by Victor Sharpe
“America is the greatest, freest and most decent society in existence. It is an oasis of goodness in a desert of cynicism and barbarism. This country, once an experiment unique in the world, is now the best hope for the world.”
The above words were written by Dinesh D’Souza but they are not the words you will ever hear from America’s present president, Barack Hussein Obama. In Dinesh D’Souza’s intriguing new book, Understanding Obama’s Rage, the author opines that President Obama is an anti-Colonialist and that he acquired his rage from his biological and Kenyan father, Barack Obama Senior.
This rage against the ex-colonial European powers and America’s own history explains why Obama is cool also towards Britain, which colonized much of Africa, including the East African territory which eventually became known as Kenya. Obama senior came from a family that had converted to Islam. He hated the British occupation and he espoused strong socialist views. At the same time, his personal life was devastated by alcohol and he finally died after leaving a tavern drunk and driving his car into a tree. All this, according to Mr. D’Souza, is in the president’s own book, Dreams from my Father.
Barack Obama’s very book title is revealing. The dreams are from his father not of his father. In this we see how the president has taken his father’s rage into himself. The president for example was, according to D’Souza, strangely apathetic and disinterested when General McChristal came to him with a new plan to win the war in Afghanistan. The reason for his lack of interest was because Obama then as now does not want to win the war but, instead, seeks any way in which to quit Afghanistan.
The father’s influence beyond the grave has made President Obama believe that America is, as Da Souza, points out, the bear that must be tamed. In other words, Obama believes the United States is a colonial power exploiting other countries, such as Iraq, and meddling in their affairs. America must be brought down to size. America must be like every other nation (presumably that means like Syria, Sudan, Iran and North Korea?) and discard the belief in its exceptionalism. That is why Obama tours the world apologizing for what he believes are American transgressions. That is why he bows to foreign leaders and that is why he is intent on furthering on the world stage the same rage that consumed his own father. That is why he is the most radical of all America’s presidents and loved by the likes of Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez among others.
The president has surrounded himself with American haters over a long period of time. Obama’s deep ties to an anti-American fringe has culminated in his White House policy, which has resulted in the passage of bills such as healthcare reform which, hidden away in its two and a half thousand pages, includes an ideological agenda of wealth transfer from the so-called rich to the poor: Healthcare thus being a means to an end. His imperial agenda also allows for the creation of unelected and unsupervised “czars” who are answerable only to the president.
Yet more troubling is the president’s relationship with the terrorist Bill Ayers and the anti-American black Muslim group, the Nation of Islam. Indeed, Obama, while still a Senator, employed Cynthia K. Miller as the treasurer of his Senate campaign. Miller at the time was a member of the anti-Semitic Louis Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam, as was Jennifer Mason his Director of Constituent Services. The Muslim ties and his four formative years in Muslim Indonesia perhaps explain why President Obama is sympathetic to the building of a giant mosque so near to Ground Zero in New York City and why his first overseas trip was to Cairo, Egypt where he addressed the Muslim world.
It is revealing how many anti-Israel individuals Barack Obama was influenced by before he became president. As Gerald Honigman wrote in a June 2010 Op-Ed in Arutz-Sheva’s website, “Obama’s close associations with well-known anti-Israel politicos, friends, and advisors, such as former Secretary of State Zbigniew Brzezinski, Samantha Powers, Robert Malley, General Tony McPeak (“American Jews are the reason there is no Middle East peace”), etc. and so forth were and are beyond coincidental. So, while events led then Senator Obama in 2008 to later officially distance himself from some of these folks, the direction that an Obama Administration would be heading in vis-a-vis the Middle East was already very clear prior to the November 2008 election.“At his best buddy, Professor Rashid Khalidi’s private party, it was reported that Obama spoke about ‘Israeli genocide’ against Arabs. It was caught on tape. During the fight that ensued, Obama’s folks managed to see to it that the LA Times would not even release a transcript. The late Edward Said, Ali Abunimah, and other prominent anti-Israel activists were good buddies as well. Abunimah and others have spoken of Obama’s frequent attendance at Arab anti-Israel functions and such.”
Let us not forget that President Obama was a member of a church for twenty years whose minister, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, preached black-liberation theology. There is an eerie similarity here with the anti- British and anti-Colonial views his biological, Kenyan father evinced. This has clouded his own views as has his association and friendship with the PLO representative and now professor at Columbia, Rashid Khalidi, one of many Israel-hating people that Obama befriended and allied with.
Honigman then delivered a clincher: “Long before the election, Senator Obama endorsed the Saudi Peace Plan. He said – repeatedly – that Israel would be crazy not to accept it. It’s key provisions are a total withdrawal of Israel to the ’49 armistice lines – not borders – which made it a mere 9-15 miles wide at its waist (where most of Israel’s population, industry, and so forth are located), and the acceptance of millions of real and alleged Arab refugees into the Jewish sub-rump State. In return, Israel would get some vague recognition and normalization. “Peace” all right…of the grave.
“In other words, then Senator and now President Obama expects Israel to give up the promise of the carefully-worded final draft of UNSC Resolution 242, adopted in the wake of the ’67 War, that it would finally get real secure and somewhat defensible political borders (instead of armistice lines) as it withdrew (at the conclusion of formal treaties of peace, not cease fires) from some – not all – of the territories it came to occupy in the defensive war it was forced to fight after being blockaded by Arabs, along with other hostile acts, in 1967. 242 promised Israel a bit of a buffer in lands where Judeans – Jews – have lived for millennia via territorial compromises with Arabs who are still not reconciled with anyone but themselves having political rights in the region.”
And where does this take us? It takes us to the report in the Debka Intelligence Report of January 22, 2011 which has as its headline: “Obama to withhold veto from Palestinian UN move to condemn Israeli settlements.”
The writer of the article adds that, “A Non-veto would spark a US-Israel crisis. Israel and the US are thus set for a collision if President Barack Obama stands by his refusal to veto a Palestinian-Arab motion due to be tabled at the UN Security Council condemning Israel for its settlement policy in the West Bank and Jerusalem. If he did, he would be the first US president to let an anti-Israel motion go through the Security Council; building on the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) and even in the forty-year old suburbs of East Jerusalem would become illegal, as would also municipal, police and military actions in these places.
“This situation would throw Israel’s relations with the US, the UN and the European Union into deep crisis. By failing to block such a motion, Obama would encourage the Palestinians and hostile Arab states to continue to use the UN Security Council to undermine Israel’s legitimacy and even recognize a unilateral Palestinian state within the pre-1967 borders without negotiations.”
If the Debka Report is corroborated and found to be accurate, then this will be the moment many who support the Jewish state’s independence and legitimacy have feared. Those of us who warned repeatedly against voting for Barack Hussein Obama were dismissed as right-wingers and extremists. The Lefties still to this day mock and smear American patriots such as Sarah Palin as they do Israeli conservatives and patriots. But they still defend the indefensible present day incumbent in the White House. The Left then must be considered complicit with the president in enacting a clear anti-Israel bias. Heaven knows, there are enough examples of left-wing hostility towards beleaguered and embattled Israel.
So will Obama veto the proposed anti-Israel Security Council resolution describing Jewish communities (which will be called by the pejorative term, settlements) throughout the Jewish biblical, ancestral, aboriginal, spiritual and physical heartland as illegal, or will he withhold his veto? If he withholds his veto power and allows the brutal anti-Israel and anti-Jewish resolution to pass, he will commence what many have said he has always planned to do; set in motion an existential threat to Israel’s basic security and very survival.
Victor Sharpe is a freelance writer and author of Volume One & Two of Politicide: The attempted murder of the Jewish state