The comparison is a non-starter. D.F. and the Islamics are both trying to destroy our liberty, one much quicker thaan the other, but both of them sure ... so the obvious qualification is that the individual MUST not be a tyrannt and must support the liberty espoused by the founders and the constitution that defines it. Neither of your options do that and I am sorry if that point was not clear.
I would vote for neither and would set my self in a place best apt to influence and swing things the right way (ie. as I am in Idaho) ... and if there was no other recourse, would have to defer to the same option and course our founders took.
It is a valid comparision and reflects the reality that in war most principles are compromised. The principle of supporting anti-abortionism cannot allow you to join the Islamaniacs even though they support that principle. In some fights there are only two sides and you have to choose.
Was our strategy in WWII wrong? We joined forces with a nation dedicated to destroying freedom against a more virulent form of evil. We certainly can not allow our policies to be determined by such allies but must use them when it is to our advantage.
Even snakes can be of use.