Obama’s Alliance with Boko Haram

mo

Obama is trying to bring down governments that fight Islamic terrorism, whether in Egypt, Israel or Nigeria, and replace them with governments that appease terrorists. This shared goal creates an alliance, direct or indirect, open or covert, between Obama and the Muslim Brotherhood, Obama and the PLO and Obama and Boko Haram.

by :

Leftist policy is the search for the root cause of evil. Everything from a street mugging to planes flying into the World Trade Center is reduced to a root cause of social injustice. Throw poverty, oppression and a bunch of NGO buzzwords into a pot and out come the suicide bombings, drug dealing and mass rapes.

It doesn’t matter whether it’s Boko Haram, the Islamic terrorist group that kidnapped hundreds of Nigerian schoolgirls, or a drug dealer with a record as long as his tattooed arm.

Obama and Hillary resisted doing anything about Boko Haram because they believed that its root cause was the oppression of Muslims by the Nigerian government. Across the bloody years of Boko Haram terror, the State Department matched empty condemnations of Boko Haram’s killing sprees with condemnations of the Nigerian authorities for violating Muslim rights.

Michelle Obama and Hillary Clinton haven’t championed #BringBackOurGirls because it’s a hashtag in support of the kidnapped girls, but because it undermines the Nigerian government. They aren’t trying to help the kidnapped girls. They’re trying to bring down a government that hasn’t gone along with their agenda for appeasing Boko Haram and Nigerian Muslims.

The hashtag politics aren’t aimed at the terrorists. They’re aimed at helping the terrorists.

There’s a reason why the media and so many leftists have embraced the hashtag. #BringBackOurGirls isn’t a rescue. It denounces the Nigerian government for not having already gotten the job done even as the State Department stands ready to denounce any human rights violations during a rescue attempt.

Obama and Boko Haram want to bring down the Nigerian government and replace it with a leadership that is more amenable to appeasement. It’s the same thing that is happening in Israel and Egypt.

State Department officials responded to Boko Haram attacks over the years with the same litany of statistics about unemployment in the Muslim north and the 92 percent of children there who do not attend school. When Hillary Clinton was asked about the kidnappings by ABC News, she blamed Nigeria for not “ensuring that every child has the right and opportunity to go to school.”

Clinton acted as if she were unaware that Boko Haram opposes Muslim children going to school or that it would take the very same measures that her State Department has repeatedly opposed to make it possible for them to go to school. This is a familiar Catch 22 in which the authorities are blamed for not fixing the socioeconomic problems in terrorist regions that are impossible to fix without defeating the terrorists and blamed for violating the human rights of the terrorists when they try to defeat them.

The mainstream media has been more blatant about carrying Boko Haram’s bloody water. Their stories begin with the kidnapped schoolgirls and skip over to a sympathetic reading of history in which Boko Haram only took up arms after government brutality.

Read more at Front Page

Muslims Captured and Enslaved Hundreds of Americans

the-pirate-coast-richard-zacksCitizen Warrior:

The following passages are excerpted from the excellent book, The Pirate Coast: Thomas Jefferson, the First Marines, and the Secret Mission of 1805, by Richard Zacks:

In 1801, just after the inauguration of Thomas Jefferson, Tripoli had become the first country ever to declare war on the United States. The ruler, Yussef Karamanli, had ordered his Janissaries to chop down the flagpole at the U.S. consulate to signal his grave displeasure with the slow trickle of gifts from America. Jefferson, when he learned the news, had responded by sending a small fleet to confront Tripoli and try to overawe it into a peace treaty.

For more than two centuries, the Barbary countries of Morocco, Tunis, Algiers, and Tripoli (now called Libya) had been harassing Christian ships, seizing cargo and capturing citizens. Algiers once boasted more than 30,000 Christian slaves, including one Miguel Cervantes, before he wrote Don Quixote. European powers in the 1500s and 1600s fought ferocious battles against Muslim pirates like Barbarosa. However, over time, a cynical system of appeasement had developed. The nations of Europe paid tribute — in money, jewels, and naval supplies — to remain at peace. England and France — in endless wars — found it cheaper to bribe the Barbary pirates than to devote a squadron to perpetually trawling the sea off Africa. At its core, expediency outweighed national honor.

When the thirteen American colonies split off from mother England, they lost British protection. The United States found itself lumped in the pile of potential Barbary victims, alongside the likes of Sardinia and Sicily. (From 1785 to 1815, more than six hundred American citizens would be captured and enslaved. This nuisance would prove to be no mere foreign trade issue but rather a near-constant hostage crisis.)

In colonial days, preacher Cotton Mather had described Barbary slaves as living for years in dug-out pits with a crosshatch of bars above… Galley slaves also lived to tell of being chained naked to an oar, forced to row ten hours at a stretch. Slaves, facing forward, pushed the forty-foot-long oars by rocking back to near horizontal, as though in a grotesque limbo contest, and then lurching with full strength, again and again. During hard chases, they were sustained by a wine-soaked rag shoved in their mouths…

Rituals varied, but in one account (of a North African slave auction) an American stated that after being purchased: “I was forced to lie down in the street and take the foot of my new master and place it upon my neck.” Another described being forced to lick the dust along a thirty-foot path to the throne of the [king] of Algiers (now called Algeria).

***************

The main story of the book is that William Eaton and seven U.S. Marines organized and led a group of thousands of enemies of the king of Tripoli and captured the second biggest city in the country, making the king willing to negotiate a treaty and return the captured Americans. A few years later, the American navy became powerful enough to put a permanent end to the Muslim capture of American ships in the Mediterranean. 

The above (except what is in italics) was excerpted from the book, The Pirate Coast, by Richard Zack. Without ever saying it explicitly, these excerpts demonstrate that aggression toward Western nations in the name of Islam is not a modern phenomenon, and is not caused by recent grievances. Modern grievances used to justify violence arepretexts, used since Mohammad’s time (read more about that here). The reason Thomas Jefferson knew this is because he read the Koran.  

Read more 

Samantha Power: “Daniel Pearl’s story is reminder that individual accountability & reconciliation are required to break cycles of violence”

download (72)Jihad Watch, By Robert Spencer:

As many of the responses point out, there was no way that Daniel Pearl could have avoided being murdered by jihadists by practicing “individual accountability & reconciliation.” Nor was he any part of a “cycle of violence”: he was a Wall Street Journal reporter. Power reveals by this tweet the entire wrongheaded mindset of the U.S. foreign policy establishment: that the way to deal with jihad is to seek “reconciliation” by making various concessions, and launching hearts and minds initiatives that shower money on the offenders in hopes that they will be bought off as “friends.”

Power is also, unsurprisingly, a vociferous foe of Israel. We tried to tell you: in our book The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War On America, Pamela Geller and I wrote:

One Obama foreign policy adviser, Samantha Power, resigned from the Obama campaign team under fire in March 2008 after calling Hillary Clinton a “monster.” Obama never seemed fazed by her calling in a 2002 interview with Harry Kreisler of the Institute for International Studies at Berkeley for military action against Israel to secure the creation of a Palestinian state.

Power said that establishing a Palestinian state would mean “sacrificing – or investing, I think, more than sacrificing – billions of dollars, not in servicing Israel’s military, but actually investing in the new state of Palestine, in investing the billions of dollars it would probably take, also, to support what will have to be a mammoth protection force, not of the old Rwanda kind, but a meaningful military presence.” She said that this would “require external intervention.”

Many observers quite reasonably concluded that in this Power meant that the United States should invade Israel in order to secure the creation and protection of a Palestinian state. Confronted about this during the Obama presidential campaign, Power made no attempt to explain or excuse her statement: “Even I don’t understand it…This makes no sense to me….The quote seems so weird.” She assured supporters of Israel that she did not believe in “imposing a settlement.”

Power’s anti-Israel bias was not limited to that one statement. When the much-hyped “Jenin Massacre” of 2002 turned out to have been a Palestinian propaganda operation rather than an actual massacre, Power remained skeptical, saying at a conference funded by George Soros: “I was struck by a [New York Times] headline that accompanied a news story on the publication of the Human Rights Watch report. The headline was, I believe: ‘Human Rights Reports Finds Massacre Did Not Occur in Jenin.’ The second paragraph said, ‘Oh, but lots of war crimes did.’ Why wouldn’t they make the war crimes the headline and the non-massacre the second paragraph?” National Review’s Michael Rubin commented: “It is questionable whether any war crimes occurred in Jenin, except of course the war crimes associated with Palestinian assembly of suicide bombs which Palestinian terrorists — not uniformed officials — used to target civilians on buses and elderly in hotels. But, that does not seem to be what Samantha Power means.”…

“U.S. Ambassador Samantha Power Facing Criticism Over This Tweet,” by Sharona Schwartz for The Blaze, February 24:

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power received a torrent of negative responses after posting a tweet Sunday evening that some interpreted as suggesting Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl’s killing could have been prevented by “individual accountability & reconciliation.”

Here’s what she wrote:

Daniel Pearl’s story is reminder that individual accountability & reconciliation are required to break cycles of violence. @DanielPearlFNDN

Samantha Power Facing Criticism over this Tweet

@AmbassadorPower

Samantha Power

And here are some of the responses:

 

@AmbassadorPower To what “cycle of violence” are you referring? The man had his throat cut for being a Jew.

Samantha Power Facing Criticism over this Tweet

@Zathras3

Zathras

 

.@AmbassadorPower @DanielPearlFNDN Can you elaborate? What should Pearl have been accountable for? Should he have reconciled with Al Qaeda?

Samantha Power Facing Criticism over this Tweet

 

@AmbassadorPower Reconciliation? With people who cut his head off because he’s Jewish and American? They referred to him as “the Jew”.

Samantha Power Facing Criticism over this Tweet

@sunnyright

SunnyRight

 

@AmbassadorPower How, precisely, does on reconcile with medieval savages who traffic in videotaped decapitation porn?

Samantha Power Facing Criticism over this Tweet

@TheRickWilson

Rick Wilson

Five hours after she posted her tweet, not one response on her twitter line was of a positive nature….

 

 

Revisiting the Neighborhood

no_mosque_sign_big_1-31-14-1By David Solway:

On February 15, 2013, I posted an article at Front Page Magazine titled “Saving the Neighborhood [1]” that dealt with an invitation the democratic advocacy organization Act! for Canada had extended to British lawyer Gavin Boby, a specialist in town planning law and director of the Law and Freedom Foundation. I referred in that article to Boby’s lecture at the Ottawa Public Library on the consequences of allowing mosques to be built in municipal neighborhoods without adequate public consultation and supervision, an event whose reverberations have not yet died away and are unlikely to do so in the foreseeable future as mosque construction continues unabated. (Of the approximately 1200 mosques operating the U.S., for example, nearly 80 percent [2] were built after 9/11; there are no official data for Canada, but it is estimated [3] that there are at least 1000 mosques in the country, a lowball figure.)

Also known as the “mosque buster” — a designation, be it said, not of his choosing — Boby has devoted his time and expertise pro bono to advising the residents of municipal boroughs on the legal recourse at their disposal to prevent local mosque construction. In cases that Boby researched, the presence of mosques had led to the blighting of the quality of life in such residential areas, usually beginning with what he calls the “parking jihad,” as Muslim congregants occupy parking spots and private driveways on Friday worship and holy days, seriously limiting residents’ mobility, freedom and private property rights. Such disruptions would invariably metastasize. Residents walking their dogs would find themselves molested. Eventually, various forms of vandalism would occur — broken windows, severed TV cables, and the like — to force down the already depressed market value of homes, which were then bought up by Muslim interlopers. Such cases have been meticulously documented by Boby and justify the pursuit of legal impediment against the domestic proliferation of mosques, often camouflaged in civic application forms as “Islamic cultural centers” and “inter-faith community centers” to deceive the unwary and the credulous.

 

 

As Boby explained in a talk delivered to the Q Society of Australia [4] on September 12, 2012, in Melbourne, a mosque is not like a church, synagogue or temple; it is “a center of power used for political and military purposes.” Studies [5] have shown that a large majority of mosques act as recruitment hubs for jihad, foster the imposition of Sharia law, and labor to drive a sanctified wedge between Muslims and non-Muslims. For Islam, which makes no distinction between church and state, between the things which are God’s and the things which are Caesar’s, between synod and politburo, is not a religion like Christianity or Judaism; it is a political movement garbed in the trappings of a religion, or alternately, a religion whose primary agenda is the conquest of the world through political, cultural and military means.

What Boby is attempting to accomplish — to educate and empower beleaguered residents of generally poorer working districts to maintain the preferred character of their neighborhoods — is both legal and ethical, as well as humane and empathetic. There is nothing “racist” or “bigoted” or “fascist” about his endeavors — epithets that dubious Islamic organizations, clueless do-gooders and liberal charlatans readily lob in his direction.

Most towns and communities have zoning bylaws that prescribe what can and cannot be erected in the areas under their jurisdiction. The village I have lived in for many years, for example, is strict in this regard, forbidding the construction of any building, commercial, religious or private, over three stories high, and even halting the construction of a palatial dwelling that reached for a fourth. No one claimed that the town council was biased against the wealthy or the architecturally ambitious. Similarly, if a town or borough wishes to prevent the construction of a mosque — or church or pub or stupa [6] or spud hut or casino or soup kitchen — that would transform the character of a neighborhood in a way it finds undesirable, it is legally permitted to do so under existing zoning regulations. Boby is not advocating, as has reportedly happened in Angola [7], that Islam should be banned and all mosques closed or dismantled to forestall a Sahelian [8] future (the report has been disputed, but, as of this time, does seem to be accurate [9]); he is, rather, arguing for citizens’ rights in preserving the nature, morale and typical features of the places they reside in, should they choose to do so.

The acid irony is that most of those hostile to informed citizens like Boby and his compatriots are affluent ideological accommodationists, socialist poobahs and progressivist conservatives dining on the calipash of slow intellection. They need never worry about mosques stippling their upscale turf, whose driveways would not be blocked, whose dogs would have the romp of the neighborhood and local parks, whose windows would not be broken, and whose telephone lines and satellite dishes would remain intact. Among this privileged cohort we find a clutch of political officials and administrators tainted by political correctness, media lefties, assorted members of the liberal elite, infatuated academics who live in “the glebe,” “moderate” Muslims who rarely attend religious services but approve of neighborhood mosques, and court Jews who pride themselves on their “social justice” credentials (though I am tempted to call these more craven of my co-religionists courtesan Jews) — in effect, pseudo-intellectuals like the emulsified tandem who published an editorial in the Ottawa Citizen, titled “Mistaking Islamism for Islam [10],” protesting Gavin Boby’s presence among us and serving to mobilize a posse of offended Muslims to petition the library to annul the presentation. And, naturally, the journalists were out in force to interview the assembly of aggrieved Muslims, though none saw it as their duty to attend the lecture or to interview Boby.

Apart from the convenient fact that such people are exempt from the trials and outrages that afflict the less advantaged classes, they exhibit no understanding of the political and historical trajectory of Islam, the nature of the Koran and the Hadith, and the contagious influence of the mosque. They have eagerly embraced the propaganda of the Islamic camp and its enablers, namely, that Islam is a “religion of peace.” This is a giant step toward ultimate surrender to an alien dispensation, guaranteed by what Larry Kelley in Lessons from Fallen Civilizations [11] calls the 8th Law of History (Kelley enumerates ten such Laws): “When a civilization accepts the propaganda of the enemy as truth, it has reached the far side of appeasement and capitulation is nigh.” The truth being obscured is that Islam is a religion of perpetual war — “the truth of Islam is in its killing fields,” writes [12] Daniel Greenfield — and anyone who doubts this has not read the history of Islam or delved into the pages of its canonical texts, theological, philosophical, political and jurisprudential. Boby, for his part, is perfectly aware of these larger and deeper issues, but has chosen to fight on a more limited, cadastral front by reducing the number of mosques that conquer territory piecemeal, one neighborhood after another.

Most of those attempting to neutralize Boby and his allies believe with Daniel Pipes that radical Islam can be countered by something called moderate Islam. They are afraid that unsparing criticism of, or principled resistance to, the spread of Islamic doctrine and culture will drive the moderates into the arms of the extremists — as if opposing violence creates even more violence, an inversion of reason so preposterous as to resemble a neurological fugue. They are terrified of being labelled as “Islamophobes.” They wish to be seen as lovers of diversity, as enlightened thinkers, as noble representatives of an advanced civilization. They do not realize that, after they have slept for the next twenty years like Rip Van Winkle, they are heading for a grim awakening. As indeed, unless we come to our senses, we all are. And by then our firearms will be pretty well useless, like Rip’s, “the barrel incrusted with rust, the lock falling off, and the stock worm-eaten.”

Read more at PJ Media

The Necessary War (Part III)

20130310_TWIN_TOWERS_GROUND_ZERO_9-11_large

   In the name of the missing Twin Towers and the thousands of victims of this heinous terrorist attack, in the name of the thousands of fallen men and women in the war on terrorism, in the name of the Israelis, who have suffered Islamic terrorism for decades, the United States must have the will to face up to the enemy. The American challenge is to abandon denial, define our enemies, stop appeasement, face the threat, and acquire the will to use all means at our disposal to grant the ultimate wish to those who proclaim that they love death more than we love life.

by JOHN GALT:

Working in the Arab world during the last decade, I have met many Muslims who insisted that they had nothing to do with terrorism. The problem is that they remain silent, in fear of the so-called extremists. They do not publicly condemn terror, and they continue to donate money to the mosques and charities and cover organizations that offer moral and financial support to the terrorist movement. They, just like most Germans during the Nazi regime, do not want to know. In any event, we should not be confused by this silent minority regarding the true nature of Islam, just as the world was not confused about the nature of Nazism because of the small anti-fascist movement inside Germany.

I was in a hotel in Tripoli after the fall of Khadafy, watching Arab TV showing gruesome images of beheadings. A few men were on their knees, blindfolded, with hands tied behind their backs. A young man took a butcher knife and start cutting the neck of the first victim. The executioner did not appear to know what to look for in order to cut through the spine quickly; it took him some time. It was horrific beyond belief! Finally, he found the spot, cut through, and severed the head. A huge crowd of bearded men and boys cheered loudly. I was sick to my stomach. That was the moment I realized the contrast between Muslim extremists and moderate Muslims. The extremists carried out the execution, while the moderates cheered, recording the event on their iPhones and enjoying watching it on TV. We should not be apologetic for judging all of them by the behavior of most of them. The Left’s position on the Muslim threat is inconsistent, immoral, and reprehensible. But that should not surprise us: the Left did not consider Hitler extreme at the time, and supported the proposal to nominate him for the Nobel Peace Prize. The Left has always had a natural attraction to totalitarian, bloody regimes. They admired Stalin, Mao, and in more recent times Castro, Che Guevara, and Hugo Chavez.

Americans have been in denial about this danger since the early 1970s when the Palestine Liberation Organization began committing terrorist acts against Israelis, but the world was silent because the victims were Jews and we are not Jews. Adding logs to that proverbial fire, the world endorsed and encouraged the terrorists by awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to PLO chief terrorist Yasser Arafat. Since then terrorists have taken to Europe, but we are not Europeans; and Asia, but we are not Asians. The evolving history of terrorism is captured well by what German Lutheran Pastor Niemoller wrote about the Nazis:

In Germany they first came for the communists
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a communist.
They came for the Jews
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the trade Unionists
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics
and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me and by that time no one was left to speak up.

Today in the United States, the terrorists are living among us, but the administration still practices appeasement. The president and the former mayor of New York City, with the support of the Left, were perfectly willing to let the Muslims build their Mosque of Triumph in close proximity to the destroyed World Trade Center, just as they built the Al-Aqsa Mosque on the site of the Second Temple in Jerusalem after conquering the city in the seventh century.

In Afghanistan, the administration’s policies are just as confusing as on the domestic front. During an interview with Newsweek, the vice president told the magazine, “Look, the Taliban per se is not our enemy. That’s critical.” If the Taliban is not our enemy, who are our military men and women fighting? And why are they dying in Afghanistan? Can anybody make sense of this? If we do not know who our enemies are, how can we defeat them? As Yogi Berra said, “If you don’t know where you are going, you might never get there.” And, we are not.

The first order of making sense is to acknowledge that we are in the age-old struggle between freedom and tyranny, and that the value of human life in the world of Islam is dramatically different from ours. Saddam Hussein said it best: “If you kill a man, you are a murderer; if you kill hundreds, you are a hero; but if you kill thousands, you are a conqueror.” This is the mentality of the other society, where terrorism is an instrument of power. Whether it is a war on terrorism or a war in Iraq or Afghanistan, if we are not prepared to kill thousands, we cannot be respected. Conventional thinking embraces the belief that democratic civilizations are based on humanitarian principles, and those principles separate us from the barbarians. About which Henry Kissinger wrote, “While we should never give up our principles, we must also realize that we cannot maintain our principles unless we survive.”

Read more: Family Security Matters

Also see:

Counter Terrorism – The Right Approach and Solutions

20130805_FLAGATGROUNDZERO_911_LARGEby ALAN KORNMAN:

On a chilly Thursday night while most of Orlando residents were at home keeping warm Wallace Bruschweiler was connecting the dots on terrorist cell operations from the 1970’s to today.

Mr. Bruschweiler was in the field disrupting the terrorist activities of the Baader-Meinhof Group, Red Brigades, Action Directe, IRA, and ETA.  These groups were responsible for over 296 bomb attacks, arson, counterfeiting, murder, kidnapping, kneecapping,  assassinations, to further their left-wing anti-colonialist / Communist politics.

The lessons learned from fighting the terrorist groups of the 1970’s is relevant today as we fight Jihadi’s moving their agenda of Islamic Expansionism into the West.

Terrorism is defined as the systematic use of violence to achieve a political objective.  Mr. Brushweiler says understanding the definition is something the majority of the American people get.  It is the business model the terrorists use that is the important element in understanding the issues behind the headlines.   The mainstream press and academia have done a great disservice to the American people by focusing on the gruesome effects of terrorist operations rather than the solutions needed to combat the philosophical, political, and ideological roots of modern terrorism.

What the American people yearn for is someone to explain the structure of how terrorist groups operate freely inside the United States using our free and open society to their greatest tactical advantage.

The first clue in unraveling this mystery of terrorism is information Mr. Bruschweiler gathered while conducting counter terrorist operations against many terrorists group only a few short decades ago.  To confuse law enforcement, the Red Brigades used the names of approximately 500 terrorist groups to appear bigger and more numerous than in reality they were.  The effect of this successful tactic resulted in law enforcement spending time and resources going after empty terrorist shells rather than cutting off the head of the terrorist snake.  Islamic terrorists today are using this same methodology to confuse the American people.

What Does It Take To Get Our Country Back 

“On 9/11 Bin Laden outsmarted us and got what he really wanted.  It wasn’t only to terrorize the West, but to get the USA out of the Middle East.  Today, Egypt is no longer a friendly country towards us for very specific reasons.  Saudi Arabia was the first to realize this when President Obama threw Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak under the bus.”

“Vladimir Putin is accepting 40,000 Christians from the Middle East.  Obama just took in 4,000 Muslims from Syria.  Two days ago an Egyptian journalist declared we must attack Hamas in Gaza until they kiss the Egyptian shoes.  We should teach them a lesson like Israel did.”  This is today’s situation in the Middle East and how the Middle East looks at us.

“In Iraq we lost 4,000 soldiers, pumped billions into the country to liberate it.  Today,  the Ayatollahs and Mullahs in Iran are running the country of Iraq.”

“The wolf is guarding the hen house in Washington DC.  Six men of strange Muslim Brotherhood backgrounds are directly responsible to the White House.”  Those men are Arif Alikhan, Mohammed Elibiary, Rashad Hussain, Salam al-Marayati, Imam Mohamed Magid, and Eboo Patel.”

“My message is very clear, we have to stop Islamic expansionism and stop importing trouble.  This can be accomplished by a complete Congressional overhaul of the Refugee Resettlement Act and slowing down Muslim immigration from terrorist supporting countries until we can properly vet the lives of these refugees.”

President Obama’s current policies regarding a Nuclear Iran are eerily reminiscent of Chamberlain negotiating ‘Peace In our Time’ with the Adolf Hitler.  I believe our current policy of appeasement is dangerous and misguided.

On the domestic political front, “We need more candidates like Colonel Allen West, Michelle Bachmann, and so on.”

“I want to give you a little sideline about the Jewish vote in the United States.  I was surprised by the fact Jews vote 75-80% Democrat.  In my modest opinion, there is a reason for that.  Remember, Israel was born in 1948 as a Socialist State.  The movement of Kibbutzim was a Socialist movement.  Today, the Kibbutzim exist only by name.  The Kibbutzim who survive today are very successful capitalist enterprises. The older Jewish populations in Miami, Orlando, New York, Los Angeles, etc have brought the Kibbutzim mentality to their communities and are reluctant to evolve.  They must finally see that the policies of the Democratic party do not have Israel’s best interests at heart.

The most prolific killers of Muslims in the Middle East are not American’s or Israelis, it is Muslim on Muslim violence.  This is an untold story:  Did you know that Jordan’s King Hussein killed in 48 hours more  Arabs than Israel in all her wars since 1948. King Hussein got fed up with what was going on in his kingdom and gave carte blanche to his army and they killed 15,000 Palestinian Arabs with allegiance to Arafat.

The rest fled, many of the high ranking Palestinian officers crossed into Israel asking for protection, the rest went to Lebanon via the Chouf area.  The Druze said they wanted $100 for each Palestinian crossing into Lebanon and earned a lot of money.  That is how Arafat escaped and established himself in Beirut.

Today in Iraq and Syria, Sunni and Shia Muslims are murdering each other on a daily basis as they wrestle for power and avenge tribal disagreements going back hundreds of years.  There are no ‘good guys’ in this never ending civil war.  The only time the Sunni and Shia combine forces is to wage war or commit terrorist activities against a common enemy.  This same formula holds true for Benghazi in Libya.

All I will say about Benghazi, is that all the lies spit out about what happened there was smoke and mirrors cleverly used to help President Obama’s 2012 reelection.  Let’s not forget  the Naval Air Station Sigonella, Italy is only 90 minutes from Benghazi and I will leave it there for you to make your own conclusions.

This is the one thing I insist that people have to understand.  Do not disregard messages issued by terrorists, what they write or say in videos, they will definitely try to execute.  What the terrorist say is vitally important to our national security.  The NSA is tasked with tracking communications of terrorists and their supporters, both domestic and foreign.  If you look behind the anti-NSA headlines you will often see the people screaming the loudest are Muslim Brotherhood groups operating on US soil.

Read more: Family Security Matters

Family Security Matters Contributing Editor Alan Kornman is the regional coordinator of The United West-Uniting Western Civilization for Freedom and Liberty. His email is: alan@theunitedwest.org

Necessity and Obligation

Political Islam, by Bill Warner:

The answer to the demands of the Sharia is a full application of Sharia. In particular, we need to understand how necessity can abrogate obligation.

Allahu Akbar and Ho Ho Ho

by Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog:

“A flag bearing a crescent and star flies from a flagpole in front of the World Trade Center, next to a Christmas tree and a menorah.”

New York Times, 1997

Christmas at World Trade CenterIn 1997, Mohammed T. Mehdi, the head of the Arab-American Committee and the National Council on Islamic Affairs, lobbied to have a crescent and star put up at the World Trade Center during the holiday season. His wish was granted, despite the fact that he had been an adviser to Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman also known as the Blind Sheikh.

In the name of diversity and political correctness, an adviser to the religious leader behind the World Trade Center bombing, was allowed to plant an Islamic symbol of conquest in the very place that had been bombed.

Long before the Ground Zero Mosque was even a twinkle in the eye of aviolent ex-waiter and a slumlord Imam, the World Trade Center allowed Mohammed T. Mehdi to bully it into flying the symbol of Islam.

By 1997, Mohammed T. Mehdi had become an unambiguously ugly public figure. He had been fired by Mayor Dinkins in 1992 for anti-Semitic remarks. The year before he had proclaimed that, “Millions of Arabs believe Saddam stands tall having defied Western colonialism“.

In 1995, the US Attorney’s Office in New York had listed Mehdi as anunindicted co-conspirator in the trial of Sheikh Rahman. Mehdi had already published a book titled “Kennedy and Sirhan: Why?”, which contended that Robert Kennedy’s assassin had been acting in self-defense.

Because of Mehdi’s role in actively working on behalf of the Sheikh behind the wave of terrorism that included the original attack on the World Trade Center, turning down his request should have been a no-brainer. Instead in the winter of 1997 there was an Islamic star and crescent at the World Trade Center. And another one at the park in front of the White House.

Four years before the September 11 attacks; both targets had already been marked.

The previous year had marked the first annual Ramadan dinner at the State Department, integrating the Islamic celebration into the Clinton Administration’s schedule of events. Bill Clinton had not visited the World Trade Center after the bombing, but he did make time for Ramadan.

A month after 9/11, Bush went Clinton one better when he became the first president to host a Ramadan dinner at the White House. Many of the Muslim ambassadors at the event were representing countries that helped finance Al Qaeda. Little more than a month after September 11, the President of the United States sat down to break bread with the money men behind the attacks.

The Star and Crescent flying at the World Trade Center did not prevent it from being targeted in a second greater attack four years later. Nor did the Ramadan dinners keep the plane headed for the White House at bay. It took the self-sacrifice of its American passengers to do that. Instead every gesture of appeasement only seemed to make it worse.

 

Where Are The Saints?

download (60)by Justin O Smith:

America in general and Christianity specifically have been under attack by Islam for the past forty years, and a renewed clash of Western civilization and Islam essentially has become a very real war, in which Jews and Christians are killed to amplify Islam’s assumed religious superiority; and yet, many prominent Christian theologians have become accomplices of jihad, by wasting precious time and resources on futile dialogues, rather than condemning and rejecting the concepts of jihad/HolyWar, martyrdom and a life that begins only after death, in the face of the self-appointed leaders of Islam.

With the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989, Islam began to march towards a new ascendancy in many parts of the world, and, in no small part, Islam’s goals have since been aided by Barack Obama’s policies, which support Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda terrorists in several Islamic nations, over dictators who kept the islamofascists checked and were U.S. allies; Obama’s domestic policies also attack U.S. Christians, as seen in a military briefing on October 17, 2013 at Ft Hood, TX, when soldiers were told that Christian and Tea Party groups could be representative of right wing terrorist groups, and, the soldiers were warned to be careful of donating money to such groups, in order to avoid prosecution under the Uniform Military Code of Justice.

The persecution of Christians has increased significantly throughout the world over the past decade, especially in the 57 member nations of the Organization for Islamic Cooperation. A staggering 100,000 CHristians are murdered annually within these nations, because of their faith, according to Vatican spokeman Monsieur Silvano Maria Tomassi; and, Persecution.org president Jeff King recently told FoxNews that “two-hundred million Christians currently live under persecution.”

Since 1998, thousands of Christians have been killed in Egypt, Pakistan and Nigeria, with 10,000 of those murders occurring in Indonesia alone. Egypt’s Coptic Christians have battled the worst attacks on their minority numbers since the 14th century, as seen through the Midnight Mass murders and the rioting of January 2010, after Hosni Mubarak’s removal. And, last month, Taliban suicide-bombers killed 85 worshippers at All Saints’ Church, which was founded in 1883 in Peshawar, Pakistan; Christians were also targeted by islamofascists during an attack on a shopping mall in Nairobi, Kenya, in which al-Shabaab terrorists released people who could answer questions about Islam and proceeded to kill 70 other people.

Most of Iraq’s Christians have fled the country or been murdered, since Saddam Hussein’s overthrow. In August 2004, five churches were bombed in Baghdad and Mosul. Seven more churches were bombed on one single day in July 2009, and the bombings have continued right through last week; with Assad’s regime in Syria under attack by Al Qaeda and other islamofascist groups, much the same scenario is currently playing itself out in Syria and an increase in religious cleansing will eventually turn Syria into another base and safe-haven for the world’s islamofascists.

Christians… tortured, raped and murdered by being burned alive in fire-pits and beheaded in the most horrible fashion, as Muslims dance around their victims almost as though this is entertainment or a great noble deed. And these barbarians call themselves “civilized” and Islam “a religion of peace.”

The islamofascists have a saying, “First the Saturday People, then the Sunday People,” which means “first we kill the Jews, then we kill the Christians.” When one looks at Islam in this context, through the words of its leaders, it is baffling to see such a lack of concern, anxiety, action or advocacy on the part of Christians in the United States.

America will be hard-pressed to win this war, as long as career politicians are willing to accept $2 million dollar bribes, like the $2 million then Sen Joe Biden accepted from Iran in 2004, and as long as universities take $26 million dollar “donations” from Islamic princes, just as Harvard did in 2006; our education system and government has become ever more politicized, and they tolerate and even encourage the rise of anti-American, anti-Christian movements based on feelings of group grievance and victimhood, as some “teachers”/propagandists direct impressionable students to observe the “numerous misdeeds perpetrated by the U.S. against third world nations,” and especially the Islamic world: This emboldens Muslims who see any U.S. compromise and conciliation as weakness and a sign of their own impending victory.

On September 12, 2006, at the University of Regensburg, Germany, Pope Benedict gave a wide-ranging lecture, titled “Faith, Reason, and the University-Memories and Reflections.” Pope Benedict proclaimed that God cannot ask one to do something unreasonable, because He created reason. Benedict further explained that Islam, on the other hand, is predicated on the idea that God may overturn law and human reason. “Allah may demand immoral or unreasonable behavior, for he is all-powerful and demands absolute submission.”

In this clash of civilizations, America needs to criticize any group, person or culture deserving of such criticism by their words and actions, especially if these actions include crimes against humanity. Americans and the Western world must drop the ethos of relativist respect for non-Western religions and cultures, especially when they do not deserve our respect and the term “respect” becomes a euphemism for “appeasement.”

One must wonder over the silence of so many Western Christians, Protestant and Catholic alike, and our pastors and ministers and government officials. As noted by Representative Frank Wolf (R-VA) in January 2013, far too many are seemingly not “pained by these accounts of persecution”, and they are not using their sphere of influence to raise the profile of this issue through sermons, articles and interviews. But, while Wolf castigated 300 Christian leaders for their “lack of engagement”, two fine Christian leaders in Murfreesboro, TN, Reverend Darrell Whaley (Kingdom Ministries Worship Center) and Pastor Alan Jackson (World OutReach Church), had already been at the forefront of this battle for quite some time.

Dr Justin Akujieze’s words ring even more urgent now, than the day I met him (November 11, 2011), and he told a horrific, heart-wrenching story of the islamofascists essentially conquering the northern half of Nigeria. This same day, he also made an impassioned plea for his country and called for action: “Today is the last day and we must not wither. We must confront this (Islam) head-on and together we will win.”

Many of us in America recognize the cautionary tale revealed in the words of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a Lutheran pastor, who was executed for speaking out against the Nazis: “Silence in the face of evil is itself evil. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.” And Islam today represents every bit as much evil as yesteryear’s National Socialism.

1 Corinthians 6:2- Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?

Religious Practice Versus Imposition

dearborn-michigan-ramadan-high-school-football-night-practiceBy Citizen Warrior:

Earlier tonight an acquaintance said he had heard that during Ramadan in Dearborn, Michigan, there’s a high school football team that does their football practice from 11:00 p.m. until 4:00 a.m. because some of the devout Muslim players can’t eat or drink anything during the daylight. He said this without any judgment at all. It looked like he felt absolutely neutral about it.

I said, “in other words, the Muslims are imposing their practices on non-Muslims.” I said it with a face that clearly displayed disapproval.

He was casually dismissive. “Well, other religions do crazy stuff too,” he said.

I said, “they don’t impose their stuff on me. Are there religious people who impose something on you? Or try to get you to grant a concession? Or try to make your values yield to theirs? To practice a religion is personal and private. If someone wants to go without food, what do I care? They can go right ahead. But when it impinges on people who are not members of the religion, that’s no longer religious. It’s political. So all the high school students who want to play football at that school have to practice in the middle of the night because Muslims are thrusting their Islamic practice into the non-Islamic public sphere. Those non-Muslim kids have to disrupt their normal sleep cycle because the Muslims won’t bend and the non-Muslims will. And step by step, inch by inch, orthodox Muslims gain one concession after another as our tolerant culture yields to their intolerant culture. Is that okay with you? It’s not okay with me.”

I had to leave, but this brief conversation inserted an idea I got from Bill Warner. And my acquaintance looked like he heard something he had never even thought about. I wish I’d had time to explain to him that religious supremacism is the belief that a particular religion is superior to others and entitles members of the religion to control or dominate non-members. That’s what these Muslim football players were doing.

But maybe it was better that I didn’t go into any more detail. Sometimes less is better. Sometimes it’s actually more effective to let things sink in a little at a time.

Given how many people are becoming aware of the disturbing nature of Islamic texts, these kinds of brief conversations must be taking place all over the free world. Let’s keep it up. We should think in terms of small bits and long campaigns.

France is Losing Hearts and Minds of Native-Born Muslims

Police vehicle in France. Photo: Wiki Commons

Police vehicle in France. Photo: Wiki Commons

By Richard Landes:

Granted that it’s Ramadan, which skews the sample, but every day, certainly every week now, it seems, there’s a new indication that France is losing its battle for the hearts and minds of its native-born Muslims.

This week, for example, a convert to Islam attacked a police officer who stopped his niqab-clad wife. Some reports stated that his aggressive disrespect justified the husband’s anger and fueled outrage in the Muslim community. That evening after the fast, several hundred of his “brothers” rioted for hours outside the police station where he was detained, injuring six. The police, worried that too strong a reaction might lead to a reprise of the rioting of Ramadan 2005, only reluctantly intervened. The next night, after the fast, the violence began again and spread to nearby neighborhoods. For the moment, public calm reigns during the daytime fast, but the battle has already been won: police will not willingly fine women veiling their faces. And now (and for the foreseeable future),every Ramadan night will be a tense one all over Europe.

Last week, a train derailed in Bretigny, killing ten and injuring hundreds. Some “youth” (the French media’s euphemism for Muslim gangs), responded first,despoiling the corpses. When the ambulances arrived, the predators stoned the rescue workers, forcing them to wait until the police arrived. This gruesome scene illustrates the deeply disturbing and aggressive contempt for French civic norms among many Muslim “youth” in France today. The shocking story rapidly spread, only to be literally “recalled” by a collective decision of the political classes and mainstream media, including the police who experienced the stoning,who dismissed the reports as rumor. Only reluctantly did the issue return to public discussion.

Such a decision to erase from public discussion the behavior of an aggressive“tribalism,” within the Muslim community, and the ability to implement this erasure across the mainstream news media, represents a pattern of (ultimately self-destructive) behavior whose roots go back over a decade. It started in earnest with the inverse pattern: namely the mainstream media published material that provoked a kind of tribal vengeance in their immigrant communities and then covered up the ensuing violence.

At the beginning of the Oslo Intifada in September 2000, the French media (and most Western news outlets) fell prey to and broadcast what has now been revealed (even the Israelis have weighed in officially now) as a cheap hoax: a Palestinian cameraman’s claim that he filmed Israeli troops targeting and killing a young Palestinian boy, Muhammad al Durah, who “died in the arms of his father.”

It is difficult to exaggerate the eagerness with which the French seized upon this malicious and invented lethal narrative and gave it mythical import. “This death [sic] erases, replaces the picture of the boy in the Warsaw Ghetto,” intoned one news anchor, referring to the symbol the deliberate extermination of a million Jewish children by the Nazis. Apparently, Europeans thought that the Holocaust Inversion theology involved – Israelis are the new Nazis, the Palestinians the new Jews – liberated them from Holocaust guilt, and they showed the image repeatedly in their news broadcasts of the Intifada, themselves laden with further lethal narratives credulously recycled “as news.”

Read more at Algemeiner

This young French housewife, “La Blonde” is speaking out:

First Amendment v. Sharia: Sixth Circuit Asked to Overturn Federal Court Decision that Condoned “Benghazi-like” Attack on Christians

-1408495185AFLC:

Cincinnati, Ohio (July 8, 2013) — The American Freedom Law Center (AFLC), a national nonprofit Judeo-Christian law firm, filed its opening brief on Friday in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, asking the court to overturn a lower court’s dismissal of a civil rights lawsuit brought by several Christian evangelists who were violently attacked by a hostile mob of Muslims while preaching at an Arab festival last year in Dearborn, Michigan, which has the largest Muslim population in the United States.  Video of the Muslim assault went viral on YouTube.

AFLC had filed the lawsuit in September 2012 on behalf of the Christians against Wayne County, the Wayne County Sheriff, and two Wayne County Deputy Chiefs for not only refusing to protect the Christians from the attack but also for threatening to arrest the Christians for disorderly conduct if they did not halt their speech activity and immediately leave the festival area.

This past May, Federal Judge Patrick J. Duggan, sitting in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, granted Wayne County’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the lawsuit.  In his ruling, Judge Duggan stated that “the actual demonstration of violence here provided the requisite justification for [the Wayne County sheriffs’] intervention, even if the officials acted as they did because of the effect the speech had on the crowd.”

In its opening brief in the Sixth Circuit, AFLC argues that “liberty is at an end if a police officer may without warrant arrest, not the person threatening violence, but those who are its likely victims merely because the person arrested is engaging in conduct which, though peaceful and legally and constitutionally protected, is deemed offensive and provocative . . . .  Indeed, the district court’s decision compels private citizens who engage in . . . constitutionally protected conduct to surrender their fundamental right to freedom of speech to mob rule because violence now serves as a lawful justification for the government to suppress a speaker’s unpopular message.  As a result, the district court’s decision rewards and thus encourages violence as a legitimate means of suppressing unpopular speech—an outcome squarely at odds with the First Amendment.”

Robert Muise, AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel, commented: “The district court’s ruling is an unprecedented blow to the First Amendment.  Indeed, the fact that the court’s decision rewards and thus encourages violence as a legitimate means of suppressing unpopular speech jeopardizes the constitutional safeguards that our Founding Fathers fought so hard to establish.”

David Yerushalmi, AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel, commented, “In light of the ongoing Muslim violence around the world, particularly against Christians in Syria, Egypt, and elsewhere, this ruling effectively empowers Muslims in America to engage in violence to silence Christian speech that they deem offensive.  And pursuant to this ruling, it is perfectly justified for law enforcement officials to respond to such violence by arresting the Christian speakers for engaging in disorderly conduct instead of apprehending the violent Muslims.  The ramifications of this ruling are ominous, which is why the appellate court must overturn it.”

Shooting the Messenger

mesBy Frontpage Editors:

Speakers’ Corner at Hyde Park, London was once renowned for being the embodiment of freedom of speech where anyone could appear and speak about anything.  In recent years, Islamist speakers have flocked to Hyde Park to deliver their rants and rampages.

A British convert to Islam declaimed there, “I do not believe that absolute freedom of speech is a good thing. The West doesn’t really believe in that freedom either. No one is free to say exactly what they want.”

The British authorities have come around to agreeing with him. Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller have been informed that they are banned from the United Kingdom.

The letter to Robert Spencer informs him, in Orwellian language, that the Home Secretary believes that he should be excluded from the United Kingdom on the grounds that “your presence here is not conducive to the public good.”

Some figures whose presence is conducive to the public good include Abu Qatada, an Al Qaeda figure who has yet to be deported, and Anjem Choudary, who helped inspire the recent bloody murder of Lee Rigby.

MP Keith Vaz, who led a march calling for a ban on Salman Rushdie’s “The Satanic Verses,” called for the ban on Spencer and Geller. And the British government has complied.

While every Islamist leader from around the world has found asylum and taxpayer-funded homes in the UK, Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller are too dangerous to allow into Londonistan.

A Wikileaks cable revealed that fear of offending Muslims convinced British governments to grant asylum to Islamist leaders. And now fear of offending Muslims has convinced the British government to keep out the people warning of the danger.

Instead of banning the terrorists, the UK has banned the messenger.

It is a tragic day for Western civilization.

 

If You Can’t Beat ‘Em, Join ‘Em?

burqa-women-450x170By Bruce Bawer:

“Don’t be stupid, be a smarty –
Come and join the Nazi Party.”
– Mel Brooks, “Springtime for Hitler”

What to do? Late last Sunday night, a 23-year-old woman in Oscarshamn, a town of 17,000 people that’s about halfway between Mecca and Medina – sorry, I mean Stockholm and Malmö – was on her way home when she was stopped by three young men of foreign origin. “Are you Swedish?” they asked her. When she said yes, they hit her so hard that she fell to the ground. Then, looking down at her, lying there at their feet, they said: “Welcome to Sweden. It’s our country now, not yours.”

The brief account I read of this incident closes with the information that the police have labeled this a “hate crime.” Gee, ya think? Presumably there’s no place on their checklists for “soft jihad.”  (Although I’m sure there was nothing soft about the punch that knocked that young woman to the pavement.)

One thing these “soft” jihadists have going for them is that what they’re engaged in is, quite simply, so audacious that –  unless you’re prepared to open your mind up to the immense and terrible reality of it – it can seem almost farcical. “It’s our country now, not yours”? It has the absurd ring of a pathetic claim made by some schoolyard punk. Except that those three punks in Oscarshamn aren’t alone. They’re certainly far from the first of their kind in Europe to make such an arrogant pronouncement. And as the years go by, that bold assertion, echoed increasingly in the streets of a growing number of European towns and cities, comes ever closer to being the plain and simple truth.

It may be that that 23-year-old woman would’ve known better than to walk home alone late at night if she were living in certain parts of Stockholm or Malmö, but that she assumed it was still safe in Oscarshamn. Perhaps she figured: well, it won’t be safe here in five or ten years, but for now…?

This is the current European calculus. I’m reminded of a gay guy I met in a West Hollywood bar one night in the mid 1980s. He had, he told me, recently moved to L.A. from New York. “Why?” I asked. I was stunned by the fatuity, the deadly self-deception, of his reply. He had left New York, he said, to get away from AIDS: “It’s not so bad here yet.”

I’m also brought to mind of the Australian writer Nevil Shute’s haunting 1957 novel On the Beach, which became a 1959 film starring Gregory Peck and Ava Gardner. Fallout from a nuclear war has killed almost everybody on earth, leaving alive just a few million people in the southern hemisphere – in Australia, New Zealand, and at the southern tips of South America and Africa – who can do nothing but wait for the air currents to do the inevitable job of bringing the radiation their way, too. Over the course of the novel, one by one, from north to south, the cities of Australia die out. The film is splendid, but the novel paints an even more haunting portrait of the human race helplessly facing its own extinction.

Of course, the difference between Shute’s characters and real-life Europeans today is that the latter aren’t helpless. They could act. But they feel helpless. They hear the cry ring out, in one place after another: “It’s our country, not yours.” And how do they respond?

Last week three news stories neatly summed up the ways in which all too many Europeans are responding. From Brussels came the report that the European Parliament is expected to act in a few days to lift the immunity from prosecution that Marine Le Pen enjoys as a member of that body. Why? So that she may be put on trial for criticizing Islam. A British Tory member of the European Parliament, Sajjad Karim, spoke out in favor of the measure, explaining that there’s “a red line between freedom of speech and inciting racial hatred.”

What exactly did Le Pen, head of the French National Front, say to bring on this effort? In a December 2010 speech, she observed that the sight of masses of Muslims spontaneously taking over streets and blocking traffic in order to pray together – a spectacle that is increasingly familiar in Paris and other French cities, and that is destined to become an everyday event in other European cities before very long – recalled the Nazi occupation of France. “There are no armoured vehicles, no soldiers, but it is an occupation all the same and it weighs on people,” Le Pen declared. It is for this bit of truth-telling that she now faces the prospect of a trial.

That’s one way, then, to respond to the jihadists’ victory cry – to haul their opponents into court. Another approach is to keep the critics of jihad from entering your country in the first place. On Friday the BBC reported that British officials – who for years have refused to deport any number of high-profile advocates of Islamic terrorism, and on multiple occasions have allowed the most atrocious of foreign-based jihad apologists (such as Yusuf al-Qaradawi) to sully their shores – were appalled at the news that Islam critics Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer planned to come to Britain to speak at a June 29 event in memory of jihad victim Drummer Lee Rigby. Home Secretary Theresa May, the BBC noted, was considering denying Geller and Spencer entry into the U.K.; Home Affairs Committee Chairman Keith Vaz, describing them as “incendiary speakers,” made the usual fraudulent, fainthearted noises about the “incitement of hatred.”

Read it all at Front Page