The Year of Obama: 2009 in Review

As the calendar year comes to a close, it’s important to reflect on the challenges and opportunities laid out since Obama took office in January; the critical points of 2009 that will define 2010.

First let’s look at the bad. The two truly dangerous failures of the Obama administration thus far are:

1) The economy: Obama pledged to implement a recovery plan that would yield immediate results. Nearly 12 months later the unprecedented $3 trillion deficit has yet to create new jobs or stabilize the still perilous housing market. Besides being another failed government spending program, the recovery plan has left America with a $13 trillion national debt, which now exceeds the annual GDP. That means America is living on borrowed money more than ever.

The addiction of debt-based spending is a downward spiral that results in more and more American currency going to foreign bond holders, thus devaluing the dollar. Not only does this make all imported goods more expensive (which alone hurts the economy), it forces an increase in interest rates on bonds to make them more attractive to foreign investors.

The debt is fast becoming a existential problem for a government which cannot “outgrow” the problem, and rather than tighten its belt, is planning a new huge spending program for health care. Keep your eye on this as Obama spends even more in 2010.

2) Foreign Policy : By speaking softly and carrying no stick, Obama has essentially jettisoned America’s deterrence vis a vis hostile countries the world over. North Korea thumbed its nose at the US as it test fired its long range missiles, with no American response. Instead, the US was forced to station defensive surface-to-air missiles in Hawaii for its own defense.

Iran continues to build its nuclear-holocaust weapon unabated as the Jimmy Carter of our day also manages to allow a much needed insurrection opportunity following the rigged Iranian elections go wasted.

Even in less hostile waters Obama has shown himself to be a total failure as a diplomat. His much touted visit to China accomplished nothing, and his one-sided approach to the Arab-Israeli has not even yielded the limited goals he hoped for. Instead he has managed only to damage American-Israeli relations and raise Arab hopes - only to be dashed – leaving a sense of heightened frustration.

Afghanistan too, has seen a deterioration over the last 11 and a half months, despite Obama’s build up – a build up which deepens America’s commitment to a conflict that increasing numbers of American’s no longer see the benefit of.

But no, all is not lost, for Year of Obama has also given us hope for the future. Because of Obama’s failures and radical policies, American’s have made an about-face on the president, one going beyond the typical mid-term decline in ratings. A poll conducted by Rasmussen 12/24/09 gave Obama a disapproval rating of 56%, with 44% of respondents “strongly disapproving” of his administration. Compare that to his 65% approval rating with only 16% strongly disapproving when he took office January 20th. Hopefully voters will remember 2009 when they enter the voting booths in November 2010.

The second important development of 2009 was the emergence of the so-called “Tea Parties”. Its been long in coming that average Americans do what the far-left thrived off of during the Iraq War under Bush; make their opinions known. The armchair democracy of relying solely on voting to affect change isn’t enough. To maintain a healthy democracy, the people must be ready, willing, and able to make the kind of demonstrations that gain attention and remind politicians who really is in charge. This is equally true for Republican administrations and lawmakers. They too have been guilty over the last few years of ignoring their constituents. Hopefully this phenomenon will affect real change in coming year.

A Special Place in Hell

I like to believe that there is a special place in hell for murderers and rapists.
I like to believe there is also one for people like Bernie Madoff who destroy lives and even charitable organizations to fund their lavish lifestyles. And I really, truly believe there is an extra special place in hell for a certain kind of liberal.

I definitely don’t mean all liberals; I don’t think that naïve ones who believe a welfare state is simply more likely to produce a stable economy are evil and I don’t think that liberals who were upset by the war in Iraq are bad. We have our differences, but that’s a far cry from believing them to be deeply sick, evil people.

There is, however, a certain strain of malevolent liberalism today that can be best termed “Exploitative Liberalism”. Exploitative Liberals are those leftists who have a pathological need to give to others, but do so at someone else’s expense. They are the ones who think it’s a moral imperative to spend YOUR tax dollars on education for illegal immigrants and sex-changes for employees of the City of San Fran-Sicko. They are the ones who want Affirmative Action to give minorities a leg-up in education and employment opportunities; leaving other more qualified students and job-seekers out in the cold. But they aren’t the liberals’ problem, and it doesn’t bother them so long as they help out whomever they feel deserves it.
What truly outraged me today, however, was a news item that hit closer to home, here in Israel. “The High Court on Tuesday ordered the opening of Road 443, the Modiin-Jerusalem road, to vehicles from the Palestinian Authority. The government was instructed to remove roadblocks preventing traffic from Arab villages along the road.”

For those of you outside of Israel, the 443 is the 2nd large traffic artery between the Tel Aviv area and Jerusalem, running through the Modiin bloc. It provides the 150,000 residents of the bloc with route into the two large Israeli metropolitan centers. From 2000, with the rise in Arab terror, the 443 became a shooting gallery for Palestinian Authority terrorists, leading the Israeli military to close the road to non-Israeli Arabs in 2002. Since then the freeway has been virtually terror-free and Israeli drivers, who literally travelled every day under the gun, could feel secure.

That was until today, however. Today the Israeli Supreme Court ruled in a split decision to open the road to Palestinian Authority traffic. The ruling was in response to a petition brought by Arabs in the region, and brought to court on their behalf by the Association for Civil Rights in Israel. The decision will force, in 5 months time, the army to abandon its safety precautions which brought security to the tens of thousands of Israelis who daily use the road to commute, myself included.
This is a classic, and dangerous, example of people who feel a need to help others, and do so at the expense of people they take for granted. People like the ACRI, which cares nothing about the fact that there are many more roads – built by Israel with Israeli taxes- that are Arab only, where Jews are banned from driving, despite the inconvenience caused by this separation, are selective about their help; help which comes at the price of danger and possible death for others. The ruling for the ACRI today came in the wake of the rejection by the Supreme Court of a similar request by Israelis to be allowed access to Arab roads, showing the bias of not only the ACRI but of the Supreme Court.

Such Exploitative Liberals most definitely deserve their own special residence in Gehinom.

With or Without You: Iran's Ongoing Upheaval

AP: Witnesses: Iran police fire on protesters; 4 dead (27-12-2009)

“demonstrators fought back furiously against security forces, hurling stones at them and setting their motorcycles, cars and vans ablaze”

“In Tehran, protesters tried to cut off roads with burning barricades that filled the sky with billowing black smoke. One police officer was photographed with blood streaming down his face after he was set upon by the crowd in a blazing street.”

“he protests began with thousands of opposition supporters chanting "Death to the dictator"

These are just a few scenes of the ongoing insurrection underway in Iran. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard has been working overtime since the allegedly rigged elections of the past summer to quell the growing movement of rebellion.

Frustrated over the corruption of the present regime and its stifling adherence to Islam’s Sharia Law and facing severe economic troubles in the wake of Teheran’s vehemently anti-Western stance, hundreds of thousands of Iran’s secular young urbanites have begun to undo what their parents did 30 years ago, when Iran’s pro-Western Shah was dethroned, forced into exile, and replaced with Ayatollah Khomeni’s Islamic regime.

Like then, the United States suffers from an inept and indecisive Democratic President who fails to appreciate the urgency of the situation. In 1978 Jimmy Carter failed to provide the backing to the Shah necessary to stave off the infant revolutionary movement and the reassure middle class Iranians of the stability of the government. In so doing he allowed one of America’s principle allies in the region and a major supplier of oil to turn into one of its worst enemies.

Today Barak Obama makes the same mistake by offering little support to the growing revolution against Ahmadinejad, despite the latter’s plans for constructing nuclear arms and wiping Israel off the face of the Earth; not to mention his support of Islamic terror groups the world over. Obama made no demands of Iran vis a vis the election and continues to refuse to apply pressure, either economic or military, to Iran with regards to its nuclear program.

One can only hope that this time the pro-Western elements will win out despite the utter failure of America’s Democrat president to support them.

Remembering the Victims of the Oslo Agreement

Yesterday, the 5th of Tevet in the Hebrew calendar, was the 9th anniversary of the assassination of Rabbi Benjamin Zev Kahane and his wife Taliya at the hands of Arab terrorists as the couple drove home north of Jerusalem. They are two of the most famous victims of the Oslo Process, which has claimed thousands of Israeli lives since the much-heralded 1993 Rabin-Arafat handshake (choreographed by none other than current Obama Chief of Staff and perennial detractor of the settlement movement, Rahm Emanuel). It is perhaps the most fitting time to reflect on the Oslo Agreements and the negotiating process from 1993 to the present.

After the left-wing/Arab bloc narrowly won the 1992 Knesset elections in Israel, Yitzhak Rabin, who ran a campaign promoting security and zero tolerance for terrorism, became Prime Minister, the second time in his career. Rabin immediately set about building a governing coalition of the far-left and entered into negotiations with Israel’s sworn enemy, the PLO, and its murderous leader Yasser Arafat. An agreement reached, colloquially known as the Oslo Accords, strongly divided the Israeli public along both the right – left and religious - secular lines.

The agreement established an Arab autonomous entity in almost all of the Gaza Strip and parts of the West Bank, with more areas in the latter to be handed over in the years to come. The PLO was legalized and its leadership allowed to return from their Tunisian exile. A paramilitary force under PLO control was created and armed with tens of thousands of firearms by the Israeli government. And what was the excuse for arming a terrorist group and arch enemy of Israel? It was said that they could deal with the Islamic terror group Hamas, and would no longer threaten Israelis. That’s right, an Arab terror group whose raison detre was the destruction of Israel would, if legalized and armed, suddenly ally itself with its hated enemy and take up arms against its Arab brothers.

If this wasn’t ridiculous enough, keep in mind how HAMAS itself reached Israel. In 1976, during Rabin’s first term as Prime Minister, Hamas was imported from Egypt into the Gaza Strip by none other than – yep, you guessed it- Yitzhak Rabin. The excuse? The same one he would use to justify importing PLO murderers and arming them in 1993. Hamas could undermine the PLO and provide a less antagonistic alternative leadership for the Arabs.

Given this background, is it any wonder that things are so screwed up in Israel today and that they generally have gotten worse in the last 30 years?

Regarding Healthcare

As the embattled minority party feebly tries to convince enough Democrats to oppose the Universal Healthcare plans proposed in the House and Senate, much attention has been focused to the details of the plans in order to shore up opposition. The so-called “public option,” which would offer a wholly governmental healthcare provider and thus likely kill all competition because unlike private businesses, the federal government won’t go bankrupt no matter how inefficiently it operates; subsidized abortions; broadening the ability to “buy into” Medicare and so on.

The most important issue, however, isn’t in the details of any of the plans. The real $64,000 question is, is universal federal healthcare a good idea at all? Is it within the purview of the federal government? Of course HAVING universal health care is wonderful. But PAYING for it isn’t.

Now many people have recently pointed to Israel as an example of a quality universal healthcare system. First, its important to note that Israel doesn’t have a public option. More important however, is the cost. Israelis pay enormous taxes, with one of the biggest burdens being the healthcare system. Income taxes on someone who earns a mere $23,000 a year are 49%. Compare that to the 15% a person earning that same wage would pay in America (and let’s not forget the deductions and tax credits that reduce low income earners tax burden even further). Even Israel’s Social Security tax (called National Insurance) is higher, with a total rate of 15% compared to 12.4% in America (or 13.8% if Medicare Tax is included). In addition, Israelis pay 16% nation-wide sales tax, a special tax on cars of nearly 100% (thus doubling the price of cars); not to mention the luxury taxes and tariffs that raise prices on other items. Recent studies estimate that the average Israeli loses half of his money to taxes, an astounding considering the relatively high level of poverty in Israel.

Considering America’s already massive deficit and $13 trillion debt (which is equal to the annual US GDP), is adding another massive expense really such a great idea? Will the new healthcare system have provisions to prevent the millions of illegal immigrants from exploiting it and burdening tax payers? Considering the abuse of the present system in states like California, where illegals benefit from free state provided care at the expense of the tax payer, I doubt the federal system will be much better. But hey, it’s your money.

Morally vs Ideologically Bankrupt

Since Netanyahu’s election as Prime Minister in February of 2009, Obama and his cronies have delivered a constant pressure upon Israel to agree to a total freeze on construction of settlements in the West Bank and east Jerusalem. Netanyahu, always the spineless one tried to compromise on the issue: a partial building freeze in the West Bank (allowing for natural growth, which was never clearly defined or explained) and the completion of projects already underway. The result was last week’s building freeze declaration, which, in theory, was to ban only those projects which were not yet begun and were not part of the 500 units approved recently for construction.


Let’s count the charges against the Netanyahu gov’t:
1) Nixing approval for new units in both the West Bank and Jerusalem even before the 10 month freeze, aggravating one of the worst housing crises in Israeli history.

2) Violating its own restrictions on the extent of the building freeze, banning even the recently approved units and even illegally confiscating (read: stealing) building equipment.

3) Proceeding with the freeze despite the fact that it will cost the economy an estimated 500 million dollars, further deteriorate the already difficult housing situation, and get in return absolutely nothing.


Netanyahu spinelessly uses the freeze – and the damage it does to Israel, especially to struggling young families – so he can feel more at ease talking to Obama. But the settlement movement is just as bankrupt as Netanyahu. Since the founding of Gush Emunim, the core of the settlement movement, in 1974 the settlers and their allies inside the Green Line have been unable to formulate a comprehensive plan which would ensure the survival of their enterprise. Their answer to every problem or crisis is to build more; more houses and more settlements. When the demographic threat to the State of Israel crystallized in the 1980s they offered no solution (like some form of population transfer to encourage Arab emigration), and so eventually were subjected to the disastrous Oslo process in the 1990’s and the 2005 Gaza Disengagement. The mainstream settlement movement and the Israeli government are two heads of the same bankrupt coin: one morally lacking, the other, ideologically.

Mike Huckabee: A Jewish Perspective

Former Arkansas Governor and potential Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee has been, until recently, the apparent frontrunner for the 2012 Republican nomination. True, it’s quite early to be placing bets, but he has been basically the only notable besides the uniquely divisive Sarah Palin, whom American’s seem either to love or despise (more often the latter than the former). He stunned observers with his early wins in the 2008 primaries and came in second to John McCain. He stood out as an electable conservative; a jovial, easy going, and down to Earth guy who plays bass guitar in a rock band and gave anecdotes about how he managed to lose more weight than entire Jenny Craig Centers. He could speak at the most liberal college campuses delivering his message of middle-American conservatism without the compromising his beliefs or dodging pies. For many he seemed like a great way to evict Obama from office in the 2012 elections.

For Jewish conservatives, Huckabee earned a special interest. He was – and is- the only potential candidate for the presidency who openly assailed the destructive Two-State Solution for the Israeli-Arab conflict. Instead, Huckabee suggested that the Arab inhabitants of Judea-Samaria ( in CNN-speak that means the West Bank) and East Jerusalem transfer themselves out of the country and seek self-determination outside of Israel’s historic homeland. After 42 years of American presidents butting into Israeli affairs with insistence that Israel surrender land – either to create a Palestine – or to hand over territory to its Arab neighbors, the idea of an American administration receptive to trying a new idea sounds better than matza-ball soup on Shabbes, especially after having suffered through almost a year of Obama’s obscene bullying of Israel.

Yes, Huckabee sounded like a winner, for conservatives and especially for Jews. That was until the unfortunate incident involving Maurice Clemmons, a violent repeat offender to whom Huckabee granted clemency during his term as governor. Huckabee, like other governors, felt the pressure of far-left space-cadets like the ACLU, and folded. Who would have thought that one of the recipients of clemency would go on to murder four cops?

The truth is the incident with Clemmons is, of course, regrettable and reveals a character flaw in Huckabee. He felt pressure, and gave in. But he is and was a politician, and such behavior from a politician is hardly remarkable. In fact it’s virtually impossible to find one who lacks this trait in some measure. I definitely can’t imagine either Palin or Romney being much better in this regard. And certainly neither have had the ‘beitzim’ to speak on Israel in the way that Huckabee has. In the end of the day, as bad as the situation may seem, Huckabee is still the best choice at this point, on both a Jewish and conservative level. No other candidate is as electable (assuming this whole mess is forgotten by 2012) and frankly, no other candidate has shown him/herself to be anything more than a Xerox copy of every other ideologically barren Republican in high office.

Obama's Afghan Surge and Our Republican Losers

Obama's recent decision to commit an additional 30,000 US troops to Afghanistan, mirroring Bush's 2007 Iraq troop surge, was applauded by some Republican pundits and politicians Thursday, including former Congressman Newt Gingrich. On the other hand, Obama faced criticism from within his own party by liberals including Russ Feingold, who argued that the war had lost its direction.

What does this news item say? It sums up, more clearly than anything yet, that the Republican party, nay, the conservative movement in America, has lost its way. Once upon a time the Republican Party was the party of restraint. They were labeled "isolationists", and it was the Democrats who were the "warmongers".

Democrats led America into two inconclusive large-scale conflicts in east Asia where a total of nearly 100,000 American troops were killed, with hundreds of thousands more permanently maimed. Republicans, going back to the beginning of the 20th Century, were always cautious about committing troops to combat. They were CONSERVATIVE about war, not just about spending and taxation. Not that they were doves, but they carefully weighed the circumstances to see if war was a CRITICAL NECESSITY for ensuring American freedom and welfare because nothing else justifies risking the lives of soldiers, not to mention the tremendous financial burden of modern war.

So what does it tell us when Newt Gingrich, the architect of the stunning 1994 midterm Republican takeover of Congress, gives B.O. a big pat on the back? What does it tell us when the Republican leaderships, including John McCain, criticize the deployment plan not for foolishly dragging America deeper into a failed war that its taken almost 9 years to lose, but rather to slam Obama's suggested exit date from the Afghani quagmire.

Afghanistan is a large, mountainous country, easily defendable and difficult for invaders to either conquer or control. Al Qeda, America's original target in Afghanistan, is not bound to the country, and transfers its operations to other Islamic nations, like Pakistan, Somalia, etc. Having tens of thousands of American troops mired in a pointless war with no clear goal and essentially no plan is bad enough, sending in more soldiers is insanity. Republicans are deeply in need of some soulsearching, and had better find their roots prior to the 2010 midterm elections. Otherwise, they can count on remaining the minority party in both houses of Congress for even longer than America will be stuck in its new Vietnam.