Two-state solution would destroy Israel

I like to write about Israel. They are our number one ally. They face the same threat of Radical Muslims as we do, although to a far greater extent than we do. As they try to create peace through strength, they are often criticized, much like George Bush was criticized when he used force against Iraq for harboring and supporting Muslim terrorists.

So Benjamin Netanyahu wins an election in a landslide. Here we are months later and Obama has yet to congratulate him. Instead, he went to the United Nations to undermine our ally, Israel, in favor of our enemies, Iran, Hamas, and Hezbollah.

Because Netanyahu has promised not to allow a Palestinian State while he is in office, Obama has threatened to go to the United Nations Security Council to pass a resolution recognizing a Palestinian State. He is going to block the Israeli vote opposed to a two state solution.

Why? The only reason I can think of is that Obama, as do many liberals, believes that a Palestinian state is the only road to peace in the Middle East.

In the past the White House has worked with Israel to block such a resolution from passing.

Why? Mainly because past U.S. leaders understood that a Palestinian State would basically mean the end of Israel.

Why? Because the Iranian Caliphate was built on the notion of completely wiping out Israel. Likewise, both Hamas and Hezbollah are terrorist organizations with charters calling for the complete anihalation of Israel.

In the past, U.S. policy has been to work with Israel, our biggest ally in the world, and the only strong democracy in the Middle East. Yet Obama is planning to completely change course in such a way that would completely undermine our ally and promote Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah.

In the past the U.S. has opposed the formation of a Palestinian nation, or a two state solution -- Israel and Palestine side by side, because it's leaders understood that such a two-state solution is not a two state solution.

Let me put it this way. Muslims live in Israel today, and they shop and enjoy life like any other person in Israel. If an Israelite left the borders of Israel and entered most Muslim territories, that person would likely be killed for being a Jew. So while the Israeliltes would be happy to live side by side with Muslims, the Iranians, Hamas, and Hezbola would not be happy to live side by side with Jews.

This is a fact that too many people fail to realize, even we hear the voices of radical Muslims all the time saying this stuff.  The leaders of Iran say quite often that they will settle at nothing less than a complete annihilation of Israel; meaning they will settle for nothing short of a one state solution.

The Palestinians do not want a two-state solution. They want a one state solution. They want a Palestine and no Israel. And history proves this as true, as every time Israel has agreed to a two state solution, Palestinian leaders have backed out time and time again. 

Many people fail to realize this, but the Palestinians were offered their own state of Palestine the same time the Jews were offered theirs.  The Jews accepted, and created Israel.  The Muslims rejected it.  So they are not victims.  They are victims, but only to their own rejection of a two state solution because they want a one state solution.  

The Camp David Accords are another perfect example of this. Jimmy Carter had brokered a deal with the Palestinians giving them everything they wanted from Israel, and their leader at the time, Yasser Arafat, refused to sign it.

Why? He did not want a two-state solution: he wanted a one-state solution. He wanted Muslims to live side by side with their brethren in Palestine. The only means to this end is the complete Anihalation of Israel, and the death of all Jews.  The Palestinians don't want part of the land, they don't want to share the land, they want all the land.

So the reason Netanyahu refuses to sign any treaty that would create a Palestinian State is because he does not want to sign a treaty that would result in the destruction of his own nation. The only way that happens if there is a war and Israel loses.

The only other way to peace in the region is an all out war that Israel wins.

Oh, wait, Israel did win an all out war with all the surrounding Muslim nations in 1967. How many people learned about that in history class.  Israel was outnumbered, out equipped, and it looked like it was going to be destroyed.  Israel took quite a few casualties at first, but it drove the Muslim armies out of Israel, and it won the war.  

This is how Israel got the West Bank and the Gaza strip.  They are not occupiers, they won this land in a war they didn't even want to fight. But many nations refused to see this truth, and continued to call the Israelites occupiers and the Palestinians victims.  

But this victory was not recognized by the United Nations. Israel may have been the only nation in the history of the world (besides the Americans, who defeated the Indians) to have won a war and yet were treated as the losers.

So there may never be a solution to this problem. There may never be peace in the Middle East, regardless of what efforts are made by Middle-East Peace Activists.

Further Reading:

1. CNN: Friedman: Netanyahu two-state shift is a win for Iran. 
2. Obama Plots Revenge Against Israel
3. Why Liberals Love the Enemies of Israel
4. Obama may find it impossible to mend ties with Netanyahu
5. Power Line‎: Will Obama Punish Israel for Re-electing Netanyahu?
6. Weekly Standard: US Threatens Sanctions Against Israel, Makes Excuses for Iran

Has George W. Bush been vindicated?

Few people would disagree that former president George W. Bush was an amiable and sociable guy. He was also a humble president who made decisions based on sound principle

He is a humble guy who put his country first, even when his legacy and the future of the republican party stood in the balance,. 

He showed time and again that he loves and respects his country so much that he refuses to respond to criticisms that he was wrong about the Iraq war, even while doing so might have saved his legacy and lead to a republican monopoly in Washington.  

From the moment the Iraq war began in 2003, the Democrat Party, after a couple days of making it look like they were all for it because public support was, it didn't take long before the Democrat Party and the media began an ongoing, never-ending 24/7, 365 effort to discredit the effort, to discredit the war, to discredit the motivation.

During the initial fighting in Iraq there was no effort to search for WOMD, as the effort at this time was to secure the area.  Yet one the fighting started to slow down in 2004, evidence started to come in that Saddam did indeed harbor such weapons.  Yet even when Rick Santorum came forward with evidence back in 2006 (and, yes, he's gloating today), George W. Bush refused to release the evidence to prove Santorum right.  

While the decision must have been that of George Bush himself, a new report suggests that Karl Rove is taking the blame for covering up the fact that WOMD were indeed found in Iraq.  As evidence of discarded WOMD started coming in, he simply said, "Let sleeping dogs lie."

To me, that does not seem to be the type of decision that Karl Rove, Bush's political advisor, would make.  As political advisor, you'd think he would have preferred for such evidence to become vastly available for the media to pounce over in order to vindicate a president who had otherwise been vastly criticised by democrats in Washington and the media.  

However, a decision to let sleeping dogs lie would go right along with how Bush handled his presidency, whereby he would often make decisions he thought were best for his country based on principle, and let the people decide for themselves.  

In fact, as you can see for yourself in this video, in 2007 Bush ordered a surge in Iraq while critics were calling for a pull out.  Bush, however, went on TV to defend his decision.  He said: 

"I know some in Washington would like us to withdraw from Iraq now.  Begin withdrawing before our commanders say we are ready would be dangerous for Iraq, for the region, and for the United States. It would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to Al Qaeda.  It would mean we would risking mass killings on a horrific scale.  It would mean we allow terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq that they lost in Afghanistan.  It would mean that we increase the possibility that U.S. troops will face on a later date an enemy that was even more dangerous." 

This was a surge that would indeed end up stabilizing the region.  And, after Obama pulled troops out of Iraq, ISIS entered the region.  ISIS, as you may know, is quite possibly the enemy that is even more dangerous than Al Qaeda.

The problem with any news that appears to vindicate Bush is that it will always be underplayed by the media.  Even as the New York Times reported that WOMD were in fact found in Iraq, they down played this news by saying, "but it was a pre-1991 weapons cache."

But what does it matter.  The fact of the matter is that Bush was right. He was right to go into Iraq to in an effort to create stability in an otherwise unstable region, and to make it so terrorists could not harbor weapons and find safe havens that allowed them to regroup in their efforts to convert or kill non Muslims.

It appears, however, that Bush has indeed been vindicated.  

Obama is the perfect president

I remember when George W. Bush was president, and his poll numbers were low, we were inundated with a daily onslaught of front page articles and news updates on CNN reminding us of how unpopular he was.  But now that Barack Obama's polling numbers are low we get nothing.

People who don't seek news from alternative routes, which is probably the case for most people, would have no idea that Obama is as unpopular as Bush.

The Media Research Center, which has the task of monitoring media fairness, has reported that there were 124 network reports of George W. Bush's approval ratings between January 1, 2006, and August 31, 2006.  During the same time span in 2014, there were only 9 reports of Obama's disapproval ratings.

Likewise, while evidence suggests the recession is still ongoing, the media make it seem like it's over.  On Tuesday Obama ordered bombs to blast enemy enclaves in Syria, and, if you pay attention to the main news outlets, you'd think it was the most perfect war ever.

This is the kind of thing that happens when the person in charge is someone you support.  It's a perfect example of poor journalism. If you were a person who didn't understand this, you'd think Obama was the perfect president.

Perry looking very presidential on immigration issue

A while back I wrote a post about how political analyst Dick Morris predicted that Rick Perry would be the next GOP nominee. Today, that prediction is looking great as Rick Perry is by far presenting himself as the most presidential.

Today Morris's prediction is looking good, as Rick Perry has sent the National Guard to protect the Texas border to prevent any more immigrants from trying to illegally cross in the hopes that they can get amnesty.

A while back Barack Obama made an executive order that families with children in America may come to the United States to be with their familes.  He is likewise trying encourage Congress to pass laws giving illegal immigrants amnesty.  This has basically encouraged unhappy Mexicans to illegally cross into America, or at least send their children this way in the hopes they'll be able to join them later.

It's been estimated that over 250 children are crossing the border every day. Many states are very concerned, petitioning the president to put a stop to this, as they cannot afford to house, school and provide healthcare for all these illegal children.

The influx become so pandemic it's scary right now to be an American.  Yet Obama does not see it as a crisis.  His response is to say "I'll look into it" or "it's the republicans fault because they voted against my immigration reform."

Of course former President George Bush is not off the hook either, as he was encouraged to put troops on the border to prevent such a crisis from occurring, and he didn't so either.

I think both Bush, and now Obama, do not put troops on the border because both of them fear that doing such a thing would cause Spanish Americans to prefer the other party.  Of course, by looking at trends, most of the people crossing the border are uneducated, and most likely to vote democrat regardless.

Both also did so under the guise that American has always been a state of open borders, something that is not true.

In fact, most people do not know this, but between 1924 to 1965 we shut down immigration. We closed the borders so that those who had arrived could assimilate and become American, which they wanted to do, by the way. They learned English. They became accustomed to American holidays. They wanted to become Americans.

Today we don't even ask that those who cross our borders assimilate. This was good, because America is better when we are one united nation (a melting pot) as opposed to a divided nation (a salad bowl).  United we can conquer any problem, although divided we fall.

Rick Perry looks good by sending troops to the border.  His move looks even better when you consider that a recent poll shows that greater than 70 percent of Americans believe we should secure our border and send illegal immigrants back home.

Further reading:

1. Perry: What you are doing is a crime
2. 77% want illegal immigrants sent home, 81% say it's a serious issue