A
point-by-point rebuttal of Obama’s June 14th, ‘Why I don’t say
“radical Islam”’ speech
Mark Charalambous
July 8, 2016
President Obama addressed the nation two days after
the Orlando terrorist attack and gave a full-throated defense of why he forbids
the use of the words “radical Islam” in his administration. Ostensibly giving
an update on the war against ISIS and expressing his condolences for the
victims, the real motivation became clear in the twelve-plus minute digression
that ended the speech.
Due to mounting outrage from his critics, including
Donald Trump, he clearly felt pressured to explain his policy now that the two
parties have their presumptive nominees and he is actively campaigning for Hillary.
One might’ve expected the president to take a
defensive, even apologetic tone, owing to the chorus of criticisms of the
policy—not to mention unspoken conspiratorial growls of ulterior motives. In
fact, Obama did the exact opposite. In full lecture mode, he at times waxed petulant
and condescending, bordering on outright insulting. While his lips were saying
one thing, his body language was unmistakable:
I should not
have to be telling you this again! I have
already explained this! But since you still don’t get it, let me put this to
bed once and for all, in language plain and simple enough that even you can
understand it.
The digression
began innocuously enough:
“And let me make a final
point. For a while now, the main contribution of some of my friends on the
other side of the aisle have made in the fight against ISIL is to criticize
this administration and me for not using the phrase "radical Islam."
That's the key, they tell us. We can't beat ISIL unless we call them radical
Islamists.”
...and then
the tirade began:
“What exactly would using this label accomplish? What exactly
would it change? Would it make ISIL less committed to trying to kill Americans?
Would it bring in more allies? Is there a military strategy that is served by
this?
“The answer is: None of the above. Calling a threat by a
different name does not make it go away. This is a political distraction.”
It’s tempting to begin my answer to the President’s rhetorical
question by quoting Confucius’ famous admonition against euphemisms:
“The beginning
of wisdom is to call things by their right names.”
... but before we go there, there is a more obvious
point that needs to be made in rebuttal to
the president’s assertion that “calling a threat by a different name does not
make it go away,” that doing so “is a political distraction.”
If you concur that the cause and inspiration for the
Orlando nightclub massacre—
... and the slaughter at the San Bernardino
government agency Christmas party in 2015
... and the Fort Hood “workplace violence” incident
in 2009
... and the assault at the military recruitment
center in Chattanooga in 2015
... and the Boston Marathon bombing in 2013
... not to
mention the three simultaneous attacks at two airports and a train station in
Brussels this year
... and the horrendous massacres at the Paris music
venue and restaurant (130 dead, 352 injured) in 2015
... and the Paris slaughter at the Charlie Hebdo
office also in 2015 (20 dead; 22 wounded),
...
or any of the other 28,781 Islamic terrorist attack atrocities worldwide since
9/11
—is indeed radical Islam, then by
deliberately not calling it that, your strategy will not “make it go away”
either. In fact, by deliberately calling it something else (“homegrown anti-gay
bigotry” or “gun violence”), it is you
who is attempting to create a “political distraction.”
You, Mr. President, are the one attempting to play
with words, and moreover, the American people deserve to know your real motivation.
So, let me explain to you, Mr. President, in words
simple and plain so that even you and your flatterers can understand, why it is imperative to call a threat by its real name... as Confucius
advised centuries ago.
* * * *
* *
The first step in combatting a threat is
comprehending its nature. Misdiagnosing the threat will lead you astray. The tactics and weapons you
choose might be ineffective. In finding a cure for a disease it’s possible that mixing
potions willy-nilly will work, but there is no substitute for careful research
and analysis.
Once the true nature of a threat is correctly
identified and understood, only then can
the correct response be formulated and the most efficacious course of action chosen.
If the threat is misidentified, efforts to combat it will be minimally
effective at best, and at worst, counterproductive... feeding the very beast
you are trying to destroy.
Now you can husband your resources and band your allies to collectively
chart battle plans in a spirit of mutual need and shared advantage.
Is there a better example of a problem exacerbated
from a wrong diagnosis than the ‘racial disparity in the criminal justice’
narrative?
Gross overrepresentation of African-Americans
in the penal system is attributed to racist policing and jurisprudence. But
statistically the numbers are completely consistent with the massively disproportionate
amount of violent crime committed by African-Americans. The disastrous effects
of the misdiagnosis effect a vicious cycle:
·
White elites in the
mainstream media and academia sign on to the Black Lives Matter narrative.
·
With this comfort
blanket of legitimacy, African-Americans have no reason
to doubt that it’s true... and shields them from having to confront the harsh
reality of their own responsibility.
·
Refusing to
acknowledge the real causes of what should honestly be recognized as nothing
less than the sinking into outright barbarism of inner-city black communities, no
effective real solutions are even presented.
·
Without the
implementing of corrective solutions, black violent crime continues unabated,
but now there is an added impetus due to a falsely-grounded sense of grievance.
·
Black Lives Matter
protests increase in potency and number.
·
The violence threshold
rises for black activists who believe cops get up in the morning fantasizing
about whether they’ll get an opportunity this shift to execute a black man.
·
Increasing number of
cop-killing events.
·
Increasing
apprehension and tentativeness of cops on the beat in black neighborhoods.
·
Violence increases.
·
Respect for police
continues to diminish as BLM-sympathizing media talking heads and politicians
call for federal control of policing.
·
Increased
lawlessness and civil unrest.
The decreasing confidence in, and
effectiveness of law enforcement isn’t the first sign of the collapse of civil
society—it’s one of the last.
And in case you were wondering, Mr. President,
exactly what is the cause of the
incredibly disproportionate levels of
violence in the black community (e.g., 62% of all violent crime in New York
City1), it’s really very obvious. No, it’s not racism. It’s the breakdown of the
nuclear family; its replacement with a new improved model:
mother + children + state social welfare programs and child
support regime.
The institution of
fatherhood is all but discarded in the African-American community, thanks to
elite, feminist politically correct social policies.
The solution is to bring black men back into
the family—as husbands and most importantly, fathers—where they can be
socialized, rather than leaving them to learn the meaning of manhood from gangs.
Increasing race riots from BLM-inspired events
coupled with the growth of Islam in the same community is an ominous trend.
Your policy of misdirection only muddies the waters of what should be the
shared interest of the entire civilized world: eradicating the threat of global
Islamic jihad.
* * * *
* *
Next, you lectured us on the “real” nature of the global radical Islamist
movement, dismissing their claim of perfect fidelity to Islam with this:
“Since before I was president, I've been clear about how
extremist groups have perverted Islam to justify terrorism. As president, I
have called on our Muslim friends and allies at home and around the world to
work with us to reject this twisted interpretation of one of the world's great
religions.”
It is an interesting choice of words, “... extremist groups have
perverted Islam to justify terrorism.”
Yes, you have indeed claimed for many years that these “groups” are just
“using” the religion of Islam as a smokescreen to commit violence and acts of
terror, as though their devotion to Islam is just a convenience, even a fraud.
But if the true motivation is not
religious—what is it? Material? Or do you expect us to believe that they are
all just violent psychopaths who enjoy extreme violence?
How do you explain the suicide bombings and other attacks that
result in the jihadist’s certain death?
There has to be belief of a reward in the afterlife for someone to make
the ultimate “sacrifice.” And how can someone believe that murdering innocent
children serves a greater good, other than by accepting the “wisdom” of a
higher spiritual authority who knows better, that even infidel children deserve death? Such acts cannot
be motivated by any material, earthly desire.
* * * *
* *
You continue:
“There has not been a moment in my seven and a half years as
president where we have not been able to pursue a strategy because we didn't use
the label ‘radical Islam.’ Not once has an adviser of mine said, ‘Man, if we
really use that phrase, we're going to turn this whole thing around.’ Not once.”
Really? This begs the
question: Did your decision to specifically not
use the words “radical Islam” come from any of your advisors—or do you take
sole credit for that stroke of genius? Did any of your advisors tell you, “Man,
if we never say “radical Islam” we’ll really nail this sucker!”?
You continue:
“So if someone seriously thinks that we don't know who we're
fighting, if there is anyone out there who thinks we're confused about who our
enemies are -- that would come as a surprise to the thousands of terrorists who
we've taken off the battlefield.
“If the implication is that those of us up here and the
thousands of people around the country and around the world who are working to
defeat ISIL aren't taking the fight seriously? That would come as a surprise to
those who spent these last seven and a half years dismantling al-Qaeda in the
FATA, for example -- including the men and women in uniform who put their lives
at risk, and the special forces that I ordered to get bin Laden and are now on
the ground in Iraq and in Syria.
“They know full well who the enemy is. So do the intelligence
and law enforcement officers who spend countless hours disrupting plots and
protecting all Americans -- including politicians who tweet and appear on cable
news shows.”
I think that all Americans, and people everywhere for that matter, know who we're fighting: radical Islamic terrorists. I'm sure that our soldiers and law enforcement officers know it. And certainly our intelligence officers know who we're fighting. But I wonder if this will always be so, in light of your deliberate attempts to scrub this information from the eyes of the public using your authority in the Executive branch and your abuse of the bully pulpit?
You routinely advocate handcuffing local law enforcement, anti-terror efforts under the pretense of condemning "profliling." Following your lead, the surveillance of mosques has been curtailed. And in this most recent terrorist attack, you directed the FBI to redact the ‘banned words,’ as we shall refer to them
henceforth, as well as the names of radical Islamist leaders and organizations,
from any future transcripts from operations. Until a groundswell of outrage from
all corners forced your hand, this
included the transcripts of the 911 calls and numerous calls to media outlets made
by Omar Mateen expressing his fidelity to Islam and his allegiance to ISIS and
its leader Abu-Bakr al-Baghdadi while he
was committing the atrocities in the Pulse nightclub in Orlando.
By some miracle, the public’s utter shock at the FBI’s redacted
transcripts provoked such a response that Attorney General Loretta Lynch was
forced to roll it back within days. As to the question of where the initial
order came from?—“I’m not going to go into the detail of the process behind
it,” Lynch said. As if we don’t know.
Her explanation for the reversed policy is classic doublespeak:
“The goal is of course
the greatest transparency. The initial thought was we did not want to provide a
further platform for the propaganda of the killer. Once it became an issue, we
decided we would go ahead and release the full transcript.”
One local law enforcement lackey stooped to borrowing
language from the victim-feminist playbook when he claimed that they didn’t
want to “re-victimize the victims.”
Your pathological insistence that Islam must be prevented from
any implications in Islamic terrorist attacks is largely responsible for the
success of the Pulse Club slaughter. When Omar Mateen attempted to buy body
armor and bulk ammunition from a gun store, pausing to use his cell phone where
he spoke in an Arabic tongue, the owner wisely refused him—and then called the
FBI. After all, you’ve told us, “If you see something; say something.”
Why did the FBI not immediately track him down and detain him,
preventing this tragedy? Is it because
they have been schooled to walk on egg shells with a Muslim suspect? Why, soon
after taking office in 2009, did you instruct the Department of Homeland
Security to scrub the names of mosques and Muslims linked to terrorism, many
that had been cultivated since 2003?2
You continue:
“They know who the nature of the enemy is. So, there is no magic
to the phrase ‘radical Islam.’ It's a political talking point. It's not a
strategy”
No, but apparently it’s your
political strategy to avoid using the phrase “radical Islam.”
It is not a political strategy, or a “talking point,” to call
something by its real name—what it is. It’s simply telling the truth. To avoid
calling something what it is—that is
political! That is a strategy! ... and a truly perverted one, at that.
* * * *
* *
Next you give us, explicitly, your rationale for banning the use
of the words “Islamic terror,” or “radical Islam”:
“And the reason I am careful about how I describe this threat
has nothing to do with political correctness and everything to do with actually
defeating extremism.”
Not calling something by its real name in the service of
identity politics is perhaps the essence
of political correctness—though I don’t believe your motivations in this matter can be written off so innocently.
“Groups like ISIL and al-Qaeda want to make this war a war
between Islam and America, or between Islam and the West. They want to claim
that they are the true leaders of over a billion of Muslims around the world
who reject their crazy notions.”
It does appear that an apocalyptic war with the US, or the West
in general, may indeed be the goal of ISIS, but why should this be used as a
constraint on how we fight them? Doesn’t it make more sense to take them at
their word, to acknowledge their goal, and make it clear that we intend to stop
them?
“They want us to validate them by implying that they speak for
those billion-plus people, that they speak for Islam. That's their propaganda,
that's how they recruit. And if we fall into the trap of painting all Muslims
with a broad brush, and imply that we are at war with an entire religion, then
we are doing the terrorists' work for them.”
Not so fast, Mr. President. It doesn’t logically follow that by
acknowledging the threat of their poisonous strain of Islam we are “falling
into the trap of painting all Muslims with a broad brush,” nor that “we are at
war with an entire religion.”
“Doing
the terrorists work for them.” This is the constant refrain. We hear it over
and over from politically correct apologists from all walks of life,
politicians, media pundits, college professors, Hollywood movie stars.
“Doing exactly what they
want.”
“Following the ISIS game
plan.”
Please, NO MORE!
What else shouldn’t we do
to prevent ‘aiding ISIS’ Master Plan’? Perhaps we should ban all news coverage
of any future successful terror attacks? Perhaps we shouldn’t engage them
militarily at all, because acknowledging them as a legitimate enemy of the
greatest military power on Earth only serves to elevate their status in the
eyes of... others internationally... such as the “moderate Muslims” that we “don’t
want to lose”?
Again and again, you warn us that we mustn’t offend the world’s “moderate Muslims.” That we need them on our side. But if anything is going to
drive Muslims into the arms of ISIS it is the perception that they are
successful because Allah is on their side and their opponents are not only
morally depraved but craven and weak.
It is shocking how so many fools fall for this line of
“reasoning,” Mr. President. Perhaps all those years of dumbing down education
has finally paid some dividends.
* * * *
* *
“Now, up until this point, this argument of labels has mostly
just been partisan rhetoric, and sadly, we've all become accustomed to that
kind of partisanship, even when it involves the fight against these extremist
groups.
“That kind of yapping has not prevented folks across the
government from doing their jobs, from sacrificing and working really hard to
protect the American people.”
“Yapping.” The last time I heard that in a political speech was
in a Jeb Bush commercial. Your attempt to dismiss our outrage over your
doublespeak is equally laughable.
“But we are now seeing how dangerous this kind of mind-set and
this kind of thinking can be. We're starting to see where this kind of rhetoric
and loose talk and sloppiness about who exactly we're fighting, where this can
lead us.
“We now have proposals from the presumptive Republican nominee
for president of the United States to bar all Muslims from emigrating to
America. We hear language that singles out immigrants and suggests entire
religious communities are complicit in violence.”
“Loose talk and sloppiness about who exactly we’re fighting...”?
You mean by calling the threat “radical Islamic terrorists”? Is that what you call “loose” and “sloppy
talk”? No, Mr. President, that’s calling
things by their real names. That’s reality,
the facts.
Now we arrive at the portion of your lecture that the media
seized on as “attacking Donald Trump.” Of all the trash talk that
has spewed from the lips of The Donald,
his suggestion to ban Muslims from immigrating until we “figure out what’s
going on,” is actually one of his saner soundbites.
Of course should Trump become president and implement an actual
Muslim ban it would be severely constrained. Businessmen, politicians, assorted
kings and princes, etc., who have legitimate interests here will still be
allowed to travel. The ban would affect immigrants, particularly refugees
fleeing death and destruction in their homelands. CIA director Brennan established
as recently as June 16 in his testimony to Congress that ISIS is using refugee
immigration to infiltrate our shores, and that there are already many ISIS
operatives here.
Polls consistently show that large fractions of Muslims
worldwide would prefer to live under Sharia law. At least half of Muslims
worldwide believe that Sharia law is the revealed world of God.3 It is also well established that huge majorities of Muslims living in Asia,
Africa and the Middle East prefer to live under Sharia law. Though smaller
percentages of Muslims in southern Europe have the same preference, fully 42%
of Russian Muslims agree with the proposition.
In the UK, an extensive survey of Muslims found that more than
100,000 British Muslims sympathize with suicide bombers and other acts of
terror. Only one-third of British Muslims would contact law enforcement if they
knew someone close to them was involved with jihadists. Twenty-three percent of
British Muslims agree that Sharia law should be imposed in areas with large
Muslim populations4.
In another poll, 40% of British Muslims want Sharia law in the
UK5.
Is it any wonder that Britain just voted to leave the European Union?
Sixty-two percent of Canadian Muslims want Sharia law6.
A five-year study of Muslims in Europe found that 65% say Sharia
law is more important to them than the laws of the country they live in7.
Sharia law prescribes the death penalty for apostasy, as well as
for homosexuality, among other friendly provisions.
In light of these statistics, to not be afraid of Muslim subpopulations is irrational, and invites
catastrophe. Not fearing Islam should
be classified as a phobia—not fearing it.
Islamophobiaphobia, anyone?
You, Mr. President, have done a masterful job of instilling in
Americans the notion that what we have to fear the most from radical Islam is
“Islamophobia.” To you and your cabinet,
fearing Islam is the greatest danger
to Americans. “It’s not who we are.”
Here’s what your Attorney General, Loretta Lynch said following
the San Bernardino terrorist attack:
"Now obviously this is a country that is based on
free speech, but when it edges towards violence, when we see the potential
for someone lifting that mantle of anti-Muslim rhetoric—or, as we saw after
9/11, violence directed at individuals who may not even be Muslims
but perceived to be Muslims, and they will suffer just as much—when we see that
we will take action...
“I think it’s important that as we again talk about
the importance of free speech we make it clear that actions predicated on
violent talk are not America...They are not who we are, they are not what
we do, and they will be prosecuted."
Watch the video of
Lynch’s remarks here8.
http://www.dailywire.com/news/1593/loretta-lynch-vows-prosecute-those-who-use-anti-james-barrett
To anyone with possession of the facts and a sane mind, to not have a fear of Islam is to suffer
from a disorder. Yes, I have Islamophobia—though
my fear isn’t irrational. I’m sane. I know what Sharia law means. It
is fundamentally incompatible with our civilization—which by the way is called
“western civilization,” emergent in whole cloth from ancient Athens, spread
through Hellenism, nurtured in the Greco-Roman world that followed, enriched on the spiritual side by monotheism from the Abrahamic religions, and incubated
through the middle ages in Europe from whence it flowered in the Renaissance
and the Age of Enlightenment culminating in the founding of this great nation
of ours.
To it we owe the ideas of self-rule, the rule of law—not of man,
democracy, the separation of church and
state, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, property ownership, life,
liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and foremost of all: rationalism. Ideas antithetical
to the seventh-century codes of the Koran and Sharia law that remain unchanged
to this day, awaiting the great reformation of the religion, if it is to ever
become compatible with the modern world.
* * * * * *
Maybe this is the appropriate place to take stock of Islam. You
routinely lecture us on how it is a “religion of peace.” Perhaps a reminder of
some of its provisions is in order. Bear in mind there is no separation between
church (“mosque”) and state; a concept inimical to western democracy:
·
Waging jihad (holy war) to spread Islam and
force conversions. (No, Mr. President, “jihad” doesn’t mean merely “personal struggle.”)
·
Captives in jihad may be executed, enslaved, or
ransomed for money.
·
Female captives
of jihad may be forced to have to sex with their captors/owners.
·
Imposition of
second-class submission tax, called the jizyah, must
be imposed on Jews and Christians (and other religious minorities) living in
Islamic countries.
·
Slavery allowed.9
·
Male owners may
have sex with their slave-women, even prepubescent slave-girls.
·
Women’s testimony
in law court is weighed at half that of a man’s.
·
Husbands may beat
their wives.
·
Polygamy: A man
can have up to four wives.
·
A man of any age
may marry a prepubescent girl. (Mohammed engaged a six-year-old girl and the
marriage was consummated when she was the ripe age of nine. Marriages with
girls as young as ten occur in Saudi Arabia.)
·
Women must cover
their bodies, including their heads.
And here are some crimes with their prescribed punishments:
·
Theft: Amputation of hand.
·
Assaults resulting in injury: literal
“eye-for-an-eye” punishments.
·
Homosexuality: Execution, flogging or
imprisonment.
·
Adultery: Death by stoning.
·
Blasphemy: Death.
·
Alcohol, gambling: Flogging.
·
Highway robbery: Crucifixion of amputation of
hand or foot.
·
Fornication: Flogging.
·
False accusation of sexual crime: Flogging,
eighty lashes.
There are over a hundred verses in the Koran that command
Muslims to wage war with infidels for the sake of Islamic rule. Here are a few of
them:
Quran (5:33) - "The
punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to
make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or
crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or
they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world,
and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement."
Quran (8:12) - "I
will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off
their heads and strike off every fingertip of them."
Quran (9:5) - "So
when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you
find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in
every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate,
leave their way free to them."
Quran (47:3-4) - "Those
who disbelieve follow falsehood, while those who believe follow the truth from
their Lord... So, when you meet (in fight Jihad in Allah's Cause), those who
disbelieve smite at their necks till when you have killed and wounded many of
them, then bind a bond firmly (on them, i.e. take them as captives)... If it
had been Allah's Will, He Himself could certainly have punished them (without
you). But (He lets you fight), in order to test you, some with others. But
those who are killed in the Way of Allah, He will never let their deeds be lost."
* * * *
* *
You continue:
“Where does this stop? The Orlando killer, one of the San
Bernardino killers, the Fort Hood killer -- they were all U.S. citizens. Are we
going to start treating all Muslim Americans differently? Are we going to start
subjecting them to special surveillance? Are we going to start discriminating
against them, because of their faith?”
Omar Mateen was raised in a Muslim household, the child of
immigrants from Afghanistan. Until the threat of global jihad is curtailed, governments
of the civilized nations of the world must do all they can to protect their
people from harm. We have yet to see a
terror strike with a WMD. It is naïve and foolhardy to
believe our present efforts will prevent this from happening. The
ramifications of a strike with a WMD in the U.S. are barely comprehensible. 9/11 brought the Patriot Act. The destruction
of a city might herald the end of democracy as we know it.
Clearly, Muslims must be scrutinized. Profiling is essential.
How many resources are misspent because of our fear of appearing to be
politically incorrect? Is it really necessary to subject a wheelchair-bound Irish
grandmother or Norwegian toddler to the same level of scrutiny at an airport as
a Muslim arriving from the Middle East? Special attention must be paid to those
who fit the profile of a jihadi terrorist: Muslim.
This is not racism. Islam is not a race. Not all Muslims are terrorists but all
the terrorists seem to be Muslim. What is by far the most common terrorist
name?
This is common sense, and good policing. If no discrimination is
allowed the resources are attenuated, and the likelihood of an Omar Mateen
slipping through the net is magnified. Mathematicians call it “optimization.” It’s standard practice in economics and
technology. There would be no insurance
industry without it. It’s called actuarial science: modeling risk factors by
analyzing characteristics of a population.
“We've heard these suggestions during the course of this
campaign. Do Republican officials actually agree with this?
“Because that's not the America we want. It doesn't reflect our
Democratic ideals. It won't make us more safe, it will make us less safe,
fueling ISIL's notion that the West hates Muslims, making young Muslims in this
country and around the world feel like, no matter what they do, they're going
to be under suspicion and under attack.
“It makes Muslim Americans feel like their government is
betraying them. It betrays the very values America stands for.”
There you go again. It’s “playing right into their hands,”
right, Mr. President?
No, profiling Muslims will make us much safer. But let’s be real
here, you say you oppose treating Muslims differently when it comes to
investigations into suspected terrorist links. But what you’ve done is the
exact opposite: you’ve actually mandated preferential treatment for Muslims. In
every government sponsored video showing a dramatization of a terrorist attack,
the terrorists are always Caucasians. You take great pains to avoid even the suspicion
that a terrorist can be a non-white Muslim.
You directed the DHS to specifically delete files on Muslims
suspected of terrorist links. In your idealized world, terrorists will be
anything but Muslim. You prefer your
terrorists to be right-wing, NRA “bitter-clingers,” Christian militiamen, etc.
After all, how many times have you told us that Islam has nothing to do with
terrorism? Here are some of your quotes:
·
“ISIL is not Islamic.”
·
“Al-Qaeda’s cause is not Islam.”
·
“The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of
Islam” (Yes, I can’t believe you
actually said that, but you did!)
·
“Islam teaches peace.”
·
“[The call to prayer] is one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at
sunset.”
Here is a video of some
of Obama’s statements on Islam.
Here
is a more extensive selection of clips of Obama speaking on matters relating to
Islam.
If I didn’t know better, I’d think you were aspiring to be an emissary
of Islam. Hmmm...
“We've gone through moments in our history before when we acted
out of fear, and we came to regret it. We've seen our government mistreat our
fellow citizens, and it has been a shameful part of our history.”
Aha, the obligatory reference to the Japanese internment during
WWII. No surprise there.
“This is a country founded on basic freedoms, including freedom
of religion. We don't have religious tests here. Our founders, our
Constitution, our Bill of Rights, are clear about that.”
May I remind you again that Islamic Sharia law is inimical to
freedom of religion? The penalty for apostasy is death. The rule of law—not man;
self-rule; freedom of speech, thought and assembly; freedom to own property and
the fruits of one’s labor: these are the gifts bestowed on humanity by western
civilization. It is our culture that
learned, painfully over the centuries, to accommodate our own religious
heritage without trampling on the rights and freedoms of non-believers. It is
our institutions that evolved to strike that delicate balance between liberty
and freedom and the strictures of the Bible. Maybe it is true that these are strictly
western concepts and simply not in the cultural DNA of the Muslim world?
“And if we ever abandon those values, we would not only make it
a lot easier to radicalize people here and around the world, but we would have
betrayed the very things we are trying to protect.”
This is where you are seriously confused, Mr. President. In
opposing a belief system that rejects our values, one that holds as one of its goals the imposition of its law over
all other peoples of the Earth, through violence and slaughter if necessary, we
are not betraying our values, we are defending them!
Unlike the other religions of the world, Islam is both a
political system of governance and a religion. If a nation voted in Sharia law,
it would be an act of political suicide. The democracy would cease to exist.
In openly defending our values and rejecting Islamism we are not
radicalizing “moderate Muslims.” We are placing the onus where it belongs: on
peaceful Muslims who reject Sharia law. It is your message that serves to further radicalize the Muslim world. Your message of weakness in the face of
adversity. The Left’s message of cultural “deconstruction,” of doubt and
uncertainty in the virtues of western culture, in opposition to the brutal
certainty contained in Allah’s literal word of Sharia law. Your message of
cowardice and accommodation in the face of religious tyranny.
By answering calls for the implementation of Sharia law with
pleas for “diversity” and “tolerance” you validate the argument of the
Islamists that the West has been weakened by the internal corrosion of its
moral decadence. Your appointed Attorney General Loretta Lynch, in the wake of
Orlando, said the way to combat Islamic terrorism (though of course she didn’t
actually use the banned “I” word) is through “compassion, unity and love.” Do you
actually believe that once Muslims have more exposure to our “lifestyle
choices,” our sexual freedoms, for example, they will grow to appreciate the
flowering of the human condition as advanced by LGBTQ... RSTUVW... communities,
and realize the error of their ways?
You’re right that we need Muslim allies to combat the jihadists.
But you’re completely wrong in how to accomplish that. It’s the difference
between pandering and leading.
In a classroom with an unruly child, the worst thing a teacher
can do is demonstrate tolerance and accommodation by adjusting the classroom
environment, in essence tolerating the miscreant. That will cause the bad
behavior to metastasize among the other students. The correct remedy is to let the
other students see that unruly behavior is not tolerated. Remove the child. Anyone
who has taught knows the “one bad apple ... poisons the barrel” classroom
dynamic.
The relevant analogy to Islam and the international community is
a clear and convincing message from the civilized world that Sharia law is simply
unacceptable. In a perfect world it might look like this:
1.
Extend the UN Declaration of Human Rights to expressly identify
Sharia law as inimical to human rights, and put in place steps to enforce
membership in the UN consistent with this declaration.
2.
A ban on immigration from nations under Sharia law.
3.
Economic sanctions on nations under Sharia law.
In other words, a united message from all nations that Sharia
law is unacceptable within the company of the civilized world.
Putting aside the practical difficulties on implementing such a
global program for the moment, consider the likely response of the world’s
Muslims—particularly the rulers of Muslim nations.
Would this drive the 1.6 billion Muslims into the arms of ISIS?
Would they interpret this as a global war on Islam, a “clash of civilization”
that now forces them to engage the other non-Muslim 5.3 billion peoples of the
world in an apocalyptic world war?
Or would they finally start the conversation with each other,
the conversation that “moderate” Muslims must
have, that begins:
“We have a problem. We
have to solve our problem.”
* * * * * *
You continue:
“The pluralism and the openness, our rule of law, our civil
liberties, the very things that make this country great. The very things that
make us exceptional. And then the terrorists would have won, and we cannot let
that happen. I will not let that happen.
“You know, two weeks ago I was at the commencement ceremony of
the Air Force Academy, and it could not have been more inspiring to see these
young people stepping up dedicated to serve and protect this country.
“And part of what was inspiring was the incredible diversity of
these cadets. We saw cadets who are straight applauding classmates who were
openly gay.”
Whether this is a good thing or not, let me remind you again
that the punishment for homosexuality under Sharia law is death.
Eleven nations are governed strictly by Sharia law, and four
more nations partially submit to Sharia law regionally.
“We saw cadets born here in America applauding classmates who
are immigrants and love this country so much they decided they wanted to be
part of our armed forces.
“We saw cadets and families of all religions applaud cadets who
are proud, patriotic Muslim Americans serving their country in uniform ready to
lay their lives on the line to protect you and to protect me.
"We saw male cadets applauding for female classmates who can now serve in combat positions. That's the American military. That's America. One team. One nation."
Yes, it sounds great.
Now, how can we make sure we preserve that for our children? How do we save it
from enemies foreign and domestic, those for whom these values are anathema, nothing
less than the work of Satan?
“Those
are the values that ISIL is trying to destroy, and we shouldn't help them do
it. Our diversity and our respect for one another, our drawing on the talents
of everybody in this country, our making sure that we are treating everybody
fairly, that we're not judging people on the basis of what faith they are or
what race they are or what ethnicity they are or what their sexual orientation
is.”
Yes, but ISIL is not some rogue group of
criminals who behead, crucify, burn alive, pillage and destroy just for the
sheer delight of it. The “I” in the name stands for “Islamic.” They are the
most visible part of a global movement. The movement is religious. It is
fundamentalist Islam. A version of the religion that believes the Koran should
be taken literally; that it is the word of God, and that its rules must be
imposed on all the peoples of the world so that only then will the world be at
“peace.” That is the true meaning behind your repeated parroting of “Islam is a
religion of peace.” Yes, it is—but only
when everyone everywhere has submitted to it.
To accommodate, and even welcome, this belief
system under praises of “diversity” and “tolerance” is sheer lunacy.
“That's
what makes this country great. That's the spirit we see in Orlando. That's the
unity and resolve that will allow us to defeat ISIL. That's what will preserve
our values and our ideals that define us as Americans. That's how we're going
to defend this nation, and that's how we're going to defend our way of life.
Thank you very much.”
Actually, it will be a small miracle if our
nation can survive the remaining months of your presidency. You are doing
everything in your power to divert our attention from the threat posed by
radical Islam, not only to ourselves, but to civilization itself. One shudders
to think what will result once an Islamist jihadist terrorist gets hold of a
WMD.
And now we turn to the Why?—as in ‘Why do you
deliberately and continually lie about Islam?’
The standard trope is to attribute the policy
of let’s-pretend-that-this-global-menace-is-not-Islamic to “political
correctness.” I’ll buy this for your typical college professor or CNN talking
head. It’s Identity Politics 101. We know the script. They don’t know any
better. Decades of politically correct indoctrination has taken its toll on the
reasoning abilities of most Americans.
But you don’t get off so easy, Mr. President.
Obama at half-brother's wedding 1990s
You have just given us too many dots to
connect. It’s almost like you’re daring us to state the obvious.
You claim to be Christian, yet whenever you
mention Christians or Christianity, it is always in the pejorative. Here you
are at the Presidential Prayer Breakfast, Feb 5, 2015, lecturing Christians on,
believe it or nuts, their intolerance:
“And lest we get on our high horse and think this is
unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the
Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ. In
our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name
of Christ.”
And why do you almost
always fail to mention the Christian victims of ISIS? It’s almost
pathological...
“We see ISIL, a brutal, vicious death cult that, in the
name of religion, carries out unspeakable acts of barbarism --
terrorizing religious minorities like the Yezidis, subjecting women to rape as
a weapon of war, and claiming the mantle of religious authority for such actions.”
For twenty-some-odd years
you worshipped at the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, the church of
your pastor, Reverend Wright. This church is more a political entity than a
spiritual one, as Americans got to see those endless loops of fiery anti-white,
anti-American, “the chickens have come home to roost,” excerpts from his
sermons. What is preached in these churches for inner-city blacks is sometimes called
“black liberation theology.” In your book, “Dreams of my Father,” you remark
about one of the precepts that you found particularly attractive: “Disavowal
of the Pursuit of ‘Middleclassness.’” This is one of the “Black Ethics”
comprising the “Black Value System” adopted by these churches. None of them
mention Christ. All of them relate to being black.
Quoting Trinity church literature, you wrote:
“While
it is permissible to chase ‘middleincomeness’ with all our might,” the text
stated, those blessed with the talent or good fortune to achieve success in the
American mainstream must avoid the “psychological entrapment of Black
‘middleclassedness’ that hypnotizes the successful brother or sister into
believing they are better than the rest and teaches them to think in terms of
‘we’ and ‘they’ instead of ‘US’!”
According to an article in Breitbart.com regarding your
relationship with the Church:
“Obama’s only qualm
was whether Trinity’s opposition to“middleclassedness” was sincere, given its “disproportionate number of black
professionals.” Eventually, Obama says, he embraced God–and Wright’s church.10
Your flavor of black political empowerment is not the MLK, Civil Rights
1960s variety. You are of a different generation. That movement was all about
inclusion. "Stop keeping us out! We want admission to the middle class—and
beyond. We want in. Stop
discriminating against us!"
Your pedigree is the 1970s “black power” movement. The Black Panthers. Angela
Davis. Huey Newton and Bobby Seale. Stokely Carmichael. It wasn’t about wanting
what whitey had. It was about rejecting everything about whitey—including his
“middleclassness.”
And his religion. The 1970s black power movement was also about Malcom X and
the Nation of Islam. To truly reject whitey, and Satanic Amerika, Islam offered
an answer that provided real historic roots, the answer to it all. A framework
where Reverend Wright’s hatred of white America found its true home.
You are the son of a Shiite Muslim Kenyan father. After divorce, your
mother married an Indonesian Muslim man and the family moved to Indonesia. Indonesia
is home to the largest Muslim population in the world. It is overwhelmingly
Sunni Muslim. You lived there from the ages of six to ten. Though you initially
attended a Catholic school for grades one and two, you switched to an exam
school that welcomed all faiths. You were registered as a Muslim and received
religious instruction accordingly. This was, after all, your heritage.
Are you really a Christian, Mr. President? If so, why do you struggle so
when you have to say the word? Why do you avoid saying the word, as when
speaking of ISIS’ victims?
President John Kennedy, the nation’s first and only Roman Catholic
president, was compelled to publicly proclaim that should he be elected he
would not “accept instructions” from the Pope.
Similarly, Mitt Romney during his presidential campaign in 2007 publicly
affirmed that his religion, Mormonism, would have no impact on his execution of
presidential duties should he be elected. Romney is a pastor in his church.
But Islam is different from the other major world religions. Besides its
religious component, it prescribes a rule of law. There is no separation of
‘church’ and state in Islam. Nations that are ruled under Islamic law are
theocracies by definition. Any Muslim president has a clear obligation to
clarify where his obedience to his religion ends and his duties as secular
commander-in-chief and leader of the Free World begin.
There is only one Christian theocracy in the world: the Vatican
city-state. The nations of Europe (and the U.S., though many are at pains to
admit it) have Christian foundations, but they are in no way, shape, or form
theocracies.
In the U.S., when a Christian bakery refused to bake a wedding cake for a
gay couple, there was figurative hell to pay. In Saudi Arabia, homosexuals caught
in the act merit the death sentence. Beheading is the common method.
There exists a clear and abiding contradiction between Islam and a
democratic republic.
Did you make a decision many years ago that in order to rise in US
politics you could not do it as a Muslim? Did you make a pragmatic decision to
hide your true faith and adopt Christianity? Does Reverend Wright know this? As
your spiritual mentor throughout much of your adult life, did he advise you on
this?
Islam allows Muslims to deceive non-believers when it is beneficial to the
cause of Islam. It’s called Taqiyya. Allah will not hold you
accountable for recanting Islam if it is necessary.
Once elected, did you plan to be an emissary of Islam to America, and is
the global jihad now frustrating your goals along these lines?
Are you a Muslim, Mr. President? If so, are you Shiite, like your
step-father? How did it impact your desire for the nuke deal with Iran? What
part did it play in your obvious deference to Iran? Does it account for your
directions to have our naval officers submit to humiliation by their Iranian
captors earlier this year while the negotiations were ongoing?11
These are the questions many Americans would
like answered, Mr. President. If you have indeed deceived the American people
with regards to your religion and the impact it has had on your decisions, what
is the crime and the punishment?
Article 3, Section 3 -
Treason
Treason against the United States, shall consist
only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them
Aid and Comfort.
# # #
[1] Bratton, William J., Police Commissioner. New York City. NYPD. Crime and Enforcement Activity in New York City. 2015. http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloads/pdf/analysis_and_planning/year_end_2015_enforcement_report.pdf
[2] “Bombshell: Whistleblower Claims DHS Scrubbed Records That Might Have Prevented Orlando And San Bernardino Attacks.” Staff. The Sean Hannity Show. (Philip Haney, founding member of DHS, to Sean Hannity. In 2009 and again in 2012, DHS HQ issued orders to delete records.) 15 Jun. 2016. http://www.hannity.com/articles/war-on-terror-487284/bombshell-whistleblower-claims-dhs-scrubbed-records-14816541/)
[3] Pew Research Center. The World’s Muslims: Religion, Politics and Society 30 Apr. 2013.
http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/
[4] Kern, Soeren. “UK: What British Muslims ReallyThink.” Gatestone Institute 17 Apr. 2016. http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/7861/british-muslims-survey
[5] Hennessy, Patrick and Kite, Melissa. “Poll reveals 40 percent of Muslims want sharia law in UK.” The Telegraph 19 Feb, 2006 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1510866/Poll-reveals-40pc-of-Muslims-want-sharia-law-in-UK.html
[6] Sims, Kris. “Strong support for Shariah in Canada.” Atlantic Bureau, Toronto Sun 11 July 2016
http://www.torontosun.com/2011/11/01/strong-support-for-shariah-in-canada
[7] Kern, Soeren. “Europe: Islamic Fundamentalism is Widespread.” Gatestone Institute 16 Dec. 2013 http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4092/europe-islamic-fundamentalism
[8] Barrett, James. “Loretta Lynch Vows to Prosecute Those Who Use ‘Anti-Muslim’ Speech That ‘Edges Toward Violence’”. The DailyWire 4 Dec. 2015. http://www.dailywire.com/news/1593/loretta-lynch-vows-prosecute-those-who-use-anti-james-barrett
[9] (Some Islamic nations, such as Egypt, have outlawed slavery) Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam 8/5/90, U. of Minnesota, Human Rights Library. 5 Aug. 1990 http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/instree/cairodeclaration.html.
[10] Pollak, Joel B. “Obama a Muslim? No. Joined Racist Church? Yes.” 18 Sept. 2015 Breitbart.com http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/18/obama-a-muslim-no-joined-racist-church-yes/
[11] Larter, David,U.S. “Navy rebukes Iran after propaganda viseo shows sailor crying.” 10 Feb. 2016 NavyTimes http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/2016/02/10/iran-images-riverine-crying-strong-condemnation-navy/80186322/
