Coming to America: 30,000 Middle Eastern Refugees

December 30, 2013

The State Department said Thursday that its goal is to welcome 35,000 permanent refugees from the Middle East and South Asia in fiscal 2014.
30,000 Syrians are slated to be moved into permanent or long-term homes abroad by October if the U.N. refugee agency meets its goals, The Washington Post reported.
The target would include vulnerable Iraqis, Afghans, Iranians and Pakistanis, as well as Syrians.
The United States does offer a form of short-term asylum, however. Syrians who were already in the country on work, student or other temporary visas as of last June are eligible to remain at least into 2015. In 2013, more than 1,300 Syrians applied for and received that extension.

The Truth Behind the War in Syria: The Qatari Natural Gas Pipeline – Obama’s War for Oil

September 10, 2013
(source Sharia Unveiled by  | Men’s News Daily) Why has the little nation of Qatar spent 3 billion dollars to support the rebels in Syria?  Could it be because Qatar is the largest exporter of liquid natural gas in the world and Assad won’t let them build a natural gas pipeline through Syria?  Of course.  Qatar wants to install a puppet regime in Syria that will allow them to build a pipeline which will enable them to sell lots and lots of natural gas to Europe.  Why is Saudi Arabia spending huge amounts of money to help the rebels and why has Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan been “jetting from covert command centers near the Syrian front lines to the Élysée Palace in Paris and the Kremlin in Moscow, seeking to undermine the Assad regime”?  Well, it turns out that Saudi Arabia intends to install their own puppet government in Syria which will allow the Saudis to control the flow of energy through the region.  On the other side, Russia very much prefers the Assad regime for a whole bunch of reasons.  One of those reasons is that Assad is helping to block the flow of natural gas out of the Persian Gulf into Europe, thus ensuring higher profits for Gazprom.  Now the United States is getting directly involved in the conflict.  If the U.S. is successful in getting rid of the Assad regime, it will be good for either the Saudis or Qatar (and possibly for both), and it will be really bad for Russia.  This is a strategic geopolitical conflict about natural resources, religion and money, and it really has nothing to do with chemical weapons at all.

It has been common knowledge that Qatar has desperately wanted to construct a natural gas pipeline that will enable it to get natural gas to Europe for a very long time.  The following is an excerpt from an article from 2009

Qatar has proposed a gas pipeline from the Gulf to Turkey in a sign the emirate is considering a further expansion of exports from the world’s biggest gasfield after it finishes an ambitious programme to more than double its capacity to produce liquefied natural gas (LNG).

“We are eager to have a gas pipeline from Qatar to Turkey,” Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani, the ruler of Qatar, said last week, following talks with the Turkish president Abdullah Gul and the prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan in the western Turkish resort town of Bodrum. “We discussed this matter in the framework of co-operation in the field of energy. In this regard, a working group will be set up that will come up with concrete results in the shortest possible time,” he said, according to Turkey’s Anatolia news agency.

Other reports in the Turkish press said the two states were exploring the possibility of Qatar supplying gas to the strategic Nabucco pipeline project, which would transport Central Asian and Middle Eastern gas to Europe, bypassing Russia. A Qatar-to-Turkey pipeline might hook up with Nabucco at its proposed starting point in eastern Turkey. Last month, Mr Erdogan and the prime ministers of four European countries signed a transit agreement for Nabucco, clearing the way for a final investment decision next year on the EU-backed project to reduce European dependence on Russian gas.

“For this aim, I think a gas pipeline between Turkey and Qatar would solve the issue once and for all,” Mr Erdogan added, according to reports in several newspapers. The reports said two different routes for such a pipeline were possible. One would lead from Qatar through Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq to Turkey. The other would go through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and on to Turkey. It was not clear whether the second option would be connected to the Pan-Arab pipeline, carrying Egyptian gas through Jordan to Syria. That pipeline, which is due to be extended to Turkey, has also been proposed as a source of gas for Nabucco.

Based on production from the massive North Field in the Gulf, Qatar has established a commanding position as the world’s leading LNG exporter. It is consolidating that through a construction programme aimed at increasing its annual LNG production capacity to 77 million tonnes by the end of next year, from 31 million tonnes last year. However, in 2005, the emirate placed a moratorium on plans for further development of the North Field in order to conduct a reservoir study.

As you just read, there were two proposed routes for the pipeline.  Unfortunately for Qatar, Saudi Arabia said no to the first route and Syria said no to the second route.  The following is from an absolutely outstanding article in the Guardian

In 2009 – the same year former French foreign minister Dumas alleges the British began planning operations in Syria – Assadrefused to sign a proposed agreement with Qatar that would run a pipeline from the latter’s North field, contiguous with Iran’s South Pars field, through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and on to Turkey, with a view to supply European markets – albeit crucially bypassing Russia. Assad’s rationale was “to protect the interests of [his] Russian ally, which is Europe’s top supplier of natural gas.”

Instead, the following year, Assad pursued negotiations for an alternative $10 billion pipeline plan with Iran, across Iraq to Syria, that would also potentially allow Iran to supply gas to Europe from its South Pars field shared with Qatar. The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for the project was signed in July 2012 – just as Syria’s civil war was spreading to Damascus and Aleppo – and earlier this year Iraq signed a framework agreement for construction of the gas pipelines.

The Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline plan was a “direct slap in the face” to Qatar’s plans. No wonder Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan, in a failed attempt to bribe Russia to switch sides, told President Vladmir Putin that “whatever regime comes after” Assad, it will be“completely” in Saudi Arabia’s hands and will “not sign any agreement allowing any Gulf country to transport its gas across Syria to Europe and compete with Russian gas exports”, according to diplomatic sources. When Putin refused, the Prince vowed military action.

If Qatar is able to get natural gas flowing into Europe, that will be a significant blow to Russia.  So the conflict in Syria is actually much more about a pipeline than it is about the future of the Syrian people.  In a recent article, Paul McGuiresummarized things quite nicely…

The Nabucco Agreement was signed by a handful of European nations and Turkey back in 2009. It was an agreement to run a natural gas pipeline across Turkey into Austria, bypassing Russia again with Qatar in the mix as a supplier to a feeder pipeline via the proposed Arab pipeline from Libya to Egypt to Nabucco (is the picture getting clearer?). The problem with all of this is that a Russian backed Syria stands in the way.

Qatar would love to sell its LNG to the EU and the hot Mediterranean markets. The problem for Qatar in achieving this is Saudi Arabia. The Saudis have already said “NO” to an overland pipe cutting across the Land of Saud. The only solution for Qatar if it wants to sell its oil is to cut a deal with the U.S.

Recently Exxon Mobile and Qatar Petroleum International have made a $10 Billion deal that allows Exxon Mobile to sell natural gas through a port in Texas to the UK and Mediterranean markets. Qatar stands to make a lot of money and the only thing standing in the way of their aspirations is Syria.

The US plays into this in that it has vast wells of natural gas, in fact the largest known supply in the world. There is a reason why natural gas prices have been suppressed for so long in the US. This is to set the stage for US involvement in the Natural Gas market in Europe while smashing the monopoly that the Russians have enjoyed for so long. What appears to be a conflict with Syria is really a conflict between the U.S. and Russia!

The main cities of turmoil and conflict in Syria right now are Damascus, Homs, and Aleppo. These are the same cities that the proposed gas pipelines happen to run through. Qatar is the biggest financier of the Syrian uprising, having spent over $3 billion so far on the conflict. The other side of the story is Saudi Arabia, which finances anti-Assad groups in Syria. The Saudis do not want to be marginalized by Qatar; thus they too want to topple Assad and implant their own puppet government, one that would sign off on a pipeline deal and charge Qatar for running their pipes through to Nabucco.

Yes, I know that this is all very complicated.

But no matter how you slice it, there is absolutely no reason for the United States to be getting involved in this conflict.

If the U.S. does get involved, we will actually be helping al-Qaeda terrorists that behead mothers and their infants

Al-Qaeda linked terrorists in Syria have beheaded all 24 Syrian passengers traveling from Tartus to Ras al-Ain in northeast of Syria, among them a mother and a 40-days old infant.

Gunmen from the terrorist Islamic State of Iraq and Levant stopped the bus on the road in Talkalakh and killed everyone before setting the bus on fire.

Is this really who we want to be “allied” with?

And of course once we strike Syria, the war could escalate into a full-blown conflict very easily.

If you believe that the Obama administration would never send U.S. troops into Syria, you are just being naive.  In fact, according to Jack Goldsmith, a professor at Harvard Law School, the proposed authorization to use military force that has been sent to Congress would leave the door wide open for American “boots on the ground”

The proposed AUMF focuses on Syrian WMD but is otherwise very broad.  It authorizes the President to use any element of the U.S. Armed Forces and any method of force.  It does not contain specific limits on targets – either in terms of the identity of the targets (e.g. the Syrian government, Syrian rebels, Hezbollah, Iran) or the geography of the targets.  Its main limit comes on the purposes for which force can be used.  Four points are worth making about these purposes.  First, the proposed AUMF authorizes the President to use force “in connection with” the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war. (It does not limit the President’s use force to the territory of Syria, but rather says that the use of force must have a connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian conflict.  Activities outside Syria can and certainly do have a connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war.).  Second, the use of force must be designed to “prevent or deter the use or proliferation” of WMDs “within, to or from Syria” or (broader yet) to “protect the United States and its allies and partners against the threat posed by such weapons.”  Third, the proposed AUMF gives the President final interpretive authority to determine when these criteria are satisfied (“as he determinesto be necessary and appropriate”).  Fourth, the proposed AUMF contemplates no procedural restrictions on the President’s powers (such as a time limit).

I think this AUMF has much broader implications than Ilya Somin described.  Some questions for Congress to ponder:

(1) Does the proposed AUMF authorize the President to take sides in the Syrian Civil War, or to attack Syrian rebels associated with al Qaeda, or to remove Assad from power?  Yes, as long as the President determines that any of these entities has a (mere) connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war, and that the use of force against one of them would preventor deter the use or proliferation of WMD within, or to and from, Syria, or protect the U.S. or its allies (e.g. Israel) against the (mere) threat posed by those weapons.  It is very easy to imagine the President making such determinations with regard to Assad or one or more of the rebel groups.

(2) Does the proposed AUMF authorize the President to use force against Iran or Hezbollah, in Iran or Lebanon?  Again, yes, as long as the President determines that Iran or Hezbollah has a (mere) a connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war, and the use of force against Iran or Hezbollah would prevent or deter the use or proliferation of WMD within, or to and from, Syria, or protect the U.S. or its allies (e.g. Israel) against the (mere) threat posed by those weapons.

Would you like to send your own son or your own daughter to fight in Syria just so that a natural gas pipeline can be built?

What the United States should be doing in this situation is so obvious that even the five-year-old grandson of Nancy Pelosi can figure it out…

I’ll tell you this story and then I really do have to go. My five-year-old grandson, as I was leaving San Francisco yesterday, he said to me, Mimi, my name, Mimi, war with Syria, are you yes war with Syria, no, war with Syria. And he’s five years old. We’re not talking about war; we’re talking about action. Yes war with Syria, no with war in Syria. I said, ‘Well, what do you think?’ He said, ‘I think no war.’

Unfortunately, his grandmother and most of our other insane “leaders” in Washington D.C. seem absolutely determined to take us to war.

In the end, how much American blood will be spilled over a stupid natural gas pipeline?


Muslim convert, Gilberto Garcia Chavez, being lead away by Mexican police with a copy of the Koran in his lap.

June 24, 2013

http://9-11domorethenneverforget-stopislam.blogspot.com/2013/06/mexican-convert-to-islam-slaughter-his.html?m=1


Egyptian preacher says women in Tahrir Square WANT to be raped

February 7, 2013
(Man In Glass House Dress In Basement)

(EOZ)Feminists have accused the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood of hiring thugs to sexually assault women demonstrators.
In response, female MB member Azza al-Garf scoffed at the idea that Islamists would do such a thing:
“The Islamist view of the woman is to respect to her and her status and roles in life, whether it is a professional or humanitarian role or her role within the home and community. How can [the Muslim Brotherhood] be the ones inciting these heinous acts?” asked Garf.
How indeed can anyone accuse Islamists of condoning sexual abuse and rape?
Just don’t read or watch this:
An Egyptian Salafi preacher said raping and sexually harassing women protesters in Cairo’s Tahrir Square is justified, calling them “crusaders” who “have no shame, no fear and not even feminism.”
In an online video posted Wednesday, Ahmad Mahmoud Abdullah, known as “Abu Islam” and owner of the private television channel of “al-Ummah,” said these women are no red line.
“They tell you women are a red line. They tell you that naked women — who are going to Tahrir Square because they want to be raped — are a red line! And they ask Mursi and the Brotherhood to leave power!,” he said.
Abu Islam added that these women activists are going to Tahrir Square not to protest but to be sexually abused because they had wanted to be raped.
“They have no shame, no fear and not even feminism. Practice your feminism, sheikha! It is a legitimate right for you to be a woman,” he said.
“And by the way, 90 percent of them are crusaders and the remaining 10 percent are widows who have no one to control them. You see women talking like monsters,” he added.
Abu Islam further described these female political activists as “devils.”
“You see a woman with this fuzzy hair! A devil! Devils called women. Learn from Muslim women, learn and be Muslims. There are Muslims and Muslimix.”
Abu Islam was apparently referring to liberal Muslims as “Muslimix.”

Obama’s Muslim Childhood

September 14, 2012

Barack Obama has come out swinging against his Republican rival, sponsoring television advertisements that ask, “What is Mitt Romney hiding?” The allusion is to such relatively minor matters as Romney’s prior tax returns, the date he stopped working for Bain Capital, and the non-public records from his service heading the Salt Lake City Olympics and as governor of Massachusetts. Obama defended his demands that Romney release more information about himself, declaring in Aug. 2012 that “The American people have assumed that if you want to be president of the United States that your life’s an open book when it comes to things like your finances.” Liberals like Paul Krugman of the New York Times enthusiastically endorse this focus on Mitt Romney’s personal history.
If Obama and his supporters wish to focus on biography, of course, this is a game two can play. Already, the temperate, mild-mannered Romney criticized Obama’s reelection campaign as “based on falsehood and dishonesty” and a television ad went further, asserting that Obama “doesn’t tell the truth.”

Not always truthful: Obama claimed Kenyan birth in 1991 to sell his autobiography.

A focus on openness and honesty are likely to hurt Obama far more than Romney. Obama remains the mystery candidate with an autobiography full of gaps and even fabrications. For example, to sell his autobiography in 1991, Obama falsely claimed that he “was born in Kenya.” He lied about never having been a member and candidate of the 1990s Chicago socialist New Party; and when Stanley Kurtz produced evidence to establish that he was a member, Obama’s flacks smeared and dismissed Kurtz. Obama’s 1995 autobiography, Dreams from My Father, contains a torrent of inaccuracies and falsehoods about such his maternal grandfather, his father, his mother, his parents’ wedding, his stepfather’s father, his high school friend, his girlfriend, Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. As Victor Davis Hanson puts it, “If a writer will fabricate the details about his own mother’s terminal illness and quest for insurance, then he will probably fudge on anything.”
Into this larger pattern of mendacity about his past life arises the question of Obama’s discussion of his faith, perhaps the most singular and outrageous of his lies.

Contradictions

Asked about the religion of his childhood and youth, Obama offers contradictory answers. He finessed a Mar. 2004 question, “Have you always been a Christian?” by replying: “I was raised more by my mother and my mother was Christian.” But in Dec. 2007 he belatedly decided to give a straight answer: “My mother was a Christian from Kansas. … I was raised by my mother. So, I’ve always been a Christian.” In Feb. 2009, however, he offered a completely different account:

I was not raised in a particularly religious household. I had a father who was born a Muslim but became an atheist, grandparents who were non-practicing Methodists and Baptists, and a mother who was skeptical of organized religion. I didn’t become a Christian until … I moved to the South Side of Chicago after college.

He further elaborated this answer in Sept. 2010, saying: “I came to my Christian faith later in life.”
Which is it? Has Obama “always been a Christian” or did he “become a Christian” after college? Self-contradiction on so fundamental a matter of identity, when added to the general questioning about the accuracy of his autobiography, raises questions about veracity; would someone telling the truth say such varied and opposite things about himself? Inconsistency is typical of fabrication: when making things up, it’s hard to stick with the same story. Obama appears to be hiding something. Was he the areligious child of irreligious parents? Or was he always a Christian? A Muslim? Or was he, in fact, something of his own creation – a Christian/Muslim?
Obama provides some information on his Islamic background in his two books, Dreams and The Audacity of Hope (2006). In 2007, when Hillary Clinton was still the favored Democratic candidate for president, a number of reporters dug up information about Obama’s time in Indonesia. Obama’s statements as president have provided important insights into his mentality. The major biographies of Obama, however, whether friendly (such as those by David Maraniss, David Mendell, and David Remnick) or hostile (such as those by Jack Cashill, Jerome R. Corsi, Dinish D’Souza, Aaron Klein, Edward Klein, and Stanley Kurtz), devote little attention to this topic.
I shall establish his having been born and raised a Muslim, provide confirming evidence from recent years, survey the perceptions of him as a Muslim, and place this deception in the larger context of Obama’s autobiographical fictions.

“I Have Never Been a Muslim”

Obama readily acknowledges that his paternal grandfather, Hussein Onyango Obama, converted to Islam. Indeed, Dreams (p. 407) contains a long quote from his paternal grandmother explaining the grandfather’s reasons for doing so: Christianity’s ways appeared to be “foolish sentiment” to him, “something to comfort women,” and so he converted to Islam, thinking “its practices conformed more closely to his beliefs” (p. 104). Obama readily told this to all comers: when asked by a barber (p. 149), “You a Muslim?” for example, he replied, “Grandfather was.”
Obama presents his parents and stepfather as non-religious. He notes (in Audacity, pp. 2006, pp. 204-05), that his “father had been raised a Muslim” but was a “confirmed atheist” by the time he met Barack’s mother, who in turn “professed secularism.” His stepfather, Lolo Soetoro, “like most Indonesians, was raised a Muslim,” though a non-practicing, syncretic one who (Dreams, p. 37) “followed a brand of Islam that could make room for the remnants of more ancient animist and Hindu faiths.”
As for himself, Obama acknowledges numerous connections to Islam but denies being a Muslim. “The only connection I’ve had to Islam is that my grandfather on my father’s side came from that country,” he declared in Dec. 2007. “But I’ve never practiced Islam. … For a while, I lived in Indonesia because my mother was teaching there. And that’s a Muslim country. And I went to school. But I didn’t practice.” Likewise, he said in Feb. 2008: “I have never been a Muslim. … other than my name and the fact that I lived in a populous Muslim country for 4 years when I was a child I have very little connection to the Islamic religion.” Note his unequivocal statement here: “I have never been a Muslim.” Under the headline, “Barack Obama Is Not and Has Never Been a Muslim,” Obama’s first presidential campaign website carried an even more emphatic statement in Nov. 2007, stating that “Obama never prayed in a mosque. He has never been a Muslim, was not raised a Muslim, and is a committed Christian.”

“Barry Was Muslim”

But many pieces of evidence argue for Obama having been born and raised a Muslim:
(1) Islam is a patrilineal religion: In Islam, the father passes his faith to the children; and when a Muslim male has children with a non-Muslim female, Islam considers the children Muslim. Obama’s grandfather and father having been Muslims – the extent of their piety matters not at all – means that, in Muslim eyes, Barack was born a Muslim.
(2) Arabic forenames based on the H-S-N trilateral root: All such names (Husayn or Hussein, Hasan, Hassân, Hassanein, Ahsan, and others) are exclusively bestowed on Muslim babies. (The same goes for names based on the H-M-D root.) Obama’s middle name, Hussein, explicitly proclaims him a born Muslim.

Obama’s registration document at Santo Fransiskus Asisi, a Catholic school, in Jakarta. (Click to enlarge)

(3) Registered as Muslim at SD Katolik Santo Fransiskus Asisi: Obama was registered at a Catholic school in Jakarta as “Barry Soetoro.” A surviving document correctly lists him as born in Honolulu on Aug. 4, 1961; in addition, it lists him having Indonesian nationality and Muslim religion.
(4) Registered as Muslim at SD Besuki: Although Besuki (also known as SDN 1 Menteng) is a public school, Obama curiously refers to it in Audacity (p. 154) as “the Muslim school” he attended in Jakarta. Its records have not survived but several journalists (Haroon Siddiqui of the Toronto Star, Paul Watson of the Los Angeles Times, David Maraniss of the Washington Post) have all confirmed that there too, he was registered as a Muslim.
(5) Islamic class at Besuki: Obama mentions (Audacity, p. 154) that at Besuki, “the teacher wrote to tell my mother that I made faces during Koranic studies.” Only Muslim students attended the weekly two-hour Koran class, Watson reports:

two of his teachers, former Vice Principal Tine Hahiyari and third-grade teacher Effendi, said they remember clearly that at this school too, he was registered as a Muslim, which determined what class he attended during weekly religion lessons. “Muslim students were taught by a Muslim teacher, and Christian students were taught by a Christian teacher,” said Effendi.

Andrew Higgins of the Washington Post quotes Rully Dasaad, a former classmate, saying that Obama horsed around in class and, during readings of the Koran, got “laughed at because of his funny pronunciation.” Maraniss learned that the class included not only studying “how to pray and how to read the Koran,” but also actually praying in the Friday communal service right on the school grounds.

Obama with his class at SD Besuki, a public school, in Jakarta.

(6) Mosque attendance: Maya Soetoro-Ng, Obama’s younger half-sister, said her father (namely, Barack’s stepfather) attended the mosque “for big communal events,” Barker found that “Obama occasionally followed his stepfather to the mosque for Friday prayers.” Watson reports:

The childhood friends say Obama sometimes went to Friday prayers at the local mosque. “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 Zulfin Adi, who describes himself as among Obama’s closest childhood friends. … Sometimes, when the muezzin sounded the call to prayer, Lolo and Barry would walk to the makeshift mosque together, Adi said. “His mother often went to the church, but Barry was Muslim. He went to the mosque,” Adi said.

(7) Muslim clothing: Adi recalls about Obama, “I remember him wearing a sarong.” Likewise, Maraniss found not only that “His classmates recalled that Barry wore a sarong” but written exchanges indicating that he continued to wear this garment in the United States. This fact has religious implications because, in Indonesian culture, only Muslims wear sarongs.
(8) Piety: Obama says that in Indonesia, he “didn’t practice [Islam],” an assertion that inadvertently acknowledges his Muslim identity by implying he was a non-observant Muslim. But several of those who knew him contradict this recollection. Rony Amir describes Obama as “previously quite religious in Islam.” A former teacher, Tine Hahiyary, quoted in the Kaltim Post, says the future president took part in advanced Islamic religious lessons: “I remember that he had studied mengaji.” In the context of Southeast Asian Islam, mengaji Quran means to recite the Koran in Arabic, a difficult task denoting advanced study.
In summary, the record points to Obama having been born a Muslim to a non-practicing Muslim father and having lived for four years in a fully Muslim milieu under the auspices of his Muslim Indonesian stepfather. For these reasons, those who knew Obama in Indonesia considered him a Muslim.

“My Muslim Faith”

In addition, several statements by Obama in recent years point to his Muslim childhood.
(1) Robert Gibbs, campaign communications director for Obama’s first presidential race, asserted in Jan. 2007: “Senator Obama has never been a Muslim, was not raised a Muslim, and is a committed Christian who attends the United Church of Christ in Chicago.” But he backtracked in March 2007, asserting that “Obama has never been a practicing Muslim.” By focusing on the practice as a child, the campaign is raising a non-issue for Muslims (like Jews) do not consider practice central to religious identity. Gibbs added, according to a paraphrase by Watson, that “as a child, Obama had spent time in the neighborhood’s Islamic center.” Clearly, “the neighborhood’s Islamic center” is a euphemism for “mosque”; spending time there again points to Obama’s being a Muslim.
(2) He may have made faces and horsed around in Koran class but Obama learned how to pray the salat in religion class; his former teacher at Besuki, Effendi, recalls that he would “join the other pupils for Muslim prayers.” Praying the salat in of itself made Obama a Muslim. Furthermore, he still proudly retains knowledge from that long-ago class: in March 2007, Nicholas D. Kristof of the New York Times, witnessed as Obama “recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, reciting them [to Kristof] with a first-rate accent.” Obama recited not the salat itself but the adhan, the call to prayer (typically chanted from minarets). The second and third lines of the adhan constitute the Islamic declaration of faith, the shahada, whose very utterance makes one a Muslim. The full adhan in its Sunni iteration (skipping the repetitions) goes as follows:

God is the greatest.
I testify that there is no deity but God.
I testify that Muhammad is the Messenger of God.
Come to prayer.
Come to success.
God is the greatest.
There is no deity except God.

In the eyes of Muslims, reciting the adhan in class in 1970 made Obama a Muslim then – and doing so again for a journalist in 2007 once again made Obama a Muslim.
(3) In a conversation with George Stephanopoulos in September 2008, Obama spoke of “my Muslim faith,” only changing that to “my Christian faith” after Stephanopoulos interrupted and corrected him. No one could blurt out “my Muslim faith” unless some basis existed for such a mistake.
(4) When addressing Muslim audiences, Obama uses specifically Muslim phrases that recall his Muslim identity. He addressed audiences both in Cairo (in June 2009) and Jakarta (in Nov. 2010) with “as-salaamu alaykum,” a greeting that he, who went to Koran class, knows is reserved for one Muslim addressing another. In Cairo, he also deployed several other pious terms that signal to Muslims he is one of them:

  • “the Holy Koran” (a term mentioned five times): an exact translation from the standard Arabic reference to the Islamic scripture, al-Qur’an al-Karim.
  • “the right path”: a translation of the Arabic as-sirat al-mustaqim, which Muslims ask God to guide them along each time they pray.
  • “I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed”: non-Muslims do not refer to Islam as revealed.
  • “the story of Isra, when Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed … joined in prayer”: this Koranic tale of a night journey establishes the leadership of Muhammad over all other holy figures, including Jesus.
  • “Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed, peace be upon them”: a translation of the Arabic ‘alayhim as-salam, which pious Muslim say after mentioning the names of dead prophets other than Muhammad. (A different salutation, sall Allahu alayhi wa-sallam, “May God honor him and grant him peace,” properly follows Muhammad’s name, but this phrase is almost never said in English.)

Obama speaking about Islam in Cairo in June 2009.

Obama’s saying “Peace be upon them” has other implications beyond being a purely Islamic turn of phrase never employed by Arabic-speaking Jews and Christians. First, it contradicts what a self-professed Christian believes because it implies that Jesus, like Moses and Muhammad, is dead; Christian theology holds him to have been resurrected, living, and the immortal Son of God. Second, including Muhammad in this blessing implies reverence for him, something as outlandish as a Jew talking about Jesus Christ. Third, a Christian would more naturally seek peace from Jesus rather than wish peace on him.
(5) Obama’s overblown and inaccurate description of Islam in the United States smacks of an Islamist mentality. He drastically overestimates both the number and the role of Muslims in the United States, announcing in June 2009 that “if you actually took the number of Muslims Americans, we’d be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world.” (Hardly: according to one listing of Muslim populations, the United States, with about 2.5 million Muslims, ranks about 47th largest.) Three days later, he gave a bloated estimate of “nearly 7 million American Muslims in our country today” and bizarrely announced that “Islam has always been a part of America’s story. … since our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States.” Obama also announced the dubious fact, in Apr. 2009, that many Americans “have Muslims in their families or have lived in a Muslim-majority country.” When ordering religious communities in the United States, Obama always gives first place to Christians but second place varies between Jews and Muslims, most notably in his Jan. 2009 inaugural speech: “The United States is a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus and non-believers.” Obama so wildly overestimates the Muslim role in American life that they suggest an Islamic supremacist mentality specific to someone coming from a Muslim background.
In the aggregate, these statements confirm the evidence from Obama’s childhood that he was born and raised a Muslim.

“My Whole Family Was Muslim”

Several individuals who know Obama well perceive him as Muslim. Most remarkably, his half-sister, Maya Soetoro-Ng, has stated: “My whole family was Muslim.” Her whole family, obviously, includes her half-brother Barack.
In June 2006, Obama related how, after a long religious evolution, he “was finally able to walk down the aisle of Trinity United Church of Christ on 95th Street in the Southside of Chicago one day and affirm my Christian faith” with an altar call. But when his pastor at Trinity United, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, was asked (by Edward Klein, The Amateur, p. 40), “Did you convert Obama from Islam to Christianity?” Whether out of ignorance or discretion, Wright finessed the question, replying enigmatically: “That’s hard to tell.” Note his not rejecting out of hand the idea that Obama had been a Muslim.
Barack’s 30-year-old half-brother who met him twice, George Hussein Onyango Obama, told an interviewer in March 2009 that “He may be behaving differently due to the position he is in, but on the inside Barack Obama is Muslim.”

“His Middle Name Is Hussein”

Muslims cannot shake the sense that, under his proclaimed Christian identity, Obama truly is one of them.
Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, the prime minister of Turkey, has referred to Hussein as a “Muslim” name. Muslim discussions of Obama sometimes mention his middle name as a code, with no further comment needed. A conversation in Beirut, quoted in the Christian Science Monitor, captures the puzzlement. “He has to be good for Arabs because he is a Muslim,” observed a grocer. “He’s not a Muslim, he’s a Christian,” replied a customer. No, said the grocer, “He can’t be a Christian. His middle name is Hussein.” The name is proof positive.

Despite knowing better, Asma Gull Hasan “can’t seem to accept that Obama is not Muslim.”

The American Muslim writer Asma Gull Hasan wrote in “My Muslim President Obama,”

I know President Obama is not Muslim, but I am tempted nevertheless to think that he is, as are most Muslims I know. In a very unscientific oral poll, ranging from family members to Muslim acquaintances, many of us feel … that we have our first American Muslim president in Barack Hussein Obama. … since Election Day, I have been part of more and more conversations with Muslims in which it was either offhandedly agreed that Obama is Muslim or enthusiastically blurted out. In commenting on our new president, “I have to support my fellow Muslim brother,” would slip out of my mouth before I had a chance to think twice. “Well, I know he’s not really Muslim,” I would quickly add. But if the person I was talking to was Muslim, they would say, “yes he is.”

By way of explanation, Hasan mentions Obama’s middle name. She concludes: “Most of the Muslims I know (me included) can’t seem to accept that Obama is not Muslim.”
If Muslims get these vibes, not surprisingly, so does the American public. Five polls in 2008-09 by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press asking “Do you happen to know what Barack Obama’s religion is?” found a consistent 11-12 percent of registered American voters averring that he’s really a Muslim, with much larger percentages among Republicans and Evangelicals. This number increased to 18 percent in an Aug. 2010 Pew survey. A March 2012 poll found about half the likely Republican voters in both Alabama and Mississippi seeing Obama as a Muslim. Pew’s June-July 2012 survey found that 17 percent saying Obama is a Muslim and 31 percent not knowing his religion, with just 49 percent identifying him as a Christian. This points to an even split between those who say Obama is a Christian and those who do not.
That those who see him as Muslim also overwhelmingly disapprove of his job performance points to a correlation in their minds between Muslim identity and a failed presidency. That such a substantial portion of the public persists in this view points to a bedrock of reluctance to take Obama at his word about being a Christian. This in turn reflects the widespread sense that Obama has played fast and loose with his biography.

“He Was Interested in Islam”

While attending school in Indonesia, Obama famously attended Koranic class; less known, as he recalled in Mar. 2004, was his “studying the Bible and catechisms” at the Asisi school. As each of these classes were intended just for believers, attending both was irregular. Several of his former teachers there confirm Obama’s recollection. Here are three of them on this topic:

  • Obama’s first-grade teacher at Asisi, Israella Dharmawan, recalled to Watson of the Los Angeles Times: “At that time, Barry was also praying in a Catholic way, but Barry was Muslim. … He was registered as a Muslim because his father, Lolo Soetoro, was Muslim.”
  • Obama’s former third-grade teacher at Besuki, Effendi, told Anne Barrowclough of the Times (London), that the school had pupils of many faiths and recalled how students attended classes on their own faiths – except for Obama, who alone insisted on attending both Christian and Islamic classes. He did so even against the wishes of his Christian mother: “His mother did not like him learning Islam, although his father was a Muslim. Sometimes she came to the school; she was angry with the religious teacher and said ‘Why did you teach him the Koran?’ But he kept going to the classes because he was interested in Islam.”
  • An administrator at Besuki, Akhmad Solikhin, expressed (to an Indonesian newspaper, the Kaltim Post, Jan. 27, 2007, translation provided by “An American Expat in Southeast Asia,” quote edited for clarity) bafflement at Obama’s religion: “He indeed was registered as Muslim, but he claims to be Christian.”

This double religiosity, admittedly, is being discussed at a time when Obama is an international personality and when the nature of his religious affiliation had taken on political overtones; still, that three figures from his Indonesian past independently made this same point is striking and points to the complexity of Barack Obama’s personal development. They also raise the inconclusive but intriguing possibility that Obama, even at the tender age of six through ten, sought to combine his maternal and paternal religions into a personal syncretic whole, presenting himself as both Christian and Muslim. In subtle ways, he still does just that.

Discovering the Truth

In conclusion, available evidence suggests that Obama was born and raised a Muslim and retained a Muslim identity until his late 20s. Child to a line of Muslim males, given a Muslim name, registered as a Muslim in two Indonesian schools, he read Koran in religion class, still recites the Islamic declaration of faith, and speaks to Muslim audiences like a fellow believer. Between his non-practicing Muslim father, his Muslim stepfather, and his four years of living in a Muslim milieu, he was both seen by others and saw himself as a Muslim.
This is not to say that he was a practicing Muslim or that he remains a Muslim today, much less an Islamist, nor that his Muslim background significantly influences his political outlook (which, in fact, is typical of an American leftist). Nor is there a problem about his converting from Islam to Christianity. The issue is Obama’s having specifically and repeatedly lied about his Muslim identity. More than any other single deception, Obama’s treatment of his own religious background exposes his moral failings.

Questions about Obama’s Truthfulness

Yet, these failings remain largely unknown to the American electorate. Consider the contrast of his case and that of James Frey, the author of A Million Little Pieces. Both Frey and Obama wrote inaccurate memoirs that Oprah Winfrey endorsed and rose to #1 on the non-fiction bestseller list. When Frey’s literary deceptions about his own drug taking and criminality became apparent, Winfrey tore viciously into him, a library reclassified his book as fiction, and the publisher offered a refund to customers who felt deceived.
In contrast, Obama’s falsehoods are blithely excused; Arnold Rampersad, professor of English at Stanford University who teaches autobiography, admiringly called Dreams “so full of clever tricks—inventions for literary effect—that I was taken aback, even astonished. But make no mistake, these are simply the tricks that art trades in, and out of these tricks is supposed to come our realization of truth.” Gerald Early, professor of English literature and African-American studies at Washington University in St. Louis, goes further: “It really doesn’t matter if he made up stuff. … I don’t think it much matters whether Barack Obama has told the absolute truth in Dreams From My Father. What’s important is how he wanted to construct his life.”
How odd that a lowlife’s story about his sordid activities inspires high moral standards while the U.S. president’s autobiography gets a pass. Tricky Dick, move over for Bogus Barry.

Mr. Pipes (www.DanielPipes.org) is president of the Middle East Forum. © 2012 by Daniel Pipes. All rights reserved.


Saudi Study; Sex Abuse Rampent as well as Homosexuality

February 27, 2012
The cause of gender persuasion according to the Muslim public health experts censored on youtube. This does not mean that gay identity isn’t natural or part of our nature… It might be normal for women to lean to a gay persuasion after a bad experience with the opposite sex. For many men a forced gay sexual experience might have the opposite pull and might fetish a traumatic experience. Peace is found through gender analysis: More Egyptian women and Saudi and Jordanian men accept a Jewish Israel than their gender counterparts, whereas among the Lebanese both sexes rank similarly.

Muslims Are Not a Minority

April 19, 2011

In the UK more people attend mosques than the Church of England, that makes Muslims the largest functioning religious group there. Mohammed was the most popular baby name last year, ahead of Jack and Harry. In France, in this generation, more mosques have been built than Catholic churches and in southern France there are already more mosques than churches. Mohammed-Amine is the most popular double name, ahead of Jean-Baptiste, Pierre-Louis, Leo-Paul and Mohammed-Ali.
In Belgium, 50 percent of newborns are Muslim and empty Belgian churches are being turned into mosques. The most popular baby name is Mohammed and of the top 7 baby names, 6 were Muslim. A quarter of Amsterdam, Marseilles and Rotterdam and a fifth of Stockholm is already Muslim. The most popular baby name in Amsterdam, Utrecht, Rotterdam and The Hague is… Mohammed.
Europe’s Muslim population doubled in the last generation, and is set to double again. By 2025, (a decade and a half away), a third of all births in the EU will be Muslim. The demographic writing is already on the wall. A third of Muslims in France and Germany are teenagers or younger, as compared to a fifth of the native population. A third of Muslims in the UK and Belgium are under 15 versus a fifth of the native population. Counting all age groups, they’re a minority. But in generational demographics, Muslims are swiftly becoming a majority.
Looking at these numbers it is hard to argue that Muslims are a minority. They are not a majority at the moment, but majorities are not just a statistical snapshot, but a cultural and demographic trend. Countries are not defined by the past, or even by the present, but by the future. By the direction in which they are headed. And Europe’s future is a Muslim majority. Most European governments have accepted that and are acting on it. There may currently be more warm European bodies than Muslim ones, but the culture is being steered by the assumption of an Islamic future.
America is not nearly as vulnerable to the Muslim demographic bomb, because it is less socialist and more multicultural. It also has no former Muslim colonies, like England or France. Or at least it didn’t have any before. But the liberation of Iraq has touched off a swarm of ‘refugees’ moving to the United States. While some of them are Christian, the majority are Muslim. By law we are obligated to accept 5,000 a year. The 2008 target for Iraqi immigration was 12,000, far more than most of the former Soviet Union combined. Not significant numbers alone, but they are part of a bigger picture.
In 2005, almost 100,000 Muslims became legal residents of the US. In 2009, it was 115,000. And the numbers continue to rise each year. That means that already they make up around 10 percent of immigrants to the US. The number of Egyptian and Syrian immigrants has more than doubled since 9/11. The number of Turkish immigrants has more than tripled. The number of Afghanis has tripled. Somalis have gone up from nearly 3,000 to nearly 14,000 a year. Pakistan hit a high of 21,000 in 2009 and Saudis are up by 50 percent.
Not nation shattering numbers in and of themselves, but let’s look at them in relation to birth rates.
The United States birth rate was 13.5. Pakistan’s birth rate is 24.1. Egypt’s birth rate is 24.6. The Saudi birth rate is 19.3. The Afghani birth rate is 37.3. The Somali birth rate is 42.7. What this means is that we are importing Muslim immigrants with a birth rate that twice or even three times higher than our own.

The United States birth rate is already inflated by its own immigrants, including large numbers of Latinos and the million plus Muslims already in the US, so the baseline numbers are even worse. But these numbers are bad enough, as the social services departments of Amsterdam or Malmo could tell you. We are not importing 115,000 Muslims a year. No, we’re importing as many as 2,500 Muslim babies a year into our demographic pool.
Compare that to the 25,000 Korean immigrants in 2009, from a country with an average birth rate of 8.5. Increase Korean immigration fivefold until they outnumber the annual number of Muslim immigrants, and you still aren’t even importing a 1,000 babies a year. A thousand Somali immigrants are the demographic equivalent of 5,000 Korean immigrants because the Somali birth rate is 5 times the Korean birth rate. The 25,000 Korean immigrants represent a mere 212 babies a year, but the 14,000 Somalis represent 600 babies a year.
This is how demographic suicide creeps up on nations. And this also is an incomplete picture. The Korean-American intermarriage rate is at over 50 percent. There are no statistics for Somali intermarriage rates in the US, but Muslims do not leave their religion upon marriage. And in Sweden and Norway, Somali intermarriage rates are very low. Which means the Little Mogadishus growing across the United States are not going anywhere. And given time, there will be a Little Mogadishu in your city too.
Despite all this Mohammed won’t be the most popular baby name in the United States any time soon. But a Muslim population boom will sneak up on us. It already is. Yet population-wise Muslims are a minority. But are they really?
There are two kinds of minorities. The first kind come from countries where they were a minority or under foreign rule. The Irish, Jews, Tibetans, Armenians and Norwegians are all examples of that. The second kind of minority isn’t really a minority at all. This ‘minority’ immigrates from countries where they are the ruling majority. They are not persecuted and are not escaping anything except living in a failed state.
These “Majority Minorities” are designated as minorities by political correctness, but they don’t think of themselves as minorities or act like minorities. They are used to being the dominant culture and when they are hostile, it is not because of a sense of persecution, but xenophobia. While they are labeled minorities– they actually behave like majorities.

Think of those immigration rallies where Mexican immigrants wave their flag and taunt and insult passerby, or demand their language everywhere and treat any opposition as a violent attack on their privileges. They are acting like the majority culture– which in their minds they are. Much like the way pre-state Texans responded to Mexican demands. But the absurdity of PC protocols insists that the descendants of European settlers from Spain with their European language are a racial minority, even though they are a majority in their own countries and on the continent.
Muslims are also “Majority Minorities”, who act with all the entitlements and privileges of a majority. When Somali cabbies refuse to carry airport passengers with duty free liquor or almost half of Muslims in the UK want Sharia law—  they are behaving as if they already are the majority entitled to force their culture, their law and their religion on the minority. And in their eyes, we are the minority, because they have no cultural tradition of how to be minorities. The Irish, the Jews and African-Americans have a cultural memory of being persecuted that they retain in song and story. But Muslims have rushed to wipe away the shame of briefly living under European colonialism by casting back to the golden age when they were the oppressors, reviving the Caliphate and lashing out violently at even the slightest criticism of their religion.
Muslims in America and Europe are still numerical minorities, but they act like majorities. And they are doing everything they can to become majorities. Treating them like minorities is a mistake, that Europe has already come to regret and that we are only beginning to learn the folly of. Muslims can either be a minority or a majority. If they choose to act like a majority, imposing their culture, religion and worldview on others– then they should be treated like one.

Posted via email from noahdavidsimon’s posterous

Leave a Comment » | Islam, Muslim | Permalink
Posted by Noah Simon