Obama’s Jew problem
………………………………….
Obama’s donation, behind closed doors
January 18, 2015 by Scott Johnson
powerlineblog.com
Recent developments involving the Islamic Republic of Iran can fairly be characterized as grave. Iran has announced that it has begun construction on two more nuclear plants, and the authorities have imprisoned a Washington Post journalist on mysterious charges.
Iran’s actions are provocative. The gravity of the regime’s provocation is compounded by the complacent attitude of President Obama and his administration. According to the State Department, the new nuclear reactors are okay under the interim agreement that supposedly froze Iran’s nuclear program.
Obama is not only defender of the faith, he is something of a defender of the Iranian regime. One can see this in Obama’s remarks opposing the adoption of prospective sanctions against Iran in case the parties fail to reach a final phony baloney deal addressing Iran’s nuclear program. He threatens to veto the adoption of such prospective sanctions.
Obama let it all hang out in private at a Democratic Senate retreat in Baltimore on Thursday.
Obama reportedly told his fellow Democrats that he “understood the pressures that senators face from donors and others” promoting sanctions, impugning the motives of those such as New Jersey Senator Robert Menendez who support such sanctions.
Menendez understood Obama’s point; he said he took “personal offense” to Obama’s remarks. One might reasonably infer that someone close to Menendez or of like mind in the meeting leaked the story to the New York Times.
On behalf of the Republican Jewish Coalition, Matt Brooks of the Republican Jewish Coalition put out this statement:
What exactly was President Obama suggesting when he said opposition to his Iran policy is due to “donors”? No one would say opposition to his Russia policy is due to ‘donors,’ or his Cuba policy is due to “donors,” or his general foreign policy is due to “donors.” So why did President Obama single out those who seek tougher sanctions on Iran and say their viewpoints are based on “donors”?
The threat Iran poses to Israel and the western world is a national security issue. Attributing opposition to his Iran policy to the views of “donors” is an inappropriate statement and it underplays the serious threat that Iran represents.
Aaron Goldstein speaks for me in adding this comment: “It’s pretty damn clear that when Obama says donors, he means Jews. Why Obama has such contempt for Jews when he is supported by this community in such large numbers makes little sense. But then again hatred knows no rationality.”
It is no accident, as the Communists used to say, that Obama made this remark in private. It gives unsubtle expression to a part of the animus that underlies his views and that is usually kept under wraps, as in his press conference with Prime Minister Cameron.
UPDATE: I should have noted today’s Washington Post editorial calling out the peculiar logic of Obama’s opposition to prospective sanctions and the failure of the logic to address Iran’s actions, with attention specifically given to the case of the Post’s imprisoned reporter.
Eric Liskey · Top Commenter · California State University, Fresno
Why Obama has such contempt for Jews when he is supported by this community in such large numbers makes little sense.
Turn that statement around it makes even less sense. Why Jews would support someone like Obama is a mystery for the ages.
Reply ·
· 18 · 9 hours ago
 Jeff Johnson · Top Commenter · Senior Fellow at Cockaponsett Institute
Ask Penny Pritzker.
Reply ·
· · 8 hours ago
· 
Janna Blanter · Top Commenter · Colorado Springs, Colorado
Totally agree and fully ashamed of 75% members of my "community" who are so misguided as not to have seen this anti-Semite a mile away.
Reply ·
· · 8 · 8 hours ago
· 
Arlie Ray Blackshear Jr · Top Commenter · Mountain View, California
There were Jews in Adolf's Germany who didn't see it either. There's a Yiddish word for that. What was it?
Reply ·
· · 1 · 8 hours ago
View 8 more
·
Jeff Johnson · Top Commenter · Senior Fellow at Cockaponsett Institute
At his presser on Friday, Obama basically laid out his negotiating strategy vis-a-vis Iran. He will veto any attempt to tighten or reinstate sanctions and he is willing to do anything necessary to get a deal. The good news is that the Senate still has to ratify treaties, the bad news is that Obama will simply issue an executive order, or simply refuse to enforce any sanctions that the sees as conflicting with his agreement with the Mullahs.
Obama has found the flaw in the Constitution and he is exploiting it. All he has to do to get his way is to do nothing...don't enforce the border, don't accept illegal alien criminals from local jurisdictions, don't hunt down visa violators, don't prosecute companies employing illegals, don't deport illegals, don't enforce sanctions, don't arm our allies, don't negotiate a status of forces agreement, don't call Islamic radicals Islamic, don't enforce voter fraud laws, and on, and on.
Obama is the passive-aggressive president, he governs with a veto pen and inaction, and there is absolutely nothing that can be done about it because all of the agencies tasked with enforcing those things lie within the executive branch. Clearly he does not "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." (Article II, Section 3, U.S. Constitution). But this dereliction of his constitutional duties seems not to rise to the level or definition of a high crime or misdemeanor. So, as my son would say, "We're screwed."
Reply ·
· 9 · 9 hours ago
 Dave Begley · Top Commenter · Adminstrative Law Judge at State of Nebraska
There is a remedy in the Constitution: Impeachment. But as I have written many times he is immune from impeachment due to his race. All the more reason Hillary should not be elected. She will be completely immune. How could the historic first woman president be impeached especially since her so-called husband actually was?
Reply ·
· · 3 · 7 hours ago
· 
Roger J. Buffington · Top Commenter
Jeff Johnson, well said. Back in the days of the Founders an oath was a real, tangible thing, adherence to which reflected on a man's honor and reputation in a very real way. Thus the Founders viewed the Oath of Office as a critical and key safeguard that the President would obey the laws and Constitution. Obama plainly cares nothing about his Oath of Office and therein lies a critical flaw in our system of Government. Obama, Pelosi, etc. view the Oath as a mere formality with no real substance. There really are few other safeguards for Obama's deliberate, systematic refusal to respect the Oath.
Reply ·
· · 1 · 7 hours ago
· 
Adam Brandes · Top Commenter
Jeff Johnson: Absolutely correct. Even more troubling: we've known this for years now, yet not much was done in 2012 to prevent this individual from continuing the disaster. I am convinced that the powerful people who could, betrayed us.
Reply ·
· · 6 hours ago
View 3 more
· 
Teejaw
There is not a single thug dictatorship in the world that Obama has not cozied up to, while often snubbing the leaders of free countries. It can’t just be ignorance and stupidity. It’s something more dangerous than that.
Reply ·
· 5 · 9 hours ago
Roger J. Buffington · Top Commenter
Ya think? You people elected an anti-American hard-Leftist as president. Exactly what did you expect other than an anti-American foreign policy. Before long Iran will be an existential threat not only to Israel, but also to America.
Reply ·
· · 9 hours ago
·
plburich (signed in using yahoo)
I don't think you're going to find "you people" on this blog site. Trundle off to Slate, DU, HuffPo to leave such comments.
Reply ·
· · 3 · 9 hours ago
· 
Al Case · Top Commenter · University of South Dakota
I agree, plburich. That "you people elected" line of Roger's that he's used many, many times on this blog site is not only tiresome and stale, it's also incorrect. Time to retire it, Roger.
Reply ·
· · 5 hours ago
· 
Diggs Cleveland · Top Commenter · Hard Knocks University
I received another email from the Dems, or Dem supporters, asking me to donate money in order to counter Congress voting on new sanctions and "interfering with Obama's foreign policy". It's always about Obama. Never about what's good for America. A nuclear Iran is not good for America, and you'd have to be a complete idiot not to see that. In the end, the morons who support Obama are willing to see a nuclear Iran simply because they cannot bring themselves to oppose, or even stay neutral about, anything concerning Obama. This is very scary; having such a large portion of Americans worshiping one man, no matter what, even against their own country's security.
Reply ·
· 3 · 9 hours ago
Al Case · Top Commenter · University of South Dakota
It's a cult, Diggs. Obama is it's leader.
Reply ·
· · 5 hours ago
· 
Straub Kurt Jane · Top Commenter · Vilanova University Law School
Obama is a Muslim. Whether he is self-aware, I am not sure, but in his own heart that is his disposition. So he supports the Muslim and Isalmic violence which expands the power of the emerging Muslim caliphate. That is why he cannot bear to mouth the words "Islamic terrorism," or send soldiers to fight any kind of Muslims, or support the French people after the Muslim attacks, or to do anything about the Iranian nuclear weapons program, except work hard to enable it. (K)
Reply ·
· · 2 · 8 hours ago
·
Roger J. Buffington · Top Commenter
"Why Obama has such contempt for Jews when he is supported by this community in such large numbers makes little sense. But then again hatred knows no rationality.”.
The corollary is "Why the Jewish community supports Obama in such large numbers makes little sense. But then again dogma and Leftist zeal know no rationality."
Reply ·
· · 2 · 9 hours ago
· 
Norman Land · Top Commenter · Univerity of Virginia
Rich Muslims hobnob with the Hollywood elite. Surely they are part of the social scene in Washington. I would like to know how much the Muslim "donors" have invested in Wall Street and real estate.
Reply ·
· · 2 · 8 hours ago
· 
Robert Shotzberger · Top Commenter · Virginia Beach, Virginia
Because Obama is at heart a muslim.
Reply ·
· · 2 · 8 hours ago
· 
Scott Wallace · Top Commenter · Georgia Institute of Technology
My own personal belief is that any and all dead from Iran will lie largely on the heads of those in the media who shoved this man upon us, because they believe in narratives and not facts. This is not to mean John McCain would have been better on any one particular thing-- it is just that this President should have had his wings clipped a long time ago, and instead was given free pass after free pass, because the media felt the only possible path to a better future lay with him. Well, not so, and there may be no better future for a generation, on many a different thing. There might not even be a United States at some point, and we are either approaching the point where the first crack of the schisms of the heart open, or went past that point some time ago--the point that ultimately leads to the spot where the willingness to stay... See More
Reply ·
· · 1 · Edited · 7 hours ago
· 
Kim Scattarella · Top Commenter · Works at City of Maple Valley
This disciple of Saul Alinsky (i.e. SOB) is too narcissistic and does not possess the character to discern a flaw with this way of thinking. Similarly, when it comes to calling the terrorists "Islamist radicals or extremists" he cannot bring himself to say that because he is conflicted as a Moslem sympathizer - due to his roots and don't see that changing anytime soon.
His lack of character is further displayed by not acknowledging (as the Egyptian President did) what is clearly obvious to most; that the entire religion of Islam with all of its intolerance and bigotry advocated from its leaders seriously needs a reformation, which would be speaking truth to power. Instead, he lectured the political leaders of Europe about having Muslims assimilate better into their society.
Reply ·
· · 1 · 6 hours ago
· 
Jim Temple · Top Commenter
In the days of M.A.D. it could be safely assumed that neither the Russians or us wanted to see our countries destroyed. With Iran, however, can we really have that confidence? We have the mullahs who believe that, if they destroy Israel and the United States and both countries retaliate and Iran is destroyed, the Iranians are all going to heaven for their share of the virgins and all others will be rotting in hell. That's a pretty huge difference in philosophy.
With this President, it's not just that he was inexperienced, but also his education was such that hatred of American values comes natural to him. We need to be very careful and the Democrats need to be aware that they will be held responsible, along with the President, if things in Iran go poorly.
Reply ·
· · 1 · 6 hours ago
· 
Michael Kennedy · Top Commenter
The WaPo is late learning about their boy. He doesn't care. He knows they have taken the role of the woman offered a million dollars for sex. When the offer is reduced to a dollar, she says "What do you think I am?" We know that. Obama is haggling about price now.
Reply ·
· · 1 · 7 hours ago
· 
Steve Baker · Top Commenter · Hibbing, Minnesota
I think Josh Earnest has already explained that Iran's two new nuclear plants are being constructed for the express purpose of making Baby Milk.
Reply ·
· · 1 · 8 hours ago
· 
Clark Dahl · Top Commenter · Minnesota State University Moorhead
barry is not being complacent about Iranian policy, he is being complicit with their goals.
Reply ·
· · 1 · 4 hours ago
· 
Arnold Townsend · Top Commenter · Fairmont High School
I'm thinking of doing a screenplay along the lines of "Springtime for Hitler" only mine will be dripping with literary genius. If I composed songs, I could create a four-movement symphony and call it "Reverend Wright". I've been singing that tune since 2008. But I can't carry a tune in a bucket unless it is tuned to the key of whine so I'll mug the awe of the world with a three act play about this minority American who, against all odds, is elected and reelected to the White House. He is a tortured soul with no real roots in the great ideas of the western world, unless you count the psychotic effluvia of Karl Marx and The Great Prophet, and in the end only one clear character trait comes to define him -- he hates Jews. He hates Israel and he hates Jews. I'm having trouble with the ending, however but I expect it will resolve itself in about 700 days.
Reply ·
· · 2 hours ago
· 
Phil Clary · Top Commenter · Illinois State University
He was recently quoted as saying he had "always said" that there was a less than 50% chance the deal would work, but he was going to do it anyway. It's a lie about the "always said" part, but this is a surrender What's important is doing it his way? Given the things that we are dealing with, Obama should consider himself fortunate if, by 2020, he is only widely thought of as the worst president in US history.
Reply ·
· · 9 hours ago
· 
Connie Sutherland · Top Commenter
Can someone answer this question for me? What do the liberal elites have in common with Muslims that they'll go out of their way to defend them? To me they seem like total opposites. Do liberals not know what muslims do to gays or how they feel about abortion? Are women treated well? I'm confused because the majority of Jews are on the liberals side.
Reply ·
· · 7 hours ago
·
John J Trainor · Top Commenter · John Adams
Is anyone getting the uncomfortable idea that Obama is sympathetic to militant, make that murderous, islam? He doesn't seem in the least bothered by the Iranian nuclear program with its ugly potential for blackmail, war, and mass murder.
Is this Obama's end game. Wake up America!
Reply ·
· 5 · 8 hours ago |
