Tuesday, April 30, 2013

Report: Bombing Suspect's Lawyers Negotiating Plea Deal to Waive Death Penalty
From Newsmax / By Paul Scicchitano



  • 0
NBC News is reporting that attorneys for accused Boston Marathon Bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev are discussing a possible deal in which federal prosecutors might consider waiving the death penalty in exchange for a “full accounting” of the attack that left three people dead and 264 people injured.

Citing legal sources, correspondent Pete Williams reported on “NBC Nightly News” that prosecutors and lawyers for Tsarnaev “have begun very early discussions about a possible deal in which he could avoid the death penalty in return for a full accounting to the FBI of what happened and why as investigators continue working to find those answers for themselves.”

Dzhokhar was charged with federal terrorism offenses last week following a heated debate in which some prominent Republican lawmakers called for the suspect to be treated as an enemy combatant, which would have potentially given investigators more latitude to question him about other plots.

The suspect suffered multiple gunshot wounds before being taken into custody in a dramatic confrontation with police four days after he and his older brother, Tamerlan, reportedly detonated two bombs near the finish line of the famed race. The elder brother was subsequently killed in a shootout with police.

Meanwhile, Williams also reported that an FBI team conducted a search of the house where Tamerlan’s widow, Katherine Russell, has been living in Rhode Island since the attack.

While Russell has said she was shocked by the attack and had no idea her late husband was planning it, law enforcement officials took a sample of her DNA for comparison against a sample of female DNA found on a fragment of one of the pressure cooker bombs that exploded on April 15, according to Williams.

He cautioned, however, that the DNA may have come from employees at one of the stores where the parts for the bombs were purchased.

Attorney General Eric Holder on Saturday defended the decision to read the surviving suspect his Miranda rights, insisting that the decision was “totally consistent with the laws that we have.”

Early on April 22, U.S. Magistrate Judge Marianne B. Bowler showed up at the hospital unannounced with a federal prosecutor and public defender while Tsarnaev was being questioned by the FBI.

“The decision to Mirandize was one that the magistrate made,” Holder told CNN as he arrived at the White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner in Washington over the weekend.

Tsarnaev was under interrogation for about 16 hours when Bowler read him his Miranda rights, according to news reports. The FBI thought it had 36 to 48 hours to question Tsarnaev under the pre-Miranda public-safety exemption.

'Beach week' draws black crowd - and violence

1 weekend: 3 shootings, 3 stabbings, 3 robberies

By: Colin Flaherty / WND
(Editor’s note: Colin Flaherty has done more reporting than any other journalist on what appears to be a nationwide trend of skyrocketing black-on-white crime, violence and abuse. WND features these reports to counterbalance the virtual blackout by the rest of the media due to their concerns that reporting such incidents would be inflammatory or even racist. WND considers it racist not to report racial abuse solely because of the skin color of the perpetrators or victims.)

BeachWeek
Reporters with all the local media had trouble describing what happened over the weekend when 40,000 black people descended on Virginia Beach for a party.

Their audiences, however, did not.

Daniel Johnson was one of dozens of people who had no trouble talking about the lawbreakers and the widespread chaos, danger, thefts, violence and lawlessness they brought to Virginia Beach as part of College Beach Week 2013; a time when black students could “blow off some steam” before final exams.

“Because it was a group of young black college people everyone is scared to say anything for fear of being called a racist,” he said in a post to a Virginian-Pilot news story. “It is what it is – these people come to the Beach and do everything in there [sic] power to intimidate the local and visiting White people at the Beach – rude – disrespectful – dirty and violent – They come here and treat our beach like a toilet On Saturday afternoon I went to the Harris Teeter and a LARGE group of young black visitors were in the parking lot drinking and playing loud music – intimidating locals – I called the police and even though 2 cop cars drove by nothing was done!”

Police reported 300 emergency calls to 911 Saturday night involving at least three shootings, three stabbings and three robberies. That they know of. All during a four-hour period. People in Virginia Beach are furious and are taking to Facebook and the local news sites to have their say.

Conscious of the paper’s history of deleting comments that refer to race, Mark Morrell backed up Daniel Johnson:

“PSA: There were no persons of any other race on the videos perpetrating those crimes. None. Not stealing the bikes, or starting the brawls, or any other illegal, crazy action. Have I mentioned any race at all? Nope!!! Because you know exactly what I’m talking about, I most certainly don’t have to. You can identify me all you want, I’m not scared, and I don’t hide behind my screen – or my newspaper.

There is an elephant in the room, Pilot. WHATCHAGONNADOOOOO ABOUT IT???”

The “College Beach Weekend 2013″ party was organized by several black promoters for black fraternity members at several area colleges.

Their invitations can be seen at http://beachweekva.com. Their tweets cam be followed at #beachweekend.

The family of Anas Harmache owns a restaurant in Virginia Beach. He posted a video on his Facebook page that captured some of black mob violence.

“These guys destroyed my family’s store, beat a kid senseless and put my dad’s life in danger,” said Harmache. “When I called the cops not one person showed up.”

The video showed dozens of black people fighting, taunting and harrassing people outside the restaurant.

Laurette LaLiberte, also on Facebook, said this kind of racial violence is becoming a regular feature of life in Virgina Beach: “My son was jumped a few months ago … 6 guys … right down the block from [this video]. … Robbed him and they kept kicking and beating him even after he was unconscious … he was in the hospital a week and had hemorrhaging on his brain … they haven’t caught those punks either.”

On Fox43 news, a black woman said fighting and lawlessness at Beach Week is nothing to worry about.

“I think it’s still fun,” said Kharizma Jackson. “It happens when you get a lot of people together this stuff happens everywhere you go. It’s like that.”

“It was just so crazy,” said business owner Billy Baldwin to the local ABC affiliate. “We actually had a fight break out in front of my business at Sandbar that the crowd busted in and broke my front window. So that’s a thousand dollars per window.”

The Virginia Beach racial violence is part of a pattern of more than 500 episodes of black mob violence documented in “White Girl Bleed a Lot: The return of racial violence and how the media ignore it.”

Kenneth Darden told the Virginian-Pilot that anyone who notices that all the lawbreakers were black is a racist.

“Being a black male, I am insulted reading your comments because they are very degrading and assumes that white kids are not capable of doing such things. Well let me tell you, all you have to do is come to Ocean View any day of the week and see for yourself how wrong you are!”

Denise Gordon also owns a business in Virginia Beach. The Virginian-Pilot reported:
“I was scared to death,” said Denise Gordon, a manager for 18th Street Seafood Bar and Grill.
Though all those incidents happened late at night, Gordon said she’d noticed “rude, obnoxious” behavior around her restaurant much of the day. Fearful, she closed the restaurant at 8 p.m., two hours earlier than usual for a Saturday.
Gordon then said she called for security to help employees get to their cars after closing.
“It was so crazy, I don’t even know how to describe it,” she said.
The Virginian-Pilot is the same paper that achieved notoriety last spring when the editor refused to report that a black mob of 50 to 100 people assaulted two of his reporters after pelting their car with rocks in Norfolk.

A columnist revealed it two weeks later. Some reportedly said it was revenge for Travyon Martin.

The editor told a producer for Bill O’Reilly’s Fox News show that he had no evidence that a mob was involved or that the attack was racially motivated.
Calling Obama's Bluff                                            Tim Phillips/ Townhall Columnist


With amazing speed the Senate and House passed a bill to stop air traffic controllers from being furloughed, after a week of travel delays felt around the country as a result of President Obama's sequester temper tantrum. Since President Obama shut down White House tours in March, the President had been waiting for the next opportunity to demonstrate how sequester cuts, a modest two cents on the dollar of the national budget, hurt average Americans as his Administration had predicted. Forced furloughs of air traffic controllers seemed like just the thing to put the squeeze on the American public and teach us all a lesson for demanding those dastardly sequester cuts.

However, as complaints from the public started to roll in the official White House response amounted to throwing up its hands and saying “told you so!” Confident of victory, the Obama Administration refused to shift cuts within the Federal Aviation Administration and keep air traffic controllers on the job by cutting non-essential areas of the FAA (only 15,000 of the agency's 32,000 government employees are air traffic controllers). Thankfully, House Republicans stood firm and the American public rightly recognized the President's petulant gambit. Realizing the public relations disaster heading their way, Senate Democrats forced the President's hand by working out a common sense deal with House Republicans. The President, still loudly complaining, had to go along with the deal.

The shift in momentum for Obama started with the media, led by the Wall Street Journal with two stinging back-to-back editorials that challenged the rather weak rhetoric from the White House, and highlighted nonsensical budget management by the Department of Transportation. This was augmented by a steady stream of cable news interview from distressed passengers, who clearly understood that the agency was hurting itself by hurting its own best customers. Many Americans figured out what was happening almost at once; the White House hoped to inflict pain on the American people and convince them that modest spending cuts were totally unacceptable.

Others in the media also saw the charade for what it was. A blistering report by Bloomberg found that the FAA was overstaffed in some airports and had ample ability to make smart budget decisions. This investigative article highlighted how the FAA could have prioritized spending in a way that would not affect services or passenger safety.

It took exactly four days for Democrats in the Senate and the President to blink and abandon the “there’s nothing we can do” rhetoric.

Ominously for the Left and encouragingly for those of us fighting to rein in government over spending; we won. In this first pitched engagement over the impact of sequester cuts, average Americans didn’t rail against the spending cuts, they railed against Obama’s lack of leadership and terrible budget management. Thankfully, most Americans are inherently skeptical of the federal government's spending. They know Washington, D.C. wastes money and practices cronyism by giving preferential treatment to friends and donors when doling out tax dollars. They know that spending can and must be cut if we are going to once again have economic prosperity.

Today, President Ronald's Reagan's words still hold true. When it comes to fixing our economic problems, "Government is not the solution. Government is the problem."

As a conservative, picking out things you don't like about Barack Obama is kind of like pointing to the wettest part of the ocean. It also goes beyond politics. Not only is Barack Obama wrong politically, he's not a good guy, "cool," or even moderately likable. To the contrary, he's one of the nastiest, least admirable people in politics and he gets by based on a phony persona he created when he ran for President in 2008 -- along with the help of press corps liberals that work to protect him like they're on his payroll. Based on his performance and his personality, Barack Obama deserves to be the least popular man ever to sit in the White House. 

1) Nobody but an ass would say, “It’s very rare that I come to an event where I’m like the fifth- or sixth-most interesting person.”

2) He's a former (maybe, who really knows?) coke-snorting pothead who governs with all the care and due diligence you'd expect from a coke-snorting pothead.

3) Barack Obama actually said, “The private sector is doing fine.” Given that the private sector has never at any point been doing fine since he became President, he'd have to be dumb, dishonest or delusional to say something like that.

4) He is a bigger liar than Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter put together. There's nothing the man says you can count on his meaning unless he's saying something nice about himself.

5) He's made racist comments about white people. Just to name one example,
"That’s just how white folks will do you. It wasn’t merely the cruelty involved; I was learning that black people could be mean and then some. It was a particular brand of arrogance, an obtuseness in otherwise sane people that brought forth our bitter laughter. It was as if whites didn’t know that they were being cruel in the first place. Or at least thought you deserving of their scorn."
6) His whole campaign in 2012 revolved around telling people Mitt Romney was an awful human being because he had money. Meanwhile, Barack Obama is worth 10 million dollars. What a hypocrite!

7) He once picked his nose on camera.

8) "The same guy who lectured the country on the importance of civility after Gabrielle Giffords was shot also refers to people he disagrees with politically as 'teabaggers.'"

9) He ate a dog once which is just gross.

10) He actually said, "Thank you, Planned Parenthood. God bless you. " We’re talking about people who murder babies for a living and he’s asking God to bless that? What a despicable man.

11) He went to Jeremiah Wright's church for twenty years and considered the man his spiritual mentor even though his utterly vile former pastor is anti-white, anti-Semitic and anti-American. Ultimately, the only reason Obama threw him under the bus at all was because Wright criticized him.

12) He looks like a pansy when he rides his little bike in mom jeans.

13) He throws like a six year old girl.

14) Americans dying in Boston or Benghazi? Obama was so indifferent he might as well have been talking about what he was having for lunch. But when gun control failed, that he got upset about.

15) He's the single least competent man ever to sit in the White House; yet he's arrogant to the point of narcissism. He's like a third string high school basketball player who thinks he should be playing in the NBA all-star game.

16) He's made an ass of himself by publicly inserting himself into both the Henry Louis Gates arrest and the Trayvon Martin case when he should have just shut his big yap and let justice take its course.

17) He habitually demonizes successful people and businesses.

18) He actually told Hispanic Americans that Republicans WERE THEIR ENEMIES, "If Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, ‘We’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us,’ if they don’t see that kind of upsurge in voting in this election, then I think it’s gonna be harder and that’s why I think it’s so important that people focus on voting on November 2."

19) America lost its AAA credit rating for the first time since 1917 on Obama’s watch and he blamed it on the Tea Party. Yes, seriously.

20) One out of every five Americans is on food stamps thanks to Barack Obama and in his mind, that's a good thing because it makes those people more dependent on the government and therefore likely to vote for the Democrats.

21) He decimated the American health care system with Obamacare, even though the American people didn't want it and the bill was universally opposed by every Republican in the House and Senate except Olympia Snowe, who later voted in favor of repealing it.

22) He once threw his own GRANDMOTHER under the bus. HIS GRANDMOTHER.
“I can no more disown (Jeremiah Wright) than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother – a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.”
23) Time and time again he has said and done things that indicate that he doesn't like America, is ashamed of the country and finds the whole nation to be slightly embarrassing.

24) Obama passed the DREAM ACT by fiat and illegally, unconstitutionally started the process of giving work permits to illegals.

25) There are Americans and Mexicans dead because of Fast and Furious and Obama is covering it up Nixon-style by asserting executive privilege.

26) He spends more time golfing and going on vacations than he does in meetings on economic policy.

27) He's spending so much money that it's almost singlehandedly destroying the economic future of America. One day, kids will be pointing to his picture when they're asked about the moment when the American dream began to die.

28) This is a man who demands credit for his "bipartisanship" while he says things like, "But I don’t want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking. I want them to get out of the way so we can clean up the mess. I don’t mind cleaning up after them, but don’t do a lot of talking.” What a jerk.

29) After it came out that the Korean rapper Psy had wished death not just on American soldiers, but their wives and children, Obama made a point of shaking his hand publicly even though the fact he was in the same room with him had been controversial.

30) Barack Obama may be the most crooked President ever to sit in the Oval Office. His campaign contributors at Solyndra got 535 million dollars they couldn't pay back and he broke the law to help his union cronies at GE and Chrysler while taxpayers lost 25 billion dollars on the deal. In a better, more honest world Obama would deserve to face possible JAIL TIME for what he did there.

AFDI Calls for Closure of Mosques That Breed Jihad Terror

From Yahoo News / Posted in Jihad Watch

NEW YORK, April 29, 2013 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ --The human rights organization American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) has called upon government and law enforcement authorities to close three U.S. mosques that have been established as breeding grounds for jihad terror. 
The call follows the issuance last week of AFDI's 18-point Platform for Defending Freedom, which offered practical steps to protect the nation from jihad terror in the wake of the Boston jihad bombings.
Those 18 points included a call for "immediate investigation into foreign mosque funding in the West and for new legislation making foreign funding of mosques in non-Muslim nations illegal," as well as for "surveillance of mosques and regular inspections of mosques in the U.S. and other non-Muslim nations to look for pro-violence materials. Any mosque advocating jihad or any aspects of Sharia that conflict with Constitutional freedoms and protections should be closed."
AFDI Executive Director Pamela Geller said in a statement: "In accord with those calls for responsible law enforcement regarding subversive activities in U.S. mosques, we are asking that government and law enforcement officials launch immediate investigations into the Islamic Society of Boston, the Dar al-Hijrah Mosque of Fairfax County, Virginia, and the Noor Center of Columbus, Ohio."
Geller emphasized: "These mosques are not unique. There are many others like them. But they are the tip of the spear. It is time that our officials demand that they obey American laws, or be held accountable for not doing so."
The reasons for the calls for closure include:
Islamic Society of Boston (two mosques, one in Cambridge and one in Boston)
  • Founded by Abdulrahman Alamoudi, who served as its first president. He is now in prison for financing al-Qaeda.
  • Aafia Siddiqui attended this mosque. She is now serving an 86-year-sentence for plotting a jihad attack in New York City, and firing at military officers and FBI agents when under arrest.
  • Tarek Mehanna attended this mosque. He is now serving 17 years in prison for conspiring to aid al-Qaeda.
  • Ahmad Abousamra attended this mosque. He was Mehanna's co-conspirator. He fled to Syria and is wanted by the FBI.
  • Jamal Badawi of Canada was a former trustee of the Islamic Society of Boston Trust. He was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the 2007 Holy Land Foundation Hamas terror funding trial.
  • Yusuf al Qaradawi, the Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader who has praised Hitler and called on Muslims to finish his work, was a mosque trustee and has addressed congregants via recorded video message to raise money for the Boston mosque.
  • Yasir Qadhi, who lectured at the Boston mosque in April 2009, has advocated replacing U.S. democracy with Islamic rule and called Christians "filthy" polytheists whose "life and prosperity … holds no value in the state of Jihad."
  • Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the Boston Marathon jihad bombers, attended the Cambridge mosque.
The Dar Al-Hijrah Islamic Center, Fairfax County, Virginia.
  • The Saudi-backed North American Islamic Trust (NAIT), a Muslim Brotherhood group, bought the mosque's grounds in 1983.
  • Mohammed al-Hanooti, the mosque's imam from 1995-1999, was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
  • Anwar al-Awlaki, the mosque's imam from 2001-2002, has extensive contact with three 9/11 hijackers, the Fort Hood jihad murderer, and the Christmas underwear bomber.
  • Johari Abdul-Malik, the mosque's director of outreach from 2002 to the present, has defended Abdulrahman Alamoudi, who is in prison for financing al-Qaeda.
  • Ahmed Omar Abu Ali taught Islamic studies and was a camp counselor at the mosque; he is now in prison for plotting to assassinate President George W. Bush.
  • Shaker Elsayed, the mosque's imam from 2005 to the present, was Secretary General of the Muslim American Society, a Muslim Brotherhood group.
  • Nidal Malik Hasan, the Fort Hood jihad mass murderer, attended this mosque.
  • Abdelhaleem Hasan Abdelraziq Ashqar, a member of the mosque's Executive Committee, was convicted in November 2007 of contempt and obstruction of justice for refusing to testify regarding Hamas, and received an eleven-year prison sentence.
Noor Mosque, Columbus, Ohio
  • The leader of the mosque, Dr. Hany Saqr, was previously an imam for another area mosque which at that time was the base of operations for the largest known Al-Qaeda cell in the U.S. since 9/11, including convicted jihadists Iyman Faris, Nuradin Abdi, and Christopher Paul. Saqr is one of the leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood in North America.
  • Dr. Salah Sultan was the mosque's unofficial scholar in residence. A protégé of Qaradawi, Sultan is now in the Middle East and has appeared on Egyptian television approvingly quoting the genocidal hadith about how the end times will not come until Muslims kill Jews, and previously appeared at events in support of Hamas and Qaradawi.
  • The Noor Center has been directly linked to the Somali Muslims who have gone from the U.S. back to Somali for jihad terror training.
  • Siraj Wahhaj, a friend of the Blind Sheikh and a potential unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, has spoken at the Noor Mosque.
  • Mosque members threatened the life of Rifqa Bary, a teenage girl who left Islam for Christianity.
AFDI stands for:
  • The freedom of speech – as opposed to Islamic prohibitions of "blasphemy" and "slander," which are used effectively to quash honest discussion of jihad and Islamic supremacism;
  • The freedom of conscience – as opposed to the Islamic death penalty for apostasy;
  • The equality of rights of all people before the law – as opposed to Sharia's institutionalized discrimination against women and non-Muslims.

Benjamin Franklin's 2 questions still stand

Exclusive: Chuck Norris shares plan to help restore America

By: Chuck Norris / WND

In 1787, when delegates at the Constitutional Convention were divided and at an impasse how to build our government and frame the U.S. Constitution, an 81-year-old Benjamin Franklin stood and appealed to the other delegates to pray for divine intervention to help them out of their darkness:
In this situation of this Assembly, groping as it were in the dark to find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when presented to us, how has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate our understandings? In the beginning of the Contest with G. Britain, when we were sensible of danger we had daily prayer in this room for the divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a Superintending providence in our favor. To that kind providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful friend? I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth – that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that “except the Lord build the House they labour in vain that build it.” I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing Governments be Human Wisdom and leave it to chance, war and conquest.
I therefore beg leave to move, that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the Clergy of the City be requested to officiate in that service.
Those are riveting words and questions for any age and country, particularly our own.

The delegates at the Convention decided not to orchestrate a daily formal ceremony led by various clergy in the area due to the advanced stage of the Convention, not because they didn’t believe in the power of prayer or its necessity. They still heeded Franklin’s spiritual entreaty through their private prayers and, shortly after, the public institution of paid governmental chaplains.

As the Wallbuilders website explained: “As it turns out, after the Convention, and nine days after the first Constitutional Congress convened with a quorum (April 9, 1789), they implemented Franklin’s recommendation. Two chaplains of different denominations were appointed, one to the House and one to the Senate, with a salary of $500 each. This practice continues today, posing no threat to the First Amendment. How could it? The men who authorized the chaplains wrote the Amendment.”

(To the chagrin of those who erroneously still try to use the First Amendment to abolish the practice of prayer in public places, also in 1789, after being urged by Congress on the same day they finished drafting the First Amendment, President Washington issued a Thanksgiving Proclamation stating that: “It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor.”)

And did Franklin’s, Washington’s and the other delegates’ prayers pay off?

Answer: Do we have a U.S. Constitution and country?

In 1788, James Madison, the father of the Bill of Rights and our fourth president, reflected a year back on the Constitutional Convention and even earlier on the founding of the republic: “The real wonder is, that so many difficulties should have been surmounted; and surmounted with a unanimity almost as unprecedented as it must have been unexpected. It is impossible for any man of candor to reflect on this circumstance, without partaking of the astonishment. It is impossible for the man of pious reflection not to perceive in it, a finger of that Almighty hand which has been so frequently and signally extended to our relief in the critical stages of the revolution.”

Our enemy is no longer Great Britain. But we have equally, if not more, powerful enemies within and without the U.S., and we are even more divided than in America’s beginnings. But whether local, national or international entities, are those enemies more powerful than the Almighty? Are their manipulations and sway beyond His reach? Has their darkness so overshadowed us that even Providence cannot lead us out? Are their conniving politics, propaganda and Ponzi schemes really more powerful than prayer? Have we fell prey to their lies that our prayers are now impotent and ineffective to change the course of history? And how does our participation in that age-old intercessory practice answer all those questions?

My last and most critical question is this: If the greatest leaders in the history of our country, particularly our founders, called upon the Almighty for heavenly assistance in the most critical and perilous of times and experienced His hand of deliverance, wouldn’t this season in our country’s history warrant exactly the same? Maybe more now than ever before?

If you answer in the affirmative, as I do, I’d challenge and call you to participate in two critical upcoming prayer events.

First, the 62ndAnnual National Day of Prayer, or NDP, will be May 2. This year’s theme is “Pray for America.” More than 40,000 public prayer gatherings are expected to take place Thursday in our nation’s capital, state capitals, county seats, cities, towns and villages across America. You can locate a master list of events around the country at National Day of Prayer Task Force website and find an NDP event near you.

Second, because of the intense strongholds we face as a nation, WND Editor Joseph Farah and thousands of others across the land are calling up America’s spiritual reserves, challenging our spiritual fervor and cranking up our spiritual warfare by also declaring a National Day of Prayer and Fasting – and on what better day than Sept. 11, 2013? You can register your intent to participate and help spread the plan virally by going to 911DayofPrayer.com.

If Martin Luther said he had to pray for two hours daily to overcome the devil, and for three hours during particularly busy days; if Jesus Himself said that certain strongholds would only be overcome through prayer and fasting – a discipline to align our spirit and body in prayer; if Benjamin Franklin called for daily prayers, can we not set aside two days this year to stand up for our country by kneeling on its behalf?

Our duty isn’t to judge the outcome, to discern the impact, but simply to pray, as Benjamin Franklin advised.

His two questions still stand and warrant an answer from each of us:

“Have we now forgotten that powerful friend?”

“And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probably that an empire can rise [or rise again] without his aid?”

Two questions, two events – to help restore the United States of America.
Op-ed: 
Benghazi...treason at the highest level 
By: Diane Sori

Recently, Obama and his mouthpieces, including Secretary of State John 'Swiftboat' Kerry, reiterated something Hillary said during her Benghazi testimony, "it's time to move on."

Well guess what...it's NOT.

On FOX News' Special Report last night, in an exclusive interview (which I watched) with a special forces operative who was masked in silhouette with his voice disguised for his protection, said in NO uncertain terms that Barack HUSSEIN Obama is lying about everything that happened the night of September 11, 2012 when muslim terrorists stormed the US Embassy compound in Benghazi, Libya. 

This man told about a C1-10 plane that was on patrol in the area, having been based in Croatia, and that it was more than capable of rapid response the night of the attack.  He went on to say that the plane would most definitely have made it to Benghazi before the second attack, and could have aided in evacuating the wounded and maybe even saved Ambassador Stevens and the others.

He also said that at least 15 special forces were stationed in Tripoli at that time and could have immediately been deployed when the first word of impending trouble was sent out by Ambassador Stevens. And he also spoke of two military units that could have been on the ground in time to squelch the uprising from the get-go.

The special operative continued on to say that the betrayal went all the way to the top, and that Obama needs to take responsibility, tell the truth, and own up for the deaths of our Ambassador, his aide, and the two ex-SEALS. 

And oh yes, and most importantly, this brave whistleblower said that both Barack HUSSEIN Obama and Hillary Clinton knew that help was indeed available and could have arrived in time to change the outcome.*

Those bast*rds lied...Obama lied...Hillary lied...they all lied...and four Americans died because of their lies! 

And what of the survivors...there were 30 odd survivors of that horrific night and yet NOT a public word has been heard from any of them...and why can't Congress in the course of their official investigation have access to them. What are they privy to that this administration is so afraid of...I think we know and the whistleblower confirmed what we know...Barack HUSSEIN Obama and his minions all knew and this miserable excuse of a president gave orders to 'stand down' instead of helping our people in trouble.

In fact, last night FOX reported that four or more State Department career officials and CIA operatives are 'lawyering up' (as the saying goes) before giving 'sensitive' information about the attack to Congress, and that for now unnamed Obama administration 'officials' have dropped hints to them about the so- called consequences of coming forward and talking.

Threats and blackmail adding to lies and murder...consequences all right but NOT for the whistle blowers.

In a FOX interview on Monday, Victoria Toensing, a former Justice Department official and current Republican counsel to the Senate intelligence committee, who is representing one of those State Department employees, confirmed that threats have been made. “I'm not talking generally, I'm talking specifically about Benghazi...that people have been threatened and not just at the State Department. People have been threatened at the CIA.”

Sounds just like something a certain usurping president and his peeps would do now that they've been caught and exposed like a deer in the headlights.

And get this, Toensing says, “In order to tell the whole story, my client has to provide classified information, but (as of yet) The State Department hasn’t acknowledged a process for doing that” meaning she has NOT received the security clearances necessary to be able to review classified documents and other key evidence she needs to see to properly represent her client. 

Heaven forbid the Obama controlled State Department aides in the truth getting out.

Toensing even said that her client, who she won't name for obvious reasons, has important information on all three time periods considered relevant to the attacks...the months that led up to the attack, when pleas for help were rejected...the eight-hour time period when the attacks actually occurred...and the eight-day period that followed the attacks when Obama, Hillary, and crew kept bloviating over and over that the attacks were the result of a spontaneous protest over a video about mohammad.

And with these threats and with interviews in the shadows, it should be obvious even to those with their heads still buried in the sand that this administration, along with a lack of reporting by the main stream media, is doing everything to prevent the whistleblowers from testifying in public and under oath, because Hillary and Obama must be protected at all costs.

So while federal law does provide protections for federal government employees who are whistleblowers. and ensures these people that they will not face repercussions in retaliation for giving information about corruption or other wrongdoing to Congress, we are talking about the Obama administration here, and that means all things taken for granted as being the rule of law NO longer apply.

The Benghazi hearings should be interesting for sure, and just maybe it is 'time to move on' but to move on to the beginning of the end for Barack HUSSEIN Obama and his miserable administration...and that includes Hillary too...and the word 'treason' comes to mind.

Monday, April 29, 2013

Proof positive that FB censors conservative voices


Facebook: Beheading video 'doesn't violate' standards for graphic violence

By:

Facebook says beheading video does not violate terms of service 
"We reviewed the video you reported, but found it doesn't violate Facebook's Community Standard on graphic violence, which includes depicting harm to someone or something, threats to the public's safety, or theft and vandalism," Facebook said.

The video, which was removed from the page that was originally reported, has been spotted on other timelines and clearly shows a woman being decapitated, allegedly for cheating on her husband.

A post by Celia Mellow at GoPetition said that Facebook gave her the same response to the video. Shocked at the video, she started a petition demanding the video be pulled.

"We, the undersigned, call on Facebook to review any reports to remove the video posted by 'Freddy Guidi' and any other pages/users who have posted 'Beheading videos' in order to protect its users, the families of the victims and to prevent the spread of terrorist threats unnecessarily published on social networks," the petition says.

According to a post at the Daily Kos, the video was shared over 40,000 times from a different timeline.

Due to the graphic nature of the video, we did not provide a link.

Diane Sori, a Florida-based conservative blogger who was banned from Facebook over a link she never posted, was livid.

"I got blocked because I didn't take down a still pic of a beheading that I didn't even know was there and this actual video of one is allowed," she said in disbelief.

"I'm actually seething," she told Examiner. "If this isn't selective enforcement then I don't know what is."

We reached out to Facebook spokesman Fred Wolens for an explanation, but Wolens did not immediately respond.

Related:
Israel Bombs Syrian Chemical Weapons Plant

If not for Bibi, the Middle-East and the Planet would be so screwed ...!!!

DAMASCUS, Syria, April 28 (UPI) — The Free Syrian Army says Israeli air force jets flew over President Bashar Assad’s palace and bombed a chemical weapons site near Damascus, Maariv reported.

The report said the Israeli jets entered Syria’s airspace close to 6 a.m Saturday and flew over Assad’s palace in Damascus and other security facilities before striking a chemical weapons compound near the city.

The Hebrew language daily said a Syrian army air defense battery positioned in the city fired at the Israeli jets that left Syria’s airspace unscathed. FSA rebels posted a video showing smoke rising up from the headquarters for chemical weapons. There were no reports of the extent of damage or casualties.

Neither Damascus or Jerusalem responded to the report.

In January, foreign media reported Israeli jets bombed a weapons convoy parked outside a military research institute near Damascus allegedly en route to Hezbollah in southern Lebanon.



2008_03_21t090711_450x328_uk_afghan_cartoons 

The Dutch government says it will abandon the long-standing model of multiculturalism that has encouraged Muslim immigrants to create a parallel separatist society within the Netherlands. The Netherlands, where 6% of the population is  Muslim, is scrapping multiculturalism and most of the taxpayer-funded benefits to immigrant ingrates that it demands.


The Conservative Papers via Sheik Yermami (h/t Liz)  A new integration bill, which Dutch Interior Minister Piet Hein Donner presented to parliament on June 16, reads: “The government shares the social dissatisfaction over the multicultural society model and plans to shift priority to the values of the Dutch people.

 

In the new integration system, the values of the Dutch society play a central role.”With this change, the government steps away from the model of a multicultural society. The letter continues: “A more obligatory integration is justified because the government also demands that from its own citizens.


Multiculturalismfailure-viIt is necessary because otherwise the society gradually grows apart and eventually no one feels at home anymore in the Netherlands .. The new integration policy will place more demands onimmigrants.

 

For example, immigrants will be required to learn the Dutch language and the government will take a tougher approach to immigrants who ignore Dutch values or disobey Dutch law.” The government will also stop offering special subsidies for Muslim immigrants because, according to Donner; “It is not the government’s job to integrate immigrants.” 

 

The government will introduce new legislation that outlaws forced marriages and will also impose tougher measures against Muslim immigrants who lower their chances of employment by the way they dress.More specifically, the government will impose a ban on face-covering, Islamic burqas as of January 1, 2013.


Holland has done that whole liberal thing, and realized – maybe too late – that creating a nation of tribes will kill the nation itself. The future of Australia , the United States , UK and Canada may well be read here.

Controversial Dutch Politician Geert Wilders Arrives In The UK 

NOTE: Muslim immigrants leave their countries of birth because of civil and political unrest “CREATED BY THE VERY NATURE OF THEIR CULTURE.” Countries such as Holland , Canada , the UK and Australia have an established way of life that actually works, so why embrace the unworkable?

 

If Muslims do not wish to accept another culture, the answer is simple; “STAY WHERE YOU ARE!!” “Or go back to where you were!”

Benghazi Report Revives Troubling Questions

Benghazi Report Revives Troubling Questions
"What difference, at this point, does it make?"

That was former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's angry response to a question about the State Department's account of the attack on the Benghazi consulate where Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were murdered on Sept. 11, 2012.

Her response was cheered by leftist commentators on MSNBC. Righteous indignation is so attractive.

But of course it makes a difference. Hillary Clinton is leading in polls for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination and general election. It's always legitimate to examine the performance of a front-runner for the presidency. And of the president himself.

You can find such an examination in the Interim Progress Report that five House Republican committee chairmen released last Wednesday.

Democrats complain that this is a partisan effort. Sure, but Democrats are free to present their own view of the facts. My sense is that they would rather squelch critical examination of Benghazi and the Obama administration's response, as they did with the help of most of the press during the 2012 presidential campaign.

The interim report sets out copious evidence of the rash of security threats in Libya during 2012. There were more than 200 "security incidents" between June 2011 and July 2012 in Libya, 50 of them in Benghazi, it reports.

Britain and international agencies withdrew personnel from Benghazi. The United States reduced security forces despite a plea for increases from then-Ambassador Gene Cretz in March 2012.

"In a cable signed by Secretary Clinton in April 2012," the Interim Report reads, "the State Department settled on a plan to scale back security assets in the U.S. Mission in Libya, including Benghazi."

Later requests from Stevens after he replaced Cretz in May were also denied.

That contradicts Clinton's testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee in January 2013. She said the cable traffic never made its way to her.

If so, why was her name appended to a response? Maybe there's an explanation in the internal processes of the State Department. And, it should be said, high officials often make decisions that with hindsight seem obvious mistakes. But she has given us just an exclamation, not an explanation.

And, as the Interim Report goes on to explain, the accounts given by the Obama administration at the time were misleading -- deliberately so.

It noted that State immediately reported the attack to the White House Situation Room and two hours later noted an al-Qaida affiliate's claim of responsibility. There was no mention of a spontaneous protest of an anti-Muslim video.

Yet Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and press secretary Jay Carney spoke repeatedly for days later of a video and a protest. Clinton assured one victim's family member that the video-maker was being prosecuted.

In the meantime, a CIA draft of talking points for the House intelligence committee was edited at the behest of State Department officials. Omitted were references to previous Benghazi attacks, the al-Qaida affiliate in Benghazi and intelligence estimates of threats in Libya. Also struck, the Interim Report says, were "any and all suggestions that the State Department had been previously warned of threats in the region."

These changes were made, the chairmen conclude, not to protect classified information -- reviews of the draft were circulated on unsecure email systems -- and not to protect the investigation by the FBI.

"This process to alter the talking points," concludes the Interim Report, "can only be construed as a deliberate effort to mislead the American people."

The resulting talking points were delivered to Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice for her five Sunday talk show appearances on Sept. 16, in which she denounced the "hateful video."

Who might have ordered this "deliberate effort"? The Interim Report mentions Barack Obama only twice as recipient of letters of inquiry, but this comment seems aimed clearly at him and his first secretary of state.

We know that Obama was informed of the attack while it was occurring, that he ordered Defense Secretary Leon Panetta to respond to it (as he was already doing) and did not confer later with officials that evening. The next morning he jetted off to Las Vegas for a campaign event.

Benghazi threatened to undermine a central element of Obama's appeal, that his presidency would reduce the threat of Islamist terrorism. He managed to obfuscate that during the rest of the campaign.

But maybe not forever.

"Nowhere in rebel-controlled Syria is there a secular fighting force to speak of"

From Jihad Watch / Posted by Robert Spencer


If Obama intervenes, he will be aiding the jihadis and enabling the creation of yet another Sharia state that will be unshakably hostile to the U.S. Of course, that doesn't mean he won't intervene.

Andrew Bostom has some illuminating historical background here.

"Islamist Rebels' Gains in Syria Create Dilemma for U.S.," by Ben Hubbard in the New York Times, April 28 (thanks to Andrew Bostom):
CAIRO - In Syria's largest city, Aleppo, rebels aligned with Al Qaeda control the power plant, run the bakeries and head a court that applies Islamic law. Elsewhere, they have seized government oil fields, put employees back to work and now profit from the crude they produce. 
Across Syria, rebel-held areas are dotted with Islamic courts staffed by lawyers and clerics, and by fighting brigades led by extremists. Even the Supreme Military Council, the umbrella rebel organization whose formation the West had hoped would sideline radical groups, is stocked with commanders who want to infuse Islamic law into a future Syrian government.
Nowhere in rebel-controlled Syria is there a secular fighting force to speak of.
This is the landscape President Obama confronts as he considers how to respond to growing evidence that Syrian officials have used chemical weapons, crossing a "red line" he had set. More than two years of violence have radicalized the armed opposition fighting the government of President Bashar al-Assad, leaving few groups that both share the political vision of the United States and have the military might to push it forward.
Among the most extreme groups is the notorious Al Nusra Front, the Qaeda-aligned force declared a terrorist organization by the United States, but other groups share aspects of its Islamist ideology in varying degrees.
"Some of the more extremist opposition is very scary from an American perspective, and that presents us with all sorts of problems," said Ari Ratner, a fellow at the Truman National Security Project and former Middle East adviser in the Obama State Department. "We have no illusions about the prospect of engaging with the Assad regime - it must still go - but we are also very reticent to support the more hard-line rebels."
Then don't.

"A man cannot be secular and Muslim at a time...We are not in favor of democracy, democracy is for Jews and Christians"

From Jihad Watch / Posted by Robert Spencer


The Taliban think that democracy and Islam are incompatible, and are murdering candidates to drive home their point. Democracy, they say, is just for Jews and Christians. Apparently the Taliban are all greasy Islamophobes.

"Eight people killed as Pakistani Taliban target more candidates," from CNN, April 28 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):
(CNN) -- At least eight people were killed Sunday as the Pakistani Taliban continued to attack candidates in that country's upcoming elections, authorities said. 
The Pakistani Taliban, in a statement obtained by CNN, took responsibility for the bombings at the offices of candidates in Peshawar and the Orakzai Agency.
The Taliban said it targeted secular candidates, but many parties have been hit by the increasing violence.
"A man cannot be secular and Muslim at a time. These are two different doctrines in nature," the statement said.
The elections in May mark the first time in Pakistan's history that one democratically elected government will give way to another.
The nation has experienced three military coups, been ruled by generals for half its life, and it remains mired in near-constant political turmoil.
Pakistani Taliban leader Hakimullah Mehsud has told Pakistanis to stay away from the elections.
"We are not in favor of democracy, democracy is for Jews and Christians," he said in recent propaganda video.
"They are intended to divide Muslims; we want the implementation of Sharia (law) and for that jihad is necessary," he added.
Both attacks Sunday targeted independent candidates.
Five people died and 22 were wounded by Sunday's explosion in Orakzai, said Dilawar Khan Bangish, police chief of the Kohat District.
In Peshawar, three people were killed and eight wounded, said Khalid Mehmood Hamdani, a senior police official.
The bombings follow three attacks Saturday and one Friday....

Hagel can go screw himself!

U.S. delivers strong warning to Israel

Amid fears Iran about to cross so-called red line

Aaron Klein/ WND
TEL AVIV – According to informed Middle Eastern security officials, U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel delivered a strongly worded message to Israel – do not attack Iran.

The officials told WND that Hagel informed the Israeli government the Obama administration will not accept any unilateral Israeli attack against Iran and that Israel must not strike Tehran without coordination with the U.S.

Hagel further told Israel that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu cannot decide alone whether Iran has crossed the nuclear threshold, or the so-called Red Line previously outlined by the Israeli leader.

In a speech at the United Nations in September, Netanyahu drew a red line on a drawing of a bomb, depicting the point where he said Iran will have enough medium-enriched uranium to move rapidly toward building a nuclear bomb.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu draws a red line on the image of a bomb at the U.N. Sept. 27, 2012.

Netanyahu said at the U.N. that Iran could reach that point this spring or summer. By contrast, Obama has resisted setting any such deadlines.

Last week, Israel’s former military intelligence chief, Amos Yadlin, said, “If Iran continues to enrich uranium at its current rate, toward the end of the year it will cross the red line in a clear manner.”

The information comes after a former International Atomic Energy Agency senior nuclear inspector warned that Iran has discovered a way to circumvent Israel’s red line and that the red line may have already been passed.

Last fall, an IAEA report on Iran’s nuclear program showed a dip in the amount of 20 percent enriched uranium. Commenting on the report, the former deputy director-general for safeguards at the IAEA and senior nuclear inspector Olli Heinonen explained in a recent opinion article how this decrease is likely a gimmick.

He wrote that Iran has the capability to reconvert the uranium material back to the gas needed for its nuclear program. The converted 20 percent enriched uranium, now in a less worrisome oxide form, can “be converted back into centrifuge feedstock within a week.”

Heinonen warned that Iran may be able to convert the uranium without risk of detection.

If, through this process, Iran can disguise the quantity of enriched uranium it actually possesses, then Israel’s so-called red line may be artificial.

Heinonen further argued Iran has already passed Netanyahu’s red line of 250 kilograms of 20 percent enriched uranium, estimating Tehran possess as much as 280 kilograms, excluding any material that has already gone through the conversion process.


Op-ed:                                                                  Chemical weapons...Obama's 'red line' in the sand  
By: Diane Sori

What makes a great leader...courage, vision, empathy, and knowing when it's time to lead, and I do NOT mean leading from behind.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is a giant of a leader, an honorable man, and one known for keeping his word. When he says he's drawn 'a line in the sand' that Iran dare NOT cross, he means what he says and the world knows it, and fears the reality of those words.

But when Barack HUSSEIN Obama says he's drawn 'a red line in the sand' that Syria dare NOT cross in regards to using chemical weapons against their own people, the world laughs for the world knows this man will do NOTHING except spew rhetorical bloviations to try and make his narcissistic self look good.

Or get the U(seless) N(ations) to slap useless sanctions on them.

Two men at a crossroads in regards to their countries...one a man of his word...one a man of empty threats...empty threats for this past Thursday, coming just two days after playing down an Israeli assessment that Syria had used chemical weapons, White House spokesman Jay Carney said that US intelligence reports had decided 'with varying degrees of confidence' that Assad's government forces had used sarin gas in two attacks, but that NO definitive proof of the use of this gas existed as of yet.

So why even bother to say this especially when Syrian officials denied the accusations, with a senior official saying the country did not, and would not, use chemical weapons even if it had them.

Why...perhaps to divert our attention away from the 'we know it's coming' cover-up of the Boston Bombings and the call for further investigation into Benghazi.

Remember, Obama has said time and time again that crossing the 'red line' in regards to the using of chemical weapons would be one of two things that would prompt tougher action on his part, the other being if Assad's stockpile of chemical weapons was transferred to terrorists, and then his administration spokesman announces, in a formal letter to Congress, that chemical weapons were indeed used, but then in the next instant backtracks on the 'red line' statement because suddenly there's NO definitive proof to verify what he just said about the use of chemical weapons so NO aggressive steps can be taken at this point in time.

Whew...what a mouthful.

And while good leaders know you cannot have it both ways nor can you straddle the fence when you throw down a gauntlet, which is what Obama did with his 'red line' comment, 'We the People' know doublespeak when we hear it for doublespeak is a specialty of this administration.

And in the case of something as serious as the use of chemical weapons, a good leader would announce they were used only if they had proof in hand, and then immediately carry through with promised actions NOT suddenly decide that what is now wanted is a detailed U(seless) N(ations) investigation that can evaluate the evidence, and have them decide if chemical were or were NOT used and which side used them, as both sides are accusing the other of using said weapons. 

But that is exactly what Barack HUSEIN Obama has done...he's thrown the ball to the U(seless) N(ations) so he doesn't have to take a stand against his muslim brethren...brethren of which are on both sides of the Syrian conflict ...but with the rebels seemingly having ties to al-Qaeda. 

And by doing what he's done in regards to the UN, Obama's 'red line' comment can be swept under the rug with the help of the 'in his pocket' main stream media. 

And now to add into all this volleying back and forth on 'red lines' is that the New York City based 'Human Rights Watch' group has said that recent Syrian government air and missile strikes have caused 84 civilian deaths in the Aleppo province, and are 'in violation of the laws of war.'

But guess what, that's what war is about...people dying, and that includes civilians, unfortunately even children.

Lesson 101...if you don't want civilian casualties then don't go to war...kind of simple isn't it...especially when you have Barack HUSEIN Obama trying to add Syria into his 'Arab Spring' fiasco.

So while rebel forces accuse Assad's forces of firing chemical weapons, and with Assad's forces accusing the rebels of being the one who fired said chemical weapons, Obama has now changed the words 'red line' to the words 'game changer' but vacillates on what he will do or won't do if the UN does decide the weapons were used.

Bottom line...Barack HUSSEIN Obama is in NO rush to intervene in Syria's civil war as he would be forced to outwardly chose sides and upset what passes for his brethren's sensibilities.

Sunday, April 28, 2013

Let's call Islam Islam

Common sense from an ex-Muslim. "Calling Islam 'Islam,'" by Bosch Fawstin at FrontPage / Posted in Jihad Watch

I wrote this a few years ago, and I think it’s worth posting again, particularly after the latest jihadist attack in Boston. I noticed, after the attack this week, that a number of people are using more proper terminology to identify this enemy, which is very important in taking on the enemy. I recall watching panel discussions after 9/11, with each panelist using a different term to describe the enemy we face. That annoyed the hell out of me as I think it’s incredibly important to identify the proper terms when speaking about our enemy, and to NEVER create terms, for whatever reason. To me, the only difference between “Islamism” and Islam is three letters. Below I try my best to make the case why we should always call Islam “Islam.” 
Western intellectuals and commentators refer to the enemy’s ideology as:
“Islamic Fundamentalism,” “Islamic Extremism,” “Totalitarian Islam,” “Islamofascism,” “Political Islam,” “Militant Islam,” “Bin Ladenism,” “Islamonazism,” “Radical Islam,” “Islamism,” etc….
The enemy calls it “Islam.”
Imagine, if during past wars, we used terms such as “Radical Nazism,” “Extremist Shinto” and “Militant Communism.” The implication would be that there are good versions of those ideologies, which would then lead some to seek out “moderate” Nazis. Those who use terms other than “Islam” create the impression that it’s some variant of Islam that’s behind the enemy that we’re facing. A term such as “Militant Islam” is redundant, but our politicians continue praising Islam as if it were their own religion.
Bush told us “Islam is peace” — after 2,996 Americans were murdered in its name. He maintained that illusion throughout his two terms, and never allowed our soldiers to defeat the enemy. And now we have Obama, who tells us, from Egypt:
“I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.”
If only he felt that way about America. Washington’s defense of Islam has trumped the defense of America and this dereliction of duty could well be called Islamgate.
Islam is a political religion; the idea of a separation of Mosque and State is unheard of in the Muslim world. Islam has a doctrine of warfare, Jihad, which is fought in order to establish Islamic (“Sharia”) Law, which is, by nature, totalitarian. Sharia Law calls for, among other things: the dehumanization of women; the flogging/stoning/killing of adulterers; and the killing of homosexuals, apostates and critics of Islam. All of this is part of orthodox Islam, not some “extremist” form of it. If jihadists were actually “perverting a great religion,” Muslims would have been able to discredit them on Islamic grounds and they would have done so by now. The reason they can’t is because jihadists are acting according to the words of Allah, the Muslim God. From the Koran:
“Slay the idolators wherever you find them…” Chapter 9, verse 5
“When you encounter the unbelievers, strike off their heads until you have made a great slaughter among them….” Ch. 47:4
Beyond the doctrine, there is the historical figure of Mohammad, who, more than anyone, defines Islam. How would you judge a man who lies, cheats, steals, rapes and murders as a way of life? This evil man is Islam’s ideal man, Mohammad. Whatever he said and did is deemed moral by virtue of the fact that he said it and did it. It’s no accident that the only morality that could sanction his behavior was his own. Nor is it an accident that Muslims who model themselves after him are the most violent.
For the 13 years that Mohammad failed to spread Islam by non-violent means, he was not so much peaceful as he was powerless. It was only through criminal activity and with the help of a large gang of followers that he managed to gain power. But he wanted his moral pretense too, so he changed Islam to reflect the fact that the only way it could survive was through force. And so, acting on Allah’s conveniently timed “revelation” that Islam can and should be spread by the sword, Mohammad led an army of Muslims across Arabia in the first jihad. From then on, violence became Islam’s way in the world.
And today, acting on Mohammad’s words, “War is deceit” — in the sense that Muslims use earlier “peaceful” verses from the Koran as a weapon against the ignorance and good will of their victims. Those “peaceful” passages in the Koran were abrogated by later passages calling for eternal war against those who do not submit to Islam. How Mohammad spread Islam influenced the content of its doctrine and therefore tells us exactly what Islam means.
Note also that the only reason we’re talking about Islam is because we’ve been forced to by its jihad. And where are Islam’s “conscientious objectors”? Nowhere to be found, for even lax Muslims have been silent against jihad. But that doesn’t stop desperate Westerners from pointing to them as representives of “Moderate Islam.”
Far from being a personal faith, Islam is a collectivist ideology that rejects a live-and-let-live attitude towards non-Muslims. And while the jihadists may not represent all Muslims, they do represent Islam. In the end, most Muslims have proven themselves to be mere sheep to their jihadist wolves, irrelevant as allies in this war. Recovering Muslims call the enemy’s ideology “Islam,” and they dismiss the idea of “Moderate Islam” as they would the idea of “Moderate Evil.” When, based on his actions, Mohammad would be described today as a “Muslim Extremist,” then non-violent Muslims should condemn their prophet and their religion, not those who point it out.
Islam is the enemy’s ideology and evading that fact only helps its agents get away with more murder than they would otherwise. Western politicians have sold us out, so it’s up to the rest of us to defend our way of life by understanding Islam and telling the truth about it in whatever way we can. If we can’t even call Islam by its name, how the hell are we going to defend ourselves against its true believers? One could argue that we’d be better off if the West would just choose one of the many terms currently used for the enemy’s ideology. For my part, I call the enemy what they are, “Jihadists,” and our response, “The War on Jihad.” But behind it all, it’s Islam that makes the enemy tick.
Despite my frustrations with the refusal of many to call Islam “Islam,” I know that those who speak out against Jihad put themselves in danger, and I respect their courage. But it’s important that we acknowledge Islam’s place in the threat we face and say so without equivocation. Not saying “Islam” helps Islam and hurts us. So let’s begin calling the enemy’s ideology by its name. Let’s start calling Islam “Islam.”
They-Say-We-Say
Postscript: Below is Bosch’s response to those critics, especially  Muslims and Leftists, who make the issue about Muslims and not Islam; who always allege that critics of Islam are condemning 1.5 billion people, that Muslims are good people and innocent, etc etc. So below he responds with an excerpt from his piece Non-Muslim Muslims and the Jihad Against the West:

For those who want to make this about Muslims and not Islam, here are some of my thoughts on that:
First, my name is Bosch and I’m a recovered Muslim, so I have some insight into this, coupled with the fact that I studied Islam as if my life depended on it after 9/11.
There is Islam and there are Muslims. Muslims who take Islam seriously are at war with us and Muslims who don’t aren’t. But that doesn’t mean we should consider these reluctant Muslims allies against Jihad. I’ve been around Muslims my entire life and most of them truly don’t care about Islam. The problem I have with many of these essentially non-Muslim Muslims, especially in the middle of this war being waged on us by their more consistent co-religionists, is that they give the enemy cover. They force us to play a game of Muslim Roulette since we can’t tell which Muslim is going to blow himself up until he does. And their indifference about the evil being committed in the name of their religion is a big reason why their reputation is where it is.
So while I understand that most Muslims are not at war with us, they’ve proven in their silence and inaction against jihad that they’re not on our side either, and there’s nothing we can say or do to change that. We just have to finally accept it and stop expecting them to come around, while doing our best to kill those who are trying to kill us.
Another problem with Muslims who aren’t very Muslim is that they lead some among us to conclude that they must be practicing a more enlightened form of Islam. They’re not.
They’re “practicing” life in non-Muslim countries, where they are free to live as they choose. But their “Islam” is not the Islam. There’s no separate ideology apart from Islam that’s being practiced by these Muslims in name only, there’s no such thing as “Western Islam”.
Non-observant Muslims are not our problem, but neither are they the solution to our problem. Our problem is Islam and its most consistent practitioners. There is nothing in Islam that stays the hand of Muslims who want to kill non-Muslims. If an individual Muslim is personally peaceful, it’s not because of Islam, it’s because of his individual choice, which is why I often say that your average Muslim is morally superior to Mohammad, to their own religion. The very rare Muslim who helps us against Jihad is acting against his religion, but that doesn’t stop some among us from thinking that his choice somehow shines a good light on Islam. It doesn’t. A good Muslim according to us is a bad Muslim according to Islam.