All Entries Tagged With: "Muslim"
SEE NO JIHAD, HEAR NO JIHAD, SPEAK NO JIHAD
Why the government and media seem oblivious to America’s rapid infiltration by a violent totalitarian movement.
Is the U.S. government still serious about protecting Americans from the extreme violence of Islamofascism – or isn’t it?
- The Department of Homeland Security, created to defend the nation after the Sept. 11 Islamic terror attacks, has dramatically shifted its focus, earlier this year advising police nationwide to watch out for "right-wing extremists" – especially returning war veterans – supporting the Second Amendment, opposing abortion and illegal immigration, and promoting U.S. sovereignty and the Constitution.
- The U.S. Army ignored a mountain of absurdly obvious warning signs that Army psychiatrist Nidal Malik Hasan was a brainwashed, America-loathing jihadist sleeper agent just waiting to explode – yet it did absolutely nothing to avert the Fort Hood massacre of dozens of American soldiers.
- Five Gitmo terrorists – the worst of the worst, including confessed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who proclaims the government’s terror charges are a "badge of honor" – will be tried in civilian court in New York City, offering these mega-terrorists the worldwide stage they crave from which to spread their ideology, and opening up America’s terror-war secrets to discovery by the terrorists through their lawyers – all paid for by taxpayers.
- Dozens of Islamic terror training camps are operating right under the nose of law enforcement, not in some far-off land, but all across the USA!
What’s going on here? Does the government really care about national security anymore?
No More Muslims in the U.S. Military
Bryan Fischer-Focal Point, No More Muslims in the U.S. Military, Date: 11/6/2009 11:52:15 AM by Bryan Fischer, AFA Director of Issues Analysis
It became evidently almost immediately that the mass murderer in yesterday’s killing spree at Fort Hood was a Muslim who was motivated by jihadist impulses.
Nidal Malik Hasan had told fellow soldiers that the Muslim who killed two recruiters last summer in Little Rock, Arkansas had done the right thing. He spoke openly of his belief that the Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq should rise up and fight the aggressor, by which he meant the U.S. military of which he inexplicably was a part.
He wrote blog entries urging jihad, entries which six months ago attracted the attention of the FBI. Bizarrely, its investigation was closed, he was allowed to continue serving in the military, and as a result, 11 innocent soldiers are now dead, cut down in cold blood on one of their own bases on U.S. soil.
It it is time, I suggest, to stop the practice of allowing Muslims to serve in the U.S. military. The reason is simple: the more devout a Muslim is, the more of a threat he is to national security. Devout Muslims, who accept the teachings of the Prophet as divinely inspired, believe it is their duty to kill infidels. Yesterday’s massacre is living proof. And yesterday’s incident is not the first fragging incident involving a Muslim taking out his fellow U.S. soldiers.
Of course, most U.S. Muslims don’t shoot up their fellow soldiers. Fine. As soon as Muslims give us a foolproof way to identify their jihadis from their moderates, we’ll go back to allowing them to serve. You tell us who the ones are that we have to worry about, prove you’re right, and Muslims can once again serve. Until that day comes, we simply cannot afford the risk. You invent a jihadi-detector that works every time it’s used, and we’ll welcome you back with open arms.
This is not Islamophobia, it is Islamo-realism.
And don’t give us reassurances about the oaths that Muslim soldiers take to protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. Hasan took that oath, and it proved meaningless. In fact, the more devout a Muslim is, the more likely he is to lie to you through his teeth, since lying to the infidel to advance the cause of Islam is commended, not just permitted, in the Koran.
It’s time we all got over the nonsense that all cultures and religions are equally valid or worthy. They most certainly are not. While Christianity is a religion of peace, founded by the Prince of Peace, Islam is a religion of war and violence, founded by a man who routinely chopped the heads off his enemies, had sex with nine-year old girls, and made his wealth plundering merchant caravans.
And just as Christians are taught to imitate the life of Christ, so Muslims are taught to imitate the Prophet in all things. Yesterday, Nidal Malik Hasan was simply being a good Muslim.
The military is not about social engineering or diversity or multiculturalism or about proving what open-minded people we are. It’s about being ready to break things and kill people so that Americans can sleep securely in their beds at night. The mission is too important to be compromised by enlisting possible jihadi warriors and giving them the weapons and training to gun down our own soldiers and paying them all the while.
The barbarians are no longer at the gate. They’re inside the fort, and it’s time for the insanity to stop.
Welcome back Carter/Obama/Carter, etc. It’s so confusing.
(c) 2009 Ann Coulter 6/10/9 (title courtesy of site admin, ray holt)
Well, I’m glad that’s over! Now that our silver-tongued president has gone to Cairo to soothe Muslims’ hurt feelings, they love us again! Muslims in Pakistan expressed their appreciation for President Barack Obama’s speech by bombing a fancy hotel in Peshawar this week.
Operating on the liberal premise that what Arabs really respect is weakness, Obama listed, incorrectly, Muslims’ historical contributions to mankind, such as algebra (actually that was the ancient Babylonians), the compass (that was the Chinese), pens (the Chinese again) and medical discoveries (huh?).
But why be picky? All these inventions came in mighty handy on Sept. 11, 2001! Thanks, Muslims!!
Obama bravely told the Cairo audience that 9/11 was a very nasty thing for Muslims to do to us, but on the other hand, they are victims of colonization.
Except we didn’t colonize them. The French and the British did. So why are Arabs flying planes into our buildings and not the Arc de Triomphe? (And gosh, haven’t the Arabs done a lot with the Middle East since the French and the British left!)
In another sharks-to-kittens comparison, Obama said, "Now let me be clear, issues of women’s equality are by no means simply an issue for Islam." No, he said, "the struggle for women’s equality continues in many aspects of American life."
So on one hand, 12-year-old girls are stoned to death for the crime of being raped in Muslim countries. But on the other hand, we still don’t have enough female firefighters here in America.
Delusionally, Obama bragged about his multiculti worldview, saying, "I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal." In Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan and other Muslim countries, women "choose" to cover their heads on pain of losing them.
Obama rolled out the crucial liberal talking point against America’s invasion of Iraq, saying Iraq was a "war of convenience," while Afghanistan was a "war of necessity." Liberals cling to this nonsense doggerel as a shield against their hypocrisy on Iraq. Either both wars were wars of necessity or both wars were wars of choice.
Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan — nor any country — attacked us on 9/11. Both Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as many other Muslim countries, were sheltering those associated with the terrorists who did attack us on 9/11 — and who hoped to attack us again.
The truth is, all wars are wars of choice, including the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, both World Wars, the Korean and Vietnam Wars, the Gulf War, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. OK, maybe the war on teen obesity is a war of convenience, but that’s the only one I can think of.
The modern Democrat Party chooses — really chooses, not like Saudi women "choosing" to wear hijabs — to fight no wars. But the Democrats couldn’t say that immediately after 9/11, so they pretended to support the war in Afghanistan and then had to spend the next 7 1/2 years trying to come up with a distinction between Afghanistan and Iraq.
Maybe next they can tell us why fighting Hitler — who never invaded the U.S. and had no plans to do so — was a "necessity" in a way that fighting Saddam wasn’t. (Obama on Hitler: "Nazi ideology sought to subjugate, humiliate and exterminate. It perpetrated murder on a massive scale." Whereas Saddam Hussein was just messing with the Kuwaitis, Kurds and Shiites.)
Meanwhile, Muslims throughout the Middle East are yearning for their own Saddam Husseins to be taken out by U.S. invaders so they can be liberated, too. (Then we’ll see how many women — outside of an American college campus — "choose" to wear hijabs.) The war-of-choice/war-of-necessity point must be as mystifying to a Muslim audience as a discussion of gay marriage.
Arabs aren’t afraid of us; they’re afraid of Iran. But our aspiring Jimmy Carter had no tough words for Iran. To the contrary, in Cairo, Obama endorsed Iran’s quest for nuclear "power," while attacking — brace yourself — America for helping remove Iranian loon Mohammad Mossadegh.
The CIA’s taking out Mossadegh was probably the greatest thing that agency ever did. This was back in 1953, before it became a collection of lawyers and paper-pushers.
Mossadegh was as crazy as a March hare (which is really saying something when your competition is Moammar Gadhafi, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and Saddam Hussein). He gave interviews lying in bed in pink pajamas. He wept, he fainted, and he set his nation on a path of permanent impoverishment by "nationalizing" the oil wells, where they sat idle after the British companies that knew how to operate them pulled out.
But he was earthy and hated the British, so left-wing academics adored Mossadegh. The New York Times compared him to Thomas Jefferson.
True, Mossadegh had been "elected" by the Iranian parliament — but only in the chaos following the assassination of the sitting prime minister.
In short order, the shah dismissed this clown, but Mossadegh refused to step down, so the CIA forcibly removed him and allowed the shah’s choice to assume the office. This "coup," as liberal academics term it, was approved by liberals’ favorite Republican president, Dwight Eisenhower, and supported by such ponderous liberal blowhards as John Foster Dulles.
For Obama to be apologizing for one of the CIA’s greatest accomplishments isn’t just crazy, it’s Ramsey Clark crazy.
Obama also said that it was unfair that "some countries have weapons that others do not" and proclaimed that "any nation — including Iran — should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty."
Wait — how about us? If a fanatical holocaust denier with messianic delusions can have nuclear power, can’t the U.S. at least build one nuclear power plant every 30 years?
I’m sure Iran’s compliance will be policed as well as North Korea’s was. Clinton struck a much-heralded "peace deal" with North Korea in 1994, giving them $4 billion to construct nuclear facilities and 500,000 tons of fuel oil in return for a promise that they wouldn’t build nuclear weapons. The ink wasn’t dry before the North Koreans began feverishly building nukes.
But back to Iran, what precisely do Iranians need nuclear power for, again? They’re not exactly a manufacturing powerhouse. Iran is a primitive nation in the middle of a desert that happens to sit on top of a large percentage of the world’s oil and gas reserves. That’s not enough oil and gas to run household fans?
Obama’s "I’m OK, You’re OK" speech would be hilarious, if it weren’t so terrifying.
The Anti-Christ and Mr. Obama - Part 2
Jack Kelly, RaptureReady.com
Last week’s article has quickly become one of the most widely read of any we’ve ever posted. It has also generated several questions and some wild information I had never heard before. Among these are excerpts from secular news sources containing two non-Biblical prophecies that I will offer first. Since they both opened with rhetorical questions, I’ve arranged them in our familiar Q and A format, but post them as written. The remaining questions are all reader submitted.
Two Non-Biblical Prophecies
The first one is very controversial and I offer no opinion as to its validity, except that I’ve received it from several independent news sources. I have been able to confirm that Johanwa Owalo was who this prophecy says he was and that it apparently came from a document copyrighted in 1915. Readers are cautioned to conduct their own research before accepting it as authentic.
“Q. Is Barak Obama the “Son of Kenya” foretold by the great 19th Century Kenyan Prophet, Johanwa Owalo, the founder of Kenya’s Nomiya Luo Church?
A. Among the Kenyan people of the Luo religion Owalo is believed to be a prophet similar to Jesus Christ and Muhammad, and who in 1912 made this horrific prophecy about the United States:
‘So far have they [the United States] strayed into wickedness in those [future] times that their destruction has been sealed by my [father]. Their great cities will burn, their crops and cattle will suffer disease and death, their children will perish from diseases never seen upon this Earth, and I reveal to you the greatest [mystery] of all as I have been allowed to see that their [the United States] destruction will come about through the vengeful hands of one of our very own sons.’ “
The next one comes from a Forbes.com article dated 10-26-08 by Amir Taheri, author of 10 books on Iran, the Middle East and Islam.
“Q. Is Barack Obama the "promised warrior" coming to help the Hidden Imam of Shiite Muslims conquer the world?
A. This question has made the rounds in Iran since last month, when a pro-government Web site published a Hadith (or tradition) from a Shiite text of the 17th century. The tradition comes from Bahar al-Anvar (meaning Oceans of Light) by Mullah Majlisi, a magnum opus in 132 volumes and the basis of modern Shiite Islam.
According to the tradition, Imam Ali Ibn Abi-Talib (the prophet’s cousin and son-in-law) prophesied that at the End of Times and just before the return of the Mahdi, the Ultimate Saviour, a "tall black man will assume the reins of government in the West." Commanding "the strongest army on earth," the new ruler in the West will carry "a clear sign" from the third imam, whose name was Hussein Ibn Ali. The tradition concludes: "Shiites should have no doubt that he is with us ."
In a curious coincidence Obama’s first and second names–Barack Hussein–mean "the blessing of Hussein" in Arabic and Persian. His family name, Obama, written in the Persian alphabet, reads O Ba Ma, which means "he is with us," the magic formula in Majlisi’s tradition.”
From these secular sources it appears that people from diverse backgrounds believe that a leader matching Mr. Obama’s description could appear in the last days, and that his impact will not be good for America. Time will tell.
Reader Submitted Questions
Now we’ll begin our reader submitted questions. In the interest of time and space, I’ve summarized them all into three basic questions that speak to Mr. Obama’s qualification to be the anti-Christ.
Q. Re: The people of the leader who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary (Daniel 9:26) How can Mr. Obama be the fulfillment of Daniel 9:26 if he was born in Hawaii, or Kenya for that matter?
A. When Daniel wrote these words from the Angel Gabriel, the Babylonians were about to be conquered by the Medes and Persians. The Romans wouldn’t arrive on the scene for several hundred years yet so Gabriel needed a way to identify them. He told Daniel the coming leader would be from the people who would destroy the city and sanctuary following the Messiah’s rejection. The Jewish Temple and the City of Jerusalem were destroyed separately. The Roman General Titus Vespasian led the troops who burned the Temple and tore its ruins apart stone by stone in either 68 or 69 AD depending on who’s account you favor. He did this under orders from his father Vespasian who was the Emperor of Rome. Then in 135 AD another Roman Emperor, Hadrian, ordered the complete destruction of Jerusalem as a consequence of the bar Kochba rebellion. These two separate events bear witness that Gabriel was referring to the Romans. Together they meet the standard that a matter must be established by the testimony of 2 or 3 witnesses. (Deut. 19:15 )
Brittainia (Great Britain) first came to the notice of the Romans in 55BC and by 43 AD had been assimilated into the Roman Empire, well before the City and Sanctuary were destroyed. Therefore the Roman Empire of the time stretched from Great Britain in the west across southern Europe and Northern Africa to the Caspian Sea and Persian Gulf in the East. Romans called the Mediterranean sea “Mare Nostrum” (our sea) because the Roman Empire pretty much surrounded it.
Many students of prophecy agree that almost anyone of Middle Eastern or European descent could meet the qualification of Daniel 9:26 to be the anti-Christ providing he also becomes a world leader. They say this is even true of many Americans because of our prior status as a British Colony and the fact that our country was founded in large part by Europeans whose ancestors dwelt in the Roman Empire of Biblical times.
Mr. Obama is almost certainly of European descent through His mother, and those who claim to have done the research say that on his father’s side he’s much more Arab than African. In fact Mr. Obama Sr.’s birth certificate identifies him as an Arab. They say Mr. Obama Jr.’s genealogy shows him to be 50% Caucasian, 43.75% Arab and 6.25% African. And in an interesting side note, Great Britain is one of the countries Mr. Obama is being asked to prove he’s not a citizen of in at least one of the lawsuits that have been filed. If he was born in Kenya in 1961 he would likely be a British citizen, because Kenya’s independence from Great Britain didn’t take place until 1963. The Supreme Court Justices will review one of these suits on Dec. 5,2008 to determine if they want to hear oral arguments. It is still unclear to everyone why Mr. Obama doesn’t just release his original birth certificate and put an end to all the speculation.
Q. Since the soldiers who destroyed the Temple were actually Assyrian mercenaries, and since Isaiah mentions an Assyrian enemy of Israel (Isaiah 10:5), doesn’t this mean the anti Christ has to be Assyrian? Wouldn’t that exclude Mr. Obama?
A. In my answer above I showed that the Angel Gabriel had to be referring to Rome when he spoke of the people who would destroy the city and the sanctuary. Remember, they were two different events, almost 70 years apart, and both times the soldiers were under Roman command following Roman orders. Also, the Assyrian Empire had been assimilated into Rome by territorial conquest, so there was no official Assyrian presence at the time. And had the passage referred to the Assyrians, Gabriel could have just mentioned them by name, since everyone in Daniel’s day knew of them.
Isaiah 10:1-19 is a judgment against Assyria. The Hebrew word translated Assyrian in verse 5 is Asshur, the name of the second son of Shem. This means it’s a reference to the Assyrian people, the descendants of Asshur, not to an individual. When the Assyrian King Sennacherib conquered Damascus and the Northern Kingdom, his army was bringing God’s judgment against godless people (verse 6). But when they set their sights on Jerusalem (verse 11) they exceeded God’s intention. In one night God sent the angel of death into the Assyrian camp and by morning 185,000 Assyrian soldiers were dead. Isaiah compared it to a fire burning through thorns and briers. (verses 17-18) The remaining Assyrians went home in shame and later Sennacherib’s own sons killed him. (Isaiah 37:36-38 ) Based on these things, I am not convinced that the Scriptures require the anti-Christ to be of Assyrian descent.
Q. The Bible seems to say that the anti-Christ will be asexual. Since Mr. Obama is happily married with two daughters why wouldn’t this exclude him?
A. This question refers to Daniel 11:37 which in the KJV reads;
Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.
According to tradition, the phrase “desire of women” refers to the Messiah, not to the anti-Christ’s sexual orientation. From the time of Eve it was every Jewish woman’s desire to be the mother of the Messiah, so one of the informal names of the Messiah was “the desire of women”. This whole idea stems from the phrase “seed of the woman”, a reference to the promised redeemer from Genesis 3:15 . The idea that the anti-Christ will be asexual can not be supported from Scripture.
What’s The Point Of All this?
My purpose in this study has been to separate Biblical fact from human opinion on the issue of the anti-Christ, specifically in support of my claim that there’s no Biblical reason Mr. Obama couldn’t one day be revealed as the anti-Christ. By the way, much this information could be used to support the opinion that Bill Clinton, Prince Charles, or a number of others could turn out to be the anti-Christ as easily as Barack Obama, but he’s the one I’ve been asked about.
In part one of this study, I said that I don’t think it’s time for the anti-Christ to be introduced yet, and that the Church will not be here when he is. In 2 Thes.2:1-8 Paul gave a summary of End Times events in sequence. A careful reading reveals that Paul identified three specific things that will have to happen before the Day of the Lord (Great Tribulation) can come. There will have to be a falling away, a rebellion against the truth. This is when the believers in name only will be drawn out of the true Church into one of the various apostate movements we see springing up in our midst. The restraining force that’s holding the secret power of lawlessness back will also have to be taken out of the way. That’s the Holy Spirit contained in the Church, a reference to the Rapture. Then the man of lawlessness will be revealed and will stand in God’s Temple proclaiming himself to be God. That’s the abomination of Desolation that kicks off the Great Tribulation, and that’s when the world will know for certain just who the anti-Christ is.
For us it’s enough to know that the signs pointing to the End of the Age are appearing all around us. This is not happening so that we can hunker down and prepare for the storm. It’s happening so we can begin making preparations for our departure. Whether it’s several months or several years is also immaterial. The sooner we act the better prepared we’ll be. No one on Earth will be able to tell you in advance when we’ll be leaving. There will be no specific warning. One moment we’ll be here and the next we’ll be there. Jesus said we won’t know the day or hour, but He had Paul tell us that we should not be taken by surprise. Fore warned is fore armed, they say, and we’ve been forewarned. You can almost hear the footsteps of the Messiah. 11-22-08
Loading ...