After making an incredibly interesting observation that Barack Obama prefers to identify the group in Iraq and Syria as “ISIL” instead of “ISIS”, Fiscal Times author Liz Peek proceeded to bungle the explanation for why. She wasn’t entirely wrong but avoided the truth because it is apparently so hard for people – including her – to admit.

What Peek misses is that by referring to “ISIL”, Obama is giving legitimacy to a much larger movement that seeks a Caliphate; it’s simply one step shy of giving the Muslim Brotherhood and Ottoman Empire revivalists legitimacy. The question Peek did not seek an answer to was: Why is Obama giving legitimacy to a group that would serve as an Ottoman precursor?

Erdogan and Obama at White House (L); Erdogan and Yusuf al-Qaradawi in Turkey (R)

The article, written two months ago, has received some renewed interest in the wake of James Foley’s beheading:

With the exception of Reuters and now the Associated Press, most news organizations have not referred to ISIL until President Obama began using the term, which stands for the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. But when Obama used the term 5 times on June 13, and 16 times in his commencement speech at West Point on June 19th, he was using his bully pulpit to make a point.

Most, like this publication, continue to use the widely accepted acronym ISIS, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria or al-Sham, but both describe the same murderous organization. The difference is that the Levant describes a territory far greater than simply Iraq and Syria. It’s defined as this: The Levant today consists of the island of Cyprus, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Palestine, and part of southern Turkey.

So far, so good right? Peek’s upcoming conclusion is not entirely wrong; it’s just woefully incomplete. This is what she writes in the very next paragraph:

Why would Obama prefer ISIL? An “army” of that territorial magnitude takes the focus off the two countries that many believe define Obama’s continued failure in the Middle East. Most likely, he would rather eliminate the connection between the chaos in Iraq with his inaction in Syria. Better that the upheaval in a country to which we committed so much blood and treasure remain the fault of George W. Bush. The president has already been tarred with having failed to secure a Status of Forces deal with Prime Minister al-Maliki, which would have allowed a contingent of American troops to stay in Iraq.

As is far too often the case, westerners continue to look at events in the Middle East through a western-style prism. When it comes to American domestic politics exclusively, Peek is probably spot-on. However, what she’s not reporting is the fact that by using the term “ISIL”, Obama is elevating a group that seeks a caliphate.

This is exactly what Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdogan wants, except he wants an Ottoman caliphate. As Shoebat.com has reported, the Muslim Brotherhood itself is now publicly acknowledging Turkey as the future home of the caliphate. In fact, during a recent visit to Turkey, Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader Yusuf al-Qaradawi compared Erdogan to Moses, as Shoebat.com reported.

It is important to understand that every stealth Muslim Brotherhood jihadist in the U.S. – to include those working inside the Obama administration – are in league with al-Qaradawi; they revere him. As such, they’re working toward the same goal of a Caliphate.

Stealth Muslim Brotherhood agents in U.S.

Obama’s use of the term “ISIL” instead of “ISIS” is music to their ears while not being processed by western ears.

Note that Obama’s not referring to ISIL and then speaking of that group’s true intentions. When is the last time Obama has described ISIL as a group that seeks to eliminate Israel and install an Islamic Caliphate? If he were to include that reality in his speeches when talking to the American people while using the term “ISIL”, it would demonstrate transparency and solidarity with the American people.

Instead, Obama is actually doing the opposite. Earlier this week while in Martha’s Vineyard, Obama said:

“So ISIL speaks for no religion. Their victims are overwhelmingly Muslim, and no faith teaches people to massacre innocents.”

That only serves to further make that dog whistle more difficult for westerners to hear.

…and the Caliphate crowd grins because it’s being given stealth legitimacy by the President of the United States.

It would also begin to educate the American people on the objectives of Turkey.

Obama, however, is not doing that. Instead he’s using ISIL as a dog whistle.

As the evidence has poured in over the last six years that Obama’s familial connections to Islam and the Muslim Brotherhood are irrefutable, he’s doing exactly what a stealth jihadist, Muslim Brotherhood president of the United States would do; he’s pushing the envelope of legitimacy for a group that seeks a much larger dominion.

In the words of his mentor Saul Alinsky, he’s “us(ing) all events of the period for his purpose”.

Peek is not the only westerner who is either unwilling or refuses to confront the truth; the vast and overwhelming majority of our political leaders are as well.

Adding to this culture of denial and paralysis is the fact that as long as Turkey and the U.S. share a NATO alliance, these politicians – except Obama and his Muslim Brothers – simply don’t understand what they’re dealing with.