Get PJ Media on your Apple

Roger L. Simon

Why Obama Order to Shoot Down Israeli Jets Most Likely Untrue

March 1st, 2015 - 3:06 pm

While anything is possible in the ongoing struggle between the Obama administration and the state of Israel, a high-level military source told PJ Media that the allegation Obama warned Israel that if the Israeli air force attacked Iran nuclear installations, US jets would shoot down the Israelis is not likely. An Israeli attack was supposedly imminent. More likely the report, which emerged from Kuwait, is disinformation timed to discredit Prime Minister Netanyahu and make him seem a warmonger in advance of his address to Congress Tuesday.

The source stated that, since 2008, it was no longer possible for the US to intercept Israeli jets flying over Southern Iraq, the normal route to Iran. The US simply does not have the facilities in place anymore and, if it were to get them, the “spin up” would be obvious to almost everyone, making it ineffective.  Moreover, there have been many reports that Saudi Arabia has agreed to let the Israelis fly over their territory if they attacked Iran, with US interception all the more difficult.

Still further, the source noted, it would be unclear if US air force personnel would even agree to attack their Israeli colleagues, some of whom they will have trained with.  On top of that, the Israelis are often more experienced fighter pilots.  The ones chosen to attack Iranian nuclear installations would undoubtedly be an elite team.

A more practical way to stop an Israeli attack would be for the administration to alert the Iranians in advance, something it could do without the knowledge of the Pentagon, the source said.  He also added, though, that no doubt the Israelis had already thought of that and factored it in.

More importantly, newly retired Israeli chief-of-staff Benny Gantz just told Arutz Sheva that such an attack never happened.

 

The New New New New Anti-Semitism

February 26th, 2015 - 3:40 pm

doorbell_jewish_star_mobile_2-26-15-2

Prostitution may be the world’s oldest profession, but anti-Semitism is probably the world’s oldest bigotry. It’s come and gone and come and gone and then come and gone again since the days of the pharaohs.

Well, maybe it was never really gone, but, like cancer, it was in remission.  Born at the end of World War II, I was one of those lucky Jews to be born in a period of remission as never before seen, particularly in the United States.

It’s over.  And how it’s over.  You don’t need a poll to tell you that, but a new one just conducted by Trinity College and the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law tells us that 54 percent of self-identified Jewish students in 55 college across the country experienced or witnessed anti-Semitism during the 2013-2014 school year. Whoa! Welcome to the University of Berlin.

At the same time, the David Horowitz Freedom Center has published a “Top 10″ academic institutions for Jew hatred with two Ivies — Columbia and Cornell — at the top.  Representatives of Columbia are already crying foul, but with Rashid Khalidi director of their Middle East studies department, what do they expect?  He’s not exactly an impartial academic, more like Mahmoud Abbas with  better credentials.  (Abbas got his PhD in Moscow for a thesis denying the Holocaust.)

I can understand why the university would be concerned, however.  A lot of  parents, not to mention alumni and donors, are probably a bit perturbed to see the institution at the top of such a list.  More importantly, how about prospective students?  If I were a young person, I wouldn’t want to apply at this point. The idea of Columbia with a judenrein student body, given the overwhelming contribution of Jews to the university’s past, is as tragic as it is hard to fathom.

But then, as we all know, American academia is just part of the global zeitgeist, albeit a shameful and especially dangerous part. And the manner in which Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech before Congress is being treated by the administration gives cover to this kind of behavior, even enhances it. The recent statements of Susan Rice, who has turned into a kind of all-purpose, prevaricating hatchet woman for Barack Obama, are astonishing. The thought that the woman who serially lied to us about Benghazi is condemning Netanyahu while herself about to speak in front of AICPAC gives a new fascist spin to the word “chutzpah.”   The slogan of the German Communist Party in the early thirties was “Nach Hitler Uns!” (After Hitler us).  Perhaps the new slogan for a third Obama term should be “Nach Benghazi Uns!

So is there anything new about the new new new new anti-Semitism?  No, there isn’t.  As usual the Jews are the canaries in the proverbial coal mine.  And you all know what comes next.

(Artwork created using a modified Shutterstock.com image.)

charlie_hebdo_wtc_1-30-15-1

While America’s Ditherer-in-Chief seems to be having difficulties fighting Islamic terrorism or even naming it, an American jury just had no such trouble in what should become a landmark case:

 A U.S. jury on Monday found the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Palestinian Authority liable for supporting terrorist attacks in Israel more than a decade ago that killed dozens of Americans.

Jurors in Manhattan federal court awarded $218.5 million in damages to 10 American families who brought the case, a sum that is automatically tripled to $655.5 million under a 1992 U.S. anti-terrorism law, lawyers for the families said.

The PLO and PA are appealing, of course, and promising they won’t pay up, while concentrating on their own sleazy attempt to bring Israel before the International Criminal Court over Gaza, but there is no question this case opens a powerful new approach to dealing with terror organizations: bankrupt them.  Behind virtually every such organization from ISIS to Hamas is a leadership looking to get rich by exploiting their own people.  Putting them out of business wounds their bloody enterprise, perhaps fatally.

Although heard in a New York court, the case was championed by two Israeli lawyers, Nitsana Darshan-Leitner and her husband, Avi Leitner. These two extraordinary people, through their organization Shurat HaDin (the Israel Law Center), deserve all our support.  True heroes of our time, they are in the process of suing terror organizations throughout the world as well as the financial institutions that enable them, including the Bank of China.

This is their day.  Bravo, Nitsana and Avi.

Is Obama a Manchurian Candidate?

February 17th, 2015 - 10:43 pm

I can’t believe I’m actually asking if Obama is a Manchurian candidate. I am so NOT into conspiracy theories.  For me, it was always  Oswald with the Mannlicher-Carcano in the Texas School Book Depository.  The only conspiracy I ever believed in was the Black Sox Scandal.  And yet… and yet….

No, I still don’t believe it. It’s simply not true.  Barack Obama is not the Manchurian candidate. That’s just an excuse. The only problem is…

He’s worse.  He’s far worse.  Barack Obama doesn’t have to be a Manchurian candidate.  He can and is doing more damage without being one.  A Manchurian candidate could be exposed (yes, and possibly could not).  Barack Obama doesn’t need that.  He and the media and the brainwashed public that elected him are destroying our country (and the West) all by themselves.  They don’t need any secret conspirators in the back room.  They’re all there in public view. And how.

Obamacare and the sabotaging of the immigration system were bad enough, but they are absolutely trivial compared to what is going on now.  We have the next thing to a jihadist in the White House.  From the inability to name Islamic terrorists as Islamic, to the failure to name Jews as the objects of homicidal anti-Semitism at a kosher market, to the complete omission of the word Christian when 21 Christians have their heads cut off (simultaneously!) for being Christian, we have in the Oval Office not only the worst president in the history of our country, we have the worst person to be president.

And now he is opening the door to a huge number of Syrian refugees, who knows how many of whom may be members of ISIS, al Qaeda or some group we haven’t even heard of yet. If I were a Christian or a Jew or even some sort of wishy-washy Muslim, I’d make sure your door was locked at night and you had exercised your Second Amendment rights.

And if this weren’t enough, Obama is colluding with the Iranian ayatollahs as if he were an Shiite imam, not only to help them get nuclear weapons, but to form a permanent alliance with the United States against the Sunni world.  How insane is that! (As a side issue, answer this question: What is more important  – whether Iran gets the bomb or whether Bibi Netanyahu speaks in front of Congress? Absolutely stupid question, isn’t it? Only our administration thinks it’s the latter.)

I have to say I’m flabbergasted.  I never thought I’d be living in times like this, even though as a boy I saw the Auschwitz tattoos on the arms of the nurses in my father’s medical office. But what we’re seeing on the news now is just as horrifying.

I wish I knew what to do, because convincing Obama to act is a double-edged sword.  He is a horrible person to be a commander-in-chief and to put our troops in his hands is an awful thing to do to them. He will undoubtedly pull the rug out from under them just at the wrong moment.  And they certainly know it.  How could they not?

So what do we do?  Maybe hunker down and hope we make it through to 2016 with the right result.  It’ll be a long slog, and a miserable one, but if we’re lucky, maybe Bill Clinton, of all people, will save us.

 

Wonderful Copenhagen: Lessons for 2016

February 14th, 2015 - 9:42 pm
DENMARK SHOOTING

Emergency services gather outside a venue after shots were fired where an event titled “Art, blasphemy and the freedom of expression” was being held in Copenhagen, Saturday, Feb. 14, 2015. (AP Photo/Polfoto, Janus Engel)

If this is Tuesday, it must be… Belgium… oops, Denmark. Sorry, Belgium was last week.  It was Copenhagen this time under jihadist attack… scratch that again… I meant “random violence.”  Is that correct, Mr. President?  A few weeks ago, it was some “folks at a deli” in Paris, now it’s some “folks standing in front of a synagogue” in Cope.  Koinky-dinky, as the kids say. What next?

Oh, no.. Don’t tell me ISIS has got us surrounded in Anbar?  Sorry, I meant ISIL.  I thought they were the jayvee team.  Oh, right, they’re “on the defensive”  and Congress has an ““extraordinary opportunity.”

That’s fine then. Don’t be upset, you “progressives” at the Huffington Post and Vox.  This is just a police matter — like parking tickets or, at worst, running a red light. All this 1938 talk is a bunch of nonsense from wingnuts.  History never repeats itself except, as Marx told us, as farce.  Chairman Barack’s got it all handled.  He’s holding a conference on “extremism.”  And he has a new pen pal.  No, it’s not Netanyahu.

Okay, enough of this.  The “liberals” around us are hopeless useful idiots who wouldn’t know what was happening to them after two years in the Warsaw Ghetto. Maybe Marx was right about the farce.

But we don’t have the luxury.  With each passing day it becomes increasingly clear we are in a huge war of civilizations.  This is a bigger deal than anything since WWII.  Nothing could be more obvious.   That means 2016 is about as serious as it gets.  We need our Churchill fast, but in searching for him (or her) we cannot afford a bloodletting.  We have to treat this as a wartime situation because it is.

Frankly, I haven’t seen a single candidate do that yet. I’m looking for that person.  Everything else is secondary or tertiary.  They’re all irrelevant, even a distraction at this point, if we don’t win the war.  And don’t think we can’t lose.  Our technology is only a small advantage and has already been ripped off and used against us.  The will to win is far more important and our will is next to non-existent, especially at the top.  And as everyone knows, or should, we have almost lost twice before.  It took a Charles Martel at Tours to beat back Islam and, much later, the battle at the Gates of Vienna.  But don’t expect much help at Vienna this time. News from Austria is not great, where Muslims already outnumber Catholics in Vienna schools.  That gates are open.  And if Obama gives Iran the bomb, who needs gates?

So we need somebody relatively fast and somebody who, above all, is a great commander-in-chief.  I’ve said this several times before and will keep saying it until he or she is in place. Moreover, by focusing on winning the war, Republicans will have the best possible chance of winning the election.  The country will be with us.  The average American, smarter than the elites, realizes the danger of losing. They care about their country unambivalently.  But we have to keep up the flow of information to them. We have to inspire them. We cannot stop.  We cannot give up.  We have everything to lose.

#JewishLivesMatter

February 10th, 2015 - 9:50 pm
France Europe Arming Police

Elite police officers take position outside the kosher market where four hostages were killed and shortly before Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to the site, in Paris. (AP Photo/Francois Mori.)

Thought experiment: What if a white racist with a submachine gun broke into a convenience store in South Central Los Angeles, grabbed seven or eight African Americans who were shopping (maybe there was one Korean) as hostages for the release of some other white racists and then, when attacked, started spewing the N-word while shooting up the place, killing three or four of the African Americans and wounding three or four others, one or two critically.

How would President Obama react?

Do you think he would say there was something racial about the obscene incident?  Damn right he would — and he should.  In fact, he would do it forcefully and immediately.  After all, when Trayvon Martin died in far more ambiguous circumstances, he was quick to jump in, identifying with the 17 year old who would resemble, Obama said, his own son if he had one.

Now consider what our president said about the events at the Hyper Cacher market in Paris on January 9 in a new interview with Vox.com: “It is entirely legitimate for the American people to be deeply concerned when you’ve got a bunch of violent, vicious zealots who behead people or randomly shoot a bunch of folks in a deli in Paris.”

“[V]icious zealots… randomly shoot a bunch of folks in a deli”?  That’s the way the way the president of the United States describes a dedicated jihadist murdering four Jews in a kosher market in one of the oldest and largest Jewish neighborhoods in Paris, the day after other jihadists shot up the Charlie Hebdo offices, killing even more people? No Jews, no jihadist, just more “random” violence, as if Ahmedy Coulibaly, the man who murdered the four Jews and had pledged allegiance to the Islamic State, just stumbled into a kosher deli by accident with a submachine gun while on the way to Cafe de Flore for a cognac.

Now hold on, Simon.  You’re not about to call the president of the United States an antisemite, are you?  (Not yet.  Give me a moment.) Inevitably some in the media found these remarks by the president a bit disturbing and queried Jen Psaki at State and White House press secretary Josh Earnest.

Question: Does the administration really believe that the victims of this attack were not singled out because they were of a particular faith?

Psaki: Well, as you know, I believe if I remember the victims specifically there were not all victims of one background or one nationality so I think what they mean by that is, I don’t know that they spoke to the targeting of the grocery store or that specifically but the individuals who were impacted.

Question: They weren’t killed because they were in a Jewish deli though, they were in a kosher deli?

Earnest: John, these individuals were not targeted by name. This is the point.

Question: Not by name, but by religion, were they not?

Earnest: Well, John, there were people other than just Jews who were in that deli.

Yes, one of about twenty, but only the Jews were killed and the killer was there with the sole objective of killing Jews. He even said so himself before he shot them. Why do Psaki and Earnest make such outrageous and morally despicable statements?  Who tells them to do it? To call Psaki and Earnest whores is an insult to prostitutes. Ms. Psaki is doing an excellent job of upholding the State Department’s long-time reputation for antisemitism.  As for Mr. Earnest, that he could say what he did with a straight face makes him about as reprehensible a human being as you could find. I say “about” because nothing could top his boss.

If you’re asking me whether I think the president’s an antisemite, why don’t I put it this way.  Barack Obama — despite a claque of Jewish advisers (Axelrod, Lew, Emanuel, etc. I wonder how they felt when they heard this latest round) — appears to have a very complicated, almost bizarre reaction to Jews.  Maybe it’s a weird competition between oppressed groups — blacks and Jews — or more of his not-so-masked appreciation of (and defensiveness about) all things Islamic.

And, yes, he clearly can’t deal with Benjamin Netanyahu, whose natural existential concern for his country regarding Iranian nuclear weapons is disruptive of the president’s desire to be seen as a peacemaker with that pathologically un-peaceful country that is the world’s greatest state sponsor of terrorism.  How could anyone trust Obama to protect Israel’s interest against Iran’s religious fanatics when he can’t even acknowledge jihadists are deliberately killing Jews in Paris when it was on everyone’s television sets for days?

You will have to excuse me for getting a little personal but I am more than a little outraged.  Back when I was in grammar school, my best buddy was a kid named Andy Goodman.  He was Jewish (I bet you guessed!) and the name may be familiar to you.  He went down South in 1964 to do his bit for the civil rights movement.  You may have seen the movie about what happened to him — Mississippi Burning.  Nowhere near as courageous as Andy and more than a bit frightened after what happened to him, two years later I decided to go down South myself. I felt I had to do something, too.

Now I live in an era when Barack Obama and so many others are trying to remind me and everyone post-Ferguson that #blacklivesmatter.  Well, they do and they always did, for me and a lot of other people. But somehow our president, regarding Iran, Israel and the events in Paris, seems to have forgotten its obvious corollary: #Jewishlivesmatter.  Until he gets that straight, I’ll be on the side of black people, but not for a second on his.

Obama’s Biggest Lie and What It Means

February 8th, 2015 - 9:41 pm

Unlike Nixon and Clinton, who lied in self-defense, Obama lies proactively, which is decidedly more dangerous.  He will say practically anything to achieve his goals without regard to the truth.  The repeated assertion about keeping your doctor and your health insurance under the Affordable Care Act is just one famous example.  But only a few days ago on Fareed Zakaria’s show the president made a statement that dwarfed his claims about Obamacare.  When asked if we were in a war with radical Islam, the president replied:

….I reject a notion that somehow that creates a religious war because the overwhelming majority of Muslims reject that interpretation of Islam. They don’t even recognize it as being Islam, and I think that for us to be successful in fighting this scourge, it’s very important for us to align ourselves with the 99.9 percent of Muslims who are looking for the same thing we’re looking for — order, peace, prosperity.

99.9 percent?!  I will bypass for the moment Obama’s rather self-serving definition of Islam and focus on that outrageous  number, which is absurd on the face of it and not remotely supported by any of the numerous polls on the subject.  Although the data is somewhat fluid, we can assume that out of 1.7 billion Muslims world wide, at least 200 million are sympathetic to the goals and means of the Islamists, many of them, undoubtedly many millions, willing to put their scimitars where their mouths are. By way of comparison, of the approximately 66 million Germans at the beginning of World War II, some 850,000 were card-carrying Nazis. Daniel Pipes points out the Islamist numbers are diminishing, but the raw totals are still huge and nowhere remotely in the vicinity of Obama’s risible point 01 percent.  No matter how you count it, we’ve got a problem that is not going away anytime soon, possibly not before everyone reading this article has passed from the scene, I’m sorry to say. 

So why did Obama lie and what does that mean?  To begin with, he is a moral narcissist.  That means because he knows he’s right and knows what we should do, he’s free to say anything he wishes that he believes will achieve those goals, especially if he thinks he can get away with it.  And Fareed Zakaria would be the last person to question him. (The CNN commentator has problems of his own.)  If all this reminds you of the ends justify the means, it’s not accidental.  Marx was a moral narcissist too — one of the greatest.

Now let’s get back to Obama and Islam.  Is he a Muslim?  Not really. He’s not religious, but he does have an Islamic childhood with which he identifies, undoubtedly on a more profound level than he does with Christianity, which he joined for expedient reasons.  Therefore, he can’t acknowledge to himself and others that Islam is severely sick and in need of serious reformation.  No talk from Obama ever about all the extreme misogyny and homophobia that pervades Islam, nor of Shariah law.  Nothing like this ever passes his lips — at least I’ve never heard it.  To do so would be to say there is something wrong with him.  So he says that 99.9% of Muslims reject the Islamists, which is literally impossible because if it were so, the Islamists wouldn’t be wreaking havoc everywhere from Sydney to Sanaa.

Complicating this psychological disturbance on the part of our president is his overweening desire to make a deal with Iran, almost at all costs.  Bizarre as it sounds, a deal with Iran would prove to Obama that Islam — at least in its Iranian shiite form — is capable of modernity. To the rest of us, it means they’re capable of nuclear war. (I guess that’s sort of modernity.) In any case, Obama’s greatest lie is designed to include Iran and its leaders in the good 99.9%. I can’t imagine a scarier thought.

A Jew Examines Why Obama Never Names Islam

February 5th, 2015 - 7:49 pm
obama_prayer_breakfast_2-5-15-1

President Obama at the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington, Thursday, Feb. 5, 2015. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

Addressing the National Prayer Breakfast Thursday, President Obama admonished his audience not to get on a “high horse” about Islamic terrorists (of course he did not name them) since atrocities had been committed in the name of many religions or, as he put it more specifically, “Unless we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ. In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ.”

Well, that doesn’t mean me.  As a Jew, I’m exempt from anything done “in the name of Christ.”  But frankly I was appalled by what Obama said. Many faiths could be cited, including communism, obviously, also a kind of religion that was responsible for exponentially more deaths — via Stalin’s Gulag, Mao’s Cultural Revolution and Great Leap Forward, the killing fields of Cambodia, etc. — than all other belief systems combined, although none of them are doing it now.  Right now it’s Islamic radicalism that just the other day placed a human being in a cage and burned him alive, an act not, to my knowledge, even performed by Dr. Mengele.  And it was done in the name of Allah.

And yet Obama saw fit to lecture his audience on the Crusades and slavery, done “in the name of Christ,” subjects of which his audience was undoubtedly well aware and, needless to say, did not approve in the slightest.  Yet still the president felt he had to hector them.  Why?

To begin with, we can find some the answer in his criticism of ISIS, which Obama described as  ”a brutal vicious death cult that in the name of religion carries out unspeakable acts of barbarism, claiming the mantle of religious authority for such actions.” Note the now unsurprising use of the word “religion,” not “Islam,” or the even more telling “Mohammed,”  a warlord who married a little girl and a figure, one can safely say, not very much like Christ.  Nevertheless, Obama can blacken Christians and name them in a speech, but not Muslims.

The reason is not complicated.  Obama is not a religious person.  He rarely appears in church, except for political purposes.  He is titularly a Christian, but identifies emotionally, from his youth in Indonesian madrassas and from his ideological predisposition, with Third World Muslims.  But now he is confronted with those same Muslims behaving like barbarians across Africa and the Middle East and sometimes into Europe and America.

What would be his reaction to that?  Pretty much what it is for most throughout the Islamic world — shame.  As many have noted, Islam is a shame culture (the kind of society that will go berserk over cartoons) and, like it or not, our president is part of it culturally.  That does not mean he is stoning adulterers or cutting off the hands of thieves or treating women like chattel, but it does mean he is genuinely and quite deeply ashamed of the religion he, in part, came from.  He cannot adjust to or accept the calamities it is causing.  Unlike the president of Egypt,  he cannot name it.

This also explains Obama’s determination to whitewash the behavior of Iran and make a deal with the Islamic Republic that will jeopardize the entire world.  It also helps make more clear his ambivalent (at best) relationship to the state of Israel and its leaders.

It grieves me much to write this, because it is a horrible situation.  Obama is not a Manchurian candidate and never was.  He never had to be.  He is just absolutely the wrong human being to be leading the West at this point in history.  Heaven help us.

Yes, it is waaaay early and, yes, it is an online poll, subject to all sorts of fudging, but the presidential poll being run by Matt Drudge at his website may have more to tell us about the state of the Republican presidential nomination race then many are going to want to admit.

First, Scott Walker, drawing an incredible 47% in a field of 13 candidates, no one within 33 points of him, is turning into a true front runner, with all that entails, good and bad. Second, the likes of Rick Santorum, Carly Fiorina, Rick Perry, Donald Trump, Mike Huckabee, and (amazingly) Chris Christie are all doing dreadfully, polling around a piddling one percent of the vote. Palin, Rubio and (again surprisingly — or maybe not) Jeb Bush are not doing a whole heckuva lot. Bush is the best of the lot at a pathetic five percent — and he surely doesn’t suffer from lack of name recognition.

All these candidates better hope their potential backers don’t read Drudge (unlikely) or will listen to explanations dismissing the poll. Speaking of which, before going further, I’d like to address the poll itself.  As many will remember, such polls have been skewed in the past by such things as mass voting by backers of Ron Paul (his son here comes in third currently at under thirteen percent, just behind Ted Cruz), but I have a hunch that isn’t the case here and that this is a better sample of the current Republican electorate than one might think. Drudge is Drudge, after all. We all read him. And as of 3:38PM, almost three hundred thousand people have voted, a statistically meaningful number. If I were one of those low-drawing candidates, I’d be thinking about keeping my day job — but that’s just me.

As for Mr. Walker, the man of the hour, I’d start prepping foreign policy now. As everyone knows, 2016 is shaping up as a foreign policy election. He’d better know as much about Iran as labor unions in Wisconsin. You can better the media will be laying for him on the subject. In fact, they already have, as ABC’s Martha Raddatz attempted during her sparring with him yesterday:

2016: The Search for a Commander-in-Chief Begins

February 1st, 2015 - 11:31 pm

compass_2016_10-19-14

With uncounted strains of Islamic radicalism metastasizing across the globe like some new version of the Plague, lopping off heads with no antidote in sight, and the Iranian ayatollahs on the brink of nuclear weapons thanks to a U.S. administration that seems almost eager to help them get them (most recently apparently switching allegiance in the Syrian civil war to Iran’s client Assad), America, it has become evident, has no commander-in-chief, at least not one who is wholeheartedly (or even partially) on the side of the West.

And the one we have — such as he is — humiliates our military on a practically daily basis, a sure prescription for defeat.   Ten years ago if someone told you Shariah law would come to America, you would probably have shrugged, possibly even laughed.  It isn’t so funny anymore.  (I’m not laughing.  They evidently lash bloggers.)

Terrifying as this may be, it simplifies greatly who and/or what Republicans should be looking for in a presidential candidate.  Forget economic expertise, special healthcare knowledge, foreign language skills or whatever else you might think is important.  Those things are all fine, but increasingly irrelevant.  Desperately, urgently, above all things, America needs a true commander-in-chief.

But what does that mean?  Though there are undoubtedly many qualities one could name,  I would suggest three basic ones:

1. Someone with a real strategy for how to win. This would include, as a very basic prerequisite, naming the enemy, something not done for two administrations — the first, I would imagine, out of cowardice, the second out of something close to treason.  (Yes, they both have obvious explanations for this behavior that we have all heard a dozen times, but they have reached the level of complete absurdity.  This war has been going in for nearly fourteen years in its current phase – about to triple in length World War II.)

2. The will to carry out this strategy.  This is no small thing.  Tremendous courage and commitment will be necessary to overcome radical Islam, which  has more adherents and fellow travelers than communism and Nazism ever did.  Also, it promises eternal life, something a bit more potent than free health insurance or food stamps.  Furthermore, that person will have to have the fortitude and stamina to deal with non-stop opposition from our liberal media, one of the more self-destructive entities in the history of the human race.

3.  The communication skills to bring the country with him. (I should add “or her,” because I don’t give a hoot about the gender of this person, only if he or she can do the job.  I suspect Lady Thatcher could have done better than anyone currently on our horizon, at least anyone I have seen.)  We need someone with a modicum of charisma and the ability to speak to the masses of the American people, many of whom, despite the years since 9/11, have little idea of what is going on.  It must be explained to them patiently and extensively.  They must be convinced and become part of the team.  This, again, is not easily accomplished.

So, mes amis, it’s the first of February in the 2015th year of somebody’s Lord.  We have a lot to do because we have a lot to lose.  We have to start vetting these people.  We are looking for someone with a backbone the size of Brooklyn but at the same time someone who can charm the pants off the country.  So far, I’m not willing to elevate anyone, although there are some I would cancel out.  But I’m not going to enumerate them here, because I think that is a distraction.  The object is to lift someone up, not pull others down (not on our side away).  As difficult as this search may seem — and it is extraordinarily difficult — we have one thing working on our behalf.  Difficult times seem to bring forth great leaders.  And make no mistake about it, we are in difficult times.