On Prime Minister Netanyahu's Visit

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu - a True Leader

In the spirit of full candor, I will reveal - to those who do not know this about me - my utter admiration for this man. Among my political heroes, Benjamin Netanyahu is in the Top 5. And likely, if I think about it, #1 of all.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will address a joint session of Congress on Tuesday, March 3rd, and it will be historic. He is not being well received by those who support the King President of the USA, mainly because said president has no love for Israel or her leader.

But I cannot stay silent on my feelings about the speech. I've had debates with those who are against this visit, and I've heard all the points of contention. "It's a political stunt, two weeks before an Israeli election" - that's one.

Here's the thing: even some Israelis don't agree with this speech, and it puts Bibi's re-election at risk. Clearly it is not a political stunt if the odds are against landing on his feet. Clearly his love for his country and his concern for her very existence are more important than his chances at re-election. That pretty much negates the "political stunt" argument.

I've heard it said that the timing was not coincidental. Here's something I wrote in response to that argument:

The timing of this is not devious - it is unfortunate. The deal deadline keeps getting pushed back because the 0bama administration's style is to do exactly that instead of adhere to an actual deadline (see: Syria and red lines drawn in chalk). If they'd stuck to the original deadline, there would be no need for the speech because the deal would be dead. Instead, Iran is calling the shots, the USA is begging them for another chance, desperate to leave some sort of big grand gesture as a legacy for the Clown-in-Chief, and the new deadline is end of March. Netanyahu didn't choose for the stars to align this way. They did because 0bama's minions can't say no (see: bad parenting and "just one more glass of water before bed?"). Blaming Netanyahu for the timing is like blaming James Foley for daring to get his head cut off shortly before 0bama's golf game.

It's true, too: the deadline has been moved by the administration because they want the deal so badly, they don't know how to say "no" to Iran's demands. The cartoon below illustrates this all too clearly.

I've seen Democrats interviewed because they have stated they will boycott the speech. The rumblings of potential boycotting were soft at first. Nancy Pelosi (that paragon of wit and intelligence - yes, my sarcasm is showing) had started the ball rolling when she said she wasn't encouraging a boycott but oh, many people on the Hill have very busy schedules.

What is more important than listening to the visiting leader of America's strongest ally in the Middle East, the ONLY democracy in that region?

Then, the word "boycott" became a shameless self-characterization of what they were doing, and now it seems approximately 50 Dems will walk out or simply not attend.

SHAME ON THEM. 

Many of them are Jewish.

SHAME ON THEM!

If the Republican representatives have the grace to attend the State of the Union, a yearly lie-fest, then the Democrats should, too, show grace and dignity to a man who may well end up winning the election in 2 weeks, someone with whom they will have to work in the coming years. Burning their bridges tomorrow is not only foolhardy, it is beneath the office they hold. And it is age-inappropriate.

It's been said that the reason this speech is "wrong" is because there was a breach of protocol. The White House wasn't asked, or informed, Netanyahu was just invited by the Speaker. Here's the thing: that happened in 2011 as well. But in that case, the White House had no problem, no complaints, and did not use it as a political football. Why not? Probably because there was a general election coming up and the Emperor President still had to maintain a facade of at least tolerating Israel and her leader.

There was nothing illegal about the Speaker's invitation. Nothing unconstitutional. And just last month, PM David Cameron visited from the UK and was given carte blanche to phone and meet with Senators in private to promote the Iranian nuke deal.

Double standard much?

Are Democrats and their party leader so worried about breach of protocol that they bristle because the Prime Minister didn't ask "mother may I?" before accepting the invitation appropriately extended to him? Should Emily Post's spirit be invoked when the survival of an entire country is at stake?

Please spare me! Protocol is a convenient, and specious argument put forth by the same administration that blamed an obscure YouTube video for the murders of 4 brave Americans - one a US Ambassador - by terrorists who, I'm sure, never knew the video existed, much less took umbrage with it.

My anger lies with the immaturity of those who are supposed to be representative of their constituents. I would bet most - if not all - of the voters who put these people into office support Israel and would support their reps being in that chamber for that speech. Instead, they're stomping off and playing baby games and showing their true colors.

Why are they so afraid to attend? I even heard Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) state that he'll WATCH it, and read all the pundits afterwards. He just won't be there personally. Why not? Does he believe his body in the seat shows support? Does he not understand how the First Amendment works? If he - and his fellow tantrumites - don't like what the PM has to say, they are free to give interviews ad nauseam to refute PM Netanyahu's words. But it seems they're afraid to show up - do they know something we don't? Have they been threatened by the administration?

There isn't enough room or time for me to list all my grievances with the way this event has been treated. I turn, instead, to the wisdom and humor of Benjamin Netanyahu himself, at the AIPAC conference this morning:

"You know, never has so much been written about a speech that hasn't been given."

I urge those who are on the fence, or have already made up their minds, to be open-minded and turn it on. Or watch it on video when it's posted. Try to see it his way. His country faces an existential threat from a regime that chants - regularly - not only "Death to Israel" but "Death to America". The Iranians want to see Israel annihilated. And if Americans - or Canadians - believe it ends there, they're just fooling themselves.

I am proud of Prime Minister Harper's, and Canada's, unwavering support of Israel, proud that my country stands shoulder-to-shoulder with my spiritual homeland. But I am angered that our closest neighbors are governed by an administration that holds a view that is diametrically opposed to ours. And that so many of them buy into that rhetoric without being critical thinkers and seeing the whole picture.
 
I will be watching, and I will re-watch as I watched today's AIPAC speech numerous times. Benjamin Netanyahu is the true epitome of a Leader and, as outlined in an article today, is the true Leader of the Free World.

A Dangerous Game Of Semantics

I have not weighed in on the Charlie Hebdo, Hyper-Cacher attacks, or on subsequent topics that have arisen as a result.

I have stayed silent - and part of that is because I have learned, through experience, that those who speak up - those who do not agree with the populist (aka leftist) view - get vilified.

Well, I've been vilified before. Many times. I've been accused, blocked, unfriended, and cyberbullied. I'm still being cyberbullied (from what I've been told) in groups I've left because my views didn't mesh with theirs and toeing the line was necessary in order to be part of them.

Sure it's easier not to speak out. It's tiresome to be the conservative voice among so many liberal friends. It's tiresome to be attacked for my views and just as easy to simply discuss them with those of like mind.

But if I don't speak out, I'm just as bad as the cowards who claim "Je Suis Charlie" but don't dare publish one cartoon from Charlie Hebdo. I'm just as bad as those who claim "Je Suis Juif" but won't dare speak out for Israel's right to stand up for herself. I'm just as bad as those who share hashtag slacktivist photos because all it takes is a click of the "share" button but no further effort needed.

If I don't speak out, I am complicit. And that isn't who I am. I've learned that speaking out will not always win me friends or influence people, but that's not why I speak out. I do so because with the writing skills I possess, with the opinionated pieces I can produce, and with my feet squarely on the ground, I can have the voice I was given and which is my right to use, freely and without persecution. Well, without formal persecution. There are those who have persecuted me in social media venues. They were, and remain, inconsequential.

The people at Charlie Hebdo who died for their fearlessness knew the stakes. Those who blame them for any perceived line they might have crossed are just as bad as the government officials who coddle their assassins.  I salute their courage and their commitment to their opinions. There are many who stay silent out of fear the same will happen to them. That's their choice.

But I have a voice, and much to say. And have decided to break my silence in honor of those who died for being cartoonists, or Jews, or soldiers or Westerners. And besides, when has any of you ever known me to stay silent?

Recently, after the State of the Union, a focus group on (hold your nose, liberals!) Fox News was given the microphone to state their impressions. One topic that arose was the administration's abject refusal to call it "Islamic Extremism" or "Radicalized Islam".

Those who identified as conservative were very vocal in their condemnation of the administration. The new, verbose term, uttered almost verbatim by every single staffer, is "individuals who commit violence based on their warped view of Islam." Because of course, there are other extremists (though I've yet to see Jewish extremists yelling  "Baruch Hashem" {"thank G-d"} as they assassinate those who utter anti-Semitic rhetoric - and Charlie Hebdo has its fair share of Jewish caricatures).

One woman in the focus group, an Obama voter, steadfast in her support, stated, "There's so much going on in the world, why are we so worried about the semantics? That's all it is, semantics."

That's the moment at which I decided to get up and work on this piece.

It may seem like semantics but it is a very real representative of the bigger problem with this administration and those who follow its ideology. And the problem is threefold:

Fear of offending Muslims/Political Correctness Run Amok

Barack Obama has stated, time and time again, how he will not allow for the denigration of the Muslim world. His words, in 2012: "The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." Those words have been heard by those who take offense at satire, offhand remarks or perceived slights.

I use the term "take offense" in italics because it is, indeed, a choice to take offense. And when the president of the United States makes a statement that the future does not belong to those who have been perceived to have slandered Islam, you can be sure the result will be an immediate death plot afoot.

Why are people living in fear? Because Islam is the only religion which punishes apostasy by death. Catholics, Jews, Protestants, Mormons, Buddhists - they choose to convert to other religions or to simply stop practicing altogether, without consequence.  And with such a violent reaction against Muslims who choose another faith, imagine the backlash against anyone who dares speak against Islam?

We live in times where words can be troublesome. Being in the field I am, I know that as strongly as anyone. But we also live in times where political correctness run amok has overtaken any freedom of speech rights. One absurd example is the use of peanut butter sandwiches as a racist slur. I kid you not. Here's the story.

So, the semantics problem speaks to the fear of offending those who would act violently in response. Living in fear is what the government would prefer to do instead of standing up against intimidation.

Refusal to name the reality

The Obama government refuses to face reality. Radical Islam is NOT on the run as he stated over and over in order to win the 2012 election. They've grown out of control in the Middle East. They've hit Paris, Australia, and my home here in Canada. They're going to hit again. They've got every "infidel" country in their sights and they won't stop.

But if you listened to the State of the Union, you would think extremism is contained. Because this president believes that if you don't talk about it, it doesn't exist. Those of us living in the real world know that it is not only a very real problem, it is quickly turning catastrophic.

Sticking to talking points

This is what the Obama administration does best. Whether it's to create them, change them à la Benghazi, or obstinately stick to them, reality has no basis as long as the words come out right.

Right back to semantics. Saying something - or not saying it - does not make it true. Using the words that accurately depict any situation not only gives it credence, it shows strength.

But avoiding reality, avoiding words out of some misguided sense of loyalty to terrorists doesn't sit well with me.

First, it weakens the United States of America. It makes the USA look afraid, cowed, intimidated. The superpower is subdued. And that leaves the USA vulnerable. It is dangerous.

Second, it is dishonest. It's the equivalent of sitting in the middle of a crowded room with one's hands over one's eyes, chanting, "You can't see me!"

Third, it insults the intelligence of every single person who knows the facts. That includes Americans, Canadians, Israelis, Europeans, anyone who knows that changing the words doesn't change the reality.

It does, however, change the narrative. That's the danger of this: if the administration can so easily change the narrative by tweaking the wording, what else are they doing to hide the truth from you?

Dancing around the truth for political purposes is not leadership. It is deception. (Don't get me started on that - totally different blog piece brewing)
 
Playing with semantics for political purposes or out of fear is a feeble attempt to solve a problem without a resolution. This situation will be raging out of control long after Barack Hussein Obama leaves office (726 days!). All he is doing, with his word games and hidey-hands is kicking the can down the road for the next person to deal with when s/he takes office.

Let us pray that the next president is strong enough to stand up against radical Islam, look it square in the face and state, unequivocally, "You can't scare us off. We know your name.

"And we will say it."