1. “Israel’s Anti-Black Pogrom
Is the Jewish state becoming Klan country?
A screaming mob of whites gathers in a public square, their placards proclaiming their hatred of blacks, their shouts of “N—-r!” reverberating and bouncing off the walls of nearby shops and homes like the ominous thunder of a coming storm. They loot shops that cater to blacks, and a prominent elected official is at the head of the mob, declaring that blacks are “a cancer” that must be eradicated.
Mississippi in the Sixties? A neo-Nazi rally? A Klan conclave?
No, it’s a recent scene in southern Tel Aviv, Israel, where Likud member of the Knesset Miri Regev – a former IDF spokesperson and prominent political figure – led a well-organized march of ultra-nationalists demanding the expulsion of all blacks from Israel. Just look at the ugliness of these people – listen to them screaming “White Power”! And here are the Jewish Hitlers, proclaiming their desire to set up a “Jewish monarchy.” A few extremists? No. Israel’s Interior Minister has pledged to ship all blacks back to Africa, and the issue of the African refugees has become the major issue in Israel’s election campaign.
How will members of the congressional Black Caucus justify voting for billions in aid to Israel in the face of live news reports of howling Israeli mobs screaming hatred for Africans? Can the country that elected Barack Obama continue to have a “special relationship” with a nation that has turned into the Middle East equivalent of Klan Kountry? I think not.
The fatal blow to the Jewish state, however, will be the rupturing of its relationship with American Jewry, which, in spite of the vociferous dissent of some noisome neoconservatives, has a long tradition of liberalism. This noble legacy of tolerance and support for the underdog is now coming into open conflict with the newer tradition of unconditional support to the Israeli government of the moment – and, by their silence, the leaders of major Jewish organizations hope the problem will be swept under the rug, and somehow go away.
This is a very big mistake. Israeli society is going over a cliff, and the Jewish state’s political class is hastening rather than impeding the slide into a moral abyss. There is no way to cover up this crisis, because it has very visible political – and human – consequences. We are seeing this being played out in the Israeli election campaign, where the crazies are gaining momentum and sanity is in very short supply.
How many young American and European Jews will want to make aliyah to a country where blacks are demonized as disease-ridden criminals and automatically deported? How many Jews will want to express their solidarity with a Jewish state where racism is acceptable and the bullied have turned into the bullies? My guess: not many. ”
2. “U.S. Government Using Terrorism Against the American People
terrorism is defined as:
The use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
The American government has also been using violence and threats to intimidate and coerce the American public for political purposes.
For example, the U.S. government is doing the following things to terrorize the American public into docility and compliance:
Labeling peaceful protest as terrorism
Using homeland security laws to crush dissent
Spying on all Americans
Threatening to indefinitely detain American citizens without cause and without any due process
Even threatening to kill any U.S. citizen on a whim
U.S. constitutional law has taught for hundreds of years that chilling the exercise of our liberties is as dangerous to freedom than directly suppressing them.”
3. “John Brennan’s extremism and dishonesty rewarded with CIA Director nomination
Obama’s top terrorism adviser goes from unconfirmable in 2008 to uncontroversial in 2013, reflecting the Obama legacy
Prior to President Obama’s first inauguration in 2009, a controversy erupted over reports that he intended to appoint John Brennan as CIA director. That controversy, in which I participated, centered around the fact that Brennan, as a Bush-era CIA official, had expressly endorsed Bush’s programs of torture (other than waterboarding) and rendition and also was a vocal advocate of immunizing lawbreaking telecoms for their role in the illegal Bush NSA eavesdropping program. As a result, Brennan withdrew his name from consideration, issuing a bitter letter blaming “strong criticism in some quarters prompted by [his] previous service with the” CIA.
Still, this is worth commenting on because the drastic change between the reaction to Brennan in 2008 and now is revealing. The New York Times article this morning on the appointment claims that “it is uncertain whether the torture issue will now cause any problems for Mr. Brennan.” Of course, there is nothing at all uncertain about that: “the torture issue” won’t cause any problems for Brennan, as it did in 2008, because Obama has buried that issue with his “Look Forward, not Backward” decrees; because most people who claimed concern over such issues back in 2008 have resigned themselves to Obama’s posture in this area; and because, with very rare exception, there are no more serious campaigns mounted against Obama’s decisions except from the American Right.
It is a perfect illustration of the Obama legacy that a person who was untouchable as CIA chief in 2008 because of his support for Bush’s most radical policies is not only Obama’s choice for the same position now, but will encounter very little resistance. Within this change one finds one of the most significant aspects of the Obama presidency: his conversion of what were once highly contentious right-wing policies into harmonious dogma of the DC bipartisan consensus. Then again, given how the CIA operates, one could fairly argue that Brennan’s eagerness to deceive and his long record of supporting radical and unaccountable powers make him the perfect person to run that agency. It seems clear that this is Obama’s calculus.”