Redstate

Posted at 8:53pm on Jun. 5, 2008 Obama caves under Palestinian pressure

By Soren Dayton

Earlier, Mark Kilmer noted that Hamas expressed displeasure at Barack Obama's speech to AIPAC. So what did Obama do? He caved to Hamas.

The Washington Post reported it as "Obama Backtracks on Jerusalem" and Reuters as "Facing criticism, Obama modifies Jerusalem stance". WaPo:

Facing criticism from Palestinians, Sen. Barack Obama acknowledged today that the status of Jerusalem will need to be negotiated in future peace talks, amending a statement earlier in the week that Jerusalem "must remain undivided."

So let's make this very clear. Under pressure from Palestinians and terrorists, Obama caves on perhaps Israel's most fundamental issue. Not a good sign for those meetings with Ahmadinejad.

Posted in 2008 | Barack Obama | Hamas | Israel — Comments (83) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 3:51pm on Jun. 5, 2008 Obama might have lost his Hamas endorsement.

They didn't like Barry's AIPAC speech.

By Mark Kilmer

As predicted, Barack Obama's supporters are beginning to desert his campaign, Yeah, that would be nice, but I suppose he can do with these erstwhile Obama supporters:

In a statement following Obama's speech Wednesday to the pro-Israel group AIPAC, in which the Illinois senator called Israel's security "sacrosanct" and promised to support an "undivided" Jerusalem, a Hamas spokesman accused the Democrat of supporting the Israeli occupation.

"We consider the statements of Obama to be further evidence of the hostility of the American administration to Arabs and Muslims," said Sami Abu Zuhr, according to Reuters.

[ . . . ]
“Hamas does not differentiate between the two presidential candidates, Obama and McCain, because their policies regarding the Arab-Israel conflict are the same and are hostile to us, therefore we do have no preference and are not wishing for either of them to win,” Zuhri said.

Hamas had previously endorsed Obama on New York's WABC radio in April.

Read On…

Posted in 2008 | AIPAC | Hamas | Obama — Comments (11)/ Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 9:45am on May 16, 2008 Can WaPo editors read?

By Soren Dayton

The Washington Post should either fire their editors or send them to remedial education. They should be ashamed that they let this garbage get printed.

Despite his reputation in the media as a charming maverick, McCain has shown that he is also happy to use Nixon-style dirty campaign tactics. By charging recently that Hamas is rooting for an Obama victory,

McCain isn't "charging". A senior Hamas leader said that "actually we like Mr. Obama. We hope he will (win) the election [...] and he has a vision to change America." Why isn't that the story, rather than a distortion of McCain's statement?

This clown James Rubin continues:

I asked: "Do you think that American diplomats should be operating the way they have in the past, working with the Palestinian government if Hamas is now in charge?"

McCain answered: "They're the government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them, one way or another, and I understand why this administration and previous administrations had such antipathy towards Hamas because of their dedication to violence and the things that they not only espouse but practice, so . . . but it's a new reality in the Middle East. I think the lesson is people want security and a decent life and decent future, that they want democracy. Fatah was not giving them that."

"Deal with" is not the same as "unconditional" talks at the level of heads of state. The President of Iran says that Israel should be destroyed and their weapons are being used to kill American soldiers. Indeed, yesterday on the blogger call McCain pointed out that Ryan Crocker regularly interacts with Iranians in Baghdad.

How could the Washington Post's editors let this garbage get printed in their paper? Are they illiterate or just biased beyond belief?

Posted in 2008 | Hamas | James Rubin | John McCain | liberal media bias — Comments (37) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 8:02am on May 13, 2008 Obama "understands" why Hamas endorsed him

By Soren Dayton

From the NY Daily News:

While maintaining an ironclad commitment to Israel's security, Barack Obama says he understood why a top Hamas adviser voiced support for his presidential bid.

"It's conceivable that there are those in the Arab world who say to themselves, 'This is a guy who spent some time in the Muslim world, has a middle name of Hussein and appears more worldly and has called for talks with people, and so he's not going to be engaging in the same sort of cowboy diplomacy as George Bush,'" Obama said in an interview with The Atlantic.
"That's a perfectly legitimate perception as long as they're not confused about my unyielding support for Israel's security," Obama said.

I remind you of the statements of an Obama support from Chicago who runs the website Electronic Intifada:

The last time I spoke to Obama was in the winter of 2004 at a gathering in Chicago's Hyde Park neighborhood. He was in the midst of a primary campaign to secure the Democratic nomination for the United States Senate seat he now occupies. ... As he came in from the cold and took off his coat, I went up to greet him. He responded warmly, and volunteered, "Hey, I'm sorry I haven't said more about Palestine right now, but we are in a tough primary race. I'm hoping when things calm down I can be more up front." He referred to my activism, including columns I was contributing to the The Chicago Tribune critical of Israeli and US policy, "Keep up the good work!"

Or to quote the LA Times story entitled "Allies of Palestinians see a friend in Barack Obama":

And yet the warm embrace Obama gave to Khalidi, and words like those at the professor's going-away party, have left some Palestinian American leaders believing that Obama is more receptive to their viewpoint than he is willing to say.

Maybe the answer is just that where there is smoke, there is fire. Any maybe his long-time supporters know him better than the reporters infatuated with him.

Posted in Archived | Barack Obama | Hamas | Israel — Comments (7) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 10:19pm on May 12, 2008 Open Season on Obama Advisers

Watch Your Own Backs, You’ve Got no Support from the Top

By Mark I

Moe Lane points to a Jake Tapper Piece detailing the numerous times Sen. Barack Obama has placed blame on his advisers for his radical policy positions. Less noticed is the growing tendency for Obama to drop those advisers like hot rocks the minute that their comments explaining Obama’s positions become known.

It all started with the case of Austan Goolsbee, the University of Chicago professor and Obama economics adviser who was caught telling Canadian officials, no doubt in English and French, that Sen. Obama didn’t really think that NAFTA needed to be renegotiated. It was all just campaign rhetoric, Goolsbee helpfully explained. The following week, Samantha Power, Harvard professor (Obama apparently collects university professors) and Obama campaign foreign policy adviser told the BBC that Obama had no intention of following the plan he had campaigned on for close to a year for getting U.S. troops out of Iraq. “He will, of course, not rely on some plan that he’s crafted as a presidential candidate or a U.S. Senator,” she said. But of course; and pardon me, but would you have any Grey Poupon?

Power resigned from the campaign, allegedly because in the same interview she referred to Sen. Hillary!™ Clinton as a “monster.” But Clinton’s negatives are so high that it would have been hard for most of America to find fault with that statement. No, the more damaging comments, and the ones she was kicked to the curb over, were the ones that exposed Obama’s real position on Iraq, and exposed him as a typical politician saying one thing to get elected while planning to do something else entirely.

Last week, another Obama adviser was unceremoniously dismissed for doing his job. Only this time, Sen. John McCain’s campaign deserves credit for forcing Obama to reduce his adviser corps by one. McCain pushed back hard on the question of Obama’s relationship with the Iranian-sponsored Palestinian terrorist group Hamas, and forced Obama’s hand. The incident further revealed the thin-skinned nature of the Obama campaign, and provided a model that McCain should follow for the remainder of the election.

Read on…

Posted in 2008 | Barack Obama | Hamas | John McCain | Liberals | Obama campaign | Obamafiles — Comments (2)/ Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 8:24am on May 12, 2008 Obama, Hamas, Obama's circle, and Iran's grand strategy

By Soren Dayton

Much has been written about the firing of Bob Malley by Barack Obama's campaign. Commentary's Jen Rubin asks one of the most important questions. What do Obama's statements on Iran and the Palestinian question have to do with expressions of support?

Hamas endorsed Obama. It is worth considering why. Is it because he favors direct, presidential talks with Hamas’ sponsor Iran? Or because Hamas sees him as lacking resoluteness or as excessively sympathetic to the Palestinian cause? And it’s not as if Hamas is an isolated case of fringe groups and individuals favoring Obama.

Consider Jen's first question in the context of this from today's Washington Times, quoting a Hamas official:

"What happened in Gaza in 2007 is an achievement; now it is happening in 2008 in Lebanon. It's going to happen in 2009 in Jordan and it's going to happen in 2010 in Egypt," Sheik Khader said in an interview. "We are seeing a redrawing of the map of the Middle East where the forces of resistance and steadfastness are the ones moving the things on the ground."

An Israeli legislator sees something quite concrete in this "redrawing":

"What is going on in Lebanon at this hour is actually the overthrow of Lebanon by Hezbollah. The democratic Lebanese government will become a puppet government — an Iranian dream," said Ze'ev Boim, a lawmaker from Israel's governing Kadima party. "It is particularly awful to see an Iranian battalion on the northern border of Israel."

Note that Hamas sees "the forces of steadfastness ... advancing" while an Israeli legislator sees this in terms of "an Iranian battalion on the northern border of Israel." A fundamental question for the next President is how he will respond to this "steadfast" pressure from Iran. Enter a view of Barack Obama that has currency in Arab and pro-Palestinian circles, courtesy of an LA Times story entitled "Allies of Palestinians see a friend in Barack Obama":

And yet the warm embrace Obama gave to Khalidi, and words like those at the professor's going-away party, have left some Palestinian American leaders believing that Obama is more receptive to their viewpoint than he is willing to say.

It is important to consider how a view of Barack Obama that has currency in the Middle East connects with Iran's strategy on the ground. Read on.

Posted in 2008 | Barack Obama | Hamas | Rashid Khalidi — Comments (22) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 10:00pm on Apr. 25, 2008 Believe it or not, Barack: This Matters

By Ben Domenech

McCain spokesman Brian Rogers offers the following statement, starting where John McCain did today on his blogger call. Let it serve as a sign that Barack Obama's merry little nod toward the nice smiling folks down the street at Hamas, Inc. will not go unnoticed, and will absolutely be an issue in the general election campaign.

Some things John McCain isn't going to touch, but "Do you like me? Yes/No/Maybe" notes passed between terrorists and a presidential candidate? Yeah, that's a bit far.

Barack doesn't have anything to say about the fact that they like him, you know: those people, they did horrible acts, detestable acts, but he was younger then, and they're just in the neighborhood. He's just being nice! Like a senator should be! That's why he sat through all those Jeremiah Wright sermons, you know - it's basic human politeness not to stand up when a Reverend is talking.

Read on . . .

Posted in 2008 | Barack Obama | Hamas | Israel | John McCain — Comments (12) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 5:39pm on Apr. 21, 2008 McCain Dares To Speak The Truth In The Battle of Ideas

Wonder Why Hamas and Iran Prefer Obama?

By Dan McLaughlin

The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), "the nation's largest association of Muslim organizations," joined by one of its increasingly natural allies, the left-wing blog ThinkProgress, is pressing John McCain to stop using the term "radical Islamic extremism" to describe terrorist and terror-sympathizing groups that are undeniably radical and extremist and justify that radical extremism with appeals to a radical and extreme reading of Islam.

Or, at least, a reading that I assume is radical and extreme; one would like to believe that groups like ISNA think so. Naturally, the United States wants and needs to convince the Muslim world that this is the case, and that the terrorists aren't right when they invoke Islam to justify violence against non-Muslims and even, very regularly, against fellow Muslims. But it's hard to make that argument if you don't even acknowledge the fact that the enemy is making such use of an ideology that purports to be grounded in Islamic theology. How would you have gone about combatting the KKK without describing them as a racist group, or international Communism without arguing against Communism? ISNA's leader apparently wants to shut down precisely that sort of dialogue:

Read On...

Posted in Hamas | Iran | John McCain | Obamafiles | War — Comments (29)/ Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 2:37pm on Apr. 17, 2008 Why? Some questions about Obama's terrorist and communist fan club

It's like the Joker and Lady Vic campaigning for Lex Luthor for President. At some point it raises red flags.

By Erick

We have well documented Barack Obama's Marxist underpinnings. His wife, his preacher, his mother, his father, his childhood mentor, and his neighbor Bill Ayers all have underlying beliefs in marxism. They share a disdain for capitalism, capital, and job providers. They are all swept up in the call for social change. And Obama has been right there with them.

We get glimpses every once in a while -- Obama rails against corporate special interests and denies taking money from them, while using them to raise his money and while actually getting money from them. Obama expresses his distain for religion as a crutch for humanity, echoing Marx's view that religion is an opiate for the masses. Obama decries the unfairness of the rich while expressing his connection to the proletariat, despite not being one of them.

There is a growing sense though, both among some Clinton supporters and those of us on the right, that we're at a tipping point and it is a point that requires the press to dig a bit deeper.

Obama's ties to terrorist Bill Ayers and his terrorist wife are often played down by the Obama campaign, but they are only disputed by Obama's chief strategist. In fact, Obama's present successful political career was started in Bill Ayers's living room.

“I can remember being one of a small group of people who came to Bill Ayers’ house to learn that Alice Palmer was stepping down from the senate and running for Congress,” said Dr. Quentin Young, a prominent Chicago physician and advocate for single-payer health care, of the informal gathering at the home of Ayers and his wife, Dohrn. “[Palmer] identified [Obama] as her successor.”

Then, of course, we have his dealings with Tony Rezko and Saddam loyalist Nadhmi Auchi, with whom Obama tries to play down his relationship. Nonetheless, Obama appears to have yet again lied to cover up his toasting of Nadhmi.

Equally disturbing is Obama's willingness to take money from Code Pink activists, that particularly repugnant group that harasses our military, assaults our elected officials, and accuses our heros of being war criminals. Obama has no problem with their money or their support. In fact, his rhetoric frequently appeals to this group and its supporters because it is so anti-American military, or rather anti-imperalist.

Maybe all these things combined send signals to those who live in that world. The signals are seemingly so strong that Obama has a terrorist fan club of sorts. We should review the members.

Read on . . .

Posted in 2008 | Barack Obama | Code Pink | Daniel Ortega | FARC | Fidel Castro | Hamas | Jimmy Carter — Comments (10)/ Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 7:49pm on Apr. 16, 2008 Senior Hamas official offers his support to Obama

By Soren Dayton

The other day, I noted a quote in the New York Times from Jeremiah Wright that their association would hurt Obama. Wright said that "a lot of his Jewish support will dry up quicker than a snowball in hell."

Well. There's another. This time, a leader of Hamas appears to have offered his support. Carl Cameron has the details. Apparently Ahmed Yusuf gave a radio interview last Sunday. This is what he said:

We don’t mind–actually we like Mr. Obama. We hope he will (win) the election and I do believe he is like John Kennedy, great man with great principle, and he has a vision to change America to make it in a position to lead the world community but not with domination and arrogance.

Wow.

Posted in 2008 | Barack Obama | Hamas | Israel — Comments (9) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 10:56am on Mar. 31, 2008 Nearing Two Years Held Hostage: Shalit, Goldwasser, And Regev Still Waiting

Everyone ELSE might have forgotten, but they and their families certainly have not

By haystack

Gilad Shalit, Corporal in the IDF's Armor Corps, was taken hostage by Hamas on June 25, 2006. Hamas was apparently convinced that their "bold" move to cross into Israel and kidnap a Soldier might be enough to force Israel to trade the freedom of "women and youths" from Israeli jails for Shalit's own freedom. [H/T Michelle Malkin]

Israel said no.

Sixteen days later, our Lebanese friends - Hizbullah - saw the opportunity to fire rockets into Israel and take two of their very OWN Israeli Soldiers hostage, planning to use them...again... as bargaining chips. Eldad Regev, and Ehud Goldwasser, were taken on July 12 2006.

Like Shalit, Regev and Goldwasser remain in captivity today.

A war was fought over these kidnappings. Israel fought it poorly in the eyes of some Israelis and others around the world, and those who side with the Arabs in this multi-generational "holy war" watched with glee as Israel was knee-capped by the UN, having been promised they would get their Soldiers back in exchange for ending hostilities.

The hostilities ended, and Israel lived up to their promises. Hamas and Hizbullah did NOT...and these men remain in captivity. So much for the UN. And so much for keeping your word at the bargaining table. Apparently Israel and their terrorist neighbors are held to different standards... and the UN drumbeat of lies and moving targets for international justice and security blathers on.

The rest of us might have moved on, but Israel hasn't forgotten, nor has the families of these men.

Hamas hasn't forgotten either, dredging up Shalit's name anew in hopes of convincing Israel to attack only Military targets...promising they will do likewise AND return Cpl. Shalit to his family's awaiting arms.

Don't count on it happening, and don't count on hearing anything about it from the media OR the UN. Everyone else, save for the Shalit family, the Goldwasser family, and the Regev family has long since moved on.

I remember them today...and my prayers remain with these men and their families...two years running.

Posted in Hamas | Hizbullah | Israel | Israeli Hostages | Lebanon | Palestinian Territory | War — Comments (2)/ Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 1:04pm on Jan. 23, 2008 A failure of democracy, or a failure to democratize?

By Neil Stevens

A portion of the wall between Gaza and Egypt was blown up by Hamas, and Gazans flooded through to get a taste of the Egyptian economy. Says the Washington Times:

Gazans crossed on foot, in cars or in donkey carts to buy cigarettes, fuel, and other items made scarce by an Israeli blockade of their impoverished territory. Across the coastal strip, home to 1.5 million Palestinians, people pushed into buses and piled into rickety pickup trucks heading to Egypt and a rare opportunity to escape months of isolation.

Police from the militant group Hamas, which controls Gaza, directed the traffic. Egyptian border guards took no action.

"Freedom is good. We need no border after today," said unemployed 29-year-old Mohammed Abu Ghazal.

Of course the Hamas agents surely did this to bring weapons in, but the fact that the people of Gaza do not feel free under their tyrants, and do not approve of the policies and their consequences, is apparent.

I hold this up as evidence that Hamas's public support in Gaza may not be all it's cracked up to be, and that perhaps they won election through terror, not persuasion.