Obama Woos Gun-Toting God Nuts

Islam Is a Trojan Horse



Islam Is a Trojan Horse Print
Wednesday, 16 April 2008
“Europe will be Muslim in a dozen years,” promises the Islamic Republic of Iran’s Supreme Guide (dictator) who is racing full-speed ahead to make as many bombs as possible with long-range missiles capable of delivering their payload anywhere in the world.This past Friday, Yunis al-Astal, a leading Muslim cleric and Hamas member of the Palestinian parliament declared on Hamas’ Al-Aqsa TV that “the capital of the Catholics, or the Crusader capital,” would soon be conquered by Islam and Rome would become an advanced post for the Islamic conquests, which will spread through Europe in its entirety, and then will turn to the two Americas.”
The Islam hydra, with Saudi Arabia and the oil-money bloated Emirs and Sheiks of the Persian Gulf leading the Sunni charge from one side and the end-of-the-worlder bomb-seeking Shiite of the Islamic Republic of Iran with its proxies of Hamas, Lebanon Hezbollah and the Sadrists in Iraq closing from the other side will devour the free world.

Free people: are you listening?
Free people: do you care?
Free people: are you doing anything?

Disguised as religion, Islam has penetrated the democracies with the aim of replacing civility and liberty with the barbarism of theocracy and Sharia. Islam’s multi-prong attack aims to destroy all that liberty offers.

It is generally assumed that religion addresses issues of importance to daily life as well as matters that transcend it. Religion claims to exercise a civilizing influence by ordering the social life and promoting spirituality, as well as advancing an array of human virtues. Zoroaster, for instance, based his faith on the triad of goodly thoughts, goodly speech and goodly deeds. Moses framed the fundamentals of his faith in the Ten Commandments, and Jesus placed love at the core of his faith.

Yet, all is not well with religion. Purveyors of some religions advocate and promote ideas and practices that are harmful to the general well-being of mankind. It is imperative that the society institutes measures that guard against any and all organizations and ideologies, be they religious or otherwise that harms it.

As things stand now, our lives are governed by numerous boards at all levels of government, business, and community. All these boards are charged with the responsibility of looking after the welfare of the people they serve. The Food and Drug Administration, for instance, must pass on the safety and quality of the food we eat; the Aviation Safety Board works to ensure safe flights; a local school board strives to create the environment that best serves the education and safety needs of the pupils. Every community and business of any size is served by boards.

There are, however, no oversight boards that would check against things that contaminate the mind and present a clear threat of unraveling our democracy’s social compact as we know and cherish it. Shouldn’t these dangers to our beliefs and way of life be monitored and combated or should they be given a pass to work their damage?

Presently, America is faced with a formidable enemy in a Trojan horse called Islam. This imminent danger makes it imperative to revisit the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and make the necessary changes to legally defeat Islam’s subversion of the democratic system.

What is incredible is the gall and audacity of Muslims in demanding that Western and other democracies legalize Sharia in their societies.

Muslims in Western democracies, most of them escapees of the misery of Islamic countries, shamelessly demand that the benevolent hosts surrender their liberty and adopt Sharia law in their societies.

The Muslim’s presence in countries such as Canada, Great Britain, the Netherlands and Sweden represents the tip of the sword of the Islamists protruding from the Trojan horse.

Once Sharia is recognized to any extent it will reach out to rule, not only on matters that concern Muslims, but also those that may involve a Muslim and non-Muslim. Under Sharia, a Muslim man married to a non-Muslim woman is able to divorce the woman at will and automatically have custody of the children.

America, with a long history of protecting religious freedom, still clings to the “hands off” practice of leaving alone any doctrine or practice billed as religion. A thorny problem is in deciding what constitutes a religion and who is to make that call. The dictionary supplies a sociologically useless definition for religion: “The expression of man’s belief in and reverence for a superhuman power recognized as the creator and governor of the universe.” Just about anyone or any group under this definition can start a religion, and they indeed do—and some do so at significant costs to others.

Islam was birthed by primitives of some 1400 years ago and over time invaded much of the world at the point of the sword. Presently, Islamists, with their treasuries flush with petrodollars, are in a great position to realize their perennial dream of bringing the world under the rule of Muhammad’s Ummeh.

On the one hand, Pakistan is already a nuclear power and the Islamic Republic of Iran aims to be one before very long. On the other hand, Muslim governments and wealthy Sheikhs are funding Islamic schools, centers and front organizations in the West to work from within at the unraveling of the non-Islamic democratic systems. In a parallel attack, the “Legal Islam” is exploiting every provision of the law in free societies to promote Islam and silence its critics through expensive legal shenanigans.

Islam is incompatible with democracy and subversive of the way of life that blesses this nation. It is imperative that we fight Islamofascism with the same determination that we fought other enemies of freedom such as Nazism, Fascism, and Communism. It is, therefore, imperative that the Constitution be revisited in such a manner that it no longer grants a pass to any cult simply calling itself a religion.

Bluntly speaking, no one can be a faithful Muslim and an American at the same time. As more and more Muslims arrive in non-Islamic lands, as they reproduce with great fecundity, as they convert the disenchanted and minorities, and as petrodollar-flush Muslims and Muslim treasuries supply generous funds, Muslims gather more power to undermine the democratic rule.

The hydra of Islam is lashing out by its jihadists, sophisticated and well-funded lawyers, terrorist groups, and terror-sponsoring governments who have the bomb and those that are racing non-stop to acquire the ultimate weapon. There is no time to waste. Steadfastly confronting Islam is the only way to defeat a fanatical enemy who does not believe in negotiation or compromise. For Islam, it is winner take all. And the way permissive, oblivious, and well-meaning free societies are reacting does not bode well for liberty.

Islam must be recognized for what it is: a Trojan horse carrying in its belly what will assuredly slaughter all who stand for all that is precious to free people.

Brigitte Bardot on trial for Muslim slur —Go Brigette!!!

Record oil prices speculation-driven, not supply: Opec

Record oil prices speculation-driven, not supply: Opec

Posted online: Friday , January 04, 2008 at 0003 hrs

Jan 3 Opec is not responsible for soaring oil prices and will only consider boosting output when it meets on February 1 if there’s a supply shortage, group members said on Thursday after prices reached a record $100 a barrel on Wednesday.

Libya and Qatar said the price was driven by unrest in the Middle East and Africa and by investors buying commodities and oil as a hedge against inflation caused by the decline of the US dollar. The 13-member Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (Opec) has no effect on the price, the countries said.

“Oil consumers should stop passing on the buck to Opec,” Shokri Ghanem, chairman of Libya’s National Oil Corp, said by phone from Tripoli on Thursday.

“If they want to ease the impact of high oil prices on the economy, they should cut their taxes on energy, take action to reduce the tension in Iraq and Iran, and invest more in petroleum production.” Prices are “more likely to increase and exceed $100, than they are to decrease,” he added.


Ban on oil speculation proposed

Call for curb on speculators to stop oil hitting $150 a barrel

Iraqi Author ‘Aref ‘Alwan: The Jews Have an Historic Right to Palestine

Obama Shows his ‘True’ Patriotism

Obama Shows his ‘True’ Patriotism

Rick Moran
Remember the Flag Pin Controversy where Barack Obama refused to wear the decoration because he thought it had become a “substitute for true patriotism?

Here are his remarks at the time defending his decision not to wear the pin:

You know, the truth is that right after 9/11, I had a pin,” Obama said. “Shortly after 9/11, particularly because as we’re talking about the Iraq War, that became a substitute for I think true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security, I decided I won’t wear that pin on my chest.

“Instead,” he said, “I’m going to try to tell the American people what I believe will make this country great, and hopefully that will be a testimony to my patriotism.”  (HT: Weekly Standard Blog)

Obama wears sanctimony quite well. But times change – and so do the polls. Evidently, Obama’s handlers have seen some fallout from his close friend and pastor Jeremiah Wright’s anti-American rants. People might get the wrong idea about Obama. So instead of sanctimony, we get rank hypocrisy. The pin is back:

Evidently a disabled vet handed it to him at this morning’s speech, thereby magically ridding it of the Iraq cooties that had rendered it unfit to grace the chest of the Messiah until today. Read this prescient column from the AJC a few weeks ago predicting that the pin would soon reemerge in the wake of Wright’s “chickens coming home to roost” clip entering near-permanent rotation on cable news. Conservatives naturally were blamed for making an issue of this last fall but in fact Obama’s the one who politicized it by investing the pin with such grandiose meaning that he simply had to stop wearing it in good conscience. No other prominent Democratic critic of the war that I can think of has felt the need to divest him- or herself of the sort of symbolism that those small town yokels whom Obama has such affection for seem to appreciate so much. If anything, the anti-war crowd has always been eager to reclaim the symbolism of the flag to make the point that no one has a monopoly on patriotism. Ah well; it’s all just a byproduct of false consciousness anyway.

Are we take Obama’s sudden change of heart as anything else except an extraordinarily cynical political ploy? Bless my socks, no. This is Obama honoring a wounded hero who, because he is probably from some rural area where God, guns, and racism are prevelant, simply can’t help the fact he was so stupid as to get caught in evil Bush’s war machine, thus giving in to bitterness and wanting Obama to wear the flag pin as a protest statement.

Or something like that.
He hasn’t been asked a question about the Return of the Pin yet. The press is too busy canonizing him to ask such mundane questions. But I suspect when some poor rube reporter actually has the nerve to broach the subject, his answer will be pretty much what I wrote above sans the sarcasm.

“From ghoulies, and ghosties, and long legged beasties, and things that go bump in the night, oh Lord deliver us.” (Old Scottish prayer).

One might add: “…and politicians who fake their patriotism.”

(Hat Tip: Ed Lasky)

Obama: Silence in the face of evil

Obama: Silence in the face of evil

By Peggy Shapiro

“Silence in the face of evil is always on the side of the aggressor.”
    – Elie Wiesel

Barack Obama, the eloquent speaker who mesmerizes the media, the man whose orations make women swoon, the candidate who promises to embrace dictators and terrorists in conversation, falls strangely silent when his words are needed to stand up against evil, intolerance or injustice. In a dangerous world with evil regimes aspiring to destroy the United States and the values we represent, the silence of an American President would be an
unthinkable disaster.

We know that for over twenty years, Obama listened attentively to his pastor’s diatribes against the United States and Israel and said nothing. Confronted with outright lies that the United States created the AIDS virus to destroy Africa and imports harmful drugs to destroy African Americans, Obama was silent. When the church website and newsletter carried the message of Hamas, labeled as a terrorist group by both the U.S. and the E.U., Obama maintained his silence.


Obama has not availed himself of other opportunities to speak out against injustice. When his words have taken take a stand on behalf of human decency and not be empty platitudes, Obama chose silence. Take the case of the anti-Islamist Muslim journalist Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury, who was imprisoned and tortured by Bangladeshi authorities when he requested a visa to attend a conference in Tel Aviv. Securing his release became a bi-partisan issue. Richard L. Benkin, who is spearheading efforts to release Choudhury, notes “Democratic, Republican, left, right, moderate; you name it.  And every one of them reacted with support; every one of them, that is, except one.  Who was the one lawmaker that took a pass on saving the life of an imprisoned US ally and opponent of Islamist extremism?  That’s right, my own Illinois Senator Barack Obama.”


Obama’s record in the Illinois legislature established his reluctance to take a courageous stand. In 1999, he was faced with a difficult vote to support a bill that would let some juveniles be tried as adults.  Voting “yes” would help create the image of a man who is tough on crime, but many in the African-American community opposed the law. Faced with a moral dilemma, he did what was most comfortable: nothing. He sidestepped this issue and 130 others by voting present. “If you are worried about your next election, the present vote gives you political cover,” said Kent D. Redfield, a professor of political studies at the University of Illinois at Springfield.  In the United States Senate, where there are no “present” votes, Obama consistently sought the safety of voting 96.7% of the time with the majority of Democrats. That is, when he voted. He has missed 39.3% of the votes during the current Congress.


Obama has found a comfortable spot straddling the fence on any potentially controversial issue. At a town hall in Malvern, Pennsylvania, Obama, was asked about U.S. policy toward Tibet and Darfur (the site of ongoing genocide against the Christian population), especially in light of the forthcoming Olympics in Beijing this summer. He equivocated, “It’s very hard to tell your banker that he’s wrong…And if we are running huge deficits and big national debts and we’re borrowing money constantly from China, that gives us less leverage. It give us less leverage to talk about human rights, it also is giving us less leverage to talk about the uneven trading relationship that we have with China.” Obama never once mentioned Tibet or China’s relationship with Sudan.


This week when history demanded his voice, Obama once again opted for silence instead of courage. Democratic and Republican Congressional leaders have strongly condemned Jimmy Carter’s planned meeting with Khaled Mashal, head of the Hamas terrorist organization. Both Democrats and Republicans demonstrated their leadership in a bipartisan letter to the former president entreating him to refrain from using his stature to undermine U.S. policy and negotiate with Hamas. (Hamas is committed to the complete eradication of Israel and has forsworn any negotiations in favor of violence.) Among Democrats speaking out on the House floor was Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), “In light of Hamas’ continuing violence and calls for the destruction of the State of Israel, I strongly urge President Carter to reconsider his decision.” Others warned that meeting with Hamas would not only undermine U.S. policy and the leadership of Mahmoud Abbas, but lend legitimacy to the group that thwarts all efforts for peace.


Obama, stunningly, declined to take a moral stance and instead chose silence. He said it was not his place to criticize former President Jimmy Carter… “I’m not going to comment on former President Carter. He’s a private citizen. It’s not my place to discuss who he shouldn’t meet with,” Obama (Reuters April 11, 2008)


If Obama wants to be President of the United States, it is his place to speak out for what is true, what is in the interest of the nation, and what is morally right (even if it costs him a few votes). It is called leadership.


McCain On Dems “Hope”…They’ll Raise Taxes & “Hope” You Don’t Mind