Shocking Revelations About Jon Stewart on Egyptian Television!

So you thought you knew everything there was to know about Jon Stewart's political leanings? Well, it turns out that there are those in Egypt who know more about Jon's subversive Middle East agenda than Jon himself. MEMRI kindly brings to us a translation of an Al-Tahrir TV talk show episode, in which a guest explains:

• Jon Stewart is a Jewish-American author, journalist, producer and media personality.
• Jon Stewart's ideology is based on Brzezinski's ideas.
• He is implementing Brzezinski's theory on the American people and media.
• Egypt belongs to them, that it is his homeland.

Of course we all know who "them" is.

David Brooks, "Why Hagel Was Picked": Anti-Semitism?

Is Chuck Hagel anti-Semitic? I don't know. I've never met the man, and although I am disturbed by his reference to the "Jewish lobby" and his response to efforts to keep the USO open in Haifa, i.e. "Let the Jews pay for it" (see: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/mr-hagel-and-jews_693993.html), I am far more troubled by his complacency toward Iran, which regularly calls for the extermination of Israel; by his call for talks with Hamas, whose charter calls for the murder of all Jews, not just Israelis; and by his refusal to sign a Senate letter calling upon the EU to brand Hezbollah, which was responsible for the 1983 Beirut Barracks Bombing that killed 241 American soldiers, as a terrorist organization. Among those backing Hagel's nomination is Zbigniew Brzezinski, who called on Obama to shoot down Israeli planes if they attack Iran.

However, if we are examining the issue of anti-Semitism, I am more concerned by Obama's stubborn decision to proceed with Hagel's nomination for secretary of defense, notwithstanding his questionable positions, which, according to The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/chuck-hagel-is-not-right-for-defense-secretary/2012/12/18/07e03e20-493c-11e2-ad54-580638ede391_story.html), place him "well to the left of those pursued by Mr. Obama during his first term — and place him near the fringe of the Senate that would be asked to confirm him." Anyone skimming readers' comments in response to recent opinion pieces regarding Hagel in US newspapers and journals cannot fail to notice the wave of accusations of "control" and "manipulation" of US foreign policy by AIPAC, "Israel firsters" and "Zionists" that has been unleashed by this nomination. Obama surely must have known that this would be coming.

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Why Hagel Was Picked" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/08/opinion/brooks-why-hagel-was-picked.html?_r=0), David Brooks approaches Hagel's nomination from a different angle. Brooks believes that US health care expenses are "squeezing out all other spending," including programs for children, education and the poor. With respect to the military, Brooks states that "there will have to be a generation of defense cuts that overwhelm anything in recent history." Specifically regarding the Hagel nomination, Brooks postulates:

"Chuck Hagel has been nominated to supervise the beginning of this generation-long process of defense cutbacks. If a Democratic president is going to slash defense, he probably wants a Republican at the Pentagon to give him political cover, and he probably wants a decorated war hero to boot.

All the charges about Hagel’s views on Israel or Iran are secondary. The real question is, how will he begin this long cutting process?"

Hagel will provide "cover" for future cutting by Obama of the defense budget? Maybe. But my guess is that this symbiosis extends much further and deeper. Hagel represents everything that Obama, a radical wolf in moderate sheep's clothing, could not say during his first term in office, including an underlying hostility to Israel and a desire to avoid confrontation with Iran, even if should it be days away from building its first atomic weapon.

Note that Ed Koch, who supported Obama's re-election, is now admitting that Obama is no friend of Israel (http://www.algemeiner.com/2013/01/07/ed-koch-on-chuck-hagel-nomination-obamas-reneging-on-his-conveyed-support-for-israel-has-come-earlier-than-i-thought/):

“Frankly, I thought that there would come a time when [Obama] would renege on what he conveyed on his support of Israel,” said Koch, adding, “it comes a little earlier than I thought it would.”

Given the storm surrounding Hagel's nomination, it is remarkable how much political capital Obama is willing to spend to make Hagel, a Vietnam war hero with dubious administrative and executive talents, his next secretary of defense.

You Think You Know When Someone Is Lying? John Kerry Couldn't Read Assad

So you think you know when someone is lying?

Watch Bashar al-Assad's one-hour interview with Charlie Rose, albeit five years old (http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/484). Pay particular attention when Assad claims that he had no part in the 2005 assassination of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. Do you see any body language suggesting that Assad is prevaricating? The truth is that Assad is a "professional liar", or stated otherwise, a psychopath, and it should have come as no surprise that the Syrian tyrant is willing to arrest, torture and murder those who in recent weeks have taken to the streets in opposition to his regime.

Assad has managed to fool many Westerners into believing that he is a paragon of decency, which in turn prompted Hillary's recent inane declaration: "There is a different leader in Syria now, many of the members of Congress of both parties who have gone to Syria in recent months have said they believe he's a reformer" (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/03/27/ftn/main20047627.shtml).

As observed by Peggy Shapiro in an American Thinker article entitled "Assad: Fooled us twice, shame on us" (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/03/assad_fooled_us_twice_shame_on.html), among those noteworthy persons who have come away from meetings with Assad thinking he's a great guy are:

• Zbigniew Brzezinski: "The U.S. and Syria have a shared interest in stability in the region."

• Nancy Pelosi: Assad is a "model Arab leader."

• Jimmy Carter: "In all my conversations with President Assad, whom I've known since he was a college student, I was impressed with [his] eagerness to complete the agreement on the Golan Heights."

• John Kerry: "I remain absolutely convinced there is an opportunity to have a different relationship with Syria."

It is reported that John Kerry is seeking to become Secretary of State when Hillary abandons ship (http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2011/02/04/kerrys_sharp_eye_on_the_secretary_spot/), and, needless to say, Kerry is now backing away from his congenial relationship with the Syrian tyrant. As stated by Jackson Diehl of The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/john_kerrys_message_to_syria/2011/03/04/AFZm9rwB_blog.html?wprss=rss_homepage):

"In an interview Tuesday, Kerry told me that he had contacted senior Syrian officials to demand an end to the killing. 'I delivered as strong a message as I can that they have to avoid violence and listen to their people and respond,' he said. 'Obviously the way the government has behaved is unacceptable. Sixty-one people killed is terrible, its abhorrant behavior.'”

In my opinion, notwithstanding this belated attempt to make amends, Kerry displayed a horrifying lack of good judgment when cuddling up to Assad in Damascus five times over the past two years, and Kerry should be disqualified from any position involving the future negotiation of U.S. overseas interests.

"How to Stay Friends with China": The New York Times Provides Brzezinski with a Pulpit

In a guest op-ed entitled "How to Stay Friends with China" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/03/opinion/03brzezinski.html?_r=1&hp) in today's New York Times, Zbigniew Brzezinski, former national security adviser to Jimmy Carter, tells us how to handle President Hu Jintao of China when he arrives in Washington later this month. Brzezinski is famous for not long ago recommending that the United States shoot down Israeli warplanes over Iraq should they seek to destroy Iranian nuclear facilities (http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-09-18/how-obama-flubbed-his-missile-message/2/).

But his hatred of Israel aside, what does Brzezinski think Obama should say to China's president concerning an increasingly belligerent North Korea, which threatens the entire Far East? Brzezinski answers in two sentences:

"China’s seeming lack of concern over North Korea’s violent skirmishes with South Korea has given rise to apprehension about China’s policy on the Korean peninsula. And just as America’s unilateralism has in recent years needlessly antagonized some of its friends, so China should note that some of its recent stands have worried its neighbors."

Or in other words, in keeping with prevailing Obama administration thought, China is no better and no worse than the U.S. This conciliatory attitude is further highlighted by Brzezinski's observation:

"Longstanding differences between the American and the Chinese notions of human rights were accentuated by the awarding of the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize to a Chinese dissident."

Mere "longstanding differences"? Is Brzezinski seriously contending that differences between American and Chinese "notions" of human rights are merely cultural in origin? Tell it to Tibet. And afterwards consider how China executes more people annually than any other country in the world, although Iran admittedly has a higher per capita execution rate.

Brzezinski's conclusion:

"For the visit to be more than symbolic, Presidents Obama and Hu should make a serious effort to codify in a joint declaration the historic potential of productive American-Chinese cooperation.

. . . .

Such a joint charter should, in effect, provide the framework not only for avoiding what under some circumstances could become a hostile rivalry but also for expanding a realistic collaboration between the United States and China. This would do justice to a vital relationship between two great nations of strikingly different histories, identities and cultures — yet both endowed with a historically important global role."

Yeah, right. A joint charter will rein in North Korea. Which has me wondering whether I should reread Hegel in search of a multi-syllable Teutonism denoting the philosophical significance of bubbles in a bathtub.