Rudy Giuliani Revealed Everything You Need to Know About Scott Walker

Scott Walker was not planning to outsource the job of defining his presidential campaign to Rudy Giuliani, a last-minute add-on to his New York speaking appearance. But that is exactly what transpired. While unplanned, Giuliani expressed a question of fundamental importance within the Republican Party, which allowed Walker to define himself unmistakably.

Giuliani defends his original claim in a Wall Street Journal op-ed today. In it, Giuliani argues that Obama is “criticizing his country more than other presidents have done, regardless of their political affiliation,” and likewise fails to express “a fundamental belief in the country’s greatness and the example we set for the world.” Both these claims are false. Previous presidents have criticized American historical failures and misdeeds as sharply as Obama, or even more so. Likewise, Obama has repeatedly emphasized his belief in America’s uniqueness and contributions to world peace.

But to conceive of this “debate” in the most literal terms misses all its importance. The question at issue is the right-wing conviction that Obama represents a unique and alien threat to American life. Versions of this belief have held, in descending increments of paranoia, that Obama concealed his overseas birth, that he has concealed his religious beliefs, and that he is vaguely plotting to harm America. Rush Limbaugh openly confessed to rooting for Obama to fail, his reasoning being that Obama was not actually trying to restore economic health — his goal was to weaken the free enterprise system in order to instill government social control. (“Democrats want to destroy this economy to their benefit, to create more and more poverty, to create more and more homelessness, to create more and more dependency on the federal government.”) The conviction has important strategic implications for the party. Since Obama did not merely believe in different policies but was pursuing a secretive and sinister agenda, it followed that there was no point in negotiating with Obama at all. And this is the strategic course most Republicans followed.

The significance of the debate is the signal it sends about Walker’s relationship to the base. Other Republican candidates have distanced themselves from inflammatory questions about Obama’s patriotism (or his true religious beliefs, which Walker likewise declined to ascertain, before letting his press secretary issue a pro forma statement that Obama is a Christian).

Walker has spent the last several days defining his place on the political spectrum. He courted Grover Norquist and Norquist’s allies, who are seeking a more conservative challenger to Jeb Bush, whom they distrust for his refusal to sign Norquist’s pledge to refuse any tax increase of any size under any conditions. He has likewise taken a more uncompromising tone on abortion and immigration.

While paranoid suspicions about Obama are not a direct policy issue, they serve as a proxy for positioning within the Republican Party. The reaction of fellow conservatives bears this out. Lindsey Graham, a Republican senator who has tried without success to broker deals with Obama on climate, immigration, and other issues, unambiguously contradicted Giuliani. (“I have no doubt that he’s a patriot.”) Bobby Jindal, who is trying to carve out an identity as the spokesman for the right, has gone to comical lengths to attach himself to Giuliani’s sentiments — first issuing a formal statement through his spokesperson that he would not condemn Giuliani, even though nobody asked, and then, when that failed to yield the hoped-for reaction, writing Giuliani a letter of congratulations. Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio both issued statements disavowing any questions of Obama’s motive, in keeping with the mainstream profiles they are trying to cultivate.

Walker dismissed the question of Obama’s religion as a gotcha game by campaign reporters fixated on trivia. It is certainly inconvenient for Republican candidates to face questions that force them to define their relationship with the most stark-raving-mad beliefs of the conservative base. But that relationship is the most important question the candidates will navigate, both during their campaign and while governing. Free-floating paranoia is not an esoteric point of trivia; it is a central feature of conservative-movement thought. Perhaps by mistake, Giuliani made the last several days the most edifying time of the campaign so far.

OBAMA, THE TAQIYYA PRESIDENT

OBAMA IS WHAT IS KNOWN TO MUSLIMS AS “TAQIYYA.” ACCORDING TO THE MIDDLE EAST FORUM “THE QURAN ALLOWS MUSLIMS TO HAVE A DECLARED AGENDA, AND A SECRET AGENDA (JIHAD, SLAUGHTER, AND MAYHEM) DURING TIME OF WEAKNESS, THIS IS CALLED TAQIYYA.” TO PUT IT IN SIMPLER WORDS, IT IS THE “ART” OF DECEPTION, OR MORE CORRECTLY, OF DECEIVING NON-MUSLIM INFIDELS.

Does Obama Love America or Islam?

Posted By Daniel Greenfield On February 23, 2015 @ 12:21 am In Daily Mailer,FrontPag

What are the things that Obama is passionate about?

In his first days in office, he signed a number of executive orders. Of his first five orders, three involved Muslim terrorists captured and held in Gitmo. His third executive order was about the “humane” treatment of terrorists. His fourth executive order sought to close Gitmo. Like the man who can’t wait to get away from his wife so he can call his mistress, Obama made his priorities clear from the start.

It took Obama a month to set up the Economic Recovery Advisory Board. It took him two days to set up a Special Interagency Task Force on Detainee Disposition to free Gitmo terrorists.

Obama prioritized helping Muslim terrorists over the economic recovery. Why? Because that was a subject he was passionate about.

People will always prioritize what they are passionate about over what they aren’t. It’s easy to look at a mission shift and see the choice that has been made.

For example, is Obama passionate about space exploration? He told the head of NASA that his “foremost” priority was making Muslims feel good about themselves.

Obama is more passionate about Muslim self-esteem than he is about visiting other planets.

Is he passionate about god and religion? That depends on which god and which religion.

Obama left out “Under God” when reciting the Gettysburg Address. The DNC’s platform initially left out “God” and booed the reinsertion. Obama’s invocation at his inauguration also dropped “Under God”.

owever Obama cheerfully recited “Allahu Akbar”, the opening of the Islamic supremacist call to prayer, and called it “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth.”

He had a man jailed for making a YouTube video attacking Mohammed and blamed him for Muslim acts of terror against America.

Obama’s religious beliefs, such as they are, remain locked in his head. But there is only one religion that he is passionate enough to protect by imprisoning those who blaspheme against it.

He may botch salutes and the pledge of allegiance, but he has retained the ability to chant “Allahu Akbar” with a “first-rate accent”.

He may think that the “good book” says “don’t throw stones in glass houses”, but he accurately quotes the Koran. The things that we remember are the ones that we really care about.

Obama has an obligation to reference the Gettysburg Address, to wait out the pledge of allegiance and to praise America. He has no obligation to quote the Koran or chant “Allahu Akbar”. These are things that he does because he wants to do them. They are the things that he is actually passionate about.

Does he love them more than he loves

There are married couples who have lived together for decades only to discover that the love of their life had been cheating on them all along. And who is to say that the adulterer doesn’t love? We can’t pass a final verdict on his feelings. But we can know his faithlessness by his deeds.

We can say of him and of Obama that they broke faith with the covenant that they had entered into. We can say that they betrayed those who trusted them, lied to them, used and abused them, and then feigned outrage when their actions were questioned.

Can the media’s furious talking heads denouncing Giuliani deny that Obama lied to Americans? Can they deny that he harmed them? Can they deny that he refused to take responsibility for his actions?

The facts are clear. Only the interpretation is in doubt. And the interpretation is what we are debating.

Does Obama lie to Americans because he loves them? Does he weaken America abroad because he loves it? And if Obama loves America, what does he love about it and how does he show that love? Does he love the Constitution? If he did, he wouldn’t constantly violate it. Does he love Americans?

Which Americans? The ones whose health plans he took away for ObamaCare or the ones whose jobs he took away to legalize illegal aliens? The ones

Is it the Americans who no longer believe in the future under his rule that he loves? Is it the unemployed Americans he loves? Is it the Americans he jailed under his new laws and regulations that he loves?

If Obama loves Americans, then it’s a clear case of hurting the ones you love.

And if Obama doesn’t love Americans, what America does he love; the rock band or the Walt Whitman poem, the town America in the Netherlands or the Neil Diamond song?

Questioning Obama’s love for America is alleged to be unacceptable gutter politics, but accusing his critics of being racists is a standard debating tactic for those same outraged media talking heads.

It wasn’t gutter politics when Obama claimed that the national debt under Bush was “unpatriotic”. Is Obama at least as “unpatriotic” for increasing the debt by 70 percent? Is it possible that his spending spree proves that he doesn’t love America? Or is indebting our children the way that he shows his love? Can we question the patriotism of a man who frees terrorists or only of a man who locks them up? Is asking whether Obama loves America an unacceptable question because the answer is obvious or because it isn’t? Obama will go on making speeches in which he claims to love America while making the country poorer, more dangerous and weaker. He will also go on making speeches praising Islam while increasing the power, influence and wealth of Muslims in America and around the world.

The rest of the history

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2015/dgreenfield/does-obama-love-america-or-islam/print/

OBAMA CONTINUES SETTING FREE THE WORST OF THE WORST TERRORISTS THAT WERE IMPRISONED IN GITMO

Allen West “Obama aiding and abetting Islamic terrorism”

http://allenwestrepublic.com/2015/01/14/allen-west-obama-aiding-and-abetting-islamic-terrorism/

Fox News’ Your World with Neil Cavuto: via Media Matters “Obama is abetting Islamic terrorism by releasing Gitmo detainees”

“Islamic terrorists continue to wage war on western civilization they need to be kept off the battlefield”

“I don’t care how long it takes. If they end up in Gitmo for the rest of their lives, so be it.” he said. “We are showing abject weakness when we think that we are showing benevolence.” ~ Allen West 1/14/15 Neil Cavuto

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.