An Open Letter to Jewish American Liberals By *Arnold Ahlert <http://politicalmavens.com/index.php/author/arnoldahlert/> * (bio <http://politicalmavens.com/index.php/author/arnoldahlert/bio/>)
Dear Jewish American liberals: When does your unwavering support for liberal Democrats begin to waver? In case you hadn’t noticed, the “chickens” of Barack Hussein Obama’s Muslim “outreach” efforts are “coming home to roost.” Israel’s determination to prevent the free flow of goods to its mortal enemies has been “condemned,” and declared “unsustainable and unacceptable” by this administration. Obama’s friends, Weather Underground terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernadette Dohrn, (a poisonous relationship virtually ignored by the mainstream media during the 2008 election) have been directly involved with the organizers of the Freedom Flotilla. And at a time when Israel needs unambiguous support in world where their very right to survive is being challenged, Democrats have decided that America’s policy towards Gaza requires a “change” in thinking. What in the world happened? Modern-day liberalism happened, and if you have an ounce of desire to see the state of Israel survive, it’s about time liberal Jews snapped out of their ideological coma. It is a coma which automatically assumes that today’s liberal Democrats are still Israel’s closest allies. Even if you believed that up until right now, there can be no mistaking that the Obama administration is more than willing to toss Israel under the bus out of allegiance to one of liberalism’s principle tenets: good and evil are relative. It is this morally bankrupt relativity which allows for condemnation of Israel’s effort to defend its national security, while giving the Turks a pass on their overt–and thoroughly planned–provocation. This is the same administration which declined to “meddle” in Iranian politics when innocent Iranians were being slaughtered–by the very same thugs who would murder you and yours, given the slightest opportunity to do so. The very same thugs orchestrating the strengthening of their murderous proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah, who will undoubtedly test Israel’s resolve once again at a moment of their choosing. For eight years you bought into the idea that George W. Bush was a “cowboy,” whose intransigence towards Islamic jihad was “over the top,” and that taking the fight to terrorists where they lived instead of here was “irresponsible.” Much like our current president, you wrung your collective hands and wondered why they hate us, even as the history of the Holocaust provides all the relevant answers to such a ridiculous question. But let me give you the apparently elusive answer: Islamics, like their Nazi brethren before them, hate you because you exist, because you’re successful, and because human nature forever demands scapegoats for unspeakable behavior. There are none so blind as those who do not see, and Jewish American liberals are apparently the blindest people on the planet. It is a blindness which may be your undoing. Go to the websites where there are numerous columnists writing in support of Israel. Read the reader comments below their articles. Never before have there been so many of your fellow Americans who are getting “tired” of supporting a “pesky” democracy in the Middle East. Never before have so many of America’s genuine enemies been cast in a more “even-handed” light. Never before has “hope and change” sent a clearer signal that “a little peace and quiet” is a viable alternative to defending an ally. Never before, in this country at least, has anti-Semitism enjoyed the level of “chic-ness” it enjoys today. If the Holocaust and everything leading up to it had never happened, you could be forgiven for your ideologically-inspired myopia. But it did happen, and the idea that you can watch current events unfolding and not see the historical parallels is frightening. Liberal Democrats, led by this administration, are once again endorsing the Chamberlain-esque approach to mass murderers and their adherents, and once again liberal Jews are abiding such appeasement in the hopes of finding a “middle ground” between themselves and those for whom “compromise” means Israel’s annihilation. Fool me once, shame on Islamic jihadists. Fool me twice, shame on Jewish American liberals. In the simplest terms, Israel is defending it’s right to exist, Islamics and their enablers are attempting to destroy it–and the Democrat party, headed by the most radical leftist administration in American history, is playing both ends against the middle. Such is the nature of a political party whose appetite for power transcends every other consideration. The very same party for whom losing the war in Iraq was a “viable option,” for whom the “good war” in Afghanistan has become a half-hearted muddle heading towards a quagmire. It is a party for whom a glaringly obvious war has been reduced to an “overseas contingency operation” against an adversary they adamantly refuse to call Islamic terrorists. If you need a little perspective, imagine FDR referring to a “strategic initiative” against “German extremists” during WWll. Do you get it, yet? Probably not. Ideological extremism–and make no mistake, today’s liberal Democrats bear little resemblance to their former colleagues–requires the suspension of common sense and common decency. It is a suspension which allows liberal Jews to cling to the occasional talk of Jewish support from the Obama administration, even as you ignore the existential crisis playing itself out in front of your own eyes. As I write this, yet another ship full of “peace” activists determined to break the blockade is headed towards a confrontation with the Israeli navy. Question for my liberal Jewish friends: where’s the American navy? Where’s the unambiguous message from Israel’s “staunchest” ally that the deliberate baiting of the Jewish state will not be tolerated? Since I began writing columns, I’ve been asked hundreds of times why Jews continue to support liberal Democrats, even when those Democrats demonstrate nothing resembling an equal commitment to the Jewish community. The best reason I can think of is that liberal Jews are liberals first, and Jews second. Perhaps that is a natural fit for that segment of the Jewish population for whom Judaism has more to do with social stature than deep faith. Perhaps it is an out-dated reflex based on an understanding of liberalism which has ceased to exist, as in the inability to recognize that their party of choice has been hijacked by radicals. Radicals with no particular interest in anyone’s agenda but their own. If Israel is annihilated along the way to their New World Order, such is a viable trade-off for the socialist Utopia at the core of their ambition. I know most of you don’t believe it. It’s just too impossible to comprehend–exactly like the world couldn’t comprehend the Holocaust until the pictures of Auschwitz and Dachau revealed the ugly truth. Until the skeletal survivors forever tattooed with numbers on their arms started telling their stories. Who could imagine that three generations later a Holocaust denier, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, would be given a forum at an Ivy League University, or that anti-Israel demonstrations would be routine occurrences on college campuses? Who would have believed that “never again” would become an empty slogan? As I have said before, I am not Jewish. But I recognize the edge of an abyss when I see one. I recognize that all evil needs in order to be triumphant is for good men to do nothing. When did liberal Jews forget that when one’s very existence is at stake, “politics stops at the water’s edge?” When will they realize the utter bankruptcy of an ideology that accommodates one’s enemies, even as it abandons its friends? Here’s hoping it’s soon–because there might not be a later. Sincerely, Arnold Ahlert On Thursday, August 7, 2014 11:44:43 AM UTC-5, Travis wrote: > > > > > > > > > > *http://tinyurl.com/nlkadvk <http://tinyurl.com/nlkadvk>* > > *Obama’s determination to downsize the military — and its catastrophic > consequences* > > *America: Unprepared for War* > > *By Arnold Ahlert > <http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/members/65117/ArnoldAhlert/607> August > 7, 2014 * > > > > > [image: America: Unprepared for War] > > A bipartisan critique > <http://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/Ensuring-a-Strong-U.S.-Defense-for-the-Future-NDP-Review-of-the-QDR_0.pdf> > > of the Obama administration’s 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) by the > National Defense Panel is a devastating takedown of the administration’s > determination to reduce America’s military to pre-WWII > <http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/military-spending-cuts/pentagon-set-slash-military-pre-world-war-ii-levels-n37086> > > levels. > > “Since World War II, no matter which party has controlled the White House > or Congress, America’s global military capability and commitment has been > the strategic foundation undergirding our global leadership,” the report > states. “Given that reality, the defense budget cuts mandated by the Budget > Control Act (BCA) of 2011, coupled with the additional cuts and constraints > on defense management under the law’s sequestration provision, constitute a > serious strategic misstep on the part of the United States.” > > The report emphasizes the myriad number of threats of which most Americans > are well aware, including “a troubling pattern of assertiveness and > regional intimidation on China’s part, the recent aggression of Russia in > Ukraine, nuclear proliferation on the part of North Korea and Iran, a > serious insurgency in Iraq that both reflects and fuels the broader > sectarian conflicts in the region, the civil war in Syria, and civil strife > in the larger Middle East and throughout Africa.” > > Other threats include the “rapidly expanding availability of lethal > technologies to both state and non-state actors; demographic shifts > including increasing urbanization; diffusion of power among many nations, > particularly rising economic and military powers in Asia; and heated > competition to secure access to scarce natural resources.” > > It further noted that the shrinkage of U.S. forces, resulting from the > severe budget cuts imposed on our fighting forces constitutes a “serious > strategic misstep on the part of the United States,” and that force levels > in the president’s QDR are “inadequate given the future strategic and > operational environment.” > > *Panel critical of the president’s reduction of the nation’s global > mission* > > The panel was also critical of the president’s reduction of the nation’s > global mission has long enabled the military to fight two wars > simultaneously, to one where we are capable of defeating one enemy while > keeping another one in check. “We find the logic of the two-war construct > to be as powerful as ever and note that the force sizing construct in the > 2014 QDR strives to stay within the two-war tradition while using different > language. But given the worsening threat environment, we believe a more > expansive force sizing construct—one that is different from the two-war > construct but no less strong—is appropriate,” the report stated. It called > on Obama to expand his current mission statement—one driven far more by > budget concerns than global threats. > > Rep. Howard P. “Buck” McKeon (R-CA) addressed > <http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/31/obama-military-strategy-too-weak-future-security-p/?page=all> > > the misplaced priorities. “it is the same conclusion many Americans have > already reached,” he said. “There is a cost when America does not lead, and > there are consequences when America disengages. What the president fails to > understand—which the report points out—is that a strong military > underwrites all other tools our nation has for global influence.” > > The report, which concludes that the “Navy and Air Force should be > larger,” reveals that we are moving in the opposite direction. It explains > that the Navy is “on a budgetary path to 260 ships or less,” giving them > far fewer ships than 323 to 346 previously recommended. The report further > notes that an even larger fleet could be necessary “if the risk of conflict > in the Western Pacific increases.” > > *Grimmer picture of the Air Force emerges* > > An even grimmer picture of the Air Force emerges, with the report > explaining that it is currently fielding the “smallest and oldest force in > its history,” despite the need to project a “global surveillance and strike > force able to rapidly deploy to theaters of operation to deter, defeat or > punish multiple aggressors simultaneously.” > > The panel understands the fiscal challenges facing the government, but > states that attempting to solve those problems on the backs of the military > is not only “too risky,” but “won’t work.” “America must get her fiscal > house in order while simultaneously funding robust military spending,” the > panel concludes. In a shot across the administration’s bow, the panel > explains that health care spending in the military and overall is “stunning > wasteful,” consuming “more than a third of the federal budget.” > > It’s actually worse than that, if one includes benefits and entitlements, > driven primarily by “non-means tested government programs,” defined by the > U.S. Census Bureau as those that provide benefits to Americans regardless > of their income levels. In 2013, the federal government paid out > <http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/ali-meyer/americans-got-2-trillion-benefits-federal-government-2013> > > more than $2 trillion in such programs, which consumed 58.1 percent of the > $3.4 trillion in total federal outlays. In the first eleven months of > FY2013 the federal government received > <http://cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/2472542000000-record-taxation-through-august-deficit-still-755b> > > a record-setting $2.4 trillion in revenue, yet still ran a deficit of $755 > billion. This year revenues are expected to top $3 trillion, but the > deficit is still projected to be $648 billion. > > Clearly something has to give. Unfortunately as far as the Obama > administration is concerned, the welfare state, rather than the military > that makes it possible, takes precedence. > > *Army announced it will downsize the number of majors by 550* > > In fact, the administration has recently put the pedal further to the > metal. At the beginning of the month, the Army announced > <http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/08/02/army-to-force-out-550-majors-some-to-get-news-while-in-afghanistan/> > > it will downsize the number of majors by 550, including some still serving > in combat operations in Afghanistan. This move follows another recent > effort to slash 1,200 captains from the force as well. “The ones that are > deployed are certainly the hardest,” Gen. John Campbell, the vice chief of > the Army told reporters. “What we try to do there is, working through the > chain of command, minimize the impact to that unit and then maximize the > time to provide to that officer to come back and do the proper transition, > to take care of himself or herself, and the family.” > > The cuts are being made among majors who joined the service between 1999 > and 2003, and while some will have enough time on the job to retire, many > won’t. The effort is all part of the aforementioned move by the Obama > administration to reduce the size of the military from its current level of > 514,000 soldiers to 490,000 by October 2015, and 450,000 by 2019. Automatic > budget cuts currently in place could ultimately reduce the number of > soldiers to 420,000—a number leaders contend would leave the nation > incapable of fighting even *one* sustained military conflict. > > *“Rudderless and sometimes unreal foreign policy, particularly in the > Middle East”* > > None of this was lost on the panel. Writing for National Review, House and > Senate Armed Services Committee member, Rep. Jim Talent (R-MO), who was > part of the panel, explains > <http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/384267/stunning-rebuke-our-current-defense-policies-jim-talent> > > that while there were the “usual arguments over specific wording and > programmatic recommendations…the broad conclusions were easy to reach. In > fact, they were obvious to anyone with eyes to see the rapid deterioration > of our armed forces and the worsening global threats that became manifestly > more dangerous even during the months the panel was deliberating.” > > He then gets to the heart of the matter. Citing our “rudderless and > sometimes unreal foreign policy, particularly in the Middle East,” he > further explains that the problem “isn’t just an Administration that > *acts* as if America is weak. The problem is also that America *is *weak, > and becoming weaker, relative to the threats posed by its adversaries—which > is the only measurement of military power that really matters.” This leads > Talent to a stark conclusion. “The world will get a lot messier until that > changes,” he warns. It is a warning the Obama administration ignores at its > peril—and that of the entire nation. > > > > > __._,_.___ > ------------------------------ > Posted by: "Beowulf" <[email protected] <javascript:>> > ------------------------------ > > > Visit Your Group > <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/grendelreport/info;_ylc=X3oDMTJmb21kcGNwBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIwMTk0ODA2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTMyMzY2NwRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2Z2hwBHN0aW1lAzE0MDc0MjUzMDI-> > > > > [image: Yahoo! Groups] > <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo;_ylc=X3oDMTJlZDlhazlwBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzIwMTk0ODA2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTMyMzY2NwRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNnZnAEc3RpbWUDMTQwNzQyNTMwMg--> > > • Privacy <https://info.yahoo.com/privacy/us/yahoo/groups/details.html> • > Unsubscribe <javascript:> • Terms of Use > <https://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/> > > __,_._,___ > > > -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
