Quantcast

«

»

Sep 28 2011

Robert O’Brien Nominee: Larry Klayman

You can always count on Larry Klayman to bring the crazy:

As just one example, this time from the Democratic side of the aisle, our president, Barack Hussein Obama, Muslim under Islamic law as his father was Muslim and clearly Muslim in his heart, is in the process of orchestrating what Netanyahu branded “theatre of the absurd” with regard to Israel, a vital ally and one that is essential for U.S. national security in the oil-rich region of the Middle East.

But now that recent polls and election results show that Obama and his fellow Democrats are rapidly losing their traditional hold on Jewish political donors and fundraisers, our glib “mullah in chief” — two faced as ever — seeks to create the newly crafted impression that he is now solidly behind Israel and direct negotiations, rather than a United Nation’s imposed Palestinian state.

Apparently the fact that Obama has ordered our U.N. rep to veto the resolution calling for the imposition of a Palestinian state has no bearing on whether he wants one imposed. Reality 0, Klayman 1.

20 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. 1
    naturalcynic

    The most absurd thing in that theater is that Israel is so necessary for our national security vis-a-vis Mideast oil. How is the most important reason for arab hostility to the US contributing to our security?

  2. 2
    Bronze Dog

    …Muslim under Islamic law as his father was Muslim…

    It’s funny how they use heredity to justify tarring him as a Muslim. Last I checked, the sane position was that a person’s religion is the one he believes in, not what theocratic laws dictate. Then again, it is consistent with my argument that it’s the religious right trying to creep radical Sharia into our government, since secular, American laws would not acknowledge that hereditary position. At least not for an adult.

    I remember having to pause my reading of The God Delusion to rage about one of the topics: There was a trend going on in the middle ages or thereabouts, where children from Jewish families were baptized as Christians, and then forcibly removed from their parents. Nutbars of the time made a lot of concerned talk about it being abusive for “Christian” children to be raised in Jewish households (with their biological parents), as if being splashed with magic water had somehow altered their species.

  3. 3
    VeritasKnight

    Personally, I like how everything they say doesn’t require reality to back it up. “Sure, the Obama administration has said they don’t support this move…and they’re going to vote against this move. But you know, wink wink, they really support it, nudge nudge.”

    Amazing.

  4. 4
    JustaTech

    @Bronze Dog: I’m pretty sure that the last acknowledged victim of the Inquisition was a Jewish boy who was “baptized” by his frightened Catholic nanny when he was sick, which was used to justify removing him from his parents and dumping him into a monestary. By the time his parents won leagal judgement to get him back he was firmly Catholic and ended up a Jesuit priest who had to be hidden from Hitler because he was born to Jewish parents. (Yes, it happened that recently.)

    throughly stupid all the way around.

  5. 5
    slc1

    Of course, Mr. Klayman neglects to inform his readers of the fact that President Obama’s father was a non-believer, as was his mother.

  6. 6
    Area Man

    But now that recent polls and election results show that Obama and his fellow Democrats are rapidly losing their traditional hold on Jewish political donors and fundraisers…

    Yeah, instead of 80% of Jews voting for him, he’ll probably only get 70% this time around.

    I wonder if dolts like Klayman ever pause to wonder why they get such a small minority of Jewish support in spite of their bizarre Israel idolatry. I’ll give him a hint: being a prejudicial asshole has something to do with it.

  7. 7
    ManOutOfTime

    Why does no one ever question whether Obama is really Obama? Sure, a baby was born that day in August, 1961 … how do we know this isn’t an assumed identity? Assuming POTUS is indeed that boy now grown up, how do we know the late Mr. Obama was even Barack’s father? Has there been a paternity test? I mean, how does a right-wing noisemaker decide the lyrics and tune of the smear? Caribou Barbie just tonight made the comment that the media never vetted Obama during the 21-month-long campaign; seems to me every detail of the man’s life must be in doubt. Does he even really like basketball? Or cigarettes? It’s very convenient that the only facts not accepted – some would say selectively distorted – are precisely the ones which give enough of a doubt to hang your cryptoracist hat on, without reaching the tipping point of offending Tea Partiers’ underdeveloped sense of decency. What are the chances!

  8. 8
    Rieux

    Thank you, slc1. The quoted post has a lot of fail in it (as is typical for RO’B nominees), but somehow “his father was Muslim” particularly stuck in my craw. Barack Obama Sr. was an atheist, not a Muslim.

    Though, of course, the President’s paternal grandfather was a Muslim, so the facts about Barack Sr. would only force a second iteration to the “Muslim under Islamic law” thing.

  9. 9
    Dr X

    Under Muslim law, Larry Klayman was born Muslim:

    No babe is born but upon Fitra (as a Muslim). It is his parents who make him a Jew or a Christian or a Polytheist.–The Prophet Muhammad (Sahih Muslim, Book 033, Number 6426)

  10. 10
    Bronze Dog

    Misremembered the story. Thanks for reminding me of the details, JustaTech. It’s still staggering that something like that happened that recently.

  11. 11
    386sx

    Under Muslim law, Larry Klayman was born Muslim:

    Nothing unusual about that. I don’t know of any religion that doesn’t claim everything in the entire freaking universe for itself. Maybe Buddhism or Judaism doesn’t. I wouldn’t know. Maybe Jesuit priests don’t. Everybody seems to have a Jesuit priest story about how they were thought by a Jesuit priest who was the best freaking teacher in the universe.

  12. 12
    YankeeCynic

    You can say that Israel is important to US security all you like (and god knows the right does), but that doesn’t make it any more true than before you said it.

    There are other arguments that can be made for supporting Israel, but the whole “we’re safer because of it” argument is as stupid as it is short-sighted. That should have gone by the wayside as soon a Israel decided to try and sell sensitive US technology to China.

  13. 13
    slc1

    Re YankeeCynic @ #12

    Of course, the US sells weaponry to numerous Arab states, all of which are enemies of Israel, but that’s okay to Israel bashers like Mr. Cynic. It should also be pointed out that much of this so-called “sensitive US technology” was developed in Israel, as part of military collaboration between the military establishments of the two states.

  14. 14
    YankeeCynic

    Actually, I’m skeptical about certain technology transfers to them too. A great example of that would be the transfer of Stykers to the Iraqi Police.

    Incidentally, I was referring to the M-2075 Phalcon transfer that Israel wanted to sell the People’s Republic of China back in 2000. That technology wasn’t in any way, shape, or form jointly developed. It used the standard US-developed AWACS technology which was US-developed. And I’m not even touching on the allegations of MIM-104 “Patriot” surface-to-air missiles. In other words, our relationship with Israel has taught China how to defeat US AWACS technology and how to best avoid our surface-to-air technology. In which case, why is the relationship in our best national security interests?

    Either way, slc1, keep blasting away at that Strawman you’ve got built there. You can argue that the US has an obligation to Israel to avoid the state being overrun and slaughtered by Arab armies, and I would somewhat agree with you (though not with Israel’s policies). But arguing that they do ANYTHING for our national security is insulting. If anything, their nuclear arsenal encourages nuclear proliferation in the region and threatens to irradiate the oil supply in the event of a final, all-out war. That hardly bodes well for our national security.

    Take your propaganda back to the Heritage Foundation meeting where it belongs.

  15. 15
    lanir

    According to my Random Crazy Theory Generator:

    The US keeps Israel as an ally to ease relations with China. If they were the only superpower who supported a state ridiculed the world over for inhumane, lunatic policies they would start to feel self-conscious.

  16. 16
    slc1

    Re YankeeCynic @ #14

    Mr. Cynic makes a number of allegations about alleged technology transfers from Israel to China. Would he care to back up these allegations with a reference or two? As a matter of fact, the US has used its participation in joint developments (e.g. the Arrow anti-missile system) to prevent sales to India, not China.

  17. 17
    Michael Heath

    slc1,

    Is it wrong for the U.S. to sell arms to Saudi Arabia?

  18. 18
    Michael Heath

    I’d like to re-frame my question above more narrowly to stay on topic. There are ample arguments on why we shouldn’t sell arms to Saudi Arabia having nothing to do with Israel. Therefore, to remain on point . . .

    slc1, is it wrong for the U.S. to sell arms to Saudi Arabia because of our alliance with Israel?

  19. 19
    dcsohl

    I love how it’s always the right-wingers, the ones scared of “creeping Shariah”, who are always the ones seeking to impose Shariah by making Obama a Muslim because his father was a Muslim, so therefore he is because Shariah says so.

    (Or, y’know, because his grandfather was a Muslim so therefore his father was a Muslim so therefore…)

  20. 20
    slc1

    Re Michael Heath @ #18

    Quite clearly, the regime in Saudi Arabia is abhorrent, aside from any consideration of its relations with Israel. However, the question, which most critics of Middle East Arab regimes, including Mr. Brayton, do not appear to consider is that their replacements may be worse, both from the point of view of the US and Israel and also for the condition of their populations.

    For instance, while the US has, somewhat belatedly, gotten on board the anti-Assad bandwagon relative to the regime in Syria, the Israeli’s have been noticeably silent. This despite the Assad regime’s backing of terrorist entities like Hamas and Hizbollah. From the Israeli point of view, the Assad regime represents a more or less stable enemy that is more or less predictable. Their fear is that its replacement might be much worse.

    Case in point, Iran. Mr. Brayton and many of his commentors have lambasted the Shah’s regime, ignoring the fact that the replacement by the mad mullahs has been much worse, not only from the US, Israeli, and Saudi Arabian point of view but from the deterioration of the condition of the population, particularly of women, since that event occurred.

    In direct response to Mr. Michael Heath’s question, it is in the interest of US foreign policy, particularly relative to the issue of energy supplies, to sell weapon systems to Saudi Arabia. As Franklin D. Roosevelt once said about then dictator Trujillo of the Dominican Republic, he’s an SOB but he’s our SOB.

Leave a Reply

Switch to our mobile site