For Obama Some Religions Are More Equal than Others

Obama ‘Strongly Objects’ to Religious Liberty Amendment.

The amendment's sponsor, Rep. John Fleming, R-La., says that it would require “the Armed Forces to accommodate ‘actions and speech’ reflecting the conscience, moral, principles or religious beliefs of the member.”

Fleming points to evidence that Christian service members and chaplains are being penalized for expressing their faith. Examples:
•The Air Force censored a video created by a chaplain because it include the word “God.” The Air Force feared the word might offend Muslims and atheists.

•A service member received a “severe and possibly career-ending reprimand” for expressing his faith’s religious position about homosexuality in a personal religious blog.

•A senior military official at Fort Campbell sent out a lengthy email officially instructing officers to recognize “the religious right in America” as a “domestic hate group” akin to the KKK and Neo-Nazis because of its opposition to homosexual behavior.

•A chaplain was relieved of his command over a military chapel because, consistent with DOMA’s definition of marriage, he could not allow same-sex weddings to take place in the chapel.

The Obama administration evidently thinks it important that such actions continue to be taken.

There’s a tension between this policy–arguably suppressing expressions of Christian faith–with the White House’s assurance, according to Investor’s Business Daily, that FBI surveillance not including any investigation of mosques.

So, it appears, Christian religious expression must be suppressed, while Muslim religious expression cannot even be monitored. Yes, government can appropriately limit the conduct of members of the military in ways that would be inappropriate in the case of civilians. So there’s not necessarily a contradiction between these policies. And perhaps there’s a need to restrict servicemembers from offending colleagues in a way that would not be appropriate outside the military (and is not on college campuses, where it often occurs). But it sure looks like a double standard to me: Christianity, bad; Islam, good. I seem to remember, from some ancient reading, the phrase, “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

But we know that Obama is Islamophile. Some of his politics, like helping the Islamist ethnic cleansing of Christians in Syria, would otherwise be difficult to explain.

About Iraq, he inherited it from Bush. About Egypt and Lybia, you can say that he gambled, not exactly knowing what was going on.

But now he knows. And he does the same.

Lesbian Breaks the Rules of Her College but Does not Want to Pay the Consequences

Christian College Expels Lesbian, Bills Her $6,000 to Recoup Loans Because She Didn’t Finish Semester.

What I like most about this article are the comments:

1. I guess she should have followed the rules. Lady Gaga or somebody will pay her debt no doubt. She will get a degree from some other school and be done with it.

2. There is no one so blind as those who will not see.

In a liar’s universe, there is no truth.
Professing to change her behavior to meet the school’s minimum requirements and then taking, and living with a same sex spouse in an out of state union is deceitful.

How can anyone purportedly intelligent enough to earn a scholarship not be intelligent enough to understand a few simple rules?… Oh yeah, that’s right, she has the Nobel Peace Prize winner Barak Hussein Obama Jr., the worst ever president of the United States, for an example of how to live an honest life.

Never trust the MSM.

3. Hmm lets see, she applied to a conservative school likely under affirmative action rules due to title IV requirements. She more than likely used her race to advance her qualifications over other more qualified, Asian, Native American, Eskimo, and White Competitors. Then while she was reciving her free education she proceeded to violate the schools code of conduct, and more than likely was promoting homosexuality on campus, through the internet and social circles. Imagine if a White Male was given grants and scholarships to a traditionally black college, and then promoted the KKK in the local community, it would be no less vile and offensive. Liberals only like morals so long as they are working in their benefit.

4. Everyone here gets it. This is a homosexual version of Sandra “Professional Student” Fluke. These people get in there specifically to disrupt and discredit an organization, then get them to bend to some agenda. Ms. Powell and her “spouse” are prime examples. Then, on cue, the trolls (in this case, atheists} come out and start smearing “so called Christians” with stuff like “if God existed, he/she would not be so intolerant”. Really? Read the Bible sometime. God is VERY intolerant of rebellion against His will. He is long suffering, but has limits.

5. gee if the 35,000people had only given/sent her 1.00 dollar each..then the poor disinfranchised woman would have her bill paid..but seeing she is laying the professional victim card…she didn’t stop and consider that..did she ?

6. “I shouldn’t have this debt hanging over my head “…..meet the next Housing Crisis brought to you by the same group that brought the original housing crisis : Democrats playing the Discrimination Card to enable people to avoid their financial responsibilities. The Democrats are now trying to use the student loan obligations to torpedo the economy by encouraging irresponsible behavior on the debtor end. This individual owes the school for services rendered which she voluntarily agreed to. Grow up. Pay up. And shut up, girl.

7. What an evil world we live in. Political correctness (LIES) and lack of personal responsibility rule. I’m sure Grace College is private and this lesbian was not forced to go there and she must have volunteeringly signed an oath to abide by the college’s rules. But that doesn’t matter anymore does it? It’s all about selfishness anymore, right? Barf! America is such a disgusting country. And now watch, Grace College will be vilified and the lesbian will be the victim. Right is called wrong and wrong is called right.

8. America is not a disgusting country.
America is a beautiful country.
But there are certainly some vile disgusting cretins who will not tolerate anyone who disagrees with them. Unfortunately this PC BS has been crammed down our throats for so long now the haters think they have the right to demand that they be not just tolerated but celebrated.

9. What she isn’t telling the media is that a school in Illinois agreed to take her in as a student AND agreed to pay off her debt to Grace University because they support her lifestyle. She also isn’t telling the national media that the University President on a local radio station (with her on the line) agreed openly and publicly to give her any transcript that she needed to move on. She promptly replied that the situation still has “other options” and hung up the phone. Check with KFAB in Omaha for the details. She is another one in a generation of childish adults who think the world should cater to their every desire and lust.

10. There is a limited time period one can drop classes and not have to pay for those classes. She knew the rules, she broke the rules, had to leave the school before the semester was finished, payment is her responsibility.

11. She knew the rules when she applied to the university or shortly after acceptance. Behavior has consequences and she made an informed choice to violate the schools rules of conduct. If she wanted a non-Christian education and lax honor code she should have attended a different school.

12. this was no accident…this has been used on americans and Christians for decades…devide and rule anyway possible..she didn’t just suddenly think she was gay and she knew what kind of school she was at…this was a planned attack. wake up america

13. Here we go again.
Homosexuals only go to this places to destroy Christianity.
If you don’t agree with the rules GO ELSE WHERE!
Let your money and participation show your ideology.
Personally, I am a live and let live Conservative.
I do not judge other’s actions, UNLESS they directly involve me and mine.
If you are a Homosexual, BE ONE, but don’t try to force me to participate in any manner. I WON’T.
They CAN’T do that, they CAN’T leave well enough alone, their mental problems won’t let them. so they have lost my heart, mind, and financial support.
If you want an abortion, HAVE ONE, but don’t make me pay for YOURS, nor your birth control.
The pro Abortionist have lost my heart, mind, and financial support.
Leave RELIGIOUS based schools, businesses, churches, and organizations (BSA) ALONE!
There are plenty that don’t care, so WHY go after the ones that do, a SMALL %.
But, the hate filled knuckle heads JUST CAN’T do it.
This is all becoming an issue for normal people BECAUSE it’s being forced down our throats.
Things are about to change, and not in a good way for these insane dolts.
Watch and see. Pass the popcorn.

14. heathen, that’s a straw man. And you know it.
Too many other options out there than be all whiny because the school, organization, business, or church doesn’t agree with your lifestyle. But no, YOU have to force your crap on everyone else when just using other options would suffice.
This is about to become a big issue in America. CHRISTIANS are waking up., and that’s who you mean, don’t deny it. You darn sure won’t put Islam in that category, and they KILL you for not being Islamic.
God nor Christ never said to not defend you and yours. NEVER.
Watch and see lil’ buddy, watch and see.

15. Here we have another case where another homosexual person lies or deceives their religious employer/school to either stay employed or to continue to receive payments and or academic credentials.

A religious school has first amendment rights to protect their faith from non religious violations.

Just like with the kaitylun hunt cultists, the gay left just wants to glom on to this story and make it about homosexual civil rights (civil privileges actually) when its really about constitutional religious rights.

This Woman should pay back every dime.

Arrested 14-Year-Old Faces Jail for Wearing NRA "Protect Your Right" T-Shirt

Whatever you think of the gun debate in America, this goes too far.

Marcum, a 14-year-old-boy from West Virginia got into an argument with a teacher for wearing his NRA (National Rifle Association) T-shirt with the image of a firearm and the words “Protect Your Right” printed on it at his school.

He was arrested for disturbing the education process and for obstructing an officer — the latter, according to court documents, because Marcum refused to stop talking, thus hindering the arresting officer from doing his job.

Marcum was suspended from school, after which he returned to class wearing the exact same shirt, as did other students in a show of solidarity.

He is now facing a $500 fine and a year in jail.

From The Blaze:

WOWK-TV reported Jared Marcum saying he never thought there would be a problem with his pro-Second Amendment apparel.

“I never thought it would go this far because honestly I don’t see a problem with this. There shouldn’t be a problem with this,” Marcum told WOWK-TV.

Police confirmed that Marcum had been arrested and faced charges of obstruction and disturbing the education process after getting into an argument over the shirt with a teacher at Logan Middle School, which is south of Charleston.

Logan Middle School’s policy regarding dress states:

"A student will not dress or groom in a manner that disrupts the educational process or is detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of others. A student will not dress in a manner that is distractive or indecent, to the extent that it interferes with the teaching and learning process, including wearing any apparel that displays or promotes any drug-, alcohol- or tobacco-related product that is prohibited in school buildings, on school grounds, in school-leased or owned vehicles, and at all school-affiliated functions."

The student’s father, Allen Lardieri, told WOWK that the shirt didn’t violate this policy, nor did his son become aggressive when confronted about it.

“I will go to the ends of the earth, I will call people, I will write letters, I will do everything in the legal realm to make sure this does not happen again,” Lardieri said.

It doesn't sound like Marcum's shirt violated the school's policy. It looks more like the school and police violated Marcum's right to free expression.

HuffPo Shows How for the Left "Hate" Applies only to Preferred Victims

The Huffington Post, that wonderful Leftist outlet, has shown how hate-free it is by posting the video of a spoof made in response to negative comments for the Cheerios advertisement featuring a mixed-race couple and their daughter.

The ad "generated such a strong racist backlash on YouTube that the comments section had to be closed", laments the staunch guardian of morality and enemy of all hatred HuffPo.

Pity that, under the "Most Popular" column (screenshot above), just below the video response to reprehensible haters, there is a photo labelled "This Dog's Butt Looks Like Jesus".

Of course, offending the world's 2.18 billion Christians (a third of the global population - an astonishing figure, considering how much they are persecuted and killed for their religion in Asia and Africa, and discriminated against in the "developed", soon to revert to underdeveloped, world) for no good reason, not, say, involuntarily in the course of a well-argued discussion with the intention of making some valid points but just for the - quite appropriately - hell of it, to make fun at their beliefs without provocation or motive is OK. But maybe there is a motive: could it be, wait for it, hate?

Since the similarity, in this case, is evidently very much in the eye of the beholder, why did The Huffington Post not find or invent another likelihood?

If the photo had been "This Dog's Butt Looks Like Martin Luther King", would HuffPo, which knows everything about questions of ethics, first of all bigotry and racism, have considered it offensive to the black civil rights movement and not published it?

And what about a photo "This Dog's Butt Looks Like Muhammad"?

That is out of the question. In primis, the HuffPo staff value their lives and limbs more than moral and political integrity and avoidance of double standards and, unlike Christians, Muslims don't take insults gracefully and, what's more important for the HuffPo personnel's incolumity, peacefully, as we've had myriad opportunities to see during the last, well, 1,400 years.

In secundis, the political editor of the UK version of The Huffington Post is none other than our old Mulism friend Mehdi Hasan, who on more than one occasion was caught on video calling non-Muslims "people of no intelligence" and comparing them to animals and cattle, showing to be speciesist as well as Muslim supremacist.

He would not have taken this insult lying down, especially coming from infidels, in his esteemed opinion animals and people of no intelligence.

Lies about the Catholic Church Child Sex Abuse Scandal

If I say "Catholic Church", does the idea of sexual child abuse instinctively form in your mind more often, or more intensely, than if I say "BBC"?

If so, why do you think that is?

Do you instinctively associate the Catholic Church with sexual child abuse? And do you immediately associate the BBC with sexual child abuse?

If you answer yes to the first question and no to the second, why do you think that is?

Because these kinds of associations are created, or not created, as the case may be, in the minds of people by the mainstream media, which are for hours every day talking and showing images inside people's living rooms, being read by commuters on trains or buses, listened to by people in their cars. One of these media, indeed a very prominent one, in fact the world's largest broadcast news organisation, is the BBC itself, which has been found out to be involved in the cover-up of extensive and prolonged children sex abuse in its midst.

I haven't seen Richard Dawkins or Peter Tatchell demanding the arrest of BBC heads. Is it perhaps because they don't give a fig about child abuse half as much as they care about attacking the Church under any pretext (true or false it doesn't matter)?

Peter Hitchens, at the time when these nutcakes who included his own brother Christopher Hitchens, fundamentalist atheists that we call "professor" and militant homosexual activists that declare to be "human-rights advocates" called for the arrest of Pope Benedict XVI, wrote:

But the Vatican doesn’t actually tell its priests to abuse children. The vast majority of them do not so do. And it has tried to stamp out the problem and to offer genuine apologies to the victims.

I (as a non-Roman Catholic) have examined some of the main charges levelled against Benedict XVI by his attackers, and found that several of them are simply untrue, whereas others have been crudely distorted.

I have also examined the record of one of the main critics of the Papal visit. This is Peter Tatchell, prominent in the ‘Protest the Pope’ campaign.

...But this does not cancel out what I believe is the hypocrisy of his attempt – and that of the Left in general – to wage war on the Pope by employing the charge of condoning or failing to act against paedophilia (it is No  5 in the charge-sheet set out by ‘Protest the Pope’).

For on June 26, 1997, Mr Tatchell wrote a start­ling letter to the Guardian newspaper.

In it, he defended an academic book about ‘Boy-Love’ against what he saw as calls for it to be censored.

Tatchell defends under-age sex in his own website too, and advocates the removal of age of consent. He claims: "Nevertheless, like any minimum age, it is arbitrary and fails to acknowledge that different people mature sexually at different ages. A few are ready for sex at l2; others not until they're 20. Having a single, inflexible age of consent doesn't take into account these differences. It dogmatically imposes a limit, regardless of individual circumstances".

In this, he is in good company: his comrades of the Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB) want the same, so much so that Wikipedia is having a discussion about listing the entry for the CPGB in the Pedophile Organizations category.

Why do I say that these are Tatchell's comrades? Because Tatchell has a history of militant Marxism, although he keeps quiet about it.

The Left, with its atheist bent, has consistently been in favour of "free love" for everybody, children included. In France, as an example, the petition for the removal of the age of consent was signed by a veritable group of socio-communists, which comprised Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, Louis Althusser, Jean-Paul Sartre, Simone de Beauvoir, Roland Barthes, the novelist/gay activist Guy Hocquenghem and many others.

Now, the above leads us to the two main points of this article.

The first is that those who are and have been most vociferous and aggressive in their condemnation of the Catholic Church over the abuse episode, starting from the BBC and finishing with Peter Tatchell, have done so not for the sake of children's welfare but for their own political goals, in which the destruction of the Church, Christianity and indeed the sense of decency and morality are central. This is evident from their hypocrisy on the matter.

The second point, which will now be demonstrated by studies and statistical evidence, is that paedophilia is rampant in this day and age NOT because of the Church and the sexual ethics of self-restraint it believes in, BUT exactly because of the opposite, because Christian and in particular Catholic values in the sexual sphere have been eroded, and children are those who are paying the greatest price, not just due to the increase in the incidence of paedophilia cases, but also due to the breaking-up of families and progressive destruction of the institution of marriage.

Here I'll introduce to you the Canadian author and broadcaster Michael Coren and his book Why Catholics Are Right (Amazon USA) , (Amazon UK) , from which I will quote, since he has made an extensive, thorough and accurate research which should be read by anyone who has even the slightest urge to make pronouncements on this subject.

From page 12 and following [all emphases added]:

The rates of sexual abuse within the Catholic Church were in the past exactly the same as those in other Christian Churches and within other faith communities, though they may well be lower now. More than this, they were on a par with the abuse rates within any institution involving a power ratio between adult and young person, such as education, sports teams, and so on. All these incidents are deeply tragic. But to single one of these bodies out for particular venom seems strange. Of course, the Church speaks with a moral authority not claimed by a sports club or a school, so in this regard it is right that the Church should be particularly exposed, but the condemnation went much further than justified criticism and became dishonest, libellous, and hysterical. Horrible as it is to contemplate, the most dangerous place for a young person with regard to sexual abuse is the family, often with young women being abused by stepfathers or stepbrothers. Today the Catholic Church is probably the safest place for a young boy or girl because of what the Church has done to make it so. This is in no way to adopt the odious "it's not just us" approach but to show that abuse is not peculiar to the Church and says nothing specific about Catholicism.

If we look at the situation in the United States within other religious groups and various secular bodies, we see a revealing if disturbing picture, and the United States is entirely typical of the international experience. In Protestant circles, for example, a 1984 survey showed that 38.6 per cent of ministers reported some sort of sexual contact with a member of the Church and 76 per cent claimed to know of another minister who had had sexual intercourse with someone who attended the Church. Nor is this confined to one particular branch of the Protestant Church but seems to pervade liberal, mainstream, and orthodox denominations. The highly respected Fuller Seminary conducted an extensive survey of 1,200 ministers and concluded that 20 per cent of conservative pastors admitted to a sexual relationship outside of marriage with a member of the Church, with the figure doubling to an extraordinary 40 per cent for self-identified moderate ministers - the numbers rise to a staggering 50 per cent for so-called liberals. How much of this behaviour concerns minors is uncertain but the number is likely to be relatively low. Professor Philip Jenkins estimates that between 2 and 3 per cent of Protestant clergy have abused minors, but he puts the figure for Catholic priests at less than 2 per cent. Jenkins, remember, is a former Catholic who is now an Anglican and is far from being a Roman Catholic apologist. In 2002, the Christian Science Monitor, not a particular friend or supporter of Catholicism, reported on the results of national surveys conducted by an organization called Christian Ministry Resources and stated that, "despite headlines focusing on the priest paedophile problem in the Roman Catholic Church, most American Churches being hit with child sexual-abuse allegations are Protestant, and most of the alleged abusers are not clergy or staff, but Church volunteers".

Beyond the Christian faith, Rabbi Arthur Gross Schaefer, professor of law and ethics at Loyola Marymount University, believes that sexual abuse among rabbis within organized Judaism is roughly the same as that found within Protestant clergy. "Sadly," says Rabbi Schaefer, "our community's reactions up to this point have been often based on keeping things quiet in an attempt to do damage control. Fear of lawsuits and bad publicity have dictated an atmosphere of hushed voices and outrage against those who dare to break ranks by speaking out." In the field of education, the American Medical Association found in 1986 that one in four girls and one in eight boys were sexually abused in or out of school before the age of 18. In the city of New York alone, at least one child is sexually abused by a school employee every day! in 1994, Hofstra University professor Charol Shakeshaft conducted a study of 225 cases of educator sexual abuse in New York City and found that although every one of the accused admitted to sexual abuse of a student, not one of the abusers was reported to the authorities, and only 1 per cent of the abusers lost their licence to teach.

In 2001, the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System developed by the Children's Bureau in the United States found that approximately 903,000 children were victims of maltreatment, and 10 per cent of them (or a little more than 90,000) were sexually abused. It also found that 59 per cent of the perpetrators of child abuse or neglect were women and 41 per cent were men, statistics that reflect international findings. In the same year, clinical child psychologist Wade F. Horn wrote a report on the work of researchers at Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health, where it was shown that nearly 20 per cent of low-income women in their study had experienced sexual abuse as children, with family friends constituting the largest group of abusers, followed by uncles and cousins, then stepfathers, and then brothers.

Which is all pretty depressing stuff and, again, must not be used to somehow explain away the Catholic scandal just because evil, exploitation, and abuse is a theme in almost every area of society. What this does show is that those critics who seemed to be so morbidly eager to prove that abuse was all about Catholicism, about Catholic teaching, and about Catholic sexuality were completely wrong and never made a worthy attempt to put the horror in any sort of valuable context. So at its most clinical, we need to describe the abuse crisis that happened within the Church primarily but not exclusively in the 1960s and 1970s. In this period, between 1.5 and 4 per cent of Roman Catholic clergy were involved directly or indirectly in the abuse of young people under their authority. The figure includes those who may not have physically abused anyone but were aware in some way of the abuse and by not stopping it enabled it and allowed the abusers to repeat the offence. Most informed commentators think that the 4 per cent figure is far too high, but we will never know the exact number of victims because not every victim has come forward, for a variety of entirely understandable reasons. Most of the abused were boys between the ages of twelve and sixteen, but younger boys and girls were also molested. Although the term "paedophile priests" was and is commonly used, it is misleading and sometimes appears to be intended to mislead. A crime, of course, is a crime, but if we are to deal with the perpetrators properly and try to stop the crime being repeated, we need to understand its precise nature and stop dealing in tabloid terminology and sensational headlines. Alliteration is no substitution for accuracy.

Photo of Saint Peter's Basilica in Rome: Pixabay

Spot the Similarities: Pro-Gay-Rights and Muslim Thugs

Look at the similarities.

As Gallia Watch explains, the French video above shows "the vigil held in Montpellier on the eve of the first homosexual marriage in France that took place May 29 in that city. Les Veilleurs (those keeping vigil), seated on the ground, and singing L'Espérance (Hope), their anthem, are confronted by the pro-gay crowd, standing, visibly more rowdy and drinking, carrying the multicolored banner of Gay Pride".

It is easy to see the contrast between the beautiful, peaceful hymn sung by the Les Veilleurs, who oppose same-sex marriage, and their composure, and the beer-swilling, shouting, insult-hurling mob of "pro-gay-rights" activists.

"At 2'34" you see two Gay Pride banners. The caption reads: 'Publicity for Gay Pride, paid for with our tax money'."

The video below shows the English Defence League's silent walk of respect for Drummer Lee Rigby, barbarically beheaded by jihadis, in Sheffield, Northern England, on June 8. The United Against Fascism (UAF) mob starts singing nice little songs with pleasant lyrics like "If it wasn't for the coppers you'd be dead". Also notice the rainbow flag of the LGBT movement among the crowd of fascist "anti-fascist" thugs.

A while later, some of the UAF mob activists join Muslims shouting Allahu Akbar to try to put into practice what they had been singing.

As in the case of counterjihadists' or nationalists' demonstrations being attacked by Muslims and Leftist extremists' violence, we have people holding a peaceful vigil to mourn the death of marriage being aggressively confronted by "gay" activists.

Another of the many examples of similarity between Muslim and homosexual activists.

Raymond Ibrahim: Jihadis Are Preparing Unprecedented Terror Storm

Another interesting Raymond Ibrahim's article about the way Jihadis were and are helped by the USA and its European allies according to similar patterns in Afghanistan in the 1980s and in the countries of the "Arab Spring" now.

Against the Soviets then, against secular dictators today.

As the Jihadis strengthened by American support in Afghanistan gave rise to the Taliban and al-Qaeda, name which not coincidentally means "the base", Western support in Egypt, Lybia and now possibly Syria has helped create not one small base in a relatively unimportant country, but many Jihadi bases in crucial countries of the Middle East and the Muslim world.

And, just as the several-year incubation in Afghanistan prepared 9/11, Ibrahim predicts that the jihadis, much stronger now, are preparing a terror storm of which we have not yet seen the equal. We are witnessing "The Calm Before the Jihadi Storm" (links are in the original article):

On this Memorial Day, it’s important to remember that the very same U.S. policies that created al-Qaeda in Afghanistan in the 1980s—leading to the horrific attacks of 9/11—are today allowing al-Qaeda to metastasize all around the Muslim world. As in the 80s, these new terrorist cells are quietly gathering strength now, and are sure to deliver future terror strikes that will make 9/11 seem like child’s play.

Once limited to Afghanistan, al-Qaeda, thanks to U.S. policies, has metastasized around the world, and is in the consolidation/training phase for the new jihad.

To understand this dire prediction, we must first examine the United States’ history of empowering Islamic jihadis—only to be attacked by those same jihadis many years later—and the chronic shortsightedness of American policymakers, whose policies are based on their brief tenure, not America’s long-term wellbeing.

In the 1980s, the U.S. supported Afghani rebels—among them the jihadis—to repel the Soviets. Osama bin Laden, Ayman Zawahiri, and countless foreign jihadis journeyed to Afghanistan to form a base of training and planning—the first prerequisite of the jihad, as delineated in Sayyid Qutb’s Milestones.

Al-Qaeda—which tellingly means “the base”—was born.

The U.S. supported al-Qaeda, they defeated the Soviets, shook hands with Reagan, Afghanistan became ruled by the Taliban, and for many years all seemed well.

But it wasn’t. For over a decade al-Qaeda, unfettered in Afghanistan, trained and plotted. Then came the strikes of 9/11, which were portrayed by the talking heads as a great and unexpected surprise: “What happened? Who knew? Why do they hate us?”

Had al-Qaeda not secured a base of operations, its namesake, 9/11 would not have occurred.

But if Reagan helped create the first al-Qaeda cell in relatively unimportant Afghanistan, Obama is helping to create numerous, more emboldened, al-Qaeda cells in some of the most important Islamic nations.

He is doing this by helping get rid of Arab autocrats who were effective at suppressing jihadis (even if for selfish reasons), while empowering some of the most radical jihadis who were formerly imprisoned or in hiding.

And all in the name of the “Arab Spring” and “democracy.”

In Egypt, Obama threw Mubarak, America’s chief Mideast ally for three decades, under the bus, and cozied up to the Muslim Brotherhood. Egypt’s government is today overrun with Islamists, many who share al-Qaeda’s radical worldview. Several of these new policymakers—including President Morsi himself—were imprisoned under Mubarak, not, as the Western media portray, because they were freedom-loving rebels, but because they were, and are, Sharia-loving radicals trying to transform Egypt into an Islamist state.

The Sinai alone is now infested with jihadis, including possibly al-Qaeda leader Ayman Zawahiri.

In Libya, Obama supported the opposition against Gaddafi—knowing full well that al-Qaeda was among them—enabling the Benghazi attack and murder of Americans on the anniversary of 9/11. The unprecedented persecution of Christians in Libya—from attacks on churches to attacks on nuns—is further indicative of the direction “liberated” Libya is taking.

And now in Syria, Obama is, once again, supporting foreign jihadis, who make up 95% of Syria’s so-called “opposition.” As in Libya—and as in Afghanistan in the 80s—foreign jihadis are flooding Syria and terrorizing non-Muslims (a recent fatwa permits the raping of non-Sunni women), in their bid to create another base, another qaeda.

One of them recently declared, “When we finish with Assad, we will fight the U.S.!”—precisely al-Qaeda’s thinking in the 80s-90s when it was supported by the U.S. against the U.S.S.R.

Thus all the forces and circumstances that led up to the strikes of 9/11—foreign jihadis infiltrating and consolidating power in Muslim countries formerly run by secular dictators—are once again in full play, but in a much more profound way. Today it’s not just one relatively unimportant country, Afghanistan, that is being subverted by jihadis but several strategically important nations.

If 9/11 was the price the U.S later paid for helping turn Afghanistan into a jihadi base in the 80s-90s, what price will America later pay now that it’s betraying several major nations to the jihadis, who are turning them into bases, into qaedas?

So why are American politicians not blowing the whistle on Obama’s suicidal policies?

Because their myopia and inability to see beyond today—beyond their tenure—has not changed since September 11, 2001. Just as it took over a decade after al-Qaeda’s creation to launch the 9/11 attacks—a time of ostensible peace and calm for the U.S., a time of planning and training for the jihadis—it will take time for the new jihadi storm to pour on America.

And that’s the era we’re currently in: the calm before the storm. Just as before 9/11, today’s American leaders focus only on the moment—a moment when the U.S appears relatively safe—never considering the future or the inevitable consequences of a woefully counterproductive U.S. foreign policy.

Speaking of foreign policy, if Reagan supported the jihadis to combat the U.S.S.R—a hostile super-power—why is Obama supporting the jihadis? What exactly does America have to gain?

At any rate, just as it was before 9/11, when the jihadi storm eventually does break out—and it will, it’s a matter of time—those American politicians who helped empower it, chief among them Obama, will be long gone, and the talking heads will again be stupidly asking “What happened?” “Who knew?” Why do they hate us?”

Except then it will be too late.