America’s First Caliph

If you have not read my last post, Some Things that Should REALLY Offend Us, please do so before reading this post.  Thank you.

In my last post, I made the  assertion that the nineteen terrorists who attacked America on September 11, 2001 actually succeeded in destroying this nation.  Let me continue my point by asking you to consider this: because of the poison of political correctness, which was introduced to America by the Progressive (Communist) Left, we — as a nation — not only surrendered to our attackers, but we went so far as to elected one of them to lead us just to prove to ourselves that we are not ‘bad people.’  And because political correctness will not allow us to define anything by its form and function, we cannot call our leader what he is — a Muslim.  As a result, we have deliberately blinded ourselves to the fact that Obama is the first Caliph of the Islamic State of America.  Now, if that is not proof that the terrorists destroyed America on 9/11, I don’t know what more you need to convince you.  In fact, I doubt you’ll understand until they finally force you to convert, or they take your head.

Now, I understand that many will argue I am being an alarmist, or even a racist or anti-Muslim or whatever label the rules of political correctness require I be tagged to silence me.  However, it does not change the facts at hand.  Neither does it matter that the transformation isn’t complete.  The Constitution died long before the Progressive transformation had been completed, but today, we can look back and see that it did die — long ago — and that the Progressive changes are now in their final stages.  So it is with the transformation to the Islamic State of America.  Unless this nation wakes now, then the inevitable is just a matter of time and Obama will be recorded as the first Caliph of that Islamic State of America.

I also understand that many will object to me saying that Obama is a Muslim.  Well, this is no longer in doubt.  Actions (the fruit of the tree) define the person, not his or her words.  Obama’s actions (as well as his own admission) have proven that he is not a Christian, and that he supports Islam.  So the sane among us — those ruled by logic and reason as applied to actual observation — we know Obama to be Muslim.  As such, he is the first Islamic leader of the new Islamic State of America.  That — by definition — makes him America’s first Caliph.  And we — the American people — blinded by the madness of Secular Humanism (i.e Progressivism/Communism) — we invited these devils into our own home.

So, why do I say Obama is a Muslim?  Well, first, because no Christian would ever say this — not even by mistake:

And because Obama’s own Reverend said Obama did not renounce Islam:

Jeremiah Wright: I “Made It Comfortable” For Obama to Accept Christianity Without Having to Renounce Islam (Video Report)

So Obama and his reverend both admitted to the fact that he was and remains a Muslim.  But then, Islamic law also says Obama is a Muslim, but who cares about Islamic law, right?  But there’s more:

And still more:

Obama a Shiite

Barry Soetoro: Groomed by the Muslim Brotherhood

Now, with all of this evidence, the question shouldn’t be: Why do I call Obama a Muslim?  The question should be: Why don’t others see the truth?

Today, Rush Limbaugh opened his show by claiming that none of what our government is doing with regard to Iran makes any sense and that it cannot be explained rationally.  But it can.  If we just accept two truths:

1 — Obama is a Muslim, and he is actively working to further the goal of turning America into an Islamic State.

2 — That the two Parties are actually one Party pretending to be two, and that this one Party has willingly allied itself with the Islam for the sole purpose of the financial reward they can gain from said alliance.

If you accept these two premises, then what we are seeing can be explained this way:

Obama is helping Iran because he wants to destroy Israel.  He is allowing our borders to stay open and importing as many Muslim refugees as he can so as to swell the ranks of Muslims in this nation, as well as allow Jihadi fighters to infiltrate our society.  This way, he facilitates an active Jihad against America while retaining plausible deniability.  In fact, he can even use terrorist attacks on our population as an excuse to exercise his authority in a manner that actually furthers the Jihad: mostly by further consolidating power under the Executive branch while restricting even more American liberties.  He is even using it to label our defenders as the real ‘terrorists’ among us.  And make no mistake, he is masterfully exploiting our open wounds over slavery and the damage that political correctness has wrought on our ability to reason.  They have allowed him to start a race war that, at the same time, undermines our law enforcement agencies while making it impossible to point fingers at his guilt because of the color of his skin and the fear of the politically correct backlash that will follow should we dare to speak the truth.  So this explains Obama.

Congress is even easier to explain.  They are so isolated, and so absolutely full of themselves and their own perceived superiority that they have actually convinced themselves that they and their banker allies can control the world.  These people seek power — plain and simple.  And they equate power with money, and vice versa.  So they willingly align themselves with the oil wealth of the Islamic world, thinking the whole time that because they are smarter than the ‘backward camel jockies,’ they will be able to use them for their money while still keeping them under control.  This alliance was definitively proven long ago in the book, Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left.  The only thing Horowitz missed is that the American Left (Democrats) are the same as the GOP.  So this explains Congress and its willingness to go along with the Iran deal (as well as why it chooses to remain blind to all the other infiltration of Islam into our government and other social institutions).

There you have it: Occam’s Razor in its simplest form.  I just explained everything we are actually seeing in  very simple and easily understood terms.  What’s more, the whole picture is logical, coherent and consistent.  Nothing we have seen lies outside simple explanation according to this outline.  At the same time, no other attempt to explain what we have been seeing can make the same claim.  Rush Limbaugh even admitted to it.  So, if we have ruled out everything else, then whatever remains, no matter how much we do not want to believe and accept it, it must be the truth.  In this case, the truth is:

Obama is the first Caliph of the Islamic State of America — and we elected him because we were afraid of the politically correct backlash of not voting for the black guy.

ADDENDUM:

Obama has been wearing his proclamation of allegiance to Allah his whole life.  This means he is still a Muslim, which makes him America’s first Muslim Caliph:

29 thoughts on “America’s First Caliph”

  2. Joe,
    Thanks for finally expressing my opinion about Black Obama (his skin
    color matters more to him than the content of his character).

    The only item you neglected to include in your post is Rush Limbaugh’s
    commentary, April 09, 2008, on Rev. Wright a “Former Muslim” reported
    in the New Republic in ’07.

    Too bad it has taken so long for the American Public to recognize what
    constitutes Black Hussein Obama! As I stated in earlier posts, I was
    convinced what a travesty this human person? is after reading his
    book, “Dreams From My Father.”

    Thanks again for your effort in producing the TRUTH in “America’s
    First Caliph.”
    EdwardS

    Reply

    1. EdwardS,

      Just so long as you understand I am not placing any focus on the color of his skin except to point out that he has exploited it and our open wound over slavery/racism to protect himself from any political backlash. I am in no way writing about race: I am writing about his religion and religious agenda.

      Reply

  3. Evil incarnate. Obama is a type of anti-christ. His will, just like Satan’s, is to destroy as many soul’s as possible prior God casting Satan into the Lake of Fire. This is spiritual warfare being waged by Satan against God. One can only be on God’s side or Satan’s as there is no position in between. The US Government is clearly in Satan’s camp and is getting stronger everyday.

    Christian is now a derogatory name and many will be put to the sword in the coming years for their belief in Jesus Christ. It will start out with a few days in jail (recent event) and escalate from there.

    If you believe there is a place called “Neutral” your in for one big surprise. We all have free will to make that decision so choose carefully my friend. God’s Eternity or the Lake of Fire.

    No Club Med in between.

    Reply

  4. Joe,
    The main focus is directly on Black Obama’s skin!

    His decisions on all you identify are correlated on his perspective
    of The Black Race!

    Black Obama thinks and lives BLACK!

    I would anticipate the three words on his tombstone after his
    name will be: “A Black Man”
    EdwardS

    Reply

    1. EdwardS,

      I disagree. I am well aware that he uses his race to his advantage, and he exploits the open wound that is our slave/racist past, but I do not see any indication that he thinks of himself in terms of race (his wife may be a different story, but not him). He thinks more in terms of Communism/Anti-Colonialism, and his actions show an allegiance to Islam, not black America. SO, if you are looking to drag me in the direction of justifying bigotry based on his skin color, you’ll find that I would sooner stand in your way than agree with you.

      There is a great deal about Obama with which we can disagree. I just don’t think it is helpful to add fuel to his fire by perpetuating the very wound he is using to enact his agenda.

      Reply

  5. Joe,
    Expanding on my earlier post, Black Obama does not equate
    with American Blacks. His lineage does not progress from
    slavery.

    Black Obama is above that status, as in Abraham Lincoln,
    FDR, LBJ, Bill Clinton. He believes his position as a Black
    accords him perfection in his endeavor as the leader in The
    New Socialism (Cloward/Piven) and needs American Blacks
    as the gateway.

    If he can use Islam to propagate his philosophy (theology)
    better credit if it fails.

    If he succeeds…welcome Caliph?

    I am confused by your being dragged in the direction of
    bigotry by Obama’s skin color? What is it about Obama’s
    bigotry that you find alarming?
    EdwardS

    Reply

    1. EdwardS,

      I do not mean this to be rude, but I think a direct answer is warranted here — so as to avoid any more confusion.

      Your use of the term ‘black Obama’ strikes me as an indication of bigotry. Even if you do not intend for it to, it plays into the hands of the race-baiters in this country.

      As for the continued emphasis on Obama’s skin color and attempts to connect it to his agenda: I reject this, as well. I honestly do not believe Obama sees things that way. As I said, yes, he will explaoint racial tensions in this nation, but he could care less. His references to racial issues appear to be nothing more than pandering to the black community for political support.

      When we look at what he is doing, his agenda is clearly driven by a Marxist bent (per his own admission i his books). Marxism is not overly concerned with race. They see things more in terms of materialism and class. Again, this falls in line better with what we are actually seeing than the notion of race-driven bias.

      Finally, America is largely blind to how much of Obama’s agenda is driven by Islamic ideology. Unless and until this nation starts to really come to grips with Islam, it will remain blind to it — especially since it is much easier for a lazy and self-absorbed nation to dismiss Obama as an incompetent bigot. This plays to his advantage. However, the FACTS remain: Obama has clearly not only aligned his Administration with Islam, he has taken up the causes of Islam in this nation. To this extent, we should stop focusing on race and start looking past this diversion. There are more dangerous ideologies in play here than race-envy/baiting.

      Reply

      1. Late to the discussion. But I have to STRONGLY disagree.

        Obama both uses and identifies with his “Blackness”….his auto Biographies are full reference to race and specifically as he calls it “HIS” BLACK race. They are also full of comparisons BETWEEN white and black. Further his speeches have come apace littered with racial references and hints at reparations in various form to “Blacks”. And his public pronouncements and appearances have been exclusively to the BLACK victims of perceived WHITE crime.

        This is all orchestrated and tendentious to the highest degree. Now He ALSO has a political Philosophy that draws from Communism/Colonialism…..but key features of Colonialism also have racial components. And so does Communism ( Marxism). Racism used by Socialists SPECIFICALLY to foment social friction, violence and thus to affect radical change in the Structure of Society.

        To say this is just to acknowledge his thinking and planning and active participation in this race-hate-divide scheme. Thus it is in no way justifying bigotry….even in a back-handed way. To say the truth doesn’t make one a bigot.

        Reply

        1. Don,

          You said:

          ” Racism used by Socialists SPECIFICALLY to foment social friction, violence and thus to affect radical change in the Structure of Society.”

          I agree (said the same thing in different words). But I think where we see racism in Obama, we should be seeing the incorporation of race as a means to his end. Just as he has so incorporated Alinsky and Marxism into who he is, so is his use of and manipulation of racial tension an inherent part of him. It has become second nature. But I do not think it is the driving force behind what he is doing. For that, I think we should look past the puppet (Obama) to his master9s) (mainly Soros). There is no known racism there: only hatred of the West/freedom. Equally, Soros seems to have missed/dismissed Obama’s Muslim faith/training. We can definitely see that in his actions, but I do not see the agenda of the Black Panthers in what he is doing, do you?

          Reply

          1. Good comparison with Soros…who enthusiastically collected ( helped steal) the belongings of his fellow Jews as they were KNOWINGLY being transported to their deaths in the National Socialist Camps. Soros was ( and IS ) loyal to the Socialist-Marxist cause over anything and anyone. Likewise with Obama. But I do think Obama is personally racist against whites which he folds into the batter the way a cook fold eggs.

            Soros didn’t miss Obama being a muslim at all. But true to Soros Marxist Loyalty and especially his DEEP HATRED of the West….. Soros viewed Obama’s various “trainings” as tools to be used. Those tools being…. Communist inspired Anti-Colonialism…..outright Marxism ( Obama’s Parents and Grandparents…Frank Marshall Davis…) and Obama’s racial politics as fostered by Alinski……all of these have been used by bothe Obama ( and his other handlers ) as well as Soros ( the Ferguson riots and subseguent Black Crimes Matter movement, which was the New Trayvon attempt by Soros and the Media machine).

            Thus yes I do in fact see the agenda of the Black Panthers in what he is doing….. remember agendas are joined in an episodic way throughout any political campaign. Obama used the Black Panther agenda VERY early with Holder refusing to prosecute the Black Panthers stopping white people from voting in Philadelphia.

            Reply

            1. Don,

              So, is Obama advancing the Black Panther agenda for the sake of advancing their agenda, or is he doing it as an expedient means of creating the social unrest crucial to the Marxist paradigm of populace revolution? I happen to think this is the case and that any appearance of advancing the Black Panther agenda is — at best — a secondary concern.

              HOWEVER, at the same time, we CAN AND DO see that Obama is actively working to advance the Islamic agenda. We see this because he is taking pains to hide it from the American people. For example: he is refusing Christian refugees while importing Syrian and Ethiopian by air (all Muslim, many jihadists). But he camouflages this in the general controversies over illegal immigration in general. He has done a great deal to advance the goal of an Islamic America, and much of it has remained hidden (which also implicated the media in all of this — even the ‘conservative media’).

              This is also why I reject those — like Beck — who claim Obama is not religious at all. Obama has never been insulting toward Islam, but the same cannot be said for any other religion — ONLY for Islam. That is a religious statement in and of itself — but only seen and understood by those who know and understand Islam.

              This is why I fear America may have already been lost: we will not recognize our enemy because we do not see through religious eyes anymore. If we did, we would see what Obama has been doing for what it is — cultural jihad. THIS is where I think Soros has underestimated things. Soros is under the delusion that he can control the Jihadis. HA! Where he thinks he is using Islam, it is Islam that is using him.

              Reply

  6. He is using it as a means of creating social unrest. BUT remember, most Black Panthers ARE muslim….so….their agenda is the same. The Black Panthers and Obammy share a racisl hatred of whites though which is an addendum to their political agenda if you will.

    Agree 125 % with your 2nd Paragraph.

    Beck is an Establishment shill who is trying to “heard” American Christians and harness their faith in order to support the Agenda of the take-down of the West via Illegal invasion. His first “event” highlighting “hispanics” and his second highlighting Middle East Arabs ( who may or may not be Christian)…..the point it they are both ILLEGAL intruders. And he is cajoling his “faithful” to pay their own money to import these ILLEGALS. SO….. I would question Beck’s “religion” before I question Obama’s. Obama is so obviously a muslim that to doubt it is but another aspect of the “Secular drone religion”….. another pillar of which would be believing in Climate Change. Obama went o muslim schools, was admitted as a muslim top Pakistan when non-muslims couldn’t go there without major intervention, was admitted to US college as a “foreign” student, his father came from muslim backround, his step father was a muslim, his mother has been proven to have been a member of a muslim sect from Seattle, and then all the things you mentioned re: his response th islam, and his own statements about how HE FEELS about islam in his “auto-biographies”. The Rev Wriught I believe is a “former” muslim too.

    Obama is both a muslim and an active one in that he has admitted MANY muslims into our government, allowed them to dictate National Security Training and then into the State Dept, used it as well as Executive Power to affect a Radical muslim Brotherhood takeover of formerly stable ME States.

    Obama is a muslim.

    I don’t believe it is too late to turn the ship around. Although I share many aspects of your pessimism about where we are.

    I think you are correct about Soros and his misjudgement of islam.

    Reply

  8. Joe,
    If I’m a bigot (racist) for calling Black Obama BLACK, then I accept
    your premise, however Black Obama is not absolved from also
    being a bigot (racist). I notice that when Don called Black Obama
    a racist, you concurred with his definition, however up to this
    point you refrained from using that definition of Black Obama?

    I totally agree with Don and accept much of your explanation of
    the subject. Excellent words and truth expressed here. Too bad
    we can’t post it on Black Obama’s Tuesday Morning Brief!
    EdwardS

    Reply

    1. EdwardS,

      I was not trying to say I think you are a bigot; just trying to do my best to steer clear of those rocks and shoals.

      As fo9r my agreement with Don, if you will go back and re-read it, I agreed on the point where DOn said it might be a secondary drive/motivation. Whereas, if I have read you correctly, you seem to think it is his primary motivation. This is where I think you and I disagree.

      I do not want you to think I have anything against you. I do not. In fact, I consider you to be among the more thoughtful commenters here. If I offended, I apologize. It was not my intention.

      Reply

  9. Joe,
    As long as Black Obama is public, I am no racist competition to him!

    He exhibits the definition!

    I do not seem to think it is Black Obama’s primary motivation!

    IT IS HIS PRIMARY MOTIVATION!

    I have no objection (offense) against honest opinion.

    No offense taken, no apologies required.
    EdwardS

    Reply

      1. DOn,

        That’s not quite what Beck said. He said that, if the people claiming to be TEA Party who are now supporting Trump cannot see that they are supporting him for the very same reason Obama’s supporters supported him, then they are racist as the only reason to oppose Obama would have been because he is black. Beck went on to explain that this would have to be the case because Trump is a mirror image of Obama in terms of political ideology/personality traits.

        Now, where politics are concerned, Beck is usually a lot more on target than off, and I think he is in the vicinity of the bulls-eye here. Where I think Beck misses things is that Obama represents the Communist side of Progressivism (a la Wilson) while Trump is the NAZI side (a la Teddy Roosevelt). But those who claim to be TEA Party who are supporting Trump are guilty of being the flip side of the same coin as Obama’s supporters. This undermines the TEA Party much more than anything their opponents have ever said or done.

        Reply

        1. Rhetorically your first paragraph says exactly what I said. Because that’s exactly what Beck said. It’s all about race.
          So you also are calling supporters of Trump racist. And now you call Trump a Nazi…..which by extension calls Trump supporters Racist Nazis…..Pelosi, Obama, Bush and the rest of the MSM would be proud of you.

          Demonizing folks and ignoring why people say they support something in favor of slogans and labels is the very definition of Political Propaganda.

          I am actually quite taken back. However as the game progresses one learns. Thus I am learning.

          Reply

          1. Don,

            No, Beck did not SAY they were motivated by racism; he tried to help them understand that, if they do not see they are supporting Trump for the wrong reasons, then they are liable to this accusation. He clarified it today (put a finer point on it). But then, Beck has made no secret that he opposes Trump.

            As for your reduction/straw man: this is beneath you. I did not call them anything out right: I said they represent similar positions as the Communists/NAZIs. In that sense, i am DEAD ON CORRECT! (what’s more, I think you know it).

            Reply

              1. OK, if that’s what you want to take from it, I can’t stop you. But it is not what Beck was saying, and that comes from someone who has admitted he is no fan of Glenn Beck.

                As for me, I in NO WAY said that these people are racists. However, I do agree with Beck on this point: if you opposed Obama but support Trump, then you are either a racist or a Progressive who is upset that you/your side is not the one dictating. Because, and its true, the only difference between Trump and Obama is that Trump is a patriotic nationalist (which is why I said he represents the NAZI side of the Communist/Socialist — NAZI/Fascist divide)

                Reply

  10. Don,
    When Glenn Beck grows up and matures into an adult, I’ll probably
    pay more attention to what his opinion has to do with any reliable
    TEAParty actions/activities!

    I support the “IN YOUR FACE” attitude that Trump is exhibiting
    in his appearances, but do not support him as a candidate at this
    date!

    As has happened in past nominee confrontations, there is one
    or two “outspoken” attention achievers who absorb the publicity
    that may or may not reflect their viability the American Voter
    will accept.
    EdwardS

    Reply

    1. On the other hand none of our Candidates to date ( Cruz etc) has said ANYTHING of substance about anything. Which is itself its own kind of message.

      When the entire political machinery of both parties is focused on taking down one person 24/7…..there is a message there. One that gets to heart of what those parties are really all about.

      Reagan evoked a similar response. Because his goals diverged significantly from both parties goals.

      Reply

Leave a comment