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.

 

Can Jews Afford To "Roll the Dice" on Obama?

Can Jews Afford To "Roll the Dice" on Obama?

Arnold Steinberg, writing in the Los Angeles Jewish Journal, states:

Obama is the largest recipient ever of campaign money from Fannie/Freddie, which generously supported mainly Democratic Fannie and Freddie defenders like Senate Finance Committee chair Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) and his House Financial Affairs Committee counterpart, Barney Frank. Frank resisted reform: “I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing.”

Do we now similarly “roll the dice” on the untested Obama? We do not know much about Obama. He portrays his community organizing as altruistic. In fact, he parlayed those community contacts into a political base.

Ambition is not bad. Own up to it. More to the point, Obama affiliated with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s church not because of its spirituality but because of its politics.

I cannot say Obama hates America or Jews, but Wright, in my opinion, hates both. That someone as bright and curious as Obama could attend Wright’s church for so many years, where his sermons were available on tape, and not know what Wright was/is about is implausible.

Obama used Wright and his church for political volunteers, voter registration and turnout then this year opportunistically discarded him. Obama succeeded as a go-along, get-along Chicago machine politician, not as an anti-establishment reformist.

Voters confuse Obama stagecraft with vision. He is articulate and confident but also glib and cocky. This is not a humble man who knows what he doesn’t know. This is someone who earlier this year dismissed Iran as a threat because it, unlike the former Soviet Union, is “a small country.”

The Soviets, precisely as a major power, acted rationally; the doctrine of mutually assured destruction deterred nuclear war. Iran has no such inhibitions, professor Obama: Such small rogue nations are temperamentally capable of a nuclear first strike.

Readers of this newspaper are interested in Israel. We know McCain is absolutely solid. Obama is, at best, evolving. For example, immediately after his American Israel Public Affairs Committee speech endorsing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, Obama abruptly reversed himself.

If Israel were under attack and its prime minister called the White House at the proverbial 3 a.m., who would you want at the other end of the line? If you’re for Obama for other reasons, that’s fine. But don’t say it’s because of his position on Israel.

Read the whole article. It states the case very well.