Category Archives: Obama’s faith

The consequences of Obama’s love of Islam

This is an excellent explanation for Obama’s actions. It’s all about his faith and hatred of colonial powers… And Karl Marx.

That brings us to the current debacle in Libya, which can only be understood if we understand Obama’s worldview on the “the Muslim World.” Like the so-called “moderate” Muslims, Obama insists Islam has nothing to do with terrorism and blames previous American foreign policy and Israel for Islamic anger. Obama narrowed down the problem of Islamism to al-Qaida while embracing other Islamic groups as moderate, such as the Muslim Brotherhood. By doing that Obama dismissed the long history of terror of the Muslim Brotherhood, which gave birth to al-Qaida and hundreds of other terror groups. Nothing in Obama’s world is the fault of Islam, and that is why he ordered the Fort Hood massacre to be classified as workplace violence and not Islamic terrorism.

Obama believes that he uniquely understands the Muslim world and will bring a new era of peace with Islam, at least during his administration. There are also strong rumors in Egypt that when Obama met with the Egyptian foreign minister, he confided in him that he was a Muslim and that he would help the Islamic cause in America after he passed his health-care bill.

But as president of the United States, Obama was in a quagmire between protecting American lives and being loyal to Islam and appeasing his Islamic friends. Placing American Marines in U.S. consulates in dangerous terror-infested Islamic countries was going to jeopardize a bloody confrontation between American security and Islamists. That was also going to discredit Obama’s theory of Islam having nothing to do with terrorism. Also, if Obama were to confront militarily Muslim jihadists in Islamic countries, his whole theory that he has brought a new page in American/Islamic relations would fall apart and he would be no different from his predecessors, Bush or Reagan.

That explains why the demands for American security instead of Libyan security by U.S. Ambassador Stevens went unanswered. Obama did not want to deal with the possibility that American Marines would shoot at Muslim attackers to save American lives.

via The consequences of Obama’s love of Islam.

Pentagon will not label Fort Hood shootings as terrorist attack

Obama’s the Commander In Chief. The Pentagon does what he tells it to do.

Already facing intense scrutiny for its shifting narrative about the assault on the U.S. Consulate in Libya, the Pentagon now says it will not reclassify the Fort Hood shootings as a terrorist attack over concern about biasing the case against the gunman

via Pentagon will not label Fort Hood shootings as terrorist attack – Washington Times.

Obama yet to confirm ‘terrorist’ act in Libya

And he will never acknowledge this. The guy is Muslim and his heart is with Islam. The evidence is overwhelming. Moreover, the guy was NOT born in the USA and most certainly was born in Kenya. The evidence for that is also overwhelming.

And here is the upshot: The guy does not bleed red, white, and blue.

Isn’t that clear by now?

Despite numerous public events including a speech at the United Nations and two presidential debates, President Obama still hasn’t publicly and plainly acknowledged to Americans that terrorists killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans in Libya on Sept. 11.

via Obama yet to confirm ‘terrorist’ act in Libya – Washington Times.

Coal miners ask Obama to stop ‘absolute lies’ – Steubenville, Wintersville, Toronto, Mingo, Weirton, Jefferson County | News, Sports, Jobs, HeraldStarOnline.com

Something made clear in Obama’s America 2016 is that he seeks to lessen the economic and military strength of the USA while increasing those attributes of countries he sees has having been exploited by America.

So, his policies are to destroy our energy sources and to make us more dependent on oil from countries that hate us–namely Venezuela and all the Arab states.

Coal miners at the American Energy Corp. Century Mine said they want President Barack Obama to stop what they term the war on coal – and to stop spreading mistruths about them.

via Coal miners ask Obama to stop ‘absolute lies’ – Steubenville, Wintersville, Toronto, Mingo, Weirton, Jefferson County | News, Sports, Jobs, HeraldStarOnline.com.

‘Misunderstanding’ over Islamic art sparks near-riot

The Religion of Peace and Insanity…

A Moroccan artist on Wednesday suspended one of his works from a major arts festival in southern France after his projections of Islamic calligraphy onto a bridge nearly set off a riot when local Muslim youths saw pedestrians walking on the words.

‘Misunderstanding’ over Islamic art sparks near-riot – FRANCE – FRANCE 24.

At U.N., Obama downplays terrorism in Libya attack – Washington Times

Why can’t this man acknowledge the depravity of Islam? Well, it’s pretty simple, actually.

It’s his religion.

Although his administration in recent days acknowledged that the deaths of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others were caused by a terrorist act on Sept. 11, Mr. Obama didn’t mention terrorism as the likely cause in front of the international audience. He focused much of his speech instead on promoting religious tolerance and free speech, blaming the anti-Islam film for the anti-U.S. outbursts while cautioning that there is never an excuse for violence.

via At U.N., Obama downplays terrorism in Libya attack – Washington Times.

Norway: Muslim cleric calls for beheading of those who fail to fast on Ramadan – Wilmington Conservative | Examiner.com

The religion of Peace:

On the heels of the Muslim terrorist group Ansar al-Sunna’ demanding a section of the Norweigian capitol be ceded to them as a fundamentalist Muslim nation or face terrorist attacks that would rival 9/11, a Muslim imam is calling for the beheading of all those who fail to fast during Ramadan.

via Norway: Muslim cleric calls for beheading of those who fail to fast on Ramadan – Wilmington Conservative | Examiner.com.

Articles: Why They Hate Us

An interesting piece today at American Thinker asks why they hate us. Bruce Walker does a pretty good job explaining, but it is in combination with two adroit comments that the full picture appears.

Mr. Walker basically posits that they hate us because we are good. And in that he is right. However, one comment (“From Missouri”) noted that what separates us is our adherence to Judeo-Christian teachings, and all those who hate us (including most Democrats), detest same.

So far so good. But, then “Shadow” noted that:

They fear Western society will open the eyes of the oppressed in their society and cause a revolt against the tyrants.

True again!

So, to combine the thoughts, I commented:

Shadow, I think you are on to it, and your post, taken with the comment “From Missouri,” fills in an important piece of the puzzle. They hate us because we are good, as Mr. Walker concludes, but we are good because our foundation is in the Bible. And that is what separates us and guides us in creating the economic, political, and legal systems the Muslims hate.

via Articles: Why They Hate Us.

My latest article at American Thinker: America’s New First Amendment

This is my latest article in its entirety, now publishable here because it’s gone to American Thinker’s archives.

By now, most people know of the latest episode of Islamists frothing at the mouth over what they claim is an insult to the Prophet Muhammad. Specifically, they are enraged by a movie titled “Innocence of Muslims.” The movie’s trailer was recently dubbed into Arabic and posted on YouTube. Four people have been killed already and, almost certainly, the violence is not over.

Much has also been made of an early statement by the U.S. Embassy that chastised those who, “hurt the religious feelings of Muslims” with such an “abuse” of the right of free speech.

Robert Stephenson adroitly noted in American Thinker, notwithstanding the upside-down fact that the law-abiding must apologize for making Muslims mad, we must recognize that:

A human being is not absolved of responsibility because of a certain religious following.

While this certainly ought to be true, it clearly isn’t in the case of Islam.

I wrote about this in American Thinker when I discussed an Arab festival in Dearborn, Michigan, where Christians were arrested one year and the next year threatened with arrest for upsetting the delicate sensitivities of Muslims. Recall what the Dearborn police said to the Christians protesting the festival:

Part of the reason they are throwing things [at you] is you tell them stuff that enrages them.

Ah, so the Dearborn police have established a new principle of American/Arab law. Do something to upset Muslims, and you are responsible for their irrational, illegal response. Or, more generally, do something that someone, somewhere, views as offensive, and you, not the ultra-sensitive, are examined for fitness.

We see this growing in our culture (sorry for the pun). It’s even being codified in new social codes of conduct.

For example, Illinois State University’s Code of Student Conduct, “To Be an Illinois State University Student,” notes that there are “non-negotiable values” including “civility” and an appreciation of “diversity” and “social responsibility.” Recognized for its absurdity by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) in its “September Speech Code of the Month,” the Code states, in relevant part:

These values are the hallmark of the University, and will be protected diligently. . . . When individual behavior conflicts with the values of the University, the individual must choose whether to adapt his or her behavior to meet the needs of the community or to leave the University.

As FIRE noted:

[B]y the plain language of this policy, if a student’s expression or behavior deviates from the university’s definition of what it means to appreciate diversity or be socially responsible, that student may be asked to leave the university.

Is there any question we are witnessing a denuding of our First Amendment? Is there any doubt that our education system, our political system, and even our government are teaching us that old, out-dated ways of doing things must yield to a New World Order where no one can offend certain protected classes of people, and where Muslims must be allowed to throw violent and even murderous temper tantrums?

We might legitimately ask: Where is this headed?

Here’s a glimpse.

ABC News reported that Afghan President Hamid Karzai issued the following statement on the violence over the movie, “Innocence of Muslims”:

Desecration is not a part of the freedom of expression, but a criminal act that has now badly affected the righteous sentiments of 1.5-billion Muslims all over the globe.

A criminal act?

While this is not the statement of a representative of the United States, when one can be expelled from school for undefined “uncivil” comments, when Christians can be arrested for passing out religious tracts, when the violent acts — the actual crimes of the “offended” — form the basis for punishing the “offender,” how far are we from that standard?

With Obama genuflecting to Muslim leaders around the world, with him supporting the creation of radical Muslim regimes, and with his administration supporting and spewing all manner of leftist drivel (see Saul Alinsky’s Rule 13) aimed at shutting down conservative voices, we might as well accept that our First Amendment has already been revised. Published first here, the new First Amendment now reads:

Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble; provided, however, the right to commit Illegal acts against people who offend shall not be infringed.

Mr. Reddy blogs at www.cameronreddy.com. His controversial thriller, “By Force Of Patriots,” crystallizes the social, political, and legal issues created by this type of upside-down, leftist dogma. It’s available at Amazon.com

via Blog: America’s New First Amendment.

Is it Time to Stand Up to the Radical Islamic Bully?

This is a wonderful piece by Skip Coryell.

An excerpt:

Enter the world’s newest bully. Just as Hitler was the greatest threat to the world in the 1930s, so now, radical Islam is the greatest threat to world peace. . . .

I will tolerate others who believe differently than I. As a Christian, I will love you. But once you try to hurt me or my family, all bets are off. I lock-n-load. In short, if you try to hurt the ones I love, because they won’t convert to your religion… I will kill you.

 

via Is it Time to Stand Up to the Radical Islamic Bully?.

Blog: America’s New First Amendment

My latest article (blog entry) appears today at American Thinker. Here is a snippet:

With Obama genuflecting to Muslim leaders around the world, with him supporting the creation of radical Muslim regimes, and with his administration supporting and spewing all manner of leftist drivel (see Saul Alinsky’s Rule 13) aimed at shutting down conservative voices, we might as well accept that our First Amendment has already been revised. Published first here, the new First Amendment now reads:

Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble; provided, however, the right to commit Illegal acts against people who offend shall not be infringed.

via Blog: America’s New First Amendment.

US Troop Deaths… for a nation not at war with Islam…

Marine Lt. Gen. John Kelly, whose son, 2nd Lt. Robert M. Kelly, was killed by a roadside bomb in southern Afghanistan in November 2010:

“America as a whole today is certainly not at war, not as a country, not as a people,” Kelly said in a speech Aug. 28 at the American Legion’s national convention. Kelly is Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s senior military assistant.

“Only a tiny fraction of American families fear all day and every day a knock at the door that will shatter their lives,” Kelly said.

via US Numbed to Troop Deaths | Military.com.

This, thanks in large part to Barry’s insane rules of engagement that get Americans killed…

Obama: ‘I have never been a Muslim’ – Washington Times

This promises to be a very interesting series of articles. The first, a portion of which appears below, contrasts the claims made by Obama that Romney is not being open about his past…

A focus on openness and honesty is likely to hurt Mr. Obama far more than Mr. Romney. Mr. Obama remains the mystery candidate with an autobiography full of gaps and even fabrications. For example, to sell his autobiography in 1991, Mr. Obama claimed that he “was born in Kenya.” He lied about never having been a member and candidate of the 1990s Chicago socialist New Party. When Stanley Kurtz produced evidence to establish that he was a member, Mr. Obama’s flacks smeared and dismissed Mr. Kurtz. Mr. Obama’s 1995 autobiography, “Dreams from My Father,” contains a torrent of inaccuracies and falsehoods about his maternal grandfather, his father, his mother, his parents’ wedding, his stepfather’s father, his high school friend, his girlfriend, Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. As Victor Davis Hanson put it, “If a writer will fabricate the details about his own mother’s terminal illness and quest for insurance, then he will probably fudge on anything.”

via PIPES: Obama: ‘I have never been a Muslim’ – Washington Times.