After the Islamic terrorist attacks in France, I have been amazed by the reaction of many of those in the media and Washington to these recent events.
Over 40 different world leaders assembled in Paris to show their opposition to these terrorist attacks. But strangely enough, many of them were surprised that the President of the United States was nowhere to be seen for the event.
The only thing surprising about this fact is the fact that anybody was actually surprised by it.
Obama has made it abundantly clear that he is a proud supporter, apologist, and spokesman for the forces of Radical Islam.
As evidence of this claim, I simply offer you these two statements made by the president:
— “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”
— “I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.”
These two Obama quotes ought to forever put to rest any lingering doubts about which side the president is truly on in the never-ending battle between liberty and Islam.
And our president clearly isn’t taking the side of liberty.
Moreover, by his failure to join those world leaders in France, Obama has revealed that he is auditioning to become the face of Radical Islam, minus the beard.
You’ll notice that I use the term “Radical Islam.”
But with each passing day, it’s becoming increasingly clear to everyone that there isn’t any other kind.
Along with the president’s lack of a critical response to the attacks in France, I also find it equally disturbing to witness the reactions of America’s mainstream media.
Some of them are going overboard in their defense of the president, making excuses for the president’s failure to stand with those other leaders in making a firm statement against Islam.
One can only wonder about this level of hypocrisy and Lewinsky-like devotion to the president’s ideology, and the stunning departure from the truth, on the part of the media.
Others in the media are clearly outraged about these attacks on journalism; however, many of those same individuals think nothing of Obama’s attacks on them, in the form of illegal phone taps, threats, and acts of intimidation.
While it’s true that none of them were actually murdered by Obama, the mindset that leads to these two events is exactly the same maniacal and evil manner of thought.
The terrorists didn’t like what was being said about their religion, so they were able to justify their deliberate attacks on the journalists. Obama didn’t like what was being said about his policies, so he was able to justify his deliberate attacks on them as well.
Somebody please explain the difference in these two things, except for the fact that Sharia Law says there’s nothing wrong with them.
American standards of law call the actions of Obama a crime, something that drove Richard Nixon from the Oval Office.
Obama uses the power of his office to take vengeance on those who challenge his positions.
Islam uses the power of their religion to take vengeance on those who challenge their beliefs.
How is this any different?
It certainly isn’t unreasonable to wonder if Obama refused to join those 40 world leaders in Paris because he actually thinks the forces of Radical Islam were taking the proper approach in dealing with those who slander the prophet of Islam.
Or perhaps Obama secretly desires the same fate for the members of our media who slander the Messiah of the Left.