Islam requires and promotes this behavior of Muslim men as part of the process to convert a country to being all Muslim since to Muslims all other people are nothing but animals.
Tag Archives: Benghazi
DHS Whistleblower Philip Haney: P.C. Killed Investigation That Might Have Stopped San Bernardino Attack – Breitbart
The inability to find jihadists is what Obama wanted when they stopped the program; and since the administration is infested with Muslims and since Islam demands that the Muslims convert enslave or kill all other people with beliefs and political systems its hard to belief that canceling that programs was not intentional so as to prevent detection!
Department of Homeland Security whistleblower Philip Haney gave an extensive interview to Breitbart News Daily on Friday morning, in which he discussed an investigation that might have stopped the San Bernardino jihad attack… but was scuttled by Homeland Security brass for politically-correct reasons.
“Civil Rights and Civil Liberties shut the case down because we were focusing on individuals who belong to Tablighi Jamaat,” Haney says, well-aware of how explosive this charge is.
Haney was a founding member of the Passenger Analysis Unit, or PAU, under Customs and Border Protection. Established as a stand-alone agency in 2003, the PAU is charged with “vetting, investigating, finding addresses, making connections, and putting the dots together” on persons entering the United States who might be security threats.
“We cross-checked all kinds of information. You name it. Visas, passports, travel patterns, family connections… anything to do within the universe of individuals coming in,” said Haney. Any…
View original post 358 more words
The beginning of WW III?
100,000 Troops to Fight ISIS
The Iraqi Agency Press reported that some 100,000 foreign soldiers, including 90,000 from Arab countries and the Gulf States, are expected to be sent to combat ISIS in 2016. This is the beginning of a serious war that is unfolding for it has no real borders.
We are at war with Islam
All Muslims would agree to these statements!
There is no god but Allah and Mohammad is his prophet!
To be a “good” Muslin you MUST be and do exactly as Mohammad did!
To be and do like Mohammad you “MUST” follow the Koran, the Hadith and the Sira as explained in detail in Sharia Law.
These works are given to the Muslims by their god Allah “DIRECTLY” through Mohammad and are therefore PERFECT” and cannot be changed.
Mohammad was both the founder of religious Islam (Mecca) and the Commanding General of the Jihad of war (Medina) as demanded by Sharia Law.
The religious Islam (Mecca) applies “ONLY” to Muslims
The Islam Jihad of war (Medina) applies to “ALL” that are not Muslims the Kafir.
Islam is and has to be in a constant of war (Jihad) with the world (the Kafir) until the world is 100% Islam and then there will be peace.
Not all Muslims are Jihadists, but all Jihadists are Muslim
Not all Germans were Nazis, but all Nazis were German
Therefore we are at war with Islam because they are at war with us!
Keep in mind that in war there can only be one winner
“Who Are We?”
Post by Prof. Paul Eidelberg
The title of this article is that of a book written by Harvard Professor Samuel P. Huntington, who traces his ancestry to the Samuel Huntington who signed the Declaration of Independence.
As I have written in Rescuing America from Nihilism, Huntington begins to define America’s national identity with these precise remarks:
Until the middle of the eighteenth century, Americans defined themselves in terms of race, ethnicity, and culture, particularly religion. The creedal component of American identity only began to emerge as relations with Britain deteriorated over issues of trade, taxes, military security, and the extent of Parliament’s power over the colonies…. As their debates over their relations with Britain intensified, Americans also began to invoke more universalistic Enlightenment self-evident truths concerning liberty, equality, and individual rights. Combined, these two sources generated the creedal definition of American identity embodied most notably in the Declaration of Independence, but also expressed in many other documents, sermons, pamphlets, writings, and speeches in the 1770s and 1780s.
This is what Huntington says in Who Are We? The Challenges to America’s National Identity (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2002), 47
Tragically, America has lost or has forsaken her national identity. No longer is America animated by what Abraham Lincoln called “our ancient faith.” That faith, Lincoln saw, was embodied in America’s primary foundational document, the Declaration of Independence. It was in this revolutionary document that America’s Founding Fathers proclaimed the cardinal principles of American Exceptionalism, principles that transcend space and time, principles derived from the universal and trans-historical truths of the Bible of Israel and encapsulated in the Declaration pivotal terms, “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,” the source of man’s inalienable rights to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.
It should be obvious that President Barack Obama’s paramount objective is to destroy America’s unique national identity by flooding the country with Muslim migrants. No greater traitor has ever arisen in this country, whose would-be leaders, however, lack the courage and wisdom to articulate their convictions in such a way as to identify America’s greatest enemy.
On the Color of Toilet Paper
Post by Paul Eidelberg
It would be a strategic error of historic proportions for the United States to allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons. Indeed, the greatest error of the outgoing administration of President George W. Bush was to refrain from attacking Iran knowing, after the November 2008 American election, that he was going to be succeeded by Barack Obama. Perhaps this is why John Bolton, former US ambassador to the United Nations, urged Israel to initiate the attack in question.
Be that as it may, suppose Iran became a nuclear power. Having failed to attack Iran before it developed the bomb, we may reasonably infer that the US would not launch a preemptive strike once Iran proceeded to deploy nuclear tipped ballistic missiles.
Consider: In August 2009, Dr. Uzi Rubin, who has long been involved in Israeli military research and engineering programs, reported: “The Iranians have upgraded their ballistic missiles to become satellite launchers. The solid-propellant Sejil missile signifies a technological and strategic breakthrough. This missile already poses a threat to a number of European Union countries. Based on its demonstrated achievements in solid propulsion and staging, Iran will face no significant hurdle in up-scaling the Sejil into a compact, survivable intermediate-range ballistic missile. A range of 3,600 km. will be sufficient to put the EU [and eventually the US under threat].”
Dr. Rubin pointed out that even in August 2009 the Sejii, with only “an actual range of about 2,500 km.… could reach Warsaw and, indeed, six European Union countries: Poland, Slovakia, Rumania, Hungary, Bulgaria, and Greece.” By now, we may assume that Iran’s latest missiles can reach the USA.
In any event, Dr. Rubin went on to warn that “The Tabriz launch area in Iran is as big as Azerbeijan, bigger than Israel and half of Jordan. It’s about 50,000 sq. km., full of mountains, valleys, and canyons. You can hide thousands of ballistic missiles there with a very high probability of survival. So the capability to make a survivable missile that can threaten Europe now exists in Iran.”
Post-Christian Europe would almost certainly succumb to Iranian nuclear blackmail. (Indeed, Europe’s pro-Palestinian or anti-Israel orientation should be viewed in this light.) Even a partial loss of the European economy would cripple the American economy.
Now contrast the mentality of Americans even before their brains were Obamanized or lobotomized by a con-artist who can’t speak without a teleprompter: contrast, I say, America’s mentality with that of its global-minded enemy confusingly called “Islamism” or “political Islam” or “radical Islam” or some other abbreviated conception of Islam.
If it was true in August 2009, as mentioned above, that the Iranians had already upgraded their ballistic missiles to become satellite launchers of sufficient range to strike all of Europe, is it not obvious that they can deploy nuclear weapons of sufficient range—if deemed strategically necessary—to strike the United States?
Alas, there are “experts” in the US who advocate a “containment” policy vis-à-vis Iran comparable to that the Cold War vis-à-vis the USSR! Let me therefore quote a Soviet leader who scornfully told the Americans: “We will always be able to turn out more missiles than you. The reason is that our people are willing to sacrifice for these things, and yours are not. Our people don’t require a dozen colors of toilet paper in six different scents to be happy Americans now do; for that reason you will never be able to sustain public support for military expenditures.”
Ronald Reagan proved him wrong, but a very different president now occupies the White House. And threatening America today are not Communists but Muslims who have used their own children as human bombs. Or as Michael Ledeen points out inAccomplice to Evil, he there refers to former Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who, during Iran’s war with Iraq, used Iranian children to walk over and explode enemy mine fields.
Unlike Nikita Khrushchev of yesterday’s “Evil Empire,” the Mullahs do not threaten America saying “We shall bury you.” No, listen carefully to the malediction of today’s Evil Empire. Ponder the difference between Khrushchev’s vicious threat and the satanic malediction of Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, Iran’s proxy in Lebanon, who spat in the faces of today’s liberal democrats, especially those in America: “We are going to win because you love life and we love death.”
Viewed thusly, diverse opinions about “containment” of a nuclear-armed Iran is comparable to diverse opinions about the color of toilet paper.
Obama Executive Action ‘Imminent’ to Bypass Congress, Restrict Gun Sales
Obama and his minions cannot complete their takeover of the country will the citizens are still armed. However, trying to take the arms away will create a civil war and it will be worse than the first one.
Presidential “Executive Action” expanding background checks on gun-buyers is reportedly imminent, according to a just-breaking Associated Press update.
Top Right News previously reported that Obama was focused on finding ways around Congress to expand background checks, and CBS News reported that Obama had a team of White House lawyers looking at the possibility of setting an arbitrary limit of allowable gun sales so that private sellers who surpass that limit would be required to run sales through a background check.
Without indicating which avenue Obama plans on taking, the AP reports that White House Advisor Valerie Jarrett indicates Obama is ready to circumvent Congress. She said he has asked “his team to complete a proposal and submit it for his review ‘in short order.’”
“Executive Action is expected within hours,” one source told the AP.
This executive push for expanded background checks comes just over a week after expanded…
View original post 246 more words
U.S. Intel Confirm: ISIS Generating Fake Syrian Passports – Trump is Right, Time To Stop Everything…
All the countries of Western Civilization except maybe Russian are afraid of Islam and will do anything to accommodate the Muslims. They do this because of the oil money the Arabs have and spend freely on the politicians. The politicians would rather have the money then their souls as they are selling their souls to the devil for a few years of political power. I hope they all rot in hell for what they are doing and especially Obama.
Trump’s is right – we can’t wear uniform in our OWN cars’: Five police officers claim Donald Trump is RIGHT about parts of London being so ‘radicalised’ they are no-go areas
Trump is right the Muslims intend to dominate the world and it is very likely that they will take over the entire EU before mid century.; and if not stopped North America shortly thereafter.
Capital Punishment and Abortion
Post By Professor Paul Eidelberg
Barack Obama opposes capital punishment. Yet he voted against legislation that would put an end to full-birth abortion. Full-birth abortion means nothing less than “kill the baby”—inflicting capital punishment not on the guilty but on the innocent! Hence, I am prompted to republish an article I wrote three decades ago. The reader should bear in mind however, that wherever the article refers to the “unborn child,” today we must add the “born but unwanted child.”
* * *
In the Mishna we read: “Therefore but a single man was created in the world, to teach that if any man has caused a single soul to perish, Scripture imputes it to him as though he had caused a whole world to perish; and if any man saves alive a single soul, Scripture imputes it to him as though he had saved alive a whole world.”
To avoid misunderstanding, let me state at the outset that, except in extreme cases – such as Islamic terrorism – I do not advocate capital punishment in Israel at this time. Nor do I regard as correct the Catholic view of abortion. But there is something very curious about the liberal position on these two issues, especially by liberals who advocate the American practice of “abortion on demand.”
Among the arguments against capital punishment is the contention that society has no right to take the life even of the most savage murderer. Yet many if not most opponents of capital punishment assert the right of a woman, six and even more months pregnant, to snuff out, with the aid of a physician, the life of her unborn child. Murderers would thus be spared while the innocent would be murdered.
Oh, but now we have become “humane” and “progressive.” For now we feel compassion, perhaps some responsibility, for those who have taken life, not for those who have just begun to live. Without a twinge of moral doubt or remorse we execute the unborn and condemn as cruel and barbaric the execution of murderers.
That capital punishment should be called cruel and barbaric by its opponents is a nice commentary on our forefathers. Meanwhile, their humane descendants each year execute countless unborn babies whose only crime was to be unwanted.
An individual accused of murder receives due process of law. He is provided legal counsel to defend him, witnesses to testify on his behalf. In the United States, a jury of twelve persons is empanelled to hear and weigh evidence bearing on his guilt or innocence. Let only one member of that jury harbor a reasonable doubt as to his guilt and the accused is acquitted, his life spared.
Compare the plight of the unwanted, unborn child. He is utterly abandoned. Society affords him no defense, no legal counsel or friendly witness. Yet the life of the unborn child is on trial. He is on trial for being an inconvenient “fetus.”
But we too are on trial, on trial in the courtroom of indifference called the “humane” and “progressive” society. We are not only spectators; we are also the jury. And we have been instructed by judges. They have told us that this unborn child is not a human being—which we are all the more ready to believe having been taught to regard it as a mere “fetus.”
Had we not been thus instructed, had we only harbored a reasonable doubt on this life and death issue, we would have acquitted the child rather than become his executioners. Only a reasonable doubt, nothing more than this, and we would have affirmed the child’s as well as our own humanity.
Liberal advocates of abortion intone the idea that a person has the right to control his or her own body. Some derive this right from British common law. To stretch the common law to justify “abortion on demand” is rather ironic. For the common law prohibited the arbitrary control of another person’s body and regarded a “fetus” as a “person”! This being so, it was impermissible to execute a pregnant murderess. But this is not the only irony.
The idea of “abortion on demand” actually violates the very nature of a woman’s body and the essence of motherhood. This can best be seen by reflecting on the Hebrew word for a woman’s womb—rechem. One cognate of the word means to feel pity or pain at another’s suffering. Another is to feel joy at another’s happiness. Who feels more pain than a mother when her child is ill, or more joy when her child is well and successful. But this is not all.
The mother’s body nourishes the child in her womb. She gives of her own life’s substance to the child, a giving that signifies her selflessness. The very opposite character trait underlies “abortion on demand.”
The laws of our supposedly barbaric forefathers prohibited abortion unless the mother’s life was in danger. Many of our forefathers were doctors. Today many doctors, having added abortions to their repertoire of services, have also multiplied their yearly earnings. Because of this vested interest, the medical profession has become one of the principal supporters of abortion.
As for capital punishment, consider a few aspects of Judaic law on the subject. First, neither circumstantial evidence nor the confession of the accused is admissible in court. Second, the murder had to be witnessed by two eligible persons, and they had to warn the would-be murderer of the consequences of his intended crime. To be culpable, the malefactor had to be sane, and the act of murder had to be deliberate. These qualifications made conviction for capital punishment exceedingly rare.
Clearly, these laws governing capital punishment do not depreciate the value of human life. To the contrary. Precisely because human life is sacred, those laws require the execution of convicted murderers, of those whose act of murder was itself a denial that human life is sacred.
By taking the life of a human being the murderer negates his own humanity; he reduces himself to the level of the beast. And it is more as a beast, homo lupus, than as homo civilis, that the murderer, after being duly tried and convicted, is executed. Imposing upon him the extreme penalty of death does not deny his humanity so much as it affirms the humanity or dignity of his victim. Perhaps, in the last analysis, the punishment of death is a profound public affirmation of the sanctity of life.
But these thoughts are not intended as a defense of capital punishment, else far more would have to be said on the subject. Let them rather stand as an argument against capital punishment: the capital punishment tolerated under the name of “abortion on demand” or its equivalent. If capital punishment is opposed on the ground that human life is so precious that even the life of the most vicious murderer must be spared, do we not cheapen life by the wholesale destruction of countless unborn children? Is the murderer more human than the unborn child?
One last word. In Alex Haley’s celebrated book, Roots, Omoro, one of the principal characters, tries to explain life and death to young Kunta Kinte: “He said that three groups of people lived in every village. First were those you could see walking around, eating, sleeping, and working. Second were the ancestors, whom Grandma Yaisa had now joined.” “And the third people—who are they?” asked Kunta.
“The third people,” said Omoro, “are those waiting to be born.”
Centinel2012 