On March 8, 1983, President Ronald Reagan addressed the National Association of Evangelicals at a gathering in Orlando, Florida. This is the speech that came to be known as the “Evil Empire” speech.
In that speech, President Reagan provided an apt description of the moral foundation of the Soviet government:
“(T)he Soviet leaders have openly and publicly declared that the only morality they recognize is that which will further their cause, which is world revolution... And everything is moral that is necessary for the annihilation of the old, exploiting social order and for uniting the proletariat. Well, I think the refusal of many influential people to accept this elementary fact of Soviet doctrine illustrates an historical reluctance to see totalitarian powers for what they are. We saw this phenomenon in the 1930's. We see it too often today.”
President Reagan went on to provide a prescription as to how to approach our Cold War enemy in discussions exploring pathways to peace:
“This doesn't mean we should isolate ourselves and refuse to seek an understanding with them. I intend to do everything I can to persuade them of our peaceful intent, to remind them that it was the West that refused to use its nuclear monopoly in the forties and fifties for territorial gain... At the same time, however, they must be made to understand we will never compromise our principles and standards. We will never give away our freedom. We will never abandon our belief in God. And we will never stop searching for a genuine peace.”
President Reagan went on to explain the concept of genuine peace; peace that is not the mere absence of active combat, but peace that results from mutual respect even in the midst of vast ideological differences. He went on to make the case that assertions of the Soviet desire for peace could not be taken seriously as long as it remained their intrinsic goal to spread their oppressive ideology:
“Yes, let us pray for the salvation of all of those who live in that totalitarian darkness -- pray they will discover the joy of knowing God. But until they do, let us be aware that while they preach the supremacy of the state, declare its omnipotence over individual man, and predict its eventual domination of all peoples on the Earth, they are the focus of evil in the modern world.”
This formula, modeled by President Reagan, lies in stark contrast to the course of action pursued by Barack Obama, as he addresses what is the greatest threat to peace in the modern world – the spread of Islam.
Islam is unique in that it is not solely a religion, but it is also an ideology. Some actually argue that it is more ideology than religion. For countries which embrace this ideology, the precepts of the religion require that its mandates populate the entire system of government.
One example of this is the Jizya – a tax levied by Muslim nations against all non-Muslim inhabitants of their land. This would be like America imposing the tithe upon its citizens through laws enacted through the legislative process and enforced through the police and the courts. Except that the Jizya is a tax that is required at the exclusion of Muslims, so it discriminates against all non-Muslims. This fulfills the command of Muhammad to make those who do not ascribe to Islam to be made subjects of Allah and those who believe in him.
Qur'an (9:29) -"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."
Another truth that is vital to the proper understanding of Islam as a religion, and even more so as an ideology, is the Doctrine of Taqiyya. The basic explanation of this doctrine is that anything that furthers the cause, survival and dominance of Islam is permissible, and even obligatory, even if it violates the morality extolled in the religion. Taqiyya is a direct reference to deception, but the concept can easily be applied to other acts which would otherwise be considered immoral, such as theft, murder and rape. The Koran is also very clear that human life does not have equal intrinsic value, and a believer in Islam is more valuable than an infidel. To a Muslim, as the value of the person decreases, so goes the dignity with which they are treated.
From GentleIslam.com:
“Al-Tabari’s (d. 923) famous Tafsir (exegesis of the Koran) is essentially a standard reference work in the entire Muslim world. Regarding 3:28, he writes: “If you [Muslim] are under their [infidels’] authority, fearing for yourselves, behave loyally to them, with your tongue, while harboring inner animosity for them…. Allah has forbidden believers from being friendly or on intimate terms with the infidels in place of believers—except when infidels are above them [in authority]. In such a scenario, let them act friendly towards them.””“Regarding 3:28,” Ibn Kathir (d. 1373, second only to Tabari) writes, “Whoever at any time or place fears their [infidels’] evil, may protect himself through outward show.” As proof of this, he quotes Muhammad’s companions: Abu Darda said “Let us smile to the face of some people while our hearts curse them”; while al-Hassan said, “Doing Taqiyya is acceptable till the Day of Judgment [i.e., in perpetuity].””
With greater understanding of Islam as both a religion and an ideology, the complete picture revealed reflects the very words President Reagan used to describe the Soviet empire: “(T)he only morality they recognize is that which will further their cause...”
A review of the history of Islam on the world stage reveals it to be the bloodiest religion the world has ever known. Those who levy the typical vapid arguments about the bloody history of Christianity while oblivious to the fact of the tremendous death toll accumulated in the name of Islam reveal an immeasurable ignorance.
Without getting into mitigating arguments, focusing only on numbers, the death toll in the Crusades is quite unknown. Some estimates go as high as 1 – 5 million. More realistic numbers place the death toll at around 200,000. Even accepting the highest number of 5 million, and adding to that the Spanish Inquisition and any other violent acts carried out by the most fractious groups, including the KKK, the comparison of Christianity to Islam is not even close. Furthermore, the comparison of the general circumstances of death is apples to oranges. Many, if not most of the deaths attributed to Christianity happened in times of war against an enemy which was armed and engaged in the conflict. Most of the deaths attributed to Islam occurred in massacres of innocents, even conducted by Muhammad himself. Moreover, the Bible may be used out of context to justify the actions of those who claim the banner of Christianity, such as the KKK, but a proper understanding of the Bible reveals that there is zero basis or justification provided in Scripture for the actions of these groups.
Islam is responsible for the deaths of literally hundreds of millions – as many as 300,000,000 – possibly more. And counting. Mohammad himself is believed to have slaughtered more than 3,000 men, women and children.
Every year, more people are killed in the name of Islam than all other religions combined. In December, 2012, 680 people were killed in 203 attacks carried out in 22 different countries. By Islamic standards, that was a slow month. Conservative estimates hover at around 9,000 deaths in the year 2011 alone – an average of 750 per month. No other religion even comes close. Since 9/11/2001, there have been more than 20,300 deadly attacks carried out in the name of Islam throughout the world.
Some of those attacks took place on American soil, although Barack Obama begs to differ. Here are just a few examples:
Little Rock, Arkansas – June 1, 2009
Carlos Bledsoe, who renamed himself Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad after converting to Islam, carried out a terrorist attack which took the life of an Army Recruiter, Andy Long. After his conversion to Islam, Bledsoe was sent by radical Islamists in Nashville to receive training by Al Qaeda in Yemen. Upon his return, he attempted to murder two Jewish Rabbis in Nashville and in Memphis. The Obama Justice Department has refused to label the murder as a terrorist attack, even though Bledsoe told the AP that the attack was “Islamically (sic) justified,” and told investigators of the murder that he was angry over the treatment of Muslims by the US Military (should responsibility for this murder be pinned upon leftist media and politicians, who voice these very sentiments?). Bledsoe was trained by Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, crossed state lines to carry out multiple crimes, and confessed to the killing of Andy Long as part of his personal jihad, yet no federal charges have been brought against him.
Ft. Hood, Texas – November 5, 2009
Major Nidal Malik Hasan entered a processing station and opened fire on unarmed soldiers preparing for deployment to Iraq and Afghanistan. Hasan had a history of vehemently defending Islam as a victim of the US military. He also condoned the release of Muslim soldiers from duty as “conscientious objectors” in “waging war against fellow Muslims.” There are many accounts of Hasan defending and even promoting the idea of a Muslim in the military carrying out a suicide bombing targeting US troops in defense of Islam. Business cards were found in his apartment where he described himself as a “soldier of Allah.” It is later discovered that Hasan had been in contact with Al Qaeda – specifically, Anwar al-Awlaki, who was one of the world's most wanted terrorists at that time. Moreover, the FBI was aware that Hasan had been in direct contact with al-Awlaki.
Just prior to the attack, Hasan walked into the building with several pre-loaded magazines and weapons, then shouted, “Allahu akbar,” several times, then opened fire on the unarmed soldiers. Hasan fired off more then 100 rounds before he himself was taken down by Police Officers, Sgt. Kimberly Munley and Senior Sgt. Mark Todd. The attack left 14 dead and 34 wounded (the number is typically reported as 13 killed, but some survivors dispute that number, as one of the women who was mortally wounded was pregnant, and the yet-to-be-born baby did not survive).
In the legal process and fallout, Hasan has vigorously defended his right to keep his beard based on his Islamic faith, despite the fact that he had somehow managed to follow military regulations and remain clean-shaven while in uniform prior to the mass-shooting. The current judge, Col. Tara Osborn, has refused to uphold the order by the previous judge to have Hasan shave the beard, and seems to remain somewhat ambivalent at the time of this writing.
Meanwhile, a coalition of victims and their families have joined together in a lengthy campaign, culminating in the release of a video in October, 2012 – three years after the event – calling on the Obama administration to reverse its ruling on the shooting as an act of Workplace Violence, as opposed to an Act of Terror. The coalition consists of some 200 members who have been pleading with the administration for three years to rectify this situation.
Bear in mind, when it suits their political purposes, Obama and the Democrat party have not hesitated to parade victims in front of Congress and the American people. Consider the recent testimony of the parents of the children whose lives were taken in the Sandy Hook massacre. Democrats even duly presented Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords to give a brief statement, right on cue, hand-written for her by her therapist, extolling the virtues of the latest efforts at gun control. Yet, en masse, the survivors and families of the Ft. Hood shooting have issued a singular call which has been persistent, yet consistently falls on deaf ears in the Obama Pentagon. Right down to each individual, there is no doubt that this was an act of terrorism.
This is no small distinction, as the soldiers who were wounded or killed are not eligible for Purple Hearts and their families remain ineligible for benefits, as the designation of Workplace Violence does not provide for combat benefits, which include the physical therapy and other medical and psychological treatment which is available for soldiers wounded in combat. Moreover, the designation of workplace violence is a disservice to those who were killed or wounded in the attack. This is also true for Private Andy Long, the victim of the terrorist attack in Little Rock. The attack which resulted in his death was classified as a “drive-by shooting,” and he also has been denied military benefits and is not eligible for a Purple Heart.
Texas Governor Rick Perry claims that the motives for the refusal by the administration to properly designate the Ft. Hood shooting as an act of terror center on a desire for political correctness. Considering the facts of the incident, as well as the incident in Little Rock, along with Obama's penchant for pacifying Islam's most radical elements throughout the entirety of his first term, this is a very generous assessment.
A review of Obama's actions on the world stage confirms the validity of the most dire suspicions. Obama has repeatedly snubbed Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu, one of the closest allies to the US. He has verbally insulted Netanyahu to other world leaders, and even refused to honor a request for a meeting by Netanyahu during a time of crisis for Israel, choosing instead to go on an appearance circuit of talk shows and fundraisers with so-called stars of music and film.
Obama boisterously praised the Arab Spring in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya, which has seen the Muslim Brotherhood rise to power in those countries. Under the rule of the Muslim Brotherhood, Christians, Jews and even other Muslims who disagree politically are being rounded up, persecuted and even slaughtered.
Obama refused to support a rebellion in Iran that would have helped to oust a regime that is brutally violent to its own people, truly a threat to the US and Israel and is sworn to the destruction of either or both. Yet he readily supported the rebellion in Egypt which ousted a regime which was certainly no good, but at least friendly to the US and was not actively engaging in the mass-slaughter of its own citizens.
Now, an Islamic radical sits in the seat of power in Egypt, Muhamed Morsi, backed by the Muslim Brotherhood, and Obama is sending over four of a proposed twenty F-16s to add to an arsenal of aircraft that will be very useful if Morsi puts actions to words and decides to attack Israel. Morsi has been caught on tape commenting that Jews are descendants of apes and pigs, and he has threatened to renege on the treaty between Egypt and Israel. Finally, he has publicly prayed for the destruction of Israel. Is it possible he could see the F-16s provided by Obama as an answer to that prayer?
The Arab Spring culminated in another attack, which Obama again initially refused to recognize as terrorism.
September 11, 2012
The US Embassy in Benghazi, Libya, was overrun in what is now known to have been a premeditated terrorist attack. It was known by the Obama administration that this was a terrorist attack within hours of the attack, yet for almost two full weeks, the administration continued to promote a false narrative blaming the attacks on a spontaneous demonstration stemming from outrage over a YouTube video. There was a demonstration in Cairo, Egypt, which had the primary goal of gaining the release of the Blind Shiek, responsible for the first terrorist attack on the World Trade Center in 1993. Those protests had almost nothing to do with the YouTube video cited ad nauseum by the White House and State Department. Benghazi, however, remained quite calm, even up to the moment just prior to the onset of the attack.
It is worth noting the initial response of the Obama administration to the protests in Cairo. In that demonstration, Islamic radicals overran the US embassy, tore up the US flag and raised an Islamic flag used by Al Qaeda in its place. In response, the US embassy released the following statement:
“The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims -- as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.”
It is difficult to imagine a more anemic response, or a response that could be more encouraging to an aggressor. If an individual at a TEA Party gathering were to burn or hang Obama in effigy, the outcry from the media and the politicians – especially from within this administration – would be truly deafening. As proof, one only needs to look at the response of the administration to the then-Republican presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, as he criticized the weak response to the demonstration in Cairo:
“I'm outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi. It's disgraceful that the Obama administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks."
The Obama administration's response to Romney was not anywhere near as weak as its response to the Islamic radicals:
"Gov. Romney seems to have a tendency to shoot first and aim later. As president, one of the things I've learned is you can't do that. That, you know, it's important for you to make sure that the statements that you make are backed up by the facts. And that you've thought through the ramifications before you make 'em."
Facts such as the storming the embassy of your nation by Islamic radicals, tearing down the flag of your nation and murdering officials who are a part of your administration? How much aim is required before shooting in the case of events such as these?
Even if the attacks had stemmed from outrage over a video insulting their religion, to whom exactly was Mr. Obama and his administration apologizing? So-called “moderate” Muslims do not attack people who defile their religion. Attacking a US embassy is an act of war, as the embassy is considered US soil. What justification is there for Obama to apologize to the attackers?
The question has been sparsely raised, yet it should be raised: Is it possible the weak response of the Obama administration was the ultimate “straw that broke the camel's back” in signaling to those planning the Benghazi attack that they could do so with near impunity? The evidence shows that the tweet went out from the embassy at 6:17 am EDT on 9/11/12. The Benghazi attack began just under 10 hours later, at 4 PM EDT. Is it unreasonable to conclude that, at a minimum, the weak initial response did nothing to dissuade those planning the assault in Benghazi?
In addition, the evidence also shows that, as the administration continued to tout their disapproval of the video, the riots grew more intense. Whether by total ineptitude or willful instigation, it is fair to say that the administration stoked the fires in the hours leading up to the Benghazi attack.
Giving Mr. Obama the benefit of the doubt, and buying into the notion that people who commit acts of terror in the name of Islam are actually in deep misunderstanding of the religion, then why on earth would a US president apologize to these people? Wouldn't that be parallel to apologizing to the Ku Klux Klan after they burned a cross in front of a government building because of a perceived insult to Christianity? If so-called "misunderstanders of the religion" commit acts of violence in the name of that religion, by what rationale would any world leader provide legitimacy to the group or organization responsible for the violence borne of their ignorance by apologizing to that group?
This simply does not add up. Given Mr. Obama's obvious knowledge of the religion of Islam and its various tribes and customs, it does not make sense that he would be unaware of the real teachings of the religion. Specific to the attack in Benghazi, it is certainly worth mentioning that he was in the midst of a presidential re-election campaign, and there exists the contributing motive of not wanting to allow these attacks to damage his political aspirations. Yet there is something deeper to his actions, both immediately, and in the days that followed.
The first action by Obama that reflects an extreme lack of feeling for the gravity of the attacks is that he pressed forward with his campaign schedule. He hopped on a plane and flew out to Las Vegas for a campaign stop. His opening remarks were nothing short of stunning. He walked out to the podium to an enthusiastic audience, smiling and waving. His face in no way reflected any solemnity which would have reflected a sense of the gravity of the day's events.
Obama: Thank you so much. Can everybody please give Adriana a great round of applause for the wonderful introduction? (Applause.) I also want to say it’s good to see your once and next Congresswoman, Dina Titus. (Applause.) And it is so good to see all of you.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: We love you!
Obama: I love you back. (Applause.) I do. I wanted to begin --
AUDIENCE: Four more years! Four more years! Four more years!
Obama had started to inform the audience of the attacks on the embassies in Cairo and Benghazi. At this point, however, it is obvious the audience is largely unaware of the day's events, but the president is not. Yet even as he knows he has some horrible news to share, as they chant, he smiles and laughs. Then, finally...
Obama: Thank you. So I wanted to begin tonight by just saying a few words about a tough day that we had today. We lost four Americans last night, who were killed when they were attacked at a diplomatic post in Libya. And they were serving overseas on our behalf, despite the dangers, despite the risks, to help one of the world’s youngest democracies get on its feet. They were working to advance the interests and the values that we hold dear as Americans. And as Americans, we stand united -– all of us -– in gratitude for their service, and we are mindful of their sacrifice, and we want to send out heartfelt prayers to their loved ones who grieve today. (Applause.)
It’s a reminder that the freedoms we enjoy -– sometimes even the freedoms we take for granted -– they’re only sustained because there are people like those who were killed, who are willing to stand up for those freedoms; who are willing to fight for those freedoms; in some cases, to lay down their lives for those freedoms. So tonight, let’s think of them and thank them.
As for the ones we lost last night: I want to assure you, we will bring their killers to justice. (Applause.) And we want to send a message all around the world -- anybody who would do us harm: No act of terror will dim the light of the values that we proudly shine on the rest of the world, and no act of violence will shake the resolve of the United States of America. (Applause.)
We will not be deterred. We will keep going. We will keep going because the world needs us. We are the one indispensable power in the world. And if we are going to see peace and security for our children and our grandchildren, then that means that this generation of Americans has to lead. We’re going to have to keep doing the work -- no matter how hard it seems sometimes. And that’s what I want to talk to you about here today. We’ve got work to do overseas; we’ve also got to do some work here at home. (Applause.) And we’ve got to do some work right here in the great state of Nevada. (Applause.)
Now, because Nevada is a battleground state, you are aware that we’ve got an election going on... (Applause.)
With that, a US president who had just suffered the loss of the first US diplomat to be assassinated in over 30 years (though he did not share those facts with this audience), in addition to three other brave Americans, in a terrorist attack on an American embassy, went on about his campaign. He did mention acts of terror, which would seem to betray his knowledge that Benghazi was indeed an act of terror, but he did not directly label the attack on the embassy in Benghazi as one such act of terror.
On September 13, Secy of State Hillary Clinton condemns the attacks, but makes mitigating comments referencing the video and religious intolerance.
The next day, Obama Press Secretary Jay Carney addressed the White House Press Corps, stating, “...the unrest around the region has been in response to this video. We do not have any information at this moment to indicate that any of this unrest was pre-planned...” Mr. Obama and Hillary Clinton greet the bodies at a ceremony at Andrews Air Force Base, where standing just a few feet from the flag-draped caskets, Ms. Clinton says, “We've seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful Internet video that we had nothing to do with. It is hard for the American people to make sense of that, because it is senseless.”
Remember, the administration knew – Obama knew – that the attack on Benghazi was a pre-planned, coordinated assault. Even before Mr. Obama boarded that plane to Vegas, he knew. It is well known that the UN Ambassador, Susan Rice was paraded out onto 5 different Sunday talk shows to advance the false narrative of the spontaneous attack stemming from a protest. Beyond that, Barack Obama himself continued to advance this narrative as well. It is now clear that the administration was on the same page with its narrative, even as an increasing number of political officials and news organizations were accumulating information which directly refuted that narrative.
Focusing now on Obama, he began a talk show tour aimed at bolstering his campaign (it is around this time that Israeli PM Netanyahu had been requesting the meeting with Obama, which Obama denied). On September 18, one week after the attack, Obama appears with David Letterman. Letterman, not renowned for journalistic prowess, happens to ask a question with some meat on it:
Letterman: ...Is this an act of war? Are we at war now? What happens here?
Obama: No, uh, eh – eh, Well, here's what happened... Y-Y-You had a video that was released by, uh, somebody who lives here, uh, sort of a shadowy character who, who, eh, is extremely offensive video directed at Muhammad and Islam -
Letterman: Making fun of the prophet Muhammad.
Obama: Making fun of the prophet Muhammad, and, so, uh, this caused great offense, uh, in much of the Muslim world. But, what also happened was extremists, and, terrorists, uh, used this as an excuse, uh, to, uh, attack, uh, a variety of our embassies including the consulate in Libya, and the irony is, is, the ambassador, Chris Stevens, he was the person who was first in Libya, and helped to advise us in liberating Libya from Muammar Gadhafi - the former dictator there...”
On the day after Obama made that appearance with Letterman, September 19, the National Director of the Center for Counter-Terrorism, Matthew Olsen, testified on Capitol Hill that the victims were killed in a terrorist attack on the embassy in Benghazi.
On September 20, Obama appeared in an interview conducted on UniVision:
Question: We have reports that the White House said today that the attacks in Libya were a terrorist attack. Do you have information indicating that it was Iran or Al Qaeda was behind organizing the protests?
Obama: Well, W-We're still doing an investigation, uh, and, there are going to be different circumstances in different countries. So I don't want to speak to something until we have all the information. What we do know is that, uh, the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm US interests...Question: Al Qaeda?
Obama: Well, we don't know yet, and so we are going to continue to investigate this...
Perhaps Mr. Obama had figured out by then that he had been shooting first, and aiming later, which explains why he began attempting to merge the earlier narrative of the protests over the video and the reality of the terrorist attack. He was undoubtedly aware that the fabricated narrative was falling to pieces, and he had to have been aware that there was absolutely no evidence whatsoever of there being any protests in Benghazi. The answer to the direct question of Al Qaeda involvement was most certainly evasive, and quite deceptive. Reports had emerged in the very early days following the Benghazi attack of the possible involvement of Al Qaeda, not only in Benghazi, but also in the organization of the protests throughout the rest of the region, and at least 4 other attacks on US embassies on the same day. Obama used the "ongoing investigation" tactic to run from that question as quickly as he could. Al Qaeda involvement in not only the attack, but the organization of the very protests he had defended by his characterization as a "natural response" to an "offensive video" - offensive only to Islamic radicals, very few of whom had actually seen it - would have dealt a potentially mortal blow to his campaign efforts.
On September 21, Hillary Clinton finally admitted that Benghazi was a terrorist attack. Three days later, Obama appeared on The View:
Joy Behar: Then I heard Hillary Clinton say it was an act of terrorism. What do you say?
Obama: Well, we're still doing an investigation. Uh, there's no doubt that the kind of weapons that were used – the ongoing assault – that it wasn't just a mob action.
Still holding on to that thread of the spontaneous demonstration to linger... Why would he do this, knowing it was a terrorist attack, and knowing that his own Secy of State had already said as much just days before?
Obama then went before the United Nations on September 25, and again cited the video as an instigating factor:
“There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents. There is no video that justifies an attack on an embassy.”
The simple explanation that Obama went this far to cover up the truth on Benghazi to preserve his efforts at re-election is simply incomplete, and totally lacking. From the very beginning of his first term right through the present day cover-up on Benghazi, Obama has been communicating to the most violent extremes of the Muslim world. His appeals have been aimed directly at them. As he does this, he has developed a track record of consistently downplaying acts of Islamic terror, even to the suffering of Americans, including our men and women in uniform.
Assessing the sum of Obama's actions as President, and the results that have been realized, it is is difficult, if not impossible to avoid the conclusion that jumps off the page.
With Obama as president:
- Iran has been treated with dignity and provided with legitimacy as it continues its march towards becoming nuclear-enabled, even as it vows the destruction of Israel. Iran is on track to have developed a functioning nuclear weapon within 2 years.
- Tunisia had its secularist government toppled in the Jasmin Revolution, which ignited the Arab Spring. Since that time, "at least four secular Arab regimes have been torn down and replaced with Islamist governments," including Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen and Libya.
- Libya - Breitbart News has uncovered that key members of the Libyan guard assigned to protect the embassy were tied to the Muslim Brotherhood, and that the Obama administration indirectly relied upon the Muslim Brotherhood to provide security at the embassy. Prior to the Arab Spring, Obama and ousted Libyan dictator Muammar Gadhafi were on very good terms. Gadhafi had glowing things to say about Obama in April of 2010, when he said of Obama, “Now ruling America is a black man from our continent, an African from Arab descent, from Muslim descent, and this is something we never imagined – that from Reagan we would get to Barack Obama.” Prior to that, in 2009, Obama became the first US president to shake hands with Gadhafi. In October of 2011, Gadhafi was killed, and Obama spoke in the Rose Garden, stating that the “shadow of tyranny” had been lifted. What changed? There is growing speculation that the desires of Gadhafi were in contrast with the plans of the Muslim Brotherhood, which has deepening ties to this administration.
- Egypt - The Muslim Brotherhood, backing Morsi, is receiving over one billion dollars per year from the Obama administration. In addition, Obama is providing up to twenty F-16 fighter jets (only the first 4 have been delivered). There is no aggressor threatening Egypt, and their only sworn hatred being against the United States and Israel. In the meantime, peaceful Muslims and Coptic Christians are being captured and killed by the Islamic dictator. On January 3, 2013, an Egyptian news magazine broke the news that the Muslim Brotherhood has successfully infiltrated the Obama Administration, proving the suspicions of experts such as Pamela Geller, who has worked tirelessly to bring this truth to light since 2009.
From http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com: An Egyptian magazine claims that six American Islamist activists who work with the Obama administration are Muslim Brotherhood operatives who enjoy strong influence over U.S. policy. The Dec. 22 story published in Egypt's Rose El-Youssef magazine suggests the six turned the White House "from a position hostile to Islamic groups and organizations in the world to the largest and most important supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood. The six named people include: Arif Alikhan, assistant secretary of Homeland Security for policy development; Mohammed Elibiary, a member of the Homeland Security Advisory Council; Rashad Hussain, the U.S. special envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference; Salam al-Marayati, co-founder of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC); Imam Mohamed Magid, president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA); and Eboo Patel, a member of President Obama's Advisory Council on Faith-Based Neighborhood Partnerships.
Recalling the Doctrine of Taqiyya, remember that Mr. Obama publicly states he is of devout Christian faith, occasionally making direct references to Scripture. Then, there is what he does.
Bill Clinton was referred to in some circles as America's First Black President. This was due largely to stated sentiments perceived by Blacks to be friendly to their cause. Obviously, Bill Clinton was not really the first Black president.
Barack Obama, however, is the first Muslim president. At a minimum, this is true on the basis of the results he has achieved, as a direct result of his actions, or inaction, favorable to the spread of radical Islam. It is also highly likely that this is true at a much deeper level, reflecting his personal convictions, and his faith.
James 2:14-17 tells us the uselessness of faith without works: “What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can his faith save him? If a brother or sister is without clothes and lacks daily food and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, keep warm, and eat well,” but you don’t give them what the body needs, what good is it? In the same way faith, if it doesn’t have works, is dead by itself.
To paraphrase a question asked by noted author, Michael Youseff:
If Barack Obama is a Christian, then why is he aiding the Muslim Brotherhood in their rise to power, while he remains silent as Christianity is persecuted in America and throughout the world?
It is a question that seems to provide its own answer.
Comments