Obama Foreign Policy's Poisonous Fruit!

Pakistan test-fires nuclear-capable missile - DC Breaking Local News Weather Sports FOX 5 WTTG
http://www.myfoxdc.com/story/20201856/pakistan-test-fires-nuclear-capable-missile

California Flood Threat From "Atmospheric River" - weather.com
http://www.weather.com/news/weather-forecast/california-flood-threat-20121126

New Virus Striking Obama Supporters...Cure 4 Years Away for Most...Fatal for Others!

Empty Embrace… Hurricane Sandy Victim Upset After Being Played By Obama (Video) | The Gateway Pundit
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/11/empty-embrace-hurricane-sandy-victim-upset-after-being-played-by-obama-video/

Glen Beck Did It Now Laura Ingraham,

News from The Associated Press
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_PEOPLE_LAURA_INGRAHAM?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-11-27-11-50-49

BOHICA...Obama "More Flexible" With His Commie/Socialist/Islamofascists Brothers

U.S. Treasury Declines to Name China Currency Manipulator - Bloomberg
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-27/u-s-treasury-declines-to-name-china-currency-manipulator.html

In Communist Cuba, the Tax Man Cometh - Business News - CNBC
http://www.cnbc.com/id/49989684

98% Young Black Racist Women Votes Obama!

Young Voters Supported Obama Less, But May Have Mattered More | Pew Research Center for the People and the Press
http://www.people-press.org/2012/11/26/young-voters-supported-obama-less-but-may-have-mattered-more/

Coming to Your State or Country Soon...Where Will They Go? NOT 2 FRANCE Or OBAMALAND!

Two-thirds of millionaires left Britain to avoid 50p tax rate - Telegraph
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9707029/Two-thirds-of-millionaires-left-Britain-to-avoid-50p-tax-rate.html

Germany will not back Palestinian U.N. bid: government spokesman - Yahoo! News
http://news.yahoo.com/germany-not-back-palestinian-u-n-bid-government-130743009.html;_ylt=A2KLOzJxD7ZQ.DsAzSfQtDMD

You Might Be A ‘Right Wing Extremist?’.......IF........

Posted by Michael CHILDS, Admin II on November 27, 2012 at 1:27pm in Patriot Action Alerts
View Discussions

Take the survey to see if you are a “right wing extremist.” Hint: If you love this great country of ours, the Left says you are in fact a right wing extremist. Take it as a complement!
I’d rather be a “Right Wing Extremist” by Wild Bills standards, than a Republican, Democrat, Muslim creepy person, Racist, or a liberal. Thanks Wild Bill, your the best! We do not live in Europe, nor are we in the land of OZ. So either be proud to be an American, or not!
I am 100% one of them. I am proud if it,Proud to be ab American and I do believe in God and Country.
=====================================================
Yes, I’m a “right wing extremist.” It’s a compliment. I believe in my God-given country and all the God-given rights/liberties protected under the God-given U.S. Constitution.
I believe in the God of Jacob/Abraham not Allah.
And we proud American Christians must resist this evil empire under the most evil one, Obama.
We must resist all evil and never surrender. We must denounce those at war with God’s law. We must confront the lukewarm Christians and the treachery in the Church.
We must prepare for battle in wisdom not fear; for the persecutions that now await us. We must wake up God's army to fight for God.
We must fight for Life and Truth and Justice according to the Laws of God and the teachings of Jesus Christ, even against great odds.
We must always remember what Christ said, “In the world, you will have tribulations, but be of good cheer: I have overcome the world.” (John 16:33)
=====================================================
I’m as right wing as you can get——–however i am not a nutcase—— I disagree about gutting the military budget and some of the more radical conservatives—yes we should be more fiscally aware but with the food stamp,phony disability claimants,and the medicaid frauds they need much more investigation——with ambulance chasing lawyers blatantly advertising on TV how they will aid you in getting your share of the free piece of the pie I believe in more oversight—-don’t wait for the pols for that’s their constituency and the government drones will do nothing to cut their numbers down or they will be on food stamps or unemployment at least.................

Tags: 2012, Conservative, Left, Liberals, Obama, Right, wing
ShareTwitter
Views: 620
▶ Reply to This
REPLIES TO THIS DISCUSSION
Permalink Reply by Steven Newman 2 hours ago
The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for, among old parchments, or musty records. They are written, as with a sun beam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself; and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness These are natural rights – gifts from GOD, NOT government. – Alexander Hamilton

"A nation of well-informed men, who have been taught to know and prize the rights that God has given them, cannot be enslaved. It is in the region of ignorance that tyranny begins!" – Benjamin Franklin

I'll stick with the Founding Fathers original framing of the Constitution.

Steven Newman, United States Army (Retired)
First Sgt/Master Sgt, Infantry/Cavalry/Armor
Aug. 8, 1968 - July 1, 1992

"This nation will remain the LAND OF THE FREE ONLY
so long as it is the HOME OF THE BRAVE." -- Elmer Davis

"An HONEST but MISTAKEN man, once shown the TRUTH,
either CEASES to be MISTAKEN or CEASES to be HONEST."

▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Harry Hansen 51 minutes ago
Very well written!!!!!!!!!!!
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Robert Schumacker 2 hours ago
Should I really back down in fear because some Liberals might label me with some false accusations, like calling me a "Right Wing Extremist", or racist, or homophobic, or whatever other trash talk that they might throw my way??? I am a proud American patriotic conservative, and any Liberal who doesn't like it, can go kiss my a$$!!!


▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Kevin savage 2 hours ago
I think we should all line up so they can kiss all our a$$es
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Donna 1 hour ago
Right at the WHITE HOUSE!!!! I can see it now, It's Past Time!!!
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by agmann2009 45 minutes ago
I would like to second your sentiments!! Well put...............Bravo!
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Debrajoe Smith-Beatty 2 hours ago
I would much rather be a right wing extremist like Wild Bill than the other kind.
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Wingy 1 hour ago
My kids tell me that I am to the RIGHT of Gengis Khan....
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Steven Newman 1 hour ago
I’ve been thinking….It started out innocently enough. I began to think at parties now and then -- just to loosen up. Inevitably, though, one thought led to another, and soon I was more than just a social thinker. I began to think alone -- "to relax," I told myself -- but I knew it wasn't true. Thinking became more and more important to me, and finally I was thinking all the time. That was when things began to sour at home. One evening I turned off the TV and asked my wife about the meaning of life. She spent that night at her mother's. I began to think on the job. I knew that thinking and employment don't mix, but I couldn't help myself. I began to avoid friends at lunchtime so I could read Thoreau, Muir, Confucius and Kafka. I would return to the office dizzied and confused, asking, "What is it exactly we are doing here?"

One day the boss called me in. He said, "Listen, I like you, and it hurts me to say this, but your thinking has become a real problem. If you don't stop thinking on the job, you'll have to find another job." This gave me a lot to think about. I came home early after my conversation with the boss. "Honey," I confessed, "I've been thinking..." "I know you've been thinking," she said, "and I want a divorce!" "But Honey, surely it's not that serious." "It is serious," she said, lower lip a quiver "You think as much as college professors and college professors don't make any money, so if you keep on thinking, we won't have any money!" "That's a faulty syllogism," I said impatiently.

She exploded in tears of rage and frustration, but I was in no mood to deal with the emotional drama. "I'm going to the library," I snarled as I stomped out the door. I headed for the library, in the mood for some Nietzsche. I roared into the parking lot with NPR on the radio and ran up to the big glass doors. They didn't open. The library was closed. To this day, I believe that a Higher Power was looking out for me that night. Leaning on the unfeeling glass, whimpering for Zarathustra, a poster caught my eye, "Friend, is heavy thinking ruining your life?" it asked. You probably recognize that line.

It comes from the standard Thinkers Anonymous poster. This is why I am what I am today: a recovering thinker. I never miss a TA meeting. At each meeting we watch a non-educational video; last week it was "Porky's." Then we share experiences about how we avoided thinking since the last meeting. I still have my job, and things are a lot better at home.

Life just seemed easier, somehow, as soon as I stopped thinking. I think the road to recovery is nearly complete for me.

Today I took the final step...I joined the Democratic Party!

SARCASM OFF! :)
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Ed Watts 1 hour ago
Very good, with the exception of "...NPR on the radio..." That would have occurred AFTER attending Thinkers anonymous.
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by agmann2009 43 minutes ago
Mr. Newman

I applaud your facetious brilliant post!! From one recovering TA to another.

Think again!!
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Kenneth A. Moore 1 hour ago
I do take this as a compliment. All of the above. God is of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

Thank You,

CW3 Retired United States Army

Matthew 22:32

‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.
▶ Reply
‹ Previous
1
2
Next ›
Page
RSS

And You Thought Lincoln Freed Them....

Many have wondered why slavery lasted so long, no rebellion, no work shut down etc.

Some have speculated that is because the slaves were told they were entitled to much: a place to live, food, work etc. It might have been very difficult to move from such an entitlement status to being a free person, finding work, bettering oneself and moving on with the status of being black. So----------“the Man” was there to take care and provide for us ‘cause we are the Man’s. Why change?

Emancipation came from the consciences of outsiders who judged the slaves as being less than what they deserved. e

Obama will shut outsiders down (ask Romney). He likes the “bought loyalty” and it re-elected him.

I am told that aspirin will be heavily taxed under Obamacare. Why? Because they are white and they work.

Well, Well, Russians say we elected a Communist.... (i guess we just were not supposed to know that ?)

Politics
Russian News Outlet Pravda (Previously the Official Press of the USSR) Labels Obama a ‘Communist’ in Scathing OpEd

Posted on November 26, 2012 at 10:48am by Tiffany Gabbay
Editor’s note: We’ll be discussing this story and all the day’s news on our live BlazeCast at 1pm ET:


Vintage Pravda cover during the days of the USSR.

The famed Russian news site “Pravda,” which ironically was formed as the official Communist publication of the former Soviet Union, recently released a scathing opinion column entitled, “Obama’s Soviet Mistake,” in which the author unabashedly labels the U.S. president a “Communist without question promoting the Communist Manifesto without calling it so.”

The author, Xavier Lerma, goes on to note how Obama’s “cult of personality” has mesmerized the ignorant in America, who will follow the hope and change icon in much the same way as ”fools” still praise Lenin and Stalin in Russia.

“Obama’s fools and Stalin’s fools share the same drink of illusion.”

Adding an interesting twist to the article, the author juxtaposes President Obama with Vladimir Putin, noting that the Russian president has been sounding more and more like “Ronald Reagan” or other “conservatives in America” who seek to promote smaller government and lower taxes. Lerma attributes the following remarks to Putin regarding the country’s taxes and the economy:

“…we are reducing taxes on production, investing money in the economy. We are optimizing state expenses.

The second possible mistake would be excessive interference into the economic life of the country and the absolute faith into the all-mightiness of the state.

There are no grounds to suggest that by putting the responsibility over to the state, one can achieve better results.

Unreasonable expansion of the budget deficit, accumulation of the national debt – are as destructive as an adventurous stock market game.

During the time of the Soviet Union the role of the state in economy was made absolute, which eventually lead to the total non-competitiveness of the economy. That lesson cost us very dearly. I am sure no one would want history to repeat itself.”

Reading Putin’s speech “without knowing the author,” begins Lerma, “one would think it was written by Reagan or another conservative in America.”

“The speech promotes smaller government and less taxes. It comes as no surprise to those who know Putin as a conservative,” Lerma writes with irony.

After referring to liberalism as a “psychosis,” Lerma blasts ”O’bomber” over Fast and Furious and goes on to state:

He is a Communist without question promoting the Communist Manifesto without calling it so. How shrewd he is in America. His cult of personality mesmerizes those who cannot go beyond their ignorance. They will continue to follow him like those fools who still praise Lenin and Stalin in Russia. Obama’s fools and Stalin’s fools share the same drink of illusion.

The author questions if Americans have ever read history and concludes that American schools have been “conquered by Communists long ago,” paving the way for a revisionist history that would only lead to the election of a Communist president in the U.S.

“President Vladimir Putin could never have imagined anyone so ignorant or so willing to destroy their people like Obama much less seeing millions vote for someone like Obama,” Lerma quips. But the American president wasn’t the only one to draw the author’s ire. He also noted the pervasive influence of the ACLU and the eroding of America’s Christianity — something that was, of course, also a key tenet of the Soviet Union:

The red, white and blue still flies happily but only in Russia. Russia still has St George defeating the Dragon with the symbol of the cross on its’ flag. The ACLU and other atheist groups in America would never allow the US flag with such religious symbols. Lawsuits a plenty against religious freedom and expression in the land of the free.

“Christianity in the U.S. is under attack as it was during the early period of the Soviet Union when religious symbols were against the law,” Lerma notes astutely.

In terms of all of the U.S. States that have filed petitions to secede from the union, Lerma coins these Americans” hostages to the Communists in power” who will eventually need to rise up in the face of “tyranny.” Lerma concludes with a powerful comparison of the suffering endured for nearly a century under the oppression and brutality of the USSR and quotes Don Mclean’s famed song, “American Pie”:

Russia lost its’ civil war with the Reds and millions suffered torture and death for almost 75 years under the tyranny of the United Soviet Socialist Republic. Russians survived with a new and stronger faith in God and ever growing Christian Church. The question is how long will the once “Land of the Free” remain the United Socialist States of America? Their suffering has only begun. Bye bye Miss American Pie!

Those who recall the days of the former Soviet Union, or who have friends and family members who fled a life of degradation, will see much truth in Lerma’s words. Even envisioning the now-famous “Hope” and “Change” campaign posters, which elevated Obama to a cult of personality, strikes fear and anxiety into the hearts of those who lived through eerily similar propaganda behind the iron curtain. It is ironic that this opinion column, so scathing of Communism and so keenly perceptive of how history is repeating itself in President Obama, comes to us from the publication that was formed to be the official Communist mouthpiece of the former Soviet Union itself.

Perhaps that is what lends it all the more weight.

Now should one be mindful of the fact that the author of this opinion column also considers Vladimir Putin a “conservative”? Yes, however, more disturbing still is that Lerma finds Putin conservative in comparison to Obama. Opinions on Putin vary greatly among those living in Russia in much the same way as Americans differ in opinion con President Obama. What’s more, Lerma’s personal views on Putin do not necessarily negate that there is merit to his observations on President Obama. Russians who have witnessed the trappings of the former Soviet Union either during its height or in its aftermath, tend to speak from a place of personal experience — something that warrants careful consideration. Based on our Google search of the author, he does appear to be a Russian columnist for Pravda who also maintains his own conservative-leaning blog.

Shortly after TheBlaze published this article citing Pravda’s opinion column, author David Frum posted a hair-trigger response on his Daily Beast Blog, accusing TheBlaze of agreeing with Pravda on President Obama. Frum disparages Lerma’s “journalistic” credentials and goes on to focus solely on Lerma’s opinions on Vladimir Putin, as well as the Pravda author’s reference to attacks on Christianity in America. Frum does not address any other points raised by Lerma concerning the cult of personality that has been build around Obama, nor the parallels Lerma sees between present-day America and the former Soviet Union. Frum also appears to miss the irony that was the true crux of this Blaze article: That the former official mouthpiece of the Communist Party believes Obama is a Communist and that Putin is Conservative by comparison. That, of course, was the point.

The most charitable way of explaining the election results of 2012 w/comment

I generally agree with the author ---but the decline of the U.S. empire did not begin in 2007----it began in the 1960's and 70's when we decided to prolong our "Moment in the Sun" fron 1945 to 1970 when we literally owned the production capacity of the world in our hands. We decided to prolong our honeymoon by borrowing from our future and Social Security trust fund. We raised a bunch of Dr. Spock pampered kids who knew nothing but good times---except for the new immigrants who discovered Uncle Sam's largesse trade for votes.

Fast forward to 2007 and we suddenly discoverd the "emperor has no clothes" and the piper had to be paid. Now we discover we are held hostage by a majority of people who indeed will not work or would rather get "free stuff" for not working.

One other thing that may not be correct. Romney's 47% statement includes all of us on Social Security and medicare. Many of us are retired conservatives and Republicans so the 47% becomes much less in numbers but much more important in actual numbers and the effect on the voting system.

We now are a mulit racist society. The blacks and hispanics are now aligned so tightly with the Dems they can not be pryed away. If you accept this then whites have no option but to vote their own interests and become racist as the blacks now define us. Then we will have not two parties but at least three, and maybe an Asian party. Congress will become multifactional and all hell will break loose in terms of coming to grips with the problems of the country until 2014.

Other that...all is not lost ... 2014 will show Conservatives controlling both houses & prosperity returning to US...SM1.


Posted on November 7, 2012


The most charitable way of explaining the election results of 2012 is
that Americans voted for the status quo – for the incumbent President,
and for a divided Congress. They must enjoy gridlock, partisanship,
incompetence, economic stagnation and avoidance of responsibility.
And, fewer people voted. As I write, with almost all the votes
counted, President Obama has won fewer votes than John McCain won in
2008, and more than ten million less than his own 2008 total.

But as we awake from this nightmare, it’s important to eschew the
facile explanations for the Romney defeat that will prevail among the
chattering classes. Romney did not lose because of the effects of
Hurricane Sandy that devastated this area, nor did he lose because he
ran a poor campaign, nor did he lose because the Republicans could
have chosen better candidates, nor did he lose because Obama benefited
from a slight uptick in the economy due to the business cycle.

Romney lost because he didn't get enough votes to win.

That might seem obvious, but not for the obvious reasons. Romney lost
because the conservative virtues – the traditional American virtues –
of liberty, hard work, free enterprise, private initiative and
aspirations to moral greatness – no longer inspire or animate a
majority of the electorate. The notion of the “Reagan Democrat” is one
cliché that should be permanently retired.

Ronald Reagan himself could not win an election in today’s America.

The simplest reason why Romney lost was because it is impossible to
compete against free stuff. Every businessman knows this; that is why
the “loss leader” or the giveaway is such a powerful marketing tool.
Obama’s America is one in which free stuff is given away wholesale:
the adults among the 47,000,000 on food stamps clearly recognized for
whom they should vote, and so they did, by the tens of millions; those
who – courtesy of Obama – receive two full years of unemployment
benefits (which, of course, both disincentives looking for work and
also motivates people to work off the books while collecting their
windfall) surely know for whom to vote; so too do those who anticipate
“free” health care, who expect the government to pay their mortgages,
and who look for the government to give them jobs. The lure of free
stuff is irresistible. In other words, Romney ran against Santa Claus;
and Santa won by a landslide.

Imagine two restaurants side by side. One sells its customers fine
cuisine at a reasonable price, and the other offers a free buffet,
all-you-can-eat as long as supplies last. Few – including me – could
resist the attraction of the free food. Now imagine that the second
restaurant stays in business because the first restaurant is forced to
provide it with the food for the free buffet, and we have the current
economy, until, at least, the first restaurant decides to go out of
business. (Then, the government takes over the provision of free food
to its patrons.)

The defining moment of the whole campaign was the revelation (by the
amoral Obama team) of the secretly-recorded video in which Romney
acknowledged the difficulty of winning an election in which “47% of
the people” start off against him because they pay no taxes and just
receive money – “free stuff” – from the government. Almost half of the
population has no skin in the game – they don’t care about high taxes,
promoting business, or creating jobs, nor do they care that the money
for their free stuff is being borrowed from their children and from
the Chinese. They just want the free stuff that comes their way at
someone else’s expense. In the end, that 47% leaves very little margin
for error for any Republican, and does not bode well for the future.

It is impossible to imagine a conservative candidate winning against
such overwhelming odds. People do vote their pocketbooks. In essence,
the people vote for a Congress who will not raise their taxes, and for
a President who will give them free stuff, never mind who has to pay
for it.

That suggests the second reason why Romney lost: the inescapable
conclusion that, as Winston Churchill stated so tartly, “the best
argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the
average voter.” Voters – a clear majority – are easily swayed by
emotion and raw populism. Said another way, too many people vote with
their hearts and not their heads. That is why Obama did not have to
produce a second term agenda, or even defend his first-term record. He
needed only to portray Mitt Romney as a rapacious capitalist who
throws elderly women over a cliff, when he is not just snatching away
their cancer medication, while starving the poor and cutting taxes for
the rich. Obama could get away with saying that “Romney wants the rich
to play by a different set of rules” – without ever defining what
those different rules were; with saying that the “rich should pay
their fair share” – without ever defining what a “fair share” is; with
saying that Romney wants the poor, elderly and sick to “fend for
themselves” – without even acknowledging that all these government
programs are going bankrupt, their current insolvency only papered
over by deficit spending. How could Obama get away with such rants to
squealing sign-wavers? See Churchill, above.

During his 1956 presidential campaign, a woman called out to Adlai
Stevenson: “Senator, you have the vote of every thinking person!”
Stevenson called back: “That’s not enough, madam, we need a majority!”
Truer words were never spoken.

Similarly, Obama (or his surrogates) could hint to blacks that a
Romney victory would lead them back into chains and proclaim to women
that their abortions and birth control would be taken away. He could
appeal to Hispanics that Romney would have them all arrested and
shipped to Mexico (even if they came from Cuba or Honduras), and
unabashedly state that he will not enforce the current immigration
laws. He could espouse the furtherance of the incestuous relationship
between governments and unions – in which politicians ply the unions
with public money, in exchange for which the unions provide the
politicians with votes, in exchange for which the politicians provide
more money and the unions provide more votes, etc., even though the
money is gone. How could he do and say all these things ? See
Churchill, above.

One might reasonably object that not every Obama supporter could be
unintelligent. But they must then rationally explain how the Obama
agenda can be paid for, aside from racking up multi-trillion dollar
deficits. “Taxing the rich” does not yield even 10% of what is
required and does not solve any discernible problem – so what is the
answer, i.e., an intelligent answer?

Obama also knows that the electorate has changed – that whites will
soon be a minority in America (they're already a minority in
California) and that the new immigrants to the US are primarily from
the Third World and do not share the traditional American values that
attracted immigrants in the 19th and 20th centuries. It is a different
world, and a different America. Obama is part of that different
America, knows it, and knows how to tap into it. That is why he won.

Obama also proved again that negative advertising works, invective
sells, and harsh personal attacks succeed. That Romney never engaged
in such diatribes points to his essential goodness as a person; his
“negative ads” were simple facts, never personal abuse – facts about
high unemployment, lower take-home pay, a loss of American power and
prestige abroad, a lack of leadership, etc. As a politician, though,
Romney failed because he did not embrace the devil’s bargain of making
unsustainable promises, and by talking as the adult and not the
adolescent. Obama has spent the last six years campaigning; even his
governance has been focused on payoffs to his favored interest groups.
The permanent campaign also won again, to the detriment of American
life.

It turned out that it was not possible for Romney and Ryan – people of
substance, depth and ideas – to compete with the shallow populism and
platitudes of their opponents. Obama mastered the politics of envy –
of class warfare – never reaching out to Americans as such but to
individual groups, and cobbling together a winning majority from these
minority groups. Conservative ideas failed to take root and states
that seemed winnable, and amenable to traditional American values,
have simply disappeared from the map. If an Obama could not be
defeated – with his record and his vision of America, in which free
stuff seduces voters – it is hard to envision any change in the
future. The road to Hillary Clinton in 2016 and to a
European-socialist economy – those very economies that are collapsing
today in Europe – was paved in this election.

A second cliché that should be retired is that America is a
center-right country. It clearly is not. It is a divided country with
peculiar voting patterns, and an appetite for free stuff. Studies will
invariably show that Republicans in Congress received more total votes
than Democrats in Congress, but that means little. The House of
Representatives is not truly representative of the country. That
people would vote for a Republican Congressmen or Senator and then
Obama for President would tend to reinforce point two above: the
empty-headedness of the electorate. Americans revile Congress but love
their individual Congressmen. Go figure.

The mass media’s complicity in Obama’s re-election cannot be denied.
One example suffices. In 2004, CBS News forged a letter in order to
imply that President Bush did not fulfill his Air National Guard
service during the Vietnam War, all to impugn Bush and impair his
re-election prospects. In 2012, President Obama insisted – famously –
during the second debate that he had stated all along that the Arab
attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi was “terror” (a lie that Romney
fumbled and failed to exploit). Yet, CBS News sat on a tape of an
interview with Obama in which Obama specifically avoided and rejected
the claim of terrorism – on the day after the attack – clinging to the
canard about the video. (This snippet of a “60 Minutes” interview was
not revealed - until two days ago!) In effect, CBS News fabricated
evidence in order to harm a Republican president, and suppressed
evidence in order to help a Democratic president. Simply shameful, as
was the media’s disregard of any scandal or story that could have
jeopardized the Obama re-election.

One of the more irritating aspects of this campaign was its limited
focus, odd in light of the billions of dollars spent. Only a few
states were contested, a strategy that Romney adopted, and that
clearly failed. The Democrat begins any race with a substantial
advantage. The liberal states – like the bankrupt California and
Illinois – and other states with large concentrations of minority
voters as well as an extensive welfare apparatus, like New York, New
Jersey and others – give any Democratic candidate an almost
insurmountable edge in electoral votes. In New Jersey, for example, it
literally does not pay for a conservative to vote. It is not worth the
fuel expended driving to the polls. As some economists have pointed
generally, and it resonates here even more, the odds are greater that
a voter will be killed in a traffic accident on his way to the polls
than that his vote will make a difference in the election. It is an
irrational act. That most states are uncompetitive means that people
are not amenable to new ideas, or new thinking, or even having an open
mind. If that does not change, and it is hard to see how it can
change, then the die is cast. America is not what it was, and will
never be again.

For Jews, mostly assimilated anyway and staunch Democrats, the results
demonstrate again that liberalism is their Torah. Almost 70% voted for
a president widely perceived by Israelis and most committed Jews as
hostile to Israel. They voted to secure Obama’s future at America’s
expense and at Israel’s expense – in effect, preferring Obama to
Netanyahu by a wide margin. A dangerous time is ahead. Under present
circumstances, it is inconceivable that the US will take any
aggressive action against Iran and will more likely thwart any Israeli
initiative. That Obama’s top aide Valerie Jarrett (i.e., Iranian-born
Valerie Jarrett) spent last week in Teheran is not a good sign. The US
will preach the importance of negotiations up until the production of
the first Iranian nuclear weapon – and then state that the world must
learn to live with this new reality. As Obama has committed himself to
abolishing America’s nuclear arsenal, it is more likely that that
unfortunate circumstance will occur than that he will succeed in
obstructing Iran’s plans.

Obama’s victory could weaken Netanyahu’s re-election prospects,
because Israelis live with an unreasonable – and somewhat pathetic –
fear of American opinion and realize that Obama despises Netanyahu. A
Likud defeat – or a diminution of its margin of victory – is more
probable now than yesterday. That would not be the worst thing.
Netanyahu, in fact, has never distinguished himself by having a strong
political or moral backbone, and would be the first to cave to the
American pressure to surrender more territory to the enemy and
acquiesce to a second (or third, if you count Jordan) Palestinian
state. A new US Secretary of State named John Kerry, for example (he
of the Jewish father) would not augur well. Netanyahu remains the best
of markedly poor alternatives. Thus, the likeliest outcome of the
upcoming Israeli elections is a center-left government that will force
itself to make more concessions and weaken Israel – an Oslo III.

But this election should be a wake-up call to Jews. There is no
permanent homeland, nor is there is an enduring haven for Jews
anywhere in the exile. The most powerful empires in history all
crumbled – from the Greeks and the Romans to the British and the
Soviets. None of the collapses were easily foreseen, and yet they were
predictable in retrospect.

The American dream began to decline in 2007, and the deterioration has
been exacerbated in the last five years. This election only hastens
that decline. Society is permeated with sloth, greed, envy and
materialistic excess. It has lost its moorings and its moral
foundations. The takers outnumber the givers, and that will only
increase in years to come. Across the world, America under Bush was
feared but not respected. Under Obama, America is neither feared nor
respected. Radical Islam has had a banner four years under Obama, and
its prospects for future growth look excellent. The “Occupy” riots
across this country in the last two years were mere dress rehearsals
for what lies ahead – years of unrest sparked by the increasing
discontent of the unsuccessful who want to seize the fruits and the
bounty of the successful, and do not appreciate the slow pace of
redistribution.

Two bright sides: Notwithstanding the election results, I arose this
morning, went to shul, davened and learned Torah afterwards. That is
our reality, and that trumps all other events. Our relationship with
God matters more than our relationship with any politician, Republican
or Democrat. And, notwithstanding the problems in Israel, it is time
for Jews to go home, to Israel. We have about a decade, perhaps 15
years, to leave with dignity and without stress. Thinking that it will
always be, because it always was, has been a repetitive and deadly
mistake. America was always the land from which “positive” aliya came
– Jews leaving on their own, and not fleeing a dire situation. But
that can also change. The increase daliya in the last few years is
partly attributable to young people fleeing the high cost of Jewish
living in America. Those costs will only increase in the coming years.
We should therefore draw the appropriate conclusions.

If this election proves one thing, it is that the Old America, as we
knew it, is gone. And, sad for the world, it is not coming back.