July 14, 2012
Obama’s Friends, the Jihadis
In a recent post, one of our favorite fellow bloggers, Always on Watch, commented on President Obama’s entertaining Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood terrorist leader at the White House.
Hmmmm…
Now we also see where, well, our government under Obama’s “leadership” evidently has a problem classifying a terrorist organization…a terrorist organization.
In the past three years, over 1,000 Christians in Nigeria have been brutally murdered by an extremist Islamic group known as Boko Haram and the United States has refused to classify the group as being a terrorist organization.
Nigeria’s Christian leaders had asked the United States government to place Boko Haram on the list of terrorist organizations. The radical Islamic group has vowed to eradicate all Christians from Nigerian soil and will continue to murder men, women and children in the process unless something is done to stop them.
Instead of declaring Boko Haram a terrorist organization, the U.S. government only placed three of the group’s leaders on a terrorist blacklist and then said that it was more important to address social inequalities in the country first. Christian leaders in Nigeria said the actions or perhaps lack of action by the United States has only served to make the group bolder and more aggressive in their pursuit to exterminate the remaining Christians.
Appearing before House Foreign Affairs Committee, Christian Association of Nigeria President Ayo Oritsejafor said the decision was:
“The equivalent of designating (Osama) bin Laden a terrorist but failing to designate Al-Qaeda a terrorist organization.”
“By refusing to designate Boko Haram as a foreign terrorist organization, the United States is sending a very clear message, not just to the federal government of Nigeria, but to the world that the murder of innocent Christians and Muslims who reject Islamism — and I make a clear distinction here between Islam and Islamism — are acceptable losses.”
Of course, and par for the course given whom we’ve got in the Oval Office at present:
However, Assistant Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs Johnny Carson told the committee that designating Boko Haram a terrorist organization would be counter-productive in trying to improve the governing of Nigeria, especially in the Muslim dominated northern region.
Carson testified,
“Boko Haram thrives because of social and economic problems in the north that the government must find a way of addressing.”
“A coordinated government effort to provide responsible, accountable governance to all Nigerians, while creating opportunities for economic growth, will diminish the political space in which Boko Haram operates.”
From everything I’ve read, Boko Haram is just like so many other Muslim groups that have vowed to cleanse their lands of Christians and Jews. In reality, they are not any different than Hamas or al-Qaeda.
What concerns me about Carson’s comments is that it sounds like he wants the U.S. to start pouring millions of dollars into northern Nigeria to ease their financial strain in hopes that Boko Haram will stop murdering Christians. This is a typical Democratic response to any problem – throw money at it and hope it fixes the problem, which it never does.
Amen to that!
At least we know that in his own roundabout way, Barack Hussein Obama is protecting his kindred spirits, the Boko Haram, which I suppose proves a kind of loyalty… just not to anyone we’d assume a U.S. president might be loyal to.
http://hardastarboard.mu.nu/wp-trackback.php?p=2239
July 16th, 2012 at 6:58 am
A couple of years ago I was in Iran on a contract for training. There was general rejoicing there over the election of a “Muslim” to the Presidency of the USA, and it was openly stated that now the Jews will see how Islam is destined to take over the world. Seems they may have looked at the wrong man for direct support, but he’s certainly doing his best to appoint people sympathetic to anti-Israeli and anti-Christian organisations.
July 17th, 2012 at 11:01 am
Gray Monk
One can hope (uh oh, not to be confused with “hope & change” re B. Hussein Obama’s old campaign theme) that somehow, some way Americans will realize, in time for the November elections, that these Muslims overseas apparently perceive more regarding Obama’s intentions than the people here who voted for him.
We have to get this creature replaced in November. In the meantime, thank God Netaniahu is not the sort of puppet material Obama would have liked him to be!
July 19th, 2012 at 7:56 am
Hi my question has nothing to do with your current topic but as soon as I read this I said to myself I have to post this on Seths’ blog. So please tell me if this is true, I found it posted on a Facebook page (sorry for the length but I pasted all I seen):
FORMER LAWYERS?
I knew they had both lost their law license, but I didn’t know why until I read this.
This is 100% legit. I check it out at https://www.iardc.org/ Stands for Illinois Attorney Registration And Disciplinary Committee. It’s the official arm of lawyer discipline in Illinois ; and they are very strict. (Talk about irony.) Even I, at the advanced age of almost 65, maintain (at the cost of approximately $600/year) my law license that I worked so hard and long to earn.
Big surprise.
Former Constitutional Law Lecturer and U.S. President Makes Up Constitutional Quotes During State Of The Union (SOTU) Address.
Consider this:
1. President Barack Obama, former editor of the Harvard Law Review, is no longer a “lawyer”. He surrendered his license back in 2008 in order to escape charges he lied on his bar application. A “Voluntary Surrender” is not something where you decide “Gee, a license is not really something I need anymore, is it?” and forget to renew your license. No, a “Voluntary Surrender” is something you do when you’ve been accused of something, and you ‘voluntarily surrender” your license five seconds before the state suspends you.
2 Michelle Obama “voluntarily surrendered” her law license in 1993. after a Federal Judge gave her the choice between surrendering her license or standing trial for Insurance fraud!
3. Facts.Source: http://jdlong.wordpress.com/2009/05/15/pres-barack-obama-editor-of-the-Harvard-law-review-has-no-law-license/
4. A senior lecturer is one thing, a fully ranked law professor is another. Barack Obama was NOT a Constitutional Law Professor at the University of Chicago .
5. The University of Chicago released a statement in March 2008 saying Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) “served as a professor” in the law school-but that is a title Obama, who taught courses there part-time, never held, a spokesman for the school confirmed in 2008.
6. “He did not hold the title of Professor of Law,” said Marsha Ferziger Nagorsky, an Assistant Dean for Communications and Lecturer in Law at the University of Chicago School of Law.
Source: http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/03/sweet_obama_did_hold_the_title.html ;
7. The former Constitutional Senior Lecturer (Obama) cited the U.S. Constitution the other night during his State of the Union Address. Unfortunately, the quote he cited was from the Declaration of Independence … not the Constitution.
8. The B-Cast posted the video: http://www.breitbart.tv/did-obama-confuse-the-constitution-with-the-declaration-of-independence/
9. Free Republic : In the State of the Union Address, President Obama said: “We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution: the notion that we are all created equal.
10. Um, wrong citing, wrong founding document there Champ, I mean Mr. President. By the way, the promises are not a notion, our founders named them unalienable rights. The document is our Declaration of Independence and it reads:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
11. And this is the same guy who lectured the Supreme Court moments later in the same speech?
July 19th, 2012 at 11:52 am
Jeff
Thanks for the very “heads-up” comment, it definitely has my interest peaked and I intend to explore the content more fully.
As we know, Obama has been anything but honest and forthright with the American people, and his campaign promise of a “transparent” administration would seem to redefine “transparent” along the lines of a three foot thick wall of lead.
While it is always a revelation to learn that a president, even this one, has gone to even further depths in the realm of pure fraud (and in O’s case, there are more questions raised than during the administrations of any twenty something other presidents) and outright deceit.
After some research, I may take your comment and convert it into a guest post, if you have no objection.
Again, thanks!!!!
July 19th, 2012 at 1:57 pm
Yes moving to a guest topic space would be good.
I found more information:
Barack has spent in excess of $1.35 million in legal fees to file protective and privacy motions in eight federal lawsuits to avoid releasing his birth documents.
Birth certificate- sealed
College transcripts- sealed
College thesis- sealed
MICHELLE OBAMA DISBARRED FOR EXTORTION: Still Voting for Obama? Did you know that our First Lady Michelle Obama lost her law license back in 1993? Oh sure I knew that, “NOT.” Sure, I saw this on the front page of the New York Times during …See More
July 25th, 2012 at 7:45 am
Seems like a typical politician to me. Only Tony Blair exceeded Mr. obama’s ignorance of your constitution in his abuse of ours! At least Mr. Blair could claim that, as ours is ‘unwritten’ he hadn’t actually understood it at all …
July 25th, 2012 at 12:43 pm
Gray Monk
For a so-called “Constitutional lawyer”, B. Hussein Obama seems to have about as much respect for that august document as Stalin did.