Obama, Netanyahu, Alinsky, and Feinstein

The New Neo Posted on by

Roger Simon calls the pending Iran deal possibly “the worst deal ever made,” and issues a prediction that could be correct:

I don’t enjoy making predictions because I’m usually wrong, but this is what I suspect will transpire as of Sunday night, March 1. A deal ultimately will not be made. Khamenei never wanted one in the first place, only to mark time for more nuclear research. To make a deal would, for him, undermine too many years of hating America, undercutting the rationale for his hideous regime. BUT”¦ Israel (specifically pushy Netanyahu), not Iran, will be blamed for the failure by the U.S. administration and its MSM minions, led by the New York Times. Iran will collude with this, dropping the proper hints ”” if it weren’t for those Israelis we would have had an agreement, but you know they can’t be trusted. The Republican presidential candidates will be swept up in this. They better be ready, but I fear they are not. They don’t impress me as a particularly sophisticated bunch on the international front, I’m sorry to say, and the Iranians know how to play disinformation-hardball almost as well as the Russians. I hope I’m wrong in all this. I hope Netanyahu knocks that same hardball out of the proverbial park and with it some sense into the American public. But I worry.

I don’t know. If I had to bet, I think Khamenei will accept the deal and that it means nothing to him except as a signal that Obama will not and cannot stop him from doing whatever he wants.

Simon goes on to add:

To the Democratic senators and congressmen and women not attending Netanyahu’s speech, in the famous words of George Orwell, you are “objectively pro-Fascist” (in this case pro-Islamofascist). To the members of the Congressional Black Caucus, you are racist with a capital-R if you do not attend. Netanyahu is no more coming here to “disrespect the president” than he is because Obama is part black. Netanyahu is coming here because he takes the words “never again” more seriously than any phrase imaginable. That is the primary job description for the prime minister of Israel.

One of the most distinctive things about the fuss Obama has made about Netanyahu’s speech is not to emphasize their policy disagreements but to focus on the idea that Netanyahu’s overriding motivation for the speech is to win the upcoming Parliamentary election. Like all politicians, Netanyahu is a political animal, and that’s got to be a consideration. But Obama’s stance ignores the existential threat Israel faces and trivializes the dispute in a way that would be almost beyond belief in anyone but Obama. In Obama, however, it’s an unsurprising projection of his own overwhelming narcissism and the dominance of political motivations in his own hierarchy.

In addition, let us never forget that Obama is an Alinskyite. As such, he is following Alinsky’s rule #12 in his treatment of Netanyahu. Rule #12 has long been one of the favored tools in Obama’s well-stocked Alinsky kit. But Netanyahu is the only supposed ally I can recall Obama using it with:

“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.

Joining in with the implementation of Alinsky’s Rule #12 is California’s Democratic Senator Diane Feinstein, who wraps herself in the mantle of her supposed Judaism (although she is at most a secular Jew on her father’s side; her mother was Catholic and Feinstein is a graduate of San Francisco’s Sacred Heart High School) in order to criticize Netanyahu for “arrogance” in presuming to speak for Jews:

“He [Netanyahu] doesn’t speak for me on this. I think it’s a rather arrogant statement. I think the Jewish community is like any other community. There are different points of view. I think that arrogance does not befit Israel, candidly.”

Here is what Netanyahu actually said:

“I feel deep and genuine concern for the security of all the people of Israel,” Netanyahu told journalists on the tarmac, his wife by his side, before boarding his flight. “I will do everything in my ability to secure our future.”

In a press release before leaving, he called the trip a “fateful, even historic mission.”

“I feel that I am the emissary of all Israelis, even those who disagree with me, of the entire Jewish People,” Netanyahu said. “I am deeply and genuinely concerned for the security of all Israelis, for the fate of the nation, and for the fate of our people and I will do my utmost to ensure our future.”

Netanyahu was speaking of the Jewish people as a whole and about their survival, and even made it clear that not all Israelis or Jews agree with him. Nevertheless, it is his responsibility to prevent another genocide if he can help it.

I would remind Sen. Feinstein that in a Holocaust neither her disagreement with Netanyahu nor her secularism nor her half-Jewishness would protect her from being identified—and persecuted or killed—as a Jew. And Iran will not be making such fine distinctions either.

Nemstov’s murder…

The New Neo Posted on by

…represents a warning shot:

How could such a prominent politician ”” a founder of the opposition Solidarity Party, a sitting member of the Yaroslavl city parliament ”” be gunned down so brazenly, within steps of the Kremlin? “We didn’t kill members of government,” Gleb Pavlovsky, an independent political consultant who used to work for Putin, told me over the phone. “It’s an absolutely new situation.” Olga Romanova, a prominent opposition activist and a close friend of Nemtsov, said, “There are more cameras in that spot than there are grains in a packet of grain.”…

Yet we can be sure that the investigation will lead precisely nowhere. At most, some sad sap, the supposed trigger-puller, will be hauled in front of a judge, the scapegoat for someone far more powerful. More likely, the case will founder for years amid promises that everyone is working hard, and no one will be brought to justice at all. This has been the pattern for other high-profile killings, like those of the journalist Anna Politkovskaya and the whistle-blower Sergei Magnitsky…

Ilya Yashin, a member of Nemtsov’s Solidarity Party, was of the same mind. “It’s totally obvious for me that it’s a political killing,” he said. “I don’t have the slightest doubt about that.” Maxim Katz, another opposition activist, claimed on Twitter that, any way you slice it, Putin is responsible: “If he ordered it, then he’s guilty as the orderer. And even if he didn’t, then [he is responsible] as the inciter of hatred, hysteria, and anger among the people.”

It’s hard to argue with this last point.

This case is strangely parallel to the Nisman murder in Argentina. The differences are large—Nisman was a prosecutor, Nemstov an opposition polician; the Argentine government alleged that Nisman had committed suicide, whereas Putin isn’t trying that ploy because it’s so obvious Nemstov was murdered. But both governments are trying hard but unconvincingly to pin the deaths on people attempting to harm or frame them.

Texas raid

The New Neo Posted on by

[Via Drudge.]

WND reports:

In a deliberate “show of force,” federal and local police forces raided a political meeting in Texas, fingerprinting and photographing all attendees as well as confiscating all cell phones and personal recording devices.

Members of the Republic of Texas, a secession movement dedicated to restoring Texas as an independent constitutional republic, had gathered Feb. 14 in a Bryan, Texas, meeting hall along with public onlookers…

Information Liberation noted, “The pretext of the raid was that two individuals from the group had reportedly sent out ”˜simulated court documents’ ”” summonses for a judge and a banker to appear before the Republic of Texas to discuss the matter of a foreclosure. These ”˜simulated documents’ were rejected and the authorities decided to react with a ”˜show of force’ ”“ 20 officers and an extremely broad search warrant.”

The invalid court summons was signed by Susan Cammak, a Kerr County homeowner, and David Kroupa, a Republic of Texas judge from Harris County.

The search warrant against the Republic of Texas authorized the seizure of “all computers, media storage, software, cell phones and paper documents.” Kerr County Sheriff Rusty Hierholzer said the seized devices “will be downloaded and reviewed to determine if others conspired in the creation and issuance of false court documents.”

If this report is true, it’s hard to avoid the thought that the action has something to do with the administration’s war on violent extremism, either directly or indirectly. But the group isn’t violent, you say? Ah, but it’s extreme, and isn’t it necessary to make sure it never gets that violent? But this was just fake court papers, and the names of the perpetrators were known, you say; why raid the whole group? The logical answer is intimidation of right-wing groups.

Obama’s failure to label the violent extremism that we are fighting “Islamic” has been criticized for the obvious reason that if we cannot name our enemy it is unlikely that we can fight it effectively (although Obama’s inability to fight it goes far deeper than a naming problem). But another problem with the term “violent extremism” is that it allows the administration to focus on what it sees as its enemies on the right, to label and define them as a large part of the terrorist problem, and to clamp down.

Think IRS versus the Tea Party, only with the tools of the police rather than those of the tax collector.

If you care about that what-color-is-the-dress thing…

The New Neo Posted on by

…this is the best explanation of the phenomenon I’ve seen.

Originally, I was among the 70% of the population who see it as white-and-gold. But after reading the article, I was able to flip back and forth between seeing it as white-and-gold and black-and-blue. Which means that, according to the article, my “brain is game to change.”

Well, I already knew that.

The dangerous candidacy of Scott Walker

The New Neo Posted on by

That’s not my title. It’s the title of a John Cassidy piece that appeared at The New Yorker website. I’ll briefly summarize what Cassidy is saying in his essay: Scott Walker is a bottom-dwelling POS who panders to the worst of the right.

No, that’s not a direct quote. But I’m only exaggerating a tiny bit. For example, here’s the lede:

Let’s stipulate up front that Scott Walker, the governor of Wisconsin, is an odious politician whose ascension to the Presidency would be a disaster.

And later Cassidy writes:

In a more just world, Walker’s indecent and craven antics would disqualify him from playing any further role in the Presidential race.

So, what has Walker done to earn such disgust? “Indecent”—did he do it in the street and frighten the horses? “Craven”—did he exhibit cowardice on some important principle, or did he bow to Saudi royalty?

No, he refused to play “gotcha” with the press and pundits by answering their demand that he give an opinion on whether Obama loves America, whether Obama is a Christian, or to give his opinion on evolution. In other words, he refused to agree or disagree with some of the principles of the liberal catechism. What’s more, he—gasp!—instituted conservative policies in the state of Wisconsin in the process of “running what used to be one of America’s more progressive states.” What used to be—so sad to say goodbye to all that, and the people of Wisconsin were so very sorrowful about it that in the midst of their mourning they kept giving him votes of confidence.

But I digress. Cassidy’s premise is that, despite the completely obvious vileness of the reprobate Walker, his appeal to conservatives (and his ability to raise money) might just win him the Republican nomination. Then Democrats will have to look at his slimy face and hear his evil voice for quite some time. The last sentence of the piece is, “We’d better get used to it.”

That would be nice. Because Walker Derangement Syndrome has started early. Actually, it started a long time ago, when the left mounted one of the biggest campaigns in history to unseat a governor. In Walker’s case, they failed, although they kept trying. And they won’t stop now.

[NOTE: By the way, that “personhood amendment” reference in Cassidy’s piece links to a Times article that rests on a single anonymous source who says he heard Walker say it at a small meeting. Good old Times. What’s more, Cassidy’s characterization of what such an amendment is about is, of course, incorrect. It would not “outlaw the termination of pregnancies.”]

Michael Totten on Isis’ next target

The New Neo Posted on by

Lebanon.

Obama, leading from behind. Way behind.

Lebanon is different from previous ISIS targets:

ISIS has announced that Lebanon will be the next state to fall under the sway of its “caliphate.” According to Beirut’s Daily Star newspaper, the only reason ISIS hasn’t attacked yet in force is because they haven’t decided on the mission’s commander…

A majority of Lebanon’s population is either Christian, Shia, or Druze, and all three populations rightly see ISIS as a potentially genocidal threat to their very existence. Even the Sunnis, though, fear and loathe ISIS. Other than the nominal sectarian sameness””ISIS also is Sunni””Lebanon’s culturally liberal Sunnis have little more in common with ISIS than the French or Italians do.

A serious invasion of Lebanon by ISIS could unleash a bloodbath that makes the civil war in Syria look like a bar fight with pool sticks and beer mugs. It would be tantamount to a Nazi invasion.

Totten tries to look on the bright side:

The only good thing that might emerge from an attempted ISIS invasion is that the eternally fractious Lebanese might finally realize they have enough in common with each other to band together for survival and kindle something that resembles a national identity for the first time in their history.

Foreign armies don’t do well in Lebanon over the long term.

And the dark side:

If ISIS makes any headway at all in that country, the rest of us will see just how barbaric they really are when they violently encounter large numbers of people unlike themselves. And the odds that the West will get sucked even deeper into the great war of the Eastern Mediterranean will only loom larger.

Let’s hope ISIS is just trash talking when it says it’s planning a trip to Lebanon.

By the way…

The New Neo Posted on by

…I’m ignoring all the ever-developing, ever-changing, ever-frustrating shutdown news because they just kicked the can down the road for a week. But if you want to talk about it, here’s a place to do it.

Midnight in Moscow: Nemtsov assassinated

The New Neo Posted on by

It’s still dangerous to be in the opposition in Russia:

Boris Nemtsov, a towering figure in Russian post-Soviet politics and a biting critic of President Vladimir Putin, was gunned down steps from the Kremlin late Friday, authorities said. The drive-by shooting had the potential to open a violent new chapter in Russian political life.

Nemtsov, a physicist-turned-politician who was seen in the 1990s as a possible heir to President Boris Yeltsin, was one of the loudest voices condemning Russia’s sharp turn toward confrontation with the West in the past year. The killing sent immediate shock waves through Russia, where he became the highest-profile opposition leader to be slain in a nation where such figures are sometimes imprisoned or pushed to emigrate.

There was no immediate information on who killed the 55-year-old politician as he walked across a central Moscow bridge shortly before midnight on an unusually warm winter’s night. Putin said it bore the marks of a contract killing intended to embarrass the Kremlin, a spokesman said. Opposition leaders said they were sure that it was an attempt to intimidate them.

President Cristina Ferné¡ndez de Kirchner of Argentina and former prosecutor Alberto Nisman had no comment.

More:

The killing took place as Nemtsov walked in the heart of Moscow across the Bolshoi Moskvoretsky Bridge, less than 100 yards from the walls of the Kremlin and within sight of Red Square, one of the most secure areas in all of Russia. Police and secret services­ have a heavy presence in the region…

Nemtsov had been working on a report that he said would prove that Russian soldiers were fighting alongside pro-Russian rebels in eastern Ukraine, where a bloody 11-month-conflict has claimed nearly 5,800 lives. The Kremlin has hotly denied any direct involvement, which Russian opinion polls suggest would be deeply unpopular.

[NOTE: This is the reference in the title of this post:

That was 1961. Longer ago than I had thought.]

Another thing Republicans should remind people about

The New Neo Posted on by

Maybe if these things were talked about again now, Obama’s connections to Communism, Ayers, Wright, and Alinsky would be heard and understood for what they might signify. In 2008 those reports were widely dismissed.

The press of course dismissed them, and will most likely continue to do so. Most people who read about those influences in 2008 dismissed them as either false or inconsequential as well, and not just because of the press helping them along. It’s just that these things sounded so far out: weird, wild, preposterous. McCarthy-esque, too, and you know how people look on the McCarthy era these days.

Obama—such a nice young man, so well-spoken, conservative-dressing, with a pleasant and heartfelt message of coming together with no red or blue America. That made those tales of strange ideological bedfellows sound like tinfoil territory. One had to really study Obama in depth to understand that behind this smoke there might be some real fire. Otherwise, there was no context in which the stories could fit, and without a context they were easy to dismiss. People who wanted to believe in Obama (and some of this was the understandable desire to elect America’s first black president) had no motivation to look deeply into the past and find a thread connecting it all, and little reason to believe it really mattered.

Now if people (Giuliani, for example) bring these topics up again, not only are people familiar with them from before and so they no longer sound so strange, but more importantly Obama has given us the context: his six years of governing. Many people who originally supported him are doubting him, and could be a lot more open to actually listening to facts about his past, and understanding that they are probably meaningful and not just some random youthful associations.

Of course, Obama is not up for re-election, so what does it matter? The damage is done. Well, it matters for the next election, and maybe for elections after that. The lessons learned wouldn’t just be about Obama. They would be about not trusting the press, both in its statements and its omissions. They would be about the fact that Republicans shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand even when they say “mean” things. It’s about the surface appearance versus what’s happening deeper down. It’s about how very deceptive members of the far left can be about things so basic as their identity as members of the far left.

[ADDENDUM: Here’s a bit of clarification. I thought it was obvious that in this post I meant talked about by politicians, not just by pundits, talk show hosts, or right wing bloggers, especially when I wrote “Guiliani, for example,” which was meant to recall the previous discussions of the topic here on the blog about politicians bringing this sort of thing up (such as this, this, and this). I saw the present post as a continuation of the conversation begun in those previous posts.

Of course the MSM won’t talk about it on their own. The idea is for someone like Giuliani (but not just Giuliani either; perhaps one or two candidates too) to say this publicly and prominently, and then the MSM would cover it as though it were a “gaffe,” and that’s the way it would come to people’s attention. But people would be less inclined now than back in 2008 to see it as a gaffe or a lunatic assertion, and more as a relevant and important discussion to have.]

Is this the phone or the pen?

The New Neo Posted on by

Perhaps it’s both.

The Obama administration has decided to attempt a ban on a popular type of ammunition through some creative statutory re-interpretation by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE):

…[T]he Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) is moving to infringe upon the rights of law-abiding gun owners with a drastic reinterpretation of a nearly 30-year-old law regulating so-called “armor piercing” ammunition. So draconian is BATFE’s new “Framework” that it would prohibit the manufacturing, importation, and sale of M855 ball ammunition, one of the most popular cartridges for the most popular rifle in America, the AR-15. Not coincidentally, the AR-15 is among the firearms the Obama Administration has unsuccessfully sought to outlaw.

More here.

Lois Lerner’s emails

The New Neo Posted on by

The wheels of justice grind slow.

Very, very slow. And that’s part of the plan; after all, the benefits have already been reaped, and by now most of America has Moved On.

Last night Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration Russell George and Deputy Inspector General for Investigations Timothy Camus updated the House Oversight Committee on the status of Lois Lerner’s “missing” emails surrounding the IRS targeting of conservatives.

In an exchange with Congressman Jim Jordan (R-OH), Camus revealed there is “potential criminal activity” involved in the disappearance and hiding of emails belonging to IRS officials involved in the targeting of conservatives between 2010 and 2012…

Not surprisingly, in order to stonewall the congressional investigation into the targeting of conservative groups, IRS officials never asked IT professionals to look into gathering back-up tapes or recovering emails requested by Congress.

Despite IRS Commissioner John Koskinen repeatedly saying under oath in previous hearings that Lerner’s emails could not be recovered, Camus and investigators have been successful in recovering nearly 33,000 emails relevant to the IRS investigation.