Just whose side is Obama on?
ByKyle Ann Shiver believes the president is on the side of dictators and terrorists. Without any evidence to the contrary, I can’t disagree.
In Honduras, he picked the side of the dictator-wannabe without hesitation. He has used every diplomatic weapon at his disposal to destroy the constitutional democracy in Honduras, even cutting off financial aid and blocking diplomatic visas. He went the full gamut of meddling there and made no bones about it.
He moved to cancel long-planned missile defense shields for Poland and the Czech Republic, alerting Russia that he is not going to put up a fight to preserve freedom in former Soviet bloc countries. He even made a point of denying Berliners his presence on the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. Our president sends clear signals when it comes to wimping out on the friends of liberty.
With our sister state Israel the only functioning democracy in the Middle East and the only non-Islamic country, Barack Obama and our Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, have been forceful bullies, demanding up-front, dangerous concessions from Israel, while securing no concessions whatsoever from any of its enemies. While Israel fights for her very existence, President Obama deigns to chit-chat with the Iranian Hitler-act-alike. What signal could be clearer?
President Obama doesn’t want to be seen as “meddling” in the affairs of another nation if that nation is Muslim. Hence his reticence in any verbal support for the protesters in Iran. Yet he meddles both in public and behind the scenes nonstop against Israel.
Now, we come to the terrorist attack at Fort Hood, carried out by a man wearing the uniform of our own team, and the president does not want to “draw conclusions.” What he seems to mean is that he does not want to “draw conclusions” against a Muslim. We now have clear reports that the red flags surrounding Hasan, the Ft Hood terrorist, were so clear that it would take a complete ninny wearing earplugs and blinders not to see them.
[...]
Do flags get any redder than this? Are our valiant military men and women to be subjected to terror from within because our president and his cabinet do not wish to offend the delicate sensibilities of MuslimsApparently. When Barack Obama wrote his book, The Audacity of Hope, he laid out clearly where he would stand in his desire to protect Muslim Americans from any sort of profiling that might make them uncomfortable.
Being ever the stalwart protector of delicate Muslim feelings, Barack Obama wrote this on page 261: …
Read the whole thing for a glimpse into where Obama’s priorities lie. It’s not with the safety and security of the American people or those that protect us from harm.
Popularity: 1% [?]
This goes back as far as the meeting he had early on in his Presidency were Hugo Chavez wanted to hand him a book, and if you remember in your mind’s eye, Obama was a bit standoffish. This was not because he wanted to chide Hugo, oh no, it’s that he didn’t want to be outed as a fellow Marxist. Watch the video; he’s as guilty as a pusher selling dope to a kid with his parents watching.
Now this comes to the Ft. Hood terrorist massacre. Representative Pete Hoekstra, ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee reports that the administration is not forthcoming with all the facts and records. What did the President know and when did he know it? It will be very interesting the information of the terrorist attacker that was not acted on. How many lives could have been saved? Who is responsible for inaction and why? Inquiring minds want to know.