Obama

Where Are the Anti-War Protesters? ~ Ohhhh, They’re Partisen

Published by Papa Giorgio

My first uploaded YouTube video (April 2007)

  • Evan Coyne Maloney is the man… He uses the Socratic method to show just how shallow these anti-war protestors are in their knowledge. (From: http://www.brain-terminal.com/ )

This comes by way of both Twitchy AND the American Thinker:

A clarifying moment in the history of the far left. Since 2009, the US has gone to war in Libya, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and the odd military action in Nigeria – all without specific congressional authorization And yet, the anti-war movement – who never met a policy by President Bush that they didn’t turn out in massive numbers to protest – has remained dead silent in the face of a massive expansion of another war in Iraq (or maybe it’s the same one) and Syria.

The Boston Herald’s Howie Carr noticed this too:

It’s all very confusing. When George W. Bush considered invading Iraq without a declaration of war, the Democrats wanted to try him for war crimes in The Hague. When Obama does the same thing … crickets.

Which raises another question: Where exactly is the anti-war movement?

Have you see a single “No Blood for Oil” sign in Cambridge?

To paraphrase the John Kerry of 2004: “Can I get me a candlelight vigil here?”

Whatever happened to Cindy Sheehan? Where is Code Pink? I haven’t seen an “EndLESS War” bumper sticker in years, since 2009 to be exact.

The anti-war movement is MIA as this war, er counter­terrorism operation, begins. Back when Bush was waging war, dissent was the highest form of patriotism. Now it’s “racism.” If you speak truth to power in the Obama era, they call it hate speech. The IRS will audit you.

[….]

Gee – could it be that the anti-war movement is just another partisan creation of the Democratic party? Looks that way.

[….]

With no lefty media calling for protests, there probably won’t be any. Even the anarchists and commies are silent. It’s a phenomenon that proves the shocking level of hypocrisy and partisanship inherent in any leftist protest movement, but especially the anti-war crowd.

[….]

The anti-war movement is MIA as this war, er counter­terrorism operation, begins. Back when Bush was waging war, dissent was the highest form of patriotism. Now it’s “racism.” If you speak truth to power in the Obama era, they call it hate speech. The IRS will audit you.

Obama’s media sycophants described his prime-time speech as “nuanced.” I’d call it ragtime.

I thought the moonbats didn’t want the U.S. “going it alone.” You hear that phrase on the networks now about as often as you hear the words “full employment.”

And why is the president so outraged about a couple of beheadings? When a Muslim terrorist yelling “Allahu akbar!” murdered 13 servicemen at Fort Hood, Obama shrugged it off as “workplace violence.”

Now Obama’s suddenly “all wee-wee’ed up” about non-Muslim Muslims murdering Americans.

Flag-draped coffins at Dover AFB are no longer a feature of the nightly news. Remember Wolf Blitzer’s nightly trumpeting of Bush’s plummeting approval ratings?

Now the polls are so bleak for the Kenyan Katastrophe, CNN doesn’t even mention them anymore. I’m surprised they ran the Kerry soundbite even once about how we’re not really at war against SIS, or is it SIL?

Can I get me a “War Is Not the Answer” bumper sticker here? Not in Cambridge I can’t.

Someone Told Me Sarcastically That “Obama Killed Jesus.” Did He?

Published by Papa Giorgio

Someone on my YOUTUBE jokingly or sarcastically said: “Obama Killed Jesus.” (More at Is Barack Obama the Messiah?)

He is provocative in insisting on an outstretched hand, where others only see animosity.

His tangible results in the short time that he has been active – are few and far between. His greatest results have been created with words and speeches – words that remain in the consciousness of their audience and have long-term effects.

He comes from humble beginnings and defends the weak and vulnerable, because he can identify himself with their conditions.

And no we are not thinking of Jesus Christ, whose birthday has just been celebrated – – but rather the President of the United States Barack Hussein Obama. […]

If such a comparison were to be made, it would, of course, inevitably be to Obama’s advantage.
Today, his historic Health Reform is being passed through the American Senate – a welfare policy breakthrough that several of his predecessors have been unable to manage. […]

On the other hand, we have Jesus’ miracles that everyone still remembers, but which only benefitted a few.

Obama is, of course, greater than Jesus – if we have to play that absurd Christmas game. But it is probably more meaningful to insist that with today’s domestic triumph, that he has already assured himself a place in the history books – a space he has good chances of expanding considerably in coming years.

Source: “Obama greater than Jesus” Politiken Editorial [Denmark] December 29, 2009. 

Which I responded to thus:

He did in a sense that he and many others sit in a pew for twenty years that teach a post-modern culturally Marxist Jesus… with sermons sold in the church’s bookstore (the entire twenty years Obama attended) by Farrakhan. Remember, he is the guy who said was taken up in a UFO and told by Jesus and Elijah Muhammad that he was the little messiah. He sermonized ideas like Yakub (the crazy scientist) creating the white man [aka, the Devil] on the island of Cypruss 6,600 years ago. That blacks alone are the true Jewish descendant and that white’s are lying who say they are Jewish. Books in that same church book store that said this:

“It is dangerous because the true prophet of the gospel of God must become both ‘anti-Christian’ and ‘unpatriotic.’ (55) …. Because whiteness by its very nature is against blackness, the black prophet is a prophet of national doom. He proclaims the end of the ‘American Way…'” (56)

“… it is that whites are incapable of making any valid judgment about human existence. The goal of black theology is the destruction of everything white, so that blacks can be liberated from alien gods. The God of black liberation will not be confused with a blood’ thirsty white idol. Black theology must show that the black God has nothing to do with the God worshiped in white churches whose primary purpose is to sanctify the racism of whites and to daub the wounds of blacks. Putting new wine in new wineskins means that the black theology view of God has nothing in common with those who prayed for an American victory in Vietnam or who pray for a “cool” summer in the ghetto…. There is no place in black theology for a colorless God in a society where human beings suffer precisely because of their color. The black theologian must reject any conception of God which stifles black self-determination by picturing God as a God of all peoples. Either God is identified with the oppressed to the point that their experience becomes God’s experience, or God is a God of racism…. Because God has made the goal of blacks God’s own goal, black theology believes that it is not only appropriate but necessary to begin the doctrine of God with an insistence on God’s blackness.” (62-63)

Contrasting evil theologies/ideologies

“The personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew.” ~ Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

  • The goal of black theology is the destruction of everything white, so that blacks can be liberated from alien gods. (Book from Obama’s Church’s bookstore) ~ A Black Theology of Liberation, James Cone, p.62
  • White religionists are not capable of perceiving the blackness of God, because their satanic whiteness is a denial of the very essence of divinity. That is why whites are finding and will continue to find the black experience a disturbing reality. (Book from Obama’s Church’s bookstore) ~ A Black Theology of Liberation, James Cone, p.64

“I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.” ~ Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

  • There is no place in black theology for a colorless God in a society where human beings suffer precisely because of their color. The black theologian must reject any conception of God which stifles black self-determination by picturing God as a God of all peoples. (Book from Obama’s Church’s bookstore) ~ A Black Theology of Liberation, James Cone, p.63
  • Christianity is not alien to Black Power, Christianity is Black Power. (Book from Obama’s Church’s bookstore) ~ Black Theology & Black Power, James Cone, p.38
  • In contrast to this racist view of God, black theology proclaims God’s blackness. Those who want to know who God is and what God is doing must know who black persons are and what they are doing. (Book from Obama’s Church’s bookstore) ~ A Black Theology of Liberation, James Cone, p.65

“The [Nazi party] should not become a constable of public opinion, but must dominate it. It must not become a servant of the masses, but their master!” ~ Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

  • These new theologians of the “Third World” argue that Christians [liberation theology accepting Christians] should not shun violence but should initiate it… (Book from Obama’s Church’s bookstore) ~ Black Theology & Black Power, James Cone, p.32
  • It is important to make a further distinction here among black hatred, black racism, and Black Power. Black hatred is the black man’s strong aversion to white society. No black man living in white America can escape it. (Book from Obama’s Church’s bookstore) ~ Black Theology & Black Power, James Cone, p.14
  • It is this fact that makes all white churches anti-Christian in their essence. To be Christian is to be one of those whom God has chosen. God has chosen black people! (Book from Obama’s Church’s bookstore) ~ Black Theology & Black Power, James Cone, p.151
  • It [black liberation theology] is dangerous because the true prophet of the gospel of God must become both “anti-Christian” and “unpatriotic.”…. Because whiteness by its very nature is against blackness, the black prophet is a prophet of national doom. He proclaims the end of the “American Way,”… (Book from Obama’s Church’s bookstore) ~ A Black Theology of Liberation, James Cone, p.55-56

While reading these books cover-to-cover I also noted that Louise Farrakhan was given a lifetime achievement award at Obama’s church. Not only that though, but Farrakhan was given three cover spreads on the church’s magazine, the Trumpet. One of those his face shot put alongside Obama as well as Elijah Muhammad, the second leader of the Nation of Islam. His [Elijah Muhammad’s] many books are sold by the Nation of Islam not to mention being taught by Louise Farrakhan as theological doctrine. Since Obama’s church gave such a prestigious award to the current leader of the Nation of Islam, whom Obama’s pastor was a part of in his younger years, let us see what some of these books they tout say as well:

It is due to your ignorance of God, or you are one deceived by the devil, whose nature is to mislead you in the knowledge of God. You originally came from the God of Righteousness and have the opportunity to return, while the devils are from the man devil (Yakub) who has ruled the world for the past 6,000 years under falsehood, labeled under the name of God and His prophets.

So Obama did kill Jesus in one sense… but so do millions of adherents to cults.

White House Says Not At War With Barbarians/Terrorists…

Published by Papa Giorgio

[sarcasm]… good to know.[/sarcasm]

Via Business Insider:

The White House is insisting the U.S. is not at war with the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, despite an aggressive air campaign and previously labeling the jihadist group an “imminent threat to every interest we have.” 

“Before getting into the strategy though, there seems [to be] a fundamental, existential question: Is the United States presently at war with ISIS, yes or no?” MSNBC host Chris Hayes asked President Barack Obama’s top spokesman, White House press secretary Josh Earnest, on Thursday night.

Earnest went with “no.”

“No, Chris. What we are doing is we are working very aggressively with international partners, with Iraqi and Kurdish security forces, to take the steps necessary to mitigate the threat that’s posed by ISIL,” he responded.

The interview was part of a series of television appearances for Earnest on Thursday and Friday after Obama stumbled and said “we don’t have a strategy yet” for dealing with the Islamic State in Syria. Earnest insisted Obama actually has a “comprehensive strategy” even as critics slam the administration for not articulating a more forceful foreign policy vision for the region….

Erin Burnett (CNN) Gets Smacked Down by Paul Bremer

Published by Papa Giorgio

Larry Elder (and Paul Bremer) dismantle older as well as new mantras flying around via our friends on the left. In the interview that is the centerpiece of the segment[s] here via Larry Elder, Erin “Monkey” Burnett gets all of her talking points smacked down. The only thing Miss Burnett accomplished was showing her bias/sarcasm well.

Obama Took Credit BEFORE He Was Against Taking Credit

Published by Papa Giorgio

Obama is SUCH a joke! HotAir has this:

….A dandy little edit here by the Free Beacon, via Ace. I know I’ve linked it before but the piece you want to read as accompaniment is Iraq hawk turned dove Peter Beinart lamenting all the ways Obama screwed up post-Bush American policy in the country. O wants you to believe at the end of the video here that he pushed hard to keep a residual American force inside Iraq for counterterrorism (i.e. counter-ISIS) operations but it’s simply not true. He didn’t push hard for it; when Maliki initially resisted his demand that U.S. troops be granted immunity from prosecution in Iraqi courts, O took that as his cue to pull everyone out. And that wasn’t the only time he indulged Maliki’s dumbest impulses. The story of the U.S. vis-a-vis Iraq after 2009, writes Beinart, is a story of disinterest and disengagement:

The decline of U.S. leverage in Iraq simply reinforced the attitude Obama had held since 2009: Let Maliki do whatever he wants so long as he keeps Iraq off the front page.

On December 12, 2011, just days before the final U.S. troops departed Iraq, Maliki visited the White House. According to Nasr, he told Obama that Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi, an Iraqiya leader and the highest-ranking Sunni in his government, supported terrorism. Maliki, argues Nasr, was testing Obama, probing to see how the U.S. would react if he began cleansing his government of Sunnis. Obama replied that it was a domestic Iraqi affair. After the meeting, Nasr claims, Maliki told aides, “See! The Americans don’t care.”

In public remarks after the meeting, Obama praised Maliki for leading “Iraq’s most inclusive government yet.” Iraq’s Deputy Prime Minister, Saleh al-Mutlaq, another Sunni, told CNN he was “shocked” by the president’s comments. “There will be a day,” he predicted, “whereby the Americans will realize that they were deceived by al-Maliki … and they will regret that.”

And now the day has come. Remember that the next time O walks out to the podium and acts indignant about Maliki clinging to power.

One more bit, this from Dexter Filkins, on just how much of a fight O put up in demanding a residual troop presence:

President Obama, too, was ambivalent about retaining even a small force in Iraq. For several months, American officials told me, they were unable to answer basic questions in meetings with Iraqis—like how many troops they wanted to leave behind—because the Administration had not decided. “We got no guidance from the White House,” Jeffrey told me. “We didn’t know where the President was. Maliki kept saying, ‘I don’t know what I have to sell.’ ” At one meeting, Maliki said that he was willing to sign an executive agreement granting the soldiers permission to stay, if he didn’t have to persuade the parliament to accept immunity. The Obama Administration quickly rejected the idea. “The American attitude was: Let’s get out of here as quickly as possible,” Sami al-Askari, the Iraqi member of parliament, said…

(read more)

(Still the Lynn University campus debate via WaPo)

  • Romney: “With regards to Iraq, you and I agreed, I believe, that there should be a status of forces agreement,”
  • Obama: “That’s not true,”
  • Romney: “Oh, you didn’t want a status of forces agreement?”
  • Obama: “No,” … “What I would not have done is left 10,000 troops in Iraq that would tie us down. That certainly would not help us in the Middle East.”

Some other things Mitt got right and “O” didn’t:

The Best & Worst Presidents Since WWII ~ Media Spin

Published by Papa Giorgio

Muslims buck the tide, Via Politico, h/t Drudge:

President Barack Obama’s approval rating is higher among Muslims than any other religious group, a new poll says.

According to a Gallup poll released Friday that tracked responses for the first six months of 2014, 72 percent of Muslims said they approve of the president, compared with just 20 percent who disapprove.

Mormons were the least approving religious group, with 18 percent of Mormons approving and 78 percent disapproving of the president. Mormons in the past have ranked as the most conservative major religious group in the U.S.

The survey underscores a religious divide when it comes to presidential approval — Obama is more popular among non-Christians and less popular among Christians.

Those who classify as “Other non-Christian” gave the president a 59 percent approval rating, while Jewish Americans gave Obama a 55 percent approval rating and atheists or those who subscribe to no religion have a 54 percent approval rating.

Catholics, on the other hand, have only a 44 percent approval rating of Obama, compared with 51 percent disapproval. Protestants and other Christians are more critical, with 37 percent approving and 58 percent disapproving….

In fact, a poll the left (ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, and the like) was VERY vocal about was President Bush [43] getting top grades in this poll. Now, I don’t hear a peep from NEWS (yeah right) organizations.

(Breitbart) The winner of America’s best president since World War II is Ronald Reagan, who beat second and third place combined. A full 35% of voters chose Reagan. Bill Clinton and John Kennedy won 18% and 15%, respectively. Obama only received 8% in the best presidents poll.

Col. Allen West says this in his rightly title post, “Racist poll shows Obama is worst president since WWII”

Did you all hear the latest? A new undeniably racist poll from Quinnipiac University shows people think Barack Hussein Obama, the first black president — actually the first half black president — is the worst president since World War II.

Well, you can be certain the NAACP, National Urban League, Congressional Black Caucus, MSNBC, and other liberal progressive media outlets will decry this as proof that America is still a racist nation. We simply don’t want to accept the “hope and change” of their self-proclaimed progressive socialist messiah.

(Washington Times) …Quinnipiac found 45 percent of voters say the country would have been better off if Mr. Romney had been elected, while just 38 percent say Mr. Obama remains a better choice. Even Democrats aren’t so sure — just 74 percent of them told the pollsters Mr. Obama was clearly the better pick in the last election.

Voters also rated the man who swept into office in 2009 with a promise of “hope and change” as worse than even his predecessor, Republican President George W. Bush, who left office with terrible approval ratings.

“Over the span of 69 years of American history and 12 presidencies, President Barack Obama finds himself with President George W. Bush at the bottom of the popularity barrel,” said Tim Malloy, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll….

Here are some examples from the biased media for comparison:

  • On January 22, 2006, the late Tim Russert asked then-Senator Obama, “Will George Bush be considered one of the worst presidents in history?”
  • On May 21, 2006, ABC’s George Stephanopoulos profiled then-Senator John Edwards. He wondered, “You’ve also said the President is the worst President of our lifetime…Worse than Richard Nixon?”
  • On Wednesday, MSNBC downplayed the bad news for Obama. Chuck Todd dismissed, “These great and worst lists, they’re terrible…because they always reflect the moment in time.” Yet, in 2006, the same network hyped a “devistating” poll finding the same result for George W. Bush.

(NewsBusters)