What If Islamists Took Control of the White House?

By Howard Rotberg
11/25/2013

Dear me, I worry so much about the future of our freedoms in the West, as so many begin to “submit” to the values and demands of radical Islam, or what is called “Islamism.”

The other day, I began to worry what would happen if the Islamists took over the American government and placed one of their own in the White House.

I started to think about the agenda that an Islamist president would fulfill. Here are some of my thoughts:

[1] He would make it clear that the American Constitution and the history of American freedoms were no more exemplary than the history of Islam. He would argue that America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, he would say, they overlap and share common principles. He would be clear in his moral equivalence between America and the totalitarian Islamic regimes. He might go so far as to say the “common principles” were justice and progress, tolerance and the dignity of all human beings. And if he got away with comparing the American justice system and the tolerance of most Americans with the totalitarian justice systems of the Islamic states and with comparing American tolerance to the intolerance of peoples who riot and kill if they think political cartoons are offensive, then he would go further: He would assure everyone that it is Islam that has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibility of religious tolerance and racial equality. If the American people were too stupid to know about the persecution of Christians and Jews in Muslim countries (including the often-ignored fact of nearly a million Jews being expelled from Arab countries in the ‘40s and ‘50s), then that would just make his task all the easier.

[2] He would as quickly as possible give out important awards, like the Medal of Freedom, to those complicit with the goals of radical Islam, who head NGOs and United Nations bodies that support the notion that the Israelis are the new Nazis and the Palestinians are the new Jews. And he would announce such awards on a date of symbolic significance to the Jews – Tisha B’Av, the historic day of mourning for the loss of the Jewish temples and the occurrence of other national tragedies, so that the Jews knew that he was putting them in their place, for the sooner they got the message, the better.

[3] He would make a quick symbolic snub to Eastern Europe so as to emphasize that the quid pro quo for Russian support of Islamists (outside the former U.S.S.R only, of course) would be the removal of defensive missiles from Poland. He would drive home the point by not informing the Poles very much ahead of the announcement and would make the announcement on September 17, 2009, which everyone in Central Europe knew was the 60th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland, followed by the annexation of eastern Poland to the USSR. This would be another important symbolic act to show how in the future the world would be divided between radical Islam, Russia and China.

[4] To further the goals of Radical Islam, the U.S. must be dramatically weakened from the inside, including its once strong and proud economy. He would have to create unheard of budget deficits. He would make a budget that spends more than any other in history, creates the largest deficits in history and imposes the largest tax increases in history. He would spend over a trillion dollars more each year than he took in, and would project a cumulative deficit within ten years of $14.29 trillion – more than the country’s GNP. That way, the U.S. would end up being owned by China and other foreign lenders and the American people would be so preoccupied with their economic woes, and his governments lies about the terms of a socialized medical system, there would be little regard paid to the increasing rate of Islamification of its culture and freedoms.

[5] Any captured terrorists would be given civilian trials, with the same constitutional rights as American citizens, rather than giving them military trials like enemy soldiers receive. This would show that Islamic terrorists are really the same as American citizens and would make it difficult to secure convictions. It would also make it difficult to keep anti-terrorist measures secret, because they would be subject to pre-trial discovery of civilian trials.

[Excerpt]

Read more:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/ho...control-of-the-white-house/?utm_source=feedly

Whoops, Houston we have a problem here. Many of these things have happened or are happening while we post on this website.

HOUSTON We Have A Problem: Al Qaeda Attack Funded By Obama ...
thekitchencabinet.us/houston-we-have-a-problem-al-qaeda-attack...
How the Obama administration armed Libyan rebels who were. ... 7 Responses to “HOUSTON We Have A Problem: Al Qaeda Attack Funded By Obama Administration?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~​

Michelle Obama's Mirror: Houston, We Have a Problem. Rush …
www.michellesmirror.com/2011/11/houston-we-have-problem-rush-to...
“I fear President Obama doesn’t have an ... has been cut short by this dispatch from Houston: “We’ve got a problem. ... Administration bungled Obamacare long ...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~​

Opinion: Obama's foreign policy in a tailspin - CNN.com
www.cnn.com/2013/08/09/opinion/ghitis-obama-mideast/index.html
Aug 14, 2013 · Frida Ghitis says trying to count the ways in which foreign policy has gone badly for Obama makes for a stunningly long list.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~​

Obama to allow Iran to keep its nuclear weapons program?
www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2013/11/07/obama-to...
We should not lift sanctions in any way for such a bad deal. We should insist ... And while the Obama administration may spin ... Obama has already bent to Iranian ...

 

This is madness. If you want to he scared of the government you simply need to look at what it is doing, not creating weird fantasys. If you want to be frightened of Islam go move to the middle east.

Seriously we are more likely to elect an animal president than an Islamic extremist aand even if we did it wouldn't matter as the president is not a king. There are real issues with our government that need to be solved; this isn't even close.

 

what if aliens took control of the White House?

 

Wow, what a complete piece of garbage.

I love how it is written in the language of a prognostication and then goes back and twists a few news stories to fit it ridiculous premise.

No thanks on the "reading more," I wasted enough time reading through the laugh-worthy OP.

 

Hmmm sounds like Thomas Jefferson.

I guess Jefferson must have been an Islamist.

 

Your points are WELL MADE!!! Amen!!

 

What if Christian extremists took over the White House?

we would have to stage a coup to kick them out.

 

Hmmm that sounds like lots of Presidents.

Where should we start?

The Oklahoma city bomber? Civilian trial.
The World Trade Center bomber(1993) Civilian trial.
The terrorist who was caught bringing in explosives to bomb LAX- Civilian trial.

What is it about civilian trials that so frighten the right?

These people are murderers- not soldiers. They shouldn't be given the respect of military tribunals- they should be treated like the murdering thugs that they are.

- - - Updated - - -

Reminds me of Christians looking for portents of the 'end of times'- somehow they always make today's headlines fit the predictions.

 

With Obama Im not to sure that hasnt happened.

 

You just indicated those terrorists caught in America, not on foreign shores, or caught by the military on the battleground. I have no problem with prosecuting a terrorist caught here. However, prisoners of war (POW's) caught as combatants should be treated in accord with the Geneva Convention. Under the GCA a combatant caught as a spy are tried by military tribunal.
Please read the following:

Third Geneva Convention - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Geneva_Convention
The Third Geneva Convention, relative to the treatment of prisoners of war, is one of the four treaties of the Geneva Conventions. The Geneva Convention relative to ...
Part I: General ... ·
Part II: General ... ·
Part III: Captivity

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~​

The Geneva Conventions - About.com US Military
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/deploymentsconflicts/l/blgenevaconv.htm
When one speaks of the Geneva Conventions, they are usually referring to the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, which was ratified in the aftermath of World War II.

 

I think its safe to presume that the author of this silly piece has never met a Muslim, let alone an "Islamist."

 

But they also committed their crime on US soil.

Also you miss that terrorists are not covered under the Geneva Convention. This is why al-Qaeda was not treated the same as the normal Taliban fighter, or those captured from the Iraqi military.

And for the Geneva Conventions (or the Hague, or any conventions) to be effective, there has to be reciprocity. Tell me, how many Red Cross - Red Crescent visits have any of the POWs al-Queda had?

 

Quite the tap dancing you are doing there....

The article you cite approvingly of says this

Any captured terrorists would be given civilian trials, with the same constitutional rights as American citizens, rather than giving them military trials like enemy soldiers receive.

I pointed out that Presidents of the United States have a well established history of doing just that.

So you moved the goal posts......again.

Just another anti-Obama screed, but now with more blatant religious fear mongering.

 

I've been taking lessons from Obama, Reid and the "Democratic Party".

 

What would happen if Nazi racist bigots took over the White House? They'd problem make up reasons to start a war or something.

 

They haven't unless you can equate Progressive Socialism with what Obama is heaping upon America.

 

Clearly you find much to admire.

 

That's OK, Islamists haven't taken over the WH either. Unless you're a birther nut.

 

Are you sure all the GOP congress critters bleed red?

 

I'm curious. Why did you put "Democratic Party" in quotation marks?

 

Perhaps because The "Democratic Party" is not what it proports to be. Far from Democratic when it tries to destroy the very government that was created to employ Democracy and a Republic.

 

Oh. You're one of those. I see.

 

Yes, I'm one of those that considers himself a patriot, who has served his country under two presidents that were also considered patriots. Unfortunately I consider this present "Leader" lacking.

 

they already have.

 

Being a "patriot" does not make a POTUS a particularly good war leader. Schickelgruber and Jelly-brain Reagan were both "patriots," and showed about the same level of military competency. Bush the Lesser did, of course, surpass the Fuerher's screw-up at Dunkirk when he invaded Iraq for (*)(*)(*)(*)s and giggles.