Today, I'm asking Mr. Obama to remove his American flag lapel pin.

For the commander-in-chief of the United States to wear an American flag lapel pin, while demonizing the defense of America, is a lethal form of hypocrisy.

On the campaign trail in 2007, attention was brought on Barack Hussein Obama's conspicuous non-display of an American flag lapel pin. Barack then said

From his lapel-pin-free days, Obama’s undignified “salute” to America.

From his lapel-pin-free days, Obama’s undignified “salute” to America.

The truth is that right after 9/11 I had a pin. Shortly after 9/11, particularly because as we're talking about the Iraq war, that became a substitute for I think true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security.

According to candidate Obama, we infer that one exhibiting "true patriotism" should not wear the American flag lapel pin and then fail to have the courage to evaluate potential existential threats to America.

Since this label pin announcement, Obama has had a change a heart. Obama now ostentatiously wears an American flag lapel pin. So why am I now asking him to take it off?

The short answer is because it is easier for Obama to remove his lapel pin, then to vet his beloved Islam. Multicultural Obama is not as stupid as he is evil.

Given the extremely disproportionate frequency of terrorists acts committed by males with the name of "Mohammad," one would think that investigating the terroristic nature of their name–sake would be, at a minimum, an appropriate act, an act "of importance to our national security."

Obama does not have the patriotism to vet Mohammad. It is vital for the American people to impose upon our Islamophilic impulse-oriented President the following four questions

  1. Was Mohammad, Mr. President, a terrorist?
  2. What are the attributes of a terrorist Mr. Obama, and how to the mass murders, tortures and rapes committed or ordered by Mohammad miraculously fail to implicate Mohammad as a terrorist?
  3. Are we a nation of laws, or are we one nation under Mohammad?
  4. Were Mohammad a Syrian refugee today, Mr. President, should the US grant Mohammad asylum?

Having America's first black President run cover for human rights abusing ideology is more than a little unpoetic.

Having America's first black President act as if protecting America's national survival is beneath him is ugly.

The hard work of grappling with these potentially damning questions is necessary for the defense of America. As judged by multiculturalism, at best my questions are divisive and impolite. But I am already tarred by our neo-puritan multiculturalists as a bigot and worse. Perform an honest moral analysis of Islam and our self-anointed neo–puritan TV anchormen/condemnation–preachers will find you to be a hater and racist. But if one cannot divide "true patriots" from enemies of the state, how can "patriotism"—i.e., multicultural patriotism—have any meaning?

Unfortunately, many Republicans are not qualitatively different than Obama. In the immediate aftermath of 911, George W. Bush infamously impulse–projected his own multicultural vision of Mohammadianism, saying, "Islam is a religion of peace."

But Obama's more pensive response goes further in the wrong direction than W's initial impulse. Obama's legacy raises and falls with a statement he has made many dozens of times: The US is not, and will never be, at war with Islam. Of course this assertion is not the conclusion of a transparent and thorough analysis of Mohammad performed by Obama and made available to the American people. Rather this treasonous lie is Obama's multicultural wish. Obama's presidency is centered around his multicultural–dhimmi impulse. Obama has fashioned a historically unencumbered Mohammad. Obama is not the sort of man who will correct this sort of mistaken impulse. This is the sort of impulse which is branded into Obama's psyche. The impulse must not be challenged. Do so, and Obama will demonize you.

The truth, of course, is that Islam has always been at war with the civilized world.

Obama called George W. Bush's treasonous proclamation—"Islam is a religion of peace"—an "impulse," saying, "It was the right impulse. It is our better impulse." But Mr. President, true patriots do not merely defend America based on "impulses," but rather by a systematic cold analysis of potential existential threats. 14 years after the 911 attacks, evaluating the possibility of Islam being an existential threat is no longer a Presidential impulse exercise, but a cold hard Presidential systematic study of Islam's sacred texts scholarly exercise.

Obama has even outfitted the NASA Administrator, Charles Bolden, with the primary mission of helping "dominantly Muslim nations … feel good about their historic contributions to science and engineering." Having the head of America's space agency adopt as his primary role the carrying out of non–fictitious Islamic feelgoodisms would be, manifestly, inappropriate. But describing Islam's ostensible contributions to science and engineering as something notable is like making Barry Soetoro an icon for transparency in government and identity documentation.

This was This is what doubling down on stupid—or evil—looks like.

By stating that the refusal to grant Mohammadian refugees entry into our country betrays who we are as a people, Obama has doubled down on his treason. Perched in his beloved Islamic Turkey, Obama proclaimed that a Mohammadian test would not be patriotic, but "shameful." And if this were not enough treason, Obama then compared American political leaders who advocate questioning Mohammadianism to the leadership of ISIS. So the Obama argument goes that because Republican object to members of ISIS coming to America, that Republicans are like members of ISIS. So how is our President's accusation different than baseless school–yard epithets disparaging the promiscuous sexual activities of one's mother?

Except that he is subordinating himself to his Islamic overlord—Obama postures himself in a manner which would otherwise appear to defy explanation. One has difficulty recalling Obama greeting Republican Americans—or even any white people—in this fashion.

Except that he is subordinating himself to his Islamic overlord—Obama postures himself in a manner which would otherwise appear to defy explanation. One has difficulty recalling Obama greeting Republican Americans—or even any white people—in this fashion.

Or maybe Obama's real argument is that the good of welcoming non–violent Mohammadians outweighs the risk in loss of American lives from the violent Mohammadians. But if Mohammad was a terrorist and Mohammad is the ideal example for all Muslims (as stated dozens of times in the Koran), what is the value in celebrating the invasion of one's country by doctrinal terrorists?

Vis-à-vis Islam, the danger of multiculturalism is that celebrating doctrinal terrorism is understood as a virtuous rite of passage. Evil becomes not merely a tolerated "good," but a compulsory "good."

According to the lexicon of the left then, "true patriotism" means squelching the debate on the matter of even having the audacity to evaluate existential threats. According to the operative lexicon of Obama, "true patriotism" means stigmatizing the true patriots who question this "wisdom" of squelching the debate on the character of Mohammad. The phony author of The Audacity of Hope promotes a phony national hope. Obama's Mohammadaphilia and moral–phobia is suffocating and hijacking civilizational hope. For the left "true patriotism" is code-speak for celebrating and facilitating the death of America.

Indeed this is the same Obama who, with his Iran deal, became perhaps the world's largest sponsor of terrorism.

Obama’s “wedding” ring contains the Shahada. It would seem that Obama is quite taken by Mohammad’s Allah.

Obama’s “wedding” ring contains the Shahada. It would seem that Obama is quite taken by Mohammad’s Allah.

Obama does not have the patriotism to answer publically my above four questions about Mohammad. Obama's tenacity to protect and defend Mohammad's reputation is mirrored only by the Mohammadian suicide bomber. Obama would sooner admit his identity documentation forgeries than subject his beloved Mohammad to the audacity and indignity of my four questions. Based on the actions of any nationally elected Republican, Obama's tenacity to protect and defend Mohammad's reputation far exceeds any of these Republicans' tenacity to protect and defend the Constitution. But I digress.

Our multiculturalist–in–chief will not relent in his treasonous impulse–deception. Since multiculturalism is a thick treasonous disease, its media victims cannot even countenance asking Obama these four elementary questions above. The media's cover for Obama's treason may not even be a conscious decision. Indeed the media cannot even countenance asking Obama about how his White House released long form birth certificate could possibly have the peculiar organization of image layers that it possesses. Thus Obama commits his treason in broad daylight and the public does not notice.

By giving Mohammadian image–bearers unfettered access to the jugular arteries of America, Obama has creating an ideological Trojan horse by which American can be terrorized and conquered.

America needs a commander-in-chief who, like Winston Churchill, is a scholar–patriot and who boldly defends America more than he defends Islam and multicultural "impulses." In 1987, a patriot spoke to an existential threat to American and boomed, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" Today I speak to the near enemy, the enemy within, and I say, "Mr. President, remove your American flag lapel pin!"

If Obama is anything, he is a fraud and a Trojan horse. Even Obama's black skin color is a Trojan horse. More accurately, Obama is America's first hyphenated-American President. Whereas a real black President would affirm the "self-eviden[ce] that all men are created equal," Obama's support for evolutionism, which denies even the self-evidence that all men are created, prohibits him from affirming the self-evidence that all men are created equal. In this regard, were Dr. Ben Carson to become president, he would be the first real black American president.

It is the height of irony and hypocrisy to have America's first black President so doggedly celebrate a religion immutably anchored to

  • sexual slavery (e.g., Koran 4:3, 24 inter alia)
  • religious apartheid (Jizya tax of Koran 9:29) and
  • genocidal jihad (e.g., Koran 9:5).

Mock me "racist" and/or a "birther" if you must Mr. President, but Mohammad does not embody who we as Americans are.

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.