Not again! Meet Obama’s new controversial pastor Champion of communism, socialism called U.S. ‘destroyer of human life’

Not again! Meet Obama’s new controversial pastor

March 16th, 2010

By Aaron Klein, WND

 Rev Wright’s heir apparent?

Rev. Jim Wallis, a member of President Obama’s “faith council” who is described as a spiritual adviser to the president, is a socialist activist who has championed communist causes and previously labeled the U.S. “the great captor and destroyer of human life.”

Wallis was in the news last week urging Christians to stop watching Fox News host Glenn Beck’s program for Beck’s remarks against churches that preach “social justice.”

The Associated Baptist Press described Wallis as a “politically progressive evangelical and longtime advocate for the poor.” The Huffington Post identified Wallis as a “Christian author and social justice advocate.”

Wallis, however, is a long time socialist advocate and founder of a far-left magazine, Sojourners, that has championed communist causes.

He currently serves on Obama’s White House Advisory Council on Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships. He reportedly is a spiritual adviser to Obama and has known the president for years.

Read More:

Sarah Palin: Nonstop D.C. Nonsense: Drilling Down on Energy Doublespeak

Sarah Palin: Nonstop D.C. Nonsense: Drilling Down on Energy Doublespeak

Nonstop D.C. Nonsense: Drilling Down on Energy Doublespeak
 Yesterday at 1:04pm
It may be tempting to feel worn down as we take one step after another towards the “fundamental transformation of America” that Barack Obama promised. But we mustn’t let our energy be sapped, even in the face of the mind-boggling leap the Obama Administration just took that fundamentally shifts us towards more reliance on foreign energy sources. Hang on to your hat and take a look at this.

Months ago I discussed Washington’s decision to allow U.S. dollars to flow to Brazil for that nation’s off-shore oil drilling projects, while D.C.’s attitude towards America’s own offshore developments appeared less-than-enthusiastic. We gained hope though when our President promised in his State of the Union address that he’d be “making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development.” Most of us optimistically assumed that “making tough decisions” meant allowing at least some offshore drilling. In fact, on national television that night I said that the President deserved kudos for acknowledging our need for domestic energy development in his speech.

Turns out that was just more drilling doublespeak: America has been snookered again.

While everyone has been focused on Obamacare, the Obama administration took advantage of America’s distraction and quietly said that it’s planning to place a hold on offshore drilling on the outer continental shelf until at least 2012.

At a time when our country is desperate for job growth, deficit reduction, and energy independence, it’s simply astonishing that the administration refuses to allow additional offshore drilling, even while supporting energy development in foreign countries.

According to a study by the American Energy Alliance, opening the OCS to drilling could create as many as 1.2 million new jobs and add hundreds of billions of dollars annually to the US economy. Those are real American jobs – and great American opportunities – that can’t be outsourced. Offshore drilling would provide billions in revenue for our states, allowing them to reduce their budget deficits without raising taxes. It would help reduce our trade deficit, which spikes with each rise in the price of oil because we’re so reliant on foreign sources of energy. And because we have some of the best environmental standards in the world, we should be drilling for our own oil instead of buying it from countries with less stringent standards.

When the Obama Administration first delayed offshore leasing on the OCS to allow for “an extended public comment period,” the comments it received reflected what all the polling tells us – that Americans overwhelmingly support offshore drilling. (Curiously, those pro-drilling findings weren’t heavily publicized by the Administration and the press.) Americans understand that a true “all-of-the-above” approach to energy independence must include responsible development of our conventional resources. Even as we develop alternative energy sources, we’ll still rely on oil and gas for decades to come. If we don’t drill for it here, then we’ll just have to keep buying it from others.

Using executive power to lock up energy resources ignores the will of the American people who want to develop those resources and know that we can do so in an environmentally responsible manner.

Ignoring the American people is never good politics, but whether it’s energy independence or health care, our leadership in Washington is tone deaf to the commonsense solutions that Americans want.

Watching this potentially earth-shattering energy policy decision made quietly while health care transformation distracts us, it makes one wonder what else our politicians are up to. An old trick is to intentionally consume attention with a “crisis” so as to sap the public’s energy, and then to conveniently push through rash measures that would receive great scrutiny at any another time. Remember Rahm Emanuel’s Saul Alinsky-style of political operation: “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.”

America, we must resolve to stay engaged in what our politicians are doing. Don’t get tired and give up. All political power is inherent in the people. America can only be transformed into something unrecognizable if we get so tired that we give up our political power and close our eyes to what is going on. Find the energy to stand for what you know is right, including supporting leaders who don’t engage in energy policy doublespeak.

– Sarah Palin

Obama’s Israel Crisis

Obama’s Israel Crisis

Posted By P. David Hornik On March 16, 2010 @ 12:05 am In FrontPage | 27 Comments

 

 

Israel Apartheid Week hadn’t yet run its course when Israel came in for a barrage of hostile characterizations also from the Obama administration. In the same brief time span there was also Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad [1]—“The Zionist regime is the most hated regime in the world…. with Allah’s help, this regime will be annihilated.” All this came hard on the heels of a wave of international outrage [2], and violent attacks by Palestinians, over Israel adding shrines in Hebron and Bethlehem to a list of national heritage sites.

If it seems like a lot of negative attention for one small, constantly pressured country, it is. Reacting to an announcement by the Israeli Interior Ministry on plans to build 1600 housing units—for Jews (if they had been for Arabs, no one would have protested)—in Jerusalem, Vice-President Joe Biden, who was in Israel for a visit, reportedly [3] told Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, “This is starting to get dangerous for us. What you’re doing here undermines the security of our troops who are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. That endangers us and it endangers regional peace.”

Netanyahu apologized and, by Thursday last week when Biden’s visit ended, apparently thought the matter had been handled. But on Friday,  Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called Netanyahu and gave him a 45-minute harangue in which she told him, as State Department spokesman P. J. Crowley put it [4], that “the United States considered the announcement a deeply negative signal about Israel’s approach to the bilateral relationship,” that “this action had undermined trust and confidence in the peace process and in America’s interests,” and that “she could not understand how this happened, particularly in light of the United States’ strong commitment to Israel’s security.”

Further harsh remarks came from Obama adviser David Axelrod, who called [5] the announcement about the residential units for Jews an “affront” and an “insult” and said it “seemed calculated to undermine” indirect Israeli-Palestinian talks—this after Biden had accepted Netanyahu’s explanation that the announcement was bureaucratic happenstance. And Israeli ambassador to the U.S. Michael Oren received “the same message of American disapproval and outrage” [6] from Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg—it being clear by now that the anger was being “managed” from the top, that is, by President Obama himself.

The totally unwarranted nature of this anger was well summarized in a Wall Street Journal editorial [7], which noted that “this particular housing project… falls within Jerusalem’s municipal boundaries and can only be described as a ‘settlement’ in the maximalist terms defined by the Palestinians.” Indeed, when in November Netanyahu announced a ten-month construction freeze in the West Bank that did not include any part of Jerusalem, Clinton praised the move as “unprecedented.” As the Journal concluded: “this episode does fit Mr. Obama’s foreign policy pattern to date: Our enemies get courted; our friends get the squeeze. It has happened to Poland, the Czech Republic, Honduras and Colombia. Now it’s Israel’s turn.”

Still, whatever slights and betrayals those countries have suffered, Anti-Defamation League director Abraham Foxman was more on the mark when he stated [8], “We cannot remember an instance when such harsh language was directed at a friend and ally of the United States.” The United States could, for instance, well blame other NATO countries for sending only tiny, token forces to Afghanistan; or Germany for its ongoing thriving commerce with Iran. Yet such a public dressing-down of these allies as Israel gets for apartments in Jerusalem would be, of course, inconceivable.

What motivated the administration’s outburst? Speculations have focused on attempts to intimidate Israel out of attacking Iran; or to force Netanyahu to choose between his right-wing coalition partners and going along with the administration’s notion of a “peace process”—or even pressuring his government into a collapse. Neither aim would be logical: making Israel feel isolated and abandoned by the U.S. would increase the chances of a move against Iran; and the right to build in Jerusalem is not a “right-wing” but, rather, a consensus position in Israel that has a unifying rather than fragmenting effect.

Since the anti-Israeli rancor stems from Obama himself, speculation could also focus on his personal motives: an ongoing identification with Palestinian positions; poor personal chemistry with Netanyahu and an inclination to blame him; or, on a less personal basis, animosity toward Netanyahu as an Israeli leader who is perceived as “hard-line” and obstructing peace no matter how many concessions he makes; adherence to a mistaken belief that Middle East-wide instability stems from Israeli-Palestinian tensions; all or some of the above mixed with frustration at the difficulty of the “peace process” that Obama adopted so resolutely as a goal at the start of his term; or he could be motivated by whatever it is that makes the Jewish state the target of so much special malice and denigration.

Whatever stands behind this crisis, which Ambassador Oren has called [9] “the worst with the U.S. in 35 years,” Netanyahu appears to be reacting at this point by holding his ground, having stated [10] on Monday that “Construction in Jerusalem will continue in any part of the city as it has during the last 42 years…. In [that period], there was no [Israeli] government that limited construction in any Jerusalem area or neighborhood. Establishing Jewish neighborhoods did not hurt Jerusalem’s Arab residents and was not at their expense.”

Although Biden, in his speech [11] in Tel Aviv on Thursday, spoke of “an ironclad commitment to Israel’s security,” for this administration that does not include refraining from further vilifying Israel at a time of obsessive worldwide opprobrium and existential danger. As Washington pushes Israel to the brink of losing its autonomy as a state, Netanyahu knows there is a limit, a point at which Israel will have to stand up for itself and look out for itself.


Article printed from FrontPage Magazine: http://frontpagemag.com

URL to article: http://frontpagemag.com/2010/03/16/obamas-israel-crisis/

URLs in this post:

[1] Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: http://matzav.com/ahmadinejad-israel-is-worlds-most-hated-state

[2] international outrage: http://frontpagemag.com../2010/03/01/israel%E2%80%99s-latest-sin%E2%80%94honoring-its-heritage/

[3] reportedly: http://www.politico.com/blogs/laurarozen/0310/What_Biden_told_Netanyahu_behind_closed_doors_This_is_starting_to_get_dangerous_for_us.html#comments

[4] put it: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35838282/ns/politics/

[5] called: http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/week-transcript-wh-senior-advisor-david-axelrod-sen/story?id=10085253&page=4

[6] “the same message of American disapproval and outrage”: http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=170999&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

[7] Wall Street Journal editorial: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704416904575121710380216280.html

[8] stated: http://www.adl.org/PresRele/IslME_62/5717_62.htm

[9] called: http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=171036

[10] stated: http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=171050

[11] speech: http://blogs.jta.org/politics/article/2010/03/11/1011046/bidens-speech

Obama’s sick obsession

Obama’s sick obsession

March 16th, 2010

Washington Times

 Obama is obsessed with remaking the Healthcare Industry

Nationalized health care is the progressives’ Golden Fleece. It is their obsession, the ultimate prize that was denied to previous administrations but is closer than it ever has been. As the ability of government to take over the health care system draws tantalizingly near, the president and leaders of the majority party have become infected with a kind of mania. President Obama and Democratic congressional leaders seem determined to ram through a severely flawed piece of legislation by any means necessary, heedless of the desires of the American people or the negative impact on the system they mistakenly say needs to be saved.

A large majority of Americans are satisfied with their current health care plans, though most also think the system could be improved. Yet proponents of the Democrats’ radical health care overhaul brazenly claim the system is irretrievably broken and only radical surgery will save it. According to the latest Gallup poll numbers, less than a fifth of even those who favor health reform agree with that position. The majority of Americans are divided between those who want a scaled-back health care measure and those who want the current project dropped entirely. If any system is broken, it is the legislative process.

Long-time Democratic pollsters Patrick H. Caddell and Douglas E. Schoen warned last week that “the battle for public opinion has been lost” on heath care. Democrats have backed themselves into a corner. If the bill fails, they suffer a defeat. But if they win, they also lose because Democrats “will face a far greater calamitous reaction” in November. “Wishing, praying or pretending will not change these outcomes,” they caution.

But the glittering prize is too near for such sage counsel. The liberal leadership is infused with a sense of mission. They are the midwives to history, shepherding landmark legislation that will revise the American social contract and usher in a new era, or some such foolishness. All they need to do is pass the bill, and the poor, frightened, deluded American people will see the wisdom of their decisions. Hence House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s memorable (and revealing) comment, “We have to pass the [health care] bill so that you can find out what is in it.” In her imagination, once the bill is signed, voters won’t remember the struggle, just the glow of the accomplishment. Rip off the bandage; you’ll feel better after the sting.

Read More:

Obama’s Obsession

Obama’s Obsession

March 16th, 2010

Obama: You will see ‘premiums fall by as much as 3,000 percent’ under Obamacare Fuzzy Math DUH!!

Obama: You will see ‘premiums fall by as much as 3,000 percent’ under Obamacare

David Gibberman

When House Speaker Pelosi said that ObamaCare will allow Americans to realize their dream of being an artist, photographer, or writer without having to work a day job to have health insurance, some of us wondered whether ObamaCare also will cover other expenses, such as for housing and food, that force people to work a job they may not like while they pursue their dreams. Now we know the answer: yes it will.

Monday in Strongsville, Ohio, President Obama said that ObamaCare will reduce health insurance premiums by “3,000 percent.” Considering that a 50 percent decrease in premiums would mean that we’d be paying half as much as we now pay for health insurance and that a 100 percent decrease in premiums would mean that we’d be paying nothing for health insurance, President Obama is telling us that insurance companies will actually start paying us money to keep our health insurance.

If your current  health insurance policy costs $5,000 a year, insurance companies will pay you $145,000 a year (2,900 percent multiplied by $5,000). If you’re fortunate enough to be paying $25,000 a year for health insurance, insurance companies will pay you $725,000 a year. There’s no word whether you can purchase a more expensive health insurance policy to increase the amount of money that insurers pay you each year.

Just think, America: These are the people telling us that they know best how to run 1/6 of our economy.

Israeli report details Hamas inhumane behavior

Israeli report details Hamas inhumane behavior

Clarice Feldman

For all those who have a fit whenever Jews buy land in ‘the Hood” or try to build housing for their people, where are you, now?The Jerusalem Post contains the language of a report detailing Hamas’ inhuman behavior – behavior the rest of the world ignores:

Hamas gunmen used Palestinian children as human shields, and established command centers and Kassam launch pads in and near more than 100 mosques and hospitals during Operation Cast Lead in the Gaza Strip last year, according to a new Israeli report being released on Monday that aims to counter criticism of the IDF. The detailed 500-page report, obtained exclusively by The Jerusalem Post, was written by the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center (Malam), a small research group led by Col. (res.) Reuven Erlich, a former Military Intelligence officer who works closely with the army.

[snip]

The intelligence information is backed up by videos, including one declassified air force video from January 6, 2009, which shows a terrorist shooting at troops from the roof of a building. After spotting an Israeli aircraft, the terrorist goes to the building’s entrance and calls to nearby civilians to help him escape. A few moments later, a group of childrenarrive at the entrance to the home and the terrorist walks out.

Another video from January 13 shows a senior Hamas terrorist – spotted by an aircraft – walking by himself down a street. After spotting the aircraft, the senior terrorist runs over to an elderly woman walking nearby and continues walking next to her. Later, the IDF discovered that the “elderly woman” was really a Hamas operative in disguise.

 

Clarice Feldman

Obama to Israel: ‘Drop Dead’ Obama was listening to rev Wright and his Islamic teachers

Obama to Israel: ‘Drop Dead’

By Richard Baehr

It took a while — fourteen months, to be exact — but both the ADL and AIPAC have issued very solid statements condemning the president’s new verbal war on Israel. The organizations are further asking for the administration to curtail the public berating of its supposed ally and work with Israel in a more diplomatic fashion on both the peace process and Iran.  

What is disgraceful is that so far, exactly one elected Democrat in Congress has done the same: Congresswoman Shelley Berkley of Nevada. Sadly, Democrats seem to care far more about passing health care legislation this week than protecting the U.S.-Israel relationship from Obama’s assault. It’s apparent that indifference of (i f not hostility to) Israel’s survival is at work. The infamous New York Daily News headline about Gerald Ford’s response to New York’s fiscal crisis was less fair to him (he never said these words) than the title of this article is to President Obama.
It is interesting that David Axelrod, who blasted Israel on network news programs on Sunday and is a proud standard-bearer of the Millard Fillmore label when it comes to the history and politics of the Middle East conflict (for the record, Fillmore headed the Know Nothing Party back in the 1850s), will be honored by the NJDC (National Jewish Democratic Council) at a coming event. Axelrod has pretty much a perfect record of having avoided any connection with any pro-Israel or Jewish communal activity in his long political career, with the notable exception of raising money from Jews for Democratic candidates.
This Obama does well, too. In Obama’s case, the handwriting as to his sympathies in the Middle East conflict (not to be confused with his lies delivered to AIPAC conferences) was pretty well-documented well before he was elected —  the twenty years he listened in rapture to the sermons of Reverend Wright; all those dinners and babysitting and chit-chat with Rashid Khalidi and Ali Abunimah; the close friendship with Samantha Power (who sought an international  force to invade the West Bank and liberate it from Israel); and the years spent in the most anti-Israel hothouses in America — the neighborhoods where elite colleges are located.
Martin Peretz has it right that America elected its first third-world president, and Obama is behaving accordingly. His sympathies lie with the Palestinians. He is, after all, a redistributionist on all issues, and he will always favor the group or state he perceives as weaker. The flak attacks by Hillary Clinton, other State Department officials, and Axelrod will do nothing to advance the peace process, ostensibly the goal of the administration. Since Oslo, the Palestinians for over fifteen years spoke directly to Israelis without intermediation, even during the intifada.  
When Obama launched his presidency with a call for a 100% settlement freeze on all land beyond the Green Line, including natural growth of settlements, he enabled the Palestinians to avoid coming back for talks without those conditions being met. Why would the Palestinians be more pro-Israel than the White House and accept less than the White House was demanding of Israel? Now the PA can hang back some more and honor some more mass murderers of Israelis while they wait for Obama to deliver more Israeli concessions before talks begin (prisoner releases,  extending the settlement freeze to Jerusalem, eliminating more roadblocks, easing the blockade of Gaza).  
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is right to let the Americans know that Israel will continue to build within its capital. To please the Americans and not establish facts on the ground, only new housing for Palestinians would be allowed. Of course, when the ten-month freeze on new settlements in the West Bank was agreed to, Bibi came in for high praise. He specifically excluded Jerusalem from that freeze.
The announcement of the 1,600 units in a neighborhood where 16,000 Jews already live was step four in a seven-step approval process, with no construction for three more years. So yes, maybe it was an ill-timed announcement with Joe Biden in town, given how everyone needs to walk on hot coals to avoid giving the PA another excuse not to negotiate even indirectly with Israel.
For the Obama administration to blow up over this as some grave insult is ridiculous but telling. This is a real and deliberate provocation by Obama, not Israel. Here was an opportunity for the administration to let Israel know which side Obama backs.  
Sad to say, even J-Street has been better than Obama this week. The White House had nothing to say (no condemnation, to be sure) about the Palestinian Authority honoring a terrorist mass murderer of Israeli Jews last week. Even J-Street said that this was a provocation and condemned it.
Murdered Jews or Jewish apartments: Obama evidently finds the latter more repellent. Then again, Obama was silent on the mass murder of hundreds of Christians in Nigeria by Muslim marauders. Never will an unkind word be said about Muslim murderers or Palestinian killers that might detract from Obama’s charm offensive to the Muslim world — the one that so far has accomplished only a projection of weakness, cowardice, and a loss of any ability to weigh competing claims fairly.
Richard Baehr is chief political correspondent of American Thinker.

Readings:
Jennifer Rubin on who stands with Israel (add Joe Lieberman no longer a Democrat, to the list);
John Podhoretz on Obama’s new approach, which put very simply, is not very smart. But then again, the ranks of those deluded or dazzled by Obama’s supposed brilliance drops every day;
David Horovitz exposing the fragility of US support for Israel in this Administration;
At least the American people still stand with Israel;
Abe Foxman and the ADL;
Another lie: that Israel’s settlement policy is causing American deaths in Pakistan , Afghanisan and Iraq.  But of course, if only there were no building east of the green line, then Al Qaeda and Iran would lay down their arms.  
On Iran, the Administration is doing nothing fast.  But the Administration is preparing the ground for explicit linkage; Jerusalem housing will be used to explain the Administration’s failure  to win UN sanctions, and for Iran getting the bomb.  
Two from Barry Rubin: first- some facts on Jerusalem construction; Why the PA is smiling;
Melanie Phillips, one of the last remaining voices of sanity in Britain.

US citizens shot dead by Mexican drug gangs

US citizens shot dead by Mexican drug gangs

By Adam Thomson in Mexico City

Published: March 14 2010 22:53 | Last updated: March 14 2010 22:53

Three people with links to the US consulate in the Mexican border city of Ciudad Juárez were gunned down at the weekend by “drug cartel hit teams”, according to a US official.

A consulate employee and her husband, both US citizens, were murdered while driving in the violent border city, which neighbours El Paso, Texas. Their baby daughter, who was sitting in the back seat, survived the attack.

In a separate incident the husband of a Mexican consulate employee was killed while driving through the city, one of the world’s most violent. According to media reports, his two children were injured in the attack.

On Sunday Mike Hammer, the White House National Security Council spokesman, said Barack Obama, US president, was “deeply saddened and outraged” by the news of the killings.

Mexico’s foreign ministry issued a statement condemning the murders and promised to work with the US government to investigate the crime. “Mexican authorities will work tirelessly to throw light on the circumstances surrounding the crime,” it said.

The murders come as Mexico suffers a wave of violence associated with the government’s war on organised crime, which it has made its policy cornerstone.

At the weekend, local media reported the murder of 31 people in and around the Pacific-coast beach resort of Acapulco in what are believed to be drug-related murders. At least two of the victims were found decapitated.

The crimewave has provoked the US to issue travel warnings for citizens planning on visiting Mexico’s border cities. On Sunday the US state department announced that its diplomats working in six northern Mexico cities were told they could send family members home.

But so far this year, Ciudad Juárez has borne the brunt of the crime. During the first two months of 2010, 410 people were murdered in the sprawling, industrial city. Last year there were 2,600 murders in the city, which has a population of 1.3m.

Felipe Calderón, Mexico’s centre-right president, has sent thousands of troops to patrol the city’s streets in the past 12 months in an attempt to restore order.

But federal police officers and military personnel complain they do not have sufficient intelligence to combat the crime groups effectively.

A recent poll showed that the violence was taking its toll on the government, with Mr Calderón’s image as a leader at 47 per cent – the lowest point since he took office in December 2006.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2010. Print a single copy of this article for personal use. Contact us if you wish to print more to distribute to others.