I listen, with wry amusement and not a little incredulity, to the tortured verbal stratagems that Obama administration officials use to define or justify their positions. It strikes me that their perspective is that:
- They do not make mistakes.
- Even if something seems to be a mistake, is really is not, “because Obama.”
- Any attempt to pursue a mistake and hold Obama accountable is an intolerable attack on his dignity, not to mention [–fill in your favorite smear(s)–].
- If Obama’s cohorts determine that what seems to us to be a lie or an illegal act is, in their eyes, a necessity, then it is the truth, and completely legal.
- The Obama administration is vastly more severe on itself than we could ever be; any attempt to police it should be left up to it. No one else is competent to do so.
This is a well-worn doctrine that Franz Kafka had clearly defined in the 1920s, showing it up for the nonsense it is. It is a pity that Obama and his followers have learned nothing from literature, not to mention history, and that they continue to think that we are as dumb and gullible as the denizens of Kafka’s novels. The following passage in Kafka’s The Castle is particularly enlightening:
[The village chairman, to surveyor K.] “…I want this man cleared of all blame even in your thoughts. One of the operating principles of the authorities is that the possibility of error is simply not taken into account. This principle is justified by the excellence of the entire organization and is also necessary if matters are to be discharged with the utmost rapidity. So Sordini couldn’t inquire in other departments, besides those departments wouldn’t have answered, since they would have noticed right away that he was investigating the possibility of an error.”
“Chairman, allow me to interrupt you with a question,” said K., “didn’t you mention a control agency? As you describe it, the organization is such that the very thought that the control agency might fail to materialize is enough to make one ill.”
“You’re very severe,” said the chairman, “but multiply your severity by a thousand and it will still be as nothing compared with the severity that the authorities show toward themselves. Only a total stranger would ask such a question. Are there control agencies? There are only control agencies. Of course they aren’t meant to find errors, in the vulgar sense of the term, since no errors occur, and even if an error does occur, as in your case, who can finally say that it is an error.”
And then there is The Trial:
[a priest talking to K.] “…No matter how [the doorkeeper] appears to us, he’s still a servant of the Law; he belongs to the Law, and is thus beyond human judgment. In that case one can’t see the doorkeeper as subordinate to the man. To be bound by his office, even if only at the entrance to the Law, is incomparably better than to live freely in the world. The man has only just arrived at the Law, the doorkeeper is already there. He has been appointed to his post by the Law, to doubt his dignity is to doubt the Law itself.” “I don’t agree with that opinion,” said K., shaking his head, “for if you accept it, you have to consider everything the doorkeeper says as true. But you’ve already proved conclusively that that’s not possible.” “No,” said the priest, “you don’t have to consider everything true, you just have to consider it necessary.” “A depressing opinion,” said K. “Lies are made into a universal system.”
The proverbial fly in the ointment is the stubbornness of K., who insists on calling it as he sees it: “Lies are made into a universal system.”
As, indeed, we must keep doing. Indeed, one might say that we are all K. now.
Some people are just not that fond of water, except for spreading it all over the floor while slurping it up…
This falls under the rubric of “Extreme Obamite Cleverness” (EOC).
For many years, Israel had a policy of demolishing the homes of individual Palestinians who had engaged in terrorist acts against Israel. This policy was quite controversial, and about ten years ago, Israel had largely abandoned it. But because of the increasing violence in Jerusalem and the West Bank, Prime Minister Netanyahu ordered its full reinstatement. (h/t Weasel Zippers)
Mind you, we are talking about demolishing individual homes of individuals who were proved to have engaged in terrorist acts, for instance Muhammed Naif El-Ja’abis, who had stolen an excavator on August 4, 2014, ran over pedestrians with it, injuring several and killing one, before ramming it into a public bus, overturning the bus and then hitting it repeatedly with the scoop.
Not good, says Jen Psaki, the spokeswoman of the U.S. State Department. In fact, very bad. According to her, targeting of individual proven perpetrators of terrorist attacks is “collective punishment.” She also bemoans the fact that the demolitions “would only heighten tensions in the region.”
One has to assume that, because she is spokeswoman for the Obama State Department, this is in fact the official position of the Obama administration.
Newsflash, Miss Psaki. Collective punishment refers to taking action against a group of people, not individuals, hence the use of the word “collective.” But given the Obamite track record vis-à-vis the Jewish state, my impression is that the term was used deliberately because the 1949 Geneva Convention defines collective punishment as a war crime. The underlying formula is pretty simple: Israel + any act of self-defense against Palestinian terror = war crime.
I have the impression that far too many people accept this at face value. However, if one digs a little deeper, one finds out that, under some circumstances, the Geneva Convention actually permits reprisals. The definition of a reprisal is pretty clear, at least to me: “Reprisals refer to acts which are illegal if taken alone, but become legal when adopted by one state in retaliation for the commission of an earlier illegal act by another state.”
In my view, this definition fits the situation perfectly, to wit:
- Earlier illegal act: Muhammed Naif El-Ja’abis carried out a terror attack with a stolen excavator, killing at least one Israeli and wounding several.
- Reprisal, made legal by the initial illegal act: the Israelis demolish his home.
Psaki’s use of the term collective punishment instead of reprisal, especially without mentioning the earlier terror attack, continues the long Obamite tradition of demonizing Israel and giving the Palestinians a free pass. And that attitude, not the Israelis’ reprisals against individual terrorists, “heighten tensions in the region.”
Sylvia Burwell, a loyal Obama apparatchik who was appointed as Secretary of Health and “Human” Services in June 2014, has her priorities perfectly straight. On November 11, she reiterated that one of her goals is give Obamacare to illegal immigrants. Supposedly, we need to take this step “as a nation.” On the other hand, she is less than concerned over the plight of American citizens in rural areas where local hospitals, their main source of care, are being driven to extinction by the demands of Obamacare. Rural residents in many areas now have to drive long distances to find care, and the time lost sometimes translates to permanent injury or even death. This storm has already swept through Tennessee, Kentucky, Indiana and Colorado, but never fear! Burwell assures us that HHS will “work to incorporate feedback” from rural hospitals on how it’s going, adding smugly: “Transition takes time.” That seems to be her way of being “particularly acutely focused” on the challenges facing rural hospitals.
Nice thought. But reality always finds a way to intrude.
To quote Kentucky State Auditor Adam Edelen: “I don’t want to be in a Kentucky where a farmer has to bleed out in a field because he doesn’t have access to a rural hospital, or a woman with a troubled pregnancy can’t get the help she needs to deliver a healthy baby.”
Adds Janis Orlowski, chief medical officer for the Association of American Medical Colleges. ‘There’s a “golden hour” after heart attacks, trauma and stroke in which treatment is needed to prevent loss of heart muscle and brain tissue.’ In other words: too long a ride to a hospital, and you risk permanent damage or death.
Makes perfect sense. Medical care for illegals (i.e. potential Democrat voters) but not for rural Americans.
Seems like Burwell is the perfect replacement for what’s-her-face.
What next? Obamacare for drug cartel members and for ISIS, in the hope that they will be grateful and start making nice?