Liberals long for President Reagan’s “more forceful” response
Last year Libya’s tyrannical leader Muammar Gaddafi praised Barack Obama, calling him “a friend,” and said he considered him a blessing to the Muslim world. “Now, ruling America is a black man from our continent, an African from Arab descent, from Muslim descent, and this is something we never imagined – that from Reagan we would get to Barakeh Obama.”
And although the United Nations’ Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, meddling in our state’s issue, released a scathing statement condemning Arizona’s SB1070, Obama refused to condemn — in fact, remained silent — regarding Libya’s election onto the farcical UN Human Rights Council.
Libya, a country with well documented ties to terrorist organizations and an abysmal human rights record, was elected in a secret ballot. U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice, an Obama appointee, would not reveal how the U.S. voted.
Now as pressure mounts on Obama to intervene in halting Muammar Gaddafi’s bloody massacre of civilians in Libya, numerous commentators — including Obama loyalist Matthews — have been wondering why Barack Obama has been guarded in his criticism of the dictator. Obama zealously supported the recent removal of U.S. ally, Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak.
Are you curious as to the odd turn of events? Connect the dots.
WorldNetDaily does a masterful job of revealing the strange underpinnings and bizarre links. Gaddafi has been tied to Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s decades-long spiritual adviser. The Libyan dictator also has financed and strongly supported the Nation of Islam and its leader, Louis Farrakhan. Obama has ties to Farrakhan and his controversial group.
When committed lefties such as Chris Matthews, who previously admitted Obama’s election gave him a “thrill up my leg” are disenchanted, how well does it bode for the president’s aspirations in 2012?