Tired of Feeling Like an Idiot re: Israeli “Settlements”? Here’s Your Fix.

I’m 51 years old. I’ve had a reasonably good education. I’m no genius, but I’m smarter than the average bear.

And I will freely admit I haven’t had a firm grasp on the fuss about Israel and her borders. Like many, I have had a vague understanding of it, mostly boiling down to “They’re surrounded by people who want to kill them. They’re the only western democracy in a sea of anti-western sh*tholes. I’m with them.”

Here’s your fix. It’s part of a larger article editorial at NRO I heartily recommend, Obama’s Shameful Parting Shot at Israel, but here’s your pull quote:

In short, the lines informally agreed upon when Israel became a country were never made formal and they’ve been fighting about it ever since. What’s not said here is what I heard Charles Krauthammer say on Fox last night. It really captures the insidious evil of what Obama just engineered at the United Nations Security Council on Friday, December 23rd:

To give you an idea of how appalling this resolution is, it declares that any Jew who lives in the Jewish quarter of Jerusalem, the Jewish quarter, inhabited for 1,000 years, is illegal, breaking international law, essentially an outlaw, can be hauled into the international criminal court and international courts in Europe, which is one of the consequences. The Jewish quarter has been populated by Jews for 1,000 years. In the war of Independence in 1948, the Arabs invaded Israel to wipe it out. They did not succeed, but the Arab Legion succeeded in conquering the Jewish quarter. They expelled all the Jews. They destroyed all the synagogues and all the homes. For 19 years, no Jew could go there. The Israelis got it back in the Six-Day War. Now it’s declared that this is not Jewish territory. Remember, it’s called “the Jewish quarter,” but it belongs to other people. And any Jew who lives there is an outlaw. That’s exactly what we supported. The resolution is explicit in saying settlements in the occupied territories and in east Jerusalem.

It’s worth reading the entire text of Krauthammer’s Take: Abstention on Anti-Israel Vote a Disgrace: ‘U.S. Joined the Jackals at the U.N.’  here.

There. Now if you encounter someone over the holidays who says, “Isn’t that awful what Obama did at the U.N. the other day?” you’ll be able to do something other than, “Oh! I see your drink needs refilling. Can I get you another?”

⇒ Exit Question: If Obama were a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, what would he have done differently?

I’ve long said if he isn’t technically Muslim (I actually believe Obama’s only true God is himself) he’s at least functionally Muslim. Let’s remember: he was raised until 10 in Indonesia, where he attended a Muslim school – those are critically formative years.  Then from 10 to 18 was mentored by the (literal!) card-carrying Communist Frank Marshall Davis at the behest of his white grandfather in Hawaii, who felt he needed a black male “role model.” This guy didn’t live in the lower-48 until he went to college at 18, having spent half his life in Muslim Indonesia and the other half in a state-still-with-that-new-car-smell tropical paradise in the middle of the Pacific. He did not marinade in mom, the flag, and apple pie. White picket fences and 4th of July parades did not become “normal” for him until he was 18. Think about it…

Bottom Up, Truth Out.

email-button

Obama’s first term White House environmental czar, self-described Marxist Van Jones, brought “bottom up” power to post-2009’s popular political lexicon. Basically it means change comes from the bottom, from the masses, forcing the top to their will. There’s a lot of truth to that, 2012-04-04-cnn-startingpoint-vanjones2God knows, but educated ears hear “violent mob” when Van says it, because that is what he means. The underlying principle is sound, however, even if the form it takes in the hands of a Marxist is less than righteous: true power lies with the people, and the people, over the objections of their leaders, can wield it to effect true change.

Well, the people with badges have had enough. By all accounts, the field agents of the FBI are ready to revolt, thus FBI Director Comey’s letter to congress on Friday saying ‘Yeah… Remember when I said under oath that if something juicy came along I’d reboot the Hillary probe? I got a whole truck full o’juicy.’

Left, Cheryl Mills. Right, Huma Abedin

Left, Cheryl Mills. Right, Huma Abedin

Know those 33,000 missing emails? FBI found 650,000 emails on a computer shared by Huma Abedin and her sex pervert husband, Anthony Weiner. Abedin, if you’re unfamiliar, is Hillary’s self-described “second daughter.” Her most trusted aide. Except for Cheryl Mills, who is an attorney, nobody is closer to her than Huma. Huma’s a human pilot fish. Constantly swimming alongside in the sewer of filth Felony Grandma oozes all over the globe.

Well, Friday about noon Comey threw the grenade, then Sunday night the Wall Street Journal dropped the MOAB. Friday we find out Comey’s rebooting the investigation. Sunday we find out it’s because of these newly found 650,000 emails.

Now we wait.

Rich Lowry at NRO pretty well captures the magnitude of it, and I recommend you read it, and follow the embedded link to the WSJ to fill in the details. These are truly historic days, indeed.


The FBI’s Clinton Foundation Probe

By Rich Lowry — October 30, 2016

Horn Dogs in Space #StarTrek50

Oh dear.

It seems Gene Roddenberry’s zipper, if not the Starship Enterprise he imagined, had a gravity problem. It was constantly down.

Unless you’ve been stranded on a lonely planet in a far distant galaxy, you know it was the 50th anniversary of Star Trek the other day, having first aired on September 8, 1966. star-trek-50-frontA new book, The Fifty-Year Mission is described in NRO  as a “two-volume, 1,300-page oral history documenting the history of the franchise… an extraordinary achievement of research and reporting, filled with inside scoop and backstage drama, fragile egos and the surmounting of great technical challenges… essential for diehards, as well as for readers interested in film and television production in general.”  Now, clearly, as described, the book is multifaceted & comprehensive, but, naturally, it’s Roddenberry’s horn-dogginess that’s getting the headlines.

The aforementioned NRO article, titled The Great Boor of the Galaxy is a worthwhile read for a Trekkie, but below are a few select paragraphs. Enjoy.


No one is more responsible for this sense of novelty than Star Trek’s creator, Gene Roddenberry, whose posthumous reputation more closely resembles that of a religious figure than a Hollywood producer. With his long hair, sideburns, and bushy eyebrows, his professorial clothing and theatrical sense, Roddenberry in his maturity took on the appearance of his friend Isaac Asimov, instructing generations of adoring fans in the tenets of IDIC, or “Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations,” a philosophy of logic, inquiry, multiculturalism, and peace.

Roddenberry is lauded as a progressive icon, a prophet, the self-styled “Great Bird of the Galaxy” directing humanity to a limitless future in the stars. “There is no question in my mind that Roddenberry is a genius,” says actress Diana Muldaur. “There’s no disputing his genius,” says movie producer Harve Bennett. “He was a man who was able to reach out through my television and explain to me that I had a place in the world and in the future,” says Whoopi Goldberg. Longtime Roddenberry friend and collaborator Bob Justman is more measured but just as complimentary: “His background was very humble, but he’s a man who educated himself and he’s found that his mind is fertile ground.”

But there is a problem. Intended as a tribute to Star Trek and its creator, The Fifty-Year Mission ends up debunking the Roddenberry mythos. Liberal visionary? Maybe. But he was also an insecure, misogynistic hack.

Roddenberry never stopped rewriting. “The problem,” says his biographer Joel Engel, “was that he basically couldn’t write well enough to carry it off.” For 25 years, a script never left Roddenberry’s hands without becoming worse.

For all of the control Roddenberry exercised over Star Trek, the franchise prospered only when it was under the aegis of others… The Star Trek that has imprinted itself on fans for decades is Gene L. Coon’s. His shows deepened the relationships between Captain Kirk, Mr. Spock, and Dr. McCoy. He created the Klingons. There was more humor. Says writer David Gerrold, “Gene L. Coon created the noble image that everyone gives Roddenberry the most credit for.” Shatner puts it this way: “Gene Coon had more to do with the infusion of life into Star Trek than any other single person.”

With Coon at the helm Roddenberry turned to other projects, and to his own worst instincts. He was a horn dog. Affairs with police secretaries had been just the start. While on the force he had become friends with Jack Webb, the star and producer of Dragnet, who eased his entry into Hollywood and competed with him for the affections of actress Majel Barrett. Meanwhile Roddenberry also had an affair with the actress, singer, and model Nichelle Nichols. His relationship with Barrett was an open secret, lasting a decade before he divorced his wife. He and Barrett got married in 1969. (Their son, Rod, was born in 1974.) As for Nichols, Roddenberry cast her in a history-making role as Star Trek’s Lieutenant Uhura.

The episodes Gene L. Coon supervised are considered to be Star Trek’s finest. But Coon did not last long. When Star Trek recaptured Roddenberry’s attention, he didn’t like what Coon had been doing. And Coon, who had grown tired of arguing with Roddenberry, Shatner, and Nimoy, was out.

Roddenberry died in 1991. You could argue that the franchise he created has been more successful in the 25 years following his death than it had been in the 25 years before…

It was the brilliance of the idea, and the psychological need it satisfies in audiences, that allowed Roddenberry to get away with being, in most respects, an incredible, insufferable jerk to his family, friends, and peers. After reading The Fifty-Year Mission, I know why Gene Roddenberry stuck so fiercely to his notion of a future where human nature has been transformed into pure good. It’s because he knew more than anybody how truly awful we can be.

### end ###

Who’s #IranDeal’s $10M Bag Man?

Bundles of $100 BillsWhoa…

The indispensable Andrew C. McCarthy* over at National Review has once again asked the $64,000 question. Or in this case, the $10,000,000 questionWho got that sweeeeeet tip?

You’ve doubtlessly heard about the $400M in palettes of cash “leverage” given to the Iranians to get our hostages back. Well, like they say in every infomercial ever “But wait! There’s more!”  Shortly after that news broke, an enterprising New York Sun reporter, Claudia Rosett (therefore making her indispensable) combed through the shoebox of federal government receipts to find an additional (illegally structured!) $1.3B!

While “the most transparent administration in history” continues to insist that this transaction is completely legit, Claudia could not find the 13 transfers of $99,999,999.99 by searching for “Iran” listings in the judgment fund. Acknowledgment of payments to Iran is nowhere to be found. Instead, she happened upon this $1.3 billion (minus the 13 cents) by locating cases in which the State Department was a party.

“But wait! There’s even MORE!”

And with that, another intriguing wrinkle emerged: a 14th unexplained transfer by Treasury, on State’s behalf, in the amount of $10 million — bringing the total to $1.31 billion.

Whereupon Mr. McCarthy asks the aforementioned $64,000  $10,000,000 question:

Is that extra $10 million a sweetener for someone in this deal?

Good question.

Look – This entire thing is like if George W. Bush paid off the Bin Ladens. It’s UNTHINKABLE a President would do this but here we are. Read it. And be horrified.

Why Is Obama Stonewalling on Details of the $1.7 Billion in Iransom PayoffsBy Andrew C. McCarthy — August 27, 2016


*Mr. McCarthy is the lawyer who put away “The Blind Sheik” for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. The man knows bad guys and bag men when he sees them.

Obama, Explained, in ONE PARAGRAPH

Here it is.  You ready?  Because this is Obama, thus the insidious cancer of Progressivism, explained with the most sparkling clarity & brevity as I have ever seen.  Via Kevin D. Williamson at NRO, from whom I always learn something (the highest praise I can offer any writer) Bold text is my addition:


Barack Obama isn’t a policy guy; he’s a personnel guy. An underappreciated aspect of Barack Obama’s politics is that he has been trying to convert the Democratic party from a party that lives in Congress to a party that lives in the White House. The Democrats owned Congress, and especially the House of Representatives, in the postwar era, with unbroken control of the speakership from 1955 to 1995. Until Newt Gingrich came in with the 1994 tsunami, the last Republican speaker had been a man born in 1884 who rode into office on the coattails of Calvin Coolidge. Except for a few brief interludes (January 3, 1947 to January 3, 1949; January 3, 1953 to January 3, 1955; January 3, 1981 to January 3, 1987), the Democrats ran the Senate, too, from the Great Depression until the Gingrich years. That version of the Democratic party was a lawmaking party. (It made a lot of bad laws.) Barack Obama’s Democratic party, the one he is giving birth to, is a different animal. He didn’t give a hoot what was in his signature health-care law — just so long as it empowered him to start putting his people in positions to make health-care decisions. His patron saint is Roy Cohn, who proclaimed the gospel ‘Don’t tell me what the law is. Tell me who the judge is.’ Barack Obama doesn’t want to write laws — he wants to appoint judges. He doesn’t want finely crafted legislation — he wants ‘The secretary shall issue.'”


Parenthetically, Mr. Williamson also illuminates why we are $18 trillion in debt. Democrats had the purse at the dawn of the Great Society and did not let go until 1996. That’s not to say Republicans don’t own some of this disaster; they most certainly do. But it wasn’t conservatives who ushered in the welfare state and support it to this day. That’s on progressives. And that’s why we’re $18 trillion in the hole. Every social welfare program they have supported from the New Deal through the Great Society to Obamacare is not just broke, it’s breaking the back of the Republic.  Everything they touch turns to sh*t.

Everything.

I heartily recommend your read the entire thing, here.