Europe's Population Crisis Is About To Explode, Demographics Collapse is Here. End of EU?
Joe Biden, the demolition man
President Trump worked hard with Central America to close the border; on day one, Joe Biden worked very hard to open that border back up.
Trump worked very hard to cut off funds from Iran, to stop the sponsorship of terrorism, and Biden turned the spigot back on, deluging the regime with billions of dollars.
Trump gave the world the Abraham peace accords; Biden gave the world a massive disaster by sparking conflict after conflict between nations with fragile relations.
Trump worked very hard to keep oil prices low and make America energy independent; Biden told the world we were going to destroy our domestic oil industry, which jacked up the global price, and allowed Iran to fund the terrorists and Russia to fund its war.
I don’t understand why Iran is still sponsoring all these attacks since the Biden administration has told Iran in strongly-worded terms, many times, to stop sponsoring terrorism.
But, according to the media, other Democrats, Nikki Haley, and many establishment Republicans, it is Trump who causes chaos.
The question is, when will the media and establishment politicians acknowledge that it is the Biden administration that is causing cascading disasters? I hope the voters recognize the problem! (It is easy to recognize.)
Trump went to NATO and told them to increase their funding for defense to 4%, as they were obligated to do, and he was repeatedly derided. He never was going to leave NATO. He wanted to make them stronger so they could defend themselves against adversaries, instead of having American taxpayers foot the bill.
When Trump lectured NATO members on how dangerous it was for them to depend on Russia for their energy, idiotic leaders laughed at him:
Europeans Laughed at Trump Over Russian Gas. No Longer.
They are learning what happens when you give the very nation NATO was set up to oppose the power to cut off your energy.
Trump took out Iran’s General Qasem Soleimani, and Biden and other Democrats castigated him for such a “dangerous” action; but Iran and its terrorist benefactors stopped attacking American bases at will after that happened, because they knew Trump meant what he said. Peace through strength.
Isn’t the world so fortunate that the media campaigned so hard to put the adults back in the room? Thank goodness we now have an incompetent president who took his son around the globe collecting kickbacks, instead of Trump who gave the world relative peace and prosperity!
The media should be so proud of themselves—that they contributed so greatly to the cascading world disasters, by lying continuously about Russian collusion, and by burying the truthful stories about the Biden family corruption, as they have relentlessly interfered in elections. Misinformation is their method of operation when they target people they want to destroy.
Denmark’s parliament has passed a bill that makes it illegal to burn copies of the Quran in public places... The bill, which prohibits “inappropriate treatment of writings with significant religious importance for a recognized religious community,” was passed with 94 votes in favor and 77 opposed... In practical terms, it will be forbidden to burn, tear or otherwise defile holy texts publicly or in videos intended to be disseminated widely. Those who break the law risk a fine or up to two years in prison… The purpose of the law is to counter “the systematic mockery” that, among other things, has contributed to intensifying the threat of [Islamic] terrorism in Denmark, the Ministry of Justice said.
We’ll note here that this quote is from Hassan al-Banna, the 1928 founder of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. And here is the motto of the Muslim Brotherhood:
‘Allah is our objective; the Prophet is our leader; the Quran is our law; Jihad is our way; dying in the way of Allah is our highest aspiration.’
HOW MANY CHRISTIANS WERE MURDERED BY MUSLIMS IN 2023??? GOOGLE NIGERIAN GENOCIDE OF CHRISTIANS
As it happens, the blasphemy laws of many Muslim nations do not officially protect Islam alone but extend to other religions. (Egypt, for example, criminalizes the mockery of “heavenly” religions -- Islam, Christianity, and Judaism -- though the law is virtually exclusively used to protect Islam.) Muslim nations -- and now Denmark -- pretend to protect all religions in order to appear neutral, objective, not siding with this or that faith. Muslim nations also do it for their image: better to appear interested in protecting the sanctity of all religions rather than appear as rabid fanatics who cannot tolerate criticism.
THE KORAN
BIBLE OF THE MUSLIM TERRORIST:
“The Wahhabis(SAIUDIS SECT OF MUSLIMS) finance thousands of madrassahs throughout the world where young boys are brainwashed into becoming fanatical foot-soldiers for the petrodollar-flush Saudis and other emirs of the Persian Gulf.” AMIL IMANI
http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2018/08/new-novel-blasphemes-fornicating-dog.html
Koran 2:191 "s lay the unbelievers wherever you find them"
Koran 3:21 "Muslims must not take the infidels as friends"
Koran 5:33 "Maim and crucify the infidels if they criticize Islam"
Koran 8:12 "Terrorize and behead those who believe in scriptures other than the Koran"
Koran 8:60 " Muslims must muster all weapons to terrorize the infidels"
Koran 8:65 "The unbelievers are stupid, urge all Muslims to fight them"
Koran 9:5 "When the opportunity arises, k ill the infidels wherever you find them"
Koran 9:123 "Make war on the infidels living in your neighborhood"
Koran 22:19 "Punish the unbelievers with garments of fire, hooked iron rods, boiling water, melt their skin and bellies"
Koran 47:4 "Do not hanker for peace with the infidels, behead them when you catch them".
Rule of thuggery prevails in Denmark
Denmark recently capitulated, forfeiting its hard-fought freedoms to those who hate it. According to a recent report,
Denmark’s parliament has passed a bill that makes it illegal to burn copies of the Quran in public places... The bill, which prohibits “inappropriate treatment of writings with significant religious importance for a recognized religious community,” was passed with 94 votes in favor and 77 opposed... In practical terms, it will be forbidden to burn, tear or otherwise defile holy texts publicly or in videos intended to be disseminated widely. Those who break the law risk a fine or up to two years in prison… The purpose of the law is to counter “the systematic mockery” that, among other things, has contributed to intensifying the threat of [Islamic] terrorism in Denmark, the Ministry of Justice said.
There is much to say here.
First, it is interesting to note that the new bill does not single out Islam or the Koran by name, but rather seeks to protect from desecration “writings with significant religious importance for a recognized religious community.” By employing such generic wording that applies to and presumably protects every religious text and community -- though everyone knows the law exists exclusively to protect the Muhammadan creed -- the Danes appear to have copied a play from the Islamic gamebook.
As it happens, the blasphemy laws of many Muslim nations do not officially protect Islam alone but extend to other religions. (Egypt, for example, criminalizes the mockery of “heavenly” religions -- Islam, Christianity, and Judaism -- though the law is virtually exclusively used to protect Islam.) Muslim nations -- and now Denmark -- pretend to protect all religions in order to appear neutral, objective, not siding with this or that faith. Muslim nations also do it for their image: better to appear interested in protecting the sanctity of all religions rather than appear as rabid fanatics who cannot tolerate criticism.
Second, in adopting what amounts to a “blasphemy” law, Denmark has effectively declared that it is not a nation of principles, but rather one willing to compromise its ethos to appease thugs. Denmark, bear in mind, was once at the fore of zealously defending free speech and expression. No more; now Danish law is being dictated by non-Danes. What other Danish principles will need to make way for the conquerors of Europe? As Inger Stojberg, leader of the anti-immigration Denmark Democrats party said in response to this new law: “History will judge us harshly for this and with good reason… What it all comes down to is whether a restriction on freedom of speech is determined by us or whether it is dictated from the outside [meaning the Muslim world and their globalist abettors].”
Supporters of Denmark’s new blasphemy law insist that this law has been promulgated for Denmark’s security. Due to the burning of Korans in Denmark (and Sweden), violence in and threats to these Nordic nations has grown. Not only does this position ignore why Europeans are burning the Koran in the first place (because they abhor its violent teachings) and why Muslims are reacting with terrorism (because they uphold its violent teachings), but it is a fact that if the shoe was, as they say, on the other foot, Denmark would not capitulate its principles to appease its enemies.
Imagine for a moment if an atheist or Satanist burned a Bible in Denmark (and many have), and throngs of Christians responded with violence and terrorism. Would Denmark respond by banning the burning of the Bible, or would it have pontificated about the importance of safeguarding freedom of expression, grandstanded about how no religion can be singled out for preferential treatment, expressed zero tolerance, and arrested every last protesting or rioting Christian?
Some will say Christians do not react this way, but what if they did? Would Denmark respond with appeasement or force? The answer should be as clear as day.
In retrospect, rather than ban the burning of the Koran, it seems that Denmark would have served itself much better had it banned the Koran altogether.
Raymond Ibrahim, author of Defenders of the West and Sword and Scimitar is the Distinguished Senior Shillman Fellow at the Gatestone Institute and the Judith Rosen Friedman Fellow at the Middle East Forum.
Image: Global Panorama
Islamic Jew-Hatred, Dhimmitude and the Doctrine of Sacred Space
For certain entities, the existence of Israel - and Jews - is intolerable.
In the wake of the savage HAMAS attack against Israel on the morning of 7 October 2023, many are waking up to its genocidal intent against Jews. Understandably, there are memories of pogroms past, of the horrific toll of the Holocaust, and references to “Nazis” and the “Einsatzgruppen”.
This time, though, as Israel prepares to do what must be done to wipe out the HAMAS presence in Gaza, we need to understand exactly who and what it is: an Islamic terror group, dedicated to the destruction of the Jewish State of Israel and the killing of as many Jews as possible. We might start with the HAMAS Covenant, published in 1988, the year that HAMAS was formally established. Its opening lines tell us exactly who HAMAS is and why it exists:
“Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it” (The Martyr, Imam Hassan alBanna, of blessed memory).
We’ll note here that this quote is from Hassan al-Banna, the 1928 founder of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. And here is the motto of the Muslim Brotherhood:
‘Allah is our objective; the Prophet is our leader; the Quran is our law; Jihad is our way; dying in the way of Allah is our highest aspiration.’
Why this fanatical hatred? We find the answer in the Qur’an, in the Islamic doctrine of Sacred Space, and the laws of dhimmitude. The Qur’an, believed by Muslims to be the literal word of Allah (the Arabic word for “God”), lays the foundation for HAMAS’ visceral Jew-hatred.
Those who reject (Truth) among the People of the Book [Christians and Jews]…will be in Hell-fire…They are the worst of creatures. (Q 98:6)
But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and kill the infidels wherever ye find them… (Q 9:5)
Curses were pronounced on those among the Children of Israel who rejected Faith [Islam]…(Q 5:78)
The HAMAS Covenant also includes this quote from the hadith collection of Sahih Muslim:
Judgment Day will not come until you fight the Jews and kill them. The Jews will hide behind stones and trees, and the stones and trees will call: Oh, Muslim, oh servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him…
Then there is the historical record, which informs us of the Islamic institution of dhimmitude and the doctrine of Sacred Space. As the armies of Islam overran formerly Christian and Jewish lands in the 7th century, there were too many to kill or convert; and so, beginning with the 638 CE Pact of Umar (the 2nd Caliph), the institution of the Ahl al-Dhimma was established to subjugate Christians and Jews to a rigid set of rules that would relegate them to a legally enforced inferior status intended to be so onerous as to compel them to convert to Islam.
Along with dhimmitude, the Muslim conquests developed a concept known as “Sacred Space”. That is, the Dar al-Islam (House of Islam) must conquer all the Dar al-Harb (House of War) because according to Islam, the entire world belongs to Islam and must be conquered and subjugated to it. Once conquered and/or occupied, such land is waqf, forever endowed to Muslims by Allah. Any such waqf, if ever lost to Islam, must be fought for by jihad until it is re-conquered.
As we look at the modern-day Jewish State of Israel, we can see that the Jewish people not only are no longer dhimmis but have established a powerful country in their ancestral homeland. These remarkable accomplishments are intolerable to the forces of jihad and help to explain why HAMAS and other Islamic terror groups like it have been so intent upon wiping Israel from the face of the map.
It’s Islam, Stupid
It’s not about Israel, colonialism, globalism or capitalism; it’s about Islam.
October 19, 2023 by Daniel Greenfield
[Make sure to read Daniel Greenfield’s contributions in Jamie Glazov’s new book: Barack Obama’s True Legacy: How He Transformed America.]
Beslan. Mumbai. Paris. Manchester. New York City. Nairobi. Luxor. Sulu. Kibbutz Be’eri.
186 children murdered in a school in Beslan. Dozens of children taken hostage from a Catholic school in the Philippines. Two teachers were beheaded, but not the girls. “We do not kill women. We will just enslave them,” the Jihadists promised. 8-year-olds gunned down in the Westgate Mall in Nairobi. The terrorists asked their victims to name Mohammed’s mother to tell apart the non-Muslims from the Muslims. In Luxor, Egypt, the terrorists danced, sang and killed and mutilated the foreign tourists. They “took all the young women, the girls, and disappeared with them. I don’t know where they went with the women, but they hurt them. We could hear screams of pain.” Among the dead was Shaunnah Turner, a 5-year-old British girl.
Pregnant women and children murdered in Israel baffle the world. They seem implausible because each time they happen, we forget. A few days of horror pass and we move on.
When a Muslim terrorist set off a bomb in Manchester at a concert full of children and teens, there was shock and outrage. Nails were pulled out of children’s faces.
“This attack stands out for its appalling, sickening cowardice, deliberately targeting innocent, defenceless children and young people,” then Prime Minister Theresa May fumed.
That was 6 years ago. It might have been an eternity.
Our governments, talking heads and thought leaders find excuses for the killers. The Manchester Arena bomber was angry about the Syrian Civil War so he killed some British kids. Abu Sayyaf, ‘Bearers of the Sword’, keeps attacking Christian schools in the Philippines because it isn’t allowed to form its own state. The Jihadis who murdered children in Beslan were furious about Chechnya, in Nairobi, they were upset about Somalia, and in Luxor about the ban on the Muslim Brotherhood. In Israel, Hamas murdered children because the border wall makes their terror entity into an “open air prison” which prevents them from killing Israeli children.
We’re told not to look at the pattern. It’s Islamophobic. Instead we must take each attack not as a manifestation of Islam, but of local issues or a response to oppression. When Muslims gang raped and sawed in half a Hindu schoolteacher in Kashmir, it was about India’s treatment of Muslims. And when they rampaged through the Bataclan theater in Paris, killing everyone within reach, they were protesting France’s treatment of ISIS. And when they rape a woman at a concert in Israel by the bodies of her murdered friends, they’re protesting for Gaza.
But in 1929, Muslim mobs in the Jewish city of Safed burst into an orphanage and “smashed the children’s heads and cut off their hands.” During the Hebron Massacre that same year, a British policeman described how, “on hearing screams in a room I went up a sort of tunnel passage and saw an Arab in the act of cutting off a child’s head with a sword. He had already hit him and was having another cut, but on seeing me he tried to aim the stroke at me, but missed; he was practically on the muzzle of my rifle. I shot him low in the groin.”
Israel had not even come into existence yet. What were Muslims protesting then: Jews?
During the first siege of Vienna in 1529, when the invading Muslim horde decided that “children were cut out of their mothers’ wombs and stuck on pikes”, was that a protest against colonialism or capitalism? When a Muslim chronicle boasted that during the genocide against the Sikhs in the 18th century, “the shrieks of the women captives who were being raped, deafened the ears of the people”, was this a response to globalism or Zionism? Or was this just Islam.
Everything Hamas did during the bloody High Holy Days massacres has been done by Muslims throughout history and is still being practiced today. There is nothing new here whatsoever. Medieval barbarism never went away because Islam kept those grisly practices alive. It endures side by side with the modern world of smartphones, electric cars and AI because its worst crimes are an object of religious law and faith.
A Yazidi girl abducted by the Islamic State when she was only 12 described how the Jihadist who raped her explained to her that because she “practiced a religion other than Islam, the Quran not only gave him the right to rape her — it condoned and encouraged it”. He “bound her hands and gagged her. Then he knelt beside the bed and prostrated himself in prayer before getting on top of her. When it was over, he knelt to pray again”. The girl begged him to stop, but he “said that by raping me, he is drawing closer to Allah.”
This is Islam.
It’s not about Israel, India, Russia, America, England, France, the Philippines or any of the numerous other countries that have been marked by Islamic terrorism. It’s not about “oppression”, “colonialism”, “settlers”, “cartoons” or a lack of “integration”. None of the excuses ever hold up or explain the pattern that consistently and indelibly marks Islamic violence.
Hamas called its assault, ‘Al-Aqsa Flood’, a reference to the colonial mosque planted by Islamic conquerors in Jerusalem on top of the holiest place in Judaism, site of the former Temple. This wasn’t about “resistance”, Gaza being an “open air concentration camp” (with luxurious hotels, restaurants and mansions) or any of the excuses that the media has thrown at us.
It was a religious war. That’s why Hamas scheduled its attack on the Sabbath and on Simchat Torah, the final day of the High Holy Days and the most joyous day in Judaism. Just as the Yom Kippur War had been scheduled for the holiest day in Judaism. And the worst previous Hamas terrorist attack had been the bombing of a Passover seder in Netanya which killed 30 and wounded 140.
In Nigeria, Boko Haram has set off bombs in churches on Christmas. In 2015, a Muslim couple opened fire at a workplace Christmas party in San Bernardino, California, while a year later a Muslim terrorist drove through a Christmas market in Berlin and a 12-year-old Muslim boy tried to detonate a nail bomb at another Christmas market in Germany.
In India, Muslim terrorists set off bombs on the Hindu festival of Diwali. Massacring Christians, Jews and Hindus on their religious holidays is not a political statement: it’s a religious one.
Islamic terrorism is not an American problem, a British problem, a French problem, a Russian problem, a Chinese problem or an Israeli problem. It’s an Islamic problem. The only way we will ever triumph against it is to stop treating it as someone else’s problem. If only India gave up Kashmir, Israel gave up more of the West Bank, if America stopped being involved in the Middle East, if France hadn’t banned the hijab and the Netherlands hadn’t allowed cartoons of Mohammed, there would be no Islamic terrorism are the kinds of lies that are killing us.
We are not responsible for Islamic terrorism. None of us. Only Islam is responsible.
Islamic violence is over 1,000 years old. It predates most modern countries and it is not caused by anything we do. The only thing we are guilty of is our failure to smash the Jihad.
Nothing that we or anyone else does will appease the terrorists. Islam is not Northern Ireland: peace negotiations have never accomplished and will never accomplish anything. It cannot be reasoned or co-existed with. Its violence is a religious duty written into its scripture and its laws, its atrocities, murder, torture, mutilation and rape, are acts of sacred religious devotion. The Islamic kingdom of heaven can only be achieved when the entire world submits to Islam.
The horrors we have seen in the Jewish communities near Gaza are the same ones that Islam has perpetrated across Africa, Asia, Europe and America. In Nigeria, Boko Haram has kidnapped over 1,000 children from Christian schools. In the Philippines, Muslims burst into a school and took children hostage. In Algeria, they beheaded Trappist monks while in Thailand, they beheaded Buddhist monks. In Boston, they blew the legs off marathon runners while in France they drove a truck through a crowd on Bastille Day until the wheel well filled up with body parts.
This is grotesque, hideous, horrific and unimaginable. This is Islam.
We look away because we can’t bear it. When the attacks happen somewhere else, we pretend that it has nothing to do with us. And when it happens to us, then we let ourselves be persuaded that if we just avoided doing anything to upset the Muslims, like allying with the peoples and countries they’re trying to exterminate, drawing cartoons or mishandling korans, we’ll be fine.
It’s not a problem of “those people fighting over there and bringing their problems here.”
Islam is not just at war with us or with them, but with the entire world. If you are not a Muslim or the right kind of Muslim, then you are in a war whether you like it or not. You can be a peace activist and march with a ‘Queers for Palestine’ banner. You can welcome in migrants or blame the whole thing on conspiracy theories, but it still won’t matter. They will kill you if they can.
This is not about politics: it’s a thousand plus year crusade to subjugate all of mankind.
To win, we have to stop blaming ourselves, stop treating Islamic terrorism as someone else’s problem and stop pretending that it goes away when it’s not in the headlines. To win, we have to stand together and stop letting the enemies of mankind and their useful idiots divide us up. To win we have to recognize that we either fight or die. If we’re not faced with that choice right now, we will be, and if not us, then our children and grandchildren will one day come up against it.
We must reject terms like “senseless violence” because there is nothing senseless about it. Our enemies know who they are and what they want. We refuse to understand who they are. The only thing truly standing between us and victory are the lies that we tell ourselves. In moments of truth, the lies temporarily fall away and we see the enemy revealed for what it is.
Through a rain of paper and ash on a September in New York City, nails driven into the faces of children in Manchester and the mutilated legs of runners in Boston, the bloodied half-naked children of Beslan and the kidnapped children of kibbutzim in Israel, we glimpse the truth.
Hold on to that truth. We are not weak, we have been weakened by lies. And the greatest of those lies is that this endless catalog of crimes to which a new one is added every few weeks is about anything but Islam. It is about Islam. It has been about Islam for over 1,000 years.
Instead of “regional dispute”, say Islam. Instead of “cycle of violence”, say Islam. Instead of militants, say Islam. Instead of terrorists, say Islam. Instead of war, say Islam.
One little word explains all of this. One little world has led to an endless world of horror.
Our only hope for victory begins with ending the lies and telling the truth.
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.
Robert Spencer's 'The Critical Qur'an'
A must-read, essential book.
[Robert Spencer's new book, The Critical Qur'an, will be out May 3. Preorder now: HERE.]
If I were queen, I would reward every reader who completed Robert Spencer's new book, The Critical Qur'an: Explained from Key Islamic Commentaries and Contemporary Historical Research. The Critical Qur'an is an essential book that every thinking person would benefit from reading. About one in four humans is a Muslim. Given child marriage, polygyny, and women's low status, Muslims have high fertility rates and the percentage of the world's population that is Muslim is predicted to increase till Islam is the world's majority religion in 2075. While it is true that the Qur'an is often not read or understand by most Muslims, Muslims do revere the Qur'an. Muslims may have little idea what the book contains, but they are ready to kill over it. When, in 2005, Newsweek circulated false rumors that Americans were flushing Qur'ans down toilets – which is of course impossible – at least seventeen people were killed in ensuing violence and "a council of more than 300 mullahs …threatened to declare holy war."
In the past, reading the Qur'an was difficult. Some translations used pseudo-King-James English, for example archaic forms like "thee, thou, thine," in an attempt to make the Qur'an sound Biblical, and, therefore, holy. Some translations attempt to paper over the Qur'an's lack of clarity by adding parenthetical fixes. For example, Qur'an 2:1 begins "Alif Lam Meem." No one knows what this means. One translation tries to "help" the reader with a parenthetical explanation: "Alif-Lam-Mim. [These letters are one of the miracles of the Quran and none but Allah (Alone) knows their meanings]." The reader is left to wonder how the incoherent equals the miraculous. Translators try to draw a smiley face over darker Qur'anic passages. "Jihad," which clearly means actual warfare to claim territory, booty, corpses, and slaves for Allah, is translated as "struggle." Spencer's new translation avoids these pitfalls, and, on the sentence level, it is easy to read.
Many make assumptions about the Qur'an based on false comparisons to the Bible. The works are different in important ways. The King James Bible contains 783,137 words in 66 books. These books were composed over the course of hundreds of years in three different languages, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Christians and Jews agree that their scriptures were not actually written by God himself, but by roughly forty different human authors. The genres of Biblical books include hymns,letters, proverbs, prophecy, erotica, history, allegory, andreportage. Jews and Christians have long engaged in exegesis of their sacred texts – that is, Jews and Christians debate what Bible passages mean and how they should be applied. Jews and Christians respect hard copies of their scriptures, but they do not worship these hard copies, nor do most attribute supernatural attributes to them. To do so would be idolatry.
The Qur'an contains c. 77,430 words, making it less than one tenth the length of the Bible. Islam teaches that the Qur'an was never written by anyone. It is uncreated. Like God himself, the Qur'an has always existed and will always exist. There are numerous rules for handling the Qur'an. Kufar – Non-Muslims – should never touch the Qur'an in Arabic, but may touch "interpretations" in other languages. One must say "interpretation" because the Qur'an exists only in Arabic, the language of Allah. Muslims must perform ablutions before reading the Qur'an. The Qur'an must be stored in a specially designated place, and never be put on the floor or taken into a bathroom.
To say that the Qur'an was created, as opposed to eternally existing, is a death penalty offense. Even Western scholars have hesitated to explore the Qur'an's origins. For example, scholar Christoph Luxenberg must hide behind a pseudonym to protect his life. The Qur'an "leaves no room for dispute"; see also Qur'an 33:36. Indeed, the Qur'an suggests that even a second of doubt will lead to an eternity in hell (e.g. 49:15) . Thus, rather than debating or discussing the meaning of the Qur'an, Islam places emphasis on memorization. A Muslim once said to Robert Spencer that he had memorized the entire Qur'an, and one day he was going to find out what it says. The hafiz, or Qur'an memorizer, did not speak Arabic, and had no idea of the meaning of the sounds he had memorized.
Mohammed Hijab, an Islamic apologist, demonstrated Muslim beliefs about the magic powers of the Qur'an in a November 10, 2021, YouTube discussion with Dr. Jordan Peterson. Hijab began to recite in Arabic, in the voice prescribed for reading the Qur'an. That prescribed voice is a singsong, nasal drone, with drawn out vowels. Peterson asked what Hijab's point was. Why recite Arabic to me, a non-Arabic speaker? Hijab said, "We believe that the Qur'an has divine qualities itself. We believe it is a physical cure." Just exposing Peterson to the sounds of the Qur'an might cause Peterson to convert to Islam. Ibn Kathir, an important exegete, claimed that recitation of Sura 2 causes Satan to fart. It can be argued that Islam treats the Qur'an as if it were a "divine, conscious agent."
Muslim history claims that Islam was founded by an orphaned, illiterate, seventh-century Meccan caravan driver named Muhammad who was visited by the angel Jibril (from the Biblical Gabriel) who ordered him to recite. Muhammad's followers wrote down his recitations and compiled them into the Qur'an. Textual criticism suggests that the Qur'an is a compilation of heavily edited, pre-existing material. Recent scholarship theorizes that, during the Arab Conquest, conquerors decided that their new, Arab empire, no less than the Christian Byzantine and Zoroastrian Persian empires, required a state religion. These Arab conquerors took bits and pieces of Jewish,Christian, Zoroastrian and Pagan material and compiled them into the Qur'an.
Christianity's early centuries were rocked by Christological debates. These debates asked, "What was the nature of Jesus?"Some said Jesus was human; others said he was divine; still others argued that Jesus was some combination of human and divine. Jesus' proposed divinity troubled many. They understood the divinity of Jesus as an assault on Judaism's monotheism. Some were offended by Jesus's divinity for a different reason. If Jesus was both fully divine and fully human, then God urinated and defecated. These bodily functions were seen as beneath a divinity.
Islam's emphasis on Jesus being merely a man, not a divinity, may testify to the influence of nontrinitarian Christianity on the formulation of Islam. The shahada is the Islamic confession of faith. "There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is the messenger of God." Merely stating the shahada makes one a Muslim, yet it may be a buried statement of nontrinitarian Christian creeds. "There is not God but Allah" is a rejection of Jesus' divinity and the trinity. According to new theories, "Muhammad is the messenger of God" may be a reference to Jesus. "Muhammad" is translated as "the praised one" and "the messenger of God" is a denial of Jesus' divinity. "The praised one" was but a messenger, not God himself. The nontrinitarian Christians' discomfort at the thought of God urinating or defecating is reflected in al-Wahidi's commentary on the Qur'an. "Our Lord does not eat or drink nor has He any need to relieve Himself" but Jesus "was fed like any other child, and then he ate and drank and relieved himself … Then how could he be the son of Allah?"
The Old Testament recounts the history of the creation of the world and God's choosing the Jewish people as his own, and leading them out of slavery in Egypt. The New Testament offers Jesus' biography, a short history of the early church, and the letters of early Christians. No clear history of what is conventionally thought of as the early days of Islam is to be found in the Qur'an itself. There's no caravan driver, no Mecca, no new religious revelation, and the word "Muhammad" is mentioned only four times, and it is not clear that the word refers to a person or if it means, only, "praised one." Many argue that early references to Muhammad may in fact be references to Jesus.
Muslims express exaggerated praise for the Qur'an. For example, Ibn Kathir said, "The Arabic language is the most eloquent, plain, deep and expressive of the meanings that might arise in one's mind. Therefore, the most honorable Book, was revealed in the most honorable language, to the most honorable Prophet and Messenger, delivered by the most honorable angel, in the most honorable land on earth, and its revelation started during the most honorable month of the year, Ramadan. Therefore, the Qur'an is perfect in every respect."
In fact, though, the Qur'an is possibly the world's worst-written influential book. Muslims will of course object to this assessment. Their first objection: only an Islamophobe would call the Qur'an badly written. My reply: No, I'm happy to acknowledge the excellence of many Islamic cultural products, for example, the Taj Mahal, calligraphy, Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan's singing, and Muslim Arab folktales. Second objection: The Qur'an is the product of an oral culture. This objection lacks merit. Most people in the world have been illiterate. The Bible is the product of a population where most people could not read or write. Acknowledged masterpieces of world literature, including the Iliad, the Bhagavad Gita, and Zen Koans all emerged from predominantly oral cultures. One Thousand and One Nights, an Arabic-language collection of previously oral folklore, has entranced audiences around the world. Third objection: translations cannot capture the fine qualities of the Arabic Qur'an. I have never read The Iliad in Greek, the Vedas in Sanskrit, Psalm 23 in Hebrew, or Arabic folktales in Arabic, nor do I need to. The excellence and power of these works transcends translation. For those questioning the quality of Robert Spencer's new Qur'an translation, visit this site. You can find any Qur'an verse as translated by six different translators. Study that website all you might; you will not find a translation that can remedy the Qur'an's many problems.
What's wrong with the Qur'an? The Qur'an uses pronouns like "he," "we," and "they," but the Qur'an offers few clues as to whom is meant by these pronouns. The Qur'an hops from topic to topic, not just paragraph by paragraph, but within the same sentence, for example in 4:29: "Do not squander your wealth among yourselves in vanity, except in a trade by mutual consent, and do not kill yourselves." After telling men that they are superior to women and that men should beat their wives (4:34), the Qur'an offers, in 4:36, a sentence fragment, that is a sentence with a subject but no verb. "Kindness to parents." Other translators rescue this fragment by adding the missing verb, e.g.,"Show kindness to parents" or "Do good to parents." Spencer makes so such rescue effort. Qur'an 6:143 is a similar sentence fragment. It reads, "Eight pairs two of the sheep and two of the goats." There is no verb, and, therefore, no sense. Another sentence fragment, this one also missing a verb: "Those who chose unbelievers for their friends instead of believers." Another fragment, 74:30, reads "Above it are nineteen." Above what are nineteen what, exactly? There are more than a few verses that leave the reader scratching her head, e.g., "Would one of you love to eat the flesh of his dead brother?" 49:12, "We used to wade with waders" 74:45, and "Color from Allah, and who is better than Allah at coloring?" 2:138.
Scholar Gerd Puin estimates that twenty percent of the Qur'an is unclear to anyone. This lack of clarity is thanks in part to words, often of non-Arabic derivation, like "jibt," "sijill," "ghislin,""abb," "as-sakhkhah," "sijjin," "illiyyin," "tasnim," "saqar," and many others, whose meanings are uncertain. The full text of a scholarly, 1938 book entitled "The Foreign Vocabulary of the Qur'an" can be found here. The Qur'an acknowledges its own lack of clarity in 3:7, in which Allah states that he alone knows the meaning of some verses. Which verses? He never says. Readers can only guess which verses they are understanding correctly and which verses whose meaning is beyond their grasp.
The books of the Bible are arranged more or less chronologically, with some thematic arrangement, and events in those books are also arranged chronologically. For example in Luke's Gospel, Jesus is first born, then he preaches and heals, then he is crucified, then he rises from the dead. The Qur'an is not arranged chronologically. With the exception of the very short first chapter, the Qur'an's chapters are arranged from longest to shortest. This bizarre choice confounds the reader seeking coherence. Given that chapter length appears entirely arbitrary – the chapters contain more or less the same material, repeated endlessly – why some chapters are long and others are short escapes the reader. Chapter titles do not relate to the theme of the chapter. One of the Qur'an's most notorious verses, "Kill them wherever you find them" is found in the chapter entitled "Women." In any case, the phrase is repeated three times in the Qur'an. Sura 9, perhaps the most bloodthirsty chapter, is titled "Repentance."
That a Qur'an chapter is titled "Women" should not mislead the reader. Women are afterthoughts; they exists as the possessions of men. They appear as child brides, as sex slaves, as Heavenly whores, and as war captives. In verse 43 of "Women," females are identified as a source of pollution. Men should not pray if they have been sick, if they have urinated or defecated, or if they have had contact with a woman. After such contamination, men must cleanse themselves, possibly by rubbing their face and hands with dirt (a practice called Tayammum). Women are inferior to me n (2:282, 2:228, 4:34, 4:11). The Qur'an instructs men on how to handle divorce from pre-pubescent wives with whom they have had sexual intercourse. Females are a "field"that men should enter however they wish. There are dozens of named male characters, but only one named female character: Mary. Compare the Qur'an's lack of named female characters with the indelible females of the Bible, women who changed the course of Jewish and Christian history: Eve, Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel and Leah, Rahab, Deborah, Judith, Ruth, Esther, Elizabeth, Mary Magdalene, the sisters Martha and Mary, Junia, Priscilla, Anna the Prophetess, etc.
The Qur'an chapter entitled "Mary" is, as is the case with other chapter titles, not closely related to Mary. In a commentary on this chapter, Mary is given voice to mourn that she is not "an owned slave woman" – she is unfortunate because she is not some man's property. The Qur'an confuses Mary, mother of Jesus, with Miriam, sister of Moses, who lived over a thousand years before Jesus' mother. The Qur'an tells Mary, "Do not grieve. Your lord has placed a stream beneath you." It's not clear how this stream placement should cheer Mary up.
The Qur'an is repetitious. Repetition is frequently encountered in oral lore. See the Kumulipo, a Hawaiian creation chant.
"Born was Kumulipo in the night, a male
Born was Po'ele in the night, a female
Born was the coral polyp, born was the coral, came forth
Born was the grub that digs and heaps up the earth, came forth…"
This poetic repetition echoes creation itself; the multiplicity of lines with parallel construction reflects the abundance of creatures the chant catalogues, and also their place in an orderly universe. Repetition makes this important lore easy to remember and its has a hypnotic effect on the listener.
The Qur'an makes no such use of repetition. Rather, as Spencer's footnotes show, the Qur'an includes repetitive, garbledf ragments – not coherent retellings – of Jewish and Christian scriptural and folkloric material, and Zoroastrian and Pagan elements. The Qur'an offers repeated, fragmented mentions of the Exodus story from the Bible, and extra-biblical material like a folktale of Jesus making clay birds fly. A sixth-century Christian legend, The Seven Sleepers of Ephesus, tells of seven men who retreated to a cave during Roman persecution. The men awoke two hundred years later and were surprised to find that Christianity was now the empire's official religion. The Qur'an's telling of this tale, found in 18:9-26, is so thoroughly garbled that a reader with no previous knowledge of the Christian source would not have any idea what these verses allude to. Don Richardson, author of "Secrets of the Koran,"estimates that if all repetitions were removed, the Qur'an would be forty percent of its current size.
God's rebuke of David, recounted in 2 Samuel 12, is one of the most moving, terrifying passages in the Bible. I can hardly think of it without crying. Through the prophet Nathan, God rebukes David for murdering Uriah, the husband of Bathsheba, a woman David lusted after. The Qur'an takes this terrifically moving, cinematic passage and flubs it so badly in the retelling that it is a literary crime (38:21-25).
Qur'an 4:157 states that Jesus did not die on the cross. Muslims believe that Allah placed either a dummy or a Jesus lookalike on the cross. Spencer's footnotes identify this belief as an appropriation from a third century Gnostic text, "Second Treatise of the Great Seth." Gnostics were nontrinitarian Christians. As Spencer writes, they held an "abhorrence of the material world and the flesh, which led to their denying altogether the Christian doctrine of the Incarnation." Jesus was too supernatural to suffer death on the cross.
Ex-Muslim Ridvan Aydemir insists that Qur'an 4:157 deals a devastating blow to the Qur'an's integrity. Aydemir argues that, yes, the Gnostics had a reason, that was consistent with their own belief system, to tell a story in which Jesus did not die on the cross. Those compiling the Qur'an borrowed that passage from a Gnostic document, but could not borrow the logic behind the passage. The Jesus of the Qur'an is not, as was the Gnostic Jesus, a supernatural creature, too rarefied to be crucified. The Jesus of the Qur'an is simply a human being, comparable to any other mortal. Aydemir quotes Qur'an passages that mention other prophets being killed; similarly, Jesus, a mere prophet, could have been killed. The Qur'an's logic, that prophets are killed and that Jesus is merely a prophet, as human as anyone else, does not support Jesus' not being killed on the cross. Aydemir points out that the Qur'an borrows other belief system's narratives without borrowing the logic informing those narratives.
The Qur'an has a limited number of themes that it hits upon with a thudding monotony. Those themes include the following. Allah is all powerful. Allah saves and damns arbitrarily. Allah created some people just to send them to hell fire. Muslims must not pray for these damned souls or feel sad for them. Compare this to the Bible, which records that God wants all to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4, 2 Peter 3:9, Ezekiel 18:23) If Muslims don't please Allah, Allah can kill them all and create a new group of people who will please him. In a footnote, Spencer points out that Allah says that he "loves" only those who fight for him in jihad, and he does not love unbelievers. Allah has a very thin skin and grouses about humans who "mock" and "ridicule" his "warners." Allah promises sadistic tortures to scoffers. He will burn off their skins and replace those skins with new skins so that they can be burned off again "so that they may taste the torment" 4:56 He will turn white faces black. Kufar in Hell will consume boiling water, pus, and a fruit made of devils' heads. This fruit will boil in their bellies. "As for those who disbelieve, garments of fire will be cut out for them, boiling fluid will be poured down on their heads, By which what is in their bellies, and their skins too, will be melted, And for them are hooked rods of iron" (22:19-21). The Qur'an's narrator says that those who disagree with him should hang themselves (22:15). Allah promises an afterlife of pleasant gardens, fruits, and silk clothing to Muslim men.Heavenly beings with large, firm – "not sagging" – breasts will service Muslim men.
The Qur'an is ferociously hostile to non-Muslims. The Qur'an directs special fury at Christians and Jews. The very first chapter condemns Jews as having angered God, and Christians as having gone astray. Muslims who pray the full allotment of daily prayers repeat this condemnation of Christians and Jews seventeen times daily. Muslims are as superior to Christians and Jews as human beings are to animals (3:110, 98:6). Jews are so irredeemable that Allah turned them into apes and pigs. In 2:54, Moses tells sinning Jews to kill themselves; Ibn Kathir, a commentator, reports that 70,000 Jews lost their lives as a result of Moses' suicide command.
The Qur'an repeatedly emphasizes that one must not worship anyone but Allah. This point is hammered home in various ways. Don't assign a partner to Allah. Don't pray to anyone but Allah. Don't imply that Allah needs "helpers." All of these phrasings have one target: Christians, and their belief in the Trinity. The Qur'an misunderstands the Trinity, suggesting that Christians worship God the Father, Jesus, and Mary. This is not the Trinity. The Qur'an also drastically misunderstands the purpose of the incarnation. To say that Allah has a son is a "monstrous thing" (19:89) because to do so is to imply that Allah has some weakness or need and his son is a "helper." The incarnation of God as a human being was not so that Allah would have a "helper." Rather, the purpose of the incarnation is expressed succinctly in John 3:16, "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
No other world scripture is so obsessed with condemnation of two other belief systems, in this case, Judaism and Christianity. Without its condemnations of Jews and Christians, the Qur'an would not be a book-length work, but a pamphlet, .
Jihad is another main theme of the Qur'an. The Qur'an makes abundantly clear that jihad is warfare for the sake of expanding Islam's worldly power, not an interior struggle to, say, remain on a diet, a message promoted by a 2013 CAIR public relationscampaign. The Qur'an says, multiple times, that believers should strike the necks of kufar, kill them wherever the Muslims find them, etc. As if these passages were not grisly enough, a Qur'an commentator offers, "Strike them on their foreheads to tear them apart and over the necks to cut them off, and cut off their limbs, hands and feet." Other commentators are even more bloodthirsty, demanding that Muslims smite the very toes of the kufar.
Muslims should suspect even their wives and their children of being traitors to Allah (64:14). "Among your wives and your children there are enemies for you, therefore beware of them. Your wealth and your children are only a temptation, while with Allah is an immense reward." Other verses warn the believer against ties with parents and children who are not Muslims (9:23-24). Muslims are warned not to take Jews or Christians as friends (3:118, 5:51). Astute readers will, of course, recognize in these warnings the rules set down by cults, who demand that members sever ties with those not members of the cult.
The Qur'an is as remarkable for what it lacks as for what it contains. The Qur'an does not offer that new, world-changing expression of a timeless, soul-deep truth. There is nothing in the Qur'an that compares to the Jewish Ten Commandments, or tzelem Elohim, a loving God who creates humanity in his own image; the Christian Sermon on the Mount; the Hindu Kalidasa's Exhortation of the Dawn; Buddhism's Four Noble Truths; or the Greek Protagoras' observation that "Man is the measure of all things."
In a 2006 lecture at Regensburg University, Pope Benedict quoted a Byzantine emperor, Manuel II Paleologos. "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." Mohammad himself is said to have said something similar. In hadiths, Mohammad announced that he was "superior" to other prophets because he alone was made "victorious with terror" and the earth's treasures were made lawful to him; in other words, he could violate the most primordial taboos. He could kill, he could steal, and he could rape other men's wives.
Spencer's new "Critical Qur'an" doesn't offer only an accurate and accessible translation. It offers commentary by canonical Islamic experts, including Ibn Kathir, a fourteenth century exegete, and Syed Abul Ala Maududi, a twentieth-century author. Thus, the reader knows not just what the Qur'an says, but how influential Muslims understand it. Spencer's footnotes also draw the reader's attention to variations in the Qur'an. These variations are of a utmost importance, as it is a tenet of Islam that the Qur'an is a perfect, eternal, unchanging and unchanged document that exists in Heaven. Variations in the text give the lie to this tenet.
Spencer's footnotes relate Qur'anic passages to taqiyya; to Islam's intellectual stasis; to suicide bombing; to Muslims'resistance to Israel's right to exist; to why it is morally acceptable for Muslim men to harass non-Muslim women; to why it takes four Muslim male witnesses to prove a rape case; and to treatment of dhimmis, that is, non-Muslims who live in Muslim states, and who must be economically fleeced and publicly humiliated. As Spencer points out, Qur'an verses, for example 10:94, record that the scriptures of Jews and Christians in the seventh century were authentically divine products. And yet Muslims today insist that Jews and Christians "corrupted"their scriptures. The Qur'an contradicts current Muslim belief about Jewish and Christian scripture. David Wood describes this as the "Islamic Dilemma."
Spencer's footnotes describe Islamic traditions designed to justify changes in the Qur'an, a book that Islam teaches is perfect, unchanging, and unchangeable. Again, one current theory is that the Qur'an was not written as one document, the product of one man, Muhammad. Rather, many scholars now think that the Qur'an was pieced together from pre-existing materials, materials that were then heavily edited to meet the needs of Arab conquerors. These changes occurred over time. Some early Muslims might have witnessed, and questioned, such changes. Traditions were invented to explain away the changes. For example, Muhammad's child bride Aisha is made to say that sheep ate some Qur'an verses that previously existed but then went missing.
Spencer points out the Qur'an's contradictions. Iblis is identified as a jinn, but, contrarily, as an angel. Sometimes one can intercede for another; sometimes one cannot. In one Qur'anic retelling of Exodus, Pharaoh survives. In another, he drowns. The number of days it took Allah to create the world varies, as does the substance from which Allah created mankind. Muslims insist that the Qur'an contains prescient scientific knowledge. In fact, though, as Spencer points out in a footnote, the Qur'an presents a pre-scientific picture of the earth and the solar system 13:2. For example, the heavens rest on "invisible supports" and the sun sets in a muddy pool, 18:86.
Spencer's footnotes also help bridge the gap between the English translation and the Arabic original, pointing out words of non-Arabic origin and places in the text where the rhyme scheme and other formal features break down, indicating interpolations into a pre-existing source document that was then patched into the Qur'an.
An Islamic website offers attractive quotes from the Qur'an. One of the quotes says "speak to people kindly," but this appears in the midst of a text that calls non-believers apes, pigs, and the vilest of created beings, describes graphic tortures for them and tells Muslims never to befriend them, not even if they are parents or children. "Remember me; I will remember you," says one quote. This from an Allah who states repeatedly that if Muslims displease him, he will destroy them utterly and take up a better group of people . "Wives are a garment for you," says one quote. Yet this book includes instructions on how to divorce a pre-pubescent child; before dumping her, one must make sure that she has not somehow gotten pregnant. "Allah does not burden a soul more than he can bear," says another quote. This same Allah repeatedly says that he creates people for the specific purpose of sending them to Hell, a Hell he describes with fiendish enthusiasm. "The life of this world is only the enjoyment of deception." And yet Paradise is utterly earthbound. It's all about rivers of booze, delicious food, silk garments, and sex slaves with round, "not sagging" breasts. The only thing that's missing is big-screen color TVs. There is no description of what Heaven will entail for women. "Men are in charge of women" are superior to women, and should beat them, says 4:34. But this website translates that verse as saying that men should protect women.
Compare this to the matrix of Bible quotes. Hosea, a prophet, married Gomer, an adulteress. Even though she cheated on him, Hosea could not quit her. Their story reflects God's love for the Jewish people. When the ancient Hebrews went astray, God could not get over his love for them. In the book of Hosea, God speaks of his frustrated love, "I drew them with human cords, with bands of love; I fostered them like one who raises an infant to his cheeks; Yet, though I stooped to feed my child, they did not know that I was their healer." God's frustrated love for sinning humanity is also expressed in the New Testament which records, Christians believe, the son of God dying a torturous death for his love of humanity. In the extreme of pain, Jesus says, "Father, forgive them. They know not what they do."These quotes are deeply embedded in rich narratives that demonstrate the truths the quotes hope to convey. Compare this to the Qur'an that mentions "kindness to parents" just a few words away from the advice to husbands to beat their wives. Both quotes are completely free of any supportive, illustrative narrative.
Please buy and read Robert Spencer's "Critical Qur'an." I emphasize "buy" because his book is a gift to thinking people, and "the workman is worthy of his hire." The most moving sentence in this translation was written by Spencer himself. He dedicates his book thus, "Offered with love to all the people of the world who love the Qur'an." I do not see how anyone could read this book, and all of its footnotes, and conclude that the Qur'an is divinely inspired. Muslims deserve to have access to the research presented so very clearly herein.
“Of course, one of the main reasons the nation is now “divided, resentful and angry” is because race-baiting, Islamist, class warrior Barack Hussein Obama was president for eight long years." MATTHEW VADUM
How Obama’s Muslim Childhood Became a Taboo Topic
https://www.frontpagemag.com/how-obamas-muslim-childhood-became-a-taboo-
Reflections on when a gigantic biographical inconvenience was successfully hidden and denied.
I expect that, at some future time when Barack Obama loses his sacral quality, historians will take great interest in his childhood religious affiliation. They will wonder how, in the information-heavy, politically-riven, and celebrity-mad culture of early twenty-first century United States, so gigantic a biographical inconvenience could be successfully hidden and rendered taboo. They will study how, in a modern democratic society, a determined candidate can suppress even the most important and relevant information. DANIEL PIPES
PROOF Obama's Birth Certificate is Fake
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOP5Y9OUJyk
“Protect and enrich.” This is a perfect encapsulation of the Clinton Foundation (TWO GAMER LAWYERS - OWNED BY GEORGE SOROS) (WHAT ABOUT THE CHINA BIDEN PENN CENTER?) and the Obama (TWO GAMER LAWYERS - OWNED BY GEORGE SOROS) book and television deals. Then there is the Biden family (FOUR GAMER LAWYERS - JOE, HUNTER, JAMES, FRANK - OWNED BY GEORGE SOROS AND LARRY FINK OF BLACKROCK) corruption, followed closely behind by similar abuses of power and office by the Warren (GAMER LAWYER) and Sanders families, as Peter Schweizer described in his recent book “Profiles in Corruption.” These names just scratch the surface of government corruption (ADD GAMER LAWYER KAMALA HARRIS (WANTS TO BE OWNED BY GEORGE SOROS) AND HER LAWYER HUSBAND AND THE BANKSTERS’ RENT BOY, LAWYER CHUCK SCHUMER, OWNED BY LARRY FINK OF BLACKROCK WHO OWNS A BIG PIECE OF THE ‘BIG GUY’ JOE, AND GEORGE SOROS’ RENT BOY (GAMER LAWYER) TONY BLINKEN, AS WELL AS CON MAN (GAMER LAWYER) ADAM SHIFF) AND HIS CORRUPTNESS (GAMER LAWYER) BOB MENENDEZ STILL EVADING PRISON.
BRIAN C JOONDEPH
How Obama’s Muslim Childhood Became a Taboo Topic
https://www.frontpagemag.com/how-obamas-muslim-childhood-became-a-taboo-
Instead, we see no such intellectual preparation. Facts have been abandoned and replaced with “personal truths.” Historical events have been rewritten for nefarious political calculations (Remember Obama’s insistence that Muslims were instrumental to America’s founding?). Biological sex and other inconvenient scientific precepts have been jettisoned, so that mental delusions and State-enforced Lysenkoism can manipulate reality. Government educators demand that ideas be “politically correct.” Rhetorical combat has been forbidden out of a pusillanimous devotion to avoiding “hurt feelings.”
Pollak: Everything Joe Biden Said About Donald Trump’s Foreign Policy Actually Describes Barack Obama’s
12 Jul 2019
Everything former vice president Joe Biden said about President Donald Trump’s foreign policy speech on Thursday actually applies to the policy that Biden carried out together with former President Barack Obama — and not Trump.
In his speech, at City University of New York, Biden called Trump an “extreme” threat to the country’s national security. No one has yet taken Biden to task for describing the sitting commander-in-chief in such alarmist terms.
But that wasn’t even the most bizarre aspect of Biden’s speech. He said the main problem in Trump’s foreign policy was … Charlottesville, Virginia. Biden went on to recite a version of the debunked “very fine people” hoax, claiming that Trump had drawn a “moral equivalence between those who promoted hate and those who opposed it.” That, he said, was a threat to America’s mission of standing for democratic values in the world.
But in fact, Trump specifically condemned the neo-Nazis in Charlottesville on multiple occasions. The entire premise of Biden’s speech was a lie.
Biden went on to claim that Trump’s foreign policy rejects democratic values and favors the rise of authoritarianism worldwide. He cited Trump’s warmth to Russian president Vladimir Putin and North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un. And he claimed that Trump has undermined America’s alliances with democracies in favor of flattery from dictators.
Apparently Biden forgot that Obama literally bowed to the Saudi king; that he abandoned the pro-democracy protests during the Green Revolution in Iran; that he pushed for a “reset” with Russia and abandoned our Czech and Polish allies on missile defense; that he promised Putin he would be even more “flexible” after he won re-election; that he tried to normalize relations with the Cuban dictatorship without securing any democratic reforms there; that he gave the store away to the communist dictatorship in China; and that he abandoned Israel, a betrayal in which Biden himself played a direct and shameful role, condemning Israel for building apartments in a Jewish neighborhood of Jerusalem.
Trump praises dictators as a negotiating tactic; Obama praised them because he, too, thought America was a problem.
One of the few times the Obama administration embraced democratic change was during the Arab Spring, when “democracy” meant the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood — which had no interest in freedom, only in power.
In 2008, the Obama campaign cast Biden as a foreign policy guru, though he had been wrong on almost every foreign policy issue in his career. On Thursday, he mostly ignored his own record.
Astonishingly, Biden claimed credit for Trump’s success in crushing the so-called “Islamic State,” saying he worked with Obama “to craft the military and diplomatic campaign that ultimately defeated ISIS.” In fact, Biden was complicit in the rise of ISIS. He was Obama’s point man on Iraq when the U.S. suddenly pulled out of the country, leaving a vacuum that ISIS filled. He did not object when Obama called the terror group “junior varsity.”
Biden offered nothing new in terms of solutions to current foreign policy challenges. He claimed that the Iran nuclear deal had been a success — on the very day Iran was reportedto have been cheating all along. He said the U.S. should re-enter the deal once Iran did, offering no idea how to ensure that it did so. On North Korea, Biden promised he would “empower our negotiators,” whatever that means.
He said that he would get “tough” with China, which Trump is already doing (and which Biden previously suggested he would not do). And on immigration, he ridiculed the very idea of borders — literally: “I respect no borders.”
And this is the best Democrats have on foreign policy.
Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. He earned an A.B. in Social Studies and Environmental Science and Public Policy from Harvard. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. He is also the co-author of How Trump Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution, which is available from Regnery. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.
Obama’s History 101: “Islam Has Been Woven Into the Fabric of Our Country Since Its Founding”
by Selwyn Duke February 22, 2015
Article audio sponsored by The John Birch Society
You’ve probably never heard of Founding Fathers named Gamal bin Washington and Thamar Jefferson, and neither has Barack Obama. But this didn’t stop him from making the claim that “Islam has been woven into the fabric of our country since its founding.”
While speaking in the White House’s South Court Auditorium during a conference on “countering violent extremism” last week, Obama said that we need to “stay true to the values that define us” and “show that we welcome people of all faiths.” The president then made the following claim:
Here in America, Islam has been woven into the fabric of our country since its founding. Generations of Muslim immigrants came here and went to work as farmers and merchants and factory workers, helped to lay railroads and build up America. The first Islamic center in New York City was founded in the 1890s. America’s first mosque [founded in 1929] — this was an interesting fact — was in North Dakota.
Of course, both these events occurred long after our country’s founding; in fact, 1890 was the year of the 11th U.S. census, which led to official recognition that there was no longer even a Western frontier in the nation. And there were no sheikhs or mullahs at the Constitutional Convention more than a century before.
Yet the Wednesday remark was just one of many historically illiterate statements by Obama, who at the recent National Prayer Breakfast likened the Crusades to Islamic jihad despite their having actually been a response to Islamic jihad. But the claim that Muslims were instrumental in America’s founding has been a theme with the president. As CNS News pointed out:
“I also know that Islam has always been a part of America’s story,” Obama said in a June 2009 speech in Cairo, Egypt. “Islam has always been part of America,” he said in a 2010 statement marking the start of Ramadan. And in a 2014 statement marking Eid, Obama said the holiday “also reminds us of the many achievements and contributions of Muslim Americans to building the very fabric of our nation and strengthening the core of our democracy.”
Yet experts label this attempted myth-making. As the Blaze reports, relating comments historian David Barton made on Glenn Beck’s radio program:
“In all the reading I’ve done, thousands of books, there’s nothing there [relating to Islamic contributions in early America],” Barton said on Friday. “I mean, we know that Muslims were the folks who captured the slaves sent to America, largely out of Africa…. The Muslims did the slave hunting and the slave trading, et cetera. The first Muslims came to America as a result of the Muslims capturing them and sending them to the Dutch traders.”
Note that the Muslim slave trade continues to this day. Frontpage Mag reported on the modern Arab child-slave trade in 2011, a phenomenon that saw what perhaps was its most brutal iteration hundreds of years ago when young African and European boys would be captured, castrated, and then sold into bondage by North African Muslims.
The reality is that Muslim contributions were rare in 19th-century America and not very consequential. Barton cited as an example the U.S. Army’s 1856 retaining of a Muslim to train camels for use in Indian wars in the Arizona desert; the effort was abandoned as the animals proved too slow to keep pace with the Indians.
Yet Muslims certainly are “woven” into our history, and they did help with the re-establishment of the U.S. Navy — by attacking American merchant vessels and enslaving and ransoming their crews.
The Islamic Barbary States of North Africa had long engaged in piracy, and their attacks on U.S. shipping in the late 18th century led to Congress’ 1794 authorization of the building of six naval vessels and the establishment of the Department of the Navy four years later. Interestingly, another myth peddled by Obama relates to this period.
While hosting a 2012 Iftar dinner at the White House, where Muslims break the Ramadan fast, Obama said to the attendees, “Thomas Jefferson once held a sunset dinner here with an envoy from Tunisia — perhaps the first Iftar at the White House, more than 200 years ago.” He then referenced Thomas Jefferson’s Koran and called it “a reminder, along with the generations of patriotic Muslims in America, that Islam … is part of our national story.”
But striking is what was left unsaid. The envoy was Tunisian emissary Sidi Soliman Mellimelli, who Jefferson hosted toward the end of the First Barbary War (1805) “in an attempt to bribe him into submission after the USS Constitution captured ships from the bey of Tunis,” as Breitbart’s Ben Shapiro puts it.
In reality, Jefferson did not have a rosy view of Islam and would be shocked by Obama’s revisionist history. Just consider what Jefferson reported was the answer when Tripoli’s envoy to London, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman, was asked in 1785 why his people would “make war upon nations who had done them no injury”:
The Ambassador answered us 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 Musselman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.
As Shapiro points out, John Quincy Adams emphasized this Islamic perspective when he wrote of the Tripolitan negotiations and stated:
The precept of the Koran is perpetual war against all who deny that Mahomet is the prophet of God. The vanquished may purchase their lives, by the payment of tribute; the victorious may be appeased by a false and delusive promise of peace; and the faithful follower of the prophet may submit to the imperious necessities of defeat: but the command to propagate the Moslem creed by the sword is always obligatory, when it can be made effective. The commands of the prophet may be performed alike, by fraud, or by force.
Shapiro then wrote, “Quincy Adams would later lament, ‘Such is the spirit, which governs the hearts of men, to whom treachery and violence are taught as principles of religion.’” Moreover, continued Shapiro, “Philosophers upon whom the founders relied had similarly negative views of Islam…. The historical record demonstrates that Islam had virtually no role in the foundation of the early Republic outside of being used as a negative comparison point for freedom and self-government.”
So was Islam woven into our country’s founding? It seems more like Obama was weaving a tangled web of a tall tale.
Photo of President Obama: AP Images
Freedom-Lovers of the World, Unite!
By J.B. Shurk
What is the single greatest threat to globalist tyranny? A moral and self-sufficient population capable of critical thinking and dedicated to the defense of individual liberty.
People who can distinguish between right and wrong do not require governments to safeguard their conscience. People who can provide for themselves and trade with others in free markets do not become addicted to government welfare. People who question authority and value objective truth are less inclined to be manipulated by government propaganda. People who recognize personal freedom as an inviolable right tend to possess the character and moral fortitude to resist coercion.
For the Marxist globalists advancing a technocratic new world order designed to elevate a privileged few over everyone else, the ideal human is spiritually confused, helpless, ignorant, and uncurious. Preying on those who are in desperate need of saving is how governments turn citizens into slaves.
In order to hasten the arrival of its planned dystopia, the one-world-government crowd depends on artificial constructs meant to nudge the masses into compliance. The “climate change” bugaboo is the mechanism used to replace free markets and private property with corporate oligarchs and central bankers who act as global economic managers tasked with “saving the planet.” The prospect of unending waves of new viral pandemics is the mechanism used to justify government coercion, lockdowns, mandates, and mass surveillance. Fraudulent allegations of racism, colonialism, imperialism, cultural supremacy, and privilege together form the mechanism that Marxist globalists (actual imperialists) use to mobilize mass migration, unleash cultural conflict, and keep otherwise peaceful populations in a vulnerable state of division, hostility, and social decay. Finally, governments’ open war on “disinformation” and all its variants (including the erroneous classifications of scientific debate as “misinformation” and public debate as “hate speech”) is the mechanism used to silence all criticism and dissent.
If unregulated “disinformation” were really the dangerous threat that governments pretend it to be, a reasonable person would expect to see dedicated public schools now teaching the kind of critical thinking skills necessary to arm every citizen with the requisite tools to combat the supposed monstrous surge in unsanctioned propaganda. From the beginning of an elementary school pupil’s education, rational argument would be distinguished from logical fallacy. Reason and rigorous investigation would be valued over emotional and subjective appeals to feelings. Not only would young students be taught to examine their presuppositions, but also they would be exhorted to question all appeals to authority. After all, authoritarians such as Stalin, Mao, Mussolini, and Hitler all ruled with an iron fist precisely because questioning their authority was forbidden. If governments were truly motivated by a fear of a future Hitler, they would counsel their youngest citizens from the earliest age: question everything!
Instead, we see no such intellectual preparation. Facts have been abandoned and replaced with “personal truths.” Historical events have been rewritten for nefarious political calculations (Remember Obama’s insistence that Muslims were instrumental to America’s founding?). Biological sex and other inconvenient scientific precepts have been jettisoned, so that mental delusions and State-enforced Lysenkoism can manipulate reality. Government educators demand that ideas be “politically correct.” Rhetorical combat has been forbidden out of a pusillanimous devotion to avoiding “hurt feelings.”
Freethinking and creative expression are now burdened with so many intrusive guardrails that more time is wasted divining what cannot be said out loud than is spent nurturing true genius and imagination. Math classes have replaced calculus with social grievance curricula and obsessions over systemic racism. Literary classics have been swapped with new age rubbish that demonizes Western civilization, while proselytizing a new “woke” religion devoted to multiculturalism, global warming, abortion, and gender fluidity.
In other words, childhood education has banished intellectual discernment from the classroom and is now hopelessly awash in fairytales, feelings, psychobabble, and other mind-numbingly stupid and spurious inanities.
How can any student prepare to combat a world supposedly rife with “disinformation” when government indoctrination is disguised as schoolwork and critical thinking is sacrificed on the altar of “politically correct” groupthink?
Asking the question suggests an obvious answer: governments are not worried about “disinformation” at all. What concerns them is competing points of view that challenge their monopoly over constructed “truths.” As the world’s foremost purveyors of propaganda, they fear the rise of any speakers not under their control. Governments’ fabricated war on “disinformation” is actually a war for the preservation of a filthy public sewer system that pumps out toxic “disinformation” daily.
Freethinkers armed with critical thinking skills are like intellectual plumbers capable of parsing governments’ sordid lies. Marxist globalism’s fetid sludge grows underground only if society lacks the good sense to understand what causes the foul-smelling putridness drifting beneath its own nose.
Government propaganda is nothing new. Concentrated power depends on institutional control over what is considered “true.” An open war on “disinformation,” though, suggests that the ground beneath our feet is shifting. What has changed? An unchartered and unregulated guild of intellectual plumbers has begun to make solid progress in unclogging governments’ propaganda-filled sewers, so that fresh truths can finally flow.
What do the political successes of Donald Trump in the United States, Javier Milei in Argentina, and Geert Wilders in the Netherlands represent if not a pivot away from the ruling globalists’ chokehold over institutional power and toward a fledgling cross-border movement for human liberty?
Perhaps the era has finally arrived to turn Marx on his head and implore: Freedom-lovers of the world, unite!
There is a clever political meme rumbling around online that breaks society into four groups of people:
(1) Those who believe the narrative and comply;
(2) Those who know it’s BS and comply anyway;
(3) Those who are waking up to the lie and are starting to refuse to comply; and
(4) Those who knew it was BS right from the start and refused to partake in the lie.
Those in category (4) represent a stubbornly consistent 20% of the population whose capacity for smelling BS and rejecting official “truths” runs high. Jim Quinn wrote an essay over at The Burning Platform highlighting Stanley Milgram’s consequential study that concluded, “80% of the population do not have the psychological or moral resources to defy an authority’s order, no matter how illegitimate the order is.”
Quinn surveys how Deep State propaganda, rampant fearmongering, and social media influence campaigns have only further dulled critical thinking skills in the sixty years since Milgram’s experiment and paints a depressing picture:
“The entire Covid scamdemic was a modern day Milgram Experiment and the vast majority of the world population were duped into believing the annual flu was such a horrific threat that they agreed to be locked down, lose their jobs, treat others like lepers, mask & distance, give their government unlimited authoritarian power, agree to censor and cancel critical thinking dissenters, and ultimately be injected with an untested, toxic, gene therapy that failed to combat covid, but certainly has caused millions of “sudden deaths”, turbo cancers, and myocarditis in young people.”
From Quinn’s perspective, “the clearly stolen 2020 presidential election” and the J6 “fake insurrection” further suggest, “the sheep obediently believe what the authorities spout.”
Given that only 14% of U.S. adults have grabbed the most recent COVID shot and strong majorities of the American people believe both that fraud tainted the 2020 election and that J6 prosecutions have amounted to targeted political persecution, I will suggest a more optimistic conclusion: the number of Americans who have moved from group (1) to group (3) is rapidly expanding. People are, indeed, “waking up” and refusing to comply.
Our goal, then, is straightforward: continue shaking group (1) awake from its interminable slumber until an overwhelming majority can isolate and eliminate group (2) from ever again exercising authority.
The government’s execrable war on “disinformation” proves how much it fears that we might be winning.
Image: Pashi via Pixabay, Pixabay License.
Iranian Militia Leader Leading Iraq U.S. Embassy Raid Listed as Obama White House Guest
31 Dec 2019
Iranian militia leader Hadi al-Amiri, one of several identified as leading an attack on the U.S. embassy in Baghdad on Tuesday, reportedly visited the White House in 2011 during the presidency of Barack Obama.
On Tuesday, a mob in Baghdad attacked the U.S. embassy in retaliation against last weekend’s U.S. airstrikes against the Iran-backed Shiite militia Kataib Hezbollah (KH), responsible for killing an American civilian contractor. KH is one of a number of pro-Iran militias that make up the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF/PMU), which legally became a wing of the Iraqi military after fighting the Sunni Islamic State terrorist group.
President Donald Trump has since accused Iran of having “orchestrated” the embassy attack and stated that the government would be “held fully responsible.”
Breitbart News reporter John Hayward described the attack on the embassy, writing:
The mob grew into thousands of people, led by openly identified KH supporters, some of them wearing uniforms and waving militia flags. The attack began after a funeral service for the 25 KH fighters killed by the U.S. airstrikes. Demonstrators marched through the streets of Baghdad carrying photos of the slain KH members and Iraq’s top Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, who condemned the American airstrikes.
KH vowed to seek revenge for the airstrikes on Monday. Both KH and the Iranian military unit that supports it, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), have been designated as terrorist organizations by the U.S. government. The government of Saudi Arabia also described KH as one of several “terrorist militias supported by the Iranian establishment” in remarks on Tuesday condemning the assault on the U.S. embassy.
The attackers were able to smash open a gate and push into the embassy compound, lighting fires, smashing cameras, and painting messages such as “Closed in the name of resistance” on the walls. Gunshots were reportedly heard near the embassy, while tear gas and stun grenades were deployed by its defenders.
A uniformed militia fighter on the scene in Baghdad told Kurdish news service Rudaw that attacks were also planned against the U.S. consulates in Erbil and Basra, with the goal of destroying the consulates and killing everyone inside.
The Washington Post reported Tuesday that among those agitating protesters in Baghdad on Tuesday was Hadi al-Amiri, a former transportation minister with close ties to Iran who leads the Badr Corps, another PMF militia.
In 2011, both Fox News and the Washington Times noted that then-Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki brought his transportation minister, al-Amiri, to a meeting at the White House. The Times noted that the White House did not confirm his attendance, but the official was on Iraq’s listed members of its delegation.
The al-Amiri accompanying al-Maliki, besides also being transportation minister, was identified at the time as a commander of the Badr organization, further indicating it was the same person. At the time, the outlets expressed concern that al-Amiri had ties to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), which the FBI has stated played a role in a 1996 terrorist attack that killed 19 U.S. servicemen. President Donald Trump designated the IRGC a foreign terrorist organization, the first time an official arm of a foreign state received the designation.
Fox News’ Ed Henry questioned White House Press Secretary Jay Carney following the visit about the attendance of al-Amiri at the White House. Carney refused to answer and stating that he would need to investigate the issue. The full transcript from RealClearPolitics reads:
Ed Henry, FOX News: When Prime Minister Maliki was here this week there have been reports that a former commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, which U.S. officials say played a role in a 1996 terrorist attack that killed 19 U.S. servicemen.
He was here at the White House with Prime Minister Maliki because he’s a transportation minister, yeah, transportation minister —
Jay Carney, WH: Who’s [sic] report is that?
Henry: I believe the Washington Times has reported it. I think others have as well, but I think this is a Washington Times —
Carney: I have to take that question then, I’m not aware of it.
Henry: Can you just answer it later though, whether he was here and whether a background check had been done?
Carney: I’ll check on it for you.
Henry: Okay, thanks.
In 2016, Obama secured a deal with Iran which included a payment of $1.7 billion in cash. Breitbart News reporter John Hayward reported in September of 2016:
On Tuesday, the Obama administration finally admitted something its critics had long suspected: The entire $1.7 billion tribute paid to Iran was tendered in cash — not just the initial $400 million infamously shipped to the Iranians in a cargo plane — at the same moment four American hostages were released.
“Treasury Department spokeswoman Dawn Selak said in a statement the cash payments were necessary because of the ‘effectiveness of U.S. and international sanctions,’ which isolated Iran from the international finance system,” said ABC News, relating what might be one of history’s strangest humblebrags. The sanctions Obama threw away were working so well that he had to satisfy Iran’s demands with cold, hard cash!
By the way, those sanctions were not entirely related to Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons. As former prosecutor Andrew McCarthy pointed out at National Review last month, they date back to Iran’s seizure of hostages at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, its support for “Hezbollah’s killing sprees,” and, most pertinently, Bill Clinton’s 1995 invocation of “federal laws that deal with national emergencies caused by foreign aggression,” by which he meant Iran’s support for international terrorism.
Former white house staffer during the Obama administration, Ben Rhodes, blamed President Trump’s policies for the Tuesday attack on the U.S. embassy.
Ben Rhodes
✔@brhodes
Trump sanctions on Iran have done nothing to change Iranian behavior except make it worse. This is what happens when your foreign policy is based on Obama envy, domestic politics, Saudi interests, and magical right wing thinking. https://twitter.com/amichaistein1/status/1211731826890412033 …
Amichai Stein
✔@AmichaiStein1
#BREAKING: US official tells me: New Iran-related sanctions will be announced "In the next 24 hours"
6,602
3,802 people are talking about this
Many have hit back at Rhodes for the accusations, including former CIA ops officer Bryan Dean Wright.
Bryan Dean Wright
✔@BryanDeanWright
As you attack Trump’s foreign policy, Iranian militia members are — at this very moment — attacking American soldiers using the $1.7B cash you and Team Obama sent to Tehran.
What a time to be self righteous. https://twitter.com/brhodes/status/1211991305208905729 …
Ben Rhodes
✔@brhodes
Trump sanctions on Iran have done nothing to change Iranian behavior except make it worse. This is what happens when your foreign policy is based on Obama envy, domestic politics, Saudi interests, and magical right wing thinking. https://twitter.com/amichaistein1/status/1211731826890412033 …
5,888
3,283 people are talking about this
No further information has been given about al-Amiri’s presence at the U.S. embassy raid on Tuesday. Read more about the attack on the U.S. embassy in Baghdad at Breitbart News here.
Lucas Nolan is a reporter for Breitbart News covering issues of free speech and online censorship. Follow him on Twitter @LucasNolan or email him at lnolan@breitbart.com
The Case for Impeaching Barack Obama
By Allen West | October 7, 2019
Yes, you read the title of this missive correctly.
As a career military officer, we never believed that you win on defense. During the constant, incessant, and insidious attacks on President Trump, I believe there should be a full-fledged attack to evidence the abject, utter hypocrisy of the progressive socialist left. If I were on any news program and was asked about the “impeachment inquiry” of President Trump, I would pivot and discuss the case for impeaching Barack Obama…and why the progressive socialist left defended his indefensible actions.
If in this current frenzy by the left and their media accomplices about Ukraine, the issue is about national security, I can counter that.
Early in 2009, Barack Obama traveled to Cairo, Egypt to deliver an address to the Muslim world. I have no issue with his wanting to have an outreach. But we should all agree that Obama’s requesting members of the Muslim Brotherhood to be in attendance, front and center, was ill advised. All one need to do is understand the history of the Muslim Brotherhood, the grandfather of modern-day Islamic jihadism.
This is the terrorist organization responsible for the assassination of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat. Anyone can read the Muslim Brotherhood’s website and realize what their goals and objectives are, and they are not consistent with those of the United States. Yet, Barack Obama supported the Muslim Brotherhood candidate for President, Mohammed Morsi, as he undermined the office of Hosni Mubarak. Sure, Mubarak was not the best, but he was not supportive of Islamic jihadism.
When Morsi won the election, quite questionably, it was Barack Obama who congratulated him and offered US support, to include military aid…to a Muslim Brotherhood backed president. The people of Egypt were indignant, and in the end, revolted against Morsi and overthrew him for a new President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi. Barack Obama condemned Egypt and its so-called coup, threatening to cut off any US aid…which he was willing to supply to a Muslim Brotherhood backed government.
Second point, Barack Obama claimed that there was a major crisis in Libya and ended up outsourcing our military support and aid to Islamic jihadist organizations against President Muammar al-Gaddafi. There was evidence that Gaddafi was willing to negotiate his removal and departure from Libya, but instead, Obama supplied weapons, intelligence, and air support to Islamic terrorists who did overthrow, and execute, Gaddafi. Since when did the United States provide military aid to Islamic terrorists?
In the aftermath, the Obama administration attempted a weapons buy back program from these same jihadists. And that led to the debacle we came to know as Benghazi. Amazingly enough a US Ambassador, Chris Stevens, was brutally murdered and paraded in the streets, along with Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods, and Glen Doherty during an Islamic terrorist attack. But where was our support to those brave men who fought off the attacks? Why was it that Barack Obama lied about this very sad day in US history, and was never held accountable and responsible? This was not about some anti-Islam video, which was the Obama talking point. And sadly, those four Americans who lost their lives, Barack Obama did not even send a US military aircraft to retrieve their remains.
Third point in the case for impeaching Barack Hussein Obama, the off-mike comment by Obama to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. Yes, remember when Obama whispered, “tell Vladmir that after my reelection I will have more flexibility”. It was 2012 and no one dared ask of President Obama, that is from the left, what was meant by flexibility? Here was a sitting US President making overt guarantees to Russia. Funny thing, when Obama was in office Russia was not this enemy, dark specter, matter of fact, the Obama administration offered a “reset button” to Russia. Recall in the final presidential debate between Obama and Mitt Romney how Obama chastised and ridiculed Romney on his assertion that Russia was our number one geopolitical threat? Obama said to Romney that the 80s was calling for their foreign policy back, now the progressive socialist left runs around screaming Russia, Russia, Russia ad nauseum.
When Russia was overrunning Ukraine, and Ukraine asked the Obama administration for support, Obama sent socks and MREs. President Trump has sent A-10s and increased military support to include increased military to military training and cooperation in the Baltic States and Poland. And somehow, we are being told by Nancy Pelosi that we must impeach President Trump for threatening national security and our foreign policy?
Lastly, Iran is the number one state sponsor of Islamic terrorism. Why then did Barack Obama sent pallets of laundered cash in a blacked out unmarked plane to Iran? And no, it had nothing to do with past weapons deals, those deals, agreements, had been made with the Iranian Republic when the Shah of Iran was the leader. When the Shah was deposed by the Ayatollah Khomeini, that agreement was null and void. Several US Presidents, Republican and Democrat, had not sent cash to Iran, until Obama. That was, and is, a violation of US Code, Statute, in aiding and abetting the enemy, which Iran used the funds to advance its terrorist support, especially to its proxy army, Hezbollah.
As well, why was it that Obama did not bring the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the Iranian nuclear agreement, before the US Senate as a treaty for ratification? Instead he made it a unilateral executive decision, which is in violation of our US Constitution. There was nothing said about impeaching Obama, but I am saying it now.
I am tired of Republicans playing right into the traps, games, of the progressive socialist left, instead of putting them on defense. I would love to have someone, anyone, ask of Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, Jerrold Nadler, and Rashida Tlaib, who wants to use US Marshals to remove Trump administration officials from office, to answer these points I have presented.
The progressive socialist left is mad that they lost the 2016 presidential election. They realize that, as Rep. Al Green said, they will probably not be able to defeat President Trump at the ballot box, unless they use tricks like ballot harvesting. So, what it their only recourse, the Banana Republic, kangaroo court tactics of using impeachment as a political weapon...this is nothing more than an unsophisticated coup.
The case for impeaching Barack Obama was easy, yet the left and their propagandized media dismissed it. Let’s stop allowing the progressive socialist left to dominate the narrative, it is time to put them on defense.
(Allen West is a retired Lieutenant Colonel in the United States Army. Mr. West is a Senior Fellow at the Media Research Center, supporting its mission to expose and neutralize liberal media bias. Mr. West also writes daily commentary on his personal website theoldschoolpatriot.com)
How Obama’s Muslim Childhood Became a Taboo Topic
https://www.frontpagemag.com/how-obamas-muslim-childhood-became-a-taboo-
Reflections on when a gigantic biographical inconvenience was successfully hidden and denied.
June 23, 2023 by Daniel Pipes 22 Comments
|
[Order Jamie Glazov’s new book: Barack Obama’s True Legacy: How He Transformed America.]
Americans have an abiding fascination with their presidents, especially with their foibles and secrets. Who lied? Who ordered illegal operations? Who had mistresses?
Thus was the country transfixed by Bill Clinton, Monica Lewinsky, and the tawdry drip-drip of their liaison. When newly declassified documents revealed hitherto unknown CIA connections to Lee Harvey Oswald, this made a media splash, with Tucker Carlson asking: “Did the CIA have a hand in the murder of John F. Kennedy?”
But that fascination dies when it comes to Barack Obama, the Left’s quasi-sacred figure. About him, no curiosity, please, no gossip, and no hint of impropriety. When he falsely claimed in 1991 to have been born in Kenya, and not in Hawaii, blame fell on a sloppy literary agent. When Stanley Kurtz proved that Obama lied about not being a member of Chicago’s socialist New Party and a candidate for it, the Obama P.R. machine smeared Kurtz and the story disappeared.
When clear evidence showed that Obama had lied about having been born and raised a Muslim, the researcher who made the case was reviled, his investigation scorned, and his argument vaporized.
I should know, as I was that researcher. I wrote five times on this topic in 2007-08, during Obama’s first presidential campaign (three of those times in FrontPageMag.com) and then aggregated all this information, plus new details, in a long and (so far) definitive September 2012 article, “Obama’s Muslim Childhood,” serialized in the Washington Times.
All those writings emphasized that Obama was now a Christian. The first one began with:
“If I were a Muslim I would let you know,” Barack Obama has said, and I believe him. In fact, he is a practicing Christian, a member of the Trinity United Church of Christ. He is not now a Muslim. But was he ever a Muslim or seen by others as a Muslim?
I answered in the affirmative and showed how contradictory evidence concerning Obama’s religious background – from Obama’s father and name, from years in Indonesia, from his family, and most of all from himself – conclusively points to his being born and raised a Muslim.
Throughout, I emphasized not the Islam issue but the character issue; if Obama lies about something so fundamental, how can he be trusted? His other lies, such as Kenyan birth and socialist party non-membership, confirm this problem.
Responses came fast and hard. Ben Rhodes’ “echo chamber” nearly fainted at the impudence of my lèse majesté. Like Kurtz, I was slandered without the facts I presented ever addressed. Here’s a small sampling of the deluge:
· Ben Smith in Politico derided my analysis as “the template for a faux-legitimate assault on Obama’s religion.”
· The Spectator called mine the “the worst article on the presidential election” and also deemed it “mad” and “despicable.”
· Martin Peretz in the New Republic said I had “simply gone bonkers … and malicious.”
· Vice ran an article “Would You Care If Obama Were Muslim?” that responded to my carefully-crafted argument with “BLARGHA BLARGHA BLARGH REPEAL OBAMA BIN HUSSEIN’S GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER OF OUR JOBS.”
The Atlantic published no less than three attacks on the article and me. Mark Ambinder rued “the false notion that Obama is or was ever Muslim.” Andrew Sullivan dismissed my work as “toxins.” Matthew Yglesias ridiculed my saying that I believe Obama is not now a Muslim with “I, for one, believe Daniel Pipes when he says he’s not a child molester.”
And so it went, howling with outrage at the very thought of Obama as a Muslim, mocking and taunting me with ad hominem attacks, speculating about my motives. So relentless was the onslaught, even the conservative press overwhelmingly shied away from the topic. The McCain and Romney campaigns both treated the topic like Kryptonite. The issue of Obama’s lies had no impact on either presidential campaign, both of which – of course – Obama won.
I expect that, at some future time when Barack Obama loses his sacral quality, historians will take great interest in his childhood religious affiliation. They will wonder how, in the information-heavy, politically-riven, and celebrity-mad culture of early twenty-first century United States, so gigantic a biographical inconvenience could be successfully hidden and rendered taboo. They will study how, in a modern democratic society, a determined candidate can suppress even the most important and relevant information.
I look forward to the vindication.
Mr. Pipes (DanielPipes.org, @DanielPipes) is president of the Middle East Forum. © 2023 by Daniel Pipes. All rights reserved.
REMEMBER THE MUSLIM SAUDIS INVASION OF SEPT 11
EUROPE, STARTING WITH FRANCE, ENGLAND, SWEDEN AND GERMANY ARE ON THE VERGE OF BEING DESTROYED BY MUSLIMS THEY INVITED IN TO WORK 'CHEAP'. SOUND FAMILIAR??? Overwhelmed by Arab hordes, Europeans are losing their capacity for self-governance. In light of these circumstances, the French people might now better understand the wisdom of De Gaulle’s decision to disengage France from Algeria.
The Western world remains reluctant to acknowledge the ongoing threat posed by radical Islam. The conflict’s battleground, which initially unfolded in Israel, runs through Europe and has now extended its reach to the United States.
Only Islam Can Defeat Radical Islam
The Western world remains reluctant to acknowledge the ongoing threat posed by radical Islam. The conflict’s battleground, which initially unfolded in Israel, runs through Europe and has now extended its reach to the United States.
This war presents a new and unprecedented danger to the West. Americans and Europeans failed to recognize that radical Islam is not just a religion; it is also a political totalitarian movement akin to communism and fascism. The movement embraces a fanatical agenda that includes religious supremacy and a Marxist-type utopian/egalitarian standard of virtue. It’s sustained by an ideology embodied in unlimited human resources around the globe. It is not a nation-state and cannot be defeated militarily, nor can diplomatic solutions be found. Therefore, the war on Radical Islam is not limited to military confrontation; it is foremost an ideological and political affair.
Just as happened centuries ago, thanks to Europeans’ fatal error in allowing Muslim refugees to enter the continent, Islam has launched itself across Europe in an unrelenting wave of religious acclamation and territorial expansion. Entire areas of major European cities, including London, Paris, and Marseille, have been de facto annexed to the possession of Islam, and the sovereignty of the host states is no longer recognized in those sizable enclaves.
Image: President Trump and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. YouTube screen grab.
Consequently, the Arab ghettoes have become a haven for Islamists, who have successfully built a covert and efficient support network. This network enables terrorists to evade security forces, sustain their operations, strategize, recruit fresh members, and conduct training. Overwhelmed by Arab hordes, Europeans are losing their capacity for self-governance. In light of these circumstances, the French people might now better understand the wisdom of De Gaulle’s decision to disengage France from Algeria.
Furthermore, the Islamists adeptly imitate the strategy the Nazis employed in their approach to participating in democratic elections. On 30 April 1928, Goebbels wrote in his paper “Der Angriff,”
We enter parliament to supply ourselves, in the arsenal of democracy, with its own weapons. If democracy is so stupid as to give us free tickets and per diem for “blockade” its own affair,” we come as the wolf bursts into the flock, so we come.
Once in power, Islamists hijack democracy and push for policies that align with their radical ideologies. It is important to note that this phenomenon is not confined solely to Europe; they effectively employ this strategy within the United States as well.
Therefore, this monster first of all, must be defeated ideologically by superior principles advanced by Islam itself.
It is not a “mission impossible.” Some Muslim leaders are awakening to the realization that violence will not turn the clock (which the Arabs invented) back to their greatness. They find support among the Muslims who adhere to a peaceful and pluralistic interpretation of their faith.
In 2014, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi removed the Muslim Brotherhood from power, outlawed the organization in Egypt, and jailed and executed thousands of its members. Sisi has denounced Islamic extremism and challenged religious clerics and scholars to “revolutionize the religion” and bring it in line with Western morality.
In 2017 came Donald J. Trump. His Abraham Accords stand as the most momentous peace treaty since the Treaty of Westphalia of 1648 ended Europe’s Thirty Years’ War. These accords can establish a durable peace, similar to the Treaty of Westphalia, for they were not enforced upon a vanquished adversary through military might but, rather, emerged as recognition of objective reality.
In his inspiring and direct speech during his visit to Saudi Arabia in May 2017, Trump emphasized that Israel and the Arab world shared an interest in charting a constructive outcome. He offered the Saudis, who spent billions spreading Islamic extremism across the globe, a choice: they had to decide whether they were a country respected by the world community or a futile cause.
The groundbreaking Abraham Accords removed urgency from the Palestinian issue that had been viewed for decades as an essential element of regional and, ultimately, world peace. They gave the Saudis a free hand to move toward normalization of relations with Israel and the rest of the world.
Indeed, at an October 2017 conference for international investors, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman responded positively by laying out Saudi’s new approach to radical Islam: “We want to live a normal life, a life that translates our moderate religion, our good customs, we want to coexist and live with the world.” The prince also said, “I believe that we will eradicate the rest of extremism very soon,” and “We will not spend the next 30 years of our lives dealing with these destructive ideas.”
Bin Salman pronounced a death sentence for Muslim terrorism worldwide, and they got the message. Indeed, that pronouncement explains Hamas’s attack on October 7. It was lashing out in an agony of defeat.
While Donald Trump and Prince Mohammed bin Salman emerged as champions of peace, not everyone grasped the message. President Biden persistently disregards the reality and keeps beating the two-state solution’s dead horse killed by the Arabs back in 1948.
In the meantime, the US, EU, and various international organizations, including the United Nations, either due to naiveté or stupidity, continue providing financial support to countries known for their association with terrorism, such as Afghanistan, Pakistan, Ethiopia, Yemen, South Sudan, and the territories of Gaza and Western Sahara, which the terrorists fully control, all under the guise of humanitarian aid.
BLOG EDITORS: CLOSET MUSLIM BARACK OBAMA AND HIS SOROS-OWNED MEAT PUPPET BIDEN HAVE LONG PUMPED BILLIONS INTO IRAN, AND THEREFORE GLOBAL MUSLIM TERORISM GOOGLE IT! “Of course, one of the main reasons the nation is now “divided, resentful and angry” is because race-baiting, Islamist, class warrior Barack Hussein Obama was president for eight long years." MATTHEW VADUM
The Biden administration’s failure to contain Iran’s nuclear program may potentially enable terrorist organizations to acquire nuclear capabilities. There are tens of millions of fanatics in Turkey, Jordan, and Egypt who embrace a doomsday outlook and crave death. They would not hesitate for a moment to blow up the world.
For these reasons, peace in the Middle East and safeguarding the rest of the world from Islamism cannot be achieved by a single dramatic decision. The Abraham Accords were a magnificent step, but they were only a step. Ensuring long-lasting peace requires incisive leadership from the United States. That leader must be a person who has exhibited an aptitude for defining shared interests and inspiring the Arab nations to address their own challenges.
This leader needs no introduction; we are all aware of who he is.
Alexander G. Markovsky is a senior fellow at the London Center for Policy Research, a think tank that examines national security, energy, risk analysis, and other public policy issues. He is the author of Anatomy of a Bolshevik and Liberal Bolshevism: America Did Not Defeat Communism, She Adopted It. Mr. Markovsky is the owner and CEO of Litwin Management Services, LLC. He can be reached at alexander.g.markovsky@gmail.com.
CAIR Leader Who Backed Hamas’ October 7 Terror Attack Demands UNRWA Funding Be Restored
Nihad Awad, the executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and a supporter of Hamas’s October 7 terror attack, demanded Monday that the U.S. restore funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA).
Last week, the Biden administration suspended funding to UNRWA after it was revealed that at least a dozen of its employees had participated in the October 7 terror attack. Biden had previously restored $700 million to UNRWA that President Donald Trump had cut because of concerns about UNRWA’s role in supporting terrorism and indoctrinating Palestinian children to hate Israel.
As Breitbart News reported, citing the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), Awad celebrated the October 7 attacks in a speech to a Muslim group shortly after the event, claiming he was “happy” and that Israel did not have a right of self-defense.
CAIR also has a history of association with Hamas and support for Palestinian terrorism. As Breitbart News has noted in the past:
In 2007-8, CAIR was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the terror financing trial of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development. That case, in turn, led the FBI to discontinue its work with the organization. In 2009, a federal judge ruled that the government “produced ample evidence to establish” the ties of CAIR with Hamas, the Palestinian terror organization. The United Arab Emirates labeled CAIR a terrorist organization in 2014 (a decision that the Obama administration opposed).
On Monday, CAIR issued a press release in which it quoted Awad, who claimed he had “personally benefited” from UNRWA:
As a Palestinian-American who grew up in a refugee camp and personally benefited from UNRWA’s support, I know that this agency is a desperately needed source of humanitarian aid for the Palestinian people, especially in Gaza.
It is morally depraved and glaringly inconsistent for President Biden to cut UNRWA funding on the basis of unconfirmed allegations made by the Israeli government while he simultaneously funds the Israeli government despite confirmed allegations of their systematic war crimes. The timing of the announcement, the same day as the ICJ ruling, is also incredibly suspicious.
By cutting UNRWA funding, the Biden administration is both fulfilling a wish of far-right Israeli ministers who want to starve Palestinians into exile and engaging in a form of collective punishment against 5 million innocent Palestinian civilians. When President Biden was running for office, he pledged to reverse the Trump administration’s hateful and baseless cutting of UNRWA funding. Now he has restored the Trump policy, punishing millions of innocent people at the behest of an Israeli government that wants to make it impossible for Palestinians to survive in Gaza. We call on the Biden administration to immediately restore UNRWA funding.
The “unconfirmed” Israeli reports were based on evidence solid enough to prompt UNRWA to fire twelve of its own employees, and for nearly a dozen other countries to suspend or cut funding to the agency.
The New York Times published what it said were details of the allegations on Monday, including that one UNRWA employee helped kidnap an Israeli woman, one participated in the massacre of nearly 100 civilians at Kibbutz Be’eri, and that another “handed out ammunition” during the Hamas attack.
Update: The Biden administration has defended its decision to restore funding to UNRWA, as well as the agency itself:
The White House, which earlier this month defended Biden’s decision to restore funding to UNRWA despite growing concern about its support for terrorism, continued to defend the agency on Monday, even after the administration suspended its funding.
“Let’s not impugn the good work of a whole agency because of the potential bad actions here by a small number,” said White House national security spokesman John Kirby, ignoring evidence that the agency broadly supported the Hamas terror attack.
Dr. Anthony Harper of the Intermountain Christian News Agency joined Breitbart News Sunday on SiriusXM Patriot 125 this past weekend to discuss his past work on pressing adminstrations of both parties regarding U.S. taxpayer funding for UNRWA:
The White House also worked with CAIR in crafting its so-called “antisemitism strategy” last year to excuse radical criticism of Israel. The Biden administration was forced to distance itself from CAIR after Awad’s remarks supporting the October 7 attack.
Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News and the host of Breitbart News Sunday on Sirius XM Patriot on Sunday evenings from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. ET (4 p.m. to 7 p.m. PT). He is the author of the 2021 e-book, “The Zionist Conspiracy (and how to join it),” now updated with a new foreword. He is also the author of the recent e-book, Neither Free nor Fair: The 2020 U.S. Presidential Election. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.
No comments:
Post a Comment