Home › Posts tagged Islam

Islam

Obama visits Mosque; Spreads Lies and Skews History

Posted on by

Editor’s Note – Obama chose to visit his first Mosque during his Presidency and he picked a winner – one with a long history of anti-American activity all the while spreading lies and skewing the history concerning Muslims in America and their role in our early history.

Of course, like some ardent Muslims who believe it is okay to tell a lie where the ends justify the means, they even have a name for it, “Taqiyya” and they employ it often to support the core goals of shariah law – world domination. Obama just helped in spreading that message ignoring the evidence of this Mosque’s ties to terror.

Why Did Obama Tell Brazen Lies at the Baltimore Mosque?

By Tom Tancredo – Breitbart

That President Obama told a series of brazen lies about Islam in his December 3 Baltimore speech is being well documented by experts on Islam.

Why he did it – and why the Left in America is defending those lies — is more important for patriots to understand.

AP/Pablo Martinez Monsivais
AP/Pablo Martinez Monsivais

Obama chose as the venue for his praise of Islam as a religion of peace and tolerance the same Baltimore mosque that in 2012 was under FBI scrutiny because its former imam condoned suicide bombing and one of its members was arrested for plotting to bomb a federal building.

Why did Obama feel a need to help “rehabilitate” the mosque reputation by selecting it as the site for his speech?

The full text of Obama’s speech at the Baltimore mosque is available on the White House website and has been helpfully reprinted by the New York Times.

Anyone who thinks my criticism of the speech is unwarranted is invited to read the full text and tell me where I have misrepresented his remarks.

Of course, the speech had some platitudes about our nation’s history of tolerance and freedom of speech, and we all support the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of worship. But even in recounting America’s historic commitment to religious tolerance, Obama misrepresents the Founders’ views of Islam.

  • Jefferson did indeed include “Mohammadans” – as Muslims were known in those times– as entitled to freedom of worship, but he included them for the purpose of making clear that even the most extreme, non-Christian religions were welcome in America.
  • But in 1805, President Jefferson had a different encounter with Islam when he sent the U.S. Marines to fight the young nation’s first battle on foreign soil –against Muslims in Tunisia and Tripoli who were kidnapping American, French and British sailors and holding them for ransom. They were called the Barbary Pirates.

But Obama’s gift for fabrication was not limited to mischaracterizing Islam’s place in American history. He also misquoted the Koran—more than once.

  • Obama bizarrely invented a new translation of the word “Islam” itself, saying incorrectly that the word comes from the same root as the Muslim word for peace—salam, as in, “peace be with you.” In fact, in Arabic, the word “Islam” means “submission,” not peace, meaning submission to Allah and the teachings of his prophet, Mohammad.
  • This is remarkably – and not accidentally—parallel to orthodox Marxist-Leninist doctrine as spelled out in the Communist Manifesto that true world peace is possible only with the worldwide victory of communism, which brings the “classless society” — the end of the presumed source of all conflict, private property and capitalism. To the disciples of the Prophet Mohammad, peace is possible only with the subjugation of all infidels.
  • Obama also misquoted Islamic scripture in parts of his speech, even going so far as to suggest that Islamic teaching on killing is the same as the Christian, which is patently untrue. Several sections of the Koran and other sacred texts teach that infidels and “apostates” must be killed if they do not submit to Islam.
  • Contrary to Obama, Islam has no equivalent to the Christian biblical teaching of the Golden Rule. Obama’s efforts to suggest a kindred spirit uniting Islam and Christianity is pure hogwash and can only be called propaganda.

Similar lies and whitewashes of Islam have been chronicled by respected scholars of Islam like Robert Spencer. You can start with Spencer’s The Complete Infidel’s Guide to the Koran, and then read The Muslim Brotherhood in America.

It is true that many Muslims – indeed, a majority of Muslims– do not follow the teachings of the Koran and the words of the Prophet Mohammad. There are indeed millions of “moderate Muslims” in the United States who do not support the goals of jihadists.

But the important point is that those millions of “moderate” Muslims are moderate precisely because they are not devout and do not follow all of the teachings of the Koran. That is one of the truths tht Obama denies in his Baltimore speech.

But it’s not enough to list the many lies in the Baltimore speech; that’s the easy part. The more important thing is to understand WHY Obama and the entire liberal-left establishment would want to lie about Islam.

  • Why does the President of the United States distort and defend the ideological fountainhead of America’s number one enemy, radical Islam?
  • Why does the Left and practically the entire media establishment continually mislead Americans about the true character of Islam?
  • Why does Obama insist on saying “Islam must not be blamed for the actions of a few,” when legitimate polls reveal that from 15% to 30% of all Muslims sympathize with the goals of the jihadists?

Why, Mr. President?

The easy answer would be if Obama is a secret Muslim and so, psychologically, cannot admit the truth about his own chosen religion when so many of his brethren are engaged in murderous attacks on this country. That may be true, but since we cannot read Obama’s heart, we can’t know that for certain.

Even if that were true, it would not explain the duplicity of millions of other Americans and Europeans who willingly put on blinders each morning, who knowingly and continuously spout lies about the “religion of peace.”

The fundamental reason for the Orwellian passion for not only accepting the lie but actively promoting it is the commitment to the universal leftist maxim — blame the victim.

  • To a leftist crusader for “social justice,” when a man walking down the street minding his own business is attacked, robbed and beaten to death by a gang of thugs, it was his own fault: he invited the attack by tolerating a society with inequality of wealth.
  • In the same way, to devout Muslims, a woman walking alone without a male escort is inviting rape. This is not a tenet of “radical” Islam, it is a tent of orthodox Islam.

In the same vein, to the Left, America is immutably and irredeemably so sinful and so guilty of so many historical wrongs that Islam is right to reject assimilation.

  • There are no “innocent civilians” killed by terrorists: Leftist University of Colorado pseudo scholar Ward Churchill was right when he said the 2000 Americans who died in the Twin Towers on 9/11 “deserved what they got.”
  • America’s historical sins of racism, sexism, and capitalist exploitation disqualify us from rendering any moral judgment against Islam.

While it is true that Islam’s religious beliefs about women, gays and all “infidels” are repugnant to progressives, this does not mean progressives should criticize Islam. To serious progressives, Islam is a victim, not an aggressor. Because Islam is waging war on the corrupt and sinful West, the maxim, “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” rules the day.

The Left has formed an unwritten but soulful strategic alliance with Islam against the traditional values and institutions of Western Civilization.

  • This unspoken strategic political alliance justifies – indeed requires– remaining silent about Islam’s transgressions. It justifies calling the most intolerant religion on the planet a religion of peace.
  • It justifies telling fairytales about Islam, a religion which in its most sacred texts calls for the conquest and killing of other religious faithful if they will not voluntarily convert or submit to Islam and Islamic Sharia law.

Obama lies about Islam because admitting the truth would jeopardize the alliance between Islam and the Left, an alliance that threatens not only Israel but every nation on the plant that does not agree to shout “Allahu Akbar!” which translates not as Allah is great but“Allah is the greatest!”

Obama’s speech to the Islamic Society of Baltimore was a predictable follow-up to his 2009 speech to the Muslim Brotherhood in Cairo, where he asked forgiveness for America’s past sins and pledged to be an equal partner with Islamic nations.

The real question, then is not why Obama lies about Islam, it is why so many people tolerate it, applaud it, and join in the lies and the smears against those who dare to tell the truth.

Adm. Lyons – Can you tell whose side Obama is on?

Posted on by

Editor’s Note – When it comes to National Security we really should be listening to those that are experienced military advisors, not political advisors pretending to be National Security advisors.

Obama’s distorted strategy

The president soothes anti-Western grievances at great cost

By Adm. James A. “Ace” Lyons (USN Ret.) – Washington Times

While France remains in a state of shock over the ISIS terrorist attacks in Paris, they are also most likely confused and disappointed over President Obama’s declaration that there will be no fundamental change to his current policy and strategy to “now contain and defeat ISIS.”

President Barack Obama speaks at the G-20 meeting in Turkey.
President Barack Obama speaks at the G-20 meeting in Turkey November 12th.

During his Nov. 12 remarks in Antalya, Turkey, Mr. Obama appeared to be petulant and arrogant when responding to legitimate reporter’s questions, perhaps a “crack” in the carefully constructed veneer that has concealed his true character and now has been exposed.

However, on Nov. 17, The New York Times editorial board quickly came to the rescue by declaring that Mr. Obama “hit the right tone” in his remarks.

But his remarks should leave no doubt that he has a far-reaching strategy. That strategy is embedded in his declaration to fundamentally transform America. Actually, the way we are restricting our operations in the Middle East today has its roots in America’s transformation.

Those who say the administration is incompetent — are wrong. With the complicity of our congressional leadership and the mainstream media, the administration has executed their strategy brilliantly.

In order to understand Mr. Obama’s strategy, you first have to understand the threat that has been deliberately distorted. When President Erdogan of Turkey was prime minister, he said it best — Islam is Islam. There are no modifiers, such as violent extremism.
Democracy is the train we ride to achieve our ultimate objective, Mr. Erdogan implied, which is world domination. It must be understood that Islam is a political movement masquerading as a religion. The Islamic movement will seize power as soon as it is able.

No matter how many times “progressives” try to rationalize or accommodate perceived Muslim grievances, the fact remains that Islam has been involved in a struggle for world domination for over 1,400 years.

• James A. Lyons, a U.S. Navy retired admiral, was commander-in-chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet and senior U.S. military representative to the United Nations.
James A. Lyons, a U.S. Navy retired admiral, was commander-in-chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet and senior U.S. military representative to the United Nations. He is now a member of the Legacy National Security Advisory Group with MG Vallely

What the world witnessed in Paris, and certainly here in America on Sept. 11, 2001, was a continuing clash of civilizations between Islam and the Judeo-Christian values of the West.

As the noted historian Samuel P. Huntington implied, Islam is fundamentally incompatible with Western values and cultures.

There can be no peace or co-existence between Islam and non-Islamic societies or their political institutions. Clearly, there must be a reformation of Islam.

Once the Islamic threat has been exposed and understood, then any thinking American should be able to grasp Mr. Obama’s strategy. It is anti-American; anti-Western; but pro-Islamic; pro-Iranian; and pro-Muslim Brotherhood.

This raises the question: Why would an American president with his country’s Judeo-Christian heritage, who professes to be a Christian, embrace Islam? Or for that matter, why would an American president embrace Iran, the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism, which has been at war with the United States for over 35 years? They have caused the loss of thousands of American civilians and military lives.

Also, why would an American president embrace the Muslim Brotherhood, whose creed is to destroy America from within by our own miserable hands, and replace our Constitution with seventh century Shariah law? They have been able to penetrate all our national security and intelligence agencies. Consequently, they have had a major impact on our foreign and domestic policies as well as the way our military is restricted on fighting our wars.

It is not possible to list all of President Obama’s executive orders and policies that have imposed undue restraints on our military forces and first responders, but illustrative of those are the following:

  • The unilateral disarmament of our military forces. This makes no sense when we are being challenged throughout the world.
  • Compounding the unilateral disarmament issue is the social engineering that has been forced on our military to satisfy an ill-advised domestic agenda. It has adversely impacted the military’s moral fiber, unit cohesiveness, integrity and most importantly the “will to win.”
  • The purging of all our military training manuals that links Islam with terrorism. Our forces are being denied key information that properly defines the threat.
  • Emasculation of our military capabilities by imposing highly restricted Rules of Engagement. It makes our military look ineffective.
  • Curtailment of Christianity and its symbols in our military, e.g., restricting the display of the Bible.
  • Making our military forces in the Middle East either ignore or submit to the atrocities authorized by Shariah law, tribal customs and traditions, e.g. wife beating, stoning, sodomizing young boys.
  • Unfettered immigration with open borders, plus seeding Muslim immigrants throughout the country.
  • Shifting sides in the Global War on Terror by supporting al Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood militias, and facilitating the removal of all vestiges of secular rulers who were in fact our allies in the war on terror.

When President Obama gave his June 4, 2009 speech at Cairo University, co-hosted by Al-Azhar University, the center of Sunni doctrine for over 1,000 years, he stated, “I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear,” that said it all.

Again, when he spoke at the U.N. on Sept. 25, 2012, after the Benghazi tragedy and stated that “the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam” — case closed. Andy McCarthy, author and National Review columnist, made a compelling case for Mr. Obama’s impeachment in his book, “Faithless Execution.”

Clearly, the president has exposed where he stands when the issue is Islam versus our Judeo-Christian heritage. Certainly, the case is there to be made for his removal from office for his illegal, unconstitutional and treasonous acts.

James A. Lyons, a U.S. Navy retired admiral, was commander-in-chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet and senior U.S. military representative to the United Nations.

Terror in Texas – Attack on Free Speech, FBI Knew Suspect

Posted on by

Editor’s Note – Once again, Jihadist types escaped previous law enforcement efforts because our laws, as interpreted by a judge gave sanctuary to would-be terror assassins to later wreak havoc in the name of Allah. Two suspects are dead Nadir Soofi and Elton Simpson, both Jihadi sympathisers and would be members of terror groups of ISIS and Boko Haram.

It is terribly ironic that violence in the name of their prophet and in support of Allah is allowed, yet drawing or depicting Muhammad or his successors in any manner is forbidden for all. This defines the so-called ‘Religion of Peace,’ which truly is neither, as the barbaric cancer on society the world is finally coming to understand.

Islam does NOT mean peace, it means submission; have no doubt therefore what their true intentions are and have always been. You must submit to their barbaric, stone-age mind set in their belief system and you have no rights other than what Shariah laws mandate.

The problem is, over these past many years, as politicians invited so many from Muslim lands to live here in America, and the lure of being “Jihad Cool” is overtaking the minds of many of our youth, no one is safe anywhere, anymore, in America from these types. The frequency of these types of terror will only rise, as will the death toll and blood letting.

Our hats are tipped to the Garland, Texas police for anticipating such acts and prevented what could have been far worse than what happened in Paris to the ‘Charlie Hebdos’ staff and the other terror events in recent months in European cities.

Our first amendment right to the freedom of speech trumps any religion, and those who question Pam Geller and the event organizers should be ashamed of themselves.

The Daily Mail of the UK has done a great job of capturing the many aspects of last night’s tragic attack, but the real tragedy is willful blindness to Islam, even by so-called moderates, here in the west.

What next; Christian churches burned, Synagogues torched, or non-Muslim religious classes attacked? That is the logical next step for people like these terrorists because that is exactly what is happening outside our borders.

Attacks in Canada, France, Libya, Australia, Egypt, Israel… the list goes on and on – it is going to get much worse. We applaud Pam Geller and Geert Wilders and others for standing up for us all; now it is time for all non-Muslims to stand beside then!

Former terror suspect well known to the FBI is named as one of two gunmen shot dead by cops after attack on anti-Islam ‘draw Muhammad’ art contest near Dallas

  • Two suspects were gunned down after shooting a guard in the leg outside the Curtis Culwell Center in Garland
  • The FBI has named one of the gunmen as Elton Simpson, who was convicted of lying to federal agents about traveling to Africa five years ago – but a judge ruled it could not be proved that he was going to join a terror group
  • Simpson’s Phoenix, Arizona home has been surrounded and a bomb squad is carrying out a search 
  • The American Freedom Defense Initiative event had offered a $10,000 prize for the best caricature of the prophet; local residents had expressed their concerns about the event but organizers said they were exercising free speech
  • The security guard who was shot, Bruce Joiner, was taken to hospital in stable condition and has been released 
  • One traffic officer shot both men dead and has been praised by cops for potentially saving many lives 
  • ISIS fighter claimed on Twitter that the shooting was carried out by two pro-ISIS individuals 

By Wills Robinson and Ted Thornhill and Lydia Warren For Dailymail.com

A former terror suspect has been named as one of the gunmen shot dead by police after the two attackers blasted an unarmed security guard in the ankle during an anti-Islam art contest in Texas on Sunday night.

Elton Simpson, who was previously the subject of a terror investigation, and his roommate were armed with assault rifles when they were killed by a quick-thinking traffic officer after opening fire outside the Curtis Culwell Center in Garland, Dallas, at around 7pm.

The shooting unfolded as the American Freedom Defense Initiative held an event inside the building where caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad were being displayed. Followers of Islam deem that any physical depiction of the prophet – even a positive one – is blasphemous.

Simpson, identified in court papers as an American Muslim, had been convicted of lying to federal agents about his plans to travel to Somalia five years ago, but a judge ultimately ruled it could not be proved that he was heading there to join a terror group. He was placed on probation.

The second gunman has not been named but KPNX-TV reported that the two shared an apartment at the Autumn Ridge complex in Phoenix.

On Monday morning, FBI agents and investigators could be seen cordoning off and searching the apartment, as well as a white van believed to belong to Simpson. Investigators are also reviewing computer records from materials found at the home.

Investigators also searched the car that the two gunmen drove to the scene and found luggage and further ammunition inside. Some of the belongings were destroyed as a precaution but no explosives were found inside the vehicle, Garland Police Officer Joe Harn said on Monday.

On Monday, Simpson’s father said that he believes his son, who had worked in a dentist’s office, ‘made a bad choice’.

‘We are Americans and we believe in America,’ Dunston Simpson told ABC News. ‘What my son did reflects very badly on my family.’

Ahead of the attack on Sunday evening, several Twitter messages were sent out, and authorities believe Simpson was behind them. The last one was shared just half an hour before the shooting.

Followers of ISIS had been calling for an attack online for more than a week after learning that the competition in Garland would feature a ‘draw Muhammad’ art contest, with a prize of $10,000 for the best caricature.

After the attack, the SITE Intelligence Group reported that an Islamic State fighter claimed on Twitter that the shooting was carried out by two pro-Isis individuals.

In a series of tweets and links, a jihadist named as Abu Hussain AlBritani, which SITE said was British IS fighter Junaid Hussain, claimed that ‘2 of our brothers just opened fire’ at the Prophet Muhammad exhibition in Texas.

‘They Thought They Was Safe In Texas From The Soldiers of The Islamic State,’ added the tweet.

Other ISIS supporters claimed on Twitter that one of the gunmen was a man calling himself Shariah Is Light on the social media site, using the now-suspended account name @atawaakul, according to New York Times reporter Rukmini Callimachi.

He had posted a message earlier that said ‘the bro with me and myself have given bay’ah [oath] to Amirul Mu’mineen [ISIS leader Al Baghdadi]. May Allah accept us as mujahideen #texasattack’.

The contest was just minutes from finishing when multiple gunshots were heard.

The two suspects had pulled up in a vehicle before getting out and firing at a security officer, 57-year-old Bruce Joiner, who was employed by the independent school district. He was later taken to hospital in a stable condition and was released on Sunday evening.

As the gunmen got out of their car with their weapons, one police officer – a tenured traffic cop – shot both men dead, Garland Police officer Joe Harn said at a press conference on Monday. The officer used his service pistol to shoot the men, who were carrying assault weapons.

‘With what he was faced with and his reaction and his shooting with a pistol, he did a good job,’ Harn said of the officer.

‘He did what he was trained to do, and under the fire that he was put under, he did a very good job and probably saved lives. We think their strategy was to get into the events center and they were not able to get past that outer perimeter.’

Randy Potts, a contributor for The Daily Beast, recalled how he was watching the speeches wrap up when a man wearing camouflage shouted: ‘Get inside the conference room now!’

‘The room was oddly quiet,’ he said. ‘A hush fell over the crowd of about 150, as if we were listening for something outside. Then a camo-clad security guard with a rifle got up on stage and announced that a cop and two suspects had been shot.’

He described how security surrounding the event was evident even as he drove up to the Curtis Culwell Center. The parking lot was surrounded by yellow tape and his ID was checked twice before he was allowed to enter.

Johnny Roby of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, had also been attending the conference. He said he was outside the building when he heard around 20 shots that appeared to be coming from the direction of a passing car.

Roby said he then heard two single shots before officers yelled that they had the car before he was sent inside the building.

The building, which had about 100 people inside, and surrounding areas were placed on lockdown by SWAT teams.

FBI bomb squad robots were then sent in to check the suspects’ vehicle, as the two bodies of the gunmen lay on the road beside it. The bodies were not immediately taken from the scene because they were too close to the car, which police feared had incendiary devices inside.

Shortly before midnight, police alerted media that a strong electronic pulse would be activated near the scene, presumably as part of the bomb squad’s work, and a loud boom was heard moments later, though police did not comment further on what was carried out.

The art event had been condemned by critics as an attack on Islam, but the organizers insisted they were exercising free speech.

Some Twitter users began posting about the shooting using a #JeSuisGarland hashtag, mirroring the #JesuisCharlie hashtag that became popular after January’s jihadist attacks in France. In that incident, gunmen killed 12 people in the Paris offices of French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in revenge for its cartoons of the prophet.

After the gunfire in Garland, those inside the building started to sing patriotic songs, including the national anthem and God Bless America, and said a prayer for the injured security guard after one woman pulled out an American flag from her bag.

Garland Police officer Joe Harn said on Sunday evening they had been monitoring the build-up to the event and had not received any credible threats.

During a press conference, he described how the shootout lasted only seconds. A large area around the Center remained blocked off late into the night.

Texas Governor Greg Abbott described the incident as a ‘senseless attack’ and praised the ‘swift action’ of Garland law enforcement.

The attack unfolded shortly after Dutch member of parliament and leader of the far-right Party for Freedom, Geert Wilders, had delivered his keynote speech. There had been calls by members of Congress for him to be stopped at the border so he would not be able to speak.

‘We are here in defiance of Islam to stand for our rights and freedom of speech,’ he said during his speech shortly before the building was shut down. ‘That is our duty… Our message today is very simple: we will never allow barbarism, never allow Islam, to rob us of our freedom of speech.’

His remarks were met with a standing ovation. He then told the audience that most terrorists are Muslims, and ‘the less Islam the better’.

In 2009, he sparked controversy for showing a controversial film which linked the Koran to terrorism and has previously said the Netherlands is being taken over by a ‘tsunami of Islamisation’.

Pamela Geller, the organizer of the event and the leader of Stop Islamisation of America, wrote on her personal website after the attack: ‘This is a war. This is war on free speech. What are we going to do? Are we going to surrender to these monsters?’

In a post in late March, she insisted that the event was necessary to fight back against what she described as ‘the jihad against freedom’.

It was set up by the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) and had been described by opponents as an attack on Islam. They booked the center a little more than a week after Islamic militants in France killed 12 people at satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo.

The Garland Independent School district, who own the cultural center, allowed the event to go ahead despite criticism from residents and local Muslims that it was a risk to public safety.

The group spent $10,000 on 40 additional security officers, aware of potential threats they may attract, while Garland Police officers were fully prepared to deal with any issues that arose.

Before the event, the New York-based organisation made the headlines for its sponsorship of anti-Islamic adverts which it paid to run on transit systems in Washington, D.C., Philadelphia and San Francisco.

A picture taken from inside the event just before the attack showed Geller giving a check for $12,500 to Bosch Fawtin who won the event.

He told the Dallas Morning News he believed there would be no danger because of the high levels of security surrounding the event.

‘I had known it would be secure, but seeing it is a whole new thing,’ he said before the shootings.

Locals in Garland said they were upset with the exhibit being held in their town, and tried to convince the city council to intervene.

One resident, Dorothy Brooks, said that the event was like shouting ‘fire!’ in a theater – an oft-cited example of freedom of speech taken too far.

She continued: ‘I understand that participants have a right to express themselves with cartoons, but I regret that this will be happening in our city.’

Another, Lena Griffin, asked at a city council meeting: ‘Do we want to be involved with this type of rhetoric?’ It is not an issue of free speech but clearly one of public safety.’

The event had already been the subject of disapproval from further afield, according to ForeignPolicy.com.

The site obtained a letter from congressmen Keith Ellison (D-Minnesota) and André Carson (D-Indiana) sent to John Kerry and Homeland Security asking them to bar a speaker for the event from entering the United States.

Caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed have triggered violent protests in the past, including when the Danish daily Jyllands-Posten published 12 satirical cartoons in 2005, triggering deadly protests in some Muslim countries.

In January, just weeks after the Paris attacks, an event called Stand with the Prophet was held in the same center. Muslim leaders from across the world gathered to try and combat ‘Islamophobes in America’ who had turned Muhammad into an ‘object of hate’.

Geller spearheaded about 1,000 picketers at the event. One chanted: ‘Go back to your own countries! We don’t want you here!’ Others held signs with messages such as, ‘Insult those who behead others,’ an apparent reference to recent beheadings by the militant group Islamic State.

Mr Abbott said state officials are investigating, and Dallas FBI spokeswoman Katherine Chaumont said that the agency is providing investigative and bomb technician assistance.

The Charlie Hebdo attack was followed by another a month later in Europe. A masked gunman sprayed bullets into a Copenhagen meeting in February attended by a Swedish artist who had been threatened with death for his cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad.

A civilian was killed and three police officers were injured in the attack, aimed at artist Lars Vilks, who stirred controversy in 2007 with published drawings depicting the Prophet Mohammad as a dog.

Denmark itself became a target 10 years ago after the publication of cartoons lampooning the Prophet Mohammad. The images led to sometimes fatal protests in the Muslim world.

CONTROVERSIAL CARICATURES: WHY DEPICTING THE PROPHET MUHAMMAD IS BANNED BY MUSLIMS 

It’s not mentioned in Islam’s holy book, the Quran, but the religion’s ban on depicting the Prophet Muhammad — even favorably — has run firm through the centuries.

Religious traditions built over the years have prohibited such depictions out of respect for Muhammad and to discourage idolatry, according to Muslim scholars and clerics. The ban is further rooted in a wider prohibition against images or statues of human beings.

There have been exceptions. A rich tradition of depicting Muhammad emerged in miniatures and illustrations for manuscripts from around 1200 to 1700. The art is mainly from Turkey and Iran, where pictorial traditions were stronger than in the Arab world. The paintings often show traditional stories from Muhammad’s life, such as his journey to heaven, though in some the prophet’s face is obscured by a veil or a plume of flame.

Shiites also differ from Sunnis by depicting Muhammad’s son-in-law Ali, revered by Shiites who see him as the prophet’s rightful successor. His image — and those of his sons Hassan and Hussein — are plentiful among Shiites, adorning posters, banners, jewelry and even keychains. For Sunnis, the ban on depictions extends beyond the prophet to his close companions and wives.

‘The Prophet Muhammad enjoys sublime and supreme status among Muslims and it is impossible to let a normal person depict or act the role of the prophet,’ said Iraqi Shiite cleric Fadhil al-Saadi. ‘There is no confirmed information about the shape or the features of the Prophet … So nobody should come up with a painting or an image of him. That would represent an insult to the status of the prophet.’

With no explicit text against depictions — or against images of humans in general — the prohibition comes from deduction by Muslim scholars and interpreters over the centuries from the collections of Hadeeth, or sayings and actions of Muhammad.

The prohibition against depicting humans and other living beings, which emerged from scholars as early as the 9th century, came from reported sayings of Muhammad, in some of which he refused to enter a room with such depictions or challenged their creators to breathe life into them. The presumption was that such art would suggest man can emulate God’s powers of creation — and there were worries that statues in particular could encourage idolatry.

Islamic tradition is full of written descriptions of Muhammad and his qualities — describing him as the ideal human being. But clerics have generally agreed that trying to depict that ideal is forbidden. That puts satirical — and obscene — depictions like those in the French magazing Charlie Hebdo far beyond the pale.

While no one knows Muhammad’s true appearance, followers of the relatively modern, ultraconservative Salafi movement in Islam seek to emulate him as closely as possible — including in what they believe to be his physical features and dress. Hardcore Salafis wear a beard without a moustache, let their hair grow long, line their eyes with kohl or wear robes stopping around mid-shin, contending that was the prophet’s manner.

The ban also extends to his wives, daughters, sons-in-law, the first caliphs who succeeded him and his closest companions. In fact, Egypt’s al-Azhar mosque, the Sunni world’s foremost seat of religious learning, has complained when ‘Mohammed, Messenger of God,’ an epic 1970s Hollywood production, depicted the prophet’s camel.

There is a thriving production of religious TV series in the Arab world depicting the times of the prophet. But Muhammad and his companions are never themselves shown. At times, a white light stands in for Muhammad in the films or in movie posters — and when they are meant to be addressing Muhammad, the actors usually speak into the camera.

TAPES OF A TERROR SUSPECT: RECORDINGS SHOW SIMPSON’S INTENTIONS TO WAGE A WAR

Elton Simpson was well known to the FBI. In 2010, he was convicted of lying to federal agents about his plans to travel to Somalia – although a judge ultimately ruled it could not be proved that he was heading there to join a terror group.

During the investigation, an FBI informant recorded their conversations, which showed Simpson talking about his intentions to fight for the Muslim way of life.

Court documents state: ‘Mr. Simpson said that the reward is high because “If you get shot, or you get killed, it’s [heaven] straight away”…. “[Heaven] that’s what we here for…so why not take that route?”‘

He added that in countries, such as Palestine, Iraq and Somalia, ‘they trying to bring democracy over there man, they’re trying to make them live by man-made laws, not by Allah’s laws’.

He went on: ‘That’s why they get fought. You try to make us become slaves to man? No we slave to Allah, we going to fight you to the death.’

In a recording from 2009, he told the informant that it was time they went to Somalia.

‘It’s time,’ he said. ‘I’m tellin’ you man. We gonna make it to the battlefield… It’s time to roll…

‘People fighting and killing your kids, and dropping bombs on people that have nothing to do with nothing. You got to fight back you can’t be just sitting down… smiling at each other…’

McCarthy – Obama ISIS "Management" – A National Discussion?

Posted on by

Editor’s Note – So what will our illustrious leader, President Obama, tell us tonight regarding ISIS, Iraq, Syria, and terror threats the day before the second anniversary of Benghazi and the 13th anniversary of 9/11/01?

Are we in for a ‘fireside chat’, or a ‘come to Jesus moment’, maybe this is when Obama becomes an adult, not just a bad actor trying to look Presidential? Only the teleprompter knows! The irony of this moment is palpable – especially when we see the image below of his speech from 2010 declaring the end of our Iraqi combat mission – he looked like an adult then, didn’t he?

President Obama delivers an address to the nation on the end of the combat mission in Iraq from the Oval Office August 31, 2010
President Obama delivers an address to the nation on the end of the combat mission in Iraq from the Oval Office August 31, 2010. The irony is palpable indeed.

Does anyone think he will manage this mess in the Middle East well? Doubtful, the reason things are so bad across the globe now are directly attributable to his inability to manage to begin with. Of course, no matter what actions he chooses to take, we are all supposed to back him as he does. We are supposed to unite behind our “Commander-in-Chief” aren’t we?

The old axiom of leaving politics at our shoreline was crossed off the list by Obama himself beginning with his 2009 Cairo speech and his apology tour, so forgive us if we have no faith in his ability to manage any foreign policy, let alone a war, especially in regard to anything Islamic.

If you have family in the military now, like many of us, be very worried – we do not have to explain why, now do we? Using Obama and the word management in the same sentence is clearly an oxymoron, now isn’t it?

We could go on and on but Andy McCarthy has summed it up so well. Please read below:

A Mismanage-able Problem

Obama’s belief that he can “manage” the Islamic State may collide with reality.

By Andrew C. McCarthy – National Review Online

President Obama says he intends to shrink the al-Qaeda-spawned Islamic State into a “manageable problem.” Perhaps we’ll learn more about how when he speaks to the nation on Wednesday evening. Still, the question presses: Is he the manager for the job?

In answering that question, past performance is more a guarantee of future results than is any statement of newfound purpose from a president whose innate dishonesty has turned his signature phrase “Let me be clear” into notorious self-parody.

In late September 2012, Mr. Obama’s administration quietly approved the transfer of 55 jihadist prisoners out of the Guantanamo Bay detention center. As Tom Joscelyn explained at the time, most of the detainees had previously been categorized as “high risk” because they were deemed “likely to pose a threat to the US, its interests, and allies” if released. Almost all of the rest had been assessed “medium risk” — still posing a threat, albeit one less certain than the “high risk” jihadists.

But Obama officials overruled those judgments. Rife with members of the Lawyer Left vanguard who had stampeded to volunteer their services to al-Qaeda detainees during the Bush years, who had smeared Gitmo as a gulag, and who had fought bitterly against the Bush/Cheney paradigm that regarded al-Qaeda’s jihad as a war rather than a crime wave, the administration determined that the anti-American terrorists were fit to be sprung from American custody.

Wait a second . . . two years ago in September . . . what was going on then? Why yes, the Benghazi massacre — whose second anniversary we mark this Thursday.

The Obama administration would like us to forget that bit of old news since “dude, this was like two years ago.” You may nonetheless recall it as an act of war in which al-Qaeda-affiliated jihadistsattacked a sovereign American government compound. The terrorists murdered our ambassador to Libya, killed three other Americans, and wounded many more in an eight-hour siege during which President Obama declined to take any meaningful responsive action. Indeed, agents of the U.S. security team in Benghazi say they were prevented from trying to save Ambassador Stevens.

Among those carrying out the attack were operatives of Ansar al-Sharia. That’s the al-Qaeda affiliate with cells in Eastern Libya’s jihadist hotbeds, Benghazi and Derna. Ansar is led by Sufian BenQumu, a former Gitmo detainee who, inexorably, went right back to the jihad.

News of Obama’s approval of the mass transfer of Gitmo detainees came less than two weeks after the Benghazi massacre. Let that sink in: The Obama administration knew that a former Gitmodetainee was complicit in the most humiliating defeat suffered by the United States since the 9/11 attacks that took the nation to war; yet, the president approved the transfer of dozens more Gitmoterrorists. Just as, only a few months ago, he approved the transfer of five top Taliban commanders even as the Taliban was (and is) continuing to conduct terrorist operations against American troops in Afghanistan.

Shocking, yes, but how surprising from Barack Obama? Mind you, this is the president who, though AWOL (and still unaccountable) while terrorists were killing and wounding American personnel in Benghazi, had the temerity not just to fly off to a Vegas fundraiser the very next day but to pick that setting, and that moment, to declare victory: “A day after 9/11, we are reminded that a new tower rises above the New York skyline, but al-Qaeda is on the path to defeat and bin Laden is dead.”

Yes, bin Laden is dead. But the terrorist hordes chanted, “Obama, we’re all Osama!” as they torched our embassies and raised the black flag of jihad — the flag the Islamic State vows to fly over the White House. And just two days after Obama’s “Mission Accomplished” fundraiser, Ansar al-Sharia’s Tunis cell attacked the American embassy there. That al-Qaeda franchise is led by Seifallah benHassine, long-time jihadist confidant of bin Laden and his successor, Ayman al-Zawahiri. Some path to defeat.

Of course, the Benghazi massacre would never have happened had Obama not switched sides in Libya, dumping the Qaddafi regime — theretofore an American counterterrorism ally — and partnering with Eastern Libyan jihadists. The president’s strategy ensured that enemies of the United States would acquire much of Qaddafi’s arsenal, empowering jihadist cells throughout North Africa and the Middle East, growing al-Qaeda and what would become the Islamic State. And as we have seen in just the last few weeks, Obama’s “lead the jihad from behind” strategy has resulted in the near complete disintegration of Libya, with Ansar al-Sharia and its allies now controlling much of Tripoli.

Nor is that all. Hours before the Benghazi attack began on September 11, 2012, there had been rioting at the American embassy in Cairo. It was stoked by al-Qaeda leaders — including Zawahiri’sbrother, Mohammed. The latter had called for attacks against the United States to avenge the recent killing of the network’s leader in Libya. The al-Qaeda leaders had also been threatening to besiege the embassy to extort the release of the Blind Sheikh, Omar Abdel Rahman, imprisoned in the U.S. on terrorism charges. These jihadists had been enabled in their incitements against America by the Muslim Brotherhood–controlled government — a government the Obama administration had pressured Egypt’s military leaders to make way for.

When the Left says it intends to make the challenge of international terrorism “manageable,” that is usually code for saying it wants to return counterterrorism to the law-enforcement paradigm, in which terrorism is a crime addressed by indictments. Crime — petty theft, graft, racketeering, and the like — is a constant that society manages. National-security threats, on the other hand, cannot be indicted into submission. And they are not “managed” by imagining that if we ignore them they will go away.

President Obama probably does believe the Islamic State could become a manageable problem. Unfortunately, he also believes that when his ideology collides with reality, it is reality that must give. Reality does not see it that way.

— Andrew C. McCarthy is a policy fellow at the National Review Institute. His latest book, Faithless Execution: Building the Political Case for Obama’s Impeachment, was released by Encounter Books on June 3.

LTG McInerney on MB Influence in DC – Policies Set By Politics

Posted on by

Editor’s Note – As the former Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates’ book ‘Duty’ reveals to us, as well as the leaders of all other nations, the Obama administration’s policies are driven purely by politics. It is now obvious, and despite their excuses and rationalizations, it is indeed true that politics trumps policy in the Obama White House, often to the detriment of our troops and our world reputation.

So too can it then be said that their policy towards Islam is politically entrenched and that certain groups within Islam carry great influence in our leadership’s policy decisions regarding Islam and terrorism. In the article posted below regarding what Lt. Gen. Tom McInerney talked about in a recent interview conducted by WMAL in Washington, D.C., Bob Unruh of WND talks of the assertion the General makes about the Islamic infiltration of our government by the Muslim Brotherhood and how it has helped mold their political stance regarding Islam and terrorism in a most demonstrable manner.

Lt. General Thomas McInerney
Lt. General Thomas McInerney

Early in the first term of the Obama administration, it became apparent to those of us who follow things Islam and terrorism closely, that Obama made a decision regarding his policy stance on Islam by changing the very definition of the “War On Terror” calling it an “Overseas Contingency Operation” and expunging all reference and training materials of anything that shed a negative light on Islam in any manner. Why?, we asked. Was it his Islamic upbringing? Was it his financial ties and support to and by many Muslims? Or was it ineptitude, naivete, and ignorance?

When the leader of the most powerful nation on Earth cannot, or will not define the threat and will not define the enemies, or even name our enemies, how are we as a nation ever to succeed against terrorists and other enemies? Barry Rubin wrote an article this week entitled ‘You still don’t understand Islamism, do you you?‘ where he shows in stark clarity that a political decision was made and policy would follow it regarding terrorism and Islam.

In that article, Rubin shows the depth to which they have confused the subject so much that many supposed ‘experts’ and ‘mavens’ in the media consistently get things wrong. The mere fact that a known loyalist and trainee of Osama bin Laden, Sufyan Bin Qumu, was the leader of Ansar al Sharia, the terrorist group who perpetrated the attack in Benghazi, but that it was not an al Qaeda group is mere semantics and is ludicrous.

In fact, early on, Cheryl Mills in the State Department reported internally that it was an al Qaeda group called Ansar al Sharia, then later it was changed to a movie trailer that ignited the attack and not al Qaeda. Then the NY Times tried to make that point in its now infamous report on Benghazi and was roundly criticized as fluff and greatly refuted by testimony and the facts.

Rubin expounds further:

There was a secret debate happening in the Defense Department and the CIA in which some people thought that all Muslims were a problem, some believed that only al-Qa’ida was a problem, and still others thought the Muslim Brotherhood was a problem.

The main problem, however, was that all Islamism was a political threat, but it was the second position that eventually won over the Obama administration. Take note of this, since 2009, if you wanted to build your career and win policy debates, only al-Qa’ida was a problem. The Muslim Brotherhood was not a threat; after all, it did not participate in September 11. This view was well known in policy circles, but it was easy to mistake this growing hegemony as temporary. (Read the rest here, it is a must read.)

Now this confusion, rooted in the political underpinnings of the Obama Administration’s “policies set by politics” standards that most in the West are confused about who is who in Syria. Is Obama backing the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria, or is it al Qaeda, or is it the so-called “moderates,” or is it the secular nationalistic FSA? We know it is not that last group.

In another recent article, Hannah Allam writes for the McCLatchy Washington Bureau that there is “No winner for the West in Syria” because its a “good” al Qaeda versus a “bad” al Qaeda condition from which we must chose. It is hard to identify the players without a scorecard thanks to all the confusion of cultures and influences, along with external policies set by politics. Politics emanating from the USA, Russia, Iran, France, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, and beyond.

However she leaves out a lot of historical facts along with the understanding of why the Syrian civilian population changes loyalties almost daily due to the humanitarian crises. She also leaves out the western influences prior to the dictatorial and tyrannical regime where Jews and Christians made up a large portion of the historical context. Also missing is any reference to the largest number among the rebels, those who are secular and nationalist, the many who wish to join the West rather than any Islamist state.

Also recently, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) said this of the politics and semantics:

“Whether it was al Qaeda or a subsidiary or a holding company or a limited partnership, to quote Hillary Clinton, ‘What difference does it make?’ Who cares whether it was al Qaeda proper or a subsidiary? Four Americans are dead, and it wasn’t a spontaneous reaction to a video. It was planned,” Gowdy said.

Now we have to ask, what is the message to those who defend us in uniform? What are foreign leaders and our allies supposed to think? The strategy is clouded in uncertainty and is rudderless. Please read the following article by Bob Unruh on Lt. Gen. McInerney’s interview:

GENERAL: Muslim Brotherhood Inside Obama Administration

‘There are a whole host of people in this government’

By Bob Unruh – WND

Retired U.S. Air Force Gen. Tom McInerney, who served as both assistant vice chief of staff and commander in chief of U.S. Air Forces Europe, has surprised interviewers on a radio program by confirming the presence of the Muslim Brotherhood inside the U.S. government.

The Islamic supremacist movement’s influence on Washington was reported in “Impeachable Offenses: The Case to Remove Barack Obama from Office” by New York Times bestselling authors Aaron Klein and Brenda J. Elliott.

%CODE%

The book documents that Obama aided the rise to power of Islamic extremist groups in the Middle East as members served on important national security advisory boards.

The book confirms the Obama administration may have exposed national security information through Huma Abedin, Hillary Clinton’s deputy chief of staff, who has deep personal and family associations with the Muslim Brotherhood.

Another key figure with Muslim Brotherhood ties is Mohamed Elibiary, a member of the Department of Homeland Security’s Advisory Council.

McInerney was being interviewed Thursday by WMAL in Washington about a tell-all book by former Defense Secretary Robert Gates that strongly criticizes President Obama and Vice President Biden for making politically motivated decisions regarding national security.

McInerney said Gates was doing the nation a service by exposing decision-making in the Oval Office but said he should have done it sooner. He also noted that the Muslim Brotherhood influences have been causing major problems throughout the Middle East.

MB in white-house-staff

Then he added, “We’ve got Muslim Brotherhood in the U.S. government today.”

Asked by the talk-show hosts for their names, he said, “I haven’t got their names exactly but there’s a list of them, at least 10 or 15 of them in the U.S. government.”

He cited the organization’s influence in Homeland Security and the secretary of state’s office under Clinton, where Abedin has worked.

“Her parents are Muslim Brotherhood. And her intuitions are in that direction,” he said.

“There are a whole host of people in this government.”

He said Islam experts Frank Gaffney or Claire Lopez would have the details.

Gaffney, president of the Center for Security Policy, has created a publication called “The Muslim Brotherhood in the Obama Administration,” which addresses the issue that was brought to the attention of Congress in July 2012 by Republican Reps. Michele Bachmann, Trent Franks, Louie Gohmert, Tom Rooney and Lynn Westmoreland.

The lawmakers asked the inspector generals at the departments of Homeland Security, Justice and State to investigate, prompting Democrats and Republicans to rush to Abedin’s defense.

However, as WND reported, Abedin worked for an organization founded by her family that is effectively at the forefront of a grand Saudi plan to mobilize U.S. Muslim minorities to transform America into a strict Wahhabi-style Islamic state, according to an Arabic-language manifesto issued by the Saudi monarchy. Abedin also was a member of the executive board of the Muslim Student Association, which was identified as a Muslim Brotherhood front group in a 1991 document introduced into evidence during the terror-financing trial of the Texas-based Holy Land Foundation trial.

The internal memo said Muslim Brotherhood members “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 by the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”

Lopez, a CSP senior fellow, wrote at The Gatestone Institute: “The careful insinuation of Muslim Brothers into positions from which they can exercise influence on U.S. policy began long before the attacks of 9/11, although their success has accelerated dramatically under the administration of President Barack Obama.”

She said the “massive Muslim Brotherhood organization network in the U.S., so patiently built up over the decades since that first Oval Office meeting in 1953 [with President Dwight D. Eisenhower], eventually gave it a prominence and (false) reputation of credibility that was unmatched by any other Islamic groups, moderate or otherwise.”

She said the Brotherhood achieved “information dominance” during the George W. Bush administration that only intensified in the following years.

“Not only did figures associated and identified with the Muslim Brotherhood achieve broad penetration at senior levels of U.S. policy making, but voices that warned of their true agenda (such as Stephen Coughlin’s) were actively excluded,” she said.

That information dominance has contributed to startling consequences, most evident in the U.S. policy toward the al-Qaida and Muslim Brotherhood-dominated revolutions that many call the ‘Arab Spring,’ but which in fact are more accurately termed an ‘Islamic Awakening,’” she said.

Under the Muslim Brotherhood-influenced Obama administration, U.S. policy has undergone such a drastic shift in the direction of outright support for these jihadist movements – from al-Qaida militias in Libya, to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and both al-Qaida and Muslim Brotherhood-linked rebels in Syria — that it is scarcely recognizable as American anymore.”

See Gaffney discussing the issue with Glenn Beck:

%CODE2%

In the WMAL interview, McInerney said Gates’ book should alert Americans about what should be done to protect national security.

“The Middle East is coming apart with this administration’s policies. Look at Libya. We should never have gone into Libya. … We’ve got Muslim Brotherhood in the U.S. government.”

WND columnist Diana West wrote it likely wasn’t by chance that Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, “reading from prepared notes, absurdly described the Muslim Brotherhood to the House Intelligence Committee last year as a ‘largely secular’ organization.”

“Is it an accident that in June the State Department issued a visa to Hani Nour Eldin of Egypt to meet with senior White House officials? Eldin is a member of Gama’a al-Islamiyya, a terrorist organization once led by Omar Abdel Rahman, ‘the blind sheikh’ convicted of the first attack on the World Trade Center. In the person of Rahman’s successor, Refai Ahmed Taha, the group is one of the five signatories of Osama bin Laden’s February 1998 ‘World Islamic Front Statement Urging Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders.’ Isn’t it imperative to review the policy mechanism that permitted a member of bin Laden’s jihad front into the White House?”

“Impeachable Offenses” also reported that then-CIA director John Brennan announced the Obama administration was calibrating policies in the fight against terrorism to ensure Americans are never “profiled.”

His speech was arranged by a Muslim Brotherhood-tied group that has deep relations not only with other Brotherhood fronts but to the White House and national security agencies.

Brennan’s NYU session was organized by the Islamic Society of North America, or ISNA. ISNA, whose members asked Brennan scores of questions during the event, stated the meeting was intended to initiate a “dialogue between government officials and Muslim American leaders to explore issues of national security.”

ISNA was founded in 1981 by the Saudi-funded Muslim Students Association, which itself was founded by the Muslim Brotherhood. The two groups are still partners.

ISNA is known for its promotion of strict Saudi-style Islam in mosques throughout the U.S.

Islam scholar Stephen Schwartz describes ISNA as “one of the chief conduits through which the radical Saudi form of Islam passes into the United States.”

According to terrorism expert Steven Emerson, ISNA “is a radical group hiding under a false veneer of moderation.”