Of Politicians and Moral Courage

09102014_Obama_ISIS_SpeechOriginally published by the Jerusalem Post

Leaders are not elected. Politicians are elected. Their election in turn provides politicians with the opportunity to become leaders.

You don’t become a leader by telling people what they want to hear, although doing so certainly helps to you get elected. A politician becomes a leader by telling people what they don’t want to hear.

If they are lucky, politicians will never have to become leaders. They will serve in times of peace and plenty, when it’s possible to pretend away the hard facts of the human condition. And they can leave office beloved for letting people believe that the world is the Elysian Fields.

Certainly this has been the case for many American politicians since the end of World War II.

This is not the case today. In our times, evil rears its ugly head with greater power and frequency than it has in at least a generation. As Americans learned 13 years ago this week, evil ignored is evil empowered.

Yet fighting evil and protecting the good is not a simple matter. Evil has many handmaidens.

Those who hide it away enable it. Those who justify it enable it. Those who ignore it enable it.

To fight evil effectively, a leader must possess the moral wisdom to recognize that evil can only be rooted out when the environment that cultivates it is discredited and so transformed. To discredit and transform that environment, a leader must have the moral courage to stand not only against evildoers, but against their far less controversial facilitators.

In other words, the foundations of true leadership are moral clarity and courage.

On Wednesday two American elected leaders gave speeches. In one, a leader emerged. In the other, a politician gave a speech.

The first speech was given by Texas Senator Ted Cruz.

On Wednesday evening, Cruz gave the keynote address at the inaugural dinner of an organization that calls itself In Defense of Christians.

The purpose of the new organization is supposed to be advocacy on behalf of oppressed Christian communities in the Middle East.

Ahead of the dinner, The Washington Free Beacon website questioned Cruz’s decision to address the group. Several Christian leaders from Lebanon and Syria also scheduled to address the forum had records of public support for Syrian dictator Bashar Assad, and Hezbollah, and had made egregiously anti-Semitic statements.

For instance, Church of Antioch Patriarch Gregory III Laham blamed jihadist attacks on Iraqi Christians on a “Zionist conspiracy against Islam” aimed at making Muslims look bad.

Probably the organization’s leaders assumed that Cruz would give their group bipartisan credibility and never considered he might challenge their anti-Jewish prejudices. No American politician in recent memory has made an issue of the rampant Jew-hatred among Middle Eastern Christians. Probably they figured that he’d make an impassioned speech about the plight of Christians under the jackboot of Islamic State, enjoy warm applause, leave the hall and clear the path for other speakers to blame the Jews.

Cruz did not follow the script. Instead he used the opportunity to tell his audience hard truths.

In a statement released by his office, Cruz summarized the events of the evening.

“I told the attendees that those who hate Israel also hate America… that those who hate Jews also hate Christians. And that anyone who hates Israel and the Jewish people is not following the teachings of Christ.

“I went on to tell the crowd that Christians in the Middle East have no better friend than Israel. That Christians can practice their faith free of persecution in Israel. And that ISIS [Islamic State], al-Qaida, Hamas and Hezbollah, along with their state sponsors in Syria and Iran, are all part of the same cancer, murdering Christians and Jews alike. Hate is hate, and murder is murder.”

For his decision not to take the low road, Cruz was subjected to angry boos and heckling from the audience, whose members angrily rejected his remarks.

“After just a few minutes, I had no choice,” Cruz said. “I told them that if you will not stand with Israel, if you will not stand with the Jews, then I will not stand with you. And then I walked off the stage.”

Cruz’s action was an act of moral leadership.

He stood before his audience of fellow Christians and told his co-religionists that their hatred of Jews and Israel is un-Christian. He told them as well that their bigotry blinds them to their own plight and makes them reject their greatest ally in securing their future in the Middle East.

Cruz’s strategy for fighting Islamic oppression of Christians involves uniting all those oppressed and attacked by jihadists. In all honesty, it is the only policy that has a chance in the long term of securing the future of the Christians of the Middle East.

For Cruz to reach this conclusion, he first had to possess the moral clarity to recognize that Christian Jew-hatred is a major obstacle to securing the future of the Middle East’s Christians.

In other words his strategic vision is anchored in moral courage.

The same evening that Cruz was booed off the stage by an audience of anti-Semitic Christians, US President Obama gave a speech to the general audience where he set out his rationale for fighting Islamic State in Iraq and Syria and his strategy for doing so.

In some ways, it is unfair to compare Obama’s speech to Cruz’s. Cruz addressed a narrow constituency and Obama gave his speech to all Americans, and indeed to the entire world.

A more apt comparison would be between Cruz’s speech to the pro-terror Christians and Obama’s speech to an audience that included Muslim Brotherhood leaders in Cairo in 2009.

Indeed, the chief reason that Cruz’s speech was an act of leadership, and Obama’s was the address of a politician, is that Obama’s speech reflected his remarks in Cairo and his subsequent speeches to Muslim audiences and about Islam throughout the intervening years.

Neither during his speech in Cairo nor in subsequent remarks has Obama ever called out the world’s Muslims for their bigotry against Jews, Christians and others. Neither during his speech in Cairo nor in subsequent addresses has Obama spoken out against Islamic terrorism or the jihadist world view that stands at the foundation of Islamic terrorism.

Rather, throughout his presidency Obama has denied the existence of the jihad, its ideology and the fact that it is a force shaping events throughout the world.

Wednesday’s speech was no exception.

At the outset of his remarks, Obama insisted that Islamic State, or (ISIL has he calls it), “is not ‘Islamic.’” Obama may be right, and he may be wrong.

That’s for Muslims to determine. But whatever the truth is about Islam and jihad, the fact is that hundreds of millions of Muslims believe that Islamic State and other jihadist groups and regimes, of both the Shi’ite and Sunni variety, are accurate expressions of Islam. This is why thousands of Muslims from Europe and the US are flocking to Iraq and Syria to join Islamic State.

Obama’s policies for contending with Islamic jihadists are a natural extension of his refusal to speak hard truths to Muslims or speak truthfully about Islamic terrorism and jihadism. His whitewashing of jihadist Islam on Wednesday night similarly was reflected in the strategy he set out for fighting Islamic State.

As Fred and Kim Kagan noted in The Weekly Standard, Obama’s decision to use counterterror strategies for fighting Islamic State is a recipe for failure. What Obama referred to as “a terrorist organization,” is actually an insurgency that fights battles against standing armies and wins.

Counterterror operations cannot work against such a force.

So, too, Obama’s asserted that his strategy for fighting Islamic State has been tried and succeeded in Somalia and Yemen. Yet by all accounts, jihadist forces in both countries are not only undefeated, they are becoming stronger.

Obama’s strategy involves joining US air power with anti-Islamic State forces on the ground in Iraq and Syria. Yet aside from the Kurds, all the forces on the ground in both countries are deeply problematic.

Just hours before Obama’s speech, the leadership of Syria’s “moderate” rebel forces was decapitated in an explosion. And for all their moderation, the leaders were part of an anti-Assad coalition that included Islamic State.

Although he is an Alawite, Bashar Assad and his forces are members of the Shi’ite jihadist coalition led by Iran that includes Hezbollah.

These forces are more dangerous than Islamic State. Yet US air strikes against Islamic State will redound to their direct benefit.

Obama’s refusal to acknowledge the existence of jihad – of both the Sunni and Shi’ite variety – makes it impossible for him to devise a realistic strategy for defeating jihadists. He rightly defines Islamic State as an enemy of the US, but because he denies the existence of jihad, he is incapable of putting Islamic State in its proper strategic context. Among the many forces fighting on the ground in Iraq and Syria today, you have two jihadist forces – one Shi’ite and one Sunni – that are fighting each other. Both are enemies of America and its allies.

To be sure, Islamic State must be confronted and defeated – just as Iran, Hezbollah, al-Qaida, Hamas and Boko Haram need to be defeated.

Defeating only one group empowers others, and so you keep ending up where you started.

Yet rather than understand that while jihadist forces may oppose one another, the threat they pose to the free world is indivisible, as Obama focuses on Islamic State, he is enabling Iran to expand its power in Iraq and Syria, and to complete its nuclear weapons program.

Last week the International Atomic Energy Agency reported that Iran continues to hide key information about its nuclear program from the UN nuclear watchdog, despite its agreement to provide the IAEA with full transparency last November.

The Iranians continue to bar IAEA inspectors from the suspected military nuclear installation at Parchin. Negotiations on a nuclear accord between the US and its partners and Iran are going nowhere. According to Western diplomatic sources, the failure to reach an accord owes entirely to Iran’s refusal to compromise on any substantive nuclear issues.

While Iran refuses to provide transparency to the IAEA, its guiding strategy is clear to the naked eye. It is prolonging negotiations to buy time to complete its nuclear program.

However, Obama, who insists that Islamic State “terrorists are unique in their brutality,” refuses to see the true picture.

The truth revealed on Wednesday night is that Obama cannot lead a successful war against the forces of Islamic jihad that threaten humanity. He cannot do so because he rejects the moral clarity required to confront the danger.

He cannot successfully lead the war because, as we saw once again on Wednesday night, he is not a leader. He is a politician.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

Subscribe to Frontpage’s TV show, The Glazov Gang, and LIKE it on Facebook.

  • mezcukor

    great article and very true, I hope Cruz becomes our next president

  • Michael Garfinkel

    Yes, Cruz is a good man, and Obama is not.

    But then Romney is a good man too, and lost; so did McCain.

    Cruz has to walk off the stage, while Obama dominates it – to our profound detriment.

    I don’t think the tide favors good men these days.

    • teq

      It’s pathetic, isn’t it. Western countries are being led by the second-rate of the second rate. While Ted Cruz shows signs of being a first-rate leader, he will be hobbled by the fact that his message won’t reach the mainstream. They will just accuse him of being an agent of Zionism trying to rally the Mid-Eastern Christians against the Muslims.

      We like to think that being anti-Semite is un-Christian, but the sad fact is that Christians of all stripes have been anti-Semite for most of our history. The Western Christians have been struggling to escape it but th Mid-Eastern Christians, being more backward, still hold onto it. This is ironic because the vast majority of Mid-Eastern Christians today are being persecuted and killed by Muslims, not by Jews. But since when did the facts ever have any influence on a good hate story?

      • Michael Garfinkel

        Anti-semitism is a symptom of a larger problem; it is not in itself the cause.

        • teq

          What is that larger problem?

          • Michael Garfinkel

            Moral rot, and accompanying state rot.

          • teq

            So anti-Semitism is a symptom of state and moral rot?
            I will meditate on that

          • Michael Garfinkel

            Don’t reverse the order.

          • teq

            So state and moral rot is a symptom of anti-Semitism? What, then, is anti-Semitism? As the saying goes, I know it when I see it, but what is it exactly? And why does it exist?

          • Michael Garfinkel

            First comes the decay, then the infections, of which anti-semitism is one.

            In times of stress and dislocation, people look for a scapegoat.

            Start there.

          • teq

            And the scapegoated group must be those who are powerless so they can be abused and killed without much fear of consequences. This is what Zabotinksy claimed. He said that people attacked Jews because they could do so without fear of punishment. This is not the case today. Hezbollah paid for their kidnap/killing of 3 Israeli soldiers with a war that cost 11 hundred Lebanese lives. And 2000 Gazans recently paid with their lives for the kidnap/murder of three Jewish students in the West Bank.

          • Michael Garfinkel

            It is certainly convenient if the scapegoat is defenseless, but the key point is that he must be relatively weaker than the victimizing group.

            Muslim casualties are not relevant in the particular; the Jews are a tiny percentage of the population of Europe and the Middle East, and they are perceived as vulnerable.

            One could argue successfully that the fury of the Arab assault is in part the result of the Israeli refusal to assume the role of scapegoat – a role that is being brutally forced on other non-.Muslim minorities in Syria and Iraq.

            These are complex subjects that can not be adequately explored in a comment section, as you know, and frankly, you sound argumentative.

            The general rule, however applies: As cultures decay, as they loose their moorings, certain behaviors emerge, and one of those behaviors is the pursuit and punishment of a scapegoat.

          • jetcal1

            Apparently this time there are goats mixed in with the sheep.

          • 11bravo

            Let’s try to quadruple that, or up it by an order of magnitude next time.

      • http://zarax.co.uk/ ZaraxLtd

        I couldn’t agree with you more.

      • justsayin

        Do keep in mind that Cruz himself is a Christian. A distinction should have been clearly made that those in the Middle East calling themselves Christians are not American Pentecostals by any stretch of the imagination. Also, Protestant, American, Christians have been shown by polling results to be even more pro-Israel than American Jews. Go figure. Caroline may not like that, but it is true.

    • 11bravo

      We are starving for strong leadership. Reagan , after the shrinking president Carter. Now a good Republican needs to step up to the shrinking Obama. Hidebeast will be tarred with his brush.

    • James_IIa

      I agree with your sentiment, but I think that Cruz is a big winner in this episode. He showed strength of character and repudiated anti-semitism. Also he got a fair amount of press–all publicity is good publicity, it is said. We are still in a period of our history in which the vast majority of Americans reject anti-semitism, so this will be helpful. It will help him particularly with Jewish voters, who normally give a powerful nudge toward the Democrats in NY and FL. (OK, in the case of NY this would mean only that he would lose by a smaller margin.)

      • Michael Garfinkel

        Well, I doubt it, but you could be right.

        We’ll see.

  • Vinegar Hill

    Glick is critical of Obama because he did not decry Islam. She is writing as if she is a “freshman” student. Obama has formed an alliance with ten Muslim states to help defeat IS and all that Glick can say was that he should be critical of their religion. How naive can one get!!

    • Biff Henderson

      The blue-eyed infidel mercenaries are the ones that are raising a hand against IS. How many of the ten Muslim States want to be viewed as having made a commitment to kill those of the Sunni sect that are deficient in their religion?

      John Kerry stated that for a vast majority of the Anti-Islamic State Coalition their contribution boils down being either humanitarian in nature, giving counsel so the faithful can find a path to correct their deficiency or putting obstacles in the way of preventing Sunni from being let astray.

      “… For some that will mean military assistance, both direct and in the form of training, arming, and advising, equipping. For some it will mean contributing to the desperately needed humanitarian relief effort. For some it will mean helping to identify, track, and cut off ISIL’s funding, and prevent the flow of foreign fighters. For still others it will mean demolishing the distortion of one of the world’s great peaceful religions and counteracting the propaganda ISIL uses to recruit new supporters. And for all it will mean publicly supporting the new inclusive government in Iraq.”

      In the Reliance of the Traveler it states that one of the three reasons a Muslim may kill a fellow Muslim is retribution for murder. That’s a sticky wicket so most are opting out.

      • Vinegar Hill

        What more are you asking for? It is a fully comprehensive support package. I am pleasently surprised that the countries have been so generous. Glick must be furious as it does not fit well with her anti Muslim propaganda.

        • Michael Garfinkel

          You seem to making making a go of it – can you describe a pro-Muslim polemic, in light of the fact that the Muslims are turning every place that they hold sway into a demonic, merciless slaughter house?

          • Vinegar Hill

            So you blithly claim that “Muslims are turning every place…into a…merciless slaughter house”.
            Hundreds of millions of them and not a peacenik among them!!! You must be a student of the Glick School of Anti Muslim Propaganda.

          • cree

            Where is the truth to this question: where is any peacenik (leaders) among them?

          • Michael Garfinkel

            I’ve seen too many images of slaughter, in Africa, in the Middle East, In Europe and in America to make any comment about Islam “blithely.”

            So that’s the “hook” for your pro- Muslim thesis – that there are “peacniks” amongst them…

            Here’s a blithe comment, which is, nevertheless, pregnant with truth – you’re an insufferable jerk.

          • Vinegar Hill

            I have read a lot about, and have seen images of atrocities carried out in the name of a god and in the cause of democracy. I find little difference between those atrocities and the ones carried out in the name of other ideologies and religions.
            Your response of “an insufferable jerk” demonstrates the level of analysis that you have attained.

          • Giborei1967

            Vinegar douche bag is a pro Muslim troll and a proven anti-Semite.

          • Biff Henderson

            Surely you must be aware that there are innumerable ways for the “peaceful” members of the Death Cult to serve Jihad without participating directly in the savagery of the Koranimals that have embraced the blood-drenched Path of Allah. Though out the history of mankind only a relatively small percentage of a given population actually takes up arms in a conflict and vast majority serve in a supporting role. For those that fit in neither category they are of no consequence other than serving as pawns in the victimhood narrative that the blind slaves of MadMo exploit to no end.

          • Vinegar Hill

            “Though out the history of mankind only a relatively small percentage of a
            given population actually takes up arms in a conflict and vast majority
            serve in a supporting role,”
            The vast majority are duped and follow like sheep to the slaughter. they are manipulated by the few. People like you take advantage of this and support atrocities which dehumanise populations. Have you no shame? Your world of right and wrong is perverse. To think that answers of guilt and innocence are simply between two choices tells a lot of the mentality of people who think within that framework.

          • 11bravo

            I notice you didn’t answer, or address the claim made.

        • Biff Henderson

          Not one of the coalition partners will be sending in ground troops. Unlike yourself, I do not consider 10 countries feigning the shaking of pom-poms to be a “fully comprehensive support package.” They disagree with IS on leadership, tactics and timing but ideologically there in the same camp.

          • Sara

            In fact Turkey, Obama’s BFF, has already refused US access to its airbase. Erdogan is a vulture waiting to pick up the carcass left by ISIS.

          • Biff Henderson

            It has now been reported that US-backed Syria Revolutionary Front is one of four rebel groups that have signed a non-aggression pact with Islamic State. It appears that the “moderates” that Obama intends to arm and train to fight IS has given up the fight. Obama’s well thought-out strategy has no willing participants to carry it out.

          • Sara

            If this not treason I don’t know what is. I was getting bored of calling him Hussein, I’ll be calling him POTUS D^ck In Hand now. Thanks!

          • Vinegar Hill

            Read the extract.

          • Biff Henderson

            Will the extract inform me that Charles Lister, an analyst at the Brookings Institute, reported that an alliance of anti-Assad rebels made up of four distinct groups, among them the US-backed Syria Revolutionary Front, have signed a non-aggression pact with IS? Obama’s boots on the ground is standing down.
            Will it tell me that the House of Saud is fuming because Obama couldn’t keep his pie hole shut about the secret training base to be set up on Saudi soil? The House of Saud is now viewed as being in breach of Suri 5:54;

            “O believers, take not Jews and Christians as friends; they are friends of each other. Those of you who make them his friends is one of them. God does not guide an unjust people.”

            Obama threw one of America’s allies under the bus and the “secret base” is all but dead. What do you value more, that Obama’s act of sabotage makes him look good at building “fully comprehensive support packages” or are you like myself results oriented?
            Even the local Obama apologist rag’s headline exclaimed the “Allies” will do squat. What can you extract from the extract to counter recent developments?

        • Giborei1967

          As a peddler of hate, a proven anti-Semite, you have ZERO credibility on anything connected to Israel.

        • Giborei1967

          Hey Idiot, Captain Glick is not, nor has she ever been “anti-Muslim.” Your false and demonizing statement proves, for the second time, your anti-Semitism, under “demonization.” Captain Glick has about 100 times your IQ and 1,000 times better judgement. She has undertaken a moral duty to defend and support her homeland, Israel. That is NOT anti-Muslim.

    • SuzyQ

      Vinegar, before you criticize Carolyn I’d suggest you read below that headline you are spouting regarding the 10 muslim states since it seems the “support” they are offering is nothing more than lip service.

      • Vinegar Hill

        The quote below is excellent, much better than I had realised. It also strengthens my criticism against Glick. Perhaps I should have used stronger words.

    • Giborei1967

      As a proven anti-Semite, you have NO CREDIBILITY on ANTYTHING regarding Israel. You said that “…Israel is committing incremental genocide on the Palestinians.” As an obvious false and demeaning statement this proves your evil according to the Sharansky 3D test.

      “[C]lassical anti-Semitism is aimed at the Jewish people or the Jewish religion, ‘new anti-Semitism’ is aimed at the Jewish state.”

      Mr. Sharansky devised what he called the “3D test.” The three Ds are “demonization,” “double standards” and “delegitimization.”

      “Demonization” is making bizarre, ugly claims that have no basis in reality. Comparisons between Israel and the Nazis, or assertions that Israel has been committing “genocide” against the Palestinians are examples of “demonization.” Such claims are nonsense. If Israel has been committing “genocide” against the Palestinians, then why has the population of Palestinians increased more than 600% since 1948?

      • Vinegar Hill

        Why do you insist in hiding behind the term anti-Semite? Israel has committed crimes in Gaza and several reports by the UN verify that accusation. You have a total lack of morals when it comes to the slaughter of babies and children.
        Look at the facts and try and think about them from an objective viewpoint and then I am certain you will see the error of your ways.

        • Giborei1967

          You cannot be THAT stupid. Everyone knows the UN as an ANTI-SEMITIC organization. Their reports are nothing more that barbaric Arab points of view. You have been proven as an EVIL Anti-Semite many times over. Israel has not committed ANY of nonsense that you try and smear her with. It is the Arabs who commit war crimes: every Hamas rocket against civilians, fired from civilian areas in Gaza, hiding behind the skirts of their wives and mothers – THAT is a multiple war crime. You will be haunted every time you post your hateful drivel. The IDF is the most moral military in the world. Only jihadis, nazis and anti-Semites like you practice taqqiya and make demonizing false accusations, apply false double-standards, which makes you a DOUBLE Anti-Semite. Shame and dishonor on you, forever!

          • Vinegar Hill

            The truth hurts Giborei1967. Why does the Israeli government not want the Palestinians to go to the ICC? Might they have something to hide? I want a reasoned response. Something which up till now you seem to be incapable of offering.
            If the “IDF is the most moral military” in the world then what have they to lose?
            Stop hiding behind the accusation of anti-Semite. Offer a rational, logical, substantiated reply and show the readers that you have a just cause backed by factual evidence. I don’t want to read waffle or opinonated emotional replies.

          • Giborei1967

            The factual evidence is your statement: “…Israel is committing incremental genocide of the Palestinians.” Your statement is FALSE and demonizing Your poor excuse is that the UN or the so-called Human Rights Commission said so in some report. Yes, the UN and the UNHRC are anti-Semitic, starting with Ms. Pilar!!! Those reports are pure trash. You were proven as an anti-Semite under Sharnsky’s 3D test, under “demonization.” Those are FACTS for all to see. There is nothing for me to hide from, with, in or out. It is as clear as crystal: YOU ARE an Anti-Semite, proven by your own statement. If you want to read real reports about the conduct of the IDF, read the Supreme Court appointed/chartered/endorsed internal reports. No military in history is more moral. Royal British officers have concurred repeatedly and under oath.

  • Hank Rearden

    Allen West. But can he get to the helm?

    • SuzyQ

      Allen West knows the enemy and calls it like it is. Would love to see him lead, as he indeed is a true leader. But, if they crucified him in FL what would they do if he ran for Pres?

      • Hank Rearden

        West is not completely housebroken and in this age that leaves him vulnerable. He talks about issues in sharp edges when as a politician you have to soften the edges to get elected.

        More and more I wonder if his route to the top is not as VP. Heaven forbid, I could almost deal with Romney II if he were to pick West for VP.

        West is a warrior, literally and figuratively, and that is what we need. Who else on the current scene can give a speech that brings you to your feet cheering? Nobody.

        West is soaked in the American experience. He is a true American boy. Obama is not; he is a third-worlder and has no inherent love for the country. In fact, he hates it.

        • teq

          Cruz-West in ’16
          anybody?

          • teq

            On second thought, Cruz is not completely house-broken either. Together, “Crusader Cruise” and “Wild” West would electrify the GOP base and terrify the Establishment.
            The Establishment would find a way to squash them.

      • Michael Garfinkel

        Defeat him handily.

  • montlasky

    Caroline has it right as she normally is and who is listening?
    The world has to wait until Obama’s 2 years are up but until then we, the Western world have a huge problem staring us in the face. The Western world is in itself swimming in treacle. They are preoccupied by Russia and Ukraine. Whilst this pending confrontation is being stared at, the tentaciles of Islam are doing there thing and being quite succesful at it.Sadly when a leader like Ted Cruz gets booed off the stage by Christians (are they?) one wonders what hope there is for the Christians let alone the Jews! Those Christians who believe that they can still afford to be anti Semitic are fooling themselves. I suggest that they change their ways before they find their dumb heads are no longer attached to their shoulders!

  • Sara

    We almost always elect bought and paid for actors.

  • billobillo54

    While it is absolutely true that Jew hatred has been prevalent among professing Christians for centuries, it is also just as absolutely true that the current pro-Israeli, pro Jewish sentiments by people like Senator Cruz is due to Protestant Evangelical Christianity and other Christians.

  • itaintmojo

    And he is a horrible politician at that.

  • Vinegar Hill

    You are a disgusting racist.

    • DontMessWithAmerica

      Hardiharhar! Whenever a pathetic lefty has no argument, out comes “You’re a racist.” You sound like a born loser and you are a fish out of water in these columns. At least you named yourself properly. You emit an odor of stale vinegar.

      • Vinegar Hill

        “It is all piling up on the boy from the woodpile…”
        What do you mean by this reference?

        • DontMessWithAmerica

          If there are words in that phrase which you
          don’t know, look them up in a dictionary. I don’t give English lessons to
          illegal immigrants or “disgusting” lefties.

    • AbsolutelyRight

      Says the Anti-semite..

    • MukeNecca

      What exactly is racist about saying the obvious truth about the “President” of the US? Since when criticising presidents is racism?

    • Softly Bob

      You’re a disgusting idiot. MLK said that we should judge a person by the content of his character and not his skin color and that is exactly what the poster has done.
      But nasty little individuals like yourself have hijacked the word racist. So, are you saying that Obama is above criticism because of his skin color? Well, is that what you are saying?
      You’re a sneaky individual. You’re a loser. Can you refute any of the above arguments? Well can you,k or do you just revert to slurs?
      You can’t – and you expect us to take you seriously.
      You’ve lost the debate and you’ve proven it by doing what all Leftists do when backed into a corner – you pull the race card.
      Shame on you!.

      • Vinegar Hill

        Read the first part of the last sentense or do you want me to hold your hand and show you how?

        • Softly Bob

          I know what woodpile means moron, and it’s not what you think. Now debate and refute if you can and stop looking for racism when there is none.

  • 11bravo

    West Cruz in 2016, or Cruz West.
    They branded Reagan a extremist and he won 49 states. Hildabeast won’t do much better than McGovern.