Hat Tip: BB
By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton
It’s difficult to not look at world events these days and feel as though we are sitting on a ticking time bomb. Things are heating up even more and the clock is now at about 30 seconds to midnight.
One wonders where all this will lead… Well, if the current course is kept, straight into hell, probably. That is by design and has been planned on for a very long time.
From Trevor Loudon:
If it comes to war, one joint Russia/China plan is for Russia to nuke the hell out of the continental United States. After Obama has finished decimating what is left of the US nuclear arsenal of course. The Russians will then invade Alaska and parts of Canada, but not the lower ’48. China will then invade across the Pacific. They will lose millions of troublesome young men, but they eventually get a foothold. Then their allies in Latin America will invade across the Mexican border… and the Red Dawn will break.
You can count North Korea in that mix as well. It has always been the plan of the Russians to use Iran as a proxy army to take control of the Middle East and the energy resources at play. But would any of them really come after the US?
The answer to that question is a definitive ‘yes.’ Being separated from most of our enemies by an ocean gives us the illusion of safety, but that should have been shattered after 9-11. However, America’s apathy runs deep these days and most people fell back to sleep or into an encompassing lethargy when a would-be dictator started trashing the Constitution and our God given rights. While we tear ourselves apart as a nation, our enemies are salivating, awaiting the right opportunity to strike.
I contend that Obama is setting us up for just such an attack. And as Trevor Loudon astutely points out, it will most likely come from several enemies at once. With a depleted nuclear arsenal and a massively weakened military, the hour is drawing nigh that an attack will be forthcoming. Think about it… if you were our powerful enemies, what would you do? You would attack of course when your enemy is at their weakest financially and militarily – like right about now. Consider this scenario:
- North Korea launches 2 or 3 EMPs over the United States with no warning, or so little that we have no time to take evasive measures.
- Russia invades Alaska and parts of Canada.
- China launches an attack via the Pacific Ocean with millions of soldiers. The sheer numbers alone would overwhelm our current defenses.
- Iran, Venezuela and Cuba attack from the South. With a fully open border and with no guard there whatsoever, hordes of terrorists would slash their way through with absolutely no pity or remorse for the bloody trail of bodies left behind.
Now consider if these all happen at once. Not possible, you say? Why not? Both Russia and China have been busy building their military forces up, while we have been scaling radically down in that arena. Iran now has nuclear capability as does North Korea. Aside from the energy resources in the Middle East, what would be the biggest prize ever? Bringing down America, invading her and conquering a once free nation. All our enemies need to do is team up, pillage and plunder, then divide the spoils of war. See Sun Tzu. It would be the ultimate redistribution of wealth.
If that is not enough to haunt your dreams, consider this… What if Progressives made deals for themselves with our enemies while betraying our closest ally? For land, resources, slaves, security, power… No? Then tell me why we are being so cozy with the Chinese, or the Muslim Brotherhood, or the Russians for that matter. With Obama’s reelection, he can be much more flexible. Why is Obama deliberately bankrupting our nation? And why is money massively being withdrawn from our banks? It seems to me that Obama and the Communists are really close in their goals for this country. Just this last week, CPUSA was cheering Obama on gun restrictions.
Remember, Communism as articulated in the various Communist documents, asserts that nobody owns anything – that the group owns everything. But because in practice that doesn’t work, an elite self-appointed overclass takes control and endeavors to enforce the ideals of Communism on the proletariat. Thus, implementing in practice a form of fascism, nominally called “Communism.” The Muslim creeds implement an unabashed fascism from the beginning. So our enemies all have fascism in common. Even those regimes that are nominally Communist, wind up implementing fascism because completely decentralized control doesn’t work when there is no ownership. You see, our enemies have a lot in common ideology wise and they all want the United States’ land and resources.
So, while our Progressives have been calling for the end of the Constitution, the Chinese have been busy buying up billions in real estate here in the US. They are now buying up our utilities and natural resources as well. They are buying up major companies such as battery makers as well. This is just Communist foreplay. The problem with the US is that we are an instant gratification society. Long range planning for us is what is for dinner tonight. Long range planning for our enemies is the demise and conquest of America.
We hear very little in the media about what is facing us militarily. Even Pravda sees more clearly what is going on in the States than many Americans do. As the gathering red storm advances on America, will we react in time to save ourselves? When the EMPs fly, it’s a little too late to rally the troops to our defense.
Haven’t started with an upbeat message in a posting for a while, and I think it’s time. Especially is this the case as yesterday was Tu BeSh’vat. In Jewish law this marks the cycle of trees (call it the birthday of the trees), but in popular culture it is a time for celebrating trees and their fruit — with dried fruits and nuts popular.
And it is a time of hope. Now is when the first blossoms — those of the almond tree — appear, marking the promise of a new season. The almond tree grows wild in Israel, and at its peak, is ubiquitous along roadsides and hillsides.
Now that the election is over, Our government is focusing once again on security issues, which is as it should be:
On Friday, PM Netanyahu met with a bipartisan five-person delegation from the House Appropriations Committee, headed by Congressman Jack Kingston (R-GA).
Addressing expectations in the US (or certainly on the part of the Obama administration) that with the upcoming entry into the government of Yair Lapid, who is for a two-state solution, Israel would be rushing to resume negotiations, the prime minister told them that there are no “quick fix solutions.”
He would like to resume negotiations, he said, but since withdrawal from Gaza in 2005, which resulted in a disastrous situation, it has become obvious that movement forward must take place in a “measured and cautious” manner.
Don’t expect too much, he was warning them. I do not believe there will be problems with Lapid on this score, as he has said Israeli security issues have to be factored into negotiations.
As to Iran, Netanyahu said that “sanctions alone will not be enough” to stop Tehran’s nuclear program. Those sanctions need to be backed up by a credible military threat. (“Credible” is the key word here. It has to be a threat that the Iranians take seriously.) He referred again to the “red line” that Iran must not be permitted to pass.
Also on Friday, Defense Minister Barak gave an interview while at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. There should be a readiness and ability, he declared, to launch a surgical operation against Iran.
During the first administration of President Obama, he said, the Pentagon prepared “quite sophisticated, fine, extremely fine, scalpels” for such a surgical operation. “So it is not an issue of a major war or failure to block Iran.”
This is an extremely important statement. Barak is challenging the Americans, it seems to me: Providing a retort to the commonly heard claim that an effective US operation in Iran would require ground troops, and that this is not something that can be undertaken after all of the theaters of war in which US soldiers have participated of late.
Of course, the Pentagon is not in control of policy — Obama is. Which is how it should be in a democracy. The fact that the Pentagon has devised a potentially effective way to attack Iran without ground troops is irrelevant if the president chooses not to take advantage of it. By nominating Hagel as secretary of defense, Obama has made it pretty clear that he doesn’t choose to. But here Barak is publicly challenging him on his options.
Now, today, at the beginning of the weekly Cabinet meeting, Netanyahu said:
“We must look around us. What is happening in Iran, and the lethal weapons in Syria. The Middle East in not waiting for the election results, and it does not stop while we form our coalition. There is a cluster of threats, and their reality continues to evolve.”
Earlier in the day today, Vice Premier Silvan Shalom (Likud) specifically addressed the issue of Syrian weapons of mass destruction, confirming that last Wednesday Netanyahu had quietly convened a meeting with security chiefs to discuss the status of Syria’s civil war and the potential risk to Israel of its weapons of mass destruction.
Shalom indicated that were Hezbollah or rebels battling Assad to move towards acquiring Assad’s WMD, it would be “a crossing of all red lines that would require a different approach, including even preventive operations,” indicating that Israel had plans ready for military intervention.
“The concept, in principle, is that this [chemical weapons transfer] must not happen, The moment we begin to understand that such a thing is liable to happen, we will have to make decisions.” (Emphasis added)
The state of the world is anything but positive. But I am grateful for indications that our government will take the issues seriously instead of running away from them.
How many times over the last couple of years did Obama declare that he would not let Iran go nuclear? Now we are probably best advised to take these declarations as just so much bombast.
For some time, as well, the US had been talking about monitoring the situation of WMD in Syria, with the suggestion that there might be intervention if the problem grew severe. But more recently Panetta backed away from all indications that US troops might intervene.
The presence of biological and chemical weapons present in large quantities directly to the north of us is more than a bit unsettling. The prospect of an almost nuclear Iran even more so.
There is, in the end, no one to rely upon but ourselves.
Returning for one moment to the statement made by Netanyahu at the Cabinet meeting today… It included this:
“The whole area is stormy, and we need to be prepared, strong and determined. For this purpose I aim to form the widest, most stable government, in order first-of-all to address security threats, and I am convinced that we are capable of coping with these challenges.”
I am consciously refraining from unnecessary speculation, based on rumors, regarding what the make-up of the coalition will be. But what we see here — what we have already understood — is that there will not be a narrow, right wing coalition. I’d be disingenuous if I said I was not a bit nervous about which parties will be included (Livni? Mofaz?).
But, to the degree to which I am convinced that our prime minister has security issues in mind first as he forms that broad-based coalition, I find it easier to accept some of these parameters. In times of difficulty, if not all-out war, it is prudent and appropriate to have a considerable percentage of the electorate represented in the decision-making process.
(Of course, there are also political considerations, such as ensuring that there is no one party that can bring the government down by withdrawing.)
The Good News Corner
US physicians who have passed American MD exams (USMLE) in the past ten years, and who want to settle and work in Israel, will receive exemption from the local licensing exam. This is the first time that Israeli health authorities have accepted foreign test results for an MD license.
Israel’s Service and Therapy Dog Center is distinguished as the world’s first to train dogs as helpers for people suffering from mental limitations, including Alzheimer’s, autism and brain injuries.
The training protocol was developed over four years by geriatric social worker Daphna Golan-Shemesh and professional dog trainer Yariv Ben-Yosef.
Alzheimer’s patients frequently can’t leave home because they are easily disoriented, but they are able to go out with a guide dog leading the way. At home, the dog is trained to press an alarm button if her owner falls and doesn’t get up quickly, or if she hears choking sounds from her master.
By: Col. Tom Snodgrass (Ret.)
Right Side News
Using Drone Strikes While Embracing The Muslim Brotherhood Appears To Be Cognitive Dissonance
“We are not at war against Islam. We are at war against terrorist organizations that have distorted Islam or falsely used the banner of Islam.” ~ President Barack Obama, September 10, 2010
Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada signifying warfare to establish the religion. ~ Islamic Sharia Law [The Sharia is the moral code and religious law of Islam that specifies correct conduct in all religious and secular matters of human life. It is composed of precepts from the Quran and examples from the Prophet’s life as recounted in the Sunna, the teachings and practices of Muhammad.]
5:51: O you, who have believed, do not take the Jews and the Christians as allies. They are [in fact] allies of one another. And whoever is an ally to them among you – then indeed, he is [one] of them. Indeed, Allah guides not the wrongdoing [Jewish and Christian] people. ~ The Islamic god, Allah, in the Quran
8:12: When your Lord inspired to the angels, “I am with you, so strengthen those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved [in Islam], so strike [them] upon the necks and strike from them every fingertip.” ~ The Islamic god, Allah, in the Quran
9:29: Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day [Islamic eschatology] and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger [Muhammad] have made unlawful [that is, do not practice Islamic Sharia jurisprudence] and who do not adopt the religion of truth [Islam] from those [Jews and Christians] who were given the Scripture – [fight] until they give the jizyah [Muslim submission tax for non-Muslims] willingly while they are humbled. ~ The Islamic god, Allah, in the Quran
“I have been commanded [by Allah] to fight [all] people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah . . . .” [this recitation is the “Shahada” – recited when declaring oneself a Muslim] ~ Muhammad, Prophet of Islam, Islamic Sharia Law
Obama And Islamic Theology
President Barack H. Obama proclaims that the U.S. is not “at war with Islam.” The president then proceeds to draw an imaginary line between “moderate” and “radical” groups of Muslims that does not exist within the reality of Islamic “theology.” Obama claims that that there are renegade radical groups of Muslims who heretically distort the fundamentally peaceful message of Islam by misinterpreting Allah’s and Muhammad’s words to mean that they should make jihadist war on non-Muslims. But, as Muhammad makes irrefutably clear, the Islamic jihad is commanded by Allah to continue until the non-Muslims either convert to Islam or accept Islamic Sharia law to be the supreme governing jurisprudence on earth. The Islamic reasoning for imposing Sharia law on the entire world is that it is god-given. Therefore, once Sharia jurisprudence is in effect, all man-conceived legal systems, like the U.S. Constitution, will be null and void. However, in Obama’s inexplicable counterfactual interpretation of Islamic theology, Muslims are not commanded to fight violently to establish the dominance of Islam in the world!
As the basic tenets of Islam quoted above from the foundational book of the Muslim religion, the Quran, and the underlying Islamic Sharia law make undisputedly clear, the “terror-practicing Muslims” are not falsely defining or improperly fulfilling their jihadist duty as prescribed in Islamic theology. In fact, the “terror-practicing Muslims” are carrying out the warring commandments of Muhammad and Allah in both letter and spirit. Executing those specific Islamic mandates is what Sharia-allegiant Muslims have been doing in their most recent 30+year jihad against the U.S. and the West, which is actually just a part of the much longer 1400-year jihad that has been waged against non-Muslims since Islam’s founding.
The only charitable interpretation that the reader can give to Obama’s incomprehensibly benign understanding of Islamic theology is that he has not actually read the Quran and Sharia. But, such a charitable interpretation is a stretch, given Obama’s upbringing in Muslim Indonesia. Consequently, there is undoubtedly another explanation. The purpose of this article is to explore alternative explanations.
As a result of Obama’s demonstrated public partiality toward Islam, there has been a great deal of verbiage written speculating about whether or not Obama is actually a “closet” Muslim. While he claims fidelity to Christianity, what is in his heart and conscience is unknowable to others. However, it is possible to make some judgments regarding his personal allegiances based upon his actions. So, what are some of those actions that would illuminate his personal loyalties?
Obama And The Muslim Brotherhood
Obama has had many contacts and interactions with Muslims since assuming the presidency; however, none are more telling than his dealings with the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) — Arabic: Jamiat al-Ikhwan al-muslimun — and its domestic and overseas affiliates and front groups. Domestically the MB has a much greater presence than is generally recognized by the U.S. public because they are operating under the cover of various front groups like the Council on Islamic American Relations (CAIR), Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP), North American Islamic Trust (NAIT), Muslim Arab Youth Association (MAYA), and United Association for Studies and Research (UASR), to name some of the more prominent. All of these Muslim organizations were positively determined to be MB front groups and at present are unindicted co-conspirators resulting from the terrorist-funding 2007 trial, United States v. Holy Land Foundation. However, possible indictment and prosecution are pending against these groups for being part of a conspiracy that provided millions of dollars of material and logistical support to Hamas and other Islamic terrorist organizations. Islamic charity (“zakat”) is in fact cover for obligatory fund raising to finance jihadist terrorism, as was exposed in the United States v. Holy Land Foundation conspiracy trial. In spite of this documented fact, Obama in his 2009 Cairo “New Beginnings” speech pledged to make it easier for Muslims in the U.S. to contribute to MB terrorism with these words:
For instance, in the United States, rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation [as a result of the discovery of the nefarious purpose for the giving]. That’s why I’m committed to working with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill zakat.
Additionally, according to a December 2012 story in Egypt’s Rose El-Youssef magazine, six American Islamist activists, who work at high levels in the national security policy structure of the Obama regime, are MB operatives. Again, according to this same story, these six agents of influence turned the White House “from a position hostile to Islamic groups and organizations in the world to the largest and most important supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood.” Furthermore, one of the six, Mohammed Elibiary, a member of the Homeland Security Advisory Council, is accused of improperly handling intelligence information from the Homeland Security database. It is worthy of note that Elibiary endorsed the jihadist ideas of radical MD luminary Sayyid Qutb, who was executed by the Egyptian government in the 1960s for advancing Islamist terrorism. The other five Islamists in the Obama regime also have MB connections that raise the obvious question: “Why are these six individuals, with dubious MB Islamist associations, in positions of authority to set counter-jihad policy for combating their coreligionist Islamists?”
The Obama overseas MB connections figure primarily in our diplomatic relations with Egypt. At Obama’s highly touted Cairo speech, wherein the president declared that we are not at war with Islam and that he intended to make it easier for U.S. Muslims to contribute to jihadist terrorism under the cover of Islamic charitable zakat giving, he made a major concession to the MB by inviting them to attend. At the time that Obama officially invited ten MB officials to his Cairo speech, the MB party was outlawed by the Egyptian government of President Hosni Mubarak. Obama’s invitation was a slap in the face to Mubarak and a message to the MB that he was open to cooperation with them. In the speech he signaled his openness to cooperate with the MB through his apology to the Islamic world for America’s “past sins of hard power coercion” in Muslim affairs.
Subsequently, Obama facilitated the MB’s rise to power in Egypt by withdrawing U.S. support from the anti-MB Egyptian president and telling Mubarak that he must resign immediately. Obama then credited the MB’s ascension to power to the “Arab Spring” movement, which he falsely labeled “democratic.” But in no time at all MB leader Muhammad Morsi revealed the true undemocratic nature of his tyrannical Sharia government by announcing that he was assuming dictatorial powers. It is only a matter of time until the MB, led by Morsi, totally consolidates its Sharia-based control over the 82 million Egyptians, the largest Arab population in the Middle East. In the near future, once the MB’s Egyptian power base is consolidated, Sharia jihadist conquest will eventually engulf the Middle East.
In a recently discovered video from a speech in 2010, current Egyptian President Morsi urges more Jew-hatred in the Islamic world, calling Jews “bloodsuckers” and “the descendants of apes and pigs.” White House spokesman, Jay Carney, scolded Morsi that his anti-Semitic, vitriolic hate-speech was “deeply offensive.” Morsi displayed typical Islamic “Sharia-contrition” by explaining to the Obama regime, with an obvious lie, that his remarks were taken out of context. In spite of Morsi’s betrayal of the hate of non-Muslims that underpins the Quran and Sharia, the Obama regime apparently has taken Morsi’s “out of context explanation” as sufficient penance because the first four state-of-the-art F-16 fighter jets departed the U.S. bound for Egypt on January 22nd. These fighters were the first contingent of twenty F-16s and 200 Abrams M-1 tanks that Obama has decided to give to the MB Egyptian government prior to the end of the year pursuant to a foreign aid deal signed in 2010 with longtime U.S. ally, then-Egyptian President Mubarak.
There are critics, exercising sanity and logic like Rep. Louie Gohmert, (R-Texas), who question the wisdom of Obama’s decision to go forward with this weapons transfer, in view of Egypt’s political instability and Egyptian President Morsi’s past anti-American and anti-Israel comments. The logic of Obama’s motive in supplying world-class weapons to the Egyptian MB-run government under these circumstances is questionable, to say the least. Here is the State Department’s explanation for the weapons transfer that ignores the facts on the ground:
“Delaying or cancelling deliveries of the F-16 aircraft would undermine our efforts to address our regional security interests through a more capable Egyptian military and send a damaging and lasting signal to Egypt’s civilian and military leadership as we work toward a democratic transition in the key Middle Eastern State.
“Egypt is a strategic partner with whom we have a long history of close political-military relations that have benefited U.S. interest. For the past 30 years the F-16 aircraft has been a key component of the relationship between the United States military and the Egyptian Armed Forces.
“Maintaining this relationship and assisting with the professionalization and the building of the Egyptian Armed Forces’ capabilities to secure its borders is one of our key interests in the region.
“Egypt continues to play an important role in the regional peace and stability. In all of our engagements with President Morsi and his staff, they have reaffirmed Egypt’s commitment to its international agreements, including its peace treaty with Israel.”
What the State Department says about Egypt’s role in keeping regional peace and stability was true for 30 years under President Mubarak, but that we can look forward to the same degree of partnership and commitment to Middle East peace-keeping from the new Egyptian MB government of Morsi seems highly unlikely, given Morsi’s past animosity expressed toward Israel and the U.S. Perhaps a wiser policy would have been to wait and see how dedicated to peace Morsi actually is, and whether or not Morsi is going to follow through with the MB’s well-known agenda.
Denying That Islam Is A Threat To America
But who is the MB, and what is the MB’s well-known agenda? The MB is a global Sunni Muslim movement, founded in Egypt in 1928 by Hassan al-Banna, for the purpose of waging worldwide jihad to establish an Islamic Caliphate (a Muslim theocratic-political government ruled by a single religious-political leader who would be the successor to Muhammad). Vicious Sunni jihadist terror groups like al-Qaeda, Hamas, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad are all spin-offs of the MB, and their founders were members of the Egyptian MB prior to the parting of ways with their parent organization.
As to the MB’s well-known agenda – the reason why their agenda is well known is that it is an oath published on the Internet:
“Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. Qur’an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.” ~ Muslim Brotherhood Oath
With “jihad” being the “way” of the MB, it is well to remember what jihad means according to the Sharia: “Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada signifying warfare to establish the religion.” This oath makes clear to anyone with a room temperature IQ that the MB is an enemy of the U.S. because the U.S. Constitution and the Islamic Caliphate cannot coexist in the same geographical territory. In the previously mentioned terrorism financing trial, United States v. Holy Land Foundation, it was revealed that the MB has embarked on a massive subversive enterprise involving almost all of the 29 MB front organizations in America. An internal MB memo captured by the FBI was released in evidence at the trial that stated:
The Ikhwan [Brotherhood] 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.
So, in evaluating actions in an attempt to illuminate Obama’s personal loyalties, Obama’s Cairo promise to the MB to make it easier for Muslims in the U.S. to contribute monetary zakat to jihadist terrorism, permitting six MB operatives to have influential positions shaping national security policy in the war against their Muslim coreligionists, and arming the Egyptian MB with state-of-the-art F-16 fighters and M-1 tanks, all indicate that Obama is disposed to aid the MB, rather than thwart it.
Obama And Drone Strikes
So much for the negative side of the ledger, on the other side of the ledger, Obama’s wide-ranging employment of CIA unmanned aerial vehicles, or “drones,” to kill jihadists in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia has been effective in stymieing, but not eliminating, the Islamic jihadist threats in those countries. The U.S. Air Force controls the drone strikes in Afghanistan, which have been as effective in the same measure as the CIA drones. Accurate unclassified CIA drone statistics are somewhat difficult to obtain, but most unclassified numbers on various Internet sites are all in the same ballpark. For instance, there is general agreement that as of the end of 2012, strikes in Pakistan under President Bush numbered 52 and under President Obama the total was 310. The estimated total of those killed under Bush in five years is put in the range of 400-450, while kills under Obama in four years are estimated in the range of 2050-2100. That works out to six times more the strikes and five times more killed under Obama in one less year of drone operations. There are two arguments advanced to explain these numerical differences – one is that the drone program was just beginning and gearing up under Bush, so it was not at full operational capability, and two, under Bush the targeting was more selective in only concentrating on confirmed jihadist leaders, while Obama inherited a fully operational drone program and his targeting is much more indiscriminate.
One additional factor that is thought to explain Obama’s increased use of drones to kill jihadists is that by killing them, he does not have to deal with detaining and incarcerating them. Since Obama and his leftist constituency are obsessed with closing the jihadist detention facility at Guantanamo, and the Congress has blocked Obama’s attempts to intern Islamic terrorists in continental U.S., civilian penal facilities, killing rather than capturing solves Obama’s leftist ideological problem regarding not using Guantanamo.
Given Obama’s demonstrated propensity to aid the MB, the ideological fountainhead of Islamic jihadism, both domestically and overseas, while simultaneously unleashing an unrestrained drone strike offensive against jihadist forces where they are attempting to establish remote operating bases, it is as if the U.S. Commander-in-Chief has cognitive dissonance. This condition is described as:
Cognitive dissonance can occur in many areas of life, but it is particularly evident in situations where an individual’s behavior conflicts with beliefs that are integral to his or her self-identity.
Of course, such a psychological explanation is difficult to accept because Obama appears so certain in what he professes to believe in all areas of life; so the mystery remains in the quest to explain the contraction of Obama’s professed benign understanding of Islamic theology and his disposition to assist the MB in achieving their objectives, in contrast to his ferocious drone strike program. In many respects Obama seems to walking an ideological tightrope.
Putting It All Together
But aside from Obama’s unrelenting drone campaign to kill jihadists in remote areas of the world, most of the evidence indicates that Obama’s loyalty weighs most heavily on the side of enabling the agents of Islam to progress toward Allah’s objective as described by Muhammad, “I have been commanded [by Allah] to fight [all] people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah…”
High level regime officials speaking for Obama, including Attorney General Eric Holder, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, and Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism John Brennan, have all declined to publicly acknowledge the obvious fact that Islam was the motivating factor behind the Fort Hood jihad mass murders, the attempted jihad car bombing in Times Square, and the Christmas underwear jihad bomber over Detroit! A very telling example of Obama’s “non-declaration of war” occurred when two MB front groups, CAIR and ISNA, made the politically correct demand that all FBI training materials for law enforcement and intelligence agents be purged of any mention of Islam or jihad! In complying with this Muslim demand, the Obama regime’s sympathetic and supportive policy toward Islam was forcefully enunciated by Dwight C. Holton, former U.S. Attorney for the District of Oregon:
“I want to be perfectly clear about this: training materials that portray Islam as a religion of violence or with a tendency towards violence are wrong, they are offensive, and they are contrary to everything that this president, this attorney general and Department of Justice stands for. They will not be tolerated.”
After reading the Quran and Sharia quotations opening this article, a non-ideological observer with common sense has to marvel at the above statement by U.S. Attorney Holton! That same observer also has to question the motivation of the Obama regime in taking such a counterfactual position on the nature of Islam, especially since the Allah-mandated objective of Islam would destroy the U.S. Constitution!
There are two apparent explanations for Obama’s baffling benevolent policy toward Islam – one innocent but foolish, and one not so innocent. The innocent explanation is based on the American liberal belief that, irrespective of the incontestable Quranic and Sharia jihadist exhortations, there are “moderate” Muslims who totally ignore the central organizing principle of Islam – to spread the religion and Sharia law through jihad, which begs the question: Why are they Muslims? Since in the minds of American liberals, there are these moderate Muslims, they do not wish to antagonize them by publically recognizing the Quran and Sharia mandate that Islam is the avowed enemy of U.S. constitutional government. Clearly, such liberal belief is founded on hope – not fact, history, and reason.
The not so innocent explanation is that Obama is pro-Islam, as this historically unsupportable statement attests: “I know, too, that Islam has always been a part of America’s history.” ~ President Barack Hussein Obama, Cairo Speech, Jun 4, 2009. [Unless he is referring to the historical fact that Islam has been attacking the U.S. as an enemy since 1786.] Given a unmistakably pro-Islam mindset, for whatever reason, Obama aids and abets the MB Islamic cause by lifting U.S. legal restrictions on zakat terrorist fund raising, by putting MB operatives in U.S. national security policy-making positions, by removing cautionary explanations of Islamic jihad from law enforcement and intelligence training materials, and by arming a hostile MB-run Egyptian government with top-of-the line U.S. weapons systems. (There are many more egregious examples like Benghazi that space precludes examining here. See The Disgrace of Benghazi.)
There are logical explanations for Obama’s drone warfare. In order to not make U.S. patriots in the law enforcement, intelligence, and military communities too upset or suspicious, Obama has turned loose U.S. killer drones to exterminate as many fanatical jihadists as possible in remote jihad breeding grounds. This mass killing of extreme jihadists from the air in an “antiseptic way” has a number of benefits for Obama. First, it gives cover to Obama’s pro-Islamic actions to deceive concerned Americans. Second, it eliminates incorrigible jihadists who cannot be bargained with and who would attack U.S. interests, thus embarrassing Obama and putting irresistible pressure on him to act more decisively against Islam. Third, killing these jihadists cancels the need to incarcerate them at Guantanamo, thus alienating Obama’s leftist allies. And four, killing not capturing precludes gaining beneficial intelligence from prisoners to use against the Islamic jihadists.
It is terrible to have to write an article such as this one, questioning the dedication of the president to perform his number one mandated constitutional duty – that is, to defend the citizens and the Constitution of the U.S. from enemies, foreign and domestic. However, as presented above, Obama’s conduct of the national defense raises very serious questions.
In order to quell doubts about Obama’s allegiances, Americans need definitive answers to basic questions. We must begin demanding that our elected representatives, senators, and the news media publically question the motives of Obama’s pro-Islamic actions in the jihadist war that the Islamic god, Allah, and his Prophet Muhammad mandated Muslims to conduct against non-Muslims. Americans must stop mindlessly accepting Obama and his government minions telling us the counterfactual assertion “that Islam embodied a religion of peace, fairness and tolerance“! Americans must challenge the liberal fantasy that the majority of followers of Islam are “moderate Muslims” by questioning the government’s misinterpreting/ignoring the explicit jihadist commandments in the Quran and Sharia. Finally, Americans must believe the truth of what they see in the Islamic terrorist attacks like Fort Hood, not what Obama and his lackeys tell them they should believe because our national security is not being well-served by the Obama regime’s denial of the dangerous reality of Islamic jihad.
A good opening question would be:
Islamic Sharia law decrees: “Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada signifying warfare to establish the religion. . . I have been commanded [by Allah] to fight [all] people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah…”
So why does President Obama maintain – “We are not at war against Islam” – when they are clearly at war with us?
Col. Thomas Snodgrass, USAF (retired) served over a year in Peshawar, Pakistan working with Pakistani military intelligence, and he was an Intelligence Officer and International Politico-Military Affairs Officer with assignments in six other foreign countries during a thirty-year military career.
Hat Tip: BB
By: T F Stern
T F Stern’s Rantings
Being an American requires considerably more than a piece of paper saying you were born here; it means you understand and accept the responsibilities placed upon you and the moral obligation to maintain your liberties. To know where you’re going you have to know where you came from.
Zig Ziglar used to tell a story about his brother, a brother who’d been struggling to be successful. His brother said, “This year’s going to be the best year ever,” where upon Zig asked him, “So how much did you do last year?” There was a long silence before his brother stuttered out, “…well, I’m going to have the best year ever,” without as much enthusiasm; he didn’t actually know how well he’d done the year before.
Zig suggested his brother keep a record of all he did, write down everything; how many people he talked to, how many liked his presentation, how many purchased, how many came back again; in other words, keep good records, so you’ll know what you’ve done in order to improve.
The same holds true for being an American; except the records on our history have been kept already; where we came from, what we believed in back in the beginning, why we chose to separate, how our founding documents were formed and placed into action, defending our nation and everything up until yesterday’s headlines are all written down. It’s our responsibility to learn why being an American is important; our core values and why they are not up for compromise.
Part of our history isn’t taught, at least not in our public schools as it’s tied so closely to our religious beliefs. That wall called separation of church and state, a deception intended to bring down a righteous nation, permits only the teaching of dates and names while leaving out the core beliefs of those involved because those core beliefs involve a solemn dedication to our Savior, Jesus Christ’s teachings.
At one time a goodly portion of our populous considered our nation as having been founded on Christian principles. If you happen to fall toward the secular side then substitute man’s ability to discern good from evil and disregard how such discernment is a gift from a loving Heavenly Father unto all His children.
There are many who believe our founding documents were divinely inspired, that our Creator sought to have his children live in a country prepared for them wherein they might enjoy their individual agency to the fullest extent, that ability to choose for themselves which was not available under any other government. The agency of man which has been fought for all the way back to the War in Heaven and which is under continual attack from those who follow the Great Deceiver, even Satan himself.
“The adversary,” said Brigham Young, “presents his principles and arguments in the most approved style, and in the most winning tone, attended with the most graceful attitudes; and he is very careful to ingratiate himself into the favour of the powerful and influential of mankind, uniting himself with popular parties, floating into offices of trust and emolument by pandering to popular feeling, though it should seriously wrong and oppress the innocent. Such characters put on the manners of an angel, appearing as nigh like angels of light as they possibly can, to deceive the innocent and the unwary. The good which they do, they do it to bring to pass an evil purpose upon the good and honest followers of Jesus Christ.” (JD 11, 238-239.) Ezra Taft Benson in his talk, Be Not Deceived.
Deceptions only work if we permit ourselves to be led down the garden path with our eyes and hearts closed to righteousness… and yet, so many are easily deceived through their desire to cruise through mortality in the lap of luxury, never having to face the struggles which will improve their metal and refine them.
Take for example recent attempts to marginalize the 2nd Amendment, an individual’s God given right to own and bear arms in defense of property and/or life from anyone who would place that property and/or life in jeopardy, to include his/her own government.
Senator Feinstein recently submitted a bill that would seriously limit the ability of individuals to own and purchase certain types of weapons which have arbitrarily been designated “assault weapons.” The claim, which is without merit, is that by limiting the ability to own and purchase dangerous looking weapons, those which look similar to weapons used by the military and yet do not function in the same manner, that such a mandate would lead to the safety and well being of our nation. (a well known talk show host would at this time blurt out, “Barbara Streisand!”; perhaps the initials BS are involved)
If you looked for a definitive answer to, “What is an Assault Weapon,” it might take quite some time to find one; you see, the term is made up in order to facilitate political agendas. Quoting from that article:
“As flawed as the AWB definition of assault weapons may be, the wording has found its way into many state codes, including that of Connecticut, site of the December Newtown school shootings. “The AR-15 that [shooter] Adam Lanza used was a legal weapon under Connecticut law,” wrote Sweeney.”
(It should be noted with great interest, reports Lanza used an AR-15 were incorrect. The left leaning new media, either by neglect or willful intent reported this as if it were true except that Lanza didn’t use an AR-15 as reported; he used a variety of pistols to murder his victims.)
Using this tragedy to advance their agenda, to remove firearms from the average citizen, politicians on the left immediately called for a ban on anything “scary looking” that could be called an Assault Weapon or Semi-Automatic.
“Put simply, we cannot allow the rights of a few to override the safety of all. That is not the America that our founding fathers envisioned. And that is not the America I want my children and grandchildren to live in.” Dianne Feinstein, Congressional Record for 1/24/2013 page S291.
On face value it appears Senator Feinstein is concerned for the children; again, Barbara Streisand! She is correct to some extent; this is not the America that our founding fathers envisioned. Our founding fathers built in provisions to protect the agency of man, the ability to choose how to defend their property and/or lives and took great effort in limiting the government from infringing on that God given right. Our founders saw the day when corrupt individuals would assume powerful positions in government and attempt to usurp powers reserved for individuals; the term is tyranny.
In an article published January 27, 2013 on the Fox News website, President Obama expressed his displeasure with those who refuse to violate the intent and purpose of the 2nd Amendment by not going along with his draconian attempts to curtail an individual’s ability to purchase and own certain types of personal weaponry.
“The president said he has a profound respect for the traditions of hunting that date back for generations.”
Well isn’t that special, the president would have us believe the 2nd Amendment is all about sportsmen and hunting Bambi; what a Crock! (pardon my reference to a rather crude and demeaning term involving excrement)
“The president argued that “the more left-leaning media outlets recognize that compromise is not a dirty word” and that party leaders, including Senate Majority Harry Reid and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, are “willing to buck the more absolutist-wing elements in our party to try to get stuff done.”’
That about sums it up if you’re paying attention; those in favor of scrapping our constitutional republic in favor of a more Utopian totalitarian form of government are more than willing to toss out our God given rights and hand powers over to the government. This is tyranny under the guise of protectionism; it’s all about saving the children. (Barbara Streisand in bold block letters.)
Getting back to Ezra Taft Benson’s talk, Be Not Deceived; he quoted yet another leader in the Church, Elder Marion G. Romney (hummmm… take a guess…), “…Free agency is the principle against which Satan waged his war in heaven. It is still the front on which he makes his most furious, devious, and persistent attacks. That this would be the case was foreshadowed by the Lord…”
Free agency must be of great importance to mankind; why else has it been at the forefront of our conflicts throughout history?
‘“You see, at the time he was cast out of heaven, his objective was (and still is) to deceive and to blind men and to lead them captive at his will.’ This he effectively does to as many as will not hearken unto the voice of God. His main attack is still on free agency. When he can get men to yield their agency, he has them well on the way to captivity.”
Obama has already expressed a desire to “get around” Congress, a Congress that’s too slow to get behind his transformation of America via the use of Executive Orders. Isn’t that the same as saying he has no desire to follow his oath of office, to support the constitution, the divinely inspired form of government which We The People have as our protection against corruption at the highest levels?
Those we call progressives or the liberal left, which would include most Democrats and quite a few Republicans, have thrown in with the Great Deceiver to eliminate one of our most sacred gifts from on high, our free agency. They do this a little here, a little there so as not to alarm us to the point of action. Their strategy has worked very well and continues to erode our liberties. We are being led down the garden path, all in the name of our safety and security, toward the destruction of a nation founded with God’s own blessing.
This article has been cross-posted to The Moral Liberal, a publication whose banner reads, “Defending The Judeo-Christian Ethic, Limited Government & The American Constitution.”