Charles Krauthammer, "Comey: A Theory": Welcome "Banana Republic Day," America's Newest National Holiday

Tweet

July 7, falling a mere three days after Independence Day, has become a US national holiday.

Yesterday, on July 7, 2016, FBI Director James Comey continued to claim before the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee that no reasonable prosecutor would file charges against Hillary Clinton for mishandling classified information, owing to a lack of intent on Clinton's part. However as noted by Charles Krauthammer in a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Comey: A theory," "it’s a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or 'through gross negligence'" pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 793(f). Krauthammer goes on to say regarding Comey's refusal to recommend prosecution because of a lack of intent:

"Just last year, the Justice Department successfully prosecuted naval reservist Bryan Nishimura, who improperly downloaded classified material to his personal, unclassified electronic devices.

The government admitted that there was no evidence that Nishimura intended to distribute the material to others. Nonetheless, he was sentenced to two years of probation, fined and forever prohibited from seeking a security clearance, which effectively kills any chance of working in national security."

More to the point, however, is Comey's acknowledgement yesterday, under questioning by Rep. Jason Chaffetz, Chairman of the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee, that Hillary provided access to her home server and government emails to between 2 and 10 people without security clearances. As reported by Alana Goodman in a Washington Free Beacon article entitled "FBI Director: Clinton Gave Non-Cleared People Access to Classified Information":

"The FBI director hedged when Chaffetz asked whether Clinton’s non-cleared attorneys ever read her classified emails.

'I don’t know the answer to that,' said Comey. 'I don’t know whether they read them at the time.' [Hillary's campaign has claimed that the attorneys read all of her emails.]

Chaffetz pressed the FBI director on the question of access.

'Did Hillary Clinton give non-cleared people access to classified information?' asked Chaffetz.

'Yes,' said Comey, before adding that he did not see evidence of criminal intent.

'Her intent was to get good legal representation and to make the production to the State Department,' added Comey. 'I don’t see the evidence there to make the case that she was acting with criminal intent in her engagement with her lawyers.'

Chaffetz appeared confounded by Comey’s response, arguing that the act of giving an unsecured person access to classified information was a crime on its own.

'I read criminal intent as the idea that you allow someone without a security clearance access to classified information,' said Chaffetz. 'Everybody knows that, director. Everybody knows that.'"

Equally awful as previously admitted by Comey, Hillary's attorneys, who lacked security clearances, "deleted all emails they did not return to State, and the lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery.” This is not indicative of intent to mishandle classified information?

Will Nishimura now appeal his conviction?

Welcome "Banana Republic Day," celebrating yet another instance in which Hillary Clinton made a monkey of 323 million Americans.

[Do you have six minutes to spare? Watch Rep. Trey Gowdy destroy Comey's claim of "no intent" before the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee.]

Thomas Friedman, "Impossible Missions": Yes, Wisconsin (Not Virginia), There Is a Santa Claus

Tweet

Yes, Virginia Wisconsin, there is a Santa Claus. Could it be that Donald and Hillary, i.e. Freddy Krueger and Jason Voorhees, will not be battling it out in November? Thank you, badgers! It had been pretty bleak until last night.

On the subject of bleak (and dull-witted), Thomas Friedman, in a New York Times op-ed entitled "Impossible Missions," discusses Professor Michael Mandelbaum's new book called “Mission Failure: America and the World in the Post-Cold War Era.” Warmly recommending the book, Friedman writes:

"In earlier historical epochs the world relied on imperial powers to come in and control zones of weak governance, as the Ottomans did for 500 years in the Middle East. Then it relied on colonial powers. Then it relied on homegrown kings, colonels and dictators to maintain order.

But what if we’re now in a post-imperial, post-colonial and post-authoritarian age? The kings, colonels and dictators of old did not have to deal with amplified citizens deeply connected to one another and the world with smartphones. The old autocrats also had vast oil resources or aid from superpowers in the Cold War to buy off their people. What if they now have bulging populations, dwindling oil revenues and can’t buy off their people or shut them up?

The only option is more consensual government and social contracts among equal citizens."

Ah yes, Arab Spring II and another Green Revolution in Iran! I can assure you that Morsi and Khamenei know of other options. Go back to sleep, Tom.

Meanwhile, on the subject of Iran, Congressman Ed Royce, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, expresses concern in a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "The United States must not aid and abet Iranian money laundering," that the Obama administration intends to provide Iran with access to the American financial system in exchange for . . . nothing. Royce writes:

"Last summer, in testimony to Congress, Lew vowed, 'Iranian banks will not be able to clear U.S. dollars through New York, hold correspondent account relationships with U.S. financial institutions, or enter into financing arrangements with U.S. banks.' As the secretary made clear, 'Iran, in other words, will continue to be denied access to the world’s largest financial and commercial market.'

Yet when I questioned Lew just two weeks ago about whether he stood by this testimony, he refused to give a direct answer. And so this appears to be just the latest in a long pattern of concessions to protect the president’s 'legacy' deal. In recent months, the administration gutted a new law to strengthen the visa waiver program to please the Iranians and has imposed only minimal sanctions on Iran’s missile program — even as Iran launches missiles stamped with the words 'Israel must be wiped off the face of the earth.'"

You mean to say that the Obama administration, which promised Americans that if they liked their doctors and healthcare plans, they could keep them, in order to sell Obama's "legacy" Affordable Care Act, also lied to Congress to sell his "legacy" nuclear deal with Iran? Yes, I know: Obama's omniscient ends justify his unscrupulous means.

And so we had John Kerry telling us that Iran "absolutely" deserved access to US dollars, although none other than Obama recently acknowledged that Iran is not abiding by the "spirit" of the nuclear deal, and notwithstanding Iran's test launches of ballistic missiles.

The ballistic missiles? As reported by Adam Kredo in a Washington Free Beacon article entitled "Congress Investigating Obama Admin Deception on Iran Nuke Deal":

"[C]ongressional leaders are concerned that the administration no longer considers recent Iranian ballistic missile tests a 'violation' of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231, which codifies the nuclear deal.

Top administration officials including Secretary of State John Kerry vowed to Congress that Iran would be legally prohibited from carrying out ballistic missile tests under the resolution.

Samantha Power, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., shifted course last week, refusing to call recent Iranian launches a 'violation' in a letter she signed criticizing those launches."

Repercussions in the Middle East owing to Obama's duplicity? Read what Yousef Al Otaiba, the ambassador of the United Arab Emirates to the US, has to say in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece entitled "One Year After the Iran Nuclear Deal" about Obama's promise that the nuclear deal with Iran would "make the world safer":

"Sadly, behind all the talk of change, the Iran we have long known—hostile, expansionist, violent—is alive and well, and as dangerous as ever. We wish it were otherwise. In the United Arab Emirates, we are seeking ways to coexist with Iran. Perhaps no country has more to gain from normalized relations with Tehran. Reducing tensions across the less than 100-mile-wide Arabian Gulf could help restore full trade ties, energy cooperation and cultural exchanges, and start a process to resolve a 45-year territorial dispute.

Since the nuclear deal, however, Iran has only doubled down on its posturing and provocations. In October, November and again in early March, Iran conducted ballistic-missile tests in violation of United Nations Security Council resolutions.
In December, Iran fired rockets dangerously close to a U.S. aircraft carrier in the Strait of Hormuz, just weeks before it detained a group of American sailors. In February, Iranian Defense Minister Hossein Dehghan visited Moscow for talks to purchase more than $8 billion in Russian fighter jets, planes and helicopters.

In Yemen, where peace talks now hold some real promise, Iran’s disruptive interference only grows worse. Last week, the French navy seized a large cache of weapons on its way from Iran to support the Houthis in their rebellion against the U.N.-backed legitimate Yemeni government. In late February, the Australian navy intercepted a ship off the coast of Oman with thousands of AK-47s and rocket-propelled grenades. And last month, a senior Iranian military official said Tehran was ready to send military 'advisers' to assist the Houthis.

The interference doesn’t stop there. Since the beginning of the year, Tehran and its proxies have increased their efforts to provide armor-piercing explosive devices to Shiite cells in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia. A former Iranian general and close adviser to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei called for Iran to annex all of Bahrain. And in Syria, Iran continues to deploy Hezbollah militias and its own Iranian Revolutionary Guard to prop up Syria’s Bashar Assad.

. . . .

If the carrots of engagement aren’t working, we must not be afraid to bring back the sticks. Recent half measures against Iran’s violations of the ballistic-missile ban are not enough. If the aggression continues, the U.S. and the global community should make clear that Iran will face the full range of sanctions and other steps still available under U.N. resolutions and in the nuclear deal itself."

"Bring back the sticks"? Reinstate the sanctions? Sorry, but not if it means that a narcissistic Obama must acknowledge that he was dead wrong.

Gail Collins, "An Iowa To-Do List": Hillary R. Clinton Will You Please Go Now!

Tweet

Marvin K. Mooney Hillary R. Clinton will you please go now!

Go to the homepage of The Washington Post where the lead story is still  "The State Department: Hillary Clinton’s email correspondence contained ‘top secret’ material," which followed on the heels of last night's bombshell revelation by the US State Department that additional top secret mails were found on Hillary's home server, including email correspondence with Obama. Obama has claimed that he didn't know that Hillary was using a private server and that the home server didn't pose a national security threat. Yeah, right.

Now go to the homepage of The New York Times: Currently not a mention of the story. "All the News Fit to Print," or, "What You Don't Know About Hillary Can't Hurt Her"? And so, perhaps you will be less than surprised to learn that Gail Collins, in her latest Times op-ed entitled "An Iowa To-Do List," also makes no mention of Hillary's email scandal, which is spiraling out of control. Instead, Collins lambastes the Republican presidential candidates and begins her opinion piece by observing:

"Iowa Republicans have a lot of choices on Monday, none of whom bear any resemblance to the second coming of Abraham Lincoln.

They’re not going to pick a paragon. But maybe they could at least get rid of somebody awful. Ted Cruz? Please, Iowa, if you could do anything to knock Ted Cruz out of the race, the country would be grateful. I know he has supporters. But the intensity of loathing among the rest of the population is very strong."

And America's "intensity of loathing" of Hillary? Long before yesterday's State Department disclosure, a Quinnipiac poll determined that the first words that come to mind when thinking of Hillary Clinton are "liar" and "dishonest." That sounds a bit like "loathing" to me."

Collins then calls for Iowa to eliminate Marco Rubio from the race, owing to his flip-flops on immigration:

"Cruz spent most of this week’s debate sniping at Marco Rubio — and Iowa, if you could get rid of both these guys, it’d be appreciated. I know that’s a lot to ask."

Mention by Collins of Hillary's flip-flops on the Iraq War, same sex marriage, free trade, gun control and immigration? None. I suppose this is because Hillary is granted space to allow her positions to "evolve."

Collins's conclusion:

"The truth, of course, is that someone awful will win, and nobody will go away. There’s still hope. And New Hampshire! Equally cold, but only 10 counties."

"Someone awful will win"? If only Hillary, The New York Times and Gail Collins could come to terms with the fact that Hillary, nearing indictment, must drop out of the race for the Democratic presidential nomination before doing additional damage to her party and to the United States.

And yes, Joe, it's time to toss your hat in the ring, before it's too late.

Charles Krauthammer, "The GOP gets the Iran prisoner swap wrong": "Millions for Defense, but Not One Cent for Tribute"

Tweet

"Millions for Defense, but Not One Cent for Tribute."

- US Senator Robert Goodloe Harper, 1798

In a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "The GOP gets the Iran prisoner swap wrong," Charles Krauthammer labels the recent prisoner exchange with Iran as "asymmetric," yet reasonable:

"Republicans say: We shouldn’t negotiate with terror states. But we do and we should. How else do you get hostages back? And yes, of course negotiating encourages further hostage taking. But there is always something to be gained by kidnapping Americans. This swap does not affect that truth one way or the other.

And here, we didn’t give away much. The seven released Iranians, none of whom has blood on his hands, were sanctions busters (and a hacker), and sanctions are essentially over now. The slate is clean."

The US "didn't give much away"? Oh really? In an article entitled "Basij Commander: US Bought Freedom of Spies by Releasing $1.7 bln of Iran's Frozen Assets," Iran's Fars News Agency informs us:

"Commander of Iran's Basij (volunteer) Force Brigadier General Mohammad Reza Naqdi said the US agreed to release $1.7 of Iran's frozen funds in a bid to buy freedom of its spies held by Tehran.

The US agreed to repay Iran a $400 million debt and $1.3 billion in interest dating to the Islamic revolution.

'The annulment of sanctions against Iran's Bank Sepah and reclaiming of $1.7mln of Iran's frozen assets after 36 years showed that the US doesn’t understand anything but the language of force,' Naqdi said, addressing Basij forces in Tehran on Wednesday.

'This money was returned for the freedom of the US spy and it was not related to the (nuclear) negotiations,' he added."

Or stated otherwise, the release of the Americans involved more than a prisoner exchange. It also involved the payment of ransom.

Moreover, Naqdi's claim has been confirmed by the US government. As reported by Adam Kredo in a Washington Free Beacon article entitled "Obama Admin Paid Iran $1.7 Billion From Taxpayer Funds":

"Senior officials from the State Department and White House National Security Council confirmed to the Washington Free Beacon that to settle outstanding legal disputes with Iran, the administration tapped into the Treasury Department’s Judgment Fund, a federal account that has been used by the executive branch to settle international legal claims.

The settlement was reached independently from the recently implemented nuclear deal and is separate from the $150 billion in unfrozen cash assets the United States is obligated to give to the Islamic Republic under the agreement, administration officials explained to the Free Beacon."

Acceptable? US Senator Jerry Moran doesn't think so. As also reported by Adam Kredo in a Washington Free Beacon article entitled "Congress Moves to Block Payment to Iran of $1.7 Billion in Taxpayer Funds":

"The news has sparked outrage on Capitol Hill and prompted Sen. Jerry Moran (R., Kan.) to file legislation Thursday afternoon that would bar the administration from moving forward on the payment until Iran pays millions in judgments awarded to the U.S. victims of its global terrorist network, according to the bill.

'The United States should not be funding governments that openly violate human rights, proudly disregard U.N. Security Council resolutions, and call for the destruction of America and its allies,' Moran said in a statement. 'This bill directs the U.S. government to put justice for American victims of Iranian terrorism ahead of compensation for the Iranian regime.'

'Rather than incentivize state-sponsored kidnapping, the administration should remind the government of Iran that terror and hostage taking are not for-profit enterprises,' Moran said."

Or, as US Senator Robert Goodloe Harper declared more than 200 years ago, "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."

Needless to say, I agree with Krauthammer's determination that implementation of Obama's unsigned nuclear deal with Iran is a disaster:

"The real story of Saturday, Jan. 16, 2016 — 'Implementation Day' of the Iran deal — was that it marked a historic inflection point in the geopolitics of the Middle East. In a stroke, Iran shed almost four decades of rogue-state status and was declared a citizen of good standing of the international community, open to trade, investment and diplomacy. This, without giving up, or even promising to change, its policy of subversion and aggression. This, without having forfeited its status as the world’s greatest purveyor of terrorism."

On the other hand, Obama's payment of an additional $1.7 billion to Iran amounts to a grotesque form of appeasement and will only encourage Tehran to incarcerate more innocent Americans.

Hillary Clinton on Benghazi: The Fog of War or the Murk of Mendacity?

Tweet

In a Washington Free Beacon article entitled "Clinton Says She Never Lied About Benghazi, Cites ‘Fog of War’ Instead During Interview," Aaron Kliegman writes about Hillary Clinton's interview with George Stephanopoulos on ABC's "This Week." Kliegman writes:

"Host Stephanopoulos ... played two clips, each showing a parent of one of the victims saying that Clinton lied directly to them about the cause of the attack, including Charles Woods, father of retired Navy Seal Tyrone Woods, before asking, 'Did you tell them it was about a film? And what’s your response?'

Clinton responded that she has already answered all of these questions and 'can’t help it that people think there has to be something else there,' referring to Republicans who have been investigating the Benghazi attack.

She continued, 'I said very clearly, there had been a terrorist group, uh, that had taken responsibility on Facebook, um, between the time that, uh, I – you know, when I talked to my daughter, that was the latest information; we were, uh, giving it credibility. And then we learned the next day it wasn’t true. In fact, they retracted it. This was a fast-moving series of events in the fog of war and I think most Americans understand that.'

Stephanopoulos did not ask a follow-up question before moving the interview to Clinton’s unfavorable poll numbers amongst voters regarding her trustworthiness."

Indeed, there was no follow-up question from Stephanopoulos, who should have asked if Clinton was again in contact with the parents of the victims to inform them that the "film" had nothing to do with the attack.

It is no wonder that American voters believe by a nearly two-to-one margin that Clinton is lying about Benghazi.

David Brooks, "Hillary Clinton’s Opportunist Solution!": Congrats, David, You're on Hillary's Hit-List

Tweet

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Hillary Clinton’s Opportunist Solution!," David Brooks lambastes Hillary's opportunism. Brooks observes:

• "She’ll say what she needs to say now to become Bernie Sanders in a pantsuit."
• "When she announced her opposition [to the Trans-Pacific Partnership] to Judy Woodruff on the 'PBS NewsHour' she was performing a flip-flop of the sort that leaves gymnasts gaping and applauding."
• "[Hillary's flip-flop on the Trans-Pacific Partnership] suggested a whole style of campaigning and method of governing based on the principle of unprincipledness."

Congratulations, David, you're now on Hillary's hit-list - yes, it has been alleged that she keeps the names on a spreadsheet - and although my belief is that the email scandal should have ended her presidential campaign months ago, this could still prove a very dangerous place to be.

I would only add that Hillary is not alone when it comes to governing on the "principle of unprincipledness." Hillary has a soulmate in Vladimir Putin, and a new Washington Post opinion piece entitled "How America can counter Putin’s moves in Syria" by Condoleezza Rice and Robert M. Gates is well worth reading.

A flip side to Brooks's flip-flop allegations? In a Times op-ed entitled "It’s All Benghazi," Paul Krugman writes:

"I often wonder about commentators who write about things like those hearings as if there were some real issue involved, who keep going on about the Clinton email controversy as if all these months of scrutiny had produced any evidence of wrongdoing, as opposed to sloppiness."

All these months of scrutiny have produced no evidence of wrongdoing? Sorry, Paul, but don't you think that before reaching a conclusion, we should wait until Hillary and friends produce all the emails? And maybe - just maybe - we should also wait to hear the results of the FBI investigation?

Meanwhile, as reported in a Washington Free Beacon article entitled "Emails Suggest Clinton Pushed Libyan Business Interests of Off-the-Books Adviser" by Lachlan Markay and Brent Scher:

"A Hillary Clinton confidante and informal adviser used his direct access to the then-secretary of state to promote his business interests in Libya during that country’s 2011 unrest, newly released documents reveal.

According to a letter from Rep. Trey Gowdy (R., Okla.), chairman of the House panel investigating the 2012 attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi, Libya, Clinton internally raised the possibility of employing American security contractors, one of which Sidney Blumenthal had a direct financial interest in.

In a letter last week to Rep. Elijah Cummings (D., Md.), the ranking Democrat on the Benghazi committee, Gowdy also reveals that Blumenthal, who frequently emailed Clinton regarding the security situation in Libya, sent an email to Clinton’s personal address containing the name of a Central Intelligence Agency source in Libya.

'This information, the name of a human source, is some of the most protected information in our intelligence community, the release of which could jeopardize not only national security but also human lives,' Gowdy wrote."

Revealing the name of a CIA source to Hillary via a personal email address amounts to mere "sloppiness"? Sorry, Paul, I don't think so. At least not in my neck of the woods.

Paul Krugman, "The Blackmail Caucus, a.k.a. the Republican Party": "A Terrible, Very Bad, No Good Speaker of the House"

Tweet

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Blackmail Caucus, a.k.a. the Republican Party," Paul Krugman rails against John Boehner, whom he describes as "a terrible, very bad, no good speaker of the House." Krugman continues:

"For me, Mr. Boehner’s defining moment remains what he said and did as House minority leader in early 2009, when a newly inaugurated President Obama was trying to cope with the disastrous recession that began under his predecessor.

There was and is a strong consensus among economists that a temporary period of deficit spending can help mitigate an economic slump.

. . . .

Republicans did manage to put a severe crimp on federal spending, which has grown much more slowly under Mr. Obama than it did under George W. Bush, or for that matter Ronald Reagan. The weakness of spending has, in turn, been a major headwind delaying recovery, probably the single biggest reason it has taken so long to bounce back from the 2007-2009 recession."

A temporary period of deficit spending can help mitigate an economic slump? As reported by The Washington Free Beacon two weeks ago in an article entitled "$2.88 Trillion: Gov’t Collects Record-High Taxes in First 11 Months of FY 2015" by Ali Meyer:

"The federal government collected a record amount of taxes in the first 11 months of fiscal year 2015, exceeding $2.88 trillion in revenue, according to the latest monthly Treasury Department statement. Despite the revenue, which is still a record amount when adjusted for inflation, the federal government ran a deficit of $529 billion."

Yup, the US federal government, despite record high tax collection, is still running a deficit. That's quite an accomplishment.

According to Krugman, who complains that Republicans put a "crimp" in federal spending, "the economy nonetheless did well enough for Mr. Obama to win re-election with a solid majority in 2012." Well, how about judging Obama according to his own standards? On July 3, 2008, Obama stated:

"The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents - #43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back -- $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That's irresponsible. It's unpatriotic."

US national debt has now reached an unsustainable $18.4 trillion, amounting to more than $57,000 for every American man, woman and child, and some $155,000 for every American taxpayer. But who's counting?

A Republican Attack on Muslims? What About a Democratic Attack on the Truth?

Tweet

Sorry, but it's once again time to be politically incorrect.

Yesterday, in an editorial entitled "The Republican Attack on Muslims," The New York Times declared:

"The Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson is drawing criticism over the bigoted comments he has been making recently about Muslims. It is well deserved, and is not a matter of 'P.C. culture,' as Mr. Carson has claimed. Nor does Mr. Carson represent some minor fringe element in the Republican Party.

This latest sordid mess to arise from the G.O.P. nomination contest touches on bedrock American values, constitutional principles and American history. It reflects a pernicious habit among the leaders of the Republican Party to play with fire by pandering to an angry, disaffected and heavily white base by demonizing selected minorities. Muslims are just the current target."

Muslims are just the current target of Republicans? Let's put it to the test. As reported by the Pew Research Center in an August 30, 2011 article entitled "Muslim Americans: No Signs of Growth in Alienation or Support for Extremism," eight percent of US Muslims believe that suicide bombing can "often/sometimes" be justified. Now that's a relief! If you randomly place 100 American adult Muslims in a room, only eight of them think that it's "often/sometimes" justified to blow you to bits.

But why rely only on Pew? In a June 2015 poll of 600 Muslim-Americans, The Polling Company determined:

• If shariah conflicts with the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights, 33 percent answered that shariah "should be considered supreme."
• 36 percent declared that Muslims in the US should be free to choose courts or tribunals in the US that apply shariah law, whereas 15 percent opined that Muslims in the US should be subject only to shariah courts.
• 29 percent strongly or somewhat agreed that "violence against those that insult the prophet Mohammad, the Qur'an, or Islamic faith is sometimes acceptable."
• 25 percent strongly or somewhat agreed that "Violence against Americans here in the United States can be justified as part of the global jihad."
• 19 percent believed that "the use of violence in the United States is justified in order to make shariah the law of the land in this country."
• Nine percent believed that the beliefs of the Islamic State are "correct and consistent with shariah."
• Eight percent believed that the beliefs of al-Qaeda are "correct and consistent with shariah."

Having perused these numbers, are you feeling much relieved? Fabulous! So now let's move away from the so-called Republican attack on Muslims, and have a look at Democrats attack on the truth - and I'm not referring to Hillary's burgeoning email scandal or attempts to manipulate intel to support the Obama administration's effort to downplay the danger of the Islamic State. Rather, let's have a look at what Iran has been saying in recent days about the United States and Israel in the wake of Obama's nuclear deal with Khamenei, and what Senate and House Democrats are choosing to ignore.

As translated by MEMRI, Iranian Defense Minister Hossein Dehghan stated on Lebanon's Mayadeen TV on September 1, 2015 (my emphasis in red):

"Hizbullah does not need us to supply them with rockets and arms. Israel and the US need to know this. Today, Hamas, the Islamic Jihad, and Hizbullah have the capability of producing their own resources and weapons themselves. Nevertheless, we shall not refrain from supporting them. They received the technology from us and from others, and today they produce them themselves. I officially declare that under no circumstances will we refrain from providing material and moral support to Hizbullah, or to any group of the resistance to the US and Israel. We say this loud and clear. We have declared this officially, and we intend to continue on this path."

In addition, as observed by Yigal Carmon in a September 22, 2015 MEMRI brief entitled "Iran Openly Declares That It Intends To Violate UNSCR 2231 That Endorses The JCPOA":

"In a July 20, 2015 interview on Iranian Channel 2, Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister and senior negotiator Abbas Araghchi said that there had been tough bargaining between the Iranian and American delegations over the issue of the arms embargo on Iran and the sanctions related to Iran's missile development project. 'The Americans sought their inclusion in the JCPOA, claiming that otherwise they could not face criticism from Arab countries in the region. When they said that they could not lift the sanctions altogether, we told them explicitly that in that case there is no agreement. We told them that the national security issues are non-negotiable and that we will not accept an agreement which continues the embargo on weapons and the sanctions on missile development. In the end, the Americans said, We will put the issue of the embargo and the missiles in the UN Security Council Resolution separate from the agreement.'"

However, as further observed by Carmon, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, Foreign Minister Zarif, and Araghchi have "emphasized that Iran has no intention of abiding by UNSRC 2231," which incorporates the JCPOA and places restrictions on Iran's missile development.

More? No problem. As reported by Adam Kredo in a Washington Free Beacon article, Ataollah Salehi, commander of Iran’s army, declared on Tuesday:

"Israel only barks, no matter how much weapons are given to [it], we are going to destroy them, we will promise this task will be done."

But heck, why should we believe anything that these Iranian leaders are currently saying? You see, if we believe President Obama, these gentlemen are all going to experience an epiphany and profess pacifism over the coming decade. Moreover, what's more important to Senate and House Democrats, Obama's legacy or the prevention of a nuclear-tipped ballistic missile attack on the US and the survival of Israel, America's only true ally in the Middle East? I suppose we now know the answer.

David Brooks, "The Russia I Miss": Then They Came for the Jews

Tweet

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me — and there was no one left to speak for me.

- Martin Niemöller

Yesterday, we learned that Amazon was selling "Blood Splattered Flag of Israel" cell phones cases, umbrellas, doormats, shower curtains, pillows cases, mouse pads and more; however, after an enormous outcry, the merchandise was removed from Amazon's website.

In addition, The New York Times came under fire yesterday for creating an infographic listing Democrats opposed to Obama's nuclear deal with Iran, and indicating the estimated percentage of Jews among their constituents. I am waiting to see if there is even a single Times columnist brave enough to address this outrage, which suggests that Democratic opposition to the nuclear deal stems from Jewish influence over government and not from ethical considerations.

Meanwhile, David Brooks has other things on his mind. Writing from St. Petersburg, Brooks, a Jew, concludes his latest Times op-ed entitled "The Russia I Miss" by observing:

"There’s something sad about the souvenir stands in St. Petersburg. They’re selling mementos of things Russians are sort of embarrassed by — old Soviet Army hats, Stalinist tchotchkes and coffee mugs with Putin bare-chested and looking ridiculous. Of the top 100 universities in the world, not a single one is Russian, which is sort of astonishing for a country so famously intellectual.

This absence leaves a mark. There used to be many countercultures to the dominant culture of achievement and capitalism and prudent bourgeois manners. Some were bohemian, or religious or martial. But one by one those countercultures are withering, and it is harder for people to see their situations from different and grander vantage points. Russia offered one such counterculture, a different scale of values, but now it, too, is mainly in the past."

Serfdom, the Russian famine of 1921 which killed six million people, the Soviet famine of 1932–33 which killed another 6-8 million people, the gulags, the oppression of Jewry? Sorry, David, but as much as I admire Tolstoy and Dostoevsky, I do not fondly reminisce about past Russian counterculture.

Enjoy your stay in St. Petersburg, David. It is indeed a beautiful city. However, don't you think that the infographic of the Times deserves a few lines from you?

Did Obama Agree That Iran Would Be Responsible for Policing Parchin?

Tweet

We have now learned that Obama's deal with Iran allows the mullahs to police their own activities at the Parchin military base. As reported yesterday by the Associated Press in an article entitled "UN to let Iran inspect alleged nuke work site" by George Jahn:

"Iran will be allowed to use its own inspectors to investigate a site it has been accused of using to develop nuclear arms, operating under a secret agreement with the U.N. agency that normally carries out such work, according to a document seen by The Associated Press.

. . . .

The Parchin agreement was worked out between the IAEA and Iran. The United States and the five other world powers were not party to it but were briefed by the IAEA and endorsed it as part of the larger package.

. . . .

The agreement in question diverges from normal procedures by allowing Tehran to employ its own experts and equipment in the search for evidence of activities it has consistently denied — trying to develop nuclear weapons.

Olli Heinonen, who was in charge of the Iran probe as deputy IAEA director general from 2005 to 2010, said he could think of no similar concession with any other country."

The response of the US State Department to this "remarkable" arrangement? State Department Spokesman John Kirby declared:

"We're confident in the agency's technical plans for investigating the possible military dimensions of Iran's former program, issues that, in some cases, date back more than a decade."

Meanwhile, one of the 29 scientists who signed a letter backing the agreement with Iran, wrote to me that he is "trying to find out more about this," but "a primary reason for supporting the agreement is the verification of Iran’s behavior in the future, not the IAEA’s investigation of Iran’s behavior prior to 2003, about which the details are not public but about which our intelligence people already know a lot." The verification of Iran's future behavior? The scientist did not comment on Iran's demands "that international nuclear inspectors would only be permitted into the country once they receive approval from the Islamic Republic’s Intelligence Ministry" and that "International nuclear inspectors will only be permitted into the country after offering proofs of suspicious activity at the sites to be inspected."

So which is worse: Hillary's prevarication concerning her email server, Kerry's evasiveness concerning Parchin, or the willingness of "Progressive" American Jews to turn a blind eye to the threat of another Holocaust? It all makes you want to vomit . . .

Obama Lobbies for Nuclear Deal With Iran: What Isn't the President Telling Democrats?

Tweet

"You shall have no other gods beside Me."

- Second Commandment (Exodus 20:3)

Obama and his minions are lobbying hard for the president's nuclear deal with Iran, and in furtherance of the agreement, we are being presented with lists of scientists for the deal, generals for the deal, Hollywood Jews for the deal, and now American rabbis for the deal. Hollywood Jews? American Rabbis? Of course! What does it matter that 78 percent of Israelis believe the nuclear deal will "endanger Israel" and 71 percent think the deal will "bring Iran closer to a military nuclear capability"? What does it matter that both Netanyahu and Israeli opposition leader Herzog both oppose the deal?

In a New York Times article entitled "Lobbying Fight Over Iran Nuclear Deal Centers on Democrats," Julie Hirschfeld Davis informs us:

"From his rented vacation home on Martha’s Vineyard with sweeping views of the Atlantic Ocean, President Obama has been making phone calls to Democratic members of Congress, trying to rally support for the nuclear deal with Iran that faces a vote next month.

'If you support the deal, we’d like you to make that clear,' he tells the lawmakers, according to a White House official who would describe the private calls only on condition of anonymity. 'And if you still have concerns, we want to be able to answer those questions.'"

Well, I'm willing to bet that Obama is not telling fellow Democrats that "Any individual, out of IAEA’s Inspection group, who is not approved by the Islamic Republic of Iran cannot enter the country as the agency’s inspector." After all, this would make a mockery of Obama's contention that the deal "contains the most comprehensive inspection and verification regime ever negotiated to monitor a nuclear program."

And then there is Obama's talking point concerning possible military options: "Even before taking office, I made clear that Iran would not be allowed to acquire a nuclear weapon on my watch, and it's been my policy throughout my presidency to keep all options, including possible military options, on the table to achieve that objective." However, as we are now being informed by Reuters's Sam Wilkin:

"Iran will sign a contract with Russia next week to buy four S-300 surface-to-air missile systems, the Iranian defence minister said on Tuesday, bringing Tehran closer to acquiring an advanced air defence capability.

Russian state arms producer Almaz-Antey in June said it would supply Iran with a modernised version of the S-300, among the world's most capable air defence systems, once a commercial agreement was reached."

Or in a nutshell, thanks to Russia, Obama's options will no longer be easily implementable, if at all.

Yes, the president has been lying, but why should that matter to acolytes of Obama, the omniscient and all-powerful, who always knows best.

Rep. Jan Schakowsky's Husband, a Convicted Felon, Helping Obama Lobby for Iran Nuclear Deal

Tweet


As reported by The Washington Free Beacon in an article entitled "Democratic Congresswoman’s Convicted Felon Spouse Heading Progressive-Financed Non Profit" by Morgan Chalfant, Robert Creamer, a convicted felon and husband of Democratic Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky, is assisting the Obama administration in lobbying on behalf of its upcoming nuclear deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran. Chalfant writes:

"The husband of Illinois Democratic Rep. Jan Schakowsky, Robert Creamer, who committed $2.3 million in bank fraud in the 1990s, is currently leading the anti-conservative Americans United For Change, the Illinois Review reported.

. . . .

The convicted felon maintains ties to the White House. On Monday, Creamer participated in a private conference call held by White House officials that brought voices from liberal organizations together to discuss how to pressure Democrats and other politicians on Capitol Hill to back a nuclear deal with Iran, the Free Beacon reported."

As reported yesterday in another Free Beacon article entitled "White House Officials Plot Ways to Pressure Lawmakers Into Supporting Iran Deal" by Adam Kredo:

"White House officials on Monday held a private conference call with liberal organizations to discuss ways of pressuring Democrats and other lawmakers on Capitol Hill into supporting a nuclear deal with Iran that is expected to be finalized in the coming days, according to an audio recording of that call obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.

. . . .

Robert Creamer, a member of the liberal political shop Democracy Partners and the general consultant to the anti-Republican Americans United for Change, urged participants on the call to 'step up' their pro-Iran efforts.

'We have to take to our memberships all over the country,' Creamer said during the call. 'We all have to step up. The other side will go crazy with intensity.'

Progressives should target Democrats by 'blitzing the hell out of the Hill,' Creamer said.

. . . .

'Let me just also note, my wife, Congresswoman Schakowsky, just yelled across the room to me to make clear to everybody that we have to be clear that this is a good deal because it prevents Iran from getting a nuclear weapon,' Creamer said."

Yesterday, I sent an email to Schakowsky, informing her that the "deal" will not prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, but rather will permit Iran to build a nuclear arsenal after 10 years (if it doesn't cheat before then - which it will). I have not had a response from Schakowsky, and I do not expect to hear back from this Jewish woman, who is unfazed by the possibility of a second Holocaust.

Obama Claims Chlorine "Historically Has Not Been Listed as a Chemical Weapon": Liar!

Attempting to explain why the US has not responded to the use of chlorine by the Assad regime against Syrian civilians, President Obama declared yesterday at Camp David:

"[W]e have seen reports about the use of chlorine in bombs that had the effect of chemical weapons. Chlorine itself historically has not been listed as a chemical weapon, but when it is used in this fashion, can be considered a prohibited use of that particular chemical. And so we’re working with the international community to investigate that and, in fact, if we have the kinds of confirmation that we need, we will, once again, work with the international community and the organization charged with monitoring compliance by the Syrian government, and we will reach out to patrons of Assad, like Russia, to put a stop to it."

Chlorine "historically has not been listed as a chemical weapon"? Oh really? On April 22, 1915, the Germans released 168 tons of chlorine gas against French troops at Ypres, killing and wounding some 5,000 soldiers and punching a massive hole in the French line. Two days later, the Germans attacked Canadian troops northeast of Ypres with chlorine gas, killing and wounding another 6,000 soldiers.

Chlorine gas becomes hydrochloric acid in the lungs and can certainly be fatal.

Nice try, Mr. President.

New York Times Editorial, "Anti-Semitism in the Soccer Stands": The Pot Calls the Kettle Black

In an editorial entitled "Anti-Semitism in the Soccer Stands," The New York Times writes of anti-Semitic conduct by fans and players during European football matches:

"It is absurd to claim, as some soccer apologists do, that this is no more than the usual rough give-and-take of pumped-up, and sometimes liquored-up, spectators. The history of anti-Semitism in Europe is too deep and too raw not to see the problem for the hate-mongering it is. Even neo-Nazi salutes have been brandished at games by fans and an occasional player.

. . . .

European clubs that campaigned for years to rein in racism claim some progress. Officials must be no less aggressive in stopping the anti-Jewish slurs from being heard around the playing field."

Now if only The New York Times could be "no less aggressive in stopping the anti-Jewish slurs from being heard around" its pages. The Times fails to consider an op-ed entitled “Newt, Mitt, Bibi and Vladimir” by Thomas Friedman, in which Tom Terrific declared:

"I sure hope that Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, understands that the standing ovation he got in Congress this year was not for his politics. That ovation was bought and paid for by the Israel lobby."

Similarly, the Times ignores the conduct of columnist Nicholas Kristof. As was reported in an article entitled "Nick Kristof’s Piggishness," written by Adam Kredo for The Washington Free Beacon:

"New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof is facing criticism after retweeting a controversial message that referred to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and the National Rifle Association as 'the 2 most pig like lobbies' in America.

Longtime Israel critic M.J. Rosenberg, who was dumped by the liberal Media Matters for America for his use of borderline anti-Semitic language, authored the controversial tweet Wednesday afternoon. It called to mind recently unearthed statements by Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi that referred to Jews as 'pigs.'" 

Why was I not surprised by Kristof's retweet? As I explained in an article entitled "Nicholas Kristof, Israel, and Double Standards" for The Journal for the Study of Antisemitism, Kristof routinely rails against purported Israeli injustices, while ignoring the improprieties of other democracies.

Times columnist Roger Cohen? Have a look at the title of one of Cohen's op-eds, "Obama in Netanyahu's Web," which was painfully in keeping with the anti-Semitic tradition of depicting Jews as voracious spiders, and which, according to a very senior Times editor, "was not a good headline."

Consider also the behavior of certain "fans" of the The New York Times, whose horrifying anti-Semitic comments were routinely published by the Times, notwithstanding purported "moderation" by this would-be beacon of ethical journalism. (I no longer read comments appearing in the Times, and I have no idea whether Andrew Rosenthal has been able to bring this disgusting "phenomenon" under control.)

And what about the editorial board of the Times itself? Several days ago, in an editorial entitled "President Vladimir Putin’s Dangerous Moves," an alarmed New York Times observed:

"President Vladimir Putin of Russia has added new, chilling nuclear threats to his aggression in Ukraine, where 6,000 people have been killed in a war with Russian-backed separatists."

If only the editoral board of the Times could express the same level of concern over Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei's calls to annihilate Israel.

I would suggest to the editorial board of the Times that anti-Semitism in the United States, particularly its "highbrow" form in the media, can be just as sinister as the baser strains of this disease which exist in the Middle East and Europe. Moreover, American anti-Semitism is far "closer to home" than the editorial board would care to believe.

David Brooks, "How to Fight Anti-Semitism": It Begins by Saying "No" to Obama's Deal With Iran

Are there three different kinds of anti-Semitism?

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "How to Fight Anti-Semitism," David Brooks differentiates between the anti-Semitism of the Middle East, Europe and the United States. According to Brooks, the anti-Semitism of the Middle East is "is a form of derangement, a flight from reality even in otherwise sophisticated people." On the other hand, Brooks would have us know that in Europe, anti-Semitism "looks like a response to alienation" and is "particularly high where unemployment is rampant." Finally, concerning the United States, Brooks says that anti-Semitism "remains an astonishingly non-anti-Semitic place," and in this regard, Brooks declares:

"In the Obama administration, there are people who know that the Iranians are anti-Semitic, but they don’t know what to do with that fact and put this mental derangement on a distant shelf. They negotiate with the Iranian leaders, as if anti-Semitism was some odd quirk, instead of what it is, a core element of their mental architecture."

Brooks, however, fails to ask how a supposedly intellectual American president can ignore this so-called "mental architecture" and seek to provide Iran's mullahs with an arsenal of nuclear weapons within a decade.

Brooks also fails to consider an op-ed entitled “Newt, Mitt, Bibi and Vladimir” by fellow Times columinist Thomas Friedman, in which Tom Terrific declared:

"I sure hope that Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, understands that the standing ovation he got in Congress this year was not for his politics. That ovation was bought and paid for by the Israel lobby."

Similarly, Brooks ignores the conduct of fellow Times columnist Nicholas Kristof. As was reported in an article entitled "Nick Kristof’s Piggishness," written by Adam Kredo for The Washington Free Beacon:

"New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof is facing criticism after retweeting a controversial message that referred to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and the National Rifle Association as 'the 2 most pig like lobbies' in America.

Longtime Israel critic M.J. Rosenberg, who was dumped by the liberal Media Matters for America for his use of borderline anti-Semitic language, authored the controversial tweet Wednesday afternoon. It called to mind recently unearthed statements by Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi that referred to Jews as 'pigs.'" 

I would delicately suggest to Brooks that anti-Semitism in the United States, particularly in the media, can be just as sinister as the strains of this disease which exist in the Middle East and Europe. Moreover, American anti-Semitism is far "closer to home" than Brooks believes.

David Ignatius, "At an impasse with Iran": Perpetuating the Myth of Rouhani's Moderation

David Ignatius has been duped into believing Iran's good cop/bad cop routine. In a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "At an impasse with Iran," Ignatius declares:

"A glimpse of this internal Iranian debate came in the statements following the announcement of the extension. President Hassan Rouhani gave a televised speech Monday night that seemed designed, at once, to reassure an Iranian public that wants a deal and to lobby the hard-line faction that doesn’t.

'I am certain that we will reach the final accord, if not today, then tomorrow,' said an optimistic-sounding Rouhani. He claimed that 'Iran’s logic is one of negotiations and dialogue' and that negotiators 'have had some agreements behind the scenes, but putting those on paper, we are still not there yet.'"

Ah yes, the "good" Rouhani, who needs to lobby Iranian hard-liners.

However, as reported by Adam Kredo in a Washington Free Beacon article entitled "Iran: ‘Americans Have Very Clearly Surrendered’":

"Meanwhile, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said on Monday in a television interview that the country’s 'centrifuges will not stop,' according to a translation of his remarks.

'Today we have a victory much greater than what happened in the negotiation,' Rouhani said. 'This victory is that our circumstances are not like previous years. Today we are at a point that nobody in the world [in which no one says] sanctions must be increased in order that Iran accept P5+1 demands.'

'No one says to reach agreement we must increase pressure on Iran,' Rouhani said. 'But they say to reach an agreement more time and more discussion is needed. This is a great victory for what the Iranian nation started since last June 15.'

. . . .

'Centrifuges have been running and I promise the Iranian nation that centrifuges will never stop,' he said."

So, over the course of this additional seven-month extension of the "negotiations" between Iran and the P5+1, Iran's centrifuges will continue to spin, and Iran will grow that much closer to obtaining sufficient enriched uranium for an atomic bomb. In addition, Iran will continue to recover $700 million a month in frozen assets during the extension. Yup, a pretty darned good deal for Iran.

Needless to say, there is no mention by Ignatius how "good cop" Rouhani has overseen a spike of executions in Iran. As reported in an October 14, 2014 Washington Times article entitled "Iran executions surge amid U.S. nuclear talks" by Guy Taylor:

"Iran’s abuse of human rights, including the hangings of hundreds of dubiously convicted citizens — in several cases minors — has soared over the past year, even as the Obama administration has yielded to Tehran’s demand for an extension in precarious international talks over the Islamic republic’s disputed nuclear program.

. . . .

During the 14 months since Iranian President Hassan Rouhani took office, Iranian authorities have carried out at least 936 executions, according to data compiled by the Connecticut-based Iran Human Rights Documentation Center.

. . . .

An advance copy provided to The Washington Times notes the executions of at least 22 women since Mr. Rouhani took office and highlights more than a dozen cases of people younger than 18 accused of crimes and hanged. One case involved Iraj Nassiri, whom the report says was 'less than 15' when Iranian authorities accused him of 'premeditated murder.'"

Ignatius would also have us believe that there exists another Iranian "good cop," Mohammad Javad Zarif:

"When I was in Tehran a year ago, it was obvious that the nuclear issue had become a fundamental political and economic crossroads for Iran. Mohammad Javad Zarif, Iran’s foreign minister and chief negotiator, told me that a final agreement 'can change the course of our relations with the West.'

. . . .

A year later, despite progress on many of the technical details that would frame an agreement, this split in Tehran still exists — hampering Zarif’s ability to offer concessions the West wants in return for lifting sanctions."

Ignatius fails to mention how, during the negotiations, the "moderate" Zarif screamed at US Secretary of State John Kerry. Again, as reported by Adam Kredo in a Washington Free Beacon article entitled "Reports: Top Iranian Negotiator ‘Frequently Shouts’ at Kerry, Western Officials":

"Iran’s foreign minister and lead negotiator in nuclear talks is known to frequently scream and shout at Western diplomats, including Secretary of State John Kerry, a practice that has caused alarm among bodyguards stationed outside the negotiating room, according to a member of the Iranian diplomatic team who spoke to the Farsi-language press.

. . . .

On one occasion, Zarif’s shouts were so loud that a member of the Iranian delegation entered the negotiation room to check on the players, according to the report, which was independently translated for the Free Beacon.

Upon entering, the Iranian official was informed by European Union Foreign Policy Chief Catherine Ashton, a chief western negotiator, that Zarif was just shouting and she had gotten used to it, according to an independent translation of the report."

Needless to say, Kerry and Ashton didn't have the good sense to walk out of the room.

The negotiations over Iran's nuclear weapons development program are obviously going nowhere, notwithstanding the fact that Obama had hoped to make an agreement with Khamenei the crowing achievement of his second term. With this hope all but shattered, will Obama now attempt to kick this can down the road until the end of his second term? He obviously hopes to do this, and the Iranians know it.

Jen Psaki: The Obama Administration Disagrees With General Dempsey

General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, stated on Thursday:

"I actually do think that Israel went to extraordinary lengths to limit collateral damage and civilian casualties."

However, given the second-term Obama administration's declaration of war against Israel, US State Department Spokeperson Jen Psaki was quick to take issue with Dempsey. On Friday, Psaki told reporters:

"It remains the broad view of the entire administration that [the Israelis] could have done more, and they should have taken more feasible precautions to prevent civilian casualties."

Of course, this is the conclusion of former community organizer Barack Obama, whose knowledge of military affairs is incontrovertible, that phone calls, leaflets and "roof knocking" were plainly insufficient to warn civilians of intended strikes against Hamas terrorists hiding among them.

Ben Rhodes: A Deal With Iran Is Healthcare for Obama

In a lead New York Times article entitled "U.N. Says Iran Is Silent on Efforts for a Bomb" by David E. Sanger, we are told:

"At a moment when American negotiators say they see some signs of movement on the part of Iran toward a broad nuclear deal with the United States, the head of the United Nations nuclear inspection organization declared Friday that Iran had stopped answering the agency’s questions about suspected past efforts to design the components of a bomb."

This comes at a time when we are learning from The Washington Free Beacon in an article entitled "The Coming Détente with Iran" by Matthew Continetti that Ben Rhodes, deputy national security adviser for strategic communication, declared in January:

"Bottom line is this is the best opportunity we’ve had to resolve the Iranian issue diplomatically, certainly since President Obama came to office, and probably since the beginning of the Iraq war. So no small opportunity, this is a big deal. This is probably the biggest thing President Obama will do in his second term on foreign policy. This is healthcare for us, just to put it in context."

This comes at a time when Iran's is executing its citizens at a record rate. As reported by in an October 30, 2014 International Business Times article by Alessandria Masi entitled "Iran Execution Rate: Number Of Iran Executions Higher Under President Hassan Rouhani Than Ahmadinejad":

"Iranian President Hassan Rouhani promised to fix the country’s tarnished human rights record when he took office last August, but Iran has since seen an alarming rise in executions. The latest death by hanging made headlines around the world when Reyhaneh Jabbari was executed for murdering former intelligence officer Morteza Abdolali Sarbandi, who had tried to rape her.

Jabbari's former lawyer accused Iran of torturing her, keeping her in solitary confinement and unfairly sentencing her to death. Mohammad Mostafaei made his accusations at a United Nations panel Thursday, just a day before Iran has to defend its human rights record at the U.N.’s annual Universal Periodic Review (UPR). When the 26-year-old woman was executed Saturday, she became the 586th person to die at the hands of the Iranian government this year.

There have been 70 more executions so far in 2014 than in the same time frame last year. During Rouhani’s first year in office, 773 people were executed, compared to 530 people during Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s last year in office, according to data from the Iran Human Rights Documentation Center."

This comes at a time when Jeffrey Goldberg has revealed in a recent Atlantic article entitled "The Crisis in U.S.-Israel Relations Is Officially Here":

"The other day I was talking to a senior Obama administration official about the foreign leader who seems to frustrate the White House and the State Department the most. 'The thing about Bibi is, he’s a chickenshit,' this official said, referring to the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, by his nickname.

. . . .

[Another senior Obama] official said the Obama administration no longer believes that Netanyahu would launch a preemptive strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities in order to keep the regime in Tehran from building an atomic arsenal. 'It’s too late for him to do anything. Two, three years ago, this was a possibility. But ultimately he couldn’t bring himself to pull the trigger. It was a combination of our pressure and his own unwillingness to do anything dramatic. Now it’s too late.'"

[Has anyone asked John Kerry or Ben Rhodes if they know the identity of the senior official in the Obama administration who labeled Netanyahu a "chickenshit"?]

The Obama administration is proud that it prevented Israel from destroying Iran's nuclear weapons development facilities, while at the same time launching a demeaning attack against Israel's prime minister? Of course, Obama is now in his second and final term of office, and today there are "no holds barred" when it comes to undermining Israel. Anyone without blinders should have seen this coming.

David Brooks, "No War Is an Island": Obama, Read This Op-ed!

Yesterday, the US State Department's Jen Psaki ("It's simply not the way partners and allies treat each other") and an "anonymous" senior aide to Obama were busy berating the Israeli government for scorning John Kerry's efforts to reach a cease-fire between Israel and Hamas pursuant to the terms of Hamas (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2014/07/david-grossman-israel-without-illusions.html). As reported by The Washington Free Beacon (http://freebeacon.com/national-security/obama-admin-u-s-israel-relationship-in-jeopardy-over-criticism-of-kerry/):

"According to the AP’s Matt Lee and Julie Pace, administration officials used 'unusually harsh language' to declare that 'criticism of Kerry could put the relationship between the U.S. and Israel in jeopardy' and had 'crossed a line.'"

However, the threatening language directed at Israel mysteriously disappeared from the article written by Lee and Pace (see: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/us-fuming-over-israeli-criticism-kerry), and suddenly both Obama and Kerry were talking about the need for a demilitarized Gaza, a key Israeli demand which was absent from Kerry's cease-fire proposal.

What happened? Why did the White House back off?

As might be expected, conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer yesterday went further than the Israeli cabinet in denouncing Kerry (http://freebeacon.com/national-security/krauthammer-chaos-around-the-world-result-of-obamas-disengagement-and-withdrawal/):

"Kerry goes over and negotiates in Paris, who with? Qatar and Turkey. And returns essentially as the lawyer for Hamas, hands Israel a proposition that is so outrageous that the cabinet votes 19-0 against it. Israeli cabinets have never voted 19-0 on whether the sun rises in the east. It was unbelievable. It would have given Hamas all of its demands."

But the real bombshell for the Obama administration was the Washington Post opinion piece entitled "John Kerry’s big blunder in seeking an Israel-Gaza cease-fire" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/david-ignatius-john-kerrys-big-blunder-in-seeking-an-israel-gaza-cease-fire/2014/07/28/ab3fbfd2-1686-11e4-9349-84d4a85be981_story.html?hpid=z2#) by David Ignatius, a friend of the White House, who yesterday observed:

"Kerry’s error has been to put so much emphasis on achieving a quick halt to the bloodshed that he has solidified the role of Hamas, the intractable, unpopular Islamist group that leads Gaza, along with the two hard-line Islamist nations that are its key supporters, Qatar and Turkey. In the process, he has undercut not simply the Israelis but also the Egyptians and the Fatah movement that runs the Palestinian Authority, all of which want to see an end to Hamas rule in Gaza."

Suddenly, the West Wing woke up to the havoc wrecked by Kerry and feverishly entered into damage-control mode.

Which brings us to David Brooks's latest New York Times op-ed entitled "No War Is an Island" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/29/opinion/david-brooks-when-middle-east-conflicts-become-one.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=c-column-top-span-region&region=c-column-top-span-region&WT.nav=c-column-top-span-region&_r=0), subtitled "When Middle East Conflicts Become One." Brooks, who is read by Obama, writes today:

"After the Arab Spring, the Islamists briefly gained the upper hand [in Egypt]. But when the Muslim Brotherhood government fell, the military leaders cracked down. They sentenced hundreds of the Brotherhood’s leadership class to death. They also closed roughly 95 percent of the tunnels that connected Egypt to Gaza, where the Brotherhood’s offshoot, Hamas, had gained power.

As intended, the Egyptian move was economically devastating to Hamas. Hamas derived 40 percent of its tax revenue from tariffs on goods that flowed through those tunnels. One economist estimated the economic losses at $460 million a year, nearly a fifth of the Gazan G.D.P.

Hamas needed to end that blockade, but it couldn’t strike Egypt, so it struck Israel. If Hamas could emerge as the heroic fighter in a death match against the Jewish state, if Arab TV screens were filled with dead Palestinian civilians, then public outrage would force Egypt to lift the blockade. Civilian casualties were part of the point."

Or stated otherwise, Hamas is bankrupt, isolated and fighting for its survival on the world stage. Hamas has nothing to lose in this war, and will not agree to a cease-fire without first having something tangible to show to the Arab street for its efforts.

Brooks fails to mention that Hamas lost the support of Iran, after Hamas backed the rebels fighting against Bashar al-Assad in Syria and moved its headquarters from Damascus to Qatar. It is no accident that Hezbollah, Iran's proxy in Lebanon, has refused to fire a single missile at Israel during the past three weeks. (The scattering of rockets fired at northern Israel from Lebanon during the past three weeks has been attributed to militant Palestinian factions.)

Essentially, Kerry spent the past week in Cairo, Tel Aviv, Ramallah and Paris in an effort to throw a lifeline to Hamas, which has been designated as a terrorist organization by the United States. Kerry is only now beginning to comprehend the damage caused by his acceptance of the cease-fire terms demanded by Hamas, as pressed upon him by Qatar and Turkey. Notwithstanding Obama administration declarations to the contrary, these were not the cease-fire terms of Egypt, and the terms did not take into account Israeli calls for a demilitarized Gaza.

Egypt, by the way, has become overtly contemptuous of Obama. As part of a widely publicized effort to demean the American secretary of state, Kerry last week was screened with a metal detector device before meeting with Egyptian President Sisi. Kerry, however, seems to have been blissfully unaware of this Middle Eastern insult.

Is Kerry hostile to Israel? I don't think so. The man is simply out of his depth.

Washington Post Editorial, "The Middle East’s mounting danger": Pax Obama or Pox Obama?

"I can't answer a question, that you can't give me the question to."

- Chuck Hagel, House Hearing, Bergdahl release, June 11, 2014

You don't believe Hagel said this? Listen for yourself (see: http://freebeacon.com/national-security/chuck-hagel-doesnt-know/):



Okay, so what if Obama appointed Chuck Hagel, most kindly characterized as a cretin, as secretary of defense? And so what if Obama appointed John Kerry, who once labeled Bashar al-Assad his "dear friend" and whose attempts to resculpt the Middle East and his craggy face have met with derision and failure, as secretary of state? Why should the US require leadership in such posts when pax Obama has changed the future direction of America and mankind?

The answer is to be found in the latest fly in the president's Coke-and-a-smile foreign policy ointment: the collapse of Iraq, which is a direct consequence of Obama's almost total abrogation of responsibility involving a genocidal civil war in Syria.

As observed today in a scalding Washington Post editorial entitled "The Middle East’s mounting danger" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-middle-easts-mounting-danger/2014/06/11/bda10008-f180-11e3-bf76-447a5df6411f_story.html?hpid=z4):

"FOR YEARS, President Obama has been claiming credit for 'ending wars,' when, in fact, he was pulling the United States out of wars that were far from over. Now the pretense is becoming increasingly difficult to sustain.

On Monday, a loathsome offshoot of al-Qaeda, the self-styled Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, captured Mosul, one of Iraq’s most important cities, seizing large caches of modern weaponry and sending half a million civilians fleeing in terror. ISIS, which can make the original al-Qaeda look moderate, controls large swaths of territory stretching from northern Syria into Iraq. On Tuesday, militants advanced toward Baghdad, capturing Tikrit and other cities.

If Iraq joins Syria in full-fledged civil war, the danger to U.S. allies in Israel, Turkey, Jordan and the Kurdish region of Iraq is immense. These terrorist safe havens also pose a direct threat to the United States, according to U.S. officials."

Should America indeed be worried? As reported in a New York Times article entitled "Sunni Fighters Gain as They Battle 2 Governments, and Other Rebels" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/12/world/middleeast/the-militants-moving-in-on-syria-and-iraq.html?hp&_r=0) by Thanassis Cambanis:

"Having seized vast areas of Iraqi territory and several large and strategic cities, including the country’s second-biggest, Mosul, [the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria] controls territory greater than many countries and now rivals, and perhaps overshadows, Al Qaeda as the world’s most powerful and active jihadist group.

. . . .

In areas that fall under their control, the jihadists work carefully to entrench their rule. They have attracted the most attention with their draconian enforcement of a fundamentalist interpretation of Islamic Shariah law, including the execution of Christians and Muslims deemed kufar, or infidels."

In short, ISIL has gone unchecked, and yes, there would appear to be dire consequences on the horizon  resulting from Obama's "leadership from behind."

But not to worry: Chuck Hagel and John Kerry have it all under control for the president . . . not.