No Future For Those Who Slander The
Prophet
If you are still so brainwashed as to believe that Obama is a Christian
even though Obama himself has told Muslims that he is a
Muslim. Moreover he looks like a
Muslim, walks like a Muslim, talks like a Muslim and supports Muslims and their
ideology, and if that’s not enough then why did he just say to the UN and the
world that – he’ believes in free speech
except for “…those who slander the prophet of Islam.” “The future must not belong to…” [them.]
By de Andréa
September 29, 2012
Sept. 25, 2012, Fourteen days after the
“covered
up” attack on America
by Obam’s Libyan terrorists: President
Obama addresses the 67th session of the General Assembly at United Nations
headquarters in NYC. President Obama spoke to
the UN Tuesday, but what he had to say of course was as usual dependant on the
media outlet reporting it.
It was about “optics” according to
MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow; “free speech” said CBS’s Nancy
Cordes and “Iran ,”
explained NBC’s Chuck Todd.
Not that they’re necessarily wrong. It was’ after all a 4,000-word speech. Obama covered a lot of territory. But what the majority of the alphabet soup media
covered, conveniently left out the most provocative and telling line of the
entire speech. The president told the UN
that the “future must not belong…” to a series of people including “corrupt”
leaders and those who “bully women” etc. But one line from that list stood
out, Read the speech Sixteen Paragraphs from the bottom. “The future must not belong to those who
slander the prophet of Islam.”
And why is that my friend?
Because Obama believes in a “Limited Free Speech”.
That line appeared almost nowhere in
the “Drive
By” media where Obama’s supposed defense of free speech dominated. The broadcast networks ignored it and only
Jake Tapper noted that Team Obama had tried to get the video pulled from
YouTube using the excuse that it violated of “terms of use.” The New York Times skipped the line,
ironically in an article headlined: “Obama Tells U.N. New Democracies Need Free Speech,” [unless
of course it slanders Islam.]
Conservative sites descended on the comment like a flock of, well… journalists.Red
State , Hot Air, Twitchy,
Breitbart and National Review all felt it noteworthy to cover, as well as yours
truly of The Bottom Line. Even the
hypey site Mediaite wrote about it and called it “Obama’s
tragic pander.” Watch
and listen to the video bite
Conservative sites descended on the comment like a flock of, well… journalists.
One cannot be a Christian without slandering Muhammad; Christian beliefs
are in an of themselves an affront to Islam.
Ben Shapiro of Breitbart said Obama’s comments were “precisely the opposite of what
the Founders would have intended.” “Those
who ‘slander the prophet of Islam’ are people exercising their right to free
speech,” he continued. Red State’s Erick Erickson explained that
orthodox Christians don’t believe Muhammad is a prophet. “Actual Christians, as opposed to many of
the supposed Christians put up by the mainstream media; believe that Christ is the only way to salvation. Believing that - is slandering Muhammad.” [Emphasis Mine]
Over at Hot Air, Erika Johnsen reminded readers that the Mideast
unrest is not about the video. “If
we believe that all people have a right to express their views, even ones with
which we disagree, why are we still talking about this dumb video?” she
asked.
The website Twitchy reminded readers
that Obama himself had told The View
“the
best way to marginalize the video was to ignore it”. “Yet he mentioned it a half a dozen times
during his UN address.”
While the soapbox news media didn’t
want to highlight the bad quote, journalists happily embraced Obama’s laugh
line for the day. “As president of our country, and commander in chief of our military, I
accept that people are going to call me awful things every day. And I will defend their right to do so.” That was the featured line throughout the Liberal
Anti-American Communist Politically Correct Media, and as usual, a half-truth.
THE BOTTOM LINE: Think what you want about this… That maybe, it is skewed or taken out of
context, or it’s just nit picking. That
might be true if it weren’t for the enormous pile of evidence that this
president is a fraud, a con man, a liar, a seditious criminal and an enemy of
the State, as well as a Jihadist Muslim infiltrator, I could go on but there is
the lack of time and space, you know...
What do you think???
de Andréa