bs"d
January 15, 2012
"Speechless"
It isn't often that I am rendered speechless, and even when that happens, I am likely to recover my words in short order.
Although, when I write that I'm speechless now, I do not mean it literally: It's rhetorical. More that I cannot quite wrap my head around what I know -- which comes at me, day by day, with ever greater clarity and certainty. For it is both incredible and terrifying. And so I search for the words that will bring the message home.
I am referring, my friends, to is the situation in the US and the ramifications of that situation.
~~~~~~~~~~
Please, pay careful attention to what Frank Gaffney Jr, founder and president of the Center for Security Policy, has just written (all emphasis added):
"Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has repeatedly declared that 'a world without America is not only desirable, it is achievable.' While that sentiment won't be embraced in President Obama's inaugural address next week, all other things being equal, it seems likely to be the practical effect of his second term.
"Of course, Iran's regime seeks a world literally without America... .
"For his part, Barack Obama seems to have in mind bringing about a world without America in a geo-strategic sense."
Gaffney then quotes political analyst Mark Steyn, who refers to a "fundamental transformation" of America's place in the world, evidently intended, says Gaffney, "to be the President's second-act..." after a first act that focused on the domestic.
"That agenda is strongly evident in Mr. Obama's choices for key national security cabinet positions: John Kerry at the State Department, Chuck Hagel at Defense and John Brennan at the CIA. The three are, like the President, imbued with a post-American, post-sovereignty, post-constitutional, transnationalist outlook. In his administration, it would appear that their mission would be, as the American Enterprise Institute's Danielle Pletka puts it, to manage the United States' decline.
"Having addressed previously in this space the serious problems with the judgment, records and policy proclivities of Messrs. Hagel (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/dec/17/hagel-a-dangerous-choice-for-defense/) and Kerry (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/2/hold-kerry-accountable-senate-should-not-gloss-ove/), let's consider those of John Brennan to further illustrate the syndrome.
Brennan is a textbook example of a U.S. official who has 'gone native.' He speaks Arabic and was formerly the top CIA officer in Saudi Arabia. He has shown himself to be deeply sympathetic to Islamists -- for example, excusing and dissembling about their commitment to jihad and the necessity of not offending them.
"After President Obama himself, John Brennan is, arguably, the single most important enabler of the Islamic supremacists' agenda in government today. In his role as Homeland Security Advisor to the President... Brennan has helped legitimate, empower, fund, arm and embolden them abroad, and embraced and appeased them here at home.
"Of particular concern is the fact that John Brennan has presided over: the policy of engaging the Muslim Brotherhood, which has consequently been portrayed by a politicized intelligence community as 'largely secular' and 'eschewing violence'; the shredding of training briefings and the proscribing of trainers that might upset Muslims by telling the truth about shariah and the jihad it commands; the penetration of U.S. agencies by Muslim Brotherhood-associated individuals as employees and/or senior advisors; and misrepresentations to Congress about the true, jihadist character of the attack that killed four Americans in Benghazi last September 11th.
"Of particular concern is the prospect that Team Obama's second-term team will, if confirmed, be even more insistent than their predecessors on engaging Iran. Make no mistake about it: The practical effect will be to buy the regime in Tehran the last few months it evidently needs to achieve what it has sought for decades: the means to have the world not only bereft of America's leadership and stabilizing force, but to neutralize and perhaps eliminate the United States as a 21st Century society."
http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/p19181.xml
~~~~~~~~~~
If this does not make your blood run cold, or make it difficult for you to catch your breath, you're not getting it. Frank Gaffney is a very reputable and knowledgeable commentator and he knows full well whereof he speaks. Dismiss this at your own peril, and the peril of the US.
And that leads me to the second reason that I am (rhetorically) speechless: Most Americans don't get it. I know this because they voted for Obama a second time in spite of the evidence: Much was written well before the election about such alarming situations as the infiltration into the government of Muslim-brotherhood associated individuals. But very few were listening.
And I know because the American people are not marching in the streets by the millions.
There is a shrugging, and a turning of the head. There are pathetic comments like, "I may not agree with Hagel but the president needs to nominate someone he's comfortable with." (This from Congressman Peter King.) There is a reluctance to take on a battle that might sour the relationship with the president. (This from American Jewish leadership, which is comprised in the main of court Jews.)
In the end, only Americans can save America, and I am not at all convinced that it is going to happen.
~~~~~~~~~~
Gaffney further says:
"The Senate's constitutional responsibility to confirm senior executive branch appointees is one of the few it hasn't compromised, or allowed the president to expropriate. It must exercise its authority to assure "quality control" with respect to his picks for top national security cabinet posts.
"Indeed, the fact that President Obama seeks not one or two, but three individuals who share his determination to achieve the radical and dangerous national security transformation he seeks in his second term demands that Senators defy him. After all, should the Senate fail to object to this trajectory by rigorously debating and defeating any -- and preferably all -- of these problematic choices, its members risk not only allowing, but becoming party to, the realization of a world without America."
Don't let your Senators off the hook. Let them know hear from you on this:
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
And share this posting, share it, share it!
~~~~~~~~~~
What further renders me speechless (and for all my very deep love and concern for America, this is perhaps the worst) are the implications that must be faced within the Western democratic world of what it means that America is imploding. The agenda of Iran and Islamists more broadly is being advanced, and the security of those democracies is being rendered more vulnerable.
A 154-page report authored by five non-proliferation experts in the US-- "US Nonproliferation Strategy for the Changing Middle East" -- is about to be released. It says that Iran may produce enough weapons-grade uranium for one or more nuclear bombs by mid-2014. And it recommends that the US and its allies should intensify sanctions on Tehran before that point is reached. It further recommends that:
"The president should explicitly declare that he will use military force to destroy Iran's nuclear program if Iran takes additional decisive steps toward producing a bomb."
But Obama has nominated as Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, a man who not only does not believe in military action against Iran, he does not support sanctions and favors instead "negotiations."
~~~~~~~~~~
Obama has made statements innumerable times about the fact that he would not let Iran reach nuclear capability. This was usually in the context of making sure Israel didn't attack Iran -- as in, "trust me to take care of it." Who could believe this now? Who can trust Obama?
Of course, he also said he has Israel's back. Lots of Jews loved that, which was his goal, of course. Is there a single Jew now who would be willing to come to Jerusalem and look me in the eye and tell me that he or she truly believes Obama has our back??
But apparently, this duplicity is not considered sufficiently important to merit raising of voices -- or marching in the streets.
~~~~~~~~~~
PM Netanyahu says that in his next term he is going to focus on Iran. I take issue with him on some things, but here he is spot-on. Brave, in my book, and determined. And the only leader in the world with his eyes open, it seems.
~~~~~~~~~~
Obama has moved past re-election mode and is now into "legacy" mode, which means he worries about achieving successes that he can be remembered for. Irrationally, he still apparently thinks achieving some sort of successful Israeli-Palestinian Arab negotiations may be possible. And to that end, he's been complaining about Netanyahu's readiness to build in Jewish communities (otherwise referred to as "settlements") in Judea and Samaria: he actually has the unmitigated gall to say that "Israel doesn't know its own best interests."
Considering that he's bringing his own country down, I guess this, too, leaves me speechless.
~~~~~~~~~~
For the record, ISRAEL -- a sovereign state with a democratically elected government -- will decide what is in Israel's best interests.
And this is what our prime minister says (emphasis added:
"In the Middle East, the real Middle East, any territory that we evacuate will be captured by Iran. The stronger we are, the more we will be able to guarantee our future and make peace with our neighbors."
Amen to this!
~~~~~~~~~~
© Arlene Kushner. This material is produced by Arlene Kushner, functioning as an independent journalist. Permission is granted for it to be reproduced only with proper attribution.
If it is reproduced and emphasis is added, the fact that it has been added must be noted.
This material is transmitted by Arlene only to persons who have requested it or agreed to receive it. If you are on the list and wish to be removed, contact Arlene and include your name in the text of the message.
No comments:
Post a Comment