December 18, 2017

The Irrational President: Barack Obama

Hello Weasel Watchers. Welcome to vote result Friday!!!

Our winning Non-Council recipient is brought to us from The Spectator U.K.. In the winning article by Melanie Phillips we are presented with the premise that Barack Obama is acting irrationally toward Israel by treating the Palestinians as though they are victims of Israeli aggression although it is plain as day that neither Hamas nor Fatah will acknowledge that Israel has a right to exist. This stance by the Palestinians is just one of the main obstacles to a solution, they have many other obligations they have yet to meet. Yet President Obama continues down a path that seems to only subscribe that Israel meet certain obligations in the vacuum of any being met by the Palestinians.

In remarks made after his meeting with Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu, President Obama said:

I suggested to the Prime Minister that he has an historic opportunity to get a serious movement on this issue during his tenure. That means that all the parties involved have to take seriously obligations that they have previously agreed to. Those obligations were outlined in the road map…

But the first obligation in the Road Map was laid upon the Palestinians — to dismantle their infrastructure of terror. It was their failure to meet that first obligation, without which the rest of the Road Map could not be implemented, which led to its collapse as a strategy. Yet Obama appears to think that the only obligations which must be met are those which apply to Israel, with the Palestinians apparently getting a free pass.

This is of course all of a piece with his belief that Israel is the cause of the Middle East impasse which would be solved by the creation of a state of Palestine. The fact that even now Fatah states explicitly that it won’t accept the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state, let alone Hamas repeatedly restating its intention to destroy Israel and kill every Jew, is not, in Obama’s mind, the real obstacle to a solution. Not only does Obama not see the creation of ‘Hamastan’ in the West Bank as an obstacle — he sees instead the refusal to treat Hamas as part of the solution as an obstacle. Accordingly, he presents as the obstacle not the people continuing to wage war but the country that is the victim of that war – which he blames for not agreeing to destroy its own security.

The irrationality and injustice of this is manifest on every level. But what cannot be stressed enough is the way both Obama and the ‘progressive’ legions behind him have made as their rallying cry support for a proposed racist and religiously exclusionary state that denies civil rights for all. Those screaming ‘apartheid’ at Israel are demanding the establishment of a putative Palestine state which would allow no Jews to live there, let alone enjoy the equal civil and human rights afforded to Arab citizens of Israel.

Please read the whole fantastic article. Melanie Phillips analyzes the shortsightedness of Barack Obama’s Middle East policy, the lethal implications of miscalculating the intentions of Iran and the shortcomings of the policy of appeasement. Phillips also discusses a sort of silver lining that could occur as the left leaning Obama will most certainly have to face the realities of the Middle East that will for the first time expose the falsehoods and idiocies of the left that has been the cornerstone of his upbringing.

This week’s winning council selection is brought to us by Bookworm with great support from the other council members. Bookworm brings up the relevant issue of activist judges and the consequences that are the result of decisions from activist courts. Using the example of Brown v. Board of Education Bookworm asks if the chance positive result of an activist opinion makes the decision right.

Societal pressure against Jim Crow became overwhelming. The Federal Civil Rights Act wasn’t the leading edge, it was the last swipe at a system that had begun to die with great speed in the wake of the immediate changes wrought by Brown v. Board of Education.

Considering the evil that was the Jim Crow South, and considering that the system would have taken decades to die out on its own, here’s the big question: Was it a good thing that the Supreme Court jump-started Jim Crow’s death by issuing an activist decision that was both Constitutionally incorrect and factually just a tiny dent in the system, but that worked to turn America’s eyes onto a great wrong being done in its own back yard?

My answer is that, righteous though the results were, the decision was still wrong. Keep in mind that the societal benefits in Brown’s wake were not the intended consequences of the decision. Instead, the benefits flowed from an unintended consequence: the novelty of media attention focusing on an issue most Americans had managed to disregard. In other words, it wasn’t the Court decision that brought about the change; it was the dumb luck that flowed from that decision. While the decision is viewed as carte blanche for activism, because it was followed by a successful societal change, the change flowed, not from the decision itself, but simply from the attention it garnered.

Sadly, when courts get all activist about education, rather than having a great wrong righted, you’re much more likely to end up with the situation in the Kansas School District. In that District, a federal judge micromanaged billions of dollars in expenditures, only to end up with exactly the same situation as before: poorly performing minority students.

This question couldn’t be more relevant considering that Barack Obama has nominated an activist judge with suspect racial preferences to the Supreme Court in Judge Sonya Sotomayor; another irrational move by an elected U.S. President that acts more on the whims of his activist liberal upbringing than on any other factor.

Congratulations to all winners. Please visit the winning entries and pass this article along to your friends!

Winning Council Submissions

Winning Non-Council Submissions

2 Comments

  1. Hi Michael, Future Fortunes was a great article. I only hope that the electorate wakes up and sees just how corrupt the Democrats are. I don’t hold out much hope that the Democrats weed out their corrupt considering that people like William Jefferson have been hanging on for so long. People like Roland Burris, Jack Murtha, Nancy Pelosi and Christopher Dodd are an embarrassment (just to name a few). Thanks to a complicit media however the connections between the individuals and the party as a whole are not yet being made. There is no equivalent to “the culture of corruption” talking point when the media worked overtime hand in hand with the Democrats to indict the whole Republican Party.

    There is a glimmer of hope and it could certainly come from the inside. Murtha is looking to be in big trouble. Perhaps this will catch on.

    Keep up the good work!

    Thanks,
    The Watcher

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

2 Trackbacks / Pingbacks

  1. Soccer Dad
  2. The Razor » Blog Archive » The Council Has Spoken: May 29, 2009

Comments are closed.