Not Trusting Barack Hussein Obama

John R. Houk
© August 15, 2009

Below is an essay that began as part of an ongoing dialogue between me and a Commenter that goes by Johnny-O on the Vox Social Network. Johnny-O initiated commenting on a photo of Orly Taitz. The photo was connected to a March 18, 2009 post. I think Johnny-O’s ire pertaining to the now discredited Kenya Birth Certificate. Ironically our dialogue evolved into something far different than Orly Taitz, Obama Legitimacy and the Birth Certificate post. If you wish to view the context of the evolving comments that led to this essay the link is HERE.

GW Bush's policy of a Two-State solution is not something I agreed with either. I felt that was also a sell out.

Bush's Israel/Palestine policy and Obama's Israel/Palestine policy are based on the foreign policy gurus that call themselves (or at least are called) "Realists". It stretches through the both the Republican and Democratic Party. The Realists believe that giving Israel absolute support no longer serves the National Interests of the USA. The Realists did not view Israel's democracy an asset as much as they viewed Israel's military an excellent counter-weight to Soviet influence among primarily American-hating Arab nations. As long as Israel was a superior military power, Soviet military donations and sales to Arab nations hostile to the West were in check.

The paradigm began to change when the Communist regime fell in the old USSR. More Arab nations began to seek American aid. Thus Israel's National Interests began to be seen in a different in comparison to America's National Interests stability in the Middle East. Hence both Democrat and Republican Realists began to view Israel as an emerging liability despite their Democracy. Fortunately there are still a huge amount of American voters that don't have the same view as the Realists; however the Left has actively been propagandizing the "need" for a Palestinian State to bring peace and stability to the Middle East. Jewish Americans (of which 75% - 80% [depending on the exit poll] voted Democrat in the last election) tend to be Leftists and are buying the Obama propaganda America will protect Israel from foreign attack.

The reality is the Realist Obama Administration is viewing a nuclear Iran as ok assuming the psycho-mullahs would not push buttons in a Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) Cold War restraint foreign policy ideology. I don't believe that about Iran. I believe Iran will continue to arm the likes of Hamas and Hezbollah to use a sovereign Palestine as a launching base to further the designs of Jew-hating Muslims (Sunni and Shia) in the Middle East. If the USA indicates it wishes to make nice with Middle Eastern Muslim nations, it will encourage the decision for another attack on Israel as in the days of 1948 - 1973 when invading Arab nations sought the obliteration of Israel's existence.

As an example: Saddam Hussein who was receiving a lot of military support from America because of Iran's belligerence at one time felt he was receiving hidden messages of an OK for Iraq to invade Kuwait and annex the tiny oil Sheikdom into Iraq. Hussein’s thinking was that Kuwaiti oil production could make up the revenue depleted from the 8 yr war with Iran (in which the USA covertly supported Iraq). Saudi hysteria of a psycho-Saddam making military inroads nearly right on the Saudi Peninsula asked for an appeal to America to stop Saddam's adventurism. Who produces more oil? Iraq or Saudi Arabia? Hence Kuwait was saved and a message was sent to the Mullah's of Iran that America can get close to Iran.

So will an American government abandon Israel? Right now I would say no; however the Realist chipping does increase the potential of Israeli abandonment by the USA. It really depends on the Realist v 'Israel is a friend' debate with in the State Dept and the Defense Dept. Right now the Realists seem to be winning.

As to being afraid "to try" giving Obama a chance; I am an American and I hope he has success with undoing an economy that the politics of Dems and GOPs both screwed up. It wasn't all Bush as Obama implies.

As a good Conservative my concern is that America's free market system will become socialized (as in national State management). It might actually be a good temporary quick fix but history shows that State management eventually leads to economic stagnation. If Obama is successful in direct government involvement in major businesses he has to recognize there is time to replace State management with Free Markets that have better Regulations to avoid the same mistakes of allowing bad loans to occur to the degree it could affect the whole economy.

Frankly I do not trust that about the current President. His entire history is an association of Marxists, Black Liberation Socialists and anti-Israel/pro-Palestinian individuals (SA HERE) that believe in an absolute socialized system is America should be in which racial quotas out weigh merit.

I can't trust that.

Below is the Johnny-O comment that inspired this essay.

JRH 8/15/09
************************
August 14, 2009

So, why then did no less a Great World Leader than George W Bush say he was all for a two-state solution for the Israel/Palestinian state question?

Thanx for catching my mispelling of Czechoslavakia, I think yoiu will agree that is a tough one!

And, how do you know what Obama wants to do, when he has never said what he plans to do with such matters? The Jewish councils and organizations in this country seem to think he's a fair man - and chatting up Arabs who are Muslims, even anti-Semetic ones, is NOT the same thing as selling out Israel.

The US is an ally to Israel for one reason and one reason only: They are the only democracy in a regional nest of kingdoms, religious theocracies, and military dictatorships who surround them as enemies. We will always be on Israel's side as long as they keep having free and fair elections (which is more than can be said about us in 2000, btw!), and nothing is gonna change that.

I wish you anti-Obamians would stop making up lies - 'cause that is what they are - for no good reason.

If you want to blame someone for Obama's election to the Presidency, blame W - he and his Neo-Cons and their Evangelical allies have not only all but destroyed the GOP, but made the American People (54% of us, anyway) so disaffected with them that we are willing to try anything or anyone - and make history in the process.

I told you before, genius - I don't know why this is so hard for you to understand - I am no 'Obamaphile' - and he is no 'Obamassiah' - if he lets us all down, his betrayal will be all the more despicable. Believe me, that will set you and me squarely on the same side. But I believe we should give him a chance, just like we did a true interloper, George W Bush.

Why are you afraid to try?

~Johnny

PA Tells Arabs One Thing and Israel/America Another

Even as the Bush Administration and Prime Minister Olmert explore a point of concession to establish another Arab nation which will be called Palestine, the official television network of the Palestinian Authority (i.e. operated by Fatah terrorists) shows a map on their network on October 11, 2007 of Israel as the sovereign nation of Palestine.

What is the concession? Actually the concession is numerous and dangerous for Israel’s existence: the giving up of what Israelis call portions of Judea and Samaria and the West calls the West Bank. The heinous concession on the table for discussion is dividing Jerusalem between Israel and the emerging repugnant State of Palestine.

How is this coming about? The Bush Administration is twisting the Israeli government arm to establish a “Palestine” on Arab terms and Olmert is acquiescing to the arm twist at Jewish expense.

Palestine Authority (PA) President (also Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) Chairman) Mahmoud Abbas controls the content station PATV. Somebody explain to me how that makes Abbas a trustworthy partner in negotiation to keep any bargains he submits? It is extremely apparent that Abbas is following in Yasser Arafat’s footsteps of telling the West and Israel anything they want to hear and telling the Arabs called Palestinians that the destruction of Jewish Israel is imminent.

I submit that the creation of a Palestinian State will lead to a blood bath of either Jews or Mohammedan Arabs. How can I say this? I can say so because once the Arabs of the Palestinian Authority under the direction of the umbrella terrorist network known as the PLO becomes a sovereign Palestine, that horrific nation of State thuggery will have the tools to negotiate with rogue nations and arms dealing nations (Russia and China) for a military designed to invade the rest of Israel.

Someone will win and it won’t be pretty. Not only that, due to the current investment of America in the Middle East due to the War on Terror, America will participate in that Israeli/Palestinian war. And if America participates then certainly Iran will follow the Palestinians with Russia joining closely on Iran's heals. I say Russia because the Old Bear has warned off Western nations from attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities. If Iran and Syria partner to support a Palestine, America will attack Iran’s military capabilities – including the nuclear facilities. Russia will have to do something or face international disgrace (again) in talking big but not yielding clout.

A sovereign Palestinian State will lead to this scenario.

It would be better for the Arab nations surrounding Israel to admit their mistake in creating a group of Arab refugees and matriculate those Arabs into their nations. The biggest candidate for the matriculation is Jordan since its existence was intended for the Arabs while a sliver of land was to be reserved for Israel. This was a League of Nations Mandate given to the British then a United Nations Mandate before third world dictators and Arab nationalists backed by oil infected the World Body with corruption.

Just as the British shafted the Jewish people just after WWI to appease the aid that was given by Arabs to defeat the Ottoman Turks, there is the appearance the American government is preparing a raw deal for Israel for global considerations of oil and the need for Middle Eastern allies in the War on Terror. Thus once again Israel is being placed in a position to negotiate away their land acquired by victory during numerous attacks by Arabs to exterminate Israel and Jews. This includes the holiest site to all Judaism and the most significant site to Christendom – Jerusalem.

Law and Disorder: Sherman's March through the Law

It’s Law and Order time, Fred Thompson writes about the Libby conviction for AEI.
JRH
************************************************

Law and Disorder: Sherman's March through the Law

By Fred Thompson

Posted: Wednesday, March 7, 2007

American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research

Doesn't Patrick Fitzgerald look like a man who has dodged a bullet and is ready to get out of town? That was my first impression after watching the special-prosecutor's press conference after news came down Wednesday about Scooter Libby. It would seem that prosecuting a Bush official before a Washington jury is not necessarily a slam dunk after all when the gruel is this thin.

Two crucial decisions were made in order for this sorry state of affairs to have played out this way. The first was when the Justice Department folded under political and media pressure because of the Plame leak and appointed a special counsel. When DOJ made the appointment they knew that the leak did not constitute a violation of the law. Yet, instead of standing on that solid legal ground they abdicated their official responsibility.

The Plame/Wilson defenders wanted administration blood because the administration had had the audacity to question the credibility of Joe Wilson and defend themselves against his charges. Therefore, the Department of Justice, in order to completely inoculate themselves, gave power and independence to Fitzgerald that was not available to Ken Starr, Lawrence Walsh, or any prior independent counsel under the old independent-counsel law. Fitzgerald became unique in our judicial history in that he was accountable to no one. And here even if justice had retained some authority they could hardly have asked Fitzgerald why he continued to pursue a non-crime because they knew from the beginning there was no crime.

From there the players' moves were predictable. Fitzgerald began his Sherman's march through the law and the press until he thought he had finally come up with something to justify his lofty mandate--a case that would not have been brought in any other part of the country.

The media by then was suffering from Stockholm syndrome--they feared and loved Fitzgerald at the same time. He was establishing terrible precedent by his willingness to throw reporters in jail over much less than serious national-security matters--the Ashcroft standard! Yet Fitzgerald was doing the Lord's work in their eyes. This was a "bad leak" not a "good leak" like the kind they like to use. And it was much better to get the Tim Russert and Ari Fleischer treatment than it is to get the Judith Miller treatment. Fitzgerald paid no price for his prosecutorial inconsistencies, his erroneous public statements, or his possible conflicts of interest. And now they get to point out how this case revealed the "deep truths" about the White House.

The second decision was made by Libby himself. It was the decision to spend eight hours without counsel in a grand-jury room with Fitzgerald with this controversy swirling around him while trying to remember and recount conversations with various news reporters--reporters who he knew would be interviewed about these conversations themselves. These, of course, were reporters Libby had no right to expect to do him any favors. This sounds like a man with nothing to hide. This sounds like a man who doesn't appreciate the position he is in or what or whom he is dealing with.

It is ironic that what Libby is facing today is not due to the evil machinations so often attributed to the White House but rather due to an apparent naivety.

Like most Washington political fights, very few participants have been left unscathed. Among the results of this investigation and trial, there will be less cooperation by public officials in future investigations and less ability of reporters to get information. We should ask ourselves: Are our institutions or is our sense of justice stronger because of this prosecution?

Fred Thompson is a visiting fellow at AEI.

© 2005 (sic) American Enterprise Institute. All Rights Reserved.