To Jennifer. Too Many Items Here. Too Many Reasons Obama Would Be Disasterous As President.

Submitted by Sofa Sogood (United States), May 29, 2008 at 22:46

Jennifer,

Your many points are very well taken.

Yes, neither Obama nor the MSM has informed the general public of the $750 billion splurge (3/4 Trillion over what we already contribute, which is more than all other countries combined), which he sponsored and committed us to, to make sure we're forced to pay it, for the Global Poverty Fund. Especially when he is bitterly complaining about the state of our economy, and how much our defense spending is damaging our nation's future. Will the McCain camp bring it up? Will the McCain camp publicize any of what is posted below?

Thanks for the link to Obama's video clip. Wouldn't it be lovely to live in a world where all we had to do was to lay down our arms and talk to our enemies. But then, in such a world, there are no enemies, no bad intentions. Just misunderstandings. All wishes would come true just for the wishing. LA, la, LA, LA, la, la, land.

It's all OUR responsibility because WE have been too strong, and WE haven't been open to listening and understanding Their Grievances.

We must realize how bad, bad, bad we have been, and Obama is the Pure One to fix our souls. Obama is the Pure One who can fix the soul of the world.

As soon as They see how well-intentioned We are, They will respond with the good intentions They have been suppressing, because of us.

We are so powerful, almost like the gods, that Our beneficent intentions can change Their behavior.

Ignore History and Reality. Yes, We All Can have everything just the way we dream it. Peace through weakness, appeasement and magic wands.

That ought to be his campaign slogan. (Or is it already?)

Listening to that short, but other-wordly, steeped in unreality, video clip, sent my eyes rolling backwards. How to stop this dangerous creature who lives on another planet? How to reach the hypnotized, reality-challenged voters? The word you chose, "delusional" is the right one for him and them.

Below are way too many items to put into one post. But one follows the other and I don't know which I could cut out. These are, however, just a sampling of why this man as President would be more than a disaster, for us and the rest of the world as well.

This week, the "Leader" is reading a book entitled, "The Post-American World." No doubt, a reflection of his hopes for us.

Here's some more on Mr. Obama's Far, Far, Far Left political agenda which the MSM thinks is unimportant for the public to know.

OBAMA SOUGHT AND RECEIVED SUPPORT OF MARXIST POLITICAL COALITION ("THE NEW PARTY") IN 1996 STATE SENATE ELECTION

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7434

HERE ARE SOME COMMENTS ABOUT AND QUOTES FROM GEORGE SOROS, ONE OF OBAMA'S PRINCIPAL BACKERS AND WHOSE REPUTATION IS NOTORIOUS FOR USING HIS BILLIONS AS A ONE MAN SHOW OF MANIPULATION OF MONEY MARKETS AND POLITICAL EVENTS.

NOTE HOW SIMILAR ARE HIS OPEN VIEWS AND OBAMA'S STEALTH VIEWS.

Soros says he gives away about $400 million annually.

Since 2003, tearing down what he views as the "fascist" tyranny of the United States, as he has put it, is "the central focus of my life."

Soros intends to...knock America off its global pedestal

Soros' aim seems to be to make the U.S. just another client state easily controlled by the United Nations and other one-world groups.

Soros' Open Society Institute gave $20,000 for the legal defense of radical attorney Lynne Stewart. She was convicted in 2002 of abetting jailed terrorists after the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

MoveOn.org...to which Soros has given $5 million since 2004...[and which took out] a full-page New York Times ad that branded Gen. Petraeus "General Betray Us."

Soros additionally finances groups supporting the interests of one-world government.

He favors U.N. dominance in world affairs

MoveOn.org, for example, led the charge to keep John Bolton out of a permanent seat in the U.N...and to topple Paul Wolfowitz at the World Bank.

, sees the European Union as a model for "open society" and has called for a global central bank.

In fact, pick any cause that seeks to weaken the U.S. and it's hard not to find Soros' name on its list of financial backers.

WARNING. THE FOLLOWING IS QUITE SICKENING. A little ditty for us. A short radio broadcast Q&A with the ultra-left British "Guardian." Why, I wonder, doesn't Obama tell us "little people" what his real plans are for us -- i.e. to relinquish leadership and be subservient to the will of Europe -- I guess he doesn't tell us because, being so provincially American, we just couldn't understand. He'll show us the "way" later on, when we're "sophisticated" enough to suit him, and after we've had some "experience" of the wonderfulness of the results, I'm sure.

I guess because Europe has been so, so very successful at building their economies, and "peace" and "multiculturalism" and all that, the US ought to emulate it, ought to look to it for guidance, and never consider itself a leader. Note that in response to the question, "How much is he saying publicly?" The answer was, "Well, this was a private conversation with a group..." In other words, he's NOT saying any of this publicly.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/audio/2008/may/27/obama.britain.usa

Some excerpts.

"Tony Blair gave away a lot...and didn't get that much in return. He wanted a big US push on Israel and Palestine...he didn't get much of that. And he wanted the whole decision about Iraq to go through the UN. [Obama talked about re-calibrating the Special Relationship with Britain so it would be more "equal."] That's clearly what he meant...It was simply not good enough for the US to see itself simply as a leader, never to follow and never to enter into multi-pool, multi-lateral decision making....

Q. How much is he saying publicly?

A. Well, this was a private conversation with a group of supporters. It was a fund raising event, and he linked up by telephone...in a very smart house in Notting Hill, owned by Liz Murdoch, the daughter of Rupert Murdoch, the media mogul....clearly within the general drift of Barak Obama's foreign policy direction, that the US should take a more multi-lateral approach to the world....He said, "I will be more conscious of how we appear, how we look to the rest of the world."

Certainly, Obama looks on the Israeli-Palestine issue in a way much closer to the British and European approach. [The speaker doesn't go into the fact that that means the ever-popular in Europe, One-State anniliate Israel "approach."] He looks at Iran in a way much closer to the European approach, which is one of engagement and negotiation. Hillary Clinton has been much more confrontational talking about obliterating Iran if it attacked Israel [as opposed to what? Talking Iran out of anniliating Israel, giving Iran a wink and a nod to bomb Israel?]

BY THE WAY, HERE ARE SOME EXAMPLES OF HOW THINGS ARE DONE "RIGHT" IN MERRY OLE BRITAIN. AND OBAMA IS "CLOSER TO THE BRITISH AND EUROPEAN APPROACH."

Mealnie Phillips, Spectator.co.uk. "THE UNIVERSITIES' WITCH-HUNT AGAINST THE JEWS"

"....The UCU [Universities and Colleges Union] is debating a motion which not only raises the spectre yet again of an academic boycott of Israel but demands of Jewish and Israel academics that they explain their politics as a pre-condition to normal academic contact....if they don't condemn Israel...they won't be allowed to work. Their continued employment will depend on their holding views which are permitted....No other group is to be barred from academic activity unless they hold 'approved' views; no state-run educational institution controlled by any of the world's numerous tyrannies is to be 'grey-listed'.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/736686/the-universities-witchhunt-against-the-jews.thtml

According to Caroline Glick, who writes for the Jerusalem Post, the "debate" is only a superficial show, and that, in fact, this has actually long been the practice in UK Universities.

http://www.carolineglick.com/e/2008/05/obamas_unique_appeasement_styl.asp

About paragraph 6, starting with "I mean it's one thing to say."

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/05/transcr.html#more

"AND THEN THERE WAS NO ENGLAND....."

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3288

Police Officer warns boy that if he doesn't take take the English flag down from inside his car (it was covering his music system) that he would get a 30 pound fine because that flag is racist towards immigrants. In January 2007, a 27 year old man was ordered by Bedford Council to take down an England flag, that he had hung on the side of his house. In 2006, a fire station was ordered to remove an England flag, because they were told, it might offend ethnic minorities...."

AND OBAMA'S WONDERFUL U.N. WHO THE US SHOULD "FOLLOW."

U.N. PEACEKEEPERS RAPING CHILDREN

"Assaults were often in return for the very food or protection supposed to be provided to the vulnerable in a crisis....It's findings suggest a contuing lack of action despite promises to tackle alleged abuse made at a conference of UN officials and aid agencies in December 2006....Save the Children itself is not immune.

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/05/un-peace-keeper.html

As for some of the "grievances" Obama will hear out. February 23, 2006. "US Ambassador John Bolton ... two sessions on financial and sex scandals in UN peacekeeping operations, prompting a slew of criticism from developing nations against big powers."

"BIG POWERS" GET IN THE WAY OF RAPING AND PILLAGING"

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2006/02/big_powers_get_.html

SEX FOR FOOD, OIL FOR FOOD. WHY NOT? IT'S THE UNITED NATIONS. May 27, 2008. Chesler Chronicles. Pajamas Media.com

http://pajamasmedia.com/phyllischesler/2008/05/27/sex-for-food-oil-for-food-why-not-its-the-united-nations/

THESE ARE THE OBAMA UTOPIAS THAT WE "BAD" AMERICANS SHOULDN'T DARE LEAD, BUT SHOULD RATHER ASPIRE TO FOLLOW.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".