Monday, June 28, 2010

The Devil's greatest accomplishment

There is a popular quote that says: "The Devil's greatest accomplishment was convincing the world he didn't exist.” It has been used in literature and films for over a century. It is a reference to a logical argument and as such it can be applied to various cultures, political movements and religions to define efforts to hide the truth.

In the Arabic language a
Kafir is usually translated as "unbeliever" or "disbeliever", or sometimes "infidel". The Qu’ran also uses the word for Christians and Jews in several verses of Sura 9:28-33; 5:17, 72-73. It refers to Kafir and how they must be treated. Quoting from Wikipedia, The word Kafir, is the active participle of the root K-F-R "to cover".” As in Kufr.

“The Qur'an uses the word
Kufr to denote a person who covers up or hides realities”

“By the 15th century, the word Kaffir was used by Muslims in Africa to refer to the non-Muslim African natives. Many of those kufari were enslaved and sold by their Muslims captors to European and Asian merchants, mainly from Portugal, who by that time had established trading outposts along the coast of West Africa.”
Almost all of the slaves brought to America in the 17th and 18th Century were those non-Muslims captured in Africa by Muslim slave brokers.

A French poet Charles Baudelaire, (1821-1867), said: "My dear brothers, never forget, when you hear the progress of enlightenment vaunted,
that the devil's best trick is to persuade you that he doesn't exist!"

In modern times, Jim Carroll, in 1995, wrote in his book The Basketball Diaries, "The Devil's greatest accomplishment was convincing the world he didn't exist.

The most popular reinterpretation of this famous quote is in the 1995 movie The Usual Suspects, written by Christopher McQuarrie. In it, the character named Verbal Kint, played by Kevin Spacey, explains the story of Keyser Söze to a police detective: “
The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist.
So when Muslims quote the Qur'an’s use of the word Kufr to denote a person who covers up or hides realities, although they are referring to non-Muslims, in fairness the same application must be applied to themselves to see if it fits. The reference they repeatedly use “Islam is a religion of Peace”  must be compared to their own thoughts, words and deeds. Many years ago, during the cold war between the Soviet Union and the United States, an observer who was very familiar with communism stated: Peace to a communist means the absence of resistance to communism. Throughout modern history many oppressive groups have tossed around the word "Peace" and they all seem to have a similar definition. Today, followers of Islam claim they are "The religion of peace" and at the same time say that "Islam" means "Submission". The opposite of submission is resistance, so it stands that only those who submit to Islam will have peace.
So be mindful at all times that when listening to the rhetoric of Islamic clerics that the word Kufr applies to Muslims as well, because it means in their own language, people who cover up the truth and hides realities.  “The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist.” The greatest trick Muslims have pulled was convincing the world they are against terrorism and for peace. Because more often than not, those who repeatedly use the word “peace” do not share the same meaning of the word as you do.

When Muslims speak to each other what you hear them say is more aligned with the motto of The Muslim Brotherhood, the parent organization of Hamas, al-Qaeda, CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) and ISNA (Islamic Society of North America).

As Guy Rodgers, executive director of ACT! for America pointed out in an an article on The Hill web site  on June 24, 2010:
“During the Holy Land Foundation terrorism financing trial, at which organizations including CAIR and ISNA were named as unindicted co-al-Quedaconspirators, the Muslim Brotherhood's Strategic Goal for North America was entered into evidence. It states in part: "The Ikhwan must understand that all their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and sabotaging their miserable house..." “
The motto of the Muslim Brotherhood is this: "Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. Qur'an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope."

No mention of the “Religion of Peace” there.

What follows are some supporting references to this argument.


    It is known that the USA is the enemy of Islam and Muslims. The fact that it is Dar ul Kufr Asslie, by default it is the enemy of Islam and Muslims. The original rules for any state that is not dar ul Islam nor has a treaty with it is that it is the enemy. There should be no doubt in the minds of any Muslims that the jews and Christians are kafir and the enemy of Islam and Muslims. Allah (swt) says, [according to Wikipedia, swt means (“‘glorious and exalted is He’”), placed after the name of Allah in Islamic  texts.]
        "Those who disbelieve of the people of the book and the mushrikeen are in the hellfire forever, they are the worst of creation." [EMQ Bayyinah: 6] ] {note: EMQ=Extended matching questions, Al- Bayyinah: 6 verse from Qu’ran}

    and Allah (swt) says,

    "Those who claim that Allah is Jesus ibn Maryam, they are kafir …" [EMQ Ma’idah: 17] {note: EMQ=Extended matching questions, Ma’idah: 17 verse from Qu’ran}

    In this ayah, there is the manifestation of the anger of Allah (swt) when he said,

        "Those who claim that Allah is ‘Isa ibn Maryam, they are kafir, who can have any protection if Allah decides to destroy Isa and his mother and all the people of the earth?" [EMQ Ma’idah: 17] {note: EMQ=Extended matching questions, Ma’idah: 17 verse from Qu’ran}

    Allah (swt) says,

        "Fight those who do not believe in Allah nor in the last day, nor do they forbid what Allah and his Messenger forbid, and they do not follow the deen of Haq among the people of the book (jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission and feel themselves subdued." [EMQ 9: 29] {note: EMQ=Extended matching questions, Sura 9:29 verse from Qu’ran}

    Whoever denies that the Jews and Christians are kafir, they are kafir. Allah (swt) in this ayah, made the purpose of fighting them because of their kufr, regardless of whether or not they fight us.

    People ask "why do you say that the kuffar are the enemy?" despite Allah’s (swt) saying,

        "The kuffar are for you a clear enemy." [EMQ 4: 101] {note: EMQ=Extended matching questions, Sura 4:101 verse from Qu’ran}

    Because of this ayah we should fear Allah and stop calling the kuffar our friends. The kuffar of USA and UK are kafir Asslie; they are without any doubt our enemy. We do not fight them, only because of the covenant of security that is binding on us. Allah said,

        "Terrify the enemy of Allah and your enemy" [Anfal: 60] {note: EMQ=Extended matching questions, al-Anafal: 60 verse from Qu’ran}

    USA is not only the enemy because they disbelieve in Allah; more than that they are actively fighting against Islam and Muslims. Without any doubt, terrorism against them is obligatory.
Updated 6-29-2010. If you are interested in reading an English language translation of the above referenced verses in the Qur'an click the following link to the University of Southern California Center for Muslim/Jewish Engagement web site:
Killing Kafir
Author: Syed Kamran Mirza

In the theological dogmas of Islam there are plenty of unanswered questions to which most apologists play same old game of sidetracking and putting lame excuse to the “out of context”, or “faulty Quranic translations”. Among them, I like to discuss one question about which I have been asking/searching the truth for long time, but till today nobody could give me satisfactory answer. This is the question of “killing/slaying” human being by another human being by the order of Almighty God! Several years back when I read Holy Quran from beginning to end, I was totally dismayed when I found Allah telling/advocating to “kill” another human being by numerous Ayats. I could not conceive this idea of insisting by Allah to kill somebody. How come? Question which bothered me most is why an omnipotent/almighty God will ask for killing human being? Who knows, may be this advice by Allah to “kill Kaffirs” is working as the main fuel/ingredients behind the very spirit of Islamic Jihadhelping create more and more Osama Bin laden and other potential terrorists?

My father used to read Quran twice a day (after Fazr and before Magreb) with so much devotion until his death. One day I asked him if he (my father) understand what he was reciting with such a melody and devotions. My father’s answer was negative. My father did not understand a single word of what he was reciting daily. Now I can count how many thousands of times he uttered the word “killing”, of course, with sweet melody. We can even count how many trillion trillion times this word of “killing” is being uttered by devout Muslims throughout the whole world.

Most important and mysterious questions for us to ponder are: Why Muhammad (pbuh), the prophet of God, needed to insist/ask people to fight/kill fellow people violently? And why did he lure Islamic believers that they will get Jannat el-Ferdous if they kill kaffirs? Why on the other hand, another Prophet of the same God Jesus Christ said, “He who live by the sword will die by the sword” or “If you get slapped on your right cheek then give your left cheek for the another slap.” Why Jesus asked people to conquer the hearts of enemies by their love? Why did Mahatma Gandhi asked people not to attack/kill the enemies but to tolerate all tortures? Was Gandhi or Jesus a better person than the omnipotent who goes by the name Rahman-ur-Rahim (Kind and forgiving)?
The Devil's greatest accomplishment was convincing the world he didn't exist.
The Devil's second greatest accomplishment was convincing the world that Islam is a religion of peace.

Sunday, June 27, 2010

Remains of 72 people were found last week at the World Trade Center site

Why do we have to get our news from foreign newspapers? Have the mainstream news media in America become such apologists to Muslims that the actions of Islamic terrorists on September 11, 2001 no longer get reported? Pamela Geller's web site Atlas Shrugs  revealed today that the London, England newspaper, The Telegraph, reported that 72 more remains of victims of the attack at the World Trade Center have just been found.
Geller writes: "We are still finding bodies of Americans murdered by Muslim terrorists on September 11th. Still. And the Islamic supremacists want to build a monster mosque on that sacred burial ground, a giant symbol of Islamic supremacism on the cherished site of land they think they conquered?"
Geller's greatest concerns surround the current issue about the construction of a mega mosque in the old Burlington Coat Factory building that was severely damaged when the landing gear of one of the hijacked jetliners crashed through 5 floors of the building. Now, some Muslims have purchased this building and plan to construct a giant size mosque on this hallowed ground. To add insult to injury, Michael Bloomberg, the mayor of New York City has given this project his approval. So if and when it is built, the people who live and work in lower Manhattan will have to endure the blaring loudspeakers issuing the daily calls to prayer.
Here is the full story from The Telegraph.
Remains of 72 people found at World Trade Center site

New York City officials say a renewed search this year of debris in and around the World Trade Center site has recovered 72 human remains. 

Published: 10:23AM BST 23 Jun 2010

The sifting of more than 800 cubic yards (612 cubic meters) of debris recovered from ground zero and underneath roads around the lower Manhattan site began in April and ended Friday.
The greatest number of remains – 37 – were found from material underneath West Street, a highway on the west side of ground zero. The new debris was uncovered as construction work made new parts of the site accessible.

The city began a renewed search for human remains in 2006. More than 1,800 remains have been found.

Some have been matched to previously unidentified 9/11 victims.

Sing along with Victoria Jackson: "There's a Communist Living in The White House"

Victoria Jackson was a cast member of "Saturday Night Live" from 1986 through 1992. More recently, she has become the diva of the tea-party movement. Her signature song?
"There's a Communist Living in the White House."
Let's all have a sing-along.

There, don't you feel better, now? If you want to know more about who Victoria Jackson is watch this video from her appearance at a Tea Party rally in Van Nuys, California on April 15, 2009. There is nothing dumb about this blonde. She is the real deal.

Saturday, June 26, 2010

Obama is a moral coward. His rules are murdering our troops.

Besides being ever vigilant over the surge of Islamic terrorism, both at home and abroad, the web site Bare Naked Islam is one of the biggest supporters behind our Armed Forces. It seems today that very few people besides our veterans and parents of our soldiers are the only ones showing any great concern for them. BNI gathers news from sources around the world and their latest concerns the parents of a soldier killed as a result of Barack Hussein Obama's new Rules Of Engagement in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The parents of Army soldier Benjamin Osborn say new military Rules of Engagement are making soldiers on the ground more vulnerable to attack, including they say, in the final battle that took their son’s life. “They were ambushed they were under attack and they couldn’t fire until they were ordered to do so,” Ben’s father Bill Osborn said.
Some troops have written home saying they have been ordered not to carry a live round chambered in their weapons while on patrol and cannot prepare to fire their weapons until they are ordered to. This is the way Obama wants our soldiers to fight the enemy, like sitting ducks waiting to be shot before they can even begin to fight back.
Here is a New York Post column written almost a year ago when these Rules of Engagement were first changed. Ask yourself why none of the other mainstream news media picked up on this story.
The rules murdering our troops
Ralph Peters, The New York Post
Last Updated: 2:55 AM, September 24, 2009
When enemy action kills our troops, it's unfortunate. When our own moral fecklessness murders those in uniform, it's unforgivable.

In Afghanistan, our leaders are complicit in the death of each soldier, Marine or Navy corpsman who falls because politically correct rules of engagement shield our enemies.

Mission-focused, but morally oblivious, Gen. Stan McChrystal conformed to the Obama Way of War by imposing rules of engagement that could have been concocted by Code Pink:

    * Unless our troops in combat are absolutely certain that no civilians are present, they're denied artillery or air support.

    * If any civilians appear where we meet the Taliban, our troops are to "break contact" -- to retreat.

These ROE are a cave-in to the Taliban's shameless propaganda campaign that claimed innocents were massacred every time our aircraft appeared overhead. (Afghan President Mohammed Karzai and our establishment media backed the terrorists.)

The Taliban's goal was to level the playing field -- to deny our troops their technological edge. Our enemies more than succeeded.

And what has our concern for the lives of Taliban sympathizers accomplished? The Taliban now make damned sure that civilians are present whenever they conduct an ambush or operation.

So they attack -- and we quit the fight, lugging our dead and wounded back to base.

We've been through this b.s. before. In Iraq, we wanted to show respect to our enemies, so the generals announced early on that we wouldn't enter mosques. The result? Hundreds of mosques became terrorist safe houses, bomb factories and weapons caches.

Why is this so hard to figure out? We tell our enemies we won't attack X. So they exploit X. Who wouldn't?

It isn't just that war is hell. It's that war must be hell, otherwise why would the enemy ever quit?

This week's rumblings from the White_House suggest that we may, at last, see a revised strategy that concentrates on killing our deadliest enemies -- but I'll believe it when I see the rounds go down-range.

Meanwhile, our troops die because our leaders are moral cowards.

Over the decades, political correctness insinuated itself into the ranks of our "Washington player" generals and admirals. We now have four-stars who believe that improving our enemies' self-esteem is a crucial wartime goal.

And the Army published its disastrous Counterinsurgency Manual a few years back -- doctrine written by military intellectuals who, instead of listening to Infantry squad leaders, made a show of consulting "peace advocates" and "humanitarian workers."

The result was a manual based on a few heavily edited case studies "proving" that the key to success in fighting terrorists is to hand out soccer balls to worm-eaten children. The doctrine ignored the brutal lessons of 3,000 years of history -- because history isn't politically correct (it shows, relentlessly, that the only effective way to fight faith-fueled insurgents is with fire and sword).

The New York Times lavished praise on the manual. What does that tell you?

A few senior officers continue to push me to "lay off" the Counterinsurgency Manual. Sorry, but I'm more concerned about supporting the youngest private on patrol than I am with the reputation of any general.

As a real general put it a century ago, "The purpose of an Army is to fight." And the purpose of going to war is to win (that dirty word). It's not to sacrifice our own troops to make sad-sack do-gooders back home feel good.

We need to recognize that true morality lies in backing our troops, not in letting them die for whacko theories.

The next time you read about the death of a soldier or Marine in Afghanistan, don't just blame the Taliban. Blame the generals and politicians who sent them to war, then took away their weapons.
Ralph Peters' new novel is "The War After Armageddon."

Thursday, June 24, 2010

The Muslim conquest of Europe. What will the next 20 years bring.

Libya's ruler Muammar al-Gaddafi has predicted this fate for Europe: “There are signs that Allah will grant victory to Islam in Europe without swords, without guns, without conquest. We don’t need terrorists, we don’t need homicide bombers. The 50+ million Muslims [in Europe] will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades.” How can this be true? Take a look at this video that tells the future of Europe for the next 20 years.

Here is the reason for concern. More immigrants are pouring into Europe and more Muslim births are occurring in Europe than all the other races and religions combined are having children. In other words, as the white population declines the Muslim population expands. Here is a video that explains how the statistics work.

Wednesday, June 23, 2010

A simple way to explain the effects of deficit spending.

A friend sent me an email yesterday with a photo of a 1957 lunch counter menu from F. W. Woolworth's department store. The prices on the menu are mind-boggling when compared to what you would pay in any modest eating place today. A slice of Apple Pie for 15 cents or a Ham Sandwich for 30 cents in 1957 would easily cost $3 to $4 today. This menu is pictured below and it immediately brought to mind the staggering deficit spending going on today in the Obama controlled Democrat dominated Congress. Take a look for yourself: (click the picture for a larger view)

For those who are good at math, the difference between the 15-cent price for a slice of Apple Pie (I'm not talking about any fancy restaurant here) and a today's average price of $3. is a staggering increase of 2,000%. Let me repeat that, two thousand percent. I recall that back in 1964 when I bought my first brand new car I paid $2,500 for a Ford Fairlane and in 1969 when I bought my first home we paid $26,000 for it. Just last year I bought another new car and paid more for it than what I paid for my first home. As a side note to my first new car purchase, at the time the Ford Fairlane came with two seat belts as standard equipment for the front passengers and I had three small children at the time. I took the car to the Ford service department and had three seat belts installed in the rear seat for them. They charged me $10 for the parts and labor.

So how does deficit spending decrease the value of our currency? If you take, for example, a gallon of milk, and that gallon represents the total amount of printed currency, and you add a gallon of water to double the volume you wind up with a very diluted milk.  Imagine doing that hundreds of times over and over and what you wind up with is very little milk and lots of water. This is just what happens when the Treasury Department prints more currency. The increase in the total volume of currency has diluted the value of the money in circulation and that reduces the spending value. The price of a slice of Apple Pie goes up and up as the value of the dollar to buy it goes down. 

Now the really bad part of this is that everything else in our country has also lost its value along with the money and this makes it a favorable opportunity for foreign countries to buy up American assets because they suddenly become very cheap investments. We will wake up some day and find that American's no longer own their own country. 

Is this part of Obama's plan for America?

New York Post hits bullseye on Muslim cultural divide

New Yorkistan? Don’t rule it out!

By Shavana Abruzzo
Last Updated: 5:06 PM, June 22, 2010

Read more in The New York Post.

There’s no denying the elephant in the room. Neither is there any rejoicing over the mosques proposed for Sheepshead Bay, Staten Island and Ground Zero because where there are mosques, there are Muslims, and where there are Muslims, there are problems.

Before New York becomes New Yorkistan, it is worth noting that the capital of Great Britain was London until it became known as “Londonstan,” degenerated by a Muslim community predominantly from South Asia and Africa, whose first generation of “British Asians” has made the United Kingdom into a launching pad for terrorists.

In its Nov. 29, 2008 article, “Mumbai attacks: British Muslims and terrorist attacks,” the Daily Telegraph reported, “A number of young British Muslims with roots in Pakistan have been responsible for terrorist attacks, both in Britain and abroad.”

Among the scum cited are: Omar Sharif, a student at King’s College London, who became a suicide bomber in Israel; Omar Khyam and his gang, who planned to bomb a shopping center and a London night club in 2004; Indian-born Dhiren Barot, a Muslim convert who recruited seven jihadists to bomb hotels in 2004; and the four July 7 suicide bombers of Pakistani descent, who attacked the London Underground in 2005.

These lowlifes are among the offspring of hard-working Pakistani and Indian workers, who migrated to Great Britain in the 1950s through the 1970s for a better life, toiling in foundries, at Heathrow Airport and — in the British version of affirmative action — as staff for government agencies, including the National Health Service.

Mindful of its controversial history, Great Britain welcomed its former colonials who fled their own oppressive regimes for refuge in the Free World. Some of the first waves lapped ashore in August 1972 after President Idi Amin Dada, a Muslim convert, expelled South Asians from Uganda in a mass ethnic cleanse, giving them 90 days to leave, and blaming his vile deed on God in a dream.

The assimilation Great Britain had hoped for never happened, as British Asians insulated themselves from mainstream society even more than their parents had, and fomented a deadly, illogical wrath against the western world in which they had been born.

Then, in the 1990s, British Asians bogglingly began to wield Islam as a bargaining chip against the state, and eventually as a tool of terror against the world, using their mosques as dens of iniquity, and exposing the Muslim character which left a lot to be desired despite its obsession with religion.

An Oct. 17, 2008 story in the London Sunday Times reported a link between terror plots and hardcore child pornography, which the newspaper stated was encrypted with secret messages by aspiring terrorists. “In one case fewer than a dozen images were found; in another, 40,000,” the paper reported. And, the scandalous North London Finsbury Park mosque boasted among its worshippers 9/11 co-conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui, “shoebomber” Richard Reid and Kamel Rabat Bouralha, a loyalist of Chechen warlord Shamil Basayev, who bragged of training terrorists responsible for the 2004 school hostage crisis in Beslan, Russia.

There is a lot the United States can learn from Great Britain’s rotten experience with a community which refuses to assume responsibility for its evil subculture — and one that only it can successfully eradicate.

New Yorkistan? It’s happening before our eyes.

Tuesday, June 22, 2010

American Muslim terrorist admits he is a "Muslim Soldier"

Admitted terrorist Faisal Shahzad, the U. S. Citizen who constructed and planted the Time Square bomb, told U.S. District Judge Miriam Cedarbaum in Federal Court that he was "a Muslim soldier". "One has to understand where I'm coming from," he said in an unusual departure from tightly scripted guilty pleas, with his defense attorney and prosecutors sitting in silence in federal court in Manhattan. "I consider myself ... a Muslim soldier."
According to the Associated Press news story appearing in today's newspapers, Shahzad told the court that his plot to commit terrorism in the United States began three months after he became a citizen. He traveled to Pakistan in 2009 to seek out training from the Taliban.
"During the trip, he said he sought and received five days' training in explosives from the Pakistani Taliban in the lawless Waziristan region before returning to the United States in February to pursue a one-man scheme to bring death and destruction to New York."
Federal prosecutors told the court Faisal Shahzad received cash payments while in Pakistan in the amounts of $5,000 on February 25, 2009 and another $7,000 on April 10, 2009. Shahzad confessed in court  that the Taliban also gave him another $4,000 when his training was over.
These admissions leave little doubt that the attempted terrorist bombing in Times Square was an act of war financed by a foreign terrorist organization in spite of New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's denials to the contrary. Liberal politicians like Bloomberg seem to have a problem placing blame on the right people. Bloomberg, in an interview with CBS's Katie Couric, initially said the bomb was likely planted by “somebody with a political agenda who doesn't like the health care bill or something. It could be anything.” Could be “anything,” but the first thing Bloomberg thinks of are those who don't like ObamaCare, presumably conservatives or Tea Party activists, as Newsbusters commented.
Newsbusters writer Brent Baker also mentioned in an update to his story:
****UPDATE: Speaking on Stephanie Miller's radio show, MSNBC's Contessa Brewer offered yet more misguided liberal pontifications on the would-be bomber's motives:
"I get frustrated...There was part of me that was hoping this was not going to be anybody with ties to any kind of Islamic country.
...There are a lot of people who want to use terrorist intent to justify writing off people who believe in a certain way or come from certain countries or whose skin color is a certain way. I mean they use it as justification for really outdated bigotry"
It is bad enough to be at war with terrorists on our own soil when the government refuses to admit it but when the mainstream news media seem to act like they were doing spin control to cover up for the acts of terrorism it begins to look like a conspiracy.

Here is Obama's Plan For America and why he must be stopped in November.

Barack Hussein Obama II, while technically belonging to the Democrat Party, has a long personal history of association with Marxists and Communists. In his own words he wrote in "Dreams of My Father" he said as a young man his mentor was a guy named Frank who was later identified as Frank Marshall Davis, a member of the Communist Party. Obama has received an advanced education in Socialism from Occidental College and Columbia University as well as Harvard. Like the saying goes, You are what you eat, in Obama's case, Birds of a feather (also) flock together. Some pundits have quipped that Obama is so far to the left he has given the Democrats a bad name. Now for those who doubt that Obama is following a Marxist/Socialist agenda, Wayne Allyn Root who was the 2008 Libertarian Party vice presidential nominee and serves on the Libertarian National Committee, has written an excellent analysis of just what Obama's agenda is. Those of us who still cherish America as a free nation should be very alarmed. This is why Obama must be stopped in the November elections. He must no longer have a single party advantage controlling our government.
WAYNE ALLYN ROOT: Obama's agenda: Overwhelm the system
Las Vegas Review-Journal June 22, 2010

Rahm Emanuel cynically said, "You never want a crisis to go to waste." It is now becoming clear that the crisis he was referring to is Barack Obama's presidency. Obama is no fool. He is not incompetent. To the contrary, he is brilliant. He knows exactly what he's doing. He is purposely overwhelming the U.S. economy to create systemic failure, economic crisis and social chaos -- thereby destroying capitalism and our country from within.

Barack Obama is my college classmate (Columbia University, class of '83). As Glenn Beck correctly predicted from day one, Obama is following the plan of Cloward & Piven, two professors at Columbia University. They outlined a plan to socialize America by overwhelming the system with government spending and entitlement demands. Add up the clues below. Taken individually they're alarming. Taken as a whole, it is a brilliant, Machiavellian game plan to turn the United States into a socialist/Marxist state with a permanent majority that desperately needs government for survival ... and can be counted on to always vote for bigger government. Why not? They have no responsibility to pay for it.

-- Universal health care. The health care bill had very little to do with health care. It had everything to do with unionizing millions of hospital and health care workers, as well as adding 15,000 to 20,000 new IRS agents (who will join government employee unions). Obama doesn't care that giving free health care to 30 million Americans will add trillions to the national debt. What he does care about is that it cements the dependence of those 30 million voters to Democrats and big government. Who but a socialist revolutionary would pass this reckless spending bill in the middle of a depression?

-- Cap and trade. Like health care legislation having nothing to do with health care, cap and trade has nothing to do with global warming. It has everything to do with redistribution of income, government control of the economy and a criminal payoff to Obama's biggest contributors. Those powerful and wealthy unions and contributors (like GE, which owns NBC, MSNBC and CNBC) can then be counted on to support everything Obama wants. They will kick-back hundreds of millions of dollars in contributions to Obama and the Democratic Party to keep them in power. The bonus is that all the new taxes on Americans with bigger cars, bigger homes and businesses helps Obama "spread the wealth around."

-- Make Puerto Rico a state. Why? Who's asking for a 51st state? Who's asking for millions of new welfare recipients and government entitlement addicts in the middle of a depression? Certainly not American taxpayers. But this has been Obama's plan all along. His goal is to add two new Democrat senators, five Democrat congressman and a million loyal Democratic voters who are dependent on big government.

-- Legalize 12 million illegal immigrants. Just giving these 12 million potential new citizens free health care alone could overwhelm the system and bankrupt America. But it adds 12 million reliable new Democrat voters who can be counted on to support big government. Add another few trillion dollars in welfare, aid to dependent children, food stamps, free medical, education, tax credits for the poor, and eventually Social Security.

-- Stimulus and bailouts. Where did all that money go? It went to Democrat contributors, organizations (ACORN), and unions -- including billions of dollars to save or create jobs of government employees across the country. It went to save GM and Chrysler so that their employees could keep paying union dues. It went to AIG so that Goldman Sachs could be bailed out (after giving Obama almost $1 million in contributions). A staggering $125 billion went to teachers (thereby protecting their union dues). All those public employees will vote loyally Democrat to protect their bloated salaries and pensions that are bankrupting America. The country goes broke, future generations face a bleak future, but Obama, the Democrat Party, government, and the unions grow more powerful. The ends justify the means.

-- Raise taxes on small business owners, high-income earners, and job creators. Put the entire burden on only the top 20 percent of taxpayers, redistribute the income, punish success, and reward those who did nothing to deserve it (except vote for Obama). Reagan wanted to dramatically cut taxes in order to starve the government. Obama wants to dramatically raise taxes to starve his political opposition.

With the acts outlined above, Obama and his regime have created a vast and rapidly expanding constituency of voters dependent on big government; a vast privileged class of public employees who work for big government; and a government dedicated to destroying capitalism and installing themselves as socialist rulers by overwhelming the system.

Add it up and you've got the perfect Marxist scheme -- all devised by my Columbia University college classmate Barack Obama.

Wayne Allyn Root was the 2008 Libertarian Party vice presidential nominee and serves on the Libertarian National Committee.

Saturday, June 19, 2010

Islam is not "The religion of peace". Islam is full of lies, hatred and deceit.

Many years ago, during the cold war between the Soviet Union and the United States, an observer who was very familiar with communism stated: Peace to a communist means the absence of resistance to communism. Throughout modern history many oppressive groups have tossed around the word "Peace" and they all seem to have a similar definition. Today, followers of Islam claim they are "The religion of peace" and at the same time say that "Islam" means "Submission". The opposite of submission is resistance, so it stands that only those who submit to Islam will have peace.

Those who are familiar with Islam know that the Quran (Koran) contains explicit rules regarding high crimes against their religion along with draconian forms of punishment such as chopping off fingers, hands, feet and heads. Among the most severe crimes spelled out in the Quran is anything that Muslims consider to be an insult against the prophet Muhammad. Another is reserved for any Muslim who converts to another religion. Those who fall into the later are called Apostates, which in the eyes of Islam is punishable by death and those insults against the prophet can be anything, including drawing a picture of him. When the writers of the cartoon series South Park included a picture of Muhammad in their episode about super heroes, they received death threats from all over the world. Comedy Central, the network that broadcasts South Park, began to censor any mention of Muhammad. To retaliate against that censorship and to illustrate American's love for Freedom of Speech, a page was started on Facebook called Everybody Draw Muhammad Day and set May 20th as the day to celebrate the event. Thousands of people posted their drawings. A few weeks later the people running Facebook removed the page and all of the drawings but that didn't end the controversy. 

Bare Naked Islam (BNI) reports: "Facebook apologizes over ‘blasphemy’ Pakistan says Facebook has apologized to the country and has removed the blasphemous content that had prompted Islamabad to ban the social networking website.
“In response to our protest, Facebook has tendered their apology and informed us that all the sacrilegious material has been removed from the URL,” Najibullah Malik, secretary of Pakistan’s information technology ministry, was quoted by AP as saying on Monday.  Islamabad, in turn, lifted a ban it had imposed on the social networking website, after Facebook assured the Pakistani government that “nothing of this sort will happen in the future,” Malik said."
Then a story appeared on May 23, 2010 in The News International, a pro-Islamic web site in Lahore, Pakistan, that says Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg is being investigated by Pakistani police under a section of the penal code that makes blasphemy against the prophet Muhammad punishable by death.

BNI writes: "According to English-language Pakistani newspaper The News International, a Pakistani High Court judge summoned the police after lawyer Muhammad Azhar Siddique filed an application for a First Information Report (FIR), claiming that the owners of Facebook had committed a heinous and serious crime under Section 295-C of the Pakistan Penal Code. In essence, an FIR launches a criminal investigation."

Here is the full text from The News International story:
 SHO summoned on plea for case against Facebook
Sunday, May 23, 2010
By Our Correspondent


ADDITIONAL District and Sessions Judge Nazar Hussain on Saturday summoned the station house officer (SHO) Civil Lines in a petition seeking registration of a criminal case against owners of Facebook for hosting a blasphemous cartoon contest.

The petition was filed by Muhammad Azhar Siddique, chairman of the Judicial Activism Panel (JAP), who informed the court that an application for registration of an FIR was filed with the Civil Lines Police but the SHO was reluctant to proceed on the application. He argued that the blasphemous act of Facebook amounted to infringement of social of values, national and international laws and protocols as well as the Charter of the United Nations. He said the owners of Facebook (Mark Elliot Zuckerberg and Dustin Moskovitz), the artist (Andy) and the management of the website had committed a heinous and serious crime under Section 295-C of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (PPC) read with Section 109 of the PPC as well as other provisions of law in this regard.

Section 295-C of the PPC says, ìUse of derogatory remark etc, in respect of the Holy Prophet, whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representation, or by any imputation, innuendo, or insinuation, directly or indirectly, defiles the sacred name of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him) shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable for fine.’

The petitioner-lawyer further said that Section 109 of the PPC ran says: ‘109. Punishment of abetment if the act abetted is committed in consequence and where no express provisions is made for its punishment: Whoever abets any offence shall, if the act is abetted is committed in consequence of the abetment, and no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such abatement, be punished with the punishment provided for the offence.’
A very important video has been created by The Center for the Study of Political Islam called Deceitful Islam that reveals:

Islam: 270 Million Bodies in 1400 Years - What Every Infidel Must Know! 

Islam is not now and never has been concerned with Peace. Not as western civilization defines the term. Islam is only concerned with Submission and world conquest.

Monday, June 14, 2010

Do Americans have the backbone to stand up and fight?

The mainstream media as well as the conservative blogs are filled with stories about the Tea Party movement, the flag waving, protesting Americans filling the streets of the nation's capitol and coming out in droves to every elected official's townhall meetings. The Tea Party support for many primary candidates has successfully placed them on the ballots for the November mid-term elections. Many sources claim the Democrats are in a state of panic because of the overwhelming rejection to the Marxist-Socialist programs spilling out of Congress.

So what are the Democrats planing to do to survive? We've heard they are hoping to cash in on millions of new voters if they can get through the means before November to grant citizenship to the 10-15 million illegal aliens who have already crossed our borders . We've even heard the warnings that there may not even be a mid-term election if some catastrophic event hits America.

The mid-term elections could be postponed if Martial Law were declared if thousands of unemployed, homeless, starving mobs began to riot in the streets. Or possibly, the collapse of our economy caused by our mounting debt. The national unemployment rate is a number that has been politically manipulated for many years to hide the truth. As far back as when Bill Clinton was president the Department of Labor , which keeps track of these figures, began to change the rules as to how the number of unemployed were counted. Now, people who have been unemployed for over a year are considered to have given up trying to find a job and are dropped from the count. If this group of people are added back into the count, the true number of unemployed would not be 10%, it would be twice that much, almost 1/4 of the nation's workforce. At the moment, Congress is passing one extension of benefits after another for these people but what would happen if those benefits ended? Another side effect is the monumental deficit spending to support these programs and what it is doing to our economy and the value of our currency.

The disaster in the Gulf of Mexico following the explosion of the oil rig Deepwater Horizon has already resulted in Barack Hussein Obama ordering a halt to all off-shore drilling. This may result in a sudden surge in gasoline prices this Summer and force America to become totally dependent on imported oil and put us at the mercy of the Middle-East controlled OPEC.

There is no question that the Obama gang is against the private ownership of guns and that it supports the United Nations treaty to ban small arms ownership. Should this treaty be finalized in the U.N. and ratified by the U.S. Senate it would abrogate our 2nd Amendment rights. Some gun owners have said this would be an ACT OF WAR and it would bring about a second American Revolution.

There are several questions that remain to be answered. Do Americans have the backbone to stand up to our government and fight to take back their country if it comes to actual violence? What will our military and law enforcement do to combat their fellow citizens should such a rebellion occur?  Groups, such as The Oath Keepers have proclaimed a list of illegal orders that military and law enforcement people should affirm they will not obey.
1. We will NOT obey any order to disarm the American people.
2. We will NOT obey any order to conduct warrantless searches of the American people, their homes, vehicles, papers, or effects -- such as warrantless house-to house searches for weapons or persons.
3. We will NOT obey any order to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to trial by military tribunal.
4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state, or to enter with force into a state, without the express consent and invitation of that state’s legislature and governor. 
5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty and declares the national government to be in violation of the compact by which that state entered the Union. 
6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps. 
7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext. 
8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control” during any emergency, or under any other pretext. We will consider such use of foreign troops against our people to be an invasion and an act of war. 
9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies, under any emergency pretext whatsoever. 
10. We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.

"Tyrants know that the pen of a man such as Thomas Paine can cause them more damage than entire armies, and thus they always seek to suppress the natural rights of speech, association, and assembly. Without freedom of speech, the people will have no recourse but to arms. Without freedom of speech and conscience, there is no freedom.
Therefore, we will not obey or support any orders to suppress or violate the right of the people to speak, associate, worship, assemble, communicate, or petition government for the redress of grievances.
— And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually affirm our oath and pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor. Oath Keepers"
Perhaps we should go back and study our history and learn more about the first American Revolution. Maybe these words from Thomas Paine will help.
The Crisis 
by Thomas Paine

December 23, 1776

THESE are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated. Britain, with an army to enforce her tyranny, has declared that she has a right (not only to TAX) but "to BIND us in ALL CASES WHATSOEVER" and if being bound in that manner, is not slavery, then is there not such a thing as slavery upon earth. Even the expression is impious; for so unlimited a power can belong only to God.
Whether the independence of the continent was declared too soon, or delayed too long, I will not now enter into as an argument; my own simple opinion is, that had it been eight months earlier, it would have been much better. We did not make a proper use of last winter, neither could we, while we were in a dependent state. However, the fault, if it were one, was all our own; we have none to blame but ourselves. But no great deal is lost yet. All that Howe has been doing for this month past, is rather a ravage than a conquest, which the spirit of the Jerseys, a year ago, would have quickly repulsed, and which time and a little resolution will soon recover.
I have as little superstition in me as any man living, but my secret opinion has ever been, and still is, that God Almighty will not give up a people to military destruction, or leave them unsupportedly to perish, who have so earnestly and so repeatedly sought to avoid the calamities of war, by every decent method which wisdom could invent. Neither have I so much of the infidel in me, as to suppose that He has relinquished the government of the world, and given us up to the care of devils; and as I do not, I cannot see on what grounds the king of Britain can look up to heaven for help against us: a common murderer, a highwayman, or a house-breaker, has as good a pretence as he.
'Tis surprising to see how rapidly a panic will sometimes run through a country. All nations and ages have been subject to them. Britain has trembled like an ague at the report of a French fleet of flat-bottomed boats; and in the fourteenth [fifteenth] century the whole English army, after ravaging the kingdom of France, was driven back like men petrified with fear; and this brave exploit was performed by a few broken forces collected and headed by a woman, Joan of Arc. Would that heaven might inspire some Jersey maid to spirit up her countrymen, and save her fair fellow sufferers from ravage and ravishment! Yet panics, in some cases, have their uses; they produce as much good as hurt. Their duration is always short; the mind soon grows through them, and acquires a firmer habit than before. But their peculiar advantage is, that they are the touchstones of sincerity and hypocrisy, and bring things and men to light, which might otherwise have lain forever undiscovered. In fact, they have the same effect on secret traitors, which an imaginary apparition would have upon a private murderer. They sift out the hidden thoughts of man, and hold them up in public to the world. Many a disguised Tory has lately shown his head, that shall penitentially solemnize with curses the day on which Howe arrived upon the Delaware.
As I was with the troops at Fort Lee, and marched with them to the edge of Pennsylvania, I am well acquainted with many circumstances, which those who live at a distance know but little or nothing of. Our situation there was exceedingly cramped, the place being a narrow neck of land between the North River and the Hackensack. Our force was inconsiderable, being not one-fourth so great as Howe could bring against us. We had no army at hand to have relieved the garrison, had we shut ourselves up and stood on our defence. Our ammunition, light artillery, and the best part of our stores, had been removed, on the apprehension that Howe would endeavor to penetrate the Jerseys, in which case Fort Lee could be of no use to us; for it must occur to every thinking man, whether in the army or not, that these kind of field forts are only for temporary purposes, and last in use no longer than the enemy directs his force against the particular object which such forts are raised to defend. Such was our situation and condition at Fort Lee on the morning of the 20th of November, when an officer arrived with information that the enemy with 200 boats had landed about seven miles above; Major General [Nathaniel] Green, who commanded the garrison, immediately ordered them under arms, and sent express to General Washington at the town of Hackensack, distant by the way of the ferry = six miles. Our first object was to secure the bridge over the Hackensack, which laid up the river between the enemy and us, about six miles from us, and three from them. General Washington arrived in about three-quarters of an hour, and marched at the head of the troops towards the bridge, which place I expected we should have a brush for; however, they did not choose to dispute it with us, and the greatest part of our troops went over the bridge, the rest over the ferry, except some which passed at a mill on a small creek, between the bridge and the ferry, and made their way through some marshy grounds up to the town of Hackensack, and there passed the river. We brought off as much baggage as the wagons could contain, the rest was lost. The simple object was to bring off the garrison, and march them on till they could be strengthened by the Jersey or Pennsylvania militia, so as to be enabled to make a stand. We staid four days at Newark, collected our out-posts with some of the Jersey militia, and marched out twice to meet the enemy, on being informed that they were advancing, though our numbers were greatly inferior to theirs. Howe, in my little opinion, committed a great error in generalship in not throwing a body of forces off from Staten Island through Amboy, by which means he might have seized all our stores at Brunswick, and intercepted our march into Pennsylvania; but if we believe the power of hell to be limited, we must likewise believe that their agents are under some providential control.
I shall not now attempt to give all the particulars of our retreat to the Delaware; suffice it for the present to say, that both officers and men, though greatly harassed and fatigued, frequently without rest, covering, or provision, the inevitable consequences of a long retreat, bore it with a manly and martial spirit. All their wishes centred in one, which was, that the country would turn out and help them to drive the enemy back. Voltaire has remarked that King William never appeared to full advantage but in difficulties and in action; the same remark may be made on General Washington, for the character fits him. There is a natural firmness in some minds which cannot be unlocked by trifles, but which, when unlocked, discovers a cabinet of fortitude; and I reckon it among those kind of public blessings, which we do not immediately see, that God hath blessed him with uninterrupted health, and given him a mind that can even flourish upon care.
I shall conclude this paper with some miscellaneous remarks on the state of our affairs; and shall begin with asking the following question, Why is it that the enemy have left the New England provinces, and made these middle ones the seat of war? The answer is easy: New England is not infested with Tories, and we are. I have been tender in raising the cry against these men, and used numberless arguments to show them their danger, but it will not do to sacrifice a world either to their folly or their baseness. The period is now arrived, in which either they or we must change our sentiments, or one or both must fall. And what is a Tory? Good God! What is he? I should not be afraid to go with a hundred Whigs against a thousand Tories, were they to attempt to get into arms. Every Tory is a coward; for servile, slavish, self-interested fear is the foundation of Toryism; and a man under such influence, though he may be cruel, never can be brave.
But, before the line of irrecoverable separation be drawn between us, let us reason the matter together: Your conduct is an invitation to the enemy, yet not one in a thousand of you has heart enough to join him. Howe is as much deceived by you as the American cause is injured by you. He expects you will all take up arms, and flock to his standard, with muskets on your shoulders. Your opinions are of no use to him, unless you support him personally, for 'tis soldiers, and not Tories, that he wants.
I once felt all that kind of anger, which a man ought to feel, against the mean principles that are held by the Tories: a noted one, who kept a tavern at Amboy, was standing at his door, with as pretty a child in his hand, about eight or nine years old, as I ever saw, and after speaking his mind as freely as he thought was prudent, finished with this unfatherly expression, "Well! give me peace in my day." Not a man lives on the continent but fully believes that a separation must some time or other finally take place, and a generous parent should have said, "If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace;" and this single reflection, well applied, is sufficient to awaken every man to duty. Not a place upon earth might be so happy as America. Her situation is remote from all the wrangling world, and she has nothing to do but to trade with them. A man can distinguish himself between temper and principle, and I am as confident, as I am that God governs the world, that America will never be happy till she gets clear of foreign dominion. Wars, without ceasing, will break out till that period arrives, and the continent must in the end be conqueror; for though the flame of liberty may sometimes cease to shine, the coal can never expire.
America did not, nor does not want force; but she wanted a proper application of that force. Wisdom is not the purchase of a day, and it is no wonder that we should err at the first setting off. From an excess of tenderness, we were unwilling to raise an army, and trusted our cause to the temporary defence of a well-meaning militia. A summer's experience has now taught us better; yet with those troops, while they were collected, we were able to set bounds to the progress of the enemy, and, thank God! they are again assembling. I always considered militia as the best troops in the world for a sudden exertion, but they will not do for a long campaign. Howe, it is probable, will make an attempt on this city [Philadelphia]; should he fail on this side the Delaware, he is ruined. If he succeeds, our cause is not ruined. He stakes all on his side against a part on ours; admitting he succeeds, the consequence will be, that armies from both ends of the continent will march to assist their suffering friends in the middle states; for he cannot go everywhere, it is impossible. I consider Howe as the greatest enemy the Tories have; he is bringing a war into their country, which, had it not been for him and partly for themselves, they had been clear of. Should he now be expelled, I wish with all the devotion of a Christian, that the names of Whig and Tory may never more be mentioned; but should the Tories give him encouragement to come, or assistance if he come, I as sincerely wish that our next year's arms may expel them from the continent, and the Congress appropriate their possessions to the relief of those who have suffered in well-doing. A single successful battle next year will settle the whole. America could carry on a two years' war by the confiscation of the property of disaffected persons, and be made happy by their expulsion. Say not that this is revenge, call it rather the soft resentment of a suffering people, who, having no object in view but the good of all, have staked their own all upon a seemingly doubtful event. Yet it is folly to argue against determined hardness; eloquence may strike the ear, and the language of sorrow draw forth the tear of compassion, but nothing can reach the heart that is steeled with prejudice.
Quitting this class of men, I turn with the warm ardor of a friend to those who have nobly stood, and are yet determined to stand the matter out: I call not upon a few, but upon all: not on this state or that state, but on every state: up and help us; lay your shoulders to the wheel; better have too much force than too little, when so great an object is at stake. Let it be told to the future world, that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive, that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet and to repulse it. Say not that thousands are gone, turn out your tens of thousands; throw not the burden of the day upon Providence, but "show your faith by your works," that God may bless you. It matters not where you live, or what rank of life you hold, the evil or the blessing will reach you all. The far and the near, the home counties and the back, the rich and the poor, will suffer or rejoice alike. The heart that feels not now is dead; the blood of his children will curse his cowardice, who shrinks back at a time when a little might have saved the whole, and made them happy. I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little minds to shrink; but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death. My own line of reasoning is to myself as straight and clear as a ray of light. Not all the treasures of the world, so far as I believe, could have induced me to support an offensive war, for I think it murder; but if a thief breaks into my house, burns and destroys my property, and kills or threatens to kill me, or those that are in it, and to "bind me in all cases whatsoever" to his absolute will, am I to suffer it? What signifies it to me, whether he who does it is a king or a common man; my countryman or not my countryman; whether it be done by an individual villain, or an army of them? If we reason to the root of things we shall find no difference; neither can any just cause be assigned why we should punish in the one case and pardon in the other. Let them call me rebel and welcome, I feel no concern from it; but I should suffer the misery of devils, were I to make a whore of my soul by swearing allegiance to one whose character is that of a sottish, stupid, stubborn, worthless, brutish man. I conceive likewise a horrid idea in receiving mercy from a being, who at the last day shall be shrieking to the rocks and mountains to cover him, and fleeing with terror from the orphan, the widow, and the slain of America.
There are cases which cannot be overdone by language, and this is one. There are persons, too, who see not the full extent of the evil which threatens them; they solace themselves with hopes that the enemy, if he succeed, will be merciful. It is the madness of folly, to expect mercy from those who have refused to do justice; and even mercy, where conquest is the object, is only a trick of war; the cunning of the fox is as murderous as the violence of the wolf, and we ought to guard equally against both. Howe's first object is, partly by threats and partly by promises, to terrify or seduce the people to deliver up their arms and receive mercy. The ministry recommended the same plan to Gage, and this is what the tories call making their peace, "a peace which passeth all understanding" indeed! A peace which would be the immediate forerunner of a worse ruin than any we have yet thought of. Ye men of Pennsylvania, do reason upon these things! Were the back counties to give up their arms, they would fall an easy prey to the Indians, who are all armed: this perhaps is what some Tories would not be sorry for. Were the home counties to deliver up their arms, they would be exposed to the resentment of the back counties who would then have it in their power to chastise their defection at pleasure. And were any one state to give up its arms, that state must be garrisoned by all Howe's army of Britons and Hessians to preserve it from the anger of the rest. Mutual fear is the principal link in the chain of mutual love, and woe be to that state that breaks the compact. Howe is mercifully inviting you to barbarous destruction, and men must be either rogues or fools that will not see it. I dwell not upon the vapors of imagination; I bring reason to your ears, and, in language as plain as A, B, C, hold up truth to your eyes.
I thank God, that I fear not. I see no real cause for fear. I know our situation well, and can see the way out of it. While our army was collected, Howe dared not risk a battle; and it is no credit to him that he decamped from the White Plains, and waited a mean opportunity to ravage the defenceless Jerseys; but it is great credit to us, that, with a handful of men, we sustained an orderly retreat for near an hundred miles, brought off our ammunition, all our field pieces, the greatest part of our stores, and had four rivers to pass. None can say that our retreat was precipitate, for we were near three weeks in performing it, that the country might have time to come in. Twice we marched back to meet the enemy, and remained out till dark. The sign of fear was not seen in our camp, and had not some of the cowardly and disaffected inhabitants spread false alarms through the country, the Jerseys had never been ravaged. Once more we are again collected and collecting; our new army at both ends of the continent is recruiting fast, and we shall be able to open the next campaign with sixty thousand men, well armed and clothed. This is our situation, and who will may know it. By perseverance and fortitude we have the prospect of a glorious issue; by cowardice and submission, the sad choice of a variety of evils — a ravaged country — a depopulated city — habitations without safety, and slavery without hope — our homes turned into barracks and bawdy-houses for Hessians, and a future race to provide for, whose fathers we shall doubt of. Look on this picture and weep over it! and if there yet remains one thoughtless wretch who believes it not, let him suffer it unlamented.
December 23, 1776
The Crisis is a collection of articles written by Thomas Paine during the American Revolutionary War. In 1776 Paine wrote Common Sense, an extremely popular and successful pamphlet arguing for Independence from England. The essays collected here constitute Paine's ongoing support for an independent and self-governing America through the many severe crises of the Revolutionary War. General Washington found the first essay so inspiring, he ordered that it be read to the troops at Valley Forge.

Sunday, June 13, 2010

Barack Hussein Obama tells Egyptian Foreign Minister he is still a Muslim

This repost adds two additional sources of confirmation.
Pamela Geller has revealed on her web site Atlas Shrugs "Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit said he had a one-on-one meeting with Obama, in which President Obama told him that he was still a Muslim, the son of a Muslim father, the stepson of Muslim stepfather, that his half brothers in Kenya are Muslims, and that he was sympathetic towards the Muslim agenda."
The same news was reported in April 29, 2010 on-line issue of Israel Today  from an article written by by  Aviel Schneider.
"The American President told me in confidence that he is a Muslim," said Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit on Nile TV. That could explain why Obama has instructed that the term "Islamic extremism" no longer be used in official government documents and statements. 
Barack Hussein Obama has also been seen in a video posted on YouTube created by a group called Feel the Change Media highlighting Obama's numerous remarks about Islam:

Avi Lipkin provided a second confirmation for the Nile TV interview with Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit. In the June 15, 2010 issue of  on-line news magazine Web Today he wrote:
"6. Finally, during the week of 14-18th of January 2010, just on the eve of my winter tour to the US, Rachel picked up a Nile TV broadcast in which Egyptian Foreign Minister Abul Gheit said on the "Round Table Show" that he had had a one on one meeting with Obama who swore to him that he was a Moslem, the son of a Moslem father and step-son of Moslem step-father, that his half-brothers in Kenya were Moslems, and that he was loyal to the Moslem agenda. He asked that the Moslem world show patience. Obama promised that once he overcame some domestic American problems (Healthcare), that he would show the Moslem world what he would do with Israel."
Here is the complete text of the article:
OBAMA, NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY AND ISRAEL by Avi Lipkin- Category:Christian_Conservative_News

On the first page of both editions of the International Herald Tribune and The Jerusalem Post of April 7th, 2010, it is reported that the US pledges not to use nuclear weapons against NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty) nations 'in compliance' with obligations.

US President Barack Hussein Obama declared that Iran and North Korea would become more isolated, in announcing a new policy that restricts America's use of nuclear weapons except in the event that those states violate their international obligations. America promises not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states.

It would seem that Israel is not affected because it has never publicly declared it has nuclear weapons and is not an NPT signatory. Or is it? Is there not perhaps some underlying threat to isolate Israel at this upcoming NPT conference?

In many past issues of Israel Today Magazine, I have related experiences I have gone through in the United States over the last twenty years, experiences about threats to Israel from the US government that send a shiver down my spine. I will briefly recount two of them.

The first took place in Dallas, Texas in April 1991, and is repeated in all five of my books as well as many of my cd's and dvd's. I was invited as a guest speaker by the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations) to the Dallas Council on World Affairs in the aftermath of Desert Storm. To make a long story short, I was told during the Q&A that Israel would be sacrificed for a barrel of oil and that Israel needed to immediately surrender all the land taken in wars of self-defense and return to the borders of June 5th, 1967, which basically meant Israel's inability to defend itself

I was told that Israel was isolated. America was no longer an ally, and Israel would never again be resupplied as was the case in the Yom Kippur War in 1973. I was told that the only thing that made America great was the barrel of oil and that these globalists would not allow Israel to come in the way of that. It was my Christian friends in attendance that night that put things into perspective: What made America great was not the barrel of oil. In their words, what made America great was "Jesus Christ."

This meant that Americans had to make the choice between serving God or serving mammon or money. It was then that I realized that Washington was controlled not by Christians but by anti-Christians who cared not for Israel, the Bible, God, or for that matter Jesus Christ. We Jews lost one third of our people because of these people, a Roosevelt Administration that did not see fit to grant Jews visas, but on the contrary blocked them from leaving Nazi occupied Europe, thus sealing their fates in gas chambers in deference to the Arab-oil agenda.

When I told this testimony in a church in Washington State in 1998, I experienced the second testimony warning of a threat to Israel from the US military/government. A Christian sailor, today the pastor of that church, saved his ship in an act of great heroism. In return for this, he was recommended for promotion to an officer's course. But first, this sailor had to pass the "loyalty" test. The question was: "What would you do if you were captain of this ship and ordered by Washington, DC to launch a nuclear strike at Tel-Aviv?"

This sailor shrugged and laughed. "Why are you laughing?" asked the captain. His answer was:"Firstly, I am a Christian. God promised that Israel would never be destroyed. Secondly, I wouldn't want to be on that ship because God would destroy that ship and all on board."

This does not refer to the navies of the Russians, the Arabs or the Turks. This applies to the navy of the so-called greatest Christian nation on Earth, the United States of America.

Today, the United States has a president by the name of Mubarack Hussein Obama. Until proven otherwise by a real live birth certificate, I would rather believe that according to the US Constitution, this president is ineligible to be president of the US because he was born in Kenya, not the US.

Here is a list of radio/TV/newspaper reports my wife, Rachel, picked up at Kol Israel radio in the Arabic language as a monitor over the last decade:

1. The Saudis and Libyans were both saying for years in many broadcasts prior to 2004 that in 2008, there would be a Moslem president in the White House. My wife could not understand what they were talking about because prior to 2004, no one knew who this freshman senator from Illinois was.

2. There is no debate about the fact that his biological father and step-father were Sunni Moslems and that he was raised until age 11 in Islamic schools and mosques in Islamic Indonesia. This makes Obama a Moslem according to the Moslem faith. We shall not talk of his white mother who belonged to the anti-Christian left.

3. How could Obama get a Fulbright Scholarship under the name of Barry Soetoro as a foreign student and still claim to be an American? (Maybe he even overstayed his foreign student visa and is an illegal alien in the US?)

4. How did Obama travel to Pakistan in 1981 if he was not allowed to do so with an American passport? What passport did he use then?

5. It is repeated over and over again in the Saudi media that "Either America is our ally or it is not. If it is, it must deal first with Iran and the Shiites and then afterward with Israel and the Jews. If it is not our ally, we will withdraw our support from the US economy and deny them our money and oil." (How can it be that Wall Street has risen from 6,000 in January 2009 to 11,000 in April 2010? Has the American economy done just so superbly to justify this, or is there some intervention or manipulation by extraterritorial monies to float Wall Street?)

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

We are today on the eve of the commemoration of the Holocaust. I was concerned enough over the last twenty years from the two primary testimonies above relating to non-Moslem allies of the oil cartels before the manipulation that put Mubarack Hussein Obama into the White House. How concerned show I be now if the US President is a Moslem loyal to the Moslem agenda to destroy Israel? I can understand why Prime Minister Netanyahu is so adamant not to offend this president of the US. But I still think it would behoove us to work with the 2/3's of the US Congress that sent this president a letter telling him to stop harassing Israel. Former Ambassador Yoram Ettinger did a wonderful job in Washington, DC, in the US Congress precisely during some of the most difficult times experienced between the Shamir and George Herbert Walker Bush Administrations in 1990-92. I also believe we must take this to the people. It is time to create an awakening amongst are true brethren and allies in the US: the Christians. We must pray for a Christian Revival for Israel's Survival. We must work together to prevent the Islamic Holocaust staring us in the face.
This image was NOT photoshopped.
Now we know what we have always suspected to be true is, in fact, true; the people of the United States of America have been fooled and misled by the ultra-left news media into electing a Muslim who may not even be a citizen of the United States to be president. Now we should pay even closer attention to all of the little details that surround Barack Hussein Obama and try to understand what these details mean. Here is another amazing observation posted on the Free Republic web site:
Obama: First U.S. President to hold Press Conference without the American Flags Present.

Posted on Friday, May 28, 2010 5:30:07 AM by Retired Intelligence Officer
Did anybody notice at President Obama's Press Conference on the Deep Water Horizon disaster than something was missing in the background? I noticed something didn't look right and then it hit me. The American Flags was missing behind. Why? Behind him was just yellow curtains, and a couple of gold columns with chandeliers.
I went and researched and looked at all photos of many press conferences (not press briefings) of past presidents as far as I could go and low and behold the American Flags stood proudly behind the President or off to the side. What was the reason for this? This was Obama's first formal press conference since July of 09 which at that conference were U.S. Flags present. I am pretty sure this time that they had plenty of time to plan this and get it right?
So, maybe there was another motive for the flags absence. We know Obama (or his handlers) carefully choreograph his image, his appearances... It's why he's so teleprompter-dependent. Surely he and his advisers know that flag issues have been a lightning rod -- even before he was elected. I think this was deliberate. Could it be that Obama really is ashamed of America? Could it be that he thinks he is the citizen of the world which has no flag? Ladies and gentlemen this is very disturbing coming from the office of the Presidency. This is not normal to not have the symbol of the United States and its government in the east room of the White House and it is not very Presidential either. Many patriotic brave men and women have died under the stars and stripes called old glory. This fiasco coupled with the President skipping the laying of the Wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier at Arlington Cemetary this Memorial Day speaks volumes of the man (or Usurper) that sits in the Oval Office. What say you?
Pamela Geller lists a review of Barack Hussein Obama's other revealing statements, none of which have been questioned or talked about in the mainstream media. Combining all of the following with the fact that Obama has paid out millions of dollars to a law firm to keep secret all of his background documents makes it obvious that America has, in Pamela Geller's words, become victim to a successful "Islamic Coup on the White House.
March 2009, Obama declares the "war on terror" is over despite a dramatic increase in jihad war ops.
March 2009, he floats the idea that he will talk to violent, genocidal Hamas.
March 2009, he demands, recruits and insists that more Muslim Americans work in the Obama administration.
April 2009, Obama tells Europe to admit Islamic Turkey into EU, much to the consternation of the Europeans.
April 2009, Obama demands non-Muslims respect Islam (despite our differences) in a speech in Turkey.
April 2009, Obama in a speech from Turkey: "We are not a Christian nation."
April 2009, Dalia Mogahed, the first hijab-clad senior adviser to Obama on Muslim affairs says in an interview with terrorist- and jihad-supporting Sheik Yusuf  Qaradawi's website, "Many have claimed that terrorists have 'hijacked Islam'. I disagree. I think Islam is safe and thriving in the lives of Muslims around the world. What the terrorists have been allowed to take over are Muslim grievances."
In April 2009, Obama lays groundwork for a partnership with Hamas.
May 2009, Obama promises to offer his "personal commitment" to Muslims.
May 2009, Obama calls America "one of the largest Muslim countries on the planet."
June  2009, Obama invites the Muslim Brotherhood, violent global jihadist group whose sole objective is a universal caliphate, to his speech to the ummah (Muslim community) in Cairo.
June 2009, Obama makes a stunning speech to the Muslim world from Al Azhar University in Cairo. It defies explanation.
July 2009, Obama reaches out to the violent jihadists of Hezb'allah.
July 2009, Obama creates a new office at the State department, Outreach to the Worldwide Muslim community, reporting directly to Hillary Clinton.

Obama promises to close GITMO.
Obama is rebuked when plans are revealed for CIA prosecutions for 911 interrogations: Seven Ex-chiefs of CIA Oppose Case Review: ALL Sign letter to Stop CIA Persecutions.
In July, Obama sanctions the brutal crackdown of those marching for freedom in Iran and sides with the mullahcracy. He stands silent about the Iranian regime's mass executions, mass rape and murder.
July 2009, Obama plans to slash US nuclear arsenal.
September 2009.  Bolton on Obama at the UN: "This is the most radical anti-Israel speech I can recall any president making" "I have to say I was very shaken by this speech."
October 2009, Obama offers millions in Muslim technology fund.
November 2009, Fort Hood Jihad Cover up:  Obama Urges Congress To Put Off Fort Hood Probe, Warns Against Turning Tragedy Into "Political Theater."
November 2009, Obama offers the Taliban control of the Kandahar, Helmand, Oruzgan, Kunar and Nuristan provinces, in return for a halt to the Taliban missile attacks on U.S. bases.
November 2009, Obama Reaches out to bloody Jihadis in the Philippines.
 On Thanksgiving eve, Obama issues a special Hajj message to the world's Muslims.
December 2009,  Obama's "Non-Religious" White House Christmas and No Christmas Gifts for his Kids.
February 2010, Obama names a Hafiz to the Organization of the Islamic Conference. "And as a hafiz of the Koran, [Hussain] is a respected member of the American Muslim community," Obama said in his message to the Doha meeting, using the term for someone who has mastered and memorized the Muslim holy book. 
February 2010, Obama cuts US space program, orders NASA to work with Muslim countries.
February 2010, covering up for jihadists in the White House.
Obama's counter terrorism adviser, John Brennan, Involved in Obama Passport Breach.
March 2010, Obama Obsession with Islam: Calls 'entrepreneurship summit' with Muslims.
April 2010, Libyan Pres Gaddafi Praises Obama: "Barakeh Obama is friend" "He is of Muslim descent, his policy should be supported...."
May 2010, Obama's Counterterrorism Adviser Calls Jihad "Legitimate Tenet of Islam."
May 2010,  White House Pro-Terrorism John Brennan Speechifies in Arabic, Equates Terrorists with Shoplifters, Lawmakers Call for his Firing.
June 2010,  Obama equivocates on the jihad warship convoy (affectionately named a "flotilla" by the media): Obama "Expressed a Deep Regret Over Loss of [Jihadist] Life."
June 2010, Obama Administration to Support Anti-Israel Resolution at UN.
Press conference earlier this week: First flagless "President." Ouch. What a disgrace.