Barack Hussein Obama is the biggest supporter of trafficking in human persons today. To see this treasonous policy, one can do a couple of searches on the whitehouse.gov website. Search on “war with Islam” and you will see that Obama repeated declares “The US is not, and will never be, at war with Islam.”
This policy of Obama has also translated into domestic assignments too. Charles Bolden is a black man who Obama nominated to be the head of NASA. In this capacity, Bolden declared that Obama’s first priority for him was “to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with predominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math, and engineering.”
The Islamic historic contribution to science, math and engineering is something like Barry Soetoro’s historic contribution to honesty and transparency in governance and identity claims. It exists in PowerPoint presentations and some parts of the media (including Wikipedia and snopes.com), but not in reality.
Obama does not dare to apply American principles like “unalienable rights” and “liberty under God” to challenge Islam’s practices of sexual slavery (Koran 4:3, 24) and religious apartheid (Koran 9:29). Instead of being an American and evaluating Islam in terms of the American creed “all men are created equal,” Obama does the reverse and prostates America before Islam. “The US is not, and will never be, at war with Islam.”
Excuse me Mr. President, but what if Islam is at war with us?
One does not get the feeling that Obama has critically evaluated Islam or has any moral concerns about granting 501(c)3 economic benefits and moral cover to the greatest human trafficking institution the world has known. Instead, Obama hypocritically and sanctimoniously declares a zero tolerance policy for trafficking in human persons. Obama has become Islam’s foremost apologist.
Search whitehouse.gov on “mutual respect” and you will find thousands of hits, many associated with wipe–Israel–off–the–map–Iran and that slave sanctioning religion (e.g., Koran 4:3, 24), Islam. Curiously in this search of “mutual respect,” you will also find precious few such references to Republicans and no such references to Tea Party Patriots.
Whereas Malik Obama, Barack Obama’s half-brother, raised money under the false auspices of Barack Hussein Obama Foundation (BHOF) being a tax deductible 501(c)3 organization, this was not investigated. This illegal activity was rewarded with retroactive 501(c)3 status: another illegal act. Walid Shoebat and Ben Barrack write, “While BHOF claims to have built homes for orphans, the only evidence of any structure is a center/restaurant, a mosque with a madrassa, and a residence for an imam to run it.” These authors also note that, “Malik [is by multiple source known to have] at least 12 wives in total and continually lures young, underage girls, which even based on Kenyan standards, is illegal.”
So Obama manages to use the IRS to illegally support Islam, all the while deny legal support to Patriot groups to obtain 501(c)3 status.
Given all this, one suspects that Obama would sooner see American burn to ashes before questioning the moral virtue of his beloved Islam.
I see moral virtue in the legacy of Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King, but where is the virtue in our first black President? Indeed, the forcible denial of the fruit of the black man’s labor was bad. But according to Obama, the forcible denial of the fruit of what is predominately the white man’s labor is a good. After all, the white man, or today’s prototypical wealth producer, didn’t really build his business.
But if liberty is an unalienable right, how can one continue the charade that denying this right to whites is a good while denying this right to blacks is bad?
While one should not mitigate the brutality of Islamic slavery that supplied American plantations, neither should one mitigate the common violation of unalienable rights that that permeates both said Islamic–American slavery and the income tax, now galvanized in the 16th Amendment.
Or is envy of your neighbor’s goods such an unalienable right that a small percentage of black entrepreneurs being taxed along with whites is a good, but taxing blacks independent of whites would be a bad?
What happened to “your rights to the fruit of my labor are non–existent? Your government subsidy ends where my wallet begins?”
Obama not only provides de–facto moral cover and economic benefits to history’s greatest enslaver, but Obama is the tip of spear in denying Americans of their “unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
Where is the emancipation narrative in Obama’s policies paralleling the emancipation narrative heralded by Obama’s skin color and afro hair?
Where is the virtue in Barack Obama’s community organization work? Obama was key in the legal regulations that led to the sub–prime housing crisis. Yet I never heard Barack’s apology. I never heard of Barack working in the black Chicago community strengthening marriage, stigmatizing fornication and adultery, stigmatizing Black Entertainment Television values and chastening the narcotic of public dependency.
There are ministers, missionaries and public servants; and then there are community organizers.
The political narrative of Obama’s skin color is glorious: It is that of the black man finding his unalienable rights in the body politic and moving from the slave block to the highest office of the land. In contrast, the narrative of Obama’s policies is that of denying a nation of it glorious heritage of unalienable rights — the gift from the Creator God, who created all men equal.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.