Family Security Matters
Remember the piece I wrote firmly stating several reasons why President Barack Obama is an Islamist sympathizer? I think the case was laid out rather simply and wasn’t based on conjecture, but fact, actions and policies by the president. Of course I’m not the only one to say so. More and more Americans are coming to that conclusion as well.
You have to scratch your head after watching the recent Vox.com interview where Obama referred to the Paris Jewish Kosher store terror attackers as “folks” and “random.” And of course the historically inaccurate moral equivalency and relativism proclamations of the president at the National Prayer Breakfast further solidifies the case of our resident sympathizing with the Islamist enemy.
However, last week something happened even more damning for Obama (if that’s possible) – and he doesn’t seem to care. As you might recall, President Obama met with American Muslim leaders at the White House, but the administration was unwilling to reveal who attended the meeting, which was closed to the press.
But as reported by Investors Business Daily, “After complaints, the White House finally released names of the “Muslim leaders” Obama met with behind closed doors a week ago Wednesday. Now we know why it was secret. The list includes members of known jihadist groups. After stonewalling for days about the names of participants at the almost two-hour meeting with the president and his national security advisers – a meeting that was granted at the request of Muslim Advocates, an Islamist group that’s demanded a stop to NYPD surveillance of radical mosques, anti-terrorist drone strikes and Gitmo detentions – the White House quietly attached the list of attendees to the back of its daily press briefing transcript Thursday evening, according to the Washington Times.”
President Obama has been gathering much-deserved criticism for his ridiculous comments at the National Prayer Breakfast, where he thoughtlessly compared the Islamic State to modern-day Christians for the simple reason that, you know, the Christians had the Crusades almost a millennium ago and stuff.
One of the loudest critics was Judge Jeanine Pirro, who used her Fox News show to lambast the president over his behavior at the prayer breakfast. Amongst other things, the FNC personality offered her own take on why the president felt so comfortable slandering Christianity.
“You know I’ve been watching this president for six years,” Pirro said. “And after this week’s prayer breakfast, it all came together. It finally made sense to me: Barack Obama is comfortable with extremism.
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.
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.