The Real Obama Legacy, Part 1: Foreign Policy

Peter Baggins and Kevin MacDonald


obama-foreign-policy

How will Obama be viewed historically? The obvious answer is: in two completely different ways. First, he is now, has been, and will be remembered as one of our greatest, most consequential presidents … by the far left “Mainstream” Media who have uncritically supported him all along. According to a recent CNN broadcast, Obama’s leading accomplishments are “comprehensive healthcare, the rescue of the global economy, the historic deal with Iran to halt that nation’s march towards a nuclear weapon, the global climate change agreements, the appointment of two women to the U.S. Supreme Court, and his moves on social issues such as marriage equality for gay Americans, equal pay legislation, criminal justice reform, and more.”

The second answer is not so generous. We have decided to present our evaluation in a three-part series covering:

  1. Foreign Policy
  2. Economic Legacy
  3. Race Relations

Part 1 focuses on some of the key failures of Obama’s foreign policy that led to the Trump victory in November, principally the passivity of his policy in the Middle East and his championing of the globalist cause of open borders.

Part 1: Foreign Policy

Those who would claim that Obama is one of our greatest presidents are the same folks who have been selling the story that Trump is the new Hitler. Presumably, they believe that in February 2017 Trump will begin rounding up 6 million Muslims and sending them to camps to be executed, much like the US did after Pearl Harbor with Japanese-Americans. What? We did not send 6 million Japanese-Americans to death camps in California? Mea culpa, but it’s hard to keep pace with the revisionist propaganda being taught in our schools and colleges.

Advertisement - Time to SUBSCRIBE now!

One of Trump’s first goals will likely be to secure our borders from the stated ISIS objective of infiltrating the US via massive refugee migration from Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and other ISIS-infiltrated territories prone to jihad and hatred toward the West (directly or via Australia). There will be other responses as well, but count on Trump not to be so stupid as to telegraph them in detail to the enemy.

Churchill famously said, “In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies”.  In The Art of War, Sun Tsu said, “All war is deception” and advises those who would be powerful to be unpredictable to their adversaries.

Any student of modern Game Theory can confirm that Trump is intuitively employing the two key strategies that preserve the greatest amount of power.

First, as a negotiator he is using strength and hard positioning, rather than soft or compliant positioning. The hard position here is to start by going through with his proposal to ban all immigration from terrorism-prone (i.e., Muslim) countries. If the end goal is cooperation, which is always difficult in multi-party “games” or negotiations (because the temptation for “cheating” is ever-present), the stronger player always fares better than the soft player. This of course will produce howls of protest from the usual suspects, including many Republican members of Congress, because it violates a fundamental tenet of multicultural ideology—that, a few rotten eggs notwithstanding, humans are all the same everywhere.

Second, when in a hazardous position, the Game Theorist would encourage unpredictable mixed strategies to keep other parties uncertain. In all competitive and adversarial contexts, unpredictability, deception and its detection are vital. As someone long experienced in the art of the deal, Trump knows he has to keep his adversaries off-balance.

Obama was a classic failure in these respects. In Game Theory parlance, Obama’s gambit was to soften America’s approach to foreign policy in the Middle East, as, for example, his Syria policy which vacillated from inaction, to non-existent red lines, to ineffectual aid for the jihadist rebels, all the while ignoring the realities of Middle East politics which dictate that highly fractionated Arab societies require strong rulers to keep up some semblance of civilization. Remember the good old days of stability under Saddam Hussein?

Vacillation while signaling weakness and lack of resolve is not strategy mixing. Obama is a hard leftist for whom war against brown people doesn’t come naturally, although he is doubtless quite happy that all this instability has been the impetus for ramping up the non-White invasion of the West. Obama was never into waging these wars — he had to be dragged by Hillary into the Libya disaster which was motivated again by Moammar Gaddafi (like Hussein and Assad) being a bad person, or at least that was the propaganda. The result, as we clearly see, has been to unleash the always latent tribal divisions in these societies, with no end in sight. He has emboldened our adversaries and turned small players into more powerful players.

Speak loudly, but carry a little stick

Posturing hard but playing soft may be even more disadvantageous. Like any other strategic advantage, hard posturing works only when properly exploited through sound strategic decisions. Tough talk must be used judiciously. But Obama seems to have reversed Teddy Roosevelt’s maxim to now read, “Speak loudly, but carry a little stick.” As the Syrian red line debacle demonstrated, the White House should issue specific threats only when it is prepared to follow through on them. As noted by Mark Moyar, writing in the New York Times,

Obama began his first term with lofty vows to conciliate adversaries, defer to the opinions of other countries and reduce America’s military commitments. Consequently, he received rapturous applause in European capitals and a Nobel Peace Prize. In the real world of geopolitics, however, the results have been catastrophic. Obama naively thought that all America had to do was apologize for everything and all would be right with the world.

Obama began his second term promising to finally end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, conflicts that probably will grind on long after he leaves office. His promise to “end the wars” in Iraq and Afghanistan satisfied the liberal elites at home and abroad, but deflated American allies and emboldened adversaries in Iran and elsewhere. Indeed, Iran with its newfound influence over Iraq, is the obvious winner from a war that cost thousands of American lives, tens of thousands of American wounded, and trillions of American dollars, with the result that neocons and Israel are clamoring for a war with Iran.

But the good news in all this is that the neocons, having gone all in on the #NeverTrump movement, have lost their influence. (We can only hope that Trump will not appoint arch-neocons John Bolton or Elliott Abrams to the #2 position at the State Department, as has been rumored at various times.) Bill Kristol, whose campaign against Trump combined allegiance to lofty conservative principles with de facto support for Hillary (who would have ensured a far left, multicultural future for America combined with a neocon-approved foreign policy), has resigned his position at The Weekly Standard (although it’s hard to believe things will improve under Steven Hayes). Ditto for Jonah Goldberg at National Review. Their plans for reconstructing the GOP along neocon lines, including a complete rejection of White identity politics, after the hoped for Trump debacle are in complete shambles.

As Commentary’s Noah Rothman confidently phrased it before the election, Trump supporters would be on bended knees to their neocon masters:

Trumpism exists at odds with conservatism, and the party as reconstituted in 2017 must be one built up around conservative ideals of limited government, free trade, an internationalist foreign policy, and an unqualified rejection of identity politics. In short, Republicans of all stripes must be made to acknowledge and accept that Trumpism is an experiment that failed. That’s the price of admission, and it’s a modest one given the great costs associated with sacrificing a winnable race for the White House.

But Trumpism succeeded, so the reemergence of the neocons in the GOP will have to wait a few years at least. But the important point is that this defeat of the neocons would not have been possible if Obama, a  weak and vacillating leader who was never able to extricate the U.S. from the failures originally promoted by the neocons, had had a successful foreign policy. Thanks Barack. We owe you one.

Obama’s own defense of his record (echoed, of course, by the left’s MSM) is largely built around the large number of troops he brought home from Iraq and Afghanistan. About 15,000 troops are deployed to Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria, down from about 175,000 when Obama took office. While the administration likes to point out the savings of troop reduction, their cost-benefit analysis does not include the horrific costs to the people of the region, the continuing instability throughout the region, or the massive costs of absorbing a tsunami wave of Arab and African refugees flooding into Europe and elsewhere. And, as we are seeing, drawing down troops only means that the fighting among the various factions will continue until a new strong man emerges.

In the Middle East, it’s either all or nothing at all. The U.S. had to be willing to commit a huge number of troops for a very long period, as the neocons wanted. (Neocons commonly made the analogy to the U.S. troop commitment in Japan and Germany after World War II, implying an unending commitment, since we are still there 70+ years after the war; of course, the Middle East is nothing like Japan or Germany, as there would be continued sectarian violence, implying continuing U.S. casualties far into the foreseeable future. But, given the security benefits to Israel of a Middle East occupied by U.S. troops, they would have seen this as a small price to pay.) Or the U.S. simply had to leave the area to its own devices, a result not at all to the liking of the Israel Lobby and its neoconservative media flaks. (Wikileaks provided an email in which Hillary made it clear that the motive for U.S. intervention in Syria was to support Israeli policy). We suspect that Trump understands this.

Obama and Israel

On the plus side, we should also remember that Obama stood up to the Israel Lobby in a way that no president since Eisenhower did. Obama had a notoriously icy relationship with Prime Minister Netanyahu, with Ambassador Oren noting in 2010  that the US-Israel relationship was at its lowest in 35 years. The Iran deal was accomplished over strong opposition of Israel and the Israel Lobby, and Obama managed to resist their attempts to gin up a war with Iran. Again, Obama is a hard leftist social justice warrior, and like many social justice warriors and a majority of Democrats, there can be little doubt that he doesn’t like Israel’s policies promoting apartheid and the ethnic cleansing and oppression of Palestinians. Recently Obama also signed a 10-year $38 billion aid package for Israel with as little fanfare as possible. Why publicize this increased aid to a highly developed, First-World nation engaged in apartheid and ethnic cleansing when the U.S. is massively in debt and has to borrow the funds it is giving? The deal pleased no one, especially the pro-Israel hacks like Lindsay Graham who wanted a much larger package and were likely disappointed on the new spending restrictions which limit the amounts that can be spent on purchasing weapons from Israeli companies.

In any case, despite Obama’s generally poor relationship with Israel, at the end of his administration Israel is still armed to the teeth, it is still dominated politically by messianic fanatics who would engage in a civil war if there was any meaningful pullback, and it is still supported to the hilt by a very wealthy and powerful Diaspora community. Israel, while not happy with Obama, definitely came through unscathed, although they didn’t get the war with Iran that they wanted. It’s therefore more than a little worrying that Trump appointed David Friedman, a hardline settlement-supporter and opponent of a two-state solution, as Ambassador to Israel in the new administration. Trump has also promised to move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, a move long sought by Israeli hard-liners. And he previously signaled that Israeli settlements are not an obstacle to peace. So it’s not surprising that Israelis are very positive about a Trump presidency.

Squaring these signals of support for the Israeli far right with an America First foreign policy raises difficult questions, especially with respect to Iran given that Trump has appointed  Gen. Michael Flynn to head the National Security Council and General James Mattis as Secretary of Defense, both known as Iran hawks. It also raises complex issues with Trump’s warming relations with Russia given that Russia and Iran are allies. It would be ironic indeed if the war with Iran that Obama avoided ended up being fought under a Trump administration officially dedicated to an America First foreign policy and ending wars in the Middle East promoted by Israel, the neocons, and the Israel Lobby for whom a war with Iran has been at the top of their wish list since the Bush II administration.

The High Cost of Leading from Behind

The result of all this unrest has been disastrous for Europe given the policies promoted by Angela Merkel and other similar-minded pillars of the establishment. Over 4.8 million Syrian men, women, and children have fled their country since the conflict began shortly before Obama’s second term and another 6.1 million have been displaced within Syria.

By 2014, nearly 600,000 asylum applications were filed in Europe, a 47% increase over the more than 400,000 applications filed in 2013. In 2015, the number of asylum applications grew again, this time more than doubling 2014’s record to reach about 1.3 million (a 122% increase). These increases reflected asylum seekers arriving from each of the three leading origin countries: Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq.

A spring 2016 Pew Research Center survey conducted across 10 EU member states found that majorities in each country disapproved of how the EU was dealing with the refugee issue. Disapproval was generally greatest in countries with the highest number of asylum seekers in 2015. For example, 94% of Greeks and 88% of Swedes said they disapprove of how the EU has handled the refugee issue.

Germany received an unprecedented 442,000 individual first-time asylum applications in 2015 — the highest annual number ever received by a European country over the past 30 years.

The refugee issue was highly debated in the UK’s June vote to leave the European Union. The debate focused on the policy of “open borders” allowing migration of refugees into the UK from other EU countries. Nigel Farage was viciously attacked for a UKIP add showing the hordes invading Europe.

ukip-brexit-poster

Over half (53%) of asylum seekers were young adults — 18 to 34 years old. In addition, men made up 73% of Europe’s asylum seekers in 2015. Refugees from leading origin countries such as Syria (71%), Iraq (75%) and Afghanistan (80%) were also predominately male in 2015. As a result, about four-in-ten asylum seekers in Europe in 2015 (42%) were young men ages 18 to 34. The statistically extreme level of violence characteristic of this sub-group compared to all other groups is referred to by scientists as the “Young Male Syndrome”.

Aside from this potential for violence, the financial average cost of each Middle Eastern refugee resettled in the United States is estimated at $64,370 in the first five years, or $257,481 per household. This includes heavy welfare use by Middle Eastern refugees; 91 percent receive food stamps and 68 percent receive cash assistance. In contrast, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has requested $1,057 to care for each Syrian refugee annually in most countries neighboring Syria.

These economic analyses ignore the cost of present and future dangers to the host countries.  The principal terrorist threat around the globe has consistently come from young male Muslim immigrants (or their male offspring) who were radicalized through online propaganda or during return visits to their country of origin.

Conclusion

Obama’s “leading from behind” has had disastrous consequences for our allies, just as it has emboldened our adversaries around the globe. Granted that cleaning up the messes made by the neocon-dominated Bush administration was always a tall order, Obama made it worse by adding another neocon-approved disaster in Libya by pursuing weak, vacillating postures in Iraq and Syria that only prolonged the instability and violence. A newly affluent Iran (thanks to the Iran deal) is consolidating its power in the Middle East thanks to the Iraq debacle, leading to fresh challenges as Trump attempts to normalize relationships with Iran’s ally Russia. China continues to drain the American treasury via the massive trade imbalance and to replace American influence in the Pacific. Together with the cultural and economic demise of Europe which has been enormously speeded up by the migrant invasion unleashed by instability in the Middle East, they constitute another devastating consequence of the soft Obama administration.

Go to Part 2: Economic Policy

Share:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • RSS
  • Add to favorites
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • Technorati

20 Comments to "The Real Obama Legacy, Part 1: Foreign Policy"

  1. gibbons's Gravatar gibbons
    December 24, 2016 - 5:08 pm | Permalink

    How to restore power balance to the world?

    First consider this…

    Western Europe is essentially vassal-states of the US. So are Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea in Asia.

    So, their policies will only reflect the US globalist agenda.

    Now, what is wrong with the US?

    US is not ruled by all Americans. There is no balance among various ethnic/racial groups. What prevails is a uni-polar or uni-ethno national power.

    Now, consider the whole world long ago.

    Prior to WWII, the world was multi-polar, with several great power: British Empire, French Empire, resurgent National Socialist Germany, Imperial Japan, and the US.

    But WWII led to fall of empires, and the world became a bi-polar world of US vs USSR.

    And then the Cold War ended with the breakup of the USSR and decline of Russian power.

    The world became uni-polar with US as the only super-power.

    Now, with the rise of China and alliance of Russia-Iran, some are talking of the rise of new multi-polar world. But for now, the world is still uni-polar with US as the lone superpower.

    But the problem goes deeper. If US power was representative of all Americans, things wouldn’t be so bad. After all, the US came into being via the arrivals, settlements, and immigration of peoples from all over: England, Ireland, Germany, Netherlands, Russia, Poland, China, African nations, Arab nations, Iran, India, Pakistan, Mexico, etc, etc.

    So, if American Power represented all these various groups from all over the world, the uni-polar power of the US would be more balanced and restrained as US power would reflect the interests of various competing ethnic groups.

    Or, even if various groups in America were not equally represented in American Power, the dominant power would still make more sense if it represented the majority of Americans — white gentiles — or if it was restrained & balanced by some degree of ethnic/cultural competition.

    Long ago, power in the US was essentially uni-polar with Anglo-Americans or Wasps being dominant. And then, with the rise of certain key groups, the power became multi-polar: Wasps, Jews, Catholic ethnics, big city Irish, blacks, and etc.

    But then, over time, the only truly dominant group became the Jews who are only 2% of the population. So, US power got weird and wonky. Jews sensed this strange state of affairs and pushed homomania to normalize elite minority privilege & dominance.

    Now, when a nation that is 98% non-Jewish becomes slavish to the uni-polar power of Jews, something is wrong. But it is far far worse when the 2% that has uni-polar power over the US wields the might of American military, finance, and soft power to dominate the entire world. Jews are 2% of US population but less than 0.2% of the World Population.

    With Jews as uni-polar rulers of the US that rules the entire world, it means the 0.2% of the world is dominating and dictating affairs all around the world. Is that crazy or what?

    Rise of uni-polar minority power in the US was dangerous. If the US weren’t powerful nation, it wouldn’t matter. Suppose Jews are a small minority in Peru and totally dominate that country. Well, big deal! Peru is not a world a power, and its power would hardly affect the whole world. It’s like overseas Chinese minority dominates the economy of Philippines, but it doesn’t matter since Philippines is a minor nation. Chinese economic might in Philippines is a local affair.

    In contrast, the US is a uni-polar super-power that dominates the world. So, the group that controls the US will control the world. And when a group that is only 2% controls America, it means US power is being used to serve very narrow tribal interests. And given Jews are less than 0.2% of world population, it means most of the world is controlled by 0.2% of the population. That is crazy.

    Because US dominates the world and since there is no other power in the near future that can counter US power, what we need, at the very least, is multi-polarity WITHIN the US. That way, if power inside the US is divided among various groups, US policy toward the world won’t be so narrowly tribal, so ethno-neurotic or ethneurotic, so paranoid, and so nutsoid.

    In the past, the power of religion served as effective counter to Jewish power since most Americans weren’t Jewish. Jews used to fear & respect Protestant and Catholic power as social, demographic, moral, and cultural forces.

    And Wasps used to have confidence in their history and identity. And various ethnic groups, such as Italians and Irish, had their own sense of ethnic interests and community. But as white gentiles all turned into ‘white bread’ consumers, they came to share in Wasp ‘guilt’ and ‘privilege’ and came to be morally discredited and forced to hang their heads in shame. As for blacks, even though their power was on the rise since the Civil Rights Movement, their cultural-social implosion meant ruined neighborhoods and social pathology. And black leaders are all retards. There is the power of Rap, but it’s mostly entertainment and lacking in institutional power. As for browns, their numbers has risen, but most Meso-Americans are lacking in agency and talent. They fail to make it the elites. As for Asians, they do well in school , and some do reach higher ranks in society, but they lack individuality and the spark to gain real power. So, Jewish power, aided by homo proxy power, is the ONLY power in the US. And that means the Great Might of the US is used to serve narrow Jewish-Zionist interests. And that is dangerous.

    Is the rise of Trump a kind of return of multi-polarity in US politics? Is it a return of white identity and power? It is a scaling back of neo-con Zionist domination of foreign policy? We’ll have to see.

    Anyway, if the world power cannot be multi-polar with several Great Powers, we need the US power to be multi-polar with several ethnic/cultural powers. Without them, the world will be about Jews dominating the US that dominates the globe. Too much power. Dangerous.

  2. John Rolen's Gravatar John Rolen
    December 24, 2016 - 1:44 am | Permalink

    So in other words, Obama’s “soft administration” was actually a “hard administration” on white Americans and Europeans.
    I hope this isn’t too reductionist of me but, here it is:
    I would argue that it is not Obama’s “leading from behind” but rather his, “animosity and hatred of Anglos and their history of America” that has led to the current state you so eloquently highlight.
    In sales, it is difficult to sell what one lacks passion for. Obama lacks passion for this country and therefore, cannot sell us to anyone, friends or foe. Him becoming president of a nation and a people he deeply despises surely has to be one of the most unique stories visited upon our human history.

    • Peter Baggins's Gravatar Peter Baggins
      December 29, 2016 - 2:37 pm | Permalink

      I essentially agree with you John about Obama’s “animosity and hatred of Anglos and their history of America”.

  3. Brent G's Gravatar Brent G
    December 23, 2016 - 11:10 am | Permalink

    This article is too simplistic.

    Obama is cannot be the most pro-Israeli president ever. His troubled relationship with Netanyahu is self-evident. His failure to stop the building of settlements in the West Bank for fear of the Lobby tarnished his Nobel and cred in the Arab world.

    His seemingly chaotic foreign policy is partly neocon mess and inexperience i.e. little or no managerial experience as well as his peacenik instincts for show (speaking peace but escalating use of drones in private). Hence Putin outplayed him on Syria.

    Obama was put in place for domestic reasons to continue the anti-white agenda that began with Roosevelt. His crusade on marriage plus gay, lesbian and transgender was just a different permutation of the Civil Rights movement. His big government agenda comes from Europe Socialism – Obamacare is a clone of Britain’s National Health Service that the pro-moslem Labor Party uses to trap working class votes.

  4. Sam J.'s Gravatar Sam J.
    December 23, 2016 - 4:39 am | Permalink

    When I heard about John Bolton being picked for Trump’s administration, I thought,”We’ve been had!” and said so. I now notice that several of the bad picks, as I see it, are bracketed by very good personal picks.

    You said it yourself,”…Second, when in a hazardous position, the Game Theorist would encourage unpredictable mixed strategies to keep other parties uncertain. In all competitive and adversarial contexts, unpredictability, deception and its detection are vital…”.

    I don’t know what Trump is going to do but I believe he is playing a very deep game. Several months after he takes control he could drop the bad picks like a hot potato. If you haven’t noticed the Jews have maneuvered themselves into the largest crisis since they attacked the Romans. It’s easily made clear that they were behind 9-11 due to building #7 falling the same speed as a rock dropped in air, their pedocracy is falling apart (pizzagate, the unraveling in Finland and numerous cases that they stopped prosecution of going back decades), their severe financial fraud, drug dealing, organ smuggling, I suspect they orchestrated all the mass migration to Europe of Muslims and that it can be proven and other crimes to numerous to mention. All it takes is good old fashioned gumshoe investigating to roll up a huge proportion of these people and their influence falls to major negative. They have really fucked up…as they always do.

  5. Nabeel's Gravatar Nabeel
    December 23, 2016 - 4:20 am | Permalink

    It is nonsense to suggest Trump is just playing to Israel to fool the Lobby.

    Trump has already shown his true colors on Israel. His daughter is a convert and so too are his business partners.

    However, he may not start a war against but just continue sanctions.

    Trump is an ADMIRER of Putin not really an ally. He just likes Putin who has “Made Russia Great Again.” Trump also admires Merkel but his policies and thinking are different.

    Iranians are not real muslims but infidels with an identity complex. Two of the most famous Hollywood pornstars on the Internet are from Iran – Google “Persia Monir” or “Persia Pele.” Another one is “Aylar Lie” who lives In Norway but is retired.

    • wiggins's Gravatar wiggins
      December 24, 2016 - 8:35 am | Permalink

      Exactly: as Frank said to Michael, your father respected Hiram Roth….he didn’t trust him.

  6. Hans's Gravatar Hans
    December 22, 2016 - 4:15 pm | Permalink

    It would be ironic indeed if the war with Iran that Obama avoided ended up being fought under a Trump administration officially dedicated to an America First foreign policy and ending wars in the Middle East promoted by Israel, the neocons, and the Israel Lobby for whom a war with Iran has been at the top of their wish list since the Bush II administration.

    Let’s not forget the euphoria this day sixteen years ago when a Texas governor was coming into the U.S. presidency promising a “humble foreign policy.” Boy, did that end differently.

    Regardless, Iran is no Iraq. If Trump is dumb enough to start that one, it will end his administration and (silver lining) likely the U.S. empire in the Middle East. The Saudi royal dictatorship would find it hard to survive it. That might be very good too.

  7. Jeff's Gravatar Jeff
    December 22, 2016 - 8:41 am | Permalink

    Is the mod gay?

    (Mod. Note: Not that I or my wife have noticed. Are you looking for some “action”, “Jeff”? Try Grindr.com)

  8. Bob's Gravatar Bob
    December 21, 2016 - 11:01 pm | Permalink

    Something we should always keep in mind when discussing Obama is the fact that he is not, and never has been, an independent actor. Little, if any, of the policies adopted by his administration were “his”. They were the policies promoted by his employers…the people who created him from scratch.

    The first six years after Obama left Harvard were spent working for a CIA front company. This fact, coupled with what we know of his history before Harvard and his meteoric rise after he left Harvard, point to his being a CIA asset, at least since his arrival at Harvard, if not before.

    The CIA itself is a creation of Wall Street and the big banks. To my knowledge nearly all, if not all, directors of the CIA since its inception have either come from Wall Street banks or were closely connected to them in some way.

    This leads me to the conclusion that Obama represents not “his” policies, but those of his benefactors which seem to be at least some faction of Wall Street. Given this, it does not seem fair, nor particularly useful, to assign too much blame or credit to Obama for what has transpired during his presidency.

    Yes, there was a huge push by the “Israel Lobby” for war with Iran. A war that Obama did not launch, but was this really his decision? By most accounts a war with Iran would have been a disaster for just about everyone, including many Wall Street bankers. Rather than this being an example of the “First Black president” standing up to the powerful Jewish lobby, it is far more likely that this entire argument about the pros/cons of a war with Iran has been a conflict between the interests of hardcore Jewish zionists and those of the equally Jewish elites on Wall Street.

    When you look at the Obama administrations record from the viewpoint of Jewish power, it has been remarkably successful. When Obama came into power the anti-war movement was growing ever more powerful and the nation had largely turned against the policy of chaos in the Middle East pushed by the Bush administration. Most Americans believed at the time that Obama had been elected on an anti-war / anti-banker bailout platform. Yet it is now rather obvious in hindsight that his true purpose was to continue precisely those same policies. To that end, he could hardly have been more successful, IMO.

  9. December 21, 2016 - 8:27 pm | Permalink

    It amazes me that a truth-about-Jews website should avoid pointing out that Jews want countries to be ruined, and want refugees, and make money from loans of paper money to the US government, because they get interest on all such loans, and own rentable housing etc so they can pocket payments to invaders. What action did Obama take to weaken Jews and get retribution or reparations for their frauds, notably the Holohoax and 9/11, and nuclear issues? A lot of Americans still seem to believe that Republicans have the interests of American conservatives at heart, and haven’t factored in the interests of Jews. Maybe ‘America First’ will be interpreted as more and more US wars for Jews, more expensive fake aid to the third world, and less and less education, until there’s some financial or military crisis.

  10. Prester John T's Gravatar Prester John T
    December 21, 2016 - 5:55 pm | Permalink

    This will be his legacy. … and Happy Hanukkah

    Presenting the Gay Men’s Chorus of Los Angeles singing festive tunes of the Season

  11. December 21, 2016 - 5:24 pm | Permalink

    It would serve the West’s and genuinely all of humanity’s interests to acknowledge what kind of regime China has. The power vacuum left by the West could be filled up by Chinese Communism. The totalitarian dark age people were so afraid of could start now. How ironic it is when liberals fought Nazis to stop totalitarianism yet aided the rise of totalitarian Marxist-Leninist China. They aided the worst, most tyrannical, most murderous regime on the planet. They did not help the Chinese people with this, but they made the Communists stronger and richer. I guess liberals feel some kind of ‘respect’ for the repressive Communists. They seem to like them and find common cause with them. When the West left its colonies around the world, they fell into the hands of communist revolutionaries and other undesirables. The world has an interest in cleaning up these kind of regimes. The Chinese government is fundamentally not based on Chinese principles anyways. Marxism-Leninism comes from the Soviet Union. China is the world’s second largest economy now, the Communist Party the wealthiest government. There is enough reason for Chinese and Westerners to be against this government. They exercise tight control over Chinese lives and they will also bring misery to Western lives. China is showing us a depressing future. Chinese themselves are also quite depressed. Living in Communist China is tough, living in a world controlled entirely by Communist China will be even tougher. What China is right now must be exposed to Chinese and Westerners alike. It is not what they think it is. The Nine Commentaries on the Communist Party are a good place to start, although I disagree that the Communist Party does not truly adhere to Communism. Chinese Communists themselves think they are real communists. How they perceive themselves is important. They see themselves as strictly adhering to the tradition of Marx, even more strictly than others. Chinese Communism is considered the only true communism by its serious adherents. How one becomes a Chinese Party member gives a good idea of what Chinese Communism is about. It is very difficult to become a Party member. You need to work really hard (to cuck for the Party), you need to undergo a thorough political background check (they also check the political affiliations of your family members) and they check whether you are ideologically pure. Actually, ideological purity is the most important for them. They want to perpetuate the system, pass on Communism to new individuals. Communism is a spectre possessing Chinese society. Chinese people are soulless for a reason: they are forced to sell their souls to the Chinese Communist Party. Their dogma is we need to work hard,and this is not such an innocent ideology. Hard work is a method of the Party to exhaust and indoctrinate people. It is easier to indoctrinate exhausted people because they are more vulnerable, have less energy to resist and they certainly have no energy to think. The harder they make people work, the more indoctrinated they make them. The Party members are held to higher standards so they are the most indoctrinated people of Chinese society. Meanwhile, these people feel enlightened. They feel superior to other Chinese, a typical trait of highly indoctrinated people. China is highly ideological, even though some claim it to be ‘practical’. Joining the Party for ‘practical reasons’ just means joining the Party for ideological reasons.

  12. pen-meister's Gravatar pen-meister
    December 21, 2016 - 3:32 pm | Permalink

  13. Curmudgeon's Gravatar Curmudgeon
    December 21, 2016 - 2:56 pm | Permalink

    The irony of the “bad deal” with Iran, is that Iran gave up on some things that it was entitled to do under the Non-Proliferation Treaty. One of Reagan’s nuclear advisor’s, Dr. Gordon Prather, pointed this out several times in articles at Anti-War.com, in the run-up to the sanctions, which he claimed were illegal under the NPT. Prather referred to Bolton as “Bonkers” Bolton because of his steady stream of distortions and deliberately misleading statements that could only be caused by insanity.
    Any country, where Islam has found roots and is predominant, is a trouble spot. Iran, Turkey, Albania, Saudi Arabia, the list is long. There is no reward in any “Western” country entangling itself with any of them, and even less reward in entanglement with muckraker Israel. Seal the region and leave them to their own devices.

  14. Franklin Ryckaert's Gravatar Franklin Ryckaert
    December 21, 2016 - 1:58 pm | Permalink

    Iran is no threat to the US, nor to Israel or any other country in the Middle East. If Trump wants better relations with Russia he cannot attack its ally Iran. A war against Iran would be catastrophic for all parties concerned (including Israel itself). Perhaps his anti-Iran rhetoric is just that : rhetoric to win the Israel lobby for his presidency. Moving the US embassy to Jerusalem is mainly a symbolic gesture, while the expansion of Jewish settlements on the West Bank would continue anyway no matter who would be president of the US.
    I think that Trump’s pro-Israel rhetoric is mainly tactical and that he really will be an “America first” president.

    Obama’s only (but crucial) redeeming feature is that he withstood the immense pressure of the Zionist lobby and didn’t go to war against Iran. For the rest, he was as dysfunctional as could be expected from his background.

    • Santa's Gravatar Santa
      December 22, 2016 - 12:58 am | Permalink

      Trusting Trump on Israel is impossible considering the evidence of his past. Personally I trust Trump about as far as I can throw Trump Tower. Why in the world anyone would expect a non pro-Israel Trump is beyond me. Then again there are many who believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny why not a Trump that is prepared to be even handed on the Mideast.

  15. Kartoffelsalat's Gravatar Kartoffelsalat
    December 21, 2016 - 9:28 am | Permalink

    I am not a friend of Obama but he didn’t start a war with Iran despite massive pressure.

    Obama also did not sell the bunker busting bombs known as Massive Ordinance Penetrator that Netanyahu needs to destroy Iran’s nuclear installations. Obama sold Israel less potent bunk buster bombs.

    I feel the most useful president to Israel is not Obama but Nixon and the two Bushes. Nixon by airlifting weapons during the Yom Kippor War saved Israel from certain defeat. Bush was used to destroy Iraq that had become too powerful and a threat to Isael after Reagan supplied military aid indirectly in the 1980s – at the time Iraq was on the verge of defeat to Iran. Bush II completed the job in 2003.

    On the otherhand Obama provoke Russia and Putin. This from a European perspective has been counter-productive.

    As for Trump his rhetotic on Iran is concerning. The Iranians need constructive engagement not threats. These are not primitive peoples. They consider themselves even more advanced than Arabs despite sharing the same religion. Iran like Egypt, Babylon, India and China is one the great ancient non-European powers.

    Trump is also hard to read. He talks about America First but he is also hinting a massive military buildup like Ronald Regan. His appointees like Mattis are warhawks that Jewish interest can easily use.

    • December 22, 2016 - 2:27 pm | Permalink

      The ‘huge pressure for war against Iran’ may be a Jewish fraud. After all, Trump may have been built up by Jews, pretending Trump is independent and going his own way, when he may be a tool of Jews. It may be that the ‘pressure for war’ with Iran is part of the desperate Jewish pretence that Israel is nuclear armed. I don’t believe it is, or ever has been; please consider this
      http://www.big-lies.org/NUKE-LIES/www.nukelies.com/forum/Vanunu-agent-pretence–Israel-is-not-nuclear-armed.html
      We’re so flooded with lies it’s hard to tell. It’s perfectly possible the ‘warhawks’ are only interested in more money for Jews, and that any old unusable junk will do, provided it makes money. After all, none of the supposed ‘nukes’ were used.

Comments are closed.