You can keep staring at that Black Widow spider sitting up in the corner of your ceiling. You can say it is sleeping. You can say it is benign. You can say anything you want to keep your mind at ease, but you know as well as that spider, that when you are sleeping it is coming down to bite you.
Islam, is like that spider. Silent, slow, unassuming....but very, very deadly, and while we sleep, it is coming down to bite us. Muslim extremists show us everyday, that they indeed are out to dominate the world. Murders, bombings, tortures, genocide, happening everyday all over the world. It seems wherever Islam goes, there is going to be violence.
Americans, basically are forgiving people. We look for the good in everyone and everything. We want to think that everyone should love each other and we can all just get along.
Islam showed America just how it feels towards her people. On October 12, 2000, the USS Cole was victim of a suicide attack while it was harbored and refueling in the Yemeni port of Aden. Seventeen American sailors were killed, and thirty-nine were injured.
Liberals asked..."Oh what did we do wrong to bring this upon us?"
The Islamic Sudanese are starving the Christians in Darfur, and the United Nations sleeps.
Hamas, Hezbollah, Jamaat ul-Fuqra, all listed as terror groups, have bases within the borders of the United States. Not one word is spoken by any law enforcement agency.
Of course everyone remembers 9/11. When 19 radical muslim extremists hi-jacked four planes. Two were flown into the World Trade Center in NYC. One crashed into the Pentagon. The fourth came down in a field in Pennsylvania. And of course we all believe that muslim terrorists were behind that heinous act of war...right?
Wrong!
More than a third of the American public suspects that federal officials assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East, according to a new Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll.
Some polls say as many as 80% of Americans believe the US government had something to do with 9/11.
Really? Unbelievable. If I remember...Osama bin Laden admitted to orchestrating the entire event. Did anyone else see that? No? It was a video.
Today in America, we have Islam making inroads within our public schools. Liberal colleges feel that Islam is getting a bad rap and pretty much lets the muslim student associations run anything they want. Although they freely publicize the anti-Semitic attitude that muslims in general vocalize, and many are merely an outlet for Islamic radicalization. But...we choose to ignore this and basically look the other way.
Try this exercise....make a sign that says: Islam must be banned. Now go stand in your cities downtown center. I give you about 5 or 6 minutes before people come up to you and call you a racist, Islamaphobe, hater, war monger, among other names. Meanwhile, the muslims will either be sitting in the background smiling while the everyday citizen does the work, or they go crying to CAIR that you were not following political correctness.
America is sound asleep.
Thomas Sowell said it best:
"When the majority of the people become like sheep and will tolerate intolerance rather than make a fuss, then there is no limit to how far any group will go."
When we ignore what is happening around us, when we refuse to admit that terror is on our doorstep, when we close our eyes to the fact that a violent ideology is marching into our cities to subvert our culture, dominate our society and remove the most populous religion with their own.....I call it The Chamberlain Effect.
Arthur Neville Chamberlain (18 March 1869 – 9 November 1940) was a British politician who served as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from May 1937 to May 1940. Chamberlain is best known for his appeasement foreign policy, and in particular for his signing of the Munich Agreement in 1938, conceding the Sudetenland region of Czechoslovakia to Nazi Germany. When Adolf Hitler continued his aggression, Britain declared war on Germany on 3 September 1939, and Chamberlain led Britain through the first eight months of World War II.
The same can be said for the American leadership. The current government does not dare correlate Islam with any act of muslim violence in this country. Not the Fort Hood shooter, not the Christmas underwear bomber. The war on terror is no longer related to radical Islam. It doesn't matter that Islamic extremists ARE out to kill us. The latest rule from the White House....Do not mention terrorist and Islam in the same conversation. I find this appalling.
The same can be said for basically all Americans. Lets go back to the little protest sign that I had you make. If you were to do that protest, you will be hounded out of town. Why? Because people will not want to believe what you have written. They want to believe that Islam is the victim, and we all know how muslims love to play the victim. Oh yes.....they are the victims. The poor, poor muslims. The same muslims that will kill their own daughters if they become too westernized. The same poor, poor muslims that behead their wives if they ask for a divorce. The same muslim students that will chant and attack the stage of any speaker that dares to speak out against the violence Islam brings. The very same muslims that kill over cartoons, that demand the death of teachers over teddy bears. The very same muslims that scream Death To The Jews, riot in the streets, create Muslim Only zones in cities, and threaten the lives of billions of people on this planet.....while we sleep.
Unfortunately, you will pay for it in the future.
That spider is coming down, and if we don't wake up.........
Showing posts with label islam radicla shariah law terrorists Obama Koh. Show all posts
Showing posts with label islam radicla shariah law terrorists Obama Koh. Show all posts
Saturday, March 6, 2010
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
What Oath? Muslims Unfit for Citizenship and Military Duty
By Scott W. Winchell
Editor-in-Chief; Interim CEO; Stand Up America Project
In 1960, one of the biggest questions in the race for the Presidency between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon was Kennedy’s religion. Being a Catholic, Kennedy was asked if his allegiance was to the country or the Pope. In those days, the same as today, in Catholicism, each adherent was first a Catholic, and second, a citizen of their country.
On Sept. 12, 1960, presidential candidate John F. Kennedy gave a major speech to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association, a group of Protestant ministers, on the issue of his religion. At the time, many Protestants questioned whether Kennedy’s Roman Catholic faith would allow him to make important national decisions as president independent of the church. Kennedy addressed those concerns before a skeptical audience of Protestant clergy.
The following is from a transcript of Kennedy’s speech:
But because I am a Catholic, and no Catholic has ever been elected president, the real issues in this campaign have been obscured – perhaps deliberately, in some quarters less responsible than this. So it is apparently necessary for me to state once again not what kind of church I believe in – for that should be important only to me – but what kind of America I believe in.
I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference; and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.
Apparently, this was enough to resolve the question, and he won the election. Today, we have a new question of allegiance. Not a question regarding Catholicism, but rather, Islam. The reason we ask this question is based on the fact, that a Muslim, is a Muslim first no matter where that person lives. Islam recognizes Dar el Islam, the “house of Islam” as any place a Muslim is present. Islam may not control that place, but the man that proclaims his devotion and submission to Allah is by Sha’ariah Law, a Muslim first and foremost.
Islam means submission, literally; there is no doubt that a devout Muslim must proclaim this or he is an apostate. This is something worse than an infidel, or non-believer, for he has forsaken his duty to Allah. Therefore, he must always be a Muslim first, and that means he is not only unable, but also forbidden from acting in any other fashion. If he is in our military, he may take orders, and obey, but at some level, when the order runs afoul of Islam, he must revert to Islam first. This is very obvious in the case of the terrorist, Major Nidal Hasan at Fort Hood.
Unlike Catholicism, Islam enforces this by the sword. In many lands around the world, there are frequent examples of this enforcement, especially among the woman in Islam. Honor killings are frequent and occur everywhere, even here in the USA, Canada, Great Britain, and many other places in the western world. Kennedy, back in 1960 was not even ex-communicated let alone receiving a Fatwa from an Imam, declaring he must die, and that all Muslims are duty bound to carry this edict out. This is a religious edict known only to Islam. Somehow, Major Nidal found that he could no longer be a member of the Military and decided to act on his devoutness to Islam, and to proceed to kill his own military comrades to whom he swore an oath.
Therefore, as we see in Hasan’s example, Islam is first in the mind of the devout, and it is clear that he never intended on living up to his oath as a soldier. He took the license of takiya, the Islamic right to lie for the sake of Islam to infidels. His oath never mattered and therefore, regarless of any oath a Muslim takes, it is to be totally discounted. Not only did he commit acts of terrorism, he also broke numerous laws, both military and civil. The worst of which was violating 18 U.S.C. § 2385 : US Code – Section 2385: Advocating overthrow of Government:
Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government…shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
These are acts of Sedition and Treason. But to a Muslim, they are acts of devotion to Allah. So which prevails? As a free society where we are a land of laws, not men, the former applies. So we now have a very real question of loyalty.
To a lesser degree, when a Muslim from another land is naturalized in the United States, and they swear an oath to gain citizenship, to whom are they beholding? When a recruit signs up for the military, takes the oath, yet declares he is a Muslim on the form, what should we expect?
Here is the oath on citizenship:
I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.
Or was that Allah?
Here are the oaths for the military:
I, (state your name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God. (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
I, (State your name) (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of (BLANK) do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God. (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)
Citizenship form n-400 also asks whether or not the applicant has:
…advocated the overthrow of any government by force or violence (either directly or indirectly)?
I think a great many Muslims would fail this test immediately if it could be proven, but takiya absolves them anyway under Islam if they lie about it. How do we prove or disprove these issues?
The answer is clear, we cannot. If we tried, the ACLU would file cases by the boatload. Therefore the only sane thing to do to protect us from the Hasan’s of the world and Islamic deceit is to ban any person with Muslim affiliation of any sort from both citizenship and military service. Islam has no place in modern society. It is a barbaric political ideology, not a religion, and therefore, it is akin to citizenship from another country. Islam knows no boundaries, but acts as if it were a separate state. Therefore, we should treat them as if they were. They are devout, abiding peoples of another country/state make no mistake about it.
Editor-in-Chief; Interim CEO; Stand Up America Project
In 1960, one of the biggest questions in the race for the Presidency between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon was Kennedy’s religion. Being a Catholic, Kennedy was asked if his allegiance was to the country or the Pope. In those days, the same as today, in Catholicism, each adherent was first a Catholic, and second, a citizen of their country.
On Sept. 12, 1960, presidential candidate John F. Kennedy gave a major speech to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association, a group of Protestant ministers, on the issue of his religion. At the time, many Protestants questioned whether Kennedy’s Roman Catholic faith would allow him to make important national decisions as president independent of the church. Kennedy addressed those concerns before a skeptical audience of Protestant clergy.
The following is from a transcript of Kennedy’s speech:
But because I am a Catholic, and no Catholic has ever been elected president, the real issues in this campaign have been obscured – perhaps deliberately, in some quarters less responsible than this. So it is apparently necessary for me to state once again not what kind of church I believe in – for that should be important only to me – but what kind of America I believe in.
I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference; and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.
Apparently, this was enough to resolve the question, and he won the election. Today, we have a new question of allegiance. Not a question regarding Catholicism, but rather, Islam. The reason we ask this question is based on the fact, that a Muslim, is a Muslim first no matter where that person lives. Islam recognizes Dar el Islam, the “house of Islam” as any place a Muslim is present. Islam may not control that place, but the man that proclaims his devotion and submission to Allah is by Sha’ariah Law, a Muslim first and foremost.
Islam means submission, literally; there is no doubt that a devout Muslim must proclaim this or he is an apostate. This is something worse than an infidel, or non-believer, for he has forsaken his duty to Allah. Therefore, he must always be a Muslim first, and that means he is not only unable, but also forbidden from acting in any other fashion. If he is in our military, he may take orders, and obey, but at some level, when the order runs afoul of Islam, he must revert to Islam first. This is very obvious in the case of the terrorist, Major Nidal Hasan at Fort Hood.
Unlike Catholicism, Islam enforces this by the sword. In many lands around the world, there are frequent examples of this enforcement, especially among the woman in Islam. Honor killings are frequent and occur everywhere, even here in the USA, Canada, Great Britain, and many other places in the western world. Kennedy, back in 1960 was not even ex-communicated let alone receiving a Fatwa from an Imam, declaring he must die, and that all Muslims are duty bound to carry this edict out. This is a religious edict known only to Islam. Somehow, Major Nidal found that he could no longer be a member of the Military and decided to act on his devoutness to Islam, and to proceed to kill his own military comrades to whom he swore an oath.
Therefore, as we see in Hasan’s example, Islam is first in the mind of the devout, and it is clear that he never intended on living up to his oath as a soldier. He took the license of takiya, the Islamic right to lie for the sake of Islam to infidels. His oath never mattered and therefore, regarless of any oath a Muslim takes, it is to be totally discounted. Not only did he commit acts of terrorism, he also broke numerous laws, both military and civil. The worst of which was violating 18 U.S.C. § 2385 : US Code – Section 2385: Advocating overthrow of Government:
Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government…shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
These are acts of Sedition and Treason. But to a Muslim, they are acts of devotion to Allah. So which prevails? As a free society where we are a land of laws, not men, the former applies. So we now have a very real question of loyalty.
To a lesser degree, when a Muslim from another land is naturalized in the United States, and they swear an oath to gain citizenship, to whom are they beholding? When a recruit signs up for the military, takes the oath, yet declares he is a Muslim on the form, what should we expect?
Here is the oath on citizenship:
I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.
Or was that Allah?
Here are the oaths for the military:
I, (state your name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God. (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
I, (State your name) (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of (BLANK) do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God. (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)
Citizenship form n-400 also asks whether or not the applicant has:
…advocated the overthrow of any government by force or violence (either directly or indirectly)?
I think a great many Muslims would fail this test immediately if it could be proven, but takiya absolves them anyway under Islam if they lie about it. How do we prove or disprove these issues?
The answer is clear, we cannot. If we tried, the ACLU would file cases by the boatload. Therefore the only sane thing to do to protect us from the Hasan’s of the world and Islamic deceit is to ban any person with Muslim affiliation of any sort from both citizenship and military service. Islam has no place in modern society. It is a barbaric political ideology, not a religion, and therefore, it is akin to citizenship from another country. Islam knows no boundaries, but acts as if it were a separate state. Therefore, we should treat them as if they were. They are devout, abiding peoples of another country/state make no mistake about it.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Feds: Sudbury man planned terrorist attacks at shopping malls
By Laura Crimaldi and Laurel J. Sweet Wednesday, October 21, 2009 -
http://news.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view.bg?articleid=1206282&srvc=home&position=emailed
A 27-year-old man from Sudbury has been arrested on charges he planned terrorism attacks inside and outside the United States, including a plot to use automatic weapons to open fire at shoppers and emergency responders in shopping malls, federal prosecutors said today.
Tarek Mehanna, of 6 Fairhaven Circle, is accused of conspiring with Ahmad Abousamra and others to obtain the automatic weapons needed to carry out a mall ambush in which they planned to open fire at random, said Acting U.S. Attorney Michael K. Loucks. Mehanna was already out on bail from a federal arrest last year, charged with lying during a terrorism probe.
Mehanna was arrested at his home at 6 a.m. this morning and booked at the Sudbury police station before being turned over to federal authorities. Federal agents have searched Mehanna’s home and say he is a U.S. citizen. A bail hearing has been scheduled for 1:30 p.m. in federal court.
Abousamra left the United States for Syria on Dec. 26, 2006, officials said. He said he would be back within a month after visiting his wife, but has never returned, officials said.
“At this time we don’t believe there are any active terrorist cells in this area,” said FBI special-agent-in-charge Warren T. Bamford.
The plot included plans to fire at emergency responders, but was abandoned because the men could not obtain the weapons, authorities said. They declined to name the mall or malls the men were targeting.
“We live in a free country. We don’t live in a police state. We do have places where if someone wants to do a terrorist act they can probably accomplish it,” said Loucks at a press conference. “We do our best. It’s amazing it hasn’t happened yet.”
Prosecutors also allege the men discussed participating in violent Jihad against American interests and their desire to die on the “battlefield.” The crimes are alleged to have taken place between 2001 and 2008.
Mehanna and Abousamra are also accused of traveling to Yemen in 2004 to find a terrorist training camp and learn how to engage in jihad, officials said.
Sudbury police chief Richard Glavin said he expects residents to be surprised by the development. There had been no calls for service to Mehanna’s home, where he lives with his parents, he said.
“I’m sure that people are concerned and alarmed,” said Glavin. “Regardless of where this occurred, in Sudbury or in other communities, this is obviously of concern to everyone.”
Mehanna was charged with lying to FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force investigators last year during a probe into whether Daniel Maldonado was participating in al-Qaeda training in Somalia. He was arrested in November 2008 at Logan International Airport while boarding a plane to Saudi Arabia for that offense. He was out on bail from that arrest when he was apprehended this morning.
In that case, FBI investigators interviewed Mehanna on Dec. 16, 2006, according to a federal complaint. The FBI alleges Mehanna knew Maldonado was training for jihad in Somalia. Further, the complaint states Maldonado was encouraging Mehanna to join him there.
Mehanna told the FBI Maldonado was working for a Web site in Egypt and had infrequent contact with him, the complaint states. The FBI asserted Maldonado had contacted Mehanna three times from Somalia on Dec. 12, 2006.
Maldonado was arrested in February 2007 near the Somalia border by Kenyan authorities on charges he trained at al-Qaeda camps in Somalia, the complaint states.
- This is the fifth attempted terror attack in the US in about 90 days. THANK GOD FOR OUR ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES!!! How long before one of these become succesful?
- BBJ
http://news.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view.bg?articleid=1206282&srvc=home&position=emailed
A 27-year-old man from Sudbury has been arrested on charges he planned terrorism attacks inside and outside the United States, including a plot to use automatic weapons to open fire at shoppers and emergency responders in shopping malls, federal prosecutors said today.
Tarek Mehanna, of 6 Fairhaven Circle, is accused of conspiring with Ahmad Abousamra and others to obtain the automatic weapons needed to carry out a mall ambush in which they planned to open fire at random, said Acting U.S. Attorney Michael K. Loucks. Mehanna was already out on bail from a federal arrest last year, charged with lying during a terrorism probe.
Mehanna was arrested at his home at 6 a.m. this morning and booked at the Sudbury police station before being turned over to federal authorities. Federal agents have searched Mehanna’s home and say he is a U.S. citizen. A bail hearing has been scheduled for 1:30 p.m. in federal court.
Abousamra left the United States for Syria on Dec. 26, 2006, officials said. He said he would be back within a month after visiting his wife, but has never returned, officials said.
“At this time we don’t believe there are any active terrorist cells in this area,” said FBI special-agent-in-charge Warren T. Bamford.
The plot included plans to fire at emergency responders, but was abandoned because the men could not obtain the weapons, authorities said. They declined to name the mall or malls the men were targeting.
“We live in a free country. We don’t live in a police state. We do have places where if someone wants to do a terrorist act they can probably accomplish it,” said Loucks at a press conference. “We do our best. It’s amazing it hasn’t happened yet.”
Prosecutors also allege the men discussed participating in violent Jihad against American interests and their desire to die on the “battlefield.” The crimes are alleged to have taken place between 2001 and 2008.
Mehanna and Abousamra are also accused of traveling to Yemen in 2004 to find a terrorist training camp and learn how to engage in jihad, officials said.
Sudbury police chief Richard Glavin said he expects residents to be surprised by the development. There had been no calls for service to Mehanna’s home, where he lives with his parents, he said.
“I’m sure that people are concerned and alarmed,” said Glavin. “Regardless of where this occurred, in Sudbury or in other communities, this is obviously of concern to everyone.”
Mehanna was charged with lying to FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force investigators last year during a probe into whether Daniel Maldonado was participating in al-Qaeda training in Somalia. He was arrested in November 2008 at Logan International Airport while boarding a plane to Saudi Arabia for that offense. He was out on bail from that arrest when he was apprehended this morning.
In that case, FBI investigators interviewed Mehanna on Dec. 16, 2006, according to a federal complaint. The FBI alleges Mehanna knew Maldonado was training for jihad in Somalia. Further, the complaint states Maldonado was encouraging Mehanna to join him there.
Mehanna told the FBI Maldonado was working for a Web site in Egypt and had infrequent contact with him, the complaint states. The FBI asserted Maldonado had contacted Mehanna three times from Somalia on Dec. 12, 2006.
Maldonado was arrested in February 2007 near the Somalia border by Kenyan authorities on charges he trained at al-Qaeda camps in Somalia, the complaint states.
- This is the fifth attempted terror attack in the US in about 90 days. THANK GOD FOR OUR ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES!!! How long before one of these become succesful?
- BBJ
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Islam's European Conquest: Is America Next?
By John Griffing
Islamic lands that were occupied by the enemies will once again become Islamic...We proclaim that we will conquer Rome, like Constantinople was conquered once, and as it will be conquered again."
- Ali Al-Faqir, the Jordanian Minister for Religious Endowment
Britain, birthplace of parliamentary democracy, has fallen to Islam. Oxford, once home to the likes of C.S. Lewis, now houses a giant Eastern Islamic Studies Center. If this were the only Islamic addition to Oxford, the mood would be less somber, but when Oxford citizens are forced to awake every morning to the Muslim call to prayer with the full consent of the Church of England, nothing short of conquest has taken place.
Britain's Muslim demographic is now so dominant that the British government recently began to allow Islamic civil and religious law, known as Sharia, to be enforced along side British law.
But if religious tolerance is good, why is this a problem? Simple-this is not an issue of religious liberty. Islam is not designed to co-exist with western civilization. It is designed to conquer it.
Most would agree that Judeo-Christian values are consistent with Anglo-American tradition. Can the same be said of Islam? Even Muslims don't think so. The chief Justice of London's Sharia Court made this chilling statement:
If Sharia is implemented then you can turn this country into a haven of peace...Once a thief's hand is cut off, nobody is going to steal. Once an adulterer is stoned, nobody is going to commit this crime at all. This is why we say we want to offer it to British society.
Statements like this have not stopped prominent British figures from endorsing Sharia. The Archbishop of Canterbury, the Protestant equivalent of the Pope, called Sharia "unavoidable."
Under Sharia, non-Muslims are forbidden to even criticize Islam. This is significant, considering that a Policy Exchange Poll found that forty percent of British Muslims prefer to be governed by Sharia. Thirty-six percent believe that "apostates" from Islam should be punished by death. A Guardian Poll indicates that a sizeable number of British Muslims favor terrorist attacks on the United States and even England.[1]
There are presently 85 Sharia courts all across Britain, and, although initial defenders of the transformation claimed that Sharia courts would only exercise authority when consistent with British law, recent developments indicate that Muslims want Sharia pushed still further. Many Muslims advocate a separate police force due to the repeated embarrassment of rampant "honor killings."
Honor killings represent a new and growing form of homicide in many European countries, whereby Muslim families collaborate to kill fellow family members to restore honor. This practice is not alien to the US. Recently, a US Muslim man beheaded his wife, confessed to authorities, and still received a scheduled award from the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR).
Britain is not alone in its Muslim plight. In 2005, France experienced massive Muslim riots in 300 cities. Public buildings were firebombed, 200 policemen were injured, and 4,000 were arrested.[2] This is not unusual as a Muslim response to perceived offenses. Remember the Danish cartoons?
The central problem is assimilation. Most Muslims don't move to a country with the purpose of becoming real citizens of that country. Muslims don't want to be British or French. Muslims come for the wealth of the west, and to make the west Muslim. The evidence is transparent to anyone paying attention. The Parisian riots of 2005 were committed by second and third generation children of Muslim immigrants.
The ultimate aspiration of Muslims is total, global dominion within a theocracy known as a "caliphate." Be they peaceful Muslims or radical Muslims, all share in this goal.
And, incredibly, we cooperate with this reverse assimilation. Somehow we Westerners now feel compelled to assimilate with Muslims instead of expecting the reverse. Paris fashion runways have even begun designing and modeling "Muslim inspired head wraps and...tunics splattered with simulated blood in what some fashionistas dubbed carnage couture."[3]
The problem of Muslim integration is so sensitive that 751 areas have been willingly ceded to Islamic residents by the French government. Called "no-go zones" by many, these areas are off-limits to non-Muslims who value their lives. The UK is home to an indistinguishable number of "no-go zones," with violence toward non-Muslims increasing in once peaceful areas.
Dutch Muslims have such a grip on Holland that those who speak out must live in safe houses, like Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders. Yet the Dutch Minister of Justice still wants to make full Sharia an option on the next ballot, which would make Holland the first fully Islamic theocracy in the heart of Europe.
Germany could be next. Matthias Rohe, Judge on the Court of Appeals in Nuremburg wants to see full Sharia in Germany, saying, "we are ready to accept these kind of differences and would apply the norms." Many areas of Germany are now off limits to police and other uniformed personnel, as in France and the UK.
Muslim majorities will soon be a reality. By 2050, one out of every three people in Europe will be age 60 and over. The UN's Populations Division estimates that by 2050, if current birth rates are held, Europe will shrink by 200 million as a new Muslim majority dawns.
And now, onto this stage strides President Barack Hussein Obama, who advocates the European model for all aspects of American life; for the economy, for healthcare, and now, in our dealings with Muslims. We know where that road leads. It has been travelled by an entire continent now doomed to cultural and economic destruction.
Is this what we want? Do we really want European civilization, cultivated for centuries, to suddenly vanish? Do we really want American culture to disappear?
President Obama travels the world apologizing for America's very existence. He redefines Islam's historical goal as one of peaceful coexistence, its moral ethos as one of "tolerance and the dignity of all human beings," despite the evidence to the contrary. He pledges that the US "never will be-at war with Islam," blindly ignoring the present strategic situation. He claims that we are the "biggest Muslim country in the world," despite the fact that 80 percent of Americans say they are Christian.
The US has steadily been bowing to Islamic pressure. Many US banks and investment firms have formally adopted Sharia Finance. Harold Koh, recent Dean of Yale Law School and current Obama Advisor to the Secretary of State, openly talks about the compatibility of Sharia with American legal precedent.
What is our fascination with Islam? Why are we so willing to capitulate to its aims without resistance? Can't western civilization continue to champion religious liberty without committing suicide?
Radical Islam is inconsistent with American ideals, plain and simple. No two ideologies that embrace concepts so divergent as global domination and freedom can hope to coexist. There can be no compromise.
Europe is among the walking dead; their future is an Islamic one. America, however, still has a choice if we have the courage to make it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Tony Blankley, The West's Last Chance: Will We Win the Battle of Civilizations? (Washington, DC: Regnery, 2005), pp. 51, 55.
[2] Patrick J. Buchanan, State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America, (New York: Thomas Dunne Books, 2006), 194.
[3] Molly Moore, "For the French Joie de Vivre Fades into Fear," Washington Post, 25 Mar. 2006, 1,13.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Islamic lands that were occupied by the enemies will once again become Islamic...We proclaim that we will conquer Rome, like Constantinople was conquered once, and as it will be conquered again."
- Ali Al-Faqir, the Jordanian Minister for Religious Endowment
Britain, birthplace of parliamentary democracy, has fallen to Islam. Oxford, once home to the likes of C.S. Lewis, now houses a giant Eastern Islamic Studies Center. If this were the only Islamic addition to Oxford, the mood would be less somber, but when Oxford citizens are forced to awake every morning to the Muslim call to prayer with the full consent of the Church of England, nothing short of conquest has taken place.
Britain's Muslim demographic is now so dominant that the British government recently began to allow Islamic civil and religious law, known as Sharia, to be enforced along side British law.
But if religious tolerance is good, why is this a problem? Simple-this is not an issue of religious liberty. Islam is not designed to co-exist with western civilization. It is designed to conquer it.
Most would agree that Judeo-Christian values are consistent with Anglo-American tradition. Can the same be said of Islam? Even Muslims don't think so. The chief Justice of London's Sharia Court made this chilling statement:
If Sharia is implemented then you can turn this country into a haven of peace...Once a thief's hand is cut off, nobody is going to steal. Once an adulterer is stoned, nobody is going to commit this crime at all. This is why we say we want to offer it to British society.
Statements like this have not stopped prominent British figures from endorsing Sharia. The Archbishop of Canterbury, the Protestant equivalent of the Pope, called Sharia "unavoidable."
Under Sharia, non-Muslims are forbidden to even criticize Islam. This is significant, considering that a Policy Exchange Poll found that forty percent of British Muslims prefer to be governed by Sharia. Thirty-six percent believe that "apostates" from Islam should be punished by death. A Guardian Poll indicates that a sizeable number of British Muslims favor terrorist attacks on the United States and even England.[1]
There are presently 85 Sharia courts all across Britain, and, although initial defenders of the transformation claimed that Sharia courts would only exercise authority when consistent with British law, recent developments indicate that Muslims want Sharia pushed still further. Many Muslims advocate a separate police force due to the repeated embarrassment of rampant "honor killings."
Honor killings represent a new and growing form of homicide in many European countries, whereby Muslim families collaborate to kill fellow family members to restore honor. This practice is not alien to the US. Recently, a US Muslim man beheaded his wife, confessed to authorities, and still received a scheduled award from the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR).
Britain is not alone in its Muslim plight. In 2005, France experienced massive Muslim riots in 300 cities. Public buildings were firebombed, 200 policemen were injured, and 4,000 were arrested.[2] This is not unusual as a Muslim response to perceived offenses. Remember the Danish cartoons?
The central problem is assimilation. Most Muslims don't move to a country with the purpose of becoming real citizens of that country. Muslims don't want to be British or French. Muslims come for the wealth of the west, and to make the west Muslim. The evidence is transparent to anyone paying attention. The Parisian riots of 2005 were committed by second and third generation children of Muslim immigrants.
The ultimate aspiration of Muslims is total, global dominion within a theocracy known as a "caliphate." Be they peaceful Muslims or radical Muslims, all share in this goal.
And, incredibly, we cooperate with this reverse assimilation. Somehow we Westerners now feel compelled to assimilate with Muslims instead of expecting the reverse. Paris fashion runways have even begun designing and modeling "Muslim inspired head wraps and...tunics splattered with simulated blood in what some fashionistas dubbed carnage couture."[3]
The problem of Muslim integration is so sensitive that 751 areas have been willingly ceded to Islamic residents by the French government. Called "no-go zones" by many, these areas are off-limits to non-Muslims who value their lives. The UK is home to an indistinguishable number of "no-go zones," with violence toward non-Muslims increasing in once peaceful areas.
Dutch Muslims have such a grip on Holland that those who speak out must live in safe houses, like Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders. Yet the Dutch Minister of Justice still wants to make full Sharia an option on the next ballot, which would make Holland the first fully Islamic theocracy in the heart of Europe.
Germany could be next. Matthias Rohe, Judge on the Court of Appeals in Nuremburg wants to see full Sharia in Germany, saying, "we are ready to accept these kind of differences and would apply the norms." Many areas of Germany are now off limits to police and other uniformed personnel, as in France and the UK.
Muslim majorities will soon be a reality. By 2050, one out of every three people in Europe will be age 60 and over. The UN's Populations Division estimates that by 2050, if current birth rates are held, Europe will shrink by 200 million as a new Muslim majority dawns.
And now, onto this stage strides President Barack Hussein Obama, who advocates the European model for all aspects of American life; for the economy, for healthcare, and now, in our dealings with Muslims. We know where that road leads. It has been travelled by an entire continent now doomed to cultural and economic destruction.
Is this what we want? Do we really want European civilization, cultivated for centuries, to suddenly vanish? Do we really want American culture to disappear?
President Obama travels the world apologizing for America's very existence. He redefines Islam's historical goal as one of peaceful coexistence, its moral ethos as one of "tolerance and the dignity of all human beings," despite the evidence to the contrary. He pledges that the US "never will be-at war with Islam," blindly ignoring the present strategic situation. He claims that we are the "biggest Muslim country in the world," despite the fact that 80 percent of Americans say they are Christian.
The US has steadily been bowing to Islamic pressure. Many US banks and investment firms have formally adopted Sharia Finance. Harold Koh, recent Dean of Yale Law School and current Obama Advisor to the Secretary of State, openly talks about the compatibility of Sharia with American legal precedent.
What is our fascination with Islam? Why are we so willing to capitulate to its aims without resistance? Can't western civilization continue to champion religious liberty without committing suicide?
Radical Islam is inconsistent with American ideals, plain and simple. No two ideologies that embrace concepts so divergent as global domination and freedom can hope to coexist. There can be no compromise.
Europe is among the walking dead; their future is an Islamic one. America, however, still has a choice if we have the courage to make it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Tony Blankley, The West's Last Chance: Will We Win the Battle of Civilizations? (Washington, DC: Regnery, 2005), pp. 51, 55.
[2] Patrick J. Buchanan, State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America, (New York: Thomas Dunne Books, 2006), 194.
[3] Molly Moore, "For the French Joie de Vivre Fades into Fear," Washington Post, 25 Mar. 2006, 1,13.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
