Free Markets, Free People

Barack Obama: Antisemite and bigot

I’m sure the title doesn’t particularly surprise anyone who has watched the creep in the White House operate over the past few years.  But while the GOP clown car steals all the headlines (because naturally that’s where the mainstream media would prefer to focus), we have this little side show going on where Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has dared to oppose his Royal Emptiness’s desire concerning the awful Iran deal.  That has helped even some Democrats realize that this particular Emperor really is naked, his clothes having been a figment of the media and true believers.  He’s now reduced to going after his own, in the sense that Democrats are about all that still have any belief in this man’s abilities.

This has led a few on the far left to label Schumer an “Israeli Jew traitor” for his opposition to the deal.

Tablet Magazine isn’t amused at all with the utterings of Mr. Obama, and they tell you why:

Accusing Senator Schumer of loyalty to a foreign government is bigotry, pure and simple. Accusing Senators and Congressmen whose misgivings about the Iran deal are shared by a majority of the U.S. electorate of being agents of a foreign power, or of selling their votes to shadowy lobbyists, or of acting contrary to the best interests of the United States, is the kind of naked appeal to bigotry and prejudice that would be familiar in the politics of the pre-Civil Rights Era South.

This use of anti-Jewish incitement as a political tool is a sickening new development in American political discourse, and we have heard too much of it lately—some coming, ominously, from our own White House and its representatives. Let’s not mince words: Murmuring about “money” and “lobbying” and “foreign interests” who seek to drag America into war is a direct attempt to play the dual-loyalty card. It’s the kind of dark, nasty stuff we might expect to hear at a white power rally, not from the President of the United States—and it’s gotten so blatant that even many of us who are generally sympathetic to the administration, and even this deal, have been shaken by it.

And shaken they should be.  The mask if finally down.  Finally.  All the pretending in the world won’t change what Obama has said and implied.  That’s what he believes.  It is extremist and, frankly, extraordinarily biased, but it isn’t anything new for Democrats or the left. Just ask Condi Rice or Justice Thomas.  It is identity politics at its finest.  And, ironically, it is an attempt to destroy someone who was, once, an ally.

What in the world ever happened to the adults in politics?  The statesmen?  How have we allowed these creatures to take over our system?

Questions to ponder as, for the most part, the media focuses on Donald Trump and Megyn Kelly.

~McQ

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

32 Responses to Barack Obama: Antisemite and bigot

  • This really should come as no surprise. The Collective sees everyone as a potential “grievance” to exploit. When they see a picture of a group of people, they immediately start counting and sorting colors and gender.

    As I observed the other day, “Note how, if you step off dat Plantation and get uppity, those Deemocrats will beat you like it’s 1932…???

    Or, in Hellary Clinton’s words, ‘FOCKing Jew boy’”.

    • The story over at The Hill, had commenters demanding that Chuck Schumer lick the boots of Barack Obama and repent.

  • Clearly, according to Barack Obama, since no Iranian hardliners voted against him in 2008 or 2012, they are much more friendlier than Republicans ever will be.

  • Might as well throw Racist in there boss.

    If it wasn’t obvious before it was glaringly obvious after the white girl was polished off by the many times deported sanctuary city undocumented Democrat voter in San Francisco.

    The President who has managed to insert himself into most nationally noticed activities of black vs white – from the belligerent Harvard Professor and the Beer Summit, to his couldabeen son Trayvon Martin, and on down the road to Ferguson, Baltimore and Charleston. He has gone himself, or sent his representatives, to the correct set of color coded funerals or gatherings, but managed very nicely to avoid the white girl’s demise, it’s cause, and the results.

    Now let me say in fairness I’ve never believed it’s the President’s job to insert himself in most of those incidents on a personal level. With the exception of Charleston where I think a word from the President was appropriate – I’ve thought that from the moment he just had to comment on a Cambridge Mass police matter up until the present day.
    But if he’s going to insert himself he should do it across the board, he shouldn’t emphasize it only when it appears the alleged victims share his skin color.

    • He also nominated and supported “my people” Holder in office, and has urged a very “color-based” idea of school discipline, policing, and incarceration. Many of his appointees were loopy racists, like the first EPA admin whose name I don’t recall, who believed that “blacks only” water fountains were specially plumbed to provide polluted water.

      • But this is the same President, who according to top Obama confidant David Axelrod, said, “You know, I think I am the closest thing to a Jew that has ever sat in this office”.
        He must really hate himself.

  • That has helped even some Democrats realize that this particular Emperor really is naked

    The spell is only beginning to crack on a few. We can only hope the Megalogmaniac in charge decides it a Clinton Conspiracy to energize supporters over to her. Schumer was her buddy in NY after all. And they destroy each other in the press over the next 2 years.

  • The old “anyone who thinks that the US, rather than Israel, should control US foreign policy is an anti-semite” card seems to be getting less and less effective.

    • Oh, I think that noting the bigotry that is evident in Barracula and the Collective is as effective as it ever has been. Don’t you find it despicable? Aren’t you disgusted?

      As to our foreign policy, would that we had had Bibi running it on retainer these last catastrophic years of the Obamic Decline. The world would be a MUCH safer and more stable place, instead of the cauldron of displaced people bubbling into Europe, and what promises to be a nuked up ME.

      • And an unstable world is much less likely to bring about anything remotely resembling a Libertarian paradise of open borders and whatever else.

        When people get tense they start considering armies and fences and walls and rules.

        • Israel will most likely not be able to offer a retaliatory strike. The distance and zero ability to distribute the potential damage. They do not have a MAD option to standoff to Iran. Iran’s leadership is in the same boat. The situation did not become more stable.

          I guess when the region goes to cinder, and gas goes to $20, $30 a gallon. We’ll see how the cry switches to ‘how could we have let his happen?’. .

          • Well, you’re forgetting one piece of the puzzle:

            Nobody in a position to know one way or another seems to think that Iran has a nuclear weapons program, or that it has had one since at least as far back as 2004.

            The US being willing to deal with Iran has nothing to do with nuclear weapons. It has to do with all the other world commercial powers saying “well, look — we played your little sanctions game for years, and now we’re not going to play it any more. There’s a market of 75 million consumers in an oil-rich country, and we want to buy their oil and sell them stuff. If you want to disguise your capitulation as a deal about a non-existent nuclear weapons program, fine, but WE are going to make that deal whether YOU do or not. So decide whether you want to be part of the world economy or whether you want to pout in your corner like a little bitch.”

          • Nobody in a position to know one way or another seems to think that Iran has a nuclear weapons program, or that it has had one since at least as far back as 2004.

            OK. You should be able to put up a list of all those “nobodies” you refer to. Links, please.

            See, this is just like last time you tried to run your bullshit here. Put them up.

          • I certainly would NOT bet on them not exercising the Samson option.

            Were I them once I had the capacity I’d let it be known, softly, that if Gotterdammerung was the only option they left me in Israel, they would feel it from the straits of Hormuz to the Pyramids.
            And Muslims would no longer need to face east to pray to Mecca, because the dust would be spread across the globe.

          • I would assume you’re referring to the 2007 NIE executive summary. A summary that virtually had no new details for 2003 and 2004 than the 2005 report which said the opposite.

            Except it wasn’t opposite. That was campaign grandstanding by the Democrats. Even the 2007 report only called it a ‘suspension’ of weapons development that was the product of external diplomatic & economic pressure. Which aligned with the stance the bureaucrats new bosses were spouting. It also stated that by 2010 Iran would likely have fissionable material for a bomb & that was 5 year ago.

            Was that your supposed expertise on them no having a program? A 8 year old politically motivated second opinion that never said they stopped of their own free will.

            The sanctions are falling apart from European desire for the oil. But is that true of Russia? As an oil exporter, do they want that oil out there? No, they don’t. They want to destabilize the region. That’s why they worked ICBM’s into the deal.

    • I’m sure anything short of letting them wipe out Israel means you’re an Israeli puppet. Am I right?

      • Last time I checked, Israel was quite capable of fending for itself, as it showed in 1948, 1956, 1967 and 1973. And it hasn’t even ever had to utilize its own nuclear arsenal.

        And last time I checked, Israel was neither a US state, nor a US territory, nor, by any reasonable definition of the word, a US ally. It’s not up to the US to “let” or “not let” Israel or any other country in the Middle East do any thing that doesn’t involve attacking the US itself.

        • …nor, by any reasonable definition of the word, a US ally.

          There you go with those strange “definitions” that nobody but you have ever used.

          BTW, aren’t you disgusted by Barracula’s bigotry? Don’t you find it despicable?

          • I find pretty much everything about Barack Obama disgusting.

            So much so that I don’t have to make shit up about him.

            As far as making lists of “nobody” is concerned, I’m not sure whether it’s English you have a problem with, or logic, or both. What I am sure about is that I learned on the last thread I participated in here at QandO to not feed the troll. So this is the only snack you’ll be getting from me.

          • See, now we have to add “troll” to the words you apparently (as in obviously) don’t comprehend.

            But I think you’ve managed to blubber out an answer. Thanks!

        • 1948, when they were using the finest Israeli crafted armored vehicles and weapons to defend their country.

          And again in 1956,

          and again in 1967

          and again in 1973.

          Oh, wait.

          • I’m not sure what you’re suggesting there. The Israelis did manage to put together a single tank battalion after the first truce in 1948, but they weren’t given that tank battalion by the US (in fact, their first three US tanks were Shermans that they rebuilt from scratch after the war). They bought small arms and aircraft through Czechoslovakia, they captured quite a bit of Egyptian armor, they were able to get quite a bit of British gear on the black market due to “losses” during the British withdrawal, and yes, they manufactured quite a few Sten guns and mortars (“Davidkas” in particular) themselves. They were short on arms the entire time (on paper, the Haganah and Palmach fielded 35,000 troops, for which 20,000 small arms were available) … and they still beat no fewer than five Arab armies, including the British-armed, British-trained and British-led Arab Legion.

          • For the later wars after ’48 there were M4’s (upgraded), M48s, M60’s and on up, as well as British vehicles like the Centurion and the French AMX-13
            Not to mention the captured Soviet origin vehicles that entered their service (as they became ‘available’), like the T55

            They always tweaked what they had to address vehicle shortcomings.

            By 1973 we were supplying them with the M60.

            What I’m suggesting is they weren’t rolling tanks off an assembly line in Haifa in 1956 with “made in Israel” stamped on them, and they didn’t get around to fielding homegrown armor until after 1973.

            So, the idea they could have fended for themselves without some buddies on the outside helping out in the purchasing department is a bit on the side of unlikely. Various parties at various times, notably the French and us.

            And that’s just the MBT’s
            I admire their prowess, but even they’d admit that rocks don’t knock out tanks.

          • OK, then, fair cop. The Israelis import weapons (so does the US).

            Is there some reason why the Israelis shouldn’t buy American weapons with Israeli money instead of with American welfare checks?

            Is there some reason why the US should guarantee the security of a country with which it has never negotiated any kind of mutual defense treaty?

            Does your copy of the US Constitution give Benjamin Netanyahu a veto on US foreign policy decisions? If not, why is it “anti-Israel” to suggest that he should enjoy no such veto?

          • OK. I guess we add “veto” to the words of which you need to gain some comprehension.

            You might look up “persuasion”, too.

          • I must have missed that veto, but will assume it should go into the stack of vetoes from every other country who has hoped to nudge our government into some action or out of some action.

            Not being particularly appreciative of or receptive to the evil jewish mason illumaniti overlord theories of both national and international government I consider Israel trying to influence us to do, or not do things to be pretty much normal in the practice of politics on an international level.
            In their case I expect it to be a little more visible on the world stage since their survival may hinge on our actions and is probably a little more important on the grand scale than say, Italy trying to use it’s influence to nudge us in some direction for favorable imported olive oil and chianti tarriffs.

            Nukes are a game changer, no matter how good your generals are, no matter how well trained your defense force is. If ever the Israeli’s were going to exert their influence to the utmost I would expect this would be the time. They can exchange neither land, nor time, nor lives to secure their survival if a nuclear armed Iran decides to go hunting for AL Mahdi somewhere in the borders of their country with, as our government used to euphemistically refer to them, ‘a device’ .

          • I’m not sure of the binding nature of a ‘memorandum’ but in 1988 Uncle Ronny signed the (see pdf link attachment) “memorandum of agreement on security cooperation” with Israel with the following Preamble:

            “Preamble

            The parties to this Memorandum of Agreement reaffirm the close relationship between Israel and the United States of America, based upon common goals, interests, and values; welcome the achievements made in strategic, economic, industrial and technological cooperation; recognize the mutual benefits of the Israel-United States Free Trade Agreement; take note of United States economic and security assistance to Israel; and note that Israel is currently designated, for the purposes of Section 1105 of the 1987 National Defense Authorization Act, as a major non-NATO ally of the United States. The parties wish to enhance their relationship through the establishment of a comprehensive framework for continued consultation and cooperation and have reached the following agreements in order to achieve this aim.”

            I have highlighted the relevant sentence for this discussion.
            I admit I’m not sure if Big Ears can or has used his pen and his phone to make this go away since he has powers beyond mortal men and seemingly none dare hinder him.

          • Alan,

            Well, now, that would make for an interesting trade — the Obama administration could bring up that memorandum and ask Congress whether it’s legitimate or not. If it is, then the Iran agreement is at least as legitimate (actually more so, since in addition to presidential memoranda the US is bound by an actual Senate-ratified treaty, the UN Charter, to abide by Chapter 7 resolutions of the UN Security Council, the latest of which is an endorsement of the Iran deal). If it isn’t, then fair cop — the Iran deal should have to stand for ratification by 2/3 of the Senate as a treaty, as should any formal, binding relationship with Israel. I doubt that either of those two things could get 2/3 of the Senate.

            Personally, I’d rather have ALL formal international agreements, including this one with Iran, be subjected to the treaty ratification process. It seems to me that that’s what the process is THERE for. But, then, if the Constitution was followed, we would likely never have arrived at this particular situation anyway.

          • “Treaties are too haaaaard.”
            John F’ing sKerry, circ. 2015

          • Yes, clearly it’s NOT a treaty but an understanding and while that might not have sunk in before it does now.

            The only GOOD thing about this President is he forces us to pay attention to the actual intent of our founding documents and mechanism of our government when it’s functioning properly as he goes about his job of folding, spindling and mutilating the laws and turning the government into stooges for his Chicago mob on the Potomac.

          • And Kerry – yes, like his damned boss, he wants the job, but doesn’t want to do any hard work.
            Senator for Massachusetts and all, he wasn’t expected to actually DO anything you know, that’s why they kept sending Teddy back again and again. Johnny was just there because there’s a blue law on the books in Massachusetts that the average weight of Senators must be under 300 lbs, so they had to send him to offset Ted.

            He won’t find it too hard to show up and accept the Nobel Peace Prize he thinks he deserves for his efforts though.

  • And yet Jews overwhelmingly vote D and will stay D…..so eff em if they’re suddenly “shaken”

    If Hitler came back and was running as a D, they’d vote for him.

    That said…..there’s some of us Jews that aren’t pathetic. And we’ll remember…..we can have long memories.