@Prof. Leonard Wessell

Thank you very much for information.

Greethings and GOD bless you,

Galahad

Part
4. Obama's Christianity: For 20+ years Obama attended the church of Jeremiah Wreight whose view of America is summed up as: "God damn America!" Wreight has fused Leftism with religion (called Christiantiy) and treats America as evil, to summarize mildy. Importance of Wreight: The Pastor's general condemnation of America strengthens Obama's negativity towards the West and willingness to excuse Islam. Wreight made it clear to Obama that becoming a Christian in no way was contradictory to his feelings for Islam. (Then as now, the US mainstream press simply ignores or hides problematic aspect of Obama.)

5. The best theory not only explains the positive deeds and words of someone, but also the deeds and words not said. In this context I would like to suggest Barry Rubin's last book Silent Revoluton. How the Left Rose to Political Power and Cultural Dominance (Broadside Books, 2014). Rubin explains the three phases of the Left in America; Ist Left = communist influenced, The New (2nd) Left = the influence of "cultural Marxism" in America (which caused me problems), although Rubin takes a different route in describing the history of this phase and The Third Left which Rubin considers to be already dominant. (In my opinion the Third Left is but the 2nd Left having marched through all levels of culture (Gramsci) and now dominant--America today is not the America I knew during and after WW II until sometime in the 60s). Rubin sees Obama as a cadre outgrowth of the cultural change, not as the changer himself. The insights are profound and revealing. Why the designation of Third Left?

There was in America a sort of dialectical liberal/conservative tension within the boundries of which politics took place, e.g., Kennedy/Nixon, Johnson/Goldwater, Clinton/Bush 1 and, on a personal level, Rubin/Wessell. If Obama were a part of this healthy tension, various words and deeds would have been realized by him, and they have not been done so! The cultural revolution in America has brought forth a cadre Third Leftist as the current president. The chapter alone on Obama as a cadre Third Leftist is worth the price of the book. Read that chapter and one will see why Rubin's ability to explain why Obama does not do certain deeds nor utter certain words is revealing of an extraordinary interpretation

6. Obama is in MY opinion pro-Islamic, though not pro-violence. Islam-ism presents no problem to him. It thereby become a necessity to suppress any connection between Islam-ism, viz., "Islamic" and violence. He cannot acknowledge that a violent group of Islamists, however much on the fringe, can be truely part of meaning of "Islamic", i.e., without throwing aside the rationale for his foreign policy since his Cairo speech (and, speuclating with D'souza's ideas, without betraying his father).

I do hope my suggestions and brief comments are helpful for anyone wishing a better insight into the enigma which is Obama.

Part 1
I have followed the words and deeds of Pope Francies treating them as "dots" to be connected into a coherent "outline". Tentatively I think I have a vague, but revealing outline. Applying this method to Obama is more problematic. I will suggest immediately below a few sources or comments on Obama that might aid the Gloria.tv's viewer who is seeking to understand Obama. The autor of the entry above is shocked that Obama refers to the "Islamic State" is "not Islamic". I would have been shocked if Obama had announced that he is going to war (which he has no constitutional right to declare, only the Congress) against the Islamic State. I am pleasantly pleased that he refers to the groups as "terrorists". But then I have spent time with the theme Obama and know some people who comprehend the matter excellently. I will list below some sources and make some comments for the interested reader.

1. Video: Dinesh D'sousa, 2016:Obama's America. D'souza has attempted to construct Obama's psychology in his arduous coming to terms with his brilliant Kenyian father. O's father was typical of a certain liberation anti-colonialism as the Europe gave up its colonies. What I mean is that the father wanted more than state autonomy. but claimed (in a way similar to Lenin) that the West is only richt on the exploitation of Africans. The view of the West is that of an evil and destructive force that is rich because of exploitation. D'souza concludes that Obama overcamp his identity problem absorbing his father condemnation of Western life as evil. (I note that some of Obama's relatives in Africa are militant Islamists.) This gives an inside into Obama basic orientation

2. As a youngster Obama attened in Indonenesi Muslim schools and apparent had a positive experience. I suggest that Obama has a "good feeling" about Islam.

3. Barry Rubin (recently deceased) of the Jerusalem Post and PG Media and author of 50+ books on the mideast noted that at least by 2010 Obama had decided that the theologically Islamic Muslim Brotherhood was not violent (which it was not at that time as it is now in Egypt) and is the proper partner for the new Middle East order. Obama has done everything possible to keep the MB in power in Egypt (where he is not popular at all since the revoluton against the MB). Add to this the refusal of Obama to back the 2009 revollution in Iran against the Mullahs. To this date, Obama has expressed confidence that the Mullah-gov. can be a trust worthy partner re atomic weapons. Again Obama select a distinctly Islamic gov. as his partner for the new order. (The US military estimates the about 1/3rd of the American deaths in Irak were due to Iranian armaments and Hamas receives more advanced rockets from Iran for firing at Israel.) Yet Obama finds the Mullahs within the category of "Islamic" -- One common thread is the apparent non-violence of the "Islamic" unit.