America’s Mayor is Right About America’s President

Former New York City Mayor Rudolf Giuliani was right – our Emperor-in-Chief Obama does not love America.  In fact, he hates it.

Giuliani’s remarks were not about race or even place of birth.  Truthers believe he was born in Kenya.  His father, Obama Senior, was a Kenyan.  His mother was American, born in Oklahoma.  We who have studied astrology (even some like myself do not like to practice it) have no trouble whatsoever believing he was born on Aug. 4, 1961 in Hawaii.  Astrologically, it’s the perfect birthdate for this guy.

Obama Senior was an anti-Colonialist/Imperialist.  Anti-Colonialism is a special branch of Communist beliefs.  His mother was a fervent Communist and an atheist.  For awhile, she left her son, Barack, in the care of her parents.  Obama’s grandfather hung around the ramshackle, radical community on the island, befriending noted Communist Frank Marshall Davis, whose associates included Valerie Jarrett’s father-in-law, Vernon Jarrett.

Vernon and Frank Marshall Davis were both members of a communist-controlled group in Chicago, the Citizens’ Committee to Aid Packing-House Workers.  Vernon wrote syndicated columns for the Chicago Tribune.    He was also a member of the Illinois Council of American Youth for Democracy, the Communist Party USA (CPUSA) youth wing.

Then there’s David Axelrod, who gave Obama his campaign slogan, “Hope and Change.”  Axelrod’s mother, Myril, wrote for a “progressive’ daily called, PM, from 1940 to 1948.  The PM suffered a political divide between Marxists and Stalinists.  “Among the most popular writers,” according to Dr. Paul Kengor’s 2012 book, ‘The Communist, Frank Marshall Davis:  The Untold Story of Barack Obama’s Mentor,’ ‘was I.E. Stone – hailed by liberals for decades as the ‘conscience of journalism’ – but who we now know was once a paid Soviet agent.

Axelrod enrolled at the University of Chicago in 1972.  Through his work at the Hyde Park Herald, a weekly local paper, Kengor tells us, Axelrod met David Canter and his partner, Don Rose.

“David Canter was the son of Harry Jacob Canter, who in the 1920s embraced every progressive/communist cause under the sun, from the Scottsboro Boys to Sacco-Vanzetti.  In 1929, Harry Canter was convicted for radical activities and served a year in jail.  While his family today describes his work as “progressive,” the truth is that Harry was secretary of the Boston Communist Party.  In 1930, he ran for governor of Massachusetts on the Communist Party ticket.

“Harry Canter was so progressive that, in 1932, he got a special invitation to Stalin’s USSR, which he eagerly accepted, taking along his entire family.  Fluent in Russian, he taught printing techniques to the Bolsheviks, translating major volumes of Lenin’s writings.

“In 1937, Harry and his family suddenly left Moscow and landed in Chicago.  David Canter, now 14 years old, had been nurtured in the USSR under Stalin’s collectivization, mass wealth redistribution, and five-year plans.  Like David Axelrod, whom he would mentor eventually, David Canter attended the University of Chicago, writing for the college newspaper, and other publications.  He eventually edited the Packing –House Workers Union newsletter, Champion.

David Canter was eventually subpoenaed to testify before the Democrat-run House Committee on Un-American Activities, although he refused to answer any questions.  He was told that other Communists had testified that he, too, was a Communist.  Still, he refused to answer any questions.    The committee was particularly interested in a publication he co-founded with LeRoy Wallins (a well-known Communist), Translation World Publishers, subsidized by the Soviet government, “an outlet for the distribution of Soviet propaganda.

“In addition to the Packinghouse Union connection, the Canter family was also very much acquainted with the Chicago Star, founded by Frank Marshall Davis and Ernest Demaio.”  Frank and Harry canter taught at the Abraham Lincoln School, teaching an evening class entitled, “Wartime Trade Union Problems.”  Another evening class, “Trade Union Leaders,” was team-taught by Frank’s pals, Herbert March and Ernest DeMaio.

“…the overlapping orbits are fascinating,” Kengor writes.  “Think about the relationships:  Frank mentored Obama.  The Canter family mentored David Axelrod.  Valerie Jarrett is Vernon Jordan’s daughter-in-law.  Robert R. Taylor, Frank’s “anti-war” and “civil liberties” pal, was Jarrett’s grandfather.  Valerie Jarrett and David Axelrod became Obama’s top two presidential advisors.”

Listen to Obama’s own words about race, from his introduction to “Dreams from My Father”:

“They know too much, we have all seen too much, to take my parents’ brief union – a black man and a white woman, an African and an American – at face value.  As a result, some people have a hard time taking me at face value.  When people who don’t know me well, black or white, discover my background (and it is usually a discovery, for I ceased to advertise my mother’s race at the age of twelve or thirteen, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites), I see the split-second adjustments they have to make, the searching of my eyes for some telltale sign.  They no longer know who I am.  Privately, they guess at my troubled heart, I suppose – the mixed blood, the divided soul, the ghostly image of the tragic mulatto trapped between two worlds.

“And if I were to explain that, no, the tragedy is not mine, or at least not mine alone, it is yours, sons and daughters of Plymouth Rock and Ellis Island, it is yours, children of Africa, it is the tragedy of both my wife’s six year-old cousin and his white first-grade  classmates, so that you need not guess at what troubles me; it’s on the nightly news for all to see, and that if we could acknowledge at least that much then the tragic cycle begins to break down…well, I suspect that I sound incurably naïve, wedded to lost hopes, like those Communists who peddle their newspapers on the fringes of various college towns.”

In his days at Columbia University, Obama sought every lecture on Communism and Socialism that he could find.  Although he was trained in law, he never actually practiced law, and only taught the subject as an adjunct professor.  He attended the New York Socialist Scholars Conferences, and probably the Midwest Academy retreats.  Midwest Academy later indirectly funded Obama’s campaigns.  He worked for awhile in the financial world.  But one day, he saw his suited-reflection in the mirror and decided that was not who he wanted to be.  What he really wanted to be was a “community organizer” like Saul Alinsky.  He wanted to wake up minority communities on the wrong side of the highway and “change” the way America worked.  He openly admitted that, if it were up to him, he would throw out the Constitution and start over.  He also openly used a variation of the Marxist phrase, “redistributing the wealth.”

Obama is the Black Elephant in the room.  Republicans don’t want to take him on in any aspect because of his magic melanin.  He could raise the old Soviet Union flag over the White House, and the Republicans wouldn’t do a thing about it.  He restored relations with Cuba.  Our Republican representatives said nothing (there’s a lot of money to be made in the cruise ship trade to Havana).

He’s fumbled the foreign policy ball so badly that it’s hard to tell just whose side he’s on.  Or rather, it’s hard to say, because we mustn’t criticize our Glorious Leader.  We have Obama to thank for the ISIS crisis, for the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan, for the disaster in Iraq, for the rising of Iran, and the muscle-flexing of Putin.  He’s either fired or forced the resignation of every general who opposes his strategy.

A federal judge has temporarily put a stop to the onslaught of illegal immigrants.  But it’s like putting a Sponge Bob bandage on an arterial wound.  The measure is only temporary.  The Middle East is in flames and our military is being downsized.

Yet the Republicans are all over Giuliani (who has nothing to fear politically) for declaring the Obama doesn’t love America.  Well, he doesn’t.  I’ve been saying it for countless years about Obama and his ilk.  He doesn’t love America.  That is, he doesn’t love freedom, individual rights of free speech, property ownership, and gun ownership.  He’s followed the Marxist mandate right down the line.

Before Republicans read Giuliani the riot act, they might try reading Obama’s two autobiographies, “The Audacity of Hope” and “Dreams from My Father. “  Read Michelle Malkin’s “Culture of Corruption.”  Paul Kengor’s “The Communist.”   David Limbaugh’s “Crimes Against Liberty.”    (“President Obama came to office with a strong wind at his back.  He established high expectations of himself, and the public took him at his word.”)

Read “Radical-in-Chief:  Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism” by Stanley Kurtz.  “Barack Obama’s own statements about his New York years are consistent with the notion that he was a socialist at the time.    If these were the only bits of evidence available, it would be a mistake to make too much of Obama’s few remarks on this mysterious period in his life.  Yet juxtaposing Obama’s account of his time in New York with his attendance at Socialist Scholars Conferences reveals a pattern.  There is also clear evidence that Obama was a’“pure Marxist socialist’ during his time at Occidental College.”

Read David Limbaugh’s other tome, “The Great Destroyer.”  “Contradicting Obama’s post-racial appeals, the Obama administration has zealously promoted race-based policies and preferences – under the euphemism of ‘diversity’ – inside and outside the government.  The Obama administration used federal ‘stimulus’ funds for such politically correct projects as purchasing manuals for every Omaha public school teacher, administrator, and staff instructing them on how to become more culturally sensitive.”

Trying reading Kurtz’ “Spreading the Wealth:  How Obama is Robbing the Suburbs to Pay for the Cities.”  “The key to Obama’s second term education plans lies in the role being played in the administration-orchestrated Common Core program by Linda Darling-Hammond.  Darling-Hammond was Obama’s education adviser during campaign 2008 and led his post-election team.  She was on the fast lane to appointment as Secretary of Education until her leftism alienated even many Democrats.

Darling-Hammond has collaborated with William Ayers, who supported her appointment as Secretary of Education (he advocates a redistribution of resources to the poor and minorities as a payment on America’s ‘educational debt’.

“The Ayers-Darling-Hammond link is no fluke,” Kurtz writes.  Both were leaders of the small schools movement, which was supposedly about reducing school size, but was, in fact, about creating places to push Leftist politics, like The Peace School.  Ayers and Darling-Hammond have also worked together.  She contributed to a collection of essays edited and published by Ayers in 1998 (when Ayers and Obama were working together at their own education foundation in Chicago.

“Darling-Hammond’s contribution to that volume emphasized funding disparities between urban and suburban schools and praised the non-standardized alternative assessments (like having students keep personal journals instead of taking tests) popular in the experimental schools that sprouted up in the 1960s.

“It is clear from Darling-Hammond’s writings that her long-term goal is to circumvent America’s localized governance structures by centrally funding and administering the nation’s schools on the European model…Darling-Hammond hopes that laying down a national curriculum will set a precedent for greater federal control of America’s education system, even in matters of funding.”

Or you can read one of Dinesh D’Souza’s books, like “Obama’s America:  Unmaking the American Dream.”  “Behind such polices there is an attitude, captured in Obama’s recent remark, reported in the New York Times:  ‘Mr. Obama has told people that it would be so much easier to be the president of China.’    Ah yes, that’s because the president of China is basically a dictator.  He doesn’t have to answer to Congress, and he is largely unaccountable to public opinion.  He just does what he wants, and I’m sure he has lots of little czars to help him executive his grand designs.  Obama so desperately seeks this kind of power that he blurts out one of the most imprudent remarks of his presidency, and the New York Times obligingly buries it in the last line of a long article on Obama’s Middle East policy.”

By count, that’s eleven books on Obama, two of them in his own words, about how he feels about America.  How much more evidence do Republicans, the Media, and the American people need?  Or are they boiled frogs wearing color-blind blinders?

Go, Mayor Giuliani!  Whatever you do, don’t let them intimidate you into apologizing.  The facts are on your side, in black and white.

Published in: on February 21, 2015 at 12:26 pm  Leave a Comment  

The Gospel According to Obama

Allow me to issue a long-post blogging alert.  Given the historical nature of today’s post, be prepared for a long read.  Do not attempt to read this blog on your SmartPhone or other small-scale electronic device!

“President Barack Obama on Thursday condemned those who seek to use religion as a rationale for carrying out violence around the world, declaring that “no god condones terror.”

“We are summoned to push back against those who would distort our religion for their nihilistic ends,” Obama said during remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast. He singled out the Islamic State group in Iraq and Syria, calling the militants a “death cult,” as well as those responsible for last month’s terror attacks in Paris and deadly assault on a school in Pakistan.

Obama had a more non-denominational message for the audience that also included prominent leaders of non-Christian faiths. The president said that while religion is a source for good around the world, people of all faiths have been willing to “hijack religion for their own murderous ends.”

“Unless we get on our high horse and think that this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ,” Obama said. “In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ.

“So it is not unique to one group or one religion,” Obama said. “There is a tendency in us, a simple tendency that can pervert and distort our faith.”

That was the AP’s version  of Obama’s speech Thursday at the National Prayer Breakfast.  What did he mean by “our religion”?

Here is portion of the speech, in context:

“So how do we, as people of faith, reconcile these realities — the profound good, the strength, the tenacity, the compassion and love that can flow from all of our faiths, operating alongside those who seek to hijack religious for their own murderous ends?

“Humanity has been grappling with these questions throughout human history.  And lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ.  In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ.  Michelle and I returned from India — an incredible, beautiful country, full of magnificent diversity — but a place where, in past years, religious faiths of all types have, on occasion, been targeted by other peoples of faith, simply due to their heritage and their beliefs — acts of intolerance that would have shocked Gandhi, the person who helped to liberate that nation.

“So this is not unique to one group or one religion.  There is a tendency in us, a sinful tendency that can pervert and distort our faith.  In today’s world, when hate groups have their own Twitter accounts and bigotry can fester in hidden places in cyberspace, it can be even harder to counteract such intolerance. But God compels us to try.  And in this mission, I believe there are a few principles that can guide us, particularly those of us who profess to believe.

“And, first, we should start with some basic humility.  I believe that the starting point of faith is some doubt — not being so full of yourself and so confident that you are right and that God speaks only to us, and doesn’t speak to others, that God only cares about us and doesn’t care about others, that somehow we alone are in possession of the truth.

“Our job is not to ask that God respond to our notion of truth — our job is to be true to Him, His word, and His commandments.  And we should assume humbly that we’re confused and don’t always know what we’re doing and we’re staggering and stumbling towards Him, and have some humility in that process.  And that means we have to speak up against those who would misuse His name to justify oppression, or violence, or hatred with that fierce certainty.  No God condones terror.  No grievance justifies the taking of innocent lives, or the oppression of those who are weaker or fewer in number.

“And so, as people of faith, we are summoned to push back against those who try to distort our religion — any religion — for their own nihilistic ends.  And here at home and around the world, we will constantly reaffirm that fundamental freedom — freedom of religion — the right to practice our faith how we choose, to change our faith if we choose, to practice no faith at all if we choose, and to do so free of persecution and fear and discrimination.

“There’s wisdom in our founders writing in those documents that help found this nation the notion of freedom of religion, because they understood the need for humility.  They also understood the need to uphold freedom of speech, that there was a connection between freedom of speech and freedom of religion.  For to infringe on one right under the pretext of protecting another is a betrayal of both.

Obama backed off  his statement “our religion” and “corrected” it to “any religion.”  Yet a mere three or four paragraphs earlier, he distorted the history of Christianity, linking Christianity to slavery and Jim Crow laws, the Inquisition, and the Crusades.

The following information was drawn from Wikipedia:

Before 1100, the Catholic Church had already suppressed what they believed to be heresy, usually through a system of ecclesiastical proscription or imprisonment, but without using torture and seldom resorting to executions.  Such punishments had a number of ecclesiastical opponents, although some countries punished heresy with the death penalty.

In the 12th century, to counter the spread of Catharism, prosecution of heretics became more frequent. The Church charged councils composed of bishops and archbishops with establishing inquisitions. The first Inquisition was temporarily established in Languedoc in the south of France  in 1184. The murder in 1208 of Pope Innocent’s papal legate Pierre de Castelnau sparked the Alibgensian Crusaide (1209–1229). The Inquisition was permanently established in 1229. It was centered under the Dominicans in Rome and later at Carcassonne in Languedoc.

Cataharims was a Christian dualist movement that thrived in some areas of southern Europe, particularly northern Italy and southern France, between the 12th and 14th centuries. Cathar beliefs varied between communities because Catharism was initially taught by ascetic priests who had set few guidelines. The Cathars were a direct challenge to the Catholic Church, which denounced its practices and dismissed it outright as “the Church of Satan.”

 In Cathar texts, the terms “Good Men” (Bons Hommes) or “Good Christians” are the common terms of self-identification.  The idea of two gods or principles, one being good the other evil, was central to Cathar beliefs. The good god was the God of the New Testament and the creator of the spiritual realm, as opposed to the bad god, whom many Cathars identified as Satan, creator of the physical world of the Old Testament.  All visible matter, including the human body, was created by Satan; it was therefore tainted with sin. This was the antithesis to the monotheistic Catholic Church, whose fundamental principle was that there was only one God who created all things visible and invisible.  Cathars thought human spirits were the genderless spirits of angels trapped within the physical creation of Satan, cursed to be reincarnated until the Cathar faithful achieved salvation through a ritual called the “consolamentum” or baptism with holy water.

The Cathars rejected the consumption of the Catholic sacrament because they believed the human  body would contaminate it.

Generally, the Inquisition was concerned only with the heretical behaviour of Catholic adherents or converts and supposedly did not concern itself with those outside that religion such as Jews or Muslims.

When a suspect was convicted of unrepentant heresy, the inquisitorial tribunal was required by law to hand the person over to the secular authorities for final sentencing, at which point the penalty would be determined by a magistrate, usually burning at the stake although the penalty varied based on local law.  The laws were inclusive of proscriptions against certain religious crimes (heresy, etc.), and the punishments included death by burning, although imprisonment for life or banishment would usually be used. Thus the inquisitors generally knew what would be the fate of anyone so remanded, and cannot be considered to have divorced the means of determining guilt from its effects.

The 1578 handbook for inquisitors spelled out the purpose of inquisitorial penalties: … quoniam punitio non refertur primo & per se in correctionem & bonum eius qui punitur, sed in bonum publicum ut alij terreantur, & a malis committendis avocentur. Translation from the Latin: “… for punishment does not take place primarily and  per se for the correction and good of the person punished, but for the public good in order that others may become terrified and weaned away from the evils they would commit.”

Most inquisitors were friars who taught theology and/or law in the universities. They used inquistional procedures, a common legal practice adapted from the earlier Ancient Roman court procedures. They judged heresy along with bishops and groups of “assessors” (clergy serving in a role that was roughly analogous to a jury or legal advisers), using the local authorities to establish a tribunal and to prosecute heretics. After 1200, a Grand Inquisitor headed each Inquisition. Grand Inquisitions persisted until the mid 19th century.

The answer to the Inquisiton was the Protestant Reformation, led by Martin Luther in Germany.  The Protestant Reformation, often referred to simply as the Reformation, was the schism within Western Christianity initiated byLuther, John Calvin, Huldrych Zwingli and other early Protestant Reformers, lasting from 1517 until 1648.[

Although there had been significant earlier attempts to reform the Roman Catholic Church before Luther — such as those of  Peter Waldo, Johyn Wycliffe, and Jan Hus  — it is Martin Luther who is widely acknowledged to have started the Reformation with his 1517 work  The Ninety-Five Theses. Luther began by criticizing the selling of  indulgences, insisting that the Pope had no authority over purgatory and that the Catholic doctrine of the merits of the saints had no foundation in the gospel. The attacks widened to cover many of the doctrines and devotional Catholic practices. The new movement within Germany diversified almost immediately, and other reform impulses arose independently of Luther.

The largest groupings were the Lutherans and Calvinists.  Lutheran churches were founded mostly in Germany, the Baltics and Scandinavia, while the Reformed ones were founded in France, Switzerland, Hungary, the Netherlands and Scotland. The new movement influenced the Church of England decisively after 1547 under Edward VI and Elizabeth I, although the national church had been made independent under Henry VIII in the early 1530s for political rather than religious reasons. There were also reformation movements throughout continental Europe known as the Radical Reformation, which gave rise to the  Anabaptist, Moravian, , and other Pietistic (emphasizing personal behavior) movements.]

Although the core motivation behind these changes was theological, many other factors played a part, including the rise of nationalism, the Western Schsim, which eroded people’s faith in the Papacy, the corruption of the Curia (the papal bureaucracy), and the new learning of the Renaissance which questioned much traditional thought. On a technological level, the invention of the printing press provided the means for the rapid dissemination of religious materials in the vernacular.

The Roman Catholic Church responded with a Counter-Reformation, initiated by the Council of Trent.  Much work in battling Protestantism was done by the well-organized new order of the Jesuits. In general, Northern Europe, with the exception of most of Ireland, came under the influence of Protestantism. Southern Europe remained Roman Catholic, while Central Europe was a site of a fierce conflict, culminating in the Thirty Years’ War, which left it massively devastated.

Jan Hus, a professor at the University in Prague, objected to some of the practices of the Roman Catholic Church and wanted to return the church in Bohemia (Germany) and Moravia to early Byzantine- -inspired practices: liturgy in the language of the people (i.e. Czech), having lay people receive communion in both kinds (bread and wine – that is, in Latin, communio sub utraque specie), married priests, and eliminating indulgences (paying of sins with ‘donations’ to the Church) and the idea of Purgatory. Hus rejected indulgences and adopted a doctrine of justification by grace through faith alone. The Roman Catholic Church officially concluded this debate at the Council of Constance (1414–1417). The conclave condemned Hus, who was executed by burning despite a promise of safe-conduct. Wycliffe was posthumously condemned as a heretic and his corpse exhumed and burned in 1428.

Those were the days of the Inquisition and the Reformation, some thousand years ago.

Those were also the days of The Crusades.  The Crusades were more than just an attempt to “take back” Jerusalem.  An excellent resource for the correct, or rather “politically incorrect” history of the Crusades, is  The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades)” written by Robert Spencer and published by Regnery Publishing.

Spencer gives us the true history of Islam.  Apologists for Islam claim that misperceptions of that religion began with the Crusades, what they regard as an unprovoked slaughter of innocent Muslisms.  Spencer tells us that the violent nature of Islam began with its founder, 450 years before the Crusades.

“Contrary to what many secularists would have us believe,” Spencer writes, “religions are not entirely determined (or distorted) by the faithful over time.  The lives and words of the founders remain central, no matter how long ago they lived.  The idea that believers shape religion is derived, instead, from the fashionable 1960s philosophy of deconstructionism, which teaches that written words of no meaning other than that give by the reader.

“Equally important, it follows that if the reader alone finds meaning, there can be no truth (and certainly no religious truth); one person’s meaning is equal to another’s.  Ultimately, according to deconstructionism, we all crate our own set of ‘truths’, none better or worse than any other.”

Facts are essential to other religions (Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism).  But Mohammed remains more mysterious, primarily because the Koranic texts are rarely translated into languages other than Arabic.  To read the Koran, you must learn to read Arabic.  Versions of the Koran written in other languages are considered to be blasphemous, according to the Muslims.

Citing Islamic texts, Spencer tells us, “First basic fact:  Mohummad ibn Abdallah  ibn Abd al-Muttalib (570-632), the prophet of Islam, was a man of war.  He taught his followers to fight for his new religion.  He said that their god, Allah, had commanded him to take up arms.  And Muhammad, no armchair general, fought in numerous battles.”

“In the course of these battles, Muhammad articulated numerous principles that have been followed by Muslims to this day.  Therefore, it is important to record some features of Muhammad’s battles, which can provide insight into today’s newspaper headlines – insights  that continue, sadly, to elude many analysts and experts.”

Spencer tells us that Muhammad was already an experienced warrior.

“After receiving revelations from Allah through the angel Gabriel in 610, he began by just preaching to his tribe the worship of One God and his own position as a prophet.  But he was not well-received by his Quraysh brethren in Mecca, who reacted disdainfully to his prophetic call and refused to give up their [pagan] gods.

“When even his uncle, Abu Lahab, rejected his message, Muhammad cursed him and his wife in violent language that has been preserved in the Qur’an, the holy book of Islam:

“May the hands of Abu Lahab perish!  May he himself Perish!  Nothing shall his wealth and gains avail hi m.  He shall be burnt in a flaming fire, and his wife, laden with faggots, shall have a rope of fibre around her neck!’  Qur’an 111:1-5

“Ultimately, Muhammad would turn from violent words to violent deeds.  In 622, he finally fled his native Mecca for a nearby town, Media, where a band of tribal warriors had accepted him as a prophet and pledged loyalty to him.  In Medina, these new Muslims began raiding the caravans of the Quraysh, with Muhammad personally leading many of these raids.  These raids kept the nascent Muslim movement solvent and helped form Islamic theology – as in one notorious incident when a band of Muslims raided a Quraysh caravan at Nakhla, a settlement not far from  Meca.  The raiders attacked the caravan during the sacred month of Rajab, when fighting was forbidden.  When they returned to the Muslim camp laden with booty, Muhammad refused to share in the loot of have anything to do with them, saying only, “I did not order you to fight this sacred month.”

But then, a new revelation came from Allah, explaining that the Quraysh’s opposition to Muhammad was a worse transgression of the sacred month.  In other words, the raid was justifiied.

‘They question thee, O Muhammad, with regard to warfare in the sacred month.  Say:  warfare therein is a great transgression.  But to turn men from the Way of Allah, and to disbelieve in Him and in the Inviolable place of Worship and to expel His people thence, is a greater sin with Allah; for persecution is worse than killing.’  Qur’an 2:214.

“This,” Spencer writes, “was a momentous revelation, for it led to an Islamic principle that has had repercussions throughout the ages.  God became identified with anything that redounded to the benefit of Muslims, regardless of whether it violated moral or other laws.  The moral absolutes enshrined in the Ten Commandments, and other teachings of the great religions that preceded Islam, were swept aside in favor of an overarching principle of expediency.”

The ends justified the means.

The Battle of Badr was the first major battle the Muslims fought.  in the Hejaz region of western Arabia was a key battle in the early days of Islam and a turning point in Muhammad’s s struggle with his opponents among the Quraysh.  The battle has been passed down in Islamic history as a decisive victory attributable to divine intervention.

According to Spencer, “Muhammad heard that a large Quraysh caravan, laden with money and goods, was coming from Syria.

“‘This is the Quraysh caravan containing their property,” he  told his followers.  ‘Go out to attack it; perhaps God will give it as a prey.”

“He set out towards Mecca to lead the raid.  But this time, the Quraysh were ready for him, coming out to meet Muhammad’s three hundred men with a force nearly a thousand strong.  Muhammad seems not to have expected these numbers and cried out to Allah in anxiety, ‘O God, if this band perish today, Thou wilt be worshiped no more.’”

Despite their superior numbers the Quraysh were routed.  Some  sources attribute the victory to the strategic genius of Muhammad. It is one of the few battles specifically mentioned in the Qur’an.  Most contemporary knowledge of the Battle of Badr comes from traditional Islamic accounts, both hadiths and biographies of Muhammad, recorded in written form some time after the battle.

Advancing to a strong defensive position, Muhammad’s well-disciplined force broke the Meccan lines, killing several important Quraishi leaders including the Muslims’ chief antagonist Abu Jahl.  For the early Muslims the battle was the first sign that they might eventually defeat their enemies among the Meccans. Mecca at that time was one of the richest and most powerful cities in Arabia, fielding an army three times larger than that of the Muslims.  The Muslim victory also signaled to the other tribes that a new power had arisen in Arabia and strengthened Muhammad’s position as leader of the often fractious community in Medina.

Spencer tells us that after Muhammed’s followers beheaded Abu Jahl , a name given him by the Muslims which means “Father of Ignorance – his real name was Amr bin Hisham, they brought brought his severed head to the Prophet.  The soldier who brought the head proudly claimed, “This is the head of the enemy of God, Abu Jahl.”

“Muhammad was delighted.  ‘By God than Whom  there is no other, is it?’ he exclaimed and gave thanks to Allah for the death of his enemy.  The bodies of all those named in Muhammad’s curse were thrown into a pit.  Muhammad then taunted the dead bodies, calling them the “people of the pit.”  When his followers asked why he was talking to dead bodies, he replied, “You cannot hear what I say better than they, but they cannot answer me.”

Another enemy, Uqba, peladed for his life.  “’But who will look after my children, O Muhammad?”

“Hell,” replied the prophet.

“Flushed with victory,” Spencer continues, “Muhammad stepped up his raiding operations.  He also hardened  in his attitudes toward the Jewish tribes of the region, who kept their faith and rejected Muhammad as a prophet of God.  With this rejection, Muhammad’s prophetic calls to Jews began to get violent, emphasizing early punishment.

“Striding into the center of the marketplace of the Banu Qaynuqa, a Jewish tribe with whom he had a truce, he announced to the crowds:

‘O Jews, beware lest God bring upon you the vengeance that He brought upon Quraysh and become Muslims.  You know that I am a prophet who has been sent – you will find that in your scriptures and God’s covenant with you.’

“The Jews of the Banu Qaynuqa were not persuaded, frustrating the Prophet even more.  He laid siege on them until they offered him unconditional surrender.  “

Spencer tells us that Muhammad then turned his attention to a Jewish poet, K’ab bin Al-Ashraf who wrote love poems of an insulting nature about Muslim women.  Muhammad asked for a volunteer to assassinate the poet.

A young Muslim named  Muhammad bin Masla volunteered, crying, “O Allah’s Apostle!  Would like that kill him?”  The prophet replied, “Yes.”  Then the young volunteer asked Muhammad for permission to lie in order to deceive K’ab bin Al-Ashraf in walking into an ambush.  The Prophet granted him this permission.

“After the murder of Ka’ab,” Spencer writes, Muhammad issued a blanket command:  ‘Kill any Jew that falls into your power.’  This was not a military order; the first victim was a Jewish merchant, Ibn Sunayna, who had ‘social and business relations’ with the Muslims.  The murderer, Muhayissa, was rebuked for the deed by his brother, Huwayissa, who was not yet a Muslim.  Muhayissa was unrepentant.  He told his brother, ‘Had the one who ordered me to kill him ordered me to you, I would have cut your head off.’

“Huwayissa was impressed.  ‘By God, a religion which can bring you to this is marvelous!”  He became a Muslim.  The world is still witnessing such marvels to this day.”

Spencer’s book is marvelous, revealing the truths about Islam and its history and exposing the lies and politically correct propaganda.  He gives sidebars comparing the commands of Muhammad to the commands of Jesus.

Part II of his book gives a “politically incorrect” history of the much-disputed, much-maligned Crusades.  Politically correct historians never explain how the Muslims conquered Jerusalem in 638, a mere six years after the Prophet’s call to non-Muslims, “…embrace Islam and you will be safe” and his death ins 632.

For centuries afterwards, Muslim persecution of the early Christians escalated, until they dispossessed Christians of two-thirds of their lands.  Spencer gives us examples:

“Early in the Eighth Century, 60 Christian pilgrims from Amorium were crucified.  Around the same time, the Muslim governor of Caesarea seized a group of pilgrims from Iconium and had them all executed as spies – except for a small number who converted to Islam.  And Muslims demanded money from pilgrims, threatening to ransack the Church of the Resurrection if they didn’t pay.  Later in the Eighth Century, a Muslim ruler banned the displays of the cross in Jerusalem.  He also increased the anti-religious tax (jizya) that Christians had to pay and forbade Christians to engage in the religious instruction of others, een their own children.”

“Early in the Ninth Century, the persecutions grew so severe that large numbers of Christians fled to Constantinople and other Christian cities.  More persecutions in 923 saw additional churches destroyed, and in 937, Muslims went on a Palm Sunday rampage in Jerusalem, plundering and destroying the Church of Calvary and the Church of the Resurrection.”

“In the 960s, General Nicephorous Phocas carried out a series of successful campaigns against the Muslims, recapturing  Crete, Cilicia, Cyprus and even parts of Syria.  In 969, he recaptured the ancient Christian city of Antioch.  But in Islamic theology, if any land has ever belonged to the House of Islam, it belongs forever – and Muslims must age war to regain control over it.

“In 974, the Abbasid (Sunni) Caliph in Baghdad declared jihad.  This followed yearly jihad campaigns against the Byzanties…by Saif Al-Dawla, ruler of the Shi’ite Hamdanid dynasty in Aleppp [Syria] from 944 to 967.  Al-Dawla appealed to Muslims to fight the Byzantines on the pretext that they were taking lands that belonged to the House of Islam.  This appeal was so successful that Muslim warriors from as far off as Central Asia joined the jihads.

“However, Sunni/Shi’ite disunity ultimately hampered Islamic jihad efforts, and in 1001, the Byzantine Emperor Basil II concluded a ten-year truce with the Fatimid (Shi’ite) caliph.

“Basil, however, soon learned that to conclude such truces was futile.  In 1004, the sixth Fatimid caliph, Ab ‘Ali al-Mansur al-Hakim (985-1021) turned violently against the faith of his Christian mother and uncles (two of whom were patriarchs), ordering the destruction of churches, the burning of crosses, and the seizure of church property.  He moved against the Jews with similar ferocity.  Over the next ten years, thirty-thousand [30,000 – Spencer writes out the number so that there is no mistake) churches were destroyed, and untold numbers of Christians converted to Islam simply to save their lives.  In 1009, al-Hakim gave his most spectacular anti-Christian order:  the destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem, along with several other churches.

“Al-Hakim commanded that the tomb within be cut down to the bedrock.  He ordered Christians to wear heavy crosses around their necks (and for Jews, heavy blocks of wood in the shape of a calf).  He piled on other humiliating decrees, culminating in the order that they accept Islam or leave his dominions.”

Spencer goes on to say how Al-Hakim relaxed his persecution of the Christians and Jews.  You can read the rest in his book.  He goes on to tell the tale of the Seljurk Turks of Central Asia, who enforced “new Islamic rigor” and reconquered most of the Byzantine Empire, right up to Constantinople.

“It looked as if [the Christian Empire of Byantium’s] death hat the hands of the Seljurks was imminent.  The Church of Constantinople (The Eastern Orthodox Church) considered the popes schismatic and had squabbled with them for centuries.  But the new emperor, Alexius I Compinenus (1081-1118), swallowed his pride and appealed for help.  And that is how the First Crusade came out:  It was a response to the Byzantine Emperor’s call for help.”

The First Crusade was no war of conquest and/or conversation; it was strictly a defensive measure.  Pope Urban’s only “ambition” after his address at the Council of Clarement was “to defend Christian pilgrims and recapture Christian lands.  It was not until over a hundred years after the First Crusade (in the 13th Century) that European Christians made any organized attempt to convert Muslims to Christianity, when the Franciscans began missionary work among Muslims in lands held by the Crusaders.  This effort was largely unsuccessful.”

After the first successful Crusades, the Crusaders allowed Muslims and Jews to follow their own religions in peace and prosperity.  The Byzantine Emperor Alexius Comnenus prevailed upon the Crusaders to agree, in accordance with Urban’s wishes, to return any conquered lands to the Byzantine emperor.  However, when he failed to support the Crusaders in the Battle for Antioch in 1098,  they renounced their agreements and began to establish their own governments, settling permanently in the Holy Lands.

Then, in 1099, the Crusaders launched a five-week siege against Muslim-occupied Jerusalem.  The Crusaders, according to anonymous, contemporary account, that “Our men followed and pursued [the Saracens] as far as the Temple of Solomon, and there was such a slaughter there that our men were up to their ankles [some accounts say “knees’”] in the enemy’s blood.”\

Other knights protected the civilians.  Estimates of the slaughter range from 20-30,000 (according to Balderic, a bishop an author of an early 12th Century history of Jerusalem) and 100,000, according to the 15th Century Islamic historian, Ibn Taghribirdi.

Spencer writes, “The Crusaders’ sack of Jerusalem was a heinous crime – particularly in light of the religious and moral principles they professed to uphold.  However, by the military standards of the day, it was not out of the ordinary.  In those days, if a city under siege resisted capture, it could be sacked, if it did not resist, mercy would be shown.  Some accounts say that the Crusaders promised the inhabitants of Jerusalem that they would be spared, but reneged on this promise.  Others tell us that they did allow many Jews and Muslims to leave the city in safety.

“Count Raymond gave a persona guarantee of safety to the Fatimid governor of Jerusalem, Iftikar al+Daulah.  In the mind of a Crusader, when such guarantees were issued, those who remained in the city would have been more likely to be identified with the resistance – and their lives forfeited.

“What about those ankle- or  knee-deep rivers of blood?”  Spencer claims that these were “rhetorical flourishes.  When the Christian chronicler and Crsade leaders boasted of this, everyone would have considered it an embellishment.  In fact, such rivers were not even remotely possible.  There weren’t enough people in Jerusalem to bleed that much, even if its population had swelled with refugees from the surrounding regions.”

Here, we must note that if the capture residents were all corralled into one place, it might have been very well possible.  Spencer makes no excuse for the bloodshed of the Crusaders by saying that the Muslisms did just as much or worse.  However, he goes on to chronicle various accounts of how they did exactly that and worse.

In light of Obama’s outrageous remarks yesterday about the moral equivalency of Christian and Muslim crimes, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) is worthwhile, instructive reading.  Not only does Spencer correct revisionist history, but gives us a pretty good idea of what’s coming in the future.

Published in: on February 6, 2015 at 2:19 pm  Leave a Comment  

The Cowboy King and His Sidekick, Obama

In the absence of leadership in our own country, the American media has taken to cheering on the Clint Eastwood-quoting King of Jordan, Abdullah II.

Yesterday, I posted an inaccurate date for his ascension to the throne.  Abdullah II became king in 1999, not 1992.  I apologize to my readers for the inaccuracy.  There was a reason for it, however; 1992 was the expected date he would ascend the throne, according to astrologers.  The problem was, King Hussein, Abdullah’s father, did not cooperate and die at the predicted time.

The Progressive Prophets based their predictions on the assumed legacy of his Jesus Christ.  At the time, historians hadn’t yet corrected their own calendars.  Later evidence suggested Jesus was born between four and seven years earlier than previously thought.  That meant he was older than 30 when He began his mission.

So then would the Great Dictator of the Age of Capricorn be older.  For the religious, that would be the Anti-Christ.  The PPs thought he would follow in Christ’s footsteps, preaching to the poor, healing the sick, and leading the young.  Actually, Jesus led anyone, of any age, who would follow Him.

At the time, I was an astrology student.  I told my elders I thought they were wrong.  If whoever this was was truly the anti-Christ, he would do exactly the opposite.  After all, isn’t that what “anti-“ means?  Wouldn’t he be a warrior?  Wouldn’t he be born a human king?  Wouldn’t he be wealthy?

Abdullah is wealthy, as are all the Middle Eastern monarchs, although his country itself is poor.  All Jordan has is refugees – lots of refugees.  It turns out, King Hussein, not Abdullah (we would have heard about it, come to think of it), massacred the Palestinians in 1968 before signing a peace treaty with Israel.  Abdullah took in the refugees of various wars and even married a Palestinian.

All those refugees are a wonderful playing card for Abdullah – his aces.  Currently, the U.S. gives Jordan $1 billion a year in humanitarian and military aid; Abdullah wants more to pursue the Obama-created terrorist group ISIS.  According to a Fox News report, Abdullah was all about the military, even becoming a soldier with the British forces (his mother was English).

Abdullah is a regular modern-day Patton, it seems.  Hard-charging and ruthless, he seems to be just the guy America would like to see take down the Islamic extremists.  But he’s told Congress and the Pentagon that he needs more money and military hardware to take them down.  How much more is unclear, but our Congress – our Republican Congress – is more than willing to accommodate Abdullah, seen as a Western ally.  He is, after all, half-Western himself, isn’t he?

How can Congress say no when our own president has failed to do what Abdullah plans to do?  Doesn’t it seem like a strange coincidence that that horrible video was released during the king’s visit to the United States and the White House, even though the soldier was murdered weeks ago?  Abdullah once headed Jordan’s security forces?  How could he not have known about this video sooner?

We’re well aware of Obama’s fecklessness in regard to foreign policy and Islamic terrorism.  He won’t even allow the word “Islamic” to be used in his press releases and statements.  ‘There’s nothing Islamic about their terrorist acts,’ he’s told us.  Even though the dictates come straight from the Koran itself and are preached by Muslim mullahs.

We no longer take the Old Testament’s dictates literally (i.e., “crush the abomination out of Israel” regarding children born out of wedlock).  Glenn Beck said that the Reformation – the break with the Roman Catholic Church and the beginning of Protestantism (1517-1648) – cured us of that violence.  The real Reformation came with the birth of Jesus Christ.  He was the real reformer.  We no longer take His dictates literally and that’s a great mistake on our part.

I promised one of my readers I wouldn’t let today’s post get as long as yesterday’s, so I’ll abridge here.

Giving the money to Jordan would seem like the right thing to do.  Given Obama’s deceitful, dissembling performances, I just can’t help wondering if Abdullah isn’t his partner.  Every actor needs another actor with whom they can interact.  Abdullah magnifies Obama’s seeming weakness, and by proxy, America’s.  In turn, Obama’s fecklessness makes this Muslim monarch appear to be a great leader, a “warrior king” as everyone seems to agree he sees himself.

I just can’t help worrying that Congress (and our Conservative media) are falling into a political, moral, and foreign policy trap.  Three years, Abdullah said.  That’s how long he told the Pentagon it would take for him to subdue ISIS.

An interesting time-frame for his military plan.

Published in: on February 5, 2015 at 11:50 am  Leave a Comment  

It’s Good to Be King; Even Better to Be Muslim King

Did anyone out there observe the body language between Obama and King Abdullah of Jordan on television last night, during their meeting at the White House?  Or were they too busy hailing Abdullah as the “Warrior King”?

There’s no denying King A. did the right thing in executing the two jihadi prisoners whose release ISIS demanded, even though they had already murdered the Jordanian pilot.  There’s no denying that that’s what strong leaders should do.

The problem arises when America claims, in voices that include Glenn Beck’s, that “we” can’t do that.  “We” should just let the Muslims take care of the Muslims, even when they commit atrocities against American citizens on American soil, massacre Christians, and behead Western journalists.

Muslims, not apostate Westerners, must come to the fore and punish those committing evil acts in the name of Islam.  They’re not really Muslims, we’re told; they’re simply committing crimes in the name of Islam.  That was the excuse Bill Clinton made when the Twin Towers were attacked in early 1993, less than a year after Clinton became president.

That Islamic terrorist mission “failed.”  Clinton therefore could not genuinely declare a war on Islamic terrorism and commit U.S. forces to a Middle Eastern war.  Nor would he have.  Instead, he treated it is a mere crime in which Ramzi Yousef (Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s nephew) had merely knocked over a bank and killed some guards and a few hostages.

Abdullah became the King of Jordan in February of 1999, not 1992 (to amend my previous post).  Jordan is a poor country filled with Palestinian refugees (whom he showed no qualms about massacring when they caused trouble, earning him the hatred of Jordanians that he now enjoys).  Obama was not yet ready to rule yet, though.  For the Progressive Prophets, Abdullah’s ascension was already seven years past their revered prediction (that he would come to rule at age 30).

The problem with prophesying is that you just can’t tell who or what’s coming or when, like a resurgence in the popularity of Conservatism or a grass roots movement like the Tea Party.  You go and create a grass roots movement, intending to malign those who flock to it, never expecting that they’ll take it over on you and turn it into a serious, mature movement.

That’s when it’s good to be King.  If you’re king, you can massacre your opponents or put dissidents in jail, as China does.  China doesn’t have a king; it has a committee that has all the power of a king.  Communism means you all think alike (which is why they jail dissidents) so the committee, thinking and acting as one body, is very much like a king.

Obama can’t do that.  He’s the reluctant president of a federated republic, not a monarch.  He still acts like one.  Over the years, a superstructure bureaucracy has been built up around the legitimate government, carrying out the presiding rulers dictates.  That’s as good as it’s going to get for Obama.  Executive orders.

But Abdullah was born to it, a Hashemite king, a direct descendant of Mohammed himself.  Why, no wonder Obama acted like a goofy schoolboy in the presence of this courageous, warrior king.  Obama’s legs were spread well apart, his head practically in his lap, his hands clasped below the seat of his chair.  He shook his head helplessly as the avuncular Abdullah (who’s six months younger than Obama, practically to the day) laughingly reached out to him to reassure him that it’s all right if he (Obama) isn’t king.  It’s not his fault he wasn’t born to power as Abdullah was.

Leave Muslim crimes to Muslim authorities?  That means we can’t defend ourselves here at home (the Constitutional amendment regarding freedom of religion comes in much handier if you’re Muslim than if you’re Christian).  We can’t defend our interests overseas because we’re considered imperialist capitalists out to exploit the wealth of the world.  Our culture and our politicians are corrupt – very true, that.  We turn a blind eye to the sexual exploitation of women, or at least the flaunting of it, the plight of the poor (sorry; according to the Muslims and our own Progressives, Christian charities don’t count; they’re only in it for the proselytization), and sexual deviation (we now permit gay marriage).

If we haven’t read the Koran, haven’t we at least read our own Bibles?  Around the time Abdullah and Obama were born, we kicked God out of our schools.  The sodomy laws were abolished (thank goodness).  Hippies started doing drugs openly, protested wars against Communist takeovers, and brought about the sexual revolution.  The Pill freed couples from any responsibilities resulting from sexual relations – children.

Women burned their bras.  If a man ever had to wear one of these things, he’d be in the front of the bonfire.  However, if you go without one for any period of time, you discover the downside of not wearing one.  So much for Women’s Liberation, as it was called back then.

Women got their equal pay for equal jobs and their marriages went down the tubes.  They warehoused their children (they still do so today) and raised a generation of what came to be called “Latchkey Children.”  Still, the kids got plenty of stuff to compensate for the lack of lost parental time.

Because parents weren’t paying attention, the educational system rolled down hill.  Wait until you see the results.  However, this blog is about submitting to Muslim authority, not Progressive Communist authority.

The prophets of these times declared that a dictator would be born.  He would come to power at the age of 30, lead the poor and the young, and preach peace.  After winning over the world, he would take it over.  “The End of the World is Coming” a sign of the times (the Sixties said).  I remember seeing it when our family drove into the City for a show.  The guy wearing it was dressed in a dirty, white robe and had a long, graying beard.

The predictions were based on an astronomical event called “The Great Conjunction” which occurred Feb. 4-5, 1962.  Astrologers claimed that there would be great earthquakes, tidal waves, fires, pestilences, plagues, asteroids, and wars on that day.  The next day’s New York Times main story involved the launch of a new satellite that would revolutionize communications.

It was the Age of Aquarius, hippies claimed.  Uh – no.  Accounting for precession, the backward movement of the heavens from the terran perspective, we were entering the Age of Capricorn, the Age of Big Everything.  Big Government, Big Religion, Big Business (the Big Three).  Big buildings, massive wealth accumulation, stronger social structure (that’s one way of putting it, at any rate).

One big thing missing in the Age of Capricorn will be Big Freedom.  Capricorn will be a cold, austere Age of massive regulations.  You name it, there will be a law against it.  Freedom of speech will be deemed a threat to the social order.  Capricorn is the age of elitism.  We’ve already seen it the mania for designer clothing – Izod, Nike, Coach – designer computers – Apple, Apple, Apple – and designer actors known for their names, not (necessarily) their performances.  Can you say Oprah?  Disney (as in the movie company, not its creator)?   Katy Perry?  Leonardo DiCaprio (the most popular actor in 2014 – seventeen years after he made Titanic)?

The Age of Big Names.  The Age of Royalty.  The Age of Social Status.   And og old people.  Capricorn is the sign of old age.  People will live longer, thanks to the innovations first discovered in the Age of Aquarius (and then co-opted in the Age of Big Business).  Inventors are never credited with their inventions anymore; the patents are owned by the companies for which they work.  My older brother, inspired by the events of September 11th, invented two gadgets for making something safer.  He and his co-inventor will never get the credit for these devices; the patents belong to the company.  He can’t even put on his resume.  Not that he needs one; he’s a Lifer.

Most importantly, however, Capricorn is the age of ambitious people.  Cold, rather ruthless people who will justify their actions to meet their ends.  Think J.R. Ewing.  He’s the epitome of a Capricornian.

The “Great Conjunction” of February 1962 ushered in the Age of Capricorn, not the Age of Aquarius and all it entails.  The greatest amassing of wealth, the longest lifespans, the tallest buildings, the largest population, and the most ambitious dictators.  Authority will come from the top down.  There will be no more voting, no more public opinion polls, no more consensus on laws.  Many ambitious politicians will vie for the top seat.  But in the end, there will be only one world ruler.  One government, one overruling business/corporation, and only one religion, all answering to the same voice.

Did I mention that Capricorn will also be an age of fear and oppression?  No?  Well, yes, that’s how it will come about.  Most of us have worked for corporations.  We all know how that works.  You don’t speak the truth to the CEO.  Well, actually, the CEO just might be willing to listen, but you’d never get past his lackeys.  You’d be lucky to get past your own supervisor.  You all know that.

That is how the whole world will work in the future.   Abdullah and the other Middle Eastern potentates know all about the extremists.  God (or Allah) knows because they’ve funded them, either secretly or openly.  The other old goats, whom Obama has managed to depose – ISIS is Obama’s creature – weren’t well-versed in computer communications.  But Abdullah is.  That’s what he studied here in the United States, if I recall correctly.

For Abdullah, the extremists are useful idiots.  They do his dirty work, ridding the Arab world of apostasy and emboldening Western Progressives to undermine support for Israel, while he and his wife court the West.  This is a Westernized couple, Abdullah and his wife.  They’re hated for it in Jordan and have had their lives threatened.

Westernization is a necessary evil if they are to deceive the West and bring about its fall.  Conservatives are falling all over themselves, admiring Abdullah’s strong stance against the extremists.  According to Rush Limbaugh just now Abdullah, in speaking to our Defense officials, quoted Clint Eastwood.  How can you not like a guy like that, if you’re a Conservative?

He’s cool.  He’s hip.  His wife is gorgeous.  Conservative Muslims hate him to death.  Therefore, he must be on our side, mustn’t he?  He’s the monarch that puts the terror in terrorists.  Jordan’s security forces, under his guidance, were said to feared, and with good reason.  Unlike Obama, he had no qualms about putting those two terrorists to death this morning.  Boom.  Done.

Wow.  Why can’t we have a ruler like that instead of our goofy, golly-gee-I-wish-I-were-a-King president?  That’s what you’re all thinking, isn’t it?  A real take-charge type, that King Abdullah?  There’s a man, there’s a king, for you?!  Now there’s a real leader, a real world leader?

And Obama is just the seeming goofball, imperial-wannabe, closet Muslim who will eventually surrender our free nation to this Abdullah’s rule.  He already handed the ISIS rebels all our leftover military equipment which, according to reports, was “too expensive” to ship back to the United States.  ISIS quickly picked up the bargains and they began their “revolution.”  Now, Abdullah wants the equipment we left behind in order to battle ISIS.  The Pentagon is said to be thrilled that Abdullah wants a piece of the action.  Jordan signed a peace pact with Israel under King Hussein’s rule.  What happens if Abdullah turns those weapons on his neighbor to the West instead of Syria?

Be careful what you admire and wish for.  This isn’t a case of you “may” get it; you “will” get and you’ll be very, very sorry.

Published in: on February 4, 2015 at 1:32 pm  Leave a Comment  

America and Jordan: The Evil Mesalliance

The moment has come that I’ve warned about for as long as I can remember, going back to my early college days:  the American president, Obama, sitting down with the Jordanian king, Abdullah.

What could go wrong?

When you hear one of Greta Sustern’s consultants on Fox News  Special Report calling Abdullah “the Warrior King,” plenty.  Abdullah is talking tough after a Jordanian pilot was burned alive by ISIS terrorists.  That is Abdullah’s reputation, at least in the West.

In country, he’s a hated figure.  Go to any Muslim extremist website in that country, and you’ll find out exactly why.  Suffice it to say, he and his Palestinian-born wife, Rana, are scorned as Westernized puppets.  Our liberal media here has fawned repeatedly over the glamorous, well-heeled Rana, who has made the female talk show circuit.

Interestingly, Abdullah was here in the United States for a visit when the pilot was murdered.  He delivered his response to the killing in Arabic, with an English translation.  What’s interesting is that Abdullah’s mother was English and he went to school in the U.S. and the U.K., in addition to attending university in Jordan.  According to Jordanian critics, his English is much better than his Arabic.

But what would we in the West know?  All we know is that Abdullah is apparently taking a tough stance on Islamic terrorism, while an ineffectual Obama dawdles and hems and haws, while hoping we’ve forgotten that he helped create ISIS in the first place.

Jordan is a resources-poor nation.  What they do have are refugees, millions of them, particularly Palestinian refugees.  Jordan doesn’t have a very large military, although its security forces, which Abdullah once headed before being crowned king when his father died in 1992, are notoriously ruthless.

The Progressives were expecting their “transformation” that very year, when Abdullah turned 30.  Only it didn’t happen.  Evidently, their astrologers got something wrong.  His Western counterpart, his mirror image as it were, hadn’t come to power (yet).  The counterpart who would surrender America’s authority to Islam (remember:  “Islam” means “surrender” and is also defined as “peace”.)

Technically, Abdullah is only part Muslim, although undoubtedly his mother converted to Islam when she married King Hussein.  They later divorced.  He’s also only part Arab, as his mother was English.  However, according to Muslim law, the father’s lineage determines whether the child is Muslim or not.

Which raises an interesting question about Obama.  If his father was Muslim, did that make Obama immediately and irrevocably Muslim upon his birth?  His mother was only nominally Christian, although his maternal grandmother was.  Whether he was born in Hawaii or Kenya is insignificant in this regard; his religious heritage is clearly divided, and if we go by Muslim law, that that’s what he is:  a Muslim, but because of his marriage leaning, in appearance, towards Christianity.

Because his father was Kenyan, his heritage is African-American; Third World and New World.  The mirror image of his Jordanian counterpart.  We are witnessing the stage to be set for the greatest “peace” negotiation of all time.  East meeting West.  A “strong” king versus a “weak” president.  A ruler who has within his borders millions of Palestinian refugees.  ‘What do you think he [Abdullah] wants [exchange for his help with ISIS]?’  Great Van Sustern asked of her consultant.

The answer to that question is rather obvious:  a homeland for the Palestinians and the ultimate disintegration of the state of Israel.  Obama has made it clear that he’s more than ready to meet this demand.  Not only is he exceedingly willing but downright glad to have a hand in the destruction of Israel.

These events have been carefully orchestrated for Western and moderate Muslim consumption.  What a hero Abdullah will be if he negotiates with the West, as represented by Obama, a permanent state of Palestine and the demise of Israel.

But that will not be the end of it.  This is only the beginning.  The ultimate result will be the surrender of United States’ sovereignty to the United Nations and the imposition of Sharia law around the world.

Don’t think Israel will take this lying down.  They shouldn’t and won’t.  War will break out.  Innocent people will die.  Although the Islamists are said to hate Abdullah now, once he achieves this triumph there will be nothing for them to do but worship him.  Our Progressives – on both sides of the aisle – certainly will.

Just now, I was going to write that they will realize their mistake, too late.  But they know what they’re doing.  Bribery and corruption have worked their devilry in this business.  Conservatives, still wincing at the pain inflicted on 9/11, will take this Abdullah guy to be a hero.

Don’t be taken in; he’s no hero.  Abdullah’s no more a hero/warrior king than Obama is a fool.  He’s just an extremely shrewd, Muslim monarch whose chess pieces have all fallen into place, while those who’ve financed and supported this approaching coup are gloating over their spoils of war.

God help us.

Published in: on February 3, 2015 at 8:07 pm  Leave a Comment