Useful Idiots Condemn Israel

Useful Idiots Condemn Israel

The left-wing blogosphere is full of useful idiots, who pretend that the flotilla which just was stopped by Israel was a humanitarian mission.If getting humanitarian supplies to Gaza really was the goal, this flotilla was not necessary. The supplies would have been off-loaded in Eqypt or Israel and then shipped in by land after being checked for hidden weapons.

And that is the rub, only sea-based shipping would provide Iran with the mechanism for almost unlimited armament of Hamas. There is a limit to the quantity and size of missiles and other armaments which can be smuggled through tunnels from Egypt. That is why the sea blockade must be broken for Iran to get what it wants.

But the useful idiots (no offense to idiots) in the left-wing blogosphere ignore this reality, and use the incident for their ultimate goal, which is the cut off of U.S. support for Israel.

Funny how the left-wing blogs always seem to take the side of Islamists against Israel, and pretend that Israeli self-defense takes place in a vacuum:

  • Glenn Greenwald is today’s Most Useful Idiot, for not only condemning Israel in absurd terms, but trying to blame Israel for a host of domestic U.S. problems: “As Americans suffer extreme cuts in education for their own children and a further deterioration in basic economic security (including Social Security), will they continue to acquiesce to the transfer of billions of dollars every year to the Israelis, who — unlike Americans — enjoy full, universal health care coverage?”
  • John Cole is not far behind Greenwald, not even trying to hide his goal of cutting off U.S. support for Israel, as if he needed this incident to make this argument: “BTW- can we have a Stupak amendment so I am no longer paying for this? That is how it works, right? All you have to do is cite your personal morals and you can get things you don’t like unfunded, right?”
  • Think Progress (it really doesn’t matter which blogger, they are fungible) compares the flotilla to the civil rights marchers of the 1960s: “Like segregation in the American South, the siege of Gaza (and the entire Israeli occupation, for that matter) is a moral abomination that should be intolerable to anyone claiming progressive values. It’s sad that it should require the deaths of non-Palestinians to finally shake the international community from apathy and inaction, but, as with the tragic murders of Goodman, Chaney, and Schwerner, if it contributes to ending the situation then that’s a positive outcome.”

This is just some quick low-hanging fruit. In comparison, Juan Cole — often the first to go off the Israel-bashing deep end — seems downright reasonable in his analysis that there may have been an overreaction by both sides.

What don’t these fools understand about the fact that they are being used, and using themselves, to support the Iranian backed Islamist movements which want only to destroy Israel.

Or maybe they do understand.

Updates:
John Hawkins has even more reaction from the blogosphere.
Doug Ross, exposes Gaza ‘Humanitarian’ Flotilla: a Ruse for a ‘Martyrdom Operation’
The New Ledger, Blood Libel Against Israel analyzes the video showing the peaceful “activists” trying to kill Israelis as they boarded the ship:

Video Close-Up Footage of Mavi Marmara Passengers Attacking IDF Soldiers (With Sound)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LulDJh4fWI&feature=player_embedded

Meanwhile, Palestinian Media Watch has the video showing the peaceful intent and high-minded thoughts of those freedom-loving flotilla participants:

video Gaza flotilla participants invoked killing of Jews

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3L7OV414Kk&feature=player_embedded

The flotilla was organized by the Islamist government in Turkey to aid Hamas with the goal of opening up shipping channels for Turkey’s new friend, Iran, to ship more and better weapons as it is doing to Hezbollah in Lebanon. Iran is busy turning Lebanon and Syria into one large missile launching pad against Israel, and a southern base in Gaza will complete the encirclement of Israel for the coming crisis over Iran’s nuclear program.

The Europeans on the ships were cover, and the placement of an 18-month old child on these ships was the utmost cynical use of a human shield.

Fawning press now gets cold shoulder from Obama

Fawning press now gets cold shoulder from Obama

May 26th, 2010

By Bryon York, Washington Examiner

 Obama is pushing the press around

Will Barack Obama go an entire year without holding a formal news conference? He’s getting close: The president’s last full-scale session with the press was on July 22, 2009, which was 307 days ago.

When Obama last held a big news conference, there had not yet been terrorist attacks at Fort Hood, Detroit, and Times Square. Scott Brown was an unknown Massachusetts state senator. There was no national health care bill, much less national health care law. Tiger Woods appeared to be a model family man.

A lot can happen in 307 days, which is far longer than George W. Bush or Bill Clinton ever went between news conferences.

In its defense, the White House says Obama answers a lot of questions from reporters, just not in the traditional news-conference setting. In fact, the president does a lot of one-on-one interviews, frequently with sympathetic reporters. But even in terms of brief question-and-answer sessions with the White House press corps, he has still done fewer than Bush or Clinton.

More troubling is that Obama makes no secret of his disdain for the press. Just look at the scene in the Oval Office May 18, when Obama invited a few journalists to watch him sign a new bill — it just happened to be the Daniel Pearl Freedom of the Press Act.

“Speaking of press freedom, could you answer a couple of questions on BP?” CBS’s Chip Reid asked Obama after the signing.

“You’re certainly free to ask them, Chip,” Obama said.

Read More:

Obama and the New Normal

Obama and the New Normal

May 22nd, 2010

By Robin of Berkeley, American Thinker

 Obama is defining our culture with his vindictive assaults on individuals

The human brain is a complicated organ. It can be infinitely pliable but also maddeningly rigid.

Humans can be slow to recognize signs of imminent disaster. While red flags are flapping wildly in the wind, the person ignores any and all warnings.

But the brain can be highly suggestible, too, easily controlled and shaped by advertisers and spin doctors. Thus, after countless ads, a person associates soda with Coke, search engines with Google. And after having “Yes we can,” burned into their neural pathways, all hope and change is connected to Obama.  

That’s why it’s crucial to notice all the “firsts.” Because once something is repeated often enough, it becomes the New Normal.

Decades ago, the first rap song that celebrated beating “ho’s” and shooting cops was shocking. But after the umpteenth song, the lyrics may no longer startle. 

But while things have been going downhill for decades, ever since Obama arrived on the scene, the assaults have come fast and furiously. First it was the trashing of Hillary. When her abuse was pooh-poohed by those who could have done something about it, like Obama himself, that just emboldened the radicals. Their getting away with (soul) murder led to even more sexually threatening behavior toward Sarah Palin.

Another example: It used to be off-limits for the president and Congress to target private citizens. Not any longer. It’s now open season on anyone who dares to disagree.

Read More:

Obama’s Burden of “Brightness” touted by Left wing media

Obama’s Burden of Brightness

By John Dietrich

President Obama is frequently described as highly intelligent. His advisor Valerie Jarrett has described this as a “burden.” She announced at the John F. Kennedy School of Government that “[p]art of the burden of being so bright is that he sees his error immediately.” Advisor David Axelrod claimed, “He does have an incisive mind. This is someone who in law school worked with [Harvard professor] Larry Tribe on a paper on the legal implications of Einstein’s theory of relativity.” The president obviously shares this opinion, having told Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid early in his Senate career, “Harry, I have a gift.”
The “progressive” media can be counted on to regurgitate this mantra. They have, in fact, surpassed it, and they have often entered the realm of idolatry or even adolescent infatuation. Chris Matthews is perhaps the leading example of this. Following one the president’s press conferences, Matthews claimed that “[t]he president showed his analytical mind. He was at his best intellectually. I thought it was a great example of how his mind works. What a mind he has, and I love his ability to do it on television. I love to think with him.” Matthews is famous for the frequent “thrill” that goes up his leg. He apparently also suffers from gender confusion. Watching Obama board a helicopter, Matthews gushed, “We agree, we girls agree. I don’t mind saying that. I’m excited. I’m thrilled.” Following Obama’s speech at the Democratic National Convention, reports on the president became so fawning that even Bill Maher, no right-winger, commented that “the coverage … that I was watching from MSNBC, I mean these guys were ready to have sex with him.” 
The commentators at MSNBC were not alone. Judith Warner, who writes for the New York Times, claimed that many women are dreaming of having sex with the new president. How did she know? Well, from personal experience. She shared her fantasy of finding President Obama in her shower. Was this news “fit to print”?
Another New York Times columnist, David Brooks, shared the experience of his first encounter with the President: “I remember distinctly an image of — we were sitting on his couches, and I was looking at his pant leg and his perfectly creased pant,” Brooks reported, “and I’m thinking, a) he’s going to be president and b) he’ll be a very good president.” Evan Thomas, Newsweek editor, provided this analysis: “I mean, in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above — above the world…he’s sort of God.” Historian Michael Beschloss, who might be considered an expert on American presidents, claimed that the current president’s IQ is “off the charts.” When pressed to reveal what he thought the President’s IQ was, Beschloss could only say, “he’s probably the smartest guy ever to become president.” Even many of Obama’s critics have bought into the intelligence hype. FOX news contributor Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard claimed that “for all his brainpower,” he is a “slow learner.”
This adulation may cause a serious problem for supporters of the president. Joe Scarborough pointed this out on his MSNBC program: “I tell you my biggest fear for Barack Obama, he has been sainted. He is Saint Barack. The same mainstream media that tried so desperately to get him elected has engaged in hyperbole, engaged in exaggeration. They have deified this man. … They have set up such unrealistic expectations that no politician could meet those expectations.” Scarborough might blame the media for this hyperbole, but they are only willing accomplices. The president himself has set the bar rather high. On June 3, 2008, he announced that future generations would look back on his primary victory as “the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.”
It would be unfair to elaborate on all of the president’s gaffes in order to bolster the argument that he is not as intelligent as his supporters claim. It was unfair of the progressive media to pillory Vice President Dan Quayle for misspelling “potatoe.” It was unfair to highlight every instance of Ronald Reagan and George Bush misspeaking. But is it professional for the media to edit a president’s remarks in order to correct them? President Obama, speaking of the Somali pirates, stated, “And I want to be very clear that we are resolved to halt the rise of privacy in that region.” This was obviously a mistake. However, the major media reported that he vowed to “halt the rise of piracy” off the coast of Africa.
Can an individual who is obviously infatuated with a public figure provide an objective analysis of that figure’s policies? It seems unlikely.
John Dietrich is a freelance writer and the author of The Morgenthau Plan: Soviet Influence on American Postwar Policy (Algora Publishing).
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 55 other followers