EX-CIA employee admits President Obama is a “radical Islamic” enemy of America

ByPamela Geller on August 31, 2014
23 Comments
Obama Muslim garb thumb

“Radical” is such a ridiculous adjective. It is pure Islam, authentic Islam — there is nothing radical or un-Islamic about jihad.

Obama’s father was a Muslim, which de facto makes him a Muslim, and he is considered Muslim in the Muslim world. Take, for example, Meriam Ibrahim. Her mother was Christian and raised her a Christian. She married a Christian, lives in America and has Christian children. But when she returned to Sudan to visit family, she was arrested for “apostasy” — in other words, for leaving Islam. She was nine months pregnant and forced to give birth with her legs shackled, leaving her baby deformed. This is Islamic law. She is considered a Muslim even though she has never been a Muslim, because her father was a Muslim.

Obama, on the other hand, was raised a Muslim, and went to Islamic school in an Islamic country (Indonesia) from the ages of six to eleven. He was tops in his quran class.
Obama was “previously quite religious in Islam.”

He is pro-jihad and it is clear in his foreign policy.

There’s a reason he attacks and punishes Israel while allowing the Islamic State to grow and conquer.

It’s interesting that the Examiner is actually running this story. They won’t run my columns or any of the articles I have submitted to them over the years. Don’t you love these right of center publications  and bloggers (like Michelle Malkin) who have shunned my work and Robert Spencer’s, but when jihad breaks out they are all jihad-wild. The National Review actually has a ban on scholar Robert Spencer. Shame on them and all the other imposters who are writing about this now without the proper mea culpas.

“EX-CIA employee admits President Obama is a radical Islamic enemy of America,”  The Examiner, August 31, 2014

It’s an explosive charge, one that practically accuses the president of treason.

If you want to receive further articles, please click on SUBSCRIBE.

Today, a former CIA agent bluntly told the newspaper, World Net Daily, that America has switched sides in the war on terror under President Obama. Clare Lopez was willing to say what a few members of Congress have said in private, but declined to say on-the-record.

Clare M. Lopez is the Vice President for Research and Analysis at the Center for Security Policy and a Senior Fellow at The Clarion Project, the London Center for Policy Research, and the Canadian Meighen Institute. Since 2013, she has served as a member of the Citizens Commission on Benghazi. Also Vice President of the Intelligence Summit, she formerly was a career operations officer with the Central Intelligence Agency, a professor at the Centre for Counterintelligence and Security Studies, Executive Director of the Iran Policy Committee from 2005-2006, and has served as a consultant, intelligence analyst, and researcher for a variety of defense firms. She was named a Lincoln Fellow at the Claremont Institute in 2011.

Lopez said the global war on terror had been an effort to “stay free of Shariah,” or repressive Islamic law, until the Obama administration began siding with such jihadist groups as the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliates. Lopez believes that the Muslim Brotherhood has thoroughly infiltrated the Obama administration and other branches of the federal government. One of the most outrageous of those appointments is Mohamed Elibiary, a senior member of the Department of Homeland Security Advisory Council. According to a report by the Center for Security Policy, Elibiary supports brokering a U.S. partnership with the Muslim Brotherhood terrorist group. Two months ago, a firestorm erupted online after Elibiary tweeted that a “Caliphate” is inevitable and compared it to the European Union.

Ms. Lopez also believes Obama had essentially the same goals in the Mideast as the late Osama bin Laden: “to remove American power and influence, including military forces, from Islamic lands.” The former CIA operative’s perspective affects her prescription for what the U.S. should do about the terror army ISIS, as she called for caution and restraint.

While there has been a sudden chorus of politicians and military experts calling for the immediate elimination of the terrorist army after it beheaded American journalist James Foley last week, Lopez believes the U.S. should have an overall strategy in place before fully re-engaging in the Mideast militarily.Any military action would be further complicated, she told WND, if it were not clear which side the U.S. is on, either in the short term or in the overall war on terror.

Lopez felt it was impossible to understand why the president and some of his top appointees, such as CIA Director John Brennan, who is believed to be a Muslim convert, “consistently seem to apologize for Islam, even in the face of such atrocities as the Foley beheading,” adding, they “take pains to assure the world they don’t think IS, (or the Islamic State, also called ISIS) or whichever perpetrator it was, has anything to do with Islam. How can they possibly believe that genuinely when everything these jihadis do tracks directly to the literal text of Quran, hadiths and Shariah?”

“In any case, and for whatever motivations, there is no doubt this administration switched sides in what used to be called the Global War on Terror,” she said.

I wonder if those who don’t want to go ‘on the record’ will finally speak out.

Stay on top of what's really happening. Follow me on Twitter here. Like me on Facebook here.

Print This Post Print This Post
Disclamer

Comments at Atlas Shrugs are unmoderated. Posts using foul language, as well as abusive, hateful, libelous and genocidal posts, will be deleted if seen. However, if a comment remains on the site, it in no way constitutes an endorsement by Pamela Geller of the sentiments contained therein.

  • mymojobiz

    Well if you accuse the wrong people for the towers – maybe all this Isis, Isil, Jihad crap wouldn’t be happening right now – they are sending a message.., But no one has the cohones to go and interview them and point blank ask “what is the f–kin’ message you are trying to send” …humm, clearly you get the drift. Think about it!!! Just let it sink in! How does a child react when he has been reprimanded for something he did not do… How would an uneducated fanatic react… Yup similar!!! Jusayin’