NBC's Gregory Defends Obama Mideast Policy Vs. Santorum, Defends Election Win by Muslim Brotherhood
By Brad Wilmouth | January 01, 2012 | 13:11
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2012/01/01/nbcs-gregory-defends-obama-mideast-policy-vs-santorum-defends-electio#ixzz1uA4Zz7jx
On Sunday's Meet the Press on NBC, as guest Rick Santorum
criticized President Obama because he refused to support a democracy
movement in Iran that might have weakened the anti-America radical
Muslim government of Tehran, but, by contrast, supported a democracy
movement in Egypt directed against a pro-America government - which resulted in an election
that recently handed more power in Cairo to radical Muslims - host
David Gregory accused the GOP presidential candidate of being "patently
contradictory." (Video below)
As he moved into the foreign policy portion of the interview, Gregory
brought up a recent speech in which Santorum accused President Obama of
engaging in "appeasement" against America's enemies, and then the NBC
host defended Obama's foreign policy:
How can that possibly be accurate if you've taken an objective look at
the foreign policy of this administration? What on Iran specifically
separates the approach that President Obama has taken and that of
President Bush?
Gregory notably has a recent history
of arguing that GOP presidential candidates may have difficulty going
after Obama on foreign policy because the President is seen as "very
successful" in that arena.
After Santorum criticized Obama for not voicing support for
pro-democracy demonstrators in Iran, Gregory cluelessly injected, "What
would that have done specifically to disarm Iran?"
As the former Senator pointed out that President Obama had ignored the pro-democracy government that wanted to topple an anti-America government in Iran, while supporting a movement in Egypt that wanted to overthrow a pro-America government, the NBC host admonished Santorum for being "patently contradictory." Gregory:
As the former Senator pointed out that President Obama had ignored the pro-democracy government that wanted to topple an anti-America government in Iran, while supporting a movement in Egypt that wanted to overthrow a pro-America government, the NBC host admonished Santorum for being "patently contradictory." Gregory:
First of all, that's patently contradictory. If you say you support
democracy, there was a democratic movment in Egypt, and the Muslim
Brotherhood got elected, so how could you be for democracy in some
countries and not others? Which is inconsistent.
When the GOP candidate argued that the Muslim Brotherhood's rise to
power in Egypt would not bring democracy, Gregory mocked him: "They're
popularly elected, I think. Isn't that what democracy is all about?"
After Santorum then complained that the Obama administration had not been aggressive enough in confronting Iran, the Meet the Press host made excuses for President Obama. Gregory: "The reality is, there is no good option to disarm Iran."
After Santorum then complained that the Obama administration had not been aggressive enough in confronting Iran, the Meet the Press host made excuses for President Obama. Gregory: "The reality is, there is no good option to disarm Iran."
Below is a transcript of Gregory's questions from the relevant portion of the Sunday, January 1, Meet the Press on NBC:
DAVID GREGORY: Before you go, I want to ask you about foreign policy.
You've been very critical of the President, particularly on the issue of
Iran, which has been a big issue of debate here in Iowa. Let me play a
portion of that.
RICK SANTORUM, AT THE REPUBLICAN JEWISH COALITION CANDIDATES FORUM, DATED DECEMBER 7, 2011: This President, for every thug and hooligan, for every radical Islamist, he has had nothing but appeasement. We saw that during the leadup to World War II, appeasement.
GREGORY: How can that possibly be accurate if you've taken an objective look at the foreign policy of this administration? What on Iran specifically separates the approach that President Obama has taken and that of President Bush?
SANTORUM: Number one, he didn't support the pro-democracy movement in Iran in 2009 during the Green Revolution. Almost immediately after the election - I mean, excuse me, like within hours after the polls closed, Ahmadinejad announced that he won with 62 percent of the vote. Within a few days, President Obama basically said that that election was a legimitate one-
GREGORY: What would that have done specifically to disarm Iran?
SANTORUM: Well, I understand why the President would understand that, you know, someone announcing the minute after the polls closed that he won. I mean, he comes from Chicago, so I get it.
RICK SANTORUM, AT THE REPUBLICAN JEWISH COALITION CANDIDATES FORUM, DATED DECEMBER 7, 2011: This President, for every thug and hooligan, for every radical Islamist, he has had nothing but appeasement. We saw that during the leadup to World War II, appeasement.
GREGORY: How can that possibly be accurate if you've taken an objective look at the foreign policy of this administration? What on Iran specifically separates the approach that President Obama has taken and that of President Bush?
SANTORUM: Number one, he didn't support the pro-democracy movement in Iran in 2009 during the Green Revolution. Almost immediately after the election - I mean, excuse me, like within hours after the polls closed, Ahmadinejad announced that he won with 62 percent of the vote. Within a few days, President Obama basically said that that election was a legimitate one-
GREGORY: What would that have done specifically to disarm Iran?
SANTORUM: Well, I understand why the President would understand that, you know, someone announcing the minute after the polls closed that he won. I mean, he comes from Chicago, so I get it.
But the problem is that this was an illegitimate election, the people
in the streets were rioting, saying, "Please support us, President
Obama. We are the pro-democracy movement. We want to turn this theocracy
that has been at war with the United States, that's developing a
nuclear weapon, that's killing our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq with
IEDs," and the President of the United States turned his back on them.
At the same time, a year later, we have the same situation where Muslim Brotherhood and Islamists are in the streets of Egypt opposing an ally of ours - not a sworn enemy like Iran, but an ally of ours in Mubarak-
GREGORY: Sir, the question I asked you-
SANTORUM: -and he joins the radicals instead of standing with our friends.
GREGORY: First of all, that's patently contradictory. If you say you support democracy, there was a democratic movment in Egypt, and the Muslim Brotherhood got elected, so how could you be for democracy in some countries and not others? Which is inconsistent.
SANTORUM: No, first of all, the Muslim Brotherhood is not about democracy. The Muslim Brotherhood are Islamists. The Muslim Brotherhood are gonna impose shariah law-
GREGORY: They're popularly elected, I think. Isn't that what democracy is all about? But I asked you about disarming Iran. There is no material difference in terms of how the Bush administration sought to disarm Iran and what the Obama administration has done. [SANTORUM]
GREGORY: The reality is, there is no good option to disarm Iran.
SANTORUM: Yes, there is.
GREGORY: The Bush administration knew that, this administration knows that. Tell me what you would do differently then. [SANTORUM]
GREGORY: Which is already being done, Senator. You know that. There's covert activity to set back their program by the Israelis, by the United States. [SANTORUM]
GREGORY: So you would lay out a red line, and, if they passed it, airstrikes by President Santorum?
SANTORUM: Iran will not get a nuclear weapon under my watch.
GREGORY: Well, two previous Presidents have said that. You would order airstrikes if it became clear that they were gonna? [SANTORUM]
At the same time, a year later, we have the same situation where Muslim Brotherhood and Islamists are in the streets of Egypt opposing an ally of ours - not a sworn enemy like Iran, but an ally of ours in Mubarak-
GREGORY: Sir, the question I asked you-
SANTORUM: -and he joins the radicals instead of standing with our friends.
GREGORY: First of all, that's patently contradictory. If you say you support democracy, there was a democratic movment in Egypt, and the Muslim Brotherhood got elected, so how could you be for democracy in some countries and not others? Which is inconsistent.
SANTORUM: No, first of all, the Muslim Brotherhood is not about democracy. The Muslim Brotherhood are Islamists. The Muslim Brotherhood are gonna impose shariah law-
GREGORY: They're popularly elected, I think. Isn't that what democracy is all about? But I asked you about disarming Iran. There is no material difference in terms of how the Bush administration sought to disarm Iran and what the Obama administration has done. [SANTORUM]
GREGORY: The reality is, there is no good option to disarm Iran.
SANTORUM: Yes, there is.
GREGORY: The Bush administration knew that, this administration knows that. Tell me what you would do differently then. [SANTORUM]
GREGORY: Which is already being done, Senator. You know that. There's covert activity to set back their program by the Israelis, by the United States. [SANTORUM]
GREGORY: So you would lay out a red line, and, if they passed it, airstrikes by President Santorum?
SANTORUM: Iran will not get a nuclear weapon under my watch.
GREGORY: Well, two previous Presidents have said that. You would order airstrikes if it became clear that they were gonna? [SANTORUM]
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 9:00AM
WHY I AM SUPPORTING BARACK OBAMA!
I just responded to a comment rwnutjob made...and I really do not want it to get lost, so I am repeating it here in a new thread.
Frank
Apisa is, unfortunately, like most Americans these days. As long as
they are OK, then they can't let facts get in the way of reality. When
the economy totally collapses and some of our big inner cities explode
into horrific violence, then he may get a clue, but by then it's too
late.
America did not get to where it is right now because of what Obama has done or not done. We are here after almost 45 years of relentless CONSERVATIVE domination of our economy and politics. From the day LBJ left office, almost every facet of American life has had CONSERVATISM as the dominant drive…and it has lead us to where we are. Liberalism and progressivism virtually died in the mid-1960’s.
So…I advocate for lessening the influence of CONSERVATISM on the American political landscape as a means to finally break the cycle; and I see the re-election of Obama over the election of the eventual Republican nominee as the preferred move.
If you do not see that, RW, I respectfully suggest you are the one refusing to let the facts get in the way of reality.
But there is one thing we apparently do agree on. The only way people who are oblivious to the reality will ever wake up is when catastrophe occurs. The economy IS going to collapse, RW…and I am certain our big inner cities will explode into horrific violence. At that point, maybe the conservatives of this country will finally “get a clue”—because I expect that most of the anger will be directed at CONSERVATIVE excesses and shortsightedness.
Whether it will be “too late” or not…neither of us knows.
I might add, our choice of president will not do much more than delay the inevitable. Obama, Romney, Gingrich, Hillary…none will actually stop the slide. We need systemic change in the economic model to correct our dire predicament and we are not going to get that systemic change from a president.
The sad fact is, we probably won’t get it without that catastrophic collapse we both see looming.
If you have any response or reaction to my remarks, I hope you have your say over at RW's thread or here in this one.
Below are some comments concerning who should win the next presidential election.
Comments
This is a no-brainer. A Romney or Gingrich admin is unthinkable. r.
Jonathan Wolfman
February 02, 2012 09:03 AM
But we have another choice (besides me!! I know, wouldn't that be awesome if I was elected!! What? STOP ROLLING YOUR EYES!! :D)
An old wet sock found in the streets of DC!! According to ABC Polls, it has the best chance of beating them all, a third party, direly needed to combat the two horse dealers posing as Politicians for Whomever!!!
:)
An old wet sock found in the streets of DC!! According to ABC Polls, it has the best chance of beating them all, a third party, direly needed to combat the two horse dealers posing as Politicians for Whomever!!!
:)
Jonathan…the thought of another Republican administration truly is a horrible thought to contemplate. Thanks for stopping in.
Tink…the possibility of you or any other third party is (to put this as kindly as possible) remote. The “reality” as I see it is a choice between the nominee of the Democrats and the nominee of the Republicans. The nominee of the Republicans, in reality, WILL BE MUCH more conservative than the nominee of the Democrats…and since I see American conservatism as being very much at fault in our current predicament, I opt for the Democrat, Barack Obama. Thanks for commenting.
In any case, the reason I gave for supporting Obama up above, is only ONE OF THE REASONS I continue to support him.
As I have said in many threads, I also feel he has gotten done as much as possible considering the toxic political climate in which he has been working—and the political realities of the moment.
Just wanted to be sure that point be made.
Tink…the possibility of you or any other third party is (to put this as kindly as possible) remote. The “reality” as I see it is a choice between the nominee of the Democrats and the nominee of the Republicans. The nominee of the Republicans, in reality, WILL BE MUCH more conservative than the nominee of the Democrats…and since I see American conservatism as being very much at fault in our current predicament, I opt for the Democrat, Barack Obama. Thanks for commenting.
In any case, the reason I gave for supporting Obama up above, is only ONE OF THE REASONS I continue to support him.
As I have said in many threads, I also feel he has gotten done as much as possible considering the toxic political climate in which he has been working—and the political realities of the moment.
Just wanted to be sure that point be made.
I am totally on your
side of the fence! Obama is not perfect, but he is far better than any
of the alternatives. As for those who would vote for a third party
candidate ---lets get real! Any vote for a third party candidate on
either side, gives one less vote toward the lesser of the two evils!
I am not convinced that the economy will tank, only I think it is much worse and we are being given the rosy glasses and ....
I love Obama, but I agree. Bandaid. It'll take another 40+ years of new leadership local, state and national and the conservatives will not give it up. I think we are in a sever STALL economically and the 1970 stall will make this one look SEVER. Maybe when my 17 year old is my age- the economy and Conservatism will loosen up.
Love this post. Love your job. Really what a great benefit package!
I love Obama, but I agree. Bandaid. It'll take another 40+ years of new leadership local, state and national and the conservatives will not give it up. I think we are in a sever STALL economically and the 1970 stall will make this one look SEVER. Maybe when my 17 year old is my age- the economy and Conservatism will loosen up.
Love this post. Love your job. Really what a great benefit package!
I agree with Jonathan.
If there's one fatal flaw in liberalism it's that so many adherents
have an all or nothing attitude. In fact, that's a flaw with most all
idealists, no mater which wing of the political spectrum they identify
with. With right-wingers it's less a problem because the "values" they
hold dear are more id derived, easier to sneak in under the radar of
conscience.
"As I have said in many
threads, I also feel he has gotten done as much as possible considering
the toxic political climate in which he has been working—and the
political realities of the moment."
Don't get me wrong, I'll be voting for Obama in 2012 as well, it took GW 8 years to start the ball rolling into the ground, Obama has only had less than four years to try and push it back up.
My brother and I were talking and he believes that Obama, in his second term, may become what the Change was all about, no worries, no fears about getting back in for a third term, tell those Democrats bickering among themselves to get aboard the O-Train or get kicked in the nuts! :)
I hope so, seriously, I do...
The Republicans would be funny if I didn't think they actually mean the stuff they say!! ~nodding~
Don't get me wrong, I'll be voting for Obama in 2012 as well, it took GW 8 years to start the ball rolling into the ground, Obama has only had less than four years to try and push it back up.
My brother and I were talking and he believes that Obama, in his second term, may become what the Change was all about, no worries, no fears about getting back in for a third term, tell those Democrats bickering among themselves to get aboard the O-Train or get kicked in the nuts! :)
I hope so, seriously, I do...
The Republicans would be funny if I didn't think they actually mean the stuff they say!! ~nodding~
Kenny…thanks for the comments. Glad we are of one mind in this area.
Mango…I think the economy is in much worse shape than you do…primarily because I see less and less reason to pay people a decent wage to do the kind of things most people can do. People are being replaced by the billions and billions of slaves represented by our advanced technology…the machines, computers, and robots. We’ll see.
As for the job…well, I played golf yesterday and the day before with just a light sweater on. The weather here in New Jersey is incredible considering we are in February!!!
Chicken…glad you see things as you do. I hope the liberals finally wake up and see that many of them are considering throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
Mango…I think the economy is in much worse shape than you do…primarily because I see less and less reason to pay people a decent wage to do the kind of things most people can do. People are being replaced by the billions and billions of slaves represented by our advanced technology…the machines, computers, and robots. We’ll see.
As for the job…well, I played golf yesterday and the day before with just a light sweater on. The weather here in New Jersey is incredible considering we are in February!!!
Chicken…glad you see things as you do. I hope the liberals finally wake up and see that many of them are considering throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
Like you, I hope Tink.
But I think this ball is rolling down a steep hill...and already has too
much momentum to be stopped or reversed. I will be delighted if Obama
can continue to slow the speed as he did in his first.
We'll see.
We'll see.
I just wish that there were a viable alternative. And failing that, I've got to stick with Obama.
Well here is one we do
agree on Frank. People don't seem to remember that the worst of the
depression hit after a four year pause while Wall Street skimmed as much
as they could before the banks failed en masse in '33. 2013 might give
us that total financial collapse and the blame can go at the feet of
Reagan and his disciples. This one will be all the worse since
Reaganomics allowed us to go from manufacturing to investment economy
and let those corporations have false profits by way of selling off the
U.S. industrial plant. Without industry to revive our nation we will
end up either being wealthy offshore investors or the people who serve
them drinks and cheeseburgers. Would you like fries with that?
I like Obama.
He inherited a busted economy. He inherited two idiotic wars.
I'm not going to apologize for anything the man has done.
He inherited a busted economy. He inherited two idiotic wars.
I'm not going to apologize for anything the man has done.
Tink, I'd actually love to see you as President. Love , drugs and sex for all!!!!
No one who takes an objective look at Obama can like him,but if I were on the far left, I'd still have to pick him over the sorry ass choice of either Romney or Gingrich. I'll probably hold my nose and vote for Romney. Such poor choices-----has it really come to this?
No one who takes an objective look at Obama can like him,but if I were on the far left, I'd still have to pick him over the sorry ass choice of either Romney or Gingrich. I'll probably hold my nose and vote for Romney. Such poor choices-----has it really come to this?
You claim to be
ASSessing facts, a claim you've brayed incessantly for over three years,
yet you continue to say NOTHING about the heart of RW's post, which
was:
"- Signed the NDAA - an indefinite detention bill - into law
- Waged war on Libya without congressional approval
- Started a covert, drone war in Yemen
- Escalated the proxy war in Somalia
- Escalated the CIA drone war in Pakistan
- Will maintain a presence in Iraq even after "ending" war
- Sharply escalated the war in Afghanistan
- Secretly deployed US special forces to 75 countries
- Sold $30 billion of weapons to the dictatorship in Saudi Arabia
- Signed an agreement for 7 military bases in Colombia
- Touted nuclear power, even after the disaster in Japan
- Opened up deepwater oil drilling, even after BP disaster
- Did a TV commercial promoting "clean coal"
- Defended body scans and pat-downs at airports
- Signed the Patriot Act extension into law
- Continued Bush's rendition program"
You alternately, sloganize that obama is a good and decent man, and without substantively addressing any of the above, blame his malevolence, alternately on the opposition or "professional liberals.
You unashamedly admit that you smoked FIVE or SIX joints a day for a long time, but ALWAYS took a day or two off a year; one of the most ASSinine admissions I've ever heard anyone make on OS.
You, also brag that YOU LOVE TO argue and are PROUD to have been banned from three boards.
You are a sick passive aggressive sociopath with few neurons left.
One more time:
"Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his (obama) acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." - "Roosevelt in the Kansas City Star", May 7, 1918
How prescient of Mr. Roosevelt to imagine a cretin like fRANK, mr. base, servile, unpatriotic, and morally treasonable.
Morals are NOT a genus of mushrooms, nor do principles run schools, sycophant.
In one of your frequent bouts with transference, you accused someone who wrote a similar critique of what obama has done (NOT what obama has said) of being a lemming.
The "Urban Dictionary" defines lemming as: "1. lemming A member of a crowd with no originality or voice of his own. One who speaks or repeats only what he has been told. A tool. A cretin."
I notice that of recent times, you, of all people, have been prefacing some of your comments with the utterance "yo."
"- Signed the NDAA - an indefinite detention bill - into law
- Waged war on Libya without congressional approval
- Started a covert, drone war in Yemen
- Escalated the proxy war in Somalia
- Escalated the CIA drone war in Pakistan
- Will maintain a presence in Iraq even after "ending" war
- Sharply escalated the war in Afghanistan
- Secretly deployed US special forces to 75 countries
- Sold $30 billion of weapons to the dictatorship in Saudi Arabia
- Signed an agreement for 7 military bases in Colombia
- Touted nuclear power, even after the disaster in Japan
- Opened up deepwater oil drilling, even after BP disaster
- Did a TV commercial promoting "clean coal"
- Defended body scans and pat-downs at airports
- Signed the Patriot Act extension into law
- Continued Bush's rendition program"
You alternately, sloganize that obama is a good and decent man, and without substantively addressing any of the above, blame his malevolence, alternately on the opposition or "professional liberals.
You unashamedly admit that you smoked FIVE or SIX joints a day for a long time, but ALWAYS took a day or two off a year; one of the most ASSinine admissions I've ever heard anyone make on OS.
You, also brag that YOU LOVE TO argue and are PROUD to have been banned from three boards.
You are a sick passive aggressive sociopath with few neurons left.
One more time:
"Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his (obama) acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." - "Roosevelt in the Kansas City Star", May 7, 1918
How prescient of Mr. Roosevelt to imagine a cretin like fRANK, mr. base, servile, unpatriotic, and morally treasonable.
Morals are NOT a genus of mushrooms, nor do principles run schools, sycophant.
In one of your frequent bouts with transference, you accused someone who wrote a similar critique of what obama has done (NOT what obama has said) of being a lemming.
The "Urban Dictionary" defines lemming as: "1. lemming A member of a crowd with no originality or voice of his own. One who speaks or repeats only what he has been told. A tool. A cretin."
I notice that of recent times, you, of all people, have been prefacing some of your comments with the utterance "yo."
Hey Walter, thanks for stopping by. Glad you are sticking with Obama. The alternative is pap.
Bobbot…good to see you here. I voted for Reagan in 1980. I was sorely disappointed in Carter…and wanted to teach him a lesson. “What harm could come from Reagan getting in?, was my thought.
Boy, did I find out! We are all still paying for that mistake.
Nick…well said. I like him also…and considering the environment in which he has been working, you are right on saying there is nothing to apologize for.
RW…thanks for stopping in. The thoughts I expressed in your thread prompted this one. Looks like there is going to be some “nose holding” on both sides of the aisle. But I truly think your side will win, because most on your side will hold their noses and vote for the Republican…while I think a huge number on the left will go through with their threats to boycott the election or waste their vote on a third party candidate. I remember how determined I was to do that to teach Carter a lesson…and I see the same situation brewing right now. MY GUESS: Same result. The Republican gets wins.
Bobbot…good to see you here. I voted for Reagan in 1980. I was sorely disappointed in Carter…and wanted to teach him a lesson. “What harm could come from Reagan getting in?, was my thought.
Boy, did I find out! We are all still paying for that mistake.
Nick…well said. I like him also…and considering the environment in which he has been working, you are right on saying there is nothing to apologize for.
RW…thanks for stopping in. The thoughts I expressed in your thread prompted this one. Looks like there is going to be some “nose holding” on both sides of the aisle. But I truly think your side will win, because most on your side will hold their noses and vote for the Republican…while I think a huge number on the left will go through with their threats to boycott the election or waste their vote on a third party candidate. I remember how determined I was to do that to teach Carter a lesson…and I see the same situation brewing right now. MY GUESS: Same result. The Republican gets wins.
I have to wonder if anyone actually thinks we would have been better off with McCain/Palin. Really?
I also question whether anyone wants more of what happened the last time liberals and independents did not turn out strong to vote: Rick Scott, Scott Brown, Nikki Halley, Joe Walsh and on and on and on...
r./
I also question whether anyone wants more of what happened the last time liberals and independents did not turn out strong to vote: Rick Scott, Scott Brown, Nikki Halley, Joe Walsh and on and on and on...
r./
Frank I think you check
and mated RWnut but what do I know, I actually read and don't use FOX
or Rush to interpret the world in which I live. I know the difference
between reality and fairy tales too. That being said attempting to have a
civil discourse with someone who doesn't know those differences, ends
with them thinking they can bully you into believing what they believe.
The next article will show you how far ignorance can take us backwards. And they had the nerve to call this objective.
An honest and objective view from a Non-White Non-Black American
Reader comment on item: Was Barack Obama a Muslim?
in response to reader comment: 20 years in church and never heard
in response to reader comment: 20 years in church and never heard
Submitted by Big Bang (United States), Mar 17, 2008 at 17:48
I am not a white Caucasian and I am not black, either. But I am a
patriotic American who cares very much about the future of our country. I
am fully supporting Ms. Geraldine Ferraro's comments on Senator Barack
Obama, i.e., if he were a white guy, he would never enjoy so much
approval and support as he is having now.Far from being myself a racist, I think white Americans are overly too sensitive on racial issues, which is mainly driven by guilty feeling about the past history of slavery. While it may be true that many black Americans are still suffering under racial discrimination, a selected few of them do enjoy positive discrimination, like Senator Obama currently does.
This is merely because a whole bunch of hypocritical white Americans are eager to show the world that Americans are no racists, and that America has ultimately overcome its past history of slavery. It is to be emphasized, Americans who are non-white and non-black do not share the same guilt of slavery. We've never got benefit from slavery.
Thus, we refuse to carry the same psychological burden. Inasmuch as we reject negative discrimination, we also reject positive discrimination based on race, since it, too, is nothing else but racism. Racism can never be eradicated by counter-racism, but only by anti-racism. Support for Obama from blacks is based on some sort of vengeful counter-racism, which is itself also a form of racism. On the other hand, support for Obama from whites is driven by an almost-psychopathic desire to finally get rid of the history-based, world-wide prejudice of white Americans being bigots and racists (slavery, Ku-Klux-Klan, Neo-Nazism).
Such hypocrites are eager to signal their "open-mindedness" to the world. As a matter of fact, such hypocrisy is as skewed and as reality-distorted as racial prejudice itself. As a matter of fact, Ms. Ferraro's controversial comment is not too far away from New York Times Op-Ed of 3/9/2008 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/opinion/09kristof.html?ref=opinion, saying that "Barack Obama's skin color may cost him some working-class white voters, but it's also winning some votes among blacks and among whites eager to signal their open-mindedness". Unlike most of us, who came to USA with a firm belief in an opportunity for better life, for ourselves as well as for our children and decendants, both of Obama's parents did not share the same ideals, if not even the contrary, i.e., full of discontent with, if not even hatred to this great country.
As a result, Obama grew up with a desire to CHANGE. Any change. The true reason behind his desire for change is, Senator Obama feels highly uncomfortable with our European culture and our Judeo-Christian value system. Now he finally gets the opportunity to CHANGE it, if necessary by destroying it, with massive support from vengeful blacks and hypocritical whites. Such a change (from within) is just what the Islamic fundamentalists and extremists have been always dreaming of. Senator Obama has never demonstrated any skill, whatsoever, to be our President, let alone our Commander in Chief.
Obama's opposition to Bush's decision regarding Iraq war was not at all an indication of virtue. More than half of Americans also opposed the war. Some hyposcrite may say, Obama has a good "judgment", meaning his judgment on the Iraq war was correct. BIG DEAL! Some eighty percent of my colleagues also predicted a negative consequence of the war, readily before it was begun. It is thus absurd to say, they ALL have the skill to become US President!
Why does Obama want a change? Because Obama does not share our European & Judeo-Christian value system. Instead, he is adhering to the Black Value System conceptualized and adopted by his church, the Trinity United Church of Christ, http://www.tucc.org/black_value_system.html
Just listen to Obama's pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright inflammatory rhetoric of hate in http://www.youtube.com/watchv=iPjVp3PLnVs&eurl=http://redstate.com/.
Rev. Wright has been Obama's spiritual mentor for more than 20 years, as contended by Obama himself in his autobiography "The Audacity of Hope". Obviously, Senator Obama can not be trusted as commander-in-chief, either, because his loyalty is not to America, but to Africa. On top of all these, Senator Obama demonstrates no patriotism by showing no respect to our National Anthem (no hand over his heart): http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Obama_doesnt_put_hand_over_heart_1022.html
All what Senator Obama carries to his Presidency is just "hope" and a promise for "change" without ever defining what kind of "change" he is trying to make. This is a very dangerous preposition. It would deliver us all into the hands of Islamofascists who are aiming at conquering the whole world under the banner of Islam. Senator Obama's judgment on Iraq war was, and is, totally (self-) deceptive. If implemented, it will result in catastrophe, not only for America, but for the whole world. As such, the allegation of him being the Anti-Christ might not be too far fetched.
Big Bang
Note: Opinions
expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily
those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are
screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement
is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial,
disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete
regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".
