Since he ascended from nothing to the office of President of the United States, Obama has shown a disdain for most of our western allies that borders on hatred. But he’s reserved his most backhanded treatment to Israel. It isn’t just what he’s done to show Israel that he has no use for them, but it goes all the way down to his every last appointment and this week we see another reminder of that in the comments belched forth by Obama’s U.S. Ambassador to Belgium, Howard Gutman, who basically said that anti-Semitism perpetrated by Muslims is really all Israel’s fault.

As Jake Tapper (one of the few real reporters in Washington) reported on Sunday, Gutman made his remarks at a conference on anti-Semitism organized by the European Jewish Union on Dec. 2.

At the conference Gutman said, “a distinction should be made between traditional anti-Semitism, which should be condemned and Muslim hatred for Jews, which stems from the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.” Gutman imagined that tensions between Muslims and Israel is one, “largely born of and reflecting the tension between Israel, the Palestinian Territories and neighboring Arab states in the Middle East over the continuing Israeli-Palestinian problem.”

Gutman said that “throughout the Muslim communities that I visit, and indeed throughout Europe, there is significant anger and resentment and, yes, perhaps sometimes hatred and indeed sometimes and all too growing intimidation and violence directed at Jews generally as a result of the continuing tensions between Israel and the Palestinian territories and other Arab neighbors in the Middle East…every new settlement announced in Israel, every rocket shot over a border or suicide bomber on a bus, and every retaliatory military strike exacerbates the problem and provides a setback here in Europe for those fighting hatred and bigotry here in Europe.”

What is all this if not a way to blame the Jews for Muslim anti-Semitism?

Naturally, many in Israel are not happy. In fact, one of the speakers that followed Gutman’s disastrous comments denounced him right there on stage, as well he should, according to Tapper’s report.

But Gutman’s blaming of the Jews for everything that befalls them — akin to blaming the woman for being raped, in my opinion — fits in nicely with Obama’s attitude against Israel. It also fits in with most of his appointees to the Middle East. Some of his past appointees were Susan Power — a woman that said we should be giving military aid to the Palestinians — and Robert Malley — a man that has close working ties to Hamas.

So, it just shouldn’t surprise that yet another Obama team member is blaming the Jews for radical Muslim terror and hatred.

On the tenth anniversary of 9/11, we mourn our losses. We mourn the loss of fellow Americans who died at the hands of a sworn enemy and we mourn the loss of those in the ranks of our military who have since fought a righteous fight to protect us from that enemy.

In a weekly radio address, President Barack Obama called for unity as the 10th anniversary of September 11, 2001 draws near: “We were united,” said the President, “and the outpouring of generosity and compassion reminded us that in times of challenge, we Americans move forward together, as one people.” Obama’s words are a brazen reminder of how far apart on ideas and ideals most Americans are from the current government. Americans recognize that it is the Obama government itself that has created “times of great challenge” that threaten our nation’s safety and sovereignty.

On 9/11, terrorists attacked our people and our nation. Knowing who the enemy was, and still is, is itself a uniting force in the battle to protect this great nation. Once in office and well-knowing that extremist Muslim terrorists were behind the attacks, overt efforts were made to diffuse public awareness. The Obama administration attempted to rename terror attacks as “man-caused disasters” and classify the global war on terror as “Overseas Contingency Operations.” Failure to identify one’s enemy unifies no one. 9/11 survivors well know who their attackers were. Osama Bin Laden proclaimed on video tape that his terrorist group Al Qaeda carried out the 9/11 attacks.

The Obama White House has issued guidelines for the 9/11 ceremonies. Al Qaeda’s threat is to be downplayed and the impact of America’s 9/11 tragedy is to be diminished by equating it with all other terrorists’ attacks globally. What will go unmentioned by Obama is that the Muslim Brotherhood, that is making power gains in Egypt and the Middle East, is allied with Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah and the jihadists. An earlier affront to and “de-unification” of the American people came when Obama tried to transport accused terrorists, housed at Guantanamo Bay, into our American cities and courts to grant them the same Constitutional rights allowed for U.S. citizens. Americans stood “united” and stopped the outrageous proceedings by Obama and his Justice Department. The first step in Obama’s reunification should be to call the enemy what it is — terrorists.

What cannot be overstated in the healing and reunification of America, after the 9/11 attacks, was the importance of prayer. Prayer and the call to God to protect and guide the nation were at the heart, the core, of bringing Americans together with compassion and determination. This nation was founded on Judeo-Christian faith and principles. Today, a reported 95% of Americans are people of faith in various religions. Yet, prayer and clergy have been banished from the 9/11 state run day of remembrance by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg. By eliminating God, the state steps into the role of God with its ceremonies devoid of prayer. Politicos will direct attention to themselves as the guiding lights of national healing, looking to reflect a god-like glow as benevolent caretakers of the masses.

Historically, Socialist/Fascist regimes that diminished God and circumvented clergy began in seemingly benign ways. Today, faith is under siege in America. (See: Christian Purge – The Obama Factor: http://darwinsracists.com/book/?p=155). Politicians supplanting prayer with their own verbiage and public spectrum, lessens us as a nation. A major factor in America’s exceptionalism is that America is the preeminent nation in the world that turns to God and prayer for healing and guidance. America may elect an Obama or a Bloomberg, but it does not worship them. The current American President and Mayor of New York will ceremoniously memorialize “sacred” ground and memories of our lost as long as God is excluded despite the fact that “sacred” by its very definition means “connected with God.” To misconstrue an ambiguous moment of silence as “sacred” is itself a sacrilegious dodge. Public office is transient and any glory derived from it is short-lived. These politicians may learn that what really “unites” Americans is political leaders going against the people’s will by imposing state censure on religious expression. The ban on clergy should immediately be reversed.

Presidents nor mayors can separate God from His people. So, there will be prayer, there will be open tribute to their Creator by the faithful across the nation for the healing and “unifying” of this great nation on this important day of remembrance. May God bless the survivors, the families, our first responders and our military warriors. May God bless America as long as its people know that those blessings come from the Creator God and not from transitory politicians.

CBN.com:

Sixty-six percent believe the Palestinians should start off with their own state beside Israel, but then move to just one Palestinian state.

And 92 percent believe Jerusalem should be their capital.

The survey of 1,010 Palestinians — 656 in the West Bank and 353 in the Gaza Strip — was conducted by U.S. pollster Stanley Greenberg, along with the Palestinian Center for Public Opinion.

In light of the poll above, think about this: Neither Hamas, Fatah or the Palestinian National Authority, grant Israel the right to exist in their Charters and Constitutions, but exist they do. Israel has said there will be no two-state solution UNTIL and UNLESS, these factions accept and recognize the Nation of Israel’s right to exist.

Bet you think Gazans live in hovels? Take a look at the first video below. The second video is a Gaza Water Park, enjoyed by the boys. I do see one little girl not in shroud, but in something like a 1920’s bathing suit perhaps. The boys are in bathing suits in the hot sun – the girls in burkhas. The subtitle says Hamas burned the water park, but there is only a quick view.

Take a look at this video at American Perspective which lays out the plight of the people who live in what is known as Palestine.

The Gaza Strip

Gaza Water Park I (video)

Obama’s is one of the most disastrous foreign policies of any president ever. His latest outrage is the dual absurdities of, on one hand putting Israel on a list of state sponsors of terrorism, while on the other hand opening a dialog with and bestowing diplomatic legitimacy upon the terrorists of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.

This is the schizophrenic mess that Obama’s anti-western centric foreign policy ideas have created. It shouldn’t be much of a surprise, though. Upon becoming President Obama almost immediately launched into a series of one more example of Obama giving Israel the back of his hand.

In 2008, the Bush administration created a list of nations whose citizens asking to visit our country the administration thought needed to be watched. This list contained nations that were determined to be possible state sponsors of terrorism. Nations like North Korea, Yemen, Libya, Turkmenistan, and Syria appeared on this list of nations that, in the State Department’s words, “have shown a tendency to promote, produce, or protect terrorist organizations or their members.”

However, the list put out during the Bush years has been altered by the Obama administration. On the 2011 list, North Korea has been removed while Israel has been added. Obama apparently feels Israel is worse than North Korea.

As my friend Jeff Dunetz says: “Only in the twisted world of the Obama Administration, where allies are trashed, and enemies are embraced, could the tiny nation of Israel, on the front lines of the war on terror for decades, be on a list of 36 nations which “have shown a tendency to promote, produce, or protect terrorist organizations or their members.’”

Then, to offset that news, the Obama administration has made another decision as opposite of the one above as possible. Obama and his State Dept. have decided that actual terrorists deserve to be given official diplomatic recognition!

That’s right, Obama has decided that the terrorists of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt deserve to be treated as a legitimate political body, one that deserves official recognition by the USA.

In explanation, an Obama administration official told the media that, “The political landscape in Egypt has changed, and is changing… It is in our interests to engage with all of the parties that are competing for parliament or the presidency.”

So, on one hand, Israel, our truest ally in the Mid East, is called a “state sponsor of terror,” while an actual terrorist outfit is “in our interests to engage.”

Meanwhile, the president himself won’t even cross the national mall to go meet with Senate Republicans to discuss the budget. I suppose it won’t be long before Obama puts the GOP on the list of state sponsors of terror.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has accepted House Speaker John Boehner’s invitation to address a joint session of Congress on Tuesday. The speaker says his invitation is a chance to promote freedom, security and peace in the Middle East.

We Palestinians cannot agree more, for it is Israel’s denial of our freedom that prevents us from exercising our right to live in peace and security with our neighbors.

But, unfortunately, Palestinian freedom is not likely to be on the Israeli leader’s mind when he addresses Congress. Instead, he will probably avoid dealing with the core issues of Palestinian statehood on the 1967 borders and the end of the Israeli military occupation.

See? It’s not really about the 1967 borders, it’s about….oh, wait. Looks like they do want the 1967 borders, the indefensible ones. Not like the Palestinians really need those borders that much, as the lob missiles and artillery shells, along with suicide bombers, across the current border.

But the U.S. has principles that must be protected and preserved. These principles of justice, liberty and freedom, the foundation the United States was built on, must be Congress’s guiding light in helping President Barack Obama and his administration bring peace, stability and security for all people in the region.

Perhaps Hamas should renounce its charter, which calls for the destruction of Israel. Perhaps Palestinians should stop digging tunnels from their lands, like the Gaza Strip, in order to attack Israel. Perhaps Palestinians should recognize Israel’s right to exist.

In 1988, the Palestinian leadership accepted the two-state solution and unequivocally recognized the state of Israel. The future Palestinian state will be in the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem — approximately 22 percent of historic Palestine. In 2002, the PLO endorsed the Arab Peace Initiative, which calls for the end of Israeli occupation of Palestinian and Arab lands in return for normal relations with Israel and a just resolution to the Palestinian refugee problem.

Yet, they don’t recognize Israel’s right to exist. Sure, they recognized that the state of Israel is there. Will they accept a divided country? The Palestinians had plenty of opportunity to make a deal with Israel, but, their leaders kept asking for more and more, giving little back, then walking away when the demands were met.

A peace agreement establishing a Palestinian state, existing side by side in peace and security with Israel, is in the interest of the U.S., the parties and world peace. It is an objective that Obama and his administration can still achieve — if all the parties can engage seriously and if the negotiation’s terms of reference are clear.

Well, Maen Rashid Areikat, Palestine Liberation Organization ambassador and chief representative to the United States, how, exactly, will a Palestinian state create peace? And there should be no peace talks till Palestinians stop their violence against Israeli civilians first.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

At least 72 protesters have been killed by security forces in Syria, rights groups say – the highest reported death toll in five weeks of unrest there.

Demonstrators were shot, witnesses say, as thousands rallied across the country, a day after a decades-long state of emergency was lifted.

The Washington Post editorial board has decided that this is shameful for the US and the Obama administration, yet, they refuse to specifically call out Mr. Obama. Were Bush sitting in the Big Chair, think they would have blamed him solely?

FOR THE PAST five weeks, growing numbers of Syrians have been gathering in cities and towns across the country to demand political freedom — and the security forces of dictator Bashar al-Assad have been responding by opening fire on them. According to Syrian human rights groups, more than 220 people had been killed by Friday. And Friday may have been the worst day yet: According to Western news organizations, which mostly have had to gather information from outside the country, at least 75 people were gunned down in places that included the suburbs of Damascus, the city of Homs and a village near the southern town of Daraa, where the protests began.

Massacres on this scale usually prompt a strong response from Western democracies, as they should. Ambassadors are withdrawn; resolutions are introduced at the U.N. Security Council; international investigations are mounted and sanctions applied. In Syria’s case, none of this has happened. The Obama administration has denounced the violence — a presidential statement called Friday’s acts of repression “outrageous” — but otherwise remained passive. Even the ambassador it dispatched to Damascus during a congressional recess last year remains on post.

The administration has sat on its hands despite the fact that the Assad regime is one of the most implacable U.S. adversaries in the Middle East. It is Iran’s closest ally; it supplies Iranian weapons to Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza Strip for use against Israel. Since 2003 it has helped thousands of jihadists from across the Arab world travel to Iraq to attack American soldiers. It sought to build a secret nuclear reactor with the help of North Korea and destabilized the pro-Western government of neighboring Lebanon by sponsoring a series of assassinations.

Of course, that kind of language from people who are on the far left and were some of the primary cheerleaders for Obama is the media equivalent of pulling out the leather belt for a good butt smacking. And it was obviously very hard for the WP board to not notice that Obama is pulling his typical disappearing act on yet another international issue (he tends to do the same on domestic issues, as well).

As a moral matter, the stance of the United States is shameful. To stand by passively while hundreds of people seeking freedom are gunned down by their government makes a mockery of the U.S. commitment to human rights. In recent months President Obama has pledged repeatedly that he would support the aspiration of Arabs for greater freedom. In Syria, he has not kept his word.

Hey, folks, it is not the stance of the USA: it is the stance of President Obama.

But, then, do we really know who these protesters are? What they truly want? Do they want a true Western style democracy, or one where terrorist groups are involved in the Democratic process, such as in the Palestinian areas, where Hamas is a part of the government? Is the Muslim Brotherhood and their offshoots involved, like in Egypt? Or Al Qaeda, as in Libya? Do they want Constitutional Law, or Sharia Law? Would one dictatorial and brutal regime be replaced with an Islamist regime? So far, none of these uprisings have resulted in a democratic system. And by the same token, Obama and his administration have sat on their hands, typically getting involved late in the game, if at all.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

Congressman Tim Scott, a Black Republican representing South Carolina has not joined the CBC.

To his credit, CBC chairman Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO) says Allen “is no different from any other member.” Rep. Lacy Clay (D-MO) said West “is not like what I’ve read – He and I have developed a rapport.” Source.

Some members are concerned about his pro-gun stance, especially when he suggested they learn about the “carry” laws in their state, and carry a weapon with them rather than hiring security. He also has expressed concern about Muslim

Congressman Keith Ellison (D-Minn) relationship with the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), and their support of terrorist group, Hamas.

In the video below, hear Allen West answer a Marine’s question about Islamic terrorism, after the whole panel has dodged it. He says there is “no perversion” of Islam. They are doing exactly what the “Book” [Koran] says. West will be a strong protector of America. Thank you Father, Amen.

Crystal Wright, writing at  HipHop Republican has more here and you can read this Black conservative woman’s website here.

If you have missed Ret. Lt. Col. Allen West’s amazing life story, you can read it here.

View his CPAC 2011 video here.

And,  It’s not about enslaving your spirt, it’s about empowering your spirit – video.

Posted by Maggie@MaggiesNotebook

Mick Davis, the South African-born chief executive of the powerful mining group Xstrata, is chairman of Anglo Jewry’s United Jewish Israel Appeal (UJIA) – the principal fund-raising institution for Israel of the UK Jewish community.

He also heads a body known as the Jewish Leadership Council (JLC) – essentially comprised of a group of wealthy British Jews and their acolytes who, by virtue of their financial largesse, assume a dominant influence on many levels of communal life. The power represented by their collective wealth enables them not to be accountable to anyone and few would dare question their policies.

Anglo Jewry has been blessed in the past with rich philanthropists, many of whom were also endowed with wisdom. Despite his immense wealth and access to the most important leaders in the land, Sir Moses Montefiore was devoted to his people and, far from radiating hubris or arrogance, generated respect and love.

In striking contrast, Mick Davis, also known as “Big Mick,” displays characteristics associated with the nouveau riche, akin to the behavior of some of the Russian- Jewish oligarchs. His opinions are rarely challenged and he contemptuously rejects the suggestion that holding a communal role in any way precludes him from publicly expressing views which would normally be considered incompatible for anyone occupying such a position.

Needless to say, Davis is fully entitled to say whatever comes to his mind. Nobody seeks to deprive him of freedom of expression.

Many Jews are critical of Israeli governments. But for a person holding senior public office in a major Diaspora community to indulge in crude public attacks on Israeli leaders and relate to Israel’s security requirements in relation to their impact on his image in non-Jewish circles is surely bizarre and utterly unconscionable.

While occupying the role of chairman of the UIJA in a country in which hatred of Israel and anti-Semitism have reached record levels, Davis brazenly incites his fellow Jews to criticize Israel.

RESIDENT IN London, he had the chutzpa to berate the Israeli prime minister “for lacking the courage to take the steps” to advance the peace process, arguing that “I don’t understand the lack of strategy in Israel.” He also employed the terminology of our enemies, predicting an “apartheid state” unless Israel was able to achieve a two-state solution – unashamedly blaming Israelis rather than Palestinians for being the obstacle to peace.

His sheer arrogance was best demonstrated in his most outrageous remark: “I think the government of Israel has to recognize that their actions directly impact on me as a Jew living in London, UK.

When they do good things, it is good for me; when they do bad things, it is bad for me. And the impact on me is as significant as it is on Jews living in Israel… I want them to recognize that.”

Aside from implying that Israel is responsible for the anti-Semitism he is encountering, Davis is effectively warning that when considering defense issues which may have life-or-death implications for Israelis, the government must be sure not to create problems for him in his non- Jewish social circles. From his London mansion, he blithely brushes aside suicide bombers, rockets launched against our children and the threat of nuclear annihilation because his gentile friends might complain about the behavior of his Israeli friends.

Jonathan Hoffman, vice president of the UK Zionist Federation (one of the few Anglo-Jewish leaders courageous enough to criticize Davis), expressed outrage that the UIJA chairman could make such a remark. “We are not aware that Hampstead is within range of Iranian or Hamas missiles, nor that its residents have to send their children to the IDF for three years,” he said.

It is telling that over recent years, Davis has not been renowned for condemning the shameful policies of British governments in relation to Israel. And it is no coincidence that immediately after the UK abstained from the UN vote on the Goldstone Report, Davis chaired a JLC reception at which former foreign minister David Miliband was the key speaker. On that occasion, the “outspoken” Davis felt constrained not to express a single word of complaint or disappointment at the perfidious behavior of the British government in relation to this issue.

More HERE

Posted by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.). For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. To keep up with attacks on free speech see TONGUE-TIED. Also, don’t forget your daily roundup of pro-environment but anti-Greenie news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH . Email me here

JERUSALEM — Vowing to change a region that has resisted the best efforts of presidents and prime ministers past, Barack Obama dove head first into the Middle East peace process on his second day in office.

He was supposed to be different. His personal identity, his momentum, his charisma and his promise of a fresh start would fundamentally alter America’s relations with the Muslim world and settle one of its bitterest grievances.

There’s a huge problem to start with: he relied on listening to him with unicorns in their eyes, mesmerized by The One, willing to go out and do his bidding. Problem is, creating Middle East peace is a bit more difficult than reading from a teleprompter, and requires an actual plan, rather than a cult of personality.

Two years later, he has managed to forge surprising unanimity on at least one topic: Barack Obama. A visit here finds both Israelis and Palestinians blame him for the current stalemate – just as they blame one another.

Instead of becoming a heady triumph of his diplomatic skill and special insight, Obama’s peace process is viewed almost universally in Israel as a mistake-riddled fantasy. And far from becoming the transcendent figure in a centuries-old drama, Obama has become just another frustrated player on a hardened Mideast landscape.

In other words, a smile and a speech were no substitute for reality and wise planning. Who would have thought a guy with no foreign policy experience, with a hatred for Israel (just like his base), and little actual real world experience, could mess up so badly? His policy has been described as “bumbling”, and some think he has made the issues worse.

Obama has resisted advisers’ suggestions that he travel to Israel or speak directly to Israelis as he has to Muslims in Egypt, Turkey, and Indonesia.

“Israelis really hate Obama’s guts,” said Shmuel Rosner, a columnist for two leading Israeli newspapers. “We used to trust Americans to act like Americans, and this guy is like a European leader.

The shame of it is that there was an actual opportunity, what with some of the most virulent Palestinian leaders, such as Yassar Arafat, gone to meet their 72 virgins. But, Obama has consistently taken the wrong tracks, as even far lefty Jackson Diehl notices

But that is just the point: The dream of a “greater Israel” died more than 15 years ago. Even the Israeli right now accepts that a Palestinian state will be created in the West Bank. The settlements have become a sideshow; the real issues concern how to create a Palestinian state in a Middle East where the greatest threat is not Israeli but Iranian expansionism. What to do about Hamas and Hezbollah and their Iranian-supplied weapons? How to ensure that the post-occupation West Bank does not become another Iranian base? Those issues did not exist in 1983 – and the Obama administration seems to have no strategy for them.

The Obama foreign policy towards Iran, which is perhaps the biggest impediment towards peace in the region, is to make nice with Iran. That’s the plan. They don’t love and worship Obama, either.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach. sit back and Relax. we’ll dRive!

Eh, don’t worry, America. If there is another 9/11-like terror attack, The One says that we can “absorb it” and just become “stronger” because of it. It’s as if he wants it to happen, or something!

In his latest book, Bob Woodward encountered a President Obama that seemed to casually blow off worry of another terror attack. The Washington Post gave us a sneak preview of Woodward’s newest tome where Obama acted so flippantly toward another 9/11. (my bold)

Woodward’s book portrays Obama and the White House as barraged by warnings about the threat of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil and confronted with the difficulty in preventing them. During an interview with Woodward in July, the president said, “We can absorb a terrorist attack. We’ll do everything we can to prevent it, but even a 9/11, even the biggest attack ever… we absorbed it and we are stronger.”

If we are “stronger,” and that is entirely debatable, it certainly isn’t because of anything the Obama administration has done.

In fact Obama has done his level best to make us more vulnerable. From reducing the threat status, to eliminating intelligence programs that were getting results, to simply sending drones to wipe out terrorists (that then take any actionable intelligence to the grave), even to making a mockery of our strength by using childish euphemisms such as “overseas contingency operations,” Obama has taken America off its security footings.

But, what the heck. We can take as many blows as the terrorists can give, says tough guy Barack Hussein Obama! Come and get us, Usamma bin Laden, Obama taunts. We’ll take whatever ya got… and take it… and listen to Iranian mad men speak at the UN…. and take it…. and sit respectfully while Venezuelan dictators harangue America… and take it… and offer our hand in friendship to murderous regimes…. and take it… with a president that barnstorms the world on an apology tour… and take it… as he bows to the floor to every king and dictator in sight… and take it…

I have an idea for Barrack Hussein Obama. How about we GIVE it for a change?

But somehow I can’t escape the feeling that this flippancy comes from Obama’s envy that George W.Bush got a “big event” to make his presidency while all Obama has gotten is a bad economy, massive job loss, and dissatisfaction at every level of society. No big disaster that he could make his nut on. Heck he even wasted the BP Oil spill with weeks of inactivity.

Others agree with me. “This is just another example of the Obama Administration’s flippant attitude towards the War on Terror – a war they refuse to even identify or address. Instead of assuming the United States can just ‘absorb’ another terrorist attack, President Obama should be focused on creating a serious global strategy and fighting the dangerous ideology of Islamic extremism to ensure an act of war like September 11th never happens again,” said David Bossie, executive producer of the film America at Risk.

I can just see him, green with envy that Bush got that big moment. If ONLY Hussein could get a big attack of his own, why THEN he’d show the world what a great president he could be! If only we could “absorb” a big one like 9/11, eh Barrack? And we’d take it…. and take it….

Now, remember the old days when we had a president that was willing to take the fight to the terrorists? Now we have a president that is waiting to “absorb” attacks on us, HERE. And we take it…

Yeah. Remember the good ol’ days?