Obama Twisted Facts and Omitted Others

”By Dr Sami Alrabaa”

Dr. Sami Alrabaa

The world into “Muslims” and “non-Muslims” (in his speech on June 4, 2009 in Cairo) is exactly what radical Muslims and Islamists have always wanted to achieve. They wanted to build a Muslim front against the rest of the world.

It is one of two things. Either Obama did not read the Qur’an and Hadith and does not really know what is really going on in Muslim countries and communities, or he simply wants to appease Muslims like most Islam stooges in the Western world, like Arabs say, “The hand which you cannot condemn, just kiss.”

Let us see how the President of the United States twisted facts and omitted many others. Obama said:
 
“America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap and share common principles, principles of justice and progress, tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.”

He also said:
 
“Throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.”

Islam is “justice, tolerance, and dignity of all human beings”?! “Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds, religious tolerance and racial equality”?! This is laughable.

Here is the proof, from the Qur’an and Hadith, that this is absolutely not true:
 
“Kill the Christians and Jews….” (Sura 2, verse 191), “Do no take the Jews and the Christians for friends……” (Sura 5, verse 51), “Men are superior to women because Allah has made them so….” (Sura 4, verse 34), “Beat them (women)….” (Sura 4, verse 34). The Qur’an is replete with passages like these. For further details, read “Is Islam a Violent Faith?”

The Hadith says:
 
“Women are deficient in intelligence” (Hadith 301), “Women are crooks and useless creature.” (Hadith 3466), “If women, Jews, dogs, and donkeys pass by a praying Muslims, they annul his prayers.” (Hadith 493, 704), “Non-Muslims must subjugate to Shari’a” (Hadith 413). The list of atrocious Hadith like these is long. For more, check out “Women in Hadith.”

In practice, if you wear a cross or carry the Bible in Saudi Arabia, you risk being jailed, tortured, whipped, and afterwards deported.

Prominent Islamist chaplains like the Egyptians Al Qaradhawi, Ali Gom’a, (grand mufti of Egypt) and the Saudi Al Lehedan (head of Fatwa Council in Saudi Arabia) urge Muslims to kill foreign soldiers in Arab and Muslim lands, including Israel. Al Qaradhawi said after the invasion of Iraq, “If we don’t do that, then we are all a bunch of donkeys.”

These chaplains and imams across the Muslim world approve of suicide and car bombers in Israel, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Al Lehedan said, “Our prophet, pbuh, urged us to kill the infidels. They are the enemy of Allah. The holy Qur’an also urges us to kill the enemies of Islam.”

One of the biggest lies which Obama presented in his speech in Cairo was his saying,
 
“It was Islam at places like Al-Azhar that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe’s renaissance and enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities.”

It was Al-Azhar which forced Nasser Hamed Abu Zeid to divorce his wife for interpreting Islam in a modern manner. It was Al Tantawi, the grand imam of Al-Azhar who issued a fatwa prohibiting Muslims from donating any parts of their body to Copts, non-Muslims.

Obama also said, “No single speech can eradicate years of mistrust (between America and Muslims).”

Who is actually mistrusting whom, and who is not trustworthy? Would you trust someone who denies your existence and is determined to subjugate you? Is it Muslims or the rest of the world? Who is preaching and practicing religious despotism? It is orthodox Muslims who mistrust the West and reject its value system.

Then Obama turned to talk about the “civilization’s debt to Islam.”

This is also not true. Arab Scholars like Ibn Rushd and Ibn Khaldun were prosecuted in the so-called “golden ages” of the Muslim empire for discussing rationalism and secularism, opposed and rejected by Islam. Ibn Sina’s scholarly medical works were due to his study of Greek and Roman scientific books and not due to Islam.

Islam’s legacy is replete with oppression, violence, and discrimination.

Obama reproduced in his speech what Islamic establishments across the Muslim world have always preached: Islam is misunderstood in the West. It is blemished with stereotypes. He also said, “partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn’t. And I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.”

So, murdering non-Muslims and discriminating against women in the Qur’an, Hadith, and in practice are all stereotypes?

Obama also wants “to protect the right of (Muslim) women and girls to wear the hijab, and to punish those who would deny it.” I think Obama missed adding that Muslims must also have the right to introduce and practice Sharia. It is their right under religious freedom.

Obama must be credited for condemning radical Muslims like al Qaeda, but at the same time he failed to mention that these thugs have simply acted according to the “commandments” of the Qur’an and Hadith.

Obama stressed in his speech that “Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism; it is an important part of promoting peace.”

Over and over again, this is not true. Repeating a lie will never change it into truth. The Qur’an and Hadith include lots of passages that incite followers to violence.

Obama also said, “military power alone is not going solve the problems in Afghanistan and Pakistan.” This is true so long the West does not tackle the root causes of Islamic terrorism that is fed in madrassas across the Muslim world, funded by the Saudis and petrodollars of other Arab Gulf countries.

Then Obama turned to Guantanamo to justify its closure and said, “I have unequivocally prohibited the use of torture by the United States.” That is fine. But how about torture in Arab prisons which is a daily exercise, especially in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan?

If Obama were honest, he should have raised this issue in his speech. But he did not dare do so. That would antagonize and hurt his friends, Abdullah and Mubarak.

Instead, Obama commended King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, one of the worst dictators on earth, and on top of that he sought his advice. Advice on what? Advice from a despot? How to appease radical Muslims?

Furthermore, Obama was full of praise to King Abdullah. He said, “I consider the king’s friendship a great blessing, and I am very appreciative that he would bestow this honor on me during this visit.” Obama also thanked Abdullah for his “extraordinary generosity and hospitality.”

Also, Obama praised the “efforts” of King Abdullah in relation to “interfaith dialogue.” While this King bans followers of other religions to practice their own faiths and build their own temples in Saudi Arabia, and teaches hatred against other faiths in his schools, he calls for interfaith dialogue. This is sheer hypocrisy which Obama, of course, digested greedily.

For Obama, democracy is a controversial issue. He said in his speech in Cairo, “I know there has been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years.”

Instead of demanding straightforward democracy for Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and the other Arab countries, Obama said, it was a controversial issue, and ignored the fact that decent Muslims and Arabs are yearning to have their societies.

All in all, Obama twisted facts and avoided naming the root causes of bloodshed and misery in the Middle East and in the Muslim world at large. Instead, he tried to appease radical Muslims and Muslim regimes. Thank you Mr. President for emboldening such people.

Source: http://www.faithfreedom.org/2009/06/10/obama-twisted-facts-and-omitted-others/

IHS

Why Doesn’t Obama Want Anyone to see Islam as it Really Is?

”By Dr. Andrew Bostom”

When the Manchild U.S. President Barack Obama gave his address this past Thursday (June 4, 2009) in Cairo he first thanked as his one of his primary sponsors Al Azhar University, in the Manchild’s words, “a beacon of Islamic learning,” for over a millennium.

Indeed, for over a thousand years, since its founding in 792 C.E., Al-Azhar University in Cairo, Egypt, has served as the academic shrine - much as Mecca is the religious shrine - of the global Muslim community. Al Azhar University (and its mosque) represents the pinnacle of Islamic religious education.

John Roy Carlson traveled to the Middle East shortly after WWII to pursue his investigative reporting on Fascist/Nazi movements - he had gone undercover in the U.S. to expose domestic Nazism during the war, and the trail lead him overseas following the war. Egypt became a major sanctuary for Nazis by the mid-1950s under Nasser, but almost a decade earlier Carlson documented widespread Nazi sympathy coupled to Islamic religious fanaticism at Al Azhar itself. Carlson provided this apt description (in his book Cairo to Damascus) of Al Azhar’s “tradition” - “Every year Al Azhar graduated hundreds of missionaries who preached its fanatic doctrine throughout Asia, Africa, and the islands of the Pacific…” He goes on to comment, “…though Muhammad [the Muslim prophet] died in 632, I found that Al Azhar his preachments were considered fresh and applicable today - with absolutely no modifications.” Carlson then describes his meeting with rector of Al Azhar University Sheikh Shinawi, who preached Jihad - Holy War - against Zionism, and was a friend of the Jihadist, Nazi collaborating ex-Mufti of Jerusalem and Godfather of the Palestinian movement, Hajj Amin el-Husseini, who also found sanctuary in Cairo after WWII.

Fast forward to the current era, and hear the plea (published July 10, 2004) of an Egyptian sociologist Sayyed al-Qimni, lamenting the fact that classical Islamic jurisprudence - Jihad war and the brutal subjugation of infidels under dehumanizing Sharia, Islamic law - is still being taught at Al Azhar. “What kind of thinking are we teaching our next generation, that it has the right to attack other countries in order to convert them to Islam?…And we wonder where terror comes from?”

Also, at present, the continual, monotonous invocation by Al Azhar clerics of Antisemitic motifs from the Qur’an (and other foundational Muslim texts) is entirely consistent with the published writings, and statements of Sheikh Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi - Grand Imam of this pre-eminent Islamic religious institution since 1996. Tantawi’s case illustrates the prevalence and depth of sacralized, “normative” Jew hatred in the contemporary Muslim world. Arguably Islam’s leading mainstream cleric, Grand Imam Sheikh Tantawi, embodies how the living legacy of Muslim anti-Jewish hatred, and violence remains firmly rooted in mainstream, orthodox Islamic teachings, not some aberrant vision of “radical Islam.”

My book The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism includes extensive first time English translations of Tantawi’s academic magnum opus. Tantawi wrote these words in his 700 page treatise, rationalizing Muslim Jew hatred:
 
[The] Qur’an describes the Jews with their own particular degenerate characteristics, i.e. killing the prophets of Allah [Qur’an 2:61 [7]/ 3:112], [and see Sheikh Saqr's Qur’anic citations, above] corrupting His words by putting them in the wrong places, consuming the people’s wealth frivolously, refusal to distance themselves from the evil they do, and other ugly characteristics caused by their deep-rooted lasciviousness…only a minority of the Jews keep their word…[A]ll Jews are not the same. The good ones become Muslims [Qur’an 3:113], the bad ones do not.

Tantawi was apparently rewarded for this scholarly effort by being named Grand Imam of Al-Azhar University in 1996, a position he still holds. These are the expressed, “carefully researched” views on Jews held by the nearest Muslim equivalent to a Pope - the head of the most prestigious center of Muslim learning in Sunni Islam, which represents some 85 to 90 percent of the world’s Muslims. And Sheikh Tantawi has not mollified such hatemongering beliefs since becoming the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar as his statements on “dialogue” (January 1998) with Jews, the Jews as “enemies of Allah, descendants of apes and pigs” (April 2002), and the legitimacy of homicide bombing of Jews (April 2002) make clear.

Sheikh Tantawi, in addition. called for a jihad against U.S. troops in Iraq during early April, 2003, He encouraged volunteers from Arab and Islamic countries to go to Iraq, stating, “The American aggression against Iraq is not acceptable to Islamic law, and to the [Shari'a] law; The Iraqi people must defend itself, its land, and its homeland with all means of defense at its disposal, because it is a Jihad that is permitted by Islamic law. Jihad is an obligation for every Muslim when Muslim countries are subject to aggression. The gates of Jihad are open until the Day of Judgment, and he who denies this is an infidel or one who abandons his religion. This is an obligation applying to the nation now, in order to respond to the aggression.

Also, contra the Manchild’s glib, factually-challenged assertions about the so-called “contributions” of Islam to science, as Tulane University Physics Professor Frank Tipler [16] notes,

Almost every advance he [Obama] attributes to the Muslims was due to someone else. The non-Muslim Chinese invented the magnetic compass and printing (Gutenberg invented not printing, but movable type). The non-Muslim Hindu Indians invented algebra and the decimal numbering system. The non-Muslim European Christians invented the university…I have studied the history of astronomy and physics. The Muslims contributed nothing. All modern physics descends from Galileo (1564 -1642); all modern astronomy from Copernicus (1473-1543). If you study Galileo’s works carefully, as I have, you see that he started with the achievements of the Greek mathematical physicist Archimedes of Syracuse (c. 287 BC - c. 212 BC). If you study Copernicus’ works carefully, as I have, you will see that Copernicus’ great book On the Revolutions is essentially a heliocentric re-working of the geocentric astronomy textbook by the Greek Ptolemy (c. 90 AD - 168 AD). Copernicus mostly used even Ptolemy’s data for the positions of the planets. Note the dates for Archimedes/Galileo and Ptolemy/ Copernicus. It is as if the Muslim world never existed. As far as their fundamental contributions to physics and astronomy, it did not. If one reads history of science textbooks prior to about 1980, one will find very little mention of Muslim “contributions” to physics and astronomy. This is reasonable, because there weren’t any. In the past generation, however, political correctness has dictated that Muslims be given credit for discoveries they did not make.

Finally, contra Manchild Obama’s hagiography, here is a clear, accurate assessment by the celebrated Indian non-fiction writer Dr. Arun Shourie (from his, “The World of Fatwas - Or the Shariah in Action,” New Delhi. India, 1995) evaluating the “contributions” of mainstream, orthodox Islam to “scientific” thinking, and “tolerant” attitudes toward women, and non-Muslims:

The earth is stationary. The sun revolves around it. The stars are stationary, hung as lamps by Allah to guide travelers, and to stone the Devil. To believe anything contrary is to betray The Faith. Men are the masters. Each may keep up to four wives at a time, and as many concubines “as the right hand holds.” The wives are fields which the husband may or may not “irrigate” as he will. The husband can bind them to obeying his merest whim on pain of being divorced. If he is still not satisfied, he can throw them out with one word. Upon being thrown out they are to be entitled to bare sustenance-but only for three months, and nothing at all beyond that. To see any iniquity in this, to demand anything more for the women is to question the wisdom of Allah, it is to strike at Islam. To urinate while standing, to fail to to do istinja (”purifying” oneself after urinating or defecating) in the prescribed way, to fail to believe that the saliva of a dog is napaak (najis; unclean/impure) and his body paak (pure)-these are grave sins. To ask for the well-being of a Kafir (infidel), be he ever so saintly, even upon his death, to fail to believe that a Muslim, be he ever so sinful, is better than a Kafir, be the latter ever so virtuous, is kufr (disbelief) itself.

And Shourie offers these concluding insights:

On the one hand, we have the claim that no religion has given as high a status to women, no religion has done as much for their liberation and well-being as Islam. And on the other we are given expositions on how the permission for a Muslim male to keep as many slave-women as he can afford, on how the permission for him to bed them without marrying them actually rules to the benefit of women.

…We are told day and day out that Islam is the one religion that embraces technology and change. On the other hand…there is the most vehement denunciation of innovation, of thinking for oneself, there is…the premise that the glory of Islam consists in having Science bend to it, that the duty of Muslim thinkers is to ensure that whenever it departs from the notions which Islamic thinkers, in particular the Prophet had put forth 1350 years ago, it retraces its steps and accepts the Islamic notions. We are reminded day in and day out of the achievements of Avicenna (Ibn Sina) and Al Ghazzali. But we are not told why there has been so little Science in the Islamic world since Avicenna. Nor are we told that the one achievement of Al Ghazzali which has lasted is that he killed off all independent, rational inquiry within Islam - especially about Islam itself.

The Ulema (Muslim clerical hierarchy) do not see the schizophrenia. The lay Muslim knows be better not see it. The secularist insists that no one else see it.

The Manchild Obama’s bowdlerized pieties- despite his now much ballyhooed “Islamic roots” - make plain he too is insistent that no one else see Islam as it actually is.

All Articles Copyright © 2007-2009 Dr. Andrew Bostom - used with permission.

Source: http://www.faithfreedom.org/2009/06/10/why-doesnt-obama-want-anyone-to-see-islam-as-it-really-is/

IHS

America’s Islamist President

”A critical analysis”

Obama chose Cairo to deliver his speech to Muslims. He started by talking about the tension between Islam and America.

America sees Islam as a religion. America does not have tension with any particular religion. It’s Muslims - who see Islam as a world government - that have tension with everyone. They see all governments not based on Sharia law as usurpers to the throne of Allah and want to topple them.

Then Obama made a wrong diagnosis. He said, “The tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies.”

If those were the only reasons, how can we explain Islamic terrorism in India, Indonesia, Somalia, Egypt and the Philippines? These countries were never colonialists nor did they treat Muslims as proxies

Obama continued: America and Islam are not exclusive. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles - principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.

This is not true! Islamic justice does not extend to non Muslims who according to the Qur’an must be treated harshly.

The Qur’an 48:29, says “Muhammad is the messenger of Allah; and those who are with him are harsh against Unbelievers, (but) compassionate amongst each other.”

9:14, Fight them, and Allah will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame, help you (to victory) over them, and heal the breasts of Believers,

As for progress, what progress? Progress is not allowed in Islam. Progress requires innovation. You have to be able to adapt your way of thinking. This is prohibited in Islam. It’s called bid’a. Muslims must avoid bid’a and follow the sunna, the traditions of Muhammad.

Islamic tolerance is also a myth.

Ch 3: v. 85 of the Qur’an says “And whoever desires a religion other than Islam, it shall not be accepted from him”

And how can there be dignity for all human begins when the Qur’an instructs Muslims to fight against those who do not believe, until they pay the Jizyah submissively, and after being humiliated?

Then Obama said that “he had known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed.

If he thinks the Qur’an is a revealed book, why did he leave Islam?

Obama had a Muslim father and was raised as a Muslim. Therefore, according to Islamic law he is a Muslim. If a Muslim leaves Islam he must be killed.

There is a big difference between a Christian who converts to Islam and a Muslim who converts to Christianity.

A Christian who converts to Islam is led to believe that Jesus was a prophet of God who foretold the coming of Muhammad and that by converting to Islam he is fulfilling his command.

When a Muslim converts to Christianity, it’s because he believes that Muhammad was not a prophet of God.

Obama also said, “As a student of history, I also know civilization’s debt to Islam.”

Exactly what debt does civilization owe to Islam? From the countries conquered by Islam, many great scientists such as Al Razi, Khayyam, Ibn Sina, Al Farabi and Al Khwarizmi emerged. Firstly, these men were Persians and others were from other non-Arab nations. Secondly, many of them were rationalists and not believers in Islam. Thirdly, why Islam should be credited for their contribution to science and civilization? Do we call Copernicus, Galileo, and Da Vinci, Christian scientists?

One can overlook these platitudes as flatteries to cajole the Muslims. What is troubling however is when Obama starts talking about the “partnership between America and Islam.”

Does America have partnership with Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism or even Christianity? What kind of partnership can exist between a country and a religion?

Obama did not stop there. He went on to say “I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.”

Is defending a religion, any religion, part of the responsibility of the US president? Isn’t the separation between religion and state a requirement of the constitution of the USA?

He added: “The U.S. government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab, and to punish those who would deny it.

What Mr. Obama is forgetting is that his duty is not to defend the Sharia law but the Constitution of the US, where the freedom of speech and the right to criticize religion is enshrined.

Mr. Obama wants to bring two-tier laws, and create an Islamic state within the United States.

What is interesting is that Mr. Obama who claims to be a Christian specifically requested a picture of Jesus on the cross be removed from the wall that would be behind him when speaking at an event in Georgetown University, last month.

In his Cairo speech he further said: The Holy Qur’an teaches that whoever kills a person, it is as if he has killed all mankind; and whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind.

This is not what the Qur’an teaches. This is part of a story from the Talmud about Able and Cain that Muhammad rehashed in the Qur’an. The logic of this story is that since Able and Cain were the only humans on earth, if one of them were killed, he would not have been able to procreate, and his descendants would not have been born.

It’s a fable. It comes from Judaic mythology and not a teaching of Muhammad. Taken out of its context, as Obama did, it makes no sense. Killing one person is not like killing two persons, let alone all mankind. (Ps: moreover going on, Surah 5:33 tells us that whoever causes mischief shoud be crucified or his limbs to be cut)

Muhammad had no respect for human life. He assassinated his opponents, and massacred thousands of people.

The Qur’an is full of verses inciting the believers to kill. Following the teachings of the Qur’an, Muslims killed an estimated 270 million people during a period of 1400 years. No other cause has produced so many deaths in human history.

Obama quoted another verse that says, ‘Be conscious of God and speak always the truth.’

But whose truth? Truth - according to Muslims – is only what Muhammad said and not what is factual. For Muslims, the Qur’an is the only truth.

Obama was reading from chapter 9, verse 119. The verse that follows says “It does not behoove the people of Mecca and its surroundings, to hold back from following Allah’s Apostle (to war,) or to care for their own selves more than for him, for whenever they take any step which angers the disbelievers, a good deed is recorded in their favor.

This is one of the very last verses spoken by Muhammad and sums up the message of Islam.

Muhammad ended this verse by saying “Allah never fails to recompense those who are righteous.”

As you see, the concept of just and righteous in Islam is not the same as we understand it. ‘Righteous’ is a person who abuses and enrages the disbelievers.

If you loot, rape, kill and anger the disbelievers, you are righteous. Muslims often desecrate the cemeteries of non-Muslims to anger them and to be righteous the Islamic way.

Obama then affirmed that “Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism - it is an important part of promoting peace,” he said.

Nothing can be further from the truth. Islam IS the problem. It is the violent teachings of the Qur’an that drives Muslims to terrorism. The more a Muslim tries to follow the Qur’an, the more likely it is that he will become violent. That is why terrorist training camps teach the Qur’an.

The fourth issue that Obama raised was democracy.

When he mentioned this word, the audience cheered. But democracy was not what Obama had in mind. Quite the contrary! Instead, he said,
 
“So let me be clear: no system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other. Each nation gives life to this principle in its own way, grounded in the traditions of its own people. America does not presume to know what is best for everyone”

After dashing the hopes of the seekers of democracy in the Islamic countries, he gave lip service to the rights of people “to speak their minds in how they are governed, and in a government that is transparent and does not steal.”

Speaking of transparency Mr. Obama, where is your birth certificate?

Obama’s message about democracy is that he is going to abandon Bush’s agenda, and that America will no longer pursue democracy in Islamic countries.

In an address to university students in Cairo in 2005, Condoleezza Rice explained the “Bush Doctrine in these terms: “For 60 years, the United States pursued stability at the expense of democracy in the Middle East - and we achieved neither. Now we are taking a different course.”

As the result the Bush Administration pushed for the improvement of human rights, freedom of speech, free elections and removed two obnoxious regimes in Islamic countries.

Mr. Obama wants to scrap that policy and return to the same old policy that America pursued for 60 years and angered the Muslims while labeling it “A New Beginning”

The truth is that neither policy works. There can be no change in the Islamic world because Islam does not allow change.

The only thing that works is to wean Muslims from Islam itself. That can be done when the truth is not suppressed. Obama wants to suppress the truth. He thinks it is part of his mandate to silence the critics of Islam.

Who gave him that mandate? Not the voters! It’s at times like this that one wonders where did Obama get that billion dollars to run his presidential campaign, the source of which he never disclosed, and what was that obsequious bow from a haughty man like him to the Saudi king all about! It seems that by joining a few dots a troubling picture start taking shape.

What is so striking is that this gentleman who claims to be a Christian, while crusading for Islam has no problem criticizing the Bible, as he did during his campaign, but he says he will punish you if you criticize the Qur’an

Finally, Obama said he is “committed to working with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill Zakat.”

Zakat is monetary contribution that Muslims are required to make if they are unable to fight in jihad personally. Since Jihad is an obligation for every Muslim, if you cannot participate, you can be rewarded nonetheless, if you sponsor someone else to fight as your proxy.

The only reason Zakat came under scrutiny, was because it was discovered that many Islamic “charitable foundations” were actually fundraisers for various terrorist organizations. So it would seem that Mr. Obama wants to ensure that American Muslims can fund the jihad with peace of mind.

Obama ended his self proclaimed “historic speech” by adopting a messianic tone, preaching how everyone must put aside their differences, come together and work in harmony.

But Obama’s problem is credibility. He is a narcissist, and as such, he likes to preach. Narcissists are full of good advice, but they do not walk the talk.

Obama has been a member of a racist church throughout his adult life. His close friends and mentors were mostly crooks, terrorists and hate mongers. Supposedly has now he has become the savior of the world and the harbinger of peace to mankind. This disconnect is what makes him a pathological narcissist. Narcissists are bereft of conscience, while at the same time they believe they are called upon to be God.

Narcissists love life in the limelight. They love to preach and sound holy. But there is a huge gap between what they preach and what they practice.

Is Obama a Muslim?

Obama has allegiance to Islam. He is partly Islamist, partly Marxist, partly appeaser, partly fascist, partly despot, partly slavish, partly racist, and partly a wishful-thinker simpleton idealist.

His elusive character cannot be pinned down because he is a narcissist. He is a man with many masks, but no fixed identity. Behind those masks there is a neglected child, crying out for attention and love. The best description of Obama is a quote from his own book, ‘The Audacity of Hope,’ where he wrote, “I serve as a blank screen, on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”

Obama went to Turkey and then to Cairo to receive approbation. He will always go to those who will cheer for him loudest, and tell them what they want to hear. Obama is an emotionally needy man, a narcissist in a perpetual hunt for applause and admiration.

Source: http://www.faithfreedom.org/2009/06/12/americas-islamist-president/

IHS