Why Must Obama Insult The Jews at Passover?

April 19, 2011 Leave a comment

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.

Filed under islamic socialism, Obama Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , ,

George Soros, Other Radical Socialists Plan New World Order, Violent Revolution

April 9, 2011 3 Comments

George Soros is holding two massive radical left-wing conferences this weekend. He’s holding a Bretton Woods III conference in New Hampshire wherein he and his cohorts are going to attempt to remake the world economy. Meanwhile in Boston he’s holding another conference to change the world and the media. Soros is spending hundreds of millions on changing the world via his radical organizations. He has the ear of President Obama, not just through himself but through surrogates like Samatha Power, Cass Sunstein, Nancy Pelosi, Van Jones etc. Soros is an extremely powerful man, yet the media is silent about him.

In other left-wing news, radical socialist leader Brian Becker has declared that nonviolence is not always the answer. Sometimes there needs to be violent revolution. This is interesting as Becker has Soros connections. It’s also interesting in light of what The Nation has to say about Samantha Power, a Soros friend and close adviser to President Obama. You’ll recall that Power was credited with the duty to protect doctrine that allowed Obama to bomb Libya. The Nation said about Power:

She began to see war as an instrument to achieving her liberal, even radical, values.

So let’s connect the dots. Soros is working on the end game with his two conferences this weekend. It’s pretty clear that he has been doing this sort of thing for quite some time. He’s the face of what the left wants to achieve after the revolution. But we have to get to the Revolution first and that’s where Becker, Power and other radical leftists come in. It’s always been a farce when the left has claimed they are pacifists who oppose war. That has never been the case in the history of leftist thought. In fact the opposite has always been true. The left has needed violent revolution to force the sort of change they want. They only became pacifists and nonviolent in response to a war against other leftists in Vietnam. In other words, it suited them at the time but did not state their real position on war. Take Vietnam out and if you look at the major wars of the 20th century, the progressive left has always been first in line to support them. Particularly WWI.

Becker is willing to openly advocate for violent revolution while Power is willing to use the power of the US military to push change. Think about how disturbing Power’s statement is, she wants to use war as an instrument for radical leftist change. But Power isn’t the first one to come up with that idea. President Wilson and those who surrounded him held the same view. Wilson and company radically altered American society during WWI. They controlled the entire country from DC and from the end of the War until FDR took over the progressive left lamented the fact that DC didn’t control our lives. War was an instrument for radical change, even if the change went away for eight years. Power’s idea is dangerous because it is so effective.

We need to keep an eye on George Soros and the organizations that he funds. They are actively planning to radically change not only our country but the entire world. Soros isn’t some crazy old man playing games in his fantasy land. He’s serious and he has the money to fund this change. Couple Soros’ vision with the radical vision of the unions and Islamic socialists and we find a nasty socialist stew brewing and most of us have no idea it’s happening. It’s time for us to wake up. Soros isn’t kidding around, these radical leftists really do believe in violent revolution. They have a view of the world that is radically different than how those of us who love the founders of this country view the world. They don’t believe in freedom, they believe in radical centralized socialist government. Wake up America, these people aren’t playing games.

Filed under socialism, unions Tagged with , , , , , , , , ,

Ivory Coast Genocide Proves Responsibility to Protect Doctrine a Fraud

April 4, 2011 7 Comments

A battle is being waged in the Ivory Coast for control of the nation. Alassane Ouattara, a Muslim, apparently defeated Lawrence Gbagbo, a Christian, for the Presidency of the small African nation. Ouattara is supported largely by the Muslim north of the country while Gbagbo is supported by the Christian south. According to President Obama, Ouattara won the election freely and fairly. That may be up for debate. Gbagbo is refusing to give up power and the two sides are currently fighting for control of the nation.

We have discovered that over the weekend Ouattara’s troops massacred 1,000 Christians. This despite the presence of the UN, which apparently did nothing to protect these people. Perhaps because the UN supports Ouattara. This isn’t the first nation where Muslims have massacred Christians, it has happened in Sudan and elsewhere. Christians have been persecuted throughout the Arab world, even in Iraq after Saddam was removed.

The situation in the Ivory Coast creates an interesting dilemma for the Obama administration. Obama’s top advisor Samantha Power created the “Responsibility to Protect” doctrine with George Soros. The doctrine has been largely adopted by the UN and the Obama administration. This doctrine is what Obama used to justify American air attacks in Libya. After all, we had a responsibility to protect Libyans from their brutal dictator Gaddafi. According to Power and her doctrine, the US had no choice but to bomb Libya.

I’m left wondering whether the United States has a duty to bomb the Ivory Coast. We have a very clear example of a brutal attack carried out by the forces loyal to Alassane Ouattara. We have a very clear group of people who are threatened by the newly elected, if not installed, leader of the Ivory Coast. If Ouattara is put into power, it seems very likely that thousands of Christians will face attack and certain death. Samantha Power’s “Responsibility to Protect’ doctrine dictates that the US and in fact the world has a moral duty to intervene to protect Christians in the Ivory Coast from certain genocide.

What do you want to bet that Samantha Power and President Obama will not even consider doing anything in the Ivory Coast? In fact, would it surprise anyone if the Obama administration backed Alassane Ouattara even though his forces have massacred over 1,000 people in one town alone? Opposing Ouattara would mean backing down from the glowing statement of support issued by Obama just last week. The administration doesn’t seem to have a problem supporting brutal Muslim killers so long as it suits their current interests.

The Responsibility to Protect doctrine is and always has been a fraud. Samantha Power and President Obama have no intention of applying the doctrine across the board. If they did, they would be getting the bombs ready for the Ivory Coast. The fact is, Power and Obama are selective in the enforcement of this doctrine, thus rendering the arguments they’ve made favoring it irrelevant and arguably a fraud when it comes to Libya. Either the US and the world have a responsibility to protect all people from brutal dictators and/or genocide or they do not. We cannot have a responsibility to protect those living in Libya but not those living in the Ivory Coast.

The situation in the Ivory Coast shows us all what a fraud Obama’s Libyan argument is. It shows us what a fraud Samantha Power’s “Responsibility to Protect” doctrine really is. What’s amazing is that Power is rumored to be the next Secretary of State or National Security advisor if Obama is re-elected. Obama’s lack of action in the Ivory Coast is proof that he has ulterior motives in Libya. It proves that he is in bed with radical Islamic socialists, all of whom hate Gaddafi. Obama is doing their bidding and hiding behind the Responsibility to Protect doctrine created by Power. When the Muslim Brotherhood has no interest, or where their interest is in favor of genocide, Obama is silent and so is Samantha Power.

Filed under foreign policy, islamic socialism, Obama Tagged with , , , , , , , , ,

State Senator Obama Believes Libyan War Is Dumb and Rash

March 31, 2011 Leave a comment

In 2002 then Illinois State Senator Obama claimed that using force to remove a brutal dictator was a “dumb war.” Obama was of course speaking of Bush’s plan to remove Saddam Hussein which was being debated back in 2002. Obama said the following:

Now, let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied U.N. resolutions, thwarted U.N. inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him….

I don’t oppose all wars.  … What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

The speech is interesting for a number of reasons. First, it’s clear that Obama didn’t start speaking in a condescending way when he ran for President. He’s been talking like that his whole life. ‘Now let me be clear’ is one of Obama’s trademark condescending terms.  But beyond that then State Senator Obama makes several arguments against President Obama’s actions in Libya. Libya is a rash war, it isn’t well thought out. It doesn’t have clear goals or purpose. Rather than Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz playing weekend warrior (which is insulting and untrue in the extreme) we have Hillary Clinton and Samantha Power stamping their feet for war. Not to mention George Soros.

Libya is a grossly rash war. Al Qaeda has swooped into Libya and is now infiltrating the rebels. The very rebels the administration debates arming. The fact that al Qaeda is heading to Libya to fight against Gaddafi should come as no surprise to anyone with a little knowledge about the history of Gaddafi. In 2003 Gaddafi made peace with the United States by providing the Bush administration with information about al Qaeda. That information has turned out to be very useful. Gaddafi hates al Qaeda and they certainly hate him. So it should be no surprise that al Qaeda is fighting with the rebels against Gaddafi.

The fact that al Qaeda is willing to fight Gaddafi calls into question why we’re aiding the rebels. Do we really want a nation such as Libya to fall into the hands of terrorists like al Qaeda? I understand that Gaddafi is a brutal dictator and himself a terrorist. But if Obama thinks he’s such a bad guy, why did he become the first American President to meet with him in 2009? Gaddafi didn’t suddenly become a bad guy since 2009.

Libya is a rash war with no real American purpose. It is not our duty to save every nation from brutal dictators. If it is, Libya surely should not be the only nation we bomb. We ought to start bombing North Korea, Sudan, Cuba, Venezuela and maybe we should go bomb China as well. The argument that it is our duty or the world’s duty to fight brutal dictators is absurd and impossible. Especially so when we likely cannot even agree on who the brutal dictators are in the world.

The Obama administration is supporting Libyan rebels, some of which have al Qaeda ties. Others have ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, a terrorist organization that the Obama administration has supported in Egypt and elsewhere. All of the revolutions taking place in the middle east, largely supported by the administration except oddly in Iran, are aiding al Qaeda. We already know they’re aiding the terrorists who want to destroy Israel in the Muslim Brotherhood.

As Americans we have to ask ourselves why Obama is supporting these people? Why is he making conditions for Muslim terrorists easier? Is this the sort of foreign policy we want our nation to have? We’re talking about people who believe it is ok to murder women who have been raped. We’re talking about people who believe in murdering people who leave the Muslim faith. We’re talking about people who believe in oppressing women and who rejoice when their children die as human suicide bombs. Are these the people we want to support in the middle east? Because that’s who Obama appears to be supporting. The President has bragged about passing off leadership in the Libyan war to NATO, yet in Turkey, a NATO member, the Photo of the Year was of a bloodied Israeli soldier. Do we really want NATO running our wars?

The war in Libya was not well thought out. President Obama rushed to war at the behest of Samantha Power who believes in a Soros doctrine that demands the world protect everyone from dictators he doesn’t like and Hillary Clinton who was tired of being badgered by the British and French. The President hasn’t clearly laid out for us who we’re actually supporting. I dare say if the American people knew we might start arming al Qaeda support for the war and this President would drop substantially.

Filed under foreign policy, Libya, Obama Tagged with , , , , , , , , , ,

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 141 other followers