Posted by: John Vandivier | July 8, 2013

Obama’s Pro-Islam Ideology and Policy Stance

This article is the fifth in a series of 6 on an interview I conducted with Ted Shoebat on the Taliban peace talks. This link will take you to the Table of Contents and Condensed Interview.

At 8:50 I bring the discussion away from the abstract discussion of Islam and get into the current news item of the upcoming Taliban-USA peace talks which were recently announced. I simply asked, “What could the US expect to get them to agree to, and at the same time, what could they expect to get us to agree to that would make either one happy?” Ted responded energetically, “What happened in Egypt applied in Afghanistan!” That statement implied that he thinks the trend will very much continue unchanged, an implication he made much more clear when he said, “It’s going to be very parallel to what took place between the Muslim Brotherhood and the United States, where Obama recognized the Muslim Brotherhood as a group to work with.”

For those who don’t know, when the Obama administration took sides in Egypt during the Arab Spring, it identified the Muslim Brotherhood as a group to work with in Egypt and other areas in the Middle East and North Africa. The administration, in particular Hillary Clinton and Obama himself, ultimately aided in the MB taking power in Egypt. The implication is that when the US decides to “work with” a group, what they are really doing is empowering that group and enabling them to rule over a given geopolitical area, in this case Syria. Ted then went on to highlight how many promises of Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration at the time fell through completely including security of human and civil rights in Egypt and around the Arab Spring area. Many of the events in the Middle East including the Arab Spring really evidence that civil society and democracy cannot hold in Muslim countries.

Logo Muslim Brotherhood

Logo Muslim Brotherhood (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Logo Muslim Brotherhood (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

One astounding revelation of poor civil and human rights came from Al-Azhar University. That university is by far the most respected Muslim university in the world and a personal favorite of Obama who gave a speech there saying that, “It was Islam, at places like Al-Azhar…That carried the light of learning through so many centuries…” That university stated that Muslims are allowed to kill any enemy of Allah (that is, Christians or Jews), or an adulterer, and eat them as long as they eat the person raw and do not cook the flesh. Furthermore, they may also kill an apostate and eat him if they are in extreme hunger, and in that case they are permitted to grill the flesh of the person before they eat it. Ted talks about that around 10:10, and an article with even more technical detail and references is available here.

I then change the discussion from the Taliban and Islam toward Syria. I ask, “How does Syria play into this…Is the ‘peace’ we are talking about a Syrian peace?” Ted answers, “It is not particularly a Syrian affair…It’s a worldwide affair.” He says that Russia has a economic and political interest in the Syrian Civil War because the geography of Syria allows Russia access to the Black Sea. The US of course has an interest because of the risk to Middle East oil. Ted says that if Assad is taken out, “It will change the entire Middle East,” and for the worse. He says if the now-rebels take control, “America think’s it’s going to benefit, but it’s not.” America, or the Obama administration rather, thinks that if we help the Free Syrian Army they will “owe us one.” This philosophy, which the Obama administration has openly used to justify numerous foreign policy failures, is known as the Obama Doctrine and is considered inspired by, sometimes even being called, the Good Neighbor Policy. That policy is loosely based on the idea of reciprocation. The idea is that if we help someone they will naturally want to help us.

The problem with this line of thinking is not a theoretical one but a practical one. Time after time Muslims have taken our help and turned around and  called for the destruction of our country or our allies such as Israel. America also fails to calculate the benefit of restraint to the multitudes of violent, anti-American Muslims provided when a visciously violent central dictator reigns. The single dictator, while no doubt evil, often does not desire to war with America in order to maintain power, while the decentralized multitudes have no such concern.

Ted thinks the situation is no different here. “Think about it.” He says, “America thought that it will benefit by taking out Saddam Hussein, and it’s actually been for the worse.” For example, the development of nuclear weapons in Iraq would presumably not have been tolerated by a viciously violent and power-greedy Hussein. “Assad is no fan of America either,” he continues, “but Assad doesn’t want to declare war on the United States.” The point Ted is making here is actually a hidden prediction. Ted is implying that he foresees the Free Syrian Army turning on the US after it takes power, in contrast to Obama’s calculation, and consistent with the established records of Iraq, Egypt and other Arab Spring countries. As evidence to this prediction Ted points out that the rebels have focused intensely on overtaking the Golan Heights. The Golan Heights provide the boarder between Israel and Syria. By focusing on this area, Ted posits, the rebels are indicating preparation to invade Israel as soon as they take power in Syria. This would amount to a betrayal of the US as Israel is an ally of the US, but it would also be consistent with the teachings of Islam.

Location of Golan Heights

Location of Golan Heights (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

“You can find Assad making anti-Israel statements, anti-American statements, absolutely,” Ted begins to conclude, but I interject, “Well you can find Americans making anti-American statements.” He continues, “but are you going to see Assad making declarations that we are going to invade Israel?” The point he is making is that actions speak louder than words. My point is one in agreement, that if statements were all it took to declare war then Obama should be declaring war on the leftist factions of the US, his own constituency and support group.

“No.” I answer. “What’s worse is when you find Americans making pro-American statements they’re considered terrorists too!” Here I am referencing a wealth of information including the fact that Christians and veterans are considered terrorists by the Obama administration and much of the mainstream media as reported in the video below:

Furthermore Evangelical Christians are the most patriotic group of Americans by far according to Huffington Post. Lastly, the IRS discriminated against conservatives, in part fed by the idea that right-wing groups are a terrorist threat. Conservatives, of course, include traditionalists and evangelicals who are the most patriotic of people. In summary being a patriot amounts to being considered a terrorist at home here in the US, an irony of ironies.

I continued by agreeing with his analysis that, although Assad is a pretty bad guy, it would still be in America’s interest if he stays in power rather than the Free Syrian Army. I noted that Obama has an established record of Muslim sympathy. Rather than going through the record, which is extensive and not the main point I was trying to make, I simply and passingly asked if Ted agreed with that statement and he did. I continued by asking whether he thought that the supposed calculation by Obama that supporting the FSA would be in America’s interest would be better chalked up to stupidity or intentional Muslim sympathy by Obama.

Ted responded that he doesn’t consider any American politician stupid, although he laughed as he said it. I believe the reasons he laughed is because, as he spoke, he realized that there are many politicians he considers stupid. Maybe I am taking too much liberty in saying this, but I believe what he meant to say was that he does not usually assume a politician is incompetent, he usually finds it more likely that a politician is wrongly motivated. He says, “This is public knowledge that we are discussing here…For us to know about it means politicians know it as well and they know more.”

I am not sure I would have answered exactly in the way that Ted did. What I would have said would be that one does not become President without substantial ability and for that reason I am not predisposed to call Obama stupid or incompetent. However one can often achieve power with bad motives, in fact immorality often makes attainment of power easier than morality. For that reason I have no problem in theory presuming that it is more likely that Obama is behaving immorally rather than incompetently. Where Ted and I strongly agree is that, regardless of theory, it is the historical record of actions and realized results which forms the most convincing argument that Obama is acting out of sympathy for Islam, a policy stance which should upset even Obama’s leftist and secular bases, let alone Christian America.

Ted dives right into one major and modern example of evidence which is the story of South Sudan. President Omar al-Bashir is the President of North Sudan and a well known mass murder. Ted says Omar has been accused of killing over 3 million people in his own country alone. He is very much friends of the Muslim Brotherhood and very much enemies of South Sudan. South Sudan is an officially Christian country and recently, in 2011 to be exact, seceded from North Sudan due to the extreme religious persecution of Christians there. To let the Christians leave the country and live in peace was not good enough for al-Bashir who, according to Ted, has stated several times that he wants to invade South Sudan and turn it back into a Sharia State. Violence has continued to grow since the South Sudanese Secession and has become known as either the Sudan Internal Conflict or the South Kordofan Conflict depending on who you ask, but they are both names for the same conflict. I would simply call it the Third Sudanese Civil War, but perhaps calling it a mere conflict benefits the schemes of Obama and others as we may see.

As violence has continued to grow President Salva Kiir has taken various steps to protect South Sudan. One technique was to feed weapons into a rebel group in North Sudan, much as the US is feeding weapons into a rebel group in Syria. Ted says with all of the support by our government for supporting rebellions across Africa and the Middle East, one would expect the US to support South Sudan, especially considering that al-Bashir is an established violator of human rights well beyond the extent of other dictators we have helped overthrow. In contrast to that expectation Ted says that Obama met with President Salva Kiir in a minimally publicized event and “angrily told him to stop funding rebel groups in North Sudan.” I found an article where Ted wrote about that here and the article is backed up by this report on Foreign Affairs which is a website published by the almighty (sarcasm) Council on Foreign Affairs. The point of this story is to evidence the idea that Obama is a Muslim sympathizer and also anti-Christian and opposed to the ideals that America has historically stood for. It doesn’t matter that Obama claims to be Christian because he could be a liar and a declaration of faith is not all that is required to be Christian. Furthermore, as I already mentioned, Taqiyya and Kitman allow the Muslim to lie when it benefits the faith. Obama is certainly a liar and it is quite possible that he is also a Muslim. I find it exceedingly unlikely that he is a Christian and acts the way he does.

Ted also discusses the fact that he discovered that Obama’s brother is officially working with Omar al-Bashir to spread and strengthen Islam throughout Africa. Ted mistakenly says Obama’s brother’s name is Sayyid Obama when his name is actually Malik Obama. That misspeaking is one very forgivable example of the consequences of carrying on an interview for a long time over an exceedingly wide variety of detailed and nuanced topics. It is also an example of why I, the interviewer, need to carefully check every statement and assertion Ted makes. I found two different sources verifying the claim that Malik Obama is officially, as in through an employment relationship, supporting Omar al-Bashir in the spread of Islam throughout Africa. One source is Frontpage Mag. Another source is reported by one outlet of official Saudi press and is called Okaz and you will need the help of Google translate to read it because it is written in Arabic. That source is available here. Finally, as a bonus, here is an article written a while ago by Ted’s father Walid Shoebat in conjunction with conservative talk show host Ben Barrack providing extensive additional information. Obama having family ties to Islam and an anti-Christian dictator serves to reinforce the already established evidence of Obama’s pro-Muslim ideology and policy stance.

Advertisements

Responses

  1. […] Obama’s Pro-Islam Ideology and Policy Stance […]


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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: