The Appalling Reaction of Obama Democrats to Netanyahu’s Speech

The boycotting of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s speech  to a joint session of Congress by dozens of Democratic members was appalling.  The ostensible reason for the rudeness was that the Israeli leader accepted an invitation from the House of Representatives that wasn’t first cleared with the White House.  Yet, it’s hard to believe that a perceived slight of protocol was the real reason that so many Democrats, led by Vice President Joe Biden, were not in attendance.  Was their loyalty to the President’s apparent insistence on making a deal – any deal - in nuclear talks with Iran the actual explanation?

[As a matter of fact, there is no requirement or custom dictating that a co-equal branch of government receive the blessing of another before extending an invitation to a guest speaker or foreign leader.]

Consider this for a moment:  Iran’s leaders have promised repeatedly to destroy Israel.  It is that country – certainly more than the U.S. – which is threatened by its arch enemy’s possession of nuclear weapons.

To paraphrase the Prime Minister’s remarks to Congress, if Iran has a nuclear bomb, it poses a security risk to America.  But for Israel, it means its survival is at stake.

Israel’s circumstances must have compelled its leader to risk the Obama Administration’s displeasure by speaking to Congress and, hence, the American public directly.  One can only conclude that the White House has previously left the clear impression with Mr. Netanyahu that his country’s continuing existence is not a paramount concern in negotiations with  Tehran’s Mullahs.

One would have thought that Israel’s record as a staunch ally would have made it a partner in any deal proposed by the U.S.  Plainly, it has not been.

So by what sense of perverted loyalty do some Democrat’s criticize the Prime Minister for trying to sway American policy by stiffening Obama’s spine?

Liberal Comedian Jon Stewart – Influence Greatly Exaggerated

Last month’s announcement that Jon Stewart was leaving The Daily Show set off rounds of grief in liberal circles and glee in conservative ones.

Stewart, a leftist with a sense of humor (usually an oxymoronic combination) was the star of the Comedy Central Network for nearly fifteen years and plainly had a loyal audience.  But to hear the reaction to his departure, one would think it was a monumental development on the broad American scene. 

It was not.    For how could it have been when his highest level of viewership during his fifteen year reign did not exceed two million (by contrast, recently disgraced anchor Brian Williams was watched by nearly ten million)?

But wasn’t Stewart supposed to have been especially popular among the so-called millennial generation (18-29 years old)?  Again, not true.

Surveys indicate that, at best, forty percent of The Daily Show’s viewers were in that age group.  And with a total of fifty-three million millennials, that meant that fewer than two percent were fans.

 

So how can one explain the reaction?  Undoubtedly, Jon Stewart was particularly popular with the self-proclaimed “hipster” types over- represented in media centers like New York, Washington D.C. and Los Angeles.  One suspects the grieving leftists had told themselves that Stewart spoke for that generation when he ridiculed those on the right and went easy on the foibles of the left.  So they can console themselves, if they reflect on the statistics just recited, that they haven’t lost as much as they feared. 

And for us conservatives, the glee should be muted.  Although Jon Stewart turned out not to be the pied piper of the young generation, there’s no denying that they were integral part of our leftist president’s election and reelection.

Where will they be in 2016?  That certainly remains an open question.  Jon Stewart or no Jon Stewart.

Short Takes: Hillary’s Emails, GOP Letter to Iran, Ferguson

HILLARY – the putative 20016 Democratic Party nominee is in hot water over her use of a private email account to conduct government business while she served as Secretary of State.  Even usually reliable media support has been absent as her recent press conference was generally panned as self-righteous obfuscation.

However, stalwart loyalists, such as James Carville, insist that concerns with email privacy and security are inside-the-beltway worries that do not resonate with the general public.

That’s probably true, but a waning of enthusiasm among the liberal media will translate into fewer fawning – and more critical – pieces on Hillary Clinton.  That will result, inevitably, in a decline in her poll numbers.

GOP LETTER – Forty-seven Republican Senators recently signed a letter to Iran warning that a bad nuclear deal endorsed by the President would not bind the U.S. beyond the term of the Obama Administration.

The response of the left was not surprising:  the Senators were being disrespectful to the President.  Even some moderate voices – such as former George W. Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson – were disapproving, viewing the letter as a counter-productive foray into U.S. policy.

Befuddlement, however, was the general media reaction.  It was as if the form of the objection to Obama’s anticipated agreement was all that mattered.

Dana Bash, a conventional liberal CNN anchor, reflected that perspective when she interviewed GOP Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.  She challenged him – he was among the forty seven signers – on the propriety of interfering in US foreign affairs.  The Kentucky Senator properly retorted that the focus should be on the substance of the proposed deal, not the manner in which the issue was brought to the fore.

FERGUSON – The Obama Department of Justice, under the guise of investigating possible civil rights violations by the police officer who shot and killed Michael Brown, has issued a report accusing the city’s police department of rampant racism (based on the questionable claim that disparate arrest rates are sufficient proof).

Receiving less attention, however, was the conclusion that the widely- disseminated claim that Brown was shot while surrendering (“hands up-don’t shoot”) was an apparent fiction unsupported by evidence.

  

Did those who had promulgated the false narrative – and thereby fed the police bias in the community – apologize and express regret for jumping to conclusions?

Dream on.  No, the typical response was to insist that it really didn’t matter to the sometime violent protesters whether or not Brown had been justifiably shot.  In a laughable re-write of what had actually happened, leftists are now insisting, in effect, the chants of “no justice, no peace” were aimed at uneven arrest rates.

Giving Credit Where Credit Is Due

Intellectual honesty is a trait greatly admired but rarely observed.  It’s hard to admit one’s view of reality or people is wrong.  It’s natural to persuade oneself that although appearances may sometimes seem to disprove one’s beliefs, they are an illusion.  It’s much easier to believe that one is still right rather than change an opinion.  That’s why people seldom do.

Very liberal Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson is an exception.  Robinson has certainly earned his credentials as a man of the left.  A frequent guest on MSNBC with a reputation for being a staunch Obama loyalist, one might think he could be counted on to support whatever the President does.  But not always.

Mr. Robinson took particular umbrage with Barack Obama’s remarks at a recent Washington prayer breakfast for drawing parallels between atrocities committed by Christians in centuries past and current horrors perpetuated by ISIS. 

“The fact that Joan of Arc [was burned alive] in 1431 does not make it improper to ‘get on our high horse’ about unspeakable acts being committed in our time.”

I suspect there will be few other opportunities for me to commend future columns of his but, for now, I must give due credit.  I can think of few higher accolades than to say a person displayed intellectual honesty.  Bravo, Eugene Robinson.

What’s In a Name?

Is ISIS properly termed (as favored by the Obama Administration) simply as a terrorist group in a world occupied by other organized proponents of terrorism?  Or should the labeling be more specific:  radical Islamic terrorists?

What’s in a name, anyway?  To paraphrase Gertrude Stein, a rose is a rose whatever it is called, right?  So why is it advisable to add distinctive labels?  Isn’t it enough to say terrorism is bad, no matter its roots?

President Obama is determined to adhere to that mantra.  And there is merit in that.  ISIS, whatever it is called, is a small group that, to the extent that it’s identified or associated with Islam, gives that ancient faith a bad name.  That will undoubtedly offend many Muslims who do not distinguish the narrow focus on “radicals” from a broad attack on the followers of Prophet Mohammed. 

The rejoinder is that the U.S. cannot effectively fight a foe if one doesn’t understand it.  “Know the enemy” is a useful mantra as well.

Of course, they can co-exist.  President Obama can resort to public generalities when referring to those who sever the heads of western captives so long as his administration implements policies aimed at the supporters and practitioners of vicious religious zealotry spawned from the pages of the Koran.

[The March issue of The Atlantic magazine demolishes the proposition of the White House that ISIS is masquerading as a Muslim organization.  Its hideous behavior is rooted in a branch of that faith.]

One hopes that behind the scenes, President Obama is orchestrating a coordinated campaign to fight those enemies who are motivated by their brand of religion to kill us; their designs are global.  These particular terrorists are not geographically limited in their targets as are terrorists in the Basque region of Spain, for instance, who are seeking a separate nation.

 

Yet one knows in one’s heart of hearts that such wishes are merely wishful thinking.  Consider the recent comments of a State Department spokeswoman who observed that although killing terrorists is commendable, longer term we must fight terrorism by finding jobs for potential adherents.  In other worlds, “Jihadi John” would stop cutting off heads if the British college graduate were given a nonviolent job. 

[That assessment is simply obtuse.  How can one not recognize the role of religious fanaticism in such conduct?  It has nothing to do with economic motivations.]

So, as is the way of President Obama in general, willful ignorance is the byword.  He and his administration choose to believe what they want.  Radical Islam doesn’t exist.  ISIS’s ranks are filled by frustrated and angry job seekers.  Our strategy, then, for the war on terror, is to provide full employment for Muslim youth.