In his speech Tuesday night, President Obama said, “My first duty as Commander in Chief is to defend America.” So we have him on record as understanding his primary role as our President.
After watching the State of the Union address Tuesday evening, one has to wonder if the President is completely disconnected from reality, grossly and totally incompetent, or simply doing the bidding of our enemies.
As has been detailed on numerous occasions, evidence has been proffered by the U.S. Department of Justice as to the nature of the jihadist threat to America, which identifies the leading Islamic organizations as a part of the Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas Movement here. Yet, the President continues to grant senior MB/Hamas leaders access to the highest levels of our government and claim their ideology has nothing to do with true Islam.
As was detailed in Tuesday night’s UTT blog article , the ideology Al Qaeda teaches is also taught in nearly all of the Islamic schools in the world beginning at the first grade level, which may lead some people to believe it is “true Islam.”
Since all of the jihadi groups across the globe uniformly explain the reasons for what they do in the exact same way using the same authoritative texts in Islam, that might lead one to believe they are following true Islam.
Since there is no published Islamic doctrine contrary to what Al Qaeda teaches, rational and reasonable human beings would come to the conclusion (rightfully so) that Islam is what Islam says it is in it’s authoritative doctrinal texts of Islamic Law (Sharia).
Yet, it is still unclear to our President.
This leaves us with only a few options: The President is either aware or unaware of these facts. If he is unaware, he is either disconnected from the reality of these facts, or he is incapable of understanding and absorbing the facts. In either case, he is unfit for office.
If he is aware of these facts and continues to act as he is acting, he is committing treason and should be dealt with to the full extent of our Constitution.
In his speech Tuesday, the President referred to what happened in Afghanistan as a “democratic transition.” For mental health professionals, this is a red flag. In the event the President is unaware, Afghanistan is an “Islamic Republic” whose constitution (written by the United States) mandates Sharia (Islamic Law) as the law of the land. Which part of a “democracy” is this? As Walid Phares often says, the only thing this logically shares with a “democracy” is that in Islamic countries they have a vote – once. One vote, one time. From that point forward, its an Islamic Republic ruled by Sharia (Islamic Law).
The President also noted, “In Iraq and Syria, our military leadership is stopping ISIL’s advance.” This is the same ISIL formed out of the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda forces this President provided material support to when he called them the “rebel forces” fighting in Libya and Syria. That, by the way, is a violation of U.S. federal code for which we put people in jail.
The President identified the threat we face as the “bankrupt ideology of violent extremism.” This is interesting because our enemy has never identified themselves as “violent extremists.” They identify themselves as “Muslims waging jihad in the cause of Allah in order to impose Islamic Law and establish the Islamic State (caliphate).”
The term “violent extremism” was created by DHS because they intentionally did not want to identify Islam as the problem.
The GOP response to the President’s State of the Union address was equally shocking in its absence of addressing the real and imminent threat from the global Islamic Movement, which has a massive network here in the United States.
Senator Joni Ernst, spent less than a minute on the threat of the global jihad which she described as “terrorism and the threats posed by al-Qaida, ISIL and those radicalized by them.”
The Emperor’s clothes look great.
After vowing to veto any new sanctions against Iran in the last portion of the State of the Union address, the President spoke of “American values” as the reason “why we continue to reject offensive stereotypes of Muslims, the vast majority of whom share our commitment to peace.”
This is true only if the vast majority of Muslim reject what Islam teaches, because their definition of “peace” is not the same as ours.
Is it reasonable to assume the “vast majority” of Muslims reject the core teachings of Islam? Is it the kind of assumption we should make when American security is at stake?
John Guandolo has years of unique experience helping local, state, and federal leaders identify and deal with real threats. Primarily, he trains citizens, local leaders, and police how to fortify their counties.
3 Responses