|
Several talk-radio hosts have discussed the overtly pro-Muslim (and even anti-American) remarks in the text of [Alleged] President Barack Obama earlier today in Cairo. But, so far, even some of the heavy-hitters of the talk-radio world have avoided analyzing the "code-speak" contained in his landmark speech. This column seeks to help average Americans to understand the hidden meanings that Obama has conveyed -- on our behalf -- to the Muslim world. For those that do not already know, there is prophetic meaning to Obama's name. It is especially important to note that his family name means "crooked". Yes, you read correctly. (For the details, click this link.)
http://tomkovach.us/Columns/Crossbow/080723--Obama_name_means.html Those that use symbols and code-speak to advance hidden agendas utilize a variety of methods. Under the Muslim philosophy of taq'qiyah ("holy" deception), it is quite acceptable for a Muslim to mislead and lie in order to advance the cause of Islam. Some people, especially those with a strong Bible-based faith, have difficulty with the thought of needing to de-code the speech of an elected official. Because those people would not lie, they assume that others believe likewise. Crooked politicians use that situation to their advantage. It is important for all Americans to realize that corrupt officials like to "hide in plain sight" with regard to their subversive agendas. Location, location, location Not one of the talk-radio hosts that I heard today mentioned the significance of the location of Obama's speech. Before the Usurper-in-Chief even uttered a word, he was already sending a major signal to the Muslim world. And, that signal spelled danger for Israel. How? Read on. There is a group that is dedicated to the destruction of Israel. (Actually, there are many Muslim groups with that goal, but one stands out.) That group is called The Muslim Brotherhood. (In Arabic, they are simply called al-ikhwan -- The Brotherhood.) The group was formed in 1928 by Hassan al-Banna, a teacher in Cairo. The school where he taught was Dar al-Ulum. Dar al-Ulum was founded in 1871 to, among other things, counter the growing influence of Christian missionaries from Europe. And, as time went on, Dar al-Ulum was eventually incorporated into Cairo University. So, by choosing Cairo University as the location for his "apology tour" (a term coined by talk-radio giant Phil Valentine) speech to the Muslim world, there is a tacit endorsement of the Muslim Brotherhood. That would be the signal understood by most Muslims -- especially the heads of states -- around the world. It is important to note that the Muslim Brotherhood made a treaty with Adolf Hitler to assist in destroying as many Jews as possible. (The History Channel has done some fascinating presentations on the link between Hitler and the Muslim Brotherhood. Click the link for one of the videos.)
http://www.amazon.com/Brotherhood-Terror-History-Channel/dp/B000NDIAVA%3FSubscriptionId=10YVF75G6G1XD1C83E82&tag=tvguideonli02-20&linkCode=sp1&camp=2025&creative=165953&creativeASIN=B000NDIAVA And, lest anyone think that the selection of Cairo University was merely a coincidence, representatives of the Muslim Brotherhood were specifically invited to the speech.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/03/muslim-brotherhood-members-attend-obamas-cairo-speech/ What kind of solution?! During a recent interview on Israel National Radio, hostess Tamar Yonah told me that the "two-state solution" carries the nickname The Final Solution over there. The fact that Obama's speech was adamant in its support of a "two-state solution" carries even more weight when considered in light of the Muslim Brotherhood connection. And, the principle of taq'qiyah was invoked when Obama used double-speak (in paragraph 32) to make the phony claim that "the Palestinian people" includes both Muslims and Christians. The reality is that the Arabic word for Palestinian is transliterated Filistin. Yes, the same Philistines that are described in the Holy Bible as the ancient enemies of Israel. And, yes, their capital city is still in Gaza. Many of the Arab Muslims that live in the so-called Palestinian territory are, or have descended from, the societal rejects of the surrounding Muslim countries. After the founding of the State of Israel, those other countries used their national resources to send less-desirable residents to infiltrate Israel and populate it with dissidents and revolutionaries. (This is similar to the 1979 "Mariel boatlift", when Fidel Castro culled felons from prisons and insane from asylums and put them into rafts headed for the Florida coast.) Simultaneously, those countries also persecuted a group of Jews called the Mizrahim (Hebrew for "Easterners") -- those that live in the ancient Jewish enclaves of the various regions of the Diaspora. Some of those enclaves have existed since shortly after the Babylonian sacking of Jerusalem. The news media, the United Nations, and lazy elected officials totally overlook the persecution of the Mizrahim when discussing Middle East policy. While making noise about the plight of a non-existent group (there is no ethnic or linguistic difference between a so-called "Palestinian" and any other Arab in that part of the world), Congressmen ignore the confiscation of family businesses from Mizrahim in various countries. Obama's advocacy of a "two-state solution" overlooks many factors. Besides the right of Israel to self-govern and to be secure within her borders, there is the clear Biblical mandate to support Israel. (Genesis 12:3) Instead, Obama plainly declared, "It is time for these settlements to stop." The traditional American viewpoint is to avoid meddling in the internal affairs of other countries. This should be doubly true regarding a country where God drew the borders! There is also the common-sense problem that Obama's intentions to support the Philistines goes against the desires of the majority of American citizens. But, why should the desires of the majority matter to a man that occupies the White House in violation of the Constitution? In the name of ... who?! In paragraph 41, the alleged president used a linguistic slide into dangerous territory. He referred to a future time when, "... the Holy Land of three great faiths is the place of peace that God intended it to be." The implication of that clause, and of the paragraph that surrounds it, is that Jews, Christians, and Muslims all worship and pray to the same being. They do not. (And, if they do, then why do the Muslims try to kill their "brothers"? And, why do they describe Christians and Jews as "apes and pigs"?) The idea that Allah could be the same as the God of the Bible is preposterous. The proofs are too numerous for this author to describe in a political column. But, for those that are familiar with the Holy Bible, consider what Obama said about "peace and security" in the 33rd paragraph of his speech. Compare that to Isaiah 59:8 (remember, his name means "crooked"), Jeremiah 6:14, and 1st Thessalonians 5:3. Perhaps the "sudden destruction" that comes upon those that falsely proclaim peace and safety will be the War of Gog and Magog that was predicted by the Prophet Ezekiel. (For more on that, click this link for a column by Tamar Yonah.)
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Blogs/Message.aspx/2477 more code-speak It is important to note that Obama's speech was specifically divided into seven parts, and that he emphasized that number of divisions. In the Muslim faith, there are "seven pillars of Islam". The final division of Obama's speech was about economic prosperity. The final pillar of Islam is jihad ("holy" war). A few years ago, President Mahmoud Ahmedi-Nejad announced the creation of the Iranian Oil Bourse as a means to use the petroleum market to undermine the dollar and destroy the United States. (For a detailed analysis of the concept of economic warfare, see the book The Hundred-Years War, and then consider whether Japan might have been the real winner of World War Two!) Given that Obama has been announcing for the past several months that he desired to give this speech, can anyone think that he picked this pattern and parallel by mere coincidence? The point becomes stronger when considered alongside the fact that Obama's own White House staff has stated that he is "getting in touch with his inner Muslim", even though Obama claims to be a Christian. (Tellingly, the only mention of Jesus by name was in a fictional story that Jesus joined in prayer with Muhammed. A devout Christian would consider such a story to be strong blasphemy.) This analysis barely scratches the surface of the hidden messages that Obama conveyed to the Muslim world on behalf of all Americans. But, this brief view should be enough to give even non-religious citizens reason to beware of the Chameleon-in-Chief. Check AIP News frequently to read the decoding of other Obama words and deeds.
Tom Kovach
http://www.tomkovach.us/
Mount Juliet, Tennessee, USA
(near Nashville) | |
| | |
This column is beginning to gain traction in Jewish circles. That is especially true in the Lubavitch and Messianic groups -- both of whom believe that the appearance of the Messiah will be soon, and will be preceded by the War of Gog and Magog. (The difference, of course, is that the Messianic Jews believe that Jesus is the Messiah.) Wouldn't it be nice if more Christian preachers would speak the truth about Obama's words, instead of remaining silent for fear of having their tax-exempt status removed? As Dr. Keyes said during a conference call a few weeks ago, "It's time to start thinking the unthinkable." Help spread the word ... while you still can. | |
| | |
Walid Phares: 15 Questions on Obama's Speech Saturday, June 6, 2009 12:09 PM By: Walid Phares Perhaps the most challenging task for analysts and commentators to accomplish after having listen to [Alleged] President Barack Obama's speech in Cairo (addressed to the "Muslim World") is to know how to read it, understand the links between the points he made, capture the arguments inserted by his speech writers and thus analyze the text as a major policy change since 9/11. In short, I would recommend for readers to establish a "map of the speech" before venturing to its various exotic suggestions and hints. Evidently, each political constituency in America, the region and the international community has its priorities and will jump to the part it deems most pressing, either exciting or depressing. However, I suggest looking at the whole idea of addressing the "Muslim world" or as the [alleged] President coined it often in his speech, "the Muslims" (two different things), and understand where Obama is coming from and going to. To help in this analytical task -- and to simplify what seems to be complex -- I propose to raise the following questions and address them separately in the debate before re-sowing them as a one bloc of ideas. Here are the ones I identify as building blocks of the Obama "Muslim platform" drawn from his speech 1. Is the equation of mending relations between a nation state, America, and a whole civilization, Islam, rational? Is it academically sound to put one country and fifty two other countries in one framework of relationships? Are all 52 Muslim countries in one basket and America in another? Who framed this equation? 2. The speech mentioned "violent extremists" several times as the foe to contain and isolate. Is there not a clearer explanation of what is "violent extremism" and who are the followers of such a behavior? Is about violence only? Are all those who practice violence, from household abuse, gangsterism to mass murder part of one group? Of course not. So what constitutes extremism? Do "violent extremists" have an ideology, a platform, goals, strategies? Are they the Jihadists that the whole world knows about? Why wouldn't [Alleged] President Obama simply names them as such? 3. The speech argued that Americans were "traumatized" because of 9/11 and thus their view of Islam changed. Why would their view of a religion change because of an attack perpetrated by 19 hijackers? Who is drawing this conclusion? In short, if indeed Americans had a change in perception after 9/11, what was their perception before? Is this reality or is it the framing of the war of ideas by the apologist elite? Why is there a complex of guilt forced on Americans? Read more <http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/walid_phares_speech/2009/06/06/222286.html> (Thanks, Helen)
Edited by Philomena 2009-06-08 7:18 AM
| |
| Posted 2009-06-08 7:17 AM (#15660 - in reply to #15586) By: Philomena
|
| | |
Someone wrote via my Web site to say: namefrom = carol
addressfrom = [redacted]
Organization = none
Comment = i thought there were 5 pillars of islam
you wrote of 7
7 is a Biblical number..
thanks
Carol
Here are the Seven Pillars of Islam: - (Different factions disagree on the first pillar. These are the two most common.
a. Shahadah - Profession of faith [Sunni]
b. Walayah - Guardianship (or devotion to Allah) [Ismaili]
- Taharah - Purity & cleanliness
- Salat - Prayers
- Zakah - Charity
- Sawm - Fasting during Ramadan
- Hajj - Pilgrimage to Mecca
- Jihad - Struggle (or "holy" war)
I only took one semester of "comparative world religions" in college, but there were seven pillars then. I'm pretty sure that there still are. Would it somehow make Obama less of an Islamo-Communist if there were only five pillars?
Edited by TomKovach-AIP-TN 2009-06-08 7:01 PM
| |
| | |
Would it somehow make Obama less of an Islamo-Communist if there were only five pillars? No, Tom, it wouldn't make BO any less dangerous, he is dangerous as the Christian he claims to be, let alone being a muslim in "sheep's clothing."
| |
| Posted 2009-06-08 8:06 PM (#15702 - in reply to #15701) By: MaryAnnH
|
| | |
As for the number of pillars of Islam a Google search of pillars of Islam comes up with five as the number commonly associated with the term. Proverbs 9:1: "Wisdom has built her house, She has hewn out hwer seven pillars." Even if Obama's speech writers came up with a Biblical allusion, it does not mean he is less dangerous or your overall points of warning are invalid. Even the devil quoted Scripture when tempting Jesus Christ (Matthew 4, Luke 4).
| |
| Posted 2009-06-09 9:07 AM (#15719 - in reply to #15701) By: Florida
|
| | |
I post here a recent writing of Pastor Chuck Baldwin. Most of us affiliated with America's Independent Party know that Chuck Baldwin was the presidential candidate in 2008 of the Constitution Party and we believe that party passed up the opportunity for a more right and ready to be President, Dr. Alan Keyes. I still think the constitution Party and Chuck Baldwin fall short on foreign policy/American security issues and pro-life strategy, but I think he makes some valid points in this piece.
Obama's Speech In Egypt
By Chuck Baldwin
June 9, 2009
This column is archived at
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2009/cbarchive_20090609.html
Much has been made of [Alleged] President Barack Obama's "reconciliation" speech in
Cairo, Egypt, last week. For the most part, the American media have focused
on Obama's attempt to "repair" relations with the Muslim nations of the
world. For example, Obama referenced the Koran five times, and the Bible
only once. (It is noteworthy that one of the Koranic references Obama used
was a verse dedicated to Islamic Jihad, in which Muslims are required to
kill infidels--meaning those who are not Muslims, of course. Not
surprisingly, the vast majority of America's major media failed to report
this story. See:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=100504 )
As nonsensical and revolting as much of Obama's speech was, the most
egregiously dangerous statement he made in his Egyptian speech was another
one that all but a small portion of America's mainstream media bothered to
report. The sinister statement is as follows:
"Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation or
group of people over another will inevitably fail. So whatever we think of
the past, we must not be prisoners to it." (Barack Obama 06/04/2009, Source:
WhiteHouse.gov)
Like his predecessors, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George H.W. Bush,
Barack Obama envisions a global union, in which all nations are linked
commercially, governmentally, and militarily. Bush I called it a "New World
Order;" Bush II called it an "international order;" Clinton often
regurgitated Bush Sr.'s "New World Order" mantra; and Barack Obama called it
a "world order." Do people not recognize that every President since Ronald
Reagan (both Democrat and Republican) has called for an international
one-world order? Obama's speech goes a step further, however.
In calling for a "world order," Obama blatantly said "Given our
interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation . . . over another
will inevitably fail." Does everyone understand what Obama is saying? In
order for this new "world order" to materialize, no individual nation can be
preferred over another--not even our own. In a word, no country can be
allowed to maintain national sovereignty, independence, or military
superiority. All nations must be willing to surrender their sovereignty and
independence to the new "world order." Furthermore, all nations must be
willing to submit their militaries to a new global military. Oh yes, my
friend, all of this is inferred in Obama's statement.
The last half of Obama's statement is equally chilling: "Whatever we think
of the past, we must not be prisoners to it." In other words, Americans must
forget about the heritage and tradition of our past. The ideas of national
sovereignty and independence are archaic. The notion of "America First" is
passé. The principles of constitutional government must be replaced with the
international principles of a new "world order."
In this regard, it would not have mattered to a tinker's dam if John McCain
had been elected President instead of Barack Obama. I well remember McCain
repeatedly saying that one of the first things he would do after becoming
President would be to implement a new "League of Democracies." In fact, look
no further than to a speech McCain made to the Hoover Institution. According
to McCain, "The new League of Democracies would form the core of an
international order." (Source: John McCain Addresses The Hoover Institution,
CFR Publication, May 1, 2007)
At the national level, both the Republican and Democratic parties are taking
the United States headlong into an international "New World Order." The
national news media is likewise culpable, as are the vast majority of the
Religious Right and most other religious entities, organizations, and
movements.
As an example, outside of this column, how many warnings have you read or
heard regarding the abovementioned statement by Mr. Obama? I dare say that
many readers are learning of this statement for the very first time as they
read this column.
The burning question facing the American people today is, are we going to do
nothing as these globalists who control our political and corporate
institutions sell our country into global tyranny?
Forget Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Bill O'Reilly. They will do nothing
to resist. Forget Joel Osteen and Rick Warren. They, too, will raise no
voice of opposition. Forget Newt Gingrich. He is as much a part of the
problem as anyone. Ditto for virtually every other major Republican in
Washington, D.C.--with the exception of Ron Paul, of course. (At the
national level, only Sarah Palin seems to bring any of the right instincts
to the discussion, but she is desperately behind the curve on this issue,
and needs much education if she is to be an effective voice on the subject.)
Forget Nancy Pelosi and her fellow socialists in the Democratic Party. They
have never seen a Big Government proposal that they did not love. And if
they love big national government, think how they will love big
international government.
Forget the TV news talk shows. With the exception of Lou Dobbs, they are all
too busy putting big bucks in their bank accounts to have time to worry
about something as insignificant (to them) as the surrender of our
sovereignty and independence. Forget the vast majority of today's pastors.
They are either totally ignorant or unconcerned on the subject, or too busy
fighting with their own carnal church members to provide the leadership
necessary to "rally the troops"--as did the patriotic clergymen of Colonial
America's "Black Regiment."
That leaves you and me--and God, of course. But then again, God, guns, and
guts was all it took in 1776, wasn't it?
So, while all of the attention of the "talking heads" was focused on
virtually everything else Obama said, the most diabolical and potentially
destructive statement that came from his mouth last week was all but
ignored.
P.S. We are now shipping THE FREEDOM DOCUMENTS. Over 50 of America's
greatest historical documents in one volume. Our supply will only last for
another week or so. Order your copies NOW. And remember, orders of ten (10)
or more pay no shipping (credit card orders only). Go to:
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/products.html
*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these
editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by
credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/donate.php
(c) Chuck Baldwin
NOTE TO THE READER:
This email editorial cannot be considered Spam as long as the sender
includes contact information and a method of removal.
To subscribe, click on this link and follow the instructions:
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/subscribe.php
To unsubscribe, click on this link and follow the instructions:
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/unsubscribe.php
Chuck Baldwin's commentaries are copyrighted and may be republished,
reposted, or emailed providing the person or organization doing so does not
charge for subscriptions or advertising and that the column is copied intact
and that full credit is given and that Chuck's web site address is included.
Editors or Publishers of publications charging for subscriptions or
advertising who want to run these columns must contact Chuck Baldwin for
permission. Radio or television Talk Show Hosts interested in scheduling an
interview with Chuck should contact chuck@chuckbaldwinlive.com
Readers may also respond to this column via snail mail. The postal address
is P.O. Box 37070, Pensacola, Florida. When responding, please include your
name, city and state. And, unless otherwise requested, all respondents will
be added to the Chuck Wagon address list.
Please visit Chuck's web site at http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com
| |
| Posted 2009-06-09 1:28 PM (#15750 - in reply to #15490) By: Gregory
|
| | |
From another email, an open letter to [Alleged] President Obama concerning the speech in Cairo.
An Open Letter to [Alleged] President Obama
by Brigitte Gabriel
Dear Mr. President,
You face difficult challenges in matters such as achieving peace in the Middle East and protecting America from the threat of radical Islam and terrorism. These are challenges that have vexed past presidents, going as far back as our second president, John Adams. I have no doubt you appreciate both the gravity of these challenges and the enormous obstacles that exist to solving them.
I also have no doubt that you and your staff understood that, no matter what you said in your speech last Thursday in Cairo, there would be those who would take issue with you. That is always the case when attempting to solve problems that are as deep and emotionally-laden as these challenges are.
I am assuming it is your sincere hope that the approach you have chosen to take, as evidenced by what I’m sure was a carefully crafted speech, will ultimately prove successful. However, it pains me to say this sir, but, while you said in your speech that you are a “student of history,” it is abundantly clear that, in these matters, you do not know history and thus, as Santayana noted, you are doomed to repeat it. In doing so your efforts, however well-intentioned they may be, will not produce what you profess to hope they will produce.
A wise man once said that if you start with the wrong assumptions, no matter how logical your reasoning is, you will end up with the wrong conclusion. With all due respect Mr. President, you are starting with certain assumptions that are unsupported by history and an objective study of the ideology of political Islam.
You began in your speech by asserting that “tensions” exist between the United States and Muslims around the world, which, of course, is correct. Unfortunately, you then proceeded, incorrectly, to lay virtually all the blame for these tensions at the feet of America and the West. You blamed western colonialism, the Cold War, and even modernity and globalism.
A student of American history, who is not trying to reconstruct it to fit a modern politically correct narrative, would state that tensions between America and Muslims began with the unprovoked, four-decades long assault by the Muslim Barbary pirates against American shipping in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. I find it telling that you mentioned the Treaty of Tripoli in your speech but ignored the circumstances that led to it. That treaty was but one of numerous attempts by the United States to achieve peace with the jihadists of the Barbary Coast who were attacking our shipping and killing and enslaving our citizens and our soldiers – and who by their own admission were doing so to fulfill the call to jihad.
These jihadists were not acting to protest American foreign policy, which was decidedly isolationist, and there was no state of Israel to scapegoat. They were doing what countless Islamic jihadists have done throughout history – acting upon the hundreds of passages in the Qur’an and the Hadith that call upon faithful Muslims to kill, conquer or subjugate the infidel.
A student of world history would know that, for all the acknowledged evils of Western colonialism, these evils pale in comparison to the nearly 14 centuries of Islamic colonialism that began in Arabia under the leadership of Mohammed. The student of history would know that Islamic forces eradicated all Jewish and Christian presence from Arabia after Mohammed’s death, and then succeeded in conquering all of North Africa, most of the Middle East, much of Asia Minor, and significant portions of Europe and India – eventually creating an empire larger than Rome’s was at its peak.
The number of dead and enslaved during these many centuries of Islamic imperial conquest and colonialism have been estimated to total more than 300 million. What’s more, the wealth of many of the conquered nations and cultures was plundered by the Islamic conquerors, and millions of millions of non-Muslims who did survive were forced to pay onerous taxes, such as the “jizya,” a humiliation tax to the Islamic caliphs. Indeed, in some areas Christians and Jews were made to wear a receipt for the jizya around their neck as a mark of their dishonor.
These facts have not been invented by Christian or Jewish historical revisionists, but were chronicled by Muslim eyewitnesses throughout the past 14 centuries and are available to be researched by any person seeking an objective understanding of how Islam spread throughout the world.
You say in your speech that we must squarely face the tensions that exist between America and the Muslim world. That is a laudable notion with which I agree, but by casting Islam as the historical victim and the West (and by implication, America) as the aggressor, you do not face these tensions squarely, but alleviate the Muslim world from coming to grips with the jihadist ideology embedded in its holy books and acted upon for 1,400 years.
Even worse, you empower and embolden militant Islamists who regard your gestures as signs of weakness and capitulation.
The issue is not that all Muslims are terrorists or radicals or extremists. We all know that the majority of Muslims are not. We also know that many peace-loving Muslims are victims of Islamist violence.
The issue is this: what drives hundreds of millions of Muslims worldwide to call for the death of Jews?
What drives millions of Muslims to riot, destroy property, and take innocent lives in reaction to the Danish cartoons?
What drives tens of thousands of Muslims to demand the execution of a British teacher whose only “crime” was allowing her students to name their teddy bears “Mohammed”?
What drives countless Muslims worldwide to actively participate in, or fund, or provide nurture to, terrorist organizations?
What drives Muslims in mosques in America to proclaim and distribute materials that call for hatred of and the destruction of infidels?
What drives entire Islamic countries to prohibit the building of a Christian church or synagogue?
To assume, as you apparently do, that what drives these actions is not an ideology embedded in the holy books of Islam, but rather other “root causes,” most of which you lay at the feet of America and the West, is at best naïve and at worst dangerous.
Lastly, I must address your statement that “Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance.” Unfortunately, the examples you gave are the exception rather than the rule.
Historically speaking, I seriously doubt the Egyptian Copts, the Lebanese Maronites, the Christians in Bethlehem, the Assyrians, the Hindus, the Jews, and many others who have been persecuted by Islamic violence and supremacism, would agree with your assertion.
For instance, Christians and Jews became “Dhimmis,” a second class group under Islam. Dhimmis were forced to wear distinctive clothing; it was Baghdad’s Caliph Al-Mutawakkil, in the ninth century, who designated a yellow badge for Jews under Islam, which Hitler copied and duplicated in Nazi Germany nearly a thousand years later.
I witnessed first-hand the “tolerance” of Islam when Islamists ravaged my country of birth, Lebanon, in the 1970’s, leaving widespread death and destruction in their wake. I saw how they re-paid the tolerance that Lebanese Christians extended toward them. My experience is not an isolated one. When you make an unfounded assertion about the “proud tradition” of tolerance in Islam, you do a great disservice to the hundreds of millions of non-Muslims who have been killed, maimed, enslaved, conquered, subjugated or displaced – in the cause of Islamic jihad.
Mr. President, those of us like me who are ringing the alarm in America about the threat of radical Islam would like nothing better than to peacefully co-exist with the Muslim world. Most Americans would like nothing better than to peacefully co-exist with the Muslim world. The obstacle to achieving this does not lie with us in America and the West. It lies with the hundreds of millions of Muslims worldwide, including many of their spiritual leaders, who take seriously the repeated calls to jihad in the Qur’an and the Hadith. Who regard “infidels” as inferior and worthy of conquering, subjugating and forcibly converting. Who support “cultural jihad” as a means to subvert non-Muslim societies from within. Who take seriously the admonitions throughout the Qur’an and the Hadith to convert the world to Islam – by force if necessary – and bring it under the rule of Allah.
Unless you are willing to courageously and honestly accept this, your aspirations for worldwide comity and peace in the Middle East are doomed to fail.
Sincerely,
Brigitte Gabriel
Brigitte Gabriel is the New York Times bestselling author of They Must Be Stopped: Why We Must Defeat Radical Islam and How We Can Do It. She is the founder and president of ACT! for America, www.ActforAmerica.org .
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACT for America
P.O. Box 12765
Pensacola, FL 32591
www.actforamerica.org
Edited by Gregory 2009-06-09 2:09 PM
| |
| Posted 2009-06-09 2:05 PM (#15751 - in reply to #15490) By: Gregory
|
| | |
Electronic town hall conference topic June 9, 2009
| |
| Posted 2009-06-09 6:40 PM (#15765 - in reply to #15751) By: Florida
|
| | |
Barack OBAMA, during his Cairo speech, said: "I know, too, that Islam has always been a part of America 's story. . AN AMERICAN CITIZEN'S RESPONSE: . Dear Mr. Obama: . Was it the Muslim people that were living in America when the Pilgrims first landed? Funny, I thought they were Native American Indians. . Were those Muslims that celebrated the first Thanksgiving day? Sorry again, those were Pilgrims and Native American Indians. . Can you show me one Muslim signature on the United States Constitution? Declaration of Independence ? Bill of Rights? Didn't think so. . Did Muslims fight for this country's freedom from England? No. Did Muslims fight during the Civil War to free the slaves in America? No, they did not. . In fact, Muslims to this day are still the largest traffickers in human slavery. Your own half brother, a devout Muslim, still advocates slavery himself, even though Muslims of Arabic descent refer to black Muslims as "pug nosed slaves." Says a lot of what the Muslim world really thinks of your family's "rich Islamic heritage," doesn't it Mr Obama? . Where were Muslims during the Civil Rights era of this country? Not present. There are no pictures or media accounts of Muslims walking side by side with Martin Luther King, Jr. or helping to advance the cause of Civil Rights. . Where were Muslims during this country's Woman's Suffrage era? Again, not present. In fact, devout Muslims demand that women are subservient to men in the Islamic culture. So much so, that often they are beaten for not wearing the 'hajib' or for talking to a man who is not a direct family member or their husband. Yep, the Muslims are all for women's rights, aren't they? . Where were Muslims during World War II? They were aligned with Adolf Hitler. The Muslim grand mufti himself met with Adolf Hitler, reviewed the troops and accepted support from the Nazi's in killing Jews. . Finally, Mr. Obama, where were Muslims on Sept. 11th, 2001? If they weren't flying planes into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon or a field in Pennsylvania killing nearly 3,000 people on our own soil, they were rejoicing in the Middle East. No one can dispute the pictures shown from all parts of the Muslim world celebrating on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC and other cable news networks that day. . And THAT, Mr. Obama, is the "rich heritage" Muslims have here in America. . Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot to mention the Barbary Pirates. They were Muslim. . And now we can add November 5, 2009 - the slaughter of American soldiers at Fort Hood by a Muslim major who is a doctor and a psychiatrist who was supposed to be counselling soldiers returning from battle in Iraq and Afghanistan. . That, Mr. Obama is the "Muslim heritage" in America. | |
| Posted 2010-04-17 8:23 AM (#36149 - in reply to #15765) By: Philomena
|
| | |
Transcript of the Cairo speech:
http://www.aipnews.com/talk/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=5090
Edited by Philomena 2010-04-17 8:26 AM
| |
| Posted 2010-04-17 8:26 AM (#36151 - in reply to #36149) By: Philomena
|
| | |
|
