More:Print This Post
The Obama Administration has critical information on the Fort Hood jihadist, Major Nidal Malik Hasan, that it is refusing to release to Congress despite repeated requests.
We can only speculate on some of the reasons. Interestingly and as noted below, Obama and many in his administration have refused to acknowledge the obvious including leaving it out of reports and speeches: that this was an act of Islamic terrorism.
This terrorist had a long history of pro-Islamic rants, actions and associations and even yelled “Allahu akbar” while murdering members of our military. All the evidence is irrefutable and incontrovertible.
Obama’s refusal to consider this an Islamic terrorist event, particularly given his position as President of this country, is of incalculable concern and places our country at immeasurable risk. We feel that this goes beyond blatant incompetence or truckling to Islam and “political correctness”.
Is this just another of myriad examples that Obama’s allegiance is not truly to America and its Judeo-Christian foundations and instead more toward Islam?
Given his history (including attending a Madrassa in Indonesia as a child; Muslim father and step father), statements (anti-American; anti Judeo-Christian and pro-Islam), actions (pro-Arab, anti-Allies including vehement hatred of our ally Israel, etc.), we firmly believe that this is the case.
It also begs the important question which has simmered in the public for a while: is Obama really a Muslim and not a “Christian” which he feigns to be?
Obama's Fort Hood Jihadist
Pamela Geller April 11, 2011
We have been hearing for years that the White House is withholding evidence on the Fort Hood jihadi, Major Nidal Malik Hasan. Now comes direct confirmation of this from Hasan's own lawyer.
Major Hasan, also known as Soldier of Allah, according to his business card, mowed down thirteen U.S. soldiers while screaming Allahu akbar on the Fort Hood military base in Texas a year and a half ago, in November 2009. Yet his trial keeps on being postponed. On March 30, Lt. Gen. Robert Cone, the outgoing commanding general at Fort Hood, granted a request from John Galligan, Hasan's lawyer, to delay the trial until late April. Galligan, however, disclaims responsibility for all the delays, blaming them on none other than Barack Hussein Obama.
Rick, a reader of my website, AtlasShrugs.com, forwarded to me an email exchange he had with Galligan. Rick wrote to Galligan last Thursday: "The American people are getting pretty upset about all of these delays." On Friday, Galligan responded: "Delays are due to prosecution/White House refusal to disclose evidence. Blame them for the delays."
So where is justice? This Islamic supremacist should have been executed by now. What's the hold up? Galligan's blaming Obama is consistent with how the White House has behaved throughout this case. Back in November of 2010, I wrote at Atlas Shrugs that the Obama administration was "still covering up the motivation behind the attack."
Even worse, in October 2010, a soldier at Fort Hood who caught Hasan's jihad murders in two videos on his cell phone camera was ordered by his commanding officer to delete both videos.
This is unacceptable. An army officer ordered the destruction of evidence in a jihadist attack on American soldiers? The officer should be on trial for obstruction of justice.
And back in April 2010, Senators Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Susan Collins (R-ME) had to subpoena the Obama White House to get information it was withholding for a congressional investigation into the Fort Hood jihad massacre.
Meanwhile, the official government report on this jihad mass-murder doesn't mention jihad or Islam at all. Congressman John Carter (R-TX) said that "the Obama Administration continues to deny the Fort Hood attack was terrorism, failed to grant the casualties the same status as that given casualties from the 2001 Pentagon attack, conspicuously omitted even mention of the words 'radical Islamic terrorism' in the official DOD report on the shootings, and will not acknowledge the role of political-correctness in stifling whistleblower warnings of the impending attack."
Yet on the morning of Major Hasan's mass slaughter of U.S. troops at Fort Hood in the bloodiest act of war on a military base in U.S. history, he distributed Qur'ans and his card, calling infidels to convert to Islam before his jihad (as I reported at Atlas Shrugs on November 6, 2009 -- Major Hasan's Dawah before Jihad). Hasan screamed "Allahu Akbar!" as he mowed down U.S. soldiers at Fort Hood.
Also, a fellow psychiatrist recalled a lecture Hasan gave (a "grand round" is the term for it) when he was a medical resident at Walter Reed: "It freaked them out." Normally, a lecturer focuses on a particular disease or disorder and recent research or treatment options. Instead, Hasan reportedly harangued the doctors and staff about what the Qur'an teaches about non-believers going to hell, being scalded, beheaded, etc. A Muslim psychiatrist in the audience reportedly challenged Hasan about his interpretation of the Qur'an, but he would not back down (because he was right). Other sources said that several in the audience suggested afterward that Hasan might be a shooter someday.
Yet Obama has continued to withhold evidence in the Fort Hood jihadist attack and, as Galligan has just revealed, continues to shield the Muslim terrorist.
So crippled has our military (and other branches of government) become by this self-imposed Sharia (do not insult Islam!), that despite the staggering loss of U.S. soldiers in Hasan's Fort Hood massacre, the chief concern of Army Chief of Staff Gen. George W. Casey, Jr. in the bloody aftermath of the Fort Hood jihad was that "speculation could potentially heighten backlash against some of our Muslim soldiers and what happened at Fort Hood was a tragedy, but I believe it would be an even greater tragedy if our diversity becomes a casualty here."
That was the concern.
By Gd, what have they done? They have abandoned, by their own volition, the only weapon of survival -- they are practicing suspension of the mind, refusing to think.
Who is looking out for Americans? We know who is looking out for the jihad in America. John Galligan just reminded us.
More:Print This Post
Obama and most of the Left seek to appease and not offend Muslims in order that they might not commit terrorist acts against us. They go out of their way even in blatant instances of jihadist acts where the terrorists are proclaiming “Allah Akbar” that there is no true association.
This is a position of weakness which actually serves to “protect” the terrorists. The Islamic terrorists, in turn, clearly see these actions as signs of weakness and vulnerability which motivates them even more to escalate the violence.
Being apologetic and denying the obvious will not allow us to meet this malignant scourge. Only by assuming a position of strength can we attempt to successfully tackle this.
We need to resolutely and loudly let the world know that their behavior will not be tolerated, that they will not be allowed to impose of Sharia law in this country, we will not abridge any of our freedoms such as that of free speech so as not to “offend” Islam, and that we are united in strength against their violence, intolerance and subjugation.
We should also let them know that we know that these issues are not isolated incidents perpetrated by a few but instead are reflective of a basic noxious, violent tenet of Islam which is upheld by a majority of Muslims.
And finally: ISLAM IS NOT A RELGION OF PEACE!
Obama's Mishandling of the Quran-Burning
Monte Kuligowski April 09, 2011
A Jed Clampett-type figure burns a Quran somewhere in Tennessee, and the Muslim world breaks out in an uproar. In keeping with Islam's spirit of peace, rioting, effigy-burning, and the indiscriminate killing of over twenty people accompanied the protests. The U.S. can tolerate protesting and flag-burning, but the disproportional response of murdering and beheading is where the line must be drawn.
But no such line has been drawn by the Obama administration.
In his response to the situation, President Obama notes that both Quran-burning and murder are wrong. True, but his words are meaningless without distinction. Here's how Obama responded:
The desecration of any holy text, including the Koran, is an act of extreme intolerance and bigotry. However, to attack and kill innocent people in response is outrageous, and an affront to human decency and dignity.
No religion tolerates the slaughter and beheading of innocent people, and there is no justification for such a dishonorable and deplorable act.
The question is not whether a religion tolerates the slaughter and beheading of innocent people, but whether the U.S. government will tolerate the same. Free speech and expression, even the offensive style, are tolerated by the American system; murder is not.
By omitting the free speech rights of Terry Jones, President Obama has sent the wrong message to militant Islamists. Mr. Obama needed to explain that freedom means that even offensive expression is protected.
If Mr. Obama is not willing to proclaim that American values of free expression will not be suppressed by government out of fear of terrorism and murder, then we have already lost the terrorists' war.
The murdering Islamists need to be informed in clear terms that any harm caused to U.S. citizens will be met with a military offensive the likes of which will cause Islamists to beg for mercy.
As Americans, we may strongly disagree when the U.S. flag is burned in protest, whether at home or abroad. We may also strongly disagree when the Bible is torched in Muslim countries or when Christianity is "desecrated" by federally funded artists. Yet Americans overwhelmingly support the free expression rights of those with whom we disagree (so long as the expression is made with one's private property).
Radical Muslims work themselves up into killing frenzies over words against Islam, writings, cartoons, Quran-burnings, et al., and they will not be content until offense to Islam is outlawed. Of course, what we do or allow in our country should be none of these radicals' concern. Islam has no sacred protection status from insult in the United States -- and hopefully, it never will.
But if Senators Harry Reid and Lindsey Graham have their way, the federal government may intervene to limit free expression, which would implicitly protect Islam from offense. And I can't imagine that Barack Obama would oppose federal intervention.
Reid and Graham appeared on CBS's "Face the Nation" and discussed the possibility of congressional hearings on the Jones matter. Senator Graham told Bob Schieffer: "I wish we could find a way to hold people accountable. Free speech is a great idea, but we're in a war. During World War II, we had limits on what you could do if it inspired the enemy."
That has to be one of the lamest excuses for federal intervention into an area the First Amendment clearly prohibits the U.S. Congress from entering. The free speech restrictions during World War II had everything to do with loyalty to the U.S. and nothing to do with offending the Germans or the Japanese. One could burn as many copies of Mein Kampf as one wished without fear of government reprisal.
The difference is that during World War II, the objective of the United States was complete and total victory and unconditional surrender of our enemies. The U.S. wasn't real concerned about "putting our troops at risk" by offending our enemies. Indeed, we were more concerned with killing our enemies.
The motives for the murders at the U.N. office in Afghanistan and elsewhere are no more significant than the motives of Terry Jones.
We could try to understand Jones' standpoint. We could try to understand the Muslim mobs. We could try, but in context of constitutional discourse, it's irrelevant. Let's leave feelings and emotions to the therapists.
So as not to offend Islam, our servicemen are currently forced to fight with one hand tied behind their backs, with no clear definition of victory. Only in a politically correct type of war does it make sense to not offend our enemies.
If we offend them, they will kill us. Therefore, reasons the Obama administration, to stop them from killing us, we must not offend them. That makes sense to leftists, but it's a weak and dangerous policy stance to take with radical Islam.
On the horizon is the question of whether we are willing to suppress our freedoms in order to appease the violent faction of the Muslim world -- a faction which makes up a considerable slice of Islam. It is like a campfire that has broken out of its boundaries and which must be stomped out quickly lest it spread as an uncontrollable wildfire. If the U.S. and the West are not willing to completely stomp out radical Islam, I'm afraid we will soon be surrendering our freedoms.
If we don't wake up, offense to Islam will someday trump American freedom.
More:Print This Post
Our government’s, and more specifically, the Obama Administration’s foolhardy truckling to Islam and its failure to condemn jihadist attacks, is needlessly placing American’s at heightened risks. In the eyes of the Muslims, our actions are those of a weak country ripe for increasing attacks.
The official position of the Obama Administration as being “Islam being a religion of peace” is consummately indefensible. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to discern that this is patently false. Pick a spot virtually anywhere in the world and you will find the fingerprints of jihadists.
Their Koran preaches violence and intolerance. It is an intrinsic part of the Muslim religion – and history.
Until we acknowledge this quintessential tenet of Islam and resolutely face it head on, we will be at even increasing levels of risks of violence, death and destruction from adherents of this "peaceful" religion.
Beheading Ourselves Over Islam
Investor’s Business Daily 04/04/2011
War On Terror: What can the U.S. do to quell the violent spasms of Islam? Promote Islam, naturally. At least that's the thinking of this administration. It's now official foreign policy.
President Obama's top Muslim envoy has been overseas encouraging devotion to Islam, including in terror hot spots like Afghanistan. In fact, Rashad Hussain, U.S. special envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference, just returned from Afghanistan, where he told locals the antidote to Islamic violence "is Islam itself."
"I am of the opinion that one of the strongest tools that you can use to counter radicalization and violent extremism is Islam itself, because Islam rejects violent extremism," Hussain said during a speech in Kabul.
Afghans responded to his message by slaughtering a dozen innocent United Nations workers in the name of Islam.
Stirred by mosque sermons, a mob of thousands overran a U.N. compound in northern Afghanistan following Friday prayers. They sawed off the heads of two guards before killing the others, including Norwegian and Swedish nationals, inside. It was Afghanistan's deadliest attack on U.N. personnel.
The worshippers also burned American flags and effigies of Obama — all to defend the honor of a single, paperback copy of a Quran torched by a quack U.S. preacher thousands of miles away in Florida. So far, more than 20 have died in the rioting.
Islamic law calls for vengeance against anybody who insults Islam, its prophet or its holy book. Islamic law is enshrined in the post-Taliban Afghan constitution. Yet Rashad, a devout Muslim, says the Muslim faith is "key" to the administration's strategy to turn Muslims away from violence.
"We see that as one of the key elements of a strategy to address this type of violence," he said. By "we," he means the Obama administration. So it's now official policy to try to douse the Islamic fire of jihad by pouring more fuel on it. This is breathtaking.
It's also at odds with what the co-chairmen of the 9/11 Commission — including Democrat lion Lee Hamilton — recently recommended in their follow-up report on homegrown terror, "Assessing the Terrorist Threat: A Report of the Bipartisan Policy Center's National Security Preparedness Group."
It found that Islam was catalyzing terrorists abroad and inside America's Muslim community. And it scolded U.S. leaders for pretending otherwise. Still, Hussain insists: "When it comes to the problem of violent extremism, Islam is not the problem."
Who is this top adviser on all things Islamic? A Muslim activist, Hussain helped draft Obama's conciliatory Cairo speech to Muslims.
Before joining the White House, he regularly spoke to Brotherhood front groups and defended Brotherhood leaders like Sami al-Arian.(Hussain first denied defending the convicted terrorist, claiming he was misquoted, but recanted after Politico.com produced a tape-recording of his remarks.)
The Brotherhood is a worldwide jihadist movement whose credo says, "Jihad is our way, and death for the glory of Allah is our greatest ambition." Yet this Brotherhood sympathizer believes it doesn't promote violence?
He appears more interested in promoting Islam than representing U.S. interests to the Muslim world in a war on Islamic terror. And his influence is strong. Even in the wake of the U.N. beheadings, the U.S. refuses to condemn the beheaders or the jihadi doctrine that justifies their barbarism.
Instead, the administration — through a statement by Gen. David Petraeus — condemned "any disrespect to the Muslim faith," effectively apologizing for the exercise of First Amendment rights, offensive or not. Such messages only validate the warped moral and legal code of Shariah Islam, while empowering the troglodytes who enforce it.
President Bush may have mouthed pleasant platitudes about Islam being a "religion of peace" and so on. But he wasn't naive enough to promulgate it as an anti-terror strategy. This president and his Muslim advisers, on the other hand, are doing just that. And they're bound to strengthen the hand of the enemy.
More:Print This Post
Obama cynically decries our (increasing) energy dependence on foreign sources and yet he and his tree hugging cronies have thwarted virtually every means of effectively addressing this. He has directly and indirectly blocked the drilling for oil on land and sea and the usage of our vast coal deposits yet in the same sentence doesn’t acknowledge this.
Our dependence on foreign sources is dangerous, imprudent, unnecessary and financially destabilizing. Exacerbating the situation is that much of this oil is under the direct control of a cartel of corrupt dictators and tyrants who can use this resource for political leverage and power. They can also funnel the proceeds to fund terrorism and anti-American activities.
In the specious argument of “saving the environment”, the Left and environmental radicals are empowering and enriching tyrannical regimes that are killing hundreds of thousands of people (or more) and exporting their hatred, destruction and terrorism here.
Ironic, isn’t it?
Oil Dependence: An Unnecessary Security Risk
Herman Cain 03/30/2011
In the early 1970s, America's dependence on foreign oil was a little over 20%. Today, our dependence on foreign oil is over 65%. We have become more and more energy dependent because we have never had a serious energy independence strategy, and we still do not have one.
Energy independence is within our grasp because we have plenty of energy natural resources. We have billions of barrels of oil, plenty of natural gas reserves, more coal than any other country in the world, lots of places we could build dams for hydroelectricity and some of the safest nuclear power technology in the world.
Wind and solar energy development is not going to get us to energy independence. Studies such as the Department of Energy's "Billion Ton Study" have shown that those two sources could at best provide 5% of our energy needs combined.
But by maximizing all of our other domestic energy resources, we could become energy independent. This would not only help to keep down the cost of gasoline and the cost of nearly everything we buy, but it would also be a boost to our economy and create hundreds of thousands of new jobs.
But most importantly, energy independence would keep us from being vulnerable to the current instability in the Middle East or the whims of OPEC.
But to become energy independent, we would have to reject the false premise that America's high energy consumption is at odds with conservation, or that we will cause irreversible harm to our planet. To say that we will cause irreversible harm to the planet by using our natural resources responsibly is like saying that man never should have discovered fire in the first place.
Natural resources are there for a reason. Use them! That's why they are natural! The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), oil reserves off our own continental coasts, oil shale areas out West and even nuclear power development can create a path to energy independence.
The area proposed for production in ANWR, for example, comprises only 0.08% of the 19 million acres of the refuge, and it is estimated to contain at least 16 billion barrels of recoverable oil. Allowing drilling there would not be an environmental hazard using today's technology. And if any caribou got lost near that less-than-two-acre carve-out of ANWR, I seriously doubt that they would even notice or care.
And yes, accidents do happen in these various sectors of our energy economy. We usually learn from them to help minimize future accidents. That's common sense. But we do not need to go overboard with excessive regulations after an unfortunate accident to make the approval processes even slower.
Exploration and production of natural gas from shale oil deposits represent another huge, untapped opportunity. The technology to safely extract natural gas from our enormous oil shale reserves has never been better. But here again, the environmentalists always scream that it's the end of the world, and then some gutless elected officials kowtow to their wishes for more regulations.
So why are we not on a path to energy independence? It's simply because of too many regulations that slow down the process and discourage businesses to invest. Illogical moratoriums, excessive federal regulations and environmental extremists who influence weak legislators are holding America hostage to foreign oil.
A revitalized and responsibly unleashed energy sector could be a significant economic stimulus to our economy right here at home.
Working families can't afford to spend more of their discretionary income on gasoline and energy costs, especially in a stalled economy. America can't afford to continue spending billions of dollars to buy something that we can produce right here at home if we stop sitting on it. We must stop making other countries rich at our expense.
It's not just economic. It is common sense and a matter of national security.
More:Print This Post
Rep Peter King (R-NY) will soon hold hearings on the radicalization of Muslims in hopes of finding root causes which can then possibly lead to effective means of preventing this problem in order to be able to better protect Americans. Unfortunately up to this juncture, "we" have overindulged and been accepting of the egregious terrorist acts of Muslims, the vocal and tacit community support and lack of outrage from within the Muslim community.
The Koran is explicitly intolerant of non-believers and countenances violence, murder, subjugation and misogyny. Jews are the primary targets but so are Christians, Buddhists and others.
Muslims do not make good neighbors and don't assimilate in many communities. This tenet is exemplified worldwide – in America, Europe, the Mideast and even in Asia. Several European leaders have come to this realization and have voiced their concerns quite vociferously. These immigrants are attempting to transform their “adopted” countries into part of a global caliphate and are exploiting the freedoms inherent in democracies ironically to accomplish their goals. At the same time, they are financially draining the systems by obtaining a gamut of financial aid.
Unfortunately, though tens of millions of Americans are fully cognizant of what is transpiring, Obama, his Administration and a majority of Congressional Democrats completely deny a problem and often go to bat for a multitude of Muslim groups that serve as fronts for the more radical elements in the Muslim community.
We must all stand with Rep. King and support his actions on this issue.
American Moslems and Rep. King
Rabbi Aryeh Spero March 08, 2011
How many more Americans must be threatened and murdered by Moslems yelling Allahu Akbar before the political establishment acknowledges there is a profound threat to Americans coming from within the Moslem community that must be investigated? When will a rotunda's worth of Senators and Congressmen begin asking the Moslem community to root out these dark elements and vigorously help law enforcement stop what are becoming all too frequent attacks against American citizens?
Just last week, in Germany, two more American servicemen were murdered, just as earlier thirteen people were murdered by Nidal Hassan at Fort Hood. This comes after an "angry" Moslem killed one and maimed five in Seattle, not to mention the foiled plots in Times Square, North Carolina, New Jersey, Texas, and the Christmas Day flight to Detroit.
This week, one Congressman, Peter King (R-NY), will be doing just that, and many American Islamic organizations are doing whatever they can to derail the hearings whose very purpose is to protect the American people.
Imam Rauf, who is behind building the mosque near the site of the 9/11 victims, and Imam Shamsi Ali of the 96th Street Mosque, held a protest in Times Square this Sunday, March 6, against Peter King and the hearings he's holding beginning this Wednesday. Together with CAIR, they are claiming "bigotry" and casting the Moslem community as "victims of a witch hunt." But Peter King is no bigot, rather the courageous chair of the Congressional Homeland Security Committee who simply wants to find out who and where are the dangerous Islamists planning attacks within America, and is asking the Moslem community to be more forthcoming in assisting law enforcement. Protecting American lives is the first obligation of our elected officials and King says he's "tired of the political correctness that has for too long been standing in the way of our government fulfilling its Constitutional duty to the people." Furthermore, it is not an investigation of the Moslem community but of the radicals within that community.
The truth is America's Moslem community is not a victim. Rather, it is we, the American people who are being shot, threatened and victimized. Despite all the attacks that have taken place in the name of Islam against the American people, there has been no measurable retaliation against Moslem schools, businesses or individuals. Indeed, in its latest report the ADL announced that American Jews have been attacked more than any other group, and a good portion of these attacks have come from members of the American Moslem community, as was the case at the Seattle Jewish Federation(10/6/06); at the El Al counter at LAX(7/4/2002); the throat slitting of a young Jewish man in Houston by a Saudi student(8/6/03); the bomb plot against Riverdale, N.Y. synagogues(May, 2009); and chants in Ft. Lauderdale by Moslem demonstrators screaming "Hitler didn't finish the job"(12/30/2008).
I'm often asked by reporters how I and fellow Jews would feel if hearings were being held about members of our community. One thing is for sure. If the Jewish community had hundreds or thousands within its community planning attacks against fellow Americans, and doing those attacks in the name of Judaism, just about every Jew and Jewish organization would be "outing" them immediately, ridding ourselves of these imposters of the faith, helping law enforcement in every way possible, and firing any teachers in our schools or synagogues who preached terrorism against fellow Americans or spoke of replacing our Constitution.
I know of no other community that has as many organizations warning their people not to cooperate with law enforcement as is found in today's Moslem community, and it seems that's exactly why these hearings have become necessary and are long overdue. In fact, Congressman King has said that he's "been frustrated over the lack of tangible cooperation from Moslem organizations with Homeland Security". It is they who have brought this upon themselves. Congressman King has no choice.
It is, also, the moral thing to do; for there is nothing more obligatory than doing what must be done to protect innocent life. Rabbi Marc Schneier, who is a long-time ally of Imam Rauf and party to the incessant grievance-machine coming from Moslem organizations, spoke Sunday of "not targeting a religious community." But Congressman King is not denying them religious rights, rather hoping they display good citizenship. Isn't it high time the majority of Moslems did the religious thing and began showing concern for the lives of others, instead of trying to stop elected officials from protecting innocent Americans? Isn't it time that instead of being fixated always on the honor and sensitivity of the Moslem community and accusing us of racism and Islamophobia, the majority of Moslems do the heroic thing expected of religious people, as well as good neighbors, and declare jihad against the jihadists, the radicals, and the imams preaching the hateful and supremacist teachings fueling the Allahu Akbars against non-Moslems? Or are their leaders promoting a religion so inner-directed and bifurcating of life, that what it demands for itself, it is unwilling to give to others?
If Rabbi Schneier of the trendy Hampton Synagogue had done his homework, he would have known that in our religious tradition the protection of life and body is more important than feigned "sensitivity." But perhaps he was all caught up in the rally's slogan: "Today, I am A Moslem." Clergymen have an obligation to uphold the fundamentals of the Bible, protecting innocent life and rooting out evil, instead of subordinating to political correctness. For that, we already have college professors. Life, according to our serious religious tradition, is more important than "sensitivity."
Schneier asks that we "do the honorable thing and care about people from other groups." How long will Americans be asked, yet again, to do penance and prove their goodness by denying their own needs and rights, while others are never asked to show honor towards us?
The repeated assertion by the Rabbi and Imams, and President Obama, that the never-ending destruction by Islamists against us "has nothing to do with Islam" perpetuates the danger, since it exonerates the Moslem community from embarking on the soul-searching and introspection necessary to bring about change and moderation in the community and dissipates any public pressure on them to root out the extremists in their midst or cooperate more fully with law enforcement. Why should they, when we keep telling them that the killings done in the name of Islam have nothing to do with Islam.
Down the block, many on Sunday counter-protested the Imams' and Rabbi's rally, asserting: "Today, I am not a Moslem, nor was I yesterday, nor will I be one tomorrow. I am Jewish, I am Christian, and intend to remain so." Others spoke of being proud of being American and believe multiculturalism has gone too far when people like Imam Rauf openly suggest some type of new arrangement between the Koran and the Constitution, one which will deprive us of full rights by altering the historic Constitution to fit with the values and needs of Moslems. There is nothing either moderate or American in a group coming to America and its leaders demanding the country "slightly" change its Constitution, resulting in a nation partially losing what has been its sacred heritage and civil rule book.
The Imams and Rabbi Schneier are trying to frame this as a civil rights issue and many of their leftwing backers intone We Shall Overcome. However, unlike the blacks of yesteryear, every Moslem citizen in this country is allowed to vote, and is free to purchase a home, go to college and find a job. They are not denied civil rights. It is we who are being denied our fundamental civil right to safety and protection by those wishing to block these hearings.
Indeed, the country has bent over backwards, to its own peril, trying to be sensitive to Moslem concerns. Nidal Hassan, who killed fourteen at Fort Hood and impaired 30 others, plus their families, was not stopped along his route to destruction precisely because he was a Moslem and no one wanted to be accused of profiling a Moslem. A non-Moslem expressing to friends and superiors the dangerous desires he did, would have been stopped way earlier. In the name of being sensitive to Islamic honor, Americans died. It's enough already!
In the name of sensitivity, millions of innocent Americans are unnecessarily, and daily, humiliated at airports as if potential terrorists, while women wearing burkhas are given far less dress-down. Evidently, Jewish and Christian humiliation is negligible, acceptable. Truth be told, the Moslem activists such as Rauf and CAIR and its rabbinic defenders should stop their never ending grievances and indictments against the American people, since it appears that Moslems are given greater consideration and latitude than the rest of us. But they won't. Many are concocting accusations and using American slogans to pave the way toward Islamization.
It's time more of our elected officials began openly talking about the threatening Islamization plans unfolding in our country. If they do, I'm confident We Shall Overcome.
Aryeh Spero is president of Caucus for America
More:Print This Post
Rep. Peter King (R-NY) will shortly begin hearings on the radicalization of Muslims. The White House is already in the appeasement and defensive mode which has been its modus operandi for 2 years. It clearly either does not understand the problem, is ideologically blind to the issue or is actually protecting and supporting Islam (a little affinity, perhaps?) by not stating the obvious. For example, despite the German gunman who was identified as a Muslim and who yelled "Allah Akbar" prior to murdering two US soldiers in cold blood, Obama couldn't bring himself to mention an association with Islam or even terrorism.
Whatever Obama's motivation, which we believe is largely nefarious, his inactions and avoidance of labeling these terrorist acts what they truly are, only further encourages more violence.
As an example of the incompetence, egregious ignorance and head in the sand approach, Deputy National Security Adviser Denis McDonough stated that a mosque is a "typically American place" and said it reminded him of his Catholic parish where he grew up in Minnesota."
Yeah, right! We don't think that they were brainwashing and radicalizing little Catholic children in his parish to blow off the heads of non-believers and try to take over the whole world in violent fashion.
Irrefutably, Islam is a religion of hate and the radicalization is just the more extreme element of an intolerant, hateful, misogynistic polity or cult which calls itself a religion.
White House praises Muslims ahead of House hearing
By Eileen Sullivan and Lolita C. Baldor March 6, 2011
STERLING, Va. (AP) -- Muslim Americans are not part of the terrorism problem facing the U.S. - they are part of the solution, a top White House official said Sunday at a Washington-area mosque.
Deputy National Security Adviser Denis McDonough set the Obama administration's tone for discussions as tensions escalate before the first in a series of congressional hearings on Islamic radicalization. The hearings, chaired by New York Republican Peter King, will focus on the level of cooperation from the Muslim community to help law enforcement combat radicalization.
The majority of the recent terror plots and attempts against the U.S. have involved people espousing a radical and violent view of Islam. Just a few weeks ago a college student from Saudi Arabia who studied chemical engineering in Texas was arrested after he bought explosive chemicals online. It was part of a plan to hide bomb materials inside dolls and baby carriages and blow up dams, nuclear plants or the Dallas home of former President George W. Bush.
King said the Muslim community could and should do more to work with law enforcement to stop its members from radicalizing and recruiting others to commit violence.
"I don't believe there is sufficient cooperation" by American Muslims with law enforcement, King said Sunday on CNN's "State of the Union." "Certainly my dealings with the police in New York and FBI and others say they do not believe they get the same - they do not give the level of cooperation that they need."
In New York City on Sunday, about 300 protestors gathered in Times Square to speak out against King's hearing, criticizing it as xenophobic and saying that singling out Muslims, rather than extremists, is unfair.
McDonough said that instead of condemning whole communities, the U.S. needs to protect them from intimidation.
McDonough spoke to an interfaith forum at a Northern Virginia mosque known for its longtime relationship and cooperation with the FBI. The executive director of the center, Imam Mohamed Magid, also spoke, as did speakers from a local synagogue and a Presbyterian church.
The administration has tried to strike a balance on the thorny issue, working to go after homegrown Islamic extremists without appearing to be at war with the Muslim world. There has been an effort to build stronger relationships with Muslims - internationally and in the United States.
During his remarks Sunday, McDonough called the mosque a "typically American place" and said it reminded him of his Catholic parish where he grew up in Minnesota.
"Being religious is never un-American. Being religious is quintessentially American," he said.
He commended the mosque's members for taking "an unequivocal stand against terrorism."
"You've sent a message that those who perpetrate such horrific attacks do not represent you or your faith, and that they will not succeed in pitting believers of different faiths against one another," McDonough said.
The White House is close to finalizing a strategy for countering violent extremism. McDonough leads a working group of 13 federal agencies and offices - including the National Counterterrorism Center and the departments of Defense, Education, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Justice and State - focused on finding ways to confront the problem.
On Sunday, McDonough said the strategy would involve continuing efforts to understand the process of radicalization, as well as further outreach to Islamic communities in the United States. He also promised further efforts to dispel "misperceptions about our fellow Americans who are Muslim."
"No community can be expected to meet a challenge as complex as this alone," McDonough said. "No one community can be expected to become experts in terrorist organizations, how they are evolving, how they are using new tools and technology to reach our young people."
More:Print This Post
The Muslim Brotherhood is euphemistic sounding name for a group that sponsors, supports and organizes global jihad with the ultimate goal of destroying Israel and the West and establishing sharia law worldwide. Its philosophies, positions and spawn are well known including such groups as Hezbollah, Hamas and CAIR. Al Queda and it seek the same goals and will do so through violence and terror.
So why is Obama and many in his Administration, particularly Hillary Clinton, speaking out in support of the Muslim Brotherhood including as being an integral part of the Mubarak-Egyptian solution?
Are the “president” and these individuals just seeking appeasement or are they really so thoroughly incompetent, naïve and morally challenged?
Or is there an even more nefarious reason particularly as regards Obama and his inscrutable affinity for Islam?
This isn’t much of a stretch as both his “fathers” were Muslim and he did live in Indonesia as a child and attended a madrassa (Islamic school) there.
His actions as “president” irrefutably reveal a pro-Muslim agenda and present an undeniable danger to America and the West.
Appeasing the Muslim Brotherhood -- Obama's Rubicon Moment
Eileen F. Toplansky February 07, 2011
Signed on September 17, 1978, the Camp David Accords ushered in a peace between Egypt and Israel. This peace is clearly in jeopardy now that Obama has shown that America can no longer be trusted to aid its allies, let alone its own interests. In 2010, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitanosecretly met with the Muslim Brotherhood, "a movement that uses a religious identity to mask its political agenda." Also in 2010, the U.N. Security Council "quietly dropped Youssef Nada, a prominent financial and diplomatic representative of the Muslim Brotherhood from an international sanctions list directed at curbing the activities of alleged terrorist financiers." At the time, Victor Comras, a former adviser on financial sanctions believed that "the Obama administration would have had to signal that it was willing to go along with this decision."
The Muslim Brotherhood, long a supporter of Hamas and Hezb'allah, deliberately works to "foster confusion" in order to obfuscate its real message. Thus, conflicting messages come from the Brotherhood leaders, yet it is patently apparent that they are committed to the destruction of Israel. During the Holy Land Foundation case, one of the most interesting exhibits was a "Muslim Brotherhood memorandum by Mohamed Akram, dated May 22, 1991, where he outlines the Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood] vision of the future." Thus, "the Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and 'sabotaging' its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions."
The Brotherhood's slogan depicting a Koran and swords reinforces the group's commitment to jihad and worldwide Islamification. On October 27, 2009, the Muslim Brotherhood Sheik Mahdi Akef claimed that the "Arab rulers are more despicable than the Zionists" and urged his listeners "to wage jihad." In 2007, Akef said that the "Brotherhood has not recognized Camp David from the very first day it was signed." In 2004, Akef declared "his complete faith that Islam will invade Europe and America."
More recently, in his February 4, 2011 Friday sermon, Iranian Supreme Leader Al-Khamenei exhorted his listeners as he described the events in Egypt as an "Islamic liberation movement." He reminded his followers of the Iranian Revolution, also known as the Islamic revolution or 1979 Revolution, and reflected on certain parallels with the current Egyptian uprising. Khamenei called the Camp David peace treaty signed by Egypt and Israel the "Treaty of Shame." Syria was praised by Khamenei, while Egypt's Mubarak is cited as a traitor to the Islamic movement. Moreover, Khamenei told his worshipers "not [to] trust the role played by the West and America. ... "
Ominously, Khamenei explained that "the religious scholars, and Al-Azhar ... [would] play a much more significant role [in the new Islamic revolution]." Thus, "when the people embark on its revolution from the mosques and the Friday sermons, and raise the slogan of 'Allah Akbar,' the Islamic scholars are expected to play a more prominent role. This expectation is in place."
From his pulpit, Khamenei avowed that "the Zionist enemy, not the Egyptian people, should tremble in fear of the Egyptian army," as he believes the Egyptian army will [eventually] join the masses."
In November 2007, Lt. Col. (ret.) Jonathan D. Halevi wrote for the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs that the Muslim Brotherhood's "top priority is constructing a Muslim infrastructure in the West which will slowly but surely enable it to rule during the 21st century. As far as the final goal is concerned, there are no policy differences between al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood. The two organizations have the same objective: to place the entire world under an Islamic caliphate."
More recently, Dore Gold asks if "the Obama administration's policy toward Egypt [is] based on a perception that the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood would be extremely dangerous -- Or have they taken the position...that the Brotherhood has become moderate and can be talked to?"
In September of 2010, Muslim leaders were brought to the White House in order to provide the groups "funding, government assistance and resources." That is, "the workshop apparently provided special access for these Muslim Brotherhood organizers." Thus, "the White House initiated a taxpayer-funded government stimulus program for the attending Muslim Brotherhood-associated groups." In fact, "the sponsoring organization (CCMO) or Coordinating Council of Muslim Organizations has a long history of associations with the Muslim Brotherhood."
Repeatedly, expert testimony has been given by people who have lived under sharia law and/or have devoted their lives to investigating the terror perpetuated by the Muslim Brotherhood. In fact, Nonie Darwish described "a former Muslim critic of Islam [who has stated] that he is no longer confident that the US government will protect his civil rights as long as there are people in [the American] government such as Dalia Mogahed, the first White House Muslim advisor who is a firm defender of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), both groups that are tied to the Muslim Brotherhood."
In his 2009 report entitled "The Muslim Brotherhood in the United States," author Steven Merley lists the Muslim Brotherhood Organizations in the United States. They include the more well-known ISNA (Islamic Society of North America) and the MSA (Muslim Students Association) as well as others such as the Muslim Communities Association, the Association of Muslim Social Scientists, the Islamic Medical Association, the Muslim Youth of North America, the ISNA Political Awareness Committee, the OLF (Occupied Land Fund), the MIA (Mercy International Association), the IIC (Islamic Information Center), to name only a few.
It is now time to test Obama's moral compass. He needs to be directly asked if he believes the Muslim Brotherhood is a threat to the United States. If he affirms that it is, then he needs to be forcefully questioned as to why he has not taken more concerted steps to thwart their growth in the United States.
If, on the other hand, the 44th president states that the Muslim Brotherhood is not a threat, then it is quite clear where his true allegiance rests. American vulnerability would be publicly exposed putting us at grave risk.
If Obama cannot or will not answer this simple question, then his neutral stance also speaks volumes and will embolden the terrorism of the Muslim Brotherhood.
It is the Rubicon moment for this man. It is the wake-up call for the rest of us.
More:Print This Post
Though it is a week since the shooting rampage in Tucson and there are other pressing issues in this country, it is still very important to be cognizant of how our government officials represent us and speak of America. This egregious case of despicable and irresponsible expression belongs to none other than Sec. of State Hillary Clinton while she was in Abu Dhabi. During a televised town hall meeting at the university there, she had the temerity to characterize the Tucson shooter as an extremist and drew a moral equivalency between him and the Islamic terrorists that their country is dealing with.
Look, we have extremists in my country… A wonderful, incredibly brave young woman congressmember, Congresswoman Giffords was just shot in our country. We have the same kinds of problems. So rather than standing off from each other, we should work to try to prevent the extremists anywhere from being able to commit violence.
Her comments were inappropriate and irresponsible and even more so because she made them abroad. Furthermore, they were premature, inaccurate, based on conjecture and revealed a knee jerk political response so characteristic of the noxious Left and roundly condemned by rational individuals.
Finally, by creating a specious moral equivalency, in essence, she weakened and denigrated our country by trying to bring us down to their level.
It appears that she has learned her lessons well from her boss, the Great Apologist and Hater of America, Obama.
More:Print This Post
In an insidious and cynical fashion, liberals/Progressives and many in the news media are trying to effect changes in our speech in order to subliminally influence our ideologies, beliefs and political views. We see that with the Obama Administration’s avoidance of terms such as “Islamic terrorism”, “illegal aliens” or “global war on terror”, replacing them with "ideologically motivated violent crime “, “undocumented immigrants” and “overseas contingency operation”, respectively.
This neutralization and homogenization of the precise descriptive terms of what these are suppose to describe is disingenuous, dishonest, and arrogant. It may also have some slight effect on our ability to deal with the specific problems which seems to be the underlying motivation of Obama, the Left and the news media. Their scheming is directed at deconstructing the America that we know and knew and replacing it with their radical, perverted view instead.
The respected Sen. Joe Lieberman has vehemently criticized the Obama Administration’s efforts to downplay Islamic extremism as a cause of terrorism. In a letter to the White House, he asserted that "the failure to identify our enemy for what it is -- violent Islamist extremism -- is offensive and contradicts thousands of years of accepted military and intelligence doctrine to 'know your enemy.'"
We must all be wary of these “word police” who will try to sway us and even more dangerously, our impressionable young who are the future of this country. They must be vociferously opposed and thwarted at every opportunity.
The following video, from Fox News with Megyn Kelly, is a “discussion” on the usage of “illegal immigrant” and “illegal alien” versus the Left’s desired “undocumented immigrant”:
(Megyn Kelly: Calling Illegal Immigrants ‘Undocumented’ Is Like Calling Rape ‘Sex’)
More:Print This Post