Hillary does have to deal with a MoveOn.org-ified base, courtesy of Obama. If you actually read her speech, most of it sounded and read really good and hearkens to the version of her that Obama tarred as a "neo-con." She did also say "And as we work out a broader regional approach, we should of course be closely consulting with Israel, our strongest ally in the Middle East. Israel increasingly shares with our Arab partners and has the opportunity to do more in intelligence and joint efforts as well."
I'm also happy she has Haim Sabam as a close ally, as he is a strong pro-Israel anti-jihad voice. He's being bashed for this: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/11/19/top-clinton-donor-calls-for-increased-scrutiny-of-muslims/.
If Bernie Sanders fades faster, I think there could be hope. Even tho Sanders is ethnically "Jewish," his presence in the race is a result of the MoveOn crew.
I have always maintained that this blog is non-partisan, no matter the fluctuations of my own viewpoints.
In fact, if I am not mistaken, you were a Howard Dean supporter back in the day.
My view is that the Democrats have essentially sold Israel down the river and simply cannot be trusted.
As I apparently never tire of reminding people, the leader of the Democratic Party, President Barack Obama, actually supported the Muslim Brotherhood, an organization that swears to overrun Jerusalem.
I liked Bill Clinton and I prefer Hillary to Obama, but the Democrats have lost me.
Maybe they will get me back sometime in the future, but it's going to be awhile.
I am a proud independent.
btw, I suspect that a Hillary-Bernie ticket would be unbeatable.
well I'm leaning towards her, tho I haven't ruled out Donald Trump or Marco Rubio. I feel like I'm in the position of gay Republicans these days or Ron Paul Republicans from 2007: agree with almost everything except cultural and worldview. I do like Rubio's worldview, tho that's pretty much it. And yes, America needs a tough talker instead of a fucking little pussy like Obama, which is what I like about Trump.
hahah I was a Dean fan in 2005, I wasn't even 18 yet. I did vote HRC in the 2008 primary because hearing her called a "tool of AIPAC/neocon" by Obama supporters made me suspicious of him. I fell into line for the GE, and then afterwards learned about Israel and Islam. I actually donated to Romney in 2010 and seriously considered voting for him in 2012. I also stayed home in 2010 over what I felt was an out-of-touch view of the Ground Zero Mosque on part of Dems. Had Obama not been nominated, I bet Dems woulda joined the rest of America in opposing it.
Bernie needs to go the fuck away from the Democrat Party forever. He IS the problem: a socialist with no clue about governing, only ideology (an older and uglier Obama but without the big money behind him). And he gives cover to the anti-semitism of the far left.
I feel like a gay Republican or Ron Paul Republican in '07-'08. Agree with the party on most things, but am being driven away by cultural/worldviews.
and yes, the PC streak in America, about Islam, about Trayvon (which he shoulda stayed out of; Bill Clinton stayed out of OJ Simpson), Bruce Jenner (I'm for gay rights, but there is no such thing as "transgender." There are 2 sexes, the end), has enabled anti-Israel and pro-Islam thought. That's also what I like about Trump: he's unPC.
Bernie thinks Paris attacks were caused by climate change. He also promised to fight Islamophobia. With Hillary we'll get Huma in charge, and Blumenthal as Secretary of State. And more muslims. I'd rather have Trump if we could believe his promise to deport the scum.
Huma is married to Anthony Weiner, who even for the domestic liberal he is, was very pro-Israel (just google "Anthony Weiner AIPAC" and see for yourself). Jacob, were you also once on Daily Kos and a former liberal?
Huma was a member of Muslim Student Union, her mother is a known Islamist in Saudi Arabia. Given that unbeliever is not allowed to marry a muslima, and her relatives didn't kill her for apostasy yet, something is not right with that marriage. Then there is Anthony's desperate search for female companionship, and persistent rumors about Hillary's sexual proclivities. I was a communist until I finished 3rd grade :)
1. You can join, leave, or start a commune at will. 2. You get to negotiate your shares when joining, and they get to decide if they want you. 3. When you leave for another commune, you keep your accrued shares, or they buy you out. 4. Government is only involved to protect your rights against the commune, and break up large communes to prevent monopolies.
Of course this won't work in if there is already a competing involuntary commune encompassing the whole country, with giant meddling activist government enforcing it's rules. That's why it failed everywhere.
My view is that the Democrats have essentially sold Israel down the river and simply cannot be trusted.
You might want to read David Benkof's column in the Jerusalem Post (http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/No-there-are-still-two-pro-Israel-parties-432618) from a week and a half ago. Note, that he is about as strong an advocate for the Republican Party as you're going to get, but he made sure to identify when there is a difference between what is good for the Republican Party and what is good for Israel.
Well, we have to face the fact that the Democratic Party is considerably less supportive of Israel then the Dems and grow less and less supportive year by year.
My real grievance with the Dems is that they provide venues wherein anti-Semitic anti-Zionists get a seat at the table.
Under such circumstances asking Jews to support the Democratic Party would be like asking black people to support the Democratic Party if that party provided venues for Klansmen.
The fact of the matter is that the Democratic Party has betrayed its Jewish constituency and we should not be shy about saying so.
I just would point out that I don't think the Dem party is inherently pro-Islam: the GOP used to be the party for which Muslims voted (https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/essay-how-the-republican-party-alienated-the-once-reliable-muslim-voting-bloc/2012/11/15/23e2af70-2da5-11e2-9ac2-1c61452669c3_story.html) Nothing is set in stone.
Once again, I might vote for Trump if the MoveOn.org-ification isn't reversed or looks like it will be. And I was very happy Cruz called out the Arab Christians who don't honour Israel. 2016 is a tossup for me. I'm confident Congress will stop a mass influx Muslims. I am lucky one of the mainstream voices on the refugees, my representative Steve Israel, voted with the GOP and 47 brave Democrats to buck the Obama line.
"Nothing is set in stone." Palmyra was. But I'm not. I voted for Hilary in '08, but wouldn't dream of voting for her now. Even my wife has had enough. Democrats will have to win me back and that's not going to happen soon.
Jeff, no, but he agreed with it when journalists put it to him. I understand the media spin things, but for him to think it was even possibly all right as an idea must, I would have thought, be considered awful. I freely admit that I am not in any way a fan of his. I do see that some of his popularity is an understandable response to the status quo. I get that. I just still think he's awful. I would like to see an American president who actually likes - and believes in - America. And doesn't think his or her main job is to apologize for America or to go abroad ( or stay at home) and trash it. Or to diminish "American power" out of an ideological belief that it is the worst thing in the world. It isn't. It definitely isn't. I have a horrible feeling that Hillary can't be stopped, but if someone does manage to stop her - from the other party - I would like it to not be Trump. There are one or two interesting candidates who might be possible. Rubio, maybe?
k, Yes, a "reporter" suggested it and got him to agree, at one particular moment in a primary campaign, blah, blah, blah. I wouldn't make too much of it - yet. By the way, we have people in data bases right now whom we consider threats. I'm also sure that mosques are being watched and information is collected and put into data bases. The idea that all Muslims and only Muslims will be put into a data base though is farcical and meant to raise the temperature during election season. The Democrats are going to make racism and xenophobia a big issue and maybe THE issue whomever the Republican nominee is. Fear of immigrants and minority groups vs. fear of big bad Republican stupid red neck and rich fat cat racists. That's about all they have - identity politics run amok. Interesting and ironic for a party that through its long history had such a major role in promoting racism in the United States to tar the party which historically, at least, had so little to do with it. Even funnier is that "my party" has two white guys no one can name, a socialist who isn't even a Democrat, and a white wife of a former president, running against a billionaire, a black doctor, and two hispanic senators from the "racist" party. Only in America.
Jeff, "Only in America" indeed! ( Which is- in part- why those of us outside America who love it, do so.)
I see that the media have an absolute obsession with Trump. He is a sort of gift to them. And I'm quite sure that all sorts of things are getting blown up out of all proportion, or, indeed, manufactured. It seems to be the only way they have of dealing with all GOP candidates. It's fairly relentless, I hope enough Americans are fed up with it. The double standards are extraordinary. If Trump really isn't putting forward the idea that all Muslims should be put on a national database, then I am very glad to hear it. I do feel with him that it is possible that he can really go off in any direction, so I hope he is being misrepresented. I absolutely agree that the Democrats will play on race and xenophobia. ( What's new?) I saw some interesting polling that showed the majority of Americans do feel sympathy with Syrian refugees, contrary to how it is being reported. They just want to be sure proper security is in place when allowing people into the country. It's not either - or. That doesn't make them horrible people. That's about all they have - identity politics run amok . Yes, that does seem to be the case. It will be interesting to see how those strategies play out. There seems to be considerable disenchantment with this sort of stuff. Unsurprisingly. I am really interested to see whether the support by Democratic politicians ( including Obama) for the worst excesses of identity politics grievance-mongering, actually works for or against them. I would expect many Americans are fed up of being told how "racist" they are all the time. Especially by people who seem to enjoy dividing the country. Successfully. The other thing Democrats seem to think is always a great strategy is to insult large swathes of the electorate. As you say, so many people will be told that they are "evil," " stupid," or (obviously) "racist." just because they might live in the "wrong" parts of the country or be considering *not* voting for the Democratic Party. As you say, this stuff will be coming from a party fielding the least diverse group of candidates one can imagine, although we will never hear the end of how amazing it would be to have Hillary as the first female president. And the evil, stupid, racist GOP is actually looking pretty strong on diversity. Although having said that, clearly all non-white conservative candidates are, of course, not authentic Blacks, Hispanics etc. ;) And Carly Fiorina is "not" really a woman. Or something. It is never less than fascinating. I hope lots of ordinary Americans are looking at all this and quietly making up their own minds, unimpressed by the endless media and political hype.
Islam has doctrines of peace, such as the concept of Dar al-Amn. There are just many Muslims who reject such doctrines as impious. Those people, whether they act on that rejection or merely "respect" the piety of those who do are our enemies.
Yes. Condemnation in the strongest terms. ( Ahem.) Compare it to the hallucinated "racism" going on on American campuses and the lunatic response given to students by cowardly faculty members. Extraordinary!
There's a terrific article by Michael Gerson in the Washington Post. November 19 edition.
Obama speaking from the ruins of his policy.
It contains this quote:
"The United States has a president whose wartime leadership is apparently inspired not by Winston Churchill or Franklin Roosevelt but by Rachel Maddow."
I can't put the link in because it's staggeringly complicated. But it's very much worth reading.
“I have talked to people who have worked in the Obama administration who firmly believe he has made up his mind. I would say closed his mind, they say, to their intelligence that they’ve tried to bring him about various groups that he does not consider terrorists, even if they are on the U.S. list of designated terrorists. He has his own ideas, and there are those who’ve known him a long time who say this dates back to law school. He does not necessarily—you may think it’s a good trait you may think it’s a bad trait—he does not necessarily listen to the people with whom he disagrees. He seems to dig in."
Attkisson continued, “I don’t know the reason for it. I’ve only been told by those who have allegedly attempted to present him, or have been in the circle that has attempted to present him, with certain intelligence that they said he doesn’t want it. He said he doesn’t want it or he won’t read it, in some instances.”
It's not only Obama who is close-minded, but standard operating procedure for progressives that think they are smarter and know better, despite what human experiences shows.
Yes, I read that. It's very interesting. And concerning. It would be interesting to know which terrorist groups he doesn't consider are actually terrorists. I could hazard a couple of guesses...
Obama's policies on political Islam are incoherent, arbitrary, and entirely inconsistent.
He wants to pick and choose between good Islamists and bad Islamists.
Qaeda, of course, represents the bad variety while the Muslim Brotherhood, which is the parent organization of Qaeda, is to Obama's mind representative of the good variety.
So he opposes Qaeda and ISIS, supported the Brotherhood, and is indifferent to Hamas.
Mike, even with the "bad Islamists" ie ISIS, on the Paris attacks Obama managed to muster far more passion and anger for the GOP than for the attackers who slaughtered people in Paris. Really quite extraordinary.
Hillary does have to deal with a MoveOn.org-ified base, courtesy of Obama. If you actually read her speech, most of it sounded and read really good and hearkens to the version of her that Obama tarred as a "neo-con." She did also say "And as we work out a broader regional approach, we should of course be closely consulting with Israel, our strongest ally in the Middle East. Israel increasingly shares with our Arab partners and has the opportunity to do more in intelligence and joint efforts as well."
ReplyDeleteI'm also happy she has Haim Sabam as a close ally, as he is a strong pro-Israel anti-jihad voice. He's being bashed for this: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/11/19/top-clinton-donor-calls-for-increased-scrutiny-of-muslims/.
If Bernie Sanders fades faster, I think there could be hope. Even tho Sanders is ethnically "Jewish," his presence in the race is a result of the MoveOn crew.
So, you are pro-Hillary?
DeleteThat's not a crime against humanity.
It's not, is it?
I have always maintained that this blog is non-partisan, no matter the fluctuations of my own viewpoints.
In fact, if I am not mistaken, you were a Howard Dean supporter back in the day.
My view is that the Democrats have essentially sold Israel down the river and simply cannot be trusted.
As I apparently never tire of reminding people, the leader of the Democratic Party, President Barack Obama, actually supported the Muslim Brotherhood, an organization that swears to overrun Jerusalem.
I liked Bill Clinton and I prefer Hillary to Obama, but the Democrats have lost me.
Maybe they will get me back sometime in the future, but it's going to be awhile.
I am a proud independent.
btw, I suspect that a Hillary-Bernie ticket would be unbeatable.
But don't tell anybody!
Shhh...
well I'm leaning towards her, tho I haven't ruled out Donald Trump or Marco Rubio. I feel like I'm in the position of gay Republicans these days or Ron Paul Republicans from 2007: agree with almost everything except cultural and worldview. I do like Rubio's worldview, tho that's pretty much it. And yes, America needs a tough talker instead of a fucking little pussy like Obama, which is what I like about Trump.
Deletehahah I was a Dean fan in 2005, I wasn't even 18 yet. I did vote HRC in the 2008 primary because hearing her called a "tool of AIPAC/neocon" by Obama supporters made me suspicious of him. I fell into line for the GE, and then afterwards learned about Israel and Islam. I actually donated to Romney in 2010 and seriously considered voting for him in 2012. I also stayed home in 2010 over what I felt was an out-of-touch view of the Ground Zero Mosque on part of Dems. Had Obama not been nominated, I bet Dems woulda joined the rest of America in opposing it.
Bernie needs to go the fuck away from the Democrat Party forever. He IS the problem: a socialist with no clue about governing, only ideology (an older and uglier Obama but without the big money behind him). And he gives cover to the anti-semitism of the far left.
I feel like a gay Republican or Ron Paul Republican in '07-'08. Agree with the party on most things, but am being driven away by cultural/worldviews.
and yes, the PC streak in America, about Islam, about Trayvon (which he shoulda stayed out of; Bill Clinton stayed out of OJ Simpson), Bruce Jenner (I'm for gay rights, but there is no such thing as "transgender." There are 2 sexes, the end), has enabled anti-Israel and pro-Islam thought. That's also what I like about Trump: he's unPC.
DeleteBernie thinks Paris attacks were caused by climate change. He also promised to fight Islamophobia. With Hillary we'll get Huma in charge, and Blumenthal as Secretary of State. And more muslims.
DeleteI'd rather have Trump if we could believe his promise to deport the scum.
Huma is married to Anthony Weiner, who even for the domestic liberal he is, was very pro-Israel (just google "Anthony Weiner AIPAC" and see for yourself). Jacob, were you also once on Daily Kos and a former liberal?
DeleteHuma was a member of Muslim Student Union, her mother is a known Islamist in Saudi Arabia. Given that unbeliever is not allowed to marry a muslima, and her relatives didn't kill her for apostasy yet, something is not
Deleteright with that marriage. Then there is Anthony's desperate search for female companionship, and persistent rumors about Hillary's sexual proclivities.
I was a communist until I finished 3rd grade :)
Communism could actually work, provided:
Delete1. You can join, leave, or start a commune at will.
2. You get to negotiate your shares when joining, and they get to decide if they want you.
3. When you leave for another commune, you keep your accrued shares, or they buy you out.
4. Government is only involved to protect your rights against the commune, and break up large communes to prevent monopolies.
Of course this won't work in if there is already a competing involuntary commune encompassing the whole country, with giant meddling activist government enforcing it's rules. That's why it failed everywhere.
My view is that the Democrats have essentially sold Israel down the river and simply cannot be trusted.
DeleteYou might want to read David Benkof's column in the Jerusalem Post (http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/No-there-are-still-two-pro-Israel-parties-432618) from a week and a half ago. Note, that he is about as strong an advocate for the Republican Party as you're going to get, but he made sure to identify when there is a difference between what is good for the Republican Party and what is good for Israel.
Well, we have to face the fact that the Democratic Party is considerably less supportive of Israel then the Dems and grow less and less supportive year by year.
DeleteMy real grievance with the Dems is that they provide venues wherein anti-Semitic anti-Zionists get a seat at the table.
Under such circumstances asking Jews to support the Democratic Party would be like asking black people to support the Democratic Party if that party provided venues for Klansmen.
The fact of the matter is that the Democratic Party has betrayed its Jewish constituency and we should not be shy about saying so.
I just would point out that I don't think the Dem party is inherently pro-Islam: the GOP used to be the party for which Muslims voted (https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/essay-how-the-republican-party-alienated-the-once-reliable-muslim-voting-bloc/2012/11/15/23e2af70-2da5-11e2-9ac2-1c61452669c3_story.html) Nothing is set in stone.
ReplyDeleteOnce again, I might vote for Trump if the MoveOn.org-ification isn't reversed or looks like it will be. And I was very happy Cruz called out the Arab Christians who don't honour Israel. 2016 is a tossup for me. I'm confident Congress will stop a mass influx Muslims. I am lucky one of the mainstream voices on the refugees, my representative Steve Israel, voted with the GOP and 47 brave Democrats to buck the Obama line.
Time awaits. All hope isn't lost (yet.)
"Nothing is set in stone." Palmyra was.
DeleteBut I'm not. I voted for Hilary in '08, but wouldn't dream of voting for her now. Even my wife has had enough. Democrats will have to win me back and that's not going to happen soon.
Except he didn't suggest it.
DeleteJeff,
Deleteno, but he agreed with it when journalists put it to him. I understand the media spin things, but for him to think it was even possibly all right as an idea must, I would have thought, be considered awful.
I freely admit that I am not in any way a fan of his. I do see that some of his popularity is an understandable response to the status quo. I get that. I just still think he's awful. I would like to see an American president who actually likes - and believes in - America. And doesn't think his or her main job is to apologize for America or to go abroad ( or stay at home) and trash it. Or to diminish "American power" out of an ideological belief that it is the worst thing in the world. It isn't. It definitely isn't.
I have a horrible feeling that Hillary can't be stopped, but if someone does manage to stop her - from the other party - I would like it to not be Trump. There are one or two interesting candidates who might be possible. Rubio, maybe?
k,
DeleteYes, a "reporter" suggested it and got him to agree, at one particular moment in a primary campaign, blah, blah, blah. I wouldn't make too much of it - yet. By the way, we have people in data bases right now whom we consider threats. I'm also sure that mosques are being watched and information is collected and put into data bases. The idea that all Muslims and only Muslims will be put into a data base though is farcical and meant to raise the temperature during election season. The Democrats are going to make racism and xenophobia a big issue and maybe THE issue whomever the Republican nominee is. Fear of immigrants and minority groups vs. fear of big bad Republican stupid red neck and rich fat cat racists. That's about all they have - identity politics run amok. Interesting and ironic for a party that through its long history had such a major role in promoting racism in the United States to tar the party which historically, at least, had so little to do with it.
Even funnier is that "my party" has two white guys no one can name, a socialist who isn't even a Democrat, and a white wife of a former president, running against a billionaire, a black doctor, and two hispanic senators from the "racist" party. Only in America.
Jeff,
Delete"Only in America" indeed!
( Which is- in part- why those of us outside America who love it, do so.)
I see that the media have an absolute obsession with Trump. He is a sort of gift to them. And I'm quite sure that all sorts of things are getting blown up out of all proportion, or, indeed, manufactured. It seems to be the only way they have of dealing with all GOP candidates. It's fairly relentless, I hope enough Americans are fed up with it.
The double standards are extraordinary.
If Trump really isn't putting forward the idea that all Muslims should be put on a national database, then I am very glad to hear it. I do feel with him that it is possible that he can really go off in any direction, so I hope he is being misrepresented.
I absolutely agree that the Democrats will play on race and xenophobia. ( What's new?) I saw some interesting polling that showed the majority of Americans do feel sympathy with Syrian refugees, contrary to how it is being reported. They just want to be sure proper security is in place when allowing people into the country. It's not either - or. That doesn't make them horrible people.
That's about all they have - identity politics run amok . Yes, that does seem to be the case. It will be interesting to see how those strategies play out. There seems to be considerable disenchantment with this sort of stuff. Unsurprisingly. I am really interested to see whether the support by Democratic politicians ( including Obama) for the worst excesses of identity politics grievance-mongering, actually works for or against them.
I would expect many Americans are fed up of being told how "racist" they are all the time. Especially by people who seem to enjoy dividing the country. Successfully.
The other thing Democrats seem to think is always a great strategy is to insult large swathes of the electorate. As you say, so many people will be told that they are "evil," " stupid," or (obviously) "racist." just because they might live in the "wrong" parts of the country or be considering *not* voting for the Democratic Party.
As you say, this stuff will be coming from a party fielding the least diverse group of candidates one can imagine, although we will never hear the end of how amazing it would be to have Hillary as the first female president. And the evil, stupid, racist GOP is actually looking pretty strong on diversity.
Although having said that, clearly all non-white conservative candidates are, of course, not authentic Blacks, Hispanics etc. ;)
And Carly Fiorina is "not" really a woman. Or something.
It is never less than fascinating. I hope lots of ordinary Americans are looking at all this and quietly making up their own minds, unimpressed by the endless media and political hype.
BREAKING NEWS: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/20/us/politics/after-30-years-in-prison-jonathan-pollard-to-be-freed-but-not-to-israel.html?_r=1 John Pollard's long, wrong prison sentence ends.
ReplyDelete30 years jail for doing his job.
ReplyDeleteOne has to wonder what the US would do with a real criminal.
Americans should feel ashamed.
Islam has doctrines of peace, such as the concept of Dar al-Amn. There are just many Muslims who reject such doctrines as impious. Those people, whether they act on that rejection or merely "respect" the piety of those who do are our enemies.
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile, in Holland:
ReplyDeletehttp://everyday.antisemitism.uk/2015/11/19/dutch-students-vandalise-jewish-students-room-to-look-like-concentration-camp/
There'll be more of this as Progressives and Muslims increase in numbers.
DeleteSuch activities are "inappropriate." Wow, such strong language!
DeleteYes. Condemnation in the strongest terms. ( Ahem.)
DeleteCompare it to the hallucinated "racism" going on on American campuses and the lunatic response given to students by cowardly faculty members. Extraordinary!
There's a terrific article by Michael Gerson in the Washington Post. November 19 edition.
ReplyDeleteObama speaking from the ruins of his policy.
It contains this quote:
"The United States has a president whose wartime leadership is apparently inspired not by Winston Churchill or Franklin Roosevelt but by Rachel Maddow."
I can't put the link in because it's staggeringly complicated. But it's very much worth reading.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obama-speaking-from-the-ruins/2015/11/19/68a5b3ee-8ee3-11e5-acff-673ae92ddd2b_story.html
DeleteThere ya go k.
Thanks, Doodad!
DeleteI looked at it and thought I'd definitely get something wrong.
Thanks for going to that trouble.
Much appreciated.
“I have talked to people who have worked in the Obama administration who firmly believe he has made up his mind. I would say closed his mind, they say, to their intelligence that they’ve tried to bring him about various groups that he does not consider terrorists, even if they are on the U.S. list of designated terrorists. He has his own ideas, and there are those who’ve known him a long time who say this dates back to law school. He does not necessarily—you may think it’s a good trait you may think it’s a bad trait—he does not necessarily listen to the people with whom he disagrees. He seems to dig in."
ReplyDeleteSharyl Attkisson
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/11/18/attkisson-obama-wont-read-intelligence-on-groups-he-doesnt-consider-terrorists/
Attkisson continued, “I don’t know the reason for it. I’ve only been told by those who have allegedly attempted to present him, or have been in the circle that has attempted to present him, with certain intelligence that they said he doesn’t want it. He said he doesn’t want it or he won’t read it, in some instances.”
It's not only Obama who is close-minded, but standard operating procedure for progressives that think they are smarter and know better, despite what human experiences shows.
Yes, I read that. It's very interesting. And concerning. It would be interesting to know which terrorist groups he doesn't consider are actually terrorists. I could hazard a couple of guesses...
ReplyDeleteObama's policies on political Islam are incoherent, arbitrary, and entirely inconsistent.
DeleteHe wants to pick and choose between good Islamists and bad Islamists.
Qaeda, of course, represents the bad variety while the Muslim Brotherhood, which is the parent organization of Qaeda, is to Obama's mind representative of the good variety.
So he opposes Qaeda and ISIS, supported the Brotherhood, and is indifferent to Hamas.
As I say, incoherent.
Mike,
Deleteeven with the "bad Islamists" ie ISIS, on the Paris attacks Obama managed to muster far more passion and anger for the GOP than for the attackers who slaughtered people in Paris. Really quite extraordinary.
Oh, wow! This is brilliant from Howard Jacobson:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.independent.co.uk/voices/the-way-some-talk-after-the-paris-attacks-you-would-think-that-muslims-nations-had-never-been-a6742356.html
Wonderful writing.
Native proletariat failed to produce a Marxist revolution. Degenerated into regressive middle class instead. Let's import new revolutionary masses.
ReplyDelete