Obama picks Maxwell Smart as Secretary of Defense and Gender Equality


Obama picks Maxwell Smart as Secretary of Defense and Gender Equality, Dan Miller’s Blog, November 25, 2014

(With Iran, the U. N., Europe, the Non-Islamic State, Ferguson, MO and a bunch of other annoyances, a spot of humor seemed worth attempting. — DM)

Immediately upon hearing of Secretary Hagel’s decision to resign, President Obama began His search for the best available replacement. Today, He announced His eagerly awaited choice for a successor.

I have personal problems.

I have too many personal problems.

Statement of President Obama:

My fellow Americans, as you are well aware, I pledged soon after taking office in 2009 that My administration would be the most transparent ever. In keeping with My solemn vow, I want to tell you this evening about My most important actions over the past few days, and how I decided to take them, to make our already exceptional national security even better.

A few days ago, My very close personal friend and scapegoat Republican colleague, Huck Bagel, informed Me that personal problems compelled him to resign as My Secretary of Defense and Gender Equality. There is, of course, no truth to any of the scurrilous lies that I forced him to resign. Contrary to the unfounded assertions of racist media sources, that’s not the way My administration works. Indeed, I did not even begin My exhaustive search for the best possible candidate to replace him until after I learned of his intentions.

Fortunately for us all, a wise Latina caddy at My Presidential Golf Course — I call her Soto because she reminds me of a Supreme Court justice whom I appointed — had over the years become one of My closest and most trusted advisers. She understood the many problems and opportunities before Me. Based on her superior knowledge of television programs, as well as of the qualification needed for the position, she suggested Maxwell Smart.

If I can do it anybody can

Sure, Mr. President. I can do that!

With my closest friend, mentor and adviser, Valerie Jarrett, I carefully analyzed recordings of the TV programs Soto had suggested, giving them My always intensely focused attention. Val provided her uniquely helpful advice and I then decided to act decisively by deciding that I needed to get smart. I promptly telephoned Mr. Smart and he graciously agreed to serve.

As all of you know, all of My foreign and domestic policies and actions have always been based on this simple but important principle: Don’t do anything stupid. I have not once strayed from it.

Mr. Smart’s exemplary qualifications are subtly but well demonstrated in this video as well as in many others.

As should be obvious, Mr. Smart is highly qualified to lead My Department of Defense and Gender Equality. It is My hope and desire that the Senate will act promptly, in true bipartisan fashion, to approve him. Our very own national security demands it. Although My administration has already taken great strides in transforming My military, We still must move ever forward with My most important national security mission: bringing ever greater gender equality, and hence ever better gender relations, to all of My armed forces. We cannot — and must not — wait to make the changes that you, My dear people, have long been hoping and waiting for!

I fully expect that Mr. Smart will also be useful in achieving My goal of degrading the non-Islamic State and other non-Islamic terror organizations in Iraq, Syria and elsewhere. However, it remains my firm conviction that true peace can come only through extended negotiations, with give and take on all sides. As has been shown by Our extended negotiations with Iran over its alleged nuclear ambitions, by giving only a little much can be gained.

Thank you, My America. When you elected Me I promised the changes that you hoped for. Once again, I have responded to your hopes for change. May Allah damn bless you all and bring unto you many beautiful dreams about the wonders I have already wrought and those that I will continue to provide for so long as I remain your beloved leader.

Obama as we know and love(?) him!

ALL of My policies are the best ever

ALL of My policies are awesome!

Posted in Charles Hagel, Congress, Department of Defense, Foreign policy, Humor, Iran, Islamic State, Middle East, Obama, P5+1, Politics, United States of Obama | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

Obama picks Maxwell Smart as Secretary of Defense and Gender Equality


Immediately upon hearing of Secretary Hagel’s decision to resign, President Obama began His search for the best available replacement. Today, He announced His eagerly awaited choice for a successor.

I have personal problems.

I have too many personal problems.

Statement of President Obama:

My fellow Americans, as you are well aware, I pledged soon after taking office in 2009 that My administration would be the most transparent ever. In keeping with My solemn vow, I want to tell you this evening about My most important actions over the past few days, and how I decided to take them, to make our already exceptional national security even better.

A few days ago, My very close personal friend and scapegoat Republican colleague, Huck Bagel, informed Me that personal problems compelled him to resign as My Secretary of Defense and Gender Equality. There is, of course, no truth to any of the scurrilous lies that I forced him to resign. Contrary to the unfounded assertions of racist media sources, that’s not the way My administration works. Indeed, I did not even begin My exhaustive search for the best possible candidate to replace him until after I learned of his intentions.

Fortunately for us all, a wise Latina caddy at My Presidential Golf Course — I call her Soto because she reminds me of a Supreme Court justice whom I appointed — had over the years become one of My closest and most trusted advisers. She understood the many problems and opportunities before Me. Based on her superior knowledge of television programs, as well as of the qualification needed for the position, she suggested Maxwell Smart.

If I can do it anybody can

Sure, Mr. President. I can do that!

With my closest friend, mentor and adviser, Valerie Jarrett, I carefully analyzed recordings of the TV programs Soto had suggested, giving them My always intensely focused attention. Val provided her uniquely helpful advice and I then decided to act decisively by deciding that I needed to get smart. I promptly telephoned Mr. Smart and he graciously agreed to serve.

As all of you know, all of My foreign and domestic policies and actions have always been based on this simple but important principle: Don’t do anything stupid. I have not once strayed from it.

Mr. Smart’s exemplary qualifications are subtly but well demonstrated in this video as well as in many others.

As should be obvious, Mr. Smart is highly qualified to lead My Department of Defense and Gender Equality. It is My hope and desire that the Senate will act promptly, in true bipartisan fashion, to approve him. Our very own national security demands it. Although My administration has already taken great strides in transforming My military, We still must move ever forward with My most important national security mission: bringing ever greater gender equality, and hence ever better gender relations, to all of My armed forces. We cannot — and must not — wait to make the changes that you, My dear people, have long been hoping and waiting for!

I fully expect that Mr. Smart will also be useful in achieving My goal of degrading the non-Islamic State and other non-Islamic terror organizations in Iraq, Syria and elsewhere. However, it remains my firm conviction that true peace can come only through extended negotiations, with give and take on all sides. As has been shown by Our extended negotiations with Iran over its alleged nuclear ambitions, by giving only a little much can be gained.

Thank you, My America. When you elected Me I promised the changes that you hoped for. Once again, I have responded to your hopes for change. May Allah damn bless you all and bring unto you many beautiful dreams about the wonders I have already wrought and those that I will continue to provide for so long as I remain your beloved leader.

Obama as we know and love(?) him!

ALL of My policies are the best ever

ALL of My policies are awesome!

Posted in Charles Hagel, Congress, Department of Defense, Foreign policy, Humor, Obama, Satire, U.S. Military | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments

UKIP Is Better but Is No Solution [Plus my comments on relevance to U.S. politics]


This article is republished with permission from Enza Ferreri’s blog. But first,

My introduction

Please consider the similarities and differences among the UK Independence Party (UKIP), the Republican Party and the “Tea Parties,” with emphasis on the Republican and Tea Parties. Here are two videos which are well worth watching, comparing and contrasting before reading the article:

First, a video by Bill Whittle on principles, speaking and behaving consistently with them.

Next, a UKIP video on its recent electoral success:

Here is Enzi Ferreri’s article about UKIP. I have used bold face type to indicate what I consider the portions most pertinent to the comparisons I am asking readers to consider.

***********************

_77864776_024086699-1

Yesterday the UK Independence Party (UKIP) has gained its second seat in Britain’s House of Commons, the lower House of Parliament, with Mark Reckless elected in the Rochester and Strood constituency, in Kent. The victory was obtained through a comfortable, though not dramatic, majority of 2,930 votes over the Conservative runner-up Kelly Tolhurst, a majority which many say may easily be lost again at the May 2015 general election for the UK Parliament.

This, and especially UKIP’s first Member of Parliament, Douglas Carswell, elected on 9 October 2014 in Clacton-on-Sea, Essex, with a landslide of 60% of the vote, are historical events.

Both seats were won in by-elections necessitated when Mr Carswell and Mr Reckless, already MPs for those consituencies for the Conservative Party, defected to UKIP and left their seats, which they later regained with their new party.

For good or for bad, UKIP, for all its limitations, is changing the British political landscape forever.

Its limitations are a lack of long-term clarity about the objectives the party wants to achieve. “What does it stand for?” is a different question from “Whom does it stand for?”.

The answer to the latter is obvious: the great number of British people of middle and working classes who have seen their country transformed beyond recognition in the relatively short time of a few decades, in the most evident way by unrestricted immigration with concomitant multiculturalism and Islamisation, but also in a less macroscopic way by other cultural developments introduced by the New Left, like same-sex marriage, sexualisation of children and what the press calls “political correctness gone mad”. [Emphasis added — DM.]

In short, socio-communist agenda goals tacitly or overtly accepted and promoted by the misnamed Conservative Party as well as the most obvious culprits, Labour and LibDems.

The people who are worried by all these recent phenomena and even more scared by the main political parties’ inaction at best and collusion at worst regarding them are aboslutely right. What they don’t necessarily have, after many years of media’s and education system’s propaganda, is a clear idea of what caused them and where to start if we want to stop, let alone reverse, these momentum-gathering trends. [Emphasis added — DM.]

To know that is the job of politicians. Hence, the question “what to stand for” needs to be answered. It’s not enough to be against the EU, mass immigration and the LibLabCon.

Here the UKIP represents vast numbers of the electorate even too well. Like them, it senses the problems but doesn’t grasp the solution. [Emphasis added — DM.]

Irish statesman and political thinker Edmund Burke (1729–1797), himself an MP in the House of Commons for many years, made an important distinction between representatives and delegates.

In his famous Speech to the Electors at Bristol at the Conclusion of the Poll of 1774, he explained that delegates exclusively carry out the instructions of those who elected them, therefore only reflecting the views and wishes of their constituents.

Representatives, on the other hands, are trustees. Voters have entrusted them to act in their best interest, which doesn’t necessarily coincide with what the voters want. Moreover, the representative makes choices on the basis of the common interest, and not just of those who elected him. He considers his constituents’ views but doesn’t have to abide by their wishes. He follows his conscience. The representative, thus, having knowledge and experience that his constituents generally lack, uses his judgement to form an opinion on what’s in the public interest, and acts accordingly. [Emphasis added — DM.]

MPs, Burke said, should be representatives and not delegates.

So, in Bristol he proclaimed (The Works of the Right Honourable Edmund Burke, Volume I, London: Henry G. Bohn, 1854, pp. 446–8):

… it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion, high respect; their business, unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own. But his unbiased opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.… [Emphasis added — DM]

You choose a member, indeed; but when you have chosen him, he is not member of Bristol, but he is a member of Parliament.

In these days of rampant populism it’s important to realise that the old clique of politicians, in Britain as elsewhere in the West, hasn’t acted wrongly so much because it’s gone against people’s will as because it’s gone against people’s interest.

In fact, in many cases the political class has given people what they wanted – an unsustainable welfare state – in its own interest, which was to get elected, but has gone against their interest by creating an unprecedented national debt of astronomic proportions that may bankrupt the state and will burden future generations. [Emphasis added — DM.]

UKIP doesn’t seem to be different from the other parties in this respect. It doesn’t like to tell people uncomfortable truths, as can be seen by the compromises it has already started making, for example by promising that millions of European immigrants can remain in Britain after an EU exit, by its soft stance on Islam, and similar. [Emphasis added — DM.]

UKIP wants to appear politically correct. [Emphasis added — DM.]

Its policies are fluid, constantly changed. Its representatives are often caught saying things against party policy. When put under scrutiny, they often don’t know what to say. [Emphasis added — DM.]

All this is not unique to them, but can be found in other parties. But that’s exactly it. Where is the difference? Where is a long-term plan for effective change? If UKIP knew the answer, it wouldn’t have remained for a very long time without a manifesto, including during the 2014 European elections campaign.

In the end, leaving the European Union is not the ultimate solution. What will UKIP change after that? What about the Third World immigrants, who are an immensely greater problem than Bulgarians and Romanians? What about Islamisation of Britain? What about the erosion of Christian values? The ideological dominance of the Left? [Emphasis added — DM.]

UKIP is a breath of fresh air in the stagnant political situation of the UK, but air, though essential, is not the only necessity of life.

***********************

My request:

Having watched the videos linked above and read Ms. Ferreri’s article, what do you think? For example,

Can a politician who says what he means, means what he says and behaves consistently get elected and, if so, will his chances of reelection diminish, increase or remain about the same if he does what he said he would do?

Do we want “delegates” who do what their constituents think they want, or “representatives” who do what they think best? Has Obama done too much of the latter?

Where should our Congress Critters draw their lines between being delegates and representatives?

Should members of the House of Representatives, “the People’s House,” draw lines different from those drawn by Senators?

 

Posted in Bill Whittle, Congress, Conservatives, Constitution, Democrats, Economics, Elections, Freedom, Government reliance, Governor Romney, Integrity, Leftists, Obama, Obama Nation, Owned by Government, Political class, Politics, Principles, Republican establishment, Republicans, RINOs, Romney, UKIP | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Obama Grubered us Great on Immigration — UPDATED


But not only in the ways that most of us anticipated, because He did not issue an executive order.

On November 19th, I wrote an article titled Obama’s Grubering and royal amnesty for illegals. Rather than speculate about what Obama would say in His November 20th address and Royal Decree, also known as executive order, I wrote

After reading and interpreting copies of Obama’s address and His Royal Decree, I will try to analyze His Gruberings.

Like many, I had expected Obama to issue an executive order, in contradiction of His many previous acknowledgments that He lacks the authority to deal with immigration that way.

Obama did not issue an executive order as expected and His November 20th immigration address does not include the phrase “executive order.” However, media of all political persuasions, apparently expecting an executive order, used the phrase often and interchangeably with “executive action.” Obama’s address uses neither phrase.

Facially, the phrases “executive order” and “executive action” seem to mean about the same thing: issuing an executive order is an action taken by the President, so using the phrases interchangeably seems reasonable. However, “executive action” is a term of art and very different from “executive order.” Although I practiced administrative law in Washington for more than twenty-five years before retiring in 1996, the differences escaped me until I read and thought about the matter yesterday. Perhaps I can take solace in the statement in the article linked and quoted immediately below to the effect that Obama is the first President in modern history to have used executive actions in lieu of executive orders.

The best explanation of the differences I’ve been able to find is at U.S. Politics About. The article deals with executive actions on gun control rather than immigration, but the principles are the same,

Executive Actions Versus Executive Orders

Executive actions are any informal proposals or moves by the president. The term executive action itself is vague and can be used to describe almost anything the president calls on Congress or his administration to do. But most executive actions carry no legal weight. Those that do actually set policy can be invalidated by the courts or undone by legislation passed by Congress. [Emphasis added.]

The terms executive action and executive order are not interchangeable. Executive orders are legally binding and published in the Federal Register, though they also can be reversed by the courts and Congress

A good way to think of executive actions is a wish list of policies the president would like to see enacted. [Emphasis added.]

When Executive Actions Are Used Instead of Executive Orders

Presidents favor the use of nonbinding executive actions when the issue is controversial or sensitive. For example, Obama carefully weighed his use of executive actions on gun violence and decided against issuing legal mandates via executive orders, which would have gone against the legislative intent of Congress and risked enraging lawmakers of both parties. [Emphasis added.]

. . .

Use of Executive Actions by Other Presidents

Obama was the first modern president to use executive actions in lieu of executive orders or executive memoranda. [Emphasis added.]

Criticism of Executive Actions

Critics described Obama’s use of executive actions as an overreach of his presidential powers and an unconstitutional attempt to bypass the legislative branch of government, even though the most substantial of the executive actions carried no legal weight.

. . . .

But even the Obama White House acknowledged that most of the executive actions carried no legal weight. Here’s what the administration said at the time the 23 executive actions [on gun control] were proposed:

“While President Obama will sign 23 Executive Actions today that will help keep our kids safe, he was clear that he cannot and should not act alone: The most important changes depend on Congressional action.”

Since Obama’s executive action or actions seem not to have been published, it is not clear which Federal agencies He has asked to do what. However, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released an “explanation” of what it intended to do. It used much of the phraseology Obama used in His November 20th address. On November 19th, the Department of Justice (DOJ) issued an opinion concerning a draft of DHS’ plan to prioritize the deportation of various classes of illegal immigrants. The DOJ found most of what DHS contemplated to be lawful, but stated that “the proposed deferred action program for parents of DACA [Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals] recipients would not be permissible.” The distinctions as explained by the DOJ are complicated. However,  this is what Obama said on November 20th:

So we’re going to offer the following deal: If you’ve with been in America more than five years. If you have children who are American citizens or illegal residents. If you register, pass a criminal background check and you’re willing to pay your fair share of taxes, you’ll be able to apply to stay in this country temporarily without fear of deportation. You can come out of the shadows and get right with the law. That’s what this deal is. [Emphasis added.]

That does not seem to exclude the parents of Deferred Action on Childhood Arrival recipients. New Federal regulations may (or may not) draw the distinction noted by the DOJ.

Federal regulations

The Administrative Procedure Act,

enacted June 11, 1946, is the United States federal statute that governs the way in which administrative agencies of the federal government of the United States may propose and establish regulations. The APA also sets up a process for the United States federal courts to directly review agency decisions. It is one of the most important pieces of United States administrative law. The Act became law in 1946.

The APA applies to both the federal executive departments and the independent agencies. U.S. Senator Pat McCarran called the APA “a bill of rights for the hundreds of thousands of Americans whose affairs are controlled or regulated” by federal government agencies. The text of the APA can be found under Title 5 of the United States Code, beginning at Section 500.

The Act establishes rule making procedures and generally, but not always, requires that “notice and comment” procedures be used before rules are adopted.

Rulemaking processes are generally designed to ensure that

The public is informed of proposed rules before they take effect;

The public can comment on the proposed rules and provide additional data to the agency;

The public can access the rulemaking record and analyse the data and analysis behind a proposed rule;

The agency analyses and responds to the public’s comments;

The agency creates a permanent record of its analysis and the process;

The agency’s actions can be reviewed by a judge or others to ensure the correct process was followed.

However, Section 553 of the Act states,

(a) This section applies, according to the provisions thereof, except to the extent that there is involved -

(1) a military or foreign affairs function of the United States; or

(2) a matter relating to agency management or personnel or to public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts. [Emphasis added.]

We should eventually learn which, if any, new immigration regulations issued in accordance with Obama’s recent executive action will be categorized as “relating to agency management” and therefore not made subjects of the notice and comment procedures.

Obama is a master of grubering and he grubered immigration reform masterfully.

Here are two of many examples. According to a Washington Post fact check,

President Barack Obama made some notable omissions in his remarks about the unilateral actions he’s taking on immigration.

A look at his statements Thursday and how they compare with the facts:

OBAMA: “It does not grant citizenship, or the right to stay here permanently, or offer the same benefits that citizens receive. Only Congress can do that. All we’re saying is we’re not going to deport you.”

THE FACTS: He’s saying, and doing, more than that. The changes also will make those covered eligible for work permits, allowing them to be employed in the country legally and compete with citizens and legal residents for better-paying jobs.

That article goes on at length. Daniel Horowitz, writing at Conservative Review identified the Top 10 Lies from Obama’s Nullification Speech. Others have also made similarly valid points about the bovine fecal matter which permeates His address.

However, Obama’s grubering went beyond simply misstating and glossing over facts. By leaving the impression that He was issuing an executive order — rather than an executive action — He misled the media as well as many others as to how He intends to proceed.

Michael Gerson wrote at the Washington Post,

There are any number of marvelous things one might do as president, if Congress were not such a checked and balanced mess. But future presidents now have a new method at their disposal: Declare a long-running debate to be a national emergency. Challenge Congress, under threat of unilateral executive action, to legislate on the topic before your term runs out. And when lawmakers refuse, act with the most expansive definition of presidential power. [Emphasis added.]

. . . .

By crossing this particular Rubicon, Obama has given up on politics, which is, from one perspective, understandable. He doesn’t do it well. He has always viewed the political process as sullied, compared with the reasonableness of his policy insights. In the aftermath of his party’s midterm defeat, he diagnosed a problem of salesmanship. “It’s not enough just to build a better mousetrap,” he said. “People don’t automatically come beating to your door. We’ve got to sell it.” [Emphasis added.]

. . . .

[T]here is a cost. He has taken an important national discussion and turned it into just another controversial Obama initiative. He has resolved one portion of the immigration debate while poisoning the possibility of broader reform and politically discrediting Republicans who might be open to it. [Emphasis added.]

Might Obama have spoken as He did purposely to throw the Republican opposition into a dither and thence into disfavor, believing that by misleading them into thinking that He was doing more than He actually did they would get angry, excited and make public statements that would turn out to have been brash as well as incorrect? Might He have believed that, after being shown to be brash and wrong, they would fall into line with His immigration program or at least suffer severely adverse political consequences for failing to do so?

According to Fox News, the Republicans were ready before November 20th to do whatever it might take to halt Obama’s immigration plan.

Obama’s move sparked a number of comparisons with monarchies, the Revolutionary War, and tyranny, with Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, going so far as to say that not even King George III had such power over the American colonists in 1776. “It is no exaggeration to say the freedom of the American people is at stake,” he said.

Rep. Randy Forbes, R-Va., predicted doom. “We’re going to be headed for a constitutional crisis that the president’s making,” he told Lou Dobbs on the Fox Business Network on Wednesday. “He’s going to poison this well so much that we’re not going to be able to do the fixes that we really need to do [to] reform the immigration system.”

An article at the North American Law Center asked, “Does Barack Hussein Obama have any constitutional authority to alter U.S. Immigration and Naturalization laws or rules via Executive Order?” and explained why He does not. It was stated,

The power of Executive Orders are limited to items under the legal purview of the Executive Branch and they are limited to “executing the laws” established by Congress. Executive powers do not extend to law-making authority, nor do they extend to subverting or circumventing the laws of our land.

True enough, but Obama did not issue an executive order.

What can and should the Congress do now?

It would be premature to file a lawsuit now since — in addition to misleading, obfuscating and otherwise lying about facts — Obama merely told administrative agencies to consider promulgating rules that He wants adopted. He can do that.

When the agencies publish proposed rules (other than those “relating to agency management or personnel”), comments and reply comments can and should be filed. Suit might possibly be filed seeking to have the adoption of new proposed rules delayed pending judicial review. More likely, however, their adoption cannot be prevented and suits seeking to prevent enforcement will have to wait until after the new rules have been adopted.

Of greatest importance, the present Congress should refuse to pass any long term omnibus appropriations bill. A short term omnibus bill, granting spending authority — through February or March — seems reasonable. Then, when it is clear what the various administrative agencies propose to do, the next Congress should pass separate appropriations bills for each of those agencies, specifically not funding any (specified) actions deemed undesirable. Any long term omnibus appropriations bill passed by the next Congress needs specific language prohibiting the expenditure of any funds by or on behalf of those agencies not specifically authorized in appropriations bills for those agencies. Fund shifting to those agencies from from other agencies also needs to be prohibited.

These are just my first impressions. There will likely be much more that the next Congress can and should do, but the current Congress will need to pass a short term omnibus appropriations bill as suggested above if the next Congress is to take effective action. There should be ample time between now and January to come up with more ideas.

ADDENDUM

Here’s a link to a Washington Times analysis of Obama’s two executive actions. I have yet to find the full texts.

The first executive action directs

agencies to work in consultation with stakeholders to develop recommendations on how to better improve our visa system so that it more efficiently uses government resources, prevents fraud, and reduces burdens on employers and employees,” the White House said. It requires federal agencies to submit recommendations within 120 days.

Who are the “stakeholders?”

The second executive action

creates the White House Task Force on New Americans, “which is intended to better assist new Americans to fully contribute to our economy and their communities,” the White House said.

“It will bring together various government agencies and support state and local efforts to create a strategy to enhance civic, economic, and linguistic integration of new Americans,” the statement said. “This task force will create an integration plans with recommendations on how to improve these efforts within 120 days.”

Obama’s executive actions may or may not contemplate new agency rules. Perhaps upon receipt of the recommendations Obama will issue Executive Orders. Or perhaps He will tell the relevant agencies what He wants and direct them to propose new agency rules accordingly.

If the recommendation process, apparently envisioned by the executive actions, takes the full 120 days, if Obama et al mull the recommendations over for awhile, and if the current Congress passes only a short term continuing resolution as suggested in the article, the new Congress should have ample time to prepare and pass both a continuing resolution on general appropriations as well as specific appropriations for the agencies and others slated to implement the recommendations as approved by Obama, both as suggested in the article.

FURTHER ADDENDUM

The operational portions of the executive actions mentioned above are provided below. The introductory paragraphs, similar in both memorandums, are not provided here with the exception of one, which appears in the memorandum on visas. I have included it because it seems to indicate that Obama contemplates future actions by Federal agencies.

Presidential Memorandum — Modernizing and Streamlining the U.S. Immigrant Visa System for the 21st Century, November 21, 2014

Even as we continue to seek meaningful legislative reforms, my Administration has pursued administrative reforms to streamline and modernize the legal immigration system. We have worked to simplify an overly complex visa system, one that is confusing to travelers and immigrants, burdensome to businesses, and results in long wait times that negatively impact millions of families and workers. But we can and must do more to improve this system. Executive departments and agencies must continue to focus on streamlining and reforming the legal immigration system, while safeguarding the interest of American workers. [Emphasis added.]

Therefore, by the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to modernize and streamline the U.S. immigration system, I hereby direct as follows:

Section 1. Recommendations to Improve the Immigration System. (a) Within 120 days of the date of this memorandum, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security (Secretaries), in consultation with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the Director of the National Economic Council, the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, the Director of the Domestic Policy Council, the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the Attorney General, and the Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, Labor, and Education, shall develop:

(i) in consultation with private and nonfederal public actors, including business people, labor leaders, universities, and other stakeholders, recommendations to streamline and improve the legal immigration system — including immigrant and non-immigrant visa processing — with a focus on reforms that reduce Government costs, improve services for applicants, reduce burdens on employers, and combat waste, fraud, and abuse in the system;

(ii) in consultation with stakeholders with relevant expertise in immigration law, recommendations to ensure that administrative policies, practices, and systems use all of the immigrant visa numbers that the Congress provides for and intends to be issued, consistent with demand; and

(iii) in consultation with technology experts inside and outside the Government, recommendations for modernizing the information technology infrastructure underlying the visa processing system, with a goal of reducing redundant systems, improving the experience of applicants, and enabling better public and congressional oversight of the system.

(b) In developing the recommendations as set forth in subsection (a) of this section, the Secretaries shall establish metrics for measuring progress in implementing the recommendations and in achieving service-level improvements, taking into account the Federal Government’s responsibility to protect the integrity of U.S. borders and promote economic opportunity for all workers.

Sec. 2. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this memorandum shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department, agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This memorandum shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

(d) The Secretary of State is hereby authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.

********************

Presidential Memorandum — Creating Welcoming Communities and Fully Integrating Immigrants and Refugees, November 21, 2014

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, I hereby order as follows:

Section 1. White House Task Force on New Americans. (a) There is established a White House Task Force on New Americans (Task Force) to develop a coordinated Federal strategy to better integrate new Americans into communities and support State and local efforts to do the same. It shall be co-chaired by the Director of the Domestic Policy Council and Secretary of Homeland Security, or their designees. In addition to the Co-Chairs, the Task Force shall consist of the following members:

(i) the Secretary of State;

(ii) the Attorney General;

(iii) the Secretary of Agriculture;

(iv) the Secretary of Commerce;

(v) the Secretary of Labor;

(vi) the Secretary of Health and Human Services;

(vii) the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development;

(viii) the Secretary of Transportation;

(ix) the Secretary of Education;

(x) the Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation for National and Community Service;

(xi) the Director of the Office of Management and Budget;

(xii) the Administrator of the Small Business Administration;

(xiii) the Senior Advisor and Assistant to the President for Intergovernmental Affairs and Public Engagement;

(xiv) the Director of the National Economic Council;

(xv) the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism; and

(xvi) the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy.

(b) A member of the Task Force may designate a senior-level official who is from the member’s department, agency, or office, and is a full-time officer or employee of the Federal Government, to perform day-to-day Task Force functions of the member. At the direction of the Co-Chairs, the Task Force may establish subgroups consisting exclusively of Task Force members or their designees under this subsection, as appropriate.

(c) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall appoint an Executive Director who will determine the Task Force’s agenda, convene regular meetings of the Task Force, and supervise work under the direction of the Co-Chairs. The Department of Homeland Security shall provide funding and administrative support for the Task Force to the extent permitted by law and subject to the availability of appropriations. Each executive department or agency shall bear its own expenses for participating in the Task Force.

Sec. 2. Mission and Function of the Task Force. (a) The Task Force shall, consistent with applicable law, work across executive departments and agencies to:

(i) review the policies and programs of all relevant executive departments and agencies to ensure they are responsive to the needs of new Americans and the receiving communities in which they reside, and identify ways in which such programs can be used to increase meaningful engagement between new Americans and the receiving community;

(ii) identify and disseminate best practices at the State and local level;

(iii) provide technical assistance, training, or other support to existing Federal grantees to increase their coordination and capacity to improve long-term integration and foster welcoming community climates;

(iv) collect and disseminate immigrant integration data, policies, and programs that affect numerous executive departments and agencies, as well as State and local governments and nongovernmental actors;

(v) conduct outreach to representatives of nonprofit organizations, State and local government agencies, elected officials, and other interested persons that can assist with the Task Force’s development of recommendations;

(vi) work with Federal, State, and local entities to measure and strengthen equitable access to services and programs for new Americans, consistent with applicable law; and

(vii) share information with and communicate to the American public regarding the benefits that result from integrating new Americans into communities.

(b) Within 120 days of the date of this memorandum, the Task Force shall develop and submit to the President an Integration Plan with recommendations for agency actions to further the integration of new Americans. The Integration Plan shall include:

(i) an assessment by each Task Force member of the status and scope of the efforts by the member’s department, agency, or office to further the civic, economic, and linguistic integration of new Americans, including a report on the status of any offices or programs that have been created to develop, implement, or monitor targeted initiatives concerning immigrant integration; and

(ii) recommendations for issues, programs, or initiatives that should be further evaluated, studied, and implemented, as appropriate.

(c) The Task Force shall provide, within 1 year of the date of this memorandum, a status report to the President regarding the implementation of this memorandum. The Task Force shall review and update the Integration Plan periodically, as appropriate, and shall present to the President any updated recommendations or findings.

Sec. 3. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this memorandum shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department, agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This memorandum shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

(d) The Secretary of Homeland Security is hereby authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.

Neither memorandum, on its face, appears to violate either the Constitution or any Federal law. They merely direct that consultations be held, and that recommendations be made, on what should be done in relevant areas. Implementation of any recommendations may well be a different matter, depending on which Federal entity attempts to implement which recommendations.

ANOTHER ADDENDUM

An article appeared at the Washington Post today making the point that Obama intended to provoke outraged Republicans into doing unwise things that he would find useful in implementing his political agenda. Beyond stating (in my view erroneously) that Obama took an “unconstitutional executive action,” the article contends:

He is acting to provoke the GOP. The giveaway moment in Obama’s address was when he told Republicans that “Americans are tired of gridlock” and urged them not to “let a disagreement over a single issue be a deal breaker on every issue. That’s not how our democracy works, and Congress certainly shouldn’t shut down our government again just because we disagree on this.”

That is exactly what Obama is hoping Republicans will do. His whole speech was a calculated effort to elicit a self-destructive response from the GOP. Obama wants Republicans to shut down the government. He wants them to introduce articles of impeachment. He wants them to rail against illegal immigrants — to declare, as Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) did, that his actions will result in “millions of unskilled, illiterate, foreign nationals coming into the United States who can’t speak the English language.” [Emphasis added.]

That’s music to Obama’s ears.

Obama must be drooling with delight.

Posted in Abuse of Power, Administrative Agencies, Administrative law, Congress, Conservatives, Constitution, Department of Homeland Security, Deportation, Executive action, Executive Order, Federal Agencies, Illegal immigration, Jonathan Gruber, Law and Order, Legislation, Media, Obama, Obama Dream Order, Obama Nation, Politics, Republicans | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments

Obama’s Grubering and royal amnesty for illegals


The Obama administration refuses to enforce Federal laws which Obama finds ideologically or politically objectionable, while claiming that He is obligated to enforce them.

Immigration reform

On November 19th, House Speaker Boehner released an article titled 22 Times President Obama Said He Couldn’t Ignore or Create His Own Immigration Law. Here are Boehner’s introductory paragraphs:

With the White House poised to grant executive amnesty any day now despite the American people’s staunch opposition, on Sunday President Obama was asked about the many, many statements he made in the past about his inability to unilaterally change or ignore immigration law. His response was astonishingly brazen: “Actually, my position hasn’t changed. When I was talking to the advocates, their interest was in me, through executive action, duplicating the legislation that was stalled in Congress.”

This is a flagrant untruth: “In fact, most of the questions that were posed to the president over the past several years were about the very thing that he is expected to announce within a matter of days,” reported The New York Times. “[T]he questions actually specifically addressed the sorts of actions that he is contemplating now,” The Washington Post’s Fact Checker agreed, awarding President Obama the rare “Upside-Down Pinocchio,” which signifies “a major-league flip-flop.” Even FactCheck.org piled on.

Here are the first two examples on the list of Obama’s earlier positions:

“I take the Constitution very seriously. The biggest problems that we’re facing right now have to do with [the president] trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all. And that’s what I intend to reverse when I’m President of the United States of America.” (3/31/08)

“We’ve got a government designed by the Founders so that there’d be checks and balances. You don’t want a president who’s too powerful or a Congress that’s too powerful or a court that’s too powerful. Everybody’s got their own role. Congress’s job is to pass legislation. The president can veto it or he can sign it. … I believe in the Constitution and I will obey the Constitution of the United States. We’re not going to use signing statements as a way of doing an end-run around Congress.” (5/19/08).

Please also read and consider the remaining twenty. Was Obama Grubering — lying and obfuscating — when He said those things, is He Grubering now, or both?

There has already been ample speculation about the Royal Decree which Obama intends to sign and blather about this evening. Speculation is interesting. However, we should be in a better position after His address to compare what He says with what He is likely to do and to consider the potential consequences for us, for the Congress and for Him.

That said, we can expect with near certainty that Obama will Gruber as he blathers about His Royal Decree and what it means. As the propensity of Obama and His administration to distort and otherwise to lie about facts and their positions has evolved, there is little if any reason to believe what they say about anything — from the state of the economy to foreign policy to ObamaCare to Benghazi to Fast and Furious to the “Religion of Peace” to immigration “reform” and a multitude of others. The recent news about Jonathan Gruber and the administration’s relationship with him have shown this perception to be increasingly sound. In response, Obama and His administration have continued to Gruber. Here’s a short summary:

This is from left-leaning(?) MSNBC:

It’s also reasonable to assume that the “legitimate” media will find little if any fault with Obama’s Royal Decree or its implementation. Leftists generally seem to feel that He can do no wrong when He agrees with them, as He customarily does.

A voice from the past and the present

Chris Lehane is the proud author of the 1959 “vast right wing conspiracy” memo relied upon by St. Hillary of Clinton back when her husband was wrongly rightly accused of multiple derelictions including sexual misconduct in the While House and lying about it, publicly and later under oath.

Ms Lehane wrote that, even now,  “I absolutely stand by . . . [the memo]. Not only was it right about the right wing then, it is more accurate than ever today.” Here is the key paragraph of what she wrote in the linked Politico article this April about vast right wing conspiracy theories:

Today, thanks to this opt in/opt out dynamic, ever-larger segments of the population can believe in completely ungrounded conspiracy theories—such as that President Obama was not born in the United States—despite a massive trove of assiduously documented evidence to the contrary. Take, for example, Fox News’s non-stop coverage of the supposed cover-up surrounding the attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, which at times has veered into self-parody—segments hyping shoddy reports produced by the very same people who believe Obama was born in Kenya. Or its coverage of IRS-gate, Solyndra or any other number of fever-swamp-driven pseudo-scandals that mainstream outlets have looked into and found rather less scandalous. And all of these nothingburger stories get duly hyped on zillions of right-wing websites, on conservative talk radio and on the Drudge Report, which boasts more traffic than ever, though it looks pretty much the same as it did during the Clinton years. [Emphasis added.]

She wrote her Politico article before the surfacing of “Grubergate,” to which the “legitimate” media generally found it appropriate to pay scant or no attention — until doing something was seen to be necessary. Even after the Grubergate debacle, the “legitimate” media are likely to ignore objections to Obama’s Royal Decree or treat them with the same disdain they lavished on non-leftist perceptions of the Benghazi, IRS and other scandal cover ups as  “fever-swamp-driven pseudo-scandals that mainstream outlets have looked into and found rather less scandalous.”

Conclusion

After reading and interpreting copies of Obama’s address and His Royal Decree, I will try to analyze His Gruberings. Perhaps this time the “legitimate” media will do its job and illuminate at least some of Obama’s malfeasance. Don’t count on it.

UPDATE:

Bryan Preston, in an article at PJ Tatler titled Obama’s Revolution Day, quoted Joseph Curl at the Washington Times as follows:

After his party’s historic losses, [Obama] refused to even acknowledge the thrashing. Instead, he said the real lesson from that day was that Americans want everyone in Washington to “work together.”

Yet behind the scenes, the president was busy directing his team of lawyers to find real or perceived loopholes in the law — even the Constitution — in order to wave his royal scepter and instantaneously turn as many as 12 million illegal aliens into America citizens. Already he had quietly ordered the federal government to stop deporting aliens and unilaterally allowed some 60,000 “unaccompanied minors” to enter the U.S.

So he never had any intention of “working together” with Republicans, who in six weeks will control both chambers of Congress. Instead, he set off to circumvent Congress by granting amnesty to millions. Throughout, he knew that he would be, as GOP leaders said, “poisoning the well” and “waving a red flag in front of a bull.”

The bull will probably notice and respond. But how?

Posted in Abuse of Power, Congress, Conspiracy theories, Constitution, Democrats, Domestic policies, Duty, Executive Order, Jonathan Gruber, Leftists, Legislation, Limitation on Authority, Media, MSNBC, Obama, Obama Dream Order, Obama Nation, Politics, Power, Republicans | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments

Islam between Illusion and Reality


This article is republished here with permission. It’s from Islam between Illusion and Reality at Enza Ferreri’s Blog, published on November 18, 2014. Please check her blog. It’s very good.

deceased victim of IS

A new article by our guest writer Cassandra.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Imagine, if you can, a fairy tale where a mother teaches her toddler that wolves are simply big, furry, friendly dogs that love a good cuddle. Although she and her child live in a village, nestled against a hillside, in a lush valley where humans and wolves exist in close proximity to each other, she doesn’t warn her little girl that wolves are dangerous.

Instead, as well as teaching her daughter that wolves are just big, furry, friendly dogs that love a good cuddle, she also teaches her that it is deeply wrong, even evil, to think the opposite. She explains that this is a bigoted way of thinking. It is what the people of the village thought in the past, and it led to warfare and unbridled hatred towards noble, peaceful wolves. So, although now and again news spreads throughout the village that a wolf has taken a child in the night, the mother continues to assure her daughter that it is the worst thing imaginable to even think about being wary of wolves.

It might make for a marginally entertaining fairy-tale: one that I may write some day, but the mother would surely be the villain of the story. In that fairy tale rather than referring to the Big Bad Wolf, it would be more fitting to refer to the Big Bad Mum.

Something similar is happening today in the West in relation to Islam. We see the effect of it whenever its followers do something so atrociously violent that the media cannot ignore it, and our rulers rush out to defend the reputation of Islam by telling us that it is a religion of peace. It would be “Islamophobic” not to think so, and there is nothing worse than that. However, if a Muslim does something good, the good act can, and most likely will, be attributed to Islam. The implication being that Islam is good, and that it only inspires good acts in people.

I am not saying that all Muslims are violent or dangerous. What I am saying is that this new dogma being adopted in the West – that there is nothing negative, violent or threatening in the doctrine of Islam – is not just false, it is also dangerous. To cajole people into thinking that Islam poses no danger to them on penalty of being deemed “Islamophobic” is to force people to irrationally view something which is a potential danger to them as harmless. This puts lives at risk. Since one of the prime duties of government is to protect the lives of the governed, this is a dereliction of duty on the part of our rulers.

But it is more than that, because it also shows that, although they like to portray themselves as people who care about the weak and vulnerable in society, the opposite is true. They do not in fact care about their people – weak, vulnerable or otherwise. What they do care about is maintaining the status of their ideology and quelling opposition to the type of society that they have engineered through mass immigration. If their citizens, old and young, male and female, suffer or die as a result, that is a price worth paying. They are worthy sacrifices to the Moloch that is multiculturalism.

This point was made clear recently here in England where staff members at Rotherham council were reported to have been reluctant to identify the ethnic origin of child abusers for fear of being considered “racist”. They would no doubt have been equally nervous about identifying the religion to which these men belonged for fear of being considered “Islamophobic”. It was later reported that child abuse files went missing from the council’s archives.

Of course there are many peaceful Muslims who do not do everything that their religion demands, but there are many Muslims that are not peaceful and who do follow their religion to the letter. The current UK terrorist “threat level” is set at “severe”, which means that “a terrorist attack is highly likely”. Which supposedly means that one should be particularly vigilant as to “suspicious” behaviour. At the same time, since Islam is a “religion of peace” from which only good actions can possibly come forth, people like the staff members at Rotherham council would supposedly be reluctant to report any “suspicious” behaviour on the part of a Muslim for fear of being deemed “Islamophobic”.

It is the same insidious dogma which has led to the kidnapping and/or murder of well-meaning Westerners attempting to help people in the Middle East, the most recent example of which is the murder of American citizen Peter Kassig. The American president has already taken the opportunity to use the beheading of Mr Kassig by a Muslim who justified his actions in Islamic terms, and who belonged to a group calling itself the Islamic State, to defend the reputation of Islam. President Obama is reported as having said: “ISIL’s actions represent no faith, least of all the Muslim faith which Abdul-Rahman adopted as his own”. He failed to highlight the fact that Peter Kassig “adopted” Islam while a captive whose life was at the mercy of his Muslim captors. He also failed to highlight the fact that Mr Kassig had “adopted” the only religion that mandates death for those who apostatise from it.

Others who have followed President Obama’s way of thinking include two female Italian aid workers, Greta Ramelli and Vanessa Marzullo, kidnapped by Muslims in northern Syria. And Theo Padnos, whose story I recommend that you read in its entirety. It shows precisely how the “Islam is a religion of peace” dogma renders people unable to recognise danger.

And, lest anyone should think that this is just a European problem, in the US children are also being indoctrinated in school to believe that Islam is a religion of peace.

We should observe not only the strange phenomenon of Western leaders rushing to defend the reputation of Islam, but also that the West is subtly introducing blasphemy laws when it comes to that religion, under the guise of “hate-speech” laws. In parts of the world where Muslims are a majority, it is anathema to say anything that may tarnish Islam’s reputation. The reputation of the ideology must be maintained at all costs. It is even more important than the human being. As such, the human being may be punished or even destroyed for the sake of preserving the status of the doctrine. That is the kind of society that we are drifting towards. It goes against the worldview developed in the West where the individual is central and respect for the individual trumps – or used to trump – any other ideology, thus producing the notion of freedom of speech. Respect for the individual and respect for freedom of speech are two sides of the same coin.

Leaders in Muslim-majority countries and Islamic leaders in this country fear that Muslims will connect the dots by looking at the effect of Islam across the modern world and reach the common-sense conclusion that it is not a good religion and they will therefore abandon it. Leaders in the West fear that their citizens will look at the effect of Islam across the modern world and reach the conclusion that is not a good religion, and therefore that the multicultural project which feeds its growth here in the West is not a good thing either. Both know that, once the illusions they have fostered are shattered, it will be impossible to reconstruct them.

***********
My comment:

She is right. Please see also Hamas, Abbas, Obama and Islamic savagery.

Posted in Foreign policy, Formerly Great Britain, Freedom, Islam, Islamic Jihad, Islamic rage, Islamic State, Islamist rage, Islamists, Islamophobia, Leftists, Middle East, Multicuralism, Murder, Muslim Brotherhood, Muslim supremacists, Muslims, Obama, Peace in our time, Political Correctness, Religion, Religion of death, Sharia law, Terrorism | Tagged , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Hamas, Abbas, Obama and Islamic savagery


Today Palestinian extremists Islamists murdered four Israelis, three of whom were also U.S. citizens, at a Jerusalem synagogue. Several others are in critical condition. Palestinians celebrated their actions and their intended consequences. 

celebratingmurder_20141118_105338

This morning I posted an article by Robert Spencer of Front Page Magazine titled More Beheadings, More Denial at Warsclerotic, of which I am an editor. Mr. Spencer’s article deals with Obama’s response to the recent Islamic beheading of “Abdul-Rahman Kassig, previously known as Peter.” Obama proclaimed that Kassig’s beheading by personnel of the Islamic State “represent no faith, least of all the Muslim faith.” As I noted in a parenthetical comment at the top of the article,

(Please see also this article, and others, on today’s Islamic slaughter at a Jerusalem synagogue. “Knives, axes and guns” were used.” Hamas responded with praise for the terrorists who did it. Will Obama, our Islamic “scholar” in chief, declare that such Palestinian “actions represent no faith, least of all the Muslim faith?” He won’t. Nor, of course, will he admit that the Palestinian’s Islamic actions, like those of the Islamic State, do represent Islam.– DM)

Mr. Spencer observed that Islamic savagery comparable to that of the Islamic State could happen in the United States and that

It could happen anywhere that people read the phrase “when you meet the unbelievers, strike the necks” (Qur’an 47:4) as if it were a command of the Creator of the Universe. But to point out that simple and obvious fact nowadays only brings down upon one’s head charges of “hatred” and of “demonizing all Muslims,” when in a sane society it would bring honest explanations from Muslims of good will of what they were doing to ensure that no Muslim ever acted on that verse’s literal meaning. [Emphasis added.]

Here’s a pertinent video by Pat Condell:

Continuing with the quotation from Mr. Spencer,

In reality, they’re doing nothing. No Muslim organization, mosque or school in the United States has any program to teach young Muslims and converts to Islam why they should avoid and reject on Islamic grounds the vision of Islam – and of unbelievers – that the Islamic State and other jihad groups offer them. This is extremely strange, given the fact that all the Muslim organizations, mosques and schools in the United States ostensibly reject this understanding of Islam. And even stranger is that no American authorities seem to have noticed the absence of such initiatives, much less dared to call out Muslim groups about this. [Emphasis added.]

On the contrary, instead of calling on Muslim groups to take some action to prevent this kind of thing from happening in the future, Obama’s latest denial was even more strenuous in its dissociation of the beheading from Islam: “ISIL’s actions represent no faith, least of all the Muslim faith which Abdul-Rahman adopted as his own.” [Emphasis added.]

“Least of all”! As if it were possible that the Islamic State’s actions represented Buddhism, or Methodism, or Christian Science, or the Hardshell Baptists, or the Mandaeans, to greater or lesser degrees, but the most far-fetched association one could make, out of all the myriad faiths people hold throughout the world, would be to associate the Islamic State’s actions with…Islam. The Islamic State’s actions represent no faith, least of all Islam – as if it were more likely that the Islamic State were made up of Presbyterians or Lubavitcher Hasidim or Jains or Smartas than that it were made up of Muslims.

Here’s a video of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a former Muslim, speaking at Yale University on September 15th. Although more than an hour long, it’s well worth watching and consideringPlease see also this article, commenting on her background and views of Islam.

Is Jonathan Gruber still advising Obama?  This video is from left-leaning(?) MSNBC.

Did Obama “steal” His notions about Islam from Gruber, or merely Gruber’s tactics  for masking His true beliefs and intentions, this time about Islam rather than about ObamaCare? Did Obama arrive at His notions of Islam and how to present them Himself, based on His own Islamic studies — particularly the propriety of lying to non-Muslims on behalf of Islam? Or is He, again, just sucking up to Iran? In the latter connection, please see this semi-satirical post titled To get a nuke deal with Iran Obama and the Islamist world demonize Israel.

The Israeli-Palestinian “peace” process and the “two state solution.”

For years, the Obama Administration has been pushing Israel, hard, to agree to a two state solution with the “moderate” Palestinian Authority (Fatah). Hamas is the Palestinian entity which, in April of this year, formed a quasi-unified government with the Palestinian Authority under Mahmoud Abbas. Fatah’s alleged moderation, and that of Abbas, is of this type:

Modeate Muslim

Abbas is seventy-nine years old and probably will not last much longer. He has personally encouraged terrorism, most recently when commenting on the killing of a Palestinian, Mutaz Hijazi, who attempted to assassinate Yehuda Glick, an advocate of Jewish prayer on the Temple Mount.

Hijazi was quickly found and killed by Israeli security forces. Abbas responded by promptly writing to his widow:

With anger, we have received the news of the vicious assassination crime committed by the terrorists of the Israeli occupation army against [your] son Mu’taz Ibrahim Khalil Hijazi, who will go to heaven as a martyr defending the rights of our people and its holy places.

Hijazi, it should be stressed, shot Glick, a civilian, at pointblank range. Fortunately Glick now appears to be recovering in hospital.

The assassin’s admirer, Mahmoud Abbas, is the same Mahmoud Abbas about whom President Barack Obama said last March:

I think nobody would dispute that whatever disagreements you may have with him, he has proven himself to be somebody who has been committed to nonviolence and diplomatic efforts to resolve this issue. [Emphasis added.]

That was in an interview where Obama, of course, portrayed Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu as the recalcitrant party who needs to “seize the moment” and make peace.

Even if Abbas wanted to reject Islamic terrorism, doing so would be akin to signing his own death warrant.

In a speech in Ramallah on November 11, marking the tenth anniversary of the death of his predecessor, Yasser Arafat, Abbas declared: “He who surrenders one grain of the soil of Palestine and Jerusalem is not one of us.”

This statement alone should be enough for Kerry and Western leaders to realize that it would be impossible to ask Abbas to make any concessions. Like Arafat, Abbas has become hostage to his own rhetoric. How can Abbas be expected to accept any deal that does not include 100% of his demands — in this instance, all territory captured by Israel in 1967? [Emphasis added.]

Abbas himself knows that if he comes back with 97% or 98% of his demands, his people will either spit in is face or kill him, after accusing him of being a “defeatist” and “relinquishing Palestinian rights.”

Abbas was elected for a five year term as President of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) on November 11, 2004, until January 9, 2009. However,

due to Palestinian Internal conflict he unilaterally extended his term for another year and continues in office even years after that second deadline expired. As a result of this, Fatah’s main rival, Hamas announced that it would not recognise the extension or view Abbas as rightful president.[6][7][8] [Emphasis added.]

For these and many other reasons, a “two state solution” would ultimately pit Israel and Hamas against either other, more so even that presently. It would result in either the death of Israel — the only free and democratic state in the region — or the death of the  Palestinian  state notion. The United States should agree with Israel that the death of the Palestinian state notion is preferable to the death of Israel. There is no apparent reason to assume, or even to hope, that Obama does.

On a lighter note, this might be better than a two state solution but, due to regional demographics and Israel’s dedication to democracy, would not work either.

 

UPDATE:

Obama commented on the attack on the Jerusalem mosque synagogue as follows:

“Too many Israelis have died. Too many Palestinians have died,” he told reporters before a meeting with his national security team, Cabinet officials and senior advisers. “At this difficult time, I think it’s important for both Palestinians and Israelis to try to work together to lower tensions and reject violence.”

“We have to remind ourselves that the majority of Palestinians and Israelis overwhelmingly want peace,” he said.

He always manages to appear evenhanded as between Islamic murderers and their victims, unless the Islamic murderers, like those of  the Islamic State, are “not Islamic.”

ANOTHER UPDATE: From Israel’s wonderful peace partner, Fatah

AND YET ANOTHER UPDATE:

Please read an article at by P. David Hornik at PJ Media titled Palestinian ‘Lone Wolves’ Attack Synagogue. Mr. Hornik observes,

The fact that the U.S. and Europe keep coddling the Palestinians despite round after round of incitement, terror, and celebration of terror raises difficult questions for Israelis. Will the spectacle of a devastated synagogue, with prayer shawls lying in blood, finally get some of the truth across? No one is betting on it. [Emphasis added.]

Meanwhile Prime Minister Binymain Netanyahu ordered, among other measures, the demolition of the two synagogue terrorists’ homes—a measure aimed at achieving deterrence against untold additional numbers of otherwise undeterrable, “Allahu Akbar”-shouting lone wolves.

It’s a matter of time—not much time—before the condemnations of that measure start rolling in.

AND ANOTHER UPDATE:

The Israeli death toll has now risen to five.

The death toll in Tuesday’s terrorist attack at a synagogue in the Har Nof neighborhood of Jerusalem has risen to five, after an officer who was fatally wounded in the attack died of his wounds Tuesday night.

The latest victim has been identified as Zidan Seyf, 27, a police officer from the Arab village town of Yanuh-Jat, located in northern Israel, northeast of the city of Akko.

MORE ATTACKS:

Jew Attacked by Arabs with Iron Bars in Jerusalem.

Just hours after four Jews were murdered praying at a synagogue in Jerusalem’s Har Nof, a young Jew in his 20s was attacked by two Arab assailants armed with iron bars in Jerusalem’s Old City on Tuesday night.

The attack took place at the Old City’s New Gate, located in the north-western corner of the Old City and not far from the Jerusalem Municipalitybuilding.

The two Arab attackers fell upon their victim as he was riding a bicycle, hitting him with iron bars and leaving him moderately wounded.

The youth was treated on the scene by Magen David Adom (MDA) medics and evacuated to the Hadassah Ein Kerem Hospital in the capital.

Police are searching for the two attackers, who fled from the scene of the crime.

Arab violence likewise continued unabated elsewhere in Jerusalem on Tuesday night, as dozens of masked Arab rioters hurled rocks and shot fireworks at Border Patrol forces and police forces in the Jabel Mukabar neighborhood where the two terrorists who conducted the morning’sattack hailed from.

The rioters set tires and garbage bins on fire; security forces responded by using riot dispersal methods.

Posted in Abbas, Antisemitism, Fatah, Foreign policy, Freedom, Gaza, Genocide, Hamas, Hatred, Human rights, Iran, Islam, Islamic State, Islamists, Islamophobia, Israel, Jerusalem, Jewophobia, Jews, Leftists, Middle East, MSNBC, Muslims, Netanyahu, Nuclear weapons, Obama, P5+1, Palestine, Palestinian Authority, Palestinian heroes, Pat Condell, Peace in our time, Peace process, Political Correctness, Religion, Religion of death, Terrorism | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments