Who gave America the right To interfere in others' affairs?

Israel HaYom carried an "op ed" by Elliott Abrams, "a senior fellow for Middle East Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations" that takes Secretary of State John Kerry to task for failing to interfere in Saudi domestic policies.

"On the move for Saudi women to be allowed to drive, Kerry was careful not to appear to take sides. Noting that while the United States embraces gender equality, 'it is up to Saudi Arabia to make its own decisions about its own social structure and choices and the timing of whatever events.'

Whether women may or may not legally drive in Saudia is a matter for the Saudis, not the United States.

U.S. citizens may look askance at a country so "backward" that it severely restricts women's "rights" (if driving by anyone can be considered a "right"), but that does not give them the right to tell the Saudis what they should - or should not - do within their borders. Had Kerry publicly sided with the Women of the Wheel he would be representing the United States of Chutzpah.

If anyone wants to condemn the Saudis, there are lots of serious issues to raise.

Corporal punishment - unlike Judaism's maximum of 39 lashes, Islam has no limits.

Lack of Religious freedom - try and bring a non-Islamic holy book into Saudi and end up in jail; non-Muslims are banned from Mecca and Medina.

Slave trafficking - pre-teen and teen age girls are bought in - correct, bought in, not simply brought from - India and Pakistan to satisfy Saudi men.

A woman's right to drive pales in comparison to the real issues, yet few Americans seem as upset over these issues as they are about women behind the wheel of cars. Saudi women can't travel outside the country without permission from their husband or guardian.

Meanwhile, another Israel haYom columnist, Zalman Shoval complains that Obungler allegedly said America no longer wants to be the "world's policeman," and his national security adviser, Susan Rice -- to justify the lethargic stance against Syria and Iran -- says "there is an entire world where the U.S. also has interests and opportunities."

For once I whole-heartedly agree with POTUS; too bad he failed to live up to the words he uttered. America has enough problems of its own; we don't need to be either policeman or nursemaid to the world. We cannot afford it financially or politically.

Is it America's problem that there is a civil war in Syria? By the way, look up the definition of "civil war" and you'll see it doesn't concern the U.S.

If it's NOT "America's problem" and if it MUST be someone's problem, let it be the Arab League of which Syria is a member.

Sudan a U.S. problem? No. The human suffering in the wars of Africa is tragic, but the U.S. has no role to play or right to inject either its politics or its military into - here's that word again - "civil" strife.

Ditto Egypt.

What Obungler HAS done, with his interfering in other nation's domestic political issues, it to make the U.S. what China called us long ago, a paper tiger. The U.S.' reputation would be far better around the globe if Obungler HAD been an isolationist.

Long ago a wiser man occupied the White House.

In President James Monroe's seventh annual message to Congress on December 2, 1823, Monroe basically told the European powers du jour that the U.S. would not interfere in Europe's affairs and that, in return, European monarchs need to keep their politics and political systems out of our hemisphere.

In a pointed statement, he noted that "It is impossible that the allied powers (i.e., Europe) should extend their political system to any portion of either continent (i.e., North and South America) without endangering our peace and happiness; nor can anyone believe that our southern brethren, if left to themselves, would adopt it of their own accord. It is equally impossible, therefore, that we should behold such interposition in any form with indifference."

Madison clearly recognized that installing a political system foreign to the indigenous population was clearly contra-indicated.

That reasoning remains valid today; the only difference is that the U.S., in the person of John Kerry and his staff, are attempting to impose a U.S. political mentality on people who cannot accommodate that mentality.

That is NOT to say different cultures and mentalities are inherently wrong, only "different."

Bottom line: America needs to fix its own problems before even considering other's problems. If that makes the U.S. isolationist, so be it.

We know, from decades of experience, that rarely does our interference win friends for America.

Whether or not women drive in Saudia is not a U.S. concern. If Americans want to pressure Saudis to let women drive, that's fine, providing this is not clothed as official U.S. policy.

”America’s rabbi” needs lesson in history

 

Shmuley Boteach:
Arm Syrian rebels

R. Shmuley Boteach, trying to put words in Obama’s mouth, would have the president tell Syria’s Assad “(W)e have decided to arm the rebels in their fight.” ( http://tinyurl.com/n2n76x3)

Never mind conflicting reports about who is killing who in Syria; Boteach wants to arm the rebels who, by the way, have been accused of cannibalism – and of bragging about it.

Does Boteach really think the U.S. can buy the rebels friendship IF the rebels prevail, and as of today, 19 June 2013, that’s questionable.

Does Boteach really think if the rebels, a fragmented bunch at best, will be able to control the country and, in particular, the cease fire along the Israel-Syria border. Certainly not based on some of the rebels’ published promises.

Perhaps the real question is: Does Boteach think at all?

Obviously Boteach, who frequently reminds his readers that someone called him “America’s rabbi” and that “Newsweek and The Washington Post call ‘the most famous Rabbi in America’, is the international best-selling author of 29 books,” is ignorant of history.

He apparently fails to realize that America cannot buy friends or, for that matter, cannot defuse Muslim anger by paying off the Islamists. He pointedly ignores the lessons of Afghanistan where the U.S. armed the Taliban to fight the then Soviet Union, only to have the U.S.-provided weapons turned against U.S. soldiers.

He fails to recognize the purpose of the Monroe Doctrine – a doctrine developed to keep the U.S. out of foreign wars, “civil” or otherwise.

Botach rails against the Russian head of state’s endorsement of the Assad administration. “It’s a travesty that Russia was invited to the G8 summit, especially as Putin shamelessly disregards the pleas of the international community to withdraw his support from the criminal regime. This summit is meant to facilitate the collaboration between civilized nations for a better future. If we can’t stop the ongoing slaughter or, at least, bar Russia’s participation from the summit until they change their policy, then the forum becomes guilty of passive complicity.”

Even as he notes that the “summit is meant to facilitate the collaboration between civilized nations for a better future” he would banish the Russian to prevent any communication between his point of view and any others’ points of view. My way or the highway attitude.

Syria is NOT the United States’ problem.

Syria is NOT the G-8’s problem.

Syria MIGHT be a problem to be handled by the Arab League, although the Arab League is hard pressed to do anything other than ask non-Muslims to protect their assets.

Syria certainly is not a problem for the UN’s Blue Bonnets who are best known for turning tail and disappearing when someone says Boo!.

Hopefully, no matter what side or sides finally prevail, Syria will not become a problem for Israel, Jordan, or Turkey. Iran and Iraq – they are contributing to the problem as are Hamas and Hezbollah.

I know Boteach is running for political office.

If he really wants to get the U.S. involved in Syria’s internal problems, I hope he is soundly defeated. I understand he’s running for a local spot, but his “buddy” at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue will use a Boteach win to claim America’s rabbi and America are behind him (POTUS) in what would be Obama’s latest misadventure.

Shmuley Boteach is not this scrivener’s rabbi and, the last time I checked my passport it showed I am very much an American.

What am I missing?

 

As of 8:37 a.m. Eastern time Friday, May 20, 2011, the U.S. national debt was

$55,354,057,812,217

and each individual U.S. citizen - every man, woman, and child - owed

$177,767

By the time this is read, the debt will be substantially more.

You can watch it climb at http://www.usdebtclock.org/#.

At the same time the national debt - our indebtedness - is skyrocketing, the president (POTUS) is promising billions for potential - likely - enemies of the U.S. in hopes he can buy friends.

Mr. President: This has NEVER worked; not for Democrats and not for Republicans.

It certainly will not work dealing with Moslems who want to take over the world.

What MIGHT work is another Great White Fleet; the fleet that Teddy Roosevelt sent around the world proving his "Speak softly and carry a big stick" philosophy worked. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_White_Fleet.)

For all that, where is Congress going to get the money so you can keep your rash promise?

While I support limited, emergency foreign aid - e.g., helping Haiti's poor recover from that country's several disasters - I fail to see any benefit of aid to Egypt (the U.S.' partner who was overthrown) or the so called PLO (whose former leader pocketed a large percentage of the loot); even Israel, a country that probably can stand on its own if it could be weaned from the U.S.' financial teat.

The U.S. is owned by others, primarily by China.

No longer are Americans an independent people nor is our country still ours.

We have been "sold out" by Washington - by both Democrats and Republicans - and you, Mr. President, are continuing the great - and stupid - tradition of selling our children's futures for your own glory - "Look how I helped <pick a country>." Never mind it was money generations to come must earn.

It might not be so bad were the promises not coming on the heels of an invasion of a country involved in a civil war, an invasion in which we had no right to participate. (Remember the Monroe Doctrine?)

And never mind that the rulers the rioters are overthrowing managed to keep the lid on internal strife - much like the Communists in the former Soviet Union.

And never mind that, if all the revolting countries follow in the path of Egypt and Gaza they will be dominated by terrorists determined to eliminate the Great Satan - the U.S. - and then all the infidels - until they run out of infidels then they'll start on each other.

Not only do your promises sell us and our children and their children into debtor's prison - for truly, owning debt we can never repay is a prison - you are selling us to a people who hate us, who WILL "bite the hand that feeds them."

Is there anyone in Congress with the intelligence and intestinal fortitude to prevent POTUS from giving away our future?

Why Gadaffi?

 

The U.S. and the tired old ladies of Europe are supporting the overthrow of Libya's government.

In fact, they actively are supporting the rebels.

If Communism was still America's bug-a-boo and if someone would suggest the rebels were Communists or Communist tools, the Red, White, and Blue would be solidly behind Gadaffi.

No one will argue that Gadaffi is unbalanced or that he once, if not now, supported terrorists and terrorism - Pan Am 103's explosion over Lockerbie Scotland on December 21, 1988 has been laid at is door (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_103) - but of late, he's behaved in an apparently acceptable manner.

If the United States is to war on Gadaffi and the Libyans who support him - an undeclared war at that - why not attack other regimes that pose a greater threat to world peace and human rights?

Shall we start with Iran that is - no question - a threat to all its neighbors, a place that supports terrorists worldwide, and a place where human rights are trampled?

Of course not.

What's the difference between Iran and Libya? Oil.

What about Syria? It's despot's daddy wiped out a whole village because it failed to support Hafez al-Assad. completely (see http://www.newsmax.com/deBorchgrave/Assad-Syria-Facebook-protests/2011/03/09/id/388872).

The current despot, Bashar al-Assad, has so far refrained from killing his own people, but supports Hezbollah in Lebanon, a small country that, before Hezbollah, was a cultural center that thrived on Christian-Moslem tolerance.

Syria is the place that Iraq sent its weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) while the world waited for an agreement to remove Saddam Hussein from power, WMDs that suddenly never existed if Washington is to believed.

Moving to the east of Iran, we have North Korea, The only differences between Iran and North Korea are (a) Iran has oil and (b) North Korea has the bomb.

In neither location is dissent tolerated.

But we don't attack or even seriously threaten either Iran or North Korea.

And then there is China.

China has the bomb; it has severe human rights violations and does not countenance dissent; it conquered Tibet and suppresses its culture. It also has designs on Taiwan, a small Chinese island where the U.S. set up another despot, Chiang Kai-shek to counter Communist Mao, reportedly the Chinese people's choice.

Why doesn't the U.S. and the old biddies of Europe remove China's leadership and institute "democracy" (but whose democracy - Europe or the U.S.).

Actually, if repression and general human rights violations are legitimate causes for war, then most of the Islamic regimes and many African states - the worst offenders seem to be Moslem dominated - should be again taken over by the more humane and democratic countries. Surely no one has forgotten French, British, Dutch, Spanish, and Portuguese rule and how these advanced nations treated their foreign subjects.

A quick aside: The U.S. allegedly is in Afghanistan (and Pakistan and ...) chasing Osama bin Mohammed bin Awad bin Laden. For that the U.S. does not need armies of thousands; it needs a few highly trained assassins who can infiltrate bin Laden's court and behead the snake. But the U.S. is reluctant to target individual terrorists (although it does that), preferring to send in thousands and collateral causalities be damned. Someone in Washington seems to think bin Laden and Company are soldiers and deserve Geneva Convention rules. They are not and they do not.

Let Gadaffi alone.

What is going on in Libya is a Libyan affair.

There is little likelihood it will spread to "the world," even the Arab world where open displeasure with governments probably will be a short-lived thing.

Unless the U.S. and the European pantywaists are prepared to put down every despotic government in the Moslem world, the U.S. lacks the moral high ground to interfere in any way with what is transpiring in Libya.