RUTHFULLY YOURS

The public has come to know three Obamas. But which, if any, of these portraits is real, and which are fantasies?

Aside from those who automatically support Obama because he is a redistributionist Democrat, and those who automatically oppose him because he is an unapologetic Great Society liberal, there are currently three general takes on Obama.

I. Self-Portrait
Obama’s own judgment on his tenure is now all too clear: He saved us from another Great Depression, and he has made the United States more secure and more popular in the eyes of the world than we have been at any time in our recent history. Obama “ended two wars” (in the sense of pulling troops out of Iraq and steadily bringing them back from Afghanistan). According to Obama, America has never been more liked abroad, largely because his lead-from-behind policies have ended the image of the U.S. as bully. He hunted down and “got” Osama bin Laden. At last, an American president has crafted a comprehensive plan to navigate Iran away from nuclear-weapons acquisition. The Middle East is no longer defined as an obstreperous Israel and triangulating Gulf monarchies dominating American policy — on the basis of a “special relationship” in the former case, and the American need for oil in the latter. Europe has been weaned off dependence on the United States and, in tough-love fashion, is emerging from its past infantilization. Obama has isolated Putin and warned the Chinese about their rough elbows that cause tensions to flare. Obama ended the controversial “war on terror,” and, as a result of his inspired outreach to the Muslim community, there has been no repeat of 9/11.

“You want me to spell it out? I am afraid of Muslims,” stated Swedish-Jewish writer and political adviser Annika Hernroth-Rothstein on May 27 before a room-filling audience of about 40 at Washington, DC’s The Israel Project (TIP). Her presentation “The Future of Jews in Europe: How Both Covert and Violent Anti-Semitism is Making Jewish Life Unbearable” highlighted how Islamic immigration has given new virulence to European anti-Semitism.

Hernroth-Rothstein’s discussion of Sweden’s 15,000 Jews exemplified the introductory comment of David Hazony, TIP’s Tower Magazine (TM), that anti-Semitism is a “morphing, changing force in our world.” Anti-Semitism “started when Jews arrived” in the late 1700s in Sweden, she stated, where Protestant reformer Martin Luther, “not a big fan of the Jews,” helped shape a theological “old school anti-Semitism” in Swedish Lutheranism. World War II was later a “very difficult time to be a Jew” in a “neutral” Sweden that actually collaborated with Nazi Germany. That Swedes in 2009 actually believed a Swedish journalist’s blood libel of Israeli soldiers harvesting Palestinian body parts “tells you the kind of mindset that there is.”

Hernroth-Rothstein noted how neo-Nazism personally haunted her in a small town Swedish high school, as detailed in her TM article. Six fellow students somehow acquired accurate recreations of Third Reich Hitler Youth (Hitler Jugend) uniforms and intimidatingly wore them before her, a known Jew, at school. Such hatred during and after World War II convinced her mother that “it was a nuisance to be Jewish” and led her to raise a “totally assimilated family.”

The truism expressed by Arthur Laffer’s “curve” a little more than forty years ago is as relevant today as it was then. It is obvious that tax rates of zero and 100% yield zero. The “curve” was an attempt to find the optimum rate. Economics are elemental to politics. In general, the Left wants government to assume a bigger role, which requires higher taxes. The Right argues for more limited government and, therefore, less need for revenues. That is the essence behind all political debates and partisan bickering that we see in Washington and State Capitals. Logic tells us there are certain societal functions that can only be handled by government. Common sense tells us that the more government takes, the less there is for consumers and businesses to spend and invest. That, in turn, leads to less economic growth – fewer jobs and lower standards of living. It is a self-perpetuating cycle. The role of Governor or President is to find common ground.

“There’s no Saudi-Israeli alliance or friendship today, nor will there be one tomorrow. But a wise American policy would seek quietly to explore and to expand these first seedlings of contact. I doubt that the Obama administration can do that, because its failings are in no small part what brings Israelis and Arab states to talk in the first place. Our next president, however, should make it a priority to see if the ice can be cracked a bit more.”

Two new developments may suggest an opening in relations between Israel and the Gulf states.

The first is a new survey of public opinion in Saudi Arabia, conducted by telephone–from Israel, by students at the Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliya. Result:

The poll found that 53 percent of Saudis named Iran as their main adversary, while 22 percent said it is the Islamic State group and only 18 percent said Israel….A whopping 85 percent also support the Saudi-led Arab Peace Initiative, which calls for peace with Israel in return for a full Israeli withdrawal to its pre-1967 borders.

In Washington D.C., the new director-general of Israel’s Foreign Ministry and a former Saudi Major General, both of whom run think tanks with close ties to their respective governments, shook hands.

It wasn’t their first time.

Obama wasn’t there when it happened, but in a way he was responsible for it.

Both men are foreign policy experts who help shape the foreign policies of their countries and had conducted five previous meetings. The topic of the meetings was Iran.

Obama wouldn’t have been pleased by their meeting or by what it represented, but he had brought them together. While Dore Gold, the Israeli, insisted that they had common ground because “We’re both allies of the United States”, it was Obama’s betrayal of both countries that had led them here.

On June 2, 2015 the Washington Times published a report about how massive failures of screeners employed by the TSA, an agency that operates under the aegis of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), failed to find weapons, in the great majority of instances, when undercover operatives went through the screening process. The article, “TSA chief ousted after airport security flunks test, misses most weapons, explosives [2]” included this excerpt:

The acting chief of the Transportation Security Administration [3] was ousted late Monday night after an embarrassing new report found that airport security officers badly failed a new test, missing almost every firearm and explosive investigators tried to sneak by them.

Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson [4] announced the move, saying Melvin Carraway had been “reassigned” to another part of the department and his deputy would take over, serving until the Senate can confirm a new chief.

Earlier in the night Mr. Johnson [4] had said he’d just been given a classified briefing on the inspector general’s findings that found a major loophole in security that could allow people to sneak prohibited items by TSA [3] screeners and into what were supposed to be secure areas of airports.

Mr. Johnson [4] said the preliminary findings were classified and said it wasn’t “appropriate or prudent” to talk about them — but ABC News reported that IG investigators managed to sneak contraband material by TSA [3] screeners in 67 of 70 tests.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was created in the wake of the terror attacks of September 11, 2001 and contains a number of agencies that are charged with addressing the failures that enabled the terrorists who carried out those attacks, to enter the United States, embed themselves in the United States and then hijack airliners, using them as de facto “cruise missiles.”

Recently several progressive professors have publicly complained that their students are hounding them for failing to consider their tender sensibilities by straying beyond the p.c. orthodoxy on sexual assault, sex identity, linguistic correctness, and a whole host of other progressive shibboleths. Northwestern “feminist” professor Laura Kipnis found herself in a Title IX star chamber for an article she wrote decrying the immaturity of her legally adult students. Over at Vox, another progressive confessed (anonymously, reminding us that academics are an invertebrate species) he was so “scared” and “terrified” of his “liberal” students that he self-censors his comments in class and has changed his reading list.

These incidents follow the complaints of other progressives like Kirsten Powers and Jonathan Chait that the intolerant ideology at the heart of progressivism is now getting out of hand––something that many of us have been writing about for nearly 3 decades. That these progressives should now be shocked at such intolerance and persecution after decades of speech codes, disruptions of conservative speakers, campus inquisitions which ignore Constitutional rights, cancellations of commencement speakers, and ideological litmus tests imposed on new hires and curricula, bespeaks not principle, but rather indignation that now they are on the receiving end of the bullying and harassment long inflicted on conservatives and people of faith.

Finally, proclaim Jews’ rightful and millennial ties to their ancestral homeland.

“Then said Satan: This besieged one, how shall I overcome him?He has courage and ability, he has weapons and imagination.

“So he said: I shall not take his strength, nor muzzle nor bridle him.Nor soften nor weaken his hands, only one thing I shall do;“I shall dull his brain and he will forget that he is in the right.”

So wrote the Israeli poet, Natan Alterman, in his poem, Gone like a Dream. He was expressing his deep anxiety over the weakening resolve of Jews in Israel and in the Diaspora to proclaim Jewish historical rights throughout the reconstituted Jewish homeland.

This inevitably led to a fateful abandonment by so many Israeli politicians and successive governments to the paramount needof responding effectively to Arab and pro-Arab propaganda, which sought to deny the reconstituted Jewish state every inch of sovereign ancestral Jewish land from the Mediterranean Sea to the River Jordan and delegitimize Jerusalem as Israel’s unitedcapital.

For 48 long years, since the liberation of east Jerusalem and biblical Jewish Judea and Samaria from illegal Jordanian occupation – territory the world grotesquely prefers to call the West Bank – the beloved Jewish heartland has remained in a political limbo and not fully annexed. Instead, too much has been sinfully abandoned.

“Addressing Ex-Im’s future, Adam Andrzejewski Chairman & Executive Director of OPEN THE BOOKS…http://www.openthebooks.com/
says: “The fate of the bank is an important test that will show whether Congress is on the side of taxpayers, and basic market principles, or special interests that are capable of bending markets in their direction.”
The Export-Import Bank generates headlines because, after more than three-quarters of a century, it is about to go away. But it won’t go away if Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, and Republican Senator, can do something about it.

Ex-Im, or the Export Import Bank, was created by Executive Order in 1934 by Franklin D. Roosevelt to make loans to the Soviet Union and aid trade with Cuba. With the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945, Congress made Ex-Im an independent agency and required that Ex-Im be reauthorized every four-to-five years. Ex-Im’s current authorization expires on June 30.

Ex-Im has historically enjoyed bipartisan support. However, the need to cut spending—coupled with watchdog reporting—brings reauthorization into question. Under the Obama Administration, Ex-Im lending has increased 248 percent. Taxpayers now hold nearly $140 billion in Ex-Im exposure.

The Supreme Court ruling in the so-called Jerusalem passport case certainly hands a disappointing bar mitzvah gift to Menachem Binyamin Zivotofsky. He is the American who was born at Jerusalem in 2002 and sought American papers listing his birthplace as Israel. He acted under a law passed almost unanimously by Congress requiring that such papers be granted. It took two trips to the Supreme Court for the judicial branch to reach a conclusion, and the youngster lost.

To the young man — and his heroic parents — all Americans who love Israel owe a debt of thanks. We were rooting for them all the way. But it may yet be that in the long run the big winner in the case will be Jewish state. For one result of Zivotofsky v. Kerry, as the case came to be called, will be that those Americans born in Jerusalem who want documents listing their birthplace as Israel will have to become Israelis. That is, in a way, a restatement of the raison d’etre of Zionism.

No less a figure than Menachem Begin warned against trying to answer the Jerusalem question on Capitol Hill. The fact is that the only duly constituted authority to decide the Jerusalem question is Israel. It has been sovereign in the part of Jerusalem where Master Zivotofsky was born since 1948 and in the rest of Jerusalem since 1967. It is up to the world to adjust. Nothing in the opinion of the Supreme Court changes that, a point that will grow ever more clear.