Uncommon Sense

politics and society are, unfortunately, much the same thing

Obama can ignore the rhetoric of one foreign leader, but not another

Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal released a statement Tuesday blasting President Obama as an “inept commander in chief. Jindal, who may run for the GOP nomination for president, criticized Obama’s willingness to dismiss the Iranian supreme leader’s “death to America” exhortations as “political rhetoric” while publicly criticizing the campaign rhetoric of Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel.

BobbyJindalKennerMcCain2008
“I realize President Obama is accustomed to misleading the voters, but he shouldn’t assume Middle Eastern tyrants use words as loosely as he does. He’s acting like this is no different than ‘if you like your health care plan you can keep it,'” said Jindal in his statement. “At the same time, the President and his minions are becoming more and more hostile to Prime Minister Netanyahu and Israel. The White House Chief of Staff is now saying they cannot ‘simply pretend’ that comments the Prime Minister of Israel clarified never happened.

Jindal continued: ““How did we get to a point where the White House believes the Iranian Supreme Leader’s comments about ‘death to America’ are just political rhetoric, and we don’t take the word of one of the leaders of our strongest allies?  It’s simply because President Obama doesn’t value the strategic and historic bond between the United States and Israel. This President can sit at a negotiating table with folks who say ‘death to America, but cannot sit at a table with the Prime Minister of Israel. He’s an inept Commander-in-chief.”

original article: Jindal: Obama an ‘Inept Commander in Chief’
March 24, 2015 by MICHAEL WARREN

bias, bigotry, Democrats, diplomacy, discrimination, foreign affairs, government, hate speech, hypocrisy, ideology, israel, left wing, liberalism, pandering, political correctness, politics, president, progressive, propaganda, relativism

Filed under: bias, bigotry, Democrats, diplomacy, discrimination, foreign affairs, government, hate speech, hypocrisy, ideology, israel, left wing, liberalism, pandering, political correctness, politics, president, progressive, propaganda, relativism

Obama’s interference in Israeli elections included American tax dollars

President Obama’s role during the Israeli elections was larger than reported, according to a pollster for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud party.

“What was not well reported in the American media is that President Obama and his allies were playing in the election to defeat Prime Minister Netanyahu,” John McLaughlin, a Republican strategist, said in an interview on John Catsimatidis’s “The Cats Roundtable” radio show broadcast Sunday on AM 970 in New York.
“There was money moving that included taxpayer U.S. dollars, through non-profit organizations. And there were various liberal groups in the United States that were raising millions to fund a campaign called V15 against Prime Minister Netanyahu,” McLaughlin said.

He noted an effort to oust Netanyahu was guided by former Obama political operative Jeremy Bird and that V15, or Victory 15, ads hurt Netanyahu in the polls. McLaughlin said the Israeli leader rebounded after delivering a speech to Congress early this month, prompting more critical ads.

V15 was viewed as part of a broader campaign to oust Netanyahu. The group was linked to Washington-based nonprofit OneVoice Movement, which reportedly received $350,000 in State Department grants. Money to OneVoice stopped flowing in November, officials said, before the Israeli elections.

After Netanyahu’s win, V15 co-founder Nimrod Dweck said in an interview with Ronan Farrow aired on MSNBC’s “Jose Diaz-Balart” that “not a single cent” of State Department or taxpayer money had gone to their campaign.

“These are false allegations and they have nothing to do with reality,” Dweck said.

McLaughlin also cited an effort “to organize the [Israeli] Arabs into one party and teach them about voter turnout.”

“The State Department people in the end of January, early February, expedited visas for [Israeli] Arab leaders to come to the United States to learn how to vote,” McLaughlin said.

“There were people in the United States that were organizing them to vote in one party so they would help the left-of-center candidate, Herzog, that the Obama administration favored,” he added.

Already tense relations between Obama and Netanyahu escalated this week after Netanyahu’s pre-election promise to not allow a Palestinian state. He later backed down after White House criticism, though Obama suggested in an interview released Saturday he wouldn’t brush off the comments.

“They were running an ACORN, Obama Organizing for America-type campaign over there with the digital ads, the billboards, the phones. They were targeting Israeli voters,” Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-N.Y.) said Saturday on Fox News’s “Justice with Judge Jeanine.”

“I think the president, Tuesday night, felt like he lost,” said Zeldin, who along with Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) has questioned the Obama administration over OneVoice’s funding and nonprofit status.

original article: Netanyahu pollster: Obama role in election larger than reported
March 22, 2015 by Jesse Byrnes

corruption, Democrats, elections, foreign affairs, government, israel, left wing, liberalism, pandering, politics, president, progressive, propaganda, scandal, taxes

Filed under: corruption, Democrats, elections, foreign affairs, government, israel, left wing, liberalism, pandering, politics, president, progressive, propaganda, scandal, taxes

Is the U.N. really interested in peace?

It’s easy to believe some people and difficult to believe others, even at their own words.

Some would have us believe Hamas is a humanitarian organization despite the fact their own charter strongly suggests otherwise. One might not realize ISIS is a similar organization to Hamas. Given the prevailing news coverage over the Gaza conflict and surprising lack of coverage about the atrocities of ISIS (did you know about this?) one may wonder what is really going on out there.

For those of you who abstain from the news (I know there are many of you) you may accidentally have heard some talk about the conflict between the Palestinians and Israel. Given the controversial nature of the war (as propaganda is also a standard weapon of modern war) it’s only natural to seek a higher, reliable source of information apart from the parties directly involved (at least for those who aren’t abstaining from the news). For many, this means the United Nations.

But there are legitimate questions as to the credibility of the U.N.

If you read nothing else linked in this post, I highly recommend at least reading Charles Krauthammer’s Moral clarity in Gaza.

It is true that war can be irreconcilably complicated, both in its implementation and in its causes. However, there are also ways to prolong war rather than end it quickly. Concern for the asymmetrical nature of the Gaza conflict often leads to calls for “restraint” from Israel. These calls sound like a desire for the war capability on both sides to be “fair” so both sides can pummel each other more equally. This does not help end war more quickly, it prolongs war. Time and again, conflict after conflict, calls for peace often have the result of postponing hostilities, while the participants take time to regroup and set up for another onslaught. This is particularly true of ceasefires in Gaza, where Palestinian militant groups take advantage of ceasefires in this very way (often while ignoring or violating ceasefires).

So it’s healthy to ask questions about these things, if understanding is really a priority for us. For example, we might ask what sort of ideas does the U.N. promote for regions suffering the ravages of war?

Nations Silent as UN Presents Plan to Push Abortion in War-Torn Countries

New York, NY (CFAM/LifeNews) — A new UN directive to promote abortion in war-torn areas went unchallenged when it was presented to member states at UN headquarters last week.

The high level UN officials who presented a guidance note of the Secretary-General with the new directive in a packed meeting room at UN headquarters were visibly anxious. It is the first time the Secretary-General has openly instructed UN staff and officials to promote abortion. No one used the term “abortion” during the meeting, but it was clearly on everyone’s mind.

Officials and delegates looked around furtively, scouting the room as if to anticipate where the challenge might come from. In the end, the challenge never came.

So, for war-torn areas, the U.N. essentially promotes killing more people. Under the auspices of “sustainability” the U.N. also promotes abortion to help reduce poverty. Rather than looking at the productivity potential of population growth the U.N. overwhelmingly view issues from the perspective of a burden on resources. This has an unfortunate and remarkably uncompassionate result of viewing people merely as statistics rather than as people.

So what am I getting at? Well, the U.N. is publicly and unapologetically supportive of reducing population on the front end (the pre-born) to “help people” and help the world. And given the curious attitudes about current military conflicts one may begin to wonder if the U.N. also supports reducing population on the back end (the rest of us). Now if you’re thinking this is an outrageous suggestion, you might be right, or you might be wrong. If you think my suggestion is absurd because eugenics is such a horrid thing, you’d be right in thinking eugenics is a horrid thing. But you’d be wrong in thinking no one at the U.N. is seriously considering eugenics as a viable method of accomplishing anything.

So why not take the United Nations at their word? Because calling eugenics Eugenics stinks of Nazism, and yet the agenda is there none-the-less. So they avoid using politically charged words but promote the ideas behind those words. Pushing policies which intentionally reduce the world’s population is the modus operandi for the U.N. We should call it what it is: eugenics, elitism, evil.

The United Nations supports population reduction (for the greater good, of course), and abortion and war both accomplish this objective. So be careful when you hear people calling for peace but push ideas that don’t (and may not be meant to) actually end war. Saying “stop the killing” is naive and meaningless among those actually in the conflict. And there is no reason to believe Israel’s enemies are interested in stopping the killing, and why would they? They get tremendous political capital out of the carnage while Israel gets nothing but condemnation from the international community. Israel has every incentive to end the killing and yet the IDF goes out of its way to NOT totally obliterate the Palestinian people (which they have the capability of doing). The Palestinians want war, and the evidence suggests the United Nations might want war as well.

Claiming Hamas or Boko Haram or ISIS just want peace, that Israel is a force for evil, or that the U.N. wants what’s best for all sides doesn’t make it so. Policies and actions should speak louder than words on these issues and I suspect the U.N. may not be as beneficent as they claim.

abortion, anti-war, bias, elitism, eugenics, hypocrisy, ideology, indoctrination, islam, israel, left wing, liberalism, marxism, military, nanny state, pandering, philosophy, political correctness, propaganda, public policy, relativism, terrorism, tragedy, victimization, war

Filed under: abortion, anti-war, bias, elitism, eugenics, hypocrisy, ideology, indoctrination, islam, israel, left wing, liberalism, marxism, military, nanny state, pandering, philosophy, political correctness, propaganda, public policy, relativism, terrorism, tragedy, Uncategorized, victimization, war

Attacking Israel with the Big Lie: Genocide

July 16, 2014 by Jonah Goldberg

“Here’s the difference between us,” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu explained on “Fox News Sunday.” “We’re using missile defense to protect our civilians, and they’re using their civilians to protect their missiles.”

It’s a classic talking point. It’s also objectively true, and that truth is very frustrating for Israel’s critics.

All one needs to do is delve into the muck of Twitter and read the timelines for such hashtags as #GazaUnderAttack and #GenocideInGaza: “They’re killing the women and children to ensure there won’t be a new generation of Palestine.” “One Holocaust can NEVER justify another.”

And let’s not even talk about the globally trending hashtag #HitlerWasRight.

Of course it’s not just on Twitter. Mahmoud Abbas, the head of the feckless Palestinian Authority, recently condemned Israel for committing “genocide” in Gaza. For decades, political cartoonists and cartoonish politicians have been jaw-jawing about how Israel now wears the SS uniform.

This too is basically a talking point — and a very old one. But this one is plainly a lie.

If the Israelis are, or have ever been, interested in genocide, they are utterly incompetent at it. As slanders go, it’s almost funny, like the old paranoid delusion that George W. Bush was simultaneously an idiot and a criminal mastermind.

On the one hand, the Israeli military is supposed to be ruthlessly competent and determined to wipe out the Palestinians. On the other, the Palestinian population has grown more than 100 percent since 1970. The population in the Gaza Strip has grown nearly threefold since 1990. The Palestinians themselves expect the population to double over the next two decades. “Genocide” is a loaded political term, but under any remotely reasonable definition, shouldn’t those numbers be going the other way?

It’s just a hunch, but if the Israelis wanted to wipe out as many Palestinians as possible, never mind commit genocide, they probably wouldn’t issue warnings to Gazans (by phone and leaflet) to get out of harm’s way. Nor would Israel continue to allow hundreds of trucks of food and medical aid to enter Gaza even as hundreds of rockets leave Gaza.

And if Hamas were chiefly concerned with protecting Palestinian lives, it would not implore Gazans to stay in their homes — serving as human shields and inflating the body count as a propaganda prop to increase international pressure on Israel.

One perverse complaint, often subtly echoed in the mainstream media, is that it is somehow unfair that Israelis are not dying, so far, from Gaza rocket strikes. The Israelis have the Iron Dome defense system, which intercepts the rockets aimed at civilians. They also have bomb shelters; the Palestinians do not. They have these things because, as Netanyahu said, Israelis are interested in protecting their citizens.

As Commentary’s Jonathan Tobin notes, no one is asking why the Palestinians don’t have bomb shelters. The assumption seems to be that the Gazans don’t have the wherewithal to build them. This is untrue because they do have bomb shelters — they just reserve them for Hamas’ leaders and fighters. Indeed, Hamas has dug thousands of tunnels under Gaza, largely so it can smuggle in, and store, more rockets to fire on Israel. Better that those tunnels were used as shelters for civilians, but that would mean not letting them die for the greater “good.”

Of course, not being as bad as the Nazis is a very low bar. And the fact that Israel clears it like a pole-vaulter leaping over a brick is not the same as saying Israel is without fault. But Israel’s shortcomings stem largely from the fact it is trying to deal with “peace partners” openly uninterested in lasting peace. Solving that problem is hard. So hard that some would rather shout “Nazi!” at Jews.

It’s a moral scandal that it’s even necessary to bring up this inconvenient truth. But it is necessary because even many of the people who would never say “Hitler was right” have nonetheless internalized another lesson from the Nazis. It was Joseph Goebbels who said, “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.”

original article: Attacking Israel with the Big Lie: Genocide

bias, bigotry, bullies, corruption, crisis, discrimination, foreign affairs, government, hate speech, hypocrisy, ideology, indoctrination, israel, justice, news media, pandering, philosophy, political correctness, politics, propaganda, racism, relativism, scandal, security, terrorism, victimization, war

Filed under: bias, bigotry, bullies, corruption, crisis, discrimination, foreign affairs, government, hate speech, hypocrisy, ideology, indoctrination, israel, justice, news media, pandering, philosophy, political correctness, politics, propaganda, racism, relativism, scandal, security, terrorism, victimization, war

Pages

Categories

February 2017
M T W T F S S
« Jan    
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728