Obama to 7-Year-Old: ‘America Is No Longer What It Could Be, What It Once Was’

Hussein Accuses Vegas Reporter Of Being McCain’s “Proxy” For Tough Questions

Know Your Failure: Ask Nancy Pelosi on washingtonpost.com today!

A Prayer Letter from a Prayer Warrior…Urgent

I don’t know where all of you stand politically, but I believe it is crucial to pray this year and GO TO THE POLLS AND VOTE. Obama has already promised to champion the Muslims. Let’s let God be our Champion. Christians must wake up and act before it is too late. Please, read all of this and begin to pray forgiveness for allowing Him to be taken away in so many areas and ask God’s will in this election. Bettye

I was dismayed when, recently, a family member of mine said to me with great resignation that Obama will take the presidency.  These words came from someone who in the past has been a great prayer warrior. “What is happening” was my question.  Why are we Christians settling and not issuing a battle cry, falling to our knees and taking our country back?  We quietly allow ourselves to be stripped of the right to pray at schools and in school. We have let the Ten Commandments be removed from government places with barely a whimper, and are told we cannot pray in school, all the while providing public prayer places for Muslims.  What in the world is going on and why are we being apathetic?  We ought to be holding hands and praying.

Our God is a mighty God who is waiting patiently for us to raise our voices to heaven to stop the tide of the anti-Christian actions in our world today.  Now we find we have a charismatic candidate for president who does not respect our flag and refuses to wear one on his lapel except when it becomes politically expedient.  His own wife and pastor, that he loves, profess to have strong anti-white feelings, and we sit back and say “it is a given, we can do nothing.”  There has never been a time in 2000 years that we can do nothing, never a time that we must sit back and allow the evil in men’s and women’s hearts to take over our world.  We should be very afraid because our apathy is leading us to perdition.  It is time for all Christian Americans to raise the battle cry and take our nation back.  Maybe McCain on his own cannot defeat Obama, but our God can and He will if we take to our knees in prayer and raise a mighty cry to the heavens to “Save us O Lord.” !

We have the power to change the course of this election and to keep a man as suspect as Barak Obama from leading our country to who knows where with his message of “change” – a change which I fear will be away from our Christian ideals and away from Christ and further away from one nation under God ..TO …. one nation divided into sects.

We are great at passing stories and pictures around the internet, but where are our prayers and prayer warriors praying to stop this tide of liberalism? God parted the red sea, Jesus rose from the dead, and we can bring our country back to its Christian roots and stop the move to the left.  But we must begin to pray, to pray as if our country and our lives depended on it, because they do.  We can stop all these atrocities against God’s commands that have taken root in our country, through something as simple as sincere prayer; a call to God to deliver us, to forgive us our sins of apathy and to protect us from the evil that is upon us.

Okay prayer warriors, here is your challenge:  Start those prayer chains.  Get the spiritual power working on our behalf and stop this continuing creep to the left by calling on our God to save us from the deception that charismatic politicians are using to lead us down the wrong path; to stop those who would take God out of our country and our government.  Pray that God will rise up good men to lead us and protect us.  We should not rest and allow ourselves to be taken further off the path of Christianity and to have God removed from our presence in our schools, courts, government and businesses.  Invite God into the fray.  Ask that His power rest upon us and give us the victory.  Ask him to raise up a mighty creed to defend us and to protect our country as he did in days of old.  Let us be victorious ..beginning NOW.  The battle is His, but we are the soldiers who must call on Him without ceasing and unite our voices and hearts in prayer every day, not just on Sunday!

“Be joyful always, pray continually, and give thanks in all circumstances, for this is God’s will for you in Christ Jesus.” I Thes 5:16-18

Obama: America not a model for the world?

Obama: America not a model for the world?

Thomas Lifson

A video clip taken from Obama’s  Dreams from My Father Book Signing, on New York on 11/23/2004 is burning up the internet. In it he appears to see America today as not a model for the world:


“The Basic Outline of the government we possess and our civic religion as a people is such that potentially at least, we could create a society that is a model for the world, it isn’t right now.”
Hat tip: Milton

Obama faked 2002 Anti-War Speech for Ad: New Book

Obama faked 2002 Anti-War Speech for Ad: New


Rick Moran

Why this is coming out now in Jerome Corsi’s new book The Obama Nation is a mystery since you would think that Hilalry’s crack research team would have vetted every single ad Obama put out during the primary campaign.

But the fact is, an ad run by Obama during the primaries featuring a supposed snippet of his anti-war speech in Chicago in 2002 is probably faked. That’s because no one can find any video of the speech anywhere. All that exists is a small snip of audio. This from none other than the liberal NPR:

The speech was given at an anti-war rally on Oct. 2, 2002…..Jessie Jackson was the main speaker.  Obama’s speech went mainly unnoticed. He had not yet announced his run for the Senate, although now he claims he risked his political career.  Of course we know that there was NO risk in running against Alan Keyes, all Obama had to do was breathe..

The speech was given at an anti-war rally on Oct. 2, 2002…..He had not yet announced his run for the Senate, although now he claims he risked his political career.  Of course we know that there was NO risk in running against Alan Keyes, all Obama had to do was breathe..


Gonyea says…..”In an age of YouTube there is no video of the speech and only a snippet of audio. The Obama campaign has reenacted the speech in a campaign AD they are now running.
If there is no video available it would seem the entire Obama anti-war speech on which he is basing his Ad campaign may be faked.  In fact the entire speech could be distorted.
And this from the same website’s Morning Dispatch

 Even in this era of YouTube and camera phones, a recording of Obama’s speech is all but impossible to find. The Obama campaign has gone so far as to re-create portions of the speech for a television ad, with the candidate re-reading the text, with audience sound effects.

Contemporary accounts don’t even mention Obama – an insignificant state senator at the time (so much for putting his political career on the line for opposing the Iraq war in a district so far to the left, Che would win in a landslide). But since this report is from last March – a report by a mainstream news outlet – why this is the first we’re hearing of Obama faking an anti-war ad.

Just more evidence that Obama is not what he appears to be and that the press will go a long way to cover that fact up.

Hat Tip: Ed Lasky

Ed adds:

Corsi points out that there is no record of Obama’s anti-war speech-no video, no audio, no written record. Instead, his speech was simulated after the fact in a  sound studio much later-complete with phony crowd sounds. He said during the primary campaign that he was in the midst of a US Senate campaign when he made the speech-making it seem as if it was a bold, risky move on his part- an act of courage. Not true-he gave the speech in  Nov. 2002. He did not announce his run for the Senate until Jan. 2003


Obama’s Abstract Patriotism

By Larrey Anderson

When Barack Obama gave a speech on patriotism, he equated patriotism with the abstract concepts of “sacrifice” and “service to a larger cause.” Senator Obama does not understand what patriotism is — or how it works.

A couple of political flubs forced Obama into his patriotic speech mode. It started last fall with the flag pin flap. Obama sometimes did — and more often did not — wear an American flag pin. Obama explained his refusal to wear the lapel pin thus:


“After a while, you start noticing people wearing a lapel pin, but not acting very patriotic. Not voting to provide veterans with resources that they need. Not voting to make sure that disability payments were coming out on time. My attitude is that I’m less concerned about what you’re wearing on your lapel than what’s in your heart.”


This initial explanation created a lot more questions than answers. Patriotism seems to be either reduced to support for certain pieces of legislation or it disappears into the mysterious (yet known to Obama) human heart. This ambiguous rationalization, for rather obvious reasons, did not fly.


A few weeks later, Obama was, literally, caught on film with his hands down. A widely circulated video showed Obama not placing his hand over his heart during the National Anthem.


Obama responded to a question about the National Anthem incident in a town hall meeting last November with this vague reply:


“Anytime that you pledge allegiance you put your hand over your heart and I always have and I always will. It’s simply not true.”


Apparently, Obama pledges allegiance with his hand over his heart; but it’s hands down for the National Anthem. Whatever.


My concern is not what is in Obama’s heart, or where he puts his hands, my concern is with his definition of patriotism. After being exposed for these two political faux pas, Obama seemed to sound more and more like a red, white, and blue patriot. His June 30 speech was intended to set the foundation for the new patriotic and pro-American Obama. Except it didn’t.


Obama’s hurt feelings (that his patriotism had been unfairly challenged) are evident in the speech:


“And yet, at certain times over the last sixteen months, I have found, for the first time, my patriotism challenged — at times as a result of my own carelessness, more often as a result of the desire by some to score political points and raise fears about who I am and what I stand for.”


Obama, in his inimitable style, gives a long and rambling speech, filled with patriotic buzzwords. He promises, early in the speech that “we can arrive at a definition of patriotism that, however rough and imperfect, captures the best of America’s common spirit.” He does not keep the promise. Obama never defines patriotism — but he leaves us enough clues to be able to catch his meaning.[ii]


“I came to understand that our revolution was waged for the sake of that belief … that we could have the right to pursue our individual dreams but the obligation to help our fellow citizens pursue theirs.”


That word “obligation” is the first hint Obama gives of what he understands as patriotism. “Sacrifice to a larger cause” becomes the theme:


“I also believe that patriotism must, if it is to mean anything, involve the willingness to sacrifice – to give up something we value on behalf of a larger cause.”


This sentence should set off an alarm in the mind of every rational person. Patriotism, according to Obama, does not mean to defend something, patriotism means to lose something.


Obama applies this logic to the military and the speech becomes almost sinister:


“We must always express our profound gratitude for the service of our men and women in uniform … the sacrifice of our troops is always worthy of honor … [even for those not in the military] the call to sacrifice for the country’s greater good remains an imperative of citizenship.”


A sacrifice made by a soldier is not an imperative of duty; it is, sometimes, a corollary of duty. A soldier’s duty is to protect the country and to defend the Constitution. Sacrifice may be a consequence of military service but it can never be an imperative.[iii] It is not a soldier’s obligation to be killed or wounded for his country. A soldier’s obligation is to protect his country and to try and stay alive while doing it. Obama’s notion of “a call to sacrifice for the country’s greater good” is not patriotic — it is Orwellian.


Sacrifice is an imperative of citizenship? Think about that for a second. This is a terrifying statement coming from someone who would be commander-in-chief. Obama’s amoral, and totalitarian, logic should make a rational person’s skin crawl.


In the only concrete proposal Obama makes in the speech, he makes it clear that the “greater cause” he is discussing is sacrifice in the form of service for the government:


“I believe one of the tasks of the next Administration is to ensure that this movement towards service grows and sustains itself in the years to come. We should expand AmeriCorps and grow the Peace Corps. We should encourage national service by making it part of the requirement for a new college assistance program….” [My emphasis.]


Obama continues in his quasi-messianic mode:


“Just as patriotism involves each of us making a commitment to this nation that extends beyond our own immediate self-interest, so must that commitment extends beyond our own time here on earth.” [sic]


The “sacrifice to a greater cause,” that Obama calls “patriotism,” apparently travels with us to the next life.


Patriotism may sometimes involve sacrifice but not to some ill-defined “greater cause.” Patriotism, at least according to the Founding Fathers, is the process of defending, both intellectually and by physical force when necessary, our federal republic and the Constitution. Patriotism is not an “imperative of citizenship” — it is a conscious choice. [iv]  


In spite of what Obama would have you believe, you can be an American and not be patriotic. That is part of the beautiful paradox of freedom that is America. Anyone who tells you that patriotism is an “imperative of citizenship” is not a patriot — but a peddler of socialism.


Barack Obama is an American original. He has charmed the nation, and the world, with the most obscure and intellectually dishonest political speeches in American history. He destroyed the mighty Clinton political machine using nothing but a single cliché: “Change We Can Believe In.”


Here is the first banner one sees at the official Obama campaign website:

Think about that tag line. Obama is asking me to believe that I believe in Obama’s ability to change Washington because I believe in my ability to change Washington. If that is what his tag line means, then I am not a believer.


I believe his “change we can believe in” rhetoric is nothing but a clever political slogan. My further belief is that it has been effectively delivered.


But Obama has also asked us to believe that our sacrifice for his vision of the greater good is the definition of patriotism. That is not believable. That is just plain scary.


Larrey Anderson is a philosopher and writer living in Idaho.  He can be reached at ldandersonbooks.com

[i]  Delivered June 30, 2008 in Independence, Missouri. The speech is one of the highlights on Obama’s campaign website. As of this writing, it appears three slots below Michelle Obama’s address to the DNC Gay & Lesbian Leadership Council.


[ii] He does quote Mark Twain’s one-line definition. “Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.”


[iii] The noun “imperative” means an order, instruction, or command. A moral imperative may be ignored. A legal imperative is enforced through coercion. As we will see, Obama is speaking here of a legal imperative.


[iv] I recently presented a brief description of the Founding Father’s definition of patriotism in American Thinker. Sacrifice, in a particular instance, might be a requisite for a patriotic act. (In philosophical terms, sacrifice for patriotism is contingent, not necessary.) But amorphous “sacrifice” to a nebulous “greater cause” is not patriotism — it is the first step to despotism. 

Could Obama still lose the nomination?

Could Obama still lose the nomination?

By Denis Keohane

Will Hillary outsmart Obama and take the nomination at the last minute?

Many of us familiar with Hillary Clinton’s approach to achieving her goals refused to believe that she ever gave up all hope of winning the nomination and the presidency. Her words and actions on the subject of the convention itself always left the door open for a return, should Obama falter or suffer some calamity. 

Her artful evasions were enough to lull journalists and (more importantly) Obama and his supporters into the presumption of inevitability. No further rumblings of a mass protest in Denver should the first black candidate be denied his rightful due were heard. After all, he received enough publicly expressed support from super delegates to put him over the top. And he won the popular vote in the primaries, we were assured, lending legitimacy to the super delegates who voiced their support.

Everyone presumed the presumptive nominee was a lock.

Now there are a few signs that Hillary may be making her move.


 – Blogger Patterico alludes to the Hillary Clinton campaign burning up the phone lines to the super delegates.

 – Bill Clinton told ABC News, “I am not a racist” and contended the race card was played against him. Even when prompted in the same interview to state that Obama was ready for the Presidency, he did not deliver.


 – Hillary’s PUMA ( short for “Party Unity My A–.”) supporters in Denver and nationally plan a rally at a Denver park during the convention.


 – ABC news reported yesterday that Hillary Clinton does not rule out putting her name in nomination,contradicting earlier press reports.


Many people, including no doubt a goodly number of nervous Democrat super delegates, are asking themselves the David Brooks’ question about Obama’s standing in the polls: “Where’s the landslide  ?” After evaluating him for several months, voters in the middle still aren’t ready to embrace him.


National polls show not only a tightening of the Obama-McCain race to a statistical dead heat but momentum toward a McCain lead, something inconceivable only weeks ago. The specter of an Obama collapse has to haunt more than a few super delegates.


Buyer’s remorse seemed evident and growing among many Democrats toward the end of their primary season when Obama lost again and again to Clinton, even as the delegate math was by then stacked in his favor. That remorse was put on hold (but apparently not resolved) by Obama’s seeming to secure the nomination and the subsequent popular boost he enjoyed at first. But lately the candidate with a difference has had a hard time living up to his promise to be a new kind of politician.


According to RealClearPoliticsObama has 1766.5 pledged delegates, 352 short of the 2118 needed to secure the nomination. He also has 463 super delegates, which puts him over the top — if they hold. If a combination of Clinton campaigning and nervousness can cause a hundred and twenty or so super delegates to sit out the first ballot, Obama does not get the nomination on the first ballot and perhaps not at all. After that first vote a great many pledged delegates and all the super delegates are free to vote as they choose.


How much pressure could there then be for the forty-seven year old Obama to take the VP spot under Hillary, with the understanding that he would as such be the next Democrat in line for the top nomination whether Hillary won or lost, served one, two or no terms?


It looks like Obama’s belief in his inevitability may have led him into a blunder, making it easier for Hillary supporters to prevent a nomination on the first ballot. After that point, anything goes, as all super delegates and many pledged delegates are free to vote their preferences.


After accepting the party’s decision last June to seat the delegates from Michigan and Florida but with half votes, only days ago Obama said he wanted the delegates to have full votes


Obviously, he said this believing he has won the nomination and that pandering to voters in critical general election states is of more importance.


If the party goes along with Obama’s request, it reduces the number of super delegates who would need to sit out the first ballot for Obama to be denied the nomination, opening the way for Clinton! Ouch!


This is proof that the man should not be negotiating with Ahmadinejad. If he cannot think strategically and recognize his vulnerability to a last minute ambush at the convention, he would be eaten alive in big league world affairs.


Worst of all, in his letter to the Credentials Committee arguing in favor of full votes for the two delegations, he writes:


Democrats in Florida and Michigan must know that they are full partners and colleagues in our historic mission to reshape Washington and lead our country in a new direction.


These words tacitly argue for acceptance of the popular vote results in those states. Obama cannot see one step ahead, for adding them to the vote count would give the Democratic primary season popular vote majority to Hillary.
There are about three weeks to the delegate voting. Things can still happen or even, as sometimes suspected with the Clintons, be made to happen.

CAIR Assassination Plot?

CAIR Assassination Plot?

By Joe Kaufman
FrontPageMagazine.com | 8/7/2008

“In death there is something to celebrate…”
– Affad Shaikh, ‘Celebrating Death,’ December 20, 2007

Last month, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents stationed at the U.S./Mexico border held the Civil Rights Coordinator of CAIR-California, Affad Shaikh, and others whom he was with for questioning. The agents suspected that the group had the intention of coming to the United States to assassinate President Bush. The following will provide a detailed context for why the CBP would believe such a thing and will make the case as to why the U.S. government should not drop the issue.

Affad Shaikh has spent the last 20 years of his life in the U.S. He was born in Karachi, Pakistan. Though he has been here for as long as he has, he has had mixed feelings about his status as an American.

In an article he wrote in September of 2006, entitled ‘Five Years Ago an American Muslim was born,’ Shaikh stated that, due to the events that took place on September 11, 2001, “America stopped being America” for him. He said that the “war on Terrorism” that the government waged following the attacks has been, in reality, a “war on Muslims and Islam.”

He wrote, “The fact is, there is a new generation of angry Americans who happen to be American, and who happen to not like what America is becoming. The more Islam is reviled and connected to terrorism, the more kids my age and younger will turn to Islam to define their perspective and their reality.”

Shaikh’s reaction to the attacks was not one of revilement for the attackers, but was instead an embrace of the ideology of the attackers. He became observant, when he had never been before; he grew a beard; and he joined the Muslim Students Association (MSA) and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), two groups closely aligned with the radical Muslim Brotherhood overseas, the latter being born out of Hamas. He stated that he wanted people to “stare” at him and think that “this guy might be a terrorist.”

Thus began Affad Shaikh’s indoctrination into the evil world of radical Islam. And now, nearly seven years later, he has discovered that there may very well be consequences for his actions.

On July 26, 2008, Shaikh posted to Muslamics, a blog which he is a contributing writer for, a piece about an incident he had with Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents stationed at the San Yasidero U.S./Mexico border check point. He titled it, ‘Europeans Need not Come to the US.’ Evidently, he and some others, including a Dutch “friend” of his, were attempting to make their way into the States via Mexico and were stopped.

According to Shaikh, the CBP, whom Shaikh described as “ignorant, incompetent and inhuman,” had reason to believe that Shaikh and his friends were plotting to assassinate President Bush. He stated, “[T]hey felt that we – the group of us – were coming to the US to ‘kill the President’ in one agents own words.” Shaikh said that he sat for “three hours” at the checkpoint.

The charge of plotting to kill the President is, of course, a serious one. In fact, it was less than three years ago that a 24-year-old U.S. citizen named Ahmed Omar Abu Ali was convicted of plotting just the same. Ali, born to a Jordanian father, was enrolled at a university in Saudi Arabia, when he joined up with Al-Qaeda and soon planned to create a terror cell in the U.S. and personally murder President Bush. Ali was sentenced, in March of 2006, to 30 years in prison, followed by 30 years of supervised release.

The border guard’s accusation against Shaikh was not an unfounded one. Indeed, Shaikh has exhibited a profound hostility towards President Bush and those close to the President, evidenced by the following quotes made by him:

  • “The Bush administration has quite a bit of blood on their hands.” (May 22, 2005)
  • “‘So Hezbollah is giving $4,000 each to the residents of South Lebanon and promising to rebuild their towns. Seeing such quick actions, we should disband FEMA – after its woeful performance in New Orleans – and outsource the job to Hezbollah’… This is a great social commentary. How one man’s terrorist organization is also better at accomadating the very people they have put under the gun, then there is our terrorist facist government lead by President Bush…”  (September 7, 2006)
  • “Bush is a liar. Cheney is [a] fat retard of a liar. Gonzales is a liar. Rice is a liar. Karl Rove is a liar. This country is run by liars and crooks and criminals all of them are masquerading as Republicans and WHY ARE THEY NOT IN PRISON?” (July 19, 2007)
  • “Bush and Rice [are] a Bunch of Cowardly Idiots.” (March 4, 2008)

Shaikh’s statements against President Bush are mostly recent, a telling sign that, over time, since 9/11, Shaikh’s behavior has gotten more radical.

Shortly after his indoctrination, Shaikh became a follower of Anwar Nasser Al-Awlaki, a.k.a. Abu Atiq, an imam who had previously led a mosque in San Diego, the same city where Shaikh had graduated college. According to witnesses, beginning in San Diego, Al-Awlaki came in contact with a number of 9/11 hijackers, including Khalid al-Mihdhar, Nawaf al-Hazmi and Hani Hanjour.

Al-Awlaki, himself, is suspected of having been involved in various Al-Qaeda attack plots against the United States and others. He also served as vice president of the now-defunct U.S. branch of the Charitable Society for Social Welfare (CSSW), which has been described as an al-Qaeda financing front. In August of 2006, at the behest of the U.S. government, Al-Awlaki was arrested in Yemen and spent the next year and a half in solitary confinement. Shaikh’s blog Muslamics presently contains a link to Al-Awlaki’s official website on all of its pages.

During Anwar Al-Awlaki’s imprisonment, he was visited by agents from the FBI for interrogation. According to him, they put pressure on him, which “led to a conflict.” It may be pure coincidence, but in November of 2006, while Al-Awlaki was being held, Shaikh issued the following warning: “[H]ere is my advice to fellow American Muslims: NEVER GO INTO AN INTERVIEW WITH THE FBI, WITH OUT COVERING YOURSELF.”

Like most Islamists, Shaikh spends much of his time denouncing Israel and America’s relationship to her. In May of 2007, he foretold of a future catastrophic event that will arise, due to this relationship. He wrote, “I can not even begin to explain why we in the United States continue to support a country that has broken more UN resolutions then Saddam… For those of you who do not know, Israel is a Jewish state, and any who are not Jewish are second class citizens. If we in the West continue to feed into the this idea and support a state that is not truly in line with Democratic principles then we are fooling ourselves and setting up for a catastrophe of great magnitude.”

Shaikh has verbally attacked various government officials for having what he perceives to be a pro-Israel bias, including Senator Barbara Boxer and Congresswoman Jane Harman, who he has labeled “a pocket protector for [the Israel lobby group] AIPAC.”

He has even targeted Muslim leaders. In February of 2008, he posted to his blog a video derogatorily depicting the heads of Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the Palestinian Authority wearing outfits with big Jewish stars on them, dancing hand-in-hand with Israel’s Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert. He titled the post, ‘Imagine a World Where Zionism Won.’

Shaikh’s animosity for Israel makes sense, given the fact that the group he works for, CAIR, was a creation of the Hamas movement. Sheikh has also admitted to financially supporting Islamic Relief, a “charity” the Israeli government has labeled a front for Hamas.

And while his preoccupation with Israel borders on obsession, his vitriol for America is not far behind. In May of 2000, Shaikh said, “The United States is among the least peaceful nations in the world.” As well, he has borrowed vernacular from Al-Qaeda, referring to Americans in Iraq as “Crusaders.”

Any one of his statements left on its own would suggest little more than the fact that Affad Shaikh is a disgruntled Islamist. However, taken as a whole, Shaikh’s activity translates to a potential danger – to the President and others.

One year ago, in August of 2007, the Executive Director of CAIR-California, Hussam Ayloush, posted a threat against President Bush on his personal website. It had been written by an enemy combatant held in Guantanamo Bay, who Ayloush was advocating for the release of. It read, “America, you ride on the backs of orphans, and terrorize them daily. Bush, beware.”

If the U.S./Mexico border agents were correct, Affad Shaikh, Hussam Ayloush’s colleague in CAIR, might very well have been the answer to this unheeded warning.

In May of 2007, Shaikh penned an article, which he ominously ended with the statement, “Get rid of the Pharaoh in Egypt along with the Prince of Israel.” The quote was in the context of U.S. support for the Jewish state. Question: Was President Bush supposed to be the “Pharoah” or the “Prince”?

Joe Kaufman is the Chairman of Americans Against Hate, the founder of CAIR Watch, and the spokesman for Terror-Free Oil Initiative.

Islamobil: Mosque on Wheels

Amil Imani

Islamobil: Mosque on Wheels
August 6, 2008

In one of my articles, Terrorists’ Bill of Rights, I described how America will be taken over by the Muslims. I warned that Muslims do it first by establishing Mosques in every town and city. These mosques range from the ostentatious, such as the one in Washington D.C., to the academically-cloaked university Islamic centers, to the innocuous storefront types and even prison chapels. One and all have the same aims: Hold the faithful in line, recruit as many new adherents by any and all means, and indoctrinate one and all in the imperative of Islamic conquest.


It is in these Islamic places that the impressionable young and the fanatical adults are drilled with the duty to carry out Jihad against the Dar ul Harb (“land of war”—anyplace not completely under the rule of Islam.)


Operating this vast network of Islamism requires significant financing. Saudi Arabia has spent over $80 billion for these operations since 1970. The other Gulf States, with their treasuries flush with oil money, have done and continue to do their share of financing.


Not to be out-done by the virulent Wahhabism of the Saudis and their co-sectist Sunnis, the Islamic Republic of Iran has been bank-rolling its own array of clientele in the Middle East, much of Africa, and as far away as Southeast Asia and Latin America in a push for Shiism. The-non-Muslim world is literally caught in a pincer of the two rabid Islamic forces.


There are those who still delude themselves by preferring to believe that Islam has not made as many inroads into the United States as it has in other parts of the world, such as Europe. Facts prove otherwise.


According to a National Portrait, a survey released in April 2001, there were at least 1,209 mosques in the US. According to the latest report, this number has sky-rocketed to as many as 6,000 mosques in 2008


Two years ago, the Islamobil debuted in Germany to teach the German people what a peaceful religion Islam really is. The concept of Islamobil appears to be the brainchild of the Islamic Republic of Iran. It is a way of taking the mosque to the people who lack a Takeyeh (mosque) in their own neighborhood.


In addition to all the stationary and mobile mosques, Islam is advanced by a large cadre of auxiliaries. Dr. Paul Williams (former FBI consultant, best-selling author and investigative journalist) reports that many Muslim businesses around the country conduct their regular businesses during the day and in the evening they turn their stores into Islamic gathering places. There are several thousands of these make-shift “Takeyehs”.


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-pronged attack aims to destroy all that liberty offers.


America, with a long tradition 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. We must keep in mind that to be a loyal and faithful Muslim, a Muslim must adhere to and perform many obligatory acts, as specified in the Quran by Allah and the Hadith/Sunna, during his entire life.


“Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home: an evil fate.” Quran 9:73


Irrespective of what the term Islam may mean, the facts on the ground conclusively demonstrate Islam’s violent nature from its very inception. No need to go back to the time of Muhammad and examine the historical records. Just a few contemporary events should make the point.
Here is a partial list: the savage Shiite-Sunni bloodletting in Iraq; the barbarism of the resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan; the genocide in Sudan’s Darfur region; the Somali killings; the Iranian mullahs’ murder of their own people and support of mischief abroad; the cross-border attack on Israel by Lebanese Hizbollah; the incessant terrorist acts of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, and the Fatwas of the Palestinians against Israel.


As a group, Islamists are paranoid and suffer chronically from the disease of victimization. That is, they either victimize the helpless whenever and wherever they can, or scream murder against the strong. This mentality is one of the many bequests that Muhammad left for his Ummah. And it is well-known that paranoia is a powerful impeller to acts of violence. The Quran commands the faithful to make war against the non-Muslims and the deeply paranoia-inflicted Muslims are just too happy to comply.


Recall that Muhammad himself bemoaned his victim plight in Mecca, packed his bags and fled to Medina where the Jews were not as vicious as his own Quraish tribe who ran the lucrative tourist business of the idolaters.


Once in Medina with a band of booty-hungry followers, Muhammad was metamorphosed to a cruel victimizer, with the Jews as handy and tempting easy prey.


The handwriting is on the wall. The wall is presently covered with bold letters on the other side of the Atlantic: Islam is taking over with much of the Sharia law in effect in many parts of Europe, including the source of our Common Law, Great Britain.


Before long, we can expect the arrival of the Islamobil in this land to join forces with the already-in-place Islamic digs called mosques to help replace our free and secular society with the barbaric Islamic rule and its Sharia.


With the average citizen, and not the devious and for-purchase-politicians, rests the solemn obligation to act, and act now, to compel our government to stem the tide of Islamism before it is too late.


I am not an alarmist. Please take time and read the reports of what is happening in Europe. Also, investigate how the petrodollar-intoxicated Islamists are buying people and services they need to further their aim. Freedom is priceless. We should accept no price for it nor should we allow anyone to tender freedom to the invaders on our behalf