– Λίγο πριν από την αυριανή (είθε!) ορκωμοσία του νέο – εκλεγέντος Ρεπουμπλικανού, 45ου Αμερικανού Προέδρου Ντόναλντ ΤΡΑΜΠ, (20-01-2017, Παρασκευή), σας προτείνω να διαβάσετε τα παρακάτω κείμενα και σας υπόσχομαι ότι θα τα ξαναπούμε, αμέσως μετά από την επιστροφή μας από την Τουρκία, όπου έχουμε σύναξη οι “Άγγελοι“!..
– “Ες αύριον λοιπόν τα σπουδαία”! Θα γίνει ή όχι Πρόεδρος ο ΤΡΑΜΠ; Αν γίνει, θα προλάβει ή όχι να ασκήσει καθήκοντα; Και άλλα πολλά φίλοι μου, σύντομα θα απαντηθούν και θα μας απασχολήσουν!.. Οι Η/Υ σας λοιπόν, σταθερά προσανατολισμένοι διαδικτυακά στον ellinikothrilo.gr και στην Ομάδα του!..
– / –
1. COMMENT: OBAMA’S TRANSPARENT PRESIDENCY
12 JANUARY 2017 22:58
Obama and his followers in the US and around the world refuse to see the connection between the policies borne of that ideology and their destructive consequences.
US President Barack Obama concludes his farewell address in Chicago, Illinois, U.S. January 10, 2017.. (photo credit:JONATHAN ERNST / REUTERS)
President Barack Obama promised that his would be the most transparent administration in US history.
And the truth is, it was. At least in relation to his policies toward the Muslim world, Obama told us precisely what he intended to do and then he did it.
A mere week remains of Obama’s tenure in office.
But Obama remains intent on carrying on as if he will never leave power. He has pledged to continue to implement his goals for the next week and then to serve as the most outspoken ex-president in US history.
In all of Obama’s recent appearances, his message is one of vindication. I came. I succeeded. I will continue to succeed. I represent the good people, the people of tomorrow. My opponents represent the Manichean, backward past. We will fight them forever and we will prevail.
Tuesday Obama gave his final interview to the Israeli media to Ilana Dayan from Channel 2’s Uvda news magazine. Dayan usually tries to come off as an intellectual. On Tuesday’s show, she cast aside professionalism however, and succumbed to her inner teenybopper. Among her other questions, she asked Obama the secret to his preternatural ability to touch people’s souls.
The only significant exchange in their conversation came when Dayan asked Obama about the speech he gave on June 4, 2009, in Cairo. Does he still stand by all the things he said in that speech? Would he give that speech again today, given all that has since happened in the region, she asked.
Absolutely, Obama responded.
The speech, he insisted was “aspirational” rather than programmatic. And the aspirations that he expressed in that address were correct.
If Dayan had been able to put aside her hero worship for a moment, she would have stopped Obama right then and there. His claim was preposterous.
But, given her decision to expose herself as a slobbering groupie, Dayan let it slide.
To salvage the good name of the journalism, and more important, to understand Obama’s actual record and its consequences, it is critical however to return to that speech.
Obama’s speech at Cairo University was the most important speech of his presidency. In it he laid out both his “aspirational” vision of relations between the West and the Islamic world and his plans for implementing his vision. The fundamentally transformed world he will leave President-elect Donald Trump to contend with next Friday was transformed on the basis of that speech.
Obama’s address that day at Cairo University lasted for nearly an hour. In the first half he set out his framework for understanding the nature of the US’s relations with the Muslim world and the relationship between the Western world and Islam more generally. He also expressed his vision for how that relationship should change.
The US-led West he explained had sinned against the Muslim world through colonialism and racism.
It needed to make amends for its past and make Muslims feel comfortable and respected, particularly female Muslims, covered from head to toe.
As for the Muslims, well, September 11 was wrong but didn’t reflect the truth of Islam, which is extraordinary. Obama thrice praised “the Holy Koran.” He quoted it admiringly. He waxed poetic in his appreciation for all the great contributions Islamic civilization has made to the world – he even made up a few. And he insisted falsely that Islam has always been a significant part of the American experience.
In his dichotomy between two human paths – the West’s and Islam’s – although he faulted the records of both, Obama judged the US and the West more harshly than Islam.
In the second half of his address, Obama detailed his plans for changing the West’s relations with Islam in a manner that reflected the true natures of both.
In hindsight, it is clear that during the seven and a half years of his presidency that followed that speech, all of Obama’s actions involved implementing the policy blueprint he laid out in Cairo.
He never deviated from the course he spelled out.
Obama promised to withdraw US forces from Iraq regardless of the consequences. And he did.
He promised he would keep US forces in Afghanistan but gave them no clear mission other than being nice to everyone and giving Afghans a lot of money.
And those have been his orders ever since.
Then he turned his attention to Israel and the Palestinians. Obama opened this section by presenting his ideological framework for understanding the conflict. Israel he insisted was not established out of respect of the Jews’ national rights to their historic homeland. It was established as a consolation prize to the Jews after the Holocaust.
That is, Israel is a product of European colonialism, just as Iran and Hamas claim.
In contrast, the Palestinians are the indigenous people of the land. They have been the primary victims of the colonial West’s post-Holocaust guilty conscience. Their suffering is real and legitimate.
Hamas’s opposition to Israel is legitimate, he indicated. Through omission, Obama made clear that he has no ideological problem with Hamas – only with its chosen means of achieving its goal.
Rather than fire missiles at Israel, he said, Hamas should learn from its fellow victims of white European colonialist racists in South Africa, in India, and among the African-American community.
Like them Hamas should use nonviolent means to achieve its just aims.
Obama’s decision attack Israel at the UN Security Council last month, his attempts to force Israel to accept Hamas’s cease-fire demands during “Operation Protective Edge” in 2014, his consistent demand that Israel renounce Jewish civil and property rights in united Jerusalem, in Judea and Samaria, his current refusal to rule out the possibility of enabling another anti-Israel resolution to pass at the Security Council next week, and his contempt for the Israeli Right all are explained, envisioned and justified explicitly or implicitly in his Cairo speech.
One of the more notable but less discussed aspects of Obama’s assertion that the Palestinians are in the right and Israel is in the wrong in the speech, was his embrace of Hamas. Obama made no mention of the PLO or the Palestinian Authority or Fatah in his speech. He mentioned only Hamas – the Palestinian branch of the “Muslim Brotherhood”, which shares the Brotherhood’s commitment to annihilating Israel and wiping out the Jewish people worldwide.
Sitting in the audience that day in Cairo were members of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood.
Then-Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak rightly viewed Obama’s insistence that the brothers be invited to his address as a hostile act. Due to this assessment, Mubarak boycotted the speech and refused to greet Obama at the Cairo airport.
Two years later, Obama supported Mubarak’s overthrow and the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood to replace him.
Back to the speech.
Having embraced the Muslim Brotherhood and its Palestinian branch, branded Israel a colonial implant and discredited the US’s moral claim to world leadership, Obama turned his attention to Iran.
Obama made clear that his intention as president was to appease the ayatollahs. America he explained had earned their hatred because in 1953 the CIA overthrew the pro-Soviet regime in Iran and installed the pro-American Shah in its place.
True, since then the Iranians have done all sorts of mean things to America. But America’s original sin of intervening in 1953 justified Iran’s aggression.
Obama indicated that he intended to appease Iran by enabling its illicit nuclear program to progress.
Ignoring the fact that Iran’s illegal nuclear program placed it in material breach of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Obama argued that as an NPT signatory, Iran had a right to a peaceful nuclear program. As for the US and the rest of the members of the nuclear club, Obama intended to convince everyone to destroy their nuclear arsenals.
And in the succeeding years, he took a hacksaw to America’s nuclear force.
After Obama’s speech in Cairo, no one had any cause for surprise at the reports this week that he approved the transfer of 116 tons of uranium to Iran. Likewise, no one should have been surprised by his nuclear deal or by his willingness to see Iran take over Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen. No one should be surprised by his cash payoffs to the regime or his passivity in the face of repeated Iranian acts of aggression against US naval vessels in the Strait of Hormuz.
Everything that Obama has done since he gave that speech was alluded to or spelled out that day.
Certainly, nothing he has done was inconsistent with what he said.
The consequences of Obama’s worldview and the policies he laid out in Cairo have been an unmitigated disaster for everyone. The Islamic world is in turmoil. The rising forces are those that Obama favored that day: The jihadists.
ISIS, which Obama allowed to develop and grow, has become the ideological guide not only of jihadists in the Middle East but of Muslims in the West as well. Consequently it has destabilized not only Iraq and Syria but Europe as well. As the victims of the Islamist massacres in San Bernardino, Boston, Ft. Hood, Orlando and beyond can attest, American citizens are also paying the price for Obama’s program.
Thanks to Obama, the Iranian regime survived the Green Revolution. Due to his policies, Iran is both the master of its nuclear fate and the rising regional hegemon.
Together with its Russian partners, whose return to regional power after a 30-year absence Obama enabled, Iran has overseen the ethnic cleansing and genocide of Sunnis in Syria and paved the way for the refugee crisis that threatens the future of the European Union.
Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Turkey’s Islamist leader, was a principle beneficiary of Obama’s admiration of Islamism. Erdogan rode Obama’s wave to destroy the last vestiges of the secular Turkish Republic.
Now he is poised to leave NATO in favor of an alliance with Russia.
Obama and his followers see none of this. Faithful only to their ideology, Obama and his followers in the US and around the world refuse to see the connection between the policies borne of that ideology and their destructive consequences. They refuse to recognize that the hatred for Western civilization and in particular of the Jewish state Obama gave voice to in Cairo, and his parallel expression of admiration for radical Islamic enemies of the West, have had and will continue to have horrific consequences for the US and for the world as a whole.
Cairo is Obama’s legacy. His followers’ refusal to acknowledge this truth means that it falls to those Obama reviles to recognize the wages of the most transparent presidency in history. It is their responsibility to undo the ideological and concrete damage to humanity the program he first unveiled in that address and assiduously implemented ever since has wrought.
– / –
2. OBAMA’S WAR AGAINST AMERICA
Only a counter campaign by his successor can stop it.
December 27, 2016
Originally published by the Jerusalem Post.
In 1989, following her tenure as President Ronald Reagan’s ambassador to the United Nations, Jeane Kirkpatrick described how the Palestinians have used the UN to destroy Israel.
Following outgoing US President Barack Obama’s assault on Israel at the UN Security Council last Friday, longtime UN observer Claudia Rossett wrote an important article at PJ Media where she recalled Kirkpatrick’s words
In “How the PLO was legitimized,” published in Commentary, Kirkpatrick said that Yasser Arafat and the PLO worked “to come to power through international diplomacy – reinforced by murder.”
Kirkpatrick explained, “The long march through the UN has produced many benefits for the PLO. It has created a people where there was none; a claim where there was none. Now the PLO is seeking to create a state where there already is one. That will take more than resolutions and more than an ‘international peace conference.’ But having succeeded so well over the years in its campaign to delegitimize Israel, the PLO might yet also succeed in bringing the campaign to a triumphant conclusion, with consequences for the Jewish state that would be nothing short of catastrophic.”
As Rossett noted, in falsely arguing that Obama’s support for Friday’s UN Security Council Resolution 2334 is in line with Reagan’s policies, Obama’s UN Ambassador Samantha Power deliberately distorted the historical record of US policy toward Israel and the PLO-led UN onslaught against the Jewish state.
As Rosett noted, in stark contrast to Power’s self-serving lie, neither Reagan nor George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton nor George W. Bush would have ever countenanced a resolution like 2334.
Obama’s predecessors’ opposition to the war against Israel at the UN was not merely an expression of their support for Israel. They acted also out of a fealty to US power, which is directly targeted by that war.
It is critical that we understand how this is the case, and why the implications of Resolution 2334 are disastrous to the US itself.
Resolution 2334 is being presented as an “anti-settlement” resolution. But it is not an anti-settlement resolution.
Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria and neighborhoods in Jerusalem are being used – as they always have been used – as a means of delegitimizing the Jewish state as a whole, and legitimizing Palestinian terrorists and Islamic terrorists more generally. Resolution 2334 serves to criminalize Israel and its people and to undermine Israel’s right to exist, while embracing Palestinian terrorists and empowering them in their war to annihilate Israel.
America’s historic refusal to countenance such actions at the UN Security was never a purely altruistic position. It was also a stand for American power and the inherent justice of American superpower status and global leadership.
Throughout most of its history, the UN has served as a proxy battlefield first of the Cold War, and since the destruction of the Soviet Union, for the war against the US-led free world. Beginning in the early 1960s, the Soviets viewed the political war against Israel at the UN as a means to undermine the moral basis for the US-led West. If Israel, the only human rights defending state in the Middle East, and the US’s only stable ally in the region could be delegitimized, then the very coherence of the US-led Western claim to moral superiority against the totalitarian Soviet empire would be undone.
Hence, the first Soviet attempt at the UN to castigate Zionism, the Jewish national liberation movement, as a form of racism was made in 1965, two years before Israel took control of Judea and Samaria and united Jerusalem in the Six Day War.
That attempt failed. But nine years later the wording first raised in 1965 was adopted by the UN General Assembly which passed resolution 3379 slandering libeled Zionism as “a form of racism.”
With their automatic majority in the General Assembly and all other UN organs, the Soviets used the Palestinian war against Israel as a proxy for their war against America. After the demise of the Soviet Union, the Islamic bloc, backed by members of the former Soviet bloc, the non-aligned bloc and the Europeans continued their campaign. The only thing that kept them from winning was the US and its Security Council veto.
When Obama chose to lead the anti-Israel lynch mob at the Security Council last week, he did more than deliver the PLO terrorist organization its greatest victory to date against Israel. He delivered a strategic victory to the anti-American forces that seek to destroy the coherence of American superpower status. That is, he carried out a strategic strike on American power.
By leading the gang rape of Israel on Friday, Obama undermined the rationale for American power. Why should the US assert a sovereign right to stand against the radical forces that control the UN? If US agrees that Israel is committing a crime by respecting the civil and human rights of its citizens to live in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, then how can America claim that it has the right to defend its own rights and interests, when those clash with the views of the vast majority of state members of the UN? Following Obama’s assault on Israel Friday, Senators Lindsay Graham and Ted Cruz called for the US to end its financial support for the UN at least until the Security Council abrogates Resolution 2334. They are correct.
But it isn’t anger at how Obama has and is expected to continue to use the Security Council to imperil Israel that should inform the incoming Trump administration’s actions. Rather a determination to maintain US power and secure its national security requires that the UN be permanently defunded and defanged.
For eight years, through his embrace and empowerment of US enemies, betrayal and weakening of US allies, emaciation of the US armed forces and repeated apologies for America’s past assertions of global leadership, Obama has waged a determined war against US superpower status. The last vestige of the strategic and moral rationale for US power was the protection America afforded Israel at the Security Council.
Now with that gone, it has become a strategic imperative for the US to render the UN irrelevant. This can only be undertaken by permanently defunding this corrupt institution and using the US’s Security Council veto to end the UN’s role as the arbiter of international peace and security, by among other things, ending the deployment of UN forces to battle zones.
Only by stripping the UN of its financial wherewithal to assault US allies and American interests and by denying it the institutional and operational capacity to serve as an arbiter of disputes morally and legally superior to the US can America protect its sovereignty and advance its interests.
Only by denying those associated with the UN the prestige that confers to an institution legitimized by democrat and autocrat alike can the incoming Trump administration rebuild America’s reputation and power.
It is not surprising that Obama is carrying out the final act of his presidency at the UN. Obama has made no attempt to hide his desire to eliminate America’s independence of action. By elevating the post of UN ambassador to a cabinet level position at the outset of his presidency, Obama signaled his conviction that this corrupt institution is the equal of the US government.
This early signal was transformed into an open policy when Obama used the Security Council as a means to bypass the US Senate in implementing his nuclear deal with Iran.
Now, by ignoring the near consensus position of both parties that the US should block anti-Israel resolutions from being adopted at the Security Council and plotting further action against Israel at the Security Council in his final weeks in office, Obama has made clear his position and his aim.
Obama is not leading the war against Israel at the Security Council simply to advance the PLO’s war for the annihilation of Israel. He is acting in this manner to undermine the legitimacy of American power.
Obama’s strategic campaign against his country can only be defeated by a counter campaign by his successor.
Luckily, by eschewing multilateral entanglements in favor of bilateral partnerships during his presidential campaign, President-elect Donald Trump has demonstrated that he understands the threat and will adopt the only possible means of countering it. To reassert and rebuild the rationale for American power, the Trump administration must permanently defund the UN and reject its legitimacy as an institution of global governance.
– / –
3. TRUMP’S BIG AGENDA
David Horowitz’s new book lays out the battle plan.
January 17, 2017
After eight years of treasonous subversion by Barack Obama’s radical administration to fundamentally transform the United States, Donald Trump’s election victory is galvanizing a revival of American exceptionalism. But Trump and his team face formidable opponents as they begin the Herculean task of reversing the course of Obama’s failed presidency: not only a vengefully determined left but an entrenched Republican establishment in Washington D.C. and a stubborn contingent of Never Trumper politicians and pundits.
David Horowitz’s new book, Big Agenda: President’s Trump’s Plan to Save America – the first major book to be released on Trump’s presidency – lays out a strategy for combating those opponents of the President-elect’s conservative restoration.
The founder of the David Horowitz Freedom Center, the left’s most hated apostate, and the right’s most aggressive strategist, Horowitz reveals major components of Trump’s plan for his first 100 days and his first-term agenda in the slim but essential Big Agenda (available Tuesday, January 17 from Humanix Books). The book has earned unqualified support from the likes of Dinesh D’Souza, gay conservative firebrand Milo Yiannopoulos, Clinton Cash author Peter Schweizer, Rush Limbaugh (who calls the book “a road map for a winning agenda that conservatives will embrace”), and Ann Coulter, who recommends it as a “brilliant battle plan.”
Horowitz begins by profiling the adversaries. “[T]he first concern of Americans disturbed by the radicalism of the Obama years,” he declares, is the division within the Republican party itself. For eight years the Republican Party mustered only tepid opposition to President Obama. This was a party made feckless by its incomprehension of the nature of the left, by a failure of nerve, and by a lack of the will to win. Then Trump barreled onto the scene with a readiness to “disregard the politically correct restraints on public discourse” and to “relentlessly attack” Democrats who could dish it out but were unaccustomed to having it thrown back at them. As a result, the “passions Trump aroused in the electorate sparked a revolt in the Republican Party” and thrust the political outsider ahead of his 16 rivals in the primaries and then on to election victory against Hillary Clinton.
Beyond the sharp division that still remains in his own party, Trump and his supporters face the power-mad zealots of an ideology fueled by ugly, dehumanizing hatred for anyone who stands in the way of their utopian vision – a hatred exemplified in Hillary’s demonization of conservatives as “irredeemable deplorables”: racists, sexists, Islamophobes, homophobes, xenophobes – “you name it,” she said on the campaign trail.
Trump fearlessly identified that hatred during the second presidential debate when he told the audience that “Hillary has tremendous hatred in her heart.” Republicans have been playing defense for so long that Trump’s willingness to publicly characterize progressives for what they are, Horowitz notes with admiration, “was probably unprecedented in the annals of modern presidential politics.” Horowitz realized correctly that Trump was the only Republican who had a chance against Hillary.
In Part Two of the book Horowitz identifies the leftist agenda, the overarching goal behind the issues, that Trump and the right must understand and counter. He points to Saul Alinsky-influenced progressives like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton as evidence that the Democratic Party “has moved so far to the left in recent decades that it now operates on the sixties’ principle that the issues it advances are mere stepping stones on the way to more radical changes.” Those changes mean the dismantling of individual freedom and the consolidation of power in the hands of the state.
That explains the left’s drive to establish a totalitarian infrastructure through their obsessive push for the passage of Obamacare, their religious devotion to save the planet from man-made “climate change” (which they deem a greater threat to national security than terrorism), their social justice solutions to what they insist against all evidence is America’s “systemic racism,” and their globalist pursuits, which include lawless Sanctuary Cities, open borders policies, and a willful blindness toward our Islamic fundamentalist enemy. Horowitz breaks down all of these issues to demonstrate how they are central to the left’s power-aggrandizing agenda.
Part Three, approximately half the book, presents Horowitz’s strategy for the way forward. “The goal,” he begins, “is to put Democrats on the offensive… to expose their hypocrisy and turn their firepower against them… The strategy is to go for the jugular.” Conservatives generally are uncomfortable with the idea of political brawling, even when on the ropes as they have been throughout the Obama years. But Horowitz stresses that if your first response to, say, the left’s kneejerk use of the race card is to go on the defensive, then you are losing. “To turn around the political battles conservatives have been losing for so long, they must begin every confrontation by punching progressives in the mouth,” he declares, referring to boxer Mike Tyson’s famous observation that “everybody has a game plan until you punch them in the mouth.” Donald Trump is better suited to pursuing such a strategy than any Republican leader in recent memory.
Horowitz goes on to note that the right must attack the left with equal moral force, particularly at the Democrats’ Achilles heel: their atrocious record on race as exemplified in their monopoly control of America’s inner cities and the suffering and misery they have wrought there.
Conservatives must also attack progressives for what Horowitz calls their wars on men and women, their leftist indoctrination in our schools, their politicized tax-exempt institutions such as the progressive Ford Foundation, their powerful, thuggish government unions, and their corruption and foreign influence peddling. And the right must destroy the false narrative that the Democratic Party is the party of the people.
In short, the right must, as one chapter title puts it, “go on the attack and stay on it.” We must be as willing to morally stigmatize the left as they are us. We must fight fire with fire. And then we must take things a step further “and create a unifying theme that has a moral resonance” with which we can level the political playing field. “That theme is individual freedom”:
The New Republicanism must be a movement opposed to the progressives’ sellout of American sovereignty, of America’s historical uniqueness. It must be unapologetic in its patriotism and in its commitment to rebuilding America economically and militarily. Third, the New Republicanism must show its contempt for a political correctness that denies the virtues of America’s culture, which is founded on individual rights and equality before the law. It must oppose progressive “multiculturalism,” which seeks to replace this culture with anti-American hierarchies of gender, class, and race.
“This is the moral language Republicans need to use if they are going to defeat the progressive agenda,” Horowitz insists.
He concludes the book with a battle plan for the first 100 days that includes such recommendations as restoring Guantanamo, moving our embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, defunding sanctuary cities, promoting energy independence, nixing illegal immigration amnesty, attacking IRS malfeasance, dismantling Obamacare, and following through on Trump’s promise of a New Deal for black America.
“No president since FDR and his famed ‘100 Days’ has the chance Donald Trump has,” David Horowitz has said, to reshape the American political landscape at home and abroad – if conservatives understand the nature of the enemy we face and how to engage them successfully.
Big Agenda succinctly educates the right about that enemy and maps a clear way forward to victory and restoration.
– / –
– / –