RUTHFULLY YOURS

http://www.algemeiner.com/author/elder-of-ziyon/

Buried in a New York Times article today about friction between
President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu is a phrase that the
newspaper has never used before:

Famously, many of those conversations have been deeply uncomfortable.
The two leaders have often clashed on Israel’s determination to build
new settlements, which Mr. Obama viewed as a way to sabotage peace
talks. Mr. Netanyahu was accused of lecturing Mr. Obama in front of
the cameras in the Oval Office during an angry conversation in May
2011, after Mr. Obama suggested that the 1967 borders with Palestine
should be the starting point for peace negotiations. Later that year,
after former President Nicolas Sarkozy of France complained in front
of an open microphone that Mr. Netanyahu was “a liar,” Mr. Obama said,
“You’re fed up with him, but I have to deal with him even more often
than you.”

Just about every European country voted a few weeks ago to establish a Palestinian state, much of it on land designated for Israel by the League of Nations after WWI. The Europeans, together with communist and Islamic countries and dictatorships around the world, wish to go even further by actually dividing Jerusalem, Israel’s capital, in two, as Berlin was after World War II. You see, in Europe it’s fashionable to believe that Islam would live up to its billing as a “religion of peace” if Muslims could have just one more state, a 58th Moslem state, right next to Israel. The state will be called a “Palestinian” state, but it will actually be a Hamas state.

In fact, many want Israel to be flooded by millions of Muslims into Haifa and Tel Aviv so as to demographically change Israel from a Jewish state into a more Islamic one, all in the name of multiculturalism. Many believe that if this is done, the world will no longer be the constant target of Islamic terrorism.

“The time has come,” the walrus said, “to talk of many things: Of shoes and ships – and sealing wax – of cabbages and kings”

― Lewis Carroll, Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland & Through the Looking-Glass

King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia is dead…..enabler and funder of the 9/11 terrorists, enforcer of harsh anti-women Sharia laws, and suppressor of elementary human rights. And now the fawning tributes from cabbage heads begin. Our very own President now calls him a man of convictions ” and “At home, King Abdullah’s vision was dedicated to the education of his people and to greater engagement with the world.”

But Obama is not alone in the long list of American Presidents who have abased themselves in tributes to the monarch…….Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan. George Bush (1), Bill Clinton, George Bush (2).

The President was “defiant” wrote the New York Times; “defiantly liberal,” claimed the Financial Times. “It was an ungracious speech,” editorialized the latter. Despite setting a record, since becoming President, for the greatest number of Party-seat losses in the post-War period (14 Senate seats, 69 House seats and 913 seats in state legislatures), the President was unapologetic. With constant usage of the pronoun “I”, and with quoting himself, his ego was on full display.

Mr. Obama urged civility, yet he remained supercilious. When he said, “I have no more campaigns to run,” there was a smattering of Republican applause (allegedly derisive). Mr. Obama immediately rejoined: “I know, because I won both of them.” This master of fundraising then criticized “constant fundraising.” When will we learn?

Last week, in response to the Paris massacre at the offices of Charlie Hebdo, Carol M. Swain, an openly conservative professor of political science and law at Vanderbilt University, wrote an op-ed for The Tennessean titled, “Charlie Hebdo attacks prove critics were right about Islam.” Naturally, any critique of Islam from our leftist-dominated campuses is going to be met with frothing outrage, and Professor Swain’s article was no exception.

“What would it take to make us admit we were wrong about Islam?” the professor began. “What horrendous attack would finally convince us that Islam is not like other religions in the United States, that it poses an absolute danger to us and our children unless it is monitored better than it has been under the Obama administration?” Good questions, and ones that those of us whose eyes have long been opened to the threat of Islamic fundamentalism have been asking ever since September 11, 2001, if not before.

France’s unity rally, held on January 11, 2015, following the massacre at Hebdo magazine headquarters, was based on the premise of support for freedom of speech. In reality, the whole thing was nothing but a farce.

Charlie Hebdo was a French satirical magazine, known for mocking religious figures of all stripes. However, some Muslims are hypersensitive to humor about their Prophet Mohammad, and over the years, the magazine was plagued with death threats. In fact, in 2011, some Muslims firebombed and destroyed Hebdo’s old offices, after it announced that it would name Mohammad as its Editor-in-Chief.

Now, on January 7, 2015, two brothers gunned down twelve people in and around the magazine’s headquarters, screaming “Allahu Akbar!” (Allah is greater!) in defense of their beloved religion. Recently, Al Qaeda of the Arabian Peninsula claimed credit for the attack, pronouncing that it had planned and financed the murders.

But western media as well as leaders of the here-to-fore Free World refuse to acknowledge that any version of Islam is responsible for the attack. Much of the media originally failed to report the connection (though it was hardly a secret,) and politicians, like President Obama, continue to deny it. Islam is a religion of peace, his administration tells us. What we witnessed is “violent extremism”, similar, I suppose, to that of mere thugs down the block.

In the wake of the terror attacks in Paris, France terror raids were carried out in Belgium and Greece to identify, locate and hunt down so-called “sleepers cells.” Journalists and politicians have finally raised the issue of the threats potentially posed by sleeper agents in the United States, going back to the future — the same concerns about sleeper cells in the United States were voiced in the wake of the terror attacks of September 11, 2001 including by the then-director of the FBI, Robert Mueller.

Of course any discussion about sleeper agents gaining entry into the United States would logically call into question the multiple and massive failures of the immigration system. Today politicians from both sides of the political aisle are hell-bent on making certain that the flood of foreign workers, foreign tourists and foreign students continue without impediment. Consequently admitting that immigration is a vital component of national security and must be treated as such would run contrary to the goals of advocates for Comprehensive Immigration Reform.

Within the DNA of Islam is a self-destructive element: a prophecy by Mohammed in which he said that Islam will eventually be rejected by the world and would return back to where it came from. Ask your local imam, and he’ll tell you: Mohammed doesn’t lie.

Incredibly, Mohammed himself was not optimistic about his own message and the future of Islam and Muslims:

[T]he Messenger of Allah (Mohammed) observed: Verily Islam started as something strange and it would again revert (to its old position) of being strange just as it started, and it would recede between the two mosques just as the serpent crawls back into its hole.” [Sahih Muslim, Book 001, Number 0270.]

In this hadith, Mohammed foretold that the end of Islam would be strange just like its beginning and that it would shrink back to the limited area where it came from – – between the two mosques of Mecca and Medina.

Could that prediction by Mohammed himself be a signal of the inevitable demise of Islam?

There are two models for fighting terrorism. We can see the terrorists as an external invading force that has to be destroyed or as an internal element in our society to be managed.

In the War on Terror, Bush saw terrorists as an external force that had to be fought while Obama sees them as an internal element to be managed. And while both men signed off on some of the same tactics, their view of the conflict at the big picture level was fundamentally different.

The differences express themselves in such things as detaining terrorists at Guantanamo Bay or backing Islamist democracy. If Muslim terrorists are an alien force, then detaining them without trial is no more of a problem than detaining Nazi saboteurs was during WW2. And if Islamic terrorism is driven by alien impulses, then it has nothing in common with us and attempting to accommodate it cannot succeed.

POTUS fiddles while ISIS and Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula gain strength.

“This strategy of taking out terrorists who threaten us, while supporting partners on the front lines, is one that we have successfully pursued in Yemen and Somalia for years.”

— President Obama announcing his ISIS strategy, September 10, 2014When President Obama uttered those words, Yemen was on the cusp of becoming a failed state. The president, however, evidently regarded it as a textbook example of foreign-policy success.

Twelve days later, Iranian-backed Shia Houthi rebels took control of Yemen’s capital, Sanaa. By seizing President Mansour Hadi’s residence and extorting major concessions from him, and then effectively forcing his resignation, the Houthis turned Yemen into the failed state that Obama (somehow) didn’t see coming.

While the Houthis are publicly stating that they want a de facto coalition government, they’re highly unlikely to relinquish their military control on the levers of power. After all, that power offers the resources and influence they need.