Let's Talk Accomplisments

>> Friday, October 9, 2009

Exhibit 1

Jewish Leader: Jewish Support for Obama Sinking Fast
--Ronald Kessler, Oct 8, 2009

Previously overwhelming support for President Obama among Jews is sinking fast, Morton Klein, president of the Zionist Organization of America, tells Newsmax.

Klein cites a recent Gallup Poll that found Obama's approval rating among Jews in America has slipped from 83 percent in January to 64 percent.

"I give a lecture almost every week around the country to Jewish groups," says Klein, whose organization of 30,000 members is the oldest pro-Israel group in the country. "I began to see serious concern after Obama's speech in Cairo, in which he equated Palestinian suffering to Jewish suffering during the Holocaust, a ridiculous analogy. He said the Palestinian situation is equivalent to U.S. blacks in America before the civil rights movement, implying that Jews are oppressors."

Jews became even more anxious when Obama gave the Presidential Medal of Freedom to "two of the most virulent anti-Israel people in the world, Mary Robinson of Ireland and Desmond Tutu of South Africa," Klein says.

"More recently in the United Nations speech, Obama coupled supporting Israeli security with Israel fulfilling Palestinian claims and rights," Klein says. "He could have said, I support Israel security, and I want Israel to fulfill Palestinian claims and rights. But he didn't say that. He used the word couple, linking it."

That linkage "has never been made by any president, ever," Klein notes. "So that was an astonishingly new statement. This really frightens both Christian and American Jewish supporters of Israel."

In that speech, Obama "condemned the occupation that started in 1967, giving it no context, not mentioning that Egypt started that war by closing the Straits of Tiran and the Suez Canal, an act of war; by bringing 100,000 Egyptian troops on the border of Israel; by throwing out the U.N. peacekeepers from the Sinai," Klein says.

Moreover, "Jews are worried that in the Cairo speech he never mentioned Iran, and more recently he seems to be doing everything he can to delay any real, true sanctions, and he seems to have taken the military option off the table," Klein says. "So American Jews and others are now worried that he's not even serious about doing something about this ideologically fanatical terrorist-supporting regime. He's not doing anything about allowing them to get nuclear weapons, which they could use to harm Israel, the West, and even America."

As a child of survivors of the Holocaust, Klein says he was particularly offended by Obama's comparison of the suffering of Palestinians with the Nazis' murder of 6 million Jews during the Holocaust. "I found this to be an abominable, odious, and ridiculously false analogy," he says.

While Klein's parents survived, his father lost his eight brothers and sisters and all his aunts and uncles in Nazi concentration camps. Klein's mother lost half of her family.

When it comes to Israel, "It's tragic to realize that Obama's sympathies and feelings are not that far from his mentor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright," Klein says.

Based on the president's speeches and many of his foreign policy appointments, Klein thinks Obama "may become the most hostile president to Israel ever."

Exhibit 2

What has he done... Seriously... Besides weakening America both economically and militarily? On top of this all his associations with crooks, liars, thieves, and bigots? Come on! Did awake this morning upon the other side of the looking glass?


Dan Trabue October 9, 2009 at 11:42 AM  

In 2004, Gallup reported that 39% of Jews approved of Bush's presidency, with 59% disapproving of Bush.

It appears Obama has a ways to go before he reaches THAT kind of disapproval with our Jewish friends.

ELAshley October 9, 2009 at 2:02 PM  

More American Jews vote democrat than not. And Bush never stabbed Israel in the back.

Dan Trabue October 9, 2009 at 2:24 PM  

Nor has Obama stabbed Israel in the back. Not choosing to take Israel's side and choosing instead, to be more impartial, is not to stab Israel in the back. It is merely trying to be impartial in a volatile and destructive situation.

Edwin Drood October 9, 2009 at 6:54 PM  

Giving concessions to the ones who are perpetuating the violence is dumb.

Being impartial with evil nations that are bent on killing woman and children and The nation of Israel is dumb.

The President's "plan" for middle east peace is dumb, will not work, has not worked in the past.

Marshall Art October 9, 2009 at 8:30 PM  

Considering that there is really no such thing as a Pallestinian nation, and that the very concept was an invention to further an anti-Israeli agenda, and that the source of violence between those two peoples as well as the cause of suffering of the Pallies is the Pallies themselves, a prez who takes a "balanced" view of the issue in the manner Dan seems to suggest does not possess the smarts to get the job done. The fact is that the bulk of the pressure needs to be directed toward the source of the strife, which is the Pallies. Obama's words do not reflect an appreciation of this reality.

Dan Trabue October 9, 2009 at 9:12 PM  

a prez who takes a "balanced" view of the issue in the manner Dan seems to suggest does not possess the smarts to get the job done.

Well, you're welcome to whatever opinions you wish to hold. In the meantime, we the people have elected a president to take us in a different direction than his predecessors, so you'll have to work on getting enough people to agree with you to elect him out of office or elect those who support him out of Congress.

In the meantime, the people have spoken. Protest with integrity, if you wish. Disagree, if you wish. regardless, the will of the people will march on in the meantime and those who disagree with you and the Bush policy that has so ravaged our great values will push Obama to continue on in the direction we think best.

ELAshley October 10, 2009 at 9:51 AM  

I believe you're confusing two different groups of people, Dan.

"The people have spoken," which represents the people of November 4, 2008, and "the will of the people [who] will march on". These are two very different groups.

On the one hand you have those who voted... last year. And on the other you have people TODAY. The presidents approval rating has plummeted since January. As of today (September 10) the president's approval rating is 50%. This is just a daily tracking poll, but it clearly shows that the "will of the people" is fluid, whereas the the vote of November 4 is static.

The will of the people does indeed march on, Dan, but it marches with increasingly fewer numbers. Everyone on the Left touted Bush's declining numbers. It couldn't have been said in the waning days of his presidency that the "will of the people" marched on in favor of Bush. It was clear that the will of the people-- which it seems is ALWAYS on the march --were marching on, yes, but away from Bush. The same is happening now. And will likely continue to happen.

The will of the people is not static. Nor does it always march FOR the president. In terms of healthcare, the will of the people are most definitely marching AWAY from the president.

Only 43% of the people give Obama good or excellent marks on National Security. Only 30% say he is governing in a bi-partisan fashion. 62% of the 'will of the people' oppose this proposed second stimulus. And 67% oppose the proposed national sales tax.

As of today only 32% of the people STRONGLY approve of Obama, while 35% strongly DISAPPROVE.

You can tout the will of the people all you want, Dan, but just know that will of the people changes day to day. You may be a proud marcher now, but a year from now you could very well be in the same position Bush supporters were last summer.

[forgive any typos, I've got to run]

Bubba,  October 13, 2009 at 2:41 PM  

Dan, I suspect that my saying so isn't going to change anything, but I must express my irritation at your last comment.

Your triumphalism about how "we the people" have spoken strikes me as hypocritical, because I don't remember any deference to the people's will when we re-elected Bush; you railed about a revolution to end or at least frustrate a supposedly criminal administration.

It's also tiresome how often you appeal to popular opinion on matters that ought to be settled by other means, such as whether Jesus was a pacifist or whether the U.S. Constitution's "welfare clause" permits Congress to exercise an unlimited number of unemurated powers. Those arguments ought to be decided by appeals to the actual contents of the text, not opinion polls that must often include people who frankly do not know what they're talking about.

But, much more than that, with comments like this you really come off as an entirely insufferable prick.

Never mind whether the American people were sold a bill of goods this time around: the American people vote your way, and you display all the petulance of a sore winner at card games -- or a tyrant in politics.

Your candidate won the election, and suddenly, it's "we the people" who have decided things, and "the will of the people will march on" whether "you" like it or not: those who voted against the inexperienced, unqualified, untrustworthy statist do not even count as among "we the people."

The contempt you show for minority opinions -- to say nothing of minority rights, the smallest minority being the single individual -- is illiberal, and unbecoming anyone who truly respects "our great values."

I'm glad that you personally don't have any substantial amount of political power, and for the sake of those over whom you have some small authority, I hope that you're not nearly this much of a dick in a real life.

Dan Trabue October 14, 2009 at 11:54 AM  

So, what are you suggesting, Bubba? That, even though Obama won the election by a great margin, that we ought to let someone else dictate foreign policy?

I noted that you, as we did when Bush was president, had the right to protest and petition to change policy and I fully support your right to do so. Go for it.

In the meantime, Obama is president and doing things as he sees fit and I suspect that most Americans support him mostly, thus, representing the will of the people.

When Bush began his war in Iraq, most people did not support such actions and we turned out in the US and globally in numbers unprecedented in all of history to protest his direction.

If you wish to protest Obama's direction on some front, go for it. If he does something that I substantially disagree with, I may certainly do so, too.

What's your point?

Bubba,  October 14, 2009 at 5:51 PM  

Dan, my point is simply that your comment -- "the people have spoken" -- makes you sound completely insufferable.

That present perfect verb tense implies that the action is completed. It implies a finality that, hypocritically, you did not suggest for the presidential election immediately prior. More importantly, that finality is an affront to the American political tradition whose "great values" you supposedly celebrate but clearly do not appreciate.

Your stated approval for dissent -- your giving us permission to disagree, permission no one needs or wants -- doesn't hide your effort to bully dissenters into silence.

"The people have spoken" clearly implies that any further speech is futile. It almost explicitly leads to the line, "so shut the fuck up."

"The people have spoken" is a thuggish comment that makes you look like an asshole.

Dan Trabue October 14, 2009 at 8:33 PM  

No attempt to bully. Just pointing out that your views are not the majority view on these points and the only just way for you to change that is to make a better case than you have made. You are free to do so, but judging by how you all have dealt with folk that I've seen, you're losing.

And you're losing NOT because people are afraid to do the Right Thing (which you hold firmly in your hands) but because you do not make your case well and because we feel your ideals (that we've discussed here) are contrary to human rights, justice and morality.

Bubba,  October 15, 2009 at 9:03 AM  

I'm sure we'll all give your analysis the due consideration that it deserves: we note just how forthright Obama was about his radicalism throughout his campaign, and just how his approval ratings continue to soar as he pushes his agenda forward. Yes, progressivism is truly enjoying as much support as you would have us believe.

If you have so much time to give us unsolicited advice about how we're doing such a piss-poor job advancing unjust and immoral positions, perhaps you could finally address other issues, for which people are waiting for your input.

ELAshley October 15, 2009 at 9:39 AM  

Immoral and unjust positions? Let's all try on Obama's stance on abortion, forcing the American taxpayer to pay for them not only here in this blessed land of America, but abroad as well. Not content to end the lives of thousands of babies each day here in America, Obama wants to kill the children of the world as well...

"Yellow, Red, Black of White
They're all equal in his sight
'Bama wants to kill the children of the world."

I just love the way folk like Dan moralize and condone the murder of innocents, while decrying the mistreatment of Islamic terrorists murderers. It's the same deal as when Liberals cried for clemency for Stanley "Tookie" Williams. Just because he wrote a children's book! As if that paid for the murders he committed.

Liberals would have sued for clemency if (had he not killed himself) Hitler had written books for Jewish children.

Liberals didn't think too much of Carla Faye Tucker's genuine conversion... neither did Bush, for that matter. But just let a Stanley Tookie write a children's book, or a minority decide she doesn't want the child God blessed her with, and Obama say's...

"My sweet, sweet child. Go ahead and get that abortion. Here... here's the money you need... I took it from your neighbor. Go on, you shouldn't be punished any further with that "mistake" growing in your belly.

"All will be well, and all will be well, and all manner of things will be well... once you cut that cancer from your womb.

"So let it be written. So let it be done."

Bubba,  October 15, 2009 at 1:15 PM  

I'm somewhat curious about what specific ideals Dan believes we have, that he denigrates as "contrary to human rights, justice and morality."

I suspect that, since his conception of conservatism has not demonstrated a thorough understanding despite his stated youth as a conservative, the ideals he opposes are probably slanderous parodies of what we really believe.

If his ideas about our beliefs are accurate, I wonder which ones he specifically considers immoral.

Is it individual economic freedom where a man not only owns property in an academic sense but actually controls what he owns? Is it the defense of traditional institutions, including the complementary nature of man and woman? Is it the rigorous defense of liberty, which does not rule out the use of force as out of bounds?

He mentions those ideals "that we've discussed here." Is it immoral and unjust NOT to be impartial and to side with a classically liberal democracy over the anti-semetic thugs who strap bombs on their own children to murder as many innocent civilians as they can? That's the only thing he's actually discussed in this thread.

If he's going to accuse people of immoral and unjust beliefs, he should probably go into some detail.

Marshall Art October 16, 2009 at 10:59 PM  

Human rights? Justice? Morality? Where does any of that fit in with a denial of the reality that is so simple to understand and obvious to anyone who's been paying attention since forever? That is, that peace will come between Israel and Pallestine when the Pallies put down their weapons. Every concession of attempt toward peace made by Israel has been met with violence by the Pallies.

I've said if before and I'll say it again: the Pallies are entitled to NOTHING while they continue their anti-Semetic aggression. They take every opportunity to attack Israel, and they teach their young to continue the agenda. And as stated in my previous comment, they are not even a true "people", but an invention to perpetuate the agenda of Israeli annihilation.

A moral president would do as Bush did and refuse to deal with such people. Any concessions to the Pallies only validate their murderous agenda. Obama's too stupid to understand that. You, the people, Dan, aren't much better for your support of Obama.

Marshall Art October 16, 2009 at 11:02 PM  

Oh, and by the way, Dan. It's not a matter of how we make our case. Our case has not only been made but is as obvious as water is wet. The issue is the refusal of too many like yourself who refuse to acknowledge that truth. Frankly, it's tiresome and dangerous to all.

Post a Comment

Your First Amendment right to free speech is a privilege and comes with a measure of responsibility. You have the right to exercise that responsibility here but we reserve the right to inform you when you've used that right irresponsibly.

We are benevolent dictators in this regard. Enjoy.

Barry Obama : The Young Turk

Young Turk:
Date: 1908
Function: noun
Etymology: Young Turks, a 20th century revolutionary party in Turkey
:an insurgent or a member of an insurgent group especially in a political party : radical; broadly
:one advocating changes within a usually established group.

Photos: 1980 Taken by, Lisa Jack / M+B Gallery


"House Negro" "No One Messes with Joe" "O" "The One" 08-Election 1984 2009 Inaugural 2012 Election 9/11 abortion abortionists Air Obama Al Franken Al Gore Al-Qaeda American Youth Americarcare Assassination Scenario Atheism Barry O Bi-Partisanship Biden Billary Birth Certificate Border Security Bush Bush Legacy Change Change-NOT child-killers Christians Christmas Civilian Defense Force Clinton Code Pink Congress Conservatism Constitution Creation Darwin Del McCoury Democrat Hypocrisy Democrats Dick Morris Dr. Tiller Dubya Earth Day Elian Gonzalez Ends Justify Means Evil Evolution Evolution-Devolution Failure in Chief Fairness Doctrine Feodork Foreign Relations Free Speech Frogs Fuck America - Obama Has Gates George Orwell Gestapo Global Cooling Global Idiots Global Warmong God GOP Descent Graphic Design Great American Tea Party Gun-Control Guns hackers Harry Reid hate haters Heath Care Heretic Hillary Howard Dean Hussein ident in History identity theft Illegal Immigration Iraq Jackboots Jesus Jihadist-Lover Jimmy Carter Joe Biden Jon Stewart Kanye West Karl Rove Katrina Las Vegas Left-Wing Media Leftists Liar Liberal Media liberal tactics Liberals Liberty Lying Media Marriage Penalty Martyr Marxism McCain Media MSNBC/Obama Administration murderers Norm Coleman Obama Obama 2012 Obama Administration Obama Dicatorship Obama Lies Obama Wars Obama's Army Obamacare Obamists Olympia Snowe Partisanship perversion Piracy Police State Political Hell Political Left Populist Rage Pragmatist Prayer Proof of Citizenship Proposition 8 Racism Regime Change Revolution Ronald Reagan Rush Limbaugh Second Amendment Separation of Powers Slavery Socialist Government Tea-Bagging Tea-Parties terrorists The Raw Deal Thuggery Tom Tancredo Traitors War Criminal War on Weather War-Crimes Worst President in History

  © Blogger template Werd by Ourblogtemplates.com 2009

Back to TOP