¡Bienvenido a los Foros de Univision! Participa, intercambia mensajes privados, sube tus fotos y forma parte de nuestra Comunidad. | Ingresa | Regístrate Gratis
Mensajes: 126
Registrado: ‎08-05-2010


Mensajes: 90,636
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009

Re: VAMOS AL PUNTO.- “President Obama’s Unfriendly Foreign Policy Toward Israel”.

“President Obama’s Unfriendly Foreign Policy Toward Israel”.

By Micha Gisser




       President Barack Obama’s policies regarding peace in the Middle East have been one-sided since he took office. In his Cairo speech on June 4, 2009, Obama promoted a confrontational doctrine of moral equivalence between the Holocaust and Palestinian dislocation. Among other things he said: “For more than 60 years they [the Palestinians] have endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza and neighboring lands for life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead.”


       Obama of course ignores the historic fact that the Arabs rejected the 1947 U.N. Partition Resolution, and in 1948, long before any Israeli occupation of the West Bank, five regular armies of “neighborly” Arab countries launched a war to destroy the Jewish state. The Arabs lost the war. Prodded by their leaders many Arab residents left before and during the war and became refugees and were kept in Arab countries in miserable conditions for three generations. This is the true story of “Palestinian Dislocation.”


      Additionally, the President’s speech in Cairo omitted the statistic that an equal number of Jewish refugees, some 700,000, were forced to flee their native Arab countries. They were absorbed by their Jewish brothers in Israel, not left to live in camps to serve as political pawns. Hence, the Palestinian claim of “right of return” is without any justification. Who is the aggressor and who is the defender?


     Let us recall that the “occupation” of the West Bank (and Gaza) resulted from the premeditated plan by Egypt, Jordan and Syria to destroy the Jewish state once and for all. In the spring of 1967 they amassed their armies along Israel’s borders while the “shabab” danced in the streets of Cairo, Amman and Damascus.

     In June, in a brilliant maneuver that lasted six days, the Israeli army (IDF) defeated the three Arab armies and liberated the West bank from Jordan.     Unfortunately, the Obama administration foreign policy makers interchange the status of aggressor and defender. (Lest we forget, in October 1973 Egypt and Syria surprised Israel and on the holy day of Yom Kippur attacked in two fronts. Israel paid heavily in blood to push the Arab armies back. The consequence of this bloody war was an eventual peace treaty between Israel and Egypt.)


     Obama’s foreign policy ignores the three significant steps taken by Israel toward achieving peace in the Middle East. First, in 2000, at a Camp David three-way conference sponsored by President Bill Clinton, Israel’s Prime Minister Ehud Barak was willing to withdraw from 95 percent of the West Bank, and compromise on other key issues, including Jerusalem. More important, Clinton went out of his way to pressure both Yasser Arafat, the Palestinian leader, and Barak to accept a balanced peace plan.


     Clinton was absolutely impartial. Israel accepted Clinton’s peace plan. The world was shocked when Arafat first, rejected Clinton’s unimaginable and bold proposal, and then proceeded to start the bloody intifada.

      Second, in September 2005, Israel evacuated Gaza and dismantled and withdrew all its settlements from the Strip. Israel agreed to withdraw because Prime Minister Ariel Sharon had a president in the White House — George W. Bush — whom he could trust.

        Anyway, the point of it was that the Palestinians in Gaza were given an opportunity to demonstrate what they would do with a state if they got one. The pity of it all was that the Palestinians converted the Strip into an Iranian-sponsored Hamas enclave that launched a non-stop rocket barrage against Israeli civilians.

     In the months following the withdrawal, Hamas launched some 6,500 unprovoked rocket strikes on towns and schoolyards in Southern Israel before the Israelis decided to strike back. Israel learned a vital lesson from the Gaza conflict: In any future negotiation with the Palestinians, she must never relinquish the Jordan Valley, which is akin to the border between Egypt and Gaza, used to smuggle rockets and military supplies into the Strip.

       The Hamas terrorist regime is comparable to the Taliban system in Afghanistan: It is currently in the process of Islamizing Gaza by executing opponents, suppressing human rights, particularly those of women, and sending to jails gays and “adulterers.”

      Yet, after the flotilla affair, the Obama administration did not even try to justify the blockade — it just went along with a resolution to relegate the whole affair to yet another investigating committee.

      Third, before agreeing to withdraw from Gaza, Israel received from Bush a written commitment that, in any final peace agreement, the U.S. would not expect Israel to return to the pre-1967 borders (the product of the 1949 armistice agreement.) The understanding was that Israel would be allowed to return to defensible borders.

       Under the friendly, but firm guidance of secretary of state Condoleezza Rice, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas negotiated a future peace treaty between Israel and the Palestinians. Olmert offered concessions that exceeded anything either Israel or the United States ever put forward — for example a Palestinian state with its capital in Jerusalem.

     Bush invited Abbas to present a counter-offer to Olmert’s unbelievable concessions. He refused. As the late Abba Eban said, “the Palestinians never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity.”


     From the beginning Obama has shown his anti-Israel bias. In the summer of 2009 he went to the Middle East apologizing to the Muslims for America being America, but could not find time for a stopover in Israel. In March 23, 2010, Prime Minister Netanyahu was invited to the White House for negotiations. Obama humiliated Netanyahu when he would not invite him — the visiting head of the Jewish state — for photo-ops in the White House, and left him to his own devices while he, the president, withdrew to have dinner in private.

      No dinner for you, Mr. Prime Minister!


No wonder most Israelis neither trust, nor like Obama. (On July 6, the head of the Jewish State was at last accorded the courtesies even granted to heads of state that are hostile to America — the November elections are around the corner.)

     The harder Obama will twist Netanyahu’s arm, the more he will buttress the Arab illusion that the United States can “deliver” Israel if it only raises the pressure more and more. Already, encouraged by the one-sided Obama policies, Abba is adamant on the following nonnegotiable concessions from Israel: Settlement freeze; Israel must retreat to pre-1967 borders and “right of return.”

       As demonstrated by the concessions offered by Barak, Olmert and actually made by Sharon who gave the order to evacuate Gaza, Israel is willing to negotiate earnestly with the Palestinians. But, for honest negotiations to take place Obama and Secretary Clinton must stop “deleting” from the negotiating table the best bargaining chips Israel possesses — e.g. building in East Jerusalem. I do not believe that an American president must like Israel. But he must be able to differentiate between the politics of a neighborhood in Chicago and the Middle East.


     Charles Bolden, NASA’s administrator said in an interview with Al Jazeera that Obama “charged me with three things … and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science ... and math and engineering.”


     Peace would arrive to the Middle East after NASA sent a space ship sporting on its fuselage a Star and Crescent logo.


Mensajes: 90,636
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009

Re: VAMOS AL PUNTO.- “President Obama’s Unfriendly Foreign Policy Toward Israel”.

Obama’s ground zero mosque targets U.S. morale
August 14, 2010 ·
      I always find it repugnant when Barack Obama pretends to articulate and apply America’s moral values. As products of Saul Alinsky’s finishing school for Marxist protégés, Obama and his crew have no respect for the self-evident truths in which those values originate. It’s not that they have no use for them. On the contrary, they refer to them only when they are useful for ideological warfare.
       Obama’s reference yesterday to religious tolerance, and America’s respect for religious freedom, is a case in point. According to an AP report, he “is weighing in forcefully on the mosque near ground zero, saying a nation built on religious freedom must allow it….While insisting that the place where the twin towers once stood was indeed “hallowed ground,” Obama said that the proper way to honor it was to apply American values.”
         By taking this stance Obama chooses to show no regard for the view that the proposed mosque is intended as a monument to Islamic terrorism’s greatest victory.
       He chooses simply to brush aside the possibility that it is being erected in the same spirit that led Palestinians, and many other admirers of the 9-11 terrorists to dance in the streets with jubilation at their devastating assault on the United States.
    He therefore seeks to invoke America’s values in order to embarrass and silence those who seek to defend America’s security against what surely could be an insidious symbol, used to rally and mesmerize new recruits for future attacks against us.
     Obama cannot plead ignorance of Muslim history and tradition. He knows that it was the practice of Muslim conquerors to erect places of Islamic worship on or near the sites of their decisive victories (preferably transforming or replacing something held in reverence by the conquered people.)
      He knows the message of exultant pride the ground zero mosque will constantly convey. He knows; just as he knew the message of American submission conveyed by his deep bow to the Saudi King, the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques; just as he knows of the suspected connections between the progenitors of the ground zero mosque and the infrastructure of Islamic terrorism.
     The most effective war strategies target the enemy’s morale. They seek to mobilize his deepest moral fears and convictions against actions he might take to thwart the assault against him. Terrorism is especially aimed at achieving this strategic goal. In his words, his actions and his very person Obama is the moral equivalent of a weapon of mass destruction. He has consistently implemented this form of warfare against the morale and spirit of the American people.
     Now he does so in order to target America’s righteous commitment to uphold the memory of 9-11′s victims against the spiteful pride of those who, still at war with our nation, seek to make perpetual war upon the tragic memory of their deaths, and the principle of justice that condemns their murderers.
       Though he thus slyly seeks to abuse our founding principles against us, Obama’s deployment of this tactic suffers from the fact that, on account of his Islamic/Marxist formation, he has never taken them seriously as statements of self-evident truth.
     The first such truth is that in human affairs justice arises from implementing an understanding of right informed by the will of the Creator. This involves, first of all, understanding that it is right to fulfill the obligation to preserve and perpetuate God’s original gift to humanity, the gift of life. No valid claim of right can be made on behalf of actions inconsistent with this obligation.
       Practitioners of a religious cult that sacrifices innocent people cannot cloak their practice of murder as the free exercise of religion. Neither can practitioners of Islamic terrorism who assault innocent people as part of their implacable jihad against infidels.
      In America, the exercise of religious freedom must respect the indispensable understanding of right from which all people derive their claim to any rights at all. It is and has always been clear that Obama rejects this logic. He is the staunchest proponent of “abortion rights” in American politics. He has construed “abortion rights” to include the “right” to withhold care, and thus to murder, fully born children, if they are born alive despite the procedure intended to kill them.  He thus sought to place the murderous practice of infanticide behind the protective veil of right.
      It is therefore no wonder that he is willing to abuse the principle of religious rights in order to protect a project likely to enhance the morale of murderous terrorists. 9-11 will always evoke righteous grief and anger in true American hearts.
      Aside from showing off his alien contempt for such feelings, Obama’s strategic perversion of America’s heritage of religious freedom aims to deepen the confusion of liberty with licentiousness that the Obama Democrats everywhere promote. The right use of freedom can never include actions that aim to murder, enslave and terrorize innocent people.
      What is wrong can never be done by right, except the people that authorize it overthrow the premise of justice that is the bedrock principle of America’s way of life. Therefore, our respect for the free exercise of religion does not require that we permit the erection of what may reasonably be construed as a monument to Islamic terror. On the contrary, since terrorism chiefly aims to destroy the moral courage of our people, a true concern for our national security requires that we respect the nation’s united reverence for the place that evokes the justice of our fight against it.
     The ground zero mosque project targets our unity. It targets our morale. Those who support it do what gives aid and comfort to the enemies of both.
Mensajes: 90,636
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009




'Provocative, insensitive and uncaring': Fury after Obama backs mosque near site of September 11 disaster

By Daniel Boffey



Barack Obama has been hit by a furious backlash from victims of the September 11 terrorist attacks after he backed plans to build a mosque near Ground Zero.

      The proposed site for the 13-storey building is close to where almost 3,000 people died nine years ago after Muslim hijackers flew two jet airliners into the World Trade Center.

    Mr Obama expressed his support for the mosque, which will replace a building damaged by the attacks, at a White House meal celebrating Ramadan.

      He said: ‘Let me be clear: As a citizen and as President I believe that Muslims have the same right to practise their religion as everyone else in this country.

    'That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community centre on private property in Lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable.’

President Barack Obama speaks in favour of new mosque site at dinner to mark the start of the Ramadan fasvour of new mosque site at dinner to break the Ramadan fast

President Barack Obama speaks in favour of new mosque site at dinner to mark the start of the Ramadan fast

      His speech on Friday was heavily criticised by a group representing the families of victims of the terrorist attack, who called the plan a ‘deliberately provocative act that will precipitate more bloodshed in the name of Allah’.

       Debra Burlingame, a sister of a pilot killed when his plane was flown by a terrorist into the Pentagon and a spokesperson for  victims’ families, said: ‘Barack Obama has abandoned America at the place where America’s heart was broken nine years ago, and where her true values were on display for all to see.’

        Peter King, a Republican congressman in New York, said the President had been wrong to back the plan, adding: ‘It is insensitive and uncaring for the Muslim community to build a mosque in the shadow of Ground Zero.’

          Sally Regenhard, whose firefighter son was killed at the World Trade Center, condemed the President for a 'gross lack of sensitivity to the 9/11 families and to the people who were lost.'

       Republican House Minority Leader John Boehner said the decision to build the mosque wasn't an issue of religious freedom, but a matter of respect.

      'The fact that someone has the right to do something doesn't necessarily make it the right thing to do. That is the essence of tolerance, peace and understanding,' he said.

Almost 3,000 people died on September 11, 2001, after Muslim hijackers flew two hijacked jetliners into the centre's Twin Towers

Almost 3,000 people died on September 11, 2001, after Muslim hijackers flew two hijacked jetliners into the centre's Twin Towers

       New York Republican Congressman Peter King added: 'President Obama is wrong. It is insensitive and uncaring for the Muslim community to build a mosque in the shadow of ground zero.'

       Democratic Senate candidate Jeff Greene of Florida said: 'President Obama has this all wrong and I strongly oppose his support for building a mosque near ground zero especially since Islamic terrorists have bragged and celebrated destroying the Twin Towers and killing nearly 3,000 Americans.

         'Freedom of religion might provide the right to build the mosque in the shadow of ground zero, but common sense and respect for those who lost their lives and loved ones gives sensible reason to build the mosque someplace else.'


The American Freedom Defense Initiative advert against the proposed mosque

The American Freedom Defense Initiative advert against the proposed mosque


Meeting to vote: The Landmarks Preservation Commission voted unanimously not to landmark the building, making way for the construction of the mosque
Meeting to vote: The Landmarks Preservation Commission voted unanimously not to landmark the building, making way for the construction of the mosque

Disrespectful memories: protesters at Landmarks Preservation Commission meeting on August 3 2010 reject the proposed mosque site. Right: construction crane towers above One World Trade Center

       Challenged about his comments during a family trip to Florida yesterday, the President said: 'I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making a decision to put a mosque there. I was commenting very specifically on the right that people have that dates back to our founding.'

         Obama said that 'my intention was simply to let people know what I thought. Which was that in this country we treat everybody equally and in accordance with the law, regardless of race, regardless of religion.'

        The White House insisted Mr Obama was not backing away from his initial comments.

         Spokesman Bill Burton said: 'What he said last night, and reaffirmed today, is that if a church, a synagogue or a Hindu temple can be built on a site, you simply cannot deny that right to those who want to build a mosque.'

         Florida Governor Charlie Crist said: 'I think he's right - I mean you know we're a country that in my view stands for freedom of religion and respect for others.

         'I know there are sensitivities and I understand them. This is a place where you're supposed to be able to practice your religion without the government telling you you can't.'

       There had been mounting pressure for Obama to speak out on the issue after his political enemies, including former candidate for the vice presidency Sarah Palin, criticised the plan.

      The site was bought by the not-for-profit group the Cordoba Initiative for £3 million.

         It plans to spend £75 million on a complex including a prayer room, mosque and ‘September 11 memorial and contemplation space’.

        Developer Sharif el-Gamal said: ‘We are deeply moved and tremendously grateful for our President’s words.’

New York mosque

"I am a Muslim," Obama Tells Egyptian Foreign Minister Gheit
Pamela Geller | June 12, 2010 | Pamela Geller

       Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit said he had a one-on-one meeting with Obama, in which President Obama told him that he was still a Muslim, the son of a Muslim father, the stepson of Muslim stepfather, that his half brothers in Kenya are Muslims, and that he was sympathetic towards the Muslim agenda.

      Finally, during the week of 14-18th of January 2010, just on the eve of my winter tour to the US, Rachel picked up a Nile TV broadcast in which Egyptian Foreign Minister Abul Gheit said on the "Round Table Show" that he had had a one on one meeting with Obama who swore to him that he was a Moslem, the son of a Moslem father and step-son of Moslem step-father, that his half-brothers in Kenya were Moslems, and that he was loyal to the Moslem agenda. He asked that the Moslem world show patience. Obama promised that once he overcame some domestic American problems (Healthcare), that he would show the Moslem world what he would do with Israel. (more here)

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/20 10/06/-obama-tells-egyptian-foreign-minister-i-am...

Mensajes: 137,145
Registrado: ‎12-15-2005


What Thomas Jefferson learned from the Muslim book of jihad


By Ted Sampley
U.S. Veteran Dispatch

January 2007

Democrat Keith Ellison is now officially the first Muslim United States congressman. True to his pledge, he placed his hand on the Quran, the Muslim book of jihad and pledged his allegiance to the United States during his ceremonial swearing-in.

       Capitol Hill staff said Ellison's swearing-in photo opportunity drew more media than they had ever seen in the history of the U.S. House. Ellison represents the 5th Congressional District of Minnesota.

    The Quran Ellison used was no ordinary book. It once belonged to Thomas Jefferson, third president of the United States and one of America's founding fathers. Ellison borrowed it from the Rare Book Section of the Library of Congress. It was one of the 6,500 Jefferson books archived in the library.

      Ellison, who was born in Detroit and converted to Islam while in college, said he chose to use Jefferson's Quran because it showed that "a visionary like Jefferson" believed that wisdom could be gleaned from many sources.

          There is no doubt Ellison was right about Jefferson believing wisdom could be "gleaned" from the Muslim Quran. At the time Jefferson owned the book, he needed to know everything possible about Muslims because he was about to advocate war against the Islamic "Barbary" states of Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and Tripoli.

       Ellison's use of Jefferson's Quran as a prop illuminates a subject once well-known in the history of the United States, but, which today, is mostly forgotten - the Muslim pirate slavers who over many centuries enslaved millions of Africans and tens of thousands of Christian Europeans and Americans in the Islamic "Barbary" states.

       Over the course of 10 centuries, Muslim pirates cruised the African and Mediterranean coastline, pillaging villages and seizing slaves.

        The taking of slaves in pre-dawn raids on unsuspecting coastal villages had a high casualty rate. It was typical of Muslim raiders to kill off as many of the "non-Muslim" older men and women as possible so the preferred "booty" of only young women and children could be collected.

         Young non-Muslim women were targeted because of their value as concubines in Islamic markets. Islamic law provides for the sexual interests of Muslim men by allowing them to take as many as four wives at one time and to have as many concubines as their fortunes allow.

        Boys, as young as 9 or 10 years old, were often mutilated to create eunuchs who would bring higher prices in the slave markets of the Middle East. Muslim slave traders created "eunuch stations" along major African slave routes so the necessary surgery could be performed. It was estimated that only a small number of the boys subjected to the mutilation survived after the surgery.

      When American colonists rebelled against British rule in 1776, American merchant ships lost Royal Navy protection. With no American Navy for protection, American ships were attacked and their Christian crews enslaved by Muslim pirates operating under the control of the "Dey of Algiers"--an Islamist warlord ruling Algeria.

     Because American commerce in the Mediterranean was being destroyed by the pirates, the Continental Congress agreed in 1784 to negotiate treaties with the four Barbary States. Congress appointed a special commission consisting of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin, to oversee the negotiations.

       Lacking the ability to protect its merchant ships in the Mediterranean, the new America government tried to appease the Muslim slavers by agreeing to pay tribute and ransoms in order to retrieve seized American ships and buy the freedom of enslaved sailors.

          Adams argued in favor of paying tribute as the cheapest way to get American commerce in the Mediterranean moving again. Jefferson was opposed. He believed there would be no end to the demands for tribute and wanted matters settled "through the medium of war." He proposed a league of trading nations to force an end to Muslim piracy.

          In 1786, Jefferson, then the American ambassador to France, and Adams, then the American ambassador to Britain, met in London with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the "Dey of Algiers" ambassador to Britain.

The Americans wanted to negotiate a peace treaty based on Congress' vote to appease.

       During the meeting Jefferson and Adams asked the Dey's ambassador why Muslims held so much hostility towards America, a nation with which they had no previous contacts.

      In a later meeting with the American Congress, the two future presidents reported that Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja had answered that Islam "was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Quran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise."

       For the following 15 years, the American government paid the Muslims millions of dollars for the safe passage of American ships or the return of American hostages. The payments in ransom and tribute amounted to 20 percent of United States government annual revenues in 1800.

         Not long after Jefferson's inauguration as president in 1801, he dispatched a group of frigates to defend American interests in the Mediterranean, and informed Congress.

        Declaring that America was going to spend "millions for defense but not one cent for tribute," Jefferson pressed the issue by deploying American Marines and many of America's best warships to the Muslim Barbary Coast.

The USS Constitution, USS Constellation, USS Philadelphia, USS Chesapeake, USS Argus, USS Syren and USS Intrepid all saw action.

In 1805, American Marines marched across the desert from Egypt into Tripolitania, forcing the surrender of Tripoli and the freeing of all American slaves.

        During the Jefferson administration, the Muslim Barbary States, crumbling as a result of intense American naval bombardment and on shore raids by Marines, finally officially agreed to abandon slavery and piracy.

        Jefferson's victory over the Muslims lives on today in the Marine Hymn, with the line, "From the halls of Montezuma, to the shores of Tripoli, We fight our country's battles in the air, on land and sea."

     It wasn't until 1815 that the problem was fully settled by the total defeat of all the Muslim slave trading pirates.

       Jefferson had been right. The "medium of war" was the only way to put and end to the Muslim problem. Mr. Ellison was right about Jefferson. He was a "visionary" wise enough to read and learn about the enemy from their own Muslim book of jihad.

Mensajes: 90,636
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009


Obama: Muslim missionary? Part 1

Posted: August 16, 2010

Exclusive: Chuck Norris blasts prez for peddling Islam, cheering Ground Zero mosque


Unlike any other time in U.S. history, our First Amendment freedoms of speech and religion are in jeopardy. As if recently passed “hate-crime” laws and a politically correct culture weren’t bad enough, now our president is using international pressure and possibly law to establish a prohibition against insulting Islam or Muslims.


Let me remind us how we got here.


Speaking for most founders in his day, John Jay, America’s first chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, appointed by George Washington himself, said, “Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.”


Two hundred years later, President Obama has already denied America’s rich Judeo-Christian heritage before the eyes and ears of other countries, as he publicly declared in Turkey on April 6, 2009, for the whole world to hear: “We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation.”


Then there was Cairo in June 2009, when President Obama vowed to establish “a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world … I also know civilization’s debt to Islam. … I also know that Islam has always been a part of America’s story. … And since our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States. … So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed.”


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


That last line is really one of the most unique U.S. presidential religious passions and missions stated to date: “And I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.”


Another big question is: What did the president mean when he said, “That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn’t”? It makes no sense at all to refer to a partnership between a country and religion – America and Islam. Why not say partnership between America and Muslim nations or a partnership between Americans and Muslims or even a partnership between Christianity and Islam? That comment is very strange to me and has a much deeper meaning.


Roughly six months later, in February 2010, Obama appointed Rashad Hussain to serve as his special envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference, or OIC, an inter-governmental body of 56 Muslim countries that also forms an official body represented in the United Nations. (Where is the same treatment from this White House for countries that uphold Judeo-Christian values to unite and have the same treatment that allows them to form an official body represented in the U.N.? Or any religion, for that matter? There’s something rotten in the state of Denmark!)


Obama rejoiced, “I’m proud to announce today that I am appointing my special envoy to the OIC – Rashad Hussain. As an accomplished lawyer and a close and trusted member of my White House staff, Rashad has played a key role in developing the partnerships I called for in Cairo. And as a hafiz of the Quran, he is a respected member of the American Muslim community, and I thank him for carrying forward this important work.”


In 2007, then President George W. Bush explained the initial purpose for a OIC representative: “Our special envoy will listen to and learn from representatives from Muslim states, and will share with them America’s views and values. This is an opportunity for Americans to demonstrate to Muslim communities our interest in respectful dialogue and continued friendship.”


But Obama has considerably upped the OIC ante. Today, the White House purports from its website that special envoy, Muslim and hafiz of the Quran, Rashad Hussain, “will deepen and expand the partnerships that the United States has pursued with Muslims around the world since President Obama’s speech in Cairo last June.”


Again, notice the differences between the Bush and Obama plans with the special OIC envoy: from Bush’s mission to “listen and learn from representatives” to Obama’s mission to “deepen and expand the partnerships.”



The OIC members (including U.S. Special Envoy Rashad Hussain) pledge to its charter mission to rid the world of “the defamation of religion.” But the “defamation of religion” translates to mean “defamation of Islam.” An article on the OIC website explains, “Western foreign policy is considered to be the single most significant factor determining the attitudes of many Muslims toward the West. … Unfortunately, Islam often conjures in the Western minds images of authoritarian government, subjugation of women, cruel punishments of Shariah law and violence in the popular Western mind.”




The world also just learned recently from the assistant secretary for public affairs in the State Department, P.J. Crowley, that the White House has repeatedly sent out as an American ambassador of peace the Islamic fundamentalist and executive director of the Ground Zero mosque, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, who is being sponsored by the U.S. State Department for repeated trips to the Middle East, where he is teaching on Muslim life in America and promoting religious tolerance.


But doesn’t one who called the U.S. an “accessory” to Sept. 11 just a few weeks after the tragic event and one who still refuses to call Hamas a foreign terrorist organization seem a strange choice for a U.S. ambassador of peace who promotes religious tolerance?


It is absolutely no surprise, therefore, though gravely unfortunate and disappointing for our commander in chief to blurt out last Friday night, while celebrating the holy month of Ramadan at a White House dinner, that he is in favor of building the mosque near Ground Zero!


The president explained the next day, “I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there. I was commenting very specifically on the right people have that dates back to our founding. That’s what our country is about.”


White House spokesman Bill Burton reiterated the next day about Obama’s stance on constructing the mosque: “Just to be clear, the president is not backing off in any way from the comments he made last night. It is not his role as president to pass judgment on every local project. But it is his responsibility to stand up for the constitutional principle of religious freedom and equal treatment for all Americans. What he said last night, and reaffirmed today, is that if a church, a synagogue or a Hindu temple can be built on a site, you simply cannot deny that right to those who want to build a mosque.”


But I could not agree more with Sally Regenhard, whose firefighter son was killed at the World Trade Center on Sept. 11: “As an Obama supporter, I really feel that he’s lost sight of the germane issue, which is not about freedom of religion. It’s about a gross lack of sensitivity to the 9/11 families and to the people who were lost.”


And Debra Burlingame, a spokeswoman for some Sept. 11 families and the sister of one of the pilots killed in the attacks, summed it up perfectly: “Barack Obama has abandoned America at the place where America’s heart was broken nine years ago, and where her true values were on display for all to see.”


Obama is not just rebooting America’s image in the Muslim world. He’s deepening and expanding Islamic belief, practice, culture around the world, like a Muslim missionary.


(Next week in Part 2, I will discuss how the Obama administration has changed course in just this past year regarding passing anti-First Amendment defamation of religion resolutions, as well as demonstrate how Obama has been prejudice in his treatment of Islam versus Christianity).

Mensajes: 90,636
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009


Terrorizing Muslim Women

 By Nonie Darwish On July 12, 2010 @ 12:00 am In FrontPage


    There is an article floating all over the Internet, “Joys of Muslim Women [1],” which discusses the horrific truth about how Islam legally treats women. The article claims to have been written by me, but that is false:  I am not the author. Let me use this occasion, however, to set a few matters straight:

The silence is deafening around the world in regards to the inhumanity and brutality of Sharia towards women. Most of the activism against stoning, flogging and abuse of women under Sharia is heard from former Muslim women, like myself, and a few others in the West who dare to expose the truth.

    Muslim women have no choice but to abide by Sharia, since rejecting it is grounds for the charge of apostasy, punishable by death. Having been exposed to Sharia for centuries, Muslim women have learned convoluted coping mechanisms to avoid Sharia’s wrath. Engaging in their own form of Stockholm Syndrome, most Muslim women publicly  defend the very laws that enslave them. Even Obama’s advisor on Islamic affairs, Dalia Mujahed, stated that Sharia is “misunderstood.” Muslim women end up as the guardians of their own jails. It is women who often report younger girls who refuse to wear the head cover, and some wives cover up for the honor killing of a daughter by their husband or son. Many have accepted their inferior status and wear it as a badge of honor.

     That is why there is no significant grass-roots feminist movement in the Muslim world today. Muslim feminists are routinely accused of apostasy — with its death penalty hanging over their heads. The only feminist movements to speak of in the Muslim world occurred during British colonial rule and, on a smaller scale, when the French conquered Egypt in 1798. By the end of the British rule, feminism ended inside the Muslim world.

      Many Muslims claim that “Islam honors women” just as they claim that Islam is a “Religion of Peace.” The truth however, is just the opposite. Islam does not honor women, but rather holds their very lives in SX bondage.

America must outlaw Sharia from ever being practiced by anyone on American soil. If we fail to do this, if we permit Sharia to creep into our legal system, we might as well say goodbye to our freedom. Here are just a few examples of what Muslim women must live under:

     [1] There is no age limit for marriage of girls under Sharia. A man can pay a dowry and sign a marriage contract with parents of a toddler girl and consummate the marriage at age 9. Recent cases in Yemen and Saudi Arabia exposed this tragedy when 8-year-old girls filed for divorce from their over 50-year-old husbands. Not one Muslim authority challenged the Saudi marriage high official, Dr. Ahmad Al Mubi, who stated in 2008, in an interview that aired on LBC TV: “There is no minimal age for entering marriage. The Prophet Muhammad is the model we follow.” 

       [2] Islamic law states: “a Muslim will not be punished for killing an adulterer.” Islam, therefore, encourages honor killing of women. Since men have more sexual rights than women in Islam, it becomes harder to catch a man committing adultery. Thus women become more susceptible to becoming the victims of the above law, which allows vigilante street justice against adulterous women. I have never heard a Friday sermon stating that honor killing is forbidden in no uncertain terms.

     [3] A rebellious wife is one who “answers her husband coldly” or refuses to go to bed with him.  Rebelliousness on the part of the wife nullifies the husband’s obligation to support her and gives him permission to beat her (Shafi Law m10 and m11 p. 541-2). The Prophet said: “A man will not be asked as to why he beat his wife.–Sunaan Abu Dawud, 11.2142

     [4] Divorce is only in the hands of the husband and is as easy as verbally saying “I divorce you.” Thus the wife is divorced whether the husband had the intention to do it or not. Law n3.2 p 559.

     [5] There is no community property between husband and wife in Islam. A Muslim wife would be lucky to inherit 20% from her husband. A man’s property after his death is not given to his wife, but is divided among many members of the family such as his parents, other wives; sons take double what daughters get.

    [6] A man has the right to have up to 4 wives. Polygamy is not just a right, but loyalty to one wife is discouraged. Mohammed said: The best Muslims had the largest number of wives,” Bukhari 7.62.7.  A Muslim man does not vow loyalty to his bride in the marriage ceremony and the bride must not expect it. In the Muslim marriage contract itself, the husband is asked to give name and address of wife number 1, 2 and 3 if any. (See a copy of the Muslim marriage contract in my book, chapter 2 of Cruel and Usual Punishment.)

    [7] Mutaa or pleasure marriage gives the right to a man to marry a woman for a fixed amount of time, from a few hours to several years. That takes away any holiness in the concept of marriage. The only condition is that the man must pay the woman money (dowry) in exchange for sexual rights over her body. This is simply legalized prostitution, exploiting needy and poor women. This form of marriage is not registered or regulated by the State.

Urfi marriage is another form of marriage that is usually kept as a secret. Sharia has not forgotten the traveling man and gave him “Misyar” marriage allowing him “wives” in different cities. Sharia satisfies men’s urges at the expense of women’s dignity and humanity with total disregard to limitations and wholesome standards for men to live by for the benefit of a healthy family life.

      [8] The Qur’an often uses the word “nikah,” which literally means sexual intercourse, to mean marriage. The dowry is called “ugur” in the Qur’an, meaning wage. It is payment for owning a woman’s private parts to be used by the husband as he wishes. “The dowry is given in exchange for the woman’s sexual organs.” (Ibn Kathir)

    [9] A man is allowed to have SX with slave women and women captured in battle, and if they are married their marriage is annulled. Qur’an 4:24: “All married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess.” Sharia never abolished slavery and highly regulates it, that is, makes it “regular.” Saudi Arabia officially abolished slavery only as late as 1962 after pressure from the “infidel” Western Judeo-Christian culture. To this day, the Muslim leadership in Egypt and Saudi Arabia refuses to annul slave sexual rights for men in Sharia books.

     [10] The testimony of a woman in court is half the value of a man, law o24.7. You can  guess who usually wins if a man and woman face each other in court.

     [11] Revered Muslim theologian Imam Ghazali (1058-1111) defined marriage [2] for generations of Muslims without apology as: “Marriage [3] is a form of slavery. The woman is man’s slave and her duty therefore is SX obedience to the husband in all that he asks of her person.”

    [12] For a Muslim woman to prove rape, she must have 4 male witnesses. “Proof of adultery and rape will be either confession of accused or eye-witness of four male adult Muslims.” Hudood ordinance #7 of 1989 amended by #8B of 20 of 1990.

    [13] A rapist may only be required to pay the bride-money (dowry) without marrying.” law m.8.10, page 535. This law tells the man that all he has to do to rectify a rape is to pay a dowry to the rape victim. Rape is almost always blamed on the girl who must come up with 4 male witnesses, especially if she was not covered up the Islamic way. A Muslim preacher in Australia blamed rape by Muslim men on Australian women whom he described as “uncovered meat.”

    [14] The Prophet said, “I looked at Hell [4] and saw that the majority of its inhabitants were women.” Bukhari 4:464. There is a book sold in British mosques entitled: “Women Who Deserve to Go to Hell” by Mansoor Abul Hakim.

     [15] A Muslim woman must cover every inch of her body since Islam regards every part of a woman’s body as “Awrah,” a sexual organ. Some sects of Islam demand the covering of the face and others don’t. This kind of extreme cover of even the face deepens the feeling of isolation, gender segregation and becomes the symbol of Islamic submission and presence in the West.

     [16] Muslim scriptures describe women as deficient in intellect and faith, toys, crooked, half devils, harmful and detrimental to men. Also the prophet stated: “After me I have not left any affliction more harmful to men than women.” Bukhari V 7, B 62/33. “A woman’s jihad is to please her husband” is taught by some Muslim women websites such as Takva.com, posted on 11-2-2008.

   This article is dedicated to Sakine Mohammadi Ashtiani, an Iranian woman in jail who is awaiting death by stoning for alleged adultery. Under international pressure, Iran just announced that her stoning is “postponed.” [5] But the regime still plans to execute her.


Nonie Darwish is the author of “Cruel and Usual Punishment” and “Now They Call Me Infidel” and president of FormerMuslimsUnited.org.

Mensajes: 137,145
Registrado: ‎12-15-2005


Obama Approves of “Islamic Head Stone” over the graves of 3000 Americans



US President Barack Obama (2nd R) and Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan (L) take off their shoes as they visit the Blue Mosque with Muslim clerics Emrullah Hatipoglu (R) and Mustafa Cagrici (L) in Istanbul, Turkey, 07 April 2009

President Barack Obama on Friday endorsed a controversial plan to build a mosque and Islamic center just blocks from ground zero in Manhattan, despite the strong objections of conservatives, the ADL and those who lost loved ones in the Sept. 11 attacks.

“Ground zero is, indeed, hallowed ground,” Obama said at a White House dinner celebrating the Muslim holiday of Ramadan. “But let me be clear: As a citizen and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country. That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances.”
-- Abby Phillip (


We are told that the world is offended because of America. We have a president who has travelled around the world apologizing for America. Now at an Islamic dinner held at the White House celebrating the Muslim holiday of Ramadan the president openly hailed the building of a Mosque at ground zero despite the affront that such a Mosque would be to the American people.

However, let it be known from this day forth that offense runs both ways. Just as the world can be offended because of America, America can be offended because of acts of terrorism against it from the only religion that has openly declared jihad on the United States, Islam.

Yes, we are a tolerant people even toward those who consider themselves our enemies, presently there are over 2,000 Mosque in the United States of America. In addition, it is estimated there are approximately 2.8 million Muslims in the United States of America that practice Islam (
see source)

Islamic Mosques are here and Muslims practice their faith here because America, unlike all Muslim countries around the world, is tolerant of all religious faiths. Actually, America is tolerant to a fault because it is even tolerant of that religion which has declared war on America. Moreover, let’s all be clear Islam has declared war on the United States of America twice. Once in 1996 and again in 1998. (
see previous post)

War was declared on America first in 1996 and again in 1998 by Osama bin Laden. Bin Laden has been indicted for terrorism by the U.S. States District Court.—Alaphiah
America doesn’t need a lecture from a president of questionable allegiance about our traditions and Constitutional principles. Most of us know them better than he. We don’t have to be reminded about Islam’s role in the world. We see Islam’s abuses and intolerance of women, Christians and Jews every day. (see 1:28min video)

We don’t need Barry Hussein Obama to tell us that Islam has a right to build a Mosque near ground zero. We all know that Islam is attempting to use our very own Constitution against us in order to place a memento near ground zero to commemorate the 3,000 American Infidels that they killed in the name of their god on September 11, 2001. Let me be clear, it is no coincidence that Muslims scheduled the opening of the “Ground Zero” Mosque on September 11, 2011. This is “In yo Face” Jihad.

It is Islam’s practice to erect a mosque on opponent’s holy sites which have been destroyed. That is why Haram a-Sharif or the Dome of the Rock sits on the ruined Jewish Temple mount. Following a brief period of Persian rule, Jerusalem was captured in 638, six years after the death of Muhammad, by the Muslim Caliph Umar. Soon after his occupation of the city, Umar cleansed the Temple Mount , built a small mosque and dedicated the site to Muslim worship. Later the Dome of the Rock was constructed meant to permanently send the message that Islam’s Allah is greater than the Jew’s Adonai. (source)
 Why? It is a custom in Islam to show up their defended foe. It is Islam's way of saying, "We have defeated you, we rule you, and our god is better than your god." (
       Mr. President, this is not a question of American denying a group religious freedom, even to suggest that is a blatant attempt to mischaracterize this insult to the 3,000 dead Americans at ground zero. On the contrary, Islam is practiced freely in America as evidenced by the over 2,000 Mosque presently here and the nearly 3 million Muslims that practice their faith in America.

This is a question of whether a religion that has declared Jihad on the United States will farther insist on offending U.S. citizens by insisting that they build an “Islamic Head Stone” over the graves of 3,000 dead Americans.


Here’s a thought, Americans take tremendous efforts attempting to avoid offending others. Those efforts are reflected in our laws as well as our customs. It is time for others to do the same.

It is time for Islam to do the same. It is time for Muslims to note that building a Mosque, an “Islamic Head Stone”, at ground zero is offensive to Americans and in the tradition of a country that is sensitive to others concerns Muslims should not only hear our concern but they should attempt to avoid the affront to Americans’ sensibilities that this particular Mosque will cause.

I know, that is what Americans would do. What will Muslim do?


Obama’s Ramadan Pandering
by Robert Spencer

      Ramadan didn’t fall around Christmas time this year, but Barack Obama came bearing gifts anyway. At an Iftar dinner Friday night at the White House (the third night of Ramadan), Obama endorsed the Islamic supremacist mega-mosque at Ground Zero.

In doing so, he was in effect saying that Muslims could build a triumphal mosque marking Islam’s superiority and victory—which is how the Ground Zero mosque will be viewed in the Islamic world—and can lie about their funding (as Ground Zero mosque Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf has done), and lie about their commitment to interreligious dialogue and harmony (as Rauf has also done), and refuse to denounce jihad terrorists (as Rauf has refused to denounce Hamas), and all that is just fine with the President of the United States.

       For Obama, it’s all about religious freedom. Apparently now the principle of religious freedom now gives religious groups the right to build anything anywhere. Expect Shinto revivalists to build a shrine to the kamikazes at Pearl Harbor any day now, and self-proclaimed Christian Ku Klux Klansmen to build a chapel honoring the Confederate dead at the site of the murder of Martin Luther King. It’s religious freedom! It’s the American way!

        Obama brought more goodies for Muslims in the U.S. and around the world in his Ramadan message this year. In it, he claimed that during Ramadan Muslims “provide support to others to advance opportunity and prosperity for people everywhere.”

Oh, really?

     When have past Ramadans ever resulted in any advancement of “opportunity and prosperity for people everywhere,” Mr. President? In reality, it’s against Islamic law to give zakat, the almsgiving that is one of the pillars of Islam and is required of every Muslim, to non-Muslims.

     That’s why Western governmental agencies and Christian charities build and staff schools and hospitals in impoverished parts of Africa and Asia, but oil-rich Muslim countries have never undertaken similar endeavors. With the sharp divide in Islam between believers and unbelievers, such that Muslims are commanded to be “merciful to one another, but ruthless to the unbelievers” (Koran 48:29), there is no basis in Islamic law for the idea that Islam fosters the advance of “opportunity and prosperity for people everywhere.”

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

       It would be kind of him to explain how the Koran’s designation of non-Muslims as “the most vile of created beings” (98:6) advances human dignity, much less tolerance or justice. The Koran’s command that Muslims must fight against Jews and Christians until they pay a religion-based poll tax, jizya, “with willing submission and feel themselves subdued” (9:29) likewise militates against the idea of universal human dignity that Obama professes to have discovered in Islam.

       “And here in the United States,” Obama continued, “Ramadan is a reminder that Islam has always been part of America and that American Muslims have made extraordinary contributions to our country.”

    Islam has always been a part of America? Really? Will Obama provide us with a list of the Muslim Founding Fathers, the Muslim heroes of the American Revolution, the names of the Muslims killed fighting in the Civil War, World War I, and World War II—surely the President will have no trouble coming up with all that, will he? And he could also throw in a list of those “extraordinary contributions” that Muslims have made to our country. Aside from being the impetus for some extraordinary innovations in airport security, I can’t think of any. But I sure Barack Obama must be way ahead of me.

       And so for this Ramadan, Barack Obama gave U.S. Muslims a grand mosque at Ground Zero, and an American pedigree as sterling and impeachable as his own. Will this be enough to stop the jihad against the U.S.? Smarter bets would be on its instead growing bolder than ever.

      Mr. Spencer is director of Jihad Watch and author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades), The Truth About Muhammad (both from Regnery—a Human Events sister company) and most recently coauthor of Pamela Geller’s The Post-American Presidency (Simon & Schuster).




08-17-10 | MostlyAnti-Lib

 August 17, 2010 10:07:56 AM by MostlyAnti-Lib

       Obama supports the Ground Zero mosque? Surprise, surprise!! Can there be anyone out there who is still clueless enough to believe that Barack Hussein Obama is not a Muslim? His daddy was Muslim. His step-daddy was Muslim. His Mother converted to Islam. He was raised in Kenya and Indonesia. He went to Muslim Schools.

His Muslim buddies include Wahid Hamid, Rashid Khalidi and the uber-radical Minister Louis Farrakhan. He sat, spellbound, for twenty years in the pews of Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ, being indoctrinated by the anti-Semitic rantings of the good Reverend, who, oh, by the way, was a convert of Islam.

      One can only surmise that the Rev’s “conversion” to Christianity was prompted by the same political-expediency motivation that precipitated Barack’s own conversion. Obama has stated, "The (Muslim) call to prayer is one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.” Only a true believer could make that statement! I have heard the call to prayer at sunset. Haunting? Definitely. Chilling? You betcha. Pretty? That’s the very last word I would use to describe it!

       The original name of the mosque project was the “Cordoba Initiative”, recently renamed “Park51” after the backers noticed the alarming amount of heat that was being generated as the folks started researching the significance of the name, “Cordoba“. Back in the eleventh century the Christians were defeated when they tried to retake Cordoba, Spain, from the Muslims. It was a crushing defeat, complete with scores of martyrs, who were executed when they refused to renounce their Christianity. Way to go, Islam, the religion of peace!!

         The Ground Zero Mosque will be a constant reminder to the Muslim extremists of the triumph over Christianity in Cordoba, Spain, and a monument to the triumph over America on 9/11. It will stand as a middle-finger salute to all those who lost family and friends on that day of infamy.

Mensajes: 137,145
Registrado: ‎12-15-2005


Obama’s Radical Guests

By Joseph Klein On August 19, 2010 @ 12:10 am In FrontPage


With all of the hubbub surrounding President Obama’s apparent endorsement of the Ground Zero mega mosque and community center complex at last week’s White House Ramadan dinner, none of the cable talk shows that I have watched have bothered to examine the guest list. I think that is a mistake because the guest list gives some insight into what Obama really believes.

      Amongst all of the ambassadors and other dignitaries, two “community” leaders with a radical Islamic agenda stand out.

The first was Dr. Ingrid Mattson, president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). [1]

        ISNA was named as an unindicted co-conspirator of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development [2], an Islamic “charity” which was convicted in 2008 by a federal jury for giving more than $12 million to the Palestinian terrorist organization Hamas.

       One month after 9/11, Dr. Mattson described the extremist Wahhabism ideology that inspired the 9/11 terrorists this way:

        It is the name of a reform movement that began 200 years ago to rid Islamic societies of cultural practices and rigid interpretation that had acquired over the centuries. It really was analogous to the European Protestant Reformation.

     In a September 2002 interview with PBS [3], Mattson stated that she did not see “any difference” between Christian leaders criticizing Islam or al Qaeda [4] on the one hand, and Osama bin Laden [5] citing “Islamic theology to justify violence against Americans” on the other.

     And apparently, President Obama is following Mattson’s advice in purging the phrase “Islamic terrorism” from his administration’s lexicon. Is it any wonder that she was on Obama’s guest list for the Ramadan dinner?

       The second radical Islamic White House dinner guest was Salam Al-Marayati [6], a co-founder and director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council [7]. This is an individual who likes to speak about building bridges and inter-faith dialogue, but only as a cover for his more radical views. What Islamists such as Al-Marayati like to do is invert the meaning of American ideals and history to suit sharia (Islamic law) and the Islamic narrative of the oppressed victim. For example, he said that:

       When Patrick Henry said, ‘Give me liberty or give me death,’ that statement epitomized jihad [Islamic holy war].

        Al-Marayati has also excused Palestinian terrorism and condemned Israeli acts of self-defense. Back in 1996, for example, a Palestinian named Muhammad Hamida shouted Allahu Akbar (Allah is Great) as he drove his car intentionally into a crowded bus stop in Jerusalem, killing one Israeli and injuring 23 others. He was shot dead before he could wreak any further mayhem.

     Who did Al-Marayati choose to condemn? Not the terrorist, but rather the person or persons who ended his rampage, whom Al-Marayati demanded be extradited to the United States for trial in an American court on terrorism charges!

        This so-called “moderate” was so bad that in 1999 then-House Democratic Leader Richard Gephardt of Missouri decided to withdraw his nomination of Salam Al-Marayati to the 10-member National Commission on Terrorism that was being formed.

    It gets even worse. Al-Marayati’s Muslim Public Affairs Council has issued policy papers which argue for the removal of Hezbollah and Hamas from U.S. terrorist designations.
      And on the very day of the horrific 9/11 attacks, on a Los Angeles radio program al-Marayati said
   If we’re going to look at suspects, we should look to the groups that benefit the most from these kinds of incidents, and I think we should put the state of Israel on the suspect list because I think this diverts attention from what’s happening in the Palestinian territories so that they can go on with their aggression and occupation and apartheid policies.
    Now, this same Salam Al-Marayati is a guest in President Obama’s White House along with his fellow radical Islamist Dr. Ingrid Mattson.
       You can learn a lot about someone by the company he keeps – or, in President Obama’s case, the people he invites to dinner at the White House.








A Brit's commentary on the Ground Zero mosque



Mensajes: 137,145
Registrado: ‎12-15-2005

Re: VAMOS AL PUNTO. Obama Backing Mosque Defies Religious Freedom

Obama Backing Mosque Defies Religious Freedom
by James Zumwalt (more by this author)
Posted 08/19/2010 ET


     As the emotional debate over building the Ground Zero Mosque continues, President Obama announced his support for the Muslim initiative.

      On August 13, at a White House dinner celebrating the Islamic month of Ramadan, he emphasized that “Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country… This is America and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country, and will not be treated differently by their government, is essential to who we are. The writ of our Founders must endure.”

     In citing the need to preserve “the writ of our Founders,” Obama ignores history and a major concern about Islam cited by two of our Founding Fathers. He also fails to grasp the concept that religious tolerance does not mean embracing religious intolerance.

      Two of our Founding Fathers—Thomas Jefferson and John Adams—serving as America’s ambassadors to France and Britain respectively—met in London with Tripoli’s ambassador to Britain in 1786. Their mission was to negotiate a peace treaty to end unprovoked attacks against American ships that were being launched by pirates from various Muslim countries along the Barbary Coast and their enslavement of captured American crewmen.

     Jefferson and Adams queried the Tripoli ambassador as to why our ships were being attacked. His response sufficiently concerned the two Founding Fathers that they felt compelled to report what was said to the Continental Congress:

    “That it was founded on the laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Muslim who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.”

    While the writ of religious freedom is an important mandate established by our Founding Fathers, so too is the writ mandating separation between church and state. This concept emanates from a principle espoused by philosopher John Locke of a “social contract”—the structure by which people form states to maintain social order. Rational people exercise their individual conscience to form these states—a consciousness which cannot be ceded to a government or others to control. Thus, legitimate state authority has to derive from the consent of the governed—a concept contrary to Islamic belief.

      While freedom of religion is important, Islam represents a religion and a political movement rolled into a single belief system. Most worrisome is the fact that it is a belief system in which individual conscience has been abandoned by adherents who have ceded control to others—to their spiritual leaders whose words then dictate the adherents’ actions. This was clearly explained by former Egyptian terrorist-in-training Tawfik Hamid who was warned, after asking questions of his handlers in an exercise of his individual conscience, “If you start to think for yourself, you will become an infidel.”

       Islam fosters a belief system that views all other religions—deemed by Prophet Muhammad—as inferior; a belief system that rejects equal rights for all in favor of only a very small percentage of mankind (Muslim men); a belief system that makes Islam the betta fish of all religions—looking to consume them or make them subservient to it.

    No other major religion condones the violence Islam does to attain its goal as the most dominant religion in the world. Its game plan, eventually, is to create but one international rule of law standard—that of sharia law. We have already seen signs of this brutal law creeping into Western culture, cracking the very foundations of respect and dignity for human life upon which democracies are built.

      Two years ago in England, where a very large Muslim population resides, the Archbishop of Canterbury suggested sharia be accepted into the country’s legal system. Any responsible citizen embracing equality for all human life knows doing this fundamentally affects the integrity of the host country’s law and the values around which its legal system was built.

         In a case hitting much closer to home and not too far from where supporters seek to build the Ground Zero Mosque, a New Jersey judge—trying a rape case involving an accused Muslim husband and victim wife—opted to apply Islamic law. The law invoked is one demanding a wife surrender herself to her husband’s desire for sexual intercourse. As the blunt language of one Islamic religious scholar of old explains the wife’s duty to her husband, it is “to surrender herself … (and) she should not refuse him even if she is on a camel’s saddle.” The New Jersey judge applied sharia finding that, in the husband’s mind, he had not committed rape.

       By adopting such logic, this judge opens the door now for a murderer to be excused who has performed an honor killing—e.g., of a female family member who has been raped, thus dishonoring her family and mandating her death in order for the family’s honor to be restored. In effect, the judge’s ruling says the wife must surrender her individual conscience to the will of another—her husband. (Ironically, had the wife killed her husband in self-defense, no protections for her exist under sharia, thus leaving her subject to New Jersey law.)

       A danger exists in grouping Islam, as it exists today with a political component, together with all other religions to be freely practiced on an equal footing. The belief system within Islam—packed with a political punch and believers who have surrendered their individual conscience to their spiritual puppeteers—makes it a religion “on steroids,” challenging the free practice of all religions equally.

      The President is right: America should open its doors to all religions. But the assumption is all religions will preach on a level playing field. However, Islam grows because fertile ground is provided to allow it to do so at the expense of other religions. Muslim countries impose restrictions upon other religions, effectively leaving Islam the only religion “in town.” While Obama supports a mosque being built on the hallowed ground created by 9/11, no Muslim country would even consider allowing other religions to build a house of worship on ground deemed hallowed by Islam.

      It is surprising Obama touts religious freedom as a basis for supporting construction of the Ground Zero mosque at the same time he has even failed to do what previous presidents have done by declaring religious freedom a “value” to be promoted as part of our national security strategy.    As that strategy also declined to make reference to any threat by Islamic extremists or to even use the word “Islam,” could it be Obama was similarly intimidated into avoiding any reference to religious freedom as a strategic national value?

       A finding by the Pew Research Center that “religious liberty means less religious persecution and thus less conflict” also suggests we should include religious freedom as part of our national strategy. The finding underscores too why more Muslims are killed today by fellow Muslims than by non-Muslims—for Islam’s intolerance and brutality extends even to its own followers. As the Institute for Global Engagement recommends, there should be “a more comprehensive integration—intellectually and institutionally—of religious freedom into the mainstream of U.S. foreign policy”—as part of a discourse on the equality of all human life. Yet Obama made no mention about such equality while endorsing the Ground Zero mosque.

        There are clearly significant differences among the many religions practiced in the world today. Where dignity for all human life is a cornerstone of a religion, we should not hesitate to open our doors to it. However, where such dignity is lacking—attaching only to its male believers whose spiritual leaders then harness and direct their individual consciousness as a political weapon, such a religion endangers the free practice of religion by all.

       The President’s endorsement of the Ground Zero mosque does not represent the exercise of religious freedom, it represents acceptance of religious intolerance and human inequality.

       James Zumwalt, a Marine veteran of the Vietnam and Gulf wars who writes often on national security and defense issues, is the author of “Bare Feet, Iron Will: Stories from the Other Side of Vietnam’s Battlefields” (found at: www.jgzumwalt.com).