You can tell a zebra by its spots

Leave a comment

July 6, 2013 by falcon7204

I stumbled upon a curious article this morning, courtesy of Jim Hoft and the Gateway Pundit blog. He cited a Bloomberg article that stated Obama was calling for a role in the new Egyptian government for the recently-ousted Muslim Brotherhood.

If you didn’t know where Obama stood in terms of the Muslim world, and the Brotherhood in particular, there’s your answer.

The money quote from the article is this:

While President Barack Obama’s administration has stopped short of condemning the July 3 military takeover, it has called on Egyptian leaders to pursue “a transparent political process that is inclusive of all parties and groups,” including “avoiding any arbitrary arrests of Mursi and his supporters,” Bernadette Meehan, a spokeswoman for the National Security Council, said July 4 in a statement.

The administration has urged the Egyptian military to stop using heavy-handed tactics, according to two U.S. officials who asked not to be identified commenting on private communications. They said the administration is concerned that some in the military may want to provoke the Islamists to violence and provide a rationale for crushing the movement once and for all.

Well, here’s my question in regards to the last line of that quote: What’s wrong with that?

After all, the Muslim Brotherhood’s credo is, “Allah is our objective; the Quran is our law, the Prophet is our leader; Jihad is our way; and death for the sake of Allah is the highest of our aspirations.” (Found at this Wikipedia page, and cited by the Federation of American Scientists at this link.)

Jihad is defined as “Islamic campaign against nonbelievers: a campaign waged by Muslims in defense of the Islamic faith against people, organizations, or countries regarded as hostile to Islam,” according to the Bing dictionary. Other dictionaries, such as Merriam-Webster, downplay the connection between the “struggle” for Islamic beliefs and the “holy war” that many believe is the popular definition of jihad. (It really seems to me that most of those definitions were written by Muslims themselves.)

At any rate, the preponderance of evidence that points to jihad as an attempt to destroy non-believers is overwhelming, if you believe the Arabic terrorists who’ve killed more than 3,000 people worldwide in the name of Islam are actually acting on their religious beliefs and aren’t simply just murderous thugs looking for an opportunity.

So, the President of the United States is supporting a group whose credo it is to destroy nearly every citizen of this country if they don’t convert or submit to Islam.

What could go wrong?

This is just another reason why Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. should be immediately impeached and charged with treason. Treason, as defined in Article 3, Section 3 of the Constitution of the United States, is “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.”

Note the second part of the first sentence. “…adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” If political support for a group that advocates the destruction of all non-Islamic peoples is not “aid and comfort,” I don’t know what is. (Plus the $1.5 billion in aid given to the Egyptian government after Mohammed Morsi’s election.)

It’s hard for anyone to argue that Obama doesn’t support Islam. The facts are overwhelming. And in supporting this ideology and worldview, he is in direct conflict with the Constitution of the United States, thereby violating his oath of office and providing a means by which he should be impeached.

Time will tell if this will be the case, or if our spineless Congress will continue to be more concerned about winning re-election and superficial side issues.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,125 other followers


%d bloggers like this: