What Bobby Jindal Gets about Islam — and Most People Still Don’t

pic_giant_012415_SM_Muslims-France

We need a great deal more honesty about the religion, as the “no-go zone” debate reveals.

National Review, By Andrew C. McCarthy, Jan. 24, 2015

Footballs are deflating, the president is detached from reality, the Saudi king is deceased, and the sharia state next door, Yemen, is descending into bloody chaos. With mere anarchy loosed upon the world, it would be easy to miss the fact that, in England this week, Bobby Jindal gave as important and compelling a speech as has been delivered in years about America — our leadership role on the world stage, our preservation as a beacon of liberty.

In the birthplace of the Magna Carta, it has nonetheless become legally risky to speak with candor (even when quoting Churchill). Yet Louisiana’s Republican governor became that rarest of modern Anglo or American statesmen. Bobby Jindal told the truth about Islam, specifically about its large radical subset that attacks the West by violent jihad from without and sharia-supremacist subversion from within.

With Western Europe still reeling from the jihadist mass-murders in Paris at Charlie Hebdo magazine and the Hyper Kacher Jewish market, Governor Jindal outlined a bold, Reaganesque vision of American foreign policy guided by three imperatives — freedom, security, and truth. It is on the last one, truth, that our capacity to ensure freedom and security hinges. “You cannot remedy a problem,” Jindal explained, “if you will not name it and define it.”

And so he did: Our immediate security problem today “is ISIS and all forms of radical Islam.” That is, the challenge is not limited to violent jihadists who commit barbaric atrocities. Jindal elaborated: “In the West, non-assimilationist Muslims establish enclaves and carry out as much of sharia law as they can without regard for the laws of the democratic countries which provided them a new home.”

The campaign to implement and spread sharia is antithetical to Western liberty. Freedom, Jindal said, means “the ability to conduct commerce both inside and outside your borders; it means the right to speak freely, to publish any cartoons you want. It means the right to worship freely. It means the right to self-determination.” By contrast, “radical Islamists do not believe in freedom or common decency, nor are they willing to accommodate them in any way and anywhere.” Moreover, the version of sharia law to which they adhere

is not just different than our law, it’s not just a cultural difference, it is oppression and it is wrong. It subjugates women and treats them as property, and it is antithetical to valuing all of human life equally. It is the very definition of oppression. We must stop pretending otherwise.

It cannot credibly be denied that this is so, as I have documented — using not only notorious examples of how sharia is applied in countries like Saudi Arabia (where it is the law of the land), but also Reliance of the Traveller, a classic sharia manual certified as accurate by prominent Islamic scholars, including at both al-AzharUniversity (the seat of Sunni jurisprudence since the tenth century) and at the International Institute of Islamic Thought (an influential Muslim Brotherhood think tank).

Still, Governor Jindal has been pilloried since his courageous speech by tendentious critics across the spectrum, from the usual Islamist grievance chorus to Fox News commentators and British prime minister David Cameron.

Why? Because he dared notice what ought to be an inarguable fact: The non-assimilationist Muslim campaign has resulted in the rise throughout Western Europe of what Jindal described as “unofficial” “so-called” “no-go zones.”

Jindal was clearly right about this. His timing, however, was wrong: He had the misfortune to dilate on “no-go zones” at the same time that Steven Emerson, the usually astute terrorism analyst, made a no-go gaffe. Steve erroneously claimed that the entire British city of Birmingham is “totally Muslim” and has become a “no-go zone” where “non-Muslims simply don’t go in.”

Emerson has since apologized profusely. The damage, however, was done. Fox News is evidently so embarrassed at having been the forum for his faux pas (and at having been threatened with legal action by the city of Paris, which was the main target of Steve’s commentary), that the network is over-correcting. This helps stoke the Islamist meme that no-go zones are a hysterical figment of the “Islamophobic” imagination.

That is absurd, but follows naturally from two things: a common misunderstanding about sharia, and a misrepresentation that describing the incontestable fact thatsharia is being applied de facto in Europe is the same as falsely claiming that sharia is now the de jure writ of Europe.

Dreamy Islamophiles like Mr. Cameron and many of his like-minded progressives in bipartisan Beltway circles have a sputtering snit anytime a commentator associates Islam with anything other than “peace.” Consequently, the doctrine of Islam (which actually means submission) remains taboo and poorly understood in the West. One major misconception is that Islamists (i.e., Islamic supremacists or Muslims who want sharia implemented) demand that all non-Muslims convert to Islam. A no-go zone is thus incorrectly assumed by many to be a place that Muslims forbid non-Muslims to enter.

In reality, sharia explicitly invites the presence of non-Muslims provided that they submit to the authority of Islamic rule. Indeed historically, as I related in The Grand Jihad, my book about the Muslim Brotherhood and its Islamist ideology, because sharia calls on these submissive non-Muslims (dhimmis) to pay a poll tax (jizya), their continued presence was of economic importance in lands conquered by Islamic rulers.

It is therefore easy for Islamists and their apologists to knock down their strawman depiction of no-go zones as places where non-Muslims are not allowed. That is not what no-go zones are — neither as they exist in fact nor as they are contemplated by sharia. The point of imposing sharia — the reason it is the necessary precondition for building an Islamic society — is to make Islam the dominant social system, not the exclusive faith. The idea is that once sharia’s systematic discrimination against non-Muslims is in place, non-Muslims will see the good sense of becoming Muslims. Over time, every one will convert “without coercion.” The game is to set up an extortionate incentive for conversion while maintaining the smiley-face assurance that no one is being forced to convert at the point of a sword.

So radical Muslims will be welcoming to any ordinary non-Muslims who are willing to defer to their mores. What they are hostile to are officials of the host state: police, firefighters, building inspectors, emergency medical personnel, and anything associated with the armed forces. That is because the presence of those forces symbolizes the authority — the non-submission — of the state.

Notice, however, that no sensible person is saying that state authorities are prohibited from entering no-go zones as a matter of law. The point is that they are severely discouraged from entering as a matter of fact — and the degree of discouragement varies directly with the density of the Muslim population and its radical component. Ditto for non-Muslim lay people: It is not that they are not permitted to enter these enclaves; it is that they avoid entering because doing so is dangerous if they are flaunting Western modes of dress and conduct.

There is a reason that Governor Jindal qualified his invocation of the term no-go zones, modifying it with “so-called” and noting that the term is used “unofficially.” His speech was about reality, particularly where it stressed the need for truthfulness in forming policy. If our premise is reality, it is not no-go zones that are imaginary; it is the suggestion that no-go zones do not exist simply because non-Muslim entry is not literally prohibited by law. As the Gatestone Institute’s Soeren Kern painstakingly demonstrates, “Muslim no-go zones are a well-known fact of life in many parts of Europe.” It has been amply acknowledged not only in press reports and academicanalyses but by governments that must deal with them.

Have a look, for example, at the French government’s official listing of 750 Zones Urbaines Sensibiles­ — “sensitive urban zones.” France’s “ZUS” designation is significant. As the estimable scholar Daniel Pipes recounted in a column at NRO this week, when he coined the term “no-go zone” in 2006 it was intended as “a non-euphemistic equivalent” of ZUS. If that is how the term “no-go zone” is understood — as an enclave deferential to Islamic sensibilities rather than exclusionary of non-Muslims — the contention that no-go zones do not exist is plainly frivolous. This is so even if, as Pipes maintains, the term “no-go zone” itself was an overstatement. The term “semi-autonomous sectors,” he says, would more accurately convey the historical anomaly the West has created: “a majority population [that] accepts the customs and even the criminality or a poorer and weaker community,” and in a manner that involves far more than control over physical territory.

Nevertheless, the problem with all this semantic nattering is its intimation that we can only infer the existence of no-go zones, and of the Islamist subversion they signal, by drawing inferences from what we see happening on the ground.

Nonsense. The world’s most influential Islamic supremacists have told us in no uncertain terms that they see Muslim immigration in the West as part of a conquest strategy.

As I recounted in The Grand Jihad, the strategy is often referred to as “voluntary apartheid.” One of its leading advocates is Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the Muslim Brotherhood icon who is probably the world’s most revered sharia jurist. Sheikh Qaradawi, who vows that Islam will conquer America and Europe, and who has beencrystal clear on the incompatibility of sharia and Western democracy, elaborates:

Were we to convince Western leaders and decision-makers of our right to live according to our faith — ideologically, legislatively, and ethically — without imposing our views or inflicting harm upon them, we would have traversed an immense barrier in our quest for an Islamic state.

Translation: To establish Islamic domination in the West, we do not need to resort to terrorism or to force non-Muslims to convert; we need merely a recognized right to resist assimilation, to regard sharia as superseding Western law and custom when the two conflict, as they do in fundamental ways.

This is precisely why the Organization of Islamic Cooperation — the bloc of 56 Muslim countries (plus the Palestinian Authority) — warned in a 2010 report on“Islamophobia” that “Muslims should not be marginalized or attempted to be assimilated, but should be accommodated.” (Here, at p. 30.) It is why Recep TayyipErdogan, the Islamist president of Turkey who has systematically dismantled that country’s secular, pro-Western system, pronounces that pressuring Muslims to assimilate “is a crime against humanity.”

At Oxford, Bobby Jindal bluntly asserted that the ideology of our enemy, radical Islam,

holds the view that it is wrong to expect assimilation, that assimilation is colonialist, assimilation is backward, and assimilation is in fact evidence of cultural bigotry and insensitivity. They think it is wrong to expect that people who chose to immigrate to your country should be expected to endorse and abide by your laws. They think it is unenlightened, discriminatory, and even racist to expect immigrants to endorse and assimilate into the culture in their new country. This is complete rubbish.

That is the truth. The United States will not get national-security policy right, nor reestablish our credentials as leader of the free world, until we accept that truth. Accept it and resolve, as Governor Jindal has resolved, to tell it boldly.

— Andrew C. McCarthy is a policy fellow at the National Review Institute. His latest book is Faithless Execution: Building the Political Case for Obama’s Impeachment.

Emerson with Judge Pirro: No-Go Islamic Zones and Western Self-Denial

 

IPT, by Steven Emerson
Interview on Fox News
January 11, 2015

Jeanine Pirro: Developing tonight, new reports that terrorist sleeper cells may have been activated in France. This as we’re learning new details about hundreds of no-go zones across France and other countries that are off limits to non-Muslims. Steve Emerson, founder of the Investigative Project joins us. Alright Steve, my last guest told us some chilling details about these no-go zones. What more can you tell us about these zones, Steve?

Steve Emerson: Well these no-go zones exist not only in France, but they exist throughout Europe. They’re sort of amorphous, they’re not contiguous necessarily, but they’re sort of safe havens and they’re places where the governments like France, Britain, Sweden, Germany don’t exercise any sovereignty. So you basically have zones where Shariah courts were set up, where Muslim density is very intense, where the police don’t go in, and where it’s basically a separate country almost, a country within a country.

Pirro: You know what it sounds like to me, Steve? It sounds like a caliphate within a particular country.

Emerson: It certainly does sound like that. It’s almost the prescription that they’re asking Israel to do, which is to set up a separate state within their own state, except they’re not recognizing it. And they’re not dealing with it because they don’t want to; I got into a tweet fight with the French ambassador who denied that there are any such things as no-go zones, except on the French official website it says there are and it actually has a map of them…. [A]nd in Britain, it’s not just no-go zones, there are actual cities like Birmingham that are totally Muslim where non-Muslims just simply don’t go in. And parts of London, there are actually Muslim religious police that actually beat and actually wound seriously anyone who doesn’t dress according to Muslim, religious Muslim attire. So there’s a situation that Western Europe is not dealing with. And in this country, you know, we have this, you know this selective orientation toward what is radical Islam. The president doesn’t [even] say the [words, “radical Islam.”] We include Turkey as…our ally, despite the fact that it supports Hamas, it provides safe haven to the leaders of Hamas that coordinate attacks on Israel. Europe just lifted the sanctions on Hamas. So when Europe says or France says, ‘We’re engaged in a war against radical Islam,’ they don’t include Hamas, they don’t include Hizballah.

Pirro: OK tell me, Steve, is there any way to get these no-go zones back? In other words, does France want it back? Does Belgium want it back? Does Germany want these zones back? Because what’s happening is this is metastasizing into a simple takeover. I think even you said Europe is over. What did you say, Steve?

Emerson: I said the other day, Europe is finished because if you extrapolate the number of Muslims [now into the future, you will get Muslim dominated countries] and I’m not saying that all Muslims are terrorists, far from it.

Pirro: Of course not.

Emerson: Because the problem is that the leadership of the Muslim communities in Europe deliberately don’t want to integrate. And so they establish these zones which refuse to integrate and use them as leverage against the host country as political and military leverage. So will these countries take it back? I don’t see it happening at this point. You see [the] reaction by the population, Judge. But I don’t see the country elites taking it [the Muslim no-go zones] back. And that’s really unfortunate, because it fosters the whole perpetuation of radical Islamic generations from here to come.

Pirro: Alright, I just have a few seconds left, Steve. Tell us very quickly about these women — you know, we hear about this woman, [Hayat] Boumeddiene, as well as some of the other female terrorists, I mean there are a lot of them in France, I understand.

Emerson: Yeah, well listen, there are many of them, not many, I can’t give you the specific number. But they’ve trained, first of all they’ve carried out terrorist attacks in the Middle East for sure. Hizballah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad. ISIS even has women trained [as] Islamic female terrorists, and Europe also [has]; we’ve seen now in Britain where [some Muslim] women [trained as terrorists] wear burkas to hide their identities, and in fact in certain airports, believe it or not, they don’t require the burkas to be removed to identify them to see who they are in their passport controllers.

Pirro: Exactly. Gotta wrap. Great point. I’ve seen it at airports myself.

Update 1/11/15 – 

I have clearly made a terrible error for which I am deeply sorry. My comments about Birmingham were totally in error. And I am issuing this apology and correction for having made this comment about the beautiful city of Birmingham. I do not intend to justify or mitigate my mistake by stating that I had relied on other sources because I should have been much more careful. There was no excuse for making this mistake and I owe an apology to every resident of Birmingham.  I am not going to make any excuses. I made an inexcusable error. And I am obligated to openly acknowledge that mistake.  I wish to apologize for all residents of that great city of Birmingham.

Steve Emerson

PS. I am making  donation to Birmingham Children’s Hospital.

Qatar: A Change of Heart? Or merely rearranging the Camels?

qatar_awareness_campaign_logoBy William Michael:

An Update from the Qatar Awareness Campaign

Several recent news reports point to the possibility that Qatar, the host nation of the Muslim Brotherhood, may be genuine in their attempt to reconcile with their Arab neighbors.  After expelling the Qataris and isolating them diplomatically, the United Arab Emirate, Saudi Arabia, and even Egypt appear to have reached an accord with Doha.  The Nazi-rooted Muslim Brotherhood was long ago banished from Saudi Arabia (in the late 1920s), and Egypt has violently suppressed them many times, notably after the assassination of Sadat.  Yet the daily report out of the Middle East suggests that KSA, UAE, and Egypt may really welcome Doha back into the family.

Consider:

  • Yesterday, it was reported that Qatar pledged to stop funding Hamas – truly remarkable, if true.
  • A few months ago, they expelled prominent members of the Muslim Brotherhood.
  • An Interpol arrest warrant has been issued for Yusuf al-Qaradawi (the Muslim Brotherhood’s “spiritual leader”), and he will no longer broadcasting on Al Jazeera (if reports are to be believed).

It is possible that the month-long Qatar Awareness Campaign, which issued an open letter to nearly 30 companies, universities, individuals, and politicians who benefited financially from a relationship with terror-sponsoring Qatar, had something to do with this apparent change of heart.  The campaign identified Qatar as the primary sponsor of Islamic terror, with connections across the Middle East and North Africa to groups such as Hamas, ISIS, and Boko Haram.

But, there is another explanation for this apparent change of heart which, given Qatar’s two-faced nature, may be more realistic.

The MB could simply be shifting their bases of operation, leaving their financial hub, Qatar, alone (for the moment), thus providing their wealthy benefactor with the good press to alleviate them of the international pressure. For over the past four months, the world press had suddenly taken notice of the corrupt Gulf terror state, and its causing them trouble. FC Barcelona, for example, dropped their sponsorship deal Qatar Foundation over Qatar’s financing of Hamas.

The evidence for this “camel rearranging” is as follows:

  • Turkey, a close ally of Qatar and Muslim Brotherhood proxy themselves, welcomed the expelled Muslim Brothers from Qatar.
  • Qatar and Turkey recently reaffirmed their mutual support for “oppressed peoples” – i.e., Islamists in secularly governed countries, and Hamas in Gaza.
  • Other MB expelled from Qatar have gone to Libya, where the UAE/Egypt are in a proxy war with Qatar.
  • Hamas has been removed from the EU list of terrorist groups, providing more flexibility to terrorists in Palestine.
  • The White House (Obama) tacitly threatened to sanction Israel, and remains extremely hostile to Netanyahu.
  • Qatar’s reconciliation with their Gulf neighbors appears to be directly related to lower oil prices, which have crippled Russia’s economy and hurt Iran (Russia and Iran being no friends of Saudi Arabia).  This also directly affects Syria, a Russian and Iranian client state that is under siege by Qatar, the Muslim Brotherhood, elements in Saudi Arabia, and the Obama administration.
  • ISIS is preparing to attack Israel.

Another development to take into account is the increasingly sharp language of the conservative press aimed at Obama and the Islamists.  We may finally be reaching a point where, sooner or later, the mainstream press is going to have to face up to the possibility that Obama is not who he says he is, but in fact an agent of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Consider, the cop killer in NYC worked for Islamic Society of North America, and the president of ISNA is a close Obama advisor, including to DHS and the National Security Council.  The truth is getting harder to ignore.  As many people who have spent the time investigating Obama’s roots and connections have determined, the real threat to world peace is not in fact Qatar, but the Obama administration.

Now is truly the time to make the case that the administration is the North American branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, the parent organization of Al Qaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram, Taliban, and Hamas.  It must be done for posterity, before it is too late!

Let the chips fall where they may – the future belongs to the brave.

Iran Announces Missiles Equipped with Multiple Warheads

Iranian Fateh-110 series Missiles with alleged  Multiple warhead capabilties  Source FARS news agency 3-5-14

Iranian Fateh-110 series Missiles with alleged Multiple warhead capabilties Source FARS news agency 3-5-14

By Jerry Gordon:

Iran’s Revolutionary guard unveiled a new class of missiles which it alleges has multiple  warhead capabilities.  In our March NER article, has Iran Developed Nuclear Weapons in North Korea? , We reported sources suggesting that   the Islamic regime , in cooperation with North Korea,  were testing a nuclear equipped MIRV warhead and that Iran might have  the capability of fitting one on a ballistic missile  within 4 to 6 months.

If this announcement today by Iran’s FARS agency is confirmed, it will demonstrate that the P5+1 negotiators were blindsided by Iranian demands to exclude ballistic missile development.  As Undersecretary of State Wendy Sherman said in a US Senate Foreign Relations hearings in early February 2014 before Chairman Sen. Robert Menendez: “It is true that in these first six months we’ve not shut down all of their production of any ballistic missile that could have anything to do with delivery of a nuclear weapon.”  Jennifer Rubin in her Washington Post blog, “Right Turn” cited Sen. Menendez in his speech before AIPAC’s Annual Policy Conference yesterday, saying:

Menendez repeated a warning he recently gave on the Senate floor that it will “be too late” to enact sanctions six months from now. That reality hangs over AIPAC, the Iran and P5+1 talks, and Congress: Iran by achieving partial relaxation of sanctions and by biding time to continue missile development and advanced centrifuge research is quickly becoming the nuclear-capable state Menendez vows to prevent.

What will the Obama West Wing do in the face of this challenge by the Iranian regime pursuing its diplomatic track?  WE don’t pretend to know. However, both sponsors of the Nuclear Weapons Free Iran Act, S. 1881, Sens. Mark Kirk (R-IL) and Sen. Menendez (D-NJ) do. That is to overwhelm Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and move on passing the standby sanctions authority.  Even that may be “too late” given today’s announcement. Moreover, with the Israel Navy interception of rockets bound for Gaza in the Red Sea today, Iran is pursuing all means possible to create a nuclear equipped ICBM umbrella demonstrating its hegemony in the global Islamic terrorist war against Israel, the US, Middle East allies and the West.

Those dangers were highlighted in Israeli PM Netanyahu’s speech at the AIPAC Conference yesterday when he said:

Iran says it only wants a peaceful nuclear program. So why is it building a heavy water reactor, which has no purpose in a peaceful nuclear program? Iran says it has nothing to hide. So why does it ban inspectors from its secret military sites? Why doesn’t it divulge its military nuclear secret — the secrets of its military nuclear activities? They absolutely refuse to say a word about that. Iran says it’s not building nuclear weapons. So why does it continue to build ICBMs, intercontinental ballistic missiles, whose only purpose is to carry nuclear warheads?

See, unlike Scud missiles, that are limited to a range of a few hundred miles,ICBMs can cross vast oceans. And they can strike, right now or very soon, the eastern seaboard of the United States — Washington — and very soon after that, everywhere else in the United States, up to L.A.

And the important point to make is this: Iran’s missiles can already reach Israel, so those ICBMs that they’re building, they’re not intended for us. You remember that beer commercial, “this Bud’s for you”? Well, when you see Iran building ICBMs, just remember, America, that Scud’s for you.

Read more at New English Review

Also see:

Video: Christopher Holton on Civilization Jihad, the Global Islamic Insurgency and Shariah Compliant Finance

moa1Terror Trends Bulletin, Oct. 17, 2012, by Christopher Holton:

This information makes up the introductory portion of the briefing that I have been delivering around the country for the past 3 years. It is important given the mounting evidence of Muslim Brotherhood infiltration in the West, and the US in particular.

On 22 May 2007, the Pew Research Center, certainly not a “conservative” organization, published a report on a survey that they conducted of Muslims in America. The name of that report was “Muslims in America: Middle Class and Mostly Mainstream.”

Pew rolled it out as a celebration of Muslims in America. The media jumped on the bandwagon and the report was received with delight.

But there are aspects of the report which deserve more scrutiny and which Pew and the media essentially ignored in their spin during the release.

First a few background highlights:

• Pew reported that there were 2.35 million Muslims in America, including 1.4 million over the age of 18 (the target group of the survey).

This is important because the Muslim Brotherhood organizations, such as CAIR and ISNA, frequently claim that there are 5-6 million Muslims in America. President Obama parroted the bogus 5-6 million figure from the Muslim Brotherhood in his 2009 Cairo speech.

• 30% of the 1.4 million (420,000) were said to be between 18 and 29.

This is important because this is the demographic most likely to be involved in jihadist activity.

Most importantly, there were two particularly relevant questions that were buried deep in the Pew survey that Pew chose not to address or highlight in its release and rollout of the report:

Relevant Question Number 1: Can Suicide Bombing of Civilian Targets to Defend Islam be Justified?

A: Often/Sometimes: 8%

A: Rarely: 5%

A: Don’t Know/Refuse to Answer: 9%

A: Never: 78%

 In other words, AT LEAST 13% of American Muslims believed that suicide bombings of civilian targets was justified at least in some circumstances.

 182,000 Muslims in America over the age of 18 believed that Islamikaze bombings of civilian targets was justified at least in some circumstances.

Here is another important point: This same question was asked of Muslims under the age of 30 (the age group most associated with jihadist activity):

A: Often/Sometimes: 15%

A: Rarely: 11%

A: Don’t know/refuse to answer: 5%?

A: Never: 69%

 26% or 109,200 Muslims in America between 18 and 29 believed that Islamikaze bombings of civilian targets was justified at least in some circumstances.

Relevant Question Number 2: What is your view of Al Qaeda?

A: Favorable: 5%

A: Somewhat Unfavorable: 10%

A: Don’t Know/Refuse to Answer: 27%

A: Very Unfavorable: 58%

Same questions to Muslims under 30:

A: Favorable: 7%

A: Somewhat Unfavorable: 16%

A: Don’t Know/Refuse to Answer: 19%

A: Very Unfavorable: 58%

 70,000 Muslims in America admitted to having a favorable view of Al Qaeda.

 29,400 Muslims in America between the ages of 18 and 29 admitted to having a favorable view of Al Qaeda.

It is particularly noteworthy that younger Muslims in America appear to be more predisposed to violent Jihad than older Muslims based upon the answers to these two questions.

Note that this survey was conducted of Muslims in America, not Muslims in Benghazi, Ramadi, Fallujah, Gaza, Cairo, Sana’a, Tehran, Kandahar, or Islamabad. The tens of thousands of Muslims that harbor these views all live in America. These numbers are staggering and frightening.

Civilizational Jihad and Global Islamic Insurgency with Christopher Holton, Published on Dec 26, 2013 by Children of Jewish Holocaust Survivors:

 

“… new reality makes identifying and understanding the Islamic doctrinal basis of our Jihadist enemies all the more important, yet with each passing attack, we seem to be getting further and further away from doing so.”

Christopher Holton of the Center for Security Policy discussed what America faces in addition to the threat of violent jihad another, an even more toxic danger — a stealthy and pre-violent form of warfare aimed at destroying our constitutional form of democratic government and free society. The Muslim Brotherhood is the prime mover behind this seditious campaign, which it calls “civilization jihad.”

Civilizational Jihad is succeeding through government, finance, military institutions…and though our schools.

Christopher Holton is Vice-President of Outreach at the Center for Security Policy. He directs the Center’s Divest Terror Initiative and Shariah Risk Due Diligence Program. He has been involved in legislation in twenty states to divest taxpayer supported pension systems from foreign companies that do business with the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Islamic Republic of Sudan, and the Syrian Arab Republic. Since 2008, Chris has been the editor-in-chief of the Shariah Finance Watch Blog. In 2005, he was a co-author of War Footing, published by the US Naval Institute Press. Holton’s work has also been published by National Review, Human Events, The American Thinker, Family Security Matters, Big Peace, World Tribune, World Net Daily, NewsMax, and thehayride.com. Before joining the Center, Chris was President of Blanchard and Company, a two hundred million dollar per year investment firm, and editor-in-chief of the Blanchard Economic Research Unit. Christopher blogs at TerrorTrendsBulletin.com.

 

And this is an excellent presentation on Shariah Compliant Finance with a long Q&A beginning about 50 min. in:

 

Here is a transcript of a similar presentation given in 2012.

 

Vladimir Putin Vs. President Barack Obama

20120619_putin_obama_2012by ALAN KORNMAN:

Vladimir Putin is projecting Russian power across the world stage exactly as the former KGB operative was trained to do.  The Cold War never ended, just the tactics and technology have changed as we roll into 2014 and beyond.

The United States military led by President Ronald Reagan won round 1 of the U.S. / Russian cold war.  Today, Communist Russian President Vladimir Putin has recently had six significant victories every American must be aware of.

This is the sad story of the KGB Operative chess player versus our ill equipped community organizer — and the chickens are coming home to roost.

Communist Russia’s Objective

The Russians are expanding their presence in the high seas and upgrading their naval nuclear capabilities with the objective of controlling naval bases outside of their shorelines.  Russia currently has naval bases in the Ukrainian port of Sevastopal in the Black Sea.  According to Russia Today, June 26, 2013, the Syrian port of Tartus in the Mediterranean Sea is still an active Russian naval facility.  There are recent intelligence reports the Russians have vacated the Port of Tartus but is by no means a permanent situation.

“The future overseas naval bases, like the one is Sevastopal, are not being referred to as “naval bases” by Russian officials, but by other terms. Moscow is calling them “supply points” or “bases for naval logistics” to make them sound far less threatening. The nomenclature does not really matter. The functions of these naval facilities, however, are for Putin’s strategic military purposes.

Vladimir Putin is shifting the Russian naval fleet into a nuclear capable offensive attack force which should be fully operational by 2020.  The commander of the Strategic Rocket Forces of the Russian Federation, Colonel-General Karakayev, said that Russia’s inter-continental ballistic missiles would become “invisible” in the near future.  ‘Invisible’ means submarines with nuclear warhead delivery capabilities.

Russian President Putin’s Victories 

#1 Egypt 

President Obama made a historical tactical error ordering the ouster of Hosni Mubarak in favor of the International terrorist group, The Muslim Brotherhood, and its leader Mohammad Morsi as ordered by Hillary Clinton.

On October 6, 1981,  Gamaa al-Islamiyya, a franchise of The Muslim Brotherhood, assassinated Egyptian President Anwar Sadat.  Hosni Mubarak, a declared and proven friend of America went after The Muslim Brotherhood terrorists with an iron fist.

President Obama backed the same Muslim Brotherhood terrorists who murdered Anwar Sadat back in 1981. Putin has not forgotten that Anwar Sadat was the Egyptian leader who canceled the Soviet’s Navy right to use Egyptian ports over 50 years ago in favor of the USA.

As a result of President Obama’s foreign policy blunders in Egypt,  the Russian Navy will likely again have a ‘supply station’ in Egypt’s warm water ports.  The current Egyptian government is very public against President Obama and running to the side of Vladimir Putin.

#2 Syria 

The President of Syria, Bashar Assad, had been an important partner of the United States for decades.  President Obama’s sparked a Sunni / Shia Muslim civil war and publicly called for Bashar Assad to step down or face the consequences if he overstepped his famous red line.

Bashar Assad dismissed Mr. Obama’s empty threats and chose to fight Al-Qaeda, Ansar al-Shariah, and the Muslim Brotherhood rebels who had Obama’s support.

President Obama laid down the red line saying American forces will attack Assad if he used chemical weapons.  Chemical weapons were used, Mr. Obama starts the countdown to attack and embroiling the US into another Middle East Conflict.  President Obama put himself into a position where his words of war caught up with him and he desperately needed a way out and not have to bomb Damascus.

In comes KGB statecraft expert Vladimir Putin to save our community organizer President Obama at his weakest moment.  Putin packaged a deal to defuse the situation and broker a chemical weapon free zone deal between the United States and Syria.  Mr. Obama hands Putin a unprecedented public relations victory as peacemaker.    Putin’s regional influence grows as  President Obama again shames America with another failure of world diplomacy that may well take decades to recover from, if ever.

The view from 30,000 feet is that Putin established Russia’s foreign policy influence on the world stage for the first time since the collapse of the Soviet Union.  President Obama has woken up a hungry Russian sleeping bear that is feeding on his failures and missteps.  Analysts have described this situation as Vladimir Putin playing chess while Mr. Obama plays checkers.

Read more: Family Security Matters 

 

What Will It Take?

oBy David Solway:

Let me begin with a categorical statement that, given current events and recent political history, can be easily defended: Barack Hussein Obama is a willful, indoctrinated child of the Left with strong Islamic sympathies who is not fit to govern. Indeed, he would not be fit to govern Lower Slobovia [1], let alone the United States of America. Obama is a historic disaster of the first magnitude and, if not restrained, he will see to the irrevocable decline of the country which foolishly elected him, leaving the world on the brink of a conflict — or in the midst of one — whose repercussions cannot be underestimated.

Accompanying the undeniable havoc and damage that Obama is wreaking on his country and equally on its allies — Honduras, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Poland, Czech Republic, Israel, and possibly Taiwan — is the sense of helplessness that overcomes one when writing or speaking about a rogue president and his destructive administration. I feel this personally, having done my utmost in books, articles and lectures, from 2008 to the present, to warn whomever might read or listen that Obama represented a greater threat to the U.S. and the oddly named “free world” than any of our most dedicated and belligerent enemies. Even prior to his nomination as the Democratic candidate for the presidency, my distrust of this man was proprioceptive. And after his Missouri address, I wondered why anyone would want to “fundamentally transform” a country which, for all its flaws, perched atop the pinnacle of success in comparison to any other country.

Everything Obama has done since then has only served to confirm what was originally a deep suspicion and soon grew to become a complete certainty. Dozens of meticulously researched books have been published to the same effect. And yet very few people seemed to be paying attention. No less disconcerting, those who argue that to criticize Obama is a sign of deep-dyed racism are, of course, relying on slander and misappropriation of language to protect their chosen standard bearer and his Marxist/progressivist/utopian project.

What will it take to convince the ersatz aristocracy of frivolous intellectuals and brainless celebrities, partisan journalists, editors and academics, and an indifferent or deluded laity that they are heading for a crisis that will change our lives immeasurably for the worse? The evidence is beyond dispute.

America is drowning in a state of unredeemable debt — $17 trillion in actual debt and, according to economic historian Niall Ferguson, in the vicinity of $200 trillion in unfunded liabilities [2], while one in five households [3] depends on food stamps. At the same time, it is printing money like there’s no tomorrow — and there may not be — while subsidizing green energy fiascos at enormous cost to the taxpayer ($90 billion [4] in wasted stimulus funds, and counting). It finds itself in the throes of a metastasizing race war, caused in no small degree by the president’s rhetoric and behavior and fomented by his attorney general. It is a country increasingly governed by executive fiat and by an administration rocked by a near-endless gyre of political and ideological scandals. It is a country whose federal government opposes voter ID, opening the door to electoral corruption. It is a country that spies [5] on its own citizens, software corporations and web search engines, tries avowed terrorists in civilian courts, allows its ambassador and his entourage to be killed, without reprisal, and suffers its higher echelons to be riddled with Muslim Brotherhood operatives, giving the impression of a College of mujtahids. They are the advance cohort. “Today,” writes Larry Kelley in his sobering book Lessons from Fallen Civilizations [6], “millions of militant Muslims awake every morning plotting the destruction of the US. Many are among us.” And there will be more, if these [7] reports [8] of fast-tracking the citizenship applications of large numbers of Muslim immigrants are reliable, as they appear to be.

It is a country whose president purges its military — 197 senior officers, including nine commanding generals [9] — as did Turkey’s autocratic leader Recep Tayyip Erdogan to ensure the continuity of his regime. It is a country that refuses to defend its borders, even suing to keep them as porous as possible. It is a country shifting precipitously to the Left, now mired in the exorbitant socialist travesty of Obamacare built on an ascending pyramid of lies and false enrollment numbers [10] — or in the words of L.A. County Deputy District Attorney Patrick Frey at his Patterico blog [11], “they’re not just lying about politics now. They’re lying about data. They’re lying about everything. All the time. Constantly. It’s what you have to do to prop up an unsustainable government. … You lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and lie.”

It is a country whose domestic agenda is predicated on the Marxist principle of redistributive economics that amounts to stealing from the productive class to maintain an ever-growing parasitical constituency. It is a country at war with honest science, transmuting NASA into a program for Muslim outreach [12] and buying into the Gore/Hansen/Mann-inflated, IPCC climate scam. It is a country that is retreating on every front and that has lost the Middle East [13] as well as the respect of its adversaries[14]. It is a country that betrays its allies and endangers the world in the process, as in the phony, eagerly sought agreement that allows a self-described genocidal and nuclearizing Iran to keep spinning its centrifuges while profiting from relaxed sanctions. It is a country whose administration has sold its loyal partner, Israel, down the Jordan River.

“The United States is no longer a rational nation,” mourns [15] James Lewis. “Under Obama we are burning our traditional allies, and since weakness brings aggression, Iran is now empowered, China is grabbing ocean territory for shale deposits, and the worst offenders against women’s rights are now elected to the UN Human Rights Commission.” It is hard to contend with his summation.

All this proceeds under the direction of a president who has sealed his vital documents so that very little of crucial importance is known about him.

Read more at PJ Media

Mullahs Threaten Global Oil Crisis

ayatollah-ali-khamenei-450x330by :

A few days after the Obama administration signed the nuclear deal with the Islamist state of Iran, after the easing of sanctions on the ruling cleric and Iranian authorities began to take off, the Mullahs initiated their first hegemonic ambition to reclaim and regain its No.2 position in OPEC, threatening to trigger an oil price war if the other 12 countries oppose Iran’s plan. In addition, Iran has put forward a candidate for the position of OPEC secretary general, considered to be the voice of the OPEC organization between meetings.

If the next time you stopped to fill up your car at a gas station, or to buy any other product, and you notice a sudden increase in prices, this can be attributed to the tireless efforts of the Obama administration to start lifting sanctions on Iran, easing pressure on the nation and integrating the Islamists of Iran into the international community, legitimizing them, giving them credibility, calling them rational actors, and pushing for the recent nuclear deal with the ruling cleric in the Iranian regime.

Last week, ahead of the upcoming OPEC meeting, Iran threatened to trigger a price war in the global oil markets. Iranian authorities warned OPEC’s 12 members that Tehran will ratchet up its oil output, no matter what the consequences would be, in an attempt to gain its former influential position. Bijan Zangeneh, Iran’s Oil Minister, said before going into the closed meetings that “we will not give up our rights on this issue.” The sanctions, accumulated through many years in the international community, reduced Iran’s leverage to disrupt and control the world economy through managing oil prices. However, the recent agreement with President Obama gave the Iranian Ayatollah and leaders a freedom to more aggressively reclaim and reassert their Islamist ambitions in the region and on the international scale.

There is a special quota assigned for each main oil exporter at OPECIranian leaders stated that they will not comply with that quota. This will result in a disruption in supply and demand, which will ultimately create uncertainty in the market and lead to the rising of oil prices. For industrial countries, this will affect the prices of many other goods, because oil is used as a primary source for fuel. If Iran does not respect individual targets of oil sales in the global market and the quotas of OPEC members, Tehran’s attempts can definitely result in oil glut. In addition, this will lead to an increase in geopolitical tensions in the region and particularly among OPEC members.

Read more at Front Page

Dr. Majid Rafizadeh, an Iranian-American political scientist and scholar, is president of the International American Council and he serves on the board of Harvard International Review at Harvard University. Twitter @majidrafizadeh

Jihad: “Spreading Like Wildfire”

map-2-al-qaeda1By Brigitte Gabriel:

Just over a week ago, Senator Diane Feinstein and Representative Mike Rogers, chairs of the Senate and House Intelligence committees respectively, warned America that we are not safer today from the threat of Jihadist terrorism than we were several years ago. We told you about their discussion on this matter on CNN’s Sunday morning news show, State of the Union, in an email bulletin last week, but it is worth reviewing their appearance again.

It turns out that Feinstein and Rogers aren’t the only Democrat and Republican who agree that the threat from Jihadist terrorism is worse today than it was years ago—and that the threat is actually getting worse.

On Sunday, The Washington Times reported that members from both sides of the aisle are skeptical of the Obama administration’s portrayal of President Obama as a great “terrorist fighter.”

Some members of Congress are resentful of the administration promoting what they see as a “false narrative” of Obama as the hero that killed Osama Bin Laden, while Al Qaeda grows and spreads. Other members of Congress are concerned that Al Qaeda and other Jihadist terror groups are active in more safe havens today than ever before with more Jihadi warriors fighting in more places than ever before.

Given that Al Qaeda was able to launch the September 11th, 2001, terrorist attacks from a single safe haven in Afghanistan, the proliferation of Jihadist terrorism in more places than ever is rightly seen as a threat to US national security.

For instance, Rep. Michael T. McCaul of Texas, who chairs the House Homeland Security Committee, told CNN on Sunday that Al Qaeda and Jihadist ideology was “spreading like a spider web, like a wildfire through Northern Africa and the Middle East.” He also reported that the threat to America has become greater in recent years, despite assurances from President Obama, particularly during politically-tainted presidential campaign speeches.

We cannot emphasize enough how dangerous it is for the President of the United States to be spreading a false narrative about the status of our enemies in the war on terrorism.

First, by claiming repeatedly that Al Qaeda is “on the path to defeat” and “on the run,”  when the available evidence suggests that Al Qaeda is growing stronger, Obama is encouraging Americans to let down their guard. Not just ordinary American citizens, but our first responders as well. Leadership is more important to a war effort than any other form of endeavor and our nation’s leaders’ words matter.

We aren’t talking about a few isolated incidents of exaggerations or misstatements either. As CNSNews reported in November of 2012, just two months after the terrorist attack in Bengahzi, Libya, which resulted in the deaths of 4 Americans, Obama was almost constantly stating that Al Qaeda was being “decimated”.

This brings us to the second negative impact of the Obama administration’s false narrative. By repeatedly claiming that Al Qaeda is defeated, the president is almost daring the Jihadists to prove him wrong. Early on in Operation Iraqi Freedom, President Bush was criticized for uttering the words “bring it on,” when asked about the Jihadist insurgents in Iraq. But that quip was nothing compared to Obama’s repeated claims that Al Qaeda is through. It has rightly been compared to “spiking the football,” and is no doubt viewed as a taunt by Al Qaeda.

By saying that Al Qaeda is on the path to defeat when they are clearly growing stronger in more safe havens than ever before, Obama is waving a red cape in front of a bull. It might be okay if Al Qaeda was in fact close to defeat, but taunting a strong Al Qaeda could result in Americans paying the ultimate price for Obama’s boasts.

At ACT! For America, our role as the largest, fastest growing grassroots national security organization is to ensure that our leaders act and speak responsibly and that our fellow citizens are educated about the threats that America faces. All of us need to make certain that our elected officials know that we will not tolerate cavalier, irresponsible rhetoric when it comes to the war effort. We must thank our fighting men and women for the victories that they fight for, but we must never let down our guard for the sake of political expediency.

 Also see:

Expert Testimony: Global al-Qaeda, Affiliates, Objectives, and Future Challenges

How to Tell When Barack Obama is Lying

2768806406Center For Security Policy, By Frank Gaffney:

Want to know how to tell when President Obama is lying?  These days, it’s easy:  His lips are moving.

Unfortunately, the president’s infamous lie as part of his sales pitch for Obamacare that “you can keep your doctor, period” is now clearly not the exception. It’s the rule.  The pattern is especially worrisome with respect to his practice of what amounts to serial national security fraud.

Consider, for example, the latest on the Iran nuclear weapons front. Mr. Obama insists that his interim deal “freezes” the mullahs’ nuclear program for six months.  He may be the only one who believes that whopper.  Certainly, the Iranian regime does not, and neither should we.

Yet, the President insisted at a Brookings Institution symposium on December 7th that, “There’s nothing in this agreement or document that grants Iran a right to enrich.” In fact, as the Iranians have noted, the United States and the other “Perm 5+1” members clearly accepted in two different places in the so-called interim accord that Iran would continue the enrichment of uranium.

Whether we call this arrangement an acknowledgment of an Iranian “right” or not is beside the point.  What matters is that the long lead-time item in Iran’s acquiring sufficient nuclear weapons-grade uranium has been legitimated by President Obama’s treacherous diplomacy.

The magnitude of the treachery being exhibited by a man who continues to profess that he will not let Iran get the bomb is evident in another comment made in the course of his remarks at Brookings. Mr. Obama floated for the first time the idea that the final agreement, that supposedly will be fashioned in the next six months, will allow Iran  to enrich uranium in perpetuity: “It is my strong belief that we can envision a end state that gives us an assurance that, even if they have some modest enrichment capability, it is so constrained and the inspections are so intrusive that they, as a practical matter, do not have [a] breakout capability.”

Forget about the weasel-wording caveats and the President’s empty platitudes about “the military option” remaining on the table. He has thus cleared the way for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, probably on his watch.  Just as his health care fraud is properly known as Obamacare, the fruit of the mullah’s nuclear weapons program he has just green-lighted should be known as Obamabomb.

It seems that the real purpose of the interim deal was less to “freeze” Iran’s burgeoning nuclear capability than it was to block the one military option that may actually remain viable: Israel’s.

There is no small irony to the fact that Mr. Obama chose as the venue for his latest lies about his commitment to the security of the Jewish State – which he described as “sacrosanct” – the Brookings event sponsored by an Israeli billionaire named Haim Saban.  In response to questions posed by Mr. Saban, the President insisted, for example, that: “Our support of Israel’s security has never been stronger….And that’s not just my opinion; I think that’s something that can be verified.”

Actually, it can be readily verified that no president has done more to jeopardize Israel’s security.  The bill of particulars may start, but does not end, with Obama’s clearing the way for the Iran to have the capability to act on its threats to “wipe Israel off the map.” Even before the interim deal, his administration had acted to impede, if not foreclose, Israeli options to prevent that existential danger. (For instance, it compromised, and thereby ended, a secret bilateral arrangement with Azerbaijan to provide post-strike recovery airfields for Israel’s jets.)

Insult was added to injury when the President lied to Israel’s Saban: “Prime Minister Netanyahu and I have had constant consultations on these issues throughout the last five years.” The truth is that Obama completely blindsided Netanyahu about his secret negotiations with Iran over the past year.

Throughout his presidency, Barack Obama has also bludgeoned Israel into making concessions to the Palestinians that would be perilous for the Jewish State. He declared that Israel must withdraw to earlier, indefensible boundaries correctly described as the “Auschwitz borders.” He has publicly demeaned and humiliated Prime Minister Netanyahu. And his Secretary of State, John Kerry, has encouraged European boycotts of Israel and “a third intifada” (or Palestinian terrorist war).

Most recently, Team Obama has let it be known that the United States would “impose” a solution on Israel next year if the Jewish State does not make the concessions necessary to satisfy the Palestinians. President Obama nonetheless lied to Mr. Saban: “What I’ve consistently said is that the only way this is going to be resolved is if the people of Israel and the Palestinian people make a determination that their futures and the futures of their children and grandchildren will be better off with peace than with conflict.”

The people of the United States, and the futures of their children and grandchildren, are being imperiled by a president whose disastrous national security policies are being exacerbated by his lies about them. These constitute high crimes, and should be treated as such by the Congress.

 

More Fallout from the Obama-Kerry-Ayatollah Nuclear Deal

download (39)ACT! For America, By Brigitte Gabriel:

Iran has not yet tested an atomic bomb, but there is already fallout from the deal on nuclear technology that President Barack Obama and his Secretary of State, John Kerry, have cut with the genocidal mullahocracy in Iran.

Ironically, our best hope for this agreement falling apart comes from Tehran, not Washington, DC.

The Iranians have already publicly interpreted the agreement to bestow upon them an inherent right to enrich uranium, something that Kerry specifically denies. On top of that, the agreement was evidently so sloppily written that there are loopholes that allow the Iranians to carry out sensitive, military-related nuclear work off of specific, known nuclear sites without being in violation of the agreement and, most ominously, without International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) oversight.

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, who actually has no real authority over the nation’s national security policy, made it clear in an interview with the Financial Times that Iran has no intention of cutting back on any aspect of its nuclear program:

http://video.ft.com/v/2878742620001

Despite this, Iran still gets billions of dollars in financial incentives in the form of eased sanctions. On top of this, Iran will enjoy a literal bonanza in the form of increased oil exports, which could result in an additional $18 billion per year in oil revenue due to the deal:

http://freebeacon.com/analysts-iran-oil-experts-could-increase-50-percent/

No wonder observers are calling the deal a “surrender.” Mark Steyn has one of the best commentaries along these lines over on National Review

In Geneva, the participants came to the talks with different goals: The Americans and Europeans wanted an agreement; the Iranians wanted nukes. Each party got what it came for. Before the deal, the mullahs’ existing facilities were said to be within four to seven weeks of nuclear “breakout”; under the new constraints, they’ll be eight to nine weeks from breakout. In return, they get formal international recognition of their enrichment program, and the gutting of sanctions — and everything they already have is, as they say over at Obamacare, grandfathered in.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/365132/surrender-geneva-mark-steyn

Two decades of work by Republicans and Democrats alike have been thrown into the trash bin by the Obama-Kerry-Ayatollahs deal. There is no longer any economic pressure on Iran to change its behavior and the Iranians have made it clear that they have no intention of changing that behavior. The Israelis, who have been on the receiving end of Iranian-sponsored terrorism and direct Iranian threats, are understandably outraged:

Unnamed Israeli officials denounced US President Barack Obama on Friday night for presiding over failed negotiations with Iran under which, they said, the sanctions pressure on Tehran is collapsing and the Islamic Republic has been granted the right to enrich uranium. The entire wall of sanctions, painstakingly constructed over years, is already crumbling and “will collapse within months,” the officials were quoted as saying.http://www.timesofisrael.com/israeli-officials-denounce-obama-for-giving-iran-right-to-enrich-destroying-sanctions/

Key Iranian officials agree with Israel’s assessment. They are, however, celebrating. Alaeddin Boroujerdi, Chairman of Iran’s Majlis (similar to a parliament, but with no real authority) Committee for Foreign Policy and National Security, has overtly declared victory as a result of the deal with Obama and Kerry:

“…the Islamic Republic controls all aspects of nuclear science, from A-Z, from the very beginning all the way to uranium enrichment…After ten years, we have emerged victorious over the West.”http://www.memri.org/clip/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/4054.htm

To add insult to injury, it is now being reported that, as part of the months long negotiation between the Ayatollahs and the Obama administration, the US has released a top Iranian scientist, Mojtaba Atarodi, who had been arrested in 2011 for attempting to acquire equipment that could be used for Iran’s military-nuclear programs.

In other words, Obama is releasing nuclear experts to go back and work for Iran, and in return we cannot even win the release of imprisoned pastor Saeed Abedini. By the way, so much for the idea that the US does not negotiate with terrorists. The Obama administration has made it a commonplace practice…

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/11/29/U-S-Released-Iranian-Scientist-As-Part-Of-Nuke-Talks-Before-Geneva-Agreement

Speaking of terrorism, the nuclear agreement makes no mention whatsoever of Iran’s sponsorship of terrorism, as has been documented by the US State Department for many years:

http://iranbulletin.me/2013/11/26/the-coming-bonanza-for-jihad-from-the-obamakerry-ayatollah-nuclear-bargain/

Nor does the deal address Iran’s very active ballistic missile program, which has no possible peaceful application:

http://iranbulletin.me/2013/11/27/the-other-threat-obama-and-kerry-ignored-ballistic-missiles/

Unfortunately, the so-called mainstream media is in the tank for Obama and their reporting has had a great influence on public opinion on the nuclear deal with the Ayatollahs. Polls show a decisive majority of Americans in favor of the deal.

As America’s leading grassroots national security organization, it is vital that ACT for America and its hundreds of thousands of members educate the public about the true nature of this deal and express our opinions to elected officials.

Into the fray: Will the West withstand the Obama presidency?

By MARTIN SHERMAN:

The really chilling aspect of the Obama-incumbency is that it is difficult to diagnose whether the abysmal results it produced—including the recent Geneva debacle—reflect crushing failure or calculated success

US President Barack Obama.

US President Barack Obama. Photo: Reuters
I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles – principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings. – Barack Hussein Obama, Cairo, 2009For anyone who understands that the US Constitution is not a Sharia-compliant document –neither in letter nor in spirit – it should be alarmingly apparent that the Obama-incumbency is a dramatic and disturbing point of inflection in the history of America and its “Western” allies. By “Western” I mean countries whose political practices and societal norms are rooted in Judeo- Christian foundations in a cultural rather than in any religious sense.

The devil is not in the details 

One does not have to be an expert in Islamic history or culture, or be familiar with the details of Koranic verse or Hadithic texts to realize that Obama’s characterization of the alleged affinity between America and Islam is entirely detached from any reality on the ground–particularly with regard to the matters he enumerates in the preceding excerpt from his 2009 Cairo speech.

All one has to do is follow the daily news that routinely convey reports of the Hobbesian horrors that flared across Syria, Libya, Egypt and other Arab countries once the Leviathan “cap” of tyranny, holding these bestial impulses in check, was “uncorked.”

Worse, in some parts of the Muslim world, blood curdling atrocities have become so commonplace they hardly make the news at all.

For when it comes to issues such as justice, progress, tolerance and respect for societal and/or religious diversity, a yawning chasm divides America from Islam. Indeed, American society, as a product of the values embodied in the Constitution and the Judeo-Christian values it draws on; and Islamic society as a product of Sharia and the Muslim values it draws on, are irreconcilably exclusive and antithetically opposed to one another.

No amount of convoluted scholarly debate on the intricacies of Islamic scriptures or benign interpretations of their “real” significance, can change the gruesome facts that prevail throughout Muslim-majority societies – from West Africa to East Asia.

Justice? Like stoning of female rape victims for “adultery? Progress? Like fathers slaughtering daughters to preserve their “honor”? Tolerance? Like summary lynching of “gays” because of their sexual preferences? Dignity of all human beings? Like butchery of non- Muslim “infidels” for practicing their faith?

Pervasive and perverse 

Neither are these unrepresentative or isolated anecdotal instances of barbarity and bigotry that occur in Islamic societies. Indeed, they– and other manifestations of harsh brutality, totally foreign to American and “Western” ways –pervade much of the Muslim world. Extensive surveys of Muslim majority countries across Africa and Asia show that there is widespread endorsement for making Sharia the law of the land and adopting the severe practices prescribed in it.

A recent 2013 poll by Pew Research Center found that “solid majorities in most of the countries surveyed across the Middle East and North Africa, sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia and Southeast Asia favor the establishment of sharia, including 71% of Muslims in Nigeria, 72% in Indonesia, 74% in Egypt and 89% in the Palestinian territories.”

An earlier pre-Arab Spring survey conducted in 2010 across seven major Muslim countries from Nigeria to Indonesia found that in most there were large majorities in favor of stoning for adultery, amputation of limbs for theft and death for apostasy (leaving Islam).

So while there is considerable country-to-country variation in the degree of support for the enforcement of the more brutal Sharia compliant prescriptions, it is clear that in terms of defining societal parameters – individual liberties, gender equality (including equality before the law), religious tolerance and socio-cultural pluralism – a gigantic gulf separates America from Islam.

One would be hard pressed to find any area where they do in fact “overlap and share common principles” in any significant manner.

‘Islam has always been part of America’s story’

In his Cairo “outreach” speech, with the Muslim Brotherhood seated in positions of prominence –much to the chagrin of his host Hosni Mubarak – Obama told his audience: “I know, too, that Islam has always been a part of America’s story.” Then extolling the alleged Muslim contribution to the development of the US he declared, no more than a few years after 9/11, when in the name of Islam, Muslims reduced the Twin Towers to a pile of rubble, he remarked: “Since our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States. They have… built our tallest building [sic].”

Admittedly, much water has flown under the bridge since Obama’s initial outreach address to the Muslim world in June 2009, shortly after his election. But precisely because it was delivered when he was still unencumbered by domestic constraints and foreign frustrations, it perhaps reflected most accurately the unfiltered essence of the political instincts he brought to the Oval Office and the inputs that have gone into shaping his geopolitical credo.

His interpretation of the international role the US should play, the nature of the country’s interests, and the manner in which they should be pursued; his perception of friend and foe and the attitudes that should be adopted towards them, all seem to entail dramatic and disconcerting departure from that of most of his predecessors.

In this regard, he is the first US president who is explicitly and overtly unmoored, both cognitively and emotionally, from the bollards of America’s founding Judeo-Christian heritage, and who somehow conceives that Islam is not inherently inimical to American values.

It is through this Islamo-philic prism that the Obama-administration’s attitude to, and performance of, its foreign policy must be evaluated–including last weekend’s acquiescence on the Iranian nuclear issue.

The chilling thing 

In the course of half a decade, under the stewardship of Obama, the US has had its standing shredded both in the eyes of its allies – and worse – in the eyes of its adversaries.

Debacle has piled upon debacle. Allies have been abandoned and enemies emboldened, worse, empowered. Inappropriate action has been complemented by equally inappropriate inaction. True, in 2009 Obama was handed an unenviable heritage from the preceding administration–a severe financial-turned-economic crisis and two ill-considered ground wars in Asia. But Obama has ensured that the latter will end in futile failure– even demoralizing defeat; while in dealing with the former he has precipitated soaring deficits, crippling debt and chronic and debilitating joblessness, coupled with burgeoning dependence on welfare.

But the really chilling aspect of the Obama incumbency is that it is genuinely difficult to diagnose whether the abysmal results we see represent a crushing failure of his policies or a calculated success; whether they are the product of chronic ineptitude or purposeful foresight; whether they reflect myopic misunderstanding, moronic incompetence or malicious intent.

This general conundrum is particularly pertinent with regard to what transpired in Geneva last Sunday, which appeared to many – including erstwhile Obamaphiles – to be an inexplicable US climb-down from what looked “suspiciously” like positions that heralded emerging success.

Some had little doubt as to what lay behind the move. In a forceful article, Caroline Glick asserted bluntly: “His goal is not to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power…The goal of Obama’s foreign policy is to weaken the State of Israel.”

Read more at Jerusalem Post

Barack HUSSEIN Obama – Islam’s TROJAN HORSE!!!

TROJAN 1By Craig Andresen:

When you look at a number of Obama quotes, there are some things that should come as no surprise.

 “We will convey our deep appreciation for the Islamic faith, which has done so much over the centuries to shape the world — including in my own country.”

“Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance.”

“These rituals remind us of the principles that we hold in common, and Islam’s role in advancing justice, progress, tolerance, and the dignity of all human beings.”

“I made clear that America is not – and never will be – at war with Islam.”

“Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism – it is an important part of promoting peace.”

Need I continue?

Yes…I believe, to make the point crystal clear…I do.

“That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn’t. And I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.”

“Throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.”

“Ramadan is a celebration of a faith known for great diversity and racial equality”

Are you starting to get the picture?

Maybe THESE quotes will help…

“Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation”

TROJAN 2“We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation.”

“If all it took was someone proclaiming I believe Jesus Christ and that he died for my sins, and that was all there was to it, people wouldn’t have to keep coming to church, would they?”

Perhaps these last 2, when compared to each other, are the most telling.

When Obama was asked to give HIS definition of sin, he responded: “Being out of alignment with MY values.”

And…

The sweetest sound I know is the Muslim call to prayer”

The stark difference between CLAIMING to be a Christian while REALLY being an ISLAMIST can clearly be seen in Obama’s decisions on the world stage.

Obama presides over the killing of Osama bin Laden or…DOES he?

The decision TO kill bin Laden was political and would become a “feather” in the political hat of the Islamist president but, according to his close friend, Obama couldn’t bear to watch it all play out so…After a photo op in the situation room…Obama spent the bulk of the bin Laden raid playing cards and, as reparations to Islam FOR the raid, he lets the Pakistani doctor who was the KEY to nailing down the al Qaeda leader’s residence…ROT IN JAIL TO THIS DAY.

Politically expedient for Obama and, at the same time, respecting his Islamic beliefs.

TROJAN 3Mubarak…an ally…Who had kept the peace with the bane of Islam’s existence, Israel, is told to go by the Islamist occupier of the oval office and who does Obama back as the replacement?

The MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD that vowed to do away with the Israel/Egypt peace accord.

As the Muslim Brotherhood cracked down by KILLING Coptic Christians at will…Obama’s quote, “The future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam,” provides the reason why he never held the Muslim Brotherhood to account.

In Benghazi…

After supplying al Qaeda with arms to overthrow Gaddafi, Obama turns more than a blind eye to al Qaeda’s (Ansar al Sharia’s) control of Benghazi…HE HIRES them to provide “SECURITY” for our American diplomats IN Benghazi after…DRAWING DOWN OUR OWN SECURITY there.

Read more at The National Patriot

Islamic Operative in White House Scores Another Victory for Muslim Brotherhood

Jerusalem Post, By Earl Cox:

They did it again. While we watched President Obama dodge the Syrian red line with Putin taking the lead, while we held our collective breaths as Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu and France’s President Hollande stalled negotiations over the Iran’s nuclear ambitions, the Islamists were at it again.

This time they cunningly swooped in and placed their wildest dreams into the massive immigration reform bill recently passed by the United States Senate.

Most Americans believe the bill is about amnesty, or a way to grant general pardon for political offenses such as disobedience to immigration laws. For example, most think it will give millions of Hispanic illegal aliens living in the U.S. amnesty. The bill goes far beyond obedience to law. Even pro-immigration Christian evangelicals say the bill is not amnesty. Then what is it?

The sweeping immigration reform bill, called the “Amnesty Bill” has Islamic inferences buried deep inside that should give Americans the shudders, and indeed, the entire world, especially United States allies. The bill reportedly includes a fast track to citizenship for immigrants from Muslim countries. U.S. President Obama hailed the passage of the bill as a critical step towards fixing America’s broken immigration system. While the “Gang of Eight” senators crafted the bill, an outsider, who just happens to be a Muslim Brotherhood associate, provided “treasured input,” according to a close associate of the Obama administration.

Fast tracking Muslims is not new to President Obama. Going back to 2010, Obama issued an executive order to fast-track immigrants from Islamic countries. In short, a person from a Muslim country could become a U.S. citizen in as little as ten weeks, with no I.D. and no declaration of fealty to the U.S. Constitution. The recent Senate immigration reform bill further expands the previously strict qualifications for immigration from Afghanistan and allows more family members to join admitted asylum seekers. In addition, the numbers allowed to arrive from Saudi Arabia is many times that of Afghanistan. If amendments were to be added to the immigration reform bill, more Muslim countries, such as Chechnya, could be added. Refugees from the Middle East could raise Muslim immigration numbers even higher. Could Muslims over take Hispanics?

Speaking of refugees, according to Amnesty International, Jordan is forcibly returning thousands of refugees back to Syria. Why?  Because Jordan is experiencing economic and other pressures as a result of accepting so many refugees.  Amnesty argues that Jordan’s pressures do not justify such violations of international law. Enter the United States as rescuer. Word is out that Obama intends to grant political asylum to large numbers of Syrian refugees (mostly Muslim). This global picture from Syria, to Russia, to Iran, to Israel to the United States is akin to a chess match, but with far-reaching implications and ramifications.

11(1)Who inside the Obama Administration helped to craft the shocking increases in Muslim immigration that is buried deep inside the text of the Senate bill? The input came from Mohammed Magdi, president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). Magdi is one of six Muslim policy advisors of the Obama administration with direct ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.

We used to believe that 2 + 2 = 4. In other words, we appealed to common sense. Does it make sense for the U.S. to admit large numbers of refugees and immigrants from Muslim countries, most of which would be practicing Sharia Law? It appears they could become U.S. citizens almost overnight. What a “checkmate” that would be for Islamists!

While the Middle East chess game continues and boils over with political intrigue and potential dangers to otherwise stable governments, the Muslim Brotherhood appears to be on the march with tentacles of influence reaching far beyond the Middle East. Taking countries from the inside out is their distinct goal. Egypt seems to have seen the light. What will it take to nudge the rest of the world into the dawn of truth, particularly United States citizens?

When immigration reform isn’t about reform; when amnesty isn’t about amnesty; when the rule of law is not the rule of law, it must be about something else. Could it be that the Muslim Brotherhood brothers already embedded inside the U.S. government are envisioning and planning their worldwide caliphate ruled by Sharia Law to be centered inside the United States of America? Amnesty, America and the Brotherhood. What would (will) America and the world look like with the Islamic flag flying over the White House?

 

Our world: The goal of Obama’s foreign policy

His goal is not to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power. It isn’t even to facilitate a rapprochement between America and Iran. The goal of Obama’s foreign policy is to weaken the State of Israel.

Photo by: REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

Photo by: REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

By CAROLINE B. GLICK:

It isn’t surprising that the US and the other five powers signed a deal with Iran on Saturday. Over the past few weeks, US President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry made it clear that they were committed to signing a deal with Iran as quickly as possible.

And it isn’t surprising that the deal these overeager leaders signed with the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism makes the world a much more dangerous place than it was before the agreement was concluded.

With the US and its allies far more eager to reach an accord with Iran on its illicit nuclear weapons program than Iran was, it was obvious from the outset that any deal ultimately reached, at least as long as these negotiating conditions remained in force, would facilitate rather than inhibit Iran’s quest to build a nuclear arsenal. And indeed, the sanctions relief that Iran has gained simply by signing on the dotted line will be sufficient to buffet the Iranian economy through a successful nuclear weapons test.

Iran will achieve nuclear capability while enriching itself through the deal because the deal gives Iran sanctions relief without requiring Iran to make any irreversible concessions. Indeed, Iran just received the international community’s permission to continue to enrich uranium, keep all its nuclear installations open and build new centrifuges.

While the deal isn’t surprising in and of itself, Obama’s decision to conclude it now makes clear the true goal of his foreign policy. To understand that goal, it is first necessary to consider an aspect of the deal that, on the surface, makes little sense.

The negotiations with the Iranians that culminated in Saturday night’s agreement went on for a year.

And yet, the final deal reflects Iran’s opening positions.

That is, over the course of the entire year, American and European negotiators were not able to move Iran’s positions one iota.

So what has the Obama administration been doing for the past year? Since Iran’s positions were the same all along, why didn’t they sign this deal a year ago? The US’s strength relative to Iran did not diminish significantly since a year ago. So the US didn’t need this agreement more now than it did a year ago.

Clearly, Obama did not spend the last year trying to build domestic American support for a deal that enables the regime that calls daily for the annihilation of America to become a nuclear power. With Iran building military bases all over Central and South America, Obama never bothered trying to make the case to the American people that they would be more secure with this regime in possession of the capacity to kill millions of Americans with one bomb.

Obama never stood before the Congress to explain how a deal that gives America’s Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval to Iran’s illicit nuclear weapons program advances US national security. He never explained how allowing Iran to continue to enrich uranium decreases the likelihood of war.

So what did Obama need the last year for? If he wasn’t concerned with getting a less dangerous deal, and he didn’t care what the American people though about his facilitation of Iran’s nuclear weapons program, what prevented him from okaying the agreement last year? To ascertain the answer, it is worth considering Finance Minister Yair Lapid’s comments Sunday morning. Beyond noting the nuclear deal’s danger to Israel’s security, Lapid said, “I am worried not only over the deal but that we have lost the world’s attention.”

Read more at Jerusalem Post