Obama and the War Against the Jews

Obama and the War Against the Jews

Posted By David Horowitz and Jacob Laksin On June 25, 2010 @ 12:25 am In FrontPage | 31 Comments

In a letter to President Obama this week, 87 Senators urged [1] the president to support Israel’s right to self-defense against the threats of terrorism from Hamas and Hezbollah and a nuclear-bound Iran that has repeatedly pledged to wipe Israel off the map. In another time, such counsel would be redundant. For most of Israel’s 60-year existence, the Jewish state has been able to count on the stalwart support of its American ally against the many enemies arrayed against it. As Arab states launched wars with exterminationist intent, and as the international community undermined Israel through the agency of the United Nations, America alone stood in Israel’s corner.

Under President Obama, however, such support for an embattled friend is no longer automatic. As Iran races virtually unimpeded toward a nuclear weapon, the Obama administration scolds Israel for daring to build new houses in its capital of Jerusalem. While Hamas, aided by Turkish jihadists, arms for a new war against Israel, the White House demands that Israel exercise a suicidal restraint. As Israel becomes ever more isolated, the Obama administration continues to reach out to its enemies in the Arab and Muslim world. In their new pamphlet, David Horowitz and Jacob Laksin trace the deterioration of the U.S.-Israeli relationship under President Obama, now at its lowest point in three decades. And they show that by emboldening Israel’s enemies, the administration is sowing the seeds of a new conflict, one will that could make it complicit in a new and devastating war against Israel. As a result of President Obama’s wrongheaded policies, Israel’s security – and America’s – is increasingly imperiled.

To read the pamphlet, click here [2].

To order the pamphlet, click here [3].

Barack Obama Mocks And Makes Fun Of The Bible—No Christian Would Do This

Barack Obama Mocks And Makes Fun Of The Bible—No Christian Would Do This

No Christian would say these things. Obama is a closet Muslim, an atheist, or perhaps he’s just using religion as a vehicle in his quest for power.

“A Common Thread”

Barack Obama’s childhood hero, Nation of Islam spokesman Malcolm X said after President Kennedy’s assassination that, “chickens are coming home to roost.”

Barack Obama’s spiritual mentor, Jeremiah Wright said after 9/11 that, “America’s chickens are coming home to roost.”

Jeremiah Wright traveled to Libya with (to meet Muammar Qaddafi) and gave a Lifetime Achievement Award to Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan.

Jeremiah Wright (Obama’s spiritual mentor) – “America invented the HIV virus.”

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad – “America invented the HIV virus.”

Barack Obama’s cousin in Kenya is Raila Odinga, who among other things advocates Sharia (Islamic) Law. After he lost Kenya’s presidential election in 2007, his supporters went on a violent rampage killing hundreds of people across Kenya, some of whom were Christians taking refuge inside a church. Odinga’s supporters surrounded the church and burned it to the ground, burning the people alive who were inside. Obama campaigned for Odinga when he visited Kenya in 2006.

The Tea Parties’ Big Sin

Posted By Mark D. Tooley On June 22, 2010 @ 12:01 am In FrontPage | 3 Comments

Evangelical left activist Jim Wallis of Sojourners has become the virtual house evangelical for the Obama administration.  He is the ostensible chieftain of a supposedly populist uprising of social justice religionists whose “biblical principles” demand ever larger Big Government.  So, naturally, Wallis is threatened by the Tea Party movement, whose support extends well beyond Wallis’ constituency of liberal clergy and campus activists.

Recently Wallis editorialized against the Tea Partiers from a “Christian” perspective, and invited Sojourners supporters to jump in with their own critique.  He also opined against Libertarians, whom he regards as almost interchangeable with Tea Partiers.  The sin of both groups, in Wallis’ eyes, is their hostility to Big Government, which Wallis of course equates with God’s Kingdom.

Wallis reluctantly admitted that the biblical Book of Revelation “depicts the state as a totalitarian beast,” but only as a metaphor for ancient Rome.  And it may serve as a “clear warning about the abuse of governmental power,” he further granted curtly  “But a power-hungry government is clearly an aberration and violation of the proper role of government in protecting its citizens and upholding the demands of fairness and justice.”

Power-hungry governments are an “aberration?”  Wallis has been a campus and religious activist for the Left for over 40 years but seems blithely unaware of the 20th century’s worst horrors, orchestrated by unlimited government.  Hitler’s Holocaust, Stalin’s purges and orchestrated famines, Mao’s own orchestrated purges and murderous Cultural Revolution, Pol Pot’s Cambodian genocide, the Marxist Ethiopian regime’s orchestrated famines, the countless barbarities and mass murders of other post-colonial African dictatorships, not to mention hundreds of thousands killed by North Korea’s communists and by Saddam Hussein’s Baathists, along with many thousands murdered by Vietnam’s and Cuba’s communists.  Totalitarianism in the 20th century created a relatively new historical phenomenon:  governments without limits murdering millions of their own people in pursuit of utopia.  Governments in the 20th century killed more millions of their own peoples than all of that century’s wars and natural famines combined.

Tyranny through an unlimited state was refined in the 20th century, thanks to what Churchill called “perverted science” and the Hegelian/Marxist ideology that demanded that all society yield to state supremacy.   But the 20th century did not invent tyranny or uncontrolled government, of course.  Tyranny and excessive state power have been the norm for most of human history, typically under kings or other oligarchs, who subsume economic, political, religious, and cultural power unto themselves.  The Jewish and Christian tradition has, at its best, struggled against tyranny, arguing for limited governmental powers subject to transcendent law.  The ancient Hebrews were originally governed by judges and were permitted kings only grudgingly.  There were more wicked than good kings, and even the good kings often behaved badly, with seemingly all the prophets themselves murdered for inveighing against them.

The Early Church acknowledged that God has ordained the state to maintain order.  But the Apostles did not attached messianic importance to the civil state.  With an intrinsic understanding that all humans were imaged after God with innate dignity, Christianity and Judaism assumed limits on traditional state power, whose pagan forms demanded worship of itself.  The Church, at its best, resisted tyranny and defended the weak from the strong, i.e. primarily the state and its friends.  Anglo-American proponents of liberty, influenced by the Puritans, believed that human depravity mandated strictly limited government.  James Madison famously argued for divided state powers, since men are not “angels.”

Traditionally evangelical Christians across the centuries have argued for lawful, limited government.  They have themselves been pioneers in philanthropy, private social reforms, and entrepreneurship that flourish when government is restrained.  So Wallis and the Evangelical Left essentially want their targeted constituency to abandon their own potent traditions in favor of reliance on and submission to state authority.  “To disparage government per se — to see government as the central problem in society — is simply not a biblical position,” he insisted.  No, biblical religion does not advocate anarchy.  The state is divinely commissioned, but for limited, prescribed purposes, primarily centered on order, the rule of law, and civil freedoms.  There may or may not be reasonable arguments for an expansive welfare and regulatory state.  But they are not found directly in the Bible.

Amusingly, Wallis cited Romans 13, where St. Paul described the state’s role in “preserving the social order, punishing evil and rewarding good, and protecting the common good.”  Wallis, who is a pacifist, does not typically quote this passage, which describes God’s having called the state to “wield the sword” to “execute wrath on him who practices evil.”  All governments everywhere “wield the sword” not only through their militaries but also through their collection of taxes to pay for the vast social services that Wallis insists in their central mission.  Force is apparently acceptable to Wallis in defense of the welfare state.

Wallis chided the Tea Partiers for their complaints about taxes. But who pays more taxes, Wallis’s campus activists, or the small business owners who form much of the Tea Party?  Wallis claims “most of us would prefer smart and effective to ‘big’ or ‘small’ government.”  But he is just striking his frequent post-ideological pose.  When has Wallis ever argued for reducing government, except for its military, police and intelligence functions (ironically,  the very functions prescribed by St. Paul)?

“Democratic accountability is essential to preventing the market from becoming a beast of corporate totalitarianism – just as it is essential for the government,” Wallis concluded.  But why is he concerned only about “corporate totalitarianism” but not the far more dangerous government kind?   He harrumphed that “God’s priorities should determine ours, not the priorities of the Chamber of Commerce,” with the elitist disdain for the private sector so common on the Religious Left. More spitefully, Wallis surmised that the Tea Party movement has racist overtones, though “likely not” every Tea Partier is racist.   “Need I say that racism — overt, implied, or even subtle — is not a Christian virtue,” he intoned sanctimoniously, evidently forgetting that slander and judging hidden motives are also not very “biblical.”

Wallis urged a “dialogue” about “Just how Christian is the Tea Party Movement — and the Libertarian political philosophy that lies behind it?”  But maybe there should also be a dialogue about Wallis’ Sojourners movement, which seems to judge religious orthodoxy almost exclusively by its commitment to Big Government.

Obama’s First Oval Office Speech a ‘Flop’

Obama’s First Oval Office Speech a ‘Flop’

Thomas Lifson

That harsh judgment was delivered this morning by Dana Perino on Fox News Channel. She has plenty of company (see below) in regarding the effort as less than successful. As predicted, he used the free TV time to shill for cap and trade (although avoiding that term — apparently the marketing team led by David Axelrod is rebranding the tax scheme). He also ended with an appeal to God, something he normally avoids as much as he has avoided attending church since leaving Rev. Wright under the bus.

A roundup of other commentary, including some very harsh criticism from the left.

Headline: “Obama promises a brighter day. (Details to come.)”

Nobody is more impressed than I am in the president’s ability to inspire. But I am not sure his speech was all that inspirational.
Maybe the location was wrong. Maybe using the Oval Office – and it was the first time the president has used it for a speech – upped the ante too much. Maybe we expected too much.
Like details.
The leftists on MSNBC were even harsher. Real Clear Politics provides video and a summary:
Olbermann: “It was a great speech if you were on another planet for the last 57 days.”

Matthews compared Obama to Carter.

Olbermann: “Nothing specific at all was said.”

Matthews: “No direction.”

Howard Fineman: “He wasn’t specific enough.”

Olbermann: “I don’t think he aimed low, I don’t think he aimed at all. It’s startling.”

Howard Fineman: Obama should be acting like a “commander-in-chief.”

Matthews: Ludicrous that he keeps saying [Secretary of Energy] Chu has a Nobel prize. “I’ll barf if he does it one more time.”

Matthews: “A lot of meritocracy, a lot of blue ribbon talk.”

Matthews: “I don’t sense executive command.”

Calvin Woodward of AP
does a fact check, and finds “blanks.”
Maureen Dowd of the New York Times is cynical:
Once more on Tuesday night, we were back to back-against-the-wall time. The president went for his fourth-quarter, Michael Jordan, down-to-the-wire, thrill shot in the Oval Office, his first such dramatic address to a nation sick about the slick.
You know the president is drowning – in oil this time – when he uses the Oval Office. And do words really matter when the picture of oil gushing out of the well continues to fill the screen?
Of course Dowd does not miss a chance to bash Bush and Cheney. But like many on the left, she is coming to the conclusion that Obama is an inadequate remedy.
W. and Dick Cheney were too headlong, jumping off crazy cliffs and dragging the country – and the world – with them. President Obama is the opposite, often too hesitant to take the obvious action. He seems unable to muster the adrenalin necessary to go full bore until the crowd has waited and wailed and almost given up on him, but it’s a nerve-racking way to campaign and govern.
“On the one hand, you have BP, which sees a risky hole in the ground a couple miles under the sea surface and thinks if we take more risk, and cut some corners, we make millions more. In taking on more risk, they’re gambling with more than money,” said Richard Wolffe, an Obama biographer. “On the other hand, you have Obama, who is ambivalent about risk. What he does late is to embrace risk, like running for president, trebling troops in Afghanistan and health care. But in deferring the risk, he’s gambling with his authority and political capital.”
By trying too hard to keep control, he ends up losing control.
E. J. Dionne of the WaPo put his finger on the single most revealing and troubling lines of the speech:
There is one line I wish he hadn’t used. After a perfectly noble declaration that “what has defined us as a nation since our founding is our capacity to shape our destiny — our determination to fight for the America we want for our children,” Obama added: “Even if we’re unsure exactly what that looks like. Even if we don’t yet know precisely how to get there. We know we’ll get there.” I don’t think it was a moment to say that we don’t know “exactly what that looks like” when it comes to the future. Most people want the president to give the future a bit more definition.
Michael Goodwin of the New York Post:
Rolling out the military metaphors–“battle plan” and “siege” and “fight”– he again embraced the philosophy of his resident thinker, Rahm Emanuel, that a crisis is a terrible thing to waste.
It was an unpersuasive performance. It lacked the essential energy and mastery of detail that would show the president focused like a laser on the crisis.
Instead, it caught him looking starry-eyed into the wild blue yonder.
Earth to president: Come on down. He’s been hammered relentlessly for not being engaged, but he’s still not into the details of the prevention and cleanup.
He’s got a czar, a commission and a dream, therefore he is. And, oh, he’s got BP to kick around and milk like a fat cow.
His idea to tax all forms of carbon already failed once as the public gagged on his splurge in deficit spending.
Even Democratic senators and governors fear the impact it would have on energy prices and manufacturing jobs in coal and oil states.
But the idea is in play, repackaged as Obama’s answer to the Gulf spill.
Joan Walsh of Salon:
I was underwhelmed by President Obama’s first Oval Office speech, as I expected to be. From the moment he began, hands folded on his desk like a well-behaved student, the imagery and energy was off, inadequate to the visual, horror-movie scope of the Gulf oil disaster.

On the upside for Obama, Joe Scarborough, former Republican congressman from the Florida panhandle, expressed admiration this morning on MSNBC for the President’s speech yesterday in Pensacola, and for his Oval Office effort. That’s one, and Paul Begala, Democrat pit bull, thought it was a great

Impeach the stonewalling Obama

Impeach the stonewalling Obama

June 1st, 2010

By Joseph Farah, WND

 Obama needs to be impeached

I can think of many reasons to impeach Barack Obama.

Of course, this House of Representatives is never going to do that between now and January, when many of the members will be leaving office, most of them against their wishes.

But it’s actually time to start calling for impeachment.

There are dozens of crimes and misdemeanors to consider, with the dozens of brazen extra-constitutional actions of this White House – from health care to auto-company takeovers to bank bailouts.

And, of course, there is the ever-present controversy over his total failure even to prove his constitutional eligibility for office.

But Obama’s stonewalling over the allegations of Rep. Joe Sestak, D-Pa., is the most Nixonian reason of all.

Now the shoe is clearly on the other foot.

While Democrats were prepared to frog-march Richard Nixon out of the White House in the 1970s because of his refusal to allow an independent counsel to investigate Watergate, today’s Democrats expect the American people to take the administration’s word that Sestak, one of their own, is lying when he said he was offered a bribe to bow out of the U.S. Senate race against Sen. Arlen Specter.

Late last week, the White House finally released its explanation of the job offer. The claim is that Rahm Emanuel sent Bill Clinton to meet with Sestak to offer an unpaid advisory position – not the “high-ranking position” Sestak had claimed.

Read More:

Obama to Skip Memorial Day at Arlington Cemetery

Obama to Skip Memorial Day at Arlington Cemetery

May 26th, 2010


 Obama says forget tradition I am going to Chicago

In a highly unusual move, President Barack Obama is going to skip the traditional Memorial Day event at Arlington National Cemetery to return home to Chicago for the long holiday weekend.

Obama sees it as addressing one of the great broken promises of his administration: his early pledge to return home to Chicago every six weeks or so, according to The Washington Post.

On Monday, Obama will make remarks at the Abraham Lincoln National Cemetery and miss the usual tradition of presidents speaking at Arlington National Cemetery on Memorial Day.

Instead, Vice President Biden and his wife will appear in Obama’s place, laying a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, as well as holding a breakfast for Gold Star families — families whose loved ones died in military service — at the White House earlier that day.

Read More: also covered at the Washington Post

Obama and the New Normal

Obama and the New Normal

May 22nd, 2010

By Robin of Berkeley, American Thinker

 Obama is defining our culture with his vindictive assaults on individuals

The human brain is a complicated organ. It can be infinitely pliable but also maddeningly rigid.

Humans can be slow to recognize signs of imminent disaster. While red flags are flapping wildly in the wind, the person ignores any and all warnings.

But the brain can be highly suggestible, too, easily controlled and shaped by advertisers and spin doctors. Thus, after countless ads, a person associates soda with Coke, search engines with Google. And after having “Yes we can,” burned into their neural pathways, all hope and change is connected to Obama.  

That’s why it’s crucial to notice all the “firsts.” Because once something is repeated often enough, it becomes the New Normal.

Decades ago, the first rap song that celebrated beating “ho’s” and shooting cops was shocking. But after the umpteenth song, the lyrics may no longer startle. 

But while things have been going downhill for decades, ever since Obama arrived on the scene, the assaults have come fast and furiously. First it was the trashing of Hillary. When her abuse was pooh-poohed by those who could have done something about it, like Obama himself, that just emboldened the radicals. Their getting away with (soul) murder led to even more sexually threatening behavior toward Sarah Palin.

Another example: It used to be off-limits for the president and Congress to target private citizens. Not any longer. It’s now open season on anyone who dares to disagree.

Read More: