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.