Wednesday, February 1, 2012

A Sycophant Gets Desperate



Michael

In what appears to be little more than a howl of desperation at the fact that most Jews are not sycophants of Barack Obama, a "progressive Zionist" bully has, on Daily Kos (surprise surprise) castigated those of us who refuse to bend over for this president.

The bully writes the following:

Lately we see the ODS (Obama Derangement Syndrome) sufferers on the Right, just getting silly and spewing (and I mean spewing) nonsense like, continuing to call President Obama a secret Muslim, saying that he loves and enables "radical genocidal jihad", blaming him for the breakdown in talks in the Middle East, straight out calling Democrats anti-Semites and generally urging the American Jewish Community to turn to the Right and actually vote for Republicans this year.... all the while claiming they are still "liberal".

The bully gives away his game immediately upon calling critics of the current administration sufferers of "Obama Derangement Syndrome." Is it not obvious that calling critics of the current administration something akin to insane is no better than when Republicans referred to critics of the George W. Bush administration as sufferers of "Bush Derangement Syndrome"?

The accusation represents the very lowest form of political discourse because rather than dealing with the actual criticisms in a liberal manner by addressing those criticisms, the bully seeks to defame the critic as insane, a rather illiberal tactic.  This is precisely what the Soviet regime did to its critics, as well.  Instead of dealing with the actual issues, it is so much easier to smear a fellow human being as "deranged."  It's an old totalitarian method, but one usually employed by the worst of political bottom-feeders.

His second claim is that some call Obama a "secret Muslim." I am in agreement with the presidential sycophant that Obama is not a Muslim, but so would the vast majority of Republicans agree. So this is a straw man argument. It is not to the substance of the criticisms.

Did Obama "love and enable" the rise of "radical genocidal jihad"? How many times must we remind presidential sycophants that Obama called the Tunisian spasm of the Jihad something akin to the Revolution of '76 and / or the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s? These are his own words directly:

There are times in the course of history when the actions of ordinary citizens spark movements for change because they speak to a longing for freedom that has been building up for years. In America, think of the defiance of those patriots in Boston who refused to pay taxes to a King, or the dignity of Rosa Parks as she sat courageously in her seat. So it was in Tunisia...

These are Obama's own words at the outset of the rise of radical Islam which "progressives" foolishly label "Arab Spring." How this can possibly be considered anything other than enabling and promoting is beyond human reason. The Daily Kos bully is asking that people shut their ears and shut their eyes to the Islamist nature of these uprisings, despite the fact that Islamists took 75 percent of the Egyptian vote. He does so in order to protect his leader, but there is something that smacks of authoritarianism about this kind of servility.

Like so many "progressive" bullies he is so afraid of criticizing radical Islam, so cowed by the shaming and shunning that goes on with these Politically Correct Stalinists, that he simply pretends that it isn't real.  Furthermore, is Obama criticizing radical Islam?  No.  In fact, in the Obama administration it is even verboten to call radical Islam radical Islam.  Obama is so in the bag for the Islamists that he will not even allow his people to discuss the matter in any meaningful way because they are forbidden from using the very word "Islam" when writing about terrorism.

So, yes, Obama is enabling the rise of the Jihad.

As for blaming Obama for the breakdown in Middle East talks, the reason that many, many people blame Obama for the failure of I-P negotiations is because his racist demand for "total settlement freeze" forced Mahmoud Abbas, who cannot afford to be seen as softer on Israel than the US president, to require nothing less as the price for negotiations. In this way, directly through his own behavior, Obama ruined any potential for a negotiated agreement between the Palestinians and the Israelis. Obama could not have been more effective in ruining those talks if that was his intention.

In the mean time, as the polls indicate, the Democratic party is, in fact, bleeding Jewish support. Only the most servile dhimmis would suggest that Jewish people have some obligation to support the Democratic party or would suggest that anyone who does not support the Democratic party cannot be considered "liberal."

What a disgrace.

The Daily Kos bully should be thoroughly ashamed of himself for demanding such ideological, illiberal, and partisan conformity.

By the way, just how brave does one need to be to kick around Republicans on Daily Kos? The test of one's character is not in going along with the crowd, but standing up to the crowd when the crowd is wrong. It takes no strength of character to kick around conservatives or Republicans in a place like Daily Kos, just like it takes no strength of character to kick around Democrats and progressives on places like Red State dot org. Quite the contrary. In this case, the progressive-left crowd is failing to stand up for human rights in the Middle East. It has, in fact, betrayed women in the Middle East, gays in the Middle East, and Jews in the Middle East. But do not expect these "progressives" to ever acknowledge the obvious.

Ideological servility will not permit.

.

15 comments:

  1. I am more liberal, by far, than the self-described progressive over there. I celebrate diversity of opinion, but that is sorely lacking from one who thinks that demonization is how to persuade.

    I guess it is persuasive to those who get off on bashing people who have a different point of view.

    Indeed, the rules to comment are drawn so narrow that the only comments permitted must be in approval. Otherwise, one is labeled a deranged right winger who hates Obama.

    Yes, how courageous he and the others who trash and demonize are, and how tolerant!

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm telling you, man, times are changing and the old assumptions no longer necessarily hold true.

    I know that you have not come around to this idea, but I do think that its getting to the point where it might be better to reform the Republicans.

    The Democratic leadership is OK, but the base is not so OK.  

    The writer of that piece on dkos will talk civilly with the worst types of anti-Semitic anti-Zionists.  It's free-thinking Jews that he really cannot abide.

    Too bad for him, I guess.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I do not believe he represents the base, which is far less supportive of Obama than the ad nauseum idolatry presented in his diaries.

    Not to mention the demonization that does not help persuade the open-minded, but comes off as extreme.

    I do agree, however, that an illusion is created of tolerance and reasonableness as it pertains to the anti-Israel crowd, but the reality is that there is an almost complete inability to tolerate criticism.

    This accounts for the censorship of ideas that has occurred from one who loves to crow about being progressive.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Aside from it's often antisemitic and Israel hating I/P rhetoric, dKos was always at its worse when it went nuts over Republicans...demonization if you will. Recall the absolute scandalous almost constant daily abuse of Sarah Palin by often what looked like nothing more than wild dog packs.

    I can understand disdain for one's political opponents but it gets ridiculous over there. Embarrassing, even.

    As for criticism of Obama, well, there is nothing more traditional from a liberal perspective than criticism of one's own. The day that becomes verboten is the day Liberalism dies.

    The crowd who wishes to make Obama criticism forbidden are NOT Liberals, but Progressives after all. There is a world of difference. We have talked about this many times. Luckily most of them seem to be mild Progressives as opposed to the more virulent strain...so far.

    Finally, if Obama can't win on his merits but only with the help of his supporters insulting his critics then he and they are in big trouble.

    ReplyDelete
  5. No, School, I don't guess that he represents the base, although it is the base... the activist base... that turned me off of the movement and the party.
    There have been a number of "landmarks" over the last few years that represented epiphanies for me.  The Mavi Marmara was one because any number of progressives insisted that those pipe and knife-wielding Jihadis were "peace activists."

    I just couldn't believe it.

    The Fogel case was another landmark.  Not just because it represented yet another case of Arab genocidal intention crystallizing in actual violence, but because "progressives" refused to even sign a letter of condolence to the teenage daughter.

    I didn't talk much about it at the time, but that was a profound disappoint for me.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I was shocked when they actually blamed the attack on representative Giffords on Sarah Palin.

    That was the dirtiest, lowest, most reprehensible thing that I have ever seen in American politics.

    Shockingly disgusting, really.  And one need not be a Palin supporter which, of course, I have never been, to appreciate that.

    Progressive-Left RIP.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The first comment that I ever tried to post on the Huffington Post (which was a comment on an article about Israel) was, I think, held in moderation for several hours, during which time I noticed some hits, from, I think, the Huffington Post web site, on my blog (to which I listed a link in that comment of mine), and then my comment was not approved. Then I submitted another similar comment and it was immediately not approved. In those two comments that I submitted on the Huffington Post, I merely stated some facts of the history of the situation that Israel is in, and made a reference to the similarity of the situation in the world at the present time, including the state of the political Left at the present time, to the situation in the world in the 1930's, including the state of the political Left in the 1930's.

    The facts that I wrote must have seemed outrageous and absurd and outlandish to the Brown Shirt Comrades at the Huffington Post, who then deemed to be Verboten the presentation of the facts that I wrote.

    The thing is, I used to view, and take for granted, so-called "Liberal" views as being "of course" "The" "Ethical" "Moral" "Sane" "Intelligent" "Correct" "Right" political views. Who knows what my views would be at this time if I were not Jewish and if I were not aware of the factual history, and current reality, of the situation that Israel is in. All I'd really be aware of would be what the Western mass-media, and Western academics, and Western politicians, and Western political activists, (including the Stockholm-syndrome-affected Jewish ones (non-Israeli and Israeli)) were telling me and showing me.

    ReplyDelete
  8. That's why it's up to Jewish people to now stand up for themselves and communicate the factual history, and current reality, of the situation that Israel is in to the world.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "Brown Shirt Comrades at the Huffington Post,"

    HAH!!!! You are a guy who really does get it about that crew. Way to call it Daniel.

    ReplyDelete
  10. He's also absolutely right that we need to combat their propaganda with the truth.

    "it's up to Jewish people to now stand up for themselves and communicate the factual history, and current reality, of the situation that Israel is in to the world."

    One huge factual part of Jewish history under Islamic imperialism is 1,300 years of oppression as dhimmis.  It varied in severity from place to place and over time, but it was 1,300 years of oppression.

    Another huge factual part of Jewish history under Arab and Muslim hostility is 100 years of war for seeking our own autonomy on our own land.   From the 1920s to the present, the Arabs have been fighting a war against the Jews in the Middle East whom they outnumber by well over 50 to 1.

    So, Daniel, when you talk about the factual history and current reality, is this kind of thing that you mean?

    I suspect I am close.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Karmafish,

    Yes, but the main thing that needs to be communicated is the actual Nazi origin, and actual Nazi nature, of the so-called 'Palestinian movement'.

    Which I described here:
    http://karmafishies.blogspot.com/2012/02/obama-silent-on-palestinian-television.html#comment-426640316

    And, also, what needs to be communicated is the factual history of the situation through the past approximately ninety years, in general.

    The fact that The British Mandate of Palestine included what is now Jordan; The fact that there were more Jewish refugees from Muslim states than there were Arab refugees from Israel (and the fact that all of those refugees - Jewish and Arab - were caused by a self-declared "Jihadi" intendedly genocidal attack on Israel by Muslim Arab states); The fact that Jordan occupied Yehouda and Shomron from 1949 to 1967, and the fact that Jordan renamed Yehouda and Shomron to the name "The West Bank" (referring to Yehouda and Shomron as "the west bank" of the Jordan river); The fact that Egypt occupied what is now called The Gaza Strip from 1949 until 1967; The fact that there have been tens of millions of refugees since the end of World War II, almost all of whom have been relocated to, and absorbed into, the countries to which they fled or were expelled (such as several million ethnically German people who lived in the Sudetenland of Czechoslovakia (Sudeten Germans) who, immediately after World War II, were expelled from the Sudetenland of Czechoslovakia, and who were, subsequently, relocated to, and absorbed into, Germany); etc.

    ——

    danielbielak.blogspot.com

    ReplyDelete
  12. Yes, but the main thing that needs to be communicated is the actual Nazi origin, and actual Nazi nature, of the so-called 'Palestinian movement'.

    Which I have described here:
    http://karmafishies.blogspot.com/2012/02/obama-silent-on-palestinian-television.html#comment-426640316

    And, also, what needs to be communicated is the factual history of the situation through the past approximately ninety years, in general.

    The fact that The British Mandate of Palestine included what is now Jordan; The fact that there were more Jewish refugees from Muslim states than there were Arab refugees from Israel (and the fact that all of those refugees - Jewish and Arab - were caused by a self-declared "Jihadi" intendedly genocidal attack on Israel by Muslim Arab states); The fact that Jordan occupied Yehouda and Shomron from 1949 to 1967, and the fact that Jordan renamed Yehouda and Shomron to the name "The West Bank" (referring to Yehouda and Shomron as "the west bank" of the Jordan river); The fact that Egypt occupied what is now called The Gaza Strip from 1949 until 1967; The fact that there have been tens of millions of refugees since the end of World War II, almost all of whom have been relocated to, and absorbed into, the countries to which they fled or were expelled (such as several million ethnically German people who lived in the Sudetenland of Czechoslovakia (Sudeten Germans) who, immediately after World War II, were expelled from the Sudetenland of Czechoslovakia, and who were, subsequently, relocated to, and absorbed into, Germany); etc.

    ——

    danielbielak.blogspot.com

    ReplyDelete
  13. Thanks, Doodad.

    I call it as I see it.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Thanks, Doodad.

    It's a comfort to me that you see this situation that I see and which is a situation that is distressing to me.

    ReplyDelete
  15.  It IS distressing. These people see themselves as intelligent and moral yet they are anything but that.

    ReplyDelete