Is it conceivable that the Democratic Party became the
epicenter of American anti-Semitism without this having something to do with
Barack Obama? Did Obama make it safe to be anti-Semitic and a Democrat? Such is
the argument made by Mark Hemingway in The Federalist. We have made a similar
argument here, but Hemingway has amassed the evidence.
We might begin with the fact that Palestinian terror group
Hamas endorsed the Obama candidacy in 2008. And of course, Obama's favorite pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright
hated Israel, hated Jews and supported Hamas:
In
2008, Jimmy Carter met with the leader of terror group Hamas, a move condemned
by Condoleezza Rice, who then was secretary of state. Obama declined
to condemn the meeting because “he’s a private citizen. It’s not my
place to discuss who he shouldn’t meet with.” This is a remarkably calm
reaction to Carter’s blatant Logan Act violation, a crime the Obama
administration would later deem so serious it was used to justify investigating
and surveilling the Trump campaign.
When
Hamas came out and officially endorsed his candidacy in 2008, Obama’s
chief strategist, David Axelrod, said the endorsement was “flattering.” This is
not an exaggeration. “We all agree that John Kennedy was a great president, and
it’s flattering when anybody says that Barack Obama would follow in his
footsteps,” Axelrod said.
Obama’s
problematic pastor, Jeremiah Wright, was also notoriously anti-Israel. Aside
from making plenty of public criticisms about Wright, in 2007 the bulletin
at Wright’s church reprinted an article by a Hamas official.
Obviously, Obama famously backtracked from Wright when the
heat became too intense during the 2008 campaign. But seriously, who but the
most obtuse dunderhead could imagine that a twenty minute speech could erase
twenty years of indoctrination. And, how come Obama did not notice what Wright was preaching. To say that he was not there
or was not paying attention makes him out to be an idiot, and no one believes
that Obama was an idiot:
Hemingway explains:
If the
church where you baptized your kids starts putting terrorist propaganda in the
pews, right then might be time to find a new place to worship, not after
continuing to attend threatens your political career.
And then there was the matter of Obama’s close relationship with
one Rashid Khalidi, a supporter and sympathizer with Palestinian terrorism:
But
Wright was hardly the first person with these views Obama had very visibly
associated with. Much has been made of Obama’s friendship with scholar Rashid
Khalidi, who has been accused of working as an advisor for the PLO terror group
(Khalidi claims he was only helping the press understand the group). Obama sat
on the board of a foundation that gave $40,000 to a local charity Khalidi’s
wife headed.
In
2008, the Los Angeles Times notoriously reported on a videotape of Obama
speaking at an event in Khalidi’s honor, where one of the speakers compared
Zionists to Osama bin Laden. While the still unreleased video of this event
attracted the most attention, other aspects of the Los Angeles Times’s lengthy report on
Obama’s close ties to Palestinian activists are noteworthy. For instance, in
the same report Khalidi heavily implies that any pro-Israel sentiment Obama
expresses while running for president was “a stance that Khalidi calls a
requirement to win a national election in the U.S.”
One notes that, to this day, we have not heard the tape of
Obama’s remarks at Khalidi’s departure dinner. The Los Angeles Times is holding
them in its safe, and no one seems to care about pressuring them to spit them
out.
And then there was the matter of Gen. Merrill McPeak, a man
who was decidedly anti-Israeli:
The
Obama’s campaign’s chief military adviser and national-campaign co-chairman was
Gen. Merrill McPeak. In 1976, McPeak wrote an article for Foreign Affairs
criticizing Israel. He said Israel should return to its 1967 borders and hand
the Golan Heights back to Syria.
McPeak
also trotted out the “dual loyalty” issue and in a 2003 interview with
the Oregonian accused
Jewish and evangelical voters of placing their interest in Israel above U.S.
interests. Asked what was impeding world peace, McPeak said, “New York City.
Miami. We have a large vote . . . here in favor of Israel. And no politician
wants to run against it.” Obama disavowed McPeak’s thoughts on Israel being
primarily responsible for impeding peace in the Middle East, but stood behind
his campaign’s affiliation with the general.
Hemingway continues that the best evidence of Obama’s
attitude lay in his policy, especially the policy that empowered Iran and that
gave Iran money to pass to anti-Israeli terrorist groups:
But if
you looked at what went on with the first Obama campaign, then it logically
follows that his presidency would be laser-focused on empowering Iran, the
largest benefactor of murderous on anti-Semitic and anti-Israel terror groups
such as Hamas, even if it meant engaging in a variety of extraordinarily
deceptive behaviors to hide such policies from Congress and the American
people. Top administration officials eventually
admitted the manipulation and deceit.
Hemingway concludes that we should not be surprised that
anti-Semitism has come to infest Barack Obama’s Democratic Party:
By
allowing people who pal around with terror groups and employ questionable
anti-Israel rationales to have a seat at the table, Obama allowed the
legitimate critics of Israel to be eclipsed, and it was only a matter of time
before someone such as Omar broke through to a position of power in American
politics without expressing much concern about masking anti-Semitism.
2 comments:
Ah, McPeak. Fortunately, I had retired before he became CSAF, but I heard about him.
The Muslims turned their backs on modernity, and it shows. The Saudis, and a few others, seem to have gotten a clue or two from the Israelis, but too many Muslims seem to prefer living in the first millennium.
Post a Comment