The Least Serious President in the History of the Republic™ Speaks at AIPAC, Again

By Proof

Image and video hosting by TinyPic
Israel can sleep safely tonight! Barry has imposed sanctions on Iran!

The Least Serious President in the History of the Republic™ addressed an AIPAC Policy Conference in Washington today. (Candidate Obama addressed them in 2008.) A couple of things jumped out at me.

We also know how difficult that search for security can be, especially for a small nation like Israel in a tough neighborhood.

A “tough neighborhood”??? Excuse me, Mr. President, but Israel is a nation under siege from its enemies. Chicago has rough neighborhoods, Israel is in a war zone.

“You also see our commitment to our shared security in our determination to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Here in the U.S., we’ve imposed the toughest sanctions ever on the Iranian regime.”

Tough sanctions against Iran? How’d that work out for us against Saddam Hussein in Iraq?
Did tough sanctions bring down his regime or bring about peace in the region or extinguish his desire to rebuild his WMD capabilities? Israel can sleep safely tonight! Barry has imposed sanctions! /sarcasm

“…a new generation of Arabs is reshaping the region.”

Oh, you mean like the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, after you were instrumental in the removal of Mubarak, who are avowedly hostile to Israel? And whatever factions are rebelling in Libya, about whose ideologies and intentions towards Israel you haven’t a clue?

So, let me see…we have turmoil in Egypt, Syria, and Libya, where you just started a military action. We have shooting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and you sent a military mission into Pakistan, without the knowledge or permission of their government, and now you want to impose your will on our lone democratic ally in the Middle East, because…you needed to draw attention away from your golf outings??

“The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps”

Here’s where you plan goes off the rails, Mr. President. Take the city of Jerusalem, the city of David, the capitol of Israel. Your proposal not only has it jutting like a peninsula into what would then be another country, but the old lines transect Jerusalem. Which part of Jerusalem do you envision either side would “mutually agree” to give up? On what would you base that belief? Certainly not on the last 44 years of history! And you have publicly stated that Jerusalem “must remain undivided”. Who mutually agreed to that swap, Mr. President?

In the end, you have a pretty speech, which is only as dependable as the man who gives it. Too often in the past, Obama’s promises have come with an expiration date. Why should we believe these are any different? And why should the nation of Israel risk its security and existence based on your words, Mr. Obama?

Full Text Of Obama’s Speech To AIPAC

Cross posted at Proof Positive

Curmudgeonly sesquipedalian.

Related posts

  • ellinas1

    Is it your contention that we should support dictators?

    • Proof

       Is it your contention that a destabilized Egypt or an Egypt in the hands of radical Muslims would be preferable to a dictatorship?

      As I recall from history, Democrat President F.D.R. allied us to Joe Stalin. Jimmy Carter’s less than stellar support of the Shah of Iran (another dictator) gave us the Ayatollah Khomeini, which led to the current dictator in Iran. Bill Clinton bartered a deal to give nuclear technology and material to the dictator of North Korea. Is it your contention that we should support dictators?

      One cannot always choose one’s allies from those as pure as the driven snow. Deposing dictators is not a thing to be undertaken lightly.

      • Neiman

        Mubarak may have been a dictator, but he lived at peace with Israel and was often a peace partner in the Middle East. Like dictators? No! If his people really overthrew him, we should stay out of it, not prop him up; but as you said, this change not only may, but absolutely will have unintended negative consequences for Israel and the Middle East.

      • $8194357

        There is an agenda being followed here Proof, IMO. Check out how this article ties Barry’s actions to emboldening the Brotherhood.
        Saturday, May 21, 2011The Muslim World Smells BloodCheck out this article in the well circulated Arab News. Clearly the Muslim world thinks America has abandoned Israel and that she is on the ropes. Here they are demanding that Obama enforce his final solution for Israel, “the rogue regime.” Rife with filthy lies: “Israel continues to get away with murder.” The Muslims smell blood and understand that Obama is working for them. They want action.Let actions speak… Arab News (hat tip Rut)So what’s it going to be: Israeli chutzpah or Barack Obama’s audacity of hope?Predictably, Israel’s Netanyahu has lost no time in trashing President Barack Obama’s call for a “viable Palestine” along the 1967 borders. The Israeli PM has virtually rubbed Obama’s nose in, dismissing the borders that existed between Israel and its Arab neighbors before the war in 1967 as “indefensible.”Well, nothing new here. The more things change around it, the more they remain the same for the ever-irrepressible and intransigent State of Israel. No matter who is in charge, Israeli’s obstinacy remains constant.  Interestingly, Netanyahu’s rejection of the reasonable appeal from Israel’s most trusted ally comes hours before his high-profile US visit.

        • Proof

           I, too, would agree he has an agenda, or at least a large animus against Israel that he fosters. His latest disregard of the wishes of the leader of one of our putative allies, Israel in particular, is nothing new.

      • ellinas1

        Proof asks: “Is it your contention that a destabilized Egypt or an Egypt in the hands
        of radical Muslims would be preferable to a dictatorship?”

        It is my contention that the people  of any country rule themselves any way they see fit and without external influence.
        The people of Egypt have spoken, but they are not done.

        The real culprit of Iran’s fall into the hands of Ayatollah Khomeini, is the 1953 coup d’état that was engineered by the US government under Dwight D. Eisenhower and the British government under Winston Churchill, code named  “Operation Ajax” and  carried out by Kermit Roosevelt, Jr. the grandson of U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt.

        After they deposed the democratically  eelected president of Persia/Iran they brought in their puppet the Shah who was a brutal dictator ,and gave his country’s resources to what is now BP for next to nothing.

        • Proof

          “without external influence” Would you call flip flopping calls from the president of the world’s last remaining superpower, for your  leader to step down, “external influence”?

          Or in the case of Libya, is (more than) a few missiles and bombs dropped on your country “external influence”?

          • ellinas1

            External influence is the 1953 coup d’état that was engineered by the US government under Dwight D. Eisenhower and the British government under Winston Churchill, code named  “Operation Ajax” and  carried out by Kermit Roosevelt, Jr. the grandson of U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt.

            After they deposed the democratically  elected prime minister of Persia/Iran they brought in their puppet the Shah who was a brutal dictator ,and gave his country’s resources to what is now BP for next to nothing.

            You have not addressed my question/statement. You have leap-frogged, as is usual for you.

            PS:  Libya is clearly external influence, as was Clinton’s in Serbia, and Bush’s in Iraq.

          • Melillo_andrea

            Mossedeq was actually the Prime Minister, and the Shah (Pallavi’s father) was still in power. The PM was not in line with the Shah (an Iranian traditional figure) and his policies. 

            Libya is clearly an external influence, based on deep historical divisions well before America was even a concept. 

          • ellinas1

            OK, he was the prime minister…my bad.
            What does that change?

      • Guest

        Proof supports dictators.  Except Saddam.  Then you need democracy.  So Proof supports democracy.  But only if the people vote with the Hawks.

        What a macaroon. 

        • Proof

          “What a macaroon.” We’ve told you repeatedly you don’t have to sign your work, Sparkkkie!

          You’ve jumped to some mighty fine conclusions there. You want to throw in the bogus “apologist for the Saudis” and “walks on water” while you’re at it, to keep your accuracy at 100%

          There is a difference between “supporting” a dictator and “not overthrowing” a dictator, but I’m sure the nuance escapes you, Sparkless.

    • robert108
    • flamemeister

      We have already indicated our support for a would-be dictator of the world’s most powerful country.  There are indications that we will continue to do so.  But he’s a real slow bugger & is trying to play catch-up fast as he can

      • ellinas1

         Ummmm…….. OK.

  • Melillo_andrea

     I must sympathize with the majority of senitments expressed on this blog post, however I must inquire as to your current understanding and viewpoints within the Libyan crisis? 

    In other words, what are the current factions within Libya that are potentially threatening to the state of Eretz Yisrael? In that, Ghaddafi has been the major voice in North Africa to eradicate Israel from the Middle Eastern region, even proposing to do so within the legal Western how is the current situation in Libya threatening? 

    Good post overall. 

    • Proof

       “how is the current situation in Libya threatening? ” The situation is Libya is that of further destabilizing an already unstable region. Add to the fact that the administration doesn’t seem to know who the rebels are or what they stand for ought to have militated against our getting involved until we did.

      As in Iran, sometimes the devil you know (the Shah) is better than the devil you don’t know (Ayatollah Khomeini,  Mahmoud Ahmadinejad).

      • Melillo_andrea

         “As in Iran, sometimes the devil you know (the Shah) is better than the devil you don’t know (Ayatollah Khomeini,  Mahmoud Ahmadinejad).”

        Could not agree more, however Iran has no relevancy to Libya, at all. 

        North Africa (with the exception of Egypt, which traditionally has never been fully integrated into the concept of Arab North Africa) is rather the most stable of the Muslim regions at this current juncture, and this is not speculation or opinion, it is based on sound observation by analysts across the isle. 

        Do I agree with the military involvement within Libya at the moment? No, I do personally believe there are other more effective means as to which the Ghaddafi regime could be toppled for the overall betterment of the Libyan people. The issue that was present during national security discussions was whether to intervene or whether the “rebels” could handle the civil war on their own, the fact of the matter is the Western powers waited until it was too late and unfortunately had to pursue a more damaging policy of military intervention. 

        Libya, in no way shape or form is similar to Iran, however I am always happy to have a good debate and therefore would be more than happy to hear your ideas as to why you would think so. I always feel I have more to learn and so please allow me this opportunity. All the best. 

        • Proof


          “Libya, in no way shape or form is similar to Iran”

          I was only using Iran as a comparison because the dictator who ruled it prior to Carter, though no saint, was an ally of the US. What came in the wake of his departure was even worse, to both the people of Iran and the region.


          “Do I agree with the military involvement within Libya at the moment? No”

          Which situation is further exacerbated by Obama trying to lead from the rear, involving US military assets in an act of war against Libya, but expecting someone else to clean up the mess.


          “The issue that was present during national security discussions was
          whether to intervene or whether the “rebels” could handle the civil war
          on their own, the fact of the matter is the Western powers waited until
          it was too late and unfortunately had to pursue a more damaging policy
          of military intervention.”

          Brings up two points. One, if we knew who the “rebels” were, and what they stood for and had a reasonable expectation that they would bring about positive change in Libya, then yes, we should have backed them earlier. That speaks to the image of Obama as an indecisive ditherer.
          If we do not know who the rebels are, then the US military should not have been involved for change merely for change’s sake. That is not the basis for sound foreign policy.  And we certainly didn’t need a third shooting war in the region.

          • Melillo_andrea

             Brings up several points indeed, here is what I have to say:

            (1) we knew who the rebels were and are. They are the tribal groups within the region of Cyrenaica, the traditional Eastern province of Libya. Their ideological perspective is more in tune with the Eastern Gulf Arab countries such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt. 

            (2) Obama was indecisive and therefore it led to serious consequences. 

            (3) The major issues that helped propel the US into the conflict was French President Nicholas Sarkozy when he prematurely announced that his government would support the Libyan “rebels”. In turn the British then supported the French to intervene (BP just landed a $900 million oil exploratory investment in the region) and the United States was pushed to follow as well. Italy took a while to get on board due to the deep economic relations with Ghaddafi and his country. 

            (4) Supporting the rebels earlier through freezing Ghaddafi’s monetary assets and supplying the “rebels” to fight on their own would have been more conducive, however by the time the decision to support the “rebels” was made, Ghaddafi was close to finishing off the last insurrectionist efforts of the Eastern tribesman fighting the Ghaddafi camp. 

            I think the major issue with Obama and the Libyan involvement is that he spent 8 years claiming the abhorrent policies of Bush, but upon taking office realizes a different story completely. 

          • Proof


            we knew who the rebels were and are.

            Perhaps in general. But, who are the leaders? What do they stand for?  We know who the Americans are, but whether they are led by an Obama, or a Reagan, or a Ted Kaczynski should make a great deal of difference in our foreign policy. .

          • Melillo_andrea

            Agreed. Their leaders have been known for quite some time and are visible within the tribal governance systems of Cyrenaica. Do I believe the Libyan rebels can or will produce a Reagan? No, because that is not their essence or culture, but they are most certainly not the camp that the former gentlemen has described them of being, ayatollah-like or in bed with Al Qaeda, that is simply dishonest and not true from what exists on the ground. 

          • Proof

             Do I expect the rebels to produce a Reagan or a Jeffersonian democracy overnight? No. I would like for us to avoid helping to create another “democracy” like one that would elect a Hamas type group and spend its resources making war rather than looking out for the best interests of its people.

        • Neiman

           Oh contrare! Daffy was pretty much contained, defanged, only a danger to his own people really and it is up to them to resist or not, it is not up to us; but, drop Daffy Gadaffi and who takes over, another Ayatollah? An Al Queda in some virulent form?

          • Melillo_andrea

            The rumors of Al Qaeda involvement have been circulated by the Ghaddafi regime, why? Because he was playing on American fears. Algeria, their neighbor, helped promote these lies in order to help the stability of their neigbhor country (they dont want the same rebellious effects in their country). 

            The CIA was never able to confirm the validity of this accusation because of the simple fact they were lies created by the Ghaddafi regime to undermine the “rebel” efforts to get rid of Ghaddafi.

            Who will replace him? Certainly no Ayatollah, why? Let me briefly share;

            Libya became a country in 1951 as the United Kingdom of Libya, with a british prescribed formula. The tribes that were in power realized the economic benefits of Western cooperation for their underdeveloped and rather impoverished (one of the poorest at the time) nations. Most of the oil fields, extraction, refinement and export facilities are all located in the Eastern province of Cyrenaica and not in the Ghaddafi’s stronghold of the West. 

            The “rebels” fly the former Libyan flag which is the flag of the monarch which Europe and the United States have had historical good relations with and would continue to do so if they were ever given the chance to govern the Libyan people once more, this time with a more modern and well-thought out government formula. 

            Europe and the United States gave the Libyan “rebels” the go ahead to open their own Central Bank and National Oil Company to trade with the West regardless of Ghaddafi still in power. This happened around the same time that Ghaddafi’s central bank governor fled to Turkey. 

            Therefore I cannot agree with anything you said given the facts on the ground in Libya. 

          • Neiman

             Your enormous ego in thinking you have all the facts, your poor reading comprehension and inability to look at concepts versus exact wording handicaps any intelligent discourse.

            I said an Al Queda in some other virulent form, clearly not meaning Al Queda per se, but a similar Islamic terrorist organism, something unhealthy for us all. Militant, murderous types usually rise to the top in such overthrows, Iran is a clear example.

            As to an Ayatollah, Libya is Islamic, they are militantly Islamic and again, an Islamic group with a powerful, malevolent leader may well rise to power and make Daffy look like a choir boy by comparison.

            So, you do not know what will happen, you cannot offer guarantees that your Shangri-La type Libya will result from these militant rebels; and we do know that Daffy was pretty tame and not of much concern in recent years, which even you in your august wisdom cannot guarantee will be the same in the future.

        • robert108

          “…however Iran has no relevancy to Libya, at all. ”

          Iran is just waiting in the wings, and is supporting the faction that will bow down to them.  You must be joking.  Iran has its fingers in every ME pie.

      • Melillo_andrea

        Here is an interesting generalized piece on Libya and the current conflict, I do not necessarily agree with all that is written, but I find it rather well done and layed out. Take a look if you have the time,

  • flamemeister

    “A ‘tough neighborhood’??? Excuse me, Mr. President, but Israel is a nation under siege from its enemies. Chicago has rough neighborhoods, Israel is in a war zone.”

    Ease up.  Obama is trying to be funny.  Trying to be funny is difficult for people suffering from the Asperger’s form of autism.  It is very difficult for a narcissistic Asperger’s sufferer to tune into people.  Such a person is chronically tone-deaf in that regard.  Obama demonstrates this daily.


    • Melillo_andrea

      Lol flamemeister, a few things:

      (1) interesting name, sounds scary and overwhelming,
      (2) Israel is a war zone, and is no laughing matter. In 1948, when Israel declared independence, two things happened:
                      (a) American was the first nation to recognize Israel within 11 minutes, and,
                      (b) Israel was invaded by all its Arab neighbors at once, but it emerged victorious 

      Israel has been in countless wars since and not by their own hand but by the aggression of their neighbors. Ohio or Indiana do no boast that Illinois does not have the right to exist, in Israel’s case, the overwhelming majority of the 22 Arab states do not recognize Israel as legitimate and wish to “push the Jews into the sea.” While you may notice his sense of humor, in the real world people may most certainly lighten the mood in times of crisis but it also never allowed them the capacity to overcome their obstacles. 
      (3) What people are looking for now is to reassert the lasting bond that Israel and America have constantly shared throughout each other’s history together. With this current president, and in such a turbulent time across the globe, we need the resolve of collective and strong leadership and not a comedian who does well with outlining campaign platforms. 

      I see you are a psychiatrist, or at least have read the wikipedia page several times. Congratulations on a job well opined. 

      • flamemeister

        Deeply sarcastic reductio ad absurdum.  Comparing Obama’s struggle with his mental disorder (probably mentioned in his concealed medical records) with the issue of Israel’s possible annihilation.
        Busted economy, Israel’s plight, a nuclear exchange in the ME, etc. are, in themselves, of equal emotional weight (= 0) for Obama.  Things have to impinge on him personally to evoke any real affect.
        Wonder if he ever took the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory?

        • Melillo_andrea

          The problem most prevelant with writing is that sometimes things that would not be overlooked in tone, are so with text!

    • Proof

      ” Obama is trying to be funny.” Yes. As when he said he’d find money to fund government programs “under the couch cushions”. Or his frivolous remarks about “alligators” and a “moat”, regarding our southern border security. If he wants a gig in stand up, fine. He’s probably better suited for it.

      That’s why, to me, his tone and choice of his language, whenever he can be dragged away from the golf course, makes him The Least Serious President in the History of the Republic™.

      • flamemeister

        He has little if any ability to empathize.  Obama does not “feel your pain.”  This has been commented on often enough from both Left and Right.  This is dangerous.  He should not be president for medical reasons, let alone because of his policies.  I believe a great deal of his peculiarities in decision-making and personal interaction have to do with this condition.  “It doesn’t get ME elected.  I won’t have time for golf!”  It is all about him, but “It’s all about him” is not just a minor matter.  It is a very bad thing indeed. I know other people like this. They have absolutely no idea of when to be serious or how to be funny in an appropriate manner.

  • Neiman

    I watched this speech from beginning to end and here was my impression:
    Some years ago I watched a man give a sermon on the Holy Spirit, it
    seemed truly inspired, grand, lovely and I was enthralled, it was the
    best message on that subject I ever heard. Then I recalled that Mormon’s
    serve a completely different Christ, they are a cult of the late Joseph
    Smith, they are not in any manner Christians. This man said everything
    perfectly, but it was all a lie constructed on a false god to lure poor
    souls to their eternal destruction.

    Then I recalled the serpent
    in the Garden, lovely to look at, soothing words, beautiful voice to
    express great things and to beguile Eve and through her Adam; and, in
    the midst of his evil temptation to drag all human souls into hell, he
    twisted the truth with just a tiny word “touch.”

    That is what I
    heard this morning, a grand, strong defense of Israel, every word
    carefully crafted to get a positive response, he was able to elicit
    applause for the way he spoke in defense of Israel; but he too like the
    two above only hid his lies with beautiful words. There have been far
    too many stories of his pressuring Israel to concede land, that the U.S.
    will not veto a unilateral declaration of Statehood before the U.N. by
    the falsely called Palestinians, he will force them to give their land
    to these Jordanian invaders ;and while he said Israel and these Muslim
    terrorist should negotiate how that border should look, he was still
    saying that by acreage, Israel must give up every inch of land illegally
    occupied by these falsely called Palestinians, back to pre1967 levels,
    to return to a 9 mile wide country surrounded by their enemies that will
    still launch rockets of fire upon Israel and kill their people, but
    then having a greater strategic advantage, then more easily able to
    destroy Israel – which is Mahdi Obama’s real goal.

    No wonder the
    Muslims say he is the Mahdi, through guile, though beautiful lying words
    he intendeds to destroy Israel for Allah.

  • Vlad Taltos

    So are you advocating for an invasion of Iran? 

    • Melillo_andrea

      I must agree as to what the author of this post is begging the question of? If sanctions are currently not the best position to be taking on Iran, then what is? The current sanctions enacted within UNSC resolution 1929 are rather thorough, damaging and are not subject just to economic mechanisms, but even put pressure on the military institutions as well. The sanctions, and the results currently showing from them, are performing rather well and as expected. 

      Also important to note in all this is the current US and NATO strategy of pursuing the ballistic missile PAA plan, regarding current Iranian behavior. 

      • Proof


        If sanctions are currently not the best position to be taking on Iran, then what is?

        My point its that sanctions are not enough. They had little effect when applied to South Africa, they had little effect against Iraq and they will have a similar effect against Iran.
        Sanctions are ineffective. In a world economy, someone willing to make a profit will find a way to circumvent them.

        Obama uses the tough language of a paper tiger. It might sound good, but in the end, it is “just words”.

        • Vlad Taltos

           Than what is your position.  Simple bombing or do we need boots on the ground? Or should we just go nuclear. 

          What is your policy?

          • Proof

            My, aren’t you the bloodthirsty one, Inhaler? How about a policy of aiding the people of Iran when they rise up against the dictators in their own country? Oh, wait. They did that and Obama didn’t lift a finger. Are you asking then about Plan B?  Maybe we just put a real president back in the White House and go back to Plan A?

          • Melillo_andrea

            A few things comments for a few individuals,

             To Proof:
            I wish it was as simple as going back to Plan A, and therefore as to learn more, may I ask you what Plan A is (was)? Here are a few comments on what you said, 

            (1) The sanctions have been working extremely well and the increase of sanction pressure on Iran from the UNSC Resolution 1929 (2010) have been rather effective. Allow me to comment as to why,

            (a) the sanctions now have been pursued by Germany (a huge gain, given their traditional position to do business with Tehran), second the UNSC resolution has allowed for collective UN sanctions on the regime, but also individual ones and as a result European nations in conjunction with Japan, Canada, Australia and even South Korea (only to name a few) have pursued individual sanctions. 
            (b) the US has applied pressure to countries selling gasoline to Iran, and the international community has responded relatively to our favor, thus crippling further the Iranian capacity and economic output, and
            (c) there is more applied pressure upon the military institutions within Iran from the new sanctions that have effectively been overseeing the weapons imbargo placed on Iran.

            (2) the policies have been very effective for the following reasons:

            (a) Iran’s natural gas reserves (largest in the region) are severely underdeveloped and all natural gas extracted goes directly (and no where else, except for Iranian vehicle use) to the powering of the Iranian petroleum sector.
            (b) the Iranian petroleum sector is greatly under-capacity due to the severity of the current sanctions. To offer a current example, Saudi Arabia (a cooperative partner of the US) produces one crude barrel of oil for $2 to $3, while Iran is facing extraction and refinement costs of $15 to $17 and then having no other option but to sell them at global market prices (a reason why they demand higher oil prices in OPEC)

            (3) The Iranian bureaucracy is heavily reliant for its continuance on the Iranian government and over half of the revenue recieved from the already strained exports of the Iranian government go to propping up government institutions that never turn a profit, but rather larger losses year after year.

            I have to go have dinner now, but these are just a few examples. More than happy to offer more later. 

  • robert108

    Maybe obama will next try a strongly worded note to Iran.

  • $8194357

    The advice that Ho Chi Minh had given to Abu Iyad to turn the terrorist war into a classic leftwing cause, had been put into action and was succeeding better than anyone could have expected. It had achieved its first milestone with Arafat’s appearance at the UN General Assembly on November 13, 1974. Speaking before the entire world, Arafat rattled off a 90-minute speech that set forth the basic themes that would provide the outline for his political pronouncements until his death.1.) Zionism and Israel were evil, imperialist, colonialist, and racist — in short, too evil to be allowed to exist.2.) The Palestinians were a classic Third World victim of colonialist oppression, racist occupation, Western imperialism, and apartheid discrimination, even though there had never been a Palestinian state and no Palestinian national movement until 1956 – eight years after the creation of Israel. And even though as late as 1967 (until the Arabs’ failed war of aggression against Israel) the West Bank and Gaza were under Arab rule.3.) The PLO was the vanguard of Palestinian freedom fighters not terrorists, a patent falsehood.
    Ho Chi Min told Arafat to qiut saying the Palistinians cause was to kill Jews and to turn the “social Justice” displaced imperalist victom…It is all the same agenda, no?

  • Jfisher17

    Ellinas1 -“It is my contention that the people of any country rule themselves any way they see fit and without external influence.”  Exactly. Then you agree the people of Israel should go tell Obama to take a long hike off a short plank?

    • ellinas1

       Does Obama actively interfere with the way the Israelis govern themselves?
      If he does, then I agree that the people of Israel should tell the USA to take a hike and shove the 12 billion dollars in annual aid up every American citizens ass.
      They should also refuse the remittances by individual Americans and various organizations that funnel God knows how many billions of dollars to aid Israel.

      • flamemeister

        “Does Obama actively interfere with the way the Israelis govern themselves?”
        This sort of thing can be difficult to ascertain.  We do know that Obama actively interfered with the way the Hondurans govern themselves.

        • ellinas1

           Then damned be Obama for actively interfering with the Hondurans.
          Got  anything more?

  • flamemeister

    It might be argued that by carrying on Bush policies in Iraq and Afghanistan Obama is interfering with how those countries would govern themselves. Libya?  Arizona?

  • Guest

     The right is flippin their sh*t because Kochs and Hawks are starting to come up against certain walls they cannot spend their way over.