Author Archives: Mark Webster

Update on Islam and American Dhimmitude

Posted on by
Reply

As Iraq and Afghanistan fall apart,political correctness in the U. S military continues to run amuck. From Diana West -

 

Pentagon Exalts Koran Over Constitution

MAR10

Written by: Diana West
Saturday, March 10, 2012 3:50 AM

Conclusion? No, it’s the end.

—

Almost exactly one year ago, I came across the ISAF website headline, “The Religious Importance of the Qu’ran,” I wrote:

As a well-known sucker for the religious importance of the “Qur’an” — I prefer “Ko-ran,” with Texas inflection — I just had to click and see.

The caption tells us so-and-so holds his prayers beads during a March 2010ribbon-cutting ceremony on an electrification project in the Farah Distriction, quoting Mr. So-and-So as saying: “If we have electricity … we can turn on our lights, and read the Koran.”

What comment is appropriate here? “The jaw drops”? “The universe spins”? We must go beyond shock to assess the advanced state of psycho-masochism the US military has now attained under the suicidal ideology of COIN, a belief system of unparralleled arrogance that actually believes that a scheme of sticks and carrots, at a staggering cost of blood (limbs, skull shards) and unrecoverable treasure, is adequate to remake Muslim Man in Petraeus’s Image.

But the joke is on the COINsters. For what is happening is that it is they who are remaking themselves. In seeking to win Islamic hearts and minds, a lynchpin of the non-military, social-work basis of the COIN strategy, they have themselves become de facto followers of Islamic law, and they are spreading it to our troops.

The rest here – http://www.dianawest.net/Home/tabid/36/EntryId/2057/Pentagon-Exalts-Koran-Over-Constitution.aspx

 

The conflict between fundamental freedoms and Sharia Law is nothing new. For a bit of a historical perspective check out Andrew Bosmtom’s article –

In 1876, U.S. consul to Turkey Horace Maynard (above) understood—and articulated—the irreconcilability between Islam’s Sharia despotism, and Christian aspirations for “..an earlier and superior title to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Rest of the article here –

http://www.andrewbostom.org/blog/2012/03/04/sharia-vs-freedom-circa-1876-an-american-diplomats-clear-perspective/

 

In light of the fact that the Obama administration has been bending over backwards in abject prostration toward Mecca,the following article says what the President should be saying -

Christians are being attacked, dispossessed, exiled and murdered all over the Middle East, and their churches, shrines and religious paraphernalia are being burned and destroyed throughout the region, all at the hands of Islamists (followers of Islam) acting in the name of Islam. Except for Israel, Christians in every single country and area in the Middle East, including Gaza and the West Bank, live in fear and trepidation and face constant heavy-handed persecution, subjugation, degradation and the threat of death.

 

The Islamic world acting in the name of Islam is trying to remove Christians and Christianity from the land and is well on the way to success. In another generation or two, Christians will be almost entirely gone and so will most of the physical evidence that they were ever there to begin with. Religious cleansing is going on throughout the Middle East, and Christians are being cleansed by Islamists acting in Islam’s name and according to its imperatives.

This is nothing new, of course, not to anyone who knows anything about Islam and history anyway. It has been going on since Islam first came on the scene and is no different today than it ever was. Hatred and disgust of Christians has been a basic, intrinsic, fundamental part of Islam from the very beginning and Islam has a 1,400-year record of treating them absolutely abominably, of viewing them as inferior beings who are less than human. It’s not just that they are held in low regard. They are held in no regard at all, and therefore Islamists can treat them with impunity with no fear of consequences under Sharia, Islamic law. In fact, Islam mandates and demands that Islamists view them and treat them the way they do. It is the will of Allah as expressed to Muhammad, and is entrenched in the Koran and as such Islam leaves Islamists no choice in the matter. There are terrible consequences for not obeying the will of Allah, but none for doing what he commands, for obeying him and carrying out his commandments.

Rest of the article here – http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/45173?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Domestic Violence in Islam

Posted on by
Reply

From Robert Spencer at Jihad Watch,an expose of an attempt to whitewash the domestic violence problem inherent in Islam- http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/03/the-islamic-solution-to-stop.html

Huffington Post enables beating of women: publishes whitewash of Qur’an’s justification for domestic abuse

“Men are the managers of the affairs of women for that God has preferred in bounty one of them over another, and for that they have expended of their property. Righteous women are therefore obedient, guarding the secret for God’s guarding. And those you fear may be rebellious admonish; banish them to their couches, and beat them. If they then obey you, look not for any way against them; God is All-high, All-great.” — Qur’an 4:34

The three-million-dollar campaign of the Muslim Brotherhood-linked Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) to whitewash Sharia and fool Americans about its nature began in earnest yesterday. Is this nonsensical article part of it? Is ICNA paying Qasim Rashid and/or the HuffPo to retail these soothing deceptions? We may never know the answers to those questions, but it is certain that if Qasim Rashid were an anti-jihad, pro-freedom writer, the mainstream media would be all over him asking questions about his funding and his backers. Whoever Rashid’s may be, certainly this farrago coalesces neatly with ICNA’s “war is deceit” Sharia whitewash effort.

“The Islamic Solution to Stop Domestic Violence,” by Qasim Rashid in the Huffington Post, March 5:

Critics incorrectly allege that Islam command’s husband’s to beat their wives, often citing the Quran verse 4:34. Unfortunately, like any Muslim man who harms his wife, critics miss the keen wisdom in verse 4:34 that actively pre-empts domestic violence.In Virginia, I provide pro bono legal support to victims of domestic and sexual violence. Virtually all of our clients are female. Every nine seconds — nearly 10,000 victims daily — a woman in the United States is abused. In America, domestic violence is the leading cause of injury to women, more than car accidents, muggings and rape — combined. Would those who blame Islam for domestic violence also blame Christianity every nine seconds?…

Domestic violence is found in every culture and every nation, among people of every religion. The difference in Islam, which Rashid is busy trying to obscure, is that Qur’an 4:34 gives the practice divine sanction. Christianity doesn’t teach that God commands that a man should beat his disobedient wife. No other religion does, either. No other culture teaches such a thing. In every other context, domestic violence is considered a crime. In Islam, it is a husband’s prerogative according to the words of Allah himself.http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/03/the-islamic-solution-to-stop.html

 

From the comments section a reader reminds us of other Islamic texts that show that there has always been a pattern of abuse within Islam itself.

It is also true that no Jew or Christian is able to cite Biblical justification for domestic violence. The same is hardly true of core Islamic texts. The Qur’an, Hadiths, and Sira all condone wife-beating. The “Prophet” himself beat his wives, including his favorite wife, young Aisha.

Qur’an (38:44) – “And take in your hand a green branch and beat her with it, and do not break your oath…” [Allah telling Job to beat his wife]
From the Hadith:

Bukhari (72:715) – A woman came to Muhammad and begged her to stop her husband from beating her. Her skin was bruised so badly that she it is described as being “greener” than the green veil she was wearing. Muhammad did not admonish her husband, but instead ordered her to return to him and submit to his sexual desires.

Bukhari (72:715) – “Aisha said, ‘I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women’” This is Muhammad’s own wife complaining of the abuse that the women of her religions suffer relative to other women.

Muslim (4:2127) – Muhammad struck his favorite wife, Aisha, in the chest one evening when she left the house without his permission. Aisha narrates, “He struck me on the chest which caused me pain.”

Muslim (9:3506) – Muhammad’s father-in-laws (Abu Bakr and Umar) amused him by slapping his wives (Aisha and Hafsa) for annoying him. According to the Hadith, the prophet of Islam laughed upon hearing this.

 

A case study from the Netherlands -

http://digitalcommons.macalester.edu

2. Women and Value Clashes
The position of women in the Muslim world in contrast to Dutch women is constantly cited as an
example of fundamental differences. Many Dutch people see Muslim women to be as much the
victims of radical Muslim men as they are. In other words, ―there is a consensus in Dutch
Society, that Muslims do not treat women or children as they should treat them; more exactly,
they treat them as they should not treat them.‖

Approximately nine out of ten native Dutch
people believe that Muslim men dominate their women.

The headscarf, of course, represents
a physical manifestation of this clash of values. In fact, Philip Jenkins points out that it is ―a key
marker of religious and cultural difference.‖
Objectively, there can be many different reasons
why women choose to express their faith in this way, but these are seldom mentioned.
The position of Muslim women was propelled into the spotlight by the release of the film
Submission by Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Theo Van Gogh. Ayaan Hirsi Ali appeared on television for
the first time in August 2004 on Zomergasten
in the wake of a great amount of public interest.
The film is essentially a graphic commentary on domestic violence in Muslim communities, with
the protagonists asserting that such acts are justified by the Qur‘an. It has been critiqued for
being ―first and foremost striking in its unimaginative resonance with the visual imagery of
Orientalism… the spoken texts refer to a more academic form of Orientalism that sees people‘s
lives as determined by Islam.‖

Contrary to Hirsi Ali‘s expectations, few Muslim organizations
in the Netherlands responded with any vehemence to the film at first. There was also a very
limited reaction from the target group, Muslim women themselves.

The response eventually arrived in the form of the assassination of Theo Van Gogh, at which point the film became the
subject of fierce debate. The widespread outrage and the direct threats posed to her life pushed
Ayaan Hirsi Ali into hiding. She is no longer active in the Dutch political scene, but still remains
a key figure in any discussion of women‘s rights issues in the Netherlands today.
Hirsi Ali frequently cites examples from her upbringing in a strictly religious Somali family as
part of her campaign against the repression of women in Islam. She is famous for declarations
such as ―to be a Muslim woman is to be born for the pleasure of men,‖
and had censured Islam‘s ―gender apartheid.‖ In 2003, she joined the right-wing People‘s Party of Freedom and
Democracy (VVD) and subsequently became a member of Parliament.

She began to be even more vocal in her opposition to the treatment of women in Islam, focusing her broadsides more
plainly on Islam itself, making statements such as ―Muhammad is, by our Western standards, a
perverse man.‖

This uncritical rhetoric that attacks Islam and purports to stand up for the rights
of Muslim women all in one breath is precisely the form of dialogue that this essay takes a
position against.
It should be noted that Hirsi Ali failed to take into account a number of considerations when
she was carrying out her campaign. For one thing, Muslim women are often part of a
marginalized economic group. A simple statistic demonstrates that the average annual income
for Native Dutch households is €20,000, compared to €13,000 for Moroccan households and
€13,600 for Turkish households.
Furthermore, only 36 percent of Muslim women participate in
the labour market in the Netherlands. This means that oftentimes immigrant women do not have
access to education and opportunities that would allow them to counter these types of
stereotypes. Interestingly, there are definitely some signs that Muslim women are becoming
more active in speaking out about their opinions of Islam and their position in relation to it.

Stories of Life: Domestic violence

The following article was written by Marij Uijt den Bogaard , a former social worker working for the Antwerp municipality. She was fired after writing reports warning about radicalization in the Muslim community. The article originally appeared on Brussels Journal in Dutch.

—-
Fatima looks embittered.
‘You’re so naive,’ she says, ‘tell that to the marines, that goes for you!”
Fatima is a good story-teller, and the subject is the meaning of marriage in traditional Islam; she talks about overcrowded refuge homes with an ever growing representation of her sisters, Muslim women, escaping the violence and severe conflicts inside families. The women are homeless and end up in refuge homes; where they now make up 53% of the inhabitants.
A Muslim background often plays an important role in violence and severe conflicts inside ‘immigrant’ families, as a result of the Muslim notion of marriage in traditional Islam. According to Fatima Muslim marriage for most immigrant women is a final destination. And this is nothing more or less than a business contract. It entails a certain number of rights and duties, for the husband as well as for the wife, she explains. Children are part of this contract.
Women coming here (the Netherlands) via marriage, grew up in villages with a traditional way of living. Existence knew in the homelands little stimuli for development. No luxury or comfort. Women come to our country because of the difference in prosperity, away from the futureless villages.
For Muslims marriage is obligatory. Thus, if it comes to marriage, then preferably with a man who can offer a leather 3-piece suite, car and washing-machine. So they come and marry, have children, as part of the contract, an arranged marriage. They are not accustomed to think for themselves. Where should they have learned that? Everything is fixed in advance for women in the traditional Islamic village life. Survival depends upon development of qualities like obedience to the parents, Koran and later the husband, performing one’s obligations.
From birth to death others regulate her life. Love? That will come later, when children are born. Or not, and then mothers see children as a burden, an inevitable part of the contract. In a loveless marriage upbringing is limited to giving primary care. In traditionally arranged marriages, concluded only for economic reasons, this is too often the case. Primary care means clothes, food and shelter. Affection and giving an education is not included.
As long as the whole family behaves inside its own subgroup , the virtual village in Antwerp North, Borgerhout or other suburbs requiring “particular attention” (aandachtwijk), where many import-brides from traditional villages land, all is well. There’s a taboo about problems like violence inside traditional Islamic families. Everyone knows about it, “you” as well as “we”, Fatima says.
Is the above mentioned story about an Islamic marriage and its connection with domestic violence stigmatizing? Do I want to insult? No, this description of the situation of women from Turkish and Moroccan origin comes from the many Fatimas I have talked to during my fieldwork in one of the area’s for special attention. Their sisters overcrowd the refuge homes, just like the situation is in the Netherlands. Through often arranged marriages, blinded by the leather 3-piece suite, Fatima’s sisters land here in Flanders. Within our Flemish cities there are several virtual villages where the prevailing opinions and life patterns are the same as those in the Rif mountains or in the Turkish countryside.
The Fatima’s never learned there to stand up for themselves, or to insist on equal rights. Self-determination does not exist. Islam decides what is the role and duty or protection of a women. Her life and the quality of her life is dependent on her husband and nothing can change that, not even in Borgerhout of Antwerp North. The husband rules over her right for self determination. He decides whether she may or may not go out, and that also goes for getting a driving license or making a trip to the other side of the town. Her freedom is for him to decide. And how about it, if Fatima wants more?
Then, sooner than in a Flemish family, physical violence may occur. Because Islam opens it up for interpretation, leaves the possibility open. And it is allowed by her direct social environment.
Does this mean that every Muslim husband beats his wife? No, of course not, but it does mean that a little to many Muslims do. Refuge homes are overcrowded! It also means that Muslims justify this as allowed by the Prophet, Koran, imam and Islam. Whenever they address Flemings or the media, spokesmen of the Muslim condemn this, of course. But this does not mean that they urge revision of sexist texts of the Koran within their own subgroups. Nor preventive campaigns are organized against violence on women by immigrant moderates. Read the rest here – http://islamineurope.blogspot.com/search?q=domestic+violence+in+islam

 

Certainly domestic violence is a problem in every country. For example,Theodore Dalrymple has documented the severity of domestic abuse in the government housing of London. The issue within Islam is the fact that those who mistreat their wives use the words and example of their prophet Mohammed. If Mohammed was the perfect man,then he sets the example for Muslim males to follow.

Life at the Bottom: The Worldview That Makes the Underclass

Product Detailshttp://www.amazon.com/Life-Bottom-Worldview-Makes-Underclass/dp/1566635055/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1331145057&sr=1-1

Obama and Marxism: The Influence of Saul Alinsky

Posted on by
Reply

I would be remiss not to mention the influence of Saul Alinsky on President Obama. Alinsky can be categorized as a neo-Marxist. The following excerpt is taken from Alinsky’s book Rules for Radicals. Check out Crossroads for all kinds of useful info. http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/communism/alinsky.htm

 

Home

Quotes and Excerpts from

Rules for Radicals

By Saul Alinsky – 1971

Hillary Clinton’s 1969 Political Science Thesis (“There is Only the Fight”) refers to an earlier version of Alinsky’s training manual. “In 1946,” she wrote, “Alinsky’s first book, Reveille for Radicals, was published.”

 

Background information

“Obama learned his lesson well. I am proud to see that my father’s model for organizing is being applied successfully beyond local community organizing to affect the Democratic campaign in 2008. It is a fine tribute to Saul Alinsky as we approach his 100th birthday.” –Letter from L. DAVID ALINSKY, son of Neo-Marxist Saul Alinsky

Obama helped fund ‘Alinsky Academy’: “The Woods Fund, a nonprofit on which Obama served as paid director from 1999 to December 2002, provided startup funding and later capital to the Midwest Academy…. Obama sat on the Woods Fund board alongside William Ayers, founder of the Weather Underground domestic terrorist organization…. ‘Midwest describes itself as ‘one of the nation’s oldest and best-known schools for community organizations, citizen organizations and individuals committed to progressive social change.’… Midwest teaches Alinsky tactics of community organizing.”

Hillary, Obama and the Cult of Alinsky: “True revolutionaries do not flaunt their radicalism, Alinsky taught. They cut their hair, put on suits and infiltrate the system from within. Alinsky viewed revolution as a slow, patient process. The trick was to penetrate existing institutions such as churches, unions and political parties…. Many leftists view Hillary as a sell-out because she claims to hold moderate views on some issues. However, Hillary is simply following Alinsky’s counsel to do and say whatever it takes to gain power.

“Obama is also an Alinskyite…. Obama spent years teaching workshops on the Alinsky method. In 1985 he began a four-year stint as a community organizer in Chicago, working for an Alinskyite group called the Developing Communities Project…. Camouflage is key to Alinsky-style organizing. While trying to build coalitions of black churches in Chicago, Obama caught flak for not attending church himself. He became an instant churchgoer.” (By Richard Poe, 11-27-07)

Opening page – Dedication

“Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history… the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer.”

Prologue

“The Revolutionary force today has two targets, moral as well as material. Its young protagonists are one moment reminiscent of the idealistic early Christians, yet they also urge violence and cry, ‘Burn the system down!‘ They have no illusions about the system, but plenty of illusions about the way to change our world. It is to this point that I have written this book.”

1. The Purpose

In this book we are concerned with how to create mass organizations to seize power and give it to the people; to realize the democratic dream of equality, justice, peace…. “Better to die on your feet than to live on your knees.’ This means revolution.” p.3

“Radicals must be resilient, adaptable to shifting political circumstances, and sensitive enough to the process of action and reaction to avoid being trapped by their own tactics and forced to travel a road not of their choosing.” p.6

“A Marxist begins with his prime truth that all evils are caused by the exploitation of the proletariat by the capitalists. From this he logically proceeds to the revolution to end capitalism, then into the third stage of reorganization into a new social order of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and finally the last stage — the political paradise of communism.” p.10

“An organizer working in and for an open society is in an ideological dilemma to begin with, he does not have a fixed truth — truth to him is relative and changing; everything to him is relative and changing…. To the extent that he is free from the shackles of dogma, he can respond to the realities of the widely different situations….” pp.10-11

Notes on Saul Alinsky and Neo-Marxism:

Alinsky’s tactics were based, not on Stalin’s revolutionary violence, but on the Neo-Marxist strategies of Antonio Gramsci, an Italian Communist. Relying on gradualism, infiltration and the dialectic process rather than a bloody revolution, Gramsci’s transformational Marxism was so subtle that few even noticed the deliberate changes.

Like Alinsky, Mikhail Gorbachev followed Gramsci, not Lenin. In fact, Gramsci aroused Stalins’s wrath by suggesting that Lenin’s revolutionary plan wouldn’t work in the West. Instead the primary assault would be on Biblical absolutes and Christian values, which must be crushed as a social force before the new face of Communism could rise and flourish. Malachi Martin gave us a progress report:

“By 1985, the influence of traditional Christian philosophy in the West was weak and negligible…. Gramsci’s master strategy was now feasible. Humanly speaking, it was no longer too tall an order to strip large majorities of men and women in the West of those last vestiges that remained to them of Christianity’s transcendent God.”

2. Of Means and Ends [Forget moral or ethical considerations]

“The end is what you want, the means is how you get it. Whenever we think about social change, the question of means and ends arises. The man of action views the issue of means and ends in pragmatic and strategic terms. He has no other problem; he thinks only of his actual resources and the possibilities of various choices of action. He asks of ends only whether they are achievable and worth the cost; of means, only whether they will work. … The real arena is corrupt and bloody.” p.24

“The means-and-ends moralists, constantly obsessed with the ethics of the means used by the Have-Nots against the Haves, should search themselves as to their real political position. In fact, they are passive — but real — allies of the Haves…. The most unethical of all means is the non-use of any means… The standards of judgment must be rooted in the whys and wherefores of life as it is lived, the world as it is, not our wished-for fantasy of the world as it should be….” pp.25-26

“The third rule of ethics of means and ends is that in war the end justifies almost any means….” p.29

“The seventh rule… is that generally success or failure is a mighty determinant of ethics….” p.34

“The tenth rule… is you do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments.… It involves sifting the multiple factors which combine in creating the circumstances at any given time… Who, and how many will support the action?… If weapons are needed, then are appropriate d weapons available? Availability of means determines whether you will be underground or above ground; whether you will move quickly or slowly…” p.36

Notes: Apparently, Michelle Obama referred to these words during her Democratic National Convention speech:

“She said, ‘Barack stood up that day,’ talking about a visit to Chicago neighborhoods, ‘and spoke words that have stayed with me ever since. He talked about ‘The world as it is‘ and ‘The world as it should be…’ And, ‘All of us driven by a simple belief that the world as it is just won’t do – that we have an obligation to, fight for the world as it should be.”

Do you wonder who — or whose values — should determine what “the world… should be?”

Rest of the article here – http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/communism/alinsky.htm

 

Obama and Hillary Clinton were both influenced by Alinsky. Here is an excerpt from an interesting article that shows the Obama/ Alinsky connection -

Most know by now that Hillary Clinton wrote her college thesis on The Alinsky Model. It is entitled, “THERE IS ONLY THE FIGHT . . .” An Analysis of the Alinsky Model and you can read it here. Obama’s link to Alinsky is not as direct as that of Ms. Clinton, but it is, if anything, a much stronger connection than Hillary’s. In Horowitz’ Discover the Networks article on Saul Alinsky author John

Hillary Clinton

Perazzo says,

Unlike Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama never personally met Saul Alinsky. By the time Alinsky died in 1972, Obama was only 11 years old. But as a young man, he became a master practitioner of Alinsky’s methods. In 1985 a small group of 20-odd churches in Chicago offered Obama a job helping residents of poor, predominantly black, Far South Side neighborhoods. Accepting that opportunity, Obama became Director of the Developing Communities Project, where he worked for the next three years on initiatives that ranged from job training to school reform to hazardous waste cleanup. David Freddoso, author of the 2008 book The Case Against Barack Obama, summarizes Obama’s community-organizing efforts as follows:

“He pursued manifestly worthy goals; protecting people from asbestos in government housing projects is obviously a good thing and a responsibility of the government that built them. But [in every case except one] the proposed solution to every problem on the South Side was a distribution of government funds …”

Three of Obama’s mentors in Chicago were trained at the Alinsky-founded Industrial Areas Foundation. (The Developing Communities Project itself was an affiliate of the Gamaliel Foundation, whose modus operandi for the creation of “a more just and democratic society” is rooted firmly in the Alinsky method.)

One of Obama’s early mentors in the Alinsky method, Mike Kruglik, would later say the following about Obama:

“He was a natural, the undisputed master of agitation, who could engage a room full of recruiting targets in a rapid-fire Socratic dialogue, nudging them to admit that they were not living up to their own standards. As with the panhandler, he could be aggressive and confrontational. With probing, sometimes personal questions, he would pinpoint the source of pain in their lives, tearing down their egos just enough before dangling a carrot of hope that they could make things better.”

For several years, Obama himself taught workshops on the Alinsky method. Also, beginning in the mid-1980s, Obama worked with ACORN, the Alinskyite grassroots political organization that grew out of George Wiley‘s National Welfare Rights Organization (NWRO).

 

Rest of the article – http://www.alinskydefeater.com/Blog/2012/02/main-stream-media-tries-to-cover-up-obamas-ties-to-radical-saul-alinsky/#more-1604

 

 

To understand Alinsky,Hillary Clinton, and Obama,one must realize that politics is about power.

Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals
Alinsky is the Sun-Tzu for today’s radicals,
his book a manual for their political war. As early
as its dedicatory page, Alinsky provides revealing
insight into the radical mind by praising Lucifer as
the first rebel: “Lest we forget, an over-the-shoulder
acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all
our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to
know where mythology leaves off and history begins
- or which is which), the first radical known to man
who rebelled against the establishment and did it so
effectively that he at least won his own kingdom -
Lucifer.”
Thus Alinsky begins his text by telling readers
exactly what a radical is. He is not a reformer of the
system but its would-be destroyer. In his own mind
the radical is building his own kingdom, which to him
is a kingdom of heaven on earth. Since a kingdom
of heaven built by human beings is a fantasy – an
impossible dream – the radical’s only real world
efforts are those which are aimed at subverting the
society he lives in. He is a nihilist.

Read the rest – http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/articles/rules%20for%20revolution%20(2).pdf

 

 

The raised fist (also known as the clenched fist) is a salute most often used by left-wing activists, such as: Marxists, anarchists, socialists, communists, pacifists, feminists, trade unionists, and black nationalists. The raised fist is usually regarded as an expression of solidarity, strength, or defiance. It dates back to the salute of Rotfrontkämpferbund, a red front paramilitary organization of the Communist Party of Germany before WWII.

 

Liberation Theology with a Marxist slant is all about building the kingdom on earth. This kingdom is anti-God,it is built by utilizing lies,blackmail, subterfuge,intimidation,and force, if necessary.Morality is set on it’s head with the legitimization of abortion and homosexuality. The clenched fist of rebellion leads to the judgment of the Lord.

As the Lord states in the Bible “Those who hate Me love death.”

Has President Obama Been Influenced by Marxists ?

Posted on by
Reply

I was speaking with a lady the other day about Obama being a Marxist. She was indignant and said that Obama is a Christian. As I (and others) have pointed out, he attended Jeremiah Wright’s church,which is a Black Liberation Theology church,not the normal evangelical or pentecostal church one would think of . Here are a few of the people who have influenced Obama.

One of his earliest mentors was Frank Marshall Davis -

From AIM- http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas-communist-mentor

In his biography of Barack Obama, David Mendell writes about Obama’s life as a
“secret smoker” and how he “went to great lengths to conceal the habit.” But
what about Obama’s secret political life? It turns out that Obama’s childhood
mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, was a communist.

In his books, Obama admits attending “socialist conferences” and coming into
contact with Marxist literature. But he ridicules the charge of being a
“hard-core academic Marxist,” which was made by his colorful and outspoken 2004
U.S. Senate opponent, Republican Alan Keyes.

However,through Frank Marshall Davis, Obama had an admitted relationship with someone who was publicly identified as a member of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA). Therecord shows that Obama was in Hawaii from 1971-1979, where,at some point in time, he developed a close relationship, almost like a son,with Davis, listening to his “poetry” and gettingadvice on his career path. But Obama, in his book, Dreams From My Father,refers to him repeatedly as just “Frank.”The reason is apparent: Davis was a known communist who belonged to a party subservient to the Soviet Union.( For more documentation – http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas-communist-mentor/)

Mr. Davis was not only a Communist,but a sexual pervert. Here is an excerpt from the London Telegraph – http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/2601914/Frank-Marshall-Davis-alleged-Communist-was-early-influence-on-Barack-Obama.html

 

It has also been established that Mr Davis, who divorced in 1970, was the author of a hard-core pornographic autobiography published in San Diego in 1968 by Greenleaf Classics under the pseudonym Bob Greene.

In a surviving portion of an autobiographical manuscript, Mr Davis confirms that he was the author of Sex Rebel: Black after a reader had noticed the “similarities in style and phraseology” between the pornographic work and his poetry.

“I could not then truthfully deny that this book, which came out in 1968 as a Greenleaf Classic, was mine.” In the introduction to Sex Rebel, Mr Davis (writing as Greene) explains that although he has “changed names and identities…all incidents I have described have been taken from actual experiences”.

He stated that “under certain circumstances I am bisexual” and that he was “ a voyeur and an exhibitionist” who was “occasionally mildly interested in sado-masochism”, adding: “I have often wished I had two penises to enjoy simultaneously the double – but different – sensations of oral and genital copulation.”

The book, which closely tracks Mr Davis’s life in Chicago and Hawaii and the fact that his first wife was black and his second white, describes in lurid detail a series of shockingly sordid sexual encounters, often involving group sex.

One chapter concerns the seduction by Mr Davis and his first wife of a 13-year-old girl called Anne. Mr Davis wrote that it was the girl who had suggested he had sex with her. “I’m not one to go in for Lolitas. Usually I’d rather not bed a babe under 20.

“But there are exceptions. I didn’t want to disappoint the trusting child. At her still-impressionistic age, a rejection might be traumatic, could even cripple her sexually for life.”

He then described how he and his wife would have sex with the girl. “Anne came up many times the next several weeks, her aunt thinking she was in good hands. Actually she was.

“She obtained a course in practical sex from experienced and considerate practitioners rather than from ignorant insensitive neophytes….I think we did her a favour, although the pleasure was mutual.”

On other occasions, Mr Davis would cruise in Hawaii parks looking for couples or female tourists to have sex with. He derived sexual gratification from bondage, simulated rape and being flogged and urinated on.

He boasted that “the number of white babes interested in at least one meeting with a Negro male has been far more than I can handle” and wished “America were as civilised as, say, Scandinavia”. He concluded: “I regret none of my experiences or unusual appetites; for me they are normal.”

According to Mrs Weatherly-Williams, Mr Davis lost touch with Mr Dunham some time in the 1980s. John Edgar Tidwell, who wrote the introduction to Davis’s memoir and edited a collection of his work, said that there was no mention of Mr Dunham or Mr Obama in any of Mr Davis’s papers.

 

Bill Ayers –

 

 

The former Weather Underground radical was a terrorist,and then became an activist and “academic”. His ties to Obama go far deeper than Obama is willing to admit.http://newsbusters.org/blogs/rich-noyes/2008/09/23/barack-obama-bill-ayers-stanley-kurtz-makes-connection

A month earlier, a profile of Ayers in Chicago Magazine included a picture of Ayers stomping on the American flag. Marcia Froelke Coburn wrote the accompanying article: “Talk to him for any length of time and some rhetoric of the past slips into the conversation. ‘I think there will be another mass political movement,’ he predicts, ‘because I believe that the kind of injustice that is built into our world will not go quietly into the night.’”
In the mid-1990s, Obama was hired to be the chairman of Ayers’ “brainchild,” the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. Here are the key excerpts from Kurtz’s op-ed in today’s Wall Street Journal; the entire must-read article can be found here.

Despite having authored two autobiographies, Barack Obama has never written about his most important executive experience. From 1995 to 1999, he led an education foundation called the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC), and remained on the board until 2001. The group poured more than $100 million into the hands of community organizers and radical education activists.
The CAC was the brainchild of Bill Ayers, a founder of the Weather Underground in the 1960s. Among other feats, Mr. Ayers and his cohorts bombed the Pentagon, and he has never expressed regret for his actions. Barack Obama’s first run for the Illinois State Senate was launched at a 1995 gathering at Mr. Ayers’s home.
The Obama campaign has struggled to downplay that association. Last April, Sen. Obama dismissed Mr. Ayers as just “a guy who lives in my neighborhood,” and “not somebody who I exchange ideas with on a regular basis.” Yet documents in the CAC archives make clear that Mr. Ayers and Mr. Obama were partners in the CAC. Those archives are housed in the Richard J. Daley Library at the University of Illinois at Chicago and I’ve recently spent days looking through them….
The CAC’s agenda flowed from Mr. Ayers’s educational philosophy, which called for infusing students and their parents with a radical political commitment, and which downplayed achievement tests in favor of activism. In the mid-1960s, Mr. Ayers taught at a radical alternative school, and served as a community organizer in Cleveland’s ghetto….
CAC translated Mr. Ayers’s radicalism into practice. Instead of funding schools directly, it required schools to affiliate with “external partners,” which actually got the money. Proposals from groups focused on math/science achievement were turned down. Instead CAC disbursed money through various far-left community organizers, such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (or Acorn).
Mr. Obama once conducted “leadership training” seminars with Acorn, and Acorn members also served as volunteers in Mr. Obama’s early campaigns. External partners like the South Shore African Village Collaborative and the Dual Language Exchange focused more on political consciousness, Afrocentricity and bilingualism than traditional education. CAC’s in-house evaluators comprehensively studied the effects of its grants on the test scores of Chicago public-school students. They found no evidence of educational improvement….
Mr. Ayers’s defenders claim that he has redeemed himself with public-spirited education work. That claim is hard to swallow if you understand that he views his education work as an effort to stoke resistance to an oppressive American system. He likes to stress that he learned of his first teaching job while in jail for a draft-board sit-in. For Mr. Ayers, teaching and his 1960s radicalism are two sides of the same coin….
The Obama campaign has cried foul when Bill Ayers comes up, claiming “guilt by association.” Yet the issue here isn’t guilt by association; it’s guilt by participation. As CAC chairman, Mr. Obama was lending moral and financial support to Mr. Ayers and his radical circle. That is a story even if Mr. Ayers had never planted a single bomb 40 years ago.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/rich-noyes/2008/09/23/barack-obama-bill-ayers-stanley-kurtz-makes-connection#ixzz1oI2IfRuo

Obama’s pastor for 20 years was Jeremiah Wright. He teaches Liberation Theology/Marxism.

In an article in the socialist Monthly Review, “Journalism, Democracy, and Class Struggle,” McChesney declared, “Our job is to make media reform part of our broader struggle for democracy, social justice, and, dare we say it, socialism.”

In the video, which captures Wright’s appearance at a September 17, 2009, anniversary celebration of Monthly Review, Wright said that while the “corporate media” provide a “binary lens” of the world, in such terms as “communist versus Christian,” Monthly Review offers what it calls “no-nonsense Marxism.”

He added: “You dispel all the negative images we have been programmed to conjure up with just the mention of that word socialism or Marxism.”

He called America “land of the greed and home of the slave.”

…he went into more detail about his own personal and political philosophy. He said that “My work with liberation theology, with Latin American theologians, with the Black Theology Project and with the Cuban Council of Churches taught me 30 years ago the importance of Marx and the Marxist analysis of the social realities of the vulnerable and the oppressed who were trying desperately to break free of the political economics undergirded by this country that were choking them and cutting off any hope of a possible future where all of the people would benefit.”

He said that his “exposure to the FMLN in El Salvador, the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, and my presence at the 15th Jamahiriya in Libya taught me what I have read in the pages of the Monthly Review which is, as Joshua Stanton says, though we need not always agree with one another we must do the work necessary to at least understand one another.” For more – http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/02/figures-obamas-marxist-mentor-jeremiah-wright-is-linked-to-gaddafi/

 

What about Obama’s closest political advisor,David Axelrod ? This is fresh off the press from a very credible source,please check it out -

http://theothermccain.com/2012/03/04/david-axelrods-red-roots-obama-advisers-communist-ties-exposed/

The cover story of the March print edition of The American Spectator is not yet online and, if you are not yet a subscriber to the magazine, I urge you to rush out to the nearest Barnes & Noble or wherever else you can buy a copy, because it’s definitely worth the $5.95 newstand price.

Presidential historian Paul Kengor has dug up some fascinating facts about the background of David Axelrod, showing President Obama’s top political strategist to have deep ties to the American Communist Party (CPUSA) and other leftist individuals and organizations.

For example, Axelrod’s mother, Myril Bennett Axelrod, worked for the left-wing New York newspaper,PM. Although it lasted less than a decade (1940-48), PM became notorious because of its penetration by Stalinists and others who promoted the Communist Party line on issues both foreign and domestic. Kengor points out that PM‘s famed Washington correspondent, I.F. Stone, was subsequently identified as a Soviet agent both in the so-called “Venona” documents and also by a former top KGB official, Oleg Kalugin.

It is unclear where Axelrod’s mother fit in the orbit of Communists, Soviet sympathizers and other “progressives” who worked at PM, Kengor says, because despite “scouring reel upon reel of microfiche” copies of the newspaper, he was “unable to find a single article with Myril’s byline.” Nevertheless, her association with the paper locates her politics on the far-left fringe of the American politic spectrum in the 1940s, which would seem important to understanding her son’s later activities.

While a student at the University of Chicago in the early 1970s, David Axelrod began working as a political reporter for the Hyde Park Herald, which Kengor says brought Axelrod to the attention of Don Rose and David Canter. Both of these men were associated with the Communist Party and other far-left organizations.

Kengor explains that David Canter’s father, Harry Canter, was “an instructor at the Abraham Lincoln School, an infamous Chicago-based [CPUSA] front that instructed pupils in the teachings of Marx and Lenin.” David Canter followed in his Communist father’s footsteps, so that a 1970 congressional investigation report, “Guide to Subversive Organizations and Publications,” lists David Canter 25 times. His Chicago-based publishing company was believed to be partly subsidized by Soviet funds and in the 1960s, Kengor writes, “David Canter and Don Rose joined forces to start a [Chicago-area] community newspaper called Hyde Park-Kenwood Voices.”

This Canter-Rose publication “was on the far left,” Kengor writes. Hyde Park-Kenwood Voices editorialized for the abolition of the House Committee on Un-American Activities (HUAC), whose investigations had exposed the pro-Soviet subversive activities of both David Canter and his father Harry. At a time when U.S. troops were fighting communism in Vietnam, Hyde Park-Kenwood Voices also published “pro-Hanoi screeds by [Students for a Democratic Society] members based in Chicago,” Kengor writes.

Don Rose was associated with SDS (the left-wing campus organization from which Bill Ayers’s terrorist splinter group Weather Underground spun off in 1969) and was also a member of the National Mobilization Committee to End the War in Vietnam, commonly known by the slang term “the Mobe.”

Rose and Canter played a critical role as “mentors” to young David Alexrod, Kengor explains, citing numerous sources including David Canter’s son Marc Canter for the fact that it was a letter of recommendation from Don Rose that helped Axelrod land a job as a reporter for the Chicago Tribune. By 1987, all three of these men — Don Rose, David Canter and David Axelrod, who had left journalism to become a paid political adviser — were part of the campaign to re-elect Harold Washington as Chicago’s mayor.

Kengor’s American Spectator article is important because Axelrod’s background — like Obama’s associations with such left-wing figures as Frank Marshall Davis and Bill Ayers — shows how ideas, policies and rhetoric originating in Marxist-Leninist doctrine and anti-American propaganda have been “mainstreamed” into Democratic Party politics. Rest of the story -

http://theothermccain.com/2012/03/04/david-axelrods-red-roots-obama-advisers-communist-ties-exposed/

 

As you may have noticed,the Democratic Party is not the same party that your grandparents voted for. A lot of this may be old news to many of you,but it is amazing how many people don’t know about this,or understand the implications of having a radical as President. Four more years of Obama,Pelosi,and Reid and this is what we will be looking at -

 

 

Obama my work here is done poster

 

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Posted on by
Reply

I seem to smell the stench of appeasement in the air.
Margaret Thatcher

 The United States has an opportunity to support Israel and their plans to deal with Iran’s nuclear facilities. Will Obama have the wisdom and courage to take a stand against a rogue nation that has promised to annihilate Israel ? Putin has been re-elected,so one has to realize that Iran will be further emboldened in implementing their plan of destruction.

 

Obama “Firmly Believes” Diplomacy Will Stop Iran From Building Nuclear Weapons…

http://weaselzippers.us/2012/03/04/obama-firmly-believes-diplomacy-will-stop-iran-from-building-nuclear-weapons/

 

Via Free Beacon:

President Barack Obama still believes that “an opportunity remains for diplomacy” with the Iranian regime, which continues to enrich uranium and refuses to answer basic questions about its disputed nuclear program.

“I firmly believe that an opportunity remains for diplomacy — backed by pressure — to succeed,” Obama told more than 13,000 attendees at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s annual conference. “The United States and Israel both assess that Iran does not yet have a nuclear weapon, and we are exceedingly vigilant in monitoring their program.”

Economic sanctions are beginning to wear the regime down, Obama said, noting that there is still time for Iran to join the international “community of nations.”

“Sanctions are continuing to increase, and this July — thanks to our diplomatic coordination — a European ban on Iranian oil imports will take hold,” Obama said. “Faced with these increasingly dire consequences, Iran’s leaders still have the opportunity to make the right decision. They can choose a path that brings them back into the community of nations, or they can continue down a dead end.”

Keep reading…

 

 

 

Modern History Sourcebook:http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1938PEACE.html
Neville Chamberlain:
“Peace in Our Time”, 1938

The following is the wording of the statement that Neville Chamberlain waved when he stepped off the plane after the conference in Berlin had ended on 30 September, 1938.

“We, the German Führer and Chancellor, and the British Prime Minister, have had a further meeting today and are agreed in recognizing that the question of Anglo-German relations is of the first importance for two countries and for Europe.

“We regard the agreement signed last night and the Anglo-German Naval Agreement as symbolic of the desire of our two peoples never to go to war with one another again.

“We are resolved that the method of consultation shall be the method adopted to deal with any other questions that may concern our two countries, and we are determined to continue our efforts to remove possible sources of difference, and thus to contribute to assure the peace of Europe.”

Chamberlain read this statement to a cheering crowd in front of 10 Downing St. and said;
“My good friends this is the second time in our history that there has come back from Germany to Downing Street peace with honor. I believe it is peace in our time.”

Excerpted from “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.

 

(CBS/AP) MOSCOW – Vladimir Putin scored a decisive victory in Russia’s presidential election Sunday to return to the Kremlin and extend his hold on power for six more years. His eyes brimming with tears, he defiantly proclaimed to a sea of supporters that they had triumphed over opponents intent on “destroying Russia’s statehood and usurping power.”

Putin’s win was never in doubt as many across the vast country still see him as a guarantor of stability and the defender of a strong Russia against a hostile world, an image he has carefully cultivated during 12 years in power.

CBS News correspondent Mark Phillips reports there were widespread accounts of vote-rigging.

“There was ballot box stuffing. There were all sorts of manipulation of the election commissions at the local level. So it was not a good report card,” election observer Spencer Oliver told CBS News.

The accounts of extensive vote-rigging looked set to strengthen the resolve of opposition forces, whose unprecedented protests in recent months have posed the first serious challenge to Putin’s heavy-handed rule. Another huge demonstration was set for Monday evening in central Moscow. Rest of the article here – http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57390300/tearful-putin-thanks-supporters-after-win/

 

From Joel C. Rosenberg’s blog -

“At the White House on Monday, President Obama will seek to persuade the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, to postpone whatever plans he may have to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities in the coming months,” notes an important new article by Jeffrey Goldberg in The Atlantic. “Obama will argue that under his leadership, the United States “has Israel’s back,” and that he will order the U.S. military to destroy Iran’s nuclear program if economic sanctions fail to compel Tehran to shelve its nuclear ambitions.” Goldberg’s article has triggered a series of other similar articles in the mainstream media, confirming the coming pressure by Obama against Israel. “President Obama plans to caution Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu next week against attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities in the coming months, urging patience while international economic sanctions take full effect,” reports the Washington Post. “Obama’s meeting with Netanyahu on Monday begins a critical week in his effort to contain Iran’s nuclear ambitions and preserve the trust of the United States’ closest Middle East ally. Israeli leaders have made clear they think time is running out to stop Iran from achieving the ability to build a nuclear weapon….‘We’re trying to make the decision to attack as hard as possible for Israel,’ said an administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.”http://flashtrafficblog.wordpress.com/

Sheriff Joe’s Report,Some Final Words From Andrew Breitbart,and the Results of a Key Senate Vote

Posted on by
Reply

WorldNet Dailey is has an article detailing Sherriff Joe Arpaio’s report on President Obama’s birth certificate. I have not spent a lot of time researching this issue,but am not surprised by the Sheriff’s findings.There are many questions surrounding Barack Obama’s past that have not been satisfactorily answered.

Here is an excerpt from the article,to read the entire thing follow the link -

http://www.wnd.com/2012/03/sheriff-joes-posse-probable-cause-obama-certificate-a-fraud/

“Officers of the Hawaii Department of Health and various elected Hawaiian public officials may have intentionally obscured 1961 birth records and procedures to avoid having to release to public inspection and to the examination of court-authorized forensic examiners any original Obama 1961 birth records the Hawaii Department of Health may or may not have,” Zullo said.

The investigators say the evidence contained in the computer-generated PDF file released by the White House as well as important deficiencies in the Hawaii process of certifying the long-form birth certificate establish probable cause that a forgery has been committed.

The investigation was launched after 250 members of the Surprise, Ariz., Tea Party, presented a signed petition to Arpaio in August 2011 asking him to undertake the investigation.

The Tea Party members petitioned under the premise that if a forged birth certificate was used to place Barack Obama on the 2012 Arizona presidential ballot, their rights as Maricopa County voters could be compromised.

Arpaio believes a congressional investigation might be warranted and has asked that any information relevant to the investigation held by other law enforcement agencies be forwarded to his office.

The Cold Case Posse advised Arpaio that they believe forgers committed two crimes. First, they say it appears the White House fraudulently created a forgery that it characterized as an officially produced governmental birth record. Second, the White House fraudulently presented to the residents of Maricopa County and to the American public at large a forgery represented as “proof positive” of President Obama’s authentic 1961 Hawaii long-form birth certificate.

“A continuing investigation is needed to identify the identity of the person or persons involved in creating the alleged birth certificate forgery and to determine who, if anyone, in the White House or the state of Hawaii may have authorized the forgery,” Arpaio said.

Andrew Breitbart died today. He was an outspoken conservative who pulled no punches. The following is taken from one of the last speeches he made.

…This is my war cry for 2012. You need to join me in my war against the institutional left.
This is not your mother’s Democratic Party… duh! John Podesta and George Soros? This is not your mother’s Democratic Party You know whose party it is? …I have a thesis about who we’re fighting against on the hard left… [In college] I had no idea these [left-wing academics] people were actually serious about the malarkey they were teaching. The post-structuralist, politically correct garbage.
Unfortunately in 2004, the radical Left [executed] a coup d’etat of the Democratic Party. And basically kicked a person — that four years was called ‘the standard-bearer of decency in the Democratic Party’. And that person was Joe Lieberman.
That was the end of the Democratic Party. And in 2010, the DLC went under.
There’s no such thing as a moderate Democrat. And so what do we get now, in Barack Obama?In this election we’re going to vet him I’ve got videos, by the way, and in this election we’re going to vet him. I’ve got videos. This election we’re going to vet him. From his college days, to show you why racial division and class warfare are central to what ‘hope and change’ was sold in 2008.

The videos are going to come out. The narrative is going to come out: that Barack Obama met a bunch of silver pony-tails [left wing academics] back in the 1980s, like Bill [Ayers] and Bernadine Dohrn who said “one day, we’re going to have the presidency.’
And the rest of us slept while they plotted and they plotted and they plotted. And they oversaw hundreds of millions of dollars in the Annenberg Challenge, from real capitalists, who gave it to their children and their children’s children [who] then became communists. We’ve got to work on that…
Barack Obama is a radical and we should not be afraid to say it. And Barack Obama was launched from Bill and Bernadine’s salon… it became self-evident to me that [Obama enjoyed] many a meal there… And don’t tell me, ABC, CBS and NBC that I can’t posit that theory, because it is a self-evident truth. Just like it was a self-evident truth that he was with Jeremiah Wright. And just as it was a self-evident truth that when he was at Harvard, he was advocating for the worst of the worst to join the faculty. Radicals. Radicals at “Beirut on the Charles”.
And that who’s in the White House. And that’s who’s outside right now [the Occupy movement] telling you that you don’t have a right to be here. They would squelch your free speech just as easily as they do at Harvard, Vassar, Yale, Wesleyan – they’re a bunch of totalitarian freaks.

Rest of the speech here – http://directorblue.blogspot.com/

51 United States Senators showed their contempt for the Constitution today – a yes vote is a vote for an out of control Federal Government.

WASHINGTON, D.C., March 1, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) – The U.S. Senate this morning voted down an amendment that would allow employers to opt out of paying for health care coverage of procedures that violate their religious beliefs.

Sen. Roy Blunt

The amendment, offered by Sen. Roy Blunt, R-MO, rolled back Barack Obama’s invasive Health and Human Services mandate that employers insure contraceptives, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs with no co-pay. While the health care reform law exempts churches, it would force religious institutions such as hospitals and universities to underwrite products that violate their deeply held religious beliefs.

The Blunt Amendment would not compel an employer to fund any procedure to which it had a “moral objection.” It failed 51-48.

“Today, 51 senators, led by Sen. Harry Reid, sacrificed the Constitutional right of religious liberty on the altar of the Obama administration’s radical big-government agenda,” Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, said in a statement e-mailed to LifeSiteNews.com. “They turned a deaf ear to the very real religious and moral objections of millions of Americans and the First Amendment rights of all.”

Dr. Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, told LifeSiteNews.com he was “outraged” by the vote. “Make no mistake, the Senate vote was not about contraception but about the right of people of faith to be able to live out the values of their faith free from government coercion.” (Rest of the article here- http://www.lifesitenews.com)

 

 

Grouped by Home State

Alabama:
Sessions (R-AL), Nay
Shelby (R-AL), Nay

Alaska:
Begich (D-AK), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Nay

Arizona:
Kyl (R-AZ), Nay
McCain (R-AZ), Nay

Arkansas:
Boozman (R-AR), Nay
Pryor (D-AR), Yea

California:
Boxer (D-CA), Yea
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea

Colorado:
Bennet (D-CO), Yea
Udall (D-CO), Yea

Connecticut:
Blumenthal (D-CT), Yea
Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea

Delaware:
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Coons (D-DE), Yea

Florida:
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Rubio (R-FL), Nay

Georgia:
Chambliss (R-GA), Nay
Isakson (R-GA), Nay

Hawaii:
Akaka (D-HI), Yea
Inouye (D-HI), Yea

Idaho:
Crapo (R-ID), Nay
Risch (R-ID), Nay

Illinois:
Durbin (D-IL), Yea
Kirk (R-IL), Not Voting

Indiana:
Coats (R-IN), Nay
Lugar (R-IN), Nay

Iowa:
Grassley (R-IA), Nay
Harkin (D-IA), Yea

Kansas:
Moran (R-KS), Nay
Roberts (R-KS), Nay

Kentucky:
McConnell (R-KY), Nay
Paul (R-KY), Nay

Louisiana:
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Vitter (R-LA), Nay

Maine:
Collins (R-ME), Nay
Snowe (R-ME), Yea

Maryland:
Cardin (D-MD), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Yea

Massachusetts:
Brown (R-MA), Nay
Kerry (D-MA), Yea

Michigan:
Levin (D-MI), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Yea

Minnesota:
Franken (D-MN), Yea
Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea

Mississippi:
Cochran (R-MS), Nay
Wicker (R-MS), Nay

Missouri:
Blunt (R-MO), Nay
McCaskill (D-MO), Yea

Montana:
Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Tester (D-MT), Yea

Nebraska:
Johanns (R-NE), Nay
Nelson (D-NE), Nay

Nevada:
Heller (R-NV), Nay
Reid (D-NV), Yea

New Hampshire:
Ayotte (R-NH), Nay
Shaheen (D-NH), Yea

New Jersey:
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea
Menendez (D-NJ), Yea

New Mexico:
Bingaman (D-NM), Yea
Udall (D-NM), Yea

New York:
Gillibrand (D-NY), Yea
Schumer (D-NY), Yea

North Carolina:
Burr (R-NC), Nay
Hagan (D-NC), Yea

North Dakota:
Conrad (D-ND), Yea
Hoeven (R-ND), Nay

Ohio:
Brown (D-OH), Yea
Portman (R-OH), Nay

Oklahoma:
Coburn (R-OK), Nay
Inhofe (R-OK), Nay

Oregon:
Merkley (D-OR), Yea
Wyden (D-OR), Yea

Pennsylvania:
Casey (D-PA), Nay
Toomey (R-PA), Nay

Rhode Island:
Reed (D-RI), Yea
Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea

South Carolina:
DeMint (R-SC), Nay
Graham (R-SC), Nay

South Dakota:
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Thune (R-SD), Nay

Tennessee:
Alexander (R-TN), Nay
Corker (R-TN), Nay

Texas:
Cornyn (R-TX), Nay
Hutchison (R-TX), Nay

Utah:
Hatch (R-UT), Nay
Lee (R-UT), Nay

Vermont:
Leahy (D-VT), Yea
Sanders (I-VT), Yea

Virginia:
Warner (D-VA), Yea
Webb (D-VA), Yea

Washington:
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Yea

West Virginia:
Manchin (D-WV), Nay
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea

Wisconsin:
Johnson (R-WI), Nay
Kohl (D-WI), Yea

Wyoming:
Barrasso (R-WY), Nay
Enzi (R-WY), Nay

Holder and Obama:Giving New Meaning to the First Amendment

Posted on by
Reply

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master – - that’s all.”
(Through the Looking Glass, Chapter 6)

 

“Reason has always existed, but not always in a reasonable form.― Karl Marx

The Hatter opened his eyes very wide on hearing this; but all he said was, “Why is a raven like a writing-desk?”
“Come, we shall have some fun now!” thought Alice. “I’m glad they’ve begun asking riddles. — I believe I can guess that,” she added aloud.
“Do you mean that you think you can find out the answer to it?” said the March Hare.
“Exactly so,” said Alice.
“Then you should say what you mean,” the March Hare went on.
“I do,” Alice hastily replied; “at least–at least I mean what I say–that’s the same thing, you know.”
“Not the same thing a bit!” said the Hatter. “You might just as well say that ‘I see what I eat’ is the same thing as ‘I eat what I see’!”
“You might just as well say,” added the March Hare, “that ‘I like what I get’ is the same thing as ‘I get what I like’!”
“You might just as well say,” added the Dormouse, who seemed to be talking in his sleep, “that ‘I breathe when I sleep’ is the same thing as ‘I sleep when I breathe’!”
(Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, Chapter 7)http://www.alice-in-wonderland.net/books/alice-in-wonderland-quotes.

 

The Mad Hatter of law enforcement- Mr. Eric Holder- you can’t make this stuff up -

http://weaselzippers.us/Holder: First Amendment Allows Government To Force Catholic Organizations To Buy Insurance That Covers Abortion, Contraception…

This First Amendment? – Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

(CNSNews.com) – The Justice Department will defend against any legal challenge to the new Obama administration mandate to force employers to provide abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization and contraception, even if it goes against their conscience, Attorney General Eric Holder told a House subcommittee Tuesday.

The Department of Health and Human Services rule, part of Obamacare, violates the freedom of conscience for Catholics and other religious groups that expressed their objections to the mandate, opponents say. Already there is litigation asserting that the rule violates the First Amendment’s guarantee to free exercise of religion.

“I think I would respectfully disagree in the sense that I don’t think the rule that HHS promulgated was one that ran counter to the religious prohibitions that are contained in the First Amendment,” Holder said.

Keep reading…

 

Here is a follow up article on Obama’s infanticide votes-guess what,he didn’t tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth about his support for abortion and infanticide.

NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE www.nationalreview.com

Obama’s Infanticide Votes

By Patrick Brennan

February 29, 2012 4:00 A.M.

In last Wednesday’s debate, when the Republican candidates were asked about their positions on birth control, Newt Gingrich parried with one of his usual tactics, a fusillade against the mainstream media. He told CNN’s John King, “You did not once in the 2008 campaign, not once did anybody in the elite media ask why Barack Obama voted in favor of legalizing infanticide. If we’re going to have a debate about who is the extremist on these issues, it is President Obama, who, as a state senator, voted to protect doctors who killed babies who survived the abortion.”

Two points of Gingrich’s barrage warrant assessment. First, did Barack Obama, as a state senator, vote “in favor of legalizing infanticide,” by voting “to protect doctors who killed babies who survived the abortion”? And second, has no one in the elite media ever discussed his record on the issue? Yes; and no, but essentially yes.

Gingrich’s assertion rests on then–State Senator Obama’s opposition, in 2001, 2002, and 2003, to successive versions of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, an Illinois bill that was meant to provide protection for babies born alive after attempted abortions. The bill gave them protection as legal persons and required physicians to provide them with care, rather than allowing doctors to deal with them as they would, literally, with medical waste. In 2008, Obama’s campaign repeatedly claimed that he opposed the bill because it was unnecessary, since Illinois law already provided protection for infants born alive. However, as Ramesh Ponnuru pointed out on NRO at the time, this extended only to babies whom physicians deemed to have “sustainable survivability.” Thus infants who were not expected to survive could be killed or left unattended to die. Obama, Ponnuru wrote, “did not want the gap filled.” (The National Right to Life Committee has a report on Obama, Illinois’s legal loophole, and its horrific consequences here.)

Obama maintained at the time, with support from Planned Parenthood of Illinois, that the bill wasn’t really about protecting infants’ lives or mitigating their suffering, but was in fact a backdoor attempt to restrict abortion. The argument (which is constitutionally dubious, anyway) goes that, by providing legal protection and “recognition as a human person” for a pre-viable infant, the law could be used to threaten Roe v. Wade. Thus, at the time of Obama’s votes, and then during the course of the 2008 campaign, Obama claimed that he would have supported a law like the 2002 federal born-alive statute, which stated explicitly that it could not be used to dispute the legal status of fetuses prior to their birth.

In committee in 2003, however, Obama voted against a version of the Illinois bill that contained the same protection included in the federal bill (which passed 98–0 in the U.S. Senate). Thus, Obama’s tenuous constitutional argument doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Rest of the article- http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/292204/obama-s-infanticide-votes-patrick-brennan

Remember in November: The Most Pro-Abortion President Ever Needs to Go

Posted on by
Reply

Rush: Obama’s infanticide vote ‘most shocking, underreported, significant story I can ever remember’

BY BEN JOHNSON

PALM BEACH, FLORIDA, February 24, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) – The nation’s number one talk show host drew attention to Barack Obama’s history of supporting infanticide on Friday’s show.

Discussing this week’s CNN debate in Mesa, Arizona, Rush Limbaugh told his listeners said the president’s vote against the Illinois version of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act in 2001, 2002, and 2003 amounted to “the most shocking and underreported significant story I can ever remember.”

Rush Limbaugh

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich raised the issue of Obama’s support for infanticide after CNN debate moderator John King asked the presidential hopefuls a question about birth control.

The question met with loud audience disapproval, as it was widely interpreted as intended to embarrass Rick Santorum.

Gingrich, who replied first, objected that in 2008, “not once did anybody in the elite media ask why Barack Obama voted in favor of legalizing infanticide.”

“If we’re going to have a debate about who the extremist is on these issues, it is President Obama who, as a state senator, voted to protect doctors who killed babies who survived the abortion,” Gingrich said. “It is not the Republicans.”

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/rush-obamas-infanticide-vote-most-shocking-underreported-significant-story

 

Since many liberal media outlets doubt the veracity of Obama’s infantacide vote here is some more info -

From Kelly Pickett at the Washington Times – http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2012/feb/24/picket-obamas-bad-moves-infanticide-come-back-haun/

 

Since former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich pointed out in the Republican presidential debate on Wednesday that President Barack Obama supported infanticide, the media has been in an uproar. Many outlets are wondering where such an accusation could possibly come from.

Unfortunately, during the last presidential campaign cycle, too many outlets were too busy fawning over then presidential candidate Barack Obama and doing political hit jobs on GOP vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin to bother to ask Mr. Obama about reports regarding his votes and remarks within the Illinois State Senate concerning the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. Additionally, Mr. Obama has done a good job in distorting his position in this area.

First, many Republicans and conservatives alike are referring to a 2003 health and human services committee vote within the Illinois State Senate. Former Washington Times columnist Amanda Carpenter covered this story in great detail in her Town Hall column in 2008: (emphasis is mine)

“We have a smoking gun committee report,” said National Right to Life Committee Legislative Counsel Susan Muskett.

Muskett’s “smoking gun” is a 2003 Health and Human Services Committee report recorded by Republican committee staff. It documents a unanimous 10-0 vote by the 2003 Illinois Senate Health and Human Services Committee, which Obama chaired at the time, to amend BAIPA to include the exact same language that was added to the federal version to protect Roe v. Wade. The committee report also shows a subsequent “final action” vote to determine if the bill should advance out of committee or be killed. The bill was defeated 6-4. Chairman Obama voted in the majority.

This means that, in essence, Obama voted to successfully amend the bill in a way that Obama has said would have enabled him to support it—before he voted against it. It also puts Obama further to the left of NARAL Pro-Choice America. According to a statement released by the abortion-rights lobby in the run-up to the U.S. Senate’s BAIPA vote in 2002, “NARAL does not oppose passage of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act … floor debate served to clarify the bill’s intent and assure us that it is not targeted at Roe v. Wade or a woman’s right to choose.”

Rest of the story here – http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2012/feb/24/picket-obamas-bad-moves-infanticide-come-back-haun/

Still not convinced ? From the one and only Andrew C. McCarthy -

 

When Obama Voted For Infanticide

By Andrew C. McCarthy

February 9, 2012 5:20 P.M.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/290707/when-obama-voted-infanticide-andrew-c-mccarthy

Peter has beaten me to the punch. What I personally find most offensive about the HHS mandate is the shock with which it has been met. Why? This is who Barack Obama is. There is no reason to be surprised by this. He is not being pulled to extremes by his base — he is the one doing the pulling.

Obama’s abortion extremism is such that, as a state legislator, he opposed protection for — I’ll use his words here — “that fetus, or child — however way you want to say describe it” when, contrary to the wishes of the women involved and their abortionists, there was “movement or some indication that, in fact, they’re not just coming out limp and dead.” Babies were inconveniently being born alive, self-styled health-care providers carted them off to utility rooms where they would be left to die. That is infanticide, plain and simple. In Illinois, people tried to stop this barbarism by supporting “born alive” legislation. Barack Obama fought them all the way.

That is not a secret. The Obamedia, of course, refused to cover it while they were running down Sarah Palin’s third-grade report card. The clueless John McCain failed to bring any attention to it. But it was far from unknown. I wrote about it in August 2008, and I was far from alone — at least among conservatives. My column was called, “Why Obama Really Voted For Infanticide: More important to protect abortion doctors than ‘that fetus, or child — however way you want to describe it’”:

There wasn’t any question about what was happening. The abortions were going wrong. The babies weren’t cooperating. They wouldn’t die as planned. Or, as Illinois state senator Barack Obama so touchingly put it, there was “movement or some indication that, in fact, they’re not just coming out limp and dead.”

No, Senator. They wouldn’t go along with the program. They wouldn’t just come out limp and dead.

They were coming out alive. Born alive. Babies. Vulnerable human beings Obama, in his detached pomposity, might otherwise include among “the least of my brothers.” But of course, an abortion extremist can’t very well be invoking Saint Matthew, can he? So, for Obama, the shunning of these least of our brothers and sisters — millions of them — is somehow not among America’s greatest moral failings.

No. In Obama’s hardball, hard-Left world, these least become “that fetus, or child — however you want to describe it.”

Most of us, of course, opt for “child,” particularly when the “it” is born and living and breathing and in need of our help. Particularly when the “it” is clinging not to guns or religion but to life.

But not Barack Obama. As an Illinois state senator, he voted to permit infanticide. And now, running for president, he banks on media adulation to insulate him from his past.

The record, however, doesn’t lie.

Infanticide is a bracing word. But in this context, it’s the only word that fits. Obama heard the testimony of a nurse, Jill Stanek. She recounted how she’d spent 45 minutes holding a living baby left to die.

The child had lacked the good grace to expire as planned in an induced-labor abortion — one in which an abortionist artificially induces labor with the expectation that the underdeveloped “fetus, or child — however you want to describe it” will not survive the delivery.

Stanek encountered another nurse carrying the child to a “soiled utility room” where it would be left to die. It wasn’t that unusual. The induced-labor method was used for late-term abortions. Many of the babies were strong enough to survive the delivery. At least for a time.

So something had to be done with them. They couldn’t be left out in the open, struggling in the presence of fellow human beings. After all, those fellow human beings — health-care providers— would then be forced to confront the inconvenient question of why they were standing idly by. That would hold a mirror up to the whole grisly business.

Better the utility room. Alone, out of sight and out of mind. Next case.

Stanek’s account enraged the public and shamed into silence most of the country’s staunchest pro-abortion activists. Most, not all. Not Barack Obama.

My friend Hadley Arkes ingeniously argued that legislatures, including Congress, should take up “Born Alive” legislation: laws making explicit what decency already made undeniable: that from the moment of birth — from the moment one is expelled or extracted alive from the birth canal — a human being is entitled to all the protections the law accords to living persons.

Such laws were enacted by overwhelming margins. In the United States Congress, even such pro-abortion activists as Sen. Barbara Boxer went along.

But not Barack Obama. In the Illinois senate, he opposed Born-Alive tooth and nail.

The shocking extremism of that position — giving infanticide the nod over compassion and life — is profoundly embarrassing to him now. So he has lied about what he did. He has offered various conflicting explanations . .

Rest of the article – http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/290707/when-obama-voted-infanticide-andrew-c-mccarthy

A brief history lesson from the life of Nero,who among other debaucheries raped one of the Vestal Virgins. Nero was intent on upsetting the moral order of the Roman Empire and was quite inventive (demonized) in his many outrageous activities.

The symbolic meaning of Nero’s rape of the vestal virgin Rubria was not lost to Suetonius’ original readers, even those of the early second century of the common era. The Six Vestal Virgins were young women of noble families who dedicated themselves to guarding the Sacred Heart in the temple of Jupiter. These women submitted themselves to regular vaginal examination. If it were determined that a maid had allowed herself to be violated, even, as in the case of Rubria, if the act had been forced upon her, raped, she was bound and hurled alive from the Tarpeian Rock to the Forum some four-hundred feet below.
The Sacred Hearth itself represented, among other things, traditional Roman morality, which was very different from the moral standard developing during Nero’s day. In sexual terms; it meant chastity for unmarried women, fidelity in wedlock, and the sanctity of the family, a series of strong imperatives that held death better than dishonor. Nero’s rape of the vestal virgin, besides the fact that it sentenced her to die, symbolized an assault against the entire moral order. It was a sacrilege, a willful trespass against all things holy, and signaled the commencement of a reign of depravity.

Rest of the article – http://sexandhistory.blogspot.com/2008/07/life-of-nero-sex-and-fall-of-roman.html – Well worth the read.

The Muslim Persecution of Christians: A Never Ending Tale of Bloodshed and Western Apathy

Posted on by
Reply

A friend sent me a link to the following article- it is a must read. There is a worldwide persecution of Christians who live in Muslim countries and not a peep out of the President. The mainstream media will not cover the constant atrocities and will not hold the jihadist groups accountable for their actions. Ayaan Hirsi Ali is an atheist (last time I checked),so when she points out the “conspiracy of silence” the alarm is being raised by one who is not even a Christian believer.

There is a long history of Islamic persecution of Jews and Christians. It started with Mohammed and has continued wherever Muslims are in power.

 

CHICAGO, February 15, 2012— One of the bedrock principles of America is religious freedom. People have an unalienable right to openly and publicly practice their faith or not.

All are protected, accepted and respected.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali wrote in her Newsweek article, that there is a “conspiracy of silence” over mass religious persecution of Christians in Muslim nations. Christians are being killed in the Islamic world because of their religion. It is a rising genocide that ought to provoke global alarm.

It is more than a conspiracy of silence. It is a conspiracy of political and media apathy. There is no political or journalistic will to continually publicize and condemn religious persecution by extremist Muslims or Islamic dictatorships.

This silence and apathy create an implied consent for religious persecution. Rest of the article here – http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/middle-class-guy/2012/feb/15/islamic-religious-persecution-goes-unnoticed-video/

 

 

 

Another article pointing out the same trend of persecution -

An international report found that Muslim nations make up nine out of the top ten countries where Christians face the “most severe” persecution. In response to these findings, a Vatican spokesman said that “Among the most serious concerns, the increase in Islamic extremism merits special attention. Persons and organizations dedicated to extremist Islamic ideology perpetrate terrible acts of violence in many places throughout the world: the Boko Haram sect in Nigeria is but one example. Then there is the climate of insecurity that unfortunately in some countries accompanies the so-called “Arab spring”—a climate that drives many Christians to flee and even to emigrate.”

Categorized by theme, January’s batch of Muslim persecution of Christians around the world includes (but is not limited to) the following accounts, listed in alphabetical order by country, not severity of anecdote.

http://frontpagemag.com/2012/02/10/muslim-persecution-of-christians-january-2012/

 

If you would like to learn more,check out Robert Spencer’s book -

Muslim Persecution of Christians [Kindle Edition]

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0058P4PHG?ie=UTF8&ref_=sr_1_1&s=books&qid=1330288082&sr=1-1

 

Muslim Persecution of Christians

And one more book by Andrew Bostom – shows that Jihad is not recent,not localized,and never stops.

Book Description

Publication Date: July 10, 2008

This book reveals how, for well over a millennium, across three continents – Asia, Africa, and Europe – non-Muslims who were vanquished by jihad wars, became forced tributaries (called dhimmi in Arabic), in lieu of being slain. Under the dhimmi religious caste system, non-Muslims were subjected to legal and financial oppression, as well as social isolation. Extensive primary and secondary source materials, many translated here for the first time into English, are presented, making clear that jihad conquests were brutal, imperialist advances, which spurred waves of Muslims to expropriate a vast expanse of lands and subdue millions of indigenous peoples. Finally, the book examines how jihad war, as a permanent and uniquely Islamic institution, ultimately regulates the relations of Muslims with non-Muslims to this day. Scholars, educators, and interested lay readers will find this collection an invaluable resource.

 

The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslimshttp://www.amazon.com/Legacy-Jihad-Islamic-Holy-Non-Muslims/dp/1591026024/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1330289591&sr=1-1

The Istanbul Process,and A Reminder to Pray for Those Who Are Being Persecuted

Posted on by
Reply

The Obama Administration continues to push Islam-why ? The President does not call on Muslim countries to stop the persecution of Jews and Christians ,he will not take a firm stance against Iran with an embargo that has real teeth,and he continues to undercut Israel. The fact that this administration supports the Istanbul Process should be a major wake up call to anyone who believes in freedom of speech.

 

From the Stonegate Institute -

The explicit aim of the Istanbul Process — currently backed by the Obama administration — is to make it an international crime to criticize Islam.

A Muslim fundamentalist group is organizing a conference focused on turning Austria and other European countries into Islamic states.

The “Caliphate Conference 2012” will be held on March 10 in the Austrian town of Vösendorf, situated just south of Vienna. The main theme of the event will be “The Caliphate: The State Model of the Future.”

The conference is being organized by Hizb ut-Tahrir [Party of Liberation], a pan-Islamic extremist group that seeks to establish a global Islamic state, or caliphate, ruled by Islamic Sharia law.

Hizb ut-Tahrir — which is banned in many countries, including Germany, but is free to operate in Austria — is virulently opposed to Western capitalism and democracy and seeks to extend the future caliphate to Europe and the United States.

According to a promotional video (in German) for the conference, “the Islamic Caliphate is the only social and political system that has the right solutions to the political, social and economic problems of humanity.”

Hizb ut-Tahrir has been banned from holding a similar conference in Belgium that had been scheduled for March 4. The group also organized a Caliphate Conference in Amsterdam last July, 2011, and well as a year earlier inChicago in June, 2010.

Analysts say the open nature of the conference in Vienna indicates that Hizb ut-Tahrir is enhancing its recruiting efforts among European Muslims.

According to Steven Emerson, a leading authority on Islamic extremist networks, Hizb ut-Tahrir is emulating the three-stage process by which Muslims established the first Islamic caliphate after the death of the Islamic Prophet, Mohammed, in the year 632.

During the first stage, Hizb ut-Tahrir builds a party by cultivating a small number of supporters to engage in recruitment and propaganda. In the second stage (which Hizb ut-Tahrir is now entering in Europe and the United States), the group educates Muslims in order to recruit a larger group of people to join Hizb ut-Tahrir and support its revolution. Finally, having won the support of Muslims, Hizb ut-Tahrir moves to establish a Sharia-ruled Islamic government.

While Muslims are busy working to Islamize the West from within, they simultaneously insist that Westerners should not be allowed to criticize these efforts.

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), a group of 57 Muslim countries that purports to be the collective voice of the Muslim world, sponsored an anti-Islamophobia symposium in Brussels on February 15 and 16, 2012.

The first-of-its-kind event was entitled “Smearing Islam and Muslims in the Media,” and was “aimed at establishing information mechanisms to face up to the slanderous campaigns against Islam in the media.”

The workshop was part of the so-called Istanbul Process, an aggressive effort by Muslim countries to make it an international crime to criticize Islam.

The explicit aim of the Istanbul Process is to enshrine in international law a global ban on all critical scrutiny of Islam and Islamic Sharia law.

Based in Saudi Arabia, the OIC has long pressed the European Union and the United States to impose limits on free speech and expression about Islam.

But the OIC has now redoubled its efforts and is engaged in a determined diplomatic offensive to persuade Western democracies to implement United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC) Resolution 16/18, which calls on all countries to combat “intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of … religion and belief.” (Analysis of the OIC’s war on free speech can be found here and here.)

 

Rest of the article here – http://www.stonegateinstitute.org/2866/caliphate-conference

 

A timely reminder from a friend on the importance of remembering our brothers and sisters who are being persecuted-

 

Definitions:

· Restricted Nation – This includes situations where Christians are kept from obtaining bibles or other Christian literature by government policy or practice. Also included are government-sanctioned ordinances where Christians are harassed, imprisoned, killed, or deprived of their possessions or liberties because of their faith in Jesus.

· Hostile area – This includes large areas in nations where governments consistently attempt to provide protection for the Christian population, but Christians are victims of violence because of their witness.

Christians throughout the world in restricted and hostile countries know well the great cost and actual implications of Jesus words to His disciples…

 

“If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you, ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you. (John 15:18-20)

 

Teachings about a pre-tribulation rapture may offer some sort of temporal comfort to some, but Christians in North Korea, Colombia, India, China, Indonesia, Iran, Sudan, and dozens of other countries are presently suffering and proving that “through much tribulation we shall enter into the kingdom of God.”

What’s my point? We who are privileged (or maybe cursed… “only with difficulty will a rich person enter the kingdom of heaven”) to be American’s should understand that while the knife is at our brothers throat in other countries it is our duty to…

 

1. Remember them

· VERSE: Remember the prisoners as if chained with them—those who are mistreated—since you yourselves are in the body also. (Hebrews 13:3)

· QUESTION: How often during the day, week, month, year do we contemplate the reality of God’s persecuted church?

2. Pray for them

· VERSE: Peter was therefore kept in prison, but constant prayer was offered to God for him by the church. (Acts 12:5)

· QUESTION: How often during the day, week, month, year do we pray for God’s persecuted church?

 

Pray for Youcef Nadarkhani and his family

· An Execution Order has been issued for Christian Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani

 

· Sentenced to death for becoming a Christian and departing Islam and refusing to recant

· He has a wife and a 9 year old and a 7 year old.

· Illegally Imprisoned, 863 days

· Could be pardoned if he would recant or affirm that Mohammad is God’s prophet

 

You can read about Youcef Nadarkhani here…

http://aclj.org/Nadarkhani

When He opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the testimony which they held. And they cried with a loud voice, saying, “How long, O Lord, holy and true, until You judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?” Then a white robe was given to each of them; and it was said to them that they should rest a little while longer, until both the number of their fellow servants and their brethren, who would be killed as they were, was completed. (Revelation 6:9-11)

Want to discover more about the persecuted?

http://www.persecution.com