Sinister Smears of the Obama Campaign -- Obama Follows in Bush Jr's Footsteps

The other day I saw a panel discussion on Fox TV [on Israeli cable TV] about the US election campaign. A young woman with more good looks than good sense was there to represent the Obama campaign. Her name was Roginsky and allowed that she was Jewish, adding that some people among the Jews had "craven fears" about Obama. That is not merely a smear, it is a vicious insult against millions of people. Millions, not only Jews, have well founded, justified fears of Obama. They are not "craven." How can you trust a candidate who has switched positions so cynically as Obama has, surpassing the typical cynicism of politicians?? How about the anti-war candidate during the primaries who now wants to send more troops to Afghanistan?? [This is not to judge whether or not more troops should be send to Afghanistan but his cyncism in being both for and against American troops in foreign lands].

In this same vein, Obama in his notorious infomercial promised to spend more on the US armed forces, and he also promised to create something like, as I recall, a "civilian security corps," whatever that means. This ominous-sounding body would be financed, according to him, in an amount equal to the regular defense budget, thus doubling it. It is now 500 billion dollars. Doubling would bring it to one trillion bucks. Doesn't quite make sense but maybe Obama will claim again that he was misunderstood or that he had made a "poor choice of words." Indeed, the promise of a new "security corps" with undefined functions sounds bizarre --and menacing!

Then we have his twin claims that McCain would mean another term for Bush and that McCain is somehow to blame for the economic crisis. But in foreign policy at least, an Obama presidency, as Carolyn Glick agrees, would more likely represent another term for Bush than would a McCain presidency.

Another indication that an Obama presidency, has v'shalom חס ושלום, would mean a fourth term for the Bush dynasty. Recall that Bush belongs to the very upper crusty Bush family of Connecticut. George Bush Sr [Prez George B I] moved down to Texas to be near the oil that he was investing in. George Jr [Prez George B II] was raised there. Now, quite a few upper crusties are openly backing Obama, including Christopher Buckley, the son of William F Buckley, jr., founder of the National Review. This fact belies Obama's repeated claim that the rich are on McCain's side. Of course, as the Prince de Ligne said: In order for things to stay the same, everything must constantly change.

Miss Roginsky claimed on Fox&Friends that she was not afraid --as a Jew, she insinuated-- of an Obama presidency, nor were her relatives in Israel. Well, I can't verify that claim but if she is not afraid of Zbig Brzezinski, Obama's chief foreign policy advisor, formerly jimma carter's national insecurity advisor, then she is a fool or a traitor to the Jews. Likewise for the influence on Obama of Rashid al-Khalidi, of the well-connected Jerusalem Khalidi family, once prominent in the Ottoman Empire's governing class, now well-connected with the British and American foreign policy establishments. Think of his relative Walid Khalidi, a Palestinian Arab spokesman back in the 1940s, later at the American University of Beirut and later well-ensconced at Harvard. Needless to say, both AUB and Harvard are well connected entities in the US Establishment.

Rashid al-Kh has been at AUB and the Univ of Chicago where he regularly palled around with Obama --giving Obama the Arab nationalist version of Middle Eastern history, particularly regarding Israel. Rashid is now at Columbia which some students call Bir Zeit on the Hudson due to the pervasive pro-Arab, anti-Israel bias there, especially in the Middle East studies department, now headed by Rashid, I believe. His career also included being a PLO spokesman in Beirut in the late 1970s, early 1980s [see Martin Kramer and Daniel Pipes for more on Rashid]. Non-Jewish Americans may be more concerned about Bill Ayers. This man was a violent terrorist back in the late 1960s-early 1970s. People did get killed in his and his comrades' [the Weathermen's] activities. He too has a rather upper crusty background. It's curious that after being a fugitive from the law for some ten years on the terrorist charges, when he finally was caught and tried on those charges, he got off. Did Daddy's money have anything to do with it?

Another threatening aspect of Obama is his promise to intensify US involvment in the so-called Arab-Israeli or "palestinian"-Israeli "peace process." In fact, nothing that deserves to be called a "peace process" has been going on. Israel allowed the PLO to take control of various pieces of territory in Judea-Samaria and Gaza in 1994 after the Oslo Accords. Since those accords were signed in 1993 on the White House lawn Arab terrorism against Israel intensified. The Jewish victims have increased manifold. In the past, US "peace process" involvement has almost always meant US pressure on Israel to concede to Arab demands. So US involvement in a fake "peace process" is not what Israel needs. More "peace process" means more death, more humilitation, more violation of Jewish national and human rights. This is because Israel's enemies among the Arabs, among Europeans and among Americans deny or belittle the Jewish right to live in Judea-Samaria and Gaza, all parts of the internationally designated Jewish National Home [San Remo Conference 1920, League of Nations 1922]. With advisors like Zbig and al-Khalidi, a president Obama would be likely to join the UK and the European Union in ganging up on Israel and giving much more money to the Palestinian Authority. The US already gives the PA a couple of hundred million bucks per year. Let's point out again that Bush talks a good game of anti-terrorism but in fact overlooks the terrorist nature of the PA and Abu Mazen and the genocidal nature of the anti-Jewish incitement in the PA's schools, mosques, press and electronic media. Bush's girl sidekick, Condi Rice, has already expressed some soft sentiments in favor of the openly genocidal Hamas [Article 7 Hamas charter].

Maybe Miss Roginsky doesn't understand that Judeophobia or antisemitism can be the policy of governments, not merely of private persons with prejudices. Governments do policy planning. It is my conviction that the UK and EU have both done very Judeophobic policy planning. The "peace process" is a Judeophobic policy. It takes on a fake color of "humanitarianism." But why aren't the UK, EU and other bodies more interested in the actual genocide that goes on in the Sudan, for instance?? Why aren't Rashid al-Khalidi and his tutorial pupil, Obama, more interested in the Sudan massacres than in what Israel is alleged to have done, which pales before what happens in the Sudan regularly and has been happening there since 1956, off and on. Part of the reason, but only part, is the influence and effect of millions of Arab dollars poured into US universities to set up Arab and Muslim studies centers which have become sources of pro-Arab, anti-Israel propaganda. Rashid has benefitted from some of that filthy lucre. Arabs are recycling their oil wealth, much provided as part of US, British and French tax manipulations. Check it out.
As said above, the focus on Israel's alleged wrongdoing, while overlooking the very gross wrongdoing of Arab states, represents Judeophobia, as does the denial of Jewish rights to live in Judea-Samaria and Gaza, often based on misrepresentations of international law. Yet Miss Roginsky is not worried. A fool or a traitor.

Unfortunately, many people, understandably angry about the economic crisis, are thinking of voting for Obama in order to spite Bush. But Obama's "community organizing" pals had a lot to do with persuading banks to give out risky subrprime mortgages and thus helped to bring down the system. McCain and other senators --not including Obama-- warned about the subprime threat two years ago. Bush is partly to blame for the crisis. So is Obama and those "community organizers" like ACORN whose thinking he represents. So is Allen Greenspan. But McCain is less responsible. It would be tragically ironic to vote for Obama against McCain out of spite at Bush, whose foreign policy gives a tragic, pro-terrorist prelude to an Obama foreign policy. Which is not to see McCain as perfect or absolutely trustworthy either. But Obama is so sinister, so menacing, such a cynical opportunist and ruthless liar that the choice for McCain is clear.