Obama's Casual Slander of American Christians

Mark Hemingway

 

. . . "Well, after six years of Obama, it seems he didn't exactly live up to his promise to make cultural and religious warfare is a thing of the past. Instead, he deliberately exacerbated the conflict again and again. We're at the point where the man well-intentioned liberal Christians like Dionne said could end the culture wars makes a flatly wrong and objectionable assertion that fighting poverty is an afterthought for Christians too often obsessed with abortion, and nobody bats an eye. Of course, it's been just over two weeks since Obama's solicitor general warned the Supreme Court that if the White House gets its way on gay marriage, churches could be stripped of their tax exempt status. This would have devastating ramifications for the efforts of churches combatting poverty, but when the White House is so engaged in projection that they think that all churches care about is abortion, it starts to explain how they could do something so obviously damaging to the poor and still live with themselves. 

"It seems obvious that Obama, Putnam, and the liberal elites they speak for want to believe that American Christians are narrow-minded and obsessed to the point of being uncaring. This is an utterly delusional way of discounting the tremendous, literally and figuratively livesaving work of American Christians." . . .

 

 granitegrok.com/

Ferguson protesters demand paychecks for gig they were hired to perform. Paid by George Soros

Thomas Lifson   "This would be hilarious if the consequences hadn’t been so disastrous.  The destructive riots in Ferguson, Missouri over the bogus narrative that Michael Brown was shot while his hands were raised were far from spontaneous.  Protesters were hired and promised paychecks, but those who have not received them yet are now publicly protesting.  Weasel Zippers (here and here) documents tweets (some of which have since been scrubbed) from the angry pay-for-play leftists."

More Proof Of Paid Protesters: Ad Asking For Protesters To Travel To Protest, List Of Payouts To #Ferguson Protest Organizers 
 "MORE and OBS, two groups funded by George Soros, advertised money available for people willing to travel to protest (@organizemo is the twitter account of MORE):"

 

"After protesters protested not getting their checks from MORE on May 14th, MORE allegedly distributed the following list as to who was paid to protest in Ferguson and elsewhere, to show where the money had been going. 

"You can see money paid out to Lisa Fithian (pictured below), $1,127.75 for ‘visit expenses’.

"For those who do not know, Lisa Fithian is an infamous leftist organizer. She organized at Occupy, but has been used as a training organizer for many years before that. She spent time in Ferguson in 2014 training people to ‘simulate chaos’

"Brittany Ferrell and Ashley Yates receive thousands on behalf of MAU, Millenial Activists United, one of the protester groups. Ferrell, tries to justify her position in this Facebook post where she blames Ordower for screwing everything up."

 

"Her post confirms the payouts to protesters and to her in particular."

 

...

 

 Vega is pictured below.

Talking Syria raid on FOX & Friends

Blackfive
 "We executed a brilliant raid into Syria, ventilated a bunch of bad guys and got all our folks home safe. Bravo!.

"But why did we tell the whole world about the raid before we even had a chance to catalogue the intel we picked up? This compromised our ability to exploit that  intel properly and seems like another example of Obama spiking the football on an extra point.

"We also still have no strategy in Iraq and may as well be acting as the Iranian Air Force as they are the Iraqis main allies now. Not that the fight there is even going at all well, with Ramadi falling. So Yay for dead tangos, and Boo for all the rest.

Related:
Top Dem raising 'alarm bells' over Obama Ramadi claims.."It’s becoming clear that President Obama really is a Marxist – but of the Groucho, not Karl school.  “Are you going to believe me, or what you see with your own eyes?” is the next logical answer for administration apologists to employ in claiming the fall of Ramadi isn’t an outright catastrophe.   At least one top Democrat, senior House member Adam Schiff, a Democrat from California, has had enough." . . .

Obama Snatched Ramadi Defeat from Bush Victory  " The fall of Ramadi is the poster child for the Obama administration’s foreign policy failures that has left failed states from Libya to Yemen to Iraq."

KNOWING WHAT WE KNOW NOW . . .

 

 Ann Coulter   . . . "Indeed, after Bush's State of the Union address laying out the case for war with Iraq, The New York Times complained that he had given too many reasons: "Even the rationale for war seems to change from day to day. Mr. Bush ticked off a litany of accusations against Iraq in his State of the Union address ..." (New York Times, Feb. 2, 2003)

"Among the reasons we invaded Iraq were:

(1) Saddam had given shelter to terrorists who killed Americans. After 9/11, it was time for him to pay the price:
-- The mastermind of the Achille Lauro hijacking, Abu Abbas, who murdered a wheelchair-bound American citizen, Leon Klinghoffer, then forced the passengers to throw his body overboard, was living happily in Iraq. (Captured by U.S. forces in Baghdad less than a month after our invasion.)

-- The terrorist who orchestrated the murder of American diplomat Laurence Foley in October 2002, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, also took refuge in Saddam's Iraq. (Killed by U.S. forces in Iraq on June 7, 2006.)

-- The one terrorist behind the 1993 World Trade Center bombing who got away, Abdul Rahman Yasin, fled to Iraq, where he was given money and lived without fear of being extradited to the United States. (Whereabouts unknown. Possibly being groomed for a prime-time show on MSNBC.)

-- Czech intelligence reported that Mohammed Atta, 9/11 mastermind, met with Iraqi agents in Prague shortly before the attack.

(2) Saddam had attempted to assassinate a former president of the United States. Liberals complained that it was a family feud because that president happened to be Bush's father, but, again, he was also a FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. (Does being a relative of the president make you fair game for assassination attempts? Bill Clinton, please pick up the white courtesy phone.)

(3) Saddam not only had WMDs, he had used them -- far more prodigiously than Syria's Bashar al-Assad did when Obama masterfully backed down from his "red line" threat if Assad ever used chemical weapons. (Assad's WMDs killed about a thousand civilians -- 350 according to French intelligence, which is a lot better than ours. Saddam's WMDs killed an estimated 100,000 civilians. That's according to everyone -- the United Nations, Human Rights Watch and Clinton-era ambassador Peter Galbraith.)

(4) We needed to smash some Muslim strongman after the 9/11 attack, and Saddam was as good as any other -- at least as good as the Taliban primitives who had allowed Osama bin Laden to pitch his tent in their godforsaken country.

It worked: Moammar Gadhafi, terrified that Bush would attack Libya next, invited U.N. inspectors in, gave up his WMDs, and paid the families of his Lockerbie bombing victims $8 million apiece.

(5) Saddam had committed atrocities on a far greater scale than our current bogeyman, ISIS. He tortured and murdered tens of thousands of Iraqis -- removing their teeth with pliers, applying electric shocks to men's genitals, drilling holes in their ankles and forcing them to watch as their wives were raped -- as reported by USA Today, among others. There was no risk that we were accidentally taking out the Arab George Washington.

(6) Saddam was a dangerous and disruptive force in a crucial oil-producing region of the world. We need oil. Why not go to war for oil?

(7) The Iraqi people were a relatively sane, civilized and educated populace with a monstrous ruler. Removing that leader would provide a golden opportunity for an actual functioning Arab democracy -- an Arab Israel.
. . .

 

"Kelly asked Bush: "Knowing what we know now, would you have authorized the invasion?"

"The correct answer is:

Now that we know that a half-century of Teddy Kennedy's 1965 Immigration Act would result in a country where a man like Barack Obama could be elected president, and then, purely out of antipathy to America, would withdraw every last troop from Iraq, nullifying America's victory and plunging the entire region into chaos, no, I would not bother removing dangerous despots in order to make America safer.

Instead, I would dedicate myself to overturning our immigration laws, ending the anchor-baby scam and building a triple-layer fence on the border, so that some future Republican president could invade Iraq without worrying about a foreign-elected president like Obama coming in and giving it away.

 Coulter's full article here. 
  All emphases added by TD

British Novelist to American Grads: There’s Nothing Virtuous about Being Offended

NRO ..."A rather uneventful college commencement season full of the usual platitudes and bromides was shaken up by British novelist Ian McEwan’s refreshingly challenging the zeitgeist of trigger warnings, free-speech zones, and campus censorship at Dickinson College in Pennsylvania this week. McEwan did not shy away from addressing the current temper on campus, choosing to focus on the creeping group-think in faculty lounges and discussion sections instead of the all too easy targets of Russian crackdowns on free speech or the “industrial scale” state-sponsored censorship in China. 

McEwan directly confronted the problem of a country rooted in the tradition of free expression under the First Amendment meekly submitting to what he called “bi-polar thinking” — the eagerness of some to “not side with Charlie Hebdo because it might seem as if we’re endorsing George Bush’s War on Terror.” . . .   Full article

Could he mean something like this?

PETA Demands Bar Change Its Name Because ‘Ye Olde Fighting Cocks’ Is Offensive to Chickens
 "Carr added that the name change would “encourage people to rethink the way that we treat chickens and grant these birds the respect and kindness that they deserve.”'

UK Mirror

In the US, these people are called Democrats.

Monty Python to the rescue against Islamic scholars

 

American Thinker. . . "Instead, he offered the idea of pairing intellectuals with moderate Muslims and media bigwigs to debate the questions about Muhammad’s historicity in seminars and panel discussions.  Jim Lehrer could even be called in to moderate, he suggested.  Calling into question the foundations of Islam by questioning if Muhammad ever existed would somehow pull the rug out from under the extremists.  As rebels without a cause, they would have to lay down their arms. Islam would settle down into respectable, peaceful patterns like all other religions, and we would live from then on free of terrorists because they would no longer be able to justify their terrorism.  How could they if Muhammad never existed?

"This is where Monty Python comes in.  This team knew how to cut to the quick with skits that could say it better than an avalanche of books and articles." . . .

. . . 

"A word of caution for such intellectuals.  Resist yielding to the temptation to bang coconut shells together and prance up to the enemy with offers to debate if Muhammad ever existed with them.  It may be the last temptation you will ever yield to."

In Texas, black race hustlers throw white liberal under the bus

 

American Thinker.."She voted twice for Obama.

"Inspired by “hope and change” in a post-racial and more egalitarian America, she worked three months as an unpaid college intern in Michele Obama's office -- though she never actually got to meet the First Lady. She says she now supports the Clinton Global Initiative, a non-profit seeking to strengthen global interdependence.

"A pretty and athletic woman with strawberry blond hair and blue eyes, she for the moment works as a nanny, though she has a self-designed bachelor's degree from the University of Texas in Austin focusing on conflict resolution and the human rights of children. Her course work included a large dollop of African-American studies; so not surprisingly she firmly believes America needs a national discussion about race -- and the unjust profiling of black men.

"Yes, her progressive credentials are impressive.

"And so, she fumed, it was all the more outrageous that a fellow progressive -- a black law student no less! -- would write a newspaper column that “defamed” her as a “blue-eyed” and “blond” racist.
It was exactly the opposite of what happened, she said: She never profiled him. He profiled her!" . . .

It was supposed to be post-racial America. But the Obama years have instead been filled with racially charged mayhem: inner-city riots; myriad black-on-white attacks like the “knock-out” game; and racially charged police shootings and arrests. And no doubt there also have been untold numbers of testy non-violent encounters with racial overtones: nasty spats and hurt feelings between ordinary blacks and whites who increasingly walk on eggshells around each other while navigating the lower-frequencies of American life.