Accuracy in Media

The British undoubtedly are grateful for President Barack Obama’s recent visit to their country – knowing it will be his last in office.

Not one to miss an opportunity to lecture an ally (but never a foe), Obama stuck his nose into an issue best left to the Brits to decide – whether or not to leave the European Union. Obama warned Britain should remain in or, he threatened, it would be “at the back of the queue” for a U.S. trade deal.

Despite Obama having been invited to speak by British Prime Minister David Cameron, some U.K. politicians did not take kindly to Obama’s interference, coupled with a threat.

Tory Justice Minister Dominic Raab vented his spleen, calling Obama’s lecture “a pretty cynical intervention.” He added:

“We’ve got a lame duck president doing an old friend [Cameron] a favor for purely political reasons – and taking a few unnecessary risks, being a bit irresponsible with the special relationship between our two countries. You can’t say on the one hand that the relationship is essential and always will be, then say that if you don’t take my advice you’ll be at the back of the queue for a free trade deal. I don’t think the British people will be blackmailed by anyone but he’s entitled to give his view.”

Obama’s intervention is both brazen and hypocritical. After all, he criticized Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu last year when he dared address a joint session of the U.S. Congress on the issue of an Iranian nuclear deal.

Taking the criticism of Obama up several notches was London Mayor Boris Johnson.

Johnson accused Obama of “incoherent” logic as Americans “would never contemplate anything like the EU for themselves.” But he saved his harshest comment for what he believed was an affront to the Brits committed by Obama after first taking office in 2009.

A Winston Churchill bust given to President George W. Bush by the U.K. and prominently displayed in the Oval Office was removed by Obama. (Although rumors circulated it was returned to the Brits, it actually was relocated elsewhere in the White House.) Johnson – putting political correctness aside – suggested the bust’s removal “was a symbol of the part-Kenyan president’s ancestral dislike of the British Empire.”

Obama subsequently clarified the only reason the bust was removed was to make room for one of Martin Luther King, Jr. He assured everyone, “I love Winston Churchill.”

But does he really?

While Obama’s preference for a King bust is understandable, there is some symbolism – for those seeking it – in his displacement of the Churchill bust. This symbolism becomes most intriguing if one assumes Obama – whose pro-Islam leanings have often caused him to bend historical facts to meet this agenda – knows the true factual concerns voiced by Churchill about Islam.

As a young British Army officer, Churchill obtained firsthand insights into Islam fighting Muslims in the Sudan. These insights were shared in his book, “The River War: An Historical Account of the Reconquest of the Soudan,” published in 1899. His experiences arose during the Mahdist War (1881-1899) – a war in which a Muslim leader of yet another era claimed to be, as does ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi today, the Mahdi who will establish a global caliphate.

Obviously unbothered by political correctness, Churchill made the following observation about Muslims and their religion:

“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries, improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.

“A degraded sensualist deprives this life of its grace and refinement, the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

“Individual Muslims may show splendid qualities…but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith….and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome…”

Having an American president tell Brits to stay the E.U. course, keeping their borders open to such an immigrating Muslim retrograde influence, must have had Churchill rolling over in his grave!

Islam’s ideology only thrives where independent thought about its belief system is curtailed. This, in turn, causes Muslim society to become much less creative and innovative. If an indicator of a society’s intellectual prowess is reflected by its patent filings, the patent statistics for the Muslim world are most telling.

Of all recorded patents worldwide through 2015, Muslim nations – with 23 percent of the world population – account for just over 0.001 percent of them. Meanwhile, a nation imposing no religious limitations upon its citizens’ creativity and with only 0.2 percent of the world population – Israel – accounts for five times more patents.

As one observer of this telling dichotomy notes, “How does the modern world look when you have done nothing to help create it, and innovation is a threat to cherished beliefs?”

Supposedly, U.S. Patent Office Commissioner Charles H. Duell claimed in 1899, “everything that can be invented has been invented.”

There are indications such a short-sighted comment, attempting to place limitations upon man’s inventive genius, may itself have been invented. Sadly, however, man’s intellectual capacity is being capped within the Muslim world.

More than a century ago, Churchill understood better than anyone Islam’s paralyzing impact upon society. When will we?

A version of this piece previously appeared on http://www.theblaze.com/

Guest columns do not necessarily reflect the views of Accuracy in Media or its staff.




Ready to fight back against media bias?
Join us by donating to AIM today.

Comments

Comments are turned off for this article.