Methinks he’s forgetting that the only real way to gain someone’s respect – real respect – is not to cower in front of a bully who will merely abuse you, but rather stand up to them, show real strength of conviction, and stand independent and free. No one will ever truly respect you when they know they can walk all over you. It’s the first thing any woman learns when they finally, truly understand what it means to be in a healthy relationship. You know what? It applies just as much to international relations as it does romantic relations.
The capitulation of our freedoms will never get the “international community” to “like us more” or “respect us more”. It’ll merely give our enemies the tools they need to win the ideological world war we’re currently embroiled in between Islamic extremist dictators and the free world. When someone considers you an Infidel who is absolutely deserving of death, there’s absolutely no way to gain their respect, besides just kneeling and offering them your neck. But that’s hardly a form of respect I think we should be aiming for, do you?
You want to know the real reason why the people – the people – of the Middle East don’t respect America right now? This is a perfect example: we’re partnering with EGYPT to curtail freedom of speech. When you get in bed with dictators, the world doesn’t look at you the same way in the morning. And it’s not good.
The White House was caught with its hand in the proverbial cookie jar when a brave artist dared to record what was thought to be a private phone conference between devoted Obama followers who had been instrumental in securing Obama’s campaign for the presidency.
Patrick Courrielche, an artist, producer, and contributer to Breitbart’s Big Hollywood, received a series of emails in early August from the National Endowment for the Arts, inviting him to participating in a “brand new discussion” between the NEA, the White House, several political organizations, and several select artists, producers, writers, actors, poets, gallery owners, influential individuals, and “cool people”, to discuss how the art community can best come together in order to “push the President, his administration, and his agenda.”
Yes, you read that right. The White House has directed the National Endowment for the Arts to bring together a coalition of artists and culturally influential individuals in order to produce creative works that will help push the President’s agenda.
I believe the dictionary would define such state-initiated works as “propaganda”.
But it didn’t stop there. Indeed, during the conversation, both the officials from the NEA and the White House specifically requested that the artists focus on several of Obama’s key platform issues, including health care, energy, and the environment. And just in case there’s any question as to the ideology they hoped this artwork would reflect, they specifically mentioned Shepard Fairey’s iconic ‘Hope’ poster and will.i.am’s “Yes We Can” song as examples of what they were hoping the artists could achieve. Yeah, they weren’t exactly hoping for bipartisan messages of patriotism.
Thankfully, when Mr. Courrielche received these emails, something didn’t feel quite right about this whole prospect. So when he joined in on the phone conference, he had his iPhone ready to record the entire conversation. If it hadn’t been for his bravery, this likely would have remained buried.
But the funniest part is, despite having an absolute record of each email and a complete audio recording of the entire conversation, the lead official from the NEA in this project, Yosi Sergant, is actually daring to deny any involvement in the project. But he doesn’t stop there; indeed, he’s trying to deny the project’s very existence. That’s a bit of a stretch, considering the fact that Mr. Sergant’s voice is heard throughout the entire recording, with him going so far as to even voice caution to the participants about being careful with their language, as they’re still ironing out certain legalities. Meaning, they know full well what they’re doing is crossing not only ethical boundaries, but legal ones as well.
Good luck denying all that, Mr. Sergant. You’re gonna need it.
I don’t have much time, as I’m trying to publish three quick posts here before heading off to bed, so I don’t have the best links and resources available for you yet. So please bear with me. But I simply had to post information about this for those of you who may have missed all the hubbub about this today. When I told a friend about this, their first response was, “What? You’ve got to be kidding, this has to be some sort of YouTube hoax, right?” That convinced me I couldn’t wait to post this.
Anyway, the best place to start is probably Mr. Courrielche blog entry that started it all. It’s a bit long, and unfortunately he doesn’t have the audio posted with it, but it’s well worth a read. Click here to check it out.
As I said, unfortunately Mr. Courrielche hasn’t posted the recording on his blog yet, at least not as far as I’ve been able to find. I did manage to find a YouTube clip of an interview Mr. Courrielche gave to the Glenn Beck program. I know, I’m sorry I’m posting a link to Glenn Beck, I’m sure that will probably offend or upset some of my more moderate readers. Please, put aside your feelings about Mr. Beck, because Mr. Courrielche does a brilliant job of explaining the situation quite concisely. But most importantly, it features audio clips of the actual conversation.
I know there are more audio clips out there from the original recording, since I heard several on the news program where I first heard about this. Again, apologies for not having those ready, I’ve really got to get some sleep. I’ll do some more searching on this tomorrow and post more links as soon as I can.
Word surfaced over this past weekend about a book that’s recently been added to the Department of Veterans Affairs’ list of publications to be distributed to veterans, despite the fact it was deliberately removed several years ago due to material that the leaders of the VA deemed objectionable. Now that we have a new administration in town, apparently even though they haven’t seen fit to fill more than half of the vacant presidential appointments, someone thought it urgent that this book be reinstated. Someone has great priorities.
If you haven’t yet seen the book, you need to read it. Then you might understand why I’m a bit miffed about this.
The book is called ‘Your Life, Your Choices’ – a title which seems strangely apt given the recent debate over government-run health care. While normally such a title should be appealing to me, the content is absolutely disgusting, in my opinion. The reason for my disgust?
It’s an end of life planning counseling book written by Dr. Robert Pearlman, a major proponent of assisted suicide. In fact, Dr. Pearlman has testified repeatedly in multiple court cases wherein he advocated for physician-assisted suicide.
Brilliant. Just who I’d want to get compassionate, sensitive, and humane guidance from about how to make the most out of my life and maintain my dignity, no matter what physical condition I might find myself in.
I have to admit, I was not able to read the entire book. It was just too emotional for me, and I’ll explain why in a minute. But first, I want to give you a sampling of what the book has to offer: a checklist of ways to tell if your life has devolved to the point where you might want to consider that maybe it’s just not worth living anymore. At least, according to Dr. Pearlman.
You know what I noticed first? The options. Nowhere is there an option where you can provide an answer that life is more than just “difficult, but acceptable”, but actually valid, enjoyable, dignified, engaging, and valued. That tells you a helluva lot, doesn’t it? What do you think that says to the veteran who’s reading it?
Let me tell you the second thing I noticed. Out of the 18 direct questions, I qualify for at least 11 of them, maybe 12. According to this book, I’d be a more than valid candidate for assisted-suicide. According to them, my life – at best – is “difficult, but acceptable”.
I’m only 24 years old.
Does that mean my life isn’t worth living? Does that mean my life isn’t dignified? Does that mean my life is “difficult, but acceptable”, or “worth living, but just barely”? Does that mean as a human being, I’m not to be valued as much as someone with an able body? Does that mean that I should just roll over and die because life didn’t turn out the way I thought it would?
I’m sorry, but I refuse to see if that way. I find it disgusting and so incredibly offensive that this book doesn’t even begin to recognize the value of every life, able, disabled, or otherwise. I’ve been seriously ill for over half of my life, and yet I’ve been able to contribute in ways most able-bodied people never do. Yet according to the words of this booklet, handed out to veterans by the VA, I rate just barely beyond “acceptable”.
I find this so far beyond deplorable that I don’t have words adequate enough to express my outrage. Some are calling this a “death book.” I certainly wouldn’t go that far or be that trite about it. But I would call it an absolutely appalling example of outright prejudice against the disabled. To devalue any human being should be outrageous to all of us. Because the minute we can devalue someone is the minute we can devalue anyone.
Veterans don’t need to be told that their lives are only barely acceptable if they’ve been injured or suddenly find themselves severely ill. They need to be encouraged, uplifted, loved, and reminded that they can overcome the challenges and obstacles they face, ultimately becoming stronger in ways they may not have previously imagined. I know I have. Sure, life isn’t always easy, but is it ever easy for anyone? Sure, I’ve had to deal with a lot of pain. But I’ve learned and grown as a person because of it. Those veterans can too.
But they won’t, if they’re told by our government that they can’t, that their lives are now worthless, and that they might as well just give up. We can’t devalue them this way, we can’t disrespect their humanity, we can’t just dismiss them. Just like we shouldn’t dismiss anyone with a disability, whether seen or unseen. We’re all human, we’re all born with different abilities, and throughout our lives, those abilities will surely change and transform. But we are all still human and we are all still deserving of the same rights, respect, and validation. How dare the VA even begin to say otherwise.
One final thought; this is how our government is treating our veterans’, how they’re influencing their health care decisions. If that’s how the heroes among us are treated, how would they treat the rest of us if they were in charge of our health care decisions? How much do you want to bet we’d all be reading a book like this one?
Are you willing to bet your life? It is, after all, your life, and your choice. At least, it is for now. I, for one, would like to keep it that way.
If you’d like to download and read the entire booklet, you can read it here on the official Department of Veterans Affairs website. Yup, even though the VA is saying it’s not an official VA document, it’s still available on their website, and the website says otherwise. It says it was created specifically for the VA via a generous grant of your tax dollars. Although it is allegedly under revision, it’s still being handed out in print in its current form to veterans.
And just in case it suddenly disappears, I’ve archived a copy here.
I saw this on the news last night and just about popped a cork:
Disgusting isn’t it?
As a point of comparison, consider this: the folks over at TheConservatives.com have put together a brilliant post illustrating the many varied differences between the Bush & Obama administrations’ reactions to dissent. Naturally, I’m no fan of President Bush, but the differences in approach are quite illuminating, if a bit disgusting. Click here to check it out.
I have to say, I’m absolutely disgusted with the way the White House, certain members of Congress, and the DNC have been handling the rather raucous reactions certain lawmakers have been getting at town hall meetings back in their districts, especially with regard to health care reform. Rather than react like adults and acknowledge the rights of free speech that make this country great – even if those who are exercising those rights disagree with you – they’re behaving more like spoiled children. Anyone who disagrees with them is met with dirty looks, accusations, and a fair bit of pouting. Obama certainly did bring change to the White House. Unfortunately it’s change in the wrong direction, toward an absolute contempt for dissent. I dare say, I doubt that’s the sort of change most voters were expecting.
But really, shouldn’t most people have known better? After all, Obama was the one who gave this edict to his supporters regarding how they should react should they ever meet someone who dares oppose the Dear Leader: “I want you to talk to ‘em whether they’re independent or they are Republican. I want you to argue with them and get in their face!”
Yeah, that’s how an adult calmly carries out a “thoughtful discussion”, the like Robert Gibbs said the orchestrated astroturf protesters were disrupting. But then again, I guess it takes one to know one when it comes to astroturfing. I suppose if you’re a Community Organizer who’s surrounded by fake, generated populist hysteria, you just don’t know how to react when someone’s actually genuine with their concerns about government overstepping its bounds. When everything you do is carefully orchestrated, when every person who asks questions at campaign stops is carefully pre-screened, perhaps you think everyone engages in the same sort of manipulation.
Surprise, surprise. Some of us out here in America actually do care enough about our country to stand up for our beliefs, even if someone isn’t paying us to do so. Myself included. I’m not getting paid a single cent to operate this blog. I don’t even accept ad revenue. And yet here I am, continuing to dedicate my time to voicing my opinions, and spending my own money to do so. And rest assured, if my health would permit me to attend a town hall or two, I’d be there giving a polite earful to my representatives as well.
In short, Mr. Obama, I’m an actual American who doesn’t need a Community Organizer to tell me what to do, what to say, and how to say it. Disagree with me all you like, but don’t you dare dismiss me, insult me, or devalue my right to voice my own opinions.
To the rest of you who are able to attend town halls with your representatives, please remember to be cordial, respectful, and polite, while of course being forceful, sincere, and honest. I realize these issues are important to us, I realize things are getting heated, but we don’t need to shout, we don’t need to scream, and we don’t need to behave like an angry mob. Leave those tactics to Acorn, because quite frankly, such tactics are beneath us. Let’s act like the adults that we are, not like the sniveling spoiled children in Washington.
Thanks, Chuck, for explaining precisely why no one believes the Obama administration when they talk about ‘bipartisanship’. Just listen to what this man has to say, it’s unbelievably blunt!
That’s Democrat Senator Charles Schumer. Did you catch what he said? If not, here’s the transcript:
“I think President Obama has a pretty smart strategy. He is going to talk bipartisanship to the American people. But realizes until the Republican grassroots pushes their people over, if that ever happens, we are not going get change in the House or Senate.”
So he’s only going to talk about bipartisanship, but nothing’s going to “change” (i.e. they won’t get what they really want) until the Republicans just roll over, play dead, and let the Democrats get on with all that hopity-change they want to shove down our throats? Yeah, that sure sounds like bipartisanship to me! Cause nothing says ‘bipartisanship’ like just rolling over those you disagree with and doing whatever the hell you feel like doing.
Give me a break! But hey, you at least gotta give the man credit for actually saying it. Now why won’t more people wake up to what it is these guys are really doing? Yet again, they’re flat out saying what they’re going to do, and still too many people just keep on ignoring reality. It’s a shame that so many people are so hypnotized that we can’t even hear what they’re saying to us.
But beyond just the issue of bipartisanship, there’s the whole issue of ‘traditional values’. According to Chuck, that’s all over. In case you missed that as well, here’s the transcript:
“The Hard Right, which still believes when the federal government moves, chop off its hands; still believes in, you know, in ‘traditional values’ kind of arguments, and strong foreign policy. All that’s over!”
So, let’s go through this, shall we?
First: No more keeping the movements, scope, and range of the federal government in check. The federal government is now free to do whatever the hell it wants, regardless of what the opposition thinks (sound familiar? ‘Just roll over and play dead, that’s right, little citizens! If you know what’s best for you, you’ll just shut up in the name of bipartisanship! Hopity-Change!’)
Second: No more ‘traditional values’ (don’t forget to use the air quotes, people!). You know, all that outdated stuff like ‘Do unto others as you’d have others do unto you’; no more of that true tolerance nonsense; no more of ‘loving thy neighbor as you love thyself’ (oh, sorry, is ‘thy’ just too outdated for you?); and most importantly, no more of those ideas about ‘We The People’! That stuff is so dusty and old it must be in the ‘traditional’ category, right?
Eesh, where’s Tevye when you need him?
Third: Last, but certainly not least, strong foreign policy? That went out with go-go boots and bad 80’s hair! The antonym of ’strong’ is ‘weak’, therefore, according to Chuck, nothing says ‘modernism’ like weak, lukewarm, panty-waisted foreign policy! (Sorry, even that’s an insult to women, cause most women I know would have a better grasp of foreign policy than this idiot.)
But you know what strikes me most about this particular observation of Mr. Schumer’s? I had no idea that strong foreign policy was such a partisan issue. I had absolutely no idea that only hard-core rightists believed in strong foreign policy! After all, didn’t Obama spend a whole helluva lot of time during the debates trying to convince us that he’d be just as strong on foreign policy as John McCain? Either that makes Obama a hard-core Republican, or he was just flat out lying and betraying his party’s stance on the necessity for weak foreign policy.
The funniest part is, though, I had no idea any of these issues were the exclusive property of hard-core Republicans. Traditional values? Belief in strong foreign policy? Even just the teensiest of belief in the idea that the scope of the federal government shouldn’t be completely unlimited! I’m not even a Republican, yet I believe in all three of those things! Silly me, I thought Democrats believed in them as well, at least to some degree. Shame on me for being so gullible, I suppose.
It kills me that such basic beliefs have been declared outdated, no longer relevant, as if they’re anathema to modern life. It seems to me that nothing good can come from a partisan war against traditional values as a whole. At least in the world I come from, I was raised to believe that ‘traditional values’ had nothing to do with strictly politics, and more to do with things like loving your neighbor and constantly striving to be a better, more honest, more caring human being. If Democrats are now proclaiming a death to such endeavors, then I believe we have more to fear than simply four years of policies we disagree with.
Keep your eyes peeled, your ears perked, and your mind open, everybody. This is dangerous territory we’re being led toward as a nation. History has shown us that when anyone tries to convince you that such values are outdated, no good can come from it. Especially when they couple that with mentions of ‘bipartisanship’ being nothing more than ‘talk’ to precede an absolute steam-rolling of those they disagree with, it’s an even surer sign that things could get very, very precarious. When debate is to be executed, moral convictions buried, it’s a sure sign that a civilization is being prepared for some very dark days and even darker deeds.
Thanks, Chuck, for at least being honest. Now please, realize just how horrible you’re sounding right about now. It might be time to take a good hard look at yourself, your party, and the people you claim to represent. Is this really what’s best for them, or what’s best for you?
Occidental Soapbox has put up another remarkable, enlightening, and impressive video on his blog, this time about Obama’s pitifully naive attempt at appeasing the tyrannical regime in Iran. As if learning how to pronounce their new year holiday and telling them how great ancient Persia’s culture is will distract Ahmadinejad from his goal of wiping Israel and the rest of us infidels off the face of the map… But of course, Occidental has an even better rebuttal than I can muster. So go check it out, you’ll be oh so glad you did. Maybe if we could all educate ourselves a little more about Iran, we could force an end to this plan of ‘Appeasement as Foreign Policy’ within the White House that has been going on for far too long and is apparently being continued all too readily by the Obama administration.
I’m just now watching Obama’s appearance on last night’s Tonight Show – thank you, Tivo! – and I just had to pause it. I couldn’t go any further without commenting on a few things, so this won’t be a full analysis, this is just me having to sound off now before I forget my initial reaction.
First off, here’s a direct quote I just transcribed from Obama. I’ll try to get an exact video clip of this line later on.
“”No, no, no, but, no, th-th-th-th… This is the point that I made, I think two days ago, when somebody asked, ‘Well, do you have confidence in Tim Geithner?’ I said, ‘Look, I’m the President. So ih-eh-uh, ultimately, all of this stuff is my responsibility. If I’m not, uh, giving him the tools that he needs, uh, to make sure that we’re moving this forward, then people need to look at me.”
- Barack Obama, Tonight Show with Jay Leno, 03-19-09, roughly 35-40 minutes into the broadcast.
Um, Mr. President, if it’s your responsibility to get Tim Geithner all the tools he needs to solve what you and your administration repeatedly refer to as the greatest financial and economic disaster to strike this country since the Great Depression, then why is it that you have time to go on a late night chat show, and yet you haven’t had enough time to fill the remaining 17 out of 18 presidential appointments within the Treasury Department? Tim Geithner is the only one you’ve appointed out of those 18 appointments, meaning Tim Geithner is operating without a full compliment of appointees on his staff, to assist him with this massive crisis.
Wouldn’t you say that’s a pretty big error on your part? Wouldn’t you say that’s an instance of you not giving Tim Geithner the “tools that he needs to make sure we’re moving forward”? Don’t you think filling those 17 appointments should be a higher priority than chatting it up with Jay Leno?
Hey, Mr. Obama, you asked us to look at you, you said this was your responsibility. We’re looking at you now.
Secondly, I will say that I was impressed with one question in particular that Jay Leno addressed to Obama. When he asked specifically about his concerns over Congress targeting specific individuals with 90% taxation legislation, did you notice that Obama didn’t even answer the question? He completely deflected and didn’t even come close to addressing Leno’s very legitimate concerns!
But then again, I guess you wouldn’t want to answer that question either, if you were presiding over a Congress that just passed legislation which violated the Constitution not just once, but twice.
Yet again, Mr. Obama, I’m looking at you. This is your responsibility, and you can’t even answer a drastically important question such as the one Jay Leno presented to you?
I sincerely hope I wasn’t the only one who picked up on that deflection, because that’s a very, very, very important question that we should all be demanding a satisfactory answer to.
Lastly, didn’t you just love how in every single answer, the only solution Obama presented to both the economic crisis AND the big AIG mess, was more regulation and oversight? That’s pretty funny, coming from the golden boy of the same Democratic party who repeatedly rejected Republican attempts at providing more regulation and oversight before this crisis even erupted, in an effort to put on the brakes before we hit an absolute catastrophe. Wasn’t it the Democrats who said that Fannie and Freddie were just fine, and that Republicans were doing nothing more than being evil “fear-mongers” for suggesting that a major global financial crisis was on the horizon and that we’d better act now through regulation and oversight?
Kinda funny that Obama thinks we should trust those very same Democrats to effectively implement that regulation and oversight now that the very same crisis the Republicans predicted has hit us at full force, that crisis the Democrats said didn’t exist and was nothing more than a Republican fantasy. But not only did the Democrats fail in that regard, but they also failed to put in any regulation and oversight into the massive stimulus bills they passed which led to this big AIG mess that Obama was commenting on.
Hmm, that’s at least two strikes, if not more. How many strikes will we allow the Democrats before we realize, hey, they have absolutely no track record of success and they flat out suck at implementing any kind of effective regulation and oversight, like the kind Obama was touting on Jay Leno?
Alright, now to hit play and finish the rest of it. I swear, I feel like pulling my hair out, this is so frustrating to listen to. So before my brain just fizzles out, I’d love to hear your thoughts on the whole debacle, so please, comment away and let me know what you think!
Oh, and by the way, just to add my voice to the chorus – let’s impeach Chris Dodd, shall we?
Obama White House Bars Press from Press Award Ceremony
by Andrew Malcolm
We are not making this up:
Barack Obama was elected commander in chief promising to run the most transparent presidential administration in American history.
This achievement and the overall promise of his historic administration caused the National Newspaper Publishers Assn. to name him “Newsmaker of the Year.”
The president is to receive the award from the federation of black community newspapers in a White House ceremony this afternoon.
The Obama White House has closed the press award ceremony to the press.
From the president’s official schedule:
“Later in the afternoon, the President and the First Lady will attend a reception with the National Newspaper Publisher Association in the State Dining Room, where they will be presented the Newsmaker of the Year award. This event is closed press.”
Maybe they’ll let the newspaper people pass the award through the fence.
This is an absolute must-read for everyone, considering that Israel stands on the brink of what many believe may be the beginning of World War III. Iran is hell-bent on destroying Israel, because of their belief that if they can destroy Israel and wage bloody chaos throughout the world, it will bring about the second coming of their Messiah. (That’s also why they’re trying so hard to get nuclear weapons, but the first stage of their mission involves obliterating Israel.)
One of the many battlefronts in this war on Israel is being waged at the UN. Aside than the battle that’s being fought with mortar shells and suicide bombers in the Gaza Strip, this battle is purely diplomatic and legal. The UN – led by a voting majority bloc made up of Iran, Pakistan, Libya, Cuba, and other third world countries – has been systematically trying to de-legitimize Israel, declaring that not only do the Jewish people have no right to self-determination and self-defense, but that most likely the Holocaust never happened, and that any and all criticism of Islam is not only racist, but criminal.
One of the first declarations of war in this diplomatic battle came about at the Durban Conference, held in Durban, South Africa, about a week before the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in New York. The entire purpose of this conference was to lay out a declaration that Israel was inherently a racist state, that it was denying the Palestinian people their homeland, and that by merely defending themselves, Israel was participating in nothing but prejudice and racism. In other words, unless the Jewish people were to simply lay down and die at the hands of the Palestinians, they’re automatically in the wrong.
The conference also laid the legal foundation to – as I mentioned above – criminalize all criticism of Islam, thus stifling any and all free speech which might lead to people realizing that hey, sometimes Islamists go off the deep and and, you know, try to kill innocent people that they’ve decided are “infidels” (and just so you know, anyone who isn’t a Muslim is an “infidel”, so that means you.)
Suffice it to say, Durban was a bit nasty, disgusting, extremist-Islamic-fueled tirade against Israel and the Jewish people in general. Now, I’m not Jewish, but when someone calls you a racist, degenerate bigot, simply for having the nerve to defend yourself, your family, and your home, I’m kinda thinking that’s the pot calling the kettle black. Anyone who claims that another race doesn’t have the right to self-defense is, um, gee, racist.
So in other words, the UN was sanctifying Islamic rage against the Jewish people, giving Iran in particular the diplomatic and legal foundation it requires to obliterate Israel – that first step in their plan to ultimately destroy all the infidels and bring back their Messiah. Fantastic, huh? I’m sure that’s just what the founders of the United Nations had in mind when they founded it in order to prevent the catastrophe that led to the death and destruction of hundreds of thousands of people at the hand of the Third Reich.
So what does this have to do with Obama? Well, the United States – a staunch ally of Israel, since we realize exactly what it is that Iran’s trying to do – boycotted the first Durban conference. So did many other countries.
Now, so many years later, Durban II is coming up in April. What’s the purpose of Durban II? To carry out the plans and policies laid out in the first Durban conference. In other words, take all those lovely bigoted ideas and plans they came up with at Durban I and make them a reality.
You’d think that since this was the declared and unavoidable purpose of Durban II – i.e. the absolute destruction of Israel – that the United States would again be boycotting the conference. But no, you’d be wrong.
Obama, in his infinite wisdom, has decided to spit in the face of Jewish people everywhere and attend the planning conferences in preparation of Durban II. A White House spokesman claims that they’re participating specifically to rectify all the anti-Israel aspects of the conference’s agenda, but since that’s pretty much all that conference is about, I kinda doubt that’s even possible. Especially given the fact that the United States is vastly out-numbered by the Islamic and Third World blocs, which hold a voting majority in the United Nations. Therefore, it’s flat out impossible for the White House to accomplish what they’re supposedly setting out to do.
Hey, who knows, maybe Obama believes that since he’s already the Messiah, no matter what Iran does it won’t matter. Since we already have one Messiah gracing us with his presence, why would we have need of another one?
This issue is absolutely imperative to all of us, Jewish or otherwise, because this is literally the first step on the cusp of international war. This is Iran’s first move, the first volley in a battle plan that ultimately leads to the destruction of everyone on Earth, save for Allah’s chosen people. If Israel falls, we will all fall. And if we help them murder Israel, we will legitimize their efforts to murder us. We will have participated in an act of genocide, a genocide that will be our own downfall.
And Obama’s leading us there.
There’s a brilliant article out today that I really wish everyone would read. It’s a much better analysis of the significance of Obama’s participation in the conference than I could ever give. Believe me when I say this is crucial, and we absolutely must stand up before it’s too late. If Iran gains a stranglehold in Israel, it will make them that much more powerful and capable of going into Iraq, Afghanistan, and ultimately holding the entirety of the Middle East in the palm of its hand. That is precisely what they want, precisely what they’re aiming for, so that they can bring about the Armageddon that they believe is coming. This is insanity and we cannot let it move forward, and we sure as hell can’t become part and parcel of it.
Please, check out the article and speak up, before it’s too late.
Our friends over at Deceiver.com have done an absolutely remarkable job of putting this whole Timothy Geithner debacle in perspective. It’s just too good for you to miss, so please, you HAVE to go read this.
Enjoy! Of course, I’m sure – like me – the enjoyment will end when you realize that you’re going to be crying once the reality of the situation sinks in and it becomes all too apparent that this is our country this man is futzing with in making all of this ludicrous nominations, and that these sorry people are the ones who will be determining our fate. Yeah, once that sinks in, all the enjoyment of Deceiver’s clever post kind of dries up and is replaced with a remarkable empty feeling inside. That feeling of finally seeing all that “Hope” and “Change” turn right into exactly what we all thought it would be – nothing but tried and true “Deceit” and “Business as usual.”
But of course, what else can we expect from a whole hoard of Chicago politicians and Clinton retreads setting up camp in Washington? That’s an unholy union in there ever was one.
So go