GOP candidates Perry and Romney assail Obama on Israel

GOP candidates Perry and Romney assail Obama on Israel

NEW YORK (AP) — Republican presidential candidates Rick Perry and Mitt Romney waded into a tense foreign policy dispute Tuesday by criticizing the Palestinian Authority’s effort to seek a formal recognition of statehood by the U.N. General Assembly.

The Republican rivals also used the jockeying at the U.N. to assail President Barack Obama’s policy toward Israel.

Perry, the Texas governor and Republican front-runner, is pledging in a speech in New York strong support for Israel and criticizing Obama for demanding concessions from the Jewish state that Perry says emboldened the Palestinians to seek recognition by the U.N.

“We are indignant that certain Middle Eastern leaders have discarded the principle of direct negotiations between the sovereign nation of Israel and the Palestinian leadership,” Perry said in excerpts provided by one of his aides to The Associated Press. “And we are equally indignant that the Obama administration’s Middle East policy of appeasement has encouraged such an ominous act of bad faith.”

In a written statement before Perry spoke, Romney called the diplomatic maneuvering at the United Nations this week an “unmitigated diplomatic disaster.” The former Massachusetts governor also accused Obama’s administration of “repeated efforts over three years to throw Israel under the bus and undermine its negotiating position.”

“That policy must stop now,” Romney said.

The two Republicans who lead in early polls for the Republican nomination, as well as their lesser-known opponents, are intent on showing they stand strongly behind Israel, an effort to appeal to Jewish voters and donors who play a pivotal role in presidential elections. So they’re trying to grab a share of the spotlight as the Palestinians push for statehood this week at the U.N.

Perry and Romney weighed in as Obama was in New York for meetings on the sidelines of the General Assembly. He planned to meet later in the week with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

The U.S. has promised a veto in the Security Council, but the Palestinians can press for a more limited recognition of statehood before the full — and much more supportive — General Assembly. The Obama administration has pushed hard for countries around the world to block the Palestinian bid, and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Monday there was still time to avert a divisive showdown.

Obama has been criticized by Republicans and many pro-Israel activists for seeming to push the Jewish state harder than the Palestinians to make compromises to achieve peace. Among other things, Obama has called on Israel to cease building housing settlements in the West Bank and to negotiate the scope of the Palestinian state using 1967 borders as a starting point — a diplomatic position the U.S. has long maintained but one that has never before been explicitly embraced by a U.S. president.

Complaints about Obama’s Israel policy helped a Republican, Bob Turner, win a special election in a heavily Jewish and Democratic New York congressional district last week.

“It’s vitally important for America to preserve alliances with leaders who seek to preserve peace and stability in the region,” Perry said in the speech. “But today, neither adversaries nor allies know where America stands. Our muddle of a foreign policy has created great uncertainty in the midst of the Arab Spring.”

Romney called on Obama to unequivocally reaffirm the U.S. commitment to Israel’s security and promise to cut foreign assistance to the Palestinians if they succeed in getting U.N. recognition. He also called for the United States to re-evaluate its funding of U.N. programs and its relationship with any nation voting in favor of recognition.

All the wrong 9/11 lessons

All the wrong 9/11 lessons
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2011

Are your kids learning the right lessons about 9/11? Ten years after Osama bin Laden’s henchmen murdered thousands of innocents on American soil, too many children have been spoon-fed the thin gruel of progressive political correctness over the stiff antidote of truth.

“Know your enemy, name your enemy” is a 9/11 message that has gone unheeded. Our immigration and homeland security policies refuse to profile jihadi adherents at foreign consular offices and at our borders. Our military leaders refuse to expunge them from uniformed ranks until it’s too late (see: Fort Hood massacre). The j-word is discouraged in Obama intelligence circles, and the term “Islamic extremism” was removed from the U.S. national security strategy document last year.

Similarly, too many teachers refuse to show and tell who the perpetrators of 9/11 were and who their heirs are today. My own daughter was one year old when the Twin Towers collapsed, the Pentagon went up in flames and Shanksville, Pa., became hallowed ground for the brave passengers of United Flight 93. In second grade, her teachers read touchy-feely stories about peace and diversity to honor the 9/11 dead. They whitewashed Osama bin Laden, militant Islam and centuries-old jihad out of the curriculum. Apparently, the youngsters weren’t ready to learn even the most basic information about the evil masterminds of Islamic terrorism.

Mary Beth Hicks, author of the new book “Don’t Let the Kids Drink the Kool-Aid,” points to a recent review of 10 widely used textbooks in which the concepts of jihad and sharia were either watered down or absent. These childhood experts have determined that grade school is too early to delve into the specifics of the homicidal clash of Allah’s sharia-avenging soldiers with the freedom-loving Western world.

Yet, many of the same protectors of fragile elementary-school pupils can’t wait to teach them all the ins and outs of condoms, cross-dressers and crack addictions.

We pulled our daughter out of a cesspool of academic and moral relativism and found a reality-grounded, rigorous charter school where no-nonsense teachers refuse to sugarcoat inconvenient facts and history. Many of the students are children of soldiers and servicemen and women who — inspired by the heroes of 9/11 — have voluntarily deployed time and time again to kill the American Dream destroyers abroad before they kill us over here.

There’s no better way to hammer home the message that “freedom is not free” than to have your kids go to school with other kids whose dads and moms are gone for years at a time — missing births and birthday parties, recitals and soccer practice, Christmas pageants and Independence Day fireworks.

But instead of unfettered pride in our armed forces, social justice educators in high schools and colleges across the country indoctrinate American students into viewing our volunteer armed forces as victims, monsters and pawns in a leftist “social struggle.”

A decade after the 9/11 attacks, Blame America-ism still permeates classrooms and the culture. A special 9/11 curriculum distributed in New Jersey schools advises teachers to “avoid graphic details or dramatizing the destruction” wrought by the 9/11 hijackers, and instead focus elementary school students’ attention on broadly defined “intolerance” and “hurtful words.”

No surprise: Jihadist utterances such as “Kill the Jews,” “Allahu Akbar” and “Behead all those who insult Islam” are not among the “hurtful words” studied.

Middle-schoolers are directed to “analyze diversity and prejudice in U.S. history.” And high-school students are taught “Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs” – pop-psychology claptrap used to excuse jihadists’ behavior based on their purported low self-esteem and oppressed status caused by “European colonialism.”

It is no wonder that a new poll released this week showed that Americans today “are generally more willing to believe that U.S. policies in the Middle East might have motivated the 9/11 terror attacks on New York and the Pentagon,” according to Reuters.

To make matters worse, we have an appeaser-in-chief who wrote shortly after the jihadist attacks a decade ago that the “essence of this tragedy” derives “from a fundamental absence of empathy on the part of the attackers: an inability to imagine, or connect with, the humanity and suffering of others.” A “climate of poverty and ignorance” caused the attacks, then-Illinois state Sen. Barack Obama preached. Never mind the Ivy League and Oxford educations, the oil wealth and the middle-class status of legions of al-Qaida plotters and operatives.

9/11 was a deliberate, carefully planned evil act of the long-waged war on the West by Koran-inspired soldiers of Allah around the world. They hated us before George W. Bush was in office. They hated us before Israel existed. And the avengers of the religion of perpetual outrage will keep hating us no matter how much we try to appease them.

The post-9/11 problem isn’t whether we’ll forget. The problem is: Will we ever learn?

Wake-up World. The Enemy Has A Name. That Name Is Islam.

Jimmy Gourdie

Wake-up World. The Enemy Has A Name. That Name Is Islam.

The dominate news for the last few weeks is what has been happening in
Tunisia, Yemen, to some extent in Jordan; but most importantly, for the moment,
in Egypt. Apparent spontaneous uprisings of the people; demanding that their
government leaders step down;. A cry for freedom and democracy is how the news
media is presenting these events to the world. But there is much confusion and
anxiety in the minds of many people. Will the dictators of these countries be
replaced by some form of democratic secular governments? Or will they fall into
the hands of radical Muslims ala Iran. I suspect the bookies have placed high
odds against secular democracies.

For the purposes of this essay, I will focus on Egypt and the United States.
Much of what I say about Egypt probably applies to any country where Muslims are
a majority. Much of what I say about the United States probably applies to most
of the non-Islamic world.

The government of the United States was founded on the principles of
individual freedom. We created a republic with limited democracy. The concept of
“limited democracy” is important because pure democracy leads to the tyranny of
the majority over the minority; even if that majority exist by the slimmest of
margins. There have been many tyrants who have been elected democratically. Hugo
Chavez in Venezuela is a prime example.

One of the principles of US foreign policy has be the moral responsibility
to support people in their struggle to free themselves from repressive
governments. We haven’t always lived-up to that moral responsibility because
there is a second principle to our foreign policy. The second principle is the
protection of our nation’s strategic interest; be they military/security or
economic. It is this second principle that has led the US to support various
totalitarian regimes in different parts of the world. Examples of this would be
our support for the Mubarak regime in Egypt and the Saudi Royal family in Saudi
Arabia. The US even found it in our best interest to support, at one time, the
Saddam Husein regime in Iraq.

Over our history, the United States has fought many wars. It was always easy
to define and recognize our enemies.  Our enemies have only euphemistically been
defined as a people. It was always understood the real enemy was those that
govern the country in question. In World War II our enemies were Hitler and his
regime not the German people; the imperialist regime of Japan not the Japanese
people. The same can be said about the Korean War, the War in Vietnam, the Gulf
War, and etc. Our enemies have been governments not the people of those
nations.

I believe that the world is experiencing a paradigm shift and that there is
an urgent need for the US and the rest of the developed world redefine who their
common enemy is. For the first time in modern history, I believe the common
enemy isn’t any government regime but a people and not the people of just one or
two nations. I believe that the greatest threat to the United States and the
rest of the developed world is the Muslim world.

The Muslim world is much more than the Middle-East. It includes Indonesia and
other parts of Asia and Asia-Minor. And, there are al l the
Somethig-stan countries south of Russia and north of India. Also, one should
keep in mind that there are large Muslim populations throughout South America,
North America, and Europe. But let’s get back to Egypt.

My view is that Mubarak is really no longer in the picture. The military is
in control of the government and they have met with various opposition groups;
the biggest of which is the Muslim Brotherhood. I think the chances of Egypt
ending-up as a secular democracy are slim and none. Various bloggers have
written on Pew surveys that show that an overwhelming majority of Egyptians want
a theocratic government and they want sharia law to prevail over all other.

If you believe the talking heads of MSM and some of or own politicians that
the Muslim Brotherhood are moderates, you are sadly mistaken. Visit Atlas
Shrugs
and search the archives of Pamela Geller and learn what the Muslim
Brotherhood is all about.

Try to imagine what will happen,  if Egypt, Tunisia, and Yemen become clones
of Iran. You can bet that Jordan and Syria won’t be far behind. The dominoes
will start to fall. How will Saudi Arabia hold out? They won’t be able to hold
out. Even Iraq could blow-up in our face. Radical Muslims will control the
lion’s share of the world’s oil reserves. They could easily bring down the
world’s economy. Terrorist attacks will escalate around the world. It will be
World War III; but it won’t be a conventional war. There won’t be any defined
battle fields.  It will be a guerilla war with the planet as the battle field.
We and the rest of the once known, developed world, will be chasing our tails
trying  to figure out where the next terrorist attack is going to happen. With
the world economy collapsed, civilization will slip into a new version of the
Dark Ages.

When it comes to religion, I have always taken the position of live and let
live. But that is not a tenant of Islam. Islam is not just a religion. It is
much more. Islam is a social order with their own laws. Sharia law. Islam
teaches that the infidel must either be subjugated or eliminated. Period. End of
story.

You may think that I am an alarmist, an Islamophoic, or a fear monger. Maybe.
All I can say is that I am honestly afraid. Afraid  for my family, afraid for my
country and, afraid  for the future of the world. as we have known it  I am
convinced that our leaders and the leaders of many other countries must wake-up
to the new reality. Our enemy is not some country like Iran.  Our enemy is not
some nebulous thing like terrorism. Our enemy is a people. A people who follow
the dictates of Islam. They are called Muslims and they want to enslave you or
kill you and the choice is not yours. The liberal elite of the world will
finally have their wish for a new world order. However, It won’t be they and the
banksters and George Soros that are in charge, at least not for very long.

If my views on Islam are extreme, then I am in good company. There are a
large number of conservative bloggers who hold similar views to mine. They are
not fear mongers. They are trying to warn the world of a very real danger. A
danger that many world leaders and most liberals do not want to see.

There are two exceptionally good articles on the subject of Islam that have
been recently published. One is at Questioning with Boldness and the other is at at My Tea Party Chronicles. I highly recommend them. Unlike the
rantings of this old man, these two essays are beautifully written, full of
useful details, and there are some great links. Please take the time to read
both of these essays and then come back and tell me if my views are extremist in
nature.

Wake-up World. The Enemy Has A Name. That Name Is Islam.

Wake-up World. The Enemy Has A Name. That Name Is Islam.

The dominate news for the last few weeks is what has been happening in
Tunisia, Yemen, to some extent in Jordan; but most importantly, for the moment,
in Egypt. Apparent spontaneous uprisings of the people; demanding that their
government leaders step down;. A cry for freedom and democracy is how the news
media is presenting these events to the world. But there is much confusion and
anxiety in the minds of many people. Will the dictators of these countries be
replaced by some form of democratic secular governments? Or will they fall into
the hands of radical Muslims ala Iran. I suspect the bookies have placed high
odds against secular democracies.

For the purposes of this essay, I will focus on Egypt and the United States.
Much of what I say about Egypt probably applies to any country where Muslims are
a majority. Much of what I say about the United States probably applies to most
of the non-Islamic world.

The government of the United States was founded on the principles of
individual freedom. We created a republic with limited democracy. The concept of
“limited democracy” is important because pure democracy leads to the tyranny of
the majority over the minority; even if that majority exist by the slimmest of
margins. There have been many tyrants who have been elected democratically. Hugo
Chavez in Venezuela is a prime example.

One of the principles of US foreign policy has be the moral responsibility
to support people in their struggle to free themselves from repressive
governments. We haven’t always lived-up to that moral responsibility because
there is a second principle to our foreign policy. The second principle is the
protection of our nation’s strategic interest; be they military/security or
economic. It is this second principle that has led the US to support various
totalitarian regimes in different parts of the world. Examples of this would be
our support for the Mubarak regime in Egypt and the Saudi Royal family in Saudi
Arabia. The US even found it in our best interest to support, at one time, the
Saddam Husein regime in Iraq.

Over our history, the United States has fought many wars. It was always easy
to define and recognize our enemies.  Our enemies have only euphemistically been
defined as a people. It was always understood the real enemy was those that
govern the country in question. In World War II our enemies were Hitler and his
regime not the German people; the imperialist regime of Japan not the Japanese
people. The same can be said about the Korean War, the War in Vietnam, the Gulf
War, and etc. Our enemies have been governments not the people of those
nations.

I believe that the world is experiencing a paradigm shift and that there is
an urgent need for the US and the rest of the developed world redefine who their
common enemy is. For the first time in modern history, I believe the common
enemy isn’t any government regime but a people and not the people of just one or
two nations. I believe that the greatest threat to the United States and the
rest of the developed world is the Muslim world.

The Muslim world is much more than the Middle-East. It includes Indonesia and
other parts of Asia and Asia-Minor. And, there are al l the
Somethig-stan countries south of Russia and north of India. Also, one should
keep in mind that there are large Muslim populations throughout South America,
North America, and Europe. But let’s get back to Egypt.

My view is that Mubarak is really no longer in the picture. The military is
in control of the government and they have met with various opposition groups;
the biggest of which is the Muslim Brotherhood. I think the chances of Egypt
ending-up as a secular democracy are slim and none. Various bloggers have
written on Pew surveys that show that an overwhelming majority of Egyptians want
a theocratic government and they want sharia law to prevail over all other.

If you believe the talking heads of MSM and some of or own politicians that
the Muslim Brotherhood are moderates, you are sadly mistaken. Visit Atlas
Shrugs
and search the archives of Pamela Geller and learn what the Muslim
Brotherhood is all about.

Try to imagine what will happen,  if Egypt, Tunisia, and Yemen become clones
of Iran. You can bet that Jordan and Syria won’t be far behind. The dominoes
will start to fall. How will Saudi Arabia hold out? They won’t be able to hold
out. Even Iraq could blow-up in our face. Radical Muslims will control the
lion’s share of the world’s oil reserves. They could easily bring down the
world’s economy. Terrorist attacks will escalate around the world. It will be
World War III; but it won’t be a conventional war. There won’t be any defined
battle fields.  It will be a guerilla war with the planet as the battle field.
We and the rest of the once known, developed world, will be chasing our tails
trying  to figure out where the next terrorist attack is going to happen. With
the world economy collapsed, civilization will slip into a new version of the
Dark Ages.

When it comes to religion, I have always taken the position of live and let
live. But that is not a tenant of Islam. Islam is not just a religion. It is
much more. Islam is a social order with their own laws. Sharia law. Islam
teaches that the infidel must either be subjugated or eliminated. Period. End of
story.

You may think that I am an alarmist, an Islamophoic, or a fear monger. Maybe.
All I can say is that I am honestly afraid. Afraid  for my family, afraid for my
country and, afraid  for the future of the world. as we have known it  I am
convinced that our leaders and the leaders of many other countries must wake-up
to the new reality. Our enemy is not some country like Iran.  Our enemy is not
some nebulous thing like terrorism. Our enemy is a people. A people who follow
the dictates of Islam. They are called Muslims and they want to enslave you or
kill you and the choice is not yours. The liberal elite of the world will
finally have their wish for a new world order. However, It won’t be they and the
banksters and George Soros that are in charge, at least not for very long.

If my views on Islam are extreme, then I am in good company. There are a
large number of conservative bloggers who hold similar views to mine. They are
not fear mongers. They are trying to warn the world of a very real danger. A
danger that many world leaders and most liberals do not want to see.

There are two exceptionally good articles on the subject of Islam that have
been recently published. One is at Questioning with Boldness and the other is at at My Tea Party Chronicles. I highly recommend them. Unlike the
rantings of this old man, these two essays are beautifully written, full of
useful details, and there are some great links. Please take the time to read
both of these essays and then come back and tell me if my views are extremist in
nature.

Iran Commander: We Have Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles

Iran Commander: We Have Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles

Reza Khalili

Iran has the technological ability to target any point
on the planet with an intercontinental ballistic missile should it choose to,
according to Brig. Gen. Seyyed Mehdi Farahi of the Revolutionary Guards Corps,
who is the director of the Iranian air and space industries.

A
recent editorial
in
the Iranian Keyhan newspaper, the mouthpiece of Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah
Ali Khamenei, reports on Iran’s ballistic missile technology with a headline
“Iran Now Exports Ballistic Missiles.”

In the report the general brags about Iran’s military
might and its ability to simultaneously launch 14 or more rockets with extreme
precision. He says that the export of ballistic missiles and the progress in
Iran’s space program are signs that Iran has achieved the highest levels of
military and technological excellence.

 

Despite international sanctions, the general
boasts:

“Today, I proudly announce that an Islamic Iran is not
only capable of exporting industrial and defense products but also technology
and defense technology as well.”

Military experts and analysts who cover Iranian
military and defense issues have acknowledged that Iran does in fact have the
strongest ballistic missile program in the Middle East and that the low costs of
the missiles has in fact taken the ballistic missile market out of the West’s
hands, the editorial says.

The newspaper cites recent testimony before the U.S.
Senate Armed Services Committee by the director of the U.S. Defense Intelligence
Agency, Lt. Gen. Ronald L. Burgess. “Iran’s progress in building ballistic
missiles is noticeable, and with the launch of satellites to space it became
clear that Iran has succeeded in building intercontinental ballistic missiles,”
the general testified, according to the paper. The successful launch of the
Rasad satellite to space drew the attention of observers and foreign
counterparts, the general reportedly testified.

 

The Safir missile is capable of transporting a
satellite into space and indeed a ballistic missile that can reach beyond the
earth’s gravity into orbit. The missile has twice been vertically shot over the

earth’s atmosphere, the editorial says, “but if one day Iran decides that this
missile should be shot parallel to the earth’s orbit, the missile will actually
be transformed into an intercontinental ballistic missile (that) has the
capability to destroy targets in other continents.”

“In other words,” the editorial concludes, “the fact
that Iran currently possesses technology that can put satellites into orbit
means that Iran has also obtained intercontinental ballistic missiles with solid
fuel capabilities and that at any moment, this technology can be put to military
use.”

 

Iranian officials recently announced that they have
successfully developed the necessary technology to build and launch satellites
designed to travel in an orbit 21,750 miles above the earth’s equator  — and
that, in the next few months, they will launch another rocket into space, this
time carrying a monkey with a payload of 330 kilograms..

According to Dr. Peter Vincent Pry, a nuclear weapons
expert who has served in the CIA, “Historically, if a nation could put a large
payload (hundreds of kilograms) into orbit, that has been treated as a milestone
signifying that they have a military ICBM capability. We appear to have changed
this rule for Iran’s space program.  If Western analysts today applied the same
standards to Iran that we have applied to the USSR and China in the past, we
would conclude that Iran already has an ICBM capability.

“It seems that the Obama administration is unwilling
to acknowledge this, perhaps not seeing it in its best interest, alluding that
it still has time to negotiate,” says Pry, who has also served with the EMP
Commission and is now president of EMPact America.

The radicals ruling Iran have now passed a major
threshold in both their nuclear and missile programs. Barring any military
action, which seems unlikely, there is no stopping them.

We only have ourselves to blame as it is now certain
that the Jihadists in Tehran will have nuclear bombs with the delivery system to
target any country on the planet. Though the West relies on the policy of Mutual
Assured Destruction, it will find how wrong this policy is with
Iran.

Reza
Kahlili

is a pseudonym for an ex-CIA spy who requires anonymity for safety
reasons. He is the author of
A Time to Betray, a book about his double life as a
CIA agent in Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, published by Threshold Editions, Simon
& Schuster, April 2010
. A Time to Betray was the winner of the 2010
National Best Book Award, and
the 2011
International Best Book
Award
.

The separation of mosque and state?

The  separation of mosque and state?

 


Posted: July 24, 2011
9:00 pm Eastern

© 2011

 

As the White House and Congress debate cuts in federal spending, millions of  dollars are being funneled overseas to help build many Islamic mosques and  structures.An Atlanta television news station, WSB-TV, reported that “the State  Department is sending hundreds of millions of dollars to save mosques overseas.”  The anchor noted that the State Department’s Agency for International  Development granted enormous funds for mosques in Cairo, Cyprus, Tajikistan and  Mali.

A USAID official spoke with FactCheck.org and confirmed about $2.3 million  was used on the Cairo mosque “to help lower the groundwater at the mosque area,  replacing the old sewage collector, and providing a healthier environment for  people living in the area.” In addition to that 1,000-year old mosque, more than  $15 million was given by the U.S. and the Egyptian government to restore another  1,300-year-old mosque, a Roman tower, a Greek Orthodox church and other  buildings. And in Cyprus, $5 million in U.S. federal funds was granted to  restore a mosque and a Greek Orthodox monastery. FactCheck.org went on to  confirm that the Mali and Tajikistan mosque projects involved funding for  computer equipment. Though USAID won’t specify exactly how much of their monies  in 2010 profited mosques, the agency says it committed $18.8 billion for all of  its global projects.

The U.S. State Department confessed that, “Since its creation by the U.S.  Congress, the U.S. Ambassadors Fund for Cultural Preservation has also provided  financial support to more than 640 cultural preservation projects in more than  100 countries. This accomplishment … represents a contribution of nearly $26  million …”

(Column continues below)

The Associated Press reported that during America’s recession in 2010-2011,  the Obama administration has doled out 6 million of American tax dollars to  restore or preserve 63 historic, religious and cultural sites, including Islamic  mosques and minarets, in 55 nations under the guise of “Cultural Affairs” and  “Cultural Preservation 2010 Awards,” and they include:

  • $50,000 for conservation of Sundarwala Burj, a 16th-century Islamic monument  in New Delhian, India
  • $76,000 for the restoration of a 16th-century grand mosque in China, with  one of the longest histories and largest premises in the world.
  • $67,000 for the restoration of the mid‐18th‐century Sunehri Masjid (Golden  Mosque) in Lahore, Pakistan
  • $77,000 to restore minarets (tall slender towers attached to mosques) in  Nigeria and Mauritania, Africa
  • $80,000 for the restoration of the 18th-century Sultan Palace of Ujumbe in  Mutsamudu, Comoros, with its highly ornate ceilings featuring Arabo-Islamic  calligraphy and designs
  • $30,000 for the restoration of the 19th-century fort at Lamu, Kenya, a  significant center for the study of Islamic and Swahili cultures where Muslim  religious festivals have been hosted since the 19th century
  • $10,000 for the restoration of the Kofar Kansakali Gate in the Medieval  Walled City of Kano, Nigeria, where the stone-laying ceremony was performed by  the Emir of Kano, Alhaji (Dr) Ado Bayero, an influential Muslim spiritual and  community leader in Northern Nigeria
  • $49,000 for restoration of a mid‐19th‐century Musafirhana (hostel) in  Fojnica, Bosnia and Herzegovina, originally intended to house and feed Muslim  travelers for free
  • $54,000 for the preservation the 6th century Castle in Vushtrri, Kosovo – a  city that overthrew its once-dominant Christian population with a Muslim  majority via the Ottoman conquests and a military post of an Ottoman garrison
  • $30,000 for conservation of murals at the early 19th-century palace of Ahmed  Bey ben Mohamed Cherif, who led a fierce resistance against French forces from  that palace in Constantine, Algeria
  • $100,000 for the restoration of 17th- and 18th-century monuments in the  Kasbah of Mehdiya, Morocco, which was built in 1185 by Yacoub el Mansour, the  third Almohad Amir and Muslim military conqueror who was responsible for  capturing thousands of Christians and killing tens of thousands
  • $95,000 for the preservation of the Varendra Museum Building at Bangladesh  and its prehistoric and historic collections – gallery six of which contains  Persian, Sanskrit and old Bangla stone inscriptions and sculptured stones of the  Muslim period.
  • $34,000 for the preservation of traditional Uzbek music in Uzbekistan, which  is one of the many forms of Islamic regional music.
  • $450,000 for the restoration of Qala Ikhtyaruddin, the 15th-century citadel  of Herat, Afghanistan – once used by Alexander the Great but also used in more  modern times by even the Taliban. The extremely large project is employing many  local Muslims seven days a week via U.S. funds.

Where are the separatists of church and state when it comes to separating  mosque and state? The First Amendment provides citizens with the freedom to  choose their religion; it doesn’t provide the federal government with the right  to fund the building of mosques overseas. In fact, it specifically says,  “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”

One thing is certain: President Obama certainly has kept the global promise  he made to the Muslim world from Cairo in 2009, when he said that he considers  it “part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against  negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear” and create a “partnership  between America and Islam.”

And that’s exactly what the president has done. In countless speeches and  actions since taking office, President Obama has sympathized and supported  pro-Islamic ideologies, practice and culture, in and outside our country. That  is why even the New York Times published a multiple-page report on how the  “White House quietly courts Muslims in the U.S.”

To be fair, in 2011 the U.S. State Department has also doled out monies to  restore Buddhist monasteries and early Christian Frescoes in Greece, as well as  17th- and 18th-century church paintings in Peru, etc., too, but the ratio is far  less for non-Islamic projects. Should the federal government be subsidizing any  of these religious projects, especially when the U.S. is broke and indebted up  to its ears? How long will we continue to finance other countries’ economies as  our own goes down the tubes? Maybe it’s time we ask all the countries we’ve been  aiding to return the favor?

Are these really examples how you want the federal government spending your  taxes? I’m certain that the 9.2 percent of unemployed citizens in our country  would rather see these monies building jobs in America. (And President Obama  wonders why the majority of Americans don’t want to pay more taxes?)

The federal government’s actions using taxpayers’ monies to build Islamic  structures overseas during a recession brings me back to the wisdom of our  fourth president, James Madison, who said, “In framing a government which is to  be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: You must  first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place  oblige it to control itself.”

I understand the necessity of America maintaining good global relations with  other countries, but when we can’t even rebuild our economy, should we really be  rebuilding others? Does diplomacy always have to include America dumping dollars  at everyone’s front door? And if part of the increased Islamic grants under the  Obama administration is to appease the wrath of extremists, then America is to  be most pitied. For we above all should know that bribing Muslims not to bomb us  is bad and futile diplomacy.

In a little more than a month, the U.S. will be commemorating the 10th  anniversary of Sept. 11. Ten years ago we all declared, “We will never forget.”  But when does subsidizing Islamic structures and culture abroad with U.S.  taxpayers’ monies cross the line and trample on the memory of 9/11 victims and  their families? They brought down our twin towers and we build up their  mosques?

Read more: The separation of mosque and state? http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=325625#ixzz1T8wkhsQU

Islam Is Fire

Islam Is Fire

Amil Imani

The Islamic fire, fueled by immense oil income, is raging in certain regions of the world, smoldering in others, and is ready to ignite in yet other parts of the world. It is imperative for the free people of the world to abandon all illusions about Islam and put out its fire, once and for all.
Multiculturalism, live and-let live, is a delusion of kind-hearted naïve people. Islam, as fractured as it is, is a non-compromising monoculture; a cruel culture of a primitive people handed down by Muhammad some 1400 years ago.
Most religions are intended to attenuate human fears.  They are based on natural fears, many of which are irrational…but natural nonetheless.  For example, many pagan religious practices were focused on the seasonal cycles related to the harvest.  Why?  Because if the harvest was poor, their entire civilization could perish, or be weakened to the point where a neighboring tribe would kill them off.  While they misunderstood the scientific basis for weather, they created natural (yet irrational) religious beliefs about weather and harvest.  In this sense, religions were psychologically useful and inevitable in addressing natural conditions.

But some religions establish for themselves fears of things which do not exist…which the religion itself invented in order to create and perpetuate fear, and then artificially addressed it in order to establish a political regime.  The political nature of Islam transcends personal spiritualism and becomes a cult of oppression. This is fraud. This is evil. This is Islam.

Islam essentially invents the idea that Christians, Jews, and pagans are abominations and offensive to Allah, and that their very existence represents an attack upon the self-defined Islamic right to reign over the world.  Allah thus enlists Muslim believers to eradicate by force those who offend him and by disbelieving, prevent his rule.  True Muslim believers therefore become the enforcers, hit men and mercenaries for their god, in order to establish a global Caliphate for their parasitic clergy.  Their targets are artificially constructed adversaries.  Believers are instructed to fear the “great Satan.” and are told that if they do not live up to Allah’s calls to Jihad, they are themselves offensive to Allah and to their families.  It’s a “you’re either for me or against me” strategy.

Contrast this with say, Christian fears.  Christians too fear offending God, because they believe that God will judge their lives when their bodies die.  So their fears are reduced by atoning in personal alignment with the teachings of the Bible.

So, as a political religion, Islam creates artificial fear of alien groups, and then eliminates the fear through war and coercion.  Islam pleases Allah with brutality and Jihad.  Islam seeks to instill a political regime to enforce its provisions.  When such a political doctrine declares that “resistance is futile”, it is referring to corporeal enforcement by people.

Personal religions acknowledge natural fears, and then use light, wisdom, and the capacity for human nobility to eliminate them through a positive, spiritual exercise.  Other religions encourage voluntary, personal spiritual alignment.  The only “coercion” in a religion based on personal spiritualism is the conveyance of the natural idea of a soul and judgment.  If you believe in these things, you change and atone, perhaps out of fear.  If you do not, you accuse the evangelizer of being fraudulent…but a fraud is a demonstrable deception not an opinion, and the one who disbelieves in a personal religion cannot prove his point of view, so fraud is not in play as a driver of personal spiritualism.  When a personal religion declares that “resistance is futile”, it is referring to spiritual enforcement by God.

This is the difference between day and night, between good and evil. Islam believes in the rule of Islam, Caliphate to the Sunnis and Imamate to the Shi’as. Hence, to Muslims, all other forms of government represent the handiwork of the Satan and the infidels. Therefore, one and all non-Islamic systems of government must be purified by the Islamic fire.

Islam is and has always been political, in the form of Imamate, Caliphate or by proxy where Islam, through religious divines, controlled the state. Saudi Arabia, for instance, does not even have a constitution. The Quran is the constitution. The country has a king. Yet, the king is the supreme enforcer of the laws dictated by Islam.

Islam is so radical that even the term “radical” does not adequately depict its true character. The founder of Islam, Muhammad, behaved in extreme ways whenever he could. Early on, in Mecca, among his tribe of Quraish, he was ridiculed as a crazed Poet. Ordinary residents of Mecca scorned him in their habitual way of treating the mentally deranged. What did Muhammad do? He personified meekness itself. He put up with extreme indignities, did not fight back and suffered abuses.

Time was on Muhammad’s side. Before long, he attracted followers, some of whom were men of power and influence, such as Umar, Uthman and Abu Bakr. Then the pendulum swung. The long-suffering meek became the tyrannical avenger. He ordered all the idols in the idolatry of Mecca destroyed, except the one called Allah. Yet, he selected the same name for a non-corporeal deity who commissioned him as his messenger.  Then Allah’s messenger, Muhammad, set out to systematically exterminate people he perceived as his tormentors and enemies—Jews of Medina, among others.

The Quran is full of black and white, right and wrong, acceptable and unacceptable verses. Men who didn’t convert to Islam were labeled infidels and slaughtered; their women and children were taken along with all their belongings as booty. It was either Islam’s way or the highway. This radicalism is very much in action today.

In another Islamic country, Iran, where the mullahs rule, the constitution is squarely based on the Quran. Many laws are strictly drawn from the Sharia. The mosque is the state and no other competing political ideology is permitted. But marrying religion with government is stoking fire with explosives. In free democracies, governments are accountable to the people and serve at the people’s pleasure. In Islamic theocracy, governments are accountable only to Allah and the people must serve at the pleasure of the government. And one can see the result of Islamic total or partial rule in fifty-four or so countries which rank among the highest nations of the world on every index of misery.

Wouldn’t it be wonderful if Iran threw off its oppressive theocratic rule and established a government “of the people”, with room for all beliefs?  Iran could be a powerful nation and a peaceful one, an example for the rest of the developing world of how to thrive without Islamic politics.  However, the road to freedom is perilous.  Nothing as worthwhile as freedom can be purchased easily. But the cause is worth it.

While I desire freedom in Iran, I am a committed anti-Islamist and anti-communist in general. I believe communism, as an expression of materialist naturalist philosophy is atheistic, representing a desire by man to dominate both nature and man.

It is a mentality of enslavement that drives Islam…“submission” in which man subdues other men in order to establish a kingdom of oppression and hatred on earth. Atheism, materialism and Islam appear as contradictions with respect to each other, but when you peel away the veneer of their pretense, you see that their aims are the same.  Fascism is fascism.

We live in a society, which worships “experts” and specialists.  However, our distorted society of “experts” has continually failed us.  Almost nothing they have told us has turned out to be true.  Thus, I am a revisionist in that I believe much of what we believe is true is utterly false.  I also believe in good and evil, a notion sadly obsolete in our nihilistic time.  I don’t think Satan is any more a metaphor than is God.

Islam is theocracy, the rule of the clerics. The authoritarianism runs from the top to the bottom in a strict hierarchy with Allah at the top, to his Prophet, to the Caliphs or the Imams, to the lesser men of cloth along the chain of command. No one is allowed to contest or dispute the word and actions of the authorities. Islam and democracy, therefore, are inherently irreconcilable. In some Islamic circles Muslims speak of Islamic Democracy—an oxymoron.

Jihadists are the army of Allah. The use of violence as an instrument of policy has been and continues to be central to Islam. Muslims war under the firmly-believed and widely-cherished set of ideas that are rabidly militaristic. No matter which side is killed, Islam is the victor, “You kill them, you go to paradise; you get killed, you go to paradise,” are two examples of exhortation to jihadism and war.

To cut to the chase, we need to eliminate some disinformation and myths about the “war on terror”:

1.    We are not fighting terrorism.  We are engaging in an ideological battle between freedom, conservatism, democracy, individual rights, capitalism, “Christian” ethics and Islamofascism, communism-socialism, theocracy, and tyranny.  There are also internationalist, dictatorial, globalist forces that seek to use the conflict to create an international government and a unification of all religions by the destruction of nationalism, patriotism, individual rights and sectarianism.
2.    It is not “fanatical”, “radical”, or “extreme” Islam that we are fighting, but normal, orthodox, canonical, typical, accepted, traditional Islam, straight from the mouth of the Muhammad.  Islam is violent in direct proportion to its mission and scripture.  The so-called fanatics are only upholding the truth of their principles.  There are those who do not openly engage in terrorism or warfare, but are in support of it, or are working in other ways to spread Islam by force or fraud.
3.    Islam is evil, by any accepted definition of that word, and must be seen as such by all rational non-Islamists.  There is no such thing as “peace” in Islam except the peace that comes after a successful war against infidels.
4.    Islam can work by brute force and by the lengths to which the believers will go to perpetuate it.  Its theology and practices make it inherently evil and dangerous to all of mankind.  It has already spread and infected the world like a cancer.  How do you nuke it out of existence?  You can’t…in fact, they will nuke us first, I am sure of that.  When this happens, all hell will break loose, and most freedoms will be up in smoke.
We must begin to declare Islam evil, not from a sectarian perspective, but from a universal, humanist one.  Every encroachment of Islam as a religion must be rejected, harassed and discouraged by all people everywhere.  Any leftist attempts to give aid and comfort to this religion of hate must be denounced and frustrated at every turn.  Otherwise, get used to your radioactive suit and your fallout shelter, a standard of living—and a level of freedom of 1/10th of what you have today.

Warning to free men and women: remain a spectator at your own peril. It is imperative that you take a stand and do your part at denouncing the fraud of Islam and do all you can to prevent the Islamic fire from devouring our civilized democratic system.

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Amil Imani is an Iranian-born American citizen and a pro-democracy activist residing in the United States of America. Imani is a columnist, literary translator, novelist and essayist who has been writing and speaking out for the struggling people of his native land, Iran. He maintains a website at www.amilimani.com. Amil Imani is the author of the smashing book Obama Meets Ahmadinejad.
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 55 other followers