Love and Hatred in the Logic of Hypocrites

U.S. President Barack Obama's second term has finally started. As usual, people are expecting the U.S. president to develop and change his policies in his second term so they come more in line with his convictions and personal feelings. This includes the love and the hatred that take hold of him, even if only in a limited sense because there are considerations he would have difficulty overstepping.

The reality is that most people think that Obama's Islamic and African roots and the environment he came from must influence him, or in other words, influence his personal feelings, emotions, i.e. what he loves and what he hates. And from the reality we saw in following Obama's policy in his first term as president, he seems to have two modes of expression:

The first manifests itself as the material, actual expression of opinion as seen in an essay, a drawing, a movie or a play. This mode, he claims, is protected by law, even if it impinges on the feelings of Muslims or even Christians. We say “he claims” because there are instances of this that are repressed in the U.S. and Europe. These appear as anything that could encroach on Jews or Jews' claims.

The second mode manifests itself as emotional expression, that is, love and hate. Here the Obama stance on emotional expression seems strict to a degree that turns U.S. and Israeli hatred into a justification for declaring war on the hateful. For here he wants to completely assault people's love of the United States and Israel. We are not even doing Obama an injustice — we say that this logic has been dominant in the U.S. since before his time and he continued its adoption. But he came to focus on Israel's hatred as a reason for U.S. hostility toward others, taking into consideration that Israel in his view is part of the U.S. family and more.

In reality, Obama's stance on these two modes of expression causes us to raise numerous questions about Obama's personality and his psychological, intellectual and emotional makeup:

I wonder, was Obama born as a Muslim in the house of his father of Kenyan origin Hussein Obama and did [he] convert to Christianity when he grew beyond his initial stages? Or had his father converted to Christianity and passed it on to his son? This is a question whose answer is important because it clarifies whether Obama inherited the Christian faith from his father or chose to abandon Islam and embrace Christianity for some reason or personal end and when he did so.

It is a matter that may seem transient to some and a part of personal freedom. But there are some among the Islamist organizations adopted by Obama who will consider him a renegade from Islam. What concerns us here is Obama's condition may mean that he has a tendency, acquired from experience, to consider insulting Islam or Christianity as freedom of expression, which is the position he in fact took regarding the issue of the film insulting the Prophet Muhammad. But he considers hatred of the U.S. or Israeli a reason that justifies oppression or even war. We tried to find out about this point concerning Obama's faith and discovered that there is no certain answer about his faith. For there are those who say simply that he is Muslim, there are those who say he is Jewish and one of the Falasha Jews, and those who say that he is Christian. But there is no one who gives a specific, clear and final answer about his true faith.

In his father's house, did Obama know anything about what is called “apostasy?” And thus, did he feel, deep inside himself, that he was a renegade? Or did he have no idea about this meaning but rather only knew the expression “renegade states,” which his predecessor Bush Jr. made popular, and thus he considers every state that does not submit to the administration in Washington to be renegade and does not consider himself renegade when he takes aim at others, especially Muslims?

In his father's house, did Obama know anything about hypocrisy or hypocrites? We do not know but it seems more likely than not that he exercised much hypocrisy in his practical experience, with the evidence that he succeeded in being the first colored American to make it to the presidency of the United States. For without a large measure of hypocrisy in a society like U.S. society — no, without an enormous amount of hypocrisy — he would not have been able to make it to this post.

It is logical for us to expect this from a person whose behavior has been marred by elements of desertion, apostasy and hypocrisy in this proportion or that. He had stakes in things that fit in with these behaviors. In his view, this is all “freedom of expression.”

Does that mean that Obama, who threatens the haters of America and Israel (always together!) with doom, destruction and disaster has understood — as we understand — that Christianity is the religion of love, and he is therefore biased toward love and against hatred by virtue of his being Christian?

Let us believe that the man thinks in this manner. Is it not logical that he be absolutely for love and absolutely against hatred in every time and place? If he is absolutely with love, how does he consider the material expression of hatred of Muslims', or even Christians', freedom of expression, whereas he looks at criticism of Judaism from a completely difference perspective? Is Judaism, in his view, a sacred cow that no one may approach, about which no one can even express their feelings if love is not the sole emotion? Does he not appreciate that Jews' equality with others simply requires that they be treated as others are treated, no more and no less, and that the matter is in no way subject to the law of love and hatred when it is connected to the relationship between the religions? The proper person is he who puts all on the same level in his feelings, but he who exaggerates his feelings toward one side is biased and susceptible to accusations of intolerance.

It is clear that Obama's stance on this matter is the stance of the hypocrite. He knows the extent of Jews' control over the ruling political class in the U.S. and the extent of the latter’s hegemony over everything. Therefore he wants to appease them in any way possible; he plays the hypocrite with them and ingratiates himself with them in everything.

Some people in our country say that Obama, the poor guy, was not able — especially in his first term — to do anything but bow his head down in front of the Zionist Jews or else face two possibilities: either having a scandal blow up in his face and being isolated, as happened with other presidents, or getting killed like President John F. Kennedy! This is something we understand and believe, but we also understand that it means that U.S. democracy is a big lie and is in reality absolutely futile. For as long as the U.S. president remains bound to the Zionist Jews, that means that the U.S. — its people and its government together — is pledged to them and that, in the final analysis, there is no freedom, democracy or anything of the like in the United States.

In this case we ask ourselves: What legitimacy does a president shackled in chains in his country have to demand that the Syrian president step down, as he demanded from other presidents before that they step down, although he did not demand that any of the Arab kings themselves abdicate? Perhaps this is according to the rule of the Obama doctrine that says “kings possess everything in their kingdoms?”

Of course it is in no way the right of the U.S. president or any other president to take away the choice of another people. But Obama's criterion is simple: The Syrian president does not love the U.S. and Israel and does not submit to their will, and therefore he should leave his position in favor of someone who does love them or claims to love them and, importantly, someone who is obedient to them.

All of this means, in terms of political science, that the U.S. president, lacking democracy in his own country, wants to tear down democracy in other countries, too, again to the advantage of the Zionist Jews.

Has it now become clear why the U.S. has animosity towards the regime in Syria and is trying to let loose chaos, considering that it opposes the regime, whereas he is enthusiastic in his reliance on and exploitation of the “very democratic” regimes in the Gulf Cooperation Council? And why he carries on the campaign against Syria while ignoring the will of Bahrain's people and the protesters in the Saudi family's kingdom?

Those regimes love the U.S., love Israel and submit to their shared will. This is the standard that determines Obama's concept of what is good and evil in our world. It is the standard for looking at the world from one perspective: the Zionist perspective. For those who become Zionist are good, and those who do not become Zionist are evil. This makes us wonder if Hussein Obama Jr. is the one-eyed Antichrist, or if we have to await the coming of someone else with even greater love for the Zionist Jews and even more hatred for everyone who hates the U.S. and Israel!

Another question also remains: Is it certain that Obama is concerned with love and hatred toward the U.S., or is he only concerned with love and hatred toward Israel?

By way of answer we say that if Obama were to put the U.S. into his calculations he would follow U.S. policies that promote this love. But Obama's compass of love and hate is restricted to the stance towards Israel. And this stance puts the U.S. in the situation of being the one who loves Israel and strives to force everyone else to imitate the U.S. in its love, even in spite of themselves. For those who do not love Israel are counted as haters of the U.S., a country madly in love with Israel to the degree of blindness.

The problem is that Obama is not alone among U.S. politicians in adopting this logic. For every president who comes to the White House is obligated to be a fan of Israel, whether he likes it or not. It may happen that the tongue of one of them lets a sentence slip revealing that he is sick of the pressures from the Zionist lobby, and at that point the Zionist Jews will spring a scandal on him or he will be in danger of assassination. And as for him whose leadership has ended, and whose opinion no longer has any value, the U.S. media, which Jews control, will disregard him if he expresses any opinions that do not please them or, according to their (the Jews') classification, indicate his hatred, not love, of the Jews.

Everywhere the position of the president is an indication of a superior sovereign post, except for in the U.S., despite the fact that its system is presidential, that is, power is concentrated in the hands of the president. For the U.S., the president is a prisoner of the White House and subject in all his policies and pursuits to the orders and whims of his jailers. He is obliged to love Israel and to hate those who do not love it. And if only it stopped at love and hatred we would say that the U.S. espouses the principle of “freedom of emotions,” as it allegedly espouses the principle of “freedom of expression.” For on the basis of love and hatred, the U.S. president can wage or back wars as long as love for Israel requires such wars. Here we must remember the saying, “love can kill,” but those killed by U.S. love for Israel number in the tens, hundreds or millions. It is a love that seems like it will continue until the U.S. grows old and incapable of love, as it will be incapable of war, incapable of hatred. For as long as the U.S. is in the heyday of its strength, it will remain head over heels in its love of Israel and in its hate for anyone who does not share this love.