fbpx

January 17, 2017

UN Resolution 2334: Death knell for Israel’s middle class?

Little noted in the media firestorm surrounding the passage of UN Security Council Resolution 2334, commanding Israel to stop all settlement activity, is the potentially deadly ramifications for Israel's struggling middle class. With one vote, the United Nations outlawed most Israelis' only way out of living from paycheck to paycheck. 

Per square meter, home prices in Israel are among the highest in the world and home ownership is the biggest factor in inequality in Israel. As such, Israel's middle class is gradually vanishing. Despite Finance Minister Moshe Kachlon's best intentions, including a proposed 'third apartment tax' to fight the proliferation of apartments owned by the rich, the real estate bubble continues to expand. As a result, home ownership rates are tumbling. According to data published by Israel's Central Bureau for Statistics (CBS), between 1997 and 2015 there was a decrease in the number of people who own their homes, from 70.2% to 67.6%. 

Due to the high cost of living and lower salary levels in Israel, most families are unable to save the roughly 30% required as a down payment on a home. In the past year alone, according to one estimate, prices rose by 9%. The result is an Israeli society where financial benefits tend to go to those who already have capital. Such a situation upends the very notion of social mobility as a ticket to a better life in a market based economy.

However, CBS data may also point the way out of Israel's crippling housing crunch.  The Central Bureau of Statistics finds that there has been less settlement construction under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu than under any of his predecessors. In addition, 75% of population growth in the settlements during Netanyahu's premiership has been concentrated in the major blocs, which will likely remain under Israeli sovereignty, no matter the final contours of an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement. Another noteworthy stat: virtually all population growth in the West Bank during Netanyahu's administration has occurred as a result of 'natural increase', not people actually relocating to settlements. 

As such, new low cost housing over the Green Line could be a boon for Israel's stressed out middle class, especially if the Israeli government were to invest in public transportation infrastructure that would ease access between West Bank homes and workplaces that are located in the center of the country. 

Beyond building more affordable housing in the largely unpopulated sections of Judea and Samaria, another key factor in Israel's construction crisis is the state monopoly on land. Shockingly for a developed market economy such as Israel's, over ninety percent of all land is owned by the state or public agencies, and is administered by the Israel Land Authority (ILA). 

This monopoly is the reason that at least 50% of the price of building a home in Israel is tied to land cost, whereas the figure in the United States is approximately 20%.

While a combination of Israel’s small geographic size, growing population, commitment to the absorption of immigrants, Zionist ideology and security needs has been used to justify the principle of national ownership, skyrocketing housing prices have increasingly put the ILA in the crosshairs of an outraged Israeli citizenry.

Even though Israel and China recently agreed to allow some 6,000 Chinese construction workers to come and work in Israel, this is but a stop gap measure. Ultimately, nothing will do more to reduce the price of housing than investing in construction in Judea and Samaria and finally solving the land reserves and state monopoly issues, starting with the dissolution of the Israel Land Authority.

Such bold moves would allow market forces to dictate price.

Since the backbone of any healthy democracy is the viability of its middle class, Israel today is in dire need of strong, clear eyed leadership to turn back the tide of rising home prices. 

UN Resolution 2334: Death knell for Israel’s middle class? Read More »

A Letter to my Jewish Sister on the Anniversary of Azerbaijan’s ‘Black January’

A Muslim Woman and Survivor Shares a Deep Bond with her Fellow Slain Jewish Countrywoman

Dearest Vera*,

27 years ago, we both stood at the precipice of adulthood. We were teenagers; you lived in the capital city of Baku of our homeland Azerbaijan, a Jewish student studying the violin, and I lived hours away, a Muslim student preparing to work as a telephone operator in the town of Khojaly. All those years ago tragedy struck us, in the same country divided only by distance, but our hearts and souls and hopes and dreams were as close as sisters. On that cold day in January in Baku, there were and slain bodies of innocent victims, shot mercilessly by the Soviet army. While I sat in my home only able to hear about these tragic events, it was on that day, when you hid in your apartment to avoid the violence, that a sniper caught you glimpsing out the window, and took your life. You were just 16 years old…

It was a last attempt at instilling fear and terror over Azerbaijan in the waning days of the Soviet Union. On that day of January 20, 1990, what would later be named as Azerbaijan’s ’Black January’, hundreds of innocent civilians were murdered, and over 1000 injured, as tanks, helicopters and 26,000 Soviet soldiers rolled through the beautiful city streets and unleashed sprays of bullets. It was then Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev’s last attempt at punishing a city and a nation for insisting on freedom from the Soviet tyranny, no matter the odds or the costs. It was an attack on unsuspecting men, women and children. It was also an assault on the impending and unstoppable notion of our freedom, as a soon-to be sovereign nation.

I lived far from Baku at the time. I grew up in the Nagorno-Karabakh region of Azerbaijan, in the town of Khojaly. And back then in 1990, I could never possibly imagine that only two years later, a different force of savagery would unleash a painfully similar warfare against my home, family, and everyone and everything I had known up until then. In February of 1992, I became a surviving victim of the Khojaly Massacre, when Armenia’s troops slaughtered 613 Azerbaijanis, including over 300 defenseless children, women and elderly in what the Human Rights Watch would later call “the largest massacre in the conflict”. I have shared before much of what happened to me in the torture camp as a young girl, and believe it holds true today and is important to remind us that evil does exist.

In the context of the tragedy of ‘Black January’, I often think of you, Vera, and I imagine we would have become close friends, had we both survived these tragedies. I see myself, just as I see our nation, from Khojaly to Baku and every town in between and beyond, as passionate witnesses to this time, and as those that have triumphed over the most reckless and cruel forms of human engagement possible. But there is hope and there is a spirit of willingness to build from what we have learned. And the same people that suffered these attacks have risen above those tragedies, as have the people of Azerbaijan, with enduring values of faith, courage, and the strength of our human spirit.

I remember hearing about what happened in Baku, and about the military curfew the Soviet leadership imposed after the ‘Black January’ over the entirety of Baku and the rest of Azerbaijan. Despite the curfew, millions of Azerbaijani people – Muslims, Christians and Jews – came together to mourn the tragic losses and flooded the city to honor the dead and to remember what had taken place. And despite the level of atrocity and the madness of indiscriminate bloodshed, everyone was more than a little inspired. Our nation wanted freedom, and we were able to push past the tragedy in 1990, just as we did the tragedies in 1992, to keep our dream alive. So much so, that in October of 1991, we regained our freedom and independence, for the second time in the 20th century, after 71 years under Soviet tyranny. I wish this was something you could have survived to witness, Vera: the independent, modern and multicultural Azerbaijan today, which tens of thousands of Jews are proud to call their homeland and share it with their Muslim and Christian sisters and brothers in dignity and peace!

So for you my Jewish sister, I want to remind the world that the crimes of war on such a level as ‘Black January’ cannot occur without leaving a lasting impact. Yet the perseverance and will to move on and move forward with a better life, a life of freedom, fairness, tolerance and peace, is something that has also left an even stronger and even greater impression.  All those years ago, life was forever changed for so many people, as it was changed forever for you and your family.

Today, you are memorialized at Martyrs’ Lane in Baku, where people from all across the world visit your grave and remember your life. On this day, I will always remember your life, and how it was taken. And on this day, our triumph over the past and our unbreakable commitment to freedom as a nation will not be forgotten.

*Vera Bessantina was only 16 years old when she was killed in January 1990 by Soviet troops in Baku, Azerbaijan

A Letter to my Jewish Sister on the Anniversary of Azerbaijan’s ‘Black January’ Read More »

‘A new king arose’: Inaugurating an era of fools and Pharaohs

I. We have three Pharaohs in our Torah. The first Pharaoh, less memorable, receives Abraham and Sarah and then sends them away. The second, the good Pharaoh, raises Joseph from imprisoned slave to ruler over all Egypt. Only the third one, who did not know Joseph, is called “melekh chadash,” “a new king” – new because he inaugurated a radically new political order.

The new Pharaoh’s first policy, based on fear of foreigners, is to cast the entire Hebrew people into slavery. His next policy is to cast the Hebrew male babies into the Nile, bringing God’s judgment upon himself and his nation. We begin to read his story in the book of Exodus this week, the day after inauguration, along with the story of Shifra and Puah, the Hebrews’ midwives who are the first to resist the third Pharaoh when they refuse to implement his policy of infanticide.

How different is the story of the second Pharaoh that we have been reading for the past three weeks in synagogue. He essentially becomes a pupil at Joseph’s feet, handing over to Joseph the reins of power. What Joseph does with that power is what enables the third Pharaoh to enslave Joseph’s people.

 

II. The second Pharaoh’s story is a story about a world turned upside down, first by Nature, then by Joseph. Seven years of extravagant abundance, swallowed up by seven years of deadly famine. And a young man, a Hebrew slave, who saved the world. Joseph gathers up enough grain during the seven fat years to supply the seven lean ones.

As a true believer, Joseph trusted the fate God set out for him, for Pharaoh, and for Egypt. He saw the divine hand in his brothers’ betrayal, reconciling himself to God’s will after being sold into slavery by his jealous brothers and sent to prison on false charges. “[When] you planned evil against me – Elohim (God) planned it for good…to keep alive a multitude of people.” (Gen 49:20)

Joseph, the tsadik, the righteous one, as he is traditionally known.

But is he righteous? During the seven destitute years, Joseph sold grain back to the Egyptian populace. During the first half of the first year, he gathered all their money in exchange for grain, and in the second half, all their animals. In the third year, he purchased not only their land, but the people themselves, making them all feudal slaves to Pharaoh. All this happened in the first two years of Egypt’s seven-year famine. (Gen 47:13-25)

Joseph turned what was a monarchy into the foundation of a fascist state, where Pharaoh was divinity, law, nation. How can Joseph be righteous, when this upside down reality was his creation?

Here’s a hypothesis: Joseph never cheated anyone. He gathered grain for seven years for next to nothing because it was so abundant. Joseph could have gouged the people when he sold it back to them, but he didn’t. He charged normal market prices, not famine prices. It never occurred to him that the job of government during famine was to distribute grain fairly and freely, so that people could remain (relatively) free on their land. So Joseph ran government like a business. His flaw, then, was that he never questioned the basic rules of the market, that if you want something, you need to give something to get it.

Even when he removed Egypt’s peasant families from lands they had farmed for centuries, transferring them from “one border edge of Egypt to its (other) edge” (Gen 47:21), it was “kosher” in everyone’s eyes, because Pharaoh’s feudal rights were purchased fair and square. This is the hardest to align with Joseph being righteous, but we can say that Joseph was a good citizen and a good person, a tzadik im pelz – a righteous person in a fur coat, to use the Yiddish expression, who doesn’t realize that other people are freezing.

 

III. During the famine years, the only Egyptians not dispossessed were the Egyptian priests. As part of Pharaoh’s household, the priests automatically received a grain allowance from Pharaoh’s storehouse, so they had no need to sell their land to survive. Similarly, in Goshen, where Joseph had settled his family and given them land, the Israelites kept their land, their money and their animals. Just as Pharaoh sustained the priests, Joseph sustained his own family. By his lights, he wasn’t treating the Israelites unfairly. He was simply running his family like a family, and his business like a business. He would have expected each Egyptian family to do the same, from Pharaoh to peasant.

Joseph created the framework for a fascist state, concentrating every ounce of power in Pharaoh’s hands, but his Pharaoh didn’t choose to use that power. However, when “a new king arose who had not known Joseph,” the world Joseph created was turned upside down again. Because of how Joseph had restructured society, the third Pharaoh was able in one stroke to enslave all the Israelites.

The coup d’etat, the blow that placed absolute control over the state into Pharaoh’s hands, was Joseph’s policy of resettlement. A people without connection to the land has little power to resist tyranny. But even if they could have resisted the new policy, why would they? Imagine the Egyptian people, enslaved everywhere, uprooted from their ancestral lands, knowing that those foreign immigrants from Canaan remained free, while they became as destitute as the land was barren. If anything would seem fair to a downtrodden populace, it would have been the Israelites’ enslavement.

 

IV. Two Pharaohs, two opposing realities. Through Joseph, the office of Pharaoh had amassed unlimited power, but only the new Pharaoh, the one “who knew not Joseph,” become an autocratic tyrant.

What stopped Joseph’s Pharaoh from abusing his power? A subtle difference between the two Pharaohs may explain things, and it parallels a difference between our 44th president and the one about to be inaugurated.

After Joseph predicts the famine he advises Pharaoh to find someone to manage Egypt’s famine response. Pharaoh asks his court, “How can we find a man like this, who has the spirit of Elohim in him?…There is no one understanding and wise like you [Joseph].” (Gen 40:38-41:1) He had no delusion that he knew more than the generals, or the magicians (who were the scientists of that time), or prophets like Joseph.

The Pharaoh after him, the one who battled Moses, was the opposite. When he has the idea to enslave the Hebrews, he is already convinced that it’s the best and wisest idea: “Come, we will show how wise we can be with this people…” (Exod 1:10) When the magicians tell him it is “the finger of God” that has brought the plague of lice (8:15), he ignores them. Even when they admonish him, “Do you still not know that Egypt is destroyed?” (10:7), he still refuses to send away the Hebrew people.

Joseph’s Pharaoh was wise enough to recognize other people’s wisdom. There is a deeper clue about what this means in what seems like a minor vignette about Pharaoh welcoming Joseph’s brothers. When Joseph picks a few of his brothers to present to Pharaoh, he warns them, “When Pharoah asks, ‘What is your work?’ say, ‘Your servants were cattlemen from our youth and up to now,’ because all who herd sheep are an abomination for Egypt.” (Gen 46:34) Nevertheless, when Pharoah asks, “What is your work?” they say without hesitation, “Your servants are shepherds, so are we and so were our ancestors.” (47:3) Pharaoh receives their answer without skipping a beat, accepting both their difference, and their willingness to be different. He was ready to learn from people who were officially far beneath him.

As Ben Zoma teaches, “Who is wise? The one who learns from every person.” (Pirkei Avot 4) But someone who refuses to learn from other people, who has no humility, who thinks he is always the smartest person in the room, is neither wise, nor even smart.

 

V. The midrash tells us something surprising about the brothers Joseph chose to meet Pharaoh. It says that Joseph picked the five weakest brothers, so as not to scare Pharaoh or his advisers. (Rashi on Gen 47:2) Even so, those brothers were strong enough to speak the truth facing the most powerful human being in the world. This truthfulness, this integrity, earned Pharaoh’s trust and help.

The brothers were good enough and brave enough to expect justice for themselves and to challenge the system, but only where it affected them. But a new government came into power, and it was not enough to be good people. The fascist state consumed their freedom, just as the state had already consumed the freedom of the Egyptians. A revolution was needed, not good citizenship.

It took an atrocity worse than slavery, the drowning of babies, to force God’s hand. And God’s hand did not first appear in the form of a plague or miracle, but in the resistance of the midwives and the Hebrew women. What mattered was not being “good” but resisting.

 

VI. A new king is about to be inaugurated. A new resistance has risen up to confront him. The inauguration will be protested by women’s marches in cities throughout the country. When we transition from one book of the Torah to the next, as we did last shabbat, we say, “Chazak chazak v’nitchazeik” – “Be strong, strong, so may we make ourselves strong.” May this blessing that we pronounce be true for us, and for all who need to be blessed.


Rabbi David Seidenberg is the creator of neohasid.org, the author of Kabbalah and Ecology: God’s Image in the More-Than-Human World (kabbalahandecology.com) and the author of a Prayer for Voting, downloadable from http://neohasid.org/resources/votingprayer/.

‘A new king arose’: Inaugurating an era of fools and Pharaohs Read More »

Woodmont Country Club in Maryland just lost a man of conscience

Jeff Slavin is the model of the American Jew who acts from conscience, and he is to be commended for his resignation from Woodmont Country Club outside of Washington, D.C. because its leadership refuses to welcome President Obama as a member due to his position of abstention on the UNSC 2334 resolution.

Whether one agrees with the President or not in this particular vote, there is no question that he has been a strong friend and supporter of Israel throughout his presidency. The Obama Administration is responsible for the largest security package that included Iron Dome that the US has ever given to any nation in the world. PM Netanyahu expressed his gratitude for American support.

President Obama is an eloquent exponent of progressive Zionism that affirms both Israel's security and the necessity of a two-states for two peoples resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as the only path that can assure that Israel will remain both Jewish and democratic. This is a position held by a majority of the American Jewish community and, in a just published poll, 68% of all Israelis (see http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.765146).

Woodmont Country Club would do well to reverse this intemperate decision.


see – https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/lifelong-woodmont-country-club-member-resigns-over-obama-golf-controversy/2017/01/16/76eb2e3c-dc05-11e6-ad42-f3375f271c9c_story.html?tid=hybrid_experimentrandom_2_na&utm_term=.e79a2a2afe6f#comments

Woodmont Country Club in Maryland just lost a man of conscience Read More »

Woodmont Country Club in Maryland just lost a man of conscience

Jeff Slavin is the model of the American Jew who acts from conscience, and he is to be commended for his resignation from Woodmont Country Club outside of Washington, D.C. because its leadership refuses to welcome President Obama as a member due to his position of abstention on the UNSC 2334 resolution.

Whether one agrees with the President or not in this particular vote, there is no question that he has been a strong friend and supporter of Israel throughout his presidency. The Obama Administration is responsible for the largest security package that included Iron Dome that the US has ever given to any nation in the world. PM Netanyahu expressed his gratitude for American support.

President Obama is an eloquent exponent of progressive Zionism that affirms both Israel's security and the necessity of a two-states for two peoples resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as the only path that can assure that Israel will remain both Jewish and democratic. This is a position held by a majority of the American Jewish community and, in a just published poll, 68% of all Israelis (see http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.765146).

Woodmont Country Club would do well to reverse this intemperate decision.


see – https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/lifelong-woodmont-country-club-member-resigns-over-obama-golf-controversy/2017/01/16/76eb2e3c-dc05-11e6-ad42-f3375f271c9c_story.html?tid=hybrid_experimentrandom_2_na&utm_term=.e79a2a2afe6f#comments

Woodmont Country Club in Maryland just lost a man of conscience Read More »

Obama Jews, Trump Jews – is the division inevitable?

What unites the Jews? What is it that makes them one people? A recent study I authored for JPPI (with my colleague Dr. John Ruskay) argues that while “complications are many,” more than a few Jews “would deem it desirable to develop as broad as possible an understanding of what Jewishness means.” What Jewishness means – that is to say: what is the secret ingredient that makes us all a people.

What is it then? It is not easy to find or define. And thus, many people tend to look for it in the field of “values” and its more earthly extension, the field of politics. For example: If what unites all Jews – what makes a Jew “Jewish” – is a shared belief in the need to help the poor, some Jews would turn this shared belief into a specific criterion of proper Jewishness: support the minimum wage because that’s the Jewish thing to do.

Values, translated into specific criteria, then become a political platform. If Jewish values mean support for the poor, and proper Jewishness means supporting a higher minimum wage, then the obvious conclusion would be that voting for the candidate who wants to raise the minimum wage is the Jewish way to go. And of course, such beliefs come in many forms: some Jews will say that the minimum wage is the test, while others might say that supporting the relocation of the US embassy to Jerusalem is the more fitting criterion; some Jews would argue that refraining from building a wall between the US and Mexico is the key demonstrative act of Jewish belonging, and others would contend that allowing vouchers for private religious schools is what the Jews really need and hence what a good Jew ought to do.

All of these tests lie at the base of the Obama Jews\Trump Jews formulation. Namely, the common understanding of the Jewish world as one split between better and lesser Jews based on their political affiliation.

And, of course, the Jewish world is split between supporters of Obama and those of Trump – as America is split between supporters of Obama and those of Trump. The question is: should we apply any Jewish meaning to such a split, or is this a wrong way of understanding the Jewish world? Like saying, for example, that Jewish America is split between those with blue eyes and those with brown eyes – a fact that means nothing.

On the practical level, it is easy to demonstrate how “Trump Jews” are truly different from “Obama Jews” in ways much more profound than the way blue-eyed Jews are different from brown-eyed Jews. Trump Jews tend to be more observant, tend to be Orthodox, tend to have a stronger connection to Israel. So their markedly Jewish behavior is different from the Jewish behavior of Obama Jews.

Is it because they support Trump? No, they are different because they tend to be Orthodox\observant. Do they support Trump because of “it?” Possibly yes. Because they tend to be more conservative in outlook, and more tribal.

But does this make them all Jewishly different? That is a tricky question, because it much depends on one’s definition of Judaism and the meaning of Jewishness. If indeed supporting a raise of the minimum wage is more Jewishly appropriate than opposing it – if several such specific political questions combined are the essence of Jewishness – then the Jewishness of Trump supporters is indeed unlike the Jewishness of Obama supporters (and vice versa).

If, however, politics is politics, liberalism and conservatism are liberalism and conservatism, tribalism and universalism are tribalism and universalism – and Jewishness is something else entirely – then Trump Jews and Obama Jews are only different from one another in the way that blue-eyed Jews and brown-eyed Jews are different from one another.

Confused? I am certainly confused. This whole exercise is not aimed at convincing you that supporting the minimum wage is the Jewish thing to do, or that supporting the relocation of the US embassy to Jerusalem is the Jewish thing to do. It is aimed at raising the possibility that our tendency to politicize Jewishness is not because Judaism is a certain formulation of political beliefs – but rather because our proficiency in Jewishness is lacking. Because instead of looking for ways to make Trump Jews and Obama Jews dwellers of the same Jewish tent – like blue-eyed and brown-eyed Jews – we define Jewishness in political terms and hence force separation on them.

Obama Jews, Trump Jews – is the division inevitable? Read More »

Dear Alan Dershowitz, stay away from Israel

Dear Mr. Dershowitz:

It was embarrassing to listen to you on Israeli TV this week.

It was irritating to hear your chutzpah, telling us in Israel what's right and what's wrong for us.

You are living in America. So here are my questions for you:

Do you know personally one — among thousands — of the children whose families sank into poverty under the governments led by Bibi?

Will your children or grandchildren fight in the ongoing wars we have because Bibi will never talk to enemies?

Will your children or grandchildren be exposed to terror by people who will never stop until we separate ourselves from them by establishing border and building a barrier – a two-state solution. 

Unfortunately Bibi is committed to his coalition with fanatical believers who are sure that God will take care of the problem.   To which I ask: Just like God took care of us during the Holocaust or the destruction of the two Temples and the pogroms?  But who can question God?

Mr. Dershowitz, are you aware of our reputation as a defender of civil rights to minorities in Israel since this government is in power? I am curious to know what you  would say if the Christian majority in America acted against the Jewish minority the way Bibi's government suggests we act toward Israel’s Arabs?

The only thing in your favor was your body language. It expressed your vacillation between your words and the way you try to manipulate the truth.

Mr. Dershowitz, Please stay in your home, keep your ideas for America and do not interfere with the people who devoted their lives to making Israel what it was until Bibi became Prime Minister.


A decorated Israel Air Force  Brigidier General (Ret.), Nehemia Dagan flew daring missions in the War of Attrition and served as the Chief IDF Education Officer.

Dear Alan Dershowitz, stay away from Israel Read More »

A legacy of O

When he ran for President, Barack Obama promoted “we are not red states or blue states, but the United States.” He didn’t mean it.

Radicalized by his prolific communist mentor Frank Marshall Davis, Barry (Soetero) enjoyed his pot-smoking “choom gang” in high school, and then regularly attended socialist conferences while in college.

He became a community organizer in Chicago and close friend of the radical Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and the domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, his philosophical and political influencers. Obama’s “Dreams from My Father” were calculations against the American Dream.

As Presidential candidate in 2008, Senator Obama declared the cumulative national debt, at 8 Trillion dollars, “unpatriotic.” But his unprecedented generational assault on America’s children has now resulted in a staggering debt of 20 Trillion dollars, and all-time high levels of government dependency in “food stamp nation”.

For that bill, taxpayers could have easily covered all the medical care of the uninsured without imposing the Obamacare disaster. But the Affordable Care Act was never about affordability, access, reducing health care costs, or keeping your insurance or your doctor.  It was always about federal control and a path to socialized health care through an eventual single-payer system.

Obama’s legacy therefore is a decline of consumer choice and health care competition, with providers and doctors walking away, and middle class Americans shocked at their skyrocketing insurance premiums and extremely high insurance deductibles.

Since 1790, the annual average domestic economic growth rate in our nation is just under 4%. Having never worked in the private sector, Barack Obama has presided over the poorest-ever 8 year national economic performance, a mere 1.5% annual growth.

Declaring “I won”, President Obama promoted an extreme and often petty partisanship, incessantly castigating, and never compromising with Congress.

He demoralized entrepreneurs (“you didn’t build that”), demonized the “bitter clingers” to their guns and religion, opposed domestic energy production (Keystone pipeline) and ridiculed doctors “seeking profit”.

A former adjunct law professor, Obama’s executive over-reach was repeatedly repudiated by the Courts.

Mr. Obama promised transparency, but his administration produced a stunning collection of scandals:

Fast & Furious gun running to Mexican drug lords, the IRS assault on Conservatives, the targeting of James Rosen and AP reporters, released GITMO terrorists returning to battle, the Benghazi failure to anticipate, protect, defend, or admit the truth about the planned 9/11 anniversary assault on U.S. assets, Healthcare Insurance Fraud, the woeful Bo Berghdahl trade, Auto Dealergate, the DOJ Black Panther whitewash, the NEA Art scandal, the Sestak affair, Inspector General Gerald Walpin’s firing, the mis-spending of Stimulus Funds , the DOJ propaganda unit, Solyndra, the Attorney General held in contempt of Congress, and massive failures at the Veterans Administration, the CDC, and the Secret Service.  The list goes on and on.

As Commander in Chief, Mr. Obama, absent any national security experience or credentials, called our troops “corpsemen” and oversaw significant declines in military preparedness and troops, tanks, planes, and warship levels.

His human rights record is a disaster — diffidence about assaults on Christians, and Yazidi and Nigerian girls sold into slavery without rescue, and unforgivable decisions to side against dissidents from Tehran to Eastern Europe.  Mr. Obama took the wrong side in Honduras and Egypt (Moslem Brotherhood), and sought to appease and empower the Castro regime in Cuba and the Mullah tyranny in Iran.  He didn’t extract concessions; he conceded, over and over, to our enemies.

The Russian re-set was an historic blunder (“Tell Vladimir I’ll have more flexibility after I’m re-elected”) and Obama failed to retaliate against Chinese cyber hacking, a lesson Russians must have learned.

The Nobel Peace Prize winner managed a tripling of US combat deaths in Afghanistan over his predecessor, and his most unfortunate withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Iraq, which VP Biden had declared stable, helped to unleash the barbarism of ISIS (“a JV Team”, “contained”).

Secretaries of State Clinton and Kerry exhibited remarkable ineffectiveness in promoting stability in the Middle East, encouraging Palestinian irredentism and resulting in failed states in Libya and Yemen.

UN Ambassador Samantha Power who literally wrote the book on R2P, the “responsibility to protect” against genocide, failed her mission. Responsibility was abandoned to beg favor with the Iranians, who received not further sanction but billions of American dollars and a green light to continue regional domination and terror, support of Assad in Syria, and threats against Israel.

Most egregiously, President Obama failed to enforce his own red line in Syria or even create no fly zones, after the Assad regime used chemical weapons. There is no more Syrian state, 500,000 are dead, and millions of refugees are flooding into Europe, destabilizing the West.  History will judge this administration harshly.

The Obama Doctrine (“offend friends and hug thugs”) was perhaps most calculated to undermine Bibi Netanyahu, (including Obama sending his political team and U.S. taxpayer funds to influence the Israeli elections).  Seeking “daylight” between special allies, Mr. Obama used every opportunity to destroy the bi-partisan tradition of U.S. diplomatic and political support for the Jewish state.  During the Iran Deal debate, Mr. Obama sank to new lows, castigating opponents (the majority in Congress and in public opinion) as dual loyalists.

Once hailed as a political genius, Obama’s radicalism led his party into disarray, and repeated electoral disaster, with some 1000 national and state legislative seats and many Governorships lost during his tenure. Ungenerous to his political opponents, he ultimately was quite uncaring about his own political party too.

The black community faired quite economically poorly during his two terms.  And, abandoning his roots, Barack Obama has sadly accepted no accountability for the years-long murder wave gripping Chi-town.

Barack Hussein Obama chose purposefully to assail American allies abroad, befriend tyrannies, abandon dissidents and victims abroad, and attack traditional Americans and economic growth at home.

He was also never a truth teller about Islamic Jihad and the challenge of radical Islam’s assaults on Americans within our own borders.

His legacy is to have made America less safe and sovereign, less prosperous and entrepreneurial, and less united than the promised hope and change campaign of 2008.


Larry Greenfield has served as executive director of the Reagan Legacy Foundation, the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, and the Republican Jewish Coalition of California. He is long associated with the Claremont Institute for the Study of Statesmanship & Political Philosophy.

A legacy of O Read More »