The first e-mail comes from a frequent writer, typos and all.
“U try to make ‘our’ president a pro muslim, when your ‘Jewish’ nation is the cause of most of our problems. Your PM is nothing more than a terrorist, but u defend him. I told u before, when u were in Israel, stay there.”–Bob De John
“Another Holocaust is on the way,” wrote Janice Wijnen. “What will history say about the Jews? They were the missing links between apes and human beings.”
Yes, some writers support Obama’s stance in legitimate ways. They show that there is room for honest disagreement and that criticism of Israel, whether from the president or other Americans, does not have to be anti-Semitic.
But most of the critical reaction I get when I fault Obama’s policies is anti-Semitic. Some of it is violent in tone, wishing me and my family death and suggesting the world would be a better place if Hitler had succeeded.
Where could Obama’s base have heard and embraced such a vile message?
Progressives are currently using a line of attack based on patriotism because it is a point on which they have always rightly felt vulnerable. One need look no further than the numerous people with whom President Obama himself associates who have long had a negative view of America.
The laundry list of liberals who are now accusing conservatives of being unpatriotic is laughable.
The George Soros funded progressive propaganda machine known as Media Matters has written numerous pieces denouncing conservatives as unpatriotic haters for being happy that Obama was unable to bring the Olympics to Chicago.
The DNC and some liberal writers used the America hating slur on conservatives saying that if you felt Obama was undeserving of the Nobel peace prize, you were “siding with the terrorists.”
Sensing a pattern yet?
What we have here is a clear misunderstanding of the concept of patriotism on the part of progressives.
You see, conservatives associate patriotism with love of country, regardless of who is president and even though many of us strongly disagree with President Obama’s policies, we still respect his office. It is our very love of America as it is and has always been that makes us resistant to the “change” which many of us feel is being forced upon the country.
Progressives on the other hand, only associate patriotism with love of President Obama. They feel there is something inherently wrong with America which will only be a great country when it is “changed” to reflect their world view as a more progressive, i.e. European style country. This view is rejected by conservatives who love America just the way she is.
Progressives feel any criticism of Obama is a criticism of America. It isn’t. It’s just a criticism of Obama but this explains everything. Progressives feel Obama represents America. He doesn’t. He’s just the current president, that’s all.
Progressives are currently using a line of attack based on patriotism because it is a point on which they have always rightly felt vulnerable. One need look no further than the numerous people with whom President Obama associates who have long had a negative view of America.
Bill Ayers hated America so much he decided to attack his own country with bombs. Jeremiah Wright used his position as a religious leader to hatefully criticize America from the pulpit. Van Jones has made no secret of his radical views and his disdain for the county. Even the first lady was once excoriated by the press for uttering her famous line about being proud of her country for the first time when her husband became the obvious nominee for the Democrats.
For progressives to hurl accusations of anti-Americanism at conservatives is laughable.
If progressives were truly patriotic themselves, they would have been patriotic all along, not just because we finally have a progressive president in the White House. They would not continue insisting that there is something wrong with America, even as they control a majority of American government.
They might have even showed a bit more patriotism under President Bush, but we all know how that worked out.
“Many American supporters of Israel who voted for Barack Obama now suspect they may have been victims of a bait and switch. Jewish Americans voted overwhelmingly for Mr. Obama over John McCain in part because the Obama campaign went to great lengths to assure these voters that a President Obama would be supportive of Israel. This despite his friendships with rabidly anti-Israel characters like Rev. Jeremiah Wright and historian Rashid Khalidi.”
“At the suggestion of Mr. Obama’s Jewish supporters — including me — the candidate visited the beleaguered town of Sderot, which had borne the brunt of thousands of rocket attacks by Hamas. Standing in front of the rocket shells, Mr. Obama declared: “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.” This heartfelt statement sealed the deal for many supporters of Israel.”
“Now, some of them apparently have voters’ remorse.”
Really professor? How could you have mistaken Obama’s stance on the importance of Israel?
Surely, you were comforted by the words of his spiritual mentor…
“Barack Obama is taking what he and his administration refer to as “a more balanced approach to Middle East policy.”
“Let me explain what that literally means in real terms.”
“It means the U.S. government is now using its clout with Israel to insist Jews, not Israelis, mind you, but Jews, be disallowed from living in East Jerusalem and the historically Jewish lands of Judea and Samaria, often referred to as the West Bank.”
“I want you to try to imagine the outrage, the horror, the outcry, the clamoring, the gnashing of teeth that would ensue if Arabs or Muslims were told they could no longer live in certain parts of Israel – let alone their own country.”
And it doesn’t end there. American political leftists, who adore Obama, usually find the Jewish people to be a convenient scapegoat. (Hmmm… I think we’ve seen that before.)
HUFFPO: “When the mainstream American press chose to broadcast the graphic video — as moving as the footage is, it is difficult to watch — it made a commendable decision that nonetheless highlighted its hypocritical attitude towards Palestinians who resist Israeli occupation on a daily basis, and who often meet the same fate as Neda.”
APB: “This is nothing but lies. Leftists always blame Israel and the “Jewish controlled” media. The truth is that the media’s long been in open collusion with Israel’s enemies.”
Right on APB. The truth is that American Conservatives support the Jewish People and Israel. American liberals/progressives… not so much.
It’s surprising that a man as intelligent as Alan Dershowitz would just begin to figure this out now, months after Obama took office as president.
“The day before President Barack Obama was to meet with Israel’s prime minister, community activists, clergy and residents marched through Oak Park on Sunday to call for a just solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”
“And they were led in their efforts by a politically provocative pair from Chicago: Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. and William Ayers.”
“When he was running for the presidency, Obama was dogged by the two figures: Wright, Obama’s former pastor, with his fiery words from the pulpit of Trinity United Church of Christ, and Ayers, for his radical past as a leader in the 1960s and 1970s of the violent Weather Underground group.”
You know what’s even funnier than that? The first reader comment after the article from “Mario” in Illinois:
“Why do you keep associating wright and ayers with obama? obama already said he barely knew these people…and had already thrown wright under the bus and disowned ayers. let’s not give these 2 twerps anymore importance.”
Yeah Mario, you’re right. It’s “the media” that keeps associating Obama with Ayers and Wright. Obama bears absolutely no responsibility for his relationship to these two scumbags.
The editors of Wikipedia are carefully protecting President Obama’s entry on the site and actively deleting any information they deem negative. Writers from the conservative publication World Net Daily added information about William Ayers and Reverend Wright to the official Obama article on Wikipedia this weekend, fully supported by legitimate news sources only to find their additions deleted minutes later and their user accounts suspended for three days. WND reported yesterday:
“The entire Wikipedia entry on Obama seems to be heavily promotional toward the U.S. president. It contains nearly no criticism or controversy, including appropriate mention of important issues where relevant.
For example, the current paragraph on Obama’s religion contains no mention of Wright, even though Obama’s association with the controversial pastor was one of the most talked about issues during the presidential campaign.
That paragraph states: “Obama explained how, through working with black churches as a community organizer while in his twenties, he came to understand ‘the power of the African-American religious tradition to spur social change.’ He was baptized at the Trinity United Church of Christ in 1988 and was an active member there for two decades.”
Ayers is also not mentioned, even where relevant.
WND monitored as a Wikipedia user attempted to add Ayers’ name to an appropriate paragraph. One of those additions, backed up with news articles, read as follows:
“He served alongside former Weathermen leader William Ayers from 1994 to 2002 on the board of directors of the Woods Fund of Chicago, which in 1985 had been the first foundation to fund the Developing Communities Project, and also from 1994 to 2002 on the board of directors of the Joyce Foundation. Obama served on the board of directors of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge from 1995 to 2002, as founding president and chairman of the board of directors from 1995 to 1991. Ayers was the founder and director of the Challenge.”
Within two minutes that Wikipedia entry was deleted and the user banned from posting on the website for three days, purportedly for adding “Point of View junk edits,” even though the addition was well-established fact.”
The article goes on to mention that as you may suspect, the Wikipedia entry for George W. Bush is highly critical and chock full of negative information.
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, as long as they’re a liberal.
Massachusetts Democrat windbag, Barney Frank, is up in arms about Obama’s choice of Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at the inauguration in a few weeks.
Gee Barney. Where were you when it came to light that Obama spent 20 years sitting in the church of the racist, America hating Jeremiah Wright? You had no problem with words like “God Damn America and US of KKKA.”
Why are you suddenly concerned Barney? (insert sound of crickets here)
God knows, there was no reason for outrage over any of Wright’s words.
