Unbelievable coming from Bill Maher, but
completely believable in his argument! I never thought I would see that avowed lefty getting something like this right.

Watch this…

I can’t believe I actually have a reason to say this, but… Right On, Maher!

It’s difficult to know where to begin here, perhaps the following should comprise more than one post, but we’ll put it all together since it basically sums out to the relationship between “our” president, the Muslim Brotherhood and their associates and the threat so-called “radical” Islam poses to both the United States and the rest of the civilized world.

From the Investigative Project on Terrorism, a brief interview with Steven Emerson:

From the lips of Barack Obama to YouTube video:

From Freedom Outpost:

As world leaders gather at the United Nations building in New York, one can expect the… expected. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has a turn at the podium on Monday and wasted no time blasting Israel and saying the country would be “eliminated.” Israeli representatives walked out of the speech, but what about the Americans?

As reported by Reuters, “Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Monday Israel has no roots in the Middle East and would be ‘eliminated,’ ignoring a U.N. warning to avoid incendiary rhetoric ahead of the annual General Assembly session.”

Ahmadinejad also said he did not take seriously the threat that Israel could launch a military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, denied sending arms to Syria, and alluded to Iran’s threats to the life of British author Salman Rushdie.

The United States quickly dismissed the Iranian president’s comments as “disgusting, offensive and outrageous.”

Isn’t that what Barack Obama and his administration said about the Internet video that they blamed for initially causing the death of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens while doing little else to protect him?

Just how outraged were U.S. representatives? Not enough to walk out of the speech in protest. As reported by Breitbart.com, as Israeli envoy Ron Prosor left Ahmadinejad’s speech in protest, the U.S. delegation hung around to listen.

Emphasis mine.

Of course the U.S. Delegation, part of Obama’s State Department
hung around to listen. After all, they have to be polite to kindred spirits.

too bad Barack Obama thought it was more important to be on The View than to be in New York with other world leaders. There are real issues going on around the world, Mr. President. Maybe you should be involved.

Of course he should.

Also of course, there’s this…

It seems that even if there were no other reason Barack Hussein Obama is so pro-Islamist, his indebtedness to one Saudi prince Al-Waleed bin Talal might have tipped the scales, though we doubt it: Being as he is so anti-U.S. Constitution, he might also have sought out Islam because, even more than communism, it is the direct antithesis to the freedoms made available through the tenets of that great document.

The boost from the weed Al-Waleed bin Talal was probably just icing on the cake.

At least that’s what they seem to be thinking at that big white house on Pennsylvania Avenue these days.

From Conservative Byte (above link) and Breitbart:

Today, the National Journal reported that a senior State Department official has announced, “The war on terror is over.”

“Now that we have killed most of al Qaida,” the source said, “now that people have come to see legitimate means of expression, people who once might have gone into al Qaida see an opportunity for a legitimate Islamism.”

The article itself describes the Obama administration’s new vision of foreign policy, which admits no enemies. Everyone, in this view, is a friend. Islamism, says the Obama administration, is just fine, so long as it does not openly support terrorism.

This, of course, is utter foolishness. Islamism is a religious ideological movement that brooks no real alternatives – so while the State Department proclaims “a legitimate Islamism,” it fails to acknowledge that Islamism, “legitimate” or not, is deeply intolerant of any other modes of expression. Not only that, but Islamism works hand-in-glove with terror groups around the world. Simply because a regime does not openly house al Qaida does not mean that the regime doesn’t support al Qaida; just because a regime pretends at democracy doesn’t mean that it has real democratic values.

Obama has created the brave new Middle East – a Middle East that assumes that every human heart has the desire to vote, but not to be truly free; a Middle East that oppresses women and gays and minorities, but pretends at liberalism; a Middle East that despises America but hides that hate behind a façade of multiculturalism, even as it disposes of its internal dissenters.

In truth, Obama isn’t declaring an end to the war on terror – terrorism continues unabated each day in Egypt and the Palestinian territories and Iraq and Afghanistan and Sudan and Yemen and Syria and Lebanon and a dozen other hotspots around the globe. Obama is truly declaring an end to the war on Islamism. He has made his peace; he has surrendered. In doing so, he has condemned broad swaths of the world to darkness, and more immediately, he has condemned America to a defensive position in the world. Now there is no proactive America shaping the world to her own ends. Now there is only an atomistic world, a series of billiard balls, in which America waits to be struck before bouncing back.

To Obama, the war on Islamism may be over. For Islamists, the war on America is far from over.

Ah, the deceptively peaceful aromas and gentle breezes of the Arab Spring…

All of which goes rather hand in glove with a column by Frank Gaffney.

Have you ever asked yourself why, despite more than 10 years of effort - involving, among other things, the loss of thousands of lives in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, well over $1 trillion spent, countless man-years wasted waiting in airport security lines and endless efforts to ensure that no offense is given to seemingly permanently aggrieved Muslim activists - we are no closer to victory in the “war on terrorism” than we were on Sept. 11, 2001?

Thankfully, we have been able to kill some dangerous bad guys. The sad truth is that by almost any other measure, the prospect of victory is becoming more remote by the day. No one seems able to explain the reason.

In an effort to provide the missing answer, on Tuesday , the Center for Security Policy is making available via the Internet a new, free 10-part video course titled “The Muslim Brotherhood in America: The Enemy Within” (MuslimBrotherhoodinAmerica.com). This course connects the proverbial dots, drawing on a wealth of publicly available data and firsthand accounts to present a picture that has, for more than a decade, been obscured, denied and suppressed.

In addition to the threat of violent jihad, America faces another, even more toxic danger - a stealthy and pre-violent form of warfare aimed at destroying our constitutional form of democratic government and free society. The Muslim Brotherhood is the prime mover behind this seditious campaign, which it calls “civilization jihad.”

The Muslim Brotherhood? Yes, that would be the same organization to which President Obama recently transferred $1.5 billion of our tax dollars in a lump-sum payment. For him to do so, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton had to waive congressionally imposed restrictions born of fully justified concerns about the nature and direction of the Shariah-adherent government the Brotherhood is birthing in Egypt.

Mrs. Clinton’s presidentially directed waiver came despite the following: the Brotherhood-dominated government’s hostage-taking of American democracy activists; murderous Islamist rampages against Coptic Christians and other religious minorities; the toleration and abetting of escalating violence against Israel in and from the Sinai; and official threats to jettison the 1979 peace treaty with the Jewish state. Matters have only gotten worse since the president’s largesse was made available in an unusual upfront lump-sum payment.

Read all of Mr. Gaffney’s piece here.

Whose side, one has to wonder, is Barack Hussein Obama on, anyway?

At least, that’s what it sounds like.

From The Israel Project:

Jerusalem, April 20 — A top Hamas official said the terrorist group is willing to consider a lasting ceasefire with Israel but still rejects a peace deal with the Jewish state. The ceasefire, or hudna, according to Iran-backed Hamas’ No. 2 leader, Mousa Abu Marzouk, would be similar to arrangements between Israel and Syria and Israel and Lebanon.

“Let’s establish a relationship between the two states in the historic Palestinian land as a hudna between both sides,” Marzouk said during a wide-ranging, two-day interview with The Forward newspaper. “It’s better than war and better than the continuous resistance against the occupation.”
But that doesn’t mean Hamas plans to soften its stance on its position toward Israel.

“We will not recognize Israel as a state,” he said emphatically. “It will be like the relationship between Lebanon and Israel or Syria and Israel.” Neither, according to the interview, did Marzouk say Hamas planned to renounce terrorism or live by previous Israeli-Palestinian agreements – principles set forth by the Middle East Quartet. The Quartet comprises the United States, the European Union, the United Nations, and Russia.

Neither, Marzouk said, would he be willing to negotiate with Israel for the ceasefire. And any changes in Hamas’ stance toward Israel, Marzouk said, would have to be approved in a referendum that includes votes by Palestinian refugees worldwide.

In other words, “we may stop the terrorism, or we may not, and if we do, it’ll only be until such time as we decide to start doing so again.”

How Palestinian of them!

From the Washington Times:

A lawmaker from Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood said Thursday that there would be “no referendum at all” on the country’s peace treaty with Israel, hours after the Islamist group’s presidential candidate made his unexpected bid official.

Come again?

Asked whether a Brotherhood-led government would put the 1979 Camp David Accords to a referendum, as many of the group’s leaders have promised, Mr. Dardery said no.

“No referendum at all concerning international obligations,” he said. “All our international agreements are respected by the Freedom and Justice Party, including Camp David.”

These are the same people who said they would not run a candidate to take over Mubarak’s former job as president of Egypt. If I’m not mistaken, that’s exactly what they’re doing now.

Of course, our gullible politicians, along with every Islamist’s friend Barack Hussein Obama, (and the missus) will choose to believe that this parent organization of Hamas is sincere, not simply trying to gain friends in the U.S. Government and support from Washington for its candidacy.

No matter how often Islam’s miscreants prove to us that it’s okay, in their belief system, to lie to infidels, we continue to act as though they are credible people.

Chuck here.

First off, in the Duh! Department:

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has been connected to the terrorist organization Hamas, a federal judge said in a July 2009 ruling just unsealed.
“The government has produced ample evidence to establish the associations of CAIR, ISNA, NAIT, with NAIT, the Islamic Association for Palestine, and with Hamas,” U.S. District Court Judge Jorge Solis said in the July 1, 2009, ruling.

CAIR, the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT) had protested to Solis that they were incorrectly named as unindicted co-conspirators in the 2008 trial of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development. Among the allegations, HLF was accused of having provided more than $12 million to Hamas. After a 2007 mistrial, five former HLF officials convictedon 108 counts, ranging from money laundering to conspiring to provide material support to terrorists.

Like we hadn’t a clue…

Meanwhile, just down the hall in the Moxi Department:

The so-called ground zero mosque recently applied for a $5 million federal grant from a fund designed to rebuild lower Manhattan after 9/11, reports The Daily Beast’s John Avlon.

Developers of the controversial Park51 Islamic community center and mosque located two blocks from ground zero earlier this month applied for roughly $5 million in federal grant money set aside for the redevelopment of lower Manhattan after the attacks of September 11, according to two sources with direct knowledge of the matter.

{Snip!}

While news of the application has not previously been made public, developer Sharif El-Gamal outlined it in closed-door meetings, according to two individuals he spoke with directly. The thirtysomething, Brooklyn-born El-Gamal is motivated more by real estate ambition—one of these sources describes him as aspiring to be the next Donald Trump—than Islamic theology or ideology.

Park51’s developers clearly have a legal right to apply for the grant. A list of Frequently Asked Questions that accompanied the application specifically states that religious organizations can make funding requests for capital projects “as long as the request is for a facility or portion of a facility that is dedicated to non-religious activities or uses.” According to an individual familiar with the Park51 application, it requests funds to cover a number of cultural, educational and community development aspects of the proposed 13-story building—but the prayer room is excluded from the grant application.

Here’s where we hunker down and see if A) the “revelations” about CAIR’s involvements in terrorism will have the effect of curtailing the government’s ass kissing on terrorism’s PR agency, and B) whether or not the same government agrees to pay for Islamofascism’s tribute to their 9/11 “victory” the Park51 Islamic “Cultural Center”.

What we’re doing now is hunkering…

…the same tired blackmail, which of course is working, as always.

Without exception, every time anything happens anywhere that is “offensive to Islam”, Muslims everywhere immediately riot, burn property and murder innocent people, yet Islam promotes itself as a peaceful religion.

It seems to me that any religion whose believers respond to every insult or perceived gesture or act of disrespect with extreme violence is anything but peaceful, anything but capable of intelligent or semi-adult discourse (hell, their now predictable responses are not any different from the tantrums thrown by spoiled pre-adolescent children, except in the sense that people who have nothing to do with the matter at hand are killed or crippled, when they don’t get their way), anything but fit to exist among civilized human beings.

If a non-Muslim citizen threatens to indulge in criminal activity as a response to an insult or other slight, he or she is forcefully reminded that such behavior will result in prosecution and sentencing to prison. This does not apply, apparently, to “the faithful”.

The Cordoba House imam threatens, without threatening directly (the “penalty” is, of course, understood, as violence is an established standard of global Islamic response), that if his project does not go ahead as planned, in its close proximity to Ground Zero, murder and mayhem by peaceful Muslims worldwide.

General Petraeus, President O and others fear the same sort of backlash if that pastor in Florida burns Korans tomorrow.

Of course, it’s a violation of Muslims’ religious rights to prevent them from opening mosques here in America that preach death to infidels.

Meanwhile, possession of a Judeo-Christian Bible in Saudi Arabia is a crime punishable by imprisonment or worse, and woe be to anyone who dares try and build a church or synagogue there.

Burning American flags is also a popular pass-time in some Islamic countries, as is loudly and joyously celebrating the aftermath of successful terrorist attacks in western countries.

The way things are going, Islamofascists won’t have to use actual violence to deprive us of our right to worship as we believe or of our most basic liberties; They’ll only have to bully our politicians with threats of Muslim riots and other violence to obtain unconditional surrender.

As Erick Erickson of Red State fame puts it, you cannot win with these people.

…it seems that as they usually do, those who support a cause either because it fits an illogical or pronouncedly unpopular agenda of theirs or because they are, at least to some extent, obtuse, present arguments that intentionally omit the primary arguments expressed by their opposition.

This is certainly the case in the kerfuffle involving the intention to build a mosque in uncomfortably close proximity to Ground Zero.

From what I’m given to understand, there was already a mosque there, albeit a small one attended by local Muslims. However, the project at hand is for a large Islamic center, which, speaking for myself, is offensive. Not because I would deny Muslims a place of worship, but because the World Trade Center, having been destroyed along with thousands of lives in the name of Islam, is, like it or not, a memorial in itself not only to those who were murdered in the name of “The Religion of Peace” but also to those police, firefighters and others who lost their lives attempting, bravely and selflessly, to save those of others.

Erecting an Islamic center just there would be the same thing as raising a victory banner for Osama bin Laden and every other militant Islamofasist on earth, commemorating their victory (yes, to those sick f##ks, mass murder is a form of victory) over America and believers in liberty everywhere. Ergo, a very hard slap in the face to those of us who mourn the victims of 11 September 2001.

But I digress, as usual.

Getting back to the beginning of this post: I read letters to editors and opinions at other forums, again and again, whose writers accuse us detractors of racism, of wanting to deny Muslims a place of worship in Manhattan. These people are either obtuse, as I wrote above, or they are intentionally ignoring the true reasons for our opposition.

To them, I say: “It’s not the fact of a mosque being built in Manhattan, boneheads, it’s purely the location of the intended mosque.

The developer and the Imam involved are both well aware of this as well, and by their insistence on building it there no matter what the majority of New Yorkers and, for that matter, Americans feel about this they make it quite plain that they are ramming it down our throats for exactly the reason I stated above: To shove 9/11 in our faces, to remind us constantly that Muslims did it to us, to plant a victory flag right at the site of their grisly, destructive handiwork.

If this weren’t their sole set of reasons, they would have accepted the state-owned land in another location, offered by Governor Paterson, or sought a different location on their own when they realized that there was so much heartfelt mass opposition to the place at hand.

Once the project, which is strongly endorsed by Bloomberg the Weasel and various other multiculturalist toilet cakes who care not a whit about the will of the American people, has been completed, it will serve as Islamo-terrorists’ raised middle finger to all of us freedom loving Americans for all time.

It’s pretty obvious that once the damn thing is built and in use, its very existence, because of its location, will do more to provoke hostility against Muslims than many acts of terrorism, but rest assured that dhimmi ass hats like Bloomberg will blame small minds, bigotry and anything else that comes to mind, rather than their own ilk for enabling the completion of the project against the wishes of the majority of the voting, tax-paying public that pays them.

Uh, sorry, couldn’t resist.

Well, speaking of Muslim countries…When you attempt, even if you happen to run the government, to keep the terrorist, stone age mentality, baby murdering, fanatical, fascistic, satanic Islamic fundamentalist factions from committing global acts of terror, you definitely have your job cut out for you.

Why?

Because you are an Islamic nation, and there are, therefore, a plentiful supply of Muslims in your country, who believe in doing things the Islamic way.

SAN’A, Yemen (AP) — Four suspected al Qaeda gunmen blasted their way into the intelligence headquarters of Yemen’s second largest city Saturday and freed several detainees in the group’s most spectacular operation since a U.S.-backed government crackdown began late last year.

The attack on the heavily protected security complex killed 11 and further bolstered U.S. concerns that Yemen’s weak central government may not be up to tackling an increasingly effective foe seemingly able to strike anywhere inside or outside the country.

“We were hit where we least expected it,” Yemeni Information Minister Hassan al-Lozy told the Al-Arabiya news channel. “This is a serious escalation from these terrorist elements.”

U.S. officials say insurgents, including Americans, are training in militant camps in Yemen’s vast lawless spaces and allying with powerful tribes opposed to the government of President Ali Abdullah Saleh.

This is obviously a case of runaway Islam!

The fact that one of the most important security institutions in the country’s second largest city could be attacked reflects the state’s weakness, said analyst Mansour Hael, hinting that the attackers must have had inside help.

“The question to ask is how these attackers were able to infiltrate such a fortified security area. This raises a number of suspicions,” he said.

the attackers must have had inside help.

Ya’ think?

Islam, the Religion of Peace.©

In this morning’s (the weekend edition) of Jewish World Review there’s an interesting column by Diana West that’s both well worth the read and “what we been sayin’ all dis time!” on the reason there appears to be such a strong symbiosis between the far left and fundamental Islamists (you know, the folks who bring us terrorism).

At some future date, when what Andrew C. McCarthy calls “the freedom culture” is again secure (we hope), the jihad-opposition will see itself divided into two camps in histories written about our current time: those who ineffectually supported efforts to stop “terrorism” and other supposedly generic outbreaks of violence in such lands as Iraq and Afghanistan; and those, far fewer in number (at least in that difficult decade following 9/11), who recognized terrorism as but one aspect of the civilizational assault emanating from expansionist Islam.

If the freedom culture wins, it will be because the latter group grew in influence. And if the latter group grows in influence, it will be due to such books as McCarthy’s excellent, ground-breaking new work, “The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America.”

Islam and the Left? Since this notion will raise some eyebrows, I asked Andrew himself to elaborate on this and some other related questions.

Q: Why are Islam and the Left, as you demonstrate in “The Grand Jihad,” not such strange bedfellows?

A: “For all their disagreements on matters like women’s rights, gay rights and abortion, Islam and the Left are in harmony on big-picture matters: They are authoritarian, totalitarian in the sense of wanting to control all aspects of human existence, virulently anti-capitalist, and regard the individual as existing merely to serve the collective. Consequently, they have the same obstacle in common: our freedom culture - i.e., Western liberalism, U.S. constitutional republicanism, and their foundation, individual liberty. Historically, Islam and the Left ally when there is a common enemy. But I’d stress that what I am talking about here is an alliance, not a merger. I am not claiming, as someone ridiculously suggested to me the day the book came out, that Barack Obama wants to impose Sharia.”

He doesn’t need to, thank you. “Liberal” fascism would suit him just fine.

Read the entire column here.