Jesse Jackson in 2008: 'Obama will stop Zionist influence on White House'
For those who have forgotten, let's go to the videotape with @greta interviewing Newt Gingrich (Hat Tip: Marcy W).
Sounds to me like Obama lied again, especially in light of what has happened in the last several months. And 78% of American Jews, including Dumb Dumb Debbie listened but did not hear.
So where was Barack Hussein Obama on Sunday? Obama's failure to show up in Paris on Sunday - or to send any senior representative - has become a really big topic.
Let's go to the videotape.
Isn't it funny how there were no 'security problems' when Obama gave his rock-star campaign speech in Berlin on July 24, 2008. Just sayin'....
I
don't think any country would find it acceptable to have
missiles raining down on the heads of their citizens.
The
first job of any nation state is to protect its citizens. And
so I can assure you that if -- I don't even care if I was a
politician. If somebody was sending rockets into my house
where my two daughters sleep at night, I'm going to do
everything in my power to stop that. And I would expect
Israelis to do the same thing.
In
terms of negotiations with Hamas, it is very hard to negotiate
with a group that is not representative of a nation state,
does not recognize your right to exist, has consistently used
terror as a weapon, and is deeply influenced by other
countries. I think that Hamas leadership will have to make a
decision at some point as to whether it is a serious political
party seeking to represent the aspirations of the Palestinian
people. And, as a consequence, willing to recognize Israel's
right to exist and renounce violence as a tool to achieve its
aims. Or whether it wants to continue to operate as a
terrorist organization. Until that point, it's hard for
Israel, I think, to negotiate with a country that -- or with a
group that doesn't recognize Israel's right to exist at a
country -- OK.
Here's a hint:
Yes, he really would - and did - say anything to get elected. And so many stupid Jews believed him.
Sarah Palin is a prophet, Barack Obama is a weakling
They laughed at Sarah Palin in the 2008 Presidential campaign. They're not laughing anymore. Sarah Palin said that if Barack Hussein Obama was elected President of the United States, Russia would invade the Ukraine.
For those comments, she was mocked by the high-brow Foreign Policy magazine and its editor Blake Hounshell, who now is one of the editors of Politico magazine.
In light of recent events in Ukraine and concerns that Russia is
getting its troops ready to cross the border into the neighboring
nation, nobody seems to be laughing at or dismissing those comments now.
Hounshell wrote then that Palin's comments were "strange" and "this is an extremely far-fetched scenario."
"And given how Russia has been able to unsettle Ukraine's pro-Western
government without firing a shot, I don't see why violence would be
necessary to bring Kiev to heel," Hounshell dismissively wrote.
Palin made her remarks on the stump after Obama's running mate Joe
Biden warned Obama supporters to "gird your loins" if Obama is elected
because international leaders may test or try to take advantage of him.
Charles Krauthammer blasted President Obama's 'flaccid' reaction to the invasion.
“The Ukrainians — and I think everybody — are shocked by the weakness
of Obama’s statements,” Krauthammer began. “I find it rather staggering
. . . What he’s saying is we’re not going to really do anything, and
we’re telling the world.”
Jonah Goldberg said that Obama’s reluctance to take a hard line
against Putin’s actions in Ukraine unsurprising. “When you listen to
Barack Obama talk about this stuff, you get the sense that he as no —
I’m sure he knows these things, but you get no sense that he very much
cares . . . all of his foreign policy has been through the prism of
domestic politics.”
Krauthammer agreed, claiming the international community is now
unlikely to strongly condemn Russian aggression. “The world always waits
for the signal,” he explained. “You could not have issued a more
flaccid statement than what Obama did. Why did he issue it at all? He
should’ve just stayed at the White House and gone off and had his happy
hour with the Democrats.”
“The world sees this and it knows — as we just heard, they can tell
if a president cares,” he concluded. “And if he doesn’t, they won’t
care. Because unless you’re led by the superpower, you will not go.”
Let's go to the videotape.
What do you think he'll do when - God forbid - Iran goes nuclear?
More than five years after he all but conceded the Presidency by not going for Barack Hussein Obama's jugular, John Sidney McCain is calling Obama the most naive President evah.
It happened Sunday on CBS's Face the Nation.
Let's go to the videotape. The interview starts at the 3:37 mark, and the question and answer you're looking for is at the 7:54 mark. The interview runs until 9:40.
McCain had his chance to show up the most naive President evah and he didn't take it. He didn't hit Obama for listening to weekly sermons from an anti-Semite for 20 years. He didn't hit Obama for hiding a video in which Obama is alleged to have made anti-Semitic comments. He didn't hit Obama for his associations with the likes of Jeremiah Wright, Rashi Khalidi, Billy Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, Louis Farrakhan and the most corrupt politicians Chicago has ever seen. He didn't hit Obama for his inexperience in 2008. He didn't hit Obama for his disappearing birth certificate and academic records. He didn't hit Obama for anything, and he tried to prevent Sarah Palin from doing the job for him.
And now, in 2014, McCain calls Obama naive? He still doesn't get it. Obama is anything but naive. He is undermining America from within. That's not naive. It's conniving. It may be years before the Republicans are able to cleanly win a Presidential election because of all the cheating that Obama has built into the system. And John McCain is the one who let that happen. Obama was a Manchurian candidate and McCain let him win.
Palin: 'Elitists running McCain campaign kept me silent on Obama'
I don't think RINO McCain is going to care about this anymore, but Sarah Palin Destroys Obama and his "Phony Scandals" on Fox New -
7/26/2013 - Tonight Greta Van Susteren explores why the president is
calling the D.C. scandals "phony." In this sneak peek clip of the
special, Greta talks to Sarah Palin who exposes that in her 2008 vice
presidential run, she was forbidden from talking about Obama's
relationships with both Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers, as well as his
job experience.
Although it's unlikely he will do so, Mitt Romney should push for a recount of the results of last week's election. Voting fraud happened in 2008, it apparently happened in 2012, and if left unchecked, it will continue to happen in every US election.
Leaked emails from the intelligence group Stratfor recently revealed some shocking allegations
of massive Democrat voter fraud in 2008. The emails revealed by
WikiLeaks say that the McCain campaign decided to ignore the wide spread
voter fraud in order to avoid massive civil unrest — even though it
meant he’d lose the White House.
The emails say that Democrats were caught “stuffing ballot boxes in Philly and Ohio,” but the McCain campaign decided to let it all go.
After discussions with his inner circle, which explains the
delay in his speech, McCain decided not to pursue the voter fraud in PA
and Ohio, despite his staff’s desire to make it an issue. He said no.
Staff felt they could get a federal injunction to stop the process.
McCain felt the crowds assembled in support of Obama and such would be
detrimental to our country and it would do our nation no good for this
to drag out like last go around, coupled with the possibility of
domestic violence.
J. Christian Adams, a former United States Department of Justice official, notes how fraught with danger these revelations are.
With the blessings of hindsight, we see that fear of mob
violence in our country is no longer a hypothetical in the mind of a
presidential candidate. The call by the New Black Panther Party in
Sanford, Florida, to seize (or kill) a private citizen is no longer the
stuff of a senator’s imagination.
Adams was the member of the Justice Dept. that revealed to the world
that Obama’s Attorney General, Eric Holder, decided not to prosecute the
obvious law breaking perpetrated in Philadelphia by the Black Panthers
during the 2008 general election.
I have discussed more times than I care to recall the Los Angeles Times' refusal to release the video of Columbia University Professor Rashid Khalidi's going away party when he left Chicago. Among those present at the affair were 60's radicals Billy Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, and a young Senator from Chicago named Barack Hussein Obama. The rumor - indeed the assumption - is that Obama said lots of not very nice things about a small Middle Eastern country whose back he claims to have these days.
The video was reported on during the course of the 2008 campaign, and the Times has refused then and since to release it. Breitbart.com has offered a $100,000 reward for the video, and the LA Times responded in a column by James Rainey this past Friday. This is Breitbart's response to the Times (Hat Tip: Shy Guy).
There is nothing fantastical about suggesting that the reason that theTimesdidn’t originally report Obama’s words at the event, or the more radical words of the evening, was to protect their beloved presidential candidate. Given theTimes’ track record of Obama defense, it’s the only rational conclusion to draw.
But Rainey’s condescension continues. “In what will doubtless be a vain attempt to quell the bleating from the political fringe, I offer here a review of the trust history of the ‘Khalidi tape,’” he writes. What was that history that would shed light on theTimes’ non-transparency? Not much. He rehashes the original Peter Wallsten story labeling Obama a quasi-moderate, without evidence to support that view. He then states:
In the case of the Khalidi video, the unnamed source agreed to share the illuminating bit of video evidence with Wallsten, but only with the understanding that the reporter could not reproduce or rebroadcast the images. The journalist had to make a decision: Do I agree to that condition and get to see evidence that no other reporter has seen of Obama meeting with Palestinian Americans? Or do I insist on a full public release of the video, with the likely outcome that the source would share nothing?
...
Well, then, where’s the transcript? Why is it that the source was comfortable divulging the video to theTimes, but not to a less Obama-friendly source like Breitbart News for far more money? Asking theTimesto hand over a transcript, and asking the source to hand over the tape, is far from “fringe.” It’s an attempt to vet a candidate that theTimesclearly had little interest in completely vetting.
But Mr. Obama, as anyone who reads his books can tell, also has a sophisticated understanding of the world and America's place in it. He, too, is committed to maintaining U.S. leadership and sticking up for democratic values, as his recent defense of tiny Georgia makes clear. We hope he would navigate between the amoral realism of some in his party and the counterproductive cocksureness of the current administration, especially in its first term. On most policies, such as the need to go after al-Qaeda, check Iran's nuclear ambitions and fight HIV/AIDS abroad, he differs little from Mr. Bush or Mr. McCain. But he promises defter diplomacy and greater commitment to allies. His team overstates the likelihood that either of those can produce dramatically better results, but both are certainly worth trying.
I never read Barack Obama's books, but I was never impressed that he had a "sophisticated understanding" of foreign policy.
“The tide of war is receding” is one of the favorite mantras of this administration and its leaders. But what is receding before our eyes is the American influence in the world order. Mr. Obama has narrowed the horizons of a country with historically wide vistas. In the Obamian world, that which can’t be done with drones and the daring of our SEALs is left untended. In a note of exquisite irony, Barack Obama had made much of his predecessor’s poor standing in Islamic lands. Trumpet the polls, fall to them: Mr. Obama’s standing in Egypt, Jordan, and Pakistan, according to the Pew Global Attitudes Survey, is now lower than George W. Bush’s standing. A placard carried by a group of Syrian protesters tells it all: “We miss Bush’s audacity.” Now it could be that the American people have been made weary by foreign engagements, and that the economic distress—our debt, our deficits, an anemic recovery, persisting high levels of unemployment—has made us reticent in the face of burdens abroad. That would be an irony all its own—a president who mismanaged the economy being rewarded for the lack of confidence his presidency itself has generated. From the very beginning, Mr. Obama has been a herald of a “declinist” reading of America. We can’t aid the Syrians, our touch would sully them. We can’t identity ourselves with the democratic aspirations of the Iranians, for we must conciliate their rulers. We can’t defend the cause of liberty and freedom, for in that Obamian worldview, freedom is a fragile, uncertain bet the world over.
(Prof. Ajami wasn't critical of the President in his Washington Post article the other day. Rather he argued that President Obama and Governor Romney have different philosophies of America's role in the world. It's possible though that the "declinist" view of American power described here is a consequence of the "cosmopolitan" view described earlier.)
2) Romney's culture wars
Mitt Romney's reference to the role of culture in holding Palestinian economic development back hasn't gotten good reviews in the mainstream media.
In London, Mr. Romney expressed doubt about Britain’s readiness to host the Olympic Games, a comment that was bush league but not very consequential. More serious was Mr. Romney’s suggestion that “culture” explains the economic disparity between Israelis and Palestinians, and (for good measure) between Mexico and the United States. His comparison left out restrictions on Palestinian trade, workers and goods imposed by Israel over many years, and, more to the point, he reflected an alarmingly simplistic view of complex questions.
While Romney had time for a $50,000-a-plate breakfast with American Jewish donors in Jerusalem, with Adelson at his elbow, he did not have two hours to go to Ramallah, the seat of the Palestinian Authority, to meet with its president, Mahmoud Abbas, or to share publicly any ideas on how he would advance the peace process. He did have time, though, to point out to his Jewish hosts that Israelis are clearly more culturally entrepreneurial than Palestinians. Israel today is an amazing beehive of innovation — thanks, in part, to an influx of Russian brainpower, massive U.S. aid and smart policies. It’s something Jews should be proud of. But had Romney gone to Ramallah he would have seen a Palestinian beehive of entrepreneurship, too, albeit small, but not bad for a people living under occupation. Palestinian business talent also built the Persian Gulf states. In short, Romney didn’t know what he was talking about.
The remarks, which vastly understated the disparities between the societies, drew a swift rejoinder from Palestinian leaders. In an interview with The Associated Press, Saeb Erekat, a senior aide to President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority, called Mr. Romney’s remarks racist. “It is a racist statement and this man doesn’t realize that the Palestinian economy cannot reach its potential because there is an Israeli occupation,” Mr. Erekat said. “It seems to me this man lacks information, knowledge, vision and understanding of this region and its people.” Mr. Romney did not speak to the deleterious impact of deep Israeli trade restrictions on the Palestinian economy, an effect widely described by international organizations including the World Bank, which recently reported that “the government of Israel’s security restrictions continue to stymie investment.”
All of these objections to Romney's comments ignore that Israeli restrictions were put in place for a reason (to prevent terror) and "occupation" (or, more accurately, lack of statehood) is the result of Palestinian refusal to negotiate with Israel.
But Romney isn't the first American politician to argue that the Arab political culture has a negative effect on Arab societies. Noah Pollak points out that the sophisticated Barack Obama did the exact same thing in his widely hailed Cairo speech:
“But all of us must recognize that education and innovation will be the currency of the 21st century -- and in too many Muslim communities, there remains underinvestment in these areas.” He pointed out that "a woman who is denied an education is denied equality... And it is no coincidence that countries where women are well educated are far more likely to be prosperous." He added that he has "an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose...Governments that protect these rights are ultimately more stable, successful and secure."
So why the difference in reactions?
One possibility, is that Obama's critique didn't explicitly mention the world "culture." When he used the world "culture," the context was:
Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires; timeless poetry and cherished music; elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation. And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.
Another is that Obama did not contrast Arab failures with Israeli's successes.
While I often don't agree with Aaron David Miller (nor do I fully agree with his essay here) he recently made a good and relevant point:
But let’s be clear. The Arabs themselves have turned David into an ugly and mythical Goliath. The anti-Israeli trope goes much deeper than mere criticism of a nation-state’s behavior. Israel has been elevated to a power (backed by America) that, along with international Jewry, has the capacity to shape the world arena, if not to control it.
Romney's affront to the Palestinians was to compare them to Israel; a comparison that did not work to their favor.
1. It starts at 9:30 pm. Depending upon which view you follow, the Tisha b'Av fast, which takes place the same day, ends at 8:08 pm, 8:18 pm or 8:59 pm. In any event, the fast will be over before the fundraiser starts.
2. "Dietary laws observed. Refreshments will not be served until after the fast." 'Nuff said.
Compare and contrast: Romney in Israel 2012 v. Obama in Israel 2008
I am sure that many of you recall that candidate Barack Hussein Obama visited Israel in 2008 as part of his Presidential campaign. Unlike Romney's plans, Obama did meet with 'moderate' 'Palestinian' President Mahmoud AbbasAbu Mazen. In fact, the report on Obama's plans for 2008 doesn't even mention Salam Fayyad, with whom Romney plans to meet as a 'Palestinian' representative. In fact, the only meeting Obama seemed to have was with Abu Mazen and those of his cronies who were allowed in. Maybe because the 'Palestinians' don't have an 'opposition party.
Is Romney doing the opposite of Obama on Israel? In this case, the answer appears to be yes.
During the 2008 campaign, Barack Obama claimed not to be connected to domestic terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn. At Breitbart.com, Joel Pollak has discovered that then Senator Barack Obama attended a barbecue at the home of Ayers and Dohrn during on July 4, 2005. Here's the blog post he found:
Mr. Romney, never known for his lack of self-confidence, still recalls the sense of envy he felt watching Mr. Netanyahu effortlessly hold court during the firm’s Monday morning meetings, when consultants presented their work and fielded questions from their colleagues. The sessions were renowned for their sometimes grueling interrogations.
but marred by several paragraphs:
Mr. Romney has suggested that he would not make any significant policy decisions about Israel without consulting Mr. Netanyahu — a level of deference that could raise eyebrows given Mr. Netanyahu’s polarizing reputation, even as it appeals to the neoconservatives and evangelical Christians who are fiercely protective of Israel. ... Martin S. Indyk, a United States ambassador to Israel in the Clinton administration, said that whether intentional or not, Mr. Romney’s statement implied that he would “subcontract Middle East policy to Israel.” “That, of course, would be inappropriate,” he added.
Barbaro treats boasts made by Romney as actual policy in order to suggest that there's something untoward about the friendship between Romney and Netanyahu.
In contrast consider President Obama. As he campaigned four years ago he said:
“I think there is a strain within the pro-Israel community that says unless you adopt a unwavering pro-Likud approach to Israel that you’re anti-Israel and that can’t be the measure of our friendship with Israel,” the Illinois senator and contender for the Democratic presidential nominee told a group of Jewish leaders in Cleveland on Sunday. “If we cannot have an honest dialogue about how do we achieve these goals, then we’re not going to make progress.”
The statement betrayed an ignorance of Israeli politics and suggested that if Likud came to power (as it did a year later) President Obama would be adversarial to the Israeli government. Though there were exceptions, Obama's comment attracted little comment at the time.
Allies are going to work together and will have differences. If the leaders of the respective countries are friendly, presumably the alliance will be more successful.
2) Kofi's latest fail
Usually in an organization, promotions are the results of successes. The United Nations works differently. Certainly, the case of Kofi Annan shows that at the UN, "failure is job 1." Jonathan Schanzer documents them in It's Time to Add Syria to Kofi Annan's Long List of Failures:
THE STRING OF FAILURES begins in 1994, when Annan, then head of peacekeeping, dismissed the warnings of General Romeo Dallaire, commander of the U.N.’s peacekeeping forces in Rwanda, about arms caches that would soon be used for mass murder. In July 1995, with Annan still head of peacekeeping, came another mass murder, this time in Srebrenica. Serbs slaughtered more than 8,000 Bosnian Muslims while peacekeepers stood by. During his tenure as U.N. chief, from 1997-2006, his responsibilities included overseeing the Oil-for-Food relief program for Iraq. The program, run by the U.N. from 1996 until Saddam Hussein’s overthrow in 2003, was supposed to ease the pain imposed on Iraq’s people by sanctions targeting Saddam’s regime. Instead, Oil-for-Food evolved into one of the most corrupt failures in the history of humanitarian relief, while Annan urged its expansion and praised its performance.
Now he's repeating his experience in Syria:
Now, as before, Annan is tipping the scales in favor of a murderous regime. As Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov smugly noted, Annan’s plan includes “no talk about Assad’s departure.” One Syria opposition leader, Burhan Ghalioun, predicts the plan will “waste a month or two of pointless mediation efforts” while buying Assad more time.
3) Doomed to repeat
A fascinating feature at InstaPundit is his newly instituted "Ten years ago on Instapundit" feature. Most of the items point to media bias or malfeasance reminding us that the issues he's been highlighting haven't changed much.
A BUNCH OF PEOPLE have sent me copies of their letters to the Norwegian Embassy protesting the absurd and nasty action of expelling a man from the Norwegian Parliament building for wearing a Star of David, even as many people were wearing Palestinian emblems. The issue was also picked up in Best of the Web today, which also ran a link to the Norwegian Embassy "contacts" page with its item. I think they probably got a fair amount of email on this. Good.
McCain's campaign manager says he's frightened by thought of Palin as President
You have to wonder why John McCain chose this guy as his campaign manager. Steve Schmidt tells Morning Joe that he believes that Sarah Palin was manifestly unqualified to be President. (I disagree). I don't see any explanation for the real issue: Why didn't McCain aggressively go after Obama for his anti-Semitism, his racism and his subservience to Islam? Palin said last week that was Schmidt's decision.
Sarah Palin on why McCain-Palin didn't go after Obama's radical connections
Here's a fascinating interview with Sarah Palin on the Sean Hannity show in which, among other things, toward the end, she talks about why the McCain-Palin campaign did not attack Barack Hussein Obama's radical connections in 2008 - something that has bothered me immensely ever since.
Let's go to the videotape (Hat Tip: Jack W via Jews for Sarah).
Note what Sarah Palin is wearing around her neck.
I find it interesting that Palin says that both she and McCain were shackled by their campaign manager - at the time, those of us who wanted the truth about Obama to come out were told that McCain insisted on being 'civil.' I wonder why Steve Schmidt (whom she names) behaved that way. Was he afraid that McCain and Palin would be castigated by the media if they attacked Obama? Was he treated with kid gloves because of his race? Or was there something even more sinister? Hmmm.
Lebanese Sunni cleric in 2008: America will collapse from within due to a Gorbachev
If only we had listened before we elected Obama.
Here's a Sunni cleric in Beirut in May 2008 saying that the United States will soon collapse from within due to an American Gorbachev. If only we had listened....
Obama shared podium with virulent anti-Semites in '07
I posted things like this over and over again in 2007 and 2008 and very few people listened. I debated whether to cover this story at all this time. But I decided that perhaps now, with three years of America's post-racial President and his contemptuous treatment of Israel behind us, seeing this kind of thing will influence some of you not to support his reelection campaign regardless of who the Republican nominee is (Ron Paul possibly excepted, in which case I allow you to stay home to pack for your move to Israel).
Andrew Breitbart posted the picture above as part of a larger story on Monday about Barack Hussein Obama, then a Senator from Illinois and a candidate for President, marching with the New Black Panther party in 2007 (Hat Tip: Memeorandum).
New photographs obtained exclusively by BigGovernment.com reveal that Barack Obama appeared and marched with members of the New Black Panther Party as he campaigned for president in Selma, Alabama in March 2007.
The photographs, captured from a Flickr photo-sharing account before it was scrubbed, are the latest evidence of the mainstream media’s failure to examine Obama’s extremist ties and radical roots.
In addition, the new images raise questions about the possible motives of the Obama administration in its infamous decision to drop the prosecution of the Panthers for voter intimidation.
The images, presented below, also renew doubts about the transparency of the White House’s guest logs–in particular, whether Panther National Chief Malik Zulu Shabazz is the same “Malik Shabazz” listed among the Obama administration’s early visitors.
The book exposes Obama administration corruption far beyond the Panther dismissal, and reveals how the institutional Left has turned the power of the DOJ into an ideological weapon.
Adams’s book also describes, in detail, the Selma march at which then-Senator Obama was joined by a group of Panthers who had come to support his candidacy.
Among those appearing with Obama was Shabazz, the Panther leader who was one of the defendants in the voter intimidation case that Attorney General Eric Holder dismissed. Also present was the Panthers’ “Minister of War,” Najee Muhammed, who had called for murdering Dekalb County, Georgia, police officers with AK-47’s and then mocking their widows in this video (7:20 – 8:29).
Injustice includes a disturbing photo of Shabazz and the Panthers marching behind Obama with raised fists in the “Black Power” salute.
...
It is true that then-Senator Hillary Clinton and Al Sharpton were also in Selma at the same event. But the Panthers explicitly came to Selma to support Obama, as Adams details in Injustice.
They spoke with Obama at the podium shown above, and departed together with Obama for the main march itself, as shown by this grainer image captured from YouTube:
Obama seems not to be reviled by the Panthers in any of the video or photographs. And Obama’s own campaign website would post an endorsement by the New Black Panther Party in March 2008. As Adams writes in Injustice:
Somehow, the fact that the future President of the United States shared a podium with leaders of the New Black Panthers, marched with them, and received a public, formal greeting from their party has vanished from the history of Obama’s campaign. Apart from [Juan] Williams’ single dispatch, no other media outlets ever reported it.
After NPR initially reported that the Panthers were present at the event with Obama, subsequent reports from Selma omitted any mention of the hate group appearing with the future President.
Had any of Obama’s opponents appeared at an event with the KKK or Aryan Nation, The New York Times would have had to double its ink buy.
Read the whole thing. Anyone who followed the Jeremiah Wright story during the 2008 campaign cannot be too surprised by this. It fits the pattern. In fact, I am waiting for a White House statement that Obama didn't know who Malik Shabbaz and the New Black Panthers are and what they stand for. Astoundingly, the same low class scum that harass Andrew Breitbart through his Twitter account are doing so with respect to this story as well. I cannot tell you that they're in denial - they probably support the NBPP's goals.
I don’t buy into theories that Obama is a secret radical interested in pushing an extreme Panther agenda. But he does have an alarming pattern of association with anti-Semitic conspiracy peddlers, whether it’s for political gain or because he feels some sort of camaraderie with them.
Shabazz gained notoriety for leading anti-Semitic chants in the mid-90’s (“Who is it that controls the Federal Reserve? “The Jews!”). And in 2005 – just two years before Obama reportedly shared a stage with him at a campaign event – Shabazz penned the forward for a book entitled “Synagogue of Satan.” In case the title doesn’t give it away, it’s apparently a book full of noxious conspiracy theories about Jewish manipulation of foreign policy. From the Anti-Defamation League summary:
The book’s overarching theme is that unknown to most, the world is being manipulated and corrupted by Satanic powers led by Jewish elites. In exposing these powers, the book trades heavily in Jewish conspiracy theories and Holocaust denial. It alleges that these Satanic powers are influenced and guided by the theology of Judaism, and by an inherent Jewish predilection for immorality.
The ADL calls the New Black Panther Party “the most anti-Semitic and racist black militant group in the U.S.” The group hasn’t commented yet on the photos Breitbart published.
Goodman suggests that seeing these photos and Obama's ties to the NBPP could set off 'alarm bells' among Jewish voters. Given that 78% of American Jews voted for Obama despite the Jeremiah Wright story in 2008, I am doubtful that any alarm bells could be loud enough to wake the Jews from their catatonic stupor of voting Democrat.
I am an Orthodox Jew - some would even call me 'ultra-Orthodox.' Born in Boston, I was a corporate and securities attorney in New York City for seven years before making aliya to Israel in 1991 (I don't look it but I really am that old :-). I have been happily married to the same woman for thirty-five years, and we have eight children (bli ayin hara) ranging in age from 13 to 33 years and nine grandchildren. Four of our children are married! Before I started blogging I was a heavy contributor on a number of email lists and ran an email list called the Matzav from 2000-2004. You can contact me at: IsraelMatzav at gmail dot com
