Check Me Out on Northwest Liberty News

 

 

 We talk about the recent peace deals in the Middle East, in particular the deals between Israel and UAE and Bahrain. We also discuss the Hayes Production code and how that is similar to a recent dust up with JK Rowling. We end by talking about John Barton, a California dad who said CPS took his three year old son under dubious circumstances and it appears his son may be being abused in care. 

Finally we talk about the new recordings in the Rucki case; they shed light on how the local Fox affiliate reporter Trish Van Pilsum scored an interview with the Rucki girls days after they went missing on April 19, 2013.

Notes are below. 

1)  https://twitter.com/AmbDermer/status/1304468293898694659 

2) https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/islam-s-reformation-an-arab-israeli-alliance-is-taking-shape-in-the-middle-east

3) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NkcRllnmFo

4)  https://time.com/5888999/jk-rowling-troubled-blood-transphobia-authors/

5) https://theeprovocateur.blogspot.com/2020/08/california-cws-takes-three-year-under.html

6)  https://theeprovocateur.blogspot.com/2020/09/explosive-audio-reveals-details-behind.html

7) https://gogetfunding.com/justiceforjames-get-louder/

BiBi to the UN: Have You No Shame

The speech given earlier today by Benjamin Netanyahu to the United Nations was one of the best I've heard a politician given in all the years I've been following politics. While I have no doubt the speech will be universally lauded for its excellence, the question remains just how much of a difference it will make. That remains an open question. Netanyahu delivered a powerful indictment over holocaust denial, Iranian aggression, and the UN's utter apathy in the face of it all.



Netanyahu began by countering the absurd and vicious assertions by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that the Holocaust didn't happen. Netanyahu actually pulled out a copy of Hitler's final solution as proof that the Holocaust happened. If that wasn't enough, he then recounted how most of his wife's family died in the Holocaust. By allowing Ahmadinejad to speak, the UN legitimizes him and his hateful rhetoric. Netanyahu congratulated all those nation that left before and during Ahmadinejad's speech as standing up for humanity and moral clarity. To all who stayed, he delivered this pithy thought.

To those who gave this Holocaust denier a hearing, I say on behalf of my people. ... Have you no shame? Have you no decency.

Netanyahu detailed Iran's aggressive behavior toward Israel including calling for its destruction, supporting Hamas and supporting Hezbollah. Netanyahu pointed out that Iran is not merely a threat to Israel but to the rest of the world. He pointed out that all throughout history tyrants that targeted Jews eventually targeted the rest of the world.



Netanyahu went through the history of the creation of Israel. He pointed out that the words of Isaiah are printed on the entrance of the United Nations. Netanyahu pointed out that Isaiah, himself a Jew, said those from Judea in what is now Israel. That was all part of Netanyahu's reminder of the UN that Jews didn't just happen to find their way to Israel in 1948 but have historic ties to that land for several thousand years.



He pointed out that in 1947 the UN issued a charter that would create two states, one a Jewish state and the other an Arab state. He pointed out that the Jewish people accepted this charter while the Arabs rejected it and then attacked the newly formed Israeli nation in 1948.



Netanyahu left his most blunt and direct attack for UN's current policy. In righteous indignation, he condemned the UN's recent condemnation of Israel for its offensive in Gaza last January.

What a travesty, Israel justly defended itself against terror. Will you stand with Israel or will you stand with the terrorists?

Netanyahu pointed out that Hamas has used Gaza as the launching point for rocket attacks on nearby Israeli cities for the last eight years. In fact, Netanyahu made a historical comparison. He said only once in history had one nation targeted the civilian population of another and that was Germany's carpet bombing of London. By that logic, Netanyahu said, the UN would have written a report of condemnation of FDR and Winston Churchill had they been around in the early 1940's.



Netanyahu pointed out that the UN has never once written a report condemning Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran for their systematic targeting of civilians. They've never written one report condemning those three for launching attacks from schools, homes, and Mosques. Never once has the UN written a report of condemnation for any of the three hiding among civilians all while launching rockets haphazardly into Israeli civilian population.



In the irony of ironies, he called for two states living peacefully side by side just as the camera moved to a rep of Palestine leaving the hall. At one point, a representative of Nigeria could be seen with arms crossed leaning back in his seat, body language that indicates deep distrust and disfavor.



He called this a moment of truth and the jury being out on the UN. Will the UN continue to draw a moral equivalence between the democratic nation of Israel and the terrorists of Hamas?



Netanyahu's speech was powerful because it identified several simple truths. Ahmadinejad is a madman and a Holocaust denier, and yet, the UN, and the world community for that matter, refuses to confront him. If he gets nuclear weapons, that will be devastating for the world. Yet, the UN which is supposed to confront such evil fails to confront him all the while using every opportunity to condemn Israel.



While this speech was powerful, I don't know that it will ultimately make much of a difference. In my final senior speech in front of my fraternity, I called out all the racists in my fraternity, and there were many. Here's how I concluded my speech.

One last thing, when I first arrived here, many of you made comments about me being Jewish. At first, I figured it wasn't that big a deal because you weren't that mature, but since its been four years and you still haven't gotten over it. The only thing I can see is that to you I'm just another K%^E, just like Macias is just another S^&C, and Arnold's just another Ni$$er.

I became a bit of a rock star in the fraternity for the next week. Many of my frat brothers were genuinely sorry for what they had said. That said, none ultimately stopped being racist and most were ultimately left unchanged by the speech. If someone is weak and rotten that's how they'll be. That's how I see the UN and while this was a great speech I don't think that many in the UN will now see the light.

Netanyahu's Big Speech

Benjamin Netanyahu made a historic speech yesterday afternoon. Now, all that's left is to see how the media and the world to interpret the speech. One headline was that Netanyahu called on a two state solution. On the other hand, his conditions for a two state solution are likely unacceptable from the perspective of the Palestinians. Furthermore, he resisted calls from President Obama to stop settlement expansion.

PM Netanyahu's conditions for a two state solution include a demilitarized Palestine, an Israel with Jerusalem as its capital, Israel being recognized as a JEWISH nation, and all refugee issues being handled by the Palestinians themselves.

From the perspective of the Israelis these are all not only reasonable conditions for a two state solution but mostly non negotiable. Israel isn't going to accept a Palestinian state if it has military capability. That would give Hamas all the room it needed to continue an armed conflict with Israel. Jerusalem is the historical center of all three religions: Judaism, Christianity and Islam. So, Jerusalem is a contentious issue for many nations. Israel must be recognized as a Jewish nation because otherwise, the Palestinians will attempt to flood the country with Arabs and Muslims in order to simply take over the nation through immigration. The right of return is also contentious. By this, most Palestinians demand that ancestors of those displaced in the wars in the 1940's be allowed to return home to what is now Israel. If that were to happen then again, Israel would not be the nation it currently is.

This might be a very shrewd move by Netanyahu. By pronouncing his commitment to a two state solution, he might be viewed as making a serious concession. At the same time, he has laid down markers that Palestinians won't ever agree to. This could give him leverage in being viewed as a serious partner to peace. The Palestinians are likely to reject all of this wholesale. Of course, Hamas will reject it. Abbas can't possibly accept any of this or that would lead to civil war within Palestine. Meanwhile, Netanyahu could leverage all of this to the Americans and moderate Arabs to say that he has made real concessions.

Ultimately, while it is historic to have an Israeli leader pronounce the goal of a two state solution, there is little new here. The Israelis have always counted all of these issues as part of any peace agreement. That's because that's the only way they can be assured it is a real peace agreement. Now, we'll wait and see how it will be played in the world.

The Symbiotic Relationship of President Obama and Benjamin Netanyahu

I don't believe I am making any great intuitive point when I say that it is unlikely that books will be written about the transformative relationship between Benjamin Netanyahu and Barack Obama. I was no fly on the wall of their private meeting but it appears rather clear from body language that they don't necessarily like each other all that much. Since their meetings, statements by each lend credence that the two leaders don't see eye to eye on much of anything. Yesterday, I even speculated whether or not Obama is anti Israel. Only time will tell if this speculation will be proven accurate.



Yet, as I think about it, I believe their relationship will become symbiotic. There is a tension in goals. Obama is making the Israeli/Palestinian conflict the center piece of his Middle East policy. Meanwhile, Netanyahu sees Iran's nuclear program as the single greatest threat to his nation. The relationship is further complicated by another interesting dynamic. It is politically a lot more risky to be seen as anti Israel in the U.S. than it is to be seen as anti American, or at least its policies, in Israel. As such, Netanyahu has significantly more leverage than Obama here.



On the other hand, with Israel dependent on the U.S. for aid and weaponry, Obama can use this to his advantage. Ultimately though, at the risk of sounding crass, it is Netanyahu with the biggest trump. That's because the threats faced by Israel are existential, whereas, Obama has policy goals. Obama would like to avoid allowing Iran to get a nuclear weapon. For Israel, Iran gaining a nuclear weapon would threaten their very existence.



So, while Obama can demand that Israel not attack Iran's nuclear site, ultimately, there is no punishment that Obama can bring more serious than the threat to Israel's very existence. Even in the aftermath of an attack, there is little Obama could do. An attack on Iran's nuclear sites would likely be very popular with the American public. If Obama were to move to instill some sort of punishment against Israel for said attack, it would be at the risk of his own popularity.



What could Obama do exactly? Would he cut off aid? Would he suspend all weapons technology? Would he announce that the U.S. will not support Israel militarily anymore? Any of these would be soundly rejected by the public. His entire Middle East policy would be viewed skeptically and it would allow his opponents to trot out the most extreme of conspiracy theories on his true Middle East motives.T



he same dynamic is even more in play on settlements. The president will continue to press Netanyahu to cease the construction of all new settlements. Netanyahu has agreed to this but will continue to build when there is "natural growth". So, how far can the president go to force Netanyahu? He can't go much further. Again, would he really engage in draconian punishment if Israel refused to stop expanding their natural settlements? That would simply be political suicide.Obama's real leverage with Israel lies in his leverage with the leaders of other Middle East nations. If Obama really could extract normalization of relations with Saudi Arabia, then he can dictate a lot more to Israel. It remains to be seen if he has any leverage there. He has personal popularity all over but so far that has resulted in nothing tangible with the Europeans. If Obama is unable to extract any tangible concessions from the Saudis et al, it allows Netanyahu to engage in domestic and foreign policy as he sees fit.



If, however, Obama is able to extract something tangible, for instance recognition of Israel by Saudi Arabia, this complicates the issue for Netanyahu. First, it would be unclear just how legitimate such a recognition would be. I suspect the Israelis would gladly end all further settlement building if it meant real normalized relations with the Saudis.On the issue of Iran though, there is simply only one option for Israel. Netanyahu likely has a running clock in his head and when it runs out, he will have no choice but to take out their sites. If and likely when that happens, everyone will also see that besides stern words of condemnation, President Obama will have little choice but to watch it happen. Beyond that though, these two leaders will maintain a very tense and symbiotic relationship for the duration of both their terms.

Has Obama Made His Peace With Iranian Nukes

This is the stunning conclusion made by Jerusalem Post columnist, Caroline Glick.

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's visit with US President Barack Obama at the White House on Monday was a baptism of fire for the new premier. What emerged from the meeting is that Obama's priorities regarding Iran, Israel and the Arab world are diametrically opposed to Israel's priorities.

During his ad hoc press conference with Netanyahu, Obama made clear that he will not lift a finger to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. And acting as Obama's surrogate, for the past two weeks CIA Director Leon Panetta has made clear that Obama expects Israel to also sit on its thumbs as Iran develops the means to destroy it.

Obama showed his hand on Iran in three ways. First, he set a nonbinding timetable of seven months for his policy of appeasement and engagement of the ayatollahs to work. That policy, he explained, will only be implemented after next month's Iranian presidential elections. And those direct US-Iranian talks must be given at least six months to show results before they can be assessed as successful or failed.

Here is how Dick Morris has characterized the Obama administration's view of an Iranian nuclear weapon.

we have learned that the [Obama] administration has made its peace with Iran’s nuclear aspirations. Senior administration officials acknowledge as much in off-record briefings. It is true, they say, that Iran may exploit its future talks with the US to run down the clock before they test a nuclear weapon. But, they add, if that happens, the US will simply have to live with a nuclear-armed mullocracy.”

Now, if these sources are correct, then the ramifications are parts stunning and dangerous. What this says is that the Obama administration sees an Israeli attack on Iran as more dangerous than Iran having a nuclear weapon. Furthermore, the Obama administration is more comfortable confronting their ally Israel than they are their enemies in Iran. Finally, it means that President Obama views his own vision of the Middle East to be of more importance and value than Israel's security and very survival.

What's most troubling, for me at least, is the phrase "made his peace with Iranian nukes". Several years back Chicago native, Vince Vaughn, sang the seventh inning stretch at Wrigley. When being interviewed in the booth, Vaughn remarked that he made his peace with no longer living in his hometown. That's how I understand the term "make my peace" with something. It's the process of coming to terms with a situation that you would like to change but know is now impossible.

This is of course not the situation with Iran. More than that, if Iran were to get nukes, that isn't something that we could "make our peace with". It would be a game changer and that's exactly how Obama described in this interview with Bill O'Reilly.



This was not something he said he could "make his peace with". Furthermore, it's much easier for Obama to "make his peace" with Iranian nukes since the first line of fire of said nukes is Israel not the United States.

The president has a few short months to come to his senses. Iranian nuclear weapons is not something that any leader should "make their peace with". Instead, it is something that must be avoided at all costs including war. If such a stand is made clearly, that is the only chance the world has of avoiding the untennable position of the Iranian regime acquiring a nuclear weapon. So far, it appears the Obama administration is far away from this position.

President Obama the Procrastinator

We all know what happens when we procrastinate in school. You cram three weeks worth of studying all in one night. You get little sleep, you don't study nearly enough, and almost always you do poorly on said test. In the next year or so, we are about to find out what happens when you procrastinate in the world of geopolitics. President Obama made this troubling statement coming out of his meeting with the Prime Minister, Bibi Netanyahu.

Speaking to reporters after meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Obama offered assurances that he did not intend for talks with Iran to become “an excuse for inaction,” a major concern of Israeli officials worried that Tehran will string out talks while making progress toward acquiring a nuclear weapon.

But he also made clear that he was prepared to wait months for Iran to respond to the U.S. offer of better ties in return for halting its nuclear activities. He emphasized that the year-end timetable would be for assessing whether the diplomatic effort was “moving in the right direction,” not a deadline for reaching a final agreement with Iran on halting its nuclear activities.

“By the end of the year I think we should have some sense as to whether or not the talks are having some benefit,” Obama said

Now, of course, no one knows for sure just how long it will be before Iran has actually created a nuclear bomb. Most people don't believe it will be before the end of the year, but of course, no one can know for sure. It isn't very reassuring to any peace loving person that the president is willing to give the Iranians until the end of the year just to make up their minds about dialogue.

This is as asinine as it is naive. It doesn't take a genius to see just how easily this situation will be manipulated by the Iranians. They will likely wait until the end of the year. Then, they will decide to have some talks. They will schedule talks for March or so. They will have talks until the end of 2010. Then, they will break off talks and announce in early 2011 that they have a nuclear bomb.

The president is absolutely determined to create dialogue with Iran. He is so determined in fact that he is willing to set aside even the most basic of problems. Because the Iranians understand just how badly he wants to dialogue, this gives them an opening to dance with him for up to two years over dialogue. Two years is likely enough time to create the nuclear bomb. As such, president Obama is willing to risk giving the Iranians enough time to change the geopolitical game entirely just to see through a misguided and naive policy that has no hope of working anyway. Such is the result of electing a first term Senator who ran for President his entire term in the middle of two wars.

Israel, Palestine, and Iran: A Riddle Wrapped in an Enigma

There is a debate raging among folks that I would refer to as pseudo analysts about how to approach the issue of Iran's nukes along with the Israeli/Palestinian feud. Some, like the president, think that solving the crisis between Israel and Palestine will lead directly to weakening Iran and thus forcing them to give up their nukes. Others, like Alan Dershowitz, believe it's the other way around. To solve the Palestinian/Israeli feud you first must disarm Iran.

In my opinion, the reality is that all these things are symbiotic and the whole situation is like a massive onion that is unpeeled only to find new layers that cause problems. There's no doubt that peace between Israel and Palestine would in fact lead to Iran's disarmament because they would lose significant influence and be isolated to a point at which more nuclear build up would no longer be an option. It's also no doubt that if Iran stopped developing nukes and supporting Hezbollah and Hamas that peace between the two would be significantly easier.

Of course, all the players understand this and that's why Iran won't stop developing their nukes. It's also why Iran won't stop its support for both Hezbollah and Hamas. The new buzz word in the Middle East is the two state solution. Anyone that touts this frankly hasn't the first clue what's going on. The so called two state solution isn't the answer but the goal. You can't simply say we need a two state solution. It's sort of like me saying the answer to all my money problems is to make a million dollars this year.

The key isn't the two state solution itself, but rather, how we get to this. The current president hasn't given the first hint that he has any plan to how to get there. Of course, this would put him in the same category as every major politician for the last two thousand plus years. How exactly do we get to a two state solution when two major players, Hamas and Hezbollah, want the two destruction of one of the two states? How do we get to this solution when we have a major state funding these two groups? How do we get to this solution when most of the neighborhood refuses to even acknowledge the existence of one of the two states? How do we get to this two state solution when thousands of years bitterness, history, and religion need to be resolved before anyone on either side is willing to sit down for any serious compromise?

All of these issues are wrapped up in today's meeting between Bibi Netanyahu and Barack Obama. President Obama is said to be pushing a re newed effort for a "two state solution". Yet, all of these other issues remain to be resolved. It's as though most of the leaders in the world live in some sort of a fantasy land where the problems of the Middle East magically disappear just because they want a solution. President Obama apparently believes that talking to Iran and ignoring the stated goals of both Hamas and Hezbollah is the road to peace between the Palestinians and Israelis. Unfortunately, it isn't. Netanyahu can walk out of this meeting with Obama and proclaim himself a partner in the "two state solution" and ultimately it will mean nothing. That's because Hamas and Hezbollah are still determined to wipe Israel from existence and Iran is still doing everything it can to support both of them.

My solution is what my old boss referred to as "simply but not easy". By simple, I mean I can certainly say how to do it. Actually doing it, though, is another story. My solution requires the simultaneous combination of both a strong Israeli and American leader determined to see it through. Unfortunately, we never have had that. From my perspective, the ultimate road to the resolution of all these issues lies in Israel's ability to once and for all destroy even just one of its enemies entirely: be it Hamas, Hezbollah, or Iran.

This is of course not easy, but possible. The most obvious candidate is Hamas, both because of their proximity and their weakness. Such an action would require a bloody commitment that would involve brutal and sustained street fighting. It could take a year or more to accomplish. Furthermore, within weeks or months at the most, the whole entire world community would be condemning Israel for "overreaction". This is where a strong American and Israeli leader would be required. America would need to support Israel in this both geopolitically and financially. There's no doubt that as the war raged on many countries and groups would boycott all things Israel in an attempt to stop "Israeli aggression".

This can be done. Hamas is ultimately weak. There are only so many places they can hide and a sustained fight over months or even a years would destroy nearly all its fighters. Whatever is left would not amount to anything more than street gangs. Once Hamas is destroyed the message is sent that Israel is not fighting tit for tat. Their enemies face total destruction if they continue their aggression.

Ultimately, most of Israel's enemies are weak and cowardly and after they see the fate of Hamas they will disintegrate quickly. Without their proxies, Iran becomes an isolated nation that only counts Syria as an ally. Without Hamas, Hezbollah knows that any war is only on one front. Furthermore, they know that any war has the real potential to do to them what happened to Hamas.

Unfortunately, such a plan requires both an Israeli leader willing to see it through but also an American leader. I have no doubt that Netanyahu would see such an action through, but I wouldn't give Obama more than three weeks before he's demanding a pull back. So, for the next four years, we will all debate the worthiness of a "two state solution", while Iran bides its time developing its first nuclear weapon.