Obama’s War on Me

If Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, "We’re going to punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us," if they don’t see that kind of upsurge in voting in this election, then I think it’s going to be harder, and that’s why I think it’s so important that people focus on voting on November 2. – Barack Obama, Univision Interview, Oct. 25, 2010 (emphasis mine.)

That’s right. I am one of the President’s enemies, as are at least 60% of the rest of the country. Apparently, anyone who thinks that illegal immigration is, you know, illegal and dangerous to the sovereignty and safety of our country is an enemy and should be punished, according to our President. In fact, just the fact that you are reading this means that chances are good that you are an enemy of the President, as well.

Of course, this is not surprising. I knew the President held me in low regard before this. He has, at various times, described me as a bitter man, clinging to my guns and religion selfish, and racist. (Full disclosure - I don’t own any guns, but I will admit to clinging to my religion, though I’m pretty sure that Obama didn’t mean that as a compliment.) Just recently, he used the racially charged Jim Crow term to consign me to ride “in the back” of the bus, a phrase that would have been loudly denounced had it come from a conservative, and rightly so.

In Obama’s America, no one has an honest difference of opinion with him. Anyone who disagrees with him has malign intentions and are not opponents to be engaged and debated, but are enemies to be punished. We have seen plenty of evidence of this, such as when the White House tried to institute a boycott of FOX News – a move that failed due to the unexpected spine of the other news networks and the fact that no one hardly watches any other news, anymore.

It is an incredible thing when an American President declares that those with ideological differences are enemies, a designation, let it be known, that Obama will not utter in speaking of Iran, Hezbollah, or other of America’s enemies throughout the world. In fact, the same President who has called me an enemy, shook Hugo Chavez’s hand and addressed him as, “Mi amigo” (my friend.)

This is quite a departure from a candidate who campaigned as a post-partisan, post-racial “uniter, not a divider.” In fact, not since Woodrow Wilson has a president been more divisive. Can anyone imagine Ike, Reagan, Clinton, either Bush, or, yes, even Nixon refer to the majority of Americans as his enemy?

Six weeks after his inauguration, I wrote an article describing how it was obvious that President Obama was in over his head, an article for which I lost at least a couple of friends who, in true liberal fashion, accused me of racism. That is a common tactic of the left – if you can’t argue facts and policy, revert to racism as a conversation-stopper, a temptation that even our “post-racial” President can’t resist. At the mid-point of his first term, however, I am being vindicated by the fact that it appears as if the President’s political party is about to suffer an electoral defeat of near-epic proportions, based on his policies and his accomplishments. He has demonstrated himself to be intellectually vapid and morally vacuous. He is a small man in a big job.

We cannot have a President who thinks of greater than half of Americans as “the enemy.” We have seen that he will not hesitate to push cramming legislation down the throats of a majority of Americans who express a vociferous opposition, simply because he believes that he is right and those who disagree are stupid, special interest shills, racists, or all the above. It is essential that Americans elect a Congress that can stand up to the President and, yes, obstruct some of that destructive legislation. It is a further imperative that this man is a one-term President and that we put someone in office who respects Americans and is deserving of the job.

A Clear Choice

We are one week away from a historic election. Now, I am not one to indiscriminately encourage people to get out and vote because, frankly, I believe that most Americans have no business voting. Too often, Americans know the smallest detail about how Joey Buttafuco beat Lorena Bobbitt in Dancing with the Stars, but don’t have the foggiest idea of where their politicians stand on issues or even what those issues may be. Consequently, decisions on who we will have governing our country are decided by people who vote for an individual because of the candidate’s hairstyle, because their commercial tells the most convincing lie, or because I’ve always voted for one or the other of the political parties and everyone knows that the other party is evil. In my opinion, people who have not educated themselves on the issues and the candidates have a responsibility to stay home and not vote.

This year, however, the political landscape is different and the issues are much more black and white. This has presented the voters, even those who do not follow politics closely, a clear choice. Because the Democrats have had control of the White House and a veto-proof majority in the Senate and overwhelming majority in the House of Representatives, we know exactly the governing inclinations of the Democrat party.

If you desire a large government that interposes itself in every aspect of business, even to the point of essentially buying those businesses (GM, Chrysler, multiple banks), you should vote Democrat.

If you approve of a government that tells you what commodities you must buy, whether you want it or not, and one that would fundamentally destroy the best health care system in the world, you should vote Democrat.

If it is of no concern to you that those you elect disregard the wishes of the people and pass laws because they, in their wisdom, know better than you, and then complain that you should not be offended, but should, instead, thank them for it, you should vote Democrat.

If you are fine with your elected leaders systematically denigrating large swaths of the populace and stoking racial and class division, you should vote Democrat.

If you think that it is the government’s role to tell you what you can or cannot say, listen to, or even eat, you should vote Democrat.

If you think that giving foreign enemies of our country the same rights as our citizens, if you think it is a good idea to bring them from the battlefield into our civilian courts, and if you think that returning war veterans and the Christian right are as big a threat to our country as Al Qaeda, you should vote Democrat.

If you believe that the way to increase employment is to tax those who create the vast majority of jobs in this country so that we can spend trillions of dollars in order to do things like teach men in Africa to wash their genitals after sex, study the effects of cocaine on monkeys, and build turtle tunnels under highways, you should vote Democrat.

If you truly believe that the “biggest bang for the buck” in stimulus is food stamps and unemployment insurance, you should vote Democrat.

If you believe that a stagnant 10% unemployment rate, in spite of trillions of dollars of debt incurred, more debt in the first two years of this administration than was incurred from the administrations of George Washington through George W. Bush, has placed the country, “On the right track,” you should vote Democrat.

In short, if you think that the last two years of governing has been just wonderful and that you want the country to continue in the direction it is now heading, vote Democrat.

But if you are tired of Washington treating you like you are a child who needs their guidance, if you are think that government isn’t the answer to every question, if you are a believer in the free market and in American ingenuity and exceptionalism, then vote Republican.

Frankly, given their recent track record, I am not enamored of the current crop of Republicans. But like columnist Frank J. Fleming said, the Republicans suck in the manner of a dog barking all night, but the Democrats suck like the zombie apocalypse. We can’t say that we don’t want to escape the zombies because if we do so, we’ll have to go back to listening to that stupid dog barking all night. And, hopefully, the Republicans have been paying attention and will be responsive to their constituents this time. If not, we’ll vote ‘em out in 2012. And, if nothing else, at least the gridlock will stop the destruction of our way of life that is currently occurring.

This is an extraordinarily important election and the choices couldn’t be more clear.

Obama Is Making Things Difficult For His Defenders

A couple of weeks ago, a survey was published that indicated that 18% of Americans believe President Obama is Muslim and that only 34% of Americans believe he is Christian. A plurality of Americans (43%) said they didn’t know. This was roundly met with hysteria on the side of the left and the Main Stream Media (but I repeat myself) who claimed that everything from stupidity to racism was responsible for the misunderstanding. But Obama is making it very difficult for his defenders to continue to hold to their talking points.

In addition to sitting for over 20 years in a church presided over by a hate-spewing preacher whose doctrine is anything but Christian, in addition to regularly disparaging Christians (racists clinging to their God and their guns), he continues to stumble over basic precepts. For the latest example, check out this video during his speech for a dinner sponsored by the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute. See if you can spot the missing phrase:

If you picked up that the inalienable rights are apparently no longer “endowed by their creator”, you may be one of those religious bigots that Obama warned us about.

Are we to believe that this “genius” President just forgot that phrase? If so, I would like to congratulate the President on weaning himself from his teleprompter, even if only for a phrase.

Is America Islamophobic?

In my opinion, there are several suffixes in the political jargon of the day that need to die painful deaths. One of these is -gate. Since the infamous Watergate break-in, almost every political scandal or pseudoscandal has been labeled with this prefix. It has gotten to the point that, last month, after President Obama claimed he didn’t know who someone named Snookie (who is, apparently, some tramp in New Jersey who appears on some ridiculous “reality TV show”) was, even though he had previously used her name in a joke some speechwriter wrote for him. Some headline writer promptly labeled this “scandal”, Snookie-gate. Come on, people! Nixon resigned 36 years ago. Are you telling me that you couldn’t come up with something more original after 3 ½ decades?

Another suffix that should meet its ignoble end, at least in the political sense, is the suffix -phobia. Now phobia is a perfectly good psychological term, defined as an irrational and/or debilitating fear. Arachnophobia is an irrational and/or debilitating fear of spiders. Triskaidekaphobia is the irrational and/or debilitating fear of the number 13. Tristadekaphobia is an irrational and/or debilitating fear of pickles. (I actually have a friend who has this fear and, if she reads this, she will, no doubt, recognize herself and probably be surprised that I remembered. But there is no way I would ever forget something like that.)

The first political usage I can recall of -phobia, is homophobia. Now, of all the political uses of –phobia­, this may have been the closest to a correct usage. When AIDS was a rapidly expanding epidemic that was little understood, totally untreatable, and largely confined to IV drug users and the gay community, there probably was a true fear of gays, though I’m not sure that fear was totally irrational given as little as was known about the disease and its communicability. As HIV/AIDS and its mode of transmission and successful treatments have developed, true homophobia is probably very rare. In the meantime, the term has been warped to mean, roughly, “An epithet to be used in any instance of disagreement with the gay community.” Therefore, anyone who disagrees with gay marriage, gays in the military, etc., has been labeled homophobic, even though their reasons may be well-intentioned and well-considered and have little or nothing to do with fear of gays.

Like the perfectly utilitarian words fascism and racism, the suffix –phobia has been thrown around so indiscriminately that it has come to mean, “You disagree with me.” The latest iteration of this is the term, Islamophobia – literally, an irrational and/or debilitation fear of Islam.

We have heard this term since the 9/11/01 attacks. In fact, Islamophobia has been bandied about so much that one might be excused for thinking that the attacks were directed against Islam, rather than the other way around. Lately, we have been inundated with claims of American Islamophobia because of the controversy about the Ground Zero Mosque.

So is America Islamophobic? The answer is a flat NO. This country, in keeping with our tolerant, pluralistic tradition is quite possibly the most religiously tolerant country on the face of the earth. Even though after every attack on the United States by Islamic terrorists, we were roundly warned against retaliation, the people of the United States have been remarkably tolerant of Muslims in our midst. There has been no whole-scale persecution of American Muslims. There has been no pattern of mosque burnings. Each time a Muslim commits an atrocity against the United States – 9/11, Ft. Hood shooting, Christmas panty-bomber, and others – what has been America’s reaction? Precisely nothing. The long-awaited backlash has never occurred. According to the FBI, who tracks “hate crimes” (an odious designation, in itself), the most recent data available (2008) showed that for hate crimes involving a religious bias, 66.1% of the victims were Jewish and only 7.5% of the victims were Muslim.

Another reason the United States is not Islamophobic is because whatever fear of Islam there may be is neither irrational nor debilitating. Franklin D. Roosevelt’s famous plagiarized quote, “We have nothing to fear but fear, itself,” is a pithy, clever statement. It is also as false as Tammy Faye’s eyelashes. There are things out there that you darn well better fear. Fear is a God-given emotion that is designed for our survival. For example, most humans have a fear of snakes. This is a good thing in that there are snakes that can kill us. Our fear of snakes helps to keep us alive in those areas that are home to poisonous snakes. Likewise, if you live in a high crime area, your fear causes you to make sure your doors are locked and to be more alert on your strolls around the block. This is a healthy response and is one of those instincts that are essential to the survival of the human species.

The fact of the matter is that there are a not insignificant number of radical Muslims that want to kill us. Our political leaders keep telling us that Islam is a religion of peace, a concept that would, no doubt, be confusing to Mohammed, whose life and writings show he was a man who was not hesitant to wield a sword. As has been demonstrated numerous times over the past several decades, however, we may not be at war with Islam, but there is a faction of Islam that is at war with us. We know that this has penetrated deep into American life and even into our military. It is not unreasonable, therefore, that we have a healthy fear of Islam. It was the intentional disregard of this healthy fear that lead to the massacre of 13 people and the wounding of 30 others at Ft. Hood. We allow our reasonable fear to be allayed at our peril.

In spite of assurances by our leaders in Washington and elsewhere that we have nothing to fear from Islam, they understand that this is not true. Now I believe that those mallet-heads that would burn Qurans are stupid, provocative, and have very little understanding of true Christianity. But the response of our government illustrate very well that they know that there is something to fear from Islam. That is why General Petraeus warned that burning the Quran would endanger our troops, a message further reiterated by Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, in a personal phone call to the lead Quran burning pinhead, Terry Jones. Eric Holder, the Attorney General, called Quran burning, “Idiotic and dangerous.” Both of which are true. The FBI even had a private chat with Mr. (I refuse to use the honorific, Rev.) Jones and reportedly said, “You know what happens to people who burn Qurans, right?” The FBI has even published a report that states that retaliation for the Quran burning is likely.

Compare that reaction with the reaction of Americans to the building of a controversial mosque at Ground Zero. No FBI visits to the Muslim community were necessary. Instead of President Obama, Eric Holder, and Robert Gates, among others, speaking out against this insensitive act, they supported it against the wishes of the majority of Americans. A solitary attack against an anti-Ground Zero Mosque Muslim cab driver by a man who volunteered with a group that supports the Ground Zero Mosque could just as easily have been perpetrated in order to try to make people believe that it was an attack in response to “Islamophobia”. But our government knows that, while there are a few nuts out there, the overwhelming majority of Americans pose no threat to the Islamic community. The converse is obviously untrue.

Of course, this is not to say that all Muslims are terrorists. Most Muslims in the United States are truly peace-loving people who make good friends and neighbors. But there are enough radicals who want to kill us and our way of life that a healthy fear is not unreasonable and shouldn’t be debilitating. Unfortunately, this seems better understood by our populace than by our leaders.

Obama's Labor Day Gift to Labor

On Labor Day this week, President Obama interrupted his 7th vacation since July 4th to jet to Milwaukee for yet another address from on high. That the President chose to deliver his message to a crowd composed of AFL-CIO union members was only right. After all, he bought them, he should be able to get some use out of them.

The line that got the most attention from the President was the "off-the-teleprompter" remark that, "They talk about me like a dog." This is patently untrue, since the majority of Americans like their dogs. Obama's poll numbers, in the meantime, have been falling faster than a fat man's pants on America's Funniest Home Videos. As usual, the White House has determined that this is because they have a "communications problem". To their way of thinking, whenever the American public doesn't like something, it is obviously because we are too stupid to understand the brilliance of their thinking, so they send out the Professor-in-Chief to explain it to us - over and over and over again. Hey, Chief, here's an idea - maybe your poll numbers are slipping not because of your communication, but because of the message that you are trying to communicate.

Of course, the usual suspects on the left are equally as convinced that the problem is that the President and his lackey-controlled Congress are having problems because they have been, get this, too moderate! That's right, according to former Enron-advisor Paul Krugman, Thomas Friedman, et al., this president, who has nationalized two thirds of our auto manufacturers, nationalized our largest lending and finance institutions, nationalized our health care system, wishes to tax us for using energy, appeased our enemies while snubbing our allies, and has increased the federal deficit more than all the presidents from George Washington through Ronald Reagan combined, is too "moderate".

This brings us back to the Labor Day speech. Obama obviously borrowed a page from out-going Chairperson of the President's Council of Economic Advisors, Christina Romer’s, resignation speech when she said (paraphrased) that the stimulus bill didn't work and, therefore, what we need is more stimulus. As one wag on Twitter stated, “President Obama is the type that, when he walks into a wall, feels the next time he should walk faster.”

Yes, that’s right. Obama is proposing more spending. He announced a $50 billion new plan to spend on infrastructure. According to Obama, this will create new jobs immediately while jump-starting the economy. Why didn’t someone think of that before? Oh, that’s right, they did. The first stimulus plan, we were told, would provide money for “shovel-ready” jobs that would keep unemployment under 8% while ramping up the economy and putting a unicorn in every garage. Okay, I made that bit about the unicorn up, but it is about as believable. In fact, unemployment promptly climbed to about 10%, where it has hovered for the past several months. The “Summer of Recovery” has become the Summer of Wreckovery as the economy stumbles, zombie-like, with practically no growth. Now, President Obama, who just last week told us that, “The economy is right on track,” now tells us that he wants to spend another $50 billion to, apparently, get the economy right on a better track.

President Obama has never run a business. He has never had to meet a payroll or balance a budget. As a community organizer, his job was, basically, to try to get as much money from the government as possible to put toward whatever community he was organizing at the time. It is understandable that he would think the way to solve every problem is to throw money at it. The problem is that money has to come from somewhere. Cutting spending is unacceptable to a Democrat (and most Republicans), so that leaves printing money and devaluing the currency, borrowing, taxing, or some combination of the three. While Obama, as a crumb to Democrats running for Congress in the midterms, sounds like he will extend the Bush tax cuts for the “middle class” (though don’t believe it until you see it), he says that he has no plans to extend the Bush tax cuts for “millionaires and billionaires”, redefined by this administration to include anyone making over $200,000 a year. Of course, many of those filing taxes that make over $200,000 are small businesses filing as individuals.

This new infrastructure bill is merely yet another sop to the Democrat’s favorite special interest group – the unions. Now, I admit that there is a real need for some infrastructure repair and restoration, though in my opinion, like almost everything else, infrastructure repair would be better performed by almost any entity that is not run out of Washington. The fact is, according to the Davis-Bacon Act, any public works project funded by Washington is required to pay union scale wages and benefits. If we really wanted to put Americans back to work and reducing our deficit, Obama would suspend this act, as was done by Franklin Roosevelt, Nixon and both Bushes during times of emergency. Actually, he should repeal it, but the fact that he would rather have bamboo skewers inserted under his fingernails than upset the unions tells us all we need to know about how serious he is about turning around the economy.

If Obama really wanted to help the economy, he would dispel the climate of uncertainty around business by extending all the Bush tax cuts. He would push for a decreased business tax, and relax some of the ridiculous small-business strangling regulations. He would push for a repeal of Obamacare, which places huge taxes on businesses and individuals. He would announce a series of austerity measures to concentrate on reducing the deficit and he would resist the urge to insert the government in every crisis, allowing the free market to regulate itself, as it is meant to do.

Of course, the chances of any of this happening is approximately equal to that of Santa Claus sliding down my chimney on Christmas Eve and leaving Catherine Zeta Jones in my stocking (or better yet, in her stockings.)

Our economy needs a stimulus, but the stimulus it needs can only come from the private sector when the government gets out of the way. What we don’t need right now is another union handout.

Curmudgeonly Suggestions for Restaurants

I am uncertain about the age at which one passes from being a whiner to a curmudgeon. But now that I’m over 50 years old, I’m going to take the risk and assume that I have passed that threshold. I have a few pet peeves (and by “a few”, I mean “almost everything”) concerning restaurant service that I will now share for those of you in the restaurant business who may, potentially, see me as a customer

1. If you are a waiter, don’t sit at my table when taking my order – Seriously, when did this become okay? Listen, if I had wanted you to sit at my table, I would have invited you to dinner.

2. I can read my own menu, thank you – If you have specials that are not on the menu, fine, fire away. Otherwise, if the menu is confusing enough that you have to read it or explain it to me, you should probably re-think how your menu is written. But what I really don’t need is for you to stand (or sit . . . grrrrrrr!) there and read for me what I can read for myself.

3. I don’t want to get to know you – I don’t go to restaurants to make new friends. Often, I am at restaurants with friends with whom I’d like to converse. I don’t need the waiter to be my new best friend for the evening. I really don’t care if your mother loves the restaurant’s meatloaf. I don’t care if you are an aspiring cosmetologist. Frankly, I don’t even care that your name is Jake. If I want to know something, I will ask.

4. Just keep the darn sweetener on the table – Is sugar and Splenda now so expensive that we have to specifically ask for it to sweeten our tea? Are old ladies bankrupting restaurants by squirreling away packets of Equal in their purses? (Okay, I can sort of believe that one.) Just keep it on the table.

5. Don’t interrupt my conversation to ask me if I want my water refilled – The answer is always, “Yes.” Water is as close to free as it gets. Just assume that I want it refilled and refill it.

6. Don’t ask me how my food tastes – Don’t you know? Are you that unconfident in the consistency of your kitchen that you need to ask? Of course, this question almost always comes either in mid-chew or mid-conversation. (A corollary to this is to ask, before I’ve even had a chance to taste it, “How does everything look?” You have eyes, see for yourself.)

7. If I want to talk with the manager, I’ll ask for him – When we see a sudden trend in medicine, a sudden upsurge in the ordering of a specific test, for example, we joke that someone must have written an article in a popular medical journal on it. Someone must have written an article saying that what restaurant customers want more than anything in the world is for the manager come to their table, interrupt their conversation, introduce themselves, and ask if everything is okay. Hey, Mr. Manager. If everything is not okay, I will ask for you.

8. Cut it out with the birthday songs, already – Jeez, is there anything more irritating than to be in a restaurant having a nice conversation with someone when, all of a sudden, a raucous chorus of “This Is Your Birthday Song”, sung at 110 decibels, drowns out the conversation? This goes double for the birthday songs that begin with someone yelling to the entire restaurant, “May I have your attention, please!” Save the birthday songs for Chuck E. Cheese.

As a final note, I have one more suggestion for our friends in the British Isles – Iced tea is made by taking tea and pouring it over ice. It is really not that complicated. You guys made tea a national pastime, don’t tell me that you don’t have iced tea. Yes, Americans like their tea cold. We won the war, you lost. Get over it and give us ice in our tea.

Is Barack Obama A Muslim And Does It Matter?

Last week, Pew Research Company, a respected polling company, released a poll indicating that 18% of Americans think that President Obama is a Muslim. More interesting to me is that only 34% of respondants believe that he is what he claims to be - a Christian - or that a full 43% of people say that they don't know. This prompted the White House, aided by their usual allies in the mainstream media, to issue full-throated denials. Many news organizations including flatly stated that the perception of Obama as a Muslim is incorrect. The Associated Press calls the belief "incorrect", the Washington Post calls the belief "wrong", and the New York Times calls it a "misperception." I'm not even going to try to figure out how these organizations make that determination. I assume they take what the President says at face value which, as the last two years has shown, is a risky proposition.

Of course, the usual suspects are crying foul. John Farrell at US News and World Report says that those people who think Obama is Muslim are either "not paying attention" or are "willfully stupid." The George Soros funded Media Matters claim that Americans are falling for Right-Wing lies. And, of course, Ramzi Kassem of the New York Daily News, among others, claim that the rumors are due to . . . wait for it . . . you guessed it . . . racism.

I think that Byron York in the Washington Examiner gets it right in his typically outstanding article when he says that, if people are confused about Obama’s religion, he has only himself to blame. For the record, I don’t believe that President Obama is a Muslim. You can put me in the “none of the above” category. I think he is probably agnostic or possesses a belief outside of mainstream Christianity.

What, then, to think of the 1 in 5 people who think the President is a Muslim? First, we have to realize that is the same percentage that believe that aliens have visited earth, that believe the sun orbits the earth, and that is less than the percentage of the people who believe that the United States government was behind the 9/11 attacks (36%). In other words, approximately the same number of Americans believe the President is Muslim as believe that little green men with anal probes are kidnapping West Virginians. I think we can see that there are some people who will believe anything, no matter how strange.

Of course, some of those people may just be like me. If my caller ID was broken and I accidentally picked up the phone for a survey like this, I might claim that President Obama was born on a rocket ship inbound from Planet Zygon 6 and worships Neptune, just to mess with the pollsters.

So, does it really matter if the President is a Muslim? Well, some might say, it would undermine American’s trust in him because he lied about it. I’d reply that if they are just realizing that Obama lied to them, they haven’t been paying attention.

In actuality, if Obama was a Muslim, it might explain a lot, but it would change very little. Already, Obama is much more conciliatory toward Muslim countries than he is toward our traditional allies and, especially, toward Israel. From bowing before the Saudi king to drastically rewriting history in his Cairo speech to standing by silently while Iranian Republican Guards mowed down protestors in the streets, Obama has bent over backwards to curry favor with Islamic countries. At the same time, he has shown the back of his hand to our traditional Middle Eastern ally, Israel.

In the United States, Obama has been the apologist-in-chief for Islam in the United States, lecturing the public on the glories and beauty of Islam and, most recently, giving his imprimatur to a mosque planned for New York’s Ground Zero. While Obama has cancelled the National Day of Prayer ceremonies during his tenure in the White House, ostensibly concerned about the propriety of hosting a religious event, he has, over that same period, held Iftar dinners to celebrate the end of Ramadan.

So, it doesn’t really make a lot of difference if Obama is a Muslim or not. He clearly has a greater affinity for Islam than he has for traditional Christianity or Judaism. His foreign policy would not appreciably change, with the possible exception of dropping the pretense of a modicum of support for Israel. I could hardly see how much more hostile to Christianity and Judaism or conciliatory to Islam that this administration could be.

Meanwhile, while we are arguing over is-he-or-isn’t-he, we are losing jobs, going deeper in debt, destroying our health care system, and running our economy into the ground. There are plenty of excellent reasons to oppose this President and his policies, his religious affiliation, or lack thereof, is not one of them.