President Obama has been touted as four-square in favor of the rights of women. Yet He tries very hard to further the spread of Islam.
Islam and the rights of women
Islam is a religious, ideological and political movement that seeks an Islamist Caliphate through world conquest to convert heathen to Islam or to kill them and to make slaves of women. There is no Islamist “race” and disapproval of, and effective opposition to, Islam and its objectives are not racist. They are, however, necessary for the survival of what’s left of our civilization. I wish some “feminists” would watch the video and respond– particularly those who were enchanted by this 2012 campaign spot for President Obama.
It seems unlikely that any such “feminists” will respond. Would the enthusiastic Lena Dunham enjoy her “first time” with an Islamist in an Islamic country? I don’t know; perhaps. How about the next and subsequent times, if she tried unsuccessfully to resist? What if she then complained that she had been raped? Being stoned or even merely thrown in jail is probably more hazardous to a woman’s health than are limits on “free” contraceptives and abortions.
“Binders full of women,” notebooks in which Mitt Romney, as Governor of Massachusetts, had kept lists of potential female employees, were apparently seen as misogynistic when he mentioned them as a 2012 presidential candidate, although rape, stoning, genital mutilation, forced marriage and the like apparently are not deemed misogynistic because that would be “racist.” That’s nuts.
Are concerns about such things “Islamophobic?” Here is a definition of “phobia.”
A phobia (from the Greek: φόβος, Phóbos, meaning “fear” or “morbid fear”) is, when used in the context of clinical psychology, a type of anxiety disorder, usually defined as a persistent fear of an object or situation in which the sufferer commits to great lengths in avoiding, typically disproportional to the actual danger posed, often being recognized as irrational. In the event the phobia cannot be avoided entirely, the sufferer will endure the situation or object with marked distress and significant interference in social or occupational activities.
I see nothing irrational or disproportional in opposing Islam for the things it does, encourages and tries to do, including rape, stoning, genital mutilation, forced marriage and the like — including but not by way of limitation establishment of a worldwide Islamist caliphate based on Islamic law.
Islam and President Obama
According to President Obama, this is “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.”
It’s probably a “cultural thing,” but it strikes me that the Muslim call to prayer sounds like the noise a cow suffering from a bad case of colic (“bloat“) might make.
President Obama’s view on the Muslim call to prayer meshes with His September 25, 2012 statement to the United Nations that “the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.” It would be difficult as well as pointless to “slander” Islam or Mohamed unless truth is slanderous — as President Obama apparently considers it to be. He made that statement in the context of the Benghazi attack which had happened two weeks earlier, on September 11, 2012.
That is what we saw play out the last two weeks, as a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world. I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity.
Right. Apparently in President Obama’s fantasies, that “slanderous” — and hence disgusting — video caused the deaths of a U.S. Ambassador and three other Americans, demonstrating how culturally sensitive our Islamist friends are and that nobody had better do anything like it again.
Tastes differ. I much prefer sounds such as these to the Islamic call to prayer, at sunset or at any other time of day:
Obama, Islam and Jihad
Back in August, I wrote an article titled Non-Violent Islamist Attacks on Freedom are Too Often Ignored. It included this segment about President Obama:
The Muslim Brotherhood and President Obama
We hear a lot about violent jihad. It is bad and may well get worse. The Muslim Brotherhood has long supported it and President Obama has a strange love affair with it. One of His brothers, Malik Obama, does much to finance it.
Malik Obama, holding picture with Brother Barrack Hussein
[Stolen from Counter Jihad Report]
If you favor Islamism, you cannot be accused of Islamophobia, a U.S.-sponsored movement except for the extremists of al-Qaida. Not liberals or real pro-democrats or conservative traditionalists or nationalists or communal nationalists, but Islamists.
That also means that non-Islamists can also be the enemy in Western eyes. Moderates are actually less desirable friends to terrorists and extremists. The West seems to view its three main threats as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Israel; its three main friends as Turkey, the Muslim Brotherhood, and the Syrian Islamist rebels. [Emphasis added.]
Consider this: In Egypt, Tunisia, Syria, Turkey, and other countries, Western powers and especially America were seen to be behind Islamist governments. And in the Gaza Strip, Lebanon, and even Iran, they were portrayed in this way with perhaps somewhat less justice. But here is the bottom line: The overwhelming majority of Arab governments and the Turkish-Iranian democratic opposition had many reasons to think that the Western countries, and especially the United States, were actually supporting their Islamist foes. In 2013, that view became even more accurate. [Emphasis added.]
It should be understood in the current regional picture that the Western world, and especially the Obama Administration, have taken the Islamists’ side in the battle between these forces. [Emphasis added.]
Does President Obama simply reject the principles upon which our constitutional Republic — of which He was mistakenly elected the President — was founded or does he not even have a clue about foreign policy and/or what is and what is not in our national interest? I don’t know but it’s bad whatever it may be; no improvement appears to be in sight.
Roger Kimball opines that much of what President Obama does is part of His
love-thy-Muslim-brother initiative. Bang! Burka Burka Mohammed Jihad blows up another church, mows down 13 fellow soldiers, wounding another 30, at a Texas army base, detonates homemade IEDs at a road race in Boston, murders a U.S. ambassador and three other Americans at a U.S. diplomatic mission in some African hellhole, etcetera, very much etcetera. Who’s to blame? “Violent extremists,” the president’s favorite bad guys. Not “Muslim violent extremists,” just your ordinary, run-of-the-mill extremist — please let it be a white, male, Christian, gun-toting, tea-party extremist. [Emphasis added.]
Bottom line: what’s happening in Syria is the latest assault — the salt in the fields, as it were — on the establishment narrative about the Muslim world. [Emphasis added.]
Were it the type of salt in the fields that sterilizes the soil and prevents any further growth there from spreading, it would be good. I fear that it will not have that effect.
On September fourth, President Obama praised the Islamic Society of North America, a creature of the Muslim Brotherhood.
According to this article, President Obama’s close ally Turkey is funneling jihadists and weapons into Syria to fight the Assad regime.
President Obama’s fondness for Islam must have something to do with His foreign “policy” for the Middle East. According to this Washington Times article,
President Obama’s foreign policy decisions in Egypt, Libya and his current desire to start a war in Syria, continue to further the interests of Islamic fundamentalists. [Emphasis added.]
Syria, Libya and Egypt were three of the very few remaining secular governments in the Mideast, prior to US interventions. Due to consequences flowing from Obama’s actions, all three will soon be governed by totalitarian Islamic fundamentalists.
. . . .
The Muslim Brotherhood, a very powerful group in the Mideast, is a constant player in the battles for control in Libya, Egypt and, now, Syria. Interestingly, the Brotherhood, whom President Obama, Sen. John McCain and many others have refererred [Sic.] to as moderate, has as it’s official credo, “Allah is our objective; the Quran is our law, the Prophet is our leader; Jihad is our way; and dying in the way of Allah is the highest of our aspirations.”
There is already a war in Syria, so I don’t understand how President Obama can be said to want to start one there. However, U.S. military intervention in Syria seems likely to spread the present conflagration well beyond Syria’s borders. Whatever may be the reasons, there appears to be little public support for U.S. military intervention in Syria. Even the MoveOn Organization is opposed.
MoveOn was one of Obama’s biggest campaign supporters, but Anna Galland, its executive director, told AP Saturday that the organization is following the will of its members. During a recent 24-hour vote, more than 70 percent of MoveOn’s members came out against military strikes, she said.
Galland said the group “will stand closely” with Obama on other issues, such as the implementation of his health care law. But on Syria, “we had a very clear mandate from our members to go out strongly on this,” she said. “This is a big moment.”
Any U.S. military intervention, including even a mere “pin prick,” seems likely to stimulate Islamist “freedom fighters” to make a massive push against the Assad regime.
What about Christians and other non-Islamists?
President Obama’s relative silence on the burning of Christian churches in Egypt by supporters of former President Morsi suggests the power of His Islamic fondness. An article titled The Silent Exodus of Syria’s Christians stated that many have left, or tried to leave, Syria.
Archdeacon Emanuel Youkhana of the Assyrian Church of the East, despite recent heart surgery, is now constantly on the road in Lebanon and Iraq trying to cope with the refugee crisis. He wrote to me today:
“We are witnessing another Arab country losing its Christian Assyrian minority. When it happened in Iraq nobody believed Syria’s turn would come. Christian Assyrians are fleeing massively from threats, kidnappings, rapes and murders. Behind the daily reporting about bombs there is an ethno-religious cleansing taking place, and soon Syria can be emptied of its Christians.” [Emphasis added.]
That was not the context in which Secretary Kerry said, “this is not the time to be silent spectators to slaughter. . . .” Although it should have been at least part of the context, that would have been inconsistent with the Obama Administration playbook.
Back to The Silent Exodus article,
Official information and media reports about the Christians’ fate has been sparse. A new report yesterday, by Nuri Kino, a Swedish journalist of Assyrian background, sheds valuable light on the atrocities visited upon the Christians inside Syria, and their ordeals in attempting to escape, relying as they must on exploitative human-trafficking networks that have sprung up. Entitled “Between the Barbed Wire,” the report resulted from a trip sponsored by a Swedish charity, the Syriac Orthodox Youth Organization, to assess the needs of refugees. It is based on over a hundred interviews this past Christmas with Christian refugees in Turkey and Lebanon.
The refugees and the Lebanese bishops whom Kino and his team interview relate that Christians are leaving in a torrent.
This purports to be a video of a September fourth attack Islamist attack on Mulala, a mixed Muslim and Christian town northeast of Damascus.
A video posted online by Ahrar al Sham “suggests that at least three distinct rebel groups were involved in the attack in Malula,” Syria this week, The New York Times reports. In addition to Ahrar al Sham, al Qaeda’s Al Nusrah Front and a Free Syrian Army brigade from Homs took part in the fighting. But it is not clear “how closely they cooperated with one another,” according to the Times.
Malula is an ancient town northeast of Damascus and is known for its Christian population. The Times previously reported that the town is one of the few places left in the world where Aramaic is spoken.
Christians in Syria generally support the Assad regime.
My [Christian] friends in Aleppo who were so good to me when I visited them, are now praying and hoping for an Assad victory. Can you blame them? The Christians of Syria have no real choice in the matter. They have been a tolerated, indeed a privileged, minority under the Ba’athist regime (as they were in Iraq); if the regime falls, their fate will be that of Iraq’s Christians. They cannot understand, indeed are completely bewildered by, what I told them, namely that the British government is considering arming their enemies. They pray that this will not happen, and so do I. [Bracketed insert and emphasis added.]
For Syrian Christians, the present is bad and the future will likely be worse, particularly if the United States intervene.
While U.S. leaders continue pushing for war against the Syrian government, today “Al-Qaeda-linked rebels,”reports AP, “launched an assault on a regime-held Christian mountain village in the densely populated west of Syria and new clashes erupted near the capital, Damascus, on Wednesday… In the attack on the village of Maaloula, rebels commandeered a mountaintop hotel and nearby caves and shelled the community below, said a nun, speaking by phone from a convent in the village. She spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of reprisals.”
Arabic news agency Al Hadath gives more information concerning this latest terror attack on Syria’s Christians, specifically how the al-Qaeda linked rebels “terrorized the Christians, threatening to be avenged on them after the triumph of the revolution.”
Thus al-Qaeda terrorists eagerly await U.S. assistance against the Syrian government, so they can subjugate if not slaughter Syria’s Christians, secularists, and non-Muslims — even as the Obama administration tries to justify war on Syria by absurdly evoking the “human rights” of Syrians on the one hand, and lying about al-Qaeda’s presence in Syria on the other. [Emphasis added.]
Might there be even a pink line about the murder of Christians and other non-Islamists? Apparently not, according to this article posted on September seventh by the Assyrian International News Agency (AINA).
President Obama, John Kerry, John McCain and Lindsey Graham are all peddling the anti-Syrian government line and now they have a beloved “red line,” whereby they can assist the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood and various al-Qaeda terrorist groups. Of course, when Carla del Ponte stated earlier this year that the United Nations believed that terrorist forces had used chemical weapons; then, of course, this was conveniently ignored by America, France, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the United Kingdom. Similarly, it appears that Obama, Kerry, McCain and Graham don’t believe in a red line when it applies to al-Qaeda affiliates, the Free Syrian Army (FSA) and other terrorist forces.
This reality means that unlike the doubts which remain over the chemical issue — the stark reality of vast numbers of videos showing barbaric massacres by al-Qaeda affiliates and the FSA are realities. In other words, for Obama, Kerry, McCain and Graham, and many others who are assisting sectarian and terrorist forces; they don’t have any red lines for cleansing Christians, killing Alawites, children being killed for blasphemy, raping women, slaughtering the Shia, beheading civilians, killing Syrian women who refuse to marry jihadists and so forth. Indeed, the so-called opposition can even kidnap Christian bishops and kill Christian priests because nothing stops America, France and the United Kingdom from providing propaganda for the FSA and various al-Qaeda forces. [Emphasis added.]
Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) comments that “We should be focused on defending the United States of America. That’s why young men and women sign up to join the military, not to, as you know, serve as Al Qaeda’s air force.”
Ted Cruz also stated “I’ll give you one of the simplest principles of foreign policy that we ought to be following: Don’t give weapons to people who hate you…..Don’t give weapons to people who want to kill you.”
The AINA article provides no links, so I can’t assess its purported statements of fact beyond that the thrust of the article is consistent with my perceptions. I wonder where might be the compassion and desire for social justice and fairness on which President Obama is said to pride himself.
A letter from some Trappist nuns appears here in translation. I found it powerful. Here is part of it:
We look at the people around us, our day workers who are all here as if suspended, stunned: “They’ve decided to attack us.” Today we went to Tartous…we felt the anger, the helplessness, the inability to formulate a sense to all this: the people trying their best to work and to live normally. You see the farmers watering their land, parents buying notebooks for the schools that are about to begin, unknowing children asking for a toy or an ice cream…you see the poor, so many of them, trying to scrape together a few coins. The streets are full of the “inner” refugees of Syria, who have come from all over to the only area left that is still relatively liveable…. You see the beauty of these hills, the smile on people’s faces, the good-natured gaze of a boy who is about to join the army and gives us the two or three peanuts he has in his pocket as a token of “togetherness”…. And then you remember that they have decided to bomb us tomorrow. … Just like that. Because “it’s time to do something,” as it is worded in the statements of the important men, who will be sipping their tea tomorrow as they watch TV to see how effective their humanitarian intervention will be….
. . . .
The problem is that it has become too easy to pass lies off as noble gestures, to pass ruthless self-interest off as a search for justice, to pass the need to appear [strong] and to wield power off as a “moral responsibility not to look away…” [Emphasis added.]
It was observed here on September seventh that
since the narrative behind Obama’s offensive Syrian air strikes has been staged as punishment for Assad, the onus is on the affirmative proof, namely clear and unequivocal evidence that it was Assad who ordered the attack. So far, despite repeated vows and promises that such proof exists, none has been presented, aside from numerous YouTube clips which show an attack did take place (and even that is in question). When it comes to the actual perpetrator, John Kerry and company are reduced to emotional pleadings to the audience to look at pictures of dead children redirecting from the most important question of all: did Assad actually do it. The reason for such Copperfieldian tactics is that there simply is no link – Reuters reports that “No direct link to President Bashar al-Assad or his inner circle has been publicly demonstrated, and some U.S. sources say intelligence experts are not sure whether the Syrian leader knew of the attack before it was launched or was only informed about it afterward.” And yet Obama’s entire publicly stated motive is to punish Assad… for something there is zero evidence he did. [Emphasis in original.]
As noted today at PJ Tatler, “any kind of hard evidence coming from the Obama administration proving that [chemical weapons were used by the Assad regime] . . . has been sorely lacking.” [Insert added] Would the Obama Administration ever lie? Of course not! Except about what happened and why in Benghazi, the IRS targeting of opponents, governmental domestic snooping on Americans and whenever else it thinks it might be able to get away with during a hopefully short news cycle with compliant media.
Back to the nuns’ letter,
And despite all our globalizations and sources of information, it seems nothing can be verified. It seems that there is no such thing as a minimal scrap of truth … That is, they don’t want there to be any truth; while actually a truth does exist, and anyone honest would be able to find it, if they truly sought it out together, if they weren’t prevented by those who are in the service of other interests. [Emphasis added.]
There is something wrong, and it is something very serious…because the consequences will be wrought on the lives of an entire population…it is in the blood that fills our streets, our eyes, our hearts. [Emphasis added.]
Has President Obama given significant thought to such matters? Probably not. Why should He? That’s apparently not part of His job as the President of the United States when urging military intervention. On Tuesday, September 10th, He plans to address “our” nation about the Syrian situation and why He deems it necessary to do . . . . “something.” Perhaps He will have “something” to say about the plight of Christians and other non-Islamists. Maybe He will elevate Islamist attacks on them and others to the level of workplace violence. I doubt that He will go even that far.
Syrian chemical weapons and Iranian nukes
The only valid reason for U.S. military intervention in Syria was that if the Assad regime crossed President Obama’s “red line” with impunity, Iran would also cross His “red line” on the acquisition of nuclear weapons with impunity. Now it is too late to enforce His improvidently drawn Syrian “red line.”
President Obama drew his Syrian “red line” after having given little if any thought to the consequences should Syria cross it. Claiming that Syria had crossed it, He responded with indecisive dithering. This suggests — to Iran it most likely more than merely suggests — that He will be at least as indecisive when Iran acquires nuclear weapons. The Israeli defense establishment is very concerned about that, with good reason.
“If the USA fails to fulfill her threats, it would be difficult to take her red lines seriously later on. This definitely applies to Iran. It is possible that the USA is putting an end to the era during which it was the world’s only superpower,” said Israeli defense sources, off the record.
It seems likely that concerns about Iran have principally driven Israel to attempt to support President Obama’s “policy” on Syria. We are stuck with an indecisive, dithering President for the next three plus years. Iran is very likely to have nuclear weapons before He leaves office.
President Obama is not quite a post turtle, because He has done many things harmful to the United States and to non-Islamists. No mere turtle — even one not atop a post in a remote rural pasture — could have caused the United States and what’s left of the free world problems of the severity that He has caused. Aside from that quibble, however, the post-turtle characterization seems right.
According to an article at Fox News,
The White House narrowed its strategy Sunday on convincing Capitol Hill that the United States should launch a military strike on Syria, asking why wouldn’t lawmakers agree to punish the use of nerve gas on children and others when the evidence is indisputable and suggesting such a move is as much about sending a message to Iran as it is about punishing the Syrian government.
“Not a person is refuting the evidence,” White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough told “Fox News Sunday.” “The question now before Congress is … should there be consequences?”
As previously indicated, that the Assad regime used chemical weapons as alleged has not only been broadly “disputed,” no evidence that it did so is yet available to dispute. The reasons why the Obama Administration has thus far declined to release any hard evidence to that effect are open to dispute and have been. Might there be none that would withstand scrutiny? That’s as good a guess as any.
Might our brave little President be upstaged by Russian President Putin?
According to Israeli official, Russian president spoke with EU, Syria, Iran in order to establish agreement to cancel American strike in Syria, disarm Assad of chemical weapons. [Emphasis in original.]
. . . .
According to an Israeli official, Putin opened intensive talks with the European Union, the Syrians and the Iranians, and is trying to create an agreement that would cancel a potential American attack, and would require Syrian President Bashar Assad to remove chemical weapons from his country.
The same source estimated that until now, the US administration did not find Putin very credible. The US is concerned that the Russian president aims at foiling the strike and that the second part of the wanted agreement has little importance to him.
Should President Putin succeed, it would provide a Syrian out for President Obama. Administration facilitators might not be able to spin it without great loss of face for President Obama — even more firmly establishing His status as a foreign policy castrato.
It seems a shame that the United States may have got to the point at which a Russian President may have to take an American President’s chestnuts (or something) out of the fire.
Whatever in Hell has happened to the United States of America. Remember this?
How about this? Even with FDR?