Demanding the Truth about Obama

TUESDAY, MAY 29, 2012

WARNING SIGNS

By Alan Caruba

Billions of words have been written about Barack Hussein Obama. He has written two “memoirs.” You could fill a library shelf with the books that have been written about him, few of them flattering. He has given thousands of speeches and interviews over the past three years he’s been in office.

After three years in which the financial crisis he “inherited” but for which he campaigned very hard, his solutions have proven to be failures on a massive, multi-billion-dollar scale. His war on energy has slowed the access to the sources of energy needed to provide the electricity to powers the nation and the fuel that keeps its cars, trucks and other means of transportation on the road, on the rail, and in the air. It has diverted millions to “green” energy alternatives fraught with bankruptcies.

A recent Fox News program hosted by Sean Hannity, bringing together influential authors and columnists, concluded that the mainstream media, the leading daily newspapers and the network news channels, not only failed to vet his life story and his qualifications to be president in 2008, but have provided cover while presently attacking the presumptive Republican candidate who will contest him in the November elections.

The media bias is palpable and thanks to watchdog organizations like the Media Research Center on full display. Increasingly, commentators have begun to describe Obama in psychological terms ranging from pathological narcissist to megalomaniac. The evidence is there for anyone who cares to examine it.

When Obama gave his nomination acceptance speech on June 3, 2008, he said that “generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care of the sick and good jobs for the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth.”

“The rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal”? The grandiosity of such a claim should have been a warning of the godlike powers he attributes to himself.

His November 5, 2008 acceptance speech after he won the election was filled with the word “change” in ways that should have been a warning too. “Change has come to America” he said. Always the quintessential political animal, Obama was already looking ahead to the 2012 elections. “The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep. We may not get there in one year or one term…”

So far as Obama was concerned, his election marked a whole new epoch in the history of the nation and the world. “It is only the chance for us to make that change. And that cannot happen if we go back to the way things were…Let us remember that if this financial crisis taught us anything, it’s that we cannot having a thriving Wall Street while Main Stream suffers”; shades of the coming Occupy Wall Street movement, all too conveniently emerging in the months leading up to the national party conventions.

During the campaign Obama said “We are the people we have been waiting for.” He might as well have said, I am the man you have been waiting for because in Grant Park he said, “This is our moment. This is our time—to put our people back to work and open doors of opportunity for our kids; to restore prosperity and promote the cause of peace.”

The only truly hopeful future for America will be the defeat of Obama on November 6. While some believe he will win the election only two presidents over the last 31 years were not given a second term, Jimmy Carter and George Bush, Sr. In both cases it was the state of the economy that ended their term in office.

Today, unemployment is at historic highs. Homeowners seeking to sell their homes are looking at falling prices, down from just the previous five years. The stock markets have swung back and forth and the S&P 500 rate is lower today than twelve years ago. The nation’s credit rating was reduced for the first time in its history. The net worth of median households has declined by nearly fifty percent since 2003.

Obama added five trillion dollars to the national debt, more than the combined debt since Washington held office, and a threat to the nation’s solvency.

And the search for the real biography, the real facts about Barack Hussein Obama continues. Was he, as his literary biography said, born in Kenya? Why does he have a Social Security number issued in Connecticut, a state where he was never employed? Was Bill Ayers, a former 60s radical, just “a guy who lived in the same neighborhood” or the man who hosted his first political fund-raising effort? Was Reverend Jeremiah Wright a preacher whose black liberation theology someone who was a close family friend or someone whose sermons he never heard or recalled?

Questions, questions, questions. For all the billion of words, for all the books and speeches, the only thing we truly know about Obama is that his presidency has been wracked with failure that reaches down and entraps every American from new college graduate to retiree.

The answer is to turn him out of office in November. That is the only hope and change that Americans can achieve at this point in time.

© Alan Caruba, 2012

Going Directly To The Wastebasket: Another Plan For The “Peace Process”

PRESSURE POINTS

by Elliott Abrams
May 30, 2012

Some “peace processors” never give up. In The New York Times today, four of them try an old and very bad idea: forget about negotiations, and substitute the views of some un-elected elderly “statesmen” and of the UN Security Council.

In an op-ed piece entitled “Going Directly to Israelis and Palestinians,” Shlomo Ben-Ami, Thomas Schelling, Jerome Segal, and Javier Solana suggest “a new approach” that isn’t new at all. The heart of it is this:

“The U.N. Security Council…will establish a special committee composed of distinguished international figures acting in their own capacity. Possibly it would be headed by a former American statesman or senator.” Their “first task would be to determine if there is any possible peace agreement that would be acceptable to a majority of both the Israeli and Palestinian people.” To determine this, the panel would “go to the region where, over a period of several months, it would conduct a transparent inquiry into the possibility of genuine peace.”  It would hold televised hearings and “conduct public opinion research and study the record of past Israeli-Palestinian negotiations — in particular, the Clinton Parameters and the progress made at Taba and in the Olmert-Abbas round.” Then, and this is the key, the panel “would…develop a draft treaty” which the UN Security Council would approve in a resolution, calling for negotiations based upon it as a starting point. If Israel or the Palestinians object, “the process should go forward even if one government, or both, fails to embrace it.” If the parties fail, the Security Council should “pass a resolution which embodies the…plan and calls on Israel and the Palestinians to announce their acceptance.”

The four authors are optimistic: “Agreement may not be immediate. However, an end-of-conflict plan that emerges from this process will have the staying power of historic resolutions such as 181 and 242. Supported by majorities on both sides, it will be an offer that political leaders cannot indefinitely refuse.”

What’s above is the plan as the authors describe it. Here’s my description.

The four men are tired of the fact that neither Israelis nor Palestinians accept peace terms that they, in their wisdom, are sure are right. The fact that Israel is a democracy with an elected government is an inconvenience to be brushed aside; “public opinion research” is much more reliable than elections, I guess.  So much for democracy in the year of the “Arab Spring.” The fact that Israel has twice made offers to the Palestinians–Prime Minister Barak in 2000 and Prime Minister Olmert in 2008–that were very generous in the view of the United States is irrelevant. The fact that those offers were withdrawn precisely because Israel did not want to allow the Palestinians to pocket them and start negotiations from those points is also irrelevant; the panel will start by swallowing them and jumping off from there, studying them “in particular.”

The confidence of these four authors in getting “majorities on both sides” to support such a plan is bizarre. It has been tried. The “Geneva Initiative” of 2003, a lengthy, detailed peace plan developed by Israelis and Palestinians who know a lot more about the issues than these four gentlemen, went nowhere. The “People’s Voice Initiative” sponsored by one Israeli and one Palestinian leader, who offered some central principles for a peace deal and asked citizens on both sides to sign up, got 400,000 signatures in a combined population of 11.5 million. To be a bit more specific about the issues, do they think they will get Palestinians to agree to abandon the so-called “right of return,” or Israelis to give up Jerusalem? Will they have security proposals that cope with the Hamas control of Gaza, or ways to handle every territorial dispute? Do they think no dedicated, intelligent American, Palestinian, or Israeli officials have ever addressed these issues and earnestly sought solutions?

Then of course there is the personnel question. Who might the “distinguished international figures” turn out to be? Why, with luck they might be as distinguished as the four authors; maybe three of them (excluding Ben-Ami, an Israeli and former foreign minister) might even comprise three of the four! For other ideas as to who are “distinguished international figures,” look at the group that named itself “The Elders” and even has a web site:http://www.theelders.org/. Consisting of Kofi Annan, Ela Bhatt, Lakhdar Brahimi, Gro Brundtland, Fernando H. Cardoso, Jimmy Carter, Mary Robinson, Desmond Tutu, they have decided to solve the world’s problems and on the Middle East they proclaim that “After decades of peace process, there is still no peace. The Elders are supporting civil society action for an end to the conflict and lasting peace.” Apparently they should knock that civil society nonsense off and simply write up a final status agreement, and mail it in to the UN. What are the Elders up to? In their own words, “The Elders represent an independent voice, not bound by the interests of any nation, government or institution. They are committed to promoting the shared interests of humanity.” (Emphasis in the original, by the way.)

Which brings us back to the four authors of this new, old, proposal. They too are sure they represent the “shared interests of humanity.” They will not only not be “bound by the interests of any nation, government, or institution” but are certain they themselves and people like the Elders are much better than messy things like democracy and elected governments.

I don’t know if the current Israeli leadership and the current PLO leadership can make peace; their predecessors obviously could not. But I do know that only Israelis and Palestinians can make peace. Not the UN, not the Elders, and certainly not another “special committee composed of distinguished international figures.”

Break Time! Relaxing music videos

MICHEL PEPE - Amour Infin

LOST IN THE FOREST ...

♥ MICHEL PEPE - Alchimia d'Amore♥

'Flaming' Attack on Iran

STOP RADICAL ISLAM

by: 

 Ryan Mauro

An extremely advanced cyber attack, dubbed "The Flame," has been detected in seven Middle Eastern countries. To no one’s surprise, Iran is, by far, the Number 1 target of the intelligence-gathering malware. The CEO of Kaspersky Lab says Flame is 20 times as complex as the Stuxnet malware that did serious damage to Iran’s nuclear program, making it the most sophisticated cyber attack on record.

Experts agree that Flame was most certainly created by a government, drawing immediate suspicion to Israel and possibly the U.S. It has been infecting computer systems in the Middle East since February or March 2010 and was onlydetected just now. Its authors’ primary target is Iran, where 189 infections have been counted.

The second biggest target is Israel and the Palestinian territories (98 infections), followed by Sudan (32), Syria (30), Lebanon (18), Saudi Arabia (10) and Egypt (5). The purpose of the malware appears to be information-gathering and not sabotage, but little is known at this point.  Kaspersky says that “Flame can sniff network traffic, take screenshots, record audio conversations, intercept a keyboard and more.”

In late April, Iran announced that its oil industry had come under cyber attack, specifically its Ministry of Oil and a terminal in Kharg Island where 80% of Iran’s oil exports are sent from. Iranadmitted that “data related to some of the users have been compromised,” and two government oil-related ministries were taken down by the attackers. The objective appears to have again been intelligence-gathering and perhaps to frighten the regime.

In March, Symantec found out that the operators of the “Duqu” attack, the follow-up to Stuxnet, continued to modify and deploy it even after it was discovered

On January 11, an Iranian nuclear scientist that worked at the Natanz uranium enrichment facility was assassinated. Since then, at least 10 high-level Iranian Revolutionary Guardsmen have died unexpectedly, many in “apparently violent circumstances.” According to Israel National News, these incidents include a close relative of Supreme Leader Khamenei suffering a fatal heart attack, two officials dying in car accidents and two being blatantly murdered. The report attributes their deaths to “tension over those [regime business] holdings,” but based on the pattern of apparent covert operations against Iran.

I’m not convinced.

In January, the Israeli military’s chief of staff predicted that 2012 would be a “critical year” in handling the Iranian threat and that there will be “events that happen unnaturally.” He wasn’t taking a guess.

Ryan Mauro is RadicalIslam.org's National Security analyst and a fellow with the Clarion Fund. He is the founder of WorldThreats.com and is frequently interviewed on Fox News.

Obama using tax dollars to flood Israel with thousands of African Muslim infiltrators

Did you know that Barack Hussein Obama is using your tax dollars to flood Israel with thousands of African Muslim infiltrators?

Posted: May 31, 2012 | Author: barenakedislam | 

BARE NAKED ISLAM

In a highly disturbing piece of news at Kr8 Israeli Patriot, the online magazine reports that the Obama Regime is providing funds via the UN to flood the Jewish state with Muslim illegal aliens from Africa.

 JDL-UK (H/T Liz) The funds, quite bizarrely, are only between $1000-2000 per illegal, per month, not enough to cover food let alone rent and food. However, in what is being seen as the likely incentive for carrying out this migratory sabotage of the Jewish state, is the fact that these funds are being split, with a portion of it going to unnamed sources at various stages of the transfer, from its way from the US to Israel.

In other words, considering that hundreds of illegals penetrate Israel’s borders daily, someone is profiting from this venture handsomely.

African Illegals lining up to get on the Israeli gravy train

What is fairly well known is that the police bring the ‘refugees’ from the Egypt/Israel border, right up, all the way to south Tel Aviv, the central bus station. But that’s not all. What else is now coming to light, is that with these funds, these illegals are somehow opening businesses and will soon start their own newspaper!

There is further testimony in the audio interview in which it is alleged government inspectors frequently close down illegal Jewish-owned businesses, but not the illegal businesses belonging to the illegal immigrants. This financial improbability of all this likely hints towards further sources of funding, which as yet are undetected.

Israelis take to the streets to protest the soaring crime rates caused by the influx of illegals in Southern Tel Aviv

There is more at the link if you read Hebrew. The rest of the article posits theories about South Sudan’s president, Abdel Wahid al-Nu, establishing an office in Tel Aviv and Israel’s involvement with the liberation of South Sudan. Whether there is any connection to a bigger picture, and if there is a big part of the puzzle we don’t yet know, what is clear is that this volume of immigration is unsustainable for Israel, not only economically, but culturally too, as the poor neighbourhood of Hatikva, south Tel Aviv, is decimated by crime and ghettoisation.

As always, bleeding hearts are out supporting the illegals. Of course, none of them have to live amongst them

In fact, Israelis are no pushovers when it comes to foreign invasions, and most citizens are ex-military. Last week during large protests violence erupted as a mini-civil war seems to be nearing (incidentally, the article almost seems to have been written according to the Alinskite rules we described in our last article on the illegals). Bibi, of course, being sensitive to the plight of the Jewish majority denounced the violent outbreaks of some of the protesters while continuing to talk about his second most favourite subject: the fence along the Israel-Egypt border – which the government has been talking about for over a year.

Why isn’t Obama giving funds to help many of Israel’s Jewish Ethiopian community to settle in?  These were refugees airlifted to Israel in several high profile operations and who still face difficulty getting used to a new way of life.

Is this because they’re Jewish Mr. Obama? Or is it because they’re not Muslims hell-bent on jihad?

The Patriotism of Palestinianism - By Sultan Knish

Wednesday, May 30, 2012


Each century brings forth its own patriots. Once upon a time we had Patrick Henry, today we have Senator Patrick Leahy, who declared in the Senate that his opposition to an amendment that would  distinguish how much of the UNRWA's funding goes to actual refugees versus fake refugees was a patriotic act.

"Refugee Camp"

"I always look at what is in the United States’ interest first and foremost, and this would hurt the United States’ interests,” Senator Leahy stated firmly. It is of course difficult to find as compelling a national interest as the UNRWA, a refugee agency created exclusively for the benefit of five million Arabs, approximately 30,000 of whom are actual refugees, but all of whom hate the United States.

Senator Leahy, who could not discover a national interest in the Balanced Budget Amendment, drilling for oil in ANWR or detaining Muslim terrorists, all of which he voted against; finally discovered a binding national interest 5,500 miles away in Jordan, where "refugee camps" like Baqa'a (pop. 80,000), which are virtually indistinguishable from local towns and cities, complete with block after block of residential homes, stores and markets, multi-story office buildings, schools, hospitals and assorted infrastructure, must not be looked at too closely.

As a city which will soon celebrate its 50 year anniversary, Baqa'a is older than many modern Israeli cities and is as much a refugee camp as any of them. The only difference between Baqa'a and Ariel, is that no one in Baqa'a does anything for themselves because they are all eternal refugees with an entire UN agency dedicated to wiping their bottoms for them. A unique and singular honor in a world full of authentic refugees who have been driven out by rape squads and genocide, without getting their own minders in blue.

Senator Mark Kirk's heretical proposal to begin reforming the UNRWA by distinguishing between people who could have some claim on being refugees from the vast majority who cannot, met with Leahy's declaration that; "Frankly, Mr. Chairman, as a member of this committee, I always look at what is in the United States’ interest first and foremost, and this would hurt the United States’ interests.” 

Samuel Johnson said that, "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel", but even Johnson would have had trouble understanding how a refusal to count who American aid money is going to, is in the nation's best interests. It is no doubt in the best interests of the denizens of Baqa'a and their Jordanian rulers, who need to spend that much less money taking care of their people, but ignorance certainly doesn't do the United States and its interests any good. A refusal to seriously examine the books does, however, benefit the UNRWA and politicians like Leahy who continue to support this boondoggle.

Jordan, the location of Baqa'a and many other aid sinkholes like it, has a population notoriously hostile to the United States. After September 11, Al-Qaeda enjoyed some of its highest approval ratings there, and most Jordanians still do not believe that Muslims carried out the attacks. Despite half a century of aid, 67 percent of Jordanians blame the West for their lack of prosperity, and majorities there support suicide bombings against civilians and American soldiers. Clearly, if there's one place that there is a compelling national interest to plow aid money into, without doing the math, it's Jordan and its refugee camps.

Where exactly is the compelling national interest in standing behind the UNRWA's 1.23 billion dollar biennial budget, and not just the budget, but a refusal to reform the methodology for accounting where all that money is going to? Before Washington D.C. cuts another quarter-of-a-billion dollar check to one of the biggest wastes of money in an organization that excels at wasting money, even more than D.C., it's entirely sensible to ask whom the money is going to and how long we will be making out these checks?

There are currently five million people living off the UNRWA dole. Sooner or later there will be fifty million. Jordan's government has done everything possible to inflate the UNRWA welfare rolls and keep cities like Baqa'a and their people on the Western dole. One day the Jordanian government, the British-appointed monarchy ruling over the original Palestinian state, may decide to give up the farce and put all their people on the UNRWA rolls as refugees. And we'll have to keep on paying without asking any questions-- after all, it is in our "national interest".

Thomas R. Nides, the Deputy Secretary of State, took a position against the amendment, calling the number of refugees a "Final Status Issue" that can only be resolved when Israel and the PLO militias complete their negotiations, at some unknown date. Diplomats have developed a bad habit of insisting on a dysfunctional status quo tilted toward the Muslim side, until the messiah of final status finally comes. There can be no Jewish housing in Jerusalem, because it's a final status issue, we can't count the refugees because it's a final status issue, and we can't question the final status, because that too is a final status issue.

After twenty years of negotiations, that have led to nothing except a rump terrorist state that is one big Baqa'a inside Israel, it's ridiculously clear that there will never be any final status negotiations, if only because the PLO militias don't actually want the job of taking care of their own people. Even if they did, in less than a decade, the PLO thugs in suits, subsidized, armed and trained by the West, will be consumed by Hamas. And Hamas, despite whimsical statements from Peter Beinart to the contrary, has no intention of entering into final status negotiations.

Final status, for all intents and purposes, means forever. It's an excuse for maintaining Baqa'a and the United Nations budget, and nothing else. But suppose that we might one day look forward to final status negotiations, there is no reason why an objective quality like, what makes one a refugee, cannot be addressed by the nation funding the refugees. Final status agreements cannot defer the dictionary or common sense. And unless we are expected to keep on funding Baqa'a on its 100 year anniversary or its 200 year anniversary, sooner or later the numbers have to be added up, and people whose only claim to the bottomless aid bucket is that their great-grandfather was on the losing side of a war of conquest, started by their side, will have to get a job.

According to Senator Leahy, raising such issues is not in America's national interest, but apparently it is in America's national interest to keep on funding the UNRWA, which employs terrorists and acts as a welfare state for some of the most Anti-American people in the world. But Palestiniasm as patriotism is not an original formulation. When times get tough and policies get senseless, backing the terrorist militias is described as a national interest for the United States. But is it really?

What conceivable national interest has there ever been in picking up Soviet leftovers like the PLO, and pouring billions of dollars into a sewer, which only spits up more terrorism, hate and chaos? When Senators and Deputy Secretaries talk about national interests, what they really mean is the interest of Muslim monarchies in the Gulf, who bring up Israel and the plight of its terrorists every time an American diplomat or general drops by Riyadh, Doha or Kuwait City. 

The UNRWA, Baqa'a and the PLO aren't an American interest-- they're a Muslim interest. What Leahy and Nider really mean is that it's in America's national interest to cater to Muslim interests. Nider comes closest to saying that, when he writes that cutting UNRWA aid would place a heavy burden on our allies in the region, who despite their billions in oil wealth and their passionate feelings on the subject, somehow can't be bothered to cover the cost of feeding, teaching and caring for Baqa'a.

The King of Jordan found 1.5 billion dollars to build the Red Sea Astrarium, a local version of Disneyland, but the Hashemite monarchy, like the House of Saud, the Al-Thanis, the House of Sabah, and every other bunch of burnoosed tyrants with palaces and investments across the world, can't be asked to care for their own people in their 50 year old refugee camps, who are kept that way because it's an easy way to sock the gullible West for another few billion dollars to fund their terrorist training bases. 

Even if there were a valid reason for the United States to champion Muslim interests by carving up Israel in order to create yet another Sunni Muslim state, it would not be a national interest, it would be appeasement. Palestine is as much in America's national interest, as the Sudetenland was in Britain's national interest. A foreign policy of feeding other people to the beast, in the hopes that he won't feed on us, is not a national interest-- it's craven cowardice that has no hope of succeeding. 

Is it really in America's national interest to turn over its foreign policy to the Muslim monarchies who birthed Al-Qaeda and conduct a covert war against the West? Is it in our interest to to keep funding terrorist training camps like Baqa'a without asking any questions? And are politicians like Senator Leahy, who treat questioning the UN bureaucracy, that has empowered terrorists while draining budgets, as an unpatriotic act, the real patriots or are they the pawns of tyrants who have one hand on their shoulder and the other on the knife in their back?

After World War I, King Feisal conspired with British officers to proclaim himself the ruler of United Syria, a territory that was to include Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Israel and parts of Turkey. Feisal couldn't keep his kingdom, and the Hashemites eventually lost everything else, including Saudi Arabia and Iraq. All they have left is Jordan, a country whose population is indistinguishable from the Arab Muslims on the Israeli side of the border, and a crown secured by American aid and the fiction that a country where 70 percent of the population sees themselves as Muslims rather than Jordanians has a future. 

The only difference between the Hashemites and the houses of Saud, Sabah and Thani, is oil. America ships money and soldiers to the Gulf, and the Gulf monarchs ship back terrorists, oil and mosques. That's the formula that got us into two Gulf Wars, one War on Terror and a Clash of Civilizations, and men like Senator Leahy insist that we shouldn't scrutinize the disastrous policies that the Arab League, the catspaw of the Gulfies, has pawned off on us, and that doing so is somehow unpatriotic.

Gulfism in all its forms, whether it's Syrianism, Palestinianism or the jack-of-all-trades, Islamism, is not patriotism. The future of the United States will not be secured by turning Washington D.C. into the front office for a bunch of medieval tyrannies that have no future. The House of Saud, and all the other houses, don't enjoy popular support, have parade guard militaries and nothing on their side but money and foreign support. The only thing they have to offer us is more Baqa'as, in Jordan, in Israel, in Lebanon, in Afghanistan, in Pakistan and all across Europe and the United States. And once that's done, they'll tell us that it's in our national interest to foot the bill.

http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/

Obama Visits A Primary School To Talk To The Kids

By Bernie on 29 May 2012  - PLANCK'S CONSTANT

Photo Credit: Democrats for Education Reform

Constant reader B.W. sent me this email which has been making the rounds for a few months now. It is a variation of an email circulating back in 2006 when George W. Bush was President ¹.

Obama visits a primary school to talk to the kids. After his talk he offers question time.

One little boy puts up his hand, and Obama asks him his name.

"Walter," responds the little boy.

"And what is your question, Walter?"

"I have four questions:

• First, Why did the USA Bomb Libya without the support of the Congress?


• Second, Why do you keep saying you fixed the economy when it's actually gotten worse?


• Third, Why did you say that Jeremiah Wright was your mentor, then said that you knew nothing about his preaching and beliefs?


• Fourth, Why are we lending dollars to Brazil to drill for oil, but America is not allowed to drill for oil?"

Just then, the bell rings for recess. Obama informs the kiddies that they will continue after recess.

When they resume Obama says, "OK, where were we? Oh, that's right: Question time…Who has a question?"

Another little boy puts up his hand. Obama points him out and asks him his name.

"Mikey," he responds.

"And what is your question, Mikey?"

"Actually, I have two questions.

First, Why did the recess bell ring 20 minutes early?
Second, What the hell happened to Walter?"

---

Notes

(1):

George Bush goes to a primary school to talk to the kids to get a little PR. After his talk he offers question time. One little boy putsup his hand and George asks him his name.

"Stanley," responds the little boy.

"And what is your question, Stanley?"

"I have 4 questions:

• First, why did the USA invade Iraq without the support of the UN?


• Second, why are you President when Al Gore got more votes?


• Third, whatever happened to Osama Bin Laden?"


• Fourth, why are we so worried about gay-marriage when 1/3 of all Americans don't have health
  insurance?"

Just then, the bell rings for recess. George Bush informs the kiddies that they will continue after recess.

When they resume George says, "OK, where were we? Oh, that's right, question time. Who has a question?"

Another little boy puts up his hand. George points him out and asks him his name.

"Steve," he responds.

"And what is your question, Steve?"

"Actually, I have 2 questions.

First: why did the recess bell go off 20 minutes early? And second: what the hell happened to Stanley?"

"Rabbi Obama" And The Shame Brought By Leaders of Conservative Judaism

BY Yid with lid -  WEDNESDAY, MAY 30, 2012

Yesterday afternoon President Obama and White House Chief of Staff Jack "Hey I'm Jewish and Love Obama" Lew met with leaders of the Conservative Jewish movement.  That's Conservative Judaism, not conservative politically.  The leadership of Conservative Judaism, as well as much of the rabbinate is progressive politically. 

For example, you may remember last year when two leading conservative and 398 other Rabbis broke Jewish law when they joined a socialist-oriented organization in a politically based (and false) attack on Glenn Beck.

The reason for the meeting was for the president to shore up a voting block which has already cut way back on donations and may vote for him to a lesser extent than they did in 2008 (Obama will most definitely win the Jewish vote in 2012 but even the most liberal based polls project him reviving much less than the 78% he garnered in 2008).

According to ynet news.com 

During the meeting, Obama told the rabbis that when he was running for Senate some accused him of being the Jewish lobby's "puppet" because of his many Jewish associates in Chicago. Now, he said, the Republicans are trying to portray him as not being supportive of Israel by stressing the fact that his father was Muslim and he has a Muslim name, as well as by claiming that he had been overly aggressive in pushing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to promote the peace process with the Palestinians. 

All I can say is 






(that would be Cow Sh*t! in English)

How dare he lie like that? How dare the Rabbis not admonish the president for making false accusations!
I have never been more ashamed of the Conservative Jewish Movement. Our leaders have allowed the president to publicly slander Republicans; forgetting that some of them (this writer included) are counted in their congregation’s minyans (the quorum of ten Jews needed for communal prayer).

As someone who has often accused the president of being anti-Israel, I have never based that accusation on his name or the heritage of his father. In fact there isn't a serious writer I've read that has based their opinions on his name or his father.

Most writers base our opinions on three and a half years of anti-Israel policies such breaking previous agreements between Israel and the US govt., surrounding himself with anti-Semites and Israel haters, making demands on Israel without making the simplest demand on the Palestinians (the recognition of Israel as Jewish State). And let's not forget the times he used rhetoric in an attempt to portray Israel as some sort of war-mongering human rights violator the court of world opinion. 

And I won't even get near his lie about ever being called a puppet of the Israel lobby. Surely his anti-Semitic preacher Jeremiah Wright, his former office-mate the anti-Israel Bill Ayers or his good friend the anti-Semitic former PLO spokesman Rashid Khalidi never made that charge.

Here comes the weird part:

Obama also stressed he probably knows about Judaism more than any other president, because he read about it - and wondered how come no one asks Speaker of the House of Representatives John Boehner or Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell about their support to Israel.

"Well whaddaya know folks," we no longer need to learn Rashi script and the Rambam is now obsolete. Barack Obama is now a Jewish scholar.

One question though, if Obama knows so much about Judaism, why doesn't he understand the concept of Lashon Hara (wronging people through speech)?

The Torah says Thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people (Lev. 19:16). The ancient Jewish Sages took that passage and said that there are three transgressions that would cause a man to lose his place in the world to come: murder, adultery, and idol worship, but lashon hara is equivalent to all three (Bab. Erchin 15b). Jews believe that the harm done by telling tales about people is worse than the harm done by something like theft because one can repay stolen money, but harm done by speech can never be repaired.

The president and his progressive compatriots are constantly telling lies about their political opponents, not their policies but their persons. The president and mainstream progressives have called us racists, xenophobes, haters of the poor, aged, women, and infirmed.

Sure there have been conservatives who have questioned Obama's religion and birthplace, there is a name for them in the Republican and political Conservative movements--Nuts (or Ron Paul supporters--but that's redundant). Those claims are not supported by the mainstream. However those claims are supported by and even voiced by our president.

Honestly I cannot blame the president, he wants to get re-elected so (as he told Russian President Medvedev) he can have more flexibily in a second term.

However, I do have a beef with the leadership of Conservative Jewry. It seems that nothing matters to them, his anti-Israel policies, his support of anti-Semites, his Lashon Hara right to their faces--none of it. 

Perhaps they are so wrapped up in "social justice" justice politics (itselfan anathema to Jewish law) that they've lost all powers of reasons. These Conservative Jewish leaders have thrown out their "higher calling" their love of the Jewish state, and have begun to worship the golden calf of big government and a progressive political theology committed to replacing the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, as well as the Gods of other faiths.

Shame on these supposed leaders for forgetting the words "If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning." Shame on them for allowing themselves to become political pawns of an anti-Israel, anti-religion President--Shame on them for forgetting why they became Rabbis in the first place.
 by Jeff Dunetz at Wednesday, May 30, 2012

NOTE:

See the following links for more Conservative observations of Obama's latest attempt at lying for votes:

Obama ... Stressed He Probably Knows About Judaism More than Any Other President

OBAMA REPORTEDLY CLAIMS TO KNOW MORE ABOUT JUDAISM THAN ANY OTHER PRESIDENT
Delusional hubris: Obama claims to know more about Judaism than any other president ever

Obama and Biden: "Their case is undermined by their record, actions, and their failures"

SUNDAY, MAY 27, 2012

MIDDLE EAST AND TERRORISM

Obama’s Gift to Romney

by Peter Wehner

This past week, the president and the vice president have made some rather curious arguments on their behalf.

“If your main argument for how to grow the economy is ‘I knew how to make a lot of money for investors,’ then you’re missing what this job is about,” Obama said. “It doesn’t mean you weren’t good at private equity, but that’s not what my job is as president. My job is to take into account everybody, not just some. My job is to make sure that the country is growing not just now, but ten years from now and 20 years from now,” he said.

Vice President Biden, meanwhile, offered up this argument. “Your job as president is to promote the common good. That doesn’t mean the private-equity guys are bad guys. They’re not,” Biden said at New Hampshire’s Keene State College. “But that no more qualifies you to be president than being a plumber. And, by the way, there’re an awful lot of smart plumbers. All kidding aside, it’s not the same job requirement.”

I suppose one could say that being a plumber makes you more qualified to be president than being a community organizer, but set that aside for the moment.

The case both Obama and Biden are making is that Obama (a) understands what the job of president entails and (b) is promoting the common good. And based on his record, it’s not clear Obama understands or is doing either one.

To sharpen the point a bit: How exactly is the common good being advanced when during the Obama presidency the number of people in the U.S. who are in poverty has seen a record increase, with the ranks of working-age poor approaching 1960s levels that led to the national war on poverty. In addition, the budget deficit and federal debt have reached their highest percentage since World War II. The same is true when it comes to federal spending as a percentage of GDP. During the post-recession period from June 2009 to June 2011, the median annual household income fell by 6.7 percent– a more substantial decline than occurred during the Great Recession. The Christian Science Monitor points out , “The standard of living for Americans has fallen longer and more steeply over the past three years than at any time since the U.S. government began recording it five decades ago.” The housing crisis is worse than the Great Depression. Home values worth one-third less than they were five years ago. The home ownership rate is the lowest since 1965. And government dependency, defined as the percentage of persons receiving one or more federal benefit payments, is the highest in American history.”

There’s more, but you get the point.

For Obama and Biden to lecture Romney on the qualifications for being president is like John Edwards and Bill Clinton lecturing us on the importance of fidelity in marriage. Their case is undermined by their record, their actions, and their failures.

I cannot imagine a greater in-kind gift to the Romney campaign than for the president and the vice president to run on their stewardship. But that is what they’ve decided to do, at least this week.

Peter Wehner

Source: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/05/25/obamas-gift-to-romney/

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.