Speeches apparently contradict autobiography, Army documents

By Aaron Klein, World Net Daily
Two days after a speech in which Sen. Barack Obama erroneously claimed his uncle helped liberate the Auschwitz concentration camp, inconsistencies remain regarding the much-touted military service of the presidential candidate’s family.

During the Memorial Day speech in New Mexico, Obama suggested his grandfather, the late Stanley Dunham, engaged in combat. But the Democratic senator’s autobiography says his grandfather never saw “real combat.” Also, Army records apparently contradict Obama’s claim his grandfather signed up the day after the Pearl Harbor attack.

As WND reported, Obama told the New Mexico audience, which included military veterans, his uncle was part of the division that freed Auschwitz. But bloggers and the Republican National Committee immediately pointed out the Nazi death camp was liberated by the Soviet Union in January 1945. The campaign later said it actually was Obama’s great uncle who helped liberate Ohrdruf, a sub-camp of the Buchenwald Nazi concentration camp.

Obama several times has suggested his grandfather served in combat.

During Monday’s speech, Obama said: “My grandfather marched in Patton’s Army, but I cannot know what it is to walk into battle like so many of you.”

In a 2002 anti-war speech, Obama told the audience, “My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton’s army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields Continue Reading »

3 Comments »

By Vel Nirtist
 

Senator Obama recently expressed his deep love of, and “unshakeable commitment to” Israel. I believe him, but I am still worried. What exactly does he mean by love?

Love is indeed a many splendored thing, and people use the word to cover a wide range of phenomena. There are, after all, love-hate relationships, not to mention varieties of twisted love. But even more benign forms of love come in a variety of shapes.
Love between equals is far from the only manifestation. How does Senator Obama see Israel? As a peer? Or perhaps something smaller, needing guidance?
I worry about a President Obama loving Israel the way a strict parent loves a child.
“Spare the rod and spoil the child” expresses well one dilemma of love. Pampering which gives instant gratification to both the parent and the child results in a selfish brat of a grown-up, unable to cooperate with others and making both himself and those around him miserable, or so believes the strict parent, full of love.
A President Obama might think that pressure on the Israel is the way to express his love. He might tell himself that pressure, both internal and external, pushed it to participate in the Oslo process and Madrid conference, to allow Palestinian self-rule, to arm Palestinian ”police” and “security” forces, to not react adequately to murderous “intifada,” to unilaterally withdraw from Hezbullia (or, geographically speaking, “South Lebanon”) and Gaza.  He can tell himself that pressure is in the “best long-term interests” of Israel.
The rod of terrorism which resulted from these moves was explained away by the political wise heads as a “sacrifice for peace,” under the assumption that the peace will indeed come about when “occupation” is lifted and the Palestinians are allowed full measure of self-rule and economic opportunity. The current pressure from Tony Blair and our own State department to remove roadblocks in the West bank and provide freedom of movement for the Palestinians — of necessity, to terrorists among them — that pressure is merely a kind parental rod guiding a child towards a better destiny.
So the question regarding Israel to candidate Obama is this: will his professed love for Israel translate into the loving rod of pressure, resulting in more terrorism which should be endured for the sake of the messianic vision of peace?
Or does he clearly recognize that all this is nonsense? Does he realize that Palestinian suffering (even if indeed “nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people“ as he put it*) is purely self-inflicted?
Does he realize that Palestinians lived within the ‘67 borders for full 20 years, yet were not happy with them, and that they seek the destruction of Israel, not just the ‘67 borders?
Does he realize that Hamas is not some aberration, but a genuine expression of the mindset of the Palestinian people and of their intentions towards Israel?
Does he realize that were the Palestinians willing to live and let live, there would be peace starting yesterday — but the Palestinians find the “let live” portion unbearable, and would rather not live normal lives themselves as long as they can ruin normalcy for the Israelis?
Does he realize that the conflict is fuelled not by economic conditions, but by religious and ideological hate, which no amount of international handouts or even genuine economic prosperity will heal? 
Does he realize that, in the absence of hate, Palestine will be a prosperous country within any borders allotted to it, but if the Palestinians continue to torment themselves with their old drudges, and see others, rather then themselves and their fellow-Arabs, as the cause of all their problems, both past and present, no borders, ‘67 or otherwise, would stop terrorism?
Does he understands that Iran too is motivated by ideology and religion and not by some material interests which can be accommodated, and so there is nothing to negotiate with it other then the schedule of the world’s universal submission to the “True Faith” of Shia Islam?
If candidate Obama’s answer to any of those questions is a “no,” than no amount of his love for Israel — whether genuine of feigned — would do Israel any good. Because, for the sake of that love, for the sake of ”Israel’s own best interests” he will unleash the rod of pressuring Israel into unconscionable concessions, and causing it to continue to suffer under the rod of terrorism — or worse.
Vel Nirtist writes on the role of religion in fostering terrorism. He is author of “The Pitfall of Truth: Holy War, its Rationale and Folly.” His blog is at rootoutterrorism.com
_________________________
*Obama later “explained” his remarks this way:

Obama… explained that the Palestinians suffer because of their leadership. “I said that no one suffers more than the Palestinian people because of their leadership’s failure to recognize Israel, denounce violence and be serious about peace negotiations and regional security.” 

No Comments »

By Ed Lasky from American Thinker:

“Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct, presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions.” - Barackobama.com Barack Obama has enshrined the principle of unconditional summitry with Iran as one of the central foreign policy planks of his campaign for President. This despite recent efforts by Obama surrogates to confuse the electorate. The statement above is found on the campaign website of Senator Obama and reflects his view — repeated a number of times by himself in debates and question and answer sessions — that the thrust of his foreign policy will be personal Presidential engagement with tyrannical regimes across the globe, including Hugo Chavez in Venezuela or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Iran. But the focus clearly will be on Iran as the campaign moves along. Iran is the leading state sponsor of terror and is developing the means to construct nuclear weapons. What would be the consequences of such a Presidential meeting between President Obama and President Ahmadinejad? Michael Gerson has written eloquently about the moral stain that will color the mere act of meeting with a Holocaust denier who boasts of his yearning to repeat the effort to exterminate the Jews. Obama, a man who on the campaign trail has declared that “nobody has spoken out more fiercely on the issue of anti-Semitism than I have,” will be extending the honor of a Presidential meeting to the most dangerous anti-Semite of all. For what benefit? As Gerson wrote, “having made Iranian talks without precondition: his major foreign policy goal, Obama is left with little leverage to extract concessions, and little choice to move forward” There will inevitably be pressure to offer concessions to Ahmadinejad to help ensure a successful summit. To paraphrase John F. Kennedy, who will Continue Reading »

No Comments »

By Peggy Shapiro at American Thinker:

Barack Obama’s call to action is “Change we can believe in.” I would love to believe it, but until now I haven’t even been able to understand it. What is going to change?  With his latest about face on direct talks with Iran’s Ahmadinejad, Obama has finally clarified what he is going to change: his opinion. From terror to funding for tots, where there’s controversy and two sides to be wooed, there is the Obama about-face.
This week, Obama’s key foreign policy advisor, Susan E. Rice, told the New York Times that Obama never claimed he would be willing to meet “unconditionally” with Iran’s president  Mr. Ahmadinejad. Dr. Rice said that Obama would not meet at the presidential level with this Iran or any other so-called “rogue” state without the preparation to use such a meeting as leverage for change. In fact, it was only right-wing machinations or imagination that “distorted and reframed” Obama’s views.
That was certainly a change from numerous statements candidate Obama made on the same topic.  Did John McCain enter the following posting on Obama’s campaign website? “Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions.”  
Nothing could have been clearer than Obama’s response to Anderson Cooper during the YouTube Continue Reading »

No Comments »

Terrorist group prepared to make statement denying endorsement of U.S. candidates

From World Net Daily:

JERUSALEM – The Hamas terrorist organization is strongly considering issuing an official statement claiming it doesn’t endorse any U.S. presidential candidate and that remarks made by an official supportive of Sen. Barack Obama were “misunderstood,” a top Hamas leader told WND.

Other Hamas sources, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the terror group “understands” praise for Obama last month from Ahmed Yousef, Hamas’ chief political advisor in the Gaza Strip, is harming the Illinois senator.

In an interview with WND and WABC Radio last month, Yousef said he “hopes” Obama becomes president and compared the Illinois senator to President John F. Kennedy.

“We like Mr. Obama, and we hope that he will win the elections,” said Yousef.

“I hope Mr. Obama and the Democrats will change the political discourse. … I do believe [Obama] is like John Kennedy, a great man with a great principal. And he has a vision to change America to make it in a position to lead the world community, but not with humiliation and arrogance,” Yousef said, speaking from Gaza.

Yousef was not asked which presidential candidate he supports. He volunteered his endorsement in response to a question inquiring whether he was surprised Obama and other presidential candidates criticized Jimmy Carter’s recent meetings with Hamas.

Yousef’s endorsement has become a top theme in the presidential campaign, with Sen. John McCain and Obama repeatedly trading barbs over the Hamas official’s comments.

While the terror group appears likely to release a clarification statement regarding Yousef’s support of Obama, Yousef today still implied he favored Obama over McCain.

“The Americans should reach the conclusion from the positions of McCain that while part of the Americans and the international community are seeking to speak with Hamas, McCain is attacking this position and is calling us terrorists,” Yousef said in response to a reporter’s query.

Obama also has repeatedly condemned Hamas as terrorists. But earlier this week the Democratic candidate said in an interview he understands why Hamas supports his presidential bid. Continue Reading »

No Comments »

Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama has received an endorsement he might well wish he hadn’t — from the militant Palestinian group Hamas.

Ahmed Yousuf, Hamas’ top political adviser in the Gaza Strip, delivered his endorsement in an interview with WorldNetDaily and WABC Radio in New York.

“We like Mr. Obama, and we hope that he will win the elections,” Yousuf said.

“I do believe [Obama] is like John Kennedy, a great man with a great principle. And he has a vision to change America, to [put] it in a position to lead the world community, but not with humiliation and arrogance.”

The U.S. and Israel have been seeking to isolate Hamas, which seized control of Gaza in June and is classified by the State Department as a terrorist group.

Obama, as well as presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and John McCain, have all referred to Hamas as a “terrorist organization,” according to WorldNetDaily.

Asked about Obama’s criticism of former President Jimmy Carter’s meeting with Hamas during his Middle Eastern trip, Yousuf said:

“I understand American politics and this is the season for elections and everybody tries to sound like he’s a friend of Israel…

“I hope Mr. Obama and the Democrats will change the political discourse when one of them will be the president.”

5 Comments »

ELECTION 2008

Michelle Obama’s latest gaffe: ‘See, this is what gets me into trouble’

www.worldnetdaily.com

Michelle Obama, wife of presidential candidate Barack Obama, known for saying what’s on her mind – candidly, spontaneously and frequently – has exposed this trait yet again in a profile in the London Guardian.

Asked how she feels about Bill Clinton’s use of the phrase “fairytale” to describe her husband’s characterization of his position on the Iraq war, she first responded: “No.”

But, after a few seconds of contemplation, and gesturing with her fingernails, she told the reporter: “I want to rip his eyes out!”

Noticing an aide giving her a nervous look, she added: “Kidding! See, this is what gets

Continue Reading »

No Comments »

American Thinker: 

When Barack Obama made his official announcement that he was running for President over 14 months ago in Springfield, Illinois, the Senator made sure that his pastor Jeremiah Wright had no speaking role and was kept away from the ceremony. Obama campaign  manager David Axelrod  has admitted that there were concerns back then about what Wright might say.
When Senator Obama made his speech in Philadelphia on race in America following the first round of Reverend Wright media exposure several weeks back, he admitted he had heard some of the Reverend’s more controversial remarks in person in church.

“I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely — just as I’m sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.” 


But now, the Senator has really had enough of Reverend Wright. In a press conference Tuesday, Obama condemned Wright,  and claimed that Wright had offended him with his latest tirade on Monday Continue Reading »

No Comments »