Displaying posts published in

November 2012


Nov 2, 2012 – An October poll found that Newark Mayor Cory Booker has the strongest chance of ousting New Jersey Governor Chris Christie in the 2013 … Cory Booker Cements His Reputation as Newark ‘Super Mayor,’ Lets …

Christie is also super soft on Radical Islam….


Four Hamas Supporters on Gov. Christie’s Muslim Outreach Committee

Christie joins GOP chorus of Romney criticism

WSJ Blogs

Friday, November 16, 2012


New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie on Friday joined the growing chorus of Republicans critical of postelection comments made by former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. “I always hate this kind of scapegoating after elections,” Christie said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” program. Read more…

read more: http://times247.com/#ixzz2CTu4lPuk

DR. ANDREW BOSTOM:Muslim Leaders Seek Sharia in the US….Interview


Dr. Andrew Bostom, a medical doctor and expert on radical Islam, is worried that Sharia – extremist Islamic law – could make its way into the U.S. Muslim community.

“My concern is to look at institutional Islam: we see the example of the Middle East, where clearly Sharia is being sanctioned by the major religious teaching institutions,” he tells Newsmax TV’s John Bachman.
Dr. Andrew Bostom, a medical doctor and expert on radical Islam, is worried that Sharia – extremist Islamic law – could make its way into the U.S. Muslim community.

“My concern is to look at institutional Islam: we see the example of the Middle East, where clearly Sharia is being sanctioned by the major religious teaching institutions,” he tells Newsmax TV’s John Bachman.

Watch the exclusive interview here.


Petraeus: Someone cut al Qaeda from my memo…WHODONIT?????
Fox News
Friday, November 16, 2012
Former CIA Director David Petraeus stoked the controversy over the Obama administration’s handling of the Libya terror attack, testifying Friday that references to “al Qaeda involvement” were stripped from his agency’s original talking points. Read more…

Read more: http://times247.com/#ixzz2CTp4Tv1Z
Fla. election official admits ‘mistakes were made’
Florida Rep. Allen West is threateni…
Read more…

Read more: http://times247.com/#ixzz2CTomMfAn
Liberal reps call Rice’s critics sexist, racist
Republican senators’ angry criticism…
Read more…

Read more: http://times247.com/#ixzz2CTofOpGm
Report ties Mexican drug cartels to terror cells
The Daily Caller
Friday, November 16, 2012
A new congressional report from a House Homeland Security subcommittee ties Middle East terror organizations to Mexican drug cartels. It found that the “Southwest border has now become the greatest threat of terrorist infiltration into the United States.” Read more…

Read more: http://times247.com/#ixzz2CTpSqvtF



The day of reckoning is here.

For over 30 years, the United States government and the institutions that drive public opinion have made like Susan Rice when it comes to the ideological threat that Islamic supremacists pose to freedom, fabricating reasons to remain in denial. Thus inured, the American people have elected, and now reelected, a president notoriously fond of America-bashing Islamists. The attraction would not be hard to understand if we were not so ideology-averse — GOP strategists having made Obama’s radicalism a subject nearly as off-limits as Islamic supremacism, helpfully leaving the Left to fill the canvas with their portrait of Mitt Romney: “Where Gordon Gekko Meets Michael Vick.”

The president is a movement leftist who sees in our society a condemnable legacy of racism, imperialism, and economic exploitation that cries out for “fundamental change.” That is not meaningfully different from the Islamist perspective of America: The Brotherhood’s self-proclaimed mandate to “eliminate and destroy Western civilization from within” by “sabotage” is, in effect, a cognate summons to “fundamental change,” even allowing that Islamists are driven to statism by sharia rather than Marxism. The Brotherhood’s American mouthpiece, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, brags that the president nabbed 85 percent of the Muslim vote on November 6 — larger even than Obama’s lopsided share of the Hispanic vote, which has GOP strategists hyperventilating. You wouldn’t want to take CAIR claims at face value, but their ardor for Obama, like the Brotherhood’s, is palpable. And as we’ve seen for four years, it is not an unrequited love.

So along comes Hamas. Just days before the presidential election, the terrorist organization — begotten by the Brotherhood and serving as its Palestinian branch — spearheaded an Islamist offensive, firing in just a few days over 120 rockets into the Jewish state from its home base in Gaza. You may not have heard about it until a few days after the election. Like Iran’s act of war in shooting at a U.S. drone in international waters, it signaled a further dangerous unraveling of the Middle East that undercut the media narrative of Obama as foreign-policy chess master, so it was tucked under the rug. But it could not be ignored forever, for it is not just another spike in the ever-thrumming Gaza border skirmish. It is the renewal of an unending war — an existential one for Israel, which is expected to fight “proportionately,” with both hands tied behind its back, yet blithely accept, as the international community has, the barbaric Islamist claim that nothing short of Israel’s destruction will be satisfactory.

By its own declaration, Hamas will be at war with Israel until the latter’s demise. Toward that end, the jihad has now been taken to population centers such as Tel Aviv. As of this writing, the Israeli death toll stands at three, kept low only by the crudeness of the jihadist weapons and tactics.

By the calculation of terrorism analyst Ryan Mauro, the onslaught begun last week brought the yearly total of missile attacks on Israel to about 700. That is, while the Obama administration has been facilitating the Muslim Brotherhood’s rise in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, and soon Syria — with Obama drawing ever closer to Turkey’s Islamist prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, even as Erdogan champions and funds Hamas — Gaza’s jihadists have been emboldened to step up their terror campaign.

And it is not just Gaza’s jihadists. Understand: This is not Hamas’s war of extermination against Israel. It is Islam’s. And yes, for the millionth time, there are various ways of interpreting Islam, but the Islam that matters in the Middle East, the Islam that animates tens of millions of Muslims, is Islamic supremacism. Israel, the canary in the West’s coal mine, is not besieged by an eccentric doctrine weaved by Hamas, Hezbollah, and al-Qaeda. Jihadist terrorists are just the point of the ideological spear.

Recent polling shows that four in five Egyptians (i.e., about 60 million people) believe the Camp David Accords — the treaty that has kept peace between Egypt and Israel for 30 years — should be dissolved. It is the same four out of five Egyptians that, given the chance, voted to put Islamists in control of their government. Just as Muslims have chosen to empower Islamists in Turkey, Gaza, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Tunisia, as well as in Lebanon and Libya to a lesser but still consequential extent.

The jihad against Israel “isn’t a matter of individuals, not a matter of community. It is a matter of a nation. The Arab nation, the Islamic nation.” So exclaimed Egyptian prime minister Hisham Qandil on Thursday in Gaza. He had been sent there to show solidarity with Hamas by Mohamed Morsi, the Brotherhood leader Egyptians elected as their president. “We are all behind you,” Qandil continued — behind “the struggling nation . . . that is presenting its children as heroes every day.”


http://pjmedia.com/blog/more-hot-air-from-white-house-and-eric-holder/?print=1 The claim by Eric Holder that it was right to keep the FBI investigation of General Petraeus secret from the White House, along with Jay Carney’s claim that the White House was not informed of the investigation of the General Petraeus affair until after the election because of “FBI protocols,” doesn’t hold water. Sources […]



(Note: This speech from Andrew Bostom was part of the panel discussion “U.S. Foreign Policy and the Influence of Shariah Doctrine” at The Allan P. Kirby, Jr. Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship, Hillsdale College, Washington, D.C., on November 13, 2012.)

A failure to recognize the motives of sharia supporters left the U.S. caught off-guard by a terror attack. Again.

J.B. Matthews, who renounced a career as a Communist front operative to become one of the world’s foremost anti-Communist authorities on such groups, observed in his 1938 Odyssey of a Fellow Traveler [1]:

“It cannot be denied that Communists and their sympathizers object not only to a denunciation of Communism but also to a calm and critical examination of its principles and practices. Strange as it may seem, Communists denounce those who merely cite the things of which Communists themselves openly boast in their own public statements.”

Matthews’ observations from nearly 75 years ago are apposite to the discussion today because he captures the shared reactions by both advocates of, and apologists for, two totalitarian ideological systems which are eerily similar [2]: modern Communism and still unreformed, pre-modern Islam. Indeed, a humorist contemporary of Matthews had cogently highlighted the striking similarities between Islam and Communism, referring to the Communist creed with this aphorism [2]:

“There is no G-d, and Karl Marx is his prophet.”

Alas, in our present stultifying era, which increasingly demands only a hagiographic view of Islam, even such witty, illuminating aphorisms may become verboten. Witness President Obama’s stern warning during his Tuesday, September 25, 2012, speech to the UN General Assembly, when he proclaimed [3]:

“The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”

The travails in Libya — and among the broader Muslim Middle Eastern participants in the Orwellian-named “Arab Spring” — demonstrate graphically how enforcing bowdlerized views of Islam, which ignore [2] Islamic doctrine and history, engenders a policy debacle.

First I will summarize the salient features of Sharia [4], Islamic law, and its appeal as demonstrated by recent polling data [5] from Libya’s North African Muslim neighbors, Morocco and Egypt. Then I will trace briefly how what my colleague Diana West has aptly termed our “Making the World Safe for Sharia [6]” policymaking mindset operated, and continues to prevail, in Libya.

Derived from Islam’s most important canonical texts — the Koran and hadith — and their interpretation and codification by Islam’s greatest classical legists, Sharia [4], Islamic law, is not merely holistic in the general sense of all-encompassing, but totalitarian [4], regulating everything from the ritual aspects of religion to personal hygiene to the governance of a Muslim minority community, an Islamic state, bloc of states, or global Islamic order. Clearly, this latter political aspect is the most troubling, being an ancient antecedent of more familiar modern totalitarian systems. Specifically, Sharia’s liberty-crushing and dehumanizing political aspects feature [4]: open-ended jihadism to subjugate the world to a totalitarian Islamic order; rejection of bedrock Western liberties — including freedom of conscience and speech — enforced by imprisonment, beating, or death; discriminatory relegation of non-Muslims to outcast, vulnerable pariahs, and even Muslim women to subservient chattel; and barbaric punishments which violate human dignity, such as amputation for theft, stoning for adultery, and lashing for alcohol consumption.

But is this ancient, brutally oppressive totalitarian system still popular amongst the Muslim masses, particularly within North Africa? In a word, “yes.”

Polling data were released April 24, 2007, from a rigorously conducted face-to-face University of Maryland/WorldPublicOpinion.org [7] interview survey [5] of Muslims conducted between December 9, 2006, and February 15, 2007. Seventy-one percent of the 1000 Moroccans, and 67% of the 1000 Egyptians surveyed, desired this outcome: “To unify all Islamic countries into a single Islamic state or Caliphate.” The internal validity of these data about the present longing for a Caliphate was strongly suggested by a concordant result. Seventy-six percent of Moroccan Muslims and 74% of Egyptian Muslims approved of the proposition: “To require a strict [emphasis added] application of Sharia law in every Islamic country.”

Libyan “rebel” spokesperson Mustafa Abduljalil, born in 1952 in Al Baida, one of the first cities to rise against Qaddafi, studied law and Islamic jurisprudence in Benghazi before embarking on a legal career that culminated in his appointment in 2007 as Qaddafi’s “minister of justice.” A foreboding Wikileaks memo [8] from February 27, 2010, revealed:

“In the course of the discussion of the Criminal Code, Abduljalil abruptly changed the subject from freedom of speech to the ‘Libyan people’s concern about the U.S. government’s support for Israel.’ He averred that Libya cares deeply about Muslims everywhere, and about Muslim countries. In his view, the root cause of terrorism stems from the perception that Europe and the U.S. are against Muslims.”

By August of 2011, Abduljalil’s “vision” for Libya was apparent in his championing of Libya’s draft constitution [9] whose salient feature was Part 1, Article 1, which stated:

“Islam is the Religion of the State, and the principal source of legislation is Islamic Jurisprudence (Sharia).”

Following Qaddafi’s removal, a Sunday October 23, 2011 pronouncement [10] by Abduljalil, now the leader of Libya’s Transitional Council, reiterated the overarching general role of Sharia, and included this specific example [10]:

“He [Abduljalil] also announced the annulment of an existing [secular] family law that limits the number of wives [a] Libyan [male] can take, contradicting the provision in the Muslim holy book, the Quran (i.e., Koran 4:3 [11]), that allows men up to four wives.”

Thus “liberated” Libya appeared bent on reinstituting Sharia-based polygamy, in pious conformity with Koran 4:3 [11].

Simultaneously, in late October 2011 reporter Sherif Elhelwa [12] confirmed that the al-Qaeda flag was aloft on the Benghazi courthouse. Several months later during a trip to Libya in early 2012, Elhelwa [13] noted the al-Qaeda flag was still flying atop Benghazi’s courthouse, but more importantly, he ventured to the jihadist flashpoint of Eastern Libya, Derna, to expose Libya’s Sharia enforcers. Unofficial Derna leader and local al-Qaeda head Abdel Hakim Al-Hasadi proclaimed:

“If you establish the Sharia, we’re with you. We’re your soldiers. We’re ready to die alongside you if you establish Sharia law.”

“Al-Qaeda in Libya: A PROFILE [14]” was an August 2012 report prepared by the Combating Terrorism Technical Support Office [15], a Pentagon program office, within a month of the murderous 9/11/12 attacks which left 4 dead [16]: U.S. Libyan ambassador Christopher Stevens, two heroic former U.S. Navy Seals (Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods), and a U.S. Air Force veteran (Sean Smith). The report emphasized how al-Qaeda senior leadership working via a large, powerful, and well-established jihadist infrastructure in Libya – including, prominently, Ansar al-Sharia, the group believed responsible for the Benghazi consulate attack – sought to capitalize on the U.S. and NATO-supported insurrection which toppled the Libyan despot Qaddafi and to fulfill its goal of making Libya part of an eventual transnational caliphate [17].

A sizable, ominous Ansar al-Sharia public rally during June 2012 was highlighted in the August 2012 Pentagon report [14], which also noted the unwillingness of Libya’s Sharia-supporting [18] central government to contend with these ostensibly “more radical” avatars of Sharia [4] supremacism. With resigned sobriety, the Pentagon report [14] emphasized how such jihadist/al-Qaeda discourse resonates among a significant swath of the Libyan population. Finally, the Pentagon report’s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY [14] raises serious questions about the callous inattention [19] to security for U.S. diplomatic and ancillary personnel in Benghazi, and more importantly, the abysmal “See No Sharia” failure of imagination regarding overall U.S. policy in Libya, which has abetted the most fanatical jihadist movement extant – al-Qaeda itself. The report concluded:



Republicans think they’re importing hardworking immigrants who want a shot at the American Dream; the Democrats think they’re importing clients for Big Government.

To an immigrant such as myself (not the undocumented kind, but documented up to the hilt, alas), one of the most striking features of Election Night analysis was the lightly worn racial obsession. On Fox News, Democrat Kirsten Powers argued that Republicans needed to deal with the reality that America is becoming what she called a “brown country.” Her fellow Democrat Bob Beckel observed on several occasions that if the share of the “white vote” was held down below 73 percent, Mitt Romney would lose. In the end, it was 72 percent, and he did. Beckel’s assertion – that if you knew the ethnic composition of the electorate you also knew the result – turned out to be correct.

This is what less-enlightened societies call tribalism: for example, in the 1980 election leading to Zimbabwe’s independence, Joshua Nkomo’s ZAPU-PF got the votes of the Ndebele people while Robert Mugabe’s ZANU-PF secured those of the Shona – and, as there were more Shona than Ndebele, Mugabe won. That same year America held an election, and Ronald Reagan won a landslide victory. Nobody talked about tribal vote shares back then, but had the percentage of what Beckel calls the “white vote” been the same in 2012 as it was in 1980 (88 percent), Mitt Romney would have won in an even bigger landslide than Reagan. The “white vote” will be even lower in 2016, and so, on the Beckel model, Republicans are set to lose all over again.

Hence the urge to get on the right side of America’s fastest-growing demographic. Only 27 percent of Hispanics voted for Romney. But all that could change if the GOP were to sign on to support some means of legalizing the presence of the 12-20 million fine upstanding members of the Undocumented-American community who are allegedly “social conservatives” and thus natural Republican voters. Once we pass amnesty, argues Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform, “future immigrants will be more open to the Republican Party because, unlike many immigrants who are already here, they won’t have been harmed or insulted by Republican politicians.”

So, if I follow correctly, instead of getting 27 percent of the 10 percent Hispanic vote, Republicans will get, oh, 38 percent of the 25 percent Hispanic vote, and sweep to victory.

Sources: Obama Knew Benghazi Was Terrorism Before Deploying Rice: Ben Shapiro

According to the Washington Guardian, it wasn’t just CIA Director David Petraeus who knew that the attacks on the American consulate in Benghazi were terrorism linked with al Qaeda. It was the White House. And they knew it well in advance of Ambassador Susan Rice’s appearances on national television to lie to the American public about a “spontaneous” demonstration based on a YouTube video spurring the assault.

The Guardian reports:

U.S. intelligence told President Barack Obama and senior administration officials within 72 hours of the Benghazi tragedy that the attack was likely carried out by local militia and other armed extremists sympathetic to al-Qaida in the region, officials directly familiar with the information told the Washington Guardian on Friday ….

The details from the CIA and Pentagon assessments of the killing of Ambassador Chris Stephens were far more specific, more detailed and more current than the unclassified talking points that UN Ambassador Susan Rice and other officials used five days after the attack to suggest to Americans that an unruly mob angry over an anti-Islamic video was to blame, officials said.Most of the details affirming al-Qaida links were edited or excluded from the unclassified talking points used by Rice the following weekend, officials confirmed Friday.


“The “Detroit Free Press” reports that Al-Husainy,, a Dearborn imam calls for restriction of free speech: “They should put a law not to insult a spiritual leader”
In a public declaration Shaykah Abdullah bin Bayyah, Imam of one of the largest mosques in the D.C. area, called upon “people of reason and understanding” to put a legal stop to statements that would offend Muslims and thereby threaten world peace.”

“To Hell With Free Speech” is what many Islamic leaders are shouting and preaching to their followers. Do not ignore their words, they are very serious. The question is, are you going to allow them to pick away at our precious freedom of speech. Lose that and what is next?

According to the “Weekly Standard” starting in 2009, the Obama administration had marked its first foray into the UN human rights establishment by backing calls for limits on freedom of expression.

At the invitation of Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, representatives of 26 governments and four international organizations, primarily of repressive dictatorships, met in Washington, D.C. in December 2011 to discuss the implementation of United Nations Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18 on “Combating Intolerance.”. Resolution 16/18 is a revised version of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s usual “Blasphemy against Islam” resolution ushered through with the support of our Administration.

The real aim of the “anti- blasphemy” resolution (16//18) is not to protect religion but to clamp down on freedom of expression. Accordingly, “defamation of religion,” by the definition of the 56-member OIC, could include criticism of Sharia law, questioning the Quran, a Muslim claiming you insulted Islam or security check profiling. A report by the New York–based Human Rights First listed more than 50 cases in 15 countries “where the enforcement of blasphemy laws have resulted in death sentences and long prison terms.


http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=292100 Despite the deadly display of hi-tech pyro-technics by the IDF, the depressing sense of déjà vu conveyed by the events unfolding in Gaza comprise a devastating indictment of Israel’s past and present political leadership. Watching the morning newscasts and the spectacle of Israelis scuttling to shelter from incoming projectiles, launched by implacable enemies, from […]