And let me make a final point. For a while now, the main contribution of some of my friends on the other side of the aisle have made in the fight against ISIL is to criticize the administration and me for not using the phrase “radical Islam.” That’s the key, they tell us. We cannot beat ISIL unless we call them radical Islamists.
What exactly would using this label would accomplish? What exactly would it change? Would it make ISIL less committed to try to kill Americans? Would it bring in more allies? Is there a military strategy that is served by this?
The answer is none of the above. Calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away. This is a political distraction.
— Barack Obama, Speech about the Fight Against ISIL and the Orlando Attack, June 14, 2016
Don’t tell me words don’t matter.
— Barack Obama, “Don’t Tell Me Words Don’t Matter” speech, February 16, 2008
After the Orlando massacre by a man who had been born and raised a Muslim, who never showed the slightest wavering in his Islamic faith, who attended a mosque three or four times a week, whose family was similarly devout, who at the time of his attack pledged allegiance to the Islamic State, and in a 911 call just before his attack mentioned the Boston Marathon bombers whom he admired and whom, he believed, he was about to gloriously emulate, that man, one Omar Mateen, naturally received great deal of attention. For many, he was a puzzlement. What, oh what, might have motivated him? Official brows were furrowed all over Washington. What should he be called? He was a “terrorist.” He was “homophobic.” He was a “lone wolf.” Did I mention he had “assault weapons”? Brows are still furrowed all over Washington trying to figure out what’s going on. We’ve read reports about the terrible threat from “homophobic Christians” with their “anti-queer agenda.” We’ve watched DHS “terrorism experts” on the problem of the putative “lone wolf.” We’ve listened to endless discussions of gun control and the NRA and the Second Amendment. In short, we’ve all endured lots of talk about everything tangential, but very little about the central and most obvious thing – the texts and teachings of Islam.
If we want to ignore Islam, we’ll have to overlook how often Omar Mateen went to the mosque, and how many times he went to Saudi Arabia to perform the Lesser Pilgrimage. We’d have to ignore the reports about the full-throated cries of delight with which he greeted the glad news on 9/11. Instead, let’s find out how many times Omar Mateen visited The Pulse nightclub before the fatal night? Did he make a pass at any male, at any time? Did he go on the homosexual dating site “Jack’d”? Many in the press are having a field day focusing their attention on this theme, using it as the best way to deflect attention from Islam.
But surely we ought to ask ourselves: is it possible that Mateen’s rage, and the murderous way he chose to express his rage at what he called “the dirty ways of the West,” can be traced to specific Islamic texts, not of “extremist” but of mainstream Islam, anathematizing homosexuality and calling for the death of homosexuals? It was this that justified Omar Mateen’s acts of murder at The Pulse to Omar Mateen, whatever other wellsprings of anger he may have had.
Obama is determined, as is his wont, to keep Islam as out of the discussion as possible. In his astonishing tirade of June 14, he self-assuredly reported that some people — he did not identify them — claim that if we use the term “radical Islam,” we win the war against ISIL, and if we fail to use it, we lose that war. All we would be doing, Obama said, would be to “legitimize” ISIS in the eyes of Muslims. But no one has put forth — pace Obama — that absurd claim about the magic effect of using the term “radical Islam.” And who in his right mind would think that ISIS seeks or would welcome so-called “legitimation” from Infidels? ISIS has no interest in our views; why should they care what Infidels think a group of Muslims does, or does not, represent? The simple desire to describe things as they are should not be mocked, nor manipulated, but Obama does both. He becomes irked at the suggestion that “radical Islam” or “radical Islamist” are useful terms of description (though not as accurate as they would be without the modifying adjectives) for Infidels left glumly confused by the confusion in our own government.
In the same speech Obama told us about all the military successes that had been made against ISIS in Iraq, and in Syria, and in Libya. “So far we have taken out more than 120 top ISIL leaders and commanders….ISIL continues to lose ground in Iraq….ISIL continues to lose ground in Syria as well…We believe we’ve cut ISIL’s revenue from oil by millions of dollars per month.” And so on. It all sounded heartening. But there was a sting in the tail: Obama wanted it known that all of these victories were achieved without “calling a threat” by a “different name” from the one he wanted – that is, without calling it “radical Islam.”
The one thing we need to know, in trying to understand Omar Mateen spraying his bullets at The Pulse, is what Islam says about homosexuals.
Robert Spencer the other day did what someone had to do — he adduced the Islamic texts most relevant to Orlando, from both Qur’an and Sunnah (the Hadith):
The Qur’an says: “If two men among you are guilty of lewdness, punish them both. If they repent and amend, leave them alone; for Allah is Oft-returning, Most Merciful.” (4:16) That seems rather mild, but there’s more. The Qur’an also depicts Allah raining down stones upon people for engaging in homosexual activity: “We also sent Lot. He said to his people: ‘Do you commit lewdness such as no people in creation committed before you? For you practise your lusts on men in preference to women: you are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds.’ …And we rained down on them a shower of brimstone: Then see what was the end of those who indulged in sin and crime!” (7:80)
Muhammad makes clear that Muslims should be the executors of the wrath of Allah by killing gays. A hadith depicts Muhammad saying: “If you find anyone doing as Lot’s people did, kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done.” (Abu Dawud 38:4447) And: “Stone the upper and the lower, stone them both.” (Ibn Majah 3:20:2562)
That is the heart of the matter. That explains the official Muslim hostility to homosexuality. No one in the government, no journalist in the mainstream media, had in the first days after the attack bothered to ask the simple question: what exactly does Islam teach about homosexuality, about how to treat homosexuals? If it is not tolerance but hate, how and why and when and against whom is the hate to be acted on? Are we really not able to look at these texts steadily, grasp their meaning, and make an obvious distinction (that so many don’t wish to make) between the historic Christian “disapproval” of homosexuality and the severe punishments for homosexual acts that Islam counsels and many Muslim states (Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Yemen, and six others) enforce, and even individual Muslims feel themselves able to act on with approval or at least impunity, still today? Isn’t this something that we who are trying to grasp the nature of Islam have a right to learn about? Why are we made to feel that some things are being kept hidden from us, for as long as possible, so as to avoid that “clash of civilizations” that will be conducted by the Muslim side no matter what we do?
Whatever Omar Mateen’s secret proclivities, had he not been a Muslim, eager to do the (virtual) bidding of the Islamic State, would he have gunned down nearly 50 people? And if those Qur’anic verses and the Hadith, quoted above by Spencer, did not exist? He might still want to murder Infidels, but not necessarily homosexual Infidels. And isn’t it conceivable, even to Obama and his advisors, that Mateen’s hate was channeled and encouraged by Islam, and he meted out his punishment with such murderous enthusiasm because he realized, as, a True Believer, that he was merely carrying out the commands of the Islamic texts?
The other day, Barack Obama delivered himself of a tirade against all those who wanted to focus on the “Islamic” aspect of the Orlando murders, by holding up for criticism the phrase – horribile dictu – “radical Islam.” Obama claimed that “that’s the key, they tell us. We cannot beat ISIL unless we call them radical Islamists.”
Let’s stop right there for a minute. Name names, do tell us please, who said that the “key” to victory over ISIS is to use the phrase “radical Islam”? And are they the same people who, according to Obama, tell us that “we cannot beat ISIL unless we call them radical Islamists”? Who has said that? Where? We demand chapter and verse.
And Obama continues, “What exactly would using this label would [sic] accomplish? What exactly would it change? Would it make ISIL less committed to try to kill Americans?”
Obama needs to be challenged on this. The claim that is made by others, and with which Obama finds fault, is a much more intelligible one: to wit, that it is not possible to defend oneself if one is incapable of recognizing or understanding the enemy. We are not being allowed to call things by their right names. Obama presumes, as president, to instruct and protect us, but we are getting neither the instruction, nor the protection, we deserve.
Could we stop there? Using the descriptive term (notice that Obama affixes the pejorative “label”) “radical Islam” would do many things. It would sweep away the cobwebs of confusion. It would clear our minds of cant. It would allow people in America (and Europe too) to understand the ideology that is making war on them, and will continue to do so no matter what they do, short of accepting Islam or permanent subservience, as dhimmis, to Muslims.
Obama focused in his tirade on the military campaign against ISIS, where there have been gains, but that is but is only a small part of the war, and looms larger than it should. The demographic jihad in North America and Europe is already underway, and is more of a threat to the advanced West than ISIS ever was. If we keep claiming that there is nothing worrisome about Islam, and continue to make it hard for those, in the government or in the media, who would like to present the contrary evidence, it will be harder to fight. Were we all to be made aware of what Islam teaches about homosexuality, and how that certainly played a role – many would say the decisive role – in Mateen’s cold-blooded rampage, how would that make ISIS or any other group of Muslims even more enraged at Infidels? The Qur’an and Hadith are there to whip up Muslims against non-Muslims and to instruct them to act on the path of Allah (fi sabil Allah) whenever that proves possible. Nothing we say in America, or in Europe, will change that; nothing Infidels do will make ISIS either more or “less committed to killing Americans.”
Those who want to properly identify the Islamic sources of the aggression and hatred demonstrated by some – not all – Muslims, do not assume that thereby those wellsprings will dry up. As long as the Qur’an and Hadith and Sira exist, there will be those who take their Islam completely to heart, and it is they – not the “moderate” or bad or unobservant or lapsed Muslims – who will forever remain a danger. But dangers can be mitigated, can be held to a manageable size. That’s all the West, or the Rest (of the non-Islamic world) can hope for in this War Without End. But it requires an unvarnished understanding of Islam, and a willingness to publicly explain what Islam teaches.
Obama thinks it a mistake to make Muslims think that we – America, the West – have something against Islam. Shouldn’t we? Haven’t we – America, the West – been on the receiving end of Muslim aggression, by “states” (IS), or groups (Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hizballah, Al-Nusra), or individuals (the so-called “lone wolves” who take their inspiration and guidance from Islamic cites on the Internet) practically uninterruptedly the past 16 years? Is there no limit to turning the other cheek? Obama thinks that we must condemn ourselves to public silence about what Islam teaches (which is not the same thing as what every Muslim believes, only what he should believe). Haven’t the American government, and other Western governments, to various degrees, been bending over backwards not to impugn Islam as a whole, and have received no observable benefit in return? Do our textbooks, our clerics, our prayers, talk about Muslims the way Muslim textbooks, clerics, prayers, talk about non-Muslims? Of course not. Do we find Muslims demanding in great numbers that Islam be “reformed,” so that the many offending and dangerous Qur’anic passages, for example, be “interpreted” out of their current meaning? We do not. And it certainly won’t happen if we behave as if there is nothing that need be reformed. Obama has it backwards: he wants us never to “blame Islam” because “that would only push more Muslims” to “hate us,” and that would mean still more recruits to that “twisted ideology” which, while it appeals only to Muslims, and is directed only against non-Muslims, “has nothing to do with Islam.”
When, in what war, did it ever redound to one side’s advantage not to recognize, but to deliberately fail to recognize, the nature of the enemy? But our government officials, even in DHS, are not allowed to discuss the Qur’an, and Hadith, and are told by a petulant president that he knows best – that talking about “radical Islam” just inflames Muslims who would otherwise be on our side, or at least not be against us.
If someone has taken Islam to heart, as Omar Mateen always did, nothing the Infidels do or say about Islam will matter. Representatives of CAIR solemnly declare their horror and outrage and amazement at the latest Muslim massacre of the innocents, but this is merely the stage patter kept up to confuse people and keep them from looking in the right direction. We must study the Qur’an and Hadith and Sira if we want to make sense of Omar Mateen, Nidal Hassan, Mohammed Atta, and the more than 28,500 participants in Muslim terror attacks since 9/11.
Obama deserves the last word, as long as we apply those words correctly:
Since before I was president, I have been clear about how extremist groups have perverted Islam to justify terrorism.
I’ve tried, I’ve googled, but I can’t think of a single time when Obama has “been clear about how extremist groups” have “perverted Islam.” Can you think of any evidence, textual or otherwise, that Obama has presented, to demonstrate that “extremist groups” have perverted Islam? It’s not too late to question Obama. Surely there must be at least one intrepid interviewer or reporter who can ask him exactly in what way Islam has been “perverted.” Let Obama tell us what parts of the Qur’an, what stories in the Hadith, what details in the Life of Muhammad, are evidence that Omar Mateen, and all the other tens of thousands of Muslim terrorists who since 9/11 have been plying their terrifying trade, have “perverted one of the world’s great religions.” He should be asked to do this, so that his own confusions and prevarications are put on undeniable display.
And let Obama have the last word(s), as long as we can apply them to Obama himself:
“Don’t tell me words don’t matter.”
“Calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away.”
Ipse dixit.

jp says
Forgetting for a minute how wrong Obama is here, let’s take him at his word. Radical Islam is just words, just a descriptor, it doesn’t change our fight, so WHY WON’T YOU SAY IT?! If as he protests it’s just words, why won’t he say those words to silence the multitude of critics calling him out for his refusal to name the enemy? Could be that he knows his obfuscations fall apart as soon as he admits there is a religious motivation for those determined to kill us in the name of Islam?
Huck Folder says
“Calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away.
This is a political distraction.”
“What difference, at this point, does it make?”
mortimer says
This is a WAR OF RELGION…a war of SUPREMACIST RELIGIOUS IDEOLOGY.
65% of Muslims want this war, but do not wish to participate in it themselves. They want jihadists like Mateen to do it for them. They will watch from the sidelines and applaud if no kafirs are watching.
We should stop lying to ourselves by pretending that the majority of Muslims reject this war. 65% of them approve it, though they will not say so.
65% of Muslims want the filthy kufaar to be crushed, humiliated and subjugated. The hatred cherished by most Muslims against the kufaar is overwhelming if you are able to uncover it. Most of the time they are smiling to our face and despising us in their heart.
If a Muslim is not a supremacist, then he/she has LEFT ISLAM.
All Muslims are supremacists.
To understand what is happening, Obama’s people have to ask themselves this question: “WHAT IS IT THAT A SUPREMACIST WANTS?”
mortimer says
Is Obama lying to us AGAIN about Islam? His lips are moving.
Guest says
The only thing Obama has proven is that he gets angry over the wrong things. Even if the person who got him angry is right.
Vote for Trump!
mortimer says
Omar Mateen purged all of his homosexual and other sins by dying in jihad.
All of the boys like pearls will await him in Allah’s pornographic paradise.
Don McKellar says
An excellent article. An inescapable sledge hammer of facts and logic which obliterates Obama’s phony grandstanding and deception.
Champ says
“Petulant President” …good one, Hugh. Outstanding analysis, too.
obama takes things way too far by scrubbing “radical islam” and “jihad” from everyone’s vocabulary. And it took obama 6 years to finally call Fort Hood a terrorist attack, but he initially claimed that it was “work-place violence.” Took him 6 looong years to speak the truth! I’m so sick of this liar.
Shmooviyet says
Agreed; petulant is the most fitting word for this rant.
The stone leaked– the jerked-chin, ‘how dare you’ type anger of a bratty pre-teen getting grounded– and, predictably, the water from that stone is defense of islam and himself.
Suspect there will be more of this sort of reaction as his term (and America’s) finishes.
Richie says
Obama made me sick in this video
Richie says
I wonder how much money or intelligence Obama has funneled to Iran? He belongs in prison. Traitor!!
Tommy says
Otrauma will not insult isil and call them isis. WORDS MATTER!
awake says
Excellent summary analysis, as usual, Mr. Fitzgerald.
Rob says
‘What good would it do?’
Barry, the ‘good it would do’ is show Americans that he is clear-headed and resolute in defense of American safety.
Cecilia Ellis says
“Since before I was president, I have been clear about how extremist groups have perverted Islam to justify terrorism.”
A position he adamantly and precisely proclaimed, such that there was no excoriation of critics who dared to mention his middle name — Hussein . . . (sarc/off)
“Calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away.”
In stating this, Obama was right . . . I have called him various names; yet he remains.
Carolyne says
I have called him every name I can think of–and they are legion–but he still won’t go away. He is, of course, a Muslim, born and bred, and as such must lie to try to make sense of the present politically correct mindset. But it is nonsensical and he knows it, although I do love to see him throw hissy fits.
Cecilia Ellis says
In those “hissy fits,” the real Hussein emerges.
billybob says
Can you think of any evidence, textual or otherwise, that Obama has presented, to demonstrate that “extremist groups” have perverted Islam?
Excellent question! Get him to explain that…. there must be some journalist out there with a shred of professional sense of duty out there to ask him for a clarification.
William says
When Obama says he has made it clear how extremist groups pervert Islam to justify terrorism, he probably is referring to what he said here:
“The Qur’an says whoever kills an innocent, it is as if he has killed all mankind.”
That’s probably the sum total basis on which he claims Islam has been corrupted by the terrorists.
In any case, Obama is quick to jump to Islam’s defense by claiming the terrorists pervert Islam. On the other hand, he does not defend Christianity, a religion he claims to believe in. Worse, he had mockingly attacked Christianity in a speech he gave in 2006 at the Call to Renewal’s Building a Covenant for a New America conference in Washington, D.C.
This is taken from the text of Obama’s speech:
“Which passages of scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is OK and that eating shellfish is an abomination? Or we could go with Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith?”
Obama can find a passage in the Bible that he says may support slavery. He can find a passage that he claims supports stoning of children. When have we heard him say there are passages in the Koran that may suggest murdering, stoning, beating, terrorizing, and so on? When? Yet Obama says he is a Christian, and he is an honorable man and would not deceive us. Right?
CogitoErgoSum says
When Obama refers to the Quran he calls it the “Holy Quran.” I have never heard him refer to the Bible as the “Holy Bible.” His fear of offending Muslims is as obvious as his delight in mocking Christians. I’ll grant him one thing though. The man has been able to pull off one of the greatest deceptions of the American people ever. Still, his achievement may be short lived. Hillary just may surpass him.
Keys says
From Hugh Fitzgerald’s excellent article: “Name names, do tell us please, who said that the “key” to victory over ISIS is to use the phrase “radical Islam”?
OK, the names for Hugh. The guy who said that was Hayward Strawman down near the corn patch to a Mr. Scarecrow, whose pants were on fire when he repeated it to the swarming ravens. Thus, qotha ravens sitting on a telephone wire.
Cheers !
?
Oliver says
I think that the best response was by Mr. Trump.
he said, (paraphrasing)-Obama was madder at him (at Trump) then the killer.
—————————————————————————————————————————————
And Ryan- with a statement- that Mr. Trumps’ statements make the world less safe. What effing hypocrisy and lies.
Ryan is in his actions the lair (his budget ideas- to trim billions or whatever- then trims THE ONE BENEFIT THAT SOMETIMES HELPS MIDDLE CLASS PEOPLE. NOTHING ABOUT THE BOONDOGGLES AND CONGRESSIONAL PERKS.
A bill (transportation reauthorization) with 283 (or more ) amendments-and nobody read them.
AND HE CRITICIZES TRUMP-?
Norwegian says
Is it just me…or is Obama and some other leaders in the west lokking…a bit …tired..older…or something latly? :p
linnte says
Obama surely is looking so much older. It is hard to be President and also maintain a lie for so long. He knows if he had told the American people he is Muslim he would never have been elected. Even Leftists would have hesitated to vote for him. At the time of his first election, I would not have voted for a Muslim President, being the old Hippie Leftist that I WAS. Also, had he told America he was Muslim BEFORE his election, millions of Americans would have delved into the doctrine and Ideology of Islam, so he couldn’t come out with his religious stance. He had to lie and say he was a Christian. It is very stressful denying ones religious affiliations for the sake of advancement of ones personal religion. His heart is full of rot. As all liars hearts are!
Cecilia Ellis says
Norwegian, maintaining a 24-hour, seven-day-a-week onslaught against Islamophobia would age anyone . . .
Norwegian says
Yes, just a matter of time before Obama turns grey and explodes now 😀
Cecilia Ellis says
?
Richard Paulsen says
The word being spread. Northern Europe. Stcokholm, swedish capitol. Maybe some day a muslim mayor.
https://www.google.se/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C1RNAN_enSE436&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=mosk%C3%A9%20i%20stuvsta&rflfq=1&rlha=0&rllag=59283533,17971274,6879&tbm=lcl&tbs=lf:1,lf_ui:1&rlfi=hd:;si:
jewdog says
In a sense, I can see why Obama is so leery of an honest analysis of the Islamic textual causes of violence. He must realize that if the public were to learn the truth about Islam, then they would be much less willing to put up with his open-borders shenanigans or his trusting nuke deal with the Mullahs, and they might also be more receptive to the Republican point of view.
Judging from his upbringing, I think Obama has an idealized, sentimental feeling about Islam, and probably finds it uncomfortable to face its darker reality. It’s a psychological conflict marked by denial. But that’s his problem – we shouldn’t make it ours.
gravenimage says
Hugh Fitzgerald: When a Petulant President Presumes to Give Lessons in Language
……………………..
Deliberate obfuscation.
Guest says
I want to slap him
linnte says
I want to impeach him!
Ed says
I think your argument is weakened by what you call an obvious distinction between the “historic disapproval” of Christianity to homosexuality and the texts of Islam. What about the texts of Christianity? The Old Testament says homosexuals are to be put to death. The New Testament says they are an abomination to God. Christians have a plethora of explanations for why their “unchanging God who is the same yesterday, today, and forever” doesn’t really mean that. They will say these commands were only for a certain time and place, or were abrogated by Jesus (yes abrogation exists in Christianity just as it does in Islam), or take comfort in the fact that Christians are more apt than Muslims to simply ignore their uncomfortable texts while at the same time insisting they are part of the “word of God”.
William says
Ed, You included in your comment some explanations why Christians ignore certain texts in the Bible. Yet you say Christians need to explain why they don’t follow those passages, even while acknowledging the reasons why they no longer do? Why can’t you accept that? I think it’s you, not Christians, who are having a problem with reconciliation. Christians have made reconciliation and have moved on.
CogitoErgoSum says
Ed, Christ did not come to abrogate the Old Testament; He came to fulfill it. Christians believe that the shedding of Jesus’ blood on the cross atoned for all of mankind’s sins. Jesus took upon himself all the sins of the world and took our place in suffering the punishment for those sins. That does not mean that God no longer considers things such as homosexuality, adultery or blasphemy sinful. It means that Jesus died in our place for our sins. The price for sin has been paid for us and no one needs to die for committing a sin any more. It does not mean that the things that once were sins are not sins any more. What you call “abrogation” I would call “fulfillment.”
Carolyne says
If there were a “God,” why in the world would He/She care about the sexual habits of humans?
I find that silly. I am a heterosexual, but frankly I don’t care what homosexuals and the rest do. They leave me alone, I’ll leave them alone.
I cannot understand why a loving “God,” would allow and even encourage the mess the world has gotten itself into when, with a flick of a finger or whatever is equivalent, He/She could end it at once.
CogitoErgoSum says
Carolyn, I don’t care what a person’s sexual preferences are either. That is between each individual and God (if a person believes in God). From your remarks, I assume you do not believe in God or even sin for that matter. However, I think we would both agree that each individual should be free to decide for himself/herself as to what is good and what is evil. It is not up to me to decide for others what they should do or how they should act in life. Each person is responsible for his/her own life and the decisions made in that life.
That leads me to the matter of free will. The story of Adam and Eve (whether taken as factual or as a fairy tale) explains why the world is as it is. The choice provided to Adam and Eve was between: 1) comfort and ignorance or
2) suffering and knowledge.
Remember, the forbidden fruit came from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. For us to know good and evil both good and evil must exist in the world in which we live. Adam and Eve chose of their own free will to taste of the fruit of good and evil. God did not force them to do so but neither did He stop them. Free will … it’s a simple explanation often ridiculed but the story contains a deeper meaning than most people realize. I hope you see it.
The world is not as God wishes it to be. It is the way God allows it to be. For Him to interfere would be a violation of our free will. So, now all human beings must not only know the taste of good and evil but learn how to distinguish between the two. The reference guide for determining and measuring good and evil (for Christians) is the Bible.
I imagine you are laughing to yourself about now ……. but then you are free to do so.
It all depends upon what you choose to believe about the purpose and meaning of your life and what comes after it ends here on Earth.
vivienne Leijonhufvu (@goldaleijonhufv) says
I switched off Obama when he gave his speech, always the same rhetoric. Moslems: if they want to continue to honor their religion it is time it was reformed and all ‘SATANIC VERSES’ removed. This religion is an insidious cult to conquer and subjugate the rest of the world.
Angemon says
Obama trying to obamasplain the unexplainable.
Sancho Panza says
Surely there must be at least one intrepid interviewer or reporter who can ask him exactly in what way Islam has been “perverted.”
What has perplexed me for long is the failure of the Republican Party to function as a responsible Opposition Party. I don’t understand why they haven’t called out the Obama Administration in Parliament for their many transgressions.
In my country, let there be whiff of a political scandal and the Opposition lands like a ton of bricks on the government making it virtually impossible for Parliament to function.
It seems to me that the Obama has had a virtually free hand to do whatever he wanted – there are no checks and balances on him. Or is it that the Republicans have abdicated their responsibility?
gravenimage says
I agree, Sancho. One small point–here in the United States, we have a Congress (a Senate and House of Representatives) rather than a Parliament.
UNCLE VLADDI says
MuBarak Hussein Obama only refuses to use the word “islamic” because that leads directly to the Qur’an which openly commands terrorism; while blaming “extremism” lets him instead blame everyone else.
UNCLE VLADDI says
Re: “Why are we made to feel that some things are being kept hidden from us, for as long as possible, so as to avoid that “clash of civilizations” that will be conducted by the Muslim side no matter what we do?”
Keeping the muzzie masses ignorant of their own hate-crime death-threat canon seems to be the self-imposed mission of most of the enemedia these days – it’s most likely why they keep lying about islam being a “great religion of peace” all the time! That, and their inherent racism, of course!
The enemedia only exists to ask all the wrong questions all the time, not only so their globalist corporazi owners won’t have to worry about answering the real ones, but also to waste our time so we won’t be able to think up the real questions to ask, either!
It’s the not-so-secret duty of the authorities and enemedia to scold us for being hateful racist bigots all the time, so their slander can keep us off-balance and on the defensive, thus not giving us enough time to see what they’re really all up to – which is simply selling us all out for only their own personal gains, by selling our countries off to our enemies, (by buying their money,) running up their tabs in our names.
“Narratives” are lies.
When one pretends a crime is an accidental tragedy, it’s a lie.
When one pretends a phenomenon or accident (“white privilege”) is in fact really a crime, it’s a lie.
When one pretends there are no crimes or criminals because we’re all only victims, so that the only real criminals are those who get victimized by criminals (“other victims”) and complain about it, it’s a lie.
Lying is fraud which is a crime.
The enemedia, like their globalist corporazi oil-bankster owners and masters, are CRIMINALS.
We’re in the fix we’re in because of the “education” system and enemedia telling low-info voters how to vote!
The enemedia are all owned by the same globalist corporations – they’re the global propaganda ministry, selling sedition to our children!
Selling them the tempting notion that they are entitled to rights without responsibility, advising they always take the easy way out, and to “Go Along” (with criminal lies) “To Get Along” (with lying criminals)!
The media, like most politicians, are lazy criminals who want to have their rights without responsibilities, so they will always sacrifice your rights in order to remain irresponsible.
Each time violence, arson, shaming etc. takes place and is downplayed (tacitly supported) by media and the komissars, people become desensitized. This will be the new normal.
They use the muslims to keep us off-balance, bringing in hordes of these murderous barbarians to create and eternal crisis for which we are then told we need them, the expert authorities, to protect us from it.
UNCLE VLADDI says
In order to control people, one must first make them doubt that they can manage their own lives, and convince them that they are not only unable to defend them selves, but also that it would be immoral for them to even conceive of ever trying to defend them selves. So after the recent muslim terrorist attacks in Paris, we saw absolutely no demonstrations against muslims or the corporate-owned elites literally hell-bent on importing millions more of them into our countries to destroy our Western civilization.
As usual, people automatically blamed them selves: “Somewhere along the way, whites in Europe and America have lost their connection to God!” is the common refrain seen all too often on comment threads such as this one.
But in reality, I think the problem is the exact opposite!
Orlandians are today busy “celebrating tolerance and diversity” with their inane tweets because that is what the leftist version of Christianity has trained them since birth to do: to “Judge Not – EVER;” to always “Turn The Other Cheek,” and of course to “Oppose Not Evil Men!”
Christian idolatry has always had more in common with collectivist leftism than with real live individual human rights, because it embraces a distant hope – that of the universal brotherhood of Man in the Kingdom of Heaven afterlife – over present reality.
It asks the individual to defer his own rights to a distant God – “Vengeance Is The Lord’s” (alone) when in fact revenge is Justice. Basic morality is “Do Not Attack FIRST” while of course counter-attacking in defense of one’s self and innocent others is a natural right, the enforcement of which does not need nor tolerate the deference to an imaginary god!
Globalist politics has also embraced these very same lies, insisting the individual should always defer to the greater good – of the uber-group idol (of the many individuals) such that no individual has any real right to self-defense; suicidal masochistic “tolerance’ is held up as the greatest moral virtue anyone can possess, and as such – and because of course (they assert) “Since life is too complex for any but our betters,” (the experts in government to whom we have traditionally deferred both our rights and our responsibilities to think for our selves to, paying “our leaders” to do our thinking for us, as) “life is too complex for us to ever really understand cause and effect, so that all facts are really only opinions anyway – there are no real crimes nor criminals since everyone – the poor benighted and mentally-inferior animalistic swarthy jihadis included – is a helpless victim of society, a mere product of their environment, and of course a slave of allah.”
Our schools, too, ‘teach’ only racist sedition – that the West is always at fault, since we are smarter than they are, obviously everything we have we must have stolen from the oppressed inferior races – and of course therefore also it’s implied corollary, that we must tolerate the diverse (opposite) reactions of our mental and emotional inferiors, lest we confuse and offend them into committing even more crimes against us. To the racist left, the crimes of the nonwhites are always the white mans’ fault and burden to bear.
So against our right to self-defense is: our main ‘religion,’ our governments, and our education systems – all glorifying the group over the individual human citizen’s rights.
These traitors are all owned by globalist oil-banksters. By the power of counterfeit, “fiat” currency, the banks are able to own all the other, lesser corporations and their employees: the public.
And banks want world War III!
See, they (of course, as usual) use their counterfeit money to back all sides.
Whomever wins, still owes them. Whoever loses, still owes the winners AND the banks.
Then they get paid by everyone taking out even more loans to rebuild everything for them.
Carolyne says
You know, Uncle Vlad, you really had me until the very end with the bank stuff. If there is a WW III, there will be no banks to cash in as there will be no people left after several nukes go off. Bankers may be a lot of things, but they are not suicidal.