Melanie Phillips…
…has never been one to mince words.
And she sure doesn’t do so here:
The greatest satisfaction today over the re-election of Obama is not being felt in the Democratic Party. It is not being felt among the media, who are no longer objective observers but have turned instead into corrupt partisans who ruthlessly censored the truth about Obama and helped peddle his demonising propaganda about his opponent. It is not being felt among the gloating, drooling decadents of the western left who now scent a great blood-letting of all who dare defy their secular inquisition. No, the greatest satisfaction is surely being felt in Iran.
With four more years of Obama in the White House, Iran can now be sure that it will be able to complete its infernal construction of a genocide bomb to use against the Jews and the west. World War Three has now come a lot closer.
It is said that, with likely gridlock in Congress over domestic issues, Obama will concentrate on foreign policy. We should all shudder.
Read the whole thing (hat tip: commenter “Artfldgr”).
[NOTE: I disagree with Ms. Phillips about why Romney lost, and what he should have done to win. I think that, had he done what she suggests, he would also have lost. I think he lost for reasons I’ve already described elsewhere. People were remarkably uninterested in foreign policy during this election, and most have already dismissed (or would not credit) the idea that Obama has a radical nature and motives. The only people who would have bought it were already buying it.]
Obama has repeatedly said he will not allow Iran to get a nuclear bomb. We have nothing to fear.
And, of course, a recent increase of the rocket attacks into southern Israel, and attacks in the Golan heights are, I suppose to leftists, just a coincidence.
Oh, and Obama most likely is not aware of these attacks as he skipped the intelligence meeting that covered them so he could go play a round of golf, or was it to shoot hoops?
Lord, I’m pissed off about his re-election because of being out of work; but, stuff like this puts things into real perspective – Israel could be “wiped off the map.” That is so scary. My thoughts and prayers to all in Israel.
George Bush Accidentally Votes For Obama
Nov. 06, 2012
I wish Phillips would let go of that “one world, one boat” set of mind, the thinking that there’s such a thing as an “international community,” or even a community of free nations, that has to be organized in a pact to save the world from evil.
Mind you, I’m not denying the existence of that evil. I’m an isolationist but not a paleocon–I recognize, and I want everybody in the free world to recognize, the fault of Islamic imperialism for atrocities such as 9/11 and Beslan, and not to lay the blame with the foreign policies of the victim nations. However, although Islamic imperialism is global in scope, it is local in effect, and can only be dealt with locally. The threat of Iran is Israel’s affair to deal with, just as the problem of no-go zones in Paris is the concern of the French nation alone.
The fact is interventionist adventures, even where well-meant, have been a failure, because the nature of the enemy has been misunderstood. The threat is not primarily of conquest by militaries but one of colonization by invader-immigrants; nor can those invaders be brought into the fold of Western civilization as the Goths, Scandinavians and Hungarians were of old, because they believe themselves to be actually civilized, nay, to be more civilized than the West, perverse though it may seem.
It is time for people who are serious about the Islamic threat to talk less about international action and more about a national policy of mass expulsion. Fighting last century’s wars won’t work.
I think this election was a referendum on Obamacare. About 62,281,602 of adult Americans (give or take for uncounted votes and for dead men voting) just voted for Obamacare. That’s an awful lot of Americans casting their lot for government health mandates.
America knowingly confirmed the continued existence of such a flawed, expensive, and dangerous a program, and to do so had to choose Obama over Romney.
JH: you realize that the source you’re citing for the “Bush votes accidentally for Obama” story is a satire site like The Onion, don’t you?
Ira: you give the voting public much too much credit for rationality. I don’t have time to find the source right now, but there are plenty of polls that indicate that lots of people who are against Obamacare nevertheless voted for Obama (and its implementation) for other reasons, despite their opposition.
There are probably other reasons why Obama’s win is good for the country, but the only one I’ve got is this: it will hasten the decline, and it will be clear who is to blame.
jgzyla, I’m not so sure of that. It seems to me that leftists don’t understand cause and effect, and have no problem blaming others for… everything.
jgzyla: even if true (and I agree with Tesh that it ain’t necessarily so), it will be utterly irrelevant if it’s too late to do anything about it.
To bemoan the fact that Iran will bet their nuclear bomb because Obama has been re-elected is a bit imprecise. Would President Romney been able to prevent Iranian nuclear efforts? I think not, unless he was willing to invade the country.
IMHO, the only thing that can prevent Iran from completing their bomb is boot on the ground. If a bombing campaign successfully destroys Irans bomb factory, then they will simply build their next facility twice as deep.
neo-neocon: Doing the math on the CNN report on exit polling, of those who either like the Obamacare law as it is or want it expanded (i.e., 44% of the voters), Obama received 89% of their votes. He only did better among black voters. Note, according to CNN report on exit polling, of the 25% of the voters who want the Obamacare law completely repealed, Romney received 93% of their votes. 24% were wishy-washy on repeal, and they went 3-1 for Romney. So, it appears that very few real opponents of Obamacare voted for Obama.
Ira: as I said, I don’t have time to look for where I found it, but I believe that stat I read was that 13% of those who want Obamacare repealed voted for Obama.
Enough to say that, had they voted against him, he would have lost the election.
I’m a liberal who’s started reading conservative blogs in search of the truths that lie there. (Yeah, I really do think that liberals aren’t always right, or conservatives always wrong.) Got to say, though, that phrases such as “corrupt partisans who ruthlessly censored the truth about Obama” make me very relucant to want to read more.
I think the plan, in France anyway, is to let Iran do everything they need to make a bomb. The redline becomes assembly. Iran can have all the components. They just can’t put them together.
The French call the idea Pays de seuil.
“Got to say, though, that phrases such as “corrupt partisans who ruthlessly censored the truth about Obama” make me very relucant to want to read more.”
I can understand that because I once felt the same way. Time however can radically change perspective. You might consider that what today seems ‘over the top’ and ‘a bridge to far’, may one day leave you scratching your head wondering how you could have been so blind as to not see what is now obvious.
The evidence in support of the contention that, “corrupt partisans who ruthlessly censored the truth about Obama” is actual fact is overwhelming.
Media Blackout: Aside from FOX, Sunday News Hosts Fail to Raise Benghazi Oct. 28, 2012
“The mainstream media’s silence on the Benghazi disaster reached deafening levels on Sunday, as hosts of four out of the five major news shows–with the exception of Fox News Sunday–failed to raise the issue. Only Bob Schieffer of CBS gave it serious consideration, and only after it was raised by Sen. John McCain.”
I predict when your ‘blinders’ (preconceived mental filters) fall away, you’ll be astonished.
“With four more years of Obama in the White House, Iran can now be sure that it will be able to complete its infernal construction of a genocide bomb to use against the Jews and the west. World War Three has now come a lot closer.”
Indeed. A majority of Americans voted for dishonor to avoid facing the consequence of prior choice. As a result, we shall all have far greater consequence.
Bill –
First, welcome. I hope you find some things to think about here and at the other conservative blogs you visit.
Second, at the risk of suggesting deliberate reaction-formation, try listening to NPR with “conservative ears” on, if possible (it will be difficult, it’s likely, if your starting position is “there is no media bias,” as I believe it is for many people). Benghazi is a pretty blatant example. But one that stood out for me during the election run-up was a report from the two guys who were traveling with the two campaigns, because it pointed up a common mindset on the left: the Romney “embed” talked about Romney’s return to a theme of “bipartisanship” in the last week or so before the election, and the Obama “embed” noted that, while the President had also stepped up the bipartisanship rhetoric, he was making it clear (“Let me be clear,” no doubt… Sorry, it’s a verbal tic that bugs me) that there was a line he wouldn’t cross – principles worth fighting for.
When a conservative or Republican speaks of a line s/he won’t cross, principles s/he considers worth fighting for (small government and skepticism about the Keynesian “multiplier” being the biggies in this cycle), s/he is noted in news media as well as editorial opinion as “obstructing,” “standing in the way,” facilitating “gridlock”… Listen to the semantics and judge. Negative connotations abound when most major news sources are reporting the positions of Republicans in Congress; a discernibly positive spin accompanies the just-as-dug-in-heels positions of Democrats.
It’s absolutely undeniable, going back to the 2008 cycle, that Obama’s complete lack of governing experience and the fact that he was a neophyte even at legislation, that his only resume point was “community organizer,” was assiduously avoided in the news; McCain’s age, however, came up constantly. And the media’s treatment of Sarah Palin, who, however you may feel about her as a person and politician, had nevertheless served in an executive capacity all the way from local to State level and had been elected in a State in which men, and really macho men at that, outnumber women by huge percentages, is rather a smoking gun. (I’m not a giant Palin fan, but really, if Obama or Rodham-Clinton had used exactly the same phraseology about “seeing Russian from the front porch,” can it be denied that the metaphor would have been not just acknowledged but made explicit for the non-metaphorically-inclined in the audience?)
I used to be skeptical about left-wing media bias in America. Then came three events close by that, taken together, led to an inescapable conclusion:
1. Ft. Hood massacre by Major Nidal Hassan. Press reaction: “Don’t jump into conclusions about his motives.” Despite the fact that he confessed to having done it for Islam, as a “soldier of Allah.”
2. Tucson shooting by Jared Loughner, where Congresswoman Gifford got shot. Press reaction: “Sarah Palin marked her as a target, Tea Party extremism is behind the shooting.” Later findings: Jared Loughner is a psychiatric case, with no political motive.
3. Frankfurt American army base shooting by Arif Uka, a Muslim born in Germany to an Albanian Kosovar family. Press reaction: “Don’t jump into conclusions about his motives.” A police investigation found explicit links of Uka to jihadi groups in Germany.
Since the Left today covers up for Islam while blowing out anything related to the Tea Party beyond all proportion, I leave the conclusion regarding media bias to the reader.
Did any group with interest in the survival of Israel really vote for Obama? Surely not. Every group who voted for Obama is for Hamas, Iran, and a second Holocaust. Obama voters got what they wanted; now they’ll get what they deserve.