Who's Side Is He On?

When it comes to the issue of terrorism and Barack Hussein Obama, it's impossible to gather which side of the issue he stands on, just look at how he's handling the actions of the most violent and radical group to have ever came to be, "ISIS", when he says we must contain them when he should be saying that we must eradicate them.

With every Islamic Terrorist attack Obama says that the perpetrators do not represent the true world of real Islam. Obama calls them extremists, radicals, militants who have hi-jacked Islam and twisted it from it's true meaning. Obama even  insists this while claiming that America is no longer a Christian nation and with his every word and deed attacks Christianity, Christians, Israel and Jews, then on the other hand he lauds the many contributions of Islam to America's founding heritage and culture.

I do remember all the churches, Christian schools and seminaries from the Pilgrims onward, but I don't recall one instance of where Islam, Muslims or a Mosque  ever had a positive influence on America. To be true, Islam's (wretched and depraved) influence on America is relatively new, not beginning until after WWII around  1948... Hmmm, and that "influence has not been good nor productive.

So while Obama panders to the most vile, violent, evil, and demonic cult like worldview that passes its self off as a religion, Islam, the truth is much, much  different than he portrays.

The Taliban murder, rape and kill in Afghanistan and Pakistan? Obama says they do not represent true Islam.

Al Qaeda flies jets into the World Trade Center and Pentagon? Obama says they were "radicals" who are not representative of "true Islam".

Boko Haram

Boko Haram kidnaps some 300  Christian  girls from the ages of 6 to 18 and sells them as sex slaves to Muslims and kills hundreds of Christians? "They are not an accurate portrayal of real Islam" says Obama.

Al Qaeda and The Muslim Brotherhood overrun Libya, Egypt and Syria murdering thousands and thousands of Christians, Jews, and other non-Muslims? Obama calls them freedom fighters. He arms them to the teeth, funds them, and supplies them with weaponry including hundreds of tanks and fighter jets.

Hamas and Hezbollah fire and average of 170 rockets or missiles a day into Israel? "They are fighting against  oppression of  their   lands" Obama says, blaming Israel for defending itself.

ISIS, "The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria", sweep through Iraq and Syria murdering and raping countless thousands of Christians, Jews and other not radical enough Muslims? Obama says that ISIS "does not speak for Islam".

Well, Barack, you lying ass Muslim buffoon, who does speak for real and true Islam?

Readers, please DO NOT forgive my disdain for political correctness because sometimes the truth must be delivered in a manner in which it is best absorbed.

America has had to fight Islam since it's earliest days-

John Adams

Terrorism and the New American Republic In 1786, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson met with Arab diplomats from Tunis, who were conducting terror raids and piracy against American ships. History records them as the Barbary Pirates. In fact, they were blackmailing terrorists hiding behind a self-serving interpretation of their Islamic faith by embracing select tracts and ignoring others.  Borrowing from the Christian Crusades of centuries past, they used history as a mandate for doing the western world one better. 

The quisling European powers had been buying them off for years.

On March 28, 1786 Jefferson and Adams detailed what they saw as the main issue:“We took the liberty to make some inquiries concerning the grounds of their pretensions to make war upon a nation who had done them no injury, and observed that we considered all mankind as our friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation. The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Muslim man who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.

Thomas Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson wanted a military solution, but decades of blackmailing the American Republic and enslaving its citizens would continue until the new American nation realized that the only answer to terrorism was force. There's a temptation to view all of our problems as unprecedented and all of our threats as new and novel, says George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley. Shortly after the terror attacks of Sept. 11, Turley advised some members of Congress who were considering a formal declaration of war against the suspected perpetrators. He invoked the precedent of the Barbary pirates, saying America had every right to attack and destroy the terrorist leadership without declaring war.

"Congress did not actually declare war on the pirates," Turley wrote in a memo, but authorized the use of force against the regencies after our bribes and ransoms were having no effect. This may have been due to an appreciation that a declaration of war on such petty tyrants would have elevated their status. Accordingly, they were treated as pirates and, after a disgraceful period of accommodation, we hunted them down as pirates.

Because of their outlaw conduct, pirates -- and modern-day terrorists -- put themselves outside protection of the law, according to military strategy expert Dave McIntyre, a former dean at the National War College. "On the high seas if you saw a pirate, you sank the bastard," he says. "You assault pirates, you don't arrest pirates."

Osama bin Laden

Shoot first, ask questions later. Wanted: Dead or alive. Such is our official policy regarding Osama bin Laden, the most infamous outlaw of the era.

One of the enduring lessons of the Barbary campaigns was to never give in to outlaws whether you call them pirates or terrorists. In the late 1700's, America paid significant blackmail for peace -- shelling out $990,000 to the Algerians alone at a time when national revenues totaled just $7 million"Too many concessions have been made to Algiers," U.S. consul William Eaton wrote to the Secretary of State in 1799. "There is but one language which can be held to these people and this is terror.

So, are we to believe all of history, reality and the current events of the last 6 decades...or Obama, The Democrat Party and the MSM?

So we've looked at Islam's bloody, vile and violent history...can we depend on our President to protect us? Here is what Obama himself said,  his every word and deed since then bears out that he really means this-"I will stand with Islam should the political winds shift in an ugly direction," (page 261 of his book Audacity Of Hope).

The Quran: 

Quran (2:191-193) And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah  killing..

but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful.   And fight them until there is no more Fitnah  worship is for Allah alone.  But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)" the  Noble Quran)  The  historical context  of this passage is  not  defensive warfare since Muhammad and his Muslims had just relocated to Medina and were  not  under attack by their Meccan adversaries.  In fact, the verses urge  offensive  warfare, in that Muslims are to drive Meccans out of their own city which they later did).  The use of the word "persecution" by some Muslim translators is thus disingenuous (the actual Muslim words for persecution -"idtihad" - and oppression - a variation of "z-l-m" - do not appear in the verse).  The actual Arabic comes from "fitna" which can mean disbelief, or the disorder that results from unbelief or temptation.  Taken as a whole, the context makes clear that violence is being authorized until "religion is for Allah"  - ie unbelievers desist in their unbelief.

Quran (2:244) Then fight in the cause of Allah, and know that Allah Heareth and knoweth all things."

Quran (2:216)  - Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not." that violence can be virtuous, but it also contradicts the myth that fighting is intended only in self-defense, since the audience was obviously not under attack at the time.  From the Hadith, we know that this verse was narrated at a time that Muhammad was actually trying to motivate his people into  raiding merchant caravans  for loot.

Quran (3:56)- As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."