Israel: "Just Look at Us Now" - Israel turns Problems into Opportunities

Thursday Aug 30, 2012 - THE JERUSALEM POST

All Israeli medical research starts with some form of health problem to solve. Whist investigating the cause of allergies, Tel Aviv University Professor Sagi-Eisenberg and PhD student Nurit Pereg-Azouz isolated two specific proteins involved in the trigger process for an allergic reaction. These can now be targeted by medications that omit the debilitating side effects of steroid treatments. In another uniquely Israeli study, a team of microbiologists, including Professor Eshel Ben-Jacob of Tel Aviv University (PHOTO), has discovered that cancer cells and bacteria behave in the same way as terrorists do in real life. They spy out the body, manipulate genes, enslave normal cells and become dormant to avoid danger. We now look forward eagerly to new “Mossad” treatments.

Many economic experts say that it was problems due to Israel’s shortage of natural resources that brought about the “can do” attitude of Israelis to overcome extreme difficulties. Israel’s breakthroughs in renewable energy technologies were a ‘natural’ result of its lack of oil and gas. Even now, despite Israel’s massive recent natural gas discoveries, initiatives continue such as the renewable energy program for the Eilat-Eilot region. Laboratories will be set-up for bio-energy, bio-fuels, hydrogen, solar energy and more. Meanwhile, if you can’t afford one of Better Place’s new deals for its revolutionary electric cars, no problem. Check out the electric scooters built by Israeli start-up Green Motors International.

Despite the lack of water, enterprising Kibbutz Neot Semadar has built an organic oasis in the desert. The kibbutz grows several varieties of native date palms and organic grapes that it transforms into sulphur-free wines. It is also said, that “the harshest conditions produce the best wines”, but Israeli wine producers, such as the Golan Heights Winery, have made the most of this fact by harnessing Israeli technology to eradicate viruses; match vines with the best subsoil and use satellite models to monitor the microclimate and ensure correct irrigation and harvesting.

A crisis always brings out the best in the Israeli spirit. When Italian budget airlineWind-jet collapsed, it ruined the holiday plans of 300,000 international customers. However, the Israeli government organised planes to fly the 200 stranded Israeli tourists home from Rome. Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman said, “The fact that all of Israel is responsible for one other is something which makes us unique and of which we should be proud”. Staying in the skies, you may have heard that due to a mistake by an on-line travel agent, El Al were forced to sell 5000 return tickets from New York to Israel at a bargain price of $400 each instead of the normal $1600. However, one high flier at El Al then saw an opportunity to recover some of the lost profit. The airline offered the lucky customers the chance to upgrade their tickets to non-stop for an extra $75 each way. This ensured that only El Al planes would be used, rather than its code-sharing partners. It also means that El Al’s low-season flights will be full.

CNN called in Jerusalem Venture Partner's Erel Margalit to suggest a solution to the problems of the ailing US economy. Margalit’s answer is for America to learn from the “Start-up Nation by bringing entrepreneurship back into the game.  A typical example of this entrepreneurship is Israel’s Siano, which has overcome the problems of low quality Internet TV images and regions with poor or non-existent wireless connections. With its “Carmel” miniature digital TV accessory you can watch live, high quality TV broadcasts on your iPhone or iPad in Israel, the UK and much of Europe. You get all the available free channels, without any network connection and don’t even need a TV license. Moving on, and should you have the problem of needing to use a toilet near Tel Aviv’s Carmel Market, you will have the opportunity to visit the ultimate convenience shop. Customers pay three shekels each for a public toilet with a choice of décor, music and the equivalent standard of service, hygiene and atmosphere of a five star hotel.

Most African countries have been experiencing severe humanitarian problems since the Arab states persuaded them to cut diplomatic ties with Israel in the 1970’s and 80’s. But now many African leaders want to repair the damage and have welcomed Israel’s offers to implement major agriculture, health and education projects. In one small, specific example, five young Israeli volunteers from Project T.E.N. (Tikkun Empowerment Network - a project of The Jewish Agency for Israel) have opened a summer camp for street children in Gondar, Ethiopia.

The media reports constantly that roadblocks are a crucial reason for the failure of the Palestinian Authority to become economically solvent. But Israel has removed more than a hundred checkpoints as “goodwill” measures to PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas, leaving only ten in the whole of Judea and Sameria. Now – as Abba Eban would say – we wait, to see if our neighbours miss yet another opportunity to take advantage of an opportunity - to make peace.

Finally, my jaw dropped when I read this news story. Vladislav Zaitsev was suffering from severe jaw infection causing loss of bone and inability to eat, drink or speak. Doctors decided to bring in engineers from Israeli company RAFAEL and they used their missile technology to construct a brand new jaw made from titanium. Ironically, before his Aliya in 1997, Vladislav was a missile engineer in the former Soviet Union.

I bet he can’t wait to get his teeth into a new opportunity.

Michael Ordman writes a weekly newsletter containing Good News stories about Israel.

www.verygoodnewsisrael.blogspot.com

To subscribe, email a request to michael.goodnewsisrael@gmail.com

Does Israel "stand alone" ? - US disowns Israel over Iran strike

Bee's Note:  OK, so it's almost Noon here in New Hampshire and the majority of postings are related to the failures of the Obama administration and/or the fact that Israel stands on the edge of a precipice of war, as Iran's threats of  "complete obliteration" of Israel hang in the balance of the Jewish nation's survival.  If there is anyone reading who doubts what would happen between  America and Israeli relationships if Obama is given an opportunity (second chance) this election, please read the warnings posted on Debka (plus those listed earlier here on Americans Stand with Israel):

US disowns Israel over Iran strike: No weapons or military backup

DEBKAfile Exclusive Analysis September 1, 2012, 10:04 AM (GMT+02:00)

Putin gave Obama more time

US Gen. Martin Dempsey’s assertion Thursday, Aug. 30 that the US would not be “complicit” in an Israel strike against Iran, together with the drastic reduction in the scale of next month’s joint US-Israeli war game disclosed by TIME, add up to a blunt message from US President Barack Obama to Israel: You are on your own! See how you manage without special US weapons and US military backup, including a shield against missile counter-attack, if you decide to defy us and go through with a military operation against Iran.
Instead of the 5,000 US troops originally assigned for Austere Challenge 12, the annual joint exercise, the Pentagon will send only 1,200 to 1,500 service members. The missile interception systems at the core of the joint exercise will be reduced in number and potency: Patriot anti-missiles will come without crews and maybe one instead of two Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense warships, according to the magazine.

DEBKAfile’s military sources: The Obama administration has put Israel on harsh notice that an attack on Iran to disrupt or delay its nuclear armament will be refused US missile backup - both in the course of the operation and to cover Israel’s back in the event of a counter-strike widening into a general Middle East conflict. The Netanyahu government will bear full and exclusive responsibility for the consequences of attacking Iran.

Obama, who has repeatedly pledged his commitment to Israeli security, is the first American president to cut Israeli adrift against a major threat to its security explicitly posed by Iran. 

The US president has put his campaign for reelection next month at great albeit calculated risk. His rival Mitt Romney will not doubt follow up on the charges he made during his acceptance speech to the Republican convention Thursday that Obama threw “allies like Israel under the bus” and failed utterly to stop Iran’s centrifuges spinning.

Obama may find the Jewish vote and campaign contributions fading. For Romney an incumbent president  throwing Israel to the wolves against the ayatollahs is a dream come true.
Binyamin Netanyahu and his defense minister Ehud Barak must bear some of the onus for one of the most damaging ruptures US-Israel relations have ever faced - as will be discussed later. However, the prime cause must be sought elsewhere.
In the last month, Obama has undergone a change of face: The top US soldier and ambassador Dan Shapiro were told to start treating Israel like a pest and telling its leaders that the administration is fed to the teeth with their clamor for action on Iran.

This change did not come out of the blue. DEBKAfile’s Washington and Moscow sources report it evolved from three events:
1. During this month, President Vladimir Putin severed Russia’s military ties with Iran and Syria as DEBKAfile reported earlier: Obama reciprocated by cutting Israel down to size. Moscow informed Tehran and Damascus that there would be no more Russian arms supplies after the delivery of the last items in the pipeline. Putin therefore left both Iran and Syria high and dry amid war dangers in return for Obama cutting Israel off from advance military hardware at a time of peril.
The Russian and American leaders thus put in place the first bricks of an accord for resolving their disputes over a nuclear Iran and the Syrian crisis by the device of slashing the military capacity of Iran, Israel and Syria.
The Russian president took another step as a gesture to Obama: He pulled Russian warships out of the Syrian base of Tartus and the eastern Mediterranean, leaving only a floating dry dock.
In return, he counted on Washington forcing Israel to abandon any plans to strike Iran.
2.  But this exercise in symmetrical reciprocity ran into a major snag: Obama found a tough nut in Jerusalem: Binyamin Netanyahu held out for a pledge of US military action against Iran as his price for holding back. Despite the massive pressure Obama threw at the Israeli government, both through the highest ranking US political and military channels and by mobilizing the government’s most vocal opponents and anti-war circles at home, Netanyahu and Barak did not budge.
They understood, despite Obama’s concealment, that the secret US-Russian deal would in fact preserve Iran’s nuclear program at a point at which Iran’s leaders could have a weapon assembled and unsheathed at any moment.
The also realized that as long as Israel’s military option against Iran was alive, the Obama-Putin deal was stuck, because both Iran’s Ali Khamenei and Syria’s Bashar Assad would likewise refuse to fall into line.

When Romney said he would give America’s friends “more loyalty” and Putin “a little less flexibility and more backbone,” he was referring to President Obama’s request from Putin on June 18, at the G20 conference in Mexico, for more time against his promise to the Russian leader of “more flexibility” later.
To keep his deal with Putin in motion, the US president will have to tighten his squeeze on Israel’s leaders to forego an attack on Iran.
3. The Netanyahu government, for its part, committed three tactical errors:

One: They dragged out the dialogue on Iran with the US administration for far too long - three years or more – and come away for it empty-handed. If their purpose was to persuade the United States to carry the can against Iran, as many Israelis believed, they failed.  No Israeli leader has the right to procrastinate to this extent on action affecting its fundamental security, if not existence. Netanyahu fell into the trap of crying wolf by shouting year after year that Iran must be stopped – and doing nothing.
Two:  Israel’s deterrent capacity, already sapped by inaction, was further eroded by US General Martin Dempsey’s assertions that Israel lacks the capacity to destroy the Iranian nuclear program.
Three:  They failed to act expeditiously to prevent the political opposition using a campaign against an attack on Iran as a stratagem for bringing the government down.
It has been four weeks since the former Mossad director Ephraim Halevi said that if he was an Iranian, he would be worried in the next twelve weeks.
That was on Aug. 2.
Thursday, Aug. 30, Halevi said: “It is important for Israel’s military threat to be credible.”

He was throwing down the gauntlet for Netanyahu and Barak to show they were serious about striking Iran – or else back down completely.
His timeline gives them another eight weeks to show their mettle. During that time, they will be under heavy bombardment from Washington.  

________________________

and read the entire article posted by Debka (see below):

Slashed US military input shortens Israel’s notice of Iranian missile launch

DEBKAfile Exclusive Analysis September 2, 2012, 9:28 AM (GMT+02:00)

Tags:  US-Israel crisis   Barack Obama   Gen. Martin Dempsey   Binyamin Netanyahu   Iran nuclear 

US and Israeli defense chiefs far apart.

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak are silent in the face of the avalanche of bad news coming in from official Washington.
The Patriot anti-missile systems scheduled for what was to have been the biggest joint US-Israel anti-missile drill in October will remain packed in tarpaulin because they come without crews; even one – much less two - Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense warships may not be dispatched to Israeli waters; and the number of US servicemen sent over for the annual exercise is to be cut by more than two-thirds to 1,500.
This downgrade of US participation in an annual war exercise with Israel is more than striking. It adds up to the dismemberment by the Obama administration of the entire intricate strategy US and Israel have built over years for the deterrence - and interception if need be - of any Iranian/Hizballah/Syrian missile assault on Israel.
The inferences are cruel: The US defense or second-strike elements - which had been slotted into place by the military strategists of the two armies - will not be there. Their absence slashes the time available for Israel’s alarm-and-interception systems to spring into action - the moment the engines of Iranian ballistic missiles heading its way are fired - right down from the originally estimated 14 minutes' notice.
It also means that Barak’s estimate of 500 dead in the worst case of a war with Iran must go by the board.
Netanyahu and Barak have clearly been rendered speechless by the high-powered US military, diplomatic and personal onslaught on Israel and its government. Even the smooth-tongued Tzahi Hanegbi, just returned to the Likud fold, found no easy way of whitewashing the debacle. “Defense relations with the US are deeper than ever before,” he said unconvincingly in a radio interview Sunday morning, Sept. 2.

continue reading 

Weekend Edition: Eastwood’s Sudden Impact

THE NATIONAL PATRIOT

By Craig Andresen on September 2, 2012 at 6:56 am

In life, there are many ways to know when you’ve “made it.”
Mostly it comes with success. Be it success in business or success in politics success is a measure of “making it.”
With success often comes the trappings of success. I nice home, a nice car or maybe the ability to travel at will without caring the cost.
Those are tangible examples of having “made it” but, there are other ways of knowing.
In the world of pop culture, one can also “make it” and not all examples are good.
For some unknown reason, many pop culture icons strive to “make it” through adverse behavior and there are a slew of really bad celebrity mug shots out there proving the point.
Still others “make it” by proving Darwin was right. Case in point:
Timothy Treadwell believe he was one with grizzly bears. A bear enthusiast for years, he went to live with the beasts in Katmai National Park, Alaska in 1990. After 13 years, the Grizzly Manand his girlfriend, Amie Huguenard, who shared his belief that they, and the grizzlies, were on the same page, discovered they were, in fact…Not.
They were killed and mostly eaten by their neighbors gaining them both a Darwin Award.
Treadwell and Huguenard “made it” as urban legends.
Last week, a very unusual occurrence of “making it” occurred. It was not so unusual that this man “made it” but that he, “made it”…AGAIN.

As a young man, Clint Eastwood “made it” in television as Rowdy Yates on Rawhide. That would have been enough for most but, not for Eastwood.
He left Rawhide to make “Spaghetti Westerns,” low budget western movies filmed in Italy. It has been said that one could take the sum total of all of Eastwood’s Spaghetti Westerns and not have but 20 minutes of dialogue delivered by the star. True enough but, his mere presence on the screen was enough, combined with a squinty glare and a gravely voice that could open a walnut from 50 paces, to cement his “making it” in the genre.
Not good enough for Clint Eastwood. He went to star in a series of Dirty Harry movies delivering some of the most well-known movie lines in history.
Eastwood was just getting started “making it.”
As a director, and producer, Clint Eastwood “made it” again and again.
As a musician, Eastwood “made it” having his scores underscore many movies.
Eastwood “made it” in business too…not just in owning his own motion picture production office and making one great independent film after another but, drop by the Hog’s Breath Inn in Carmel California sometime for a Dirty Harry burger. That’s Eastwood’s place and maybe, just maybe, you’ll recognize the guy at the piano from time to time.
Naturally, that wasn’t enough “making it” for Clint who “made it” again when he became the Mayor of Carmel.
Well, you get the idea. Clint Eastwood has “made it” and “made it” and “made it again and again.
Last week, at the tender age of 82, Clint Eastwood “made it” again.
Most conservatives think Eastwood, in a somewhat rambling speech at the podium, stuck his thumb in Obama’s eye by delivering lines like:

CONTINUE READING ...

Obama's new isolationism in the Middle East

Sunday, September 02, 2012

ISRAEL MATZAV

by Carl in Jerusalem

Victor Davis Hanson sees the Obama administration as isolating itself from the Middle East. I can only hope that he's right, but I fear that with respect to one issue - Obama's obsession with the 'Palestinians' - Hanson is wrong and we will likely see the results in a second Obama term if God forbid there is one (Hat Tip: Ricky G).

Let’s get this all straight. America has been damned for its Machiavellian shenanigans in supporting authoritarian governments; for its naïve idealism in using force to implant democracies; for its ambivalence in not using force to protect democratic protesters; and for its recent isolationism in ignoring ongoing Arab violence. Why, then, bother?

There are other growing fault lines. The old conventional wisdom was that Sunni Muslims shared Israeli fears of a Persian bomb on the horizon. The new conventional wisdom is that the Arab masses that are propelling the Muslim Brotherhood into power in Egypt prefer the idea of a nuked Israel to the danger of a nuclear Iran.

The subtext of Middle Eastern anti-Americanism is that the region, if given a chance, will embrace its own brand of freedom. But that does not appear to be happening in Egypt or Libya. And for now, desire for democracy does not seem to be the common glue that holds together various Syrians fighting to overthrow the odious Assad dictatorship.

Newly elected Egyptian president Mohamed Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood attended college and later taught classes in California. Apparently Morsi once came here to enjoy American freedom, and for his family to be protected by our tolerance and security. Is that why he is crushing liberal opponents and the Egyptian media — to ensure that they never enjoy the protections and opportunities that were offered to him while a guest in the United States?

Note that anti-Americanism was often attributed to the unique unpopularity of Texan George W. Bush, who invaded two Middle Eastern countries, tried to foster democracies, and institutionalized a number of tough antiterrorism security policies. In turn, Barack Obama was supposed to be the antidote — with a Muslim family on his father’s side, his middle name (Hussein), early schooling in Muslim Indonesia, a number of pro-Islamic speeches and interviews, apologies abroad, and a post-racial personal story.

Yet recent polls show that Obama is even less popular in the Middle East than was Bush.

Staggering U.S. debt also explains the impending divorce. With $5 trillion in new American borrowing in just the last four years, and talk of slashing $1 trillion from the defense budget over the next ten years, America’s options abroad may be narrowing. President Obama also envisions a more multilateral world in which former American responsibilities in the Middle East are outsourced to collective interests like the United Nations, the European Union, and the Arab League.

Perhaps soon the problem will be that we simply will not have enough power to use for much of anything — and we would have to ask the U.N. for permission if we did.

Usually nothing good comes from American isolationism, especially given our key support for a vulnerable, democratic Israel. But for a variety of reasons, good and bad, our Humpty Dumpty policy of Middle East engagement is now shattered.

Read the whole thing. The extent to which Barack Hussein Obama has degraded US capabilities in the Middle East and elsewhere over the last four years is simply appalling.

Could an Attack on Iran Facilitate Regime Change?

Bee's Note:  Evelyn Gordon's commentary was posted last Friday, Aug. 24th, the day I left for a week's vacation. 

Israel’s existence is an “insult to all humanity,” Iran’s president said Friday in one of his sharpest attacks yet against the Jewish state, as Israel openly debates whether to attack Iran over its nuclear program.

http://rebuildingfreedom.org/2012/08/17/iran-calls-israels-existence-an-insult-as-prominent-rabbi-warns-its-more-than-rhetoric/

FRIDAY, AUGUST 24, 2012

MIDDLE EAST AND TERRORISM

by Evelyn Gordon

An Iranian op-ed writer recently urged his country to emulate Israel. Of course the “Zionist regime” is illegitimate, wrote Seyed Ammar Kalantari, but the fact that “this small group of around seven million people who only about 60 years ago moved to this small spot from all sorts of different cultures and nationalities” has managed to survive, despite repeated attacks by Palestinians and various Arab armies, shows it must be doing something right. That something, Kalantari argued, is Israel’s willingness to criticize its leaders.

What makes this remarkable isn’t just that Israel is being touted as a shining example in the very country whose leader regularly pledges to annihilate it as “a cancerous tumor.” It’s that the article appeared on a website closely affiliated with Mohsen Rezaee, a former Revolutionary Guards commander who now serves as secretary of Iran’s Expediency Council, a key organ of the regime. It’s one of numerous recent reminders that most Iranians are vastly more open-minded than the thugs who run their country.

Just this week, a leading Iranian opposition cleric publicly urged the regime to “do everything to prevent a Zionist attack on Iran, because if that happens, Iran will be severely damaged, even if the Zionist regime is damaged even more.” The regime “must not act as warmongers,” warned Ayatollah Yousef Sanei: “The country is currently facing a unique situation, and the most important thing to do is to shut the mouth of the Zionist regime with our thoughts, our pens and an effort to take the right actions.” While Sanei didn’t specify said “right actions,” the meaning seems clear: steps to allay international, and especially Israeli, concerns about Iran’s nuclear program.

In fact, an online poll published in June found that a decisive majority of Iranians – 63 percent – favor giving up uranium enrichment in exchange for an end to sanctions. And another poll, published in May, found that Iranians are much more supportive of basic liberal values than, say, Egyptians, Jordanians and Moroccans, or even residents of some Asian and eastern European democracies. Fully 94% of respondents, for instance, deemed “freedom to choose” an important value, and 71% deemed tolerance important.

All this shows what an incredible opportunity was wasted when U.S. President Barack Obama failed to support the Green Revolution in 2009, preferring instead to pursue negotiations with the mullahs: In Iran – unlike, say, Egypt – a successful revolution might well have produced a better government rather than a worse one, because most Iranians would genuinely rather build a decent society at home than foment mayhem abroad.

Today, however, this very decency is frequently used as an argument against attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities: An attack, we are told, will cause ordinary Iranians to rally round the mullahs, thereby setting the prospect of regime change back decades.

Personally, I think the data indicates that any such effect would be short-lived. People who value freedom of choice and tolerance aren’t likely to become permanent mullah-lovers, nor will opposition leaders long laud the regime for provoking the very attack they warned against.

But Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has an additional argument: the Ugandan precedent. Yoweri Museveni, who became Uganda’s president after Idi Amin’s downfall, told him that Israel’s 1976 Entebbe raid “strengthened Amin’s rivals because it revealed how vulnerable his regime was,” Netanyahu related this month.

There’s no way to know for sure who’s right. But we do know the Green Revolution failed primarily because the regime’s brute-force tactics eventually convinced the demonstrators it was too strong to be toppled. Thus showing that the regime isn’t as powerful as it seems may actually be the very spark needed to finally send the mullahs toppling.

Evelyn Gordon

Source: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/08/22/could-an-attack-on-iran-facilitate-regime-change/

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Islamists To Open DNC With Prayer For Sharia To Replace US Constitution

AUGUST 29, 2012 BY DERRICK HOLLENBECK 
WESTERN JOURNALISM

When the Democrat National Convention/”hate-America” festival gets started, it will begin with a “Jummah” or Muslim prayer group. There will be about 20,000 people gathered for a celebration of the Islamists’ plans to eventually overthrow our government and replace our Constitutional government with a Sharia-controlled theocracy. This begs the question: who will be there and what do they represent?

The leaders of the Jummah will be Jibril Hough and Imam Siraj Wahha. Both men have a long track record of hatred for America and our way of life – especially the freedom of women to live productive lives. These two Islamists, both avowed enemies of America, have been invited to celebrate their plans for our demise in return for filling the otherwise empty seats the cameras might accidentally show during the main hate-fest the Democrats themselves will be putting on.

With full knowledge that Siraj Wahhaj is an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing that killed six Americans, the Democrats invited him to kick off their hate festival. He is on record as saying it is the duty of all Muslims to replace the US Constitution with Sharia law.

Jibril Hough is a leader of a Charlotte, North Carolina mosque which has helped funnel millions of dollars to terrorist groups that are fighting and killing American troops. The North American Islamic Trust (NAIT) owns the mosque building.  The NAIT, which is a front for Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, was also an unindicted co-conspirator of the 1993 WTC bombing.

As has been the case with other Jummahs led by Siraj Wahhaj, this one will be devoted to asking Allah to overthrow the Patriot Act and stop the New York Police Department’s surveillance of our Islamist enemies.

Another attendee at the Mulim/Democrat hate-America gathering will be former military Chaplin James Yusuf Yee, a virulent anti-American who was charged with sedition for aiding the enemy and was only released when the government concluded its presentation of the evidence against him would expose national security secrets endangering Americans.

Also kneeling in prayer with Wahhaj Hough and Yee will be Hassen Abdellah, a lead defense attorney for several 9/11 terrorists who later proudly admitted they were guilty. The notation on the Jummah flyer calls Abdellah:  “A Lead Defense Attorney For First 1993 World Trade Bombing Suspects Hassen Abdellah Has Etched His Name In Islamic History As It Is Being Written Right Here In America.”

Prominent among the Democrats who are cheering the Islamists’ drive to force sharia law on us is Congresswoman Maxine Waters, who claims that Republican resistance to Sharia law is fear mongering and bigotry.  By backing Sharia law, Democrats are as dangerous to us as any America- hating Islamist. We cannot forget this in November.

Follow Coach at twitter.com @KcoachcCoach

Photo credit: AsianMedia (Creative Commons)

Bee's Note:

The "first" lady Michele Obama stated on a late night TV show that she was NOT watching the Republican National Convention.  Too bad she refuses to face reality and prefers living in her fantasy bubble.  But, to return the favor, rather than listen to the lying propaganda of the Democrat National Convention, my TV will be off until after the DNC.  Everything we ever wanted to know about Obama and his followers has been written and demonstrated these past 4 years.  Time to change the channel and vote this poor excuse for an un-American president out of office come November.

How Branding Sold America on Obama - by Daniel Greenfield

Saturday, September 01, 2012

How Branding Sold America on Obama

Posted by Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog 7 Comments

What's the difference between a president and a can of Pepsi? When it comes to winning elections, the answer is very little. The 2008 election was not about issues, it was about image. Not just the image of the candidate, but the image of his brand.

In marketing terms, a brand is not just a label, it's the way that the customer is meant to perceive the product and interact with it. Take the can of Pepsi. It doesn't matter what's actually in the can, you don't have access to the full list of ingredients anyway. And if you did, it would take extensive research to even make sense of them. It's not even about how the actual soda tastes. That matters, but not very much. All that really matters is how the customer perceives the brand. It's not about the content. It's only about how people view the brand.

From a marketing standpoint, it's not what the product is, but how people perceive it in relation to themselves. This is an entirely image based approach, but a common one now. What that means is, is this a brand I want to be associated with. Do I want to be seen drinking this can of Pepsi? Is this a brand that makes me feel good about myself? Does it enhance my self-image?

The branding of American politics worked the same way. Obama was not sold as a set of positions and a track record, but as a brand. A brand that people were encouraged to feel enthusiastic about or at least comfortable with, using the same techniques that were used to sell soft drinks. Cheerful posters, meaninglessly simple slogans, celebrities, theme songs, merchandise, social media, viral videos, fonts, color schemes, logos and everything else that goes into pushing a billion dollar product from the shelves to the kitchen.

That transition took Hillary Clinton by surprise and hurt her most of all. Hillary had been working the party and the traditional campaign circuit, only to be sidelined by a media centered frenzy that centered around brands, not people. By the old political rules she should have won, but the new rules were in and they weren't political anymore.

Few voters could really nail down the policy differences between Obama and McCain, a mistake that was in part McCain's own fault and played into the image over substance approach of the Obama campaign. And those who couldn't, mostly voted for the candidate they felt most comfortable being associated with. The election came down to a cultural split with the cultural weapons of mass distraction in the hands of an omnipresent media and social media empire.

There was no longer any point in discussing programs or issues. They had become details, like the fine print at the end of a television commercial that no one can read, and no one is meant to read. It's there to fulfill an obligation, not to inform or play any meaningful role in the decision making process. All that mattered was the brand.

The approach was to make voters want to be part of the Obama "brand" and not want to be associated with the McCain/Palin brand. The Obama brand was positioned as cool and youthful, in the same way that soft drinks are. And the public was told over and over again that McCain was old and crazy, that Palin was stupid and crazy, and that both of them were uncool. Probably the most constant message repeated through the election and today, is that the Republican is for "old people". In marketing terms this is worse than being called a Nazi. The constant pursuit of youth means that brands which appeal to old people are ruthlessly eliminated or limited to the export market. (That's why you'll find many classic American brands in South America or Asia where they have strong consumer loyalty, but in the United States they were replaced with more "youthful" brands associated with a new generation.)

2008 was certainly not the first time that liberals had worked to position themselves as the face of a new generation, and the Republicans as the voice of the past. The strategy dated back to Kennedy vs Nixon and saw use again with Clinton in 1992 and 1996, when Silent Generationers, George H.W. Bush and Bob Dole contended with the country's first Baby Boomer President. And then in 2008, the boomer Hillary Clinton was pushed aside for a Generation X candidate. The progressive left enjoys being thought of as revolutionary and youthful, even if their ideas and funding come from eighty year olds like Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn and  George Soros. A youthful demographic is less likely to have the background and the life experience to know that their policies won't work, and to be fueled by the same inchoate mix of outrage and blind optimism. And a willingness to act without understanding the consequences.

Marketing is similarly aimed at capturing a youth market in order to lock in a new generation of consumers by manipulating their feelings of attachment toward a brand. In 2008 it was done with a candidate, rather than a soft drink, but the principle was the shame. The new approach stripped away most of the formal aspects of the campaign, focusing instead on creating a brand that people would want to incorporate into their own self-image. What they were being asked to do, was not to decide who should run the country, but whose sign would look best in their yard, which candidate could they feel good about being associated with.

Smearing Hillary Clinton, McCain and Palin poisoned the well. They retained a die hard demographic, but made those voters who watched the news, instead of doing their own research, who were casual consumers of politics and didn't really understand the practical differences between both parties too well, uncomfortable with the McCain\Palin ticket. Not for substantial reasons, but insubstantial ones.

The iconization of Obama on the other hand, the proliferation of appearances, merchandising and photo and video made many Americans feel as if they knew him, when in reality they knew next to nothing about him. This technique is commonly used by celebrities to create the veneer of familiarity, without the substance. Massive media exposure creates the sense that you know someone, even when in reality you don't. That false intimacy is exploited as a one-way connection. Charismatic politicians do it all the time, but there was something unique here because Obama was a complete unknown. He had come out of nowhere and made the leap from State Senate to Senate to the White House in an absurdly short amount of time. His omnipresence made him familiar, which disguised how much of a chimera he really was. And is.

The iconization of the self is the key element of the social media age. Social media bestows the celebrity's  illusion of intimacy on everyone, allowing them to share without sharing and interact through a one way mirror. To focus attention on themselves while remaining apart isolated and apart from other people. The face in the camera that a hundred million people see but are unseen in turn. The message sent to a million people that seems as personal as if it were intended for only one. The illusion of an interaction that is not actually taking place.

This best describes Obama's public image. A brand that is as familiar as it is unreal. Like Ronald McDonald or Mr Clean, we are familiar with him, yet unable to go beyond the smooth surface. He is everywhere and yet nowhere. He constantly wants our attention, but has nothing to tell us. There is a real physical Barack Hussein Obama walking about somewhere, but there needn't be. He would be just as real, if he didn't exist. If he were nothing more than a poster, a logo, a few books, some computer graphics and a slogan. He would be no less real, because he isn't real. He's a brand.

The man beneath that brand is another question. Like all pitchmen and actors, there is something of him in the image we see, but it is mostly a convincing simplification. And what is startling about his brand is just how little of it is really human. Toss away the merchandise and the art, and very little is left. Probably because what's underneath was never meant for public consumption. The Obamas constant oversharing is as much a defense as an offense, an obsessive need to control their own narrative and tell their own story over and over again. Even when there's no story and nothing to tell. The last time we saw it this bad was in the JFK administration, when the tours of the White House and the stream of photographs concealed an uglier reality lurking outside the frame of the camera. And that's almost certainly the case here.

Those most eager to play a role are looking to leave themselves behind, to escape and run away from something. People like that make some of the best actors and the splashiest celebrities. But underneath their mask of charisma is a towering pile of human wreckage. They are so eager to be something they are not, that they are convincing. And because they need us to believe in the illusion so badly, they are omnipresent. Always hungry for attention and adoration, getting high on it and crashing down when the attention is withdrawn. Incapable of any real empathy, they mimic it brilliantly. So well that they seem more empathetic than actual working human beings. So perfectly compassionate that it's almost inhuman. But it's never other people they cry for, only themselves.

This is the kind of man perfectly ready to be turned into a brand, made into a symbol, an idol and an icon. But brands tell us more about how their creators see us, than how we see them. The brand is a 'wire mother', a collection of symbols that are meant to draw forth emotional reactions from us and create an attachment to inanimate objects. The brand manipulates our ideas of who we are and want to be in order to incorporate itself into our self-image, to be the parasite in our worldview. To identify the brand as aspirational and link it to our own aspirations.

The idea that an election would cease to be about issues and become entirely an exercise in selling a product, sight unseen, the proverbial pig in a poke covered over with the symbols of capitalism might have seemed unduly alarmist once, but 2008 was our pig in a poke election. A man who had virtually no experience in national government was elevated to the highest office in the land because a fortune was spent on making voters feel good about voting for him. Not based on the issues, but based entirely on externals.

Obama did not have an aspirational candidacy, he had an aspirational brand. A brand that people wanted to be a part of, because it made them feel good about themselves. And so we learned that there is indeed something worse than Bread and Circuses. An electorate that votes on that is at least somewhat capable of using self-interest to make judgments, but one that votes for the brand that feels good has abandoned even the vestiges of reason and self-interest. Such people are no longer exercising their power over government, instead they have become customers, buying a product that they have no say in how it gets made or what goes in there. Not because they need it, but because they have been programmed to feel good when buying it.

The Sultan Knish blog

Official: Obama will make Bibi pay after elections

Bee's Note:  Before posting YNet's latest news, here are four comments by friends (I will not reveal their names, due to Facebook's ability to remove many of the Conservative comments from its pages - free speech?!):

YNet is a left wing paper, that is against settlers and against charedim, and is pro-Arab, and for the two-State Solution. So this is earth-shattering comming from them...

Obama and his Administration are playing with fire; by throwing Israel under the bus. Iran is laughing all the way to the Atomic Bomb. Obama has officially endangered both American and Israeli citizens. Obama has already cut down the military exercises to deter Iran in October. He is a little boy in a man's body.

 "a little boy in a man's body".. ? Actually he is so much worse than that... it's more like he's a 'Demon in Disguise'.. he's Calculating.. Deceptive and Manipulative.! 'We the People' in American cannot afford another 4 years of his continuing assault against the Founding Principles of which our great nation was built.! His policies have failed, He has failed... He will be defeated in November..! America has and always will support Israel to the very end..! God Bless

Israeli security officials on Saturday tried to downplay the Pentagon's decision to significantly scale back its participation in a joint military exercise with Israel next month, but some government officials said the decision came as a response to the growing tensions between PM Netanyahu's office and the Obama administration. "This is the Obama administration's response to the dinner party Netanyahu held in (Mitt) Romney's honor," a senior member of the political-security cabinet told Ynet, while another official said the Pentagon's decision "isn’t boosting deterrence and is not making the Iranians sweat.

______________ 

Official: Obama will make Bibi pay after elections Israeli security officials say Pentagon's decision to reduce number of US troops it will send to joint drill with Israel not related to growing tensions with Israel; others claim Washington saying 'you will not drag us into Iran war' Attila Somfalvi Published: 09.02.12, 00:39 / Israel News sraeli security officials on Saturday tried to downplay the Pentagon's decision to significantly scale back its participation in a joint military exercise with Israel next month, but some government officials said the decision came as a response to the growing tensions between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's office and the Obama administration. "This is the Obama administration's response to the dinner party Netanyahu held in (Mitt) Romney's honor," a senior member of the political-security cabinet told Ynet, while another official said the Pentagon's decision "isn’t boosting deterrence and is not making the Iranians sweat. Patriot battery during previous drill in 2009 (Photo: EPA) WASHINGTON | Sun Jan 31, 2010 4:50pm EST "Regardless of the exercise, the relations between Israel and the US have soured," another minister said, while another added cynically that "our relationship has never been better. "The US elections are in two months, and there is no doubt that President Barack Obama, if he is reelected, will make Netanyahu pay for his behavior," said the security cabinet member. "It will not pass quietly." Related articles: Khamenei: Time for new world order  Analysis: Israeli demands from Obama   Op-ed: Defeating Obama is top priority Other officials in Jerusalem said Washington is trying to send a message that Israel will not drag it into war, certainly not before the elections. The Americans were enraged by Israel's repeated threats to launch a solo military attack on Iran's nuclear sites, and top US General Martin Dempsey's recent statement that he does not "want to be complicit" if Israel chooses to attack was carefully worded. Officials said that while Jerusalem has received the message, the Americans' conduct is leading Iran to believe that it is safe at least until the US elections. "This is why the Iranians are issuing threatening statements against the US," one official argued. "Washington's hesitant policy is making the Iranians feel freer to move ahead with the nuclear program. This is not how you create deterrence to avoid a military operation." The joint military drill is scheduled to begin in September and conclude in mid-November. "Israel has no idea why the Americans decided to reduce the number of troops it will send to the drill," a security official said. "The ties between the US and Israeli armies are strong, and we would have known if the reduction had something to do with any tensions betweenJerusalem and Washington." Another security official also rejected the notion that the Pentagon's decision to scale back its participation in the military exercise was meant as a message to Israel: "There are various reasons for decision, but they have nothing to do with the mounting tensions between Jerusalem and Washington. The drill will still be the largest these armies have ever conducted."  According to Time Magazine, the US slashed the number of American troops who were slated to take part in the drill by more than 60%. Instead of the approximately 5,000 troops originally assigned to "Austere Challenge 12," as the exercise is dubbed, the Pentagon will send only 1,500 servicemen and perhaps as few as 1,200. The number and the potency of missile interception systems that were to be used in the maneuvers were also reduced. Patriot anti-missile systems will arrive in Israel as planned, the crews that can operate them will not. Instead of two Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense warships, only one will be deployed – and even that is uncertain, Time said, citing officials in both the US and Israeli militaries. Follow Ynetnews on Facebook and Twitter Receive Ynetnews updates directly to your desktop http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4275749,00.html Bee's note - continued: I no longer think Obama is ignorant to his foolish decisions - I do believe his choices towards Israel are calculating and deliberate.  We should have been more aware of Obama's leanings when he ignored the cries for help from the Iranian people 3 1/2 years ago.  At that time, Obama chose to stand with the madman, Ahmadinejad - that was actually the FIRST "Arab/Muslim" spring!   Strange that Obama was quick to involve himself in the Egyptian "spring", demanding that Murbarak "step down".  Too bad he didn't demand Ahmadinejad "step down"! Romney was correct when he stated that Obama had thrown Israel "under the bus". Here is another (and hopefully, the last) example of Obama's failed foreign policy.  He constantly prefers to stand with not only the enemies of Israel, but the enemies of the United States and I wonder why Congress has allowed this administration to sail off course from everything America stands for - especially concerning the Constitution and the "will of the people". Who would have believed that in 4 short years, the White House would entertain and bow to the very folks who were and still are a threat to America's national security. The problem is not with Israel, nor can we place the blame for the lack of peace in the Middle East totally on the Arab/Muslims who wish to eliminate all Jews from their homeland, Israel - no, every world leader, including this administration, is part of the problem and by turning our backs on Israel today, we are no better and have learned nothing from the history of the 1930's. May Obama's "Dreams of his Father" turn into his worst nightmare!  Gen. 12:3 is a promise, not a threat, from our Creator: New International Version (©1984) I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you."New Living Translation (©2007) I will bless those who bless you and curse those who treat you with contempt. All the families on earth will be blessed through you." English Standard Version (©2001) I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”