Recently, it has become trendy among the left to liken Donald Trump to Hitler. It may sound like a childish and unintellectual argument, but that hasn’t stopped high-profile personalities like Cher, Louis C.K., and Sarah Silverman from making the outlandish comparison.
While they may represent the bottom of the barrel when it comes to political celebrities, now Barack Obama, the ultimate celebrity politician, is making very similar claims. Rather than call Trump Hitler, however, Obama is updating the well-worn insult and is comparing him to a jihadist instead.
The schoolyard comparison likely represents how little Obama can legitimately complain about Trump or his supporters. After all, much of the anger that has fueled Trump’s stratospheric rise was a result of eight years of failed leadership under Obama.
Rather than admit his failures, Obama has sunk to the lowest form of political argument.
See how the president made the subtle — but insulting — dig during his speech to the Democratic national Convention on the next page:
Moron liar!!
trump acts nothing like you obama but evidently you dont understand that word either because you wont face fact about rapes and murders you use the word provoked instead of terrorist
But you are the Muslim American hater..
U r the terrorist pos
If he was a terrorist, Obama would be supporting him.
well then send him weapons and money like you do the others
Stupid man
Garry , Excellent post !!—————————————————->T. Roosevelt had it right on Muslim Immigration
Mediates and politicians have tried to label Donald Trump a bigoted, xenophobic racist since announcing in June he was running for president. At Trump Tower, the Republican front runner vowed to build a wall on the southern border and make Mexico pay for it. In December, shortly after the terrorist attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, Calif., Trump called for a temporary moratorium on Muslim immigration to the United States.
The press, most of his chief rivals, and even the president predictably went bizerk. President Obama said it was “totally contrary to our values as Americans,” values which he insists are “universal.” But the data, as I’ve explained repeatedly here and here, shows the truth.
American values are not universal. In fact, before the American Left adopted the failed theory of multiculturalism out of the soon-to-be lost European nations, even their own progressive heroes understood the basic need to demand assimilation.
While “it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin,” as President Theodore Roosevelt said in 1907, “this is predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet an American. There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all.”
Teddy-Roosevelt-immigration-1907
And there you have it. Roosevelt, the progressive hero who broke up the big monopolies, was a closet xenophobe.
While his critique could apply to other demographic groups, the problem of Muslim assimilation is particularly difficult because Islam is neither only a religion and definitely is not a race. Islam is a political, judicial, civil and spiritual way of life that not only insists upon “divided allegiance” but also holds geo-political aspirations.
In a majority of Muslim-dominated Middle East countries, large pluralities–and, in many countries such as Afghanistan, Syria and Pakistan–majorities support making Sharia law the official law of the land. Worth noting, recent polls show 54% of Muslim Americans living right here is the U.S, right now, agree.
Now, as someone who has researched extensively and help define it, perhaps with and in more detail than any other before me, I can say with confidence that the American national identity is antithetical to the “values” forced upon subjects under Sharia, or Islamic law. They are not “universal values” and, subjugating the sovereign authority of the U.S. Constitution, at its core, violates a basic principle captured in Roosevelt’s words.
“We have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people,” the former president said in 1907.
That’s exactly the point, which everyone wants to avoid. The Constitution places national loyalty to and sovereignty with the American people, an idea that is completely foreign to practicers of Islam.
Obama also pointed out the “extraordinary contributions” Muslim Americans have made to the U.S., including those serving in the military. About those contributions, while I certainly applaud any American’s service, the overall numbers are actually quite concerning.
Military enlistment, as we study the political maturation of other migrant groups in the 19th and 20th century, can serve as a fairly good indicator of assimilation. There are few equal or greater acts to demonstrate patriotism than military service. Unfortunately, the numbers for Muslims indicate there is a major assimilation problem juxtaposed to other migrant groups. That is, if you agree with President Roosevelt and Mr. Benedict Anderson, the latter being the man who literally wrote the book on the very real concept of nation.
According to the Pentagon, there are roughly 5,896 Muslims serving on either active duty or guard in the U.S. military. We heard this number cited repeatedly following Trump’s proposal, including from an outraged former Marine-turned-talk show host Montel Williams. But that represents just 0.00027550809655493385 percent of the roughly 2.2 million Americans currently serving their country, and 0.32755555555555554 percent of their share of the U.S. population. That’s far below the proportional 18,000 that would put them in line proportionately with the enlistment rates for the rest of the country.
Going back to World War II, when Italian-Americans were targets of ethic discrimination and struggling to assimilate, more than 500,000 served on behalf of the U.S., making their enlistment and service rates the highest among any minority ethnic group. The roughly 0.8333333333333334 percent of the 6 million Italian Americans serving in the U.S. military is despite the fact that they were fighting on the opposite side as their home country.
For those who want to blame a non-existent, widespread anti-Muslim environment, I’d just point out that 200,000 Jews served in World War I at a time when anti-Semitic sentiment in America was far worse. In fact, according to the latest statistics from the FBI, there are still far more and worse crimes driven by anti-Semitic than anti.
Nevertheless, the bottom line is that politicians, pundits and just everyday Americans concerned about the future of our nation, should be able to point out these disturbing facts without being labeled xenophobic. A recent Pew Research study of demographic projections estimated that Muslims will make up 2.1% of the U.S. population by the year 2050, surpassing Americans who identify as Jewish on the basis of religion as the second-largest faith group in the country.
Considering the disturbing truth about Muslims’ views, which were revealed in a serious video produced by The Clarion Project in December, it’s not xenophobic to question the impact these demographic changes might have on American citizens. Public policy should hold the preservation of our values and our way of life above all, and the threat to that preservation would’ve concerned President Roosevelt just as much as it does Trump and his supporters.
POS
Garry , Obama not retiring yet / lots more do U.S.
After years of un-Constitutional actions, which were shot down by the Supreme Court, executive orders intended to bypass Congress, and a deeper division in our nation than we’ve had in decades, America is ready to say so-long to Obama and his anti-American ideology. Unfortunately for us, he’s not ready to say goodbye to the public life just yet, and instead plans on remaining active in politics.
Oh joy.
In fact, he stated that he wants to remain “very active in the public life of this country” because there’s “so much more to do,” which means we’re not likely going to get rid of the race-baiter-in-chief anytime soon.
“But there’s so much more to do, so many more laws we’d like to pass and administrative actions that need to be taken,” he said during a fundraiser in California. “But, on the other hand, there was great satisfaction because we could look back on where we were when we came into office and take enormous pride in the way in which not simply this administration, but the country rose up from extraordinarily difficult times.”
“Our obligations don’t go away just because my name is not on the ballot,” Obama continued. “It is just as important, we have to be just as passionate about making sure that progress is sustained. And what that requires is that we win back the Senate of the United States so that Democrats are able to move forward the agendas that we care about so deeply. It means that we make progress in winning back the House so that California’s own Nancy Pelosi can once again be Speaker of the House. And it means that we make sure that a Democrat replaces me in the White House to carry on the legacy that we’re pushing forward.”
Are you thrilled yet? He even teased the idea of a third term when the crowd chanted “four more years” as he walked into the room.
“Oh, no, definitely not. Not only is there a constitutional provision, but more importantly, Michelle would kill me,” he said, as if the Constitution has stopped him from doing anything yet.
Although while the probability of a third-term from Obama is slim, what isn’t is the chance that he makes a bid for the U.N.’s Secretary General. Apparently, it’s not only an idea that he’s teased, it’s an idea he’s spoken of to numerous peers.
A report from the Washington Times stated that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu learned of Obama’s intentions to make a run for U.N. Secretary, and he’s already launched a counter-offensive to thwart his chances of success.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reportedly is planning payback for President Obama’s dismissing Mr. Netanyahu’s objections to the Iran nuclear deal last year. Mr. Netanyahu is said to be rallying moderate Arabs to thwart Mr. Obama’s bid to become the Secretary-General of the United Nations after he leaves the White House next year.
Mr. Obama has already discussed the issue with Republican, Democratic and Jewish officials in the United States, according to Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Jarida.
Mr. Netanyahu recently is said to have gotten wind of Obama’s plans which he calls the Obama Project. “Wasn’t eight years of having Obama in office enough?” Mr. Netanyahu is quoted in the Kuwaiti daily as telling associates. “Eight years during which he ignored Israel? And now he wants to be in a position that is liable to cause us hardships in the international arena.”
With U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki Moon’ term ending in 2017, the stars are aligned for Obama to try to assume his position, and after a speech at West Point last year that sounded more like he was campaigning for a larger role than anything else, it seems likely that he plans to make a run.
What would that mean for us?
Well, Investor’s Business Daily had this to say:
The Nobel Peace Prize Committee gave Obama its award on spec, less than nine months after his inauguration in 2009, to promote “multilateral diplomacy” and an “emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play.”
Now the U.N., acting similarly, can make him “president of the world.” Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s term expires in early 2017. If Obama were his successor, the U.S., even under a Republican administration, might not veto an ex-U.S. president in the Security Council.
Who would the U.N. like better as secretary-general than an American who wants the world’s lone superpower placed firmly under the rules made by the U.N. General Assembly, the vast majority of whose members are undemocratic and pine for redistributed U.S. wealth?
A secretary-general who can get the U.S. to accept U.N. rule.
If that’s not a terrifying prospect, I’m not entirely sure what is. Let’s hope that Netanyahu is successful, otherwise, who knows what damage Obama could do to America while presiding over the U.N.