Loving the Enemy

UNited in HateBy Janice Fiamengo 

Proclaiming himself a conciliator and a moderate with a vision of Americans “stand[ing] with each other” and “paying their fair share,” President Barack Obama is in fact one of the most partisan presidents ever to occupy the White House. Fine-sounding words notwithstanding, he is a leftist ideologue and no-holds-barred political fighter whose practice has consistently been to demonize the American equivalents of the hated kulaks (farmers) and petit-bourgeoisie (small business owners) persecuted in the Soviet Union. Obama’s enemies include those “bitter” people who “cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them” as well as the presumably benighted bigots who fail to realize that “the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.” With his anti-American, neo-Marxist outlook shaped by mentors and heroes such as Frank Marshall Davis, Bill Ayers, Saul Alinsky, and Jeremiah Wright, Obama is naturally inclined to be suspicious of freedom and to feel sympathy for groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood.

Reflex affinities such as Obama’s have a long, bloody history, and anyone wishing to understand the threat posed by the Obama administration to the fabric of America is well advised to place its policies and rhetoric in a comprehensive historical perspective. How is it that an educated person can be attracted to totalitarian ideologies and predisposed to reject the freedoms of the western world? This was, arguably, the central question of the twentieth century, and it has assumed a renewed urgency since 9/11, a time when leftists have applauded terror attacks on the United States and claimed that America’s enemies are in fact righteous victims. What is one to make of their seemingly sophisticated arguments justifying atrocity? Can such people really believe, to cite only a few examples, that the 9/11 hijackers were motivated by a longing for social justice? That the Palestinian leadership is committed to peace with Israel? That people are better off in Cuba, with the highest per capita imprisonment rate in the world, than in the United States?

Jamie Glazov responds to such questions in United in Hate: The Left’s Romance with Tyranny and Terror (2009), a brilliant investigation that not only extensively documents leftists’ support for brutal regimes, but also diagnoses their worldview as a psycho-social syndrome of pathological dimensions. Leftist hatred, Glazov demonstrates, has less to do with specific political programs or economic systems than with a deep-rooted disenchantment with democratic freedoms and a corresponding “negative identification” with violence.

The objective evidence for leftists’ love of tyrants is substantial, and Glazov presents it convincingly with a blend of facts, anecdotes, and analysis. We learn, for example, about the massive effort on the part of western Communists to repress, distort, and recast the horrors of Stalinist Russia, including the purges that killed millions and the forced famine in the Ukraine that brought the peasantry to its knees. New York Times reporter Walter Duranty turned the reality of Ukrainian starvation into a cheerful tale of abundance, lying so aggressively in favor of Stalin’s policies that when the Manchester Guardian‘s Malcolm Muggeridge tried to report the truth-that peasant were dying en masse-he was mocked and derided, ultimately losing his job.

When leftists turned their attention to other bloody Communist regimes in Cuba, North Vietnam, China, and Nicaragua, many high-profile members of the western intelligentsia were eager to travel there to report on the miraculous gains that had supposedly been achieved. Susan Sontag wrote of Castro’s Cuba with fanatical admiration, denying the dictator’s atrocities and downplaying limitations on freedom, even going so far as to claim that “No Cuban writer has been or is in jail,” and that “the great majority of Cubans feel vastly freer today than they ever did before the revolution.” Making his pilgrimage to Hanoi in 1970, Noam Chomsky accepted as gospel all the nonsense his North Vietnamese hosts told him about the regime, as did Gunter Grass after a tour of a model Nicaraguan prison, which led him to enthuse that there was no room in the new regime for revenge-this in a country that had executed 8,000 political enemies and jailed 20,000 in the first three years of the revolution. (Hollywood’s Oliver Stone, with his glorification of Stalin and denunciation of the U.S. as “an Orwellian state,” is a current exemplar of this suicidal distemper.)

After the collapse of Communism, it has been déjà vu all over again with radical Islam. Immediately following the terrorist assault of 9/11, a jubilant chorus of university professors and progressives across North America refused to express horror for the attacks; instead, they blamed America, with Ward Churchill calling those who had died “little Eichmanns” and Nation columnist Katha Pollitt lecturing patriots who wanted to fly an American flag that it stood for “jingoism and vengeance and war.” Hundreds of so-called anti-war demonstrations were organized almost immediately to express solidarity with the Taliban regime that had harbored the attackers and to paint the United States as a warmonger. Since then, droves of leftist lawyers have worked to obtain release for the terrorists held at Guantanamo Bay and to strike down legislation intended to help the United States guard itself against future attacks. Even when Islamists testify in court that their terror quests are inspired by Koranic injunctions to kill infidels, leftists insist that they are (justly) resisting American oppression. Western feminists routinely defend Islamic misogyny-wife beating, honor killing, genital mutilation, the burqa-and will not admit that women live better lives in the western democracies. And leftist gays march in anti-Israel rallies, joining with Muslim queer-bashers to denounce the only country in the Middle East where homosexuals can live securely.

Read more at American Thinker

 

Algeria: Obama’s Chickens Come Home to Roost

OBAMA-articleLarge-450x326By Robert Spencer

Jeremiah Wright was right after all. The Algeria jihad attack proves it.

Not long after the 9/11 jihad attacks, Barack Obama’s mentor and friend, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, preached a sermon in which he uttered the now-notorious words: “America’s chickens are coming home to roost.”

Wright meant, of course, that the U.S. had brought the attack upon itself by its own acts of violence against others: “We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye… and now we are indignant, because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought back into our own front yards.”

In a certain sense Wright was right: the U.S. did bring 9/11 on itself – but not in the way that he thought. The jihadists who destroyed the Twin Towers and damaged the Pentagon had not been brooding about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and no action by the U.S. did or could have justified the mass murder those jihadists perpetrated. If it could be truly said that the U.S. brought 9/11 on itself in any way, it was only by failing to recognize the implications of and to confront the ideology behind the jihad attacks that immediately preceded it.

There was an abundance of indicators of what was coming. In December 1988, an Islamic jihadist murdered 259 people, including 189 Americans, by bringing down Pam Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. In February 1993, Islamic jihadists murdered six people and wounded over a thousand in their first attempt to bring down the World Trade Center towers. In June 1996, Islamic jihadists murdered nineteen people and wounded 515, including 240 Americans, in a bombing at the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia. In August 1998, Islamic jihadists bombed the American embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, murdering 291, including 12 Americans, in Nairobi, and murdering ten more and wounding 77 in Dar es Salaam. In October 2000, Islamic jihadists bombed the USS Cole in port at Aden, Yemen, murdering seventeen sailors and wounding 39.

In response to all this, the U.S. lobbed a few cruise missiles into Afghanistan and took out a chemical weapons factory (or aspirin factory, depending on one’s source) in Sudan, and did little more. No serious attempt was made to come to grips with the full nature and magnitude of the ideology that inspired those jihad attacks, and to work to neutralize its violent potential. And so it would have been more surprising if the 9/11 attacks hadn’t happened than that they did.

So it is today. Barack Obama has overseen the installation of Sharia regimes in Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt. While paying lip service to the importance of distinguishing jihadists from genuine democratic forces in Syria and elsewhere, the Obama administration has offered no criteria for doing this. And now al-Qaeda jihadists in Algeria have carried out a brazen assault on BP’s natural gas plant in that country, killing at least eighty-one people and demonstrating anew the falsehood of Barack Obama’s recent claim that in Afghanistan “we achieved our central goal … or have come very close to achieving our central goal, which is to de-capacitate al-Qaeda, to dismantle them, to make sure that they can’t attack us again.”

Read more at Front Page

Obama: ‘I have never been a Muslim’- President’s personal accounts reveal inconsistencies

“If a writer will fabricate the details about his own mother’s terminal illness  and quest for insurance, then he will probably fudge on anything.”

By Daniel Pipes:

Editor’s Note: In this first of a five-part series, Middle East and Islam  specialist Daniel Pipes begins his inquiry into Barack Obama’s early Muslim  connections by noting the president’s autobiographical inaccuracies. Future  installments will establish his many connections to Islam.

President Obama has come out swinging against his Republican rival,  sponsoring television advertisements that ask, “What is Mitt Romney hiding?” The  allusion is to such relatively minor matters as Mr. Romney’s prior tax returns,  the date he stopped working for Bain Capital and the nonpublic records from his  service heading the Salt Lake City Olympics and as governor of Massachusetts.  Mr. Obama has defended his demands that Mr. Romney release more information  about himself, declaring in August that “the American people have assumed that  if you want to be president of the United States that your life’s an open book  when it comes to things like your finances.” Liberals such as Paul Krugman of  the New York Times enthusiastically endorse this focus on Mr. Romney’s personal  history.

If President Obama and his supporters wish to focus on biography, of course,  that is a game two can play. Already, the temperate, mild-mannered Mr. Romney  has criticized Mr. Obama’s re-election campaign as “based on falsehood and  dishonesty,” and a television ad went further, asserting that Mr. Obama “doesn’t  tell the truth.”

A focus on openness and honesty is likely to hurt Mr. Obama far more than Mr.  Romney. Mr. Obama remains the mystery candidate with an autobiography full of  gaps and even fabrications. For example, to sell his autobiography in 1991, Mr.  Obama claimed that he “was born in Kenya.” He lied about never having been a  member and candidate of the 1990s Chicago socialist New Party. When Stanley  Kurtz produced evidence to establish that he was a member, Mr. Obama’s flacks  smeared and dismissed Mr. Kurtz. Mr. Obama’s 1995 autobiography, “Dreams from My  Father,” contains a torrent of inaccuracies and falsehoods about his maternal  grandfather, his father, his mother, his parents’ wedding, his stepfather’s  father, his high school friend, his girlfriend, Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn,  and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. As Victor Davis Hanson put it, “If a writer will  fabricate the details about his own mother’s terminal illness and quest for  insurance, then he will probably fudge on anything.”

Into this larger pattern of mendacity about his past life arises the question  of Mr. Obama’s discussion of his faith, perhaps the most singular and outrageous  of his lies.

Asked about the religion of his childhood and youth, Mr. Obama offers  contradictory answers. He finessed a March 2004 question, “Have you always been  a Christian?” by replying: “I was raised more by my mother and my mother was  Christian.” But in December 2007, he belatedly decided to give a straight  answer: “My mother was a Christian from Kansas.  I was raised by my mother. So,  I’ve always been a Christian.” In February 2009, however, he offered a  completely different account:

“I was not raised in a particularly religious household. I had a father who  was born a Muslim but became an atheist, grandparents who were non-practicing  Methodists and Baptists, and a mother who was skeptical of organized religion. I  didn’t become a Christian until  I moved to the South Side of Chicago after  college.”

He further elaborated on this answer in September 2010, saying, “I came to my  Christian faith later in life.”

Which is it? Has Mr. Obama “always been a Christian” or did he “become a  Christian” after college? Self-contradiction on so fundamental a matter of  identity, when added to the general questioning about the accuracy of his  autobiography, raises questions about veracity. Would someone telling the truth  say such varied and opposite things about himself? Inconsistency is typical of  fabrication: When making things up, it’s hard to stick with the same story. Mr.  Obama appears to be hiding something. Was he the areligious child of irreligious  parents? Or was he always a Christian? A Muslim? Or was he, in fact, something  of his own creation — a Christian Muslim?

Mr. Obama provides some information on his Islamic background in his two  books, “Dreams from My Father” and “The Audacity of Hope” (2006). In 2007, when  Hillary Rodham Clinton was still the favored Democratic candidate for president,  a number of reporters dug up information about Mr. Obama’s time in Indonesia.  His statements as president have provided important insights into his mentality.  The major biographies of Mr. Obama, however, whether friendly (such as those by  David Maraniss, David Mendell and David Remnick) or hostile (such as those by  Jack Cashill, Jerome R. Corsi, Dinesh D’Souza, Aaron Klein, Edward Klein and  Stanley Kurtz), devote little attention to this topic.

I shall establish his having been born and raised a Muslim, provide  confirming evidence from recent years, survey the perceptions of him as a  Muslim, and place this deception in the larger context of Mr. Obama’s  autobiographical fictions.

To begin with, Barack Obama readily acknowledges that his paternal  grandfather, Hussein Onyango Obama, converted to Islam. Indeed, “Dreams” (Page  407) contains a long quote from his paternal grandmother explaining the  grandfather’s reasons for doing so: Christianity’s ways appeared to be “foolish  sentiment” to him, “something to comfort women,” and so he converted to Islam,  thinking “its practices conformed more closely to his beliefs” (Page 104).  Barack Obama readily told this to all comers: When asked by a barber (Page 149), “You a Muslim?” for example, he replied, “Grandfather was.”

Mr. Obama presents his parents and stepfather as nonreligious. He notes in “Audacity” (Pages 204-5), that his “father had been raised a Muslim” but was a “confirmed atheist” by the time he met Barack’s mother, who, in turn, “professed  secularism.” His stepfather, Lolo Soetoro, “like most Indonesians, was raised a  Muslim,” though he was a nonpracticing, syncretic one who “followed a brand of  Islam that could make room for the remnants of more ancient animist and Hindu  faiths” (“Dreams,” Page 37).

Read more at Washington Times

Daniel Pipes (DanielPipes.org) is president of the Middle East Forum.

Also see:

Islamist Influences on President Obama (discoverthenetworks.com)

Report: Obama said ‘I Am a Muslim’ by Pamela Geller,  6/16/2010(americanthinker.com)

excerpt:

Help Wanted: A National Security President

By Frank Gaffney at Big Peace:

Until recently, most politicians, pundits and others among the so-called “smart people” insisted that Election 2012 was all about jobs, jobs, jobs.  The more broad-minded contended that the related issues of the lousy economy and the imperatives of deficit reduction might also feature.  But that was all the mattered, especially in the presidential contest.

Then, GOP candidate Herman Cain – a successful businessman who has risen in the polls in no small measure on the strength of his claim to have actually created jobs – gave an interview in which he seemed unaware that Communist China has the bomb.

Without skipping a beat, the elites denounced him as unfit to serve on the grounds that a man who was not proficient in national security and foreign policy matters could never become president. The jobs-jobs-jobs leitmotif gave way, at least for a time, to a new theme: the White House is no place for on-the-job-training about the nation’s defense.

How quickly they forget.  What Barack Obama knew about U.S. security policy before he became president amounted to little more than the anti-colonialist sentiments of his father and the virulently anti-American agitation of PLO flak Rashid Khalidi, terrorist William Ayers, revolutionary Saul Alinsky and radical pastor Jeremiah Wright.

Unfortunately, despite the on-the-job foreign and defense policy training Mr. Obama has, in fact, received during his time in office over the past nearly three years, he still seems largely clueless about U.S. security interests – and what it takes to safeguard them.  Consider the following sample of his myriad, unforced errors:

  • President Obama has embraced the Muslim Brotherhood, an organization dedicated to imposing worldwide – including in the United States – the totalitarian Islamic doctrine known as shariah.  His policies have helped bring the Brotherhood to power in North Africa and are legitimating its various fronts inside this country and otherwise facilitating their efforts to penetrate the U.S. government and dominate the American Muslim community.
  • Mr. Obama is effectively surrendering Iraq to Iran by removing all U.S. forces from the former for purely domestic political reasons and without regard for the consequences in the Middle East, and possibly beyond.
  • The Obama administration appears to be hell-bent on doing the same with respect to Afghanistan.  The latest news is that U.S. official have not only begun negotiations with the Taliban.  They have begun a dialogue as well with what is, if possible, an even more dangerous, despicable and irreconcilable adversary: the Haqqani network, based in Pakistan.
  • Mr. Obama’s much-touted “reset” of relations with Russia has been shown to be a Potemkin exercise, with the end of the pretense that Washington had a more friendly and reliable partner in President Dmitry Medvedev giving way to the reality that the unremittingly hostile and authoritarian Vladimir Putin has been calling the shots all along – and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.
  • Team Obama’s massive investment (financial and political) in the United Nations has also proven a bust.  Its willingness to diminish the U.S. role to more-or-less that of any other nation, while insisting on continuing to pick up more than a fifth of the organization’s tab has reduced America not just to a paper tiger but a patsy, to boot. Meanwhile, the 57-member bloc known as the Organization of Islamic Cooperation is increasingly calling the shots, with help from the Russians and Chinese who can be relied upon to block anything remotely useful to us.
  • Matters are made vastly worse by President Obama’s decisions to hollow out the United States military.  As he memorably put it, “the nice thing about the defense budget is that it’s so big, it’s so huge, that a 1 percent reduction is the equivalent of the education budget.”  That sort of attitude has resulted in at least $460 billion worth of cuts in defense spending to date.

The associated damage is likely to be compounded by further reductions at the hands of the congressional supercommittee or, failing acceptance of its recommendations by the full Congress, via a meat-ax known as “sequestration.”  The latter would impose a further roughly $600 billion across-the-board reduction in Pentagon spending.  The Obama administration’s own civilian and uniformed defense leaders have warned that the effects of such a one-two punch would be catastrophic.

Should expertise on national security and foreign policy be a prerequisite for the presidency?  The answer obviously must be a resounding “Yes” – especially in a world as dangerous as ours.  Have we had it over the past nearly three years?  The answer is equally resoundingly, “No.”

We have to insist on a level of competence in the defense and foreign policy portfolio of our elected national leaders.  In that connection, it is heartening that twoof the upcoming debates between Republican presidential candidates – one on November 12th at Wofford College in South Carolina and one sponsored by the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation and CNN in Washington on November 22nd – will focus on national security-related topics.

While the liquidations of Osama bin Laden, Anwar al-Awlaki and a number of other high-profile terrorists on President Obama’s watch are welcome, those accomplishments are, regrettably, more than offset by his serious failings like those noted above.  The American people deserve, and need, a competent Commander-in-Chief.  And they had better insist on getting one.