An excellent article from Canada Free Press (which one liberal commenter here has decried as “right-wing drivel,” so you know it really must be getting under their skin!) that gives an outsiders view of just how much President Obama must hate America:
We also know that during his run for the presidency, Obama expressed sneering condescension towards all those bible-clasping, gun-owning yahoos who “cling” to those silly things, and that in Europe he consistently gave voice to America’s supposed “sins.” But all that pales in comparison to the clear contempt – looks more like hatred to me – that Obama feels for the United States of America and for its most revered founding document, the U.S. Constitution.
In just the first 100-days of his tenure, Obama’s words and actions have demonstrated that he is no friend of the country he leads. This is only a smattering of what happened on his recent three-continent trip abroad and to Mexico:
* In France, Obama told his audience that America “has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive” toward Europe.
* In Prague, Obama – in true utopian-kindergarten fashion – pledged “with conviction” that America will “seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.” In other words, destroy big bad America’s ability to defend itself!
* In London, Obama made clear that the world’s financial wealth was no longer made by those inferior leaders Roosevelt and Churchill, effectively ceding America’s leading role in creating and sharing wealth to nations that have never measured up to our country’s bountiful generosity or spirit of free-market entrepreneurship.
* In Venezuela, Obama sat passively while the Marxist Chavez handed him an American-bashing book and delivered another revile-America speech, while never once rising to defend our country.
* In Nicaragua, Obama again sat passively while the Marxist Ortega blamed the United States for a century of what he called terroristic U.S. aggression in Central America, again emitting not a whisper of defense on our country’s behalf.
* In Turkey, Obama said – incredibly and inaccurately – that America was not a Christian nation.
* And in his recent trip to Mexico, Obama said that the escalating border violence was essentially America’s fault.
Scan you memory. Can you think of any other leader in world history who so consistently badmouths his own country, or fails to defend it? I can’t.
Wall St. Journal writer Dorothy Rabinowitz notes that Obama “had gone to Europe not as the voice of his nation, but as a missionary with a message of atonement for its errors. No sitting American president had ever delivered indictments of this kind while abroad, or for that matter at home. When [our allies] see Obama’s moral equivalence, they realize they are on their own and must cut their own deals to survive – understanding that multicultural trendiness is now a cynical cover for moral laxity and ‘can’t we all get along?’
Historian Victor Davis Hanson also noticed something odd about Obama’s apology tour. “Despite this fresh climate of atonement, there was a complete absence of a single apology from any other foreign leader…not a word came from Britain about colonialism…nothing from Germany on the Holocaust…not a peep from France about Algeria or Vietnam. Turkey was mum on the Armenian killings…Russia said nothing about the 30 million murdered by Stalin…Nothing came from China about the 70 million who perished under Mao…Mr. Medvedev said nothing about Putin’s brutish rule…We saw no concrete evidence of any help — or hope and change — from any foreign leader. Zilch.”
A fairly damning indictment coming from any American journalist; this is absolutely stunning coming from a non-American. Obama hates America; and it’s not just my opinion and that of a million tea bag partyers — everyone around the world can see it, too.
It’s a bit long, but well worth the read for it’s depth of research and stunning detail. Go HERE: read already!
UPDATE: This just in from a reader:
I saw the subject article via Twitter. It is posted on your site andI need to let you know the article on your blog site is without approval or direct credit to the author. It erroneously appears as though it is your work. That’s a serious offense which must be corrected immediately.To find the author’s contact information, go to her site: http://www.joanswirsky.com click on “Articles.” Follow up, as required with the author, Joan Swirsky. Thank you./signedThis communication is from: clergywomen – Twitter user (Rev. LED Dowell, Five-Fold Minister) Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
For the record, this e-mail was also sent to the author of the article. I have yet to hear from her on this. This e-mail is NOT from the author, but from an overzealous fan. Or friend. Or stalker; whatever.
(It also reinforces my feelings on women in the ministry, but that’s another subject.)
And again for the record, I have tried to excerpt this article according to “Fair Use” guidelines, and have twice, TWICE included hyperlinks to the original article, which should tell you this is by no means my own work. The first line of my article states that it is “An excellent article from Canada Free Press”, which gives attribution to the original source. The article is even indented to delineate it from my own work.
Compared to the size of the article, this is excerpting seven paragraphs out of 52 in the original article.
Do you actually read blogs much, “Reverend,” or do you just like attempting to annoy Americans?
Note to the author: Reverend Dowel has now provided more than ample documentation of your article, and I have used “Fair Use” guidelines on the article. If you have any problems with my excerpt of the article, please let me know yourself and we’ll chat. My contact information can be found on the blog.
If you look, dear. Loved your article, by the way.
UPDATE 2: The incredibly annoying Reverned Dowel has replied again:
Jxxx Lxxx – This is my last transmission to you on this subject.
Oh, Thank God. They were starting to get annoying. And “Jxxx Lxxx” is my websmaster; please don’t drag him into this — unless you’re trying to imply “I know who you are” or something like that.
I regret you misunderstood my intent.
I don’t think I misunderstood your intent. You wote a message to me demanding I immediately credit your author friend — something I’d already done with my link. You didn’t like the way I did it — even though the way I do it is common practice on thousands of blogs across the internet — and you decided to pick a fight. I get that.
Fair use includes a direct acknowledgment of author to their work and you have herein admitted you did not have (or notice) that source when you copied her work from CFP.
First, let me be clear. When you start using legal terms like “herein” or “admitted” I take that as a threat. Be warned — I have my own lawyer, and don’t take well to them. Second, I admitted no such thing. Try reading my posts instead of trying to read my mind.
My intent was to help you in that regard to understand you had not gone far enough in your “Fair Use” and how to correct it.
But, as for your “feelings on women in the ministry,” which you stated — Without a doubt that has more to say about you than it does about me.
Oh, absolutely I agree with that. It means I take a more fundamentalist view and literal view of the scriptures; particularly 1 Cor. 14 and 1 Timothy 2. I’m sure you’ve heard that before; but I believe it.
However, if you really understood the seriousness of the problem about which I attempted to alert you, then perhaps you’d have another opinion.
Snideness hardly becomes you, ‘Reverend.” I’ve written a Master’s Thesis and had it published. I also am working on my first commercial book right now. I think I have a good grasp of the issues involving intellectual property. In fact, my seven greats grand-uncle was Stephen Foster, who invented the issue of Intellectual Property rights and the American Copyright system with his musical compositions and residual revenues.
Unless you meant that as a threat — which, given the snide tone of your e-mail, is hardly something I can dismiss.
Lastly, I acknowledge you have now contacted the author to follow up.
That’s mighty white of you, “Reverend.” Because let me be clear on three points:
1.) To the best of my knowledge — and the best knowledge of my lawyer — I have followed the minimum requirements for ‘Fair Use.”
2.) If the author — not her busybody cleric friend — but the author — has any problems about this, she can feel free to contact me at this e-mail address and I’ll be happy to discuss it or make any necessary alterations she feels necessary.
She. Not you. She. Butt out already.
The next e-mail I receive from you on this subject will be considered harassment and referred to people who can make things happen. Like your Internet provider.
And whilst I’m not sure exactly what a “Fivefold Minister” entails, or what church embraces your theology (I looked it up; it seems to be a mail-order ministry thing), I’m pretty sure this is hardly a Christ-like attitude you’re modeling here.
Go Away already.