It just gets worse and worse with each passing day with Barack Hussein Obama (BHO). I, especially as an American President, would never in a million years read, much less carry around, a book with such a title. If the Democrats maintain control of Congress after November 2, 2010, then the book that Obama is reading (see inset photo above), The Post-American WorldWILL come to pass. If you love our country, please get involved to keep Obama from making it happen. It’s not one book that determines a man. However, it is the company he keeps and all the books he reads such as the Cloward-Piven Strategy, Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals, plus the following:
His grandparents were professed communists
His parents were extremist radicals
His mentor (when he was a youth) was Frank Marshall Davis, a card-carrying communist and known sexual deviant
His business dealings with a convicted real-estate criminal, Tony Rezko (an Arab-American)
His friendship with unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers and his radical wife (Bernardine Dohrn)
His 20 years of schooling under Reverend Jeremiah Wright, a racist who professes black liberation theology and who hates America ("God damn America")
His appointment of numerous (over 40) czars--many of whom are radicals, extremists, liberals, progressives, left-wingers, statists, socialists, Marxists, Maoists, communists, etc.
His palling around with dictators and supporting one (ex-President Mel Zelaya of Honduras) who was legally ousted from office
His dissing of the Jews of Israel and of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
His buying of the insurance companies, banks, auto manufacturers, etc.
His firing of the chief executive officer (CEO) of General Motors (GM)
His support of radical, fundamentalist Muslims
His unwarranted apologizing for America to foreign nations
His bowing to kings, emperors, and others
His anti-military actions
His enemies list(s)
His war against Fox News, talk radio hosts, the Internet and anything and anyone who opposes his policies
His polarizing of the nation to create conflict and divisiveness
His throwing the country into deep debt from which we will probably never be able to recover His application of the Cloward-Piven Strategy in manufacturing pseudo-crises
He practices Rahm "Dead Fish" Emanuel’s paradigm: “Never let a good crisis go to waste.” Wonder why we experience crises on almost a daily basis?
His attempt at curbing freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of peaceful assembly
His Muslim background and faith and underground promotion thereof, including Sharia Law
His lack of transparency
His Marxist-socialist belief of “spreading the wealth”
His use of Saul Alinsky’s playbook, Rules for Radicals, in conducting business
His strong belief and actions in passing entitlement programs
His passing of the social-medicine Obama healthcare plan
His secretive background and questionable birthplace
His Chicago mobster tactics at passing major bills in Congress and using Executive Orders to force the rest
His building of concentration camps or Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Emergency Centers to detain those who oppose his administration
His attempt to eliminate the 2nd Amendment or our right to bear arms
His unilateral elimination of missile defenses in Eastern Europe
His unilateral elimination of our nuclear weapons with a goal of zero nuclear weapons for America in a nuclear world
His support of Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), Service Employees International Union (SEIU), and other such corrupt, criminal organizations
His constant playing of the race card and pitting Americans of different races, religions and economic status against each other
His war on Wall Street CEOs that he calls Fat Cats while protecting his friends and greatest offenders like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
His support of reading Miranda Rights to terrorists, canceling of Guantanamo Bay Detention Center (Gitmo), trying of terrorists in New York City (NYC) courts, etc. while promoting investigations and seizure of American’s property without Judge issued warrants.
And, I can go on and on and on listing all of the indicators of his extremist ideology, performance, and associations. It’s his words and actions that are regarded as highly suspect. Yes, a single reading of a radical book doesn’t a radical socialist make. However, that book is only a small speck of the evidence that shows that he is indeed a Marxist-socialist. If one still believes that reading The Post-American World, written by a fellow Muslim, does not indicate that he is a Marxist-socialist, then he must be a capitalistic, free-market person who believes in competition, free-enterprise, and minimum-regulated industries.
Not!
Obama the Ideologue
President Obama will continue his fight for all of his policies. He won’t quit, slow down, or change directions because he is an ideologue. He will press forward with his Marxist-socialist policies. So, expect more of the same business as usual only more combative. He is committing political suicide.
He will certainly be a mediocre, one-term president. Hillary Clinton said she will not serve a second term as secretary of state. If she will run against BHO, she will need to declare her candidacy after the November 2, 2010, Tuesday Night Massacre. Democrat politicians are beginning to retire or say they will not run for another term. It is rumored that Rahm Emanuel may step down as White House chief of staff and advisor to the president.
Actually, BHO will throw him under the bus. If he actually does step down, that will indicate the beginning of the end of BHO's reign. Janet Napolitano, secretary of Homeland Security, may be on a short string that may be cut soon.
Obama Despotism
In my opinion, only a despot would do all that Obama currently does to fundamentally transform the United States of America into his utopia, which is a Marxist-socialist state. He does this only because he hates the America that the rest of us know and love. His agenda is to completely overhaul the country and transform it into a nanny state.
Obama Foregoes an Opportunity of a Lifetime
Yes, we need to get a decent, honest person (male or female) of integrity in the presidency on the next go-around. I never thought things could have gone this bad. Obama has missed the opportunity of a lifetime. He is the first black man to become the president of the United States (POTUS). If he ran the government from the center even as an average, decent, honest man, he could go down as the finest president in the history of the United States. However, he is going down as the worst president in the history of the United States because he insists on running the government from the far left. He has ruined it for all future black politicians for at least the next hundred years. Obama has foregone the opportunity of a lifetime.
What a waste!
Conclusion -- A Post-Obama World
We must scrutinize all future, potential POTUS candidates before they become the finalists in the general election. They must show an authentic birth certificate. We must demand that. We don’t want any Marxist-socialist ever again running for the top office in the land. We’ve got to select people who are like our country's founding fathers—people who will always put country before power, money, and personal gain. We want people with American values, sound principles, Christian morals, solid ethics, and unquestionable integrity.
Post-American world means the world after the demise of America! Please forward this piece to every Conservative, Liberal, and Independent you know. We must expose Obama's radical ideas and his acts to bring down our beloved America! We must make November 2012 and forward a
Like Glenn Beck, I saw right through Obama's transparency and knew he was a phony and a racist from the beginning. Like Beck, I voiced that fact that Obama was a racist and real racists attacked us for stating the truth.
Being a yellow man, I know what it is like when attacked by racists. I know a racist when I see one, and Obama is a racist for constantly playing the race card. Those of the world who play the race card first are usually the racists. Most of the racists I have experienced are progressives, not Taxed Enough Already (TEA) Party conservatives.
Unfortunately, there are progressive racists in every conservative community. That is the beauty of a democratic republic. Everyone has his or her say. The liberals, Democrats, progressives, statists, and Marxist-socialists can call us racist all they want. Sticks and stones will hurt our bones but words will never hurt.
Racist Obama Administration and the NAACP
The racist White House, the racist Department of Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, and the racist NAACP made absolute fools of themselves for their shabby racist treatment of black woman Shirley Sherrod. Wonders never cease to fail! A racist is as a racist does. That is what happens when they constantly play the race card. For shame!
Since we just won't let go of the Race Card:
The Racist Wolf Bites Obama
By Frances Rice
The spectacle of the racist wolf biting President Barack Obama on his political posterior in the Shirley Sherrod firing debacle was, indeed, ugly and poetic justice, too, considering that the Democratic Party unleashed the beast of racial politics on America more than 150 years ago. Details about civil rights history are posted on the National Black Republican Association (NBRA) website.
Long before the Sherrod shame, Obama played the race card by wrongly accusing a white police officer in Boston of racism for arresting a black college professor after Obama acknowledged he didn’t know all the facts.
Obama also authorized the Justice Department to dismiss a case against the New Black Panthers who were caught on video intimidating white voters in Philadelphia during the 2008 election.
Jockeying for political advantage, Obama attacked Arizona for trying to protect its citizens from the ravages of illegal immigration, falsely accusing the state of racial profiling in order to harvest Hispanic votes. Obama launched his assault even though he had not read Arizona’s law that mirrors federal law and explicitly prohibits racial profiling. Demonstrating just how sinister his ploy is against Arizona, racial profiling is not even mentioned in the lawsuit filed by Obama’s Justice Department. Not being sued by Obama are the sanctuary cities that are openly defying the federal immigration law which, notably, does not prohibit racial profiling and requires the reporting of illegal immigrants to federal officials.
Bolstered by not being held accountable by the liberal media for his blatant race-baiting, Obama boldly used NAACP surrogates to brand as racist Tea Party activists, just for the purpose of intimidating into silence average Americans protesting against his socialist agenda, while cleverly shoring up his black voter base.
While Obama was busily and gleefully counting the spoils of his divisive racial politics, along came Shirley Sherrod. Part of Sherrod’s NAACP speech was featured in a video Andrew Breitbart posted on the Internet. Breitbart’s intent was to expose the racial hypocrisy shown when the NAACP audience cheered as Sherrod recounted past acts of racism toward a white farmer.
Included in the Breitbart video was the segment where Sherrod revealed
—after the NAACP crowd had voiced approval of her prior racist actions—how she had repented.
Spooked by the specter of having the NAACP’s racial duplicity expose on the Glenn Beck television show, Obama ordered Sherrod fired immediately by Tom Vilsack, secretary of the Department of Agriculture, without due process. The NAACP covered Obama’s back by denouncing Sherrod as a racist and supporting Obama’s decision to fire her. Neither Obama nor the NAACP bothered viewing the entire video that was in the possession of the NAACP. Contrary to false assertions by Obama’s minions, Sherrod’s name was not even mentioned by either Glenn Beck or FOX News until after Obama fired her. Glenn Beck actually defended Sherrod on his program because she had expressed repentance.
While unfairly attacking FOX News, Obama’s defenders ignored how stories about Sherrod were aired on the alphabet liberal media from ABC to NBC, to CNN, to MSNBC, and so on. A liar is how Obama characterized Sherrod through his liberal media mouthpieces after Sherrod revealed during television interviews that she was told the White House wanted her fired.
Conveniently omitted from most liberal press accounts about the Sherrod saga is how she, in the spirit of a committed left-winger, smeared Republicans as racists during her NAACP speech and recently advocated shutting down FOX News.
Witnessing Obama and his Democratic Party cohorts being hoisted on their own racist petard is not a pretty sight. On reflection, though, this despicable exhibition of rank race mongering may well be a turning point, the seminal moment where Obama and the Democrats cried racist wolf one time too many and were not believed by the American people.
Frances Rice, a retired lawyer and Army Lieutenant Colonel, is chairman of the National Black Republican Association and may be contacted at:
Iran is on the march, and we have Barack Obama to thank.
In Tehran, Iran, Brazil and Turkey signed a deal on Monday to swap nuclear fuel. Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki, Brazil’s President Luis Inacio Lula da Silva and Foreign Minister Celso Amorim, and Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu raised their hands in triumph after signing the deal.
Ambassador John Bolton spells out the implications of the deal: “If this continues, it cuts the kneecaps off the administration’s sanctions effort. I think it’s a jujitsu move by the Iranians that undercuts the Obama policy.”
An unsigned editorial in the Wall Street Journal characterized the deal as “a political coup for Tehran and possibly delivers the coup de grace to the West’s half-hearted efforts to stop Iran from acquiring a nuclear bomb.” The editorial adds: “Full credit for this debacle goes to the Obama Administration and its hapless diplomatic strategy.”
And that’s not all. A new Israeli report shows that Iran has formed an alliance with China and North Korea, focusing on the development of missiles and nuclear capabilities.
Israel’s Foreign Minister, Avigdor Lieberman, said last week that North Korea is sending WMD’s to Iran’s reliable Middle Eastern client state, Syria. And few weeks ago it was revealed that Iran is sending paramilitary troops to Venezuela. What for?
A nuclear-ready Iran is preparing for world war. Here, there, everywhere. And we have … impotent Obama.
When the U.N. elected the oppressive Islamic regime of Iran to its Commission on Women’s Rights, the U.S. did nothing and said nothing—and our silence was affirmation. Ignoring Iran’s legal mistreatment of women and terrible human rights record is now concurrent with U.S. policy?
This is no accident. Last year, Obama had the U.S. co-sponsor with Egypt a U.N. resolution calling upon member states to criminalize “incitement to religious hatred,” which is UN-speak for restricting free speech about Islamic terrorism. So the U.S. went on record favoring measures that would violate the 1st Amendment.
Again I will bang this drum: the President took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. Not only is he not defending it, he is subverting it.
Ayn Rand foresaw it all when she said: “The spread of evil is the symptom of a vacuum. Whenever evil wins, it is only by default: by the moral failure of those who evade the fact that there can be no compromise on basic principles.”
And so it is in the post-American world Obama has created, for we are now living in the world Barack Obama has made. He demonstrates no moral compass. He apologizes for American’s moral and exceptional history, and abdicates American sovereignty. And now ghouls, evil men, rush in.
Bolton added: “Bad as Obama policies are for America, they are equally dangerous for friends who have relied for decades on the U.S. nuclear umbrella as a foundation of their own national security strategies. As Washington’s capabilities decline and as it narrows the circumstances when it will use nuclear weapons, allies are asking hard questions about whether the U.S. nuclear umbrella will continue to provide the protection it has previously.”
You won’t like what comes after America. We the sheeple are waiting on Obama’s catastrophe. You can put any happy face you want on the lethal nonsense he sanctions, but at the end of the day, he is empowering our enemies and weakening us.
America is on sabbatical, and all hell will break loose. War is coming. Nothing happens for decades and decades happen in a day. The backstory to these terrible developments is well documented in my book, The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America, which will hit bookstore shelves in July.
This is a horror. We are being betrayed and routed by our own leadership. And it’s only going to get worse.
Nonetheless, my money is still on the little Jewish guy in Israel versus this army of knuckleheaded barbarians. Yes, that includes their foremost patron: Barack Hussein Obama.
September 11th, 2010, 04:29
vector7
Re: The Obama Administration’s War on America and Post-American World
The name of the book Obama is reading is called: The Post-American World, and it was written by a fellow Muslim. "Post" America means the world After America!
The Middle East is now sliding toward war, with potentially devastating ripple effects far beyond the region. Obama may not want it, but he has made war a near certainty by making the United States look like "the weaker horse" in a very tough neighborhood. He would never make that same mistake on Chicago's South Side. Remember, it was peace-loving Jimmy Carter who brought Ayatollah Khomeini to power in Iran and thereby set off a war with Saddam Hussein that killed a million people. It is the fools of history, and not just the knaves, who bring catastrophe in their wake.
Obama sure looks like another one of them.
With Obama, Pax Americana seems ready to crumble. You can't be a halfway superpower in the world; you either are one or you aren't. Military strength is not just the ability to project force, but the visible will to use it under a clear set of conditions. American power and will have been used in defense of good and decent causes, like defeating Hitler and containing Stalin. For the last six decades, we have kept the peace among the hungry jackals of the world by wielding a credible U.S. deterrent at very great expense. We fought bloody proxy wars in Korea, Vietnam, and twice in Iraq. Our will and our capacity have kept the world's crazies at bay. But now it seems we've lost our way.
The United States kept the peace for sixty years when nobody else could be trusted to do it. That is why the famously brave Western Europeans stayed on our side during the Cold War, shivering in their pompons. They knew perfectly well where the real danger lay. It is only lately that they've plumb forgotten what we did to protect them. When the first Euro-socialist to rise to the U.S. Presidency, Barack Obama, took office, Europeans went mad with joy. Now they are feeling the chill down their backs: What if he's a real socialist? What if he is as wishy-washy as they all are in social democratic Europe? They may yet come to regret their moment of historical amnesia.
With Pax Americana gone, Russia may be the only power able and willing to protect the flow of oil from the Middle East, and perhaps even to become Europe's neighborhood cop for hire. Pax Americana may be ending, but Pax Muscoviana may be rising. Stranger things have happened in history.
The reasons for Putin's big chance today are geography, geography, and history.
First, geography.
Russia lives in the Middle East.
Look at the map. Russia is right next door to Iran. Putin just made a major strategic move by driving Russia's advanced S-300 truck-mounted anti-ballistic missile batteries not to Iran itself, but next door to Armenia and Azerbaijan. An airliner takes only an hour to fly from Yerevan, Armenia to Tehran. The Russians can therefore drive their S-300s close to the Iranian border and simply control a good chunk of Iranian airspace. Or if they choose to, they can send their massive land army into Iran and occupy the plains, leaving the mountains to any Iranian resistance. Putin has never hesitated to use force against civilians, or to sacrifice Russian soldiers against Islamic radicals in Chechnya. If Putin thinks that the West will wink at a little bit of Russian imperialism, he might do just that. He does not have to worry about domestic opposition, and he loves to play the macho Czar.
If Russia can project enough power from next door, it could sell its protection racket to the highest bidder: King Abdullah of Saudi, how much oil will you bid for Putin to knock out Iranian missiles in their boost stage, when they are slowly rising against gravity to strike your oil fields? Ahmadinejad, how much will you give Russia to protect Iran's nuclear industry from Israeli or American attack? Europe and China, what will you give us for protecting you from Islamofascist nukes, courtesy of the mad mullahs? Israel, how much military technology will you sell me to protect you from the crazies in Tehran?
The second reason for Putin's chance to grab is also based in geography.
Russia is a European power.
Europe is not a continent geographically, but only the Western end of the continent of Eurasia. The great plains of Central Europe stretch straight into Asia and southward into the Middle East. Russia is, in fact, a half-European power, and it has always looked West, not East, for its influences.
Moscow and St. Petersburg are old European cities. In the 19th century, French was the common language for the Russian aristocracy. Petersburg was even built in open imitation of the cities that Peter the Great saw on his tour of the West, and the Russian flag today is a variant on the Dutch and French flags, because Czar Peter wanted to make Russia become more like them. Marxism itself is a variety of European imperialism, backed up with a typically European "philosophy of history," a straight imitation of the Prussian imperial philosopher Friedrich Hegel. They love that stuff over there.
What's more natural for the Europeans than to buy protection from Moscow, and for Putin to sell it at a stiff price? Postmodern Europe will not fight for its own survival, nor even for its own Enlightenment values of free speech, religious tolerance, and electoral government. The Russians will fight just for the thrill of imperial power.
Russia now has a near-monopoly on natural gas supplies to Western Europe. Part of Putin's price might be to demand an outright monopoly for Russian gas, thereby guaranteeing Europe's proper submission to the new Tsarskom (Empire). Who needs the Americans?
Russia has given up its communist ideology, more or less, and it has elevated the Orthodox Church to its old status as the state religion. It is no longer interested in total world control, the way Stalin and Lenin were. No, it's happy to be just a regular Eurasian imperial power the way the Czars used to do it.
The third reason for Russia to rise to world power again is history.
Russia has always been Europe's buffer against Mongol and Muslim invaders, barbarians from the South and East. Putin has absolutely no hesitation in putting down radical Muslims of any stripe in his own territory. But Europe (and half the United States) have lost the will to live as nations. The U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence were the most successful political products of the Western Enlightenment. Europe itself has forgotten those values and has fallen into brute decadence.
Islamic imperialism today looks to the Russians just like all the other waves of Muslim conquest. They remember their history, and they've seen it before. The whole sucker-play of the Ground Zero Mosque would never see the light of day in Moscow. Only Americans are so profoundly ignorant of history to fall for that one. We've been lucky in our history by never having to face a Muslim invasion, but most of the Old World has already been invaded by the Muslims twice over, all the way from Austria to France, Spain, Greece, North Africa, the Levant, Russia, and China.
In Russia, the Orthodox Church and Putin don't believe in that airy-fairy multiculti nonsense. If Russia comes to dominate the feckless Europeans, it will give them the backbone they need right now. To be sure, Moscow will exact a price from its Western provinces, the way it always has.
But forced to choose between Shar'iah tyranny and Russian authoritarianism, what would you choose? It took the Soviets only seventy years to figure out they had a disastrous ideology on their hands, and to let it crumble. The Saudis have not yet figured it out after thirteen centuries of the Dark Ages.
What about America's arc of Western defense? The coming age of nuclear proliferation will make everything more dangerous. If the U.S. turns tail, our influence in the world will drop radically. That may please some Americans, but it will not improve our security. We may find new friends in the Indo-Anglosphere, an alliance of sane and sensible cultures from India to Japan and Australia. With Chinese naval power rising fast, we may not be able to patrol that beat anymore, either, or only in alliance with India and Japan.
If Obama fails to protect the Middle East against the Iranian nuclear threat, don't believe for a moment that these kinds of calculations will not be going on in all the foreign ministries of the world.
Liberals are always complaining that the world doesn't love us enough, and it's our fault. But the world is not sentimental. Conservatives should simply respond that the world does not trust us anymore to defend them from crazies with nukes -- and the world distrusts Obama for very good reasons.
MUMBAI: Implicitly acknowledging the decline of American dominance, Barack Obama on Sunday said the US was no longer in a position to "meet the rest of the world economically on our terms".
Speaking at a town hall meeting in Mumbai, he said, "I do think that one of the challenges that we are going face in the US, at a time when we are still recovering from the financial crisis is, how do we respond to some of the challenges of globalisation? The fact of the matter is that for most of my lifetime and I'll turn 50 next year - the US was such an enormously dominant economic power, we were such a large market, our industry, our technology, our manufacturing was so significant that we always met the rest of the world economically on our terms. And now because of the incredible rise of India and China and Brazil and other countries (Russia, BRIC), the US remains the largest economy and the largest market, but there is real competition."
"This will keep America on its toes. America is going to have to compete. There is going to be a tug-of-war within the US between those who see globalisation as a threat and those who accept we live in a open integrated world, which has challenges and opportunities."
The US leader disagreed with those who saw globalisation as unmitigated evil. But while acknowledging that the Chindia factor had made the world flatter, he said protectionist impulses in US will get stronger if people don't see trade bringing in gains for them.
"If the American people feel that trade is just a one-way street where everybody is selling to the enormous US market but we can never sell what we make anywhere else, then the people of the US will start thinking that this is a bad deal for us and it could end up leading to a more protectionist instinct in both parties, not just among Democrats but also Republicans. So, that we have to guard against," he said.
He pointed out that America, which once traded without bothering about barriers put up by partners, could not promote trade at its own expense at a time when India and China were rising. "There has to be reciprocity in our trading relationships and if we can have those kind of conversations - fruitful, constructive conversation about how we produce win-win situations, then I think we will be fine."
Obama's remarks at the town hall meeting exposed his tremendous anxiety over the failure of his policies to spur the US economy fast enough and create jobs for Americans facing nearly 10% unemployment rate.
Obama, who just lost control of the House of Representatives to the Republicans, unbashedly said the objective of his visit was to find jobs for his voters. "I want to make sure we are here because this will create jobs in the US," he said, but stressed he was for a kind of relationship which will create jobs in India as well. As he put it: "A win-win proposition."
However, his frank remarks on the need for US to square up to Asian competitors may also suggest that the spectre of action against outsourcing may recede as protectionist impulses may have to be balanced by the need to bag contracts to deliver more jobs in America. Going by media reports in the US of his first day in India, his focus on jobs and investments was well received.
While replying to a question on how Republican gains would affect US policy towards India, he switched to a larger exposition of how he saw new realities shaping geo-politics and the economy. Saying the competition from India and China was potentially a good thing, Obama suggested that the US had to face up to a changing world order. (George Soros said: China should lead ‘New World Order’ and the Plan For Socialist World Government)
Responding to a query that his own message of change had been delivered to him by the American electorate, a thoughtful Obama said the last couple of years had been worse for the US economy than has been the case for decades. There had been progress but not fast enough. "Unemployment is high and people are frustrated," he said.
In the context of his efforts to revive the US economy, the president clearly sees, as he wrote in an article, India and China as key drivers of economic growth.
November 8th, 2010, 16:47
American Patriot
Re: The Obama Administration’s War on America and Post-American World
Quote:
"This will keep America on its toes. America is going to have to compete. There is going to be a tug-of-war within the US between those who see globalisation as a threat and those who accept we live in a open integrated world, which has challenges and opportunities."
It's good to see he knows we will resist it.
November 8th, 2010, 22:49
vector7
Re: The Obama Administration’s War on America and Post-American World
"The reason we won [in 2008] is because young people, African Americans, Latinos -- people who traditionally don't vote in high numbers -- voted in record numbers. We've got to have that same kind of turnout in this election," he said. "If we think that we can just vote one time, then we have a nice party at Obama's inauguration, and then we can kind of sit back and suddenly everything's going to change - that's just not how it works."
Should the GOP retake the House and Senate as a result of the November midterms, an article yesterday in the latimes.com quotes our president as saying "...we are going to have just hand-to-hand combat up here on Capitol Hill."
February 1st, 2011, 10:48
vector7
Re: The Obama Administration’s War on America and Post-American World
Once again it's becoming clear that Obama is a supporter of Radical Islam and Jihadists as he again provides aid and comfort to an ideology that wants Israel and America destroyed in order to create a global Islamic Order.
The protest in Egypt have been categorized as a 'revolution' for "freedom" against a dictator. The Muslim Brotherhood and other radical Jihad groups behind the scenes pushing upheavals from behind their Mosques.
The Obama Administration initially issued conflicting statements about it's position in the crisis, but now a more defined message is emerging: Obama supports and welcomes the "transition of power" in Egypt to the protesters and has advised them for an 'orderly transition' to the desires of the protesters and the Imams and radicals who are stoking the upheaval.
While Obama creates the appearance of supporting the "will of the people" for change - it is noteworthy and alarming the selective types of 'will of the people" he will support and encourage.
In the aftermath of the fraudulent 2009 Iranian election results that kept radical Jihadist Ahmadinejad puppet for the Ayatollah in power. Obama's reaction to the violent nation-wide protests was completely different and skewed in favor of the Islamist dictatorial regime:
President Obama's relatively passivity concerning the Iran protests, refusing to endorse them or even to support the aspirations for freedom by the Iranian people, seems to be calculated....Obama and his people seem to have made the brutal calculation that the Iranian mullahocracy will prevail in the end and that it will be the power to be dealt with concerning issues like Iran's nuclear program.
...If the United States is seen as too cowed to support pro freedom demonstrators in Iran and if the mullahs succeed in suppressing them, the rulers of Iran like Mamoud Ahmadinejad and supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei will conclude that Obama will not be too assertive in any negotiations and thus concessions will be unnecessary.
Obama responded to critics that he hadn't been forceful enough in support of protesters, telling CBS News in 2009: "The last thing that I want to do is to have the United States be a foil for those forces inside Iran who would love nothing better than to make this an argument about the United States. That's what they do."
David Crawford made an excellent observation in regards to Obama's silence and then feigned 'outrage' over the military crackdown on Iranian protesters while continuing support of Ahmadinejad's regime. Crawford asserted that Obama killed the election protests in Iran himself:
Quote:
...As the first country designed to protect individual rights, America has stood as a symbol for freedom for most of the shackled populations of the world. Surely the President of America could make a strong moral statement in support of freedom in Iran.
Sadly, for ten days, Obama could not muster even a rebuke. When the crisis deepened and political pressure forced him to take a stand, the criticism he delivered was followed with an immediate concession of Iran's sovereignty and a promise not to meddle in its internal affairs. While men and women were being brutalized and gunned down in the streets, the message sent by this administration is that there were "irregularities" in the election process, which needed to be investigated.
...Rather than validate and inspire the opposition, the leader of the free world bestowed the Islamic Republic with a veneer of legitimacy.
In comparison to the very similar genesis and growth of protests in Egypt, Obama has sided with the Islamist Protestors and denounced Mubarak, his regime stating that Obama had "Direct confrontations with Mubarak".
The Obama Administration went so far as saying that the protests "Must bring reform" and to demand an orderly 'transition' of government.
So where were such warnings to Iran's Mullocracy that gunned down and executed their protesters in 2009?
There was none. Only the mild restrained condemnation after-the-fact of what the Iranian regime was doing to PRO-democracy and anti-Mullah protesters in Iran:
Iranian human-rights groups say that since the government crackdown began in late June, at least 400 demonstrators have been killed while another 56 are unaccounted, which is several times higher than the official figures. The regime has established a chain of unofficial, makeshift prisons to deal with the protesters, where torture and rape are said to be commonplace. In Tehran alone, 37 young Iranian men and women are reported to have been raped by their captors.
Now once again huge street protests have flared up on the streets of Tehran and a number of other major cities, with several protesters shot dead this weekend by the security forces and Revolutionary Guards, reportedly including the nephew of opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi, and dozens seriously injured. And again there is deafening silence from the Commander-in-Chief as well as his Secretary of State. And where is the president? On vacation in Hawaii, no doubt recuperating from his exertions driving forward the monstrous health care reform bill against the overwhelming will of the American public and without a shred of bipartisan support.
Now compare that to Obama's reaction to the Islamist-backed Imam-stoked protests in the Middle East:
What a difference hypocrisy makes in changing the world's landscape to state Obama's disgust for America.
Imagine a united Muslim World, with nuclear weapons entrenched policy of eradicating the Great and Little Satan for the glory of Allah.
As we watch the few moderate Islamic countries left in the region fall into the hands of radical regimes this is the future we now faced with.
Makes me wonder about the time frame of events when considering in the book of Revelation when it is said there would be another great martyrdom of saints by beheading.
Islam and now drug cartels to our south in Mexico influenced by Hezbollah are institutionalize this practice.
February 1st, 2011, 14:05
American Patriot
Re: The Obama Administration’s War on America and Post-American World
You know Mubarak wasn't really a "dictator" until he shut down the internet, right?
Then again, appointing a son to take his place is also not right. And who knows if the winning-by-95% was true now?
But if the Iranians had some back up, Nutjob wouldn't be there right now.
May 15th, 2011, 22:41
vector7
Re: The Obama Administration’s War on America and Post-American World
Update below the break: When it came to Roger Ailes and George Will, the media ethicists were out in full force. Why not for Zakaria? | Update May 15: Zakaria denies he "advises" Obama
CNN's Fareed Zakaria, host of the weekend show Fareed Zakaria GPS and editor-at-large for Time magazine, admitted on CNN Thursday that he has been advising President Obama on foreign policy matters.
Eliot Spitzer, host of CNN's In the Arena, brought up the fact at the very end of a conversation with Zakaria about Pakistan and foreign policy.
Zakaria affirmed it and clarified that "mostly it's been face-to-face meetings...organized by Tom Donilon, the national security advisor."
Spitzer brought up the subject by telling Zakaria that "I read something in the paper this week...It said the President of the United States calls you for wisdom and advice about issues around the world."
After verifying that, Zakaria quickly changed the subject to praising Obama's approach to foreign policy. "It's been a very thoughtful conversation," he mused. "You know, we'll see where it goes."
A transcript of the segment, which aired on May 12 at 8:28 p.m. EDT, is as follows:
ELIOT SPITZER: Look, I read something in the paper this week a couple of days ago that actually made me -- you know brought a smile to my face. It said the president of the United States calls you for wisdom and advice about issues around the world.
So first, when he calls you, what does he say? "Hi, Barack calling for Fareed?" What does he do?
FAREED ZAKARIA: Mostly it's been face-to-face meetings.
SPITZER: Right.
ZAKARIA: You know, it's usually organized by Tom Donilon, the national security adviser.
SPITZER: Right.
ZAKARIA: What I'm struck by, though, honestly, Eliot, is how much time he's spending thinking about the issues of the Arab spring particularly the issues of Egypt, how -- how to make Egypt go right, what -- you know, what is the -- what are the mechanisms that the United States has to help the moderates and liberals.
It's been a very thoughtful conversation. You know we'll see where it goes.
SPITZER: I'm not going to ask you what you have said to the president but it makes my heart warm that the president is calling you for wisdom and advice. And thanks for coming on the show. *****UPDATE (19:21 - Lachlan Markay):
In addition to the ethical issues that my colleague Matt touches on, there is a pretty notable double standard at work here in the rest of the news media's silence on Zakaria's conflict of interest.
Shortly after the September 11 terrorist attacks, you may remember, Fox News Channel president Roger Ailes sent a letter to White House advisor Karl Rove with some suggestions as to what the president's response to the attacks should be. Veteran Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward first reported on the letter in his 2002 book "Bush At War".
The revelation sparked a media firestorm, as various news outlets offered the anecdote as evidence of the Fox News Channel's conservative leanings. This New York Times article was fairly representative of the tone of coverage.
Similarly, there was significant media backlash when it was revealed that columnist George Will had advised Ronald Reagan on debate tactics during the 1980 presidential campaign. As Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor of the far-left Nation magazine, recalled, "a Los Angeles Times media critic called Will 'a political shill,' Chicago columnist Mike Rokyo called him a 'lapdog,' and the New York Daily News kicked him off their editorial pages (though it reinstated him too soon after)." (It should be noted that, contrary to vanden Heuvel's suggestion, Will's role in Reagan's campaign "was well known, and readers could take Will's views into account," as USA Today's Philip Meyer noted.)
Of course silence from vanden Heuvel and other left-wingers on Zakaria's comparable conflict of interest is to be expected, since pointing it out would do little to advance their agenda. More telling is the silence of the mainstream press that so vociferously criticized - or at the very least covered - apparent conflicts for conservative media personalities.
To top it all off, the man who brought the issue to light is himself a Democratic politician-turned-CNN-host. A trend seems to be emerging here.
*******UPDATE, May 15: On Saturday afternoon, Zakaria posted the following "clarification on my conversations with the President" to his CNN blog page:
The characterization that I have been "advising" President Obama is inaccurate. Over the last few months I've had a couple of conversations with the president, off-the-record. At no point did President Obama ask me for advice on a specific policy or speech or proposal, nor did I volunteer it. I know that he has had similar meetings with other columnists.
On Friday, we brought you a very curious clip from CNN host Fareed Zakaria, in which he discusses how the president calls him for “wisdom and advice.” At the time, it seemed pretty clear and damning. Glenn Beck took significant time lambasting both CNN and Zakaria for having someone that says he’s a journalist actually advising the president. It seems the message got back to Zakaria, becuase now he’s denying that characterization.
In a blog post from Saturday night, Zakaria tries to dispel the notion that he’s advising the president, even putting the term in scare quotes. Here’s what he says in the post titled, “Clarifications on my conversations with the president:”
The characterization that I have been “advising” President Obama is inaccurate. Over the last few months I’ve had a couple of conversations with the president, off-the-record. At no point did President Obama ask me for advice on a specific policy or speech or proposal, nor did I volunteer it. I know that he has had similar meetings with other columnists.
That’s it. He doesn’t clarify why, if the conversation was “off the record,” he’s talking about it on national TV and in blogs. More importantly, he doesn’t clarify why his fellow host, Elliot Spitzer, stated multiple times that Obama calls Zakaria “for wisdom and advice.” And finally, he doesn’t clarify why he never corrected Spitzer after Spitzer made those characterizations. Take a look:
Here’s a transcript:
Spitzer: Look, I read something in the paper this week– a couple days ago that actually brought a smile to my face. It said the president of the United States calls you for wisdom and advice about issues around the world. First, when he calls you what does he say? “Hi Barack, calling for Fareed.” What does he do?
Zakaria: Mostly it’s been face-to-face meetings. You know, it’s usually organized by Tom Donilon, the national security adviser. What I’m struck by though, honestly Elliot, is how much time he’s spending thinking about the issues of the Arab Spring, particularly the issues of Egypt, how to make Egypt go right, what are the mechanisms that the United States has to help the moderates and liberals. It’s been a very thoughtful conversation; we’ll see where it goes.
Spitzer: I’m not going to ask you what you have said to the president, but it makes my heart warm that the president is calling you for wisdom and advice. Thanks for coming on the show.
Zakaria: My pleasure.
But there are also plenty of other questions raised by Zakaria’s “clarification.“ Who are the other ”other columnists” Obama’s meeting with? Do they consider themselves just having friendly off-the-record conversations, or offering advise? Why is Obama doing this? Is it to make the columnists feel important, thus securing covert support and less criticism?
Also curious: Guess what CNN’s title (for now) for the video is? “Obama getting advice from Fareed Zakaria.” Screen shot below:
It seems even CNN is convinced Zakaria is giving Obama “advice.”
We reached out to CNN for comment about Spitzer’s characterization as well as its video title, and this is what we received:
“Since the question was put to Fareed Zakaria, and was based upon an interpretation written in a newspaper, Fareed wanted to add context and make things clear.”
Maybe it’s just me, but there now seem to be more questions than answers.
May 16th, 2011, 14:57
American Patriot
Re: The Obama Administration’s War on America and Post-American World
Just what we need, more leftist newsie advising a leftist President.
May 16th, 2011, 16:01
vector7
Re: The Obama Administration’s War on America and Post-American World
Well what started as Obama reading a book on a Post-American World turned into Fareed Zakaria having mostly face-to-face meetings with the President organized by Tom Donilon, the national security advisor.
This has become Obama's new Middle East foreign policy, beginning with Leftist rootssupporting Islamic Radicals in the Middle East to tearing down pro-western dictators during what Obama calls his new "Arab Spring".
Couple that with Google engineers hacking through Egypt's government firewalls to help lead the Riots and spread Obama's new Middle East foreign policy.
The global and domestic landscape is one of turmoil, indecision, and uncertainty. Everywhere one looks there is chaos and potential disaster, whether in the financial, economic, or political sphere. Since the beginning of the post-World War II era there has been one constant that has been the stabilizing force in the world: the stature, power, and influence of the United States. In a matter of a few short years the Obama presidency has deliberately and overwhelmingly eroded America's pre-eminence, which has resulted in global instability and domestic unease.
Barack Obama assumed the office of the presidency as a man brought up and steeped in 1960's radicalism, which advanced the doctrine that America, as the lone Western superpower, represented the evil nature of colonialism and capitalism's exploitation of the masses -- whether there was any truth in this assertion or that the United States was guilty of these sins was irrelevant. The material and military success of America and the West could only have come about from expropriating the wealth and labor of the peoples of the world.
This is a simplistic and emotional argument and one that refuses to take into account the basic nature of the human race and its failings and foibles. Mankind always has and always will have as its preeminent trait the need to survive, and to that end human beings are susceptible to committing crimes and exploiting their fellow man. Thus any society will always have many failings, but the key measure of any civilization is what it does to control those tendencies and strive for an equitable culture. No nation or culture in history has done more to advance the well-being of mankind than the United States and Western civilization.
However to the Marxist mindset of the radical left, only they, utilizing the vehicle of a massive central government, could control mankind's nature and create a fair society. It is the ideal philosophy for those who, so enamored with themselves, can wallow in their self-importance and rule with a heavy hand the same masses they claim to protect. Under no circumstances, therefore, can these revolutionaries defend or profess admiration for their country; instead they must not only transform the United States into a villain, but destroy any vestiges of its accomplishments in order to permanently retain control over the populace and exact revenge for the alleged transgressions of the West.
Barack Obama has spent his entire life, from birth to the present, marinated in this mindset. He is thus incapable of change or being receptive to any other viewpoint, as that would be an admission of failure. His chief concern is himself, the retention and expansion of government power as well as the plight of the third world, rather than the suffering of the average American citizen facing economic and societal ruin.
He and his fellow-travelers can thus justify bankrupting the country as a necessary part of the remaking and absolution of the United States. He can show disdain and at times outright hostility toward age-old European allies who were, in his mind, the original sinners in the exploitation of the downtrodden. He has no compunction in forcing Israel, as an outpost of Western civilization, to compromise and bend to all the demands of the Palestinians. To Barack Obama there is no overriding American interest in virtually all foreign matters except to take a back seat and surrender its influence to other mainly non-Western powers.
He continues to pursue many of George Bush's policies against terrorism and the war in Afghanistan, while taking steps designed to assure America does not win the conflict in the long-term. His short-term goal is to be certain a terrorist attack within the United States does not occur in the next two years as that would doom his re-election chances and put in jeopardy his agenda. Meanwhile he willingly discards old allies in the Middle East while turning a blind eye and tacitly promoting the radicalization of many countries in the region.
He relies on his ego-driven messianic demeanor and skin color to intimidate both domestic political adversaries and international allies, while believing the same traits will cause those in the non-Western world to view him as their savior.
It is now inarguable that the 1980's were the high-water mark of competent and viable American international leadership in the post-World War II era. Today, during the Obama years, the international scene is led by arguably the least competent and most easily intimidated, as the majority of world leaders consist of those whose principal interests are themselves and the trappings of office. They are unwilling or unable to challenge the ruinous economic and foreign policies of President Obama and they fail to understand that the United States, under his leadership, will no longer be the leader of the free world but will instead be just another socialist member of the global community while atoning for its supposed sins of the past.
There are no world leaders, with one or two exceptions, willing to look Barack Obama as well as their own citizens in the eye and tell them the unadulterated truth, as they are incapable of handling the truth themselves, much less knowing what to do about the situations and dilemmas at hand. They react instead with futile collectivist theories promulgated by self-proclaimed and egocentric intellectuals who themselves have no worldly experience.
The financial dilemma in Europe continues on, and will fester until the European Union collapses, as those in charge remain adamant in their failed strategy of bailouts and subsidies -- a collapse, together with ruinous American fiscal and monetary policy, that will trigger another worldwide financial crisis.
Many global leaders are enamored with and dote on the terms democracy and self-determination in the Middle East and the rest of the world. However, people do not aspire to self-determination as an end in itself; they aspire to the freedom and prosperity that democracy can potentially bring about. Thus, these same heads of state are helping overthrow governments in nations once allied with the West because of a sophomoric and naïve adherence to mere words and a concurrent unwillingness to understand who is behind the "democracy movements and self-determination." This disastrous scenario has been repeated constantly over the past century.
The most insidious trait of the worlds so-called "best and brightest" is their naiveté and inability to admit their mistakes. Until today's narcissistic global ruling class, particularly in America, are replaced by those willing to face reality and act accordingly, the world will continue to become an increasingly dangerous place.
Unfortunately there is, currently, a president who does not believe in American Exceptionalism and is determined to allow chaos, both domestic and international, to metastasize and change the United States and world forever. This mindset, combined with a lack of forceful leaders of other nations, will result in another financial catastrophe, the rise of a hegemonic China, an inevitable military conflict in the Middle East, and the spread of radical Islam. The ultimate goal of the fall of Western civilization will then be realized, but at a massive and bloody cost. The handwriting is on the wall; will anyone pay attention?
July 4th, 2011, 11:59
vector7
Re: The Obama Administration’s War on America and Post-American World
President Barack Obama is the most dogmatic and dangerous leftist we have ever seen in this country. He is not hard to understand. Obama is very simple. All his ideas were frozen in concrete a hundred years ago by Marxist-Leninism around 1920. In Dreams from My Father, Obama celebrates third-world Socialism, but that's just Marxist-Leninism with a racial overlay.
Obama's ideas are all old and discredited. They have failed from the Soviets to Cambodia.
North Korea is facing another mass famine today, so terrible that it can't even feed its own army. That is yet another failure of Marxist-Leninism. Over and over and over again. For radicals it doesn't matter. You have to break a lot of eggs to make that omelet.
Just as Jimmy Carter kicked over the Shah, a crucial pillar of support for American and Israeli security thirty years ago, Obama has just done with Egypt. By forcing Mubarak to resign, Obama has sabotaged the Egypt-Israel peace treaty of the last 30 years.
Turkey has also radicalized, and nobody in the American media seems to be taking notice. They must know the facts, but they are not telling us.
The United States is standing by or actively sabotaging the moderate Arab states while Turkey and Egypt fall into the "Death to Israel!" camp. Those are the three biggest states, with three of the most modern armies in the Muslim world. It means that some 200 million people from moderate or friendly states have joined the rejectionist camp, and that Obama has actually reversed the progress toward peace made in 30 years.
It is significant that Jimmy Carter hasn't said a word about the breakdown of a treaty he "negotiated" (or rather, Anwar Sadat and Menahim Begin did), which is the only foreign policy success of his presidency. Jimmy Carter being who he is, his silence speaks volumes. Carter is now a Hamas and Hezb'allah supporter. The only formal peace treaty of the last 30 years will be a dead letter if the Muslim Brotherhood takes over Egypt.
The window of opportunity for attacking Iran's fast-moving nuclear and missile development has now closed. This is equivalent to the Allies in World War II allowing Hitler to develop nuclear weapons and long-range missiles. In the field of nuclear proliferation, if you don't preempt, you are enabling proliferation. Obama has now reversed sixty years of American and Western efforts to reverse rogue nuclear proliferation. The horse of Armageddon is out of the barn.
Read that sentence again if you didn't quite get it the first time, because it's the biggest, wildest gamble an American president has ever taken.
It is a world catastrophe, and as far as I can tell, it has been done with malice aforethought.
At the same time, Obama has demanded, in public, that Israel give up defensible borders.
The so-called "1967 borders" are in fact the ceasefire lines of the 1948 War of Independence, which left Israel nine miles wide at the waist. Obama has therefore actively legitimized sixty years of radical Islamist assaults designed to destroy Israel.
This must be purposeful.
When Obama publicly pushed Mubarak out of power, in the most flagrant act of public imperialism since the Soviets invaded Czechoslovakia, scuttlebutt is that there was a heated argument with Hillary behind the scenes. Obama must have been told what he was really doing in pushing over the biggest pillar of peace in the Middle East. I'll bet he was told a hundred times by Admiral Mullen and General Petraeus, even by Hillary, and he did it anyway. Malice aforethought.
Obama is thereby active aiding and abetting the whole "Death to Israel!" movement in the Muslim world. The mullahcracy in Tehran celebrated the fall of the Egypt-Israel peace treaty, by sending two modern warships through the Suez Canal, where their anti-ship missiles can now deny maritime superiority to American and NATO vessels in the Eastern Mediterranean, where Israel happens to live. At the same time, another phony "peace flotilla" against Israel's coast is being organized, with Code Pink and Hamas elements involved. One of the ships is named The Audacity of Hope -- against which Obama has made no public protest. It is filled with Obama's personal and political friends, just like the last one was. Egypt is no longer enforcing the arms blockade against Gaza, so that Hamas will get a flow of missiles if the "peace" flotilla succeeds. The Israeli Navy that protects the coast is now vulnerable to Chinese anti-ship missiles positioned in Egypt, Gaza, and Lebanon.
Lt. Col (ret) Chuck Devore projects a coming blockade against Israel's two main Mediterranean ports, cutting the major lifeline to Israel's economy.
Egypt has stopped natural gas deliveries already.
Against American Jews, Obama is running his usual Big Lie game. Liberal Jews are falling for it, because they never look at facts. They just listen to the feel-good rhetoric. When war comes, they will blame the victim, because they will not be able to face themselves.
These moves will no doubt lead to a major war in the Middle East, which DeVore predicts for September of this year. The purpose of Obama's moves, at best, is to put so much murderous pressure on Israel as to force major territorial concessions to the radical rejectionist front. That will put Obama in the driver's seat. By forcing Israel's back to the wall, Obama and the left (in cahoots with radical Islamists) believe they can dictate a "permanent peace."
Obama wants to be the hero who created peace, forever and ever, in the Middle East. As long as Israel is prepared to surrender as a defensible nation.
In the worst case, Obama is prepared to see the violent destruction of Israel. That's what he is gambling with, along with a giant hole in NATO defenses in the eastern Mediterranean and Europe. Obama is a high-stakes gambler with other people's lives.
This leaves Netanyahu and the Israeli government in a deadly double-bind.
Israel's back is against the wall. Its strongest option is to go nuclear when Iran does. Israel can do that simply by (a) making an official statement that it is a nuclear power, or (b) follow India and Pakistan thirty years ago by exploding a bomb. However, if it makes either of those moves, Obama and the United States will turn against Israel at the United Nations, and place nuclear maniac Iran on the same moral footing as modern and democratic Israel. Israel has consistently avoided revealing its nuclear power to avoid just this kind of dilemma.
One rational choice open to Israel is to defy Obama and attack Iran directly -- Iran being the most suicidal regime since World War II Japan. Throughout human history there has never been a suicidal ideology equipped with nuclear weapons and missiles. In the next six months it will probably happen. When it does, the United States will do nothing. The Arabs will go nuclear to protect themselves against Iran's Shiite imperialism armed with a martyrdom creed and Armageddon weapons.
Since Israel's nuclear weapons are only to be used as a last resort, it is possible that Israel will turn them against its most dangerous and suicidal tormentor, Iran. With thirty years to prepare, no doubt Israel has thoroughly explored that Samson Option. However, Obama is quite capable of using the US military to protect Iranian nuclear weapons, rather than trying to stamp them out.
Nuclear proliferation to the Arab states is now a certainty. The Sunni Arabs are far more afraid of Iranian aggression than they fear Israel. Israel has no aggressive intentions, and they all know it. The Arabs never felt they needed nukes before. But when Iran gets its nukes and missiles, the Saudis and Gulf Arabs will import them from Pakistan, possibly along with Pakistani army units in case of Iranian ground invasion. Iran's Shiite radicals believe they should control the two holy cities of Mecca and Medina, and during the Khomeini years, they tried to overthrow the Saudi monarchy during the hajj.
The Pentagon has just released a humiliating admission that Obama's vaunted anti-missile defense for Europe against Iranian missiles is never going to work. George W. Bush negotiated workable anti-missile missiles in Poland and the Czech Republic, in the path of Iranian missiles to Europe's capital cities. Obama sabotaged that plan, leaving Aegis naval ships in various places as a fig leaf. The Pentagon has admitted that Europe is now undefended. Obama's purpose may be to force Europe to turn against Israel at the United Nations.
The Iranians are blatantly celebrating, and they are now explaining that both the Little Satan and the Great Satan (the United States) will soon be at their mercy.
This is Obama's Final Solution to the Jewish problem. Charles Krauthammer has defined it eloquently, but not completely.
Israel is now surrounded by lethal enemies on all sides. Egypt has collapsed.
Lebanon has surrendered to Hezb'allah. Iran and Syria are in cahoots to achieve Khomeini's absolutist aims. Israel's Mediterranean coast is now threatened by Chinese anti-ship missiles, and its two lifeline ports are vulnerable to a blockade. Even Jordan is in the grip of a struggle among radical Islamists, Bedouins, and Palestinians. If all of Israel's enemies launched their missiles at the same time, the only option for Israel would be to go nuclear.
If Obama wanted to deliberately sabotage American power and Western security in the Middle East, he could have done nothing more destructive.
What Obama has done to the American economy, he has now done to the Middle East. The only rational purpose for this strategic sabotage is to place all the decision power in Obama's own hands. The irrational purpose, if there is one, is to destroy the security of the United States and its closest allies in the Middle East and southern Europe.
All of America's allies, including Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea, must be worried sick. If the United States destroys its own European defenses, what is to stop it from destroying its Asian defenses? Just as the Arab countries will soon go nuclear, so will Japan, South Korea, and possibly Taiwan.
By meeting with Ahmadinejad, Russia and China have jumped on what they judge to be the winning side. They have been sitting on the fence, because they don't want an Islamic martyr regime with nukes next door. Iran is only one hour's flight by airplane from Russia. Yet today, they have switched to an active pro-Iranian position. It is the biggest communist gamble since World War II and Mao's Great Leap Forward.
Obama's only skill is to be a community agitator, Alinsky-style. To that end he has his own house Jews, like Southern plantations used to have their own house blacks. They pop up all over leftist fronts like J Street and other fronts. The media try to legitimize those frauds, just like they legitimized a small minority of radical feminists decades ago.
What we are seeing today with Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin today is a "high-tech lynching," just as Clarence Thomas said at his Senate hearing about the way the media abused him with rumors of sexual misbehavior. High-tech lynching. Keep that in mind, because that's who these people are. They don't lynch people by accident, but with a very clear purpose. They are ruthless, and they have no decency. Domestically their purpose is to intimidate you and me, just as the KKK did in the Jim Crow South.
Media lynchings create an atmosphere of fear by hanging specific scapegoats from a tree. Watch it happen to Palin, Bachmann, Herman Cain, and everybody who becomes uppity against Obama. That is how the left aims to win a second term that Obama desperately wants.
Obama's Jewish problem is the existence of millions of Jews who feel loyal to (a) a genuine belief in God, or (b) a genuine love for Israel, or (c) both.
Obama is fine with self-labeled Jews if they are atheist leftists, and they are willing to risk Israel being erased from the planet. Some of his best friends are Jews In Name Only, as long as they are detached from Israel.
And other religions, natch.
For Obama, America and Israel should not exist. They get in the way of his utopian nightmares. That's Obama's Final Solution to the Jewish Problem.
It's also his solution to every other problem.
Obama is fundamentally a very simple, extreme ideologue. He has only one answer.
Everything Obama does comes straight from the most stilted and destructive clichés of the left. The man has never had an original idea in his life, and wouldn't recognize one if it were served up on a plate with arugula. He is intellectually locked in concrete.
Free nations and free faiths are still the targets of the totalitarian left, because America and Israel prove them wrong every day they survive and thrive, and make life better for millions of people. The signs now look more dangerous than they have in the last sixty years. The totalitarian left is on the march again, with Islamic radicalism as its ally.
Israel's fate is therefore our own future as well.
