I’ve shared with you before on many other occasions, the insights of a wonderful blog titled “The Diplomad 2.0”. Its author/originator is one, W. Lewis Amselem, long time US Foreign Service Officer; now retired; who has served all over the world and under all sorts of conditions, and has become convinced the State Department needs to be drastically slashed and reformed so that it will no longer pose a threat to the national interests of the United States (how’s THAT for a descriptive opening paragraph then?!). What if Giuliani has it spot on?
In this upcoming piece which I came across on my news search this past Monday, he hits one right out of the ballpark with his piece titled (appropriately in light of Rudy Giuliani’s accusations the past week) “Obama, A Muslim Hater Of America?”
As I have opined in many other pieces (much to the chagrin of the fragile leftist’s in our midst) I have determined he is Muslim enough to assert that ISIS is not Islamic. Since he has declared his ability to define what is Islamic and what is not Islamic, I am waiting for some White House reporter (Ed Henry or James Rosen of FNC come to mind) to follow up on his self-declared abilities. Henry/Rosen should pepper Josh Earnest (if not the rogue fraud “president” himself when available) with the following questions:
1. Is stoning adulterers Islamic?
2. Is killing homosexuals Islamic?
3. Is killing apostates Islamic?
4. Is killing those who insult Muhammad Islamic?
If the response is “yes”, then ISIS is Islamic. If “no”, then Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the rest of the Arab countries are not Islamic either. Get Obama the rogue fraud “president” on record on these issues, then make the liberal-progressive-leftists pick sides. If nothing else, it would reveal the political left as the totalitarians that they are, while demonstrating to a degree, the political right as the defenders of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. What if Giuliani has it spot on?
As Daniel Hannan expressed it in his Foreword to his excellent “The New Road To Serfdom”:
When Barack Obama sent back the bust of Winston Churchill that had stood in the White House, he wasn’t simply repudiating the man who, as prime minister, had defended the British Empire. He was also repudiating the foremost advocate of the idea that the Anglosphere nations have a special dream and a special task: that it is our duty, when others falter, to defend individual liberty, parliamentary supremacy, and the rule of law. Fail in that duty, and we don’t simply make the world a darker place; we spurn our fathers, and we disinherit our children.
On to W. Lewis Amselem…
As observers of the MSM herd know, the “elite” media have swooned over “scandalous” allegations that Obama is unpatriotic and that he might be a closet Muslim. Instead, however and of course, of investigating whether these things are true, the media commissars have focussed on the “crazy” right-wingers who have dared to broach these taboo subjects.
Well, broach them we must; broach them we will.
To the first issue: Does Obama not love America and, in fact, does he side with our enemies? While this humble blog has dealt with this issue many times in the past, the best reply to that, as usual, comes from the great Canadian observer of the world and truth teller, Mark Steyn,
One way to look at the current “leader of the free world” is this: If he were working for the other side, what exactly would he be doing differently?
For example, he has spent most of this week hosting an international conference on something called “violent extremism”. Whatever may be said of Munich, Chamberlain never hosted a three-day summit on “rearmament” in general whose entire purpose was to deny that “rearmament” and “Germany” were in any way connected. Yet that is exactly the message the United States government has just offered to the world – in between such eccentric side spectacles as Marie Harf, star of the hilarious new comedy Geopolitically Blonde, explaining her jobs-for-jihadis program, and the new hombre in charge of the planet’s mightiest military machine having his woman felt up on camera by Joe Biden. Now there’s a message to send to the misogynists of Burqastan about what happens when you let the missuses out of their body bags.
Steyn nailed it: If Obama hates America, what would he do differently than what he’s already done? In short, is Obama guilty of hate crime? We will get back to that in a few minutes but first let’s deal with the Muslim issue. I have to admit that I initially didn’t pay attention to allegations that he was a Muslim. My thinking on that, however, has “evolved.” It has thanks in large part to the Diplowife, who one day said to me, “I don’t know why people deny he’s a Muslim. Look at how he was raised. Some of that had to stick.” Yes, I agree, and that means the answer is a bit more complicated than a straight up “yes” or “no.” Let me expound.
His father was an anti-British, Muslim/Communist (a popular Third World ideological mix in the 1950s and 1960s). After his Kenyan father abandoned the family, his mother (apparently, a rather strange drifter and a leftist) remarried to another Muslim–I don’t know if she did, but she probably had to convert to Islam or at least pretend to do so. The new family moved from Hawaii to Indonesia, the world’s largest Muslim country. There Barrack Hussein Obama spent his formative years in a Muslim school, engaging in Muslim prayer rituals and learning about the religion, before returning to a highly dysfunctional leftist-tinged family situation that awaited him in Hawaii. Then it is all mystery surrounded by yet more mystery. As I noted over two years ago,
We are not allowed to ask how this self-admittedly mediocre, drug-using student from a highly dysfunctional family, raised in Hawaii and Indonesia, managed to attend exclusive and expensive schools.
Who were the young lad’s benefactors? How did he go to expensive private school in Hawaii and later on to a series of very expensive elite colleges on the mainland? Why did his odd-ball leftist grandfather entrust his mentoring to an old line Communist like Frank Marshall Davis? All very weird; all very unexplained. As the Diplowife would say, some of that had to stick.
After attending several “elite” universities, Obama moved to Chicago and became a “community organizer.” He joined a phony “Christian” church headed by Jeremiah Wright. This “church,” of course, was just a political front and an activist center for the promotion of grievance and hatred for America. Obama made a smart and calculated political move in linking up with Wright. He fit right in.
What we have in Obama is not a full-blown Muslim or a full-blown Communist. He quite simply does not have the intellectual sophistication to hold a fully developed ideology. He is a product of years of learning hate, resentment, and entitlement. He is a product of the grievance culture which dominates our “elite liberal” universities, “elite liberal” media, and, of course, “elite liberal” culture–listen to the speeches at this year’s Oscars if you have doubts on that score. (See a piece I wrote several years ago, Marxism Mutates, which discusses the “new” Marxism.)
Islam feeds right into that culture. Radical Islam is an ideology for the aggrieved, better said, for the losers of the world. It is no coincidence that it is the fastest growing cult among prisoners in the West. Islam is about mindless grievance and revenge for slights real and imagined, regardless of when and where they might have occurred. This is why progressives have such difficulty criticizing Islam and taking a tough stance against its barbarities. Islam is seen as part of the “Third World” reaction to the “offenses” of the “white” West, be those the Crusades, the great European empires, or the West’s technological and economic dominance. Islam is the friend of progressivism in its hatred for Western culture.
There is a Molotov-Ribbentrop type understanding between progressives and radical Islam.
Obama has incorporated into his thinking and acting the Muslim and the progressive strands of grievance culture and their joint hatred for the West. He leads the movement to destroy America. I touched on Obama’s leadership of the hate America “folks” a couple of years ago,
Obama has captured this movement and its view, and represents and promotes it better than anybody else in living memory. Unlike Carter, Obama is not incompetent in promoting his hatred for America’s traditional values and in embedding it into our institutions, e.g., the ruinous Obamacare, the rapid expansion of the federal dole, the insistence on apologizing for our successes, the disastrous “stimulus” spending, the glorification of the “victim” culture, promotion of envy and cynicism, and denigration of individual effort and success (“You didn’t build that!”) That is the real threat posed by what Obama represents. Overcoming that threat will take years of sustained effort.
Obama hates America and Western civilization. He wants to replace them with some sort of horrid Third World culture in which the progressive elite will be in charge. He shares his father’s dream.
2 thoughts on “What If Giuliani Has It Spot On?”
Guess what. Giuliani has it spot on.
Pingback: For Love Of Country Or Enemies? - Dennis G Hurst