Like Obama’s attacks on free enterprise and Catholics, his attacks on Israel seem to indicate that he doesn’t care about getting reelected.
But this is not the case.
Less than 100 days before the US Presidential elections, the Obama administration is openly denying Israel’s sovereignty over Jerusalem. Can this be a vote getter?
Last week the Emergency Committee for Israel released an ad titled, “O, Jerusalem.” The commercial showed administration officials squirming when asked to name the capital of Israel, and highlighted the recent refusals of White House and State Department spokespersons to acknowledge that Jerusalem is Israel’s capital city. The underlying message of the ad was that the administration’s policy is out of step with the views of the majority of Americans.
Obama’s position is certainly a political outlier. The 1995 Jerusalem Embassy Act, passed nearly unanimously by both houses of Congress, explicitly stated that it is the policy of the United States that Jerusalem should be recognized as the capital of Israel. The law granted the President a right to postpone the transfer of the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem on national security grounds. But the law’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital was unconditional.
During his visit to Israel earlier this week, presumptive Republican presidential nominee Governor Mitt Romney highlighted the fact that he holds the consensus view of the American public on Jerusalem. In his speech in Jerusalem on Sunday afternoon Romney said simply, “It is a deeply moving experience to be in Jerusalem, the capital of Israel.”
The Palestinians were predictably enraged.
Also predictably, the Palestinians chastised Romney for another statement he made that was equally rooted in America’s bipartisan consensus. Romney noted that other things being equal, cultures that uphold and protect political and economic freedoms are more prosperous than cultures that don’t.
In a breakfast meeting with American supporters in Jerusalem on Monday, Romney noted that Israel’s per capita income is significantly higher than the per capital income of Palestinians in areas governed by the Palestinian Authority just as per capita income in the US is higher than per capita income in Mexico, and per capita income in Chile is higher than per capita income in Ecuador.
It is hard to think of a milder criticism of Palestinian society than Romney’s comparison of the Palestinian economy to the economies of Mexico and Ecuador. Romney could easily have gone much further without ever leaving the confines of received wisdom. For instance, he could have mentioned – as Obama did in his speech in Cairo in June 2009 — that Muslim societies underinvest in education relative to non-Muslim societies. Or he could have highlighted — as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton often did during her tenure in the US Senate – that official Palestinian institutions indoctrinate Palestinian children in a culture of death, teach them to hate Jews and aspire to become suicide bombers in a jihad aimed at Israel’s physical eradication.
It was predictable that the Palestinians would condemn Romney for his run of the mill support for Israel and his milquetoast criticism of the Palestinians because they reject every criticism of their behavior and take umbrage at every step anyone takes that suggests acceptance of the Jewish state or recognition of Jewish history. This behavior is common to all groups in Palestinian society, from Hamas to Fatah to the so-called liberal reformers. In line with this, while Hamas condemned visits to Auschwitz as helping “Israel to spread the lie of the Holocaust and garner international sympathy at the expense of the Palestinians,” the supposedly moderate, liberal Palestinian for Dignity organization condemned the EU for upgrading its trade ties with Israel.
The EU is the largest financial backer of the PA. Its policies towards Israel are in complete alignment with what the purportedly moderate Palestinians claim they want in a peace deal with Israel, including the partition of Jerusalem, and the expulsion of 600,000 Jews from Judea and Samaria and the neighborhoods built outside of the 1949 armistice lines in Jerusalem. And yet, as Shoshana Bryen from the Jewish Policy Center reported, for simply upgrading EU trade ties with Israel, the PFD announced its members “will organize to protest the latest manifestation of EU complicity and to challenge its presence and operations in Palestine.”
Given the routine nature of Palestinian hysteria at Romney, and the bipartisan consensus upon which Romney’s remarks were based, there was no reason either his remarks or the Palestinians’ response to his remarks would spark any controversy in the US. Indeed, given the fact that both US law and the majority of Americans respect Israel’s determination that Jerusalem is its capital city, it could have been taken for granted that Obama would keep his head down and hope to avoid further discussion of the issue.
Certainly given that he had made statements similar to – indeed stronger than – Romney’s statements about cultural causes for economic prosperity, it could have been assumed that Obama and his surrogates would have disregarded PA spokesman Saeb Erekat’s ridiculous characterization of Romney’s statement as “racist.” Indeed, given that it is election season, and then-candidate Obama’ stated support for Jerusalem as Israel’s capital in 2008, the Obama administration could reasonably have made its own endorsement of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital city.
But amazingly, the Obama administration has taken the opposite tack. Obama and his media surrogates seized on the Palestinians’ criticism of Romney as proof that by embracing the American consensus on Israel, Romney had committed an unforgivable diplomatic faux pas.
First there was the White House’s statement Monday on Jerusalem. Rather than keeping quiet, Obama doubled down. In a press briefing, White House Deputy Spokesman Josh Earnest not only refused to acknowledge that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. He drew attention to the difference between Romney’s position and the administration’s and denied that Israel has a capital. In Earnest’s words, “Our view is that [Romney’s position that Jerusalem is Israel’s capital] is a different position than this administration holds. It’s the view of this administration that the capital should be determined in final status negotiations between parties.”
At the same time, Obama’s media surrogates have focused their wrath on Romney’s statement about the cultural sources of economic prosperity. Foreign Policy’s David Rothkopf condemned Romney’s statement as racist.
The New York Times’ Thomas Friedman accused Romney of “not knowing what he was talking about.”
Both Rothkopf and Friedman — and a chorus of their colleagues on the even more hysterical Left — laced their broadsides against Romney with frontal assaults against top Republican donor Sheldon Adelson and other Jewish American supporters of Romney. These denunciations were — at a minimum — infused with anti-Semitic innuendo. Rothkopf wrote that in embracing Israel, “at a fundraiser to pander to big donors – including Sheldon Adelson,” Romney displayed “a willingness to sacrifice US interests in exchange for political cash.”
Friedman’s entire column was a screed against pro-Israel American Jews who contribute to the campaigns of candidates that support Israel. He argued that in pursuit of these American Jewish dollars, Republican politicians have abandoned America’s national interest. In other words, Friedman alleged that American Jewish money is causing Republicans to betray their country.
Friedman wrote, “the main Israel lobby, AIPAC, has made itself the feared arbiter of which lawmakers are ‘pro’ and which are ‘anti-Israel,’ and therefore who should get donations and who should not.”
On their face, Obama’s repeated assaults on Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem, and his surrogates’ attacks on pro-Israel politicians make no sense. For the past two years Democratic leaders have insisted that support for Israel is bipartisan. Last year Democratic National Committee Chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz demanded that her Republican colleagues avoid making Israel a “wedge issue,” that would distinguish Democrats from Republicans.
But again, Romney’s statements in Jerusalem did nothing of the sort. They were the embodiment of the bipartisan consensus. It is Obama who is distinguishing between the parties’ positions on Israel. Obama is making his hostility to Israel a wedge issue.
As Republicans repeat traditional positions, the Democrats are rendering conventional statements of amity with the Jewish state controversial. It is the Obama White House and its surrogates who are attacking those who recognize Israel’s capital as diplomatic flamethrowers. It is the Democrats who are demonizing American supporters of Israel as disloyal.
Obama’s assault on Romney is an extension and amplification of his Jewish proxy J-Street’s campaign against Congressmen Allen West of Florida and Joe Walsh of Illinois. Last month, J-Street released ads attacking West and Walsh for being even more pro-Israel than most of their pro-Israel Congressional colleagues. After Romney returned from Israel, J-Street released a new ad attacking Romney for being nearly as pro-Israel as West and Walsh.
What has changed? Why are Obama and his surrogates now highlighting Obama’s hostility? Why are they making opposition to Israel a partisan issue and attacking Republicans for being pro-Israel?
Much of the answer was provided by by J-Street President Jeremy Ben-Ami last week. In an interview with the New York Times Ben-Ami explained, “Every single number indicates that there is simply no such thing as a Jewish problem for the president. The people who only vote on Israel didn’t vote for Obama last time and know who they are voting for already.”
In other words, Obama has given up on the pro-Israel vote. He’s going for the anti-Israel vote and the indifferent-to-Israel vote. True, Obama outrageously markets his anti-Israel platform as pro-Israel. For instance, J-Street attack ads on pro-Israel Congressmen West and Walsh present them preposterously as “anti-Israel.”
So too, Friedman and Rothkopf write that by supporting Israel, Romney is harming Israel because it is Israel’s vital interest to be diplomatically coerced into surrendering to its Palestinian enemies. Although this seems merely ridiculous, it is actually insidious.
These arguments are implicit messages to three separate groups. For out-and-out anti-Semites, they reinforce the paranoid belief that Jews and Israel are so powerful that even the President is afraid to openly say what he thinks about us. For socially conscious Israel-haters, the messaging enables them to continue bashing Israel without fear that they will be accused of being anti-Semites. And for American Jews who are indifferent to Israel, the messages give them cover to vote for Obama without having to admit that they couldn’t care less about Israel.
Obama’s reelection campaign strategy has mystified many observers. Why, they wonder, is he playing to his base instead of moving to the center?
Like his attacks on free enterprise and Catholics, his attacks on Israel seem to indicate that he doesn’t care about getting reelected.
But this is not the case. Evidently, Obama’s campaign strategy is to conduct multiple micro-campaigns rather than one national campaign.
Apparently his data indicate that he will win or lose the election depending on how a few key districts in swing states vote. Based on these data, his campaign strategists have plainly concluded that some of these decisive districts are populated by anti-Semites, Israel haters and indifferent Jews for whom his absurdly marketed anti-Israel positions resonate.
Aside from that, these positions clearly resonate with him.
Consequently, they will certainly form the basis for his policy towards Israel if he wins a second term in office.
@ Elliott:
Generally speaking you will not find a more critical commenter of American Jews them I am but, as bad as the conservative right criticize Jews for their seeming comprehensible support for the Black Guy in the WH, a good part of the reasons for Jews not rejecting and voting against Obama and past democratic candidates and presidents are the Republican choices for that office. Like Bob Dole, and John McCain. After 8 years of Bush any sane voter Jewish or non Jew would be looking for anyone who did not remind them of Bush physically or politically. Obama seemed to fit.
Picking Palin for VP may have been great for the American Yahoos who love Christian bibles, Guns and Murdering Defenseless Animals but that does not speak to Jews of America not just because of her ideological substantive positions but her imagery in the east/west coast URBAN group think (A majority of Americans) that reflects how most American Jews identify themselves.
Among Black voters 91% now favor Obama (Rasmussen poll). That’s the bad news. The good news is the 9% who do not favor Obama represents a doubling of the 4% who voted against him in 2008! I wonder what the stats are among Jewish voters? In 2008, 78% of Jews voted for Hope and Change. Except for Black voters, Jews voted in the the highest proportion for BHO! There are so many Jewish representatives operating with this administration, that there is a rising antisemitism among some non-thinking conservatives.
Among blacks, the Frederick Douglas Foundation along with many Black pastors shocked by this administration’s fostering the LGBT agenda are leading many away from Obama. Among Jews, the Jewish Republican Coalition still has its work cut out for it.
Apparently, yes. If anything, he seems to have been surging somewhat in the polls the last couple of weeks. Romney is severely challenged in Florida now, along with being behind in Virginia, Ohio and Iowa. I don’t think Jerusalem is a serious issue among American voters, and the Left seems to be in control of the main talking points. BHO has done so many things so wrong, he should not even be a serious candidate by now; but he is.
@ Elliott:
If you want to post here, cut the religious talk.
yamit82 Said:
Absoulutely true. However, what these men intend for evil, HaShem will use for His purposes!
@ yamit82:
By the way, how do the rabbis view Genesis 6, particularly the Nephelim who appear to be hybrid human/angelic reflecting Satan sowing a false seed into the Adamic race in order to cut off the Messianic line. God destroyed them all in the flood; however, where did Goliath and the Raphaim come from, if the entire genetically corrupted race were wiped out in the flood. Were the giants seen by the 12 spies, merely men or were they Nephelim? If so, is it fair to say that Satan has carried out his genetic spoiling program after the flood and perhaps to this day? Perhaps even assisted by cooperative humans who handed him the human genome project.
@ Elliott:
“But they know not the thoughts of the LORD, neither understand they His counsel; for He hath gathered them as the sheaves to the threshing-floor. Arise and thresh, O daughter of Zion; for I will make thy horn iron, and I will make thy hoofs brass; and thou shalt beat in pieces many peoples; and thou shalt devote their gain unto the LORD, and their substance unto the Lord of the whole earth” (Micah 4:12-13).
@ Elliott:
I have asked this question of many Christians on this site and have yet to receive a response.
I repeat the question to You: Is god in the heart of the devil?
___________________________________________________________________________________
I won’t add much to Zac823 but if you really want to understand our Book, why don’t you ask a Jew? He probably won’t charge you much. 😛
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Jews certainly believe in angels – spiritual entities who exist to perform the will of G-d (the Hebrew word for angel, “malach,” also means “messenger”) – the Scriptures contain many references to such supernal beings. But the popular idea of private and personal guardian angels is not part of Jewish theology. It’s christian theology not Jewish.
Instead, we believe in a personal G-d who constantly watches over each and every one of us, and over all of creation. On occasion He may send an angel to help or save us, but the angel is merely His emissary.
Your question reminds me of a Jewish parable: “‘And Israel saw the great hand of G-d’ – When the Almighty wished to drown the Egyptians, the Archangel of Egypt (Uza) said: ‘Sovereign of the Universe! You are called just and righteous… why do you wish to drown the Egyptians?’ At that moment Gabriel rose and took a brick and said: ‘Sovereign of the Universe! These who enslaved Your children such a terrible slavery as this, shall you have mercy on them?’ Immediately, the Almighty drowned them.”
Judaism focuses on the relationships between the Creator, mankind, and the land of Israel.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Dan 10:13 . And the prince of the kingdom of Persia has been standing against me for twenty-one days, and behold Michael, one of the first princes, has come to help, and I remained there beside the kings of Persia.
Rashi commentary:
has been standing against me: to battle with me in heaven by requesting an extension for the kingdom for Persia to enable them to subjugate you (Israel). Behold twenty-one days that he has been standing against me.
the first princes: those counted first among those who enter.
and I remained there: to silence the princes of Persia in heaven
@ Elliott:
So, you are now quoting the Jewish Scriptures. Well I will quote as well in answer.
GENESIS 32: (A ‘LITERAL’ FLESH AND BLOOD HUMAN FIGHTING WITH AN ANGEL OF THE LORD)
25 And Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the day.
26 And when he saw that he prevailed not against him, he touched the hollow of his thigh; and the hollow of Jacob’s thigh was strained, as he wrestled with him.
27 And he said: ‘Let me go, for the day breaketh.’ And he said: ‘I will not let thee go, except thou bless me.’
28 And he said unto him: ‘What is thy name?’ And he said: ‘Jacob.’
29 And he said: ‘Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel; for thou hast striven with God and with men, and hast prevailed.’
30 And Jacob asked him, and said: ‘Tell me, I pray thee, thy name.’ And he said: ‘Wherefore is it that thou dost ask after my name?’ And he blessed him there.
31 And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: ‘for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.’
32 And the sun rose upon him as he passed over Peniel, and he limped upon his thigh.
33 Therefore the children of Israel eat not the sinew of the thigh-vein (sciatic nerve of the cow) which is upon the hollow of the thigh, unto this day; because he touched the hollow of Jacob’s thigh, even in the sinew of the thigh-vein.
JOB 1:(A SERVANT OF THE LORD IS THE SATAN)
1 There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was whole-hearted and upright, and one that feared God, and shunned evil.
2 And there were born unto him seven sons and three daughters.
3 His possessions also were seven thousand sheep, and three thousand camels, and five hundred yoke of oxen, and five hundred she-asses, and a very great household; so that this man was the greatest of all the children of the east.
4 And his sons used to go and hold a feast in the house of each one upon his day; and they would send and invite their three sisters to eat and to drink with them.
5 And it was so, when the days of their feasting were gone about, that Job sent and sanctified them, and rose up early in the morning, and offered burnt-offerings according to the number of them all; for Job said: ‘It may be that my sons have sinned, and blasphemed God in their hearts.’ Thus did Job continually.
6 Now it fell upon a day, that the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.
7 And the LORD said unto Satan: ‘Whence comest thou?’ Then Satan answered the LORD, and said: ‘From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.’
8 And the LORD said unto Satan: ‘Hast thou considered My servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a whole-hearted and an upright man, one that feareth God, and shunneth evil?’
9 Then Satan answered the LORD, and said: ‘Doth Job fear God for nought?
10 Hast not Thou made a hedge about him, and about his house, and about all that he hath, on every side? Thou hast blessed the work of his hands, and his possessions are increased in the land.
11 But put forth Thy hand now, and touch all that he hath, surely he will blaspheme Thee to Thy face.’
12 And the LORD said unto Satan: ‘Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thy hand.’ So Satan went forth from the presence of the LORD.
JOB 2: (A SERVANT OF THE LORD IS THE SATAN)
1 Again it fell upon a day, that the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD.
2 And the LORD said unto Satan: ‘From whence comest thou?’ And Satan answered the LORD, and said: ‘From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.’
3 And the LORD said unto Satan: ‘Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a whole-hearted and an upright man, one that feareth God, and shunneth evil? and he still holdeth fast his integrity, although thou didst move Me against him, to destroy him without cause.’
4 And Satan answered the LORD, and said: ‘Skin for skin, yea, all that a man hath will he give for his life.
5 But put forth Thy hand now, and touch his bone and his flesh, surely he will blaspheme Thee to Thy face.’
6 And the LORD said unto Satan: ‘Behold, he is in thy hand; only spare his life.’
7 So Satan went forth from the presence of the LORD, and smote Job with sore boils from the sole of his foot even unto his crown.
The most insidious thing about Friedman isn’t even the fact that he is so anti-Israel. It is his using his Judaism to push antisemitic canards about a sinister Jewish lobby pulling the strings of politicians, forcing them to support Israel. He provides cover for Jew-haters to pretend their attacks on Israel are not motivated by antisemitism.
It would never occur to Friedman that Mitt Romney is pro-Israel out of moral conviction, consistent with his conservative Mormon values and his pro-freedom, pro-American values. That is why Sheldon Adelson is funding his campaign rather than the other way around. Friedman, being such a moral degenerate can’t conceive of the idea that supporting Israel is the morally correct position. Supporting Israel over its terrorist enemies does not go against the interests of the United States. It goes against the interest of America to support the establishment of another islamic jihadist terror state.
It’s funny how the presence of an islamic lobby in Washington never troubles Friedman and his ilk, even as the muslim brotherhood lobby and its operatives serving in our government are pushing us into a war with Syria. They don’t even acknowlege that such a lobby exists. While Friedman and the liberal media never tire of promoting the antisemitic charge of a powerful and dangerous Jewish/Israel lobby forcing its agenda on our government, these same people cry “racism” and “islamophobia” to beat down anyone who dares to bring up the subject of muslim brotherhood operatives in the State Department, Defense Department, Justice Department, White House and Congress.
@ zechariah823:
I appreciate your analysis and agree that HaShem is sovereign and ‘in control’. He is in His holy temple (the heavenly tabernacle). Erwin Lutzer would consider that HaShem uses the relentless wicked obsessions of Satan for HaShem’s purposes. Thus HaShem may deploy what would seem to be evil to us for the ultimate good for his redeeming his creation!
Greco-Roman syncretism notwithstanding, The Tanach evidences for a fallen kingdom and heirarchy of princes/powers/angels/demons,etc.
Daniel 10:12-14 is but one of many examples:
12 Then he continued, “Do not be afraid, Daniel. Since the first day that you set your mind to gain understanding and to humble yourself before your God, your words were heard, and I {Gabriel} have come in response to them. 13 But the prince of the Persian kingdom resisted me twenty-one days. Then Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, because I was detained there with the king of Persia. 14 Now I have come to explain to you what will happen to your people in the future, for the vision concerns a time yet to come. ”
How would you interpret or explain the battle between Gabriel, Michael and the “Prince of Persia”. Do you see this prince as a literal human swatting at spiritual messengers like flies? Given the power of the Lord’s Host to slaughter 180,000 Assyrians overnight, this ‘prince’ is not flesh and blood. Why does he fight against Gabriel and Michael if he is acting as HaShem’s direct agent??
@ Elliott:
Interesting, except for the fact, according the Jewish Scriptures, that there is no duality heading good in the world (HaShem) and heading evil in the world (satan). HaShem (Creator of Heaven and Earth, Creator of GOOD AND EVIL, uses an angel (the satan) to provide a choice for evil in the world. There is only one force controlling this world and providing existence of the world at every moment and that is HaShem. The christian gospels were written under the guidance and approval of the heathen Roman Empire for political purposes wherein the idea of a fallen angel heads up the forces of evil and diverts mankind away from knowing HaShem through the Jewish Scriptures. Judaism in the Roman Empire was very popular and the Emperors of Rome found a way to break this idea among the Roman populace by lacing the Jewish Scriptures with pagan ideas and promoting this as a new way of controlling the population.
@ Laura: Agreed, he is like soros who aided the nazis in the confiscation of jewish property. He appears to me to be a paid shill for anti jewish interests.
This is a good analyis which reasonably explains Obamas anti jew positions. there is more to gain by sacrificing the Jews and Israel and who better to serve up that dish than the never ending stream of Jewish betrayers
Yet17 years later it has not moved
Is the embassy in Jerusalem less secure, more likely to muslim bombing than Tel Aviv?
Is it? Perhaps it is all smoke and mirrors and is functioning as intended.
her tenure as Sec of state showed her to be an idiot and opportunist puppet: an idiot for accepting a position designed to render her to zero as a presidential contender and an opportunist puppet gleefully alienating the constituency who gave her former support
Since when does a foreign power choose a country’s capitol?
this is the beginning of the Soros plan which was the prime reason for stting up J street. Jews betraying Jews is designed to keep obama in power while betraying Israel. However, it is also meant to use the jew haters wild card: the threat against a countries domestic jewry. Here we can see the threat begin through the media and will be taken up by obama: US Jews betray the US for Israel.
my emphasis because it is not against republicans but against jews. The raising of the flag of the 5th column as a threat of extortion against US Jews. Basically it is a veiled genocidal threat. Friedmann and Rothkopf are the willing Kapos who carry forward the Soros tradition of betraying Jews to the Jew killers.
It is the potential of great existential threat to the Jews, and to Israel, that differs Romney from Obama. Romney is not perceived to be a threat but Obama is. Romney does not hate the Jews but obama does, just like his self hating jewish allies, plus Wright and Farakhan.
Obama is a Muslim, or at least that is what ex-Egyptian foreign minister Gheit said on Nile Tv’s “Round Table” in 2010:
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2010/06/-obama-tells-egyptian-foreign-minister-i-am-a-muslim-stealth-coup-on-the-white-house.html
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/06/report_obama_said_i_am_a_musli.html
Further, if he is a Muslim, he’d be Sunni rather than Shiite.
Now you might ask, “If this were true, why would he aid Israel, undermine/overthrow at least 2 Sunni Muslim leaders (Mubarak and Gadaffi) in a manner which would threaten other leaders of Sunni Muslim nations throughout the Middle East (King AbdullahII of Jordan & King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia)?”
The answer is that his Middle East policy has the latent/covert objective of bringing about the restoration of a Sunni Muslim caliphate throughout the Middle East.
In order to accomplish this end, there are 4 barriers which need to be removed:
1. Israel – being used as raw meat dangled in front of the Islamist dogs of the Arab world, as well as an armed barrier to Muslim hegemony over the region
2. Iran – the Shiite enemy of the Sunni. Iran is seeking preeminence over the region through nuclear program as well as formenting regime change in Sunni nations
3. The US public consensus – Obama has systematically weakened the US militarily, economically, geopolitically, morally and spiritually
4. THE KINGS AND PRESIDENTS OF SUNNI MUSLIM NATION STATES! – the nations were mostly laid out by the Western powers following WWI. Sovereign Arab states, particularly secular states were the bulwark against Islamist caliphate ambitions. So, Mubarak, who’d kept his boot on the neck of the Muslim Brotherhood (who’d assassinated his predecessor, Anwar Sadat) had to go! King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia clearly understood the threat that Obama posed to his regime and reacted apoplectically to Obama’s call on Mubarak to step down. There is word that a fiery phone conversation between the two over Obama’s dishonoring a Muslim leader was not only the Muslim shame/honor culture, but betraying the geopolitical Bush alliance forged to reign in Iran. Mubarak and Abdullah were the primary bulwarks armed by the US to contain Iran via conventional weapons. Knocking Mubarak out was cutting off Abdullah’s strong right arm!
The following may be denied as ‘conspiracy theory’; nevertheless, it puts the above into a larger context of global evil, opposing plan of the Most High for His people, Israel:
WWIII has been implemented by wicked men empowered by a Luciferian spirit, operating transnationally and behind the scenes across the centuries. The establishment of the Caliphate is itself part of a larger plan for the ages, not for the sake of Islamist world domination, but to instigate a war between the Zionist West and Islam, that will destroy both ‘the Zionist entity’, Israel, and the Islamists. This, according to the Illuminati, will be a near final step to establish a New World Order united religiously through the worship of Lucifer, the ‘bearer of light'(See Daniel 9:27, 11:31 & 11:36-44). The final steps call for anihillation of both Christianity and atheism, with the installation of Satan who demands worship in the rebuilt Temple.
An 1871 letter, now denied by the Free Masons, between Albert Pike and Giuseppi Mazzini spells out the Illuminati’s Plan for the Ages and the 3 orchestrated global conflicts to come. Whatever the authenticity of “the Pike letter” the quote is sourced to before 1917:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Guy_Carr
@ Bert:
And did you expect no less of a Chicago politician? Besides Obama’s training as a marxist community organizer from the Saul Alinsky Chicago school of “Rules for Radicals” there are the connections with the communist Frank Marshall Davis as revealed in the following excerpt from the “FRONTPAGEMAG.COM” interview of Dr. Paul Kengor on his book “THE COMMUNIST” regarding this:
“‘KENGOR: Yes, and it’s even more eerie than that. Frank Marshall Davis, Obama’s mentor, also worked with Vernon Jarrett in these circles. Vernon Jarrett was Valerie’s father-in-law. And it’s worse still. Davis, Obama’s mentor, also worked with Harry and David Canter, two other Chicago communists. The Canters mentored a young man named David Axelrod in Chicago in the 1970s. So, the troika that’s arguably running America today—Obama and Valerie Jarrett and David Axelrod—all have common bonds in Chicago’s communist circles from the 1940s. Their mentors knew each other.
I know this is incredible, but it’s true. You couldn’t make this up. No one would believe it. We’re being governed by ghosts from Chicago’s Communist Party glory years.'”
Now when you couple this with an Islamic jihadist world view upbringing and the added teaching and mentoring of how to play dirty Chicago politics you beget pure effective totalitarian evil. Indeed, darkness finding darkness explains Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, Jeremiah Wright, Van Jones, Humah Abedine, Muslim Brotherhood, George Soros. And the more ‘rocks’ you turn over to let the ‘light’ pour in you the more you see the gathered ‘roaches’ running for the cover of darkness. Speaking of darkness, why are we in the dark concerning how Obama got into Harvard or his grades there? To quote a famous “politician”: ‘“If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else did that.”I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart.”If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help”.”If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”
REFERENCE:
http://frontpagemag.com/2012/jamie-glazov/the-communist-frank-marshall-davis-the-untold-story-of-barack-obama%E2%80%99s-mentor/
I think Caroline Glick has it right. Obama realizes that going against Israel may actually get him more votes in key states. He may have decided to burn his bridges in a desperate attempt to win re-election at all costs. Considering the character of Obama and his Jihadist leanings against both Israel and the U.S. This all makes sense. The message is clear: Obama is far more sinister and dangerous than previously thought. If he is re-elected he will take vengeance against all who opposed him.
I hate thomas friedman with a passion.