Barack Obama – Myths, Facts, and Obfuscating (bloggers Beware)
APRPEH asked:
Is guilt by association fair? Many blogs and websites, including APRPEH have made an argument that Barry Obama’s true feelings towards Jews and Israel can be measured by his associations. Undeniable facts about Obama, many of them posed as questions left unanswered or not answered in a credible or believeable fashion have formed the core of the No-Bama effort. These questions remain legitimate campaign issues and concerns. Obama DID indeed maintain a 20+ year relationship as a member of TUCC in the Jeremiah Wright flock, listening to what is undeniably anti-US and antiJew rhetoric only distancing himself when his crusade for the Presidency was jeopardized.
Who are Obama’s friends and associates for which he should be measured? Let’s take a closer look using easy to find world wide web references.
(See the LATimes story from April 10, 2008 – Allies of Palestinians see a friend in Barack Obama) Obama’s special friend, Rashid Khalidi, former spokesman for the scumbag Yasir Arafat who held fundraisers for Obama, was honored with a speech by State Sen. Barack Obama in a 2003 going away party. Khalidi, according to the LA Times story is described as “internationally known scholar, critic of Israel and advocate for Palestinian rights.
Then there is Ali Abunimah, described in the same LA Times article as ” a Palestinian rights activist in Chicago who helps run Electronic Intifada, and quoted as saying:
Abunimah quoted Obama as saying that he was sorry he wasn’t talking more about the Palestinian cause, but that his primary campaign had constrained what he could say.
Now, lets add to the mix the Obama foreign policy advisors who have come and gone. I am not even sure I remember them all. Please feel free to add to the list in the comments:
Simple web searches on the following Obama advisors is telling.
Samantha Powers – (see National Review Online Monday, February 11, 2008 – Obama Adviser Samantha Power on Israel, “Jenin Massacre” )
Joseph Cirincione - (see World Net Daily May 01, 2008 -Obama adviser: Israel must give up its nukes)
Robert Malley - (see Yid With Lid blog post February 5, 2008 Obamas Israel Hating Advisor Robert Malley)
Merrill Tony McPeak - (see YNETnews March 26, 2008 – US Jews Hinder Peace)
Zbigniew Bzrezinski – (see American Thinker – January 16, 2008 – Barack Obama and Israel)
Ed Lasko at American Thinker adds:
The appointment of Brzezenski elicited much dismay among supporters of Israel since Brzezinski is well known for his aggressive dislike of Israel. . He has been an ardent foe of Israel for over three decades and newspaper files are littered with his screeds against Israel. Brzezinski has publicly defended the Walt-Mearsheimer thesis that the relationship between America and Israel is based not on shared values and common threats but is the product of Jewish pressure. Brzezinski also signed a letter demanding dialogue with Hamas-a group whose charter calls for the destruction of Israel and is filled with threats to Jews around the world.
Financial support from not very friendly to Israel, George Soros can be added to the equation as well even though Obama has attempted to distance himself from the billionaire contributer. If Obama really wants to distance himself from the tens of thousands of dollars contributed through Soros connections has he offered to return any recent donations and asked Soros and his Moveon.org friends to stop supporting his campaign? (see American Thinker article from April 30, 2007 – Soros, Obama, and the Millionaires Exception and june 11, 2008 article George Soros and Obama’s veep also from American Thinker)
And while it is not necessarily Jewish related, how can we forget Syrian born friend Tony Rezko, former donor and fundraiser for Obama, convicted recently on corruption related charges. (Tony Rezko – Wikipedia article.)
Obama’s relationship with terrorist and political indoctrination specialist William Ayers and Bernadine Dorhn (William Ayers wikipedia article along with former “Weatherman” and wife Bernadine Dorhn) is well documented and factual.
So what is the point of going through this exercise, re-hashing the well published reports you might ask? The Obama fans and possibly Obama campaign are behind an effort to obfuscate.
(see PostBulletin June 25, 2008 Can Obama fight Web-driven lies?) and
(see Jpost – June 19, 2008 -Snap Judgment: Have you read the latest Obama e-mail? Unbelievable!)
ob·fus·cate (bf-skt, b-fskt) (The Free Dictionary)
tr.v. ob·fus·cat·ed, ob·fus·cat·ing, ob·fus·cates
1. To make so confused or opaque as to be difficult to perceive or understand: “A great effort was made . . . to obscure or obfuscate the truth” Robert Conquest.
2. To render indistinct or dim; darken: The fog obfuscated the shore.
It is true that a considerable amount of email and internet garbage is floating around alleging all sorts of BS about Obama. It is also true that email based urban myth is one of the downsides of the electronic world. Our email boxes are flooded with Nigerian scam email, phishing, and urban myths begging the reader to perpetuate the falsity.
In fact, call it reverse guilt by association. It is with this understanding that the agenda of the Obama camp to label every blog post, every email, every warning about Obama as driven by crazies with a **** filled, anti-Muslim or ****** agenda is underway. Some, they may say are just plain crazy. But all of them, all criticism is illegitimate (according to this strategy) because it is someone’s opinion, not the truth – just another one of those “myths”.
This policy must be confronted strongly and clearly. The list above is composed of undeniable fact. The effort to re-cast the past of Obama as something else, something different, something sweet and innocent is a fraud and should be called a fraud.
Obama cannot reasonably claim that he had no knowledge of the offensive, disgusting, and criminal aspects of his friends in the past as he cannot claim that he has no knowledge of or doesn’t agree with the antiJew and anti-Israel opinions of his foreign policy team. If he really had no knowledge, he is the most ignorant man who has ever run for the Presidency.
Of course, some Obama staffer can just say all of this is campaign rhetoric and to take it as a grain of salt. Afterall, it IS the internet. Or readers and concerned, thoughtful Americans can expose the truth, continue writing to the newspapers, calling talk radio, writing blogs, responding to blogs and talking to their friends who may be on the fence. Freedom is not free and free speech is under assault by the Obama people, a telling foretaste of an Obama administration.
obama
Is guilt by association fair? Many blogs and websites, including APRPEH have made an argument that Barry Obama’s true feelings towards Jews and Israel can be measured by his associations. Undeniable facts about Obama, many of them posed as questions left unanswered or not answered in a credible or believeable fashion have formed the core of the No-Bama effort. These questions remain legitimate campaign issues and concerns. Obama DID indeed maintain a 20+ year relationship as a member of TUCC in the Jeremiah Wright flock, listening to what is undeniably anti-US and antiJew rhetoric only distancing himself when his crusade for the Presidency was jeopardized.
Who are Obama’s friends and associates for which he should be measured? Let’s take a closer look using easy to find world wide web references.
(See the LATimes story from April 10, 2008 – Allies of Palestinians see a friend in Barack Obama) Obama’s special friend, Rashid Khalidi, former spokesman for the scumbag Yasir Arafat who held fundraisers for Obama, was honored with a speech by State Sen. Barack Obama in a 2003 going away party. Khalidi, according to the LA Times story is described as “internationally known scholar, critic of Israel and advocate for Palestinian rights.
Then there is Ali Abunimah, described in the same LA Times article as ” a Palestinian rights activist in Chicago who helps run Electronic Intifada, and quoted as saying:
Abunimah quoted Obama as saying that he was sorry he wasn’t talking more about the Palestinian cause, but that his primary campaign had constrained what he could say.
Now, lets add to the mix the Obama foreign policy advisors who have come and gone. I am not even sure I remember them all. Please feel free to add to the list in the comments:
Simple web searches on the following Obama advisors is telling.
Samantha Powers – (see National Review Online Monday, February 11, 2008 – Obama Adviser Samantha Power on Israel, “Jenin Massacre” )
Joseph Cirincione - (see World Net Daily May 01, 2008 -Obama adviser: Israel must give up its nukes)
Robert Malley - (see Yid With Lid blog post February 5, 2008 Obamas Israel Hating Advisor Robert Malley)
Merrill Tony McPeak - (see YNETnews March 26, 2008 – US Jews Hinder Peace)
Zbigniew Bzrezinski – (see American Thinker – January 16, 2008 – Barack Obama and Israel)
Ed Lasko at American Thinker adds:
The appointment of Brzezenski elicited much dismay among supporters of Israel since Brzezinski is well known for his aggressive dislike of Israel. . He has been an ardent foe of Israel for over three decades and newspaper files are littered with his screeds against Israel. Brzezinski has publicly defended the Walt-Mearsheimer thesis that the relationship between America and Israel is based not on shared values and common threats but is the product of Jewish pressure. Brzezinski also signed a letter demanding dialogue with Hamas-a group whose charter calls for the destruction of Israel and is filled with threats to Jews around the world.
Financial support from not very friendly to Israel, George Soros can be added to the equation as well even though Obama has attempted to distance himself from the billionaire contributer. If Obama really wants to distance himself from the tens of thousands of dollars contributed through Soros connections has he offered to return any recent donations and asked Soros and his Moveon.org friends to stop supporting his campaign? (see American Thinker article from April 30, 2007 – Soros, Obama, and the Millionaires Exception and june 11, 2008 article George Soros and Obama’s veep also from American Thinker)
And while it is not necessarily Jewish related, how can we forget Syrian born friend Tony Rezko, former donor and fundraiser for Obama, convicted recently on corruption related charges. (Tony Rezko – Wikipedia article.)
Obama’s relationship with terrorist and political indoctrination specialist William Ayers and Bernadine Dorhn (William Ayers wikipedia article along with former “Weatherman” and wife Bernadine Dorhn) is well documented and factual.
So what is the point of going through this exercise, re-hashing the well published reports you might ask? The Obama fans and possibly Obama campaign are behind an effort to obfuscate.
(see PostBulletin June 25, 2008 Can Obama fight Web-driven lies?) and
(see Jpost – June 19, 2008 -Snap Judgment: Have you read the latest Obama e-mail? Unbelievable!)
ob·fus·cate (bf-skt, b-fskt) (The Free Dictionary)
tr.v. ob·fus·cat·ed, ob·fus·cat·ing, ob·fus·cates
1. To make so confused or opaque as to be difficult to perceive or understand: “A great effort was made . . . to obscure or obfuscate the truth” Robert Conquest.
2. To render indistinct or dim; darken: The fog obfuscated the shore.
It is true that a considerable amount of email and internet garbage is floating around alleging all sorts of BS about Obama. It is also true that email based urban myth is one of the downsides of the electronic world. Our email boxes are flooded with Nigerian scam email, phishing, and urban myths begging the reader to perpetuate the falsity.
In fact, call it reverse guilt by association. It is with this understanding that the agenda of the Obama camp to label every blog post, every email, every warning about Obama as driven by crazies with a **** filled, anti-Muslim or ****** agenda is underway. Some, they may say are just plain crazy. But all of them, all criticism is illegitimate (according to this strategy) because it is someone’s opinion, not the truth – just another one of those “myths”.
This policy must be confronted strongly and clearly. The list above is composed of undeniable fact. The effort to re-cast the past of Obama as something else, something different, something sweet and innocent is a fraud and should be called a fraud.
Obama cannot reasonably claim that he had no knowledge of the offensive, disgusting, and criminal aspects of his friends in the past as he cannot claim that he has no knowledge of or doesn’t agree with the antiJew and anti-Israel opinions of his foreign policy team. If he really had no knowledge, he is the most ignorant man who has ever run for the Presidency.
Of course, some Obama staffer can just say all of this is campaign rhetoric and to take it as a grain of salt. Afterall, it IS the internet. Or readers and concerned, thoughtful Americans can expose the truth, continue writing to the newspapers, calling talk radio, writing blogs, responding to blogs and talking to their friends who may be on the fence. Freedom is not free and free speech is under assault by the Obama people, a telling foretaste of an Obama administration.
obama
Will the Real Barack Obama Please Stand Up
James William Smith asked:
The media reaction to the recent ABC Presidential debate in Pennsylvania was almost unanimous. Television moderators Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos were widely ridiculed for not asking a single question on an issue of political substance for more than the first fifty minutes of the Presidential debate. Indeed, there was not a single question on health care, the war in Iraq, the economy, illegal immigration, social security, or any other of the important challenges and issues facing America today.
Instead, for nearly the first hour of the debate, the voters heard questions concerning Barrack Obama’s recent dubious comments on small town America. In addition, the ABC moderators focused several questions on Obama’s relationship with his pastor, the controversial Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Another debate question concerned whether Obama loves the American flag and why he does not wear flag pins on his suit lapel. Still another question concerned Barack Obama’s relationship with the former radical leader of the “Weathermen“, William Ayers.
While some of the criticism of the coverage of the Democrats Pennsylvania debate is certainly valid (especially troubling were the continued camera shots of Former First daughter, Chelsea Clinton), the questions posed by the moderators in those first fifty minutes were exactly the types of questions that the American voter now needs answered in order to vote for or against Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama.
It is evident that the country is aware that Barack Obama is to the left of the American political center on most of the major issues. It also appears from the public opinion polls that much of the American public would currently support an inexperienced, liberal, Democratic politician in the 2008 Presidential election. In fact, the polls indicate that if an election between John McCain and Barack Obama was held today, it would certainly be very close.
So a pertinent question in the mind of the American voter is really just how far to the left of center are the politics of Barack Obama? The ultimate answer to that question will probably decide the 2008 Presidential election. Therefore, the questions in the first fifty two minutes of the ABC Presidential debate, while not about national issues, were certainly not frivolous and actually quite important.
Consider that Barack Obama is running for the highest office in the land on a very short political record. He has been a United States Senator for just three years. Prior to that he was a State Senator in Illinois. His political record is short and his voting record appears carefully designed with a future campaign for a high office in mind.
In announcing the reason for his candidacy for the Presidency, Barack Obama said: “What’s stopped us is the failure of leadership, the smallness of our politics, the ease with which we’re distracted by the petty and trivial, our chronic avoidance of tough decisions”. His oratory sounds wonderful until one examines his actual record as an Illinois State Senator. That record indicates that he voted “present,” (effectively sidestepping many important issues) nearly 130 times. It is a political voting record that gives little insight into today‘s presidential candidate. It is also a voting record that is in conflict with the words of the man.
As a result, in the minds of the voters, there are really two distinct Presidential candidates named Barack Obama. Which of the two is the actual candidate is the biggest question the voters must answer between now and election day. The fact is that the Barack Obama who cannot win is the candidate who secretly agrees with the diatribes of his pastor, Jeremiah Wright. He also supports Louis Farrakhan, William Ayers, and other extreme activists of the American left. The Barack Obama who cannot win is the candidate that makes elitist comments about small town America and its guns and religion. The Barack Obama who cannot win is the candidate that continues to backpedal and apologize for gaffes and communication errors.
However, the Barack Obama who can win the 2008 Presidential election is the candidate who uses his considerable communication skills to unite the nation. Also, he must be a candidate who transcends partisan politics and wants real reform in Washington, D.C. He would learn quickly from his limited experience and cannot vote “present” on the major issues of the day. He may not be an elitist, but should be the candidate who has shown great skill in the management of his heretofore successful Presidential campaign.
Is Barack Obama a unique, thoughtful politician who can transcend party politics and use his considerable oratory skill to lead the country and reform Washington DC.? Or is Barack Obama a far left of center, elitist candidate who secretly admires the dubious diatribes of his radical pastor, and who condones the actions of a violent underground leader of America’s past?
Historically, American political reality concludes that the former Barack Obama can win the 2008 Presidential election, while the latter Barack Obama simply cannot. It certainly would be a lot easier for the voters during the next several months if the real Barack Obama finally stood up.
Caffeinated Content
The media reaction to the recent ABC Presidential debate in Pennsylvania was almost unanimous. Television moderators Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos were widely ridiculed for not asking a single question on an issue of political substance for more than the first fifty minutes of the Presidential debate. Indeed, there was not a single question on health care, the war in Iraq, the economy, illegal immigration, social security, or any other of the important challenges and issues facing America today.
Instead, for nearly the first hour of the debate, the voters heard questions concerning Barrack Obama’s recent dubious comments on small town America. In addition, the ABC moderators focused several questions on Obama’s relationship with his pastor, the controversial Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Another debate question concerned whether Obama loves the American flag and why he does not wear flag pins on his suit lapel. Still another question concerned Barack Obama’s relationship with the former radical leader of the “Weathermen“, William Ayers.
While some of the criticism of the coverage of the Democrats Pennsylvania debate is certainly valid (especially troubling were the continued camera shots of Former First daughter, Chelsea Clinton), the questions posed by the moderators in those first fifty minutes were exactly the types of questions that the American voter now needs answered in order to vote for or against Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama.
It is evident that the country is aware that Barack Obama is to the left of the American political center on most of the major issues. It also appears from the public opinion polls that much of the American public would currently support an inexperienced, liberal, Democratic politician in the 2008 Presidential election. In fact, the polls indicate that if an election between John McCain and Barack Obama was held today, it would certainly be very close.
So a pertinent question in the mind of the American voter is really just how far to the left of center are the politics of Barack Obama? The ultimate answer to that question will probably decide the 2008 Presidential election. Therefore, the questions in the first fifty two minutes of the ABC Presidential debate, while not about national issues, were certainly not frivolous and actually quite important.
Consider that Barack Obama is running for the highest office in the land on a very short political record. He has been a United States Senator for just three years. Prior to that he was a State Senator in Illinois. His political record is short and his voting record appears carefully designed with a future campaign for a high office in mind.
In announcing the reason for his candidacy for the Presidency, Barack Obama said: “What’s stopped us is the failure of leadership, the smallness of our politics, the ease with which we’re distracted by the petty and trivial, our chronic avoidance of tough decisions”. His oratory sounds wonderful until one examines his actual record as an Illinois State Senator. That record indicates that he voted “present,” (effectively sidestepping many important issues) nearly 130 times. It is a political voting record that gives little insight into today‘s presidential candidate. It is also a voting record that is in conflict with the words of the man.
As a result, in the minds of the voters, there are really two distinct Presidential candidates named Barack Obama. Which of the two is the actual candidate is the biggest question the voters must answer between now and election day. The fact is that the Barack Obama who cannot win is the candidate who secretly agrees with the diatribes of his pastor, Jeremiah Wright. He also supports Louis Farrakhan, William Ayers, and other extreme activists of the American left. The Barack Obama who cannot win is the candidate that makes elitist comments about small town America and its guns and religion. The Barack Obama who cannot win is the candidate that continues to backpedal and apologize for gaffes and communication errors.
However, the Barack Obama who can win the 2008 Presidential election is the candidate who uses his considerable communication skills to unite the nation. Also, he must be a candidate who transcends partisan politics and wants real reform in Washington, D.C. He would learn quickly from his limited experience and cannot vote “present” on the major issues of the day. He may not be an elitist, but should be the candidate who has shown great skill in the management of his heretofore successful Presidential campaign.
Is Barack Obama a unique, thoughtful politician who can transcend party politics and use his considerable oratory skill to lead the country and reform Washington DC.? Or is Barack Obama a far left of center, elitist candidate who secretly admires the dubious diatribes of his radical pastor, and who condones the actions of a violent underground leader of America’s past?
Historically, American political reality concludes that the former Barack Obama can win the 2008 Presidential election, while the latter Barack Obama simply cannot. It certainly would be a lot easier for the voters during the next several months if the real Barack Obama finally stood up.
Caffeinated Content