Obama a 'cultural' Muslim? Who would have thought?

As usual, the lame stream media is a few days late and a dollar short. But it finally made its way into WaPo, once known as the Bandar Beacon:

KUHNER: Why Obama is a cultural Muslim

President Obama is betraying the Jews. He is a cultural Muslim whose sympathies lie with the Islamic world in its life-death struggle againstIsrael. Unless American Jews wake up and speak out against Mr. Obama‘s pro-Arab, anti-Israel policies, the Jewish state faces a possible nuclear war – and even annihilation.

Mr. Obama met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu this week. The goal: to repair the public rift in relations between Washington and Jerusalem.

“The bond between the United States and Israel is unbreakable,” Mr. Obama said. “It encompasses our national security interests, our strategic interests, but most importantly the bond of two democracies who share a common set of values and whose people have grown closer and closer as time goes on.”

Don’t believe him. In front of reporters, Mr. Obama may praise the Jewish state. But behind the scenes, he is selling the Jews down the river.  Read it all (WaPo)

Ah yes, and while we’re at it:


KRudd worst PM ever.  Obama, same type, different color.

There is a tiny difference, though: O’hop’nchange is loyal to blacks and Muslims, KRudd only to himself. It really does get lonely at the top….

Obama evidently formed the impression that KRudd might be interested in some sort of international job, and he hastened to offer support. He said he would be favourably disposed towards working with KRudd in any future areas of international interest.

How did Obama form that view?

2 thoughts on “Obama a 'cultural' Muslim? Who would have thought?”

  1. Hugh Fitzgerald offers context re Israel:

    I have no issue with the state of Israel existing, but I do have issues with the conditions under which Palestine is being occupied.” — from a comment just above

    The phrase “conditiions under which Palestine is being occupied” can only be used if one ignores most of the history of this area, and has substitued for exact and detailed knowledge of the history of not only a place the Romans renamed as “Syria palaestinorum” which then became “Palestine” (an adjectival form promoted to noun), in order to efface the Jewish connection, expressed topoynmically, to the land — that is, to get rid of such toponyms as Judea.

    The facts are these:

    1) There never was a place called “Palestine” in Arab history — see the testimony of Philip K. Hitti, Princeton professor and himself an Arab, before the Anglo-American Commission on Palestine/

    2) Until the League of Nations created, after World War I, the mandates system, the place that was known in Western Christendom as “Palestine” did not exist as a single political unit, but under the Ottomans — who ruled the area for more than 400 years until World War I — was divided into two vilayets and a separate sanjak for Jerusalem.

    3) Every Western visitor — from Lamartine to Mark Twain — recorded his shock at the “desolution” and “ruin” of the place. It was, after all, an ill-considered backwater, of no great interest,

    4) Among those living in this area were many Jews — they were a plurality of the population of Jerusalem well before 1850, and many Christians, of every conceivable sect and type and national origin, as well as Bedouin, and Arabs, both Christian and Muslim.

    5) In 1850 the entire population of Jerusalem was 15,000; the entire population of the area we called — but the Ottoman Turks and other Muslims did not — “Palestine,” could not have exceeded 150,000.

    6) After Jewish pioneers were allowed by the Turks to buy land, they began to do so, beginning in the 1880s. There was not a lot of land to buy, for 90% of the land was not in private hands but in the possession of the Turkish state. That public land (akin to our “Federal lands”) then passed to the Mandatory authority, to hold in trust for the intended beneficiary of the Mandate for Palestine, that is the Jewish National Home, known to us as the State of Israel. Even today nearly 90% of the land is state or waste land.

    7) The Jewish pioneers, who were intent on bringing the land of “ruin” and “desolation” to life, also began to buy land from the absentee Turkish and Arab landowners who owned large tracts, and who lived, for the most part, in Beirut, Amman, and Constantinople. Until war was declared by Arab states, and five Arab armies invaded the nascent state of Israel, not a single inch or dunam of land was taken by the Isarelis; all of it had been bought, and the buying of most of the land now owned by Jews continued to be a straight commercial transaction. You would never know this from Arab propaganda.

    8) In May 1967 Nasser demanded that the U.N. remove its peacekeeping troops from the Sinai. He threatened to block the Straits of Tiran and thus cut off Israel’s only life-line, by sea, to Asia. He addressed hysterical Cairene crowds and whipped them up with the prospect of the impending, inevitable, destruction of Israel.

    9) When Israel won the Six-Day War, it came into possession of the entire Sinai, all of Gaza, and all of those parts of Judea and Samaria known, because the Jordanians had renamed them (just as the Romans nearly 2000 years before had renamed Judea as “Palestine” and Jerusalem as “Aeolia Capitolina”).

    10) In Sinai, Israel’s position was that of military occupier.

    But in Gaza, and in the “West Bank,” Israel may have come into the possession of those territories through force of arms, but its claim was not based, as it was in the Sinai, on force of arms. Its legal, moral, and historic claim was quite different — and was based primarily on the Treaty of San Remo, and on the League of Nations’ Mandate for Palestine. The television, radio, and press after 1967 lazily forgot about all this, and started to echo the Arab propaganda about “Occupied Arab Lands” and you can hardly turn on the BBC, or NPR, without hearing this tendentioius and completely inaccurate epithet — “occupied” — used for the “West Bank.” It is not “occupied” in the juridical sense, and those who claim it is either are unwitting passers-on of Arab propaganda, or are witting passers-on of Arab propaganda. In most cases, given the grotesque coverage of the Arab war — the Jihad that has no end — on the Infidel nation-state of Israel, I suspect much more often the former — that is, a case of ignorance that individuals, through not very arduous study, can quickly rectifcy, rather than the latter.

    And why is it important, even if you don’t care very much about the Middle East, or the rights of Israel, to get the story straight? It’s important because all over the world, there are those non-Muslims who, not knowing the real story, are inclined to believe the Arab and Muslim version, and inclined, as a consequence, not to recognize that the war on Israel is a Jihad, and it is no different, in its impulse and its objective — to remove all obstacles everywhere, to the spread, and then the dominance, of Islam, so that Muslims in the end rule everywhere — by failing to grasp what is happening with Israel, or in Kashmir, or when non-Muslims are attacked in Pakistan, southern Sudan, southern Philippines, southern Thailand, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Nigeria, or for that matter on the streets and busses and subways of Paris, Amsterdam, Paris, Madrid, London, they are endangering themselves and their own non-Muslim lands and non-Muslim posterity. And that they cannot afford, and must not allow.

    Semites, anti-Semites & Jew hatred

    You wrote: “I will propose that we simply drop the term “antisemitism” altogether and use the much simpler and more precise concept, “Jew hate” or “judeofobia” instead.”

    That’s fine. I’m OK with Jew-hater. Only you and Dr. Wistrich assume Muslim-Arabs are Semites. I do not make this assumption. Why should we assume these peoples are Semites? Because of the Biblical narrative in the 16th chapter of the book of Genesis? I know fellow Jews who call these people our “brothers” or our “cousins,” because of the Biblical narrative whereby Avram (later Avraham) took his wife’s concubine Hagar, who then birthed the patriarch an illegitimate son. This was a terrible sin – a significant lack of faith – on Avram’s part. Hagar was an Egyptian (Mizraim). According to the tenth chapter of the book of Genesis: “….And the sons of Ham (were) Cush, and Mizraim, and Put, and Canaan….”

    Thus Ishmael’s mother is a daughter of Ham; sister of Canaan. You may recall, like many of these Arabs, the ancient Canaanites also sacrificed their sons and their daughters to their gods; just as the Arabs do with their children as martyrs to Allah. This is savagery, plain and simple. Would you not agree that 9/11 was an unmitigated act of barbarism and savagery? This is the Arab culture and religion; suicide bombings. These were /are Arabs Ipso Facto who commit these atrocities as a pleasing offering to the god Allah no less so than their ancestors did for the god Molech.

    Why should we consider these savage peoples Semites when they behave as Canaanites?

Comments are closed.