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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The separation of mosque and state?

The  separation of mosque and state?

 


Posted: July 24, 2011
9:00 pm Eastern

© 2011

 

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

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

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

(Column continues below)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

President to Renew Muslim Outreach

President to Renew Muslim Outreach

By JAY SOLOMON                And CAROL E. LEE

WASHINGTON—President Barack Obama is preparing a fresh outreach to the Muslim world in coming days, senior U.S. officials say, one that will ask those in the Middle East and beyond to reject Islamic militancy in the wake of Osama bin Laden’s death and embrace a new era of relations with the U.S.

MOHAMMED HUWAIS/Agence France-Presse/Getty ImagesProtesters in Yemen Tuesday continue demonstrations demanding the resignation of President Ali Abdullah Saleh.

USMIDEASTjp

USMIDEASTjp

Mr. Obama is preparing to deliver that message in a wide-ranging speech, perhaps as early as next week, these officials say. The president intends to argue that bin Laden’s death, paired with popular uprisings sweeping North Africa and the Middle East, signal that the time has come to an end when al Qaeda could claim to speak for Muslim aspirations.

“It’s an interesting coincidence of timing—that he is killed at the same time that you have a model emerging in the region of change that is completely the opposite of bin Laden’s model,” Ben Rhodes, deputy national security adviser at the White House, said in an interview.

Since January, popular uprisings have overthrown the longtime dictators of Tunisia and Egypt. They have shaken rulers in Libya, Bahrain, Syria, Yemen and Jordan, marking the greatest wave of political change the world has seen since the fall of the Berlin Wall.

But the push for democracy appears to have stalled in some countries. The street protests against Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi have morphed into a civil war, with North Atlantic Treaty Organization backing the rebels. Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and Bahrain’s ruling Khalifa family have both met demonstrations with violence.

Bin Laden’s death gives Mr. Obama a chance to underscore the belief among many administration officials that the terror leader’s relevance had already begun to diminish during the so-called Arab Spring. Mr. Obama, who has made outreach to the Muslim world a cornerstone of his presidency, plans to describe the Islamic world as at a crossroads, said U.S. officials, making the case that bin Laden represented a failed approach of the past while populist movements brewing in the Middle East and North Africa represent the future.

Mr. Rhodes said timing of the speech remains in flux but Mr. Obama could deliver it before leaving on a five-day trip to Europe on May 23. The White House is already telegraphing the message of the coming speech to the Islamic world by placing American diplomats on Arab television and radio, according to U.S. officials.

The White House is still debating, however, whether Mr. Obama should lay out a concrete plan for revitalizing the stalled Arab-Israeli peace process.

Many Arab governments have been pressing Mr. Obama to publicly outline his own parameters for the creation of an independent Palestinian state as a way to exert more pressure on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who visits Washington next week. These diplomats said the Mideast’s democratic surge is raising expectations among their own populations for an end to the decades-old Arab-Israeli conflict.

White House officials said they are still reassessing the monumental changes in the Middle East and whether an aggressive U.S. push to resume peace talks would likely be successful.

Last week, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas forged a unity government with the militant group Hamas, which the U.S. and European Union designate a terrorist group. Israeli officials have already cited Hamas’s role in the Palestinian Authority as the reason why Mr. Netanyahu is unlikely to unveil any major new overtures to the Palestinians during his Washington trip.

“We need to sort through these issues as we consider the next steps on a peace process,” Mr. Rhodes said. The May 20 Obama-Netanyahu meeting “is a chance for the U.S. and Israel to review the full range of issues, from Iran to the regional change to the peace process.”

Arab officials and Mideast peace advocates say there are major risks for the U.S. and Israel in delaying a return to talks.

Mr. Abbas is pressing the United Nations to recognize an independent Palestinian state during the September gathering of the General Assembly. He has specifically cited his frustration with the lack of progress in negotiations with Mr. Netanyahu, as well as the rising expectations among his own people as a result of the Arab Spring.

“There’s clearly a lot going on in the region, and there’s a case to be made and some are making it, that now is not the time,” said Jeremy Ben-Ami, founder of J-Street, a U.S. lobbying group that advocates Washington laying out its own peace plan, something Israel’s government opposes. “But we do believe that the only way to avoid U.N. action on a Palestinian state in a unilateral kind of way is for either the president or prime minister to put forward” a peace plan.

A number of lawmakers have cited Hamas’s new alliance with Mr. Abbas as reason for the White House to move slowly in restarting the peace process. Mr. Netanyahu is scheduled to address a joint session of Congress during his Washington visit as well the annual conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the U.S.’s most powerful pro-Israel lobby.

Avigdor Lieberman, Israel’s foreign minister, on Tuesday broke with Israel’s policy of keeping quiet on the regional turmoil, saying the international community’s response to repression of demonstrations in Syria, Lybia and Yemen has been “inconsistent” and “confusing.” In remarks delivered before Mr. Netanyahu’s scheduled White House visit, Mr. Lieberman added that the confusion sends a “damaging message to the people of the Middle East, and further erodes the path to peace, security and democracy for our region.”

Mr. Obama is also scheduled to meet Jordan’s King Abdullah II in Washington next week. The Arab monarch has been at the forefront of Mideast leaders calling for the U.S. to impose its own peace plan on the Israelis and Palestinians. Jordan’s population is 60% Palestinian, and the king has faced his own popular protests in recent months.

Obama snubs 9/11 families at Ground Zero today

Obama snubs 9/11 families at Ground Zero today

Elise Cooper

Today President Obama is traveling to Ground Zero to
commemorate the killing of Osama Bin Laden.  What is President Obama’s purpose
in going to Ground Zero if he could not be bothered to meet or invite all the
9/11 families who lost loved ones there? Many families are devastated and
saddened about being left out and do not understand why that occurred.    I was
at Ground Zero on September 11th, 2009 and can emphatically state
that not one family member is ever denied access to that sacred area.  Numbers
or space is not an excuse for turning away family members that have sacrificed
and endured the loss of their loved ones this past ten years.

The Obama representative responded that “In consultation with the National
9/11 Memorial staff, we invited a group of 9/11 family members who we believe
represents a cross section of family members from various 9/11 organizations.
The President looks forward to spending time visiting with the families of those
who were tragically killed on 9/11.”  Well, Mr. President, not all the families
just the ones handpicked.  At least the family members should be allowed to come
to Ground Zero to be recognized, especially if the President is going to say a
few words.
Those left out include the mom of a ten year old boy who was invited as
well as the husband of an elderly couple that have gone to every 9/11 event
together.  The Obama representative was contacted by Americanthinker.com and he
responded that if given the names he would correct the mistake.  A few hours
later the couple called me to inform me they were allowed to come.
Debra Burlingame who lost her brother, the pilot of Flight77, was invited
to a separate Pentagon ceremony but declined to go since she sees this as “all
about photographs.  Our presence there is just a prop.  If they really wanted to
do something for the families they would make sure they were respectful to ALL
the families.” Another family member said she did not think she was invited
because she was “not part of the ‘in crowd.'” Gary and Judy Reiss are extremely
upset that they were never notified.  They are dumbfounded over how the choices
were made and feel that “it is a horrific slap in the face that every family
member who lost a loved was invited. I am livid over this.”
President George W. Bush’s representative commented that the former
President declined the invitation to attend Thursday’s ceremony because he “has
chosen in his post-presidency to remain largely out of the spotlight. He
continues to celebrate with all Americans this important victory in the war on
terror.”
Maybe President Obama should be sensitive to the 9/11 families instead of
worrying about how the Muslim community views the killing of Osama Bin
Laden.

Obama envoy: Islam is the Solution not the Problem

Obama envoy: Islam is the Solution not the Problem

Richard Butrick

 

Somehow I prefer the Mafia version of peace. Under the
protection of the Mafia you coughed up a percentage of your earnings and you
could live in peace. But at least you didn’t have to believe a whole bunch of
stuff about the Godfather, alter your life style and raise your backsides to the
Godfather five times a day. But that is not the way the Obama administration
sees it. Obama’s envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference and advisor
on Islamic “affairs” (I didn’t know bombings and beheadings were affairs) Rashad
Hussain is maintaining
that Islam itself is the “antidote” to Islamic extremism.

“I am of the opinion that one of the strongest tools that you can use
to counter radicalization and violent extremism is Islam itself, because Islam
rejects violent extremism,” Hussain said during a speech in
Kabul.
Islam is the religion of peace as long as we all accept Allah and Sharia.
If we all become Muslims there will be peace. How hard is that? As Hussain
further explains, “When it comes to the problem of violent extremism, Islam is
not the problem.”  Which means that it is all of us who fail to accept Islam and
are too dense to see that living under Sharia law is vastly preferable to living
under the Constitution.
I can’t wait to see how Obama will pitch this. No doubt all the Obama
hope-a-dopes will be tingling in awe as we learn we are the problem. We all just
need to be more respectful and deferential to Islam.

 

Islam is the Enemy of Freedom

Islam is the Enemy of Freedom

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

Time to Unmask Muhammad

Time to Unmask Muhammad

Posted By Geert Wilders On March 31, 2011 @ 12:02 am In Daily Mailer,FrontPage | 38 Comments

Editor’s note: Below is an English translation of an op-ed piece that Geert Wilders published in the Dutch magazine “HP/De Tijd” on March 30, 2011.

To know why Islam is a mortal danger one must not only consider the  Koran but also the character of Muhammad, who conceived the Koran and  the entirety of Islam.

The Koran is not just a book. Muslims believe that Allah himself  wrote it and that it was dictated to Muhammad in the original version,  the Umm al-Kitab, which is kept on a table in heaven. Consequently one  cannot argue with the contents. Who would dare to disagree with what  Allah himself has written? This explains much of Muhammadan behaviour,  from the violence of jihad to the hatred and persecution of Jews,  Christians and other non-Muslims and apostates. What we in the West  regard as abnormal, is perfectly normal for Islam.

A second insuperable problem with Islam is the figure of Muhammad. He  is not just anyone. He is al-insan al-kamil, the perfect man. To become  a Muslim one must pronounce the Shahada (the Muslim creed). By  pronouncing the Shahada one testifies that there is no god that can be  worshipped except Allah, and one testifies that Muhammad is his servant  and messenger.

The Koran, and hence Allah, lays down that Muhammad’s life must be  imitated. The consequences of this are horrendous and can be witnessed  on a daily basis.

There has been much analysis of Muhammad’s mental sanity. In spite of  all the available research, it is rarely mentioned or debated. It is a  taboo to discuss the true nature of the man whom one and a half billion  Muslims around the world regard as a holy prophet and example to be  followed. That taboo must be breached in the West, and here in the  Netherlands.

Ali Sina is an Iranian ex-Muslim who established the organisation for  apostates of Islam Faith  Freedom International. In his latest book he  posits that Muhammad is a narcissist, a pedophile, a mass murderer, a  terrorist, a misogynist, a lecher, a cult leader, a madman, a rapist, a  torturer, an assassin and a looter.  Sina has offered 50,000 dollars  for the one who can prove otherwise. Nobody has claimed the reward as  yet. And no wonder, as the description is based on the Islamic texts  themselves, such as the hadiths, the descriptions of Muhammad’s life  from testimonies of contemporaries.

The historical Muhammad was the savage leader of a gang of robbers  from Medina. Without scruples they looted, raped and murdered. The  sources describe orgies of savagery where hundreds of people’s throats  were cut, hands and feet chopped off, eyes cut out, entire tribes  massacred. An example is the extinction of the Jewish Kurayza tribe in  Medina in 627. One of those who chopped off their heads was Muhammad.  The women and children were sold as slaves. Confronted with the lunacy  of Islamic terrorists today, it is not hard to find out where the lunacy  comes from.

In Vienna the women’s rights activist Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff was  recently sentenced to paying a fine for insulting a religion by calling  Muhammad a pedophile. However, that is the truth. Numerous hadiths  contain testimonies by Muhammad’s favorite wife, the child wife Aisha.  Aisha literally says: “The prophet married me when I was six years old,  and had intercourse with me when I was nine.”

 

According to the historian Theophanes (752-817) Muhammad was an  epileptic. Epileptic crises are sometimes accompanied by hallucinations,  perspiration form the forehead and foaming at the mouth, the very  symptoms which Muhammad displayed during his visions.

In his book “The other Muhammad” (1992) the Flemish psychologist Dr.  Herman Somers concludes that in his forties the “prophet” began to  suffer from acromegaly, a condition caused by a tumor in the pituitary  gland, a small organ that is situated just below the brain. When the  tumor in the pituitary gland causes too much pressure in the brain,  people start to see and hear things that are not there. Somers’s  psychopathological diagnosis of Muhammad’s condition is: organic  hallucinatory affliction with paranoid characteristics.

The German medical historian Armin Geus speaks of a paranoid  hallucinatory schizophrenia. A similar analysis can be found in the book  “The Medical Case of Muhammad” by the physician Dede Korkut.

In his book “Psychology of Mohammed: Inside the Brain of a Prophet”  Dr. Masud Ansari calls Muhammad “the perfect personification of a  psychopath in power.” Muhammad had a unhinged paranoid personality with  an inferiority complex and megalomaniac tendencies. In his forties he  starts having visions that led him to believe he had a cosmic mission,  and that there was no stopping him.

The truth is not always pleasant or politically correct. On the basis  of the research referred to above it can be argued that the Islamic  creed obliges one and a half billion people around the world, including  the one million living in the Netherlands, to take Muhammad as their  example. There is no turning back once one has become a Muslim. For even  though article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states  that every person has the right to “change his religion or belief,” in  Islam there is a death penalty for leaving the faith.

Anyone who voices criticism of Islam and Muhammad is in grave  personal danger – as I have experienced. And whoever attempts to escape  from the influence of Islam and Muhammad risks death. We cannot continue  to accept this state of affairs. A public debate about the true nature  and character of Muhammad can provide insight and support to Muslims all  over the world who wish to leave Islam.

Apostates are heroes and more than ever they deserve the support of   freedom loving people all over the world. Party politics should not be  at play in this matter. It is time for us to help these people by  exposing Muhammad.

Geert Wilders is an MP in the Netherlands. He is the Chairman of the Party for Freedom (PVV).


Mr. President, do you think we’re stupid?

Mr. President, do you think we’re stupid?

Robert
Santoski

 

The length to which this administration will go to stretch the truth is
mind-boggling.  Here we have the President of the United States standing before
the world and claiming that his latest budget balances in 2015.  He didn’t even
flinch when he said it.

Yet his own budget document shows clearly on
page 160 that the deficit in that year is $669 billion with a ‘b’.  When
questioned on this obvious inconsistency, Obama said, in effect, that his
calculus does not include interest payments.  This was later confirmed by his
budget director who used the term ‘Primary Budget’ to describe this cool new way
of viewing the world.

Who knew that we didn’t have to count interest in
our budgets?  This is good news for all of us who carry balances on our credit
cards or have mortgages.  Interest payments don’t count.  Sweet!  I don’t think
the banks will be too happy about this, or the Chinese in the case of our
national debt, but if it’s good enough for the President, it’s good enough for
me.  It would be helpful if Mr. Obama would just provide us with a note we can
give to our bankers stating that interest doesn’t matter, so there’s no
confusion when we refuse to make our monthly payments.

Really, Mr. President, do you think we’re stupid?

Obama: Blaming Israel First

Obama: Blaming Israel First

Posted By P. David Hornik On November 11, 2010 @ 12:45 am In FrontPage | Comments Disabled

“This kind of activity is never helpful when it comes to peace negotiations,” President Obama said Tuesday at a press conference in Indonesia. He was referring to approvals issued in Israel this week to build 1300 homes in two East Jerusalem neighborhoods.

That is, 1300 homes for Jews. Obama would have had no problem if the announced homes had been designated for Arabs—or anyone other than Jews.

As the Wall Street Journal noted in an editorial, the country—Indonesia—in which Obama made his remark is one that forbids Israeli citizens to visit. Indonesia is also one of 19 UN member states that do not recognize Israel as a state, and it does not allow overflights by Israeli aircrafts.

One could say, then, that in counterposing Jewish homes in Jerusalem to peace, Obama was not encouraging the best side of the Indonesian national ethos.

He wasn’t the only one to object to the Israeli plans, of course. In a de rigueur eruption that is almost dreary to record, the State Department said it was “deeply disappointed” and that the plans were “counterproductive to our efforts to resume direct negotiations between the [Israelis and Palestinians].” EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton pronounced herself “extremely concerned,” and UN secretary-general Ban Ki-moon also “expressed concern.”

The pertinacious Palestinian spokesman Saeb Erekat chimed in that the new construction plans proved that “Israel chooses settlements, not peace.”

As the Wall Street Journal also observed, it was Erekat who recently sent an admiring letter to Ahmed Sa’adat, a terrorist who masterminded the murder of an Israeli cabinet minister in 2001. Erekat warmed Sa’adat’s Israeli jail cell with “the strongest emotions of solidarity and brotherhood…. You exhibited steadfast resistance that has become the stuff of legend, during which many martyrs fell.”

The cabinet minister in question, Rehavam Zeevi, was shot twice in the head at the Hyatt Hotel in Jerusalem on October 17, 2001. The assassin was from the PFLP terror organization, then headed by Sa’adat, and was directly dispatched by him.

 


//

//


 

 

Think about it: no slap on the wrist—no reaction at all—for Erekat from Obama, Ashton, Ban, or anyone else for his tribute to Sa’adat, no protestations that this wasn’t in the spirit of peace; and yet another public upbraiding of Israel, a country already subject to a worldwide delegitimization campaign, for the building plans.

If there was a bright spot in this episode, it was that Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu, in replying to Obama’s words, showed—at least initially—more spunk in a way that is hard not to connect with last week’s Democratic debacle at the polls. Netanyahu’s office released a statement saying that:

Jerusalem is not a settlement; Jerusalem is the capital of the State of Israel. Israel has never accepted upon itself restrictions of any kind on construction in Jerusalem, which has approximately 800,000 residents….

Israel sees no connection between the diplomatic process and planning and building policy in Jerusalem, which has not changed in 40 years.  All Israeli governments in the past 40 years have built in all parts of the city. During this period, peace agreements were signed with Egypt and Jordan, and for 17 years, diplomatic negotiations have been conducted with the Palestinians. These are historical facts. Construction in Jerusalem has never hindered the peace process.

Yet, unfortunately, in a later interview with Fox Business News, Netanyahu already softened the message, calling the issue “overblown” and saying: “you are talking about a handful of apartments that really don’t affect the map at all contrary to impressions that might be perceived from certain news reports. So it’s a minor issue that might be turned to a major issue.”

In fact, the right of Jews to live in Jerusalem is a major issue in any case. In repeatedly calling it into question, Obama strikes at the heart of Jewish being and sows fear and distrust in the large majority of Israelis—exactly contradictory to his presumed desire to advance peace talks and Israeli concessions. In that regard, paradoxically, he is doing some good, as more Israelis understand that the concessions required of them would be suicidal.

As for the other side, Obama’s words can only encourage Muslims, whether in Indonesia or Judea and Samaria, in visions of Judenfrei Jerusalem and the worst supremacist tendencies.


Article printed from FrontPage Magazine: http://frontpagemag.com

URL to article: http://frontpagemag.com/2010/11/11/obama-blaming-israel-first/

Obama administration official urges cable companies to carry Al-Jazeera

Obama administration official urges cable companies to carry
Al-Jazeera

Ed Lasky

 

AL Jazeera is
filled with anti-American propaganda. It is also awash in anti-Semitism. The
material broadcast stokes terror and violence.
Why would the person who Barack Obama appointed to be the Assistant Secretary
at the Department of Homeland Security, Juliette Kayyem, advocate American cable
companies carry the channel-a channel that cannot help but inflame tensions and
anger and one that is not known for unbiased accuracy.
From an op-ed by Kayyem in the Boston
Globe:

FOR THE past few weeks, a parallel plot line to the revolutions in the Arab
world has been playing out in the media. With rare exceptions, the largest
American cable and satellite providers simply do not provide viewers access to
Al Jazeera English, the cousin to the powerful Qatar-based world news network.
AJE has launched a full-fledged campaign – including advertisements quoting, of
all people, major US news figures – to convince cable carriers to open their
programming. But most have declined: Burlington, Vt., is the closest city to
Boston where viewers can see the network on television.
AJE’s battle with the cable carriers is major news in the Middle East. Not
carrying the network sends a message to the Arab world about America’s
willingness to accept information, unfiltered, from the very region we spend so
much time talking about. These television wars began not in Tunisia or Egypt,
but in Iraq.

We have enough terror apologists in the media already without an entire
station devoted to obscuring the truth being beamed into America’s
homes.