Does Obama’s interview about Israel reveal a president who has finally broken free of reality?

Young Obama Young Bibi and Bib NetanyahuMano a mano, I’d bet on Netanyahu against Obama every time.  Nation to nation, though, Bibi has the misfortune to be facing off against a spoiled, Leftist, anti-Israel, pot-smoking adolescent who nevertheless controls the world’s greatest military and economic power.  I’m still betting on the Israelis, but it’s not a no-brainer — especially because Obama appears to have reached his conclusions by ignoring stubborn facts and, instead, substituting data that is entirely unrelated to any facts on the ground.

I bring this up because, although the headlines are about Ukraine, no Jew who cares about Israel can have missed Obama’s truly dreadful interview with Jeffrey Goldberg. In it, he made clear that, as far as he’s concerned, the only thing stopping Middle East peace is Israel’s peculiarly stiff-necked intransigence.

To reach this conclusion, Obama shows that he is as delusional about the Muslim Middle East as he is about the rest of the world.  In Obama’s world, Israelis have no interest in peace.  It is, instead, the Palestinians (who strongly support terrorism, who voted for Hamas when they had the chance, who celebrate Jewish genocide, who have never complied with past “peace” agreements, who openly demand a world without Israel, and who have refused to negotiate without preconditions by which Israel gives up her nationhood) who are chomping at the bit to get to the negotiating table.

Don’t take my word for it about Obama’s twisted view of the Middle East.  After you’ve read his own words, check out John Podhoretz’s masterly deconstruction of Obama’s fantasies — as well as his take on Obama’s threats.  It remains to be seen whether Obama’s fact-free preemptive strike against Israel bear fruit in the complacent media.  (I can’t believe I said that.  Of course they’ll bear fruit.)

Caroline Glick, a strong, logical, fearless voice for conservative Israelis, hitback swiftly, telling Obama that his threats cannot frighten a nation that has seen much, much worse.  She also took the time to expose some of Obama’s more reality-challenged statements.  Sadly, I don’t think anyone in the White House is paying attention to Glick.

I don’t expect the administration to pay attention to a Jew.  The administration likes only deracinated Jews who have replaced obedience to God with obedience to the Democrat party.  But maybe the Obama administration should listen to one of Islam’s most prominent spokes people.  Anjem Choudary is clear about the existential inconsistencies between Islam and the West:


If you don’t recognize Choudary’s name, Jim Hoft fills you in:

Islamic hate preacher Anjem Choudary blamed Lee Rigby’s murder on British foreign policy.

In 2008 Choudary gloated over the Mumbai terrorist attacks.


Anjem Choudary is a British-Pakistani, who lives on social welfare funds and supports jihad. Choudary takes in a reported sum of £25,000 ($37,770) per year from the British welfare program while soldiers earn only $24,000 a year. Something is wrong with the system.

I used the words “delusional,” “fact-free,” and “reality-challenged” to describe Obama’s approach to the Middle East and even included a link to a Washington Post editorial calling his approach to Ukraine a “fantasy.”  Up until this past week, I would simply have said that Obama has long lived in a Leftist bubble, which has guided his practical and moral approach to the world.  Those weren’t delusions, but grave ideological errors.  This past week, though, we are seeing Obama trading in his foul ideological glasses (which distort everything on which they focus) for actual delusional facts.  Has the bubble gotten so thick about him that our president is literally becoming deranged?

Pot can do that to you, so I’ll leave you with the very surprising words that came out of Gov. Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown of California, when asked about  his enthusiasm for legalizing pot in California (emphasis added):

Well, we have medical marijuana, which gets very close to what they have in Colorado and Washington. I’d really like those two states to show us how it’s going to work. The problem with anything, a certain amount is okay, but there is a tendency to go to extremes, and all of a sudden, if there’s advertising and legitimacy, how many people can get stoned and still have a great state or a great nation? World’s pretty dangerous, very competitive. I think we needed to stay alert, if not 24 hours a day, more than some of the pot heads might be able to put together.

Ask Bookworm — the legalized pot edition

Obama smoking potA friend emailed me this question:  “Explain to me the hypocrisy of a nation that denigrates tobacco use while simultaneously legalizing marijuana?”

Silly friend!  It’s very simple really.  If you know the facts, you’ll know that there’s no hypocrisy.  Marijuana is totally different from cigarettes.  Here goes . . . .

Marijuana makes the smoker feel good.  Cigarettes, by contrast, make the smoker feel . . . uh, good.

Okay, ignore that one.  This next one is the real difference:

Cigarettes release a foul stench when smoked.  Marijuana, by contrast, releases . . . uh, a foul stench when smoked.

Hmm.  This is harder than I thought.  Okay, here’s the real reason:

Our totally cool president smoked reefers.  By contrast, our totally cool president never . . . oh, wait.  Never mind.  He also smoked cigarettes.

Let’s just ignore those irrelevancies.  This is the real reason behind the different treatment:

Second hand marijuana smoke merely makes your clothes smell.  By contrast, second hand cigarette smoke . . . uh, merely makes your clothes smell.

Wait!  Wait.  I think I’ve got it:

Cigarette smoke causes all sorts of lung problems and cancers.  By contrast, marijuana has no known health . . . oh, forget that.  Actually, although studies have been limited, it turns out that marijuana has a lot of negative health effects, especially in young people’s developing brains.

You want to know the honest-to-God truth about the difference between marijuana and tobacco?  Here it is:

Although cigarette smoking gives people a pleasant buzz, it doesn’t impair their cognitive functions.  When it comes to marijuana, the whole purpose is to impair cognitive functions.  (Just think about whether you’d rather get in a car driven by a smoker or a stoner.)  When a political party is working hard to undermine a country’s social and economic strength, there’s nothing better than having on hand a true opiate of the masses, especially one that leaves the young generation sufficiently unambitious (which is arguably pot’s most deleterious effect) not to care about the fact that their future is vanishing before their eyes.

The other reason is that cigarettes have been around long enough that their production is a corporate endeavor.  Leftists hate corporations.  The best way to kill the Leftist love affair with marijuana is for Big Tobacco to start producing it and take over the market.

If I had my druthers, nobody would smoke anything.  I hate the smell of the stuff — all of it, whether cigarettes or pot or cigars or car exhaust — especially when it infiltrates my clothes and my hair.  When I lived in England, after a night out I’d always shower off from head to toe to get rid of the ubiquitous smoke smell, and that was true even in the depths of winter when we had no hot water at 3 a.m.  I hate cold showers, but I hate the smell of smoke even more.  That smoke spreads beyond the smokers person is a good reason for following the old-fashioned approach of having smokers’ cars in trains or in private clubs, but it’s absolutely no reason to demonize one kind of smoke while lavishing love on another.

Washington’s stoners celebrate the triumph of dishonest debate and public misinformation

A lot of people who showed up at the polls this past November actually had very parochial concerns.  They weren’t worried about the economy, or national security, or illegal immigration.  Blacks were concerned with racial solidarity, unions were concerned about union strength (and to hell with the economy on which that strength feeds), gays and other Progressives wanted gay marriage, and young people and stoners were concerned about getting stoned.  Almost all of these parochial issue voters also support Obama.

The stoner vote for Obama was a bit ironic, because it ignored the fact that the Obama administration has a nasty record when it comes to marijuana prosecutions.  As far as stoners were concerned, Obama is young, hip, and was once a stoner himself.

In Washington, having successfully made marijuana legal at a state level (although it’s still illegal under federal law), those who supported this new policy had a smoke-infused party:

The crowds of happy people lighting joints under Seattle’s Space Needle early Thursday morning with nary a police officer in sight bespoke the new reality: Marijuana is legal under Washington state law.

Hundreds gathered at Seattle Center for a New Year‘s Eve-style countdown to 12 a.m., when the legalization measure passed by voters last month took effect. When the clock struck, they cheered and sparked up in unison.

A few dozen people gathered on a sidewalk outside the north Seattle headquarters of the annual Hempfest celebration and did the same, offering joints to reporters and blowing smoke into television news cameras.

“I feel like a kid in a candy store!” shouted Hempfest volunteer Darby Hageman. “It’s all becoming real now!”


“This is a big day because all our lives we’ve been living under the iron curtain of prohibition,” said Hempfest director Vivian McPeak. “The whole world sees that prohibition just took a body blow.”

My personal suspicion is that this must have been the world’s most boring celebration.  Stoners are not known for being able to muster a vast amount of enthusiasm for anything.  Being stoned equals being boring.

In keeping with my small government philosophy, I support legalizing marijuana for adult use.  I strongly agree, though, with Steve Crowder that the public debate about marijuana is predicated on a vast amount of misinformation and outright lies.  Marijuana is a dangerous and damaging drug, one that interferes with adolescent brain development and contributes to myriad ills in adults who use it regularly. In other words, Americans’ increasingly strong support for its legalization doesn’t result from a belief in a free society and individualism but, instead, from massive amounts of magical thinking about the drug’s supposed harmlessness.

Of course, the fundamental nature of our supposedly “information rich” society is dishonest debate.  My pet peeve is the debate about abortion, which the Left approaches as if we’re still in a pre-Roe v. Wade world, one in which single motherhood would result in a woman being ostracized, bastardy would taint a child’s life forever, and birth control options were limited to nil.  Americans can have an honest debate about abortion only if we recognize that the world didn’t stop in 1955.  The same holds true for the gun debate, with the MSM (which still controls the loudest bully pulpit in America) pretending that guns have no useful purpose and regularly recycling the canard that America is the most deadly society in the Western world.

It is ironic that, as Americans have more information available to them than ever before in human history, they are prone to believing fallacies as people ever were.  Proof is irrelevant when people are happy with their belief system.

Did Obama have a “coke nail” at Occidental?

Unlike Bill Clinton, Barack Obama has admitted that he did drugs when he was young:

In the book [Dreams from My Father], Obama acknowledges that he used cocaine as a high school student but rejected heroin. “Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it. Not smack, though,” he says.

We know from David Maraniss’ Choom Gang reports that Obama didn’t just flirt with pot. Instead, he was a serious stoner in high school.  As far as I know, though, no reporter has tied Obama to long-term cocaine use.  Obama’s own statement — “maybe a little blow when you could afford it” — implies that his contacts with cocaine were few and far between.  The distinction between chronic pot and chronic cocaine use matters because, while most adult Americans are fairly sanguine about marijuana, the same cannot be said about cocaine.  The former is viewed as a “soft” drug; the latter is not.

I wonder, though, if Obama was as honest about his cocaine use as he could have been.  I was watching The Choice 2012, a PBS Frontline production that provides side-by-side biographies of Romney and Obama.  I won’t comment on the show’s merits, although I found it dismaying, as always, to see that on this taxpayer-subsidized show, the only experts the producers interviewed came from left of center publications.  Considering that inherent bias, however, the show was fairly even-handed.

Anyway, TV being a visual medium, when it came to discussing Obama’s Occidental College years, Frontline included a lot of photographs.  I either hadn’t seen the photographs before, or I hadn’t seen them on a large screen, HD television.  Take this photo, for example:

Superficially, at least on my ordinary computer screen, it shows Obama hanging with a friend, Hasan Chandoo, back in 1981.  (Chandoo, incidentally, is the friend with whom he traveled to Pakistan back in 1981, a trip Obama assiduously avoids discussing.)

Seen on a widescreen, HD TV, however, there’s something very interesting about the photograph:

Do you notice that Obama’s thumb and pointer finger have unusually long nails, while the other nails on his left hand are cropped close? I didn’t notice this fact because I was looking for dirt on Obama. I noticed it because I think long fingernails on men are gross. (Sorry, guys. If it’s any consolation, I don’t much like long fingernails on women either.)

Nor would I have thought about those two icky fingernails if I hadn’t just the week before read a Daily Mail squiblet questioning whether Carrie Fisher displayed “coke nails” in a scene from Return of the Jedi, a film she made when she was deep into her cocaine habit:

An overeager Reddit user has observed that the actress, best known for her portrayal of Princess Leia in the original Star Wars trilogy, appears to have an overgrown ‘coke nail’ on both hands.

The ‘coke nail’ is grown longer than the other nails for cocaine addicts to scoop drugs quickly instead of racking up lines, and is considered to be for addicts or ‘fiends on the go’.

(Coke nails, incidentally, are often on the pinkie finger, but the specific nail really depends on the user’s preference.)

I’ll be the first to admit that, on the information now available, there is absolutely no way to prove whether Obama used serious amounts of cocaine at Occidental. Nevertheless, given that he has admitted in a half-hearted way to using cocaine in high school, and given that the two over-grown nails on his left hand look remarkably like “coke nails,” it is interesting to speculate whether he has been honest about his college drug use.  It’s equally possible that “Obama the chameleon” was playing around with a tough-guy persona, or that he just had haphazard personal hygiene.  None of the possibilities are very flattering to the man occupying America’s White House.

Previously undiscovered video of Obama’s high school years

(I’m sure someone already made this little visual joke back in May, when Maraniss’ book first came out but having just watched Fast Times at Ridgemont High for the first time in decades, I couldn’t resist.)

Another Obama idea was roof hits. “When they were chooming in a car, all the windows had to be rolled up so no smoke blew out and went to waste,” Maraniss writes. “When the pot was gone, they tilted their heads back and sucked in the last bit of smoke from the ceiling.”

Better parenting through pot. Really?

The sentiments in the article claiming pot is a parenting panacea aren’t that surprising.  Pot users have always touted marijuana’s benefits in the alternative press.  What’s a little surprising about this article, which claims that one man became an infinitely better parent because of his pot use, is that the New York Times published it.

The one fallacy in the article, of course, is the author’s belief that everyone around him is as happy as he is.  One of the things pot does to its users is to give them an inflated sense of their own wisdom and wonderfulness.

I was 14 when a friend told me about the experience that put her off put forever — and that put me off too.  She and a friend had gotten together and smoked some joints.  With their minds expanded by drug use, they started to explore the wonderful mysteries of the universe and the meaning of life.  Soon, they had put together a comprehensive unified theory.  They were so excited by their brilliance (if you can be both lethargic and excited) that they decided to tape-record their conversation for posterity’s sake.

The next day my friend played back the tape recording and discovered this:  “So . . . it’s like . . . everything is real . . . you know?  Like . . . we’re all . . . one . . . with each other.  We’re . . . like . . . universal . . . uh, uh . . . friends.”  And so on, for almost thirty minutes.  Pot hadn’t expand their minds; it had just expanded their egos.

All I know as the parent of young ‘uns who are, sadly, at the age when all their peers are starting to use pot, is that pot use in young people has permanent negative effects on their brains.  After that, everything else about the stuff becomes irrelevant.

Presidential pot trajectory

1988:  A serial liar, bomber, drug dealer, and criminal claims, without any corroborating evidence, that he sold pot to Vice Presidential candidate Dan Quayle.  Despite these allegations (which were almost certainly false), the Bush-Quayle ticket wins.

1992:  Governor William Jefferson Clinton contends that, while he put a joint to his lips and allow smoke into his mouth, he didn’t inhale.  Despite this risible claim (although I do believe that he doesn’t like pot, because not everyone does), Gov. Clinton wins the presidential election.

2008:  Senator Barack Hussein Obama is presented to the American people as the second coming of Christ, only with fewer flaws than Christ himself had.  Unsurprisingly, he wins the presidential election.

2012:  President Barack Hussein Obama is revealed to have been such a serious pot smoker in his youth that, in his high school yearbook, he thanks his pot friends and his dealer:

Barry popularized the concept of “roof hits”: when they were chooming in the car all the windows had to be rolled up so no smoke blew out and went to waste; when the pot was gone, they tilted their heads back and sucked in the last bit of smoke from the ceiling.


Barry also had a knack for interceptions. When a joint was making the rounds, he often elbowed his way in, out of turn, shouted “Intercepted!,” and took an extra hit. No one seemed to mind.


He was a long-haired haole hippie who worked at the Mama Mia Pizza Parlor not far from Punahou and lived in a dilapidated bus in an abandoned warehouse. … According to Topolinski, Ray the dealer was “freakin’ scary.” Many years later they learned that he had been killed with a ball-peen hammer by a scorned gay lover. But at the time he was useful because of his ability to “score quality weed.”

In another section of the [senior] yearbook, students were given a block of space to express thanks and define their high school experience. … Nestled below [Obama’s] photographs was one odd line of gratitude: “Thanks Tut, Gramps, Choom Gang, and Ray for all the good times.” … A hippie drug-dealer made his acknowledgments; his own mother did not.

These well-sourced claims about Obama are more serious than unsubstantiated allegations against Quayle or risible excuses by Clinton. The question, of course, is whether they will matter as little as the other candidates’ brushes with claims about drug use mattered, or if yet another insight into Obama’s shady, thoughtless, law-breaking, shadowy past will affect how voters view our President.

Californians: Vote a straight Republican ticket

My friend Sally Zelikovsky says it in the clearest words possible:  Unless conservatives in California vote for the Republicans, we will have a Sacramento government made up entirely of San Francisco Democrats.  If that horrible outcome sounds painfully obvious to you, you don’t know California.

There are two dynamics in California that are a problem.  First, conservatives don’t like the Republican candidates.  (They’re right not to.  Fiorina is lovely — and may she get well soon — but the others are “eh” at best.)  This means California conservatives may be tempted to (a) sit this one out or (b) vote for a write-in or minor candidate.  Those are luxuries of ordinary elections, though.  In California, this election is not about a favored conservative candidate winning; it’s about making sure the Democratic candidate loses.  And the only way to do that is with vast numbers of votes for the Republican, even if that requires some nose holding.

The other dynamic is Prop. 19, the initiative to legalize marijuana.  Have you wondered by George Soros is promoting it?  Do you think George Soros gives a flying whatsit about whether Californians have legal marijuana?  I can assure you that he doesn’t.  But he knows one group that does care a great deal, and it’s a group that votes reliably Democrat:  young people.  Yup.  Prop. 19 is a “get out the youthful Democrat vote” effort.  This means that, while most young people around America are sitting out this election, there is a very good chance that California’s young people will be heading to the polls.

So if you’re a Californian, and you have memories, increasingly faint memories, of a true Golden State, VOTE and VOTE REPUBLICAN.

Cross-posted at Right Wing News

The problem with the Left is that they’ve been inhaling

I’m too much of a self-control freak ever to have been attracted to recreational drugs (or even alcohol, for that matter).  Add to that the fact that my first childhood memories involve the Haight-Ashbury after the Summer of Love fell apart, when the neighborhood had turned into one giant, drug-ridden tenderloin district, and you’ll appreciate that I have little patience for drug use.  I’m especially hostile to marijuana, because its users commit the ultimate sin — they become boring.  Indeed, I remember one of our family friends, who had been a total hippie in the 60s and 70s who turned her back on the whole scene precisely because that fact — marijuana’s profound boringness — was shoved in her face.

It seems that, one day, she and a friend got seriously stoned and started having a very important and meaningful conversation about world peace and other exciting subjects.  So profound were their insights that they determined to preserve them for posterity.  To that end, they dug out her tape recorder, hit the record button, and let themselves talk.  The next day, play-back revealed what really happened:  “Man . . . that is so, like, deep, you know?  ‘Cause, like, if you do that, everybody would have a giant love fest, you know?  Yeah.  .  . .  Awesome.  . . . Totally . . . awesome.”  After realizing that she had recorded over an hour of this mindless crap, she swore off pot forever.

I thought of my friend’s long ago experience when I read Leigh Scott’s brilliant insight about the Left:  They’re all stoned.  As Scott explains:

Stoners always think that they are smarter than they really are. Copious amounts of THC trick the brain into thinking that the most banal thought is somehow a stroke of genius. Just watch a bunch of stoners debate philosophy and metaphysics. The most ridiculous comments take on the gravitas of a Stephen Hawking thesis. Morons think that they are Michio Kaku after a towering bong hit.

Stoners live for the moment. They are all about feelings, not facts. They possess a detached sense of cause and effect.

That rather perfectly sums up both the stoner and the liberal world view.  You should definitely read the whole thing.

Cause, meet Effect (Volume, I dunno, a million?)

There’s something charmingly naive about the way in which the Leftiers amongst us are constantly surprised by the way in which Effect resolutely follows on Cause. This time, the unexpected (for them) surprise is that, if you legalize marijuana for medicinal purposes, more people will grow more of it:

There is probably no marijuana-friendlier place in the country than here in Mendocino County, where plants can grow more than 15 feet high, medical marijuana clubs adopt stretches of highway, and the sticky, sweet aroma of cannabis fills this city’s streets during the autumn harvest.

Lately, however, residents of Mendocino County, like those in other parts of California, are wondering if the state’s embrace of marijuana for medicinal purposes has gone too far.

Medical marijuana was legalized under state law by California voters in 1996, and since then 11 other states have followed, even though federal law still bans the sale of any marijuana. But some frustrated residents and law enforcement officials say the California law has increasingly and unintentionally provided legal cover for large-scale marijuana growers — and the problems such big-money operations can attract.

As for me, I’m libertarian enough to feel that, if alcohol is legal, marijuana should be too, subject to the same legal standards: don’t smoke and drink, committing a crime while stoned is no defense, and you’re really boring when you’re stoned. Okay, the last isn’t a legal standard, but it should be.

I bring this story to your attention, not to debate marijuana legalization, but simply to point out the way in which Progressives, like babies who are perpetually surprised by peek-a-boo, are repeatedly wigged out by the obvious consequences of their actions.

(Thinking about this post, maybe I should have given it a title that’s an homage to Gomer Pyle, a show I regret to say I watched avidly as a child: “Sur-prahz, sur-prahz, sur-prahz.”)