SAUDI ARABIA, ISRAEL, IRAN, AND OBAMA. OH, AND YEMEN.

During Rush Limbaugh's show on November 17th, Rush cited Walid Phares' appearance on Fox News the previous day. The discussion centered on Phares' theory that Obama's actions, or lack thereof, can be completely explained by understanding that Iran's interests and Obama's are one. Here's the link.

PHARES: Actually we can and actually we should, but the president has a different strategy. He's getting a lot of pressure by the Iranians. Otherwise he should have long time ago allied himself, partnered with Arab moderate forces such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, UAE, they are fighting terrorism very much and very well in Yemen, in Sinai, in Libya, elsewhere, but the reason that he's not going to these moderate Arab forces and asking them on the ground to be boots on the ground is because the Iranians are pressuring him because the Syrian Regime is pressuring him. They don't want those areas, those Sunni areas to be liberated by Sunni moderates because they won't have access to them. That's the bottom line of it.

And Rush goes on to agree:

RUSH:  Shi'ite versus Sunni sectarian violence. But essentially the answer means that what Iran wants is what Obama is loyal to. 

There's something very important to add to this thesis, and it reinforces the conclusion. 

Yemen.

Let's go back to March and April when the following things were happening:

John Kerry was in the process of negotiating with Iran, and it appeared the Mullahs would be provided with a clear path to a nuclear future.

Iran at this time has successfully ousted the President of Yemen from his country with the aid of the former President al-Saleh, and Iranian Houthi proxies. Iranian influence is now on the Saudi frontier, with the capability of controlling oil flow through the straights. So now the Americans, having already abandoned the region, are giving the Mullahs the bomb? The Saudis panic. And justifiably so.

Within days, a coalition of Sunni Arab states forms, The Saudis, the UAE, Egypt, Jordan, the Sudan, Oman, and others unite in rapid fashion, and assemble a functioning military coalition with the aim of attacking Yemen. Ousting the Iranians, and restoring Hadi, now residing in Riyadh, to power in Sanaa, is the goal.

Meanwhile, rumors are swirling that somehow Israel, whose issues now align perfectly with those of the Sunni Arab coalition, might even take part.

Now, it must be understood that bombing raids require mid-air refueling, so that the planes may take off with minimum fuel to enable the weight of the added bombs and armaments. Then the planes must be refueled mid-air, in order to complete the mission. There are only two countries in the region who have this capability-the US, and Israel.

The aerial bombardments begin, and we are told that the US is performing the pivotal task of enabling the mission by refueling the UAE and Saudi jets. This was all occurring while Kerry was in negotiations with the Iranians. 

This had to be an affront to the Iranians, but they said nothing, and it had no effect on the talks. Why? It would have been used as a negotiating ploy by the Iranians, but it wasn't. Why not? Did they allow the Americans to aid the attack on their proxies in Yemen without saying a word?

Yemen was important to Iran. They had come a long way at great expense to oust Hadi and lay the groundwork for controlling the oil flow through the straits, and position themselves on Saudi Arabia's border.

Not a peep.

The Saudis will have had to make a formal request of Obama in order to gain the use of the tankers. Remember, Obama had abandoned the region, which created the void that resulted in the formation of a coalition from the rubble of the Arab League, where the members hadn't agreed on anything for decades.

And their issues now aligned with those of.......Israel.

Did the Saudis tell Obama that if he didn't help them, Bibi would? I have no doubt Israel would have jumped on such an opportunity. 

Did Obama give the Iranians a heads-up, and a choice between possibly losing their foothold in Yemen or facing a Sunni-Arab coalition plus Israel?  

Clearly, the Saudis and others considered an Iranian-held Yemen to be an existential issue. As did the Israelis. Wouldn't the Sunni states have been willing to offer Netanyahu air-space and logistics, if not military participation, for an Israeli raid on Iran? This could have been offered in exchange for help with refueling and perhaps other aid in dealing with the situation in Yemen. 

It is just as clear that if Obama did give the Iranians a heads up, that the Mullahs consider the military alignment of the Sunni Arab Coalition with Israel to be equally existential.

Admittedly, this is a theory, but it fits the events, Walid and Rush's theory, and the motivations, the actions, or lack of actions of all the players, during this period. We know Obama is capable of perfidy, and proof that this is how it all went down would be "smoking gun" proof of treason, would it not?

IT WAS A SWASTIKA, NOT A NOOSE!

If you're a white male college president, you'd better begin looking for something else to do.

Tim Wolf resigned today as Chancellor of the University of Missouri, after pressure from the football team forced his hand.

He didn't respond properly to the "environment" created by a series of speech and vandalism incidents that were deemed to be racist by black students. One of the incidents involved a swastika. A swastika, you know, the symbol of the World War II atrocities against Jews. Jews, not blacks. Not a noose, which would be an offensive symbol, and rightly so, against American blacks descended of slaves. Black sensibilities seemed to be expanding their scope, no?

I cannot think of an "environment" more coddling for blacks, more protective of the sensibilities of black people, than a college campus in the USA. College campuses are headed by liberals, because one simply cannot elevate to positions of power within a college administration and harbor even one scintilla of conservative sentiment. They are staffed by liberals for the same reason, and possessed of strict speech codes largely to protect favored groups' fragile sensibilities, affirmative action anyone?

And it's a shame. Winners are defined and made by not making excuses. Look at how many excuses are placed into young blacks' brains by the PC crowd. How would you like to be a parent of a black child, attempting to instill a hard-work-pays-off attitude in them, while their "protectors" hand them loser excuses, in constant fashion? If you fail, then it's not your fault, is the message. It's white racism. That's why you failed.  And it is a debilitating, crippling crutch for a whole culture to imbibe and it inevitably relegates them to the basement of life.

I'm a conservative BECAUSE I care for the poor and downtrodden.

I am a conservative BECAUSE I know slavery to be a blight on our history, and I care about my black brothers and sisters.

This UM episode is so ridiculous, so sad.

I would have said ok, fine, you football players are on scholarship, you don't show up, you lose it.

I would have called their bluff. And suffered the same fate. Clearly, a no win situation for white college administrators, and blacks. You liberals created this, and though it is so fitting that it should hit you upside your heads,  as usual, you end up harming precisely those you profess to care about. Those whom you coddle, you weaken. It's just the way things are.

KEYSTONE XL NIXED BY OBAMA, REVEALS TRUE AGENDA.

Yesterday Barack Obama made it official that Canadian crude will continue to cross our borders on trucks and trains, and THEN it will traverse our country's mid-section via pipeline. Because he could.

You can read the entire speech HERE. Obama's only correct statement in the speech involved the fact that the economy wouldn't gain a heck of a lot of jobs. That it had become a largely symbolic issue, and that the price of crude would be affected very little. I agree with this, but when prices spike again, and they will, will we not have squandered yet another opportunity to prepare to protect our independence as relates to energy? Yet another kick-the-can moment, juxtaposed with a flourish of dire rhetoric about the urgency involved in combating global warming, which Obama laughably claims to be an existential threat. No one actually believes that crap anymore. It is now Kabuki theater in the extreme.

So what does all this really mean? Aside from this:

There are several things going on here, very revealing, as to what Obama’s goals actually were, from the beginning. When Rush says “Obama has succeeded” this is what he means.

First, private-sector unions have now been officially tossed under the bus. Simply put, they've been outbid. Their power has waned in proportion to their shrinking numbers and corresponding ability to contribute the bucks. Public-sector unions have conversely grown, in numbers and ability to contribute. Public-sector unions don’t care about the pipeline.

More importantly the environmental lobby is no longer focussed on the environment, and the issue of Keystone proves it. It is clearly better for the environment if the Canadian oil were to be piped instead of trucked and trained across the border. Yet huge amounts of donations to the Democratic Party were at stake here. It’s not just Tom Steyer.

The environmental lobby used to be funded by a few hippie tree-huggers. Thus for many years it was not a financial juggernaut worthy of ditching private sector union largesse, shrinking though it may be. But others, none of whom had the environment in mind, saw the potential for using the hippies for their own aims. 

So, today’s environmental lobby has metastasized into a combination of legitimate, large corporations feeding at the federal trough, buying favors and protection, and foreign/domestic enemies of capitalism-who have big bucks. As to the former, think Warren Buffet, Solyndra, General Motors, the Ford Foundation etc. The latter, George Soros and many more obscure donors, who share his globalist aims.

More ominously still, this anti-capitalist, anti-American cabal has been joined by nation-states who have much to gain from America’s demise, and if not her demise then much to gain from controlling American politics. We know this because of what we now know about the Clinton Foundation.

No, Keystone, for the reason that the crude will get into the world markets anyway, had very little to do with the economy, it was symbolic, a dog whistle indication from the left that we are for sale. Bring on the bucks. What else might you want to purchase while you are in the store?

The environmental lobby is no longer about the environment, it’s about the neutering and harnessing of American capitalism. This is why Hillary could come out against Keystone a week ago, with impunity. This is the stance that gets the bucks. Private-sector union money? Who needs it anymore? The green money is, well, not just greener, there’s just so much more of it available.

And none of this could have been done without first the vilification and now the legal criminalization of CARBON DIOXIDE. An odorless, harmless gas essential, as a matter of fact, for flourishing life on Earth.

This is the mechanism by which the FUNDAMENTAL TRANSFORMATION OF AMERICA has occurred.

Amazing how far we’ve come.

REDSKINS NAME WARS

THE ONLY KIND OF WAR LIBERALS WILL FIGHT TO WIN.

My grandfather was a Redskins fan. My father was a Redskins fan. So am I. My son has season tickets, and I saw my grandson (8 years old) wearing a Redskins Jersey only last week. 

From the Redskins' theme song:

Hail to the Redskins, hail victory
Braves on the warpath
Fight for old DC.....

It's pretty clear the R word has become the new N word, no?

Notice in the words above, taken from the Redskins' fight song, the word "braves". Plural of "brave". Hmmm...does it seem like the intent here is to assault sensibilities or exalt an admired people?

Anyone who has played sports knows that it is indeed serious business. Even at the high school and college levels, it's war. It's intense competition. Concussions, broken bones, lacerations, teeth knocked out....it's war. 

So naturally the words "fight", "warpath", and "victory", have a place in such an arena. Perhaps these are the words that assault liberal sensibilities as much as "Redskins" considering the pacifist bent of most on the left. This is why the Chicago Blackhawks, Atlanta Braves, Cleveland Indians, and numerous others need to take heed.

The common justification for wanting to eradicate the R word usually centers around a supposed offense to the sensibilities of Indians, oh, I'm sorry, I mean Native Americans. (Notice how we can't even say Indians any more, slippery slope, anyone?)

But there are only a few obscure tribes that are among those bringing legal challenges to the use of the name. Many Native Americans see no problem with the name, and many are Redskin fans because of the name.

So just who is spearheading (pun intended) the war on the Redskins name? A few conservatives, but the vast majority are of the liberal political persuasion. Blacks? Well no, it seems the NAACP has come out for a ban on the trademark, but most rank and file blacks are neutral, except those who live in DC, and they happen to be vocal in their opposition to eliminating the name from the lexicon.

Liberalism is clearly a failed ideology. It is a house of cards, and has been for some time. Liberals have had to maintain a belief that it is acceptable to kill a fetus in the womb, while simultaneously believing that capital punishment is inhumane. This is a seriously intense psychological high-wire act for their little brains. 

Sanity is further jeopardized, for a liberal, merely by the opening of a history book. Nearly everything liberals advocate today has in the past led to abject poverty, subjugation, and mass genocide, so history has to be constantly revised for them to maintain a sense of psychological equilibrium, teetering, as they always are, on the edge of mental well-being. 

Such a tenuous hold on reality involves not only revised history, but a lot of rationalizing, and requires constant affirmation of their failed beliefs by the purveyance of lies which prop up their failed ideology, and that explains the role of today's Main Stream Media.

Another coping mechanism involves needless meddling into others' affairs, that is, impugning the words and actions of others in order to prop themselves up, by bringing others down. Examples abound. Liberals must maintain the moral high-ground in order for their beliefs to prevail, and to maintain the tremendous social and psychological trappings that belonging to the liberal tribe (choice of word "tribe" intentional) affords them.

Then there are words. Words they'd like to eliminate from the lexicon, so that the assault by events which refute their beliefs may be thwarted. Thus political correctness. It's a matter of survival.

So the war on the Redskins name is a liberal thing. It's born of a severe psychological need on the part of liberals to keep their sanity, and it's largely a tactic to put others down. As a matter of mental balance, liberals must maintain the moral high-ground. Make no mistake, they are the caring ones, and you are the rubes.

The war over the Redskins name is a war alright, and for the left it's an existential war, so don't look for liberals to give up on their war on the word "Redskins". It's a tribal thing, and indicative of how fragile they are in this day and time. It's a sign of weakness. 

They may indeed win this war, if people don't realize the stakes here. Even Cowboys fans.

OBAMA PLANNING FOR DOGFIGHTS WITH RUSSIAN PLANES? OR SOMEONE ELSE'S?

Why is the Obama administration bringing F15C Eagles to Turkey?

F15C's have a singular purpose. They are rigged for air to air combat, and ISIS has no air force.

Knowing Obama, this controversial move is meant merely to send a message. He's not really planning to engage Russian jets over Syria, to protect ISIS, is he?

The whole story is HERE. Perhaps the dog fighters are there to help protect Turkish air space from Syrian air incursions, maybe even to serve as escorts for American bombing missions against ISIS positions.

But once again, knowing what we know about our President, we must consider all angles, even ones so nefarious as to boggle the mind.

Has US intelligence gotten wind of a pending strike on Iran by Israel, and these particular implements have been positioned in Turkey to focus the mind of Benjamin Netanyahu?

Are they there so that they could possibly be deployed against Israeli planes it is feared will soon attack Iran? Obama's too chicken to start WW3 with the Russians, but it is not beyond him to want to deter Israel, in violent fashion, and he may see this as his opportunity to do so. The perfect head-fake, no?

I wouldn't put it past this President. Would you?

GOP DEBATES..WHERE ARE WE HEADED?

Now that the Republican candidates have joined forces to fight back against bias in the media, it may be useful to ponder where this ends up.

NBC, the parent of CNBC, has been put on the defensive, as have most leftist media outlets, left-leaning pundits, and establishment GOP entities, including the RNC.

I don't profess to know where this is heading, but I know where it should go. The candidates merely need to settle on a format, a venue, choose the moderator(s) and put the broadcast rights up for bid.

Donate the proceeds to charity, or delve it up for the candidates' campaigns? Not sure this matters, just food for thought.

DOWNED RUSSIAN LINER....WHAT WILL PUTIN DO?

The downing of the Russian commercial airliner yesterday has the world once again on edge. ISIS immediately claimed responsibility, but the consensus is that we should consider the source, and proceed with caution. At least, that is how the civilized Western World would want everyone to proceed.

Great discussion going on over at CONSERVATIVE TREEHOUSE.

Russia has stated officially that they don't believe the downing to be a terrorist attack. Apparently some in the Russian government think they should be "civilized", just like the West. The downing of this flight is eerily similar to the TWA flight 800 crash on July 17, 1996, over Long Island NY. One perhaps crucial difference, TWA 800 was at around 13,000 ft at the time of its demise, clearly within range of a shoulder-fired missile, and the Russian liner had reached 30,000 ft, out of range of a Manpad or other shoulder-fired missiles.

There seems to be some evidence that it wasn't terrorism at all, but some sort of mechanical failure. But even if it turns out there's proof of mechanical failure, who will be able to say with certainty the weak point wasn't tampered with at the Russian plane's point of departure, in Sharm-El-Sheik, in the Egyptian Sinai?

We'll see, but none of this discussion, whether it was or wasn't terrorism, will matter as to the question "What will Putin do?" Western sensibilities Vlad possesses not, so he will soon begin to see he must do something in response, because he must realize that, just like TWA 800, the terrorism theories will never go away.

ISIS has taken credit, or as the case may be, wants the blame. Vladimir Putin thinks differently than Barack Obama (as my daughter would say, DUH!) and he won't dawdle.

I'm betting the response will have a decided retaliatory, punitive flavor, unabashedly framed as such, and I'm probably going to enjoy it immensely.