Obama, Netanyahu and World Peace

I have been searching for days for the words to summarize my feelings about what just happened last week with President Obama and Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

I have been reviewing the political backlash over the events, and I'm still reeling in a state of semi-shocked revulsion. I've written in the past about the history of the Jews, the state of Israel, and the tragic history of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. It seems the more things change the more they remain the same. In the establishment of Zion in the last days it is to be expected there might be some surprises along the way, but the events of the last few days have been a stunner even for me as I've thought more about it.

Charles Krauthammer weighed in yesterday in the Washington Post. Not surprisingly, he believes President Obama is either a rank amateur or a provocateur. Most disappointing, once again, was the way Obama ambushed Netanyahu. The Obama speech was delivered while Netanyahu was in the air flying toward America, where he had requested some time in front of a joint session of Congress to deliver a speech intended to clarify his position and strengthen ties between the two countries.

So what does our President do? He boldly states Israel must be willing to return to the 1967 borders of the state of Israel before it was invaded, defeated its would-be conquerors, claimed the land the aggressors lost by the ill-fated incursion into the sovereign borders of Israel, then be willing to swap other Israeli land in exchange for an affirmation of the "right to return" asserted by the Arabs.

Then, having dropped that bombshell on the world, instead of sticking around for the speech like any former American president would have done, Obama jetted off to tip a pint in an Irish pub. Amazing and appalling treatment of America's only ally in the Middle East with a democratic form of government that is currently working well.

The Deseret News published an editorial, and tried to state the obvious without striking a strident note, in which they said:  "Also this time, he decided to set specific parameters for peace between Israel and the Palestinians, specifying a return to the borders that existed prior to the Six Day War in 1967. That was a diplomatic bombshell that may make an agreement more difficult. It certainly gave Republicans something for which to attack the president after weeks of being tongue-tied by his success in destroying al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden. It sent troubling signals about the nation's continuing support for Israel as a model for democracy in the region." The editorial then praised the president for offering support for what is being dubbed "the Arab spring," as more and more countries experience uprisings in search of freedom from dictatorial rule.

But in Obama's call for a return to the 1967 borders, Israel would be signing its death warrant, since the old line cuts Israel to a narrow neck of land seven miles wide and makes it virtually indefensible. It is also untenable to ask Israel to divide the Holy City Jerusalem once again. Having captured control of its Western Wall in 1967, the only remnant of their holiest site, the Temple Mount, it is impossible to imagine the state of Israel would willingly surrender it now. Not surprisingly, that is exactly what Netanyahu said publicly in his speech.

Obama quickly recovered, mocking his critics by stating he had said "mutually agreeable land swaps" is what he was talking about. But the problems still remain -- Israel is always required to give up land it acquired through wars with aggressors who attacked them, while the Palestinians merely have to make promises they have historically never kept.

Netanyahu, speaking to a joint session of Congress, made his position absolutely clear:




Krauthammer summarizes the peril into which the U.S. President has thrust Israel, and it has to do with weakening Israel's negotiating power in the U.N. through his reckless (or is it intentional?) teleprompter rhetoric. Writes Krauthammer, "Nor is this merely a theoretical proposition. Three times the Palestinians have been offered exactly that formula, 1967 plus swaps — at Camp David 2000, Taba 2001, and the 2008 Olmert-Abbas negotiations. Every time, the Palestinians said no and walked away.

"And that remains their position today: The 1967 lines. Period. Indeed, in September the Palestinians are going to the United Nations to get the world to ratify precisely that — a Palestinian state on the ’67 lines. No swaps.

"Note how Obama has undermined Israel’s negotiating position. He is demanding that Israel go into peace talks having already forfeited its claim to the territory won in the ’67 war — its only bargaining chip. Remember: That ’67 line runs right through Jerusalem. Thus the starting point of negotiations would be that the Western Wall and even Jerusalem’s Jewish Quarter are Palestinian — alien territory for which Israel must now bargain.

"The very idea that Judaism’s holiest shrine is alien or that Jerusalem’s Jewish Quarter is rightfully or historically or demographically Arab is an absurdity. And the idea that, in order to retain them, Israel has to give up parts of itself is a travesty."

So after all the history between America and Israel since 1948, when the state of Israel was initially approved on the narrowest of margins -- one vote cast by the U.S. -- President Obama is now undermining the Jewish state. Both sides of the aisle in Congress have demonstrated their bipartisan support for Netanyahu, reaffirming not only the Prime Minister, but also standing firm by repudiating Obama's speech.

Even Harry Reid (D-NV), the Senate Majority Leader, is his speech at AIPAC last week issued a strong statement in support of the right of Israel and the Palestinians, "and no one else," to negotiate their own path forward. PERIOD. Democrats and Republicans alike are united on this one issue -- the state of Israel has a firm and unyielding ally in the United States of America.



The only dissenter appears to be its Commander in Chief.

The Illuminati and the New World Order

I'm not a big conspiracy theorist fan.  I have no doubt the world domination conspiracies have many adherents and true believers.  I was a young man when I first heard about the Illuminati, and it becomes the underlying theme in the Dan Brown book and movie, Angels and Demons, and other pop culture references.  Many assert its members have included Winston Churchill, the Bush family, Barack Obama, the Rothschild family, David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski.  Almost every assassination plot can find an easy connection to the Illuminati, it seems, as they seek to usher in the New World Order.

When I was a younger man, I was mildly intrigued by all the Kennedy assassination theories.  I finally concluded I would have to wait for some future day to discern the truth, after visiting Dealey Plaza for the first time.  Then it occurred to me that all I needed to do was wait for the sequel to National Treasure 2, since the answer was revealed in the Book of Secrets ;-)

As I have stated on numerous occasions throughout this blog, I try to find my truth in the middle of the road, and in my more rational moments I normally eschew extreme points of view.

When the state of Israel was created in 1947-48, it was miraculous in its inception.  Only one vote separated the opposition to its creation from successful passage of its charter.  The final vote granting statehood to Israel came from the United States of America in the United Nations Security Council.  Of its few allies in the world, the United States has always been the most reliable and steadfast until now. 

This morning I was looking for something else, and quite unexpectedly stumbled over this interview on YouTube. 

I did some checking.  It appears to be authentic, and the subject of the interview is Dr. Richard L. Rubenstein, Yale fellow, "Distinguished Professor of the Year", and Harvard Phd.  He states President Obama's intention is to "correct the historical mistake of the creation of the state of Israel." Dr. Rubenstein has been fighting against the Holocaust denials his whole career.  He believes President Obama due to his family heritage is extremely pro-Muslim -- to the point of "wanting to see the destruction of Israel."

I don't know how Dr. Rubenstein has arrived at his conclusions, but his assertions -- if true and credible -- (I hasten to add the qualifier) could pose a serious threat to the ongoing existence of the state of Israel.

Further, there are voices out there (are they really so far out these days?) asserting Obama's agenda (which any casual observer can only conclude is radial and extreme) was promoted openly in the sixties by two liberal professors, Cloward & Piven, when he was a student at Columbia University.  Their strategy was designed to end poverty in the United States by creating a socialist state guaranteeing a government income for all.  Incidentally, such an idea is absurd on its face because everywhere it's been tried it has failed miserably. 

I thought we were way beyond the grasp of such idiocy.  Apparently, not!  

The only reason any of this has even the slightest hint of credibility is that every single step this president and this Congress have taken since Obama's inauguration is trending rapidly in this direction.  I've simply never seen anything like this in my lifetime.  The lightning speed with which it is occurring is troubling.  I never thought in my wildest dreams it was even possible, and especially that it would happen inside America right under our noses.

Then it began to hit me recently.  What if universal health care wasn't about health care at all?  What if it was an intentional act to bankrupt America?  I have been mystified by it all along.  There is no rational fiscal policy on which it can rest and find any semblance of justification.  Who but a radical Marxist would come up with such a plan in the middle of a crippling recession? 

Republicans and Democrats had to link arms to make all this happen.  Blame the participants from both sides, not just Democrats.  Don't forget that TARP was hatched by Republicans.

What if "cap and trade" had nothing to do with global warming after all?  What if it has everything to do with redistribution of income, government control of the economy and a criminal payoff to Obama's biggest contributors?

Why all the bailouts and stimulus bills?  Where did all that money go? It went to Democrat contributors, organizations (ACORN), and unions -- including billions of dollars to save or create jobs of government employees across the country. It went to save GM and Chrysler so that their employees could keep paying union dues. It went to AIG so that Goldman Sachs could be bailed out (after giving Obama almost $1 million in contributions). A staggering $125 billion went to teachers (thereby protecting their union dues). All those public employees will vote loyally as Democrats to protect their bloated salaries and pensions that are bankrupting America . The country goes broke, future generations face a bleak future, but Obama, the Democrat Party, government, and the unions grow more powerful. The ends justify the means.  It makes absolutely no sense to me!!!  But what if that's what they are attempting?

Why all the talk about legalizing illegal immigrants and resisting attempts by the state of Arizona to keep them out?  Have you actually read the Arizona law?  Click the link.  It's only ten pages long, and mirrors exactly the federal statutes already on the books.  Obama's lack of response to closing the borders has been stunning!  What if it's an intentional act to just give these 12 million potential new citizens free health care?  If we're entertaining socialism, why not go all the way?  It adds 12 million reliable new Democrat voters who can be counted on to support big government. Add another few trillion dollars in welfare, aid to dependent children, food stamps, free medical, education, tax credits for the poor, and eventually Social Security.  Bankrupt capitalism so socialism can finally be fully implemented.  Why not? 

I can't believe I'm even entertaining these thoughts, but what other explanation is there?  I await your scathing rebukes.  Comment below and set me straight again.  Put me out of my twisted pain.

Here's the most bitter pill of all.  This government has systematically set about to raise taxes on small business owners, high-income earners, and job creators. They have put the entire tax burden on only the top 20 percent of taxpayers, they aim to redistribute the income, punish success, and reward those who did nothing to deserve it (except vote for Obama).

Ronald Reagan was the radical back in his day -- he wanted to dramatically cut taxes in order to starve the government. Obama wants to dramatically raise taxes to starve his political opposition.

I know, stop me before I get crazy.  What I could never figure out was why this all seemed so irrational to me.  What if I'm actually sane and rational?  That's even more frightening, because then I have to conclude that this agenda is a purposeful and intentional act of treason.  That really stretches my finite little brain. 

But suddenly it's beginning to make more sense than ever before.  I made the mistake of thinking President Obama was acting in what he perceived to be our best interests as a nation.  That's what people want in their president.  The thought never really resonated with me that he might be doing something quite different. 

I usually reject conspiracy theories out of hand.  I don't like discussing secret combinations.  Such thoughts are radical.  Now I'm beginning to wonder if the radicals really are the radicals and the conspiracy theorists are the only rational thinkers left standing.  That's really a weird thought for me.

What is white is black and what is black is white.  What is good is evil and what is evil is good.  What is up is down and what is down is up.  "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!"  (Isaiah 5:20).

What if the grand scheme is being implemented in ways we could never have imagined two years ago (and still resist) because we can't imagine it could be true?  What if Obama and his "regime" have created a vast and rapidly expanding constituency of voters dependent on big government; a vast privileged class of public employees who work for big government; and a government dedicated to destroying capitalism and installing themselves as socialist rulers by overwhelming and bankrupting the system?  Is that even possible? 

If no one is left standing and all the worker bees are now on the dole, then who's left for the over-taxed rich to exploit to earn enough to pay the taxes to support the welfare recipients?  This makes absolutely NO SENSE to me, yet it appears that's what the agenda adds up to.  The circular logic defies reason.  Reagan had it right -- you have to starve government to help the poor so they can be employed by the rich.

The other foreign policy reality is more sobering to me.  I never believed it would be possible in this way for America to distance herself from the state of Israel.  Our longstanding support and advocacy for the existence of the state of Israel has never been in dispute until now. 

And it's redefining my whole thought process on the question of Middle East diplomacy.