On Being an Ally of Team Blinken
The Biden-Blinken foreign policy continues to punish allies and reward enemies. What started in Saudi Arabia against Iran/Houthis in Yemen and moved to Afghanistan as it abandoned an allied government and others to the Taliban and then moved to its bear hug of Ukraine after Zelensky ruined the plan by staying in power and fighting, has now moved to Israel where Biden-Blinken are moving to end the Gaza part of the war with Hamas in place and reward Hezbollah with Israeli held land that not one international body thinks belongs to Lebanon.
The Philippines have not been given any support at all against Chinese aggression and if Taiwan expects the US not to pressure it to come to a (un)conditional surrender to China when the time comes, they are living in a dream world. Even the sacrosanct US value of “freedom of the seas” is being shunned.
To what can we compare the treatment of allies by this administration? To put it in language that Blinken, as a card carrying global progressive will understand – allies of the Team Blinken are treated like “battered wives”. Those abusive husbands will always support their wives in public, except when they try to humiliate them. They will threaten their wives at every turn when they are not acting according to the husband’s interests and make sure to beat them in ways that can be denied.
In the latest attempted humiliation, this time of Israel, Blinken has insisted on a one on one meeting with Israel’s IDF Chief of Staff. Yes – the US Secretary of State seems to think he has the right to speak with the head of an allied army – without the presence of the civilian government.
And it continues. After years of insisting that “settler violence” against Palestinians on the West Bank is the main threat to peace in the middle east and after insisting that this is what will make the West Bank “explode” – the State Department has been able to come up with four “settlers” who it has decided to sanction. These are not Putin’s oligarchs or Chinese Liberation Army billionaires; these are people who have been dealt with and continue to be dealt with in the Israeli criminal justice system. This is what happens in law abiding countries – there is due process and people are convicted and punished – or not – according to evidence presented.
US sanctions against individuals who are in the Israeli justice system says that the Israeli justice system is no better than Russia’s, China’s or Iran’s. Of course, this is the same State Department that has been defending the current justice system against attempts of reform to it claiming the reforms will kill democracy. But the Israeli justice system and its politicians act like the battered wives that they are – so the damage done to Israel, its justice system and its democracy can be hidden and denied by the victim itself – much like the bruises of the battered wife.
Battered wives don’t get due process and are not trusted to work through problems on their own. They need to be told what to do and how to do it. And they need to be punished if they act independently of their husband’s interests.
It would be much better for Israel if Trump were still in office. However, he lost in 2020 - or did he?
It is constantly stated that there is no proof that the 2020 presidential election was fraudulent. That is completely false. There are many proofs and simple facts. Here is some information from David Horowitz' profound and excellent book FINAL BATTLE; THE NEXT ELECTIONS COULD BE THE LAST (pp.5-9).
"Article 2, Section 1, Clause 2 of the US Constitution clearly stipulates that the rules governing elections are the jurisdictions of the legislatures of the states . . . Disregarding this clear constitutional order, the Democrat legal squads by-passed the Pennsylvania legislature, which was controlled by Republicans, and appealed directly to the state Supreme Court on which the Democrats had a 5-2 majority.
"The Democratic-dominated State Supreme Court responded [months before the election] by illegally authorizing a series of new election rules dramatically favoring the Democrats . . . that court rewrote the state election laws to eliminate signature requirements or signature matching, eliminate postal markings that were intended to ensure that votes were timely and extend the counting of mail-in ballots to Friday at 5:00 p.m. Previous state law had set a hard date and time of 8:00 p.m. on election day. In other words, the Democrats had fundamentally altered Pennsylvania's election laws and nullified the federal constitutional role of the Republican legislature.
"The loosening of the rules, and the obstruction of Republican poll-watchers [!!] made "ballot dumps" easier and led to dramatic spikes in the results. A Pennsylvania Senate hearing three weeks after the election, was presented with sworn testimony that in one such dump, Biden received roughly 570,000 votes - or 99.4 percent of those cast, while Trump received only 3,200 or 0.6 percent of ballots submitted. Biden's margin in winning Pennsylvania was about 81,000 votes."
Horowitz goes on in this context to relate that dozens of lawsuits were rejected by the courts on procedural grounds - they did not want to hear them, either out of partisan bias against Trump or because of the damage that would be done to the courts themselves if it turned out they had fraudulently interfered with the election. "Also dismissed by these same courts were thousands of affidavits and declarations . . . and video as well as photographic evidence of possible corruption in the ballot counting process." So to say the results were heavily litigated is false, as much of the attempted litigation was cut short by courts and not allowed to take its due course.
Also, again from Horowitz' book, largely because of Bush's hotly contested election of 2000, a prestigious Commission on Federal Election Reform led by Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker, issued in 2005 "a series of recommendations designed to strengthen the integrity of the election process and reunify the nation." Their conclusions included: increase voter ID requirements . . . minimize the use of mail-in ballots as "the largest source of potential voter fraud" . . . ban ballot harvesting by third parties . . . purge voter rolls of all ineligible or fraudulent names . . .and allow election observers to monitor the ballot counting without restraint or obstruction.
These are common sense proposals designed to ensure the fairest possible result - but, in Horowitz' words, in 2019, "Democrats launched a massive campaign to change the election laws." Their goal was to "reverse every one of the Carter-Baker recommendations, and make election fraud easier . . . To implement their changes the Democrats filed nearly 300 lawsuits, many focused on the battleground states . . . Democrats followed these initial attacks on election integrity by dispatching 600 lawyers and 10,000 volunteers to as many states as possible, three months before the 2020 presidential election."
One specific detail from the Pennsylvania election of 2020 confirming the pitiful state to which the American democratic experiment has sunk:
"Pennsylvania’s appellate court this morning issued an order allowing Republican election observers to watch the vote-counting process from up to six feet away.
Prior to this order, campaign officials said that observers had been forced to watch ballots being counted from as far away as 100 feet.
Two hours later, former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi said that the court order was not being enforced. She said while the barricades were moved up six feet, the ballot machines had been pushed to the back of the room.
https://www.ntd.com/pennsylvania-ballot-observers-blocked-despite-order_524872.html
Why on earth would election officials not want Republican election officials to be able to see what they were doing? I just don't understand. Not to worry though - the Pennsylvania Supreme Court leapt into action and resolved this problem:
"Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court on Tuesday overturned an order requiring that election observers be allowed within six feet of ballot-counting operations.
In its decision, the court said state law only requires that observers be allowed “in the room” where ballots are counted and does not mandate a minimum distance, NBC News said.
https://nypost.com/2020/11/17/pennsylvania-supreme-court-reverses-ruling-in-election-observers-case/" So as long as election observers are in the room, it doesn't matter whether they are able to see anything or not.
I'm so sorry. I'm ashamed of our so-called POTUS. He certainly does NOT speak 4 the vast majority of Israel loving Americans like me. #Trump2024!