Worrying differences between Democrats and democrats

January 16th, 2017 by ilyameyer

May I ask a question in all humility? Because I genuinely don’t understand some of the thought processes involved.

Here goes:

I appreciate there are a lot of people who don’t like US President-elect Donald John Trump. And there are also a lot of people who like him.

Equally, there are a lot of people who don’t like current US President Barack Hussein Obama. And lots who did and still do.

Not too difficult to follow so far.

But for all the criticism of Obama during his eight years in office, duly elected according to the laws and regulations governing free and democratic elections, we never saw the plethora of threats, lawfare, name-calling, mudslinging and more that we are seeing regarding Trump. Neither did we see the previous incumbent try to hamstring President-Elect Obama during the transition period. Nor did we see public criticism of Obama before he had even put his foot inside the White House. Quite the opposite, Obama was universally lionised – before having achieved anything. The point being that not just in US society, but globally too, the incoming President was given every opportunity to prove himself, to get the job done.

And quite rightly too – every person taking on this immensely powerful and responsible job, that of the President of the United States, needs to be given the greatest possible opportunity for doing the job properly. So much rides on the success of a successful US President.

Yet here’s what I don’t quite get: for all those who do not like Trump – and they are perfectly entitled to their views, such is the beauty of democracy and free speech – is there a special, invisible cut-off point beyond which being a Democrat requires you to stop being democratic in your outlook? I mean, you don’t like Trump, I get it. Really I do. Just as there are people who detested Nixon, Carter, Clinton, Bush, Obama, there are people who detest Trump.


But how does this justify the relentless dismantling of the democratic institution that is the US electoral process, simply because the results of that democratic process didn’t pay the expected dividends in terms of the favoured Democratic winner?

Isn’t that what democracy is about? That every now again – let’s say every four years – there’s going to be a national leader who happens not to appeal to every single individual voter in the country?

I’m not a US citizen, but it is frightening to observe from afar the feeding-frenzy that ensued after democratic elections failed to re-elect a Democrat to the highest office in the nation. The fallout, the language, the methods and taunts and insults and undercurrent of violence, are not doing Democrats any favours.

And Democrats need to do themselves a lot of favours so that they can compete against the Republicans in the democratic process and retake power in future elections. It’s what the whole process is about – the smooth transition of power, back and forth, even to people you may not like.

Because that’s kind of the whole point of democratic elections – at any given point in time, there are going to be a whole lot of people who like the incumbent, and those who don’t and who didn’t vote for him or her.

You want to take down Donald Trump? Excellent. Take him down for what he actually does. Which means waiting for him to start his job. Otherwise we are in the position we were in eight years ago, with a US President who received the highest global accolade, the Nobel Peace Prize, for nothing he’d actually done.

Both extremes equally undeserving and equally insulting to the individual’s integrity – praising someone for what he hasn’t yet had time to achieve, and criticising someone for what he hasn’t yet had time to achieve.

Criticise Donald Trump by all means – in fact, please do so since no leader should ever be allowed to get so comfortable that he/she feels unassailable and thinks there is no need for accountability on his/her part.

But keep it real. Justifiable. Base it on a measurable track record. For the sake of US democracy.

Which actually impacts democracy in the few remaining countries that still practise this noble form of social coexistence.

Sweden works behind the scenes to cut off Israel at the knees

January 11th, 2017 by ilyameyer

Swedish Foreign Minister Margot Wallström has now taken her seat on the UN Security Council.

This is the seat she purchased using the tax revenues of hard-working Swedish breadwinners.

In her opening speech outlining what she envisions as Sweden’s focal areas during its tenure at the UNSC, there was one short sentence – a phrase only, really – that has received little attention and that has been largely ignored by the world media.

And by Israel.

Which is dangerous omission.

Because it is Wallström’s key ambition during her period at the helm: she says that in the UN Security Council “The use of the veto must be limited.”

Swedish Foreign Minister Margot Wallström:

“The use of the veto must be limited.”

If you work in the Israeli government, or are an employee of the Israeli Foreign Ministry such as the Israeli ambassador to Sweden or the UN, read that sentence again.

The Swedish Foreign Minister aims to remove the last remaining vestige of support blocking universal condemnation of the Jewish state for (1) being a state for the Jews, and (2) protecting itself.

And she intends to do so by removing the veto right (that is to say, traditional US vetoing of endemically vicious anti-Israel resolutions).

Margot Wallström writes:

“The countries of the world have spoken. Now it’s up to us to shoulder the responsibility that awaits.”

The automatic majority of UN member states, whose Security Council Margot Wallström now heads, are anti-democratic, theocratic, Islamist and otherwise autocratic regimes. In “shouldering the responsibility” these states have given her, it would be wise to prepare for what she has in store.

For one country, and one country alone.

The Jewish state of Israel. She intends to sever the last pillar of support for Israel by cancelling or at least severely curbing the United Nations Security Council’s veto right. A veto right that until Obama was used to prevent anti-Semitic targeting of one and only one UN member state at the UNSC.

Israel. Because it is the state for the Jews.

Take note. And start operating proactively.

That means NOW.

Sweden’s eagerness to drag Israel into war

December 19th, 2016 by ilyameyer
Swedish Foreign Minister Margot Wallström recently visited arch-terrorist Mahmud Abbas in Ramallah.
From the hands of Abbas she received a military honour given only to “Soldiers of Palestine”.
That medal is called the “Star of Jerusalem” and it is given only to “a soldier who has performed a distinguished act”. This is according to The Security Sector Legislation of the Palestinian National Authority, Article 110. Read it yourself, in the English charter produced by the PNA itself.
Making it pretty clear, in the words of the PA itself, in plain English, that the Palestinian Authority regards Margot Wallström as a “distinguished soldier of Palestine”.
Clutching her Palestinian military medal, Wallström left Ramallah on Saturday.
On Sunday Israeli security forces uncovered a massive illegal military arms factory in Hebron, just 42 kilometres away.
Sweden is the Ramallah regime’s largest per capita financier.
And Sweden declared on Friday, as Foreign Minister Wallström received her military medal from Abbas, that Sweden will redouble its efforts to support the Ramallah regime.
It is of course a declaration of war against Israel. A war that Wallström intends to fight through the UN, through the EU and mainly, at the cost of hard-working Swedes and retired Swedish pensioners, through the abuse of Swedish tax revenues – the hard-earned pensions and sickness benefits of Swedes that will now be siphoned off at an even greater rate to support the Ramallah regime. A regime headed by Abbas who is currently in the 12th year of his 4-year mandate. Not even this abuse of the most elementary tenets of democracy is sufficient för Wallström to reconsider her aggressive support of Abbas and her vicious determination to destabilise the parliamentary democracy that is Israel.
  • Executive summary:
  • Margot Wallström funds convicted Arab terrorists and mass-murderers with Swedish taxpayer revenues.
  • She receives a military medal for her efforts.
  • She then promises to redouble those efforts – even as illicit military factories that directly contravene legal agreements between the Israelis and Palestinians are uncovered.
  • There is never any comeback against the Ramallah regime, no matter how horrifically or openly they flout legally binding agreements.
  • Sweden keeps increasing its financial and diplomatic support for the regime.
The question is whether there is any form of impeachment process in Swedish law for a minister of the realm who concurrently serves a foreign power. Wallström, not content with her open diplomatic confrontation with Israel, is now dragging Sweden into a situation with direct military implications.
Nobody in Israel will talk to her, not even the opposition. She has thus single-handedly united both the Israeli government and the opposition -no mean achievement. But it’s a pitifully small achievement that will fade into insignificance as the political and now even military ramifications of her abusive, anti-Semitic and aggressive meddling take on an increasingly international mantle.