web analytics
September 2, 2014 / 7 Elul, 5774
At a Glance

Posts Tagged ‘Barack Hussein Obama’

Why They Love Osama, Hate Obama, and How Obama Uses the Same Tactics at Home

Friday, October 5th, 2012

Visit Rubin Reports.

Why are tens of thousands of Middle Eastern Muslims chanting about how much they love Osama bin Ladin and how much they hate Barack (Hussein) Obama?

Simple. Because bin Ladin was a Muslim and an Arab (for the Arab demonstrators) and thus he was one of their people, someone from their side, whatever tactical disagreements they might have had with him. And Obama isn’t. No amount of groveling, apology, or money will change that fact. Isn’t that clear?

I should quickly add that many Muslims don’t support the Islamists. In elections in Libya and Tunisia, a majority voted for non-Islamist parties. Even in Egypt when the showdown came in the presidential election the Muslim Brotherhood candidate won by only a narrow margin. Most Lebanese don’t support the Islamists (the main force of which is Hizballah, a Shia group). There are, of course, plenty of Islamists and they have lots of sympathizers. They can cite chapter and verse from Islamic holy texts.

Yet that doesn’t make all Muslims supporters of revolutionary Islamism or advocates of Shia totalitarian states, no matter how many times people who are ignorant about Islam and the Middle East run their little rants. Those rants are just as false as the “Islam is a religion of peace” nonsense.

But that’s not my point here. The key element for this article is this:

When solidarity along group lines takes priority and the line is that all of “us” must unite against the “other” no matter what truth, logic, or justice dictates then that means serious trouble.

Well, guess what? That is the line of the Obama Administration and its Newest Left supporters. All African-Americans should support the regime because Obama is Black and anyone opposing him is a racist. All “Hispanics” should support the president because he really wants open borders and the turning of all illegal immigrants into citizens, while everyone else is a racist.

All women should support the ruling group and leftist ideology because it wants to give them free birth control and anyone on the other side hates women. And everyone who receives a government check has to support the regime or someone might take away their check. Actually what’s most likely to take away their check is the bankruptcy of the programs due to over-spending.

In other words, the dominant forces in the mass media and academia and the current government and their supporters are tearing America apart by inciting interest groups to hate each other, make war on each other, and give loyalty primarily to their group no questions asked.

And this is precisely the kind of thing that makes Middle Eastern Muslims who even if they were Islamists–like the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafist groups—hated bin Ladin when he was alive opportunistically turn him into a martyr. The creation of a hysterical mob mentality for political gain is not restricted to the Middle East.

Visit Rubin Reports.

Will Obama Destroy Socialism?

Tuesday, July 10th, 2012

http://sultanknish.blogspot.co.il/2012/07/will-obama-destroy-socialism.html

You can make corncob pipes, eighteen wheel trucks or microprocessors– but you can’t make jobs. Jobs are not a commodity or a service. They cannot be created independently through a job creating program. Rather they are the side-effect of a working economy. Trying to short circuit the economy with job creation programs is like trying to run a fruit orchard by neglecting the trees and instead buying fruit at inflated prices to resell to your customers at a lower price. It’s feasible, but not sustainable.

The government can promote job creation through subsidized education and training, but there is a ceiling on such efforts, since government programs still have to be paid for through taxation. It can encourage companies to do business locally through tax breaks, though this is an admission that the tax rates are an obstacle to job growth. But what it cannot do is create jobs out of whole cloth. Except for government jobs.

Just about anyone in the White House this term would have launched job creation programs. And like most such efforts they would have been a wash. But Barack Hussein Obama’s approach was different in that he did not even pretend to make the effort. His economic programs went by business friendly names, but invariably turned out to be concerned with only one kind of job creation. The creation of public sector jobs.

The spoils system has a long history in American politics, but it was never as spoiled as all this. There is no parallel in American history for the spoils system being used not just to rotate out supporters of the old administration and replace them with your lackeys, but to hijack the economy as your own spoils system to the tune of trillions of dollars.

Obama responded to an economic crisis by working to create two kinds of jobs. Government and union jobs. This was not about anything as simple as rewarding his supporters. The Black community got very little in exchange for supporting him. The Hispanic community similarly ended up with some token appointments, but not much to show for it. This was about shifting jobs from the private sector into the public sector and its feeders. To manufacture the types of jobs that feed money back into the Democratic party and expand the scope of the government bureaucracy.

No previous administration has as thoroughly disdained and tried to crush the private sector. But then none of them were nearly as clueless or irresponsible when it come to basic economics. The Democrats who had spent eight years mocking Reaganomics, practiced a Krugmanonics that treated money like an imaginary number. In Krugmanomics wealth is created through spending, and poverty is created by practicing wise fiscal management. The whole premise of Krugmanomics makes no sense, unless you have already decided that the private sector is a mythical beast with no room in the socialist bestiary.

This wasn’t even Keynesian, it most closely resembled the Bolshevik radicalism that destroyed the Russian economy, right down to the belated realization that only by assigning some limited role to the private sector could the situation be salvaged. Obama’s pre-election turn echoes Lenin’s New Economic Program. But like Lenin, Obama hasn’t embraced the free market. All he has done is tried to retreat to it after the spend and burn economics of his brightest radicals had ignited too much public fury.

Obama has only one idea. The same one idea that the left has beaten into the ground repeatedly. The monopolization of power. This monopolization is disguised behind organizations claiming to represent the people, community activists, unions and public interest lobbies, whose only message is the vital necessity of a government monopoly in every economic area of life.

It’s the old Soviet strategy writ large. Every red error brought back to life and pushed forward with cunning and brute force, but no understanding of why it failed last time around. The slower transition of Wells’ “Open Conspiracy” does not make them any better at running a country, than the radical armed revolts of the Bolsheviks did. Repeating the same mistakes at 1/20th the speed does not lead to a better outcome. Only to more chances to see that they are going the wrong way.

I Am Afraid!

Wednesday, May 9th, 2007

     I recently read a background story about presidential candidate Barack Hussein Obama online in the New York Times, and I seriously began to worry. I decided to use the Internet to do some additional research, and now I continue to worry. I was concerned by the almost blasé tone used by the Times as it discussed Obama’s close association with a radical, seemingly anti-American and anti-Israel preacher. I found a Fox News report about his performance during a presidential debate, an Arab blog and a Haaretz report that surveyed Jews and placed Obama in last place when the Israel factor was questioned.

 

      The Times article spoke of his warm, continuing relationship with Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr., pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. The article mentioned that Obama “had sampled various faiths but adopted none until he met Wright, a dynamic pastor who preached Afrocentric theology, dabbled in radical politics and delivered music-and-profanity-spiked sermons.” The article reported that, “Mr. Obama was entranced by Mr. Wright, whose sermons fused analysis of the Bible with outrage at what he saw as the racism of everything from daily life in Chicago to American foreign policy. Mr. Wright traveled to Cuba to teach Christians about the value of nonviolent protest and to Libya to visit Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, along with the Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan. Mr. Wright said his visits implied no endorsement of their views.”

 

      Wright makes assertions of widespread white racism and he often criticizes the American government. One of his comments was “Zionism has an element of white racism.” On the Sunday after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, “Mr. Wright said the attacks were a consequence of violent American policies.” Four years later he wrote that the attacks had proved that “people of color had not gone away, faded into the woodwork or just ‘disappeared’ as the Great White West went on its merry way of ignoring Black concerns.” While Obama stated his opposition to the Iraq war in conventional terms, Wright issued a “War on Iraq I.Q. Test,” with questions like, “Which country do you think poses the greatest threat to global peace: Iraq or the U.S.?” Wright prayed with the Obama family just before his presidential announcement.

 

      Who this preacher is and how much of an influence he has on Obama concern me greatly. In the past 16 years, “Mr. Wright has presided over Mr. Obama’s wedding ceremony, baptized his two daughters and dedicated his house, while Mr. Obama has often spoken at Trinity’s panels and debates. The Obamas treat Trinity as their spiritual home, attending services frequently.”

 

      Where does Obama stand on the question of radical Islam? Is it the major problem today? According to the Times, “[Mr.] Obama sees radical extremism as one of the world’s problems on a checklist of many others: global poverty, nuclear proliferation, global warming,” not as the major problem of our time that many of us believe it is.

 

      Fox News reported that when asked in a debate about America’s best friends in the world, “Obama waxed on about NATO and our European allies before looking east to Japan It was clear that Obama didn’t get it that this was the Israel question” Even when prompted by Brian Williams, who followed up by pointing out that Obama had neglected to mention Israel, and reminded him of his comment that “no one had suffered more than the Palestinian people, Obama still didn’t get it right.”

 

      Another very disturbing report was on a pro-Arab Internet blog. It stated that in 2000 [Ali] Abunimah [a Middle East and Arab-American affairs writer and commentator] recalled, Professor Rashid Khalidi, a leading Palestinian American advocate for a two-state solution and harsh critic of Israel, held a fundraiser in his home for Obama, embarked then on an ultimately unsuccessful bid for the House of Representatives. “He came with his wife,” Abunimah said. “That’s where I had a chance to really talk to him. It was an intimate setting. He convinced me he was very aware of the issues [and] critical of U.S. bias toward Israel and lack of sensitivity to Arabs. He was very supportive of U.S. pressure on Israel.” One source close to Obama, speaking on condition of anonymity, recalled that, “Obama often expressed general sympathy for the Palestinians – though I don’t recall him ever saying anything publicly.”

 

      I had mixed emotions as I read the various news reports. Is Obama as good as any non-Jewish American candidate when it relates to Israel and Jews, or do we have more to fear from him and from those that influence him?

 

      Is it true that Obama has a goal of acting friendly to Jews at least until after the election? Once in power, he can exercise his potential radicalism in subtle ways and seriously harm Israel and the Jews. Could this be the reason a Haaretz report that surveyed which candidates Jews would vote for found that Obama was in last place when the Israel factor was questioned? Is there a fear of the unknown underlying this feeling?

 

      Does the U.S. want a very congenial president, with little political experience, who is surrounded by many question marks and questionable associates? Are we sick and tired of statesmen and ready for a novice as president? Will Obama seriously distance himself from preacher Wright because he disagrees with his views or because it simply is more politically correct?

 

      I started this article mainly concerned about Obama but, when I thought about it, I note that Hillary Clinton’s past, as far as Israel and Jews are concerned, also involved a nearly total makeover of her views.

 

      Is America ready for an African-American president, and is the alternative a woman? Both Hillary and Obama have questionable backgrounds when it comes to Jews and Israel, but both have made proactive efforts to erase past history and concentrate on being pro-Israel and pro-Jews. Is there a difference? Should we accept their new faces and approaches, and be happy that they realize the importance of Israel and Jews and want the job of president enough to repeat often that they love Israel and Jews? Can either of them be trusted to follow through once they gain power or will they quickly forget us once they get into power?

 

      Comments may be sent to dov@gilor.com.

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/columns/i-am-afraid/2007/05/09/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: