Is Obama A Part Of The Muslim Brotherhood

Discussion in 'News and Articles' started by FoxStop, Oct 5, 2013.

  1. We fight against the prince of air (worldliness / the 'law' of man-culture, disobedience). We fight against powers and principalities; spiritual wickedness in high places.

    Ref: Ephesians 2:2, 6:12

    So in answer to your question: it wouldn't surprise me if it were true.
  2. Well, just from my knowledge, if he does plan an attack. He might actually make Syria more Islamic, which is bad in my opinion. I mean the rebels are from "The Muslim Brotherhood" afterall.
    I put my bet in letting Syria fight terrorism and not actually help arming the terrorists. Even if the Obama Administration claims it's because of chemical bombs. But after looking more into it, i am very sceptical

    Just by reading into what people know about this, etc.
  3. This is another conspiracy theory. This isn't to say conspiracy theories can't be true. I've believe a few of them and some of them have turned out to be absolutely right (I've been talking about NSA spying for years).

    On one hand, Obama has been very empathetic to the MBH. He has armed them, promoted their position, downplayed their violence, and even expressed apathy for their opponents.

    On the other hand, so did Bush 43.

    Were each president doing these things with the intention to empower the MBH? We can't just say 'yes' based on a gut-feeling. I'd be willing to bet much of it has been unintentional. The term "Blowback" is a popular CIA term which is one that is often overlooked and dismissed. Each time it has been brought up in discussion, someone often takes it saying "Do you're blaming the US for the 9/11 attacks? You are just as bad as the terrorists!" Of course that's not what Blowback means.

    However, their actions have been irresponsible, insulting to innocent citizens (American and foreign) and downright stupid.

    Granted, this is an answer coming from someone critical of just about every politician and most likely won't be voting ever again.
  4. The problem is that fighting against terrorists is another thing, helping them... like what happens there?.
    But i am glad the Russians are against the US suggestion of attacking Syria, and it seems a lot agree, and is against the USA's suggestion to attack Syria.
    I see Syria now having a potential to be secular, without US medling in.
  5. When I compared both presidents, I meant that both have armed and fought the enemies.

    And I agree. Interventionism is a lot more damaging than what it's worth. It always has been.
    Mr. Darby and FoxStop say Amen and like this.
  6. It's not just 'Bush' and/or 'Obama'. It is far deeper and has gone on for about 7000ish years. All presidents of all countries play both sides in some form or fashion. It's the proving it that becomes difficult. The victors write the history....
  7. #8 LysanderShapiro, Oct 9, 2013
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2013
    I think you missed my point, Brother Mike.

    I meant in terms of first arming the enemies, then fighting them, then arming them afterwards again. I meant in the literal sense. However, I believe some of Bush's predecessors did this too. My point was Obama's not the only problem in when it comes to giving power to the MBH, whether it is intentional or unintentional. Though Obama is one of the most tyrannical in history--probably even more tyrannical than Lincoln, the Tyrant.

    Not too thrilled with most US president. Coolidge, Harding, and Van Buren were good. Van Buren was a Jacksonian minus the military adventurism of Jackson. I love Jefferson, but not while he was residing as president. Before and after, he was good.
  8. On second though, I don't know who was worse -- Lincoln or Obama.
    Mr. Darby likes this.
  9. Obama as a part of the Muslim Brotherhood? LOL!
    Rather he is a communist than a Muslim. But he is neither a Muslim nor a communist, he is a ....!
  10. Keep in mind, this isn't regarding whether he is a Muslim or not, but rather part of the Muslim Brotherhood.

    If I were a betting man, I'd bet he is not, but he certainly is empowering the Muslim Brotherhood by his arming them and his interventionist policy.

    Though he is definitely far more of a socialist. (Communism begins with the gun, Socialism ends with the gun). Though he has supported communist rhetoric also..which can sometimes be the same as socialist rhetoric.
  11. To be a part of this "brotherhood", one must be a Muslim or identify himself with the ideals and conceptions of their world. And both does not do Obama.
    As that one of two Bush (father and son) armed the Taliban as presidents, did they turn to Taliban through this? Or when former presidents had elected state leaders murdered by CIA, NSA and other secret services, are they turned into members of this dictator states?
    I wished he were a Communist. But he is "only" a social democrat. And he does a rather good job, unlike his predecessor, the one in Germany mentioned as " George - I knew about nothing - Bush.
  12. #13 LysanderShapiro, Oct 13, 2013
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2013
    Indeed, but that wasn't what I meant. A member of the MBH has to Muslim, but a Muslim doesn't have to be a member of the MBH...but this is semantics. The question at hand is whether Obama is a member of the MBH. It's a conspiracy theory. I usually stick to the strict facts.

    Indeed. Like I mentioned before, Obama is not the first to commit these crimes. His predecessors have done the same and they are all tyrants and wrong for it. This isn't about partisanship--it's about principle.

    Not sure if you meant this ironically or jokingly, but either way, Communism and Socialism are funded at gunpoint. It requires force upon free people. Both are immoral. Unfortunately, both major parties have endorsed force in the name of "democracy."

    Not sure what Obama has done that's been so "good" to be honest. Like his predecessor, Obama has
    1) bailed out industries that should have failed, thus robbing the people.
    2) pushed the interventionist foreign policies forward (and even tried to extend the war in Iraq--he didn't end it by his choice).
    3) promoted the Federal Reserve which only strengthens cronyism and reduces monetary value.
    4) droned more innocent civilians in countries that haven't even had a declaration of war (including a 16-year-old boy from Colorado named Abdulrahman al-Awlaki).
    5) Promoted Keynesian economics which hurts future generations.
    6) ignored religious freedoms with the HHS mandate.
    7) Hurt businesses with excess taxation (along with the Affordable Care Act).
    8) Interjected States rights with Unconstitutional federal laws.
    9) Mislead the people about Obamacare, what it would cost them, and what it would do to the medical industry (like reduce its value and increase premiums).
    10) Has spent more than all the other 43 presidents combined. That's even after inflation.

    I can think of even more criticisms, but I figured a top 10 list would be good.
    And yes, to claim Obama is the only one to commit some of these would be absolutely wrong. My opinion of most US presidents isn't very good. I can only think of three presidents who I think were actually legitimately good, and they aren't very popular. (Van Buren, Coolidge, Harding).
  13. With all due respect, however, you are mistaken about the work of Obama. For example Obamacare. What was it like in front of Obamacare? Americans did not get ANY HEALTH INSURANCE; because they had pre-illnesses; or because their illness was too expensive.
    Do you know Sicko by Michael Moore?
    Into this you can see that the health system doesn't work before; and how people lose all their money because they got ill.
    And Michael Moore traveled to Canada, France and Great Britain and also to Cuba. And the health system was better than in the USA everywhere.
    The health insurance companies are paid about the tax here in Germany and I have only low extra payment costs. At chronic illnesses 1% to pay, or else 2%. The health insurance company pays costs which furthermore go.
    A preelection promise has adhered to Obama, for that most Americans are grateful. Namely 40 million Americans who can be insured now.
  14. #15 LysanderShapiro, Oct 14, 2013
    Last edited: Oct 14, 2013
    I have to disagree with you.

    Indeed, I've seen Sicko. His argument was extremely flawed and was even countered by multiple sources.

    To begin, Health Insurance is something that should be reevaluated. However, it wasn't due to too few regulations--it was due to too many regulations. For instance, Health Insurance was introduced in about 1910. It was just a measurement of risk. It was left to private contract to decide what the individual wanted to cover in order to customize his care and finances. It wasn't until about 1970 that Third Party Payer was introduced. This was one of the worst things that was done because it increased the premiums and caused for an even larger regulation. The insurers weren't the ones that wanted to initiate post-existence of illness, it was federal regulation. Because of this, the insurers had to increase the cost in order to finance, otherwise they wouldn've sunk.

    The case for Canada, France, the UK and Cuba are very different, but have a lot of draw-backs.

    1) Cuba. Cuba's healthcare is funded by government (meaning private citizens). The capital gained in Cuba is massively low, and it's due to the lack of private enterprise. Public operation can't create capital other than fiat currency--and all that does is inflate the currency. Because of this, Cuba's quality of health care has been falling more and more. Sicko's illustration was that of rare private care for tourists and the wealthy. The majority of their hospitals are in poor conditions. The children who are born with certain problems (retardation, abnormalities, etc.) are often aborted by the insistence of the doctors--and then those who have been aborted are not recorded as ever having been alive. This is why many Cubans are incredibly dissatisfied with their medical system. This is common in a Communist society. This is what my grandparents escaped in Soviet Russia.

    2) France, the UK, and Canada.
    On one hand, their taxes almost seemed balanced and they don't seem to mind paying these taxes toward health care. Americans could protest for this, however, the problem is this: we have THIRD PARTY PAYER--Europe and Canada does not. Their measurement of risk is decided by their legislators. But also, that's one of the big problems...the value.

    Europe and Canada don't seem to have a bad health care system. However, much of this is thanks top medical research in OTHER countries (the US being one of them). Many of the European countries, however, are very low in medical research. But that's also not the worst of it. The wait to see a doctor--or to even get treatment for certain emergencies can be between 4 months to 2 years. My wife's cousin in Spain had to wait 7 months in pain before he could get proper treatment for his problem. Animal Hospitals get excellent treatment in these countries, but because they are run by private contract, not by public funding and regulation.

    My experience in working with the National Institutes of Health (6 1/2 years now), I've seen more reports of private research than public research (but the public research has to review the private to make sure they are abiding by law--often, they self-regulate despite law).

    My wife is a medical biller. After Obamacare has been continuing, she has been receiving more and more calls from customers complaining about their premiums going up. And this is true. Obamacare 1) doesn't address Third Party Payer, 2) doesn't address over-regulation, and 3) forced people to pay for insurance--even if they already have it. It has lead to an increase of job loss, and increase of private practices closing shop, and a decrease of certain researchers.

    This is a few years old, and not too descriptive, but Stossel did a decent job of illustrating the flaws that fell through the cracks. (I'm usually very iffy on mainstream media, but Stossel is one of the few journalists that reports what is often seen as fringe).

    Most Americans are not grateful for this. In fact, the polls are suggesting that most aren't in favor of this, and even more are beginning to doubt it after they've noticed they are paying more. Though they've been sold that they won't be paying anything. What many people forget is that nothing is free. Subsidized health care isn't free--it is funded by taxation, and if there is more taxation and capital gains, the money will eventually run out. That is currently what is being stressed over in Spain, Italy, and was all over the news last year regarding Greece.

    This is only one point about Obama...only one of the ten examples. Even if I were to grant you that Obamacare is a success (which it isn't--in fact, it's been looking like a failure even more--the website is constantly shutting down for example), then there are still 9 other listed reasons why Obama has been horrible. In fact, Bush was really bad, but Obama has been worse.
  15. I meant the health system practiced in today's America. This was created only in the seventies. President Roosevelt by the way planned many changes after the word war 2, of what the health system also was part. Unfortunately, he died before. A health system at which Roosevelt would have had his joy was built up the American construction program in Germany.
    What do you Americans have actually for a problem with Obama? He is a better president (at all his faults) than muchother before him, Republikanr and Democrats.
    And you have a quarrel over the national budget now and the ultraconservative republicans try to blackmail him. They want to agree only of a household rise if Obamacare disappears or is delayed at least.
    Would something like that happen in Germany, a state under the rule of law; the persons responsible for this would have come before court already. Because blackmailing is still elements of a criminal offense.
  16. I forgot still to mention something. You said that many Americans would be against Obamacare. This only partly is correct. Around the people however because the health insurances spent millions on their fight against Obamacare. This already made this fine health insurance industry when Hillary Clinton wanted something similar. A communist threat was brought about there, the danger of a communist state. I have Ronald Reagan (the actor who was even worse than in Hollywood as a president) heard the record, where; something similar made.
    With the fear of Communists one can well make many Americans much believe. I had to puke when I saw which lies these insurances spread..
    A word still to Cuba:
    I was in Cuba. I am a Communist. And I have seen both exemplary and modest hospitals there so as they also can be found in the USA (gointo districts like Louisiana, where most Afro-Americans would live, you will be astonished!).
  17. Why do Americans have a problem with Obama? I can't speak for anyone other than myself. However, I did list 10 good reasons why I'm against him. I have a problem with unjust war. I have a problem with killing innocent people. I have a problem with fiat printing. I have a problem with robbing people. I have a problem with violating peoples' rights.

    This isn't about Republicans and Democrats. I'm neither a Republican nor a Democrat. In fact, both parties are an incredible disappointment. What I find strange is that you dislike Bush but like Obama. Their economic and foreign policies are very similar. Why else do you think Bush endorsed Obama this past election? Why else do you think so many of the NeoConservatives have sided with Obama?

    Granted I'm embarrassed for the actions of the NeoConservatives, but you need to understand they passed THREE bills to the senate to pass in order to avoid a shutdown. They not only didn't pass it, the actually rejected reading these bills. It's partisan to simply pass all the blame on the Republicans when the Democrats said no without even reviewing the bills.
  18. H. Clinton's concept was rejected quickly for the same reasons why people are opposing Obamacare. Not only are the predictions coming true regarding Obamacare, but they coming off worse than before. The sign up has been a flop. If Obamacare exchanges website was only designed to sign up 50,000 people per day, with 313.9 million people in America, it would take over 17 years for everyone to enroll.

    Your criteria for bad hospital conditions is that places in the US have this too. This is Communism in a nutshell. It's not about hoping for the well-being of others, but hoping that those well-off can be reduced to less.

    We should be working toward the well-being of all people, not the destruction of others. All people deserve dignity and a chance.
  19. A health system shall help the people, not make them poor. And the insurances rich. Do you know how much such a U.S. insurance at profits does? As much of this goes to the shareholders and as some come from it to the sick persons?
    I have a sister who lives in Oklahoma. She is a BA Christian, was born in Germany. So she knows the German insurance scheme and she knows the American insurance scheme. She was insured over many years, paid her contributions goodly and on schedule (typically German). If it was about small things, the health insurance paid. But not as she got cancer.. The insurance refused the medical costs there. The contract was more still terminated. Because she would have allegedly made false statements at her insurance application. Since 1982 this insurance has collected all money of my sister and there was it identical but was it suddenly important? This false detail by the way concerned a sheath infection harmlessly and for insurances uninterestingly which was treated with an ointment (in Germany). It only was all about stealing himself from the responsibility.
    Something like that would never have happened in Germany. But always in a capitalist America. And (unfortunately) Germany is not a communist country!

Share This Page