Dr. Ben Carson: Obama’s Iran Deal and Politics are Antisemitic

By Karin McQuillan, AMERICAN THINKER

In his soft-spoken voice, Dr. Ben Carson is actually bolder and more outspoken than Donald Trump.  Case in point:  Dr. Carson is the only Republican nominee who has the guts to call out President Obama as an anti-Semite.  He did it first in a column in the Jerusalem Post last week. Then on Fox News Sunday, Dr. Carson extended the accusation in the face of Chris Wallace’s challenge.

Dr. Carson told Wallace:

All you have to do, Chris, is go to Israel and talk to average people on all ends of that spectrum.  I couldn’t find a single person there who didn’t feel that this administration had turned their backs on Israel.

Wallace asked, “What specifically is anti-Semitic in what the president is saying?”

Dr. Carson:

I think anything is anti-Semitic that is against the survival of a state that is surrounded by enemies and by people who want to destroy them.  And to sort of ignore that and to act like everything is normal there and that these people are paranoid, I think that’s anti-Semitic.

Dr. Carson is spot on.  “To act like everything is normal” as Obama donates $120 billion in funds to Iran, which will unleash the greatest terror rampage the world has ever seen, is what is irrational.

Obama is ushering in a nuclear Iran as he ignores Iran’s Nazi threats to kill every Jew in the world – that should not be considered a normal American policy.  Turning from a pro-Israel to pro-Iran policy is not normal in America.  Pushing Israel into an existential danger has never been normal.

In the Jerusalem Post article, Dr. Carson zeroed in on the anti-Semitic tactics Obama is using here in America to slander and intimidate the Jewish community and Jewish Congressmen.

Just as shocking as the decision to actually agree to such a flawed deal are the lengths to which the administration is going today to tar and feather those who dare speak out against it. … his diatribe also was replete with coded innuendos employing standard anti-Semitic themes involving implied disloyalty and nefarious influences related to money and power.

…Since his speech, the reverberations of Obama’s reckless, spiteful language have been ringing out across the United States, causing grave concern. Leaders from across the political spectrum, including prominent fellow Democrats have stepped forward to decry the White House’s bully tactics.

… They are smearing those who dare to raise questions and employing a take no prisoners approach complete with bigoted dog whistles and malicious whisper campaigns that cynically divide our country.

Analysis of Obama’s anti-semitic tactics on Iran have been in the media for weeks.

Elliott Abrams in the Weekly Standard, says the “president feeds anti-Semitism.”

The administration’s arguments on the merits are failing, so Mr. Obama has started arguing that the opposition comes from people who are in the pay of big donors, or who put Israel’s security first.  This practice actually began in January…The basic idea is simple: to oppose the president’s Iran deal means you want war with Iran, you’re an Israeli agent, you are in the pay of Jewish donors, and you are abandoning the best interests of the United States.

The editors of The Tablet write:

What we increasingly can’t stomach—and feel obliged to speak out about right now—is the use of Jew-baiting and other blatant and retrograde forms of racial and ethnic prejudice as tools to sell a political deal, or to smear those who oppose it. Accusing Sen. Schumer of loyalty to a foreign government is bigotry, pure and simple. Accusing senators and congressmen whose misgivings about the Iran deal are shared by a majority of the U.S. electorate of being agents of a foreign power, or of selling their votes to shadowy lobbyists, or of acting contrary to the best interests of the United States is the kind of naked appeal to bigotry and prejudice that would be familiar in the politics of the pre-Civil Rights Era South.

This use of anti-Jewish incitement as a political tool is a sickening new development in American political discourse, and we have heard too much of it lately—some coming, ominously, from our own White House and its representatives. Let’s not mince words: Murmuring about “money” and “lobbying” and “foreign interests” who seek to drag America into war is a direct attempt to play the dual-loyalty card. It’s the kind of dark, nasty stuff we might expect to hear at a white power rally, not from the president of the United States—and it’s gotten so blatant that even many of us who are generally sympathetic to the administration, and even this deal, have been shaken by it.

And in the Wall Street Journal, Harvard Professor Ruth Wisse writes that President Obama’s indifference to Iran’s genocidal intentions is not normal:

Perhaps Mr. Obama is oblivious to (anti-semitism) because it has been so much a part of his world as he moved through life. Muslim Indonesia, where he lived from age 6 to 10, trails only Pakistan and Iran in its hostility to Jews. An animus against Jews and Israel was a hallmark of the Rev.  Jeremiah Wright’s church in Chicago that Mr. Obama attended for two decades. And before he ran for office, Mr. Obama carried the standard of the international left that invented the stigma of Zionism-as-imperialism. As a presidential candidate, Mr. Obama felt obliged to repudiate his pastor (who had famously cursed America from the pulpit), and muted his far-left credentials. Mr. Obama was voted into office by an electorate enamored of the idea that he would oppose all forms of racism. He has not met that expectation.

Some Jewish critics of Mr. Obama may be tempted to put his derelictions in a line of neglect by other presidents, but there is a difference….This is the first time the U.S. will have deliberately entered into a pact with a country committed to annihilating another people—a pact that doesn’t even require formal repudiation of the country’s genocidal aims.