So, does Obama love America?
[NOTE: More on this topic here.]
I don’t think he loves it in any conventional sense. You don’t want to “fundamentally transform” something you love.
Or do you? For example, a family can get together in an intervention to try to motivate a loved one to stop doing drugs. They’re looking for a fairly fundamental transformation to occur, and yet they still love the person.
In fact, they would say they’re doing this because they love the person. And that’s how I think Obama would answer when questioned about why, if he loves America so much, he wants to fundamentally transform it, and why he criticizes it so much. He’d say he does it because he loves it so much.
Now, I happen to think the evidence is overwhelming that he not only doesn’t love America but that he doesn’t even like it. It’s a feeling I have about a lot of liberals I know, too, those who can’t seem to conclude a simple conversation about a seemingly-innocuous and non-political topic without dragging in some observation about how awful America is. It’s like they have a nervous twitch or Tourette’s; every now and then they just have to say it.
But I also think that Rudy Giuliani and other politicians would do well to stay far away from this particular topic. It gives the opposition a golden opportunity to pile on with the “mean, hateful Republicans” meme. And for what? The only people who respond positively to such statements about Obama and America are the already-convinced.
And it’s a thing that is inherently unprovable and unknowable, anyway, because it’s a statement about what’s in someone’s heart. The most we can say is that Obama’s behaves as though he doesn’t love America. But again, why bother?
As soon as I heard the story, though, a memory rose from my youth. We’re at a dinner of my extended family. Is it Thanksgiving, a birthday, or what? I don’t know, but at the table sit my mother and father, my brother and me, my maternal grandmother, and the uncle who is my father’s brother.
The conversation veers, as it so often does when my uncle is around, to the political. My uncle is around quite a bit, because he lives very nearby, as does my grandmother. All the adults at the table are liberal Democrats except for my uncle, who is a Communist (although carefully not a member of the Party), a fact I’ve known for just about forever because he is quite free with his pro-Soviet commentary. It is one of the leitmotifs of family life—that, and the rising volume of my father’s voice as he argues with his brother in frustration.
To my uncle, nothing America does is right. But everything the USSR does is wonderful. When I was young I got an education in what the mind of a leftist fanatic looked like, and it was astounding how he could take any event that you would think might reflect poorly on the Soviets, and flip it around somehow to make it sound okay and even benevolent (at least, to him).
My father’s family had come from Russia at the beginning of the twentieth century, and my uncle had been born there and had come as a tiny child. My father, the younger one, had been born in the United States. They grew up poor and struggling and were self-made men. Like Obama, they were raised among many people who were pro-Communist, but that was in the days before and immediately after the revolution. With my father, Communism never took. But it established deep deep roots in my uncle.
My mother was from a very different background. Her family had been in this country since early in the 1800’s. They were liberal Democrats, including her mother, who was the only grandparent I really knew. My grandmother was a patriot. She had plaques on the walls of her apartment thanking her for her service on behalf of soldiers during the war, and she would listen to my uncle—the brother of her son-in-law—with growing fury.
And that’s what I remember best—when my grandmother could take it no more and finally would say something to him. She was already around eighty years old and her voice shook, but not with age. It shook with frustration and barely-suppressed outrage, as she said forcibly but not loudly (the intensity of her emotion actually weakened her voice rather than strengthened it; that same thing happens to mine if I get angry enough): “America has been good to you. If you hate it here so much, why don’t you go back to Russia where you came from?”
With a little smile, he would answer, “I have to stay here where I’m needed, to help bring about changes to make America better.” If pressed on the question of whether he loved America (a question he never was asked), I imagine he would say that he did, although I don’t know. But that would be an awfully odd sort of love, wouldn’t it?
Obama—as Giuliani also pointed out—was influenced by Communists in his youth. True enough, and if they were not necessarily members of the Communist Party, I know full well that doesn’t mean much. I know the milieu to which Giuliani is referring, and a person being raised that way (I was not) doesn’t always mean that person swallows Communism whole. AFter all, my father didn’t. But it certainly can mean the person becomes a leftist (call it socialist, Communist, whatever you like), and I think that in Obama’s case, as I’ve said many times, the evidence is that he’s a man of the far left and has been for his entire life. He has learned to hide that in order to get elected, but he certainly didn’t hide it very well (although well enough, well enough).
There is a dilemma for those who would criticize Obama such as Giuliani. Giuliani is out of office, and probably never will hold office again, so he is free of the need to be all that careful in order to protect his political career. When he made the original statement about Obama’s lack of affection for this country, Giuliani was at a rather small (about 60 people) and seemingly private Republican dinner. But Giuliani should know that nothing of that sort can be considered to be private anymore, and that whatever he says will be reported on if the press or the left thinks it can harm the right. So whatever he says, it will be extrapolated by the left and the MSM to be a demonstration of the animus that dwells in the heart of all Republicans. I think it’s best to not go in that direction. Leave it to the talk show hosts.
On the other hand, if no politician ever goes in that direction, we maintain the fiction that Obama is just an ordinary bloke who loves America and wants whats best for it, rather than a leftist who wants America to lose power and status in the world. But I think the best way to point this out is to stick to the facts and not the feelings, and the facts are what Obama has done to show his leftism and dislike of America. And he’s done plenty.
Incredibly apropos to discuss this very issue.
Let’s see, the man who sat in Reverend Wright’s church for 22 years, got married in it, had his children baptized there—-a church where it was often taught, “GOD DAMN AMERICA”.
A man who places “social justice” in a place higher than individual achievement and personal responsibility, both basic tenets and teachings of American exceptionalism.
The man who is married to the woman who, for only the first time in her adult life felt proud to be an American, somewhere around the moment she learned that her husband was elected potus.
A man who spends most of his blather sharing those things that are WRONG in America and only in footnotes pays any mind to the positives.
A man who has generally jumped into situations first with accusatory rhetoric—–even before he knows the facts—-hardly one who is identified as positive about his country, or, environment. And certainly not the stuff found in a leader.
“The Cambridge Police Department acted stupidly….”, when it was determined by any rational individual that the police department acted EXACTLY as they should have.
The Trayvon Martin incident? Only negatives from Obama.
The Ferguson, MO incident? Please…
Giuliani just said what most of us here have been saying for years, and also what millions of other Americans already know. Was it impolitic? Sure, if you are a RINO who doesn’t want to upset anyone. Maybe a bit more brutal honesty by more people about this administration would go a long way. It’s about time some public figures got some courage and start to expose what a dangerous bunch of leftist/Marxist thugs make up this presidency from the top down.
The fact that all the GOP presidential contenders are running away from Rudy, does not give me much hope. Walker went down about 10 notches in my view.
physicsguy:
It’s politics, Jake.
They are right to run away from Giuliani.
You want the truthful loser. They want to win.
As I indicated in my piece, what Giuliani said is preaching to the choir.
Walker did something smart, IMHO. He’s no squish, not by a longshot. Did you ever hear the expression “choose your battles”?
And finally, before any American gets criticized for opining or chiming in on whether Baraka Obama “loves” his country or not———Mr. Obama should be made to account for calling G.W. Bush, “unpatriotic” while the former was campaigning to be the next president.
Really? “Unpatriotic”? You’ve got the gall to allege that Bush is “unpatriotic”? Based upon what?
***His service in the Air National Guard?
***His love of baseball? (you pathetic piece of crap—-we’ve seen you throw a baseball during opening day of baseball season).
***His family’s dedication to public service in local, state, and national politics?
***His adding $4 Trillion to the National Debt?
So——-that makes Obama DOUBLY UNPATRIOTIC for having added twice that amount to the national debt.
I’m hard pressed to understand just why it is that Americans should NOT be discussing Baraka Obama’s apparent lack of love for the country he presides over.
Unless one wishes to allege as a reason, “RACISM”.
Obama is a true believer …
Yes, Walker did something smart in a board game p.o.v. However, lets hope he wins or it’ll come to Battle for Spain …
Trial balloon.
…Not to mention his labeling of those of his political opponents as, “clinging to their guns and bibles…”
Excuse me? Just exactly what is that supposed to mean?
I receive it as synonymous with, “ignorant”, “redneck”, fearful”, “unintellectual”, “clumsy”, “backward”, “Boeotian”, “unteachable”, “paranoid”, “intolerant, “impercipient”, and a host of other adjectives which have been directly uttered by those in his circle, or, inferred.
But it is not advisable to question this small-minded, childish, impetuous individual’s love of country—–when all he generally does is belittle its citizens, berate their religiosity, and continuously play the race card at every opportunistic moment…
“Or do you? For example, a family can get together in an intervention to try to motivate a loved one to stop doing drugs. They’re looking for a fairly fundamental transformation to occur, and yet they still love the person.”
_______________________________________
This analogy is rich. Rich indeed. Okay, I stopped laughing for a spell.
I’d “love” to know which of Obama’s family members intervened, out of “love” for him, when he snorted that coke he admitted to using, or, torched-up that ganja he inhaled regularly?
I don’t recall that part in his book. I’ll hafta’ go back and thumb through it again. It must be there somewhere. I just missed it. ‘Cuz I know that is one of those teachable moments where he learned about, “love”.
(I know it did not really occur. I know that. I just could not resist illuminating that analogy)
Agree 100% with neo.
I would only add this. Obama loves himself and the Dem party way more than America. And he hates Republicans in that Chicago way.
The fundamental transformation is the key. Domestically it will be accomplished with 11m plus illegals voting Dem and keeping wages low. On foreign affairs, he surrendered to the Islamists when we had them beaten.
Judge all by their actions. Boychild does not pass the test. He hates the founding principles. Everything else is ‘intellectual’ blathering.
Nice start… now where have i heard that before? 🙂
Neoneocon: But I also think that Rudy Giuliani and other politicians would do well to stay far away from this particular topic.
too late… they already been incensed..
actually, daily news this morning on my stoop, Rudolf Giuliani ups the ante and raises the red diaper question (to use Marxian vernacular)
they took the bait (of sorts)
Rudy was never much of a legacy builder, he is not in need of money or career future with one potentially going so far as to say he is in semi-retirement of sorts.
the best the daily news could do to counter the factual statements is to have a panel devoted to a leftist who wrote a Giuliani biography, and so could just arrange paragraph after paragraph of factoids that take the shine off the Rudy patina. The mistake is that its so concentrated and packed its farcicle – like watching Mr Peabody curse facts not curses.
but now it will open a flood gate of people who pick it up and will argue the point…
When Obama said that the Cambridge police acted stupidly, I knew we were totally sunk.
The opposition does not pile on in response to anything — we’re not here dealing with the Pavlovian, neither Pavlov’s dog nor post hoc ergo propter hoc. The default position of the opposition is incessant, brought about by nothing; they salivate in deep sleep. Only death or a Damascus road experience (seeing the light change) will stay the drooling. So why the pusillanimity? Say it loud, say it proud, say it is the truth: Obama hates this country, hates Christians, hates Britain, hates whites, hates the corresponding heritage of each.
I will never get over the great divide, the quintessential difference between the Left and the Right, i.e., the Left will scream loudest in the promulgation of a lie; the Right whimpers at the truth. I know, I know, MSM, chronicle, narrative. The MSM has little in the way of public respect outside the liberal corridors haunted by devotees. While we’re in the vicinity, might as well say the MSM hates all the previously mentioned bugbears. Two birds with one rock — the truth. What an opportunity.
Wow, those personal details brought home that point (It might be better strategy to not “Giuliani”), which point I would never agree to on first blush. But your point was well illustrated and reading along I couldn’t help agreeing, which agreement I roundly (from an outrage long waiting to be vented) despise.
Shit.
But the nub is this: it’s a thing that is inherently unprovable and unknowable. And there is a rather working principle here that we should not judge lest we be judged. This seems a workable application of that principle, which most liberals distort into a proposition that leaves all and any morals and norms as judgmental. But the true meaning of ‘judge not lest ye be judged’ recognizes our inability to know what is in the heart of any man. Or why it is there. Or that we would be any better in that heart.
Neo-Neocon:
Then allow me to beg this question: just how well did playing Mr. Nice Guy work for Romeny during his presidential bid? How about McCain? Or Bob Dole, for that matter?
KRB
George “DQ” Pal:
The MSM may not have great respect but it still has great influence. We are in a blogosphere bubble of sorts, but most people get their news from the MSM and trust it at least somewhat, and it shapes them and their opinions.
And of course the left doesn’t need provocation to attack. But certain statements give it an opportunity to attack in a particularly virulent but also successful way. Most Americans still like Obama and don’t understand his essential leftism. But Giuliani or someone on the right saying he doesn’t love America convinces no one not already convinced. It is a statement like Giuliani’s which “has little in the way of public respect outside the conservative corridors haunted by devotees.”
The left will continually attack. But there’s no need to give them such rich meat on which to feed, especially when it convinces no one anyway. On the other hand, discussing facts like his Communist background and associations is still necessary and perhaps even useful. It was done even as far back as 2008, but now the American public has more of Obama’s record to tie it to.
That said, I think this will blow over pretty soon.
Like Obama, I too had a communist mentor in my youth.
My mentor would rant and rave for 30 minutes at a time about how much he hated this country. The hardcore left, including Obama and most college instructors, feel the same way today. I eventually realized that collectivism is the biggest evil in human history.
Otto Maddox:
That’s one of the questions I find fascinating: why do some people reject that upbringing while some embrace it? What is the internal difference between the two sets of people, both raised in much the same environment?
GOOD for Rudy..!! The Mayor of 9-11 can speak to this scrawny wimp’s Absence of Love for our vastly exceptional country.
Obama loathes the Very Things George W. Bush openly loved about America and our warriors.
Kae Arby:
I am NOT suggesting anyone play Mr. Nice Guy. Romney did not attack Obama enough or for the right things (I especially hated it when he backed off on Benghazi after the 2nd debate and the Crowley intervention), but what Giuliani did is not the right thing either. Attacks should be pointed and stick to facts rather than speculating about the opponents’ feelings. That’s pretty much the point of this post.
It’s true, however, that Democrats talk about Republicans’ feelings. But that’s because Democrats are appealing to the fact that liberals operate more from a feeling base, and because Democratic activists have been working on this “Republicans are meanies!” meme for decades, as well as because the MSM supports it.
Romney lost for many other reasons, too. But the chief one was his patrician, rich, removed persona. That’s what all the exit polls and post-election polls indicate.
It certainly wasn’t because he failed to say Obama doesn’t love America!
Neo: Gulliani’s origin comment (and now his doubling down with the “raised by communists” observations) seem to have struck a nerve in you. Why do you think it’s so dangerous to comment on that which is in plain view to anyone who can see? I get a sense that the prospect of others joining in on Rudy’s chorus truly frightens you, and I respect your intelligence and experience enough to want to learn more about your reasons for feeling that way.
What is it that bothers you so much about this? My initial take was “At last, someone with credibility has the courage to say what more and more people have been thinking!” – the emperor with no clothes, revealed – but I take your trepidation very seriously and would like to learn more about your reasoning. Is it that you fear that this kind of “barnyard pecking” by GOP types will only cause the MSM and grievance mongers to circle their wagons more tightly? Or make him a martyr of sorts? Or foster some sort of dire backlash? Thanks.
carl in atlanta:
Actually, not at all.
In fact, in an earlier comment above, I note that I think it will blow over. It’s pretty much a tempest in a teapot.
I don’t think it matters much either way. It certainly doesn’t convince the not-already-convinced, however, so I think it’s useless in the sense that it doesn’t accomplish anything except firing up the troops on the right. It alienates some people in the middle, feeds into the “mean Republicans” meme, and it gives the left a golden opportunity to get puffed up with fake outrage and to wrap themselves in the cloak of their great “love” of America.
So, as I said in my post, why bother?
“In a time of universal deceit – telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” George Orwell
Someone has to say that, ‘the emperor has no clothes’ for if no public figure will speak the truth, then falsehood rules the day.
“It’s politics, Jake.
They are right to run away from Giuliani.
You want the truthful loser. They want to win.”
No doubt that is the rationale. What has it gained us though but a slower march to the gallows? Is there any evidence that the left is less successful as a result of pulling our punches? Can anyone here offer factual evidence in support of the contention that continuing on the same path will lead to a different outcome?
“Attacks should be pointed and stick to facts rather than feelings. That’s pretty much the point of this post.”
Honest sincerity demands that approach. The left of course does exactly the opposite, which begs the question, which is the more successful approach with that critical portion of the electorate known as LIVs? Feelings or factual reason?
“Reason is poor propaganda when opposed by the yammering, unceasing lies of shrewd, evil and self-serving men. The capacity of the human mind for swallowing nonsense and spewing it forth in violent and repressive action has never yet been plumbed.” R.A. Heinlein
Ultimately if indirectly, a representative democracy places its future in the hands of the collective wisdom or lack thereof of its citizens. An indoctrinated, dumbed down electorate is essentially a mob and a mob listens to its feelings.
Geoffrey Britain:
See my comment right above yours.
However, I was not really talking about Guiliani when I made that “Jake” remark. I was talking about Scott Walker’s not going there when I made that remark; I was actually addressing “physics guy,” who had made a negative comment about Walker’s refusal to go there. I was primarily talking about candidates like Walker and defending their decision not to comment on it (see the last paragraph of my comment), not so much about Giuliani, in that “Jake” comment of mine.
I think candidates shouldn’t get into this. I don’t mind as much that Giuliani did; I just think it’s not productive and gives the opposition grist for its mill.
Nor am I suggesting that politicians should lie and not tell the truth. But one doesn’t have to blurt out every single truth. Talking about Obama’s Communist mentors is the truth, and I think it’s more productive than talking about Obama’s imagined feelings.
Thank God for Rudy. Having the MSM wet their pants about this for four days may actually inform some of the LIV’S about some info they missed. Mark Steyn, Kevin Williamson, and Jonah Goldberg have some good articles up on this.
KLSmith:
Why would you think LIVs are listening? Isn’t the definition of LIVs the fact that they aren’t listening?
I do not think they are listening, nor do I think this is changing a single mind.
That said—as I said above several times—I think it will blow over soon anyway.
This can work, eg, the outrageous, demonstrably false ‘Bush lied, people died’ that has since been ensconced in the zeitgeist as ‘common knowledge’, firmly enough so that even the President’s brother won’t challenge it.
But it can only work if – and only if – it is deployed by an activist movement that is sufficient to compete in the narrative contest for the zeitgeist in the activist game.
That said, activist movements don’t come fully assembled out of a factory. Like anything else, you set your goals, and build to it. Activist movements are built one Gramscian brick at a time.
So, for commenters who want this narrative to stick to the President in the zeitgeist, the course is clear: set your goal as a collective social movement and build the activist movement necessary to make it stick.
Eric:
I am in complete agreement with you.
Without that, it’s just “mean old Giuliani, firing from the hip at poor America-loving Obama.”
And Scott Walker appears to have adopted a position of not being drawn into non-productive discussions that are the result of “gotcha” questions. I think he’s very smart.
Eric:
Oh, and one more thing—I believe that at least part of the success of “Bush lied, people died” was its catchy and simple rhyme. That may sound like I’m joking, but I’m at least somewhat serious. People are drawn to stuff like that.
It’s funny my dad always remembered his father (my grandfather) remarking that whenever anti-fascist groups got together (1930s-early 1940s) they turned out to be not so anti-communist.
He was not as smart as his sons (my uncles, who were all liberals, including my dad) but he had the wisdom of age.
Neo-neocon,
You are, as usual, the personification of reasoned, thoughtful, strategy. I, on the other hand, am a tactician. If you’re trying to win a war, it’s strategy. If you’re trying to win a battle, it’s tactics. The battle here is defining the enemy. We have been ill defined by the Left and their minions. In this battle we are obliged to well define ours. No one is convinced who hasn’t already been convinced goes equally for the Left. What is there to lose? It’s not as though we are on the cusp of winning the war – the status quo ante. A public figure with a soap box greater than a blog is obliged to take advantage of the moment and Giuliani did. Bully for him and the pulpit.
neo,
I realized that you were talking about politicians like Walker. A failure to support the truth is ultimately, a passive support for deception.
Politically, I agree that it is counterproductive in the short term but speaking and supporting the truth in the long run is the only way to make inroads among those deceived.
“Why would you think LIVs are listening? Isn’t the definition of LIVs the fact that they aren’t listening?
I do not think they are listening, nor do I think this is changing a single mind.”
I agree. Why does that not equally apply to, talk of Obama’s Communist mentors? Both are equally true, one factually provable and the other, demonstrably true. In neither case will LIVs listen and in both cases the MSM will succeed with the LIVs in obstructing the truth.
Nothing we have said, no matter how factual has, in the aggregate, mattered. Take your pick, indoctrination, willful blindness, ignorance, etc., etc. whatever the individual reason, half of America is determined to pursue the left’s path.
But the nail in the coffin being prepared for us is that minority demographic birth rates and both legal and illegal immigration guarantee that these trends will increase in impact upon our politics. The blind are being led into the ditch and the Left has ensured that they are deaf as well.
DQ George:
What Eric is suggesting is implementing the strategy, and I am saying the tactic without the strategy is worthless and can be counterproductive.
But as I said, I think it’s far better that Giuliani do it than that a candidate do it. And I believe this will blow over.
Geoffrey Britain:
I am not saying that talking about Obama’s Communist mentors will reach LIVs. I do not believe that it would.
I suggest that talking about the Communist mentors is better than talking about a feeling like love because the latter is much more easily attacked. A fact is harder to attack (not that they won’t do it), but how Obama feels is NOT provable, unless we were to bug his bedroom.
I actually think that some moderate voters (not LIVs) might at this point be more amenable to looking at Obama’s Communist past, as well as his Rev. Wright past and Ayers past and all of that, than they were in 2008 or 2012. The fact that it didn’t gain traction back then doesn’t mean it couldn’t reach people now. What difference does it make, since Obama is already a two-term president? It could cause them to think wow, the Republicans may have gotten that right! I thought it was so far-fetched, but maybe I should listen to them more in the future.
Giuliani ended up moving towards a discussion of Obama’s Communist mentors. I think he should have concentrated on that in the first place, and I doubt the left would have attacked him as successfully. Of course, the “love” comment is what drew all the media attention, so perhaps it gave him an opportunity to give the rest of his message to a greater number of people. That’s certainly a possible plus.
Come for the love, stay for the Communism.
When I was 14-15 years old, I attended a church where the minister said something that I thought was very racist. At that age, I refused to ever attend that church again. So, when I heard about Obama sitting in Reverend Wright’s church for 22 years, my first thought was that he must be as racist as Reverend Wright.
I wonder how many voters today under a certain age even know what Communism is? I’m thinking not many.
Personally I do not care about the feeling of any public person. I care about their words and actions. Boychild provides plenty of ammo. The right has to attack his words and actions and the results of the same. He and the dems in general have fingerprints on numerous scandals and disasters. Attack them on that basis relentlessly, msm be damned.
Neo-Neocon:
And yet, in this very post, you say that you don’t think Obama loves the country; in fact, you went even a little further saying Obama doesn’t even like the country. What’s the difference? After an admittedly quick search, all I could find was that Giuliani is a private citizen now; he doesn’t hold a public office and he doesn’t hold any position in the Republican party. Giuliani doesn’t speak for anybody but himself; the way that you speak for yourself and I speak for myself. Lest you think that I’m accusing your of hypocrisy (I’m not) let me state that I think that Obama outright hates the country, its people and everything they stand for.
And why to Democrats and liberals keep falling back on this meme? Because it works. Why does it work? Hint: It’s not because the press has their back (they do). It works because they know that if they yell loud enough and long enough that the Republicans will willingly throw that person under the bus. They know that someone, ostensibly on the right, will come out and say, “I wish he hadn’t said that. That’s just not right.”
It works because they know that Republicans, and the right, will not push back.
KRB
Kae Arby:
Odd that you discount the ENORMOUS influence of the MSM in making the memes work for liberals and not for Republicans. I completely disagree with you; I think it is a big factor.
Yet another big factor is what Eric wrote in his comment above: the Democrat activist game.
What’s more, I’m certainly not questioning Giuliani’s right to say what he said, as a private citizen or even if he were a candidate. But although we are both private citizens, and although some people read what I say on this blog and elsewhere, I don’t think for a moment that I have anything like the standing, influence, and coverage of Giulliani. The comparison is—well, there is no comparison. I can say whatever I want as a private citizen and the newspapers are highly unlikely to care, and the only people on the left who care are a few random trolls and sometimes a few more sent by a leftist attack blog or two. I am free to say more or less what I want, including that I think Obama doesn’t love America. It is of very little impact if I say it or don’t say it.
But actually, it’s not something I’ve harped on before, is it? I speculate on lots of things (including things he thinks and feels), but “loving America” isn’t one that interests me much. Perhaps it’s because I think it almost goes without saying that he doesn’t.
“It works because they know that Republicans, and the right, will not push back.” Yep!
Most of the GOP never learned the lesson many of us did on the playground about how to handle a bully. And if the Left is one thing, it certainly is a bully.
Go through his speeches and give me a single instance where he praised the country’s history and actions, past and present. I don’t think you will find such a sentiment anywhere in his canon.
Obama’s larger-than-life, carefully built-up “star” power was the Dems’ ticket to winning the election in 2008, and also why they attacked Palin so viciously — she threatened them with a competitive star drawing power. If I remember 2008 correctly, they really didn’t go all negative on McCain until Palin arrived on the scene either.
Hillary doesn’t have anywhere near Obama’s star power, which is largely why the Dems abandoned her in favor of him in 2008.
This time around, with Hillary as their standard bearer, the Dems/MSM are having to start very early with the character destruction. Republicans really shouldn’t be helping by providing off-the-cuff remarks that feed right into the Facebook and Twitter sound-bite machine.
Yancey Ward:
I’m certainly not about to go through ALL Obama’s speeches panning for the elusive gold of praising America! As I’ve said, I think it should be obvious that he doesn’t love America.
However, I have noticed in his speeches that there is often some boilerplate pep talk about America, and sometimes they end with “God bless America.” I think he’s probably inserted enough praise in there to cover his tracks in terms of being accused of ill will towards America. The real question is whether he’s sincere about it.
Just as a very quick example, I looked at the first speech I could think of: Obama’s much -criticized Prayer Breakfast speech. One of the last lines was, “May the Lord bless you and keep you, and may He bless this precious country that we love.” Does that count? I certainly think it does—at least for directly expressing words of love for this country. And you’ll probably find bits and pieces of that sort of thing in many of his speeches.
Here’s another example that came up pretty quickly when I did a search. I think you would find that there are quite a few words of that nature if you were to search thoroughly. Obama realizes he must say those things from time to time. The question is his sincerity, and that can only be proven by his actions.
JoyO:
Oprah managed to leave Wright’s church.
Obama didn’t.
Neo,
Those don’t really match what I am asking for. It isn’t enough to say “the country we all love”. What I am asking for is a concrete example of why he might find it worthy of love/respect. The second one is just Obama trying to deny the recovery from the recession wasn’t that great- not a reason to love the country he leads. Whenever he delves into such matters in a really philosophical way, it is done to criticize the country and its past. I think Giuliani nailed it, and the vehement response from the media is it protesting too much.
Obama is a “True Believer” as defined by Eric Hoffer. True believers always see the unfairness, the lack of justice, the inequality among humans as an affront to their lives. Whenever they see any manifestation of what they are against, it triggers anger in them. Most of them are very comfortable joining or belonging to mass movements of people who share their ideas. They make up the isms – Communism, Fascism, Islamism, Progressivism, etc. There is a continuum of belief on which they lie – from merely strong belief to fanatical belief. Their thinking allows them to think of themselves as occupying the high moral ground in society and that sense of satisfaction raises their morale and allows them to plow ever forward in the name of fairness, justice, and equality. It is a faith which believes that there is a way to create a utopia here on Earth.
The leaders of mass movements fall into three categories – men of words, practical men of action, and fanatics. Some may be all one or the other but some leaders combine two or all three traits in one personality.
According to Hoffer, “Mass movements begin with men of words or fault-finding intellectuals such as clergy, journalists, academics, and students who condemn the established social order (e.g., Gandhi, Trotsky, Mohammed, Lenin). These men of words feel unjustly excluded from, or mocked and oppressed by, the existing powers in society, and relentlessly criticize or denigrate present-day institutions. While invariably speaking out in the name of disadvantaged commoners, the man of words is actually motivated by a deep personal grievance. The man of words relentlessly attempts to discredit the prevailing creeds and creates a hunger for faith which is then fed by doctrines and slogans of the new faith. A cadre of devotees gradually develops around the man of words, leading to the next stage in a mass movement.”
Obama is obviously a man of words who is leading the Progressives against an unjust, unfair, immoral society that he desperately wants to reform. His desire to change and reform the U.S. borders on that of the fanatic. He has no intent to honor public opinion as expressed in elections, nor does he intend to work with the Republicans. He shows no sign of wavering, even when his ideas and policies are clearly not working. Unfortunately, he is smooth enough in his speaking and demeanor that only people who are paying attention see his true colors. Thus, our present situation.
I like the idea of a Good Cop, Bad Cop routine by the Republican Party. Let men like Giuliani be the bad cops, speaking out against the way Obama does his thing. They will get attention and at least bring attention to some of Obama’s outrageous actions while in office. On the other hand, have the candidates stick to policy and ideas while avoiding any ad-hominems against Obama or Hillary. This is a technique used by the progs to good effect. Of course their Bad Cop is mostly the MSM so they have a much more powerful Bad Cop. Nonetheless, we must use whatever tools are available to us.
Yes, the MSM is running with this but the bloggers on the right aren’t doing to well either. Both skip over the fact that Giuliani offered his opinion on what Obama felt. Giuliani said he “believed” that Obama didn’t love America.
Now everyone is all atwitter over Scott Walker declining to offer an opinion on what Giuliani believed Obama feels. What is this 8th grade?
But what I see with all the comments is the misapprehension that Giuliani accused Obama. Giuliani has his opinion, Obama has his feelings and anyone who has any brains knows to stay out of 8th grade lunchroom drama.
JKG:
Actually, I think it’s more like 6th grade. But that’s the way public discourse in this country goes.
However, before I wrote this post I checked out what Giuliani had actually said originally. I noticed that he’d said “I believe that Obama…” I was going to point out that he stated a belief only, but then I noticed that he’d added “He doesn’t love you. And he doesn’t love me.” That seemed much more of a statement.
Yancey:
Those were just 2 examples that came up in a 30-second search. There are probably other ones that could meet your criteria. But the point is not whether YOU think they’re good examples of what you crave, it’s whether the PUBLIC would. I think they are acceptable examples to the public.
Particularly the following—and so what if he said it to blow his own horn? He still said it:
I really think that qualifies. The question is whether he was sincere. I don’t think he was, and I think he actively dislikes America rather than loving it. His goal is to make it into something he can love, whether America likes it or not.
But that doesn’t mean he doesn’t have some proper “love-America” rhetoric in his speeches. He does on occasion, and it wasn’t all that hard to find.
I don’t think Obama is really capable of love. He is both the center and the entirety of his universe. He loves to play mind games about making the rest of us worthy of him. Rudy is right, but I agree completely with Neo that this is not an issue candidates should pursue. Obama isn’t running again, so the points of contention should be issues, not personality. And the best way to reach LIVs is to try to cause enough cognitive dissonance that they don’t fall for the next candidate’s kumbaya BS, that they are willing to look at the achievements of our side before they pull the lever.
We should write off the college activists, the OWS types, and the deranged greenies. We should concentrate on the black shopkeepers whose business were destroyed in Ferguson, the mothers whose kids were killed in gang battles and not by police, the people who didn’t get Keystone jobs, the farmers whose fields are drying up in California and their workers. Pay attention to what really affects people and offer them another way.
Let us be subtle and nuanced:
** Obama: “They Bring a Knife… We Bring a Gun”
** Obama to His Followers: “Get in Their Faces!”
** Obama on ACORN Mobs: “I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I’m angry!”
** Obama to His Mercenary Army: “Hit Back Twice As Hard”
** Obama on the private sector: “We talk to these folks… so I know whose ass to kick.“
** Obama to voters: Republican victory would mean “hand to hand combat”
** Obama to lib supporters: “It’s time to Fight for it.”
** Obama to Latino supporters: “Punish your enemies.”
** Obama to supporters: “I’m itching for a fight.”
Obama to UAW mob: “Fight for me!”
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/08/obama-remember-were-all-part-of-one-american-family-they-bring-a-knife-we-bring-a-gun/
I consider this a splendid stroke by RG. It gives the Left & the
MSM a good dose of what they do not want to hear about their precious one. Serves to remind them that significant
Numbers of Americans are at odds with all that HE is about.
And this from a bigcity mayor & not a foot in his mouth
Fly over country guy they can belittle & call racist.
This is Americas mayor, lol it must stick in their caw !;
” I think the best way to point this out is to stick to the facts and not the feelings,”
A very nobel and admirable way to continue to lose elections. Faint heart n’er won fair republic.
” I think the best way to point this out is to stick to the facts and not the feelings,”
They’re not interested in facts, they endeavor to plant méªmes in the mind of the sheeple …
Land of the sheep, home of the docile …
YOU TOO DEBBIE!!!!:
How Debbie Wasserman Schultz Taught the Left To Be Utter Cynics. “Apparently DWS was preparing to accuse Obama of being antiSemitic if he replaced her as DNC chair.”
http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/202639/#respond
” I think the best way to point this out is to stick to the facts and not the feelings,”
Why is it OK for Obama, Holder and others to constantly call us racists, bigots?
Why is it OK for just about every Dem to call us misogynists (#WarOnWOmen)?
Neither of these charges are ever challenged by the media, nor condemned by their fellow Democrats. But neither are they any less offensive or unprovable than what Guiliani said of Obama.
I can see the logic of an active politician staying away from this, but I am just fine with a retired politician like Guiliani (finally) saying it. The timing could not have been better after several days of Obama literally siding with Muslims while blaming everyone but the terrorists for causing terrorism. Had this been 2008 it would have been more offensive, but not now, not after Obama made a selfie video the same day he found out Kayla Meuller was killed, etc.
* * *
Bill Whittle did a video on Obama’s mother’s Commie upbringing that sheds some light of how Communist the Dunhams have always been:
https://www.billwhittle.com/firewall/enigma-part-1-strange-bedfellows
g6loq:
The fact that they are not interested in facts has nothing to do with it, because they are not the audience. The audience is those who are at least somewhat interested in facts but who are still voting Democratic.
You may say there are no such people. But there are quite a few of them.
Otherwise it’s just preaching to the choir, which has it’s good points, too.
vanderleun:
What’s your evidence for saying that tactics like accusing Obama of not loving America would win a national election? There is none. The right, unfortunately, has to appeal to facts—which is a tougher road to travel. A little stirring up of feelings wouldn’t hurt, either, of course. But it can’t be feelings that run counter to the ones your prospective voters have. And unfortunately, they’re not going to being it because Giuliani says it.
Ronald Reagan sure didn’t do what you’re suggesting. And he was one of the winningest Republicans since Eisenhower (who also didn’t do it). I don’t even remember Nixon doing it on the national level. Newt Gingrich maybe? How many national election did he win?
Neo-neocon:
You sound like my wife …
Her point is that Reaganus Maximus spoke calmly an reached his audience …
I think she has too much of the pacifist Mennonite gene … Orwell put the pacifist delusion to bed.
The best way to get the ass to pay attention is a 2×4 applied in between the eye ….
g6loq:
I hope you like your wife 🙂 !
It’s not pacifism that makes me say what I say. It’s observation.
Wife is the salt of the earth and as such she’ll get eaten alive….
Conservatives want to convince, Libtards want to berate….
I came to agree with the wackjob on talk radio:
Liberalism is a mental disease.
When I worked in the psychiatric ward the main instruction was not to engage in any sort of conversation whatsoever with any of the inmates for it had nowhere to go but down … Even a simple, cheery “Good Morning” was fraught with danger ….
neo: “Isn’t the definition of LIV’s the fact that they aren’t listening?”
Technically, I guess the definition is low information voter; not no information voter. The type that occasionally watches the alphabet networks. That said, you are probably right that it will change few minds.
Maybe I am hopelessly stupid, by I cannot for the life of me understand why you and Eric see any hope for an activist movement on the right. It took the left 100 years to get universal healthcare passed in this country. Beside the fact that we don’t have the luxury of time, there is no way on God’s green earth it will happen. People on the right are fundamentally honest, most of them used to be busy working and taking care of their families. They are not morally, intellectually, socially, available for a movement that mimics the left. The left works by destroying things. (Which you know is easier to do). The right won’t sign up to destroy things.
I get that the right could do more, but not to the degree you two seem to be suggesting. And if it could ever happen, it would have during these last few years. Not to mention that the Republican party won’t allow it to happen.
Gulliani is absolutely right and it should be said. It needed to be said. I could give a rats behind how anyone else looks at it. Once you had an electorate that was willing to put such a clown in office in the first place it was over anyway.
I agree with KLSmith … and add that they go for méªmes with the mostly female, stupendulous LoFo voters …
Can’t run a Republic that way.
The wife is part of the cult of nice. Nice won’t do.
See the 7:47 post. Debbie will call you an antisemite at the drop of a hat to get her way.
The problem conservatives have in dealing with Libtarts is: Cognitive Egocentrism….
Conservative would like to convince. Not just convince but convince nicely …. ah!
Neo said, “The only people who respond positively to such statements about Obama and America are the already-convinced.”
Well, Bloody Hell, Neo! With that logic we should not say anything about Obama on this blog, ever. And there are many other evils. Should we shut up about them too? We are just preaching to the choir, are we not? Now you are flat giving up on changing any–ANY– with calling spades what they are!
I agree with Harry the Extremist …
Winston agrees with Harry the Extremist:
“The greatest upheavals in history would have been unthinkable had it not been for the driving force of fanatical and hysterical passions. Nothing could have been effected by the bourgeois virtues of peace and order.”
Otherwise it’s just preaching to the choir, which has it’s good points, too.
Don Carlo:
You can’t even talk about diet anymore:
North Carolinian Steve Cooksey had gone through an intense personal journey he wanted to share with the world. He had been obese, diagnosed with Type II Diabetes, and almost keeled over, but emerged from his near-death experience to adopt a simple, “Caveman” or paleo diet of meat, nuts, and veggies along with exercise. He lost a lot of weight, felt great and healthy, and wanted to share with the world, so he started a blog, wherein he dispensed advice about food and fitness. Recipes, grocery lists, general advice.
The state of North Carolina declared this illegal “counseling and assessing” without a license provided by the state. For three years, he has been fighting for the right to blog without a license.
http://acecomments.mu.nu/?post=355113
I LIKE to talk about diet.
I am g6loq.
Giuliani’s comments were tepid at best.
I would call Obama a flat-out traitor and an enemy of America. That’s if I assumed he was even a citizen in the first place, which I’m by no means sure of.
The statutory punishment for treason makes perfect sense to me …
WATCH: Giuliani Destroys Obama in Epic Speech: Netanyahu Is ‘A Man Who Fights for His People, Unlike Our President’:
http://nation.foxnews.com/2015/02/19/watch-giuliani-destroys-obama-epic-speech-netanyahu-man-who-fights-his-people-unlike-our
Here we go:
Gov. Walker says he doesn’t know if Obama loves his country
http://tinyurl.com/p8zgcpe
Not nice!
Bottom Line:
I sure do appreciate the intimate window into which neo allowed readers to “see” the environment she navigated within while growing up. Wow…
“America, what a country” (Yakov Smirnoff)
I do agree with those who believe that Rudy is an appropriate individual to raise/speak out on this issue.
He’s not running for any office.
He’s not campaigning.
He’s not speaking on behalf of the GOP.
And then there’s Howard Dean. Alleging tat Gov. Walker is “unknowledgeable” because he did not finish his last semester of college. Now that is rich. And he continued by claiming that Americans might be concerned that such a candidate was NOT, “worldly”——-to which I reply, “You mean, like Obama, the very day he took the oath of office?”
Now that is entertainment. Only thing missing from Dizzy Dean’s delivery was his signature, Primal Scream.
Yep, this will all blow over soon enough. And then we can all go back to observing just how well Obama is handling “worldly” issues.
“If you have an important point to make, don’t try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time-a tremendous whack.” Winston
Ronald Reagan sure didn’t do what you’re suggesting
Yeah..He said evil empire…tear down that wall
tge facts are behind rudy
and the left is already trained to respond to people saying what others think or believe without noticing the nature of that discourse…the feminists been telling us what men think for ages…hearing someone say that is not a problem…
you also firget that they dont let things drop…when they find themselves in a hole, they often keep digging…to adress guliani, allows him to escalate and drive them nutters
I don’t know how get elected or allowed to be candidate to run for US presidential post if there is doubt he is not love his country?
It odd to say this after years as president of US? isn’t?
Well, I’m seventy five comments into this comment thread, but here goes, to any and all still here.
I’m going to go back to Patrick J. Buchanan, over two decades ago when he was still a Republican, not that that matters for this comment. He pointed out, in the context of figurative hand-to-hand combat, that as soon as you’re explaining yourself, you’re losing. In other words, borrowing the words of Winston, in the gospel according to g6loq (10:31 pm),
“If you have an important point to make, don’t try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time-a tremendous whack.”
Okay, fast forward to 21 February 2015. Dear wife was on Facebook a couple of hours ago, and an extremely left-leaning cousin of hers posted something having to do with ten ways in which President Hopenchange loves his country. (Dear wife’s cousin very respectfully used the president’s actual name, of course.)
Here’s where I’m going with this . . .
For the first time since Bill Clinton was caught feeling or boinking women, or being serviced by one (or more), these leftie types are explaining themselves (referring to Pat Buchanan’s point above). That’s right, they are on the defensive, having to explain themselves, instead of mindlessly braying “war on women” or “Bush lied people died” or whatever their imbecilic lie du jour is.
The mainstreamers can pee in their pants and doo doo in them as well. If they have nothing to pee about, they’ll manufacture it anyway. Meanwhile, *finally*, we’re taking the offensive, *we*’re bringing it to *them*, and not snivelingly [is that a word?] explaining ourselves.
It’s been what? — seventeen miserable years. Something like that. Finally, Rudy Giuliani is handing us a gift that can keep on giving for a very long time. Finally.
Thank you Mr. Mayor, thank you.
(neo, I’ve read your post and your many replies in the comments. Your points are well taken, as always, but for now, for me, my foregoing point trumps them. Maybe I’ll sober up in the morning. Maybe a couple of hours from now, given that I’m a non-drinker. But for now, thank you again, Mr. Mayor! What a breath of fresh air.)
artfldgr:
There is no similarity between statements such as “evil empire,” “tear down this wall” (both of which are characterizations of a foreign country and what should be done about it) and a speculation that Obama doesn’t love America. None whatsoever, except that they are all hard-hitting, strong statements.
I have never said a single word against hard-hitting statements. I am in favor of them. But not every hard-hitting statement resembles every other hard-hitting statement.
I’ve already explained at great length what was wrong with what Giuliani said (particularly if a candidate like Scott Walker had said it, rather than a non-candidate like Giuliani), so I’m not going to repeat myself.
But I don’t think anyone can point to a single thing that Reagan ever said that would be analogous to Giuliani’s comment: a speculation on an opponent’s or a president of the other party’s negative internal state, concerning how that person may feel about America.
Don Carlos:
What we say on this blog (and the effect it has) is quite different from what a presidential candidate or major figure in the Republican Party says. What’s more (as I’ve explained many many times) the reason I’m saying that Giuliani’s statement isn’t effective is not because it’s hard-hitting, not because it’s about Obama (I think those things should certainly be said by candidates and others), but because it is a speculation about an internal state of mind that cannot be proven and can easily be twisted.
I have no idea how you get from that to your blanket statement.
As I wrote, what Giuliani said (the particular thing he said, or something similar about some internal feeling state of Obama) is preaching to the choir, but not because it’s hard-hitting or a criticism of Obama. I am very in favor of the latter.
When have we ever had a leader like this guy, one that might warrant such strong commentary?
KLSmith:
We have never had a leader anything like Obama. Not even close. All those jokes about how he makes Jimmy Carter look good are correct. And yet to way too many people, Giuliani’s statement was a preposterously false accusation instead of an obvious truth.
True. And fortunately he won’t be on the ticket in 2016.
“a family can get together in an intervention to try to motivate a loved one to stop doing drugs. They’re looking for a fairly fundamental transformation to occur, and yet they still love the person.”
I would suggest that is not a good comparison because the family wants to transform the loved one BACK into what he used to be, or even better transform that loved one into the best he could be.
Obama has none of that in mind; he simply wants to destroy the US. He doesn’t believe in so many of the uniquely American things about the US, such as American Exceptionalism, he thinks that middle American is just a bunch of yahoos “bitterly clinging” to guns and religion, not a people who want to live in freedom and happen to have a different world view than his. Obama doesn’t believe in the average (or should I say “typical”? as in “typical white woman”) person excelling; instead, Obama clearly believes, because he has said so, at some point “you’ve made enough money.” He seems to believe that above a certain amount you should turn it over to your betters (i.e. government) to give to others.
None of this is transforming a loved one into something better, or even what they used to be – it is simply knocking them down the hill as much as he can.
Although his words weren’t meant for a larger audience, Giuliani’s calling Obama someone who doesn’t love this country could hurt future Republican elections. Americans tend to, for better or worse, root for the underdog. Bash Obama too much and it won’t be just his supporters who defend him. It could also make the Republicans look like the thing that leftists love to call them – ReTHUGlicans.
But, on the other hand, maybe if enough folks speak the truth in this matter we can help set the record straight on Obama’s legacy, calling it mud, which is what it is. Then that might help the voting public realize what a disaster this Obama administration has been; everything isn’t all roses as the news media would have everyone believe.
A lot of young people today don’t realize that the job market is a mess – but, they have known no other, so why would they realize that things could be better? A lot of young people don’t realize that if there are more job opportunities then employers will compete for workers and pay, benefits, etc. will rise without the government dictating to employers what they “should” provide to their employees. They would be able to afford college without depending on “free college” from Obama – good jobs with good pay to quickly pay off student loans. But, again, they have known nothing else but Obamanation in their very short existence as adults; so why would they know of anything else?
Will more folks speaking truth like Giuliani did make a real difference? Maybe or maybe not. But, it seems to be worth a try – destroy his legacy to help prevent another Obama. I’m okay with that – don’t let just the news media and leftist historians write Obama’s legacy; speak the truth, call a spade a spade. (and, no, that is NOT a racist reference)
For example, a family can get together in an intervention to try to motivate a loved one to stop doing drugs. They’re looking for a fairly fundamental transformation to occur, and yet they still love the person.
There is a tangible benefit to getting a family member to stop abusing drugs. Of the “change” that Obama has promulgated so far, I see no benefit at all, and none for what he’s looking to try.
I’m surprised nobody’s talking about what’s steadily taking its toll on Obama’s image, even among some LIVs — the real foe out there in the news coverage is ISIS, as their atrocities loudly pile up. The potential GOP candidates for 2016 will only be running against Obama in the sense they will running against a ghost. Let the historians talk frankly about Obama in context as one of the worst American presidents ever — white guilt is not going to instantly wear off and we have to simply count ourselves lucky that this individual will be gone.
A lot of people “get it” about ISIS and what they represent may well become the preoccupying issue overshadowing all other aspects of America;s future in some kinetic and emotional way. It’s hard to imagine that Hillary will inspire much faith or trust when it comes to keeping ourselves safe. The only record she has is that of an appeasing Secretary of State.
I think most of us agree that we need to get tougher on the Left. We’re disagreeing on how, what would be the most effective.
Reagan used, e.g., genial mockery to devastating effect: “There he goes again!” comes to mind. Just cut the earth right out from under their feet. Did it during the debates, as they were live television and the Leftists couldn’t cut him off or edit footage to make him look bad.
Palin used cheerful scorn for the baddies, but mostly a bracing, joyous love of America. That is also VERY effective (which is why the bastards went after her so savagely: they were initially scared to death by her. I know; I heard them talking about her in my Mad. Ave. ad agency office for days).
I do think, though, that it’s useful to roil the waters rudely at least occasionally. For instance: all the uproar about B.O. criticizing Christians about the Crusades had people from coast to coast looking up the Crusades: including people eager to chime in with B.O. And now? a crapton of people have learned more than they ever knew about the Muslim wars of conquest of the Dark Ages, and that the Crusades were retaliation for that, defending Christendom. Only the controversy sent everyone scurrying to Wickedpedia.
Also, as a blog written by a changer, and frequented by the same (including moi), let’s be more sanguine about changing people’s minds. We have a lot of valuable insight into this very subject.
Hell, if THEY can change minds, so can WE. People have had worse foes to see off. Chins up, friends, and stay warm.
Thank you Rudy!
“Some “people” believe that I don’t love America.
“Well, let’s pretend they’re “people”. For the sake of argument, let’s pretend they’re “people”. And, no, I will never shy away from argument; never shy away from difficulty; never shy away from debate. I will never retreat from the Truth.
“No, I will never take the easy way out. Count on it.
“Now how can these “people” say what they just said? How can they say something so sad? So hateful? “Don’t they know that I love America so much, that I’m willing to do my utmost, willing to go that last mile, to help America?
“Imperfect America. And because I know that it is imperfect, I intend to do my best to remedy that?
“Can’t they see that?
“Do they hate America so much that they can’t see how much I LOVE my country? My imperfect country?
“Do they hate America so much that they would prefer to save AS IT IS???
“So how can they say I don’t LOVE America? Just because I love America differently from them? Because I have had different experiences from them? Those “people” who feel they have to step on others who are different than them?
“No, they are laughable. They are contemptible. They are the enemies of America.
“So hear me out. Hear me LOUD and CLEAR: I LOVE America so much that I am willing to kill it. I am willing to destroy it. I am willing to tear it limb from limb. My imperfect America. Imperfect for 239 years. Until my love for it, washing over it, will wash it all away.
“Yes, my friends, I love it so much, I am willing to see it disappear.
“And I dare any one of you out there—I defy you—-to show me a love greater than that.
“Anywhere. Any place.”
Does Obama love America and Americans? Hell no.
This seems like an “Emperor’s New Clothes” moment to me, and the Left’s instant and furious reaction shows that Rudy’s comment struck deep, and hit a major nerve.
Even as Obama–no longer facing an election–takes more and more radical actions, even as he lets the mask slip, and his words and actions are very obviously to the detriment of the U.S. as they become more and more pro-Islam and pro-Muslim, even as his lies get more obvious and outrageous, even as he positions us in line for even more trouble–right behind the eight ball–there is what we might call a “dam,” behind which any real tough criticism of Obama by anyone of substance has been confined.
Rudy’s statement, I believe voicing the thoughts of millions, just might be the first crack in that dam, and if his example encourages other prominent people to speak out (see, for instance, the statement this week by retired four star Admiral Lyons (http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2015/02/16/retired-four-star-admiral-says-the-unsayable-about-islam-and-president-obamas-foreign-policy-strategy/ ), if it encourages ordinary people to re-evaluate Obama and to speak out themselves and to act, I think that is a good thing because, if that dam breaks, it will unleash a flood that could well carry away much of the edifice that Obama & Co. have built.
P.S.–There were a whole slew of pernicious influences and associations throughout Obama’ upbringing and history that Rudy could have highlighted, but Rudy went very light on Obama’s main mentor, Communist Party Member Frank Marshall Davis– to see more details about Davis read Paul Kengor’s “The Communist”–and Rudi never mentioned Davis’ other unsavory aspects and what influence they might have had on Obama.
Moreover, Rudy never mentioned Obama’s deep Muslim roots, and his life and education as a Muslim in his childhood in Indonesia.
Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal reportedly called Rudy to offer his support and approval after Rudy’s statement about Obama, Walker is trying to run away, or come up with some sort of “nuanced” response.
This seems to me to be a test of character that Walker failed.
Off topic, but I caught the tail-end of a speech by Bill Whittle on C-Span last night. I’ve watched his videos on the net before, but the parts of the speech I saw were awesome. Worth your time to watch IMHO.
http://www.c-span.org/video/?323690-1/bill-whittle-messaging-millennials
Senator Obama calls Bush “unpatriotic” for adding trillions to debt
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyLmru6no4U
It is unclear whether Mr. Giuliani will face any adverse consequences for his comments: There is apparently no prospect that he will face the voters again, and his income stems from a set of businesses that aggressively market his personal brand in the United States and overseas.
then
Face adverse consequences? For WHAT? I remember a candidate named Barack Obama calling a sitting US President “unpatriotic.” Here it is. See for yourself. – Flopping Aces
Wolla Dalbo:
This seems to me to be a test of character that Walker failed.
see post February 21st, 2015 at 9:53 pm
For those of you slamming Walker, WTF ?????
The guy *turned* it right back on the MSM sycophants,
His response let them know he won t be playing their
*sucker punch* question/commet game. MSM dosent
Really care what Walker actually thinks, they just want him
To step in a pile of it !!!!;
It has started:
Last week hundreds of leftist activists, union supporters and students targeted Governor Scott Walker’s parents home during a protest for more taxpayer money.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/02/hundreds-of-union-thugs-leftists-protest-outside-scott-walkers-parents-home/
Not nice! Not nice at al!
I have quoted before my old friend Theodore Dalrymple on the purposes of lies in totalitarian societies:
In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control.
We are at war with a depraved enemy, but we cannot be allowed to assert our moral superiority even to head-choppers, rapists, slavers and immolators. Thus the priority of Barack (“Hey, how ’bout those Crusades?”) Obama has been to undermine our sense of probity, and make us not merely equivalent to but worse than our enemies. That was the purpose of this last week of Official Lies.
http://www.steynonline.com/6820/o-beautiful-for-specious-guys
Steyn and Dalrymple speak for me.
It is going to get physical …
The Amerkan Soviet is here…
the advisors give advice as if they have a station in stalins world
that their appointment to a committee (soviet), gives them delegatd powers to dictate processes to impose on people. violation of the constitition to use taxes to control behavior was first implemented against evils like cigarettes, setting the precident for tax based behavior control…
now…
Feds: America Should Adopt ‘Plant-Based’ Diet
Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee calls for taxing dessert, ‘electronic tracking’ of time spent watching TV
The federal committee responsible for nutrition guidelines is calling for the adoption of “plant-based” diets, taxes on dessert, trained obesity “interventionists” at worksites, and electronic monitoring of how long Americans sit in front of the television.
The Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) released its far-reaching 571-page report of recommendations to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Thursday, which detailed its plans to “transform the food system.”
the whole thing these people do from academia forgets that this is not a soviet style totalitarian state… they assume it is, then come up with ideas that only such a state could actually implement… not ideas that are limited by the freedom of others to ignore them…
good thing we talk about the important stuff here, like the impending war that VDH is commenting on, fallon in england is commenting on, a few generals are commenting on. but realize, once that starts, idiots like above WILL have the power to impose ration through your debit cards… EBT cards being the developmental process for creating a system that only has to be extended when economy ends…
You think Rudy got in Obama’s face with the few comments he made, take a look at this much longer recent indictment of Obama by Rudy (http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/02/video-watch-rudy-giuliani-destroy-obama-the-anti-american-in-epic-speech/) .
I think that Rudy himself has finally reached a “tipping point,” realized that things are much, much worse than he thought, and that the time for “civility” and prudence is past.
Wouldn’t the way around all this be simply campaigning on an “I admire America” theme, I want to celebrate American heroism from George Washington to MLK. I want to honor America’s friends including Britain and Israel, and strongly criticize her enemies….etc. Challenge Mrs. Clinton on all these points. Obama, because of his lack of love will become very Carteresque in the history books before very long.
I can’t help but note that Barry Soetoro is CHRONICALLY using the Islamist digit in ever more public settings.
The infidel press is still CLUELESS as to the significance of the ‘finger waging’ when the funeral for the Dane’s assassin was held — KKK style — hoods and all.
Unlike fist-bumping — the Islamist digit is a true salute — NAZI style: it is laden with political and philosophical import.
The MSM — Europe or America — are brain dead… like a parasite riven snail waiting for bird-death.
Scott (10:47 am)
I believe Dinesh D’Souza has attempted to do just that. At the very least to forward the idea of concentrating on the positives.
His latest book does it.
His last two celluloid productions have.
And he’s done it from the perspective of a first generation immigrant who actually embraces the ideals and American Exceptionalism of this great country.
g6loq (10:24)
Well said.
Mr. Dalrymple’s assessment is applicable to the Left’s activities, and motivations in this country.
As for your 10:17 am post, overlay onto that the Wisconsin professor, Dr. Beth Lueck, offering extra credit by “joining”, “observing”, or “protesting” an anti-Scott Walker budget rally on campus. She is a taxpayer-paid, state employee. So the citizens of Wisconsin are in fact subsidizing the platform of the democratic party in that state. The professor has a history of running for political office on the democratic ticket.
Unethical? You be the judge.
http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=6306
Just read a WashPost article on Walker (Drudge headline) and I think he’s provided a wonderful response:
“I don’t know,” Walker said in an interview….
“I’ve actually never talked about it or I haven’t read about that,” Walker said, his voice calm and firm. “I’ve never asked him that,” he added. “You’ve asked me to make statements about people that I haven’t had a conversation with about that. How [could] I say if I know either of you are a Christian?”
“To me, this is a classic example of why people hate Washington and, increasingly, they dislike the press,” he said. “The things they care about don’t even remotely come close to what you’re asking about.”
Very well-played! Not only did he push back on the question (in essence, saying why don’t you ask Obama or someone who knows him), he used it to criticize the press itself: Stop asking irrelevant questions!
Now *that* is what all Republicans should be doing.
Salon and the whole left is mobilizing to take up the conversation…
and the funny thing is the comments… while the leftists fight to ignore things and pish tosh them… negating their own ideologies ideas of how your environment makes you… many others get to list the wealthermen ayers (and their pubished ideas of violently overthrowing the US government for a communist one and race war).. to Davis… To several admin appointees who were communists and had to leave… to one that quotes mother theresa and mao as the two people she likes… the christmas decoration with communists… to his parents in russian language class… to his daughter being named after (sascha) pushkin, and pushkins biographer at berkeley (martin malia). to his uncle helping to overthrow kenyan government to its communists…
one could go on and on to the favortism towards that stuff along with their tools the islamics (their proxy army that will take the brunt of the pain caused by their fomenting… one only has to read the biographies and other things to know how much the soviets took credit for taking over hitlers use of islam and turning them into their army of violent idiots)
as i said above. they wont leave it alone. and rather than let it disappear and fade, they will pick at it like a sore, keep it open and bloody… they will insure that what you could not bring up is now brought up because they HAVE to do something about Giuliani… which they cant… now the comments sections are filling up with lots o facts… funny..
we used to call this being hoisted upon your own petard…
It is perfectly reasonable to question the motives behind acts.
The recent and widely-praised Atlantic article about ISIS is all about motives, for example.
Thus, when one has an Obama who by abundant evidence is fundamentally anti-Constitution, it is perfectly reasonable to question his motives, and reach the Giuliani conclusion that he really doesn’t love America. The Constitution is America’s bedrock, after all.
Why would any Prez hollow out the military, spend us into senselessness, boost Iran’s nuke, oppose Keystone, raze our borders? Out of love for America? Really? “Have you stopped beating your wife?”
As to the electorate, they can be said to act as much on feelings as they act on facts. We here are not immune, either.
No one on the Left really “loves” this country. And they are loathe to learning from history.
Obama has not learned anything of substance from American history.
Otherwise he would not be so ignorant about the history of Islam, the truth behind the Crusades, and repeatedly asking that tiresome question, “Why do radical extremists HATE us?”
In 1786, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams met with Tripoli’s ambassador to Great Britain to ask by what right his nation attacked American ships and enslaved American citizens, and why Muslims held so much hostility towards America, a nation with which they had no previous contacts.
The two future presidents reported that Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja had answered that Islam “was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Quran that all nations who would not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.”
who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise… that is very clear.
Fernandez hits it:
http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2015/02/22/a-question-of-personality/
Soon …
Neo, you said,
“But I also think that Rudy Giuliani and other politicians would do well to stay far away from this particular topic.”
Why? This is precisely what every one should who opposes the left should be saying. Ever since about 2004 when the left uttered in unison, “how dare you question my patriotism,” the right have caved in to them. Meanwhile they continue to openly question our sanity, intelligence, call us evil, etc.
“It gives the opposition a golden opportunity to pile on with the “mean, hateful Republicans” meme. And for what?”
As if they (the MSM) will ever do anything differently? It does not matter what the right does, or does not do. Can’t you see that? The mainstream media is the publicity arm of the democrat party. They are weaponized against the right. It is not going to change by itself, or by some gentle persuasion.
Until we begin punching back twice as hard, making it hurt, making it personal, and instilling fear of our reaction in them so they begin thinking twice, and self-censor, they will continue to make us their punching bag.
That’s why it’s so easy and fun for the left to poke Christians in the eye, but they fear to criticize muslims.
“The only people who respond positively to such statements about Obama and America are the already-convinced.” Largely because the left’s lies are repeated over and over again, without any opposing story out there to be heard, unless you search hard for it.
A competing message WILL resonate, as it did in 1980, 2010, and 2014. The problem is we have to stop electing fools who think they can deal with the left and elect those who will actively fight it.
“I am NOT suggesting anyone play Mr. Nice Guy. Romney did not attack Obama enough or for the right things (I especially hated it when he backed off on Benghazi after the 2nd debate and the Crowley intervention), but what Giuliani did is not the right thing either.”
Yes you are, that is exactly what you are advocating.
“Attacks should be pointed and stick to facts rather than speculating about the opponents’ feelings. That’s pretty much the point of this post.”
Obama’s, Holder’s, and the left’s contempt for America and all it stands for are facts. They are indisputable if you look at their utterances over the years and at their actions. Their is no way any objective observer could categorize them. They are subverting some of the very foundations this republic was built upon. And it is their intent.
Good for Giuliani. It’s high time the republicans quit being punching bags and started fighting back, because being civil to these people has not worked.
People who engage in daily slander of the most vile sort have no moral authority to express outrage when Rudy, based on clear and convincing evidence, expresses an opinion that is likely true.
If Democrats get their feelings hurt, fine. Maybe someone should punch them back, twice as hard.
g6loq,
Your link to Fernandez’s article dies hit the nail on the head, good link.
This is the first substantive pinprick to the balloon of Obama’s cult or personality. Except of course for Netanyahu’s speaking directly to Congress.
He loves America like a criminal links a Brinks truck.
That’s it.
And the same for all the people who voted for him. They want the spoils of their cultural and political crusade. To the victors go the spoils.
Wake up America.
Stay away from telling the truth.
That’s a recommendation of cowardice and 100% guaranteed to lead to slavery.
100% guaranteed.
Your recommendation will do exactly as well as your recommendations of McCain and Romney did. You will be able to say “I tried”.
Cowardice and lies don’t win. They lose.
Where the hell is Malone when we need him. Gawd almighty do we ever need Malone now.
Mike,
The cultural war is all but over. They have won.
***They own education (controlling the ideas, influences, all while charging their parents for the privilege. Gone is, “Freedom of Thought”)
***They all but own mainstream media
***They own the unions
***They all but own Hollywood (the alternative purveyor of ideas, “news”, and peddler of influence)
***They own Silicon Valley and all of the “cool”, commensurate production value
***They all but own banking industry and much of insurance industry
***They own HR departments in all of the major corporations in America
***They own the lawyer lobby and the ABA
(When it became clear that scientists, traditionally comprised of a rational segment of society/culture, sold so much of their souls to the Left, it banged the gong)
It’s all but over.
Oh but someone was it orwell said
Who ever is currently in control will seem insurmountable
No reason at all to fold the tent
My husband & I were once Lefties
We even had a subsxription to Mother Jones, Lol
“every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.”
A belief as embraced by ISIS and their ilk today, as it was in 1876.
As all know, Judo is the art of using your opponents strength, momentum and attack against them by targeting their tactical weaknesses. So too with Islamic beliefs. Islamic dogma proclaims that an ‘unclean’ Muslim may not enter paradise without having passed through an Islamic cleansing ritual. Of all animals, Islam regards the pig as most unclean. Thus any contact with a pig is forbidden and even accidental, very brief contact requires ritual cleansing.
Ergo, hollow point bullets dipped in pig’s blood and execution of captured Islamic jihadists by drowning them in a vat of pig’s blood would, by their own beliefs, deny them entrance into paradise. Make the risk and consequence unimaginable (eternally disowned) and recruitment will dry up and desertion will skyrocket.
Geoffrey Britain Says:
February 22nd, 2015 at 3:08 pm
I haven’t heard that idea before. I like it.
For all Obama’s trumpeting of how “Islam has been woven into the fabric of America from the beginning,” outside of some possible Muslim slaves being transported to the U.S.–and how many and when is anybody’s guess–until very recently, say when our oil companies went over to various Muslim countries to develop their oil resources after WWII, and Muslim terrorist attacks against the U.S. and its interests starting in the early 1970s, the only major contacts between Muslims and the U.S. were with the Barbary Pirates, North African Muslims who tried to shut down and hold at ransom the newly formed United States absolutely essential marine commerce by capturing U.S. ships on the high seas, stealing these ships and their cargoes, and selling the seamen and passengers into slavery.
For close to ten years the U.S. Congress paid these Muslim pirates protection money, Jizya in gold, a payment that in some years approached 50% of our entire annual Federal budget.
Only after Jefferson-during those ten years worked to create our Navy and Marine Corps, and then sent them over to campaign against these pirates in what is now Libya, was the problem “solved,” earning our Marine Corps the line in the Marine Corps hymn of “…to the shores of Tripoli.”
But, I guess Obama didn’t want to talk about this little bit of history
Despite the stunning admission of premeditated violence on non-Muslim nations, by Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, as well as the objections of many notable American leaders, including George Washington, who warned that caving in was both wrong and would only further embolden the enemy, for the following fifteen years the American government paid the Muslims millions of dollars for the safe passage of American ships or the return of American hostages. The payments in ransom and tribute amounted to over twenty percent of the United States government annual revenues in 1800.
Jefferson was disgusted. Shortly after his being sworn in as the third President of the United States in 1801, the Pasha of Tripoli sent him a note demanding the immediate payment of $225,000 plus $25,000 a year for every year forthcoming. That changed everything.
Jefferson let the Pasha know, in no uncertain terms, what he could do with his demand. The Pasha responded by cutting down the flagpole at the American consulate and declared war on the United States.
New post here on the topic of how to bring up hard truths while not setting yourself up.
Jefferson eventually dispatched a squadron of frigates to the Mediterranean and taught the Muslim nations of the Barbary Coast a lesson he hoped they would never forget. Congress authorized Jefferson to empower U.S. ships to seize all vessels and goods of the Pasha of Tripoli and to “cause to be done all other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war would justify”.
When Algiers and Tunis, who were both accustomed to American cowardice and acquiescence, saw the newly independent United States had both the will and the right to strike back, they quickly abandoned their allegiance to Tripoli. The war with Tripoli lasted for four more years, and raged up again in 1815.
_______________________________________
The bravery of the U.S. Marine Corps in these wars led to the line “to the shores of Tripoli” in the Marine Hymn.
_______________________________________
The Marine Hymn needs to be sung more often, and loudly.
Perhaps it should be played just after the start of that song which Baraka Obama declared as the “sweetest sound he’s ever heard…”, the muslim, Call To Prayer…
Clarity seeker: thus to the shores of Tripoli the moooslimes are weaved into the thread of the fabric of the USA! Allah Snackbar!
Debbie opines:
In the wake of his questioning of President Obama’s love for this country, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani is catching flak from Democratic National Committee chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
“This kind of comment is unwelcome and dangerous,” Schultz said. “The President is the most powerful person on the planet. Insulting him like this is tantamount to poking a lion with a stick. What can Giuliani be thinking?”
“What people need to understand is that President Obama is not a ‘rah-rah’ or ‘God bless America’ type of patriot,” Schultz explained. “He’s just the only president to be completely honest about how bad America and its people have been to humanity. This nation’s history of slavery and discrimination have forever besmirched its reputation. No Republican would’ve had the courage to be so honest.”
“Neither would any Republican dare to assail the selfishness of the successful as forthrightly as President Obama has,” Schultz continued. “Their hesitancy to face the need for the government to seize the superfluous wealth of those lucky enough to have the energy, motivation, and intelligence to thrive in the marketplace is a mark of their cowardice.’
“The President’s love for this country is what we call ‘tough love,’” Schultz concluded. “He’s not afraid to kick our asses and demand that we be better than we want to be. For a slacker like Giuliani to show such disrespect to the President for doing what he has to do to shape us up is horrible.”
One American whose ass was kicked in a demonstration of government’s “tough love” is 71-year-old Barronelle Stutzman. Stutzman is set to lose her home and life’s savings for refusing to sell flowers to a couple for their gay wedding. Benton County Superior Court Judge Alex Ekstrom ruled that “the fact that the couple had no problem obtaining flowers from another vendor doesn’t mitigate the fact that she broke the law–which allows for no exceptions due to religious beliefs. The severity of her punishment serves as a deterrent to others who might place their own opinions ahead of the dictates of the statute.”
Vice-President Joe Biden praised Ekstrom’s ruling saying “it’s the kind of bitter medicine we must force down the throats of those who use the Bible as an excuse to defy the government’s creation of new human rights for formerly oppressed persons. It is my devout wish that the ruin inflicted on this grandmother, as well as others who espouse this kind of hate, will prompt the obedience the President is trying to instill across the land. Without obedience there can be no fundamental transformation.”
http://tinyurl.com/nd93m4c
rickl,
I confess to the idea being my sole invention. Demonstrating unimagined consequence and instilling intimidation and fear my motivation.
Accordingly, prior to execution, the convicted terrorist given a sex change operation. The vat would be made of clear acrylic and the condemned striped naked (so that the removal of the male genitalia is confirmed) with the execution videotaped and uploaded to a website for viewing, so that they might see the fate that awaits them.
Consequence must be proportional to the crime. Let the West put the fear of God into them.
Dear Debbie Wasserman Schlitz,
Indeed, how did you put it? ““This kind of comment is unwelcome and dangerous.”
You mean, like when then Senator Baraka Narcissist Obama accused then-president GW Bush as being, “unpatriotic”?
Is that what you mean?
Debbie-does-Dallas seems to forget about the Nazi-Bush, Hitler-Bush years:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/08/08/nancys_nazi_shock_did_she_forget_the_bush_years_97812.html
Apparently not “unwelcome and dangerous” are those references?!?!
_______________________________________
Or, Senator Byrd, in March 2005 he gave a speech on the Senate floor where he compared Republican efforts to end a Democrat filibuster of President Bush’s court nominees to Adolph Hitler’s manipulations of the law. “Dangerous”? “Unwelcomed”? Of course not.
_______________________________________
On Monday, July 8, 2002, Jesse Jackson condemned George W. Bush’s political tactics during the 2000 presidential campaign as “Nazi-like” – a reference to false charges that Republican officials in Florida denied Blacks the right to vote. “Dangerous”? Not according to Debbie-Does-Dallas…
_______________________________________
During the 2004 presidential campaign, the left-wing website moveon.org, financed by Marxist billionaire George Soros, posted a picture of George Bush wearing a Hitler mustache.
“Dangerous”? “Unwelcome”? Nope—–all is fair in love and war according to Debbie-Does-Dallas.
——————————————————-
In a Sunday sermon on Jan. 30, 1995, the Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel quotes Jesse Jackson comparing Conservatives to Fascists:
“In South Africa we’d call it apartheid. In Germany we’d call it Fascism. Here we call it Conservatism. These people are attacking the poor!
Debbie-Does-Dallas declares: “Nothing to see here, move along…”
Possible dialog.
Lefty: Rudy’s accusations against President Obama are despicable.
Self: So you’re saying that Obama is patriotic and loves America?
Lefty: Of course!
Self: You may well be right about that. What evidence to you have?
… It is by then a fully formed and perfectly executed usbu al-shahada — the finger of shahada, shahada being the fundamental declaration of faith of Muslims: There is but one God and Muhammad is his messenger. This is not finger pointing, or making a point, or getting attention in order to ask a question, or the wagging of a finger.
Follow the video Snopes cited: As he lowers his arm, Obama can be heard saying, “We’ll see!” Then as soon as the African dignitaries are assembled, Obama turns to look in the direction of the voice that said “Allahu Akbar.”
He gives the previously aborted thumbs up sign and says something that is indistinct, but you don’t have to have the training that deaf people are given to be able to read Obama’s lips. As he flashes his upright thumb, his lips say, “Allahu Akbar.”
What did he mean with the finger shahada? What was he communicating when he said Allahu Akbar? Did he just embrace Judaism? Did he announce that he had just achieved enlightenment under a Bodhi tree? What did he mean by “We’ll see”? Did he mean that we will see the world dominated by Scientologists?
The African delegates who saw his reaction to the cry of Allahu Akbar understood what he was communicating through his finger gesture, and many were clearly disturbed. …
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/02/rebutting_snopes_on_obamas_muslim_gang_sign.html#ixzz3SZtDJ3e2