web analytics
August 30, 2016 / 26 Av, 5776

Posts Tagged ‘Obama’

Obama’s Kenyan Half-Brother Endorses Trump for President

Monday, July 25th, 2016

The Kenyan half-brother of Democratic U.S. President Barack Obama has walked away from his brother’s party.

More to the point, Malik Obama, a Democrat, told The Post from his home in the village of Kogelo that he voting this year for Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump.\

The reason?

His “deep disappointment” in his brother’s administration, and the scandal over Hillary Clinton’s use of private email servers during her tenure as Secretary of State.

“She should have known better, as the custodian of classified information,” the 58-year-old former Democrat said. He expressed exasperation over the decision by FBI Director James Comey not to recommend prosecution over the matter.

Rather, photographed sporting a red hat with white lettering saying “Make American Great Again,” Malik Obama told media he switched allegiance to “the party of Lincoln” instead.

“I like Donald Trump because he speaks from the heart,” he said. “Make America Great Again is a great slogan.

“I would like to meet him.”

Hana Levi Julian

Tim Kaine’s Decision to Boycott Netanyahu’s Speech Could Hurt Hillary

Saturday, July 23rd, 2016

When Hillary Clinton’s choice for VP, Virginia Senator Tim Kaine, joined the Democrats who avoided Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s March 2015 speech to a joint session of Congress, he announced: “There is no reason to schedule this speech before Israeli voters go to the polls on March 17 and choose their own leadership.” Revealing that he had labored to delay the Netanyahu appearance, Kaine said, “I am disappointed that, as of now, the speech has not been postponed. For this reason, I will not attend the speech.”

Before Kaine made his announcement, only three other senators had planned to boycott the speech: the two anti-Netanyahu Vermont Senators Bernie Sanders and Pat Leahy, and Hawaii Senator Brian Schatz. All the other Democratic senators were reluctant to commit either way, and told the press they were thinking about it. Even the biggest Democratic opponent of the Iran deal, New York Senator Chuck Schumer, did not forcefully call on his fellow Democrats to show—not willing to upset an already irate President Obama. Most Democratic legislators who said they’d avoid the speech came from blue states and blue districts. But when Kaine, whose state of Virginia until 2008 voted Republican for president, gave permission to Democrats from red states to boycott Netanyahu when he declared he was skipping the speech.

The Forward on Friday wrote that Kaine “Will be the Jewiest Vice President” under Hillary Clinton, describing him as “a friend to the Jewish community for about as long as he’s been in public service.” But when one reads the reasons why Kaine is so “Jewey” according to the Forward, one realizes Kaine would be a bonanza to leftwing Israeli Jews, very much like the folks who are currently in the White House.

Kaine supports a two-state solution, argues the Forward; also, he is a religious Catholic (so he knows all about the auto-da-fé); during his time as the governor of Virginia, Sabra built the world’s largest hummus factory outside Richmond, and hummus is Jewish, isn’t it, ask anyone from Cairo to Ramallah to Damascus; and Kaine hosted several Passover seders and played matchmaker to Conservative Rabbi Jack Moline’s daughter.

So, in considering Kaine’s pros and cons regarding Israel, you have his support for a nuclear deal with Iran, and his support for a Palestinian State, while on the plus side you have lots of hummus.

JNi.Media

Iran Celebrates Anniversary of Nuclear Deal by Firing Ballistic Missile

Saturday, July 16th, 2016

One year almost to the day after the signing of the nuclear agreement between Iran and the world powers, and in blatant violation of UN Resolution 2231, Tehran tried to launch a ballistic missile using North Korean technology, Fox News reported, citing intelligence officials.

The test failed when the missile exploded after liftoff, on July 11 at night, outside Saman, a city west of Isfahan, at a site Iran has used before to conduct ballistic missile tests. This is the latest attempt in the year since the signing of the nuclear deal.

The test rained on President Obama’s parade, who said on Thursday, the actual anniversary of the deal, that “over the last year, the Iran deal has succeeded in rolling back Iran’s nuclear program, avoiding further conflict and making us safer.”

But according to The Hill, the Republicans used the one-year anniversary for several largely symbolic measures to undermine the deal. “We need to look no further than Iran’s dangerous and destabilizing activities to see the disaster that the Iran nuclear agreement has been over the last year,” Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) said in a statement.

In UN Resolution 2231, Iran is “called upon not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using such ballistic missile technology.”

According to Reuters, a confidential report by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said that Iran’s ballistic missile program is “not consistent with the constructive spirit” of the nuclear deal. The Security Council is due to discuss the Ban Ki-moon report on July 18. Iran’s foreign ministry spokesman Bahram Ghasemi announced that “Iran will strongly continue its missile program based on its own defense and national security calculations.”

Secretary of State John Kerry, who meets regularly with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, said this week that “Nobody pretends that some of the challenges we have with Iran have somehow been wiped away. There are other real issues, and we will continue and are continuing to focus on those issues.”

Which means the US is content to permit the Iranians to defy the UN and the Western allies in working on long-range missiles, which should be ready to carry nuclear payloads as soon as the temporary limit on Iran’s development of a nuclear device is removed, in 2025. And with its newly thawed billions of dollars, what would stop Iran from buying the device from North Korea, its favorite shopping spot?

In late June, North Korea succeeded in launching its home-grown Musudan intermediate-range ballistic missile, which flew a distance of 250 miles to the Sea of Japan, this after five earlier failures.

JNi.Media

For Obama, Leftist Rhetoric Is Always Innocent and Conservatives Are Always Guilty

Friday, July 15th, 2016

{Originally posted to The Daily Wire website}

When it comes to the linkage between violence and rhetoric, I abide by a fairly simple rule: If you’re not advocating violence, you’re not responsible for violence. That doesn’t mean your rhetoric is decent or appropriate; it may be vile, awful and factually incorrect. But it isn’t the cause for violence.

President Barack Obama also abides by a simple rule when it comes to linking violence and rhetoric: If he doesn’t like the rhetoric, it’s responsible for violence. And if there’s violence associated with rhetoric he likes, then the violence must have been caused by something else.

This shining double standard was on full display this week after an anti-white racist black man shot 12 police officers in Dallas just hours after Obama appeared on national television explaining that alleged instances of police brutality and racism were “not isolated incidents” but rather “symptomatic of a broader set of racial disparities that exist in our criminal justice system.” Obama was happy to label the shootings of Alton Sterling in Louisiana and Philando Castile in Minnesota, without evidence, as part of a broader racist trend in law enforcement across the country.

Then Micah Xavier Johnson opened fire on white police officers — and anti-police racist radicals attacked officers in Minnesota, Tennessee, Missouri, Georgia and Texas again — and Obama suddenly got amnesia. Now, it turned out, rhetoric had nothing to do with their actions. In fact, said Obama, he had no idea why Johnson — who explicitly said he wanted to murder white cops — would do such a thing. “I think it’s very hard to untangle the motives of this shooter,” Obama said while in Poland. “What triggers that, what feeds it, what sets it off — I’ll leave that to psychologists and people who study these kinds of incidents.” He did blame one element for the attack, however: lack of gun control. “If you care about the safety of our police officers,” he lied, “you can’t set aside the gun issue and pretend that that’s irrelevant.”

Odd how this works. When a white racist shoots up a black church in Charleston, South Carolina, Obama targets America’s legacy of racism, and the entire media call for a national fight against Confederate flags; when a nut tries to shoot up a Planned Parenthood building in Colorado, the left emerges to claim that the pro-life movement bears culpability. But when an Orlando jihadi shoots up a gay nightclub, Obama and company declare the motives totally mysterious and then impugn Christian social conservatives and the National Rifle Association.

Here’s the truth: Obama’s rhetoric isn’t responsible for murder, but it’s certainly responsible for death. That’s because Obama’s racist rhetoric has led to the greatest rise in racial polarization since the 1970s. In 2010, just 13 percent of Americans worried about race relations, whereas in April 2016, 35 percent of Americans did. That racial polarization has, in turn, led to distrust of police officers, many of whom respond by pulling out of the communities that need their help most. Crime rates go up, including murder rates. Ironically, Obama’s supposed rage at white officers killing blacks leads to more blacks killing blacks in cities no longer policed by whites.

But there’s good news: Obama can always blame everyone else. When you’re held responsible for your feelings rather than your actions, it’s always simple to direct attention toward the evil conservatives who insist that all lives matter rather than care enough about black lives to save them by endorsing the police who work to protect black men and women every day.

Ben Shapiro

Why Dallas Cops Should Turn Their Backs on President Obama

Wednesday, July 13th, 2016

{Originally posted to The Daily Wire website}

In 2014, New York Mayor Bill De Blasio ripped the NYPD after the death of Eric Garner, who was subjected to a submission hold by the police during an arrest for selling “loose” cigarettes, and then died of a heart attack. De Blasio went on national television and said, “What parents have done for decades who have children of color, especially young men of color, is train them to be very careful when they have…an encounter with a police officer.” He then said that he’d told his own son, who is black, about the supposed racism of the police: “With Dante, very early on, we said, ‘Look, if a police officer stops you, do everything he tells you to do. Don’t move suddenly. Don’t reach for your cellphone. Because we knew, sadly, there’s a greater chance it might be misinterpreted if it was a young man of color. It’s different for a white child. That’s just the reality in this country.”

That isn’t the reality in this country – a new study reported by The New York Times says that black people are significantly less likely to be shot by police than white people in similar circumstances.

But those lies matter.

Days after De Blasio’s statements, two NYPD officers, Wenjian Liu and Rafael Ramos, were murdered in cold blood by criminal Ismaaiyl Brinsley, who pledged to put “wings on pigs.” When De Blasio attended the funeral for Ramos, hundreds of officers openly turned their backs on him. De Blasio wasn’t responsible for the deaths of the officers, but he was certainly responsible for slandering them before their murders.

In Dallas, officers should do the same to President Obama.

Obama isn’t responsible for the murder of Dallas police officers, as I wrote last week. But, like De Blasio, he is responsible for slandering them before their murders. Hours before the massacre, Obama said that police shootings in Louisiana and Minnesota – both of which were under investigation, and about which Obama said he knew little – were “not isolated incidents. They’re symptomatic of a broader set of racial disparities that exist in our criminal justice system.” Obama then reeled off a list of statistics designed to show systemic racism against black people by cops – ignoring, of course, higher rates of criminality in the black community. He added, “when incidents like this occur, there’s a big chunk of our fellow citizenry that feels as if because of the color of their skin they are not being treated the same. And that hurts. And that should trouble all of us.”

But there are a large number of cops who feel – rightly – that because of the color of their uniform, they aren’t treated the same. The President doesn’t wait for evidence before charging them with racism. He doesn’t separate off the bad apples from the rest of the police community. He simply talks about institutional racism, providing no solutions, and then postures for the cameras.

And after the Dallas massacre, President Obama is still pretending bewilderment at the motivation for the shootings: “I think it’s very hard to untangle the motives of the shooter,” Obama said on Saturday. He had no such problems ascribing motivations to police officers without evidence.

He’s been doing this for years. Back in 2014, just before the shootings of Liu and Ramos, Obama condemned the cops, saying that racism was “something deeply rooted in our society; it’s deeply rooted in our history.”

There is a reason that the vicious, vacuous Black Lives Matter movement has taken off under President Obama: he’s incentivized them, backed them, supported their evidence-free argument that the criminal justice system is racist. And that movement, with Democratic help, has dramatically polarized race relations in the country. That has real, predictable effects, including less trust of police in black communities and greater anger at police departments.

Cops have every right to be angry at the president who slanders them. They should show it instead of allowing President Obama to use the funerals for the officers he slandered for his own brand of political agitprop.

Ben Shapiro

Is Barack Obama Responsible For The Dallas Anti-Cop Terror Attack?

Tuesday, July 12th, 2016

{Originally posted to the author’s website, The Daily Wire}

On Thursday, President Obama reacted to the cell-phone-captured footage of the police killings of Alton Sterling in Louisiana and Philando Castile by suggesting that such killings were “not isolated incidents.” Instead, he said, “They are symptomatic of challenges within our criminal justice system, the racial disparities that appear across the system year after year, and the resulting lack of trust that exists between law enforcement and too many of the communities they serve.”

In effect, Obama said – just as he’s been saying for years – that what he believes are extrajudicial murders of black men by police officers are the result of systemic racism, reflected in disproportionate arrest and imprisonment statistics.

Then, on Thursday night, anti-white racist snipers began firing on white police officers in Dallas. When the smoke had cleared, five officers were dead and another seven were wounded, some grievously.

This raises an obvious question: what sort of responsibility does President Obama bear for the massacre?

This isn’t the first time such questions have been raised about leftist anti-cop rhetoric. After the death of Eric Garner in New York City in 2014, New York Mayor Bill De Blasio echoed Obama’s message: “We are dealing with centuries of racism that brought us to this day.” Obama promptly called De Blasio to thank him. De Blasio bragged that he had met Obama at the White House, and said that he had told his son, who is black, “about the dangers he may face” from police. Days later, two police officers in New York City were murdered in cold blood by a black criminal who pledged to put “wings on pigs” on social media. The NYPD turned their backs on De Blasio when he attended the funeral for one of the officers.

Yet the media today – and President Obama himself – blame lack of gun control for Dallas, or claim that motives are unclear. They certainly distance the Black Lives Matter movement from the shootings, even as the Democratic National Committee released a statement essentially lumping together BLM with the anti-cop terrorist attack: “while most protesters have made their voices heard peacefully, tonight’s shooting of officers in Dallas is unacceptable and a reminder that the time to address these tensions and find common ground is long overdue.”

So, what is the relationship between anti-cop rhetoric and the racist murder of cops?

First off, let’s point out the obvious double standard from the left: when a white racist, Dylann Storm Roof, shot up a Charleston black church, the left immediately blamed a widespread culture of racism, and insisted that states across the country tear down Confederate war memorials and stop sponsoring the Confederate flag at state capitols. When non-black cops shoot black suspects, the left insists – without a shred of evidence – that such killings are endemic among police officers, and that the entire system is racist. When anti-Donald Trump protesters riot against Trump supporters, the left blame Trump’s rhetoric. When a nutcase shoots up an area near a Planned Parenthood, the left blames the pro-life movement. When another nutcase shoots Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, the left blames Sarah Palin’s Congressional targets map. But when obvious anti-white racists murder white cops, the left suggests that gun control is the issue; when obvious Islamic terrorists murder gay people in a nightclub in Orlando, the problem is white Christians who don’t support same-sex marriage and Republicans who defend gun rights.

In other words, for the left, rhetoric can only connect with murder when it’s rhetoric they don’t like. If they do like the rhetoric — or at least if they want to defend the people responsible for the rhetoric — then the actual motivation for murder will be [omitted].

But now let’s tackle the real question: when is rhetoric responsible for violence? Rhetoric is responsible for violence when it calls for violence. Radical Islam calls for jihad. Protesters chanting “pigs in a blanket, fry ‘em like bacon” calls for violence against cops. Barack Obama didn’t call for violence against cops.

That said, he did do three things that are particularly despicable:

He denied that murder charges require evidence;
He denied that charges of racism require evidence;
He ignored the actual cause of anti-cop violence.

Obama didn’t cause the Orlando shooting attack, but his failure to label it Islamic jihadism surely stopped America from fighting it properly. Obama didn’t cause the Dallas shootings, but his attempts to turn the conversation toward gun control or police brutality are just another way to avoid a real conversation about anti-white racism.

So no, of course Obama isn’t responsible for the Dallas shootings. But he’s surely responsible for cultivating a racially polarized culture, ignoring the real causes of anti-cop violence, and leaving cops out in the cold to fend for themselves.

Ben Shapiro

Anti-Semitic Obama Cartoon in Leftwing Spanish Poster on Eve of State Visit

Saturday, July 9th, 2016

A cartoon showing a generalized form of President Obama hugging a generalized cartoon of a religious Jewish man with dollar bills as explosions erupt in front of them was posted on Twitter by the far-left United Left party, inviting its followers to come to a protest rally in front of the American Embassy in Madrid on Sunday.

Obama was scheduled to arrive in Seville on Saturday night and on Sunday visit an American military base in southern Spain. On Monday he is having lunch in Madrid with King Felipe VI and leading Spanish politicians. However, because of the Dallas shooting, the president will arrive in Spain only on Monday, directly for that lunch with the king.

The Israeli Embassy on Friday condemned the poster, stating, “Nothing can justify the usage of anti-Jewish caricatures, and silence shouldn’t be maintained in the face of this flagrant expression of anti-Semitism.”

United Left said the rally on Sunday will protest both American and Israeli policies, and that it opposes the president’s visit because the US promotes “neocolonialist international relations” of war, destabilization and interference.

This is Obama’s very first visit to Spain as president, at a time when this country is facing political instability following an election last month that didn’t give any party a conclusive victory.

Guerras No

 

David Israel

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/anti-semitic-obama-cartoon-in-leftwing-spanish-poster-on-eve-of-state-visit/2016/07/09/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: