Muslim Violence: Politically Correct Weakness Was Inevitable Precursor To Fort Hood Deaths!

According to a November 10 Newsmax article, 10 Percent of 2000 U.S. Mosques Preach Jihad and extremism, the FBI Estimates.

Here are some astounding facts about Islamic thought in the USA. About a quarter of the Muslims in America ages 18 through 29 believe that suicide bombings can be justified, according to a Pew Research Center poll. Generating those attitudes are imams who preach jihad and hatred in American mosques and postings on the Internet, according to FBI counter terrorism officials interviewed for the book, “The Terrorist Watch: Inside the Desperate Race to Stop the Next Attack. The same source said, “It’s not the Irish, it’s not the French, it’s not the Catholics, it’s not the Protestants, it’s the Muslims.” …

The Bible shows that we have a muddled, minority-privilege, criminal-as-victim rationalization within our societies. This view is fueled largely by our liberal leadership and media’s look-the-other-way response and pretending the greatest danger in the war on terror is increased discrimination against peaceful American Muslims. Nothing, but nothing seems to prevent us from prioritizing “sending the right message” to the Islamic world over dealing with the truth.

That sort of thinking puts into perspective  the problem facing us as we ponder the meaning of Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan’s slayings of 13 people at Fort Hood, Texas. Numerous signs point to Hasan’s jihadist motives:

1. His attendance at a mosque with a jihadist hate preacher—Anwar al-Awlaki, the same “spiritual adviser” to three of the 9/11 terrorists.
2. His labeling of the war on terror a “war on Islam.”
3. His identifying his nationality not as American, but Palestinian.
4. His being reprimanded during his postgraduate work for inappropriately proselytizing for Islam.
5. His efforts, noted by U.S. intelligence officials, to contact members of al Qaeda.
6. His evident approval of a Muslim terrorist killing an Army recruiter in Arkansas this past summer.
7. His statements (according to colleague Col. Terry Lee), that Muslims had the right to attack Americans, and that “maybe people should strap bombs on themselves and go to Times Square.”
8. His lecture to doctors at Walter Reed in D.C. where he warned that “adverse events” could occur if the military didn’t release Muslim soldiers as conscientious objectors.
9. His statement, in the same presentation, calling non-Muslims (in the words of the Sunday Telegraph) “infidels condemned to hell who should be set on fire,” and saying they “should be beheaded and have boiling oil poured down their throats.”
10. His statement to a neighbor the morning of the attack, as he gave her a Koran with his business card, “I’m going to do good work for God.”
11. His shout of “Allahu Akbar!” (Allah is great) before he mowed down his victims.

More motives are appearing by the minute and it is clear that the radical element of Islam influenced Hasan.

Don’t expect many retractions from any who assume Hasan’s religion had no bearing on his motive in the attack. That is because political correctness is cherished more than truth. Most in power or in the press have downplayed the jihadist connection from the moment the tragedy happened. They ascribed the attack to Hasan’s supposed mental imbalances, stress from counseling traumatized soldiers, or harassment he endured for being Muslim. Everything at all, except the fact that he is a Muslim with extreme views.

Gen. George Casey, the U.S. Army chief of staff, said it’s important not to speculate about the role his Muslim faith played in the outburst. Well, why not given the facts stated above? Because his concern is to prevent a backlash against Muslims in the military.

President Obama also issued a statement saying, “We don’t know all the answers yet. And I would caution against jumping to conclusions until we have all the facts.”  sounds noble right, except this is the same man who, before knowing all the facts, glibly judged that the Cambridge police’s actions against Henry Louis Gates fit a pattern of racial profiling in America.

I don’t see that these 13 murders will do anything to change the culture of political correctness strangling our Western nations. They have a stubborn, unshakable conviction that the best way to fight Islamist terrorism is to avoid offense. This runs parallel to a prophecy in Isaiah which states: “[W]e have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves.”

The Prophet Moses warned that the end-time nations of Israel, of which the U.S. is one, would suffer. Among their punishments: “The sword without, and terror within, shall destroy both the young man and the virgin, the suckling also with the man of gray hairs.” And why? “For they are a nation void of counsel, neither is there any understanding in them” (Deuteronomy 32:25, 28).

Doesn’t the above information adeptly show a nation void of counsel and bereft of understanding? As long as we continue to cherish political correctness above truth and value diversity over life itself, we will continue to suffer. The reason? Our life is void of God’s word.

Constitutional Assault: Obama’s State Department Appointee

Editors Comment: The article below (from HumanEvents.com)  focuses on the current President’s willfully ignoring the precepts laid down in the United States constitution, compounded by the nomination of Harold Hongju Koh to be the chief lawyer at the U.S. State Department. Mr. Obama is not dumb, and he knows full well of the abstruse views of this man on  ‘transnational jurisprudence.’ As the author says, these could erode American democracy and sovereignty.

—————————————————————————-

neveryetmelted.com

During last year’s campaign, much was made about Barack Obama being a constitutional law professor. Granted, he had distinguished himself in the Illinois State Legislature by voting “present” much of the time, and he had received virtually no experience in the United States Senate before announcing his intentions to run for president. But he was a “constitutional scholar.”

I am not a lawyer, but I do know that in this president’s first one hundred days in office, there have been numerous examples of Obama’s willful ignorance of the precepts laid down in our central founding documents. However, no decision, executive order or appointment has been as blatantly insidious to American sovereignty as the nomination of Harold Hongju Koh to be the chief lawyer at the U.S. State Department.

Like Obama, Koh is extremely bright, but he is a transnationalist; and as such, Obama’s appointment of him as the legal advisor for the Department of State is a shot across the bow for every American who believes that international law should have no bearing on the interpretation of U.S. law. That standard should be reserved for the constitution.

Harold Koh’s highly educated Korean parents immigrated to the United States to become the first Asian-American professors at Yale University. Born in 1954, in Boston, Koh attended Harvard and, like his parents, also went on to become a professor at Yale. In 2004, he became the dean of the Yale Law School.

In a recent Newsweek magazine article, Harold Koh was profiled as “a tweedy, brainy legal scholar who writes brilliant law-review articles that are carefully reasoned, if more or less impenetrable to non-lawyers.” The article went on to say that Koh is likely to be confirmed by the Senate (he served in Bill Clinton’s State Department) and concluded that “he should be.” But Newsweek — certainly no conservative publication — also warned that Koh’s “rather abstruse views on what he calls ‘transnational jurisprudence’ deserve a close look because — taken to their logical extreme — they could erode American democracy and sovereignty.”

The United States Supreme Court has been using foreign law for at least a decade in cases such as Lawrence vs. Texas (2003), which established the right of homosexual sodomy, and Roper vs. Simmons (2005), which overturned the death penalty in juvenile murder cases. Justice Anthony Kennedy, considered the swing vote on the Court, has advocated the use of foreign law in his judicial rulings for years, and even teaches international law in Europe when the High Court is out of session; and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg recently defended the practice of citing international and foreign judicial precedents in Supreme Court rulings. She asked: “Why shouldn’t we look at the wisdom of a judge from abroad with at least as much ease as we would read a law review article written by a professor?”

Harold Koh has made the case that American law should reflect “transnational” legal values. In his writings, he has advocated using foreign laws and judicial rulings to expand some rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and to diminish others. For example, Koh believes in curbing some aspects of the First Amendment’s free speech guarantee in order to conform to the laws of other nations.

The United States Constitution is the document that proclaims this country as a sovereign nation, not some piece of a global community. It is a short little document that every American should read and know, with strictly enumerated powers clearly spelling out and restricting the scope and the authority of the federal government. Apparently, what Barack Obama has studied is not the constitution, but rather the convoluted case law that has been piled on top of it, especially in the last 60 years, and the laws of other nations. That qualifies him — and his State Department legal nominee — as unconstitutional scholars.

Our founding documents declare that our rights are guaranteed by our Creator, not by Barack Obama, Harold Koh, the U.S. Supreme Court or some foreign judge.

President Obama Denies His Country’s Foundation

“We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation,” President Obama said while in Turkey last week. “We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values.” These comments were similar to those in his inaugural address, when Obama referred to the United States—the largest Judeo-Christian nation on Earth—as “a nation of Christians, Muslims, Jews and Hindus.”

But the fact that the U.S. president chose to make this point while in a Muslim nation was especially significant.

“I don’t know what ‘we’ consider ‘ourselves,’” David Limbaugh writes on Newsmax.com, “but I do think we ought to examine that statement and why Obama felt compelled to make it a part of his world apology tour. Can you imagine the Saudi king coming to America and bragging that his nation is not Muslim? I assure you that he’s not ashamed of the Islamic character of his nation, even though his nation is demonstrably less tolerant of other religions.”

Limbaugh continues:

So is (or was) America a Christian nation? … [I]f we are talking about the ideals that led to the very colonization of this land, our declaration of independence from Britain, and the formulation of our Constitution, then the answer is certainly “yes.”

In the words of Prof. John Eidsmoe, author of Christianity and the Constitution: The Faith of Our Founding Fathers, “If by the term Christian nation one means a nation that was founded on biblical values that were brought to the nation by mostly professing Christians, then in that sense the United States may truly be called a Christian nation.”

Why does this matter? Simply because our dominant secular culture delights in demonizing Christianity, distorting its character, conflating it with less tolerant faiths, and associating it with all our societal woes. History revisionists have convinced many that we mainly owe our liberties to secular humanist ideals and those borrowed from the Greeks, Romans and the French Enlightenment.

To the contrary, our freedom tradition can be traced to our predominantly Judeo-Christian roots. …

Our constitutional framework of government can be understood only in the context of the framers’ predominantly Christian worldview. Although they believed in man’s dignity, they also believed in his depravity and that it would be possible to establish a scheme of individual liberties only if they imposed limitations on government.

Much of our Bill of Rights is biblically based, as well, and the Ten Commandments and further laws set out in the book of Exodus form the basis of our Western law. Indeed, English legal giants Sir William Blackstone and Sir Edward Coke both believed the common law was based on Scripture. …

Our ruling class today is dominated by those who no longer believe that our rights are God-given or that our liberties depend on effective limitations on the state. They are so divorced from true history and American statecraft that they fail to see the irony in their dissociation with and apologies for our Judeo-Christian heritage, which is responsible for making this the freest and most prosperous nation on Earth for people of all races, ethnicities and religions.

Source: Trumpet.com

US Economy Passes Point Of No Return

Editors Note: This article is from TheTrumpet.com, a fantastic news site with a prophetic outlook. If you don’t see what this author talks about yet, then you really need to lift your head a little higher and have a peek at the current world scene. This is a fantastic read – bringing all the latest economic events together, cutting through the usual media spin and hype, and shouting out a clear warning of what is about to befall our nations and people.

——————————————————————————

The Great American Spectacle

From: TheTrumpet.com

March 24, 2009 — Author: Robert Morley

ec.europa.eu/.../programmes/eu-usa/index_en.html

We are living through history in the making. Not the good kind of history. More like Nero-fiddling-while-Rome-burned history.

The kind of history we are seeing now is an empire in terminal and rapid decline. As the greatest single nation in history disintegrates, like Rome and hundreds of other empires before it, the public spectacles and orchestrated circuses for the masses keep getting bigger.

Public spectacle number one: Lies, lots of them.

“We’ll see the recession coming to an end probably this year,” predicted Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke on March 15. The recovery will begin in 2010 “and it will pick up steam over time,” he said.

President Obama confidently said, “We will rebuild, we will recover, and the United States of America will emerge stronger than before.”

But what else are they supposed to say?

That the Fed slashed interest rates to less than 2 percent in 2002, knowing it would create a massive bubble, but doing it anyway to make politicians happy? That the resulting pop and debt deflation is sucking the economy into a black hole? That the Fed’s proposed cure, the only one left in its arsenal—fiat money creation—will destroy the life savings of its responsible citizens, the people who tried to invest for their retirements?

Bloated government and unsustainable deficit spending has saddled the nation with gargantuan debts that will never be repaid. Social Security is a busted bank, robbed by politicians who spent the trust fund money. Medicare and Medicaid benefits will be slashed because politicians made unsustainable promises to buy votes. Taxes will probably be doubled—then tripled when foreign creditors cut America off. America soon won’t be able to provide the level of services that Americans have come to look upon as constitutional rights.

Is that what you say? That we are on our way to becoming a nation of beggars?

You won’t hear these words come out of any public officials—not because they are not true, but because the truth would cause panic among a populace that has been wooed to sleep by the sweet lullabies of politicians.

Public spectacle number two: Outrage, and lots of it.

President Obama is outraged. Ben Bernanke is outraged. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Chris Dodd are both outraged. Congress is outraged. Journalists are outraged. The Baltimore Sun reports: “A Financial Outrage.” The Washington Post: “Outrage Over AIG.” The Financial Times: “Summers ‘Outrage’ at AIG Bonuses.”

A recent Gallup poll found that almost 60 percent of Americans said they were personally “outraged.” America is outraged. Yes, politicians have stirred up a hornet’s nest of rage. But what is all the rage about?

Most recently, it is the fact that aig is paying $165 million in bonuses to its employees—after accepting taxpayer money to stay afloat because some of those employees got greedy and irresponsible. A little outrage goes a long way in distracting from the lies, and from the bigger issues.

That $165 million is only 0.09 percent of the $180 billion in taxpayer money that politicians forked over. And aig was contractually obligated to pay it. The government knew about the bonuses when it gave aig its first bailout; it could have legally stopped them then. It had the chance again after the second bailout. And the third, and the fourth. Now, all of a sudden, comes outrage! And don’t forget the multibillion-dollar bonuses over at Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Citigroup, Bank of America and other companies that have taken taxpayer money to stay afloat.

Flying beneath all the rage were three bombshell news items that should have ignited outrage, but were lost in the big media commotion over an amount of money equivalent to a rounding error in the recent pork-laden, self-interest spending fest also referred to as the federal budget.

Amid the hubbub, aig conveniently disclosed where all the taxpayer money it had received disappeared to. Surprise, surprise: aig turned out to be a front for funneling more taxpayer money into the big Wall Street and foreign banks in what essentially amounts to a second stealth backdoor bailout: $12.9 billion to Goldman Sachs, $11.9 billion and $4.9 billion to France’s SocGen and bnp Paribas respectively, $11.8 billion to Germany’s Deutsche Bank, and $8.5 billion to Britain’s Barclays. And so on. Why are U.S. taxpayers bailing out foreign banks?

Also lost in the tumult was the fact that the national debt hit a record $11 trillion last week. It only took 5½ months for politicians to add $1 trillion to the debt—the fastest jump in U.S. history. It took all of America’s history until 1982 to run up the first trillion in debt. The next two trillions only took four years each. President Bush then added the most debt by a single president in the history of the nation: $4.9 trillion. If President Obama’s projections are correct, he will run up as much debt in four years as President Bush did in eight.

The current federal budget projects that the debt will soar to $16.2 trillion—100 percent of gross domestic product—by 2012. But it will probably be even higher, because as Bernanke indicated, the government is projecting the economy will be out of recession by next year.

The debt numbers are getting so huge that China recently demanded that America guarantee it will not renege on its debts. On Saturday, President Obama was forced to issue the statement: “Not just the Chinese government, but every investor, can have absolute confidence in the soundness of investments in the United States.”

But perhaps the biggest news that got lost in the aig-bailout noise was the fact that the Federal Reserve announced that it was beginning to monetize the debt. This is huge, gigantic, almost-impossible-to-overstate news.

The Fed announced it would begin literally creating money out of thin air to purchase U.S. treasuries—$300 billion worth. It is an admission that things are so bad that the federal government might not be able to find enough foreign lenders to give it money. Therefore the Federal Reserve will just create it.

“It is a step in the dark,” says Ian Shepherdson of High Frequency Economics. “We simply do not know how this will play out because there is no prior experience to use as a road map.”

Shepherdson is wrong. There are hundreds of precedents. History is littered with the wrecks of fiat paper money experiments. In 1716, the rogue John Law created the Banque Generale to buy up the debt of France. Four years later, the bank paper was worthless. John Law’s money-creating experiment became known as the Mississippi Bubble. But the livre is not alone. The Argentine peso, Russian ruble, French assignat and franc, German mark, U.S. continental and Zimbabwean dollar are just some of the more famous failed currencies.

“Bernanke has sent a giant sell signal to the rest of the world to sell their treasuries to the Fed,” confirms Peter Schiff, one of a handful of economists who predicted America’s current crisis. “This is going to be a currency crisis. That’s what is coming.”

When France went bankrupt following John Law’s fiat money experiment, Law commented: “Last year I was the richest individual who ever lived, today I have nothing, not even enough to keep alive.”

The only difference this time is that the Fed is creating fiat digital money as well as paper money.

Public spectacle number three: National naivety, and lots of it.

With catastrophe plainly staring it in the face, America plunges head first into the shallow waters. It’s as if the powers-that-be actually believe that borrowing and spending can get America out of a problem caused by too much borrowing and spending. It is as if they believe that creating money out of thin air can actually make people richer. And to top it off, it is as if they actually believe that no one else can see the public spectacle that America has become.

Unfortunately, the exhibitions and circuses are only beginning, because that’s what empires become when they are going down and politicians don’t want people to know it.