BloggeRhythms

As the holiday weekend continues, breaking news is sparse. Breitbart released several story’s in the lapse, one of which addresses Fox News’ Chris Wallace, others providing additional information regarding Obama, the U.N. and Israel.  

Breitbart’s Pam Key writes about this weekend’s broadcast of “Fox News Sunday,” in which host Chris Wallace addressed a guest: “Jerry, you and I are old enough to remember when Ronald Reagan came to this town, and Clark Clifford, a big Democratic lawyer and insider, dismissed him as an amiable dunce. I have to tell you that I’ve been to some Christmas parties the last couple of weeks talking to politicians of both parties, talking to some of our colleagues in the media who are dismissing Trump the same way and talking about what a disaster he’s going to be as president. I’m sure you’ve had that same experience. What do you think are the chances that they are going to be as wrong as Clark Clifford was about Ronald Reagan?”

What comes through clearly is Wallace’s own personal distaste for Trump, as evidenced by his phrasing. Because he could have made the very same point by simply stating that there are politicians in both party’s having concerns about how Trump will perform in office. 

However, that’s not what Wallace did. He made sure to include the verbiage: “dismissing,” “dunce’” and “ disaster.” 

As a practical reality though, his choice of words may very well be due to basic familiarity with them. Because he undoubtedly fits all three descriptions himself. 

While the remainder of items contain significant numbers of quotes from others, their inclusion’s required in illustrating what the administration’s done to Israel in the U.N. All of the information coming from Breitbart via Facebook. 

The first item regards Friday’s Fox News Channel’s “Special Report,” wherein Charles Krauthammer stated that the US “joined” the “perverse” “jackals at the UN.”

What’s most important is that in Krauthammer’s commentary he detailed the damage to Israel specifically, saying: “To give you an idea of how appalling this resolution is, it declares that any Jew who lives in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem, the Jewish Quarter, inhabited for 1,000 years, is illegal, breaking international law, essentially an outlaw, can be hauled into the international criminal court or international courts in Europe, which is one of the consequences.” 

He added that President Obama waited until there would be no consequences, and the resolution showed the UN was “perverse” and should stop giving the UN any money.

Then Texas Senator Ted Cruz stated in article that for the past eight years the “Obama administration has worked systematically to undermine the nation of Israel. They actively worked to defeat Prime Minister Netanyahu, and illegally used U.S. taxpayer funds to do so. Never has there been a more anti-Israel Administration, and today’s United Nations vote is the culmination of their systemic agenda to weaken Israel and strengthen its enemies.”

Cruz also promised to work with Lindsey Graham and the Trump administration, saying: “to significantly reduce or even eliminate U.S. funding of the United Nations, and also to seriously reconsider financial support for the nations that supported this resolution. For those who have put your name to this despicable attack on Israel, you did so with full knowledge of the consequences of your actions.” 

There was also a “rare moment of agreement with Cruz,” as the  Washington Post also criticized Obama’s actions, writing: “settlements do not explain the administration’s repeated failures to broker an Israeli-Palestinian peace. The Palestinian Authority under Mahmoud Abbas proved unwilling to negotiate seriously even during the settlement freeze, and it refused to accept a framework for negotiations painstakingly drawn up by Secretary of State John F. Kerry in 2014. … Whatever the motivation, Mr. Obama’s gesture is likely to do more harm than good.” 

In the same vein, Mike Huckabee appeared on Fox & Friends Weekend on Saturday, saying about the veto action: “If you are going to do this, do it up front. But to do it in such a cowardly way, just as you are leaving office – basically to say to the world ‘here is one more for you, good luck with it.'” 

Huckabee went on: “The U.S. had an abstained vote. That is silence, and that is agreeing with the idiotic, dangerous and disturbing position that the UN took based on a resolution from four nations.” 

He then attacked the U.S. for pushing the two-state solution as an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, explaining: “First of all the policy we’ve had is boneheaded. It’s a ridiculous policy that we don’t apply to any other nation on earth to tell them that if someone attacks you, and you attack back, and defend your country and you end up getting more land – but you are supposed to give that up and let your enemies get even closer to you, you know that’s absurd. 

“The two-state solution is no solution, it’s never gonna work and I know it’s been our policy … and the fact is the Palestinians have no intention of ever coming to a peace accord.” 

Compounding perspective to this ongoing anti-Israeli activity on the administration’s part is that so much of the detail comes from Breitbart. That's because, Stephen Bannon now senior advisor to Trump resigned as head of the website in August to become his campaign manager. At Breitbart Bannon was slammed by Democrats and many journalists as a “white nationalist,” an avowed racist and anti-Semite. Esquire politics writer Charles Pierce has asserted that “hiring Steve Bannon is exactly the same as hiring [former Ku Klux Klan leader] David Duke.” 

Yet, it’s Breitbart that’s come to Israel's defense every step of the way during this incident and long before that. What’s more, throughout the series of pro-Israel articles, almost all of the readers comments are also anti-Obama and highly favorable toward Israel.    

Which brings us back again to a similarity with yesterday’s closing where it was proposed that there may be indeed be a prejudicial aspect to the POTUS’s actions regarding Israel. 

And that’s because, as far as his “legacy” is concerned, practically everything he’s done has turned out negatively. From the economy to foreign policy, to loss of world leadership, to elective office shrinkage for his party nationally, to the the disastrous health care tax. Even his positive approval rating is suspect whereas, the election results have proven pollsters themselves are not only biased, but their results are grossly inaccurate and overstated toward political favoritism.  

All of which raises the same question once more. With all that he has going against him and his absence of a positive legacy, if not for an ulterior motive, why add another glaringly obvious mistake to his unfavorability and vividly underline his lack of good judgement?   

That's it for today folks. 

Adios