Archive | January 11th, 2012



We learned  today that Britain has sent its best warships to the Gulf

Britain’s newest warship is heading to the Gulf for its first mission at a time of tensions over Iran’s threat to close the strategic Strait of Hormuz, a key transport route for oil.

The Royal Navy’s Type 45 destroyer HMS Daring, which has a “stealth” design to help avoid detection by radar, is to join other British ships in the region, the Ministry of Defence confirmed Saturday.

This fact shouldn’t take us by surprise considering the embarrassing fact that 80% of Britain’s ruling party’s MPs are members of the rabid Zionist ‘Conservative Friends of Israel’ (CFI).

How long is going to take before British people show signs of fatigue of their politicians and their institutional treacherous behaviour?





“Iran is a common threat to Bahrain, IsraHell and the US, Zionist King of Bahrain Hamad bin Shlomo bin Isa Al Khalifa was quoted as saying by Zionist official.” 

Rabbi Marc Schneier and King Hamad of Bahrain
Photo by: WJC

Bahrain to Jewish leader: Iran is a threat to us all


King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa has agreed to hold a Jewish-Muslim dialogue in Bahrain later this year.

Talkbacks (40)
Iran is a common threat to Bahrain, Israel and the US, the King of Bahrain Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa was quoted as saying by a Jewish official on Sunday.Rabbi Marc Schneier, vice president of the World Jewish Congress, said the king told him he was alarmed by the Islamic Republic during a 45- minute meeting held in the capital city of Manama late last month.

“I made a point how it’s ironic how we share a common enemy and he acknowledged that Iran has been a threat,” said Schneier, who gave the king a hanukkia at the end of their conversation.

The nation has a troubled history with its northern neighbor across the Persian Gulf, which once laid claim to its territory.

Schneier said Hamad agreed to his request to host a Jewish-Muslim dialogue in the oil-rich country later this year. The rabbi, who is also president of the Foundationfor Interfaith Dialogue, said there was no set date or list of participants yet but that the conference would aim to improve ties between the Abrahamic faiths.

The news comes at a time when the Sunni elite that rules Bahrain has been accused of oppressing the country’s Shi’ite majority.

Last year Sunni security forces and Shi’ite protesters clashed for weeks, leaving 51 people dead, according to local human rights groups.

Schneier said he did not believe Hamad was reaching out to Jews to rebuff charges of religious intolerance against him, saying the ruler had “implemented reforms and reached out to his opponents and tried to help.”

He said it was imperative to hold talks between Jews and Muslims now because the perfect conditions to conduct such a conversation would never arise.

“Whether we chose to have it [in Bahrain] or not you can’t wait,” he said. “It’s a genuine sincere effort to expand Muslim-Jewish dialogue.”

During his stay Schneier met with the small but influential Jewish community in Bahrain including Jewish- Bahraini member of parliament Nancy Khadouri and Houda Nonoo, the country’s ambassador to the US.




“During a question-and-answer session, Zionist Thomas Friedman faced the ire of Youssef El-Korma, a member of AUC’s student leftist movement. “You can’t come here with a smile and preach to us on democracy when you’ve been demeaning Arabs and supporting war crimes in Gaza and Iraq,” said El-Korma. “We don’t welcome you here.”  El-Korma’s assertions were met with applause by the audience but failed to draw a response from Zionist Friedman, who replied to another student critic earlier by saying that, “In the Middle East everybody wants to own you, and if they can’t, they will try to destroy you.””

Thomas Friedman talks revolution, Islamism and democracy in Cairo

The world renowned New York Times columnist advices Egypt’s liberals to work with the Islamists.

Ahmed Feteha, May Alaa, Randa Ali


Friedman was the target of harsh criticism on his views regarding the Iraqi War and Gaza (Photo: Randa Ali)

Prominent American author Thomas Friedman spoke at the American University of Cairo (AUC) on Monday, where he expressed his views on Islamist political ascendancy in the wake of Egypt’s first post-Mubarak parliamentary polls.


“This country is very heavy for any political parties to lift it on its own,” Friedman said during a panel discussion, hosted by former Egyptian ambassador to the US Nabil Fahmy. “We need collective action.”

Friedman also stressed the importance of opening dialogue with Egypt’s Islamist political forces, asserting that Washington should abandon its longstanding strategy of allying itself with single heads of state and begin allying with the people.

Friedman, who was a vocal proponent of the US-led invasion and occupation of Iraq, also stated his belief that Egypt’s Islamists would eventually see a clash between their core principles and modernity. Unlike Saudi Arabia and Iran, he said, Egypt lacks the oil revenue to ease the inevitable collision.

“We saw voters in Egypt concerned about jobs, security and education,” Friedman, often touted as an “expert” on Middle East affairs, said. “These are the questions Islamists will have to deal with.”

Following Egypt’s parliamentary elections, which are set to conclude on 11 January, the Muslim Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party is poised to become a leading force in Egypt’s post-Mubarak political landscape.

“They [Muslim Brotherhood] have never had to make hard choices because they have never been in power,” Friedman, who also pens a widely read column in the New York Times, explained. “They were elected on promises, and – four years from now – they will be judged on their performance.”

Friedman went on to draw a comparison between the Egyptian and Indonesian models. In the latter case, Islamist parties swept democratically held elections in the 1990s, but soon lost ground after failing to meet voter’s expectations.

In answer to one question – “Is Arabism being replaced by Islamic nationalism?” – Friedman said that, during the Mubarak era, the Egyptian political arena had been dominated by Mubarak’s ruling party and Islamist parties. “As for [Egypt’s] liberal parties,” he noted, “these are only four months old.”

Responding to a question posed by Ahram Online on the future of Egypt’s free-market economy under an Islamist-led government, the three-time Pulitzer Prize winner said that Islamists would eventually be forced to adapt to “modernity.” He pointed out that the relatively lenient positions adopted by Islamist parties on certain controversial issues – like the regulations governing Egypt’s tourism industry – represented a clear indication of this trend.

Friedman added that the independence of Islamic religious authorities, such as Egypt’s prestigious Al-Azhar – long marginalised due to its close association with the state – could play a role bridging the gap between Islamic tradition and the modern world.

Members of the audience also questioned Friedman about US presidential hopeful Rick Santorum, who recently made headlines with his hard-line stance on Iran and the longstanding issue of Palestine. “We have our own extremists,” Friedman said, adding, “Rick won’t be president.”

The writer went on to blast certain elements of the US political system, especially the inflated role played by big business in US policymaking and legislation.

“It’s fascinating how the revolution empowered people in [Egypt],” he said, going on to warn of the possible effects of institutionalised corruption on Egypt’s newfound democracy. “Our congress [in the US] has been a forum for legalised bribery,” he said, going on to warn that, “Money will kill your democracy like it did ours.” He added: “Keep your eye on the money.”

Not everyone present, however, welcomed the high-profile author. Some AUC students in attendance vocally protested Friedman’s presence at the university, holding signs aloft asking, “Why a war crimes supporter at AUC?”

“Our protest isn’t just against Friedman – it’s against the policies of our university, which were closely associated with the former regime,” said Roqaya Tbeileh, president of the university’s Quds Club, who took part in a small protest against Friedman’s visit. “And now they bring a supporter of war crimes,” she added in reference to the controversial writer.

During a question-and-answer session, Friedman faced the ire of Youssef El-Korma, a member of AUC’s student leftist movement. “You can’t come here with a smile and preach to us on democracy when you’ve been demeaning Arabs and supporting war crimes in Gaza and Iraq,” said El-Korma. “We don’t welcome you here.”

El-Korma’s assertions were met with applause by the audience but failed to draw a response from Friedman, who replied to another student critic earlier by saying that, “In the Middle East everybody wants to own you, and if they can’t, they will try to destroy you.”

Zionist Friedman

Posted in EgyptComments Off on ZIONIST FRIEDMAN IN CAIRO



At least he is honest…

We kill them because we want their oil,  not because we want to liberate anyone or to introduce democracy.

Posted in IranComments Off on DONALD TRUMP / IRAN ,LIBYA ,IRAQ !



I don’t know any of the participants in this trailer – they all seem to me pretty ordinary people. Yet, it is clear that each of them posses more wisdom than our entire political system.

I guess that the meaning of it is simple. The revolution is here.

“War is when the government tells you who the bad guy is. Revolution is when you decide that for yourself.”




The Emergency Committee for IsraHell targets Ron Paul

By Ron Kampeas ·


 The Emergency Committee for Israel, perhaps for the first time, earns some nonpartisan stripes for releasing an ad in South Carolina markets targeting Ron Paul’s candidacy.

The thinking, I guess, is that ECI co-founder Gary Bauer, who speaks in the ad, has cred among evangelical conservatives in the state.

This is the first time, ECI director Noah Pollak tells me via Twitter, that ECI has targeted a Republican. The group, which targeted only Democrats in the 2010 campaign, has taken flack from critics who say it’s a GOP front.

And before my Democratic friends sneer “but it’s Ron Paul,” remember that you’ve been calling on conservatives to repudiate Paul in the face of his stronger than expected performance in Iowa. So here it is.

I’m a little worried, though, that when the ad switches from a sappy, anthemic upbeat theme to something sinister (around 20 seconds in), to underscore Bauer’s transition from the politics of Goldwater and Reagan to Paul, the bad guy music ECI chooses is … Moonlight Sonata?

How many folks prefer Beethoven to some Charlie Rich wannabe plunking around some major chords?

Don’t answer that.

Posted in CampaignsComments Off on ZIO-NAZI’S TARGETS RON PAUL

The Dehumanizing Nature of Accusations of Anti-Semitism



My op-ed on anti-Semitism, titled The Dehumanizing Nature of Accusations of Anti-Semitism, has just been published by the Michigan Peace Team as well as the Canadian Charger. It is also attached – see page 6 of attachment – and in the body of the email. The op-ed is short but quite relevant and incisive. Please read it and if you agree that it contributes valuable insights to the Israel-Palestine debate and can alter the dynamics of this debate please forward it to friends, blogs, websites, Facebook pages, etc. Thanks!   Rich

Perhaps the most dominating and confusing accusation emanating from one side of the Israel-Palestine debate is that virtually anyone who criticizes Israel‘s treatment of the Palestinian people hates Israel and is, ipso facto, an anti-Semite or self-hating Jew. What is it about criticism of Israel that provokes such an extreme reaction? After all, anyone with the decency to find out what sparks the criticism would learn that the vast majority of critics, including prominent Israelis and other members of the Jewish community, are motivated not by hatred but by justice; and that their intention is not to harm the state of Israel but to prevent the state of Israel from harming Palestinians.

So where is the hatred? The hatred is in the minds of those who are afraid to ask why someone is critical of Israel. Rather than doing honest re-search to refute or confirm the criticism, the accuser panders to his feelings of fear, confusion and anger, all of which are animated by unexamined beliefs and images within his own mind. This mind colors his perception so that he sees the world in terms of personal victimhood versus the world‘s hostility.

Because he is unconscious of this deeper thought process, the accuser can only project his perception onto the world and then assume that the world he sees proves the reality of his perception. He creates his own suffering and then scapegoats the world (in this case Palestinians and their sympathizers) for his suffering. Triggered through denial, this thought process attributes to Palestinians and their sympathizers the accuser‘s own hatred. In other words, the accuser makes the unknown other responsible for, or the repository of, his unresolved pain. He objectifies the other and rejects his humanity. Then he supports inhumane policies, which he justifies under the guise of Israel and the Jewish people‘s security. In so doing, he brings the world‘s anger down upon Israel which, in turn, authenticates and perpetuates the cycle of perceived victim-hood.

The real conflict, then, is an inner one and can only be resolved through self-reflection or inquiry into the beliefs and images the accuser takes for granted that form a large part of his personal and collective identity. Without inquiring into his beliefs and images, or indoctrination, he will not be able to integrate the hard-to-believe but inescapable awareness of Israel‘s treatment of non-Jews with unquestioned loyalty to the Jewish state. One consideration acknowledges Israel‘s dark side. The other denies the dark side exists.

If the accuser can find the courage to commit to the truth – to the best of his ability – and take advantage of the clarifying tools of research and inquiry, he will inevitably apprehend the astonishing reality that, as regards Israel-Palestine, criticism of Israel has never been his principal concern. In fact, he has never defended Israel, at least the Israel that actually exists. What he has always defended is an idealistic image of Israel that he unconsciously projects or superimposes upon the Israel that actually exists. This projection enables him to deny painful revelations that he would otherwise discover about Israel and about himself if only he would look at Israel and the world without the errant influence of an unexamined, or indoctrinated, mind.

The fruits of the accuser‘s sincere efforts will be the transformation of fear into compassion and confusion into clarity. He will know that no behavior occurs in a vacuum and that each of us is responsible for the suffering in the world. The unnecessary and self-created boundaries of his mind will dissolve, the intelligence of his heart will awaken and he will recognize his connection to all of humankind. Finally, he will understand that peace must first manifest within his inner world before he can see its manifestation in the outer world.

Richard Forer is author of Breakthrough: Transforming Fear into Compassion –A New Perspective on the Israel-Palestine Conflict. A former member of AIPAC, he has ultra-Orthodox relatives living in Israel. His identical twin is a prominent member of an ultra-Orthodox sect of Judaism and his younger brother is a former president of one of the largest reform congregations on the east coast. Forer can be contacted through his website

Posted in CampaignsComments Off on The Dehumanizing Nature of Accusations of Anti-Semitism


Dear all,

This letter was sent to LFoP yesterday, I am sharing it because of the significance of what had happened on the overall work, efficiency and focusof PSC, the campaign which main aim is the support of Palestine.

It’s crucial that those who are genuine in their support of Palestine must understand how they have been manipulated and steered away from core issues: what happened to me gives a vivid example on how they use defamation as a political tool to get rid of those voices who advocate full rights of Palestinians, full Liberation and full exposure of the Zionist racism and control.

Dear all

On 23 December 2011, I received a letter from the Chair of Liverpool Friends of Palestine (LFoP) C. M. It was allegedly a ” conciliatory” [sic] letter,  as I understood from a phone conversation with him prior to receiving it. The purpose of the letter, as he claimed on the phone, was to “reassure” [sic] me that I haven’t been expelled from LFoP, in spite of the alienation I feel from LFoP after defamation and harassment campaign was launched against me by a few LFoP members, leading to my departure from the group.

As anyone can see, the letter I received is not at all a letter of reconciliation, but is instead, a continuation of the harassment.

LFoP letter - Copy2.jpg

It appears to be a cold clinical text, prepared as a piece of evidence, short of being a legal document. The obvious intention of this letter is to conduct damage control by attempting to absolve LFoP and the individuals involved from any responsibility with regards to the damage inflicted upon me and my reputation, when I was accused of racism and anti-Semitism in the odious  letter by G. D. and T. B., addressed to J. H. and C. M, the latter two incidentally endorsing the content of the letter.

Mr C. M. letter blatantly ignores  the fact that my sense of alienation from the group is the result of defamation and harm,  causing damages to me even as a private person, as well as to LFoP wider-membership and the very aims of LFoP, and this by a tiny clique of members of LFoP who have obviously hijacked the group.

By omission, the letter in essence denies that I have been defacto expelled by: the sheer defamation and accusation thrown at me, the gossip about my private life behind my back, being refused the right to defend myself, being excluded from the group deliberation, the avoidance of my detractors of direct communication despite my repeated invites, the avoidance of presenting their case factually and intellectually, the avoidance of polite and gracious discourse as means of engagement to discuss possible points of disagreement,  the strange refusal of the accusers to debate on topic, and worse opting instead to ad hominem attacks as a way of defending their argument and political views as well as heinous accusations as a way of stifling the debate and tempting to neutralize me politically, by causing damages to me, to my reputation and even to my private life.

If this is not expulsion, what is?

Wouldn’t anyone with a sense of dignity and commonsense feel as I do?

Aside myself, there are many other far-thinking, dynamic, articulate and deeply committed members, who have also been alienated. Many approached me to express their disenchantment with LFoP.

Who appointed GD,  TB,  JH,  LD and their cohort as “Political Commissars” at LFoP?

Does the majority of LFoP members approve of ‘Political Commissars” enforcing doctrine, and sanctioning free-thinking members?


The  paragraph below is only one piece of evidence that some members of LFoP and/or MJPJ have indeed been engaging in gossip and spreading rumours and lies against myself and my family. It is but one example of the appalling consequences of such behaviour. The aim, of course, is obviously tosilence me and to discredit my research:

Tony Greenstein's slander.jpg

“In Liverpool a Palestinian activist, Nahida, who was once the mainstay of the group, changed almost overnight when she married a sinister Dutchman. Jewish conspiracies took over her life and it was with difficulty that the branch reclaimed its website, which had posted links to her anti-Semitic website (‘Spiders Web’).”

Tony Greenstein ( a close friend of both G. D. and S. S.) does NOT know me personally or my husband, yet he propagates lies about me, my family and my character. He spreads libellous accusations of anti Semitism against me, with the utter silence  of those LFoP members who fed him with such defamatory lies, and with the silence of other decent members who have swallowed the lies and let them pass unchallenged without demanding a thorough  investigation of such offence, without  firm rejection of such behaviour from group members and without chastisement or sanctions against guilty members who took part in this smear campaign.

Had those who smeared my good name -because they have issues with my writings and views, seen some sense, apologized for the harm done and accepted my invitation for intellectual dialogue, they would’ve at least regained some dignity. As of now time for dialogue and intellectual debate with them is over. I consider any further communication with me / about me as harassment, for which I reserve the right to defend myself and my reputation.

To sum up: LFoP has allowed some of its members to engage in Zionist-style methods of operation by:

  •   Meddling in private affairs of members and using slander and defamation as a political tool (as seen from the writing of Tony Greenstein, who is a good friend of LFoP members: G. D. and S. S.).

  • The use of the label “Anti-Semitism” as a political tool.  By branding those they disagree with, with charges of racism and anti-Semitism  (Racism is unlawful according to British law). Completely dismissing the seriousness and the gravity of such allegation, they (carelessly or malevolently) have accused me of committing an unlawful offence.


This has been allowed to pass under the watchful eyes of LFoP, without any investigation, cautioning or sanctioning of those members who engaged in such defamation… to the contrary, some LFoP members have voted approving of such libellous accusations.

As such, C. M’s letter is nothing but an added insult. The letter is an aggravation to the pain and injury, as it  fails to refer to, reflect upon, or appreciate the harm done to my person or the damage caused to my reputation by some members.

Worse, LFoP seem to completely miss the point: they neglect to ask themselves the question ” what are the consequences of their manipulated, evasive, submissive and subdued attitudes on Palestine and the Palestinians?” ( of whom they are allegedly friends).

This letter fails to address such issues and falls very short of being a letter of reconciliation or apology.

Therefore, I consider this letter as a further evidence of harassment by:

  • evading to address the defamation against me;

  • escaping the responsibility of launching an investigation to uncover the guilty elements;

  •  failing to apologise for the damages;

  • failing to sanction/punish guilty members who engaged in such libellous acts.


Thus, by turning a blind eye, pretending that nothing has happened and it’s business as usual, they have caused more harm.

Where is the indignation of LFoP against defamation, meddling in private affairs and the spreading of lies and rumours, about another member, moreover the sole Palestinian in the group?

How could LFoP allow itself to fall prey to such schemes, where slander is used as a political tool to alienate dissenters? and psychological manipulation is implemented to silence opposition?

How could LFoP be so lacking in comprehension of the meaning and manifestation of racism and the real definition of an anti-Semite, that they have been hoodwinked into accepting such accusations against me? Hasn’t the anti-Semitic charge been abused and trivialized enough?

How could LFoP become so blinded that they fail to identify the REAL RACISTS who are worthy to be rejected and fought against?

Therefore, I decline to accept their letter as a letter of reconciliation. It lacks the basic ingredients of goodwill to be appreciated: insight, sincerity, sensitivity, acknowledgment and remorse for harm done, or any willingness to rectify it.

C. M’s letter is nothing but an aggravation.

It has become increasingly apparent that some clique inside the Solidarity Movement, under the pretext of “fighting anti-Semitism”, are engaged in hijacking, deforming and sidetracking the solidarity Movement from supporting the Palestinian people and their cause of Liberation, and instead pushing PSC into morphing into yet another ADL “anti-Semite, Holocaust denier-hunter”.

True Friends of Palestine should not allow themselves to be hoodwinked or sidetracked into adopting other groups’ agendas or doing other organizations’ work. 

People whose primary aim is to fight anti-Semitism are better advised to join more appropriate organizations  who deal specifically with anti-Semitism, there are myriad of them around

They should stop imposing their agenda and leave PSC to do what it was created for, SUPPORTING PALESTINIANS IN THEIR STRUGGLE OF LIBERATION.

Tragically, the excessive and inappropriate use of the word “anti-Semite”, by the likes of ADL (who have their very own definition of the word) has been taken up by some elements inside the Solidarity Movement, who, just like ADL, claim the exclusive right to define for us the meaning of words and the boundaries of debate.

 As I warned beforesuch excessive use by Zionists and anti-Zionist alike, together they have managed to make the word vacuous and meaningless.

My prime concern has always been the cause of Palestine and the Palestinians’ inalienable Human Right of Self-Determination in their own ancestral Land, which they inhabit and protect since thousands of years, continuously. The voice of Palestinians is barely heard in the West. Therefore, those whose aim is to muffle the voice, block the research, contain the freedom and veil the views of Palestinians cannot be truly friends of Palestine.

Real friends are those who want to keep the Solidarity Movement on the right track, focused on Palestine and the Liberation of Palestine.

Hereby, I affirm my right to aspire for the Liberation of my Homeland and to pursue the intellectual means that will help to achieve that goal, moreover since this goal is the reassertion of Human Rights and strict International Law.

I affirm my right to continue my investigations into the role of global Jewish Zionist networks through their many facets, institutions and organizations supporting, sustaining and propagating the cause of the Zionist entity. 

I affirm my right to continue investigating the supremacist ideology that animates the entire Israeli-settler society and to expose its consequences on Palestinians.

I affirm my right to continue my activism, to share the results of my work and to connect with people who want to learn about Palestine, without being censored or chastised by self-appointed gurus.

I affirm my right to defend my reputation and to stand up to those who cause me harm, those who use ad hominem attacks, defamation and slander as a political tool to muffle and excommunicate their opponents.

Finally, I affirm my right to continue to expose those elements who try to achieve deleterious political aims by controlling and crippling the Palestinian Solidarity Movement, through the use of debate framing, information filtering, and eviction of activists who step outside the narrow boundaries set by these elements to keep the opposition constricted and limited in its scope and efficiency.

Lastly, I would end by expressing my profound disappointment with those whom I once called friends; those who witnessed the defamation and attempted assassination of my character with explicit approval or implicit silent consent, those who endorsed the accusation of racism against me, and those who kept a submissive quietness in the face of this detrimental manipulation of our Solidarity Movement.

I detach myself from such deformed Solidarity, as it is obvious that such manipulation is conducted by individuals with ulterior motives and compromised loyalty who appointed themselves to be in charge of the flow of information, to control the direction of the Palestinian solidarity and to push it towards the acceptance of “soft” yet final and permanent colonization of Palestine, thus to steer it away from its prime objective; the unconditional support of Palestinians and their quest for Full Liberation.

Farewell LFoP




“Since no errors are admitted, there is no reason not to repeat them”

“We cannot expect or accept solutions from those who created the problem in the first place”

Courage doesn’t always roar. Sometimes courage is the little voice at the end of the day that says . . .  I’ll try again tomorrow.

~ Anne Henninghake

Posted in Palestine Affairs, CampaignsComments Off on FOR YOUR EYES ONLY NOT TO BE PUBLISHED OR CIRCULATED

New Hampshire GOP Narrative: Obama’s Not One of Us



On the campaign trail, the Republican candidates attack each other but they do agree on one thing: the president is the Other.

—By David Corn

Mitt Romney
© Mary F. Calvert/

The Republican presidential contest—as it has played out in New Hampshire during the days prior to Tuesday’s primary—has been a battle between anger and outrage. Mitt Romney, the front-runner, gets worked up—in a Brahmin style—that President Barack Obama, a nice enough fellow, is simply not up to task of leading this great nation and doesn’t quite understand the essence of American society. Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, and Ron Paul are outraged, absolutely outraged, that Obama is purposefully leading the nation to ruin. The basic choice for Republican voters in the Live Free or Die state: be mad or be damn mad.

GOP Primary Predictor

Think you’re smarter than a CNN pundit? Predict the next winner with our interactive app.

At campaign stops, Romney routinely shares his dark view of Obama and the present perilous moment. In Derry, New Hampshire, this weekend, he told a few hundred people, “What frightens me today is that we have a president I don’t think who understands the nature of America—the power of opportunity and freedom. I want to bring these things back to America so we have a brighter future.” And he maintained that the 2012 presidential election is “about the soul of America. Are we going to remain true to the principles that the nation was founded on? Are we going to remain a merit society?” At the first of two debates, Romney warned that Obama “wants us to turn into a European-style welfare state and have government take from some to give to others.”

Romney, a quarter-of-a-billionaire, never explained whether he opposes all redistributive programs—say, Medicare, Pell grants, and the like. But his basic case was that Obama would rather steal your wealth (his wealth?) than trust good ol’ American ingenuity to create more wealth. Obama, Romney declared at that debate, “has put America on a road to decline.” And, he has warned, if you folks don’t stop him, you’ll all end up living in—gasp!—Sweden.

For some, that is indeed a nightmare (despite the success of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo). But Santorum and Gingrich go far beyond this dour vision of an Obamaian future.

Santorum, who hasn’t appeared to have fully capitalized on his Iowa bump in New Hampshire, has been railing against Obama for plotting to diminish freedom and individual liberty—for seeking to preside over a society “where the government rules the citizenry, not the reverse.” Like Romney, Santorum has routinely charged that Obama doesn’t believe in American exceptionalism. At a campaign stop in Concord, Santorum told a conference of college students that the founding of the United States—due to the nation’s embrace of free markets and faith—led to the transition in Western nations from agrarian societies to industrial societies, and the subsequent shift to technological societies. Life expectancy, he claimed, did not change from the time of Jesus until the birth of the United States—it stayed at about 35 years—but then, with these changes, drastically increased as the faith-based new country led the way to a new era.

Yet now, Obama, the baby-faced Santorum proclaimed, is literally destroying (not just misunderstanding) the foundation of American society, as he and his relativist ilk refuse to adhere to absolutes. (“I do not believe life begins at conception,” Santorum told those college kids, “I know that life begins at conception.”) Obama, he charges, wants to play God, believing “we need leaders more capable of ruling us then of us ruling ourselves… Trust the planners, the smart people…our own nobility…who can do things better for us than we can do ourselves.”

At his final rally before Election Day, Santorum—whose campaign slogan is, “the Courage To Fight for America”—went all in: “If Barack Obama is reelected, then America as we know it will be gone. We will be a statist country. We will be a country that is no longer independent…The government…will control us.” His crowd of supporters—jammed into a pool-hall pub—cheered. Santorum, it seemed, was literally fighting for American independence.

Gingrich has been preaching a similar poli-apocalyptic vision. Speaking to employees at a power company in Manchester the day before the election, he called Obama “the most radical president in American history.” And in Gingrichian fashion, he pronounced 2012 ” the most important election of modern times.” That’s because the question at hand is whether the United States remains a nation “where citizen is sovereign and the government is servant…or becomes a European society…where government is sovereign and the citizen is servant.” And he one-upped Romney: Obama’s grand plan was not to turn the country into a European-style social welfare society, but a “secular” and “radical European socialist” nation. (Rick Perry, who made a cameo role in the New Hampshire contest by appearing at the debates, was a bit more blunt: “We have a president that’s a socialist. I don’t think our founding fathers wanted America to be a socialist country.” Socialism, it should be noted, was not quite around in the 1770s.)

You get the picture. Romney has voiced concern that Obama is an anti-American Robin Hood who wants to swipe the hard-earned cash of American taxpayers and hand it to others. Santorgrich believes Obama is hell-bent to crush faith and freedom in the United States. There is a slight difference. Saving the auto industry, crafting tax-cut compromises, negotiating spending cuts, lowering taxes for middle- and lower-income Americans, the Osama bin Laden raid, proposing investments in education, innovation, and research and development—none of that matters. The bottom line, in both iterations, is that the president is not a true American. For Romney, this is a matter of dollars and cents. For Gingratorum, this is a matter of profound theological and cultural significance.

Ron Paul, during his campaign rants against the current state of affairs, does not tend to cite Obama as an exceptionalist when it comes to demolishing US society. His target is the entire power structure, of which Obama is merely one player. Paul wants to tear down the entire system—before it implodes on its own, which, in his telling, could happen at any second. (Gold and silver!) Jon Huntsman refreshingly evinces disappointment in his former boss, not outright anger. He is trying to pitch a reasonable critique—”leadership,” he says, is “not about…vilifying”—and it hasn’t gotten him too far yet.

But the overarching thrust of the GOP attack on the president in New Hampshire has not been that he’s to blame for a crappy economy. It’s that he is not one of us and that the election at hand is not a face-off over policy disputes but a clash over the future of the idea of America. Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich are essentially calling the president a foreigner (Europe, Europe, Europe!) and campaigning to purge this country of Obama’s otherness. It’s an ugly narrative for ugly times.

Posted in CampaignsComments Off on New Hampshire GOP Narrative: Obama’s Not One of Us

President Obama and Congress: Stand Up for Me


Dear All

President Obama speaking


Tell Obama and Congress to stand up for you in the State of the Union address.


add your voice

President Obama will soon stand before Congress and deliver the last State of the Union address before the election. Pundits are already talking about the speech as a kickoff for the election and a referendum on what’s already happened.

But what issues will the President talk about? And will your Representatives stand with the 99% or sit on their hands?

If we want to focus the debate on the issues that matter and get the most powerful politicians in America to stand up for the 99%, this is our moment.

Click here to ask the President to stand up for you and the 99% in his speech, and for your Representatives to stand with him. Then, on January 24, we’ll all tune in together online to see who listens and who’s with the 1%.

For added impact you can share your story of how the last four years have affected you, your family, or your community. We’ll share the best stories with press and lawmakers to prove that when Congress and the President act for the 99%, it gets noticed and improves lives.

What kind of stories will help us win in 2012?

  • Have you or a family member received health care after being denied care by private insurance companies for a ‘pre-existing condition’?

  • Are you or your kids one of the 2.5 million young adults who can now receive their parent’s health care due to the Affordable Care Act?

  • Can you or a friend now serve proudly as a gay or lesbian service member?

  • Or do you know someone home from Iraq in time for the holidays?

  • Do you or your children get to go to college more easily because Pell Grants were significantly expanded?

  • Are you a Medicare recipient in the ‘donut hole’ who has saved 50% on prescription drugs?

Click here to share your personal story and ask Obama to stand up for you. We’ll share the best stories with the White House, Congress and the media to make sure they get the message.

Ask Obama to focus on what else needs to be done: fixing the economy, cutting spending on war and weapons, extending unemployment insurance and the social safety net, holding the big oil companies and Wall Street accountable, and more. Click here to tell Obama to stand up for the 99% in his State of the Union address.

David Elliot
USAction / TrueMajority

P.S. Stay tuned for more details about how you can watch the speech (Tuesday January 24th) and chat live online with USAction members across the country.

Posted in CampaignsComments Off on President Obama and Congress: Stand Up for Me

Shoah’s pages