Obama allies himself with Islam radicals


Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right or below. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.

The side that President Barack Obama takes in the worldwide conflict between fundamentalist (and violent) Islam and western Judeo-Christian civilization can be seen I think by three stories this past week:

In the first case Obama chose to hurriedly change his plans so he could attend the funeral of the Saudi king. He did not consider attending or sending an important representative to the demonstrations in France condemning the Charlie Hebdo murders. Nor did he consider attending or sending an important representative to the ceremonies commemorating the 70th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz.

In the second case Obama has made his dislike for Netanyahu and Israel quite clear, almost to the point of performing childish tantrums. Yet, Israel is our ally. It is also the only real democracy in the Middle East that actually attempts to defend western values.

In the third case, Obama has his administration meet with Muslim Brotherhood leaders to coordinate an effort to remove Egypt’s President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, even though al-Sisi is one of the few in the Islamic world demanding that Islam reform itself away from violence.

So, what side do you think Barack Obama is on? Who do you really think he wants to win this war?

Share

11 comments

  • D.K. Williams

    Obama is not a normal leader. He exceeds Carter is his ignorance of foreign policy. And economic policy as well. Moreover, he has surrounded himself with leftist ideologues and yes-men, few of whom have any skill set for governing.

  • Edward

    > So, what side do you think Barack Obama is on?

    What an interesting question. Before Michelle Obama ran around Saudi Arabia, yesterday, in violation of their local dress code for women, I would have said that he is firmly in the pro-Muslim/anit-Israeli camp. However, since he is willing to let his wife potentially offend his hosts, I am less certain.
    (reference: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/27/michelle-obama-headscarf-saudi-arabia_n_6559124.html)

    This behavior could be as simple as their ignorance of foreign relations protocols, diplomacy, and cross-cultural communications, which (per Occam’s Razor) is the most likely reason for his many faux pas (e.g. giving a speech during “God Save The Queen”). He does not pay attention to details, as his several botched speeches attest (e.g. if he had practiced ahead of time, he would have learned that there are no “corpse men” in the military but that there *are* corpsmen).

    During the summer of 2008, we were reassured that Obama had a team of 300 advisers to help him through his ignorance of foreign policy. I never thought that was in the least reassuring, as that is a whole lot of ignorance.
    (reference: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/us/politics/18advisers.html?_r=0)

    His knowledge of American civics isn’t much better, otherwise he would know that it takes more than a pen and a phone to get things done in America (talk about being unpatriotic!) and that a president rarely gets his way in whole.

    He certainly does seem to have been treated as a delicate snowflake his entire life. Not only does he have more than his fair share of sycophants (e.g. virtually the entire press corps and most of the Republicans in Congress), but he always seemed to get places based upon criteria other than competence. After all, what other presidents of the Harvard Law Review never wrote a law review?

    Was ObamaCare poorly written due to incompetence or was it intended to fail? That law was so bad that it took a year to cajole enough votes in order to pass through Congress, despite both houses of Congress being controlled by Obama’s party. If failure was intentional, then surely it could not have been intended to fail so badly so as to destroy the public’s trust in the government’s ability to run a healthcare program, as seems to have happened, especially since Obama has declared that ObamaCare was a necessary step to get “single payer” (read: “socialized”) medicine.

    So, if he doesn’t know what he is doing, then who is pulling the strings that get him places? It is *that* person or group whose side he is on. Which side would that be?

    Or does it matter, since the (bad) results are the same whether he is merely incompetent or he is malicious?

  • Cotour

    “Normal”?

    Not the correct question, when you ask the big picture question, is he normal in relation to what would be expected of an American president, then no, in that context he is not “normal”. A better question might be:

    What kind of a president might a naive, mixed race person who grew up in the sixties, seventies and eighties who studied Constitutional law at all of the most liberal universities, who has no real accomplishments and subscribed to Marxist and black liberation philosophies make if they found themselves in that position.

    Its a highly structured and specific question, but the question reveals the unique position he finds himself in and also begins to explain the things that he has been and will be doing. He is a kind of statistical anomaly, maybe a creature created of coincidence of time and place.

    So “normal”? No. Un American? Yes, in how most Americans would define American. This is fundamental change. Lets hope in the end some of it can be unwound. What kind of lemonade will be able to be made of this?

  • Cotour

    “So, if he doesn’t know what he is doing, then who is pulling the strings that get him places?”

    I think he and his delicate and insecure ego are winging it for the most part and I think its “white guilt” that gets him where he gets. Remember, he is the actual president, almost 50% of the American people have empowered him in that position, so he is within his rights to believe that he is empowered. But that does not relieve the Congress of its responsibility of pushing back strongly when needed. That is what is lacking.

  • Edward

    > so he is within his rights to believe that he is empowered.

    I don’t think that he is within his rights to believe that he is empowered to do whatever his pen and phone can get him. That part is not in the Constitution. What *is* in the Constitution is that he is empowered to use his pen to sign or veto the bills that Congress sends to him. *That* is what We the People voted for.

    The kind of tyranny that he says that he will practice (and has been practicing) is the same kind that the Founding Fathers complained about with King George. That is *not* what We the People voted for. You are correct. Congress is failing to check or balance Obama, and the Supreme Court has ruled that, going beyond any previous tyranny, it is government’s right to determine how We the People are to spend our own money.

    Meanwhile, the kind of lemonade: very sour. He must be using especially sour lemons.

  • Al

    I’ve never understood why the America public would elect someone with the name ‘Barrack Hussein Obama’ as the first new president after the 9-11 attacks. It makes me think that our country has some sort of collective death wish going on.

  • Cotour

    This news item explains better what every president beginning with G. Bush sr. (former CIA director) has been endeavoring to accomplish:

    http://mobile.wnd.com/2015/01/u-s-passports-on-verge-of-elimination/

    (Mr. Zimmerman, please give this its own panel on the site)

    http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/26/opinion/martinez-kurtz-phelan-north-american-passport/

    Obama is not bound by the restraints of up holding the Constitution, he and all the others are looking to eliminate it from the world. Notice the difference between the two story’s and how CNN and WND interpret the proposal. One thinks its the best thing since sliced bread (media owned by the elite), the other (a Conservative minded entity) correctly identifies that it is the formal death of the American Constitution.

    Why is there such a disparity between what Americans know is correct (closed and secure borders)
    and what our government has been actually actively doing (allowing / encouraging illegal immigrants to enter the United States over the years in order to continuously push for this paradigm shift.

    Do not be surprised if after Mr. Obama leaves office we all find out who paid for his schooling or directed his ascendance. This is the agenda, this is why we have trillions of dollars of new debt that creates the modern form of slavery to the moral obligation to pay it. This is the leveling of humanity, no, make that America. What are all of those confrontations about McDonalds providing a “living wage” and the raising of the minimum wage and the undermining of middle class America really about? They are preparing America for the day when that is what Americans do for a living, serve up french fries.

    Take note about how many coming candidates for president mention up holding the Constitution. You will find that none of them except the most Conservative will even venture into the subject, most will continue the narrative that is going on now, how to manage around it.

    This is the attempt by the elite at dissolving the America that we all love and know to be the reason that we all have individual freedom and private property. There in lies the power of the American middle class and that must be destroyed in these peoples opinion in order to create a more “equal” world (read, a dialed down world where we are all equally desperate to be employed by the elite for our survival). This is what should be waking America up!

  • That Barrack Obama and Progressives in power are cowards is evident from bullying when they can get away with it (American citizens), and simpering when they can’t (most everywhere else). As cowards and children unable to cope with the adult world, they’re in the ‘eat me last’ camp regarding Islam. They know if they can appease Muslims for two more years, anything after can be blamed on their successor. It’s craven and despicable, and, apparently, the leadership we deserve.

  • Edward

    Cotour, I think that, once again, we are in agreement but are using different words and different images.

    The country has been hijacked, and we are relying on the hijackers to overpower the hijackers and give control back to the Constitution. It is as though we are on an airplane, and the hijackers are telling us that all is well; we will get to our scheduled destination just after a brief detour to the World Trade Center.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *