• Why Jihad Watch?
  • About Robert Spencer and Staff Writers
  • FAQ
  • Books
  • Muhammad
  • Islam 101
  • Privacy

Jihad Watch

Exposing the role that Islamic jihad theology and ideology play in the modern global conflicts

Leftist “historians” rate worst-ever US president Obama as 12th best

Feb 17, 2017 12:45 pm By Robert Spencer

Barack Hussein Obama has planted seeds that will be bearing bitter fruit for years, and probably decades, to come. He is the worst President in American history. Fillmore, Pierce, Buchanan? Yes, the doughface Presidents made the Civil War inevitable, but worse came later. Grant? Blind to corruption and out of his depth, but there have been worse than he as well. Wilson? That black-hearted Presbyterian bigot arguably gave the world Hitler and World War II, so he is definitely in the Final Four. Harding? Nah: his tax cuts and return to “normalcy” got the American economy, and the Twenties, roaring. FDR and LBJ gave us the modern welfare state and dependent classes automatically voting Democrat; the full bill on the damage they did hasn’t yet been presented. Nixon? A crook and an economic Leftist, who betrayed Taiwan for the People’s Republic; his record certainly isn’t good. Carter? Nothing good can be said about his four years of sanctimony and incompetence.

But there is one thing Barack Obama has on all competitors: treason.

He has showered hundreds of billions of dollars on the Islamic Republic of Iran. The definition of treason is giving aid and comfort to the enemy. The leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran order their people to chant “Death to America” in mosques every Friday, and repeatedly vow that they will ultimately destroy the United States of America and the state of Israel. How is giving them billions not treason? Other Presidents have been incompetent, corrupt, dishonest, but which has committed treason on a scale to rival the treason of Barack Hussein Obama?

The Iranians also operate a global network of jihad terror organizations, one of which, Hizballah, is quite active in Mexico now, with the obvious ultimate intention of crossing the border and committing jihad massacres of Americans. Obama has given a tremendous boost to these initiatives, as well as to Iran’s nuclear program, with his nuclear deal that has given the Iranians hundreds of billions of dollars and essentially a green light to manufacture nuclear weapons, in exchange for absolutely nothing.

There is no telling when the worst consequences of Obama’s aid and comfort to the Islamic Republic of Iran will be felt. But they likely will be felt in one way or another. Even if Trump moves swiftly to restore sanctions and put Iran on notice that its nuclear activity and global adventurism will not be tolerated, those billions cannot be recovered, and they will be spent. And they will be spent in ways intended to harm the U.S. and its allies.

Here are a few of his other ignominious accomplishments:

1. Removing all mention of Islam from counter-terror training, and denying that Islamic texts and teachings have any role in inciting jihad terrorists to commit acts of violence. Given Trump’s repeated upbraiding of Obama and Hillary Clinton during the campaign for their refusal even to say “radical Islam,” there is reason to be confident that Trump will once again allow our law enforcement and intelligence officials to study the motivating ideology of the jihad terrorists, which is an indispensable prerequisite to defeating them. However, large organizations such as the FBI, the CIA, the DHS and others don’t turn on a dime; Obama has made for an institutional culture of denial and political correctness that is now deeply embedded. All too many FBI agents and others who should know better think that the best thing they can do when confronted with a terror-tied mosque is conduct “outreach” and reassure the Muslims there of their good will. Investigate it? Heavens to betsy, that would be “Islamophobic.” Attempts by Trump to ensure that the enemy ideology is indeed confronted realistically will be met with fierce resistance from with the law enforcement and intelligence agencies themselves.

It is also likely that these agencies have been thoroughly infiltrated with Muslim Brotherhood operatives who won’t be so easily displaced; that infiltration had already started during the George W. Bush administration (when, for example, the Pentagon’s sole expert on Islamic law, Major Stephen Coughlin, was dismissed at the behest of a Muslim Brotherhood-linked official), but under Obama, it has galloped ahead, with any concern about it dismissed as “Islamophobia.”

2. Inundating the U.S. with Muslim migrants. Obama didn’t bring Muslim migrants to the U.S. at the rate that his friend Angela Merkel brought them to Germany, but his administration consistently showed a decided preference for Muslims over non-Muslim migrants: it was clearly more interested in social engineering than refugee relief. And so there is an unknowable number of Islamic jihadis now inside the United States, who came in with these migrants. They have supposedly been vetted by Obama administration officials, but how can those officials vet for jihadist tendencies when they don’t even admit that there is a jihad? How can they possibly know what to look for? San Bernardino jihad murderer Tashfeen Malik was thoroughly vetted: she passed five separate background checks from five different U.S. agencies. So among these “vetted” refugees is any number of ticking time bombs. What’s more, even among those who will never mount a jihad attack are many who come with a ready-made model of society and governance, Sharia, that they consider superior to any system of government devised by Infidels. As those Muslim migrants begin to make clear their determination to live by what they think to be the law of Allah rather than manmade law, there will be increasing conflict and civil strife. And all of it will bear the imprimatur of Barack Hussein Obama.

3. Betraying Israel. Resolution 2334 legitimized the United Nations’ vendetta against Israel, but it was just the culmination o eight years of Obama’s thinly veiled contempt for Israel and constant presumption that the Jewish state was the sole obstacle to peace, and the sole party that had to make concessions. Obama has given the jihad against Israel a standing and foundation in international law that will make its efforts to defend itself all the more difficult. Trump has vowed to roll all this back; it won’t all be rolled back completely, however, unless his administration challenges the very legitimacy of the Palestinian jihad, and acknowledges its maximalist and genocidal intent.

The Leftist world order that created a world in which concessions to and remuneration of an avowed enemy, combined with betrayal of and contempt for an ally, were considered wise and prudent moves is now in its death throes, and it cannot vanish from the scene quickly enough. But it isn’t going to go quietly. The legacy of its patron and foremost exponent, the traitor Barack Hussein Obama, will be the chaos, havoc, death and destruction that it has yet to cause.

“Barack Obama Ranked 12th Best U.S. President Ever in Major Survey of Historians,” by David Von Drehle, Time, February 17, 2017:

Barack Obama has been whisked to a very good table at the club of former presidents, according to a C-SPAN survey of 91 presidential historians published on Friday. Obama’s 12th-place ranking only a month after leaving office is the best for any president since Ronald Reagan, who ranks ninth in the new survey. The list updates previous C-SPAN surveys compiled in 2009 and 2000.

Historians gave Obama high marks for pursuing equality, managing the economy, public persuasion and “moral authority.” On the other hand, he was judged to have been below-average in handling international relations. Overall, he placed ahead of such generally well-regarded chief executives as James Monroe and James Polk.

History’s view of the best and worst presidents was unchanged since 2009. The top spot once again went to Abraham Lincoln — the quintessential self-made man who saved the Union, emancipated the slaves, and launched the Transcontinental Railroad. He ranked no lower than fourth in all ten of the criteria by which presidents were judged. He finished first in crisis leadership, administrative skill, vision setting, and pursuit of equal justice; second in economic management, moral authority, and “performance within the context of the times”; third in public persuasion and international relations; and fourth in working with Congress.

Lincoln was followed by George Washington, with the two Roosevelts — Franklin and Theodore — in third and fourth place. The bottom spots went to the men who served just before and just after Lincoln: James Buchanan and Andrew Johnson.

“Once again the Big Three are Lincoln, Washington and FDR — as it should be,” said one of the shepherds of the survey, Douglas Brinkley of Rice University in Houston. “That Obama came in at number 12 his first time out is quite impressive,” Brinkley added.

But Howard University historian Edna Greene Medford, another of C-SPAN’s consultants on the project, thought Obama might have ranked even higher. She was surprised to see him in the middle of the pack for administrative skills, and thought that his rapidly rising approval ratings during the last months of his administration might give him more of a boost. “Of course,” Medford said, “historians prefer to view the past from a distance, and only time will reveal his legacy.”…

Oh, indeed. Only time will reveal how future historians who love freedom will curse his name.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • More
  • Click to share on Skype (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)

Follow me on Facebook

Filed Under: Barack Obama, Featured Tagged With: Abraham Lincoln


Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Comments

  1. Jaladhi says

    Feb 17, 2017 at 12:53 pm

    True, Americans will find out in next 10 or 20 years how much damage the previous president did to USA! America has been changed to the worst and unless the current President does something about it, I do not see USA regaining its exceptional place in the world.

    • Face_The_Truth says

      Feb 17, 2017 at 1:14 pm

      Ex-President Baraq Hussein Obama, Jr., fulfilled what late President Ronald Wilson Reagan started.

      And, that is, total Islamization of America!

      Late president Ronald W. Reagan must be very proud of what America has become after 8 years of Kenyan-American Sunni Muslim President Baraq Hussein.

      Late president Ronald W. Reagan fought against Soviet Union while harboring, arming, and aiding Sunni Muslim Jihadists all over the world.

      Today the dead, rotting, disgusting corpse of late president Ronald Wilson Reagan is not rolling anymore, rather is deeply pleased for realizing the fact that America is gradually becoming a nation of Islam where al’Quran is being cherished in the House of Congress by Paul Davis Ryan and Muhammad Keith Ellison.

      • ed cox says

        Feb 17, 2017 at 1:25 pm

        Must be a muslim or an idiot or both .

        • Face_The_Truth says

          Feb 17, 2017 at 1:59 pm

          No, I am not Muslim and my late parents were not Muslims.

      • gravenimage says

        Feb 17, 2017 at 7:38 pm

        Ronald Reagan was–like most Westerners at the time–quite ignorant of the threat of Islam, but the idea that he was deliberately enabling Islam is–with all respect–pretty questionable.

      • Wellington says

        Feb 17, 2017 at 9:19 pm

        Might as well blame FDR for enabling Communism because he aligned with Stalin against Hitler. Yes, FDR, made mistakes at Yalta but my analogy is not diminished by this.

        You fight the enemy du jour. You do what you have to at the time. How easy it is, in full Monday-morning quarterback mode to complete every pass and make no mistakes on a metaphorical football field while reclining, literally and/or figuratively, in a comfy chair.

        Moreover, if you really think minus what Reagan did while President to bring down the Soviet Union by aligning very temporarily with a relative handful of Muslims would have made everything geopolitically wonderful by now where Islam is concerned, then you live in a dream world oblivious of the fact that Islam declared war on humanity some 1400 years ago.

        Put another way, wake the hell up.

        • gravenimage says

          Feb 17, 2017 at 9:35 pm

          Agreed, Wellington.

        • Mark Swan says

          Feb 18, 2017 at 1:19 am

          Absolutely Wellington

        • Face_The_Truth says

          Feb 18, 2017 at 3:04 pm

          Let’s do some history lesson here!

          American govt. decided to fight World War II simply for the sake of salvaging Great Britain and France.

          If — only IF — Nazi Germany concentrated on the Western Front instead of invading Soviet Union, let’s face the harsh truth of history, we would all be speaking German today!

          And, that’s really the painful truth from history, no matter how much more people like you or anyone else dislike(s) my post(s).

          It was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic under the dictatorship of Iosif Stalin that defeated Nazi Germany.

          It was the Soviet Red Army that captured Berlin in 1945 A.D.

          American G.I. were nowhere to be found when Nazi Germany was losing battle after battle against Soviet Union!!!

          American and British governments wanted (want) other nations’ people die for American and British geo-political interests.

          American govt. alone took all false credits of defeating Nazi Germany as all American college professors write in their so-called “History Books” — even to this day — describing the Second World War was primarily between America and Nazi Germany — with all historic evidences to the contrary!

          America lost 500,000 sons and daughters in WWII.

          But, Soviet Union lost nearly 50,000,000 sons and daughters fighting the Nazi war-machine alone in order to save Mother Russia.

          There is a significant difference between “five-hundred-thousands” and “fifty-millions” from any mathematical point of view also.

          Last but not least, had Soviet Union not defeated Nazi Germany in mid 1940’s, there wouldn’t or couldn’t or shouldn’t have been a so-called Cold-War or Wet-War or Damp-War between the U.S.S.R. and the U.S.A. — of 70 years — for an Islamic-Jihad-Enabler American president, namely R.W. Reagan, to end in late 1980’s until the U.S.S.R. collapsed from within.

          History remains history.

          History doesn’t follow men.

          Men follow history for the ultimate survival of good against evil.

          For the Islamophile late American President Ronald Wilson Reagan, however, “History is always written by the victors” in his own words and in his very sick, twisted mind while he was alive.

        • Wellington says

          Feb 18, 2017 at 3:45 pm

          Face_The_Truth:

          Wow, yours is truly a tendentious assessment of WWII. You seem to have forgotten, among other things, that America was the principal opponent of a formidable enemy in the other major theater of war——-the Pacific. Moreover, the Allies’ invasion of first North Africa, then Sicily and Italy and finally France, relieved a great deal of pressure on Soviet forces. Also, America provided over 30 billion dollars of equipment to the Soviets which additionally went a long way to helping defeat the Nazis.

          Something else: The Soviet government wasted a hell of a lot people in ways that simply would not have occurred by Western states like Britain and America. For instance, shortly after the war ended, Eisenhower had a conversation with Zhukov and, among other things, asked the Soviet general what he did for anti-land mine purposes. Zhukov responded by saying that the Soviets didn’t use any anti-land mine devices, that they just sent in the first wave of soldiers who were then blown up and then sent in a second wave and so on. Eisenhower commented in his work, Crusade in Europe, that any American officer who did what Zhukov said he and other Soviet officers did would be court-martialed.

          So, I would contend you need to reconsider a lot of things, including your denigration of a very fine President, Ronald Reagan, whose chief goal was defeating the totalitarian ideology which was Communism and bringing down one of the most evil regimes in history, the USSR, which he did sooner rather than later. As Alexander Bessmertnykh, Gorbachev’s Foreign Minister, said, “Ronald Reagan’s defense build-up and Strategic Defense Initiative accelerated the demise of the Soviet Union.”

        • Face_The_Truth says

          Feb 18, 2017 at 4:23 pm

          Okay, in the Pacific Front, did America actually win anything until or after dropping the nuclear weapons on the Japanese???

          Did America actually win the Korean War???

          “Hell No” is the answer to both of the above questions.

          To this day, American govt. is still fighting battles in Afghanistan and Iraq, which American govt. supposed to have won a long, long time ago!

          So, history teaches us that American govt. can literally make the entire Islamic Republic of Iran into a cinder-block within 30 minutes of an Final Executive Decision from the White House.

          But, American military could not win a conventional war against Iranian Shi’ite Muslims today, let alone defeating Nazi Germany or Imperial Japanese Military during the Second World War.

          That’s the harsh lesson from history that you and other readers of my posts constantly fail to acknowledge.

        • Wellington says

          Feb 18, 2017 at 5:05 pm

          Man, you really do need to bone up on your history. America didn’t win anything until they dropped the A-bomb. Holy Hell, have you heard of Midway? From that point onwards the Japanese were on the defensive most everywhere. America won battle after battle against this formidable foe, for instance, in the Marshall and Gilbert Islands, and the largest naval battle in history, Leyte Gulf. And on and on and on like this, Iwo Jima as another example.

          As for Korea, it was never the intention of the Truman Administration to win in Korea but rather to expel the North Koreans from South Korea——-which was accomplished. And while I honor the bravery of the Russian soldier, you should honor the bravery of the American and British and other soldiers. As far as losing is concerned, need I bring up the debacle the Soviets experienced in Afghanistan in the 1980s. C-mon. Develop some balance, will ya’.

        • Face_The_Truth says

          Feb 19, 2017 at 12:23 pm

          Corrections for typographical errors:

          American G.I.’s were nowhere to be found when Nazi Germany was losing battle after battle against Soviet Union!!!

          Okay, in the Pacific Front, did America actually win anything until or not after dropping the nuclear weapons on the Japanese???

          To this day, American govt. is fighting battles in Afghanistan and Iraq, which American govt. supposed to have won a long, long time ago!

          So, history teaches us that, American govt. can literally make the entire Islamic Republic of Iran into a cinder-block within 30 minutes of Final Executive Decision from the White House.

          Dear readers of my disgusting posts,

          Please accept my apology for unintentional errors in typing.

      • Charles Martel says

        Feb 18, 2017 at 9:47 am

        Your comment about Reagan is what’s disgusting.

        After decades of organizations such as Jihad Watch exposing Sharia law, there’s no excuse for ignorance by our media, politicians or those in academia…..unless there’s a deliberate “unholy alliance” between the Leftists and Islamists.

        Since there is so much information readily available about Islamic jihad, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Sunna of the ProMo, etc., being useful idiots or being willfully blind no longer applies. They’re now committing sedition and treason.

    • Pastor C says

      Feb 17, 2017 at 3:52 pm

      As a retired-pastor, having been in ministry for 45 years, serving in multiple occupations-which means I’ve met a large number of people-I can honestly say, without equivocation (after watching and studying him intensively for 10 years); I found and find nothing good to say about him!

      The same may be said about his perpetually-corrupt, greedy, lying, Muslim sympathizing and traitorous sidekick in infamy, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

      They are ‘two sides of the same coin!’

      We may never know the full extent these two traitors defiled, defrauded and decimated (to virtual destruction) the United States of America.

      May God justly repay them for their efforts!

      • somehistory says

        Feb 17, 2017 at 6:33 pm

        There is no escaping it…they will get everything God determines they deserve…nothing more, nothing less.

  2. Jerry says

    Feb 17, 2017 at 1:00 pm

    Yeah, they scratched his name on the list with the fingernail of their dying finger. lol

  3. Don McKellar says

    Feb 17, 2017 at 1:11 pm

    Trump’s magnificent golden age for America will throw so much shade on the Obama disaster that his traitor credentials will be focused on, as will his endless foreign policy disasters and domestic incompetence. These people are not historians, they are political hacks making ridiculous pronouncements not even a month after the Obama regime stumbled to a close and there has been no opportunity to put anything in perspective or fully uncover and examine all the crimes and repercussions of his anti-American, anti-Constitutional policies. They don’t even understand what a historian does.

    • A Harris USA says

      Feb 18, 2017 at 12:03 pm

      Don, I am praying that this is just the rough seas that Trump will have to ride out, and with the American people supporting his tireless efforts, he will at least right the ship.. Not quite a month in office, and the devils are trying to make him as the evil troll, and that devil Muslim Obama the great hope.. No one here is fooled.. One has to remember that the Left globalist filth LOVED that Kenyan Muslim, and will spew the crap of him being the best thing since sliced bread.. We know what they are up to!! NO fooling me here.

  4. Kiel says

    Feb 17, 2017 at 1:54 pm

    Knowing, that putting a previous leader before the court belongs to third world countries I’ll not hesitate to recommend the new government to start the procedure.

  5. Chellu says

    Feb 17, 2017 at 1:58 pm

    So much hatred can only stain your soul and blind you to any truth.

    • JIMJFOX says

      Feb 17, 2017 at 3:11 pm

      Hatred for Islam is incumbent on any ‘najis kafir’ who reads Islamic theology. AND 100% justified.

  6. Eric Jones says

    Feb 17, 2017 at 2:16 pm

    Obama is a Wall St. puppet and a Muslim Brotherhood plant. As far as persuing equality, Obama ignored the Black commuity for eight years. Obama still expresses no concern about the murder rate in Chicago, his home town. Because of his treason, I put Obama as worst.

    • Spencer Warren says

      Feb 17, 2017 at 3:54 pm

      He also except on one minor occasion never addressed the ongoing crisis of 70 percent black illegitimacy, the cause of rampant black crime and inner city decay. Refused to say anything critical of his own people, painting them only as victims of whitey. As a black man he could have done much good by speaking out on this issue. His silence on Chicago was deafening.

      Instead he chose racial demagoguery, inviting Al Sharpton to the White House over eighty times, and inviting Black Lives Matter as well. The blood of the police assassinated in Dallas and elsewhere is on his filthy hands, as is the blood of Americans murdered by the illegal aliens let in by his open borders. This rating is completely superficial and ludicrous. I think Obama ranks at the bottom with Buchanan and Andrew Johnson, and perhaps along with Johnson is the most despicable character ever to be president.

      • common sense says

        Feb 17, 2017 at 4:23 pm

        I whole heartedly concur with both of you and treason with Iran is a historical first.

      • Steve Putney says

        Feb 17, 2017 at 6:25 pm

        Spencer Warren, your post doesn’t appear to be coming from someone well versed in the history of the Andrew Johnson administration. To learn more go to http://www.libertyclassroom.com. Listen the lectures on Ten Best and Ten Worst US Presidents.

      • Wellington says

        Feb 17, 2017 at 11:23 pm

        Actually, I don’t think Andrew Johnson was a despicable person. In many ways, he was quite typical for his time. He thought blacks inferior of course, but then almost all whites did then, including Abraham Lincoln. Like Lincoln though, he hated slavery and thought no man should be a slave, white or black. He was convinced that the Civil War occurred because of rich and selfish white Southerners who took the entire South into a brutal and unnecessary war. While this view of the war can be disputed, it is also not without merit.

        As President he advised fellow Southerners (he himself was from Tennessee and had been the ONLY Southern Senator in 1861 to side with the Union) shortly after he became President to give the vote to a few Southern blacks here and there, those that were highly educated or who had served the Union, in order to partially thwart what he considered the extreme demands of Radical Republicans whom he thought wanted to crucify the South.

        Now, the views of such Radical Republicans, those like Congressman Thaddeus Stevens of Pennsylvania and Senator Charles Sumner of Massachusetts, are also not devoid of merit but such men had already aroused the skepticism, if not the ire, of Abraham Lincoln before he was assassinated because he considered at least some of their views too dogmatic. Johnson was dogmatic too, but in the opposite direction of people like Stevens and Sumner and so he and the Radical Republicans came to loggerheads eventually, which led to Johnson’s impeachment on eleven articles, most of which revolved around the Tenure of Office Act which Johnson felt was unconstitutional and here he was posthumously upheld in this by the Supreme Court.

        I am not defending Johnson carte blanche here, only trying to see him as a man of his time who did what he thought best. Very important to him was to bring the seceded states back into the Union as quickly as possible. In this respect he was similar to Lincoln. For instance, in Lincoln’s 1863 reconstruction plan, he only required 10% of those registered to vote in 1860 to take an oath of loyalty in order for a state to come fully back into the Union. Three states met Lincoln’s plan, Arkansas, Louisiana and Tennessee, but Radical Republicans refused to recognize these restored states. Johnson’s reconstruction plan was actually stricter than Lincoln’s but still not good enough for people like Sumner and Stevens. I have often wondered if Lincoln didn’t die at the right time. I believe, like Johnson, he would have wanted the seceded states to become fully aligned with the Union sooner rather than later and, as with Johnson, this would have come at the expense of blacks and thus Lincoln’s reputation might not be as high as it has been had he completed his second term. We’ll never know.

        I’m not really taking a strong position here, only indicating how fluid the matter of Andrew Johnson and the Reconstruction Era are. A century ago, Johnson was held in much higher esteem precisely because he didn’t want to be stricter with the South. Now he is held in lower esteem precisely for the same reason. Reconstruction historiography is one of the most fascinating (and divisive) periods in all of American history. I might add that Johnson rose from nothing, was taught how to read chiefly by his wife and was, no dispute here, a self-made man. He made mistakes and was stubborn but I don’t think he was nearly as despicable as he was typical for his time. He never deliberately set out to fundamentally transform the US as Obama did and thus I hold him in higher esteem than Obama. He also had a much higher opinion of the Constitution than I believe Obama did and was a stickler for applying the law as written, something which can’t be said for Obama.

        Well, I have written enough I think. I want to make it clear that Johnson was a below average President and of course he was wrong, as the vast majority of whites were, on the matter of black equality (to Thaddeus Stevens’ great credit, demonstrating his integrity, he insisted on being buried in a graveyard with blacks—–I have personally visited this cemetery which is located in Lancaster, Pennsylvania), but he loved the United States, something which is deuce difficult to say about the 44th President.

        • Spencer Warren says

          Feb 18, 2017 at 10:23 am

          This is a measured analysis but I wish to disagree. Johnson was drunk at the inauguration and during his confrontation with Congress went on a demagogic and wild speaking tour. He pardoned all Confederates and allowed them to take back power and repress the freed slaves, thereby undoing the Union victory in the war. This impelled the Radical Reoublican Congress with its veto-proof majority, to take over Reconstruction. We will never know, but I think Lincoln’s evolution on black rights indicates that in the face of Southern violent resistance he eventually would have moved toward the Radical Republican policies. Also, Johnson vetoed bills to protect black rights, bills that were comparable to civil rights laws enacted under LBJ 100 years later. One bill became the 14th amendment. We can agree to disagree

        • Wellington says

          Feb 18, 2017 at 1:57 pm

          Thank you for your analysis, Spencer Warren. Much appreciated. Johnson was indeed tipsy at the inaugural ceremonies on March 4, 1865 but that was because he had a very bad cold and had taken some liquor to help it. There was thus born the vicious rumor that he was a drunk but, in fact, he was quite abstemious a person.

          No doubt about Johnson’s “rhetorical style,” which you mentioned. As William Seward, his Secretary of State observed (and you may already be familiar with this quote), “Johnson was the best stump speaker in the nation but the President should not be a stump speaker.”

          Initially in his reconstruction measures of May of 1865 Johnson excluded many from pardon but then turned around and issued some 13,000 pardons when they were directly asked for from him. I think he enjoyed, a man of very poor background, granting pardons to rich Southerners who would have never given him the time of day had he not been in the position that he was. But remember that Lincoln had, in his reconstruction plan of 1863, allowed for many more to be pardoned in the first place than did Johnson’s with his.

          Johnson’s veto of the 1866 Civil Rights Bill was done on purely constitutional grounds. He thought it represented a huge overreach on the part of the federal government and was unconstitutional. The fact that Congress, after passing it over his veto, embodied what was in the 1866 bill in the proposed 14th Amendment only demonstrates that even many Radical Republicans were not 100% certain of the bill’s constitutionality and wanted it, in effect, to become part of the Constitution. On purely constitutional and legal grounds, Johnson’s take on the 1866 bill could be defended (though I am glad, as I am sure you are, that the 14th Amendment did become part of the Constitution, though the provision about anyone being born on American soil being forthwith an American citizen is now coming to bite us in the butt with anchor babies, et al.).

          You could be right about Lincoln moving more into the camp of the Radical Republicans had he lived but Lincoln was not dogmatic, as both Johnson and many Radical Republicans were, and so I’m not sure what kind of balance he would have struck to insure that the South came back into proper alignment with the nation as smoothly and as soon as possible versus how much this would have run up against preserving black rights. It’s an open question and a fascinating one. If anyone could have pulled off an optimal compromise inn this regard it would have been Lincoln, who stood head and shoulders above all others in his time. I suspect we will have no disagreement here about Lincoln, whom I have long considered the greatest President of all, even greater than Washington, whom I would put second.

          Finally, respecting the person of Andrew Johnson, I think it can be said that though he was stubborn and had a very typical view of blacks for his time, he was a man of great honesty and probity who had raised himself up from the nothing background whence he came into a very successful man. And he did some good things, for instance his war governorship of Tennessee, appointed to this post by Lincoln. He was not corrupt and he did what he thought was right. He remains for me a fascinating figure in American history and (here is where we probably most disagree) whatever his faults, and he had plenty, I do not find him despicable, as I do both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.

          Thank you for this civilized exchange. I enjoyed it. Take care.

        • Vann Boseman says

          Feb 19, 2017 at 8:56 am

          Having completed 2 master’s level courses on the Civil War and soon to start my third, I agree that things you have said should be taken into account. I find myself in agreement with Johnson that one of the number of reasons for the Civil War was the greed and power of the plantation owners. Johnson actually defended the Constitution more than either Lincoln or Grant in my opinion. I can easily think of 7 presidents worse than Johnson.

          In spite of Obama’s tremendous failures in character, commitment to uphold the Constitution, and downright treason, I must recognize Lincoln as the all time worse president. Lincoln had a role in causing the war and setting the stage for the ugliest aspects of the looting of the South during “reconstruction.” Also, the Constitution was never seen the same way after Lincoln.

          Lincoln opposed the introduction of slavery into new states based on his strongly held racist beliefs. He did not want black people to go outside of where they already were. He had a strong belief in protective tariffs that was central to his instigating the war. During the war, he set precedents of hobbling the freedom of speech as a part of suspending habeas corpus. The Constitution after Lincoln became more Hamiltonian veering away from the Jeffersonian interpretation, seemingly in a permanent manner.

          There is nothing wrong with opposing slavery. If people in the South and North wished to take up arms against those who would have protected the institution of slavery, that would have been fine with me. Secession is a whole other issue though if it is a right apparent, even if not explicit, in the Constitution. Lincoln recreated the United States as a nation under a hobbled Constitution with largely the same mindset as the creation of Germany and the USSR. Hitler looked to Lincoln’s arguments proposing nationhood in a logically consistent manner to some extent. Ultimately, the arguments fail for me, but leaders get away with it. The Constitution was not the same after Lincoln because the issue of sovereignty of the states was based on natural rights of individuals.

        • Wellington says

          Feb 19, 2017 at 12:38 pm

          Well, Vann Boseman, yours is a highly usual view of Lincoln, who is rated by virtually all major historians as either the greatest or second greatest President. I think he was the greatest and agree with what General Douglas MacArthur said, to wit, that George Washington created the United States and Abraham Lincoln saved it. Lincoln is indeed the closest thing to a dictator America ever had but thank God it was Abraham Lincoln. As he himself observed, what good would it have done to pay attention to Constitutional niceties while losing the Constitution and the United States.

          Yes, one could argue that the Constitution left it unclear whether states could secede but Lincoln’s view is one that I support as well, i.e., that they cannot. As the great historian David Potter wrote in his masterpiece, The Impending Crisis, when the Civil War was over slavery was dead, secession was dead and 600,000 men were dead.

          I disagree with you that Lincoln opposed the extension of slavery into other states because he was racist. First of all, he opposed the extension of slavery into new territories and not states because states were sovereign, and even though he thought the black man inferior to the white man, as almost all whites did at the time, he detested the idea of one man owning another and this is why he emerged as such an opponent of the extension of slavery after the Kansas-Nebraska Act was passed in 1854.

          I also think your comparison of the US after the Civil War to the Third Reich and the USSR is, to put it mildly, one I find bizarre. Yes, the US was a different nation after the Civil War with a stronger federal government, but I hardly think this warrants analogy to the totalitarian states you mentioned. We will have to vigorously agree to disagree here.

          Something else. Have you ever considered how terrible it would have been for the world had a united United States not entered the 20th century? A united America saved the world again and again from WWI onwards. A splintered America would probably have not. And remember that by the end of the Civil War there was division within the Confederacy itself, for instance Georgia was contemplating leaving the CSA and establishing itself as an independent country. Some border states like Missouri were also toying around with creating a third nation. And more of this may very well have followed and then where would the world have been without a united America when Imperial Japan arose, the Third Reich, the USSR and so on?

          Thank you for your opinions but many of them I respectfully decline to share.

        • Spencer Warren says

          Feb 22, 2017 at 10:08 pm

          I’m not sure where this will appear but I thank Wellington for his well informed comments and I will have to delve further into Andrew Johnson.

      • Spencer Warren says

        Feb 22, 2017 at 9:08 pm

        Let me add that his traitorous open borders policy, intended to displace the native population with hordes of third worlders thereby making the Democrats the permanent majority party, also allowed the massive smuggling of drugs into this country. These drugs are related to the massive crime in Chicago and elsewhere: more blood on his hands.

        He also fostered an unprecedented anti-police atmosphere, demagogically exploiting the Ferguson incident, which led to police assassinations in Dallas, Brooklyn and elsewhere.

        • Spencer Warren says

          Feb 22, 2017 at 10:18 pm

          The U.S. Commission on Human Rights heard testimony from a number of scholarly experts on the devastating impact of mass unskilled immigration on the wages of low-skilled Americans, black and white. The black labor participation rate is only 61 percent. This has an obviously disastrous impact on family formation, crime and inner cities. Yet when the Commission shared its findings with the Congressional Black Caucus and Obama they were not interested. Evidently they preferred and prefer to engage in identity politics, demagogic racial appeals to boost their black vote. How truly evil. Pathetically and outrageously, it continued to work with blacks in the election, but shifts in the white working class vote won Trump the election.

      • Spencer Warren says

        Feb 23, 2017 at 9:37 pm

        He also is unique among presidents in being anti-Christian. Another comment here references his amazing excuse for radical Muslim terrorism based on the Crusades. It must also be noted that he discriminated against taking Christian and Yazidi refugees from Syria in favor of Muslims. Christians make up about ten percent of Syria’s population but under Obama were I believe less than one percent of the refugees admitted. Further proof Obama is an anti-Christian Muslim sympathizer if not de facto Muslim.

        • Spencer Warren says

          Feb 24, 2017 at 9:40 pm

          A correction to a preceding post: it was the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. Here let me add another point against Obama. The economic status of the white working class continued its serious decline or worsened during his presidency, according to scholar Nicholas Eberstedt. The unemployment rate no longer has much meaning; rather, it is the labor participation rate, which hit new lows. Eberstedt attributes this in part to Obama’s heavy regulation of small business, which historically had been the great engine of job growth in our country. What a disaster Obama was across the board, shielded by a fawning, leftist press.

  7. Richie says

    Feb 17, 2017 at 2:26 pm

    I imagine some leftists will accuse anyone who does not consider Obama to be the greatest president in history to be racist.

  8. Richie says

    Feb 17, 2017 at 2:29 pm

    The most overrated president in history was JFK. He was just classier version of Bill Clinton. He spent most of his time having affairs and achieved little of consequence

    • JIMJFOX says

      Feb 17, 2017 at 3:16 pm

      What ARE you waffling about- JFK had to deal with the greatest crisis ever to threaten America- communist nukes in Cuba. Hard to find the word to describe you- imbecile, perhaps?
      Or is it just your ignorance of history? Or plain cognitive dissonance?

      • Richie says

        Feb 17, 2017 at 7:04 pm

        once you resort to name calling you’ve lost the argument. I’m from MA and know how utterly corrupt the Kennedys were. Nixon would have won in 1960 had Joe Kennedy not bribed people for votes. I’ll grant you Kennedy was a one hit wonder. He handled the Cuban missile crisis well. Had he not been assassinated his chances of being reelected were slim. He became a martyr-otherwise would be ranked behind Chester Arthur

        • Spencer Warren says

          Feb 18, 2017 at 12:30 pm

          I believe the election was stolen for JFK by Mayor Daley in Chicago and LBJ in Texas. Nixon was urged to contest the results but declined.

        • Wellington says

          Feb 18, 2017 at 2:04 pm

          Spencer Warren: Here we are very much in agreement, to wit, that if any modern Presidential election was stolen, it was the 1960 election. To Nixon’s great credit, for which he got virtually no credit, he did not challenge the election results because of the huge divisiveness he knew it would cause.

    • JIMJFOX says

      Feb 17, 2017 at 3:17 pm

      MUST be a very amateur TROLL. No other feasible explanation.

      • common sense says

        Feb 17, 2017 at 4:28 pm

        JFK at least cleaned his own mess despite his static womanizing offenses towards Jackie.
        He also cut taxes and talked about doing the right thing and the American thing. Not the republican or democrat thing. Fought cetralized govt and banking as well and I think it got him killed.

        • Richie says

          Feb 17, 2017 at 7:08 pm

          JFK’s one redeeming quality was he recognized the threat of communism. Otherwise a non entity as a leader

      • Richie says

        Feb 17, 2017 at 7:10 pm

        This may come as a surprise but not everyone is in lock step agreement about everything. Next time don’t just jump to personal insults

  9. Angemon says

    Feb 17, 2017 at 3:45 pm

    Historians gave Obama high marks for pursuing equality, managing the economy, public persuasion and “moral authority.”

    Obama? High marks on all of those but especially “moral authority”? Tells me everything I need to know about how reliable this “historians” are…

  10. Spencer Warren says

    Feb 17, 2017 at 4:00 pm

    He was also the most lawless president in history, repeatedly changing statutes, such as Obamacare deadlines (this law of course is wrecking our health care system), and usurping congressional authority with his immigration and other executive orders. He was reversed by the Supreme Court more than any president since the nineteenth century.

  11. common sense says

    Feb 17, 2017 at 4:40 pm

    On the way to school Barry showed the bullies who to pick on for the most profit to get out of having to stand up to the bullies himself.

    Most of us eventually have to stand up to the bullies that’s when they move to newer, softer targets. Barry had em all lined up and shared in profit at the cafeteria lunch table, as long as he provided more targets.

    That’s the extent of Barry Sotero’s community organising.

    The trend continued…..

  12. JMB says

    Feb 17, 2017 at 4:47 pm

    Whats In a Name?

    I have observed that history and general news coverage refers to American presidents by their full name or their full set of initials, e.g. John F Kennedy or Franklin D Roosevelt. But notice how Obama’s middle name of Hussein always seems to be conveniently or purposely omitted.

    • gravenimage says

      Feb 17, 2017 at 8:00 pm

      Yes, JMB–I have often noticed this, myself. Apologists don’t even want to refer to his middle initial.

      Now, of course, you *could* have someone with the name “Hussein” or something similar who stands strong against Islamic savagery–but this was never true of Obama.

    • Custos Custodum says

      Feb 17, 2017 at 8:40 pm

      Ironically, leaving out the middle initial gives BO so perhaps one should make a point of using this abbreviation until they cop to the “H.”

  13. somehistory says

    Feb 17, 2017 at 6:26 pm

    “Great” as in damage done…worst of all time. One day…hopefully soon…we will not be seeing his face or reading his name. May he soon, really, really soon, be totally and for all time, forgotten.

  14. Wellington says

    Feb 17, 2017 at 7:25 pm

    Leftist historians and their superficial assessments tend, overwhelmingly, to confirm Napoleon’s cynical take on history, i.e., that it is a pack of lies agreed upon.

    Though tempted at times to accept the Emperor’s view of history, I have spent a third of a century while teaching history to refute such a corrosive view of the past since I firmly believe that truth, most times, can be found out if one is diligent enough, but only if accompanied, of course, by common sense and proper knowledge——which leftist historians tend, very much tend, not to possess.

    In Obama, we have a President who, among other egregious errors, piled up more debt than all other Presidents from Washington through Bush 43 combined. And also managed to be the only President in all of American history not to see at least 3% GDP growth in at least one year of his presidency. (No wonder since he spent so much for no reason and saddled business with one unnecessary regulation after another, which thankfully President Trump is doing away with at a rapid clip.)

    Moreover, Obama made the most putrid foreign deal in all of American history, I am of course here referring to that idiotic Iran agreement which enabled the number one sponsor of terrorism to eventually acquire nuclear weapons, all the while freeing up for this rabid Muslim state some 150 billion dollars.

    Was kind to the cruel, e.g., Cuba, while being cruel to the kind, e.g., Israel.

    Gutted the American military to a pre-WWII level.

    Exacerbated racial tensions time and time and time again, for instance continuing to bring up the Ferguson, Missouri incident as evidence of white police racism when, in fact, Obama’s own highly tendentious justice department itself concluded that police officer, Darren Wilson, acted properly in killing that young thug, Michael Brown.

    Sold the Czechs and Poles down the river on an EXTREMELY limited missile defense in order to placate the newest control-freak leader of Russia, Putin—————and got nothing in return for it.

    Co-sponsored with Egypt UN Human Rights Council Resolution, 16/18, which criminalizes criticism of religion, thus going DIRECTLY against First Amendment protection of freedom of speech, something ANY American President should be in the forefront of protecting.

    Kept exculpating the worst religion of all time, Islam, while bringing up the Crusades from some 900 years ago for idiotic moral equivalency purposes——-and NEVER mentioning that when Christians in the past acted badly in the name of their faith they were violating the dictates of their faith, CONTRA Muslims big time.

    And on and on and on and on with further errors and stupidities by America’s 44th President, THE WORST President in all of American history——-easily so.

    And so leftist historians ranking Obama 12th among Presidents stands as ipso facto condemnation of their own assessment here. Easily so. No contest. A no-brainer.

    Proving once again that modern Leftism is a monumental idiot. Easily so. No contest. A no-brainer.

    • gravenimage says

      Feb 17, 2017 at 8:07 pm

      I agree very much with your assessment, Wellington–and with the importance of objective history.

      • common sense says

        Feb 17, 2017 at 8:44 pm

        My head hurts….at least the “monumental idiot” comment made me laugh. Not an insult at all toward libs, an easily identified, observable and provable truth.

    • Custos Custodum says

      Feb 17, 2017 at 8:33 pm

      Thanks for a great and sober summary, that one suspects will look even better in 5 or 50 years.

    • mousey says

      Feb 17, 2017 at 8:43 pm

      I don’t think modern leftism is a monumental idiot. I think these new progressives that have taken over the democrats are truly scary. They’ve nefariously gotten control of billions $$$$$…..they are organized and have a goal….they lie convincingly… they have evil evil plans to take down the USA.

  15. gravenimage says

    Feb 17, 2017 at 7:25 pm

    Leftist “historians” rate worst-ever US president Obama as 12th best
    ………………………..

    *Bleah*. This is the caliber of too many ‘historians’ these days.

  16. Spencer Warren says

    Feb 17, 2017 at 7:30 pm

    There is too much to remember in a limited period of time. He was a bald liar — “you can keep your doctor and your premium will go down” — and perhaps the most partisan and divisive president in history. He politicized the Department of Justice to a degree unseen since Nixon. He appointed two radicals to the Supreme Court, one of whom, Sotomayor, was not qualified and chosen because she was Hispanic. So much for his demagogic “Hope and Change” campaign in 2008. Finally, he had the worst economic record of any president since the 1930s and is the only president who failed to post GDP growth of at least three percent in even one year of his term.

    • Custos Custodum says

      Feb 17, 2017 at 8:37 pm

      He politicized the Department of Justice to a degree unseen since Nixon.

      Surely, if Nixon had politicized Justice to the same degree as Barry and Eric Holder, Nixon would have avoided impeachment, e.g. by intimidating the press. (Remember AP investigation?)

    • Spencer Warren says

      Feb 18, 2017 at 12:45 pm

      I omitted perhaps his biggest lie: that a video inspired the terror attack on our diplomatic compound in Libya, a lie that was repeated for weeks and, as I recall, in his speech to the UN. Our ambassador and others died, help that might have rescued them was not dispatched and his whereabouts that fateful night have, thanks to the fawning press, never been accounted for. His actions, and inaction, may well have been due to politics, as he didn’t want to contradict during his reelection campaign his narrative that terrorism was being defeated. The pathetic Romney let this pass including in the debates. Speaking of terrorism I’m not sure it has been noted in these comments that Obama’s premature military withdrawal from Iraq, overriding military advice, resulted directly in surrendering the gains Bush’s surge had made in Iraq and created the vacuum that led to the rise of ISIS, which Obama dismissed as the “junior varsity.” The list of failures goes on and on and on.

  17. common sense says

    Feb 17, 2017 at 8:53 pm

    Ask any liberal: “How did ‘spreading the wealth’ help America? Who did it benefit? Why was it necessary? What was the purpose of that so called plan? Did it acheive a desired succes for polliticians or the people? Was it even desired by ALL Obama voters and democrats? Where in the history of our free market is that a sound economic plan?”
    Please enlighten, after all I’m a delusional, deplorable low iq racist in need of education. (Sarc)

  18. Rod says

    Feb 18, 2017 at 4:31 am

    Just wondering. Will all these jihadis flooding into the USA be able to murder as many Americans as the Americans themselves murder each other, with their obsessive dedication to the use of guns? I’d suggest that every Muslim entering one of the most violent countries on the face of the earth will make a small contribution to LOWERING the murder rate. Let’s hope they succeed.

  19. Troybeam says

    Feb 18, 2017 at 9:26 am

    Obama’s 12th status by the left, only the left would praise him that way. The Obama Presidential shrine will be a tribute to Islam and his bowing picture will be blown up and portrayed as respect when we all know it’s a sign of submission.

  20. Spencer Warren says

    Feb 18, 2017 at 10:33 am

    Reading Breitbart today I am reminded of more against Obama: his repression of press freedom, which nevertheless didn’t affect its fawning attitude toward him. Claiming to be the most “transparent” administration, he had in fact the least transparent. Another lie. He obstructed FOIA requests more than any president, prosecuted more leak cases than all his predecessors combined and held few press conferences. And when he did deign to hold one he would engage in rambling, incoherent, monologues to limit the number of questions. He tried to de-legitimize the biggest cable news company, Fox, because it didn’t join in slobbering over him. He was rude and condescending to the reporters asking the occasional critical question. I’m not listing every example.

  21. Bezelel says

    Feb 18, 2017 at 1:37 pm

    Usually when I harshly criticize someone, it goes without saying that, I’m declaring that I could do better myself. In the case of baaarrracktooey obola, that is no stretch of the imagination since a retarded chimpanzee would have caused less harm. Arab spring alone was bad enough but the list of death and destruction with his name on it is a long one. The corruption of the US gov. will take years to recover from. His only defense is that he did not elect himself.

    • Sam says

      Feb 18, 2017 at 5:41 pm

      The only thing I can say is that I AND THE LIBERALS DO NOT LIVE ON THE SAME PLANET.

FacebookYoutubeTwitterLog in

Subscribe to the Jihad Watch Daily Digest

You will receive a daily mailing containing links to the stories posted at Jihad Watch in the last 24 hours.
Enter your email address to subscribe.

Please wait...

Thank you for signing up!
If you are forwarding to a friend, please remove the unsubscribe buttons first, as they my accidentally click it.

Subscribe to all Jihad Watch posts

You will receive immediate notification.
Enter your email address to subscribe.
Note: This may be up to 15 emails a day.

Donate to JihadWatch
FrontPage Mag

Search Site

Translate

The Team

Robert Spencer in FrontPageMag
Robert Spencer in PJ Media

Articles at Jihad Watch by
Robert Spencer
Hugh Fitzgerald
Christine Douglass-Williams
Andrew Harrod
Jamie Glazov
Daniel Greenfield

Contact Us

Terror Attacks Since 9/11

Archives

  • 2020
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2019
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2018
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2017
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2016
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2015
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2014
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2013
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2012
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2011
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2010
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2009
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2008
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2007
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2006
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2005
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2004
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2003
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • March

All Categories

You Might Like

Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Recent Comments

  • gravenimage on Israel At A Crossroads?
  • Infidel on Greece, Cyprus, Egypt, France and UAE conduct joint military exercises amid rising Turkish threat
  • iconoclast123 on India: Police make first arrest for ‘love jihad’ under new law
  • gravenimage on Greece, Cyprus, Egypt, France and UAE conduct joint military exercises amid rising Turkish threat
  • Brando on New study reveals that Muslim religiosity strongly linked to hatred towards the West

Popular Categories

dhimmitude Sharia Jihad in the U.S ISIS / Islamic State / ISIL Iran Free Speech

Robert Spencer FaceBook Page

Robert Spencer Twitter

Robert Spencer twitter

Robert Spencer YouTube Channel

Books by Robert Spencer

Jihad Watch® is a registered trademark of Robert Spencer in the United States and/or other countries - Site Developed and Managed by Free Speech Defense

Content copyright Jihad Watch, Jihad Watch claims no credit for any images posted on this site unless otherwise noted. Images on this blog are copyright to their respective owners. If there is an image appearing on this blog that belongs to you and you do not wish for it appear on this site, please E-mail with a link to said image and it will be promptly removed.

Our mailing address is: David Horowitz Freedom Center, P.O. Box 55089, Sherman Oaks, CA 91499-1964

loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.