A Reasonable Question

Why this massive effort on the part of the Obama Admin to protect Islam from the slightest hint of inconvenience, insult or injury?


Why not just get rid of the whole garbage religion and be done with it? Does anyone think that anyone sane in the world will miss it?

It’s a sure bet that Obama would never be even close to this solicitous of Christianity, or, goodness gracious! of Judaism!

Why go through all these tortured verbal, political and media gyrations to protect this barbaric belief system that forces women to dress in body bags, and has something in it that encourages believers to saw off children’s heads, or crucify them, or bury them alive?

It’s almost as if someone contacted the Administration and told them they had bombs all over the country, or operatives all around, or poison or something — all of which, or whom, are ready just to go off at some central signal in the media, if Obama or his spokeszombie, Josh Earnest, ever even hints that the violence done by muslims was actually done by muslims.

You laugh.

How secure do you think the southern border is?

In your lifetime, have you ever seen anyone bob, and dodge, and weave, and duck and cover, and shuck and jive like this, just to avoid stating the really rather obvious truth: the vast majority of terrorists are muslims? Like 99.9% of ’em.

And, what’s this nitwittery of Obama lecturing us all on “what islam is” and “what islam isn’t“? How in the blazes does he know?!? Who’s he?

This is the very same dude who spent, what, 20 years?!? listening to the so-called “Christian,” Jeremiah Wright, tell us all how Jesus would want us to hate white people, and that we shouldn’t say “God Bless America,” but rather “God d**n America.”

Obama is the most powerful man in the world — in history! He’s a man with the most highly-educated advisers and counselors in the history of the world. He’s a man with more information at his fingertips than any other person has ever had in history … and he’s still never managed to get anything right in six years.

And we’re supposed to listen to him harangue us about what Islam is and what it isn’t? Seriously? I don’t think so.

I’d rather have Wile E. Coyote lecture me on how to catch a roadrunner.

Anyone else who got so much so wrong so constantly and so consistently would have been fired five-and-a-half years ago. Thanks, though, to our electoral system, we’re stuck with this doofus for two more long, excruciating, sad, dreary years, filled with ever more gyrations and shucking and jiving, and cringe-inducing perorations filled with hogwash, flapdoodle and insipid twaddle, from glib boneheads and clodpoles, who then jeeringly call us idiots when we point out the dottiness of what they tell us.

The torrent of gibberish and piffle from this Administration is the most astonishing phenomenon American politics has ever witnessed. That there are vast throngs of brainless dullards — called Democrats, media personalities and Hollywood — who parrot and defend this palaver is an authentic American disgrace, and a tragedy for the world.

Barack Obama is the Wile E. Coyote of the American Presidency; a dismal, kind of pathetic failure, surrounded by sycophants who keep telling him: “Yessir, Mr. President… dropping that anvil off the cliff will get him! Brilliant, Sir! And if that doesn’t work, your idea to paint a picture of the road on that cliff is sheer genius!”

This is the guy prosecuting the war against… against… who is Barack Obama at war against?!? Darned if I know. Do you?

— xPraetorius


8 thoughts on “A Reasonable Question

  1. You don’t really think he’s still going to be in office in two years do you? His job is just about done. He’ll be replaced soon (somehow).

    1. Hi, UL! I did reply to this, but I think I must not have clicked on the “Post Comment” button or something, so here goes again!

      Sadly, I do think he’ll be around for nearly two more years. Even the leadership of the Democrat Party is starting to tire of him though.

      Furthermore, the press are starting to question him, so there’s a good chance that someone will try to distance him from actual policy decisions and pronouncements, lest he make it too difficult for the next Democrat — likely (gag) Hillary Clinton — to be elected President.

      That distancing must may be what you’re referring to.

      quick note: Frankly, if the Republicans can’t beat Hillary, then the country might as well pack it in. She has more baggage than American Tourister!


      — x

  2. Although I greatly enjoyed your post and although I had a good laugh reading it, I respectfully disagree on one thing.
    While it is possible that the president is just stupid, the circumstantial evidence that he is not merely stupid but that there is an unstated agenda, an unstated ideology behind his actions is piling up.
    To answer your last question first, he is at war against America.
    If he were merely stupid and incompetent, I would expect that he would occasionally, just by sheer dumb luck, do the right thing.
    Instead he screws up always in the same way producing always the same results. After a while it becomes increasingly unreasonable to say that he is just stupid and incompetent.
    I don’t believe in these popular conspiracy theories that are all over the internet.
    He is neither the Antichrist nor is he a puppet of some sinister New World Order conspiracy.
    He doesn’t fulfill the biblical requirements and the idea that he is merely a puppet of some powerful group is contradicted by the facts. Not only has he acted repeatedly against Zbigniew Brzinski’s advice, for example with regards to Syria, but if I were to put someone in that position to execute my plans, I would not put someone that I have to constantly control but someone who would believe 100% in my ideology and my plans.
    Brzinski is inevitably cited as a NWO puppet master by people who believe in this stuff.
    Furhermore, I don’t believe that some influential advisers like Valerie Jarett can dictate policies to the president.
    He has repeatedly acted against the advise of the experts, for example when he decided that the US should completely pull out of Iraq.
    Although Valerie Jarett has the president’s ear and although she has an unhealthy influence in formulating his policies she cannot force him or convince him to do something he really doesn’t want to do or to do something he doesn’t believe in.
    Moreover, we don’t necessarily have to assume that he is a secret Muslim to explain his sympathies for Muslims and his dislike of Christians.
    Whatever he is, he is not a Christian. Jeremiah Wright’s antiamerican, antiwhite, antisemitic and racist brand of ‘Christianity’ is so far off the Cristian mainstream that it can be hardly called Christian.
    The president was brought up by radical communists and he associated himself with radical communists, antisemites and racists.
    Rudi Giuliani just recently touched on this.
    As a result of his upbringing and as a result of his African roots the president sees America and Israel as an extention of white, Christian, European colonialism and imperialism and he sees Muslims and blacks as its victims.
    Like a true marxist, he sees any problem as a problem of class and economics and therefore the problem of radical islam can be solved by giving jobs to a bunch of islamic killers.
    It is logical that viewed through this lense America is not a force of good but a force of evil and that therefore its power and influence in the world has to be reduced and America has to be cut down to size.
    It is logical that viewed through this lense Western dominance is a historic injustice and in order to be fair the rise of islam has not only to be tolerated and welcomed but it has to be promoted.
    In the president’s ideal world America is just one nation among many and not the superpower that it is today.
    In his ideal world America not only volountarily stays out of the world’s affairs but it simply does not have the power to do so anymore and power is distributed equally between many global powers.
    Now, I cannot prove that my explanation is correct but as of today I have not seen one that is more consistent, less contradictory and with more explanatory scope and explanatory power.
    It makes no sense to view islamic terrorists as a bunch of guys randomly commiting acts of violence without considering their religious ideology.
    It also makes no sense to view the current president as just an incompetent idiot without considering his ideological and religious background.

    As an example I want to mention his policies towards Iran.
    His stated goal is to prevent Iran from getting nukes.
    Anyone with more than two brain cells can tell that his policies will fail to achieve that goal and will result in a more powerful, more dangerous Iran.
    Now, he could simply be an idiot or he could have another, an unstated plan.
    Robert Kaplan who isn’t much concerned about Iran getting nukes explains why a rapprochment with Iran is in the American interest but his untested assumptions are too optimistic and he fails to consider the negative consequenses of a nuclear Iran.

    One could suspect that the president is pursuing this policy while publicly stating something different.
    He could also have another wholy different plan which is brilliantly explained by David M. Weinerb in his article “Why is Obama fixated on Iran?”.


    “And indeed, an Iranian Islamic empire is emerging in vast swaths of territory, from Shiraz to Sanaa and from Tabriz to Tripoli, right under Obama’s nose.

    So again, what could possibly explain Obama’s relentless pursuit of strategic partnership with Iran — a partnership that is so perceptibly detrimental and dangerous to the West and to Israel and other long-standing American allies in the region?

    A spate of recent articles by American analysts (Anthony Cordesman, Bill Kristol, Colin Dueck, Eli Lake, Elliott Abrams, Eric Edelman, Jonathan Tobin, Josef Joffe, Michael Doran, Michael Ledeen, Raymond Ibrahim, Victor Davis Hanson, Walter Russell Mead) have sought to plumb the depths of Obama’s fervor for rapprochement with Iran.

    They mostly conclude that the roots of Obama’s approach rest in the fairly widespread, basically liberal, and quintessentially leftist convictions that America has for decades been sinful and diplomatically domineering, and must atone for its arrogance through retrenchment and accommodation. Obama shares the progressive aversion to the use of American power. Hence his chronic need to apologize for it.

    Thus, U.S. Cold War culpability — in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Africa, South America and Cuba — is a burden on America that must be addressed by shrinking America’s global footprint, and allowing indigenous, revolutionary movements to legitimately emerge and stabilize.

    As such, the rules of nuclear non-proliferation are an unfair Western construct and need not apply to Iran. China is an authentic power with vast continental rights. And Israel is an abnormality, a Western outpost of capitalism and privilege where it has never really belonged, an irritant that should be treated like any other country as much as politically possible — no more.

    In short, Obama believes that he will be leaving the world a better place by cutting America down to size.

    To me, this is an insufficient explanation of Obama’s symptoms. Nor does it help to call Obama messianic and self-absorbed — as in George Will’s delicious quip this week that “If narcissism were oil, this president would be Saudi Arabia.”

    None of this explains the depth of commitment to a deal with Iran that Obama has evinced since his first day in office (and perhaps, even before taking office, as Michael Doran has sought to show in Mosaic magazine). Nor does it explain the administration’s commitment to keeping everybody in the dark about the extent of its apparent pact with Iran.

    It seems to me that Obama’s fervor for Iran lies somewhere much more fundamental: In a deep-seated ideological belief that Islam has a rightful leadership place in the world.

    Consider the fact that Obama’s inaugural address abroad was “A New Beginning,” delivered in Cairo in 2009 — a contrite appeal to the Muslim world for forgiveness and for partnership. Go back and listen to Obama wax eloquent about “hearing the call of the azaan” as a young man in Indonesia, and about the historical achievements of Islamic civilization in algebra and architecture. This is Obama speaking from the recesses of his soul.

    Consider Obama’s refusal to acknowledge the Manichean and irreconcilable nature of the challenge posed to the West by radical Islam; his refusal to even mutter the words “Islamic extremism” or “jihadism”; and his absolute unwillingness to connect terrorism to Islam or even admit that Islamic terrorists deliberately target Jews (like those Jews in Paris’ Hyper Cacher grocery).

    The terms radical Islam and Islamic terrorist aren’t in Obama’s lexicon because deep down Obama doesn’t believe that Western (or Judeo-Christian) civilization is any better than Islamic civilization.

    No better, perhaps, than even the Islamic State group. Speaking to the National Prayer breakfast in Washington on February 5, Obama said: “Before we get on our high horse and think this [ISIS beheadings, sex slavery, crucifixion, roasting of humans, etc.] is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ.”

    This is tantamount to saying that the West is rooted in immorality, and that it is time for other, no less moral, and possibly more moral, powers to emerge — specifically, Islamic powers. It is equivalent to saying that the denouement of America and rise of an Islamic superpower will elevate world politics to a better sphere.

    It is like saying — actually this is exactly what Obama is saying! — that America is ready to legitimize a seismic shift in the global balance of power through a grand civilizational bargain with the ayatollahs of Iran.

    It is ardor for Islam and sympathy for Islamic ambitions of global leadership, not just distaste for American overreach, that apparently fuels Obama’s secretive dash toward a deal with Iran.”

    1. Thank you, Ar, for your long and thoughtful reply. I have to admit: I have no quibble with your disagreement. More to the point, I think you are simply saying what I was headed for, only more directly and more boldly. And, you said it first, darn you! 🙂

      You said something that is absolutely true… and very important. You said, “Instead he screws up always in the same way producing always the same results.”

      Just so! Every time he mucks something up — which is every time(*) — America is weakened, or our enemies are strengthened. It’s almost as if, as you say, Obama views “our enemies” as “not our enemies.”

      You can read “It’s almost as if” to mean, “It seems plain that.”

      The rest of your argument is mighty convincing. I’d point, by way of some small corroboration, to the announcement today or late yesterday that the Obama Administration considers “right-wing extremism” to be for more dangerous than Islamic terrorism..

      Assuming they’re not trying to make the absurd case that the Islamic terrorists are “right-wingers,” that can mean only that Obama and his flunkies consider the “Tea Party” to be more dangerous than ISIS.

      Such planet-sized dopiness can’t be easily explained away. However, it fits well with your hypothesis — that Obama is at war against America — or, against everything that America has long stood for.

      — Best,

      — x
      (*) As you said: you’d think he’d get at least one thing right, just out of sheer dumb luck! The proverbial “blind pig” effect.

  3. I go even further and say that he sees America’s and the West’s enemies as his allies.
    Remember the infamous open mike episode with Medvedev?
    David Weinberg says it even better than me. He has hit bullseye.

    “This is tantamount to saying that the West is rooted in immorality, and that it is time for other, no less moral, and possibly more moral, powers to emerge — specifically, Islamic powers. It is equivalent to saying that the denouement of America and rise of an Islamic superpower will elevate world politics to a better sphere.

    It is like saying — actually this is exactly what Obama is saying! — that America is ready to legitimize a seismic shift in the global balance of power through a grand civilizational bargain with the ayatollahs of Iran.

    It is ardor for Islam and sympathy for Islamic ambitions of global leadership, not just distaste for American overreach, that apparently fuels Obama’s secretive dash toward a deal with Iran.”

Please Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s