How Obama Betrayed America....And No One Is Holding Him Accountable
a pamphlet by David Horowitz
(our site's book review)
Lying about the reasons that an ambassador and three other Americans were murdered in Benghazi on 9/11/12—jihadi terror, not some trivial internet video was to blame—is only one of many indications that Barack Obama does not take the threats facing America seriously, and indeed, may think that the U.S. is so guilty for past transgressions that it deserves to be chastened on the world stage.
As David Horowitz shows in this no-holds-barred pamphlet, minimizing the Islamist threat to the United States is not an oversight of the Obama administration. It is policy. The most dangerous Islamist regime, Iran, is being allowed to acquire nuclear weapons while Washington dithers over pointless negotiations and stands by as the mullahs fill the vacuum in Iraq created by the withdrawal of all American forces, against the advice of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
In Afghanistan, supposedly the "good war," victory is not an option; the Taliban licks its chops and waits for American troops to leave in ignominy. Meanwhile, this White House has facilitated the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood throughout the Middle East, helping it come to power in Cairo, bankrolling it and giving it F-16s that are likely someday to be used against Israel, and displayed weakness in Syria by ignoring "red lines" it said would never be crossed. It is a low point for America, as David Horowitz shows, with Republicans, traditionally the party of strong national security, offering only an echo, not a choice in American foreign policy, watching in a state of policy paralysis as Obama appeases our enemies and enables their evil ambitions.
David Horowitz reveals Obama for what he is: a criminal and a traitor to America. He reveals how he got where he is and why we need to do everything in our power to prosecute everyone that had anything to do with putting him there. Obama and his entire entourage are criminals; but so are those who are responsible for his even getting near a government office. Obama messed up our country both at home and in our military actions and inactions. The Islamo-leftist conspiracy he fronted as America's first UnAmerican president is despicable. How can he ignore the Constitution, the Congress, intimidate the judiciary without any opposition? He has nearly destroyed our economy, our military, our American way of life. The media were his advocates, not his investigative reporters. They needed to call him on his traitorous irresponsibility, but instead they kept giving him a free pass as if it would show racism to confront him or his foolish, disgraceful, anti-American activities. Did we really want a leader who used intimidation, threats, and smears against private citizens and who aided Islamist supremacists like the Muslim Brotherhood in their global war of conquest?
Obama wants you to believe I AM NOT A CROOK, but you know better—he should have been impeached!
Barack Obama used IRS audits to punish his political enemies, which is an impeachable offense. Yet we didn't act and the press watchdogs stayed silent. They were more like lapdogs than watchdogs!
The mainstream media was supposed to be watchdogs, but under Obama, they failed us completely
The liberal media press were more like lapdogs than watchdogs under Obama
"There is a vast and perplexing dichotomy between President Obama's rhetoric—peppered as it is with vows of ethical purity and moral rectitude—and his actual conduct as president—characterized by flagrant cronyism and corruption. Indeed, this dichotomy only makes sense in context of Obama's knowledge of, and affinity for, the theories of radical community-organizer Saul Alinsky." (Alinsky was an honorary member of the Chicago Mob—where Capone hung his hat. He learned his tactics from them. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were enamored with Alinsky, both studied him, and both copied him.) (Source: Study Saul Alinsky to Understand Barack Obama)
Horowitz tells us that "Obama has tried to convince the American people that the war against al-Qaeda has been essentially 'won'—by him—and the terrorist threat is subsiding. Denial of the war Islamists have declared on us and denial of the threat it represents is the heart of the Obama doctrine that has guided this nation’s policies for more than four years." And yet Horowitz forgets the war on us is reactive, based on the U.S. coup in Iran in 1953. Iran was fairly democratic before we pulled an ugly coup and installed the Shah because Mossadegh wouldn't let us have their oil nearly for free. The U.S. overturned the conservative parliamentary democracy led by Mohammed Mossadegh and the Iranians have hated the U.S. ever since, and some think they're obsessed with radical Muslimism just to spite us just like they pulled the 1979 hostage crisis to spite us. If they'd pulled a coup in the U.S., we'd hate them too. "Do unto others . . ."
The U.S. military has become a terrorist factory: Kill one terrorist and 10 of his angry friends and relatives swear vengeance and fight our military or join ISIS
And yet it was Dubya that foolishly attacked Iraq, unprovoked, based on lies and propaganda from U.S. neocons who wanted to get their greedy paws on Iraqi oil. After paying back the terrorists for 9/11 in 2001 we should have stayed clear of the Mideast, since nearly all the terrorism that has occured since the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003 has been a response to U.S. terrorizing the Mideast. The idiotic idea that if we just kill enough terrorists we will win and can go home is utterly and completely contradicted by the actual facts—the actual statistics of the conflicts: Terrorist attacks are increasing, hate for U.S. is increasing, danger to Europe and the U.S. is increasing, and ISIS is spreading. The U.S. military—led by neocon warmongers with no common sense—has become a terrorist factory. Kill one terrorist and 10 of his angry friends and relatives swear vengeance and fight our military or join ISIS. Do the math. The definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing over and over, always hoping for a different result. Since they can clearly see they're making things worse, it begs the question: why do they keep doing what they are doing? For an answer, see The Neoconserative Threat to World Order: America's Perilous War for Hegemony and Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance.
Here's a YouTube video that says it all about Bush and Cheney's warmongering!
The people that launched the Iraq War, many of those that fought there, most of the American public, most of the media, and all of the rest of the people and nations in the world see the Iraq War starting in 2003 as a grievious error. And yet Horowitz drank the Kool-Aid so completely that he is still fuming at anyone who doesn't support it! This pamphlet he wrote is a case in point. It is filled with a weird combination of smart ideas and dumb ideas. Perhaps his transformation from liberal radical to radical righty explains these contradictions. Horowitz actually bought into the poppycock spread by neocon fanatics that the Iraq War was to "protect national security"! The naivete is incredible. Everyone knew it was for oil and because of greed and empire building. Everyone, that is, but Horowitz. Perhaps he didn't get the memo. He seems to be waging the honorable WWII again only through the eyes of neocon fanatics. We 100% support our troops but do not support wars for oil and because of greed and empire building. Horowitz used to have a lot more sense.
Do the war math—the definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing over and over, always hoping for a different result
Obama loved Terror Tuesday, since he got to play God and decide who to kill with drones that week. Predator Drones would use Hellfire missiles and blast "suspects." Anyone carrying a cell phone in any way connected to a terrorist suspect would be blown to smithereens. However, the terrorist suspects are merely suspects—not confirmed terrorists, and everyone else is just "collateral damage"—a polite term to cover the actual fact that the majority of people blown up by our drones were innocent civilians.
Bush and Obama love playing God, swatting to death anyone they don't like the looks of and making the U.S. look like the Great Satan the Islamics see us as
Predator Drones would swat down any dissenters in the neoconservative's most beloved wet dream of world domination (for peaceful purposes, mind you!)
U.S. neocons' imperialism and warmongering is out of control yet the Congress tasked with stopping such abuses is mute—something smells rotten in Washington! The game is rigged. Obama's bailouts? The biggest companies got help while the little guy Obama pretended to care about got the finger.
Daily, more people see the lies, the wrongness, the foolishness of the military-industrial complex's plans, the perversity of the neoconservatives' warmongering arrogance, and the rising danger of following fools over the cliff as if we had no more brains than lemmings
Daily, more people see the lies, the wrongness, the foolishness of the military-industrial complex's plans, the perversity of the neoconservatives' warmongering arrogance, and the rising danger of following fools over the cliff as if we had no more brains than lemmings. Did Obama challenge neocon rule? No. Did he stop the madness, ending the wars like he promised? No. But does Horowitz understand the basis of the phony "war on terror" and where it can lead us? When he used to be a radical liberal, he'd have understood all this quite clearly. In the 60s, he worked for peace. But then in the 1980s he went from left to right, supporting Reagan.
Horowitz makes this statement in his pamphlet How Obama Betrayed America....And No One Is Holding Him Accountable: "As a senator, in step with his Democratic colleagues, Obama opposed America’s war with Iraq while American troops were still in harms’ way, and then opposed the military surge that finally won the victory." Victory??!! Was this man on the same planet as the rest of us? Nothing about any of the wars that Bush started and Obama perpetuated was a victory for anyone but the terrorists, who didn't need recruiting posters, since our soldiers' and our mercanaries' actions pumped up the terrorist's causes until their ranks were gorged with volunteers, ISIS being the best—but not only—example. The only victory Dubya had was keeping a straight face when he stood on the deck of that carrier saying "I'm declarin' victory." The only victory OBomb'em had was not being impeached when his bungling in the Mideast generated ISIS. Horowitz rightly says that Obama has tried to convince the American people that the war against al-Qaeda has been essentially “won”—by Obama—and the terrorist threat is subsiding.
In the 1980s, Horowitz drank the Kool-Aid Reagan's public relations experts were serving (most of the ideas have proven wrong) and began supporting Reagan and the Right
On the other hand, in 1992 Horowitz founded Heterodoxy, a monthly magazine focused on exposing what it described as excessive political correctness on United States college and university campuses. He was entirely correct—PC has gotten way out of hand and it is ruining universities by the dozens. But then he really seemed to lose it: Horowitz appeared in Occupy Unmasked, a 2012 documentary portraying the Occupy Wall Street movement as a sinister organization formed to violently destroy the American government. Where was Horowitz's compassion for the 99%? The nuttiness continued when he published The Anti-Chomsky Reader, which is a foolish 2004 criticism of the excellent political and linguistic writings of Noam Chomsky. But in truth, the brilliant Chomsky's works are above reproach and they are accurate as can be. It is Horowitz's writings that are questionable, not Chomsky's. Chomsky is not a Holocaust denier as Horowitz implies. Chomsky confirms that the Holocaust took place, and he has repeatedly called it "the most fantastic outburst of collective insanity in human history." Yet Horowitz calls Chomsky a Holocaust denier. Curiouser and curiouser . . .
Wall Street Protest: Occupy Wall Street—Copyright © 2011 by Louis Lanzano
'You know, Archibald, my bladder is a tad too full—do these windows open? I'd like to send my regards to those pesky OWS protesters'
Horowitz tells us that "Although the President [Obama] learned about the [Benghazi embassy in Libya] attack shortly after it began and although the embattled Americans inside the compound begged the White House for help, and although U.S. fighter jets were stationed in Italy only an hour away, the president, in one of the most shameful acts in the history of that office, denied help . . ." Horowitz is entirely correct to abhor this.
"Obama’s and Hillary’s lies about the Benghazi massacre confirm, once and for all, that they are twin moral vacuums. They deserve all of the scorn, disrespect, and rejection that such a disgraceful distinction demands." (Source: Hillary Clinton and Obama’s Lies on Benghazi — Too Many to Count, but Let’s Try, Deroy Murdock, National Review)
“The Libyan operation was sold as a mission on behalf of human rights of an aggrieved people. It ended with a U.S. partner murdered by a wild-eyed Islamist mob, the rise of al Qaeda and other terrorist and militia groups, and an emerging violently anti-American Islamist regime. If that’s what Obama had intended all along, then his motives for the Libyan war were sinister. If it wasn’t what he intended, then his policy has been an abject failure, with U.S. interests far more threatened than they had been before. . . . The answer may be found in what was flying over Benghazi within days of Gadhafi’s death: the al Qaeda flag.” (Source: Benghazi Attack Cover-Up Is Worse Than Watergate, Monica Crowley, TheBlaze)
"The civil unrest that broke out in Libya on this revolutionary tide came after the US-backed bombing campaign of the country toppled its long-time leader Gaddafi. The nation has since been torn apart by fighting between different armed gangs and factions seeking control, including terrorist group ISIS . . . (Source: ‘West must be held accountable for Libya, apologize & leave it alone’ – Gaddafi’s cousin)"
"Before his overthrow, the dictator, Moammar Gaddafi, warned that his demise would unleash the forces of the Islamic jihad not only in his own country but throughout North Africa. This was a prophecy quickly realized. In the aftermath of Obama’s intervention, al-Qaeda was able to take control in Mali of an area twice the size of Germany. In Tunisia and Egypt, jihadists emerged as the ruling parties, with the acquiescence and even assistance of the Obama administration. In Syria, a savage civil war metastasized unimpeded, killing tens of thousands and eventually pitting a fascist regime allied to Iran against rebel forces largely aligned with al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood. As these disasters unfolded, the White House not only did not oppose the Islamists but armed and enabled them." I.e., Obama is betraying our national security. Horowitz gets it right again—including his claim that OBomb'em's bungling led to the rise of ISIS.
He notes that "Michele Bachmann and four other Republican House members sent a letter to the Justice Department’s Inspector General asking him to look into the possibility of Islamist influence in the Obama Administration. The letter expressed concern about State Department policies that 'appear to be a result of influence operations conducted by individuals and organizations associated with the Muslim Brotherhood.'" Rather than the needed inquiry, the result of the letter was to demonize Bachmann and her colleagues, even though there is lots of evidence that various administration personnel and their relatives are closely aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood.
"President Obama and his administration continue to support the global Islamist militant group known the Muslim Brotherhood. . . . The UAE [United Arab Emirates] government also has labeled two U.S. affiliates of the Muslim Brotherhood, the Council on American-Islamic Relations and the Muslim American Society, as terrorist support groups. . . . Critics of the administration’s strategy say the Brotherhood masks its goals and objectives despite advocating an extremist ideology similar to those espoused by al Qaeda and the Islamic State . . . 'This dangerous foreign policy was launched by [Obama's Muslim Brotherhood support documents] and the administration’s open embrace of the Muslim Brotherhood, and now we can see its catastrophic effect,' [counterterrorism analyst Patrick] Poole added. . . . Mr. Gaffney has said the Muslim Brotherhood is the most dangerous group promoting the totalitarian and Islamist supremacist doctrine of Shariah. Several Muslim Brotherhood supporters have been identified as key advisers to Mr. Obama, according to Mr. Gaffney." (Source: Obama secretly backing Muslim Brotherhood, Bill Gertz, The Washington Times)
"'My simple question to the Obama administration is, why would you form an overt political alliance with a group that has stated plainly that they intend to overthrow our form of government and alter or abolish it?' he asked. 'Why would you do that?'" (Source: DHS whistleblower: Why did Obama form 'alliance' with Muslim Brotherhood?, Paul Bremmer, WND)
Unlike ISIS, the [Muslim] Brotherhood is amenable to suspending the jihad while taking the concessions it can get through diplomacy and political processes—then going right back to jihad promotion when these alternatives have been exhausted. (Source: Obama: Anti-Anti-Terrorist, Andrew C. McCarthy, National Review)
"The influence of the Muslim Brotherhood on the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations was embarrassing, but the Obama Administration’s deliberate blindness to the connection between the Islamic doctrine of Jihad and terrorism has severely handicapped American national security. Against the stealth Jihad of the Muslim Brotherhood, CAIR, and a score of other Brotherhood front organizations, the Obama Administration’s dedication to mindless multiculturalism and political correctness has left us nearly defenseless." (Source: The Muslim Brotherhood Plan to Dominate North America, Mike Scruggs)
All this certainly makes one wonder: which side was he on, anyway? And of course since we know the terrible answer to that question, all we can do is look at all the undermining of our country and our relations with the world under his "watch" and ask ourselves how we could have elected such a person. Will we ever learn?