Islam is at War – Respond to IT!
John R. Houk
© March 13, 2016
The Knights of Columbus and In Defense of Christians (IDC) collaborated recently on a near 300-page report on Muslims committing genocide against Christians. I first heard of this report on Fox News but I was reminded today of it by an email update from ASSIST News Service (ANS) entitled “NEW REPORT SHOWS IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE OF GENOCIDE AGAINST CHRISTIANS BY ISLAMIC STATE”.
The was compiled expressly for Secretary of State John Kerry and the State Department. The Knights of Columbus and IDC used the report as a pretext to call on America to step up to the plate and publicly declare genocide is occurring against Christians in the Middle East with a particular focus on ISIS as the perpetrator.
In early February 2016 Obama spokesman Josh Earnest said this about calling the slaughter of Christians genocide:
White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest admitted Thursday that the Obama administration's hesitation to label the Islamic State's persecution of Christians and other religious minorities as "genocide" is because of the legal ramifications behind such a designation. (White House Details Why Obama Won't Call ISIS' Slaughtering of Christians 'Genocide'; By SAMUEL SMITH; Christian Post; 2/5/16 11:13 am)
He said WHAT? “Legal Ramifications”!
Christians and other non-Muslims (ISIS classifies Shias as non-Muslims also) are being slaughtered en masse and Obama is looking at the legal ramifications of labeling the slaughter as genocide.
The Christian Post further reports Earnest’s representation of Obama:
… Earnest assured that "administration lawyers" were looking into the possibility of a genocide designation.
"There are lawyers considering whether or not that term can be properly applied in this scenario," Earnest said. "What is clear and what is undeniable and what the president has now said twice in the last 24 hours is that we know that there are religious minorities in Iraq and in Syria, including Christians, that are being targeted by ISIL terrorists because of their religion and that attack on religious minorities is an attack on all people of faith and it is important for all of us to stand up and speak out about it." (Ibid.)
So it is important for Obama to bring Muslims displaced by war in Syria-Iraq for their safety BUT he has to think about it when it comes to Christians being slaughtered by Muslims.
Obama wants to look the other way while Christians are killed yet he made sure to assure American voters he was a Christian prior to his 2008 election. Before his 2008 election as President he was concerned enough of what Americans thought about his faith that he went out of his way to let voters know he was a committed Christian:
"I've been to the same church _ the same Christian church _ for almost 20 years," Obama said, stressing the word Christian and drawing cheers from the faithful in reply. "I was sworn in with my hand on the family Bible. Whenever I'm in the United States Senate, I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. So if you get some silly e-mail ... send it back to whoever sent it and tell them this is all crazy. Educate." (Obama sets record straight on his religion; By AP; NBCNews.com; updated 1/21/2008 10:49:46 AM ET)
Obama was the 20-year member of a Church pastored by Jeremiah Wright who preached Black Liberation Theology – Hate Whitey and G-d damn America – and was cozy with Father Pfleger and racist anti-Semite Black Muslim leader Louis Farrakhan.
I think this gives a bit more insight into Obama checking into the legal ramifications of naming the extermination of Christians as genocide in the Middle East.
So what exactly is wrong with stating the obvious about genocide in the Middle East? The obvious is Islam promotes war with the West and these days against Israel and America the land of the free and the home of the brave (unless Obama screws up America more than any real American can fix). So let’s get over offending Islam and perhaps really begin offending the haters of America with WWII-style rules of engagement and smack these guys around even if civilians foolish enough to support radical Muslim movements or governments get in the way.
But John, one might say, that’s not politically correct when we should respect diverse peoples and cultures in this new global age we live in.
Man that is some horse-pucky that will end the American way of life before Obama transformationists do.
Well John, another might say, can you name anytime in America’s history when war or military action was used because of the doctrines of Islam? Why should Obama be the first American President to understand that Islamic doctrines are not only harmful to American National Security but also to American Interests at home and abroad?
Some trace the lineage of the Democratic Party back to an earlier President. So it is a bit insightful to understand the political climate that President lived in to make a decision about Islam.
That early President was Thomas Jefferson the third person to hold the Office of POTUS. He was elected to two terms of Office serving between 1801 – 1809. As one of the Founding Fathers Jefferson penned the text to the Declaration of Independence. Jefferson wasn’t directly involved at the Constitutional Convention that eventually formed the Constitution our nation has operated under since 1789. Jefferson’s lack of involvement was largely due to his diplomatic status to France first as a trade commissioner and eventually ambassadorial role replacing Benjamin Franklin.
Although Jefferson had no direct tie to the making of the Constitution he was still an influence because the primary framer of the Constitution – James Madison – modeled the framework a lot from Virginia’s State Constitution in which Jefferson was very involved in.
This excerpt from Constitution Daily sums up Jefferson’s thoughts from France on the new Constitution while the then 13 States debated its ratification:
While in Paris before the Constitutional Convention, Jefferson closely followed developments in the United States. He corresponded with individuals who would eventually contribute to the formation of the Constitution, like Madison and John Jay, an author of the Federalist Papers.
… On June 6th, Madison wrote a letter to Jefferson with a list of the individuals attending the Convention, but explained that he couldn’t reveal more about the substance of the ongoing debates because the delegates agreed that the proceedings should be kept secret.
Jefferson expressed his frustration with the secrecy of the Convention, but he did share some ideas with Madison while it was ongoing. For example, Jefferson wrote to Madison on June 20th explaining why the federal government should not be given the power to veto laws passed by the states. This federal power was not included in the final draft of the Constitution despite Madison’s support of the idea.
On September 6th, Madison wrote a letter to Jefferson detailing some key provisions that were going to be included in the Constitution, as he reasoned that by the time the letter would arrive in France the details of the Constitution would be made public. Madison explained how state and federal governments were to be organized, and noted that some of the provisions may “surprise” Jefferson.
On December 20th, 1787, after the Constitutional Convention was over and while the ratification of the Constitution was being debated in state legislatures, Jefferson wrote a letter to Madison objecting to key parts of the Constitution. Among other things, Jefferson was concerned that the document lacked a Bill Of Rights and failed to establish term limits for federal officials. In earlier correspondences to other acquaintances, in 1786 Jefferson extolled government protection of civil liberties and wrote, for example, that “our liberty depends on the freedom of the press”. Jefferson also was a proponent of protections for religious liberty and wrote the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, which passed the Virginia General Assembly in 1786.
By the fall of 1788, Madison was convinced that the inclusion of a Bill Of Rights to the new Constitution would be prudent. While advocating for a bill of rights, Madison relied upon an argument first articulated by Jefferson – that a list of rights would help give the judiciary the power to ensure that other branches of governments would not infringe on citizens’ civil liberties. (A quick look at Thomas Jefferson’s constitutional legacy; By NCC Staff; Constitution Daily; 11/24/15)
Supporters of the Constitution were called Federalists and those that opposed a central government stronger than the authority of State governments were labeled Anti-Federalists. George Washington and John Adams were the first and only Federalists elected to Office under the eventually ratified Constitution. After Constitutional ratification the Federalists tended to favor the new nations wealthy elites and a stronger central government. The Anti-Federalists became the camp that favored States’ rights over Federal or national government authority and lined up more with land owners that weren’t necessarily wealthy but were self-supporting agrarians in some fashion or another. Federalists gravitated around Alexander Hamilton and the Anti-Federalists gravitated around Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.
After the Constitution took effect the label “Anti-Federalist” gave way to the notion of a Republic with democratically elected leaders. Hence without any real political organization the group found the label or Democratic-Republican who under the simplicity of colloquialism were simply called Republicans. Modern historians will often write Democratic-Republican to differentiate from the Republican Party which exists today and whose first POTUS holder was Abraham Lincoln elected in 1860 and served from 1861 – 1865 with his second term cut short by assassination.
My point is the new nation was divided into political factions that were not organized politically as they are today. Ironically factions were divided between those that favored Britain or France who were still in hostility in which the American Revolution was only a subset of the decades of hostilities that existed between Britain and France. By the time of Jefferson’s Presidency, the French Revolution dethroned the French King that aided American Revolution victory. The new France devolved into violent retribution against France’s Nobility class in the name of egalitarian fraternity and democracy which ended with the despotism of Napoleon Bonaparte.
During these early years of the American Republic the new Federal government concentrated on domestic issues and a reduced military presence which meant no money to create a navy fleet. Foreign trade protection was first done by the British navy and after the American Revolution a short time of French protection. Definitely by the time of Bonaparte’s reign American foreign trade received no protection from either Britain or France.
When Americans attempted trade efforts that brought them within the reach of North Africa, particularly in the Mediterranean Sea pirates began boarding American commercial vessels, stealing goods, kidnapping or killing Americans AND placing captured Americans who couldn’t pay ransom into slavery.
Guess what kind of culture these pirates came from? If you haven’t guessed yet how about a clue. In the modern age which culture still kidnaps, kills and enslaves (particularly sex-slaves today)?
There is only one answer – ISLAM!
What was Thomas Jefferson’s experience and/or knowledge of Islam? An excerpt from DownTrend.com shows Jefferson’s first contact with a Muslim as while on a diplomatic mission in Great Britain:
In 1786, Jefferson and John Adams met with Tripoli’s ambassador to Great Britain. They asked this ‘diplomat’ by what right his nation attacked American ships and enslaved her citizens and why the Muslims held such hostility toward this new nation, with which neither Tripoli nor any of the other Barbary Coast nations had any previous contact. The answer was quite revealing. Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja (the ambassador) replied that Islam:
“Was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Qur’an, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.” (Interesting Look Back At First American War Against Islam; By JOSEPH R. CARDUCCI; DownTrend.com; 10/11/14)
A Patheos article penned by an atheist explains Jefferson’s outrage also before becoming POTUS at having to pay ransoms and tribute to Islamic Barbary Pirates:
Jefferson attempted to create a coalition of tribute-paying European countries who would each contribute one or more war ships and jointly patrol the Mediterranean for Barbary pirates. Sometime before July 4, 1786, Jefferson drafted the Proposed Convention against the Barbary States to arrange the matter. … Jefferson’s proposal to spread the risk was met with a lack of interest from both the American Congress and European nations. As a result, America continued to lose ships to Barbary piracy for several more years.
It wasn’t until Jefferson became president that the U.S. ceased paying tribute and quietly launched the newly formed American navy to combat, particularly, the aggression from Tripoli. Thus began the first Barbary War in 1801, which ended in 1805 with a treaty that put a stop to the tributes and cleared the Mediterranean for the safe passage of American merchant ships. (In 1807, Algiers started taking American ships again, and it took until 1815 for America to address it militarily. This second Barbary War lasted two days and finally put an end to piracy from North Africa.)
Jefferson was the only founding father to take an active interest in Islam. He purchased his own copy of the Koran long before America’s encounters with the Barbary. His copy of George Sale’s English translation of the Koran was shipped from London in 1765 and can be viewed today at the Library of Congress. There is some speculation that this is a second copy because Jefferson possibly lost his first copy in the May 26, 1771, fire at his mother’s home. The Koran in the Library of Congress contains no written notes or comments by Jefferson (possibly because it’s a second copy), and his initials are his only inscription, although they appear curiously close to some verses regarding warfare. (Thomas Jefferson’s Struggle with Islamic Brutality; By Hemant Mehta; Patheos; 10/29/15)
Jefferson’s next step was after he became President. He cancelled the tribute blackmail and went after the Islamic Barbary Pirates for attacking, killing and enslaving Americans. Monticello.org gives a decent rundown of the Islamic Barbary Pirates in relation to Thomas Jefferson through at least the First Barbary War. At Monticello.org you will discover the USA bowed to paying extortion tribute to the Barbary semi-autonomous states through the first two Presidents even while Jefferson was Secretary of State.
Early in June, barely three months after the inauguration a small squadron — three frigates and a schooner — sailed for the Mediterranean under Commodore Richard Dale. If they found on arrival that war had been declared, the squadron was to protect American shipping from the corsairs and to “chastise their insolence … by sinking, burning, or destroying their ships and vessels wherever you shall find them.” It was also to blockade the harbor of any of the regencies that had declared war on America and, to the extent possible, was to convoy merchantmen when asked. In addition, Commodore Dale was to take to Algiers and Tunis letters, gifts for the rulers, tribute payments in the case of Algiers and assurances to both rulers that overdue tribute was soon to be forthcoming on other vessels. And, he was to go to Tripoli. There he would deliver the President’s letter to the pasha and, if still at peace, could give Cathcart money for a gift to the pasha.18
Jefferson’s letter to Pasha Qaramanli emphasized “our sincere desire to cultivate peace & commerce with your subjects.” Also mentioned was our dispatch to the Mediterranean of “a squadron of observation” whose appearance [we hope] will give umbrage to no power.” The squadron’s purpose, the letter explained, was to exercise our seamen and to “superintend the safety of our commerce…[which] we mean to rest…on the resources of our own strength & bravery in every sea.”19 Meanwhile, Secretary Madison wrote American consuls in the Mediterranean that the President, convinced “of the hostile purposes of the Bashaw of Tripoli” was sending a naval squadron to protect our commerce in the Mediterranean and to respond appropriately to any powers who declared war on the United States.20
Unfortunately, the pasha had not waited to hear from the new president. Yusuf Qaramanli declared war on the United States on May 14, 1801 by chopping down the flagpole at the American consulate in Tripoli.21
On arrival at Gibraltar July 1, Commodore Dale learned we were at war with Tripoli. During the next few months, squadron vessels blocked two Tripolitan corsairs in Gibraltar, delivered goods and messages in Algiers, Tunis and Tripoli, escorted American merchant ships, and briefly blockaded Tripoli harbor. In the only real action that year, the schooner Enterprize engaged and soundly defeated the Tripolitan ship Tripoli off the coast of Malta on August 1.22
… Two months later Congress passed an act authorizing him to instruct naval commanders to seize Tripolitan goods and vessels, and to commission privateers to aid in the effort.23
During the following three years the pasha maintained his demands and the United States, rotating ships and crews, maintained its naval presence in the Mediterranean as well as diplomatic efforts to make peace. In 1802 Jefferson was reportedly of the view “that the time is come when negociations [sic] may advantageously take place.” He was to be disappointed.24 Tripolitan corsairs evaded the blockade and American merchantmen were captured. Most escaped their captors; only one was carried into port, the Franklin, in 1802, and the five Americans on it were quickly ransomed. In Algiers, Richard O’Brien sarcastically remarked without comment: “It is asserted that there are at sea, at present, six sail of Tripoline corsairs & it is asserted that the frigates of the United States & those of Sweden are blockading Tripoli.”25 Nor did the blockade stop Tripoli’s trade with other Barbary powers. It did, however, interfere with it, and the other rulers sided with the pasha. The possibility of Tunis and/or Morocco entering the war became a serious concern off and on throughout 1802.
… “They know they cannot meet us with force any more than they could France, Spain or England,” he wrote from Monticello at the end of March. “Their system is a war of little expense to them, which must put the great nations to a greater expense than the presents which would buy it off.”26 He was still as much against buying peace and paying tribute as he had been since first dealing with Barbary in 1784; it was a matter of principle. But one had to be practical as well as principled.27
The most important naval action in 1803 involved the frigate Philadelphia, which ran aground near Tripoli in October. The pasha imprisoned the 307-man crew and refloated and repaired the stricken vessel. Before they could make any use of her, though, on February 16, 1804 a U.S. navy team under Lt. Stephen Decatur slipped into Tripoli harbor after dark and set fires on board that totally destroyed the Philadelphia. The loss of the frigate weakened the American squadron, while captives from the Philadelphia gave the pasha new leverage and prospects of substantial ransom.31
When news of the Philadelphia’s loss reached America, Jefferson and his colleagues began looking for a way to send at least two more frigates to the Mediterranean. Congress rallied behind the President and the navy, approving a new tax and new expenditures for the war.32 After initial political and public criticism of the president due to the devastating loss, widespread public support was stimulated by Stephen Decatur’s successful stealth mission under Tripoli’s guns.33
… in 1804, he decided the current squadron was not big enough to do the job. Newly-appointed Commodore Samuel Barron would command eleven vessels, “a force which would be able, beyond the possibility of a doubt, to coerce the enemy to a peace on terms compatible with our honor and our interest.”35 The expanded squadron would be more than twice the size of the original one three years earlier and its mix of frigates, brigs and smaller vessels would be better suited to its mission.
After arriving on the scene, if Barron judged it expedient he was authorized to support an overland attack on Tripoli by forces supporting the restoration to power of Hamet Qaramanli, an older brother ousted in a 1796 coup by Pasha Yusuf Qaramanli. That idea had been proposed in 1801 by James Cathcart and also by William Eaton who knew the exiled Hamet in Tunis when he was American consul there. The proposal had received qualified approval from Secretary of State Madison in 1802.37
Barron had doubts about involving Hamet, but Eaton and Captain Preble persuaded him. November 16 Eaton sailed on the brig Argus to find Hamet in Egypt. Barron may have expected Eaton to bring Hamet to Syracuse for a consultation40—that is unclear—but having eventually located him, Eaton helped the ex-pasha put together a collection of a few hundred armed Arabs and Greeks, mostly mercenaries under a handful of disparate leaders. Eaton, Hamet and several marines marched their “army’ nearly 500 miles through the desert along the southern shore of the Mediterranean and, on April 27, 1805, they captured the town of Derne, some miles east of Benghazi. The Argus and two sister ships supplied them with provisions along their march and actively supported them in the taking of Derne (where Hamet had been governor three years before under his brother Yusuf). In the meantime, the American blockade of Tripoli had been maintained through the winter and spring.
… Then, May 18, he wrote Tobias Lear that, from what he had learned of Hamet Qaramanli, he could no longer support the plan involving the ex-pasha. He noted that the condition of some of his vessels and periods of enlistment of his personnel precluded another winter of blockade, was concerned about the fate of the American prisoners held by the pasha, and thought it time to respond to encouraging hints from Tripoli favoring negotiation. Not mentioned, but no doubt also on his mind, his health would not permit him to lead an attack on Tripoli that summer.42 Indeed, he handed command of the squadron to Captain John Rodgers less than a week later.
Lear sailed from Syracuse for Tripoli May 24th. Negotiations began shortly after his arrival, preliminary articles were agreed June 3 and the American captives from the Philadelphia were embarked on US vessels June 4. The final document was signed on the tenth. It involved neither payment for peace nor annual tribute. Based on the difference between the numbers of captives held on the two sides, ransom of $60,000 was agreed, well below the limit given Lear. Far to the east, the Americans, Hamet and his close associates left Derne on board American naval vessels June 12. The Senate ratified the treaty April 12, 1806.43
There is MORE before and after this excerpt (The First Barbary War; Original article by Elizabeth Huff, August 2, 2011; revised and expanded by Priscilla and Richard Roberts, September 26, 2011. Monticello.org)
The Battle of Derna circa April 27, 1805 is what sealed the deal of the First Barbary War. The details of which are worth the read but I’ve already exceeded the purpose of writing about America’s first encounter of military action against Muslim principles of humiliating and dishonoring non-Muslims.
Apparently Obama has much in common with President Thomas Jefferson in that Jefferson listened to his advisors to use diplomatic efforts – including extortion payments – to negotiate a peace deal with the Islamic Barbary Pirates. However, Jefferson did finally come to the conclusion that the lack of military was costing the American National Interests more than diplomacy and extortion money. Hence the Marines sailed to the shores of Tripoli to kick some Muslim butt free Americans enslaved by Muslims and at least force an agreement not to attack American commerce.
The Second Barbary War (aka Algerine or Algerian War) had Congressional approval March 3, 2016. Two Commodores were given fleets to take action. Commodore Stephen Decatur (same guy who as a Lieutenant led the assault on Derna and the Tripoli raid that torched the captured the ship Philadelphia in the First Barbary War) got their first and engaged the Algerian Dey’s fleet, defeated it and forced a surrender by June 29, 1815. The Algerian Dey signed the terms of the Treaty July 3, 1815. (See Wikipedia, U. of Michigan and USWars.net)
The thing Obama is missing about Islam is you have to severely spank it to get its leaders – whether from a nation or terrorists. If you want to stop the genocide of Christians and stop importing American-hating Muslim from Syria-Iraq, a severe military response will be REQUIRED.
THOMAS JEFFERSON AND RADICAL ISLAM'S WAR ON THE WEST
America's historical entanglement with the "religion of peace"
By David L. Hunter
Nov-Dec 2015 Issue
Those that assume that radical Islam is a modern phenomenon that became prominent during Bill Clinton's tenure as president in the 1990s merely scratch the historical surface of America's complicated political entanglement with the Middle East's supposed "religion of peace." In truth, the tentacles of radical Islam go all the way back to Thomas Jefferson.
Historically, Thomas Jefferson was the first U.S. president to go to war against belligerent Islam. The American Revolution from English imperialism had left the fledgling republic deeply in debt. Trade of America's vast natural resources of lumber, animal skins and crops with Europe was the economic answer. However, European markets, a traditional mercantile system, were not open to American commodities. Complicating matters was the fact that America had no navy to protect American cargo ships from Barbary pirates who were known to kidnap foreigners for ransom. Further, due to American independence, the U.S. could no longer depend upon the British Royal Navy—the greatest in the world at that time—nor the King of England, who customarily paid "tribute" (protection money) to North African pashas and the Sultan of Morocco.
In May of 1784 the Continental Congress dispatched Jefferson to Paris first as trade commissioner and later as ambassador to France. Very early on in the process he became aware of an unexpected reality: Christian-American hostages were being enslaved by violent Muslims. Contrary to rumor and the popular belief of the time, these North African predators were not the stereotypical pirates out for booty: wine, women, adventure and song. These "Barbary Pirates" were in fact just typical Middle Eastern Muslims known then as Mahometans or Mussulmen who did not consume alcohol and prayed to Allah several times a day. They crewed the ships of the Mediterranean Sea's Islamic city-states and their efforts to capture cargo and passenger vessels were both economic and religious. Like today's terrorists, these predecessors called themselves Mujahidin or "soldiers in the Jihad" and engaged in holy war against the West. Not much has changed in 200 years.
The Mujahidin knew the Union Jack, but they didn't know the Stars and Stripes. Not that it mattered then or now: All foreigners and non-Muslims were targets. Jefferson foresaw the danger and spent the fall of 1784 studying Islam as well as fellow diplomats' treatment of the long-standing issue. Specifically, in March of 1785, future presidents Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to London to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman. When they inquired into the Mujadhins' propensity "to make war upon nations who had done them no injury," the ambassador replied:
It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every Mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once.
Jefferson argued correctly that paying "tribute" to Muslim extremism would encourage further malfeasance: "infidel" enslavement, hostage-taking and ship hijacking had already plagued Europe for a thousand years. Although John Adams concurred, as America had no standing navy, the circumstance forced the new, debt-ridden nation to pay a hefty 1 million dollar tithe (approximately 10% of the U.S. government's annual revenues in 1800), a government entitlement program for terrorists that went on for 15 years. Like the monarchies of Europe, Jefferson's Democratic-Republicans were focused on Western expansion and did not want those efforts stymied by useless armed conflicts in the Old World. The money guaranteed safe passage of American ships and/or the return of American hostages.
Like today in the West's continuing quest for crude oil instead of developing comparable domestic resources, the price remains high to do business with the barbarous Middle East. In Jefferson's time, British merchants, British and French royalty and virtually every maritime trading country in Christian Europe capitulated to the extortion rather than shift resources from burgeoning global empire-building elsewhere. However, Jefferson realized that any peaceful arrangement with the Mujahidin was a temporary fix, which would ultimately lead to greater and greater demands.
Unlike the Obama doctrine of continued appeasement and hollow political "victories" not worth the paper they are written on, Thomas Jefferson wanted to fight. However, certain precincts of the U.S. government reacted haphazardly to continued acts of terrorism. In late 1793, the mass hijacking of U.S. ships by Muslims had a 9/11 effect on the U.S. economy. Four months later, on March 27, 1794, Congress—after debating the subject periodically over a decade—finally decided to build a fleet of warships: six extra-large frigates. In essence, the United States Navy was born in response to unprovoked Muslim aggression.
After 17 years of calling for war against Islamic extremism represented by Barbary piracy, it was not until 1801 as America's third president that Mr. Jefferson dispatched a naval squadron of four warships to the Mediterranean to engage in a four-year war off the shores of Tripoli. Sporadically, a Western power would bombard Muslim port cities in response to the ongoing threat, but nothing ends the seemingly endless Christian-Islamic religious conflict. As history demonstrates, Obama's political realities mirror Jefferson's. However, Mr. Obama's cowardly head-in-the-sand reaction is in direct opposition to Jefferson's Reaganesque show of strength.
Given the terrorist atrocities of September 11, 2001, the historic date of September 11, 1683 also comes clearly into focus. That was a turning point in human history: the defeat of the Islamic armies of the Ottoman Empire and the Islamic caliphate by Christian forces at the gates of Vienna. From that moment until the recent times, Christian or Western powers would dominate the Muslim world. Radical Islam seeks to violently overturn that arrangement through modern savagery and continuous warfare.
Christian-Americans Let Votes Be a Voice to Leadership
John R. Houk
© March 13, 2016
Websites Examined for Source Info
THOMAS JEFFERSON AND RADICAL ISLAM'S WAR ON THE WEST
David L. Hunter is a DC-based freelance writer whose work has been published in The Washington Times, The Washington Post and American Thinker. This article appeared May 19, 2015 in Frontpage Magazine and is archived at
The painting by Dennis Malone Carter of American navy men led by Stephen Decatur boarding a Tripolitan gunboat on August 3, 1804 is not part of the original article. The painting depicts Decatur and the Muslim captain (the two men slightly right of center in the painting) in mortal combat; Decatur (in sailor whites) is pulling out a gun; the captain (white turban) holds a sword in his upraised arm. The episode is vividly described in "Stephen Decatur and the Barbary Pirates" on the Extraordinary Lives of Intrepid Gentlemen website and is archived at