America under an Obama Administration, and the antidote

If only the MSM had been half as honest.

Delivered 33 years ago, the speech below by Governor Ronald Reagan seems prescient. Change the names and dates, and this is what we should be hearing from now until 2012:

Since our last meeting we have been through a disastrous election. It is easy for us to be discouraged, as pundits hail that election as a repudiation of our philosophy and even as a mandate of some kind or other. But the significance of the election was not registered by those who voted, but by those who stayed home. If there was anything like a mandate it will be found among almost two-thirds of the citizens who refused to participate.

Bitter as it is to accept the results of the November election, we should have reason for some optimism. For many years now we have preached “the gospel,” in opposition to the philosophy of so-called liberalism which was, in truth, a call to collectivism.

Now, it is possible we have been persuasive to a greater degree than we had ever realized. Few, if any, Democratic party candidates in the last election ran as liberals. Listening to them I had the eerie feeling we were hearing reruns of Goldwater speeches. I even thought I heard a few of my own.

Bureaucracy was assailed and fiscal responsibility hailed. Even George McGovern donned sackcloth and ashes and did penance for the good people of South Dakota.

But let’s not be so naive as to think we are witnessing a mass conversion to the principles of conservatism. Once sworn into office, the victors reverted to type. In their view, apparently, the ends justified the means.

The “Young Turks” had campaigned against “evil politicians.” They turned against committee chairmen of their own party, displaying a taste and talent as cutthroat power politicians quite in contrast to their campaign rhetoric and idealism. Still, we must not forget that they molded their campaigning to fit what even they recognized was the mood of the majority.

And we must see to it that the people are reminded of this as they now pursue their ideological goals—and pursue them they will.

I know you are aware of the national polls which show that a greater (and increasing) number of Americans—Republicans, Democrats and independents—classify themselves as “conservatives” than ever before. And a poll of rank-and-file union members reveals dissatisfaction with the amount of power their own leaders have assumed, and a resentment of their use of that power for partisan politics. Would it shock you to know that in that poll 68 percent of rank-and-file union members of this country came out endorsing right-to-work legislation?

These polls give cause for some optimism, but at the same time reveal a confusion that exists and the need for a continued effort to “spread the word.”

In another recent survey, of 35,000 college and university students polled, three-fourths blame American business and industry for all of our economic and social ills. The same three-fourths think the answer is more (and virtually complete) regimentation and government control of all phases of business—including the imposition of wage and price controls. Yet, 80 percent in the same poll want less government interference in their own lives!

In 1972 the people of this country had a clear-cut choice, based on the issues—to a greater extent than any election in half a century. In overwhelming numbers they ignored party labels, not so much to vote for a man or even a policy as to repudiate a philosophy. In doing so they repudiated that final step into the welfare state—that call for the confiscation and redistribution of their earnings on a scale far greater than what we now have. They repudiated the abandonment of national honor and a weakening of this nation’s ability to protect itself.

A study has been made that is so revealing that I’m not surprised it has been ignored by a certain number of political commentators and columnists. The political science department of Georgetown University researched the mandate of the 1972 election and recently presented its findings at a seminar.

Taking several major issues which, incidentally, are still the issues of the day, they polled rank-and-file members of the Democratic party on their approach to these problems. Then they polled the delegates to the two major national conventions—the leaders of the parties.

They found the delegates to the Republican convention almost identical in their responses to those of the rank-and-file Republicans. Yet, the delegates to the Democratic convention were miles apart from the thinking of their own party members.

The mandate of 1972 still exists. The people of America have been confused and disturbed by events since that election, but they hold an unchanged philosophy.

Our task is to make them see that what we represent is identical to their own hopes and dreams of what America can and should be. If there are questions as to whether the principles of conservatism hold up in practice, we have the answers to them. Where conservative principles have been tried, they have worked. Gov. Meldrim Thomson is making them work in New Hampshire; so is Arch Moore in West Virginia and Mills Godwin in Virginia. Jack Williams made them work in Arizona and I’m sure Jim Edwards will in South Carolina.

If you will permit me, I can recount my own experience in California.

When I went to Sacramento eight years ago, I had the belief that government was no deep, dark mystery, that it could be operated efficiently by using the same common sense practiced in our everyday life, in our homes, in business and private affairs.

The “lab test” of my theory – California—was pretty messed up after eight years of a road show version of the Great Society. Our first and only briefing came from the outgoing director of finance, who said: “We’re spending $1 million more a day than we’re taking in. I have a golf date. Good luck!” That was the most cheerful news we were to hear for quite some time.

California state government was increasing by about 5,000 new employees a year. We were the welfare capital of the world with 16 percent of the nation’s caseload. Soon, California’s caseload was increasing by 40,000 a month.

We turned to the people themselves for help. Two hundred and fifty experts in the various fields volunteered to serve on task forces at no cost to the taxpayers. They went into every department of state government and came back with 1,800 recommendations on how modern business practices could be used to make government more efficient. We adopted 1,600 of them.

We instituted a policy of “cut, squeeze and trim” and froze the hiring of employees as replacements for retiring employees or others leaving state service.

After a few years of struggling with the professional welfarists, we again turned to the people. First, we obtained another task force and, when the legislature refused to help implement its recommendations, we presented the recommendations to the electorate.

It still took some doing. The legislature insisted our reforms would not work; that the needy would starve in the streets; that the workload would be dumped on the counties; that property taxes would go up and that we’d run up a deficit the first year of $750 million.

That was four years ago. Today, the needy have had an average increase of 43 percent in welfare grants in California, but the taxpayers have saved $2 billion by the caseload not increasing that 40,000 a month. Instead, there are some 400,000 fewer on welfare today than then.

Forty of the state’s 58 counties have reduced property taxes for two years in a row (some for three). That $750-million deficit turned into an $850-million surplus which we returned to the people in a one-time tax rebate. That wasn’t easy. One state senator described that rebate as “an unnecessary expenditure of public funds.”

For more than two decades governments—federal, state, local—have been increasing in size two-and-a-half times faster than the population increase. In the last 10 years they have increased the cost in payroll seven times as fast as the increase in numbers.

We have just turned over to a new administration in Sacramento a government virtually the same size it was eight years ago. With the state’s growth rate, this means that government absorbed a workload increase, in some departments as much as 66 percent.

We also turned over—for the first time in almost a quarter of a century—a balanced budget and a surplus of $500 million. In these eight years just passed, we returned to the people in rebates, tax reductions and bridge toll reductions $5.7 billion. All of this is contrary to the will of those who deplore conservatism and profess to be liberals, yet all of it is pleasing to its citizenry.

Make no mistake, the leadership of the Democratic party is still out of step with the majority of Americans.

Speaker Carl Albert recently was quoted as saying that our problem is “60 percent recession, 30 percent inflation and 10 percent energy.” That makes as much sense as saying two and two make 22.

Without inflation there would be no recession. And unless we curb inflation we can see the end of our society and economic system. The painful fact is we can only halt inflation by undergoing a period of economic dislocation—a recession, if you will.

We can take steps to ease the suffering of some who will be hurt more than others, but if we turn from fighting inflation and adopt a program only to fight recession we are on the road to disaster.

In his first address to Congress, the president asked Congress to join him in an all-out effort to balance the budget. I think all of us wish that he had re-issued that speech instead of this year’s budget message.

What side can be taken in a debate over whether the deficit should be $52 billion or $70 billion or $80 billion preferred by the profligate Congress?

Inflation has one cause and one cause only: government spending more than government takes in. And the cure to inflation is a balanced budget. We know, of course, that after 40 years of social tinkering and Keynesian experimentation that we can’t do this all at once, but it can be achieved. Balancing the budget is like protecting your virtue: you have to learn to say “no.”

This is no time to repeat the shopworn panaceas of the New Deal, the Fair Deal and the Great Society. John Kenneth Galbraith, who, in my opinion, is living proof that economics is an inexact science, has written a new book. It is called “Economics and the Public Purpose.” In it, he asserts that market arrangements in our economy have given us inadequate housing, terrible mass transit, poor health care and a host of other miseries. And then, for the first time to my knowledge, he advances socialism as the answer to our problems.

Shorn of all side issues and extraneous matter, the problem underlying all others is the worldwide contest for the hearts and minds of mankind. Do we find the answers to human misery in freedom as it is known, or do we sink into the deadly dullness of the Socialist ant heap?

Those who suggest that the latter is some kind of solution are, I think, open to challenge. Let’s have no more theorizing when actual comparison is possible. There is in the world a great nation, larger than ours in territory and populated with 250 million capable people. It is rich in resources and has had more than 50 uninterrupted years to practice socialism without opposition.

We could match them, but it would take a little doing on our part. We’d have to cut our paychecks back by 75 percent; move 60 million workers back to the farm; abandon two-thirds of our steel-making capacity; destroy 40 million television sets; tear up 14 of every 15 miles of highway; junk 19 of every 20 automobiles; tear up two-thirds of our railroad track; knock down 70 percent of our houses; and rip out nine out of every 10 telephones. Then, all we have to do is find a capitalist country to sell us wheat on credit to keep us from starving!

Our people are in a time of discontent. Our vital energy supplies are threatened by possibly the most powerful cartel in human history. Our traditional allies in Western Europe are experiencing political and economic instability bordering on chaos.

We seem to be increasingly alone in a world grown more hostile, but we let our defenses shrink to pre-Pearl Harbor levels. And we are conscious that in Moscow the crash build-up of arms continues. The SALT II agreement in Vladivostok, if not re-negotiated, guarantees the Soviets a clear missile superiority sufficient to make a “first strike” possible, with little fear of reprisal. Yet, too many congressmen demand further cuts in our own defenses, including delay if not cancellation of the B-1 bomber.

I realize that millions of Americans are sick of hearing about Indochina, and perhaps it is politically unwise to talk of our obligation to Cambodia and South Vietnam. But we pledged—in an agreement that brought our men home and freed our prisoners—to give our allies arms and ammunition to replace on a one-for-one basis what they expend in resisting the aggression of the Communists who are violating the cease-fire and are fully aided by their Soviet and Red Chinese allies. Congress has already reduced the appropriation to half of what they need and threatens to reduce it even more.

Can we live with ourselves if we, as a nation, betray our friends and ignore our pledged word? And, if we do, who would ever trust us again? To consider committing such an act so contrary to our deepest ideals is symptomatic of the erosion of standards and values. And this adds to our discontent.

We did not seek world leadership; it was thrust upon us. It has been our destiny almost from the first moment this land was settled. If we fail to keep our rendezvous with destiny or, as John Winthrop said in 1630, “Deal falsely with our God,” we shall be made “a story and byword throughout the world.”

Americans are hungry to feel once again a sense of mission and greatness.

I don ‘t know about you, but I am impatient with those Republicans who after the last election rushed into print saying, “We must broaden the base of our party”—when what they meant was to fuzz up and blur even more the differences between ourselves and our opponents.

It was a feeling that there was not a sufficient difference now between the parties that kept a majority of the voters away from the polls. When have we ever advocated a closed-door policy? Who has ever been barred from participating?

Our people look for a cause to believe in. Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people?

Let us show that we stand for fiscal integrity and sound money and above all for an end to deficit spending, with ultimate retirement of the national debt.

Let us also include a permanent limit on the percentage of the people’s earnings government can take without their consent.

Let our banner proclaim a genuine tax reform that will begin by simplifying the income tax so that workers can compute their obligation without having to employ legal help.

And let it provide indexing—adjusting the brackets to the cost of living—so that an increase in salary merely to keep pace with inflation does not move the taxpayer into a surtax bracket. Failure to provide this means an increase in government’s share and would make the worker worse off than he was before he got the raise.

Let our banner proclaim our belief in a free market as the greatest provider for the people.

Let us also call for an end to the nit-picking, the harassment and over-regulation of business and industry which restricts expansion and our ability to compete in world markets.

Let us explore ways to ward off socialism, not by increasing government’s coercive power, but by increasing participation by the people in the ownership of our industrial machine.

Our banner must recognize the responsibility of government to protect the law-abiding, holding those who commit misdeeds personally accountable.

And we must make it plain to international adventurers that our love of peace stops short of “peace at any price.”

We will maintain whatever level of strength is necessary to preserve our free way of life.

A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers.

I do not believe I have proposed anything that is contrary to what has been considered Republican principle. It is at the same time the very basis of conservatism. It is time to reassert that principle and raise it to full view. And if there are those who cannot subscribe to these principles, then let them go their way.

Barack Hussein Obama: Marxist tyrant, enemy of Liberty

In his own words:

Obama's comments on the same station at the same time suggested his disappointment that the U.S. Supreme Court never had gone beyond the constraints of the Constitution and established wealth redistribution plans.

In that tape, Obama is heard telling WBEZ in 2001 that "redistributive change" is needed, pointing to what he regarded as a failure of the U.S. Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren in its rulings on civil rights issues in the 1960s.

The Warren court, he said, failed to "break free from the essential constraints" in the U.S. Constitution and launch a major redistribution of wealth. But Obama, then an Illinois state lawmaker, said the legislative branch of government, rather than the courts, probably was the ideal avenue for accomplishing that goal.

"If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be OK."

Here Farah sums it up:

Barack Obama is an enemy of the Constitution.

If he is elected president Nov. 4 and must swear to defend the Constitution in a swearing-in ceremony Jan. 20, he will not mean it – at least not the way most Americans would mean it.

Obama doesn't like the Constitution as it was written and amended. He sees it as defective, flawed, in need of an overhaul.

This is the document that defines who we are and what we believe as a nation. It is the document that limits government from becoming the oppressor it is in most other nations of the world. It is the document that sets Americans apart from others and binds Americans together. It is the document upon which our national heritage of liberty is based.

Listen to Barack Obama's own words. Read them – again and again. Compare them with what the Constitution actually says and means.

Don't let this dangerous, anti-American radical demagogue shred your Constitution.

Let him be president of Kenya. Or Indonesia.

But not America.

Despite his serious flaws, at least Bill Clinton was an American.

FactCheck.org (the Annenberg Political Fact Check, part of the Annenberg Public Policy Center and tied to the Chicago Annenberg Project for which Obama worked and from which Obama directed millions of dollars to terrorist William Ayers, his murderer wife Bernardine Dorhn, Irreverend Jeremiah Wright, ACORN, and other anti-American radicals -- admits that Obama possessed Kenyan citizenship until the age of 21. (That might help to explain Obama's aiding Raila Odinga, Kenya's murderous Thug-in-Chief who promised Muslims there to institute Sharia.)

What of Indonesia? According to the registration card released by the Fransiskus Assisi school in Indonesia, B. Hussein Obama was a citizen of Indonesia.

Is he still?


Barack Hussein Obama, the next American/Kenyan/Indonesian president!

Muslim monster and Obama benefactor Khalid al-Mansour incites coreligionists to dismember whites

You get the one, you get those other ones.

Voting for Obama? This is whom you support:

So, Allah wants white people butchered? Imagine if one of McCain's allies and benefactors made such a statement about any group of people. Conservatives are eviscerated over sincere, orthodox Christianity, where is the MSM over this?

How is it that Obama's mentors, advisers, and friends are racist, anti-Semitic, (mostly) Muslim terrorists?

This is more than a double standard. This is treason. A "person" like this has no place in a decent and free society.

It takes one to know one

So, does this make Gadhafi an Islamophobe?

And if Obama's got nothing to hide, why all the lies and obfuscation?


Here's the video:

An enemy of America exposes B. Hussein Obama.

Add Qaddafi to a list of supporters that includes Iran, Raila Odinga, Rashid Khalidi, and Bill Ayers, an adviser to a Saudi prince, a CAIR trial lawyer, and two members of his own campaign with ties to Muslim terrorist groups (not to mention "people from the Islamic world").

Apparently, they were all "just people from Obama's neighborhood."

When all your neighbors are terrorists, it's time to move.

From here:

Sen. Barack Obama is a Muslim of Kenyan origins who studied in Islamic schools and whose campaign may have been financed by people in the Islamic and African worlds, Libyan leader Muammar Gadhafi said during a recent televised national rally.

"There are elections in America now. Along came a black citizen of Kenyan African origins, a Muslim, who had studied in an Islamic school in Indonesia. His name is Obama," said Gadhafi in little-noticed remarks he made at a rally marking the anniversary of the 1986 U.S. air raid on his country.

The remarks, translated by the Middle East Media Research Institute, MEMRI, were aired on Al Jazeera in June.

"All the people in the Arab and Islamic world and in Africa applauded this man," continued Gadhafi. "They welcomed him and prayed for him and for his success, and they may have even been involved in legitimate contribution campaigns to enable him to win the American presidency. "We are hoping that this black man will take pride in his African and Islamic identity, and in his faith, and that [he will know] that he has rights in America, and that he will change America from evil to good, and that America will establish relations that will serve it well with other peoples, especially the Arabs [sic]," Gadhafi said.

Gadhafi went on to lament statements Obama made at a June 4 address to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in which the presidential candidate stated if he is elected president, "Jerusalem would remain the capital of Israel and it must remain undivided." But it seems Gadhafi was not aware that the next day, during a CNN appearance, Obama explained he meant Jerusalem shouldn't be physically divided with a partition and was not referring to the city remaining in exclusively Jewish hands.

Stated Gadhafi: "But we were taken by surprise when our African Kenyan brother [Obama], who is an American national, made statements (about Jerusalem) that shocked all his supporters in the Arab world, in Africa, and in the Islamic world.

"We hope that this is merely an elections 'clearance sale,' as they say in Egypt - in other words, merely an elections lie. As you know, this is the farce of elections - a person lies and lies to people, just so that they will vote for him, and afterwards, when they say to him, 'You promised this and that,' he says: 'No, this was just elections propaganda.' This is the farce of democracy for you. He says: 'This was propaganda, and you thought I was being serious. I was fooling you to get your votes.'

[. . .]

Gadhafi went on to express his hope if elected Obama will implement a "one state solution" to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, meaning Israel would be flooded with millions of Palestinian Arabs who would terminate the country's Jewish nationality.

Sure sounds like he knows Obama.

Here's more details from people who were actually from Mr. Obama's neighborhood:

Obama repeatedly has denied he is a Muslim. His campaign site states: "Senator Obama has never been a Muslim, was not raised as a Muslim, and is a committed Christian."

But as WND has reported, public records in Indonesia listed Obama as a Muslim during his early years, and a number of childhood friends claimed to the media Obama was once a mosque-attending Muslim.

Obama's campaign several times has wavered in response to reporters queries regarding the senator's childhood faith.

Commenting on a recent Los Angeles Times report quoting a childhood friend stating Obama prayed in a mosque "something the presidential candidate said he never did," Obama's campaign released a statement explaining the senator "has never been a practicing Muslim."

Widely distributed reports have noted that in January 1968, Obama was registered as a Muslim at Jakarta's Roman Catholic Franciscus Assisi Primary School under the name Barry Soetoro. He was listed as an Indonesian citizen whose stepfather, listed on school documents as "L Soetoro Ma," worked for the topography department of the Indonesian Army.

Catholic schools in Indonesia routinely accept non-Catholic students but exempt them from studying religion. Obama's school documents, though, wrongly list him as being Indonesian.

After attending the Assisi Primary School, Obama was enrolled "also as a Muslim, according to documents" in the Besuki Primary School, a public school in Jakarta.

Laotze blog, run by an American expatriate in Southeast Asia who visited the Besuki school, noted: "All Indonesian students are required to study religion at school, and a young 'Barry Soetoro,' being a Muslim, would have been required to study Islam daily in school. He would have been taught to read and write Arabic, to recite his prayers properly, to read and recite from the Quran and to study the laws of Islam."

Indeed, in Obama's autobiography, "Dreams From My Father," he acknowledged studying the Quran and describes the public school as "a Muslim school."

"In the Muslim school, the teacher wrote to tell mother I made faces during Quranic studies," wrote Obama.

The Indonesian media have been flooded with accounts of Obama's childhood Islamic studies, some describing him as a religious Muslim.

Speaking to the country's Kaltim Post, Tine Hahiyary, who was principal of Obama's school while he was enrolled there, said she recalls he studied the Quran in Arabic.

"At that time, I was not Barry's teacher, but he is still in my memory" claimed Tine, who is 80 years old.

The Kaltim Post said Obama's teacher, named Hendri, died.

"I remember that he studied 'mengaji (recitation of the Quran)," Tine said, according to an English translation by Loatze.

Mengaji, or the act of reading the Quran with its correct Arabic punctuation, is usually taught to more religious pupils and is not known as a secular study.

Also, Loatze documented the Indonesian daily Banjarmasin Post interviewed Rony Amir, an Obama classmate and Muslim, who described Obama as "previously quite religious in Islam."

"We previously often asked him to the prayer room close to the house. If he was wearing a sarong (waist fabric worn for religious or casual occasions) he looked funny," Amir said.

The Los Angeles Times, which sent a reporter to Jakarta, quoted Zulfin Adi, who identified himself as among Obama's closest childhood friends, stating the presidential candidate prayed in a mosque, something Obama's campaign claimed he never did.

[. . .]

Daniel Pipes, director of the Middle East Forum, notes the Tribune article "cited by liberal blogs as refuting claims Obama is Muslim" actually implies Obama was an irregularly practicing Muslim and twice confirms Obama attended mosque services.

In a free-ranging interview with the New York Times, Obama described the Muslim call to prayer as "one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset."

As is the Black Speech of Mordor to an orc, or raging, spittle-laced German to a Nazi.

The Times' Nicholos Kristof wrote Obama recited, "with a first-class [Arabic] accent," the opening lines of the Muslim call to prayer.

The first few lines of the call to prayer state:

Allah is Supreme!
Allah is Supreme!
Allah is Supreme! Allah is Supreme!
I witness that there is no god but Allah
I witness that there is no god but Allah
I witness that Muhammad is his prophet ...

The two (three!) most powerful political endorsements one can receive this election

Iran praises Obama and disparages McCain, from here:

"The flaw they see in Mr. Obama – which they don't admit – is that he is highly educated and very eloquent. What does he speak so eloquently for?! Mr. McCain, who considers himself such an expert in international politics, still says 'Czechoslovakia.'"

"Mr. Obama's perspective is more clear. Only yesterday, they transferred control of the Al-Anbar province to the Iraqi government, on the first day of Ramadan. This is something Mr. Obama has been saying. Mr. Obama has said several times: 'Al-Qaida operates in 80 countries, but we got ourselves entangled in Iraq. Our presence in Iraq is what led al-Qaida to begin operating there.'"

Asked about Biden, Fardanesh called him "a very respectable man. He has a good reputation, and he is respectable and healthy. He has been in the Senate for 36 years, since he was 29. They are more knowledgeable in foreign affairs."

Muslims fear McCain-Palin, from here:

The events and speeches at the Republican Party convention in Minnesota, which endorsed the candidacy of Arizona Senator John McCain and his running mate, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, were given special attention in the Arab media, as commentators voiced fears that a McCain administration would pursue, perhaps more belligerently, the path of the current government.

As a rule, Arab governments in the region prefer to refrain from showing their preferences in U.S. elections, but the media, including the state-controlled TV and press, have made no secret of their desire to see a new leadership in Washington that is run by Democratic presidential candidate Illinois Senator Barack Obama.

While talking heads have said they did not expect either administration to be more sympathetic to the Arab and Muslim causes, many are now saying that Obama would be the "lesser of two evils" [...].

As far as those Arabs and Muslims, who are looking forward to the end of the Bush era are concerned, that change may very well be for the worse. Some have indeed expressed that the prospect of a McCain-Palin victory is nothing less than chilling.

In related news, the devil himself came out this week in support of Obama-Biden, giving the Democratic ticket a five-point bump among liberals in the latest polls.

When asked about the surprise announcement, President Bush praised the advance of democracy.

(Just like in Iraq and Afghanistan, where Muslims have enshrined Shari'a in their nations' constitutions.)

Three weeks in Pakistan

Our would-be Commander-in-Chief Obama made a private trip to Pakistan in 1981. He was an adult, not a child traveling at the whim of his parents.

When you hear of American or European men going to Pakistan, what is usually the reason they go?

Let's review B. Hussein O.'s Muslim ties:

-at least a year of Muslim education in Indonesia where he engaged in Qur'anic studies and learned to recite properly Allah's death chant,

-a number of Muslim family members,

-ties to a monster in Kenya allied to Muslims,

-ties to an American criminal associated with a wealthy Muslim donor,

-Farrakhan-loving Irreverend Wright as 20-year spiritual mentor,

-wanting to talk with the latest Muslim Hitler in Iran,

-sympathizing with Hamas' "legitimate" concerns,

-having his Muslim outreach advisor resign over his ties to terrorism

-the DNC hosting, among others, the president of the Islamic Society of North America, an unindicted co-conspirator in a federal terrorism trial

-first affirming and then denying Israel's right to its own capital, and now,

-close friends from Pakistan (I know lots of Baptists named "Mohammed"),

-a trip to their homeland, and all wrapped up in a nice bow of secrecy.

Three weeks in Hawaii's called a "vacation." Three weeks in Pakistan? That's boot camp.

Traveling with a friend to visit his family? In light of the political situation in Pakistan at the time and Obama's other ties to Allah, it seems much more likely that rather than being a citizen of the world, Obama's a sleeper.

From here:

While at Occidental college he became close friends with two Pakistanis, Mohammed Hasan Chandoo and Wahid Hamid. In 1981 he traveled with Mohammad Hasan Chandoo to Pakistan and stayed there for about three weeks. It is rather unusual for a less-than-wealthy college kid to choose far-away Pakistan as a summer break destination, but not necessarily suspicious. For some reason however, Obama has never publicly cited these relationships or his time in Pakistan. Why not?

In his book 'Dreams from My Father,' Obama does talk of having a different Pakistani roommate when he later moved to New York, a man he calls Sadik who 'had overstayed his tourist visa and now made a living in New York’s high-turnover, illegal immigrant work force, waiting on tables.' Strangely, Mr. Obama, the campaign and his publisher have not provided any details about the identity of Sadik.

Jews Against Obama offers some important additional information (by way of Daily Musings):

Pakistan was in turmoil in 1981 and ruled of martial law. Millions of Afghan refugees were living in Pakistan, while the Afghan Mujahedeen operated from bases inside Pakistan in their war with the Soviets. One of the leaders that based his operation in Quetta, Pakistan was Usama Bin Laden . . . .

Pakistan was on the banned travel list for US Citizens at the time and all non-Muslim visitors were not welcome unless sponsored by their embassy for official business.

The would be only a few reasons a young Westerner of the Muslim faith would travel to Pakistan in 1981:

To Participate in Jihad, which is the duty of every “True Believer”.

For religious education in a Wahabbi sect, Saudi funded, Madrassa.

In order to purchase drugs from the drug marketplace.

Pakistan was not a tourist stop nor the place to hang out with someone’s family in 1981.

Democrats clueless on, or in collusion with, jihad

So, let me get this straight:

Obama gives a speech that sounds pro-Israel; the next day his people "clarify," making his comments nothing more than political subterfuge;

He's discussed previously his belief that Hamas and Hezbollah have "legitimate" claims;

Yee, the Muslim ex-Army imam charged with espionage but released without trial for reasons of national security is one of Obama's superdelegates;

Barack Hussein Obama wants to talk with terrorists, rather than eliminate them; and,

Obama's got America-hating, racist friends and spiritual mentors who are friends of Jew-haters, not the least of which among these is Louis Farrakhan.

How can the Democrats be so wrong so often in the same direction?

Do Liberals hate America this much?

There is no defense for Barack Hussein Obama's 20-year endorsement of an America-hating racist

Or for his own racism and deceit.

UCLA Bruin and Laker great Kareem Abdul-Jabbar has a 'blog.

Comments are moderated there; we'll see if Kareem will post this.

I disagree respectfully with any defense of the "reverend" Wright.

If he has experienced discrimination, then anger and resentment are understandable. As a free man in a free society, he has the right to speak his mind.

Slavery and the discriminatory laws that followed were evil, unjust, and contrary to America's founding creed, but it was Americans (Christians at that) who brought the nation's laws in-line with its confession.

The Declaration itself, the Abolitionist movement, the election of Abraham Lincoln (the staunchly anti-slavery and first Republican president), and the Civil Rights Act are all the will of the American people. They are expressions of their fundamental belief in justice and Liberty derived [ultimately] from Christ's teachings.

(It always saddens me when African-Americans -- understandably embittered by racism they've experienced -- reject Christianity as a "white man's religion" and embrace Islam, not realizing that both are Middle Eastern religions and that while Christ taught true equality for all, Mohammed commanded slavery [of] and offensive warfare against all who refuse the invitation to Islam.)

Racist, hate-filled rants from a pulpit would be despised if coming from a white man; racism and hate should be no more acceptable coming from a black man.

As for the senator, what discrimination has Barack Obama experienced? He is living proof that in America all have the opportunity to achieve success as they define it.

Senator Obama grew up in Hawaii, is of a mixed-race background, lived for a time asa Muslim in Indonesia, was elected to state government, and is now a United States Senator with an excellent chance at becoming president.

How is America racist?

Thought cannot be legislated. All people -- regardless of ethnicity -- can be racist, ascomments by Wright and Obama prove.

Not voting for someone because of the amount of melanin in their skin is wrong; voting for someone because of it is irresponsible.

I will not vote for Obama, not because of his skin color, but because of his 20-year endorsement of an America-hating racist, his own racism and deceit, his ties to Muslim thugs in Kenya, and his rabid socialism.

Update, April 10: Since submitting my comments for moderation several days ago, one new post has been added, and it wasn't mine. So much for Kareem's tolerance for uncomfortable facts.

Barack Hussein Obama, racist, liar, and future Muslim-in-Chief?

I asked a coworker today, "How about the good reverend?"

"People are blowing it out-of-proportion."

"An America-hating racist?"

"I can understand why he thinks like that." This from an Irish-German overachiever.

When asked if such nonsense would be tolerated from a white guy, my coworker responded with something along the lines of, he wouldn't understand.

So, black racism is okay.

This is another example of white, liberal guilt masking the latent, passive racism of holding (most) non-whites to a lower standard of expectations: "You can't expect better from a (insert ethnicity here)."

It's the same thing that happens with Islam. Genocide? Slavery? Gang-rape of non-Muslims? We just don't understand their culture.

Barack Hussein Obama is a racist. Will anyone have the guts to call him on it?

Ann Coulter with some salient observations on our future Racist-in-Chief:

If characters from "The Hills" were to emote about race, I imagine it would sound like B. Hussein Obama's autobiography, "Dreams From My Father."

Has anybody read this book? Inasmuch as the book reveals Obama to be a flabbergasting lunatic, I gather the answer is no. Obama is about to be our next president: You might want to take a peek. If only people had read "Mein Kampf" ...

Nearly every page -- save the ones dedicated to cataloguing the mundane details of his life -- is bristling with anger at some imputed racist incident. The last time I heard this much race-baiting invective I was ... in my usual front-row pew, as I am every Sunday morning, at Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago.

Obama tells a story about taking two white friends from the high school basketball team to a "black party." Despite their deep-seated, unconscious hatred of blacks, the friends readily accepted. At the party, they managed not to scream the N-word, but instead "made some small talk, took a couple of the girls out on the dance floor."

But with his racial hair-trigger, Obama sensed the whites were not comfortable because "they kept smiling a lot." And then, in an incident reminiscent of the darkest days of the Jim Crow South ... they asked to leave after spending only about an hour at the party! It was practically an etiquette lynching!

So either they hated black people with the hot, hot hate of a thousand suns, or they were athletes who had come to a party late, after a Saturday night basketball game.

In the car on the way home, one of the friends empathizes with Obama, saying: "You know, man, that really taught me something. I mean, I can see how it must be tough for you and Ray sometimes, at school parties ... being the only black guys and all."

And thus Obama felt the cruel lash of racism! He actually writes that his response to his friend's perfectly lovely remark was: "A part of me wanted to punch him right there."

Listen, I don't want anybody telling Obama about Bill Clinton's "I feel your pain" line.

Wanting to punch his white friend in the stomach was the introductory anecdote to a full-page psychotic rant about living by "the white man's rules." (One rule he missed was: "Never punch out your empathetic white friend after dragging him to a crappy all-black party.")

Obama's gaseous disquisition on the "white man's rules" leads to this charming crescendo: "Should you refuse this defeat and lash out at your captors, they would have a name for that, too, a name that could cage you just as good. Paranoid. Militant. Violent. Nigger."

For those of you in the "When is Obama gonna play the 'N-word' card?" pool, the winner is ... Page 85! Congratulations!

When his mother expresses concern about Obama's high school friend being busted for drugs, Obama says he patted his mother's hand and told her not to worry.

This, too, prompted Obama to share with his readers a life lesson on how to handle white people: "It was usually an effective tactic, another one of those tricks I had learned: People were satisfied so long as you were courteous and smiled and made no sudden moves. They were more than satisfied, they were relieved -- such a pleasant surprise to find a well-mannered young black man who didn't seem angry all the time."

First of all, I note that this technique seems to be the basis of Obama's entire presidential campaign. But moreover -- he was talking about his own mother! As Obama says: "Any distinction between good and bad whites held negligible meaning." Say, do you think a white person who said that about blacks would be a leading presidential candidate?

The man is stark bonkersville.

He says the reason black people keep to themselves is that it's "easier than spending all your time mad or trying to guess whatever it was that white folks were thinking about you."

Here's a little inside scoop about white people: We're not thinking about you. Especially WASPs. We think everybody is inferior, and we are perfectly charming about it.

In college, Obama explains to a girl why he was reading Joseph Conrad's 1902 classic, "Heart of Darkness": "I read the book to help me understand just what it is that makes white people so afraid. Their demons. The way ideas get twisted around. I helps me understand how people learn to hate."

By contrast, Malcolm X's autobiography "spoke" to Obama. One line in particular "stayed with me," he says. "He spoke of a wish he'd once had, the wish that the white blood that ran through him, there by an act of violence, might somehow be expunged."

Forget Rev. Jeremiah Wright -- Wright is Booker T. Washington compared to this guy.

Obama lied about hearing his mentor's anti-American and racist tirades. He's lied about his past immersion in Islam. Is he also lying about his devotion to Allah?

Obama's comfort with Wright's comfort with Farrakhan makes more sense now.

More disturbing information from WND on Obama's non-Muslim upbringing:

JERUSALEM – Was Sen. Barack Obama a Muslim? Did he ever practice Islam?

The presidential candidate officially rejects the claims, but the issue of Obama's personal faith has re-emerged amid conflicting accounts of his enrollment as a Muslim during elementary school in Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim nation.

Widely distributed reports have noted in January 1968, Obama was registered as a Muslim at Jakarta's Roman Catholic Franciscus Assisi Primary School under the name Barry Soetoro. He was listed as an Indonesian citizen whose stepfather, listed on school documents as "L Soetoro Ma," worked for the topography department of the Indonesian Army.

Catholic schools in Indonesia routinely accept non-Catholic students, but exempt them from studying religion. Obama's school documents, though, wrongly list him as being Indonesian.

After attending the Assisi Primary School, Obama was enrolled – also as a Muslim, according to documents – in the Besuki Primary School, a public school in Jakarta.

The Loatze blog run by an American expatriate in Southeast Asia who visited the Besuki school, noted, "All Indonesian students are required to study religion at school and a young 'Barry Soetoro' being a Muslim would have been required to study Islam daily in school. He would have been taught to read and write Arabic, to recite his prayers properly, to read and recite from the Quran and to study the laws of Islam."

Indeed, the Israel Insider online magazine points out in Obama's autobiography, "Dreams From My Father," he acknowledges studying the Quran and describes the public school as "a Muslim school."

"In the Muslim school, the teacher wrote to tell mother I made faces during Quranic studies," wrote Obama.

The Indonesian media have been flooded with accounts of Obama's childhood Islamic studies, some describing him as a religious Muslim .

Speaking to the country's Kaltim Post, Tine Hahiyary, who was principal of Obama's school while he was enrolled there, said she recalls he studied the Quran in Arabic.

"At that time, I was not Barry's teacher but he is still in my memory" claimed Tine, who is 80 years old. The Kaltim Post says Obama's teacher, named Hendri, died.

"I remember that he studied 'mengaji (recitation of the Quran)," Tine said, according to an English translation by Loatze.

Mengaji, or the act of reading the Quran with its correct Arabic punctuation, is usually taught to more religious pupils and is not known as a secular study.

Also, Loatze documented the Indonesian daily Banjarmasin Post caught up with Rony Amir, an Obama classmate and Muslim, who describe[d] Obama as "previously quite religious in Islam."

"We previously often asked him to the prayer room close to the house. If he was wearing a sarong (waist fabric worn for religious or casual occasions) he looked funny," Amir said.

The Los Angeles Times, which sent a reporter to Jakarta, quoted Zulfin Adi, who identified himself as among Obama's closest childhood friends, stating the presidential candidate prayed in a mosque, something Obama's campaign claimed he never did.

"We prayed but not really seriously, just following actions done by older people in the mosque. But as kids, we loved to meet our friends and went to the mosque together and played," said Adi.

Obama's official campaign site has a page titled "Obama has never been a Muslim, and is a committed Christian." The page states, "Obama never prayed in a mosque. He has never been a Muslim, was not raised a Muslim, and is a committed Christian who attends the United Church of Christ."

But the campaign changed its tune when it issued a slightly different statement to the Times stating Obama "has never been a practicing Muslim."

An article last month by the Chicago Tribune seems to dispute Adi's statements to the L.A. Times. The Tribune catches up with Obama's declared childhood friend, who now describes himself as only knowing Obama for a few months in 1970 when his family moved to the neighborhood. Adi said he was unsure about his recollections of Obama

But the Tribune found Obama did attend mosque.

"Interviews with dozens of former classmates, teachers, neighbors and friends show that Obama was not a regular practicing Muslim when he was in Indonesia," states the Tribune article.

It quotes the presidential candidate's former neighbors and 3rd grade teacher recalling Obama "occasionally followed his stepfather to the mosque for Friday prayers."

Daniel Pipes, director of the Middle East Forum, notes the Tribune article – cited by liberal blogs as refuting claims Obama is Muslim – actually implies Obama was an irregularly practicing Muslim and twice confirms Obama attended mosque services.

In a free-ranging interview with the New York Times, Obama described the Muslim call to prayer as "one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.”

The Times' Nicholos Kristof wrote Obama recited, "with a first-class [Arabic] accent," the opening lines of the Muslim call to prayer.

Israel Insider's Reuven Koret notes the first few lines state:

"Allah is Supreme! Allah is Supreme!
Allah is Supreme! Allah is Supreme!
I witness that there is no god but Allah
I witness that there is no god but Allah
I witness that Muhammad is his prophet... "

Some attention also has been paid to Obama's paternal side of the family. His father, described in some reports as an atheist, polygamist and alcoholic, was buried in Kenya as a Muslim. Obama Sr., also named Barack Obama, had three sons with another woman who reportedly all are Muslim.

Obama's brother Roy is described as a practicing Muslim.

Writing in a chapter of his book describing his 1992 wedding, the presidential candidate stated: "The person who made me proudest of all was Roy. Actually, now we call him Abongo, his Luo name, for two years ago he decided to reassert his African heritage. He converted to Islam, and has sworn off pork and tobacco and alcohol."

Still, Obama says he was raised by his Christian mother and repeatedly has labeled as "smears" several reports attempting to paint him as a Muslim.

"Let's make clear what the facts are: I am a Christian. I have been sworn in with a Bible. I pledge allegiance [to the American flag] and lead the pledge of allegiance sometimes in the United States Senate when I'm presiding," he told the UK's Times Online earlier this year.

The trouble with Barack Hussein Obama

No, it's not that he is Muslim. He says he's Christian.

The problem is the sympathies his alliances imply (let alone his extreme Socialism).

Robert Spencer warned that though not a Muslim, some would promote Obama as being able to "work with" Islam. Not too long ago, one of the Democrats campaigning for him made that observation publicly. Obama himself has expressed his willingness to "talk" to Allah's monsters, including Iran.

So, what are Obama's problematic ties?

-Muslim parent and grandparents

-Muslim education in Muslim Indonesia

-Muslim siblings

-Muslim terrorist Kenyan village-thug-in-chief-as-ally

-Neighbor to -- and beneficiary of real estate "favors" from -- a criminal connected to a Muslim millionaire "donor"

-A wife who hates America (who complains about debt while living in a million-dollar home and married to a Senator)

-A pastor of twenty years who also hates America

As Daniel Pipes notes here, the Irreverend Jeremiah Wright of Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ not only blames America for 9/11, he echoed an earlier, more famous, America-hating, racist Muslim, Malcolm X, who claimed that America deserved President John F. Kennedy's assassination.

For those charges, he was expelled from the Nation of Islam. What do you have to do to get kicked out of the Nation of Islam?

And what of Wright's anti-Semitism? Will Obama remain silent on this?

It turns out that Obama was present at Wright's "Blame America" sermon. Recall also that he uninvited his pastor to attend one of his first major campaign events.

Even more troubling, Obama's only strength -- his calm and personable demeanor -- is a facade masking the kind of racism and hatred displayed by his mentor. In his own work, B. Hussein O. confesses that he manipulates whites by speaking calmly and pretending to care, but under that mask is a deceiver who exalts black nationalism above all else.

Obama has expressed racist sentiments, calls "mentor" a raving, racist lunatic, and has covered it up and lied about it. What else is he hiding?

And where's Oprah? Ignoring it, like she ignores Islamic tyranny?

(Update: Apparently, Oprah distanced herself from Wright some time ago. Good for her.)

Originally posted 3/15. Updated 8/20 for clarity.

The American Presidency going from bad to bad, or worse

It is very frustrating watching the most powerful man on earth use that power to advance Islam.

It seems to me that even the most uninformed Christian would refuse to equate The Religion of Death with his Christ. How much sense must one possess to know: Don't aid Muslims killing non-Muslims and stealing their land?

(At this point, Power-At-All-Costs-Republicans, Hugh Hewitt, liberals, and everyone else with their heads in . . . the sand should recall that in President Bush's second inaugural address he referenced the words of "the Ten Commandments, the Sermon on the Mount, and the Qur'an.")

Unfortunately, the Three Replacements remaining in our current presidential race look to be no better in telling the truth about Allah's War Against Humanity.

At best, we will end up with GWB 2.0, a man who can't help but add at least three modifiers to the words "Islam" and "jihad" when uttering them. (Okay, using "jihad," even with modifiers, is an improvement.)

At worst, we'll get either a nominally-Christian liberal (whose church is led by a supporter of racism) with an Islamic education and devout Muslim family members and strong-man allies (who ally themselves with jihad), or a godless liberal with the Muslim daughter of a Saudi imam acting as her closest aide (and paramour, if the reports are true).

Dark days are coming.

The American and British governments betraying to Islam those whom it is their duty to defend

A jihadist manages to secure the firing of one of the apparent few in our government who appear to understand Islam, a British citizen is being arrested for telling the truth about the Religion of Peace, and the adult candidates for President of the United States of America twist their tongues and intellects condemning "radical jihadist Islamofascist extremism" while assuring us that they have "great respect for Islam," a religion "perverted" by those wanting to establish the worldwide tyranny of Allah.

It was a tragic and horrifying scene at the debate tonight: Ron Paul running back and forth, his hair aflame yelling, "Islamophobe!" Rudy obliterating Paul's nonsense about America's foreign policy being the cause of the Greater Jihad but then destroying any hope for clarity from him on what motivates it, and Mitt actually using the word "jihad" but with a modifier.

McCain and Huckabee were no better.

Where's Fred?

Note below that now, over six years since 9/11, we're only "preparing" to wage the ideological war against Islam.

On treason in D.C.:

Infiltration Update. Here is a travesty for which Gordon England should be held accountable.

"Coughlin sacked," by Bill Gertz in the Washington Times:

Stephen Coughlin, the Pentagon specialist on Islamic law and Islamist extremism, has been fired from his position on the military's Joint Staff. The action followed a report in this space last week revealing opposition to his work for the military by pro-Muslim officials within the office of Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England.

Mr. Coughlin was notified this week that his contract with the Joint Staff will end in March, effectively halting the career of one of the U.S. government's most important figures in analyzing the nature of extremism and ultimately preparing to wage ideological war against it.

He had run afoul of a key aide to Mr. England, Hasham Islam, who confronted Mr. Coughlin during a meeting several weeks ago when Mr. Islam sought to have Mr. Coughlin soften his views on Islamist extremism.

Mr. Coughlin was accused directly by Mr. Islam of being a Christian zealot or extremist "with a pen," according to defense officials. Mr. Coughlin appears to have become one of the first casualties in the war of ideas with Islamism.

The officials said Mr. Coughlin was let go because he had become "too hot" or controversial within the Pentagon.

Misguided Pentagon officials, including Mr. Islam and Mr. England, have initiated an aggressive "outreach" program to U.S. Muslim groups that critics say is lending credibility to what has been identified as a budding support network for Islamist extremists, including front groups for the radical Muslim Brotherhood.

Mr. Coughlin wrote a memorandum several months ago based on documents made public in a federal trial in Dallas that revealed a covert plan by the Muslim Brotherhood, an Egyptian-origin Islamist extremist group, to subvert the United States using front groups. Members of one of the identified front groups, the Islamic Society of North America, has been hosted by Mr. England at the Pentagon.

After word of the confrontation between Mr. Coughlin and Mr. Islam was made public, support for Mr. Coughlin skyrocketed among those in and out of government who feared the worst, namely that pro-Muslim officials in the Pentagon were after Mr. Coughlin's scalp, and that his departure would be a major setback for the Pentagon's struggling efforts to develop a war of ideas against extremism. Blogs lit up with hundreds of postings, some suggesting that Mr. England's office is "penetrated" by the enemy in the war on terrorism....

LTC Joseph C. Myers on this firing:

MAJ (USAR) Stephen Coughlin is to my knowledge the only Islamic Law scholar on the Joint Staff...

He is a lawyer by training and a reserve Military Intelligence Officer. His first interface with Islamic Law began in Pakistan where he was investigating and prosecuting an intellectual property rights case about 10 years ago. Reviewing Pakistani property rights law, he kept seeing footnoted references to the Quran and sharia law...

I have long argued and wondered why our military from senior leaders down to tactical level are so unread and unstudied on Islam, jihad in Islam, even the topic of terrorism. I have often contrasted this unconscionable wartime state of affairs, with the due diligence the US military showed since I was a cadet at West Point 30 years ago, where we lived, ate, slept and drank Soviet warfighting doctrine...it was the threat we oriented on and we developed our own doctrine around -- "AirLand Battle" in the early 1980's.

Can anyone show me where the equivalent of the Soviet threat doctrine series for the global war on terror is published?

It has not been done.

Yet today we are in the process of prosecuting war, that from doctrinal perspective, we fundamentally do not understand. Over two years I have had 90 of the Army's top majors come through ACSC, across all branches including MI and special operations forces, and only one had read a book with the title Understanding Terror Networks, that by Marc Sageman...

Just before Christmas I presented a lecture on Understanding Terrorist and Insurgent Support Systems to an interagency audience at the Joint Special Operations University, that included Joint Staff and Joint Command officers, DIA and other IC reps, DHS and law enforcement... there, two people had read Sageman's work...two out of the special ops community. The third individual was Sageman himself.

More importantly we have not studied Islamic Law and few have seen or heard of even the English translation of it that has been in print for years, none had at JSOU or had read a work titled Understanding Jihad, War and Peace in the Law of Islam or even The Quranic Concept of War...I can go on but let me be frank.

This failure of intellectual preparation is a leadership failure, and it is as the 9-11 Commission warned, a failure of vision.

We have spent much intellectual capitol revamping and analyzing our own doctrine as it relates to counterinsurgency...it's time we do our homework on the threat.

Coughlin has briefed senior Marine Corps leaders and staff and has presented his thesis in various military educational venues...by all accounts the veil of ignorance is lifted for all but only a few who are afraid to face what Islamic Law, doctrinal Islam, says and means with respect to jihad and how it plays out across the Islamic world from al Qaida, to the Saudi government, to Pakistan to the Muslim Brotherhood...

What Coughlin did was provide the epiphany in his over 300-page Joint Military Intelligence College thesis titled, "To Our Great Detriment: Ignoring What Extremists Say About Jihad" that is meticulously documented and powerfully argued.

In short, he argues we have in fact intellectually pre-empted our military decision making process and intelligence preparation of the battlefield process, the critical step 3-"evaluate the threat." Strategically we have failed to do that by substituting policy for military analysis, for substituting cliché for competent decision processes.

We began on September 12, 2001 with "Islam is a religion of peace," which soothed ideological sentiments of many but has failed us strategically, short-stopped the objective, sytstemic evaluation of the threat doctrine.

"Islam is a religion of peace" is fine for public policy statements, but is not and cannot be the point of departure for competent military or intelligence analysis...it is in fact a logical flaw under any professional research methodology...you have stated the conclusion before you have done the analysis.

If one has studied the implication of the Holy Land Foundation trial discovery documents as I have, as a former DIA senior military analyst, and understanding as even Bill Gertz has written in his book Enemies about the dismal record of our counter-intelligence one has to wonder and question the extent we are in fact penetrated in government and academia by foreign agents of influence, the Muslim Brotherhood, Islamists and those who truly in essence do not share our social compact.

The termination of Stephen Coughlin on the Joint Staff is an act of intellectual cowardice.

We can only hope he can be positioned in his next venue to continue to educate our military for the fight we are in -- if we don't understand the war and the enemy we are engaged against we remain vulnerable and we cannot win.

No victory in the war on terror.

And on treasonous dhimmitude by the British government:

. . . the government and the Islamic Kingdom are trying to silence me . . . Ask yourself why?

A murderous section of the Pakistani Moslem community of Bury Park – Luton threatened my life, as witnessed by two witnesses, and my blog which is my perception of truth based on facts is my response to those very serious credible death threats.

I would rather die a Christian man than a pathetic Dhimmi – What about you?

They have bombed my homeland and they are desecrating my Nation on a daily basis with their Islamic degradation, so I will not back down from them or their gullible Liberal Left Wing tools who are trying to silence me – They are the ones who are at war with my country, and who want to kill me personally – If they want a war based on the facts and they want to kill me, then is it not my right to protect myself? If I don’t who will, do I just let these people kill me or do I run away and leave this to someone else to deal with? And if they are at war with us which they are, as the facts clearly prove, then can we the British people not let them have a war?

Whose homeland is this, theirs or mine?

What is the result of doing nothing?

My Grandfather never fought for Queen and Country so that the blessed birthright he handed to me which was my part of the British homeland as an Englishman could be taken away in my generation and given to an alien Kingdom with its alien Islamic culture so that there will be nothing left for my children other than an Islamic way of life enforced upon them.

I would rather my children know I died a free man for them and their birthright, than a coward and a slave to the oppressors, no matter what form that oppression comes in.

Why should I be forced out of my home, forced out of my business, forced into bankruptcy and forced to become a vagabond in my own land because of murdering warmongering Moslems who are at war with the Nation – something wrong there don’t you think?

And now people are trying to ‘silence’ me from speaking out about this abomination that is happening to me and my fellow countrymen by this internal enemy whose ultimate intention it is to take over rule of the land and enforce ‘Sharia Law’ upon the population, no matter how long that takes them.

. . .

You want a fight with me to silence me then lets fight, but remember there is an army made up of millions of people the same as me throughout the World who are ready to fight you with me, this has been shown to me over the last two days, and these citizens of the free world stand shoulder to shoulder with me, because this attack on me is an attack on them, their children and grandchildren also!!!

You have started something that will never be stopped now!!!

We have had enough of the murderous Islamic threat against our daily lives, and our futures, and we have had enough of our traitorous leaders and their supporters who are bending over backwards to appease the Islamic Kingdom at the expense of us and our children.

Ken Livingstone the slimy devil driven racist is the worst of them all!

The time has now come to let people know the truth so that they can decide where they stand in the coming days – I am not calling for people to march in the streets murdering people, we are civilized people we do not need to, we carry the ‘sword of truth’, that is enough at this moment in time, it is time innocent people woke up to this imminent Islamic threat that surrounds them and their children before it is too late.

Just remember we outnumber Moslems in our Country 20 to 1, we never asked for this, but we sure will rise to the challenge of the 21st Century and repel this foreign Islamic invader that has invaded our shores and is now conducting a Holy War against us.

Hasham Islam and Ken Livingstone are their own governments' Grima Wormtongues.