Whose history and whose talking points are these?

This is the same president who in Cairo declared himself a student of history and  flaunted the “golden age” of Islam and its great contributions to European development.  Actual historians have a contrary view.

And we keep getting garbled history from this president, history that anyone who studied history in this country understands.  He falls short.  His formative years out of the country apparently left a gap in his knowledge.

Though public speaking is his strong suit, the president constantly gets untethered in historical contexts.  He was confused about his family history, declaring that his father served in WWII.  He did not.  His authorized autobiography is rife with people who were initially portrayed as “real,” but upon discovery were reduced to “composite” personalities.  Fast and loose with history, even personal history, is not uncommon.

Much like being curiously confused about “my Muslim religion," most people don’t get confused about their father’s war service.

Recently, the president talked about George Washington making beer in the White House.  There was no White House for George. 

The president also reached to justify his unilateral prisoner release by comparing his actions to Lincoln and FDR.  Both of those presidents presided over not only executions for espionage, but also harsh punishment for desertion.  Compare Nidal Hasan’s and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s treatment to what those presidents might have done in similar circumstances.

Now we get the history lesson about the Inquisition, slavery, and the Crusades.  These are nothing more than radical Muslim talking points directly from the president, Barack Obama.  Is the president making excuses for ISIS? 

Apparently, he is essentially saying that Christianity has had some dark moments, just like Islam is having now.  The president’s conclusion is unclear.  Are actions from centuries ago somehow justifications for today’s terrorists?  (There are still areas in the Muslim world where slavery exists.)  Are the metrics for civil behavior those of centuries past?

Maybe the visit from the Muslim activists at the White House prompted this train of thought from our president, Barack Obama.  Recent visits to the White House by Muslim activists may have refreshed his need to spread the message.

This is the same president who in Cairo declared himself a student of history and  flaunted the “golden age” of Islam and its great contributions to European development.  Actual historians have a contrary view.

And we keep getting garbled history from this president, history that anyone who studied history in this country understands.  He falls short.  His formative years out of the country apparently left a gap in his knowledge.

Though public speaking is his strong suit, the president constantly gets untethered in historical contexts.  He was confused about his family history, declaring that his father served in WWII.  He did not.  His authorized autobiography is rife with people who were initially portrayed as “real,” but upon discovery were reduced to “composite” personalities.  Fast and loose with history, even personal history, is not uncommon.

Much like being curiously confused about “my Muslim religion," most people don’t get confused about their father’s war service.

Recently, the president talked about George Washington making beer in the White House.  There was no White House for George. 

The president also reached to justify his unilateral prisoner release by comparing his actions to Lincoln and FDR.  Both of those presidents presided over not only executions for espionage, but also harsh punishment for desertion.  Compare Nidal Hasan’s and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s treatment to what those presidents might have done in similar circumstances.

Now we get the history lesson about the Inquisition, slavery, and the Crusades.  These are nothing more than radical Muslim talking points directly from the president, Barack Obama.  Is the president making excuses for ISIS? 

Apparently, he is essentially saying that Christianity has had some dark moments, just like Islam is having now.  The president’s conclusion is unclear.  Are actions from centuries ago somehow justifications for today’s terrorists?  (There are still areas in the Muslim world where slavery exists.)  Are the metrics for civil behavior those of centuries past?

Maybe the visit from the Muslim activists at the White House prompted this train of thought from our president, Barack Obama.  Recent visits to the White House by Muslim activists may have refreshed his need to spread the message.