Obama’s narcissism a danger to America, and the world

Reblogged from Counter Jihad Report

By

I must confess that, in 2008, I was impressed by Barack Obama. He looked youthful, spoke well, appeared confident and was as smooth as a rock star. He commanded the stage and screen. I was really confident that this man, being black and having a possible semi-Muslim upbringing, was the perfect candidate to make lasting peace in the Middle East. I was sure that Israel was going to see a much-needed peace with the Palestinians, and my visits to eat great humus in Tulkarem — a small Palestinian town near Netanya — would one day soon be possible again.

But I was put off very soon after President Obama took office. The first time I began to look more closely at him was when I watched his speech in Cairo. I listened in awe and disbelief, but I thought that this may be a ploy to embrace the Muslim world and develop a mutual respect with the Arabs. Perhaps, I thought, this was a great tactic in showing friendship and commitment to the Muslim masses.

All too soon, my hopes started to fade. As I began watching President Obama’s body language and listened more closely to his tone of voice, I noticed a shallowness and an air of haughtiness that was unsettling. His posture and his body language were louder than his words. It stunned me to watch his speeches, which were filled with such “religious” inflection that it struck me in a why it no doubt did for so many others.

I watched and watched and saw how things in this volatile region of heated debate and steady but almost controlled violence started spiraling way out of control. What I thought were going to be U.S. accomplishments in this historic and religious global epicenter turned out to be deadly failures with long-term consequences.

I went back to watch the Cairo speech, watching over and over again, and I noticed that President Obama is really not an ordinary man. Hischaracter is indeed unique in that he has the ability to impress or frustrate. Even though I felt that at times he was quite ignorant to the most important subjects relating to Israel, like the 1967 borders, he never really spoke like a lawyer or politician but rather someone who was out to prove that he was the epicenter and not the problem.

Obama’s language, posture and demeanor seemed wrong to me. This was supposed to be a president who gave hope to so many, who was supposed to implement change in a positive way for all. It was as if President Obama was projecting a grandiose posture that was not his. He looked out of place and suddenly was not the presidential figure representing the free world.

It seemed that he created a sort of personality cult around himself, elevating his admirers blindly, presenting a somewhat false trust of enthusiasm that led followers to believe that no matter what he said in his speeches, he was free to do as he wished, unaccountable at all times. These admirers would follow at any cost, blindly as if in a daze or hypnotized. He promised the moon but delivered doom, and people were missing the real-life threats taking place, unfolding as an optical illusion of a beautiful spring dubbed “the Arab Spring.”

In searching for answers to find out what Obama’s real agenda on Israel was, I became swamped with irrelevant accusations, doctored pictures and cartoons. The mainstream media was promoting Obama, pushing him forward into the sphere that he sought to be. They, too, were blinded. I found an interesting observation by chance when I came across the behavioral patterns of narcissism. This disorder was common in the likes of other world leaders, but more so in dictators and power-seekers, those who wanted control as if it meant everything.

I am by no means a professional psychologist, nor have I ever had any training other than simple body language classes and perhaps a more in-depth profiling education based on the work I carried out as an Israeli police officer. Having said this, I started noticing alarming signs that perhaps indicate a slight narcissistic trend in President Obama. I base this assumption on the president’s speeches and statements, both on and off the record.

Obama’s imposing personality overwhelms those around him. He charms with his charisma. He shapes those around him and reduces others in his own inverted image (as we saw with his snubbing of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu).

I drew from my readings that narcissists have no interest in things that do not help them reach their personal objectives. They are focused on one thing alone, and that is power and control.

All other issues are meaningless to them, and they do not like to waste their precious time on trivialities. Anything that does not help them is beneath them and does not deserve their attention (remember President Obama’s recent comments when he snubbed Netanyahu’s request for action on the Iranian nuclear weapons program?).

Take a look at his attitude while serving in the U.S. Senate. If an issue was raised in the Senate that did not help Obama in one way or another, he had no interest in it. “Present” was a safe vote. No one could criticize him if things went wrong. Those issues were unworthy by their very nature because they were not about him.

A study by a leading psychologist found that Obama’s election as the first black president of the Harvard Law Review led to a contract and advance to write a book about race relations. The University of Chicago Law School provided him a lot longer than expected, and at the end, the project evolved into his own autobiography. Instead of a scholarly paper focusing on race relations, for which he had been paid, Obama it seems could not resist writing about his most sublime self. He titled the book, “Dreams from My Father.”

Narcissists are often callous and even ruthless. As the norm, they lack conscience. This is perhaps evident from Obama’s lack of interest in his own brother, who lives in poverty. A man who lives in luxury, who takes a private jet to vacation in Hawaii and who raised nearly half a billion dollars for his campaign (something unprecedented in history) has no interest in the plight of his own brother. Why? Because his brother cannot be used in his ascent to power. A narcissist cares for no one but himself.

There is no doubt this election has been like no other in the history of America. The main issues are really insignificant compared to what is at stake in the form of lives being spared and countries disappearing and, yes, the global economy. What can be more dangerous than having a man bereft of conscience, one who cannot distinguish his fantasies from reality, as the leader of the free world?

Read the rest here.

Joe Biden Caught Lying Again…..Is He a Sociopathic Liar or Just Plain Stupid?

What is with Joe Biden?  Does he not realize just how stupid he looks when astute Americans with access to the internet can easily verify (or in his case not verify) everything the man says?  Or does he actually believe his own lies in his fantasy world?

 

I am still trying to understand Joe Biden’s lies/logic during the Vice Presidential Debate. First he slams the intelligence community (Hillary) for their fatal failures in Benghazi; then he tells us not to worry about Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon because the same (failed) intelligence community says Iran is nowhere near a nuclear weapon and we should all calm down and ignore Bibi Netanyahu’s call to immediate action.

I think the man has been a life-long liar who actually believes in his own world of make-believe.

His sociopathic lying began at Syracuse University School of Law in 1968.  During his first year there, he was accused of having plagiarized 5 of 15 pages of a law review article.  He was also accused of plagiarizing a campaign speech in 1987.

He misrepresented the deaths of his wife and daughter by claiming they were killed by “an allegedly drunk” semi driver who actually risked his own life trying to avoid colliding with Biden’s wife.  Another Despicable LIE By Joe Biden…..The Death Of His Wife and Daughter.

In the Vice Presidential debate, Biden Seemed to Overstate His Role in Social Security Reform.  According to ABC’s Jake Tapper:

During the vice presidential debate last week, Vice President Joe Biden seemed to significantly overstate his role in the 1983 negotiations over Social Security.

Asked about Medicare reform, the vice president said, “Look, I was there when we did that with Social Security in 1983.  I was one of eight people sitting in the room that included Tip O’Neill negotiating with President Reagan.  We all got together and everybody said, as long as everybody’s in the deal, everybody’s in the deal, and everybody is making some sacrifice, we can find a way.”

The comment would seem to suggest that Biden was one of the few, key players “in the room” working in a bipartisan way to reform Social Security.

On “Meet the Press” on April 29, 2007, then-Sen. Biden made a similar claim, saying he was “one of five people — I was the junior guy — in the meeting with Bob Dole and George Mitchell when we put Social Security on the right path for 60 years.”

But according to the historical record, Biden was not one of the small group of people in “the room,” or in “the meeting” — nor was he even a key player in reforms.

During a speech at Ohio University in Athens, OH on September 8, Vice President Joe Biden led his audience to believe he had been a college football player for his alma mater — Delaware University — and had played against Ohio University in a 1963 football game.

Biden said he “went back in the Internet and I just want you to know I came here on October 19, 1963 and we beat you Bobcats 29-12.” Internet records do show that Delaware did play and defeat Ohio on October 19, 1963–but that Biden was not on the roster.

He told the audience he was happy when Ohio University defeated Penn State in the first week of the 2012 college football season because “now I got bragging rights. Y’all beat Penn State, I can say, ‘Well, they beat Penn State and 500 years ago we beat them once.’”

Biden told a similar story during the 2008 campaign at an appearance at Ohio University on October 15, 2008.

The problem is, the story is not quite true — by Biden’s own admission — and is another example of Biden’s exaggerations or embellishments. Read more at Breitbart.

Help us out Joe, can you see earth from your planet?!?

Video: Absolutely Uncertain – Former Obama Supporter Realizes President May Not Have Israel’s Back

I seriously hope Jewish voters will watch this video and realize Barack Obama is not their friend nor is he their ally.   If they cannot vote for Mitt Romney, then in all good conscience they need to stay home on November 6th!

 

 

A new, 18-minute mini-documentary follows the journey of Irina, a 23-year-old liberal, Jewish New Yorker who voted for Obama in 2008.  Yet as her connection to Israel has grown, and she has learned more about the President’s policies across the Middle East and towards Israel in particular, Irina has come to realize that “when the chips are down,” the President may not “have Israel’s back” as he says.

 

 

The short film features:

Exclusive interviews with leading journalists and politicians in Israel
(Bloomberg, London Times, Jerusalem Post, etc.)

Mainstream news reports (CNN, MSNBC, ABC, BBC, etc.),

Clips from longtime Democratic supporters including:

Harvard Professor Alan Dershowitz

Former NYC Mayor Ed Koch

Senator Joseph Lieberman (I-CT)

Senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ)

Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY)

CNN’s Don Lemon Skewers Wasserman Schultz on DNC’s ‘Accidental’ Omission of God and Jerusalem

The queen of lies has a tough time trying to wiggle out of CNN’s Don Lemon’s continued pressure to answer questions about her outright lies regarding The Examiner’s Phillip Klein interview and the DNC’s ‘accidental’ omission of God and Jerusalem from their platform.

 

When her candor was questioned, DWS answered “I have never been accused of being anything less than candid.”  That may be true Debbie, but you HAVE been accused of being less than truthful!

 

 

The Democrats must be soooooo proud of DWS and their God-booing abortionfest.  The Republicans had Clint Eastwood and an empty chair, the Democrats had Sandra Fluke and an empty head.  Yeah, I’d be proud of that record too Debbie!

 

Under Pressure and Amidst Boos, DNC adds God and Jerusalem to their Platform!

Wow, talk about caving under pressure!  The Democrats are walking back their actions to remove Jerusalem and God from their platform.  Why are they always walking things back – I thought their motto was ‘Forward’?!?

Amendment 1

Page 32, Line 48:  We need a government that stands up for the hopes, values, and interests of working people, and gives everyone willing to work hard the chance to make to most of their God-given potential.

Amendment 2

Page 63, Line 26:  Jerusalem is and will remain the capital of Israel.  The parties have agreed that Jerusalem is a matter for final status negotiations. It should remain an undivided city accessible to people of all faiths.

Amidst boos and multiple votes, the DNC have now added Jerusalem and God to their platform and, although they claim it was by a 2/3 vote as required, it didn’t sound that way to me.  Listen and you be the judge:

 

 

It sounds like our Arab and atheist friends were booing the changes.  What does that say about the Party?

 

Obama and Israel

Kasey Jachim:

Obama is the Anti-Israel President – when are Jewish citizens going to drop the Democratic mantle and vote for survival?

Originally posted on The Counter Jihad Report:

By Discover The Networks:

No previous American president has had so strained a relationship with Israel as Barack Obama. As Israeli Ambassador
Michael Oren said in 2010, “Israel’s ties with the United States are in their worst crisis since 1975 … a crisis of historic proportions.” Author and scholar Dennis Prager concurred, “Most observers, right or left, pro-Israel or anti-Israel, would agree that Israeli-American relations are the worst they have been in memory.” In the spring of 2011, David Parsons, spokesman for the International Christian Embassy
Jerusalem, said: “There’s a traditional, special relationship between America and Israel that Obama is basically throwing out the window in a sense.” Former New York City mayor Ed Koch lamented, “I believe this is the most dangerous and critical period that Israel has ever faced and regrettably it does not have the support of the President of the United States, which…

View original 204 more words

Israel said to be readying October attacks on Iranian nuclear sites

By  via The Washington Free Beacon

U.S. intelligence analysts watching for indicators of Israeli military action recently reported that there are signs the Jewish state plans an attack against Iran in October.

The Obama administration, meanwhile, is preparing to provide logistical support for a military strike but is pressing Israel to delay any action until the administration’s policy of sanctions have had more time to work, and that any attack would be put off until after the November presidential election.

 

U.S. opposition to any pre-election strike was discussed during the recent visit to Israel by White House National Security Adviser Thomas Donilon and a later visit by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, according to U.S. officials.

Panetta signaled possible U.S. military options for an Iran contingency during his press conference in Tel Aviv with Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak Aug. 1. Panetta said the United States and Israel are united in seeking to prevent Iran from ever having nuclear arms.

“We have been steadily applying more and more pressure against Tehran, focusing on diplomatic and economic sanctions, and I believe these steps are having an effect,” Panetta said.

He then added: “It’s my responsibility as secretary of defense to provide the president with a full range of options, including military options, should diplomacy fail. President Obama has made clear that preventing a nuclear-armed Iran is a top national security priority by the United States and that all options — all options — are on the table.”

Any Israeli military attack is expected to be carried out with little or no warning, which has meant stepped up monitoring of Israel by U.S. intelligence agencies for all indicators of an impending attack.

Ehud Barak, the Israeli defense minister, made a significant statement on Israel’s plans on July 25. Barak said during a graduation ceremony that if sanctions fail to halt Tehran’s nuclear program, an attack would be needed.

“I am well aware of the difficulties involved in thwarting Iran’s attempts to acquire a nuclear weapon,” Barak was quoted as saying by Israel’s Ynet news agency.

“However, it is clear to me that without a doubt, dealing with the threat itself will be far more complicated, far more dangerous and far more costly in resources and human life,” he said, referring to a future nuclear-armed Iran.

Barak also said that sanctions and other diplomatic steps “are not enough to stop Iran’s nuclear program.”

U.S. officials said both Donilon and Panetta urged the Israelis to give sanctions a chance to work. New sanctions were imposed on Iranian financial institutions last week.

But the sanctions contain loopholes that critics say will limit their effect in influencing Iran’s Islamist regime from coming into compliance with international controls on its nuclear program.

The International Atomic Energy Agency, contradicting standard U.S. intelligence analysis, stated recently that there are signs Iran engaged in nuclear arms development past 2003, when U.S. agencies said such work halted.

Some Israeli military leaders are said to be raising new concerns that Iran is positioning its forces for asymmetric counterattacks, specifically a new aggressive naval strategy of shutting down western oil supplies. Evidence of the new strategy was the recent dispatch of Iranian warships to the Mediterranean for the first time since 1979. The warships could be used to threaten shipping through the Red Sea and followed threats by Iranian officials to close the strategic Strait of Hormuz, through which a major portion of the world’s oil passes.

Other Israeli military and national security officials favor continuing the current campaign of covert action against Iran, including the assassination of key Iranian nuclear technicians and the use of aggressive cyber warfare attacks, like Stuxnet, Flame, and other viruses that have infected Iranian industrial control networks, including those engaged in nuclear development.

Intelligence analysts, in recent assessments, said an Israeli attack on Iran likely will trigger a global oil crisis involving Iranian counter-actions designed to disrupt the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf to Asia, Europe and elsewhere. They include closing the strategic Strait of Hormuz and disrupting shipping lanes.

One element of leverage for the administration in dissuading Israel to attack was outlined in the recent meetings with Israeli officials who were told that a U.S.-supported strike against Iran possibly could involve advanced weaponry from the U.S. arsenal, including a new Air Force conventional bomb designed to blast deeply buried and hardened targets.

The Israeli strike plan against Iranian nuclear facilities is expected to include an air bombing campaign against two main nuclear plants at Natanz and Qom that are key elements in producing enriched uranium, which could be used to fuel nuclear bombs.

Military analysts also have said the Israelis are expected to launch “decapitation” bombing raids targeting key Iranian leaders — including President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who publicly has called for destroying Israel — and other key Iranian military and political leaders.

One veteran Israeli journalist, Channel 2’s Ehud Yaari was quoted July 28 as saying he was told the most likely date for an Israeli military strike is October.

“I will give you an impression, and this is just an impression, but it is a strong impression, after conversations with the people one needs to talk with about this matter,” Yaari said.

“My impression is that the Americans are convinced that there is very high chance that Israel will decide to attack in Iran before the elections in the U.S.”

“The date that they are talking about — they say that the prime minister will have to make a decision around October,” he said. “They are getting ready for a possibility like that in the sense that they have to decide what they will do if there is one response or another by Iran, in the follow-up stage.”

Read more at The Washington Free Beacon

Obama’s spectacular failure – The Jihadists still want to kill us!

By Caroline Glick via Townhall

Two weeks ago, in an unofficial inauguration ceremony at Tahrir Square in Cairo, Egypt’s new Muslim Brotherhood President Mohamed Mursi took off his mask of moderation. Before a crowd of scores of thousands, Mursi pledged to work for the release from US federal prison of Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman.

According to The New York Times’ account of his speech, Mursi said, “I see signs [being held by members of the crowd] for Omar Abdel-Rahman and detainees’ pictures. It is my duty and I will make all efforts to have them free, including Omar Abdel-Rahman.”

Otherwise known as the blind sheikh, Abdel Rahman was the mastermind of the jihadist cell in New Jersey that perpetrated the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. His cell also murdered Rabbi Meir Kahane in New York in 1990. They plotted the assassination of then-president Hosni Mubarak. They intended to bomb New York landmarks including the Lincoln and Holland tunnels and the UN headquarters.

Rahman was the leader of Gama’a al-Islamia - the Islamic Group, responsible, among other things for the assassination of Anwar Sadat in 1981. A renowned Sunni religious authority, Rahman wrote the fatwa, or Islamic ruling, permitting Sadat’s murder in retribution for his signing the peace treaty with Israel. The Islamic group is listed by the State Department as a specially designated terrorist organization.

After his conviction in connection with the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, Abdel-Rahman issued another fatwa calling for jihad against the US. After the September 11, 2001, attacks, Osama bin Laden cited Abdel-Rahman’s fatwa as the religious justification for them.

By calling for Abdel-Rahman’s release, Mursi has aligned himself and his government with the US’s worst enemies. By calling for Abdel-Rahman’s release during his unofficial inauguration ceremony, Mursi signaled that he cares more about winning the acclaim of the most violent, America-hating jihadists in the world than with cultivating good relations with America.

And in response to Mursi’s supreme act of unfriendliness, US President Barack Obama invited Mursi to visit him at the White House.

Mursi is not the only Abdel Rahman supporter to enjoy the warm hospitality of the White House.

His personal terror organization has also been the recipient of administration largesse. Despite the fact that federal law makes it a felony to assist members of specially designated terrorist organizations, last month the State Department invited group member Hani Nour Eldin, a newly elected member of the Islamist-dominated Egyptian parliament, to visit the US and meet with senior US officials at the White House and the State Department, as part of a delegation of Egyptian parliamentarians.

State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland refused to provide any explanation for the administration’s decision to break federal law in order to host Eldin in Washington. Nuland simply claimed, “We have an interest in engaging a broad cross-section of Egyptians who are seeking to peacefully shape Egypt’s future. The goal of this delegation… was to have consultations both with think tanks but also with government folks, with a broad spectrum representing all the colors of Egyptian politics.”

MURSI IS not the only Arab leader who embraces terrorists only to be embraced by the US government. In a seemingly unrelated matter, this week it was reported that in an attempt to satisfy the Obama administration’s urgent desire to renew negotiations between the Palestinians and Israel, and to satisfy the Palestinians’ insatiable desire to celebrate terrorists, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu offered to release 124 Palestinian terrorist murderers from Israeli prisons in exchange for a meeting with Palestinian Authority Chairman and Fatah chief Mahmoud Abbas.

Alas, Abbas refused. He didn’t think Netanyahu’s offer was generous enough.

And how did the Obama administration respond to Abbas’s demand for the mass release of terrorists and his continued refusal to resume negotiations with Israel?

By attacking Israel.

The proximate cause of the Obama administration’s most recent assault on Israel is the publication of the legal opinion of a panel of expert Israeli jurists regarding the legality of Israeli communities beyond the 1949 armistice lines. Netanyahu commissioned the panel, led by retired Supreme Court justice Edmond Levy, to investigate the international legal status of these towns and villages and to provide the government with guidance relating to future construction of Israeli communities beyond the armistice lines.

The committee’s findings, published this week, concluded that under international law, these communities are completely legal.

There is nothing remotely revolutionary about this finding. This has been Israel’s position since 1967, and arguably since 1922.

The international legal basis for the establishment of the Jewish state in 1948 was the 1922 League of Nations Mandate for Palestine. That document gave the Jewish people the legal right to sovereignty over Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem, as well as all the land Israel took control over during the 1948- 49 War of Independence.

Not only did the Mandate give the Jewish people the legal right to the areas, it enjoined the British Mandatory authorities to “facilitate… close settlement by Jews on the land, including state lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.”

So not only was Jewish settlement not prohibited. It was required.

Although this has been Israel’s position all along, Netanyahu apparently felt the need to have its legitimacy renewed in light of the all-out assault against Israel’s legal rights led by the Palestinians, and joined enthusiastically by the Obama administration.

In a previous attempt to appease Obama’s rapacious appetite for Israeli concessions, Netanyahu temporarily abrogated Israel’s legal rights by banning Jews from exercising their property rights in Judea and Samaria for 10 months in 2010. All the legal opinion published this week does is restate what Israel’s position has always been.

Whereas the Obama administration opted to embrace Mursi even as he embraces Abdel-Rahman, the Obama administration vociferously condemned Israel for having the nerve to ask a panel of senior jurists to opine about its rights. In a press briefing, State Department spokesman Patrick Ventrell banged the rhetorical hammer.

As he put it, “The US position on settlements is clear. Obviously, we’ve seen the reports that an Israeli government-appointed panel has recommended legalizing dozens of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, but we do not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity, and we oppose any effort to legalize settlement outposts.”

In short then, for the Obama administration, it is all well and fine for the newly elected president of what was until two years ago the US’s most important Arab ally to embrace a terror mastermind indirectly responsible for the murder of nearly 3,000 Americans. It is okay to invite members of jihadist terror groups to come to Washington and meet with senior US officials in a US taxpayer- funded trip. It is even okay for the head of a would-be-state that the US is trying to create to embrace every single Palestinian terrorist, including those who have murdered Americans. But for Israel’s elected government to ask an expert panel to determine whether Israel is acting in accordance with international law in permitting Jews to live on land the Palestinians insist must be Jew-free is an affront.

THE DISPARITY between the administration’s treatment of the Mursi government on the one hand and the Netanyahu government on the other places the nature of its Middle East policy in stark relief.

Obama came into office with a theory on which he based his Middle East policy. His theory was that jihadists hate America because the US supports Israel. By placing what Obama referred to as “daylight” between the US and Israel, he believed he would convince the jihadists to put aside their hatred of America.

Obama has implemented this policy for three and a half years. And its record of spectacular failure is unbroken.

Obama’s failure is exposed in all its dangerous consequence by a simple fact. Since he entered office, the Americans have dispensed with far fewer jihadists than they have empowered.

Since January 2009, the Muslim world has become vastly more radicalized. No Islamist government in power in 2009 has been overthrown. But several key states – first and foremost Egypt – that were led by pro-Western, US-allied governments when Obama entered office are now ruled by Islamists.

It is true that the election results in Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco and elsewhere are not Obama’s fault. But they still expose the wrongness of his policy. Obama’s policy of putting daylight between the US and Israel, and supporting the Muslim Brotherhood against US allies like Mubarak, involves being bad to America’s friends and good to America’s enemies. This policy cannot help but strengthen your enemies against yourself and your friends.

Rather than contend with the bitter consequences of his policy, Obama and his surrogates have opted to simply deny the dangerous reality he has engendered through his actions. Even worse they have come up with explanations for maintaining this policy despite its flagrant failure.

Nowhere was this effort more obvious than in a made-to-order New York Times analysis this week titled, “As Islamists gain influence, Washington reassesses who its friends are.”

The analysis embraces the notion that it is possible and reasonable to appease the likes of Mursi and his America-hating jihadist supporters and coalition partners. It quotes Michele Dunne from the Atlantic Council who claimed that on the one hand, if the Muslim Brotherhood and its radical comrades are allowed to take over Egypt, their entry into mainstream politics should reduce the terrorism threat. On the other hand, she warned, “If Islamist groups like the Brotherhood lose faith in democracy, that’s when there could be dire consequences.”

In other words, the analysis argues that the US should respond to the ascent of its enemies by pretending its enemies are its friends.

Aside from its jaw-dropping irresponsibility, this bit of intellectual sophistry requires a complete denial of reality. The Taliban were in power in Afghanistan in 2001. Their political power didn’t stop them from cooperating with al-Qaida. Hamas has been in charge of Gaza since 2007. That hasn’t stopped it from carrying out terrorism against Israel. The mullahs have been in charge of Iran from 33 years. That hasn’t stopped them from serving as the largest terrorism sponsors in the world. Hezbollah has been involved in mainstream politics in Lebanon since 2000 and it has remained one of the most active terrorist organizations in the world.

And so on and so forth.

Back in the 1980s, the Reagan administration happily cooperated with the precursors of al-Qaida in America’s covert war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. It never occurred to the Americans then that the same people working with them to overthrow the Soviets would one day follow the lead of the blind sheikh and attack America.

Unlike the mujahadin in Afghanistan, the Muslim Brotherhood has never fought a common foe with the Americans. The US is supporting it for nothing – while seeking to win its support by turning on America’s most stable allies.

Can there be any doubt that this policy will end badly?

Read more here.

Obama said ‘I Am a Muslim’ – Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit

By Pamela Geller via Voice of the Copts:

Obama -Ahmed Aboul Gheit 06-04-2009

“The American President told me in confidence that he is a Muslim.”

That was the claim of Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit, as reported in the May 2010 issue of Israel Today. According to journalist Avi Lipkin, Gheit appeared on Nile TV’s “Round Table Show” in January, on which he said that “he had had a one-on-one meeting with Obama who swore to him that he was a Moslem, the son of a Moslem father and step-son of Moslem step-father, that his half-brothers in Kenya were Moslems, and that he was loyal to the Moslem agenda.”

Obama allegedly said this in the context of reassuring Gheit that he would soon deal with Israel:

He asked that the Moslem world show patience. Obama promised that once he overcame some domestic American problems (Healthcare) [sic], that he would show the Moslem world what he would do with Israel.

Could this be true? Even if Gheit’s claim isn’t true, or was misreported, every country in the free world must be cognizant of the catastrophic sea change that has taken place in the leadership of the free world — as witnessed by events over the past year. Barack Obama took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, and yet whether he is a Muslim or not, he has undeniably gone around the world promoting Islam and Sharia (Islamic law).

And now, if what Gheit says is true, we know why.
The alleged exchange between Obama and Gheit would almost certainly have happened in early January 2010, when Gheit was in Washington, D.C. regarding “Mideast peace talks.”

On Thursday, January 7, 2010, the Associated Press reported that “Clinton and Mitchell [were] scheduled to meet” with Gheit on Friday, January 8, 2010: see ABC news here.

On Friday, January 8, 2010, Hillary Clinton and Gheit spoke with each other. The U.S. Department of State has provided video before the meeting: see the Department of State here.

On Saturday, January 9, 2010, NPR spoke with Gheit about his visit: see NPR.org.

This is a devastating claim, and yet no media outlet is covering it. Remember, during Obama’s campaign, I and others were excoriated for using his middle name. We were accused of implying he was a crypto-Muslim. We could not discuss his background, his Islamic schooling, his ties to Islam. However, I have meticulously documented his Muslim background in my soon-to-be-released book, The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America.

It became all too clear after his election how proud Obama was of his Muslim name, background, and family. He made this plain when he gave his very first interview to Muslim media and boasted of these things. He suddenly became proud of the very things that were verboten to speak of during the campaign. That was the level of deceit and obfuscation.

If Gheit’s reported claim is true, then Obama is a baldfaced liar. But why? Why lie if you have nothing to hide?

Of course, if Obama believes himself a Muslim, then his prior behavior constituted taqiya — deception or lies to advance Islam. This he performed brilliantly during his election: He lied with brazen contempt. And now his Islamic Jew-hatred is made painfully clear in his stunning rebuke of Israel. In Israel Today, political analyst Aviel Schneider exposes some of the further implications of Gheit’s claim:

That could explain why Obama has instructed that the term “Islamic extremism” no longer be used in official government documents and statements. Furthermore, the US is now accusing Israel of harming American interests in the Middle East. General David Petraeus, the head of US Central Command, said Israel’s intransigence on resolving the conflict with the Palestinians is endangering US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. Even the US Congress considers Obama’s behavior toward Netanyahu humiliating. Three-quarters of the House of Representatives, 337 of 435 members, signed a bipartisan letter to Clinton expressing “deep concern over recent tension” between the two countries, and demanding that it be smoothed over quickly and in private.

“Obama is a real problem for Israel,” a senior official told told Yediot. “He is Israel’s biggest strategic catastrophe.” The newspaper also quoted another official who believes that for the first time Washington has switched sides. “The Obama White House is putting pressure only on Israel but does not expect anything from the Palestinians,” he said. “These American demands are unacceptable.”

Is it any wonder that Obama’s counterterror adviser speaks Arabic, calls Jerusalem “Al-Quds,” and calls jihad a “legitimate tenet of Islam”?

We know that Gheit met with Obama in April 2010 in D.C. — check out White House.gov, which lists Gheit as one of the attendees of a “Nuclear Security Summit” at that time. And they met more than once. Gheit had a private meeting with Obama in May 2009.

Worse yet, Gheit just last month called Israel “the enemy.” This after Israel gave them the Sinai (which Israel had won in a defensive war and defended through another one) with all its oil in return for “peace.”

How plausible is Gheit’s reported claim about Obama? Let’s review Obama’s track record:

And earlier this week, Obama became the first president to host a press conference with the American flag nowhere in sight.

Ouch. What a disgrace.

Now: will the lapdog media make Obama address Gheit’s claim?

The American people deserve answers. But whether or not what Gheit reportedly says is true, Obama’s pro-jihad track record is clear.

This article originally appeared in American Thinker on June 16, 2010

Another Obama Leak or Lie? Mossad Agents Claim Obama Lying About Stuxnet

With all the national security leaks coming from the Obama administration is it any wonder Israel does not trust us?  Middle East informants have been outed, Seal Team 6 was disclosed, and Pakistani Dr. Shakil Afridi was thrown under the bus. Many wonder if we aren’t setting Israel up for destruction – so do I!  Kasey

By Joel B. Pollak via Breitbart

Israeli officials who were placed at risk by the Obama administration’s leaks about the Stuxnet virus are disputing American claims that the cyber-weapon was jointly developed by the U.S. and Israel. Rather, they say, Israeli intelligence first started developing cyberspace warfare against Iran, only convincing the U.S.–with some difficulty–to join in. The Israelis allege that President Barack Obama claimed credit for Stuxnet to boost his re-election campaign.

The source for the new claim is Yossi Melman, a journalist for Israel’s left-wing Ha’aretz daily (via Israel Matzav):

The Israeli officials actually told me a different version. They said that it was Israeli intelligence that began, a few years earlier, a cyberspace campaign to damage and slow down Iran’s nuclear intentions. And only later they managed to convince the USA to consider a joint operation — which, at the time, was unheard of. Even friendly nations are hesitant to share their technological and intelligence resources against a common enemy…

Yet my Israeli sources understand the sensitivity and the timing of the issue and are not going to be dragged into a battle over taking credit. “We know that it is the presidential election season,” one Israeli added, ”and don’t want to spoil the party for President Obama and his officials, who shared in a twisted and manipulated way some of the behind-the-scenes secrets of the success of cyberwar.”

The Obama administration’s pattern of leaks to mainstream media outlets–of which the Stuxnet virus is only one example–prompted bipartisan outrage from Congress and the appointment of two special prosecutors. While the leaks jeopardized U.S. national security–allegedly for the political purpose of burnishing President Obama’s image as commander-in-chief–they may also have been exaggerated, if the new reports from Israel are accurate.

For more click here.