I’ve said before that if Barack Obama wasn’t a de facto agent of the Muslim Brotherhood, he certainly prefers their values to that of America. He invites their affiliated American organizations to the White House. He invites the Brotherhood to Middle East speeches. And now, America’s most radical, perhaps Muslim President goes even further.
On Friday July 1st, Hillary Clinton has declared that America will “build ties with the organization as long as it does not espouse violence.” http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/s_744741.... Of course, they DO espouse violence. They not only espouse violence but want a tyrannical world Islamic Caliphate including the United States, “by subterfuge if possible, by violence if necessary.” Al Quaida and Hamas are offshoots of the Muslim Brotherhood.
But wait, that’s not all. In a world being turned upside down by Obama, Our Ally Israel has been added to his “Promoter, Producer or Protector of Terrorists” list. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/u-s-adds-israel-to-promoter-p... The ‘specially designated country’ list is used by Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to screen detained foreigners with an extra step, called a “Third Agency Check.”
Overall, the countries on the list are unsurprising, with two exceptions this year. Israel was not on the list in 2008, but now in 2011, it has been added. North Korea, on the other hand, was dropped from the list this year but was on it in 2008.
So here we have it. In Obamaworld, friends become enemies and enemies become friends. In Obamaworld, it becomes more beneficial to be an enemy of America than a friend. And as the White House occupant isolates the United States from its allies and treats allies as enemies, one wonders why the liberal community remains silent and supportive.
As an observant Jew and staunch conservative, I wonder if the predominantly liberal American Jewish community will ever wake up.
Here's the problem with all too many Jews when it comes to common sense because it's philosophical. We are a very intellectually theoretical people who can think out of this box. This is great for inventing things like the Cell Phone, Google, Facebook, the nuclear age and medical advances.
But it does have a down side. Most Jews approach evaluating events from "what should be" rather than what really is. In practical matters of personal and national survival, they take an idealistically theoretical approach. Jews believe that people can always be reasoned with rather than resorting to violence. They fail to understand that you can only use reason when the other side is listening.
It was like that during the Nazi period. Most Jews could not accept that a people and culture who could have a Mozart would resort to such sadistic barbarity and waste resources by exterminating for no practical reason. They were mentally immobilized, like deer staring at the headlights of an oncoming car. It's like that today.
I've also never claimed that Obama attacks Judaism. On the other hand, he seems to have considerable affinity for The Muslim Brotherhood, who believes in a world Islamist tyrannical Caliphate with non Muslims offered the choices of conversion, subjugation or death.
As to Obama's church for 20 years, Trinity United is definitely anti-Israel, racist and pro Islamist in the preaching of Jeremiah Wright, Jr. Giving your observations the benefit of the doubt, the average parishioner may not care, but that's not quite relevant.
On many occasions, Nation of Islam's Louis Farrakkhan was a guest speaker. He was even given their "Lifetime Achievement Award" and placed on the cover of The Trumpet, which is their church magazine.
As to Obama's religion, I don't know what he is, if he has any faith at all. I do know that he was raised a Muslim and never became an alleged Christian until deciding to enter politics in his late 20's.
You seem like a reasonable, well mannered person. If you'd like, we can continue this discussion.
fyi....
There is a white Catholic Priest "Father MIchael Pfleger" who is very respected by the Chicago Black community who is also a regular guest. Blacks could care less how both these men are demonized in the press. Point being, association with Farrakhan does not give Rev. Wright a "Scarlet Letter" for many. Most do not agree with much of what the Nation of Islam teaches (or they would be members, right) But many also cannot deny the "truth" he (Farrakhan) does speak for and by us.
But then I began my research and what I discovered I didn't like. I'm quite careful in my own research, having held a management position in a legal organization with 23,000 lawyer members in my NYC for 13 years. I love matching wits with lawyers and have been hired by them on several occasions relative to serving as expert witness and negotiator in federal cases.
In any event, this is what I discovered about Father Pfleger. These are my own written words. I don't copy/paste. They are published in one of my websites. You may not agree, but I do write rather well and have been published by both MacMillan Publishing and Prentice Hall in the early 1990's.:
In Chicago and other large urban environments with a large black population, church and politics go hand and hand. Obama was quick to grasp this fact and successfully developed relationships in both areas.
As a community organizer in Chicago’s almost exclusively black South...
But then I began my research and what I discovered I didn't like. I'm quite careful in my own research, having held a management position in a legal organization with 23,000 lawyer members in my NYC for 13 years. I love matching wits with lawyers and have been hired by them on several occasions relative to serving as expert witness and negotiator in federal cases.
In any event, this is what I discovered about Father Pfleger. These are my own written words. I don't copy/paste. They are published in one of my websites. You may not agree, but I do write rather well and have been published by both MacMillan Publishing and Prentice Hall in the early 1990's.:
In Chicago and other large urban environments with a large black population, church and politics go hand and hand. Obama was quick to grasp this fact and successfully developed relationships in both areas.
As a community organizer in Chicago’s almost exclusively black South Side, Barack Obama was anything but the moderate “post racial” candidate he currently portrays himself to be.
We’ve heard much of Reverand Jeremiah Wright Jr., but there are other iconic religious figures in “the meanest part of town.” One of them is a left wing white Priest named Father Michael Pfleger, pastor of St. Sabina’s Church.
Pfleger is a close friend of both Jeremiah Wright Jr. and The Nation of Islam’s Louis Farrakhan. A Caucasian, he conducts his sermons with the accent, mannerism, politics and Black Liberation dogma of Jeremiah Wright. To Pfleger, America is in the era of Jim Crow and is a repressive nation. He is also a close friend of Barack Obama who in 2004 was quoted as calling him "a key source of spiritual guidance."
Under scrutiny Barack Obama has frequent memory lapses relative to what his mentor Jeremiah Wright preached in church, but he is a long time friend of Father Pfleger and has been so throughout his political career.
Inside St. Sabina’s cathedral, you find the red, green and black flag of the Black Liberation Movement. There’s even more than one of them conspicuously displayed.
Standard fare preaching includes the mantras of black victimization and national conspiracy on the part of whites to keep black people down. Barack Obama has been filmed listening to Pfleger’s sermons, but would probably claim amnesia if questioned about what he remembered.
I have not understood the Jewish loyalty to Obama and never will. His people are so anti Semetic, it's been obvious the anti Semite crowd is growing!
Now 24 years since those days began, I am so ashamed of the rate of fraud, theft and corruption convictions amongst the politicians that I allowed to influence my decisions.
I am suffering the consequences of democrats tax and spend policies that I unwittingly voter for! Philly's a hot mess!
I will never again be an uninformed voter and plead with others to become informed on their own by simply looking up politicians actions rather than relying on their words.
Promises and lies are so easy, actions reveal their true colors.
My criticism of you rests with your last remark where you say that you speak the truth. In point of fact, you have yet to lay out a logical counter argument. Replying to a blog is like explaining things to a customer. You respond with precision and explain yourself clearly. In this, you have failed.
Although I was a baby at the time, my favorite President is actually Harry Truman who of course, was a Democrat. I liked his decisiveness during times that make today's Presidential problems seem meek.
But what I really liked was the way he had a plaque on his desk saying "The Buck Stops Here." This is perhaps what annoys me about Obama the most. He creates the problem and then criticizes others for doing so. I do not consider this to be leadership. It's 3rd World demagoguery.
Typical of this is the Sequester. It was Obama's idea. He pushed for it and signed it into law. He said that if congress tried to pass legislation doing away with it, he would Veto the legislation.
Now he's pointing fingers at everyone and criticizing the sequester process as if it wasn't his idea in the first place. Obama insults my intelligence it's this approach and I find it very annoying.
P.S. As an aside, thank you for laying out your views. I write my blogs to be provocative in order to elicit spirited debate. You've explained yourself well.
With that said, why do you and so many others begin a counter argument by dropping names of other unrelated people? I could never figure this out.
I consider Hatch okay. I'm not keen on Paul. I like Cruz. But Republicans voted for the Sequester because that was the only thing they could do. They only control the House and when they send up finance bills to the Democrat Senate, Harry Reed doesn't even allow them out of committee for a vote.
The Republicans really had no choice going along with Obama's Sequester idea. It wasn't liked, particularly since defence costs are around 18% of the budget and 50% of the Sequester involved defense cuts. But none of this is really the point. It was Obama's idea, he pushed for it and now instead of providing leadership, he campaigns against his own idea and blaming others.
As to your claim that the deficit went down every year under Obama, you must be cracking a joke. Under Bush, the defi...
With that said, why do you and so many others begin a counter argument by dropping names of other unrelated people? I could never figure this out.
I consider Hatch okay. I'm not keen on Paul. I like Cruz. But Republicans voted for the Sequester because that was the only thing they could do. They only control the House and when they send up finance bills to the Democrat Senate, Harry Reed doesn't even allow them out of committee for a vote.
The Republicans really had no choice going along with Obama's Sequester idea. It wasn't liked, particularly since defence costs are around 18% of the budget and 50% of the Sequester involved defense cuts. But none of this is really the point. It was Obama's idea, he pushed for it and now instead of providing leadership, he campaigns against his own idea and blaming others.
As to your claim that the deficit went down every year under Obama, you must be cracking a joke. Under Bush, the deficits averaged an unacceptable 350 billion. It rose when the Democrats took over both houses of Congress in 2007. Every year under Obama, the deficits were over 1 TRILLION per year. To me, the math is obvious.
If you don't believe me, do some research on your own. Republican House Bills sent to the senate are public record, as is their fate at the hands of Harry Reed. Why do you think there hasn't been a budget passed in 4 years.
Each year, the Republican House sends a budget up to the Senate for review, Senate vote and reconciliation. Denial of this fact doesn't change public record.
Why not reply to my statement that the Republican Congress constantly sends up budget bills that are routinely kept from a vote in the Democrat controlled Senate. That's what we were talking about.
If you want to discuss Iraq, I'd be happy to do so after we finish the topic at hand. In the meantime, I'd suggest you stop replying like a teenager and act like an adult with a modicum of knowlege and mental clarity.
If you can't do this, we are done. I don't waste my time on ignorant children in adult bodies. You can't argue with math. Bush's average annual deficits including Iraq averaged around 350-400 billion. Obama's deficits exceed 1 trillion. What is it about math that you can't wrap your mind around.
As to your claim that the Obama 1 TRILLION DOLLAR PLUS deficits were caused by Iraq and Afghanistan, Iraq is no more and Afghanistan has been going on for over 10 years. The cost of both these wars was something in the order of 100 billion per year.
Now, let's do the math again: Under the Bush years with Iraq and Afghanistan, his budget deficits averaged 350-400 billion. To me, this was much too high. But under Obama, deficits have been over 1 TRILLION DOLLARS per year, even with the winding down of both wars.
This is simple math. If you can't grasp this, perhaps you really are dumb after all.