Obama is no friend of Israel

Last year I wrote a piece that examined the stark dichotomy in political views between American and Israeli Jews. American Jews vote overwhelmingly for Democrats, and see liberal policies -- both domestic and foreign -- as largely consistent with their world view. Indeed, in the 2008 election, 78% of American Jews voted for Obama -- an outcome that was a full 10 points better than most of the pre-election polling. Contrasted with the pre-election polling of Israeli Jews, which preferred John McCain by better than 2:1, and it is clear that their is a wide gulf between the reflexive idealism of American Jews and the sober realism of their Israeli counterparts. Today we have proof that Israeli Jews understood Obama better than those in America. In a widely anticipated speech today in Cairo, Obama gave his version of Kennedy's famous "Ich bin ein Berliner" speech, pandering to Muslims by showing that he "feels their pain", apologizing for a litany of American sins, while drawing a stark moral relativism between Israeli and Palestinian violence. Indeed, Obama has now made clear that he sees Israel as just as much to blame for the continuing violence in the West Bank and Gaza, and has openly called for a "two state" solution to be the stated policy of the United States. Before he left on his trip to the Middle East -- where he pointedly chose not to visit Israel -- Obama called for a freeze on settlements in the West Bank -- a message he conveyed directly to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu last month.

For anyone paying attention, Obama's statements toward Israel are chilling -- and reflect the generally accepted belief among the left that the Palestinians are the victims and the Israelis are the aggressors.  Obama is quickly proving that old adage: with friends like these, who needs enemies?

There was much to dislike about Obama's message in Cairo, where he attempted to draw linkages between our Judeo-Christian history and Islam. It was pandering at its finest. Further, he gave this speech in Egypt -- one of the most repressive regimes in the Middle East, and spent a good portion of the speech trying to explain away our efforts to bring democracy to millions in Iraq and Afghanistan. It was yet another example of the leader of our nation taking great pains to minimize the good and noble sacrifices we have made in the name of freedom, while attempting to curry favor with regimes that continue to repress their people.

To American Jews I can only say this: you've been hoodwinked. Though you say overwhelmingly that the security of Israel is important to you, you have voted for a man who actively supports the appeasement of your terrorist enemies. By voting for Barack Obama, you have actually created a new existential threat -- that of an American administration focused on Palestinian rights and grievances, and committed to diplomacy with Iran and Syria. In one presidential election, you have done great damage to Israel -- a nation that you claim to love and cherish.

One can only hope that Benjamin Netanyahu has the moral courage to defy Obama and his appeasers; to remain steadfast in facing down the threats from Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran. It is Israel's only real hope for survival.

Sotomayor's race colored glasses

Barack Obama's selection of Sonia Sotomayor is par for the course with this president, a man who ascended the presidency on the basis of a compelling personal story and a bag full of bromides about post-partisan hope and change. Those who bought the Obama schtick may not have known it then, but they elected a hyper-partisan pol with big dreams of remaking America into a social justice utopia where the ends always justify the means. Rules -- and indeed the rule of law -- mean little in this world where grievance politics dominate, and the playing field shifts regularly to protect those suffering all manner of "discrimination" at the hands of the (white) power structure. Its typical class warfare, only this time it is practiced with extreme efficiency and on the backs of a huge Congressional left-wing majority. For those who believe that America is a meritocracy and should be truly "color-blind", the country is now being run by those who see everything through race-colored glasses. The nomination of Sotomayor is a perfect example of this. Obama picked her not because she has the finest legal mind in the country (she does not), but because of she is an Hispanic woman who has a personal history that is appealing. She grew up poor in the Bronx and worked hard, and made something of herself. She also satisfies two check boxes on the identity politics checklist -- being a woman and a minority -- which brings Obama praise from NOW and other interest groups.

Ironically, Sotomayor's story is little different than that of conservative Justice Clarence Thomas -- a point eloquently made today by Kim Strassel in the Wall Street Journal. But whereas Thomas' personal struggles led him to embrace the lesson that if "I can do it, so can others" -- Sotomayor fell firmly into victimization's clutches, where she joins a legion of other minorities in the belief that the system is arrayed against them. The irony, of course, is that the evidence of their own success from hard-scrabble beginnings has done nothing to dissuade them from their hardened belief that somehow "the man" is out to get them. This is yet another example of how facts have little bearing on the "feeling" politics practiced by the left.

Sotomayor has made it clear that her view of the world -- and the law -- is based principally on her gender and background. It is something that she feels makes her better positioned to "come to a wise decision" than is a white man who hasn't been subjected to the devastating discrimination that people like Sotomayor see lurking behind every tree. If you view America as a mean place where Hispanics, women and other minorities need protection, then I suppose this is a reasonable position to take. But is this what a Justice of the United States Supreme Court should believe? Someone appointed to intepret the Constitution for all Americans -- white, black or other? A process that, by definition, must be impartial and based on legal fact and analysis?

As it happens, a famous case of Sotomayor's from her tenure on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals is now being reviewed by the current Supreme Court -- as the Wall Street Journal outlines today in the case of the New Haven Fire Department:

With a single paragraph, Judge Sonia Sotomayor and two colleagues dashed the hopes of firefighters here who believed they'd scored high enough on exams to win a promotion.

The three federal appeals judges said last year the city had the right to reject the results of two tests because no black firefighters scored high enough.

The ruling is now turning into perhaps the most contentious of the 4,000 Judge Sotomayor made in 17 years on the federal bench, and it is likely to come up in her Supreme Court confirmation hearings. The justices whom she may soon join on the high court are expected to rule within weeks on the case, which they took on an appeal by white firefighters.

The facts of the case are as follows:

A total of 118 applicants took the two tests for promotion to lieutenant or captain in late 2003, and 59 earned passing scores. Because there were limited vacancies, only the top scorers were eligible for promotion -- a group of 17 whites, and two Hispanics. None of the 27 black firefighters with passing scores was eligible.

New Haven city lawyers advised the city's Civil Service Board to reject the results, warning the city could be exposed to a race-discrimination lawsuit by minority firefighters if it let the exam stand. The board heard conflicting views on whether the test could have been re-engineered to have a less disparate impact. It split 2-2, which meant the exam wasn't certified.

This is classic liberal social engineering at work: you give a merit based test to determine promotions and tell firefighters to study hard for it. They take the test and when the results come back in a way that you don't like, you throw the results out and say "nevermind". If no blacks and only two Hispanics scored high enough, it must be because of some discrimination at work. Let's not reward those who passed -- let's reengineer the test so more blacks and Hispanics will pass.

Sotomayor was at the heart of this decision -- stating that it was in the "state's interest" to throw out the results so that the outcome was more to her liking. And what about the white firefighters who have now been discriminated against? To Sotomayor, it doesn't matter, because she lives in a world where color matters more than principle. This is a woman who values outcomes over equality -- even if it results in a decision that is reverse discrimination.

We can take some solace that her decision in New Haven is almost certainly going to be reversed by the current Supreme Court. But it leaves little comfort that we are now poised to put this very same judge on the highest court in the land for a generation to come.

Some hard truths

Fellow conservative blogger Donald Douglas has an interesting post up that cites Robert Bork's recent book entitled: A Time To Speak:Selected Writings and Arguments. Many of you will remember Bork as having been an unfair victim of left-wing demagoguery during his 1987 Senate confirmation hearings after Ronald Reagan nominated him for the U.S. Supreme Court. Though beaten in that instance, Bork has been unbowed in using his prodigious intellectual talents to influence the national debate via his writings over the past 20 years. As Douglas recounts, Bork wrote back in 1995 with uncanny prescience in his essay Hard Truths About the Culture War that we face a real and growing threat from liberalism that is destroying our culture: Modern liberalism is most particularly a disease of our cultural elites, the people who control the institutions that manufacture or disseminate ideas, attitudes, and symbols-universities, some churches, Hollywood, the national press (print and electronic), much of the congressional Democratic party and some of the congressional Republicans as well, large sections of the judiciary, foundation staffs, and almost all the "public interest" organizations that exercise a profound if largely unseen effect on public policy. So pervasive is the influence of those who occupy the commanding heights of our culture that it is not entirely accurate to call the United States a majoritarian democracy. The elites of modern liberalism do not win all the battles, but despite their relatively small numbers, they win more than their share and move the culture always in one direction ....

What we are seeing in modern liberalism is the ultimate triumph of the New Left of the 1960s - the New Left that collapsed as a unified political movement and splintered into a multitude of intense, single-issue groups. We now have, to name but a few, radical feminists, black extremists, animal rights groups, radical environmentalists, activist homosexual groups, multiculturalists, People for the American Way, Planned Parenthood, the American Civil Liberties Union, and many more. In a real sense, however, the New Left did not collapse. Each of its splinters pursues a leftist agenda, but there is no publicly announced overarching philosophy that enables people to see easily that the separate groups and causes add up to a general radical left philosophy. The groups support one another and come together easily on many issues. In that sense, the splintering of the New Left made it less visible and therefore more powerful, its goals more attainable, than ever before.

In their final stages, radical egalitarianism becomes tyranny and radical individualism descends into hedonism. These translate as bread and circuses. Government grows larger and more intrusive in order to direct the distribution of goods and services in an ever more equal fashion, while people are diverted, led to believe that their freedoms are increasing, by a great variety of entertainments featuring violence and sex ...

As Douglas also notes, the "splintered" left-wing groups that Bork described in 1995 look a lot like the various liberal organizations that have now organized to make change within the Obama Administration.

An excellent example of this can be found in Ben Smith's recent article at Politico.com entitled: Unity '09 -- Dem Groups Quietly Align:

A broad coalition of left-leaning groups is quietly closing ranks into a new coalition, "Unity '09," aimed at helping President Barack Obama push his agenda through Congress.

Conceived at a New York meeting before the November election, two Democrats familiar with the planning said, Unity '09 will draw together money and grassroots organizations to pressure lawmakers in their home states to back White House legislation and other progressive causes.

The online-based MoveOn.org is a central player in the nascent organization, but other groups involved in planning Unity '09 span a broad spectrum of interests, from the American Civil Liberties Union to the National Council of La Raza to Planned Parenthood, as well as labor unions and environmental groups.

The obvious point to be made here is that the most radical of left-wing interest groups are organizing to have a major impact on public policy in the Obama White House. What follows logically from this is a pro-choice, pro-illegal immigration, pro-tort/pro-defendant and pro-union orientation that will systematically weaken the foundation of our nation and our economy. Just today, for example, it was revealed that estimates for Obama's "Cap and Trade" environmental protection regime will cost the economy well over $1 trillion over the next several years -- a huge tax on business in the name of satisfying the global warming alarmists who seek curbs on carbon at any cost.

With the Obama presidency we have opened the West Wing to the worst kind of single-minded interest groups -- for whom the word "compromise" and "in the national interest" have absolutely no meaning. There is no quid-pro-quo among the true believers, who have organized their lives around unyielding belief in the importance of a single issue -- be it abortion, immigration, torture, civil liberties or the environment.  For these disciples, there is no second place  -- total victory is the only option.  And for those of us who believe in open, honest debate, this is a hard truth, indeed.

The Obama Bowl

What exactly is the connection between NBC and President Obama?  Is it simply a case of mutual love and abiding devotion?  The Super Bowl coverage by NBC looked as much like a post-inauguration celebration as it did a football game.  The Obama interview aired right before the game was a first in Super Bowl history if my recollections are intact, and it was an effective way to get in America's face and remind us that as much as we love our Super Bowl's, we need to be gently prompted to love our new president with equal passion and enthusiasm.  As President Obama tossed out a big howdy to troops in Iraq, I wonder how many of them will actually not be home next year to watch the Super Bowl, but will be reassigned to Afghanistan instead.  The pronouncement was good PR, even if it ends up not being quite correct.  The Super Bowl is a day of hero worship; incredible focus and agility of quarterbacks, amazing speed and fancy footwork of running backs, bone-cracking strength of linemen, and of course, greatness in leadership of presidents.  NBC did their best to create a seamless link between athletic prowess and political greatness.

VISIO television even paid big money for an ad within which they gave the prez a favorable nod on his stimulus package.  The sitcom, The Office, which aired right after the game gave a cozy familiarity to its relationship with the president by calling him "Barack".   The musical entertainers were all avid Obama campaign supporters.

When the owner of the Steelers thanked the president for his years of support of the team, the message was sent, "If you are a Steelers fan, you automatically support Obama." 

There were lots of free endorsements intertwined with an event that is typically non-partisan.  During the previous eight years Super Bowl Sunday was not a day-long love fest with the sitting president.  It was clear yesterday that to be a Super Bowl fan, it was hip to be an Obama fan. 

I think most Americans HOPED yesterday would be a day to relax with family and friends, indulge in favorite food and drink and prepare to be entertained by some smash-mouth football.  Super Bowl is our holiday.  We wanted a day off from the typical media blitz of doom and gloom and the onslaught of propaganda of how much we need the government to soothe our wounds.  We got our money's worth out of the game, for sure.  Both the Steelers and the Cardinals put on quite a performance.  Most of us were not expecting NBC's overt agenda, steering us into the belief that whenever the country is having fun and engaging in an enjoyable activity, we should be ever mindful of our president.  Looks like CHANGE has taken over the Super Bowl, too.

Here's hoping we survive Obama

When Bill Clinton was elected President in 1992, I could see nothing to cheer about. A friend calmly assured me that "The Republic will survive." He was right, but only because enough Americans concluded that Clinton must be opposed. We now face the same challenge with the ascension (if that is the right word) of Barack Obama as the 44^th person to hold the nation’s highest office. In plain words, what made the Clinton Administration endurable was the election of a Republican Congress in 1994, which gave substance to vague talk of fiscal responsibility and even gave us the greatest reform of the welfare system in our history.

Naturally enough, the media are full of sophomoric enthusiasm for the new president, but this is hardly surprising, given the fact that 90 percent of the national media are Democrats. Under the circumstances, Republican criticism is muted, one hopes only until the first Obama policy proposals are put forward in Congress or implemented by executive order.

For make no mistake, this administration will constitute a comprehensive assault on the "flawed" regime which Obama wishes to "transform" into the perfect polity wherein, as he said in front of the Lincoln Memorial Sunday, "anything is possible." The idea that there are limits to what can be accomplished by political action has never occurred to the man raised in the soiled world of Chicago politics.

Our constitutional republic will be subjected to what a close friend has called "the death of a thousand cuts." Because Obama’s liberalism is not endorsed by a majority of Americans, because many voted for him because they were so angry at George Bush, and because his cabinet choices are reassuringly "moderate," i.e., Clinton Administration retreads, public attention is deflected from the seemingly vacuous but actually pernicious utopian rhetoric of the political campaign.

Obama knows how to make the right music that appeals to the hopes of his fellow citizens, but only those who can read music, as it were, can know with precision what the melody is. Lots of rock ‘n roll, country and soul music was played in the joyful celebrations that marked the Inauguration, but perhaps the real strain is Wagnerian tragic opera.

It is hardly a secret that Obama is the most vociferously pro-abortion president ever. For those who think Evangelical Protestants, Roman Catholics and Mormons–and anyone else who takes seriously the principle that all men are created equal–can safely be ignored as fringe elements, it is almost rude to point out that they understand that our rights are in peril.

More unborn babies are going to die each year during the next four, perhaps eight, than in the history of the country. Obama has pledged to sign a vile piece of legislation dishonestly labeled the "Freedom of Choice Act," which would effectively remove every federal and state limit on the judicially imposed "right" to kill unborn babies.

That is not all. Obama will reverse Ronald Reagan’s policy which forbids funding for abortion overseas, and he will overturn George Bush’s ban on embryonic stem cell "research" that entails the destruction of human embryos. As Abraham Lincoln said about slavery, we must daily "crucify our feelings" about baby killing because it is permitted by law and even hallowed by an alleged constitutional interpretation of the U.S. Supreme Court.

The greatest aspect of the current euphoria over Obama arises from his being the first American of any degree of African descent to be elected President. Many words have been written about how this will give peace to our nation in that no legal or other barriers prevented it. All of that is true as far as it goes, but there is no assurance whatever that racial peace will occur.

The Democratic Party has for more than 40 years been the advocate of reverse discrimination, known variously as "affirmative action," "diversity in hiring," remediation of past wrongs, and so on. Even if Obama wanted to end the "temporary" policy purported to be necessary to overcome many years of racial injustice, Congressional Democrats would not hear of it. There are too many people, especially well-connected people, who benefit from the liberal racial plantation for there to be any motivation to close it down.

Our commerce, so damaged by government manipulation of credit and currency, will hardly recover from Obama’s policies of even greater doses of interventionism that brought on the sickness in the first place. There is insufficient space here to discuss the perilous times ahead in the international arena, but for now "sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof."