Islam Lies

Custom Search



The Islamic art of softening the hearts of the unbelievers





help fight the media




Items on this page are archived in the order of discovery.

Obama Says He Didn't Say What He Said

Talking Sides blog asks, did Barack Obama come out in favor of the building of a mosque just steps away from where Islamic extremists slaughtered almost 3,000 Americans on 9/11?  To paraphrase former President Bill Clinton, it depends on what your definition of "right" is.  At last night's White House event to observe the Islamic holy month of Ramadan, Obama said that he believes "Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country" and "that includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances."  After a major political backlash today which everyone (except Obama) could see coming from the instant the words left his mouth, Obama is trying to distance himself from his own statements.

Asked about his remarks at last night's festivities, Obama claimed, "I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there.  I was commenting very specifically on the right people have that dates back to our founding.  That's what our country is about.  And I think it's very important as difficult as some of these issues are that we stay focused on who we are as a people and what our values are all about."

It will be up to each individual to decide for themselves whether Obama supported the building of the mosque on Friday and backed away from that position on Saturday or, as he now claims, he never actually took a position on whether that mosque should be built on that site.  But what is undeniable is that in his comments on Friday night before an audience that was decidedly in favor of the project, he said what he needed to say to receive an enthusiastic standing ovation from those assembled.  Our Narcissist-In-Chief once again chose to garner instant gratification, praise and glory from a targeted group before thinking about and considering all of the people he is sworn to serve.

This is yet another instance of Obama trying to bolster his own popularity with certain groups in certain moments (remember "the police acted stupidly?") instead of providing true leadership on the difficult issues we face.

No doubt Obama's original comments on the Ground Zero mosque and his subsequent backpedaling will have a negative political effect on his fellow Democrats running in November.  But as long as he got to bask in the warmth of a "standing O" at yet another lavish White House event, I doubt he cares.

Obama Continues To Propagate His Lies And Ignorance
In his article, "Obama Lied, AIPAC Died," Daniel Horowitz says at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference on Sunday, Obama continued to propagate his lies and ignorance regarding the history of U.S. foreign policy towards Israel.  Undaunted by recent criticism, Obama doubled down on his demand that Israel return to indefensible borders by creating a contiguous Palestinian state.  As such, he continued to display his ignorance of the geographical reality that a contiguous Hamas-Fatah state bordering Jordan and Egypt, as stipulated in both speeches, means a noncontiguous Israel.  I guess he can see a Palestinian state (and unicorns) from the White House.

He also regurgitated his cloddish platitude that Hamas must "accept the basic responsibilities of peace."  I could only imagine FDR declaring that the Nazis must change their ways and accept responsibility for peace.  Moreover, Obamaís teleprompter continued to lie about the dangers of the "Arab Spring," especially in Egypt, to Israelís (and Americaís) security.  He even castigated them by saying, "If there is a controversy, then, itís not based in substance."  Concurrently, he made sure to mention the names of his token liberal Jews like Rahm Emanuel, David Axelrod, and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz so that everything would appear kosher.  It was also helpful that Imam Magid, an unindicted co-conspirator with Hamas, wasnít in attendance this time, as he was last Thursday.

As vacuous as Obamaís intellect really is, he is not that ignorant of geography, nor is he credulous enough to believe that Hamas will put away its jihadi toys some day and accept Israel.  He knows exactly what his Palestinian fantasy will bring forth; he knows precisely how Israel will appear on a map with a contiguous terror state that borders Egypt and Jordan.  Nonetheless, his speech was warmly received (at least from AIPACís leaders, if not some grassroots activists).  After all, AIPACís leader, former Obama adviser and prolific fundraiser Lee Rosenberg, admonished them to behave.

Unfortunately, AIPAC has been run by hard-core Democrats for years.  Recently, as support for Israel among Democrats has taken a nosedive, AIPAC leaders have taken it upon themselves to ensconce this inconvenient truth by providing cover for Democrats.  Itís time for AIPAC to confront the inconvenience and reveal that it is the moral and intellectual clarity of conservatism-the very ideology that they reject-that will save Israel.  Republicans should also blow the cover off the notion of bi-partisan support for Israel and expose the duplicity of AIPAC and the Democrats by proposing tough anti-PLO/Hamas legislation.

Israel has enjoyed bi-partisan support from Congress since the incipient days of its founding.  While most other nations, and all too often, our own State Department, treated Israel as a pariah state, Congress served as the defender of the tiny beacon of freedom amidst Islamic despotism.

However, as the Republican Party became distinctly conservative, and as the Democrat Party became decisively and vociferously liberal, Israel became a wedge issue between the parties.  Conservatives, with their intrepid moral clarity, intuitively support our allies in the war on terror and reject the notion that you can negotiate with terrorists to create a new Islamic state.  Liberals, with their inherent moral relativism, have bought into the notion of Israel as an "occupier" and strongly support the 18-year old failed "peace" process.  Hence, the ideological bifurcation between the parties has become glaring to everyone except for the "pro-Israel" Democrat apologists at AIPAC.

In recent years, Republican support for Israel has hovered around 80%-85%, while Democrat support dipped as low as 48% in 2010, according to Gallup.  Furthermore, as the Democrat leaders seek to make our foreign policy obsequious to the anti-Israel "international community," conservative leaders are seeking to punish the U.N. for their mistreatment of Israel.  Unvarnished support for Israel is so universal among Republican presidential candidates that the liberal media is mocking them with the pejorative of "Israel primary".

Continue reading here . . .
Comments . . .

© Copyright  Beckwith  2010
All right reserved