The vile decision by the Obama Administration to allow the United Nations to attack and denounce the one democratic and true U.S. ally in the Middle East, Israel, has been justly criticized here at the TCC for the shameful betrayal it is. The complete double standard evinced by the resolution and the fact that it strengthens the hand of IslamistĀ terrorists makes the likelihood for peace even slimmer. This presents auspiciousĀ grounds for the U.S. to rethink whether we should really be bankrolling roughly thirty percent of the bloated body’s budget.

President Obama’s decision to break with longstanding US policy and knife a long-time ally in the back is also notable for another reason. It has been almost eight years since Obama took office. In that time, many, many anti-Israel resolutions have been floated in the UN. Yet, it is only now, after the election and days before a new President will take office that Obama opted to acquiesce to Israel’s enemies. It has long been a matter of accepted conventionĀ  that lame duck presidents would not pursue radical policy changes before their successor takes office. Barrack Obama, in his arrogance, disdained to follow this common courtesy. Picture yourself what the reaction would have been had the situation been reversed and a Republican president decided to make an unpopular, far-reaching,close-to-irreversible break with precedent days before a Democratic president took office. Undoubtedly, the media would have been filled with cries of indignation and protest.

Apparently, Mr. Obama did not want to take such a radical step while the voters could still weigh in. His anti-Israel decision could have swayed many pro-Israel voters against his former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, and cost her the election. Of course, we’ve seen this before. Remember Obama’s glib “more flexibility after the election” message to Vladimir Putin? Such two-faced deceit is another of the less appealing elements of the Obama legacy.