AND NOW FOR PASTORIUS' SPECULATION:
Hillary's Campaign was responsible for the initiation of the Obama Birth Certificate meme in the 2008 election.
From the Telegraph:
BIRTHER ROW BEGAN WITH HILLARY
The lie that Barack Obama was not born in the US has been fuelled by fringe Republicans — but supporters of Hillary Clinton, now Mr Obama’s Secretary of State, are largely to blame for starting it.
False rumours about Mr Obama’s background first surfaced in 2004, in Illinois, where he was a state senator. Andy Martin, a perennial local candidate and litigant, claimed Mr Obama was secretly Muslim.
Related theories — including that he was radicalised in a “madrassa” in Indonesia — developed after Mr Obama entered the national stage with a speech to the Democratic National Convention later that year.
In 2005, Mr Obama went to Washington as the junior US senator for Illinois.
The rumours about him persisted, but seemingly failed to take hold among political insiders and voters alike.
It was not until April 2008, at the height of the intensely bitter Democratic presidential primary process, that the touch paper was properly lit. An anonymous email circulated by supporters of Mrs Clinton, Mr Obama’s main rival for the party’s nomination, thrust a new allegation into the national spotlight — that he had not been born in Hawaii.This is what it said:
“Barack Obama’s mother was living in Kenya with his Arab-African father late in her pregnancy,” it said. “She was not allowed to travel by plane then, so Barack Obama was born there and his mother then took him to Hawaii to register his birth.”Barack Obama is not a man who tolerates dissent.
Look at what he's doing to Senator Bob Menendez, in the wake of the Senator's criticism of Obama's Iran policy.
That's over criticism of his policy. Imagine how Obama must have felt about Hillary's questioning of the identity as an American, an attack that goes to the very core of his being?
How did this woman get to be Secretary of State under Obama?
Ponder that for a moment?
Could it be Hillary actually had something on Obama with this Birth Certificate thing?
Could it be that Obama actually has something equally damaging on Hillary, say, like Bill Clinton's Pedophile Island vacations (which also conveniently came out recently)?
Can one reasonably imagine any other kind of working arrangement between these two vindictive monomaniacs other than a truce by Mutually Assured Destruction?
Or do you think it is reasonable to say that Obama decided to bury the hatchet with his bitter nemesis, the woman who was willing to question, not only his fitness for office, but his fitness to even call himself an American in the first place?
So yeah, I think it is possible Obama said, "Ok, Hillary, I'll give you what you want, a position of prestige within my Administration that you can use as a springboard towards your election to POTUS in 2016. But you have to play ball with me. You have to pursue my Foreign Policy agenda, and in order to accomplish that agenda, you have to do your job the way I tell you to do your job."
And what was/is Obama's Foreign Policy agenda?
Well, what was Obama's first overseas speech?
It was called "A New Beginning", otherwise known as the Cairo Speech, in which Obama stated:'
I’m proud to carry with me the goodwill of the American people, and a greeting of peace from Muslim communities in my country: Assalaamu alaykum (Applause.)
I’ve come here to Cairo to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world, one based on mutual interest and mutual respect, and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition.Is it crazy to suggest that Obama's primary Foreign Policy goals as President have revolved around creating a bond between America and the Islamic world?
If that is not reasonable, then what is his main Foreign Policy objective?
Well, let's assume I am correct for a minute. We know that Americans do not trust the Islamic world, and why should we? How are we to find common values with nations who espouse Sharia law, who put apostates and gays to death? Who wrap women up in the chains of the Burqa? Who scream for the death of our nation at the drop of a pin?
So how is a President to achieve such a Foreign Policy objective, such a major realignment of the world order, when it goes contrary to the will of the people?
The answer is, he'd have to run a Black Ops Foreign Policy team. He'd have to go dark. He'd have to create a means of back channel communications that would allow him to stay in constant communication with the major players of the Islamic world at all times?
Private Servers anyone?
And if you're Obama, and you're putting Hillary in charge of such an initiative, well, what is Hillary's major asset? Has she ever done Foreign Policy before? No. Does she know the key players that Obama is reaching out to? Iran's Mullahs? The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt? The leaders of Hamas?
No.
So, what does Hillary have?
The answer is Huma Abedin, the daughter of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Daughter of Saleha Mahmood Abedin, a pro-Sharia sociologist with ties to numerous Islamist organizations including the Muslim Brotherhood
Longtime assistant to Hillary Clinton Wife of former congressman Anthony Weiner
Longtime former employee of the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs, which shares the Muslim Brotherhood's goal of establishing Islamic supremacy and Sharia Law worldwide
Her father, Syed Abedin (1928-1993), was an Indian-born scholar who had worked as a visiting professor at Saudi Arabia's King Abdulaziz University in the early Seventies.
Huma's mother, Saleha Mahmood Abedin, is a sociologist known for her strong advocacy of Sharia Law. A member of the Muslim Sisterhood (i.e., the Muslim Brotherhood's division for women),
Saleha is also a board member of the International Islamic Council for Dawa and Relief. This pro-Hamas entity is part of the Union of Good, which the U.S. government has formally designated as an international terrorist organization led by the Muslim Brotherhood luminary Yusuf al-Qaradawi.I believe that, in negotiating their MAD Truce, Obama and Hillary struck upon a working relationship that included Huma Abedin as Hillary's advisor and liaison to the world of the Muslim Brotherhood, and Valerie Jarrett, as Hillary's director for the Iran Initiative.
I think Obama sees the Muslim Brotherhood as being the natural heirs to the Sunni Throne, and the Mullahs of Iran as the natural heirs to the Shia Throne.
I think Obama is an anti-Colonialist, as Dinesh D'Souza theorizes. But he is not merely ANTI-Colonialist. He is sophisticated enough to be for something as well. That is, he is a National Socialist. Or, perhaps better put, he is an Ethnic Nationalist, a person who believes only the indigenous people of a country ought have a say in the national political structure.
I think Obama's vision for the world involves weakening the West (which he sees as a force of oppression and imperialism, militarily, economically, and commercially), while restoring the nation's the West has, to his mind, plundered, to the rule of their natural heirs.
I believe Obama made it clear in the title of his first autobiography that he is pursuing the dream of his father. And what were those dreams?
Barack Obama, Sr. worked under Kenya's elected President Tom Mboya. Tom Mboya was a Pan-Africanist. He believed in Africa for African people, but he did not narrowly define who the African people were. Barack Obama Sr. disagreements with Tom Mboya revolved around the concept of Pan-Africanism vs. what Barack Obama, Sr. saw as a Kenyan Socialism, or National Socialism.
In 1965, Barack Obama, Sr. published a paper entitled "Problems Facing Our Socialism". Here are some excerpts. First he discusses, doing business with those outside the tribe:
It is true that in most African societies the individual had sole right as to the use of land and proceeds from it. He did, however, own it only as a trustee to the clan, tribe or society. He could give it on loan to someone outside the tribe to use, but he had no right to sell it outside the tribe .. How then can there be a conflict of opinion on communal ownership?Here he is on the Nationalization of Private Enterprise:
There is a statement made on nationalization [in Sessional Paper No. 10]. True there are cases in which nationalization is bad, but there are, likewise, quite a few benefits to be derived from it. On this subject I would like to refer the authors to Prof. Bronferbrenner’s [sic] work on the “Appeals for confiscation in Economic Development”* [sic — the referenced article is titled “The Appeal of Confiscation in Economic Development”]. Nationalization should not be looked at only in terms of profitability alone, but also, or even more, on the benefit to society that such services render and on its importance in terms of public interest ..And what is that "public interest"? It is the seizing of assets owned by those outside the tribe:
There is also a statement that nationalization will apply to African enterprise. How can we talk of nationalizing African enterprise when such enterprises do not exit?
If we are going to nationalize, we are going to nationalize what exists and is worth nationalizing. But these are European and Asian enterprises.
One need not be a Kenyan to note that nearly all commercial enterprises from small shops in River Road to big shops in Government Road and that industries in the Industrial Areas of Nairobi are mostly owned by Asians and Europeans.
One need not be a Kenyan to note that when one goes to a good restraurant he mostly finds Asians and Europeans, nor has he to be a Kenyan to see that the majority of cars running in Kenya are run by Asians and Europeans.
How then can we say that we are going to to be indiscriminate in rectifying these imbalances? We have to give the African his place in his own country and we have to give him this economic power if he is going to develop.And this means seizing the assets of outsiders, the means of production owned by those who are not "folk" to the country.
Does this sound familiar?
Kristalnacht, anyone?
So, back to the point:
Barack Obama is perpetuating the Dreams of His Father.
It is important to understand this if you want to understand his Islamic world policy.
Remember, Obama was heavily instrumental in kicking Mubarak out of power. Obama then helped the Muslim Brotherhood ascend to power, and when they did, he invested heavily in them in Foreign Aid, up to and including military weapons.
At the time, this looked like an investment in Arab Democracy. But my opinion is, to Obama, this was an investment, not in Arab Democracy, but in Islamic Democracy.
(I will explain momentarily.)
Then the people decided they had had enough of the Muslim Brotherhood's pushing of a Sharia agenda. The people agitated for the Muslm Brotherhood to leave.
Did Obama support the will of the people in excising the Muslim Brotherhood?
No, he didn't.
So why was Obama for Arab Democracy in one case, and not in the next?
Why has he become the first President to support Hamas, naming a supporter of Hamas as an adviser, then dropping him for Hamas ties, and then naming him to an even higher position?
Why would Obama support Hamas when they were elected once and for all? Is that Democracy? Could we have expected the Muslim Brotherhood to have behaved any differently? Would it have been reasonable to expect that the Muslim Brotherhood ever would have relinquished power voluntarily? Has any Islamist government ever relinquished power voluntarily? Ever?
No.
But it is the Islamist governments Obama has supported.
When, in 2009, the people of Iran stood up and attempted to rock the streets so hard as to unseat the Mullahs, did Obama stand behind the will of the people to unseat the Islamist government?
No.
Barack Obama does not stand for unseating any Islamist government.
Barack Obama DOES stand for Democratic elections that put an Islamist government in power.
Barack Obama does not stand for the orderly transition of power from an Islamist government to another duly elected government of a predominantly Muslim Arab population.
Barack Obama is, therefore, not an Arabist. He is a Muslim sympathizer, or perhaps, better said, an Islamist sympathizer. He does not believe in Arab Democracy. He believe in Islamist Democracy.
And, by his actions and words, we can see he supports the all-but-permanent installation of Islamist governments once elected.
This is because Barack Obama believes Islamist governments embody the will of the volk; the people of the Arab nations.
The Muslim Brotherhood to the Sunni, the Mullahs to the Shia.
It is not out of weakness that Obama has delegated the fight against ISIS in Iraq to the Mullahs of Iran? Obama sees Iraq as a Shia counterbalance to the Sunni world.
I believe Obama thinks of a stable Middle East as a Middle East where the Sunnis and the Shias both have their own Kingdoms, which can then work out a rapprochement only when the Will of the People are represented by a leader which embodies the sprit of the folk; a Caliphate.
Obama, in essence, is pursuing, not merely an anti-colonialist initiative in the Middle East, but a fully-formed National Socialist vision, complete with a mythological dimension born of Islam.
And, to dovetail back to the beginning, that is what the Private Email Servers are about. Obama can not allow the people of the United States know what is this monomaniacal vision he pursues.
We are the crew, he is Ahab. We will not truly understand the voyage we find ourselves upon, until we are ringed by leviathans, and the White Whale is bearing down on us.
