The ugliest American

By 24 Comments 1,674 views

ugliest american

 

NY Sen. Chuck Schumer (D) announced that he will oppose Barack Obama’s capitulation to Iran.

“I will vote to disapprove the agreement, not because I believe war is a viable or desirable option, nor to challenge the path of diplomacy. It is because I believe Iran will not change, and under this agreement it will be able to achieve its dual goals of eliminating sanctions while ultimately retaining its nuclear and non-nuclear power,” Schumer wrote in a lengthy statement issued Thursday night detailing his decision.

“Better to keep U.S. sanctions in place, strengthen them, enforce secondary sanctions on other nations, and pursue the hard-trodden path of diplomacy once more, difficult as it may be,” he said.

The deal makes no sense and Obama makes no sense. Obama said that sanctions could not stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, yet he insists those same ineffective sanctions that could not stop Iran from getting a bomb will “snap back” if they violate the agreement.

The Obama hate machine immediately sprang into action. This time anti-Semitism was on the menu.

The lefty site Daily Kos posted a cartoon showing Schumer with an Israeli flag and calling him a “traitor.”

MoveOn argues that “our country doesn’t need another Joe Lieberman in the Senate,” a reference to Connecticut’s ex-senator — who, like Schumer, is Jewish.

White House buddy Fareed Zakaria waved at anti-Semitic stereotypes, saying Schumer’s motive is just “money” — “If he were to support President Obama on this, if he were to support this deal, he knows it would create a firestorm of opposition, particularly among, perhaps, you know, wealthy supporters.”

Obama personally went after the “money changers.”

Of course, Obama himself griped about pressure from “lobbyists” — i.e., Jewish and pro-Israel activists — spending “tens of million of dollars” to stop the deal. He reportedly blamed “the pro-Israel community” for stirring up a fight.

Other Obama stooges joined the pogrom:

Former top Obama adviser David Plouffe on Monday blasted Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) for opposing the Iran deal, suggesting it makes him unfit to lead Senate Democrats.

Plouffe’s comments came in response to Schumer’s assertion Monday that Obama should go back to the negotiating table with Iran and get a “better” deal.

He called Schumer’s claim naïve and suggested Senate Democrats will miss Harry Reid, the Democratic leader the New York senator is expected to succeed in the next Congress.
“Mitch McConnell will have a field day with this kind of naïveté. We will miss Harry Reid,” Plouffe tweeted.

From The Tablet:

What we increasingly can’t stomach—and feel obliged to speak out about right now—is the use of Jew-baiting and other blatant and retrograde forms of racial and ethnic prejudice as tools to sell a political deal, or to smear those who oppose it. Accusing Senator Schumer of loyalty to a foreign government is bigotry, pure and simple. Accusing Senators and Congressmen whose misgivings about the Iran deal are shared by a majority of the U.S. electorate of being agents of a foreign power, or of selling their votes to shadowy lobbyists, or of acting contrary to the best interests of the United States, is the kind of naked appeal to bigotry and prejudice that would be familiar in the politics of the pre-Civil Rights Era South.

This use of anti-Jewish incitement as a political tool is a sickening new development in American political discourse, and we have heard too much of it lately—some coming, ominously, from our own White House and its representatives. Let’s not mince words: Murmuring about “money” and “lobbying” and “foreign interests” who seek to drag America into war is a direct attempt to play the dual-loyalty card. It’s the kind of dark, nasty stuff we might expect to hear at a white power rally, not from the President of the United States—and it’s gotten so blatant that even many of us who are generally sympathetic to the administration, and even this deal, have been shaken by it.

Welcome to the real world, people. Your ox has finally been gored. Many other oxen have already been gored by Obama.

There is no disagreeing with Obama. It carries a heavy price. He painted Republicans as traitors for disagreeing with his kissing Iranian ass. As we noted long ago, he calls those who would dare disagree with him “enemies.”

Obama’s MO is unchanging:

The other guy is lying
The other guy has bad motives
And the other guy is the one playing nasty

He accused the Chamber of Commerce of being a threat to democracy, for chrissake. Everyone who dares have a different viewpoint is a traitor.

“All 50 States are coordinating in this – as we fight back against our own Right-Wing Domestic Terrorists who are subverting the American Democratic Process, whipped to a frenzy by their Fox Propaganda Network ceaselessly re-seizing power for their treacherous leaders.”

The GOP is made of right wing terrorists! It’s gotten so bad that we’re seeing Jew on Jew. David Axelrod impugned Schumer’s integrity.

“Facts are facts, and politics is politics. Schumer made a decision based on politics, not fact,”

The constant attack on personal integrity for having a different opinion from Obama is disgraceful. Barack Obama has reduced politics to a sewer level. He is the ugliest American.

To paraphrase Martin Niemöller:

First obama came for the tea party, and I did not speak out-
Because I was not a member of the Tea Party

Then obama came for GOP, and I did not speak out-
Because I was not a member of the GOP.

Then obama came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then obama came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

 

 

DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education. DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed. Except for liberals being foolish.

24 Responses to “The ugliest American”

  1. 1

    Nanny G

    Dems keep touting themselves as the open-minded ones, as opposed to the ”racists” who are Republicans.
    This certainly puts the lie to that false construct.
    Obama blew a dog whistle and his dogs went to work.
    Ironically, Obama really doesn’t care about Schumer’s vote as long as it is irrelevant to the bottom line.
    And it is.

  2. 2

    john

    3 dozen Admirals and Generals signed and open letter in support of the International Agreement. This is not “Obama’s Agreement”
    Now Dr J these 36 high ranking military, how do you see them ? Traitors? Stooges? Fools?
    http://www.haaretz.com/news/world/1.670756
    Likewise many Israeli exGenerals and Intelligence chiefs support the agreement.
    You same guys who are trying to scare people about Iran were the same bunch who falsely claimed that Saddam had WMD that could be used against us.
    If you were so wrong before why should we listen to you now?
    “Wolf! Wolf! I see a Wolf! No really I mean it this time really. Trust me on this one”
    Nope. Sorry Dr J
    And NAnny about lieing tsk tsk you told a big fib about that speed skater wo motivated you being oneof the whole team that died in the plane crash in 1961 In Fact it was the figure skating team who got wiped out in Belgium.

  3. 3

    another vet

    It was Obama’s type of rhetoric that was used on both sides to help fuel the fire leading to the CW. Just like the bully on the playground, eventually the response is going to be something the left failed to calculate for.

  4. 4

    Nanny G

    @john: So sorry I forgot which country the team of skaters crashed in.
    Last time I was at the rink with the plaque was in 1970, after I had married and moved away.
    But it was the fact that so many of the figure skaters started out as speed skaters that they encouraged young girls like me to try the speed skates.
    So, not a ”lie” so much as a mis-remembering….a la Scooter Libby.

    Still the Left talks a big game when it comes to being the non-racists.
    Then they attack Sen. Schumer for merely giving cover for Dems when it comes to the Jewish vote.
    Shame on them all.

  5. 5

    James Raider

    author

    Not surprisingly, the ugliest American and his trail of lapping garbage cannot answer the first and most simple question, . . . why did the world need a deal with Iran?

    We don’t NEED a deal with Iran. And the biggest lie on this from Obama is that this prevents Iran from getting nuclear power. NO IT DOEDN’T. This guarantees Iran will have nuclear power AND will have the cash to acquire it. What a crowd of uninsightful idiots.

    Europe is in serious financial trouble and sees Iran as an export market for everything from arms to cars, in exchange for Iranian oil. Socialism in Europe, controlled by bureaucrats/kleptocrat bankers in Brussels is working. Europe is generally very ‘anti-semitic’ and could not care much less than it already does about Israel.

  6. 7

    Greg

    “Better to keep U.S. sanctions in place, strengthen them, enforce secondary sanctions on other nations, and pursue the hard-trodden path of diplomacy once more, difficult as it may be.”

    Right, Chuck. And you have also clearly stated that you do not believe war is a viable option.

    So, in the absence negotiated deal—which would result in the verifiable removal of 13,000 thousand enrichment centrifuges and of all but 300 kilograms of Iran’s current inventory of 10,000 kilograms of enriched uranium—what’s to stop Iran from completing their nuclear weapon program and having bomb ready to assemble within the next 12 months? Do you think they won’t, if we renege on the agreement we have negotiated?

    More international sanctions won’t stop it, even if you could get more international sanctions, which is highly unlikely.

    You’re just not acknowledging the reality of the situation. Wishing it were different doesn’t make it so. There are very few real options to choose from, each having predictable consequences and potential dangers. The only option having clear benefits is the negotiated deal, which makes it the best choice. If you refuse to take the best choice because it isn’t perfect, you automatically default to a much less desirable outcome.

  7. 10

    Nanny G

    @john: 3 dozen Admirals and Generals

    Let me help you with that.
    3 dozen retired generals and admirals…..
    Does Obama hold anything over any of these ex-military leaders?
    Did they cheer lead for Obama in the past?

    1. Gen Cartwright: The military investigated Cartwright in 2009 and 2010 for misconduct involving a female Marine captain, and investigators recommended administrative action for “failure to discipline a subordinate” and “fostering an unduly familiar relationship”.
    2. Gen. Tony McPeak worked as a co-chair on Barack Obama’s presidential campaign during the 2008 United States presidential election.
    3. Gen. Lloyd Newton endorsed Barack Obama for President and appeared on stage at the Democratic National Convention at Invesco Field with other former military leaders to lend support to Obama’s campaign.
    4. Lieutenant general Gard is a chairman of the board of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation who endorsed Barack Obama for president.
    5. Lieutenant general Kennedy served as co-chair of the Platform Committee of the 2012 Democratic National Convention.
    6. Maj Gen Paul Eaton Eaton made several appearances in support of Senator Barack Obama’s presidential campaign.
    7. Major General Marcelite Harris is Treasurer of the Atlanta Branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

    That’s 8 out of the 1st 18.
    You get the point.
    BTW, many of the others of them have no web pages on them at all.

  8. 11

    Greg

    How many generals told Obama not to pull out of Iraq? NOW you respect their advice?

    Perhaps they should have told the Bush administration not to lock us into a timetable for withdrawal that could only be altered with the consent of the Iraqi government, just before leaving office.

  9. 12

    Bill

    @Greg: Bush WON the war. Obama squandered the victory. Then, he handed the Iranians nuclear weapons.

    Your hero. Who will liberals slobber all over when he is on the scrap-heap of history and Hillary is a running joke?

  10. 13

    Richard Wheeler

    @Bill: Here’s what I’m thinking–A Rubio/Kasich ticket beats a badly wounded Clinton/Cuomo ticket,
    Trump runs as a softer and gentler Dem in 2020 and wins Presidency.

  11. 15

    Greg

    Democrats tend to invite past presidents to our national conventions. Democrats consider letting the American people remember their terms in office to be a plus. The Republican National Committee seems to have thought differently in recent years.

    Maybe they’ll surprise me this time around. It would be interesting.

  12. 18

    Ditto

    DEMOCRAT Issues Chilling 5-Word Warning on What Obama Will Do if Iran Deal Fails

    President Barack Obama has proven time and time again that he believes he is above the law. He has stretched the limits of presidential power while making up laws as he goes along.

    His most recent show of defiance to any kind of rule of law occurred earlier this week when Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Calif., warned that the president might go beyond the law in order to reach an Iran nuclear deal.

    In a White House meeting where Obama treated top Democrats to a personal presentation on the deal, Sherman said Obama “appeared ready to ignore Congress if members don’t sign off on the deal.”

    “The main meat of what he said is, ‘If Congress overrides my veto, you do not get a U.S. foreign policy that reflects that vote. What you get is you pass this law and I, as president, will do everything possible to go in the other direction,’” said Sherman.

    “He’s with the deal — he’s not with Congress,” Sherman added. “At least to the fullest extent allowed by law, and possibly beyond what’s allowed by law,” he added, according to The Hill (H/T The Blaze).

    In other words, a Democrat congressman from arguably the most liberal state in the nation said that Obama may simply refuse to abide by a law duly passed by Congress.

    Sherman has expressed doubts about the deal and even grilled Secretary of State John Kerry about whether Obama would follow the law should Congress defeat an expected veto to block the deal. Kerry’s response to the question was to simply dodge it by saying he was “not going to deal with a hypothetical.”

    Clearly, this administration is one of the most sinister in recent history and even those in Obama’s own party see it. Obama seems intent on allowing this deal to go through despite the grave impact it will have on our nation and the rest of the free world.

  13. 21

    Greg

    Why would Obama need to do anything illegal? The people you elected to Congress paved the way for approval of the Iran deal over their own future objections three months ago.

    Obama will veto any bill Congress passes disapproving the Iran deal. Congress can then overcome his veto only if they can muster a 2/3 majority in both the House and the Senate. That means all the President actually needs is 1/3 of the votes plus 1 in either chamber, and he wins.

    How can that be, when ratification of a treaty would normally require 2/3 support for approval?

    It’s that way because the republican-majority Senate made it that way, when they overwhelmingly passed a bill sponsored by republican Bob Corker.

    The weird thing is that the guy who created the setup is an outspoken opponent of the Iran deal. Or so he says. I won’t even pretend to understand what the thinking behind this might have been. Maybe there just wasn’t enough.

  14. 22

    Bill

    @Greg:

    Why would Obama need to do anything illegal? The people you elected to Congress paved the way for approval of the Iran deal over their own future objections three months ago.

    And once again, in the immortal words of Otter from “Animal House”, paraphrasing, “They f***ed up… they trusted him.”

    Supposedly they were to see the entire deal BEFORE it was presented to the UN. Obama lied. Not only did he rush right to the UN to undercut Congress, but he cut and allowed to be cut several secret side deals that Congress was NOT supposed to be aware of.

    If it’s such a good deal, why does lying always have to be employed by this President? Because they are uncontrollable pathological liars?

  15. 23

    Greg

    Trusted him? Republicans haven’t trusted Barack Obama from day one. His presidency has been a battle against angry resistance at every turn. Republican opposition to the agreement with Iran has been so extreme that the tactics employed against it have broken with past standards of decorum and arguably crossed the line into illegality with a violation of the Logan Act.

    I find it difficult to believe that republicans have done anything out of excessive trust of their designated Political Enemy No. 1. These guys are experienced politicians and trained lawyers with armies of technical advisers at their beck and call, so it seems unlikely that they didn’t understand the consequences of the the bill they passed three months back.

    This is a puzzle that I can’t work out. I don’t even have a theory about their motives. Do they want the Iran deal to go through, but only over their objections so that they can place the blame elsewhere?

  16. 24

    Bill

    @Greg: Because he’s not trustworthy. That is pretty obvious. Unless everyone simply bows to his will (to hell with the Constitution or the Constitutional process), he attacks, lies, vilifies and threatens extra-Comstitutional (illegal) actions.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *