Imam Anjem Choudary Refuted Obama : ‘Terrorizing the Enemy is in Fact Part of Islam.’ Richard Thompson

Killing innocents is okay with Choudary.
In the beginning of his speech last week on the threat of ISIS (or ISIL), President Obama told Americans:
“Now let’s make two things clear: ISIL is not “Islamic.” No religion condones the killing of innocents…”

He is wrong on both counts. And he knows it. He is doing a disservice to the American public and our “war” effort. If our Commander-in-Chief refuses to honestly identify the enemy, we are not going to win this war in the long run. That’s because even if we destroy ISIS there will be other Islamic organizations to take its place.

The reason: Islam is a religion of violence.

I can only conjecture that the President’s comments were meant to pander to American Muslims and anesthetize the American people to the true internal threat posed by Muslims within our gates.

But British Imam Anjem Choudary set the President and the American public straight in this short video clip. (Click Here)

In the clip from a recent interview on RT’s (formerly Russia Today) Worlds Apart, Choudary, told the world the truth about Islam that so called “moderate” Muslims in America have been trying to hide.

When asked if the beheading of American journalist James Foley was justified under Sharia law, Choudary said:

“Every action for a Muslim must be based on the Koran, the word of Allah and the teachings of the messenger Mohammad … But those who are already Muslim must know that Allah mentions in the Koran, in fact if you look at Chapter 8 Verse 60, he said prepare as much as you can the steeds of war to terrorize the enemy. So, terrorizing the enemy is in fact part of Islam. I mean, this is something that we must embrace and understand as far as the jurisprudence of jihad is concerned.”

California to Pay Doctors to Teach Teenagers How to Die By Camille Giglio (!!!???)

If the California death and dying crowd has its way, in the future, on your child’s 18th birthday he or she will celebrate the event with a trip to a doctor’s office to have The Conversation on how and when to properly end one’s life, and California MediCal may well pay the doctor for having the conversation.

This little paragraph was removed from the Affordable Care Act when Sarah Palin labeled it Death Panels, but now it is appearing in state legislation.

In California this plan is already formulated in legislation and on Governor Brown’s desk awaiting his signature. It is AB 2139 by death and dying advocate Assemblywoman Susan Eggman, entitled Patient Notification.

The bill calls for using MediCal to pay a doctor for discussing end-of-life treatment when a patient receive a diagnosis of a chronic or terminal illness. It further requires the doctor or health care person, to hand the patient a POLST Palliative Care only form along with instructions in how to fill it out.

My local newspaper carried an article entitled “Earlier, better care urged for end of life.” The article is a report on an Institute of Medicine paper which includes the suggestion that one should begin having discussions with family and doctor beginning at age 18 on the subject of how to best plan for your end of life.
The reporter writing the story, Lisa Krieger, is an activist in the death and dying lobby and is once again using the freedom of the press to tout her own agenda. Two years ago the San Jose Mercury News allowed publication of a 10 part series written by Krieger, on the Cost of Dying. This was followed by several appearances in the area touting the Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment, or, the POLST form.

The article quotes a Dr. Philip Pizzo, former dean of Stanford University’s School of Medicine and co-chair of the report, as saying: “It is our hope that this report will lead to improvements in end-of-life care and the experience of dying for all.”

Have they found some way to return someone from the grave to tell us how wonderful it was to die by a government approved and funded process?

Women From American Heartland Joining Islamic State Terrorists “ISIS is Recruiting These Women in Order to be Baby Factories.”

They are seeing the establishment of an Islamic state and now they need to populate the state,” expert says.

MINNEAPOLIS – US law enforcement is investigating a new phenomenon of women from the American heartland joining Islamic State as President Barack Obama vows to cut off the militants’ recruiting at home.

At least three Somali families in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area have female relatives who have gone missing in the past six weeks and may have tried to join Islamic State, said community leader Abdirizak Bihi. He said that while the reasons for their disappearance were unclear, he had told the families to contact police.

In a separate case, a 19-year-old American Somali woman from St. Paul snuck away from her parents on Aug. 25 saying she was going to a bridal shower. Instead, she flew to Turkey and joined IS in Syria.

Home to the biggest Somali community in the United States, the Twin Cities area of Minnesota has been plagued by terrorist recruiting since the Somali group al-Shabaab began enlisting in America around 2007.

This year, law enforcement officials say they learned of 15-20 men with connections to the Minnesota Somali community fighting for extremist groups in Syria. They included Douglas McAuthur McCain, a convert to Islam, who was killed in battle this summer.

The St. Paul woman is the first case of an area female joining IS that has been made public although her family have asked for her name to be kept private because it fears retaliation from Islamists.

Greg Boosalis, FBI division counsel in Minneapolis, said law enforcement was investigating the possible recruitment in the area by Islamist extremists of other females, as well as males, but refused to comment on specific cases.

“We are looking into the possibility of additional men and women travelers,” he said.

Britain’s Female Jihadists by Soeren Kern September 21, 2014 at 5:00 am

“My son and I love life with the beheaders.” — British jihadist Sally Jones.

Mujahidah Bint Usama published pictures of herself on Twitter holding a severed head while wearing a white doctor’s jacket; alongside it, the message: “Dream job, a terrorist doc.”

British female jihadists are now in charge of guarding as many as 3,000 non-Muslim Iraqi women and girls held captive as sex slaves.

“The British women are some of the most zealous in imposing the IS laws in the region. I believe that’s why at least four of them have been chosen to join the women police force.” — British terrorism analyst Melanie Smith.

Great Britain is now the leading European source of female jihadists in Syria and Iraq.

As many as 60 Muslim women between the ages of 18 and 24 are believed to have left Britain to join the jihadist group Islamic State [IS] during the past twelve months alone, according to British terrorism analysts.

Dozens more have inquired about joining IS since the beheading of American journalist James Foley in Syria in August 2014 set off a frenzy of enthusiasm within jihadist circles.

Many of the women seem to be motivated by the hope of finding a jihadist husband, analysts say, apparently because they covet the cultural and religious “prestige” conferred upon Muslim widows whose husbands have died as “martyrs” for Allah.

Until recently, most of the British women affiliated with IS have been restricted to performing domestic chores such as cleaning and cooking. Lately, however, some women have become restive and have demanded a greater role in the IS enterprise.

Several British women are now engaged in IS recruiting efforts, using social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter to encourage a new wave of British jihadists to travel to Syria and Iraq.

A half-dozen other women have been incorporated into a female-only militia called the Al-Khansaa brigade, based in the Syrian city of Raqqa, where the IS has set up its headquarters.

PLEASE READ THIS MESSAGE FROM FRANK GAFFNEY AND THE CENTER FOR SECURITY POLICY ****

I just left a meeting with a Senior Congressman on Capitol Hill. The information I received from that meeting astounded me. The first thing I’ve done is sit down and write you this email … the information is that important. The Congressman and I were speaking about matters of national security. The conversation naturally turned […]

MY SAY: YOU CAN’T WIN A WAR WITH PROXY MOSLEM ARMIES

Robert Spencer makes the case against arming those who would ultimately turn those arms on our soldiers…..Please read rsk
6 Reasons Why the U.S. Should Not Arm the Syrian ‘Moderates’ By Robert Spencer

http://pjmedia.com/blog/6-reasons-why-the-u-s-should-not-arm-the-syrian-moderates/?print=1

Demonstrating yet again that we do not have an effective opposition party in the United States right now, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted Wednesday [2] in favor of Barack Obama’s plan to arm and train “vetted” members of the Free Syrian Army. As expected, the Senate went along on Thursday [3]. The Hill [2] noted about the House vote that “vocal opposition” came from “both war-weary liberals and defense hawks who feel the Syria plan should include more robust steps.” No one, however, seems to have mentioned the main reason why this is a bad idea: the Free Syrian Army is on the wrong side.

Obama made big promises last Sunday on Meet the Press: “What I want people to understand is that over the course of months,” he asserted, “we are going to be able to not just blunt the momentum” of the Islamic State. “We are going to systematically degrade their capabilities; we’re going to shrink the territory that they control; and, ultimately, we’re going to defeat them.” He was using the term “we” loosely: “This is not going to be an announcement about U.S. ground troops. This is not the equivalent of the Iraq war.” But if American troops were not going to perform this herculean task, then who would do it?

“In the interview on Sunday,” said the New York Times [4], “Mr. Obama said he envisioned the Free Syrian Army’s providing the ground presence needed to confront ISIS in Syria.”

But will the Free Syrian Army actually do this job, or do it effectively? Here are some reasons why not:

Obama’s “Strategy” and the Ensuing Non-Coalition By:Srdja Trifkovic

“America, our endless blessings bestow an enduring burden. But as Americans, we welcome our responsibility to lead. From Europe to Asia – from the far reaches of Africa to war-torn capitals of the Middle East – we stand for freedom, for justice, for dignity. These are values that have guided our nation since its founding.Obama wouldn’t know the founding values if they hit him in the head. He is the worst president of the United States in history after all. That is no mean feat, considering the competition.”

French aircraft are in action against ISIS. Britain is flying reconnaissance missions over Iraq. Several other countries – Arab ones included – say they are willing to support the air campaign. None seem interested in pledging any ground troops, however.

“Well, you will hear from Secretary Kerry on this over the coming days. And what he has said is that others have suggested that they’re willing to do that. But we’re not looking for that right now,” Chief of Staff Denis McDonough waffled on “Meet the Press” last Sunday, September 14. “We’re trying to put together the specifics of what we expect from each of the members,” he added, which is one way of saying the United States is finding it hard to persuade other countries to provide ground forces – something the self-designed leader of the “coalition” is unwilling to do. Also on “Meet the Press” James Baker noted that the biggest problem “of course, is who are our, quote, ‘partners on the ground’ that the president referred to in his speech. And I don’t know where they come from.” Let it be noted that Baker put forth an ad-hoc strategic plan that was, in fact, far better than the one outlined by Obama. He suggested joining forces with China, Russia, Iran, Syria and others, following a non-UN-sponsored international conference of genuine international leaders.

There are no “partners on the ground” for now, and those that the Administration wants to groom for the role are worse than none: McDonough conceded that ground troops are needed, “that’s why we want this program to train the [Syrian] opposition that’s currently pending in Congress.” In my curtain-raiser on President Obama’s much-heralded speech of September 10, posted two days before he delivered it (“Obama’s Non-Strategy”), I warned that he – disastrously – still counts on the non-existent “moderate rebels” in Syria to come on board, and still refuses to talk to Bashar al-Assad, whose army is the only viable force capable of confronting the IS now and for many years to come. In short, “he has no plan to systematically degrade the IS capabilities, no means to shrink the territory that they control, and certainly no strategy to defeat them.”

Obama’s address to the nation on September 10 confirmed all of the above, but it also contained numerous non sequiturs, falsehoods, and delusional assertions that need to be addressed one by one. (The President’s words are in italics.)

I want to speak to you about what the United States will do with our friends and allies to degrade and ultimately destroy the terrorist group known as ISIL.

The Influence Loophole: If Lobbyists are Obligated to Disclose Foreign Contributions, Why Not Think Tanks? By Matthew Continetti

Foreign governments and their citizens are forbidden from contributing to U.S. elections. If a foreign government hires a lobbyist to influence the legislative or executive branches of the United States, that lobbyist must disclose his contracts and activities with the Justice Department in compliance with the Foreign Agents Registration Act. FARA is so strict that it applies not only to lobbyists but to any American who works within the United States to influence our politics on behalf of a foreign interest. Break the law, and you go to jail.

Yet there is a loophole for foreign contributions to U.S. think tanks. And today that loophole is being exploited to an extent that mocks the very purpose of FARA. Earlier this month, the New York Times published a blockbuster report on foreign influence over D.C. nonprofits. Its conclusion: “Since 2011, at least 64 governments, state-controlled entities, or government officials have contributed to a group of 28 major United States–based research organizations, according to disclosures by the institutions and government documents.”

These institutions, the Times suggests, have received “a minimum of $92 million in contributions or commitments from overseas government interests over the last four years.” But who knows. “The total is certainly more.”

The report generated well-deserved outrage. A rule change has been introduced in the House to require think tanks to disclose sources of foreign funding when they testify before Congress. It’s a solid proposal. But it does not go far enough. Congress should pass a law making contributions to think tanks by foreign governments and foreign nationals subject to FARA. What else could that money be for, if not to influence policy and public opinion to further foreign interests? Here is one area where transparency is vital. Let the money be disclosed. Or let it dry up.

This is not a trivial matter. The Times investigation raised serious questions regarding national security. Among the nations attempting to influence U.S. politics by funding think tanks is China. No doubt Russia, which has been supporting anti-fracking campaigns in Europe and operates a propaganda outfit in the United States, is also involved. We won’t know for sure until the recipients of money from Beijing and the Kremlin complete their FARA forms.

Think tanks can be the vehicles for revolutions in foreign policy. The Gulf state of Qatar, for example, is one of the most generous donors to U.S. nonprofits. It “agreed last year to make a $14.8 million, four-year donation” to the Brookings Institution, the Times reports. And Brookings, in turn, “has helped fund a Brookings affiliate in Qatar and a project on United States relations with the Islamic world.”

The Islamic State . . . of Saudi Arabia Between Beheadings, They’ll Help Train the “Moderate” Syrian Rebels. By Andrew C. McCarthy

The beheadings over the last several weeks were intended to terrorize, to intimidate, to coerce obedience, and to enforce a construction of sharia law that, being scripturally rooted, is draconian and repressive.

And let’s not kid ourselves: We know there will be more beheadings in the coming weeks, and on into the future. Apostates from Islam, homosexuals, and perceived blasphemers will face brutal persecution and death. Women will be treated as chattel and face institutionalized abuse. Islamic-supremacist ideology, with its incitements to jihad and conquest, with its virulent hostility toward the West, will spew from the mosques onto the streets. We will continue to be confronted by a country-sized breeding ground for anti-American terrorists.

The Islamic State? Sorry, no. I was talking about . . . our “moderate Islamist” ally, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

But the confusion is understandable.

Islamic State terrorists have infamously decapitated three of their prisoners in recent weeks. That is five fewer than the Saudi government decapitated in August alone. Indeed, it is three fewer beheadings than were carried out in September by the Free Syrian Army — the “moderate Islamists” that congressional Republicans have now joined Obama Democrats in supporting with arms and training underwritten by American taxpayer dollars.

The Obama administration regards the Saudi government as America’s key partner in the fight against Islamic State jihadists. The increasingly delusional Secretary of State John Kerry reasons that this is because the fight is more ideological than military. Get it? The world’s leading propagators of the ideology that breeds violent jihad are our best asset in an ideological struggle against violent jihadists.

Aloof as ever from irony, Mr. Kerry gave this assessment while visiting King Abdullah in Riyadh on, of all days, September 11 — the thirteenth anniversary of the day when 15 Saudis joined four other terrorists in mass-murdering nearly 3,000 Americans in furtherance of the Islamic-supremacist ideology on which they were reared. The 19 were, of course, members of al-Qaeda, the jihadist network sprung from Saudi Arabia and its fundamentalist “Wahhabi” Islam.

Secretary Kerry and President Obama, like British prime minister David Cameron, insist that the Islamic State, an al-Qaeda-launched jihadist faction, is not Islamic. Evidently, this is owing to the terrorists’ savage tactics. In essence, however, they are the same tactics practiced by our “moderate Islamist” allies.

Saudi Arabia is the cradle of Islam: the birthplace of Mohammed, the site of the Hijra by which Islam marks time — the migration from Mecca to Medina under siege by Mohammed and his followers. The Saudi king is formally known as the “Keeper of the Two Holy Mosques” (in Mecca and Medina); he is the guardian host of the Haj pilgrimage that Islam makes mandatory for able-bodied believers. The despotic Saudi kingdom is governed by Islamic law — sharia. No other law is deemed necessary and no contrary law is permissible.

DANIEL GREENFIELD: THE WEEK THAT WAS

Hillary: I Forgave Bill Just Like Blacks Forgave South Africa http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/hillary-i-forgave-bill-just-like-blacks-forgave-south-africa/

REALPOLITIK

Poland wasn’t sending troops to Iraq because it was worried about Saddam Hussein. It made the commitment because it wanted to be part of a partnership with the United States that would also provide security in its own backyard.

These days Poland won’t be sending 2,500 men to Iraq. It needs its soldiers back home now that Putin is on the rampage and Obama has shown that he can’t and won’t stop him. The same goes for most of the Eastern European countries that were eager to show that they could contribute to the Pax Americana.

The very insults that the left tossed at Bush, warmonger and cowboy, were the reason he could bring together unlikely countries and get them to contribute boots on the ground. Meanwhile the very attributes that won Obama the Nobel Peace Prize are why the spearhead of his coalition is France.

ISLAM BEGS TO DIFFER

“There’s nothing in Islam that condones or suggests people should go out and rape women and sell off young girls or give them as gifts to jihadists and cut people’s heads off and tie people’s hands behind their backs and put them on their knees and shoot them in their backs,” Kerry said.

Islam begs to differ.

“We conquered Khaibar, took the captives, and the booty was collected. Dihya came and said, ‘O Allah’s Prophet! Give me a slave girl from the captives.’ The Prophet said, ‘Go and take any slave girl.’ He took Safiya bint Huyai. Bukhari: 1:8:367

“The women of Khaybar were distributed among the Muslims.” Ishaq:511

MASTER RELIGION

A victim of Rotherham’s child sex abuse scandal confronted a man she says groomed her – but was left shocked when she was the one arrested.

A police van came and six male officers piled out. ‘Two of them dragged her away, handcuffed her, put her against a wall and then shoved her into the back of the van.’

A spokesman said: ‘The woman was arrested on suspicion of racially aggravated public order offences.’

I highly doubt that a police van with six officers is dispatched everyone time someone in South Yorkshire is suspected of being drunk. The key there is “Racially”. A Muslim complained and the hounds were released.

The same police who wouldn’t step in when young girls were being raped, are on the go whenever a Muslim’s feelings are hurt.

Rotherham Child-sex Victim Confronts Muslim Abuser, Gets Arrested for Racism