*he is "the" president (not "our" president, at least not mine nor of those who think as I do, but "the" president of the United States)--as he is the president of the United States, the contempt in which Moslems now hold the United States extends to all of us.
(AP Photo/Herbert Knosowski)
"I know, because I am one of them"
Obama has personal ties to Islam. His father was a Muslim Kenyan, and Obama lived as a child in Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim country. He told lawmakers that he knows Americans have been enriched by their country's Muslim heritage _ "I know, because I am one of them."
--MARK S. SMITH - Associated Press Writer
Obama . . . is dismissing the importance of understanding the belief-system and goals of the enemy. Can the U.S. defeat an enemy it is not prepared to name or understand?
"Let me say this as clearly as I can," Obama said. "The United States is not and never will be at war with Islam. In fact, our partnership with the Muslim world is critical ... in rolling back a fringe ideology that people of all faiths reject."...
--"Obama declares US not at war with Islam" (Tom Raum for Associated Press)
Fringe ideology? Does one who was brought up as a Moslem in Indonesia (as Obama was) not know the principal tenets of Islam? (As concerns the non-Moslem world: convert or be conquered and then convert or remain as subhumans and pay heavy taxes in a Moslem-ruled land.)
As Robert Spencer has it: Can this "fringe ideology" be rolled back without confronting its roots and the reasons for its popularity in the Islamic world? Does the President have any reason for dubbing it a "fringe ideology that people of all faiths reject," when Hamas won elections in the Palestinian Authority and Sharia was enshrined as the highest law in the new constitutions of Iraq and Afghanistan? I doubt it.
Robert Spencer at Jihad Watch http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/025539.php
. . . and now Obama prostates himself and crawls on his belly as he seeks to appease all the Moslems in the world:
"America's relationship with the Muslim world cannot and will not be based on opposition to al Qaida," the president said. "We seek broad engagement based upon mutual interests and mutual respect."
"We will convey our deep appreciation for the Islamic faith, which has done so much over so many centuries to shape the world for the better, including my own country," Obama said.... (Tom Raum for Associated Press)
How? We must ask. How has Islam made the world into a better place? And especially how has it done so for the U.S.?
Especially as the biggest impact Islam has made on the United States was its successful strike at New York in 2001.
And as Hugh observes in a Comment to the above-cited Jihad Watch post:
[Obama] uttered phrases that are flatly untrue. Islam is based on a clear division of the world between Believer and Infidel. If Obama doesn't know that, if he thinks the easygoing lackadaisical syncretistic Islam that he might have become dimly familiar with as a child is the same thing as the real Islam, the doctrinally-correct Islam (as Ibn Warraq insists: "There are moderate Muslims, but Islam itself is not moderate."), then he really has to start burning the midnight oil. He, and every other person in the governments of the West who have assumed the responsibiity of protecting -- and therefore of instructing -- others.
Never the less Mr President Islam is at war with the world.
Ishaq:"When Allah gave permission to his Apostle to fight, the second Aqaba contained conditions involving war which were not in the first act of submission. Now we bound ourselves to war against all mankind for Allah and His Apostle. He promised us a reward in Paradise for faithful service. We pledged ourselves to war in complete obedience to Muhammad no matter how evil the circumstances."
Islam has been at war with humanity since 622 A.D. Maybe Obama needs to re-read his old Koran.
This time in English.
Sura 9:29 Barry?
We have no mutual interests with the Islamic world and no matter how much Obama says that we respect them, that respect is not returned. Left alone, without western assistance, Islam would soon drown in its own misery. Islam needs the west simply to survive.
More Comments at http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/025539.php#respond
Elsewhere, Dan Goor, Zyonism.org says:
. . . Throughout the primaries and the election, President Obama denied his Islamic roots, he went as far as to say that he was not now, and never [in his past] a Muslim. After the election, when he realized that any negative political implication from being a Muslim would have no political affect on his future, President Obama decided to use his Islamic middle name as part of his given name for the inaguration.
Obama claims that his father was not a practicing Muslim, why then would the man name his child Hussein, a very prominent Muslim name? And, the very intelligent man that Barak Hussein Obama is, he could not have been unaware, throughout his life, of the roots of his name.
Those accused with the planning of the 9-11 event, collectively pled guilty, likely in order to test Obama’s ability to allow the death sentence against Muslims; the Koran forbid believers to put to death other Muslims. Will these perpetrators of one of the most heinous crime on US soil, be actually put to death?
President Obama’s overtures towards Iran with vague pre-conditions (no word about the Iranian commitment to destroy Israel) is paramount to suggesting that Islamic relations are important enough for President Obama to put aside long existing commitments to allies by the US, and that Israel’s security is less important than are relations with Islamic-Iran, and Iranian oil; not a good message to the global community
Al-Arabia interview, Iran appeasement, other overtures towards Islam, are they due to Obama’s birthrights?
Dan Goor, Zyonism.org
Posted in March 20th, 2009
Published in A Mulatto Semite of Muslim-birth; will Israel be sacrif, Is Islamic birth affecting Obama's thinking, Known for shedding loyalties for expediency
We Should Have Known! Look at . . .
"I Will Stand With the Muslims"
by Rich Carroll
Squeamish Marxist Democrats avert your eyes. I am about to swat you on the nose with a rolled-up Che Guevara poster.
The tapestry of a carefully woven biography of Barack Hussein Obama is a cloth of deception and self-promotion this candidate has been weaving since childhood, called in Arabic "Taqiyyah", adapting and amending his life story to fit his circumstances. The accumulation of research from primary sources about his Muslim past is deep and undeniable; as far back as Tine Hahiyary, one of his teachers who states "Barry actively took part in the Islamic religious lessons during his time at the school. I remember that he had studied mengaji" (recitation of the Quran). Emirsyah Satar, CEO of Garuda Indonesia says "Obama was often in the prayer room wearing a sarong at that time".
The list would make a book: "The Audacity of Lying". In a New York Times interview, Obama’s half-sister Maya Soetoro-Ng stated "My whole family was Muslim and most of the people I knew were Muslim." In an interview with Nicholas Kristof, (NY Times) Obama recited the Muslim call to prayer, the Adhan, with a first-class Arabic accent.
Let us dispense of any further charade that Barack Hussein Obama has no ties with Islam. His long history of Islamic teachings, close Muslim friends and family, and a continued connection with Islam through his friendship with Louis Farrakhan is out there in research land for anyone to read. Let us also dispense with any forgetfulness that Obama’s chosen circle of friends and mentors included convicted Weatherman bombers abdicating the overthrow of the United States, along with dozens of anti-white, anti-American associates. His close associations during his lifetime would be a "Who’s Who" list of anti-American communists, Marxists, and anti-white black theologians and Islamic religious mentors.
Today’s title comes directly from a quote on page 261 of Obama’s book The Audacity of Hope, and the exact quote is "I will stand with them (Muslims) should the political winds shift in an ugly direction". I checked. Franklin Roosevelt never said "I will stand with the Nazis should things get ugly." Lyndon Johnson did not say "I will stand with the North Vietnamese should things get ugly." (insert historical reminder that John Kerry DID stand-by the North Vietnamese when things got ugly).
From and More at http://www.2sistersfromtheright.com/writings/Rich_Carroll/iwillstand.html
from April 21, 2007 Intimidation: Radical Islam's Attack on Democracy:
. . . an Islamic worldview that predisposes its adherents to take offense at any provocation, real or imagined. It also has to do with the weakness and vulnerability of societies that have allowed multiculturalism to dilute their inherent cultural strength, leaving them open to the intimidation we now see being used to hammer them into submission. Make no mistake; appeasing Islamic radicals will not stop their incitement of Muslim minorities or their lobbying for special status, as we see in [UN]RESOLUTION 60/251.
The Islamic worldview has two fundamental parts, the Dāru-l'Islām, the "House of Islam," meaning the Islamic part of the world, especially Islamic states and the Dāru-l'Harb, the "House of War" or "Domain of Disbelief" (that's us, folks).It is the traditional duty of Islamic rulers to extend the House of Islam into the House of War. This is accomplished through the Jihād, the Holy War. According to Islamic law, upheld by the most respected jurists and scholars, the inhabitants of Dāru-l'Harb forfeit their "blood and property" to believers.
"It has been determined by Islamic law that the blood and property of people of Dar Al-Harb [the Domain of Disbelief where the battle for the domination of Islam should be waged] is not protected. Because they fight against and are hostile towards the Muslims, they annulled the protection of his blood and his property." - Sheikh Yousef Al-Qaradhawi
This fundamental worldview, as taught in the Quran, is happily accepted throughout the Islamic world and taught in Islamic schools from Detroit to Lahore. Islam will conquer all other religions and peoples. Allah, through his prophet, demands it of the believer. It is done with the sword, by cunning and stratagem, or by variations of the sword, cunning and Taqiyya, precautionary deception and keeping one's intentions and convictions secret. While used in times of persecution and danger, it is appropriate when the Dāru-l'Islām is faced with an implacable enemy. If tanks and rifles cannot beat the West, then other stratagems must be applied, Allah demands it.
For example, the Saudi government calls us a vital ally while filling American mosques (and mosques worldwide) with hate literature and funding Jihadi groups. This duplicity is considered perfectly virtuous and in harmony with Allah's will. The unbeliever, after all, deserves only contempt. In that context, RESOLUTION 60/251 is eminently logical and its language sensible. Blasphemy is specifically prohibited in the Quran, meaning of course, blasphemy against Islam. Muslims are perfectly free to refer to Christians and Jews as the spawn of "pigs and apes" and discriminate with abandon, as is done the Islamic world over.
One sometimes sees T-shirts in Copenhagen, on the backs of the ubiquitous "Muslim youth" that declare, "2030, then we take over." No one takes them seriously. They should. As Islam is mainstreamed in western democracies, its more radical adherents learn to use our inherent weaknesses against us.
Currently, no European nation has a replacement birth rate, let alone one to equal that of its Muslim immigrants. This is perfectly legal and as it progresses, Islam demands greater pride of place within the society, until, eventually, it will be a significant enough presence to shed its minority status and profoundly affect the national debate. It will demand adherence to its standards of behavior, where it will eventually dominate or tear the host society apart. This process is well under way in England and France. In his book, How Democracies Perish, French philosopher Jean-Francois Revel writes:
"Democracy tends to ignore, even deny, threats to its existence because it loathes doing what is needed to counter them. It awakens only when the danger becomes deadly, imminent, evident…But democracy can defend itself only very feebly; its internal enemy has an easy time of it because he exploits the right to disagree that is inherent in democracy. His aim of destroying democracy itself, of actively seeking an absolute monopoly of power, is shrewdly hidden behind the citizen's legitimate right to oppose and criticize the system. Paradoxically, democracy offers those seeking to abolish it a unique opportunity to work against it legally. They can receive almost open support from the external enemy without its being seen as a truly serious violation of the social contract. The frontier is vague, the transition easy between the status of loyal opponent wielding a privilege built into democratic institutions and that of an adversary subverting those institutions." - Jean-Francois Revel
His words are prescient and chilling, and as true today about radical Islam as when written 30 years ago about communism. This enemy is outrageous in its demands, cunning behind the scenes, relentless and patient in its chipping away at the foundations of western democracy. It seeks legitimacy. What cannot be taken by the sword can be subverted, undermined, defeated from within. The outrage over a few innocuous Danish cartoons was carefully staged, calculated for effect and abetted by the press and politicians blinded by multicultural platitudes. These events will continue and escalate, activists cultivating the appeasers, seeking inroads, cowing the weak and demanding special status. The goal is to establish conduits into the vulnerable humanist heart of the "Domain of Disbelief." RESOLUTION 60/251 is another step in legitimizing Islam's influence.
The difference in fundamental perceptions between the Judeo-Christian West and Islam cannot be understated. Attacks in Jordan a few years ago led to demonstrations in protest of terrorism against Muslims where demonstrators tellingly cried, "We are Muslims! We are not Jews or Crusaders! Why attack us?" Of course, if you are a Jew, a Christian or other non-Muslim, it is perfectly permissible and even admirable to attack you. It is permissible to lie to you, steal from you, rape you, enslave you and sometimes kill you. The Muslim belief in evil is vastly different from ours in that it centers on Muslims being the only moral humanity and all others being vile and debase. The benefits of kindness, forgiveness and charity do not translate to the non-believer outside of the required conversion to Islam and the Quran's instructions on the treatment of conquered peoples.
We ignore this worldview at our peril. A Muslim can describe the evils of the crusades, all the while knowing the vastly larger and vastly more murderous Muslim Wars of Compulsion were perfectly correct and moral. Conquering and converting by the sword, from 200 miles south of Paris to the islands of the Indonesian archipelago and all points in between is not a crime because it spread Islam as Allah commands. The comparatively miniscule Crusades were a crime because they attacked Islam. History can be rewritten and the context obscured in the West's ongoing relativistic stupor. When have you heard about the Wars of Compulsion? When has an honest historical comparison or debate found its way into our living rooms about anything Islamic?
Western nations have become so cowed by Islamic intimidation and so blinded by politically correct relativism that they succumb to the Islamic worldview and condemn their own cultures to appease it. The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) has lobbied for the United Nations to include language against blasphemy of Islam for some time. European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana supported the idea at its inception. This is an old confrontation, reinvigorated and spread by modern technology. It will take advantage of every weakness, every religious naiveté and every hesitation to act. There are two unanswerable questions. The first is: How can we maintain our tolerance and fundamental freedoms while ensuring our own survival? The other is: Will
from April 21, 2007 Intimidation: Radical Islam's Attack on Democracy
If Obama is at all conversant with Islam--as he must be, having received Islamic instruction and attended mosque in Indonesia. He must know that . . .
THE ONLY APPEASEMENT THAT MOSLEMS WILL BE SATISFIED WITH IS CONVERSION OF THOSE WHOM THEY SEEK TO CONQUER--THAT IS, THEIR ACCEPTANCE OF ISLAM--AND THEIR OBEDIENCE TO ISLAMIC LAW.
We also must learn how to defeat the Mohammedans. Not by meekly seeking their foregiveness for our past imagined transgressions against them, but with actions based on past historical successes in stopping the Islamic hordes.
from . . .
Religion by the sword: in the century following the death of Muhammad, the religion of Islam formed the basis for the rapid conquest of the Christian lands of Europe, North Africa, and the Near East.
(HISTORY--PAST AND PERSPECTIVE)
Publication: The New American
Publication Date: 03-SEP-07
Author: Behreandt, Dennis
Again and again the spears and swords of the Frankish defenders repulsed the invaders. The heavy and lethal blows dealt by Karl, better known as Charles, earned him the legendary surname "Martel": The Hammer. On the bloody field of battle between Poitiers and Tours so many Arabs fell that Saracen chroniclers named the battlefield "the pavement of martyrs" Among the dead was 'Abd ar-Rahman al-Gafiqi. Though the numbers are heavily exaggerated, the lopsided nature of the Frankish victory can be distilled from the report of the near-contemporary chronicler Paulus Diaconus, who reported that the Franks killed 375,000 of the enemy while suffering only 1,500 casualties themselves.
[End of Excerpt]
Irving Babbitt’s Humanist Critique of Romantic Modernism - Irving Babbitt, 1865-1933. Amanda Reichenbach, a recent graduate of Yale, has an excellent essay in National Review on the now-almost-forgotten humanist Ir...