Obama claims “I’m a Christian by choice” but governs as a Muslim

Obama claims “I’m a Christian by choice” but governs as a Muslim

“I’m a Christian by choice,” said President Obama yesterday on the campaign trail, losing his mid-term elections and trying to win Christian votes.  Obama seeks to overcome public opinion polls in which 18% say he is Muslim and 43% say Obama’s religion is unknown. But here’s my question:  Why does he campaign like a Christian, but govern like a Muslim?
 
1) While governing, Obama said, “I am a Muslim, the son of a Muslim father and stepson of a Muslim stepfather, my half-brothers in Kenya are Muslims, and I am sympathetic to the Muslim agenda,” during a private meeting with Egyptian Foreign Minister Abul Gheit last year.  
2) “Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation,” Obama told Sojourners.
3) “John McCain has not criticized my Muslim faith,” Obama told ABC.  
4) Obama has twice celebrated Muslim Ramadan with big banquets, but twice refused any White House ceremony for the Judeo-Christian National Day of Prayer.  
5) The Obama Administration defended seizing and burning our troops Christian Bibles, but made a big deal when a Christian minister almost desecrated his own Korans.  
6) Obama repeatedly defends building a “Victory Mosque” at Ground Zero, but would never ask the Saudi or Afghan governments to allow Christians to build churches.  
7) Obama praised Islam as “a great religion and its commitment to justice and progress” in his address to Muslims translated into many languages for worldwide distribution.  

While campaigning, however, Obama needs Christian votes to keep his majority in Congress, so now he says: “I came to my Christian faith later in life…my mother didn’t raise me in the church…it was because the precepts of Jesus Christ spoke to me…Jesus Christ dying for my sins spoke to the humility we all have to have as human beings, that we’re sinful and we’re flawed and we make mistakes, and that, you know, we achieve salvation through the grace of God…That’s what I pray to do every day. I think my public service is part of that effort to express my Christian faith.”  [But when governing Obama promotes tax-funded abortions, homosexualizes our military against their will, and appoints Judges like David Hamilton who ruled it’s illegal to pray “in Jesus’ name,” but totally OK to pray to Allah in public.]  Does anybody see the duplicity here?

Thoughts from a conservative in hiding (Not Me)

Thoughts from a conservative in hiding

Neil Braithwaite

I try my best to get my conservative friends to stand up for the cause; unfortunately, the one with the best writing skills lives among the liberals in the great Pacific Northwest and actually fears that being outed may cause him and his family irreparable harm.So, under his alias, Dave McGuire, I present to you his conservative words of wisdom:

“Since someone broached the subject of Obama’s recent comments about his Christianity I am compelled to offer the following comment on that subject.

Obama and his wife spent 20 plus years at the feet of a guy that is as hate filled as any man can be. The Rev. Wright vented his vile spirit every Sunday but our president thinks he can regale throngs of potential voters with lip service and half-truths about his desire to be a Christian. Don’t make me laugh – I’m not in the mood.

The United Church of Christ, of which Mr. Obama was a member, does not hold to any form of the traditional view of Jesus. The organization as a whole is nearly agnostic in terms of a belief in a higher power. Truth be known, the organization across America is merely a liberal political movement masquerading as a church – not unlike so many other progressive liberal and so called Christian churches in America. These are the type of spiritual groups that Lenin or Stalin, if they were alive, would hail as the perfect State Sanctioned Church; and the only church anyone would be allowed to attend.

Beyond that fact, the notion that Mr. Obama wants to be his sister’s and brother’s keeper is laughable and at the same time just a little concerning. You see, after Cain killed his brother God asked him where his brother Able was. Cain replied, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” Now, I don’t care one way or the other how you feel about the veracity of the story, but taken in its context the answer Cain gave was conceived by a guilty conscience and smacked of insolence – or at best disingenuousness.

Now, consider that the concept of being your brother’s keeper is not mentioned again in either the Old or New Testament. That fact begs the question – just whose voice was calling out to Obama and whose precepts were ringing in his ears?

To make the point one more time: there are no other references to a command or inference to suggest that anyone need be another’s keeper. Think about it, why would there be and who would want to be kept if there were? I suppose Karl Marx might enjoin the idea given his view of life, after all, the governments his ideology spawned are all about keeping people, aren’t they?

As for doing unto others as you would have them do unto you, – this president has been heading off in the wrong direction and dragging the country along with him. If Obama really cared about our lives he would not be running the country into the ground – wasting our money doing it – and promising more of the same if we give him what he wants. Given the ground we’ve covered thus far, with our leader at the wheel, I am certain that given the opportunity Obama will continue to take us to the ultimate destination to a land of hopelessness and despair.

As he stands now, the best you can say about Obama is: he may not have provided the transparency in government he promised – but he certainly is a man that is easily seen through – if you have eyes to see that is.”

Excellent job Dave.


Neil Braithwaite writes political commentary and satire.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/09/thoughts_from_a_conservative_i.html at September 30, 2010 – 11:43:55 AM CDT

More Obama Terror: ‘US may stop using UN veto on resolutions targeting Israel’

More Obama Terror: ‘US may stop using UN veto on resolutions targeting Israel’

If the US sanctioned brutal and misogynist Iran’s UN appointment to the women’s commission, then the abandonment of our best friend and strategic ally, the Jewish homeland in the Middle East, to jihadist savages is the obvious move. 

Another Obama anti-America, anti-freedom first in US history. J Post reporting:

In an attempt to launch indirect proximity talks between Israel and the Palestinians, the US has given private assurances that it would consider not using its veto power against UN Security Council condemnations of any significant new settlement activity, the Guardian reported.

A Palestinian source quoted by the UK paper said David Hale, a deputy of US Middle East envoy George Mitchell, told Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas last week that if there was “significantly provocative settlement activity,” including in east Jerusalem, Washington may consider allowing UNSC resolutions censuring Israel to pass. According to the paper, the source said “it was understood that meant the US would abstain from voting on a resolution rather than use its veto.”

What about left wing violence?

What about left wing violence?

Ann Kane

Let’s get this straight, Mr. Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post-the right wing commentators and the Tea Party are responsible for all domestic terrorism, and the left has done nothing to encourage terrorist behavior; funny how leftists never see themselves as guilty of anything.  In his Op Ed piece, The Hutaree Militia and the rising risk of far right violence, Robinson summarizes:

It is dishonest for right-wing commentators to insist on an equivalence that does not exist. The danger of political violence in this country comes overwhelmingly from one direction — the right, not the left. The vitriolic, anti-government hate speech that is spewed on talk radio every day — and, quite regularly, at Tea Party rallies — is calibrated not to inform but to incite.

Demagogues scream at people that their government is illegitimate, that their country has been “taken away,” that their elected officials are “traitors” and that their freedom is at risk. They have a right to free speech, which I will always defend. But they shouldn’t be surprised if some listeners take them literally.

In his tirade, Robinson unwittingly managed to encapsulate life in these United States today: our country has been taken away by left wing demagogues in the White House, and freedom is at risk.

Now, for some comparisons to the Hutarees, but approved by the left: 

Homegrown Muslim terrorist groups like the one in the Catskills in New York, who plot jihad against America 24/7.  Where is Mr. Robinson’s outrage when it comes to Muslim terrorists on American soil? 

Muslim jihad extremists like Hasan of the Ft. Hood murders.  Why did left wing racists give him a free pass, but not the Hutarees?

Bill Ayers of the Weather Underground who didn’t think his group went far enough in committing violence against the government. 

Former communist and left wing extremist Van Jones, who recently had a makeover after resigning as Green Jobs Czar, and now sits on Princeton University’s staff. 

Rev. Wright who preaches black liberation racist theology and hatred of America. 

Louis Farrakhan who promotes anti-white, anti-Semitic propaganda. 

Andy Stern of SEIU, Obama’s BFF (best friend forever), who allows his union thugs to beat up an innocent man in St. Louis?

Maybe right wing extremists like the Hutaree that Mr. Robinson demonizes will someday end up becoming professors and visit Obama in the White House, but for now, they live in shacks out in the woods while the left turns them into an icon of the right.  

 

Obama’s Ire, Not U.S. Interests, Direct Israel Policy

Obama’s Ire, Not U.S. Interests, Direct Israel Policy

By Jonathan F. Keiler

It is now beyond cavil that Barak Obama personally dislikes Israel and harbors an affinity for the Muslim/Arab world, to include the so-called Palestinian Arabs.  This is no surprise given Obama’s background and associations, which range from school days in Muslim Indonesia to close friendships with Palestinian militants, radical leftists, and his conversion to the idiosyncratic anti-American and anti-Zionist Christianity of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright.
Obama, like any American, is entitled to his personal preferences and prejudices.  He was elected by the American people in spite of them, and for some of his supporters, particularly on the hard-core left, because of them.
However, President Obama has a duty to act in the best interests of the American people, regardless of his personal prejudices.  In the case of his administration’s relations with Israel, the Arabs, and Iran, these prejudices are damaging American interests and indeed, putting the American people and military personnel in harms way. 
Obama is not the first president to have differences with Israel.  For example, supporters of Obama point to President Eisenhower’s intervention in the 1956 Suez Crisis to justify the Administration’s recent hard line with the Jewish state.  The comparison is, however, unjustified.  In 1956 America faced simultaneous crises in Hungary and Suez, and in an increasingly bi-polar world Eisenhower saw the multilateral Anglo-French-Israeli action as interfering with American prerogatives in the Middle East and vis-à-vis the Soviet Union.  Eisenhower pressured the Anglo-French to abandon Suez, which they did promptly.  It took a year of American threats, guarantees of Israeli access to the Straits of Tiran, and the demilitarization of the Sinai, force Israel to withdraw. 
Even so, this American “success” only resulted in eventual disaster.  Nasser, instead of being grateful for American intervention, fell even further into the Soviet camp, dragging Syria and much of the Arab world with him.  Eleven years later Nasser made a hash out of Eisenhower’s guarantees by booting U.N. peacekeepers from Sinai and blockading the Straits of Tiran.  In 1967, with little or no help from America, Israel retook Sinai from Egypt and expelled hostile Syrian and Jordanian forces from the Golan and the West Bank.  The Johnson and Nixon administrations, seeing the error of Eisenhower’s policies, allied the United States with Israel for the first time, and replaced France as its principle supporter and arms supplier. 
Still, Eisenhower acted against Israel not out of any personal animosity but from the sincere, if mistaken, belief that American interests required a return to the status quo in the area.  Since 1967, other American presidents have had occasional policy differences with Israel, as one would expect when an ally in a tough, dangerous neighborhood vital to U.S. interests, must sometimes act in its own interests.  Nonetheless, U.S. presidents have for the most part, pressured or confronted Israel only when international circumstances and important American interests seemed at stake. 
Nixon and Ford got tough at times in the context of the Cold War and 1973 oil crisis.  Carter, no friend of Israel, acted (mostly) to secure the critical peace agreement between Egypt and Israel, aggrandize himself, and (however incompetently) in the context of the Soviet Afghan invasion and the 1979 oil shock — venting his full anti-Israel animosities after leaving office.  Reagan initially condemned Israel for its strike on the Osirik reactor in Iraq, although he privately recognized (“boys will be boys”) it was a boon to the free world.  Reagan also mistakenly got drawn into the aftermath of the first Lebanon War following the hysterical international reaction to the Christian Phalangist attack on the Palestinian camps of Sabra and Shatila that also caused U.S.-Israel tensions.
Neither George H.W. Bush nor his principal advisors were personally inclined toward the Jewish state, but pressured her (justifiably) to stay out of the Gulf War, and thereafter in the mistaken belief (Madrid) that after America’s Gulf victory, a comprehensive Middle East peace beckoned. 
Clinton, like Carter, sought to finalize accords (Oslo) negotiated outside American ambit and glorify himself, but in so doing critically misjudged (as did many Israelis) the true intentions of Yasser Arafat. 
Finally, George W. Bush, the president most personally sympathetic to Israel, nonetheless balanced American interests in the region and became the first American president to publicly call for the establishment of a Palestinian state.     
Obama, on the other hand, came into office at a time of relative quiescence in the area.  The two most radical Arab forces (Hezb’allah and Hamas) were at least temporarily cowed by Israeli offensives, as was Syria thanks to an Israeli strike on a clandestine nuclear facility.  The somewhat less radical Palestinian Authority was making strides toward establishing a functioning proto-state and talking directly to Jerusalem.  Only Iran posed a real threat to stability in the area and rationally Obama should have directed American pressure and wrath against Tehran.   
But Obama’s personal prejudices and desires direct policy.  Instead of focusing on Iran, Obama almost immediately called for a freeze on Israeli construction in the West Bank, without making corresponding demands on the Palestinians.  The Palestinians predictably sat back — as they do still — anticipating American pressure against Israel will allow them to pocket gains without giving anything in return.  The resulting stalemate irked Obama and his largely amateur and often buffoonish coterie of close advisors who, following the leader, blamed Israel for the impasse. 
Obama struck over the silly issue of Jerusalem housing permits, a matter over which no great power ought care one whit, never mind the fact that the construction was perfectly legal and aligned with mutually articulated understandings and promises between the two countries. 
No critical American interests were at stake, so Obama and his crew invented a blood libel.  First, Vice President Biden accused Israel of putting American servicemen in harms way via apartment construction — a charge he now unconvincingly denies.  
In addition the White House stood idly by when a blogger for Foreign Policy incorrectly claimed that General David Petraeus said something similar during a classified Pentagon briefing in January that was forwarded to the White House.  Testimony by Petraeus before the Senate Armed Services committee was also widely mischaracterized in the tumult.  But when close Obama advisor and political hack David Axelrod was asked directly on ABC’s “This Week” whether the libel concerning danger to U.S. personnel was true, he did not deny it, and heaped more calumny on Israel. 
The White House allowed Petraeus to dangle in the wind for several days while critics from the left and right assailed him for comments he never made.  He clarified the situation in a press briefing, phoned Israel’s friendly and cooperative Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi, and even sent Ashkenazi a supportive blog post by writer Max Boot.
The only fair way to describe the affair is malfeasance on the part of the White House.  Obama deliberately created a severe crisis with a close and key ally where no vital American interests were at stake.  He compounded the wrongdoing by knowingly and falsely implying that such interests were at risk, most notably a direct danger to American service personnel.  And finally, he exposed the country’s most decorated and important Army general to unwarranted attack because it served his own narrow, personal prejudices.

Is Obama anti-Semitic? Netanyahu brother-in-law causes ruckus.

Is Obama anti-Semitic? Netanyahu brother-in-law causes ruckus.

The office of Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Wednesday rejected the remarks of his brother-in-law Hagai Ben Artzi, who called President Obama ‘anti-Semitic.’ But how many other Israelis share Mr. Ben Artzi’s view?

Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu distanced himself Wednesday from the views of his brother-in-law, who called President Obama anti-Semitic.
(Gil Cohen Magen/Reuters)


By Joshua Mitnick Correspondent
posted March 17, 2010 at 12:34 pm EDT

Tel Aviv —At the height of the worst Israel-US crisis in decades, Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was forced to distance himself Wednesday from the views of his brother-in-law, who called President Obama “anti-Semitic” over the airwaves this morning.

In an interview with Israel Army Radio on Wednesday, Hagai Ben Artzi, the brother of Netanyahu’s wife Sara, reportedly said: “it needs to be said clearly and simply: There is an anti-Semitic president in the US. It’s not that Obama doesn’t sympathize with [Mr. Netanyahu]. He doesn’t sympathize with the people of Israel.”

Netanyahu’s office swifty published a condemnation: “I entirely reject the remarks of Hagai Ben Artzi.”

IN PICTURES: Israeli settlements

Family ties?

Mr. Ben Artzi, who has a history of controversial remarks, is family in more than one way.

The hardliner – who’s held positions as a bible lecturer at a religious college in Jerusalem, and in the Education Ministry, and has a doctorate in Israel thought and philosophy from Hebrew University in Jerusalem – also represents the family of hawkish nationalists who support Netanyahu and for whom any movement on the peace process is going to stir tension.

The Israeli daily Haaretz reported that Knesset Member Michael Ben Ari of the far-right National Union party recently hung a poster with a picture in which Obama looks like he is bowing to a Gulf prince, underneath a headline, “Caution! [Palestine Liberation Organization] Agent in the White House!”

Suspicion of Obama

So how widespread are those views of Obama in Israel?

The opinions recall suspicions voiced about Obama in Israel during his run for the presidency that were based on his Muslim relatives and a former pastor whose sermons occasionally included remarks considered anti-Semitic.

Mitchell Barak, a pollster who used to work with Netanyahu, says there is widespread alienation among Israelis regarding Obama, whom many consider the US president most unsympathetic to Israel for decades.

That said, both Ben Artzi and Ben Ari represent fringe opinions, says Mr. Barak.

“The problem with the extremist right groups,” he says, “is that they can’t recognize anyone that doesn’t shares the opinions of their own group.”

Hey! Let’s give a friend of Reverend Wright a job in the White House.

Hey! Let’s give a friend of Reverend Wright a job in the White House.

Ed Lasky

Reverend Jeremiah Wright may be gone but he won’t be forgotten. That’s because President Obama has named Otis Moss, Jr. – father of the current pastor of Trinity United Church – to sit on the brand new Advisory Council for the Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. Moss co-wrote a book with Wright and has penned articles for  Trinity United publications.

Excerpt from the Weekly Standard article:

Even more interesting, perhaps, is Moss’s own rhetoric. He is a political preacher and has said, “If you are preaching a gospel that has nothing about politics, nothing about economics, nothing about sociology, you are preaching an empty gospel with a cap and shoes but no body to it.” His sermons at Olivet are hard to come by. But from public lectures, one concludes that, while his style is more subdued than Wright’s (or his own son’s) and his themes more benign, there are still plenty of comments that call into question his suitability for government service. Take, for instance, this observation made at Yale in October 2004:

You have heard that it was said, “God bless America.” But I say unto you, Pray for all of the Osama bin Ladens and the Saddam Husseins. .  .  .

I say unto you, Be kind, be as kind to Castro as you are to the Saudi family and the leaders of China and Russia. This, however, is difficult in a society .  .  . when we are afflicted or infected with hubris. It’s almost an incurable disease–incurable not because of despair, but because of arrogance.

And yes, there is the usual blather and exaggerated rhetoric we became so fond of with Wright:

I know where the weapons of mass destruction are, and they are not the ones we went looking for in Iraq. I know where they are, and you know where they are! According to statistics, AIDS is a weapon of mass destruction. Miseducation and no education are weapons of mass destruction. Forty-four million people without health care is a weapon of mass destruction.

By the way, Otis Moss III( his son who took over at Trinity United )wrote in a church bulletin: that American entertainment companies operate with contempt for the black community. Seems I have heard this comment before, usually with an elaboration regarding the heritage of Hollywood execs. This was the same church bulletin that featured an op-ed written by a Hamas leader.

Black liberation theology has an undercurrent of anti-Semitism. Jim Wallis-as I have written about a few times-is no friend of Israel’s.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/02/hey_lets_give_a_friend_of_reve.html at February 14, 2009 – 10:14:25 AM EST