Archive for Barack Hussein Obama

No Such Thing as Bad Publicity

Just spell the names right:

House Speaker John Boehner said Sunday that there is unprecedented demand for seats in the House for Binyamin Netanyahu’s speech Tuesday.

“I’ve never seen anything like it,” he said on CBS’s Face the Nation. “Everybody wants to be there.”

“What I do wonder is why the White House feels threatened because the Congress wants to support Israel and wants to hear what our trusted ally has to say.”

Support for Israel continues to be bipartisan, he stressed, and Democratic support for the Jewish state has not receded. “Really,” he added, “the only conflict here is between the White House and Israel.”

We addressed the reasons why in a lengthy post yesterday. We hinted that (or hope we did, we can’t remember) Obama’s character assassination campaign would send the TV ratings through the roof. Bibi and the Super Bowl; everything else will be public access cable.

Comments

Collateral Damage

I say Obama started it; maybe you say Bibi. Or Boeher.

Regardless, the casualty list is growing:

Untitled

A wall-to-wall array of Jewish groups condemned an ad accusing National Security Adviser Susan Rice of turning a blind eye to genocide.

“Susan Rice has a blind spot: Genocide,” said the ad appearing in Saturday’s New York Times, touting a talk on Iran this week in Washington hosted by Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, the New Jersey-based author and pro-Israel advocate.

As soon as the Sabbath ended, Jewish groups rushed to condemn the ad. The American Jewish Committee called it “revolting,” the Anti-Defamation League called it “spurious and perverse”, the Jewish Federations of North America called it “outrageous” and Josh Block, the president of The Israel Project, said it was “entirely inappropriate.”

Marshall Wittmann, the spokesman for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which will host Rice on Monday at its annual conference, said, “Ad hominem attacks should have no place in our discourse.”

I get why they’re trying to distance themselves from the ad, even if I think the ad is valid. History teaches that Jews take the hit in time of conflict; these guys are ducking for cover. But this time is no different. Iran is frantically working toward an arsenal of nuclear weapons. The United States and Israel stand opposed (as does every Arab state, and most other nations in the world). Yet it is Israel and America who are fighting it out in the news.

I would say this is entirely how Iran intended it, and that would be true—but it would be less than half the story. This is how Obama intends it. This is his doing, and Susan Rice or Samantha Power or John Kerry are only his instruments. To his way of thinking, Israel and the US share one too many traits, colonialism most prominently. For the son of a Kenyan Marxist (and philanderer and alcoholic), that is unpardonable.

Dinesh D’Souza:

The climax of Obama’s narrative is when he goes to Kenya and weeps at his father’s grave. It is riveting: “When my tears were finally spent,” he writes, “I felt a calmness wash over me. I felt the circle finally close. I realized that who I was, what I cared about, was no longer just a matter of intellect or obligation, no longer a construct of words. I saw that my life in America–the black life, the white life, the sense of abandonment I’d felt as a boy, the frustration and hope I’d witnessed in Chicago–all of it was connected with this small piece of earth an ocean away, connected by more than the accident of a name or the color of my skin. The pain that I felt was my father’s pain.”

In an eerie conclusion, Obama writes that “I sat at my father’s grave and spoke to him through Africa’s red soil.” In a sense, through the earth itself, he communes with his father and receives his father’s spirit. Obama takes on his father’s struggle, not by recovering his body but by embracing his cause. He decides that where Obama Sr. failed, he will succeed. Obama Sr.’s hatred of the colonial system becomes Obama Jr.’s hatred; his botched attempt to set the world right defines his son’s objective. Through a kind of sacramental rite at the family tomb, the father’s struggle becomes the son’s birthright.

Colonialism today is a dead issue. No one cares about it except the man in the White House. He is the last anticolonial.

Obama may not want to “wipe Israel off the map”, as Iran does, but he would like to see it cut down to size. The era of European outposts in indigenous lands (as he sees the Zionist entity) is over. It is past time that the post-colonial powers redress the “legitimate grievances” (a phrase Obama even when talking about ISIS!) of those oppressed by the past, be they African or Arab, Sunni or Shiite. The so-called Palestinians may be an invented identity, squatting in historically Jewish lands, but in Obama’s eyes they are perfectly cast in the role of oppressed minority. He’s not alone in that way of thinking, of course—even Condoleezza Rice likened the so-called Palestinians to the civil rights strugglers of her youth.

Who is this upstart, then, to speak against his dearest held beliefs? This foreigner who speaks English almost as well as His Articulateness? (Better, I would argue, as Netanyahu’s rhetoric is grounded in military and political battle, while Obama has been handed every success, including the presidency, based on an invented autobiography written by Bill Ayers.) Obama may hate Netanyahu—he sure seems to—but this mess is more than about private beefs. It’s a profound dispute over civilization.

If Early Obama was about getting high, and Middle Obama was about getting elected, Late Obama is about getting even. We have seen his recent determination in domestic politics by legally questionable executive orders and actions that bypass Congress, rewriting legislation (often more than once) to fit his fancy. And we see it in matters of state by this fight he and he alone has picked with Netanyahu. Everyone else—Rice, Kerry, Power, Psaki, the CBC, everybody—merely projects Obama’s thoughts.

Again, while the enmity is personal and deep, it is also philosophical. Netanyahu speaks as leader of a country with religious, cultural, and historic ties to its land. Obama sees it as an anachronism. Netanyahu sees the mullahs and ayatollahs of Iran through the eyes of a people who have seen popes, emperors, cossacks, czars and obergrüppenführers sworn to their extinction. Obama sees their “legitimate grievances”.

Worse yet, Netanyahu will speak directly to the people. Obama is most successful when his guard-dog media savages anyone who rises against him. Netanyahu is his worst nightmare: someone who will have direct access to Americans, and speak to them in their own language. (Indeed, his Wikipedia article notes he still speaks English with the Philly accent he learned as a teenager.) And he will speak from the heart—not only his own, but his nation’s and his people’s.

America elected Obama, twice, and Jews make up barely 2% of the population. But America loves Israel anyway, more than Obama knows. Or maybe he does know, and that’s why he’s so scared.

Comments

Pushing Obama to the Brink

Oh boy. Now Boehner’s really gone and done it:

House Speaker John Boehner invited Afghan President Ashraf Ghani on Friday to address a joint meeting of Congress when he visits Washington next month.

“Americans and Afghans have worked together for years on a shared mission of bringing peace and security to the region,” Boehner’s office said in a statement. “This joint address presents an important opportunity to hear from the newly-elected president on how the United States can continue to work together to promote our shared goals and reaffirms our commitment to the Afghan people.”

The speech is set for March 25. Ghani will be the second Afghan president to address Congress. Former President Hamid Karzai appeared before a joint meeting of Congress on June 15, 2004.

We know how batsh*t crazy Obama gets when Speaker Boehner invites foreign leaders to address his coequal branch of government.

Stand back! Krakatoa’s gonna blow!

Comments

What Are the Odds???

That the folks shot in cold blood in a kosher deli were Jewish?

Boy, will Obama be red-faced—uh, embarrassed:

Chilling new details from a deadly terrorist attack at the Hyper Cacher kosher supermarket in Paris last month emerged Friday when a reported transcript of footage from the incident surfaced.

In the nearly eight-minute-long video filmed on a GoPro camera by Amedy Coulibaly, the Islamist gunman can reportedly be seen shooting three of the four victims and delivering an anti-Semitic rant.

The footage shows Coulibaly first grabbing hold of a customer, requesting his name, and then shooting him dead, reports said. The gunman goes on to ask another man for his origin, then kills him after the man replies “Jewish,” according to the BBC, quoting French reports.

“So you know why I am here then, Allahu Akbar,” Coulibaly proceeds to shout, according to a Le Nouvel Observateur report. The gunman can also be heard making anti-Semitic remarks as hostages cry out that the victims have done no wrong.

Coulibaly reportedly told a French journalist at the height of the siege that he had deliberately chosen to target Jews.

This administration has an unfortunate streak of blaming Islamic terrorism on anything else—a YouTube video, knishes, folks. I wish he would indulge his delusions on his own time—perhaps during those hours of golf. The rest of us aren’t interested.

Comments

The Next Election We Must Win

Caroline Glick lays all it out for you:

Secretary of State John Kerry made clear the administration’s desire to topple Netanyahu last spring during his remarks before the Trilateral Commission. It was during that memorable speech that Kerry libeled Israel, claiming that we would automatically and naturally become an apartheid state if we didn’t give Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria to the PLO, Jew free, as quickly as possible.

Despite Israel’s venality, Kerry held out hope. In his words, “if there is a change of government [in Israel], or a change of heart, something will happen.”

Shortly after Kerry gave his Israel apartheid speech, his Middle East mediator Martin Indyk attacked Israel and the character of the Israeli people in an astounding interview to Yediot Aharonot.

Among other things, Indyk hinted that to force Israel to make concessions demanded by the PLO, the Palestinians may need to launch another terror war.

Indyk also threatened that the Palestinians will get their state whether Israel agrees to their terms of not. In his words, “They will get their state in the end – whether through violence or by turning to international organizations.”

Indyk made his statements as an unnamed US official. When his identity was exposed, he was forced to resign his position. Following his departure from government service he returned to his previous position as vice president and director of the Brookings Institution and the director of its foreign policy program. Last September, The New York Times reported that the Brookings Institute received a $14.8 million, four-year donation from Qatar, the chief financier of Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.

Coincidence? Indyk was back in Israel recently and gave a speech:

[Israel] can expect that the US will join with the other permanent members of the UN Security Council to pass a resolution “against Israel’s will” that will “lay out the principle of a two-state solution.”

As Indyk intimated, Israel can avoid this fate if it elects a Herzog/Livni government. Such a government, he indicated, will preemptively give in to all of the Palestinians demands and so avoid a confrontation with the US and its colleagues at the Security Council.

And then there’s The Speech:

When Speaker of the House of Representatives John Boehner announced last month that he had invited Netanyahu to address the joint houses of Congress on the threat emanating from Iran’s nuclear program and from radical Islam, he unintentionally transformed the Israeli elections from a local affair to a contest between Obama and Netanyahu.

Obama’s response to Netanyahu’s speech has been astounding. His ad hominem attacks against Netanyahu, his open moves to coerce Democratic lawmakers to boycott Netanyahu’s speech, and the administration’s aggressive attempts to damage Israel’s reputation in the US have been without precedent. More than anything, they expose a deep-seated fear that Netanyahu will be successful in exposing the grave danger that Obama’s policies toward Iran and toward the Islamic world in general pose to the global security.

It is hard to understand either Israel’s election or Obama’s hysterical response to Netanyahu’s scheduled speech without recognizing that Obama clearly feels threatened by the message he will deliver. Surrounded by sycophantic aides and advisers, and until recently insulated from criticism by a supportive media, while free to ignore Congress due to his veto power, Obama has never had to seriously explain his policies regarding Iran and Islamic terrorists more generally. He has never endured a direct challenge to those policies.

Today Obama believes that he is in a to-the-death struggle with Netanyahu. If Netanyahu’s speech is a success, Obama’s foreign policy will be indefensible. If Obama is able to delegitimize Netanyahu ahead of his arrival, and bring about his electoral defeat, then with a compliant Israeli government, he will face no obstacles to his plan to appease Iran and blame Islamic terrorism on the West for the remainder of his tenure in office.

It’s Netanyahu or Bennett. There can be no other.

Comments

Obama’s Officer Krupke Moment

Stephen Sondheim said it first and best: they’re depraved on account of they’re deprived.

When people — especially young people — feel entirely trapped in impoverished communities, where there is no order and no path for advancement, where there are no educational opportunities, where there are no ways to support families, and no escape from injustice and the humiliations of corruption — that feeds instability and disorder, and makes those communities ripe for extremist recruitment.

The Prophet Stephen was especially prescient (note the character’s name):

A-RAB: (As Psychiatrist) Yes!
Officer Krupke, you’re really a slob.
This boy don’t need a doctor, just a good honest job.
Society’s played him a terrible trick,
And sociologic’ly he’s sick!

Marie Harf couldn’t have said it better. Sondheim’s self-rejoinder:

BABY JOHN: (As Female Social Worker)
Eek!
Officer Krupke, you’ve done it again.
This boy don’t need a job, he needs a year in the pen.

Sondheim wrote those lyrics almost sixty years ago—for a laugh. And the moron in the White House is still peddling this crap as policy. He is dumber than dirt.

Comments

Scoot Over, Israel

Make room in the woodshed:

The Obama administration was given multiple chances Wednesday to endorse a longtime ally’s airstrikes on America’s biggest enemy at the moment, the so-called Islamic State. Over and over again, Obama’s aides declined to back Egypt’s military operation against ISIS. It’s another sign of the growing strain between the United States and Egypt, once one of its closest friends in the Middle East.

This shouldn’t be a complete surprise; Cairo, after all, didn’t tell Washington about its strikes on the ISIS hotbed of Derna, Libya. Still, Wednesday’s disconnect was jarring. White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest passed on a reporter’s question about an endorsement of Egypt’s growing campaign against ISIS. So did State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki.

“We are neither condemning nor condoning” the Egyptian strikes, is all one U.S. official would tell The Daily Beast.

“The Egyptian military, in particular, is very frustrated with us,” one U.S. government official explained to The Daily Beast. “It is mutual frustration.”

At a briefing with reporters Wednesday, Navy Rear Adm. John Kirby called the relationship with Egypt “complicated.”

The Obama regime hates Egypt for opposing ISIS, and hates Israel for opposing Iran. I’m pretty good at describing what this cabal does, but I haven’t a clue as to why. What’s “complicated” about bombing the [bleep] out of ISIS? What’s not to condone? Should Egypt have dropped the want ads with its bombs?

The only logical answer is that they are literally anti-American.

Comments

Today’s the Day!

Have you been marking your calendar? Chinese New Year…Mardi Gras…Ash Wednesday…the Countering Violent Extremism summit!

On February 18, 2015, the White House will host a Summit on Countering Violent Extremism to highlight domestic and international efforts to prevent violent extremists and their supporters from radicalizing, recruiting, or inspiring individuals or groups in the United States and abroad to commit acts of violence, efforts made even more imperative in light of recent, tragic attacks in Ottawa, Sydney, and Paris. This summit will build on the strategy the White House released in August of 2011, Empowering Local Partners to Prevent Violent Extremism in the United States, the first national strategy to prevent violent extremism domestically.

Mock if you like, but I have my own copy, autographed by Janet Napolitano. Cost a pretty penny on eBay.

Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) efforts rely heavily on well-informed and resilient local communities. Boston, Los Angeles, and Minneapolis-St. Paul have taken the lead in building pilot frameworks integrating a range of social service providers, including education administrators, mental health professionals, and religious leaders, with law enforcement agencies to address violent extremism as part of the broader mandate of community safety and crime prevention. The summit will highlight best practices and emerging efforts from these communities.

While it’s true Boston hasn’t had a violent extremist incident since the marathon (and 9/11 before that), I don’t think it’s due to “social service providers, including education administrators, mental health professionals, and religious leaders”. Law enforcement agencies, yes; but the rest? Social service providers didn’t nab the Tsarnaev brothers; good detective work did.

But Obama’s on a roll:

The summit will include representatives from a number of partner nations, focusing on the themes of community engagement, religious leader engagement, and the role of the private sector and tech community.

He was just golfing two days ago on the private golf course of Larry Ellison, the founder of Oracle. Did he ask for some advice on counterterrorism?

Through presentations, panel discussions, and small group interactions, participants will build on local, state, and federal government; community; and international efforts to better understand, identify, and prevent the cycle of radicalization to violence at home in the United States and abroad.

Doing for national security what he did for jobs, if that doesn’t scare you. Where did this idiot get his obsession with “presentations, panel discussions, and small group interactions”? It sounds like kindergarten (in all ways).

And then there’s this:

Governments that deny human rights play into the hands of extremists who claim that violence is the only way to achieve change. Efforts to counter violent extremism will only succeed if citizens can address legitimate grievances through the democratic process and express themselves through strong civil societies. Those efforts must be matched by economic, educational and entrepreneurial development so people have hope for a life of dignity.

“Legitimate grievances”? WTF?

Have you heard ISIS—sorry, ISIL—talk about “economic, educational and entrepreneurial development” as they saw off Christian heads or set captives afire?

We live in a dangerous world in which ayatollahs, czars, and dynasts flex their muscles with impunity. And this guy talks about legitimate grievances and panel discussions. We are so screwed.

Comments

Here’s Your Kippah, What’s Your Hurry?

Boy, the Democrats are laying it on pretty thick with Netanyahu.

At least someone is making him feel welcome:

As Democrats have grown increasingly vocal in their opposition to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to Washington next month, Senate Republicans are laying out the welcome mat.

As one of the chamber’s final acts before members recess for a week, Sen. John Cornyn on Thursday introduced a resolution welcoming Netanyahu to the United States. The resolution was signed by 51 of the chamber’s Republican members and, initially, not a single Democrat. Cornyn said he would circulate a Dear Colleague letter later Thursday urging all 100 senators to sign onto the resolution.

“During this time of such great instability and danger in the Middle East, the United States should be unequivocal about our commitment to one of our closest and most important allies,” Cornyn said in a statement. “I hope all my colleagues will join me in welcoming Prime Minister Netanyahu to Washington so we can continue to work together to advance our common security interests.”

The Republicans’ gesture comes as Democrats in the House and Senate have grown increasingly critical of Netanyahu’s visit, which comes at the invitation of House Speaker John Boehner and without consultation with the administration. Several Democrats, particularly Congressional Black Caucus members, have talked about boycotting the speech, and the White House announced that Vice President Biden will not be able to attend due to a trip to South America. The trip has also become a huge source of controversy in Israel, as Netanyahu’s visit will come just weeks before he is up for reelection.

Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y., has been particularly outspoken on the matter, even making jokes at Netanyahu’s expense during the National Press Club Foundation dinner last week that left some Republican members squirming in their seats. “I cannot think of any reason as to why someone who differs with my president should be coming to my country, my Congress in order to—especially, when it’s preceding an election in a foreign country, as friendly as she might be,” Rangel said this week.

They don’t even pretend anymore it’s about a breach of protocol. It’s outright hatred. And why it’s a race issue is way beyond me. The Speaker of the House—an equal branch of government—extended the offer, and the Obama forces went ballistic.

So, what did Rangel say that made Republicans squirm?

Harlem Congressman Charlie Rangel on Wednesday joked about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s upcoming speech to Congress, in a pretend phone call with the Israeli prime minister.

“Yeah, Bibi, yes, no, I’m speaking at the Press Club. Yes indeed. No, I did meet with the president. We had lunch today. No, I’m afraid your name never came up,” Rangel said in his mock phone call conversation at the Washington Press Club Foundation’s 71st Congressional Dinner, where members of Congress roast the media and each other.

“I don’t know what AIPAC told you but, listen, most of us really love Israel … but the one thing that doesn’t happen is you don’t come to our country, and our house, and criticize our president,” he said. “And so I would advise you check before you come because you don’t want to have this problem.”

He ended the fake call by saying, “Shalom you too.”

It wasn’t “shalom” he was saying, you bigot, it was “eat s**t”.

PS: Maybe some of you don’t find that offensive. But I had to search pretty hard to find it. If it’s cool, where was the reporting?

Comments

Cause and Effect

Cause:

Twice as many Israelis say that US President Barack Obama’s administration is interfering in the election as those who say it is not, according to a Panels Research poll taken for The Jerusalem Post and its Hebrew sister publication, Maariv Sof Hashavua.

Sixty-two percent of respondents said the Obama administration is interfering, 31% said it is not interfering, and 8% did not know.

A majority of respondents, 56%, said Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is correct in principle in his desire to address Congress on the Iranian nuclear threat, while 36% said he is not right, and 8% had no opinion.

Effect:

The projected right-wing bloc is stable at 42 seats, according to an elections poll published Friday – whereas the left continues to reach new lows.

More of the public supports a right-wing government than other possibilities, the poll also revealed. While 38.9% of respondents stated that they would prefer a right-wing government with Likud at its head, only 25% want a center-left government headed by Labor. Just 19% would prefer a joint Likud-Labor government, and 17% abstained from choosing.

Continuing our Thirstradamus streak, we saw this coming. Obama sicced (sic) his Organizing für Amerika dogs on Netanyahu, and the Israeli public, regardless of their feelings for Bibi, recoiled in disgust. Like we said.

It’s not for us to tell Israelis how to vote, but theirs is our favorite world leader. (I used to like the blond Ukraine chick with the braids, but she’s history.) He’s steadfast against terror, a passionate advocate for Zionism, and a very moving speaker. I only wish he were more of all. But it’s enough that Obama can’t stand him. For that alone he deserves a Nobel Prize.

Comments (1)

Shh! Don’t Mention the Jews!

What’s missing from this picture?

Bipartisan criticism of President Barack Obama’s proposed authorization of force against ISIS mostly has to do with the use of U.S. troops and limits on the commander-in-chief. But one Republican lawmaker noticed something else that he calls quite troubling – omission of the word “Jews.”

Freshman Lee Zeldin is the only Republican Jewish member of Congress, and says it immediately leapt off the page that the President’s proposed resolution specifically singles out several ethnic groups threatened by ISIS: Iraqi Christians, Yezidis and Turkmens, but says nothing about Jews.

“I see an understanding, a recognition in the resolution with regards to ISIS attacks on Muslims, on Christians and others, and I didn’t see a reference to Jews,” Zeldin told CNN in an interview. “And one of the efforts I’ve been involved in is trying to raise awareness for the rising tide of anti-semitism.”

The New York Republican questioned whether the White House deliberately left out Jews as an ethnic group that ISIS has threatened.

Of course they did. As we reported yesterday, they refuse to acknowledge the murder of “folks” in a kosher deli by a bunch of “zealots” as anything but “random”. As I wrote, “Do they hate Israel (apparently) and Netanyahu (absolutely) so much that they would deny a narrative that makes Jews sympathetic?”

Yup.

Comments

The Holocaust: When a Bunch of Zealots Randomly Gassed a Bunch of Folks

So, it was just bad luck—is that the regime’s story?

Since US President Barack Obama’s controversial comments during a recent interview, in which he downplayed the anti-Semitic nature of the deadly shooting attack at a kosher supermarket in Paris last month, government spokespeople have been falling over themselves to explain what exactly he meant. And failing pretty miserably.

In the interview with Vox, published earlier this week, the US President asserted that the media was “overstating” the threat from terrorism to garner ratings, but admitted terrorism was still a problem. In so doing, however, he provoked a storm of controversy with the following comment: “It is entirely legitimate for the American people to be deeply concerned when you’ve got a bunch of violent vicious zealots who behead people or randomly shoot a bunch of folks in a deli in Paris.”

First, White House official spokesman Josh Earnest made a valiant but cringeworthy attempt to tidy up after the President, justifying Obama’s claim that climate change was more dangerous than terrorism, as well as attempting to explain how ISIS terrorist Amedy Coulibaly was simply “shooting random folks” without paying any attention to their background at the Hyper Cacher store.

“Folks”. You know this whole rotten bunch is passing gas in your face when they start talking about “folks”. Is that in the White House style manual?

Later Tuesday evening it was the turn of State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki, who similarly struggled to rationalize Obama’s strange comments.

Associated Press journalist Matt Lee began the exchange, asking: “Does the administration really believe that the victims of this attack were not singled out because they were of a particular faith?”

Psaki’s response to the straightforward question was perhaps even more evasive than Earnest’s.

Psaki: “Well, as you know… I believe… if I remember the victims specifically, they were not all victims of one background or one nationality so I think what they mean by that is… I don’t know if they spoke to the targeting of the grocery store… but (rather) the individuals who were impacted.”

If you enjoyed that, you probably like watching dog fights. That was brutal.

And it wouldn’t stop:

When Lee pointed out that Secretary of State John Kerry’s own actions, by meeting specifically with members of the Jewish community to pay condolences after the attack, suggested otherwise, Psaki struggled to formulate a coherent response.

Psaki: “Naturally given that is… the grocery store is one that, uh…”

Lee: “But don’t you think the store itself was a target?”

Psaki: “That’s different from the victims being…”

Lee: “Does the administration believe that this was an anti-Jewish… an attack on the Jewish community in France?”

Psaki: “I don’t think we’re going to speak on behalf of French authorities and what they believe was the situation at play here…”

Lee: “But if a guy goes into a kosher market and starts shooting it up, he’s not looking for Buddhists is he?

“Who does the administration expect shops at a kosher (store)…? An attacker going into a store that is clearly identified with one specific faith – I’m not sure I can understand how it is that you can’t say that this was a targeted attack!”

Psaki: “I don’t have more for you Matt, it’s an issue for the French government to address.”

What’s going on here? Are they just covering up for another imbecilic thing their boss said? Or is it worse? Do they hate Israel (apparently) and Netanyahu (absolutely) so much that they would deny a narrative that makes Jews sympathetic?

What exactly did he say again?

It is entirely legitimate for the American people to be deeply concerned when you’ve got a bunch of violent vicious zealots who behead people or randomly shoot a bunch of folks in a deli in Paris,” Obama said.

What did I tell you about “folks”?

This is the administration’s story, and they’re sticking to it. A bunch of “zealots” “randomly” shot a bunch of “folks”. We don’t have to hold it up to ridicule: it ridicules itself. I almost feel sorry for Jen Psaki for being pimped out like that.

But I soon get over it. At least she called them victims and not folks.

Comments (1)

« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »