The Trump Pinata Preserving the False Obama Messiah

Posted on December 1, 2016 by First.One.Through

Summary: Democrats have been pounding on Trump and his loss in the popular vote to defend the legacy of their anointed liberal messiah. Stating that Clinton Hillary lost just because of “racists and misogynists” as the New York Times declares, is to ignore the facts of the failed Obama policies.

Democrats burning an effigy of Donald Trump on Easter

Barack Obama was hailed as the deliverer when he was elected president in 2008. Indeed, in the election of 2008, the Democrats swept all branches of government, including adding 8 seats in the Senate, 21 seats in the House of Representatives, plus a governorship. When Obama was sworn into office in January 2009, Democrats held 57% of the Senate, 59% of the House and 58% of the state governors. Quite a victory and mandate.

The Democrats chose to use their mandate to advance a liberal agenda. Their primary focus was healthcare which had been increasing in costs at rates that far surpassed inflation. Rather than implement solutions that would cut to the core of the cost structure like major tort reform, they advanced a program for Americans to subsidize the millions of uninsured, creating a new, complicated entitlement program.

The American people balked at the Democrats’ actions.

In the 2010 election, the Democrats were trounced, losing 6 seats in the Senate, 63 seats in the House and 6 governorships. Did the population that had just elected Obama two years earlier suddenly become racist and xenophobic?

In the 2012 election, Obama won the presidency again, and brought along some Democratic victories in the Senate (+2) and House (+8), while it lost another state governor to the Republicans. But the net losses for the Democrats over Obama’s first term were still huge: -2 Senate seats; -56 House seats; and -10 governors, from 29 down to 19. All of these losses were realized before the rise of Donald Trump.

The 2014 election witnessed another thrashing of the Democrats. The Democrats lost 9 Senate seats, 13 House seats, and another 3 governorships. And Donald Trump had still not declared that he was running for office.

By the time Barack Obama steps down from office in January 2009, he will have stood watch as his party was eviscerated over his eight years. The Democrats would have lost the majority of the Senate (from 57% to 48%), the majority in the House (from 59% to 45%) and state governors (from 58% to 30%). The vast majority of all of the losses happened during Obama’s first term, post passing of Obamacare.

How has the Democratic party reacted? What did the liberal press claim was the reason for Democrats losing the White House?

Racism. Xenophobia. Misogyny. Anti-Semitism.

The Democrats could not reevaluate the party’s stances and actions. It could not fathom that the American people did not care for the failures in US foreign policy, doubling down on entitlements rather than entitlement reform, or a sloppy economy. The Democrats chose to look through a lens of hatred as it considered an America that turned on its messiah and his second coming, in Hillary.

What are the facts?

Men preferred Obama in 2008 by a small margin, but turned against him by a spread of 7 points in 2012. By 2016, men preferred Republican Donald Trump by an incremental 5 points (a total 12% spread). The liberals ignored the facts and trends. They declared that men are misogynists because they didn’t vote for Hillary. The reality that men turned away from Democratic policies – by an even wider margin – four years earlier is seemingly irrelevant to people who view things from a singular biased vantage point.

Hillary preached to her liberal base as she proudly called Republicans enemies. She did not bat an eyelash as she labeled half of America “deplorables.” Only white racists and misogynists could possibly turn from Obama and Hillary in this world view. To fathom that America would reject this woman, or reverse course in undermining the legacy of the first black president, was too much for the liberal psyche.

So the liberals continue to paint their political opponents as the “alt-Right,” as they double-down on a more “progressive” approach against a stupid and racist populace. They have chosen to nominate a far left black Muslim to head the Democratic Party.

The Democratic approach seems to be: if you challenge us because of poor policies, we can accuse you of racism, homophobia, Islamophobia, or any slur that seems appropriate.

Rep. Keith Ellison was a listed speaker at a pro-BDS, anti-Israel conference

And who is better to represent that liberal view of a biased America, than the new President-elect, who has made comments that offend Muslims, women and illegal immigrants?

Democrats will pound on the Trump piñata and burn the American flag as they try to protect the legacy of their liberal messiah. The divisive America will not abate until people focus on core issues, instead of name-calling.

Related First.One.Through articles:

Michael Bloomberg Talks to America about Marrying a Prostitute

Money Can’t Buy Clinton Love

Eyes Wide Shut

Older White Men are the Most Politically Balanced Demographic By Far

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis

What Would America’s Founding Fathers say to Barack Obama?

Posted on July 27, 2016 by First.One.Through

US President Barack Obama addressed the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia, PA on July 27, 2016. The founding fathers would like to reply:

Patriots on Executive Actions:
“It is not tyranny we desire; it’s a just, limited federal government.” Alexander Hamilton
“The essence of government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse.” James Madison
“In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.” James Madison

Patriots on Defining the Enemy:
“A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it the superficial appearance of being right.” Thomas Paine

Patriots on Gun Control:
“Are we at last brought to such humiliation and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense?” Patrick Henry
“Americans have the right and advantage of being armed – unlike citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” James Madison

Patriots on Obamacare:
“It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood.” James Madison

Patriots on Funding Abortion:
“To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.” Thomas Jefferson
“The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed” James Madison

Patriots on Government Welfare and Charitable Endeavors:
“Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.” James Madison

Patriots on Orders for Tax Audits of Political Opponents:
“Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties or his possessions.” James Madison

Patriots on Oratory Skills:
“Well done is better than well said.” Ben Franklin

Patriots on Reducing the Military:
“To be prepared for war is one of the most effective means of preserving peace.” George Washington

Patriots on Military Exercises in Libya and Elsewhere:
“The constitution vests the power of declaring war in Congress; therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they shall have deliberated upon the subject and authorized such a measure.” George Washington
“The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home” James Madison

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton’s Foreign Policy on Israel is like the United Nations

Posted on July 17, 2016 by First.One.Through

As Barack Obama ends his presidency and his former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton seeks to become the next president, it is worth noting the similarity between Obama/Clinton and the United Nations in their stances towards Israel.

Neither Obama nor the United Nations will refer to terrorism as coming from radical Islam
Both Obama and the UN think a root cause of terrorism is from poverty, even though research shows no correlation
Both Obama and the UN have aligned themselves with some of the worst state sponsors of terrorism including Iran and Saudi Arabia
Both Obama and the UN are highly critical of Israel
Both Obama and the UN state that Palestinian Arabs “resort” to violence because they are “frustrated,” even though the two main political Palestinian parties, Fatah and Hamas, both have charters calling for the destruction of Israel
Neither Obama nor the UN will state that they stand in solidarity with Israel in its fight against terrorism
Both Obama and the UN want Israel to stop the blockade of Gaza meant to curtail weapons shipments into Hamas, even though the blockade was deemed legal by a UN report
Both Obama and the UN endorse the anti-Semitic Palestinian platform of a new country devoid of any Jews
Both the UN and Obama want to see the terrorist group Hamas be part of a Palestinian unity government
Both Obama and the UN refer to acting President of the Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas as a “moderate” and seeking peace, even though he is much more extreme than the “right-wing” current Israeli government
Both the UN and Obama prejudge the outcome of negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinian Arabs arguing for a two-state solution, even though the Oslo II Accords never call for such conclusion
Both the UN and Obama prejudge the outcome of negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinian Arabs arguing that Jerusalem should be divided, even though the Oslo II Accords never call for such conclusion

US President Barack Obama and United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki Moon

The United Nations under UNSG Ban Ki Moon continued its long and terrible history of being very anti-Israel. Unfortunately, this US administration, headed by Obama, aligned itself with those same disgraceful positions.

Related First.One.Through articles:

The United Nations’ Ban Ki Moon Exposes Israeli Civilians

The Undemocratic Nature of Fire and Water in the Middle East

The United Nations’ Remorse for “Creating” Israel

UN Press Corps Expunges Israel

A “Viable” Palestinian State

Subscribe YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: Israel Analysis

The Dangerous Red Herring Linking Poverty and Terrorism

Posted on July 13, 2016 by First.One.Through

There is a commonly held thought that if society understood the root cause of a problem, it would be able to arrive at solutions. Such reasoning implies that diagnosis is an essential part of solving the problem.

One of the major problems confronting the world in the 21^st century is terrorism. Innocent civilians are being murdered and maimed in such diverse places as: Bangladesh; Turkey; France; United States; Nigeria; Israel; India; England and Libya. Stopping such violence is a global priority.

In attempting to stop the scourge, the United Nations and the United States made a common diagnosis and prescription for stopping terrorism: poverty leads to despair and violence, so solving global poverty would eradicate terrorism.

The problem with the diagnosis is that it has no basis in fact.

The United Nations on Poverty and Terrorism

The UN developed a global counter terrorism strategy which called on all of its member states to take a series of steps to eradicate terrorism. It stated:

“Affirming Member States’ determination to continue to do all they can to resolve conflict, end foreign occupation, confront oppression, eradicate poverty, promote sustained economic growth, sustainable development, global prosperity, good governance, human rights for all and rule of law, improve intercultural understanding and ensure respect for all religions, religious values, beliefs or cultures” would promote stability and end terrorism.

The UN repeated its call for economic opportunity for all as a cure for stopping the mass murder of innocents in its Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy:

“To reiterate our determination to ensure the timely and full realization of the development goals and objectives agreed at the major United Nations conferences and summits, including the Millennium Development Goals. We reaffirm our commitment to eradicate poverty and promote sustained economic growth, sustainable development and global prosperity for all.”

While no one would suggest that poverty is positive, it also true that pollution and disease are problems plaguing our global society. Yet the UN had enough sense to not include those issues in a document meant to specifically address terrorism (yet- is global warming coming?).

The Obama Administration was in sync with this line of thinking.

The United States on Poverty and Terrorism

In February 2015, after terrorists beheaded Christians on a beach in Libya, the US State Department’s spokesperson Marie Harf said that the root cause of extremism was poverty:

“the root causes that lead people to join these [terrorist] groups, whether it’s lack of opportunity for jobs…we can work with countries around the world to help improve their governance, we can help them build their economy so they can have job opportunities for these people….If we can help countries work at the root causes of this- what makes a 17-year old kid pick up an AK-47 instead of trying to start a business, maybe we can try to chip away at this problem.”

President Obama made similar remarks about Countering Violent Extremism at a summit at the same time where he said:

“we must address the grievances that terrorists exploit, including economic grievances. As I said yesterday, poverty alone does not cause a person to become a terrorist, any more than poverty alone causes someone to become a criminal. There are millions, billions of people who are poor and are law-abiding and peaceful and tolerant, and are trying to advance their lives and the opportunities for their families.

But when people — especially young people — feel entirely trapped in impoverished communities, where there is no order and no path for advancement, where there are no educational opportunities, where there are no ways to support families, and no escape from injustice and the humiliations of corruption — that feeds instability and disorder, and makes those communities ripe for extremist recruitment. And we have seen that across the Middle East and we’ve seen it across North Africa. So if we’re serious about countering violent extremism, we have to get serious about confronting these economic grievances.”

U.S. President Barack Obama speaks during the White House Summit on Countering Violent Extremism at the State Department in Washington
February 19, 2015. (Photo: Reuters / Joshua Roberts)

The United Nations and the Obama administration were lock-step in finding the root cause of terrorism. Insanity had company.

No Connection Between Poverty and Terrorism

The UN and the Obama Administration have repeated this poverty propaganda without any evidence, or more specifically, despite the evidence.

Osama Bin Laden, the mastermind of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 was from a wealthly family, as were many of the hijackers on the planes.

The terrorism that struck Bangladesh in July 2016 was perpetrated by wealthy men that attended elite universities.

This is often the norm.

The National Bureau of Economic Research did a study in September 2002 that found no connection between poverty and terrorism. Among its findings was that racism and nationalism was behind the widespread support for killing Israeli Jewish civilians among Palestinian Arabs of all income levels.

A report by the Brookings Institute in 2010 authored by Corinne Graff noted that:

“since 9/11, terrorism experts have invoked empirical evidence that poverty does not correlate with a higher incidence of terrorist attacks and participation. The consensus appears to be that poverty does not motivate individuals to participate in terrorism, and that development assistance, therefore, has no place in a longer-term counter-terrorism strategy.”

The New York Times also came around to reporting this conclusion on March 27, 2016, in an article called “Who Will Become a Terrorist? Research Yields Few Clues.” The article discussed how there is little correlation between an a person’s education and poverty level with the probability he will engage in acts of terrorism. For example, the shooters in San Bernardino, CA in December 2015 were a middle class couple.

Yet the global body of the United Nations, and the most powerful democracy on the planet, the United States, are working on combatting terrorism with a flawed world view.

Ramifications

There are many ramifications of chasing a myth. The implications are enormous when the subject is combatting global terrorism.

President Obama was correct when he called out the “warped ideologies espoused by terrorists like al Qaeda and ISIL” that use “their propaganda to Muslim communities, particularly Muslim youth” to advance a program to kill innocents. He is also correct that “Muslim communities, including scholars and clerics, therefore have a responsibility to push back” against these dangerous notions.

All citizens of the world have a similar responsibility to push back against the Obama administration and the United Nations that is pivoting the focus of counter-terrorism to economic development. The tactic to fight against twisted ideologies cannot be to give those communities more jobs and money. Such thinking led the Obama administration to give the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism, Iran, an estimated $150 billion and a legal pathway to obtain ballistic missiles, while keeping its nuclear infrastructure in place. The Obama administration logic that the Islamic Republic of Iran will be so happy to have the money and be embraced by the global community, that it will abandon sponsoring terrorism and its twisted ideology, has (yet) to play out.

Meanwhile, the world does little to combat the narrative and ideology itself.

In Gaza, the United Nations has allowed the Hamas government to ban the teaching of the Holocaust in UNRWA schools, and the teaching of global human rights. Instead, UN Secretary General just talks about providing economic opportunity to Gaza. When the UNSG said that he stands with Gaza, while never pushing to reform the thinking of the Palestinian Arabs, what message does he think he is conveying?

There was a thin line that separated the “Hope” that characterized the election of Obama in 2008, and the “wishful thinking” without basis in fact, that Obama’s detractors feared. The trauma of global terrorism that has spread on his watch is anchored in a worldview that often denies uncomfortable truths and replaces it with a propaganda of his own.

Related First.One.Through articles:

Failures of the Obama Doctrine and the Obama Rationale

Obama’s “Values” Red Herring

The Invisible Anti-Semitism in Obama’s 2016 State of the Union

Liberals’ Biggest Enemies of 2015

Absolute and Relative Ideological Terrorism in the United States

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis

While Joe Biden Passionately Defends Israel, He Ignores Jewish Rights and the History of the Jewish State

Posted on March 22, 2016 by First.One.Through

Vice President Joe Biden addressed the AIPAC Policy Conference in Washington, D.C. on March 20, 2016. He spoke passionately about the importance of the security of Israel and America’s commitment to defend Israel.

At roughly the 29 minute mark of the speech, he said that “One thing is certain: the United States will constantly and forever have Israel’s back….no administration has done more to advance the security of Israel than we [this administration] have. Our commitment to Israel’s qualitative military edge is unquestionable; it will not change.” Putting aside the enormity of the pending threat of Iran from the JCPOA, the statement strikes many people in the Israeli government as accurate.

Vice President Joe Biden at AIPAC, March 20, 2016

However passionately Biden spoke about the importance of Israel’s security and America’s commitment to such, he confused the cause of safety, with the contours of the basic history of the Jewish State. At three different occasions Biden spoke about the Holocaust and the current anti-Semitism in Europe. He stated that Israel needs to exist “as the ultimate guarantor of security for Jewish people around the world…Never, never, never again! And without Israel, there is no guarantee.”

The pro-Israel crowd rose to its feet in a standing ovation (video 33:30).

I was sad.

“Never Again” is universal. It is the moral, ethical and primary responsibility of every government to protect each and every one of its citizens. It is true that many countries throughout history have turned on the Jews. But in 2016, I expect the Vice President of the United States of America to stand a foot taller and declare twice as loud as the French Prime Minister Manuel Valls who said “if 100,000 Jews leave, France will no longer be France. The French Republic will be judged a failure.”
”Never Again” should not just be a slogan inside of Israel; it must be the slogan of every country in the world. How could a leader of the greatest country in the world pawn off the security of Jews to Israel alone?
Modern Israel is the Third Jewish State. Israel was not created as a reaction to the Holocaust in World War II. It was not made as the United Nations’ pen for holding people out of harm’s way. That is a mischaracterization that President Obama has made repeatedly over his term. In his interview in The Atlantic in 2015, Obama compared the security of Jews to American blacks when he said “There’s a direct line between supporting the right of the Jewish people to have a homeland and to feel safe and free of discrimination and persecution, and the right of African Americans to vote and have equal protection under the law. These things are indivisible in my mind.”
Nope.
Israel was established in international law as the homeland of the Jewish people in 1920 in the San Remo Agreement, well before World War II. The 1922 British Mandate for Palestine clearly stated that the reason for the Jewish homeland in Palestine was specifically because of “the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country.” The mandate facilitated Jews to move there, acquire property and citizenship once again.

Does the myopic view of Vice President Biden seeing and describing Israel solely as a safe haven for Jews matter?

You bet.

Without an understanding of Jewish history that dates back more than 3000 years in the land, and the international law that gives Jews the option of living throughout the land, Jews have no real rights. They are interlopers and recent arrivals in “Arab lands,” rather than the indigenous people. They are only entitled to security – and that security could be in an arbitrary, very small part of the holy land.

That is why the Obama administration calls Jewish homes east of the Green Line (EGL) as “illegitimate.” That is why the administration could propose “settlement freezes.” It leads to a view that Jerusalem, the holiest city to only one religion (Judaism), that has been the capital city of only one people in history (Jews), could be subject to negotiation and division.

When Biden said (video 20:45-22:45) that settlements hurt the chance for peace with Palestinian Arabs, he wasn’t just advocating splitting the land; he was segmenting his logic and ignoring facts. To him, Israel has no inherent rights and Jews have no freedom to live where they want. Israel and Jews are only entitled “to exist” with security.

For their part, the Democratic administration argues that Palestinians are entitled to “dignity and self-determination.” And if that “dignity” means anti-Semitic laws, banning Jews and squashing the freedoms and rights of Jews, this administration will support it – as long as Israel has security.

Such a view destroys there ever being peace between Israel and Arabs.

The underlying reason preventing peace is the Arabs’ refusal to recognize the basic and fundamental rights Jews have for living in the land – regardless of whether it is under an Israeli flag, a Jordanian flag or a future Palestinian flag. Sadly, the Obama administration holds the same position.

Perhaps, sadder still, is watching a pro-Israel community applaud.

Related First.One.Through articles:

The Narrative that Prevents Peace in the Arab-Israeli Conflict

The Invisible Anti-Semitism in Obama’s 2016 State of the Union

Obama’s “Values” Red Herring

The Arguments over Jerusalem

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis

Grading Evil and Evil Doers

Posted on December 18, 2015 by First.One.Through

On December 14, 2015, US President Obama told Americans that “the United States and our Armed Forces continue to lead the global coalition in our mission to destroy the terrorist group ISIL (the Islamic State).” He laid out the ongoing efforts to “destroy” the group in its various facets, including “their fighting positions, bunkers and staging areas; their heavy weapons, bomb-making factories, compounds and training camps.“

He used the word “destroy” five times in the speech.

That address stood in sharp contrast to his detailed comments on fighting “violent extremism.”

On February 18, 2015, Obama penned a piece in the Los Angeles Times called “Our Fight Against Violent Extremism.” He mentioned terrorism and terrorist threats from a range of countries, including: Yemen; Libya; Syria; Iraq; US; Canada; Australia; France; Denmark; Pakistan; Somalia and Nigeria. His plan to deal with the global threat involved several initiatives: “We know that military force alone cannot solve this problem. Nor can we simply take out terrorists who kill innocent civilians. We also have to confront the violent extremists — the propagandists, recruiters and enablers — who may not directly engage in terrorist acts themselves, but who radicalize, recruit and incite others to do so…. Our focus will be on empowering local communities.”

Obama’s plan to fight global violent extremism was broad. Below is a review of Obama’s approach for confronting evil and evil-doers.

Evil to Destroy

President Obama referred to an “evil ideology” when he commented on the murder of American photojournalist Luke Somers. For Obama, the evil of AQAP (Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula) was a “disregard for life” that threated to “harm our [American] citizens.”

Regarding ISIL/ the Islamic State, the evil was described in a similar manner. In November 2015, after attacks in France and Turkey, Obama said “ISIL is the face of evil. Our goal, as I’ve said many times, is to degrade and ultimately destroy this barbaric terrorist organization.” He echoed comments he made with French President Hollande just a few days before when he said “this barbaric terrorist group — ISIL, or Daesh — and its murderous ideology pose a serious threat to all of us. It cannot be tolerated. It must be destroyed.”

Evil had certain traits: barbarity and murder. According to Obama, the root of the evil ideology was to “promote a twisted interpretation of religion that is rejected by the overwhelming majority of the world’s Muslims.”

Particular evil that needed to be destroyed, was evil that threated America, and in some cases, its allies. Other evil could be addressed using other methods.

Consider Obama’s comments over his presidency about his desire to destroy evil. It is limited to two terrorist groups who attacked Americans: al Qaeda and ISIL/ Islamic State.

December 1, 2009: “America, our allies and the world were acting as one to destroy al Qaeda’s terrorist network and to protect our common security.“
March 28, 2010: “Our broad mission is clear: We are going to disrupt and dismantle, defeat and destroy al Qaeda and its extremist allies. That is our mission [in Afghanistan].”
October 29, 2010: “we will continue to strengthen our cooperation with the Yemeni government to disrupt plotting by al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and to destroy this al Qaeda affiliate.“
September 10, 2014: “Our objective is clear: We will degrade, and ultimately destroy, ISIL through a comprehensive and sustained counter-terrorism strategy.”
February 11, 2015: “America’s armed forces are working with some 60 nations to degrade and destroy ISIL, a terrorist group that has committed countless barbaric atrocities and poses a grave threat to the people and territorial integrity of Iraq and Syria, regional stability, and the national security interests of the United States and its allies and partners.”
July 6, 2015: “ISIL is a terrorist organization, pure and simple… Our main objective is to degrade and destroy this group through a comprehensive and sustained counterterrorism strategy.“

Obama discussing anti-Islamic State plan, surrounded by military leaders including
Defense Secretary Ash Carter and Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the joint Chiefs of Staff on July 6, 2015 (photo: DoD/ Glenn Fawcett)

ISIL/ Islamic State and al Qaeda remain the only groups targeted for destruction by Obama.

Condemned Evil

There are other groups – and countries – that are barbaric murderous entities which are not in Obama’s crosshairs. They receive Obama’s condemnation and disapproval, but not concerted military attention.

Boko Haram is a barbaric, murderous terrorist group operating in Nigeria. Like the Islamic State, it seeks to install an Islamic country in the place of the Nigerian secular government through a murderous campaign.

Obama has condemned the group’s actions, but remained measured in his call for action:

May 7, 2014 (an offer to help find abducted teenaged girls): “Boko Haram, this terrorist organization that’s been operating in Nigeria, has been killing people and innocent civilians for a very long time. We’ve always identified them as one of the worst local or regional terrorist organizations there is out there…So what we’ve done is we have offered — and it’s been accepted — help from our military and law enforcement officials. We’re going to do everything we can to provide assistance to them. In the short term, our goal obviously is to help the international community and the Nigerian government as a team to do everything we can to recover these young ladies. But we’re also going to have to deal with the broader problem of organizations like this that can cause such havoc in people’s day-to-day lives.” Obama did not offer to help destroy Boko Haram.
March 23, 2015: “Boko Haram, a brutal terrorist group that kills innocent men, women and children must be stopped…. by casting your ballot you can help secure your nation’s progress.” Obama gave no support to destroy the group; he just suggested that Nigerians vote peacefully in elections and the Boko Haram threat would disappear.
July 10, 2015: “[The president of Nigeria is] very concerned about the spread of Boko Haram and the violence that’s taken place there, and the atrocities that they’ve carried out, and has a very clear agenda in defeating Boko Haram and extremists of all sorts inside of his country.” Obama noted the President of Nigeria’s concern, but did not mention his own.

While the evil of Boko Haram and other groups operating in Africa was the same, the Obama Administration would not target the groups for destruction as Americans were not targeted. Obama would only condemn the evil and offer American support:

In Chad: “support the governments and people of the Lake Chad Basin region in their ongoing struggle to defeat Boko Haram”
In Lebanon: ““fully support the Lebanese authorities as they conduct their investigation… reaffirms its commitment to Lebanon’s security, and will continue to stand shoulder to shoulder with the people of Lebanon in confronting terrorism”

The same evil ideology is held by other groups such as al-Shabaab in Somalia which has killed hundreds. In Ethiopia, after a brutal attack in the country’s capital, Obama said “We don’t need to send our own marines in to do the fighting: The Ethiopians are tough fighters and the Kenyans and Ugandans have been serious about what they’re doing.” The comment suggested that Obama’s modus operandi is that America will only engage militarily to destroy evil, if the local government is ill-equipped to do so.

Tolerated Evil

The evil ideology of barbarism and murder is not confined to a few terrorist groups that “promote a twisted interpretation of religion.” Several countries also engage in barbarity of its own citizens. Consider Saudi Arabia, Iran and Syria. These countries commit barbarity including:

killing gays by hanging them from cranes in the streets and throwing them off buildings;
stoning people to death for adultery;
beheading people in the middle of the streets;
executing minors;
capital punishment for activities that do not hurt anyone such as apostasy (converting from Islam)

The Syrian government used chemical weapons against its own people, crossing an Obama “red line.” However, in the end, it did not matter. Obama would not attack the Syrian government, and opted to negotiate with them to remove chemical weapons.

Regarding Iran, Obama stated that while they may be anti-Semitic, the country’s leaders were not so consumed by evil that they would do something that would harm their own interests. Obama would not attack the country, but chose to negotiate to slow the pace of its nuclear program, even as the Iranian leaders chanted “Death to America.”

And the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, which publicly beheads “witches” and apostates, remains an American ally. It receives billions of dollars of military hardware from the US.

Obama and the Saudi King

In short, evil perpetuated by countries is tolerated by the Obama administration. The one country where Obama decided to launch an attack to remove its leader was Libya, a much less evil regime than in Syria, Iran or Saudi Arabia. It just happened to be easier to remove Muammar Gaddafi, than the leaders of other countries.

Ignored Evil

The last category of Obama’s treatment of evil is “Ignored Evil”. It is basically the same as “Tolerated Evil” except it is used for a group rather than for a country.

Palestinian Arabs have many groups that are labelled terrorist organizations by the US State Department including: Abu Nidal; Hamas; Palestine Liberation Front; Palestinian Islamic Jihad; Popular front for the Liberation of Palestine; PFLP- General Command; and al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, among others. These groups have stated their intention to destroy Israel, a US ally; to target Jews for murder; and install an Islamic state in Israel. The groups also torture fellow Arabs if there is suspicion of collaboration with Israel, and drag their bodies through the streets.

Obama has not called for these groups to be destroyed. He does not tolerate their evil, as he doesn’t negotiate with them. He simply ignores their barbarity, as he pushes Israel to tolerate and negotiate with them.

While Obama may state that he has “no sympathy for Hamas,“ he pushed Israel to release terrorists in exchange for… nothing. When Hamas and Fatah announced a unity government in June 2014, the Obama administration said “we intend to work with this government.”

There are Palestinian groups that are not labelled by the US as terrorists, that also incite violence against Israelis. Acting-President of the Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas called for jihad several times against Israel without rebuke from the Obama administration.

Conclusion

Obama has refused to label the evil that touches much of the world as “violent Islamic terrorism”. By doing so, he compartmentalized the evil ideology: between those that threaten America and those that don’t; between established governments and terrorist groups seeking to replace countries.

As described above, each category received a particular treatment by the USA. Only in Israel, did Obama opt to break his formula by ignoring the radical Palestinian jihadists, as acknowledging their evil, would likely undermine any chance for a two-state solution with Israel.

While some liberals think the nature of the evil ideology is different in particular places, most people understand the contours of jihadist terrorism and remain angered by Obama’s refusal to call out the religious barbarity in various corners of the world by its proper name. Israel supporters are particularly enraged by Obama’s unique treatment of Palestinian Arab jihadist violence.

Liberals remain convinced that not all evil is the same, and that the barbarity has nothing to do with Islam. Conservatives believe that all violent jihadist violence is very much the same, and should be dealt with in a singular fashion.

However, for Obama, remaining obtuse about the nature of the evil ideology enables flexibility in engaging particular evil-doers, while avoiding a broader conflict with the Muslim world.

Related First.One.Through articles:

Pick Your Jihad; Choose Your Infidel

The Banners of Jihad

I’m Offended, You’re Dead

Murderous Governments of the Middle East

My Terrorism

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis

Half Standards: Gun Control and the Iranian Nuclear Weapons Deal

Posted on September 10, 2015 by First.One.Through

“Double standards” is defined as “a set of principles that applies differently and usually more rigorously to one group of people or circumstances than to another.” Double Standards are typically viewed as unjust, and some countries (like the government of Israel) complain when they are held to more rigorous standards of behavior than its neighbors by political bodies like the United Nations. Curiously, in 2015, some US Democratic candidates for president have introduced a new concept of “Half Standards,” in which they actively and happily pursue policies for other countries which are much less rigorous than they expect for Americans.

Democrats on Gun Control for Americans

After the killing of two journalists on air in August 2015, Democratic presidential hopeful Senator Bernie Sanders stated that he would introduce “constructive gun control legislation which most significantly gets guns out of the hands of people who should not have them.” Similarly, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton commented that she is in favor of “reform that keeps weapons out of the hands that should not have them.”

Such calls for gun control is not without controversy, as most Americans view the right to bear arms as a fundamental right laid out in the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights that “shall not be infringed.” How can the government decide that there are parties that “should not have them [guns]?” Will the government take steps to block certain individuals from this right the way that it blocks felons from voting?

Who “should not have them“? Clinton called out “domestic abusers, the violently unstable” as targets who would lose the right to bear arms. Will the US courts create a system of defining such individuals?

What exactly will these “bad” people be prevented from owning? In their call for new gun legislation, how far will the ownership limitations go? Will a domestic abuser be restricted from purchasing a new gun or will they also need to forfeit guns they currently own? What about ammunition? If a person has factories that make guns and ammo, would they be forced to sell it? If they ran a mine that sourced all of the raw materials to make guns or ammunition, would they be forced to shut it down? In short, would a “violently unstable” person be allowed to own and run an entire gun manufacturing infrastructure and warehouse even if they promised to give up having a gun in their home?

Contrast these Democrats’ positions about barring certain Americans from owning guns, with their positions on Iran’s nuclear aspirations.

Democrats Supporting the Iranian JCPOA

Clinton gave a strong defense of the nuclear agreement with Iran on September 9, 2015, even while she noted the many short-comings of the JCPOA.

Hillary Clinton at the Brookings Institute discussing her support of the JCPOA
September 9, 2015

Iran is a “violently unstable” player: The US State Department has long considered the Islamic Republic of Iran to be a supporter of terrorism, one of only three countries with such designation. The Iranian government has been hostile to America since 1979 and continues to call for the “Death of America”.

…and will remain a “violently unstable” player: Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry made clear in several interviews, that “this deal is not contingent on Iran changing its behavior”. While Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu argued that a change in the behavior of the Iranian regime should be an integral part of a timetable of sanctions relief to the Iranians, the Obama administration made clear that such notion would not be part of any Plan Of Action.

Iran “should not have them (WMDs)”: US President Barack Obama repeatedly stated that the Iranian regime should never be armed with weapons of mass destruction. He has tried to convince Americans that the JCPOA will keep Iran from actually being in possession of such nuclear weapons, and Clinton and Sanders agree that the JCPOA would accomplish such task.

…but will maintain the entire food chain of processing WMDs: While Iran would technically not have a nuclear bomb IF it adheres to everything in the JCPOA, it will continue to have everything required to manufacture and deliver such weapons:

Uranium mines left untouched
It maintains a stockpile of uranium
Thousands of centrifuges (6,104 by the White House count) for enrichment left intact
Heavy-water nuclear plant Arak is “redesigned” but not dismantled
Enrichment facilities of Natanz and Fordow will both remain operational
Obtain new short- and long-range ballistic missiles (available in 5 to 8 years)

Iranian Nuclear Infrastructure
(from BBC website)

Would Clinton and Sanders enable “violently unstable” Americans that have a constitutional right to bear arms, keep an entire weapons making assembly line? Why do they promote a “half standard” for a “violently unstable” country to maintain a vast nuclear weapons infrastructure?

Some Global Supporters of the P5+1 Iran Deal

Posted on August 10, 2015 by First.One.Through

Obama’s bright white lie on his red line.

US President Obama gave a speech about the broad support the Iranian deal enjoys: “because this is such a strong deal, every nation in the world that has commented publicly, with the exception of the Israeli government, has expressed support. The United Nations Security Council has unanimously supported it. The majority of arms control and nonproliferation experts support it. Over 100 former ambassadors who served under Republican and Democratic presidents support it.”

There are others that strongly support the deal too that Obama failed to highlight:

Syria’s president Basher al-Assad, the man who has waged a war with this own people that has killed over 220,000 people thus far told the Iranian leader: “In the name of the Syrian people, I congratulate you and the people of Iran on this historic achievement.”
Hezbollah, the terrorist group in Lebanon was impressed that Iran now had “global recognition as a member of the nuclear club.”
David Duke, the former member of Congress and head of the KKK was happy that the Iranian deal would likely keep Israel from attacking Iran

Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei meets Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in Tehran 25 January 2001.(photo: Atta Kenare/AFP/Getty Images)

As part of this agreement, Iran will get funds in the range between Obama’s estimate of $56 billion to as much as $150 billion. Not surprisingly. this makes the various terrorist entities that are financed by Iran quite happy including (parenthetical is the year when placed on the US State Department list of foreign terrorist organizations):

Hamas (1997)
Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, PFLP (1997)
Palestinian Islamic Jihad (1997) rumored to be strained recently
al-Qa’ida (1999)

These Iranian-backed terrorist groups are responsible for the deaths of thousands of civilians and continue to destabilize the Middle East and beyond..

In Obama’s attempt to sell the Iranian deal, he cited many allies that endorsed the deal while specifically avoiding mention of America’s enemies that also support it. How does one account for the fact that both US allies and foes celebrate the deal? Is the deal actually beneficial to all of the parties, or do some countries simply not understand the deal’s details?

The Western world gets to curtail Iran’s nuclear program and avoids a war in the near-term
Iran gets to avoid a war, keep its nuclear infrastructure intact, global legitimacy, does not have to change its behavior regarding backing terrorism, and gets tens of billions of dollars in cash
Iran’s allies get access to funds and arms from Iran in the near and medium-term, and potentially a nuclear-armed Iranian-sponsor in the not-too-distant future

Obama deliberately does not discuss the many enemies of the United States that support the P5+1 deal and their long list of reasons for doing so. Instead, he makes comments that it is only the Iranian hardliners (and Republicans and Israel) who oppose the agreement. By doing so, he attempts to conceal the enormous benefits granted to Iran (and its proxies) in the agreement. It is pure marketing and a bright white lie over his old red lines.

A bright White Lie over a Red Line
(Do Not Enter)

The party Obama highlighted as not being happy with the deal is Israel. A few reasons:

Iran will be allowed to continue to call for Israel’s annihilation
Iran will have billions of dollars that will not be constrained in any manner from funding terrorist groups that target Israel
Iran will get access to a range of ballistic missiles in as little of five years
Within 10-15 years, Iran will be a threshold nuclear state
The structure of the deal provides Iran opportunity to break the terms and develop nuclear weapons within ten years

In other words, there is a little something (or a lot) for everyone in the deal, with the exception of Israel.

The Obama Administration Lays Foundation of Blame at Israel for a Potential War with Iran

Posted on August 6, 2015 by First.One.Through

President Obama has not only begun to lobby aggressively to win support for the P5+1 deal on the Iranian nuclear program, he has begun to lay the foundation of blame for a potential war squarely on Israel.

epa04873202 US President Barack Obama delivers a speech on the nuclear deal with Iran, at American University's School of International Service, in Washington DC, USA, 05 August 2015. Obama urged Americans to accept a controversial nuclear deal with Iran in spite of criticism from Republican lawmakers. The speech evoked late US President John F. Kennedy's 1963 USSR speech at American University during the height of the Cold War. EPA/PETE MAROVICH / POOL ORG XMIT: MHR02

US President Barack Obama delivers a speech on the nuclear deal with Iran, at American University’s School of International Service, in Washington DC, USA, 05 August 2015. (photo: EPA/PETE MAROVICH / POOL ORG XMIT: MHR02)

Diplomacy or War?

US President Barack Obama: “Let’s not mince words: The choice we face is ultimately between diplomacy and some sort of war — maybe not tomorrow, maybe not three months from now, but soon… How can we in good conscience justify war before we’ve tested a diplomatic agreement that achieves our objectives?” August 5, 2015

What does the world want?

US President Barack Obama: “this deal is not just the best choice among alternatives, this is the strongest nonproliferation agreement ever negotiated, and because this is such a strong deal, every nation in the world that has commented publicly, with the exception of the Israeli government, has expressed support.” August 5, 2015

If war happened, who is to blame?

US Secretary of State John Kerry: “I fear that what could happen is if Congress were to overturn it, our friends in Israel could actually wind up being more isolated and more blamed, and we would lose Europe and China and Russia with respect to whatever military action we might have to take because we will have turned our backs on a very legitimate program that allows us to put their program to the test over these next years.” July 24, 2015

Is there anyone in the United States – including the Obama administration – that believes this is a great deal? Does anyone deny that Iran’s nuclear infrastructure will remain largely intact with this signing? Honest people can arrive at different conclusions about whether to endorse or reject this agreement. So why state that a negative outcome of the vote would be the fault of Israel, “money” and “lobbyists“?

Obama has framed his opponents in a familiar anti-Semitic canard that Jews are responsible for wars around the world. Here is a section of Article 22 from the anti-Semitic terrorist group Hamas in its foundation Hamas Charter:

“The enemies have been scheming for a long time, and they have consolidated their schemes, in order to achieve what they have achieved. They took advantage of key elements in unfolding events, and accumulated a huge and influential material wealth which they put to the service of implementing their dream. This wealth [permitted them to] take over control of the world media such as news agencies, the press, publication houses, broadcasting and the like. [They also used this] wealth to stir revolutions in various parts of the globe in order to fulfill their interests and pick the fruits. They stood behind the French and the Communist Revolutions and behind most of the revolutions we hear about here and there. They also used the money to establish clandestine organizations which are spreading around the world, in order to destroy societies and carry out Zionist interests. Such organizations are: the Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, Lions Clubs, B’nai B’rith and the like. All of them are destructive spying organizations. They also used the money to take over control of the Imperialist states and made them colonize many countries in order to exploit the wealth of those countries and spread their corruption therein. As regards local and world wars, it has come to pass and no one objects, that they stood behind World War I, so as to wipe out the Islamic Caliphate. They collected material gains and took control of many sources of wealth. They obtained the Balfour Declaration and established the League of Nations in order to rule the world by means of that organization. They also stood behind World War II, where they collected immense benefits from trading with war materials and prepared for the establishment of their state. They inspired the establishment of the United Nations and the Security Council to replace the League of Nations, in order to rule the world by their intermediary. There was no war that broke out anywhere without their fingerprints on it”

Obama and Kerry have dismissed anyone who disagrees with the agreement they helped craft. They have announced that members of Congress must fall into one of two camps: agree with Obama OR be a pawn in the Israeli scheme of lobbyists.

Now, if the US goes to war, any casualties and ramifications would be the fault of Israel and its lobbyists. Not Iran. Not the poorly negotiated deal. But Israel.

There is a long history of anti-Semites blaming Israel for wars in the world. It is shocking to see the administration of the Unites States – which purports to be a strong ally of Israel – use a blood libel to lay blame for another Middle East war on Israel.

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

First One Through

Israel Analysis. We primaried Bowman!

Tag Archives: Barack Obama

The Trump Pinata Preserving the False Obama Messiah

What Would America’s Founding Fathers say to Barack Obama?

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton’s Foreign Policy on Israel is like the United Nations

The Dangerous Red Herring Linking Poverty and Terrorism

While Joe Biden Passionately Defends Israel, He Ignores Jewish Rights and the History of the Jewish State

Grading Evil and Evil Doers

Half Standards: Gun Control and the Iranian Nuclear Weapons Deal

Some Global Supporters of the P5+1 Iran Deal

The Obama Administration Lays Foundation of Blame at Israel for a Potential War with Iran

Obama’s Foreign Policy

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: