How strange! Just as Barack Obama grew up around and surrounded himself with socialists/Marxists, so did Supreme Court justice nominee Elena Kagan. They are like two peas in a pod.
Miss "I don't know what a legal progressive is" happens to be a radical leftist, and no matter how she spins it during her confirmation hearings, she will be an activist judge. If she weren't, President Obama would never have even considered her.
What a shame that we have to go all the way across the world to New Zealand to learn about Elena Kagan's past connections. Once again, the American Pravda has let down the American people.
Read from New Zeal:
Obama File 105 "A Pattern of Socialist Associations" - Obama's Supreme Court Nominee, Elena Kagan (the Early Years)
"Obama File 104 here
President Barack Obama's nomination to the U.S. Supreme court, Elena Kagan, has been sold to the public as a 'moderate' - yes, a little liberal leaning, but moderate none the less.
In this first of a series of posts, I look at Elena Kagan's patterns of association.
If Elena Kagan is a moderate, why then has she long associated with people connected to three interrelated organizations - the Communist Party USA, the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee/ Democratic Socialists of America and the far left Washington D.C. think tank, Institute for Policy Studies?
Raised on New Yorks' Upper West Side, Elena Kagan's parents were both politically active in a place and era where politics was dominated by the Democratic, Socialist and Communist parties.
Elena's mother Gloria Kagan campaigned to elect far left Democratic Congressman, William Fitts Ryan. Her older brother Marc Kagan was active in the socialist influenced New Directions movement in the Transport Workers Union. When one of its leaders, Roger Toussaint, was elected union president in 2000, Mr. Kagan became his chief of staff, until a falling out occurred in 2003.
Marc Kagan's former comrade and boss, Roger Toussaint is prominent in the communist initiated Coalition of Black Trade Unionists, which now led by D.S.A. member William Lucy. He also serves in the leadership of the Center for the Study of Working Class Life at Stony Brook University, alongside Ray Markey from the Communist Party offshoot Committees of Correspondence and D.S.A. leaders Gerry Hudson, Mark Levinson, Stanley Aronowitz and Frances Fox Piven, co-originator of the infamous Cloward - Piven Strategy.
Elena Kagan would later dedicate her Princeton history thesis on socialism in New York City to her activist brother.
'I would like to thank my brother Marc whose involvement in radical causes led me to explore the history of American radicalism and in the hope of clarifying my own political ideas.'
Kagan first became interested in politics in high school and worked as a legislative intern for Rep. Ted Weiss, a Democrat from New York, during the summer of 1978, and as deputy press secretary for Rep. Liz Holtzman in the summer after her junior year.
The late Ted Weiss was very far to the left. In 1978 Congressmen Ted Weiss, John Burton, Ron Dellums (D.S.A. member), John Conyers (D.S.A. supporter) , Don Edwards, Charles Rangel and others, attended a meeting organized for the Soviet front World Peace Council on Capitol Hill.
W.P.C. delegation members included President Romesh Chandra (Communist Party of India), KGB Colonel Radomir Bogdanov and Oleg Kharkhardin of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union International Department.
In 1981 another World Peace Council delegation led by Romesh Chandra toured the U.S. to publicize the 'nuclear freeze' then being promoted by Leonid Brezhnev.
This group met with several far left Congressmen at the Capitol, including Weiss, John Conyers, George Crockett, Ron Dellums, Don Edwards and Mervyn Dymally."
Read the rest here.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Arab Countries Mistreat the Palestinians
I find it amazing that the world screams that Israel is an aparteid state, mistreating those poor Palestinians, when their Muslim brothers from neighboring countries are the ones keeping the Palestinian refugees in real bondage to poverty. The Palestinians living in Israel are living a far better lifestyle than their brothers in Muslim countries.
In reality, the Muslims don't care about the Palestinians. They are used for propaganda purposes to make Israel look like the villain, with the goal of creating anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism. When it comes down to it, the destruction of Israel and the Jews is always what consumes the Muslim people.
Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the Arab emirates are rolling in money. Why have they not helped the Palestinians? They don't care about them; it's that simple.
Read from Israel Matzav:
'Thousands' protest for 'Palestinian' rights in Lebanon
"The true tragedy of the 'Palestinians' is not that they left their homes in Israel 62 years ago, whether voluntarily or involuntarily. The true tragedy is that 62 years later they are largely still in refugee camps because the Arab countries are holding them hostage in the hope of sending them back to what is now Israel. Compare that to Israel, which absorbed more than 800,000 Jewish refugees who were expelled from Arab countries in the 1950's and 1960's.
Each Arab country has its own way of making sure that the 'Palestinians' who live in that country never feel at home. In Lebanon, that is done by excluding them from work in nearly every profession. On Sunday, there was a protest in Beirut to demand basic rights for the 'Palestinians' who live in Lebanon. After 62 years, could they be waking up?
'"As Palestinians in Lebanon we have no rights. We just want to live with dignity," said Palestinian Imtithal Abu Samra, 29, who lives in the Beddawi refugee camp in northern Lebanon.
Some 425,000 Palestinians are registered as refugees in Lebanon by UNRWA, the U.N. agency responsible for Palestinian refugees. Many live in 12 camps across Lebanon in conditions the U.N. has described as deplorable and appalling.
Palestinians in Lebanon are barred from working in dozens of professions and are generally paid lower wages than their Lebanese counterparts when they do find jobs. They are not allowed to benefit from public social or medical services.
Proposals for a draft law due to be debated in parliament in a few weeks would give Palestinians the right to own a residential apartment and would legalise work rights.
The protesters had planned to demonstrate in front of parliament but Lebanese soldiers prevented them from congregating there. Instead they gathered in front of U.N. headquarters, a few hundred metres away.
"Palestinians have been here for 62 years. Their (condition) is unacceptable," said Dalia, a Lebanese assistant researcher. "Civil rights should be given to anyone regardless of their religion, sect or nationality," she said.
...
The issue of granting Palestinian more rights has raised worries it would promote 'naturalisation', which some politicians fear will upset Lebanon's delicate sectarian and demographic balance. Most Palestinians are Sunni Muslims.
The proposals have faced hurdles in parliament because of Christian lawmakers' fears that granting these rights would eventually lead to their permanent resettlement, an allegation refugees and civil rights activists say is not true.
"Lebanon has marginalized Palestinian refugees for too long," Human Rights Watch's Beirut director Nadim Houry said in a statement last week. "Parliament should seize this opportunity to turn the page and end discrimination against Palestinians."'
And the world calls Israel an 'apartheid' state."
In reality, the Muslims don't care about the Palestinians. They are used for propaganda purposes to make Israel look like the villain, with the goal of creating anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism. When it comes down to it, the destruction of Israel and the Jews is always what consumes the Muslim people.
Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the Arab emirates are rolling in money. Why have they not helped the Palestinians? They don't care about them; it's that simple.
Read from Israel Matzav:
'Thousands' protest for 'Palestinian' rights in Lebanon
"The true tragedy of the 'Palestinians' is not that they left their homes in Israel 62 years ago, whether voluntarily or involuntarily. The true tragedy is that 62 years later they are largely still in refugee camps because the Arab countries are holding them hostage in the hope of sending them back to what is now Israel. Compare that to Israel, which absorbed more than 800,000 Jewish refugees who were expelled from Arab countries in the 1950's and 1960's.
Each Arab country has its own way of making sure that the 'Palestinians' who live in that country never feel at home. In Lebanon, that is done by excluding them from work in nearly every profession. On Sunday, there was a protest in Beirut to demand basic rights for the 'Palestinians' who live in Lebanon. After 62 years, could they be waking up?
'"As Palestinians in Lebanon we have no rights. We just want to live with dignity," said Palestinian Imtithal Abu Samra, 29, who lives in the Beddawi refugee camp in northern Lebanon.
Some 425,000 Palestinians are registered as refugees in Lebanon by UNRWA, the U.N. agency responsible for Palestinian refugees. Many live in 12 camps across Lebanon in conditions the U.N. has described as deplorable and appalling.
Palestinians in Lebanon are barred from working in dozens of professions and are generally paid lower wages than their Lebanese counterparts when they do find jobs. They are not allowed to benefit from public social or medical services.
Proposals for a draft law due to be debated in parliament in a few weeks would give Palestinians the right to own a residential apartment and would legalise work rights.
The protesters had planned to demonstrate in front of parliament but Lebanese soldiers prevented them from congregating there. Instead they gathered in front of U.N. headquarters, a few hundred metres away.
"Palestinians have been here for 62 years. Their (condition) is unacceptable," said Dalia, a Lebanese assistant researcher. "Civil rights should be given to anyone regardless of their religion, sect or nationality," she said.
...
The issue of granting Palestinian more rights has raised worries it would promote 'naturalisation', which some politicians fear will upset Lebanon's delicate sectarian and demographic balance. Most Palestinians are Sunni Muslims.
The proposals have faced hurdles in parliament because of Christian lawmakers' fears that granting these rights would eventually lead to their permanent resettlement, an allegation refugees and civil rights activists say is not true.
"Lebanon has marginalized Palestinian refugees for too long," Human Rights Watch's Beirut director Nadim Houry said in a statement last week. "Parliament should seize this opportunity to turn the page and end discrimination against Palestinians."'
And the world calls Israel an 'apartheid' state."
Another Obama Lie
The more I hear from President Obama, the more he makes the notorious Disney liar, Pinocchio, look like one honest boy.
The Blago scandal is calling to light the corruption that comes out of Chicago, and our president is in the thick of it.
Read about how Obama got called out on another lie, via American Thinker:
SEIU official under oath indicates Obama lied
Thomas Lifson
"Thomas Balanoff, head of the SEIU Illinois Council, testified under oath at the Blago trial that President Obama called him to lobby for Valerie Jarrett to be named by Governor Blagojevich to replace Obama in the Senate. This directly contradicts the President's repeated denials of any direct or indirect contact with Blago to influence the naming of his Senate replacement.
Sarah Ostman of the Chicago Sun-Times reports on the Blago trial testimony:
'"Tom, i want to talk to you with regard to the Senate seat," Obama told him.
Balanoff said Obama said he had two criteria: someone who was good for the citizens of Illinois and could be elected in 2010.
Obama said he wasn't publicly coming out in support of anyone but he believed Valerie Jarrett would fit the bill.
"I would much prefer she (remain in the White House) but she does want to be Senator and she does meet those two criteria," Balanoff said Obama told him. "I said: 'thank you, I'm going to reach out to Gov. Blagojevich."'
Doug Ross of Director Blue notes what most media are ignoring: Obama's repeated denials of such efforts.
'In December of 2008, for instance, he flatly denied any discussions:
"President-elect Barack Obama said Tuesday afternoon that he has had no dealings with Governor Blagojevich over his replacement in the Senate...
'I had no contact with the governor or his office, and so I was not aware of what was happening,' Mr. Obama said. 'And as I said it is a sad day for Illinois. Beyond that I don't it's appropriate to comment.'"
And on another occasion that same month, Obama repeated the claim:
"In December 2008, Obama said he was 'appalled and disappointed' by the revelations that the Illinois governor was involved in a 'pay-to-play' scheme to fill his Senate seat.
'I have never spoken to the governor on this subject. I'm confident that no representatives of mine would have any part of any deals related to this seat,' Obama, then the president-elect, said at the time."'
Blanoff and his union have been very big donors to both Blago and Obama, making him an ideal cut-out to do a deal for Obama.
Update:
The always-perceptive Jennifer Rubin adds:
'The Washington press corps rolled over when the incident first surfaced and showed zero interest in following up on the many questions the review left open. The media can redeem themselves by refusing to allow Gibbs to get away with his usual dodge-the-tricky-questions game. And the president, when next he appears, should be queried on whether he really did talk to Blago's union pal and whether he later tried to deceive the American people.
The unpleasant image of Chicago pols running their backroom deals before and after they arrived in the Oval Office is not one that the president wants to take hold. The president is low on credibility these days, and refusing to put this matter to rest isn't going to improve things. It's time to come clean - on this and the Sestak and Romanoff deals '"
The Blago scandal is calling to light the corruption that comes out of Chicago, and our president is in the thick of it.
Read about how Obama got called out on another lie, via American Thinker:
SEIU official under oath indicates Obama lied
Thomas Lifson
"Thomas Balanoff, head of the SEIU Illinois Council, testified under oath at the Blago trial that President Obama called him to lobby for Valerie Jarrett to be named by Governor Blagojevich to replace Obama in the Senate. This directly contradicts the President's repeated denials of any direct or indirect contact with Blago to influence the naming of his Senate replacement.
Sarah Ostman of the Chicago Sun-Times reports on the Blago trial testimony:
'"Tom, i want to talk to you with regard to the Senate seat," Obama told him.
Balanoff said Obama said he had two criteria: someone who was good for the citizens of Illinois and could be elected in 2010.
Obama said he wasn't publicly coming out in support of anyone but he believed Valerie Jarrett would fit the bill.
"I would much prefer she (remain in the White House) but she does want to be Senator and she does meet those two criteria," Balanoff said Obama told him. "I said: 'thank you, I'm going to reach out to Gov. Blagojevich."'
Doug Ross of Director Blue notes what most media are ignoring: Obama's repeated denials of such efforts.
'In December of 2008, for instance, he flatly denied any discussions:
"President-elect Barack Obama said Tuesday afternoon that he has had no dealings with Governor Blagojevich over his replacement in the Senate...
'I had no contact with the governor or his office, and so I was not aware of what was happening,' Mr. Obama said. 'And as I said it is a sad day for Illinois. Beyond that I don't it's appropriate to comment.'"
And on another occasion that same month, Obama repeated the claim:
"In December 2008, Obama said he was 'appalled and disappointed' by the revelations that the Illinois governor was involved in a 'pay-to-play' scheme to fill his Senate seat.
'I have never spoken to the governor on this subject. I'm confident that no representatives of mine would have any part of any deals related to this seat,' Obama, then the president-elect, said at the time."'
Blanoff and his union have been very big donors to both Blago and Obama, making him an ideal cut-out to do a deal for Obama.
Update:
The always-perceptive Jennifer Rubin adds:
'The Washington press corps rolled over when the incident first surfaced and showed zero interest in following up on the many questions the review left open. The media can redeem themselves by refusing to allow Gibbs to get away with his usual dodge-the-tricky-questions game. And the president, when next he appears, should be queried on whether he really did talk to Blago's union pal and whether he later tried to deceive the American people.
The unpleasant image of Chicago pols running their backroom deals before and after they arrived in the Oval Office is not one that the president wants to take hold. The president is low on credibility these days, and refusing to put this matter to rest isn't going to improve things. It's time to come clean - on this and the Sestak and Romanoff deals '"
Will Turkey Join the EU?
Europe might as well kiss its freedoms good-bye if Turkey is admitted into the EU. Have they gone mad in Europe? Under Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan, the Muslim nation has moved sharply toward becoming a full-blown Islamic nation.
Read from Jihad Watch:
Europe poised to commit suicide, admit Turkey into EU
"Turkey would immediately become the largest state in the EU. Rapidly Islamizing Ankara would be calling the shots for people in Berlin, London, Paris, and Rome. 70 million Muslims or more, including an untold number of active Islamic jihadists, would be able to enter Europe easily and travel around it freely. European Death Watch Alert: 'Belgian EU presidency would support enlargement,' from the Telegraph, June 28 (thanks to Lazybuddha):
'Belgium will support the enlargement of the European Union to include Croatia, Iceland and Turkey during its forthcoming presidency of the bloc.
Olivier Chastel, the Belgian secretary of state for EU affairs, in a joint news conference with Spanish counterpart Diego Lopez Garrido, raised the possibility of the opening of a new chapter in negotiations with Turkey in the coming months after Spain, which currently holds the EU presidency, backed Ankara's bid despite resistance from France and Germany.
Belgium takes over the six-month rotating EU presidency from Spain on July 1.
The EU began membership talks with Turkey in 2005 but the process has made slow progress. Only 12 of the 35 policy chapters, which all EU candidate countries must successfully negotiate prior to membership, are open....'"
Read from Jihad Watch:
Europe poised to commit suicide, admit Turkey into EU
"Turkey would immediately become the largest state in the EU. Rapidly Islamizing Ankara would be calling the shots for people in Berlin, London, Paris, and Rome. 70 million Muslims or more, including an untold number of active Islamic jihadists, would be able to enter Europe easily and travel around it freely. European Death Watch Alert: 'Belgian EU presidency would support enlargement,' from the Telegraph, June 28 (thanks to Lazybuddha):
'Belgium will support the enlargement of the European Union to include Croatia, Iceland and Turkey during its forthcoming presidency of the bloc.
Olivier Chastel, the Belgian secretary of state for EU affairs, in a joint news conference with Spanish counterpart Diego Lopez Garrido, raised the possibility of the opening of a new chapter in negotiations with Turkey in the coming months after Spain, which currently holds the EU presidency, backed Ankara's bid despite resistance from France and Germany.
Belgium takes over the six-month rotating EU presidency from Spain on July 1.
The EU began membership talks with Turkey in 2005 but the process has made slow progress. Only 12 of the 35 policy chapters, which all EU candidate countries must successfully negotiate prior to membership, are open....'"
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
The Inflated Ego
Let's get one thing straight. As much as President Obama hates being at war in Afghanistan because he is a radical liberal who opposes war at all costs, he is not going to begin to pull out in 2011 as he has previously stated. Obama's chief goal is to make himself look good, and he will not take the blame for a lost war if he can prevent it.
Don't get me wrong, he will not do what it takes to achieve complete victory either because that would require him to become something he is not: a committed war president.
Now, if the president could somehow find some way to place the blame for a lost war on George W. Bush, then he'd pull out in a heartbeat. It's not about winning, and it's not about securing America and our interests; it's always been about his inflated ego.
Read from Liberty Pundits:
Obama’s Deadly Deadline: What President Obama Really Wants In Afghanistan
"Marc Theissen has an excellent piece today about Afghanistan and President Obama’s deadlines:
'The deadline is more than a tactical error; it is a strategic miscalculation that undermines almost every element of our efforts in Afghanistan. A withdrawal date undermines the very premise of a counterinsurgency strategy — that by protecting the population, you can earn their trust and get them to help you root out the terrorists and insurgents. As columnist Charles Krauthammer has explained, Afghans will not risk joining us in the fight if they think America will soon be leaving them to the mercy of the Taliban.
The damage goes even deeper than that. The stated purpose of the deadline is to put pressure on Afghan President Hamid Karzai to eliminate corruption and increase the legitimacy and effectiveness of the Afghan government. Instead, it has had the opposite effect — creating a perverse incentive for Karzai to make overtures to the Taliban, and cut deals to stay in power, so that he can cover his bets when the Americans leave.'
Here’s my thought: President Obama had little intent to close Guantanamo and has less intent to fight in Afghanistan. He made promises that would get him elected and nothing more.
I felt like his foot dragging on Afghanistan was an exercise in building discontent about the war, and when that didn’t work, he half-heartedly put forth an Afghanistan strategy that hamstrung troops while simultaneously putting them in greater harms way.
What President Obama put into place a couple months ago was a WITHDRAWAL policy disguised as a war policy. Our enemies see this, even if the American people are a little slow to catch on.
General Petreaus is a good soldier. He will comply with the Commander In Chief’s desires. And the CIC points to not wanting to win, but wanting to escape.
War is hard. It’s messy. And I don’t see any desire on President Obama’s part to do the tough, dirty work of getting the job done.
No, this is not good for our allies. No, this is not good for foreign policy. No, this is not, ultimately, good for America.
But it’s great for President Obama politically in advance of the 2012 election.
Remember: There is only one rule President Obama lives by: Is this good for Obama? Answer that question, and you’ll know what decision President Obama makes. Always.
P.S. This is why he dithered and continues to dither on the Gulf Oil Spill. It’s a no-win situation for him. Thus, his paralysis."
Don't get me wrong, he will not do what it takes to achieve complete victory either because that would require him to become something he is not: a committed war president.
Now, if the president could somehow find some way to place the blame for a lost war on George W. Bush, then he'd pull out in a heartbeat. It's not about winning, and it's not about securing America and our interests; it's always been about his inflated ego.
Read from Liberty Pundits:
Obama’s Deadly Deadline: What President Obama Really Wants In Afghanistan
"Marc Theissen has an excellent piece today about Afghanistan and President Obama’s deadlines:
'The deadline is more than a tactical error; it is a strategic miscalculation that undermines almost every element of our efforts in Afghanistan. A withdrawal date undermines the very premise of a counterinsurgency strategy — that by protecting the population, you can earn their trust and get them to help you root out the terrorists and insurgents. As columnist Charles Krauthammer has explained, Afghans will not risk joining us in the fight if they think America will soon be leaving them to the mercy of the Taliban.
The damage goes even deeper than that. The stated purpose of the deadline is to put pressure on Afghan President Hamid Karzai to eliminate corruption and increase the legitimacy and effectiveness of the Afghan government. Instead, it has had the opposite effect — creating a perverse incentive for Karzai to make overtures to the Taliban, and cut deals to stay in power, so that he can cover his bets when the Americans leave.'
Here’s my thought: President Obama had little intent to close Guantanamo and has less intent to fight in Afghanistan. He made promises that would get him elected and nothing more.
I felt like his foot dragging on Afghanistan was an exercise in building discontent about the war, and when that didn’t work, he half-heartedly put forth an Afghanistan strategy that hamstrung troops while simultaneously putting them in greater harms way.
What President Obama put into place a couple months ago was a WITHDRAWAL policy disguised as a war policy. Our enemies see this, even if the American people are a little slow to catch on.
General Petreaus is a good soldier. He will comply with the Commander In Chief’s desires. And the CIC points to not wanting to win, but wanting to escape.
War is hard. It’s messy. And I don’t see any desire on President Obama’s part to do the tough, dirty work of getting the job done.
No, this is not good for our allies. No, this is not good for foreign policy. No, this is not, ultimately, good for America.
But it’s great for President Obama politically in advance of the 2012 election.
Remember: There is only one rule President Obama lives by: Is this good for Obama? Answer that question, and you’ll know what decision President Obama makes. Always.
P.S. This is why he dithered and continues to dither on the Gulf Oil Spill. It’s a no-win situation for him. Thus, his paralysis."
"This Man Is a Menace to Israel"
I'm with the professor. Obama definitely wants to see Israel destroyed. That Muslim blood running through his veins is more potent than one might believe.
But, sorry, Mr. President, your powers, though they be great, are not without limits. There is One who outranks you, and one day you will quiver in His presence. In the meantime, this is what He said about the return of His people, the Jews, to the nation of Israel:
"'I will bring back my exiled people Israel; they will rebuild the ruined cities and live in them. They will plant vineyards and drink their wine; they will make gardens and eat their fruit. I will plant Israel in their own land, never again to be uprooted from the land I have given them,' says the LORD your God." (Amos 9:14-15)
Read and take a listen to the video from New Zeal:
Yale Fellow "Obama Most Radical US President Ever"
"Dr. Richard L. Rubinstein, Yale fellow, 'Distinguished Professor of the Year', and Harvard Phd, states that president Obama's intention is to 'correct the historical mistake of the creation of the state of Israel.' Dr. Rubenstein states that president Obama due to his family heritage is extremely pro Muslim - to the point of 'wanting to see the destruction of Israel.'
This interview is essential viewing for all of the 80% of American Jewry who voted for the most anti Israel President in U.S. history, Barack Obama."
But, sorry, Mr. President, your powers, though they be great, are not without limits. There is One who outranks you, and one day you will quiver in His presence. In the meantime, this is what He said about the return of His people, the Jews, to the nation of Israel:
"'I will bring back my exiled people Israel; they will rebuild the ruined cities and live in them. They will plant vineyards and drink their wine; they will make gardens and eat their fruit. I will plant Israel in their own land, never again to be uprooted from the land I have given them,' says the LORD your God." (Amos 9:14-15)
Read and take a listen to the video from New Zeal:
Yale Fellow "Obama Most Radical US President Ever"
"Dr. Richard L. Rubinstein, Yale fellow, 'Distinguished Professor of the Year', and Harvard Phd, states that president Obama's intention is to 'correct the historical mistake of the creation of the state of Israel.' Dr. Rubenstein states that president Obama due to his family heritage is extremely pro Muslim - to the point of 'wanting to see the destruction of Israel.'
This interview is essential viewing for all of the 80% of American Jewry who voted for the most anti Israel President in U.S. history, Barack Obama."
"Sharia Law Has Come to America"
Sharia law has no place in the United States. We are the land of the free. Americans must stand up and oppose the radical Islamists who are using our freedoms to attempt to force their backward beliefs down our throats.
But, before we can fight to preserve our way of life, we must first be informed of the potential dangers we face from this "religion of peace".
Read from One News Now:
A wake-up call
Dr. Michael Youssef
"Every freedom-loving person should be extremely alarmed at the dreadful trend of silencing Christians from the streets of London to the streets of Dearborn, Michigan. In both places, Christians were arrested and imprisoned for preaching the gospel on public streets...in what Muslims considered to be Islamic territories.
When four young Christian men were recently arrested and imprisoned in Dearborn, Michigan, for witnessing to their faith at an Islamic festival, it was hailed as a victory in some Islamic circles -- sharia law has come to America.
Never mind the First Amendment...this is the beginning of its demise by overwhelming Islamic ideology that is hell-bent on silencing Christians and Jews from speaking of their faith.
In Arab countries where Christians make up a sizeable minority, Christians are not allowed to speak of their faith outside of the church walls. Now it is happening in America's heartland.
The silencing, humiliation, and reduction of Christians and Jews to second class citizens is as old as Islam itself. This Islamic doctrine is known as the 'Dhimmis'. It was articulated and implemented by 'Omar,' the second successor of their prophet Mohammad. He articulated this doctrine when he invaded Christian lands in an effort to subjugate Christian residents who were captured by the sword.
This is the third wave of Jihad. The first wave was in the middle 600s. The second wave was by the Turks in the 1700s. In this third wave, Muslims believe they can advance by taking advantage of Western ignorance of their ideology coupled with Western sympathies and a penchant for fairness.
To add insult to injury, the Counsel of Islamic Nations is pushing hard in the United Nations to implement an international law that would outlaw the preaching of the gospel anywhere in the world. As if this is not chilling enough, the Dearborn incident is now considered to be a good omen for Islamic take over.
Unless freedom-loving people wake up now, their children will wake up to discover that they are living under sharia law."
But, before we can fight to preserve our way of life, we must first be informed of the potential dangers we face from this "religion of peace".
Read from One News Now:
A wake-up call
Dr. Michael Youssef
"Every freedom-loving person should be extremely alarmed at the dreadful trend of silencing Christians from the streets of London to the streets of Dearborn, Michigan. In both places, Christians were arrested and imprisoned for preaching the gospel on public streets...in what Muslims considered to be Islamic territories.
When four young Christian men were recently arrested and imprisoned in Dearborn, Michigan, for witnessing to their faith at an Islamic festival, it was hailed as a victory in some Islamic circles -- sharia law has come to America.
Never mind the First Amendment...this is the beginning of its demise by overwhelming Islamic ideology that is hell-bent on silencing Christians and Jews from speaking of their faith.
In Arab countries where Christians make up a sizeable minority, Christians are not allowed to speak of their faith outside of the church walls. Now it is happening in America's heartland.
The silencing, humiliation, and reduction of Christians and Jews to second class citizens is as old as Islam itself. This Islamic doctrine is known as the 'Dhimmis'. It was articulated and implemented by 'Omar,' the second successor of their prophet Mohammad. He articulated this doctrine when he invaded Christian lands in an effort to subjugate Christian residents who were captured by the sword.
This is the third wave of Jihad. The first wave was in the middle 600s. The second wave was by the Turks in the 1700s. In this third wave, Muslims believe they can advance by taking advantage of Western ignorance of their ideology coupled with Western sympathies and a penchant for fairness.
To add insult to injury, the Counsel of Islamic Nations is pushing hard in the United Nations to implement an international law that would outlaw the preaching of the gospel anywhere in the world. As if this is not chilling enough, the Dearborn incident is now considered to be a good omen for Islamic take over.
Unless freedom-loving people wake up now, their children will wake up to discover that they are living under sharia law."
Al Gore: The "Crazed Sex Poodle"
When I first heard about the Al Gore sex scandal, I figured it was probably a lie because the incident took place four years ago and this is the first we are hearing about it. But, the more I hear, the more credible it sounds. Hey, eight years of hanging out with Bill Clinton was not without effect.
Wait until you read this wild story and the reason that no charges were filed. And let us not forget that the American Pravda covered for a philandering liberal once again. What a surprise! Try to imagine the reaction if this behavior came from a conservative. It would be the news 24/7.
Read from the Washington Examiner:
Sex complaint against Gore is detailed, credible
By: Byron York
"The allegation that Al Gore sexually assaulted a woman in a Portland, Ore., hotel room nearly four years ago has dealt a serious blow to the former vice president's story that he and wife Tipper simply 'grew apart' after 40 years of marriage.
The police report of the masseuse's complaint is 73 pages long and extremely detailed. According to the document, she got a call from the front desk of the trendy Hotel Lucia on the night of Oct. 24, 2006. The hotel had a special guest. Could she come at 10:30 p.m.?
She went to Gore's room carrying a folding massage table and other equipment. Gore, whom she had never met, greeted her with a warm embrace. 'The hug went on a bit long, and I was taken just a bit aback by it,' the masseuse told police. But she went along because Gore 'was a VIP and a powerful individual and the Hotel Lucia had made it clear to me by inference that they were giving him "the royal treatment."'
[Click here for the gory details]
Finally she got away. Later, she talked to friends, liberals like herself, who advised against telling police. One asked her 'to just suck it up; otherwise, the world's going to be destroyed from global warming.'
She got a lawyer and made an appointment to talk with authorities. She canceled and did not tell police until January 2009 and even then did not press charges.
In 2007, a Portland paper learned what had happened. Gore's lawyers called the story 'absolutely false,' and it wasn't published.
Now the National Enquirer has made the police report public. And Gore's family-man image will never be the same."
Wait until you read this wild story and the reason that no charges were filed. And let us not forget that the American Pravda covered for a philandering liberal once again. What a surprise! Try to imagine the reaction if this behavior came from a conservative. It would be the news 24/7.
Read from the Washington Examiner:
Sex complaint against Gore is detailed, credible
By: Byron York
"The allegation that Al Gore sexually assaulted a woman in a Portland, Ore., hotel room nearly four years ago has dealt a serious blow to the former vice president's story that he and wife Tipper simply 'grew apart' after 40 years of marriage.
The police report of the masseuse's complaint is 73 pages long and extremely detailed. According to the document, she got a call from the front desk of the trendy Hotel Lucia on the night of Oct. 24, 2006. The hotel had a special guest. Could she come at 10:30 p.m.?
She went to Gore's room carrying a folding massage table and other equipment. Gore, whom she had never met, greeted her with a warm embrace. 'The hug went on a bit long, and I was taken just a bit aback by it,' the masseuse told police. But she went along because Gore 'was a VIP and a powerful individual and the Hotel Lucia had made it clear to me by inference that they were giving him "the royal treatment."'
[Click here for the gory details]
Finally she got away. Later, she talked to friends, liberals like herself, who advised against telling police. One asked her 'to just suck it up; otherwise, the world's going to be destroyed from global warming.'
She got a lawyer and made an appointment to talk with authorities. She canceled and did not tell police until January 2009 and even then did not press charges.
In 2007, a Portland paper learned what had happened. Gore's lawyers called the story 'absolutely false,' and it wasn't published.
Now the National Enquirer has made the police report public. And Gore's family-man image will never be the same."
Janeane Garofalo Loses the Thrill
Dear sweet Janeane. Her love fest with President Obama is a thing of the past. I guess that places her in the racist category. After all, she was the one who said that those who opposed Obama were racists.
Lesson of the day: It is impossible to please an angry liberal.
Lesson of the day: It is impossible to please an angry liberal.
Gaza Flotilla: A Bunch of Muslim Nazis
A picture speaks volumes. The "peace activists" who were trying to break Israel's blockade of Gaza are nothing more than a Muslim version of Nazis.
From Atlas Shrugs:
"'Peace Activists' From Gaza Flotilla Flying Nazi Flag (hat tip Weasel Zippers)
From Atlas Shrugs:
"'Peace Activists' From Gaza Flotilla Flying Nazi Flag (hat tip Weasel Zippers)
Monday, June 28, 2010
"The Real Time Bomb"
President Obama has one thing going for him, and one thing alone: Americans have liked the man from the moment he stepped onto the public stage. They like his glamorous wife and his two cute daughters. (The American Pravda has failed to remind us that Michelle was one bitter woman, though she certainly has nothing to be bitter about now, as she is living high off the hog in the White House.)
The real question is: How much longer can his popularity last? Will the public continue to support an incompetent president who is unable to get the economy back on track? Will a cool personality and a smooth tongue pay the bills? Don't think so.
The clock is ticking on the president's popularity because when it comes down to the nitty gritty, Americans want a prosperous economy; they want to see results.
Read from the American Thinker:
When Folks Stop Liking Barry
By Bruce Walker
"President Obama's image of leadership flounders in the Gulf of Mexico. While Governor Jindal displays the true qualities of leadership, our president is stuck in Saul Alinksy gear, demonizing a foreign corporation instead of actually doing anything constructive. Disgust at Obama's genuine incompetence at this genuine ecological disaster stretches across party lines and the ideological spectrum.
Barry blames Bush for everything about our dismal economy. A partisan rubber-stamp Congress has given Obama the wild and wasteful expenditures which his childish, failed, quasi-Keynesian witches' brew prophesies will spend us into prosperity. It hasn't worked. Now, oddly, congressmen facing electoral apocalypse have stopped writing our wise leader a blank check against the federal treasury.
Wearing the hat of Commander in Chief, Obama explicitly sought a general in sync with his plan to end the war in Afghanistan. Then, when General McChrystal snickered too publicly at Obama's cartoon leadership, the president replaced him with the old Bush team -- the man Obama and his pals three years ago were calling 'General Betray Us.' Does this cause a 'willing suspension of disbelief' in Obama?
The nomination of radical leftist women to the Supreme Court simply reinforces the image of Obama as a closet Marxist. His cabinet choices reinforce this image of radicalism. The American people, during Obama's administration, profess to be conservative -- and increasingly conservative according to Gallup, a poll that already shows that conservatives outnumber liberals in every single state of the Union.
The Blagojevich trial, which has already hinted at Obama's connection to the thoroughly seamy side of Chicago political corruption, may do more than hint at criminal misconduct in the future. Other creepy people, like Tony Rezko, keep popping up with common connections to Obama and Blago. How dirty is Obama? No one knows, but no Democrat could rise out of the cesspool of Chicago politics without some ethical problems.
The cumulative impact of these corrosives on Obama's presidency is becoming very clear. Although polls differ in the precise measurement of unhappiness with Obama as president, the trends in all the polls are consistent, and the combined average of these various polls is clear and stark: Confidence in President Obama has fallen dramatically, and a plurality of Americans now disapprove of the job he has done as president.
What, then, is preventing a total collapse of Obama? In a word, it is Obama's likability. Before my conservative friends commit me to an asylum, we must be objective: Many millions more Americans like Obama than see him as an effective leader. He is (or is seen as) a loving father, a good husband, a sincere man who rose out of difficult circumstances into high office. Obama speaks well, he talks about sports, he is seen in every flattering photo-op which the servile leftist press can engineer. Americans like him.
Since television became king in politics, presidents who appeared 'likable' to the camera -- Eisenhower, JFK, Carter, Reagan, Clinton, George W. Bush, and now Obama -- have had a huge advantage in connecting to the American people. Why? The reason is largely because Americans are naturally optimistic, friendly, and receptive people. We want to like our leader.
Likability, however, is a two-edged sword. When pettiness peaks its pointy head in a president -- Jimmy Carter is the perfect example -- then Americans sour on the man in the White House. Few Americans ever expected to 'like' LBJ, Nixon, or George H.W. Bush. The national judgment on these politicians is more or less connected to their actual accomplishments or failures. When the American people saw Carter as a failure in governance and a more unpleasant person than they imagined, then he became toxic in politics. When Obama, already a catastrophe as a chief executive and policy innovator, loses his kismet with Americans, then his presidency will simply implode. Hillary Clinton might well challenge Obama just like Teddy Kennedy took on a Carter, who at times was almost running third in election polls (behind, or close to behind, maverick Republican John Anderson).
What might make average, otherwise only mildly political Americans begin to really dislike Barack Obama? If he shows a thin-skinned temper to questions or challenges. Anger comes off very badly on television. If Obama gets caught in a transparent lie, then that deceit could be a quick and deep stinger. If he appears condescending and arrogant, as he did on the infamous San Francisco tape when he was talking about people 'clinging to their religion and guns,' then the people may see a different Obama.
Will one or more of those incidents occur before the public eye during his presidency? The more appropriate question is: When will Obama show his true character before the American people? Obama's choreography is tight, but national and world events are wildly unpredictable. Who could have guessed that Obama would now be grappling with an oil spill? Who knows what the next time bomb will be?
In fact, the real time bomb is probably Obama himself. As Robin of Berkeley observed in her truly scary article, Barack Hussein Obama may well be have been a traumatized victim in his youth, perhaps of sexual abuse. If he is, then Obama will have personality disorders which simply cannot be cured (read Robin's article for the details). If Robin is right, then at some point, the true, hopelessly sick Obama will show himself before a horrified nation. Average Americans will no longer like the president. They will, instead, be saddened and repelled -- and they will emphatically expel Obama and his supporters from power or influence in our lives. When folks stop liking Barry, the party is over."
The real question is: How much longer can his popularity last? Will the public continue to support an incompetent president who is unable to get the economy back on track? Will a cool personality and a smooth tongue pay the bills? Don't think so.
The clock is ticking on the president's popularity because when it comes down to the nitty gritty, Americans want a prosperous economy; they want to see results.
Read from the American Thinker:
When Folks Stop Liking Barry
By Bruce Walker
"President Obama's image of leadership flounders in the Gulf of Mexico. While Governor Jindal displays the true qualities of leadership, our president is stuck in Saul Alinksy gear, demonizing a foreign corporation instead of actually doing anything constructive. Disgust at Obama's genuine incompetence at this genuine ecological disaster stretches across party lines and the ideological spectrum.
Barry blames Bush for everything about our dismal economy. A partisan rubber-stamp Congress has given Obama the wild and wasteful expenditures which his childish, failed, quasi-Keynesian witches' brew prophesies will spend us into prosperity. It hasn't worked. Now, oddly, congressmen facing electoral apocalypse have stopped writing our wise leader a blank check against the federal treasury.
Wearing the hat of Commander in Chief, Obama explicitly sought a general in sync with his plan to end the war in Afghanistan. Then, when General McChrystal snickered too publicly at Obama's cartoon leadership, the president replaced him with the old Bush team -- the man Obama and his pals three years ago were calling 'General Betray Us.' Does this cause a 'willing suspension of disbelief' in Obama?
The nomination of radical leftist women to the Supreme Court simply reinforces the image of Obama as a closet Marxist. His cabinet choices reinforce this image of radicalism. The American people, during Obama's administration, profess to be conservative -- and increasingly conservative according to Gallup, a poll that already shows that conservatives outnumber liberals in every single state of the Union.
The Blagojevich trial, which has already hinted at Obama's connection to the thoroughly seamy side of Chicago political corruption, may do more than hint at criminal misconduct in the future. Other creepy people, like Tony Rezko, keep popping up with common connections to Obama and Blago. How dirty is Obama? No one knows, but no Democrat could rise out of the cesspool of Chicago politics without some ethical problems.
The cumulative impact of these corrosives on Obama's presidency is becoming very clear. Although polls differ in the precise measurement of unhappiness with Obama as president, the trends in all the polls are consistent, and the combined average of these various polls is clear and stark: Confidence in President Obama has fallen dramatically, and a plurality of Americans now disapprove of the job he has done as president.
What, then, is preventing a total collapse of Obama? In a word, it is Obama's likability. Before my conservative friends commit me to an asylum, we must be objective: Many millions more Americans like Obama than see him as an effective leader. He is (or is seen as) a loving father, a good husband, a sincere man who rose out of difficult circumstances into high office. Obama speaks well, he talks about sports, he is seen in every flattering photo-op which the servile leftist press can engineer. Americans like him.
Since television became king in politics, presidents who appeared 'likable' to the camera -- Eisenhower, JFK, Carter, Reagan, Clinton, George W. Bush, and now Obama -- have had a huge advantage in connecting to the American people. Why? The reason is largely because Americans are naturally optimistic, friendly, and receptive people. We want to like our leader.
Likability, however, is a two-edged sword. When pettiness peaks its pointy head in a president -- Jimmy Carter is the perfect example -- then Americans sour on the man in the White House. Few Americans ever expected to 'like' LBJ, Nixon, or George H.W. Bush. The national judgment on these politicians is more or less connected to their actual accomplishments or failures. When the American people saw Carter as a failure in governance and a more unpleasant person than they imagined, then he became toxic in politics. When Obama, already a catastrophe as a chief executive and policy innovator, loses his kismet with Americans, then his presidency will simply implode. Hillary Clinton might well challenge Obama just like Teddy Kennedy took on a Carter, who at times was almost running third in election polls (behind, or close to behind, maverick Republican John Anderson).
What might make average, otherwise only mildly political Americans begin to really dislike Barack Obama? If he shows a thin-skinned temper to questions or challenges. Anger comes off very badly on television. If Obama gets caught in a transparent lie, then that deceit could be a quick and deep stinger. If he appears condescending and arrogant, as he did on the infamous San Francisco tape when he was talking about people 'clinging to their religion and guns,' then the people may see a different Obama.
Will one or more of those incidents occur before the public eye during his presidency? The more appropriate question is: When will Obama show his true character before the American people? Obama's choreography is tight, but national and world events are wildly unpredictable. Who could have guessed that Obama would now be grappling with an oil spill? Who knows what the next time bomb will be?
In fact, the real time bomb is probably Obama himself. As Robin of Berkeley observed in her truly scary article, Barack Hussein Obama may well be have been a traumatized victim in his youth, perhaps of sexual abuse. If he is, then Obama will have personality disorders which simply cannot be cured (read Robin's article for the details). If Robin is right, then at some point, the true, hopelessly sick Obama will show himself before a horrified nation. Average Americans will no longer like the president. They will, instead, be saddened and repelled -- and they will emphatically expel Obama and his supporters from power or influence in our lives. When folks stop liking Barry, the party is over."
An "Expert" on Foreign Policy
Poor Barry! Everything he touches turns to crap. Despite his incompetence, President Obama's ego remains unmatched.
I always considered foreign policy an annoyance to Obama, except, of course, when it comes to his delight in pressuring Israel, because he concentrates most of his time and efforts into transforming our nation into his socialist utopia.
Nevertheless, as ludicrous as it is, the president actually considers himself an expert on foreign policy. How scary is that!
Read from Frum Forum, via Israel Matzav:
Obama’s Parade of Foreign Policy Failures
"Can you name one major foreign policy initiative of the Obama administration that is not mired in horrible failure?
The Afghan war is going wrong. Diplomatic outreach to Iran was slapped away. Concessions to Russia failed to buy meaningful sanctions. Pro-Obama European governments have declined to send more troops to Afghanistan. Obama’s personal relationships with leaders of Germany, U.K. and France are cool to chilly. The President’s outreach to the Islamic world has achieved nothing: In fact, more anti-American terrorist plots were launched in 2009 than in any year since 2001. When a pro-Hugo Chavez president tried to hold power illegally in Honduras, the Obama administration backed the lawless president over a unanimous Honduran Supreme Court.
Then, think of all the non-initiatives that might help but are not happening:
Where is the United States as the euro threatens to crack up? Hezbollah is aggressively rearming in Lebanon, the United States does nothing. Washington seems to have no trade policy, no plan for holding Iraq together after U.S. combat troops leave, and has lost all interest in promotion of democracy or human rights.
A few weeks after Barack Obama’s 2008 election win, I had a chance to talk to someone who had spent a lot of time with the candidate. I asked: In Obama’s own opinion, what is his expertise? What does he think he knows a lot about?
This Obama observer answered: 'Foreign affairs.'
He saw the shocked look on my face and laughed. 'You may think Obama has no reason to think himself an expert, but believe me: he does.'
My informant proved exactly right.
At home, Obama has been a largely hands-off president. The major domestic initiatives of his presidency were designed by others with limited presidential input.
The bank rescue was designed and overseen by Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke.
The big economic stimulus was written by Democrats in Congress for their own purposes, discarding signature Obama themes such as upgrades to the electrical grid.
Healthcare plan? Again written in Congress, negotiated between House liberals and more conservative Democrats in the Senate. On the key issues in negotiation, including the famous public option, Obama took no position at all.
Energy and environment: The big decisions on climate change legislation are being made in Henry Waxman’s committee in the House of Representatives, with only notional White House input.
But in international affairs, the big decisions are the president’s own. It was Obama who decided to surge 30,000 fewer troops into Afghanistan than his commanding general requested, while telling the Taliban the president’s deadline for U.S. withdrawal.
It was Obama who decided to pooh-pooh Iran’s brutal crackdown on democracy protesters last summer in hope of enticing the Iranian government into talks with the United States.
It was Obama who cancelled the European missile-defense program in hopes of winning Russian help on Iran sanctions.
It was Obama who cold-shouldered Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu, and he who is quietly acceding as the Palestinian Authority moves toward a unilateral declaration of statehood.
It was Obama who tilted against the Honduran Supreme Court and in favor of Honduras’ Chavezista president.
These are the decisions that are going awry — and visibly awry.
The real news in the Rolling Stone article that cost General Stanley McChrystal his job was not that the general’s aides were full of grumbles against their civilian colleagues. The news was that the commanding general in Afghanistan does not believe that the war is being won.
Anyway: What would 'winning' mean? The Bush administration made a decision back in 2002 not to over-invest in Afghanistan, to settle for very limited goals and to focus instead on Iraq. Candidate Obama fiercely opposed the Iraq war and called instead for a big new recommitment to Afghanistan.
Once elected president, Obama hesitated for months as he pondered whether to fulfill his pledges on Afghanistan. That delay suggests to me that the original commitment had been made for campaign purposes, and did not reflect a serious analysis of the costs and benefits of a big Afghan counterinsurgency.
Whatever Obama’s motives, the results of his long-pondered policy have been disappointing to everybody — and a sharp reminder of the reasons that president Bush opted against nation-building in Afghanistan.
Now President Obama faces another up-or-out decision. He has a new general in the field, who is surely telling the president that the president’s deadline for withdrawal is unrealistic. Afghanistan cannot be transformed in a few months. The United States is either committed for the duration — or else it’s time to begin looking now for an exit that meets minimum U.S. goals: deny al-Qaeda a safe haven, deny the Taliban a return to power in Kabul.
Once again, the decision is the President’s to make. Based on previous performance, you have to worry: Will he do any better this time than last?"
I always considered foreign policy an annoyance to Obama, except, of course, when it comes to his delight in pressuring Israel, because he concentrates most of his time and efforts into transforming our nation into his socialist utopia.
Nevertheless, as ludicrous as it is, the president actually considers himself an expert on foreign policy. How scary is that!
Read from Frum Forum, via Israel Matzav:
Obama’s Parade of Foreign Policy Failures
"Can you name one major foreign policy initiative of the Obama administration that is not mired in horrible failure?
The Afghan war is going wrong. Diplomatic outreach to Iran was slapped away. Concessions to Russia failed to buy meaningful sanctions. Pro-Obama European governments have declined to send more troops to Afghanistan. Obama’s personal relationships with leaders of Germany, U.K. and France are cool to chilly. The President’s outreach to the Islamic world has achieved nothing: In fact, more anti-American terrorist plots were launched in 2009 than in any year since 2001. When a pro-Hugo Chavez president tried to hold power illegally in Honduras, the Obama administration backed the lawless president over a unanimous Honduran Supreme Court.
Then, think of all the non-initiatives that might help but are not happening:
Where is the United States as the euro threatens to crack up? Hezbollah is aggressively rearming in Lebanon, the United States does nothing. Washington seems to have no trade policy, no plan for holding Iraq together after U.S. combat troops leave, and has lost all interest in promotion of democracy or human rights.
A few weeks after Barack Obama’s 2008 election win, I had a chance to talk to someone who had spent a lot of time with the candidate. I asked: In Obama’s own opinion, what is his expertise? What does he think he knows a lot about?
This Obama observer answered: 'Foreign affairs.'
He saw the shocked look on my face and laughed. 'You may think Obama has no reason to think himself an expert, but believe me: he does.'
My informant proved exactly right.
At home, Obama has been a largely hands-off president. The major domestic initiatives of his presidency were designed by others with limited presidential input.
The bank rescue was designed and overseen by Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke.
The big economic stimulus was written by Democrats in Congress for their own purposes, discarding signature Obama themes such as upgrades to the electrical grid.
Healthcare plan? Again written in Congress, negotiated between House liberals and more conservative Democrats in the Senate. On the key issues in negotiation, including the famous public option, Obama took no position at all.
Energy and environment: The big decisions on climate change legislation are being made in Henry Waxman’s committee in the House of Representatives, with only notional White House input.
But in international affairs, the big decisions are the president’s own. It was Obama who decided to surge 30,000 fewer troops into Afghanistan than his commanding general requested, while telling the Taliban the president’s deadline for U.S. withdrawal.
It was Obama who decided to pooh-pooh Iran’s brutal crackdown on democracy protesters last summer in hope of enticing the Iranian government into talks with the United States.
It was Obama who cancelled the European missile-defense program in hopes of winning Russian help on Iran sanctions.
It was Obama who cold-shouldered Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu, and he who is quietly acceding as the Palestinian Authority moves toward a unilateral declaration of statehood.
It was Obama who tilted against the Honduran Supreme Court and in favor of Honduras’ Chavezista president.
These are the decisions that are going awry — and visibly awry.
The real news in the Rolling Stone article that cost General Stanley McChrystal his job was not that the general’s aides were full of grumbles against their civilian colleagues. The news was that the commanding general in Afghanistan does not believe that the war is being won.
Anyway: What would 'winning' mean? The Bush administration made a decision back in 2002 not to over-invest in Afghanistan, to settle for very limited goals and to focus instead on Iraq. Candidate Obama fiercely opposed the Iraq war and called instead for a big new recommitment to Afghanistan.
Once elected president, Obama hesitated for months as he pondered whether to fulfill his pledges on Afghanistan. That delay suggests to me that the original commitment had been made for campaign purposes, and did not reflect a serious analysis of the costs and benefits of a big Afghan counterinsurgency.
Whatever Obama’s motives, the results of his long-pondered policy have been disappointing to everybody — and a sharp reminder of the reasons that president Bush opted against nation-building in Afghanistan.
Now President Obama faces another up-or-out decision. He has a new general in the field, who is surely telling the president that the president’s deadline for withdrawal is unrealistic. Afghanistan cannot be transformed in a few months. The United States is either committed for the duration — or else it’s time to begin looking now for an exit that meets minimum U.S. goals: deny al-Qaeda a safe haven, deny the Taliban a return to power in Kabul.
Once again, the decision is the President’s to make. Based on previous performance, you have to worry: Will he do any better this time than last?"
Conservatives Vs. Liberals--Part 2
Last September, I ran this piece and decided it was worth running again with a little addition.
Conservatives Vs. Liberals
A picture speaks a thousand words. Check out the difference between conservative and liberal protests.
Conservatives: peaceful
Liberals: Out of control
One more comparison, from Gateway Pundit:
CLEAN Conservatives vs FILTHY Liberals-- A Photographic Essay
"After the 2 million strong conservative freedom rally on 9-12:
Looks pretty clean.
And, here is the filth left for someone else to clean up after the Inauguration of Barack Obama:
Via Prisca
The democrats were obviously waiting for Big Government to clean up for them."
Ah yes, the entitlement crowd at their best.
Now, we can add this photo of Obama's radical friends at the G-20 in Toronto:
Conservatives Vs. Liberals
A picture speaks a thousand words. Check out the difference between conservative and liberal protests.
Conservatives: peaceful
Liberals: Out of control
One more comparison, from Gateway Pundit:
CLEAN Conservatives vs FILTHY Liberals-- A Photographic Essay
"After the 2 million strong conservative freedom rally on 9-12:
Looks pretty clean.
And, here is the filth left for someone else to clean up after the Inauguration of Barack Obama:
Via Prisca
The democrats were obviously waiting for Big Government to clean up for them."
Ah yes, the entitlement crowd at their best.
Now, we can add this photo of Obama's radical friends at the G-20 in Toronto:
Saturday, June 26, 2010
Condoms for Fifth Graders?
There is absolutely no wonder that America is going to hell in a handbasket. The rampant moral depravity in our country is beyond belief.
I take you to the bluer than blue state of Massachusetts where condoms are being distributed to children, and I mean elementary school children--without parental approval, naturally.
Read from Hot Air:
Good news: Mass. school now may limit condoms to, um, fifth-graders and older
"A moral victory, my friends: From now on, if you want a condom from the school nurse in Provincetown, you’ll need to be at least 10 years old.
Or nine, I suppose, if you happened to skip a grade.
'A day after the new policy caused a media firestorm, School Committee chairman Peter Grosso said that Provincetown would probably limit condoms to fifth-graders and older. His stance stemmed from a conversation he had with Superintendent Beth Singer, author of the rule set to take effect this fall.
“She said the School Committee is going to have to revisit the policy and definitely reword it so it’s self-explaining, and possibly wording it so that maybe there would be an exclusion of the real young grades,’’ Grosso said.
In a rare intervention in a local matter, [Gov. Deval] Patrick called Singer yesterday morning to urge her to keep the free condoms out of the Cape Cod community’s elementary school, which serves preschoolers to sixth-graders…
School Committee member Carrie Notaro said that while she prefers the current policy, she is willing to compromise.
“If parents are that upset, and we have to revise it to fifth- and sixth-graders, then that would be fine with me,’’ said Notaro, who has a preschooler and a second-grader in the elementary school.'
No condoms unless you’re in junior high: Way to lay down the law, Deval. Incidentally, anyone think he would have opened his mouth here if he wasn’t up for re-election and facing two Republicans who are milking this story for all its worth?"
I take you to the bluer than blue state of Massachusetts where condoms are being distributed to children, and I mean elementary school children--without parental approval, naturally.
Read from Hot Air:
Good news: Mass. school now may limit condoms to, um, fifth-graders and older
"A moral victory, my friends: From now on, if you want a condom from the school nurse in Provincetown, you’ll need to be at least 10 years old.
Or nine, I suppose, if you happened to skip a grade.
'A day after the new policy caused a media firestorm, School Committee chairman Peter Grosso said that Provincetown would probably limit condoms to fifth-graders and older. His stance stemmed from a conversation he had with Superintendent Beth Singer, author of the rule set to take effect this fall.
“She said the School Committee is going to have to revisit the policy and definitely reword it so it’s self-explaining, and possibly wording it so that maybe there would be an exclusion of the real young grades,’’ Grosso said.
In a rare intervention in a local matter, [Gov. Deval] Patrick called Singer yesterday morning to urge her to keep the free condoms out of the Cape Cod community’s elementary school, which serves preschoolers to sixth-graders…
School Committee member Carrie Notaro said that while she prefers the current policy, she is willing to compromise.
“If parents are that upset, and we have to revise it to fifth- and sixth-graders, then that would be fine with me,’’ said Notaro, who has a preschooler and a second-grader in the elementary school.'
No condoms unless you’re in junior high: Way to lay down the law, Deval. Incidentally, anyone think he would have opened his mouth here if he wasn’t up for re-election and facing two Republicans who are milking this story for all its worth?"
Good Riddance, General McChrystal
The more I hear about General Stanley McChrystal, the less I like the guy. Not only is he a bleeding heart liberal, but the man was responsible for allowing our troops to fight with their hands tied behind their backs. How can victory be achieved under those kinds of circumstances?
Of course, we want to avoid civilian casualties, but not at the expense of our own brave men and women in uniform. That's insane, and that is exactly what was happening under the command of General McChrystal.
I say, "Good riddance." Let's hope and pray General Petraeus can come in and correct this situation by loosening the ridiculous rules of engagement and taking the fight to the enemy.
Read from Gateway Pundit:
Petraeus Ready to Loosen Rules of Engagement in Afghanistan
"It looks like McChrystal’s resignation may be a blessing in disguise…
General Petraeus will likely modify the controversial rules of engagement and make it easier for U.S. troops to engage in combat with the enemy according to a source close to the general.
In this March 1, 2008 file photo, Gen. David H. Petraeus, commanding general of Multi-National Force – Iraq, talks with a group of Iraqi boys at the Al Zawra Stadium in the Karkh District of west Baghdad. Photo by Sgt. James Hunter, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 101st Airborne Division (AA) Public Affairs. (MNF-Iraq)
FOX News reported:
'A military source close to Gen. David Petraeus told Fox News that one of the first things the general will do when he takes over in Afghanistan is to modify the controversial rules of engagement to make it easier for U.S. troops to engage in combat with the enemy.
Troops on the ground and some military commanders have said the strict rules — aimed at preventing civilian casualties — have effectively forced the troops to fight with one hand tied behind their backs.
Petraeus spokesman Col. Eric Gunhus pushed back on the claim Friday, telling Fox News it’s too soon to tell whether Petraeus would change the current rules. But he said it is one of many issues he’ll take under consideration during his assessment after he’s confirmed and after he takes over command in Afghanistan.
Any adjustment to the rules of engagement does not mean the counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan will change. President Obama stressed Wednesday — after he accepted Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s resignation in the wake of a magazine article in which he and his staff were critical of the administration — that the change-up does not represent a shift in war policy.'
Look for liberal heads to explode any second now."
Of course, we want to avoid civilian casualties, but not at the expense of our own brave men and women in uniform. That's insane, and that is exactly what was happening under the command of General McChrystal.
I say, "Good riddance." Let's hope and pray General Petraeus can come in and correct this situation by loosening the ridiculous rules of engagement and taking the fight to the enemy.
Read from Gateway Pundit:
Petraeus Ready to Loosen Rules of Engagement in Afghanistan
"It looks like McChrystal’s resignation may be a blessing in disguise…
General Petraeus will likely modify the controversial rules of engagement and make it easier for U.S. troops to engage in combat with the enemy according to a source close to the general.
In this March 1, 2008 file photo, Gen. David H. Petraeus, commanding general of Multi-National Force – Iraq, talks with a group of Iraqi boys at the Al Zawra Stadium in the Karkh District of west Baghdad. Photo by Sgt. James Hunter, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 101st Airborne Division (AA) Public Affairs. (MNF-Iraq)
FOX News reported:
'A military source close to Gen. David Petraeus told Fox News that one of the first things the general will do when he takes over in Afghanistan is to modify the controversial rules of engagement to make it easier for U.S. troops to engage in combat with the enemy.
Troops on the ground and some military commanders have said the strict rules — aimed at preventing civilian casualties — have effectively forced the troops to fight with one hand tied behind their backs.
Petraeus spokesman Col. Eric Gunhus pushed back on the claim Friday, telling Fox News it’s too soon to tell whether Petraeus would change the current rules. But he said it is one of many issues he’ll take under consideration during his assessment after he’s confirmed and after he takes over command in Afghanistan.
Any adjustment to the rules of engagement does not mean the counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan will change. President Obama stressed Wednesday — after he accepted Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s resignation in the wake of a magazine article in which he and his staff were critical of the administration — that the change-up does not represent a shift in war policy.'
Look for liberal heads to explode any second now."
The 100 Americans the Left Hates Most
Guess who they hate the most? Is it Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, George W. Bush? Enjoy!
From Media.GlennBeck.com via Hot Air:
From Media.GlennBeck.com via Hot Air:
Islam: Not a Religion of Peace
From Atlas Shrugs:
Muslim Leader Admits Islam Not a Religion of Peace
"'There is a place for violence in Islam'"
Muslim Leader Admits Islam Not a Religion of Peace
"'There is a place for violence in Islam'"
True Leadership
What a woman! Watch the death threats arise as she speaks out against Washington for not doing its job. Bravo, Governor Brewer!
From Gateway Pundit:
From Gateway Pundit:
Friday, June 25, 2010
Obama, Soros, and Petrobras
Well, well, well. What have we here? As Glenn Beck said, "It's a small world after all."
Speaking of Glenn Beck, he is doing the job the American Pravda refuses to do. What would America do without this man? Please pray the Left does not put a hit out on him.
While Obama manuevers to shut down oil drilling, one man benefits from him doing so. Who is that man? None other than George Soros, the man who dictates to Obama how to run this country. Obama is nothing more than a puppet following orders.
Read from Before Its News:
Crime Inc: The George Soros Story
"Last month I went into extended detail about the story called Crime Inc. Exposed by Glenn Beck, Crime Inc. is a web of liberal and progressive organizations that leave a trail all the way to the White House and President Obama. Cap and Trade is the flag all of the players rally in Crime Inc. rally around. Mr. Beck added another twist to the story, as if it was not spooky enough already. Only now the central theme is George Soros.
First let me lay out who the major players are, but please do not get lost in the details:
- George Soros: Billionaire hedge-fund investor that funds left-wing organizations including the Apollo Alliance, Media Matters, and the Center for American Progress. Soros has called for the nationalizing the financial system in America and a New World Order. Invested about $900 million in Petrobras, one his fund’s top investments.
- The Center for American Progress (CAP): Funded by George Soros, the CAP is a far left progressive organization that supports 'government that champions the common good over narrow self-interest.' Bloomberg has reported that the CAP helps shape the Obama Administration’s agenda. About the CAP, Time Magazine has claims that 'Not since the Heritage Foundation helped guide Ronald Reagan’s transition in 1981 has a single outside group held so much sway.'
- John Podesta: The founder of the CAP and advisor to both President Clinton and President Obama. He served as Obama’s co-chair on transition team, helping select Obama’s advisors and shape his agenda.
- Petrobras: Brazil’s multi-billion dollar state-run oil company. Heavily invested in deepwater drilling, including a wells as deep as 7000 meters.
- British Petroleum (BP): Responsible for the ongoing oil spill disaster in the gulf due to the failure of a deepwater rig drilling at 1500 meters
Those are the key players involved. Let’s now look at how Glenn Beck explained they are all related.
George Soros invests in the Center for American Progress. The CAP’s founder, John Podesta helps select President Obama’s advisors. Soros’s hedge-fund invests millions in Petrobras, making it one of his fund’s top invesments. John Podesta and the CAP assists in forming White House policy, including Cap and Trade. The rig drilling at 1500 meters operated by BP explodes, prompting Obama to halt new deepwater drilling. In Obama’s address regarding the moratorium, he pushes his green energy policy. All the while Obama committed a $2 billion 'preliminary investment' in Petrobras, who is seeking to drill deepwater oil wells significantly deeper than the BP well. As luck would have it, Obama’s investment came just days after George Soro’s investment.
In summary, George Soros with his vast amounts of money has aggressively funded Petrobras and the CAP. The CAP is shaping Obama’s policies, so it is reasonable to believe that Soros holds strong influence with Obama and his polices. Obama commits $2 billion to Petrobras days after Soros’s investment, and then a year later bans Petrobra’s American competition from opening new deepwater wells.
Forget conspiracy theory for a moment. Pretend all of this is a mere coincidence and there is absolutely no corrupt organized effort involved. Even as a coincidence, who are the winners in this game? Petrobras and its stakeholders like George Soros! Who are the losers? American businesses and thousands of workers who have been vastly harmed by President Obama’s rash deepwater oil moratorium! Organized effort or not, does that sound like a good situation for America?
The Obama Administration seems to all but beg for crazy stories like Crime Inc. To me it almost seems like Obama just does not care. Perhaps as a student of the Marxist Sol Alinsky, Obama is taking his words in Rules for Radicals 'the ends justify the means' very seriously. I pray that is not the case.
Thankfully, U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman lifted Obama’s new deepwater moratorium, but the Obama Administration vows to appeal that decision. Ken Salazar,Obama’s Interior Secretary is already working new moratorium. Will the Obama Administration not be happy until all of the rigs are leased by foreign companies. crippling our oil industry and costing thousands of American jobs forever? Is this not economic suicide?
Glenn Beck explains this side of Crime Inc. in his own words:"
BTW, those from the angry Left are making death threats on Judge Feldman. No surprise there.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
A President For Whom Americans Cannot Relate
It's been President Obama's intention from day one to cut this nation which we love down to size. But, the laugh is on him. Due to his ungodly policies, God is instead cutting our president down to size as everything our president touches turns to crap.
Americans were once infatuated with our smooth-talking president, but now that they are getting to know the man, they are finding that he does not represent American values. He truly is the manchurian president.
Read from Hot Air:
NBC/WSJ poll: Americans losing faith in Obama
"The oil apocalypse finally caught up to him. His approval’s at 42/50 on the spill and, for the first time, below 50 percent overall at 45/48. To see how far public confidence in him has declined, start on page 19 of the crosstabs and just keep scrolling. These two tables will give you a taste, though:
The polling on ObamaCare is up a tiny bit (from 36/48 in March to 40/44), which is in line with other recent surveys, but that’s really the extent of the good news for him. Compare the data above to some of the quotes in the Journal’s piece from voters; the Hopenchange brand has taken enough of a hit that I think we’ve officially moved from a 'Can the Democrats rebound?' narrative for the fall to a 'Can the Democrats stop the bleeding?' one.
'“As a Democrat and as a woman, I am disappointed in him,” said poll respondent Melissa Riner, a 42-year-old law clerk from Mesa, Ariz. Referring to the oil spill, Ms. Riner added, “I don’t think he’s handling it. He doesn’t seem to be doing anything. He just talks.”
James Ciarmataro, a 23-year-old stay-at-home dad from Macomb, Mich., said it was difficult to relate to Mr. Obama, because the president is “eating steak dinners at the White House and playing golf” while the country is suffering.
An independent, Mr. Ciarmataro said he would vote in November for “whoever seems the newest, and doesn’t seem to have any ties to anybody else.”'
62 percent say the country’s on the wrong track, the highest figure of Obama’s presidency, and the enthusiasm gap (“high interest”) for the midterms between McCain voters in ‘08 versus Obama voters is now, er, 71/44. Ciarmataro’s not the only one eager to give new people a chance, either: The split between those who want to reelect their congressman versus those who want someone new stands at 35/57. The latter number is the highest since 1992.
Two more tidbits for you. First, a succinct explanation for why even so many Democrats in Congress are pro-Israel:
And second, a reminder of why Sarahcuda’s endorsement is coveted in Republican primaries but maybe not so much in general elections:
That split on the tea party isn’t encouraging either, and the bottom line about social security is migraine-inducing given the approaching entitlements crisis. All told, watch your back, Sharron Angle! Exit fun fact: BP’s approval rating stands at six percent. A WSJ/NBC poll taken a few years ago measured O.J. Simpson’s at 11 percent."
Americans were once infatuated with our smooth-talking president, but now that they are getting to know the man, they are finding that he does not represent American values. He truly is the manchurian president.
Read from Hot Air:
NBC/WSJ poll: Americans losing faith in Obama
"The oil apocalypse finally caught up to him. His approval’s at 42/50 on the spill and, for the first time, below 50 percent overall at 45/48. To see how far public confidence in him has declined, start on page 19 of the crosstabs and just keep scrolling. These two tables will give you a taste, though:
The polling on ObamaCare is up a tiny bit (from 36/48 in March to 40/44), which is in line with other recent surveys, but that’s really the extent of the good news for him. Compare the data above to some of the quotes in the Journal’s piece from voters; the Hopenchange brand has taken enough of a hit that I think we’ve officially moved from a 'Can the Democrats rebound?' narrative for the fall to a 'Can the Democrats stop the bleeding?' one.
'“As a Democrat and as a woman, I am disappointed in him,” said poll respondent Melissa Riner, a 42-year-old law clerk from Mesa, Ariz. Referring to the oil spill, Ms. Riner added, “I don’t think he’s handling it. He doesn’t seem to be doing anything. He just talks.”
James Ciarmataro, a 23-year-old stay-at-home dad from Macomb, Mich., said it was difficult to relate to Mr. Obama, because the president is “eating steak dinners at the White House and playing golf” while the country is suffering.
An independent, Mr. Ciarmataro said he would vote in November for “whoever seems the newest, and doesn’t seem to have any ties to anybody else.”'
62 percent say the country’s on the wrong track, the highest figure of Obama’s presidency, and the enthusiasm gap (“high interest”) for the midterms between McCain voters in ‘08 versus Obama voters is now, er, 71/44. Ciarmataro’s not the only one eager to give new people a chance, either: The split between those who want to reelect their congressman versus those who want someone new stands at 35/57. The latter number is the highest since 1992.
Two more tidbits for you. First, a succinct explanation for why even so many Democrats in Congress are pro-Israel:
And second, a reminder of why Sarahcuda’s endorsement is coveted in Republican primaries but maybe not so much in general elections:
That split on the tea party isn’t encouraging either, and the bottom line about social security is migraine-inducing given the approaching entitlements crisis. All told, watch your back, Sharron Angle! Exit fun fact: BP’s approval rating stands at six percent. A WSJ/NBC poll taken a few years ago measured O.J. Simpson’s at 11 percent."
Creeping Sharia in Dearbornistan
It's actions like what recently took place in Dearbornistan which make me complain about Islam. This is overwhelmingly a Christian America, and we do not appreciate how Muslims are intimidating non-Muslims and forcing their agenda down our throats. Let them do that in Saudi Arabia, which by the way forbids churches altogether, but keep their Sharia nonsense away from the rest of us.
Notice that we don't hear a peep out of Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Mormons, etc. Why can't Muslims follow suit? And why on earth do those in authority in this nation keep kowtowing to the Islamists? It's a disgrace!
Read from Powerline:
Sharia Comes to Michigan
"Under Sharia law, it is forbidden to proselytize to Muslims, and no Muslim can leave the faith. Dearborn, Michigan, is home to a substantial Muslim population, and there is strong evidence that local authorities now enforce sharia in preference to the Constitution of the United States. Thus this Associated Press story about the arrest of four Christian missionaries that took place on Friday:
Police in the heavily Arab Detroit suburb of Dearborn say they arrested four Christian missionaries for disorderly conduct at an Arab cultural festival.
Police Chief Ron Haddad says his department made the arrests Friday. The four are free on bond.
Here is video of the arrest. The 'disorderly conduct' consisted of handing out copies of the Gospel of John outside the festival. Note the police demand that one of the group stop filming the arrest:
Many people seem to believe that concerns about creeping sharia are exaggerated or misplaced. This incident demonstrates, I think, the contrary."
Notice that we don't hear a peep out of Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Mormons, etc. Why can't Muslims follow suit? And why on earth do those in authority in this nation keep kowtowing to the Islamists? It's a disgrace!
Read from Powerline:
Sharia Comes to Michigan
"Under Sharia law, it is forbidden to proselytize to Muslims, and no Muslim can leave the faith. Dearborn, Michigan, is home to a substantial Muslim population, and there is strong evidence that local authorities now enforce sharia in preference to the Constitution of the United States. Thus this Associated Press story about the arrest of four Christian missionaries that took place on Friday:
Police in the heavily Arab Detroit suburb of Dearborn say they arrested four Christian missionaries for disorderly conduct at an Arab cultural festival.
Police Chief Ron Haddad says his department made the arrests Friday. The four are free on bond.
Here is video of the arrest. The 'disorderly conduct' consisted of handing out copies of the Gospel of John outside the festival. Note the police demand that one of the group stop filming the arrest:
Many people seem to believe that concerns about creeping sharia are exaggerated or misplaced. This incident demonstrates, I think, the contrary."
The Angry Left
Republicans and moderates have long since fled from supporting President Obama because of his radical angenda. Yes, Diogenes, we all are well aware of Obama's popularity and his victory in 2008. But, that was then, and this is now. And the times they are a changing.
Read about how the smooth-talking president is also alienating his base, via Dick Morris:
MCCHRYSTAL’S ATTACK HURTS OBAMA’S LEFT WING BASE
"General Stanley McChrystal’s interview in Rolling Stone Magazine will do a lot to damage further President Obama’s standing among liberals and Democrats and will undermine his chances of keeping control of Congress in 2010.
To conservative voters and commentators, his comments underscore doubts about Obama’s competence. To the Administration’s spokespeople, the interview shows a lack of proper subordination in the chain of command. But to the voters of the left, the key import of his comments is that the general in charge of the war in Afghanistan basically said the war is not being won, and perhaps cannot be won.
Obama’s decision to fire McChrystal guarantees that the story will now share page one with the Gulf oil spill, focusing liberal attention on Obama’s two cardinal sins in liberal eyes – the oil spill and the war in Afghanistan. Relieving the general of command sends a message that Obama is thin-skinned, arrogant, and easily offended.
Coming at the same time that the failure of the Obama Administration to clean up the oil spill in the Gulf is already rankling liberal voters, the McChrystal comments will add to their doubts about Obama. They already are against his decision to send additional troops there and have long believed that we should not be fighting in Afghanistan. By calling attention to how badly the war is going and the disarray in the president’s foreign policy apparatus, the McChrystal interview can only highlight and underscore these concerns and further dampen liberal enthusiasm for Obama.
Neither the oil spill nor the Afghan War will drive any liberals to vote for conservatives or induce Democrats to vote Republican. But they both will hold down Democratic turnout and reinforce cynicism about the Obama presidency on the left. Those initially attracted by Obama’s charisma will be driven away by these twin failures.
The Democratic Party is really a synthesis of environmentalists and peace advocates with a few gay rights activists and public employee unions thrown in. Now, Obama has alienated both the green and the anti-war segments of the party. And the continuing spillage from the Gulf oil well and from the General’s mouth will further damage his standing with his political base.
Whatever the fate of General McChrystal or of the American involvement in the war, the mounting casualty lists will drag down Obama’s prospects in November still further and depress his ratings in the days ahead."
Read about how the smooth-talking president is also alienating his base, via Dick Morris:
MCCHRYSTAL’S ATTACK HURTS OBAMA’S LEFT WING BASE
"General Stanley McChrystal’s interview in Rolling Stone Magazine will do a lot to damage further President Obama’s standing among liberals and Democrats and will undermine his chances of keeping control of Congress in 2010.
To conservative voters and commentators, his comments underscore doubts about Obama’s competence. To the Administration’s spokespeople, the interview shows a lack of proper subordination in the chain of command. But to the voters of the left, the key import of his comments is that the general in charge of the war in Afghanistan basically said the war is not being won, and perhaps cannot be won.
Obama’s decision to fire McChrystal guarantees that the story will now share page one with the Gulf oil spill, focusing liberal attention on Obama’s two cardinal sins in liberal eyes – the oil spill and the war in Afghanistan. Relieving the general of command sends a message that Obama is thin-skinned, arrogant, and easily offended.
Coming at the same time that the failure of the Obama Administration to clean up the oil spill in the Gulf is already rankling liberal voters, the McChrystal comments will add to their doubts about Obama. They already are against his decision to send additional troops there and have long believed that we should not be fighting in Afghanistan. By calling attention to how badly the war is going and the disarray in the president’s foreign policy apparatus, the McChrystal interview can only highlight and underscore these concerns and further dampen liberal enthusiasm for Obama.
Neither the oil spill nor the Afghan War will drive any liberals to vote for conservatives or induce Democrats to vote Republican. But they both will hold down Democratic turnout and reinforce cynicism about the Obama presidency on the left. Those initially attracted by Obama’s charisma will be driven away by these twin failures.
The Democratic Party is really a synthesis of environmentalists and peace advocates with a few gay rights activists and public employee unions thrown in. Now, Obama has alienated both the green and the anti-war segments of the party. And the continuing spillage from the Gulf oil well and from the General’s mouth will further damage his standing with his political base.
Whatever the fate of General McChrystal or of the American involvement in the war, the mounting casualty lists will drag down Obama’s prospects in November still further and depress his ratings in the days ahead."
The Bruised Ego Strikes
My how times have changed. When General David Petraeus was President Bush's head guy in Iraq, he was despised by both the liberals in Congress and their cohorts in the American Pravda. As I recall, Obama didn't have too much confidence in Petraeus a few years back.
Take a listen, via Hot Air:
Now, that he has been hand-picked by President Obama because of his huge bruised ego, Petraeus is being hailed as a military genius. The hypocrisy from the Left is enough to make one gag. It doesn't seem that long ago that they labeled Petraeus "General Betray Us".
I've always had great confidence in Petraeus, but a change in personnel with an approaching offensive in Afghanistan? Is that wise? How will this change in leadership affect our troops and the war effort?
What shocks me the most is the fact that General McChrystal is a stinkin' liberal. Not only did he vote for Obama, but he banned Fox News from his headquarters. How on earth can he be military and liberal? The libs hate anything to do with the military. They go together like oil and water. What kind of martyr is McChrystal to support those who hate him?
A good friend of mine has a son who just completed four years in the Marines. He told her that his fellow Marines DESPISE Obama. It's particularly bad when a liberal general starts bad-mouthing Obama and his foreign policy team. If he can't keep their support, we know he's in trouble.
Read from the American Spectator:
His Swallowed Pride
By Russ Ferguson
"I'm not saying that General McChrystal did nothing wrong. His comments were clearly inappropriate. But if there is anyone who should be able to get away with such comments, it's General McChrystal. Not only because he puts his life on the line every single day for the American people, but because we need him. The President has said that his decision to accept the General's resignation is not personal, yet he accepted it anyway.
But if it wasn't personal, what other reason is there?
The only other possible person to lead the war in Afghanistan was General Petraeus, and the President knows that. But what signal is he sending by selecting him?
General Petraeus, after all, is the general that President Obama vehemently criticized when he was running for President. He continually said what a poor job our leaders had done in Iraq, but that Afghanistan was a war worth fighting.
General Petraeus is a general that liberals have been more than displeased with for a long time.
In late 2007, the liberal MoveOn.org published a full-page ad in the New York Times that said 'General Betray Us,' featuring, of course, an enormous picture of General Petraeus.
Largely, no one supported this ad disparaging a courageous man who has put everything on the table -- including his life -- to protect us here at home. Even during the presidential election, then-Senator Hillary Clinton rushed to Washington to vote in favor of a resolution condemning MoveOn.org for the ad.
Barack Obama also rushed to Washington. He voted that week. But he was conspicuously absent from the vote to condemn MoveOn.org. The resolution passed 72 to 25, with overwhelming Democratic support, but without the support of this President.
Missing votes while you're running for President happens all the time, but Senator Obama was in Washington and his opponent, Senator Clinton, made the vote.
It is clear that the President does not like General Petraeus. It is clear that the President does not think General Petraeus did a good job in Iraq. But he selected him anyway because General McChrystal took his ego down a notch.
Ego is what determined the fate of General McChrystal. No matter what the President says, it is ego and ego alone.
While there may be a situation where a military commander should resign for comments such as General McChrystal's in Rolling Stone, this is not it. We need him more than the President needs an ego boost. And we need General Petraeus as the commander of U.S. Central Command. We have enough problems at home, let's not make our military efforts abroad a problem again.
Of all that is happening in the world this very instant, ego is the least of the President's problems."
Take a listen, via Hot Air:
Now, that he has been hand-picked by President Obama because of his huge bruised ego, Petraeus is being hailed as a military genius. The hypocrisy from the Left is enough to make one gag. It doesn't seem that long ago that they labeled Petraeus "General Betray Us".
I've always had great confidence in Petraeus, but a change in personnel with an approaching offensive in Afghanistan? Is that wise? How will this change in leadership affect our troops and the war effort?
What shocks me the most is the fact that General McChrystal is a stinkin' liberal. Not only did he vote for Obama, but he banned Fox News from his headquarters. How on earth can he be military and liberal? The libs hate anything to do with the military. They go together like oil and water. What kind of martyr is McChrystal to support those who hate him?
A good friend of mine has a son who just completed four years in the Marines. He told her that his fellow Marines DESPISE Obama. It's particularly bad when a liberal general starts bad-mouthing Obama and his foreign policy team. If he can't keep their support, we know he's in trouble.
Read from the American Spectator:
His Swallowed Pride
By Russ Ferguson
"I'm not saying that General McChrystal did nothing wrong. His comments were clearly inappropriate. But if there is anyone who should be able to get away with such comments, it's General McChrystal. Not only because he puts his life on the line every single day for the American people, but because we need him. The President has said that his decision to accept the General's resignation is not personal, yet he accepted it anyway.
But if it wasn't personal, what other reason is there?
The only other possible person to lead the war in Afghanistan was General Petraeus, and the President knows that. But what signal is he sending by selecting him?
General Petraeus, after all, is the general that President Obama vehemently criticized when he was running for President. He continually said what a poor job our leaders had done in Iraq, but that Afghanistan was a war worth fighting.
General Petraeus is a general that liberals have been more than displeased with for a long time.
In late 2007, the liberal MoveOn.org published a full-page ad in the New York Times that said 'General Betray Us,' featuring, of course, an enormous picture of General Petraeus.
Largely, no one supported this ad disparaging a courageous man who has put everything on the table -- including his life -- to protect us here at home. Even during the presidential election, then-Senator Hillary Clinton rushed to Washington to vote in favor of a resolution condemning MoveOn.org for the ad.
Barack Obama also rushed to Washington. He voted that week. But he was conspicuously absent from the vote to condemn MoveOn.org. The resolution passed 72 to 25, with overwhelming Democratic support, but without the support of this President.
Missing votes while you're running for President happens all the time, but Senator Obama was in Washington and his opponent, Senator Clinton, made the vote.
It is clear that the President does not like General Petraeus. It is clear that the President does not think General Petraeus did a good job in Iraq. But he selected him anyway because General McChrystal took his ego down a notch.
Ego is what determined the fate of General McChrystal. No matter what the President says, it is ego and ego alone.
While there may be a situation where a military commander should resign for comments such as General McChrystal's in Rolling Stone, this is not it. We need him more than the President needs an ego boost. And we need General Petraeus as the commander of U.S. Central Command. We have enough problems at home, let's not make our military efforts abroad a problem again.
Of all that is happening in the world this very instant, ego is the least of the President's problems."
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Teddy and the KGB
What a wacko loon I was several decades ago when I rode around in my Olds Cutlass displaying my "Kennedy in '80" bumper sticker. Unbelievable, that I could be so stupid.
Thank God I had an encounter with the Lord Jesus, and He woke me up from my insanity and revealed to me the truth concerning liberalism. Had He not, I am 100% certain I would be an Obama cult-like follower today. Yikes! That's a scary thought!
Read about the treasonous man I once adored, via the American Spectator:
Ted Kennedy's KGB Correspondence
By Kevin Mooney
"Sen. Edward M. Kennedy's self-serving, secret correspondence with Soviet agents during the height of the Cold War included proposals for collaborative efforts designed to undermine official U.S. policy set by Democratic and Republican administrations, KGB documents show.
With the media now reporting on the late senator's just released Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) file, now is an opportune time for a more expansive investigation into Kennedy's KGB contacts. The agency took a keen interest in a 1961'fact-finding' trip the Massachusetts Democrat took to Mexico and other parts of Latin America where he may have had contact with communist agents, according to the file.
However, the 2,352 pages of FBI files that cover a period ranging from 1961 to 1985 only tell a small part of the story and do not mention Kennedy's overtures to Soviet officials. These did not become known outside of Moscow until several years after Cold War tensions receded.
Kennedy's long history with the KGB is well documented, but underreported. It remains available through the writings of the now deceased Vasiliy Mitrokhin, who defected to Britain from the Soviet Union in 1992, and a separate 1983 memo addressed to then General Secretary Yuri Andropov. Kennedy's actions occurred at the expense of presidential authority and in violation of federal law, according to academics and scholars who are familiar with the documents.
The Mitrokhin papers highlight a meeting that took place at the behest of Kennedy between former Sen. John Tunney (D-Calif.) and KGB agents in Moscow on March 5, 1980. The information exchanged during this encounter is included as part of a report Mitrokhin filed with the Cold War International History Project of the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington D.C. The former KGB man continued to work with British intelligence until the time of his death.
Noted Cold War author and researcher Herbert Romerstein has described Mitrokhin as a 'highly credible source' with vast knowledge of the now-closed KGB archives. Romerstein, who headed up the U.S. government's Office to Counter Soviet Disinformation and Active Measures during the 1980s, has explained in previous interviews that Mitrokhin made meticulous copies of KGB files by hand prior to his defection.
The KGB files Mitrokhin retrieved indicate that Kennedy fixed the blame for heightened international tensions on the Carter White House, not on the Kremlin. It is important to note that Kennedy was challenging incumbent Carter for the Democratic nomination for president at that time.
Tunney told his KGB counterparts that Kennedy was impressed by the foreign policy statements made by General Secretary Leonid Brezhnev. Kennedy saw in Brezhnev a leader who was firmly committed to the policy of 'détente,' the report said.
Moreover, Kennedy also blamed the Carter Administration for assuming an overly belligerent posture toward the Soviet Union after the 1979 invasion of Afghanistan, according to the papers.
'The atmosphere of tension and hostility towards the whole Soviet people was being fuelled by Carter,' Kennedy argued, as well as by some key advisors, the Pentagon and the U.S. military industrial complex, Mitrokhin wrote.
KENNEDY ALSO OFFERED TO WORK in close concert with high level Soviet officials to sabotage President Ronald Reagan's re-election efforts and to orchestrate favorable American press coverage for Andropov and Soviet military officials, according to the 1983 KGB document.
Kennedy offered to have 'representatives of the largest television companies in the U.S. contact Y.V. Andropov for an invitation to Moscow for the interview,' KGB head Viktor Chebrikov explained in a letter to the general secretary dated May 14, 1983, the file shows. The idea here would be for the Soviet leader to make an end run around Reagan and make a direct appeal to the American people.
The KGB letter to Andropov first came to light in a Feb. 2, 1992 report published in the London Times entitled 'Teddy, the KGB and the Top Secret File.' Paul Kengor, a Grove City College political science professor, included the document in his 2006 book: The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and The Fall of Communism.
Kennedy suggested that Walter Cronkite, Barbara Walters and Elton Raul, the president of the board of directors for ABC, be considered for the interviews with Andropov in Moscow. He also asked the KGB to consider having 'lower level Soviet officials, particularly the military' take part in television interviews inside the U.S. where they could convey peaceful intentions.
Tunney, the former senator, once again served as an intermediary traveling to Moscow in 1983 to relay Kennedy's intentions. In the interest of world peace and improved American-Soviet relations, the Massachusetts Democrat offered specific proposals built around a public relations effort designed to 'counter the militaristic politics of Reagan and his campaign to psychologically burden the American people,' Chebrikov wrote.
Although it is not made clear who Tunney actually met with in Moscow, the letter does say that Sen. Kennedy directed the California Democrat to reach out to 'confidential contacts' so Andropov could be alerted to the senator's proposals.
'Tunney told his contacts that Kennedy was very troubled about the decline in U.S -Soviet relations under Reagan,' Kengor the Grove City professor said in an interview. 'But Kennedy attributed this decline to Reagan, not to the Soviets. In one of the most striking parts of this letter, Kennedy is said to be very impressed with Andropov and other Soviet leaders.'
The pattern of behavior should concern members of both political parties, Kengor said, because it shows Kennedy was willing to work against American foreign policy, regardless of who occupied the White House.
In his book, Kengor points out that Tunney acknowledged making 15 separate trips to the Soviet Union where he acted as a conduit not only for Kennedy but for other U.S. senators.
Charles Dunn, dean of the Robertson School of Government at Regent University, describes Kennedy's actions as being in 'clear violation of the U.S. Constitution and at the expense of presidential authority.'
The secret overtures to the KGB during the Reagan years were particularly insidious, Dunn said, because Tunney and Kennedy were working to undermine what ultimately proved to be a very successful policy that brought an end to the Cold War.
'If another country gets the idea that it can deal outside of official channels then that undermines presidential leadership,' Dunn added.
A strong case could also be made that Kennedy's Soviet overtures are in violation of the Logan Act, a federal law that has been in effect going back to 1799. The law prohibits American citizens from engaging in private diplomacy with a foreign government with the intention of influencing public policy, but it is rarely enforced.
There is no escaping the 'blame America first' mentality that infects and animates Kennedy's communiqués.
'Senator Kennedy, like other rational people, is very troubled by the current state of Soviet-American relations,' Chebrikov observes in the letter. 'Events are developing such that this relationship coupled with the general state of global affairs will make the situation even more dangerous. The main reason for this is Reagan's belligerence, and his firm commitment to deploy new American middle range nuclear weapons within Western Europe. According to Kennedy, the current threat is due to the president's refusal to engage in any modification of his policies.'
Tunney also discussed Kennedy's presidential ambitions with the Soviet contacts, the letter shows. Kennedy was looking to run in 1988 when he would be remarried and his 'personal problems' resolved. However, the letter also said he did not rule out 1984.
'Kennedy was afraid that Reagan was leading the world into a nuclear war,' Kengor said. 'He hoped to counter Reagan's policies, and by extension hurt his re-election prospects.'
It is also evident from the letter that Kennedy believed the nuclear freeze movement was gaining momentum in 1983 and could help to short-circuit Reagan's military buildup. With the economic climate improving in the U.S., Reagan would only be vulnerable politically on matters of foreign policy, Kennedy informed the Soviets.
'The only real potential threats to Reagan (according to Kennedy) are problems of war and peace and Soviet-American relations,' the KGB official explained to Andropov. 'These issues will without a doubt become the most important of the election campaign. The movement advocating a freeze on nuclear arsenals of both countries continues to gain strength in the United States. The movement is also willing to accept preparations, particularly from Kennedy, for its continued growth. In political and influential circles of the country, including within Congress, the resistance to growing military expenditures is gaining strength.'
Media outlets that editorialized against Reagan's military buildup and in favor of disarmament have a special obligation to report on historical documents that provide fresh insight into policy disputes that shaped the final, pivotal years of Cold War."
Salazar Lied
The Obama Administration is milking this Gulf oil spill for all its worth and lying in the process. Perhaps, untruths are a requirement to work on the Obama team because Ken Salazar is certainly guilty of a whopper.
Read all about it from Michelle Malkin:
Ken Salazar gets an ass-kicking. Over to you, Capitol Hill.
"For all his John Wayne rhetoric on the BP oil spill, President Obama has failed to administer a swift kick to the ample, deserving rump of Interior Secretary Ken Salazar. No matter. Federal judge Martin Feldman has now done the job the White House won’t do.
In a scathing ruling issued Tuesday afternoon, New Orleans-based Feldman overturned the administration’s radical six-month moratorium on deepwater drilling – and he singled out Salazar’s central role in jerry-rigging a federal panel’s scientific report to bolster flagrantly politicized conclusions. In a sane world, Salazar’s head would roll. In Obama world, he gets immunity.
The suit challenging Obama’s desperately political ban was filed by Covington, La., rig company, Hornbeck Offshore Services, which spoke on behalf of all the 'small people' in the industry whose economic survival is at stake. As the plaintiffs’ lawyer argued in court, the overbroad ban promised to be more devastating to Gulf workers than the spill itself. 'This is an unprecedented industry-wide shutdown. Never before has the government done this,' attorney Carl Rosenblum said.
Scientists who served on the committee expressed outrage upon discovering earlier this month that Salazar had — unilaterally and without warning — inserted a blanket drilling ban recommendation into their report. In fact,seven panelists explicitly opposed a blanket ban as 'punishing the innocent.' As Feldman recounted in his ruling:
'In the Executive Summary to the Report, [Salazar] recommends "a six-month moratorium on permits for new wells being drilled using floating rigs." He also recommends "an immediate halt to drilling operations on the 33 permitted wells, not including relief wells currently being drilled by BP, that are currently being drilled using floating rigs in the Gulf of Mexico."
Much to the government’s discomfort and this Court’s uneasiness, the Summary also states that "the recommendations contained in this report have been peer-reviewed by seven experts identified by the National Academy of Engineering." As the plaintiffs, and the experts themselves, pointedly observe, this statement was misleading. The experts charge it was a "misrepresentation." It was factually incorrect.'
Allow me to be more injudicious: Salazar lied. Salazar committed fraud. Salazar sullied the reputations of the experts involved and abused his authority.
And for what purpose? To exploit the Gulf crisis, appease the eco-extremists, and stymie the economic recovery to which the Obama White House pays oily lip service.
The scientists whose views were misrepresented reportedly received an apology from the evidence-doctoring Salazar, but where are the consequences? Where is the accountability? Terrific news: Salazar, the report-rigger, is in charge of overseeing the new overseer. That’s right. The Teflon Interior Secretary spent Monday afternoon swearing in another bureaucrat, litigator Michael Bromwich, who will head the newly-named 'Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement' (formerly the beleaguered Minerals Management Service).
According to Salazar, Bromwich 'will be a key part of our team as we continue to change the way the Department of the Interior does business.' Present company exempted, of course.
Judge Feldman soberly illuminated the way the Department of Interior does business in concluding that Salazar’s 'invalid agency decision to suspend drilling of wells in depths of over 500 feet simply cannot justify the immeasurable effect on the plaintiffs, the local economy, the Gulf region, and the critical present-day aspect of the availability of domestic energy in this country.' Salazar, with his boss’s blessing, imposed the blanket moratorium on Hornbeck and 33 permitted rigs without a shred of threat/safety analysis. Of course, Hope and Change have always been exercised with Arbitrary and Capricious power.
The White House immediately announced plans to appeal the ruling. But for once, Chicago-on-the-Potomac has run smack in the rule of law and lost. For all the other small people over whom the Obama administration has run roughshod, let’s hope it sets a lasting precedent."
Michelle Malkin asks, "Where is the accountability?" Salazar's actions will likely receive the same punishment that was handed out to the Black Panthers who intimidated voters in Philadelphia on Election Day 2008: none.
Kyl Vs. Obama
Somebody is lying. Either President Obama or Arizona Senator Jon Kyl. One of the two is lying through his teeth to the American people.
Which one of these men has a history of fabricating stories to achieve his goals? Now, I'm no fan of Jon Kyl, but hands down, the habitual liar is Barack Obama. Does he EVER tell the truth?
Read from Gateway Pundit:
Republican Jon Kyl Didn’t Lie About Amnesty… Obama Did (Video)
"Was there ever even a doubt?
Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) told a North Tempe Tea Party town hall meeting that during a private, one-on-one meeting with President Obama in the Oval Office, the President told him, regarding securing the southern border with Mexico, 'The problem is, . . . if we secure the border, then
you all won’t have any reason to support "comprehensive immigration reform."' The president admitted to Kyl that he would not secure the border, which is his responsibility, unless he was able to pass amnesty.
Yesterday, the Obama White House said the accusation by Kyl was not true.
Unfortunately for the hacks in the White House, they didn’t expect this video to surface. Barack Obama said the same thing back in 2004 that he told Kyl in their private conversation.
Via Naked Emporer News:
It looks like we know who the liar is… And, it’s not Jon Kyl."
Which one of these men has a history of fabricating stories to achieve his goals? Now, I'm no fan of Jon Kyl, but hands down, the habitual liar is Barack Obama. Does he EVER tell the truth?
Read from Gateway Pundit:
Republican Jon Kyl Didn’t Lie About Amnesty… Obama Did (Video)
"Was there ever even a doubt?
Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) told a North Tempe Tea Party town hall meeting that during a private, one-on-one meeting with President Obama in the Oval Office, the President told him, regarding securing the southern border with Mexico, 'The problem is, . . . if we secure the border, then
you all won’t have any reason to support "comprehensive immigration reform."' The president admitted to Kyl that he would not secure the border, which is his responsibility, unless he was able to pass amnesty.
Yesterday, the Obama White House said the accusation by Kyl was not true.
Unfortunately for the hacks in the White House, they didn’t expect this video to surface. Barack Obama said the same thing back in 2004 that he told Kyl in their private conversation.
Via Naked Emporer News:
It looks like we know who the liar is… And, it’s not Jon Kyl."
America's War Monger
The God of this universe was not kidding around when he stated the following in Genesis 12:3 regarding his people Israel:
"I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse."
When it comes to Israel, President Obama is a warmonger; he has done nothing but push aggressively against the Jewish nation, and he is beginning to reap the consequences of his actions as everything is falling apart all around him. Let's see: the Gulf oil disaster, the Arizona immigration bill, the faltering economy, the war in Afghanistan, terror attacks on American soil, accusations of incompetence. Need I go on?
Read about the nation for which Obama is not hesistant to go to war against, via Israel Matzav:
Obama and the war against Israel
"David Horowitz and Jacob Laksin have a huge two-part article at NRO in which they dissect President Obama's 'war against Israel' (as they call it). The first part is here and the second part is here (I actually got a link in the second part - thanks). The argument is 'If President Obama had been trying to undermine Israel’s security — and ours — he could hardly have done a better job.' I really urge you to read the whole thing. Here are some highlights from Part I:
'Since the creation of the state of Israel in 1948, the Arab states have conducted three unprovoked, aggressive conventional wars against it, along with a continuous terrorist war that began in 1949. Yet between 1948 and 2004 there were 322 resolutions in the U.N. General Assembly condemning the victim, Israel, and not one that condemned an Arab state.
...
The Prophet Mohammed never visited Jerusalem, and consequently Jerusalem is never mentioned in the Koran. Today even Islamists regard it as only the third-holiest city in Islam, after Mecca and Medina. It was never the capital of any Arab state. Indeed, for centuries, Jerusalem was a forgotten city to most Arabs, and it was allowed to fall into ruin under Ottoman rule, which lasted until the creation of Israel and Jordan in the aftermath of the First World War. On a trip to Jerusalem in 1867, Mark Twain lamented that the city “has lost all its grandeur, and is become a pauper village.” When Jordan occupied Jerusalem between 1948 and 1967, it was treated like a backwater. Only one Arab leader, Morocco’s King Hassan, cared enough to pay a visit to the city that Muslims who are involved in the jihad against Israel now suggest is an essential part of their history.
...
In April 2009, he visited Turkey, a NATO ally that was rapidly — and alarmingly — becoming an Islamist state. Addressing its parliament, he hailed Turkey as a “true partner” and suggested that it was the United States that had been the faithless friend. In a not-so-oblique attack on President Bush, Obama expressed his regret for the “difficulties of these last few years,” referring to a strain in relations caused by Turkey’s refusal to allow American troops to deploy from Turkish soil during the war in Iraq. Obama lamented that the “trust that binds us has been strained, and I know that strain is shared in many places where the Muslim faith is practiced.” In other words, Turkey’s refusal to help America support the Muslim citizens of Iraq and topple a hated tyranny was a response to America’s prejudice against Muslims.
...
Even more worrisome, Obama used the occasion of his Turkish visit to break with the U.S. policy of treating countries that harbor terrorists as hostile nations. President Bush had declared that there would be no room for neutrality in the war against terror: “You are either with us or against us.” But Obama now assured his listeners in Turkey and throughout the Muslim world that their governments no longer had to choose between America and al-Qaeda. “America’s relationship with the Muslim world,” Obama said, “cannot and will not be based on opposition to al-Qaeda.”
...
Immediately, five Arab nations launched a war against the Jews, who repelled the Arab attacks and established a Jewish state. When the fighting ended, the parts of the partitioned land that had been earmarked for the Arabs — namely, the West Bank and Gaza — were annexed by Jordan and Egypt, respectively, and disappeared from the map. There was no protest from the Arab world at the disappearance of “Palestine” into Jordan and Egypt, no Palestine Liberation Organization, no complaint to the U.N. The reason for the silence was that there was no Palestinian identity at the time, no movement for “self-determination,” no “Palestinian” people to make a claim. There were Arabs who lived in the region of the Jordan. But they considered themselves inhabitants of Jordan or of the Syrian province of the former Ottoman Empire. The disappearance of the West Bank and Gaza was an annexation of Arab land by Arab states.
Arab and Western revisionists have turned this history on its head to portray the Jewish war of survival as a racist, imperialist plot to expel “Palestinians” from “Palestine.” This is an utter distortion of the historical record. The term “Palestine Mandate” is a European reference to a geographical section of the defeated Turkish empire. The claim that there was a Palestinian nation from which ethnic Palestinians were expelled and which Israel now “occupies” illegally is a political lie.'"
Read it all.
"I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse."
When it comes to Israel, President Obama is a warmonger; he has done nothing but push aggressively against the Jewish nation, and he is beginning to reap the consequences of his actions as everything is falling apart all around him. Let's see: the Gulf oil disaster, the Arizona immigration bill, the faltering economy, the war in Afghanistan, terror attacks on American soil, accusations of incompetence. Need I go on?
Read about the nation for which Obama is not hesistant to go to war against, via Israel Matzav:
Obama and the war against Israel
"David Horowitz and Jacob Laksin have a huge two-part article at NRO in which they dissect President Obama's 'war against Israel' (as they call it). The first part is here and the second part is here (I actually got a link in the second part - thanks). The argument is 'If President Obama had been trying to undermine Israel’s security — and ours — he could hardly have done a better job.' I really urge you to read the whole thing. Here are some highlights from Part I:
'Since the creation of the state of Israel in 1948, the Arab states have conducted three unprovoked, aggressive conventional wars against it, along with a continuous terrorist war that began in 1949. Yet between 1948 and 2004 there were 322 resolutions in the U.N. General Assembly condemning the victim, Israel, and not one that condemned an Arab state.
...
The Prophet Mohammed never visited Jerusalem, and consequently Jerusalem is never mentioned in the Koran. Today even Islamists regard it as only the third-holiest city in Islam, after Mecca and Medina. It was never the capital of any Arab state. Indeed, for centuries, Jerusalem was a forgotten city to most Arabs, and it was allowed to fall into ruin under Ottoman rule, which lasted until the creation of Israel and Jordan in the aftermath of the First World War. On a trip to Jerusalem in 1867, Mark Twain lamented that the city “has lost all its grandeur, and is become a pauper village.” When Jordan occupied Jerusalem between 1948 and 1967, it was treated like a backwater. Only one Arab leader, Morocco’s King Hassan, cared enough to pay a visit to the city that Muslims who are involved in the jihad against Israel now suggest is an essential part of their history.
...
In April 2009, he visited Turkey, a NATO ally that was rapidly — and alarmingly — becoming an Islamist state. Addressing its parliament, he hailed Turkey as a “true partner” and suggested that it was the United States that had been the faithless friend. In a not-so-oblique attack on President Bush, Obama expressed his regret for the “difficulties of these last few years,” referring to a strain in relations caused by Turkey’s refusal to allow American troops to deploy from Turkish soil during the war in Iraq. Obama lamented that the “trust that binds us has been strained, and I know that strain is shared in many places where the Muslim faith is practiced.” In other words, Turkey’s refusal to help America support the Muslim citizens of Iraq and topple a hated tyranny was a response to America’s prejudice against Muslims.
...
Even more worrisome, Obama used the occasion of his Turkish visit to break with the U.S. policy of treating countries that harbor terrorists as hostile nations. President Bush had declared that there would be no room for neutrality in the war against terror: “You are either with us or against us.” But Obama now assured his listeners in Turkey and throughout the Muslim world that their governments no longer had to choose between America and al-Qaeda. “America’s relationship with the Muslim world,” Obama said, “cannot and will not be based on opposition to al-Qaeda.”
...
Immediately, five Arab nations launched a war against the Jews, who repelled the Arab attacks and established a Jewish state. When the fighting ended, the parts of the partitioned land that had been earmarked for the Arabs — namely, the West Bank and Gaza — were annexed by Jordan and Egypt, respectively, and disappeared from the map. There was no protest from the Arab world at the disappearance of “Palestine” into Jordan and Egypt, no Palestine Liberation Organization, no complaint to the U.N. The reason for the silence was that there was no Palestinian identity at the time, no movement for “self-determination,” no “Palestinian” people to make a claim. There were Arabs who lived in the region of the Jordan. But they considered themselves inhabitants of Jordan or of the Syrian province of the former Ottoman Empire. The disappearance of the West Bank and Gaza was an annexation of Arab land by Arab states.
Arab and Western revisionists have turned this history on its head to portray the Jewish war of survival as a racist, imperialist plot to expel “Palestinians” from “Palestine.” This is an utter distortion of the historical record. The term “Palestine Mandate” is a European reference to a geographical section of the defeated Turkish empire. The claim that there was a Palestinian nation from which ethnic Palestinians were expelled and which Israel now “occupies” illegally is a political lie.'"
Read it all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
