In the wake of the Obama administration shutting down multiple American embassies, the reasons behind the closures remain obscured. Vague references and unconfirmed reports of impending threats float on the airwaves and on the Internet. People with a tenuous grasp on international affairs in the past few decades find such actions inexplicable and confusing. Those who view such events through the prism of political correctness will not allow themselves to admit what is occurring and why. Those who have been paying close attention as well as delving into the heart of the problem do understand.
How ignorant or delusional must someone be in order to be unable to see the obvious cause of the embassy closures? One only need glance at most types of calendars or at any source of news. Ramabomb, the annual bloodbath used by Mohamadans as justification for violence against infidels, ended last week. As per Islamic tradition, the first several days and the closing days of this period include numerous incidents of jihad. Such acts of mayhem include attacking churches, synagogues and other locations not frequented by Mohamadans. Additionally, non-Mohamadans experience an upsurge in threats from and assaults by jihadis against them. Does anyone truly believe that the closures occurred in countries throughout the Islamic bloc and in a few others close to jihadist hotspots by mere coincidence?
No one should expect Barack Obama or anyone else in his service to hint at any correlation between the fear of imminent attacks and the end of Ramabomb. Every one of Obama’s secretaries and other appointed officials, both former and current, has refused to utter accurate terms such as “jihadi” “Islamist”, “Moslem” or any others acknowledging the direct connection between numerous recent acts of terrorism and Islam. Janet Napolitano, the Secretary of Homeland Security, has refused to say the word “terrorism”. (Instead, she spouts a long-winded and deliberately obfuscatory euphemism reeking of politically correctness: “made-made disasters”.) Nidal Malik Hasan’s waging of jihad received the label of “work-place violence” by the federal government. (Hasan’s mass murder is classified as though his rampage consisted of a mere scuffle between employees bickering over petty office politics or someone’s lunch missing from the refrigerator.) Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton dismissed questions regarding the motivation and identities of the jihadis who stormed the American consulate in Benghazi with the flippant response, “What difference does it make?” Obama and his underlings refuse to follow a mandatory step when engaged in a war: identify the enemy.
President Obama and his Islamic-coddling crew’s have determined to claim credit for a lack of any jihadist attack on American soil during his tenure. That blew up in their faces (figuratively) and in the faces of multiples Americans (literally) at the Boston Marathon Massacre earlier this year. Failed attempts at jihad also happened on a flight into Detroit on Christmas of 2009 and at a Christmas tree lighting ceremony in Oregon in the following November. Are Americans expected to believe that the death of Osama bin Laden ended all jihadist attacks on the United States? Does Obama’s cult of personality think that his perceived messianic aura has shielded the United States from another incident of jihadis murdering thousands of Americans on par with that of the eleventh of September 2001?
So where are the love and peace from Mohamadans toward Americans expected by Obamaniacs following the election of a man raised as a Mohamadan? Islamists protesting across the world demonstrate as much animosity toward Barrack Obama as they express toward any other American. Will anyone in the media point out one glaring reason for Islamists’ contempt for Obama: his admitted apostasy from Islam? More importantly, will anyone in the Obama administration ever admit that Islam serves as the motivation of those determined to kill Americans and destroy the Free World?
COPYRIGHT BY CHARLES KASTRIOT AUGUST 2013