To anyone who listened to Diana West today on the EDL Blog Talk Radio program, the following analysis fills in any missing puzzle pieces in a rather clear yet chilling way.
This is one of the most extraordinary analyses I have ever read. For years people have wondered why Obama acts in a manner so favorable to Sharia and Islamic supremacism. Speculation has centered on his own religious beliefs, but here, Daniel Greenfield offers a less personal and ultimately more compelling explanation — one that elucidates it all in a way that makes sense of the Left’s having signed on to Obama’s general enabling of the Muslim Brotherhood. “Obama’s Big Brotherhood Bet,” by Daniel Greenfield at FrontPage, May 6:
In the spring of 2009, Obama went down to Cairo. He skipped the gaming tables at the Omar Khayyam Casino at the Cairo Marriott and instead went over to the Islamist baccarat tables at Cairo University and bet big on the Muslim Brotherhood.Obama had insisted on Muslim Brotherhood attendance at a speech that was part apology and part abandonment. The apology was for American power and the abandonment was of American allies.
The text of the speech was largely inconsequential in the same way that most of the words that scroll across the teleprompters of politicians are. In politics, the speech is often the medium while the timing, the audience and the location are the message. And the message was that the Brotherhood’s hour had come.
Obama was following through on an idea that had long been an article of faith on the left. The idea was that the United States had invested in a defunct status quo and that our biggest problems were our allies. The only way out was to toss them all overboard.