Posts Tagged 'Obama'

More advice from Professor Walt?

by David Smith

I see Professor Stephen Walt is once again offering us his foreign policy insights (“Time to get US nukes out of Europe”.)

He raises an interesting question about the future US role in Europe’s defense.  But he does so in a way that reminds of the kind of thinker he is. He is a thorough-going Chamberlainesque isolationist appeaser.  He is also an ntellectual leader and apologist for the anti-Zionist, anti-Israel left.

To start, he demonstrates US foolishness by wondering why we still worry about airport security “long after Osama bin Laden’s death.”  He believes Islamist terrorism was a one-man band, now deceased!

And how about his previous advice?

The best way to stop Iran from building nuclear weapons is to engage it diplomatically and attempt to normalize its relationship with the US.”

This is from the his best-seller The Israel Lobby, published 2007. Its central thesis was that US foreign policy was directed by Israel and its friends, to the detriment of America’s real interests. In other words, the Jews are running this country. Continue reading ‘More advice from Professor Walt?’

WW12ID: What Would the 12th Imam Do?

The latest news from Iran.  According to the AP, “Iran may be cleaning up nuke work”.  That is, they appear from satellites to be cleaning up radioactive debris from a site where they appear to be testing “nuclear triggers”.  The report comes from diplomats working with the International Atomic Energy Agency.

“The IAEA has already identified the Parchin military site as the location of suspected nuclear weapons-related testing. In a November report, it said it appeared to be the site of experiments with conventional high explosives meant to initiate a nuclear chain reaction.

“It did not mention a neutron initiator as part of those tests but in a separate section cited an unnamed member nation as saying Iran may have experimented with a neutron initiator, without going into detail or naming a location for such work.”

If you are wondering what a nuclear initiator looks like, don’t bother asking at your nearest nuclear power plant.  Peaceful users of nuclear energy don’t need them.  Only warheads need them.

This must all be very mysterious to the great minds in the Obama Administration who think Iran just can’t make up its mind.  Continue reading ‘WW12ID: What Would the 12th Imam Do?’

Is Iran a “Rational Actor”?

Here are the recent thoughts of the Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey on the subject of Iran and its nuclear program:

We also know or believe we know that the Iranian regime has not decided that they will embark on the effort to weaponize their nuclear capability.…And we are of the opinion that the Iranian regime is a rational actor.”

That first assertion could be made only by someone with a very weak connection to reality. To doubt Iran’s serious commitment to “weaponizing thdeir nuclear capacity”, one must ignore:

  • Iran’s ten-year history of covert nuclear development;
  • Iran’s outright rejection of numerous UN mandates to open its nuclear program to inspection;
  • Iran’s insistence on moving its nuclear facilities to underground bunkers;
  • Iran’s continuing official threats to destroy America and wipe Israel “off the map”;
  • Subtle hints like this headline from Iran’s official news agency: “The wife of an assassinated Iranian nuclear scientist reiterated on Tuesday that her husband sought the annihilation of the Zionist regime wholeheartedly”;
  • And, finally, Iran’s acceptance of the cost of a decade of slowly escalating sanctions, which might have been easily avoided by allowing inspections.

But forget all that. Let’s look at the other assertion: the Iranian regime is a “rational actor”. In other words, they are not crazy. They can be relied upon to do the rational thing, and therefore they will be deterred by the threat of retaliation from Israel or the US if they initiate a nuclear attack on Israel (or us).

This assertion may be true or it may be false. Consider those two possibilities.

If the regime is rational, it will presumably weigh the benefits and risks before initiating an attack. And what will they conclude? Will they quake in fear at the prospect that President Obama would retaliate against Iran, given that Russia and/or China would almost certainly threaten counter-retaliation? Or will they conclude that any US response would be limited to condemnation, sanctions, and aid to any Israeli survivors. If you can imagine Obama pressing the button for military action to punish Israel’s murderers after the fact, then you need to look in the mirror and ask what kind of actor you are.

But what about Israeli retaliation? Wouldn’t that threat be sufficient to deter a nuclear Iran?

Maybe yes, maybe no. Unlike the US and USSR, Israel is so small (about the size of New Jersey) that targeting all its military sites in a “first strike” is by no means unthinkable. And if a few nukes escape and get through to Iran, the devastation of a few centers might be survivable.

As we know from the Cold War, “thinking about the unthinkable” is a strategic necessity for all nuclear states. We did it, the Soviets did it, and you can bet the Iranians are doing it, too. But they are processing the thought through a 7th century brain and the disturbing question: “What Would the 12th Imam Do?”

Yet General Dempsey says that Iran is a rational actor,

And General Dempsey is an honorable man. Continue reading ‘Is Iran a “Rational Actor”?’

Military Options Are Not Hopeless

Jonathan S. Tobin, writes in Commentary blog Contentions: Echoes of 1967 in Israel’s Iran Dilemma.  This is a refreshing counter-point to Barry Rubin’s depressing piece (cited below).

I myself don’t know what Israel’s leadership should do.  I have no inside information on Iranian defences or Israeli military options.

But I like what Tobin is saying.  He simply argues that the military option is not hopeless.  Iran is not invulnerable.  This doesn’t sound particularly controversial until you consider how many supposed “realists” treat with the contrary proposition as a default axiom, a matter that must be taken on faith.

Tobin also points to the similarity with 1967, when world opinion was united in urging Israel not to take preemptive action against Egypt’s planned holocaust.

What is most surprising is today’s “realist’s” claim that an Israeli strike would turn Iran into an implacable enemy of Israel!  Have these guys been listening to Iran’s leaders lately?  It’s worse, more openly genocidal, than anything Nasser ever spouted.

Back by popular request: Fathers of Daughters

[This was originally posted right after the 2008 election.  It has stirred considerable interest, so here it is again.  The "friend of mine" referred to is Mister Ben Finiti.]

A friend of mine used to theorize that all conservatism, and therefore all defense of society, rests on the fathers of daughters – FODs, as he called them.

He explained that it is only when one has children that one begins to recognize how fragile is the future, how dangerous the present, and how great our responsibility to protect the vulnerable, such as children.

The problem is that women, for the most part, tend to believe that the world is dangerous only by accident, rather than as a basic, natural condition.  My friend claimed that he had never met a woman who would not agree with the statement that “People are basically good.”  And increasingly many men agree with them.

Of course, people are not basically good.  Any Christian who even slightly understands the doctrine of Original Sin can be in no doubt about this.  But most Americans, including most church-goers, would readily subscribe to the “basically good” hypothesis.

As Reinhold Niebuhr put it, “No cumulation of contradictory evidence seems to disturb modern man’s good opinion of himself.”  Yet it is modern woman who seems most undisturbed by human nature.

So women, even as mothers, tend to underestimate the degree of the risks their children face in society. Continue reading ‘Back by popular request: Fathers of Daughters’

They Are So Right!

Israeli officials are so frustrated with Obama’s refusal to take strong action against Iran that they are finally speaking out.

Read about it here.

The headline:

Israeli officials: Obama too soft on Iran

The sub-head:

Top government officials laud France, UK, but tell Ynet White House policy with regards to Iranian nuclear program ‘hesitant’

Is there anything more humiliating than a United States president too timid to follow the lead of Britain and France?  I mean, they invented appeasement, for crying out loud!   (See my “The Arc of Appeasement” below or here.)

Has there ever been a more anti-Israel, pro-appeasement president than Obama?  Not even Eisenhower, no friend of Israel, would have stood for Iran’s outrageous actions.  Unfortunately, Obama cannot distinguish between speeches and actions.  He believes that when he speaks, the world listens.  But why would they?

In O’s first year, French President Sarkozy lectured Obama for his big talk unaccompanied by action.  He told the Security Council (I spotlighted it below, in “A French Lesson”):

“We live in the real world, not the virtual world. And the real world expects us to take decisions.    President Obama dreams of a world without weapons … but right in front of us two countries are doing the exact opposite.  Iran since 2005 has flouted five security council resolutions. North Korea has been defying council resolutions since 1993…”

Since that scolding, Obama has continued to block any type of strong action, including serious sanctions.  As he has done before, he supports the weakest possible sanctions and hopes everything will somehow work out.

 

Flashback: Bullwinkle: “Hey Rocky, watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat!”

Rocky: “That trick never works.”

Bullwinkle: “This time for sure.”

Bullwinkle (after trick fails): “I gotta get a new hat.”

 

Obama doesn’t need a new hat.  He needs a backbone.

Media Loses Another “Moderate Cleric”, Worries About the Rest

The Associated Press bias machine is at it again.  In an article “NYPD Spied on Muslim Partners”, the AP expressed its shock and disapproval (in a “news story“!) of the New York Police covertly collecting information on a Muslim cleric who appears to be a model of moderation.

In 2007, the New York Times wrote glowingly of Sheikh Reda Shata in 2007, describing “his efforts to reconcile Muslim traditions with American life.”

So why would the NYPD collect information about his activities?

Consider the earlier story of another moderate cleric.  In 2001, right after the 9/11 attacks, the New York Times reported that:

“Imam Anwar Al-Awlaki, spiritual leader at the Dar al-Hijra mosque in Virginia, one of the nation’s largest…at 30 is held up as a new generation of Muslim leader capable of merging East and West.”  

By 2010, a different face of Imam Al-Awlaki had become obvious. The AP then reported that:

“Al-Awlaki has urged Muslims to kill Americans and has been linked to last year’s shooting at a U.S. Army base in Texas, and the attempted bombing of a U.S.-bound flight last Christmas Day, Dec. 25. Continue reading ‘Media Loses Another “Moderate Cleric”, Worries About the Rest’

You Gotta See This

Are you familiar with the Pajamas Media website? If not, you should take a look.  Their coverage of a wide range of issues is  often provocative but (and?) always interesting and fact-based.

An outstanding post specific to the Israel-Palestinian issue is currently running there.  “Darkness In Palestine”, is a poignant and troubling on-the-ground look at the West Bank town of Hebron.  The author, Michael J. Totten, describes the reality of the Jewish settlers’ life in some of the most hostile areas outside the “pre-1967 borders” that our president is so insistent on.  He reveals the history of Arab anti-Semitism and “ethnic cleansing” (i.e., genocide) which have produced the nearly “Jew-free” areas in the West Bank.  He exposes the real meaning of opposition to the settlements; the Jewish settlements are hated because Jews are hated. Continue reading ‘You Gotta See This’

The Latest Palestinian Peace News

Palestinians Endorse “Country-Of-Origin Labeling”

Here are two news reports from the invaluable Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI).

First, Hamas clarifies its position on future Israeli borders.

Osama Hamdan, Head of the Hamas Foreign Liaisons: Armed Confrontation Will Continue to Be “the Backbone of the Resistance”, the Israelis Must Return to Their Countries of Origin - interview aired on Al-Jadid/New TV on May 4, 2011: (that is 2 weeks before recent the Netanyahu/Obama exchanges):

“There is no doubt, however, that the armed confrontation will continue to be the main effort and the backbone of the resistance, until the liberation of Palestine.”

“I think that politically, the two-state solution is over. The people who suggested this notion are the ones who say so. Therefore, trying to talk about a two-state solution again is like talking about something that is over and done with.” 

“I think that we are entering the phase of the liberation of Palestine. When we talk about the liberation of Palestine, we are talking about the notion of Return: the return of the refugees to their homeland, and the return of the Israelis to the countries from which they came.”

So there you have it: the Palestinian view of future Israeli border is not pre 1967, but rather pre-1948.  Actually, it is even worse.  Though Jews have lived in the area for thousands of years, they are now to…get out.

At least the Palestinians support “Country-Of-Origin Labeling”

And here is news of the welfare state, Palestinian Authority style: Continue reading ‘The Latest Palestinian Peace News’

Iran: Same Old Debate, But the Clock is Ticking

One might ask what progress has been made on stopping Iran’s nuclear weapons program since the Obama administration took over a year and a half ago. In that respect, I recently reviewed a dialogue I had with Mr. Frankie Sturm, Communications Director of the “Truman National Security Project” back in March of 2009.  It turns out that every word written then is still relevant today; the only progress has been in Iran’s weapons program and in the erosion of US diplomatic prestige.  The Doomsday Clock is still inexorably approaching High Noon. (Whatever happened to the Doomsday Clock, BTW?)

Anyway, take a look and see if you don’t agree. 

See “A Dialogue with Mr. Frankie Sturm on Iran” here.

Agnostic about Genocide?

My friend Ben Finiti talks of having become a political agnostic, uncomfortable taking sides on many of the most contentious issues of our time. I feel the same – up to a point. I agree that many questions (stimulus, bailouts, immigration, health care, etc.) offer at least two sides with plausible concerns, relevant facts, and about the same level of good- and bad-faith arguments.  To invest in one position, I must do one of two things. I must decide that I know what this is all about and am sufficiently informed, disinterested, and dispassionate to be able to say which position should prevail. Or I must use my affiliations as guides to my positions (“My friends/family/party are for it, so that must be the right position.”) Like Ben, I find it increasingly difficult to do either on most issues.

But not on all issues. In the Middle East and around the world today, a struggle of titanic proportions is taking shape. The battles are still small by 20th-century standards. In Afghanistan and Iraq, US troops fight in the field.  Around the globe, security forces try to thwart murderous terrorists before they can strike at civilian targets.  Under multiculturalist banners, unassimilable immigrants demand recognition of Sharia law, accommodation of “honor killings”, and punishment for anti-Islamic speech. Continue reading ‘Agnostic about Genocide?’

Paging Dr. Walt and Dr. Mearsheimer

I Have a Question, Doctors

A few years ago, two professors wrote a book.  Stephen Walt (Harvard) and John Mearsheimer (Chicago) published The Israel Lobby in 2007, and it made quite a splash.  Its central thesis was that US foreign policy was directed by Israel and its friends, to the detriment of America’s real interests.  In other words, the Jews are running this country.

 Accusations of anti-Semitism arose, but were deftly parried by the authors and their defenders.  It’s about Israel, they responded; it has nothing to do with Jews!

(This is why I wish that Ben Gurion had given the Zionist entity a different name, like maybe Semitia.  But then the world’s W’s and M’s would have patiently explained that they are not anti-Semites, but anti-Semitians.  If he’d named it Jewland, W and M could explain that their problem is with Jewlandians, not Jews. Oh, well.)

 Here I note that I venture no judgment on the inner prejudices of W and M.  But I do note that if you check their book on Amazon, you will learn that “Customers Who Bought This Item Also Bought: The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine; Beyond Chutzpah; On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism; Palestine: Peace, Not Apartheid (by Jimmy Carter); The Holocaust Industry; and The Power of Israel in the United States.”  I know that guilt is not proven by association.  You may draw your own conclusions.

 So, in the dark days of the dreaded neocon likudnik administration of George W. Bush, professors M and W surveyed US mideast policy and made an interesting discovery.  Every action occurred in Israel.  The Muslim states were mere passive observers, reacting to Israeli and US provocations.  The best example was in their look at Iran. 

 “Israel’s perception of the Iranian threat underwent a fundamental change in the early 1990’s, as evidence of Teheran’s nuclear ambitions began to accumulate.  Israeli leaders began warning Washington in 1993 that Iran was a grave threat not only to Israel but to the US as well.  There has been no letup in that alarmist and aggressive rhetoric since then, largely because Iran has continued to move ahead on the nuclear front.” Continue reading ‘Paging Dr. Walt and Dr. Mearsheimer’

Russia, China Doom US Appeasement

Today’s news:  Russian leaders Vladimir Putin rejects sanctions against Iran, even as China indicates willingness to consider more sanctions.

Tomorrow’s headline:  China rejects Iran sanctions, even as Russia softens its position.

The Day after Tomorrow’s headine: China tags out, Russia tags into Iran-defense match.

Several things become clearer every day.

First, Iran is playing its diplomatic stalling game with masterful finesse.  They have been at the table for years with the Europeans, and now with us. Feeble sanctions are enacted, and then flouted by various nations.  And in the background, the steady hum of thousands of gas centrifuges, both in Qom and Natanz, creating the stuff of Iran’s dream: the Jew-liquidating Final Solution: the Mullah Of All Bombs.

Second, Russia and China are not displeased with Iran’s challenge to the West, and will not impede it in any way.  But, to avoid burning all bridges to the West, Russia and China will continue to play tag-team in threatening to veto any UN Security Council action, swapping the good-cop/bad-cop roles from time to time.  They know that the present US administration will not consider military pressure on Iran without a UN mandate.  Russia and China are Iran’s insurance policy against any possible UN action.  With their backing, Iran fears no sanctions, and has zero incentive to negotiate in good faith. Continue reading ‘Russia, China Doom US Appeasement’

A French Lesson

File this under “Never Thought I’d See the Day…”

French President Nicolas Sarkozy has publicly rebuked Obama’s airy internationalism in the face of the Iranian threat.  The US media seems to have missed the story.  It happened on September 25, and Breitbart has it.

Sarkozy Mocks Obama At UN Security Council

Sarkozy: “We live in the real world, not the virtual world. And the real world expects us to take decisions.” 

“President Obama dreams of a world without weapons … but right in front of us two countries are doing the exact opposite… Continue reading ‘A French Lesson’

Obama’s Isolationism Unveiled

OUTREACH TO ENEMIES, PUSHBACK TO ALLIES

Health Care Reform and the recession have kept America’s attention firmly riveted on the new administration’s domestic direction.   But something much bigger is happening in the world, and it is going largely unnoticed.

The sole superpower is withdrawing from world affairs.

It is quickly becoming clear that President Obama’s foreign policy has a simple but astonishing goal: to rid us of both enemies and allies. Continue reading ‘Obama’s Isolationism Unveiled’

NEA and The Party: The NCLB Saga

You probably read the story: “NEA Slams Obama’s School Reform Plan”.  This is a type of story that occurs predictably after every election:  “Supporters unhappy with something ‘their’ president proposes”. 

 Groups such as unions, that fight for their members’ interests, must inevitably find themselves opposing actions they think are detrimental.  That’s the advocacy business.

 And everyone knows NEA is such a group, right?

 The question is anything but rhetorical.  Consider the ongoing saga of NCLB, the “No Child Left Behind” Act of 2001. Continue reading ‘NEA and The Party: The NCLB Saga’

Israel Sees Secret Holocaust Plans

On an official visit to Germany, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu received an unusual gift.  This gift was a set of plans for the Nazi Holocaust.  (It was not an “official gift”, but rather one from a private citizen, a newspaper publisher.  The official gift was an iPod loaded with the speeches of Angela Merkel.)

The documents, “which include architects’ drawings of rooms including one marked ‘Gaskammer’, or gas chamber…”, gave Netanyahu a welcome opportunity to remind the world that the next round of the Holocaust is being prepared right now in Teheran.  Continue reading ‘Israel Sees Secret Holocaust Plans’

Fouad Ajami explains Obama

Fouad Ajami, writing in the Wall Street Journal, gives a breathtaking summary of the Obama presidency so far.  His overview: “a political economy of redistribution and a foreign policy of American penance.”

He compares Obama with Reagan; in both elections, Americans were losing faith in their country.  Reagan embodied and re-asserted that faith, while Obama promised to fix America and make it worthy of our faith.

This is an excellent analysis.  Read it.  Now!

Mr. A hears Mr. O’s Message of Hope

So how is the Obama administratrion’s Iran “charm offfensive” working out?  We have some more proof that  Iran now regards us in a new, hopeful light.

Yesterday, AFP (France) reported Ahmadinejad saying “The US needs us and wants to develop relations.  Circumstances are changing rapidly in our favor.  We are on the road to victory.”

And Israel? “The Zionist occupiers are destructive microbes.” 

So Iran is on the road to victory over whom?   The story doesn’t say.

Sounds like O’s message of hope and optimism is resonating in Teheran. 

And Israel?  Well, what can you expect from a bunch of destructive microbes?

Just Wild About Harry

A while ago I did some research and found striking descriptions of 1930′s Appeasement by one of its architects and one of its opponents (Chamberlain and Attlee).  Continue reading ‘Just Wild About Harry’

The Obama Doctrine?

Peter Wehner at Contentions, the Commentary blog, has an excellent short posting about the Obama Doctrine:

“At a new conference yesterday, President Obama took a shot at defining the Obama Doctrine. Here’s my effort at defining it: The Obama Doctrine means criticizing past presidents, Democratic and Republican; apologizing for past American sins, real and imagined, to both allies and enemies of the United States, on domestic and, preferably, foreign soil — in the hope that doing so allows Obama to speak with greater moral force and clarity. The overriding goal of the Obama Doctrine is to make the person it is named after look good, rather than, and if necessary at the expense of, the nation he was elected to represent.

He omitted only to mention the tendency to show toughness by pressuring our allies, and to show understanding by going easy on our enemies.   To repeat myself only slightly:

President Obama’s recent forays into the wider world have been positively Chamberlainesque (although there is no evidence that Chamberlain ever actually bowed to Hitler.) His humble apologies for our sins, his delicate refusal to criticize Iran’s warmongering or Saudi Arabia’s persecution of women or China’s dictatorship, his pious moral equivalence of Israel and Iran/Hamas/Hezbollah. And now the bi-lingual embrace of “mi amigo” Chavez.

Obama’s entire pre-presidential experience and body of work can be summed up as “effective self-promotion.” If he continues to think that the solutions to every problem is “More Obama,” then we are all in for a very rough time.

Ahmadinejad and Munich Nostalgia

 

Whenever the subject is Iran, I find my thoughts drifting back to the 1930’s, and I realize I am becoming a Munich bore.  But I can’t help it.

Mr. Ahmadinejad (I started to write Herr Ahmadinejad, but I am really trying to lay off on the sarcasm) was interviewed in Der Spiegel [here] yesterday by a German reporter who pulled refreshingly few punches. 

What first grabbed my interest was Mr. A on the subject of the rights of the Palestinians.

Ahmadinejad: We are defending more than the basic rights of oppressed Palestinians. Our proposal for resolving the Middle East conflict is that the Palestinians should be allowed to decide their own future in a free referendum. Do you think it right that some European countries and the United States support the occupying regime and the unnatural Zionist state, but condemn Iran, merely because we are defending the rights of the Palestinian people?

I flashed back to Churchill’s magnificent speech in Commons opposing Chamberlain’s Munich agreement.  (It will be a most hopeful sign when this great oration is once again studied in both civics and literature classes.)

Continue reading ‘Ahmadinejad and Munich Nostalgia’

Appeasement, Old and New

It is common for pundits to quote Churchill about the policy of appeasement and its inevitable failure to cope with aggressive dictators.  But this unfairly allows the policy’s opponents to define it, and gives rise to the feeling (by modern-day appeasers) that the term is an ugly epithet which no one of good will really deserves. 

 

But in fact it was Chamberlain himself who called his policy “appeasement”.  And under that very name it was extremely popular, as witness the cheering crowds greeting his return from Munich, and his 369-150 vote of support in Commons.

 

So how did Chamberlain define appeasement?  One of his best summations was the following, from his speech in defense of the Munich agreement, where Czechoslovakia was sold out in exchange for Hitler’s promises of peaceful behavior.

  Continue reading ‘Appeasement, Old and New’

Obama’s NEA-Style Summit

I have just read the description of President Obama’s Financial Responsibility Summit (if I got the name right).  It was disturbingly familiar.

It was an NEA conference writ large (or at least upscale). Continue reading ‘Obama’s NEA-Style Summit’

Fathers of Daughters

A friend of mine used to theorize that all conservatism, and therefore all defense of society, rests on the fathers of daughters – FODs, as he called them.

 

He explained that it is only when one has children that one begins to recognize how fragile is the future, how dangerous the present, and how great our responsibility to protect the vulnerable, such as children. 

 

The problem is that women, for the most part, tend to believe that the world is dangerous only by accident, rather than as a basic, natural condition.  My friend claimed that he had never met a woman who would not agree with the statement that “People are basically good.”  And increasingly many men agree with them.

Continue reading ‘Fathers of Daughters’

President Pandora

It appears that the answer to Melanie Phillips’ question (see below, “Is America Really Going To Do This?” is “Yes we are, because Yes we can” (or something).

Electing Obama is like electing Pandora, in the hope (there’s that word again) that when the box is opened good things will fly out.  That’s a heck of a hope, given the glimpses we have seen (through the media blackout) of Obama’s background and past associations.

And, once opened, the box will keep on giving.  Court appointees will determine our laws for decades to come (you thought congress did that?) The foreign policy results may take years, and fortunes in blood and treasure, to undo – if they can ever be undone.

One Sermon, One Sunday; Sen. Obama in Church

 

As I ponder Barack Obama sitting in church listening to his pastor’s hate-filled sermons, I cannot help but think of my mother.  I imagine her sitting in the next pew.  I know what she would have done.   Continue reading ‘One Sermon, One Sunday; Sen. Obama in Church’



Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.