Obama: No Friend of Israel

Barack Obama tells Israel’s supporters he’s on their side. But he’s using the playbook of Yasser Arafat, the Palestinian terrorist who said one thing to the West and another to the radicals who supported him.

As far as we know, Obama never met or publicly supported Arafat. But in 2003 he did attend a farewell party for an Arafat associate. Peter Wallsten reported in April in the Los Angeles Times that Obama was at an event held as a tribute for Rashid Khalidi, an “internationally known scholar, critic of Israel and advocate for Palestinian rights” who was leaving Chicago for a job in New York.

Khalidi has not been accused of terrorism. But it’s alleged that he has links to the Palestine Liberation Organization, which has a terrorist pedigree, and he does hold some rather virulent views on Israel, calling it a racist state.

While he has publicly opposed attacking Israeli civilians, Khalidi does, according to accounts of a speech he made to the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, have a different view of “the ones who are armed, the ones who are (Israeli) soldiers, the ones who are in occupation” of Palestinian lands, because “that’s resistance.”

Whether the Khalidi farewell was a “Jew-bash,” as one blog labeled it, is not evident, as the video that Wallsten was apparently working from won’t be released to the public.

But Wallsten revealed enough by writing that Obama was a “frequent dinner companion” of Khalidi and has been present at events, such as the farewell party for Khalidi, “where anger at Israeli and U.S. Middle East policy was freely expressed.”

At that function, one speaker said that if Palestinians cannot secure their own land, “then you will never see a day of peace.” Another, Wallsten wrote, “likened ‘Zionist settlers on the West Bank’ to Osama bin Laden.”

This is the sort of company that Obama keeps. It’s no surprise, though, because Obama has surrounded himself with racist, anti-American ministers (Jeremiah Wright, Michael Pfleger), an unrepentant terrorist (Bill Ayers, who has links to Khalidi through a foundation he and Obama worked on together), radical groups (ACORN, the New Party) and a convicted felon (Tony Rezko).

In addition to dining often with him, Khalidi held a fundraiser for Obama’s failed 2000 congressional campaign. He knows the Illinois senator well enough to say that he’s “the only candidate who has expressed sympathy for the Palestinian cause.”

This should be enough for Obama supporters who stand behind Israel to rethink their vote. Those concerned about honesty and integrity should do the same, since Obama has sworn to be a friend of Israel.

Obama’s deception reminds us of the way that Arafat tolerated Israel when talking to the Western media, but had the tongue of a terrorist when speaking in Arabic to radical Palestinian elements. Arafat said what he needed to say to keep his position of power.

Obama will say anything to get elected, and then do another to achieve his goal of cutting off oxygen to Israel, the only freely elected government and U.S. friend in the region, outside of the newly formed Iraq.

From Investors Business Daily.

Previous related posts:
American Jews are in Denial
Can Jews Afford To “Roll the Dice” on Obama?
Morris: American Jews Misguided
Jackson Confirms Jewish Community Concerns About Obama
Foreign Policy is Reason to Vote McCain
The Jewish Case Against Barack Obama
Obama, McCain and Israel’s National Security
The Obama Voter – Not This Jew

Technorati Tags: ,,,

Does Anyone Still Doubt That Obama is a Marxist/Socialist?

Is there anyone who still doubts that Obama is either a pure Marxist or a Socialist? Has America come so far since the Reagan era that it is prepared to throw away our American way of life for a man who wishes the Constitution allowed wealth redistribution in this country?

Writing at GetLiberty.org, Carter Clews says,

First, let’s get one thing straight: government in and of itself has not, cannot, and will not ever create wealth. That’s because government produces no marketable product, and, therefore, has nothing to sell for which it can charge a legitimate price and run up a tab. So, if government decides to “redistribute the wealth,” it first must take it from those who create it. And that’s what makes Barack Obama’s socialist mindset so dangerous to a productive society.

Lest anyone had any remaining doubts about what Mr. Obama really meant when he told the now-famous “Joe the Plumber” that he (Barack Obama) wanted to “share the wealth,” yesterday’s disclosure of the Senator’s 2001 Public Radio interview should close the loop. As he so often does when not befriended by his teleprompter, Mr. Obama let slip with the truth in 2001, just as he did on the rope line with Joe. And it is a truth most hardworking Americans would do well to take with them to the voting booth on November 4. Said Mr. Obama:

“But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of the wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent, as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break us free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution … And the Warren Court interpreted, in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties … I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change.”

For those who may have difficulty deciphering Mr. Obama’s unscripted bloviations, it’s all very simple (despite his campaign’s frenzied denials): Barack Obama is a socialist who believes in taking from the haves and giving to the have nots. Lest anyone take umbrage at such a characterization, let’s get one other thing straight (in addition to the fact that government has not and cannot create wealth): There is absolutely nothing wrong with a socialist running for President of the United States. But, there is something dreadfully wrong with that socialist denying his own ideology — even when his own words betray his denials.

If the majority of the voters in this country decide they want to elect a socialist who wants to redistribute the wealth, that is their business, and their right. But for Mr. Obama to continue to dissimulate about his own intentions undermines the very foundation of free and fair elections. And that is wrong.

The above portion of Mr. Obama’s 2001 admission has been the most frequently repeated over the past 24 hours. But, it was actually a separate passage that most starkly betrayed his true socialistic proclivities. Explaining the real import of “economic justice,” as he likes to term it, he let slip: “I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I’d be o.k. But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth …”

That, in sum, is what Barack Obama and his socialist comrades really mean by “redistributing the wealth.” It’s not just providing equal opportunity for everyone to be able to sit at the counter and order what they will – it is making sure that when the check comes, it can be handed to someone else to pay.

And now, it’s up to hardworking Americans nationwide to decide for themselves on November 4 if they really want to pick up that tab.

My guess is that if America decides to elect this socialist to become the President of the United States it will be because they are so mesmerized by his charisma, and so taken with the fact that he is an African-American, that they are willing to overlook his anti-American economic and political policies. How sad for this great country if that is what happens.

Technorati Tags: ,,,

American Jews are in Denial

American Jews are in Denial

Mona Charen has an article today in Jewish World Review about how self-deceptive the American Jewish Community is about Barack Obama. As she puts it:

I’ve heard from some American Jews that they do not believe Obama is sincere in his leftism. They believe/hope that the anti-Israel sentiments and associations of his past were purely opportunistic; that once in the White House he will shed them like yesterday’s fashions. That’s quite a leap of faith.

American Jews, so consumed with collective guilt about what they perceive as wrongs committed by America toward the black community, and desperately not wanting to be considered racist by anyone, especially themselves, are willing to deny reality in order to see the first African-American elected President. By doing so they can feel good about themselves and give themselves a “high five” for voting for a man from a minority group in this country.

Aside from this African-American’s race, he is a minority in another way, as well. He is one of the few candidates for public office who is a Marxist, and who wishes our Constitution didn’t prevent wealth redistribution. But, I digress.

As Isaiah says, we pray that the eyes of the blind shall be opened. Obama has associated himself all his life with those who would wish the destruction of Israel and those who have been no friend to Jews.

As Mona Charen writes in her article,

From the Palestinian Authority Daily: “Twenty-three-year old Ibrahim Abu Jayyab sits by the computer in the Nusairat refugee camp (in the Gaza Strip) trying to call American citizens in order to convince them to vote for the Democratic candidate for president, Barack Obama…”

Like many Palestinians, Abu Jayyab is excited about the prospect of an Obama presidency. (By the way, the Gaza Strip is completely under the control of Hamas. Why then do they persist in speaking of “refugee camps”? But of course, we know why.) If Abu Jayyab and many others in the Palestinian areas are delighted, why are so many American Jewish voters feeling the same way? One side or the other has the wrong man. Which is it?

Are American Jews really so blind and so guilty that they would vote for someone who would do what he could to give the Palestinians a state next to Israel without requiring them to recognize the State of Israel and to commit to a non-aggression pact?

More from the Charen article:

Many politicians have distanced themselves from positions and associations of their youths. But in Obama’s case, he is distancing himself from positions staked out as recently as 2003. The Los Angeles Times is apparently sitting on a videotape showing Obama’s remarks at a farewell dinner that year for Rashid Khalidi, the one-time PLO spokesman who now heads the Middle East Studies Department at Columbia. (Columbia University’s shame is a subject for another column.)

Khalidi is not distancing himself from his past. Consistent with what you’d expect from someone who justified PLO attacks on civilians in Israel and Lebanon from 1976 to 1982, Khalidi routinely refers to Israel as a “racist” and “apartheid” state, and professes to believe in a “one-state” solution to the conflict. Guess which country would have to disappear for that “one” state to come into existence?

The Khalidis and Obamas were good friends. In his capacity as a director of the Woods Fund, Obama in 2001 and 2002 steered $75,000 to the Arab American Action Network, the brainchild of Rashid and Mona Khalidi. According to an L.A. Times account of the dinner, Obama mentioned that he and Michelle had been frequent dinner guests at the Khalidi home (just another guy in the neighborhood?) and that the Khalidis had even baby-sat for the Obama girls. Like William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, the Khalidis held a fundraiser for Obama in their living room when he unsuccessfully sought a House seat.

At the farewell dinner, according to the L.A. Times, Obama apparently related fondly his “many talks” with the Khalidis. Perhaps that’s where he learned, as he told the Des Moines Register that “Nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people.” Obama told the crowd that those talks with the Khalidis had been “consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots . . . It’s for that reason that I’m hoping that, for many years to come, we continue that conversation — a conversation that is necessary not just around Mona and Rashid’s dinner table” but around “this entire world.”

Even less attention has been paid to the man Obama appointed as his emissary to the Muslim community in the U.S., Mazen Asbahi. Asbahi, it turned out, had ties to the Islamic Society of North America, which in turn was an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation case. The Holy Land Foundation was accused of being a front group for Hamas. When news of these associations became public, Asbahi resigned from the campaign to “avoid distracting from Barack Obama’s message of change.” And don’t forget hope!

Read the full article.

 

No Integrity in Journalism

No Integrity in Journalism

Orson Scott Card is a brilliant writer who has written some of the best SciFi there is. He is also a Democrat. He wrote this opinion piece for a local paper where he lived in North Carolina:

Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights? By Orson Scott Card

Editor’s note: Orson Scott Card is a Democrat and a newspaper columnist, and in this opinion piece he takes on both while lamenting the current state of journalism.

An open letter to the local daily paper — almost every local daily paper in America:

I remember reading All the President’s Men and thinking: That’s journalism. You do what it takes to get the truth and you lay it before the public, because the public has a right to know.

This housing crisis didn’t come out of nowhere. It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration.

It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late 1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more accessible to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to approve risky loans.

What is a risky loan? It’s a loan that the recipient is likely not to be able to repay.

The goal of this rule change was to help the poor — which especially would help members of minority groups. But how does it help these people to give them a loan that they can’t repay? They get into a house, yes, but when they can’t make the payments, they lose the house — along with their credit rating.

They end up worse off than before.

This was completely foreseeable and in fact many people did foresee it. One political party, in Congress and in the executive branch, tried repeatedly to tighten up the rules. The other party blocked every such attempt and tried to loosen them.

Furthermore, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were making political contributions to the very members of Congress who were allowing them to make irresponsible loans. (Though why quasi-federal agencies were allowed to do so baffles me. It’s as if the Pentagon were allowed to contribute to the political campaigns of Congressmen who support increasing their budget.)

Isn’t there a story here? Doesn’t journalism require that you who produce our daily paper tell the truth about who brought us to a position where the only way to keep confidence in our economy was a $700 billion bailout? Aren’t you supposed to follow the money and see which politicians were benefiting personally from the deregulation of mortgage lending?

I have no doubt that if these facts had pointed to the Republican Party or to John McCain as the guilty parties, you would be treating it as a vast scandal. “Housing-gate,” no doubt. Or “Fannie-gate.”

Instead, it was Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, both Democrats, who denied that there were any problems, who refused Bush administration requests to set up a regulatory agency to watch over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and who were still pushing for these agencies to go even further in promoting sub-prime mortgage loans almost up to the minute they failed.

As Thomas Sowell points out in a TownHall.com essay entitled “Do Facts Matter?” ( http://snipurl.com/457townhall_com%5D ): “Alan Greenspan warned them four years ago. So did the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to the President. So did Bush’s Secretary of the Treasury.”

These are facts. This financial crisis was completely preventable. The party that blocked any attempt to prevent it was … the Democratic Party. The party that tried to prevent it was … the Republican Party.

Yet when Nancy Pelosi accused the Bush administration and Republican deregulation of causing the crisis, you in the press did not hold her to account for her lie. Instead, you criticized Republicans who took offense at this lie and refused to vote for the bailout!

What? It’s not the liar, but the victims of the lie who are to blame?

Now let’s follow the money … right to the presidential candidate who is the number-two recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae.

And after Freddie Raines, the CEO of Fannie Mae who made $90 million while running it into the ground, was fired for his incompetence, one presidential candidate’s campaign actually consulted him for advice on housing.

If that presidential candidate had been John McCain, you would have called it a major scandal and we would be getting stories in your paper every day about how incompetent and corrupt he was.

But instead, that candidate was Barack Obama, and so you have buried this story, and when the McCain campaign dared to call Raines an “adviser” to the Obama campaign — because that campaign had sought his advice — you actually let Obama’s people get away with accusing McCain of lying, merely because Raines wasn’t listed as an official adviser to the Obama campaign.

You would never tolerate such weasely nit-picking from a Republican.

If you who produce our local daily paper actually had any principles, you would be pounding this story, because the prosperity of all Americans was put at risk by the foolish, short-sighted, politically selfish, and possibly corrupt actions of leading Democrats, including Obama.

If you who produce our local daily paper had any personal honor, you would find it unbearable to let the American people believe that somehow Republicans were to blame for this crisis.

There are precedents. Even though President Bush and his administration never said that Iraq sponsored or was linked to 9/11, you could not stand the fact that Americans had that misapprehension — so you pounded us with the fact that there was no such link. (Along the way, you created the false impression that Bush had lied to them and said that there was a connection.)

If you had any principles, then surely right now, when the American people are set to blame President Bush and John McCain for a crisis they tried to prevent, and are actually shifting to approve of Barack Obama because of a crisis he helped cause, you would be laboring at least as hard to correct that false impression.

Your job, as journalists, is to tell the truth. That’s what you claim you do, when you accept people’s money to buy or subscribe to your paper.

But right now, you are consenting to or actively promoting a big fat lie — that the housing crisis should somehow be blamed on Bush, McCain, and the Republicans. You have trained the American people to blame everything bad — even bad weather — on Bush, and they are responding as you have taught them to.

If you had any personal honor, each reporter and editor would be insisting on telling the truth — even if it hurts the election chances of your favorite candidate.

Because that’s what honorable people do. Honest people tell the truth even when they don’t like the probable consequences. That’s what honesty means . That’s how trust is earned.

Barack Obama is just another politician, and not a very wise one. He has revealed his ignorance and naivete time after time — and you have swept it under the rug, treated it as nothing.

Meanwhile, you have participated in the borking of Sarah Palin, reporting savage attacks on her for the pregnancy of her unmarried daughter — while you ignored the story of John Edwards’s own adultery for many months.

So I ask you now: Do you have any standards at all? Do you even know what honesty means?

Is getting people to vote for Barack Obama so important that you will throw away everything that journalism is supposed to stand for?

You might want to remember the way the National Organization of Women threw away their integrity by supporting Bill Clinton despite his well-known pattern of sexual exploitation of powerless women. Who listens to NOW anymore? We know they stand for nothing; they have no principles.

That’s where you are right now.

It’s not too late. You know that if the situation were reversed, and the truth would damage McCain and help Obama, you would be moving heaven and earth to get the true story out there.

If you want to redeem your honor, you will swallow hard and make a list of all the stories you would print if it were McCain who had been getting money from Fannie Mae, McCain whose campaign had consulted with its discredited former CEO, McCain who had voted against tightening its lending practices.

Then you will print them, even though every one of those true stories will point the finger of blame at the reckless Democratic Party, which put our nation’s prosperity at risk so they could feel good about helping the poor, and lay a fair share of the blame at Obama’s door.

You will also tell the truth about John McCain: that he tried, as a Senator, to do what it took to prevent this crisis. You will tell the truth about President Bush: that his administration tried more than once to get Congress to regulate lending in a responsible way.

This was a Congress-caused crisis, beginning during the Clinton administration, with Democrats leading the way into the crisis and blocking every effort to get out of it in a timely fashion.

If you at our local daily newspaper continue to let Americans believe — and vote as if — President Bush and the Republicans caused the crisis, then you are joining in that lie.

If you do not tell the truth about the Democrats — including Barack Obama — and do so with the same energy you would use if the miscreants were Republicans — then you are not journalists by any standard.

You’re just the public relations machine of the Democratic Party, and it’s time you were all fired and real journalists brought in, so that we can actually have a news paper in our city.

 

2008 Proposition and Judicial Recommendations

I have been asked for recommendations for the judicial candidates and for recommendations for the Propositions for Los Angeles County for the November 4th election.

If you are interested in the recommendations of the San Fernando Valley Republican Club you can get them here.

For Craig Huey’s Christian Voting Guide, go here.

Technorati Tags: ,,,

Understanding Obama – Is He a Pathological Narcissist?

Understanding Obama – Is He a Pathological Narcissist?

Something to think about – does Barack Obama have a narcissistic personality disorder? I am not a psychologist or psychiatrist, so I don’t know. Watch this video and let me know what you think.

The author, Ali Sina (pseudonym), has written an article that one should consider. You can read it here.

Excerpt:

Who is Obama?

Obama is not an ordinary man. He is not a genius. In fact he is quite ignorant on most important subjects. Barack Obama is a narcissist. Dr. Sam Vaknin, the author of the Malignant Self Love, also believes, “Barack Obama appears to be a narcissist.”

Vaknin is a world authority on narcissism. He understands narcissism and describes the inner mind of a narcissist like no other person. When he talks about narcissism everyone listens. Vaknin says that Obama’s language, posture and demeanor, and the testimonies of his closest, dearest and nearest suggest that the Senator is either a narcissist or he may have narcissistic personality disorder (NPD).

Vaknin explains: “Narcissistic leaders are nefarious and their effects pernicious. They are subtle, refined, socially-adept, manipulative, possessed of thespian skills, and convincing. Both types [cerebral and somatic] equally lack empathy and are ruthless and relentless or driven.” These were the very traits that distinguished Hitler and Khomeini. Many of these traits can be seen in Obama. As for his ruthlessness, perhaps his support of legislation to let babies die if they survive abortion, gives a glimpse into his soul, that he may lacks empathy, does not value life, and if in the position of power can be ruthless. Narcissists need power to show their ruthlessness. Considering the fact that Obama neglected his own half brother, George Hussein Obama, who lives on one dollar per month in Kenya, we can’t vouch for Obama’s empathy or say he is a caring person.

It is a lengthy article, but has a lot of information that seems to me describes who Obama is.

I would like some professionals to weigh in on whether the author has raised issues of merit. Is Barack Obama pathologically narcissistic, as the article claims. The author defines pathological narcissism as follows:

Pathological narcissism, is not akin to typical narcissism—someone with a hedonistic or self-centered sense of self —but rather someone with a very weak sense of self. Obama’s narcissism is pathological.

Narcissists seek power. That is the whole purpose of their existence. Power for them is the elixir of life. Those who know about NPD can’t help but notice it in Obama’s posture, the tone of his voice, his demeanor and particularly his grandiose claims and unscripted adlibs.

Narcissim has degrees. When it is extreme it shows in the posture and the way the narcissist walks and talks. Obama’s posture, exudes haughtiness. He is all puffery. Compare his posture to those of Hitler, Stalin and Saddam.

According to Vaknin, Obama displays the following behaviors, which are among the hallmarks of pathological narcissism:

– Subtly misrepresents facts and expediently and opportunistically shifts positions, views, opinions, and “ideals” (e.g., about campaign finance, re-districting). These flip-flops do not cause him overt distress and are ego-syntonic (he feels justified in acting this way). Alternatively, refuses to commit to a standpoint and, in the process, evidences a lack of empathy.

– Ignores data that conflict with his fantasy world, or with his inflated and grandiose self-image. This has to do with magical thinking. Obama already sees himself as president because he is firmly convinced that his dreams, thoughts, and wishes affect reality. Additionally, he denies the gap between his fantasies and his modest or limited real-life achievements (for instance, in 12 years of academic career, he didn’t publish a single scholarly paper or book).

– Feels that he is above the law.

– Talks about himself in the 3rd person singular or uses the regal “we” and craves to be the exclusive center of attention, even adulation

– Has a messianic-cosmic vision of himself and his life and his “mission”.

– Sets ever more complex rules in a convoluted world of grandiose fantasies with its own language (jargon)

He lists several other reasons that he feels means that Obama is pathologically narcissistic.

The author thinks all Presidential candidates should take psychological evaluation examinations before running for office.

I present this here for evaluation by others. I have no idea if the author is accurate or not, but he seems to know what he is talking about.

 

Pinch Yourself

Melanie Phillips writes

You have to pinch yourself – a Marxisant radical who all his life has been mentored by, sat at the feet of, worshipped with, befriended, endorsed the philosophy of, funded and been in turn funded, politically promoted and supported by a nexus comprising black power anti-white racists, Jew-haters, revolutionary Marxists, unrepentant former terrorists and Chicago mobsters, is on the verge of becoming President of the United States. And apparently it’s considered impolite to say so.

It is just surreal. Read the whole article.