The Third Term Of Barack Obama

President Obama was not a friend of Israel. He was not a friend of peace in the Middle East. The Arab Spring, which he supported as a move to democracy in the Middle East, was simply an attempt to expand Muslim tyranny in the area. When Benjamin Netanyahu visited the White House during the Obama administration, he was treated very badly–even forced to leave through the back door. The Biden administration has been slightly more polite, and they say what they think they need to say, but their bottom line is the same.

On October 25th, The Federalist reported the following:

Secretary of State Antony Blinken contends that Hamas would gain no “greater” victory “than allowing its brutality to send us down a path of terrorism and nihilism. We must not let it.”

You can hear echoes of Barack Obama’s insufferable moral equivalencies imbued in that statement.

The contention is a not-so-subtle warning to Israel, who will almost surely enter Gaza and try to dismantle the Hamas terror state — which has been indirectly and directly funded not only by Iran, the European Union, and the United Nations but also by the Obama and Biden administrations.

The insinuation, of course, is that Israel needs to temper its inclination to engage in “terrorism and nihilism.” It is a blood libel.

It is not “terrorism” to seek justice for the pregnant woman who had her baby cut from her body or the elderly couple who was burned alive. And eliminating those who committed Nazi-like atrocities against your citizens is no more nihilistic than tracking down Eichmann or demanding Emperor Hirohito unconditionally surrender.

The article concludes:

The Biden administration is teeming with Obama-era Iran and Muslim Brotherhood fans. Not only did someone like Rob Malley — rehired by Biden after leading Obama’s giveaway — surround himself with real-life Iranian assets, but he’d met at least twice with Hamas, once with Obama’s blessing.

“This administration is different from the previous administration,” Hamas’s deputy foreign minister and New York Times columnist, Ahmed Yussuf, said at the time. “We believe Hamas’s message is reaching its destination.”

…Like Obama, Biden offers just enough lip service about Israel’s right to defend itself to placate Jewish donors and voters. Every action of the president – even his supposed morale-lifting trip to the country–is meant to inhibit Israel from winning. Democrats are open to helping Israel defend itself but unopened to the prospect of destroying those who seek its end.

Let me amend that. There are plenty of Democrats who want Israel destroyed and more every day.

When Obama finally deigned to wade in on the killing of Jews and Americans, he offered his usual perfunctory throat-clearing about Israel’s right to exist before hitting the “but.” The “but” can be summed up as so: the more Jews die, the more Jews have a responsibility to placate the Islamic world and give their enemies a state.

And apparently, in many ways, the Biden administration concurs. 

At some point the Democrats will realize that terrorism is never contained. Terrorism against Israel will eventually morph into terrorism against America (again).

Why Does The Establishment (Republicans and Democrats) Hate Donald Trump?

Yesterday Victor Davis Hanson posted an article at American Greatness titled, “Why Do They Hate Him So?” The article analyzes the reasons that President Trump is opposed by both the political left and the establishment right.

The article states:

Again, why the unadulterated hatred? For the small number of NeverTrumpers, of course, Trump’s crudity in speech and crassness in manner nullify his accomplishments: the unattractive messenger has fouled an otherwise tolerable message.

While they recognize in the abstract that the randy JFK, the repugnant LBJ, and the horny Bill Clinton during their White House tenures were far grosser in conduct than has been Donald Trump, they either assume presidential ethics should have evolved or they were not always around to know of past bad behavior first hand, or believe Trump’s crude language is worse than prior presidents’ crude behavior in office.

The article continues:

Had Donald Trump in his first month as president declared that he was a centrist Republican —as many suspicious Never Trumpers predicted that he would, true to past form—and promoted cap-and-trade and solar and wind federal subsidies, tabled pipeline construction and abated federal leasing for gas and oil production, stayed in the Iran nuclear deal and Paris Climate Accord, appointed judges in the tradition of John Paul Stevens and David Souter, praised the “responsible” Palestinian leaders, pursued “comprehensive immigration reform” as a euphemism for blanket amnesties, then Trump would be treated largely as a George H.W. Bush or George W. Bush: hated, of course, but not obsessively so.

More importantly, had Trump just collapsed or stagnated the economy, as predicted by the likes of Paul Krugman and Larry Summers, he would now be roundly denounced, but again not so vilified, given his political utility for the Left in 2020 as a perceived Herbert Hoover-esque scapegoat.

Had Trump kept within the media and cultural sidelines by giving interviews to “60 Minutes,” speaking at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, bringing in a few old Republican hands to run the staff or handle media relations like a David Gergen or Andrew Card, Trump would have been written off as a nice enough dunce.

But Trump did none of that. So, the hatred of the media, the Left, the swamp, and the celebrity industry is predicated more on the successful Trump agenda. He is systematically undoing what Barack Obama wrought, in the manner Obama sought to undo with his eight years the prior eight years of George W. Bush.

But whereas the Obama economy stagnated and his foreign policy was seen by adversaries and rivals as a rare occasion to recalibrate the world order at American’s expense, Trump mostly did not fail—at least not yet. We are currently in an economic boom while most of the world economy abroad is inert. Had the economy just crashed as predicted, the Trump agenda would have been discredited and he would be written off a pitiful fool rather than an existential monster.

Again, hatred arises at what Trump did even more than what he says or how he says it.

The obvious conclusion:

The bipartisan Washington establishment? If an outsider Manhattan wheeler-dealer without military or political experience can at last call an appeased China to account, can avoid a Libyan fiasco, can acknowledge that America is tired of a 18-year slog in Afghanistan when others would not, or believes ISIS thrived as a result of prior arcane restrictive U.S. rules of engagement—and he is proven largely right—then what does that say about the credentialed experts who dreamed up the bipartisan conventional wisdom that with a few more concessions China would eventually become Palo Alto or that Libya would bloom at the heart of the Arab Spring?

The Left detests Trump for a lot of reasons besides winning the 2016 election and aborting the progressive project. But mostly they hate his guts because he is trying and often succeeding to restore a conservative America at a time when his opponents thought that the mere idea was not just impossible but unhinged.

And that is absolutely unforgivable.

Be prepared for a very nasty year before the election in 2020. There are a lot of very unhinged people in politics and in the media.

This Is An Old Article That I Missed At The Time

In September 2016, The Federalist posted an article about the Arab Spring. The Arab Spring began as a movement that was supposed to bring freedom to some of the dictatorships in the Middle East. Unfortunately, what it brought was governments controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood and the attempted implementation of Sharia Law. Egypt is a prime example of that although they were able to get out from under the rule of the Muslim extremists.

The article reports:

The “Arab Spring,” as it was dubbed, was a series of protests across the Middle East that initially showed a growing resistance to tyranny and oppression of dictators throughout the region. In a rare regional uprising, the people of the Islamic world seemed to have had enough with dictatorship and oppression.

Only, they didn’t get freedom when they toppled these dictators.

The article notes that Glenn Beck (during his last month on Fox News) predicted the rise of the Islamic Caliphate. He was mocked for this prediction, which turned out to be accurate.

The article at The Federalist shows the role that Hillary Clinton played in the destabilization of the Middle East that led to the rise of the Islamic Caliphate. The article includes a memo detailing her involvement.

The article reports:

The United States government is believed to have utilized a program called the Alliance of Youth Movements Summit, co-founded by a close Hillary Clinton adviser, to provide networking opportunities for an activist plotting to overthrow Egyptian leader Hosni Mubarak several years before the “Arab Spring” protests that led to widespread regime change in the Middle East.

Through the Alliance of Youth Movements Summit, the U.S. learned that the Muslim Brotherhood was supportive of a plan to overthrow Mubarak. The U.S.-supported Muslim Brotherhood later briefly ruled Egypt after Mubarak’s ouster.

It is important to recognize that the program was created before Clinton took office as Secretary of State, but she continued with it, and apparently not in a way that promoted peaceful protest in the region.

On November 18, 2008, two weeks after Barack Obama was elected U.S. president, the U.S. State Department announced the first Alliance of Youth Movements Summit at Columbia Law School in New York City. A permanent group called the Alliance of Youth Movements (AYM) was developed by Summit leaders after the first Summit convened.

Bush State Department official Jared Cohen, listed as the “international press contact” for the Summit, described some goals of the conference before it convened in December.

Please follow the link above to read the entire article. It includes other information related to America‘s actions in the Middle East under President Obama. It does not paint a pretty picture.

Something To Consider When Watching The Presidential Endorsements

Breitbart posted a story today about the fact that The Financial Times has endorsed Hillary Clinton for President. It is amazing that anyone would support someone who has so consistently flouted the law and has obviously jeopardized America’s national security. Just to add to the mix, there is a rumor going around that the leaked emails are not coming from Russia, but are the work of NSA employees who fear for the safety of America if Hillary Clinton is elected. So why would The Financial Times endorse such a flawed candidate–because she will maintain the status quo and continue the slide toward global governance.

Breitbart quotes the endorsement:

Rarely in a US presidential election has the choice been so stark and the stakes so high. The contest between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump has provided high drama, amply demonstrated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s reckless, last-minute intervention in the saga of Mrs Clinton’s emails. But there must be no doubt about the gravity of the 2016 election, for America and the world.

The international order of the past 70 years is fraying, maybe even breaking down. The Brexit vote in June likely removes a pillar of the EU. The Middle East points to a shattered system; further east, in the Pacific, China is becoming more assertive, challenging America’s dominant role in the region and the postwar Bretton Woods system. Under Vladimir Putin, Russia has become emboldened, threatening Nato’s borders, spreading havoc in Syria, and apparently orchestrating leaks to influence the US election itself.

This is a moment for the renewal of American leadership. One candidate has the credentials. Mrs Clinton has served as first lady, senator for New York and US secretary of state. Mr Trump deals in denigration not diplomacy. He has abused allies, threatening to remove east Asia’s nuclear umbrella, sideline Nato and unleash trade wars. Mr Trump casts himself in the role of a western strongman to stand alongside the likes of Mr Putin.

This is called spin. President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have done more to damage the reputation of the United States around the world than any of their predecessors. As I write this, the Philippine government is moving away from America and toward China, Russia is amassing troops in Europe for a move against Ukraine and the Baltic states before Obama leaves office, and the “Arab Spring” loved by President Obama and Secretary Clinton has turned the Middle East into a war zone and Iraq into an Iranian satellite. The diplomacy of President Obama and Secretary Clinton has been damaging to America and to the world. Even without the emails and the mishandling of classified information, Hillary Clinton would be a disaster as President. However, she does represent the status quo and the continuing move toward global governance. The enemies of American sovereignty love Hillary Clinton for President.

The Iran Deal Just Gets Uglier

The Wall Street Journal reported yesterday:

The Obama administration agreed to back the lifting of United Nations sanctions on two Iranian state banks blacklisted for financing Iran’s ballistic-missile program on the same day in January that Tehran released four American citizens from prison, according to U.S. officials and congressional staff briefed on the deliberations.

The U.N. sanctions on the two banks weren’t initially to be lifted until 2023, under a landmark nuclear agreement between Iran and world powers that went into effect on Jan. 16.

The U.N. Security Council’s delisting of the two banks, Bank Sepah and Bank Sepah International, was part of a package of tightly scripted agreements—the others were a controversial prisoner swap and transfer of $1.7 billion in cash to Iran—that were finalized between the U.S. and Iran on Jan. 17, the day the Americans were freed.

If the Iran nuclear deal is such a wonder thing, why has so much of it been kept secret?

The Middle East was in relatively good shape when President Obama took office. Hillary Clinton was his Secretary of State. Eight years later, where are we? In 2011 we saw the birth of the ‘Arab Spring’ which was supposed to democratize the Middle East. The Arab Spring brought the Muslim Brotherhood to power in Egypt, destabilized Libya, and eventually led to the civil war in Syria. Egypt (with no help from the Obama Administration) was able to wrestle its country back from the Muslim Brotherhood and install leadership that will fight the Muslim Brotherhood and terrorism. It’s far from a democracy, but it is keeping peace within the country and working to stop terrorism. I am not impressed with the Obama Administration’s foreign policy under the leadership of Secretary of State Clinton. We have consistently worked against freedom, and we have funded terrorism by giving money to Iran.

Please follow the link above to read the entire Wall Street Journal article. The foreign policy of the Obama Administration has been a nightmare for America. Electing Hillary Clinton as President will give us more of the same.

Cleaning Up The Mess In The Middle East

The Middle East is rapidly changing–in the past three years tyrannical dictators have been deposed in the name of the “Arab Spring” only to be replaced by chaos. The only stable country with a new stable government is Egypt. They are stable, but won’t win any more human rights awards than the government that existed before the Arab Spring.

So what is the solution? Fred Fleitz at the Center for Security Policy posted some good ideas on Thursday. Here they are:

  • Recognize that Russia and Iran are the problem, not the solution.  The United States needs to maintain dialogue with Russia but stop talking about working with Russia and Iran to fight ISIS since their goals are counter to American interests and regional security. Mr Obama needs to realize that an expanded and entrenched Russian/Iranian presence in the Middle East will have dire long term consequences for America and the region.
  • Work with our European and regional states to form a better military alliance to combat ISIS and to counter Russian and Iranian influence.  This should include creating a safe haven protected zone in northern Syria and intensified air strikes against ISIS targets.  The refugee crisis probably has made Europe more willing to participate in such an alliance.  France conducted its first airstrikes in Syria last week.
  • End the limitations on fighting ISIS in Iraq.  Let U.S. troops leave their bases so they can operate behind the lines in Iraq and support Iraqi security forces.  Provide better weapons to the Iraqi Kurds or let our allies arm them.  Incredibly, the Obama administration blocked Gulf states from sending heavy weapons to the Iraqi Kurds in July.
  • President Obama must stop making demands he has no intention of enforcing.  The world correctly sees Mr Obama’s demands that Assad leave office and Russia stop its military aid to the Assad government as idle threats.  Every time the president makes such demands, he further undermines American credibility and emboldens U.S. enemies and adversaries.  The word of the leader of the world’s superpower must be enough to change international events and not viewed as chatter that can be safely ignored.

The chances of any of these suggestions being followed is about the same as the chances of a snow storm in July in North Carolina. However, these suggestions are an example of how a strong leader would handle the current situation. In 2016 we need to elect someone who has this kind of insight into how to solve the current problems in the Middle East. Hopefully the situation will be salvageable at that point.

Losing Friends In The Middle East

Yesterday The Wall Street Journal posted an article about shifting alliances in the Middle East. The article pointed out that Israel and Saudi Arabia have both had strained relationships with America under President Obama.

The article comments on both of these relationships:

Each relationship would become special in its own way: one based on the need to protect access to Saudi oil and stability in the Persian Gulf; the other driven by support for a Jewish state in the wake of the Nazi genocide and what would increasingly be seen as shared values and interests with the region’s only democracy. Over the years there were significant tensions in both relationships, but more predictability and consistency were demonstrated than change.

Shifts in the Middle East have produced unprecedented stresses in both relationships. The Arab Spring, particularly the fall of Hosni Mubarak and perceptions that the Obama administration had facilitated his ouster, alienated the stability-driven Saudis. Growing tensions between the Netanyahu government and the Obama administration on settlements and the peace process strained U.S.-Israeli ties.

There are still read questions about the role President Obama played in the ouster of Hosni Mubarak and the support of the Muslim Brotherhood government that replaced him. When the government of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt was ousted, Washington voiced its displeasure.

The article concludes:

The administration’s view that Iran may hold the key to stability on the nuclear issue, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen has opened a divide with traditional allies who see things quite differently. As the administration looks more and more toward Iran, Israel and Saudi Arabia will look beyond Barack Obama–biding their time, furthering their own agendas, and hoping that the next president, regardless of party, will see Tehran in a different light.

Unfortunately it will take some time to repair the damage done both internationally and nationally by President Obama and his policies. Hopefully the next President will be up to the task and will bring change instead of more of the same.

A Man Who Understands The Situation

On Monday, Front Page Magazine posted an article about a speech made by Czech President Milos Zeman on the 26th of May 2014 at the Hilton Hotel about terrorism.

Here is the speech:

“The only holiday of independence which I can never leave out is the celebration of the independence of the Jewish State of Israel,” Zeman said.

“There are other nations with whom we share the same values, whether it’s free elections or a free market economy, but no one is threatening to delete those states from the map. No one shoots at their border towns and no one wants to see the citizens of those nations driven out of their country.”

“There is a term called political correctness and I consider it to be a euphemism for political cowardice. So I refuse to be cowardly.”

“It is necesarry to name the enemy of human civilization and this enemy is international terrorism associated with religious fundamentalism and religious intolerance. This fanatical creed does not only attack a single nation, as we saw after September 11. Muslim fanatics in Nigeria recently captured 200 young Christian girls. And in the flower at the heart of Europe, an abominable killing took place at the Jewish Museum in Brussels.”

“I am not reassured by the claims that this is the work of only a small fringe group. Quite the contrary. I believe that xenophobia, racism and anti-Semitism stems from the essential ideology that these fanatical groups are based on.”

“And let me provide a proof of this assertion in a quote from one of its sacred texts. ‘The Jews will hide behind stones and trees. Then the tree will call out, ‘A Jew hides behind me, come and kill him.’ The stone will call out, ‘A Jew hides behind me, come and kill him.’

“I criticized those who call for the killing of the Arabs, but I don’t know of about any mass movement that calls for the mass murder of Arabs. I do however know of an anti-civilizational movement which calls for the mass murder of the Jews.”

“One of the articles in the Hamas Charter calls for killing Jews.”

 “Do we really want to pretend that this is only a small group of extremists. Can we really be politically correct and insist that they are all good and that only a tiny number of the extremists and fundamentalists are committing these crimes?”

“One of my favourite essayists, Michel de Montaigne once wrote: “Good does not necessarily succeed evil; another evil may succeed, and a worse evil.”

“We began the Arab Spring, which became the Arab Winter, and the fight against the secular dictatorships has become a battle run by Al-Qaida.”

“Let’s throw out political correctness and call a spade, a spade.

“Yes we have friends in the world to whom we express our solidarity, but this solidarity costs us nothing because these folks are never threatened.”

“A true sense of solidarity is solidarity with a friend who is in distress and in danger, and so here I am.”

Unfortunately, there has not been a lot of press coverage of this speech. This is the policy the world needs to adopt in dealing with terrorism.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Behind The Rift Between The United States And Saudi Arabia

Yesterday Michael Ledeen posted an article at the Huffington Post about the recent rift between America and Saudi Arabia. Mr. Ledeen reminds us that the problem between the two countries is a result of the problems that Iran is causing in the Middle East.

The article reports:

During the 2011 “Arab Spring,” for example, Iran and Saudi Arabia came very close to direct armed conflict in Bahrain. The Iranian regime had allegedly fomented uprisings among the Shi’ites in Bahrain, a small island just off the coast of Saudi Arabia, to which it is connected by a two-mile causeway. There seemed to be a real possibility that the pro-Saudi, pro-American royal family might be overthrown, and the Saudis threatened to send troops across the causeway to put down the disturbance. Iran reacted violently, but when Saudi troops marched into Bahrain, the Guards were nowhere to be found.

Following the Saudi intervention, the Revolutionary Guards were reportedly ordered to organize attacks on Saudi targets all over the world. They reportedly recruited hundreds of Iranian suicide bombers (although this is usually disinformation, since the regime typically uses Arabs, not Iranians, for such operations).

The article at the Huffington Post lists a number of incidents in recent years where Iran has targeting the Saudis and their interests around the world.

The article concludes:

Bottom line: there’s a very real war out there, and the Saudis are in the Iranian crosshairs. The Royal Family are not just worried about the destiny of Syria, they’re very much concerned about their own fate. This is what gives so much intensity to their recent actions and statements.

The Saudis are not angels. However, they are a successful counterbalance to Iran i the Middle East. They are also responsible for the fact that oil is traded in American dollars. We need to treat them well.

Enhanced by Zemanta

A Resource For Keeping Your Family Safe

In the past, I did an article on an organization called Keep America Safe. That organization has taken its website down, so I have deleted the article. The person who informed me that the link was dead sent me an email with another website with suggestions as to how to keep your family safe during a terrorist attack. The website suggested was It is a commercial website that sells security equipment, but it also lists many suggestions regarding situational awareness and keeping your family safe.

Democracy In Egypt

Andrew McCarthy is one of the best authorities on the Muslim Brotherhood and how the Middle East works. He posted an article at National Review yesterday about the latest developments in Egypt.

The article reports:

Al-Ahram is reporting that Haze El-Beblawy has been appointed Egypt’s interim prime minister.

Andrew McCarthy then goes on to explain that after Hosni Mubarak was ousted Haze El-Beblawy was deputy finance minister and, later, finance minister, under the government led by the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces.

The goal of the military currently in charge of Egypt is to establish a stable, functioning government that writes a constitution that will insure rights for all religious groups and then move to elections. Because the elections were rushed after Mubarak was removed, the only really organized political party was the Muslim Brotherhood. They wrote the constitution, ran a candidate for president (after promising that they would not do that), and took over the country. The idea this time is to move more slowly, allow other political parties to get organized (which should be interesting, since the Brotherhood removed a lot of the opposition leadership), and have an election after the rights of minorities have been guaranteed by the new constitution.

So what are the chances?

Andrew McCarthy comments:

There is a good chance that it won’t work. After all, this is Egypt and, given the opportunity, Egyptians have repeatedly shown that they will vote by lopsided margins for anti-democratic Islamic supremacists over pro-Western democrats and progressives. As Mark trenchantly observed yesterday, “Egypt is imprisoned less by its passing dictators than by its own psychoses.” Nevertheless, what’s done is done, and the present course is the best chance some semblance of democracy has to take root. We should be cautiously encouraging it. 

…So now, as the mosques stoke opposition to the transition government against a background of shooting on the streets and an economy in ruins, there will also be a vivid sense that the leaders elected by the people have been shoved aside in favor of politicians decisively rejected by the people. This is going to be very uphill.

Democracy only happens with well-informed, rational voters. If the culture is not leaning in the direction of freedom (or if freedom is being denounced from the pulpits of the mosques),  the chances of establishing a democracy are reduced drastically. Until the voters in Egypt can get past the idea that voting for their own freedom is a betrayal of their religious beliefs, there will be no freedom in Egypt.

Watching the unfolding of the “Arab Spring” gives me a whole new appreciation of the gift to America that the Founding Fathers were. The wisdom and selflessness of America’s Founding Fathers is the only reason America has lasted as long as it has.


Enhanced by Zemanta

Consequences Of ‘Leading From Behind’

The U. K Telegraph reported yesterday that most of the weapons used by al Qaeda-linked militants to storm a gas facility in southeastern Algeria came from Libya, The weapons and yellow flak jackets with brown patches, known as “chocolate chip” camouflage worn by the terrorists were also used by Libyan rebels in the war against Muammar Gaddafi.

We may have deposed some tyrants in the Middle East in the Arab Spring, but it seems that in the process we have provided weapons to Al Qaeda and created unrest in the entire area. Unfortunately, the leaders who replaced the dictators that were toppled are no more democratic than their predecessors.

Enhanced by Zemanta

What Was Gained By The Middle East Cease Fire ?

Obviously, one of the main things gained by last night’s cease-fire between Israel and Hamas is that at least for the moment no one is getting attacked by rockets or suicide bombers. That is a good thing, but what is the price of this cease-fire?

Paul Mirengoff at Power Line posted an article yesterday listing the pros and cons of the agreement.

Some of the pros:

First, the agreement puts an end, at least for now, to the bombardment of Israel.

...Second, the agreement means that Israel will not undertake, at least for now, an invasion of Gaza. Such an invasion would have been bloody. Now, that bloodshed is avoided.

A third advantage exists to the extent that the U.S. made secret promises to Israel in exchange for its agreement to the cease fire (one hopes that Israel demanded some). Abstract promises and guarantees from Obama regarding Israel’s security are meaningless. But let’s hope that Israel received concrete promises pertaining to weaponry and the like.

Mr. Mirengoff points out that Hamas might have made the agreement because it was running out of rockets.

Unfortunately, there are also some problems with the cease-fire.

The article reports:

First, Hamas won. Why? Because it bombarded Israel and was not crushed for it.

…Second, because Hamas wins, Israel loses. There is no such thing as a win-win deal with an enemy whose goal is your destruction.

…A third disadvantage is that Israel reportedly has agreed to cease the targeting of terrorists like Ahmed al-Jabari, who was killed by an Israeli air strike at the outset of this conflict. This means that Hamas operatives can kill Israelis, or cause them to be killed, and then walk the streets of Gaza without fear of Israeli retaliation.

The article also notes some of the effect this conflict and truce will have on Iran‘s view of America‘s role in the Middle East. It appears that America acted as a neutral party rather than a supporter of Israel. We have told Israel that they could not target terrorists as we ourselves are targeting terrorist with drone strikes.

The article reaches some troubling conclusions:

More broadly, the fact that Hamas came out ahead — a bombing campaign against Israel produced Israeli concessions — will strengthen Israel’s many enemies. It will confirm their view that the Arab spring has turned the tide against Israel, and that history is on their side. The importance of this kind of cosmic confidence cannot be overstated.

The fact that Egypt is credited with brokering the deal will be part of the narrative. For one thing, of course, the radical Islamist government that brokered the deal is a creation — indeed, the flower — of the Arab Spring. For another, the fact (or even the perception) that Israel needed a radical Islamist government to bail it out of conflict it didn’t win militarily is a huge victory for the Muslim Brotherhood and, by extension, to Israel’s Islamist enemies everywhere.

This bring us to Iran. What will the mullahs think of this saga? One takeaway is that Israel did not defeat the weakest of its enemies. This follows Israel’s failure to defeat Hezbollah in the last Lebanon war. Iran will believe that, increasingly, Israel is a paper tiger that has lost the will to fight. This, in turn, will embolden Iran and its allies/puppets.

Stay tuned.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Some Negative Consequences Of The Arab Spring

As much as many people would like to see democracy come to Egypt, it doesn’t seem as if the situation is headed in that direction. Aside from the political tension in Egypt between the military and the Muslim Brotherhood, there is another aspect of the impact of the revolution in Egypt.

The BBC is reporting today that there has been a deadly attack in Israel on the border with Egypt that has killed on construction worker and injured another. The construction workers were building a fence along the Israeli Egyptian border.

The article reports:

Israeli officials said at least three gunmen had opened fire at the convoy of vehicles and also detonated an explosive device.

“A terrorist squad opened gunfire and possibly also fired an anti-tank rocket at an area where [Israel] is constructing the border fence,” Israeli military spokesman Yoav Mordechai told army radio.

“Soldiers arrived on the scene and killed one terrorist.”

They said that a second militant had been killed when the explosive device he was carrying detonated and the body of a third was found at the scene.

He said that those targeted were workers completing the border fence.

The workman who died was an Arab citizen of Israel, according to Reuters news agency.

The entire border area, including a major road near the coastal resort town of Eilat, was closed for a few hours after the attack and roadblocks were set up.

Military officials said they believed other militants involved in the attack had escaped back across the border into Egypt.

During Mubarak’s time, the border between Israel and Egypt was kept relatively secure. There were tunnels, but generally the border was not a staging area for terrorist activity in Israel. Since the fall of Mubarak, the border has been used for a number of terrorist attacks against Israel. The so-called Arab Spring will not bring either peace, democracy, or freedom to the Middle East.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Saudi Prince Nayef bin Abdulaziz Al Saud Has Died

Fox News is reporting today that Saudi Prince Nayef bin Abdulaziz Al Saud has died. Crown Prince Nayef was in his late 70’s. He was responsible for Saudi Arabia’s crackdown on Al Qaeda after the 9/11 attacks on America. He was the successor to the throne of Saudi Arabia.

The article reports:

Nayef’s death unexpectedly reopens the question of succession in this crucial U.S. ally and oil powerhouse for the second time in less than a year. The 88-year-old King Abdullah has now outlived two designated successors, despite ailments of his own. Now a new crown prince must be chosen from among his brothers and half-brothers, all the sons of Saudi Arabia’s founder, Abdul-Aziz. 

The figure believed most likely to be tapped as the new heir is Prince Salman, the current defense minister who previously served for decades in the powerful post of governor of Riyadh, the capital. The crown prince will be chosen by the Allegiance Council, an assembly of Abdul-Aziz’s sons and some of his grandchildren. 

As much as there are serious questions about some of the links between Saudi Arabia and radical Islam,the Saudis have traditionally been the ones who have been the voice of sanity in keeping the price of oil under control. The Saudi royal family is also on the radar of the Muslim Brotherhood as a target for the Arab Spring. The death of Crown Prince Nayef will have an impact on the balance of power in OPEC and in the Middle East.

Enhanced by Zemanta

An Interesting Development In Egypt

Andrew McCarthy posted a very interesting story at National Review today about some recent events in Egypt. He reminds us that the hope of Egypt (and the ‘Arab Spring’) was that democracy and religious tolerance would spread through the Arab countries of the Middle East. Unfortunately, that hope has not been realized. The radical Muslims are even fighting among themselves.

A few weeks ago a Shiite mosque opened in Cairo.

The article tells the story:

It’s a 90 percent Sunni country, with even Christians vastly outnumbering the Shia. So, in their euphoria over the mosque’s inauguration, Shiite clerics heralded this Husseiniya (as Shiite mosques are known) as a symbol of rapprochement. The mosque would bridge the sectarian divide: a Shia center in this bustling Sunni city, yet a house of worship, thus emphasizing what unites rather than divides Muslims in one of Islam’s most important nations.

The initial story sounds encouraging–maybe religious tolerance could come to Egypt. Unfortunately, the tolerance didn’t last long–the mosque was shut down last week.

The article reports:

Yesterday’s euphoria is melting into today’s harsh reality. In Cairo, home to the Muslim Brotherhood and the sharia jurists of ancient Al-Azhar University, “democracy” has meant the rise of Sunni supremacists. Turns out they don’t do bridge-building. Their tightening grip has translated into brutalizing dhimmitude for Christians and increasing intolerance of Shiism — which the Sunni leaders perceive less as Islam than as apostasy, an offense that sharia counts as more grievous than treason.

The Muslim Brotherhood was born is Egypt in 1928 as a reaction to the secularization of Turkey by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. The purpose of the Muslim Brotherhood was (and still is) to set up a world-wide caliphate governed by Sharia Law. That is also the goal of the Shiite regime in Iran, but obviously the Shiites assume they will be the ones running the caliphate. This is going to get interesting at some point because of that basic difference of philosophy, but the differences will probably not be an issue until after the world-wide caliphate is established (isn’t that encouraging?).

The article further reports:

In the Brotherhood’s way of thinking, as best articulated by Turkey’s prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, “democracy is just the train we board to reach our destination.” It’s a process, a conveyance, not a culture. In the case of Turkey, it was popular elections that enabled Erdogan to seize power and gradually transition a society away from democracy. In the case of Egypt, it is popular elections that have installed the Brotherhood and other Sunni supremacists, enabling them to orchestrate the much less challenging transition from an Islamic culture to a sharia state.

Because members of the Muslim Brotherhood are actively participating in our government at many levels, we are continuing to fund the Islamization of the Middle East. We are supplying people who want to destroy our way of life with the weapons to use in doing it. Until the American government takes an honest look at our policies in the Middle East (including Irag and Afghanistan where we have allowed Sharia Law to be written into their constitutions), the Muslim Brotherhood will quietly continue to consolidate its gains. Democracy is possible in the Middle East, but as the article by Andrew McCarthy states, democracy has to be introduced into the culture first. 





Enhanced by Zemanta

Disquieting News From The Middle East

Breitbart is reporting tonight that the Israeli government has called up six reserve battalions because of increasing danger on its Egyptian and Syrian borders. Since the revolution in Egypt, the Sinai has been used as a point of origin for terrorist attacks, and the continuing unrest in Syria also has the potential of spilling over into Israel.

The article concludes:

Al Qaeda terrorists have reportedly moved into Syria to destabilize the situation even further. Thousands of Al Qaeda members have come into Syria from the north, among whom are Saudis, Egyptians, Lebanese, Palestinians, Iraqis and Sudanese. On Monday, April 30, the Al Qaeda groups set a series of bombs in Damascus, after an Al Qaeda terrorist blew himself up along with 9 worshipper in a Damascus mosque two days earlier.

 With the Muslim Brotherhood in charge in Egypt and al Qaeda in Syria, Israel is surrounded.  And with Iran rapidly approaching nuclear status, can Israel afford to depend on the United States for help as long as Barack Obama and his anti-Israel animus remain in office?

 Israeli reserves are necessary because the seething cauldron of the Arab Spring, nurtured by its champion in the Oval Office, may soon boil over.

The Obama Administration totally misunderstood the direction of the Arab Spring, and that mistake is about to become very obvious. The Arab Spring was not about democracy–it was taken over by the Muslim Brotherhood with the goal of establishing a Muslim Caliphate and eliminating Israel. Backed by Iran (soon to go nuclear), the Arab Spring is about to take the next step in that direction. Last year was the year the dictators fell. This year will be the year when the royal families are undermined and possibly removed from power.




Enhanced by Zemanta

There May Be Hope For Democracy In Tunisia

The Washington Post posted a story yesterday which updated what is happening in Tunisia after the revolution.

The article opens with this scene:

Upstairs, Ibrahim Amara and his friends gather around the computer to watch YouTube preachers offering a vision of Islam that rejects democracy and elections. “Democracy’s freedom is absolute,” Ibrahim says, “and we don’t accept that. In our religion, freedom is limited to the freedom God gives you.”

Downstairs, Ibrahim’s father, Saleh Amara, explodes in frustration over his son’s new, post-revolutionary passion. Saleh and his wife have gone along with some of their 27-year-old’s new restrictions — okay, they’d stop watching soap operas and “Oprah” on TV, because there was too much sexual content — but Saleh says his son goes too far. Growing the long beard of the pious is fine, though it will probably limit his job opportunities. And if Ibrahim insists that his secular-raised, college-educated wife cover her hair and wear gloves, well, that’s his business. But how can he spurn free elections, the sweetest fruit of Tunisia’s revolution?

That is the problem with balancing democracy with Islam. Islamic governments, if they follow Islamic Law (Sharia Law) are incompatible with democracy. There is a divide in Tunisia as to whether the country will become a western-style democracy or a Muslim theocracy.

The article further states:

In the campaign leading to October’s elections and in the months since, small but violent demonstrations by Salafists have frightened many Tunisians.

Islamist preachers calling for sharia law, a return to polygamy and a reduced role for women do not represent a majority but are making headway, some secular Tunisians worry. At brunch, over spicy tuna salad and brik — Tunisia’s fried phyllo snack — served on Royal Albert china, Cherif tells of a well-educated friend whose mother chastised him for voting for a secular party. “You voted against Allah,” the mother said.

“How do you fight against that?” Cherif asks. “How do you educate people about our mild Tunisian brand of Islam when Islamist parties are telling voters that their path is the only one to paradise?”

There has been hope from the beginning of the ‘Arab Spring‘ for western democracies in the Middle East. Tunisia is the only country where that seems remotely possible. We need to keep in mind that Turkey existed as a western democracy since Ataturk’s reforms in 1924 helped Turkey become a secular nation. Unfortunately in the past few years, the Muslim Brotherhood is taking over the nation and support for Sharia Law has grown. There are still Christian churches in Turkey, but they do not have signs on their buildings–it would not be safe to identify them as churches. I hope that Tunisia can survive as a western-style democracy where all religions are treated equally. Unfortunately, recent events in the Middle East which have strengthened the Muslim Brotherhood will make that difficult.


Enhanced by Zemanta

Does This Mean I Can Leave My Shoes On ?

Yesterday the Weekly Standard posted an article about a rather amazing statement made by senior official in the State Department.

The article reports:

The war on terror is over,” a senior official in the State Department official tells the National Journal. “Now that we have killed most of al Qaida, now that people have come to see legitimate means of expression, people who once might have gone into al Qaida see an opportunity for a legitimate Islamism.” 

Evidently, the theory behind the statement is the belief that the Arab Spring has changed things. The Obama Administration sees the need to cultivate positive relationships with the Muslim Brotherhood and other ‘moderate’ Muslim groups. That’s a really interesting idea considering that the stated goal of the Muslim Brotherhood is a worldwide caliphate achieved by overthrowing western governments either by force or subversion. (google: Holy Land Foundation Case documents)

I understand that the State Department wants to make friends with everyone. That is an admirable goal, but how wise is it to attempt to cuddle a rattlesnake? The war on terror is not over. Unfortunately, those who seek to do us harm are still out there planning. Are we planning defense?

The article concludes:

This new outlook is radically different than what was expressed under President George W. Bush immediately after September 11, 2001. “Over time it’s going to be important for nations to know they will be held accountable for inactivity,” Bush said on November 6, 2001. “You’re either with us or against us in the fight against terror.

For President Barack Obama, it would seem, one can be both with us and against us–or not with us, but not quite against us. 

We shouldn’t forget the need to protect our country. I’m not sure that President Obama understands that concept.



Enhanced by Zemanta

April 3rd In Stoughton Massachusetts

“The Middle East, Foreign Policy and the 2012 Elections”
Tuesday, April 3rd @ 7:30 PM
Ahavath Torah Congregation
1179 Central Street
Stoughton, MA 02072
Suggested Donation: $10*
*Or Bring Your Electricity Bill (National Grid, NStar etc.) to waive the fee.
We will show you how to save some money and how to help the Speaker Program at the same time!
Program Overview: Rockets fired into Israel, the Arab Spring, elections in the United States… These events and more are coalescing as we speak. Islamists believe that their battle with us is primarily “information warfare,” as compared to our focus on kinetic war – shootings, bombings, kidnappings and other acts of “terrorism.” The former manifests itself as political warfare, influence over operations, and subversion of our foundational institutions – political, educational, religious, and media. Our failure to understand this and to know the enemy doctrine cripples our ability to engage the enemy where it fights its main battle.
About EJ Kimball: Before joining SEG, while serving as Foreign Policy Counsel to US Congresswoman Sue Myrick (NC) from 2006-2008, EJ created the bipartisan Congressional Anti-Terrorism Caucus, the first organization of its kind dedicated to helping members of Congress understand our enemy in the War on Terror. He organized and implemented bi-weekly threat briefings for Caucus members given by leading experts on terrorism and jihadist ideology. EJ later joined the Investigative Project on Terrorism as Managing Director of the Research Department, where he coordinated investigations into leading Muslim Brotherhood entities and individuals and provided briefings on the same to members of Congress and the United States Department of Justice. His areas of expertise include US Foreign Policy, Strategic Analysis and Communications, and the Muslim Brotherhood.
For information email
Enhanced by Zemanta

Congress? What Congress?

Big Government posted an article yesterday about America’s military aid to Egypt. Congress has halted aid to Egypt until and “unless the State Department certifies that Egypt is making progress on basic freedoms and human rights.”  President Obama evidently has other ideas. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is expected to announce that America will resume funding Egypt’s military despite Congressional restrictions.

The article reports:

Even Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-VT), a man with whom I’ve never agreed on anything, sees the foolishness of this endeavor: “I believe [sending the aid] would be a mistake. The new [restrictions were] intended to put the United States squarely on the side of the Egyptian people who seek a civilian government that respects fundamental freedoms and the rule of law, and to clearly define the terms of our future relations with the Egyptian military.”

If Congress ever intends to be relevant, it needs to get its head out of the sand and confront President Obama on this power grab. Never-mind that Christians, Jews, and innocent civilians are being killed in Egypt on a regular basis by the government brought about by the ‘Arab Spring,’ this is simply unconstitutional.

Sending military aid to Egypt at this time will do nothing except destabilize the Middle East and make Israel more vulnerable to attack. I think Congress may have figured out that the new government of Egypt is not our friend, but evidently the President hasn’t.

Enhanced by Zemanta

This Really Isn’t Very Surprising

The Arab Spring is not looking too good right now. It seems as if some of the countries in the Middle East have swapped one form of tyranny for another. It doesn’t seem as if freedom is part of the picture of the governments being formed. reported yesterday:

Egypt’s Islamist-dominated parliament voted to include 50 of its lawmakers in a 100-member panel tasked with writing a new constitution, with the remainder coming from other institutions.

So half of the people writing the constitution will be Islamists and the rest may or may not be.

The article reports:

The makeup of the committee has been the focus of wrangling over the degree of influence Islamist groups will have shaping the constitution. The Muslim Brotherhood’s party alliance makes up the largest bloc in the recently elected parliament, followed by a Salafi alliance. Salafis are followers of an austere interpretation of Islam.

When we look at this, we need to remember the historic roots of the Muslim Brotherhood. Both the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafis support Sharia Law as the law of the land. Individual freedom is not part of Sharia Law. The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in 1928 by Hassan al-Banna. It was formed in reaction to the secular society that was being set up in Turkey by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk after the fall of the Ottoman Empire. The mission of the Muslim Brotherhood is a worldwide caliphate. The takeover of Egypt will be one more step in that direction.

Enhanced by Zemanta