OBAMA WATCH: 6.17.16 - Is President Obama Insane?

Is President Obama Insane? - By Daymond Duck -

http://raptureready.com/featured/duck/dd231.html

 

While I was considering the appropriateness of writing an article titled, "Is President Obama Insane," Pres. Obama called Donald Trump's tax proposals "crazy." And about that time Hillary Clinton called Donald Trump's ideas "dangerously incoherent." And, I remembered that in Nov. 2015 a spokesman for the UN named, Rupert Colville, called a crackdown on immigration "very, very stupid."

 

So I thought if the president of the U.S. can infer that Donald Trump is "crazy," and Hillary Clinton can say he is "dangerously incoherent," and a spokesman for the UN can infer that he is "stupid," it should be okay for a prophecy writer to ask "Is Pres. Obama Insane?"

 

The question came about because a panel of experts held a discussion about Pres. Obama's pronouncement that schools should base their bathroom policies on gender identity instead of biological sex.

 

One panel member, a Sunni Muslim scholar named Sheikh Hamza Yusuf said Sunni Muslims that live outside the U.S. (almost 1.5 billion Muslims) think Americans have gone insane.

 

Many will argue that the Sheikh was just using an expression, but the bathroom problem is coming from Pres. Obama, not most Americans. It is Pres. Obama's pronouncement on the use of bathrooms that is not normal. Many Americans are like the Sunni Muslims who believe it is strange at best.

 

The word "obsession" refers to a persistent preoccupation with something that is not normal and that certainly fits Pres. Obama.

 

He urged Illinois legislators to legalize gay marriage. He pushed for the repeal of "Don't ask Don't tell" in the military. He pushed the gay agenda all over the world. He lit up the White House in rainbow colors when same-sex marriage was legalized. He posed for the cover of an LGBT magazine.

 

He called criticism of same-sex marriage hate speech (that would mean we have almost 1.5 billion Sunni Muslim haters outside of America). He said he wants his legacy to be his record on gay issues, and more. So it is not right to say that he has an abnormal preoccupation with gay issues?

 

About seven weeks before Pres. Obama made this pronouncement, which almost 1.5 billion Muslims concur is insane, The American College of Pediatricians released a report saying that indoctrinating children with the idea that they can pick their gender amounts to child abuse. They added that, "A person thinking he or she is something they are not, at best, is a sign of confusion."

 

If Pres. Obama is not insane, then why did he issue a pronouncement that amounts to child abuse? If he is not irrational, why would he require schools to let "confused" boys go into the bathroom with girls and let "confused" girls go into the bathroom with boys? Could it be that his mental condition is the same as those The American College of Pediatricians calls "confused?"

 

But I want to move on to something else that is utter madness.

 

Pres. Obama clearly does not believe in the Bible. Otherwise, the chasm between what the Scriptures say about gay issues and what Mr. Obama does would not exist.

 

Anyway, on June 3, 2016, he sent John Kerry to Paris to join France and 26 other nations and organizations (a group of many) in an effort to force an agreement on Israel that will lead to a peace treaty in the Middle East.

 

Serious students of Bible prophecy know that a treaty (with a group of many) for seven years of peace in the Middle East will mark the rise of the Antichrist and the beginning of the Tribulation period. That will lead to the death of billions of people, the battle of Armageddon and more.

 

One would have to not believe the Bible, be insane or worse-to trigger this great disaster when all that is needed is to leave Israel alone.

 

Serious students of Bible prophecy also know that if a nation wants to be great-that nation will bless Israel. But if a nation decides to come against Israel something bad will happen to that nation (Gen. 12:3; Obad. 1:15).

 

So did anything bad happen in France or the U.S. lately? Come to think of it, yes!

 

On the exact same day that France held the meeting in Paris, the Seine River broke its banks and caused some of the worst flooding that Paris and some of the surrounding towns have experienced in decades, and the rain was still coming down and not subsiding.

 

And on that exact same day in the U.S., Houston, TX and 31 counties were in the midst of a week-long flood that was expected to grow worse from more weekend rain. At least 16 people were killed.

 

I don't know if Pres. Obama is insane, confused, demon possessed, has brain damage from drug use or what. I just know that the Bible says God gives people who reject Him over to a reprobate mind (Rom. 1:28). And Pres. Obama's thinking on gay issues, the education of children and the peace process is bizarre and outside of the will of God.

 

I also know that these things are not good for the U.S. and there will ultimately be a price to pay.

 

Prophecy Plus Ministries

Daymond & Rachel Duck

 

 

Obama and the moderate Muslims - Caroline B. Glick - http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Column-One-Obama-and-the-moderate-Muslims-457032

 

In the 15 years since September 11, first under Bush, and to a more extreme degree under Obama, the US has refused to name the enemy that fights America with the expressed aim of destroying it.

 

As far as the White House is concerned, Jeffrey Goldberg, The Atlantic's top reporter, is President Barack Obama's unofficial mouthpiece.

 

This was one of the many things we learned from The New York Times in David Samuels's profile of Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes.

 

In the course of explaining how Rhodes was able to sell Obama's nuclear deal with Iran, despite the fact that it cleared Iran's path to a nuclear arsenal while giving the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism more than a hundred billion dollars, Samuels reported that "handpicked Beltway insiders like Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic... helped retail the administration's narrative."

 

Given his White House-assigned role, Goldberg's explanation of Obama's refusal to discuss radical Islam is worthwhile reading. It reflects what Obama wants the public to believe about his position.

 

On Wednesday Goldberg wrote that in Obama's view, discussing radical Islam is counterproductive because it harms the moderates who need to stand up to the radicals.

 

"Obama," he wrote, "believes that [a] clash is taking place [not between Western and Muslim civilization but] within a single civilization, and that Americans are sometimes collateral damage in this fight between Muslim modernizers and Muslim fundamentalists."

 

Pointing out that there are Muslim fundamentalists, Obama has argued to Goldberg, will only strengthen them against the modernizers.

 

Over the past week, prominent conservative commentators have agreed with Obama's position.

 

Eli Lake from Bloomberg and Prof. John Yoo writing in National Review, among others, criticized presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump for speaking openly radical Islam. Like Goldberg, they argued that Trump's outspokenness alienates moderate Muslims.

 

But what moderate Muslims is Obama trying to help? Consider his treatment of Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi.

 

Sisi is without a doubt, the most outspoken and powerful advocate of a moderate reformation of Islam, and of Islamic rejection of jihad, alive today.

 

Sisi has staked his power and his life on his war to defeat the Muslim Brotherhood, Islamic State and jihadist Islam in general.

 

Sisi speaks openly about the danger of jihadist Islam. In his historic speech before the leading Sunni clerics at Cairo's Al-Azhar University on January 1, 2015, Sisi challenged the clerics to reform Islam.

 

Among other things he said, "I address the religious clerics. We have to think hard about what we are facing.... It is inconceivable that the thinking that we hold most sacred should cause the entire Islamic nation to be a source of anxiety, danger, killing and destruction for the rest of the world.

 

Impossible! "That thinking - I am not saying 'religion,' but 'thinking' - that corpus of texts and ideas that we have held sacred over the years, to the point that departing from them has become almost impossible, is antagonizing the entire world!...

 

"Is it possible that 1.6 billion people [Muslims] should want to kill the rest of the world's inhabitants - that is 7 billion - so that they themselves may live? Impossible! "I say and repeat again that we are in need of a religious revolution. You imams are responsible before Allah. The entire world, I say it again, the entire world is waiting for your next move...because this Islamic nation is being torn, it is being destroyed, it is being lost - and it is being lost by our own hands."

 

Certainly since September 11, 2001, no Muslim leader has issues a clearer call for moderation in Islam than Sisi did in that speech. And he has continued to speak in the manner ever since.

 

No other Muslim leader of note has put everything on the line as Sisi has to defeat the forces of jihad both on the field and in the mosques.

 

Moreover, Sisi has put his anti-jihadist belief into action by expanding security cooperation between Egypt and Israel and by bringing the Gulf states into his undeclared alliance with the Jewish state.

 

He has also acted to end the demonization of Israel in the Egyptian media.

 

Obviously, supporting Sisi is a no-brainer for a leader who insists that his goal is to empower moderate Muslims. And yet, far from being Sisi's greatest supporter, Obama opposes him.

 

Since Sisi led the Egyptian military in overthrowing the Obama-backed Muslim Brotherhood regime as it was poised to transform Egypt into a jihadist terrorist state, Obama has worked to undermine him.

 

Obama has denied Sisi weapons critical to his fight with ISIS in Sinai. He has repeatedly and consistently chastised Sisi for human rights abuses against radical Islamists who, if permitted to return to power, would trounce the very notion of human rights while endangering the US's key interests in Middle East.

 

Then there is Iran.

 

If Obama fears radical Islam, as Goldberg insists that he does, why did he turn his back on the Green Revolution in 2009? Why did he betray the millions of Iranians who rose up against their Islamist leaders in the hopes of installing a democratic order in Iran where women's rights, and minority rights are respected? Why did he instead side with the radical, jihadist, terrorism-supporting, nuclear weapons-developing and -proliferating ayatollahs? And why has Obama striven to reach an accommodation with the Iranian regime despite its continued dedication to the destruction of the US? Goldberg's claim that Obama is interested in empowering Muslim moderates in their fight against radicals doesn't pass the laugh test.

 

Obama's actual schemes for relating to - as opposed to acknowledging, fighting or defeating - the forces of jihad involve empowering those forces at the expense of the moderates who oppose them.

 

Yes, there are exceptions to this rule - like Obama's belated assistance to the Kurds in Syria and Iraq. But that doesn't mean that empowering Islamic jihadists at the expense of moderate Muslims is not Obama's overarching strategy.

 

In the case of the Kurds, Obama only agreed to help them after spending years training Syrian opposition forces aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood. It was only after nearly all of those forces cut contact with their American trainers and popped up in al-Qaida-aligned militias that Obama began actively supporting the Kurds.

 

Then there is his behavior toward American jihadists.

 

Almost every major jihadist attack on US soil since Obama took office has been carried out by US citizens. But Obama has not countered the threat they pose by embracing American Muslims who reject jihad.

 

To the contrary, Obama has spent the past seven- and-a-half years empowering radical Muslims and Islamic groups like the pro-Hamas terrorism apologists from the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC).

 

This week The Daily Caller reported that MPAC President Salam al-Marayati, is serving as an adviser to the US Department of Homeland Security.

 

Marayati accused Israel of responsibility for the September 11 attacks on the US, and has called on Muslims not to cooperate with federal counter-terrorism probes. According to the report, Marayati has visited the White House 11 times since 2009.

 

The Daily Caller also reported that a Syrian immigrant to the US was hired to serve as a member of Obama's task for on "violent extremism" last year.

 

Laila Alawa, who joined the task force the day she received US citizenship, referred to the September 11 attacks as an event that "changed the world for good."

 

According to the Daily Caller, her task force called for the administration to avoid using the terms "jihad" and "Shari'a" in discussing terrorism - as if Obama needed the tip.

 

So far from helping Muslim moderates, Obama's actual policy is to help radical Muslims. In stark opposition to his talking points to Goldberg, since he entered office, Obama has worked to empower radical Muslims in the US and throughout the Middle East at the expense of moderates. Indeed, it is hard to think of an anti-jihad Muslim leader in the US or in the Middle East whom Obama has supported.

 

The victims in Orlando, San Bernadino, Garland, Amarillo, Boston and beyond are proof that Obama's actual policies are not making America safer. The rise of ISIS and Iran makes clear that his actual policies are making the world more dangerous.

 

Maybe if his actual policies were what he claims they are, things might be different today. Maybe White House support for anti-jihadist Muslims combined with a purge of all mention of jihad and related terms from the federal lexicon would be the winning policy. But on its face, it is hard to see how forbidding federal employees from discussing jihadists in relevant terms makes sense.

 

How can enforcing ignorance of a problem help you to solve it? How does refusing to call out the Islamic extremists that Islamic moderates like the Green revolutionaries and Sisi risk their lives to fight weaken them? How does empowering jihad apologists from CAIR and MPAC help moderate, anti-jihad American Muslims who currently have no voice in Obama's White House? Eli Lake argued that it was by keeping mum on jihad that then-president George W. Bush and Gen. David Petraeus convinced Sunni tribal leaders in Iraq to join the US in fighting al-Qaida during the surge campaign in 2007-2008.

 

The same leaders now support ISIS.

 

A counter-argument to Lake's is that Bush's policy of playing down the jihadist doctrine of the likes of al-Qaida had nothing to do with the Sunni chieftains' decision to side with the US forces.

 

Rather, they worked with the Americans first because the Americans paid them a lot of money to do so. And second, because they believed the Americans when they said that they would stay the course in Iraq.

 

They now side with ISIS because they don't trust America, and would rather live under ISIS rule than under Iranian rule.

 

In other words, for them, the question wasn't one of political niceties, but of financial gain and power assessments. And that remains the question that determines their actions today.

 

In the 15 years since September 11, first under Bush, and since 2009, to a more extreme degree under Obama, the US has refused to name the enemy that fights America with the expressed aim of destroying it.

 

Maybe, just maybe, this is one of the reasons that the Americans have also failed to truly help anti-jihadist - or moderate - Muslims. Maybe you can't help one without calling out the other.

 

US House okays funding boost for Israel's missile defense - By Rebecca Shimoni Stoil - http://www.timesofisrael.com/us-house-okays-huge-funding-for-israels-missile-defense/

 

Under the shadow of a presidential veto, over $600 million allocated for programs; pro-Israel groups criticize White House for opposing spending increase

 

Under the shadow of a presidential veto threat, the House of Representatives passed a defense appropriations measure Thursday that included $635.7 million for Israel's missile defense programs.

 

While the White House has offered conflicting explanations for its opposition to increased missile defense support for the Jewish state, pro-Israel groups on Thursday continued to criticize the administration's reticence to accept the extra funding appropriated for Israel by the Republican-controlled House. 

 

The massive $576 billion defense appropriations bill for the upcoming fiscal year included $268.7 million in research and development funding for US-Israel cooperative missile and rocket defense programs; $25 million in research and development funding for US-Israel directed energy activities, such as laser technologies, to combat missiles and rockets; $72 million for procurement of the Iron Dome rocket defense system; $150 million for procurement of the David's Sling missile defense system; and $120 million for procurement of the Arrow-3 missile defense system.

 

The amount allocated to Israeli missile defense programs exceeded the sum requested by the Obama administration by over $400 million.

 

The House also included $42.7 million for US-Israel anti-tunnel cooperation to continue developing technologies to locate, map and destroy terrorist tunnel networks from the Gaza Strip.

 

The must-pass legislation cleared the lower chamber by a vote of 282-138.

 

But despite the wide margin, the defense funding legislation faces a rocky future. On Tuesday, the White House issued a lengthy missive detailing over a dozen points of opposition to the appropriations measure.

 

The administration criticized the bill for budgetary sleight of hand, complaining that it redirects funds from the overseas operations war chest toward other purposes in an effort to meet spending targets. In the letter, the administration complained that the legislation "fails to provide our troops with the resources needed to keep our nation safe.

 

"At a time when ISIL continues to threaten the homeland and our allies, the bill does not fully fund wartime operations," the letter continued. "Instead the bill would redirect $16 billion of Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funds toward base budget programs that the Department of Defense (DOD) did not request, shortchanging funding for ongoing wartime operations midway through the year. Not only is this approach dangerous but it is also wasteful. The bill would buy excess force structure without the money to sustain it, effectively creating a hollow force structure that would undermine DOD's efforts to restore readiness."

 

The objection to increased aid to Israel came as the administration criticized "the reduction of $324 million from the FY 2017 Budget request for US ballistic missile defense programs."

 

"These programs are required to improve the reliability of missile defense system and ensure the United States stays ahead of the future ballistic missile threat," administration officials wrote in the missive sent to Congress.

 

Without explicitly drawing parallels, the next sentence of the letter noted that "furthermore, the Administration opposes the addition of $455 million above the FY 2017 Budget request for Israeli missile defense procurement and cooperative development programs." The administration had initially requested $103.8 million for Israeli cooperative programs.

 

On Wednesday, State Department Spokesman John Kirby explained that the administration opposed the funding increase because it "would consume a growing share of a shrinking US Missile Defense Agency's budget."

 

But unnamed administration officials told numerous outlets that the increase in missile funding should be tied to the long-term Memorandum of Understanding currently under negotiation rather than being provided ad hoc through individual appropriations bills.

 

Pro-Israel organizations Thursday continued to protest the administration's opposition to the spending increase.

 

On Thursday, leaders of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations called the Obama administration rejection "very troubling" and "a disturbing departure from the prior practice of this and previous administrations."

 

In a statement, Conference of Presidents Chairman Stephen M. Greenberg and CEO Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice chairman, asserted that "in a time of escalating threats to Israel from the arsenal of more 150,000 missiles and rockets supplied by Iran and stockpiled by Hezbollah, including sophisticated precision guided weapons capable of targeting hundreds of thousands of Israeli civilians in major population areas in Israel, the belligerent threats to Israel posed by Iran's ongoing development and testing of its long range missiles in blatant violation of internationally imposed restrictions and the ever present peril of renewed rocket and missile attacks on Israel from Hamas and other terrorist organizations in Gaza, the decision by the Obama Administration to oppose the overwhelming bipartisan Congressional support for increasing Israel's ability to defend its people is very troubling.

 

"President Obama and senior US military leaders have repeatedly acknowledged that assuring Israel has the necessary military resources to counteract missile and rocket assaults at a time of increasing instability in the Middle East promotes US national security interests in the region," the statement continued. "Israel's missile defense systems have also provided a valuable contribution to America's own missile defense program and security.

 

"The public and formal objection to Congress increasing the budget for Israel's missile defense is a disturbing departure from the prior practice of this and previous administrations. This could risk emboldening the forces of terror and instability and heighten concerns among friends and allies of the US in the region," they concluded, urging the administration "to promptly reconsider its stand."

 

The Christians United for Israel Action Fund also emphasized Thursday that it "is deeply disappointed by President Obama's opposition to the Congressional plan to increase support for Israel's missile defense programs.

 

"As the threats to Israel mount, and as President Obama's Iran deal enriches and emboldens Israel's most determined enemies, Israel's need for missile defense has increased exponentially," wrote the organization in a statement. "The least we can do to protect our ally from these threats - and to improve our own defense infrastructure in the process - is to provide this modest increase in missile defense funding."

 

Christians United for Israel will convene their annual summit in Washington next month, and thousands of pro-Israel Christians are expected to converge on Capitol Hill to encourage representatives to support Israeli defense funding, among other legislation.

 

Meanwhile, AIPAC congratulated legislators on the Thursday vote, writing in a statement that it "commends the US House of Representatives for significantly bolstering its support of US-Israel missile defense cooperation in the fiscal 2017 defense appropriations bill."

 

The pro-Israel lobby group said that the funds will "help Israel defend its citizens against rocket and missile threats, and contribute to America's missile defense programs."