The Complicity of Obama and Clinton in Denying the Islamist War Against the West

9/11 in my opinion was a clear declaration of the Islamist war against America. Since that time we have witnessed Islamist attacks, most recently in Orlando and San Bernardino, but also at Fort Hood (against the American military!), the Boston Marathon, and the Seattle Jewish Federation. Those commentators who seek to minimize the continuing danger of more Islamist attacks by citing other non-Muslim mass murders are being, I believe, disingenuous, as one cannot win one war by saying we are losing another war. That is surrender. Around the world Islamists have murdered in Paris, Brussels, Madrid, London and throughout Scandanavia and Germany where the attacks take the form of sexual assault against non-Muslim women. In fact all over the world, where Muslims live with non-Muslims, there are constant attacks in places as diverse as the Philippines, Nigeria, Russia, and of course, Israel.

Astoundingly, what we call the Mainstream Media, with its main values of tolerance, moral and cultural relativism and moral equivalency, after each attack, work hard to deny the obvious: that there is a war against the West by Islamism, and while not all Muslims are Islamist radicals, there tends to be, among the majority, a certain tolerance and reluctance to take active steps to prevent terrorism; expressions of sympathy, after each horrible attack, are not enough. That is to say, Muslims who are serious about stopping Islamist terrorism must not just denounce it with words, but prevent mosques being used as indoctrination centres, stop the Muslim Brotherhood-supported Muslim Students Association from ideological indoctrination of their university age children, and support western values like separation of church and state, respect for gays, Jews and other ethnic and religious minorities including dissident Muslims (remember the acquiescence in what happened to Salman Rushdie and other subjects of fatwas). Again, in Orlando, we see the media rush to distort the event, by trying to make the case that the morale of the massacre is the need for more gun control, and that the FBI can do nothing about so-called “lone wolves”, even though he had given off danger signals. And then, the event is distorted into proof of continued hostility for gays, lesbians and transgendered, even though that battle in the West has been won, and the only holdouts balk at marriage rights. Further still, the ideologues of moral equivalency try to argue that Christianity and Judaism also outlaw homosexuality, when there is no moral equivalency and you have likely never heard of Christians and Jews attacking gay bars or throwing gay people off of buildings as happens in several countries of the Muslim world. The abuse of language by those in whose interest it is to minimize or obscure this War is well-known. Obama characterized the Fort Hood massacre by an Islamist shouting Allah Akbar and dressed in Islamic robes as “workplace violence”. After Orlando, the FBI, most politicians and left-liberal media, quickly decided that he was a “lone wolf” just as the Canadians did when a gunman killed a Canadian soldier outside Parliament and then stormed the Parliament building. This is of course a blatant attempt to mislead the public who should be worried about the preponderance of Islamist ideology in media, in universities, and on the internet where any disaffected Muslim can access all elements of Islamist violent and anti-Western ideology. One can only characterize such people as “lone” if you ignore all the influences on them of Islamism including family influences. For example, the Orlando murderer of 49 in a gay nightclub is often said to be “American born” as if that makes any difference, when his father is a Taliban-supporting Afghan immigrant, who had a pro-Taliban radio show and an extensive series of pro-Taliban YouTube videos. With a father like that, and, as it turns out, a friend at his mosque who became a suicide bomber in Syria, how can he be said to be a “lone wolf”? Anyone who wants to ignore all context to his life, which is that he became an enemy combatant, simply doesn’t understand the nature of the war against us.

---

You see, the Arabs in and around Israel, learned the lesson in 1948, 1956, 1967, and 1973, that they could not use conventional forces to commit genocide against a people so motivated to never again let a genocide happen, who would fight to the last man or woman, if necessary. What the so-called Palestinian Arabs learned however, was that terrorism, “suicide” bombers and alliances with leftist anti-Semites in the West could give them the power they lacked in conventional armies. Iran, by using terrorist proxies like Hamas and Hezbollah, could be at war against Israel at the same time as Obama (who insists he supports Israel) was signing agreements and removing sanctions from this major funder and organizer of the War against the West, now proven to have been behind the bombing of the Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires, killing 80 and injuring 300. Let us examine the two most important leaders in America of tolerance, even empathy, for the enemy in this new form of war – a form of war that the media wants to obscure by turning our attention to “lone wolves”, mental illness”, homophobia and the need for more gun control. (It is obvious to me that any enemies of Islamism, such as gays, Jews, Yzedis, dissident Muslims, and young women “immodestly dressed” must all carry handguns and be trained in how to use them. If one gay or any other person at the nightclub had a handgun, over 40 lives could be saved. Many young Israelis carry rifles and they are almost never used in mass murders or individual murders. The effect of further gun control is to circumvent the Second Amendment by preventing good people from defending themselves against the enemy who will find ways to get assault rifles to use in their war against us. So who are the leaders who have surrendered America’s interests? In 2008, Americans were fooled into believing that electing Barack Hussein Obama was something of a redress for historical mistreatment of black Americans, especially slavery. The only problem was that Obama was not a black American: the skin-tone he inherited from the Kenyan who impregnated his mother and then ran away did not make him a black American. A black American is in fact someone who is descended in whole or even in a small part from African slaves imported to pre-Civil War America. As such, the inadequate assimilation into mainstream culture for the freed slaves, especially male slaves who were short on the skills of adherence to family responsibilities, resulted in a culture of absent fathers, over-representation by far in prisons, public welfare assistance and drug dealing and the like. In fact, Obama’s white maternal ancestors were “occupiers” of Native indigenous land in Oklahoma and Kansas, cleared by violence, and given to American “settlers”. Obama and his left-liberals have a lot of nerve to categorize the indigenous Jews of historical Israel as occupiers when such Jews lived on the land for centuries before Islam was even invented, considering America’s historical record with respect to its indigenous Natives. Such is the submission to Arab Islamist narratives – terrorism works, unless the terrorized have strong values and clear ideologies to resist the terrorist Stockholm Syndrome.

---

Support Canada Free Press

---

With the assistance of affirmative action programs and both the inherent and learned feelings of fairness and goodwill by many Americans, and with the riches emanating from successful careers in sports and entertainment, many black Americans have risen to success in business and the professions and just about every aspect of American life, including politics. No doubt, much remains to be done, but a good start has been made. But Barack Obama, raised partly in Indonesia by his mother’s second husband Soetoro, a general in the 1965 genocide of more than a million ethnic Chinese and Communists (the reward for which was a plum position in a government oil company), and partly by his mothers’ mother, (who got him into a Hawaii private school as a “foreign student”), has little in common with most black Americans. And so, upon his inauguration, Obama’s priorities seemed to revolve around assuring terrorist supporting Muslim states that he considers that they have had the same history of justice and tolerance as do the Americans, whose founding fathers wanted to create a new Israel, a “light unto the nations”. Obama has wanted to create an anti-Israel, with cultural and moral relativism replacing the Judeo-Christian ethic, heretofore the foundation for American values. Obama’s America was not the same nation that reacted to Pearl Harbor with an entry into World War 2. Obama’s America doesn’t pay too much regard to 9/11, and doesn’t understand that it was the opening major attack in World War 3, the Islamist war against the West. America all but ignored Osama bin Laden’s revealing comment that 9/11 was meant to remind the world that Islamism was still angry about the 12th century defeat in Andalusia, where the Muslim invaders into Europe were turned back. Ask a sampling of Americans what bin Lama meant when he said “Remember the Andalusia” and I doubt one out of ten will know what it means. Instead of seriously fighting Islamism, America responds with empathy and tolerance and suggests that the war can be won by more understanding and less Islamophobia (sic). See, in this regard, my book, Tolerism: The Ideology Revealed (Mantua Books). Someone who worshipped with Reverend Wright who invoked God to “damn America” could maintain an anti-American world view with a media that had abnegated its role of defender of liberty and justice in favour of the prosaic political correctness of the era. Who even noticed when Obama backed every popular Islamist uprising against long-time Islamic dictators except for the pro-freedom attempted 2009 Green Revolution in Iran? With Iran, there was to be cooperation and agreements giving them what they wanted in legitimizing their nuclear program and obtaining the end of embargoes and sanctions and release of large sums of money. Iran, it must always be remembered, is a major state sponsor of terrorism, including the dastardly Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza. The latter showed the world what nightmares Israel could expect should it listen to so-called “progressives” in Europe and America to give more land and sovereignty to those whose main goal is the destruction of Israel and the murder of its people. The former showed America could never learn the lesson of Iran’s leadership of Hezbollah/s murder of hundreds of U.S. troops stationed in Lebanon during the Reagan era, and Iran’s role in the mass murder of Argentinian Jews at the Buenos Aires Jewish Community bombings. Both Iranian leadership and masses call for death to America and Israel. Saudi Arabia, the American ally, not only has a medieval human rights policy but is the main exporter and funder of the radical notion of Islam called Wahabism. By funding Islamist takeovers of mosques around the world, some of which previously had moderate imams, and by funding more radical imams in mosques and university programs, Saudi Arabia is a strange ally indeed. In 2011, a consortium of American defense contractors were allowed to sell $29 billion dollars worth of advanced fighter jets to Saudia Arabia. The International Business Times investigated the arms sales and reported: “ In the years before Hillary Clinton became secretary of state, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia contributed at least $10 million to the Clinton Foundation, the philanthropic enterprise she has overseen with her husband, former president Bill Clinton. Just two months before the deal was finalized, Boeing -- the defense contractor that manufactures one of the fighter jets the Saudis were especially keen to acquire, the F-15 -- contributed $900,000 to the Clinton Foundation, according to a company press release. “The Saudi deal was one of dozens of arms sales approved by Hillary Clinton’s State Department that placed weapons in the hands of governments that had also donated money to the Clinton family philanthropic empire, an International Business Times investigation has found.” Hillary Clinton not only has funding contacts with the Saudis, but her best friend is a Saudi raised operative of the Muslim Brotherhood, who took a salary from the White House at the same time she was working for a Muslim Brotherhood journal (the Muslim Brotherhood being an Islamist organization). Huma Abedin, progressed quickly from an aide to Hillary to her chief aide and even to the co-Chair of her election campaign. Whether or not the two have just a friendship and work relationship or are, as some claim, romantically involved, only they know. The role of Abedin however raises substantial issues, even worse, in my opinion, than Hillary’s notorious use of non-governmental insecure email servers for the most confidential of security-related matters. But in an era of problematic infiltration of Muslim Brotherhood supporters into various American security organizations and non-governmental organizations, Abedin’s success in getting so close to a presidential candidate is bizarre and worrisome. Obama has become infamous for his mischaracterizations of anything terrorist and Islamist. Major Dr. Hussein, the Fort Hood terrorist, was, despite all words and actions to the contrary, only reflecting “workplace violence” according to the President. He joined with Hilllary Clinton in withholding from the American people the facts that the Benghazi attack on the American ambassador and others was a terrorist attack by the Islamist terrorist group Ansar al-Sharia, and making up a lie that it was some spontaneous reaction to an anti-Muslim movie made by a Coptic Christian in the U.S. The purpose of this lie was to prevent the matter of Islamist terrorism against American targets from becoming an issue in the 2012 presidential election. To me, hiding key security information from the American people in order to increase his chances in the election, smacks of treason by Obama. Hillary’s relationship with Abedin and the Muslim Brotherhood and the Saudis also reflects treason. The failure to protect the border and to properly vet Muslim immigrants to remove ones that are Islamists or support Islamists is also a failure of military leadership that reflects the treason of putting American interests behind his attempts to minimize American exceptionalism and increase the chances of great diplomatic power for him personally after the end of his presidency. Yes, healthcare, tax equity, environmental matters and the economy all are important issues. But the treason of Obama and Hillary Clinton is the most important issue for the future well-being of America, and with it, the well-being of liberal democratic countries in the West.