About 70 men, women and children were slaughtered in Nairobi, Kenya's upscale Westgate Mall because they were not Muslims.

The British and American governments and their echo chambers in the media jumped through hoops to claim that Islam had nothing to do with all that.

People aren't that stupid, but the propaganda campaign to absolve Islam-inspired murders and other atrocities from any connection to Islam proceeds unabated.

British prime minister Cameron and American president Obama are in the vanguard in lying about the inherent, endemic hatefulness and violence of Islam as found in the Koran and the words of Mohammad.

It is said there is nothing new under the sun. In the case of Islam, that's true. Its war against all non-Muslims which justifies whatever works to advance the cause of Islamic world domination -- murder, assassination, rape, robbery, deceit, lies, torture, bodily desecrations -- is the same today as it has been for 14 centuries.

This fact is obscured for many of the public by the left wing media and other supporters of Islam in and out of government who continually seek to assure them that such behavior by Muslims results from a misunderstanding of the Prophet and his Koran. This utter nonsense is peddled by the New York Times and Washington Post and other left wing media, governments and other organizations.

So what's the truth? This video about the Nairobi massacre provides the factual basis for the Islamic terrorists' belief that what they were doing would gain the favor of Allah.

Boston area police are working on establishing a connection between the Boston Marathon murderers and a triple murder of three Jewish males that took place in nearby Waltham on the 9/11 anniversary in 2011. There is strong evidence that the Tsarnaev brothers and a friend Ibragim Todashev had been friendly with the victims. There is strong evidence that the triple murder of Jews (who had their throats slit from ear to ear) was an Islamic execution.

What has handicapped the investigation by local authorities is the Obama administration's stripping from the national counter-terrorism manuals and other materials all references to Islamic terrorism and how to recognize it.

An expert in the study of Islamic symbols and rituals Dawn Perlmutter has examined the case and provides context that has been lacking to the investigators and thus hindering the investigation.

[J]ihadist ritual murder must include symbolic gestures such as shouting "Allahu Akbar" while killing someone or reading a list of offenses prior to murder or, as in the Waltham murders, leaving drugs on the body to attest to the sins of the victims. As a result, jihadists can commit unspeakable atrocities without remorse because they consider their deeds righteous slaughter in defense of the purity of Islam. Enemies are not people: They are unclean animals, pigs, monkeys, or dogs, dirt that must be cleansed. Beheadings, throat slitting, body mutilation, corpse desecration, eye gouging, and other unspeakable acts are not atrocities, but rather, they are sacred blood rituals that restore purity and cleanse shame. Sacred killing becomes an ecstatic spiritual experience. Murder feels good.

Current evidence of this attitude is found in the the latest edition of the al-Qaeda online magazine Inspire which devoted more than thirty pages to the April 15, 2013 marathon bombing, heaping praise on the bombers:

The Blessed Boston Bombings (BBB) have been an absolute success on all levels and domains ... By tracking the course, Tamerlan and Dzhokhar--may Allah reward them--ran along April 15 until they crossed their own finish line ... we can confidently say that the real worthy winners of the Boston Marathon were the Tsarnaev mujahideen brothers.

It is disturbing that the Obama administration appears to be doing all that it can to make people believe that incidents of violence and terrorism involving Muslims have nothing to do with Islam. The facts are that violence, murder, and terrorism have characterized Islam's war against non-Muslims for 14 centuries. A prime example of the Obama propaganda campaign to whitewash Islam is classifying Major Hasan Nidal's Alahu Akbar murder of 13 soldiers at Ft. Hood as "workplace violence." One consequence is that the dead nor wounded were denied the Purple Heart. One is not awarded the Purple Heart for "workplace violence. How shameful.

Read the analysis.

Can you believe this?

"One in five applicants for jobs at the Central Intelligence Agency have ties to Muslim terrorist organizations, according to the latest round of Snowden leaks. And Israel is a major target of American counterintelligence. Washington is insane."

The Islamic war to conquer the world is ongoing and tailored to local circumstances. In northern Nigeria where law is weak, Muslim murders, rapes, church burnings and persecution of Christians forces Christians out and Islam controls more territory.

In the U.S., that won't work. Undercover infiltration into critical places by Muslims intent on weakening our country is extensive. For example, by planting agents inside the CIA Islamic war leaders will learn our plans and be able to circulate false and misleading information to the highest levels of government. In the State Department, HIllary Clinton's most trusted advisor Huma has deep ties to Muslim Brotherhood leaders and other Islamic terrorist organizations. Robert Spencer correctly calls this "stealth jihad."

Obama fosters stealth jihad by banning phrases such as "Islamic terrorism" and classifying Major Nidal Hasan's murders at Fort Hood as "workplace violence."

Wake up, America!

This is an extraordinary statement by a British citizen who wants to save his country and his people from the primative savagery of Islam. In mounting a defense of British culture, he has been condemned by "everyone" as a racist.

This brave gentleman Paul Weston accepts the accusation that he is a racist if a racist is one who wants to preserve the culture of the country in which he grew up.

Will others be as brave as he? The world needs more Paul Westons.


Financial Times: Blasts in Pakistan cities of Quetta and Peshawar kill at least 42
In Quetta, "The dead included nine women, a girl and a 14-year-old boy," Mr Zubair told reporters. It appeared to be attack on Shiites.

In a separate blast earlier on Sunday, 14 people were killed in the northwestern city of Peshawar when a roadside bomb attack narrowly missed a passing convoy of security forces but ravaged a busy market area....All the dead were civilians apart from a policeman. Four children and a woman were among those killed. Health officials said 25 people were wounded.

Grievances are all that Muslims need to justify attacking infidels. Osama bin Laden made that very easy for eager jihiadists, not only compiling a long list of infidel transgressions but advising that the default position of every Muslim should be "oppressed" and free to attack whenever feasible:

It is commanded by our religion and intellect that the oppressed have a right to return the aggression. Do not await anything from us but Jihad, resistance and revenge.

Ayman al-Zawahiri, bin Laden's deputy, was apparently exasperated that western leaders hadn't really awakened to the fact that Islam was at war with them so he sent a recorded message to Obama in 2008 after he was elected:

[You are] "facing a Jihadi [holy war] awakening and renaissance which is shaking the pillars of the entire Islamic world; and this is the fact which you and your government and country refuse to recognise and pretend not to see."

Obama, like President Bush, nonetheless kept up the fiction of Islam being a "religion of peace," perhaps afraid to face the truth that the basic principles of the ideology of 1.3 billion people requires all Muslims to be at war with all non-Muslims.

The same foolishness was recently echoed by Britain's Prime Minister Cameron right after the murder of the off-duty British soldier on a busy London street in daylight:

"This was not just an attack on Britain, and on the British way of life, it was also a betrayal of Islam and of the Muslim communities who give so much to this country. There is nothing in Islam that justifies this truly dreadful act."

And in late May Obama gave a defense speech claiming the the Global War on Terror was over and it was time to move on. Wishing doesn't make it so.

The reality, as American writer Clare Lopez put it, is this:

The United States is not at war with Islam--but Islam sure is at war with us. And that jihad, by the Dar al-Islam [Abode of Islam] against all of the Dar al-Harb [Abode of War] -- the two worlds into which official Islam divides the world -- is not going to stop unless we capitulate in unconditional surrender to the dictates of Shariah Law.

Nothing has changed in 1400 years except that oil money pouring into Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states has enabled the teaching to generations of young Muslims of what the Koran really says and what Mohammad really demands, namely, jihad, violent if necessary, until the world is subject to Islam. How many true believers are there? No one knows, but most estimates range in the hundreds of millions. When will any one of them now in the West choose to strike after years of seemingly civilized living?

Ms. Lopez agrees with Obama in one respect:

America really is "at a crossroads." In some ways, President Obama's throwing in the towel and calling off the GWOT are going to allow events to speak for themselves, thereby forcing a public reassessment of our failed national security strategy about Islam and the jihad wars.

One wonders how leaders like Obama and Cameron (and George Bush along with virtually every other high government official in the West) can be so blind to the threat to civilized life that can be tracked every day in the news of the world.

The Lopez analysis is worth your time.

Raymond Ibraham principally tracks the persecution of Christians taking place in Muslim majority countries, but also takes note of Muslim attacks on non-Muslims in other countries.

Recently, in commenting on the murder and near-beheading of an off-duty British soldier on the streets of London in broad daylight by two Muslims shouting Alahu Akbar, he laid out what he calls "Islam's Rule of Numbers."

But the greater lesson of the London beheading concerns its audacity--done in broad daylight with the attackers boasting in front of cameras, as often happens in the Islamic world.

It reflects what I call "Islam's Rule of Numbers," a rule that expresses itself with remarkable consistency: The more Muslims grow in numbers, the more Islamic phenomena intrinsic to the Muslim world--in this case, brazen violence against "infidels"--appear.(emphasis added)

In the U.S., where Muslims are less than 1% of the population, London-style attacks are uncommon. Islamic assertiveness is limited to political activism dedicated to portraying Islam as a "religion of peace," and sporadic, but clandestine, acts of terror.

In Europe, where Muslims make for much larger minorities, open violence is common. But because they are still a vulnerable minority, Islamic violence is always placed in the context of "grievances," a word that pacifies Westerners.

With an approximate 10% Muslim population, London's butcherers acted brazenly, yes, but they still invoked grievances. Standing with bloodied hands, the murderer declared: "We swear by almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you until you leave us alone.... The only reason we have done this is because Muslims are dying by British soldiers every day."

Days later in Stockholm, which also has a large Muslim minority, masked rioters destroyed 100 cars and property. The grievance for this particular outbreak was that police earlier shot a(nother) machete-wielding "immigrant" in self-defense.

Grievances disappear when Muslims become at least 35-40% of a nation and feel capable of waging an all-out jihad, as in Nigeria, where the Muslim-majority north has been terrorizing Christians--bombing hundreds of churches and beheading hundreds of infidels.

Sudan was an earlier paradigm, when the Khartoum government slaughtered millions to cleanse Sudan of Christians and polytheists. Historically Christian-majority Lebanon plunged into a deadly civil war as the Muslim population grew.

Once Muslims become the majority, the violence ironically wanes, but that's because there are fewer infidels to persecute. And what infidels remain lead paranoid, low-key existences--as dhimmis--always careful to "know their place."

With an 85% Muslim majority, Egypt is increasingly representative of this paradigm. Christian Copts are under attack, but not in an all-out jihad. Rather, under the Muslim Brotherhood their oppression is becoming institutionalized, including through new "blasphemy" laws which have seen many Christians attacked and imprisoned.

Attacks on infidels finally end when Muslims become 100% of the population, as in Saudi Arabia--where all its citizens are Muslim, and churches and other non-Islamic expressions are totally banned.

Such is Islam's Rule of Numbers.


What have we learned from the attack on the natural gas complex in Algeria by "Islamist" militants?

First off, we should learn what an "Islamist" is. An "Islamist" is a Muslim who truly believes what the Koran and Mohammad said and it is his duty to follow those teachings.

The message is simple: It is the duty of every Muslim to spread Islam over the entire world and to convert, subjugate or kill every non-Muslim until Islam rules supreme everywhere.

All means that advance Islam are acceptable, including murder, rape and pillage, as was true for Mohammad and those Islamic leaders who immediately followed his example and is true for the wise men of Islam today.

The New York Times report of the Algerian attack had this illuminating paragraph:

One Algerian who managed to escape told France 24 television late Friday night that the kidnappers said, "We've come in the name of Islam, to teach the Americans what Islam is." The haggard-looking man, interviewed at the airport in Algiers, said the kidnappers then immediately executed five hostages.

President Obama has tried to hide this reality by, for example, ordering all government agencies never to refer to "Islam" and "terrorism" in the same sentence. An Army major killing dozens at Ft. Hood in Texas while shouting "Alahu Akbar" was said to be just an incident of "workplace violence," not Islamic terrorism.

There is a major shift in understanding that must occur: We in the U.S. and the rest of the non-Muslim world are not engaged in a "war on terror" or even a "war on Islam." Islam is at war with us. It has been so for 1400 years and that war presently is expanding as oil money funds the true teachings of Islam and the means to prosecute the war. Islam means war.

Islam is being spread by violence in Africa and other parts of the world. In Africa, Islam is pushing southward from lands on the southern rim of the Mediterranean that have been Muslin since the early Islamic invasions of the 600s and 700s. Mali is in the news today as Algerian, Libyan, Tunisian and Egyptian Islamists seek to take over new territory for Islam.

The same has been happening in Nigeria for many years, as Muslims in the north kill and torture Christians and burn their churches, forcing them to flee to the Christian south.

In Sudan, Muslims in the north have fought for decades to conquer the oil-rich south populated by Christians and followers of traditional native religions, killing an estimated 2 million. Even though South Sudan won its independence, the attacks from Islamists in Sudan continue.

Inside a Muslim country such as Egypt, the ascendance into government of the Muslim Brotherhood, Islamist to the core, has meant more harassment of the Coptic Christian minority, ranging from killing and kidnapping to destruction of churches and persecution of various kinds. Coptics, who were in Egypt before the Muslims, are fleeing by the tens of thousands.

Christians have been fleeing from Iraq since Saddam Hussein was deposed and only a handful remain.

Persecution of Christians and other non-Muslims in Pakistan is widespread (as is persecution of those Muslims who do not subscribe to the Wahhabi strain of "true" Islam promulgated by the Saudis, who have run madrassas in Pakistan for decades).

In all Muslim majority countries, non-Muslims are persecuted or in danger of persecution up to and including murder. Even a non-Arab Muslim country such as Indonesia, known for its moderation, has sporadic outbreaks of attacks on Christians and one province of the country (Aceh) where Saudi Islamic rules are enforced. Tourist areas bring in money so they are heavily guarded, but deadly attacks nonetheless can and do take place, Bali being a prime example.

The basic problem is that at its core Islam is at war with everyone and everything non-Islamic. The great majority of Muslims may not be engaged in that war, in large part because they have not been as yet fully educated as to what Islam requires of them. The Saudis are as active today in educating Muslims around the world in what true Islam is as they have ever been and more true believers are created every day -- including in every country of Europe, Australia and the United States.

Obama endangers all Americans by misrepresenting this reality.


Black power.png

Jamie Foxx and Samuel L. Jackson attend a screening of "Django Unchained" hosted by The Weinstein Company with The Hollywood Reporter, Samsung Galaxy and The Cinema Society at Ziegfeld Theater on December 11, 2012 in New York City.

"Wasn't Obama's election supposed to mark a new post-racial era? What happened?"

So historian and classicist Victor Davis Hanson asks. We all know the answer. Obama was lying. Obama has promoted racial and class division since the day he became president. The white people are the enemy and they must be put in their place as blacks and other coloreds get their revenge. He has four years ahead of him to exact retribution. The plea of Martin Luther King Jr. that content of character rather than skin color be the measure of a man is being flipped the other way round by Obama and his racial avengers.

The New Racial-Derangement Syndrome

By Victor Davis Hanson

December 20, 2012 12:00 A.M.
National Review Online

There is a different sort of racialist derangement spreading in the country -- and it is getting ugly.

Here is actor Jamie Foxx joking recently about his new movie role: "I kill all the white people in the movie. How great is that?" Reverse white and black in the relevant ways and even a comedian would hear national outrage. Instead, his hip Saturday Night Live audience even gave Foxx applause.

Race-obsessed comedian Chris Rock tweeted on the Fourth of July, "Happy white peoples [sic] independence day . . . "

Actor Samuel L. Jackson, in a recent interview, sounded about as unapologetically reactionary as you can get: "I voted for Barack because he was black. . . . I hope Obama gets scary in the next four years."

No one in Hollywood used to be more admired than Morgan Freeman, who once lectured interviewers on the need to transcend race. Not now, in the new age of racial regression. Freeman has accused Obama critics and the Tea Party of being racists. He went on to editorialize on Obama's racial bloodlines: "Barack had a mama, and she was white . . . very white, American, Kansas, middle of America . . . America's first black president hasn't arisen yet."

Freeman's racial-purity obsessions were echoed on the CNN website, where an ad for the network's recent special report on race included a crude quote from three teen poets: "Black enough to be a n. White enough to be a good one."

In the 21st century, are we returning to the racial labyrinth of the 19th-century Old Confederacy, when we measured our supposed racial DNA to the nth degree? Apparently, yes. ESPN sports commentator Rob Parker blasted Washington Redskins quarterback Robert Griffin III last week for admirably stating that he did not wish to be defined by his race rather than by his character: "He's black, he does his thing, but he's not really down with the cause." Parker added: "He's not one of us. He's kind of black, but he's not really like the kind of guy you really want to hang out with." (ESPN suspended Parker for his remarks.)

Unfortunately, the new racialist derangement is not confined to sports and entertainment. The Reverend Joseph Lowery -- who gave the benediction at President Obama's first inauguration -- sounded as venomous as the Reverend Jeremiah Wright in a speech that Lowery delivered to a black congregation shortly before this year's election: "I don't know what kind of a n***** wouldn't vote with a black man running." Lowery reportedly preceded that rant by stating that when he was younger, he believed that all whites were going to hell, but now he merely believes that most of them are. And in his 2009 inauguration prayer, Lowery ended with his hopes for a future day when "white will embrace what is right."

Wasn't Obama's election supposed to mark a new post-racial era? What happened?

For nearly a half-century, cultural relativism in the universities taught that racist speech was bigotry only if it came from those -- mostly whites -- with power. Supposedly oppressed minorities could not themselves be real racists. But even if that bankrupt theory was once considered gospel, it is no longer convincing -- given that offenders such as Foxx, Rock, and Lowery (who was given the Presidential Medal of Freedom by Obama) are among the more affluent and acclaimed Americans.

Read it all.

While focus is on the disastrous course Obama is pushing this nation along domestically, we cannot ignore his pro-Islamic policies that are a threat to the entire West. His speech in Cairo of appeasement and false praise was followed by his support of the anti-western and anti-American Muslim Brotherhood to take over Egypt from the pro-America Mubarak.

Now Obama is doing the same thing in support of the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria.

Melanie Phillips is a distinguished British writer whose book "Londonistan" was the earliest of modern alarms about how Islam is infiltrating the West seeking to destroy Western culture and capture Europe from within through immigration and non-assimilation. The Britain she wrote about several years ago is worse today as the Islamic advance has continued unabated aided by those who refuse to see reality. Britain is not alone. The same war of conquest is underway throughout Europe, Asia, Africa and the Americas, non-violent in some places, aided by violence where Islam is strong enough so it can be.

Phillips sees Obama clearly for what he is:

But when you look at Barack Obama, you see another factor at work which is not simply the strategic stupidity that results from an appeasement mentality, nor a myopic view of the national interest, nor the unsurpassed arrogance and ignorance of cultural hubris, all of which drive western foreign policy.

What therefore is the factor that Obama brings to the west's dismal foreign policy table ...?


Against the west, and also against the ancient civilisation that lies at the heart of its moral codes.

To sum up, what Phillips in effect is saying in this important piece and other warnings she has issued is this:

Obama's hatred of the West, the white West, nurtured from his earliest days by his mother, his years in Muslim schools in Indonesia, his communist high school mentor's hatred of white America, his Marxist and black power associates at Occidental and Columbia and the anti-Israel academics he sought out at Columbia and in Chicago, along with white America-hating Jeremiah Wright and Obama's communist community organizer hero Saul Alinsky, dedicated to the destruction of the America's free enterprise systems, now has free rein. America the oppressor of all colored peoples deserves to be brought down and he is the one to do it. He has the power to do it. And he is doing it.

While speaking of British and European leaders Phillips speaks of catastrophic "mistakes."

But, in her assessment of Obama, she sees America and the West being betrayed. "Malice" is what she sees.

Into the abyss
Melanie Phillips

To an astonishing silence by the media on both sides of the pond, the US along with the UK and a number of European governments is leading the west into an abyss. I have repeatedly noted here that the US, UK and France helped bring to power in Egypt Islamic extremists hostile to the free world, and were threatening to do something very similar in Syria. Now they have indeed done so by recognising the Syrian National Council as the legitimate leader of the Syrian opposition.

The thinking behind this is to designate the al-Qaeda linked Jabhat al-Nusra as a terrorist group, while supporting the Muslim Brotherhood - which dominates the Syrian National Council -- as a reasonable alternative. But this is the same catastrophic mistake the US et al have made in Egypt. For the Brotherhood are not a reasonable alternative to Islamic extremists hostile to the west. They are themselves Islamic extremists hostile to the west.

The disastrous implications of this fundamental strategic mistake were spelled out in a forensic piece by Jonathan Spyer in the Jerusalem Post. As Spyer observed:

'The difference between the Salafis and the Muslim Brotherhood affiliated groups is one of degree, not of kind.

'... The focus on Jabhat al Nusra should not obscure the fact that the better-organized, non-Salafi, home grown, Muslim Brotherhood elements that the US is backing are no less anti-western and no less anti-Jewish.

'Could things have been different? As with Egypt, perhaps, if the west had perceived the risks and opportunities clearly at the start. This might have triggered a vigorous policy of support for non-Islamist opposition and fighting elements, which were there.

'The result is that the force now facing the retreating Assad regime is split between differing brands of Sunni Arab Islamism, some aligned with the west, some directly opposing it, but all holding fast to fundamentally anti-western ideologies.'

Barry Rubin spells out even more starkly the looming disaster for the west from its idiocy over Syria:

'American intelligence agents in southern Turkey supervise the handover of weapons to the rebels. They make no attempt to stop arms from going to the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafists while they make no attempt to funnel the guns to moderates. The only restriction is that they not go to al-Qaeda-affiliated Salafists.

'One day, those guns will be used to commit unspeakable atrocities against Christians and other minority groups just as they will be used to install an Islamist regime and to kill or intimidate its opponents.'

The mistake being made by the US and the rest is as deep-seated as it is egregious. The campaign in the west to promote the Muslim Brotherhood (to its motto: 'Islam is the solution' one obviously has to ask, 'But what is the problem?') as helpful allies against those who want to bring the west down has been making relentless and dismaying progress into the establishment for years - an establishment that refuses to see the Brothers for what they are, in essence because it refuses to acknowledge that what the west is now up against is a religious war. From that most profound and seminal error, all follows.

But when you look at Barack Obama, you see another factor at work which is not simply the strategic stupidity that results from an appeasement mentality, nor a myopic view of the national interest, nor the unsurpassed arrogance and ignorance of cultural hubris, all of which drive western foreign policy.

Just look at Obama's favoured candidates for the two US administration positions central to the defence of the west. They are both people whose attitudes would in fact deeply endanger it still further. John Kerry, tipped to become Secretary of State, is an anti-war activist and left-wing fantasist who, despite serving as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations committee, is such a man-made global warming fanatic that he believes climate change is

'as dangerous as any of the sort of real crises that we talk about'

ie, as dangerous as say, Syrian chemical weapons or a nuclear Iran.

The record of Chuck Hagel, Obama's favoured candidate for Defence Secretary, is more troubling still, as outlined here. He has consistently downplayed Iran's terrorist record and the danger it poses to the free world. He consistently voted against sanctions on Iran to stop its pursuit of nuclear weapons capability; he voted against naming Iran's Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organization; and he refused to sign a letter calling on the European Union similarly to name Hezbollah - which has the blood of countless Americans on its hands -- as a terrorist organisation. Instead, he advocates 'engaging' with Iran - ie, appeasement, which he prefers to parse as

' "... a bridge-building process, an opportunity to better understand" others on the basis of "mutual self respect."'

This is all of a piece with his attitudes towards Israel and the Jews. Not only is he associated with gross anti-Israel canards which reverse truth and lies, but he also said that

'the Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up here...'

'up here' meaning Washington.

Whether or not these men are actually appointed is not the issue. The key point is that Obama wants to appoint them, from which we may infer that he believes they will enact his own vision of foreign and defence policy.

What therefore is the factor that Obama brings to the west's dismal foreign policy table as illustrated by these truly appalling choices? Malice. Against the west, and also against the ancient civilisation that lies at the heart of its moral codes. Factor that into the truly stupendous myopia and worse of Britain and Europe, and you are looking at the emergence of a new world order: the eclipse of the west, brought about by the unholy alliance between the Obama administration and death-wish Britain and Europe - and leaving Israel, once the forward salient of the west in the Middle East, emerging instead as the lonely and isolated defender of liberty in the face of the gathering Islamic storm.

How to destroy incentive, ambition and the desire to succeed and replace them all with a dependency on government handouts for which you will vote in thanks.

They didn't get rid of Scott Walker, So they have to leave for .....


The Obama administration systematically downplays, denies or ignores the threat to the United States presented by the followers of Muhammad and Islam. Those who agree with the mission set forth in the Koran and advocated by Muhammad are a danger to the United States and its citizens. A Muslim officer murders fellow soldiers at Ft. Hood while shouting "Allahu Akbar" and the Obama administration classifies the incident as "workplace violence," with no mention of Islam. This is one of hundreds of simiilar examples.

The war against the infidels has been waged by Islam since its founding and has grown in strength in recent years fed by billions of petrodollars from Saudi Arabia, funding mosques teaching the truth of the Koran to young people around the world, from Pakistan to the UniteD States. Violence in the cause of jihad (holy war) is integral to the Koran's message. The only sure road to Paradise is dying in violent jihad.

The signs are everywhere, but the America public is not on alert. This video spells out in detail the war threat we are not confronting and which is growing.


This is a brilliant insight into why Obama is the way he is, "a president who dislikes our country."

Dog-Eating and Obama's Identity

April 19, 2012 - 4:44 am - by David P. Goldman

What a careful reader will take away from Barack Obama's memoir Dreams of My Father is not only that the president used to eat dog meat, but more importantly, that he identifies with dog-eaters. He wants us to understand that he is one of them. Obama's most severe critics on the right think of Obama as a socialist, for example, Dinesh d'Souza, or Stanley Kurtz in his exhaustively-researched book Radical-in-Chief.

Obama used to attend the annual "Socialist Scholars Conference" in New York, which was a hard-core affair; I went to a couple of them, and they weren't for the curious. But there is something far more visceral, more existential to the president's dislike of the United States, and that arises from his early residence in the Third World, and his identification with the people of the Third World whose lives are disrupted by the creative destruction that America has unleashed.

Obama is the son of a Kenyan Muslim father, the stepson of an Indonesian Muslim, and the child, most of all, of an American anthropologist who devoted her career to protecting Indonesian traditional life against the depredations of the global marketplace. Her doctoral dissertation, "Peasant blacksmithing in Indonesia: surviving against all odds," celebrated traditional cultures hanging on desperately in the face of the global economic marketplace.

Ms. Dunham was not only a Communist fellow-traveler, but the sort of 1960s woman who (as we used to say) "put her body on the line," first by marrying two Third World men, and then by spending her career in the Third World. It is no surprise that Obama considers the Third World morally superior to the United States. Consider this description of the Jakarta of his childhood from Obama's autobiography, Dreams of My Father: "And yet for all that poverty [in the Indonesian marketplace], there remained in their lives a discernible order, a tapestry of trading routes and middlemen, bribes to pay and customs to observe, the habits of a generation played out every day beneath the bargaining and the noise and the swirling dust. It was the absence of such coherence that made a place like [the Chicago housing projects] so desperate." Obama had chance to compare the orderliness and regularity of traditional life with the rough-and-tumble of American capitalism, and chose to identify with the former.

One has to spend time in the Third World to appreciate how intensely Ann Dunham's boy dislikes America. Once in Lima, around the corner from the Finance Ministry, I watched a father and mother selling chewing gum at a stoplight. At the curb sat a little girl who couldn't have been more than four and probably was younger, taking care of her one-year-old sister. They were indigenous and probably spoke little Spanish. And they would spent the day at the stoplight to earn enough to buy sufficient calories and cooking fuel to keep body and soul together for another day. No wealthy Peruvian would think to fund a soup kitchen; they were more likely to get help from foreign charities, American evangelicals or perhaps the Catholic Church. But there wasn't much help to go around. I gave the four-year-old a few dollar in local currency; she took the money and ran to her parents to show them the manna that had fallen from heaven.

One sees things like this every day, a hundred times a day, in most Third World cities. If you grow up watching this sort of pain around you, and you are told by daddy and step-daddy and mommy that it is the United States of America that is to blame for the pain, you form the sort of attitudes that Obama represented frankly and without disguise in his autobiography.

Globalization-which ultimately is a good thing-may be unspeakably destructive for traditional societies in its path. Tens of millions of people are forcibly torn out of their roots. In Thailand, farmers become construction workers in the big cities, and the girls they would have married in their villages becomes prostitutes. Education and income and health all improve, on average, but the disruption of lives produces immeasurable hurt.

We laugh about it, but people in some Third World countries eat dog meat because they are poor-not only so poor that they will consume almost any source of protein, but so poor that they cannot afford to enjoy the natural bond between human and canine that began almost 15,000 years ago. For a billion or so people, life is a daily struggle to survive. People who are that poor also sell their daughters into prostitution. Female flesh is almost as cheap as dog meat in parts of the Third World, and for the same reason.

I wrote in February 2008, nine months before Obama was elected:

America is not the embodiment of hope, but the abandonment of one kind of hope in return for another. America is the spirit of creative destruction, selecting immigrants willing to turn their back on the tragedy of their own failing culture in return for a new start. Its creative success is so enormous that its global influence hastens the decline of other cultures. For those on the destruction side of the trade, America is a monster. Between half and nine-tenths of the world's 6,700 spoken languages will become extinct in the next century, and the anguish of dying peoples rises up in a global cry of despair. Some of those who listen to this cry become anthropologists, the curators of soon-to-be extinct cultures; anthropologists who really identify with their subjects marry them. Obama's mother, the University of Hawaii anthropologist Ann Dunham, did so twice.

Obama profiles Americans the way anthropologists interact with primitive peoples. He holds his own view in reserve and emphatically draws out the feelings of others; that is how friends and colleagues describe his modus operandi since his days at the Harvard Law Review, through his years as a community activist in Chicago, and in national politics. Anthropologists, though, proceed from resentment against the devouring culture of America and sympathy with the endangered cultures of the primitive world. Obama inverts the anthropological model: he applies the tools of cultural manipulation out of resentment against America. The probable next president of the United States is a mother's revenge against the America she despised.
It really isn't unfair at all to bring Obama's canine consumption to public attention. The President isn't really one of us. He's a dog-eater. He tells the story in his memoir to emphasize that viscerally, Obama identifies with the Third World of his upbringing more than with the America of his adulthood. It is our great misfortune to have a president who dislikes our country at this juncture in our history.


At conception, a life begins.

A debate took place at the Cambridge Union in Britain on Iran or War. Douglas Murray spoke for proposition that appeasement means war with a nuclear Iran. A nuclear Iran should not be. He recounts the shameful past of Europe standing aside when the very existence of Israel was threatened. Powerful.


"Honor killings" are rampant in Muslim countries and have been brought to Canada and the United States by Muslim immigrants. Fathers, mothers and siblings can kill daughters who have "dishonored" the family by, for example, un-Islamic dress or being friendly with infidels. It is estimated that Pakistan, for example, has hundreds if not thousands of such honor killings each year in which the killers suffer no punishment.

Honor killings are often not reported by the mainstream media, be it newspapers, radio or TV. If a murder is reported, the term "honor killing" is seldom employed and the fact the killer is a Muslim is rarely mentioned. The vast majority of honor killings worldwide are by Muslims, for whom such killings are culturally acceptable.

A jury in Canada made it clear such killings are murder.



Flash mobs of black hoodlums in Philadelphia are condemned by Mayor Nutter, who calls them a disgrace to the city and themselves.

The breakdown in society is also seen in the riots in Britain, condemned by columnist Max Hastings as the poisonous fruit of liberalism, which has created a dependent underclass without moral compass, sense of purpose or concept of personal responsibility.

Powered by Movable Type 4.23-en

Recent Comments

  • Witness: Omar and Aslam, I have read all I need to read more
  • film streaming: Yep really A++ it was crazy to read it. So read more
  • mutuelle: hello, nice article,it really pleased me.A++ read more
  • seo: Thanks read more
  • atezaz: thanks read more
  • seo: thanks read more
  • atezaz: Thanks for taking this opportunity to discuss this, I feel read more
  • Mark @ Israel: It is undeniable that we are experiencing a down trend read more
  • Somaie: The article was worth reading. Thank you. www.onlineuniversalwork.com read more
  • Rick: Every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess that read more

Recent Assets

  • Ramirez Carter Obama.jpg

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.