Yesterday Obama once again made good on his promise to “stand with the Muslims” when he responded to the latest ghastly atrocity by the Islamic State by absurdly blaming Christianity for slavery and denouncing the Crusades. On the previous day, he attended a religious meeting more to his liking:
President Obama met with American Muslim leaders [Wednesday] afternoon, according to the White House schedule, but so far the administration is unwilling to reveal who attended the meeting, which was closed to the press.
Considering the malevolent ultra-radicals he openly consults with (e.g., Al Sharpton) and even appoints to positions of great power (e.g., Eric Holder), the imagination balks at who must have attended this meeting for the Regime to want it kept secret. Members of the terror umbrella group the Muslim Brotherhood were likely present, given Obama’s record of support for it at the expense of Western interests (e.g., see here, here, and here).
In all probability the most innocuous attendee was left-wing Muslim comedian Dean Obeidallah:
The White House won’t say who attended a meeting between Muslim leaders and President Obama at the White House on Wednesday, but comedian Dean Obeidallah says he was there. Writing in the Daily Beast, Obeidallah said discrimination was the main topic: “In fact, it was clearly the No. 1 issue raised: The alarming rise in anti-Muslim bigotry in America.” Obeiallah is well known for his flame-throwing attacks on Republicans, referencing “the GOP’s World Cup of bat[s**t] crazy” and a racial joke about the adopted grandchild of 2012 Republican nominee Mitt Romney. The comedian said he went to White House seeking help in encouraging Democrats to denounce Republicans’ comments on Islam. “My point was that while bigotry from certain Republicans is nothing new, I’m alarmed about the Democratic response to these comments. What is the Democrats’ response, you ask? Simple: silence.” He said Obama was very receptive: “While I can’t share the president’s exact response, I can tell you that he expressed his strong commitment to our community to fight anti-Muslim bigotry. I fully understand it’s not easy problem to remedy. But it was very heartening to hear the president’s passionate response.”
Try to picture FDR responding to the Blitzkrieg sweeping across Europe by meeting with Nazis to passionately strategize against anti-fascist bigotry. In light of the explosive rise of Islamic terrorism in general and the Islamic State in particular, that would be the equivalent.
The direction has gotten ugly.
By the time of the Crusades, Muslims had already captured 2/3 of the Christian world.
This piece, from 2002, after 9/11, notes Bill Clinton seemingly trying to justify Islamic terrorist behavior by reaching back to the Crusades, just as President Obama seemed to do yesterday at the National Prayer Breakfast.
Via Catholic Culture:
With the possible exception of Umberto Eco, medieval scholars are not used to getting much media attention. We tend to be a quiet lot (except during the annual bacchanalia we call the International Congress on Medieval Studies in Kalamazoo, Michigan, of all places), poring over musty chronicles and writing dull yet meticulous studies that few will read. Imagine, then, my surprise when within days of the September 11 attacks, the Middle Ages suddenly became relevant.
As a Crusade historian, I found the tranquil solitude of the ivory tower shattered by journalists, editors, and talk-show hosts on tight deadlines eager to get the real scoop. What were the Crusades?, they asked. When were they? Just how insensitive was President George W. Bush for using the word “crusade” in his remarks? With a few of my callers I had the distinct impression that they already knew the answers to their questions, or at least thought they did. What they really wanted was an expert to say it all back to them. For example, I was frequently asked to comment on the fact that the Islamic world has a just grievance against the West. Doesn’t the present violence, they persisted, have its roots in the Crusades’ brutal and unprovoked attacks against a sophisticated and tolerant Muslim world? In other words, aren’t the Crusades really to blame?
Osama bin Laden certainly thinks so. In his various video performances, he never fails to describe the American war against terrorism as a new Crusade against Islam. Ex-president Bill Clinton has also fingered the Crusades as the root cause of the present conflict. In a speech at Georgetown University, he recounted (and embellished) a massacre of Jews after the Crusader conquest of Jerusalem in 1099 and informed his audience that the episode was still bitterly remembered in the Middle East. (Why Islamist terrorists should be upset about the killing of Jews was not explained.) Clinton took a beating on the nation’s editorial pages for wanting so much to blame the United States that he was willing to reach back to the Middle Ages. Yet no one disputed the ex-president’s fundamental premise.
Well, almost no one. Many historians had been trying to set the record straight on the Crusades long before Clinton discovered them. They are not revisionists, like the American historians who manufactured the Enola Gay exhibit, but mainstream scholars offering the fruit of several decades of very careful, very serious scholarship. For them, this is a “teaching moment,” an opportunity to explain the Crusades while people are actually listening. It won’t last long, so here goes.
Remember how Richard Nixon told us to watch what he does, not what he says? Good advice. Well, Barack Obama — our POTUS who makes Nixon and Clinton seem like Diogenes — thinks like a postmodern agnostic, professes to be a Christian, but acts like a Shiite.
During Obama’s presidency the influence of Ayatollah Khamenei’s Iranian Shiite regime has spread across the world like the proverbial wildfire, reaching from North Africa into Iraq, Lebanon (via Hezbollah), Syria (via Assad whose red line on chemical weapons famously faded into invisibility), Gaza (via improved relations with Hamas) and now into Yemen (via the Houthis) and undoubtedly a number of other places, including Venezuela, North Korea and Cuba. And our president, consciously or unconsciously or both, has had as much to do as anyone with the creation of this nascent, soon-to-be nuclear armed and missile-ready fundamentalist “Greater Persia.” No wonder the Sunni Saudis are alarmed — they have been for a long time — and no wonder Obama suddenly decided to replace Biden in paying a condolence visit to Riyadh for the death of King Abdullah. He has some powerful fence-mending to do that pretend bowing and scraping may not so easily solve.