The first caliph of the West?

Ray G. from Dearbornistan, Michigan writes:

Did you hear how Jesus Obama (or perhaps, Mohammed Obama) proclaimed that he will act as the Defender of Islam, against any discrimination in the USA?

This can’t go on.

I’m beginning to think this man needs to be ousted from office.

PS: Newsweek Editor calls Obama God

LA replies:

Be more specific. Defender of Islam how?

Ray replies:

Isn’t that the point of the whole speech? This was a 45 minute insult to the USA and the West in general. This man is nothing short of a revolutionary. In past times and I mean only decades ago, the speech he gave could have been called with some accuracy as treasonous.

Well, I’ll have to find it but didn’t you hear him say something to the effect that he will take it upon himself to resist or fight back discrimination or intolerance or something against Muslims in the US? I heard him say it, I need to find it.

What did you think of this passage?

“And when the first Muslim-American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same Holy Koran that one of our Founding Fathers—Thomas Jefferson—kept in his personal library.”

Talk about distorting history in order to pander and make Mohammedans believe that Islam played some big role in the founding of our country. Nobody dare questions Jesus (Mohammed) Obama. Unbelievable……

LA replies:

Obama praised the fact that America allows the hijab and has “punished” those who discriminate against people using it. This is a spectacular fiction. However, as best I noticed, he didn’t say that he himself would do anything to punish those who discriminate against Muslims.

Ray replies:

“I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed. That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn’t. And I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.”

This was an outrageous speech in my humble opinion. This man is a quasi Muslim, with strong anti-American views. An American President addresses a religion? Presidents address nations, not religions. He needs to go.

LA replies:

“An American President addresses a religion? Presidents address nations, not religions.”

That’s an excellent point, which had not occurred to me. While I had said in the earlier discussion about the speech that his proposed “partnership” with Islam will be understood by Muslims as submission to Islam, I had not taken in the full significance of that paragraph when I first read it. It’s so important that I’ll quote it again:

I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed. That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn’t. And I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.

He is setting himself up as the partner and defender of Islam—really, as the representative of Islam in the West. He doesn’t represent America. He represents Islam. He is siding with Islam, and against America. He is assuring that no “stereotypes” about Islam, i.e., no negative truths about Islamic doctrines, Islamic tyranny, and the sacred Islamic agenda to subjugate the world to Islam, will be spoken in America. He is announcing himself as the dhimmi leader of the West.

So we are in a kind of revolutionary situation here. Will this be recognized and opposed? Will American public opinion tell Obama that he is completely out of line and that this must stop—just as, for example, Sotomayor’s 2001 racialist comment set off so much righteous outrage that it forced Obama and then her to backtrack from the comment (though of course insincerely)? The American public needs to rise up and say, if you are the representative and champion and defender of Islam in America, instead of being the leader and representative and defender of this country, then you have departed from the responsibilities of your office and you must resign.

LA continues:

As for Evan Thomas’s article calling Obama God, I haven’t read it yet, but am not surprised. Thomas is a thoroughly vile liberal.

LA continues:

I am grateful to Ray for his insight that Obama was, in an unprecedented act for a U.S. president, addressing an entire religion, which leads to the further insight that the partnership he proposes is a partnership between America and a religion, and, further, given that this religion is Islam, it means that he is, in almost formal terms, proposing that America become a dhimmi state of Islam.

Obama’s proffered partnership with Islam is essentially identical to the Eurabian project, in which the EU made itself the partner, and thus the dhimmi, of Islam.

Laura G. writes:

This needs to stay at the top of your daily news for awhile. Huge issue. Thanks to you and Ray for catching this. We all need to focus on it an consider the ramifications.

Isn’t it amazing how easy it is to get side-tracked by The One! I NEVER listen to his speeches because I hate the nasty and creepy feeling that his constant attempts at manipulation give me. I do read his speeches, however, and that experience is bad enough. I have not yet understood how any even marginally normal and capable adult person could have heard a single one of his speeches and failed to recognize that he was being subjected to an attempted fraud and scam. The responses (“I am being manipulated and need to protect myself”) should have been visceral, immediate, and automatic. I do not understand.

LA replies:

He’s so difficult to keep tabs on because he overwhelms us, he overwhelms the critical faculties, with how much he’s doing and throwing at us, on a daily basis (which I’ve described as a technique of tyranny). But we must not allow his method to distract us or turn us away from what’s happening. We need to keep our eyes on him, as unpleasant as that is.

LA writes:

A reader says that my statement that Obama should resign is so overblown and that my whole point will be dismissed. Obviously I don’t expect him to resign. To say, “If you do such and such, you should resign,” is to say, “You are behaving illegimately, in violation of your responsibilities as president, you are acting as the agent of the religion of Islam. That is totally unacceptable and must stop.”

If the American public will say that, if they will say that they regard Obama’s behavior as illegitimate, it will put him on the defensive, instead of, as is now the case, leaving him free to say and do whatever he wants. It will force him to pull back, just as conservatives’s attack on Judge Sotomayor’s racialist comment and their saying that it disqualified her for the Supreme Court forced her to pull back somewhat. It will tell him that there are limits he cannot cross. If we are not willing to take an ultimate stand against Obama on an issue as grave as his forming a “partnership” with the religion of Islam and making himself Islam’s tribune in America, then we are dhimmis too.

Anthony Damato writes from Europe, where he now lives:

About Obama’s speech. I had a lot of thoughts on it, but I am too confused by the shear confusion of what it conveys. How could he dare bring up “E Pluribus Unum,” in such a perverted and disingenuous way in Egypt?

We [America] are shaped by every culture. Drawn from every end of the Earth, and dedicated to a simple concept, E pluribus unum: Out of many, one.

The national motto was meant to impart the spirit of a single national identity, to avoid “squabbling ethnicities” from going for each others throats. It’s necessity was deemed important enough at the time to be adopted by our Founding Fathers, in the hopes that Americans would realize their commonality, not “celebrate their differences,” as modern liberalism demands. This is standard leftist, elitist newspeak to the dumbed down Eloi.

“Out of many, one,” as interpreted by Obama and his followers, if reduced to its logical outcome, means one humanity, unrefined by any single culture-defining majority, or rooted in any single civilization. Joined only in their individual desires to have absolute freedom. In other words, a macrocosm of the entire diverse, mostly savage human race, within the borders of the USA, forced to live in a petri dish of endless platitudes and dissimilarity worship, enforced by what can be seen even now to be a growing totalitarian state. The dream is the realization of a new world order characterized by the elimination of Western Civilization and the Judeo-Christianity which built it and the European peoples who advanced it.

Obama is totally out of his league dealing with the predatory Moslem world, and his lack of street smarts really shows. What he apparently wants, and believes, is that a universal brotherhood of mankind is possible. This naturally would require the total elimination of nations, races, and other things which make us human. Such as the realization that human conflict is a reality of human nature, and will not be phased out with utopian rhetoric.

LA replies:

Eloquent statement. And when we put his “America is the world” rhetoric together with his “I will fight against negative stereotypes about Islam” pledge, it means that America opens itself to the world, particularly the Islamic world, while any criticism of the Islamic agenda of infiltration and Islamization is prohibited.

They are the (jihadist) predator, we are the (universalist) prey.

Gedaliah Braun writes:

I agree with Ray G. I have long regarded it as obvious—and I think it is becoming increasingly so—that Obama is a Muslim and identifies with Islam—end of story. There are so many specific incidents and things he says that can only be explained if one assumes that he thinks of himself as a Muslim and takes the side of Islam—against America. Each one by itself (e.g., bowing to the king of Saudi Arabia) can be ignored and laughed away. But cumulatively, their meaning is clear.

Consider, e.g., his recent remark to the effect that America is one of the largest Muslim nations in the world. As people were quick to point out, this is factually absurd. But how does one explain his making such a statement? Well, this is what he wishes to be true and what he will do everything in his power to bring make true!

Here is an interesting passage from the Freemanlist, 4 June 09:

The Asia Times went so far as to say that the American president made a mistake by speaking in Cairo. “Why should the president of the United States address the ‘Muslim world,” it stated. “What would happen if the leader of a big country addressed the ‘Christian world’? Half the world would giggle and the other half would sulk.

“To speak to the ‘Muslim world’ is to speak not to a fact, but rather to an aspiration, and that is the aspiration that Islam shall be a global state religion as its founders intended. To address this aspiration is to breathe life into it. For an American president to validate such an aspiration is madness.”

But it is “madness” only if you assume that he stands on the side of his own country—America. If he does not, if instead he thinks of himself as a Muslim and in fact as someone who hates America, hates whites and hates Jews, then it is not madness at all, since it simply fits in with and expresses his real goals, desires and objectives.

LA replies:

I think this is overstated. He doesn’t need literally to be a Muslim and so on to do the things we’ve been talking about.

Ray G. writes:

Thank you very much for posting my “ramblings”—I know I may have overstated it when I said this man needs to be ousted from office but I simply feel in my gut, he’s unfit to be president of the country. He obviously is ambivalent about our nation and the West in general. His face lights up when speaking about other cultures, other nations than ours. The phony news media in our country failed miserably to properly check out and report on this man.

And thanks to Laura G. too! Like her, I do not listen to 99% of the “Alien in Chief’s” (as Mr Auster calls him) speeches and press conferences (which seem to be daily). Not only do I disagree with almost all of what he says, I find his voice and manner of speaking very irritating. His oratory comes off as pompous and his “Southern Preacher” cadence is a practiced affectation. Pure theatre.

PS—I think this review of his speech, “The Purple Prose of Cairo,” from the Spectator, is good also.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at June 06, 2009 11:00 PM | Send