Why Must Obama Insult The Jews at Passover?

A few thoughts on various Obama stories:

The President apparently delivered a Passover message yesterday. I have always found it odd when President’s deliver messages about holidays other religions celebrate. As though the Jews need official approval and statement before they can start their Seder. Worse the article points out that Obama and many other Christians are partaking in Passover Seder’s. I find this absurd in light of the fact that Christ is our Passover lamb. In any event, Obama’s statement was insulting as it connected the Passover with recent protests by Islamic socialists in Muslim countries. This guy has a way of attacking the Jews and Israel on Passover without any backlash from anyone in the media. I can’t think of anything more insulting than what Obama had to say. I wonder if for Easter the President will connect Christ to atheists or pharisees. After all, he connected Passover to a direct enemy of the current State of Israel.

The EU is apparently waiting on UN approval to send ground forces into Libya. War by democratic vote, what a way to not prosecute a war effectively. NATO has had trouble obtaining bombs and ammunition, they’ve spent more time bombing the al Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood backed rebels than they have bombing Gaddafi’s troops. After more than a month of bombing the rebels are no closer to victory than they were before. Obama’s war has been a complete failure. What’s pathetic is that he isn’t even running the war, he passed off to NATO as soon as he could. NATO is incompetent, the EU looks like a bunch of fools groveling at the feet of the UN and Samantha Power’s duty to protect doctrine hasn’t protected anyone. This is what’s known as a failed mission. Failed not because our military is incapable but failed because the administration didn’t think out the war, didn’t plan it properly and engaged for all the wrong reasons.

Speaking of the duty to protect doctrine I wonder what the Obama administration is going to do in Nigeria. In that troubled country it appears as though a Christian is going to be elected President. As a result Muslims have gone on a rampage torching churches and houses and killing people. Sounds a lot like the Ivory Coast when Muslims supporting the newly elected President slaughtered 1,000 Christians. In the Ivory Coast the UN invoked the duty to protect doctrine and sided with the Muslim killer who was elected President. I’ll put good money on the UN not rushing to the defense of Christians in Nigeria. The duty to protect doctrine doesn’t extend to groups Samantha Power, George Soros and other elite leftists don’t like. Christians will not be protected, Muslims always will be even if they are the aggressor. Why? Because the socialist left, Obama included, in the west views the Islamic socialists in the Muslim world as socialist allies.

In 2008 President Obama said he opposed Presidential signing statements. Signing statements have been used by Presidents for many years to instruct agencies how to interpret a new law. President Bush often used them to interpret laws to mean the opposite of what was actually contained in the bill. Bush’s use of signing statements were often outrageous, which is why Obama opposed them. Now that he’s President Obama isn’t against signing statements. The recent 2011 budget included a ban on spending money on various Obama administration czars. Obama issued a signing statement which simply eliminated the ban, almost as though he was issuing a line item veto. This use of a signing statement, which is nowhere to be found in the Constitution, is just as outrageous as anything Bush ever did. It also shows Obama to be the hypocrite that he is. I hope the Republicans file suit against the White House for this flagrant violation of law.