View From The British Media: Why Does Obama Hate America?

I’ve got to give the Brits credit for one thing. Their mass media isn’t afraid to tell it like it is. Whereas here in America our mass media is acting like Obama’s cheerleading squad, the Brits are not afraid to bring hard facts to the forefront and ask questions that would surely embarrass Obama.

Gerald Warner is one such journalist and penned the following column for the Telegraph back on April 24:

If al-Qaeda, the Taliban and the rest of the Looney Tunes brigade want to kick America to death, they had better move in quickly and grab a piece of the action before Barack Obama finishes the job himself. Never in the history of the United States has a president worked so actively against the interests of his own people – not even Jimmy Carter. Obama’s problem is that he does not know who the enemy is. To him, the enemy does not squat in caves in Waziristan, clutching automatic weapons and reciting the more militant verses from the Koran: instead, it sits around at tea parties in Kentucky quoting from the US Constitution. Obama is not at war with terrorists, but with his Republican fellow citizens. He has never abandoned the campaign trail. That is why he opened Pandora’s Box by publishing the Justice Department’s legal opinions on waterboarding and other hardline interrogation techniques. He cynically subordinated the national interest to his partisan desire to embarrass the Republicans. Then he had to rush to Langley, Virginia to try to reassure a demoralised CIA that had just discovered the President of the United States was an even more formidable foe than al-Qaeda. “Don’t be discouraged by what’s happened the last few weeks,” he told intelligence officers. Is he kidding? Thanks to him, al-Qaeda knows the private interrogation techniques available to the US intelligence agencies and can train its operatives to withstand them – or would do so, if they had not already been outlawed. So, next time a senior al-Qaeda hood is captured, all the CIA can do is ask him nicely if he would care to reveal when a major population centre is due to be hit by a terror spectacular, or which American city is about to be irradiated by a dirty bomb. Your view of this situation will be dictated by one simple criterion: whether or not you watched the people jumping from the twin towers. Obama promised his CIA audience that nobody would be prosecuted for past actions. That has already been contradicted by leftist groups with a revanchist ambition to put Republicans, headed if possible by Condoleezza Rice, in the dock. Talk about playing party politics with national security. Martin Scheinin, the United Nations special investigator for human rights, claims that senior figures, including former vice president Dick Cheney, could face prosecution overseas. Ponder that – once you have got over the difficulty of locating the United Nations and human rights within the same dimension. President Pantywaist Obama should have thought twice before sitting down to play poker with Dick Cheney. The former vice president believes documents have been selectively published and that releasing more will prove how effective the interrogation techniques were. Under Dubya’s administration, there was no further atrocity on American soil after 9/11. President Pantywaist’s recent world tour, cosying up to all the bad guys, excited the ambitions of America’s enemies. Here, they realised, is a sucker they can really take to the cleaners. His only enemies are fellow Americans. Which prompts the question: why does President Pantywaist hate America so badly?

If only American reporters had such courage and fortitude to stand up to the socialist Obama like that. But, they will never ask hard, reality-based questions of The One.

You can access the original column on-line here:

Barack Obama And The CIA: Why Does President Pantywaist Hate America So Badly?
Gerald Warner
Telegraph UK
April 24, 2009

Looking Deeper Into The Pirate Attack On MAERSK ALABAMA

In my post from yesterday, I wondered whether or not the Somali pirate attack on the U.S.-flagged MAERSK ALABAMA may have been a result of the pirates being emboldened by Obama’s various shows of weakness during his European tour.

Other are thinking exactly what I was thinking. An editorial from Investor’s Business Daily notes some interesting circumstances that we must not be dismissive of and what the consequences of any action by the Obama administration would be.

From the article:

At 7:30 a.m., 280 miles off the Somali coast, a gang of pirates attacked the U.S.-flagged Maersk Alabama carrying 17,000 tons of U.S. humanitarian aid to Kenya. It was the sixth ship hit since Saturday, but the first U.S.-flagged vessel hit since 1804. … It poses an important test for the new Obama administration, still not 100 days in power, and it’s critical the response be decisive. First, it’s likely the pirates knew it was an American ship, given the planning and firepower it takes to hit one 280 miles off the coast. If that’s so, then the attack had a political aspect, and the pirates wanted to show the U.S. as weak. Two, the pirates aren’t the only bad actors in that region. Terrorists will watch the U.S. response closely and adjust their calculations accordingly. Unlike the foreign affairs jaunts Obama has participated in, involving only talk, this incident will be judged by the concreteness of the response.

I know that somewhere along the line Obama said that he “had no patience” for those who blow up bombs for political ends, but those are simply words. I highly doubt that if Obama comes out and says that he “has no patience” with Somali pirates that the pirates will suddenly release their hostages and free all of the ships they captured.

Words do not deter criminals and terrorists. Effectively forceful responses do. Say what you want about President Bush, but you have to acknowledge the fact that there have been no terrorist attacks on U.S. soil since September 11, 2001. If the terrorists still hated us afterward, what stopped them from mounting anymore attacks? The effective use of force by the Bush administration, that’s what.

Obama’s response is one we must watch carefully. And here is why:

Precedent is worth noting. In 1993, with Bill Clinton’s presidency just beginning, Somali hoodlums also attacked and murdered American troops delivering aid to the indigent. They dragged the troops’ bodies through the streets and crowds cheered. Instead of making the barbarians pay, Clinton ordered American troops out. This alerted the region’s terrorists that Americans were easy to push around. One of these terrorists was Osama bin Laden. According to the 9/11 commission report, a bin Laden fatwa in 1996 praised the Somali attack because the U.S. “left the area carrying disappointment, humiliation, defeat and your dead with you.” The report goes on to say that bin Laden was behind the attacks on the American helicopters. Lawrence Wright, in “The Looming Tower,” noted that whether he was or not, he thought it important to claim credit.

Despite the fact that this pirate attack is ultimately a failure, it is a failure because of the fortitude and resourcefulness of the crew, not because of anything the Obama administration did. As of this writing, they still haven’t done anything in response. Pirates and terrorists around the world are not looking at the crew of MAERSK ALABAMA as a measure of risk for future attacks; they are looking at how the U.S. government will respond as their measure of risk.

IBD is right. This is the first real test of the resolve and mettle of the Obama administration. If Obama fails this test, it will be a major repeat of the first major international mistake of the Clinton administration.

And we all know exactly where that mistake led to.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Somali Pirates Lay Out Another Test
Investor’s Business Daily
April 8, 2009

Obama Makes Ridiculous Claim That Islam Has Shaped The World ‘For The Better’

Just what rock has Barack Obama been hiding under for the past 50 years? Where did he learn about Islam such that he would be so blind to the reality of a very hateful and intolerant religion?

According to Associated Press, Obama said the following to the Turks:

“America’s relationship with the Muslim world cannot and will not be based on opposition to al Qaida,” he said. “We seek broad engagement based upon mutual interests and mutual respect.”

“Mutual respect?” Since when has the Islamic world ever shown respect for America?

Since when have the loud speakers at Mecca ever said one, single respectful thing about the United States? The Muslim world has no respect for us at all and Obama is not going to change that by trying to “make nice” with people who have no intention of making nice in return.

They have shown nothing but disrespect and disdain for us. They celebrated when 19 of their brethren killed 3,000 innocent people on September 11, 2001.

More:

“We will convey our deep appreciation for the Islamic faith, which has done so much over so many centuries to shape the world for the better, including my own country,” Obama said.

“For the better?” Who in their right mind would ever say such a thing?

Is it “for the better” that women are treated like property and have massive restrictions placed on them? Is it “for the better” that the practitioners of Islam are completely intolerant towards other religions? Is it “for the better” that Muslim children are taught to hate non-Muslims from the day they are born?

Is it “for the better” that few, if any, Islamics have made any attempt at speaking out against those who support the following suras:

“O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.” (Sura 5, verse 51). “And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah DESTROY them; how they are turned away!” (Sura 9, verse 30). “And the Jews will not be pleased with you, nor the Christians until you follow their religion. Say: Surely Allah’s guidance, that is the (true) guidance. And if you follow their desires after the knowledge that has come to you, you shall have no guardian from Allah, nor any helper.” (Sura 2, verse 120). “And KILL them (the unbelievers) wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.” (Sura 2, verse 191). “Let not the believers take the unbelievers for friends rather than believers; and whoever does this, he shall have nothing of (the guardianship of) Allah, but you should guard yourselves against them, guarding carefully; and Allah makes you cautious of (retribution from) Himself; and to Allah is the eventual coming.” (Sura 3, verse 28). “And when you journey in the earth, there is no blame on you if you shorten the prayer, if you fear that those who disbelieve will cause you distress, surely the unbelievers are your open ENEMY.” (Sura 4, verse 101). “O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil).” (Sura 9, verse 123). “Surely We have prepared for the unbelievers chains and shackles and a burning fire.” (Sura 76, verse 4). “O you who believe! if you obey a party from among those who have been given the Book (The Jews and Christians), they will turn you back as unbelievers after you have believed.” (Sura 3, verse 100).

What does the Koran say about women? Will Obama go on record as saying that these things that Islamics teach their children about how women are to be regarded under Islamic law are “for the better?”

Here are some more excerpts from the Koran:

“Men are superior to women because Allah has made so. Therefore good women are obedient, and (as to) those (women) on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and BEAT them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.” (Sura 4, verse 34). “And as for those who are guilty of an indecency from among your women, call to witnesses against them, four (witnesses) from among you; then if they bear witness confine them to the houses until death takes them away or Allah opens some way for them.” (Sura 4, verse 15). “O you who believe! when you deal with each other in contracting a debt for a fixed time then call in to witness from among your men two witnesses; but if there are not two men, then one man and two women from among those whom you choose to be witnesses, so that if one of the two errs, the second of the two may remind the other.” (Sura 2, verse 282). “Your wives are a tilth (sexual toy) for you, so go into your tilth when you like, and do good beforehand for yourselves, and be careful (of your duty) to Allah, and know that you will meet Him, and give good news to the believers.” (Sura 2, verse 223). “O you who believe! do not go near prayer until you have washed yourselves; and if you have touched women, and you cannot find water, betake yourselves to pure earth, then wipe your faces and your hands; surely Allah is Pardoning, Forgiving.” (Sura 4, verse 43). “They ask you for a decision of the law. Say: Allah gives you a decision concerning the person who has neither parents nor offspring; if a man dies (and) he has no son and he has a sister, she shall have half of what he leaves, and he shall be her heir she has no son; but if there be two (sisters), they shall have two-thirds of what he leaves; and if there are brethren, men and women, then the male shall have the like of the portion of two females; Allah makes clear to you, lest you err; and Allah knows all things.” (Sura 4, verse 176).

But, according to Obama, all this abusive misteatment of women is “for the better,” right?

I know that some of you moral relativists out there are going to say that similar verses appear in Judeo-Christian religious texts. That is correct, but few, if any Jews or Christians are actively trying to apply those writings to the real word the way the majority of Muslims seem to be doing.

The big difference between Islam and Judeo-Christianity is that Jews and Christians have been enlightened over the years by actively seeking knowledge outside of the church. Muslims seem to be stuck in the 7th Century.

As a case in point, Iran recently passed a law making it a capital crime to be anything other than Muslim in Iran.

Was there any outrage at all from the Muslim community over this? No. I don’t remember hearing one little peep out of any of them.

You can access the complete news story on-line here:

Obama Tells Turkey: U.S. ‘Not At War With Islam’
Associated Press via MSNBC
April 7, 2009

Gitmo Prisoners Defend ‘Blessed’ 9/11 Attack

Read this one carefully. Understand that terrorists like these five are the people that Barack Obama wants to defend with civil rights. Terrorists like this are people that liberals want to set free. Terrorists like this are the people that leftists all over the world claim are simply “misunderstood.”

From CNN:

Five Guantanamo prisoners accused in the September 11, 2001, terror attacks on the U.S. staunchly defended their actions, calling the operation “blessed” and “great” and the accusations against them “badges of honor.” … The military commission set up to hear the men’s cases at the Guantanamo Bay inmate facility received the signed document Thursday, and a military judge ordered its release on Monday. The five are members of the al Qaeda terror network. Mohammed, who has taken credit for planning the attack, and the four other prisoners call themselves members of the 9/11 Shura Council. “With regards to these nine accusations that you are putting us on trial for; to us, they are not accusations. To us they are badges of honor, which we carry with pride. Many thanks to God, for his kind gesture, and choosing us to perform the act of Jihad for his cause and to defend Islam and Muslims,” the response stated.

And Barack Obama thinks that people like this can be negotiated with?

More:

Quranic verses were cited in the filing, and the men underscored their defense of “oppressed” Muslims. “Our religion is a religion of fear and terror to the enemies of God: the Jews, Christians and pagans. With God’s willing, we are terrorists to the bone.” … “We ask from God to accept our contributions to the great attack, the great attack on America, and to place our nineteen martyred brethren among the highest peak in paradise,” the response said, in reference to the al Qaeda militants who hijacked the airplanes that crashed into the World Trade Center’s twin towers in New York, the Pentagon in Washington, and a field in Pennsylvania.

Would any leftist libs out there care to explain why you all are so hot on defending and/or releasing terrorists like these five? Or maybe you can explain why Barack Obama thinks that the Taliban can be reasoned with?

You can access the complete story on-line here:

Gitmo Prisoners Defend ‘Blessed’ 9/11 Attack
CNN
March 10, 2009

A Look At What Joe Biden Meant Last Sunday And Democrats Resorting To Violence

Joe Biden let slip some very important information last Sunday when he spoke about how Obama would be tested in his first six months of his presidency and that his decisions would be unpopular with the American people.

Well, what would those situations be? And what decisions would be made?

Herb Denenberg of The Bulletin looks at that in his most recent column:

Why would they test his mettle? This was unsaid, but you test someone’s mettle when you don’t know what he’s made of or when you suspect he’s weak and you want to start testing for weakness. But here’s why Sen. Biden is wrong on the world testing Sen. Obama’s mettle. No one has to test his mettle. They know he is weak on foreign policy, and has a heavy tinge of appeasement, retreat, defeat, and surrender – as does the Democratic Party, which nominated him. Our enemies already knows Sen. Obama is weak and soft, as is his party, so our enemies will just proceed with their plans for terrorism and aggression. Why would the Russians want to test his mettle? They saw what he is made of by his reaction to the Russian invasion of Georgia. First, Sen. Obama called for restraint on both sides. So the Russians know, that in the face of aggression, instead of taking a firm stand with an ally and innocent victim, Sen. Obama calls for restraint on the part of the victim being invaded. Why test someone who has so clearly flunked his exam? Then the Russians heard Sen. Obama suggest the matter be sent to the Security Council. The Russians now know he is so wet behind the ears on foreign policy that he doesn’t even know the Russians have a veto in the Security Council and could make sure nothing happened there. Then the Russians heard Sen. Obama observe that we’d be in a better position to complain about this aggression if we set a good example ourselves. So the Russians know he equates their illegal, unprovoked aggression against Georgia with America’s legal, U.N.-sanctioned liberation of Iraq from the murderous Saddam Hussein, the butcher of Baghdad. This tells the Russians he doesn’t approve of America using armed force to defend its national interests and he doesn’t have the sense to refrain from criticizing his own country in a time of international crisis.

And on Iran, Obama is known for this:

The Iranians would lose no time in attacking one of their neighbors, most likely Israel. Perhaps by then armed with nuclear weapons, they would use them on a neighbor, or threaten to blackmail a neighbor or perhaps even a continent such as Europe, if certain concessions were not forthcoming. Obama would call for restraint, and assure the American people again, as he has already done, that Iran is a tiny country and not a real threat to the U.S. The Iranians know he said this while they were killing American troops in Iraq, sending terrorists and weapons into Iraq and serving as the headquarters of international terrorism. The Iranians know what others have already said – Sen. Obama is a Jimmy-Carter type, only worse. They know how President Carter locked himself in the White House and did not face down international lawlessness after the Iranian took American hostages at our embassy in Teheran. Why test his mettle, when his record suggests an enemy of America can invade, attack, and terrorize with impunity. Remember his reaction to 9/11 – the typical liberal, leftist response. We’ve got to understand why they did such a terrible thing. Anyone with good judgment would say we’ve got to kill and defeat all those responsible for this mass murder. When Pastor Rick Warren asked him what he would do about evil, he danced around like a confused college professor. When Sen. McCain was asked the same question, he said, without hesitation, you defeat it. Terrorists would be aware of Sen. Obama’s reaction to the first bombing of the World Trade Center. He said you handle it with the legal system and prosecute wrongdoers. I’m sure al-Qaeda is trembling waiting for a grand jury and indictments from Obama? Will that really deter terrorists or just give them a fat laugh? Like Obama, President Clinton believed in the law enforcement approach to terrorism, and that mistake led directly to 9/11.

And Biden should know what it means to be wrong on foreign policy issues. He has made more than his share of mistakes along the way:

Our enemies know how naïve Sen. Obama is on foreign policy, as they know he announced to the world that if he knew where Osama bin Laden was and if he were in Pakistan, he would strike him without permission of that country. Sen. Kit Bond, an intelligence expert whose comments will be discussed in more detail later, says Sen. Obama “doesn’t understand how dangerous it would be to destabilize Pakistan and allow their radical fringes to take over.” His outburst on this subject betrays a lack of understanding on how to deal with a present ally in a most precarious position. And all the axis of evil would be emboldened knowing that Sen. Obama’s key adviser on foreign policy would likely be Sen. Biden, who has a record of being wrong and often weak on almost all questions of foreign policy. Consider a few of his hare-brained judgments: * After Iraq invaded Kuwait, Sen. Biden opposed the first war against Iraq. He apparently was willing to cede the entire Middle East and all of its oil to Saddam Hussein. * Before Sen. McCain succeeded in turning the tide toward American victory in Iraq, Sen. Biden wanted to break Iraq into a group of separate nations that would include a Sunni state, a Shia state and a Kurdish state.

And finally this:

Sen. Bond summarized the whole Obama approach: “He [Obama] dismisses the threat, rewards enemies with summit meetings, abandons allies and then refuses to support trade agreements with vital allies like Colombia, who are fighting off the narco-terrorists.”

It will not look good for the United States if Barack Obama gets into the White House. He will invite attacks against innocent Americans and then refuse to effectively respond to those attacks which will, in turn, invite more attacks.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Obama Would Weaken, Destroy American Defenses And Bring Challenges
Herb Denenberg
The Bulletin
October 22, 2008

---

And here is a news story you will never see in the MSM unless the politcal affiliations were reversed. from Pajames Media:

While the Democrat-leaning media continues to scare undecided voters with bedtime stories about some mythical angry McCain supporter whom nobody has seen, here is a real district attorney’s complaint documenting an unprovoked assault by an enraged Democrat against a McCain volunteer in midtown Manhattan: “Defendant grabbed the sign [informant] was holding, broke the wood stick that was attached to it, and then struck informant in informant’s face thereby causing informant to sustain redness, swelling, and bruising to informant’s face and further causing informant to sustain substantial pain.”

The overly formal document doesn’t mention this important detail: the victim was a small, quiet, middle-aged woman wearing glasses, and the attacker was a loud, angry man who went into orbit at the mere sight of McCain campaign signs. On a Monday afternoon, September 15, 2008, three McCain volunteers were holding campaign signs and distributing leaflets on a busy corner of 51st Street and Lexington Avenue. As they were peacefully talking to each other, they were approached by a man who, in the words of the victim, provided the impression of “a rather benign, doughy-looking guy — not a person I would have expected to assault me.”

Here is a picture of the attacker:

You can access the complete blog entry on-line here:

Obama Supporter Assaults Female McCain Volunteer in New York
Pajamamedia.com
October 17, 2008