Appeasing the Muslim Brotherhood — Obama’s Rubicon Moment

Appeasing the Muslim Brotherhood — Obama’s Rubicon
Moment

By Eileen F.
Toplansky

Signed on September 17, 1978, the Camp David Accords ushered in a peace
between Egypt and Israel.  This peace is clearly in jeopardy now that Obama has
shown that America can no longer be trusted to aid its allies, let alone its own
interests.  In 2010, Homeland Security Secretary Janet
Napolitano
secretly met with the Muslim Brotherhood, “a movement that uses a

religious identity to mask
its political agenda
.”  Also in 2010, the U.N. Security Council “quietly
dropped Youssef Nada
, a prominent financial and diplomatic representative of

the Muslim Brotherhood from an international sanctions list directed at curbing
the activities of alleged terrorist financiers.”  At the time, Victor Comras, a
former adviser on financial sanctions believed that “the Obama administration
would have had to signal that it was willing to go along with this
decision.”
The Muslim Brotherhood, long a supporter of Hamas and Hezb’allah,
deliberately works to “foster confusion” in order to obfuscate its real
message.  Thus, conflicting
messages
come from the Brotherhood leaders, yet it is patently apparent that
they are committed to the destruction of Israel.  During the Holy Land
Foundation case, one of the most interesting
exhibits
was a “Muslim Brotherhood memorandum by Mohamed Akram, dated May
22, 1991, where he outlines the Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood] vision of the
future.”  Thus, “the Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind
of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from
within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the
believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over
all other religions.”
The Brotherhood’s slogan
depicting a Koran
and swords reinforces the group’s commitment to jihad and
worldwide Islamification.   On October 27, 2009, the Muslim Brotherhood Sheik Mahdi Akef claimed that the
“Arab rulers are more despicable than the Zionists” and urged his listeners “to
wage jihad.”  In 2007, Akef said that the “Brotherhood
has not recognized
Camp David from the very first day it was signed.”  In
2004, Akef declared “his complete faith that Islam will invade Europe and
America.”
More recently, in his February 4, 2011 Friday sermon, Iranian Supreme Leader
Al-Khamenei
exhorted his listeners as he described the events in Egypt as an
“Islamic liberation movement.”  He reminded his followers of the Iranian
Revolution, also known as the Islamic revolution or 1979 Revolution, and
reflected on certain parallels with the current Egyptian uprising.  Khamenei
called the Camp David peace treaty signed by Egypt and Israel the “Treaty of
Shame.”  Syria was praised by Khamenei, while Egypt’s Mubarak is cited as a
traitor to the Islamic movement.  Moreover, Khamenei told his worshipers “not
[to] trust the role played by the West and America. … “
Ominously, Khamenei explained that “the religious scholars, and Al-Azhar
… [would] play a much more significant role [in the new Islamic revolution].”
Thus, “when the people embark on its revolution from the mosques and the Friday
sermons, and raise the slogan of ‘Allah Akbar,’ the Islamic scholars are
expected to play a more prominent role.  This expectation is in
place.”
From his pulpit, Khamenei avowed that “the Zionist enemy, not the Egyptian
people, should tremble in fear of the Egyptian army,” as he believes the
Egyptian army will [eventually] join the masses.”
In November 2007, Lt. Col. (ret.) Jonathan
D. Halevi
wrote for the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs that the Muslim
Brotherhood’s “top priority is constructing a Muslim infrastructure in the West
which will slowly but surely enable it to rule during the 21st
century.  As far as the final goal is concerned, there are no policy differences
between al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood.  The two organizations have the
same objective: to place the entire world under an Islamic caliphate.”
More recently, Dore
Gold
asks if “the Obama administration’s policy toward Egypt [is] based on
a perception that the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood would be extremely
dangerous — Or have they taken the position…that the Brotherhood has become
moderate and can be talked to?”
In September of 2010, Muslim
leaders were brought to the White House
in order to provide the groups
“funding, government assistance and resources.”  That is, “the workshop
apparently provided special access for these Muslim Brotherhood organizers.”
Thus, “the White House initiated a taxpayer-funded government stimulus program
for the attending Muslim Brotherhood-associated groups.”  In fact, “the
sponsoring organization (CCMO) or Coordinating Council of Muslim Organizations
has a long history of associations with the Muslim Brotherhood.”
Repeatedly, expert testimony has been given by people who have lived under
sharia law and/or have devoted their lives to investigating the terror
perpetuated by the Muslim Brotherhood.  In fact, Nonie
Darwish
described “a former Muslim critic of Islam [who has stated] that he
is no longer confident that the US government will protect his civil rights as
long as there are people in [the American] government such as Dalia Mogahed, the
first White House Muslim advisor who is a firm defender of the Council on
American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Islamic Society of North America
(ISNA), both groups that are tied to the Muslim Brotherhood.”
In his 2009 report entitled “The
Muslim Brotherhood in the United States
,” author Steven Merley lists the
Muslim Brotherhood Organizations in the United States.  They include the more
well-known ISNA (Islamic Society of North America) and the MSA (Muslim Students
Association) as well as others such as the Muslim Communities Association, the
Association of Muslim Social Scientists, the Islamic Medical Association, the
Muslim Youth of North America, the ISNA Political Awareness Committee, the OLF
(Occupied Land Fund), the MIA (Mercy International Association), the IIC
(Islamic Information Center), to name only a few.
It is now time to test Obama’s moral compass.  He needs to be directly
asked if he believes the Muslim Brotherhood is a threat to the United States.
If he affirms that it is, then he needs to be forcefully questioned as to why he
has not taken more concerted steps to thwart their growth in the United States.
If, on the other hand, the 44th president states that the Muslim
Brotherhood is not a threat, then it is quite clear where his true allegiance
rests.  American vulnerability would be publicly exposed putting us at grave
risk.
If Obama cannot or will not answer this simple question, then his neutral
stance also speaks volumes and will embolden the terrorism of the Muslim
Brotherhood.
It is the Rubicon moment for this man.  It is the wake-up call for the rest
of us.
Eileen can be reached at middlemarch18@gmail.com.

Page
Printed from:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/02/appeasing_the_muslim_brotherho.html

at February 07, 2011 – 03:45:16 PM CST

// <![CDATA[//

American Way: Republicans tell Barack Obama ‘You’re no Ronald Reagan’

American Way: Republicans tell Barack Obama ‘You’re no Ronald Reagan’

By Toby Harnden WorldLast updated:  February 5th, 2011

207 CommentsComment on this article

For many Americans, the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Library is a place of solemn pilgrimage. This weekend, it is also the site of lavish celebrations marking what would have been the 100th birthday of “the great communicator”.

On Sunday, his widow Nancy will lay a wreath at his gravesite as F-18s launch from the USS Ronald Reagan aircraft carrier and a 21-gun salute is fired. There will be a Beach Boys concert, a six-feet-by-six-feet birthday cake topped with 20,000 jelly beans (Reagan’s favourite). And a bill of $5 million (pounds 3.1 million), to be settled using funds raised privately.

Among those paying homage in person are Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich, both with presumed presidential aspirations in 2012. The formal start of the Republican presidential campaign will take place in May with a debate at, naturally, the Reagan library.

Perhaps more surprising is that there is a new claimant to the Reagan throne this year: President Barack Obama. Having once routinely derided Reagan as, in the words of Democratic greybeard Clark Clifford, an “amiable dunce”, the liberal establishment is now seeking to embrace him.

Obama first tried to grab Reagan’s mantle three years ago when he cited the Gipper as a way of taking a shot at the Clintons by saying that the Republican had “changed the trajectory of America” in a way that Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton had not. Reagan, he added, responded to a feeling that “we want clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship”.

Now, Obama sees Reagan’s aura as a potential political lifeline as he hopes to emulate his forerunner’s feat of receiving a drubbing in mid-term elections after two years (in 1982) followed by a landslide re-election victory two years after that (in 1984).

Obama’s recent State of the Union speech was full of self-conscious optimism (though the slogan “winning the future” is a pygmy compared with Reagan’s “morning in America”) and appeals to bipartisanship – a nod to the celebrated fact that Reagan managed to work with Speaker of the House Tip O’Neill, a liberal Democrat.

Other Democrats, taking this a step further, are using Reagan as a stick to beat the modern Republican party, painting him as a moderate pragmatist who would be out of step with today’s hard-right ideologues.

Republicans treat all this with weary disdain. To paraphrase Senator Lloyd Bentsen’s famous 1988 put down of Senator Dan Quayle, the older ones are saying: “I knew Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan is an idol of mine. President Obama, you’re no Ronald Reagan.”

Rich Galen, a Republican strategist who was working on Capitol Hill in the Reagan era, says that conservatives giggle at Obama’s attempts to be Reaganesque. “Obama is diametrically opposed to everything Reagan stood for.”

Reagan nurtured a coalition that included Reagan Democrats, who stayed with the party for decades, he points out, but the term Obama Republicans has not been heard since the 2008 campaign. Even on style, there’s little comparison. “Obama is cold and distant whereas Reagan was warm and liked to be around people,” says Galen.

Some Republicans fear that Reagan is facing a posthumous political emasculation by Democrats who play down his conservatism and recast him as a squishy conciliator.

There is little doubt that Reagan would have been dryly derisive of Obama’s policies and presidency. “Government is like a baby,” Reagan once quipped. “An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.”

Obama, by contrast, views government as a kindly nurse and the people as the baby. According to his mindset, the people should submit to those in government who know better and whose role is to make decisions and control the purse strings.

Matt Mackowiak, a Republican strategist who grew up in the post-Reagan era, views his country’s 40th president, primarily as “the embodiment of American exceptionalism”, a stark contrast with Obama.

Although Obama has been paying lip service to American greatness in recent months, he made it clear in his first two years in office that he saw the United States as a flawed nation with much to apologise for and dismissed the notion of American exceptionalism as mere patriotism.

Despite the comical transparency of Obama’s attempts to portray himself as the new Reagan, Democratic attempts to redefine the conservative hero as some kind of big cuddly jelly bean do leave Republicans with a dilemma.

Reagan’s sunny optimism was all about looking forward. He was not a nostalgic man. To do battle with Democrats over who Reagan was leads Republicans into a debate over the past when they need to be setting out a vision for the future.

The opening event of the weekend birthday celebrations was a Friday night speech by Palin in Santa Barbara, close to the Reagan ranch. In it, she focused on a Reagan speech from 47 years ago, declaring that “the choices before us are as clear now as they were in 1964”.

Relatively few American voters can remember 1964 but those who can will note that Barry Goldwater suffered an overwhelming defeat at the hands of Lyndon Johnson that year.

Palin, who happened to be born in 1964, recently compared herself to Reagan, dismissing a criticism by Karl Rove about her reality show series with the retort: “Wasn’t Ronald Reagan an actor? Wasn’t he in Bedtimes for Bonzo, Bozo or something?” Relegating Reagan to having been a mere actor did not exactly endear Palin to those who revere the man who ended the Cold War. So now, it seems, the former Alaska governor is over-compensating.

It would, however, be best for the Republicans who hope to oust Obama next year if the current 100th birthday celebrations mark the moment that Reagan was finally consigned to the history books.

Tussles over who Reagan was and futile attempts by Republican candidates to define themselves in terms of how they measure up with his legacy are exactly what Obama and the Democrats want.

Toby Harnden’s American Way column is published in the Sunday Telegraph each week.

Obama invokes religious themes as 2012 campaign nears

Obama invokes religious themes as 2012 campaign nears

President Obama inhabits a largely secular presidency, rarely blending his religious beliefs with his public duties, and spending more Sundays shooting hoops than going to church.So it was a notable shift when Obama went deeply devout for last week’s National Prayer Breakfast, telling attendees the role daily prayer plays in his life.”When I wake in the morning, I wait on the Lord, and I ask Him to give me the strength to do right by our country and its people,” Obama said. “And when I go to bed at night, I wait on the Lord, and I ask Him to forgive me my sins, and look after my family and the American people, and make me an instrument of His will.”
A cynical interpretation would note Obama’s intensely religious rhetoric — even for a prayerful event — coincides with the unofficial start of the presidential campaign season.
At the same time, Obama talked frankly about his family’s “certain skepticism” about organized religion, and noted his father was “a nonbeliever.” Obama’s own path to religion was through the civil rights movement.
“Religion is a touchy thing and it has to be handled very carefully to not make it seem like the president is doing it for political reasons,” said Jim Pfiffner, a professor of public policy at George Mason University.
Religion maintains a central role in politics and is likely to do so in 2012. Among other features, two Mormons, Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman, are considering Republican primary runs, along with Mike Huckabee, an evangelical Christian.
While the Republicans are more closely associated with religion and politics given the strong role Christian conservatives play in the party, John C. Green, an expert on religion and politics at the University of Akron, noted the Democrats have their religious constituencies as well.
Obama in 2008 won in part with the support of black Protestants, Hispanic Catholics, Jews, Muslims and more, Green noted.
“The question in 2012 will be which side, which party will be able to develop that enthusiasm from their core religious constituencies,” Green said.
Obama’s former congregation in Chicago, Trinity United Church, came under scrutiny during the 2008 presidential campaign when pastor Jeremiah Wright’s sermons were judged by critics to be intemperate, even anti-American.
Obama has yet to find a regular congregation in Washington. The family reportedly enjoys attending services at the Evergreen Chapel when they are at Camp David, and have sampled local Protestant churches.
Obama’s predecessor, former President George W. Bush, was by contrast a born-again Christian who used evangelical language frequently in his presidency, often talked about how his religion informed his decision making, and was a regular church attendee.
Mark Gammon, an assistant professor of religion at Simpson College in Iowa, noted that Obama “comes out of that spiritually adrift generation,” a background that made him compelling to many Americans.
“I think there are people for whom there are these religious litmus tests, and they take them very seriously,” Gammon said of voters.

We can’t shut this president down fast enough

Rep. Bachmann blasts Obama, Democrats during GOP dinner in Helena

By CHARLES S. JOHNSON Missoulian State Bureau |  Posted: Saturday, February 5, 2011 11:45 pm

HELENA -U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., drew prolonged,loud cheers and laughs in her speech Saturday night at a Republicandinner as she praised Rep. Denny Rehberg and tore into DemocraticPresident Barack Obama and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Bachmann, a leading speaker on the Republican banquet circuitand founder of the House Tea Party Caucus, said the federal debtwas “a heart-palpitating $8 trillion” when Pelosi, a CaliforniaDemocrat, became speaker of the House. It grew to $14 trillion infour years.

“There was a reason why we had to take the House ofRepresentatives back,” she said of the 2010 election. “We had to.We had to. And we did.”

With Obama in the midst of his “reign of error,” she said, theCongressional Budget Office projects that if the president isre-elected – “and by the way, that will not happen” – by the end ofhis term, the United States will be $20 trillion in debt.

Bachmann said she’s confident that Republicans will changethings, taking control of the Senate in 2012 with victories bycandidates such as Rehberg and win back the presidency thatyear.

“Montana, I am telling you this: You have to elect Denny Rehbergyour senator,” she said. “You have to, because we have to have aconservative Senate in 2012.

A top priority for Republicans is to repeal the federal healthcare overhaul passed in 2010 by Congress and signed into law byObama, she said.

“I take my first political breath every morning with one thoughtin mind – repeal Obamacare,” Bachmann said. “That’s my motivationin life. … This bill is something else. It is the crown jewel ofsocialism. President Obama, and I’m willing to say it, ushered insocialism under his watch.”

She criticized federal bailouts that began under RepublicanPresident George W. Bush and continued at a far greater level underObama.

“So now we the federal government still own Chrysler and GM,”she said. “We own the largest banks in America. We own the largestinsurance company in America …

“Then after that we bought lock, stock and barrel Fannie Mae andFreddie Mac. These aren’t just crazy aunts and uncles that you putup in your attic somewhere. These are largest secondary mortageinsurance companies in America, which means the federal governmenttoday owns over 50 percent of all private mortgages in thiscountry.”

She also blasted Obama’s environmental, national security andforeign policies

“My opinion is we can’t shut this president down fast enough,”Bachmann said to loud cheers.

 

 

Warning to Washington: Follow the Constitution

Warning to Washington: Follow the Constitution

Big power grabs by federal government get widespread opposition from
states


Posted: February 06, 2011
6:09 pm Eastern

By Bob
Unruh

© 2011 WorldNetDaily

President Barack Obama participates in a national tele-town hall meeting at the Holiday Park Multipurpose Senior Center with senior citizens to discuss the Affordable Care Act and ways to combat scams targeting seniors in Wheaton, Maryland on June 8, 2010. Secretary of Health and Human Service Kathleen Sebelius was on hand to moderate the questions from seniors. UPI/Gary Fabiano/Pool Photo via Newscom
It’s not just Montana anymore.
And folks at the Tenth
Amendment Center,
who monitor states’ declarations of independence from the
federal government’s rules and regulations, suggest perhaps Washington should be
paying attention.
Montana has earned fame for its legislative independence in recent years,
authoring the original Firearms
Freedom Act
that now is law in 8 states and being considered in another 8.
It also was among the first states to introduce legislation cancelling
Obamacare’s effects inside its borders. It even
considered a plan, tabled for now, that would require federal agents to check in
with the local sheriff before attempting to enforce federal laws inside his
jurisdiction.
Such ideas have been ridiculed by those in government power, as well as the
old established media.
“Reaching into the dusty annals of American history” is how Associated Press
described nullification, the idea that at least is suggested in the Tenth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which says, “The powers not delegated to the
United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are
reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”
Just exactly what are those powers given to the federal government? Mostly
listed in Article 1,
Section 8,
they include the power to tax and pay debts, provide for the common defense and general welfare of the U.S., borrow money, regulate commerce with foreign nations and “among the several states,” establish a “rule of naturalization,” coin money, punish counterfeiters, establish post offices and courts, declare war, raise and support armies and a navy and others.
(Story continues below)
But over the years the federal government has mandated education procedures,
even though education isn’t listed in the Constitution. It has established the
Energy Department, even though that is not in the Constitution. There’s the EPA,
even though that is not in the Constitution. And many others.
And now it has decided, under the federal Obamacare health care takeover,
that not purchasing health insurance is an action that can be regulated by the
federal government.
The result, explains Michael Boldin, chief of the Tenth Amendment Center, is that
there are so many efforts to deny Washington the authority it claims, or refuse
it the compliance it expects, that his volunteer staff of several dozen workers
cannot even keep up with the issues.
He also explained that John Adams probably would consider it a revolution,
since Adams one wrote the original was not about the war, but about the change
years earlier in how people look at government.
The AP said such state efforts to “nullify” Washington’s actions are
“completely unconstitutional in the eyes of most legal scholars because the U.S.
Constitution deems federal laws ‘the supreme law of the land.'”
And those at the Tenth Amendment Center agree – as long as the federal laws
are within the Constitution’s enumerated powers given to the federal government.
But they cite the Tenth Amendment that other powers belong to the states and
people, and just exactly what fits into which category is the crux of many of
the current arguments.
Nullification
itself goes far back into U.S. history, with references in the Kentucky
Resolutions to that very term.
Jefferson once opined, “When all government, domestic and foreign, in little
as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it
will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another, and will
become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.”
And Connecticut Gov. Jonathan Trumbull once said, “Whenever our national
legislature is led to overleap the prescribed bounds of their constitutional
powers, on the State Legislatures, in great emergencies, devolves the arduous
task – it is their right – it becomes their duty, to interpose their protecting
shield between the right and liberty of the people, and the assumed power of the
General Government.”
Among the issues, according to Boldin, that have come to the forefront for
literally dozens of states:
  • 10th Amendment Resolutions, which are intended to be statements of the
    legislature of the state to exercise those rights not given to the federal
    government.
  • The Firearms Freedom Acts, which are law in eight states and being
    considered in another eight. Started in Montana, they declare any firearms made
    and retained in-state are beyond the authority of Congress under its
    constitutional power to regulate commerce among the states.
  • State marijuana laws, which explain that the federal government has no
    constitutional authority to override state laws on marijuana, even though all
    three branches of the federal government have stated they do have that
    authority.
  • Health Care Nullification Acts, which state in some dozen plans already that
    “the federal law known as the ‘Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,’
    signed by President Barack Obama on March 23, 2010, is not authorized by the
    Constitution of the United States and violates its true meaning and intent as
    given by the Founders and Ratifiers, and is hereby declared to be invalid, shall
    not be recognized, is specifically rejected, and shall be considered null and
    void and of no effect.” Twenty-seven states also have gone to court to overturn
    Obamacare.
  • REAL ID Act, which started in Maine and has been joined by more than two
    dozen states, denouncing and refusing the implement the Bush-era law which many
    expressed concerned about privacy, funding and more.
  • Defend the Guard, which reasserts governors’ authority over the National
    Guard units from their state. The Constitution allows the guard to be called
    into duty by the federal government to execute the laws of the union and
    suppress insurrection and repel invasions. Deployments outside the country do
    not appear to be considered.
  • Constitutional Tender, which advocates for the Constitution’s requirement
    that “No State shall … make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in
    Payment of Debts.”
  • Cap and Trade/EPA, which challenge the authority of the federal agencies to
    regulate agriculture, manufacturing, mining and land use.
  • The Sheriffs First Legislation, which would make it a state crime for any
    federal agent to make an arrest, search, or seizure within the state without
    first getting the advanced, written permission of the elected county sheriff of
    the county in which the event is to take place.
Boldin said it’s essential for citizens to know what to do when the federal
government takes authority that it does not have under the Constitution.
“The standard viewpoint that we the people take in response to federal
usurpation of our rights is, ‘Let’s vote some bums out and hope the new bums
don’t do it again,'” he said.
But, “going to the federal government to fix problems created by the federal
government doesn’t work,” he said.
“Nullification is a way to bypass the federal government and have our states
do what they’re supposed to do.”
He cited some of the old traditional media reports on the dispute as proof
that headway is being made.
“First, they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they attack you,” he
said, pointing to AP’s characterization of the movement as of “dubious
constitutional nature.”
He even explained that resorting to court action and other challenges is not
always the best course of action. Instead, he said people should tell
Washington:
“You don’t matter any more. We the people are going to exercise our rights no
matter what you say. Get on board if you want to keep the power in the
Constitution.”

Read more: Warning to Washington:
Follow the Constitution
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=259837#ixzz1DIF636Sb

How Obama plays media like a fiddle

How Obama
plays media like a fiddle

By: John F. Harris and Jim
VandeHei

February 7, 2011 04:44 AM EST


In early November, Barack Obama
was one sad sack of a president — his agenda repudiated by midterm voters, his
political judgment scorned by commentators, his future darkened by a growing
belief he might be a one-time president.

In early February, Obama is
master of the moment — his polls on the
upswing
, his political dexterity applauded by pundits, his status as
Washington’s dominant figure unchallenged even by Republicans.

This
three-month metamorphosis says something about Obama’s survival skills, but the
turnabout says even more about the mainstream media: Obama is playing the press like a fiddle.
(Related: Obama’s latest joint news conference)

He is doing it by
exploiting some of the most long-standing traits among reporters who cover
politics and government — their favoritism for politicians perceived as
ideologically centrist and willing to profess devotion to Washington’s
oft-honored, rarely practiced civic religion of bipartisanship.

Time’s
Mark Halperin has hailed Obama as “magnetic,” “distinguished” and “inspiring” —
in one story. ABC’s Christiane Amanpour saw “Reaganesque” optimism and
“Kennedyesque” encouragement — all in one speech. Howard Fineman, the former
Newsweek columnist who now writes for The Huffington Post, said conductor Obama
was now leading a “love train” through D.C.

Swing voters are swooning
, too. It’s no coincidence. Polls
suggest that many independents have many of the same easily aroused erogenous
zones as reporters — and improved poll numbers lead to more coverage of the
Obama-gets-his-groove-back narrative. (See: Obama’s SOTU challenge to GOP)

Sustaining an effective
governing center over the long term would be a formidable achievement by Obama.
Riding a short-term wave of centrism fever, by contrast, has proved surprisingly
simple.
Here’s how Obama used the MSM to take a fast lane to the middle of
the road.

Bow to Bipartisanship

Conservatives
are convinced the vast majority of reporters at mainstream news organizations
are liberals who hover expectantly for each new issue of The Nation.

It’s
just not true. The majority of political writers we know might more accurately
be accused of centrist bias.

That is, they believe broadly in government
activism but are instinctually skeptical of anything that smacks of ideological
zealotry and are quick to see the public interest as being distorted by
excessive partisanship. Governance, in the Washington media’s ideal, should be a
tidier and more rational process than it is.

In this fantasy, every
pressing problem could be solved with a blue-ribbon commission chaired by Sam
Nunn and David Gergen that would go into seclusion at Andrews Air Force Base for
a week, not coming back until it had a deal to cut entitlements and end
obesity.

Bill Clinton’s best press came when he made a deal with Newt
Gingrich on the budget, and George W. Bush got favorable coverage when he reached a deal
with Ted Kennedy on education reform and in the brief period after Sept. 11 when
the terrorist attacks brought Washington together.

Obama is taking
advantage of the press’s bias for bipartisan process, a preference that often
transcends the substance of any bipartisan policy. (See: GOP, Dem lawmakers sit together)

It was an easy
choice. In the wake of the Democratic rout in November, for instance, it would
have been political suicide to risk letting taxes go up. So Obama shrewdly
ignored his own party’s liberals and made a big show of wanting to cooperate
with Republicans on the Bush tax cuts — and reaped a bonanza of favorable news
stories as a result.

He’s been getting more for his embrace of free trade
in a recent pact with South Korea and his plan to speak Monday to the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce, with whom he earlier had a high-profile clash.

 

Respect the Village Elders

Most political reporters
live in Washington. So it’s not really surprising that they tend to respect
presidents who show respect for Washington culture, Washington rituals and,
above all, Washington operatives.

Early in his presidency Obama — like
many of his predecessors when they first arrived — was seen as cool or even
hostile to permanent Washington.

After the midterm defeats, it was an
important part of his rehabilitation to be seen as having learned his
lesson.

Among the stops in this process was consulting with eminent
Washington worthies who are themselves veterans of White Houses past. Aides let
it be known that Obama had huddled with Ken Duberstein, a lobbyist who was chief
of staff under Ronald Reagan; John Podesta, who was chief of staff under Clinton
and now runs the Center for American Progress; and Gergen, who doesn’t actually
live in Washington but (so far) has served under four presidents (Nixon, Ford,
Reagan, Clinton) and is the high priest of Washington
bipartisanship.

Let History Drive the
Narrative

Reporters are suckers for comparisons — often glib or
even bogus comparisons — between current and past presidents. Obama and aides
did not much like this habit when he was being regularly compared to Jimmy Carter.

But in recent weeks
Obama has managed to turn the history game to his advantage by ostentatiously
inviting comparisons to two more successful presidents: Reagan and
Clinton.

Neither got terrific coverage while president. Both are viewed
in retrospect as effective two-term presidents who survived and prospered during
their time in Washington.

Obama was seen carrying a copy of Lou Cannon’s
Reagan biography under his arm on vacation. And his aides have happily played
along with stories drawing links between the two — despite oceanwide differences
in ideology, temperament, intellectual habits, personal history and rhetorical
style.

In the category of You Can’t Make It Up, weeks of stories and
columns about the comparison culminated with this cover of Time magazine — “Why
Obama Loves Reagan” — and a manufactured picture of the two men side by side,
smiling optimistically.

Obama couldn’t buy an ad like that.

The
only thing better would have been for all three major networks to call last
month’s State of the Union speech “Reaganesque” for its uplifting tone. He got
that, too.

The Clinton comparisons are a bit trickier, given the
complicated history between the two men and the Obama team’s previous publicly
expressed condescension toward Clinton’s presidency.

But here, too, Obama
let it be known to The New York Times that he was reading Taylor Branch’s book
on Clinton. And he brought Clinton in for a lengthy conversation in December and
even invited him to hold forth in the White House briefing
room.

Meanwhile, the post-midterm White House inner circle looks like a
recycling center for Clinton administration veterans
: Bill
Daley
as White House chief of staff; Bruce
Reed
as the vice president’s chief of staff; Gene Sperling as economic adviser; Jack
Lew
as budget director, and the list goes on.

 

Damn Those Deficits

Reagan may have shown that
deficits don’t matter, as Dick Cheney supposedly said, but the media focus on
deficits as the litmus test for all serious politicians goes on. Reporters love
hearing Obama talk with a furrowed brow about the grave threat of a $14 trillion
pile of debt (even if that politician was responsible for stacking $3 trillion
of it).

If there was one unmistakable takeaway from the elections, it was
that independents were furious with Obama and Democrats for growing government too big, too fast.

“The American
people are absolutely concerned about spending and debt and deficits,” Obama
said at his press conference the day after the midterms. “We already had a big
deficit that I inherited, and that has been made worse because of the recession.
As we bring it down, I want to make sure that we’re not cutting into education
that is going to help define whether or not we can compete around the
world.”

John Boehner, likewise, won huge style points for his handling
of this, rhetorically speaking. The Ohio Republican, who is hardly a master of
the public stage, used every speech to talk about cutting spending and went out
of his way to sound and act humble (even as some Republicans were
second-guessing the size of those actual cuts). Mitch McConnell jumped into the act, easing his longtime
opposition to banning earmarks in the Senate.

Obama had little choice but
to steal their rhetoric — and that’s exactly what he did with the State
of the Union speech
, first by leaking word of a five-year spending freeze
(after a two-year spending spree) and then warning in his remarks, “Both parties
in Congress should know this: If a bill comes to my desk with earmarks in it, I
will veto it. I will veto it.”

Time will tell how serious Obama’s
rhetoric is. In one exception to his recent ride of positive coverage, the
Washington Post editorial page said Obama is not showing enough courage or
candor in tackling budget problems.

Wind Up the Wing
Nuts

Obama could have walked to the House floor and read his
birth certificate, and the State of the Union speech would still have been a big
media and PR success. Two people deserve credit: Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) and Sen. Mark
Udall
(D-Colo.).

Bachmann did Obama the biggest favor by announcing
that she would give her
own tea party response to the speech
. The media jumped on the divided GOP
story (since Boehner and GOP leaders were steamed at her decision), and the
night ended with Bachmann, not GOP leaders, dominating the message. (
Related: Bachmann’s GOP
critics are terrified of her following
)

And Udall gave him the
biggest insurance policy by leading the campaign for Republicans and Democrats to co-mingle in the audience. To a
casual viewer, it seemed like everyone was giving standing applause, even to
Obama’s most partisan remarks.

This is a preview of how easy it could be
for Obama to appear like a centrist for the remainder of the next two years.
With the Bachmann crowd on one side and angry liberals eager to raise money,
membership and their own profile on the other, Obama can plop in
between.

Every gesture, however empty, toward the center will draw a
frothing attack from different sets of liberal outlets. The most visible might
be the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, which has built a robust e-mail
list and fundraising model by pressuring Obama from the left.

The media
love stories about the internal wars in both parties. Obama, in his new
determination to hold the center, now loves them, too.

Soros fingerprints on Mideast chaos Billionaire tied to opposition leader, funded groups opposing U.S. allies

FROM
WND’S JERUSALEM BUREAU

Soros fingerprints on Mideast chaos

Billionaire tied to opposition leader, funded groups opposing U.S.
allies


Posted: February 06, 2011
4:28 pm Eastern

By Aaron
Klein

© 2011 WorldNetDaily


George
Soros
JERUSALEM – Philanthropist billionaire George Soros has funded opposition
organizations in Egypt and throughout the Middle East, where anti-regime chaos
has already toppled the pro-Western leader of Tunisia and is threatening the
rule of President Hosni Mubarak, a key U.S. ally.
Mohamed ElBaradei, one of the main opposition leaders in Egypt, has also sat
on the board of an international “crisis management” group alongside Soros and
other personalities who champion dialogue with Hamas, a violent offshoot of the
Muslim Brotherhood.
The Brotherhood, which seeks to spread Islam around the world in part by
first creating an Islamic caliphate in Egypt, now backs ElBaradai, who has
defended the group in the news media the last few weeks.
ElBaradei suspended his board membership in the International Crisis Group,
or ICG last week, after he returned to Egypt to lead the anti-Mubarak protests.
Soros is one of eight members of the ICG executive committee.
U.S. board members include Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was national security
adviser to Jimmy Carter; Samuel Berger, who was Bill Clinton’s national security
adviser; and retired U.S. ambassador Thomas Pickering, who made headlines in
2009 after meeting with Hamas leaders and calling for the U.S. to open ties to
the Islamist group.
Another ICG member is Robert Malley, a former adviser to Obama during the
2008 presidential campaign who resigned after it was exposed he had communicated
with Hamas. WND
first reported
Malley had long petitioned for dialogue with Hamas.
The ICG defines itself as an “independent, non-profit, multinational
organization, with 100 staff members on five continents, working through
field-based analysis and high-level advocacy to prevent and resolve deadly
conflict.”
Radio talk show host Michael Savage spent his entire show Friday discussing
the ICG’s ties to the current Islamic uprising in Egypt. Savage
also wrote a 13-page paper
outlining Obama’s links to the Egypt chaos.
(Story continues below)
Soros also has other ties to opposition groups in the Middle East.
His Open Society Institute’s Middle East and North Africa Initiative has
provided numerous grants to a wide range of projects that promote so-called
democratic issues across the region, including in Egypt, where the Muslim
Brotherhood stands to gain from any future election.
Soros’ Open Society also funded the main opposition voice in Tunisia, Radio
Kalima, which championed the riots there that led to the ouster of President
Zine El Abidine Ben Ali.
In September, Soros’ group was looking to expand its operations in Egypt by
hiring a new project manager for its Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights,
which is run in partnership with the Open Society Justice Initiative. The group
is seeking to develop a national network of legal empowerment actors for
referral of public-interest law cases. Such organizations in the past have
helped represent Muslim Brotherhood leaders seeking election or more authority
in the country.
Soros himself on Friday made public statements in support of the protests in
Egypt, which the Mubarak government has warned will result in the rise of the
Muslim Brotherhood in the country.
In a Washington Post editorial entitled, “Why Obama Has to Get Egypt Right,”
Soros recognized that if free elections were held in Egypt, “the Brotherhood is
bound to emerge as a major political force, though it is far from assured of a
majority.”
He stated the U.S. has “much to gain by moving out in front and siding with
the public demand for dignity and democracy” in Egypt.
He claimed the “Muslim Brotherhood’s cooperation with Mohamed ElBaradei … is
a hopeful sign that it intends to play a constructive role in a democratic
political system.”
Soros did not mention his ties to ElBaradei.
Soros did, however, single out Israel as “the main stumbling block” in paving
the way toward transition in the Middle East.
“In reality, Israel has as much to gain from the spread of democracy in the
Middle East as the United States has. But Israel is unlikely to recognize its
own best interests because the change is too sudden and carries too many risks,”
he wrote.
The information comes as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton today tentatively
welcomed Muslim Brotherhood involvement in the next Egyptian elections, saying
Washington would “wait and see” how talks develop.
“Today we learned the Muslim Brotherhood decided to participate, which
suggests they at least are now involved in the dialogue that we have
encouraged,” Clinton told National Public Radio from Germany.
“We’re going to wait and see how this develops, but we’ve been very clear
about what we expect.”
“The Egyptian people are looking for an orderly transition that can lead to
free and fair elections. That is what the United States has consistently
supported,” said Clinton.
“The people themselves, and leaders of various groups … will ultimately
determine if it is or not meeting their needs.”
She added: “I want to make very clear we have set forth the principles we
support. We are adamant about no violence.
“We want to see peaceful protests that are, so far anyway, embodying the
aspirations that are in our view very legitimate.
“And we want to see an orderly, expeditious transition.”
With research by Brenda J. Elliott

Read more: Soros fingerprints on
Mideast chaos
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=260577#ixzz1DICMcufc

McCain’s Wrong Again

McCain’s Wrong Again

Richard Kantro

 

If the
policies themselves of the Obama administration haven’t yet made you dizzy, then
perhaps its contradictory characterizations, from within and without — now that
the 2012 campaign, make no mistake about it, has begun in earnest — will do the
job for you.

There’s John Sidney McCain, just four
short days ago proclaiming that, Obama having molted, he is now more
malleable:

Speaking with Bloomberg Television a
day after a private meeting with President Obama, McCain said he could picture
working with Obama on several issues going forward.

“I think there’s a number of issues
we could work on together, and I think it’s pretty clear that the president has
really pivoted to a much more centrist position, which I think makes it much
more for us easier to work with him,” McCain said.  (See story here; other stories here
and here.)

That old hero’s old bipartisan urge
is as strong as ever.  And to be fair, Mr. Obama has praised Senator McCain
sometimes, too.  Take this demure pearl from January 19, 2009, for example,
which then-President-Elect Obama disgorged right before flubbing the oath of
office:

“It has not been a quest for fame or
vanity that has driven this man.  It has not been the need to compromise for
politics’ sake that has shaped his distinguished career,” Obama said in a . . .
serious tone talking about McCain.” It is rather a pure and deeply felt love of
his country that comes from the painful knowledge of what life is like without
it.”

[snip]

“John is not known to bite
his tongue,” Obama said with a smile, “and If I’m screwing up, he’s going to let
me know. And that’s how it should be because a presidency is just one branch of
a broader government by and for the people.”  (Story here.)

But of course, that was four long,
whole days before the new President was to put Senator McCain resoundingly in
his place — before lots of other members of Congress — with his famous, ornery
put-down, the conversation-stopping stunner:  “I won.”  (Story here.)  (And by the way, that
branch-of-government business still puzzles Obama’s good friend, Senator
Schumer.)

So
why does the President have to go and once again flummox Senator McCain, and
us?  After all, we just got comfortable with McCain becoming comfortable.  Then,
before complaining that he needed to wear a jacket on Super Bowl Sunday, Mr.
Obama ruined everything, bursting the centrist fantasy, by telling an eager Bill
O’Reilly,

[OBAMA]:  And now our focus is not on
refighting the battle of the last two years…

O’REILLY: So you’re not moving to the
center?

OBAMA: I
haven’t — I didn’t move to…

O’REILLY: You haven’t moved anywhere?
You’re the same guy?

OBAMA: I’m the same guy. My practical
focus, my common-sense focus right now is how to we out-innovate, out-educate,
out-building, out-compete the rest of the world? How do we create jobs here in
the United States of America? How do we make sure that businesses are thriving?
But how do we also — making sure that ordinary Americans can live out the
American dream?  (See story and Bill O’Reilly feeding the President his lines in
the full interview here; quotes begin at
7m30s.)

How
do we, indeed.  It’s hard to know what part of Mr. Obama’s reveries — of fewer
jobs, less income, lousy light bulbs, lower salt, higher taxes, bankruptcy law
subversion, industry takeovers, a much bigger IRS, subpoena-snubbing, contempt
of court, crummy hybrid cars, endless executive orders, less coal, less gas,
more regulation, unaccountable czars, drilling moratoria, state dinners for
dictators, food police, airport palpitations, internet kill switches, exhalation
levies, end-of-life “consults”, intentional inflation, and White House Ramadan
“iftar” dinners — he can possibly think are the dreamy parts of the American
dream.

Maybe
Senator McCain knows.

Richard Kantro
may be contacted at rk4at@hotmail.com.

Page Printed
from: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/02/mccains_wrong_again.html

at February 07, 2011 – 10:28:22 AM CST

// <![CDATA[//  

Obama’s Role in Empowering the Muslim Brotherhood

Obama’s Role in Empowering the Muslim Brotherhood

By Ed
Lasky

 

The Obama administration is claiming that the president
has been out in front of the crisis in Egypt.  The facts prove otherwise.  He
has been behind the curve and has badly damaged American interests — perhaps
irretrievably so.

Barack Obama’s campaign was built on spin and speeches.  His presidency has
used these tools to present a false image.  In this case, his chief spin
maestro, David Axelrod, has been peddling
the story
that Barack Obama has been “out ahead of this” (“this” being the
crisis in Egypt).
Politico Journalist Josh
Gerstein
was skeptical and fact-checked Axelrod’s boastful claim.  Press
Secretary Robert Gibbs has parroted the same story line.  Gerstein found it
wanting:
To hear soon-to-depart White House senior adviser David Axelrod tell it,
President Barack Obama has long taken a tough line with Egyptian President Hosni
Mubarak over human rights and political reform issues in his country.
“The way [Obama has] confronted it, is he went to Cairo and talked about
the need, the universal human rights of people. He’s on several occasions
directly confronted Pres. Mubarak on it. And pushed him on the need for
political reform in his country,” Axelrod told
ABC’s Jake Tapper Friday
, on the adviser’s last day of work at the White
House.
“To get ahead of this?” Tapper asked.
“Exactly. To get ahead of this. This is a project he’s been working on
for two years, and today the president is working hard to encourage restraint
and a cessation of violence against the people of Egypt,” said
Axelrod.
“Nice myth,” said one human rights advocate I asked about Axelrod’s
description.
There are a couple of problems with Axelrod’s account. First, there’s
little public evidence that Obama “confronted” Mubarak on these issues. White
House officials have said the subjects were raised in meetings between the men,
but when the two met publicly there was little indication that Obama was
pressuring Mubarak on the issue.
During the 25-minute press availability during the pair’s Oval Office
meeting in August 2009, Obama didn’t
mention the issue
. Mubarak was the one who brought it up, telling the press
how “friendly” their exchange on the subject was and suggesting a rather
leisurely timeline to make changes.
The other sleight-of-hand in Axelrod’s comment is his suggestion that
Obama’s visit to Cairo in June 2009 was intended or perceived as speaking hard
truths to Mubarak. To the contrary, many in
the region
, in other Muslim countries and the U.S. ( see here
and here) saw
the choice of Egypt for Obama’s first speech to the Muslim world as a huge
laurel for Mubarak, not an albatross. Obama’s speech made no direct reference to
political reform or human rights issues in Egypt, save for a passing reference
to Christian Copts there. There were also reports
that the U.S. eased up on democracy promotion there.
However confrontational the Obama administration’s approach to this issue
may have been over the past two years, I certainly don’t remember Obama
administration officials ever publicly suggesting, as White House press
secretary Robert Gibbs did directly on Friday, that U.S. aid to Egypt was in
jeopardy.
He was not ahead of the curve but, in an all-too-rare instance of
budget-cutting, slashed aid to groups that might have been key players (and
allies of the United States) when a new government is established.
The Los
Angeles Times
reports that Barack Obama had not just ignored Egyptian human
rights issues over the past two years, but actually cut funding for activist
groups trying to reform Egypt:
Although President Obama has sided firmly with pro-democracy protesters in
Egypt, his administration spent its first two years easing the U.S. push for
human rights reforms in that country.

Early in Obama’s presidency,
officials cut in half funding to promote democracy in Egypt. They also agreed to
restrict certain grants only to organizations licensed by President Hosni
Mubarak’s authoritarian regime, reversing a Bush administration policy of
funding groups at odds with the government.

Secretary of State Hillary
Rodham Clinton, at a March 2009 meeting with Mubarak at an Egyptian resort on
the Red Sea, seemed to downplay a State
Department report
documenting torture, rape and political detentions in
Egypt.

“We issue these reports on every country,” Clinton told a television interviewer. “And so
we hope that it will be taken in the spirit in which it is offered, that we all
have room for improvement.”

Egyptian dissidents were distressed by the
administration’s message.

“All this sent a signal that was very
damaging,” said Stephen McInerney, executive director of the Project on Middle
East Democracy, a Washington advocacy group.

Indeed, the reviled Bush administration was the administration that was
ahead of the curve — though its ardor for change cooled as time went on.  But
Obama regressed even further on the issue of reform and human rights.
Obama spoke in general terms about political rights in his seminal address to the Muslim world in Cairo in 2009,
but did not explicitly demand reform in Egypt, as former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice did in 2005. Rice’s remarks
reflected then-President George W. Bush’s “freedom agenda” for the Middle East,
which involved stepped-up pressure for democratic reforms.

The Bush
administration pressured Mubarak into holding elections in 2005 that though
flawed, were the fairest in the country’s history, analysts say. But harsh
interrogations of terrorism suspects, secret CIA prisons and the Iraq war
tainted the Bush approach. And after Palestinian elections in 2006 that brought
Hamas to power in Gaza, Bush’s ardor for Arab democracy cooled.

Obama
pulled back further.

Not only has Barack Obama been behind the curve, but he worsened the
dynamic by slashing funding in half for groups that could have been our allies
for true Democratic change.  Why the budget-cutting?  Obama did
the same
for a Boston-based Iran human rights group that had been monitoring
and publicizing and recording for posterity Iranian human rights abuses —
except in that case, Obama terminated all funding.  The man who has rung up
trillion-dollar deficits tries to save a few million dollars by cuts to human
rights groups?
Now, because of his multiple failures, Obama is playing catch-up.  Obama is
way behind the curve.  How has he been playing his own badly self-dealt hand?
By chumming up with one of the most radical groups of all, the radically
anti-American, anti-Israel, anti-Christian, and anti-Semitic Muslim
Brotherhood.  His administration, while slashing aid to Egyptian human rights
groups, actually courted the Muslim
Brotherhood
and invited members to attend his Cairo Speech.  The engagement
(and empowerment) has continued apace.
Robert Gibbs stated that the Obama administration was urging the inclusion
of “important non-secular actors” in whatever government takes over from the
Mubarak regime.  This was widely interpreted to mean the Muslim Brotherhood
(this group is by far the most influential and important “non-secular” actor in
Egypt).  Furthermore, the Obama team’s proposal for the immediate transfer of
power calls for the transitional government to include the Muslim Brotherhood,
the New York Times reported on Friday.
David Horovitz of the Jerusalem Post
notes that Barack Obama never delivered significant pressure on Mubarak to
reform, and this apathy was starkly confirmed by December’s massive fraudulent
parliamentary elections.  Horovitz writes:
Washington evidently failed to foresee that embittered Egyptians might then
resort to the massed protests of the past two weeks, and it abandoned Mubarak
with alacrity as it scrambled to avoid being caught on the wrong side of a
largely spontaneous people’s push for freedom and democracy.

But however
one gauges the realpolitik involved in that dramatic recoil from a 30-year ally,
the White House’s subsequent reported moves to legitimate Egypt’s Islamists —
whose outlook conflicts utterly with the democratic agenda — make no sense, and
suggest a frighteningly superficial understanding of the Muslim Brotherhood’s
intentions and potential achievements.

Far from learning the lessons of
the Islamists’ skilled subversion of other pro-democracy movements, working with
potential leaders of an Egyptian transition to minimize the risk of such a
process recurring, and making publicly plain that there will be no ongoing
American alliance with an Egypt in which an unreformed Islamist movement has
even a marginal role in government, the White House seems to be actively
encouraging a transitional outreach to the Muslim
Brotherhood.

Horovitz further outlines the history of Middle East regimes that
incorporate groups similar to the Muslim Brotherhood.  They burrow into
governments and then take over, all but destroying the Democratic process that
brought them to power — often at the behest of Western powers.  They become
anti-American and become terror-supporting states.  They fall out of the
so-called American orbit — perhaps for many years to come (as has Iran).  They
trample the rights of women, abuse their children by teaching the tools of
Islamism and not the tools needed to live in the 21st century, and
use their mosques and media to brainwash their people to hate America.  They
give rise to more terrorism that can wash up on our own shores.
Now history seems to be repeating itself as tragedy.
Abe Greenwald at Commentary
Contentions
notes that the Obama administration seems to be countenancing
and endorsing a role for the Muslim Brotherhood in the new Egyptian
regime:
Things could be taking a dangerous turn in Egypt. The Washington Post reports
that the Muslim Brotherhood has new interest in participating in talks on the
transition of leadership. “The Brotherhood had refused to join talks Saturday,
insisting that Mubarak leave first. But leaders of the movement changed their
minds Sunday, saying they wanted to play a role in shaping a transition of power
and organizing free elections.”
The American response has been less than inspiring. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told
National Public Radio: “Today we learned the Muslim Brotherhood decided to
participate, which suggests they at least are now involved in the dialogue that
we have encouraged.” Yes, participation does suggest involvement, doesn’t it?
“We’re going to wait and see how this develops,” she said, “but we’ve been very
clear about what we expect.”
The only party that has actually been clear about what it expects is the
Muslim Brotherhood – and it expects to rule.
Barack Obama failed to capitalize on his initial worldwide popularity to
push for democratic reforms in the Muslim world.  He could have funded,
supported, and promoted a wide range of true human rights groups that could have
brought about a stable Egypt that would uphold its treaties and still be a
reliable ally of America.  Instead, he slashed funding for these groups, gave
them zero moral or diplomatic support, and is now — with alacrity (as Horvitz
notes) — abandoning Mubarak and empowering the Muslim Brotherhood.
So has Barack Obama been ahead of the curve?  Only if you think he
wanted the Muslim Brotherhood to assume power.
Ed Lasky is news editor of American
Thinker.

Page Printed from:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/02/obamas_role_in_empowering_the.html
at
February 07, 2011 – 10:25:44 AM CST

// <![CDATA[//  

Obama’s Prayer Breakfast Knuckleball

Obama’s Prayer Breakfast Knuckleball

By Jack
Cashill

 

At the National Prayer Breakfast on February 3,
President Obama threw a knuckleball down the middle, and the media
whiffed.

Most simply took Obama at his word that as a young man in Chicago, he “came
to know Jesus Christ for myself and embrace him as my lord and savior” and that
as president, he asks “the Lord” every day to make him “an instrument of his
will.”
In a moment, I will address the sheer gamesmanship of this theological
flutter to the center, but first, a word on the most revealing part of the
sermonette.  This revelation was missed by everyone in the media except the
ever-observant morning radio host at 630 KHOW in Denver, Peter Boyles, who
shared it with me.
Said Obama at one point in what seemed like a throwaway line, “My father,
who I barely knew — I only met once for a month in my entire life — was said
to be a non-believer throughout his life.”  Although he avoided specifics, Obama
was referring to the Christmas of 1971, when Barack Obama, Sr. visited the
extended Dunham family, including the ten-year-old Barry Obama, in Hawaii.
The president and his writers choose their words carefully for an occasion
as public as the Prayer Breakfast.  Obama could have safely left the
relationship at “barely knew,” and no one would have taken notice.  Instead, he
said he “met” his father, and then only once — a locution that makes no sense
for a boy who had allegedly lived more than two years with the man.
What Boyles believes — and I think he’s right — is that Team Obama is
preparing the media for a shift in the official Obama saga.  To this point, the
core of the Obama origins story has been that he and parents lived together as a
family in Hawaii until Obama was two.
The marriage “might have worked out,” Obama’s mother tells her son as
reported in his 1995 memoir, Dreams from My Father.  When, however,
Harvard offered Obama Sr. a fellowship to finish his Ph.D., he anguished his way
to acceptance.  “How can I refuse the best education?” he lamented.  “It wasn’t
your father’s fault that he left, you know,” Ann tells Obama.  “I divorced him.”
Obama repeated this fiction as recently as September 2009, when he
addressed the nation’s schoolchildren.  “I get it,” he told the kids about
childhood struggles.  “I know what that’s like. My father left my family when I
was two years old, and I was raised by a single mother.”
In my book, Deconstructing Obama, I coalesce the research done by
several independent investigators on the question of Obama’s origins, and my
conclusions are irrefutable.  There never was an Obama family.
Obama’s mother left Hawaii for Seattle with little Barry in tow when he was
just weeks old.  Obama Sr. left Hawaii for Harvard before Barry’s first
birthday, while Barry and his mother were still in Seattle.
This may not seem like an earthshaking shift, but the official origins
story served as the foundation for what biographer David Remnick rightly calls
Obama’s “signature appeal: the details of his own life as a reflection of a kind
of multicultural ideal.”  As it happens, that ideal was grounded in sand.  Obama
ascended to the White House on the strength of a story he knew to be
untrue.
As early as the summer of 2008, independent researchers had unraveled the
oft-told Obama yarn.  A single tug on the thread by anyone in the mainstream
media — the respectable conservative media, for that matter — could have
undone the candidacy.  Instead, these “responsible” voices did all in their
power to shore up the official Obama orthodoxy and scold those who would
question it.
At the Prayer Breakfast, Obama shifted the focus from his earthly father to
his heavenly one.  He did not, however, present his sudden enthusiasm for Jesus
Christ as a change of heart, but rather as a sharing of what had been in his
heart all along.  Unfortunately, nothing he has ever said or written supports
this.
In Dreams, Obama talks about first attending Jeremiah Wright’s
Chicago church in 1988, but he speaks of Jesus only as someone other people
embrace.  He refers on one occasion to “Will’s Jesus.”  On another occasion, a
friend says to him, “We love you, man. Jesus loves you!”  But Obama himself has
nothing to say about Jesus.
Obama biographer David Mendell, who followed Obama on the 2004 Senate trail
in Illinois, wryly observed, “Obama, without fail, would mention his church and
his Christian faith when he was campaigning in black churches and more socially
conservative downstate Illinois communities.”
Yet when Mendell tried to talk to Obama about his faith and his “ever
present bible,” Obama proved “uncharacteristically short” in his responses.
When Mendell persisted, Obama claimed that he was drawn to Christianity because
“many of the impulses that I had carried with me and were propelling me forward
were the same impulses that express themselves through the church.”  In other
words, Jesus thought pretty much along the same progressive lines as he did.
In his 2006 book, The Audacity of Hope, Obama mentions Jesus only
twice, both times with pure calculation.  On one occasion, in an attempt to
dispel the “liberal caricature,” he claims that “just about every member of the
Congressional Black Caucus believes Jesus Christ died for his or her
sins.”
In another, even more cynical moment, Obama exploits Jesus to keep his
position on gay marriage flexible.  “I must admit,” says Obama of his current
opposition, “that I may have been infected with society’s prejudices and
predilections and attributed them to God; that Jesus’ call to love one another
might demand a different conclusion.”
In his review
of the Prayer Breakfast speech for Time Magazine, Michal Scherer acknowledges
its “political advantages” and rightly observes that Obama is “laying the
groundwork by seeking to short circuit conservative critiques.”
This is not, however, a criticism.  Says Scherer of Obama, “He was sending
a signal to the Republican field: He will not allow others to define his own
beliefs for him.”
For a man capable of fabricating a relationship with his father — to the
point of writing a book about it — fabricating a relationship with Jesus is no
big deal, at least not to Scherer and the mainstream media.  They are prepared
to believe whatever Obama says and belittle those who don’t.
Better still, from the media’s perspective and Obama’s, no one can ask for
documentation about this relationship, at least not in the here and
now.

Page Printed from:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/02/obamas_prayer_breakfast_knuckl.html

at February 07, 2011 – 10:22:24 AM CST

// <![CDATA[//