By Ted Belman (2008)
Spengler points out that Obama’s women reveal his secret
“Cherchez la femme,” advised Alexander Dumas in: “When you want to uncover an unspecified secret, look for the woman.” In the case of Barack Obama, we have two: his late mother, the went-native anthropologist Ann Dunham, and his rancorous wife Michelle. Obama’s women reveal his secret: he hates America.
Apparently Michelle Obama has been known to put down Obama or “bitch-slap” him as Spengler suggests but she has high praise for his now deceased mother whom, she says, was possessed of “naivete”.
“Naivete” is a euphemism for Ann Dunham’s motivation. Friends describe her as a “fellow traveler”, that is, a communist sympathizer, from her youth, according to a March 27, 2007, Chicago Tribune report. Many Americans harbor leftist views, but not many marry into them, twice. Ann Dunham met and married the Kenyan economics student Barack Obama, Sr, at the University of Hawaii in 1960, and in 1967 married the Indonesian student Lolo Soetero. It is unclear why Soetero’s student visa was revoked in 1967 – the fact but not the cause are noted in press accounts. But it is probable that the change in government in Indonesia in 1967, in which the leftist leader Sukarno was deposed, was the motivation.
Soetero had been sponsored as a graduate student by one of the most radical of all Third World governments. Sukarno had founded the so-called Non-Aligned Movement as an anti-colonialist turn at the 1955 Bandung Conference in Indonesia. Before deposing him in 1967, Indonesia’s military slaughtered 500,000 communists (or unfortunates who were mistaken for communists). When Ann Dunham chose to follow Lolo Soetero to Indonesia in 1967, she brought the six-year-old Barack into the kitchen of anti-colonialist outrage, immediate following one of the worst episodes of civil violence in post-war history. [..]
Spengler maintains that Obama is not a Muslim, something I disagree with, but suggests the key to Obama is his anti-Americanism.
Radical anti-Americanism, rather than Islam, was the reigning faith in the Dunham household. In the Muslim world of the 1960s, nationalism rather than radical Islam was the ideology of choice among the enraged. Radical Islam did not emerge as a major political force until the nationalism of a Gamal Abdel Nasser or a Sukarno failed.
Barack Obama is a clever fellow who imbibed hatred of America with his mother’s milk, but worked his way up the elite ladder of education and career. He shares the resentment of Muslims against the encroachment of American culture, although not their religion.
Thus in marrying the anti-American Michelle, he was marrying his “mother”.
Bruce Walker in Is Obama committed to Israel’s survival? picks up on this theme.
After acknowledging Obama’s affinity to black rage and its proponents, he writes,
-
Although much has been made of his middle name, Hussein, over which Obama has no control, more important is the fact that Obama’s mother chose to marry two Muslim husbands both of whom were from Third World nations. Considering that she was a champion of women’s rights and that Islam is notoriously misogynist, this is extraordinary. [..]
Obama also chose to marry a woman who seems to be filled with rage and anger at America. Those who hate America irrationally almost also hate Israel irrationally, and vice versa. The same resentment at successful peoples, the same rejection of Judeo-Christian values, the same nursing of past wrongs into a sort of fetish or cult draws people into the maelstrom of hating America, hating Israel, hating Christians and hating Jews.
Haters have never been good for the Jews.
Nothing surprising in anybody “marrying their parent” of complentary gender. We all get our first and deepest social education from our parents and the prime cause of social troubles is failed families. There are also plenty who are not impressed by their parent and seek a marriage partner of opposite character and abilities.
It is old and sound folklore when looking for a spouse to look at her mother and how she keeps house; and to look at how his father treats his mother because that is how he will treat you. As a student newly arrived in England’s North I was told – not entirely tongue in cheek – to live at such a distance from Mother-in-law that it was too far to call without putting on her hat, and not so far that she had an excuse to stay the night.
Equally there is nothing unusual in any American black person having an ambivalent attitude to the USA especially a couple of generations ago when there were still apartheid labellled separate facilities for “whites” and “coloureds”.
Nor is the discontent of white Americans surprising. Once steamships arrived let alone long range air liners the USA was built on millions of discontented Europeans – and now Latinos – seeking to do better for themselves in US but up to a third returned to Europe eg the Irish nationalist DeValera. What was unusual about Jewish immigrants was that only a max of 10% returned.
These are my own disappointments with myself.
I said, “as long as the majority of Eretz Yisroel is secular, In my humble (and ignorant) opinion, the jov of dissemination….is not near completion.
My response to my comment is, No kidding humble, meaning how puny, Mary. As long as Torah Jews stay in other countries, Eretz Yisroel will have a battle with secular supremacy.
And I have a lot of nerve saying “galus is still apparent in Yerushalyim.” I have never been to Israel. Sometimes I shake my head at myself.
I truly do believe that it is the merit of the Talmid Chocham that countries do exist and thrive.
I apologize for my ignorance and insensitivity for the other comments.
I’d have to ask you, Tar Yag, why the Diaspora? Or Chochmah, to disseminate Emes. I am fully for Aliyah, what a beautiful thing, but as long as the majority of Eretz Yisroel is secular, I’m my humble opinion, The job of dissemination of the “light of Torah” is not near completion.
Why worry about Obama? Because if he becomes the leader of the Free World, it is a clear message from Hashem that something is awry. Perhaps the koyach is to force Klal Yisroel home. But Tanach tells us that the Shechinah was gone from the Temple and the people still worshipped at the Temple. Has Shechinah returned? I pray everyday, very hard with the Shemoneh Esrei, but it is not clear.
Rav Dessler said it ” Every day a human being is a scientist engaged in the most fateful series of experiments there can possibly be. Chosing life’s path and avoiding traps.”
Why didn’t Rabbi Nachman leave Breslov?
How do we know individual countries of the world can exist without their portion of the Jewish People? There are so many questions and so little time.
Personally, it is not black and white. It is more like white and a prism, clarity. Unbend the light with Torah. There are many Talmid Chocham around the world, perhaps this balance is necessary to keep the Malachim in check.
Gavriel told Daniyel that he was held up with the malach of Persia, but he also said that he saw the malach of Greece in the wings. There is more going on than we realize.
There was a diaspora for a reason. Galus is still apparent in Yerushalyim.
It is amazing, after 2000 years of pogroms and praying we have got our own state again, but non of you guys is even thinking of leaving exile. Instead you get excited about Barak Hussein’s anti-americanism. Who cares about this?
Random Charisma is not real. Nevuchadnezzar, Senncheriv, Julius Caesar, were just players in a plan.
Obama’s koyach (power) is not happenstance. It can be one of two things, a way for black society to realize that they have been lemmings led to their own destruction, by Farrakahn, Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton, Malcom X and the “Jim Jonesian” technique of self-genocide. Or, it could be dangerous for the whole world, as Nevuchadnezzarian power. A big wake-up call from Hashem Himself, the Master of the Universe, the God of Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov. The Raboinashelolam.
One other note to study is the tent of Sarah after Yitzchak and Rivka were married. Very deep mysticality to this “Obama’s” mother relationship.
I received this email
Shalom Ted
I believe that most McCain supporters will, as will I, vote for John him because of his proven character, integrity, loyalty, patriotism and experience; not because of anything aired by the media. To me, the Democratic race is something of a curiosity. I just sorted out some exit polling data, by state from
http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/exit-polls/income.html
Under $50,0000 Income Voters in the 2008 Exit Polls
Averages of States 48% 46%
State Clinton Obama
Arkansas 70% 27%
Massachusetts 60% 36%
New York 60% 38%
Florida 51% 31%
New Jersey 58% 40%
Arizona 51% 44%
Oklahoma 69% 23% =
Michigan 62% 33% =
California 59% 35% =
Tennessee 55% 39% =
New Hampshire 47% 32% =
New Mexico 55% 42%=
Ohio 53% 46% =
Connecticut 50% 44% =
Texas 51% 49% =
Rhode Island 49% 48% =
Delaware 47% 49%
Missouri 46% 51%
Wisconsin 44% 54%
Utah 39% 50%
Alabama 41% 56%
Louisiana 35% 57%
Maryland 36% 60%
Virginia 36% 62%
South Carolina 28% 57%
Illinois 34% 64%
Vermont 33% 65%
Georgia 33% 66%
Over $100,0000 Income Voters in the 2008 Exit Polls
Averages of States 42% 53%
State Clinton Obama
Arkansas 67% 31%
New York 58% 39%
Florida 49% 33%
Massachusetts 54% 44%
New Jersey 54% 44%
Arizona 48% 44%
New Hampshire 36% 41% =
Tennessee 45% 51% =
Michigan 44% 50% =
California 45% 52% =
Ohio 46% 54% =
Rhode Island 46% 54% =
Oklahoma 37% 45% =
Connecticut 44% 55% =
Texas 44% 56% =
New Mexico 40% 56% =
Maryland 42% 55%
South Carolina 30% 46%
Louisiana 35% 56%
Wisconsin 38% 62%
Delaware 36% 62%
Utah 36% 64%
Virginia 32% 68%
Vermont 31% 68%
Georgia 30% 67%
Illinois 29% 70%
The data shows that generally, rich Democrats prefer Obama, whereas poor ones prefer Clinton. If you consider the ethnic makeup of the states, however, the support is as follows:
For Clinton:
Jews, East & South Europeans, Hispanics
For Obama:
Blacks, WASPs
That’s an interesting lineup. I’ve commented on it before, saying that it seemed to indicate “self-hatred” among old American White families — the Rodhams (Hillary’s line), after all, have roots in colonial Virginia (as do the Dunhams, coincidentally); and Obama’s father was neither White nor American. It is true, that White Anglo-Saxon Protestant America is turning against its own in supporting Obama over Clinton; but another curious thing stands out: The lineup of supporters of the two sides looks like the conflict of ethnicities during the peak of East and South European (and Jewish) immigration around 1907; and that was primarily a religious conflict: Catholics and Jews vs. Protestants, both Black and White.
With all this talk about Obama’s background, I wonder if anyone has noticed that the only ones not getting represented by any of the candidates (including McCain) are the Catholics, Jews and American Indians: They haven’t had an advocate since John F. Kennedy. They seem to trust Hillary more than anyone else.
That’s all I have to say at the moment. As I said, the Dem race is just a curiosity to me. God only knows how this thing will turn out.
Shalom shalom.
BlandOatmeal 🙂
Ted,
You are soooo right.
The amazing thing is how many individuals bury their head in sand and leave it there…
I thought we had most everything on Obama. Now, we have Oedipal Complex. I can not wait for the Fox News coverage. Sorry, after the reading some of the reader comments in this section, I had to be a little “Flip”.
I received this email. Why is the left so angry?
I posted this article on Free Republic. You might want to visit and read the comments.
Agreed
Ted, you are far too sensitive and defensive to my comment.
I have never suggested you do not make cogent arguments on what facts we do have. In my concerns about B. Obama, I have only disagreed with those who reach back to his familial history as reason to suspect his views and his motives.
In the result, my point about not playing the innocent only had to do with your negative views of Obama which the e mail writer went way overboard to suggest your views amounted to racism.
You know as well as I there has been nothing in your words to even hint that racism underlies your thinking.
I would however have to say that the e mail writer reading my views, even absent citing Obama’s familial background, would probably see in my words, that which they saw in yours.
Angry bald faced accusations of racism or characterizing honest views well presented as filth, seems to be standard fare for left wing nut bars who have no rational argument to make to counter views that challenge their own cherished ideologically bent out of shape views.
Bill. In no way do I play the innocent. I do my best to make the case against Obama based on circumstantial evidence referring to his associations and influences and his activities.
I do not go over the line of appropriate argument and “smear” him. Nor do they express any racism what so ever. This particular post focuses on the anti-Americanism rather than on his Muslim connection. I just said he married the same kind of woman as his mother. Colour is immaterial.
There is nothing in my posts that can be legitimately be called “nonsense”.
The reason I leave Hillary alone is because I prefer her to Obama. Simple as that.
Ted,
Don’t play the innocent. That does not mean you have to apologize for having taken a position.
You have over the last few months or so, injected yourself into the American debate and discussion on Obama, Clinton, and McCain, with the primary focus on Obama. That you and contributors have focused so much attention, much of it negative on questioning who B. Obama really is, does reveal just how negative you are about B. Obama.
That said, where I have had disagreement with some of the contributors is that I believe there is far too much made of his familial background, which for me is just too far a stretch as a basis to criticize him.
I have as pointed out a number of times, find more then enough to criticize B. Obama in respect of his 20 year affiliation with his UTCC, his close association with his friend, mentor and adviser, Rev. Wright, his first denying and then admitting he heard Wright’s controversial views, his raising race as a topic for discussion while blaming the whites of America for Black rage as if most of America is still racist and then tries to distance himself from that discussion and his various policies that his thinking is liberal-left to left wing.
Assuming you have correctly identified this e mail writer as Jewish, the writer by his/her emotional diatribe against you reveals not only that they are an ardent Obama supporter, but also bearing a sense of guilt, shared by Jews persecuted in the past in Europe that Jews by complaining too much, are thus responsible in part for antisemitism.
Too bad this writer does not come out in this public forum to express their views, backed by cogent reasons and thus put their views to the test. I gather that given their closing comment that they don’t even want to hear your name again. C’est la vie!
I would add however Ted that in joining the great American debate on the candidates, while you have devoted some discussion to McCain, I think you have devoted too little discussion on Clinton.
I received this email.
Manning used inflammatory language but his message was serious. He represents the black conservative view that disagrees with affirmative action. He wants blacks to stop looking for the handout and start being responsible. This is a widely held view among many blacks and conservative thinkers.
The reason I keep disclosing facts about Obama is because I think he is bad for Israel. He is a phony. He represents the extreme left and the Jewish left who want Israel to be compelled to surrender to Arab demands. I look for positions that blame the Palestinians and put demands on them to take less. I am entitled to take that position and you are entitled to take yours.
I received this email
I replied that he should prove it.
I also received this from a “liberal” right thinking Jew.
The only filth I see is your email. Nothing I have said bears any resemblance to your condemnation of it. I just present facts and suggest where they lead us.
I received this from a Jewish soldier in Iraq
I was trying to forward to my wife. But, since I am communicating with you may i tell you that I enjoy your work and try to read you during breaks from my duties serving with the U.S. Army in Iraq. Have a happy and kosher Pesach.
Though an interesting intellectual excercise, I don’t think psychoanalzying Obama and his wife is any more productive then just paying attention to what common sense tells us.
Common sense tells us that Obama did not:
– remain with his church for 20 years listening to the anti-American/anti-white/anti-semitic rants of his pastor J. Wright, because he found the church pews comfortable and because the facility was a nice place to visit Sunday mornings.
– come to church with his family and not interact with other congregants who shared J. Wright’s views
– remain untouched by the preachings and teachings of J. Wright
– see J. Wright as a friend, mentor and adviser in his life, unless he shared J. Wright’s thinking on most of the fundamental issues he was concerned with
– appoint J. Wright as an adviser to his campain unless he thought J. Wright’s views were largely in keeping with his own.
– gain any credibility when he finally told the truth that he did in fact hear J. Wright’s “controversial views”.
– gain credibility by stating that race was an issue in this campaign, should not be swept under the rug and should be discussed, but then proceed to try to distance himself from that debate, leaving his comments about blaming whitey for black rage hanging out there.
Common sense tells us a lot about who Obama is based on Obama’s own words. So too does common sense assist in understanding just what Obama is promising as regards change, just what Obama’s policies will mean to America and how those policies identify him with political policies that straddle liberal and left wing, with a number of his policy positions being decidedly in the left wing socialist camp. Clinton too however straddles that fence, but has on a number of issues, less firmly planted her feet on left-wing ground.
Common sense does not explain however how so many Americans have suspended their common sense and still support this man Obama in his run for the presidency.
For those who are not taken in by Obama’s silver tongued oratory and his promise for change, there are the polls that say that if Obama wins the Democratic nomination, his issues as regards Rev. Wright just will not go away and in an Obama – McCain battle for the Presidency, McCain gets the nod.
campaign for abstention http://www.blablablaparty.org Don’t vote, be happy!
Ignoring Slavery
________________________________________
Following Farrakhan’s visit to the Sudan, Chicago Tribune columnist Clarence Page criticized the NOI leader for his flirtation with the country’s leaders and noted that Farrakhan has ignored reports of black enslavement. “Farrakhan typically turns a blind eye to reports of slavery in Africa, even when they’re thrust in his face. Sudan’s president rebuffs the charges and the Nation of Islam helps.” Though Farrakhan has been silent on the issue, his International Minister, Abdul Akbar Muhammad, has defended Sudan’s leaders, and has characterized reports of slavery as components of a “Jewish conspiracy” to divide the Muslim world.
http://www.adl.org/travels_with_tyrants/sudan.asp
Interesting information about his 1997-1998 “World Friendship Tour” at the site:
“Beginning in early December 1997, Louis Farrakhan and his 24 member delegation embarked upon the third “World Friendship Tour.” Farrakhan stated that he “…would like to demonstrate how diplomacy and friendly relations should be carried out”
http://www.adl.org/travels_with_tyrants/world_tour_97_98.asp
Obama taking pointers from Farrakhan?
Transcript Of A Jeremiah Wright Sermon by Jeremiah Wright
From January 27th, 2008.
The reporters are representing the Jerusalem Slum Times–critics always got opinions, and you know what they say about opinions: They’re like orifices, everybody got one.
I don’t care what nobody in the 4-H club says. Y’all know what the 4-H club is? I told Jerry and Jay last Sunday: The 4-H club–that’s Hannity, Hillary, Hobbes, and Haters.
…neither Hillary, Hannity, nor Hobbes ever had a grandparent in slavery or on a slave ship beneath the decks, never had a grandparent in a slave dungeon on the coast of west Africa as a prisoner.
…a lot of Christians, especially bougie-oogie Christians, got themselves a degree now and call themselves Sir Diddy Christians
I can’t be a colored coon on the faculty at Vanderbilt with no sense of pride. And I can’t be a Supreme Court judge called long dong silver who disrespects black women and himself. I got to be me. I can’t be a lyin’ five-star general who leads an entire nation into war on a lie. And I can’t be a sec of state who goes shopping on Broadway while folks are drowning in New Orleans–I got to be me.
[Link: http://www.tnr.com…]
Some hi-lites from a Jereimiah sermon…all about Jereimiah…and the ‘others’…