except for China (with a population over 160x that of Israel)
The US-Israel voting record at the United Nations is higher than the US has with any other major country
Israel is the only full democracy with freedom of religion and press in the Middle East, a key human rights concern of Americans

The relationship is not just one of shared values, but Israel relies on the US in several key areas:

Trade: The US is Israel’s largest export partner (over 2.5x number two UK)
Military edge: The US gives Israel $3 billion of military aid each year
Protection at the UN: The US protects Israel at the United Nations Security Council, often as the sole vote to protect the country from condemnation

The three aspects of Israel’s heavy reliance on the United States have come under pressure over the last few years: the BDS movement (boycott, divestment and sanctions) has attempted to hurt trade; a nuclear Iran would create an imbalance for Israel’s security; and the protective US shield at the United Nations is being threatened.

OBAMA-NETANYAHU
INTERNATIONAL-DOMESTIC ABUSE

A natural relationship built on shared values, now more closely resembles an abuser-victim dynamic, as Obama increasingly asserted his powerful influence over Israel:

In 2010, Obama gave Netanyahu a series of demands to get the Israel-Palestinian talks moving including freezing settlements. Obama walked out of the meeting and left Netanyahu to stew. Israeli newspapers described the shame and weakness of Netanyahu. Netanyahu complied with Obama’s demand.
In 2011, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and Obama had an exchange where they called Netanyahu “a liar” and terrible person with whom to deal.
In 2012, the Obama administration removed all of the supporting clauses for Israeli positions from the Democratic platform that had been there for years (Hamas is a terrorist state; Palestinian “refugees” would be relocated to Palestine, not Israel; future borders would not follow the 1949 Armistice Lines; Jerusalem is the united capital of Israel).
In 2013, while Iran threatened to destroy Israel, Obama entered into negotiations with the Iranians, preventing Israel from taking any actions against Iran’s nuclear program.
In 2013, Obama declined the invitation to address the Israeli Knesset. Instead he addressed a group of students at the same time stating his desire to speak to the Israeli people, as if the democratically elected parliament was not representative of Israelis. Consider the depth of the insult to Israel, as Obama spoke to the Egyptian parliament (in 2009) as representatives of Egypt.
In 2013 the Obama administration demanded Israel release Palestinian terrorists convicted of murder. Nothing was asked from the Palestinians. Netanyahu complied.
In 2014, when Israeli three teenagers were killed, Obama asked Israel to act with “restraint.” However, when two American journalists were killed by ISIS, Obama went to war.
In 2014, members of the Obama administration chose to disparage Netanyahu, calling him a “chickensh*t”
In 2015, Obama snubbed Netanyahu at his address to a joint session of Congress, and got 58 Democratic members of Congress to walk out as well.
In 2015, Obama is enabling Iran to become a nuclear state. Iran has repeatedly threatened to destroy Israel, and Obama has refused to sell Israel the required defensive weaponry such as bunker busters.
Most recently, Obama has threatened to withhold his United Nations vote to protect Israel.

The last two actions taken by Obama are particularly frightening to Israel’s Netanyahu.

Nuclear Iran: Enabling Iran to obtain nuclear weapons is a direct existential threat to Israel. Iran has threatened to destroy Israel and has a long history of supporting terrorist groups that attack Israel (Hezbollah and Hamas) with weapons and financing. With the government of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons, the country becomes an existential threat, its proxy armies become an enormous threat, and the ability for Israel to attack Iran is significantly weakened.

Further, Iran becoming a nuclear state would create an arms race in the region, as other enemies of Israel like Saudi Arabia will also seek to obtain nuclear weapons.

Withholding UN vote: The United States has used its vote on the United Nations Security Council to protect Israel from a wide range of actions including premature Palestinian statehood and harsh economic sanctions. If Obama follows through with this threat to move away from Israel, Israel would come under tremendous financial and security pressure.

CONGRESS TO ISRAEL’S RESCUE

Congress has taken note of the terrible trend in Obama’s actions and has taken steps to protect Israel.

Senator Lindsay Graham with Israeli PM Netanyahu

In April 2015, the Senate passed a bill making it difficult for any company to do business with a company or country that supported BDS of Israel.

Republican Speaker of the House, John Boehner invited Netanyahu to address Congress about the Iran nuclear negotiations. That speech launched the momentum for a role for Congress in the Iranian nuclear program negotiations.

It is difficult for Congress to take direct actions against the president’s policies at the United Nations, as he controls the vote. However, Congress controls funding of the United Nations as well as the Palestinian Authority. Senator Lindsay Graham has stated his intention to use the power of the purse to prevent unilateral UN actions against Israel. “Any effort by the French, the Jordanians or anyone to avoid direct negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians over the peace process, anyone who tries to take this [resolution] to the U.N. Security Council, there will be a violent backlash by the Congress that could include suspending funding to the United Nations,” Graham said.

All three issues on which Israel relies on the United States are under threat by Obama, and only the US Congress is attempting to ameliorate the situation.

If Israel’s neighbors did not threaten to destroy the country both directly and indirectly, perhaps Israel would not feel alarmed.

If Israel were not surrounded by an Arab winter inferno, perhaps its fears would not be so immediate.

If Israel had many allies in the world, perhaps the abusive relationship between Obama and Netanyahu would not be as upsetting and painful.

However, the realities are different. As such, Netanyahu has turned to Congress to become Israel’s domestic violence hotline . What a sad state of affairs.

Netanyahu’s View of Obama: Trust and Consequences

Posted on March 12, 2015 by First.One.Through

Summary: Obama has asked Netanyahu to trust him on an issue (Iranian nuclear power) that is an existential threat to his country, even though Obama hasn’t earned that trust on more basic issues. Obama then compounds Netanyahu’s fear by stating Obama will act completely alone in controlling the outcome. Netanyahu’s nightmare is not just becoming “1938 Czechoslovakia”, but “2014 Ukraine”.

Netanyahu and Obama

TRUST

Trust is the bedrock of a functional relationship. It enables one party to rely on the other. A trust that includes both intention and capability permits a sharing of responsibility and workload.

The relationship between US President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu started off badly and further deteriorated over the years. Personalities aside, the lack of a shared vision about the path to peace and security in the violent Middle East damaged relations. However, it was a series of bad decisions which destroyed the trust between the two leaders.

Negotiation with Palestinians. Obama’s actions early in his presidency, hurt his credibility with Netanyahu. Obama insisted on an Israeli settlement freeze as a pre-condition to negotiations with the Palestinians- a pre-condition that was never introduced before, even by the Palestinians. Despite Netanyahu’s serious reservations, he instituted a ten-month freeze on building new homes in the west bank of the Jordan River. In exchange, Obama could not get acting-Palestinian President Abbas to even show up to talk for the first nine months, and when he did, all Abbas offered was extending the freeze even longer.

When US Secretary of State John Kerry tried another round of negotiations with Abbas in the fall of 2013, the US again asked Israel to give up something to start talks while it made no demand of the Palestinians. Israel released dozens of terrorists that were convicted of murder from its prisons. In exchange, Kerry could not even get Abbas to recognize Israel as a Jewish State, let alone any compromises for a Palestinian state. The negotiations failed again.

In both situations the US pressured Israel to give up something just to initiate negotiations and asked nothing of the Palestinians. In the end, the Palestinians continued to give exactly the same: nothing.

Giving it away upfront. The Obama administration has used the tactic of giving away bargaining points upfront in the hope of gaining something in the negotiations down the road. In Cuba, Obama has pulled back sanctions, in the hope that the country reforms. In Iran, the US eased sanctions to get Iran to consider allowing monitors to watch it build nuclear power.

Netanyahu does not believe in such negotiating tactics and it has not worked out well for Israel.

Giving up on Allies. The disagreement on negotiating style is only part of Netanyahu’s issue. Israel and the Middle East watched the Obama administration turn its back on its allies. Egyptian President Mubarak was once a close ally of the United States. One day, the Obama administration decided it would no longer stand by its ally and called for Mubarak’s ouster. He was rushed off to jail.

The US’s Middle Eastern allies were dumb-founded by Obama’s action. A senior Arab government official stated “[The Saudis] are at odds with the U.S. position, publicly pushing Mubarak out. And frankly so are we—this isn’t how you handle issues in region.”

Failure to Understand Regional Dynamics. Obama’s turn on Egypt’s Mubarak was followed by an embrace of the democratically-elected Muslim Brotherhood. Obama’s infatuation with the “Turkish model” of democratic Islam made him welcome the new Egyptian ruler Mohammed Morsi. Morsi reopened Egypt’s ties with Hamas (the Muslim Brotherhood in Gaza) , much to the chagrin of Israel’s Netanyahu. Those actions also undermined the more moderate (on a relative basis) acting PA President Abbas.

Obama back-tracked from his support of democracy in Egypt by not objecting to the replacement of Morsi via a takeover by Abdul Fattah el-Sisi. El-Sisi clamped down on Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood which won praise in Israel. From Israel’s perspective, a mistake was rectified to some degree, but the damage done by Obama of not standing by an ally and not appreciating the regional dynamics was etched in memory.

Obama not standing by Treaties or Comments. In addition to not standing by allied leaders, Obama has not stood by his own word or by US treaties with governments. For example, Obama’s declared “red line” on Syria’s use of chemical weapons came and went without ramifications for Syrian President Assad. While Obama claimed credit for negotiating a solution to get rid of Syria’s known chemical weapons, there was no personal penalty for Assad. Assad continues to remain in power and murder his countrymen.

Saudi Arabia was incredulous and stated ““We’ve seen several red lines put forward by the president, which went along and became pinkish as time grew, and eventually ended up completely white…When that kind of assurance comes from a leader of a country like the United States, we expect him to stand by it.”

Obama asserting a “red line” on Syrian chemical weapons

The Ukrainian situation is even more telling. In 1994, Ukraine signed onto the Budapest Memorandum which was to guarantee its territorial integrity in exchange for giving up its nuclear weapons. While it adhered to its upfront part of the bargain by giving up its weapons, the Obama administration refused to enforce its end of the agreement by coming to the aid of Ukraine when Russia invaded and annexed Crimea in 2014. Russian leader Putin correctly assessed the temperament of Obama that he would fail to honor his obligation, just as he failed to take action in Syria. Putin has continued to move past Crimea to other parts of Ukraine while the US not only fails to come to the defense of Ukraine, but drags its feet in sending weapons to defend itself.

The situation is not lost on Netanyahu (while it is on the knee-jerk liberal New York Times which stated in its lead editorial on March 12, 2015 that “Republicans are perfectly willing to diminish America’s standing as a global power capable of crafting international commitments and adhering to them.” As detailed above, Obama has made very clear that HE has diminished America’s commitments, not the Republicans).

Obfuscation. The last loose thread in the unraveling fabric of trust is the lack of transparency.

While Obama touted his goal of transparency when he ran for office, his administration has been one of the least transparent. Witness Obamacare, where House Speaker Nancy Pelosi famously said “We have to pass the bill to that you can find out what is in it.” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ran her own email server outside of the State Department and deleted emails at her own whim. Now, Obama refuses to provide details of the Iranian negotiations with Israel.

The trust between Obama and Netanyahu is broken.

ACTING ALONE

Compounding the Israeli frustration with the lack of trust in the Obama administration’s dealing with Iran, is the unilateral course that Obama has taken. Obama has effectively barred Israel from attacking Iran and is attempting to seal negotiations without legislative approval.

Blocking an Israeli attack. As soon as Obama began to negotiate with Iran, it became impossible for Israel to attack Iran. How could Israel attack the facilities while the US was pursuing a diplomatic initiative? The start of Obama’s talks signaled the end of Israel’s ability to destroy their nuclear program.

Skipping Congress. Obama repeatedly stated that he does not believe that he needs congressional approval to sign a deal with Iran. As such, he has asserted that he has complete authority to negotiate and finalize a deal. The Republicans, which now have majority control of both the House and Senate, strongly disagree and have taken steps to make their position known to both the Obama administration and Iran itself.

COMPETENCIES and CONSEQUENCES

Israel’s Netanyahu is left in a precarious situation. As his country is under threat of annihilation by Iran, its close ally has put itself in the lead seat in negotiations. However, Netanyahu is looking at the current US president as:

Lacking an understanding of regional dynamics;
Incapable of negotiating;
Refusing to be transparent about the negotiations;
Unwilling to stand by statements and treaties in support of allies;
Determined to act alone without the legislative branch of government

The Trust in Competencies and Fear of Consequences leaves Israel in a vulnerable and lonely spot. While Israel fears it will be sacrificed at the alter of larger players like Czechoslovakia in 1938, it sees how the lead negotiator will not enforce any security agreements that may be struck, as in the embattled Ukraine today.

Related First.One.Through articles:

Arab states agree with Netanyahu in speech to Congress: https://firstonethrough.wordpress.com/2015/03/08/missing-netanyahus-speech-those-not-listening-and-those-not-speaking/

Conservative focus on safety: https://firstonethrough.wordpress.com/2015/03/01/the-gap-between-fairness-and-ramifications-wmds-in-iraq-and-iran/

Obama’s Iranian red line: https://firstonethrough.wordpress.com/2014/11/24/obamas-iranian-red-line/

The need for a global public reaction to Iran’s nuclear aspiration: https://firstonethrough.wordpress.com/2015/03/03/hidden-reactor-silent-reaction/

Liar, Liar! Hillary’s Pant Suit’s on Fire!

Posted on March 11, 2015 by First.One.Through

A satire of Hillary Clinton’s deleted personal emails

To: [tailor]

Can you make me something a little less boxy? Bill says I look like a Lego-character. Nothing too hip; I don’t want to lose my New England fan base.

A Hillaryous pant suit

To: Bill

Your JDate account just automatically renewed. Can you please cancel it? We’ve been over this before…

From: Bill

Good news. I spoke to your doctor about your concussion. She said you hit the part of the brain that handles the function distinguishing between good and evil, so there’s really nowhere to go but up.

To: Bill

Can you believe that arrogant pr*ck? He named his new dog after himself, “BO.” What kind of idiot calls his dog “Junior”?

To: Bill

Just heard Michelle has a staff of over 40! I knew someone would come along and have a larger first spouse-staff than I did. I just assumed it would be you!

From: Bill

When you see the Sultan [of Brunei] next week, please tell him he’s behind on his contributions to both my library and CGI [Clinton Global Initiative]. Give him a month [to pay up] before you attack his human rights abuses.

To: Bill

That b*tch Oprah took my spotlight on The View. I barely got to push my book. I need to find a new generation of journalists to field me softball questions and raise millions of dollars and Big O was sopping up all of the sun.

From: Bill

While I know the blue dress and black wig is your Halloween costume, would you mind wearing it on Valentine’s Day?

From: Chelsea

Mom, why don’t you ask Nancy [Pelosi] who does her face? It’s not like you’d be wearing the same dress.

From: Bill

Hill, you tell your mother-f**in boss to stop walking around like he’s the messiah; that’s our f**in office he’s in.

To: Bill

I feel like I live in a 48 hour per day-world since I work 24/7 and still spend half of my day on personal emails.

To: Bill

I’ve been doing a lot of spying on world leaders lately. How can we make sure that no one spies on us? Do we control all of our emails?

From: Egyptian President Mubarak

My dear Hillary, please bring over a few cartons of those amazing US cigarettes on your next visit. They are the only things that “boost” my libido.

To Bill

Can you believe it? I almost lost “Most Admired Woman” in the last Gallup poll to Palin. I hate this country. Why don’t they love me?

To: Chelsea

Don’t worry about marrying a Jew. You’ll see, one day the Gore girls will marry Jews too.

To: Huma [Abedin, married to Anthony Weiner, aid to Hillary]

I saw your husband’s picture – not bad, not bad at all. That’s what I call a shmuck!

To: Bill

I have to tell you- Beyoncé was right. Libya is really nice.

From: Chelsea

Mom, I hope you don’t mind that I have termed you “TechnoMom” as you’ve been so cutting edge on social media. I hope it doesn’t bite you in the ass one day.

ObamaCar to Address Garage Inequality

Posted on February 22, 2015 by First.One.Through

A satire

As huge storms battered the northeastern United States over the past week, President Obama noted how much harder it was for poor people to get to work. He called a press conference to highlight the growing garage inequality in the country. His opening remarks articulated that there is “a dangerous and growing garage inequality which produces a lack of mobility that has jeopardized middle-class America.”

Digging out in Boston

Noting how many poor people could not store their cars in warm garages and needed to dig out of the deep snow, Obama said “that success shouldn’t depend on being born into wealth or privilege, having a garage or a car with seat warmers,” and that storms like the ones over the past few weeks “decrease mobility and pose a fundamental threat to the American Dream.”

Obama has proposed “Promise Zones in urban and rural communities where we’re going to support local efforts focused on a national goal of getting everyone an enclosed parking spot.”

Valerie Jarrett said the situation was “ridiculous” and that poor people need to better appreciate that “their being discriminated against and the reasons for insufficient parking and enclosed structures in poor neighborhoods” is rich privilege. She has recommended making it mandatory for all cars to have seats that can reach 34.5 degrees Celsius by 2022. Cars without seat-warmers can be traded in under a new “Cash for Cold Assets” program.

Secretary of Transportation Anthony Foxx said that he was looking for Congress to authorize millions for public heated garage infrastructure.

Obama added that as recently as the 1950s, “the gap between the most expensive car and the least expensive car was 7 to 1. Today that gap is 70 to 1.”

Obama has said he will likely fund the ObamaCar programs with an excise tax of 2.3% on manufacturers of tires and garages, and cars over $65,000.

Lobbyists for the shovel industry are attempting to repeal the law.

Obama and the Saudis

Posted on January 28, 2015 by First.One.Through

“His foreign policy is like putting diesel into a car instead of gasoline.”
-satire of KSA King Abdullah on US President Obama’s foreign policy

The United States maintained a strong tie to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for decades due to its stable monarchy and enormous supply of oil on which the US economy (and its allies) depended. Many US administrations looked past the KSA’s human rights abuses to keep the relationship on solid footing.

That warm relationship between the countries existed until US President Obama began to change the traditional order of foreign relations. Obama did not favor stability; he did not reward allies. Instead, he advanced a new foreign policy paradigm in which he would undermine allies and try to build bridges to enemies. He would favor public opinion over the rule of law.

Obama’s “New Beginning” speech in Cairo in 2009 was indeed a new beginning. Within two years, Obama and his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, began calling for removing Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak from power. Shortly thereafter, the Muslim Brotherhood assumed power in a democratic election, just as the MB’s Palestinian branch, Hamas, won elections in 2006. The stability of the monarchies and dictators throughout the Middle East soon began to implode, and the “Arab Spring” shook the stability of the region.

As Saudi King Abdullah watched Egypt, his ally and neighbor to the west collapse with the assistance of the United States, he watched Obama establish warmer relations with his enemy, Iran to the north. Remarkably, Obama seemed content letting the Iranians obtain nuclear weapons.

In Syria, Abdullah watched Obama let Iranian ally Syria prance right through a bright red line that Obama had drawn loudly and publicly, after Syrian President Assad used chemical weapons in his civil war. Was this an ally to be trusted in the volatile Middle East? How long before he turns on his kingdom to reform and open elections to the masses?

More importantly for him, how long before Obama’s actions enable a firestorm in the Middle East that destroys his kingdom?

Sources:

King Abdullah hated Obama: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/397044/nbcs-engel-king-abdullah-could-not-stand-president-obama-brendan-bordelon

White House “New Beginning” speech in Cairo: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/NewBeginning/

Fouad Ajami on the Arab impression of Obama: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703499404574558300500152682

Obama’s Foreign Policy

Posted on January 27, 2015 by First.One.Through

Summary: Obama’s foreign policy is viewed by both liberals and conservatives as deeply flawed

Both liberal and conservative commentators had a lot to say after US President Barack Obama gave his State of the Union address in January 2015. They were not positive.

The liberals attacked their president as being divorced from reality. They highlighted several areas:

Iran continues towards nuclear weapons despite assurances to the contrary
Islamic State takes over Iraq after Obama calls them “JV” and claims that US forces have stopped their advance
Yemen falls despite Obama recent assurances
Assad controls Syria after Obama’s claim of helping moderate opposition forces (so marginal, can it be called true?)
Russia gets a mere slap on the wrist for invading Ukraine and taking over Crimea despite treaties with Ukraine

Conservatives have often berated Obama for practicing a policy which coddled enemies and rebuked allies:

Continued snubbing of ally Israel, particularly the Prime Minister Netanyahu (calling him “chicken*hit”, not meeting with him, walking out on him…)
Not showing up for unity rally in Paris after terrorist attacks (one of the only major western allies to not send anyone)
Refusing to help ally Canada with approving the Keystone pipeline
Pulling all troops out of Iraq after thousands of American forces died, to let the country fall into a terrorist haven

Here is a music video early in the Obama presidency which showed these paths started from the earliest days of his presidency (music by Genesis):

Sources:

Liberals attack Obama “asleep at the switch“: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxsyVO23G38

Mainstream media saying Obama “not close to reality“”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FcQE32_HSU

Criticism for snubbing Paris rally: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yt5xqO0FgI

Seeing Security through a Screen

Posted on November 24, 2014 by First.One.Through

The 44^th US President is surrounded by high walls
and peers out at the world through pretty screens.

In November 2014, “someone” in the Obama Administration chose to belittle the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The choice of expletives aside, the call was not just revealing about how much Barack Obama and his administration disliked Netanyahu, it reflected a smugness and cluelessness of the US Administration about living in the dangerous Middle East.

America at Peace

America has been blessed with peace on its shores. While the country has waged many wars over the past 70 years, the actual fighting was on foreign lands including: Europe; Iraq; Vietnam; Korea; Japan; Libya; Kosovo; Somalia and many other countries. Other than two attacks on American soil, the US has been spared fear and death at home.

Points in Time: There were only two days that the USA had foreigners attacking the country: December 7, 1941 and September 11, 2001. America has not faced a prolonged attack on its shores for centuries.
Troops Trespassing: Pearl Harbor and the 9/11 attacks were done via airplanes. Foreign warriors did not walk the streets of America.
Families Threatened: The two attacks were on military installations (the navy fleet and the Pentagon) and financial center (World Trade Center). America did not face an enemy that threatened homes and families.
Existential Threat: America is a superpower, armed with firepower that can destroy the world many times over. It has not engaged with an enemy that could threaten the very existence of the country.
Peaceful borders: America is lucky to have only two borders despite its enormous size. Both neighbors are friends, allies and trading partners of the USA.

None of these facts are true for Israel. Israel is surrounded by several enemy countries. These neighbors have stated their intention to wipe Israel off of the map and have repeatedly gone to war and fired directly into civilian population centers over and over again through the decades of Israel’s existence.

Lawyers as Commanders-in-Chief

America’s peaceful existence has enabled it to calmly elect presidents with no military experience over the last several decades. When America fought its great wars such as the Revolutionary War, the Civil War and World War II, the American people elected the respective generals to become the Commanders-in-Chief in the following years (George Washington, Ulysses S. Grant, and Dwight Eisenhower).

Never in battle. The recent US presidents and vice presidents (particularly the Democratic ones) including Barack Obama, Joe Biden and Bill Clinton had no military experience at all. George HW Bush fought in World War II, while George W Bush served in the National Guard but was never in battle. Al Gore served as a military reporter for a short stint. Other than HW Bush, these men never faced true fear or saw friends die in battle. They led the world’s largest military machine as Commanders-in-Chief without appreciating the danger and fear of deadly combat.
No draft. America no longer has a draft so every person that serves in the military does so as a volunteer. Such a system can mask the decision of deploying troops for a military commander. Each soldier is a volunteer and trained professional. This “professional army” is very different than “citizen armies” that pull people out of the workforce and touch every corner of a country. As such, American presidents fight wars without the same direct economic and emotional impact that face other countries.
The infrequent visitor. President George W Bush launched the Iraq War in response to the attacks on 9/11 and President Obama invested heavily in the War in Afghanistan. Each president made only four short trips to the regions despite deploying well over half a million troops in each war over many years.

In Israel, every person must serve in the armed forces. Every family deals with disruption to its business and annual routine. Each citizen faces the risks on a very personal level – physical, financial and emotional. Every family in Israel knows someone who died in one of its wars.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu served in the elite unit Sayeret Matkal, and took part in a number of military operations, including the 1972 rescue of a hijacked Sebana passenger jet. His brother died leading a raid to free Israeli civilians hijacked in Entebee in 1976. Other members of the current Israeli ruling coalition include Naftali Bennett who served in two elite units including Sayeret Matkal and Maglan. Yair Lapid served as a First Sergeant in the IDF.

Israeli Prime Ministers do not just visit the frontlines in each battle they fight- they can see the missiles standing next to their families from their bedroom windows.

The Obama Detachment

The detachment from reality regarding the fear and adrenaline of battle for an American president is compounded in the case of Obama, who is generally acknowledged to be a “detached” individual.

Constitutional law. President Obama has referred to himself as a professor of constitutional law. His leadership style exemplified this attitude whether on domestic matters such as Immigration Reform or the Targeted Killing of Anwar al-Awlaki when he delved into the nuances of particular laws in large legal briefs. Despite being the Commander-in-Chief, he is most comfortable as a lawyer surrounded by other lawyers sitting around a conference room table; he is clearly not a military leader surrounded by armed forces in the field of battle.
Community organizer. Obama’s background as a community organizer focused on ways to elevate a particular community within the 330 million-population of the United States. He has no background or experience in protecting the entire country, which every leader in Israel has experienced for several years.
Competitive sports. Obama is very proud of his athletic skills and people have noted his deep competitive streak. However, talking dirt about dunks is divorced from the reality of deploying troops in your backyard against enemies sworn to your destruction while the world admonishes your right to defend itself. Beating an opponent on the court has little to do with protecting ones citizens.
Battle by Remote. The best summary of the Obama detachment is in his moniker “The Drone President”. More than any president in US history, Obama has used drones to assassinate his enemies. The pilots of the drones may be hundreds or thousands of miles from the battle scene. Obama’s army drops the missiles and departs, never personally entering the zone of combat and therefore never exposed to danger.
The Ultimate belief in Self. Despite never being in battle, (other than some competitive basketball games), and relying more and more on mechanized drones in the battlefield, Obama has a tremendous sense of his centrality to the war machine. After US marines assassinated Osama bin Laden while Obama sat and watched on a screen, his speech to the nation the next day was littered with an active “I” to describe the mission.
1. “I directed Leon Panetta”
2. “I was briefed”
3. “I met repeatedly”
4. “I determined”
5. “I, as Commander-in-Chief”

Obama and his administration sit in their comfy offices in their calm country thousands of miles from confrontation and peer into the battle through TV screens and simulators. They watch their orders for assassinations and wars, with laptops and coffee. Their added security blanket of being a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, adds yet another shield from any serious global charge. As Mel Brooks once aptly said “It’s good to be the King.”

Obama, Clinton and crew watch the attack on Bin Laden on monitors,
May 2011

Remarkably, Obama, the cloistered captain, touts his talents and has the temerity to taunt his unloved ally, the besieged Bibi Netanyahu.

The Israeli Prime Minister, the “chick*hit” that the Obama administration referred to, never had the ability to be so smug. His backyard contains a museum memorializing millions of relatives slaughtered for the crime of being a Jew just a few decades ago. He grew up with a gun in his hand to fight terrorists attacking his neighbors, and armies attacking his country. He wakes each morning knowing that his house and family are in the comfortable crosshairs of enemies sworn to destroy him, his country and his people.

In addition to his enemies, today Netanyahu has to fight against a world that admonishes him for protecting his people. He has to contend with his greatest ally, the United States, which continues to make it impossible to preemptively attack and destroy Iran’s nuclear weapons.

Insults are not a big deal for a leader who has fought for the survival of his people; Bibi has been called worse by members of his own parliament.

The insult says much more about Obama than it does about Bibi.

Sources:

The Atlantic on Obama anger at Bibi: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/10/the-crisis-in-us-israel-relations-is-officially-here/382031/

Obama visits Afghanistan: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-arrives-in-afghanistan-on-surprise-visit/2014/05/25/7df61452-e41f-11e3-8f90-73e071f3d637_story.html

Bush visit Iraq: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/background-bushs-surprise-visits-to-iraq-afghanistan/

Obama Constitutional Law Professor: http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/obama-a-constitutional-law-professor/

Obama detached: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/democrats-privately-calling-obama-detached-flat-footed-incompetent_793544.html

Obama competitive sports: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/08/book-obama-driven-by-competitive-streak-/1#.VHMoCLMtCUk

Legal Case for Killing: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/world/middleeast/anwar-al-awlaki-a-us-citizen-in-americas-cross-hairs.html?hp&_r=0

Obama speech on Bin Laden: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/05/02/osama-bin-laden-dead