Obama and the War Against the Jews

Obama and the War Against the Jews

Posted By David Horowitz and Jacob Laksin On June 25, 2010 @ 12:25 am In FrontPage | 31 Comments

In a letter to President Obama this week, 87 Senators urged [1] the president to support Israel’s right to self-defense against the threats of terrorism from Hamas and Hezbollah and a nuclear-bound Iran that has repeatedly pledged to wipe Israel off the map. In another time, such counsel would be redundant. For most of Israel’s 60-year existence, the Jewish state has been able to count on the stalwart support of its American ally against the many enemies arrayed against it. As Arab states launched wars with exterminationist intent, and as the international community undermined Israel through the agency of the United Nations, America alone stood in Israel’s corner.

Under President Obama, however, such support for an embattled friend is no longer automatic. As Iran races virtually unimpeded toward a nuclear weapon, the Obama administration scolds Israel for daring to build new houses in its capital of Jerusalem. While Hamas, aided by Turkish jihadists, arms for a new war against Israel, the White House demands that Israel exercise a suicidal restraint. As Israel becomes ever more isolated, the Obama administration continues to reach out to its enemies in the Arab and Muslim world. In their new pamphlet, David Horowitz and Jacob Laksin trace the deterioration of the U.S.-Israeli relationship under President Obama, now at its lowest point in three decades. And they show that by emboldening Israel’s enemies, the administration is sowing the seeds of a new conflict, one will that could make it complicit in a new and devastating war against Israel. As a result of President Obama’s wrongheaded policies, Israel’s security – and America’s – is increasingly imperiled.

To read the pamphlet, click here [2].

To order the pamphlet, click here [3].

Barack Obama Mocks And Makes Fun Of The Bible—No Christian Would Do This

Barack Obama Mocks And Makes Fun Of The Bible—No Christian Would Do This

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnmS_vULPxw&feature=player_embedded
No Christian would say these things. Obama is a closet Muslim, an atheist, or perhaps he’s just using religion as a vehicle in his quest for power.

“A Common Thread”

Barack Obama’s childhood hero, Nation of Islam spokesman Malcolm X said after President Kennedy’s assassination that, “chickens are coming home to roost.”

Barack Obama’s spiritual mentor, Jeremiah Wright said after 9/11 that, “America’s chickens are coming home to roost.”

Jeremiah Wright traveled to Libya with (to meet Muammar Qaddafi) and gave a Lifetime Achievement Award to Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan.

Jeremiah Wright (Obama’s spiritual mentor) – “America invented the HIV virus.”

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad – “America invented the HIV virus.”

Barack Obama’s cousin in Kenya is Raila Odinga, who among other things advocates Sharia (Islamic) Law. After he lost Kenya’s presidential election in 2007, his supporters went on a violent rampage killing hundreds of people across Kenya, some of whom were Christians taking refuge inside a church. Odinga’s supporters surrounded the church and burned it to the ground, burning the people alive who were inside. Obama campaigned for Odinga when he visited Kenya in 2006.

The Tea Parties’ Big Sin

Posted By Mark D. Tooley On June 22, 2010 @ 12:01 am In FrontPage | 3 Comments

Evangelical left activist Jim Wallis of Sojourners has become the virtual house evangelical for the Obama administration.  He is the ostensible chieftain of a supposedly populist uprising of social justice religionists whose “biblical principles” demand ever larger Big Government.  So, naturally, Wallis is threatened by the Tea Party movement, whose support extends well beyond Wallis’ constituency of liberal clergy and campus activists.

Recently Wallis editorialized against the Tea Partiers from a “Christian” perspective, and invited Sojourners supporters to jump in with their own critique.  He also opined against Libertarians, whom he regards as almost interchangeable with Tea Partiers.  The sin of both groups, in Wallis’ eyes, is their hostility to Big Government, which Wallis of course equates with God’s Kingdom.

Wallis reluctantly admitted that the biblical Book of Revelation “depicts the state as a totalitarian beast,” but only as a metaphor for ancient Rome.  And it may serve as a “clear warning about the abuse of governmental power,” he further granted curtly  “But a power-hungry government is clearly an aberration and violation of the proper role of government in protecting its citizens and upholding the demands of fairness and justice.”

Power-hungry governments are an “aberration?”  Wallis has been a campus and religious activist for the Left for over 40 years but seems blithely unaware of the 20th century’s worst horrors, orchestrated by unlimited government.  Hitler’s Holocaust, Stalin’s purges and orchestrated famines, Mao’s own orchestrated purges and murderous Cultural Revolution, Pol Pot’s Cambodian genocide, the Marxist Ethiopian regime’s orchestrated famines, the countless barbarities and mass murders of other post-colonial African dictatorships, not to mention hundreds of thousands killed by North Korea’s communists and by Saddam Hussein’s Baathists, along with many thousands murdered by Vietnam’s and Cuba’s communists.  Totalitarianism in the 20th century created a relatively new historical phenomenon:  governments without limits murdering millions of their own people in pursuit of utopia.  Governments in the 20th century killed more millions of their own peoples than all of that century’s wars and natural famines combined.

Tyranny through an unlimited state was refined in the 20th century, thanks to what Churchill called “perverted science” and the Hegelian/Marxist ideology that demanded that all society yield to state supremacy.   But the 20th century did not invent tyranny or uncontrolled government, of course.  Tyranny and excessive state power have been the norm for most of human history, typically under kings or other oligarchs, who subsume economic, political, religious, and cultural power unto themselves.  The Jewish and Christian tradition has, at its best, struggled against tyranny, arguing for limited governmental powers subject to transcendent law.  The ancient Hebrews were originally governed by judges and were permitted kings only grudgingly.  There were more wicked than good kings, and even the good kings often behaved badly, with seemingly all the prophets themselves murdered for inveighing against them.

The Early Church acknowledged that God has ordained the state to maintain order.  But the Apostles did not attached messianic importance to the civil state.  With an intrinsic understanding that all humans were imaged after God with innate dignity, Christianity and Judaism assumed limits on traditional state power, whose pagan forms demanded worship of itself.  The Church, at its best, resisted tyranny and defended the weak from the strong, i.e. primarily the state and its friends.  Anglo-American proponents of liberty, influenced by the Puritans, believed that human depravity mandated strictly limited government.  James Madison famously argued for divided state powers, since men are not “angels.”

Traditionally evangelical Christians across the centuries have argued for lawful, limited government.  They have themselves been pioneers in philanthropy, private social reforms, and entrepreneurship that flourish when government is restrained.  So Wallis and the Evangelical Left essentially want their targeted constituency to abandon their own potent traditions in favor of reliance on and submission to state authority.  “To disparage government per se — to see government as the central problem in society — is simply not a biblical position,” he insisted.  No, biblical religion does not advocate anarchy.  The state is divinely commissioned, but for limited, prescribed purposes, primarily centered on order, the rule of law, and civil freedoms.  There may or may not be reasonable arguments for an expansive welfare and regulatory state.  But they are not found directly in the Bible.

Amusingly, Wallis cited Romans 13, where St. Paul described the state’s role in “preserving the social order, punishing evil and rewarding good, and protecting the common good.”  Wallis, who is a pacifist, does not typically quote this passage, which describes God’s having called the state to “wield the sword” to “execute wrath on him who practices evil.”  All governments everywhere “wield the sword” not only through their militaries but also through their collection of taxes to pay for the vast social services that Wallis insists in their central mission.  Force is apparently acceptable to Wallis in defense of the welfare state.

Wallis chided the Tea Partiers for their complaints about taxes. But who pays more taxes, Wallis’s campus activists, or the small business owners who form much of the Tea Party?  Wallis claims “most of us would prefer smart and effective to ‘big’ or ‘small’ government.”  But he is just striking his frequent post-ideological pose.  When has Wallis ever argued for reducing government, except for its military, police and intelligence functions (ironically,  the very functions prescribed by St. Paul)?

“Democratic accountability is essential to preventing the market from becoming a beast of corporate totalitarianism – just as it is essential for the government,” Wallis concluded.  But why is he concerned only about “corporate totalitarianism” but not the far more dangerous government kind?   He harrumphed that “God’s priorities should determine ours, not the priorities of the Chamber of Commerce,” with the elitist disdain for the private sector so common on the Religious Left. More spitefully, Wallis surmised that the Tea Party movement has racist overtones, though “likely not” every Tea Partier is racist.   “Need I say that racism — overt, implied, or even subtle — is not a Christian virtue,” he intoned sanctimoniously, evidently forgetting that slander and judging hidden motives are also not very “biblical.”

Wallis urged a “dialogue” about “Just how Christian is the Tea Party Movement — and the Libertarian political philosophy that lies behind it?”  But maybe there should also be a dialogue about Wallis’ Sojourners movement, which seems to judge religious orthodoxy almost exclusively by its commitment to Big Government.

Obama’s First Oval Office Speech a ‘Flop’

Obama’s First Oval Office Speech a ‘Flop’

Thomas Lifson

That harsh judgment was delivered this morning by Dana Perino on Fox News Channel. She has plenty of company (see below) in regarding the effort as less than successful. As predicted, he used the free TV time to shill for cap and trade (although avoiding that term — apparently the marketing team led by David Axelrod is rebranding the tax scheme). He also ended with an appeal to God, something he normally avoids as much as he has avoided attending church since leaving Rev. Wright under the bus.

A roundup of other commentary, including some very harsh criticism from the left.

Headline: “Obama promises a brighter day. (Details to come.)”

Nobody is more impressed than I am in the president’s ability to inspire. But I am not sure his speech was all that inspirational.
Maybe the location was wrong. Maybe using the Oval Office – and it was the first time the president has used it for a speech – upped the ante too much. Maybe we expected too much.
Like details.
The leftists on MSNBC were even harsher. Real Clear Politics provides video and a summary:
Olbermann: “It was a great speech if you were on another planet for the last 57 days.”

Matthews compared Obama to Carter.

Olbermann: “Nothing specific at all was said.”

Matthews: “No direction.”

Howard Fineman: “He wasn’t specific enough.”

Olbermann: “I don’t think he aimed low, I don’t think he aimed at all. It’s startling.”

Howard Fineman: Obama should be acting like a “commander-in-chief.”

Matthews: Ludicrous that he keeps saying [Secretary of Energy] Chu has a Nobel prize. “I’ll barf if he does it one more time.”

Matthews: “A lot of meritocracy, a lot of blue ribbon talk.”

Matthews: “I don’t sense executive command.”


Calvin Woodward of AP
does a fact check, and finds “blanks.”
Maureen Dowd of the New York Times is cynical:
Once more on Tuesday night, we were back to back-against-the-wall time. The president went for his fourth-quarter, Michael Jordan, down-to-the-wire, thrill shot in the Oval Office, his first such dramatic address to a nation sick about the slick.
You know the president is drowning – in oil this time – when he uses the Oval Office. And do words really matter when the picture of oil gushing out of the well continues to fill the screen?
Of course Dowd does not miss a chance to bash Bush and Cheney. But like many on the left, she is coming to the conclusion that Obama is an inadequate remedy.
W. and Dick Cheney were too headlong, jumping off crazy cliffs and dragging the country – and the world – with them. President Obama is the opposite, often too hesitant to take the obvious action. He seems unable to muster the adrenalin necessary to go full bore until the crowd has waited and wailed and almost given up on him, but it’s a nerve-racking way to campaign and govern.
“On the one hand, you have BP, which sees a risky hole in the ground a couple miles under the sea surface and thinks if we take more risk, and cut some corners, we make millions more. In taking on more risk, they’re gambling with more than money,” said Richard Wolffe, an Obama biographer. “On the other hand, you have Obama, who is ambivalent about risk. What he does late is to embrace risk, like running for president, trebling troops in Afghanistan and health care. But in deferring the risk, he’s gambling with his authority and political capital.”
By trying too hard to keep control, he ends up losing control.
E. J. Dionne of the WaPo put his finger on the single most revealing and troubling lines of the speech:
There is one line I wish he hadn’t used. After a perfectly noble declaration that “what has defined us as a nation since our founding is our capacity to shape our destiny — our determination to fight for the America we want for our children,” Obama added: “Even if we’re unsure exactly what that looks like. Even if we don’t yet know precisely how to get there. We know we’ll get there.” I don’t think it was a moment to say that we don’t know “exactly what that looks like” when it comes to the future. Most people want the president to give the future a bit more definition.
Michael Goodwin of the New York Post:
Rolling out the military metaphors–“battle plan” and “siege” and “fight”– he again embraced the philosophy of his resident thinker, Rahm Emanuel, that a crisis is a terrible thing to waste.
It was an unpersuasive performance. It lacked the essential energy and mastery of detail that would show the president focused like a laser on the crisis.
Instead, it caught him looking starry-eyed into the wild blue yonder.
Earth to president: Come on down. He’s been hammered relentlessly for not being engaged, but he’s still not into the details of the prevention and cleanup.
He’s got a czar, a commission and a dream, therefore he is. And, oh, he’s got BP to kick around and milk like a fat cow.
His idea to tax all forms of carbon already failed once as the public gagged on his splurge in deficit spending.
Even Democratic senators and governors fear the impact it would have on energy prices and manufacturing jobs in coal and oil states.
But the idea is in play, repackaged as Obama’s answer to the Gulf spill.
Joan Walsh of Salon:
Eh.
I was underwhelmed by President Obama’s first Oval Office speech, as I expected to be. From the moment he began, hands folded on his desk like a well-behaved student, the imagery and energy was off, inadequate to the visual, horror-movie scope of the Gulf oil disaster.

On the upside for Obama, Joe Scarborough, former Republican congressman from the Florida panhandle, expressed admiration this morning on MSNBC for the President’s speech yesterday in Pensacola, and for his Oval Office effort. That’s one, and Paul Begala, Democrat pit bull, thought it was a great

Impeach the stonewalling Obama

Impeach the stonewalling Obama

June 1st, 2010

By Joseph Farah, WND

 Obama needs to be impeached

I can think of many reasons to impeach Barack Obama.

Of course, this House of Representatives is never going to do that between now and January, when many of the members will be leaving office, most of them against their wishes.

But it’s actually time to start calling for impeachment.

There are dozens of crimes and misdemeanors to consider, with the dozens of brazen extra-constitutional actions of this White House – from health care to auto-company takeovers to bank bailouts.

And, of course, there is the ever-present controversy over his total failure even to prove his constitutional eligibility for office.

But Obama’s stonewalling over the allegations of Rep. Joe Sestak, D-Pa., is the most Nixonian reason of all.

Now the shoe is clearly on the other foot.

While Democrats were prepared to frog-march Richard Nixon out of the White House in the 1970s because of his refusal to allow an independent counsel to investigate Watergate, today’s Democrats expect the American people to take the administration’s word that Sestak, one of their own, is lying when he said he was offered a bribe to bow out of the U.S. Senate race against Sen. Arlen Specter.

Late last week, the White House finally released its explanation of the job offer. The claim is that Rahm Emanuel sent Bill Clinton to meet with Sestak to offer an unpaid advisory position – not the “high-ranking position” Sestak had claimed.

Read More:

Obama to Skip Memorial Day at Arlington Cemetery

Obama to Skip Memorial Day at Arlington Cemetery

May 26th, 2010

Newsmax

 Obama says forget tradition I am going to Chicago

In a highly unusual move, President Barack Obama is going to skip the traditional Memorial Day event at Arlington National Cemetery to return home to Chicago for the long holiday weekend.

Obama sees it as addressing one of the great broken promises of his administration: his early pledge to return home to Chicago every six weeks or so, according to The Washington Post.

On Monday, Obama will make remarks at the Abraham Lincoln National Cemetery and miss the usual tradition of presidents speaking at Arlington National Cemetery on Memorial Day.

Instead, Vice President Biden and his wife will appear in Obama’s place, laying a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, as well as holding a breakfast for Gold Star families — families whose loved ones died in military service — at the White House earlier that day.

Read More: also covered at the Washington Post

Obama and the New Normal

Obama and the New Normal

May 22nd, 2010

By Robin of Berkeley, American Thinker

 Obama is defining our culture with his vindictive assaults on individuals

The human brain is a complicated organ. It can be infinitely pliable but also maddeningly rigid.

Humans can be slow to recognize signs of imminent disaster. While red flags are flapping wildly in the wind, the person ignores any and all warnings.

But the brain can be highly suggestible, too, easily controlled and shaped by advertisers and spin doctors. Thus, after countless ads, a person associates soda with Coke, search engines with Google. And after having “Yes we can,” burned into their neural pathways, all hope and change is connected to Obama.  

That’s why it’s crucial to notice all the “firsts.” Because once something is repeated often enough, it becomes the New Normal.

Decades ago, the first rap song that celebrated beating “ho’s” and shooting cops was shocking. But after the umpteenth song, the lyrics may no longer startle. 

But while things have been going downhill for decades, ever since Obama arrived on the scene, the assaults have come fast and furiously. First it was the trashing of Hillary. When her abuse was pooh-poohed by those who could have done something about it, like Obama himself, that just emboldened the radicals. Their getting away with (soul) murder led to even more sexually threatening behavior toward Sarah Palin.

Another example: It used to be off-limits for the president and Congress to target private citizens. Not any longer. It’s now open season on anyone who dares to disagree.

Read More:

Islam is the Enemy of Freedom by Amil Imani

Islam is the Enemy of Freedom  
http://www.amilimani.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=84&Itemid=2

Tuesday, 20 November 2007

A great irony of the age is that the seemingly most diehard proponents of freedom— the useful idiots   of our time—are the most dangerous unwitting accomplices of liberty’s enemy—Islam. Keep in mind that the very name “Islam” is a derivation of “taslim,” the Arabic word for “surrender,” surrender to the will and dictates of Allah as revealed by Muhammad and recorded in the Quran.

This non-negotiable surrender to Islam requires the individual as well as the society to disenfranchise themselves of many of the fundamental and deeply cherished human rights.
Below is a brief presentation of what this surrender to Islam entails and why it is imperative that all freedom-loving people arise and defeat the menace of Islamofascism. 

Amendment I of the Bill of Rights enshrines some of the most cherished ideals of freedom-loving people:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Islam considers itself the three branches of government. It enacts laws as it sees fit, adjudicates laws, and executes as it deems. Islam is anathema to the provisions of the First Amendment and much more.

* Islam proclaims itself as the only legitimate religion for the entire world, grudgingly granting minor recognition to Judaism and Christianity from whom it has liberally plagiarized many of its dogma. Jews and Christians are allowed to live under the rule of Islam as dhimmis and must pay a special religious tax of jazyyeh. Buddhists, Hindus, Zoroastrians, Baha’is, members of other religions, agnostics, or atheists are not even allowed to live practicing their belief or disbelief.

* Islam actively suppresses and even prohibits the practice of other religions, including those of the “people of the book,” Jews and Christians. There is not a single church or synagogue in the cradle of Islam, Saudi Arabia, while thousands of mosques dot the tolerating and welcoming non-Moslem lands. Islamic countries that allow for Jewish and Christian places of worship subject these “people of the book” to numberless subtle and not-so-subtle forms of persecution. Moslems in non-Moslem lands proselytize relentlessly and convert others while any Moslem who leaves Islam is judged as apostate and automatically condemned to death.

* Freedom of speech is just about non-existent in Islam. The word is Allah’s, his chosen divines such as Ayatollahs and Imams are the only ones who are to make pronouncements squarely-based on Allah’s word, the Quran. Any expression in the least at deviance from the Quran, the Hadith and the edicts of Islamic high divines is heresy and severely punishable. Hence, stifling of free expression is the major mechanism by which the Islamic clergy retain power and prevent constructive change in Islamic societies.

* Freedom of the press is completely alien to Islam, since a free press tends to express matters as it sees it, rather than as it is stated in the Quran. To Islam, the Quran is the press and the only press. There is no need for critical reporting, no need to present ideas that may conflict with the Quran, and no place for criticism of anything Islamic. The stranglehold of Islam on the individual and society is complete.

* Peaceful assembly of the people is not allowed. The backward oppressive Islamic societies inflict great hardship on the citizenry and any assembly of the victims presents a threat to the suffocating rule. Islamic governments routinely prevent peaceful assemblies from taking place. Failing to do so, they unleash their hired thugs, the police and even the military against any assemblage no matter how peaceful and how legitimate is its grievance. The Islamic Republic of Iran which is vying with Saudi Arabia as the leader of true Islamic rule, routinely attacks any and all gatherings of its people, arrests them, imprisons them without due process, tortures them, and even executes them in secret dungeons. Journalists, academics, unionists, students, teachers, women rights groups who dare to petition the government for redress are labeled subversive and are severely punished.

* Maltreatment of religious minorities and the non-religious is criminal indeed. In the Islamic Republic of Iran, for instance, the government has launched a systematic program of genocide against its largest religious minority—the Baha’is. The government is gathering a comprehensive list of Baha’is, their occupations, locations, properties and the like—action reminiscent of the Nazis. The government is banning Baha’i students from post high-school education unless they recant their religion, deprives them of engaging in numerous forms of occupations and trades, denies them from holding worship gatherings, razes their holy places and much more. The Islamic Republic of Iran is not satisfied with its cruel treatment of the living Baha’is and has launched a war on their dead by bulldozing Baha’i cemeteries in several cities. Thus is the rule of fundamental Islamism that is awaiting the complacent and snoozing world.

* Oppression of women in general is tragic indeed. Men are allowed to have as many as four wives simultaneously and as many concubines as they wish or can afford. Men can easily divorce their wives and automatically have the custody of the children, if they so decide. Women have subservient status to men in all areas of the law. Equality under the law has no meaning in Islam. Just one example of the dreadful way of treating women in Islam is a case of a Saudi woman who was gang-raped. The Islamic court convicted the woman to prison term and lashes for having committed the “sin” of riding in a car with a male who was not her relative. This is a standard form of Islamic Shariah justice—a savage heritage of barbarism that ruled the Arabian Peninsula some centuries ago.

* Islam has a solution for every “problem.” It deals with homosexuals, for instance, by hanging them en mass and gloating about it, even though homosexuality is just as prevalent in Islamic lands as anywhere else. Recently an Ayatollah made a ruling on homosexuals. He said that they should be tortured before they are hanged. In Islam the rulings of high-ranking clergy constitute the law and are binding.

* Not only Islam does not allow freedom of assembly and the press, it is intrusively restrictive in every aspects of a person’s life. The way women should dress, the haircut of men, the music people are allowed, movies to watch, television programs to view, and even parties in the privacy of their home are subject to the ridiculous monitoring of moral police. Islam is hell-bent on outward morality and puritanical conduct while it is rotten to the core just below the pretentious surface.

* Islam segregates by gender many public places and events such as beaches, sporting venues, public transportations, and even building elevators. Families are often prevented from attending a sporting event together or swimming together at a beach.

* Egypt, the crown of the Arab-Islam world, demands that citizens declare Islam or only one of the two other religions, Jewish and Christianity, as their religion in order to receive the government-issued identity cards. ID cards are required for jobs, healthcare, education, a marriage license and a host of other things. If you are an agnostic, an atheist, a Buddhist, a Hindu, a Baha’i, you are forced to perjure yourself to receive the indispensable ID card. In a real sense, Islam the pretender of high moral ground compels people to lie in order to receive what is their birthright as citizens.

I have been sounding the alarm about Islam’s imminent deadly threat for a number of years. The Islamic treasury flush with oil extortion money together with the help of useful idiots is having the upper hand in this battle of survival for freedom. The slaveholder Islam has been transformed into a more virulent form of Islamofascism; it is an inveterate unrelenting enemy of freedom. We need to act now and stem the tide of this deadly threat. Tomorrow may be too late. Freedom is too precious to abandon through complacency, acts of political correctness, or outright cowardice.

Posted in B Hussein Obama, Barack Hussein Obama, Barack Obama, democrat muslim, Hussein Obama, Islam, islam fundamentalist, Islam ideology, Islam sympathizers, Islam Threat, Islam's Founder, Islamic Banking, Islamic centers, Islamic Circle of North America, Islamic cult, Islamic doctors, Islamic Extremists, Islamic Fifth Column, Islamic history, Islamic immigration, Islamic Imperialism, Islamic Jihad, Islamic lies, Islamic Multiculturalism, Islamic Nukes, Islamic perversion, Islamic prison recruiting, Islamic Propaganda, islamic recruiting, Islamic Republic of Iran, Islamic Schools, Islamic Slavery, Islamic terrorism, Islamic Women Rights, Islamists, Islamo-fascists, muslim, Muslim Alliance, Muslim American Society, Muslim Civil Liberties Union, muslim clerics, muslim democrats, Muslim doctors, muslim extremist, Muslim Fundamentalism, muslim ghettos, Muslim integration, Muslim Mafia, Muslim Propaganda, Muslim Rape, muslim schools, Muslim soldiers, Muslim Student Union, Muslim Students’ Association of the U.S. and Canada, muslim sympathizers, Muslim U.S. sailor, Muslim Violence, Muslim vote, Muslims go home, Obama. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Leave a Comment »

Obama’s invisible Islam–Democrats refuse to admit who the jihadist enemy is

EDITORIAL: Obama’s invisible Islam

Democrats refuse to admit who the jihadist enemy is

By THE WASHINGTON TIMES

During questioning before the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday, a visibly nervous Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. tried valiantly not to utter the expression “radical Islam.” The twisting began when Rep. Lamar Smith, Texas Republican, asked whether the men behind three recent terrorist incidents – the Fort Hood massacre, the Christmas Day bombing attempt and the Time Square bombing attempt – “might have been incited to take the actions that they did because of radical Islam.”

Mr. Holder said there are a “variety of reasons” why people commit terror attacks. That can be true, but in these cases there was one reason: radical Islam. The attorney general said you have to look at each case individually. That’s fine, but when that is done, one comes face to face with radical Islam every time. He said that of the variety of reasons people might commit terror, “some of them are potentially religious.” Yes, like radical Islam. When pressed, what Mr. Holder would finally allow is, “I certainly think that it’s possible that people who espouse a radical version of Islam have had an ability to have an impact on people like [Times Square bomber Faisal] Shahzad.”

Mr. Holder mentioned Anwar al-Awlaki, the U.S.-born radical cleric now holed up in Yemen who has been mentioned in connection with all three attacks. Mr. Holder said that Mr. al-Awlaki “has a version of Islam that is not consistent with the teachings of [the faith].” Mr. Holder did not go into details to back up his assertion that Mr. al-Awlaki, an Islamic scholar, is somehow at odds with his own faith, nor did he pinpoint exactly what Muslim teachings he was referring to.

The Obama administration seems to have issued an internal gag order that forbids any official statements that might cast even the most extreme interpretations of the Islamic religion in a negative light. The “force protection review” of the Fort Hood massacre omitted any mention of shooter Nidal Malik Hasan’s openly radical Islamic worldview or the fact that he made the jihadist war cry “Allahu Akbar!” before opening fire. Initially, the Obama administration refused to even call the massacre an act of terrorism, much less radical Islamic terrorism.

Last year, the Department of Homeland Security Domestic Extremist Lexicon, which was pulled out of circulation in the wake of controversy with other department publications, listed Jewish extremism and various forms of Christian extremism as threats but made no mention of any form of Muslim extremism. The Feb. 1, 2010 Quadrennial Homeland Security Review discusses terrorism and violent extremism but does not mention radical Islam as a motivator, or in any context. The 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review likewise avoids any terminology related to Islam.

The Obama administration may not like to think of being at war with radical Islam, but the jihadists are definitely at war with the United States. Rather than running from the expression “radical Islam,” the administration should be openly discussing the ideological motives of the terrorists and finding ways to delegitimize them. Instead of hedging, obfuscating and ignoring, these Democrats should confront the challenge frankly, openly and honestly. Pretending that a radical, violent strain of Islam does not exist will not make it go away. To the contrary, it will make the situation much worse.

President Obama’s continuing solicitude toward the faith of Muhammad is inexplicable, and as these acts of denial continue, it is becoming dangerous. The United States will not defeat an enemy it is afraid to identify.

Theology for a Holocaust

Theology for a Holocaust

Posted By Robert Spencer On May 14, 2010 @ 12:06 am In FrontPage | 60 Comments

UC-San Diego student Jumanah Imad Albahri [1] last week, under questioning from David Horowitz, refused to condemn Hamas and Hizballah and endorsed a genocidal statement [1] by Hizballah leader Hassan Nasrallah. Many were shocked. Albahri’s statement is being treated as a singular utterance, a lapse that has nothing to do with the Muslim Students Association of which she is a part, and certainly not with Islam as a whole.

Unfortunately, Albahri’s support for genocide of the Jews doesn’t reveal that she is a closet Nazi, but that she is an entirely mainstream Muslim. Genocidal statements are painfully common from Muslim leaders today. On January 29, Palestinian Authority TV, which is controlled by the ostensibly moderate Fatah faction of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, broadcast a Friday mosque sermon containing this reference to the notorious genocidal hadith in which Muhammad says that the end times would not come until Muslims started murdering Jews: “The Prophet says: ‘You shall fight the Jews and kill them, until the tree and the stone will speak and say: “Oh Muslim, Oh servant of Allah”’ — the tree and the stone will not say, ‘Oh Arab,’ they will say, ‘Oh Muslim.’ And they will not say, ‘Where are the millions?’ and will not say, ‘Where is the Arab nation?’ Rather, they will say, ‘Oh Muslim, Oh servant of Allah — there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.’ Except for the Gharqad tree, which is the tree of the Jews. Thus, this land will be liberated only by means of Jihad.”

 

In the original hadith, Muhammad says that “the last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews” (Sahih Muslim 6985).

If the “last hour” will not come until Muslims start murdering Jews wholesale, then what’s to prevent a pious young lady like Jumanah Imad Albahri from believing that speaking approvingly of the mass-murder of Jews, as Nasrallah did, is a holy and pious act?

Clearly other Muslims do. On January 12, a top Iranian official, Mohammad Hassan Rahimian, declared on Al-Manar TV: “We have manufactured missiles that allow us, when necessary, to replace Israel in its entirety with a big holocaust.” And on December 29, 2009, Muhammad Hussein Yaaqub, an Islamic cleric, dashed hopes for the usefulness of interfaith discussions when he said this on Egypt’s Al-Nas TV: “The Jews are our enemies. Allah will annihilate them at our hands. This is something we know for certain. We know this for certain – not because I say so, but because Allah said so. ‘You shall find that the people strongest in enmity to the believers are the Jews and the polytheists.’”

Yaaqub was quoting from the Qur’an (5:82).

Ahmad Al-Barqawi, professor of philosophy from Damascus University, joined the genocidal chorus on Syria TV on December 15, 2009: “If the enemy reaches a stage in which it feels that it is paying a heavy price for its occupation – both in terms of human lives and in terms of resources – it will give up. Without this, there is no chance of reconciliation with the enemy. Therefore, I believe that the annihilation of Israel is easier than reconciliation with it. Annihilating Israel is easier than reconciling with it, because annihilating Israel through a long-term and consistent effort may bear fruit in a society that feels it is alien to this [Arab] world, and does not want to remain in a world that rejects by force.”

None of this should come as any surprise. The genocidal hadith quoted on Palestinian TV is just one element of an anti-Semitism that is deeply rooted in the Qur’an and Sunnah, and which runs through Islamic history with a remarkable consistency. The Qur’an portrays the Jews as the craftiest, most persistent, and most implacable enemies of the Muslims. Three notorious Qur’anic passages depict an angry Allah transforming Jews into apes and pigs: 2:63–66; 5:59–60; and 7:166. The first of those passages depicts Allah telling the Jews who “profaned the Sabbath”: “Be as apes despicable!” It goes on to say that these accursed ones serve “as a warning example for their time and for all times to come.” The second has Allah directing Muhammad to remind the “People of the Book” about “those who incurred the curse of Allah and His wrath, those of whom some He transformed into apes and swine, those who worshipped evil.” The third essentially repeats this, saying of the Sabbath-breaking Jews that when “in their insolence they transgressed (all) prohibitions,” Allah said to them, “Be ye apes, despised and rejected.”

In traditional Islamic theology these passages have not been considered to apply to all Jews. However, that hasn’t stopped contemporary jihadists from frequently referring to Jews as the “descendants of apes and swine.” The implication is that today’s Jews are bestial in character and are the enemies of Allah, just as the Sabbath-breakers were. The grand sheikh of Al-Azhar, Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi, the most respected cleric in the world among Sunni Muslims today, has called Jews “the enemies of Allah, descendants of apes and pigs.” Saudi sheikh Abd al-Rahman al-Sudayyis, imam of the principal mosque in the holiest city in Islam, Mecca, said in a sermon that Jews are “the scum of the human race, the rats of the world, the violators of pacts and agreements, the murderers of the prophets, and the offspring of apes and pigs.”

Another Saudi sheikh, Ba’d bin Abdallah al-Ajameh al-Ghamidi, made the connection explicit: “The current behavior of the brothers of apes and pigs, their treachery, violation of agreements, and defiling of holy places … is connected with the deeds of their forefathers during the early period of Islam—which proves the great similarity between all the Jews living today and the Jews who lived at the dawn of Islam.” A 1996 Hamas publication says that today’s Jews are bestial in spirit, and this is a manifestation of the punishment of their forefathers. In January 2007, Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas stated, “The sons of Israel are mentioned as those who are corrupting humanity on earth,” referring to Qur’an 5:64.

Likewise, Sheikh ‘Atiyyah Saqr, writing in Islam Online, declares of Jews that “Almighty Allah told us that He’d send to them people who’d pour on them rain of severe punishment that would last till the Day of Resurrection.” Then comes a threat: “All this gives us glad tidings of the coming victory of Muslims over them once Muslims stick to strong faith and belief in Allah and adopt the modern means of technology.”

Modern means of technology? Perhaps a nuclear bomb exploded in Tel Aviv? If that happened, Jumanah Imad Albahri would by no means be the only Muslim who would thank Allah for his bounties.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 55 other followers