Sunday, March 1, 2015

Susan Rice and the Politicization of Genocide

by Shmuley Boteach

 
 Is there any dirty job for the Obama Administration that Susan Rice is not prepared to do?

Need someone to fraudulently blame the murder of an American Ambassador in Libya on a stupid film? Send Susan to the Sunday talk shows.

Need someone to savage the leader of the only democracy in the Middle East as damaging the “fabric” of Israel’s relationship with the United States? Put Susan in the makeup chair of Charlie Rose.

Yes, it seems there is nothing Susan isn’t prepared to do.

And why should that surprise us?

This is the same Susan Rice who forbade Israel from criticizing John Kerry in her infamous tweet: “Personal attacks in Israel directed at Sec Kerry totally unfounded and unacceptable.” Yes, Israel’s freedom of expression is circumscribed by none other than Susan Rice.

But there is another reason Susan Rice’s attack on the Prime Minister of Israel on Charlie Rose merits special opprobrium and that is the unique insensitivity she is famous for when it comes to genocide.
 

Iran is threatening to annihilate Israel. It is building the bombs to make that possible. It has lied to the world for more than a decade about its nuclear program. Iran is an oil superpower and energy exporter that needs nuclear energy about as much as I need a pork sandwich.

America is about to do a bad deal with Iran that will leave them something in the range of 5000 spinning centrifuges enriching Uranium. Israel is not party to the talks. It has been cast in the same position of Czechoslovakia in the Munich agreement of 1938 where Britain and France negotiated away Czech security (and much of the country) without the Czechs even allowed to be present.

And while Israel faces the possibility of genocide, Susan Rice shows gross insensitivity to an Israeli leader for simply speaking out.

But why shouldn’t Netanyahu entrust Israeli security to Susan Rice?

Perhaps its because of her record of trivializing genocide.

 In 1994 Susan Rice was part of Bill Clinton’s National Security Team which took no action whatsoever during the Rwandan genocide, leaving more than 800,000 men, women, and children to be hacked to death by machete in the fastest slaughter of human beings ever recorded.

Not content to insist on American non-involvement, the Clinton administration went a step further by obstructing the efforts of other nations to stop the slaughter. On April 21, 1994, the Canadian UN commander in Rwanda, General Romeo Dallaire, declared that he required only 5000 troops to bring the genocide to a rapid halt. In addition, a single bombing run against the RTLM Hutu Power radio transmitting antenna would have made it impossible for the Hutus to coordinate their genocide.

But on the very same day, as Phillip Gourevitch details in his definitive account of the Rwandan genocide We Wish to Inform You that Tomorrow We will Be Killed With Our Families, the Security Council, with the Clinton Administration’s blessing, ordered the UN force under Dallaire reduced by ninety percent to a skeleton staff of 270 troops who would powerlessly witness the slaughter to come. This, in turn, was influenced by Presidential Decision Directive 25, which “amounted to a checklist of reasons to avoid American involvement in UN peacekeeping missions,” even though Dallaire did not seek American troops and the mission was not peacekeeping but genocide prevention.

Indeed, Madeleine Albright, then the American Ambassador to the UN, opposed leaving even this tiny UN force. She also pressured other countries “to duck, as the death toll leapt from thousands to tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands … the absolute low point in her career as a stateswoman.”

In a 2001 article published in The Atlantic, Samantha Power, author of the Pulitzer-Prize winning A Problem from Hell who is now Rice’s successor as American Ambassador to the United Nations, referred to Rice and her colleagues in the Clinton Administration as Bystanders to Genocide. She quotes Rice in her 2002 book as saying, “If we use the word ‘genocide’ and are seen as doing nothing, what will be the effect on the November congressional election?”

This is an astonishing statement. Here you have Susan Rice hearing about the murder of 330 people every hour for 3 months and her response is, How will this affect us politically?

That Rice would have brought up the midterm elections as a more important consideration than stopping the mass murder of so many men, women, and children that their bodies were damming the rivers of Rwanda is one of the most heartbreaking pronouncements ever uttered by American official.

But she did not stop there.

Rice then joined Madeline Albright, Anthony Lake, and Warren Christopher as part of a coordinated effort not only to impede UN action to stop the Rwandan genocide but to minimize public opposition to American inaction by removing words like “genocide” and “ethnic cleansing” from government communications on the subject.

In the end, eight African nations, fed up with American inaction, agreed to send in an intervention force to stop the slaughter provided that the U.S. would lend them fifty armored personal carriers.

The Clinton Administration decided it would lease rather than lend the armor for a price of $15 million. The carriers sat on a runway in Germany while the UN pleaded for a $5 million reduction as the genocidal inferno raged. The story only gets worse from there, with the Clinton State Department refusing to label the Rwanda horrors a genocide because of the 1948 Genocide Convention that would have obligated the United States to intervene, an effort in grotesque ambiguity that Susan Rice participated in.

It was painful enough to watch Kofi Anan elevated to Secretary General even though as head of UN peace-keeping forces worldwide he sent two now infamous cables to Dallaire forbidding him from any efforts to stop the genocide (the cables are on display in the Kigali Genocide Memorial).

It’s nearly as painful watching Rice now attack the Jewish state, which lost one third of its entire people in a genocide of four short years, about how its elected leader is destroying its relationship with the world’s greatest superpower simply because a weaker nation insists on standing up for itself and speaking truth to power.

Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, whom Newsweek and The Washington Post call “the most famous Rabbi in America,” is the international best-selling author of 30 books and has recently published The Fed-up Man of Faith: Challenging G-d in the Face of Tragedy and Suffering. His website is www.shmuley.com. Follow him on Twitter @RabbiShmuley.

 Rabbi Shmuley

Monday, February 23, 2015

Rudy is Right

February 23, 2015
By Ed Lasky

 
“America’s Mayor” Rudy Giuliani was right about Obama not loving America. Who supports his view? Barack Obama himself.  

Last week at a small private dinner, Rudy Giuliani openly questioned whether Barack Obama “loves America” while discussing Obama’s foreign policy and remarks about Islamic terrorists :
“I do not believe, and I know this is a horrible thing to say, but I do not believe that the president loves America,” Giuliani said during the dinner at the 21 Club, a former Prohibition-era speakeasy in midtown Manhattan. “He doesn’t love you. And he doesn’t love me. He wasn’t brought up the way you were brought up and I was brought up through love of this country.”
Barack Obama has clearly been, at best, an apologist for Islamic terrorism, if not empowering Muslim terrorists (such as the mullahs of Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood). Of course, now the question of Obama’s patriotism has become this week’s Gotcha question. Scott Walker was ambushed by the same question and answered “I don’t know” if Obama loves America. Well, Obama knows the answer. Reporters don’t even need to ask Obama since he would answer with some political pabulum scripted by his spinners. Reporters just need to do a few minutes of research -- or, I offer my own research free of charge.

Because Obama has answered that question and has done so numerous times over the past 7 years. He not only does not love America, he doesn’t even like it much -- and certainly has no interest in defending America or Americans for that matter.

For years, I have been collecting examples of Obama’s insults toward broad swaths of Americans. While his “gaffe” (when politicians accidentally are honest about their opinions) about small-town Americans…
You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them[.]
So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.
…flared as a campaign problem in 2008, there has been a steady stream of anti-American invective since then (and lest we forget, Michelle Obama had never been proud of her country until Barack Obama achieved some early campaign success ; she also thinks  we are a “downright mean country”).

In What Obama Thinks of Americans, I collected on the many ways Obama has insulted and demeaned Americans. They include the views that Americans have gotten “soft” and “lazy”; are abusers of the planet; have “lost our ambition”; are “whiners” who do not appreciate him enough and should say “thank you” to him; doctors are “greedy” people who enrich themselves by lopping off limbs and tonsils for money. More slurs against Americans can be found in that column. “Suburbs bore him” (so when you consider his views of people who live in small towns -- noted above -- he basically has said the only people he deigns to respect are city-dwellers). He thinks Americans have allowed themselves to be brainwashed by Fox News and Rush Limbaugh, as if Americans cannot open their eyes and see the damage he has inflicted upon us-and the world. Instead he blames the media for inaccurate reporting on how wonderful his presidency has been.

How does Obama get away with being “The Insulter-in-Chief”?  Certainly the liberal media have been accomplices -- even Saturday Night Live mocked the media for their fawning approach towards Obama. But primarily, Obama and his Democratic allies consider most Americans to be stupid (see many examples here) and could not resist calling their own supporters “knuckleheads.”

The Republicans blew opportunities in 2008, 2010, 2012, and 2014 to tell Americans the truth about Barack Obama and his views towards them. The media abetted them and Obama. But now that Giuliani has raised the issue the media and Democratic flaks (but I repeat myself) have retaliated.

Obama has also grown even more condescending (if that is possible) since he won reelection, because he feels unleashed and can express his contempt for America. We are a nation where “racism is deeply rooted.” Americans, at least “typical white” persons are racists. Are we to be surprised that he found the anti-white, anti-American Jeremiah Wright, Junior, his “moral compass” and mentor?  

And he did hear those vicious anti-American screeds that all but celebrated the 9/11 attacks on America as “chickens coming home to roost.”  Nor should we be surprised that Obama has appointed the anti-white racist, tax-cheat, anti-Semitic hustler Al Sharpton to be his point man on race. He welcomes Sharpton to the White House while ignoring Republicans (whom he calls “bomb-throwers” and “hostage-takers”) and most other Democrats, for that matter.

His “apology tour” overseas once he won election was an insult to America and an assault on truth. 

When a slew of foreign leaders of South and Central America unleashed torrents of abuse and insults towards Americans in 2009, Barack Obama was mute and did not try to defend America. Indeed, when Daniel Ortega, the Marxist dictator of Nicaragua, excoriated America for decades of abuse, all Barack Obama was able to say in defense was that he was “thankful that President Ortega did not blame me for things that happened when I was three years old,” Did Barack Obama agree with Ortega that America had sinned against the world, that America was a colonial, imperialistic and racist oppressor of other nations?

Not only was Mayor Giuliani right regarding Obama’s view of Americans, but so was Dinesh D’Souza when he wrote that Obama saw the world in a Manichean way: the nations that colonized and oppressed (that would be America, Europe and Israel) and the victim nations and people who were colonized and oppressed (the rest of the world). As I had written in “Dinesh D’Souza was right about America”):
Barack Obama certainly does not care for Winston Churchill who did inherit imperialistic dreams from his ancestors as D'Souza speculated Obama inherited the anti-imperialistic dreams of his father. Churchill's bust was soon thrown out of the White House when Obama assumed office.
And he did engage in an apology tour for America's actions overseas over the years ; was the first American President to say that America was responsible for the 1953 coup in Iran and suggested some of that nation's ire towards America was rooted in that history.
He has frequently snubbed our allies overseas while empowering our adversaries. His outreach towards the mullahs of Iran has been a constant feature of his presidency (see the excellent Obama’s Secret Iran Strategy by Michael Doran) despite the fact that thousands of Americans have lost their lives at the behest of this number one state sponsor of terror in the world. He dismisses Islamic terrorism and engages in rhetorical spin to absolve Muslims of responsibility for violence.

As is well-known the only “I” word he likes is the one that refers to himself. He helped the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt overthrow Hosni Mubarak, an ally of America, and has snubbed the current leader of Egypt Abdel el-Sisi (who delivered a very courageous speech against Islamic terrorism when the words “Islamic terror” cannot even cross Obama’s lips) while again rolling out the red carpet for Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood members who hoped to regain power in Egypt.  He welcomes them to the White House whilel refusing to deign to extend the same invitation and welcome mat to Republicans. Those are the people he depicts as “bomb-throwers” and “hostage takers”; while Islamic terrorists and sympathizers are the ones he feels have “legitimate grievances.” 

 Don’t Republicans, elected in a magisterial red sweep in 2014, also have legitimate grievances regarding Obama’s flouting of the laws?  These Americans -- including the ones who voted for Republicans -- do not seem to have legitimate grievances in Obama’s view. They don’t matter to him at all except as foils to insult and generate rage against.

Since Obama sees America as a force of evil in the world that has caused much pain to the oppressed, he has steadily done his best to weaken America and our capacity to defend ourselves in the future and seriously damaged. He has plans to control America and further his agenda to “fundamentally transform America” long after he has left the Oval Office.  Didn’t he all but declare his dislike of America when he boasted he was going to “fundamentally transform America”? What was so bad about Americans before the ascension of Barack Obama? In Obama’s view: quite a lot.

So Rudy and Dinesh were right and if the besotted media had been fulfilling their responsibilities over the years America would not be saddled with a president who has contempt for millions and millions of Americans. Barack Obama agrees with Rudy Giuliani: he doesn’t love America.

So reporters should stop asking other politicians their opinions about Barack Obama’s love for America. The answer is obvious and has been for years.

American Thinker

Sunday, February 8, 2015

Crusades Were All About Fighting the Islamic State

The Islamic State / ISIS / ISIL / Da’ish is not a new idea. It’s been around for centuries. Islam’s goal since its founding has been to conquer the world and create… an Islamic State.

When Barack Obama equated Christian Crusaders to ISIS at the National Prayer Breakfast this week, he actually did Christians a favor because it has caused a whole bunch of people to do their own research. What they’re finding is that instead of the Crusades being on par with ISIS, the exact opposite is true.

 The Crusades were about FIGHTING the Islamic State / ISIS / ISIL / Da’ish.

In this highly informative video, Dr. Bill Warner illustrates perfectly, using a map of Europe, Africa and the Middle East exactly what happened that prompted the Crusades. The next time you hear someone equate ISIS to the Crusades, SHOVE THIS in their face.

Thank you, Mr. Obama:



Sunday, January 25, 2015

The Hollywood Jihad Against American Sniper

By Daniel Greenfield
1/25/2015

American Sniper is the movie that should not have existed. Even though the book was a bestseller, nobody in Hollywood wanted the rights.

 And why would they?


 The Iraq War already had an official narrative in Hollywood. It was bad and wrong. Its veterans were crippled, dysfunctional and dangerous. Before American Sniper, Warner Brothers had gone with anti-war flicks like Body of Lies and In the Valley of Elah. It had lost a fortune on Body of Lies; but losing money had never stopped Hollywood from making anti-war movies that no one wanted to watch.

Even the Hurt Locker had opened with a quote from leftist terrorist supporter Chris Hedges.

An Iraq War movie was supposed to be an anti-war movie. There was no other way to tell the story. Spielberg’s own interest in American Sniper was focused on “humanizing” the other side. When he left and Clint Eastwood, coming off a series of failed films, took the helm, it was assumed that American Sniper would briefly show up in theaters and then go off to die quietly in what was left of the DVD aisle.

And then American Sniper broke box office records that had been set by blockbusters like Avatar, Passion and Hangover Part II by refusing to demonize American soldiers or to spin conspiracy tales about the war. Instead of pandering to coastal progressives, it aimed at the patriotic heartland.

In a sentence you no longer expected to hear from a Hollywood exec, the Warner Brothers distribution chief said, “This is about patriotism and all the things people say the country is lacking these days.”

The backlash to that patriotism and the things the country is lacking these days didn’t take very long to form and it goes a lot deeper than snide tweets from Michael Moore and Seth Rogen. Academy members were reportedly passing around an article from the New Republic, whose author had not actually seen the movie, but still denounced it for not showing Chris Kyle as a bigoted murderer.

Hollywood progressives are both threatened and angered by American Sniper. And with good reason.

The most basic reason is the bottom line. Between Lone Survivor, Unbroken and American Sniper, the patriotic war movie is back. Hollywood could only keep making anti-war movies no one would watch as long as that seemed to be the only way to tackle the subject. Now there’s a clear model for making successful and respectful war movies based around the biographies and accounts of actual veterans.

Hollywood studios had been pressured by left-wing stars into wasting fortunes on failed anti-war conspiracy movies. Matt Damon had managed to get $150 million sunk into his Green Zone failed anti-war movie before stomping away from Universal in a huff. Body of Lies with Leonardo DiCaprio and Russell Crowe had a real budget estimated at around $120 million, but had opened third after Beverly Hills Chihuahua whose titular tiny dog audiences preferred to either star and their political critiques.



But why spend over a hundred million on anti-war movies no one wants when American Sniper has already made over $120 million on a budget only half that much?

Hollywood progressives don’t look forward to having to write, direct and star in patriotic pictures and if they can’t destroy American Sniper at the box office, they can taint it enough that no major star or director will want to be associated with anything like it.

Adding to their undercurrent of anger is the way that American Sniper upstaged Selma at the box office and at the Academy Award nominations. Selma is a mediocre movie, but it was meant to be a platform for the usual conversation that progressives want to have about how terrible Americans are. Instead audiences chose to see a movie about how great Americans can be even in difficult times.

There’s nothing that threatens the left as much as that.

In a Best Picture lineup that includes the obligatory paeans to gay rights and the evils of racism, American Sniper distinctly stands out as something different. It displaces Richard Linklater’s Boyhood, the previous sure winner which had its obligatory drunken Iraq War veteran claiming that the war was fought for oil, with an authentic veteran instead of Hollywood’s twisted caricature of one.

American Sniper and Lone Survivor signal a shifting wind in which the focus of movies about the War on Terror moves from the organizational conspiracy theories that Hollywood liked to make to the personal narratives of the men who fought in them. Many of the smarter progressive reviews of American Sniper grapple with the fact that the time when they could even have their favorite argument is going away.

Progressives would like Dick Cheney to be the face of the war, but are forced to deal with a world in which Chris Kyle and Marcus Luttrell will be how America sees the conflict. The lens through which the left liked to view the war, its obsessions with WMD, Bush and the path to war, have been eclipsed by the rise of ISIS and the return of American veterans. Their worldview has become outdated and irrelevant.

It’s easier for the left to vent its anger on American Sniper than to deal with its own irrelevance. The most shocking thing about the movie is not any political statement, but its presumption in dealing with the Iraq War and the men in it as if it were WW2. It doesn’t confront the left; instead it acts as if the left isn’t there. It fails to acknowledge the entire worldview through which Hollywood dealt with the war.

The left spends most of its time living in its own bubble and is shocked when events remind it that the rest of the country does not really share its opinions and tastes. American Sniper’s success is one of those explosive wake-up calls and the left has responded to it with all the expected vicious pettiness.



A billboard for the movie was vandalized and attacks from lefty outlets like New Republic and Vox not only target the movie, but the dead man at the center of it. The smear campaign against Kyle has reached new lows, because in death he has become an even more powerful symbol of everything that the left hates.

Hollywood tried to “Vietnamize” Iraq in the popular imagination. American Sniper shows they failed.

Whether or not American Sniper wins the requisite number of Oscars, its impact on Hollywood and on ordinary Americans will not go away. The anti-war movie is in eclipse. The movies that tell the stories of the sacrifices that American veterans have made in the war against Islamic terrorists are rising.

Sultan Knish

Friday, January 2, 2015

The Left's Base Motive: Vengeance

January 2, 2015
By J.R. Dunn 

 
American leftism has gotten an awful lot of mileage by monopolizing the moral high ground. It is the sole force in American that favors the poor. The sole enemy of racism. The sole comforter of rape victims.  The sole protector of defenseless Muslims. The sole guardian of the environment, and so on ad nauseum.

It all falls apart eventually -- with friends like the left, nobody needs enemies. But often overlooked is that fact that it’s bogus from the start. Any prolonged glance at the left reveals it to be an ideology of power, its major tool violence, its goal revenge.   

Leftism has always been about revenge. The works of Marx are filled with fantasies of retribution and judgment. Their tone reeks of resentment and paranoia, with blame cast for even the most trivial. "The bourgeoisie,” Marx once declared in a letter to Engels, “will remember my carbuncles until their dying day.” That’s leftism in a nutshell.

The Paris communards of 1870, the first instance of an actual leftist government-in-being, immediately began shooting bourgeois on taking power, giving full rein to the European hatred for the middle class that is all but incomprehensible to Americans. That practice has been repeated by every hard left government that has ever taken power -- the USSR, communist China, Castroite Cuba, Pol Pot’s Kampuchea, down to minor examples such as Bela Kun’s Hungarian “Regime of Light” (1919), which reintroduced the Roman practice of decimation.

This unvarying tendency toward atrocity suggests that all these regimes had something in common, and it’s not that they all suffered from boils. It’s the lust for vengeance -- revenge for slights and crimes either real or imaginary,  that can be found in every leftist from Nechaev to Bill Ayers. No less than Barack Obama spilled that when, his back apparently against the wall in 2012, he began ranting about “voting for revenge”.

This was displayed clearly enough this past holiday season.
First in the wave of bogus rape stories, brought up not to assure prosecution or to curtail such crimes, but solely as ideological weapons for use by feminists.

American leftism has always been about magnifying trivial complaints to serve as excuses for revolutionary action. The U.S. has never had a feudal system, nor a proletariat, nor any other conceivable reason for revolution. (German Marxist Werner Sombart pointed out in 1903 that the American masses already possessed what the left was promising them. His comrades badgered him mercilessly for this insight.) Instead we see trivia blown up to apocalyptic proportions -- and nowhere less than in feminism. Betty Friedan hated the suburbs. Gloria Steinem served as a Playboy bunny and never got over the humiliation. They therefore set out to upend Western civilization by inflating these slights while millions of other women fastened on atrocities such as “the male gaze,” having doors opened for them, “manspreading,” and attempted pickups -- or lack of the same.

The one actual atrocity available was rape, which feminists have utilized as heavy artillery -- “all men are rapists”, “all sex is rape”, and the like. The latest barrage came from Tawana Dunham and Rolling Stone’s “Jackie.”  

Dunham, the East Coast sophisticate’s 300-lb. “It” girl, claimed in a memoir that she had been raped by an infamous Republican while at college,  while “Jackie” regaled Rolling Stone with a tale of gang rape at the hands of the always-reliable frat house.

Suffice to say not a single detail of either story help up. A “Barry” did attend Oberlin, and he was a power in local campus conservative politics, but he lacked a handlebar mustache and he’d never met Dunham. The fraternity in “Jackie’s” yarn threw no party the night in question, nor did she show any signs of suffering such an ordeal. One of the grotesque aspects of this scandal is that nobody in the legacy media so much as alluded to the Brawley and Duke hoaxes, which in many ways were identical to these accounts. In the Brawley case a black teenage girl, afraid to return home after a late night out, claimed to have been raped by a gang of whites under degrading circumstances. A gullible media hooted the story to the skies, egged on by the “Rev.” Al Sharpton. In the Duke case, the entire lacrosse team was publicly indicted for the mass rape of a stripper brought in to entertain a stag party.

Both these stories began to collapse almost immediately, but proponents insisted it didn’t matter -- white men had raped black women innumerable times before, so collective guilt demanded that someone be persecuted. As for Duke, lacrosse was an upper-class WASP sport, and the team deserved to be punished for that alone.

Dunham and “Jackie” would do well to contemplate the fates of the accusers in these hoaxes. 

Although Brawley’s champion Al Sharpton used the incident as his next step in clawing his way to the heights (if that’s the word) of MSNBC, Brawley herself today lives pseudonymously in Northern Virginia owing millions in legal fines. The Duke athlete’s accuser, Crystal Mangum, is serving hard time for the murder of a paramour.

Both Dunham and “Jackie” were looking for revenge for something -- all that we know is that it wasn’t rape.

Even more serious -- for the nation as a whole as well as those directly involved -- is current racial unrest triggered by blatant attempts to manipulate racial tensions through the actions and rhetoric of Barack Obama and Eric Holder et al. Long-term efforts to decriminalize the actions of black lawbreakers, beginning with the Trayvon Martin incident and progressing to the Ferguson shooting, have dovetailed with several standard episodes of police incompetence in Cleveland and Staten Island to create as fraught a racial atmosphere as at any time since the late 60s. (So much for the “post-racial” president.) This culminated in the assassination of two police officers in Brooklyn by an unstable career criminal, Ismaaiyl Brinsley, who had boasted on his Facebook page that he was out to avenge the Brown shooting by “giving wings to pigs.” (With the customary competence of the urban gangster, Brinsley shot not white officers but Wenjian Liu, an Asian, and Rafeal Ramos, a Hispanic.)

Here is a case where the leftist yearning for vengeance was reified by a maniac -- a not at all uncommon occurrence. Their rhetoric and posturing brought their fantasies and desires for vengeance to life before their eyes -- though certainly not in a way that they would have approved of, seeing as there can be little opportunity to exploit it. Whatever else he was, Brinsley is in no way a revolutionary hero.

The left’s entanglement with vengeance is easily understood -- it has nothing else. Their messiah has failed to lead them into Eden -- his policies, both domestic and foreign, have failed catastrophically one after another, leaving him nothing to show for six years as president and a nightmare gauntlet for the remainder of his term. His response -- and the response of the left as a whole -- amounts to little more than disjointed and incoherent actions. In the past six years, every last hope and dream of the left has been exposed -- there is nothing left.

So what does the left have but vengeance? It got them this far -- it will have to maintain them through the rest of Obama’s tenure, and beyond. 

So it follows that we will see more of it over the coming two years.  It could be argued, in fact, that a number of Obama’s recent actions amount to revenge. His immigration “reform” was punishment for a nation not worthy of him. His “opening” to Cuba acts as a punishment of Hispanics for letting him down in the midterms.

“Revenge is a dish best eaten cold”; “When seeking vengeance, be sure to dig two graves”. All the adages concerning revenge are cautionary. It’s something to be avoided, to be left to fate or karma or the hands of the Almighty. This is not something to be overlooked, if the condition of Tawana Brawley and Crystal Mangum are any indication.

But the left will overlook it. They despise ancient wisdom and they don’t have an Almighty. That being the case, we should prepare for a parade of Trayvons and “Jackies”, Lenas, and Ismaaiyls.

American Thinker