Dr. Richard L. Rubinstein, an esteemed educator and writer, has Obama’s number, calling him “a menace”, and “the most radical President America has ever had”. He has no doubt that Obama would be happy to see the destruction of Israel.
Criticizing Obama as “aggressive, disruptive and apocalyptic,” he went on to speak about a decline in respect for human life and the need for Catholics to return to the values of marriage and human dignity.
Commenting on the results of the recent presidential election, Cardinal Stafford said on Election Day “America suffered a cultural earthquake.” The cardinal argued that President-elect Obama had campaigned on an “extremist anti-life platform” and predicted that the near future would be a time of trial.
He’s everything we feared he would be, and then some.
Hat tip: iOWNTHEWORLD
Eileen F. Toplansky at The American Thinker: Obama’s Wonderland Is No Fairy Tale
Surely, “it would be so nice if something made sense for a change,” said Alice, but in Obamaworld, if one wants to deliberately undermine this country, everything he does leans in that direction. As the Duchess exclaimed, “the moral of that is — the more there is of mine, the less there is of yours.” The next generation of Americans is already burdened with the financial debacle of a $15-trillion debt with no end in sight as the federal government becomes as bloated as Tweedledee and Tweedledum. Obama’s economic plan has not improved the country, but when “four times five is twelve, and four times six is thirteen,” math takes on a wholly new and original meaning as this president confiscates money without “due process of law.”
Jennifer Rubin, Commentary, Obama’s Human Rights Problem:
Because the U.S. is so flawed, so guilty of serial misdeeds, we are in Obama’s eyes (and the left-wing academic mindset from which he derives his views) disqualified from pronouncing on others’ behavior and obligated to let them pronounce on ours and our allies. Hence, we bear witness to (and do not challenge) the Human Right Council thugocracies as they condemn countries with infinitely better human rights records (especially Israel). But we temper our words and offer our hand in conciliation (and in some cases open our wallets) to the human rights oppressors. We allow Iran to join the UN Commission on the Status of Women to opine on others’ gender discrimination but avert our eyes from the brutality endured by Muslim women and girls.
There is, of course, a practical, albeit misguided, reason for Obama’s human rights record. He imagines he will incur the goodwill of the world’s despots by soft-peddling criticism of their treatment of their own people. But it is no longer possible to ignore the more fundamental problem: Obama believes his mission is to atone for America’s sins, not set the example for the world as the leader of that “shining city on the hill.” If one doubts the essential goodness of America and is unwilling to hold others to a standard of conduct that reflects our own values, you will wind up with a human rights policy that looks like Obama’s.