Questioning The Loyalty Of Barack Obama

“If no set of moral ideas were truer or better than any other, there would be no sense in preferring civilized morality to savage morality, or Christian morality to Nazi morality”, wrote C.S. Lewis.

In the wake of president Barack Obama’s comments at the National Prayer Breakfast that smeared Christianity by equating the “Crusades and the Inquisition…slavery and Jim Crow” to the violence committed in the name of Islam by jihadists, Obama created the narrative.

His tactic was deliberate, knowing the response would provoke Christians and immediately put them on the defensive having to explain why a christian civilized morality is better than a radical Islamic savage morality.

According to White House spokesman Eric Shultz, Obama was trying to talk about moments “over the course of human history, there are times where extremists pervert their own religion to justify violence.”

By taking this route of explaining radical Islam, the president directs the course of debate throughout our country without mentioning the crux of the issue that is the underlying problem.

Whether its controversial remarks of race, gender, or religion, he creates the divide with his relentless attacks on the principles of what once made our country great.

As Michael Auslin of National Review writes, “after six years, it is so tiring to constantly be lectured to, talked down to, by Barack Obama that at some level, the content doesn’t really matter. It’s the principle of the thing.”

Rather than mentioning the crux of the problem with Islam that is effecting nations throughout the world today, the president steers the conversation in a direction that focuses the spotlight on an issue that happened centuries ago.

The conversation today is not about Islam, but about the equivocation the president used on Thursday claiming that violence rooted in religion isn’t exclusive to Islam.

Thus, we are immediately put on the defensive having to explain how utterly absurd such an equivocation is today as violence is unequivocally invoked by jihadists in the name of Islam, not Christians in the name of Christianity.

Obama’s statements supporting moral equivalency and religious relativism should call into question his loyalties to the Judeo-Christian faith heritage of America.

Allen West notes that as a result of Obama’s view “what happens is horrific behavior is excused because you [Obama] have a certain recalcitrance in admitting the existence of evil”.

“Religious relativism in this case dismisses the actions of ISIS”, writes West.

This is precisely the case whereas Obama dismissed the existence of the radical Islamic ideology as simply being “a bunch of violent, vicious zealots who behead people or randomly shoot a bunch of folks in a deli in Paris”.

According to this adminstration, the gruesome burning of a 27-year-old Royal Jordanian Air Force pilot by ISIS “just indicates the degree to which, whatever ideology they’re operating off of is bankrupt”.

In Obama’s “realistic assessment of how the world works” vicious zealots who behead and burn people in the name of Islam have nothing in common with a bunch of folks yelling “Allahu Akbar!” as they execute four Jews in a Kosher deli in Paris.

The 132 school children and 9 staff members executed by the Taliban in the Pakistani city of Peshawar, is not Islamic.

The 276 school girls kidnapped from a school in Nigeria by Boko Haram for attending a school deemed “too westernized” for the groups convictions, is not Islamic.

The 150 women executed in Fallujah by ISIS for refusing to “accept jihad marriage“, is not Islamic.

You get the point.

Under Obama, the United States of America has adopted a policy of appeasement which describes terrorist attacks in the context of a geopolitical dimension rather than as having been generated by religious motivations.

“Those who seek to rationalize the violence of Islamist terrorists have shifted the blame away from a literal reading of the Koran to discriminatory social polices of European societies, lack of economic opportunity, and political exclusion of Arab citizens in EU countries”, notes Brooke Goldstein of the Washington Times. 

So, why is it that our president is rationalizing the violence of radical Islam while at the same time attacking the morality of our Judeo-Christian heritage?

Why is it that the State Department, on January 28, would meet with a delegation of Muslim Brotherhood leaders and then lie about the meeting to reporter?

Why is it that the Muslim Brotherhood would call for a “long uncompromising jihad in Egypt” two days after meeting with the State Department?

Why is it that the White House would meet with the Council on American-Islamic Relations and the Muslim American Society along with 12 different Muslim “leaders” behind closed doors last week with an agenda that focused on “anti-Muslim bigotry” and the “banning of Muslim profiling by federal law enforcement”?

Why is it that the United Arab Emirates, along with 22 other Arab nations, would designate the Council on American-Relations and the Muslim American Society as terrorist groups but our own White House is comfortable enough to discuss security concerns with them?

It is past time that the people of this country begin to question the loyalty of Barack Obama.

As for myself, i’ve already answered that question.

If it seems Obama is more interested in protecting the Muslim community than America, that’s because he is.