America’s First Muslim President

America’s First Muslim President. Center For Security Policy:

Center for Security Policy | Jun 08, 2009
By Frank Gaffney, Jr.
During his White House years, William Jefferson Clinton – someone Sonya Sotomayor might call a “white male” – was dubbed by an admirer in the African-American community “America’s first black president.”  Applying the standard of identity politics and pandering to a special interest that earned Mr. Clinton that distinction, Barack Hussein Obama would have to be considered America’s first Muslim president.
This is not to say, necessarily, that Mr. Obama actually is a Muslim, any more than Mr. Clinton actually is black.  After five months in office and most especially after his just-concluded visit to Saudi Arabia and Egypt, however, a stunning conclusion seems increasingly plausible: The man now happy to have his Islamic-rooted middle name prominently featured has engaged in the most consequential bait-and-switch since Hitler duped Chamberlain over Czechoslovakia at Munich.
What little we know about Mr. Obama’s youth certainly suggests that he not only had a Kenyan father who was Muslim, but that he spent his early, formative years as one in Indonesia.  As the President likes to say “much has been made” – in this case by him and his campaign handlers – of the fact that he became a Christian as an adult in Chicago, under the now-notorious Pastor Jeremiah Wright.

With Mr. Obama’s unbelievably-ballyhooed address in Cairo last Thursday to what he calls “the Muslim world” (hereafter known as “The Speech”), there is mounting evidence that the President not only identifies with Muslims, but may actually still be one himself.  Consider the following indicators:

Mr. Obama referred four times in his speech to “the Holy Koran.”  Non-Muslims – even pandering ones — generally don’t use that Islamic formulation.

Mr. Obama established his first-hand knowledge of Islam (albeit without mentioning his reported upbringing in the faith) with the statement, “I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed.”  Again, “revealed” is a depiction Muslims use to reflect their conviction that the Koran is the word of God, as dictated to Mohammed.

Then, the President made a statement no believing Christian – certainly not one versed, as he professes to be, in the ways of Islam – would ever make. In the context of what he euphemistically called the “situation between Israelis, Palestinians and Arabs,” Mr. Obama said he looked forward to the day “…when Jerusalem is a secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims, and a place for all of the children of Abraham to mingle peacefully together as in the story of Isra, when Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed (peace be upon them) joined in prayer.”

Now, the term “peace be upon them” is invoked by Muslims as a way of blessing deceased holy men.  According to Islam, that is what all three were – dead prophets.  Of course for Christians, Jesus is the living and immortal Son of God.

In the final analysis, it may be beside the point whether President Obama actually is a Muslim.  In The Speech and elsewhere, he has aligned himself with adherents to what authoritative Islam calls Shariah – notably, the dangerous global movement known as the Muslim Brotherhood – to a degree that makes Bill Clinton’s fabled affinity for blacks pale by comparison.

For example, President Obama has – from literally his inaugural address onwards – inflated the numbers and, in that way and others, exaggerated the contemporary and historical importance of Muslim-Americans in the United States.  In The Speech, he used the Brotherhood’s estimates of “nearly seven million Muslims” in this country, at least twice the estimates from other, more reputable sources.  (Who knows?  By the time Mr. Obama’s friends among the radical “community organizers” of ACORN perpetrate their trademark books-cooking as deputy 2010 census-takers, the official count may well claim there are considerably more than 7 million Muslims living here.)

Even more troubling were the commitments the President made in Cairo to promote Islam in America.  For instance, he declared: “I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.”  He vowed to ensure that women can cover their heads, including, presumably, when having their photographs taken for passports, driver’s licenses or other identification purposes.  And he pledged to enable Muslims to engage in zakat, their faith’s requirement for tithing, even though four of the eight types of charity called for by Shariah can be associated with terrorism.  Not surprisingly, a number of Islamic “charities” in this country have been convicted of providing material support for terrorism.

Particularly worrying is the re-alignment Barack Hussein Obama has announced in U.S. policy towards Israel.  While he pays lip-service to the “unbreakable” bond between America and the Jewish State, the President has unmistakably signaled that he intends to compel the Israelis to make territorial and other strategic concessions to Palestinians to achieve the hallowed “two-state solution.”  In doing so, he utterly ignores the inconvenient fact that both the Brotherhood’s Hamas and Abu Mazen’s Fatah remain determined to achieve a one-state solution, whereby the Jews will be “driven into the sea.”

If possible, the Palestinians and other enemies of Israel will try to accomplish this end-state through yet another violent onslaught against Israel – an option Mr. Obama’s policies may cause Israel’s enemies to think is once again viable. Alternatively, the Palestinians and their friends can realistically anticipate it will inevitably result from a rigged “peace process,” one that would more accurately be described as a destruction-of-Israel “piece-by-piece process.”

Whether Barack Obama actually is a Muslim or simply plays one in the presidency may, in the end, be irrelevant.  What is alarming is that, in aligning himself and his policies with those of Shariah-adherents like the Muslim Brotherhood, the President will greatly intensify the already-enormous pressure on peaceful, tolerant American Muslims to submit to such forces – and heighten expectations, here and abroad, that the rest of us will do so as well.

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. is President of the Center for Security Policy and a columnist for the Washington Times.

About Eeyore

Canadian artist and counter-jihad and freedom of speech activist as well as devout Schrödinger's catholic

6 Replies to “America’s First Muslim President”

  1. bang on

    first muslim president – represents the ultimate form of submission to the muslim world yet by the american world ( tacitly supported by 80% of american jews).

    where will it end and how bad will america be for the generation not yet born?

    if clinton was the first black president – he pushed agressively with the CRA, which is at the heart of the mortgage meltdown, what damage will obama do?

  2. While I agree with almost all of the statements in this post, I would like to point out some alternative viewpoints regarding Obama’s Israel policy.

    Whether someone is strongly pro Israel (like George Bush) or naively pro-peace with little regard for Israel’s welfare (Barack Obama) does not necessarily correlate with whether their actions damage or enhance Israel’s long term well being. Israel’s strategic posture of occupying West Bank and building settlements saves Israeli lives in the short term, but is untenable in the long term. It saddles Israel with the huge palestinian population bomb, radicalizes existing Israeli Arabs, and place the enormous economic and social burden of running a military occupation. Thus, the occupation puts Israel under economic and demographic pressures that will ultimately result in it losing economic superiority/military superiority over the combined power of the Arab states, or losing the demographic battle and subsequently the Jewish nature of the state. In the long term, Israel’s interests are better served by making a cold peace with the Palestinians and building a huge fence between them so that the Jewish nature of the state may be preserved.

    Thus, Obama’s peacemaking policy may ultimately save Israel as long as Israel does not give into a foolish rush for peace that generates diplomatic agreements unfavorable to its defense requirements or agreements that do not put the onus of peace on the Arab states.


  3. Parthicus, the Saudi plan is genocide, pure and simple. Calling another Holocaust ‘peace’ is unconscionable.

    But you’re right about the occupation of the ‘West Bank.’ The Finns need to get the hell out of Finland as well and stop occupying Nazi land. Just because a bunch of fascist psychopaths invaded and the Finns have a legal, historical, moral, and ethnic right to Finland does not begin to justify their occupation of land that is rightfully Nazi. /.

    Lands gained in defensive wars are just that. Israel has been idiotic for the last 40 years by allowing a bunch of Jordanians to occupy their land, land to which they have no right historically, legally, or morally. In fact, every time a rocket gets launched Israel has the right to come and take even more land per Resolution 242 and the UN Charter, which guarantees it safe, defensible borders. Israel’s also crazy for not taking back the Sinai, to which Egypt abdicates its rights in 100 different ways every single day. They have every right to take it. In fact, every time a weapon is smuggled from Egypt they legally abdicate just a little bit more land. They have every right to take back Gaza, as the terms of that deal were also not upheld. In reality, Israel has every right to absorb Gaza, Judea and Samaria, and the Sinai, annex all the land, and execute every single person who so much as utters a seditious statement, let alone pays zakat (to a terror group, as all zakat payers necessarily do, having not a single option as far as non-genocidal Muslim ‘charities’ go). They can bulldoze al-Aqsa today if they want. They should have done it 60 years ago.

    Arabs are illegally occupying Jewish land. Israel didn’t ask to be attacked repeatedly by multiple Arab states in unprovoked, genocidal campaigns. Had those Arab nations not wanted for that land to be Israel’s they simply wouldn’t be genocidal maniacs who are such unfathomable losers as to be incapable of beating a tiny army. Also, Israel has repeatedly attempted to commit suicide by giving up that land but the Arabs never accepted any of the deals because that would mean not being career pseudo-victim/pseudo-refugee parasites and accepting Israel’s existence.

    Creating another launching pad for another terror organization will not make Israel stronger or safer. You’re crazy for suggesting that this is the case. The Saudi Suicide Plan is not inevitable. What’s inevitable is making Jordan and Egypt take back their Arabs to avoid a purge of Arab occupants on land which Israel will ultimately have to annex to survive. They can and should execute every single individual who refuses to not only pledge allegiance to the Jewish state, but also to fight for it. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights explicitly allows for this. That’s international law, and it’s a bitch if you hate Jews.

    By the way, Corsica has “military superiority over the combined power of the Arab states.” So does the LAPD.

  4. First of all, If you are implying that I hate Jews, I am one of their strongest supporters and I have nothing but disdain for two faced Arab potentates and palestinians which are tools for Arab imperialism.

    You talk in terms of right and wrong whereas I talk in terms of practicalities. While I believe that Israel has more than earned the right to annex Samarea, Judea, and the Sinai, for practical reasons it cannot. 150 years ago, if Israel had been in existence, the military solution would have been obvious and practical. Israel’s armies could simply march across the Sinai and take cairo, sweep through Golan, to Damascus, and across the Jordan river to Amman and expel every single Arab in these lands under threat of death. Unfortunately, the year is 2009 and nuclear weapons and the UN exist putting a damper on such high intensity wars. Furthermore, since mass expulsion of inhabitants and genocide are unacceptable militarily, taking territory in a modern warfare is very much different from taking such land in an ancient war. Taking land today means a long occupation against a hostile populace that drains your military rather than improving your security or economy.

    Occupying Samarea and Judeao only provide security from rockets, which though deadly, are not a threat to the future of the jewish state given rapidly improving anti-missile technology. However, it places a huge Palestinian population under Israeli control. If Israel does annex these territories, then these people will necessarily become Israeli citizens which will destroy the Jewish nature of the state within a generation b/c of Palestinian birthrates (unless Israel is willing to become a true apartheid state by annexing the territory and making palestinians citizens). That would result in a holocaust in the same manner as the right of return.

  5. Parthicus, I apologize for misinterpreting your post and accusing you of anti-Semitism. I will admit that I have a knee-jerk “Saudi Plan = Nazi” reaction to suggestions that Israel should abdicate any lands.

    It is not, however, a matter of having earned the right to annex their own lands. They had that right when they won that land in defensive wars. It is almost unprecedented for a nation to win land in a defensive war and not annex it as Israel did, and they didn’t do it because they planned to give it back, but the Arabs wouldn’t take it because that would impinge upon their victimhood/parasitism/terrorism-as-industry, which is their entire raison d’etre. I was never suggesting anything along the lines of expansive warfare, either. Nobody is going to nuke Israel for abiding by international law. Israel might get nuked, but if they do it will be for merely being Israel. The idea that Israel’s actions, which are always overly humane and giving anyway, have anything to do with the Arab world’s or Iran’s views toward it are simply false, but I can’t fault you for believing that, as many Israelis believe such nonsense.

    It is not a matter of taking land, either. It’s their land. They can do whatever they want with it. Israel is not occupying Judea and Samaria. The PA is. It’s Israel’s every bit as much as Trieste is Italy’s. I never said anything about war. Nobody has any right to take issue with any of the moves I have suggested. Military reaction on anyone’s part would be illegal under international law.

    If Israel annexes the land they merely have to make all the newcomers pledge allegiance to the Jewish state and agree to be conscripted. Those who take issue with that would be guilty of treasonous sedition and would then be immediately imprisoned or deported. For any nation to not do that with their citizens is insane. People who live on Jewish land and take issue with living on Jewish land should leave, whether or not Israel annexes anything. They have no right to be there. And they can thank Egypt, Jordan (their homeland), and Syria for that.

    I think now is the time, quite frankly. Israel’s selling military tech to China, so they have an alliance, and the US can’t go to war with anyone without China’s permission and money (thanks Obama!). The Arab states can’t do jack right now, either, being broke losers.

    Finally, your suggestion that anything could change the Jewish nature of Judea and Samaria is simply absurd.

    To recap:

    It is already Israel’s territory. An invasion is physically impossible, as a nation cannot invade its own territory.

    The only occupation occurring is that of Arabs who are legally traitors and have no legal right to be on Jewish land.

    People who don’t support the Jewish state have no right be there and Israel has no reason, ethical or legal, to tolerate them.

    They have Egypt, Jordan, and Syria to thank for that.

    Nobody is going to attack Israel for applying international law. In fact, it would give Israel extra legal cover the next time the Nazis invade.

    Oh, and if ‘Palestinians’ actually had to get jobs, no longer being refugees (which they aren’t, really, since the UN has repeatedly revised its definition of refugee to keep them on the dole) their birthrate would drop significantly, not that a single one of them would be allowed to remain under existing law, as a history of affiliation with either Hamas or the PA gives more than enough legal justification for immediate expulsion. And no, I really don’t care where. If Egypt and Jordan were forced to take all those people they would handle them the way they have always dealt with ‘Palestinians:’ they will kill them all.

  6. When I use occupation i don’t mean it in a legalistic sense, and I don’t attach any morality to it. I simply mean that Israel needs alot of troops to protect their assets in Samarea and Judea.

    Here are several assumptions that I work under when I think about solutions to this problem, and perhaps in these assumptions you can see why despite my utter lack of sympathy for the palestinians, I do not believe that west bank is tenable

    1. the Arab people will always be a mortal threat to the Jews, while Arab government may occassionally, but only temporarily be lukewarm. Hence, I believe that Israel must not just fight everyday to save today’s Jews from terrorism, but it must be prepared for the long haul and see if its policies will see the survival of the jewish state over hundreds of years.

    2. Israel will not expel the palestinians from samarea, judea, and gaza. Despite your belief in the legality of such a move, and perhaps it is legal, no one will side with Israel if it does that. Even the United States under George Bush would have been forced to repudiate Israel if it expelled several million palestinians for being subversives. Legalities of law in this modern age have been superseded by legalities of media. Every Arab nation and media outlet (arab and western), would decry the legality of such a move without even looking at the law books and Israel would instantly become an international pariah like N. Korea. Even the Arab gov’ts marginally friendly to israel (Jordan, Morocco, and others) would be forced to declare open war on Israel and this would actually endanger the Jewish state. As of right now, all the Arab gov’t are scrambling to ally together against Iran and prefer not to have Israel as an enemy, that’s why this is the perfect moment for Israel to disentangle themselves from Westbank

    3. The Jewish nature of the state is endangered by number of Palestinians and their birthrate. Ariel Sharon’s advisors realized that by 2010, there would be more palestinians between the jordan river and the mediterranean than Israelis. If these palestinians are not expelled, and if israel decides to keep West Bank and Gaza, then these Palestinians necessarily destroy the Israel through simply democracy (as we see in europe even a minority of muslims believing in shariah law can bring a democracy to its knees). As a result Sharon withdrew from Gaza. He knew that expelling them was not an option for Israel, and thus, he decided instead to separate Israel from them by giving up Gaza.

    As you can see, legalities, moralities, the right of conquest or land by defense, all these things do not matter. If Israel refuses to expel the palestinians, then holding onto west bank and gaza will destroy the Jewish nature of Israel b/c there will be more muslims than Jews. By the same logic, since Israel refuses to expel them, and declares samarea and judea part of Israel, then these palestinians must become citizens. Thus the Jewish nature of not just samarea and judea but rather, of all of israel is destroyed, and the state will ultimately become muslim.

    Only by maintaining its Jewish nature, with as few muslims as possible within its borders can Israel survive. Thus, because Israel is unwilling to expel muslims b/c of the perceived illegality of this, the only way to get rid of them is to follow my solution.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.