If you had a choice, would you believe the rhetoric coming out of the lying mouth of an American president or would you choose to trust someone on the ground living the horrors of a scenario of which Obama has denied?
Obama and his cohorts in the American Pravda assured Americans that the Muslim Brotherhood was a secular group and not a threat to be concerned about. Tell that to the Coptic Christians in Egypt.
Read from WND:
Christians flee from coming Islamic law
Muslim overthrow of African nations leaves Copts terrified
"As Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood declares its intent to institute Islamic law, intelligence sources report al-Qaida is staging attacks in the Middle East nation, prompting concern that Coptic Christians soon will be driven from their homeland.
International Christian Concern's Aidan Clay says the Copts' attitude has gone from uncertainty to fear, which is driving many Coptic Christians to try to leave Egypt.
'A report from a very prominent Copt says he's getting hundreds of calls a week from Coptic Christians who are trying to get out of the country,' Clay told WND in an interview. 'That's an extremely sad thing considering we're seeing that throughout the Middle East. We're seeing the quick removal of ancient Christian communities. Egypt has the highest Christian population of any country and a very old Christian church there.'
Clay blames the increasing pressure on the growing political influence of the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamic groups."
Why did Obama choose to intervene in the protests in Egypt and Libya, but at the same time has been silent about the rioting in Bahrain, Syria, and in Iran nearly two years ago?
Jihad Watch addresses this question.
Libya and Syria: Is Barack Obama inconsistent?
"An editorial in the Washington Examiner, 'Libya, Syria expose Obama's foreign policy incoherence,' April 24 (thanks to David), accuses Barack Obama of inconsistency:
'Teddy Roosevelt famously talked softly but carried a big stick. President Obama does the opposite: He talks big but carries a stick that is steadily getting softer. And sometimes he doesn't say or do anything at all, which is the worst possible situation. Consider Obama's declaration that Libya's Moammar Gadhafi "must go." But after making a clear statement of aggressive intent, Obama refused to apply sufficient U.S. military power to make the dictator's departure a reality. [...]
Meanwhile, the situation in Syria has become a nightmare, with the security forces of dictator Bashar al-Assad slaughtering protesters in the streets. Nearly 300 protestors have now been killed, with a flood of grisly amateur videos of the clashes exhibiting the horrendous lethality of modern sniper weaponry. Obama's response has been virtual silence and inaction. Yes, he condemned the shooting of protestors, but, as the Washington Post pointed out in calling his response "shameful," none of the usual diplomatic actions have been taken to put pressure on Assad. Since Syria is Iran's closest ally, Obama's silence on the Syrian crisis chillingly recalls his utter lack of interest in aiding Iran's democratic protesters two years ago. [...]'
And that's the key to understanding why Obama is not being inconsistent. The Assad regime in Syria has for years been essentially a client state of Iran, and Hamas and Hizballah have headquarters in Damascus. So here we see the golden thread. Obama has favored the protesters where what would follow would be an Islamic state, but has been much less enthusiastic when the protesters are acting against the interests of an Islamic state; specifically, the Islamic Republic of Iran."
The key sentence is: "Obama has favored the protesters where what would follow would be an Islamic state."