Obama’s meddling in the Israeli elections was the Arab Spring strategy all over again. Remember how that started, with those “spontaneous” protests in the streets? Do you remember Hillary Clinton cackling “We came, we saw, he died,” after Mu‘ammar Gadhafi was killed by an Islamist mob? She was quite self-satisfied with her “Arab Spring,” wasn’t she? What do you think of the results now?
Take a look at the Middle East after this administration toppled secular governments, allowed radical jihadists like the Muslim Brotherhood to seize power, and abandoned the Iraqi government instead of leaving a stabilizing force behind, as so many advised. It’s more radically Islamist than it’s been in a thousand years. ISIS has established a caliphate and threatens to take over all of Iraq and then move on to Syria.
Does this benefit the American citizens whose interests Obama is supposed to represent? No. This administration’s foreign policy has worked in direct opposition to the interests of the American people, almost without exception.
That’s just what it was doing when trying to bring about regime change in Israel. The president and his sorority want a leftist government in Israel that will not speak up, as Netanyahu did, when the United States makes the wrong deal with Iran. They want a government that will not, as Netanyahu said, stand alone and go to war, if it must, to safeguard the Israeli people.
Netanyahu was like Gary Cooper in High Noon during that speech. He said to the American people, “The bad guys want to kill me and my townsfolk. We would love for you to join us, but if you don’t we’re willing to fight alone.”
That’s not to say Netanyahu wants a war. He is a war hero and knows what war is. War is hell. It’s the worst thing that can happen to a society. Neither Netanyahu nor the Israeli people want war with anyone. He said himself, “Now we’re being told that the only alternative to this bad deal is war. That’s just not true. The alternative to this bad deal is a much better deal.”
The Democrats ignored these very clear statements and claim he’s fearmongering, implying he does want a war.
Do you think it is fearmongering to explain what the throwbacks in Iran are? The mullahs of Iran have said they are going to wipe out the State of Israel and then kill all the Jews in the world. That should put the fear of God in your heart. It’s not fearmongering to face reality.
It was actually Kentucky Democrat John Yarmouth who was doing the fearmongering when he implied Netanyahu wants war. He said Netanyahu’s speech was “right out of Dick Cheney’s playbook” and that “Netanyahu basically said that the only acceptable deal was a perfect deal or an ideal deal.”14 That’s a lie.
The Israeli prime minister actually gave some good advice on how to both avoid a war and make a better deal with Iran, if only Obama and the Democrats were listening.
Unfortunately, the president claimed he didn’t even watch the speech, which I find extremely hard to believe. Can you actually believe any leader in the world wasn’t watching that speech? As I listened to the address, I saw the leaders of every nation on earth taking time out of their busy schedules to listen to what has to be one of the most important speeches of our lifetime.
Obama said he didn’t, but that he read the transcript. He said Netanyahu “didn’t offer any viable alternatives” to the deal Obama was working on. That’s not true. Here is what the prime minister said:
Now, if Iran threatens to walk away from the table—and this often happens in a Persian bazaar—call their bluff. They’ll be back, because they need the deal a lot more than you do. And by maintaining the pressure on Iran and on those who do business with Iran, you have the power to make them need it even more.15
That is what any honest person would call an alternative. To what? To the accommodating approach to negotiations the president is taking. Prime Minister Netanyahu understands the region. He understands the Iranians and their negotiating tactics. He understands that you have to be strong, the way buyers are strong in the Persian rug markets.
Taking a strong position in negotiations is not the same as provoking a war. “Peace through strength” is what won the cold war. Back when we had real leadership in this country, we faced down an empire with over thirty thousand nuclear weapons and brought it to its knees without firing a shot. We were able to do that not only because of what Ronald Reagan did, but what he didn’t do.
One thing he didn’t do was make threats he wasn’t ready to back up. He didn’t go around the world drawing red lines, only to make this country a laughingstock when adversaries crossed them with impunity. Instead, he strengthened our military to a point where the Soviets couldn’t hope to keep up. He picked his battles, deploying troops only when communists attempted coups in the Western Hemisphere.
Reagan constantly won the public relations battles with Mikhail Gorbachev. He famously said, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall,” while speaking to a cheering crowd in what was then West Berlin. I’ve often imagined him flashing that winning smile and saying, “You should have listened to me,” when the German people tore down the Berlin Wall themselves, marking the beginning of the end of the USSR.
Ironically, Russian president Vladimir Putin has acted a lot more like Reagan than our own president has over the past several years. When Obama drew another of his red lines for Bashar al-Assad in Syria over chemical weapons, it was Putin who prevented war and solved the problem with diplomacy. He worked with his ally, instead of undermining her, and persuaded the Syrian government to hand over all of its chemical weapons.
Whether you like him or not, Putin is another example of a real leader who puts the interests of his people first and leads with strength and restraint. He’s shown the most restraint in dealing with the Obama administration, which has done nothing but provoke him.
Russia’s interests don’t always coincide with America’s, but Putin understands his primary function as president. Is he a politician? Of course he is. But he never sells out his own people just to keep himself or his party in power. Maybe that’s one reason the Obama administration demonizes him so much. Just as Obama probably resents the comparison to Netanyahu, he may very well resent comparisons to the Russian president who has outclassed him so many times. Obama should be building a partnership with noncommunist Russia and taking a hard line with Iran and ISIS. Instead, he’s soft on Iran and ISIS and risking a disastrous war with Russia, which the United States could lose.
Maybe it’s better that he’s ineffective at leading, since he’s trying to take America in completely the wrong direction. He doesn’t care about the best interests of the American people. He cares about destroying borders, language, and culture, and building his progressive utopia.
Not acting in the interests of the people is really a problem with both parties. Sure, they disagree on a lot of things. But there is one thing more important to both parties than anything they disagree on with each other: staying in power. They love living high on our dime, and they try to do what they’re elected to do only when it doesn’t jeopardize their chances of keeping their cushy jobs.
I’ll never forget a picture that appeared on the top of the Drudge Report back in early January. The Republicans had won the Senate the previous November and had just taken office that day. As of that day they controlled both houses of Congress, but do you know what picture Matt Drudge ran? It was John “Man-Tan” Boehner bear-hugging none other than the most despicable woman in American politics, Nancy Pelosi. It couldn’t have been more appropriate.
What does this bear hug symbolize other than he did their bidding? He went to her, gave her a hug, and showed us all how much opposition there really is in Washington. I’m sure you can find this picture without too much effort. Boehner looks like a satisfied little boy being hugged by the mama bear, Nancy Pelosi, who really runs the show.
Twenty-five representatives had opposed Boehner’s reelection as Speaker. That was the opposition out of hundreds of Republican representatives who hold a majority in the House. Those were the only people out of over five hu
ndred elected representatives who thought anything should change at all.
So, you can expect more of the same rather than less of the same. You can recognize the election was for naught. It had no meaning whatsoever. You can brace for taxation without representation to continue. You can expect the oligarchy to answer to the Wall Street powers who truly run the country.
As I’ve said, we can’t even count on the Supreme Court to act in our interests most of the time. Obama’s appointees Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor are bad enough, but what about supposedly conservative justices? Obamacare could have been struck down even with Kagan and Sotomayor on the Court if that fool John Roberts hadn’t sold us out, calling Obamacare a tax.
So, there’s no leadership and there is no opposition party, neither in the Congress nor in the Supreme Court. If that sounds hopeless, believe me, that’s how I feel sometimes, too. But it’s not hopeless. Later in this book, I’m going to tell you exactly how we solve these problems in the long term and restore the America we loved.
In the meantime, we have to hold on to as much of our freedom as we can. The good news is that Obama’s administration is almost over. What a celebration we should have when the most divisive presidency in American history comes to an end. The bad news is we can’t be sure that what follows it won’t be worse.
Leadership Post-Obama
We don’t know who the Republican nominee is going to be yet, but it still doesn’t look like any of the candidates can beat the Limber Leopard, Hillary Clinton. I called her that in my 2005 book, The Political Zoo, because, in addition to being willing and able to change her spots at any time, she has a strength the current president lacks. Unfortunately, she’s on the wrong side. She could bring stronger leadership in the wrong direction than we have right now.
She may not have attended school in an Indonesian madrasa, but she’s been making friendly with Muslim groups since the mid-1990s. The president is supposed to be responsible for the actions of his Cabinet, but do you really believe the academic in chief had any control over the Limber Leopard?
Clinton has been siding with the Muslims since before Obama was even a community organizer. It’s a good thing she’s not associating with those intolerant, bigoted conservatives. Her husband shares her affinity for the throwbacks. “Wolf Boy” Bill Clinton actually called for the arrests of the cartoonists at Jyllands-Posten after the riots over their satires of Muhammad and Muslims. Never mind punishing the rioters and murderers—Wolf Boy wants to arrest the cartoonists for exercising their right to free speech.
This is still what passes for progressive or liberal today. Remember the Pope’s answer to the murders at Charlie Hebdo? Those who insult someone’s religion should expect a “punch in the nose.” Neofascism is alive and well, and the Clintons could step right in to lead the wolf pack again.
The Limber Leopard also seems to share her husband’s ability to sidestep any controversy, no matter how egregiously she’s behaved. Forget E-mailgate. Nobody cared, even when the progressive jackals at the New York Times and the Associated Press seemed to turn against her. She gave a press conference that would have gotten Richard Nixon hanged instead of just impeached, but she just brushed it off. The rules don’t apply to her.
That really didn’t surprise me. If she could get a U.S. ambassador killed due to her dereliction of duty as secretary of state and not be held accountable, who’s going to care about her e-mail server? It’s not as if cybersecurity for the top foreign policy official in the country is important when ISIS is hacking into databases containing the home addresses of active-duty soldiers. No, all the liberals care about is that she’d be the first female president.
While E-mailgate should be important, the bigger issue is really her legacy as secretary of state. It was the worst tenure in the history of that Cabinet position. She has literally destroyed the world order and not for the better. She has wrecked the Arab Crescent. She has started a new cold war with Russia. How much worse can it get? World War III? This is what we should be talking about when considering her candidacy for president.
Hillary’s even worse than Obama on health care, too. Remember, the Limber Leopard was pushing a completely government-run, single-payer health-care plan when she was the First Lady back in the 1990s. Fortunately, we did have some semblance of an opposition party at that time, and her efforts at socializing medicine gave her party a landslide midterm election defeat, giving control of the House and Senate to the Republicans.
How times have changed. After eight years of nonstop, anticapitalist rhetoric from the current Marxist in chief, there may not be enough clear-thinking Americans left to resist. She just might be able to pull off as president what she failed to do as “co-president.”
Even so, we may want to be careful about how vigorously we oppose her. Elizabeth Warren is even worse.
She is a woman who could be elected only in Massachusetts. She has at least one thing in common with the president, which is claiming to be someone she is not. As I said before, Obama was a spoiled white kid with a black father who decided to become a downtrodden black man. Elizabeth Warren is a blond-haired, blue-eyed white woman who claims to be Native American.
That was how she got into Harvard and how she ruled in Harvard. That’s how she got over on whitey, by playing the ethnic race card as a Native American. Sound familiar?
However, “Elizabeth Warren is not a citizen of the Cherokee Nation. Elizabeth Warren is not enrolled in the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians. And Elizabeth Warren is not one of the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee. Nor could she become one, even if she wanted to,” according to the Atlantic.16 She’s even less a Native American woman than Obama is a downtrodden black man. Yet, she “described herself as a minority in a law school directory and was touted as a Native American faculty member while tenured at Harvard Law School in the mid-1990s,”17 based on what is reported as an unsubstantiated claim of having one-thirty-second Cherokee blood.
You don’t think she used her phony Native American ties for political gain, don’t you? You don’t if you’re a 1960s liberal anachronism who thinks Chairman Mao was a great leader.
Remember Obama’s speech when he told business owners, “You didn’t build that”? Guess what? He didn’t come up with that piece of socialist sophistry on his own. He didn’t even get it from his own speechwriters. Elizabeth Warren actually said it first.18
So we could have another presidential candidate claiming to be someone she’s not, who’s even more socialist than Obama. Let’s see how the progressive jackals behave as the campaigns really get into full gear. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the Associated Press takes down Hillary with their lawsuit, so Fauxcahontas can step into the void. The AP is suing the State Department for access to Clinton’s records.19
That was why I was warning my listeners not to be too anxious to get rid of the Limber Leopard when the E-mailgate story broke back in March. As terrible and truly vicious as she is, Fauxcahontas really would be worse. She says she’s not running, and maybe she won’t this time around, but she’s not going away. Nor are her poisonous, socialist ideas.
Meanwhile, the prospects on the Republican side aren’t much better. Can you imagine making a choice between Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton? Have we not had enough Bushes and Clintons for sixteen out of the past twenty-two years? Can anyone possibly say with a straight face the American people are represented by either of these insiders?
Jeb Bush thinks Common Core is just a wonderful idea. He thinks we need more immigrants, because they have stronger families and are more entrepreneurial. I’m not kidding. With conservatives like him, what do we need liberals for?
Who else is there? Marco Rubio certainly isn’t ready for prime time. I might vote for him out of default, but he has no, as they used to say ten years ago, gravitas. He’s not a president. He’s not a leader. More important, he, too, would sign his party’s death warrant by flooding the nation with immigrants. But the Republicans are so desperate they mi
ght make him a candidate just because his last name ends in a vowel.
The important question to ask here is, “Where will any of these Republican candidates lead this nation?” We can see where the progressives have led us. It does no good if we elect a Republican who’s not a conservative and just continues leading us down the same road, with a few prettier words.
This is why I said the Israeli election was important for America. If you analyze the election, you understand what needs to happen here.
Netanyahu was behind in the polls just before the election. He then made a dramatic move to the right, toward his base. The number one subject in his rhetoric during the last few days before the votes were cast was the left wing. He kept mentioning the left wing in Israel. He set himself apart by running on an authentic conservative platform: a nationalist conservative one.
A Bird Needs Two Wings
They’re not ashamed in Israel to admit there’s a left wing and a right wing. Here in America, we have only a left wing and a far-left wing. A bird needs two wings to fly. This country is going in circles because it has two left wings, flapping around the clock. A bird needs a left wing and a right wing to fly.
There actually is a right wing in America, but it isn’t the Republican Party. You see some semblance of it in the Tea Party. You see it here and there in politics. But do you know where the right wing really is? It’s in the hearts of the people.
This nation is primarily a center-right nation. I’m not talking about Hollywood. I’m not talking about Manhattan. I’m talking about the rest of America, affectionately known as “flyover country.” That’s where the people who actually work for a living reside. They are the ones who know, for example, the cops are the real victims in this country, not the criminals. Those are the kinds of people you find in flyover country.
Netanyahu turned the election around and won because he said the things the Israeli people needed to hear. I’m not talking about the phony Israeli protest manufactured by Obama’s operatives to try to topple Netanyahu. I’m talking about the real Israeli people, their equivalent to our people in flyover country. They understand the dangers they face. They know they need strong, conservative leadership.
Government Zero : No Borders, No Language, No Culture (9781455563517) Page 4