Obama and Islam

No president in American history has taken a more admiring view of Islam than Barack Obama. Whether it is his repeated insistence that the attacks on Americans and the war that has been declared against the West have nothing do with Islam, or his flattering (and false) description of Islam as a religion “that teaches peace, justice, fairness and tolerance,” or his unprecedented revelation that he considers it “part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear,” Obama in his first two years of office has spurned no opportunity to speak well of the religion.

Considering the long history of Islamic extremism, the militancy of Islamic religious texts, and the justification that such texts provide for modern jihadist movements, the president’s fawning rhetoric may be confused for mere ignorance. But as David Horowitz and Robert Spencer forcefully argue in their new pamphlet, “Obama and Islam,” Obama’s Islamophilic outreach represents something far more disturbing than naïveté: a conscious effort to appease Islamic supremacism in Iran and elsewhere in the Middle East, and an energetic willingness to pander to the Islamic world in general. The consequence, the authors show, is a dangerously ill-conceived foreign policy that has betrayed American values, undermined the national interest, abandoned staunch allies like Israel, and forsaken Muslims who are condemned to suffer under brutal Islamic regimes. Cheap flattery has rarely exacted such a high cost.

To read the pamphlet, click here.

To order the pamphlet, click here.

  • http://ccare-center.com centre d’appel marrakech

    Thanks for the good writeup. It if truth be told was a amusement account it. Look complex to more introduced agreeable from you! By the way, how can we keep in touch?

  • http://www.resonoelusono.com/NaturalBornCitizen.htm Alexander Gofen

    "No president in American history has more" abetted to and promoted the enemy ideology called Islam". That would be a more accurate introduction to this great profound expose.

    True, to be just keep in mind:

    – Bush's "Religion of Peace" next month after the 9/11;
    – Clinton's "See nothing, do nothing" on a long list of attacks;
    – Reagan's do nothing on the Barrack explosion in Lebanon;
    – Carter's do nothing on siege of our Embassy in Iran for more than a year (except a crippled operation).

    However yes, Obama did leave them far behind in abetting to and promoting Islam, while his calling America "an Islamic nation" amounts to treason.

    • posse101

      what are you king solomon? thanks for the attempt to balance the scales but it won't hold water. take your tie off and smell the falafel in the white house. by your continuing to say "yes, but" you're continuing to be a wish washy putz. the time for "yes, but" is over. the guy is INTENTIONALLY destroying our country and you're bringing up a Reagan miscue and others. you are accurate in what you say but you are doing a disservice to our country by semi-equivocating his continuous pro-Muslim transgressions. frankly, i'm tired of modulated remarks like yours. it's half-assed "tempered" remarks like yours that got this shmuck elected in the first place. and besides there are more than just a few things our sleeper cell in chief has done tantamount to treason. you probably already know them. get off the fence. wake up! the world is going up in flames and you're bringing up Reagan's error in judgement almost 30 years ago. get a life! why don't you try donating some money to Israel or FPM like i do. fight the good fight. take your tie off.

      • WildJew

        He's right. Though Obama is much worse than Bush, Bush (a man I voted for in 2000) enabled Obama to reach the White House. Bush, like Obama, repeatedly lied about Islam and Israel. Bush insisted Israel occupies Muslim land and oppresses Muslims (jihadists) at check points, etc. Bush boasted he was the first American president to make the establishment of a Muslim (terror) state in Israel a "formal goal of U.S. policy." Bush began this nonsense that Islam is a religion of peace.

        Bush: the "terrorists" practice a fringe form of Islamic extremism; a "fringe movement that perverts the peaceful teachings of Islam;" its "(Islam's) teachings are good and peaceful, and those who commit evil in the name of Allah blaspheme the name of Allah"…. "The terrorists practice a fringe form of Islamic extremism that has been rejected by Muslim scholars and the vast majority of Muslim clerics."…. etc. All falsehoods and misrepresentations. No one on the right challenged him in his repeated bold-faced lies. The first challenge on the right I saw was in Spencer's earlier book; "Islam Unveiled: Disturbing Questions About the World's Fastest Growing Faith." Come to learn later, the Bush family is deeply indebted to the Saudis for their personal wealth; Carlyle Group, Harken Energy, etc. Though Obama is America's first Muslim or Muslim-born president, a leftist author is right. Bush was likely our first "Arabian" president.

        • posse101

          by attacking George Bush you're just playing into the hands of the anti-America Left who is now enjoying solace in your sophomoric remarks and are thereby feeling justified about their off the chart Bush bashing for all those years. shame on you. have you forgotten those Nazi comments so soon? the fact is that Bush did not lie about Islam and Israel. if he's guilty of anything it's handing over too much authority to Condoleeza Rice and the (ever ineffective and totally wrong) State Department. she made a shamble of the administration's (post 9/11) Middle East Policy. hindsight is 20/20. you try going against the entire media attack machine, the U.N., ostensible world opinion and shmucks in the State Department AND RINO's in your own party and see how you fare. now in retrospect you attack Bush for some errors in judgement. mistakes are one thing. everyone makes them (even you). intentionally destroying and undermining our country, as our current "leader" is doing is quite another.

          • WildJew

            I've made many mistakes, true. I did not make the mistake of attacking Israel for living in her own land and defending herself against murderous jihad terror; unlike George W. Bush who repeatedly attacked and condemned Israel. I expect this from the left. Not from the right. Unlike Bush, I did not call for a 23rd Muslim terror state in the region.

          • barny

            Jews are troublesome and mischievous, for over 3000 years you have been without peace, unsettled, a diaspora, vagabonds, immigrants, wonderers, expelled from every single country you have lived in http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/expelled.htm

            You are cursed!

            Your new host is America, Americans are your Goy, we are in a daze (especially the Zionist Christian) they don't realize that Christ is seen as an imposter in your tradition (Talmud – he boils in excrement, his mother is a whore).

            You are but a leech, Satanic!

            You have us around your dirty little finger, but, like those before, we too shall awake from this slumber.

        • http://www.resonoelusono.com/NaturalBornCitizen.htm Alexander Gofen

          Bush DID lie on Islam, and on illegals (doing the work American won't). He DID push our see ports control contract to Islamic nations. He DID sign 800 b "stimulus money", and so on. He is one of the "One world order" crowd, bilderbergs, whatever. It may feel unbearable for you to not have even one leader to rely on, but such is the ugly truth.

      • WildJew

        Reagan is widley considered a great US president. But when it came to the Middle East, his record is no more stellar than any other US president in my opinion. His administration was responsible for trading (providing) arms to Iran in exchange for hostages held in Lebanon after he vowed we would not do business or negotiate with terrorists or with terrorist regimes. Israel, led I believe by then Prime Minister Shimon Peres, was implicated in that sordid mess as well (1985-6?). When Israeli Prime Minister Begin began to route the PLO and arch-terrorist Yasser Arafat from Beirut (Operation Peace for the Galilee, 1982-3), Reagan demanded Israel withdraw. Reagan sent in the US Marines along with a multi-national force which extricated the PLO and Arafat, sending them to Tunis with their side-arms, from which they continued their murderous terror war. After 241 Marines were murdered by an Iranian / Hezbollah suicide bomber, Reagan removed US forces from Lebanon. In 1988 the Reagan administration established official contacts with the PLO terror organization. The Shamir government was outraged. Osama bin Laden cited Reagan leaving Lebanon under fire and Clinton Somalia. Reagan is generally rated among Israel's more friendly US presidents. If a Frontpagemag reader has another take, I would be delighted to see it.

        • posse101

          O.K. bucko…so what would you do? almost almost 30 years later, what would you do? sit on your ass like Jimmy Carter did? or go in and kick ass thus ensuring the death of all the hostages. your damned if you do and damned if you don't. the hostage taking itself could indeed be directly related to Mr. Reagan's incompetent and enabling predecessor in the White House, but that's a different comment for another time. the fact is that 30 years later you've still got no good answer. and just think if you had to decide this issue this very moment… like Reagan did. and then to have some shmuck question your decision thirty years later and declare it a "mistake!"

          and as far as letting Arafat go, he negotiated with Israel and did manage to convince them to let the rat bastard go free. now 30 years later we see that Arafat used Israel's (and Reagan's) show of good faith to enable him to kill some more people, however you make the decision now. do you let the Israeli's kill him or do you get them to back off and thus show their willingness to be reasonable. tough call. but now 30 years later we all know the answer but here you are criticizing his move. you're a Monday morning quarterback. but you're even ineffective at that.

          • WildJew

            Why do you call me "bucko?" I'm not blustering or swaggering.

            No. Begin did the right thing when he bombed Iraq's Osiraq reactor. Yes or no? The Americans were grateful that Saddam did not have nuclear weapons during the two Gulf wars – the Bush I and Bush II administrations. No? Would you prefer Saddam had nukes so he could have incinerated (tens or hundreds of) thousands? Reagan condemned Israel (Begin) for bombing Osirak, June 1981. He ordered UN ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick to condemn Israel in the United Nations. Reagan had Bush I, Baker (as I recall) and viscious Jew-hater (born of a Jewish father) Casper Weinberger in his camp. Secretary of State, Al Haig, was the only one in Reagan's cabinet that said "Hey, Israel did us a favor."

            But you think Reagan was right? Begin went into Lebanon to clean out the PLO gangsters. Have you read anything from Lebanese Christian, Brigitte Gabriel about her childhood in PLO-controlled Lebanon. Do you have "Because They Hate?"

            My guess is NO you have not read anything about Lebanon and what Islam did to it. You don't know what these thugs that Reagan protected did to Christians in Lebanon. Do you? Do you know what these mass-murderers did to Christians in Lebanon? To Jews in Israel? Reagan should have encouraged Israel to destroy these thugs in Lebanon. Instead he came to their resue.

            Look what happens to someone who hurts the image of the Right's greatest icon. I question the wisdom of your gods (your idols) and you call me names.

          • posse101

            after having read three of the four books by Brigitte Gabriel and being a card carrying, dues paying and often donating active supporter of Act for America i find your comment laughable.

            however what you say about Reagan's cabinet was true. and the bombing of the reactor, was in hindsight very fortunate indeed. but that's my point. sometimes hindsight validates what someone's done and sometimes it doesn't. don't be so quick to criticize the man for what you believe are his mistakes. you didn't have the pressure of the job on you. you sit back and cherry pick his apparent miscues and you pompously list them. you're only able to see it from a position of 30 years later. that's unfair and tacky of you to sit in judgement of the man. and to say he enabled Islam is wrong.

          • WildJew

            Hindsight? It does not take hindsight to know – at that time – Al Haig was right and that Reagan and his anti-Semites were wrong; to know that a leader that does sadistic things (such as gassing) his own people like the Nazis did the Jews at Auschwitz should not possess the most powerful weapons on earth! Hindsight? You acknowledge Reagan's cabinet was problematic. Why did this man surround himself with anti-Semites like Patrick Buchanan, an admirer of Adolf Hitler, author of the "Unnecessary War," etc.

            Quoting: Buchanan was vehement in pushing President Reagan — despite protests — to visit Germany's Bitburg cemetery, where Nazi SS troops were buried. At a White House meeting, Buchanan reportedly reminded Jewish leaders that they were "Americans first" — and repeatedly scrawled the phrase "Succumbing to the pressure of the Jews" in his notebook.

          • WildJew

            Holocaust survivor Elie Weisel pleaded with Reagan during a nationally televised WH ceremony, "That place is not your place. Your place is with the victims of the SS." Buchanan was credited with crafting Ronald Reagan's line that the SS troops buried at Bitburg were "victims just as surely as the victims in the concentration camps."

            Reagan went to Bitburg. Cherry picking his apparent miscues?

            To my knowledge, Gabriel has thus far written two books, "Because They Hate" and "They Must Be Stopped." Nevertheless, since you are familiar with her work why are you defending Reagan in "this" respect? There is no defense.

          • Spirit_Of_1683

            O.K. bucko…so what would you do? almost almost 30 years later, what would you do? sit on your ass like Jimmy Carter did? or go in and kick ass thus ensuring the death of all the hostages.

            It seems you've forgotten the Israelis at Entebbe in 1976. They didn't give in. You never let evil triumph. The storming of the US Embasssy in Tehran should have resulted in a declaration of war on Iran if they didn't release those hostages inside 24 hours, and if they still held them 25 hours later, the B52s engines should have been whirring up. And as for Reagan in 1983, his moment of cold feet still haven't been forgotten by the enemies of the West, when even a supposedly strong President showed weakness.

        • Cynic

          Reagan unfortunately had three bad advisors as far as Middle East policy was concerned and they were James Baker, Caspar Weinberger and George H.W. Bush who convinced him to retreat from Lebanon, when even the French, who there, were prepared to hit back at the Iranian inspired bombings.
          This unfortunate retreat permitted the Ayatollah Rouhollah Mousavi Khomeini, whom Jimmy Carter had helped install as head of Iran at the cost of the Shah, to consolidate the installation of Hezbollah in Lebanon to the detriment of the country and the region and the current political mess that exists.
          Those three “Realist” stooges cost thousands of lives and much spilt blood and encouraged the forging of an armed agenda against the US and its interests leading to several bombings , such as the Cole, and the death of many American servicemen.
          I don’t know that Peres was implicated because the retreat was in 1983.
          Suffice to add that that during G.H.W Bush’s presidency Baker came back to make more of a mess, in concert with the Europeans, by getting Arafat declared as the only person the Israelis could negotiate with for a peace deal.
          A fat lot of good that did for American interests.

      • http://www.resonoelusono.com/NaturalBornCitizen.htm Alexander Gofen

        posse101, indeed you are correct that the impostor INTENTIONALLY destroys our country, and more so than anybody before him ever. However you missed my message, which was two fold.

        1) It is not just the impostor, but all those listed before him, who refused to defend America against Islam, or even to name Islam an enemy. The West in general is refusing to defend itself for at least the last decades.

        2) The impostor was seated into the White House by whom? By almost everybody, but in the first place – by the former president Bush, upholder of the Constitution.

        See the evil in a greater context. And no, I am not sitting on the fence…

        • posse101

          don't believe every piece of garbage you read. that's your problem! you read the "infamy" propaganda and then you come back here and spread what you think is the truth. i don't mind when you delude yourself by reading that crap, but don't spread that stuff around here. i'll say it for you clearly… George Bush did NOT foster the election of Barack Obama. by spreading lies like that you sound like Arianna Huffington.

          perhaps you should be blogging over there.

          • http://www.resonoelusono.com/NaturalBornCitizen.htm Alexander Gofen

            posse101 wrote "Don't believe every piece of garbage you read". Well, I wrote it, and proved every word of it. It all requires just basic civics (no Wikileacks and similar). Either you know it, or not. It is you who must prove what is not true there before you call it crap.

            As to Bush, yes indeed: he himself did not foster the election of Obama. He just allowed them to happen along with the illegal campaigning. He did not stop the election of an obviously illegitimate candidate – in direct violation of the Constitution, which he ought to uphold. That is why he is on the first place in the list of the accessories of the coup.

            Oh yes, and his love relations with Saudis quite justifies his place in the line of the previous presidents all refusing to defend America against Islam.

            It is not like Huffington: it is just that the whole truth is much uglier than you think. And in order to fight, first it helps to understand what you are up to.

    • ObamaYoMoma

      How about Carter pulling the Persian rug out from under the Shah of Iran when he was already terminally ill so that Ayatollah Khomeini could take over to break international law by storming our embassy to take and hold Americans hostage for 444 days with impunity?

      In addition, Reagan did later redeem himself in that he bombed Libyan thug Colonel Gaddafi and destroyed Iran’s navy in operation Praying Mantis in 1988. In any event, I believe at the time that in 1982 Reagan was more focused on destroying the USSR than he was Islam.

      • WildJew

        I am a life-long (conservative) Republican. Carter has got to be the worst US president in my nearly 58 years on this planet. I think Obama far more dangerous than Carter if that is possible. Though Carter's anti-Semitism / racism evolved over the years, Obama's racism is visceral in my view. We've seen his racism when he demands Jews not be permitted to build an apartment in their land or in their / our eternal capital. We saw the way he treated Israel's prime minister and his coddling of Islam. For me, Obama is a clever Reverend Jeremiah Wright. That is essentially what Wright said about his protege when he told the media that 'unlike Barack, I am not a politician'.

        • Spirit_Of_1683

          Yes. Most of the problems we face today go back to Carter, but those who have followed him haven't done anywhere near enough to repair that damage. Our enemies still show the lack of fear of us today that they showed in 1980. And more to the point, they are supremely confident in their ability to triumph over us one way or another. And it should never be like that. They've watched us pull the rug from under Israel and other allies on far too many occasions over the last 44 years going back to the Six Day War.

          • WildJew

            Yours is my point. This piece is about "Obama and Islam." Obama did not come out of the blue. As you say, its been a 43 – 44 year record of American duplicity and appeasement (selling out our only ally in the region), with few exceptions, going back to the 1967 Six Day war. Then there was the George W. Bush disaster – a man for whom I voted in 2000; sadly. Is it any wonder we now have a Muslim-born president with deep sympathy for Islam and contempt for Israel's Jews?

      • WildJew

        That having been said, I expect a lot more from the political Right (from my "side") than I do from the left. Whitewashing and defending conservative leaders that have done and do evil — because they are "our" scoundrels — is the reason we find ourselves in this current mess. That should be the message of the tea party movement. The Right has been covering for and carrying water for 'conservative' wrong-doers for many years; most conspicuously during the George W. Bush years. It's got to stop. Otherwise we are finished!

        I know I am generalizing a bit – but not by much. I see the Middle East as good (Israel) vs. evil (the Muslim nations) and thus I judge every American president on that basis. I've not seen any Republican president who passed the test. They inevitably sided with evil to certain extent. Bush did in large measure. Both he and his father gave aid and comfort to evil doers; to murderous jihadists; to the ones who were largely responsible for the 9/11 atrocities.

        • ObamaYoMoma

          I don’t consider GWB to be a conservative. I believe he was a stealth liberal like his dad masquerading as a conservative. With the exception of tax cuts, everything else GWB did was liberal. From doubling the size of the federal government in response to 9/11 like a Dhimmicrat on steroids, to declaring that Islam is a Religion of Peace™ being hijacked by a tiny minority of radicals and extremists, to occupying two Islamic countries to pursue fantasy based nation-building missions to win the hearts and minds of Muhammadans by lifting them up out of poverty and despair, when winning the hearts and minds of Muhammadans is absolutely impossible and when poverty and despair has nothing whatsoever to do with the reasons why Muhammadans wage jihad against unbelievers.

          It’s not so much that the right is carrying water for conservatives so much as it’s more like the Republican Party has been hijacked and co-opted by Leftists. Which, by the way, is the reason why I’m no longer a Republican and don’t make donations to the Republican Party anymore. It’s also the reason why I don’t vote for the lesser of two evils anymore, because it was voting for the lesser of two evils that opened the door for the Republican Party to become hijacked by the Left.

          Anyway, from now on I won’t vote for any political candidate unless that candidate can demonstrate a fundamental understanding of the threat Islam presents to the world. If we keep electing oblivious candidates we’ll all end up subjugated dhimmis.

          • WildJew

            I hear what you are saying. Though I have learned from experience, it is best to stay and fight within (a party or movement) for your principles even when the odds seem hopeless as they do presently with the GOP. But there's got to be a point when staying in a party or an organization is not only futile, but counterproductive. I'm not sure we've reached that point though maybe we have and you've caught on to it. I never thought I would see the day that I would vote for the lessor of the evils until what I believe is the closest thing to pure evil made it to the White House. If you were a Jew living in Germany in the early nineteen thirties, my guess is you would vote for the Social Democrats against the Nazi party. Ordinarily I would agree with you but it depends upon what the greater evil has in store for your country. If it means the difference between life and death, my guess is you would vote for the lessor of the evils and live.

          • WildJew

            I've got to disagree with you on one point. The political right did carry water for faux conservatives like Bush – it cost us dearly – even when, as you rightly say, he declared "that Islam is a Religion of Peace being hijacked by a tiny minority of radicals and extremists;" even as he occupied "two Islamic countries, pursuing fantasy based nation-building missions to win the hearts and minds of Muhammadans by lifting them up out of poverty and despair, when winning the hearts and minds of Muhammadans is absolutely impossible and when poverty and despair has nothing whatsoever to do with the reasons why Muhammadans wage jihad against unbelievers…." I don't know how many e-mails I sent to David Horowitz complaining about these and other flagrant violations of conservative principles. I called in and spoke to Sean Hannity on his radio program – during the second Lebanon war which he was discussing – about Bush, the Republicans and our appeasement policies. He summarily ended the call. He said, "I don't want to talk about it."

          • WildJew

            Hannity, Limbaugh, this site and others did indeed carry water for Bush even as he lied about Islam and our only reliable ally in the region, Israel; even as he sought to appease Saudi jihadists. That is not the way to win this war. What you've outlinned about Bush is the way to Obama, to surrender and failure.

      • http://www.resonoelusono.com/NaturalBornCitizen.htm Alexander Gofen

        I agree with ObamaYoMoma that Reagan was not the worst in denial of Islamic threat. And yes, then he was focused on destroying the USSR rather than Islam.

        Yet his place in the line of the previous presidents all refusing to defend America against Islam is justified. Why? Because if bombing and murdering over 200 American soldiers goes unpunished properly, you pave the way to the 9/11 (which too was not punished properly). And you are surrendering to Islam on the "installment plan" (William Wilberforce)

    • pett

      Remember Bush holding hands with the King of Saudi Arabia? And the Carlisle group?
      Read the books "Sleeping With the Devil: How Washington Sold Our Soul for Saudi Crude" or "Sleeping with the Devil" by Robert Baer formerly of CIA. (The Syriana guy!)
      THis goes back a ways and isn't just Obama.
      I will say this: Obama has decided to be voguish European and focus on attacking Israel and appeasing fundamentalist Islam to a greater degree ;than any president since Bush I and before that, Carter

  • posse101

    look at Obama' s face as he's receiving the medal. the guy is awestruck, astounded and (if it's possible for such a megalomaniac)… humbled.

    "Gee, thanks King!"

    • ebonystone

      Is that what the photo is about? At first glance, I thought it was a photo-shopped effort by some far-right outfit like the Aryan Militia showing BHO being fitted with a noose by some KKK Grand Dragon.

      • posse101

        someone doesn't like Obama and you think it's because he's not white. you're still stuck in the 70's darlin'… the 1870's. can't anyone say something bad about someone without you knee jerkingly playing the race card? but hey i guess it's not possible with your higher level thinking. release those self inflicted chains that bind you cupcake. move on and climb out of the self imposed prison you're locking yourself in. stop taking those self esteem courses and grow up. or are you waiting for reparations before you'll move on. Asians swim through crocodile infested waters to get here and within 5 minutes they're speaking the language and within 10 they've graduated from college. what's your excuse? Whitey? grow up sunshine! or am i being "Aryan" like. your witness.

        • ebonystone

          Posse, I think you should have read my comment more closely.

    • Toa

      "Gee, thanks King!"

      ROTFLMBO…:D :D :D

      Ebonystone, the Nazi and Aryan groups are all racist and Socialist in their world view, and the KKK has gone a step further and perverted the Gospel of Christ beyond recognition.
      There is little or nothing "Right-Wing" about any of these groups, regardless of what you heard in school and/or college.

  • Quantpro

    Thank you all for reminding us that we didn't get to this place of near submission in 2008. Obama is just the latest if not the worst example of wishful thinking and capitulating with Terrorism while also actively at war with those same forces.

  • DogWithoutSlippers

    Why? Why? Why? Because he's a muslim.

    • scum


  • richard

    this man/administration is anti-american.

  • tim heekin

    I need to cut Reagan some slack because I find it convenient to cutting myself some slack. For one thing he was legitimately focused on Russia and had been for almost 40 years. I was certainly old enough to know better when that Marine barracks was blown up. For one thing I had already served my time in the Marine Corps. Nevertheless, I had NO idea what that was all about nor did I have any idea until after 9/11. Now, of course, I'm fully awake….Bush 2 is another matter. He was certainly ignorant and he stayed ignorant. I think there may well be something to him and his family being on the saudi payroll. And obama is the worst by far.

    • WildJew

      You make a valid point. It was not until after 9/11/01 that I began studying Islam in earnest. The first good author I picked up was Robert Spencer. I think I've got most of his books. In one of Spencer's earlier books, he wrote that from one administration to the next and throughout the media, when there was an Islamic terror attack it was either politically motivated or about Israel's perceived "occupation" or both. Never was it religiously motivated. "It had nothing to do with Islam per se. It was a purely political matter." After the September attacks it became abundantly clear there were motivations other than political grievances or disputes over territory. It became clear that jihad terror was and is religiously motivated. It seems to me that a US president who is advised by some of the best minds in the world, would have known that jihad violence and terror is religiously motivated; that the Mujahideen in Pakistan and Afghanistan (during the 1980s) were deeply religious Muslims, motivated by Islamic law and teachings. As you say, there is no excuse for President George W. Bush and his misrepresentations about Islam post 9/11.

      • Chezwick_Mac

        I remember going to the local library in the early 90s, expecting to get some validation for my growing concerns about Islam, bringing home 5 or 6 books…and finding in them nothing but apologia. It was so disheartening.

        Finally, Ibn Warraq came out with 'Why I'm Not a Muslim', and lo and behold, I wasn't alone. Spencer followed with 'Islam Unveiled' and after that, a whole genre of non-apologetic literature on Islam was available. But believe me, in the early 90s, it was lonely out there trying to alert friends and loved-ones that Islam was a danger to human freedom. I can remember family members rolling their eyes any time I brought it up. But that all ended after 9-11.

        • WildJew

          I've got "Why I am not a Muslim" on my shelf. I have followed the Muslim war against Israel for many years; more so as I've gotten older. Israel is a big part of my identity according to my faith, etc. After voting for Bush, early 2001, I began complaining about the scolding and demands for restraint that Israel was treated to after every bloody suicide attack on buses, in restaurants, open markets, discos, etc. There was this family member that mocked me during those early months of the Bush administration (before the jihad was taken seriously) saying, "Kill 'em! Kill 'em all!" Like your family members after 9/11, I never again heard that form ridicule.

      • Spirit_Of_1683

        This indicates the blind spot of the West. The US hasn't had a President that has known about Jihad since Theodore Roosevelt over 100 years ago. Britain hasn't had a Prime Minister who knew about it since Winston Churchill 60 years ago. And why is that? It is because we haven't been taught the history of Jihad. We are taught that countries embaraced Islam rather than being overrun at swordpoint by Jihadis. How many people had heard about the Siege of Vienna in 1529 and the Battle of Vienna in 1683, the repulsion of the Turks on Malta in 1565, or that we were on the defensive against the Jihad for 11 centuries running from 623 right through to 1683, and we were a matter of one defeat away from the entire West being enslaved at various points throughout that millennium – Tours in 732 a classic example of that. We didn't go on to the attack until Budapest in 1686.

        • Spirit_Of_1683

          The Crusaders have been portrayed as bloodthirsty rather than responding to the Islamic tide. And we have political correctness to thank for that. And it is down to political correctness that vital lessons have been forgotten or trashed right up to today. Despite all of this I associated Islam with terrorism over 30 years ago, a period in which we have seen numerous atrocities carried out against Israel, Beirut in 1983, the Achille Lauro in 1985, Lockerbie in 1988, the first attempt to bring down the WTC in 1993, Luxor in 1997, the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 – all before 9/11 when the penny should have dropped.

          • MKK

            The whitewashing and lack of education goes even further: it was not only West that had been attacked by islam, all nations and civilisations bordering with it had been. Seeing the broader picture gets even more revealing. Who knows, for instances, that alongsides crusades, there was even bigger "crusade" by Mongols, aimed to uproot islam entirely, which climaxed by conquering of Baghdad in 1258, i.e. concurrently with crusaders still in the Middle East? That time, islam was almost finished. But of course it is the west, who receives full blame…

    • scum

      The reason neo-cons didn't wake up in the 90s was that they were so absorbed about Clinton's sex life that they didn't pay attention to what was happening all around them, even when Clinton sent a missile into the Sudan.

  • ze-ev ben jehudah

    His name is not for nothing;Barack Hussein Obama.
    He loves Islamists and does'nt like Jews.

    • barny

      The jews are nothing but troublesome and mischievous. For over 3000 years you haven't seen peace, expelled from EVERY SINGLE country you've lived http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/expelled.htm

      Like vagabonds, refugees, homeless, a diaspora, immigrants, exodus… you wonder the earth until you find another host (this time it is America), soon, you too will be exposed for your leeching and troublesome/mischievousness.

      You are CURSED.

      Americans are your Goy, they are in a daze, but like others before them, they shall awake from their slumber; a nightmare.

    • barny

      Satan, being thus confined to a vagabond, wandering, unsettled condition, is without any certain abode; for though he has, in consequence of his angelic nature, a kind of empire in the liquid waste or air, yet this is certainly part of his punishment, that he is . . . without any fixed place, or space, allowed him to rest the sole of his foot upon.

      Daniel Defoe, The History of the Devil

  • duh_swami

    I didn't pay much attention to Islam until 911… I am not so much interested in the philosophy of Islam, although it is pertinent, but the end results…Those are observable…and they are ugly…Where else in the world do you see sustained ugliness? Just looking at the treatment of Jews and Christians in remote outposts like Pakistan, Iraq, Somalia to name a few, is proof of ugly, and we all know of the ugly treatment of women and children..I can't define ugly, but I know it when I see it…Jesus said that you can't get good fruit from a bad tree…Islam is a bad tree and all the fruit that falls from it is ugly…That is the result…Someone like Obama can put a pretty ribbon on ugly, but it is still ugly…

    • WildJew

      Obama, with his Muslim roots is very sympathetic to Islam. Notwithstanding, I have come to expect the left in general to lie about the enemy. I do not expect this from the right. Conservatives tend to be rooted in history. We have internalized the harsh lessons from history. Winston Churchill was a conservative.

      That is why I was profoundly disappointed in George W. Bush. He did not exhibit conservativism when it came to defining the enemy. Even more disappointing were the many conservative activists, spokesmen (Limbaugh, Hannity, Krauthammer, Kristol, etc.) and Republican party leaders who did not challenge Bush on all the lies he told about Islam. Even this site carried water for Bush; sadly. Conservatives cannot afford to allow these sort of lies to go unchallenged. Consequently, after seven or so years of these terrible lies, I was not at all surprised that Americans elected this Muslim-born president with deep sympathies for the world of Islam. We conservatives only have ourselves to blame for Obama. We did NOT do our job. We allowed Bush's lies about Islam (and Israel) to stand unchallenged.

      • ObamaYoMoma

        Even more disappointing were the many conservative activists, spokesmen (Limbaugh, Hannity, Krauthammer, Kristol, etc.) and Republican party leaders who did not challenge Bush on all the lies he told about Islam

        I’ll agree with you with respect to Hannity, Krauthhammer, and Kristol, but with respect to Limbaugh I am going to agree to disagree as I have heard him say that GWB wasn’t a true conservative or wasn’t even a conservative period on many occasions. I don’t think Rush likes Bush anymore than you or I do.

        Moreover, while Limbaugh is more often than not deliberately silent with respect to Islam, I’ve heard him subtly suggest on several occasions that there is much more to Islam than meets the eyes.

        In other words, I have heard him make subtle hints, but at the same time I have never heard him discuss Islam in depth and detail, and I think this is intentional because if he did comment on Islam it would create a major scandal as controversial as Limbaugh is. However, once the genie is finally let out of the bottle, if that ever happens, I bet that Limbaugh emerges to become one of the most effective public anti-jihadists, but I suspect he won’t risk his radio career until that eventuality takes place and I can’t say that I blame him.

        With respect to Hannity, Krauthhammer, and Kristol, I couldn’t agree with you more that they are all oblivious loons in stark contrast to Limbaugh and also baggage carriers for Bush. In fact, I’ve heard Hannity say ad nauseum on many occasions that one of the best things Bush did as President was the war on terrorism, which gives a strong indication of how terribly oblivious he is.

        Even this site carried water for Bush; sadly. Conservatives cannot afford to allow these sort of lies to go unchallenged

        I think one of the reason is because it is hard for Republicans to turn on their own, but even I was amazed as time went on and it became more and more evident and more and more undeniable that Bush was a liberal. Hell, even today, 2 years after he left office, a good percentage of Republicans are still oblivious to Islam while also loyally still supporting the fantasy based nation building missions in Afghanistan and Iraq, which are both antithetical to conservative values.

        As a matter of fact, even Bush ran against nation building mission when he ran for office in 1999. Yet, as soon as he was elected President that was the first thing he did, not once but twice. Bush’s many contradictions, such as growing government like a Dhimmicrat on steroids in response to 9/11 in order to protect us from Islamic terrorism, eventually led to the train wreck that became the Republican Party at the end of his 2 terms, and in fact the Republican Party has still yet to recover from the many contradictions that were introduced by Bush’s presidency, which goes to show you that many Republicans apparently can’t see the world like it really is and with moral clarity. In fact, every time I state that Bush isn’t a conservative but instead a liberal, plenty of political correct confused Bush supporters get pissed off at me.

        Indeed, even today you want see any conservative sites repudiating Bush when it comes to growing government in response to 9/11 like a Dhimmicrat on steroids or with respect to the way he utterly misunderstood Islam and in the process misled millions of people at the same time, or with respect to what I eventually believe will become known as the two biggest strategic blunders in history.

    • DogWithoutSlippers

      Duh, define it as "evil."

    • Spirit_Of_1683

      Just looking at the treatment of Jews and Christians in remote outposts like Pakistan, Iraq, Somalia to name a few, is proof of ugly, and we all know of the ugly treatment of women and children.

      And that could so easily have been our fate had Charles Martel lost at Tours in 732 AD.

  • Farthgum

    Obama is a Muslim…pure and simple. He will do anything in his power to insure that Islam's goals against the West are in fact attained. Once he is out of office he will openly "convert" to Islam…both he and his Michelle. They hate Americans, America and all it stands for.
    The guy is truly a traitor.

    • chets1girl

      I so agree. I've called his behavior treason for some time now. He is a danger to our nation and to our national security.

  • Dragotis

    It will take years to turn this around. Someone like Allen West in the White House would be able to set it straight, but he will probably have to wait until 2016. Maybe John Bolton will run, but chances are Mitt Romney will be the Republican contender, and based on some of his statements, he doesn't really get it, either.

    • WildJew

      I doubt that the Republican party establishment would ever countenance Congressman West for a shot at the White House. He is not a team player. Republican leaders detest South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint for his conservatism. Look what they did to Alan Keyes when he ran. If a black conservative wants Republican party support, he had better be a team player.

    • Spirit_Of_1683

      Unfortunately, the way things are going, it will take more years to turn this around than what we've got left.

  • alexander

    while people (men? women?) in burkas often go unchecked, consider this:

    terrorist attacks on Israeli EL AL: 0 (ZERO)
    terrorists caught in US airports: 0 (ZERO)

    The difference: profiling.
    How to get that one word into the skulls of our "checkers"?

    • Spirit_Of_1683

      Also, while people in burkas do the checking, what else can we expect?

      Catholic nuns, 75 year old white Christian grannies, white Christian babies stopped: Thousands.

      Muslims stopped: None.

      Why expect anything else, and another sure sign of Western decay brought about by political correctness and multiculturalism.

      • scum

        You really are silly!!

  • http://www.youtube.com/user/CAPTDAX Capt-Dax

    Every baby of Muslim parents is automatically a Muslim and cannot choose another religion later.

    Obama can NOT POSSIBLY be a "natural born citizen" of the U. S. because his father, Barack Hussein Obama Senior, was a Citizen of UK and/or Kenya.

    "Natural born citizen" is a legal term that was defined well before the US Revolution.

    Natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.

    ( The Law of Nations, Vattel 1758, Book 1, chapter 19, paragraph 212)

    This is the legal text that was used by the founders of our nation.

    Case closed.

    • Larry H

      Barack Hussein Obama was born and raised as a Muslim. In his teens he became a Marxist. Then he was converted to Black Liberation theology in Reverend Wright's church. In politics he became a progressive democrat. Then he became a practiced liar, overall, which makes him a Democrat.

    • chets1girl

      No one seems to care. For all the outcry against him; nothing is ever done. That's what frustrates me to no end. He's a traitor; he's not qualified to be our President ; he never was legally qualified to be an American President; he's spending our money like water; his constant golf playing & vacations show that all he wants from the job is the fun/live rich part; his apology tour should have been his last. Impeach him now! I cannot even imagine what OUR White House looks like with him & his American-hating wife living there. It all makes me sick.

    • http://www.mysapce.com/freddawes1776/ Fred Dawes

      Thank you and yes obama cannot be president but do you really think that the people really voted? we all know if our Founders came back that the Revolution would not start ? Obama the murder muslim is our enemy of freedom.

  • Theo Prinse

    I think the problems islam posses are three:
    1. It's mono causal compulsion vs western, Christian dialectic reasoning
    2. The annual billions of islam-oil financing world wide jihad until peak-oil
    3. The dhimmy naive or pervert electoral collaboration of non muslims with jihad
    (Prinse – the Netherlands)

  • Debbie


    Here are some Bible verses that Pres. Obama avoids:
    Proverbs 19:10 (NIV): "It is not fitting for a fool to live in luxury – how much worse for a slave to rule over princes!"
    Also Proverbs 30:22 (NIV) which says that the earth cannot bear up under "a servant who becomes king."
    And Ecclesiastes 5:2-3 (KJV) advises: "let thy words be few…a fool's voice is known by multitude of words."
    Although Obama is not descended from slaves, he may feel that he's destined to become a black-slavery avenger.
    Or maybe an enslaver of all free citizens!
    For more on the Obamas and their fellow subversives, Google "Michelle Obama's Allah-day," "Obama Supports Public Depravity," "David Letterman's Hate, Etc." and also "Sandra Bernhard, Larry David, Kathy Griffin, Bill Maher, Sarah Silverman."
    PS – Since Christians are commanded to ask God to send severe judgment on persons who commit and support the worst forms of evil (see I Cor. 5 and note "taken away"), Christians everywhere should constantly pray that the Lord will soon "take away" or at least overthrow all US leaders, including Obama, who continue to sear their conscience and arrogantly trample the God-given rights of the majority including the rights of the unborn. Do we need a second American Revolution?

    • WildJew

      Proverbs 19:10 (NIV): "It is not fitting for a fool to live in luxury – how much worse for a slave to rule over princes!"

      Well done!

      After Obama was elected or sworn into office, a similar verse in Ecclesiastes, chapter 10 (believed to be written by the same wise man) came to mind.

      "There is an evil I have seen under the sun, like an error which goes forth from the ruler— folly is set in many exalted places while rich men sit in humble places. I have seen slaves riding on horses and princes walking like slaves on the land…."

    • chets1girl

      Yep – it's past due time for that 2nd American Revolution. But, we need to look past King O and make sure we target the people behind the puppet. George Soros, among others, comes to mind. Thanks for your insight and information. God bless America!

    • fred dawes

      thank you

  • The Golani Snowman

    I did not speak actively against Obama until it was well known that he got immense campain contributions from non-US Muslims, still – that was well before election. Since then my opinion of that man has not changed.

    • qsome

      snowman i first wondered about him in dec. 2006 when they were all doing their pre-campaigning campaigns for the nomination. he was in New Hampshire and was asked if he thought folks would not vote for him because he was black. he responded that he thought that some would not vote for him because he was a African-American but those are the same that are against his policies. he had already decided to call the other side prejudice. i was very disappointed when i heard that. i since have firmly believed he likes to create controversy and divvisivness. he keeps reaffirming my belief.

  • http://mypage.direct.ca/l/lbouchar/ SeaMystic

    Obama should be Impeached for violating his Presidential Oath of Office to defend the U.S..
    His activities are pure Treachery.


  • posse101

    look at Obama's face. he's overwhelmed. he looks about ready to cry. he's reached the pinnacle of Muslim success. being given an award by a ruthless, murdering dictator.

  • Opar5

    Sharia law is a condensation, extrapolation and codification of Islam’s eternal and unchanging Koran and Mohammed’s Sunna (most trusted biography and “traditions’‘) by Islam’s finest scholars. IAW "Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law,"
    o8.0 Apostasy From Islam (Ridda).Pg 195 – 198
    "Leaving Islam is the ugliest form of unbelief (kufr) and the worst. …….."
    o8.1 "When person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed."
    o8.4 There is no indemnity for killing an apostate (or any expiation, since it is killing someone who deserves to die).
    Sharia has been Islam’s normative and official interpretation of Islamic doctrine for over a thousand years; it is the basis for the religious, political and cultural life of all Muslims – and it can never be moderated or amended, at best, it has been selectively enforced.
    Is Obama a curious exception to the rule, or did Mohammed give us the answer in hadith Bukhari, vol. 4, book 56, no. 3030 (among others) – (Muhammad) “War is deceit.”

  • Opar5

    Any Muslim who can bring down Israel and cripple the USofA would warrant elevation to a re-established caliphate, safe from military threat due to a 57 (and growing) voting block in the only world organization: the UN. Houston, we may have a problem!

    • chets1girl

      Yep, that number 57 was probably what King O was thinking of when he made his famous 57 states comment. He was thinking of his nation; not ours.

      • Opar5


  • dawning

    B Hussein Obama is an evil man dancing to the tune of evil men. Islam is evil, the two go hand in hand.

  • kate b

    The sooner Saudi/Emirates &. run out of oil the better – then they won't be able to buy our goods any more, and our ruling classes won't have to be embarrassingly obsequious towards them. The main thing is we won't have to tolerate Islam's evil.

    – over 100 Canadian copts on an Al-Queda list for converting to Christianity
    – 60 injured today, Christmas day, by Islamic fundamentalists in Phillipines
    – 2 attacks on Christians worshipping in churches in Somalia
    – NO cross on souvenirs in Bethlehem, Israel, for fear of Islamic terrorists
    – 41 blown up in Pakistan by a burka'd woman after throwing 2 grenades on Christmas day at a food aid centre

    I know, historically ramadan was a killing fest for Mohamet, but Christmas has everything to do with love, joy, hope, LIFE and peace – alien concepts in Islam….jealousy?

    • http://madaboutmahound.blogspot.com/ Gary Rumain

      With their rampant overbreeding, the arselifters are already running into trouble. In the past few months, I've seen reports of problems with the supply of tomatoes in Egypt and, more recently, onions in the UAE.

      All the West need do is deny them the staples they need (wheat, lamb, etc.) and their third world countries will descend into chaos quicker than O'Bummer bowing to the Soddy king.

      • Spirit_Of_1683

        All the West need do is deny them the staples they need (wheat, lamb, etc.) and their third world countries will descend into chaos quicker than O'Bummer bowing to the Soddy king.

        And will we do that? No, because we're too damned soft. We still buy into hearts and minds nonsense. We forget that those who wish us dead do not deserve our aid, and their evil hearts cannot be won by any means whatsoever. But still we never learn. Churchill mentioned the 'confirmed unteachability of mankind' and this is a classic example of that.

    • Opar5

      Copts ARE Christians – the oldest Christian sect still extant. That the newer Church of Constantine labeled them heretics at Nicea, because they didn’t conform to the newly-compiled Roman scriptures (by people who never met Jesus, excepting juvenile Mark – once, at a well where meaningful conversation was unlikely) did not make it so. Islam hates Christians and Jews because they wouldn’t adopt Mohammed’s version of Jesus or monotheism, nor accept him (a virtually illiterate, long-repressed Arab, boy-toy husband to an elderly, rich wife) as the “final” Jewish prophet.

      The Treaty of Umar (with surviving, conquered Christians wishing to remain in their homes in 637AD (from Al-Turtushi, Siraj Al-Muluk, pg. 229-230)) defines non-Muslim (kafir) “rights” in Muslim lands that still apply – and we find so incomprehensible today.

      • Opar5

        The best quick education on Islam that impacts non-Muslims is available through http://www.politicalislam.com, titled "Sharia Law for Non-Muslims" (inexpensive and less than 50-pages). Readers can stop the self-confusion caused by projecting Western ethics and unitary logic on this most profoundly dualistic culture with this objective and verifiable look into their world. You CAN understand!

  • buffman

    You Might Be Muslim If…….

    10. You refine heroin for a living, but you have a moral objection to beer.

    9. You own a $300 machine gun and a $5,000 rocket launcher, but you
    can't afford shoes.

    8. You have more wives than teeth.

    7. You think vests come in two styles: bullet-proof and suicide.

    6. You can't think of anyone you HAVEN'T declared Jihad against.

    5. You consider television dangerous, but routinely carry ammunition
    in your robe.

    4. You've never been asked, "Does this burka make my ass look fat?"

    3. You were amazed to discover that cell phones have uses other than
    setting off roadside bombs.

    2. You've never uttered the phrase, "I love what you've done with your cave."

    1. You wipe your butt with your bare left hand, but consider bacon unclean.

    and the number one reason is: you bow low enough for the Saudi King that you sniff his crotch.

  • buffman

    Winston Churchill:
    How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy.
    The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.
    A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.
    Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it.
    No stronger retrograde force exists in the world.

    • posse101

      great post! short, sweet, absolutely relevant and profoundly Churchillian.

  • Stephen_Brady

    Mr. Spencer's pamphlet should be a cry of war, to every person who wishes to live free. It's well-past the time when we should regard Mr. Obama as the enemy to the Judeo-Christian tradition that he is, and that his movement represents.

  • qsome

    the question for me is what do the muslim leaders and the muslim population think our president is trying to achieve? he was born into a muslim family. do they think he is muslim? if they do does his approach to the situation reinforced that belief? if he disappoints them will it make tension worse than it would have been if he had not sounded like an avocate for their religion? do they feel embolden? i have a feeling the American people as well as many around the world are wondering what he end game really is. i believe he likes it that way!!

    • Stephen_Brady

      A Somali terrorist organization … just this morning … threatened to attack the United States if Obama does not convert to Islam. He has emboldened them, qsome, and that was his purpose.

      • qsome

        it's hard not to believe otherwise! if this guy played chess the only way he could win is to change the rules, he's good at manipulating not at problem solving. did he think he could play this game of misleading the muslims and eventually they would not react? he is way out of his league. i hope we don't pay for this change!!

        • Stephen_Brady

          I'll go along with that. I've never seen such an incompetent "leader", in my life. Almost unbelievably, he even eclipses Jimmy Carter.

          There will be hell to pay …

  • http://www.mysapce.com/freddawes1776/ Fred Dawes

    Obama is our enemy so whats new we all knew if he became our so called president what would happen end of story! but here is how that pig will murder us and our ideals of freedom its called the Net Regulation Red about this new enemy law that many big names are for in islam, listen to Robert McDowell who is fighting this law which has no real right to Regulate The Broadband network, all you see is only the start and its started when the head monkey of islam became president. if this law become the law of the land i will go to a camp system for writing this. SO WILL YOU, The is how islam will murder our rights and our nation.

  • http://TheHappyPoet Selma Soss

    I go with Posse 101. “Schmuck” is the correct word here. Take off your tie and
    fight is the right one. Thanks, Posse 101.

  • http://TheHappyPoet Selma Soss

    I go along with Posse 101. We have been moving much to slowly, and we still are.
    We need to put up a fight right now. “Take off our shirts and ties and fight”, as he indicated. Let the western democracies come together, gather guns, raise a voice.
    The world us going up in flames.

  • Light_V_Dark

    Kareem Abdul Jabbar, was Lew Alcindor. Mohammed Ali was Cassius Clay and Barack Hussein Obama was Barry Hussein Obama. What's the big mystery here?

    We have become a self loathing, suicidal society, since my Flower Child Marxist-Stalinist-Maoist mates had their coup in 1968.

  • Light_V_Dark

    David Howowitz, himself, left the Dark Side, when Huey Newton murdered his friend, Betty Van Patter. Horowitz didn't become any kind of a Holy Man.

    I mean, LOOK at all of the symbolism in Sci-Fi! May the Farce Be Witcha…

    Dhim·wit (dïm-wît) – A non-Muslim member of a free society who unwittingly abets the stated cause of Islamic domination. A dhimwit is always quick to extend sympathy to the very enemy that would take away his or her own freedom (or life) if given the opportunity.

  • curmudgeon

    to me, 9-11 restored free speech. i studied real history as a youth, and was aware of the west being under continuous attack by islam for 14 centuries. to me it was axiomatic that muslims are murderous barbarians, their god is evil, and their prophet a criminal. there was a time that these truths were so accepted in western society that they didnt even need mentioning. due to 50 years of creeping political correctness, in which islam is always the best thing ever granted to us western heathens, people who actually knew history were silenced by the slapping down, ridiculing, and belittling of anyone who dared tell the truth. i learned to remain silent while leftists and useful idiots intentionally misrepresented history. 9-11 made the intentions of islam clear to all but the most dedicated liars. to me, it was liberating. it is the most dedicated of liars that we are discussing in this thread. at this point, only one of them really matters: the current traitor in chief. 2 years from now, we may have to worry about the next republican useful idiot.

  • Hudson Taylor

    I cannot believe that so many people are switched on to the real man, obama. He is the Muslim head liar and servant to every muslim nation, soon to be their leader by the name given to him in The Bible, the anti-christ.

  • Light_V_Dark

    Why wouldn't a Post Modern society(Western), do anything ELSE to evil people who want to destroy us? We HATE ourselves. We've been pacifying Communists forever. Now, the same Commie Symps and their spawn are cheerleading for the Rabid Jihad.
    How can we understand all this killing by communists? It is the marriage of an absolutist ideology with the absolute power. Communists believed that they knew the truth, absolutely. They believed that they knew through Marxism what would bring about the greatest human welfare and happiness…

    Constructing this utopia was seen as though a war on poverty, exploitation, imperialism, and inequality. And for the greater good, as in a real war, people are killed. And thus this war for the communist utopia had its necessary enemy casualties, the clergy, bourgeoisie, capitalists, wreckers, counterrevolutionaries, rightists, tyrants, rich, landlords, and noncombatants that unfortunately got caught in the battle.

  • reconciliation4peace

    I was very happy for those who believe they won some sense of authenticating the promise of equal opportunity. It would have been almost worth it to put up with his Islam weakness, but now he comes right out and at his speech he indicates he is more loyal to Rashid Khalidi than his constituents. I am sorry to say that Obama just proved his radical bona fides. I was looking for him to earn my trust after laying down what he should have seen as mistakes with Islam. His reference to the 1967 borders shocked me to my core. This man is the worst president in US history, finally exceeded the tragedy of Jimmy Carter.

    Oh why do Democrats have to be so stupid?

    Read "United in Hate" and "Dupes."

  • andy bear

    why was it deleted??