What forces has Obama let loose?

Found at Instapundit: Ruth Wisse in the Wall Street Journal on “Obama’s Racial Blind Spot”. She’s only, of course, being polite in calling it a blind spot.

Barack Obama’s election to the presidency represented to many Americans this country’s final triumph over racism. Reversing the record of slavery and institutionalized discrimination, his victory was hailed as a redemptive moment for America and potentially for humankind. How grotesque that the president should now douse that hope by fueling racism on a global scale.

Iranian regime is currently the world’s leading exponent of anti-Jewish racism. . . . Whereas Adolf Hitler and Reinhard Heydrich had to plot the “Final Solution” in secrecy, using euphemisms for their intended annihilation of the Jews of Europe, Iran’s Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei tweets that Israel “has no cure but to be annihilated.” Iran’s leaders, relishing how small Israel is, call it a “one bomb state,” and until the time arrives to deliver that bomb, they sponsor anti-Israel terrorism through Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other militias. . . .

Perhaps Mr. Obama is oblivious to what the scholar Robert Wistrich (who died in May) called “the longest hatred” because it has been so much a part of his world as he moved through life. Muslim Indonesia, where he lived from age 6 to 10, trails only Pakistan and Iran in its hostility to Jews. An animus against Jews and Israel was a hallmark of the Rev.Jeremiah Wright’s church in Chicago that Mr. Obama attended for two decades. And before he ran for office, Mr. Obama carried the standard of the international left that invented the stigma of Zionism-as-imperialism. As a presidential candidate, Mr. Obama felt obliged to repudiate his pastor (who had famously cursed America from the pulpit), and muted his far-left credentials. Mr. Obama was voted into office by an electorate enamored of the idea that he would oppose all forms of racism. He has not met that expectation.

Some Jewish critics of Mr. Obama may be tempted to put his derelictions in a line of neglect by other presidents, but there is a difference. Thus one may argue that President Roosevelt should have bombed the approach routes to Auschwitz or allowed the Jewish-refugee ship St. Louis to dock in the U.S. during World War II, but those were at worst sins of omission. In sharpest contrast, President Obama’s nuclear agreement with Iran is an act of commission. This is the first time the U.S. will have deliberately entered into a pact with a country committed to annihilating another people—a pact that doesn’t even require formal repudiation of the country’s genocidal aims.

To which Elizabeth Price Foley has added:

Exactly. Why most American Jews are standing silently by, like sheeple, in the face of these facts is a utter mystery to me. Why did American Jews not demand, at a minimum, Iran’s repudiation of its genocidal aims against Israel? Admittedly, such a repudiation would not have changed the hearts and minds of the Iranians, but it would have at least forced the Administration to publicly recognize and discuss Iran’s genocidal intentions.

As it stands, however, the genocidal aims of Iran toward Israel have been swept under the rug, not even worthy of discussion, which is exactly what the Obama Administration wanted. The Administration’s failure to even discuss the inhumanity of Iran’s racist/ethnic hatred is both shameful and telling, particularly given that Obama is our first black president whose entire presidency has focused incessantly on issues of race and ethnicity. The Obama Administration’s indifference to Iran’s hatred of Jews will further fan the flames such hatred across the globe.

The only explanation I can fathom for American Jews’ acquiescence to the Iran deal is that most are liberals/progressives first, Jews second. How tragic that this attitude has emerged only one generation removed from the Holocaust.

And if you are looking for a bit more along these same lines, there is Sultan Knish discussing The Useless Jewish Organization. This is from somewhere near the end, but you should read it from the beginning.

If Obama’s nuclear deal is to be defeated, it won’t be done by the establishment insiders. The establishment is invested in its own credibility and its politics. It will make a show of fighting the Iran deal before fundraising off its miserable failure. And the money will go to fund its progressive causes.

The establishment will not stand up to Obama, just like it didn’t stand up to FDR. The real action will come from ad-hoc coalitions, like the one behind the Stop Iran Rally, that throw things together. And it will come from a handful of kids somewhat that do what the adults aren’t doing.

It’s not an answer for me that Israel could damage Iran if it started up. The aim of policy ought to have been never to give Iran even the opportunity, but perhaps that was too hard. It is certainly too hard now that they have stopped trying, for no discernible reason. We are all living on the edge of a volcano. When it will erupt, it seems to me, is now only a matter of time, not whether. On the other hand, in spite of its rhetoric, why should the Iranians risk having their country turned into a nuclear wasteland. Tragically, that kind of calculation is all that stands between Israel and a nuclear war.

The self-preservation of the West versus a nuclear Iran

From Sultan Knish, The Myth of Iran’s Peaceful Nuclear Program. But a myth is something that people at least half believe, if not actually a literal truth, then at least as a framework in which to understand what cannot otherwise be explained. We know what Obama is up to, and probably even why. The question is why so many others are going along. Everyone, including Obama and John Kerry, understands all of this completely:

Last year Iran was selling gasoline for less than 50 cents a gallon. This year a desperate regime hiked prices up to over a dollar. Meanwhile, Iranians pay about a tenth of what Americans do for electricity.

Unlike Japan, Iran does not need nuclear power. It is already sitting on a mountain of gas and oil. Iran blew between $100 billion to $500 billion on its nuclear program.

The Bushehr reactor alone cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $11 billion making it one of the most expensive in the world.

This wasn’t done to cut power bills. Iran didn’t take its economy to the edge for a peaceful nuclear program. It built the Fordow fortified underground nuclear reactor that even Obama admitted was not part of a peaceful nuclear program, it built the underground Natanz enrichment facility whose construction at one point consumed all the cement in the country, because the nuclear program mattered more than anything else as a fulfillment of the Islamic Revolution’s purpose.

Iran did not do all this so that its citizens could pay 0.003 cents less for a kilowatt hour of electricity.

It built its nuclear program on the words of the Ayatollah Khomeini, “Islam makes it incumbent on all adult males, provided they are not disabled or incapacitated, to prepare themselves for the conquest of [other] countries so that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country in the world.”

Obama’s motives are clear enough and the dangers to every Western country, and not just Israel, are equally clear. The question is why nothing has been done by others to stop this process in its tracks. The instinct for self-preservation often seems to fall dead at the feet of ideology. But the will to power never falls dead. There are evil days ahead.

We will lie to the public any time, anywhere

The post-Obama era is going to be something quite different from the one he inherited, as dangerous as it already was. This is the article in full: Obama’s dishonesty on Iran.

Under the Obama administration’s nuclear deal with Iran, that nation’s theocratic regime receives relief from economic and arms sanctions in exchange for curtailment of its nuclear program. But there’s a catch — when inspectors seek to verify Iran’s compliance, the Iranians can delay the inspection of any site for at least 24 days.

But before the deal was struck, the Obama administration had promised much more — “anytime, anywhere” inspections, on demand. When asked about this on Sunday, Secretary of State John Kerry displayed symptoms of amnesia.

“This is a term that, honestly, I never heard in the four years that we were negotiating,” Kerry said. “It was not on the table. There’s no such thing in arms control as anytime, anywhere.”

Barring a genuine brain malady, there is no gentle way of skirting around the fact that this is a lie. The White House specifically promised this in public. Ben Rhodes, deputy national security adviser and spokesman, in making the case for the Iran deal in April, told CNN, “Under this deal, you will have anywhere, anytime, 24/7 access as it relates to the nuclear facilities that Iran has.”

Beyond this, Kerry appears to have specifically discussed it as a negotiating point with senior lawmakers. After speaking with Kerry, Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., mentioned “anytime, anywhere” in a speech this spring to Jewish groups uneasy about the deal. And Kerry seems to have told the same thing to the Republican chairmen of the Senate Intelligence and Foreign Relations committees, according to their recollection.

Unfortunately, Kerry’s difficulty in telling the truth extends well beyond the issue of inspections. For example, consider the far more dangerous and controversial provision in the deal that lifts the existing sanctions against Iran’s acquisition of conventional arms and ballistic missiles. Kerry said in the same Sunday interview that the deal extended those sanctions by five and eight years, respectively. On Tuesday, State Department spokesman John Kirby said the same thing explicitly — that the sanctions would have ended if not for the deal.

In fact, the U.N. sanctions needed no extension — they would have remained in place without further action until Iran stopped enrichment of uranium altogether. The deal that Kerry negotiated is what actually lifts the sanctions. And this concession is troubling by itself — after all, even if Iran can argue that its nuclear program has peaceful applications, it cannot say this of its ambition to develop its ballistic missile technology.

But it is even more troubling that Kerry and the Obama administration cannot just admit they traded this concession to get a deal. Instead, they are pretending that their dodgy concession is some kind of diplomatic victory for the United States.

In his weekly radio address, President Obama warned Americans, concerning the debate over the Iran deal, “you’re going to hear a lot of overheated and often dishonest arguments about it in the weeks ahead.” He was right. Only the dishonest arguments are coming from his own administration, which is desperately trying to defend dangerous concessions that will pave the way for a radical regime to finance terrorism and build a nuclear arsenal.

I just wish the Obama media would be more explicit about what the world has achieved with this deal. What do they see as the great positives for the future in a nuclear Iran? Lying in politics is not news. What ought to be news isn’t just the lying, but how dangerous for the future of world peace this deal is.

Go on, make sense of this

Obama has been perfectly consistent in his policy and the American media and the left in general have been perfectly consistent in their ignorance. Since Iran will lie, and Obama was perfectly aware that Iran has lied, how does one interpret any of this?

AMERICA TAKES IRAN’S SIDE…
OBAMA WARNS CONGRESS: HANDS OFF NUKE DEAL…
Deep skepticism…
FEARS OF NEW ARMS RACE…
How Iran Will Use Technology To Cheat…
NETANYAHU: ‘Historic Mistake for World’…
ISRAEL ‘NOT BOUND’, WILL DEFEND ITSELF…
ROUHANI: ‘God has accepted nation’s prayers’…
Centrifuges Continue to Spin…
MAG: Dems lie about inspections…
No breakthrough for Americans held in Tehran…

Brett Stephens said what needs to be said in March, Under Mr. Obama, friends are enemies, denial is wisdom, capitulation is victory. That was what needed to be said. The question now is what should be done?

It’s Iran, not Chicago, so they don’t get it

Obama keeps up with the nudge, nudge, wink, wink but these ayatollahs just don’t get it. Ayatollah Khamenei Accuses WH of ‘Lying,’ Being ‘Deceptive,’ and Having ‘Devilish’ Intentions. If only they would play along, pretend that everything is just like Obama says it is, then there would be no problem in getting this stitched up. It must frustrate the daylights out of Obama that the Iranians weren’t brought up on Alinski. Instead, we have this:

Beginning earlier this month and in the days since, Obama and his advisers have attempted to portray the negotiations as major step forward. During an appearance in the Rose Garden on April 2, Obama said the U.S. and its allies have “reached a historic understanding with Iran.”

Khamenei does not agree. “There was no need to take a position” on the supposed deal before today, Khamenei said. “The officials are saying that nothing has been done yet and nothing is obligatory. I neither agree nor disagree [with any deal].”

“What has been done so far does not guarantee an agreement, nor its contents, nor even that the negotiations will continue to the end,” Khamenei elaborated.

“I neither support nor oppose it,” Khamenei reportedly said of the proposed deal. “Everything is in the details; it may be that the deceptive other side wants to restrict us in the details.”

It gets much worse.

When Obama announced that a “framework” for the deal was in place earlier this month, the administration released a fact sheet purportedly showing the agreed upon “parameters.” The White House said the terms outlined in the fact sheet “reflect the significant progress that has been made in discussions between the P5+1, the European Union, and Iran.”

Khamenei would beg to differ.

“The White House put out a statement just a few hours after our negotiators finished their talks…this statement, which they called a ‘fact sheet’, was wrong on most of the issues,” Khamenei said, according to Reuters. Khamenei added that the fact sheet, which doesn’t match Iran’s understanding, exposes America’s “devilish” intentions.

So it’s unanimous then. Obama is lying.

Is he malevolent or just stupid?

I have my own answer to this. What I cannot work out is why anyone has a different one. From Daniel Pipes on The Obama Doctrine:

Is this a random series of errors by an incompetent leadership or does some grand, if misconceived, idea stand behind the pattern? To an extent, it’s ineptitude, as when Obama bowed to the Saudi king, threatened Syria’s government over chemical weapons before changing his mind, and now sends the U.S. military to aid Tehran in Iraq and fight it in Yemen.

But there also is a grand idea and it calls for explanation. As a man of the left, Obama sees the United States historically having exerted a malign influence on the outside world. Greedy corporations, an overly-powerful military-industrial complex, a yahoo nationalism, engrained racism, and cultural imperialism combined to render America, on balance, a force for evil.

Being a student of community organizer Saul Alinsky, Obama did not overtly proclaim this view but passed himself off as a patriot, though he (and his charming wife) did offer occasional hints of their radical views about “fundamentally transforming the United States.” On ascending to the presidency, Obama moved slowly, uneager to spread alarm and wanting to be reelected. By now, however, after six full years and only his legacy to worry about, the full-blown Obama is emerging.

The Obama Doctrine is simple and universal: Warm relations with adversaries and cool them with friends.

Picked up at Powerline, under the heading, DANIEL PIPES: THE OBAMA DOCTRINE SERVES UP ONE DISASTER AFTER ANOTHER.

Let’s talk about how bad the economy is and not the deal with Iran

From Drudge today, the main set of stories, no doubt representative of the distraction on the deal with Iran that will be universal across the American media:

RECORD 93,175,000 AMERICANS NOT WORKING…
Record 12,202,000 Blacks Not In Labor Force…
Record 56,131,000 Women…
January, February jobs numbers revised down dramatically…
Fed Cuts Growth Forecast to ZERO…

And then there’s Iran. A few stories, just below the fold of no prominence whatsoever:

Congress divided on Iran Deal…
Joyful Iranians dance into night…
‘It doesn’t appear as if Iran agreed to do anything specific’…
PRUDEN: A deal built on lies…

Obama’s major policy focus six years ago was on fixing the economy. It’s old news how bad the economy is, but at least it gets the Iranian deal out of the news, stuff that no one is really interested in, these faraway countries of which we know little. What the foreign policy news will be like six years from today no one can know, but it’s likely to be as good as everything else Obama has done. Pure wreckage from end to end.

Thomas Sowell on “the most catastrophic international agreement in the nation’s history”

Obama knows better than anyone else, just as he did with healthcare and just as he did with the economy. And now he is bringing his same non-existent analytical skills to solving the tensions in the Middle East by engineering a cave-in to every single demand the Iranians are making about building nuclear weapons. A country that literally floats on oil does not need to build a nuclear power plant. This is Thomas Sowell writing on these matters, in a column titled, Etiquette Versus Annihilation. Here is how he begins:

Recent statements from United Nations officials, that Iran is already blocking their existing efforts to keep track of what is going on in their nuclear program, should tell anyone who does not already know it that any agreement with Iran will be utterly worthless in practice. It doesn’t matter what the terms of the agreement are, if Iran can cheat.

It is amazing — indeed, staggering — that so few Americans are talking about what it would mean for the world’s biggest sponsor of international terrorism, Iran, to have nuclear bombs, and to be developing intercontinental missiles that can deliver them far beyond the Middle East.

Back during the years of the nuclear stand-off between the Soviet Union and the United States, contemplating what a nuclear war would be like was called “thinking the unthinkable.” But surely the Nazi Holocaust during World War II should tell us that what is beyond the imagination of decent people is by no means impossible for people who, as Churchill warned of Hitler before the war, had “currents of hatred so intense as to sear the souls of those who swim upon them.”

Have we not already seen that kind of hatred in the Middle East? Have we not seen it in suicide bombings there and in suicide attacks against America by people willing to sacrifice their own lives by flying planes into massive buildings, to vent their unbridled hatred?

Well, we have seen it, but Obama has not. Or if he has, he has taken a very different lesson from the rest of us. Sowell concludes:

Against the background of the Obama administration’s negotiating what can turn out to be the most catastrophic international agreement in the nation’s history, to complain about protocol is to put questions of etiquette above questions of annihilation.

Meanwhile the most intense current debate in the United States is over whether someone’s religious views should be allowed to influence how they run their business. The US is no longer the leader of the free world. It is even questionable whether Americans are any longer even a free people.

Who can explain the anti-American American media

obama iran negotiations cartoon

There was a time I could understand what is going on in politics. I wouldn’t necessarily agree, but I could follow it. But what has me utterly mystified is the negotiations between the Americans and Iran. And it’s not Obama. He’s a known quantity. It’s everyone else, and the absence of any serious reaction.

Let me begin with this. Here’s a story from yesterday: Poll: Clear majority supports nuclear deal with Iran. Here’s what the survey showed, according to the opening para:

By a nearly 2 to 1 margin, Americans support the notion of striking a deal with Iran that restricts the nation’s nuclear program in exchange for loosening sanctions, a new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds.

If it comes to that, I support a deal that restricts Iran’s nuclear program. But it is the second para of the story that brings clarity to what American really believe:

But the survey — released hours before Tuesday’s negotiating deadline — also finds few Americans are hopeful that such an agreement will be effective. Nearly six in 10 say they are not confident that a deal will prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, unchanged from 15 months ago, when the United States, France, Britain, Germany, China and Russia reached an interim agreement with Iran aimed at sealing a long-term deal.

So try a question like this instead: Are you in favour of striking a deal that leaves Iran with nuclear weapons while their leaders continue to repeat, “Death to America”, and who threaten to use a nuclear weapon to obliterate Israel?

It is media who have asked their own poorly framed but obviously biased question, who have left out the necessary qualification in how they have reported the story, and who have done so to help ease the way towards an outcome that achieves what absolutely no American could possibly want. We know whose side the media are on, but does anyone know why that is? We also know which side the American administration is on, which leads to exactly the same question again.

Then from Drudge, these were yesterday’s sub-heads at the top of the page:

Iran talks lead to more talks…
Tehran refuses to give up enriched nuclear material…
Iran militia chief: Destroying Israel ‘nonnegotiable’…
Hackers threaten ‘electronic holocaust’…
Drone Spat in Iraq…
Saudis Make Own Moves…
Rabbi compares Obama to Haman, archenemy of Jewish people…
French Fear Plans To Make Iran Key Middle East Ally…
Venue for talks is ‘gilded cage’ under constant surveillance…
ABCWASHPOST POLL: Clear majority of Americans support deal…

About that “nonnegotiable” destruction of Israel. This is the opening of the story linked above:

The commander of the Basij militia of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards said that “erasing Israel off the map” is “nonnegotiable,” according to an Israel Radio report Tuesday.

Militia chief Mohammad Reza Naqdi also threatened Saudi Arabia, saying that the offensive it is leading in Yemen “will have a fate like the fate of Saddam Hussein.”

So far as negotiations go, the Iranians are a certainly more hard-edged than the Americans. These are the sub-heads from today:

HOW ABOUT JUNE?
Talks extended past deadline…
Tehran refuses to give up enriched material…
Netanyahu: Deal will allow nuclear breakout in less than year…
Militia chief: Destroying Israel ‘nonnegotiable’…
Hackers threaten ‘electronic holocaust’…
Iranian plane buzzes Navy copter…
PAPER: Even Chamberlain would not make deal Obama eager to conclude…
Saudis Make Own Moves…
Yemen nears ‘total collapse’ as Mideast powers trade blame…

So why are the Americans so intent on reaching a deal? Anyone’s guess, but protecting American interests does not appear to be amongst them.

UPDATE: I find myself both depressed and very angry, and think of none of the past six years of the Obama Administration as anything other than tragic. But the cartoon added above is not there because it makes you laugh, but because it so perfectly captures our present reality.

Lying media scum

Here’s the headline: Poll: Clear majority supports nuclear deal with Iran. Here’s what the survey showed, according to the opening para:

By a nearly 2 to 1 margin, Americans support the notion of striking a deal with Iran that restricts the nation’s nuclear program in exchange for loosening sanctions, a new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds.

If it comes to that, I support a deal that restricts Iran’s ability to produce nuclear weapons. But it is the second para of the story that brings clarity to what American really believe:

But the survey — released hours before Tuesday’s negotiating deadline — also finds few Americans are hopeful that such an agreement will be effective. Nearly six in 10 say they are not confident that a deal will prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, unchanged from 15 months ago, when the United States, France, Britain, Germany, China and Russia reached an interim agreement with Iran aimed at sealing a long-term deal.

So try a question like this instead: Are you in favour of striking a deal that leaves Iran with nuclear weapons while their leaders continue to repeat, “Death to America”, and who threaten to use a nuclear weapon to obliterate Israel?

It is lying media scum who ask their own poorly framed question, leave out the necessary qualification, and have done so to help ease the way towards an outcome that achieves what absolutely no American could possibly want. We know whose side the media are on, but does anyone know why that is? We also know which side the American administration is on, which leads to exactly the same question again.

UPDATE: And from Drudge, the sub-heads at the top of the page:

Iran talks lead to more talks…
Tehran refuses to give up enriched nuclear material…
Iran militia chief: Destroying Israel ‘nonnegotiable’…
Hackers threaten ‘electronic holocaust’…
Drone Spat in Iraq…
Saudis Make Own Moves…
Rabbi compares Obama to Haman, archenemy of Jewish people…
French Fear Plans To Make Iran Key Middle East Ally…
Venue for talks is ‘gilded cage’ under constant surveillance…
ABCWASHPOST POLL: Clear majority of Americans support deal…

About that “nonnegotiable” destruction of Israel. This is the opening of the story linked above:

The commander of the Basij militia of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards said that “erasing Israel off the map” is “nonnegotiable,” according to an Israel Radio report Tuesday.

Militia chief Mohammad Reza Naqdi also threatened Saudi Arabia, saying that the offensive it is leading in Yemen “will have a fate like the fate of Saddam Hussein.”

So why are the Americans so intent on reaching a deal? Anyone’s guess, but protecting American interests does not appear to be amongst them.