Obama Refuses to Call Paris Attack Act of Islamic Terrorism

Barack Hussein Obama has repeatedly gone out of his way to play down most acts of Islamic terrorism by calling them acts of violent extremism instead.

When Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan went on his shooting rampage at Ft. Hood, Texas in 2009, he did it as act of Islamic terrorism and revenge. He murdered 13 people and wounded over 30 others. Evidence showed that Hasan had been in contact with the terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki prior to his attack. Hasan was heard shouting Islamic praises to Allah during his attack, yet Obama refused to call it an attack of Islamic terrorism. Instead, he had the entire incident labeled as an act of workplace violence.

The Boston Marathon bombings were also an act of Islamic terrorism but Obama refused to label it as such. This has been Obama’s pattern throughout his administration.

take our poll - story continues below

Who should replace Nikki Haley as our ambassador to the U.N.?

  • Who should replace Nikki Haley as our ambassador to the U.N.?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Godfather Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Trending: Caravan of 3,000 Illegal Aliens Headed North to Bust Through U.S. Border

This week the world was shocked by the attack on the French offices of Charlie Hebdo, a satirical magazine. Three gunmen stormed the office with automatic weapons shouting ‘Allahu Akbar’ (Allah is greatest) and ‘We are avenging the Prophet Mohammed.’ They shot and killed the magazine’s editor and 11 others including 2 police officers.

Most of the world’s leaders are calling the attack an act of Islamic terrorism, but not Obama. In keeping with his six year prohibition against using the term ‘Islamic terrorism’, Obama and his administration refer to this as ‘violent extremism’ or just ‘terrorism’ without any mention of Islam. After all, Obama wants us all to believe that Islam is a religion of peace in order to force us to be more acceptable to his religion.

In the White House public response to the attack, Press Secretary Josh Earnest told the nation:

“What is clear is that this is an act of violence, an act of terrorism that we condemn in the strongest possible terms…”

That in itself is a White House lie because the possible strongest terms would be to call it what it really is, an act of Islamic terrorism, but no one in Obama’s administration is allowed to speak the truth.

The administration also seems to be placing much of the blame for the attack on the magazine itself. When the same French magazine was firebombed in 2012, then White House Press Secretary Jay Carney stated:

“We are aware that a French magazine published cartoons featuring a figure resembling the prophet Muhammad, and obviously we have questions about the judgment of publishing something like this. We know these images will be deeply offensive to many and have the potential to be inflammatory.”

However, the same Obama administration defends the rights of others to defame and mock Jesus, God, the Bible and anything Christian. To them, there is nothing offensive or inflammatory in depicting an image of Jesus in a bottle of human urine. Obama has never spoken out against those who try to claim that Jesus was a homosexual or that he had more than one wife.

I’ve never heard Barack Obama defend anything Christian or Biblical, but he’s very quick to defend Islam and speak out against those who defame it. And he still refuses to admit that these acts of violence like what just happened in Paris are acts of Islamic terrorism. That shows just where his loyalties and his religion are.

Previous After the Paris Murders . . . Here Come the Excuses 
Next Paris and the Failure of Multiculturalism


Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.