War Blog By FrontPage Magazine

Who is Barack Obama?

Who is Barack Obama?

By Dennis Prager
FrontPageMagazine.com | 3/18/2008

Who is Barack Obama? The truth is that neither Sen. Obama’s supporters nor opponents can answer that question. We know he is bright, eloquent and charismatic. But if he were elected president of the United States, he would be the least known man to be elected in modern American history, perhaps in all of American history.

That is why the remarks and views of those closest to Sen. Obama take on much more significance than the remarks and views of the people closest to Sens. Hillary Clinton and John McCain. Whether we like or dislike either of those two candidates, we have every reason to believe we know them.

The people closest to Sen. Obama — and by his own account the two greatest living influences on his thinking — are his wife Michelle and his pastor, Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., of Chicago’s Trinity United Church of Christ. And each of them has made comments about America that could dissuade Americans from voting for Sen. Obama at least until they can get to know him better.

On Feb. 18, in Milwaukee, Wis., Michelle Obama announced, “For the first time in my adult life I am proud to be an American.” Anyone in public life must be given slack regarding comments they later regret. But on the same day in another speech in Madison, Wis., Mrs. Obama said virtually the same thing: “For the first time in my adult lifetime I am really proud to be an American.”

Sen. Obama later explained his wife’s remarks this way: “What she meant was, this is the first time that she’s been proud of the politics of America.”

I do not believe that Sen. Obama’s explanation is valid. I think Mrs. Obama said what she meant and meant what she said. But even if Sen. Obama’s reformulation of his wife’s remarks is valid, the fact remains that the closest person in the world to Barack Obama has never been proud of the politics of America, that it took her husband’s primary wins to change a lifelong lack of pride in anything about America’s political life. That’s troubling on its own — for his and her contempt for American politics. And it is even more troubling for its narcissism — do Sen. Obama and his wife believe that only his success has made American politics worthy of pride?

We are therefore confronted with either a contempt for America — if the original statement reflects Michelle Obama’s thinking — or some real narcissism on the part of both Sen. and Mrs. Obama. That narcissism is easily demonstrated. Just imagine if Hillary Clinton or John McCain had said they supported their spouse’s view that until their primary victories, they had never been proud of their country’s politics. Either of them would have looked foolish before the American people. That is why many believe Sen. Obama has been getting a relatively free ride in the American media, which largely adore him.

But it gets worse. The other closest person in Sen. Obama’s life, the man whom the senator calls his mentor, the man who married Barack and Michelle Obama, who baptized his daughters, who inspired the title of his book “The Audacity of Hope,” and whose church Sen. Obama has been attending for 20 years, has been a voice of anti-white racism and anti-American venom. In a widely viewed sermon from 2003, the Rev. Wright shouted from his pulpit, among other things:

The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing ‘God Bless America.’ No, no, no, God damn America, that’s in the Bible for killing innocent people. God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme.

He then went on to blame America for 9/11 since America has been engaged in state terrorism that has murdered far more innocents than were killed in America on 9/11. We should recall that when some conservative Christian leaders suggested that America had in some ways brought on 9/11 by its sins, these people were read the riot act by the mainstream media.

According to the Associated Press, Wright “also gave a sermon in December comparing Obama to Jesus, promoting his candidacy and criticizing his rival, Hillary Rodham Clinton. ‘Barack knows what it means to be a black man living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich white people,’ Wright told a cheering congregation. ‘Hillary can never know that. Hillary ain’t never been called a nigger.'”

Sen. Obama says he was not present when the Rev. Wright said these things.

Maybe so. But it is hard to believe that Sen. Obama has never heard such things from his Afro-centric minister. Additionally, one must ask why a man raised entirely by a white mother and white grandparents after being abandoned as a small child by his black father would choose to identify so fully with such a pastor. Coupled with his wife’s remarks, fair-minded people — whether Democrat or Republican — may well conclude that until we know more about who Sen. Barack Obama is, he ought not be the Democrats’ candidate for president of the United States. His two greatest living influences have raised red flags.

In fact, if Shelby Steele (who also has a white mother and black father) is right, we should not only be waiting until we better know who Barack Obama is. We probably need to wait until Barack Obama better knows who he is.


Dennis Prager hosts a nationally syndicated radio talk show based in Los Angeles. He is the author of four books, most recently “Happiness is a Serious Problem” (HarperCollins). His website is www.dennisprager.com. To find out more about Dennis Prager, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

Whose obsession?

Whose obsession?

I’ve just been watching the Fox News special called ‘Obsession‘, which is about the threat of ‘radical Islam.’ To tell you the truth, it was too revolting to watch all the way through, but I watched it in part, as much as I could stomach.

The thing I noticed, and which I fully expected, was that throughout, the ‘talking heads,’ the pundits, like Steve Emerson and Daniel Pipes, were very careful to use the PC construction, ‘radical Islam’ or ‘Islamists’, rather than speaking of Islam itself; the point being, of course, that it is just a ‘minority of extremists’, aka ‘Islamists’ who are the threat.

Some of the footage of the various Moslem TV programs and the rabble-rousing speeches by the mullahs and sheiks, was absolutely chilling. There was absolute cold evil in their eyes, the tone of their voices, and of course, most importantly, the words they were speaking. And it’s clear that to them, there are no ‘good Americans’, no decent infidels. They see the world in stark black and white, and they, in their twisted minds, see themselves as ‘good’ and us as ‘evil.’ They don’t trouble themselves with any niceties such as saying that ‘there is only a tiny minority of extremists’ in America who are their enemies; no, they say that America, all of it, is the cause of all evil and trouble.

This is all, of course, not news to anybody who pays attention to recent events in the world and who is semi-educated about Islam; it may, however, open the eyes of some of the more somnolent people who don’t bother themselves to keep up with world events, or who are satisfied with the PC view of the news as fed to us by the old media. I do hope that some people in that category were truly shocked by watching ‘Obsession’ and that they will realize the profound threat we are under, all of us in the West.

There has recently been quite a controversy, although seemingly a contrived one, about the administration’s use of the term ‘Islamofascists’; the quibblers say that the ‘fascist’ part of the term may be an inaccurate usage. That’s as may be, but to me, the problem with the word is, that like the made-up term ‘Islamist /Islamism’, or ‘radical Islam’, it is a way of splitting hairs. It is a way of drawing a distinction which is one of those ‘distinctions without a difference.’ All of the above terms imply that there is an aberrant or mutant form of Islam which is militant, and which preaches violence. And it’s distinguished, supposedly, from generic Islam, or ‘real’ Islam, which is that fabled ‘Religion of Peace’, which has ‘benevolence at its heart’, as Condi Rice said. This may be a convincing line of argument for those who haven’t taken a look at the Koran, or at an honest history book. Simply reading history books shows us that there were what are now termed ‘Islamofascists’ before there was such a thing denoted as ‘fascism.’ And a cursory reading of the Koran shows beyond any doubt that Islam is a violent religion, suffused with incitements to violence, saturated in the idea of killing and butchering the infidel in some instances, subjugating and enslaving him when killing is not prescribed. The Koran as well as the Hadiths, the sayings of Mohammed, are chockfull of violent and hateful rhetoric and dogma.
The fact is, Islam, unlike Christianity, does not posit the existence of a merciful God whose grace gives us a way to salvation; the only sure ‘salvation’ for a Moslem is via martyrdom, via killing infidels and martyring oneself in the process.
And the fact is, jihad is enjoined on all believers. And yes, we have been told that ‘jihad’ merely means ‘inner struggle’, but we also know that there is an Islamic practice called ‘taqiyya’, deceiving and lying to the infidel. So their explaining away the idea of jihad is not terribly convincing.

Still, the official line on Islam is that it is a mild, peaceful religion which is merely misinterpreted by a ‘tiny minority.’ Now the problem remains: how on earth do we infidels discern who is part of that dangerous ‘tiny minority’ who want to kill us, and destroy our country, and the ‘good Moslems’, the peaceful, law-abiding ones? If they present a meek and mild demeanor, does that guarantee they are benign? There have been countless incidents of Moslems who have been law-abiding people until they strap on a bomb belt and kill people, or until they hijack a plane or get into a car and mow down strangers, or get a gun and start shooting at random infidels. It’s happened. Someone, perhaps Robert Spencer, wryly coined the term ‘sudden jihadi syndrome’ for the people who, out of the blue, commit murder and mayhem, and in some cases, martyr themselves in doing so. There is no certain way to predict who among us will suddenly turn murderous in the name of ‘allah.’

As another example of the difficulty of discerning the harmless from the dangerous is the presence of some prominent Moslems who are ‘on our side.’ In the ‘Obsession’ documentary, they were represented by Nonie Darwish and Walid Shoebat, among others. These people are always cited as proof positive that most Moslems are decent, law-abiding people, just like us. They are held up as examples of how Moslems can be exemplary citizens, who assimilate to America or the West.
Many people who seem absolutely desperate to be PC and to appear ‘tolerant’ eagerly seize on the fact that such friendly Moslems exist, and cling to these people to convince themselves, perhaps, that Moslems are basically just like us, and that these Moslems are simply being corrupted by a few evil pied pipers like Abu Hamza, the hook-handed mullah living in the UK, and others like him.

It’s well to remember, on this subject, what the late Oriana Fallaci said:

There is not good Islam or bad Islam. There is just Islam. And Islam is the Qur’an. And the Qur’an is the Mein Kampf of this movement. The Qur’an demands the annihilation or subjugation of the other, and wants to substitute totalitarianism for democracy. Read it over, that Mein Kampf. In whatever version, you will find that all the evil that the sons of Allah commit against themselves and against others is in it.”

Nevertheless, despite the evident threat of Islam, it is obviously all-important to a lot of Americans to show that they are not ‘prejudiced’ against Islam. Even the tough-talking, ex-military pundit Ralph Peters has written a few diatribes defending ‘good’ Islam and lambasting ‘Islamophobes and bigots.’ This idea that we must lean over backwards in order to be ‘fair’ and tolerant has been beaten into our heads for decades now, to the point that we have started to deny the plain evidence of our senses and of common sense itself. We force ourselves to ignore many egregious acts by Moslems and focus on the few rare exceptions, like Nonie Darwish, like Walid Shoebat, like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and the few others who have denounced the religion of their birth. But the fact is, they are anomalous within Islam; they are not typical, nor should we try to convince ourselves they are. To do so is dangerous self-delusion.

I will go further, and say something which no one seems willing to say: the presence of the few ‘good Moslems’ like Darwish, Shoebat, Ali, or whoever, makes us more vulnerable to the terrorists. The presence of those ‘law-abiding’ peaceful Moslems, that friendly Moslem neighbor or co-worker, enables the presence of the terrorists among us. Now, I am not saying they knowingly enable terror; not at all, but their presence does. The presence of the good, law-abiding Moslem enables us to say, ‘see, they really are just like us, and we can’t condemn them all. Maybe we can bring democracy to the Islamic world after all, and surely they can assimilate to the West. ‘ And thus we close our eyes to the threat of the Abu Hamzas or whoever else is among us fomenting terror. We pretend they don’t exist, or we turn a blind eye to them because of the benign Moslems we respect.

The terrorists surely know this; they know they can effectively hide among the law-abiding Moslems. The presence of large enclaves of Moslems in the West, made up of mostly unthreatening people, provides cover and camouflage for the bad guys. The good guys are essentially the sugar coating on the poison pill of terrorism.

Still, we focus on that sugar coating and deny the harmful ingredients inside the pill.

I am certain that during World War II, there were many decent, law-abiding Germans and Japanese people, yet I don’t think our government insisted that we ignore the threat of the Axis powers because they had good citizens in their midst. Thank goodness we didn’t have the politically correct albatross around our necks then, as we do now. The wartime propaganda was no doubt harsh and tended to caricature (or to ‘demonize’, as the leftists like to say) the enemy. Had we wrung our hands and said, ”but, but the Germans and the Japanese are mostly good, law-abiding people, and their governments have been hijacked by Nazis and ‘extremists’,” no; we recognized a mortal threat and acted on it. There is no way to declare war on just part of a population, when there is no way to distinguish who is dangerous and who is not. One has to act on the presumption that all may be dangerous. Unfair? Probably, but life is not fair. And it would have been unfair to ourselves to be so squeamish that we could not act effectively to win the war as quickly as possible.

Nowadays, we are a different people than our parents and grandparents. ‘The past is another country’, and in the new country that has taken the place of vanished America, we can’t act to protect ourselves by deporting or repatriating people. Niceness and tolerance trump survival. So we accept mass immigration from terrorist-sympathizing countries, with the implicit calculus that we will accept a certain number of terrorists for the sake of being open to the ‘majority’ of law-abiding Moslems. The same bizarre logic is at work with the illegal invasion: the government has all but said that yes, there are and will be a certain number of criminals entering: murderers, rapists, thieves, molesters — but never fear; it’s only a minority of them. The majority are ‘hard-working folks’ so we have to take a few bad apples in order to get those ‘good-hearted folks’ so beloved of our President. And if those bad apples among the Mohammedans or the Mexicans happen to kill or maim Americans, well, that’s just the luck of the draw, and what’s a few thousand lives here and there, as long as we are diverse and tolerant? And if we give up some basic freedoms and conveniences so as to protect our safety while still welcoming the threat among us, then that’s just the price we pay for this wonderful diversity.

I wonder if the title ‘Obsession’ might just as easily describe our current regime’s obsession with ‘tolerance, inclusion and diversity’? What other word describes the willingness to court death and destruction in the name of some goal, if not the word ‘obsession’? We in the West are as obsessed as the Moslems are, in our own way: our obsessive ‘niceness’ and passivity provides the perfect complement to their need to conquer and subjugate. Obsession indeed.

The ‘Obsession’ special ended with the mandatory politically correct disclaimer, spoken by E.D. Hill. I knew it was coming all along; still, I had to groan when she intoned those familiar words, something like ‘We must remember, the majority of our Muslim citizens are peaceful and law-abiding people.’

I mean, what’s up with that disclaimer? Do our elites in the media and government think so little of us that they believe we will take up torches and head towards the nearest mosque, after watching ‘Obsession’? Even though they have just succeeded in showing us just how malevolent Islam can be, we are not supposed to take it to heart. And the implicit message is: ‘yes, Islam is a scary belief system that seriously unhinges many of its followers, who become rabid killers, but don’t fret about it; there’s not a blessed thing you can do anyway. Have a nice day.
Oh, and don’t forget: celebrate diversity, because it’s our strength.’

The BBC News Website looks at how Iran’s political system works and who wields the power.

this is a good look at the structure of Iran click on each portion of the chart for info on each part of the government

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/iran_power/html/default.stm

Ahmadinejad threatens Europe over Israel

Ahmadinejad threatens Europe over Israel

More from the Al-Qods Day festivities. “Iran warns of revenge over Israel,” from the BBC:

Iran’s president has warned that Muslims around the world will take revenge on states which support Israel against the Palestinians. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad again questioned the extent of the Holocaust, when German Nazis murdered six million Jews.

Israel was founded on “claims about the Holocaust” for which the Palestinians were paying the price, he told a rally.

He was speaking on Jerusalem Day, when there are large demonstrations in Iran in support of the Palestinians.

BBC Tehran correspondent Frances Harrison says the tone of the speech was hardline, even by Mr Ahmadinejad’s standards.

Implicit threat

Mr Ahmadinejad called Israel’s leaders a “group of terrorists” and appeared to threaten any country that supports it.

“You imposed a group of terrorists… on the region. It is in your own interest to distance yourself from these criminals… This is an ultimatum. Don’t complain tomorrow.”

The “ultimatum” was directed at European states in particular.

“We have advised the Europeans that the Americans are far away, but you are the neighbours of the nations in this region,” Mr Ahmadinejad said.

“We inform you that the nations are like an ocean that is welling up, and if a storm begins, the dimensions will not stay limited to Palestine, and you may get hurt.”

‘Israeli insecurity’

Mr Ahmadinejad said Israel no longer had any reason to exist and would soon disappear. “This regime, thanks to God, has lost the reason for its existence. Efforts to stabilise this fake regime, by the grace of God, have completely failed.”

Mr Ahmadinejad said: “Even if we assume the Holocaust is true, then why should the Palestinians pay the price for it.”

He said millions of Israelis should go back to their countries of origin.

Iran President Ahmadinejad: ‘I Have a Connection With God, Since God Said That the Infidels Will Have No Way to Harm the Believers’; ‘We Have [Only] One Step Remaining Before We Attain the Summit of Nuclear Technology’; The West ‘Will Not Dare To Attack Us’

Iran President Ahmadinejad: ‘I Have a Connection With God, Since God Said That the Infidels Will Have No Way to Harm the Believers’; ‘We Have [Only] One Step Remaining Before We Attain the Summit of Nuclear Technology’; The West ‘Will Not Dare To Attack Us’

In an Iftar address to an audience of his supporters, including members of the Union of Islamic Engineers and supporters of the Khat-e Emam, [1] on October 14, 2006, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stated that he had a connection with God, and promised that Iran would continue to develop nuclear energy, and would not give in to the West’s demand to suspend its uranium enrichment “even for one single day.”

The parts of Ahmadinejad’s address regarding his connection with God were reported by the independent Iranian news agency Iran News, which is active within Iran, on October 15, 2006, under the title “A Different Report by Iran News on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s New Shocking Address at the Iftar of the Engineers Union.”

Like Ahmadinejad, other members of Iran‘s upper echelons have also recently expressed their objections to a suspension of uranium enrichment like that undertaken by the previous president, the reformist Mohammad Khatami. At a meeting with the heads of Iran’s ruling authorities, Iran’s Supreme Leader ‘Ali Khamenei said, “Had we not taken the path we took two years ago, [i.e.] consented to suspend uranium enrichment, perhaps today we would be kicking ourselves, [saying] ‘Why didn’t we try that path?’ But today we are moving ahead [towards our goal], with complete confidence and with absolute control, and [today] no one can claim any longer that we were mistaken in the path we took [i.e. our current refusal to suspend enrichment] in the nuclear issue, because we did try the other path [i.e. consent to suspend enrichment]…” [2]

The reformist daily Aftab-e Yazd reported that Ahmadinejad had said in his address that Iran “must stand firm [in its nuclear policy]; we have one more step, and if we pass that, this [matter] will be attained.” [3]

A few days previously, on October 11, 2006, Ahmadinejad had made similar statements on the nuclear issue, in a speech in the city of Shahriyar:”…The enemies are completely paralyzed, and cannot in any way confront the Iranian people. If our people maintain unity and solidarity, they [i.e. the enemies] must expect a great [Iranian] victory, because we have [only] one step remaining before we attain the summit of nuclear technology.” [4]

In that speech, Ahmadinejad underlined the West’s inability to act: “The enemy will never confront us. An attack on Iran is nonsense.” [5]

The following are the main points of the Iran News report of Ahmadinejad’s Iftar speech: [6]

The Second Islamic Revolution

“…I told you that the second wave of the [1979 Islamic] Revolution has already begun [with my election to the presidency in 2005], and that it is bigger and more terrible than the first…” [7]
The Connection to God and the Anticipated Muslim Victory Over the Infidels

“On the nuclear issue, I have said to my friends on many occasions, ‘Don’t worry. They [i.e. the Westerners] are only making noise.’ But my friends don’t believe [me], and say, ‘You are connected to some place!’ I always say: ‘Now the West is disarmed vis-à-vis Iran [on the nuclear issue], and does not know how to end this matter [with us].’ But my friends say: ‘You are uttering divine words! Then they will laugh at us!’

“Believe [me], legally speaking, and in the eyes of public opinion, we have absolutely succeeded. I say this out of knowledge. Someone asked me: ‘So and so said that you have a connection.’ I said: ‘Yes, I have.’ He asked me: ‘Really, you have a connection? With whom?’ I answered: ‘I have a connection with God,’ since God said that the infidels will have no way to harm the believers. Well, [but] only if we are believers, because God said: You [will be] the victors. But the same friends say that Ahmadinejad says strange things.

“If we are [really] believers, God will show us victory, and this miracle. Is it necessary today for a female camel to emerge from the heart of the mountain so that my friends will accept the miracle? [8] Wasn’t the [Islamic] Revolution [enough of] a miracle? Wasn’t the Imam [Ayatollah Khomeini] a miracle?… ”

Iran‘s Nuclear Policy

“They (Westerners) did two ugly things. First, they attacked Lebanon in order to extract concessions from us [i.e. Iran]. Second, they took the [nuclear] issue to the [U.N.] Security Council. Of course, now they are sunk in a quagmire, and don’t know what to do with us. We, for our part, did not retreat one millimeter. First, because if we retreat [even] a little, that is, if we agree to suspend [uranium enrichment even] for a single day, they will say that the Iranians retreat under pressure. And second, if we do this, they will tell the entire world that the Iranians have finally stopped their [uranium] enrichment. Didn’t we stop the enrichment in the previous round [of talks]? What did we gain by that?…

“I say that now, by the grace of God, we have gone most of the way; be confident that they will not dare to attack us.”

Attitude Towards the U.S. and Bush

“… The president of America is like us. That is, he too is inspired… but [his] inspiration is of the satanic kind. Satan gives inspiration to the president of America…

“[With regard to the news that U.S. aircraft carriers have been sent to the Persian Gulf,] I say to you now to let your minds be at ease. If two warships come, let them come… Why did you say nothing two months ago, when 140 of their warships left? Actually, I think that the fact that they are coming means that there is no possibility that anything will happen.

“What is dangerous is if they leave the region; then, it will be clear that they have a plan. That is exactly what I said at the Supreme National Security Council meeting some time ago. [I said,] be certain that the departure of those American warships from the Persian Gulf is the beginning of a bad event. Then [indeed] we saw that they caused the Lebanon war.”

Israel “greatest insult to human dignity”, says Iran’s Ahmadinejad

 
  Israel “greatest insult to human dignity”, says Iran’s Ahmadinejaddpa German Press Agency
Published: Thursday October 19, 2006

Tehran- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Thursday continued his harsh rhetoric against Israel and termed the Jewish state as “greatest insult to human dignity.” “This faked Zionist regime (Israel) has been formed in the heart of the Islamic world with people from throughout the world and the crimes, aggressions and ballyhoo committed by this regime so far is the greatest insult to human dignity,” ISNA news agency quoted Ahmadinejad as saying in a speech in Islamshahr, south of Tehran.

Ahmadinejad had called on elimination of the Jewish state from the Middle East and Islamic world and further provoked the West by terming the Holocaust a “fairy tale”

“The supporters of this regime have granted the regime carte blanche to commit whatever crimes but we have said several times that this regime cannot continue its existence,” the Iranian president said.

Ahmadinejad said Israel attacked Lebanon and fully destroyed this country and instead of blaming the Jewish state, Lebanon was criticised for having defended itself.

“No Middle East country would ever, not even in hundred years, acknowledge this regime,” Ahmadinejad said, while criticising Western countries for putting Israel’s acknowledgement as one of the conditions for having trade relations with non-European countries.

Besides suspension of atomic programmes, one of the conditions by the European Union for resuming full economic ties with Iran has been using its influence within anti-Israeli militia groups to stop suicidal operations inside Israel and eventually acknowledge the sovereignty of the Jewish state.

Ahmadinejad called on the Iranian people to massively attend Friday’s Quds Day (Jerusalem Day) and shouting protests against Israel and in support of the Palestinian nation.

The late leader of the Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, had proclaimed the last Friday of the fasting month of Ramadan as Quds Day, a day to call for liberation of Jerusalem – a city held in reverence by Moslems worldwide – from Israeli occupation.

Iran does not recognize Israel and insists the “occupied territories of Palestine” want an independent Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital.

© 2006 dpa German Press Agency