Senator Inhofe says what many are thinking: “I just don’t know whose side he’s on…”


In response to Obama’s Muslim-coddling and apologies for America during his speech at Cairo, Eqypt last week, Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK) makes a statement that most of us are thinking:

“I just don’t know whose side he’s on…”

Now, of course, several of the group-thinking leftists in the blogosphereare simply appalled. Most are spewing hateful insults to Inhofe without really debating the facts about Obama’s policies and what Inhofe actually said.  That is largely because much of the time blinded Obama supporters and Leftists (not necessarily mutually exclusive) can’t argue based on the facts. 

Here is what Infofe said:

Sen. Jim Inhofe said today that President Barack Obama’s speech in Cairo was “un-American” because he referred to the war in Iraq as “a war of choice” and didn’t criticize Iran for developing a nuclear program. Inhofe, R-Tulsa, also criticized the president for suggesting that torture was conducted at the military prison in Guantanamo, saying, “There has never been a documented case of torture at Guantanamo.” …. “I just don’t know whose side he’s on,” Inhofe said of the president.

Frankly, many of us, including those in government roles, have had similar thoughts.  While we, nor Inhofe, at this point, could prove or even outright state that Obama is squarely on the side of our enemies, it is a rational thought to wonder which side he is on. 

There are several ways to look at it - is he on the side of freedom or oppression? for or against the rights of Muslim women?  supportive of his country’s history and Constitution or ashamed of it in such a way that our country must be radically “changed”?

Here’s a few more thoughts in that direction in analyzing just whose side Obama sounds like he is on:

Why does Obama, for all the world to see, choose to validate “the Muslim world”, but says his own country is not a Christian nation or even acknowledge its Judeo-Christian roots?

The Asia Times had a response to Obama’s Cairo speech that hits the nail on the head regarding Obama’s validation of the “Muslim World”:

The Asia Timessaid Obama made a mistake by speaking in Cairo. “Why should the president of the United States address the ‘Muslim world?,” it asked. “What would happen if the leader of a big country addressed the ‘Christian world’? Half the world would giggle and the other half would sulk.”

 “To speak to the ‘Muslim world’ is to speak not to a fact, but rather to an aspiration,” the paper stated, “and that is the aspiration that Islam shall be a global state religion as its founders intended. To address this aspiration is to breathe life into it. For an American president to validate such an aspiration is madness.”

Does Obama love his country or does he hold such disdain for the greatest country on earth that he can’t help but apologize and put us on equal footing with “The Muslim World” – particularly the part of that “world” that uses violence to spread its nasty tentacles throughout the Middle East, Europe and around the world?

Mark Steyn says it best about Obama addressing the “Muslim World”, as if the “Muslim World” is somehow on par with a sovereign and free nation, the United States.

Overseas, the coolest president in history was giving a speech. Or, as the official press release headlined it on the State Department Web site, “President Obama Speaks To The Muslim World From Cairo.”

Let’s pause right there: It’s interesting how easily the words “the Muslim world” roll off the tongues of liberal secular progressives who’d choke on any equivalent reference to “the Christian world.” When such hyperalert policemen of the perimeter between church and state endorse the former but not the latter, they’re implicitly acknowledging that Islam is not merely a faith but a political project, too. There is an “Organization of the Islamic Conference,” which is already the largest single voting bloc at the United Nations and is still adding new members. Imagine if someone proposed an “Organization of the Christian Conference” that would hold summits attended by prime ministers and Presidents, and vote as a bloc in transnational bodies. But, of course, there is no “Christian world”: Europe is largely post-Christian and, as President Barack Obama bizarrely asserted to a European interviewer last week, America is “one of the largest Muslim countries in the world.” Perhaps we’re eligible for membership in the OIC.

Mark Steyn also hits on Obama’s continued apologies for his own country:

Once Obama moved on from the more generalized Islamoschmoozing to the details, the subtext – the absence of American will – became explicit. He used the cover of multilateralism and moral equivalence to communicate, consistently, American weakness: “No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons.” Perhaps by “no single nation” he means the “global community” should pick and choose, which means the U.N. Security Council, which means the Big Five, which means that Russia and China will pursue their own murky interests and that, in the absence of American leadership, Britain and France will reach their accommodations with a nuclear Iran, a nuclear North Korea and any other psychostate minded to join them.

Is Obama clearly ignorant of Islam in our early history or he is being disingenous, at best, with the facts of our history?  He portrayed Islam as something embraced by our forefathers, when, in reality, they were studious of Islam in an effort to understand their enemy even then.  Obama had this to say in his speech in Cairo:

Islam has always been a part of America’s story. The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco. In signing the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, our second President John Adams wrote, “The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims.” … And when the first Muslim-American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same Holy Koran that one of our Founding Fathers – Thomas Jefferson – kept in his personal library.

From   Andy McCarthy at National Review, the history of Jefferson’s Koran is centered around Jefferson’s need to understand his enemy, not because he embraced the words of the Koran.  Obama’s reference to Keith Ellison’s use of Jefferson’s Koran is wholly disengenuous and his history is revisionist, just as it was when Ellison touted the fact at his inauguratoin.

[I]n 1786, the new United States found that it was having to deal very directly with the tenets of the Muslim religion. The Barbary states of North Africa (or, if you prefer, the North African provinces of the Ottoman Empire, plus Morocco) were using the ports of today’s Algeria, Libya, and Tunisia to wage a war of piracy and enslavement against all shipping that passed through the Strait of Gibraltar. Thousands of vessels were taken, and more than a million Europeans and Americans sold into slavery. The fledgling United States of America was in an especially difficult position, having forfeited the protection of the British Royal Navy. Under this pressure, Congress gave assent to the Treaty of Tripoli, ….

The conclusion on why Thomas Jefferson owned a Koran is best summed up by David Barton in “An Historical Perspective on a Muslim Being Sworn into Congress on the Koran

Recall that Jefferson had been personally exposed to Islamic beliefs when attempting to secure peace between America and Muslim terrorists. Having been told by the Muslim Ambassador that the Koran promised Paradise as a reward for enslaving, killing, and war, Jefferson inquired into the irrational beliefs that motivated the Muslim groups and individuals warring against America.

 Is Obama for or against freedom?  Is it freedom in the Muslim world for women to wear the hajib?  Or, more correctly, is it freedom for women to have the choice to wear the hajib or not?  Most Muslim cultures and states dictate (through violence, death and other means) what the women wear, who they may converse with, who they may marry, and almost every aspect of their lives…..but Obama says that the US will fight for the woman’s right to where the hajib?!?!

Caroline Glick makes this point:

He spoke of the need to grant equality to women without making mention of common Islamic practices like so-called honor killings, and female genital mutilation. He ignored the fact that throughout the lands of Islam women are denied basic legal and human rights. And then he qualified his statement by mendaciously claiming that women in the US similarly suffer from an equality deficit. In so discussing this issue, Obama sent the message that he couldn’t care less about the plight of women in the Islamic world.

Is he for or against the rights of Israel, our allies, to maintain its land and its growth in the settlements?  Obama wants a two-state solution where Israel gives up its land to those who have already stated that Israel has no right to exist.

 Mark Steyn shreds the notion that we must stop the growth of Israel into the settlements:

On the other hand, a “single nation” certainly has the right to tell another nation anything it wants if that nation happens to be the Zionist Entity: As Hillary Clinton just instructed Israel regarding its West Bank communities, there has to be “a stop to settlements – not some settlements, not outposts, not natural-growth exceptions.” No “natural growth”? You mean, if you and the missus have a kid, you’ve got to talk gran’ma into moving out? To Tel Aviv, or Brooklyn or wherever? At a stroke, the administration has endorsed “the Muslim world’s” view of those non-Muslims who happen to find themselves within what it regards as lands belonging to Islam: the Jewish and Christian communities are free to stand still or shrink, but not to grow.Would Obama be comfortable mandating “no natural growth” to Israel’s million-and-a-half Muslims? No. But the administration has embraced “the Muslim world’s” commitment to one-way multiculturalism, whereby Islam expands in the West but Christianity and Judaism shrivel remorselessly in the Middle East.

It is disheartening to endure the apologies for this country made by our President.  This country, almost from its inception, has been the beacon of good in the world.  Domestically, in a few short months of this administration’s policies, we are already weary of unconstitutional takeover of private companies, union political paybacks, and “change” to a bankrupt, Socialist nation….all being implemented at lightning speed….

And we’ve yet to even endure Obama’s healthcare takeover with accompanying rationing and taxes, energy tax, and the repercussions of his “sudden” Muslim roots and awakening — and now the coddling of “the Muslim World” and their anti-freedom mindset –people who will no more respect this country than Obama seems to respect our Judeo-Christian history, traditions, and US Constitution.

In reference to immigration, Teddy Roosevelt had this to say about allegiance and loyalty to one’s country back in 1919:

“…..this is predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet an American and nothing but an American….There can be no divided allegiance here.  We have room for but one flag (in this country)….We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language, for we intend to see that the crucible turns our people out as Americans, of American nationality, and not as dwellers in a polyglot boarding-house; and we have room for but one soul loyalty, and that is loyalty to the American people.”

In a different twist on Inhofe’s statement, my question is:  Where does Obama’s one soul loyalty lie?

Inhofe cracks ACORN nuts the Oklahoma Way!


Jim Inhofe, former mayor of Tulsa and current US Senator, gives a clear and concise lesson on how to keep ACORN Nuts (pun intended) away from your home.  He speaks from personal experience.

From an AP story:

Recalling a run-in 25 years ago with a group accused of voter registration irregularities, U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe says protesters scattered when he warned them to leave his home in one minute or “I’ll kill all of you.”

The Tulsa Republican made the comment in an interview published Thursday by the Alva Review-Courier.

Inhofe says he was mayor of Tulsa at the time and the Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now, known as ACORN, was mad at him over a housing issue involving Cuban refugees.

When his wife called frantically to say a group of Cuban protestors were at his house, Inhofe says he confronted them and threatened to kill them if they didn’t get off his property.

Inhofe confirmed the incident Friday in a statement issued through his campaign headquarters in Oklahoma City.

He says the protesters were threatening his wife, his children and his home, and that he thinks Oklahomans can understand his willingness to go to any length to protect his family.

This may be a very common reaction, indeed, when the government gets closer to coming for OUR guns, OUR 401K’s, OUR property, and OUR free speech!…….The Oklahoma Way!

(H/T: Ace of Spades)

Oxy Meet Moron: Dem Leaders and Ethics


The story about Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn keeps popping up on the web.  Barbara Boxer, chairman of the Senate Ethics Committee continues to hound Dr. Coburn about delivering babies for free when he is back in Oklahoma.  You see, Dr. Coburn is an ObGyn and has delivered hundreds, if not thousands, of babies in his career.

I can barely bring myself to say the words Democrat Leader and Ethics in the same sentence….it is just so unnatural to do so.  It’s comparable to the Chinese or the Iranians heading up a committee on Human Rights.

Anyway, I wrote about Dr. Coburns efforts and the harassment earlier, but a piece by Debra Saunders at GOPUSA sums up the hypocrisy, the real push behind harassing Coburn, and the lack of focus on real ethics violations in the Senate….(can you say mortgage “sweetheart deals by the likes of Christopher Dodd, Kent Conrad, and Barack Obama, himself?)

It seems that Coburn delivering babies at no charge (while paying the costs from his own pocket) is just such an overwhelming problem, we don’t have time to look into the corruption and sweetheart deals that have transpired in this Democratic-led Congress.

Some good points laid out by Saunders:

In June, the Senate Ethics Committee began an initial look into Dodd’s and Conrad’s discounted Countrywide Financial VIP loans, as is fitting. Meanwhile, with all of the ethics stink bombs lurking in Washington, the committee, chaired by California Democrat Barbara Boxer, is aiming its guns at Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., for “a serious violation of Senate rules.”

Coburn’s bad? An obstetrician by profession, Coburn won’t heed the committee’s threat to reprimand him for delivering babies back home in Oklahoma — for free.

“On my own time, I’m taking care of women who have a need, and I’m going to continue to deliver babies,” Coburn told Politico.com.

And, bully for him: “I’m not going to stop.” When a member of the House, Coburn delivered 400 babies under an agreement with ethics meisters that allowed him to do so — if he charged only enough to cover his expenses.

And getting to the point about why the Dems are really targeting Dr. Coburn:

What’s really going on here? The senator — who prefers to be called Dr. Coburn — has been a thorn in the side of both big-spending Republicans and Democrats. He calls earmarks “the gateway drug” to Washington’s spending addiction. The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank wrote back in 2006 when the GOP ran the Senate, “Tom Coburn is like an imam at a pig roast: He sees pork everywhere, and he doesn’t like it.”

Coburn bucked party leaders as he tried to block Stevens’ $229 million earmark, largely to a bridge between Ketchikan and an island with 50 residents, infamously dubbed the “Bridge to Nowhere.”

When Democrats took over the Senate, Coburn challenged their pork-barrel projects as well. In July, when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid bundled 35 spending bills into a $10 billion omnibus package, Coburn successfully led the charge to block the measure — citing next year’s projected $482 billion deficit. As Coburn likes to say, the American people elect senators to “make hard choices and live within our means.”……….

……The savvy observer has to conclude that because Coburn has challenged Senate pork, the Ethics Committee essentially is willing to stick it to poor pregnant women, who might benefit from a free delivery.

And just why it may backfire and why it reaks of hypocrisy and politics at its worst:

It’s a tactical blunder. If the committee continues to push for a public reprimand, Coburn has the right to ask for a full Senate vote. While Boxer may not mind coming across as petty and vindictive, other senators might hesitate before publicly bullying a man for delivering babies for free.

As Coburn spokesman John Hart noted, there have been many stories about lawmakers, their friends and families profiting from earmarks, but “no one has ever chosen to have Dr. Coburn deliver her baby in order to sway his vote.”

With Democrats in charge, the Senate Select Committee on Ethics is no more ethical than it was under the GOP. In going after Coburn, its mandate is clear: Forget Ethics, It’s Payback Time.

In the midst of sky-high oil prices, a do-nothing Congress, Russia military action against Georgia, and more…..the Senate Dems have put priority on pressuring the doctor serving as a Senator who delivers babies at no cost to anyone but himself…..

Good Lord…I only hope these bozos can be booted out in their next elections and try to make it in the real world, with a real career like Dr. Coburn….my guess is they couldn’t.

Free Healthcare but not Free Babies (if delivered by a Republican)


This goes in the unbelievable category….

Tom Coburn, Senator from Oklahoma, and, recently, a very distinct thorn in the side of Harry Reid, is being pressured by the Senate Ethics Panel for delivering babies at no charge….

Somehow—-in the warped, hyper-political view of Senate Democrats—delivering babies for free is HIGHLY UNETHICAL!

Didn’t Obama just preach to us all recently about a culture of volunteering—a “call to service” he called it?!?!

Seems a trained medical doctor who dedicates his time and personal money in order to accomplish free births while also serving his country as an elected Senator ought to be the poster child for Obama’s SERVICE campaign, right?

Also, seems that any kind of free healthcare would fit right into the Democrat agenda of “healthcare for all”??!?!

But that is not how Senate Democrats see it:

(Tom) Coburn (Senator from Oklahoma) has come under new pressure from the Ethics panel for delivering babies at the Muskogee Regional Medical Center, which changed from a public to a private institution in April last year….

In May, Coburn received a strongly worded “final determination” memo threatening him with a Senate censure if he did not stop delivering babies for free….

Coburn spokesman John Hart… called the Ethics panel’s logic “absurd” and its argument “inane.”

“Just as parents don’t choose him hoping to sway his vote, parents don’t choose to receive his services at a particular hospital because Dr. Coburn has somehow endorsed that hospital because he is a senator,” Hart said in a statement…. “The committee has shown us zero empirical evidence to back up its flimsy claim.

Read more at Michelle Malkin.

Obama’s Latest Slur: Senator Coburn = Terrorist


It has been such a nice spring day, I could not bring myself to ruin it all and watch the two lefty Dems “debate” tonight.  But, as I usually do, I have read liveblogging and other highlights of the debate.

The item that really grabbed my attention was when Obama was asked about his ties to William Ayers, the Weather Underground terrorist.  Obama knows him and attended a state senate campaign meeting at the Ayers house! (that is a little-reported fact). 

From Newsbusters, the question from George Stephanopoulos and answer from Obama:

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: But first, a follow up on this issue, general theme of patriotism in your relationships. A gentleman named William Ayers, he was part of the Weather Underground in the 1970s. They bombed the Pentagon, the Capitol and other buildings. He’s never apologized for that. And in fact, on 9/11, he was quoted in the New York Times, saying, “I don’t regret setting bombs. I feel we didn’t do enough.” An early organizing meeting for your state senate campaign was held at his house and your campaign has said you were “friendly.” Can you explain that relationship for the voters and explain to Democrats why it won’t be a problem?

BARACK OBAMA: The fact is that I’m also friendly with Tom Coburn, one of the most conservative Republicans in the United States Senate, who during his campaign once said that it might be appropriate to apply the death penalty to those who carried out abortions.

First off– friends don’t compare their friends to terrorists!  Wonder what his friend, Coburn, has to say about that??

The freaky part is Obama DID NOT disown Ayers ( just like he didn’t disown Rev. “Chickens Comin’ Home to Roost’” Wright!).  Worse, he compares a guy who defends life to one who takes life!

I think most “thinking” Americans (I stole that line from the Dems) would argue that one guy is defending life and promoting justice (Coburn) while the other is taking life and remains unrepentant for the taking of life (Ayers)!

Almost as baffling, Obama just compared a United States Senator to a terrorist.  Is this new low ground for the Democrats and Obama?  I don’t think I remember a Senator being compared to a terrorist yet….George Bush, yes… a Senator, no.

This man just keeps giving little bits and pieces away of who he really is.  And it seems the more he does, the more the kooky left swoon over him…..”Lord-a-mighty” there has to be a psychological term for that sort of “burnin’ love” for the Obammessiah.  But it is beyond my comprehension!

(Actually, with the skyrocketing cost of arugula and bad economic times, I’ve been a little bitter lately…..between my shootin’ lessons, extensive daily prayin’ and God-clingin’…oh, and my daily rant at those “different” than me…. I haven’t had found the time lately to figure out nor explain that phenomenon exactly!)

Lest I stray from the point…..let’s compare Tom Coburn (Senator from Oklahoma–come to think of it, he is from the midwest/south–I bet he’s bitter, too)  and then lets look at William Ayers of Weather Underground.

Coburn – Married to beauty queen/former Miss Oklahoma          Ayers – married to another terrorist

Coburn – a member of the Senate in the greatest country in the world     Ayers – member of Weather Underground whose goal was to overthrow the United States government with violence

Coburn – believes strongly in preserving life   Ayers – responsible for multiple bombings that killed several people

Coburn – a Medical Doctor trained to saves lives    Ayers – a lefty, radical, anti-American terrorist who takes lives

Coburn – Has never bombed an abortion clinic     Ayers – active and part of the group responsible for bombings of the DC National Guard, US Capitol, NYC Police Headquarters, and the Pentagon.

So you get the drift…..this comparison by Obama will not be received any better than his “bitter” comments about rural America.

When you are a such a leftist, over time and scrutiny it can be difficult to convince 200 million plus people that you aren’t…..

Obama’s famous words early in the campaign were “Words Matter”—-Yes, they do Obama and the “I mangled my words, but stand by my point” line only works for so long!

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 252 other followers