Donald Trump and Barack Obama took very different approaches to dealing with terrorism.
While president, Barack Obama referred to the “evil ideology” in extremists that engaged in barbarous acts of violence, without referring to it as “radical Islamic terrorism.” His handling of the “evil ideology” essentially broke down into four categories, as detailed in “Grading Evil and Evil Doers.”
Evil to Destroy: those terrorist groups that threaten America like al-Qaeda and the Islamic State
Evil to Condemn: terrorist groups that target other countries, but not the USA, like al-Shabaab and Boko Haram
Evil to Tolerate: These are countries that slaughter their own citizens including minors, like Syria, Iran and America’s ally Saudi Arabia
Evil to Ignore: This is from governments and aspiring countries like the Palestinian Authority that routinely incites violence against an American ally, Israel.
Obama used direct military action against the first category, when he felt that American lives were at stake, while only lending support against the second. When it came to countries that harbored evil ideologies, Obama opted to remain inactive and relatively silent.
In short, the “evil ideology” itself was not the barometer of whether Obama took action; it was the nature of the threat to American lives, and whether he could act narrowly against relatively small groups of people rather than entire countries.
Trump’s Approach to Radical Jihadist Terrorism
In his first week in office, Donald Trump is seemingly approaching his obligation to protect Americans in a manner quite different than Obama.
Name: For one, Trump clearly labeled the “evil ideology” as “radical Islamic terrorism.” While Obama felt that attributing the extremist actions specifically to Islam was unfair, Trump thought that avoiding the connection between the terrorists’ motives and Islamic teachings masked the problem.
Breadth: While Obama sought to target a narrow audience for military attacks, and giving a pass to others with “evil ideologies,” Trump seems more willing to go broader and use more tools to address the issues. He has advocated for using torture to get information from terrorists (he said he would be willing to reconsider it if his defense advisors warn against it). Trump has instituted restrictions on immigrations from several countries that have been unable to deal with terrorists, to minimize the probability of terrorists coming to the United States.
Trump has only been in office for ten days, so it is difficult to ascertain how he will use the military in fighting groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda that Obama targeted, and others where Obama acted indirectly like Boko Haram and al-Shabaab. He has already authorized an attack in Yemen in an operation that reportedly killed 14 militants. Will he use troops rather than relying mainly on drones as Obama did in countries like Yemen and Somalia?
Donald Trump signing ban on some refugees January 2017 (photo: Reuters: Carlos Barria)
Beyond combatting terrorism, how will Trump interact with countries that promote radical Islamic terrorism like Iran and Saudi Arabia? Obama traded with them and gave them billions of dollars. Will Trump treat them as potential business partners too and ignore their support of terrorism?
The United Nations called on the world to not label violent extremism as “Islamic” as they argued that doing so would be unfair to the religion. The UN preferred to only use the term “extremists” in regards to Jews, as part of its ongoing attack on Israel.
Obama lied to the world that the birthplace of extremism was in poverty, rather than a twisted view of the world. His #AlternativeFacts were parroted by the members of his administration, even though every study on the subject showed the statement to be bogus.
So now that Trump has opted to call out the root of terrorism as not being from lack of economic opportunity, but having distinct Islamic origins, will the US push to take actions against Islamic countries rather than a limited number of terrorist groups? Is Trump calling out a clash of civilizations? If so, how will such a clash play out?
On January 21, 2017, the streets of Washington D.C. were flooded with a Women’s March to protest the election of President Donald Trump. The group was clearly angry that the nation did not elect the first women president, their preferred candidate Democrat Hillary Clinton. Even more, they came to voice their concerns about what President Trump might do to abortion rights. The ultimate position paper of the march’s organizers spanned a wide range of issues beyond core women’s issues like abortion, to concerns like minimum wage, union rights, immigration policy and clean air.
But back to core women’s issues.
Donald Trump initially caused a stir when he said during a presidential debate in March 2016 that women who perform illegal abortions should be punished. After a loud public outcry, Trump back-peddled from his statement. In October 2016, he amended his comments that he is pro-life and would appoint judges with similar opinions, but ultimately the decisions regarding abortions would be left to each state. The outcry against his comments continued, but this time he did not reverse his position.
So who would get punished for abortion? Trump said “If Congress were to pass legislation making abortion illegal and the federal courts upheld this legislation, or any state were permitted to ban abortion under state and federal law, the doctor or any other person performing this illegal act upon a woman would be held legally responsible, not the woman. The woman is a victim in this case as is the life in her womb.”
Many women’s rights organizations were happy with this Trump statement, albeit still concerned about his other pro-life statements. They shouldn’t be. Their agreement that a woman is always the victim is arguably more misogynistic than curtailing abortion rights.
Women’s March in Washington D.C. January 2017
Abortion
The Supreme Court’s 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade permitted abortions up until the time that a fetus was viable outside of the womb, roughly 24 weeks at that time (the viability is closer to 20 to 22 weeks today due to advances in medicine). That means that an abortion after viability is not a legal procedure, unless there were particular circumstance like a threat to the mother’s life. In 2014, there was just a small number of such late-term procedures, 1.3% of all abortions. Most states (43) place limits on late term abortions.
What is the punishment for the 1.3% of women who get abortions after 20 weeks? There is no comprehensive information. People assume that late-term abortions must only happen when the mother’s life is at stake, but the reality is that very few abortions overall happen due to the “big three” issues that abortion-rights advocates site as additional arguments to gather support for abortion: rape; incest; and risk to the life of the mother. The vast majority of abortions happen because the mother is concerned about her work or her partner, or the financial ability to support the baby.
So consider a woman that is eight months pregnant who breaks up with her partner and therefore no longer wants to keep the baby. Should the doctor performing the abortion procedure be the sole party punished for killing a perfectly viable fetus? Should the woman escape all liability for such a decision? That would be a mockery of justice.
The Women’s March claimed that Women’s Rights are Human Rights. Indeed they are. But baby rights are human rights too.
Prostitution
The march’s position paper of 16 bullet points chose to not call for the legalization of prostitution, a curious call for a group that demanded “gender justice.. for the power to control our bodies and be free of gender norms, expectations and stereotypes.”
Are the march’s organizers so puritanical that they cannot imagine women willingly be paid to have sex?
This is not just on the march’s organizers, but on society as well. Our government has inverted policies regarding prostitution laws, where new laws in the country seek to punish the purchasers of the service (the “johns”) instead of the prostitutes themselves. This is a clear inconsistency of punishing the purchaser of the illegal services for prostitution (typically men), but only the service provider in the case of abortion (the doctor). Logic would suggest that either the person paying for the service in each instance is punished (the woman in abortion and man for prostitution) or the service provider (the prostitute and the doctor). Instead, society has chosen to have an overriding concern to not punish women in each case.
That is wrong.
To respect women is to hold them accountable. Women cannot claim complete control of their bodies unless they assume FULL RESPONSIBILITIES for their bodies, as well. In that regard, the women’s rights movement and society should finally push for legalized prostitution and for the punishment of women who perform late-term abortions for non-medical reasons.
It is time for the women’s rights activist and society to stop being so protective of women as to treat them as passive wards of the state.
I still remember the inauguration of Ronald Reagan in January 1981. It was not Reagan himself that made the day memorable, but the thrill of seeing the incompetent Jimmy Carter leave the White House.
I had spent my mornings during my 1979-80, 1980-81 high school years driving to school past a gas station which posted the number of days that the American hostages were held in captivity in Iran. Each day the sign would update the count, and my anger would rise along with the revised total. But on January 20, the day of Reagan’s inauguration, the hostages were finally released, just as the embarrassment of a president vacated Washington, DC.
On that day, my liberal high school classmates chose to wear black armbands, in protest of the election of a Republican. They had convinced themselves that there was nothing so terrible as capitalism and free markets, and they opted to show the world their disgust at Reagan’s ascent. While the country celebrated the release of hostages and dawn of a brighter future, these liberal teenagers saw a dark day.
I would see the silent liberal protests again. In January 2001, liberals would claim that George W Bush wasn’t really their president. I saw bumper stickers all over town that had a “W’ with a slash through it. I read about how Bill Clinton’s staffers removed all of the “W”s from the computer keyboards in the White House. Real mature.
This year’s election of Donald Trump has brought yet a new wave of liberal protests. Some schools cancelled exams after the election. Family celebrations which had once included a wide range of divergent political views began with declarations “No political discussions!” before anyone had a chance to say hello. Now we are hearing that many elected Democratic officials are going to boycott the inauguration. Some liberal rabbis have even said that they will mark the day by fasting – I kid you not.
I don’t know what kind of president Donald Trump will be at this moment in time, any more than predicting Reagan 36 years ago. I do know that I am glad to say goodbye to eight terrible years of foreign policy, and am not surprised at the immature liberal cries of anguish I have seen for decades.
The silent protests don’t upset me. Free speech is an American right, and everyone is allowed to express themselves.
Granted I do not know any non-liberals that carried on in such a fashion over the past eight years. I never met someone that placed a “Nobama” sign on their front lawn or fasted at Obama’s election. I couldn’t catch any black armbands when Bill Clinton asumed office or any Republican officials boycotting the ceremony. No matter.
The problem with the liberal actions are not the protests themselves. It is the withdrawal from reality and debate.
For the last eight years people debated issues ranging from transgender bathrooms to the use of drones to kill Americans to Obamacare. People accepted the presidential election results and engaged in a discussion about policies.
Yet now, liberals claim “he’s not my president” and shout at friends “no talking politics!” when they dislike the results of their democracy. After eight years of a constant comfortable exchange while the president echoed and enshrined their worldview, will people discuss important matters with people with whom they disagree, or just rely on the liberal mainstream media to attack Trump?
President Obama saw the problem in his own party. In his farewell address, he asked people to get out of their bubbles and engage in a healthy debate with people with different opinions:
“For too many of us, it’s become safer to retreat into our own bubbles, whether in our neighborhoods or college campuses or places of worship or our social media feeds, surrounded by people who look like us and share the same political outlook and never challenge our assumptions. The rise of naked partisanship, increasing economic and regional stratification, the splintering of our media into a channel for every taste – all this makes this great sorting seem natural, even inevitable. And increasingly, we become so secure in our bubbles that we accept only information, whether true or not, that fits our opinions, instead of basing our opinions on the evidence that’s out there.
This trend represents a third threat to our democracy. Politics is a battle of ideas; in the course of a healthy debate, we’ll prioritize different goals, and the different means of reaching them. But without some common baseline of facts; without a willingness to admit new information, and concede that your opponent is making a fair point, and that science and reason matter, we’ll keep talking past each other, making common ground and compromise impossible.”
I strongly disagreed with Obama on many of his policies, and I made my case to people of all political persuasions. But in this instance, I agree with him. Healthy debate is critical for a healthy democracy. I wish Obama would have followed his own advice during his presidency, and not walked out on people, such as boycotting speeches (as Democrats did to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu), or supporting Democrats when they fled the Wisconsin state house, or the Indiana state house. Or as Democratic officials now plan to do in boycotting the inauguration of President Trump.
I don’t care about your armbands, your fasts or your walkouts. If you have a coherent argument, make it. Engage in the debate and understand your fellow Americans without name-calling. Our democracy will be better off if you left your liberal bubble.
On December 23, 2016, the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution condemning Israeli settlements east of the Green Line as “illegal” and called for the removal of all of them, including those in Jerusalem. It passed because the US decided to abstain, rather than veto such resolutions as it typically does.
There is a pathway to right this wrong, as a new US administration and head of the United Nations will soon take over.
On December 12, 2016, former Prime Minister of Portugal Antonio Guterres was sworn in as the new United Nations Secretary General, and on December 19, Republican Donald Trump secured the electoral college to become the next president of the United States. Both men can restart positive relations with the State of Israel. The recommendations listed below are just a few positive actions that can promote peace in the Middle East.
Positive Actions for the United States
President Barack Obama had a very rocky relationship with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. It was not simply a matter of personal chemistry; Obama took various steps to create significant “daylight” between the US and Israel. Trump can fix those Obama missteps.
1. Recommit to the 2004 Bush Letter.
On April 14, 2004, US President George W Bush wrote a letter to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, giving Israel assurances of US support in conjunction with Sharon’s planned withdrawal of Israeli presence from Gaza. The language in the letter had bipartisan support, and the 2008 Democratic Platform used key clauses from the letter as its official policy regarding Israel.
However, Obama opted to ignore the letter and all of the US commitments. He gutted key components of US assurances, and had the 2012 Democratic platform remove all of the Israeli-oriented positions completely.
Those commitments from President Bush included:
“United States will do its utmost to prevent any attempt by anyone to impose any other plan.”
“Palestinians must undertake an immediate cessation of armed activity and all acts of violence against Israelis anywhere, and all official Palestinian institutions must end incitement against Israel. The Palestinian leadership must act decisively against terror, including sustained, targeted, and effective operations to stop terrorism and dismantle terrorist capabilities and infrastructure.”
“Palestinians must undertake a comprehensive and fundamental political reform that includes a strong parliamentary democracy and an empowered prime minister.”
“The United States reiterates its steadfast commitment to Israel’s security, including secure, defensible borders, and to preserve and strengthen Israel’s capability to deter and defend itself, by itself, against any threat or possible combination of threats.”
“Israel will retain its right to defend itself against terrorism, including to take actions against terrorist organizations.”
“The United States will lead efforts, working together with Jordan, Egypt, and others in the international community, to build the capacity and will of Palestinian institutions to fight terrorism, dismantle terrorist organizations, and prevent the areas from which Israel has withdrawn from posing a threat that would have to be addressed by any other means.”
“It seems clear that an agreed, just, fair, and realistic framework for a solution to the Palestinian refugee issue as part of any final status agreement will need to be found through the establishment of a Palestinian state, and the settling of Palestinian refugees there, rather than in Israel.”
“In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion.”
“the barrier being erected by Israel should be a security rather than political barrier, should be temporary rather than permanent, and therefore not prejudice any final status issues including final borders”
“the United States supports the establishment of a Palestinian state that is viable, contiguous, sovereign, and independent”
“the United States believes that all states in the region have special responsibilities: to support the building of the institutions of a Palestinian state; to fight terrorism, and cut off all forms of assistance to individuals and groups engaged in terrorism; and to begin now to move toward more normal relations with the State of Israel.”
The Trump administration should recommit to these principles that were abandoned under Obama.
2. Clearly Define that the Obstacle to Peace is anti-normalization, not settlements.
The goal of two-states living in peace starts with the desire to live in peace, not the desire for two states. A Palestinian Authority leadership that incites violence cannot be rewarded with a state. Parties that engage in BDS (boycott, divestment and sanctions) of Israel or Israeli territories are anti-Semitic and work against a two state solution.
Obama inverted this formulation, and pushed for two states before pushing for peace. He fought Israeli settlements, including asking Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to freeze settlements in 2009, shortly after assuming office. No movement was made by the Palestinian Authority to advance peace. No matter, Obama took a parting shot at Israel by allowing the UN Security Council resolution labeling the settlements as illegal, as if that would advance peace.
Trump should focus on stopping the Arab incitement to violence and glorification of murderers. Penalties should be assessed including withholding US financial assistance and meeting with American leaders should the Palestinian Authority not reform.
3. Terror must be stopped and fought completely.
As the world has started to confront terror in recent years, much the way Israel has since being reestablished, it has fought the terrorism with absolute clarity and global support. Not so for Israel.
Obama asked Israel to confront terrorism with “reasonableness and restraint,” something that the US hasn’t done in its ongoing war against terrorism since September 11, 2001.
Donald Trump should give Israel the same complete support in combatting evil, as every other country in the world is offered when it confronts terrorism.
4. Recognize Anti-Semitism
For a reason only known to him, President Obama was loathe to call out anti-Semitism.
When Islamic terrorists killed people in Paris, France, including in a kosher supermarket, Obama called that attack “random,” and his administration twisted itself to refrain from stating the obvious – that the killers went to kill Jews.
When Obama gave his final State of the Union address, he once again decided to call out “Islamophobia” in the United States, as he did often in his presidency. He did this even though an average Jew is two times more likely to be targeted by hate crimes than an average Muslim. But there was no mention of anti-Semitism.
The Jewish State is not oblivious to the treatment of Jews in America and France, home to the largest concentration of Jews outside of Israel. By recognizing anti-Semitism with a fraction of the concern that Obama showed for Islamophobia, would be a very positive step for US-Israel relations.
Donald Trump addressing the Republican Jewish Coalition, December 2015 (photo: FirstOneThrough)
5. Clarity: Settlements are not illegal; no Hamas in a Palestinian Unity Government
In taking the four actions noted above, the United States government will once again underscore its long-held bipartisan approaches to Israel. Repeating the assurance that Israel must have “defensible borders” that will not “return to the Armistice lines of 1949,” recognizes that many Israeli settlements over the Green Line will be incorporated into Israel. This is a sharp reversal from the anti-Semitic comments of the Obama administration that felt that any Jew living over the Green Line – even in existing apartments in Jerusalem – are anti-peace, and now, with a wink to the UNSC resolution, illegal.
Further, understanding that Israel must “take actions against terrorist organizations” like Hamas, offers more support to banning the organization from any Palestinian unity government.
The Trump administration should underscore these two points clearly, as it can have a positive impact in how other allies and the United Nations treat Israel.
Positive Actions for the United Nations
The United Nations is a cesspool of autocrats and dictators.
The UN is the poster child of a “bucket of deplorables” of homophobes, anti-Semites, misogynists, xenophobes and racists. As such, the UN Secretary General is often viewed as the deplorable mascot.
It is difficult – ney, impossible – to get many of these countries to be civil, and the UNSG cannot enforce peaceful interactions in the world. However, he can make changes to how the institution itself runs, and his own comments as they relate to Israel.
1. Fold UNRWA into the UNHCR
The United Nations created an organization for Palestinian Arab refugees on December 8, 1949. The United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) was created as a temporary agency to help Arabs that lost their homes after five neighboring Arab countries invaded Israel after it declared statehood in May 1948. Today, UNRWA has morphed into something unrecognizable, giving “refugee” status to millions of descendants of refugees and perpetuating a conflict.
As the incoming UNSG knows, having served as the High Commissioner of Refugees from 2005 to 2015, there is another UN refugee agency, the UNHCR, which works with ACTUAL refugees that are fleeing war zones. It provides real relief for families in transition. It works with millions of refugees from around the world with a fraction of the budget of UNRWA.
More significantly, the UNHCR focuses on providing services for civilians without taking sides in a conflict. Not so UNRWA, which consistently attacks Israel and tells grandchildren of refugees that – with UNRWA’s help – they will return to homes and villages that no longer exist in Israel.
UNRWA perpetuates the suffering of the stateless Arabs from Palestine, and the ongoing conflict with Israel. Over the course of five years, UNRWA should be closed and services should be transitioned to the same relief agency that the rest of the world uses, UNHCR. The descendants of refugees from the 1948-9 Israeli-Arab war should have their ability to obtain services gradually withdrawn.
2. Isolate Iran
Any United Nations member state that threatens to destroy another member state should be completely isolated. Such a state should no longer be allowed to chair any committee. It should no longer be allowed to vote on any resolution. Its flag should be removed from the hall and from the exterior of the all United Nations buildings.
The inspections of the nuclear facilities should not just be rigorous in ensuring that Iran is in compliance. It should be reinforced without any rights or approvals by Iran.
Such treatment should remain in place until such state clearly rescinds such threats.
3. Remove the Standing Measure Against Israel
The UN Human Rights Council has a standing agenda item to criticize only one country in the world – Israel. It must stop the practice immediately.
4. Clean House in the UN Media Centre
The UN has a press group that summarizes the many sessions that happen at the sprawling UN and its many agencies. It selects what items to cover, which people to highlight and the quotes to cover in the stories.
In an organization which is littered with Israel-bashers, the UN Media Centre takes the hate to yet another level. It edits quotes from people that appear sympathetic to Israel and magnifies injuries by Palestinian Arabs. That is not a recipe for fairness or to advance peace. It is a form of incitement itself.
5. Clarity: No Hamas in the Palestinian Government; Stand with Israel
In addition to fixing the anti-Israel bias that is structurally part of the UN, Antonio Guterres should make his own opinions about the Israeli-Arab relationship known.
Outgoing UNSG Ban Ki Moon often stated that he stood with Gaza, and encouraged Hamas to become part of a Palestinian Authority unity government. It was disgusting and disgraceful to every Israeli and civilized person to watch the head of the UN promote a vile anti-Semitic terrorist group that openly calls for killing Jews and destroying Israel. The sentiment was aggravated by Ban Ki Moon’s never stating that he stood with Israel in its fight against terrorism.
Mr. Guterres should be clear that he supports Israel and every country’s fight against terror. He must be clear that there is no room for Hamas in any conversation whatsoever, until it replaces its charter and states that it seeks peace with Israel.
The United States had historically been the best and biggest ally of Israel, while the United Nations abused the Jewish State as if the organization was the reincarnation of the Spanish Inquisition. Obama left his legacy as a horrific foreign policy president, as he threw his lot in with the real bucket of deplorables.
With the five steps outlined above for both the US and UN, the relationship with Israel can be reset, and the cause of peace in the region advanced.
Jared Kushner, son-in-law of President-elect Donald Trump, has been in the news lately for his work helping to get his father-in-law elected president of the United States. What hasn’t been highlighted is his own parents’ charity to an incredible institution in Israel – the Shaare Zedek Medical Center in Jerusalem.
In 2014, Jared’s parents, Seryl and Charles Kushner, donated $18 million – on top of $2 million already given to the hospital – in honor of their 40th wedding anniversary. Known as the “hospital with a heart,” the hospital delivers more than 20,000 babies a year – more than any hospital in the world.
The new entrance to the Shaare Zedek Medical Center in Jerusalem
with dedication to the Seryl and Charles Kushner Campus (photo: FirstOneThrough)
The hospital is not just famous for its pediatric and maternity wards, but for its life saving treatment to people in crises around the world. Whether in Nepal, Turkey, Haiti or the Philippines, the Israeli emergency medical crew is one of the first on the scene of a disaster, saving hundreds of people.
In November 2016, the United Nations moved to recognize Israel’s field hospital with its highest ranking. The IDF’s field hospital is headed by the Deputy General of Shaare Zedek Medical Centre, Dr Ofer Merin, and staffed by many of its doctors.
Shaare Zedek is also famous for the work of its emergency team WITHIN Israel, often saving injured civilians in Jerusalem from countless terrorist attacks.
The former head of the emergency room, Dr. David Applebaum, was often the first doctor at the scene of an attack. In September 2003, on the second anniversary of the 9/11/2001 terrorist attacks in New York City, Dr. Applebaum came to NY to teach first responders best practices in mass casualties emergency situations. However, he had to cut his talks short, to fly back to Israel for his daughter’s wedding. That night before the wedding, both he and his daughter were killed as they sat at a dinner by a terrorist bombing.
Left-wing radical papers may write articles condemning the charity work of the Kushners as they try to attack President-elect Trump. The reality is that the largest donations given by the Kushner family is to a hospital with both Jewish and Arab doctors working side-by-side doing amazing things for the community in Israel and around the world.
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?
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.
“Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.”
“The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation
with the average voter.”
-Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965)
Democracy is a system of government in which the people get to decide for themselves who will be their leaders. In some situations, people make their choices directly, in others, they elect representatives who ultimately choose the leaders. In either case, citizens are often guided to their decisions by professionals, both in the media and in government.
The 2016 contest for president of the United States of America was a whirlwind, and the two primary parties took very different paths to nominate their ultimate candidates. Those paths ended with individuals at polar extremes.
The Democrats worked with party favorites and their political machine to nominate a long-time political insider, Hillary Clinton. The Republicans let the American citizens override their guidance to nominate a complete political-outsider.
In 2016, naked democracy won.
Clinton, Arm-in-Arm with the Democratic Machine
Hillary Clinton spent her lifetime in politics. She began as the first lady of the State of Arkansas while her husband Bill was governor (1979-1992), and then of the United States (1992-2000). She served as US Senator from New York (2001-2008) and then as US Secretary of State (2009-2013). Her life was politics, and she craved capping that career as the president in 2016.
Clinton had the Democratic Party backing her the entire way. The head of the Democratic Party, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, took many actions to favor Clinton in the primaries. It included having only a few debates and revoking Bernie Sanders’ access to voter data. Leaked DNC emails made clear that the Democratic party sought to actively undermine Sanders – including by questioning his religious affiliation – in an incident that forced Schultz to resign.
The immoral actions against Bernie Sanders were embarrassing, but only half of the story. The Sanders’ left-wing fringe campaign could not score many “superdelegates,” (those Democratic party bigwigs that supported the lifetime politician) which undermined a pure democratic process.
The Democratic machinery did not stop pushing Hillary after crushing Sanders. It continued to operate for Clinton in similar ways against Trump.
After Schultz was forced to resign, her position in charge of the DNC was handed to Donna Brazile, who was a commentator with CNN. It was soon discovered that Brazile leaked questions to Clinton before one of the presidential debates, giving Clinton an unfair advantage. Like Schultz, Brazile was subsequently forced out of the DNC.
Hillary Clinton may claim that she is “not a natural politician” like her husband, but she is the very embodiment of a crony politician, in bed with the political and media establishment.
Trump on the Outside
Donald Trump was not just a political outsider who had never run for any governmental office. He was also spurned by the Republican establishment and conservative media.
Many of the Republican candidates for president and other politicians refused to endorse Trump, and several loudly criticized him:
“I also cannot in good conscience support Donald Trump because I do not believe he is a reliable Republican conservative…nor has he displayed the judgment and temperament to serve as Commander in Chief.” – Sen. Lindsey Graham
“Trump is not a non-interventionist in foreign affairs; he’s a national populist who will adopt any position that advances his political ends.” -Rep. Justin Amash (MI)
A “serial philanderer” and “pathological liar” for whom “morality doesn’t exist.” -Sen. Ted Cruz
A “con artist.” – Sen. Marco Rubio
“Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud. His promises are as worthless as a degree from Trump University. He’s playing the American public for suckers: He gets a free ride to the White House and all we get is a lousy hat.” – Former Republican Presidential nominee Mitt Romney
The list goes on, including from various members of the Bush family.
The conservative media treated Trump no better, including Bret Stephens of the Wall Street Journal and Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard.
“I can’t support Trump” – Bill Kristol
“Donald Trump is anti-conservative, un-American, immoral and dangerous.” – Bret Stephens
Cover of the Conservative Magazine National Review
Sarah Palin, who had run for Vice President on Sen. John McCain’s ticket in 2008 called out the Republican establishment for turning their backs on Trump:
“Even today, the G.O.P. machine, they’re attacking their own front-runner, and his base of dynamic, diverse, very patriotic supporters. They’re attacking you! They can’t afford the status quo to go. Otherwise, the gravy train, it stops and they can’t keep slurpin’ from it, not if things change the way that Mr. Trump and all of we know needs to change.”
Trump was not only a political novice. He ran without the support of the Republican party and was saddled with a conservative media which constantly sought to bring him down.
The Naked Democracy
By any account, such a contest would likely have been unfair. A lifetime politician with the complete backing of the political machine and media, AND the backing of the sitting president AND a family foundation which peddled influence for money, stood opposite a complete novice. That first-timer was undercut by his party and the media, AND by the Republican Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan.
How could the American people possibly ignore all of the money, media, power and politics? The results were clear before the first vote was cast. There was really no reason to vote. Clinton will be your president. So said the establishment.
But the people did not listen. Not to the media. Not to the government. Not to their political parties.
The people decided for themselves, as they went to the polling stations with their own opinions.
Winston Churchill, the venerated leader of Great Britain during World War II and in the 1950s, had very mixed feelings about democracy. While he admired the concept of people deciding upon their own futures, he felt that most people were incapable of properly understanding the issues and proposed solutions to arrive at a logical conclusion. Just have a “five-minute conversation with the average voter,” he would say.
So the Democratic party offered Americans a crafted Hollywood Democracy, full of fake sets, scripts and voice-overs to make them feel good as they were ushered to the voting booth with their ballots already filled in. The Republican party would have preferred that approach as well, but let the American people move forward with a Naked Democracy, without any supporting actors.
In 2016, the American people voted directly for the naked novice. Will they now decide for themselves if they are happy with the results, or will they wait for the media establishment to inform them about their feelings?
Americans and other people around the world have seemingly decided that the best course of action is to loudly scream and vote with eyes wide shut.
Supporters of Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton decided to endorse her with the pounding, painful knowledge in the dark corners of their brains that she: was the Secretary of State under Obama who watched Americans butchered in Libya, and then casually observed as that country turned into a terrorist haven; watched Iran march toward a legitimate and complete nuclear weapons infrastructure; saw ISIS emerge in Iraq as she pulled American troops from the country; did nothing as Syria collapsed into civil war killing 500,000 people and watched those refugees flood the world; deleted thousands of emails while under investigation for usage of an improper private server; took millions of dollars into her Clinton Foundation in possible exchange for favors from foreign governments; etc. No matter. Clinton’s #ImWithHer supporters feared Donald Trump, and craved a female president.
Supporters of Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump voted for him, even though they knew he: was accused of sexually harassing women; threatened to ban all Muslims from the country; spoke unfavorably about parents of an American soldier killed in battle; called for a massive deportation of millions of illegal immigrants; had no political experience; etc. No matter. They despised Hillary Clinton and were not going to let the radical left of Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders run the country for another four years.
Days after the election, Clinton supporters took the streets and – despite the obvious facts – declared that Trump was not their president. They declared that Trump was a homophobe and would threaten the LGBT community, even though he clearly stated his support for them to loud applause at the Republican National Committee. Whether they somehow thought the electoral college should no longer matter, or that they did not want to be associated with such a leader, they closed their eyes to reality. Willingly.
Protesters hold signs during a protest against the election of President-elect Donald Trump, Wednesday, Nov. 9, 2016, in downtown Seattle. (AP Photo/Ted S. Warren)
Americans were not alone in willingly closing their eyes to reality as they cast their ballots.
On October 13, 2016, UNESCO approved a draft resolution which removed any mention of the Jewish names for the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, Judaism’s holiest site. Dozens of countries voted in favor of the resolution despite the insult, as they moved to give the Jordanian Waqf full control of the Jewish Temple Mount, and to ultimately hand the Old City of Jerusalem to become a capital of a future state of Palestine. Jewish rights and history, and Israeli security be damned.
In September 2016, The European Union took further steps to remove Hamas from the list of terrorist organizations. They did this, despite Hamas waging three wars against Israel over the previous eight years, and having the most anti-Semitic charter of any governmental party in the world, which firmly rejects peace negotiations and calls for the annihilation of Israel.
And in the summer of 2014, while Israel fought to stop the rocket fire into its country from Gaza and to dismantle the terrorist tunnel infrastructure of Hamas, Europeans took the streets in loud protests against Israel. Despite the calls of “Hitler was right,” and the many attacks on Jews and Jewish-owned businesses, the New York Times opted to ignore the condemnation of European leaders that the riots were anti-Semitic, and stated that there was just a “tinge” of Jew hatred. Repeatedly.
Why are people and governments willingly revising history? How do people feel comfortable voting against reality? Are they blind to the facts, or do they hope that a new reality would somehow emerge with their votes?
But seemingly, truth is no longer a debate between traditional views and those with fluid interpretations. Those were old distinctions between the Orthodox (static) and liberals (evolving).
Today, the world has declared that truth can be ignored, openly and honestly. Fixed facts fold before the fantasy of personal belief. People shout their gestating gospels as the thoughts enter their minds and are blessed in their echo chambers on social media and in the streets.
Opinions no longer need an anchor in fact. People need not see nor hear a matter to declare it untrue or irrelevant. The world has become unhinged as the mind emerges as the sole arbiter of the firmament. Society has quickly moved beyond goggles of virtual reality to worship in the chapel of blind delusions.
In a world where facts are extraneous, we are only left with a clash of emotions.
Will we pass judgment solely on which party seems the most sympathetic because they feel the most injured? Does that foretell a future of balms for the pain, rather than solutions for the problems?
We are carrying our emotions across the threshold to deflower our intelligence. That is a marriage that will end poorly for civilization.
For over a year now, we have heard from the left-wing media that right-wing extremism is more of a threat than Islamic terrorism. We have watched the uber-left decry Republican capitalism as inherently evil and corrupt. Barack Obama made fun of the right-wing’s primitive infatuation with guns and religion, as he sought laws to limit their accessibility to guns. And Hillary Clinton, the Democratic candidate for president, proudly declared that she was proud of making enemies with 41% of Americans, the Republicans, whom she derided as “deporables.”
The Republican nominee, and now President-elect, Donald Trump, said that he would seek to deport foreigners that were in the country illegally, and build a wall along the southern border to minimize people from illegally crossing into the US from Mexico. He announced that he would limit Muslim immigration from countries that spawn terror and are at war with America and its allies. Trump declared that he would have an “America First” policy, putting foreign trading partners on alert.
The right targeted non-Americans, as it sought to protect the security, jobs and economy of Americans. The left targeted Americans, as it viewed its flat, “progressive” global view as inherently fair.
Neither side was nice, and neither can understand how they vilified the “other” in a way that was inappropriate.
Whether from fear and concern, or hope and aspiration, Americans wanted to change. But the change that they sought put others in their crosshairs. Their comments blanketed entire groups unfairly, and raised the distrust and anger of people.
Police form a line to contain protesters outside a campaign rally for Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump on Thursday, June 2, 2016, in San Jose, Calif. A group of protesters attacked Trump supporters who were leaving the presidential candidate’s rally in San Jose on Thursday night. A dozen or more people were punched, at least one person was pelted with an egg and Trump hats grabbed from supporters were set on fire on the ground. (AP Photo/Noah Berger)
The aggressive demonization of the right by the American left-wing produced a backlash in November 2016, as Americans elected a political novice to office. Many liberals have doubled down on their taunts, and taken to the streets in protests and riots. Meanwhile, the Americans that nominated Trump are deaf to the protests, as they hope that the global (and American) forces that made them fearful and defensive, will be combatted at last.
We Americans have a corrosive approach to the “other.” The global warming that environmentalists call out, may come from all of us being too hot-headed. We should consider how to improve our situation AND become more united.
The best pathway to unite people is to treat them with respect. The pathway to treating them with respect, is to stop demonizing them. And the best way to stop demonizing them is to stop the screaming and name-calling.
Rather than insulting someone, try simply disagreeing with their position, rather than their person. You might also consider saying “hello.”
The race for the president of the United States in 2016 has regrettably not been about issues, but character. Both Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton and the Republican candidate Donald Trump have been tarred-and-feathered by their opponents mostly because of actions or statements that they have made, rather than on positions and policies they plan to introduce should they be elected.
Still, in the statements that the individuals have made, there is a sense of how each views the world around them, and in particular, the attitudes towards radical Islamic terror.
Consider these analogies:
The Bumblebee
At first glance, bumblebees look scary. A person seeing the bee’s colors or hearing the buzz of its wings, may either look to run or to kill the insects. However, many knowledgeable people will tell you that the bumblebees will not bother you if you leave them alone.
That attitude is found in the radical left, like Jill Stein of the Green Party, and to some extent, Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party. Stein believes that all people are inherently good, so people will only attack if provoked. Johnson is less of a purest on intent, but more of an isolationist, so wants America to retrench from around the world to just focus on home. According to these candidates, radical Islamic terrorism will spare America, if America does not act aggressively in the Middle East.
The Crocodile
A crocodile is often described as the meanest creature on the planet. At the very moment a crocodile is hatched, it will bite the first thing that it sees.
Trump believes that Islam has potentially very dangerous ideas that are incompatible with democracy and American values. As such, he has stated that he would curtail immigration from all Islamic countries that are engaged in wars or spawn terrorism. Trump believes that the jump from moderate Islam to radical Islam is too small and difficult to track, and since radical Islam is a real and persistent threat, draconian actions are required to protect American interests.
The Pitbull
Pitbulls have a mixed reputation. Many dog owners see the dogs as beautiful, elegant and strong. Others see the breed as a menace that can turn quickly and kill or maim people.
Clinton views Muslims in a similar light. She believes that Islam is not inherently bad or inclined towards violence. However, she does not deny that a strain of radical Islam is present in the world and killing men, women and children. As such, her views suggest a combination of empowering the American Muslim community and monitoring their activities.
The radical left argues that the world is full of bees. These dreamers believe that foreigners who look threatening really aren’t, they’re simply misunderstood. Some of these liberals have gone into the hives in an effort to befriend these misunderstood communities, sometimes as volunteers to rally for the “peaceful” cause. Some were killed – like Vittori Arrigoni – while they basked in their naivete.
For their part, the radical right will have you believe that entire classes of people are inherently evil. Such “devils” would ideally be avoided, but should they pose a threat to America or its allies, the right would advocate for the evil to be exterminated. Should those suspicious people seek entry into the United States, the right-wing would argue for “extreme vetting” before permitting their immigration.
Those in the middle think in a more nuanced fashion. They understand that there are good and bad people everywhere. The center argues that there is no reason to curtail immigration for Muslims, any more than placing a nationwide ban on pitbulls.
The reality is that the various approaches are right and wrong, depending on the issues. The world has bumblebees AND crocodiles AND pitbulls. There is no single approach to dealing with a large, complicated world.
The left’s desire to say that all people are alright and that everyone is created equal fails to see the world for what it really is. The right’s desire to see piranhas and crocodiles in every body of water will foster fear and force unnecessary retrenching of resources. And the people who embrace caution but equivocate, are only balancing the extremes.
Today, America lacks honest and clear leadership, that is both kind and courteous, while also being politically incorrect, as appropriate.
Society would be better served in not seeing everything as black-or-white, but not being deceived that everything is grey. As important, our leaders should have clarity of what is white, grey and black. How can people trust leaders to develop solutions, when those leaders are blind to reality?
For example, the radical left-wing of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have more contempt for bankers than they have for ISIS. Hard-working honest bankers are labeled crocodiles, while ISIS is labeled a pitbull. Such politicians cannot be trusted to lead.
The radical right-wing looks at immigrants from Latin America seeking economic opportunity in the USA, the same way that it looks at people returning from fighting for ISIS. What is the basis for lumping these people together?
Today, America’s leaders have fed their constituents fat lies. The left-wing dreamers would prefer to takedown capitalism over terrorism. The right-wing would take out all Muslims rather than just the extremists. If politicians cannot properly identify our obvious enemies, how can we elect them as leaders?
First One Through 