By Walid Shoebat and Ben Barrack
As part of his shocking claims during the National Prayer Breakfast, Barack Obama referenced acts of Islamic terrorism taking place around the globe without identifying them for what they really are. While insisting that the perpetrators are twisting religion to justify murder, it was Obama who twisted history to justify his own brand of ridiculous moral equivalency.
Have a look before we tear his speech to pieces:
It wasn’t enough that Obama couldn’t point to instances of Christian terrorism today. It wasn’t enough that he had to go back a thousand years for a comparison. No, Obama had to lie about the Crusades in the process. In his speech, Obama elevates Islam, ignores Islamic terrorism, and then attempts to bring the Crusaders down to the level of Islamic terrorists, which implicitly means Obama thinks the Crusaders are worse than the Muslim Brotherhood, a group he has overtly embraced as recently as last week, when a Muslim Brotherhood-aligned judge who fled Egypt from Turkey held up the Muslim Brotherhood salute at the State Department, as Shoebat.com reported.
One day prior to the Prayer Breakfast, Obama welcomed American Muslim leaders to the White House but the identities of those leaders was not made public.
This is a new low for Obama’s blasphemy of Christianity. It’s slanderous and exactly the kind of words one would expect from a Muslim who would use deceit to become President of the United States. He even takes the opportunity to claim that Christianity was used to justify slavery in America, saying:
“Unless we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ,” Obama said. “In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ.”
What he doesn’t mention is that Christianity – with the help of the Republican Party – is what got rid of slavery in America. He also avoids the fact that it was his party – the Democratic Party – that gave birth to the KKK, which was the armed wing of the Party. Obama being a member of the Democratic Party is like a Jew joining a ‘reformed’ Nazi Party and then criticizing the Jews for their racist history. The Democratic Party – like the Turks – has refused to apologize for genocide.
As for the issue of slavery, while it can usually only be found in America by reading history books, there is at least one exception. That exception comes courtesy of a Saudi Muslim named Homaidan al-Turki. Shoebat.com wrote extensively about his case nearly two years ago. Despite serving prison time for enslaving an under-aged girl he would molest at night, Saudi royalty desperately wants al-Turki released into Saudi custody so he can be given a hero’s welcome.
The truth about slavery is that it is very much a part of Islamic countries, even today.
As for the Crusades, it is Obama who again requires the history lesson. The Crusades were not fought in search of conquest. Instead, they were defensive measures used to fight in response to Islamic conquest.
Thomas F. Madden, a top historian on medieval history is someone who could provide Obama with that history lesson. Eastern Christians were under siege by Muslim marauders and pleaded with the Pope to help them. Unlike Obama, the Pope of that day and time was compelled not to argue on behalf of moral equivalency but to help Christians in grave distress. Madden writes:
Pope Urban II called upon the knights of Christendom to push back the conquests of Islam at the Council of Clermont in 1095. The response was tremendous. Many thousands of warriors took the vow of the cross and prepared for war. Why did they do it?
It’s relatively easy to imagine. All one has to do is look at the persecution of Christians all across the Middle East today. Is it not more likely than not that such behavior is what prompted the Pope of that time, to action? What Madden says motivated the Crusaders is just as believable:
Urban II gave the Crusaders two goals, both of which would remain central to the eastern Crusades for centuries. The first was to rescue the Christians of the East. As his successor, Pope Innocent III, later wrote:
“How does a man love according to divine precept his neighbor as himself when, knowing that his Christian brothers in faith and in name are held by the perfidious Muslims in strict confinement and weighed down by the yoke of heaviest servitude, he does not devote himself to the task of freeing them? … Is it by chance that you do not know that many thousands of Christians are bound in slavery and imprisoned by the Muslims, tortured with innumerable torments?”
“Crusading,” Professor Jonathan Riley-Smith has rightly argued, was understood as an “an act of love”—in this case, the love of one’s neighbor. The Crusade was seen as an errand of mercy to right a terrible wrong. As Pope Innocent III wrote to the Knights Templar, “You carry out in deeds the words of the Gospel, ‘Greater love than this hath no man, that he lay down his life for his friends.’”
The second goal was the liberation of Jerusalem and the other places made holy by the life of Christ. The word crusade is modern. Medieval Crusaders saw themselves as pilgrims, performing acts of righteousness on their way to the Holy Sepulcher.
When viewed in this context, Barack Obama is characterizing Islamic terrorists and Crusaders exactly how Muslims would want him to. Crusaders were as evil as Islamic terrorists and Islamic terrorists are not really Muslims.
For that matter, Obama is actually talking like a Muslim himself. After all, we’re to believe that every member of his family clan in Kogelo, Kenya is Muslim except for Barack.