O'Turd Watch

Obama Campaign to Go After Those Who Honestly Report On His Anti-Israel Policies… Like the Fact That He’s Talking With the Muslim Brotherhood

In May Barack Obama urged Israel to hand over half of Jerusalem, the Wailing Wall, The Temple Mount, Old Jerusalem, and the tomb of Jesus Christ to the Hamas-Fatah terrorist alliance.

Of course, his radical position was very unpopular with a most Americans.

This week the Obama Administration announced it was holding talks with Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood who want Shariah Law and war with Israel.

Of course, the Obama Administration doesn’t want to change its anti-Israel policies. But, they do want to attack conservatives who speak out against Obama’s record on Israel.
The Washington Post reported, via GWP

“It’s class warfare, and it’s the kind of language that you would expect from the leader of a third world country, not the President of the United States.”   Marco Rubio on Obama Sowing Socialist Seeds of Discord

Obama: Tax ‘The Rich’ — Again – In his Thursday press conference, Obama talked about eliminating the tax deductibility of corporate jets — no fewer than six times, says the Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto — in an obvious appeal to the “hate and envy crowd” that you see at, say, your local Democratic committee precinct workers’ meeting.

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”  (Winston Churchill)

But don’t touch mine:

Atlas Shrugs:

“Well Respected”  Jews Needed

Like a pig sniffing for truffles, the Obama regime is sniffing around for  influential kapos willing to sell out the Jewish people. In exchange for doing the bidding of the most anti-Israel president in the history of the United States, these suckers hope to gain what, exactly?

IIn what sounds morbidly similar to Germany’s judenrat, Obama seeks to establish Jewish council leaders – volunteers to ensure that Obama’s anti-Israel policies are propagandized, packaged, sold to uninformed Jews. Support will be implemented.   (Read it all: Obama Seeks “Well Respected” Traitors and Patsies in the Jewish Community)

Weiner Watch:

Thanks to Moonbattery:

There once was a pervert named Weiner,
Who had the weirdest demeanor.
He was thrown from the Hill,
For behaving like Bill.
Now Congress is one Weiner leaner.


2 thoughts on “O'Turd Watch”

  1. Obama’s May 19 speech and the Arab Peace Initiative (API)

    In a two-part article that appeared in The Great Neck News, Williston Times and New Hyde Park Courier, Liz Berney, who was a Republican candidate for Congress in New York in 2010, shows that President Obama’s May 19 speech, in which he called for Israel to retreat to the 1949 armistice lines, shows that Obama continues to try to impose the ‘Arab Peace Initiative’ (also known as the Saudi Plan) on Israel. Part 1 of the article is here and Part 2 is here. Here’s an excerpt.
    Obama’s May 19, 2011 speech followed the same API game plan. The speech was even worse than many people realize. For instance, Obama did much more than simply imply that unsecure pre-1967 lines should be the framework for negotiating future borders. Obama said that the “United States” believes that the “result” of negotiations should be the (indefensible) 1967 borders with some swaps. In other words, Obama declared that such borders are U.S. policy – an extreme anti-Israel position.

    “Pre-1967 borders” refers to the 1949 Armistice lines, where the war stopped after six Arab countries invaded Israel and seized existing Jewish homes and synagogues and historic Jewish areas, including land promised to Israel by the Balfour Declaration and San Remo conference. Obama’s position reverses all prior U.S. policy. Former President Bush’s 2004 letter to former Israeli prime minister Sharon declared: “[I]t is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion.” President Bush’s letter also noted that such a retreat was not feasible due to the presence of “major Israeli population centers” beyond the 1949 lines.

    Alarmingly, Obama’s May 19 speech also characterized Israel’s territorial retreat and the establishment of a Palestinian State as a first step, which would not be enough: issues of Palestinian refugees and Jerusalem would still be outstanding and then require resolution. Obama’s statement gave credibility to Palestinian claims to Jerusalem and a so-called Palestinian “right of return” to overrun all of Israel. Obama’s proposed phased steps are also reminiscent of the API and Yasser Arafat’s “plan of phases” to destroy Israel.

    (Obama’s Orwellian phrasing of a phases plan was: “Palestinians should know the territorial outlines of their state; Israelis should know that their basic security concerns will be met. I’m aware that these steps alone will not resolve the conflict, because two wrenching and emotional issues will remain: the future of Jerusalem, and the fate of Palestinian refugees. But moving forward now on the basis of territory and security provides a foundation to resolve those two issues in a way that is just and fair.”)

    It would of course be suicidal for Israel to “move forward now” on giving up more territory, retreating to indefensible borders and permitting a terrorist Palestinian state, and to then have to contend with millions of Palestinians also demanding to move to homes in Israel that they never lived in, thereby destroying Israel. Obama’s apparent support for such phased concessions and a Palestinian “right of return” reverses prior U.S. policy.

    In truth, the Palestinian Authority is seeking a state from the United Nations in order to avoid making peace with Israel. Palestinians admit that U.N. recognition will be a springboard for “lawfare” (war through abusive lawsuits) and “phases plan” actions against Israel. In a May 16, 2011 New York Times Op Ed, Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas wrote that U.N. recognition would enable Palestinians to pursue “human rights” claims against Israel in numerous international legal courts, and to continue to pursue “a just solution for Palestinian refugees based on Resolution 194.”

    The latter item refers to a Palestinian “right of return” to all of Israel, pursuant to the Palestinian one-sided misinterpretation of U.N. Resolution 194, which, it so happens, every Arab country voted against. (An honest implementation of Resolution 194 would allow Jews to return to the homes Jews had to flee from in East Jerusalem and throughout the Middle East.)

    By contrast to UN action, a negotiated peace (which the Palestinians have studiously avoided) would require the Palestinians to finally recognize the Jewish State.

    Obama’s statements also ignored the long history of broken Palestinian promises. In five written Palestinian-Israeli agreements, commencing with Oslo I in 1993, Israel made enormous territorial concessions, in exchange for promises that the Palestinian Authority would end violence and incitement against Israel, and turn over terrorists and illegal weapons.

    Israel kept its end of the bargain, conveying half the West Bank to the Palestinian Authority, while the Palestinian Authority violated every one of its obligations. The Palestinian Authority repaid Israeli generosity by continually inciting terror and deadly intifadas against Israel, which killed and injured thousands of Israeli civilians.

    Obama’s pledge in his May 19 speech of $1 billion of loans forgiveness plus $1 billion of loan guarantees to the new Egyptian government was another outrage. In its short existence, the new Egyptian regime has already been punctuated by: wholesale murders of Christian Copts; increased arms smuggling from Egypt to Gaza (for use against Israel); the opening of the Egypt-Gaza border; obvious involvement of the Muslim Brotherhood; the brokering of the Hamas-Fatah pact; potential Egyptian president Muhammed el-Baradei’s April 4, 2011 threat to declare war on Israel, and more. Shouldn’t American promises of assistance at the very least be conditioned upon better behavior?
    Read it all here and here. http://israelmatzav.blogspot.com/2011/07/obamas-may-19-speech-and-arab-peace.html

  2. The Politics of Envy

    By Dr. Bruce R. Porter Monday, January 12, 2009

    A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. 
It can only exist until the voters discover
 that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure.
 From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates
 promising the most money from the public treasury, 
with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy
 followed by a dictatorship.
-Author Unknown-
(Popularly attributed to Professor Alexander Tytler)

    To understand American politics, we need only to understand the fundamental difference between envy and jealousy.

    According to the online reference; Wikipedia:
    The words “Envy” and “Jealousy” are often used interchangeably, but in correct usage, both words stand for two different distinct emotions.

 If we give jealousy a political voice, it would likely say:

    You have nice things, (a better house, a fancier car, and a larger bank account, etc.) and I want these things too. Therefore, I’m going to further my education, work harder, save my money, invest wisely, and do whatever I must do to have the good things you have.

A jealous person doesn’t necessarily begrudge the good fortune of others or assume there not enough good things available for them as well. Such a person tends to see a world of abundance with unlimited possibilities. A jealous person often admires good things and believes that since someone else can achieve success, then they can too! The success and blessing of others serves as an inspiration and motivation to better one’s self and enjoy the fruits of hard work and success also.

    Envy, on the other hand, begrudges the blessing of others. If envy has a political voice, it might say;

    You have nice things, money, etc. I want those things too, but I don’t think its right that anyone should have what everyone cannot have! Besides, there isn’t enough money and resources to go around for everyone to have what you have, so this is an injustice! Therefore, I will do whatever I must to make sure you can’t have such things! I will help pass laws that will tax you and anyone else like you who think you’re so great and give it to myself and others who deserve it!

    I’ll redistribute your wealth and thereby bring about justice! (Can anyone say, “socialism?”)

    Envious persons are often annoyed and even outraged when someone else is successful and prosperous. Socialism, and its ugly sister Marxism, borrow much lumber from envy with their concept of “class warfare.” Communism begins with the erroneous assumption that resources and wealth are limited, and therefore only so much is available to go around.

    This, of course, is a lie since the natural resources of this planet (not to mention the ingenuity of people when inspired by opportunity) are virtually limitless in their abundance. The popular myth of “sustainable lifestyles” perpetuate this “lack” mentality and give opportunity for manipulation of the masses through fear of lack or global climate disaster. Such Chicken-Little “the-sky-is-falling” propaganda by the Left is a cynical attempt to gain control over the masses through fear.

    My only disclaimer to the above is that wise management of our vast resources and abundance should not be neglected. President Theodore Roosevelt, a man of the outdoors as well as an avid hunter, recognized the necessity of wise management and the preservation of areas of our country for the enjoyment of all generations. However, he would never have sanctioned the idea that man was a disease upon the planet as some extremist environmentalists assert today.

    Our great nation was built upon a spirit of jealousy.

    Most people came here for political and religious freedom, and an opportunity for a better life for themselves and their children. They saw abundance and possibilities and natural resources. They drew encouragement and inspiration from the successes of those who came before them. Such freedom and liberty made the United States the most prosperous, generous, and greatest nation in the world. People from oppressed nations of the world have been willing to risk everything just to come here and build a better life.

    The politics of envy has now arisen to prominence in our nation.

    Thanks to the incessant efforts of dedicated socialists and closet-Marxists in the popular entertainment, news-media, and particularly the educational systems, a growing and increasingly vocal segment of our population now believe that “big oil,” “big business,” and “the rich” are the source of their problems. Marxist concepts of “Class Warfare” and the suspicious envy of all successful individuals and institutions have proliferated in our nation’s public schools. (See my blog on the origins of Public Education in America)

    In many of our public schools, children are taught that America’s prosperity and success is the cause of most of the world’s problems because of our “crass consumerism and exploitation of the poor” in developing countries. Never mind that American consumerism and prosperity actually gives opportunity for people in poorer countries to find employment and realize the hope of a better life.

    Liberals capitalize on resentment and foment outrage at perceived “social injustices” in order to recruit new activists who will spread their hatred for America and promote envy-politics in the voting booth. They champion their concept of “justice” through a “redistribution of the wealth,” and yet have carefully obscured this agenda from the general population during political campaigns. Until they gain a majority base in the electorate, they must appear as “moderates” in order to dupe the remaining thin majority of center-right conservatives in our country. Once the balance of power tips in their favor (as it seemed to in the past election) we can expect that they will become bolder in their socialist agendas.

    The politics of envy has steadily crept into our national dialogue. Our media now continuously trumpet class warfare terms like “big oil,” or “corrupt investors,” and “big corporations” as if these institutions are intrinsically evil. Never mind that nobody has ever gotten a job from a poor person. We constantly hear newscasters speak of “Mr. so-and-so from a ‘working class’ neighborhood” as if such terms come from the lexicon of a free Republic. Such words have meaning, and are slowly but steadily drawing the noose of Marxism around our collective throats. 
The politicians and pundits of the Left, and not a few so-called “conservatives-in-name-only” fools, have learned that the fast-track to power is to stir up outrage among the electorate who feel disenfranchised and envious of the so-called “fat cats.” They promise the masses that they will make “big” business and “big” oil pay higher taxes that will be “redistributed” to them in one form or another. Obama is a classic example of a “class warfare” politician.

    The politics of envy would bring tyranny upon our people in the name of “social justice.” History has shown us repeatedly that when people are deceived into the notion that they are “entitled” to government handouts, they elect tyrants who will use government to subjugate and enslave everyone to feed their own megalomania. 

    Let us pursue jealousy (zeal) and seek the highest and best we can be as a nation. Let us seek excellence with zeal, and along the way lift up those who need our help. Let us not give in to a spirit of envy and fearfully tear down what our forefathers prayed for, and paid for, at such a dear price for our blessing, and that of our posterity.


Comments are closed.