Here is an old article from 2015 as a reminder of the previous president and his administration, policies, agenda, and their talking points. It was well done though I’m sure not enough people saw it then.
But the first point is that the article would even have to be written at all and in the 6th year of Obama’s presidency, says a lot about him. The second point is that this was all so blatantly obvious to everyone but Obamafiles. Or that media would try to dispute there was a sympathetic propensity toward terrorists and Islam in particular.
Remember all the denials? How they mocked us for even mentioning his sympathies? And a mainstream media that was too stupefied to even ask the serious questions of Obama. And where were all the hearings on this serious subject of national security?
They never cared enough to discuss it.
Yet this article should have been exhibit A in a long list of grievances against the former president, who was so compromised he was incapable of representing the US or defending our sovereignty. Excuse Congress now as it feigns concern. Here is part of it.
by James S. Robbins — Feb. 19, 2015 | USA Today
Refusing to acknowledge theological motivations will sabotage efforts to stop jihadism.
At this week’s White House summit on combating violent extremism on social media, all topics are fair game except Islamist extremism. From the administration’s point of view, it may as well not even exist, despite the fact that the first I in ISIS and ISIL stands for “Islamic”, as in Islamic State.
The White House has consistently downplayed, if not outright ignored, the religious dimension of the war on terrorism. This has much to do with President Obama’s apparent belief that any mention of Islam in the context of terrorism will reinforce negative views of the United States abroad, and supposed American prejudices against Muslims.
Even during the George W. Bush administration, officials consistently stressed that the United States is not at war with the whole of the Islamic world or with Muslim beliefs. It has been repeated thousands of times. We get it. However, avoiding the religious dimension of the struggle against violent extremism is a mistake. The White House may not like it, but for the jihadists, this conflict is all about Islam.
Attempts to avoid touching on religious dimension of the struggle has led to several recent high-profile administration gaffes. President Obama strangely tried to deflect the issue at the National Prayer Breakfast on Feb. 5 by mentioning the Crusades as an example of Christian excess. Unfortunately, that example is also a key jihadist talking point.
In an interview published days later, Obama downplayed the religious aspect of a terrorist attack on a kosher deli in Paris that specifically targeted French Jews, saying the perpetrator “randomly (shot) a bunch of folks in a deli in Paris.” Administration spokespeople compounded the problem by reinforcing the idea that this was not an anti-Semitic attack, before later backtracking by tweet.
The White House made a similar blunder in a statement condemning last week’s ISIL beaheading of 21 Egyptian Coptic Christians in Libya, referring to them only as “Egyptian citizens” and stressing that ISIL attacks are “unconstrained by faith, sect, or ethnicity.” In fact, this act of slaughter was very specifically focused on faith; the title of the ISIL video showing the atrocity was, “A message signed with blood to the nation of the cross.”
The latest slip was when State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf suggested that the key root cause driving people into terrorism was “lack of opportunity for jobs.” Her recommendation that economic development programs could win the war on terrorism was reminiscent of Lyndon Johnson’s belief that the troubles in Vietnam could be brought to an end with a Tennessee Valley Authority-style project in the Mekong Delta. But Harf — a former Mideast analyst for the CIA — should know that there is no evidence to suggest a relationship between economic deprivation and a propensity to commit terrorist violence. A 2012 study in Pakistan found that members of the middle class were more likely to support extremists than the poor. Case studies of individual terrorists show that they are more likely to be well educated and from middle-class backgrounds, or in the case of Osama bin Laden, children of extreme wealth.
Continua reading at USA Today opinion columns.
There is one caveat needed though, there is no comparison. What George Bush did out of apparent political correctness, Obama did out of loyalties to rabid anti-American bias out of favor to his sympathies for Islam and Islamists. It does show where p/c can lead.
There was a massive, strategic political silence as team Obama tried desperately to pull the handle and flush American exceptionalism and its reputation down the toilet. But no one could utter a word about it. One would be tared and feathered for mentioning it in public.
To this day, we should have hearings as to what went on in Obama’s un-American administration and right on through the transition, even to now. Those same radicals who are now engaged in sedition against this president and his administration. If a psychiatrist would examine this schizophrenia he/she would be at a loss for words. So many people went along with it.