web analytics
December 11, 2016 / 11 Kislev, 5777

Posts Tagged ‘white’

Obama Plans to Rule America Outside the White House

Tuesday, November 29th, 2016

{Originally Published in FrontPageMag}

Barack Obama has two faces. After Trump’s victory and Hillary’s defeat, the public Obama has been gracious and diplomatic. His lectures to Trump, directly and indirectly, are couched in praise. He echoed the feeling of millions on both sides when he said, “We are now all rooting for his success”.

That’s a lie. Or rather a disguise.

Obama and his aides had, in one insider narrative, decided to don the “mask of decorum”. The contempt for Trump still seeps through the mask. And the mask hides Obama’s next big move.

President Obama is over. He knows that. There are still some things that he can do before he leaves office, but everything except the most destructive, can be undone by his successor. The next phase of his campaign will not be fought from the White House. It will be fought against the White House .

The other Obama is emerging in conference calls with his supporters. “One of the challenges that I’ve discovered being president is I’d like to be organizer-in-chief, but it’s hard,” he said in one call.

Obama can no longer be commander-in-chief. Instead he’s plotting to become organizer-in-chief.

The infrastructure for the organization was put into place long before anyone thought that Hillary might lose. Organizing for Action gave him his own organizing hub. If Hillary had won, it would have been a pressure group.  Now that Trump won, it’s an axis to build a personal counterrevolution around.

In his post-election conference call with his OFA troops, Obama told them, “I’m giving you like a week and a half to get over it”. Then it would be time to “move forward not only to protect what we’ve accomplished, but also to see this as an opportunity”. What opportunity could there be in Trump’s win?

Obama is now the only major national figure still standing among the Democrats. After Hillary’s defeat, he’s worked hard to attribute the loss to her shortcomings, not his policies and decisions.  That’s not just to soothe his ego. If he’s going to dictate the future of his party, he can’t afford to be blamed for its latest disaster. And Obama is still determined to dictate the future of the party and the country.

In conventional politics, Obama is done. There’s no way back into the White House. And Hillary’s fate won’t leave much enthusiasm for nominating the uncharismatic spouse of a charismatic ex-president.

But Obama is not a conventional politician. He’s an organizer and a campaigner at the vanguard of a radical movement that seeks to control traditional institutions, but doesn’t feel bound by them. Unlike Bill Clinton, his plans don’t begin and end with the White House. As an organizer, Obama is equipped to build bases of power outside traditional institutions. And that is exactly what he is doing.

The demoralization of the Democrats is, as Obama put it, an opportunity. Social chaos is a time for the left to overthrow and undermine traditional institutions. Fear, anger and despair are radicalizing. The left has always operated by throwing bombs and then profiting from the fallout. That’s Obama’s agenda. Having wrecked the country and the Democrats, he sees that not as a setback, but as an opportunity.

“The network that you represent, you’re perfectly poised to do that,” Obama told his OFAers.  “In other words, now is the time for some organizing.”

While the leftist rioters in the streets are garnering the most attention, the real threat comes from the network of staffers dubbed Obama Anonymous which are beginning to organize and coordinate. OFA is Obama’s equivalent of the Clinton Foundation. The Clintons built Clintonworld around staffers, but its goal was harvesting money. Obama Inc. is being built around organizing and activism. Like Clintonworld, it will be a network encompassing a variety of political and non-profit institutions. Unlike them, it will be much less focused on directing money to its bosses in preparation for an election. Instead it will function like a traditional leftist movement, merging influence operations with crowdsourced mobilization.

OFA will be far more dangerous in the wild than the Clinton Foundation ever was. The Clintons hoped to ride back to power on a giant wave of money. Obama is taking a much more radical course.

The staffers exiting government are being wired into Obama Inc. whether or not they take jobs directly working for him. The OFA alumni are building networks across organizations while taking their marching orders from him. They expect Obama to lead them back from the wilderness and into the halls of power.

 He’s told them so.

“I’m going to be constrained in what I do with all of you until I am again a private citizen.  But that’s not so far off,” he assured them. “I’m still fired up and I’m still ready to go.” His next comments promised that radical political change could and would take place.

Obama isn’t going to retire. He’s not going to spend years puttering around with a presidential library. He’s not even going to set up a Clintonesque slush fund and try to make his wife president. Instead he wants to force radical change from outside the White House by using the network he’s built.

While the public Obama wraps up business at the White House, concludes yet another world tour, alternating between praising Trump and offering him condescending advice, the other Obama is preparing to deploy a network that will dominate the Dems and set the agenda on the left.

If Obama succeeds, then he will get another shot at picking his White House successor. But beyond that, he’s been handed the keys to an organizing machine that will allow him to set even more of the agenda for his party than ever before. And he has a cause that is sending the party reeling back into his arms.

Obama believes that he can rule America from outside the White House. And he might be right.

Political norms and old rules have been falling faster than leaves in an autumn wind. If Obama sets out to move the center of power outside the White House and into an organization that will control national politics through the left, it would be dangerous to assume that he can’t and won’t succeed.

The Democrats didn’t respond to their defeat, one of a sequence, by trying to move to the center. Instead there is every sign that they are moving further to the left. Keith Ellison, a radical leftist with an anti-Semitic past, is tipped to head the DNC. Schumer still has the Senate, but Elizabeth Warren may have it before too long. Combine that with Obama as the president-in-exile and the Dems will be more radical and extremist than they were even when Obama was sitting in the White House.

The Democrats are ceasing to be a national party. Instead they are becoming a nationalizing party. They are losing their presence in much of the country, from state legislature to state legislature, and becoming the party of major cities and the national government. Their agenda is to move power from local areas to central ones, from the villages and the suburbs to the cities, from states to D.C. and from locally elected legislators in D.C. to the satellite bureaucracies of the Federal government.

Obama sees Hillary’s defeat as an opportunity to burn the Dem’s last bridges with the larger country and its “bitter clingers”, to double down on nationalizing power and to define the political narrative around the agendas of urban elites. The left crippled the Democrats. Now it wants to utterly consume them.

Barack Obama is still being vague and coy about his plans. He informs reporters that he will attack Trump when it comes to “core questions about our values and ideals”. But the “faithful” are getting much clearer signals. “You’re going to see me early next year, and we’re going to be in a position where we can start cooking up all kinds of great stuff to do.”

The election was a catastrophic disaster for the Democrats, but it opened all sorts of doors for Obama.

Hillary’s defeat removes the Clintons, his only real internal rivals, off the stage. Trump’s triumph in working class areas cuts more ties with the traditional Dem base and transforms it into a party of left-wing urban elites and their radical agendas. And the popular figures on the left, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Keith Ellison, lack his national stature, speaking skills and organization.

Obama will move to consolidate the left. And then the Democrats. He will function as a president-in-exile heading up the opposition to Trump. When it comes to verbally challenging Trump, Obama will be more likely to be interviewed and heard than Ellison or Schumer. And his people will coordinate responses across the left from street level organizing to think tanks and policy moves.

Some of it is ego.

Obama believes that he can find the key to beating Trump in the traditional tactics of the left. But most is ideology and power. Obama is not done transforming America. And America isn’t done with him yet.

Daniel Greenfield

Eisenhower And Nasser: The Alliance That Wasn’t: An Interview with Former White House Adviser Michael Doran

Thursday, November 10th, 2016

 If the U.S. were only more understanding of Arab grievances, our position in the Middle East would vastly improve. So goes a popular theory. Crafting foreign policy based on this premise has repeatedly failed, but many politicians seem mysteriously drawn to it nonetheless.

One of the first to chase this chimera was President Dwight Eisenhower. As former White House adviser Michael Doran writes in a new book, “Ike’s Gamble: America’s Rise to Dominance in the Middle East” (Free Press), Eisenhower believed that propping up Egyptian leader Gamal Abdel Nasser in the 1950s at the expense of Great Britain and Israel would convince him to ally with the U.S. against the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Nasser had other ideas, though. He took all the U.S. aid he could get and then turned to the Soviet Union. A decade later, he tried destroying Israel in the Six-Day War.

Doran, a senior director in the National Security Council under George W. Bush from 2005-2007, currently serves as a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute where he specializes in Middle East security issues.

The Jewish Press: According to your book, the United States essentially built Nasser into the powerful Arab leader he became. Please explain.

Doran: When Eisenhower came to power in 1953, there were 80,000 British troops in the Suez Canal zone and the Egyptians and the British were on the brink of a war. The United States thought if war broke out, it would find itself on the side of a dying European imperialism suppressing Arab nationalism, which would be disastrous, it thought, for the Cold War. So, to make a long story short, what Eisenhower did is force the British to get out of Egypt, which handed Nasser his first big political victory.

Two years later, during the Suez Crisis in 1956 – when Israel, Britain, and France attacked Egypt – Eisenhower again handed Nasser a victory by bringing Britain to the brink of economic ruin. Nasser had very cleverly filled boats with concrete and sunk them in the Suez Canal, and then, working with his allies in Syria, he blew up the oil pipeline running from Iraq to the Mediterranean. Sixty-six percent of Europe’s oil went through the Suez Canal and the other 33 percent went through this pipeline, so Nasser managed to cut off all the oil to the British. But when Anthony Eden, who was the prime minister of Britain, asked Eisenhower for North American supplies of oil, Eisenhower said “No.” The markets got wind of this and the bottom dropped out of the pound.

So Eisenhower used extreme economic measures to force the British and French out of Egypt and then put very powerful diplomatic pressure on the Israelis to evacuate the Sinai with almost no concessions by the Egyptians. These moves handed Nasser an incredible political victory over the three enemies of Arab nationalism, if you will, and turned him into a figure of mythic power in the Arab world.

You write that we didn’t just support Nasser diplomatically; we actually provided him with propaganda expertise.

Yes, that’s one of the most surprising and fascinating aspects of the miscalculation. Behind the scenes, the CIA started treating Nasser as a close ally of the United States even before the agreement between the British and the Egyptians of October 1954. Nasser duped the Americans. He understood how important he was to them – that they really needed an Arab ally who would help them organize the Arab world [against the Soviets], and he led the Americans to believe that he was going to play that role.

So Eisenhower and Dulles, the secretary of state, started giving Nasser all kinds of support that they should’ve withheld until they really knew where he stood in the Cold War. They gave him beneficial press in Western outlets we had influence over; they gave him the most powerful broadcasting equipment in the Middle East; and they actually sent Paul Linebarger, who was an expert on black propaganda, to Egypt to help develop the content of Nasser’s propaganda.

There was a revolution in communications taking place in the Middle East at the time, and the transistor radio allowed an Arab leader with a powerful broadcasting system to beam his voice into every household in the Arab world. Nasser was the first to capitalize on that, and the United States helped him.

And despite all this help, Nasser nevertheless turned to the Soviet Union.

Correct. By September of 1955 – that’s just one year after the Americans helped Nasser get all the British troops out of Egypt – Nasser brokered the Soviet-Egyptian arms deal and received a huge amount of weaponry from the Soviet Union. Then Nasser turned his propaganda machine to the Arab world and said that we, the Egyptians, are working with the Soviets to drive the British from the region and defeat Israel. In general, Nasser took our broadcasting equipment and used it to broadcast anti-American and anti-Israeli propaganda, which destabilized the Arab allies of the West in the Cold War, particularly Jordan and Iraq.

So the theory Eisenhower had when he first came into office – that by distancing himself from his allies he was going to open up a space for cooperation between the United States and Egypt – [was incorrect] and what actually happened was he opened up a space for Soviet-Egyptian cooperation and destabilization of the whole Middle East.

We didn’t turn off our propaganda support for Nasser, though, until March of ’56.

Why did we wait so long?

One of the more interesting aspects of the story is the role Nasser’s anti-Israel policies played in his relations with the United States. When Nasser made the arms deal with the Soviets in September of 1955, he managed to convince the Americans that it wasn’t a move against them, and he does that by playing the Israel card. He tells them he has to get weapons from the Soviet Union in order to defend himself against Israel, which he depicts as extremely aggressive.

He says, “Look, I’m a moderate, but I’m surrounded by extremists and the extremists expect me to defend Egypt against Israeli aggression. If I don’t accept these arms from the Soviet Union, they will topple me, and you’ll get then somebody’s who’s more extreme than me. So you should play along with me and allow me to do this.”

And the Americans bought it because they themselves came into power with the sense that Israel was an albatross around their neck and that Israel was the source of their problems in the Arab world. They bought it to such an extreme that their response to the Soviet-Egyptian arms deal in ’55 was funding for the Aswan High Dam, which was Nasser’s flagship development project. So Nasser aligned with the Soviet Union, and the United States responded by offering him a huge gift.

Nasser may have ultimately duped us, as you put it, but he is hardly the only Arab leader to have done so over the years. Time and again, Arab leaders have smiled while saying one thing to U.S. officials and then doing something completely different afterward. Don’t Western leaders realize Arab leaders operate in what might be called a culture of deviousness?

Elliot Resnick

Older White Men are the Most Politically Balanced Demographic By Far

Monday, November 7th, 2016

{Originally posted to the author’s website, FirstOne Through}

Political pundits have been calling out White, uneducated old men as racists and the sole fringe backers of Republican candidates.  They suggest that women, minorities and the young are much more balanced and thoughtful in their choice of political preference and affiliation.

They are lying to you.

Look at the actual numbers from the 2012 election:

By Gender:  Men split for Romney by 52%/45% (7 point difference), while women voted for Obama by 55/44 (11 point difference). Men were more balanced than women in considering their candidate.

By Race: Whites voted for Romney by a 59%/39% margin (20% difference), while blacks voted for Obama 93/6 (87% difference), Hispanics for Obama 71/27 (44% difference) and Asians 73/26 (47% difference). Whites voted in a more balanced way than minority groups.

By Age: The young were the most unbalanced in their support for Obama. People aged 18-29 chose Obama 60%/37% (23% difference), while the other groups, 30-44 picked Obama 52/45 (7% apart), 45-64 year-olds chose Romney 51/47 (4% difference) and 65 and over chose Romney by 56/44 (12% difference). The older working class (aged 45-64) were the most balanced in their votes for the candidates.

Education: The most uneducated people picked Obama by the widest margin. Those with some high school picked Obama 64%/35% (29% difference), compared to high school graduates picking Obama 51/48 (3% difference), those with some college chose Obama 49/48 (1% difference), college graduates picked Romney (51%/47% (4% differential), while those postgraduate work picked Obama 55/42 (13% difference).

Marital Status: Married people voted for Romney by 54/39 (15% split), versus singles for Obama by 56/35 (21% difference). Interestingly, white non-married people were perfectly balanced (45%/45%), but non-white non-married people almost exclusively voted for Obama (80%/11%).  Married people, and non-married white people were more evenly divided.

The most unbalanced group in the 2012 election were uneducated young single black women, who almost exclusively voting for Obama.  The most evenly split group were older, working, married white men with some college education, who split very evenly for the two candidates.

But the liberal press continued along a narrative that old racist white men are the last holdouts for the Republican party.  They make it sound that there aren’t real and legitimate policy differences between Democrats and Republicans – just people that are progressive-thinking and those that are racists.

This characterization started in earnest in 2008, when Barack Obama was running for president.  He said that some people “get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.” In July 2016, Democrat Nancy Pelosi continued the same white male-bashing theme that “non-college-educated white males have voted Republican. They voted against their own economic interests because of guns, because of gays, and because of God, the three G’s, God being the woman’s right to choose.

nancy-pelosi

Liberals paint all white men in a monolithic camp, even though they are actually the only demographic that doesn’t have a knee-jerk reaction to vote in a simplified and unified manner.  If Republicans would speak about single African-Americans in such a fashion (and there is statistical reason to do so), there would be a loud uproar.

Liberals biased treatment of white men is a gross disservice to genuine debate about how to govern and put in place policies that serve all Americans. In the 2016 election, where the candidates have only exchanged barbs about being “fit to serve,” the American people have truly been robbed of thoughtful discussion of important issues.


Related First.One.Through articles:

Political Pinatas: Populist Greed Meets Populist Anger

An Open Letter to Non-Anti-Semitic Sanders Supporters

George Soros’ Left Wing Lobbying Dwarfs Goldman Sachs and the NRA

Liberals’ Biggest Enemies of 2015

Liberal Hypocrisy on Foreign Government Intervention

Libertarian Validation and Absolution

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through  Israel Analysis

Paul Gherkin

Whoops! White House Pivots On Jerusalem

Thursday, October 6th, 2016

Although the phrase “Jerusalem, Israel” fairly rolls off the tongue, no U.S. administration has ever recognized any part of Jerusalem as being part of Israel.

This counterintuitive policy has resulted in much silliness as events, particularly since the 1967 Six-Day War, have simply overtaken the reasons for not considering all of Jerusalem the capital of Jerusalem.

Last week the funeral of former Israeli president Shimon Peres on Mt. Herzl was the stage for the latest such episode. Thus, the first White House announcement releasing the transcript of President Obama’s eulogy listed, at the top of page one, the cemetery’s location as Jerusalem, Israel. It didn’t take long, however, for the White House to circulate a “corrected” version that pointedly had a line drawn through “Israel.” And therein lies a strange tale.

The background to the policy is rooted in the 1947 UN Middle East partition resolution that declared Jerusalem an international city under the legal jurisdiction of the UN. However, when the 1948 Arab-instigated war against Israel ended, the armistice agreement, notwithstanding the partition provisions making Jerusalem an international city, tracked the realities of the resulting military lines, which left western Jerusalem effectively in Israeli hands and eastern Jerusalem effectively in Arab hands.

Most countries, including the U.S., refused to accept the new status as anything other than temporary; their overarching goal was the eventual internationalization of Jerusalem. Ignored was the fact that the Arab effort to destroy Israel could only be taken as an abrogation of the mandate. Nor did the 1967 war in which Israel won control of eastern Jerusalem, thus uniting both parts of the city under effective Israeli control, change the position of most world governments.

To be sure, Congress in 1995 passed the Jerusalem Embassy Act that recognizes Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel:

 

(a) STATEMENT OF THE POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES

(1) Jerusalem should remain a undivided city in which the right of every ethnic and religious group are protected;

(2) Jerusalem should be recognized as the capital of the State of Israel…

 

But succeeding American administrations have simply ignored this plain congressional mandate except when some officials momentarily forget in the pursuit of some procrustean political correctness.

In a way, this latest incident highlights the foolishness as no other. Is it conceivable that the funeral of a former president would somehow be scheduled to take place outside his own country? And yet we have the president of the United States traveling to Mt. Herzl in Jerusalem to deliver a eulogy upon the death of a former president of Israel on behalf of the United States. Is that not a powerful statement in itself of recognition of Jerusalem as being part of Israel?

Indeed, you cannot find a picture of Mr. Obama speaking at Mt. Herzl without several Israeli flags – and only Israeli flags – flapping in the wind.

Even The New York Times, certainly no supporter of those who take a hard line on Israeli control of Jerusalem, got caught off guard. Its news story reporting on President Obama’s trip to Jerusalem was headlined “Obama Flies To Israel for Shimon Peres Memorial Service.” And the story began with: “Both were Nobel laureates who labored for peace in the Middle East but failed to achieve it. Now, their joint efforts are at an end as President Obama prepares to pay final tribute to Shimon Peres in Jerusalem.”

It’s time for American presidents to follow the congressional mandate, not to mention plain common sense, and recognize Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel. To continue the current farce not only flies in the face of legal precedent and logic but also suggests to the Arabs that they may yet see a United States that champions their cause. There can be no greater incentive for their continued recalcitrance.

Editorial Board

White House Corrects Obama’s Eulogy Transcript, Deletes Israel

Saturday, October 1st, 2016

The White House staff on Friday corrected what appears to have been a clerical “error”, based on its long-standing policy of not recognizing any part of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, when it released a transcript of President Barack Obama’s eulogy for Israel’s late former president, Shimon Peres.

The original location in which the eulogy was delivered, listed at the top of page one, was “Jerusalem, Israel.”

Mind you, Mount Herzl Cemetery is in the western part of the capital.

However, shortly after, the White House rushed to disseminate a corrected version with the country “Israel” crossed out with a single line through it. The correction was first noted by William Daroff, Senior Vice President for Public Policy & Director of the Washington office of The Jewish Federations of North America.

On the current version on the White House website Israel has been deleted.

Hana Levi Julian

White House: Obama to Veto Bill Empowering 9/11 Families to Sue the Saudis

Tuesday, September 13th, 2016

President Obama intends to veto a bill which allows families of 9/11 victims to sue the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in US courts, White House press secretary Josh Earnest told reporters on Monday.

“The president does plan to veto this legislation,” Earnest said, reiterating, “I do anticipate the president will veto the legislation when it is presented to him. It hasn’t been presented to him yet.”

According to The Hill, this could be the first time Congress would be able to override an Obama veto. Democratic lawmakers have been pressuring the Administration to leave the bill alone for the sake of the 9/11 victims’ families, and for the sake of their reelection come November. Democratic lawmakers are concerned the veto would ignite a showdown between the White House and Congress that would damage the president and make him less effective on the serious issues, namely the fight over the budget in the lame-duck session of Congress. The bill passed unanimously by a voice vote in both the House and Senate.

Earnest cautioned that “this law actually opens up the United States to the risk of being hauled into court in countries around the world,” and added that “the president will continue to explain his opposition to this legislation … up until Congress decides whether to override his veto.”

The Saudi dominated, six-member Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), announced on Monday that the proposed law “contravenes the foundations and principles of relations between states and the principle of sovereign immunity enjoyed by states,” possibly assuming this sovereign immunity includes the right to plot an attack on major civilian centers of the host country.

GCC Secretary General Abdullatif al-Zayani also said in an unveiled threat that “such laws will negatively affect the international efforts and international cooperation to combat terrorism.”

JNi.Media

Donald Trump Finally Parts Ways with White Supremacist Duke

Friday, May 6th, 2016

Having in the past denied that he knew former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke (they had met), Donald J. Trump on Thursday finally took the plunge and announced he “disavows” Duke’s anti-Semitic comments, made on the latter’s radio show.

Duke said that the Republican elites have been working to undermine Trump just as they worked against him, Duke, when he ran for governor of Louisiana as a Republican in 1991. He took issue with Trump’s former Republican rival Ted Cruz taking money from a “Jewish leftist commie,” saying Jewish financiers are “destroying the Republican Party” by targeting Trump and himself.

“Jewish chutzpah knows no bounds,” Duke told his listeners, and then focused on billionaire hedge fund manager Paul Singer, a huge supporter of Israel who also supports the “Stop Trump” movement. Referring to Singer and his ilk, Duke said, “I think these Jewish extremists have made a terribly crazy miscalculation because all they’re really going to be doing by doing the ‘Never Trump’ movement is exposing their alien, their anti-American-majority position to all the Republicans. And they’re going to push people more into awareness that the neo-cons are the problem, that these Jewish supremacists who control our country are the real problem and the reason why America is not great.”

That was a bit much, and Jonathan Greenblatt, chief executive of the Anti-Defamation League, challenged candidate Trump to take a stand against the Duke ideas. “David Duke’s latest remarks – smearing Jews and Jewish Republicans specifically – are as unsurprising as they are hateful,” the ADL chief said in a statement. “The onus is now on Donald Trump to make unequivocally clear he rejects those sentiments and that there is no room for Duke and anti-Semitism in his campaign and in society. Mr. Trump can and should speak up now. If not, his silence will speak volumes.”

In the past, Trump had been unwilling to confront Duke’s increasingly more outrageous and openly anti-Semitic comments, presumably so as not to lose the support of while males in the South. But eventually Trump released a statement saying he “totally disavows” Duke’s remarks.

“Anti-Semitism has no place our society, which needs to be united, not divided,” Trump said, having himself made his share of divisive comments against Mexicans and Muslims.

David Israel

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/donald-trump-finally-parts-ways-with-white-supremacist-duke/2016/05/06/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: