Obama's mindset on Terrorism is dangerous

a reply to: Kali74

Gee I wonder WHY ?

Since for over 40 YEARS.

That's WHAT IT WAS CALLED.

Islamic TERRORISM.

Right up until the muslim in chief got elected.

Prolly has a lot of do with being raised in a madrassa.

Obama has always been a closet Muslim, he will not only go into history because his racial background but also as one of the most weak presidents in history, then people ask why he's mindset on terrorism is so dangerous, that is because his mind never has been fully with America.

a reply to: neo96

Really? Bigotry against gun owners. Is that anything like bigotry against African Americans? Latino Americans? Gays or Lesbians? Yeah I'm so sure. Waaa whaaaa and you still have your freakin guns.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Kali74

Gee I wonder WHY ?

Since for over 40 YEARS.

That's WHAT IT WAS CALLED.

Islamic TERRORISM.

Right up until the muslim in chief got elected.

Prolly has a lot of do with being raised in a madrassa.

No it wasn't. As little as 8 years ago George Bush was just calling it terrorism.
Obama Doesn’t Like To Say ‘Islamic Terrorism.’ Neither Did George W. Bush.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

GW ?

You mean that guy who 'illegally' invade Two countries to kill terrorists?

That guy.

Before him another Guy named CLinton was lobbing cruise missiles, and failing to kill OBL.

But hey.

Feel free to continue playing word games.

a reply to: Sillyolme

No because none of those other groups don't have to pass a background check to prove insert what ever nationality.

But hey feel free to continue to IGNORE it.

originally posted by: marg6043
Obama has always been a closet Muslim, he will not only go into history because his racial background but also as one of the most weak presidents in history, then people ask why he's mindset on terrorism is so dangerous, that is because his mind never has been fully with America.

His actions clearly prove it.

Putting a single religion ABOVE the national security of the state, and the safety and security of it's people.

The followers of Islam don't separate their religious, and political beliefs either.

a reply to: neo96

YOU said that it's been called Islamic Terrorism for 40 years. I just proved you wrong, so you counter by calling into question GW's credibility? I should have known not to expect a valid rebuttal from you.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

You didn't prove anything.factreal.wordpress.com...

But don't let a little thing like REAL American history get in the way here.

a reply to: neo96

You actually believe that crap? I had no idea you were that far gone.

a reply to: Kali74

What crap ?

There's too much muslim violence in the world right now, and it needs muslim control ?

a reply to: neo96


The 1 billion+ non radical Muslims need to take some of this blame as they are not doing their part to protect the image of their religion. If you don't want to be lumped in with the terrorists then speak out. I personally feel that their silence is telling of their complicity.

a reply to: neo96

The crap about Obama being a secret Muslim or that he went to a Madrassa.

a reply to: Kali74

You say crap.

I say actions speak louder than words.

Arming terrorists in the middle east.

Trading terrorists for deserters.

Cozying up to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.

His Iran 'deal'.

And basically ignoring the terrorist attacks in this country for the last eight years.

From the Fort Hood Terrorist attack.

The Boston Bombing Terrorist attack.

The San Bernadino Terrorist attack.

And pushing GUN CONTROL for the Orlando TERRORIST attack.

The only crap here is that from our fearless leader.

Allowing Islamic leaders to promote hatred seems to be a problem for Mr.Obama.

""The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that the United States Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree. When a nation is at war, many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right."

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in the judgement of Schenck v. United States,

Perhaps its the First Amendment protection of Islamic social,legal and moral teaching that's the problem.

Obviously this might be done without restricting the spiritual part.

Probably not by Mr.Obama of course.

Any argument that Islamic Terrorism is not a "clear and present danger" to American citizens might not reassure the families and friends of those attacked in Orlando.

originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed
Yes! I think that he and Hillary and the leadership of the Republican party should all go directly to the leadership of ISIS and begin personal negotiations---sans weapons of course because that's the way they want us to live our daily lives, without personal protection. They can run around with hundreds of people with all sorts of weapons, including "assault weapons" protecting them whilst calling for the banning of those same protections for citizens. And some US citizens still not only vote for them but encourage others to join them in the madness!
So I say suit up the leadership and let the 101st drop them into ISIS territory and begin the "talks."

All true!

We wouldn't be in this mess if phony politicians in both parties hadn't made it possible by willful treasonous acts to deliver us here in this situation, but the most overt and direct actions are currently coming from the Obama administration, but republicans keep pretending to be hamstrung to do anything about it, so they claim they tried in many particular instances, and those are usually when Obama threatens to shutdown government or declare martial law if they don't go along, which did happen already.

They should all be locked up and shackled in leg irons at Fort Leavenworth Kansas, not running this country. They are not representing the American people in any recognizable fashion.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Yeah, because it's been working well for us so far, right?

You Brits are afraid to call a spade a spade.

I see your newly elected Muslim London Mayor has outlawed scantily clad female ads throughout the city.

Have fun with your hope and change.

Step 9: Dissent equals treason.



Source

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Step 9: Dissent equals treason.



Source

First Amendment rights are not unrestricted just like Second Amendment are not unrestricted.

A persons "right" to spread a seventh century belief system of Hatred may as easily be restricted as a persons "right" to own an operational M60.

"Clear and Present Danger" is the original test...

OT .. Naomi Wolf is not really an authority on Constitutional Law