Will we see the end of Israel? I guess it comes down to which side of Obama will win out: his Christian side or his Muslim side. Israelis are nervous, even considering the above picture of the President on “the phone with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as an “insult” to Israel.”
They saw the incident as somewhat akin to an incident last year, when the Iraqi reporter threw a shoe at President Bush in Baghdad.
It is considered an insult in the Arab world to show the sole of your shoe to someone. It is not a Jewish custom necessarily, but Israel feels enough a part of the Middle East after 60 years to be insulted too.
Was there a subliminal message intended from the White House to Netanyahu in Jerusalem, who is publicly resisting attempts by Mr. Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to force Israel to stop any kind of settlement activity in occupied territories once and forever?
Whether or not it is true, it shows the mood in Israel. They feel cornered. The reactions out of Israel reflect that feeling.
Besides showing a lack of respect for the Presidency (the leader of the free world looks like a stock broker), is the President showing the soles of his shoes sending a message to Israel? His Muslim side along with the Muslim world understand it’s significance.
But that’s the least of Israel’s problems. Dick Morris:
From Caroline Glick, deputy editor and op-ed writer for the Jerusalem Post, comes alarming news. An expert on Arab-Israeli relations with excellent sources deep inside Netanyahu’s government, she reports that CIA chief Leon Panetta, who recently took time out from his day job (feuding with Nancy Pelosi) to travel to Israel “read the riot act” to the government warning against an attack on Iran.
More ominously, Glick reports (likely from sources high up in the Israeli government) that the Obama administration has all but accepted as irreversible and unavoidable fact that Iran will soon develop nuclear weapons. She writes, “…we have learned that the [Obama] administration has made its peace with Iran’s nuclear aspirations. Senior administration officials acknowledge as much in off-record briefings. It is true, they say, that Iran may exploit its future talks with the US to run down the clock before they test a nuclear weapon. But, they add, if that happens, the US will simply have to live with a nuclear-armed mullocracy.”
Have you heard the new “talk” from the Obama Administration? The new thing is that Iran should be able to build nuclear power for energy. This is Obama-speak that it will not lift a finger to stop Iran from developing nuclear weaponry.
The consequences of Obama’s “let’s let Iran have nukes” policy? Dick Morris continues:
All this means is that Israel’s life is in danger. If Iran gets the bomb, it will use it to kill six million Jews. No threat of retaliation will make the slightest difference. One cannot deter a suicide bomber with the threat of death. Nor can one deter a theocracy bent on meriting admission to heaven and its virgins by one glorious act of violence. Iran would probably not launch the bomb itself, anyway, but would give it to its puppet terrorists to send to Israel so it could deny responsibility. Obama, bent on appeasement, would likely not retaliate with nuclear weapons. And Israel will be dead and gone…
…Obama may have held the first White House cedar, but he’s not planning to spend next year in Jerusalem.
Joe Biden has been a gaffe machine – but this comment by him is right on the mark: “Remember I said it standing here if you don’t remember anything else I said. Watch, we’re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy [Obama]…I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate.”
I can also give you a scenario where it might originate.
The Republican Party is in the midst of finding itself again. There is of course disagreement as to how to get there, and that can be a good thing. The primary struggle is whether to reaffirm it’s conservative soul or to meander into the middle of things. But there is also disagreement among conservatives as to what defines conservatism.
The Reagan coalition of traditional social issues, limited government, and a strong military is in danger of unraveling. There is a push within the conservative camp to drop social issues like abortion and gay marriage.
Maura Flynn is one such person who has made a Republican case for gay marriage featured on Big Hollywood. This is in response to her argument. I ask you to also read it – to give her a just hearing.
Maura introduces this issue:
One need only read the comments on this site to know that there are two fundamental schools of thought here. Some of us believe that to be conservative is to defend freedom, preserve individual liberty, and keep government small. Others believe that being conservative is about electing a government that will defend and enforce “traditional” values.
For our purposes here, a list of those values isn’t relevant.
Now, that’s quite a statement! I wonder what Maura would have felt about controversial issues like slavery, woman’s suffrage, and civil rights?
I am always cautious of folks who try to define people and I find her definitions a little offensive. You see, I am one of those “traditional values” conservatives. I believe in defending our freedoms and liberties that are so rare in the world today. My parents escaped from communist Hungary while my mother was three months pregnant with me, wanting to insure that I had a future in THE land of freedom – of which I am in deep gratitude.
To keep the light of freedom strong we must “defend freedom, preserve individual liberty, and keep government small.” But I am also committed that these same individual liberties must apply to all Americans including the unborn, that the traditional family is the building block of society and is essential in preserving our national liberty, and care for the poor and those in need which promotes individual liberty without slavery to the State.
What I don’t think Maura understands is that while she is not in the “traditional values” camp, it doesn’t mean her position is without the “values” label. In her support of gay marriage, she is in fact a non-traditional values supporter. There is a value, ethic, or morality in every decision, action, or piece of legislation. It’s not whether or not “values,” everyone is in a “values” camp – it just matters what camp they are in.
So, what is Maura’s case for gay marriage? The summation of her argument is this:
Looked at from this perspective, gay marriage isn’t a complex issue. Science aside, one needn’t believe that homosexuality is moral in order to understand that nowhere does the Constitution give the federal government the right to regulate marriage.
I know she misses the point that there are already government restrictions on marriage. We know that a person who marries people must be registered with the state, and it is very much involved in the matters of divorce.
But let me say that overall, I agree with Maura – and her position will be the number one point in my case for traditional marriage!
Please also understand that my intention is the support of the institution of traditional marriage, and not in anyway reflective of the gay community itself.
1) Nowhere does the Constitution give the federal government the right to regulate marriage
Thank you Maura! I strongly affirm that the government doesn’t have the right to regulate marriage, which also includes redefining marriage. Marriage has always been defined as a relationship between a man and a women, in all times, cultures, and all places. It is not up to the State to control and redefine our social institutions.
Maura states that conservatives should defend freedom and preserve individual liberty, but never states the basis of this freedom and liberty, and who is the granter of them. This makes all the difference in the world: and all the difference in our approach for a Republican case for traditional marriage.
Which takes us to point two.
2) The Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God
Our freedoms are the fruit of Western Civilization, which determined that God is above the State, therefore freedoms are granted by God and not the State. Jefferson penned in the Declaration of Independence that the justification “for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle[d] them.”
Jefferson’s appeal to Natural Law and Nature’s God is the foundational reason for our existence, the understanding of ourselves and our freedoms.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
This same Natural Law and Nature’s God who is the granter of our freedoms also defines that marriage itself is between a man and a woman, and along with the fruit of that relationship (children), is the foundation of the family in every culture, everywhere, and at all times.
3) The traditional family is the foundation of our society and therefore our freedoms – it needs our support now more than ever
In order to foster and maintain our freedoms, the traditional family must be the building block of our society. Only the traditional family has the ability to foster children and perpetuate itself. But there is more: the greatest solution to poverty and therefore self reliance is – the family! A loving and stable marriage is the greatest gift that you can give to your children. The instillation of religious faith, the provision of love and discipline, the teaching of what is right and wrong, modeling a strong work ethic, and the development of integrity and character – will give children advantages that money can never buy.
But children need both a father and a mother. It take two to make a child, it also takes two to raise a child. A child’s self esteem is tied directly to a father’s love and acceptance, and a mother’s love and nurture.
But it does go further than that: a stable and loving family is also a great deterrent to dependence and encroachment of the State within our culture. This is the reason why those who want to advocate the State within our culture, advocate policies that break down the traditional family.
4) Legalizing gay marriage will result in tyranny
This doesn’t mean the gay community will be the source of this tyranny. But there will be those (like the ACLU) who will use gay marriage as the issue in their attacks against churches, synagogues, and mosques.
As we have already seen in Massachusetts, the Catholic Church is no longer involved in adopting needy children to loving families because of their position on gay marriage. This will continue, and there will come a time when churches, synagogues and mosques will be forced to recognize gay marriage or pay the price.
4) Legalizing gay marriage will result in the ever declining spiral of redefining marriage
In the years and decades to come, there will be a declining spiral in the redefinition of marriage. There are already polygamist organizations lobbying that if gay marriage is legal, why not polygamy? I firmly believe that polygamy will be legal in states like Nevada and Utah – and why not? If you can redefine marriage, who then controls the definitions?
There will come a time that any grouping of people can be considered a “marriage,” until it will become absolutely meaningless.
5) The traditional family is a winning issue!
Support for the traditional family as the definition of marriage is overwhelming. In every state that put the issue up for ballot, it has won – even in California. Conversely, in every state where gay marriage is legal, it was the result of judicial decisions or legislation.
Barack Obama of course is a very savvy politician – and he supports traditional marriage.
So why are there conservatives so willing to surrender on this issue? I know there are many reasons, but I think there is one that stands tall from all the rest: they simply do not want to go through the wrath that Carrie Prejean and Sarah Palin for that matter – had to endure.
I have learned from Ronald Reagan that to be a conservative is not just having the right ideas, it’s having the courage to act on those ideas. I encourage my fellow conservatives to do the same. I hope that I will never have to say – “I never left the Republican Party – it left me.”
Let’s have some fun. Imagine if Sarah Palin was Secretary of State, and she is in Hillary’s place on her trip to Europe. She is at a conference in Brussels, and during her speech, she comments as Hillary did – “Clinton told young Europeans at the European Parliament that global economic turmoil provided a fresh opening. “Never waste a good crisis … Don’t waste it when it can have a very positive impact on climate change and energy security.”
Now I wonder…how would the media respond to that comment, if it was Sarah who gave it? I mean admitting that she would use a “crisis” as an advantage, instead of getting people on board with an intelligent plan. (Of course her boss is doing that now). Never waste a good crisis, Clinton says on climate
As Sarah is answering questions, she responds as Hillary – “when she answered questions in front of 500 young Europeans at the European Parliament, where she was the highest-ranking U.S. visitor since the late U.S. President Ronald Reagan in 1985.
A veteran politician, Clinton compared the complex European political environment to that of the two-party U.S. system, before adding:
“I have never understood multiparty democracy.
“It is hard enough with two parties to come to any resolution, and I say this very respectfully, because I feel the same way about our own democracy, which has been around a lot longer than European democracy.”
The remark provoked much headshaking in the parliament of a bloc that likes to trace back its democratic tradition thousands of years to the days of classical Greece.
One working lunch later with EU leaders, Clinton raised more eyebrows when she referred to EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana, who stood beside her, as “High Representative Solano.”
She also dubbed European Commission External Relations Commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner as “Benito.”
Hillary represents the most powerful democracy in the world, and yet she is totally unaware of the history of democracy! (That is pretty telling in itself, isn’t it?). But then to admit that she doesn’t understand Europe’s multi-party system – you’re the Secretary of State! I know Hillary is supposed to be really smart and all, but how would folks respond if it was Sarah who admitted this ignorance? Remember Katie Couric?
And then call poor Benita – Bonito: does she look like Mussolini to you?
Tongue-tied Clinton gets warm EU welcome
The President has just been embarrassed by Russian leadership, by not only exposing a secret letter sent by Obama, but disregarding it entirely. It would be up to Sarah not only represent the United States with dignity, but follow this slight with competence and professionalism.
She wants to start off the meeting with a gift as did Hillary – “Note to self: When trying to improve ties with a former Cold War-era foe, check a dictionary.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton learned that lesson the hard way Friday when she presented Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov with a gift bearing an incorrect translation — one that implied hostility, rather than peacemaking.
Clinton presented Lavrov with a gift-wrapped red button, which said “Reset” in English and “Peregruzka” in Russian. The problem was, “peregruzka” doesn’t mean reset. It means overcharged, or overloaded.
And Lavrov called her out on it.
“We worked hard to get the right Russian word. Do you think we got it?” Clinton asked Lavrov.
“You got it wrong,” Lavrov said. “This says ‘peregruzka,’ which means overcharged.”
Again, I know that Hillary is supposed to be really smart and all, and is supposed to have all this experience that she could be president: but can’t she get one word right? She is representing the United States of America – not the PTA!
May I ask – does it have to be Russia? Again I ask: of all countries, does it have to be Russia?
And what about the gift itself? It looks like something made in a middle school shop class – even a memento from the Elvis museum would have been better.
I am sitting back and wondering: how would this blunder appear if it was Sarah? What would the network media, cable media, left-wing blogoshere, late night guys and liberal funny people do
with all this information? I can assure you they wouldn’t be spending all this time on Rush Limbaugh.