Top 10 ways Obama is destroying the U.S.

scandal · August 29, 2011

Top 10 ways Obama is destroying our country

Posted: August 13, 2010

1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

Two, Obama and his black Muslim or radical friends like Louis Farrakhan, Rev. Wright and others – who I believe have a deep-seated prejudice if not hatred of Jews and white Christians – have sought in every way possible to severely harm the state of Israel. It is no longer "fashionable" to be overtly anti-Semitic, so the whipping boy becomes the Jewish state. As a result, Israel – which has been abandoned – will ultimately have to act on its own against the mullahs in Iran and other threats to its national security. And, no longer seeing the United States as an ally, Israel will now seek to form other alliances, not necessarily totally friendly to our interests. Even my liberal Jewish friends are disgusted by Obama and the self-hating far-leftist Jews the president surrounds himself with – which he uses as cover for his anti-Semitic, anti-Israeli

Wow, such a mix of concepts here. Let's tease this apart, shall we?

- Obama and his black Muslim or radical friends like Louis Farrakhan, Rev. Wright and others I don't believe Obama considers Louis Farrakhan to be his "friend", or that in fact they have much of anything in common. Skin color does not count. I don't think Obama and Herman Cain or Clarence Thomas are friends, either.

- I do agree that Louis Farrakhan "has deep-seated prejudice if not hatred of Jews". He's said as much, repeatedly and publicly. Farrakhan hating Jews does not imply that Obama does. As to Reverend Wright, I haven't heard him on record on the subject. I really doubt however that the Reverend Wright hates Christians, don't you?

- From the OP "It is no longer "fashionable" to be overtly anti-Semitic, so the whipping boy becomes the Jewish state. " Truer words have never been spoken. This is entirely accurate, and a very alarming state of affairs that Jews, Christians, and all friends of Israel need to be alert to.

- "As a result, Israel – which has been abandoned –" Israel has not been abandoned by its one true and loyal ally - the United States. Every President from Truman to Obama, inclusive, has proclaimed and acted on that friendship and kindred allegiance. Both parties and most members of the Senate and House understand this special relationship that goes beyond strategic considerations, and comes down to core shared values: democracy, freedom, the will of a people to self determination.

- "[israel] will ultimately have to act on its own against the mullahs in Iran and other threats to its national security" Israel can and does defend its own sovereign interests. As does any country. Nothing wrong with that.

- And, no longer seeing the United States as an ally, Israel will now seek to form other alliances, not necessarily totally friendly to our interests. That's fairly well preposterous. With whom shall Israel seek alliances that are not in America's interests? Any of Israel's regional allies - Turkey, Egypt, Iran in the Shah's days, ... always had US blessing, and why not? If Israel seeks enhanced ties with other powers: Russia, China or India, say - that brought about enhanced commerce, diplomatic ties, security agreements - how is this harmful? (Assuming these powers are interested. They seem far more interested in not offending the Arab states).

- Even my liberal Jewish friends are disgusted by Obama Many Jews are disappointed in Obama. Particularly conservative , hawkish Jews who support right-wing policies in Israel as well as in America. I rather doubt the author has very many "liberal Jewish friends", quite frankly. <_<

- and the self-hating far-leftist Jews the president surrounds himself with Ah, so now I'm a "self hating Jew" because I support a two-state solution and want to see the settlement policy stopped? Frankly, I get enough of this "self hating" bullcrap from my own friends and family. I really don't need some Worldnut "expert" to tell me that I'm "self hating". I'm a proud Jew. I love Israel. I want to see it prosper peacefully and securely with a bright future for its next generations. Who is Larry Klayman to tell me otherwise?

- which he uses as cover for his anti-Semitic, anti-Israeli You know what I think? I think Larry Klayman and his type have no love for Jews or for Israel. I think he sees this as a convenient topic that appeals to a certain portion of the conservative audience that laps this stuff up. I think it's dangerous, because he's conflating a real threat (the actual vicious anti-semitic and anti-Israel attacks of people like Louis Farrakhan and let's be fair - people like Pat Buchanan) with an scaremongering attack on a moderate centrist President, Obama, who is trying to change the tone of the discussion and is acting from a deep seated conviction that a comprehensive negotiated settlement is the best way to resolve the dispute.

luckytxn · August 29, 2011

Obama's anti-Israeli hysteria dangerous and destructive

Greg Sheridan, Foreign editor
From:The Australian
March 27, 2010 12:00AM

BARACK Obama's anti-Israel jihad is one of the most irresponsible policy lurches by any modern American president. It rightly earns Obama the epithet of the US president least sympathetic to Israel in Israel's history. Jimmy Carter became a great hater of Israel, but only after he left office.

Obama's dangerous new lurch into anti-Israel populism changes global politics in extremely dangerous ways, and poses a challenge for Kevin Rudd.

Perhaps Obama's most distinctive contribution to the foreign policy debate in the lead-up to the US presidential election was his avowed determination to talk to and engage the US's enemies if he became president. He was happy in principle to talk to Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but did not know for sure that the Iranian president wielded real power. But he sent all manner of felicitations and greetings to Iran and its government. When that government stole an election on Ahmadinejad's behalf and viciously brutalised its citizens, Obama refrained from speaking too much or too forcefully, as, he said, he didn't want to be seen to be interfering in Iranian internal affairs.

RELATED COVERAGE

West Bank chiefs back Palestinian pleaThe Australian, 27 Jun 2011
Palestinians ease demands on settlementsThe Australian, 23 Jun 2011
Obama tells Jewish donors he backs IsraelThe Australian, 21 Jun 2011
Israeli PM sets bar too high for AbbasThe Australian, 25 May 2011
Netanyahu 'to uproot settlements for peace'The Australian, 24 May 2011

When Obama met the king of Saudi Arabia, a nation in which no one votes, women are subject to severe and demeaning restrictions and it is against the law to have a Christian church, Obama bowed in deep respect.

When Obama ran into Venezuela's murderous despot, Hugo Chavez, at a summit, there was a friendly greeting observed by all.

But there is one leader whom Obama draws the line at. He will not be seen in public with Israel's Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. Astonishingly, when Netanyahu saw Obama at the White House this week, all photographers and all TV cameras were banned, a level of humiliation almost completely unique in modern White House practice.

You might even conclude that Obama is trying to interfere in internal Israeli politics and bring down a government. This is something post-colonial, post-multicultural Obama would never do with Iran, but with Israel, the US's longstanding ally, it's fine.

And what was Netanyahu's crime, this act of infamy that Obama's senior staff described as an "affront" to America? It was that the relevant housing authority passed another stage of approval for 1600 Israeli housing units to be built in East Jerusalem in about three years' time. It was very foolish that the Israelis allowed this announcement to take place while US Vice-President Joe Biden was in Israel. But they apologised to Biden at the time, Biden kissed and made up with the Israelis and was back to delivering fulsome pro-Israel speeches before he left.

After that point, though, the US reaction went into overdrive. Impeccable American sources tell me this reaction was driven by Obama, and to a lesser extent the Chicago mafia around him.

We must ask why this is so, but first let's get Netanyahu's infamous crime into perspective.

Last November Netanyahu announced a 10-month moratorium on all building activity in Jewish settlements in the West Bank. Israel has already promised not to take any more land for settlements but there is the question of renovating existing buildings and constructing new ones in existing settlements.

As Hillary Clinton acknowledged in her speech this week to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, East Jerusalem was never part of this agreement. The two main peace offers Israel has made to the Palestinians in recent years were the Camp David/Taba proposals and the accompanying Clinton parameters in 2000, and Ehud Olmert's offer to Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas in 2008. Both plans offered essentially the same formula. The Palestinians get all of the Gaza Strip, about 95 per cent of the West Bank and a compensating parcel of territory from Israel proper to make up for the small amount of territory in the West Bank that Israel would keep which houses the main Jewish population blocks. The Palestinians also get some parts of East Jerusalem as their capital. This principle of territorial swaps was accepted by Yasser Arafat and Abbas.

East Jerusalem has always had a different status from the West Bank and some Israelis certainly don't want to give any of it to a new Palestinian state. But everyone accepts that some Jewish neighbourhoods would remain part of Israel. These are mostly neighbourhoods, as Netanyahu pointed out this week, which are five minutes from the Knesset and a couple of blocks beyond the 1949 armistice line. The administration of George W. Bush had formally agreed with the Israelis that these areas would be permanently part of Israel. Bill Clinton had negotiated an offer to the Palestinians in 2000 which accepted this.

It would be a radical change of policy for an Israeli government to decree that no building would ever take place in Jewish areas of Jerusalem. It would also be a change of American policy.

Moreover, no serious analyst could believe that such building is a roadblock to peace. Peace negotiations have gone on with such building taking place in the past. And all the things that truly make peace impossible - Arab and Palestinian refusal to accept the legitimacy of any Jewish state, Palestinian insistence on certain deal breakers such as the right of return of all Palestinian refugees and their descendants to Israel proper, the insistent and violent anti-Semitism of Palestinian and Arab propaganda and the regional ambitions of players such as Iran and Syria - will be completely unaffected by any decision to build apartments in a Jewish neighbourhood in East Jerusalem in three years time. So why has Obama gone into full jihad mode against Israel? Three explanations suggest themselves. Obama has had a terrible year in foreign policy. He has achieved nothing on Iran or China or anything else of consequence. He is too smart to believe this intimidation of Israel will advance peace, but it might get peace talks going again. The Palestinians only made settlements a roadblock after Obama did. They are refusing to join Israel in peace talks, which Netanyahu would be happy to participate in. They have said they might engage in proximity talks - which means not talking to the Israelis directly but to mediators who will shuttle back and forth carrying messages between them and the Israelis. This is primitive and ridiculous stuff, but if such talks get going Obama could claim some kind of victory, or at least progress.

And Obama is showing that his personal popularity, not America's standing, still less matters of substance such as Iran's nuclear program, is what motivates him.

This leads to the second explanation of his behaviour, and that is to make himself personally popular in the Muslim world. Beating up on Israel is the cheapest trick in the book on that score and it can earn him easy, worthless and no doubt temporary plaudits in some parts of the Muslim world.

And thirdly, Obama is the first post-multicultural president of America. In his autobiography he talks of seeking out the most radical political theorists he could at university. For these people Israel is an exercise in Western neo-imperialism. Obama makes their hearts sing with this anti-Israel jihad.

Accompanying Obama's own actions has been some of the most dangerous rhetoric ever to come out of a US administration, to the effect that Israeli intransigence endangers US troops by inflaming extremists in the Islamic world. No serious analyst anywhere believes that Israel is an important source of the conflicts in Afghanistan or Iraq. Using this type of argument comes dangerously close to the administration licensing a mutant strain of anti-Semitism - it's all the Jews' fault. Why is all this a challenge for Rudd?

The anti-Israel hysteria is totally disproportionate and wildly over the top. The British decision to expel an Israeli diplomat because Israel is alleged to have used forged British passports in a Mossad operation is a case in point.

The British precedent pressures Rudd to do the same. Rudd should resist this pressure, as Opposition leader Tony Abbott has urged him to. 2010 is a critical year for the Middle East. Israel's friends now should rally round it, or the spectre of wild and hysterical anti-Israel sentiment will be unleashed with all manner of destructive consequences.

Now is the time for anyone who cares about Middle East peace, or who claims as Rudd does to care about Israel, to stick close to Jerusalem. The Australian Federal Police inquiry will not be conclusive about whether Israel used Australian passports or not. Obama wants to be popular. Gordon Brown wants Muslim votes and to distract attention from the latest scandals of his government. Rudd could be tempted to bash Israel as a way of courting Arab League votes at the UN. But the path of statesmanship here does not lie in apeing these foolish American and British moves.

There would also be a gruesome comparison in the way Australia responds to big as to small nations. China imprisons one of our citizens, denies consular access to most of the trial and treats Canberra with contempt. In return Rudd changes policy and declines to see the Dalai Lama and similarly declines to send an Australian minister to Taiwan in the entire course of the government's parliamentary term.

Yet Israel, our close friend, is alleged to misuse a passport and then gets the very big diplomatic penalty of having a diplomat expelled. It would be disproportionate and foolish and cowardly.

The Americans and Brits don't always get things right. There are times when Canberra should definitely not follow their lead.

Print
Email

luckytxn · August 29, 2011

KUHNER: Obama’s anti-Israel agenda

Echoes of president’s Jew-baiting pastor in foreign policy

47 Comments and 1 Reaction|Share Tweet|Email|Print|[/url]By

-

The Washington Times

Thursday, February 17, 2011

B1KuhnecrLG_s160x161.jpg?4e6a16f32421cdc4de50dab74a2b490ed9b3a872 Illustration: Israel by Linas Garsys for The Washington Times

Text Size:

STORY TOPICS

FOLLOW US ON

QUESTION OF THE DAY

President is siding with ’s enemies. He is slowly fracturing America’s long-standing alliance with the Jewish state and leaving it isolated on the world stage.

The administration recently told Arab governments Washington will support a resolution that stipulates the world body “does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity.” The move is almost unprecedented. America has almost never publicly criticized - our best friend in the Middle East and the region’s only genuine Western-style democracy - at the The reason: The organization is dominated by anti-Semitic, anti-American dictatorships obsessed with condemning the Jewish state. is lambasted constantly while the rampant human rights abuses of other countries - especially Arab regimes, and - are barely noticed. The United States has opposed this double standard - until now.

The result will be to drive a wider wedge between Washington and Jerusalem. Israelis rightly will conclude that is willing to betray a pivotal pro-American ally in order to appease the “Arab street.” Radical Islamists also will realize that Washington’s support is fickle; their dream of driving the Jews into the sea no longer seems unattainable. In fact, now it is entirely possible.

’s decision to betray should come as no surprise. He is a privileged liberal who reflects the values and prejudices of the academic left. The cultural milieu of his intellectual formation was steeped in hatred of America and the West. His father was an anti-colonial socialist determined to destroy European imperialism. His mentor was , an avowed communist. His pastor was the Rev. , a black nationalist known for his Jew-baiting. His seminal intellectual influences were revolutionary Marxists such as and . They championed the belief - prevalent among college radicals - that symbolizes Western subjugation of Third World peoples. In their view, it is a militaristic, quasi-fascist state based on oppression and Zionist expansion. In other words, for the hard left, is a continuation of the anti-imperial struggle - a mass movement for liberation from Western occupation. That is why progressives have only two real enemies: the United States and .

During his presidency, has appeased and emboldened radical Islamists. He has apologized for America to the Muslim world. He has prematurely withdrawn U.S. troops from , snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. He has undermined President ’s government in Afghanistan, enabling the Taliban to make significant inroads. He has turned a blind eye as Turkey becomes increasingly Islamic and has taken control in . In 2009, he did not lift a finger - or even say a word of encouragement - to the Green pro-democracy movement in . When it came to supporting the secular, pro-American demonstrators of Tehran, was stone silent. In fact, he publicly said Washington should not “interfere” in Iranian “internal” affairs. Even today, as brave Iranian democrats battle the forces of tyrant , the president cannot muster the indignation he demonstrated toward former Egyptian autocrat Hosni. refuses to demand that the Persian strongman step aside - as he did with the Egyptian pharaoh.

The fall of the Mubarak regime signifies a major victory for the . Egypt’s military is in control. The top brass has promised to hold elections in about six months. The is the most disciplined, organized and effective political force on the Nile. It is the oldest modern Islamist movement in the Middle East, comprising a vast underground that has been patiently waiting to seize power. The is the future; secular moderates are the past.

The aims to erect an Iranian-style theocracy. Its founder, Hassan al-Banna, sought to imitate the fascist movements of the 1930s. Instead of desiring a world dominated by a German master race, he wanted a global caliphate - the restoration of an Islamic empire stretching from the Middle East to Europe. Last year, the ’s supreme guide, Mohammed Badie, said that the defeat of and America could only occur “by raising a jihadi generation that pursues death just as the enemies pursue life.” The is a mortal threat to and to the West.

Rather than confronting this ugly reality, the administration insists on whitewashing the ’s true intentions. Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper recently claimed that the was “largely secular.” At a Senate hearing on Wednesday, he said the group had no “specific agenda” and was “heterogeneous,” consisting of multiple political wings. Mr. Clapper is a liar and should be told to resign.

The has one primary goal: the destruction of the Jewish state. Its leaders call for scuttling Egypt’s 1979 peace treaty with . The group openly glorifies and’s one-party, fundamentalist regime. Its Palestinian branch is Hamas, which is dedicated to the extermination of the Jews. By abandoning , has paved the way for the radicalization of Egypt. now faces the specter of being strategically encircled by anti-Semitic bellicose states - Hamas in Gaza, in , Bashir Assad’s autocracy in Syria and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Behind them stands . is inching closer to acquiring the nuclear bomb and fulfilling his vow to “wipe off the map.”

The Jews are reliving the nightmare of the late 1930s. Except this time, it is Islamic fascism that threatens their very existence. They were alone then, and they are increasingly alone today. has shown that cannot count on the White House in its hour of need.

Jeffrey T. Kuhner is a columnist at The Washington Times and president of the Edmund Burke Institute.

Go ahead while I post more.

Wow, such a mix of concepts here. Let's tease this apart, shall we?

- Obama and his black Muslim or radical friends like Louis Farrakhan, Rev. Wright and others I don't believe Obama considers Louis Farrakhan to be his "friend", or that in fact they have much of anything in common. Skin color does not count. I don't think Obama and Herman Cain or Clarence Thomas are friends, either.

- I do agree that Louis Farrakhan "has deep-seated prejudice if not hatred of Jews ". He's said as much, repeatedly and publicly. Farrakhan hating Jews does not imply that Obama does. As to Reverend Wright, I haven't heard him on record on the subject. I really doubt however that the Reverend Wright hates Christians, don't you?

- From the OP "It is no longer "fashionable" to be overtly anti-Semitic, so the whipping boy becomes the Jewish state. " Truer words have never been spoken. This is entirely accurate, and a very alarming state of affairs that Jews, Christians, and all friends of Israel need to be alert to.

- "As a result, Israel – which has been abandoned –" Israel has not been abandoned by its one true and loyal ally - the United States. Every President from Truman to Obama, inclusive, has proclaimed and acted on that friendship and kindred allegiance. Both parties and most members of the Senate and House understand this special relationship that goes beyond strategic considerations, and comes down to core shared values: democracy, freedom, the will of a people to self determination.

- "[israel] will ultimately have to act on its own against the mullahs in Iran and other threats to its national security " Israel can and does defend its own sovereign interests. As does any country. Nothing wrong with that.

- And, no longer seeing the United States as an ally, Israel will now seek to form other alliances, not necessarily totally friendly to our interests. That's fairly well preposterous. With whom shall Israel seek alliances that are not in America's interests? Any of Israel's regional allies - Turkey, Egypt, Iran in the Shah's days, ... always had US blessing, and why not? If Israel seeks enhanced ties with other powers: Russia, China or India, say - that brought about enhanced commerce, diplomatic ties, security agreements - how is this harmful? (Assuming these powers are interested. They seem far more interested in not offending the Arab states).

- Even my liberal Jewish friends are disgusted by Obama Many Jews are disappointed in Obama. Particularly conservative , hawkish Jews who support right-wing policies in Israel as well as in America. I rather doubt the author has very many "liberal Jewish friends", quite frankly.

- and the self-hating far-leftist Jews the president surrounds himself with Ah, so now I'm a "self hating Jew" because I support a two-state solution and want to see the settlement policy stopped? Frankly, I get enough of this "self hating" bullcrap from my own friends and family. I really don't need some Worldnut "expert" to tell me that I'm "self hating". I'm a proud Jew. I love Israel. I want to see it prosper peacefully and securely with a bright future for its next generations. Who is Larry Klayman to tell me otherwise?

- which he uses as cover for his anti-Semitic, anti-Israeli You know what I think? I think Larry Klayman and his type have no love for Jews or for Israel. I think he sees this as a convenient topic that appeals to a certain portion of the conservative audience that laps this stuff up. I think it's dangerous, because he's conflating a real threat (the actual vicious anti-semitic and anti-Israel attacks of people like Louis Farrakhan and let's be fair - people like Pat Buchanan) with an scaremongering attack on a moderate centrist President, Obama, who is trying to change the tone of the discussion and is acting from a deep seated conviction that a comprehensive negotiated settlement is the best way to resolve the dispute.

luckytxn · August 29, 2011

Obama's anti-Israel speech should surpise no one

Lee DeCovnick

The citizens of the United States elected a President who attended a strict Muslim madrassa (parochial school) for two years. Our current Commander-in Chief, while an impressionable young boy between 6 and 10 years old, bowed down toward Mecca five times a day while praying to Allah. He studied the Koran, including Sura 7:166, Sura 2:65, and Sura 5:60 and its repeated calls for the transformation of Jews into apes and swine. Barry Soetoro was indoctrinated, as were millions of young Muslim boys, in the same anti-Semitism that has always been taught in the Muslim madrassa's for the past thousand years. Let's be very clear, Barry Obama surrounds himself with anti- Semitic advisors who relish the elimination of the Jewish state, attended a church for 20 years where the clergy spewed anti-Semitic hate, and now bows, scrapes and sends millions of US taxpayer dollars to Muslim countries and terrorist groups such as Hamas, who are the most lethal anti- Semites on the planet. So where exactly does Barack Obama stand on life and death issues important to world Jewery, since almost all of his public actions toward Israel and the Arab world strongly reinforce this notion?

Why are any Americans, Jewish or Christian, who support the continued establishment of the state of Israel, surprised that Barack H. Obama told the world, in dulcet diplomatic double speak, that Israel should simply drop dead? Let's look at few items in the speech.

Our President forgot to include that Hamas and Fatah must first acknowledge the right of Israel to exist. Must have been an oversight, a silly mistake.

Our President called for "sovereign and contiguous state" for the Palestinian Arabs "based" on the 1967 lines. Based on an armistice line, not a real border? What about the West

Bank

settlements and the Golan? Just off the table? The '67 lines are indefensible, but honestly Obama really doesn't give a damn.

Robert Spenser has nailed Obama's duplicitous plan to carve up Israel like a slaughtered goat:

What's more, Obama specified that the new Palestinian state should have "borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt," while Israel should have "borders with Palestine." The implication was that Israel, in Obama's vision, will border on neither Jordan nor Egypt - only on "Palestine." Yet currently Israel has substantial borders with both Jordan and Egypt. Obama was implying that his contiguous Palestine would comprise not just Gaza and Judea and Samaria, but large expanses of Israeli territory bordering on those two states.

That would leave a truncated, reduced Israeli rump state, reminiscent of the reduced and defenseless Czechoslovakia that remained after Neville Chamberlain fed the Nazi beast at Munich. And if Obama did not mean that the diminished Israel he envisioned would have no territory bordering on Jordan or Egypt, the establishment of a contiguous Palestinian state including Gaza and the West Bank would cut Israel in two: Palestine's contiguous territory would come at the expense of Israel's.

This Sunday, Obama will give a speech at AIPAC, The American Israel Public Affairs Committee, spinning his fairy tales of peace and hope based on the promises of terrorists and anti- Semites. Obama's Orwellian double speak in support for Israel and in search of Jewish campaign contributions sickens the stomach of any thinking, self respecting American. At first I thought that the AIPAC audience should stand up and turn their backs on the President during his speech, as a signal of their disgust for this plan. But Jews, and all Americans, should face their problem and not denigrate the office of the President. I would strongly suggest that no applause be giving to Obama before, during or after his appearance at AIPAC. None, not even one single clap. It is the least we can do for the Israeli's who must deal with such disrespect and betrayal by this Administration.

luckytxn · August 29, 2011

Ouch. He was probably counting on their donations

Report: Jewish Donors Fed up With Obama’s Anti-Israel Positions…

It must be because his middle name is “Hussein” or something.

(JPost)

— US President Barack Obama is at risk of losing financial support for his re-election campaign from Jewish donors and fund-raisers because of concerns about his attitude towards Israel, The Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday.

The complaints began early in Obama’s term, centered on a perception he has been too tough on Israel, the report suggested.

According to The Wall Street Journal, top Democratic fund-raiser Michael Adler said he urged Obama campaign manager Jim Messina to be “extremely proactive” in countering the perception in the Jewish community that Obama is too critical of Israel.

There are some Jewish donors who claim that the US president has put too much pressure on the likes of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to halt theconstruction of housing settlements in the West Bank, the report said.

Obama is also putting more pressure on the Israelis than the Palestinians to enter peace negotiations, according to some Jewish donors, The Wall Street Journal reported.

ready4ONE · August 29, 2011

WND is 'one weird spice!'

luckytxn · August 29, 2011

This makes me wonder why Jews love this evil man so much.

Arab-American Activist Says Obama Hiding Anti-Israel Stance

Anti-Israel activist said Obama was a regular guest at events for "Palestine" in the past decade and is hiding his views in order to get elected.by Gil RonenPublished: 23/03/08, 10:03 PM

Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama is currently hiding his anti-Israel views in order to get elected, according to a well-known anti-Israel activist. The activist, Ali Abunimah, claimed to know Obama well and to have met him on numerous occasions at pro-Palestinian events in Chicago.

In an article he penned for the anti-Israeli website Electronic Intifada, Abunimah wrote:

"The last time I spoke to Obama was in the winter of 2004 at a gathering in Chicago’s Hyde Park neighborhood. He was in the midst of a primary campaign to secure the Democratic nomination for the United States Senate seat he now occupies. But at that time polls showed him trailing.

"As he came in from the cold and took off his coat, I went up to greet him. He responded warmly, and volunteered, 'Hey, I’m sorry I haven’t said more about Palestine right now, but we are in a tough primary race.

'Hey, I’m sorry I haven’t said more about Palestine right now, but we are in a tough primary race.'

I’m hoping when things calm down I can be more up front.' He referred to my activism, including columns I was contributing to the The Chicago Tribune critical of Israeli and US policy 'Keep up the good work!'"

Barack, Michelle, Edward and Mariam

Abunimah's report included a photo of Obama with his wife Michelle seated at a table with virulently anti-Israeli Professor Edward Said and his wife Mariam, in what Abunimah said was a May 1998 Arab community event in Chicago at which Said gave the keynote speech.

In an interview earlier this year for the leftist radio show "Democracy Now!," a daily TV and radio news program hosted by Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez, Abunimah said he knew Obama for many years as his state senator "when he used to attend events in the Palestinian community in Chicago all the time."

"I remember personally introducing him onstage in 1999, when we had a major community fundraiser for the community center in Deheisha refugee camp in the occupied West Bank," he recounted. "And that's just one example of how Barack Obama used to be very comfortable speaking up for and being associated with Palestinian rights and opposing the Israeli occupation."

About face 'to get elected'

Abunimah's report included a photo of Obama with his wife Michelle seated at a table with virulently anti-Israeli Professor Edward Said and his wife Mariam.

The Arab-American activist went on to say: "In 2000, when Obama unsuccessfully ran for Congress I heard him speak at a campaign fundraiser hosted by a University of Chicago professor. On that occasion and others Obama was forthright in his criticism of US policy and his call for an even-handed approach to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict."

"Obama's about-face is not surprising," Abunimah wrote. "He is merely doing what he thinks is necessary to get elected and he will continue doing it as long as it keeps him in power."

When Obama first ran for the Senate in 2004, the Chicago Jewish News interviewed him on his stance regarding Israel's security fence. He accused the Bush administration of neglecting the "Israeli-Palestinian" situation and criticized the security fence built by Israel to prevent terror attacks: "The creation of a wall dividing the two nations is yet another example of the neglect of this Administration in brokering peace," Obama was quoted as saying.

luckytxn · August 29, 2011

The Top 6 Ways That Obama is Ruining Our Economy

Back in 2008, Democratic President hopeful Barack Obama fielded criticisms for the tax plans he proposed for the American people if he got elected. They were deemed ‘socialist’ by his Republican rivals. Today, President Obama faces stark criticism of the very same tax policies from not only his political rivals but also from various other sections of the society. In fact, America’s first black President has been given the dubious honor of deliberately orchestrating what may well be a second Great Depression, matching the devastating downturn of 1929.

The Need of the Hour

As America struggles to get back to its feet after the recession, what is required is a conducive environment to encourage industrial growth. At present, unemployment rate continues to hover at around 10%, housing and real estate segment activity continues to remain low key and the investors are choosing to display more caution than ever before.

The Democratic government has come under fire for its contribution to keeping the economic growth subdued. Many of President Obama’s policies have been criticized for exacerbating the bad economic conditions rather than improving things. Here are a few of his proposed and implemented economic policies and beliefs that have drawn the ire of many people.

Navigation Menu of the Top 6 Ways That Obama is Ruining Our Economy

1. More Government Spending Means More Growth

2. Increased Taxes

3. The American Public Will be Encouraged to Start Saving Once More by These Policies

4. Cap and Trade Policy will Make American Businesses More Eco Friendly and Sustainable

5. More Support from Employers Towards National Health Schemes to Help Employees

6. Increase Productivity by Diverting Capable Workers Out of Non Profit Work

1. More Government Spending Means More Growth

The President is a firm believer that increased government spending is the panacea to America’s recession woes. This logic is flawed in two very obvious ways:

More spending means that the stakes are becoming higher in the economy and businesses will have to compete with the government for resources, which may just starve them out of business.

Greater government spending is facilitated by increased taxes from the general public and businesses. Additional tax burden can in no way contribute to growth, expansion or innovation in any economy.

2. Increased Taxes

The President has been taking great pains to reassure that it will be only the rich who will be affected by the higher tax policy. This means that the rich will be cushioning the poorer Americans from the worst of the economic crisis by means of providing the funds to lead America into prosperity.

However, critics argue that increasing taxes during recessive times is a sure shot way of ensuring that the economy takes a nosedive into a depressive state. What is really needed now is to alleviate the tax burden so that businesses and individuals alike can regain the ability to build up lost resources. It is this policy that can help rekindle business investment and allow small investors to begin saving again.

The President’s stand on increasing capital gains has also come under fire. Critics point to the obvious fact that the higher capital gains tax translates into less funds for entrepreneurs and business houses to invest in expansion. This will cause the businesses to stagnate and they will stop growing.

The President believes that his tax increases will boost economic growth, which in turn will improve the overall conditions and the standard of living of all Americans. However, the truth may well be quite the opposite. The increased payroll taxes, capital gains, re-establishment of estate taxes and other hikes will impose such heavy burden on the public that standard of living will see a steady decline in the coming years for the lack of spare cash to spend on comforts.

3. The American Public Will be Encouraged to Start Saving Once More by These Policies

On the contrary, the savings capacity will dramatically reduce as a result of these policies. For instance, the rise in capital gains tax will discourage the people from investing in assets. This will deal a huge blow to the already subdued housing market.

Death taxes will result in people preferring to die ‘penniless’, in a manner of speaking, rather than have survivors pay up huge taxes on property and assets.

Greater payroll taxes will discourage two income families from continuing to earn more only to pay more to the government. Households that contribute more to the nation’s productivity with both husband and wife working will in effect be penalized with higher taxes.

4. Cap and Trade Policy will Make American Businesses More Eco Friendly and Sustainable

Under this policy, companies that exceed the carbon emission limits will have to purchase permits. The President may have the right ideas on the environmental front but where financial sustainability or feasibility is concerned, the cap and trade policy is doomed to failure.

While companies may toe the line and buy the permits, they are not likely to allow the increased costs to dent their profits. The costs will be passed on to the consumers. Analysts predict a hike in price of gasoline and electricity, both of which will significantly affect the spending power of the common man. And contrary to the President’s euphemistic expectations, it is not just the ‘rich’ American who will bear the brunt of this policy.

5. More Support from Employers Towards National Health Schemes to Help Employees

As employers face increased burden from national health scheme contribution for their employees, the employment situation is far from likely to improve. The increased costs of expanding the employee base will need to be justified by the productivity that can be derived out of it.

If the increase in productivity does not justify costs, the current unemployment levels, which are already quite alarming, will at best, continue and at worst, the rate will go beyond the current 10% level. With a significant percentage of Americans continuing to be unemployed, any growth in the economy is bound to be severely restricted.

6. Increase Productivity by Diverting Capable Workers Out of Non Profit Work

The President appears to have a special aversion to non profit or charitable institutions. His policy was made clear even in a much earlier speech. Back then he spoke of how capable workers must devote themselves to working in core businesses rather than diverting their capabilities and efforts towards non profit organizations. Working for production oriented concerns will help boost the industrial activity in the country and propel the economy, he had then stated.

Obama’s focus on cutting tax breaks on charity, social causes and making charitable spending more expensive appears to be in line with his earlier thought. However, this could be dangerous for the economy, as the onus of such expenditure will then fall on the government itself. When this happens, funds earmarked for other developmental activities will be diverted to these ‘non productive’ causes.

As America continues to reel under what critics are calling the ‘blinkered approach’ to fiscal policies, there are an increasing number of Americans who are beginning to think that Barack Obama may prove to be the leader who led the nation to the beginning of its end as a ‘super power’. With a shaky economy and weakening dollar, does America’s only hope for economic recovery lie in a change of governance?

IR5FORMUMSIE · August 29, 2011

Obama's anti-Israeli hysteria dangerous and destructive

Greg Sheridan, Foreign editor

From:The Australian

March 27, 2010 12:00AM

Increase Text Size

Decrease Text Size

Print

Email

Share

BARACK Obama's anti-Israel jihad is one of the most irresponsible policy lurches by any modern American president. It rightly earns Obama the epithet of the US president least sympathetic to Israel in Israel's history. Jimmy Carter became a great hater of Israel, but only after he left office.

Obama's dangerous new lurch into anti-Israel populism changes global politics in extremely dangerous ways, and poses a challenge for Kevin Rudd.

Perhaps Obama's most distinctive contribution to the foreign policy debate in the lead-up to the US presidential election was his avowed determination to talk to and engage the US's enemies if he became president. He was happy in principle to talk to Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but did not know for sure that the Iranian president wielded real power. But he sent all manner of felicitations and greetings to Iran and its government. When that government stole an election on Ahmadinejad's behalf and viciously brutalised its citizens, Obama refrained from speaking too much or too forcefully, as, he said, he didn't want to be seen to be interfering in Iranian internal affairs.

RELATED COVERAGE

West Bank chiefs back Palestinian pleaThe Australian, 27 Jun 2011

Palestinians ease demands on settlementsThe Australian, 23 Jun 2011

Obama tells Jewish donors he backs IsraelThe Australian, 21 Jun 2011

Israeli PM sets bar too high for AbbasThe Australian, 25 May 2011

Netanyahu 'to uproot settlements for peace'The Australian, 24 May 2011

When Obama met the king of Saudi Arabia, a nation in which no one votes, women are subject to severe and demeaning restrictions and it is against the law to have a Christian church, Obama bowed in deep respect.

When Obama ran into Venezuela's murderous despot, Hugo Chavez, at a summit, there was a friendly greeting observed by all.

But there is one leader whom Obama draws the line at. He will not be seen in public with Israel's Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. Astonishingly, when Netanyahu saw Obama at the White House this week, all photographers and all TV cameras were banned, a level of humiliation almost completely unique in modern White House practice.

You might even conclude that Obama is trying to interfere in internal Israeli politics and bring down a government. This is something post-colonial, post-multicultural Obama would never do with Iran, but with Israel, the US's longstanding ally, it's fine.

And what was Netanyahu's crime, this act of infamy that Obama's senior staff described as an "affront" to America? It was that the relevant housing authority passed another stage of approval for 1600 Israeli housing units to be built in East Jerusalem in about three years' time. It was very foolish that the Israelis allowed this announcement to take place while US Vice-President Joe Biden was in Israel. But they apologised to Biden at the time, Biden kissed and made up with the Israelis and was back to delivering fulsome pro-Israel speeches before he left.

After that point, though, the US reaction went into overdrive. Impeccable American sources tell me this reaction was driven by Obama, and to a lesser extent the Chicago mafia around him.

We must ask why this is so, but first let's get Netanyahu's infamous crime into perspective.

Last November Netanyahu announced a 10-month moratorium on all building activity in Jewish settlements in the West Bank. Israel has already promised not to take any more land for settlements but there is the question of renovating existing buildings and constructing new ones in existing settlements.

As Hillary Clinton acknowledged in her speech this week to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, East Jerusalem was never part of this agreement. The two main peace offers Israel has made to the Palestinians in recent years were the Camp David/Taba proposals and the accompanying Clinton parameters in 2000, and Ehud Olmert's offer to Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas in 2008. Both plans offered essentially the same formula. The Palestinians get all of the Gaza Strip, about 95 per cent of the West Bank and a compensating parcel of territory from Israel proper to make up for the small amount of territory in the West Bank that Israel would keep which houses the main Jewish population blocks. The Palestinians also get some parts of East Jerusalem as their capital. This principle of territorial swaps was accepted by Yasser Arafat and Abbas.

East Jerusalem has always had a different status from the West Bank and some Israelis certainly don't want to give any of it to a new Palestinian state. But everyone accepts that some Jewish neighbourhoods would remain part of Israel. These are mostly neighbourhoods, as Netanyahu pointed out this week, which are five minutes from the Knesset and a couple of blocks beyond the 1949 armistice line. The administration of George W. Bush had formally agreed with the Israelis that these areas would be permanently part of Israel. Bill Clinton had negotiated an offer to the Palestinians in 2000 which accepted this.

It would be a radical change of policy for an Israeli government to decree that no building would ever take place in Jewish areas of Jerusalem. It would also be a change of American policy.

Moreover, no serious analyst could believe that such building is a roadblock to peace. Peace negotiations have gone on with such building taking place in the past. And all the things that truly make peace impossible - Arab and Palestinian refusal to accept the legitimacy of any Jewish state, Palestinian insistence on certain deal breakers such as the right of return of all Palestinian refugees and their descendants to Israel proper, the insistent and violent anti-Semitism of Palestinian and Arab propaganda and the regional ambitions of players such as Iran and Syria - will be completely unaffected by any decision to build apartments in a Jewish neighbourhood in East Jerusalem in three years time. So why has Obama gone into full jihad mode against Israel? Three explanations suggest themselves. Obama has had a terrible year in foreign policy. He has achieved nothing on Iran or China or anything else of consequence. He is too smart to believe this intimidation of Israel will advance peace, but it might get peace talks going again. The Palestinians only made settlements a roadblock after Obama did. They are refusing to join Israel in peace talks, which Netanyahu would be happy to participate in. They have said they might engage in proximity talks - which means not talking to the Israelis directly but to mediators who will shuttle back and forth carrying messages between them and the Israelis. This is primitive and ridiculous stuff, but if such talks get going Obama could claim some kind of victory, or at least progress.

And Obama is showing that his personal popularity, not America's standing, still less matters of substance such as Iran's nuclear program, is what motivates him.

This leads to the second explanation of his behaviour, and that is to make himself personally popular in the Muslim world. Beating up on Israel is the cheapest trick in the book on that score and it can earn him easy, worthless and no doubt temporary plaudits in some parts of the Muslim world.

And thirdly, Obama is the first post-multicultural president of America. In his autobiography he talks of seeking out the most radical political theorists he could at university. For these people Israel is an exercise in Western neo-imperialism. Obama makes their hearts sing with this anti-Israel jihad.

Accompanying Obama's own actions has been some of the most dangerous rhetoric ever to come out of a US administration, to the effect that Israeli intransigence endangers US troops by inflaming extremists in the Islamic world. No serious analyst anywhere believes that Israel is an important source of the conflicts in Afghanistan or Iraq. Using this type of argument comes dangerously close to the administration licensing a mutant strain of anti-Semitism - it's all the Jews' fault. Why is all this a challenge for Rudd?

The anti-Israel hysteria is totally disproportionate and wildly over the top. The British decision to expel an Israeli diplomat because Israel is alleged to have used forged British passports in a Mossad operation is a case in point.

The British precedent pressures Rudd to do the same. Rudd should resist this pressure, as Opposition leader Tony Abbott has urged him to. 2010 is a critical year for the Middle East. Israel's friends now should rally round it, or the spectre of wild and hysterical anti-Israel sentiment will be unleashed with all manner of destructive consequences.

Now is the time for anyone who cares about Middle East peace, or who claims as Rudd does to care about Israel, to stick close to Jerusalem. The Australian Federal Police inquiry will not be conclusive about whether Israel used Australian passports or not. Obama wants to be popular. Gordon Brown wants Muslim votes and to distract attention from the latest scandals of his government. Rudd could be tempted to bash Israel as a way of courting Arab League votes at the UN. But the path of statesmanship here does not lie in apeing these foolish American and British moves.

There would also be a gruesome comparison in the way Australia responds to big as to small nations. China imprisons one of our citizens, denies consular access to most of the trial and treats Canberra with contempt. In return Rudd changes policy and declines to see the Dalai Lama and similarly declines to send an Australian minister to Taiwan in the entire course of the government's parliamentary term.

Yet Israel, our close friend, is alleged to misuse a passport and then gets the very big diplomatic penalty of having a diplomat expelled. It would be disproportionate and foolish and cowardly.

The Americans and Brits don't always get things right. There are times when Canberra should definitely not follow their lead.

Print

Email

GOD forbid that the Palestinians should want to go home and the Israelis might want peace. Since when does wanting peace make someone Anti-Semitic? This article comes from Australia that land of tolerance where virulent open and notorious Islamphobia runs rampant and covert Anti-Semitism is de rigeur. The author of this piece engages in the latest tactic for lynching, many of the criticisms of the President are thinly veiled attacks on his complexion and his name and not on his Nixonian policies. About the author of this piece:

MURDOCH JOURNALIST, GREG SHERIDAN, DISPLAYS HIS RACIST CREDENTIALS.

In a lengthy article last Saturday in The Australian titled ‘How I lost faith in multiculturalism’, Greg Sheridan finally showed himself to be the racist that we always knew he was. Of course, having ranted against Islam in the past, usually when discussing the war against terrorism, we already knew that he was a racist. But in those circumstances he usually denied being racist by saying that his rants were directed against extremist Muslim, not moderate Islam. But now he has finally come out against Islam generally thus displaying his true racist credentials. At one point in his article Sheridan relates how he witnessed a white Australian women being verbally abused and then spat on. He explains that the men who abused this woman were of ‘Middle Eastern appearance’ inferring that because they were Middle Eastern they must have been Muslims and so, therefore, were behaving offensively because they were Muslims. As historian Robert Manne pointed out in response to Sheridan’s hate piece, if Sheridan had replaced the words ‘…of Middle Eastern appearance’ with ‘…of Jewish appearance’ then one would have a quote worthy of something that may have been found in Julius Streicher’s Nazi newspaper Der Stürmer. With this disclosure of his racist attributes, Sheridan now joins the ranks of those other leading Murdoch racists; Andrew Bolt of the Herald Sun in Melbourne, and Tim Blair and Piers Akerman of the Daily Telegraph in Sydney. Andrew Bolt, Australia’s premier racist, couldn’t help himself but pass comment over Sheridan’s racist rant and Manne’s response. Bolt called on Manne, who also happens to be Jewish and who is also Bolt’s arch nemesis, to apologise to Sheridan saying Manne ‘demeans’ both Sheridan and the Holocaust. As it happens, while Sheridan deserves to be ‘demeaned’ on the basis of his declaration of being a racist, Manne actually didn’t mention the Holocaust. In the course of his racist rant, Sheridan mentioned that many of the Right wing parties in Europe that were now anti-Islam had in the past been anti-Semitic but have now changed their stance. He says, for example, the French National Front party had “recently ditched the anti-Semitism and now stands primarily against Muslim immigration and Islamic influence”. The reality is that many of those white European Australians that are now opposed to Islam were once also anti-Semitic themselves

. One wonders if the likes of Murdoch’s journos in Australia weren’t once amongst them. Like in Orwell’s 1984, for the likes of Bolt, Sheridan, Blair, Akerman, et al, they occasionally need to change their enemy but they always must have an enemy. The right-wing in the post war years still hated Jews even in Australia but, like leopards, they can never change their spots but the can attempt to hide them. Once a racist, always a racist.

My link

IR5FORMUMSIE · August 29, 2011

KUHNER: Obama's anti-Israel agenda

Echoes of president's Jew-baiting pastor in foreign policy

47 Comments and 1 Reaction|Share Tweet|Email|Print|By Jeffrey T. Kuhner

-

The Washington Times

Thursday, February 17, 2011

Illustration: Israel by Linas Garsys for The Washington Times

Text Size: +-

STORY TOPICS

Politics

Barack Obama

Israel

Iran

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

FOLLOW US ON

FACEBOOK

<h6 class="full mb min left" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 5px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; font-size: 12px; font-weight: 700; text-transform: uppercase; float: left; width: 160px; "></h6>

QUESTION OF THE DAY

Did you approve of the media coverage of Hurricane Irene?

Yes

No

Undecided

Other

Login to Vote

View results

President Obama is siding with Israel's enemies. He is slowly fracturing America's long-standing alliance with the Jewish state and leaving it isolated on the world stage.

The administration recently told Arab governments Washington will support a U.N. Security Council resolution that stipulates the world body "does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity." The move is almost unprecedented. America has almost never publicly criticized Israel - our best friend in the Middle East and the region's only genuine Western-style democracy - at the U.N. The reason: The organization is dominated by anti-Semitic, anti-American dictatorships obsessed with condemning the Jewish state. Israel is lambasted constantly while the rampant human rights abuses of other countries - especially Arab regimes, Russia and China - are barely noticed. The United States has opposed this double standard - until now.

The result will be to drive a wider wedge between Washington and Jerusalem. Israelis rightly will conclude that Mr. Obama is willing to betray a pivotal pro-American ally in order to appease the "Arab street." Radical Islamists also will realize that Washington's support is fickle; their dream of driving the Jews into the sea no longer seems unattainable. In fact, now it is entirely possible.

Mr. Obama's decision to betray Israel should come as no surprise. He is a privileged liberal who reflects the values and prejudices of the academic left. The cultural milieu of his intellectual formation was steeped in hatred of America and the West. His father was an anti-colonial socialist determined to destroy European imperialism. His mentor was Frank Marshall Davis, an avowed communist. His pastor was the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, a black nationalist known for his Jew-baiting. His seminal intellectual influences were revolutionary Marxists such as Frantz Fanon and Edward Said. They championed the belief - prevalent among college radicals - that Israel symbolizes Western subjugation of Third World peoples. In their view, it is a militaristic, quasi-fascist state based on oppression and Zionist expansion. In other words, for the hard left,Palestine is a continuation of the anti-imperial struggle - a mass movement for liberation from Western occupation. That is why progressives have only two real enemies: the United States and Israel.

During his presidency, Mr. Obama has appeased and emboldened radical Islamists. He has apologized for America to the Muslim world. He has prematurely withdrawn U.S. troops from Iraq, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. He has undermined President Hamid Karzai's government in Afghanistan, enabling the Taliban to make significant inroads. He has turned a blind eye as Turkey becomes increasingly Islamic and Hezbollah has taken control in Lebanon. In 2009, he did not lift a finger - or even say a word of encouragement - to the Green pro-democracy movement in Iran. When it came to supporting the secular, pro-American demonstrators of Tehran, Mr. Obama was stone silent. In fact, he publicly said Washington should not "interfere" in Iranian "internal" affairs. Even today, as brave Iranian democrats battle the forces of tyrant Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president cannot muster the indignation he demonstrated toward former Egyptian autocrat HosniMubarak. Mr. Obama refuses to demand that the Persian strongman step aside - as he did with the Egyptian pharaoh.

The fall of the Mubarak regime signifies a major victory for the Muslim Brotherhood. Egypt's military is in control. The top brass has promised to hold elections in about six months. The Brotherhood is the most disciplined, organized and effective political force on the Nile. It is the oldest modern Islamist movement in the Middle East, comprising a vast underground that has been patiently waiting to seize power. TheBrotherhood is the future; secular moderates are the past.

The Brotherhood aims to erect an Iranian-style theocracy. Its founder, Hassan al-Banna, sought to imitate the fascist movements of the 1930s. Instead of desiring a world dominated by a German master race, he wanted a global caliphate - the restoration of an Islamic empire stretching from the Middle East to Europe. Last year, the Brotherhood's supreme guide, Mohammed Badie, said that the defeat of Israel and America could only occur "by raising a jihadi generation that pursues death just as the enemies pursue life." The Brotherhood is a mortal threat to Israel and to the West.

Rather than confronting this ugly reality, the administration insists on whitewashing the Brotherhood's true intentions. Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper recently claimed that theBrotherhood was "largely secular." At a Senate hearing on Wednesday, he said the group had no "specific agenda" and was "heterogeneous," consisting of multiple political wings. Mr. Clapper is a liar and should be told to resign.

The Brotherhood has one primary goal: the destruction of the Jewish state. Its leaders call for scuttling Egypt's 1979 peace treaty with Israel. The group openly glorifies Mr. Ahmadinejad andIran's one-party, fundamentalist regime. Its Palestinian branch is Hamas, which is dedicated to the extermination of the Jews. By abandoning Mr. Mubarak, Mr. Obama has paved the way for the radicalization of Egypt. Israel now faces the specter of being strategically encircled by anti-Semitic bellicose states - Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Bashir Assad's autocracy in Syria and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Behind them stands Iran. Mr. Ahmadinejad is inching closer to acquiring the nuclear bomb and fulfilling his vow to "wipe Israel off the map."

The Jews are reliving the nightmare of the late 1930s. Except this time, it is Islamic fascism that threatens their very existence. They were alone then, and they are increasingly alone today. Mr. Obama has shown that Israel cannot count on the White House in its hour of need.

Jeffrey T. Kuhner is a columnist at The Washington Times and president of the Edmund Burke Institute.

Go ahead while I post more.

You forgot the picture that usually accompany the articles by Kuhner:

One of Mr. Kuhner's finest pieces:

KUHNER: Obama’s black nationalism

President’s Easter was worship of resentment, not resurrection

By Jeffrey T. Kuhner

-

The Washington Times

Tuesday, April 26, 2011

b1-kuhner_s160x159.jpg?8dbb2f667673f97230a9e1b667cdb28d1c176466 Illustration: Presidential sealIs President Obama a black nationalist? This goes to the heart of his presidency - and partly explains why Mr. Obama is losing the broad middle of America. On Easter, Mr. Obama and his family attended Shiloh Baptist Church in Washington. The liberal press corps made much of the fact that the church was founded in 1863 by freed slaves. Yet the church's pastor, the Rev. Wallace Charles Smith, is a race-baiting black nationalist. He is a more polished version of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, a longtime pastor of Mr. Obama's.Mr. Smith lacks the bombast of Mr. Wright but peddles the same philosophy of racialism, grievance-mongering and black victimology. In one of his recent sermons, Mr. Smith argued that institutionalized racism continues. "Anytime a swimming club can deny membership to students simply because they are African-American or Hispanic is an indication that Barack's presidency does not solve the question of justice in this nation," he said. Really? Where and at what institutions are blacks and Hispanics denied access to swimming pools? This is a figment of Mr. Smith's imagination.

He further stressed that segregation was not really eradicated; rather, it has simply morphed into a more subtle system of racial oppression through conservative talk radio and widespread opposition to affirmative action.

"Now Jim Crow wears blue pinstripes and goes to law school and carries fancy briefs and cases," Mr. Smith said. "And he doesn't have to wear white robes anymore because now he can wear the protective cover of talk radio or can get a regular news program on Fox."

He even compared Rush Limbaugh to the Ku Klux Klan and the White Citizens' Council. In other words, conservatives - Mr. Obama's critics - are incorrigibly racist and seek to perpetuate a watered-down form of apartheid. For Mr. Smith and many others on the left, disagreeing with racial quotas is not only wrong, but evil - a manifestation of deep-seated intolerance and bigotry.

The opposite is true: Conservatives are the true heirs of the civil rights movement. They believe in a colorblind society and equality under the law. This is why affirmative action is so pernicious. It has created a racial spoils system whereby groups are systematically pitted against one another: Ethnic revanchism - the obsession with identity - is rampant. Merit no longer is the primary basis for many hiring decisions, university admissions or government contracts. Race, gender and (increasingly) sexual orientation are the new standards.

Moreover, no other nation in history has done more to alleviate the injustices of its past or create a more open, fair and tolerant society for minorities than America - especially regarding black Americans. Our president and attorney general are black; both of President George W. Bush's secretaries of state were black; blacks occupy numerous key positions in Fortune 500 companies; blacks dominate much of the sports and entertainment industries; and many of America's leading cultural icons are black - including Bill Cosby, Michael Jordan, Oprah Winfrey and Beyonce.

Yet, none of this matters to Mr. Smith and other black nationalists, such as Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and the infamous Mr. Wright. This is because black nationalism is an outgrowth of 1960s chic radicalism. It is racialism disguised as progressive politics. It combines socialism with xenophobic tribalism. For racialists like Mr. Smith, reality must not be allowed to puncture their central myth: The white man is the devil.

Slavery was abolished nearly 150 years ago. But Mr. Smith gives the impression that blacks were enslaved only yesterday. During his Easter sermon, he pointed with pride to his 4-week-old grandson, whose gurgling, according to Mr. Smith, was actually "talking." And what was the little piker saying? "I am here ... they tried to write me off as three-fifths of a person in the Constitution, but I am here right now ... and is saying I am not going to let anybody stop me from being what God wants me to be," Mr. Smith said.

Leave aside that I never knew infants could talk (apparently, miracles really do happen under the progressive messiah, Mr. Obama). Mr. Limbaugh, Fox News, the GOP - not one of them seeks to restore slavery or the three-fifths clause in the Constitution, or deny any black child a shot at the American dream. To suggest otherwise is kooky.

It is shocking that Mr. Obama - our commander in chief who is supposed to embody our highest ideals - chose this church to celebrate Easter. He sat in the pews nodding in approval as Mr. Smith peddled his racialist vitriol.

A disturbing pattern is emerging. For 20 years, Mr. Obama sat in the church of an anti-American pastor who constantly railed against "white greed" and "white oppression." The president's hand-picked attorney general, Eric H. Holder Jr., has called America "a nation of cowards" when it comes to race. His Justice Department has refused to prosecute members of the New Black Panthers for blatant voter intimidation. Mr. Obama has openly embraced Mr. Sharpton, an odious race-baiter. It is clear by his actions and affiliations that Mr. Obama has black nationalist sympathies.

The result is that he appears increasingly strange to many voters; his racial socialist politics are alien to the American tradition. They belong more to the Third World. This explains why Middle America is turning its back on Mr. Obama. When Americans voted for him in 2008, they thought they were getting a liberal pragmatist, a modern-day Franklin D. Roosevelt or John F. Kennedy. Instead, they got a Rev. Jeremiah Wright in blue pinstripes who attended law school.

Jeffrey T. Kuhner is a columnist at The Washington Times and president of the Edmund Burke Institute.

My link

Mr. Big Dog · August 29, 2011

Top 10 ways Obama is destroying our country
Posted: August 13, 2010

1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

As if 16 years of Bill and Hillary Clinton and George W. Bush, and their corrupt advisers like James Carville and Karl Rove, in and around the White House were not enough to bring our nation to its knees, the last one and one half years of President Barack Obama's reign have set new lows in leadership, to put it mildly. Here is my scorecard of the worst aspects of Obama's ultra-leftist if not borderline communist rule, which has left the country on the brink of total disaster.

First, there is Obama's huge "commitment" to insert government into every aspect of our lives. Rather than a belief in God, Bolshevik-style Obama and his sympathizers and supporters worship the "deity of government" rather than our actual savior. Whether it is trillion-dollar taxpayer bailouts of banks, socialized health care, phony regulation of the financial industry, proposed "cap-and-trade" and near total government control over the environment, the state is always involved. We have been told, and ultimately forced, to bow down to the altar of government.

Two, Obama and his black Muslim or radical friends like Louis Farrakhan, Rev. Wright and others – who I believe have a deep-seated prejudice if not hatred of Jews and white Christians – have sought in every way possible to severely harm the state of Israel. It is no longer "fashionable" to be overtly anti-Semitic, so the whipping boy becomes the Jewish state. As a result, Israel – which has been abandoned – will ultimately have to act on its own against the mullahs in Iran and other threats to its national security. And, no longer seeing the United States as an ally, Israel will now seek to form other alliances, not necessarily totally friendly to our interests. Even my liberal Jewish friends are disgusted by Obama and the self-hating far-leftist Jews the president surrounds himself with – which he uses as cover for his anti-Semitic, anti-Israeli actions.

Three, Obama and his comrades are all show and bluster; they are even more incompetent that George W. Bush was as president. I could go on and on, but one need only reflect on how he and his government god handled the BP Gulf Coast oil spill to see through his charade of "reason." Can you imagine how Obama would react if a terrorist group detonated a nuclear weapon on American soil? God help us all.

Four, Obama has subverted our system of justice with the assistance of his felonious Attorney General Eric Holder. This is the same Eric Holder who illegally sold pardons when he was deputy attorney general in the Clinton Justice Department, and it is the same Eric Holder who had Nolanda Hill indicted – one of late Commerce Secretary Ron Brown's girlfriends – when she wanted to cooperate with and testify for Judicial Watch in uncovering the now infamous Chinagate/campaign-finance scandal. This scandal was first uncovered at Brown's Commerce Department while I was chairman of Judicial Watch. I discuss this in my new book, "Whores: Why and How I Came to Fight the Establishment." Now, Holder is up to even more skulduggery, advocating reading Miranda rights to non-U.S. citizen terrorists, opposing Arizona's anti-immigration law, SB 1070, shutting down the Guantanamo prison and outrageously moving terrorists inside the United States, advocating for newly confirmed Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan and other acts intended to subvert our Constitution, our sovereignty and national security.

Five, Obama has disgraced us internationally and worked against freedom and human-rights movements and activists worldwide. The Iranian opposition, who just a year ago looked as if it might overthrow the neo-Nazi-like Islamic regime, has gotten no support from this administration and is now all but dead. And, even Voice of America – our television and radio network, which is intended to promote freedom around the world – has been muzzled and subverted by Obama, with the son of a mullah, Ali Sajjadi, in control of its Persian News Network – as just one obvious example. Then there is Hugo Chavez's Venezuela, which not coincidentally supports the Iranian mullahs and who continues to spread his Marxist ideology all over Latin America. The "best" and "toughest" thing Obama has done to Chavez was shake his hand during last year's meeting of the Summit of the Americas. The message this sent is that Obama supports Chavez, and the two seem to have a real kinship. All of this is not to mention the ongoing disasters in Afghanistan and North Korea – all of which are festering and ready to explode.

Sixth, Obama has failed to protect our borders, allowing more illegals to flood across the Mexican border into the United States – which undoubtedly include more terrorists – that threaten the well-being of the American people. At the same time, he opposes Arizona's reasonable anti-immigration legislation and is scheming to find a way to grant amnesty by fiat, going around Congress. I am pro-immigration, but Obama lacks any appreciation of the legitimate concerns of the American people that immigration should only be of the legal variety.

Seventh, Obama has given too much power to his wife, first lady Michelle Obama, who many analysts, myself included, believe is the radical "force" behind the throne. When will Americans wise up? We do not elect first ladies (or first men), and in my opinion they should be seen and not heard. And, who can forget Hillary Clinton and her evil and destructive ways during her husband's administration?

Eighth, Obama is not hardworking. He has even taken more vacations than George W. Bush. As the American people can barely afford to eat, send their children to school, find housing and just make ends meet, this sends a terrible message to the nation, which is being asked to sacrifice.

Ninth, Obama has used his press secretary, Robert Gibbs, more than most modern presidents, to lie to the media and the American people. Our presidents should answer questions directly to the media and Congress – as is true of prime ministers in Great Britain – rather than using surrogates to lie for them. This has destroyed confidence in our system of government.

Tenth, Obama's arrogance and aloofness – almost as if he is above and better than us all – is more than annoying; it is dangerous and incendiary during this time of crisis.

So many words, so few facts. Amazing. And the gullible just eat it up.

slim · August 29, 2011

Best. President. Ever.

luckytxn · August 29, 2011

Is Obama a socialist?

Posted: October 18, 2008

1:00 am Eastern

, according to Karl Marx, is the transition between capitalism and communism. To achieve communism, Marx says, there must be continuing revolution in which the fundamental principal is: The end justifies the means.

For more than half a century, capitalism in the United States has taken a beating from the socialist revolution. Despite the best efforts of conservatives since the Roosevelt era, socialists have made great strides toward converting the nation to socialism. Apparently, the majority of Americans either fail to recognize the transition, or welcome it. The enthusiastic support for Barack Obama, especially among young people, is abundant evidence.

Obama has declared that he believes every person has a "right" to care. TheSocialist Party USA believes every person has a "right" to health care.

Obama believes that unions should be allowed toorganize without a secret ballot. The Socialist Party USA calls for unions to be recognized without a secret ballot. (Hear Obama's words here.)

The Socialist Party USA recognizes the "right" of adequate housing for everyone. Obama trained ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) workers to secure mortgages for unqualified people in sufficient numbers to collapse the housing and home-financing industries.

The Socialist Party USA believes that "capitalism is fundamentally incompatible" with socialism. For years, Obama worked inthrough the Annenberg Challenge, along with Bill Ayers, to funnel more than $50 million to anti-capitalist education projects. In November 2006, Ayers traveled to Venezuela to speak at Hugo Chavez's Education Forum where he railed against "the failings of capitalist education," and praised the "Bolivarian Revolution and the profound reforms in education made by Hugo Chavez."

The Socialist Party USA believes in open borders and six-months residency as the only requirement for U.S. citizenship. Obama marched with illegal aliens in Chicago in support of "comprehensive" immigration reform. Listen toObama's promises to La Razain 2007.

The Socialist Party USA calls for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. Obama says, "I will end this war," with never a reference to "winning" or "victory."

The Socialist Party USA calls for the "unconditional disarmament" by the United States. Obama has promised to dramatically reduce defense spending.Listen to his words here.

The Socialist Party USA calls for a "livable guaranteed annual." Obama trained ACORN members toconduct "Living Wage" campaignsin cities around the country.

The Socialist Party USA calls for a "steeply graduated" policy to redistribute wealth. Obama has promised to increase the tax burden on the rich to redistribute wealth to the poor. He revealed his philosophy when answering a question fromJoe the plumber, who complained that he was being taxed for his success. Obama said:

It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success too. My attitude is that if the good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody. I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody.

This list of comparisons could be quite long. This is sufficient to reveal an unmistakable similarity between Obama's political beliefs and the beliefs of the Socialist Party USA. The tragedy is that Obama's supporters don't care. In fact, many of his supporters are delighted that he promises to usher in a new era of socialism, and push the memory of capitalism further into history.

Socialists, who are in perpetual revolution, who believe that the end justifies the means, have worked through educational institutions, non-government organizations such as ACORN and by electing socialists to public office to silence teaching the virtues of free enterprise, capitalism, private property, individual responsibility and personal achievement. For nearly two generations, students have been fed a steady of socialism under a variety of disguises, including Outcome Based Education, No Child Left Behind, School-to-Work and a host of other "feel good" slogans.

Students and young adults no longer know why capitalism is better than socialism. Like Obama, young people really believe that when government redistributes wealth, "it's good for everybody." They do not realize that wealth redistribution is no substitute for wealth creation. They are never taught that the only way to create wealth is for an individual to combine his energy and intellect with resources to produce a product that improves his life, or for which someone else is willing to pay.

Private property, the accumulation of personal prosperity and individual achievement are anathema to socialism. Socialism sees the individual as nothing more than a cog in a government-run machine designed to ensure equity for all.

Capitalism seeks prosperity; socialism seeks equity. Freedom increases as prosperity increases. In a socialist system, there can be neither.

The_Dude · August 29, 2011

Top 10 ways Obama is destroying our country

Posted: August 13, 2010

1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

As if 16 years of Bill and Hillary Clinton and George W. Bush, and their corrupt advisers like James Carville and Karl Rove, in and around the White House were not enough to bring our nation to its knees, the last one and one half years of President Barack Obama's reign have set new lows in leadership, to put it mildly. Here is my scorecard of the worst aspects of Obama's ultra-leftist if not borderline communist rule, which has left the country on the brink of total disaster.

First, there is Obama's huge "commitment" to insert government into every aspect of our lives. Rather than a belief in God, Bolshevik-style Obama and his sympathizers and supporters worship the "deity of government" rather than our actual savior. Whether it is trillion-dollar taxpayer bailouts ofbanks, socialized health care, phony regulation of the financial industry, proposed "cap-and-trade" and near total government control over the environment, the state is always involved. We have been told, and ultimately forced, to bow down to the altar of government.

Two, Obama and his black Muslim or radical friends like Louis Farrakhan, Rev. Wright and others who I believe have a deep-seated prejudice if not hatred of Jews and white Christians have sought in every way possible to severely harm the state of Israel. It is no longer "fashionable" to be overtly anti-Semitic, so the whipping boy becomes the Jewish state. As a result, Israel which has been abandoned will ultimately have to act on its own against the mullahs in Iran and other threats to its national security. And, no longer seeing the United States as an ally, Israel will now seek to form other alliances, not necessarily totally friendly to our interests. Even my liberal Jewish friends are disgusted by Obama and the self-hating far-leftist Jews the president surrounds himself with which he uses as cover for his anti-Semitic, anti-Israeliactions.

Three, Obama and his comrades are all show and bluster; they are even more incompetent that George W. Bush was as president. I could go on and on, but one need only reflect on how he and his government god handled the BP Gulf Coast oil spill to see through his charade of "reason." Can you imagine how Obama would react if a terrorist group detonated a nuclear weapon on American soil? God help us all.

Four, Obama has subverted our system of justice with the assistance of his felonious Attorney General Eric Holder. This is the same Eric Holder who illegally sold pardons when he was deputy attorney general in the Clinton Justice Department, and it is the same Eric Holder who had Nolanda Hill indicted one of late Commerce Secretary Ron Brown's girlfriends when she wanted to cooperate with and testify for Judicial Watch in uncovering the now infamous Chinagate/campaign-financescandal. This scandal was first uncovered at Brown's Commerce Department while I was chairman of Judicial Watch. I discuss this in my newbook,"Whores: Why and How I Came to Fight the Establishment."Now, Holder is up to even more skulduggery, advocating reading Miranda rights to non-U.S. citizen terrorists, opposing Arizona's anti-immigrationlaw, SB 1070, shutting down the Guantanamo prison and outrageously moving terrorists inside the United States, advocating for newly confirmed Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan and other acts intended to subvert our Constitution, our sovereignty and national security.

Five, Obama has disgraced us internationally and worked against freedom and human-rights movements and activists worldwide. The Iranian opposition, who just a year ago looked as if it might overthrow the neo-Nazi-like Islamic regime, has gotten no support from this administration and is now all but dead. And, even Voice of America ourtelevisionand radio network, which is intended to promote freedom around the world has been muzzled and subverted by Obama, with the son of a mullah, Ali Sajjadi, in control of its Persian News Network as just one obvious example. Then there is Hugo Chavez's Venezuela, which not coincidentally supports the Iranian mullahs and who continues to spread his Marxist ideology all over Latin America. The "best" and "toughest" thing Obama has done to Chavez was shake his hand during last year'smeetingof the Summit of the Americas. The message this sent is that Obama supports Chavez, and the two seem to have a real kinship. All of this is not to mention the ongoing disasters in Afghanistan and North Korea all of which are festering and ready to explode.

(Column continues below)

&mpvc="]

Sixth, Obama has failed to protect our borders, allowing more illegals to flood across the Mexican border into the United States which undoubtedly include more terrorists that threaten the well-being of the American people. At the same time, he opposes Arizona's reasonable anti-immigration legislation and is scheming to find a way to grant amnesty by fiat, going around Congress. I am pro-immigration, but Obama lacks any appreciation of the legitimate concerns of the American people that immigration should only be of the legal variety.

Seventh, Obama has given too much power to his wife, firstladyMichelleObama, who many analysts, myself included, believe is the radical "force" behind the throne. When will Americans wise up? We do not elect first ladies (or first men), and in my opinion they should be seen and not heard. And, who can forget Hillary Clinton and her evil and destructive ways during her husband's administration?

Eighth, Obama is not hardworking. He has even taken morevacationsthan George W. Bush. As the American people can barely afford to eat, send their children to school, find housing and just make ends meet, this sends a terrible message to the nation, which is being asked to sacrifice.

Ninth, Obama has used his press secretary, Robert Gibbs, more than most modern presidents, to lie to the media and the American people. Our presidents should answer questions directly to the media and Congress as is true of prime ministers in Great Britain rather than using surrogates to lie for them. This has destroyed confidence in our system of government.

Tenth, Obama's arrogance and aloofness almost as if he is above and better than us all is more than annoying; it is dangerous and incendiary during this time of crisis.

Read more:Top 10 ways Obama is destroying our country http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=190737#ixzz1WNzE6Xt9

Was this a troll? Even Danno doesn't post ####### from WingNutDaily, and expect to be taken seriously.

Edited August 29, 2011 by Master Baiter

luckytxn · August 29, 2011

ROOT: Obama might be a socialist

For some reason, most Americans think he is

I ought to know. I was Mr. Obama’s college classmate at ColumbiaUniversity Class of ‘83. Our college was dominated by socialists and Marxists who hated capitalism and America. Let’s look at the facts up close and personal - Jeff Foxworthy style. Mr. Foxworthy leaves no doubt as to “who might be a redneck.” Let me leave no doubt that “Obama might be a socialist.”

If you believe it’s greedy for American taxpayers to want to keep more of their own money, but not greedy to demand that government confiscate other people’s money and redistribute it to those who didn’t earn it, you might be a socialist.

If you don’t understand (or care) that babies scream and cry the moment they are born because they are already heavily in debt and facing a bleak future and lower quality of life, you might be a socialist.

If the only thing you, your Cabinet members and czars know about business is from books read at Harvard Law School, written by Karl Marx, you might be a socialist.

If you want to allocate hundreds of millions to the Internal Revenue Service to go after tax cheats when your administration is filled with tax cheats, including the guy in charge of America’s taxes (Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner), you might be a socialist.

If you think the “White House Party Crashers” are terrible people because they came to a state dinner without aninvitation, but you want to give instant citizenship to 12 million uninvited “illegal aliens” who crashed our border, you might be a socialist.

If you think anyone who doesn’t read the New York Times is dumb and ignorant, but think it’s OK for Congress to pass a 2,000-page health care bill without reading it, you might be a socialist.

If you think Times’ columnist Paul Krugman deserves a Nobel Prize for economics and you deserve a Nobel Peace Prize even though neither of you created a job or ended a war, you might be a socialist.

If you think it’s OK to meet with dictators, bullies, tyrants and terrorist sympathizers without preconditions, but have no interest in meeting with conservatives in Congress, you might be a socialist.

If you think it’s OK to give constitutional rights to terrorists, but not to the bondholders, shareholders and secured creditors of GM and Chrysler when you stole the company from them and awarded it to the unions that bankrupted them, you might be a socialist.

If you think Raul Castro, the leader of communist Cuba, in firing 500,000 government employees by telling them “government can no longer employ or take care of everyone” isn’t a hint that perhaps America needs to reduce our obscene number of government employees, you might be a socialist.

If you think George W. Bush’s spending was an embarrassment, a travesty and a sin, but you have no problem increasing the national debt more in one day than the entire 2007 budget deficit, you might be a socialist.

If you think Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar of “The View” represent the moderate wingof the Democratic Party, you might be a socialist.

If you think it was OK for Nancy Pelosi to pass Obamacare so she could benefit from the special clause on Page 1,890 that gives free faceliftsto public officials, you might be a socialist (just kidding!).

If you want to convert America to a “green economy” to create jobs, after Spain has proven the green economy destroys three times as many jobs as it creates and leads to 20 percent unemployment, you might be a socialist.

If you think denying someone a job, government contract or entry to college because of the color of their skin is immoral and criminal, but giving someone a job, government contract or college admission because of a different color of their skin is “social justice,” you might be a socialist.

If you want to abandon capitalism and put the economy under the controlof government bureaucrats, even though virtually every city, county, state and federal department run by these same bureaucrats is insolvent and bankrupt, you might be a socialist.

If you favor taxpayer bailouts of companies who give you campaign contributions and hide it by refusing to disclose who got the money or how much and you demand your cronies in Congresspass the 1,000-plus page bailout bill without reading it, you might be a socialist.

If you think spending an extra trillion dollars will save money on health care and reduce the deficit, you might be a socialist (and possibly learned math in public school).

If your solution to Medicare driving the country into bankruptcy is expanding it to everyone with Obamacare, you might be a socialist.

If want to lower the cost of health care but left out tort reform, you might be a socialist lawyer.

If you’re a Columbia University professor and gave a student namedBarack Obama an A in economics, you are definitely a socialist.

And finally, in the eighth year of the Obama presidency, if Bangladesh is hosting “Aid America” concerts or you’re standing in line for toilet paper, you have a socialist president.

It’s time to stand up and loudly call a socialist … a socialist!

Sign In

Top 10 ways Obama is destroying the U.S.

125 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

scandal 951

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

웃

웃

IR5FORMUMSIE

luckytxn 2,265

luckytxn 2,265

luckytxn 2,265

luckytxn 2,265

ready4ONE 5,400

luckytxn 2,265

luckytxn 2,265

IR5FORMUMSIE 850

IR5FORMUMSIE 850

Mr. Big Dog 10,747

slim 1,533

luckytxn 2,265

The_Dude 1,142

luckytxn 2,265

Guides

US Visas

Office Reviews & Info

Ask a Pro

Activity