LOOKING AT MORE DETAILS OF OBAMAS BACKGROUND...AND HOW IT AFFECTS WHAT WE SEE HAPPENING NOW. PLUS SOME THOUGHTS ON AMERICAN POLITICS, PUBLIC OPINION CONCERNING ISRAEL, AND AN ISRAELI LEADER (PERES) MAKING OVERTURES TO A ROMAN CATHOLIC POPE. An interesting, eye-opening read: CONNECTING SOME MORE DOTS - by Alf Cengia - omegaletter/articles/articles.asp?ArticleID=7887 Things always happen for reasons, even we may not fathom why at the time. Yet sometimes we can get glimpses of a possible future by paying attention to people who are potential change agents. I remember the run-up to the 2008 United States Presidential Elections. As others had done, Jack Kinsella analyzed and wrote about a junior Senator Barack Obama who popped up out of nowhere. Jacks prognosis on an Obama win wasnt optimistic for America. The negativity had nothing to do with the color of the mans skin. It was the result of conducting due diligence on his background. One only had to look at the controversial church he attended for twenty years, his performance as a senator and the Marxists he connected with, to get a feel of the man. Barack Obama eventually tried to distance himself from his past, but he continued to be a product of it. Some note that the Bush years helped the Obama win. Yet it is also true that America became enchanted with creating history. He was given unprecedented adulation and a Nobel Prize for, ostensibly, being the first black U.S. president. From that we learned that the world was ready to embrace some Wonderful Leader without clearing his background and prior to any practical achievements. As Obama took reign, those who had checked his background werent surprised at his decisions, and the people who formed his administration. Moreover, his speech in Cairo and his conciliatory remarks about Islam offered a foretaste of what was to come. There are differences of opinions as to where Obamas religious loyalties really lie. He describes himself as a Christian. Yet theres that notorious video in which he mocks Christianity. While anti-Christian sentiment preceded Obamas Administration, it has been granted free reign by the current administrations policies. In contrast, Obama stood by and watched Mubarak lose power. Then he cozied up to the Muslim Brotherhood. His Cairo speech signaled that the New America wasnt going to interfere with the Middle East....unless it was Israel. We watched as the Arab Spring turned into a nightmare. Putin watched for signals that Obama was orchestrating a smaller American Footprint. He may have even taken his cue during that infamous mike gaffe by Obama to Medvedev when the former told the latter that he was going to be more flexible after the November election. If Obama was all about reducing his footprint, Putin would go shopping for Extra Large Boots. It shouldnt have surprised anyone because the Russian president had already telegraphed that message. Mitt Romney was ultimately proved right. The only surprise was how quickly Obama isolated America while Putin moved forward with his plans. During this current Islamic State crisis it is David Cameron, not Barack Obama, who first showed some leadership and initiative. The U.S. president is acting now only after bowing to internal pressure. We recently saw potential 2016 presidential candidate, Rand Paul, do what Joel Rosenberg calls an Epic Flip-Flop. He has modified his attitude to Israel and American Isolationism. Rosenberg is uncharacteristically blunt, and this indicates how seriously he takes this issue: As reluctant as I am to comment on American partisan politics, I do feel compelled to say that Sen. Paul would be a disastrous choice for President. He is wrong on many vital issues, including being hostile to Israel and clueless on the threat of Radical Islam. But he is also increasingly demonstrating that he is fundamentally dishonest, willing to say just about anything to advance politically. (Emphasis mine) Those words could have described Senator Obama. Rand Paul is attempting to disengage from his libertarian fathers (Ron Paul) policies. Ron Paul has sent mixed signals regarding Israel. At rare times hes tried to appear conciliatory, but his rhetoric tends to lay blame on Israel. He went so far as to call Gaza a concentration camp blaming Israel for it, and on Iranian Television! In 2008 James Kirchick noted of Ron Pauls Newsletters: The newsletters display an obsession with Israel; no other country is mentioned more often in the editions I saw, or with more vitriol. A 1987 issue of Pauls Investment Letter called Israel an aggressive, national socialist state, and a 1990 newsletter discussed the tens of thousands of well-placed friends of Israel in all countries who are willing to wok [sic] for the Mossad in their area of expertise. Of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, a newsletter said, Whether it was a setup by the Israeli Mossad, as a Jewish friend of mine suspects, or was truly a retaliation by the Islamic fundamentalists, matters little. What you see of the two Pauls is what you get. Whether Rand runs or not, what sort of president will Americans be looking for in the 2016 elections? Its disturbing to see Christian supporters of Ron Paul who espouse his views on Israel. Are they drawn to Paul because of his anti-Israel rhetoric or have his views influenced them? Even more troublesome is when you see these same people promote self-described historic revisionist Michael Hoffman. Hoffman is an anti-Israel agent whose outrageous bias defines him in his one-sided commentary on the Gaza conflict. Is this where some Christians want to go? Extraordinary dynamics are taking shape: Global anti-Semitism and anti-Israel bias is rising rapidly - even within a portion of the church. Meanwhile Americas recent indifference has paved the way for major Middle East changes and handed the initiative to a Russian and a European. Can America take back this initiative? Or will Europe lead the way against the Islamic threat? Weve also recently seen former Israeli president Shimon Peres visit the Vatican and suggest a UN-like organization - a the United Religions. Pope Francis Ecumenical Heart must have skipped a beat. Peres reasoning is that: In the past, most of the wars in the world were motivated by the idea of nationhood. But today, wars are incited using religion as an excuse. According to the Jerusalem Post: ...Peres praised Francis as the only world figure respected across national boundaries and different faiths. Peres said: What we need is an unquestionable moral authority who says out loud, No, God does not want this and does not allow it. I can understand the sentiment, yet this event is unprecedented. When a Jew approaches a Roman Pontiff and suggests a United Religions Organization - thats something to keep an eye on! Will this gain traction? Are we connecting the right dots?
Posted on: Fri, 12 Sep 2014 19:48:13 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015